U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Court Performance Measures 

in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

Key Measures 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

Laurie O. Robinson

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Jeff Slowikowski

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Justice Programs

Innovations • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the 

Community Capacity Development Office; the National Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims 

of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking (SMART).
Court Performance Measures in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases: 

Key Measures 

Victor E. Flango, Ph.D.

National Center for State Courts

Neal Kauder

VisualResearch, Inc. 

Original Printing December 2008

Second Printing April 2009

NCJ 223567
This publication was prepared under grant number 2003–JS–FX–K008 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of 

Justice, and grant number 90XW0008 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children’s 

Bureau. Points of view or opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of 

the funding agencies, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice or 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This information is in the public domain. Readers are encouraged to copy portions of the text which 

are not the property of copyright holders and share them, but please credit the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of 

Justice, and the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
Preface 

In ensuring the protection and welfare of children, the 

Federal Government has concentrated on three primary 

goals: safety, permanency, and well-being for abused 

and neglected children. The Government has led efforts 

to ensure that child welfare agencies, courts, and other 

stakeholders work together to achieve these worthy goals. 

In 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) further 

focused child welfare agencies and courts on system 

reforms organized around these goals. The ASFA also 

emphasized that courts play a crucial role in achieving 

positive outcomes for vulnerable children. 

The Federal Government recognizes that everyone involved 

in the protection of children is committed to the goals 

of safety, permanency, and well-being for every child. 

However, commitment to these goals is not enough. As 

stakeholders in whom the public has placed its trust, we 

must commit to a continuous process of improving and 

strengthening our dependency systems and cross-system 

supports. Performance measurement is only one step in 

that process, but it is a critical first step. To better serve 

and protect vulnerable children, we must first know how 

our current systems are doing. 

Two Federal agencies—the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau and the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)—are cosponsoring a 

broad-based effort to measure the progress of juvenile 

and family courts in addressing the needs of abused and 

neglected children. This effort models the Federal ideals 

of collaboration and cooperation. It blends information and 

experience from two key initiatives: the Children’s Bureau 

performance measurement project and OJJDP’s Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act (SANCA) project. Three 

of the Nation’s leading court reform organizations—the 

American Bar Association, the National Center for State 

Courts, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges—have provided technical support. 

The Toolkit for Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse 

and Neglect Cases is the result of this collaborative effort. 

The Toolkit provides practical, comprehensive guidance on 

how to undertake performance measurement and move 

toward more efficient and effective dependency court 

operations. Pilot tested in 12 diverse sites, the Toolkit

reflects a breadth and richness of experience that will 

make it useful for any juvenile or family court.

The Toolkit could not have been produced without the 

combined expertise and leadership of the 3 court reform 

organizations and the cooperation of the 12 pilot sites. 

Working together, all of these contributors demonstrated 

that performance measurement can be done in any court 

and that it is essential to improving how we address the 

needs of abused and neglected children.

About the Toolkit 


Performance Measurement: 

A Critical Need 

Developing objective and qualitative measurements of 

practice is essential to a court’s capacity to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of its operations and to sustain 

those improvements. Like child welfare agencies, juvenile 

and family courts must focus not only on the timeliness 

of case processing and decisionmaking, but also on the 

quality of the process and the outcomes resulting from the 

court’s efforts. 

Courts must focus on child safety by assessing their safety 

performance data and developing plans for improving the 

safety of children under their jurisdiction. Courts also must 

focus on ensuring secure, permanent homes for children in 

foster care and must improve their effectiveness in achieving permanency. In addition, courts need to determine 

how well they are protecting the rights of the children and 

adults who come before them. Finally, courts need to set 

aspirational performance goals in each of these areas— 

goals designed to focus efforts, motivate staff, evaluate 

achievements, and lead to better outcomes for children 

and families. 

Few courts currently have the capacity to effectively 

measure their performance in child abuse and neglect 

cases. Whereas for-profit businesses have long taken 

for granted the need for performance measurement, it is 

still a relatively new concept for the Nation’s courts. Yet, 

without this essential information, courts with jurisdiction 

over abuse and neglect cases cannot know what types of 

improvements they need to make and whether their efforts 

to improve are working. 

Performance measurement makes it possible for courts 

to diagnose and assess areas in need of improvement 

and review progress in those areas. In this process, courts 

build improvements from a baseline of current practices 

and then conduct regular reassessments as reforms are 

implemented. 

The purpose of the measures in the Toolkit for Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases is 

to help courts establish their baseline practices; diagnose 

what they need to improve; and use that information to 

make improvements, track their efforts, and identify, document, and replicate positive results. 

By capturing data for the 30 measures in the Toolkit, courts 

will be able to evaluate four areas of operation: child safety, 

child permanency, due process or fairness, and timeliness. 

u	Safety (Measures 1A and 1B). The goal of these two 

measures is to ensure that children are protected from 

abuse and neglect while under court jurisdiction. The 

performance outcome promoted by these measures is 

based on the principle of “first, do no harm.” Children 

should be protected from abuse and neglect, no child 

should be subject to maltreatment while in placement, 

and children should be safely maintained in their homes 

whenever possible and appropriate. 

u Permanency (Measures 2A–2E). The goal of these five 

measures is to ensure that children have permanency 

and stability in their living situations. The permanency 

measures are closely related to timeliness measures 

but also include additional considerations. With this 

category, courts assess whether children change 

placements, whether cases achieve permanent legal 

status, and whether children reenter foster care 

(a possible safety issue as well). The permanency 

measures encourage courts to examine the “bigger 

picture” of the court experience for the abused or 

neglected child. In using the permanency measures, 

a court will need to obtain information from partner 

agencies such as the State child welfare system or 

private providers who track children placed in foster 

care. 

u	Due Process (Measures 3A–3J). The goal of these 10 

measures is for the court to decide cases impartially 

and thoroughly based on evidence brought before it. 

Due process measures address the extent to which 

individuals coming before the court are provided basic 

protections and are treated fairly. 

u	Timeliness (Measures 4A–4M). The goal of these 

13 measures is to minimize the time from the 

filing of the petition or emergency removal order to 

permanency. Courts generally are most familiar with 

timeliness measures. These measures help courts 

identify areas where they are doing well and areas 
Key Measures
 

where improvement is needed. To ensure that courts 

can pinpoint specific stages of the hearing process 

in need of improvement, these measures must be 

comprehensive (applied to all stages of proceedings) 

and sufficiently detailed. 

None of the measures includes a standard or benchmark 

of performance. Rather, the measures suggest a base of 

experience from which to develop reasonable and achievable benchmarks. The measures are designed to help 

courts improve services to maltreated children and their 

families, and it is important for courts to measure their 

progress toward achieving that goal. The measures are 

intended to be part of a process of continuing improvement. They are also intended to be developmental; that is, 

the measures can be refined as more is learned about the 

factors associated with a model process for handling child 

abuse and neglect cases. 

The developers of the Toolkit expect courts to collaborate 

with child welfare agencies in applying these measures; 

for this reason, the court performance measures in the 

Toolkit are designed to be compatible with the Child 

and Family Services Review (CFSR) outcome measures 

developed for child welfare agencies. The Toolkit developers encourage courts to work with child welfare agencies 

to establish not only minimum acceptable standards of 

performance but also aspirational goals that challenge 

both stakeholders to improve even further. 

The national court performance measures also reinforce 

the goals of other current Federal reform programs and 

legislation, including the Court Improvement Program (CIP) 

and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). These initiatives recognize that courts, as well as State child welfare 

agencies, are crucial stakeholders in achieving positive 

outcomes for maltreated children who become involved in 

the child welfare system. Court performance has an impact 

on overall system performance in achieving safety and 

permanence for these children in a fair and timely manner. 

History of the Performance 

Measures 

The history of court performance measurement for child 

abuse and neglect cases began with a miniconference 

held in Scottsdale, AZ, on May 5, 1998. The miniconference 

was cosponsored by the Court Improvement Conference 

and the Conference of State Court Administrators’ Court 

Statistics Project Advisory Committee. Participants worked 

with the following resource materials: 

u	Trial court performance standards and measurement 

system (prepared by the National Center for State Courts 

(NCSC) and funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA)). These standards touched on five fundamental 

purposes of courts: access to justice; expediency and 

timeliness; equality, fairness, and integrity; independence 

and accountability; and public trust and confidence. 

Although general trial court standards could be applied 

to juvenile and family courts, miniconference participants 

perceived a need for measures and standards tailored 

specifically to child abuse and neglect cases. 

u	Draft sets of child abuse and neglect performance 

measures developed by the American Bar Association 

(ABA) Center on Children and the Law, NCSC, and 

Walter R. McDonald & Associates, with comments and 

suggestions from the National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). 

u	A set of measurement goals from the National CourtAppointed Special Advocates Association. 

u	Best practice recommendations for handling child abuse 

and neglect cases, outlined by NCJFCJ in ResouRCe 

GuideliNes: improving Court Practice in Child Abuse 

and Neglect Cases. 

u	Technical assistance bulletins on information 

management in child abuse and neglect cases and 

judicial workload assessment in dependency cases, 

developed by NCJFCJ. 

Miniconference participants summarized key performance 

measures for dependency courts in a consensus statement, which was then presented in the following forums: 

u	To participants in the ABA Summit on Unified Family 

Courts, May 1998. 

u	To child welfare professionals at the Permanency 

Partnership Forum, June 1998. 

u	To managers of statewide automated child welfare 

information systems at the conference “Continuing To 

Build the Future: Using Automation for Children and 

Families,” September 1998. 

u	To juvenile and family court judges at the NCJFCJ 

Annual Conference, July 1998. 

u	To judges, court administrators, and child welfare 

workers at “Improving Outcomes for Abused and 

Neglected Children,” a symposium sponsored by the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance and the David and Lucile 

Packard Foundation, June 2000. 

vi 
About the Toolkit 

In addition, Dr. Ying-Ying Yuan prepared a critique of the 

performance measures in a September 1999 report for 

the ABA entitled “Feasibility of Implementing Court SelfAssessment Measures for Dependency Cases.” 

The measures were then revised to reflect input from 

these sources, and the revisions were summarized by Dr. 

Victor E. Flango in an article entitled “Measuring Progress 

in Improving Court Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect 

Cases” (Family Court Review, Volume 39, pp.158–169, 

April 2001). 

In their present form, the court performance measures 

in the Toolkit grew out of the Attaining Permanency for 

Abused and Neglected Children Project, conducted jointly 

by the ABA Center on Children and the Law, NCSC, and 

NCJFCJ, with funding from the David and Lucile Packard 

Foundation. Over a 3-year period, these measures were 

pilot tested to determine their applicability in different 

types of courts with different measurement needs and data 

collection capabilities. The measures were also examined 

for compatibility with the CFSR outcome measures for 

child welfare agencies. One result of this effort was the 

2004 publication Building a Better Court: Measuring and 

improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. This publication described 

dependency court performance measures for safety, 

permanency, due process, and timeliness. It also outlined a 

process for assessing judicial workload that encompasses 

both on-the-bench and off-the-bench aspects of dependency work. 

The Children’s Bureau Project 

After publishing Building a Better Court, the ABA, NCSC, 

and NCJFCJ received funding from the Children’s Bureau 

of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to 

support efforts by courts to improve their handling of child 

abuse and neglect cases. The Children’s Bureau project 

provided targeted technical assistance to six sites: Charlotte, NC; Clackamas County, OR; Little Rock, AR; Minneapolis, MN; New Orleans, LA; and Omaha, NE. During this 

project, the partnering organizations were able to test and 

refine the court performance measures and data collection 

instruments at these sites. 

The Children’s Bureau project helped the six sites do the 

following: 

u	Use the performance measures outlined in Building 

a Better Court—compatible with Adoption and Foster 

Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and 

CFSR measures—to assess their performance in abuse 

and neglect cases. This included evaluating each site’s 

capacity to generate data for each of the performance 

measures. 

u	Examine judicial workloads to determine whether 

judges were able to spend enough time on child abuse 

and neglect cases to make timely and well-considered 

decisions in these cases. The partnering organizations 

disseminated information about and provided technical 

assistance in judicial workload assessment. 

u	Develop a court-specific strategic plan for using 

performance and workload data to achieve increased 

accountability and better court performance. 

A major goal of the Children’s Bureau project was to 

enhance the sites’ self-assessment capacity so they would 

be able to track and measure their own progress after their 

involvement in the project ended. This strengthened capacity also makes the sites better able to assess their ASFA 

compliance and CIP implementation. The project sought to 

enable project sites—and eventually all courts handling 

abuse and neglect cases—both to begin a process of 

continuing self-improvement and to help child welfare 

agencies determine the impact of court proceedings on 

achievement of CFSR outcomes. 

The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect 

Courts Act Project 

While the Children’s Bureau project was underway, the 

ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ received funding from the 

U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to help courts use 

automated management information systems to improve 

their performance in child abuse and neglect cases. The 

Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act (SANCA) 

project supported SANCA implementation in six States: 

Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, New Jersey, and Virginia. 

At each site, the SANCA project partners helped improve 

automated management information systems, implement performance measurement, develop case-tracking 

capabilities, and perform other management information 

system functions specifically for child abuse and neglect 

cases. The SANCA project provided this assistance through 

meetings of representatives from all SANCA sites, onsite 

training and technical assistance to each site, and offsite 

consultation. 

vii 
viii 

Key Measures
 

The SANCA project has not focused on improving court 

information systems as an end in itself. Rather, the focus 

has been on improving these systems in ways that will 

have the greatest positive impact on efforts to improve 

quality and timeliness in courts’ handling of abuse and 

neglect cases, to target reforms for court improvement 

efforts, and, ultimately, to improve the lives of abused and 

neglected children. 

The Toolkit Volumes 

All the aforementioned work has culminated in the production of the Toolkit for Court Performance Measures in Child 

Abuse and Neglect Cases. The Toolkit content is informed 

by the experiences of the Children’s Bureau and SANCA 

project sites. 

In addition to providing detailed guidance about court 

performance measures for child abuse and neglect cases, 

the Toolkit offers a general approach—a way of thinking— 

that can help dependency courts successfully implement 

a performance measurement process. Using the Toolkit, 

dependency courts can: 

u	Establish a baseline of current practice, diagnose what 

they need to improve, and use that information to build 

and track improvement efforts. 

u	Measure their progress in achieving the goals of safety, 

permanency, and well-being for children. 

u	Identify and document practices that are achieving 

positive results and replicate those results. 

The Toolkit includes the five volumes described below. 

Although each volume focuses on a particular audience, 

the Toolkit developers encourage everyone involved in 

court performance measurement for abuse and neglect 

cases to consult all the volumes for instruction, guidance, 

and inspiration. 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: Key Measures. This booklet outlines nine 

measures that the national partners have identified as 

key to determining court performance in child abuse and 

neglect cases. The booklet succinctly discusses the goal 

of each measure, data requirements, calculation and interpretation, and important related measures. It is an ideal 

tool for making the case for performance measurement to 

legislators, funders, and other high-level decisionmakers. 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: Implementation Guide. This step-by-step 

guide provides practical advice on how to set up a performance measurement team, assess capacity (determine 

which measures the team can currently implement and 

which measures will require capacity building), prioritize 

among measurement needs, plan data collection activities, and use the data generated through the performance 

measurement process to plan reforms. The implementation Guide uses examples from the Children’s Bureau and 

SANCA project sites to illustrate key points. It also highlights lessons learned from the sites about performance 

measurement approaches, as well as challenges and 

strategies for overcoming those challenges. Performance 

measurement teams and project managers will find the 

implementation Guide helpful as they plan and implement 

a performance measurement program and use results to 

drive improvement efforts. 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: Technical Guide. This comprehensive 

volume describes all 30 court performance measures for 

child abuse and neglect cases. The Technical Guide details 

the goals and purpose of each measure, discusses alternate or proxy measures, provides step-by-step specifications for calculating the measures, articulates what data 

elements need to be collected to produce each measure, 

suggests ways to present data effectively, and provides 

examples of how data obtained for each measure can be 

used in reform efforts. The Technical Guide also includes a 

detailed dictionary of technical terms and a flowchart outlining the typical child abuse and neglect hearing process. 

This volume is ideal for project managers and information 

technology (IT) staff tasked with obtaining performance 

measures. It will give them an indepth understanding of 

all the measures, what is needed to obtain data for the 

measures, and how to report findings in a way that is easily understood by various target audiences. 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: User’s Guide to Nonautomated Data 

Collection. Some courts may lack automated systems for 

gathering performance measurement data on abuse and 

neglect cases. Even if a court has adequate automation resources, certain performance measures (such as those assessing due process) may not be captured via automated 

systems. Furthermore, qualitative information can help to 

explain quantitative outcomes. This volume explains how to 

use nonautomated data collection methods—such as file 

review, court observation, interviews, and focus groups— 

to complete the performance measurement picture. 
About the Toolkit 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment. To improve their handling of abuse and neglect 

cases, courts need to be able to measure workloads as 

well as performance. Measuring judicial workloads makes 

it possible for courts to track existing resources and 

argue persuasively for additional resources when they 

are needed. This volume presents a method for obtaining 

data on judicial workloads in abuse and neglect cases 

which includes an assessment of what is required for best 

practice in these cases. Drawing on work from the pilot 

project sites, this volume discusses different approaches 

to workload analysis and provides tools for conducting 

analyses. 

Toolkit DVD and Web Site 

All Toolkit publications and related materials, such 

as presentations and instruments, are available 

on DVD and at www.courtsandchildren.org. 

ix 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank each and every one of the people who participated in the development, revision, and 

testing of these performance measures over the past 9 years and regret that they are too numerous to acknowledge 

individually. Special thanks to our project officers, Emily Cooke and Kristen Kracke, and to Susan Koenig, Mark Hardin, 

and Sophie Gatowski for their thorough review of this booklet and for helping to make the content consistent with 

both the Technical Guide and the implementation Guide. 

Victor E. Flango, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

Program Resource Development 

National Center for State Courts 

Neal Kauder 

President, VisualResearch, Inc. 

Contents

preface .................................................................................................................................................................iii

About the Toolkit............................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................xi

Building the Toolkit ..................................................................................................................................... 1

KEY Court PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Measure 1A: Child Safety While Under Court Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 6

Measure 1B: Child Safety After Release From Court Jurisdiction ............................................................. 8

Measure 2A: Achievement of Child Permanency..................................................................................... 10

Measure 3A: Number of Judges Per Case .............................................................................................. 12

Measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties.............................................................................................. 14

Measure 4A: Time to Permanent Placement............................................................................................ 16

Measure 4B: Time to Adjudication........................................................................................................... 18

Measure 4G: Time to First Permanency Hearing ..................................................................................... 20

Measure 4I: Time to Termination of Parental Rights................................................................................ 22

 Terms ............................................................................................................................................................. 24

Endnotes ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

Building the Toolkit
 

The Need for Performance 

Measurement 

Courts, child welfare agencies, and treatment providers 

are all involved in child abuse and neglect cases, although 

each has different responsibilities and plays a different 

role. Intervention in family life is most likely to be successful if all organizations involved coordinate their efforts. 

The public holds both courts and child welfare agencies 

accountable for the outcomes achieved for abused and 

neglected children. Even beyond the requirements of accountability to the public, courts and child welfare agencies 

should always ask themselves: 

u What is the most effective way to meet the needs of 

children and families? 

u Are families receiving the services they need? 

u Are services delivered appropriately and do they bring 

about desired outcomes? 

Performance measurement helps courts and child welfare 

agencies establish a baseline from which to measure the 

success of their improvement efforts and to identify areas 

where improvements are still necessary. Perceptions about 

the performance of courts, child welfare agencies, and 

treatment providers may be based on anecdotes and personal accounts and therefore may not accurately represent 

the way courts handle most dependency cases. The key 

set of performance measures proposed here is intended to: 

u Increase national awareness of the importance of court 

performance measurement in child welfare cases. 

u Improve data sharing between courts and child welfare 

agencies to enable performance measures to be 

generated. 

u Increase general understanding of court performance 

measures so that people have a more objective basis on 

which to evaluate performance. 

u Encourage the development of technology that would 

produce court performance measures as a part of 

regular case management system reports. 

The Federal Role 

In recent years, the Federal Government has increased 

their focus on achieving safety, permanency, and wellbeing for abused and neglected children. Through a 

combination of legislation, regulations, and executive 

policy guidance, the Federal Government has encouraged 

agencies, courts, and other stakeholders to work together 

to place children who are in the child welfare system into 

safe, permanent, and loving homes. 

Currently, the Federal Government works with State child 

welfare agencies to assess State performance through 

the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR), a process 

that examines child welfare agency outcomes. Each assessment produces a final report describing the State’s 

performance in dependency cases—keeping children safe, 

finding them permanent homes, and ensuring their wellbeing. To the extent that some aspects of child welfare 

agency performance are influenced by court actions, the 

assessment may also tangentially cover court actions. On 

the basis of the CFSR final report, the State develops a 

Program Improvement Plan (PIP) designed to improve child 

welfare and create better outcomes for children. 

The Federal Government works with State courts to 

improve their handling of child welfare cases through the 

Court Improvement Program (CIP). With the help of Federal 

grants provided through the CIP, courts must assess their 

own performance and develop and implement plans for 

improvement. Because courts and child welfare agencies 

both work to achieve positive outcomes for abused and 

neglected children, Federal legislation encourages them to 

work together to implement the State’s PIP. 

Dimensions of Court 

Performance 

Courts play a critical role in determining whether children 

will be removed from their homes, how long they will 

remain in foster care, and where they will permanently 

reside. To maintain the desired balance between court 

independence and accountability, courts need to identify 

what actions they should hold themselves responsible 
2 

Key Measures
 

for. Achieving safety and permanency is a shared goal 

of courts and social service agencies; they must work 

together to achieve and measure these outcomes. Process 

goals of timeliness and due process focus on how the 

outcome goals are achieved and the quality of services 

provided. Courts and social service agencies must work 

together to achieve these outcomes; however, they can be 

measured separately. 

Safety. Safety measures address the status of children 

while they are under the jurisdiction of the court and for 

some time thereafter. Courts strive to ensure that no child 

experiences abuse or neglect during placement and that 

children remain at home when the home provides a safe 

environment. 

Permanency. Permanency measures address whether 

abused and neglected children are placed in legally permanent, safe homes. Children achieve permanency when 

they are returned to their families without further court 

supervision, adopted, or placed with permanent guardians.1

 Courts may remove children from the home if they 

are in danger of harm or, alternatively, may remove the 

alleged perpetrator or place the child with members of the 

extended family.2 

Due process. Due process measures address the extent 

to which individuals coming before the court are being 

provided basic protections. The defining feature of a court 

is to decide cases impartially and thoroughly on the basis 

of evidence brought before them. Due process involves 

giving each family the individual attention necessary to 

make effective decisions for the child and assuring that 

families receive the protections required; this includes 

providing effective legal representation at all stages of 

the court process and making sure all parties have the 

opportunity to participate in court proceedings by notifying 

them of court dates and giving them an opportunity to 

testify. Courts must ensure that parents receive notice of 

the proceedings and a fair opportunity to present testimony 

and express their point of view. 

Timeliness. Timeliness measures are designed to help 

courts minimize the time required to bring litigation to a 

close and reduce the time that families must endure the 

ongoing stress of litigation and uncertainty regarding their 

future—both of which can have a detrimental impact on 

children.3 

Judicial timeliness may affect permanency. Children can 

be damaged by “foster care drift”—remaining too long in 

ASFA outcomes 

Safety outcomes: 

u Children are, first and foremost, protected 

from abuse and neglect. 

u Children are safely maintained in their 

homes whenever possible and appropriate. 

Permanency outcomes: 

u Children have permanency and stability in 

their living situations. 

u The continuity of family relationships and 

connections is preserved for children. 

Child and Family Well-Being outcomes: 

u Families have enhanced capacity to provide 

for their children’s needs. 

u Children receive appropriate services to 

meet their educational needs. 

u Children receive adequate services to meet 

their physical and mental health needs. 

For more information, see: www.acf.hhs.gov/ 

programs/opre/acf_perfplan/ann_per/apr2005/ 

apr_sg2_61a.html. 

“temporary” foster homes. Courts benefit from measures 

that help them determine how well they are meeting State 

and Federal guidelines for timely case processing. 

Well-being. Well-being refers to a child’s current and 

future welfare—most notably, the child’s educational 

achievement and mental and physical health. Although 

courts do not provide care for children directly, they must 

ensure that children are receiving proper care by inquiring 

about the children’s health, medical care, school attendance, and other indicators that they are physically and 

emotionally healthy. These indicators may signal dysfunctional family relationships that cause the family to return 

to court repeatedly. Because courts have not yet achieved 

consensus on the measures for child well-being for which 

they should be held accountable, this report does not 

include specific court measures related to child well-being, 

although such measures are needed. 
Building the Toolkit 

Use of Performance Measures 

The measures presented here will be refined as courts 

become more informed about best practices for handling 

of child abuse and neglect cases. Performance measures 

should be part of a continuing improvement process, with 

measures added, improved, modified, or rejected as courts 

learn more about their use. 

Performance measures will be accepted if used to reward 

improvement rather than to retroactively punish failure. 

They may also be accepted if used to improve services to 

maltreated children rather than to evaluate the performance of individual judges or child welfare administrators. 

3 

Key Court 

Performance Measures 
Measure 1a 

Child Safety While Under Court 

Jurisdiction 

Percentage of children who 

are abused or neglected while 

under court jurisdiction. 

What is the goal? Child safety. 

Children should remain safe from abuse and neglect while 

under court jurisdiction. 

This measure will help determine the extent to which children are safe when the court maintains supervision over 

the child. The court may have jurisdiction before the child 

enters foster care or after the court returns the child home 

while the case remains open. 

Courts share responsibility for child safety with child welfare agencies because courts: 

u	Set conditions for the child’s return home. 

u	Authorize the return home. 

u	Set conditions for agency supervision when the child 

remains at home or is returned home. 

u	Monitor the child’s placement. 

u	Decide when to end court-ordered supervision by 

closing the case. 

How is the measure calculated? 

u	Identify the total number of neglect cases closed over a 

certain period of time (e.g., 1 year). 

u	Examine the history of each case to determine the 

number of children maltreated by a caregiver during the 

time the case was open. 

u	Calculate the percentage of children maltreated while 

under court jurisdiction. 

u	Report both the raw numbers and the percentage of 

children maltreated. 

How is the measure interpreted? 

Individual courts need to compare their recurrence rates 

with those of other courts to establish a safety goal, 

because national standards for this measure have not been 

established. A court could determine a reasonable recurrence rate by comparing their data with data from similar 

courts or with a statewide average. 

What are related measures? 

Child and Family Services Reviews establish two safety 

measures: 

Recurrence rate. Percent of children who were victims of 

substantiated or indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the first 6 months of the reporting period who had been 

abused at another point in time. The national standard for 

this measure is 6.1 percent or less. 

Rate of child abuse while the child is in foster care. 

Percent of children in foster care subjected to substantiated or indicated abuse by a foster parent or facility staff 

member. The national standard for the measure is 0.57 

percent or less. 

What data are required to complete the 

measure? 

u	The date of the subsequent substantiated report of 

abuse or neglect. 

u	The date court jurisdiction ends or the petition is closed. 
Key Measures 

Sample 1A–1. Child Abuse and Neglect by Court, 2008: County A 

Court 

Number of Children in Court 

Jurisdiction 

Number of Children With 

Subsequent Maltreatment Percentage 

1 42 2 4.9% 

2 22 2 9.1% 

3 7 0 0.0% 

4 6 1 16.7% 

County Total 77 11 7.7% 

Sample 1A–2. Child Abuse and Neglect by County, 2008 

County 

Number of Children in Court 

Jurisdiction 

Number of Children With 

Subsequent Maltreatment Percentage 

A 77 11 7.7% 

B 49 4 8.2% 

C 30 5 16.7% 

D 11 4 5.2% 

State Total 233 24 9.5% 

7 

Sample 1A–3. Statewide Trends in Child Abuse and Neglect, 2003–2008

10% 9.5%

5%

0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

8.5%

9.0%

8.0% 7.0% 8.0%

Year 

 Once statewide results have been obtained they can be examined over a number of years and compared to other practicing States. 

Percentage of Children in Court Jurisdiction 

With Subsequent Maltreatment 
Measure 1B 

Child Safety After Release From 

Court Jurisdiction 

Percentage of children who 

are abused or neglected within 

12 months after the case is 

closed following a permanent 

placement. 

What is the goal? Child safety. 

Children must be safe from abuse and neglect after court 

jurisdiction ends. This measure determines children’s 

safety after courts have closed the cases. 

Courts share responsibility for child safety with child welfare agencies because courts: 

u	Set conditions for the child’s return home. 

u	Authorize the return home. 

u	Set conditions for agency supervision when the child 

remains at home or is returned home. 

u	Monitor the child’s placement. 

u	Decide when to end court-ordered supervision by 

closing the case. 

How is the measure calculated? 

u	Select cases that were closed up to 1 year before the 

desired reporting period. This allows sufficient time to 

calculate the percentage of children maltreated in the 

12 months following the end of court jurisdiction.4 

u	Examine the historical records of all cases closed in a 

certain year to determine the total number of children 

who returned to court and the number of children 

involved in substantiated incidents of neglect that 

occurred within a year after court jurisdiction ended. 

u	From these data, calculate the percentage of children 

who were maltreated within 12 months after court 

jurisdiction ended. 

u	Report both the raw numbers and the percentages 

of children neglected. If the reasons for case closure 

are available, courts may wish to analyze whether 

recurrence was related to the reason(s) the case was 

closed. 

How is the measure interpreted? 

Individual courts need to compare their recurrence rates 

with those of other courts to establish a safety goal, 

because national standards for this measure have not been 

established. A court could determine a reasonable recurrence rate by comparing its data with data from similar 

courts or with a statewide average. 

What data are required to complete 

the measure? 

u	The date the court jurisdiction ended or the original 

petition was closed. 

u	The reason the court jurisdiction ended or the petition 

was closed (e.g., adoption, legal guardianship, 

reunification). 

u	The date of filing the new petition alleging abuse or 

neglect following case closure. 
Key Measures 

Sample 1B–1. Percent of Children Abused or Maltreated After Court Jurisdiction Ends, 

Cases Closed in 2006: Statewide 

Children With 

Cases Closed 

Number of Children 

Maltreated Within 

12 Months of 

County in 2006 Case Closure Percentage 

A 1,000 150 

5.7%

10%

15%

12.7%

12%

B 300 38 

C 250 30 

D 790 45 

State Total 15,000 1,500 

Statewide Average = 10% 

9 
Measure 2a Achievement of Child Permanency
 

Percentage of children in 

foster care who reach legal 

permanency by reunification, 

adoption, or legal guardianship. 

What is the goal? Permanency. 

“Legal permanency” means that a permanent and secure 

legal relationship has been established between the adult 

caregiver and the child. Permanency is achieved when 

children are reunited with their families without further 

court supervision, are adopted, or are placed with permanent guardians.5 

This measure evaluates the shared success of the courts 

and child welfare agencies in achieving legal permanency 

for the children. The courts share responsibility for ensuring permanency because they decide when children will 

be permanently placed and oversee case planning and 

progress during the life of the case. 

How is the measure calculated? 

u	Determine the reasons for case closure. 

u	Select cases closed within a given time period (e.g., 1 

year) and identify the number of children involved in 

each case. 

u	Sort the cases according to reason for case closure and 

record the number of children within each category, 

including children who did not achieve permanency.6 

u	Determine the percentage of children who reached 

permanency by reunification, adoption, or guardianship 

by comparing these numbers with the total number of 

children whose cases were closed during the selected 

time frame. 

u	Report both the raw numbers and the percentage of 

children who did and did not achieve permanency. 

How is the measure interpreted? 

Legal permanency helps ensure that former foster children 

grow up in stable and secure homes. This measure shows 

whether courts and child welfare agencies have successfully achieved permanency. It also shows how permanency 

was achieved (which encourages successful policies and 

practices) and how it was not achieved (which encourages 

stronger efforts). 

What are related measures? 

The percentage of children discharged from foster care to 

a permanent home. 

What data are required to complete 

the measure? 

u	Foster care flag = “yes.” 

u	The date of case closure. 

u	The reason for case closure (e.g., reunification, legal 

guardianship, adoption, or reason that a child failed to 

achieve permanency). 
Key Measures 

Sample 2A–1. Reason for Achievement and Nonachievement of Permanency, 2007: Statewide 

Achieved Permanency Cases Closed in 2007 

Reunification 2,850 

Adoption 850 

Guardianship 250 

Did Not Achieve Permanency 

Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) 750 

Age of Majority Reached 250 

Other 50 

Total 5,000 

Sample 2A–2. How Permanency Was Achieved 

Guardianship 

Adoption 

Other 

Age of Majority Reached 17% 

5% 

15% 

57% 

5% 

1% 

APPLA 

Reunification 

Achieved Permanency 

Did Not Achieve Permanency 

11 
Measure 3a Number of Judges Per Case
 

Percentage of child abuse and 

neglect cases in which the 

same judicial officer presides 

over all hearings. 

What is the goal? Due process. 

To help courts evaluate how often entire child abuse and 

neglect cases are heard by one judge—an important factor 

that affects the quality of a judge’s work. Some families 

come to court with some regularity and the presence of a 

single judicial officer promotes responsibility and consistency of decisions. Although a good information management system should present basic information to any judge 

hearing a case, a single judicial officer will have the case 

history and experience with the family that promotes better 

decisions. 

How is the measure calculated? 

u	Identify all hearings by the name of the judicial officer 

who presided over the hearing, using a random sample 

of all cases closed in the selected time frame. 

u	Compare the judicial officer who presided over the first 

hearing with the name of judicial officers at subsequent 

hearings. 

u	Sort cases according to whether all hearings were 

conducted by one, two, three, or more judicial officers. 

What data are required to complete the 

measure? 

u	The hearing dates. 

u	The presiding judicial officer at each hearing. 

u	The date of case closure. 
One Judge

Two Judges

Three or More

Judges 

Key Measures 

Sample 3A–1. Number of Judicial Officers Per Case, 2008: Court A 

75% 

0% 

25% 

50% 

75% 

Percentage of Cases 

20 % 

5% 

Sample 3A–2. Number of Judges Per Case, 2006–2008: Court A 

80%

2006 2007 2008 

19% 

22% 20% 

73% 72% 75% 

8% 6% 5% 

Percentage of Cases 

60%

40%

20%

0%

One Judge Two Judges Three or More Judges 

13 
Measure 3B Service of Process to Parties
 

Percentage of child abuse and 

neglect cases in which both 

parents receive written service 

of process of the original 

petition. 

What is the goal? Due process. 

The purpose of this measure is to help courts give both 

parents (or legal guardians) proper written notice of child 

abuse and neglect cases. Written notice gives parents 

the opportunity to appear in court and be heard and 

documents the court’s adherence to due process. Giving 

parents a fair chance to speak results in better decisions 

for children. 

How is the measure calculated? 

u	Determine which parties were entitled to service of 

process. Parents and legal guardians or custodians may 

all need service of process.7 

u	Select and count the number of cases in which all 

parties involved in the case received service of process. 

u	Report both the raw numbers and the percentages. 

How is the measure interpreted? 

Courts must determine what percentage of parties who 

should be served actually receives service of process on 

the original petition. This interpretation requires determining which parties are entitled to service of process. 

In cases where legal guardians or custodians are not 

involved, the two parents are the “both parties” requiring service. In cases where legal guardians are involved, 

they must also receive service of process. To determine 

who is not receiving service of process, consider what 

percentage of parents and guardians entitled to service of 

process actually received service. This percentage will enable courts to determine if any parties consistently do not 

receive notice and to investigate the reasons for this lack 

of service of process. 

What are related measures? 

The percentage of cases in which courts have documentation that all parties received notice in advance of the next 

hearing. 

What data are required to complete the 

measure? 

u	The adjudication date. 

u	The party identifier. 

u	The types of parties entitled to service of process (e.g., 

parents, legal guardians). 

u	The date of the service of process of the original 

petition. 

u	The date of case closure. 
C 

Key Measures 

Sample 3B–1. Parties Receiving Service of Process, Cases Closed in 2004–2008: Court X 

100% 98% 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

90% 90% 

95% 

82% 85% 

80% 83% 82% 

48% 

42% 

60% 

55% 

50%

Percentage Receiving Service of Process 100%

75%

50%

25%

0%

Year 

Mothers Legal Guardians Fathers 

Sample 3B–2. Percentage of Cases in Which Parties Received Service of Process, 2006: County A 

Mothers Legal Guardian Fathers 

78% 

88% 

90% 

82% 

79% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

Percent

81% 

91% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

A A 32% A 

B 99% B B 37%

Court

CourtCourt

93% C C 64%

D D D 52%

97% E 48% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

E E

Percent Percent

15 
Measure 4a Time to Permanent Placement
 

Average (median) time from 

filing of the original petition 

to legal permanency. 

What is the goal? Timeliness. 

The desired outcome is to achieve permanency as quickly 

as possible, by minimizing the time from filing the original 

petition to permanent placement. 

Children can be damaged by remaining too long in temporary foster homes. Timeliness measures can help courts 

pinpoint where delays in case processing occur. 

This measure is the most important indicator of timeliness 

because it measures the total length of time needed to 

achieve permanent placement. 

How is the measure calculated? 

u	Select all cases that have achieved permanency within 

the past 12 months. 

u	Compute the number of days from the time the original 

petition was filed to the time the child was placed in a 

permanent home (e.g., reunification, legal guardianship, 

or adoption).8 

How is the measure interpreted? 

This measure examines the total length of time needed to 

achieve permanent homes. It should be calculated based 

on whether permanency was achieved by guardianship, 

adoption, or a return home. Timeliness is most critical 

when children are removed from home. A separate calculation should compare time to permanency for children 

who remained in their homes and time to permanency for 

children who were removed from home. 

What are related measures? 

In situations where the original petition for permanent 

placement is not filed in court within 48 hours of removal, 

the jurisdiction should consider using the removal date or 

the date of the emergency removal hearing as a substitute 

start time for this measure. 

The analogous Child and Family Services Review measure 

is the median length of a child’s stay in foster care from 

the child’s most recent entry into foster care until the date 

of reunification or adoption. 

What data are required to complete the 

measure? 

u	The date that the original abuse or neglect petition was 

filed. 

u	The date that a child was placed in a permanent home. 

u	The reason for case closure (e.g., reunification, adoption, 

or legal guardianship). 
Reunification

Guardianship 

Adoption 

Key Measures 

Sample 4A–1. Median Days From Petition to Permanent Placement, 2006: Court A 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

390

254

763

744

Type of Permanent Placement 

Total

Guardianship

Adoption

Reunification

Median Days 

Sample 4A–2. Percentage of Children Reaching Permanency Within Different Timeframes, 

Cases Closed in 2006: Court A 

17 

90%

60%

30%

0%

13%

88%

23%

27%

25%

19%

55%

12%

16%

8%

18%

62%

14%

18%

12%

Within 24 Months 

Within 18 Months 

Within 12 Months 

Within 6 Months 

Type of Permanency 

Sample 4A–3. Average Time Elapsed Before a Child Reaches Permanent Placement, 

Cases Closed in 2006: Court A 

Initial 

Petition 

Adjudication 

Hearing 

First Permanency 

Hearing 

Permanent 

Placement 

70 Days 280 Days 40 

Days 

390 Days 

Note: Adjudication and permanency hearings are more fully defined and presented in Measures 4B and 4G. 
Measure 4B Time to Adjudication
 

Average (median) time from 

filing of the original petition 

to adjudication. 

What is the goal? Timeliness. 

The desired outcome is to minimize the time from when 

the original petition is filed to the time of the adjudication 

hearing. 

The NCJFCJ ResouRce Guidelines define the adjudication hearing as the stage during which the court 

determines whether allegations of abuse or neglect are 

sustained by the evidence and whether they are legally 

sufficient to support State intervention on behalf of the 

child. This measure enables the court to determine how 

long it takes to reach adjudication, especially for children 

who have been removed from the home. 

How is the measure calculated? 

u	Select all of the cases adjudicated within the study 

timeframe (e.g., the past year). 

u	Compute the number of days between filing the original 

petition and the adjudication for each case in the 

sample. 

u	Determine the median time to adjudication. 

How is the measure interpreted? 

The NCJFCJ ResouRce Guidelines recommend that 

adjudicatory hearings be completed within 60 days after 

the child has been removed from the home, regardless of 

whether the parties agree to extensions. By paying careful 

attention to this measure, a court can reduce the time to 

adjudication and meet its time goal. 

What are related measures? 

In situations where the petition is not filed within 48 hours 

of removal, the jurisdiction should consider using the date 

the child was removed from the home, or the date of the 

emergency removal hearing, to the date of adjudication as 

a substitute measure. 

What is required to measure? 

u	The date that the original petition was filed. 

u	The date of adjudication. 
Key Measures 

Sample 4B–1. Time to Adjudication by Type of Permanent Placement, 

Cases Closed in 2006: Court A 

48
 

Adoption
 

Reunification

81

Guardianship 62
 

Total
 70

Median Number of Days 

Sample 4B–2. Quarterly Trends in Time to Adjudication, 2000–2005: Court X 

120 

100
 

80
 

60
 

40
 

20
 

0 

Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

89 87 

80 

105 

108 110

102 

100 

97 

95 

95 

92 

90 

82 

78 

85 83 

75 77 

75 

70 

68 

108 

83 

Quarter 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Median Days From Filing of Petition to Adjudication

19 
Measure 4G Time to First Permanency Hearing
 

Average (median) time 

from filing of the original 

petition to the first 

permanency hearing. 

What is the goal? Timeliness. 

The desired outcome is to reduce the time to permanent 

placement by minimizing the time between filing the 

original petition alleging child abuse and neglect and 

the first permanency hearing. At permanency hearings, 

courts determine the permanency plan for the child. The 

permanency plan could return the child home, initiate 

termination of parental rights proceedings to free the child 

for adoption, refer the case for legal guardianship, or place 

the child in another planned permanent living arrangement. 

How is the measure calculated? 

u	Select all cases closed within the study timeframe (e.g., 

the past year). 

u	Compute the number of days from the time the original 

petition was filed to the date of the first permanency 

hearing for each case in the sample. 

u	Determine the median number of days to permanency. 

How is the measure interpreted? 

The adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 

requires a permanency hearing to take place within 12 

months after the child has entered foster care. Many State 

laws simplify this to 12 months from the date of placement. Many children never need to attend a permanency 

hearing because they are reunited with their parents or 

guardians before the hearing would occur. 

What are related measures? 

In situations where the petition is not filed within 48 hours 

of the child being removed from home, the jurisdiction 

should consider using the date the child was removed from 

home or the date of the child’s emergency removal hearing 

as a substitute for the date the petition was filed. 

Courts may also wish to determine the percentage of 

cases that meet the legal deadline (12 months, as set by 

ASFA in 1997) for the permanency hearing. 

What data are required to complete the 

measure? 

u	The date that the original petition was filed (if needed for 

“start date”). 

u	The date of actual entry into foster care (if needed for 

“start date”). 

u	The date and time of the emergency removal hearing (if 

needed for “start date”). 

u	The adjudication date (if needed for “start date”). 

u	The date of court-ordered entry into foster care. 

u	The date of case closure. 

u	The date of the first permanency hearing. 
 

Key Measures 

Sample 4G–1. Time to First Permanency Hearing, by Type of Permanent Placement, 

Cases Closed in 2006: Court A 

Reunification 340

Adoption 380

Guardianship 360

Total 350

Median Number of Days 

Sample 4G–2. Time From Filing of Original Petition to First Permanency Hearing, 2003–2008: County B 

500

400

300

200

100

0

Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

405 

420 

395 

430 

450 

420 

430 

445 

420 

415 

410 

380 

370 

330 

340 325 

320 

301 

310 300 

280 

282 

291 

290 

Quarter 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Number of Days 

21 
Percentage of TPR Cases Finalized 

Measure 4I 

Time to Termination 

of Parental Rights 

Average (median) time from u	Determine the median time to termination of parental 

rights. filing of the original child 

abuse and neglect petition to How is the measure interpreted? 

the termination of parental The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 

105–89) requires States to initiate termination of parental rights (TPR). rights proceedings for children who have been in foster 

care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. Charts can be 

What is the goal? Timeliness. used to emphasize the differences in the amount of time 

to termination of parental rights in different counties in a The desired outcome is to minimize the time between filing State. of the original petition and adoption. Before a child can be 

adopted, the court must terminate the parents’ rights. The 

time between filing the original petition and terminating What are related measures? 

parents’ rights is often a longer period of time than the The time between a child’s removal from his or her home 

time between termination of parental rights and the adop­ to the filing of the termination of parental rights petition. tion. This time period must be reduced for the total time to 

The time between when a child enters foster care and the adoption to decrease. 

time the petition for termination of parental rights is filed. 

How is the measure calculated? 

What data are required to complete the u	Select all termination of parental rights cases closed measure? within the study’s time frame (e.g., the past year).
 

u	The date that the original petition was filed.
 u	Calculate the number of days between the filing of the 

original petition and the termination of parental rights. u	The date the termination of parental rights was finalized. 

Sample 4I–1. Time to Termination of Parental Rights for Finalized TPRs, 2005: County A 

40%

Months to TPR 

1–6 7–12 13–18 19–24 25–30 31–36 37–42 43–48 >48

Median

37%

30% 28%

20%

14%

9%

6%

10%

4%

2% 0% 0%

0%
Key Measures 

Sample 4I–2. Time to Termination of Parental Rights for Finalized TPRs, 2005: County B 

40% Median

Percentage of TPR Cases Finalized 

31%

30%

20% 20%

15% 15%

10%

10% 7%

0% 2% 0%

0%

1–6 7–12 13–18 19–24 25–30 31–36 37–42 43–48 >48

Months to TPR 

Sample 4I–3. Time to Termination of Parental Rights for Finalized TPRs, 2005: County C 

40% Median

Percentage of TPR Cases Finalized 30% 27% 28%

20%

14%

10% 9% 8%

6% 4% 3%

1%

0%

1–6 7–12 13–18 19–24 25–30 31–36 37–42 43–48 >48

Months to TPR 

Sample 4I–4. Time to Termination of Parental Rights for Finalized TPRs, 2005: County D 

40% Median

Percentage of TPR Cases Finalized 30%

20% 19% 20% 20%

16%

10% 10% 8%

4% 3%

1%

0%

1–6 7–12 13–18 19–24 25–30 31–36 37–42 43–48 >48

Months to TPR 

23 
Key Measures
 

Terms 

Adjudication. The stage of the court process in abuse and 

neglect cases where the court decides whether sufficient 

evidence exists to support the allegations of the abuse or 

neglect. If the evidence is sufficient, the court may assume 

jurisdiction (control over the child’s custody and care). 

Adjudication may be called a variety of other names—the 

adjudication hearing, the trial, the fact-finding hearing, or 

the jurisdictional hearing. 

Age of majority. The age at which an individual is 

considered an adult and is legally responsible for his or 

her own actions. The age of majority varies across the 

United States, but in most States it is age 18. In Alabama, 

Nebraska, and Wyoming, the age of majority is 19, and in 

the District of Columbia and Mississippi it is 21. 

Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement 

(APPLA). Under Federal law, APPLA is a permanent legal 

arrangement for a child, designed to promote stability and 

permanency in his or her life. This type of living arrangement does not include a return home, adoption, legal 

guardianship, or placement with a relative. Because it is 

less permanent than these other placements, courts must 

find compelling reasons to assign APPLA. 

Closure reason. The reason a case is closed— 

reunification, adoption, guardianship, reaching age of 

majority, or APPLA. 

Date of case closure. The date a case is closed by the 

court and jurisdiction ends. 

Date of removal. The date a child is removed from the 

home. In emergencies, statutes permit children to be removed from a home before a petition is filed. An emergency removal hearing follows shortly after these removals. 

Disposition hearing. In child abuse and neglect cases, 

this hearing is where the court decides who will have legal 

custody of the child. Disposition in child abuse and neglect 

cases should not be confused with case closure or with the 

permanency hearing, both of which generally occur after 

the disposition hearing. 

Emergency removal hearing. The hearing that occurs 

within a short time of a child’s removal from home in 

an emergency, during which the court decides whether 

to keep the child with an out-of-home care provider or 

whether to return the child home. Depending on the State 

or local court, the emergency removal hearing may be 

called shelter care hearing, temporary removal hearing, 

initial hearing, preliminary hearing, detention hearing, or 

preliminary protective hearing. 

Mean. The common way to calculate an average; in this 

discussion, the sum of all of the days to permanency 

divided by the number of cases in the sample. 

Median. A robust way of defining average—the middle 

number in an array of numbers, such that half of the numbers lie above this point and half lie below it. Medians are 

not as subject as means to fluctuations caused by a wide 

disparity in values. 

Original petition. The petition alleging facts about a child’s 

abuse and neglect to support court’s jurisdiction of the 

child. The adjudication hearing determines whether or not 

the petition is sustained. 

Permanency hearing. The hearing to decide the plan for 

permanency, based upon the child’s best interests: family 

reunification, adoption, legal guardianship, permanent 

placement with a relative, or APPLA. The permanency 

hearing generally occurs approximately 1 year after a child 

enters foster care. 

Service of process. Service of process means the child’s 

parents or legal guardians are sent a copy of the original 

petition. They also receive a written summons that provides the date, time, and location for a court hearing, and 

instructs them to appear in court and contest the case if 

they wish to avoid losing certain parental rights. 

Termination of parental rights (TPR). A legal decision to 

permanently end all parental rights and allow the child to 

be adopted. If separate petitions for termination of parental 

rights exist for each parent, court staff should enter the 

date of the petition that applies to the second parent. 

24 
Key Measures 

To obtain additional information 

or assistance, please contact: 

Mark Hardin, Esq. 

Director, Child Welfare Department 

American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law 

(202) 662–1750 

markhardin@staff.abanet.org 

www.abanet.org/child/courtimp.html 

Victor E. Flango, Ph.D 

Executive Director, Program Resource Development 

National Center for State Courts, Office of the President 

(757) 259–1823 

gflango@ncsc.dni.us 

www.ncsconline.org 

Nancy Miller 

Director, Permanency Planning for Children Department 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

(775) 784–6675 

NMiller@ncjfcj.org 

www.ncjfcj.org 

Endnotes 

1. See 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(c). 

2. See D.N. Duquette, M. Hardin, and C.P. Dean, Adoption 

2002: The President’s initiative on Adoption and Foster 

care: Guidelines for Public Policy and state legislation 

Governing Permanence for children (Washington, DC: 

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, 

1999), p. IV–11. 

3. J. Goldstein, A. Freud, and A. Solnit, Beyond the Best 

interests of the child, New York: Free Press, 1979. 

Authors note the importance of considering the child’s 

sense of time. 

4. For example, calculating this measure for cases closed 

in calendar year 2006 would require waiting until 

January 2008 to do the calculation because cases 

closed in December 2006 would require 12 months 

beyond the closure date (December 2007) for the 

measure to be calculated. 

5. See 42 U.S.C. § 675 (5)(c). 

6. Children may not achieve permanency because 

they reached the age of majority without achieving 

permanent placement or because they are still in 

the status of Another Planned Permanent Living 

Arrangement (APPLA). 

7. Service of process means that parents or legal 

guardians receive a copy of the original petition and a 

written summons instructing them to appear in court 

and contest the case if they wish to avoid losing rights 

concerning the child. 

8. This measure is used only for children in foster care. 

25 


*NCJ~223567*
 

National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges 

National Center for State Courts 

ABA Center on 

Children and the Law