[Federal Register: November 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 65902-65904]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no05-59]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Title: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program.
OMB No.: New Collection.
Description: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement
Program will describe the many paths followed by state courts to
improve their oversight of child welfare cases, and will provide the
field with information on effective models for juvenile and family
court reform. Funded by the Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2004, the five-year study is being
carried out by a partnership of three organizations consisting of
Planning and Learning Technologies (Pal-Tech, Inc.), the Urban
Institute and the Center for Policy Research.
[[Page 65903]]
The Federal Court Improvement Program (CIP) was established in 1994
as a source of funding for state courts to assess and improve their
handling of foster care and adoption proceedings. The funding is
codified in title IV-B, subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, Section
438, as part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.
Although anecdotal information documents the program's success, this is
the first national evaluation of CIP. This study builds on the
recommendations of a Children's Bureau funded evaluability assessment
(EA) of the program completed in 2003 by James Bell Associates, Inc.
The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program involves
three interrelated components:
1. Reviewing and synthesizing state and local court reform
activities: This component will describe the full range of CIP-funded
court reforms undertaken by states at the beginning and ending of the
study's data collection period. Additionally, it will provide insights
into states' reform priorities and how these shift over time.
Especially promising models of reform will be highlighted. Finally,
this component will provide important contextual information for the
study's in-depth evaluation component of select models of reform.
Information for this activity will be synthesized from existing reports
submitted by states to the Children's Bureau.
2. Reviewing and synthesizing existing court reform evaluations:
This component will identify and synthesize findings from research and
evaluation conducted on family and juvenile court reforms. It will
provide important context for the study's in-depth evaluation component
in two ways. Findings on reform activities beyond those captured within
the study sites will be provided. It will also help inform evaluation
within the study sites by providing information on previously conducted
evaluation of similar reform models. Information for this activity will
be synthesized from existing evaluations and studies of court reform.
Evaluations will be prioritized for synthesis based on their
methodological rigor and findings reported in the substantive areas
defined by the EA. These are:
Alternative dispute resolution.
Training and educational materials.
Case tracking and management.
Improvements to the consistency and quality of hearings.
Parent/caregiver outreach, education, and support.
Systemic court reforms.
3. Conducting in-depth studies of reform models: In-depth
evaluation of select models of reform will be undertaken within three,
diverse sites across the country. The study designs vary among sites,
and include quasi-experimental and descriptive outcome methodologies.
Reflecting the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the primary outcome
areas of interest will be child safety, the timely achievement of
permanency, and child well-being. Within each site, outcome evaluation
will be complemented by a qualitative study of the many factors that
impacted reform including other related reform efforts, the evolution
of the target reform over time, barriers encountered, and methods by
which these barriers were overcome.
The outcome evaluation will utilize information from existing court
and child welfare agency management information systems. Within select
sites, information from these sources will be supplemented with
information abstracted from existing court and/or child welfare agency
case records. The process evaluation will help inform outcome findings
within the study sites as well as provide important insights for the
replication of the model within other sites. It will involve the
collection of new information through structured focus groups and
interviews with key individuals, as well as court observations of child
dependency hearings. This descriptive information will be collected
twice during the study.
The three sites selected for in-depth analysis are the following:
Connecticut's Case Management Protocol: Piloted in
December 1997, the protocol involves a pre-hearing conference of
professionals held early in the dependency court process coupled with
expanded parent representation.
Delaware's Systemic Reform: Piloted in 2000, the three
primary components of the state's comprehensive reform effort are:
One judge/one case assignment practice where one judge
presides over all legal stages of a dependency case
Defined sequence of hearings and reviews that
significantly increases the number of hearings and oversight role of
the courts
Representation for indigent parents in child welfare
proceedings
Texas' Cluster Courts: Piloted in 1997, these courts are
located in rural areas of the state. Each court serves a cluster of
contiguous counties, and a specially trained judge is appointed to
travel to each county within a cluster on a given day to hear that
county's child welfare cases. The cluster courts were formed to enable
rural counties to meet the state's strict permanency statute guidelines
that were enacted January 1, 1998.
Collectively, findings from the three study components will capture
the ongoing nationwide process of court reform supported by the Court
Improvement Program. A technical work group comprised of leading
researchers, judicial and child welfare agency officials and
representatives of public interest groups has been assembled to provide
input at key points during the study.
Respondents: Study respondents include individuals in the following
categories among the three study sites noted above:
Court Improvement Program (CIP) administrators.
Judges.
Attorneys (representing the parent, child, and agency).
Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) and Guardians Ad
Litem (GALs).
Child welfare agency administrators.
Regional child welfare directors and supervisors.
Child welfare agency caseworkers.
Annual Burden Estimates
Annual Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average burden
Instrument Number of responses per hours per Total burden
respondents respondent response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIP Administrators.............................. 8 1 2 16
Judges.......................................... 30 1 1 30
Attorneys (parent and agency)................... 95 1 2 190
CASAs and GALs.................................. 55 1 2 110
Child Welfare Agency Administrators............. 10 1 1 10
Child Welfare Agency Directors & Supervisors.... 30 1 2 60
[[Page 65904]]
Child Welfare Agency Workers.................... 120 1 2 240
-----------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 656.
Additional Information
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration,
Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW.,
Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests
should be identified by the title of the information collection. e-mail
address: infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.
OMB Comment
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document
in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Attn: Desk Officer
for ACF, E-mail address: Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov.
Dated: October 28, 2005.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21674 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M