an overview georgia program improvement plan - Department of ...

permanency issues, but not labeling such hearing as a permanency hearing). Recent judicial training emphasized that permanency
hearings must be done and documented. A follow up study being conducted this summer and will look for improvement. The 4 th Child
Placement Conference is scheduled for November 2003.
4 th Quarter Federal Response: This step is noted to be achieved based on completed trainings again. However, the measurable
benchmark is that timely permanency hearings (PHs) will occur for each child. 3 rd QR (where the action step is noted as being
achieved) shows that courts are not conducting PHs on a timely basis nor are they properly documenting these hearings. The step
cannot be achieved unless each child has timely PHs…according to the action step and benchmark. The State needs to continue to
monitor this action step.
5 th Quarter Report: The Court Improvement Project (CIP) has done another review and is preparing another report based on that data
which includes whether and when permanency hearings are done. CIP will have the report completed by the next quarter. A draft
document is attached, but it is not ready for public distribution. CIP also has the capacity built within the CPRS to mark when the
permanency hearing is occurring, however that field is rarely completed, so we cannot produce a good report. We will seek better
ways to collect data on this action step and benchmark by next quarter's report.
5 th Quarter DOCUMENTATION:
Draft - Summer Assessment Review 2003 - A Snapshot of Juvenile Court Performance in Child Deprivation Cases and
Recommendations for Continued Improvement.
6 th Quarter Report: Efforts continued in monitoring the achievement of this benchmark. However, as reported in the 3 rd Quarter,
documentation of a “permanency hearing” per se, is not always present in the court file and/or is not clearly labeled as such. When the
Court Improvement Project (CIP) conducted its 2003 case file review, the file documents did not clarify whether the hearing was just a
review (extension of custody at 12 months) or when held, if the hearing also reflected a “permanency hearing” phase. It was estimated
that only ½ of the cases had a distinct hearing that was referred to in the court file as a “permanency hearing.” Since there appears to
be an issue with how such hearings are documented as “permanency hearings,” it is our next step to recommend that judges adopt the
permanency hearing model order. It is specifically labeled and provides findings for the hearing. Thus, when the court case files are
sampled, the measurement will more accurately reflect the timeliness and occurrence of permanency hearings.
6 th Quarter Federal Response: D6: It is concerning that the State does not yet have the ability to accurately assess whether or not
permanency hearings are occurring for children as mandated by ASFA.
7 th Quarter Report: The State shares the federal concern that permanency hearings are not being accurately tracked and monitored
via court files reviewed by the Court Improvement Project (CIP). Efforts continue to randomly review court files. An instrument has
been developed for courts to self-report @ http://www.objectresourcegroup.com/cpp/cpp.html. The CIP is also conducting interviews
of judges around the state regarding permanency hearings. Also, a model order for a permanency hearing (developed by a group of
Safe Futures – A Plan for Program Improvement
Georgia Department of Human Resources
November, 2004 Quarter 8 - Work Plan D Page 9