Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System

              DEPENDENT CHILDREN
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT SYSTEM
FISCAL YEAR 03
July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Office of the Courts
Dependent Children’s Services Division Arizona Supreme Court
Dependent Children’s Services Division
William Stanton, Director
Court Improvement Program
Suzanne Matsumori, Program Coordinator
Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program
Linda Wright, Program Manager
Foster Care Review Board (FCRB)
Caroline Lautt-Owens, Program Manager
Division Mission Statement
The Dependent Children=s Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts advocates, on a statewide level, for appropriate services and safe, permanent homes for children in foster care and works to ensure timely permanency for these children by:
! evaluating and improving dependency case processing in the juvenile court;
! recruiting and training community-based volunteers who advocate for the best interests of abused and neglected children;
! acting as a referral source to the community for information regarding foster care, adoption, parent assistance, volunteer opportunities, volunteer training, and the child welfare and juvenile court processes.
i
DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THE
ARIZONA COURT SYSTEM
FISCAL YEAR 2003
July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction.................................................................................................................1
Organizational Chart 1: Dependent Children’s Services Division...................................................2
Organizational Chart 2: Court Improvement Program....................................................................3
Organizational Chart 3: Court Appointed Special Advocates.........................................................4
Organizational Chart 4: Foster Care Review Board (Phoenix).......................................................5
Organizational Chart 5: Foster Care Review Board (Tucson)........................................................6
Court Improvement Program.......................................................................................7
Tables and Figures:
Arizona Dependency Process........................................................................................................8
Table 1: Petition Filed During FY03...............................................................................................9
Table 2: Number of Children with Open Dependency Petitions...................................................10
Table 3: Preliminary Protective Hearing (PPH)............................................................................11
Table 4: Adjudication...................................................................................................................12
Table 5: Permanency Hearing......................................................................................................13
Table 6: Average Length in Dependency Court System...............................................................14
Table 7: Juveniles with a Dependent and Have Delinquency Activity
Activity currently or Historically................................................................................................15
Table 8: Dependency Summary Report.......................................................................................16
Figure 1: Parent Assistance Hotline.............................................................................................17
Court Appointed Special Advocate...........................................................................18
Tables and Figures:
Figure 1: Volunteer Gender..........................................................................................................24
Figure 2: Volunteer Ethnicity........................................................................................................25
Figure 3: Volunteer Employment..................................................................................................25
Figure 4: Volunteer Education......................................................................................................26
Figure 5: Age at Closing...............................................................................................................26
ii
Figure 6: Gender of Children Served............................................................................................27
Figure 7: Ethnicity of Children Served..........................................................................................27
Foster Care Review Board........................................................................................30
Tables and Figures:
Table 1: Number of Boards Per County.......................................................................................33
Figure 1: Active FCRB Volunteers...............................................................................................33
Table 2: Removal Review: Number of Volunteers by District.......................................................34
Figure 2: Active FCRB Volunteer Tenure in Years.......................................................................35
Figure 3: Volunteer Exit Reasons.................................................................................................36
Figure 4: Training Hours by County (population over 200,000)....................................................37
Figure 5: Training Hours by County (population between 200,000 and 120,000)........................38
Figure 6: Training Hours by County (population less than 120,000)............................................38
Figure 7: Board Member Ethnicity................................................................................................39
Figure 8: Volunteer Education......................................................................................................40
Figure 9: Volunteer Occupation....................................................................................................40
Figure 10: Volunteer Household Income......................................................................................41
Table 3: Number of Children / Cases FY02..................................................................................42
Table 4: Number of Children / Cases FY03..................................................................................42
Figure 11: Children Registered / Opened During Fiscal Year......................................................43
Figure 12: Children Opened / Closed During the Fiscal Year.......................................................44
Figure 13: FCRB Active Children.................................................................................................45
Figure 14: FCRB Active Children by Gender................................................................................45
Figure 15: FCRB Active Children by Ethnicity..............................................................................46
Figure 16: FCRB Active Children / County (over 200,000 population).........................................47
Figure 17: FCRB Active Children / County (population 120,000 to 200,000)...............................47
Figure 18: FCRB Active Children / County (population less than 120,000)..................................48
Figure 19: Children Closed by Reason.........................................................................................49
Table 5: Findings / Possible Recommendations..........................................................................50
Figure 20: Finding #1 – Efforts to Prevent Removal.....................................................................51
Figure 21: Finding #1 – Effort to Prevent Removal / FY01...........................................................53
Figure 22: Finding #1 – Effort to Prevent Removal / FY02...........................................................54
Figure 23: Finding #1 – Effort to Prevent Removal / FY03...........................................................55
Figure 24: Finding #2 – Out-of-Home Placement Still Necessary?..............................................56
Figure 25: Finding #2 – Out-of-Home Placement Necessary / FY01...........................................57
Figure 26: Finding #2 – Out-of-Home Placement Necessary / FY02...........................................58
Figure 27: Finding #2 – Out-of-Home Placement Still Necessary / FY03.....................................59
Figure 28: Finding #3 – Placement Appropriate / Least Restrictive..............................................60
Figure 29: Finding #3 – Placement Appropriate / FY01................................................................61
Figure 30: Finding #3 – Placement Appropriate / FY02................................................................62
Figure 31: Finding #3 – Placement Appropriate / FY03................................................................63
iii
Figure 32: Finding #4 – Appropriate Case Plan for Each Person.................................................64
Figure 33: Finding #4 – Appropriate Case Plan / FY01................................................................65
Figure 34: Finding #4 – Appropriate Case Plan / FY02................................................................66
Figure 35: Finding #4 – Appropriate Case Plan / FY03................................................................67
Figure 36: Finding #5 – Case Plan Compliance...........................................................................68
Figure 37: Finding #5 – Case Plan Compliance / FY01................................................................69
Figure 38: Finding #5 – Case Plan Compliance / FY02................................................................70
Figure 39: Finding #5 – Case Plan Compliance / FY03................................................................71
Figure 40: Finding #5 – Progress Toward Permanency...............................................................72
Figure 41: Finding #6 – Progress Toward Permanency / FY01....................................................73
Figure 42: Finding #6 – Progress Toward Permanency / FY02....................................................74
Figure 43: Finding #6 – Progress Toward Permanency / FY03....................................................75
Figure 44: Finding #7 – Realistic Target Date..............................................................................76
Figure 45: Finding #7 – Realistic Target Date / FY01..................................................................77
Figure 46: Finding #7 – Realistic Target Date / FY02..................................................................78
Figure 47: Finding #7 – Realistic Target Date / FY03..................................................................79
Figure 48: Finding #8 – Boards Finds Reasonable Efforts...........................................................80
Figure 49: Finding #8 – Reasonable Efforts / FY01.....................................................................81
Figure 50: Finding #8 – Reasonable Efforts / FY02.....................................................................82
Figure 51: Finding #8 – Reasonable Efforts / FY03.....................................................................83
Figure 52: Finding #9 – Child’s Education Implemented..............................................................84
Figure 53: Finding #9 – Child’s Education / FY03........................................................................85
Figure 54: Removal Reviews – DES District / FY03.....................................................................86
Figure 55: Removal Reviews / FY03 (county population over 200,000).......................................87
Figure 56: Removal Reviews / FY03 (county population between 120,000 and 200,000)...........87
Figure 57: Removal Reviews / FY03 (county population less than 120,000)..............................88
Glossary of Dependency Terms................................................................................89
iv
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 1 -
DEPENDENT CHILDREN’S SERVICES DIVISION
INTRODUCTION
This is the first publication of dependent children in the Arizona Court System. It is the intent of the Dependent Children Services Division to produce this publication on an annual basis.
The data for this report are drawn from the fifteen juvenile courts’ Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS) and the Dependent Children Automated Tracking System (DCATS). JOLTS is the automated juvenile court information management system that has been operational statewide for five years regarding dependency. Each juvenile court actively participates in collecting and maintaining the data to ensure quality and accuracy. DCATS is the Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) and Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) automated information management system and has been operational for seven years. FCRB program specialists collect and maintain information regarding each case that the FCRB reviews. The County CASA offices are responsible for entering the data regarding volunteers and their cases.
This report provides an overview of children in the dependency system statewide during fiscal year 2003. Selected breakdowns of unduplicated counts are presented herein from the three programs.
Note that not all of the children entered the system during the 2003 fiscal year, as some may have entered in previous fiscal years but have not achieved permanency yet. Therefore, the children included in this report all attended a hearing at least once during the fiscal year. That is, one or more of the hearings in this report happened during the year.
The number of children participating in the juvenile system is influenced by several factors, including legislative actions, general economy, parenting skills, and the number of children ages newborn to 18 years old in the Arizona population. Through fiscal year 2003, the number of children in the dependency system has continued to increase as can be seen in several different tables and charts. Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
DEPENDENT CHILDREN SERVICES DIVISION
- 2 -
Bill Stanton
Division Director
Cathy Metrick
Assistant III
Caroline Lautt-Owens
Linda Wright
Suzanne Matsumori
Program Manager
Program Manager
Program Coordinator
Foster Care Review Board
Court Appointed
Court Improvement Program
Special Advocates Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 3 -
COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Suzanne Matsumori
Program Coordinator
Robert Shelley
Operational Review
DeAnna Johnson
Assistant IIDependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 4 -
COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES
Linda Wright
Program Manager
Charli Mattson
Support Staff
Administrative Assistant
Ondria Mercer
Administrative Assistant
Kyle Davis
Resource Specialist
Connie Lopez
Community Outreach Specialist
Ginger Bredemeier
Training Specialist
Alison Wilson
Web DesignerDependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 5 -
FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD (PHOENIX)
Caroline Lautt-OwensCaroline Owens
Program Manager
Connie Lopez
Community Outreach
Specialist
Maria Pastore
Training Specialist
Carissa Moore
Supervisor upervisor
Charles Gray
Supervisor
Cathy Metrick
Administrative Assistant
Carrie Kelly
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Debra Escobar
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Marsha Palmer
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Otis Evans
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Stacy Molison
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Valerie Smith
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Toni Farmer
Support Staff
Tiffany Dempsay
Support Staff
Amy Champeau
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Brandi Gray
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Carolyn Smith
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Penny Warner
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Richard Fadayko
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Yesenia Garcia
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Vicky Solie FosterVicky Foster
Program SpecialistProgram Specialist
Maager
n SDependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 6 -
FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD (TUCSON)
Caroline Lautt-Owens
Program Manager
Christopher Corman
Sandy Guizzetti
Regional Manager
Supervisor
Linda Bednarek
Frances Garcia
Program Specialist
Support Staff
Kathleen Dugan
Cheri Holgerson
Program Specialist
Support Staff
Susan Peacock
Doris Messenger
Program Specialist
Support Staff
Kelly Robbins
Nicole O’Connor
Program Specialist
Support Staff
Maeve Robertson
Jodi Fox
Program Specialist
Support Staff
Lisa Scholinski
Juana Messina
Program Specialist
Program Specialist
Bruce Johnson
Computer Specialist
(office in Phoenix) Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Court Improvement Program has operated within the Dependent Children’s Services Division (DCSD) since 1997. The program’s purpose is to evaluate and improve dependency case processing in the juvenile courts. Federal funds assist in the administration of the program and state funds assist the counties in meeting the requirements of federal and state dependency statutes.
The Court Improvement Program was the catalyst behind the development of the dependency Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS). This statewide data collection system is what the following reports are based upon. Dependency JOLTS continues to evolve and improve. It was determined that JOLTS data had matured sufficiently to produce the information found hereunder. This is the first report; therefore, some of the information may not be as accurate as we are striving to attain. Through continued quality assurance efforts, reporting results will become increasingly reliable. In the future, additional training will be provided to county data entry staff to ensure 100 percent accurate data.
The program completed its first round of operational reviews in 2003. It was a lengthy, educational process. Numerous improvements were made to the review process over the three year period from the first review in Yavapai County to the final review in Mohave County. Through continued feedback from the stakeholders in the dependency process, the operational review report was refined and significant improvements were made. The second round of operational reviews are projected to take approximately eighteen months and will commence in April 2004.
Court Improvement provides technical training regarding the dependency process to the clerks and court personnel in the state’s rural counties. Specialized training is also provided for attorneys in these rural counties. Local attorneys are invited to these trainings with the hope of attracting new representation for clients involved in dependency proceedings and increasing small pools of available counsel. The attorney training now addresses new federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requirements for the training of children’s guardians ad litems.
The study of the dependency court process and the identification of significant trends/issues continue to be a focus of Court Improvement. The program assists in the implementation of new statutes and the rewriting of juvenile court rules and the Juvenile Benchbook. Court Improvement will continue to work to encourage statewide consistency in dependency case processing.
Finally, the Parent Assistance Hotline has joined the Court Improvement Program. The Hotline staff are available during business hours and serve the primary purpose of addressing questions regarding the temporary removal of children by Child Protective Services (CPS) Information pertaining to the Foster Care Review Board, the Court Appointed Special Advocate, and Confidential Intermediary programs is also disseminated. Calls are consistently categorized to allow for reliable tracking of Hotline usage. Although numerous calls received are unrelated to the primary purpose of the Hotline, efforts are made to provide helpful and appropriate information to callers.
- 7 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 8 -
CPS Receives ReportRemoval of ChildPetition Filing•72 hours from removal•Only if parents fail to appear at the Preliminary Protective Hearing•21 days from service of petition•5-7 days from removalInitial Dependency HearingPre-Hearing ConferencePreliminary Protective Hearing/Settlement Conference Or Mediation•30 days from Preliminary Protective HearingAdjudication•30 days from Settlement / Mediation•No more than 90 days from service of the petitionDisposition•30 days from adjudication(Can happen at same time as adjudication)Review Hearing•Every 6 months at a minimumPermanency HearingInitial Termination -GuardianshipHearing•30 days after Permanency HearingTermination -Guardianship Hearing•90 days from Permanency Hearing•12 months from removal •Determination of Permanent PlanArizona Dependency ProcessArizona Supreme CourtCourtImprovement Programhttp://supreme.state.az.us/dcsd/improve/Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Table 1 deals only with dependency petitions filed by the Arizona Attorney General’s office. Petitions are filed because of allegations of abuse or neglect. Allegations are brought by Child Protective Services and brought before the juvenile court to determine the best interests of the child. The following table lists all dependency (not severance or adoption petitions) filed during this period. Totals are counts of petitions filed, not individual children.
Table 1: PETITIONS FILED DURING FY03
County
# of Petitions Filed
Apache
23
Cochise
93
Coconino
37
Gila
17
Graham
20
Greenlee
6
La Paz
0
Maricopa
1,365
Mohave
49
Navajo
41
Pima
789
Pinal
97
Santa Cruz
8
Yavapai
110
Yuma
53
Statewide Total
2,708
- 9 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
A dependency petition is closed when either a child is reunified with the parent(s) or an alternative permanent placement is found. The following table provides a count of children who are still active in the dependency process. Count of children in care with remove from home date who do not have a closed date.
Table Two: NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH OPEN
DEPENDENCY PETITIONS FY03
County
Total Number
Apache
76
Cochise
366
Coconino
119
Gila
87
Graham
114
Greenlee
10
La Paz
10
Maricopa
5,441
Mohave
209
Navajo
223
Pima
3,680
Pinal
376
Santa Cruz
20
Yavapai
490
Yuma
629
Total
11,850
- 10 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The Preliminary Protective Hearing is scheduled within 5 to 7 business days of a child’s removal from the home. The issues required to be addressed are placement, services, and visitation. The following table provides a list of children with petitions meeting preliminary protective hearing requirements (within 5-7 business days of removal from home).
Table 3: PRELIMINARY PROTECTIVE HEARING (PPH) FY03
County
7 Days or Less
Greater Than 7 Days
Apache
23
8
Cochise
132
12
Coconino
37
4
Gila
15
9
Graham
35
1
Greenlee
5
1
La Paz
0
0
Maricopa
2,000
47
Mohave
40
43
Navajo
85
1
Pima
726
564*
Pinal
132
13
Santa Cruz
11
1
Yavapai
164
21
Yuma
93
1
Total Children
3,496
728
* The Pima County juvenile court reports that the majority of children had a PPH held within twelve days of removal from home due to justified five day continuance.
- 11 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The adjudication hearing is when the court determines whether the allegations of the dependency are sustained by the evidence and legally sufficient to support state intervention on behalf of the child. The following table provides a count of children adjudicated as to both parents, the average number of days to dependency adjudication from removal from home date or petition filing, and the number of children whose petitions have been dismissed.
Table 4: ADJUDICATION FY03
County
Children Adjudicated
As to One or Both
Parents
Average Days to First
Parent Adjudication**
Number of Children
With Dismissed Petitions
Apache
23
37
0
Cochise
112
80
9
Coconino
52
48
3
Gila
29
91
1
Graham
41
68
5
Greenlee
6
35
0
La Paz
0
N/A
0
Maricopa
1,658
37
76
Mohave
63
54
0
Navajo
66
60
7
Pima
1,142
68
147
Pinal
125
82
2
Santa Cruz
5
15
1
Yavapai
168
63
1
Yuma
97
35
0
Total
3,584
773
252
* Days are calculated by averaging first parent adjudication and all parent adjudication
- 12 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
According to the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the decision regarding the permanent placement of a child involved in a dependency petition must be made within 12 months of removal from home. The following table shows the number of children with petitions in which a permanent plan was ordered within 12 months of the removal from home.
Table 5: PERMANENCY HEARING FY03
County
Children with Permanent Plan in 365 Days or Less
Eligible Children
Apache
3
3
Cochise
20
22
Coconino
9
9
Gila
3
6
Graham
2
2
Greenlee
N/A
N/A
La Paz
N/A
N/A
Maricopa
388
554
Mohave
12
18
Navajo
15
15
Pima
216
315
Pinal
7
16
Santa Cruz
0
0
Yavapai
39
44
Yuma
33
35
1. Data are derived from the case plan rather than permanency hearing due to constraints of database.
2. Six month data only - 1/1/03 to 6/30/03
3. New entry requirement made full year input an unrealistic goal
New entry requirement mandates continued training to ensure correct data entry
- 13 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The length of time children are involved in the dependency process varies and is influenced by many factors beyond the court=s control. Identifying the average amount of time children spend in the system is a useful tool for the courts as they serve children in the dependency process. The following table shows the average length in dependency court system from removal from home date for children dismissed prior to adjudication and afterwards.
Table 6: AVERAGE LENGTH IN DEPENDENCY COURT SYSTEM FY03
County
Average Number of Months Dependency Dismissed Before Adjudication
Average Number of Months Dependency Dismissed After Adjudication
Number of
Children Dismissed
Apache
0
24.9
17
Cochise
11.7
17.7
119
Coconino
6.6
25.8
35
Gila
11.9
20.7
34
Graham
12.6
21.7
52
Greenlee
0
5.4
3
La Paz
0
0
0
Maricopa
2.0
35.8
1,709
Mohave
11.9
18.8
47
Navajo
3.6
19.5
73
Pima
2.8
31.0
1,110
Pinal
2.3
23.3
87
Santa Cruz
0
21.4
4
Yavapai
10.9
24.9
129
Yuma
0
33.3
63
Total
7.6
23.1
3,482
* Court did not find the child dependent.
** Court found the child dependent as to both parents
- 14 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The courts have historically been concerned about dually adjudicated children, those who are involved in a dependency petition and have current or prior court involvement on a delinquency matter. Dually adjudicated children often require multiple agency involvement and are a greater risk of subsequent issues. The following table shows the number of children in each county who are found to be dependent or have been temporarily subject to court jurisdiction pending an adjudication of a dependency petition and who are alleged or found to have committed a delinquent or incorrigible act.
Table 7: JUVENILES WITH A DEPENDENCY AND HAVE DELINQUENCY
ACTIVITY CURRENTLY OR HISTORICALLY FY03
County
Total Number of Dually
Adjudicated Children
Percentage of Total Children
Apache
8
11%
Cochise
28
8%
Coconino
25
21%
Gila
7
8%
Graham
9
8%
Greenlee
3
30%
La Paz
5
50%
Maricopa
716
13%
Mohave
25
12%
Navajo
19
9%
Pima
519
14%
Pinal
59
16%
Santa Cruz
4
14%
Yavapai
58
12%
Yuma
109
17%
Total
1,594
13%
- 15 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Table 8: DEPENDENCY SUMMARY REPORT FY03
County
Number of Children
Open At Beginning of Report Period
Filed in Report Period
Closed in Report Period
Open at End of Report Period*
Apache
76
40
35
17
58
Cochise
366
200
159
119
240
Coconino
119
66
53
35
84
Gila
87
58
24
34
48
Graham
114
69
44
52
61
Greenlee
10
4
6
3
7
La Paz
10
10
0
0
10
Maricopa
5,441
3,216
2,193
1,709
3,700
Mohave
209
126
85
47
164
Navajo
223
133
91
73
151
Pima
3,680
2,306
1,355
1,110
2,551
Pinal
376
220
162
87
295
Santa Cruz
20
8
12
4
16
Yavapai
490
287
202
129
360
Yuma
629
530
98
63
565
Total
11,850
7,273
4,519
3,482
8,310
* Number of children open during the report period
** Open at end of report period is not derived form a JOLTS report. It is a calculation.
- 16 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 1
Miscellaneous calls which did not apply to the categories mentioned were included in the total for PAH. These were separated starting July 1, 2003 and will be reflected in the next data book. 01002003004005006007008009001000JulySeptemberNovemberJanuaryMarchMayTotal MonthlyCalls: 4,334Parent AssistanceHotline (PAH): 3,830Foster Care ReviewBoard (FCRB): 66Confidential IntermediaryProgram (CIP): 409Court Appointed SpecialAdvocate (CASA): 75
- 17 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 18 -
ARIZONA COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL
ADVOCATE (CASA) PROGRAM
􀂃􈌠 History
The Arizona CASA Program, established in October 1985, reached a milestone in 2003. In July, the program showed that more than 10,000 children had been served by 3,200 CASA volunteers statewide.
There were 10,340 children who had been served as of June 30, 2003. The success of this statewide program continues in part due to the strong relationship between the state program office and each county office. Quality technical assistance, training, and services are provided by the state program office to support consistency and efficiency in the operation of the program statewide.
The role and responsibility of the Arizona CASA Program state office is to administer the program statewide; negotiate budgets with each county; coordinate and facilitate training of volunteers; assist with volunteer recruitment, recognition, and retention efforts statewide; maintain the statewide automated database system; and, provide ongoing support, information, and training to CASA county staff.
The Arizona CASA Program is involved in CASA activities on a national level. The program manager serves on several National CASA Association (NCASAA) committees, including the Indian Tribal Council and the State Standards Committee, and has served on the Association’s board of directors. Staff also represents the Arizona CASA Program by participating in several local Arizona boards and committees.
Each year the Arizona CASA Program continues to take advocacy to a higher level through its various training programs, available resources for volunteers, and advanced technology.
In October 2005, the Arizona CASA Program will celebrate its 20th anniversary under the current structure.
􀂃􈌠 Accomplishments
1. Grant Audit by National CASA Association
In October 2003, the National CASA Association (NCASAA) conducted a grantee site visit in an effort to monitor the status of the development of the web site and grant goals. The purpose of the grant is to subsidize the web designer position. The outcome of the report indicated the reporter was very impressed with the content and information overall.
The NCASAA representative reviewed the various components of the web site and met with various staff and administrators. Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 19 -
The final report stated that the program’s strengths include the dedication and knowledgeable staff and administrators, indicating that all seemed well versed in their duties and roles as well as very supportive of the CASA program.
The representative was very impressed with the various training materials the program has established. This encompassed all facets of training from on-line training modules to the new staff training material, as well as the support from state program staff to local county programs.
As a result of the site visit, the following recommendations were made:
T Encourage the local programs to apply for National CASA Association funding.
T Continue to support local programs to be in compliance with the National CASA
Association Standards for local programs.
T Provide support and technical assistance to tribes.
2. New Logo
The National CASA Association designed a new logo that would be representative of all the types of CASA programs nationwide, whether a GAL or a CASA model. The change of the NCASAA logo prompted a change in the logo for the Arizona CASA Program. The new design was incorporated into the Arizona logo.
Old Logo New Logo
3. Volunteer Advocacy During Legislative Session
Several bills introduced during the legislative session involved child welfare issues. Hundreds of volunteers voices their opinions and recommendations to their respective legislators. Most of this activity focused on the Legislature’s special session that addressed many reforms within the Department of Economic Security. Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 20 -
4. Training
The state program office presented a wide variety of training to both the volunteers and program staff during FY03.
T Orientation Training
Orientation Training is the initial 15-hour training session that applicants must attend in order to become a CASA volunteer. Six Orientation Training sessions were held in which 290 new volunteers were trained.
T Medication-Nutrient Interactions in Abused and Neglected Children
The Arizona CASA Program, the Foster Care Review Board, and the Arizona Community Foundation teamed up to present this seminar at three locations statewide: Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson. Speaker Susan Weiner, R.D., M.S., C.D.E., C.D.N, presented information on the effect of drug and diet interaction on children. The volunteers attending this seminar learned how to use this information in the CASA volunteer work.
T Legislative Day
Ninety-two volunteers attended a one-day Legislative Training. The program was designed to give volunteers an overview of the legislative process and allow them to meet with their respective legislators.
T Administrative Training
County program staff attended a two-day training on volunteer management and stress management. The program speakers gave staff lecture and exercises to assist with all phases of volunteer recruitment and management, including planning, preparation, sustaining volunteer involvement, and recognition.
Another speaker livened up the training with a presentation on “The Enjoyment of Living, How to Balance Work and Play.” Attendees learned skills on how to recognize stressful times and were provided exercises to help relax and refresh.
5. Mission Statement Revised
The Arizona CASA Program revised three mission statements—one for the state program, one for the county programs, and one for volunteers. The statements were combined into one statement which focused on a common goal. In addition, a Vision and Values were adopted that further define the goals of the Arizona CASA Program.
Mission
Our mission is to advocate for the best interests of abused and neglected children who are involved in the juvenile courts.
We promote and support community-based volunteers, certified by the Supreme Court, who provide quality advocacy to help assure each child a safe, permanent, nurturing home. Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 21 -
Vision
Change the worldYInvest in the futureYBring the gift of hope to all abused and neglected childrenCone child at a time.
Values
We will provide independent, objective, factual information to the juvenile court through quality court reports.
We will be an active participant in the child’s case management team.
We will keep our commitment to the children.
We will conduct ourselves and our work with competency and professionalism.
We will be persistent in our work.
We will continue to improve ourselves through education and experience in order to improve the lives of the children we serve.
6. Community Outreach
● Community Activities
In an effort to increase public awareness of the program and recruit new volunteers, the Arizona CASA Program participated in several community activities. These activities included:
T a booth at the Women’s Expo;
T an information table during Government Days at the Arizona State Fair;
T a print advertisement placed in the quarterly Arizona Living Magazine;
T a 30 second radio spot during the morning commute time on KTAR radio;
T and participating in Social Work Days at the Indian Medical Center
● Web Site
The Arizona CASA Program also maintains a web site that is useful to both program staff and the community. The community can find out more about the local program in its county, locate helpful resources, and find out more about the court. Program staff can obtain needed resources such as manuals and order supplies. The web site also provides on-line training modules and a resource library from which to check out books, audiotapes, and video tapes. These resources assist volunteers to meet the required annual in-service training. Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 22 -
The following summarizes web site usage during FY03:
T 9,133 visitors to the web site;
T 4,364 visitors to the on-line training modules;
T 698 in-service training tests were taken;
T 299 hours of in-service training credit awarded;
T 64 requests for items from the resource library;
T 129 email inquiries for information on becoming a volunteer;
T 452 email inquiries for information on various child welfare-related topics.
􀂃􈌠 Community Collaboration
The Arizona CASA Program collaborated with various community organizations during the year to help promote the program, provide awareness of the program, and foster a working relationship with other organizations.
1. Childhelp USA
The Arizona chapter of Childhelp USA, Childhelp Center of Arizona, provided an opportunity during the holidays for CASA children to participate in the Shop With a Jock program. Team members from the Arizona Cardinals paired up with a foster child and took them shopping to buy presents for their families. Activities and food were provided for the children while they waited their turn to “shop with a jock.”
2. Arizona Friends of Foster Children Foundation
The CASA Program Manager is on the board of this fundraising nonprofit organization which provides funding for items that could not otherwise be provided for children in foster care, items such as music lessons, bicycles, and prom dresses.
The Foundation also sponsors the annual Jan Lindsey “I Can Do It!” Award. This award, established in honor of the first CASA program manager Jan Lindsey, recognizes those foster children who have made great strides in their lives, whether that be in school or overcoming some other obstacle. Recipients travel to Phoenix for the awards ceremony, where they receive a certificate, $50 cash, and a $100 savings bond.
3. Committees
The CASA program manager served on the Child Abuse Prevention Conference and Sexual Assault Conference steering committees.
Additionally, the program manager serves on the Arizona State Child Fatality Review Board, and participated on two of the subcommittees formed to work on the Governor’s recommendations to reform the Arizona Child Protective Services department. Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 23 -
4. Arizona State University, West Campus
The Arizona CASA Program was afforded an opportunity to hold a seminar at the west campus of Arizona State University to inform the public of the program, foster care, and the program’s role in helping foster children find safe, permanent homes.
5. Grant
CASA received a grant from the Governor’s Office for Children providing funding for a global recruitment campaign. The $20,000 received through this grant is being utilized for television advertisements featuring Martin Sheen. In addition, CASA volunteers will be featured on the local Phoenix NBC affiliate news show to promoting volunteerism.
6. National CASA Association
The program manager serves on the following National CASA Association committees.
T Tribal Advisory Committee
This committee is active in supporting and directing the development of Tribal programs, with the paramount goal of achieving permanency for Native American children either through Tribal Court or State Court proceedings.
T State Standards Committee
This committee is charged with developing standards for state offices nationwide.
T Board of Directors
The program manager previously served for four years on this board.
T Judicial Liaison Committee
The NCASAA Board of Directors created this committee to join with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in an outreach to judges nationwide who hear child welfare cases.
Former Judge J. Dean Lewis will spearhead this effort by establishing a committee of CASA State Directors from around the country to meet with a committee from NCJFCJ on at least an annual basis. This interaction will promote best practice procedures, promote educational opportunities, and make judges aware of the National CASA Association. Aside from the face-to-face collaboration, a quarterly newsletter will be sent electronically to judges who are referred by CASA staff. Both organizations will display one another’s banners on its web site.
The Arizona representatives on this committee are Judge Stephen Rubin, Pima County Juvenile Court, and the CASA program manager.
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 24 -
􀂃􈌠 Statistics
Volunteer Statistics
● During the entire year, 1,147 volunteers donated their time to help Arizona’s children who were in the court system. As of June 30, 2003, there were 886 volunteers.
● For the year, 62,641 reported hours of service were donated and 509,359 reported miles were driven performing advocacy activities.
● Volunteers are required to obtain 12 hours of annual in-service training. The 15 hours of Orientation Training for new volunteers is counted as completing this requirement the first year. In FY03, 532, or 44 percent, of volunteers reporting training obtained 12 or more hours.
● Volunteers filed 1,486 reports to the court during the year.
● Since the inception of the program through June 30, 2003, 3,212 volunteers have:
T Served 10,007 children
T Donated 541,578 reported hours of service
T Driven 4,649,990 reported miles while performing their advocacy activities
● There were 1,423 criminal history checks performed on new volunteers.
● The following Figures 1 and 2 provide the gender, ethnicity, employment, and education breakdown of the 1,147 volunteers who served during FY03.
Figure 1
Volunteer GenderFemale81%Male 19%Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 25 -
Figure 2 Volunteer Ethnicity85%6%4%5%AngloLatinoAfrican-AmericanOther
Figure 3 Volunteer Employment13526344763863210642050100150200250300350400450Full-time, related fieldPart-time, related fieldFull-time, unrelated fieldPart-time, unrelated fieldRetiredStudentUnemployedUnknownEmployment TypeNumber of VolunteersDependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 26 -
Figure 4 Volunteer Education58326865681211932472572050100150200250300Grade SchoolHigh school or GEDSome College or Tech SchoolAssociates DegreeTech Degree or CertificationBA/BS in related fieldBA/BS in unrelated fieldMastersDoctoralUnknownLevel of EducationNumber of Volunteers
Children Statistics
During the entire year, 1,851 children had a CASA volunteer advocating on their behalf. The following Figures (3, 4 and 5) provide a look at the ages, gender, and ethnic breakdown of these children.
Figure 5 Age at Closing or on 6/30/0380110110118961081061189310199831011071159899703902040608010012014012345678910111213141516171819AgeNumber ServedDependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 27 -
Figure 6 Gender of Children ServedMale53%Female47%
Figure 7 Ethnicity of Children Served58%19%5%3%8%7%AngloLatinoAfrican-AmericanNative AmericanAnglo/LatinoOtherDependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 28 -
􀂃􈌠 What’s Next?
State of Kids in the System—How CASA Can Help
The Arizona CASA Program began work on several projects that will enhance the program’s effectiveness.
1. Helping Older Youth Program
In July 2003 the CASA program invited CASA volunteers statewide to meet and address the needs of older youth in foster care. These were volunteers who had been assigned to a youth between 14 and 18 years of age.
The group and its subcommittees met several times during the year to focus their ideas regarding what can be done to aid youth in this age group during their time in foster care and to assist them in their transition into the “real world” at age 18. The resulting project, named Helping Older Youth, will facilitate the role of “what we can do” to assist older youth in care.
While the project is still identifying the key role it can facilitate, many ideas have surfaced. The state program office is researching and coordinating with community agencies including Casey Family Programs, Children’s Action Alliance, and team members from the Child Protective Services Division of the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
An older youth training for approximately 300 volunteers will take place in April 2004 as the kickoff event for this program.
2. Surrogate Parent Program
At the recommendation of the Governor, the state program office is collaborating with the Arizona Department of Education to enhance the Surrogate Parent Program. This effort is underway. Implementation recommendations will be sent to the Governor in the near future.
3. Enhance Data Collection
Work continued in FY03 on the coordinator module of the CASA DCATS database. These enhancements will allow the database to be of more benefit to the county program staff. The enhancements to the coordinator module are expected to be completed and implemented in FY04.
Enhancements for the coordinator module include allowing tracking of potential volunteers from the time of first contact and an application is provided. DCATS currently allows for tracking of applicants only after attendance at Orientation Training. It will also include data to determine when a volunteer is “certified,” that is, when the volunteer has successfully completed all screening requirements and is ready to be assigned to his/her first case. Being able to break up the steps involved in becoming a volunteer will allow for greater accountability of staff’s time to recruit, train, and supervise volunteers. Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
- 29 -
Prior to the implementation of the Surrogate Parent Program, the DCATS database will be enhanced to allow for Surrogate Parent Program data collection and reporting.
4. Minority Recruitment
Historically, the CASA program has attracted more women volunteers than men, as shown in Figure 1 on page 24. While 53% of the children served are male, only 19% of the volunteers are male; thus, a critical need for more men to serve not only as advocates but role models as well.
When comparing the Volunteer Ethnicity, Figure 2, on page 25 and the Ethnicity of Children Served, Figure 7 on page 27, there is a disparity of the ethnic make-up of the two groups. Eighty-five percent of the volunteers are Anglo compared to 58% of the children served. There is 19% Latino children, but only 6% Latino volunteers serving them.
The program will be focusing on a campaign that will identify more minorities and men. The ultimate goal is to have the volunteers reflect the children they serve. Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD
􀂃􈌠 Mission
The Foster Care Review Board is established by Arizona statute to review at least every six months the case of each child in foster care. The purposes of these reviews are to determine and advise the juvenile court of the adequacy of efforts and progress toward placement of the child in a permanent home; to encourage and facilitate the return of each dependent child to his/her family whenever possible; to promote and encourage stability in the child’s placement; to assist in informing parents and others of their rights and responsibilities regarding a dependent child in foster care; and through the State Board, to make recommendations to the Supreme Court, the Governor, and the legislature regarding foster care.
􀂃􈌠 Philosophy
The mission of the Foster Care Review Board is based upon a belief that each child has a right to and is deserving of a permanent home that provides nurturing, love and protection. Toward this end, the mission of the Foster Care Review Board is accomplished in an atmosphere of trust, with dignity and respect maintained through participatory involvement of all those having interest in the welfare of the child. Though the plan for each child must be tempered by a reality of what may be attainable from resources available, the best interest of the child always remains of paramount importance to the Foster Care Review Board.
􀂃􈍓 Standards Of Conduct
Foster Care Review Board citizen members voluntarily serve by judicial appointment, pursuant to Arizona statute, to review the cases of children in foster care. Because of the special trust and confidence conferred and the responsibility placed upon Foster Care Review Board members, those so appointed to this public trust shall at all times observe the highest standards of integrity, commitment and respect for others. Foster Care Review Board members will keep secure any and all information of a confidential nature that is presented to them unless disclosure is required in the performance of official duties. Each board member is expected to be fully prepared to review each and every case assigned to their board, to attend all scheduled board reviews and required training sessions, to assume positions of board leadership when called upon by fellow board members, and to follow the policies and rules established by the State Board and the Arizona Supreme Court. Consequently, only those people who are willing to abide by these principles and standards of conduct will be nominated for retention; conversely, failure to abide may result in a recommendation to the court for removal from the board.
􀂃􈌠 Program Background
As one of the first states in the nation to establish citizen review boards, Arizona’s Foster Care Review Board program is housed within the Dependent Children’s Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts and is comprised of 37 staff and over 400 volunteers.
- 30 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The Arizona Legislature established the Foster Care Review Board in 1978 to address concerns that:
● Children in-care were not receiving medical attention;
● Children in-care were staying in the system too long, and
● Children in-care were getting lost in the system.
Foster Care Review Boards address these concerns by reviewing the cases of children who are in out-of-home placement and subject to a dependency petition, at least once every six months to ensure that progress is being made towards permanency. During each review, local boards across the state collect and process information from individuals who have an interest in the child whose case is being reviewed, and make recommendations regarding the case to the juvenile court judge.
Through the existence of the Foster Care Review Board, Arizona meets federal requirements of Public Law (PL) §96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. PL §96-272 mandates states to provide independent reviews of children who are the subject of a dependency action and in out-of-home care. Under this law, the FCRB is mandated to make determinations at each review in these four key areas:
1. Safety, necessity and appropriateness of placement;
2. Case plan compliance;
3. Progress toward mitigating the need for foster care; and
4. A likely date (target date) by which the child may be returned home or placed
for adoption or legal guardianship.
A board is established by the Presiding Juvenile Court Judge of each county for every 100 children, or fraction thereof, in out-of-home care and subject to a dependency action. However, there is at least one board in each county across the state and more than required in others, due to geographical distance.
􀂃􈌠 State Board
When establishing Arizona’s Foster Care Review Board program, the Legislature also established the State Board Foster Care Review Board. This board was established in April 1979 and is made up of Foster Care Review Board representatives from each county, as well as some ad hoc committee members who have a background in the child welfare system. The State Board is established by A.R.S. §8-515.04 and is responsible for reviewing and coordinating the activities of the local review boards as well as establishing training programs for volunteers. Until recently, the State Board was also responsible for making recommendations each year to the Arizona Supreme Court, governor and legislature regarding foster care statutes, [policies, and procedures. However, recent budget cuts resulted in the legislature eliminating the requirement that certain programs develop annual reports, which was the tool in which the State Foster Care Review Board developed and delivered its recommendations.
- 31 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The State Foster Care Review Board has established three standing committees that meet throughout the year to address goals created by their committee:
T The Continuing Education Committee – whose primary function is to
establish training programs for volunteers to meet required annual training
requirement.
T The Community Outreach Committee – whose primary function is to raise
public awareness of child welfare, as well as assist in volunteer recruitment
efforts.
T The Advocacy Committee – whose primary function is to be responsible for
planning and accomplishing general advocacy education for volunteers and
the public,
An Executive Committee of the State Foster Care Review Board also exists and is comprised of State Board representatives, the State Board Chair and the Foster Care Review Board program manager. This committee is the leadership branch of the State Board and acts on is behalf between State Board meetings, if needed.
- 32 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
􀂃􈌠 Program Statistics
There are currently 87 local boards across the state. And while the program strives to maintain five volunteers on each board, volunteers do resign and it is not possible to have five volunteers on each board throughout the year. Table 1 reflects the breakdown of current boards per county, as well as the number of volunteers that should be appointed to accommodate those boards.
Table 1
NUMBER OF BOARDS PER COUNTY – AS OF FEBRUARY 2003
County
Number of Boards
Number of Volunteers
Apache
1
5
Cochise
4
20
Coconino
1
5
Gila
3
15
Greenlee
1
5
Graham
1
5
La Paz
1
5
Maricopa
37
185
Mohave
3
15
Navajo
2
10
Pima
23
115
Pinal
3
15
Santa Cruz
1
5
Yavapai
4
20
Yuma
2
10
Total
87
435
The following figure (Figure 1), reflects the number of Foster Care Review Board volunteers that were “Active” during fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Active is defined as appointed to a board as either a regular board member or an alternate board member.
Figure 1
527517470501440460480500520540VolunteersFY '01FY '02FY '03FY '04Active FCRB Volunteers
- 33 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Approximately 22 years after the establishment of the Foster Care Review Board, the Arizona Legislature created the Removal Review Team. The Removal Review Team, which was established in 2000, is governed by A.R.S. §8-822. The statute governing this team requires Department of Economic Security (DES) to review the case of each child that they removed from the care of their biological parents, legal guardian or custodian prior to the dependency petition being filed with the court. The team includes the investigating case manager, the case manager’s supervisor, an assistant program manager from the DES/Child Protective Services and, up until this last Special Session, a member of the Foster Care Review Board. New legislation that passed during the fall 2003 Special Session, now mandates two FCRB volunteers to serve on the Removal Review Team.
The Removal Review Team assesses options other than continued out-of-home placement including in-home services to the family. The role of the Removal Review volunteer is dramatically different than that of the Foster Care Review Board volunteer, as questions being asked concern removal rather than long term case management issues.
Removal Review volunteers are also called to serve on Foster Home Transition Case Conferences. These conferences take place when a licensed foster parent disagrees with the removal of a child from his or her home and decides to request a review of the planned removal. New legislation that passed during the fall of 2003 Special Session also mandates that two FCRB volunteers serve on the Foster Home Transition Case Conferences.
There are currently 82 Removal Review Volunteers, many of whom also serve on the local Foster Care Review Boards. While Maricopa and Pima County volunteers only serve in their respective counties, the other county volunteers serve within the districts defined by Child Protective Services. Table 2 provides the breakdown of current Removal Review volunteers by district.
Table 2
NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS
District 1
(Maricopa)
29
District 2
(Pima)
14
District 3
(Apache, Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai)
14
District 4
(La Paz, Mohave, Yuma)
10
District 5
(Gila, Pinal)
7
District 6
(Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Santa Cruz)
8
Total
82
- 34 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Arizona’s Foster Care Review Board will celebrate it 25th Anniversary in February of 2004. One of the most memorable events of the anniversary will be the celebration of four volunteers who have served on the FCRB since its inception. The Foster Care Review Board program realizes that its volunteers and staff are the foundation of its success and works hard to retain them. While volunteering for an organization for a one or two-year term is very common, the FCRB program has been able to retain 10 percent (see Figure 2) of its volunteer base for ten or more years. The program actively seeks input from departing volunteers through exit survey forms. The survey form asks for feedback regarding the volunteer’s experience with the program, what they felt the program’s strengths were, as well as the program’s weaknesses. The survey also inquires about the reason the volunteer is leaving the program.
Figure 2 Active FCRB Volunteer Tenure in Years51%37%2%8%2%0 - 2 Years2 - 4 Years5 - 9 Years10 - 20 Years20+ Years
While there are a number of reasons volunteers resign, including transfers, change in employment, burnout, etc., the majority of the volunteers who resigned over the last four fiscal years cited the time commitment required of volunteers and personal reasons for their resignation. Of those who resigned, 24 percent did so as a result of the time commitment required and 17 percent due to personal reasons. Figure 3 reflects the total of responses that were obtained during the last four fiscal years.
- 35 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 3 Volunteer Exit Reasons11192412722231030151151436168181410701433839053161910614032721029291900711240%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%UnKnownTransferredTime CommitmentSystem BarriersRemoved by JudgeRelocatingPersonalOtherExpectations Not MetLack of InterestHealthDeceasedChange in EmploymentBurn OutPercentFY '00FY '01FY '02FY '03
The Foster Care Review Board volunteers are required per Arizona Revised Statute §8-515.01(D) and §8-515.04 to participate in training established by the State Board. The State Board believes that volunteers have a very important role and impact the lives of children and families. By keeping current with training requirements, volunteers are keeping abreast of relevant topics, expanding their knowledge of child welfare issues and are enhancing the program’s credibility in the child welfare community. Like every professional in the field, a volunteer’s continued education is essential in ensuring that they are at the forefront of the issues families and children are coping with and in turn, are contributing to the most effective review process possible.
- 36 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figures 4, 5 and 6 reflect the training hours that volunteers across the state obtained during the last four fiscal years. Statewide, FCRB volunteers obtained 1,524 hours of training in fiscal year 2000, 3,717 hours in 2001, 2,054 hours in 2002, and 2,921 of training hours in 2003.
Figure 4 7851,9231,0481,46625280440777002004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000Total Training HoursMaricopaPimaFiscal YearTraining Hours by County(popluation over 200,000)(Table 4)FY00FY01FY02FY03
- 37 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 5 105231155153109133558141143738117884741050100150200250Training HoursYavapaiCochiseMohaveYumaCountyTraining Hours / County (population between 200,000 and 120,000)(Table 5)FY00FY01FY02FY03
Figure 6 3278101035423897371984374110613671917262857111410201138101493123620020406080100120Training HoursPinalGrahamGilaCoconinoApacheSanta CruzNavajoGreenleeLa PazCountyTraining Hours by County(population less than 120,000)(Table 6)FY00FY01FY02FY03
- 38 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Arizona Revised Statutes §8-515.01 mandates that “Each board shall, to the maximum extent feasible, represent the various socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups of the county in which it serves.” In this vain, the program obtains demographical information from volunteers so that it is able to check its progress in this area. Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10 reflect the ethnicity, education, occupation and income of board members, respectively. This data is provided as a point-in-time query on currently active volunteers. It should be noted, however, that the data regarding education, occupation and income may be somewhat dated, as volunteers provide this information at the time they apply for the program, and are not required to provide updates. A change in policy effective January 1, 2005, will ask each board member, at the time of their reappointment, to update their demographics, so that more current data can be queried.
Figure 7 Board Member Ethnicityas of 3/1/2004(Table 7)85%6%6%2%1%Anglo Latino African-American Native-American Asian or PI - 39 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 8 Volunteer Educationas of 3/1/2004(Table 8)0%9%14%14%35%14%14%Grade School H.S. or GED Some College or TechAssociates Bachelor of ArtsMasters Doctoral
Figure 9 Volunteer Occupationas of 3/1/2004(Table 9)29%25%16%10%9%5%5%1%BusinessRetiredLegalHomemakerMedical / CounselingSelf EmployedOtherStudent
- 40 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 10 Volunteer Household Incomeas of 3/1/2004(Table 10)75%12%9%3%1%Over $40,000 $30,000 - 40,000 $20,000 - 30,000 $10,000 - 20,000 Under $10,000
At the end of fiscal year 2003, there were over 6,500 children statewide being reviewed by the Foster Care Review Board. The program tracks the number of children under review statewide on a monthly basis, as a predictor of when new boards need to be opened. This number is queried from the Foster Care Review Board program’s Dependent Children Automated Tracking System (DCATS) at the beginning of each month as a point-in-time reference. Table 3 reflects the point-in-time queries for both the number of children and cases being reviewed for fiscal year 2002 while Table 4 reflects the numbers for fiscal year 2003.
- 41 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Table 3 Fiscal Year 200225003500450055006500ChildrenCasesChildren609960575952596859495935582358265829588458535869Cases36513648357135893581355635083263547357235653605Jul'01Aug'01Sep'01Oct'01Nov'01Dec'01Jan'02Feb '02Mar'02Apr'02May'02Jun'02
Table 4 Fiscal Year 200325003500450055006500ChildrenCasesChildren586459205962604461546248633164256426667366886549Cases36243644369137263780383038773333927405040503978Jul '02Aug'02Sep'02Oct'02Nov '02Dec '02Jan '03Feb '03Mar '03Apr '03May '03Jun '03
The monthly queries over the last two fiscal years show a steady increase in both the number of children and the number of cases that are coming before the Foster Care Review Board. The program ended fiscal year 2003 with 450 more children and 327 more cases being reviewed than at the start of fiscal year 2002. These increases represent a 7 percent and 9 percent increase in children and cases, respectively.
- 42 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 11 reflects the number of children who were registered versus the number of children opened during each of the last four fiscal years. This data was queried for a date range.
Figure 11 29912619286727182980292440053667050010001500200025003000350040004500ChildrenFY00FY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearChildren Registered / Opened during Fiscal YearTable 11RegisteredOpened
Children who are classified as “registered” are those who are in out-of-home placement and whose case the Foster Care Review Board becomes aware of, generally this happens when a dependency petition is filed. The Foster Care Review Board “registers” these cases in the Dependent Children Automated Tracking System where they remain until there are either canceled or are ready to be scheduled for a review, at which time they are “opened”. A case can be canceled for a number of reasons, including because the child has been returned home or a dependency was dismissed. In fiscal year 2000, 87.5 percent of the cases that were registered were eventually opened, in fiscal year 2001, 94.8 percent of registered cases were also opened and 98 percent and 91.5 percent of registered cases were opened in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, respectively. Figure 12 reflects the number of cases opened versus those closed. There was an 86 percent closure rate in fiscal year 2000, a 115 percent closure rate in fiscal year 2001, and a 102 percent and 79 percent closure rate in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, respectively.
- 43 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 12 2619225627183139292429943667291505001000150020002500300035004000ChildrenFY00FY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearChildren Opened / Closed during the Fiscal YearTable 12Opened Closed
The following three Figures (13, 14 and 15) reflect the number of children who were considered to be Active, during the last four fiscal years (2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003). For the purpose of these figures, “Active”, refers to children whose cases have come to the attention of the Foster Care Review Board, are made Active and are scheduled for a Foster Care Review Board review. This number covers a date range (as opposed to a point-in-time query) and is always higher than the number of children actually reviewed, as some reviews are vacated because the court relieves the FCRB from reviewing a case for various reasons or because a child is returned home prior to the review. Figure 13 provides the total number of Active children during each fiscal year, while Figures 14 and 15 provide a break down of these numbers by gender and ethnicity.
- 44 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 13 9319917088999542850086008700880089009000910092009300940095009600ChildrenFY00FY01FY02FY03Fical YearFCRB Active Children(Table 13)
Figure 14 487344464816435447944105513344090100020003000400050006000ChildrenFY00FY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFCRB Active Children by Gender(Table 14)MaleFemale
- 45 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 15 446142454149444521812138201321732733454536021115102884779151662068382037534030428515518018318111211913913413115512811105001000100200025003000350040004500ChildrenAngloLatinoAnglo-LatinoAfrican-AmericanOther /UnknownNativeAmericanAnglo-African-AmericanLatino-African-AmericanLatino-Native-AmericanEthnicityFCRB Active Children by Ethnicity(Table 15)FY00FY01FY02FY03
Figures 16, 17 and 18 reflect the Active children by county, for the last four fiscal years.
- 46 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 16 26222735284230424997470342934512200025003000350040004500ChildrenPimaMaricopaFiscal YearFCRB Active Children / County (over 200,000 population)(Table 16)FY00FY01FY02FY03
Figure 17 303293328395268301283319226232262299218199208214200221188211050100150200250300350400ChildrenYavapaiPinalCochiseYumaMohaveCountyCRB Active Children / County (population 120,000 to 200,000)(Table 17)FY00FY01FY02FY03
- 47 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 18 1261351521771231119710410877768053564650477310010520161219611672768020406080100120140160180ChildrenNavajoCoconinoGilaApacheGrahmSanta CruzLaPazGreenleeCountyFCRB Active Children / County (population less than 120,000)(Table 18)FY00FY01FY02FY03
The reasons Foster Care Review Board cases have been closed over the last four fiscal years, are displayed in Figure 19. As stated earlier, the data presented in the Foster Care Review Board portion of this Dependency data-book, including that in Figure 19, is data extracted from the Dependent Children Automated Tracking System (DCATS) and refers only to those cases that came before, or at one time were scheduled to come before, the Foster Care Review Board. It is important to note that just because a case is closed for the Foster Care Review Board it may still be active for the court.
During each of the last four fiscal years, the majority of Foster Care Review Board cases that were closed, were closed as a result of adoption. Twenty six percent (26%) of the cases closed in fiscal year 2000 were closed as a result of adoption, 29.8 percent in fiscal year 2001, 29.7 percent in fiscal year 2002, and 26 percent in fiscal year 2003. Overall, 28 percent of the 11,304 cases that were closed were closed due to adoption.
A total of 24 percent of the cases closed during the last four fiscal years were closed because children were returned to their parents. Of the 24 percent, 14 percent were returned and the dependency action was closed while the other 10 percent were returned to their parents but the court chose to keep the dependency action open to monitor the case.
- 48 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Children turning 18 years of age and children being placed in a guardianship arrangement were the second top reasons why cases were closed over the last four fiscal years. Fifteen percent (15%) of the cases closed were as a result of guardianship and 15 percent were due to children turning 18 years of age.
Figure 19 59593889076935843644251333135745149427950749245627232023529128642029821913516118617301002003004005006007008009001000ChildrenAdotedTurned 18Returned toParent(Dismissed)GuardianshipReturned toParent(Open)FCRB RelievedOtherClosure ReasonChildren Closed By Reason(Table 19)FY00FY01FY02FY03
All Foster Care Review Boards are provided with a Findings and Determinations Guidebook. The guidebook is not a checklist, but rather is provided to volunteers and staff as a tool to assist when preparing for case reviews as well as when conducting the reviews.
The guidebook provides nine Findings that serve as the board’s formal response to issues that require review, as mandated by federal or state laws as well as child welfare agency and Foster Care Review Board program policy. Boards are required to answer yes, no, partial, unknown, not applicable, or insufficient information to each of the nine Findings. The Findings are listed in Table 5.
- 49 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Should the board determine that the appropriate response to any of the nine Findings is something other than “yes,” the board is required to consider specific elements to support their determination. Each finding is accompanied by a list of elements. Succinct comments can be made to the findings if the listed elements do not apply. Further discussion of a Finding or an element to a Finding, specific to the case and/or interested parties is completed as an Observation, Comment, Concern or Recommendation later in the report. This manner of capturing the board’s Findings and Determinations provides the means and mechanisms needed to track and query statistical data to ensure review boards are addressing federally mandated questions as well as aid in the Foster Care Review Board’s advocacy efforts for children in out-of-home care.
Table 5
FINDINGS
POSSIBLE DETERMINATIONS
Finding 1
Reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of the children from the home and that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the children.
Yes, No, Partial, Unknown
Finding 2
The Board makes a determination that continuation of the child(ren) in out-of-home placement is necessary.
Yes, No, Partial, Not Applicable, Unknown
Finding 3
The Board makes a determination that the placement(s) is/are safe, appropriate and least restrictive.
Yes, No, Partial, Not Applicable, Unknown
Finding 4
The Board makes a determination that there is an appropriate case plan(s) which outlines tasks for each participant in the case.
Yes, No, Partial, Insufficient Information
Finding 5
The Board makes a determination that each case participant is following the tasks outlined in the case plan.
Yes, No, Partial, Insufficient Information
Finding 6
The Board makes a determination that progress is being made toward removing the causes necessitating out- of-home placement.
Yes, No, Partial, Insufficient Information
Finding 7
In cases other than long term foster care or independent living, the Board makes a determination that a realistic target date for the completion of the permanency goals is established.
Yes, No, Partial, Not Applicable, Insufficient Information
Finding 8
The Board recommends that a judicial determination be made that reasonable efforts are being made by the Agency to implement the permanency plan for the child(ren).
Yes, No, Partial, Not Applicable, Insufficient Information
Finding 9
The child(ren)’s education is being implemented successfully.
Yes, No
- 50 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The following Figures (20-23) provide statistical data captured over the last three fiscal years regarding the Findings and Determinations. While the other data presented in this report dates back to fiscal year 2000, the Findings and Determinations data begins in fiscal year 2001. This change in data presentation is due, in part, to changes that occurred in fiscal year 2001 to the Findings and Determinations. During this time period, the Findings and Determinations were reduced from 11 to 8. In addition, extensive rewording was completed, to ensure the Findings and Determinations not only meet federal and state laws, but also provide succinct information to the Court. In fiscal year 2003, a ninth element was added to capture information regarding education for children in out-of-home care. Thus, this data is only presented for fiscal year 2003.
The data captured regarding Finding One: Reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of the child(ren) from the home and that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren), is presented in Figures 20–23. Figure 20 reflects the number of times Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of a child from their home and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. The table also reflects the number of times the Foster Care Review Boards determined that reasonable efforts were not made. The various types of negative findings (no, partial, inapplicable and unknown) have been totaled and have been included in the “no” columns of the table to ensure clarity and easy readability.
Figure 20 728043770372847563190010002000300040005000600070008000ReviewsFY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFinding #1 - Efforts To Prevent RemovalTable 20YesNo
- 51 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
When reviewing cases and considering Finding One, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that during fiscal year 2001, reasonable efforts to prevent removal of a child from his or her home were made 94 percent of the time. In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Foster Care Review boards determined that reasonable efforts to prevent removal of a child from his or her home were made 96 percent and 97.5 percent of the time, respectively. Again, it is important to note that a “partial” finding of reasonable efforts would be included in the “no” columns of the table.
While the number of times Foster Care Review Boards determined that reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of a child from their home were not made was minimal over the last three fiscal years, the reasons for those determinations are still tracked by the program and are included in this report. Figures 21–23 provide this data by fiscal year.
- 52 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 21 Finding #1 - Effort to Prevent Removal / FY01(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 2158%29%10%3%0%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5
Slice 1
The child(ren) are currently temporary wards of the Court. The initial dependency hearings have not been completed, and to date the Foster Care Review Board is unaware of any Judicial findings regarding reasonable efforts.
Slice 2
The Court made a finding that the removal of the child(ren) from the home was the result of a Judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren); however, the Court did NOT make a finding that reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement to prevent removal.
Slice 3
At the initial dependency hearing, to the Board's knowledge, the Court did NOT make a finding regarding whether or not reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal of the child(ren); and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
Slice 4
There is not a copy of the initial dependency minute entry in the Foster Care Review Board file. Therefore, the Board is unable to determine if the Court made a finding that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child(ren) from the home; and that continuation therein would have been contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
Slice 5
The Court made a finding that reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement to prevent removal of the child(ren) from the home; however, the Court has NOT made a Judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
- 53 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 22 Finding #1 - Effort To Prevent Removal / FY02(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 2268%17%11%3%1%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5
Slice 1
The child(ren) are currently temporary wards of the Court. The initial dependency hearings have not been completed, and to date the Foster Care Review Board is unaware of any Judicial findings regarding reasonable efforts.
Slice 2
The Court made a finding that the removal of the child(ren) from the home was the result of a Judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren); however, the Court did NOT make a finding that reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement to prevent removal.
Slice 3
At the initial dependency hearing, to the Board's knowledge, the Court did NOT make a finding regarding whether or not reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal of the child(ren); and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
Slice 4
There is not a copy of the initial dependency minute entry in the Foster Care Review Board file. Therefore, the Board is unable to determine if the Court made a finding that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child(ren) from the home; and that continuation therein would have been contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
Slice 5
The Court made a finding that reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement to prevent removal of the child(ren) from the home; however, the Court has NOT made a Judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
- 54 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 23 Finding #1 - Efforts to Prevent Removal / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 2350%44%3%2%1%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5
Slice 1
The child(ren) are currently temporary wards of the Court. The initial dependency hearings have not been completed, and to date the Foster Care Review Board is unaware of any Judicial findings regarding reasonable efforts.
Slice 2
The Court made a finding that the removal of the child(ren) from the home was the result of a Judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren); however, the Court did NOT make a finding that reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement to prevent removal.
Slice 3
At the initial dependency hearing, to the Board's knowledge, the Court did NOT make a finding regarding whether or not reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal of the child(ren); and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
Slice 4
There is not a copy of the initial dependency minute entry in the Foster Care Review Board file. Therefore, the Board is unable to determine if the Court made a finding that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child(ren) from the home; and that continuation therein would have been contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
Slice 5
The Court made a finding that reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement to prevent removal of the child(ren) from the home; however, the Court has NOT made a Judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child(ren).
- 55 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The following four Figures, 24–27, are associated to Finding Two: The Board makes a determination that continuation of the child(ren) in out-of-home placement is necessary. Figure 24 reflects the number of times Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that continuation of a child in out-of-home placement was necessary. Figure 24 also reflects the number of times the Foster Care Review Boards determined that it was not necessary for a child to continue in out-of-home placement. The various types of negative findings (no, partial, inapplicable and unknown) have been totaled and have been included in the “no” columns of the table to ensure clarity and easy readability.
Figure 24 729642169593627322431010002000300040005000600070008000ReviewsFY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFinding #2 - Out-Of-Home Placement Still Necessary?Table 24YesNo
When reviewing cases and considering Finding Two, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined during fiscal year 2001, that continuation of a child in out-of-home placement was necessary for 95 percent of the children reviewed. In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Foster Care Review Boards determined that continuation of a child in out-home-placement was necessary for 95 percent and 94 percent of the children reviewed each fiscal year, respectively.
- 56 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 25 Finding #2 - Out-of-Home Placement Necessary / FY01(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 2539%34%14%12%1%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5
Slice 1
The parent(s) or guardian(s) has achieved the case plan objectives to an extent that reunification is possible.
Slice 2
The causes or circumstances responsible for the child(ren) being placed in out-of-home care have been mitigated and reunification is possible.
Slice 3
The child(ren) has progressed sufficiently to consider returning him/her home.
Slice 4
The Board believes there is not imminent risk of abuse and/or neglect if the child(ren) is returned home.
Slice 5
The Agency is maintaining the child(ren) in out-of-home placement for reasons other than those stated in the dependency petition and the Board does not believe these reasons constitute a risk to the child(ren). - 57 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 26 Finding #2 - Out-of-home Placement Necessary / FY02(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 2639%37%17%7%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4
Slice 1
The causes or circumstances responsible for the child(ren) being placed in out-of-home care have been mitigated and reunification is possible.
Slice 2
The parent(s) or guardian(s) has achieved the case plan objectives to an extent that reunification is possible.
Slice 3
The child(ren) has progressed sufficiently to consider returning him/her home.
Slice 4
The Board believes there is not imminent risk of abuse and/or neglect if the child(ren) is returned home. - 58 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 27 Finding #2 - Out-of-Home Placement Still Necessary / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 2737%35%19%9%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4
Slice 1
The parent(s) or guardian(s) has achieved the case plan objectives to an extent that reunification is possible.
Slice 2
The causes or circumstances responsible for the child(ren) being placed in out-of-home care have been mitigated and reunification is possible.
Slice 3
The child(ren) has progressed sufficiently to consider returning him/her home.
Slice 4
The Board believes there is not imminent risk of abuse and/or neglect if the child(ren) is returned home.
The data captured regarding Finding Three: The Board makes a determination that the Placement(s) is/are safe, appropriate and least restrictive, is presented in Figures 28–31. Figure 28 reflects the number of times Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that a child’s placement was safe, appropriate and the least restrictive. Table 29 also reflects the number of times the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that a child’s placement was not safe, appropriate and least restrictive. The various types of negative findings (no, partial, inapplicable and unknown) have been totaled and have been included in the “no” column of the table to ensure clarity and easy readability.
- 59 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 28 668010376364957676199201000200030004000500060007000ReviewsFY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFinding #3 - Placement Appropriate / Least RestrictiveTable 28YesNo
When reviewing cases and considering Finding Three, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that in fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003, children had appropriate placements 87 percent of the time.
While the percentage of times the Foster Care Review Boards determined that children were not in appropriate placements was minimal over the last three fiscal years, the data is still presented in this report and can be found in Figures 29–31. - 60 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 29 Finding #3 - Placement Appropriate / FY01(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 2926%21%18%12%6%6%6%5%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8
Slice 1
The child(ren)is not in the most family-like setting possible.
Slice 2
Child is on runaway status.
Slice 3
This placement is not being considered as a long-term placement.
Slice 4
The current placement does not meet the significant needs of the child(ren).
Slice 5
The safety of the child(ren) is not assured in the current placement.
Slice 6
The Board has insufficient information to assess the appropriateness of the placement.
Slice 7
This is not a step toward permanency.
Slice 8
All others
- 61 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 30 Finding #3 - Placement Appropriate / FY02(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 3028%19%16%12%7%6%5%4%3%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9
Slice 1
The child(ren)is not in the most family-like setting possible.
Slice 2
Child is on runaway status.
Slice 3
This placement is not being considered as a long-term placement.
Slice 4
The current placement does not meet the significant needs of the child(ren).
Slice 5
The safety of the child(ren) is not assured in the current placement.
Slice 6
This is not a step toward permanency.
Slice 7
The Board has insufficient information to assess the appropriateness of the placement.
Slice 8
There have been unusual incident reports in the placement during the past six months.
Slice 9
All Others
- 62 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 31 Finding #3 - Placement Appropriate / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 3131%16%14%13%8%7%5%4%2%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9
Slice 1
The child(ren)is not in the most family-like setting possible.
Slice 2
Child is on runaway status.
Slice 3
This placement is not being considered as a long-term placement.
Slice 4
The current placement does not meet the significant needs of the child(ren).
Slice 5
The safety of the child(ren) is not assured in the current placement.
Slice 6
This is not a step toward permanency.
Slice 7
The Board has insufficient information to assess the appropriateness of the placement.
Slice 8
There have been unusual incident reports in the placement during the past six months.
Slice 9
All others
The data captured regarding Finding Four: The Board makes a determination that there is an appropriate case plan(s) which outlines tasks for each participant in the case is presented in Figures 32–35. Figure 32 reflects the number of times the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that there was an appropriate case plan that outlined tasks for each of the participants associated with the case. The figure also reflects the number of times the Foster Care Review Boards determined that an appropriate case plan for each person associated with the case did not exist. - 63 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 32 5320239751282193547622770100020003000400050006000ReviewsFY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFinding #4 - Appropriate Case Plan For Each PersonTable 32YesNo
When reviewing and considering Finding Four, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that during fiscal year 2001, an appropriate case plan existed in 69 percent of the cases. In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Foster Care Review Boards determined that appropriate case plans existed 70 percent and 71 percent of the time, respectively. Again, it is important to note that a “partial” finding would be included in the “no” column of the Figure. If the case manager gives a verbal update regarding the case plan to the board but does not submit a written case plan, a “partial” determination is made.
- 64 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 33 Finding #4 - Appropriate Case Plan / FY01(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 3326%19%14%10%10%6%4%4%3%1%3%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9Slice-10Slice-11
Slice 1
The permanency goal needs to change because the parents have failed to or cannot correct the problems leading to the placement.
Slice 2
While the Board does not have a copy, the case manager verbally identified the contents of the case plan. The Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan to the FCRB.
Slice 3
The permanency plan/goal is unrealistic.
Slice 4
The Board does not have documentation of the current case plan/goal, and case plan with objectives, and tasks. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan documentation to the FCRB.
Slice 5
The Board disagrees with the Agency's stated plan/goal.
Slice 6
A more permanent goal is possible.
Slice 7
The case plan is more than six months old. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager develop a current case plan and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 8
There is sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the parent-child relationship in the best interest of the child. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case plan be changed to adoption.
Slice 9
There is no written case plan. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager develop a written case plan and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 10
The case plan does not include all involved family members and/or involved household members.
Slice 11
All Others
- 65 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 34 Finding #4 - Appropriate Case Plan / FY02(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 3424%21%15%9%9%9%4%3%2%4%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9Slice-10
Slice 1
The permanency goal needs to change because the parents have failed to or cannot correct the problems leading to the placement.
Slice 2
While the Board does not have a copy, the case manager verbally identified the contents of the case plan. The Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan to the FCRB.
Slice 3
The permanency plan/goal is unrealistic.
Slice 4
The Board disagrees with the Agency's stated plan/goal.
Slice 5
A more permanent goal is possible.
Slice 6
The Board does not have documentation of the current case plan/goal, and case plan with objectives, and tasks. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan documentation to the FCRB.
Slice 7
There is sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the parent-child relationship in the best interest of the child. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case plan be changed to adoption.
Slice 8
The case plan is more than six months old. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager develop a current case plan and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 9
There is no written case plan. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager develop a written case plan and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 10
All Others
- 66 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 35 Finding #4 - Appropriate Case Plan / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 3529%22%15%10%7%5%4%3%2%3%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9Slice-10
Slice 1
The permanency goal needs to change because the parents have failed to or cannot correct the problems leading to the placement.
Slice 2
While the Board does not have a copy, the case manager verbally identified the contents of the case plan. The Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan to the FCRB.
Slice 3
The permanency plan/goal is unrealistic.
Slice 4
A more permanent goal is possible.
Slice 5
The Board disagrees with the Agency's stated plan/goal.
Slice 6
The Board does not have documentation of the current case plan/goal, and case plan with objectives, and tasks. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan documentation to the FCRB.
Slice 7
There is sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the parent-child relationship in the best interest of the child. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case plan be changed to adoption.
Slice 8
There is no written case plan. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager develop a written case plan and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 9
The case plan is more than six months old. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager develop a current case plan and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 10
All Others
- 67 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The data captured regarding Finding Five: The Board makes a determination that each case participant is following the tasks outlined in the case plan, is presented in Figures 36–39. Figure 36 reflects the number of times Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that case participants were following the tasks outlined in the case plan. Figure 36 also reflects the number of times the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that a case participant was not following the tasks outlined in the case plan. The various types of negative findings (no, partial, inapplicable and unknown) have been totaled and have been included in the “no” column of the table to ensure clarity and easy readability.
Figure 36 387838393595372638323921340034503500355036003650370037503800385039003950ReviewsFY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFinding #5 - Case Plan ComplianceTable 36YesNo
When reviewing cases and considering Finding Five, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that in fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003, case participants followed the tasks outlined in the case plan approximately 50 percent of the time. The data that details out the reasons the boards found that case participants were not in compliance can be found in the following three Figures 37–39.
- 68 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 37
Slice 1
The parent(s) is not in compliance with participation in services.
Slice 2
The parent(s) is not in compliance with required drug screens.
Slice 3
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing needed treatment or services.
Slice 4
The Board does not have a copy of the case plan and cannot assess compliance at this time. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan to the FCRB.
Slice 5
While the Board does not have a copy, the case manager verbally identified the contents of the case plan.
Slice 6
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing adequate housing.
Slice 7
The parent(s) is not in compliance with attending scheduled visits.
Slice 8
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing adequate employment.
Slice 9
The child is not in compliance with the requirement not to runaway from the placement.
Slice 10
The parent(s) is not in compliance with completing a needed psychological evaluation.
Slice 11
The child is not in compliance with following the rules of the placement.
Slice 12
The child is not in compliance with participation in services.
Slice 13
The parent(s) is not in compliance with parentaide services.
Slice 14
The parent(s) is not in compliance with participating in the staffing process.
Slice 15
The parent(s) is not in compliance with a requirement(s) of the case plan which is more fully explained in the "Observation/Comments/Concerns & Review Board Recommendations" section of this report.
Slice 16
The child is not in compliance with the terms of probation/parole.
Slice 17
The parent(s) is not in compliance with avoiding contact with a person who represents a risk to the child(ren).
Slice 18
The parent(s) is not in compliance with the terms of probation/parole.
Slice 19
The child is not in compliance with working toward a high school diploma/GED.
Slice 20
All others
Finding #5 - Case Plan Compliance / FY01
(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)
Table 37
22%
9%
9%
7%
7%
6%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%1%1%
6%
Slice-1
Slice-2
Slice-3
Slice-4
Slice-5
Slice-6
Slice-7
Slice-8
Slice-9
Slice-10
Slice-11
Slice-12
Slice-13
Slice-14
Slice-15
Slice-16
Slice-17
Slice-18
Slice-19
Slice-20
- 69 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 38 Finding #5 - Case Plan Compliance / FY02(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)(Table 38)20%10%9%7%6%6%5%5%4%4%3%3%3%15%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9Slice-10Slice-11Slice-12Slice-13Slice-14
Slice 1
The parent(s) is not in compliance with participation in services.
Slice 2
The parent(s) is not in compliance with required drug screens.
Slice 3
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing needed treatment or services.
Slice 4
While the Board does not have a copy, the case manager verbally identified the contents of the case plan.
Slice 5
The Board does not have a copy of the case plan and cannot assess compliance at this time. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan to the FCRB.
Slice 6
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing adequate housing.
Slice 7
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing adequate employment.
Slice 8
The parent(s) is not in compliance with attending scheduled visits.
Slice 9
The child is not in compliance with the requirement not to runaway from the placement.
Slice 10
The child is not in compliance with following the rules of the placement.
Slice 11
The parent(s) is not in compliance with parent aide services.
Slice 12
The parent(s) is not in compliance with completing a needed psychological evaluation.
Slice 13
The child is not in compliance with participation in services.
Slice 14
All others
- 70 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 39 Finding #5 Case Plan Compliance / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 3921%11%10%8%6%6%5%5%4%4%3%3%2%2%10%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9Slice-10Slice-11Slice-12Slice-13Slice-14Slice-15
Slice 1
The parent (s) is not in compliance with participation in services.
Slice 2
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing needed treatment or services.
Slice 2
The parent(s) is not in compliance with required drug screens.
Slice 4
While the board does not have a copy, the case manager verbally identified the contents of the case plan.
Slice 5
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing adequate employment.
Slice 6
The parent(s) is not in compliance with securing adequate housing.
Slice 7
The parent(s) is not in compliance with attending scheduled visits.
Slice 8
The Board does not have a copy of the case plan and cannot assess compliance at this time. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send a copy of the case plan to the FCRB.
Slice 9
The parent(s) is not in compliance with completing a needed psychological evaluation.
Slice 10
The parent(s) is not in compliance with parent aide services.
Slice 11
The child is not in compliance with the requirement not to runaway from the placement.
Slice 12
The child is not in compliance with following the rules of the placement.
Slice 13
The parent(s) is not in compliance with a requirement(s) of the case plan which is more fully explained in the "Observation/Comments/Concerns & Review Board Recommendations" section of this report.
Slice 14
The child is not in compliance with participation in services.
Slice 15
All others
- 71 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The data queried regarding Finding Six: The Board makes a determination that progress is being made toward removing the causes necessitating out-of-home placement, is presented in Figures 40–43. Figure 40 reflects the number times Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that progress was being made toward removing the causes that necessitated an out-of-home placement for each child in care. Figure 40 also identifies the number of times the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that progress was not being made toward removing the causes that necessitated an out-of-home placement for each child in care. Again, it is important to note that all variations of a negative finding (no, partial, inapplicable and unknown) have been totaled and have been included in the “no” column of the table to ensure clarity and easy readability.
Figure 40 3882383536693652383139223500355036003650370037503800385039003950ReviewsFY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFinding #6 - Progress Toward PermanencyTable 40YesNo
When reviewing cases and considering Finding Six, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that in fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003, progress was being made towards removing the causes that necessitated out-of-home placements in approximately 50 percent of the cases each year. The data that details out the reasons the boards found that progress was not being made to remove the causes that necessitated out-of-home placement in the other 50 percent of the cases can be found in the following three Figures 41–43. - 72 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 41 Finding #6 - Progress Toward Permanency / FY01(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 4132%18%10%8%7%5%4%4%3%2%2%5%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9Slice-10Slice-11Slice-12
Slice 1
The parent(s) is not participating in services.
Slice 2
Long term foster care /relative care is the only feasible plan at this time.
Slice 3
The attitude of the parent(s) toward the service is preventing progress.
Slice 4
The current plan/goal is not appropriate.
Slice 5
The ability of the parent(s) to benefit from services is limited.
Slice 6
The parent is incarcerated.
Slice 7
The child(ren) is not participating in services.
Slice 8
The Board does not have documentation that enables an assessment of progress. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send the FCRB a copy of the appropriate documentation.
Slice 9
Child is on runaway status.
Slice 10
Child is incarcerated.
Slice 11
The inability of the child(ren) to benefit from services is preventing progress.
Slice 12
All Others
- 73 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 42 Finding #6 - Progress Toward Permanency / FY02(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 4232%15%11%8%7%5%5%4%3%10%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9Slice-10
Slice 1
The parent(s) is not participating in services.
Slice 2
Long term foster care /relative care is the only feasible plan at this time.
Slice 3
The attitude of the parent(s) toward the service is preventing progress.
Slice 4
The current plan/goal is not appropriate.
Slice 5
The ability of the parent(s) to benefit from services is limited.
Slice 6
The child(ren) is not participating in services.
Slice 7
The parent is incarcerated.
Slice 8
The Board does not have documentation that enables an assessment of progress. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send the FCRB a copy of the appropriate documentation.
Slice 9
Child is on runaway status.
Slice 10
All Others
- 74 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 43 Finding #6 - Progress Toward Permanency / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 4338%14%12%7%6%6%3%3%3%2%6%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9Slice-10Slice-11
Slice 1
The parent(s) is not participating in services.
Slice 2
Long term foster care /relative care is the only feasible plan at this time.
Slice 3
The attitude of the parent(s) toward the service is preventing progress.
Slice 4
The ability of the parent(s) to benefit from services is limited.
Slice 5
The parent is incarcerated.
Slice 6
The current plan/goal is not appropriate.
Slice 7
The child(ren) is not participating in services.
Slice 8
The Board does not have documentation that enables an assessment of progress. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager send the FCRB a copy of the appropriate documentation.
Slice 9
Child is on runaway status.
Slice 10
Child is incarcerated.
Slice 11
All Others
- 75 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
The data captured during the last three fiscal years regarding Finding Seven: In cases other than long term foster care or independent living, the Board makes a determination that a REALISTIC target date for the completion of the permanency goal is established, is presented in Figures 44–47. Figure 44 reflects the number of times Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that a realistic target date for completion of the permanency goal was established for the case of each child the board reviewed during fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Figure 44 also reflects the number of times Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that a realistic target date for completing the permanency goal was not established for the case of each child the board reviewed. The various types of negative findings (no, partial, inapplicable and unknown) have been totaled and have been included in the “no” column of the table to ensure clarity and easy readability.
Figure 44 2402531521395182235853950100020003000400050006000ReviewsFY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFinding #7 - Realistic Target DateTable 44YesNo
When reviewing cases and considering Finding Seven, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that in fiscal year 2001, only 31 percent of the children’s cases reviewed had a realistic target date established. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that only 29 percent and 30 percent, respectively, of the children’s cases reviewed had a realistic target date established.
- 76 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
While the data queried reveals that over the last three fiscal years, 69 to 71 percent of the children’s cases reviewed did not have realistic target dates established, it is important to keep in mind that all negative findings (no, partial, unknown and inapplicable) were totaled in the “no” column.
Figure 45 Finding #7 - Realistic Target Date / FY01(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 4547%35%9%8%1%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5
Slice 1
The target date is unrealistic for the requirements of the case plan.
Slice 2
The target date is unrealistic due to the lack of progress toward the case plan.
Slice 3
To the Board's knowledge no case plan documentation of the case plan target date exists. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager document the case plan target date and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 4
There is no established target date. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager document the case plan target date and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 5
The target date is unrealistic due to the lack of service provision. - 77 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 46 Finding #7 - Realistic Target Date / FY02(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 4646%39%8%6%1%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5
Slice 1
The target date is unrealistic for the requirements of the case plan.
Slice 2
The target date is unrealistic due to the lack of progress toward the case plan.
Slice 3
To the Board's knowledge no case plan documentation of the case plan target date exists. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager document the case plan target date and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 4
There is no established target date. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager document the case plan target date and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 5
The target date is unrealistic due to the lack of service provision. - 78 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 47 Finding #7 - Realistic Target Date / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 4755%34%6%5%0%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5
Slice 1
The target date is unrealistic for the requirements of the case plan.
Slice 2
The target date is unrealistic due to the lack of progress toward the case plan.
Slice 3
To the Board's knowledge no case plan documentation of the case plan target date exists. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager document the case plan target date and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 4
There is no established target date. Therefore, the Board recommends that the case manager document the case plan target date and send a copy to the FCRB.
Slice 5
The target date is unrealistic due to the lack of service provision.
The data captured over the last three fiscal years regarding Finding Eight: The Board recommends that a judicial determination be made that reasonable efforts are being made by the Agency to implement the permanency plan for the child(ren), is presented in Figures 48 – 51. Figure 48 reflects the number of times the boards recommended that the juvenile court judge assigned to the case make a determination that reasonable efforts were being made by the agency to implement the permanency plan for the case of each child the board reviewed. The various types of negative findings (no, partial, inapplicable and unknown) have been totaled and have been included in the “no” columns for each fiscal year.
- 79 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 48 741230571022197540213010002000300040005000600070008000ReviewsFY01FY02FY03Fiscal YearFinding #8 - Board Finds Reasonable EffortsTable 48YesNo
When reviewing the cases and considering Finding Eight, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that a judicial finding should be made that reasonable efforts were being made by the agency to implement the permanency plan for the children reviewed in 96, 97 and 97 percent of the cases during fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively.
While the percentage of times the Foster Care Review Board determined that a judicial determination should be made that reasonable efforts were not being made by the Agency to implement the permanency plan for the children being reviewed over the last three fiscal years was minimal, the data is presented and can be found in the following three Figures 49–51.
- 80 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 49 Finding #8 - Reasonable Efforts / FY01(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 4955%45%Slice-1Slice-2
Slice 1
The Board has insufficient information with which to make a recommendation regarding whether or not reasonable efforts are being made by the Agency to implement the permanency plan/goal for the child(ren).
Slice 2
The Board does not recommend the Court find that reasonable efforts have been made for the reasons cited in the above findings and/or cited in the "Observations/Comments/Concerns & Review Board Recommendations" section of this report. - 81 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 50 Finding #8 - Reasonable Efforts / FY02(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 5074%26%Slice-1Slice-2
Slice 1
The Board has insufficient information with which to make a recommendation regarding whether or not reasonable efforts are being made by the Agency to implement the permanency plan/goal for the child(ren).
Slice 2
The Board does not recommend the Court find that reasonable efforts have been made for the reasons cited in the above findings and/or cited in the "Observations/Comments/Concerns & Review Board Recommendations" section of this report. - 82 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 51 Finding #8 - Reasonable Efforts / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 5119%81%Slice-1Slice-2
Slice 1
The Board has insufficient information with which to make a recommendation regarding whether or not reasonable efforts are being made by the Agency to implement the permanency plan/goal for the child(ren).
Slice 2
The Board does not recommend the Court find that reasonable efforts have been made for the reasons cited in the above findings and/or cited in the "Observations/Comments/Concerns & Review Board Recommendations" section of this report.
Finding 9: The child(ren)’s education is being implemented successfully, was added to the Foster Care Review Board Findings and Determinations Guidebook in January 2003. Thus, the data presented in the following two Figures (52 and 53) reflects only the second half of fiscal year 2003.
During the second half of fiscal year 2003, the Foster Care Review Boards across the state determined that in 68 percent of the cases, the children’s educational needs were being implemented successfully.
- 83 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 52 29701394050010001500200025003000ReviewsFY03Fiscal Year (Partial Data Starting in January 2003)Finding #9 - Child's Education ImplementedTable 52YesNo
In the 32 percent of the cases that the Foster Care Review Board determined that the educational needs of a child were not being implemented successfully, the board determined 27 percent of the time that no one was in attendance at the review who could speak to the implementation of the child’s education. In 16 percent of the cases, the child was on runaway status and in 13 percent of the cases, the child was eligible for an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and did not have a current one.
The various other reasons the board determined that the educational needs of a child were not being implemented successfully include that the child was not attending school on a regular basis, the child was suspended from school and the child needed additional tutoring and are included in Figure 53.
- 84 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 53 Finding #9 - Child's Education / FY03(for Findings answered 'No', the breakdown of the reasons are as follows)Table 5327%16%13%11%9%6%4%4%10%Slice-1Slice-2Slice-3Slice-4Slice-5Slice-6Slice-7Slice-8Slice-9
Slice 1
No one in attendance at the review could speak to the implementation of the child(rens)'s education.
Slice 2
The child(ren) is/are on runaway.
Slice 3
The child(ren) may be eligible for an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and do not have a current IEP.
Slice 4
The child(ren) is/are not attending school on a regular basis.
Slice 5
The child(ren) is/are not completing appropriate tasks that will lead to a high school diploma or a General Equivalency Diploma (GED).
Slice 6
The child(ren) need(s) additional tutoring.
Slice 7
The child(ren) need(s) an early intervention assessment. (Only used for children up to the age of five years)
Slice 8
The child(ren)'s behavior at school has resulted in suspension.
Slice 9
All Others
As noted earlier, the Removal Review Team process was established in 2000. While there program began in July of that year, program staff tracked data related to the program manually. However, Removal Review data was automated in 2002 and making fiscal year 2003 data more easily accessible. Hence, the data presented in this report reflects Removal Review activity for fiscal year 2004 only.
- 85 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 54 reflects the number of removal reviews that were held in fiscal year 2003 as well as the number of children that were subject to removal during that time frame. Figures 55–57 provide the same data however; it is broken down by Child Protective Services districts, as explained earlier in Table 2.
Note: The Removal Review data is captured through data sheets completed by the Removal Review volunteers. Some volunteers did not provide their county information, which has resulted in an “unknown” category.
Figure 54 7414731276446953911358582431177015788020040060080010001200Reviews / ChildrenReviewsChildrenRemoval Reviews - DES District / FY03Table 54District IDistrict IIDistrict IIIDistrict IVDistrict VDistrict VIUnknown
- 86 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 55 7414731135858020040060080010001200Children / ReviewsReviewsChildrenRemoval Reviews / FY03(county population over 200,000)Table 55MaricopaPima
Figure 56 736837271431107146020406080100120140160Reviews / ChildrenReviewsChildrenRemoval Reviews / FY03(county population between 120,000 and 200,000)Table 56YavapaiCochiseYumaMohave
- 87 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
Figure 57 3931362018105430886155402515144300102030405060708090Reviews / ChildrenReviewsChildrenRemoval Reviews / FY03(county populations less than 120,000)Table 57UnknownNavajoPinalGreenleeCoconinoGilaApacheSanta CruzGrahamLa Paz
- 88 -
Dependent Children in the Arizona Court System
Fiscal Year 2003 􀂃􈌠 July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003
GLOSSARY
Abandonment The failure of a parent to provide reasonable support and to maintain regular contact with the child, including providing normal supervision, when such failure is accompanied by an intention on the part of the parent to permit such conditions to continue for any indefinite period of time in the future. Abandonment includes a judicial finding that a parent has made only minimal efforts to support and communicate with the child. Failure to maintain a normal parental relationship with the child without just cause for a period of 6 months constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment (ARS ' 8-201(I)).
Abuse Infliction or allowing of physical injury, impairment of bodily function or disfigurement, or the infliction of or allowing another person to cause serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or aggressive behavior and which emotional damage is diagnosed by a medical doctor or psychologist pursuant to ARS ' 8-821, and which is caused by the acts or omission of an individual having care, custody, and control of a child.
Addendum A report or information that is added to an initial report or information; a list or section consisting of added material.
Adjudication Hearing The trial stage at which the court determines whether allegations of dependency, abuse, or neglect concerning a child are sustained by the evidence and, if so, are legally sufficient to support state intervention on behalf of the child; provides the basis for state intervention into a family, as opposed to the disposition hearing which c