Just another WordPress site

Category: Juvenile and Family Law

  • Newly Released Updated ICWA Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies

    The Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs has just updated the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings. The guidelines support the purpose of ICWA and provide what many feel is long-overdue guidance to state courts and agencies as they work to ensure full implementation of the law. See the new guidelines in Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 37.

    An excerpt from the News Release announcing the updated guidelines: “In keeping with President Obama’s commitment to supporting Indian families and building resilient, thriving tribal communities, Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today announced action the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has taken to help prevent the further dissolution of American Indian and Alaska Native families through the misapplication of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 (Public Law 95-608).

    “For too many years, some of Indian Country’s youngest and most vulnerable members have been removed from their families, their cultures, and their identities,” said Assistant Secretary Washburn. “Congress worked hard to address this problem by enacting the Indian Child Welfare Act. Yet, today too many people are unaware of this important law and, unfortunately, there are some that work actively to undermine it. Our updated guidelines for state courts will give families and tribal leaders comfort that the Obama Administration is working hard to provide better clarity so that the courts can carry out Congress’ intent to protect tribal families, preserve tribal communities, and promote tribal continuity now and into the future.”

    See the full news release.

  • Seven (Easy) Steps to Creating a Transition Policy for Juvenile Drug Court Team Members

    By Wendy L. Schiller, Project Coordinator, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

    Juvenile Drug Court (JDC) professionals are innovative, dedicated professionals who often get promoted, are appointed to work in other areas of the court, or find new career paths. For this reason there is a substantial amount of turnover among JDC team members. In some cases, there may just be burn-out, as working on a JDC team is extremely demanding. Because this issue permeates most jurisdictions that have a JDC program, it is important to implement a process to “transition” new team members onto the existing drug court team. Keep the transition plans simple. Focus on 1) what new team members need to know, and 2) the best way for new team members to learn about their role on the JDC.

    Below are some tips or strategies that will assist teams in creating a well-thought out transition policy for new JDC team members, which will also benefit the youth and families they serve:

    1. Create “Learning Packets.”

    A JDC program should have several “Learning Packets” on hand to give to new and incoming team members. These packets can serve as training materials because it is extremely important for team members who have not worked with adolescents or in the juvenile drug court field to engage in some “pre-work” before joining the team and working with the youth and families. This packet should include a current list of contact information for stakeholders and team members, an updated community partnership map, a current participant guide, and a current policy and procedure manual. In addition, there are several publications which will help new team members better understand the philosophy behind juvenile drug courts, as well as adolescent development and ways to further comprehend this population. Below is a list of resources that would be helpful to add to the Learning Packet:

    • The Juvenile Drug Court Strategies in Practice
    • Managing and Sustaining Your Juvenile Drug Court
    • Ensuring Fidelity to the 16 Strategies in Practice
    • Using “Sober Support” Groups in Your Juvenile Court
    • Exploring the Evidence: The Value of Juvenile Drug Courts
    • 7 Things Juvenile Courts Should Know About Learning Disabilities
    • Ten Things Every Juvenile Court Judge Should Know About Trauma and Delinquency

    All of these publications are housed and can be downloaded from the Juvenile Drug Court Information Center, located on NCJFCJ’s website.

    2. Shadow existing team members.

    Teams should make a concerted effort to give incoming members an opportunity to work with the outgoing member to get a good “feel” for the position and what their role will be on the team. Consider drafting a checklist (these should be role-dependent) of duties or information that should be conveyed during the day so nothing is forgotten or accidentally skipped. See example checklist for a new JDC coordinator below:

    JDC Coordinator Checklist

    • Review incentives and sanction tracking procedure
    • Review file sharing procedure
    • Review pre-court staffing structure

    3. Give new team members a way to gain ownership in the JDC.

    Transitioning to working on a JDC can be difficult for new team members. The JDC philosophy often feels foreign and is generally very different from the more traditional “adversarial” court process. Creating a way for new team members to have input on JDC policies is a great way to get them up to speed on the fundamental concepts underlying the program and provides a way for them to have input and gain ownership in the program. For example, many JDCs revisit and update their Community Map on a yearly basis. Assigning new team members to be part of the working group for the Community Map project allows them to have input and buy-in to the program.

    Frequently new team members may challenge the status quo of the JDC. This can be an opportunity for the JDC team to revisit the reasons why the drug court exists, address policy issues, and analyze the need for changes in structure and practice.

    4. When new members join the JDC team, facilitate a team-building activity.

    Teams should be encouraged to work on a simple activity or exercise when new members join the team. The activity described below (This I Believe Activity) may prove to be very helpful as a team building exercise, as well as a great opportunity for team members (new and old) to reflect on their individual role on the team. The activity generally takes around 20 minutes. Consider doing this during the first pre-court staffing or during another team meeting such as a brown-bag lunch. See below for full instructions:

    On National Public Radio there is a series called This I Believe. Please visit the NPR website to listen to a news piece in the series. This segment describes the background of the series, why it is important to get diverse opinions, and why these opinions can create a web or connection between diverse populations. Because each team member comes from different agencies or backgrounds professionally, it is important to hear the individual beliefs connected to working within a juvenile drug court and the program itself.

    Activity: Choose a team member to lead or facilitate. If possible share the following essay with the team – Frederic Reamer’s essay, “The Real Consequences of Justice”, which can be found at the This I Believe website. This essay in particular applies to the justice system.

    Ask team members to create their own “This I Believe” statement centered on their views, vision, or expectations for working as a team member in a juvenile drug court program. For example:

    • I believe the juvenile drug court in my community will give access to valuable resources to youth struggling with substance abuse.
    • I believe I will be a valuable team member on our JDC team because I am a court-appointed defense attorney, and I protect the rights of the youth that are involved in the system.
    • I believe a JDC will reduce recidivism rates among youth that abuse alcohol and other drugs.

    Guide team members through this process. Feel free to use one of the examples above or create your own “This I Believe” statements regarding your JDC. Have each team member read their statement aloud to the other team members and then discuss the commonalities in each of the statements. The number of commonalities may surprise everyone.

    5. Don’t forget about the youth and families!

    It may seem confusing for participants and family members to walk into court one week and find that the JDC coordinator whom they have been working with, and come to trust and even like, has left and been replaced by someone they have never seen before. To alleviate this type of confusion, it is suggested that teams design an orientation group session for youth and families to meet new team members. This will, hopefully, provide a seamless transition for the participants. Below are a few tips the team should consider:

    • Have the orientation correspond with bi-weekly or weekly court sessions that are already in place.
    • Have the outgoing and incoming team members make a few comments to the group.
    • A short question and answer segment will give participants and families an opportunity to ask any questions that are weighing on their minds.
    • Suggest that the new team member provide a treat or snacks for the orientation (or the team – make it a celebration).
    • Give families updated program materials (i.e., contact information sheets/brochures).

    In addition, when a new team member joins the JDC team it is important to take the time to update all program materials as soon as possible. Because JDC participants rely so heavily on JDC team members, updates or additions need to be made so that youth and families will know who to call and how to contact them. Participants are required to do many, many things while they are in the program, and making this an easy process will help decrease any confusion and mishaps that may make a situation worse than it has to be.

    6. Introduce the new team members to the Stakeholder Committee.

    It is important to keep current stakeholders engaged in the JDC “happenings” (i.e., program outcomes, upcoming events, and new team members). Organize a meeting to introduce new team members to the current stakeholder committee members. This can coincide with a quarterly meeting schedule or you can organize a meeting just to introduce the incoming member (i.e., brown-bag lunch or a pizza night). Much like an orientation for the youth and families, try to make this transition very strength-based and celebratory.

    7. Codify the transition policy in the JDC procedure manual.

    Consider having a designated team member role to compile transition packets, update contact information and programs guides, coordinate shadowing efforts, and orientate current youth and families. Designating a specific “role” on the JDC team instead of an actual person will alleviate having to find another person on the team to complete the task, if that particular person leaves for one reason or another. Within the procedure manual, have a detailed checklist to assist the incoming team member who will take over this responsibility.

    —–

    Wendy L. Schiller is the Technical Assistance Manager at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). Ms. Schiller has worked for NCJFCJ for nine years, and as a Technical Assistance Manager, she coordinates all forms of technical assistance (office-based and on-site), facilitates team retreats and strategic planning meetings, and researches evidence-based practices for juvenile drug courts across the nation. Ms. Schiller specializes in developing work plans for juvenile drug courts that request on-site technical assistance and works closely with teams to implement changes in their programs. In addition, Ms. Schiller has presented on such topics as “Incentives & Sanctions in Juvenile Drug Court”, “What is a Juvenile Drug Court” and “Using Sober Support Groups in Your Juvenile Court” on a National level. Ms. Schiller has served as editor for three publications produced by NCJFCJ: Managing and Sustaining Your Juvenile Drug Court, Ensuring Fidelity to the Juvenile Drug Courts Strategies in Practice—A Program Component Scale, and Using “Sober Support” Groups in Your Juvenile Court. Ms. Schiller has an Associate in Arts degree from Truckee Meadow Community College, with an emphasis in Para legalism and is currently working toward her degree in Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Reno.

  • Seven (Easy) Steps to Community Engagement and Resource Development

    By Jessica M. Pearce, Projects Coordinator, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

    Engaging the local community to build resources has become imperative for most juvenile and family courts. With local, state, and federal resources disappearing, many courts are hoping to find help for children, youth, and families in other areas of their communities. But “community engagement” is an elusive and potentially unattainable goal. If you want to be successful in your efforts to engage your community you need to determine who you want to engage and why, then create a concrete plan with measurable goals. Here are some common-sense tips to get you started.

    1) Make Community Engagement and Resource Development a Priority
    Community engagement and resource development cannot happen overnight. You’ll work to build on existing relationships and create new ones, which will take time. If you’ve decided you’d like to undertake this challenge, make it a priority, and plan to spend twelve to eighteen months on the project. Conduct regular monthly meetings at which the only  agenda items are community engagement and resource development.

    2) Create a Community Engagement and Resource Development Team
    A team approach can be helpful in identifying and cultivating new community resources. With that in mind, create a community engagement and resource development team. Your team may be an off-shoot of an already existing steering committee or development group, but make sure that your team works exclusively on the task of community outreach and resource development. Be sure to include court staff who are interested in community engagement – they are usually the people that are already involved in engaging the community as individuals (i.e., belong to a civic organization, volunteer at the local animal shelter, etc).

    3) Establish Measurable Goals and Objectives
    Once you’ve put together your team, spend time during first meeting or two to decide on a group vision and determine goals. Many courts have been successful using the SMART method (See Wikipedia for one explanation of SMART).

    SMART goals are

    • Specific
    • Measurable
    • Attainable
    • Relevant, and
    • Timely.

    Below are some samples:

    • Invite at least one new community contact to each of our community outreach and resource development meetings in the months of October, November, and December.
    • Over the next three months, develop an incentive program for staff at the juvenile court and social services for either identifying or outreaching to a new community linkage.

    4) Inventory Your Needs
    There is nothing more frustrating in community engagement and resource development than creating a new linkage and finding that you’re not ready to use their services. This can damage the newly developed relationship and can make your new linkage wary of working with the court. So, first take an inventory of needs. Survey staff and the children, youth, and families who are coming to court to find out what services they need. Ask your veteran staff about programs that existed in the past, but may have been eliminated due to budget cuts. Use the Community Map on the NCJFCJ website to create a wish list for programs under each of the different domains. For example, under the domain of education, you may want to find tutoring services and GED programs.

    5) Inventory Your Community Resources
    Your community is not one single entity but rather a collection of different domains, each with their own resources, goals, and concerns. The Community Map is a great visual tool to help your team identify all of the different domains in the community and begin to create a list of specific programs within each domain that may be helpful to children, youth, and families involved in the court system. As you explore the resources in your community, try to find not only natural allies, but also seek out community groups and members that share the court’s concerns; they can become excellent allies in systems change. Here’s a tip: use the local Yellow Pages or a similar directory – a compendium of community resources! Once you’ve created a list of the local programs within each domain, match up your wishes and needs with the different groups that could be approached about partnering with the team.

    6) Develop Marketing Tools
    It will be helpful to first identify existing services, organizations, groups, and individuals who have an investment in the same outcomes you are seeking to achieve. Determine who wants to reach out to the population of children, youth, and families you are planning to serve. Build on areas of common interest to create marketing materials. Marketing materials should include the team’s vision; an overview of the children, youth, and families; and a brief overview of some of the things these court users need (i.e., housing, tutoring, transportation assistance, etc).

    7) Engage Your Community
    Once the team is formed, measurable goals have been developed, needs and wishes have been inventoried, and marketing materials have been crafted, you and your team are ready to engage the community. Continue working with your team to determine the best path to collaboration, to making existing connections work better, and to finding new partnerships. Here are some strategies that have been successful for other courts:

    • exploring existing partnerships to see if there are new ways for you to collaborate
    • look to your “sister” systems (social services, probation, etc) to find ways to share resources
    • host a roundtable meeting with community leaders to discuss your areas of mutual interest
    • reach out to universities, United Way organizations, and other entities whose business is to gather information about resources, create directories, and conduct research

    It is no coincidence that a synonym for community is kinship. In the end successful community engagement is based on relationships. Work to form a cooperative spirit among those with whom you wish to collaborate.

  • Psychology and the Courts: Exploring the Sometimes Wacky World of Decision-Making

    Shawn C. Marsh, PhD
    Article by Shawn C. Marsh, PhD

    By Shawn C. Marsh, PhD

    “The law deals fundamentally with human behavior. It deals with choices people make – to do right or wrong, to lie or tell the truth. It deals with perceptions and memories – what color shirt was the mugger wearing? It deals with decision making – should I vote guilty or not guilty?”
    [Wargo, E. (2011). From the lab to the courtroom: How psychological scientists are having an impact on the legal system. Observer, 24(9), 10–14(33).]

    Note: This is an interactive article. You can click on the highlighted links for resources illustrating or discussing each concept.

    Our brains are remarkably efficient. But what price do we pay for efficiency? Sometimes our brains can lead us terribly astray despite our best intentions—and this can have very real implications for the justice system.

    Consider issues related to perception and memory. Cognitive psychologists have demonstrated repeatedly that we do not necessarily accurately perceive our world, that we can be so focused on tasks that we miss things right in front of us, and that our memories are more malleable than we think. Perception and memory play a huge role in the justice system—such as understanding the credibility of eyewitness testimony. Specifically, the number one reason innocent people are wrongfully convicted is eyewitness evidence. Perception and memory errors also have implications for non-criminal cases. For example, the suggestibility of memory has real implications for interviewing children in dependency cases, as well as assessing the viability of historical accounts of parties in divorce proceedings. Overall, when it comes to perception and memory, human beings think they notice more than they do, believe they remember more accurately than they do, and underestimate the role of stress and cognitive load in how they interpret the world around them.

    Of course, behavior and decisions are not just influenced by how our brain acquires and retrieves information. Humans are very social animals by nature, and our behavior is often shaped by others. Several classic social psychological studies such as the Milgram experiments, the Stanford Prison experiment, and the Asch experiments demonstrate the power of authority, roles, and conformity in shaping human behavior—with very sobering implications for understanding real world events (e.g., Abu Ghraib). As with perception and memory, social influence dynamics also have real implications for the justice system. Specifically, the number two reason innocent people go to jail is false confession. Again, there are implications for non-criminal cases. For example, these lines of research can inform how to best design youth detention programs, as well as help us to better understand behavior in abusive relationships. Central to application to the law, psychological science shows us that human beings are susceptible to engaging in extreme behavior in the presence of authority, are susceptible to adopting behavior consistent with a given role, and are social animals that take cures from others about how they should behave. (In fact, humans are so interconnected that when a person is socially ostracized for even a brief period of time, the part of the brain that detects physical pain is activated.)

    In addition to perception, memory, and social influence, bias also can influence our decisions. Bias can be explicit (i.e., we are aware of our preference) or implicit (i.e., we are not aware of our preference). Many justice system professionals are increasingly familiar with the work social scientists are doing to better understand stereotypes, automatic processing of information, and implicit bias (e.g., see Project Implicit). There are, however, many other types of biases: Wikipedia alone lists over 300 types of cognitive biases and fallacies. One example is the just-world hypothesis, which is the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim.

    Another less known—but intriguing—bias is implicit egotism [See Pelham, B. W., Mirenberg, M. C., Jones, J. T. (2002). Why Susie sells seashells by the seashore: Implicit egotism and major life decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 469-487.] For example, research suggests we like our first and last initials better than other letters (a bias documented in at least 14 countries and termed the name letter effect). Research suggests implicit egotism can even influence behavior. In the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, people whose last names began with B and G were more likely to contribute to the election funds of Bush and Gore, respectively. Our names also seem to influence our decision where to live (e.g., statistically disproportionate number of residents named Mildred live in Milwaukee) and what we do for a living (e.g., statistically disproportionate number of lawyers are named Larry).

    Although not as sophisticated as these studies in terms of analyses, the NCJFCJ research staff examined the initials of all judicial members of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The single most common first initial of judges was J at nearly 47% more common than the next most common initial M. Applying bias research to the law, we have learned that decisions can be influenced in many different ways. For example, social science suggests irrelevant information—such as priming legal professional with a random number—can influence the length of “sentences” they assign to criminals (i.e., anchoring heuristic). Implications for non-criminal cases include decisions regarding whether or not to place a child in foster care, as well as the amount of damages awarded in malpractice or personal injury cases. Overall, human beings are not as aware or in control of their thoughts and behaviors as they like to think, do have many types of biases, and are attracted to things that we identify as part of our self.

    In conclusion, psychological science has much to offer the justice system. Perception, memory, social influence, and bias all play a role in how actors in the system acquire, retain, retrieve, and act on information. Psychological science not only illuminates these and other social cognitive processes, but can provide insight on how to best adjust practice to limit unintended consequences of our decisions. Although outlining potential preventive strategies is for another article, an important first step that I hope to have accomplished here is to further develop awareness that we are, after all, only human… very, very human.

    ****
    Shawn C. Marsh, PhD, is the Director of the Juvenile and Family Law Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Dr. Marsh is a social psychologist with research and teaching interests in trauma, adolescent development, resiliency, and social cognition.

  • FEATURE: Juvenile Justice Model Courts Project Expands

    By Cheri Ely, M.A., LSW, Program Manager, NCJFCJ

    NCJFCJThe National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) Juvenile Justice Model Courts Project, managed by the Juvenile and Family Law Department, has expanded the number of courts participating in the project to 12. Four of the recently added sites in the project (Pittsburgh, Pa., State of Minnesota; New Orleans, La.; and Memphis, Tenn.) are developing goals and addressing challenges to achieve the recommendations from the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases. Model courts are asked to select goals in accordance with the 16 Key Principles and various recommendations made in the Guidelines.

    Judge Tracy Flemings-Davillier

    The model court site in Pittsburgh, Pa., under the leadership of Judge Kim Clark, has completed its first full site visit and assessment and is in the process of completing its model court strategic plan. The model court has selected an overarching goal to treat all youth, families, victims, and witnesses with dignity and respect, and has also chosen additional goals targeting diversion programs for youth, timely decision making, and family/community engagement in the court process.

    Minnesota, the only statewide participant in the model courts project, is working on a statewide implementation of the recommendations from the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines. The Minnesota JDG Statewide Initiative, led by the Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota, held a one-day training in June 2011 for juvenile court judges and juvenile justice professionals from around the state. The training provided a thorough orientation to the Guidelines and model court practices, including how to use the model court self-assessment tools in local jurisdictions. The Initiative is now hard at work to complete the Minnesota Juvenile Delinquency Courts Guidebook. Law students from the University of Minnesota are assisting to transfer the information from NCJFCJ’s Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines into a manual specific to laws and practices in Minnesota for use by its juvenile courts.

    New Model Court sites in New Orleans, La., under the leadership of Judge Tracey Flemings-Davillier, and in Memphis, Tenn., under the leadership of Judge Curtis S. Person, have also completed their first full site visit and assessment and are moving into the strategic planning phase of the model court process.

    Judge Curtis S. Person

    Veteran model courts in the program are also continuing to move forward with their strategic plans. The model court in San Jose, Calif., under the leadership of Judge Patrick Tondreau, is implementing new practices to address youth in the court system who are both delinquent and dependent, and is working to engage parents and community support systems into juvenile cases. In 2011, the San Jose Model Court visited the model courts in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Tucson, Ariz., to learn about programs and practices in those jurisdictions that may help the San Jose Model Court accomplish its goals.

    The Reno, Nev., Model Court, under the leadership of Judges Frances Doherty and Janet Schmuck, is in its third year as a model court and continues to follow its model court strategic plan. The court is working to streamline practices to improve case flow and timely case processing and is reviewing its data capabilities to improve information sharing with system partners and stakeholders. The Reno Model Court has also prioritized training opportunities for its staff and juvenile justice professionals. Through private funding for scholarships, five participants were able to attend NCJFCJ’s National Conference on Juvenile and Family Law in March 2011.

    All sites in the Juvenile Justice Model Courts Project continue to embrace the model court philosophy of performing ongoing evaluation and system improvement. The project operates an active online discussion group for the model court sites to engage in networking and information sharing. New model court sites are encouraged to join the project anytime during the year.

    Want to Become a Model Court?
    Courts can contract with the NCJFCJ to become a Juvenile Justice Model Court site and receive individualized assessment, planning, training, technical assistance, and evaluation services as they seek to implement the principles and recommendations set forth in the Guidelines and work toward improved practice and outcomes. Each Model Court secures its own funding to underwrite the multi-year process. Funds may be public, private, local, state or federal. Although Model Courts can contract on a yearly basis, we encourage courts to remain involved in the project for at least three years in order to maximize system change/improvement. With multi-year involvement, Model Courts repeat the planning and technical assistance process on an annual basis as court improvement goals are attained. As part of this effort, Model Courts are expected to be “laboratories for change,” meaning that they participate in an ongoing critical assessment of their performance and share their results with other sites in order to inform and sustain a larger system improvement effort.

    Juvenile Justice Model Court Project Focuses on JDG Principles
    The focus of the Juvenile Justice Model Court Project has been to disseminate the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines and encourage its use by jurisdictions to help guide system reform and improve practice in delinquency cases. The model courts—with support from project staff in the form of training and technical assistance, and a commitment to using the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines to improve practice from intake to case closure—are leaders in this important system reform effort.

    Active Juvenile Justice Model Courts include

    • Austin, Texas – Lead Judge W. Jeanne Meurer (Ret.)
    • Buffalo, New York – Lead Judge Paul Buchanan
    • Cincinnati, Ohio – new Lead Judge to be determined
    • Howell, Mich. – Lead Judge Carol Hackett Garagiola
    • Memphis, Tenn. – Lead Judge Curtis S. Person
    • Minnesota Statewide JDG Initiative – led by the Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota
    • New Orleans, La. – Lead Judge Tracey Flemings-Davillier
    • Pittsburgh, Pa. – Lead Judge Kim Clark
    • Reno, Nev. – Co-Lead Judges Frances Doherty and Janet Schmuck
    • San Jose, Calif. – Lead Judge Patrick Tondreau
    • Scranton, Pa. – Lead Judge Chester Harhut
    • Tucson, Ariz. – Lead Judge Karen Adam

    Cheryl EliCheri M. Ely is a Licensed Social Worker whose duties at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges include management of the Delinquency Model Courts Project. She is responsible for the expenditure of funds and completion of deliverables for each model court site, manages the Juvenile Court Users’ Project, and assists courts with implementation of strategies to enhance the engagement of victims of juvenile offenders in the court system.

  • Vision from the Bench to Fulfill the ICWA Promise

    by Gina Jackson, Permanency Planning for Children Department (NCJFCJ)

    Memorial March
    Memorial March to honor native children lost to adoption in Sioux City Iowa

    Working together to provide safety, permanency, and well-being are high priority goals that child welfare systems strive to achieve.  It has been 33 years since the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed, and it is important to take the time to evaluate the impact on the child welfare system since that time. How are we doing as a Nation in following this important law, in spirit and practice?  Recently, there has been a surge in ICWA awareness due to the latest disproportionality reports and media coverage indicating that there is still a significant problem.

    In the preamble of ICWA, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901, Congress acknowledged that:

    An alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by non-tribal public and private agencies and that an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions; and states, [in] exercising their recognized jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings through administrative and judicial bodies, have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities.

    While there has been progress since ICWA was passed, disproportionality rates continue to remain high. A review of the child welfare system data indicates that “across the United States, Native American children are overrepresented in foster care at a rate of 2.2 times their rate in the general population” (Disproportionality Rates for Children of Color in Foster Care, published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, May 2011). It is clear that many, many states continue to struggle with this issue, as 26% of states have a disproportionality index higher than 4.1., including one state that has an index rate of 11.6, which ultimately means that Native children come into foster care 11 times more often in that particular state. To download a complete copy of Disproportionality Rates for Children of Color in Foster Care, visit www.NCJFCJ.org.

    Disproportionality
    Disproportionality Rates for Children of Color in Foster Care

    It is time for leadership and vision from the bench to fulfill the ICWA promise. Since no child enters or leaves the child welfare system without a judge’s order, it is imperative for judges to not only have a solid working knowledge of the Indian Child Welfare Act, but an understanding of why we have the Indian Child Welfare Act. It is extremely important to learn from the past in order to build a very different future in working with Native children, families, and tribes.

    The approach to tribal engagement and working with tribes should come from a place of honor, respect, and mutual learning.  During the 2010 White House Tribal Nations Conference, President Obama shared this statement:

    We know that, ultimately, this is not just a matter of legislation, not just a matter of policy. It’s a matter of whether we’re going to live up to our basic values. It’s a matter of upholding an ideal that has always defined who we are as Americans…and I’m confident that if we keep up our efforts, that if we continue to work together…we will achieve a brighter future for the First Americans and for all Americans.

    It was during this conference, the U.S. announced it will sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While the Obama Administration was meeting with tribal leaders, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) brought together a group of Tribal Judicial Leaders and other Model Court Lead Judges for an unprecedented gathering. The purpose of this gathering was to listen, gain insight, and ultimately seek guidance through a tribal perspective on effective outreach and inclusion of tribal courts in NCJFCJ’s work.

    In the NCJFCJ’s governance structure, the organization has committed to weave diversity through everything the organization does. As a result of the first gathering, resolutions were developed and passed, including the NCJFCJ’s Resolution in Support of Tribal Courts.  This resolution acknowledges Tribal Courts as “equal and parallel systems of justice”.  The Conference of Chief Justices also passed a resolution in response to the gathering to “encourage greater collaboration between state courts and tribal courts to protect Native American children.” These resolutions reflect a commitment and call to action for state and tribal courts to work together as allies for children and families. Full texts of the resolutions can be found on the NCJFCJ Website.

    Tribal Judicial Leadership Group
    NCJFCJ Tribal Judicial Leadership Gathering 2010

    The energy, ideas, and relationships developed in this group are remarkable. New state court and tribal court collaboratives are emerging. New state/tribal judicially focused ICWA workgroups are forming, integration of tribal judicial presence on state Court Improvement Program advisory groups is increasing, and cross-site court visits between tribal courts and state courts are occurring for mutual learning.

    New ideas for pilot projects such as joint jurisdiction tribal/state courts are being discussed, as well as ideas for utilizing technology to better serve children and families. New judicial tools to improve ICWA performance are currently under development. Judges can make a difference by exercising their leadership and forming collaborative groups to strategically increase ICWA compliance on a local level and by working closely with State Supreme Court Improvement Programs to ultimately make an impact statewide. The following are just some of the things judges can do to provide judicial leadership to improve ICWA performance:

    1. Commit to a vision of 100% ICWA compliance with child welfare system stakeholders, involving tribes working collaboratively to begin a strategic plan of action.
    2. Ensure judicial officers and system stakeholders are effectively trained on historical trauma and institutional bias, as well as the spirit and context of the legislation.
    3. Engage tribes by developing authentic relationships, judge to judge, court to court, and system to system to solve issues.
    4. Invite tribes to participate on current teams, workgroups, projects, initiatives, training opportunities, and as valued partners.

    As judicial educators and judicial leaders, you have an opportunity to bring knowledge, awareness, and to inspire a vision for judicial leaders to fulfill the ICWA promise. This will have a transforming effect on so many lives, not only for the children and families before the court, but for generations to come.

    For more information or to receive resources, tools, and technical assistance, visit the following Websites:

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR
    Gina Jackson, MSW, is a Model Court Liaison for the Victims Act Model Court Project with the Permanency Planning for Children Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges working with several jurisdictions across the country. Ms. Jackson belongs to the Temoke Western Shoshone Tribe. She holds a Masters and Baccalaureate degree in Social Work from the University of Nevada, Reno, with a minor in Early Childhood.

    Ms. Jackson came to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges from the University of Nevada, Reno School of Social Work, Nevada Training Partnership. She worked as a curriculum developer and statewide child welfare trainer during Nevada’s Program Improvement Plan (PIP) process. She also has experience as a child welfare caseworker and has done investigations, case management, adoptions and foster care licensing. She has been an instructor for the University of Nevada, Reno School of Social Work on and off for the past decade.

    As a Model Court Liaison, Ms. Jackson hopes help improve the outcomes for abused and neglected children and their families across the country in implementing and sustaining systems change and best practices while being mindful of cultural differences and equity in treatment as a standard in our nation’s child welfare system.

  • Courts Catalyzing Change: Using an Equity Lens to Guide the Future

    by Emily Krueger, MA (NCJFCJ) and Stephanie Macgill, MPA (NCJFCJ)

    The Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care Initiative (CCC), led by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in partnership with Casey Family Programs and supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, is a multidisciplinary collaborative effort. The CCC Initiative brings together judicial officers and juvenile dependency stakeholders to advance a National Agenda of reducing the disproportionate representation and disparate treatment of children of color in the child welfare system.

    Disproportionality and disparity are distinct, complex, and related concepts. Disproportionality is created and perpetuated by disparities (SEE NOTE 1). Thus, “[p]olicies and practices to reduce disproportionality must target the underlying disparities that lead to it (SEE NOTE 2).” The National Incidence Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect-4 (NIS-4), reporting on data from FY2006, found that African American children experienced higher rates of maltreatment than white children in several categories; however, this is due in part to the “growing gap between white and black children’s economic well-being, (SEE NOTE 3)” which has led to research that children and families of color are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system (SEE NOTE 4). “In states where there is a large population of Native Americans, this group can constitute between 15% and 65% of the children in foster care. (SEE NOTE 5)” Hispanic or Latino children may be significantly over-represented based on the locality (e.g., in Santa Clara County, California, Latino children represent 30% of the child population, but 52% of all child welfare cases) (SEE NOTE 6). Also, African American children experience disparate decision-making in investigation, substantiation, removal, placement in foster care and final permanency determinations. “African Americans are investigated for child abuse and neglect twice as often as Caucasians, (SEE NOTE 7)” and African American children, who are determined to be victims of child abuse, are 36% more likely than Caucasian children to be removed from their parent(s) and placed in foster care (SEE NOTE 8). Federal Child and Family Services Review (SEE NOTE 9) data also show that Caucasian children achieve permanency outcomes at a higher rate than children of color (SEE NOTE 10). In addition to being more likely to be placed in foster care, African American children are less likely to be reunified with their parents (SEE NOTE 11) and receive fewer services than Caucasian children (SEE NOTE 12).

    This data can feel overwhelming to those interested in addressing this problem. One must remember there are a number of factors that contribute to disparities. Agency practices, court culture, access to and effectiveness of services, child and family resources, risk factors associated with poverty, community resources, law and public policy, social problems, institutional/structural racism and individual bias may all be contributing factors. A “one size fits all” service array, found in far too many communities, belies the fact that the same services do not work for every family. Services that are targeted, culturally appropriate, and specific must be developed in communities across the country. Every person and part of the child welfare system must engage in targeted strategic action to reduce these inequities in order to improve outcomes for all children and families.

    In an effort to work toward the goal of reducing disproportionality and disparate treatment in child welfare, judicial officers on NCJFCJ’s CCC Steering Committee, the Permanency Planning for Children Advisory Committee, and Victims Act Model Court Lead Judges workgroup developed a judicial decision making tool for use during the first hearing in a dependency case—the preliminary protective hearing (SEE NOTE 13). The Courts Catalyzing Change Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard (Benchcard) asks judges to reflect on their decision-making processes in order to mitigate the effects of institutional bias and to make key inquiries, analyses, and decisions relating to child removal, placement, and services for children and families.

    After developing the Benchcard, the Permanency Planning for Children Department (PPCD) tested Benchcard effects. Through experimental and quasi-experimental research, PPCD researchers found that Benchcard use reduces the number of children placed in foster care at the first hearing. The researchers tracked more than 500 children through the court system in three cities and found that 45% more children were able to return home to their parents or live with extended family members when judges used the Benchcard during their hearings. The NCJFCJ is awaiting peer-reviewed publication of its results document, titled Right From the Start: The CCC Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard Study Report, as the final step to identifying Benchcard implementation as an evidence-based practice.

    PPCD researchers tested the effects of Benchcard use in LA, Portland and Omaha and found that Benchcard use is associated with (a) increased quality and quantity of discussion of important dependency-related topics during preliminary protective hearings; (b) reductions in foster care placement rates; and (c) an increase in family placement rates (SEE NOTE 14). The Benchcard has also been implemented in other test sites and PPCD expects to publish more findings on the effects of Benchcard use in late 2012. The Model Courts are also using the Benchcard and PPCD will be assessing implementation progress in all dependency Model Courts in 2012.

    Ongoing implementation of the CCC National Agenda includes convening a national Tribal Judicial Leadership Group with the goals of meaningful engagement with tribes and tribal courts by state courts, and improving state court compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Also, in December 2011, NCJFCJ Model Court Lead Judges (and their designees) and key tribal partners will meet in Reno, Nevada, to discuss how NCJFCJ and its partners can assist state courts in achieving ICWA compliance. Another component of the CCC initiative is the updating and enhancing of the groundbreaking RESOURCE GUIDELINES publications. The updates and revisions are being developed through a race-equity lens, incorporating lessons learned from the CCC Benchcard implementation research, and incorporating legislation enacted since the original publication in 1995 of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES. Finally, at their March 2011 meeting, the CCC Steering Committee decided to expand their focus in this area by examining foster care licensing standards. The CCC Steering Committee chose this as an area to examine because licensing standards vary by state as some states choose to waive non-safety-related foster care licensing standards on a case-by-case basis for kin seeking to become foster parents. Furthermore, licensing standards can be cumbersome and may prevent the licensing of qualified foster parents and there is a common belief that some non-safety related standards unnecessarily hinder the ability of families of color to become foster parents. The Annie E. Casey Foundation has partnered with NCJFCJ on its efforts in this area.

    The CCC initiative has come a long way since its initial discussion among judges and interested stakeholders. The PPCD will continue to offer its CCC Benchcard training as well as develop new curricula that will include the ongoing work of the CCC National Agenda. The Benchcard Study Report is the first report to be released, and as with all field research, the Benchcard Study Report notes limitations, but is one of several steps necessary for establishing the Benchcard as an evidence-based practice.  The Benchcard study has not yet examined the impact of the hearing guidelines on different racial and ethnic groups.  NCJFCJ sought first to measure the effectiveness of the Benchcard for all children before further analysis is conducted. The NCJFCJ will continue to track the results of the Benchcard implementation and is currently expanding its research as the guidelines are used in additional jurisdictions.

    Emily Krueger, MA, is an Information Specialist at the Permanency Planning for Children Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She received a B.A. in Philosophy from Indiana University–Indianapolis, and a Master of Arts in Biomedical Ethics, also from Indiana University–Indianapolis. As an Information Specialist at the NCJFCJ, Ms. Krueger provides editorial, proofreading, and writing support for the department as well as maintains the PPCD section of the NCJFCJ website and researches technical assistance requests. Before she joined the NCJFCJ, Ms. Krueger worked for a large health and hospital corporation, located in Indianapolis, Indiana, where she was employed as a senior grant writer to assisted staff with the development of grant-related research methodologies and activities that included high-risk populations. Ms. Krueger also worked for the Indiana State Department of Health where she developed a social immersive media program that offers an innovative social marketing approach to increase public awareness of the importance of integrating the life-course perspective into preconception planning and care.

    Stephanie Macgill, MPA, is a Research Associate with the Permanency Planning for Children Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.  She holds a B.A. from Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts and a Masters in Public Administration from the University of Nevada, Reno.  Prior to joining the NCJFCJ, Stephanie worked as an advocate for individuals experiencing homelessness in Boston and Reno, and studied federal and local homelessness policies.  In her capacity as a Research Associate, Stephanie collaborates on research projects that seek to inform systems change and improve outcomes within the juvenile dependency court system.

    NOTES

    1 Gatowski, S., Maze, C., & Miller, N. (Summer 2008). Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care — Transforming Examination into Action. Juvenile and Family Justice TODAY, 16-20

    2 Ibid.

    3 Sedlak, A. J., McPherson, K., & Das, B. (2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4): Supplementary analyses of race differences in child maltreatment rates in the NIS-4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

    4 Anderson, G. R. (1997). Introduction: Achieving permanency for all children in the child welfare system. In G. R. Anderson, A. Ryan, & B. Leashore (Eds.), The challenge of permanency planning in a multicultural society (pp. 1-8). New York: Haworth Press, Inc. See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2005). Data Report.

    5 Miller, O. (2009). Breakthrough Series Collaborative on Reducing Disproportionality and Disparate Outcomes for Children and Families of Color in the Child Welfare System. Casey Family Programs. Seattle: WA. Retrieved at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/BreakthroughSeries_ReducingDisproportionality_ process.pdf on June 10, 2010.

    6 Congressional Research Service. Race, Ethnicity and Child Welfare (August, 2005).

    7 Yaun, J., Hedderson, J., and Curtis, P. (2003). Disproportionate representation of race and ethnicity in child maltreatment investigation and victimization. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 359-373.

    8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2005). Data Report.

    9 The Child & Family Service Review (CFSR) are a statewide assessment and on-site review by the Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Children’s Bureau. The state must address a large array of systemic factors that are reviewed by the federal team of reviewers. The process includes case file reviews, consumer interviews, stakeholder interviews and state data analysis and review. The states are measured in the area of safety, permanency and child and family well-being. For more information on the CFSR process, visit www.acf.dhhs.gov\programs\cb.

    10 National Child Welfare Resource Center (2006). Data Report.

    11 Lu, Y. E., Landsverk, J., Ellis-MacLeod, E., Newton, R., Ganger, W., & Johnson, I. (2004). Race, ethnicity and case outcomes in child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 447-461. 12 Courtney, M., Barth, R., Berrick, J., Brooks, D., Needell, B., & Park, L. (1996). Race and child welfare services: Past research and future directions. Child

    13 The preliminary protective hearing may be called a shelter hearing, the initial hearing, or the detention hearing, depending on the jurisdiction.

    14 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2011). Right from the start: the CCC Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard study report. Reno, NV.

  • On-Line Trainings – Lessons Learned!

    by Jessica M. Pearce, Project Coordinator, Juvenile and Family Law Department, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

    More and more organizations are providing trainings and conducting meetings on-line, including the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). And no wonder, it is both cost-effective and efficient for both participants and faculty. But with so many different types of on-line events being offered — webinars, video conferencing, podcasts, virtual meetings to name a few — many consumers find themselves overwhelmed and a little bewildered. NCJFCJ has been offering on-line training for nearly a year and in that time has learned a lot. The following are some of the lessons learned that will hopefully be helpful to organizations and judicial educators as they embark on the “on-line training adventures.”

    Lesson 1. Know The Terminology
    Be sure to determine what type of training should be offered before entering the exciting world of on-line training. Here are some terms to know:

    Asynchronous vs. Synchronous Training – An asynchronous training is one you can view at anytime. Either the original webinar was recorded for later playback or the curriculum was designed to be self-guided. Synchronous trainings are scheduled for a particular time and date and are attended “live” during that time.

    On-Line Workshop – An on-line workshop is generally focused on a single topic. On-line workshops are highly interactive with multiple opportunities for participant interaction including report outs and small group work. Think intensive workshop.

    Self-Guided Curriculum – A self-guided curriculum is an asynchronous do-it-yourself module that can be viewed anytime, anywhere. To receive CLE/CEU credit for self-guided on-line training, participants are generally asked to complete a test or write a paper, and frequently providers charge for the credit. Think correspondence course.

    Video Broadcast – A video broadcast is an opportunity to watch an event “live.” Video broadcasts are generally presentations or panel discussions that are simultaneously live and distributed over the internet. Think live TV event like the Superbowl.

    Video Conference – A video conference uses web-cams or other methods of video-conferencing to allow participants or callers to see the other callers who are on the line and involved in the video conference. Think conference call with video.

    Webinar – A webinar (or web-based seminar) is the most common term used to describe on-line training events. However, a true “webinar” is generally a broad single topic talk given by a presenter and includes few opportunities for audience participation. Think conference plenary session.

    Lesson 2. Producing Live On-Line Workshops or Webinars
    Conducting an online training isn’t quite as simple as putting a faculty member in front of a webcam and walking away. It takes at least two people behind the scenes – three would be even better to build and produce an online workshop or webinar. Just like in the classroom there are a variety of behind-the-scenes tasks that need to be performed. Here are the people needed for an on-line training:

    The Host/Producer
    The Host/Producer will introduce the faculty member, facilitate questions and answers, monitor participant chat, create polling questions, run videos, etc. While many of these activities can easily be performed by the faculty member in a classroom setting, on-line it is much easier for the presenter to concentrate on the subject matter at hand.

    The Faculty/Presenter
    The Faculty/Presenter has a role similar to the one they normal enjoy in the classroom. However, they will need to adjust their approach to training to reflect the lack of participant feedback. Because participants are usually muted during the session to avoid feedback issues, presenters don’t even know if the audience laughed at their jokes.

    Technical Supporter
    Technical Support does not have to be by an IT person; it just needs to be a person who can take calls from participants who can’t log-in, hear the audio, see the screen, etc. Develop a list of two or three easy to implement solutions to common problems the Technical Supporter can walk the participant through. If simple troubleshooting doesn’t work then more than likely the participant will need to work with their IT Department to resolve it.

    Lesson 3. Practice, Practice, Practice
    Before the host, faculty, and technical supporter host the live on-line training, they should spend some time in the on-line training environment determining how everything works and what activities work best on-line.

    The practice sessions may be used to develop detailed scripts for the host and faculty to follow. Once several practices sessions have been conducted, invite a few colleagues to sit-in for a test run of the entire event. Conducting a “dress-rehearsal” will help uncover activities that don’t work well for the audience, identify potential problems that participants might encounter, and determine the length of the on-line training event.

    Lesson 4. Give Participants Clear Instructions
    To make the log-on process as easy as possible give participants detailed instructions about how to access the system and provide them with information regarding the equipment they will need to participate.

    Equipment

    • Computer – A computer and internet connection is required to participate in any on-line event. While most on-line events can be viewed with even a dial-up connection, the better the internet connection is, the easier it will be to participate. Participants may need to work with an on-site IT department to make sure there is capability to view, hear, and participate in an on-line training.
    • Phone – Many on-line events ask users to use a phone line for the audio portion of the event.
    • Webcam – Webcams allow participants to see the facilitator, which may add a more personal touch to the training event and may help the participants more actively engage in the training or with the presenter. Many newer laptops and monitors come with webcams already installed or one may have to be installed by an on-site IT Department.
    • Software – While most on-line training events try to keep software installation to a minimum, and use platforms that should already be installed on a typical computer (i.e., Flash Player), certain programs or platforms may require new or additional updates or software. Remind participants to test system capability at least an hour before the on-line event begins, which will give them time to work with the IT Department to install any updates necessary.

    Tips for Helping People Be Good On-Line Participants – Include participant instructions, information on how to participate and get the most out of the program, and a description of how to allow for the best environment for fellow participants. Be sure participants know to

    1. Close the door.
    2. Turn off their cell phones.
    3. Close their e-mail and instant messengers
    4. Do a test of the system to make sure the on-line event software will work.
    5. Use the program’s tools to interact with the presenter and other participants
    6. Complete the evaluation at the close of the event and provide honest useful feedback.

    So Why Do On-Line Training At All?
    On-line training and meetings are an economical way to offer quality content to a geographically diverse group. The on-line learning environment is unique and while different from the classroom can offer a variety of new ways to interact with the audience. One participant of a recent NCJFCJ webinar said “…great information, loved the videos and activities demonstrating the ideas.”

    On-line training can also offer the participants a degree of anonymity, which can allow for a more candid conversation on controversial topics like implicit bias. Already this year, NCJFCJ has conducted two “Social Cognition: The Pros and Cons of Autopilot” programs that explore the role that stereotypes play in decision making. Using “polling” participants can anonymously react to common stereotypes and discover how much of their decision making is based on that sort of “gut-feeling.”

    On-line training can also mimic classroom activities. During the two part series on “Using Incentives and Sanctions in Your Juvenile Drug Court,” participants were divided into small-groups to work on individual group work. The particular on-line training software that NCJFCJ uses allows participants to be sent to “virtual” breakout rooms, and in the breakout rooms, participants are able to write on a white board, instant message one another, and discuss the topic over the conference call line.

    For these reason, NCJFCJ is using and will continue to use on-line training environments and formats to reach judges and juvenile justice professionals to provide a wealth of information.

    Jessica Pearce is the Projects Coordinator in the Juvenile and Family Law Department, Alcohol and Other Drugs Division. Ms. Pearce has extensive experience coordinating and managing training and technical assistance projects such as NCJFCJ’s National Conference on Juvenile Justice, NCJFCJ’s Annual Conference, the Juvenile Drug Court Planning Initiative, and the Judicial Curriculum for Juvenile DWI. Ms. Pearce led the curriculum development team for NCJFCJ’s “Moving Your Juvenile Drug Court from Where it is…To Where You Want it to Be!” training series. Ms. Pearce has presented on adolescent and AOD-related topics for Children and Family Futures, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Reclaiming Futures Project. Her writing has appeared in Children and Youth Services Review, NCJFCJ’s Today Magazine, NCJFCJ’s Child Support Enforcement Benchcards, The Court Appoint Special Advocates’ Judge’s Page, and the Century Council’s Hardcore Drunk Driving Guide for Judges.

  • Using Sober Support Groups in Juvenile Courts

    by Wendy Schiller, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

    What would you do?
    “Fifteen-year-old Luis is in your juvenile court for final disposition after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and petty theft (committed to support his drug habit). His case manager wants Luis to get treatment, and it’s clear that the family needs support and guidance. You also want to make sure Luis connects to a support system that will help him stay clean. So, in addition to the standard recommended outpatient treatment, you consider mandating him to attend three sober support group meetings a week. But Luis’ case manager tells you that your community has no youth specific AA or NA meetings. You decide to go ahead with the mandate anyway. After all, something is better than nothing, right?”     (Excerpt taken from Using “Sober Support” Groups in Your Juvenile Court, March 2010, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges)

    • Would you mandate Luis to attend AA or NA meetings that were not youth-specific?
    • How many days per week would you mandate Luis to attend these groups?
    • Is something actually better than nothing?

    These are the questions that every case manager or presiding judge might ask before mandating any additional components to a youth’s probation. Focus on the last question – is something actually better than nothing? That questions isn’t always easy to answer. There is a connection between that question and the theory of unintended consequences.

    We have all heard of the law of unintended consequences…an adage or idiom that warns that an intervention in a complex system [AKA – adolescents] invariably creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. It is a basic principle of economics, and governments struggle with unintended consequences to the policies that are set in place on a daily basis. The adolescents we are working with are complex systems and sometimes when we mandate treatment modalities or activities for the youth as a component of their probation, there may be side-effects that we have not considered. Mandating sober support groups might have side effects, such as: exposure to an unsafe environment, increased likelihood of further or more severe drug/alcohol use, and overexposure to a group that may not be developmentally appropriate for youth.

    This article will provide an overview of the technical assistance (TA) bulletin “Using Sober Support Groups in Your Juvenile Court” published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

    Because juvenile courts and juvenile drug courts are utilizing sober support groups as a component of probation, it is important that court professionals have all the information needed to make the best possible decisions as they mandate youth to receive help from these groups, to limit any unintended consequences that may occur in conjunction with the mandate.

    Studies and research have shown that about half of the youth involved in the juvenile justice system have substance use issues (Chan, Y.F., Dennis, M. L., Ives, M. L., & Modisette, K. C., Characteristics of Juvenile Treatment Drug Court Clients, Drug Court Review Volume VII, Issue 1 (2010) 10-57). These issues must be addressed and court professionals often begin by using AA or NA because these options are frequent, accessible, and free.

    Even though it is common to mandate youth to attend sober support groups, like AA or NA, court professionals may want to consider several questions surrounding the use of sober support groups before youth attend local groups:

    • Are sober support groups developmentally appropriate for adolescents?
    • Is there a perceived lack of fit by the youth?
    • Which adolescents are most likely to benefit from attending sober support groups?
    • How frequently should adolescents attend?
    • Is the court violating the youth’s legal rights by mandating youth to attend a sober support group?

    Are sober support groups developmentally appropriate for adolescents?
    The research suggests that the juvenile justice system has not found an AA/NA model that is effective or particularly helpful for its clients. Reasons for this may include:

    • The youths mandated to attend do not view themselves as heavy addicts
    • The addiction severity for youth is not the same as it is for adults
    • There isn’t a long history of substance abuse
    • Studies have found that the most common reason for leaving AA/NA was due to boredom or perceived lack of fit. This perception may stem from the fact that:
    • The presenters and participants are usually much older (the average participant is a 46 year old Caucasian male)
    • The youth were not able to relate to the issues discussed during the meeting (i.e., divorce, financial issues, etc.) (Using Sober Support Groups in Your Juvenile Court, March 2010. Page 5)

    Which adolescents are most likely to benefit?
    This is a complicated question, given that many youth that are referred or required to attend sober support groups or 12-step programs do not often meet the diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder. In a study that followed 160 adolescent inpatient participants over an eight-year period, the researchers found that youth with longer periods of substance use, and greater addiction severity were more likely to utilize AA/NA and to gain more from the process. These youth had reached the point of believing that they could not ever use substances again, and that AA/NA was a needed support (Page 6).

    How frequently should adolescents attend?
    It is not uncommon to hear of juvenile drug court teams ordering “90 meetings in 90 days.” This is a treatment recommendation that many adult drug courts utilize, with juvenile drug courts following suit. Youth may have displayed increases in sobriety with just two to three sessions a week (36 meetings in 90 days). Courts are cautioned to not over-expose youth to sober support requirements. Many youth that move through the juvenile court system, do not display severe addiction.

    Some researchers argue that for “…youth with less severe problems, the court might consider approaches that are not based on a 12-step philosophy—such as family therapy, extrication from peer groups, etc” (Page 7).

    Is the court violating the youth’s legal rights by mandating a youth to attend a sober support group?
    In a series of cases dating back to 1994, federal and state courts have repeatedly ruled that probationers, parolees and inmates may not be coerced into attending Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) or other religious based treatment programs. This prohibition limits juvenile courts as well. Participation in self-help programs may be mandated however, providing the participant has a meaningful choice between religious and secular programs. Programs based upon the Alcoholics Anonymous Twelve Steps, especially those making reference to a Higher Power, should be considered religion-based (Page 7 & 10).

    If direct service providers address these questions, courts can greatly improve outcomes for youth with substance abuse issues and who are involved in the juvenile justices system.

    The Technical Assistance Bulletin “Using Sober Support Groups in Your Juvenile Court” is a tool that court professionals should use as they address the issue of substance use/abuse with system involved youth, which may help alleviate any unintended consequences that may occur. The complete bulletin clearly defines “Things to Consider” (page 8), “Sober Support Options” (page 10), and an “Overview of the Case Law” (page 12).

    To download a complete copy of the bulletin or to look up footnotes and references visit: http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/jfl/sobersupport.pdf.

  • Training Program Developed on Dealing with the Mentally Ill in the Courts

    by Matthew Schwarzfeld, Public Affairs Manager, and Hallie Fader-Towe, Senior Policy Analyst, Council of State Governments Justice Center

    The Judges’ Criminal Justice/Mental Health Leadership Initiative (JLI) recently partnered with the newly formed Psychiatric Leadership Group (PLG) to design a training on effectively identifying and managing individuals with mental illnesses in the courts. The two groups collaborated with the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts (AOIC) to train over 60 Illinois judges this May in Springfield.

    Facilitated by the Council of State Governments Justice Center (Justice Center) in collaboration with the National GAINS Center and the National Judicial College, the JLI promotes judicial leadership to improve outcomes for justice-involved people with mental illnesses. The PLG, led by the American Psychiatric Foundation (the philanthropic and educational arm of the American Psychiatric Association), brings together some of the nation’s leading psychiatrists focusing on criminal justice issues.

    Dr Fred Osher
    Dr. Fred Osher
    Judge Steven Leifman
    Judge Steven Leifman

    Judge Steven Leifman, Special Advisor on Criminal Justice and Mental Health with the Florida Supreme Court, and Dr. Fred Osher, the Justice Center’s Director of Health Systems and Services Policy, co-presented a two-and-a-half hour module to kick off the training. Judge Leifman and Dr. Osher provided an overview of the prevalence of mental illness in America’s courts, how an individual’s mental illness may affect his or her interactions with judges, the role a judge can play in facilitating a person’s recovery, and common challenges arising at the intersection of the justice and behavioral health systems. The JLI and PLG designed the module so that a judge/psychiatrist team could adapt it for a training elsewhere.

    The JLI and PLG also developed a handout for the training entitled a “Judges’ Guide to Mental Illnesses in the Courtroom.” The resource enumerates visual cues that can help a judge identify whether a person in his or her court may have a mental illness and provides recommendations for interacting with a person in such circumstances. Both the opening presentation and this document are being reviewed and updated based on the input from the judges who attended the pilot training.

    The training was brought about by Illinois appellate court Judge Kathryn E. Zenoff. Judge Zenoff, who co-chairs the JLI, is also the chair of Illinois’s Special Supreme Court Advisory Committee for Justice and Mental Health Planning. In addition to promoting training opportunities for Illinois judges, the Advisory Committee examines rules, judicial best practices, and how to allocate administrative resources most effectively to improve how judges interact with people with mental illnesses. The Illinois Supreme Court established the Advisory Committee in 2010.

    The AOIC, which provides around a dozen continuing judicial education opportunities a year to Illinois’s 950 supreme, circuit, and appellate court judges, contributed Illinois-specific information to the training module and worked with the Special Supreme Court Advisory Committee for Justice and Mental Health Planning on developing additional presentations. The agency identified judges, legal scholars, and forensic psychiatrists from Illinois who reviewed current state statutes and case law, how the Illinois mental health system operates, and ethical issues and dilemmas arising from working with this population.

    The judicial training was “thought-provoking and inspirational,” said AOIC Director Cynthia Cobbs. It “offere[ed] participants an opportunity to explore and examine with national experts in the field—and indeed with Illinois’ own judicial champions—the intersection of criminal justice and mental health. The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts was pleased and honored to have been selected by the CSG Justice Center, the APF, and the JLI as the first state judicial branch recipient of technical assistance to pilot a judicial training module.”

    Presenters covered the content using a variety of methods, from lectures to discussions to video presentations. Judges had the opportunity to observe interactive courtroom scenarios in which trained actors from a nearby medical school portrayed the role of people with mental illnesses. A number of judges—some from mental health courts, some from non-specialty courts—demonstrated to their peers what to look for, how to react, and motivational interviewing techniques.

    AOIC staff remarked that the 62 judges in attendance represented a high figure for a voluntary training. Similarly, the fact that all of the state’s 23 circuits were represented demonstrates the popularity of the training topic.