1. Youth Engagement in Court Perspectives from Two States

2. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

3. Background The ABA Center on Children and the Law has long had a project that worked to include children in court. The youth had consistently addressed the concerns a lot of people had about including youth with a general theme that not having youth in court was problematic, even traumatic. But that was anecdotal. There was not a lot of research on child/youth attendance or engagement in dependency court proceedings.

4. Background We helped develop a technical assistance bulletin and a guide on evaluating youth court engagement projects. TA Bulletin (2012) www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/CIC_FINAL.pdf www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/CIC_FINAL.pdf Evaluation Guide (2013) www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/children_i n_court_programs_final.pdf

5. One of the few studies looked at how attendance at review hearings was harmful or beneficial children/youth ages 8 to 18. Approximately half the children in the study attended court. Surveys Interviews Court Observation Around 100 kids total. All were interviewed (attended & did not attend) Weisz, V., et. al., Children’s participation in foster care hearings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(4): 267-272 (2011). Background

6. They found... -Anxiety levels for children were overall low -They were even lower for those that attended court after the hearings -Children who attended court viewed the judgments are more fair -Children who attended had a better understanding of their case plans, especially older youth Weisz, V., et. al., Children’s participation in foster care hearings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(4): 267-272 (2011). Background

7. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

8. A Youth’s Perspective Your experiences What about common concerns? – Court will be upsetting – Court is not child friendly – They will miss school – Seeing people in court may be difficult – Judge may not do what the child wants

9. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

10. Issue Identification How did your states decide improving youth engagement in court should be a focus? What did you do to explore the problem?

11. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

12. Kansas Interventions 3 counties – large, rural, frontier Youth 12+ Youth friendly notices Judges use benchcards & encourage youth to attend Youth court report Youth Calendar (guides on court and court processes) GAL training Peer to Peer training (by and for youth) Modified court orders

13. New Jersey Interventions 3 counties – large, medium, small All ages Site visits to each county Local implementation teams Training for all stakeholders Law Guardian toolkits Modified court orders

14. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

15. Data Collection In both states looking at: – How children feel about process Emotionally Reflections on due process – How professionals think presence affected process Case planning Well-being information in court Not as much long-term outcome data – Very challenging to eliminate other variables

16. Kansas Data Collection Judicial surveys Court observations by CASA Youth surveys Court order data Pre & Post data periods

17. New Jersey Data Collection Surveys of all stakeholders after court Monthly surveys of professionals Court order data On-going data collection

18. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

19. Kansas Results Judge Surveys: Do you think the young person was prepared for the court hearing? N = 31; 44

20. Kansas Results Judge Surveys: Did the youth answer questions you had about ______? (Yes) n = 31, 45

21. Kansas Results Judge Surveys: Compared to just reading the written reports, did you find out more information from the young person about (list of topics): 20132014 Average - Yes39%51% n = 29; 43 Did you observe anything about the youth that was not reflected in the reports to the court? 20132014 Yes29%64% n = 31; 44

22. Kansas Results Judge Surveys: Did the youth being present impact your decision making? 20132014 Yes71%81% n = 31; 43

23. Kansas Results Court Observations: Most of the observation form items detailed the judge’s interactions with the youth. N= 13; 38 These included topics such as placements & visitation and Actions such as avoiding acronyms & encouraging the youth to attend the next hearing. Overall there was an increase from 38% to 61% of these discussions/actions from 2013 to 2014.

24. Kansas Results Court Observations: Some discussion/action examples:

25. Kansas Results Judge Surveys: Overall, how engaged would you rate the young person? N= 31; 45

26. Kansas Results Youth Surveys: Youth survey response rate was very low post. Too low to do meaningful data analysis. What did we learn? Very hard to reach youth by phone and get them to complete surveys days after court. Future plans to survey youth immediately after court.

27. New Jersey Results Two types of surveys professional and youth. A total of 301 attorneys, 116 judges, 75 caseworkers, 24 CASA Case Supervisors, 21 Parents/Resource Parents, 9 CASA volunteers, 3 volunteers, and 41 other professionals (N=597) and 134 youth completed surveys after court; 170 professionals also completed monthly surveys.

28. New Jersey Results Youth wanted to come to court even though some reported being anxious. Did you want to come to court today? N=110 Yes97% How do you feel right now? N= 117 Relaxed62% Nervous12% Neither26%

29. New Jersey Results They seemed well prepared. Youth pre surveys: Who spoke with you about court and what to expect? N=117

30. New Jersey Results In contrast to Kansas (12+), all ages of children have a right to attend court in New Jersey. Still, the vast majority could understand the process. Youth post surveys: Did the Youth Understand Questions from the Court? N=133

31. New Jersey Results Stakeholder surveys: Youth discussed their case plans, placements, and school the most during hearings. n=386

32. New Jersey Results Stakeholder surveys: There seemed to be fewer barriers to getting youth to court than anticipated. (only 13% reported barriers on daily surveys – n=578) But some practical barriers like transportation were persistent. A fair percentage of youth did not want to attend, but because surveys were done at court, we lack details as to why.

33. New Jersey Results The vast majority of youth felt the judges ‘heard them.’ 89% n=115. But to an open-ended question about what would happen after court, many youth recognized that they had an influence, but the judge had to weigh options.

34. New Jersey Results Overall, the vast majority thought court was good or very good. N=112

35. New Jersey Results But even though 19% of the youth had a neutral or negative experience… 97% said they were glad they came, and 99% said they would come to court again. N=111

36. New Jersey Results Stakeholder Surveys: The majority of professionals and others in court thought it was beneficial to have the child present. N=580 Significant numbers of those in the ‘no’ category were referring to younger children.

37. New Jersey Results Stakeholder Surveys: How did the child/youth’s presence benefit the court process? N=121

38. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

39. Judicial Perspective How has increasing youth presence and engagement changed court for you? – For the better? – For the worse? Has it changed the culture/climate in court? What about parental rights? Representation? What kinds of things do you learn more about when youth are in court?

40. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

41. Working with the Agency How have these efforts affected the child welfare agency? How has transportation been handled? Buy-in from stakeholders Cross-system training

42. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

43. Children’s Attorney Perspective How have these efforts affected the job of children's’ attorneys? What advice do you have for children’s attorneys who are – Part of a panel? – A organizational model? Do you think best interest v. expressed interest models make a difference in this context?

44. Outline Background A youth perspective Identification of issue Interventions Data collection What we learned Judicial perspective Working with the Agency Children’s Attorney perspective The future of these efforts

45. Future Efforts Update on pilot activities – New Jersey expansion state-wide What could/should further research look into?

46. Questions?

47. Presenter Information Lorraine Augostini – New Jersey Hon. Daniel Cahill – Kansas Kaysie Getty – Youth Mark Gleeson – Kansas Stephanie Petrillo - New Jersey Scott Trowbridge - ABA