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

Georgia Juvenile Court Judges) is available for downloading via the CPRS website. The model order was also distributed statewide
by email to the Georgia Juvenile Court Judges list serv. The State believes that these efforts along with continued training at the biannual
Georgia judicial conferences will influence that permanency hearings will take place in every court and be meaningful. The
State recognizes that even if the court files do not contain accurate documentation that “permanency hearings” (see terminology issue
with respect to “motions to extend” hearings), the E & R Review does require this item in its standard desk review of case records.
8 th Quarter Report: Achieved. Per ACF 7 th quarter request: The action step has been achieved based on the fact that the annual cross
trainings have occurred and are documented. At the time of the on-site CFSR, it was found that permanency hearings were held in
71.4 % of the cases and that the permanency goal was cited as strength. Based on quantitative desk reviews of counties for the period
of October 2003 through September 2004, 76.58% of case files had timely permanency hearings.
While the state is not meeting the 100% standard of conducting timely permanency hearings, the reasons can be identified; e.g.,
frequent continuances by the court, inadequate tracking systems for counties to determine when to file, heavy court dockets which
delay the scheduling of timely hearings, etc. There are a number of on-going activities in place for improving results including
continued education, creating a standard court file, continued monitoring through the CIP, etc.
During the summer of 2004, the CIP did another file review of 10 selected juvenile court judges and had 15 courts do court file self
reporting. The CIP used the same court file review instrument that has been in place for the past two years and made a part of the 5 th
quarter documentation. This past summer review of court files showed improvement in the recording of permanency hearing orders.
Nearly all the court orders reviewed were labeled "motion to extend/permanency" hearing. There continues to be room for
improvement on a few older orders and cases. We would also prefer that hearings no be called "motion to extend", but simply
permanency hearings. The dual labeled orders did show that permanency issues for the children were being addressed. The CIP is
currently working with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges to write a report of the 2004 findings. Telephone
surveys of judges completed this past summer revealed that they know about the legal requirement to hold permanency hearings. The
judges self reported that they are holding permanency hearings for every child. The CIP also released updated model court orders and
the Juvenile Court leadership has been urging judges to use these orders during educational seminars. Finally, the CIP has met with
the leadership of the juvenile court clerks to present the findings of the past summer reviews and ask for their help in creating a
standard court file. The CIP staff are scheduled to do a presentation for the Annual Child Placement Conference on November 19 th
which will include a request for suggestions on improving court files for children.
Responsibility for assuring that permanency hearings are indeed taking place for every child rests squarely with the state courts.
While CIP has no direct authority to make state courts comply with this requirement, the CIP will continue to press for improvement
and education on this and other ASFA requirements. The attached Power Point document "Planning for Permanency Through
Effective Case Plans" is an example of the continued CIP and juvenile court judges training collaboration on permanency planning.
Safe Futures – A Plan for Program Improvement
Georgia Department of Human Resources
November, 2004 Quarter 8 - Work Plan D Page 10