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 

Technical Guide 

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: 

Technical Guide 

Mark Hardin, J.D.

Susan Koenig

American Bar Association 

Center on Children and the Law

A Program of the Young Lawyers Division

Original Printing December 2008

Second Printing April 2009

NCJ 223570
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 
Technical Guide
 

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 

Technical Guide
 

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 

Our starting point in developing Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases: Technical Guide was 

the performance measures set forth in Building a Better Court: Measuring and improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. These measures were jointly developed by the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), and the National Center for State Courts 

(NCSC). Building a Better Court included an earlier list of performance measures with brief accompanying definitions. 

Much of the information in this Technical Guide is based on lessons we learned in the course of working with the 

people on the sites supported by the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act project and the Children’s Bureau 

project. We value and appreciate that experience. 

Among the individuals who deserve our special thanks are Sophie Gatowski of NCJFCJ and Lisa Portune, an NCJFCJ 

consultant, who conducted thorough editorial reviews of this publication. Gene Flango of NCSC reviewed prior drafts 

and offered substantive comments. We benefited from our close collaboration with Sophie, Lisa, Gene, and Dawn Marie 

Rubio, Tom Clark, Chris Bailey, and others at NCJFCJ and NCSC throughout the project. 

Thanks also to Andrew Barclay, an expert on statistics and computer technology as well as the Adoption and Foster 

Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) data used 

in child abuse and neglect cases. Andy prepared language for our discussions of AFCARS and NCANDS data and the 

Federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) performance measures. He also provided technical comments and 

edits for our comparisons of the new CFSR performance measures and the measures presented in the Technical Guide. 

Jennifer Renne reviewed several measures and provided valuable insights about related legal system issues and 

reforms. Heidi Green, an expert statistician with the Minnesota Office of the State Court Administrator, reviewed several 

measures and provided language on the use of percentiles. Diane Boyd Rauber, an attorney and ABA consultant who 

is an expert on child protection proceedings, edited earlier drafts of most of the performance measures in her usual 

thorough and meticulous fashion. We deeply appreciate everyone’s help. 

Special thanks to Shante Bullock, Program Specialist at the ABA Center on Children and the Law, who supported this 

project for several years. We also thank Amanda Cusick, Administrative Assistant at the ABA Center on Children and the 

Law, whose support began more recently. 

Finally, neither this Technical Guide nor the Toolkit project of which it is a part would have been possible without 

the commitment and support of Joan Ohl, Susan Orr, and Emily Cooke of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services’ Children’s Bureau and Kristen Kracke of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

We gratefully acknowledge everyone’s contributions to this Technical Guide. The responsibility for any errors, however, 

is solely ours. 

Mark Hardin 

Director, National Child Welfare Resource Center on
 

Legal and Judicial Issues,
 

and Director of Child Welfare,
 

ABA Center on Children and the Law
 

Susan Koenig 

President 

On-Target! Information Technology Consulting 

Contents

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

About the toolkit............................................................................................................................................v

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

Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement......................................... 1 

Safety Measures

Measure 1A: Child Safety While Under Court Jurisdiction ....................................................................... 21

Measure 1B: Child Safety After Release From Court Jurisdiction ............................................................ 31 

Permanency Measures

Measure 2A: Achievement of Child Permanency ..................................................................................... 37

Measure 2B: Children Not Reaching Permanency ................................................................................... 49

Measure 2C: Children Moved While Under Court Jurisdiction................................................................. 61

Measure 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care After Return Home...................................................................... 67

Measure 2E: Reentry Into Foster Care After Adoption or Guardianship .................................................. 73

Due Process and Fairness Measures

Measure 3A: Number of Judges Per Case ............................................................................................... 79

Measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties .............................................................................................. 87

Measure 3C: Early Appointment of Advocates for Children..................................................................... 95

Measure 3D: Early Appointment of Counsel for Parents........................................................................ 101

Measure 3E: Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties ............................................................................. 111

Measure 3F: Advance Written Notice of Hearings to Foster Parents, 

 Preadoptive Parents, and Relative Caregivers .................................................................. 121

Measure 3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings .......................................................................... 127

Measure 3H: Presence of Parties During Hearings ................................................................................ 137

Measure 3I: Continuity of Advocates for Children.................................................................................. 145

Measure 3J: Continuity of Counsel for Parents...................................................................................... 151

Timeliness Measures

Measure 4A: Time to Permanent Placement.......................................................................................... 157

Measure 4B: Time to Adjudication ......................................................................................................... 169

Measure 4C: Timeliness of Adjudication ................................................................................................ 175

Measure 4D: Time to Disposition Hearing.............................................................................................. 181

Measure 4E: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing ..................................................................................... 187

Measure 4F: Timeliness of Case Review Hearings................................................................................. 193

Measure 4G: Time to First Permanency Hearing.................................................................................... 201

Measure 4H: Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition ............................................................... 209

Measure 4I: Time to Termination of Parental Rights .............................................................................. 221

Measure 4J: Timeliness of Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings ............................................... 233

Measure 4K: Time From Disposition Hearing to Termination of Parental Rights Petition...................... 239

Measure 4L: Timeliness of Adoption Petition......................................................................................... 245

Measure 4M: Timeliness of Adoption Proceedings................................................................................ 253

Appendixes

Appendix A: List of Performance Measures .......................................................................................... 259

Appendix B: Stages of the Juvenile Court Process in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases ....................... 261

Appendix C: Calculation Guide.............................................................................................................. 273

Appendix D: Combined Data Element Dictionary .................................................................................. 289

overview 

This overview looks at the major considerations in designing and implementing a court performance measurement data 

collection and reporting system for child abuse and neglect cases. It provides important background information for the 

detailed performance measures in subsequent sections of this guide. 

The overview covers the following: 

u	General design issues, with references to specific performance measures. 

u	Universal data elements—a few basic elements that should be included for every measure, in addition to the elements 

specified in subsequent sections of the guide. 

u	Relationships to Federal performance measurement systems. 

u	Data reports. 

u	Court reforms that can affect multiple measures. 

The overview ends with “In This Guide,” a brief summary of contents. 

General Design Issues 

Gathering Information on Children 

Child-Based Information 

Courts that use a case-based—rather than a person-based 

—case management system (CMS) will find it particularly 

challenging to analyze the data for many of the performance measures. Most of the performance measures are 

about the individual child rather than the case as a whole, 

and require data to be linked to the individual child. 

One or many children can live in a single household and 

be involved in a case, but not everything that happens in 

a case will apply equally to every child. The timing of case 

milestones and the eventual outcome for each child may 

be different. Early milestones, such as the emergency 

removal hearing, adjudication, and disposition hearing, 

may happen jointly for all children in a family. At later 

stages of the case, however, children from the same family 

may be on different tracks to permanency, and events may 

occur at different times for different children. To accurately 

measure performance, data must be linked to the children 

who are associated with the information. 

Because the milestones and outcomes are specific to each 

child, the data to support the performance measures must 

also be child specific. For example, Toolkit Measure 2A: 

Overview of Technical Issues in 

Performance Measurement 

Achievement of Child Permanency is related to an individual child. It is the child—not the case—who obtains a 

permanent home. If all children in a family are included under one case number, the CMS must have a mechanism for 

separately tracking what happens to each child and when. 

Even if all children in a family are released for adoption 

after their parents’ rights have been terminated, the adoptions may occur at different times, and some children in 

the family may never be adopted. Therefore, the reason for 

case closure as well as the date may differ for each child. 

Toolkit Measure 2A: Achievement of Child Permanency and 

Toolkit Measure 2B: Children Not Reaching Permanency require the final placement to be recorded for each individual 

child. In addition, the temporary placement data required 

by Toolkit Measure 2C: Children Moved While Under Court 

Jurisdiction must be maintained individually. Also, each 

child may have a different advocate to whom the child 

must be linked. Similarly, Toolkit Measure 2D: Reentry Into 

Foster Care After Return Home and Toolkit Measure 2E: 

Reentry Into Foster Care After Adoption or Guardianship 

relate to individual children, as do other measures. 

Child Placements 

Toolkit Measure 2C: Children Moved While Under Court 

Jurisdiction tracks the number of placements for each 

child during the life of the case. Placements may be with 

foster families, in group homes, and in residential care. 
Technical Guide
 

Most courts rely on the child welfare agency to maintain 

placement information and do not usually maintain placement information in a CMS. However, to produce the necessary statistical reports on this measure, courts will need 

access to the number of placements for each child. An 

alternative to maintaining detailed placement information 

in the CMS is to periodically obtain summary information 

from the agency. Because these reports are generally run 

for a population of cases that have closed within a certain 

timeframe,1

 such as 1 year, the court could elect to obtain 

a summary of the total number of placements for each 

child whose case closed during that timeframe specifically 

for purposes of statistical reporting. Some agencies may 

even be willing to produce a report on this performance 

measure for the court.2 

Child Safety 

Two Toolkit measures report on reabuse and reneglect 

of children. Measure 1A: Child Safety While Under Court 

Jurisdiction and Measure 1B: Child Safety After Release 

From Court Jurisdiction both raise the issue of how the 

CMS will “determine” that there was further abuse or 

neglect both during the case and after the initial petition 

has closed. 

First, courts must determine whether allegations of abuse 

or neglect are sufficient to count as reabuse or further neglect, or whether such allegations must first be substantiated by the agency or found to be true by the court. 

Second, the “marker” that signals further abuse or neglect 

must be specified. In some jurisdictions, an amended or 

subsequent petition alleging abuse and/or neglect is filed 

after the initial petition while the case is still open. If that 

practice is universal among the courts in a jurisdiction, 

the filing of such a petition could be the marker, unless 

the courts require substantiation before the allegations 

can count as abuse or neglect. In other courts, a different mechanism for reporting further abuse or neglect to 

the courts must be developed, depending on the local 

legal process and the court’s requirements for counting 

instances of reabuse or further neglect; the CMS must then 

be revised to maintain this marker information. Depending 

on the CMS design, the task may be as simple as adding 

a reabuse flag and the date to the child’s record, or the 

mechanism may be more complex. 

Courts may also obtain data on further abuse and neglect 

from the child welfare agency via report or data exchange,3 

but there may be practical barriers to this exchange given 

current progress in judicial and child welfare agency CMS 

systems. The marker to signal further abuse or neglect 

may be simpler after the initial petition is closed, because 

reabuse at that stage will usually trigger a new petition 

and new case cycle (emergency removal hearing, etc.) as 

part of the standard legal process. The CMS must be able 

to link the old and new petitions for the child to determine 

that additional abuse or neglect under Measure 1B has 

occurred (i.e., additional abuse or neglect after the initial 

petition has closed). 

Reentry Into Foster Care 

Unfortunately, permanent placements are sometimes disrupted and children must return to the foster care system. 

Toolkit Measure 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care After Return 

Home and Toolkit Measure 2E: Reentry Into Foster Care 

After Adoption or Guardianship examine such disruptions 

and subsequent reentries. The data issues for these 

measures are similar to those discussed above under 

“Child Safety,” but there are additional issues as well. 

In these cases, the CMS must be able to determine that the 

child entering the foster care system has been there before; i.e., that this reentry is occurring after a prior permanent placement. Linking the two cases may be challenging, 

or even impossible, if the child’s case was previously heard 

in another jurisdiction, because the previous case information will not have been entered into the current court’s 

CMS. However, identifying the cases that must be linked, 

based on child’s name and date of birth, should be possible 

if both petitions are local or if the CMS is State-based (i.e., 

specific case information from each jurisdiction populates 

a statewide management information system). 

Another issue involves determining whether the child is 

reentering foster care. First, where is the child placed after 

being removed from the home? Is the child placed in foster 

care in the custody of the child welfare agency, or placed 

with a relative, or returned home under the supervision of 

the court without the agency having custody? In the first 

instance, the child is returning to foster care, but in the 

other two instances, the child is not.4 The CMS must be 

able to distinguish between types of placement. Alternatively, the court can rely on the child welfare agency to 

assist in preparing reports on reentry into foster care.5 

An additional issue is that the CMS must have a record of 

what type of permanent placement the child is leaving— 

adoption, guardianship, or return home. This is because 

Measure 2D and Measure 2E both report separately on 

children reentering care by the type of permanent 

placement that was disrupted. The type of permanent 

2 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

placement, referred to in this guide as “case closure 

reason,” is required for a number of other performance 

measures. The fact that adoptions and/or terminations 

of parental rights are heard by different courts in many 

jurisdictions can make it challenging for the juvenile trial 

court to obtain this information readily and reliably. This is 

another fruitful area for data exchange between courts. 

Gathering Information on Parents and 

Legal Guardians 

Basic Information 

A number of performance measures require the CMS to 

maintain detailed information about parents and legal 

guardians and their participation in the case. This information must be associated with the individual parent or 

guardian, who must in turn be linked to the individual child. 

Basic information about each parent should include the 

name, address, and relationship to the child in the case. 

Relationship information includes whether an individual is 

the child’s biological parent, adoptive parent, or stepparent. 

There may be more than one putative father, and all who 

are involved in the case should be tracked. 

Several Toolkit performance measures call for reporting 

data by parent, including 3D: Early Appointment of Counsel 

for Parents, 3E: Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties, 3G: 

Presence of Advocates During Hearings, 3H: Presence of 

Parties During Hearings, and 3J: Continuity of Counsel for 

Parents. In reporting each of these measures, each parent 

or guardian should be counted only once, not once for each 

child. 

Service of Process 

Toolkit Measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties refers to 

service of the initial abuse and neglect petition, not to any 

subsequent petition(s) for termination of parental rights. 

Because State law specifies who is entitled to service 

of process, the CMS designer should consult legal staff 

to determine the parties for whom the CMS must track 

service of process. Many systems store service-of-process 

dates in the register of actions (also known as the docket). 

However, the CMS designer may prefer to store these 

dates in a separate data structure, with links to individual 

parties, to facilitate retrieving and reporting the information 

for specific parties. 

The basic Toolkit performance measure regarding service 

of process, Measure 3B, looks only at whether a parent has been served, not necessarily when service was 

perfected or what method of service was used. However, 

the discussion of Measure 3B presents some alternatives 

that break down service by type of party and by whether 

the address of the party is or is not known. 

The CMS designer must also address the issue of how to 

deal with multiple putative fathers in recording serviceof-process data. The simplest way is to count the father 

as served when the first putative father has been served. 

However, the more comprehensive way is to track and 

report service on all putative fathers, especially the 

biological, putative, or adoptive father. The discussion of 

Measure 3B includes a recommended order of precedence 

for counting service to the father. Service of process is 

an important milestone. Without service on the required 

biological or adoptive father(s), if living, termination of parental rights cannot occur, and the child cannot be eligible 

for adoption. 

Parents’ Demographic Information 

None of the performance measures requires demographic 

information on parents. However, recording the parents’ 

race/ethnicity may be useful, because the jurisdiction may 

want to be able to report by racial/ethnic group on Measure 3B and other measures related to parental notification, counsel, and participation. Generally, collecting and 

reporting on demographic information (parent and child 

demographics) provides the court with a better understanding of the population of cases under its jurisdiction. 

Gathering Information on Attorneys 

and Other Advocates 

Basic Information 

In most jurisdictions, the CMS allows staff to enter information about attorneys representing parties to a case. The 

CMS usually maintains the name, firm, address, and bar 

number of the current attorney. Sometimes the system 

stores the date of appointment or date of appearance, and 

some systems distinguish the type of attorney (appointed, 

retained, government attorney, etc.). Usually, but not 

always, the system links the attorney to the party being 

represented. Many systems also track similar identifying information for the court-appointed special advocate 

(CASA) volunteer or nonattorney guardian ad litem (GAL) 

appointed for a child. 

3 
Technical Guide
 

Most of the information noted above (except addresses) 

is needed to produce one or more of the statistical reports 

described in this guide. In addition, some of the Toolkit 

performance measures require information less commonly 

found in a CMS, as discussed in the following paragraphs. 

The attorney or other advocate should be linked to the 

party being represented. 

Appointment in Advance of Emergency 

Removal Hearing 

Toolkit Measures 3C: Early Appointment of Advocates for 

Children and 3D: Early Appointment of Counsel for Parents 

both require that the CMS retain information on when 

appointment of the attorney or other representative for 

mother, father, legal guardian, and child took place. Specifically, the CMS must record whether the attorney, CASA 

volunteer, or GAL was appointed prior to the emergency 

removal hearing. 

Several issues complicate CMS design in this area. First, to 

be counted for purposes of the performance measures as 

someone entitled to appointed counsel, an individual must 

be identified as a party to the case before the emergency 

removal hearing. However, fathers sometimes are not 

identified until later in the case, or a father’s whereabouts 

may be unknown. Furthermore, when parents waive the 

right to counsel, the question arises as to how they should 

be classified—as a party with representation or without 

representation. Each jurisdiction may determine how to 

count parents who waive counsel; the guide’s discussion 

of Toolkit Measure 3D explores this issue further. Finally, 

in many States, parents who do not meet a “means test” 

are not eligible for appointed representation. The system 

must be able to track whether the party was eligible for 

appointment of counsel as well as whether counsel was 

actually appointed at this early stage. 

Depending on its design, a CMS might track and report appointment of attorneys in a number of ways. One method 

is to track the date and time of the judge’s order appointing the attorney and compare that information with the 

date and time the emergency removal hearing was held. 

(This would involve some complications if the hearing is 

postponed or completed on a day other than the day it 

began.) Another method is to instruct the data entry operator to include flags indicating that: (1) the party was or was 

not eligible for appointment of attorney, and (2) an attorney 

was or was not appointed prior to the emergency removal 

hearing. Both methods can accomplish the task, and both 

have pros and cons. For example, the flags may be simpler 

to program, but they may be unreliable if data entry staff 

are not well trained or if the information is not reliably 

provided by the court. 

Changes in Counsel 

It is unusual to find a CMS that keeps a historical record 

of all attorneys and advocates who have appeared in the 

case and tracks the appearance (or lack of appearance) 

at each hearing for each party. Nevertheless, that is the 

requirement for Toolkit Measure 3I: Continuity of Advocates for Children and Measure 3J: Continuity of Counsel 

for Parents. These measures look at how many different 

individual attorneys or advocates represent a party over 

the life of the case. They examine who appears in court for 

each party, not who is the attorney of record. 

In abuse and neglect cases, law firms providing appointed 

counsel, public defender offices, and government agencies 

representing child welfare agencies do not necessarily 

send the same attorney to each hearing in a case. Attorneys regularly substitute for each other when scheduling 

conflicts occur. In many jurisdictions, the CMS maintains 

the name of an agency or firm as the attorney of record in 

a case but does not link the name of an individual attorney 

to a specific party. 

Establishing Data Requirements 

for Hearing Notification and 

Attendance Measures 

Notice of Hearing 

Courts differ in how they notify parties of the next hearing 

date and time. Some send written notices, others announce the date and time of the next hearing in open court, 

and others rely on attorneys to inform the parties and 

motivate their clients to attend hearings. Toolkit Measure 

3E: Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties and Measure 

3F: Advance Written Notice of Hearings to Foster Parents, 

Preadoptive Parents, and Relative Caregivers report on 

the documented record proving that advance notice of 

the hearing was provided in writing to all eligible parties, 

including foster parents and age-appropriate children,6

 not 

just their attorneys. 

These measures look at whether parties were notified 

and the timeliness of the notification. Because State law 

usually specifies how far in advance notices must be sent 

by mail to be considered timely, the CMS must maintain 

the dates that notices are mailed to parties. This information must be maintained for each party entitled to notice 

4 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

(including foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative 

caregivers), for each hearing throughout the life of the case. 

A number of factors complicate analyzing data for these 

measures. A party in the case must have been identified as 

such to be entitled to notice; therefore, recording the date 

the party entered the case is important to accurate reporting. Federal law entitles foster parents to notice, and foster 

parents may change during the life of the case; therefore, 

the CMS must record the name and address of the current 

and any previous foster parents involved in a case. 

If, in lieu of mailed notification, a written notice of the date 

and time of the next hearing is printed and handed to parties at the end of a court hearing, the courtroom clerk must 

record to whom the notice was given. Problems may arise 

with this method of notification because some parties may 

not be present in court or may have left before the notices 

were handed out. 

Handing out or mailing a written notice to the attorneys 

does not count as notice to the parties. The notice must 

be given or sent to the party far enough in advance of the 

next hearing to satisfy State law for timely notice. The CMS 

must capture all the information needed to document this 

process, and staff must be conscientious in recording it. 

Attendance at Hearings 

Toolkit Measure 3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings and Measure 3H: Presence of Parties During Hearings 

also require the CMS to track who is present at hearings. 

Although this information generally appears in the text of 

hearing minutes, these measures require that it be stored 

in data structures that facilitate retrieval and statistical 

analysis. The reports for Measure 3G show the percentage of cases in which all parties were represented by an 

attorney or other advocate at all hearings and, calculated 

separately for each type of party, the percentage of hearings where advocates were present. Measure 3H shows 

the presence (or lack thereof) of parties at the hearings. 

One challenge in correctly analyzing attendance data lies 

in determining who should be present at a hearing. Who is 

absent from a hearing can be determined only when it is 

known who should be present. To be included in the analysis for a particular hearing, an individual must have been 

identified as a party to the case by the time of the hearing 

(parties identified later than the hearing date should be 

excluded from the analysis for that hearing). 

Another challenge is that not every case involves every 

type of party. For example, no foster parents are involved if 

the child has not been placed in foster care, few cases 

involve legal guardians, and a child may not be of legal 

age to attend hearings. The CMS must determine if any 

of these less common situations apply. Foster parents are 

a particular challenge because multiple foster families may 

be involved in the case at the same time, and children may 

be moved from one family to another during the life of the 

case. Determining who should be counted as present or 

absent may be especially challenging. 

Information Regarding 

Judicial Officers 

Only one performance measure deals directly with judges 

and other judicial officers: Toolkit Measure 3A: Number of 

Judges Per Case. This measure reports on cases in which 

the same judicial officer presided over all hearings, and 

cases in which two, three, four, or more than four different 

officers presided over hearings. In most jurisdictions, the 

CMS has this information in the text of court minutes and 

as part of a calendaring and/or scheduling module. However, a historical record of who actually presided at each 

hearing (not who was initially scheduled to preside) often is 

not maintained in a format that facilitates data retrieval for 

statistical reporting. 

Being able to identify the judicial officers who preside at 

hearings has several advantages. The court can compare 

scheduled versus actual presiding officers to determine 

how frequently there are substitutions of judicial officers. 

It can report statistical information for actual presiding 

officers. Notably, judges can access information to learn 

about their own performance. 

Linking or Obtaining Information 

From Multiple Sources 

The structure of the court system may pose some challenges for assembling in a single system all the information needed to produce every performance measure. In 

some jurisdictions, abuse and neglect, termination of 

parental rights, and adoption cases are each heard by a 

different court, and these courts do not necessarily share 

the same CMS. 

Calculating the total time from the beginning to the end 

of a case involving multiple courts—tracking, for example, 

when the original petition alleging abuse or neglect was 

filed, the child was removed from the home, parental rights 

were terminated, and the child was adopted—may pose 

5 
Technical Guide
 

special challenges. Even if the courts involved do have 

a common CMS, tracking children across cases requires 

a common identifier for each child, which most States do 

not have. Furthermore, without a common identifier, information about legal proceedings cannot be shared between 

States or between jurisdictions within the same State. 

In short, some data required for performance measurement will be imperfect because of limitations on a court’s 

ability to match and assemble all relevant data in one 

system. However, a court can substantially improve its 

access to complete information by working with other 

courts and the child welfare agency to develop electronic 

data exchanges and strengthen interorganizational 

information-sharing policies and procedures.7 

Addressing Data Comparability and 

Definitional Issues 

If a jurisdiction reports performance measures at the State 

or judicial district level, comparability of data is essential. 

Comparability requires consensus on the definition of 

every data element.8

 In addition, system designers should 

consult State and Federal law for definitions and legal 

requirements. 

If standardization for a particular data item is impossible 

because variations in local practice cannot be changed, 

system designers must understand and accommodate the 

variations. The following list illustrates important data that 

should be standardized and indicates which performance 

measures are involved. 

u	What are the “markers” for reabuse and further neglect, 

both while the initial petition is active and after case 

closure? Toolkit Measure 1A: Child Safety While Under 

Court Jurisdiction and Measure 1B: Child Safety After 

Release From Court Jurisdiction. 

u	What are the types of permanent placements recognized 

in State law? For example, does “another planned 

permanent living arrangement” (APPLA), as defined 

by State law, have the key elements of a permanent 

placement? Toolkit Measure 2A: Achievement of Child 

Permanency and Measure 4A: Time to Permanent 

Placement. 

u	At what hearing does the court first find whether abuse 

or neglect has occurred for the purposes of Federal 

law? (See 42 U.S.C. §§ 675(F), 675(5)(C)). This will 

determine the start date required for Toolkit Measure 4F: 

Timeliness of Case Review Hearings and Measure 4G: 

Time to First Permanency Hearing. 

u	Which putative fathers are entitled to service of 

process? Toolkit Measure 3B: Service of Process 

to Parties. 

u	What are the method and deadline, if any, for notice 

to foster parents preadoptive parents, and relative 

caregivers? Toolkit Measure 3F: Advance Written Notice 

of Hearings to Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, and 

Relative Caregivers. 

u	What is the legal deadline for adjudication? Toolkit 

Measure 4C: Timeliness of Adjudication. 

u	What is the legal deadline for the disposition hearing? 

Toolkit Measure 4E: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing. 

u	What is the deadline, if any, for completing termination 

of parental rights proceedings? Toolkit Measure 

4J: Timeliness of Termination of Parental Rights 

Proceedings. 

u	Does State law require measurement of any other 

timeframes for abuse and neglect cases? 

Technical Issues 

In defining and standardizing data elements, system designers will need to address a number of technical issues. 

Some of these issues relate to selecting a reporting period, 

choosing samples, and providing context for analysis. 

Reporting period. To the extent that the courts rely on 

data received from child welfare agencies, what court reporting period will be most useful? Should it coincide with 

the Federal fiscal year, State fiscal year, calendar year, or 

some other period? Keep in mind that child welfare agency 

reporting—and, therefore, production of data that the 

court will receive—may coincide with and/or be limited to 

specific points in the Federal fiscal year (October 1 through 

September 30). 

Sampling. How will records be selected for samples to be 

included in each measure? Commonly used samples are 

cohorts of children entering court jurisdiction (“entry 

cohort”), children under court jurisdiction on a particular 

day (“cross-sectional cohort”), children under court jurisdiction at any time during a time period (“served cohort”), 

and children exiting court jurisdiction (“exit cohort”).9 

Context. A single measure is rarely meaningful without 

placing it in some context. For example, is a reabuse rate 

of 4 percent high or low? The answer depends heavily 

6 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

on the definitions of abuse and reabuse and on cohort 

selection, probability of detecting true abuse, variability 

of detection, and the point of reference for what is considered high or low. Definitions that remain consistent 

across jurisdictions and across many years go a long way 

toward providing enough context to answer this question. 

Other measures also provide crucial context. For example, 

when a child is reunified with a parent who has been 

abusive in the past, there is always the risk that reabuse 

will occur. To interpret a reabuse rate, it is also important 

to know what resources the court is expending to mitigate 

the risk of reabuse. Interpreting measures not in isolation 

but as a balanced system of measurement is crucial. Such 

a system requires a great deal of expertise and thoughtful 

design. 

Universal Data Elements 

For each performance measure, this guide includes a list 

of the data elements specific to that measure, including 

required data elements (for calculating the basic measure) 

and optional data elements (for any alternative/proxy measures). In addition, several data elements are common to 

all the measures. These universal data elements, which 

include organizational-level information, case number 

and child identifiers, and child demographic information, should be added to every measure. 

Organizational-Level Information 

Organizational-level elements make it possible to aggregate information for reports that facilitate comparisons 

among courts (or circuits, districts, counties, judges, etc.). 

They also serve as search criteria for retrieving information 

to answer queries about specific organizational entities. 

These elements are: 

u	State: the name of the State in which the case was 

heard. 

u	Judicial district: the judicial district or circuit (if any) 

of the court. 

u	Court: the name of the local jurisdiction of the court, 

usually a county. 

u	Branch: the branch location of the court (if any). 

u	Judge: the name or ID of the assigned judge or judicial 

officer. 

Case Number and Child Identifier 

These elements make it possible to link specific cases and 

individual children with the data elements that apply to 

them: 

u	Case number. 

u	Child identifier. 

If a CMS always assigns one child per case, only a single 

universal element is required to identify both the case and 

the child. 

If, when more than one child is involved in a case, a CMS 

includes multiple children under the same case number, 

the system designer needs to provide separate universal 

elements for the case and for each child. Identifying each 

child can be accomplished by combining a party type 

(i.e., “child”) and a party number (unique to the specific 

child), or by assigning a child ID. Either approach makes 

it possible to link each child’s identity to all aspects of the 

case—events, documents, hearings, notices, outcomes, 

placements, attorneys, etc.—that relate specifically to that 

child. In this way, the system can treat each child, along 

with that child’s associated data elements, as a separate 

entity for purposes of reporting on performance measures. 

Child Demographic Information 

Although no performance measure actually requires 

demographic information for each child, such information 

may be very useful for purposes of analysis. Child demographics can provide the court with important information 

about the characteristics of the population served by the 

court and whether outcomes differ for segments of that 

population. The following universal elements are, therefore, 

recommended: 

u	Date of birth. 

u	Race/ethnicity. 

u	Tribal affiliation. 

u	Gender. 

These elements make it possible to report aggregate 

information by age group, race/ethnicity, gender, and tribal 

affiliation, in situations where the court suspects that a 

disparity of treatment or outcomes exists between different 

groups. 

7 
Technical Guide
 

Relationships to Other 

Measurement Systems 

Nearly all State child welfare agencies report case-level 

data into the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data 

System (NCANDS)10 and the Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS).11 NCANDS is 

a voluntary reporting system containing information on 

abused and neglected children reported to State child 

welfare agencies. AFCARS is a mandatory reporting system 

covering all children in foster care for whom the State child 

welfare agency has placement and care responsibility. 

NCANDS and AFCARS are the sole data sources for calculation of the Federal Child and Family Services Review 

(CFSR) data indicators.12 

Given that courts and child welfare agencies share much 

of the responsibility for safety and permanency, a number 

of the Toolkit performance measures are related to the 

CFSR measures and can be calculated from the same 

data. For children in foster care, proxies (approximate 

substitutes) can be calculated for both safety measures 

(1A and 1B) from a combination of NCANDS and AFCARS 

data. Proxies for all five permanency measures (2A through 

2E) can be calculated directly from AFCARS data. Proxies 

for two of the timeliness measures (4A and 4I) can also be 

calculated from NCANDS and AFCARS data. By contrast, 

NCANDS and AFCARS contain no data elements relevant 

to the 10 Toolkit measures related to due process and 

fairness. In all, it is possible to calculate reasonable proxies 

for 9 of the 30 Toolkit measures based on agency NCANDS 

and AFCARS data. 

The first round of the Federal CFSRs used a set of six 

discrete statewide data measures with simple national 

standards. For the second round, those six measures are 

replaced by two single measures and four “data composites,” covering the same broad outcome areas of safety 

and permanency. The decision to use composite measures calculated from a weighted combination of simple 

measures was driven by the recognition that: (a) measures 

can interact strongly with one another, (b) no measure can 

be interpreted in isolation, and (c) different practices may 

achieve the same outcomes through a different balance. 

The following excerpt of an answer by the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF) to a question regarding composites 

illustrates the need for courts and child welfare agencies to 

work together to strike a balance between timely reunification and the rate of reentry to foster care: 

A consistent finding of our analyses of State data on 

reunifications within 12 months and reentries within 12 

months (as well as the research findings reported in the 

literature) is that many (although not all) States with a 

high percentage of reunifications in less than 12 months 

also tend to have a high percentage of re-entries into 

foster care in less than 12 months. We believe that a 

reunification that results in a reentry within a 12-month 

period should not be considered an effective reunification. Therefore, we expect States not only to reunify 

children in a timely manner, but also to do so in a way 

that supports the permanency of the reunification. Consequently, we incorporated reentry into the composite 

to ensure that this variable is accounted for in assessing 

the timeliness of reunification. Combining these measures in the composite provides both ACF and the States 

with a more accurate portrayal of a State’s performance 

with regard to reunifying children in a timely manner.13 

Data composites provide a more holistic view of a State’s 

child welfare performance and also add complexity to the 

establishment and interpretation of national performance 

standards. Because of this complexity and incompatible 

definitions, the CFSR national standards are not closely 

equivalent to the Toolkit performance measures—with the 

possible exception of Measure 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care 

After Return Home. In this guide, discussions of several 

individual measures note similarities and differences between the measures and specific components or subparts 

of CFSR standards. 

The two CFSR safety measures are not combined into a 

composite, which makes comparison with Toolkit performance measures relatively straightforward. Because of differences in definitions, however, neither measure is directly 

equivalent to Toolkit safety Measure 1A or Measure 1B. 

Data Reports 

The guide’s detailed discussions of the performance measures recommend tables and graphs to illustrate findings 

on each specific measure. This section of the overview 

discusses basic issues to consider when planning the 

reporting function. 

Determining the Level of Aggregation 

The level of organizational aggregation of the data in reports will depend on what choices are available and what 

choices a court system deems appropriate. For example, 

8 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

if a State court system implements performance measurement through a statewide CMS used in every court, the 

options for refined analysis are far greater than they are if 

local jurisdictions implement performance measurement 

independently. Statewide systems can aggregate data 

by court, branch, judicial district, or other organizational 

entity and compare performance at each level to statewide 

totals, standards, medians, or means. Most courts are 

very interested in how well their jurisdiction is doing in 

comparison to others. Access to such information can be a 

prime motivation for change and reform.14 

Choosing Open or Closed Cases 

for the Dataset 

The universe of cases to be analyzed for each report must 

be determined. For many measures, the cases analyzed 

must be closed (completed) in order for all instances of 

the event or other element that is being measured to have 

occurred. Performance reports based on closed cases are 

often using data that are years old. 

For example, Toolkit Measure 4F: Timeliness of Case 

Review Hearings examines all case review hearings that 

have occurred to determine the percentage of cases for 

which all review hearings were timely. Because review 

hearings occur periodically in each case until permanency 

is achieved and the case is closed, analysts must wait until 

case closure to capture all hearings in the analysis. For this 

measure, it is recommended that reports include all cases 

closed in a particular timeframe, such as 6 months or a 

year. 

Another group of performance measures looks at what 

happens to children after their cases are closed and the 

children are in permanent placements. For example, Toolkit 

Measure 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care After Return Home 

and Measure 2E: Reentry Into Foster Care After Adoption 

or Guardianship are concerned with the rates of return to 

foster care within 12 and 24 months after permanency. 

For these reports, it is necessary to select cases that 

have aged at least 24 months since permanency was first 

achieved. 

Some measures do not require analysis of the complete 

history of a case; for these measures, reports can include 

cases that are still open. Examples include measures 

that analyze time from one milestone to another, such as 

Toolkit Measure 4B: Time to Adjudication, which measures 

the time from filing of the initial petition to completion of 

the adjudication hearing. The report for that measure can 

include any cases that reach adjudication during a specific 

timeframe such as 1 quarter, 6 months, or 1 year. 

Another consideration in designing reports for measures 

that are not limited to completed cases is that the timeframe for analysis may be very recent (e.g., the universe 

could be cases in which the petition was filed during the 

last quarter). Such reports can provide a snapshot of a 

court’s current performance. 

In designing any report, special care must be taken that 

comparisons are based on equivalent samples and appropriate baselines. For example, when comparing reports 

from different jurisdictions within a state it is important to 

ensure that data from the same study period or timeframe 

are being compared. In addition, data from closed cases in 

one jurisdiction should be compared to data from closed 

cases in another jurisdiction. 

Understanding Averages 

and Percentiles 

Several performance measures require the calculation of 

averages (values, such as medians or means, that represent “typical” results). The median—the value midway 

between the lowest and highest values—is preferred 

because it is minimally affected by “outliers” (i.e., extreme 

deviations).15 Sometimes it is also helpful to compute the 

mean—the sum of all the values, divided by the number of 

values (N) summed.16 This guide points out performance 

measures for which it may be useful to calculate the mean. 

To get a more complete picture of performance (e.g., the 

time to permanency not just for typical cases but for the 

fastest and slowest cases), the court might also compute 

values for the 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles. Percentiles 

are identified in a manner similar to medians; the median 

is essentially the same as the 50th percentile—in the 

example of time to permanency, the value at which 50 

percent of cases will be slower and 50 percent will be 

faster than the median. To identify percentiles, values are 

sorted from slowest to fastest. If, for example, the 25th 

percentile for time to permanency in a universe of cases 

is 100 days, that means that 25 percent of cases achieved 

permanency in 100 or fewer days, whereas the other 75 

percent took longer. If the 90th percentile is 200 days, 90 

percent achieved permanency in 200 or fewer days, and 

10 percent took longer. 

Analysis of percentiles can be very important in evaluating 

a court’s case processing performance. Although it may be 

9 
10 

Technical Guide
 

relatively easy to reach timeliness goals that are measured 

against a median, the court’s greatest challenge may not 

lie in the timeliness of the “average” case. Problematic 

cases, often found in the upper (75th or 90th) percentiles, 

may be relatively few in number and yet take a disproportionate amount of the court’s time. If not managed 

effectively, such cases can have a major impact on the 

court calendar. In addition, cases in the upper percentiles 

may have actually “fallen through the cracks” in the court 

or child welfare system. 

Therefore, once a court achieves its timeliness goal for 

processing the average case, it would do well to examine 

cases at the 75th and 90th percentiles. Analysis of these 

cases may show where the path to permanency is being 

delayed, shedding light on case processing issues that 

are not apparent in the median case alone. If, for example, 

time to permanency at the 75th and 90th percentile moves 

closer to the court’s goal for the median case, the indication may be that even the most difficult cases are benefiting from the court’s attention to increased timeliness. By 

contrast, if the 75th and 90th percentiles increase over 

time, improvements for the average case may be coming 

at the expense of the most problematic cases. 

Calculating Time Intervals 

Some performance measures require classification of 

cases according to a time interval measured in months. For 

example, Toolkit Measure 2C: Children Moved While Under 

Court Jurisdiction calculates the percentage of cases in 

which the child returned to foster care within 12 and 24 

months after return home. The recommendation for calculating the month is to divide the number of elapsed days 

in a case by 30, which gives a close enough approximation of a month. If the calculation for a case comes to 12 

months and 1 day, the case is counted in the 13–24 month 

category.17 

Designing Tabular Reports 

Tables show data in rows and columns. The intersection of 

a row and column is a cell in the table. Statistical reports 

are often formatted in tables, with an integer or percent 

in each cell. The information in the cell is correlated with 

the column heading and the row item. In sample OV–1, 

the highlighted cell shows the median days from filing of 

the initial petition to completion of the disposition hearing 

(column heading) for judicial district A (row item). 

Sample OV–1. Median Time From Filing of Initial 

Petition to Disposition Hearing, by Judicial 

District, 2006 

Judicial District Median Days Number of Cases 

A 70 239 

B 57 264 

C 70 520 

D 80 243 

E 95 368 

Statewide 72 1,634 

Tabular reports may be simple to read and understand, as 

in sample OV–1, or they may be more complex. The more 

categories of data that are presented, the more complex a 

report will seem. Sample OV–2 uses the same dataset of 

cases as sample OV–1 but presents different information 

about those cases, breaking down the “days from filing” 

information into several categories (1–30 days, 31–60 

days, 61–90 days, and more than 90 days). Each of these 

categories is divided to show the number of cases in the 

category and the percentage of total cases that number 

represents. 

Breaking out the data by categories makes the report 

more informative, but it also multiplies the number of 

items a person must look at, which can make the report 

more difficult to read and understand. However, for many 

measures, it is necessary to compare several categories 

(columns) to understand the results. For example, reports 

on Toolkit Measure 3D: Early Appointment of Counsel for 

Parents or Measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties may 

tell a very different story for mothers and fathers as groups 

than for all parties combined. Data on Toolkit Measure 2A: 

Achievement of Child Permanency may look very different 

for older children than for younger children, or for different 

ethnic groups. Breaking data into categories can provide a 

more revealing view, uncovering important information that 

may be hidden in less differentiated statistics. 

If the audience for a report is accustomed to reading 

tables, a tabular format is an efficient way to present a 

large amount of complex information. Depending on the 

audience, it may be useful to extract selected information 

from a complex table and present it in several simpler 

tables or in graphs (see the discussion below). 

Breaking out tabular data by court can help to identify 

individual courts with excellent performance and those that 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

Sample OV–2. Days From Filing of Initial Petition to Disposition Hearing, by Judicial District, 2006 

1–30 Days 31–60 Days 61–90 Days More than 90 Days 

Total 

Number Number Number Number Number 

Judicial District of Cases Percent of Cases Percent of Cases Percent of Cases Percent of Cases 

A 15 6% 79 33% 100 42% 45 19% 239 

B 33 13% 116 44% 99 38% 16 6% 264 

C 45 9% 201 39% 187 36% 87 17% 520 

D 15 6% 69 28% 103 42% 56 23% 243 

E 23 6% 80 22% 75 20% 190 52% 368 

Statewide 131 8% 545 33% 564 35% 394 24% 1,634 

are having difficulty achieving expected performance levels. Comparing individual courts or districts to a statewide 

average or standard can be useful in determining where 

to focus resources for improvement. Sometimes, showing 

a range of performance without specifically naming courts 

or districts is appropriate. 

Tables can make it possible for people to analyze data 

in ways that are more comprehensive and complex than 

otherwise would be the case. However, it is not necessary to present the entire tabular report to every audience. 

Breaking a report into smaller segments, thereby showing 

only one or two things that are useful to a particular audience, is also a viable strategy. 

Another way to help readers understand data is to provide 

textual analysis in short bullet points. This will be useful for 

nonstatisticians who may need help accurately interpreting 

statistical data (e.g., the judge who needs to know whether 

he or she is meeting statutory timelines but may be unfamiliar with statistical presentations). 

In short, it is important to consider the audience when 

deciding how to present findings in a tabular report. 

Using Graphs 

Depicting selected information graphically is one way to 

help audiences better understand the data. Bar graphs, pie 

charts, and trend lines all can be useful.18 

Bar graphs are effective for side-by-side comparisons 

of the performance of different courts or districts. In 

sample OV–3, the heights of the bars provide a clear visual 

Sample OV–3. Percentage of Cases Meeting State Standard for Days From Filing of Initial Petition 

to Disposition Hearing, by Judicial District, 2006 

100% 100% 

100%
 

90%
 

80%
 

70%
 

60%
 

50%
 

40%
 

30%
 

20%
 

10%
 

0%

95% 

67% 

80% 

95% 

Judicial Judicial Judicial Judicial Judicial Statewide
 

District A District B District C District D District E Standard
 

11 
12 

Technical Guide
 

Sample OV–4. Percentage of Cases Reaching Disposition Hearing Within 90 Days, 

by Judicial District, 2006 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Judicial 

District A 

More Than 90 Days 

Judicial 

District B 

Judicial 

District C 

representation of differences between districts and also 

make it easy to see which districts are approaching the 

State standard. Sample OV–4 illustrates a stacked-bar 

graph. Here the divisions of the bars clearly show, for 

each district, the proportions of cases reaching a disposition hearing in 90 days or less versus more than 90 days. 

Based on data in the category “90 days or less,” the 

graph shows the districts in order from A to E next to the 

statewide average. 

Pie charts are useful for showing how a dataset is divided 

into categories. For example, a pie chart of the data for 

Toolkit Measure 2A: Achievement of Child Permanency 

can clearly depict the percentage of children returning 

home, being adopted, living with a legal guardian, etc. 

(see sample OV–5). Pie charts can also illustrate proportions of other types of results, such as percentages of 

hearings occurring within various time ranges. 

Trend lines connect various data points on a graph. They 

can show how the same measurement has changed 

over successive time periods. For example, sample OV–6 

shows Judicial District C’s upward trend over the past 4 

years in the percentage of mothers and fathers who were 

appointed counsel prior to the emergency removal hearing. In addition, the differences in the trajectories of the 

two lines and in the lines’ levels at each year emphasize 

the disparity in early appointment rates for mothers and 

fathers. Trend lines can also show the percentage of cases 

6% 

19% 17% 23% 52% 24%

81% 94% 83% 77% 48% 76% 

Judicial Judicial Statewide 

District D District E 

90 Days or Less 

Sample OV–5. Types of Final Placements, Cases 

Closed in 2006: Judicial District D 

2% 5% 

33% 

29% 

7% 24% 

Reunification APPLA 

Adoption Age Out 

Legal Guardianship Other 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

Sample OV–6. Comparison of Early Appointment of Counsel for Mothers and Fathers, 

Judicial District 6, 2003 to 2006 

0% 

47% 

23% 

12% 

8% 

0% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

30% 

35% 

40% 

45% 

50% 

12% 

15% 

Percentage of Cases 

2003 2004 2005 2006 

Mothers Fathers 

Sample OV–7. Median Days From Filing of Initial Petition to Adjudication, by Quarter, 2000 to 2005 

120 

100
 

80
 

Days

60 

40 

20 

0 

Goal = 60 days 

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

that reach particular points at different times. Sample 

OV–7 shows how the median number of days from filing to 

adjudication has changed over 6 years and how that trend 

relates to a particular goal or standard. Finally, a trend line 

can compare the rate at which events occur in different 

samples of cases (e.g., cases opened in different years). 

The guide’s discussions of individual performance 

measures suggest possible graphs. Jurisdictions can 

experiment with different ways of illustrating the same 

measures and results, to find the clearest and most compelling format for each. For example, multiple pie charts 

can show change over time. Whether pie charts are easier 

to understand than comparable bar graphs or trend lines 

depends not only on the particular area being measured, 

but also on the nature and complexity of the data. Again, 

jurisdictions are encouraged to tailor their reports to the 

needs of their audience(s). 

13 
Technical Guide
 

Court Reforms Applicable to 

Multiple Performance Measures 

This guide’s sections on individual performance measures 

include discussions of court reforms related to each 

measure. This section of the overview looks at fundamental areas of legal system reforms that can have a bearing 

on many different performance measures. Courts wishing 

to improve their overall measurable performance should 

consider these broad, fundamental areas of reform as well 

as the specifics for the individual measures. For other general discussions of related practice reforms in child abuse 

and neglect litigation, see appendix B (for practice reforms 

related to specific stages of the court process) of this 

Technical Guide, chapter 3 and appendix A of the Toolkit 

Implementation Guide, and other sources cited.19 

Analyzing Workloads 

Appropriate judicial workloads are necessary but not 

sufficient to ensure good performance in many of the 

specific performance measures. For example, improved 

judicial workloads may or may not lead to more timely 

court hearings and decisions. However, workload improvements can be very helpful when combined with caseflow 

management reforms such as restrictions on continuances, 

improvements in hearing practices (firm scheduling, clear 

deadlines, open-court scheduling of the next hearing). In 

other words, if a court is already efficient at scheduling 

hearings but there is not enough available time on the 

docket for timely hearings, more reasonable workloads 

may substantially improve performance for measures of 

timeliness. 

Workloads involve more than the numbers of cases or 

hearings per judge. Also important are the workloads 

and duties of court staff and of attorneys who practice 

in the court. For example, if a court adds a new judge 

but lacks enough attorneys to cover the new courtroom, 

adding the judge may not speed the resolution of cases. 

Heavy workloads within the child welfare agency may also 

interfere with the timeliness of hearings, causing delays 

when workers fail to appear or are unprepared when they 

appear. 

Judicial and attorney workloads affect not only the timeliness of hearings, but also the provision of procedural 

protections and the quality of hearings. These in turn may 

affect safety and other permanency outcomes. 

Finally, analysis of workloads should take into account the 

time spent and time needed for the following: 

u	Hearings conducted in accordance with best practices. 

u	Off-the-bench activities related to cases (e.g., review 

and preparation). 

u	Off-the-bench activities not related to specific 

cases (e.g., court administration and work with the 

community). 

For more information on workload analysis, see the Toolkit 

volume Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment (Assessment Guide), as well as workload analysis discussions 

from site reports produced during the Children’s Bureau 

performance measurement project.20 

Scheduling Hearings and 

Assigning Judges 

Certain scheduling and assignment practices affect how 

much time is available for a hearing. For example, if a 

presiding judge without experience in child protection 

litigation determines how much time judges are to set 

aside for specific types of child protection hearings or for 

child protection cases generally, the time allotted for these 

hearings and cases may be insufficient. 

The issue of time allotment is particularly important in rural 

areas and in other jurisdictions with unspecialized courts, 

where decisions of presiding judges rather than overall 

judicial workload analysis often determine the amount of 

court time to be devoted to child abuse and neglect cases. 

As discussed above, sufficient time for hearings is necessary to meet goals related to the timeliness, frequency, and 

completeness of hearings. Furthermore, judges in unspecialized courts (e.g., courts of general jurisdiction) may not 

hear child abuse and neglect cases on a regular basis and 

may require more time to conduct hearings properly than 

would more specialized juvenile and family court judges. 

If a presiding judge allots inadequate docket time for hearings, problems are likely to result. For example, a presiding 

judge may allow one morning once a week for review 

and permanency hearings. If the court has only one judge 

to conduct such hearings and averages 12 hearings per 

week, this schedule allows only 15 minutes for each hearing, which probably will not be sufficient. Or, the presiding 

judge may allow one judge one day per week for all child 

abuse and neglect proceedings, a practice that is likely to 

cause a backup of cases and impose pressures that make 

14 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

it impossible for hearings to comply with legal requirements and best practices. 

To make improvements, courts are encouraged to set 

guidelines for (1) what should occur during particular 

types of hearings and (2) the length of particular types of 

hearings.21 Courts should consider making such guidelines 

standard and binding on court staff responsible for scheduling hearings, subject to ad hoc adjustments by the judge. 

For each type of hearing, staff should set aside standard 

amounts of time that will enable judges to conduct routine 

hearings in accordance with best practices; judges may 

then increase or decrease these time allotments based on 

the circumstances of specific hearings. Likewise, courts 

should set guidelines for the number of judicial officer-days 

needed per week for child abuse and neglect hearings, 

based on the number of cases, typical number of hearings, 

and other factors. 

An additional factor in scheduling hearings is the amount 

of time judges need to complete related court forms and 

orders. For example, forms that call for certain casespecific facts may require additional time to complete 

and may also make it necessary for judges to ask more 

questions (and take more time) during hearings to gather 

the required facts. 

Recruiting, Selecting, and 

Assigning Judges 

Other factors critical to the quality of child protection litigation have to do with how judges are recruited, selected, 

and assigned to hear child protection cases in States with 

specialized juvenile or family courts. Such States should 

set objective requirements or standards concerning the 

qualifications and experience of judges assigned to child 

protection cases.22 Criteria for selecting judges should 

reflect these standards and should focus on qualifications 

and experience specifically relevant to child protection litigation. In addition, a fair, publicly known selection process 

should be in place. 

Standards and selection criteria should take into consideration an individual’s experience both before and since 

becoming a judge. They should also require experience 

handling other family issues, because of the “one family/ 

one judge” principle (see below). 

In courts of general jurisdiction,23 where judges rotate in 

and out of family or juvenile divisions, long judicial assignments to the child protection dockets should be the norm. 

Although allowances need to be made for judges who 

quickly become “fatigued” with child protection and other 

family cases, problems with judicial fatigue are greatly reduced when judges are originally selected for these cases 

based on extensive experience and demonstrated interest 

in this area of law. 

In sparsely populated areas, establishing regional specialty 

courts to handle child protection proceedings is an alternative to requiring each rural judge to become familiar with 

this kind of litigation. Texas has experimented with this arrangement, creating “cluster courts” in which judges hear 

child protection cases for multiple counties.24 

A final, important consideration in assigning judges is to 

establish the principle of “one case/one judge,” which 

means that (with limited exceptions) the same judge will 

hear all stages of a case. For related information, see 

this guide’s discussion of Toolkit Measure 3A: Number of 

Judges Per Case. 

Training Judges, Attorneys, and 

Court Staff 

Training can be very helpful, but its effectiveness depends 

on a number of factors. The quality of the training itself is 

critical, as are trainees’ levels of motivation and attendance. Other factors have to do with court organization, 

including rotation, specialization, and selection of judges, 

attorneys, and court staff. 

The following steps can help courts create strong training 

programs for personnel involved in child protection cases: 

u	Identify specific skills and areas of knowledge that 

judges, attorneys, and other legal personnel need to 

best serve children and families. 

u	Develop curricula that address the most critically 

important skills and areas of knowledge and use the 

most effective methods for imparting them, including 

multiple modes of presentation and carefully designed 

audience participation exercises. 

u	Identify specific learning objectives for each training 

activity so its effectiveness can be measured against 

the objectives. 

u	Ensure that everyone who needs training in specific 

skills and areas of knowledge receives it. Approaches 

include making participation convenient, offering 

inducements for (or requiring) attendance, and tracking 

attendance. 

15 
Technical Guide
 

u	Ensure that those who attend training actually learn the 

skills and knowledge the training is designed to impart. 

Approaches include testing trainees (possibly online) 

and offering systematic refresher training. 

u	Use technology such as Web-based (online) training 

and training videos to reach employees who cannot 

travel to attend training sessions, and then support their 

participation by scheduling videoconferences or local 

meetings. 

u	Provide cross-system, multidisciplinary training on 

topics of mutual interest to different participants in the 

system. Such topics include risk assessment, mental 

health, substance abuse, and education of children 

in foster care; the role of caseworkers in court; and 

preparation and use of court reports. 

u	Colocate training for judges, attorneys, court staff, and 

child welfare agency staff, when practical, to combine 

multidisciplinary training with separate sessions for the 

different professional groups on topics of special interest 

to them. 

Restructuring Legal Representation 

Because attorneys strongly affect the flow of information 

to the court and the presentation of issues for litigation, 

the quality of legal representation is vital to the overall 

quality of child protection litigation. In restructuring legal 

representation to better serve children and families, courts 

should consider the following key factors: 

u	Recruitment and selection. Use objective selection 

criteria in appointing legal representation. Make the 

notice process for hiring or selection transparent. 

u	Specialization of attorneys. Find attorneys who 

specialize in child protection cases (e.g., through legal 

organizations) rather than randomly selecting attorneys 

from appointment lists. 

u	Caseloads. Balance caseloads to give attorneys 

adequate time to prepare cases and provide them with 

enough cases to develop and maintain expertise in child 

abuse and neglect litigation. 

u	Mandatory training and mentoring. Ensure that 

all attorneys handling child protection cases have 

the essential knowledge and experience needed for 

competent practice. 

u	Clear performance expectations. Consider using job 

descriptions or contracts that spell out obligations to 

provide advance preparation for hearings, attend all 

hearings, periodically check on clients’ progress, and 

perform other specified duties. 

u	Quality assurance and improvement. Periodically 

evaluate the quality of legal representation and plan for 

improvements where needed. 

u	Duration of assignments. Consider using long-term 

contracts or staff assignments to specific dockets, 

divisions, or courts, which will allow attorneys to develop 

and maintain a high level of expertise. 

Using Technology 

Performance measurement is one of many ways that 

technology can be used to improve the efficiency and 

performance of courts. Other technology-based enhancements of the larger management information system 

(MIS) can also contribute to this goal. Important examples 

include the following: 

u	Electronic filing of court documents to facilitate timely 

filing of reports and pleadings. 

u	Automated creation and printing of court orders and 

other documents to facilitate timely preparation and 

distribution. 

u	Case-scheduling software that takes into account 

scheduling needs of all parties and produces court 

calendars. 

u	Electronic distribution of court calendars within and 

outside the court to facilitate attendance at hearings 

and enable timelier calendar adjustments, thus reducing 

delays. 

u	Automated reminders (ticklers) that prompt specific 

actions such as scheduling hearings and providing 

notice to avoid delays and improve the timeliness and 

consistency of notice. 

u	Automated tracking of cases, i.e., checking the status 

of specific cases (or groups of related cases) and the 

involvement of parties and others in these cases, to 

avoid needless delays in specific cases, diagnose 

causes of delays, and improve procedural protections. 

MIS enhancements can also make it possible to prepare 

summary information for specific cases and electronically distribute the summaries to parties prior to hearings. (For example, summary case information could be 

added to lists of actions such as service of process, filing 

16 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

of proceedings, and court orders.) Such summaries may 

improve the efficiency of judges and attorneys by keeping 

them informed of upcoming hearings. The summaries may 

also help to ensure the accuracy of information received by 

parties, judges, and attorneys. 

In This Guide 

This guide provides complete technical information for 

each of the 30 performance measures recommended 

for child protection litigation. The information includes 

an opening summary (definition, brief explanation, and 

purpose); a detailed discussion of implementation issues, 

such as complexities, alternative measures (“proxies”), 

additions, and barriers in capturing information; specifications for calculating the measure; data elements (including 

required elements for calculating the measure as defined, 

and optional elements for calculating alternatives); related 

CFSR standards; suggestions for tabular reports and 

graphs; examples of factors that may affect court performance; and possible court reforms for improving performance. The measures are arranged in four sections: 

u	Safety (Measures 1A and 1B). 

u	Permanency (Measures 2A–2E). 

u	Due Process and Fairness (Measures 3A–3J). 

u	Timeliness (Measures 4A–4M). 

The guide also includes four appendixes: 

u	Appendix A. List of Performance Measures. Each 

measure’s reference number, short title, and definition. 

u	Appendix B. Stages of the Juvenile Court Process 

in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Overview of the 

steps in processing child protection cases, including 

the guide’s terminology for hearings. This appendix will 

help States that use different terminology determine 

how their hearings correspond to those referred to in the 

guide. 

u	Appendix C. Calculation Guide. A quick reference for 

technical staff. Includes required data elements for each 

measure, plus specifications (also known as “business 

rules”) for performing calculations. 

u	Appendix D. Data Element Dictionary. Lists and 

defines all required and optional data elements used 

in calculating the performance measures. 

Endnotes 

1. By contrast, for many of the Child and Family Services 

Review (CFSR) measures and for the placement stability measure in particular, the sample for the measure 

is based on time of entry. Many of the measures, such 

as the stability of placements while children are in 

foster care, use such a sample. See the discussion 

in this overview regarding the comparability of CFSR 

performance measures and the measures set forth and 

discussed in this guide. 

2. Note, however, that Measure 3F: Advance Written 

Notice of Hearings to Foster Parents, Preadoptive 

Parents, and Relative Caregivers still requires the court 

to be informed as to the foster parents who are active 

in the case in order to send notices of hearings to these 

foster parents as required by Federal law. 

3. It is possible to link National Child Abuse and Neglect 

Data System (NCANDS) case records to CMS records with good accuracy by using a combination of 

child identifiers (e.g., date of birth, gender) and case 

identifiers (e.g., county, report date, petition date, 

removal date) data. See the discussion in this overview 

regarding the overlap of Federal data and the judicial 

performance measures in this guide. 

4. Under Federal law, court-ordered out-of-home placement of abused and neglected children is not eligible 

for Federal foster care reimbursement unless the child 

welfare agency has custody or at least “the child’s 

placement and care are the responsibility” of the child 

welfare agency (42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2)(B)). In addition, 

placements are not considered reimbursable “foster 

family homes” unless the child welfare agency has 

licensed or approved the home as meeting the relevant 

licensing standards (42 U.S.C. § 672(c)(1)). 

5. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
 

System (AFCARS) includes the last date of discharge
 

from the previous foster care removal episode. The
 

comments in note 3 about linking NCANDS records
 

to CMS records also apply to AFCARS records.
 

6. The definition of “age-appropriate” is left to the
 

individual States.
 

7. When necessary, records for an individual child can be 

linked by using child- and case-identifying information. 

The linking process will rarely achieve 100-percent 

accuracy, as it will omit some true links and include 

some false links (in statistical terms, type I and type II 

17 
Technical Guide
 

errors). It usually is possible to estimate the magnitude 

of these linking errors and the sensitivity of individual 

measures to these errors. Although they should never 

be ignored, linking errors and missing data should not 

be viewed as insurmountable obstacles. The effects 

of linking errors on measurement will often be small. 

As long as estimates of those effects are available for 

context, the errors should not diminish the utility of the 

measures. 

8. Note that data collection methods need not be 

automated. Some data might be collected manually, 

whereas other data might be derived from automated 

systems. 

9. A cohort is a group of people who share a common 

characteristic or experience within a defined time 

period. For example, all children entering court jurisdiction in 2005 form a cohort. 

10. Most States and the District of Columbia (45 out of 

51) report case-level data on child maltreatment to 

NCANDS. (See Child Maltreatment 2004, Table 1–1 

State Data Submissions, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ 

cb/pubs/cm04/table1_1.htm, accessed March 16, 

2007.) NCANDS case-level records contain more 

than 140 fields describing each report of maltreatment disposed during the Federal fiscal year. (See The 

Detailed Case Data Component (DCDC) Child Data File 

Record Layout, Preliminary June 2000, www.acf.hhs. 

gov/programs/cb/systems/ncands/ncands98/record/ 

recorda1.htm, accessed March 16, 2007.) 

11. All State child welfare agencies report case-level 

data every 6 months to AFCARS. (See www.acf.hhs. 

gov/programs/cb/systems/index.htm#afcars, accessed 

March 16, 2007). The AFCARS foster care data contain 

more than 60 fields describing the most recent removal 

episodes of every child in State foster care during the 

reporting period. (See AFCARS Foster Care Data Element Standards, revised March 2000, www.acf.hhs. 

gov/programs/cb/systems/afcars/techbulletin/tb6.htm, 

accessed March 16, 2007.) 

12. The CFSR program of the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau enables the 

Bureau to ensure that State child welfare agency 

practice is in conformity with Federal child welfare requirements, to determine what is happening to children 

and families who receive State child welfare services, 

and to assist States in enhancing their capacity to help 

children and families achieve positive outcomes. 

13. From the National Resource Center for Child Welfare 

Data and Technology 2006 State Data Profile Toolkit 

(www.nrccwdt.org/cfsr/cfsr_toolkit.html, accessed 

March 16, 2007). 

14. Nevertheless, State courts should be circumspect 

about generating and publicly sharing reports that 

include data regarding the performance of individual 

judges. Such data can easily be misinterpreted and 

misunderstood. It is very important to allow judges to 

check and correct data. It is also important to carefully 

consider when, how, and in which formats to produce 

aggregate reports. 

15. The median is the point that divides a set of measurements into two equal halves—half of the scores in a 

list of measurements are above the median and half 

are below the median. When there is an odd number 

of numbers, the median is simply the middle number 

(e.g., the median of 2, 4, and 7 is 4. When there is an 

even number of numbers, the median is the mean or 

average of the two middle numbers (e.g., the median 

of the numbers 2, 4, 7, and 12 is (4+7)/2 = 5.5). 

16. For example, to calculate the mean time to adjudication 

for a sample of 150 cases, one would sum the days to 

adjudication for each case and then divide that sum by 

150. 

17. An average month is actually 30.4 days (365 days/12 

months). Another possibility for counting months is 

to use 30.4 days and round off (e.g., 150 days/30.4 

days = 4.9 months = 5 months). This usually will not 

affect the statistics by more than a day or two and 

rarely will force a case from one classification into 

another (e.g., from 1–3 months to 4–6 months). For 

example, if an event occurred on March 15, the system 

can measure the number of days from that point until 

the next event occurred on May 15 (61 days), divide 61 

days by 30 or 30.4, and then round the result, which 

would be 2 in this case, for the number of months 

between events. 

18. All of the types of graphs discussed in this section can 

be readily produced using Microsoft® Excel®. 

19. For an extended discussion of one State’s court organization reforms, see Muskie School of Public Service 

and American Bar Association Center on Children and 

the Law, Michigan Court Improvement Program Reassessment (Lansing, MI: Michigan State Court Administrative Office, 2005), pp. 12-70. See also summaries of 

18 
Overview of Technical Issues in Performance Measurement 

national court reform efforts of the National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), published 

by NCJFCJ in a series of technical assistance bulletins 

(Model Court Status Reports), available online at 

www.ncjfcj.org. 

20. For this information, contact Mark Hardin: markhardin@ 

staff.abanet.org; 202–662–1750; American Bar 

Association Center on Children and the Law, 740 15th 

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. 

21. For best practice guidance on the content and length 

of hearings, see the NCJFCJ publications RESOURCE 

GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse 

and Neglect Cases (1995) and ADOPTION AND PERMANENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child 

Abuse and Neglect Cases (2000), available online at 

www.ncjfcj.org. Presiding judges or court staff who 

are responsible for scheduling child abuse and neglect 

hearings may benefit from training regarding the 

purposes of various types of hearings. 

22. Such standards can also serve as useful background 

information for voters in States with judicial elections. 

23. “Courts of general jurisdiction” are empowered to hear 

all types of litigation, including major criminal and civil 

cases. In many places, these courts have specialized 

family or juvenile divisions. Presiding or administrative 

judges of the court of general jurisdiction often control 

rotation in and out of the specialized divisions. 

24. A thorough, federally funded evaluation of the Texas 

cluster courts is currently underway. 

19 

measure 1a 

Definition: Percentage of children who are abused or neglected while under court jurisdiction. 

Explanation: This measure shows the percentage of children who suffer further abuse or neglect after court proceedings 

are initiated for their protection but before the case is closed. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate both their own role and the child welfare agency’s role in protecting abused and 

neglected children from maltreatment. This measure focuses on the time period during which the court has jurisdiction 

over the children (i.e., while the court case is open). 

A variety of circumstances exist in which courts affect the 

safety of children under their jurisdiction. Some of these circumstances are discussed in detail below. Among the more 

obvious examples are judicial decisions regarding whether 

or not to remove a child from the home and whether 

or not to return a child to that home. In addition, courts 

exercise oversight of children while they are in foster care. 

This measure may be refined to allow courts to calculate 

separately how often children under court jurisdiction are 

u	A judge awards custody of a child to the child welfare 

agency and the agency places the child in foster care. 

The foster parents later abuse or neglect the child. The 

child could not have been abused or neglected in foster 

care without the judge having awarded custody to the 

child welfare agency for foster placement. Although the 

judge received information about where the child was 

placed, it was the agency that chose the foster family, 

visited the child in the foster home, and continually 

Child Safety While Under 

Court Jurisdiction 

maltreated while at home or with relatives and how often 

they are maltreated while in foster care. 

Implementation Issues 

This is one of the most complex and challenging performance measures for courts to implement. The discussions 

that follow indicate why that is the case. 

Distinctions Regarding Abuse or 

Neglect of Children While Under 

Court Jurisdiction 

Whether Maltreatment Occurred While Children 

Were in Foster Care 

One possible distinction regarding abuse or neglect while 

children are under court jurisdiction is whether or not the 

children were in foster care when the maltreatment occurred. The court may decide to measure abuse or neglect 

only while a child is in foster care. Or, it may decide to 

report separate rates of abuse or neglect for children who 

are in foster care and those who are not in foster care but 

are still under the court’s jurisdiction. 

Some examples illustrate why this distinction might be 

important. In the first situation, the child is placed in foster 

care: 

evaluated the child’s circumstances. Further, the judge 

awarded custody to the agency because the child 

already had been abused or neglected at home. Leaving 

the child at home was not a safe alternative. 

By contrast, in the following situations, the children are not 

placed in foster care: 

u	A parent abuses or neglects a child after a judge decides 

not to approve the child’s removal from home. 

u	A parent abuses or neglects a child after a judge allows 

a child to be returned home. 

u	A relative or other individual abuses or neglects a child 

after a judge decides to place the child into that person’s 

home. 

u	Another member of the parent’s or relative’s household 

abuses or neglects the child in one of the above 

situations. 

In these four situations, the judge specifically ordered a 

child to remain in a certain home. Abuse or neglect then 

occurred during this placement. The fact that the judge 

made the placement decision does not mean the abuse or 

neglect was necessarily the judge’s fault. The agency may 

not have presented enough information, advocacy may 

have been insufficient, or there may have been facts that 

the agency could not have known. Nevertheless, to some 
Technical Guide
 

extent, the abuse or neglect can be attributed to the court’s 

decision. 

The situations outlined above suggest that courts generally 

are more responsible for abuse or neglect while children 

are not in foster care than when they are in foster care; 

however, this is not always the case. For example, although 

a child is placed in foster care, the child might be abused 

or neglected by a parent during visits, and the judge may 

have ordered the terms and conditions of those visits. 

In some States, judges have the authority to order where a 

child will be placed in foster care and to set the conditions 

under which the child will be placed. If the judge orders a 

specific placement over the objection of the child welfare 

agency and the child is then abused or neglected in that 

placement, one might attribute the abuse or neglect, in 

part, to the judge’s decision. However, even in States 

where judges have the authority to order specific foster 

placements, they actually do so only in a small minority 

of cases. While children are in foster care, the agency is 

much more often and more deeply involved in placement 

decisions than are judges. Thus, whether or not a child was 

in foster care while abused or neglected is a useful distinction for purposes of performance measurement. 

Whether Maltreatment Occurred While Children 

Were Placed With Relatives 

Another useful distinction regarding abuse or neglect 

of a child under court jurisdiction is whether or not the 

maltreatment occurred while the child was placed with 

a relative. Many courts and child welfare agencies are 

interested in evaluating the soundness of their decisions to 

place children with members of the extended family. Relatives with whom children are placed may or may not be 

licensed and approved as foster parents. Courts may grant 

custody of a maltreated child to relatives rather than to the 

child welfare agency. 

Possible Sources or Types of 

Information Regarding Abuse or 

Neglect of Children While Under 

Court Jurisdiction 

A major challenge for this measure is obtaining accurate 

data on the rate of abuse or neglect while children are 

under court jurisdiction. When designing specifications 

for this measure, courts must think carefully about what 

sources of information on abuse or neglect are most accurate and most consistently available. The paragraphs that 

follow describe possible sources and types of data courts 

might use.1

 None of the approaches described will be 

the best in every State or local court system. Courts must 

decide what is the most effective, comprehensive way for 

them to collect the data for this measure. 

Emergency Court Orders Transferring Children’s 

Placement or Custody 

One source of data that is relatively easy for courts to collect and count is emergency court orders authorizing the 

removal of a child from home or other emergency changes 

in placement. In most cases, such court orders will be 

based on an incident of abuse or neglect. 

Note, however, that this performance measure is based 

only on abuse or neglect that occurred while the court had 

jurisdiction. Therefore, the count should not include judicial 

emergency removal decisions based on incidents that 

occurred before the court proceedings began. For example, 

assume that a child was abused or neglected at home and, 

based on that incident, the child welfare agency subsequently either (1) removed the child and then scheduled an 

emergency removal hearing, or (2) obtained an emergency 

court order before removing the child. In either circumstance, the first court order should not be counted in this 

measure because the actual abuse or neglect occurred 

before the court’s jurisdiction began. 

The following are examples of court orders that would be 

counted for purposes of this measure: 

u	After the judge issues a disposition order leaving a 

child at home, a parent again abuses the child. The 

agency promptly files a motion requesting a court order 

authorizing the agency to remove the child from the 

home immediately. That order would be counted for 

this measure. 

u	During a review hearing, the judge issues an order 

transferring custody of a 3-year-old child from the 

State child welfare agency to the child’s maternal 

grandmother. Later, the agency finds the child 

unattended and wandering the grandmother’s home 

while the grandmother is visiting friends a block away. 

The agency picks up the child and schedules a court 

hearing on the next day. The judge then issues an order 

transferring custody of the child back to the agency. 

That order would be counted for this measure. 

If emergency court orders based on incidents of abuse or 

neglect are consistently issued when a child’s custody or 

placement is changed, then courts can count and report 

22 
measure 1a: Child Safety While Under Court Jurisdiction 

these orders relatively easily. To use the emergency orders 

as a source of data for this measure, however, court staff 

will need to distinguish them from other types of orders 

when entering the data into the judicial database. 

A disadvantage of using this source of data is that if it does 

not include all incidents of maltreatment, then it is not fully 

valid as a measure of abuse or neglect. For example, abuse 

or neglect may occur that does not require emergency 

removal, such as incidents during visits. Furthermore, 

in most States, if maltreatment occurs while a child is 

in foster care, a court order is not necessary to change 

the child’s placement. Another disadvantage affecting 

the validity of emergency orders as a data source for this 

measure is that children sometimes are removed from the 

home because of emergencies that do not involve abuse 

or neglect (e.g., a single parent may suddenly become ill). 

Despite the disadvantages noted, emergency removal orders can be a roughly accurate proxy (and therefore useful) 

for measuring abuse or neglect that occurs while children 

are under the court’s jurisdiction but not in foster care. To 

determine how useful these orders will be as a data source 

for this measure, it is necessary to carefully consider 

(1) the circumstances in which such orders are supposed 

to be issued, and (2) how consistently they are issued in 

these circumstances. 

Written Reports by the Agency to the Court in 

Individual Cases of Abuse or Neglect 

Another possible source of data on abuse or neglect while 

children are under court jurisdiction is written reports by 

the child welfare agency. If agencies routinely and consistently list such incidents in their written reports to the 

court, court staff can record this information in a way that 

makes it useful for this measure of court performance. 

An advantage of this data source is that it can include 

incidents of maltreatment that occur while children are 

in foster care, as well as incidents that occur in other 

placements. 

Two major challenges to gathering data from agency 

reports are: (1) the agency’s consistency in providing 

reports to the court, and (2) the court staff’s consistency 

and accuracy in entering this information into the judicial 

database. 

To ensure consistent reporting to the courts, the agency 

should format its court reports so they prominently address 

any incidents of abuse or neglect since the previous court 

report. Specifically, the report form or template should 

include a clearly marked section indicating whether the 

child has been abused or neglected and, if maltreatment has occurred, by whom. The agency must train and 

supervise its employees to ensure that they include this 

information in their reports to the court. 

To ensure proper data entry by court staff, the court’s 

computer programs should provide data entry screens 

prompting staff to indicate whether or not abuse or neglect 

information has been reported by the agency. The field for 

such data entry should be mandatory. The entry screen 

should ask who reportedly abused or neglected the child 

and whether the court ordered the child to be cared for by 

the person(s) named. Courts must train and supervise their 

employees to ensure that they consistently and accurately 

enter this information from the agency report into the court 

database. 

Assuming that the court and agency agree on using written 

reports to identify incidents of abuse or neglect, they must 

also agree on the circumstances in which the agency will 

report incidents. For example, will the agency include all 

alleged incidents or only those it has verified? Because 

some agencies do not formally report and investigate allegations of abuse or neglect once court proceedings have 

begun, it may not be feasible for the agency to include only 

“substantiated” or “confirmed” incidents in its reports to 

the court. Even if the agency does formally investigate allegations after court proceedings have begun, the court may 

prefer that the agency report incidents before it completes 

its investigation. 

A possible disadvantage of this data source is that the 

court may not regard the agency reports as judicially 

recognized proof of abuse or neglect. Nevertheless, courts 

should recognize that these data have value as a means 

of making aggregate comparisons. 

A related problem has to do with the consistency of agency 

reports. Some agencies or branch offices might be more 

inclined than others to report minor incidents to the court. 

The State child welfare agency can alleviate this problem 

somewhat by adopting relatively clear definitions of abuse 

and neglect and periodically reviewing how local agencies 

screen reports and share information with courts. 

Agency Data on Reports of Abuse While Children 

Are Under the Court’s Jurisdiction 

The child welfare agency might provide electronic data to 

the court regarding abuse or neglect. The data might also 

specify whether or not such abuse or neglect occurred 

23 
Technical Guide
 

while the child was in foster care. Either the agency or 

the court should filter out reports of incidents that did not 

occur while the child was under court jurisdiction. 

In most States, however, there are formidable technical 

and practical barriers to agencies’ electronically sharing 

such data with courts. Few court systems and agencies 

have yet worked out systems for timely exchanges of data 

and implemented quality control measures to ensure the 

data’s accuracy. 

An alternative to electronic data exchange is for the agency 

to process the data itself and provide it to the court in 

written form. To make this possible, the court would have 

to provide the agency with the time period during which 

each case was under the court’s jurisdiction. Analysis of information for this time period would require both additional 

programming and additional data entry by the agency. 

It is important to note, however, that after court proceedings have begun, some agencies do not consistently 

process and investigate reports of abuse or neglect by 

parents. Thus, an agency may not be a good source of data 

on maltreatment by parents while children are under court 

jurisdiction. 

Supplemental Petitions of Abuse or Neglect Filed 

After the Original Petition 

An earlier version of this performance measure was based 

on the numbers of supplemental petitions of abuse or 

neglect following the original petition. The basis of this 

measure was changed, however, because in many courts 

supplemental petitions are not consistently filed when acts 

of abuse or neglect occur after the original petition. Rather, 

after court proceedings have begun, courts are most likely 

to learn of further abuse or neglect either through agency 

reports or through testimony in court. 

In some States, however, supplemental petitions are filed 

fairly consistently when new incidents of abuse or neglect 

occur. In such States, this source of data is easy to obtain. 

Assuming supplemental petitions are filed consistently, 

they must be connected to the pending litigation. Some 

courts open “new” cases with new case numbers when 

supplemental petitions are filed. Using supplemental petitions as a measure of incidents of further abuse or neglect 

requires a link between the original and supplemental petitions, based either on the similarity of the case numbers or, 

perhaps, on a unique identification code for the child. 

One limitation of this source of data is that it generally 

measures abuse or neglect only when children are not in 

foster care. Even in States where supplemental petitions 

are filed consistently, they are filed only when children are 

at home or are in the custody of someone other than the 

child welfare agency. Thus, this source of data generally 

applies only to abuse or neglect occurring outside of foster 

homes. 

Judicial Findings of Abuse or Neglect Based on 

Supplemental Petitions of Abuse or Neglect 

A type of data that is closely related to the number of 

supplemental petitions is the number of judicial findings 

of abuse or neglect based on such petitions. The number 

of findings has the advantage of being more precise, 

especially from a judicial standpoint, in reflecting the 

actual proportion of cases in which further maltreatment 

has occurred. 

On the other hand, using judicial findings as a data source 

does not solve the common problem of inconsistent filings 

of supplemental petitions. In the relatively few courts or 

court systems in which supplemental petitions are consistently filed, however, this can be an appropriate source of 

data. 

Child-Based Measurement 

This measure must be based on the experiences of 

individual children, not families. Different children in the 

same family may fare differently, some experiencing abuse 

or neglect while under court supervision, and others not. 

Accordingly, the court must establish and separately record 

further abuse or neglect for each child. 

Start Date for Measure 

An important issue in designing this measure is determining the time period within which incidents of abuse and 

neglect will be counted. Because the measure covers 

cases that are under the court’s jurisdiction, it is first 

necessary to define when that jurisdiction begins and 

ends. The end point is relatively straightforward: It is the 

date that the court closes the case. Defining when court 

jurisdiction begins is more complicated. 

Key considerations in specifying when court jurisdiction 

begins are the logic of the measure itself (i.e., what it is 

attempting to count), the practicality of collecting data 

regarding the start date selected, and the intuitive clarity 

24 
measure 1a: Child Safety While Under Court Jurisdiction 

of that date (i.e., would it be generally regarded as an 

appropriate start date). The start date for this measure may 

be the date the original petition is filed or the date of the 

first placement order. 

Date of Original Petition Filing 

This is a simple and clearly defined start date and will apply regardless of whether a child is in foster care. Although 

children often enter foster care before the petition is filed, 

in most States the court usually is not seriously involved 

in a case before the petition is filed. Thus, the date the 

petition is filed is a practical start date for measuring the 

occurrence of abuse and neglect while a child is under 

court jurisdiction. 

On the other hand, if the start date is the date the petition 

is filed, the measure will exclude situations in which a 

judge has refused to remove a child from the home during 

an ex parte motion or during the emergency removal hearing and the child is again abused or neglected before the 

petition is filed. How often this occurs depends on when 

the petition must be filed under State law. 

Date of First Placement Order 

Another possible start date for this measure is the date of 

the first court order regarding the custody or placement of 

a child. With this start date, abuse or neglect prior to such 

court orders would not be counted. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. The universe of cases included in this measure is 

children who were under the court’s jurisdiction (had 

an open case) during a time period such as a calendar 

year. (A) 

2. From dataset (A), select only cases for which abuse 

or neglect occurred during that time period (i.e., cases 

with an abuse or neglect incident date within that 

time period). Count the number of cases meeting this 

criterion. (B) 

3. Compute the percentage of children with new abuse or 

neglect in that time period by dividing (B) by (A).

2 

Computation note. In the computation, (B) is the numerator population and (A) is the denominator population. 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately on cases based on one of more of 

the following distinctions: (a) children who were and 

were not in foster care when abused or neglected; 

(b) abuse or neglect perpetrated by persons who were 

and were not given court-ordered visitation rights; 

(c) children who were and were not placed with relatives; (d) category of person(s) who perpetrated the 

abuse or neglect (e.g., parents, relatives, or foster 

parents). 

2. Report separately on cases by additional categories, 

such as child’s race/ethnicity, child’s age, and gender. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Abuse or neglect petition date. 

u	Abuse or neglect incident date. 

u	Case closure date. 

Optional Elements 

u	Placement type. 

u	Abuser. 

u	Abuser visitation status. 

u	Abuser relationship. 

u	Supplemental petition date. 

u	Allegations sustained. 

u	Emergency custody order date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

Two Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) standards 

for State child welfare agencies are related to Toolkit 

Measure 1A: 

u	CFSR S1A. Recurrence rate of abuse and neglect: 

Of all children who were victims of a substantiated or 

indicated maltreatment allegation during the first 6 

25 
Technical Guide
 

months of FFY [Federal fiscal year] 2004, what percent 

were not victims of another substantiated or indicated 

maltreatment allegation during a 6-month period? (The 

national standard is 95.2 percent or more.) 

u	CFSR S1B. Rate of child abuse and neglect while 

the child is in foster care: Of all children in foster 

care in FFY 2004, what percent were not victims of a 

substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster 

parent or facility staff member? (The national standard 

is 99.67 percent or more.) 

The universe of cases in CFSR S1A is broader than just 

those cases under court jurisdiction (as in Toolkit Measure 

1A) because not all substantiated reports are brought to 

the court. Nor will all substantiated reports lead to a successful petition for custody. 

CFSR S1A also differs from Toolkit Measure 1A in that it 

specifies the “exposure time”—the time during which 

children are considered to be susceptible to maltreatment. 

The universe of cases in CFSR S1A is all cases in which 

children were susceptible to subsequent maltreatment for 

6 months after the initial incident of maltreatment. 

By contrast, Toolkit Measure 1A, like CFSR S1B, seeks to 

measure maltreatment among a universe of cases, but 

with a mixture of exposure times over the reporting period 

(i.e., not limited to further maltreatment within a fixed time 

after the original incident). In other words, Toolkit Measure 

1A is based on a sample of open cases, with no limitation 

on the passage of time following the original incident of 

abuse or neglect. 

The universe of cases in CFSR S1B (i.e., the denominator 

in the calculation of maltreatment rates) is all children in 

foster care at any time during the reporting period. This will 

generally be a subset of the cases under court jurisdiction, 

which means that the denominator populations for CFSR 

S1B and Toolkit Measure 1A are comparable. However, the 

numerator for CFSR S1B is restricted to abuse or neglect 

perpetrated by foster parents or facility staff, whereas the 

numerator for Toolkit Measure 1A also includes abuse 

or neglect by parents and by other relatives who are not 

foster parents. 

With a national standard of 0.33 percent, cases involving 

abuse or neglect perpetrated by foster parents or facility 

staff appear to be extremely rare (no cases or one case in 

most county jurisdictions). When parents or other relatives 

maltreat children while the children are in foster care, 

those incidents are counted in Toolkit Measure 1A but not 

in CFSR S1B. Thus, unless Toolkit Measure 1A is purposely 

restricted to abuse by foster parents, the maltreatment 

rate calculated from the measure will not be comparable 

to (and could be much higher than) the CFSR S1B national 

standard. 

Reporting the Data 

If performance measurement is statewide, the federally 

supported State Court Improvement Project (CIP) should 

develop tables and graphs that depict findings for the 

entire State, individual judicial circuits or districts, and, 

perhaps, individual judges. Local courts can use these 

tables and graphs to compare their performance to overall 

State performance. 

Because the rate of abuse and neglect of children in foster 

care is likely to be small, tables and graphs for sparsely 

populated areas and for many individual judges may be 

misleading. In some small States, it may be appropriate to 

report only a statewide average, together with results for 

the largest one or two jurisdictions. For areas with small 

populations, simple lists of cases in which abuse or neglect 

occurred might suffice. 

The percentage of children abused or neglected while 

placed with parents, other relatives, or other individuals—and during visitation with such persons—probably 

also will be small. Nevertheless, this percentage is likely 

to be substantially larger than the percentage of children 

maltreated while in foster care and thus more clearly suitable for reporting in comparative tables and charts. 

Comparisons can be illustrated in either pie charts or 

bar graphs. Pie charts will clearly show the overwhelming proportion of cases in which no further maltreatment 

occurred, whereas bar graphs are better for representing 

significant practical differences between jurisdictions. 

Graphic representations can help courts understand the 

meaning of their results for this measure. If striking differences are seen, for example, in certain locations or for 

certain racial/ethnic groups, the reasons for the differences 

may be well worth exploring. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious four-county State to demonstrate how results for this 

measure might be reported in tables and graphs. In the 

samples, “reabuse” refers to incidents of abuse or neglect 

that occur while a child is under the court’s jurisdiction, 

after the original incident(s) that brought the child to the 

attention of the court. 

26 
measure 1a: Child Safety While Under Court Jurisdiction 

Sample 1A–1 is a tabular comparison of reabuse rates for 

the four counties and the State as a whole. Although the 

table could be produced for any time period, it is best to 

select a period such as a calendar year and produce the 

report for each period (e.g., every calendar year). 

Sample 1A–2 uses a line graph format to show trends in 

safety performance over time. Presenting data on reabuse 

rates compiled for each year between 2000 and 2005, the 

graph demonstrates the State’s improved performance in 

protecting children from further abuse while they are under 

court jurisdiction. 

Sample 1A–3 breaks down the data from sample 1A–1 

to compare reabuse rates for children in foster care with 

rates for those not in foster care. The table shows that 

County A has a relatively high rate of reabuse (3.7 percent) 

for children not in foster care, compared with other 

counties. Statewide, the reabuse rates are much lower for 

foster care than for other placements. Such results might 

motivate a State to look more closely at its non-foster-care 

placement practices, especially in counties with rates 

higher than the State average. 

Sample 1A–4 uses a horizontal bar graph to illustrate the 

tabular data from sample 1A–3. Horizontal bars make 

it possible to compare a large number of entities (e.g., 

counties), but vertical bars are easier to comprehend at a 

glance. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

In most States, courts have a limited impact on the safety 

of children who are in foster care. It may be possible, however, for courts to play a larger role in helping to prevent 

Sample 1A–1. Children Reabused or Reneglected While Under Court Jurisdiction, by County, 2006 

County 

Total Children Under 

Court Jurisdiction 

Children Reabused 

or Reneglected Percent 

A 1,500 66 4.4% 

B 750 22 2.9% 

C 325 8 2.5% 

D 940 10 1.1% 

Statewide 3,515 106 3.0% 

Sample 1A–2. Percentage of Children Reabused or Reneglected While Under Court Jurisdiction, 

Statewide, 2000 to 2005 

4.0% 

2.5% 2.9% 

6.8% 

4.9% 

1.6% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

3% 

4% 

5% 

6% 

7% 

8% 

Percentage of Children Reabused 

27 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Year 
28 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 1A–3. Children Reabused or Reneglected While Under Court Jurisdiction, in Foster Care Versus 

Other Placements, by County, 2006 

County 

Children Reabused or 

Reneglected in Foster Care 

Children Reabused or Reneglected 

in Other Placements 

All Children Under 

Court Jurisdiction 

Number Percent Number Percent Number 

A 10 0.6% 56 3.7% 1,500 

B 4 0.5% 18 2.4% 750 

C 2 0.6% 6 1.8% 325 

D 4 0.4% 6 0.6% 940 

Statewide 20 0.6% 86 2.4% 3,515 

Sample 1A–4. Percentage of Children Reabused or Reneglected While Under Court Jurisdiction, 

in Foster Care Versus Other Placements, by County, 2006 

County A 

County B 

County C 

County D 

Statewide 

In Other Placements 

further abuse or neglect while children are under their 

jurisdiction. Toward that end, the data produced by this 

measure can be used to compare results in different parts 

of the State and may suggest the need to determine the 

root causes of abuse or neglect in particular localities or 

to particular subgroups of children. 

The following paragraphs suggest some possible courtrelated reasons for performance results related to this 

measure. Please note: These are simply examples of factors to consider when analyzing performance at the local 

level. 

0.6% 

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 

Percentage of Children Reabused 

2.4% 

0.4% 

1.8% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

0.5% 

2.4% 

0.6% 

3.7% 

In Foster Care 

Quality of Advocacy 

Advocates need to be aware of child safety issues. The 

more sophisticated their awareness, the more helpful 

they may be in preventing harm to children. Advocates’ 

performance may also be affected by general factors such 

as workloads, quality of supervision, compensation and 

financial incentives (as applicable), and training. 

Judicial Oversight 

How well judges oversee the safety of children under the 

court’s jurisdiction may be directly related to how much 
measure 1a: Child Safety While Under Court Jurisdiction 

time and care judges take to evaluate safety issues in 

court. Other factors may include the existence of specific 

judicial procedures to address safety issues, as well as 

judges’ knowledge about safety assessments and plans 

(related, in part, to having access to training and materials 

on child safety issues). 

A more general factor in safety-related oversight is judicial 

qualification, which is affected by training, selection 

methods, and assignment practices (including duration of 

assignments to hear maltreatment cases). Another factor 

may be the court’s ability to observe the “one family/one 

judge” principle (i.e., the same judge presides over all 

stages of a case), which is affected by judicial workloads 

and individual court calendars. 

Possible Reforms 

If data from this performance measure indicate room for 

improvement regarding children’s safety while under court 

jurisdiction, the court should consider possible reforms. 

Specific reforms will, of course, depend on local conditions 

and the court’s analysis of safety problems in its jurisdiction. The following are examples of additional measures a 

court might take to improve the safety of the children who 

come before it: 

u	Increase time to hear safety-related evidence (including 

proposed safety plans) before deciding about the 

placement or retention of a child in a specific home 

or about whether to allow extended or unsupervised 

visitation. 

u	Question the parties in greater detail on child safety in 

individual cases before deciding whether to authorize 

a child’s removal from the home, to return a child to the 

home, or to allow extended or unsupervised visitation. 

u	Adopt a court rule or form that makes petitions more 

specific in describing the alleged abuse or neglect. 

u	Adopt a court rule or form that makes predisposition 

and prereview reports more specific in describing family 

circumstances contributing to abuse or neglect. 

u	When the child welfare agency requests permission 

to return a child home or allow extended home visits, 

require the agency to provide a specific plan to ensure 

the child’s safety. 

u	When appropriate, order a family group conference to 

develop a plan under which the extended family will 

assist and monitor the parents in their care of the child, 

in connection with crucial safety decisions. 

u	Require agencies to get court approval before returning 

a child home from foster care, authorizing extended 

home visits, or ending supervision of visits. 

u	Before returning a child home or closing the case after 

doing so, require the child welfare agency to submit a 

report describing how the parents are more capable 

of (or committed to) properly caring for the child now 

compared with when the child was removed from the 

home. 

u	Train attorneys to more effectively investigate and 

present evidence about the safety and stability of 

children’s homes. The court can either provide the 

required training or help arrange for it. 

u	Train caseworkers to document safety-related 

information and present it to the court. Again, the court 

can either provide the training or help arrange for it. 

u	Seek and participate in judicial training regarding safety 

assessment. 

u	Hold periodic discussions among judges and staff about 

cases in which the court did not adequately protect 

children’s safety. 

Endnotes 

1. Two other possible sources of data are not
 

recommended, for the reasons explained below.
 

Changes in custody or cancellations of visitation 

rights. To ensure that all cases are counted in which 

parents, relatives, or others abuse or neglect children, 

the courts might include all decisions to remove a child 

from a home in which the court has placed the child, 

as well as decisions to reduce or eliminate parent-child 

or relative-child visits. This approach is overinclusive, 

as courts may decide to change custody or visitation 

for many reasons other than abuse or neglect. For 

example, a court might change a placement because 

it finds that another parent or relative will provide 

better care, or it might cancel visits solely because 

of the child’s response to the visits. Overall, these data 

are probably less valid as indicators of further abuse or 

neglect than are emergency court orders transferring 

placement or custody. 

29 
Technical Guide
 

Judicial findings affirming agency reports of further maltreatment. Another, possibly more accurate, 

type of data might be judicial findings affirming information reported by the child welfare agency regarding abuse or neglect by parents or other individuals 

with whom the court placed a child or with whom 

it authorized visits. However, such data rarely exist. 

Even if agencies consistently report this information, 

courts are unlikely to consistently make findings about 

whether or not the reports are true. 

2. Individual cases included in the denominator of this 

measure may be under court jurisdiction for different 

lengths of time during the reporting period, ranging 

from 2 or 3 days up to the full length of the time period. 

Because the distribution of the lengths of time that 

children spend under court supervision will have a 

large effect on the resulting measure, that distribution 

should be taken into account when examining results 

for this measure. 

30 
measure 1b 

Definition: Percentage of children who are abused or neglected within 12 months after the case is closed following a 

permanent placement. 

Explanation: This measure shows the proportion of children who suffer further abuse or neglect after the court has closed 

the original case. Case closure means there are no longer any pending child protection court proceedings, whether based 

on the original petition of abuse or neglect or based on supplemental or amended petitions filed while the original case was 

still pending.1 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate their success in ensuring child safety after cases are closed. More specifically, this measure helps courts determine how often they have successfully evaluated threats to child safety when deciding the child’s 

placement before closing the case. 

This measure considers the safety of children after their 

cases are closed following their return home, placement 

into legal guardianship, or adoption. It does not apply to 

cases in which youth age out of the foster care system; 

by definition, these individuals are too old to be considered 

victims of child abuse or neglect. Nor will the measure 

Counting Children Who Return to 

Court Because of New Allegations of 

Abuse or Neglect 

Identifying and counting children who return to court 

because of new allegations of abuse and neglect following 

Child Safety After Release From 

Court Jurisdiction 

count children who are transferred to jurisdictions that do 

not provide child abuse and neglect statistics. 

By evaluating the data produced with this measure, and 

perhaps by reviewing individual cases in which abuse or 

neglect did recur, courts and agency staff can develop 

strategies to reduce the recurrence rate. If the data are 

broken down by categories such as age, race/ethnicity, 

gender, type of placement, and reasons for case closure 

(i.e., reunification, legal guardianship, or adoption), the 

court will have additional useful information for evaluating 

its case closure decisions. Further, judges will know more 

about which types of permanent placements are most successful and for which categories of children. 

Implementation Issues 

A key issue for this measure is how to identify and count 

cases in which abuse or neglect occurs after the court 

case is closed. One approach is to count children who 

return to court because of new allegations of abuse or 

neglect. Another is to count children for whom the child 

welfare agency receives reports of abuse or neglect after 

the court closes a case. 

case closure may be accomplished in either of two ways: 

u	Counts based on new petitions. Counts may be based 

on the filing of new petitions alleging abuse or neglect 

following case closure. Some courts may object to this 

approach because allegations do not constitute proof of 

subsequent abuse or neglect. 

u	Counts based on judicial findings. This approach is 

based on affirmative judicial findings of abuse or neglect 

rather than on mere allegations. Courts should base 

this count on new adjudications of abuse or neglect 

following closure of an earlier case involving the same 

child. 

One possible disadvantage of relying on subsequent court 

proceedings to measure recurrence of abuse or neglect 

is that a family may abuse or neglect a child after moving 

outside the court’s jurisdiction. A great deal of actual recurrence will be lost by relying on subsequent proceedings in 

the same court as a measure, unless the judicial management information system can provide statewide data. 

Another possible disadvantage of this approach is that, 

for the most part, only the more severe incidents involving 

substantiated abuse or neglect reports result in court 

cases. Consequently, important information about the 
Technical Guide
 

extent of the potential danger to children will be missing 

if safety information is limited to subsequent court 

proceedings. 

Counting Children for Whom the 

Agency Receives Abuse or Neglect 

Reports After the Court Closes the Case 

Identifying and counting children for whom the child welfare agency receives reports of abuse or neglect after the 

court closes the case may also be accomplished in either 

of two ways: 

u	Collection and analysis of agency data by the court. 

With this approach, courts obtain data from the child 

welfare agency and then analyzes the data. In many 

States, however, formidable technical and practical 

barriers still impede electronic data sharing between 

agencies and courts. Few court systems and agencies 

have currently worked out systems for timely exchanges 

of data and implemented quality control measures to 

ensure the data’s accuracy. 

u	Analysis and sharing of agency data by the agency. 

The agency might supply the court with information 

on reports of abuse or neglect after court case closure 

by programming its data system to do so. Many State 

agencies already have data on abuse and neglect 

reports broken down by county. To provide the court 

with the data it needs for this measure, the agency must 

be willing to include the date of judicial case closure in 

its records, program its information system to indicate 

the frequency of reports of abuse or neglect following 

case closure, and break down its data by judicial 

jurisdiction (or other variables requested by the court). 

This approach also requires valid, unique identifiers to 

link court cases to children with whom the agency deals. 

If the court bases this performance measure on agency 

data, it must decide whether to count all reported abuse 

or neglect or only reports that are “substantiated” or 

“indicated” by the child welfare agency.2

 Courts may be 

more comfortable counting only substantiated or indicated 

reports. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. The universe of cases included in this measure is
 

children for whom cases were closed as a result of
 

permanent placement (adoption, reunification, or legal 

guardianship) during a time period such as a calendar 

year. (A) 

2. From dataset (A), select only cases for which a new 

petition alleging abuse or neglect of the same child 

was filed during the 12 months following case closure. 

Count the number of cases meeting this criterion. (B) 

3. Compute the percentage of children with new abuse or 

neglect following case closure by dividing (B) by (A). 

A note about the business rules: The report for this 

measure cannot be run until at least 12 months after 

the end date of the time period selected for the universe 

of cases (i.e., dataset A). For example, if the reporting 

time period was for cases closed in calendar year 2004 

(January–December), the report could not be run before 

January 2006. 

Possible Modifications 

1. Instead of counting all cases in which a new petition 

was filed within the time specified, count only cases 

in which the new petition was adjudicated and affirmed within the time period. Because of the number 

of months from petition to adjudication, the window 

between original case closure and new case adjudication (specification B) should be at least 18 months. 

2. Instead of basing counts on the filing or adjudication 

of a new petition, base counts on child welfare agency 

records on substantiated reports of new abuse or 

neglect occurring within the 12-month window after 

case closure. 

3. Calculate the measure for 12, 24, and 36 months
 

following case closure.
 

4. Report separately on cases based on one or more of 

the following distinctions: (a) reasons for case closure 

(e.g., reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship); 

(b) child’s age; (c) child’s race/ethnicity; (d) age of case 

at closure. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

32 
measure 1b: Child Safety After Release From Court Jurisdiction 

Required Elements 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Abuse or neglect petition date (i.e., the new petition 

following case closure). 

Optional Elements 

u	Adjudication date (for new petition following case 

closure). 

u	Allegations sustained (for new petition following case 

closure). 

Related CFSR Standards 

The following Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) 

standard for State child welfare agencies is related to 

Toolkit Measure 1B: 

CFSR S1A. Recurrence rate of abuse and neglect: Of 

all children who were victims of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation during the first 6 months 

of FFY [Federal fiscal year] 2004, what percent were not 

victims of another substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation during a 6-month period? (The national 

standard is 95.2 percent or more.) 

The universe of cases in CFSR S1A is broader than just 

those cases formerly under court jurisdiction (as in Toolkit 

Measure 1B) because CFSR S1A includes cases currently 

under court jurisdiction and because not all substantiated 

reports after court jurisdiction has ended will be brought 

back to the court. 

As with Toolkit Measure 1B, CFSR S1A specifies the 

“exposure time”—the time during which children are 

considered to be susceptible to maltreatment. The universe 

of cases in CFSR S1A includes all cases in which children 

were susceptible to subsequent maltreatment for 6 months 

after the initial incident of maltreatment. The exposure time 

in Toolkit Measure 1B is 12 months after court jurisdiction 

ends. 

Reporting the Data 

Because recurrence rates of abuse or neglect following 

case closure may be small, tables and graphs that show 

percentages for sparsely populated areas or for individual 

judges may be misleading. (For example, if the number of 

cases closed in a 12-month period is small, even a few 

cases of reabuse would result in a large percentage.) An 

alternative is simply to list cases in which abuse or neglect 

recurs within a specific period of time after case closure. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious four-county State to demonstrate how results for this 

measure might be reported in tables and graphs. (If a court 

bases this measure on its own data (either new petitions, 

as shown in these samples, or new adjudications), it may 

choose to supplement its reports with additional tables 

and graphs showing selected data from the child welfare 

agency on recurrence of abuse or neglect. 

Sample 1B–1 is a tabular comparison of reabuse rates 

for the four counties and the State. Sample 1B–2 uses a 

horizontal bar graph format to illustrate the percentages 

from sample 1B–1. 

Samples 1B–3 and 1B–4 break down the reabuse rates for 

County A by child’s age. Depending on the court’s preference and data availability, the age groups may correspond 

to the child’s age at the time of reabuse, at the time the 

new petition was filed, or at the time the original case was 

closed. (The table or graph should indicate which of these 

Sample 1B–1. Children With New Petitions of Abuse or Neglect Within 12 Months After Case Closure 

in 2005, by County 

County 

Children With Cases 

Closed in 2005 

Children With New Petitions 

Within 12 Months Percent 

A 1,000 30 3.0% 

B 800 24 3.0% 

C 670 34 5.1% 

D 780 52 6.7% 

Statewide 3,250 140 4.3% 

33 
Technical Guide
 

34 

Sample 1B–2. Percentage of Children With New Petitions of Abuse or Neglect Within 12 Months After 

Case Closure in 2005, by County 

County A 3.0% 

County B 3.0% 

County C 5.1% 

County D 6.7% 

Statewide 4.3% 

Total 

0% 1% 2% 

Percentage of Children Reabused 

3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 

Sample 1B–3. Children With New Petitions of Abuse or Neglect Within 12 Months After Case Closure 

in 2005, by Age Group: County A 

Age Group 

Children With Cases 

Closed in 2005 

Children With New Petitions 

Within 12 Months Percent 

Newborn-2 yrs. 235 12 5.1% 

3-5 yrs. 322 8 2.5% 

6-9 yrs. 199 6 3.0% 

10-14 yrs. 128 1 0.8% 

15 yrs. and older 116 3 2.6% 

All ages 1,000 30 3.0% 

is being shown.) The court might choose age groups different from those shown in these samples. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Many of the possible court-related reasons for performance results related to this measure are the same as 

those for Toolkit Measure 1A: Child Safety While Under 

Court Jurisdiction. For example, quality of advocacy and 

depth of judicial oversight may affect results for both 

measures. In addition, certain actions by the court or the 

child welfare agency may affect child safety only after case 

closure. Such actions, which are specifically relevant to 

Measure 1B, include the examples discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Conditions Imposed Prior to 

Case Closure 

Before closing a case, the court or child welfare agency 

may impose special conditions to reduce the likelihood 

of future abuse or neglect. For example, when family 

reunification is planned, the court or agency may require 

gradually phased-in “transitional” visitation, with structured (consistent and methodical) observation of the family 

and the child’s safety. The court or agency may also ask 

extended family members and/or other service providers 

to assist in the observation. In addition, the court may ask 

extended family members for a commitment to provide 

continued, ongoing monitoring and assistance after case 

closure. 
measure 1b: Child Safety After Release From Court Jurisdiction 

Sample 1B–4. Percentage of Children With New Petitions of Abuse or Neglect Within 

12 Months After Case Closure in 2005, by Age at Time New Petition Was Filed: County A 

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

Evidence of Changes in 

Parental Behavior 

When parents have received services designed to improve 

their parenting behavior, the court or agency, before approving family reunification, may insist on evidence that 

they have actually improved critical areas of behavior. 

Requiring such evidence is, of course, more involved than 

simply relying on the service provider’s representation that 

a parent has successfully completed a course. 

Given the complexities of family problems and the many 

precipitants of abuse or neglect, careful analysis of child 

safety factors is an intellectually demanding task for courts 

and agencies. Incorporating evidence of parents’ behavioral change in the decision to approve family reunification 

is an important part of that task. 

Possible Reforms 

As with factors affecting performance results, many of the 

possible court reforms to improve performance related to 

this measure are the same as those for Toolkit Measure 

1A: Child Safety While Under Court Jurisdiction. As with 

Measure 1A, specific reforms will, of course, depend on 

local conditions and the court’s own analysis of safety 

problems in its jurisdiction. Additional measures that may 

be particularly helpful in ensuring child safety after case 

closure include the following: 

5.1% 

2.5% 

3.0% 

0.8% 

2.6% 

3.0% 

Newborn–2 yrs. 3–5 yrs. 6–9 yrs. 10–14 yrs. 15 yrs. and up All ages 

Age Groups of Children 

u	Using special forms for court reports and orders 

related to family reunification. Forms for court 

reports recommending reunification can be designed 

so they help to ensure a careful thought process 

and a particular set of activities in support of this 

recommendation. For example, forms can require 

caseworkers to outline the plan for transitional visitation 

and family monitoring, explain how and why the causes 

of the prior maltreatment have been alleviated, and 

describe services and plans to ensure safety after case 

closure. Forms for court orders can use a similar design 

approach to encourage the judge to set appropriate 

expectations and go through a complementary thought 

process in approving reunification.3 

u	Improving forms related to other types of 

case closure. Family reunification is not the only 

circumstance in which children may experience further 

abuse or neglect after case closure. A child placed with 

an extended family member may suffer maltreatment, 

either by the family member or because the biological 

parent has too much access to the child. Adoptive 

parents, if not wisely chosen and particularly if a child 

has challenging special needs, may abuse or neglect a 

child. Improved agency report forms can help to ensure 

(and demonstrate to the judge) that the agency has 

taken all reasonable precautions before finalizing the 

child’s permanent placement. Improved court forms can 

remind the judge what questions to ask the agency and 

encourage the judge to document the answers to these 

questions. 

35 
Technical Guide
 

u	Enhancing benchbooks. Judicial benchbooks and 

checklists can be enhanced to address safety issues 

specifically related to case closure. These tools can help 

judges ask appropriate questions, require necessary 

documentation, and refuse to close cases prematurely 

or inappropriately. 

Endnotes 

1. Note that in States where petitions for the termination 

of parental rights (TPR) are considered separate court 

proceedings, the original abuse or neglect proceeding 

generally remains open (although temporarily held in 

abeyance in some States) during and after the time 

that termination proceedings are pending, until the 

child has been adopted. 

2. Different State agencies use different systems of classification for abuse or neglect reports, different criteria 

for defining their classifications (e.g., the degree of 

proof that is required), and different terms in referring 

to whether abuse or neglect has been proven. The 

most universal terms for agency reports deemed to 

have been proven true are “substantiated” reports and 

“indicated” reports. 

3. For an example of such forms, see C. Fiermonte and 

J. Renne, Making It Permanent: Reasonable Efforts 

To Finalize Permanency Plans for Foster Children 

(Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2002), 

pp. 19–24. 

36 
measure 2a 

Definition: Percentage of children in foster care who reach legal permanency by reunification, adoption, or legal 

guardianship. 

Explanation: This measure evaluates the combined success of courts and child welfare agencies in achieving legal permanency by the time the court has closed each case involving children in foster care. “Legal permanency” means that there is 

a permanent and secure legal relationship between the adult caregiver and the child. 

More specifically, legal permanency means the following: 

u	The individual adult or couple who is/are the child’s caregiver(s) has/have full legal authority over the child, free from the 

supervision of the child welfare agency. 

u	The court, in approving this relationship, intends it to be permanent. 

u	Significant legal barriers exist to block the disruption of the placement and the disruption of the legal relationship 

between child and caregiver(s). 

By contrast, the court does not generally intend a foster care placement to be permanent. The foster parent lacks full 

authority to decide the nature of the child’s care, and only weak legal barriers exist to block the removal of the child from 

Achievement of 

Child Permanency 

the foster home and prevent the end of the foster parent-foster child relationship. 

Because of the complex nature of legal permanency, this measure is relatively challenging and complex to implement. 

Purpose: To help courts determine the extent to which legal permanency is achieved for children under their jurisdiction. A considerable amount of social science research has demonstrated the importance of stable and secure homes for 

children’s healthy development and ultimate well-being. Legal permanency helps ensure that former foster children grow 

up in such homes. 

Implementation Issues 

Different Courts or Judges May Hear 

Adoption and Legal Guardianship 

Proceedings 

A major challenge in developing this measure is that in 

many States, the courts that hear adoptions and legal 

guardianship matters are different from the courts that 

hear abuse and neglect cases. The problem is that few 

jurisdictions currently have management information 

systems that include and connect all case types. 

In States with multiple courts, the courts that hear dependency (i.e., child abuse and neglect) cases are most likely 

to be interested in this measure and to maintain most of 

the data to support it. If, for example, dependency court 

cases are to be closed upon the final decree of adoption or 

approval of legal guardianship, the dependency court must 

rely on another court to provide the date that adoption or 

legal guardianship is final. 

States without multiple courts may have large jurisdictions that subdivide a single court so that one unit hears 

child abuse and neglect cases and another hears adoption 

cases. In this case, the different units may not be able to 

share data electronically. 

Confidentiality of Adoption 

Proceedings 

In many States, laws require that courts maintain the 

confidentiality of their adoption records. Therefore, some 

courts that hear adoption cases are reluctant to share 

information with courts that hear child abuse and neglect 

cases. This reluctance can present an obstacle to calculating the percentage of foster cases in which children are 

adopted. 
Technical Guide
 

Convincing legal arguments may exist, however, in support 

of sharing information needed to implement this measure. The purpose of State laws that make court adoption 

records confidential is to protect the privacy of individual 

adopted children, their adoptive families, and birth parents. 

As long as the courts hearing abuse and neglect cases 

maintain that confidentiality and make public only aggregate information about the percentage of children in 

foster care who are adopted, the purpose of the laws is not 

violated. Of course, in a particular State, such arguments 

should address the specific wording and legislative history 

of that State’s laws. 

Legal Characteristics of Permanent 

Placement Options 

The three preferred legal placement options are family 

reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship. 

Family Reunification 

Family reunification, followed by closure of the court 

case, restores the original legal position of the family 

prior to court involvement. The parents have undivided 

legal decisionmaking power regarding the child (subject 

to mandatory education laws, child labor laws, etc.). The 

parents no longer must accept supervision by the child 

welfare agency. Strong legal barriers (i.e., required proof in 

court of further abuse or neglect), comparable to those for 

parents with no court involvement, block future removal of 

the child from the home. 

Adoption 

The legal position of adoptive parents is essentially the 

same as that for biological parents who have had no 

adjudication of child abuse or neglect. 

Legal Guardianship 

“Legal guardianship” refers to legal placement options, 

established by State law, that are consistent with the 

Federal statutory definition1

 of legal guardianship. Legal 

guardians are not subject to the oversight of the public 

child welfare agency. They generally have full decisionmaking authority over a child, as with biological and adoptive parents. In some States, however, the legal guardians’ 

legal security against removal of the child is weaker than 

for most biological and adoptive parents. That is, in some 

States, if biological parents seek to regain custody of the 

child, the guardian may need to prove those parents unfit 

to resume care. This position is the reverse of that of the 

biological or adoptive parents, who can maintain control 

of the child unless they are proved unfit as parents. On the 

other hand, some States have amended their guardianship 

laws to create legal preferences for keeping children with 

legal guardians when challenged by parents. 

In some States, more than one legal option may fall within 

the definition of “legal guardian.” For example, both “legal 

custody”2 and guardianship (pursuant to the probate code) 

may qualify as legal guardianship. Thus, some jurisdictions 

may wish to include more than one form of legal guardianship in this measure. 

“Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement” 

Some jurisdictions may wish to include “another planned 

permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) in this measure, 

as Federal law3

 recognizes APPLA as a type of permanency 

plan. However, what many States consider to be APPLAs 

are actually legal arrangements that do not provide legally 

permanent placements. For example, simply deciding to 

continue a child in foster care is not an APPLA. If this is 

encompassed by a State’s definition of APPLA, it is inappropriate to count APPLAs in this measure. 

States that define the term APPLA narrowly, as intended 

by Federal law,

4

 may appropriately include APPLA in this 

measure. For example, if State law authorizes a court to 

order a permanent placement with a specific foster parent 

and that placement cannot be disrupted without a court 

order, a State may choose to include that placement within 

the measure.5 A State might even choose to include as an 

APPLA a group home placement for a child who is unable 

to live with a family, if an adult commits to serving as a 

lifelong mentor and substitute parent for the child, and the 

child accepts that relationship. 

Calculating Rates of Success With 

Different Legal Permanency Options 

Because a court may be effective in achieving permanency 

with some placement options but not others, it is important to calculate this measure separately for the different 

options. Only a single calculation combining all options 

is less informative. Furthermore, if APPLA is included as 

an option in a combined calculation, a high percentage of 

permanency based largely on numerous APPLAs may be 

misleading. 

38 
measure 2a: Achievement of Child Permanency 

Placements With Relatives 

Relatives may adopt children or become their legal 

guardians. Although placing abused or neglected children 

with relatives is generally preferred over other types of 

placements, “relative placement” is not a separate, legally 

defined placement category.6 

Nevertheless, a court may want to know, for example, 

the percentage of adoptions and legal guardianships that 

involve placement with relatives. If so, the court will need 

to capture this information, perhaps by including the question “Is this placement with a relative?” on the data entry 

screen beneath each permanent placement option. 

Case Outcomes Not Constituting 

Permanency 

Case outcomes that do not constitute permanency include 

“aging out,” independent living, emancipation, and other 

nonpermanent legal placement categories. 

Aging Out 

If the court closes a case because a child has “aged out” 

of its jurisdiction, and the child remains in foster care after 

case closure, that child will be considered to have achieved 

legal permanency only if the court has ordered permanent 

placement with the foster parent(s) as an APPLA. 

Independent Living 

Cases labeled “independent living” (e.g., youth who are 

receiving services to help them function better after reaching adulthood) should not be classified as having achieved 

permanency. An independent living situation does not meet 

the goal of legal permanency, which should include, among 

other things, having a permanent family upon reaching 

adulthood. Effective services to help youth function independently upon reaching adulthood, although commendable and helpful, have little to do with permanency. 

Emancipation 

As with independent living, “emancipation” is sometimes 

used as a euphemism for aging out of foster care. In 

addition, an emancipated youth may be a young person 

who is granted some aspects of adult legal status before 

reaching the age of majority. For example, depending on 

State law, an emancipated youth may be granted the right 

to live alone without any adult supervision and to enter into 

certain contracts.7 

Other Nonpermanent Legal Placement Categories 

Examples of other categories of court case closure that 

would not be considered legal permanency for purposes 

of this measure include death of the child, transfer of 

the case to another geographic jurisdiction (e.g., another 

State’s court system or another judicial district), transfer 

of the case to another agency, and a runaway or missing child. The Federal Adoption and Foster Care Reporting 

System (AFCRS), which applies to State child welfare 

agencies, includes the following nonpermanent placement 

categories for foster care “discharge”: emancipation, transfer to another agency, runaway, and death of the child.8 

Children who are transferred to another jurisdiction before 

case closure or who die in foster care (presumably through 

no fault of the State) should not be included in this measure, because such cases are not a reflection of the State’s 

degree of success in achieving permanency. On the other 

hand, a runaway or other missing child or a child who 

is transferred to another agency (e.g., a juvenile justice 

agency or developmental disabilities agency) should be 

included in this measure. Such cases usually do reflect the 

court’s and the child welfare agency’s success in planning, 

oversight, and decisionmaking with regard to the child. 

Other Measures as Context 

As is often the case, data based on this measure should 

be considered in light of data based on other measures. 

For example, although it is helpful to know the percentage of children reaching permanency by the time the case 

is closed, it is also helpful to know how long it takes to 

achieve permanency and case closure (Toolkit Measure 4A: 

Time to Permanent Placement). It is also useful to know 

what percentage of permanent placements subsequently 

break up, making it necessary for the child to reenter 

foster care (Toolkit Measure 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care 

After Return Home and Measure 2E: Reentry Into Foster 

Care After Adoption or Guardianship). 

Measure Limited to Youth 

in Foster Care 

This measure should be limited to youth in foster care. 

Otherwise, it would substantially reflect the percentage of 

abused and neglected children who come before the court 

but never enter foster care rather than the percentage of 

children in foster care who have achieved permanency. 

(Note that the rate of permanency for children who come 

39 
Technical Guide
 

before the court but never enter foster care, excluding 

categories such as children who die while in foster care or 

who are transferred to another jurisdiction, would be close 

to 100 percent.) 

If courts prefer to include all youth under court jurisdiction 

in this measure, they should maintain separate statistics 

on the permanency rate for youth in foster care. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report (e.g., for a report
 

spanning a 12-month period, select beginning and
 

ending dates 12 months apart).
 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range 

selected (A), exclude cases that were closed because 

the child died, was transferred to another geographic 

jurisdiction (e.g., to another judicial district or State), or 

was never in foster care while the case was open. (B) 

3. Count the number of cases in (B) for which the case
 

closure reason is one of the permanent placements
 

recognized by the State. (C) The remaining cases in
 

(B) are those for which the case closure reason is a 

nonpermanent placement. (D) 

4. Compute the overall rate of permanency by dividing (C) 

by (B). Compute the overall rate of nonpermanency by 

dividing (D) by (B). 

5. Divide (C) into categories, each representing one 

type of permanent placement at case closure: family 

reunification (category 1), adoption (category 2), legal 

guardianship (category 3). If the State recognizes 

other permanent placement categories such as APPLA, 

create a fourth category, and so forth. Divide (D) into 

categories, each representing a nonpermanent placement type (category 5, category 6, etc.). 

6. Compute the overall rate of permanency by dividing (D) 

by (C). 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately on cases by additional categories, 

such as child’s race/ethnicity, child’s age, gender, age 

of case at closure, etc. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Foster care flag = “yes.” 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Case closure reason (e.g., adoption, legal guardianship, 

reunification). 

Optional Elements 

u	Abuse or neglect petition date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

The following Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) 

standard for State child welfare agencies is related to 

Toolkit Measure 2A: 

CFSR PC3A2: Of all children in foster care for 24 

months or longer on the first day of the fiscal year, what 

percent were discharged to a permanent home prior to 

their 18th birthday and by the end of the fiscal year? A 

permanent home is defined as having a discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including 

living with relative). 

There are two key differences between CFSR PC3A2 and 

Toolkit Measure 2A. First, unlike Toolkit Measure 2A, the 

CFSR measure is limited to children in foster care 24 

months or longer. Second, the CFSR measure is based on 

a sample of cases selected at a particular point in time, 

whereas Toolkit Measure 2A is based on a sample of 

closed cases. In general, the rates for these two measures will not be comparable and will have very different 

implications.9 

Reporting the Data 

Measure 2A lends itself to a variety of graphic representations. The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a 

fictitious seven-district State to demonstrate how results 

for this measure might be reported in tables and graphs. 

40 
measure 2a: Achievement of Child Permanency 

Sample 2A–1 illustrates a tabular format that can be helpful for State Court Improvement Project (CIP) directors and 

their staff. The table shows the percentage of cases closed 

during calendar year 2005 in which legal permanency was 

achieved at the time of case closure, for the entire State 

and each judicial district. The permanency rates range 

from 53 percent in District C to 89 percent in District G. 

The overall rate for the State is 68 percent. This simple 

table has the advantage of being easy to read. However, 

because it does not distinguish rates for different types of 

permanency, the table will not reveal, for example, that a 

A second possibility is that District G has (a) particularly 

effective services to prevent unnecessary placement in 

foster care (thus reducing the percentage of foster care 

cases ending in reunification), (b) effective adoption services, and/or (c) an efficient court process with few delays 

to impede adoption. If this is the case, District G’s adoption 

permanency rate is reasonable and even commendable. 

Other possibilities could be tested by reviewing data under 

various Toolkit measures of timeliness and permanency. If 

District G has a high rate of disrupted adoptions as shown 

in Toolkit Measure 2E, the high rate of adoptions may be 

Sample 2A–1. Children Reaching Permanency, by Judicial District, Cases Closed in 2005 

District 

Permanency No Permanency Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

A 46 61% 30 39% 76 100% 

B 65 72% 25 28% 90 100% 

C 8 53% 7 47% 15 100% 

D 98 64% 55 36% 153 100% 

E 9 82% 2 18% 11 100% 

F 15 60% 10 40% 25 100% 

G 51 89% 6 11% 57 100% 

Statewide 292 68% 135 32% 427 100% 

particular district may be doing well in achieving permanency through reunification but not through adoption. Thus, 

it will not reflect all the factors that affect, either positively 

or negatively, the overall achievement of permanency. 

Data on the proportions of cases reaching and not reaching 

permanency can be well represented by pie charts. A pie 

chart can be created for each judicial district individually 

(see sample 2A–2) or for the entire State. 

Sample 2A–3 breaks down the numbers from sample 

2A–1 by type of permanent and nonpermanent placement (i.e., by reason for case closure), permitting sharper 

contrasts than can be seen in sample 2A–1. For example, 

the difference in permanency rates between District B 

and District G is far greater for adoption cases (1 percent 

versus 35 percent) than for reunification cases (63 percent 

versus 42 percent).10 Such findings could indicate that 

while District B had too few adoptions, District G had 

too many adoptions and not enough reunifications. The 

problem with this conclusion is that District G’s reunification rate is only 2 percent less than the statewide average. 

Sample 2A–2. Achievement of Permanency for 

Cases Closed in 2005: District A 

61% 39% 

Permanency No Permanency 

41 
Technical Guide
 

42 

problematic; but if the rate of disruption is low, District G’s If a State has measured permanency rates for several 

adoption rate may be appropriate. years, it might show trends in the rates in a table such as 

that in sample 2A–5.The trends could also be illustrated in Sample 2A–4 shows how the tabular data from sample a line graph. 2A–3 might be presented in a bar graph for one of the 

districts. 

Sample 2A–3. Reasons for Case Closures in 2005, by Judicial District 

District 

Permanent Placement Nonpermanent Placement 

Reunification Adoption Total 

Legal 

Guardianship APPLA* Age Out Other 

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % 

A 32 42% 9 12% 5 7% 24 32% 5 7% 1 1% 76 100% 

B 57 63% 1 1% 7 8% 20 22% 3 3% 2 2% 90 100% 

C 7 47% 0 0% 1 7% 7 47% 0 0% 0 0% 15 100% 

D 51 33% 36 24% 11 7% 45 29% 7 5% 3 2% 153 100% 

E 7 64% 2 18% 0 0% 0 0% 2 18% 0 0% 11 100% 

F 10 40% 0 0% 5 20% 8 32% 2 8% 0 0% 25 100% 

G 24 42% 20 35% 7 12% 4 7% 2 4% 0 0% 57 100% 

Statewide 188 44% 68 16% 36 8% 108 25% 21 5% 6 1% 427 100% 

*APPLA=another planned permanent living arrangement. 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Sample 2A–4. Reasons for Case Closures in 2005: District A 

Reunification 

Adoption 

Legal 

Guardianship 

APPLA* 

Age Out 

Other 1% 

32% 

5% 

7% 

42% 

12% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

Percentage of Closed Cases 

*APPLA=another planned permanent living arrangement. 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 
measure 2a: Achievement of Child Permanency 

Sample 2A–5. Trends in Permanency Rates and State Rankings, by Judicial District, Cases Closed in 

2001–2004 

Judicial 

2001 2002 2003 2004 

Permanency Permanency Permanency Permanency 

District Ranking Rate* Ranking Rate* Ranking Rate* Ranking Rate* 

A 5 56% 4 67% 5 60% 3 79% 

B 7 27% 7 43% 6 55% 6 67% 

C 1 75% 2 74% 1 83% 4 78% 

D 3 65% 3 73% 3 77% 5 69% 

E 6 44% 6 48% 7 48% 7 61% 

F 4 59% 5 66% 2 83% 2 82% 

G 2 66% 1 76% 4 69% 1 88% 

*Percentage of children achieving permanency. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Although the court plays an important role in achieving 

permanency for youth in foster care, other important factors also contribute to this outcome. Success in achieving 

permanency for foster children may reflect (a) the quality 

of the child welfare agency’s casework, (b) the services 

available in the community, (c) the court’s effectiveness in 

overseeing the work of the agency and service providers, 

(d) the quality of the court itself as a decisionmaker, (e) 

demographic factors, or (f) a combination of these factors. 

If, for example, a court has a relatively low percentage of 

children achieving permanency by the time of case closure, 

that court should consider all the possible reasons— 

including whether the court is contributing to the problem. 

The following paragraphs suggest some possible courtrelated reasons for performance results related to this 

measure. Please note: These are simply examples of 

factors to consider when analyzing performance at the 

local level. Because factors may be different for reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship, they are described 

separately for each of these permanency options. 

Factors Affecting Family Reunification 

Permanency 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Safety Planning 

The willingness of judges to approve family reunification 

and the willingness of advocates to support reunification 

can be enhanced by understanding how to analyze safety 

issues. Skill in this kind of analysis also reduces the 

likelihood of the kinds of serious errors that make judges 

and advocates overly reluctant to approve or support 

reunification. 

Conducting a methodical safety analysis requires understanding how to assess the following: 

u	The immediacy and severity of danger. 

u	The causes of parental behavior undermining the child’s 

safety. 

u	The ability and willingness of parents to care for and 

protect the child, including parents’ recognition and 

control of their own behavior. 

u	The availability and ability of relatives to help the 

parents and monitor the child’s safety. 

u	The availability and reliability of services that can make 

the child more safe. 

u	The vulnerability of the individual child to danger, 

including the child’s ability to protect himself or herself. 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates in 

Reunification Planning 

Judges and advocates can have a substantial impact on 

the timeliness of reunification planning by keeping close 

track of their cases and making sure that (a) case plans 

are logically related to the problems leading to and contributing to the child’s removal from home, (b) services specified in the case plan are being provided on a timely basis, 

and (c) the criteria for reunification are practical and clear. 

43 
Technical Guide
 

The contributions of judges and advocates to the reunification process depend on the clarity of their thought 

processes, their efforts to keep tabs on cases, and their 

insistence on timely followup by caseworkers and service 

providers. 

Legal Criteria and Judicial Conditions for 

Reunification 

The statutory criteria for family reunification can be an 

important factor in reunification rates. The key legal 

question is whether State law requires reunification (a) 

when the child is no longer facing a level of danger that 

would justify foster placement if the child were still living 

at home, (b) only when reunification is in the best interests 

of the child, or (c) somewhere between (a) and (b). 

Although some States clearly call for a particular approach, 

most are not clear. Approach (a) is the standard most 

favorable to the parents, in that it requires reunification 

when the child is no longer at risk of further abuse or 

neglect even if reunification is not best for the child. 

Approach (a) makes most practical sense at or near the 

time of removal, before the emotional bond between 

parent and child has had time to deteriorate. The longer 

the child is in foster care and the greater the deterioration 

of the parent-child emotional bond, the more approach (b) 

makes practical sense for the child’s sake. 

Individual judges’ specific conditions or criteria for reunification are usually more crucial than criteria from statutes 

or case law. Different judges may use different criteria, 

depending on the circumstances of a case. For example, 

if a child has been removed from home because of drugrelated maltreatment, a judge may require that the parent 

have no positive drug screens for a particular period of 

time. (Experts on safety analysis do not recommend this 

requirement as the sole criterion for reunification in such 

cases.) Judges can enhance their reunification criteria by 

applying the knowledge gained through studying different 

methods of safety analysis. 

Factors Affecting Adoption 

Permanency 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Adoption 

Among the keys to successful adoption is the willingness 

of caseworkers or agencies to try adoption placements for 

a wide range of children. Judges and advocates should 

be aware that many agencies have successfully placed a 

wide variety of children. 

Judges and advocates should also understand the key 

principles of good case practice that lead to successful 

adoption, practices that apply to various categories of 

children, and the elements of good adoption recruitment, 

screening, and home studies. Private agencies and experts 

can assist judges and advocates in this area. 

In addition, judges and advocates should be well informed 

about potential barriers to adoption, so they are better 

prepared to overcome those barriers. For example, bureaucratic delay often impedes adoptions. Overcoming sources 

of delay can reduce trauma to the child and enhance the 

odds of successful adoption. Advocates can help reduce 

delays by having a detailed understanding of the administrative steps in the adoption process. With this knowledge, 

they can identify procedural barriers, press the agency to 

eliminate the barriers, and hold individual agency employees accountable for progress. 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates in the 

Adoption Process 

In addition to understanding the adoption process, judges 

and advocates must involve themselves in the process 

when necessary. One way to become involved is to seek 

early permanency in extreme cases—those in which 

children often are most deeply traumatized by abuse or neglect and success is least likely. In such cases, advocates 

may propose and judges may find that reasonable efforts 

for reunification are not required. Alternative approaches 

include scheduling an early permanency hearing or filing 

early in the case for termination of parental rights (TPR). 

A judge might change permanency plans to adoption 

proceedings (or an advocate might press for this change) 

during a permanency hearing or review hearing. 

Another important step in improving adoptions is for judges 

and advocates to conduct more indepth case reviews and 

permanency hearings after TPR. The reviews should focus 

on the efficiency of the administrative adoption process, 

identifying sources of delay and specifying steps to move 

the case forward. 

Legal Criteria and Procedures Relevant 

to Adoption 

Because the time and effort involved in TPR proceedings affect when and how often TPR petitions are filed, 

the efficiency of the procedures governing TPR can be an 

important factor in the number and timeliness of adoptions. 

The appropriateness of TPR grounds, including case law 

interpreting those grounds, also affects the number and 

44 
measure 2a: Achievement of Child Permanency 

timeliness of adoptions. For example, appropriate early 

adoption in extreme cases is facilitated by the existence of 

grounds that require neither reasonable efforts to reunify 

nor the passage of specific amounts of time in such cases. 

In these cases and others, delays reduce the likelihood that 

a child eventually will be successfully adopted. 

Key procedural factors relevant to successful adoption are 

the length of waiting periods and the circumstances in 

which waiting periods are required. Also important are the 

exact requirements for consent to termination, including 

consent by the agency and the child (upon reaching a 

specified age). Appropriately flexible consent requirements 

will prevent the arbitrary blocking of adoptions. 

Factors Affecting Legal Guardianship 

Permanency 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Legal Guardianship 

When judges and advocates understand the full ramifications of guardianship, they will seek it appropriately. For 

example, judges and advocates should know about the 

financial implications of guardianship compared with those 

of foster care and adoption. They must also know the proper legal procedures for initiating and completing guardianship; in some States, these procedures are difficult to 

follow. Finally, judges and advocates should understand the 

legal protections of guardianship under State law, such as 

the guardians’ freedom from State interference and their 

security from custodial challenges by biological parents. 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates 

in Guardianship Planning 

Well-informed judges and advocates who pay attention to 

planning for guardianship and stay involved in the process 

can be a great help. For example, judges and advocates 

can review whether legal guardians are receiving available 

subsidies or other financial assistance. They can ensure 

proper and timely home studies of the guardian household, 

including criminal record checks of the guardians and child 

abuse and neglect central registry checks of other adults in 

the home. They can also make sure that the guardianship 

proceeding has a proper court record of why the child entered foster care. Such a record can reduce the likelihood 

that biological parents will regain custody after a guardianship has been established as a permanent placement for 

the child. 

Legal Criteria and Judicial Conditions for Legal 

Guardianship 

If the law makes legal guardianship a permanent placement for a child, the legal grounds for establishing guardianship should reflect that fact. Generally speaking, the 

legal grounds for guardianship should require proof that 

(a) the child should not or cannot be returned to his or her 

parents within a reasonable time after entering foster care 

and (b) legal guardianship, rather than adoption, is in the 

child’s best interests. 

Procedures to establish legal guardianship should be 

efficient but should also provide strong legal protections 

for the parents and child. For example, State law should 

not require that a legal guardianship case be heard by a 

court other than the one that heard the child’s abuse and 

neglect case. 

Finally, the legal characteristics of guardianship should 

reinforce the legal permanency of the arrangement, for the 

sake of both the child and the guardian. Legal guardians 

should not be subject to ongoing supervision by the State 

child welfare agency and should not be highly vulnerable 

to custodial challenges by biological parents. 

Possible Reforms 

If data from this performance measure indicate room for 

improvement regarding the percentage of cases resulting in permanent placements, the court should consider 

possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of course, depend 

on local conditions and the court’s analysis of the best 

procedures and steps for achieving permanency in its 

jurisdiction. 

The sections that follow present examples of additional 

actions a court might take to improve permanency rates 

for reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship.11 

Family Reunification 

u	Take more time to address safety issues during reviews 

and permanency hearings. 

u	Before accepting other permanency plans during 

permanency hearings, require evidence that the child 

cannot safely return home, even with realistically 

available services and help. 

u	Train judges and attorneys on safety issues, such as 

focusing on the capacity of parents and relatives to keep 

45 
Technical Guide
 

the child safe, focusing on the special vulnerabilities 

of children, and understanding other basic elements of 

good safety analysis. The training should include how 

to address these issues in review and permanency 

hearings. 

u	Secure the assistance of skilled forensic psychologists 

and psychiatrists in analyzing the safety of reunification. 

u	Improve agency reports to the court by working with the 

agency to develop new forms (or supplements to forms) 

in connection with recommendations for reunification. 

The forms should address matters such as the reasons 

why reunification is or is not now safe; how relatives 

will be involved, when appropriate, to help oversee the 

child’s safety; and transitional visitation arrangements. 

u	Adopt new forms (or supplements to forms) to be used 

for court orders for family reunification. The forms 

should address matters such as those noted above for 

agency reports. 

u	Before case closure, implement family group conferencing models that involve the family in making safety 

plans to maintain their children in a safe and secure 

environment upon reunification. 

Adoption 

u	Take more time to address adoption issues during 

reviews and permanency hearings. 

u	Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps are 

being taken to recruit adoptive parents, properly screen 

applicants, conduct thorough and timely home studies, 

and make timely decisions. This review helps to avoid 

the need to make hasty decisions later in the process 

or to choose among insufficiently qualified candidates. 

u	Before accepting other nonreunification permanency 

plans during permanency hearings, require evidence 

that the child cannot or should not be adopted. 

u	Train judges and attorneys on adoption issues, such 

as the details of the bureaucratic steps in the process, 

adoption recruitment, adoption screening and selection, 

financial barriers, and issues concerning adolescents. 

u	Revise the legal grounds for terminating parental 

rights to eliminate inappropriate barriers to adoption 

for children who are unable to return home within a 

reasonable time, when adoption is in their best interests. 

u	Simplify procedures for terminating parental rights, 

thereby encouraging agency workers and attorneys to 

seek that option and reducing delays. 

u	Train caseworkers to document and present to the court 

better information regarding reunification. 

Legal Guardianship 

u	Take more time to address the possibility of legal 

guardianship during reviews and permanency hearings, 

at least for cases in which family reunification and 

adoption are seriously questioned as proper case goals. 

u	Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps 

are being taken to recruit guardians, properly screen 

applicants, conduct thorough and timely home studies, 

and make timely decisions. This review helps avoid the 

need to make hasty decisions later in the process or to 

choose among insufficiently qualified candidates. 

u	Before accepting lower priority permanency plans 

(such as APPLAs) during permanency hearings, require 

evidence that the child cannot or should not be placed in 

a legal guardianship. 

u	Revise legal procedures for guardianship to simplify the 

process. 

u	If legal protection for guardians against biological 

parents seeking to regain custody is inadequate under 

State law, amend statutes to correct the problem. 

u	Train judges and attorneys on legal guardianship issues, 

such as the process to establish legal guardianship, 

including, where applicable, coordination between 

the court handling the guardianship proceeding and 

the court handling the abuse and neglect case; the 

financial implications of legal guardianship, including 

possible financial benefits available; the legal rights 

and obligations of legal guardians under State law; and 

consent to guardianship. 

u	Revise forms for legal guardianship to help simplify the 

process, clarify the authority and responsibilities of the 

guardian, and set forth the reasons for choosing legal 

guardianship rather than reunification or adoption. 

u	Train caseworkers to document and present to the court 

better information regarding legal guardianship. 

46 
measure 2a: Achievement of Child Permanency 

Endnotes 

1. 42 U.S.C. § 675(7) states that: 

The term ‘legal guardianship’ means a judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which 

is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as 

evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of the person, custody 

of the person, and decision-making. The term ‘legal 

guardian’ means the caretaker in such a relationship. 

2. The term “legal custody,” when used as a type of 

permanent placement, means a court order that gives 

indefinite custody (permanent care and control) of a 

child to an individual or couple. Used in this sense during child abuse or neglect proceedings, legal custody 

would survive after the proceedings have been closed. 

However, not every State has the option of awarding 

legal custody of this type in the course of child abuse 

and neglect proceedings. The term “legal custody” is 

different from “physical custody” in that legal custody 

connotes full legal decisionmaking powers concerning 

the child, whereas physical custody generally means 

little more than the right to physical care and control 

of the child. Another type of custody in child abuse and 

neglect proceedings, “temporary custody,” typically 

means custody that lasts only as long as the abuse 

or neglect case remains open. Note, however, that the 

precise meaning of custody, legal custody, physical 

custody, and temporary custody can vary from State 

to State. 

3. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C). 

4. For further discussion regarding the meaning of the 

statutory term “another planned permanent living 

arrangement,” see C. Fiermonte and J. Renne, Making 

It Permanent: Reasonable Efforts To Finalize Permanency 

Plans for Foster Children (Washington, DC: American 

Bar Association, 2002). 

5. Although “permanent foster family care” is not as 

legally permanent as reunification, adoption, or legal 

guardianship, it is significantly more so than conventional foster placements. “Permanent foster family 

care” should be distinguished from “long-term foster 

care,” which generally means that the State or court 

has given up on securing a legally permanent placement for the child. The Federal Adoption and Safe 

Families Act of 1997 [42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C)] eliminated 

long-term foster care, so defined, as an acceptable 

permanent placement option. If, however, the term is 

used under State law or practice in a narrower, more 

precise sense to actually mean “permanent foster 

family care,” it may be considered as another type of 

legal permanent placement option for purposes of this 

measure. 

6. Some States have special, narrow legal permanent 

placement options available only to relatives (e.g., 

special legal categories of adoption or guardianship). 

States that have such permanency options may want 

to count them separately. 

7. Some States authorize legal emancipation before age 

18 under certain circumstances, typically after a youth 

has reached age 16 or 17. 

8. 45 C.F.R. § 1355, appendix A, section I(X)(B). 

9. Whereas the numerator for CFSR PC3A2 is very similar 

to—in fact, a subset (portion) of—the numerator for 

Toolkit Measure 2A, the denominator of CFSR PC3A2 is 

drawn from the universe of children who have been in 

foster care 24 months or longer at the beginning of the 

reporting period. 

CFSR PC3A2 uses a “point-in-time cohort,” limited 

to children with relatively longer times in foster care, 

whereas Toolkit Measure 2A uses an “exit cohort” 

limited to children whose cases were closed during the 

reporting period. 

Table II* (“Point-in-Time Permanency Profile”) of the 

data profile used in the statewide assessment portion 

of the CFSR contains the counts for a Federal fiscal 

year (FFY) calculation of Toolkit Measure 2A. Element I (“Foster Care Population Flow”) contains the 

denominator count for discharges during the FFY. 

Element VIII (“Length of Time To Achieve Permanency 

Goal”) contains the numerator counts for discharges 

to reunification/relative placement, adoption, and 

guardianship during the FFY. The data guide of the 

CFSR Round 1 State Data Profile Toolkit on the National 

Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology 

(NRC-CWDT) Web site (www.nrccwdt.org/ta/ttt/toolkit/ 

ttt_toolkit_dataguide.html) contains instructions for the 

calculation of these counts from AFCARS data. 

*Note that Table II is not associated with any national 

standards process. 

47 
48 

Technical Guide
 

The CFSR designation “PC3A2” refers to Permanency 

Composite 3, Component A, Measure 2. Permanency 

Composite 3 (PC3) includes components A and B, each 

of which includes separate measures. PC3 combines 

these measures in a single “national standard” relative 

to achieving permanency for children in foster care 

for long periods of time. The national standard for the 

permanency composite is the 75th percentile of a 

scaled score taking values from 50 to 150 (rather than 

a percentage). Although CFSR does not have a national 

standard for each component measure, a State child 

welfare agency would need to score near the 75th 

percentile for most of the components to meet the 

national standard for the composite. The following table 

illustrates PC3 components and measures. 

10. In sample 2A–3, Judicial Districts C and F both had 

no adoption permanent placements in 2005. Because 

these districts had few total cases closed in 2005 

(15 and 25, respectively), their data on permanency 

achievement by type of closure is of limited value for 

comparative purposes. 

11. For additional information, see C. Fiermonte and J. 

Renne, Making It Permanent: Reasonable Efforts To 

Finalize Permanency Plans for Foster Children (Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2002). In addition 

to helpful discussions of permanency options, Making 

It Permanent includes sample forms for agency reports 

and court orders used in permanency hearings. (Different forms are used for each of the permanency options 

discussed here.) 

CFSR Permanency Composite 3. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, and Composite 

National Standard 

Permanency Composite 3: Achieving permanency for children in foster 

care for long periods of time 

Range Median 

National 

Standard 

50–150 103.8 111.7 or higher 

Component A: Achieving permanency for children in foster care for long periods of time 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care in FY 2004 and were 

legally free for adoption (i.e., there was a termination of parental rights for 

each living parent), what percent were discharged to a permanent home 

prior to their 18th birthday? A permanent home is defined as having a 

discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including living 

with relative). 

84.8–100% 97.0% No standard 

Of all children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of FY 

2004, what percent were discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th 

birthday and by the end of the fiscal year? A permanent home is defined as 

having a discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including living with relative). 

8.1–35.3% 24.5% No standard 

Component B: Children growing up in foster care 

Of all children who exited foster care with a discharge reason of emancipation prior to their 18th birthday or who reached their 18th birthday while in 

foster care, what percent were in foster care for 3 years or longer? 

17.9–80.4% 50.7% No standard 
measure 2b 

Definition: Percentage of children in foster care who do not reach legal permanency by reunification, adoption, or legal 

guardianship. 

Explanation: This measure evaluates the combined lack of success of courts and child welfare agencies in achieving legal 

permanency by the time the court has closed each case involving children in foster care. This measure is the “flip side” of 

Toolkit Measure 2A: Achievement of Child Permanency, which focuses on the extent of success in achieving permanency. 

Much of the guide’s discussion for Measure 2B is identical or similar to the discussion for Measure 2A. 

“Legal permanency” means that there is a permanent and secure legal relationship between the adult caregiver and the 

child. More specifically, legal permanency means the following: 

u	The individual adult or couple who is/are the child’s caregiver(s) has/have full legal authority over the child, free from the 

supervision of the child welfare agency. 

u	The court, in approving this relationship, intends it to be permanent. 

u	Significant legal barriers exist to block the disruption of the placement and the disruption of the legal relationship 

between child and caregiver(s). 

Thus, this measure of the nonachievement of permanency includes cases that do not ultimately result in reunification, 

adoption, or legal guardianship. 

Children Not Reaching Permanency 


In contrast to reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship, the court does not generally intend a foster care placement to 

be permanent. The foster parent lacks full authority to decide the nature of the child’s care, and only weak legal barriers 

exist to block the removal of the child from the foster home and prevent the end of the foster parent-foster child relationship. 

Because of the complex nature of legal permanency, this measure, like Measure 2A, is relatively challenging and complex 

to implement. 

Purpose: To help courts determine the extent to which legal permanency is not achieved for children under their jurisdiction. A considerable amount of social science research has demonstrated the importance of stable and secure homes for 

children’s healthy development and ultimate well-being. Legal permanency helps ensure that former foster children grow 

up in such homes. This measure gauges the lack of success of courts and agencies in achieving that goal. 

Implementation Issues 	 In States with multiple courts, the courts that hear dependency (i.e., child abuse and neglect) cases are most likely 

to be interested in this measure and to maintain most of Different Courts or Judges May Hear the data to support it. If, for example, dependency court Adoption and Legal Guardianship cases are to be closed upon the final decree of adoption or 

Proceedings approval of legal guardianship, the dependency court must 

rely on another court to provide the date that adoption or To measure nonachievement of permanency, it is necessary 

legal guardianship is final. to count cases that do achieve permanency—including
 

those that result in adoption or legal guardianship. As with States without multiple courts may have large jurisdic-


Measure 2A, a major challenge in developing this measure tions that subdivide a single court so that one unit hears
 

is that in many States, the courts that hear adoptions and child abuse and neglect cases and another hears adoption
 

legal guardianship matters are different from the courts cases. In this case, the different units may not be able to
 

that hear abuse and neglect cases. The problem is that share data electronically.
 

few jurisdictions currently have management information
 

systems that include and link all case types.
 
Technical Guide
 

Confidentiality of Adoption 

Proceedings 

In many States, laws require that courts maintain the 

confidentiality of their adoption records. Therefore, some 

courts that hear adoption cases are reluctant to share 

information with courts that hear child abuse and neglect 

cases. This reluctance can present an obstacle to calculating the percentage of foster cases in which children are 

adopted. 

Convincing legal arguments may exist, however, in support 

of sharing information needed to implement this measure. The purpose of State laws that make court adoption 

records confidential is to protect the privacy of individual 

adopted children, their adoptive families, and birth parents. 

As long as the courts hearing abuse and neglect cases 

maintain that confidentiality and make public only aggregate information about the percentage of children in 

foster care who are adopted, the purpose of the laws is not 

violated. Of course, in a particular State, such arguments 

should address the specific wording and legislative history 

of that State’s laws. 

Legal Characteristics of Permanent 

Placement Options 

To understand when permanency is not achieved, it is 

first necessary to understand the characteristics of legal 

permanent placement options. The three preferred legal 

placement options are family reunification, adoption, and 

legal guardianship. 

Family Reunification 

Family reunification, followed by closure of the court 

case, restores the original legal position of the family 

prior to court involvement. The parents have undivided 

legal decisionmaking power regarding the child (subject 

to mandatory education laws, child labor laws, etc.). The 

parents no longer must accept supervision by the child 

welfare agency. Strong legal barriers (i.e., required proof in 

court of further abuse or neglect), comparable to those for 

parents with no court involvement, block future removal of 

the child from the home. 

Adoption 

The legal position of adoptive parents is essentially the 

same as that for biological parents who have had no 

adjudication of child abuse or neglect. 

Legal Guardianship 

“Legal guardianship” refers to legal placement options, 

established by State law, that are consistent with the 

Federal definition1

 of legal guardianship. Legal guardians 

are not subject to the oversight of the public child welfare 

agency. They generally have full decisionmaking authority 

over a child, as do biological and adoptive parents. In some 

States, however, the legal guardians’ legal security against 

removal of the child is weaker than for most biological 

and adoptive parents. That is, in some States, if biological 

parents seek to regain custody of the child, the guardian 

may need to prove those parents unfit to resume care. This 

position is the reverse of that of the biological or adoptive parents, who can maintain control of the child unless 

they are proved unfit as parents. On the other hand, some 

States have amended their guardianship laws to create 

legal preferences for keeping children with legal guardians 

when challenged by parents. 

In some States, more than one legal option may fall within 

the definition of “legal guardian.” For example, both “legal 

custody”2 and guardianship (pursuant to the probate code) 

may qualify as legal guardianship. Thus, some jurisdictions 

may wish to include more than one form of legal guardianship in this measure. 

“Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement” 

Some jurisdictions may wish to consider “another planned 

permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) as a form of 

permanent placement, as Federal law recognizes APPLA 

as a type of permanency plan. However, what many States 

consider to be APPLAs are actually legal arrangements that 

do not provide legally permanent placements. If APPLAs do 

not actually have the characteristics of permanent placements in a State, they should be counted in this measure 

(i.e., cases that result in APPLA should be considered not 

to have achieved permanency). 

States that define the term APPLA narrowly, as intended by 

Federal law,

3

 may appropriately exclude APPLA from this 

measure (i.e., cases that result in APPLA could be considered to have achieved permanency). For example, if State 

law authorizes a court to order a permanent placement 

with a specific foster parent and that placement cannot be 

disrupted without a court order, a State may choose not to 

include that placement within this measure. A State might 

even choose to exclude a group home APPLA of a child 

who is unable to live with a family, if an adult commits to 

serving as a lifelong mentor and substitute parent for the 

child, and the child accepts that relationship. 

50 
measure 2b: Children Not Reaching Permanency 

Calculating Rates For Different Legal 

Permanency Options 

If a State recognizes other types of permanent placements 

in addition to reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship, it could exclude all types of permanent placements 

from a report on this measure. (In any case, whatever 

Measure 2A includes, Measure 2B should exclude.) 

Alternatively, a State might choose to count only reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship as permanent 

placements, and to calculate separately the frequency of 

different categories of nonpermanent placements. For 

example, it could calculate separately the percentage of 

actual APPLAs and the percentages of completely 

nonpermanent placements such as aging out of foster 

care, transfer to the custody of an agency other than child 

welfare, or transfer to another geographic jurisdiction. 

Regardless of whether a State considers APPLA in the 

permanent or nonpermanent category, it should consider 

breaking out the percentage of APPLAs separately from 

other categories. Otherwise, a high percentage of nonpermanency based largely on numerous APPLAs may be 

misleading. 

Breaking out separate percentages for each type of nonpermanent placement (again, regardless of how APPLA is 

categorized) can provide courts with valuable information 

on what types of placements are most and least common. 

For example, a court might have relatively few children 

aging out in foster care but unusually high rates of transfers (to other agencies or jurisdictions) or children who run 

away or become missing. 

Case Outcomes Not Constituting 

Permanency 

Case outcomes that do not constitute permanency include 

“aging out,” independent living, emancipation, other 

nonpermanent legal placement categories, and “legal 

orphans.” 

Aging Out 

If the court closes a case because a child has “aged out” 

of its jurisdiction, and the child remains in foster care after 

case closure, that child will be considered to have achieved 

legal permanency only if the court has ordered permanent 

placement with the foster parent(s) as an APPLA. 

Independent Living 

Cases labeled “independent living” (e.g., youth who are 

receiving services to help them function better after reaching adulthood) should not be classified as having achieved 

permanency. An independent living situation does not meet 

the goal of legal permanency, which should include, among 

other things, having a permanent family upon reaching 

adulthood. Effective services to help youth function independently upon reaching adulthood, although commendable and helpful, have little to do with permanency. 

Emancipation 

As with independent living, “emancipation” is sometimes 

used as a euphemism for aging out of foster care. In 

addition, an emancipated youth may be a young person 

who is granted some aspects of adult legal status before 

reaching the age of majority. For example, depending on 

State law, an emancipated youth may be granted the right 

to live alone without any adult supervision and to enter into 

certain contracts.4 

Other Nonpermanent Legal Placement Categories 

Examples of other categories of court case closure that 

would not be considered legal permanency for purposes 

of this measure include death of the child, transfer of 

the case to another geographic jurisdiction (e.g., another 

State’s court system or another judicial district), transfer 

of the case to another agency, and a runaway or missing child. The Federal Adoption and Foster Care Reporting 

System (AFCRS), which applies to State child welfare 

agencies, includes the following nonpermanent placement categories for foster care “discharge”: emancipation, 

transfer to another agency, runaway, and death of the 

child.5 

As with Measure 2A, children who are transferred to another jurisdiction before case closure or who die in foster 

care (presumably through no fault of the State) should not 

be included in this measure, because such cases are not 

a reflection of the State’s degree of success (or lack of 

success) in achieving permanency. On the other hand, a 

runaway or other missing child or a child who is transferred to another agency (e.g., a juvenile justice agency 

or developmental disabilities agency) should be included 

in this measure. Such cases usually do reflect the court’s 

and the child welfare agency’s lack of success in planning, 

oversight, and decisionmaking with regard to the child. 

51 
Technical Guide
 

Legal Orphans 

A group of particular interest is children who leave foster 

care without permanency but whose parents’ rights have 

been terminated. With these youth, legal ties (and presumably contacts) with their families were ended when the 

termination of parental rights (TPR) was finalized, but legal 

permanency was never achieved. It is recommended that 

States seriously consider calculating the percentage of 

cases falling within this category. 

Other Measures As Context 

As is often the case, data based on this measure should be 

considered in light of data based on other measures. For 

example, although it is helpful to know the percentages 

of children not reaching permanency by the time the case 

is closed, it is also helpful to know how long it takes to 

achieve permanency and case closure (Toolkit Measure 4A: 

Time to Permanent Placement). It is also useful to know 

what percentage of permanent placements subsequently 

break up, making it necessary for the child to reenter 

foster care (Toolkit Measure 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care 

After Return Home and Measure 2E: Reentry Into Foster 

Care After Adoption or Guardianship). 

Measure Limited to Youth 

in Foster Care 

As with Measure 2A, this measure should be limited to 

youth in foster care. Otherwise, it would substantially reflect 

the percentage of abused and neglected children who 

come before the court but never enter foster care rather 

than the percentage of children in foster care who have not 

achieved permanency. (Note that the rate of nonpermanency for children who come before the court but never enter 

foster care, excluding categories such as children who 

die while in foster care or who are transferred to another 

jurisdiction, would be close to 0 percent.) 

If courts prefer to include all youth under court jurisdiction 

in this measure, they should maintain separate statistics 

on the nonpermanency rate for youth in foster care. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report (e.g., for a report
 

spanning a 12-month period, select beginning and
 

ending dates 12 months apart).
 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range 

selected (A), exclude cases that were closed because 

the child died, was transferred to another geographic 

jurisdiction (e.g., to another judicial district or State), or 

who was never in foster care while the case was open. 

(B) 

3. Count the number of cases in (B) for which the case
 

closure reason is one of the permanent placements
 

recognized by the state. (C) The remaining cases in
 

(B) are those for which the case closure reason is a 

nonpermanent placement. (D) 

4. Compute the overall rate of permanency by dividing (C) 

by (B). Compute the overall rate of nonpermanency by 

dividing (D) by (B). 

5. Divide (C) into categories, each representing one 

type of permanent placement at case closure: family 

reunification (category 1), adoption (category 2), legal 

guardianship (category 3). If the State recognizes 

other permanent placement categories such as APPLA, 

create a fourth category, and so forth. Divide (D) into 

categories, each representing a nonpermanent placement type (category 5, category 6, etc.). 

6. Compute the percentage of cases in each category by 

dividing the number of cases in that category by (B). 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately on cases by additional categories, 

such as child’s race/ethnicity, child’s age, age of case 

at closure, etc. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Foster care flag = “yes.” 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Case closure reason. 

Optional Elements 

u	Abuse or neglect petition date. 

52 
measure 2b: Children Not Reaching Permanency 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) standard 

for State child welfare agencies relates specifically to 

Toolkit Measure 2B. For discussion of a CFSR standard 

that relates to the measurement of permanency rates, see 

“Related CFSR Standards” in Measure 2A. 

Note: Because Measure 2B is the “flip side” of 

Measure 2A, the remaining sections—“Reporting 

the Data,” “Factors That May Affect Results,” and 

“Possible Reforms”—are similar to the corresponding sections in Measure 2A. 

Reporting the Data 

Measure 2B lends itself to a variety of graphic representations. The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a 

fictitious seven-district State to demonstrate how results 

for this measure might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 2B–1 illustrates a tabular format that can be helpful for State Court Improvement Project (CIP) directors and 

their staff. The table shows the percentage of cases closed 

during calendar year 2005 in which legal permanency was 

not achieved at the time of case closure, for the entire 

State and each judicial district. The nonpermanency rates 

range from 47 percent in District C to 11 percent in District 

G. The overall rate for the State is 32 percent. This simple 

table has the advantage of being easy to read. However, 

because it does not distinguish rates for different types 

of nonpermanency, the table will not reveal, for example, 

that a particular district may have a relatively low rate of 

children aging out but a high rate of APPLAs. Thus, it will 

not reflect all the factors that affect, either positively or 

negatively, the overall achievement of permanency. 

Data on the proportions of cases reaching and not reaching 

permanency can be well represented by pie charts. A pie 

chart can be created for each judicial district individually 

(see sample 2B–2) or for the entire State. 

Sample 2B–3 breaks down the numbers from sample 

2B–1 by type of permanent and nonpermanent placement (i.e., by reason for case closure), permitting sharper 

contrasts than can be seen in sample 2B–1. 

Sample 2B–4 shows how the tabular data from sample 

2B–3 might be presented in a bar graph for one of the 

districts. 

If a State has measured permanency rates for several 

years, it might show trends in nonpermanency rates in a 

line graph such as in sample 2B–5. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Although the court plays an important role in achieving 

permanency for youth in foster care, other important factors also contribute to this outcome. Success in achieving 

permanency for foster children may reflect (a) the quality 

of the child welfare agency’s casework, (b) the services 

available in the community, (c) the court’s effectiveness in 

overseeing the work of the agency and service providers, 

(d) the quality of the court itself as a decisionmaker, (e) 

demographic factors, or (f) a combination of these factors. 

If, for example, a court has a relatively low percentage of 

children achieving permanency by the time of case closure, 

that court should consider all the possible reasons— 

including whether the court is contributing to the problem. 

Sample 2B–1. Children Not Reaching Permanency, by Judicial District, Cases Closed in 2005 

District 

Permanency No Permanency Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

A 46 61% 30 39% 76 100% 

B 65 72% 25 28% 90 100% 

C 8 53% 7 47% 15 100% 

D 98 64% 55 36% 153 100% 

E 9 82% 2 18% 11 100% 

F 15 60% 10 40% 25 100% 

G 51 89% 6 11% 57 100% 

Statewide 292 68% 135 32% 427 100% 

53 
54 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 2B–2. Nonachievement of Permanency 

for Cases Closed in 2005: District A 

61% 39% 

Permanency No Permanency 

The following paragraphs suggest some possible courtrelated reasons for performance results related to this 

measure. Please note: These are simply examples of 

factors to consider when analyzing performance at the 

local level. Because factors may be different for reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship, they are described 

separately for each of these permanency options. 

Factors Affecting Family Reunification 

Permanency 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Safety Planning 

The willingness of judges to approve family reunification 

and the willingness of advocates to support reunification 

can be enhanced by understanding how to analyze safety 

issues. Skill in this kind of analysis also reduces the 

likelihood of the kinds of serious errors that make judges 

and advocates overly reluctant to approve or support 

reunification. 

Conducting a methodical safety analysis requires understanding how to assess the following: 

u	The immediacy and severity of danger. 

u	The causes of parental behavior undermining the child’s 

safety. 

Sample 2B–3. Reasons for Case Closures in 2005, by Judicial District 

District 

Permanent Placement No Permanent Placement 

Reunification Adoption 

Legal 

Guardianship APPLA* Age Out Other Total 

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % 

A 32 42% 9 12% 5 7% 24 32% 5 7% 1 1% 76 100% 

B 57 63% 1 1% 7 8% 20 27% 3 3% 2 2% 90 100% 

C 7 47% 0 0% 1 7% 7 53% 0 47% 0 0% 15 100% 

D 51 33% 36 24% 11 7% 45 29% 7 5% 3 2% 153 100% 

E 7 64% 2 18% 0 0% 0 0% 2 18% 0 0% 11 100% 

F 10 40% 0 0% 5 20% 8 32% 2 8% 0 0% 25 100% 

G 24 42% 20 35% 7 12% 4 7% 2 4% 0 0% 57 100% 

Statewide 188 44% 68 16% 36 8% 108 25% 21 5% 6 1% 427 100% 

*APPLA=another planned permanent living arrangement. 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 
measure 2b: Children Not Reaching Permanency 

Sample 2B–4. Reasons for Case Closures in 2005: District A 

Other 

Age Out 

APPLA* 

Legal 

Guardianship 

Adoption 

Reunification 

1% 

32% 

5% 

7% 

42% 

12% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

Percentage of Closed Cases 

*APPLA=another planned permanent living arrangement. 

Sample 2B–5. Comparison of Trends in Nonpermanency Rates, Cases Closed in 2002–2005: Judicial 

District A Versus Statewide 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

Percentage of Cases 

44% 

41% 

53% 

43% 

38% 39% 

39% 

32% 

2002 2003 2004 2005 

Judicial District A Statewide

u	The ability and willingness of parents to care for and u	The availability and reliability of services that can make 

protect the child, including parents’ recognition and the child more safe. 

control of their own behavior. u	The vulnerability of the individual child to danger, 

u	The availability and ability of relatives to help the including the child’s ability to protect himself or herself. 

parents and monitor the child’s safety. 

55 
Technical Guide
 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates in 

Reunification Planning 

Judges and advocates can have a substantial impact 

on the timeliness of reunification planning by keeping 

close track of their cases and making sure that (a) case 

plans are logically related to the problems leading to and 

contributing to the child’s removal from home, (b) services 

specified in the case plan are being provided on a timely 

basis, and (c) the criteria for reunification are practical and 

clear. 

The contributions of judges and advocates to the reunification process depend on the clarity of their thought 

processes, their efforts to keep tabs on cases, and their 

insistence on timely followup by caseworkers and service 

providers. 

Legal Criteria and Judicial Conditions for 

Reunification 

The statutory criteria for family reunification can be an 

important factor in reunification rates. The key legal question is whether State law requires reunification (a) when 

the child is no longer facing a level of danger that would 

justify foster placement if the child were still living at 

home, (b) only when reunification is in the best interests of 

the child, or (c) somewhere between (a) and (b). Although 

some States clearly call for a particular approach, most 

are not clear. Approach (a) is the standard most favorable 

to the parents, in that it requires reunification when the 

child is no longer at risk of further abuse or neglect even if 

reunification is not best for the child. Approach (a) makes 

most practical sense at or near the time of removal, before 

the emotional bond between parent and child has had time 

to deteriorate. The longer the child is in foster care and 

the greater the deterioration of the parent-child emotional 

bond, the more approach (b) makes practical sense for the 

child’s sake. 

Individual judges’ specific conditions or criteria for reunification are usually more crucial than criteria from statutes 

or case law. Different judges may use different criteria, 

depending on the circumstances of a case. For example, if 

a child has been removed from home because of drugrelated maltreatment, a judge may require that the parent 

have no positive drug screens for a particular period of 

time. (Experts on safety analysis do not recommend this 

requirement as the sole criterion for reunification in such 

cases.) Judges can enhance their reunification criteria by 

applying the knowledge gained through studying different 

methods of safety analysis. 

Factors Affecting Adoption 

Permanency 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Adoption 

Among the keys to successful adoption is the willingness 

of caseworkers or agencies to try adoption placements for 

a wide range of children. Judges and advocates should 

be aware that many agencies have successfully placed a 

wide variety of children. 

Judges and advocates should also understand the key 

principles of good case practice that lead to successful 

adoption, practices that apply to various categories of 

children, and the elements of good adoption recruitment, 

screening, and home studies. Private agencies and experts 

can assist judges and advocates in this area. 

In addition, judges and advocates should be well informed 

about potential barriers to adoption, so they are better 

prepared to overcome those barriers. For example, bureaucratic delay often impedes adoptions. Overcoming sources 

of delay can reduce trauma to the child and enhance the 

odds of successful adoption. Advocates can help reduce 

delays by having a detailed understanding of the administrative steps in the adoption process. With this knowledge, 

they can identify procedural barriers, press the agency to 

eliminate the barriers, and hold individual agency employees accountable for progress. 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates in the 

Adoption Process 

In addition to understanding the adoption process, judges 

and advocates must involve themselves in the process 

when necessary. One way to become involved is to seek 

early permanency in extreme cases—those in which 

children often are most deeply traumatized by abuse or neglect and success is least likely. In such cases, advocates 

may propose and judges may find that reasonable efforts 

for reunification are not required. Alternative approaches 

include scheduling an early permanency hearing or filing 

early in the case for termination of parental rights (TPR). 

A judge might change permanency plans to adoption 

proceedings (or an advocate might press for this change) 

during a permanency hearing or review hearing. 

Another important step in improving adoptions is for judges 

and advocates to conduct more indepth case reviews and 

permanency hearings after TPR. The reviews should focus 

on the efficiency of the administrative adoption process, 

56 
measure 2b: Children Not Reaching Permanency 

identifying sources of delay and specifying steps to move 

the case forward. 

Legal Criteria and Procedures Relevant 

to Adoption 

Because the time and effort involved in TPR proceedings affect when and how often TPR petitions are filed, 

the efficiency of the procedures governing TPR can be an 

important factor in the number and timeliness of adoptions. 

The appropriateness of TPR grounds, including case law 

interpreting those grounds, also affects the number and 

timeliness of adoptions. For example, appropriate early 

adoption in extreme cases is facilitated by the existence of 

grounds that require neither reasonable efforts to reunify 

nor the passage of specific amounts of time in such cases. 

In these cases and others, delays reduce the likelihood that 

a child eventually will be successfully adopted. 

Key procedural factors relevant to successful adoption are 

the length of waiting periods and the circumstances in 

which waiting periods are required. Also important are the 

exact requirements for consent to termination, including 

consent by the agency and the child (upon reaching a 

specified age). Appropriately flexible consent requirements 

will prevent the arbitrary blocking of adoptions. 

Factors Affecting Legal Guardianship 

Permanency 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Legal Guardianship 

When judges and advocates understand the full ramifications of guardianship, they will seek it appropriately. For 

example, judges and advocates should know about the 

financial implications of guardianship compared with those 

of foster care and adoption. They must also know the 

proper legal procedures for initiating and completing 

guardianship; in some States, these procedures are 

difficult to follow. Finally, judges and advocates should 

understand the legal protections of guardianship under 

State law, such as the guardians’ freedom from State 

interference and their security from custodial challenges 

by biological parents. 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates 

in Guardianship Planning 

Well-informed judges and advocates who pay attention to 

planning for guardianship and stay involved in the process 

can be a great help. For example, judges and advocates 

can review whether legal guardians are receiving available 

subsidies or other financial assistance. They can ensure 

proper and timely home studies of the guardian household, 

including criminal record checks of the guardians and child 

abuse and neglect central registry checks of other adults in 

the home. They can also make sure that the guardianship 

proceeding has a proper court record of why the child entered foster care. Such a record can reduce the likelihood 

that biological parents will regain custody after a guardianship has been established as a permanent placement for 

the child. 

Legal Criteria and Judicial Conditions for Legal 

Guardianship 

If the law makes legal guardianship a permanent placement for a child, the legal grounds for establishing guardianship should reflect that fact. Generally speaking, the 

legal grounds for guardianship should require proof that 

(a) the child should not or cannot be returned to his or her 

parents within a reasonable time after entering foster care 

and (b) legal guardianship, rather than adoption, is in the 

child’s best interests. 

Procedures to establish legal guardianship should be efficient but should also provide strong legal protections for 

the parents and child. For example, State law should not 

require that a legal guardianship case be heard by a court 

other than the one that heard the child’s abuse and neglect 

case. 

Finally, the legal characteristics of guardianship should 

reinforce the legal permanency of the arrangement, for the 

sake of both the child and the guardian. Legal guardians 

should not be subject to ongoing supervision by the State 

child welfare agency and should not be highly vulnerable 

to custodial challenges by biological parents. 

Possible Reforms 

If data from this performance measure indicate room for 

improvement regarding the percentage of cases resulting in permanent placements, the court should consider 

possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of course, depend 

on local conditions and the court’s analysis of the best 

procedures and steps for achieving permanency in its 

jurisdiction. 

The sections that follow present examples of additional 

actions a court might take to improve permanency rates 

for reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship.6 In 

addition to the examples pertaining to specific permanency 

57 
Technical Guide
 

options, the court should support a wide range of more 

general legal and judicial system improvements related to 

this measure. 

Family Reunification 

u	Take more time to address safety issues during reviews 

and permanency hearings. 

u	Before accepting other permanency plans during 

permanency hearings, require evidence that the child 

cannot safely return home, even with realistically 

available services and help. 

u	Train judges and attorneys on safety issues, such as 

focusing on the capacity of parents and relatives to keep 

the child safe, focusing on the special vulnerabilities 

of children, and understanding other basic elements of 

good safety analysis. The training should include how 

to address these issues in review and permanency 

hearings. 

u	Secure the assistance of skilled forensic psychologists 

and psychiatrists in analyzing the safety of reunification. 

u	Improve agency reports to the court by working with the 

agency to develop new forms (or supplements to forms) 

in connection with recommendations for reunification. 

The forms should address matters such as the reasons 

why reunification is or is not now safe; how relatives 

will be involved, when appropriate, to help oversee the 

child’s safety; and transitional visitation arrangements. 

u	Adopt new forms (or supplements to forms) to be used 

for court orders for family reunification. The forms 

should address matters such as those noted above for 

agency reports. 

u	Before case closure, implement family group 

conferencing models that involve the family in making 

safety plans to maintain their children in a safe and 

secure environment upon reunification. 

Adoption 

u	Take more time to address adoption issues during 

reviews and permanency hearings. 

u	Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps are 

being taken to recruit adoptive parents, properly screen 

applicants, conduct thorough and timely home studies, 

and make timely decisions. This review helps to avoid 

the need to make hasty decisions later in the process or 

to choose among insufficiently qualified candidates. 

u	Before accepting other nonreunification permanency 

plans during permanency hearings, require evidence 

that the child cannot or should not be adopted. 

u	Train judges and attorneys on adoption issues, such 

as the details of the bureaucratic steps in the process, 

adoption recruitment, adoption screening and selection, 

financial barriers, and issues concerning adolescents. 

u	Revise the legal grounds for terminating parental 

rights to eliminate inappropriate barriers to adoption 

for children who are unable to return home within a 

reasonable time, when adoption is in their best interests. 

u	Simplify procedures for terminating parental rights, 

thereby encouraging agency workers and attorneys to 

seek that option and reducing delays. 

u	Train caseworkers (or help arrange for training) to 

document and present to the court better information 

regarding reunification. 

Legal Guardianship 

u	Take more time to address the possibility of legal 

guardianship during reviews and permanency hearings, 

at least for cases in which family reunification and 

adoption are seriously questioned as proper case goals. 

u	Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps 

are being taken to recruit guardians, properly screen 

applicants, conduct thorough and timely home studies, 

and make timely decisions. This review helps avoid the 

need to make hasty decisions later in the process or to 

choose among insufficiently qualified candidates. 

u	Before accepting lower priority permanency plans 

(such as APPLAs) during permanency hearings, require 

evidence that the child cannot or should not be placed 

in a legal guardianship. 

u	Revise legal procedures for guardianship to simplify the 

process. 

u	If legal protection for guardians against biological 

parents seeking to regain custody is inadequate under 

State law, amend statutes to correct the problem. 

u	Train judges and attorneys on legal guardianship issues, 

such as the process to establish legal guardianship, 

including, where applicable, coordination between 

58 
measure 2b: Children Not Reaching Permanency 

the court handling the guardianship proceeding and 

the court handling the abuse and neglect case; the 

financial implications of legal guardianship, including 

possible financial benefits available; the legal rights 

and obligations of legal guardians under State law; and 

consent to guardianship. 

u	Revise forms for legal guardianship to help simplify the 

process, clarify the authority and responsibilities of the 

guardian, and set forth the reasons for choosing legal 

guardianship rather than reunification or adoption. 

u	Train caseworkers to document and present to the court 

better information regarding legal guardianship. 

Endnotes 

1. 42 U.S.C. § 675(7) states that: 

The term ‘legal guardianship’ means a judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which 

is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as 

evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, 

education, care and control of the person, custody 

of the person, and decision-making. The term ‘legal 

guardian’ means the caretaker in such a relationship. 

2. The term “legal custody,” when used as a type of 

permanent placement, means a court order that gives 

indefinite custody (permanent care and control) of a 

child to an individual or couple. Used in this sense during child abuse or neglect proceedings, legal custody 

would survive after the proceedings have been closed. 

However, not every State has the option of awarding 

legal custody of this type in the course of child abuse 

and neglect proceedings. The term “legal custody” is 

different from “physical custody” in that legal custody 

connotes full legal decisionmaking powers concerning 

the child, whereas physical custody generally means 

little more than the right to physical care and control 

of the child. Another type of custody in child abuse and 

neglect proceedings, “temporary custody,” typically 

means custody that lasts only as long as the abuse or 

neglect case remains open. Note, however, that the 

precise meaning of custody, legal custody, physical 

custody, and temporary custody can vary from State 

to State. 

3. For further discussion about the meaning of the 

statutory term “another planned permanent living arrangement,” see C. Fiermonte and J. Renne, Making It 

Permanent: Reasonable Efforts To Finalize Permanency 

Plans for Foster Children (Washington, DC: American 

Bar Association, 2002). 

4. Some States authorize legal emancipation before age 

18 under certain circumstances, typically after a youth 

has reached age 16 or 17. 

5. 45 CFR § 1355, appendix A, section I(X)(B). 

6. For additional information, see C. Fiermonte and J. 

Renne, Making It Permanent: Reasonable Efforts To 

Finalize Permanency Plans for Foster Children (Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2002). 

59 

measure 2C 

Definition: Percentage of children who reside in one, two, three, four, or more placements while under court jurisdiction. 

Explanation: This measure shows how many times abused and neglected children are moved from one placement to 

another while under court jurisdiction. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate the stability of placements for abused and neglected children while they are under court 

jurisdiction. Stability of placement is an important dimension of permanency for children. Placement changes are often 

traumatic, and multiple changes can undermine a child’s long-term emotional adjustment. 

Implementation Issues 

Not Limiting Measure to Changes in 

Foster Placements 

This measure might be defined to include only the number 

of placements while a child is in foster care, as opposed 

to including both foster care and non-foster-care placements. An argument in favor of this approach is that it 

How Placement Changes Are Relevant 

to Court Performance 

Some might question the relevance of this measure to 

court performance if State law does not empower judges 

to order specific foster placements or block changes in 

foster placements. Even without these powers, however, 

many courts without such powers can affect changes 

of foster placements in their local areas. For example, if 

placement changes are unduly frequent, the court might 

issue orders in individual cases requiring agencies to notify 

the court when a child is to be moved, subpoena witnesses 

to explain the need for placement changes, and/or actively 

review the need for placement changes in disposition and 

review hearings. Such methods can help courts discourage 

needless changes in placement. 

In States where judges do have the power to order specific 

foster placements, the court’s responsibility with regard 

to placement changes is greater. That responsibility is 

even greater in States where the agency must notify the 

court when a child is moved from one foster placement to 

another, or where the court must approve any changes in 

foster placements. 

In all States, courts have decisionmaking powers concerning placement changes other than moves between different foster homes or facilities. Because moves that require 

shifts in custody or other legal responsibilities for children 

must be approved by the court, the court clearly shares 

responsibility with the agency for such moves. 

Obtaining Data on Placement Changes 

Perhaps the most difficult challenge in collecting data for 

this measure is getting reliable and accurate information 

about placement changes not made pursuant to court 

Children Moved While Under 

Court Jurisdiction 

allows the court to rely simply on agency data, without 

having to gather its own. A counter argument, which the 

developers of this guide find persuasive, is that including 

only foster care placements in this measure gives a limited 

and distorted view of placement changes in general. If a 

court counts changes of foster care placements only, it 

will not capture the following types of potentially traumatic 

placement changes: 

u	Movement from the custody of one relative into the 

custody of another. 

u	Movement from a long-term foster placement to the 

custody of a relative.1 

u	A child’s return home and subsequent removal. 

u	Movement from the custody of a relative into a new 

adoptive home. 

Data for this measure should, therefore, include removals 

of children from home, children’s return home, movement 

of children into the homes of relatives, placements for 

adoption, and other changes while children are under court 

jurisdiction. 
Technical Guide
 

order (e.g., moves between foster placements). Although 

courts necessarily know of placement changes pursuant 

to court orders, they may not know when child welfare 

agencies make placement changes that do not require 

court approval. 

Many States do not require agencies to notify the court 

when children are moved between foster placements. 

To have consistent and accurate data regarding such 

changes, courts must take steps to obtain the needed 

information from agencies. 

One way for courts to obtain agency data on foster 

placement changes is through electronic data transfers. 

Currently, however, few jurisdictions have operational 

electronic data transfer. In addition, placement information 

in agency databases is not always up to date. 

Alternatively, agencies can provide information on foster 

placement changes in their written reports to courts. The 

information must appear consistently in the same part of 

the report, in a format that makes it easily retrievable by 

court employees. The agency will need to revise its court 

report form and train its staff accordingly. In addition, the 

court will need to train its employees to enter the information into the management information system database. 

A quality control mechanism will also be needed to ensure 

that the data are entered correctly.2 

The court may need to introduce standardized forms for 

court orders, or modify existing forms, to capture information on placement changes specified in court orders (e.g., 

orders changing a child’s legal status). The court probably 

will also need to modify its case management system by 

adding data entry screens and data elements to accommodate information on placements. 

Counting Placements or Moves 

An important question for this measure is whether to count 

the number of placements or the number of moves while in 

foster care. Consider the following scenario: 

A child is removed from home, placed into foster home 

A, moved into the home of a relative who is not certified 

as a foster parent, moved back into foster home A, 

moved into foster home B, and finally placed in a preadoptive home with parents who later adopt the child. 

If this measure is based on the number of moves experienced by the child, the moves might be counted as follows: 

The child is removed from home and placed into foster 

home A (move 1), moved into the home of a relative who 

is not certified as a foster parent (move 2), moved back 

into foster home A (move 3), moved into foster home B 

(move 4), and finally adopted (move 5). 

If this measure is based on the number of placements, 

however, the calculation will depend on whether to count 

(a) only foster placements, (b) all out-of-home placements, 

or (c) all in-home and out-of-home placements. With option (b), all out-of-home placements would be counted as 

follows: 

The child is removed from home and placed into foster 

home A (placement 1), moved into the home of a relative 

who is not certified as a foster parent (placement 2), 

moved back into foster home A, moved into foster home 

B (placement 3), and finally placed in a preadoptive home 

with parents who later adopt the child (placement 4). 

A key argument for counting moves is that they are generally painful—if not traumatic—experiences for children. 

Arguments for counting placements are that (a) the initial 

removal from home should not count in the court performance measure because the child is brought to court only 

after experiencing abuse or neglect, and (b) the return of a 

child to a former placement should not count because it is 

usually better to return a child to a familiar placement (e.g., 

foster home A in the above scenario) than to move the 

child to a totally new placement. 

Although it is feasible to count either moves or placements, it is recommended that this measure be based on 

the number of all out-of-home placements. Whereas it 

might be reasonable to measure a child welfare agency’s 

performance based only on the number of foster placements children experience (i.e., placements while the 

agency has custody), all out-of-home placements (including, for example, placements with relatives not licensed as 

foster parents) makes better sense as a measure of court 

performance. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is children
 

whose cases were closed during that date range. (A)
 

62 
measure 2C: Children Moved While Under Court Jurisdiction 

3. From dataset (A), select cases with one placement 

before case closure (B), two placements before case 

closure (C), three placements before case closure (D), 

four placements before case closure (E), five placements before case closure (F), and more than five 

placements before case closure (G). 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each category (B 

through G) by dividing the number in each category by 

(A). 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately on cases by categories such as
 

child’s race/ethnicity, child’s age, age of case at
 

closure, etc.
 

2. Report only on the number of foster placements per 


case. (The universe of cases is limited to children
 

(a) whose cases were closed during the date range 

selected and (b) who were in foster care at some time 

while their case was open.) 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Placement beginning date. 

Optional Data Elements 

u	Abuse or neglect petition date. 

u	Foster care flag = “yes.” 

u	Placement type. 

Related CFSR Standards 

Child and Family Services Review Permanency Composite 

4 (CFSR PC 4)3

 includes three measures that are somewhat similar to Toolkit Measure 2C: 

Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in 

foster care for 8 days or longer and less than 12 months, 

what percent had two or fewer placement settings? 

Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, 

what percent had two or fewer placement settings? 

Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in 

foster care for at least 24 months, what percent had two 

or fewer placement settings? 

One key difference between Toolkit Measure 2C and these 

three CFSR measures is that Toolkit Measure 2C includes 

non-foster-care placements, such as placements in the 

home of relatives not licensed as foster parents, whereas 

the CFSR measures are limited to foster placements. 

Another difference is that the CFSR measures are based 

on samples in which children are in foster care for three 

specified lengths of time, whereas the length of time for 

Toolkit Measure 2C (i.e., while children are under court 

jurisdiction) varies from case to case. 

Finally, a noteworthy technical difference between these 

CFSR measures and Toolkit Measure 2C is that the CFSR 

measures use an “entry cohort” limited to children who 

were in foster care during the time period specified, 

whereas Toolkit Measure 2C uses an “exit cohort” limited 

to children whose cases were closed during the reporting 

period. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other measures, Measure 2C lends itself to a variety of graphic representations. For example, improvement 

or lack of improvement in the frequency of placement 

changes over time can be shown in trend lines, a large table, or a series of bar graphs. Tables and graphs can show 

performance comparisons between an individual jurisdiction and the State as a whole, as well as comparisons by 

children’s characteristics (e.g., age, race/ethnicity) or case 

characteristics (e.g., length of time a case stays open). The 

samples that follow use hypothetical data to demonstrate 

how results for this measure might be reported in tables 

and graphs. 

Sample 2C–1 illustrates a tabular format for showing 

the percentage of cases in various categories based on 

number of placements while under court jurisdiction, for 

each of four courts and statewide. The table is based on a 

sample of cases closed in 2006. Note that the percentages 

of multiple placements in this table are significantly higher 

than would be the case if only foster care placements were 

counted. Also note that only 13 percent of cases statewide 

involve only one placement—a very low percentage. 

63 
64 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 2C–1. Number of Placements While Under Court Jurisdiction, by Court, Cases Closed in 2006 

Court 

Number of Placements 

Total 

Number 

of Cases 

1 2 3 4 5 >5 

# % # % # % # % # % # % 

A 23 7% 193 62% 56 18% 16 5% 18 6% 5 2% 311 

B 63 29% 140 65% 6 3% 3 1% 2 1% 1 0% 215 

C 23 11% 120 59% 34 17% 12 6% 5 2% 8 4% 202 

D 18 6% 134 48% 58 21% 33 12% 19 7% 16 6% 278 

Statewide 127 13% 587 58% 154 15% 64 6% 44 4% 30 3% 1,006 

Sample 2C–2 shows how data for one of the courts can 

be presented in an “exploded” pie chart. 

Sample 2C–3 breaks down data for the same court by 

age of case, based on a sample of cases closed in 2005. 

Note that the number of placements in older cases may 

reflect earlier court and agency practices or may indicate 

that the longer a child is out of the home, the more likely 

the child is to be moved several times. A court may wish 

to use different time periods (e.g., breaking the “longer 

than 24 months” category into subcategories). If a court 

is concerned about the effects of very recent changes in 

practice, it could analyze an additional sample of cases 

opened more recently. 

Finally, sample 2C–4 is a stacked bar graph based on the 

percentages in the “total” line of sample 2C–3. The graph 

gives a clear picture of the percentages of children in each 

of the “number of placement” categories. It also makes it 

possible to see cumulative percentages, i.e., the percentage of children who have two or fewer placements, three 

or fewer placements, etc. For example, the top line of the 

“3 placements” falls about midway between 40 percent 

and 50 percent, showing that 45 percent of children had 

three or fewer placements. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Knowledge of Judges Regarding the 

Impact of Placement Changes 

If judges understand the impact of placement changes 

on children, they are more likely to monitor and question 

such changes. Furthermore, knowledgeable judges are 

more likely to approve a change only when reasons for the 

change are substantial and no reasonable, safe alternative 

exists. 

Sample 2C–2. Number of Placements While 

Under Court Jurisdiction, Cases Closed in 2006: 

Court A 

2% 6% 7%

1 placement 4 placements

18% 

62% 

5% 

2 placements 5 placements 

3 placements >5 placements 

Quality of Advocacy 

If advocates understand the impact of placement changes 

on children and actively investigate their cases, they are 

likely to alert judges to facts that will improve the quality 

of decisions regarding placement. Advocates should also 

obtain information from mental health care providers regarding the appropriateness of moving the child. Effective 
measure 2C: Children Moved While Under Court Jurisdiction 

Sample 2C–3. Number of Placements While Under Court Jurisdiction, by Age of Case, Cases Closed in 

2005: Court A 

Age of Case 

Number of Placements 

Total 

Number 

of Cases 

1 2 3 4 5 >5 

# % # % # % # % # % # % 

1–6 months 27 19% 36 25% 67 46% 13 9% 2 1% 0 0% 145 

7–12 months 2 1% 45 27% 34 20% 69 42% 11 7% 5 3% 166 

13–18 months 3 1% 9 4% 70 33% 60 29% 45 21% 23 11% 210 

19–24 months 1 1% 7 8% 25 28% 16 18% 23 26% 18 20% 90 

>24 months 1 0% 12 6% 35 17% 73 35% 56 27% 32 15% 209 

Statewide 34 4% 109 13% 231 28% 231 28% 137 17% 78 10% 820 

Percentage of Cases 

Sample 2C–4. Distribution of Cases by Number 

of Placements While Under Court Jurisdiction, 

Cases Closed in 2005: Court A 

100%
 

90%
 

80%
 

70%
 

60%
 

50%
 

40%
 

30%
 

20%
 

10%
 

0%

10% 

17% 

28% 

28% 

13% 

4% 

1 placement 4 placements 

2 placements 5 placements 

3 placements >5 placements 

advocates for children should also visit the child in his or 

her current placement and obtain information from schools 

and medical providers regarding the quality of the child’s 

care in the home. Such steps can help the judge reach a 

better decision regarding a change of placement. 

Quality of Disposition and Review 

Hearings 

The appropriateness of a child’s current placement is a 

central issue in disposition and review hearings. If the 

hearings are active and thorough, mistakes such as needless changes in placement are less likely. 

Judicial Workloads and Caseloads 

As with other hearings in child abuse and neglect cases, 

judicial workloads and caseloads are important factors in 

the quality of disposition and review hearings. If overall 

workloads are unmanageable, judges are less likely to take 

the time to thoroughly address placement issues in abuse 

and neglect cases. Moreover, if an insufficient portion of 

a judge’s calendar is devoted to abuse and neglect cases, 

the judge is less likely to thoroughly address placement 

issues. Finally, if the time set aside for individual hearings 

is inadequate, judges are less likely to focus on changes 

in placement for abused and neglected children. 

Possible Reforms 

If data from this performance measure indicate room for 

improvement in reducing the number of placements per 

case, the court should consider possible reforms. Specific 

reforms will, of course, depend on local conditions and 

the court’s analysis of the causes of multiple placements 

in its jurisdiction. A court might, for example, consider the 

following improvements: 

65 
66 

Technical Guide
 

u	Educate judges and advocates regarding the impact of 

placement changes on children, addressing the trauma 

of removal from home and the potential long-term 

emotional effects of multiple placement changes. 

u	Educate judges and advocates on how to effectively 

monitor and review placement changes. 

u	Issue orders barring agencies from returning children 

home without prior court permission. 

u	Refuse to grant agencies custody of children in cases 

where children are to be left at home. When children 

are allowed to remain at home following adjudication, 

instead place them under agency “protective 

supervision”4

 or under the State’s legal equivalent to 

protective supervision. 

u	Improve judicial workloads in dependency cases by 

lightening judges’ overall workloads, setting aside 

more time for abuse and neglect cases in general, and 

setting aside more time for each hearing—especially 

disposition and review hearings. 

Endnotes 

1. Although relatives can be foster parents, relatives 

with custody generally are not foster parents. Foster 

care, as defined by Federal and State law, only exists 

when a child welfare agency has “responsibility for the 

placement and care” of a child (42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2)). 

When someone other than the agency has custody of 

a child, the agency generally cannot be said to have 

responsibility for the placement and care of the child. 

2. In some States, such data are entered by elected court 

clerks who report to neither the presiding judge nor the 

State court administrator. This may complicate data 

entry to support this performance measure. 

3. CFSR PC4 combines three measures in a single 

“national standard” relative to placement stability. 

The national standard is the 75th percentile of a scaled 

score using values from 50 to 150 (rather than a percentage). Although CFSR does not have a national standard for each individual measure, a State child welfare 

agency would need to score near the 75th percentile 

for most of the measures to meet the national standard 

for the composite. The following table illustrates PC4 

measures. 

4. “Protective supervision” means that a child remains in 

the home but the family must submit to the supervision 

of the child welfare agency by, for example, allowing 

agency caseworkers access to the home and child. 

Protective supervision may also require the family to 

comply with specific court orders or to participate in 

services as directed by the agency. While the term 

“protective supervision” is not universal, the courts’ 

option to order it (or something like it) exists in nearly 

every State. In some States, “protective supervision” 

is called “family supervision.” 

CFSR Permanency Composite 4. Individual Measures, Range and Median Scores, and Composite 

National Standard 

Permanency Composite 4: Placement stability 

Range Median 

National 

Standard 

50–150 102.0 108.2 or higher 

Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in foster care for 8 days or 

longer and less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement 

settings? 

64.7–97.1% 82.4% No standard 

Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in foster care for at least 

12 months but less than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? 37.0–82.3% 59.5% No standard 

Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in foster care for 24 

months or longer, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? 14.1–53.8% 33.4% No standard 
measure 2D 

Definition: Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order within 12 and 24 months of case 

closure following reunification. 

Explanation: This measure shows how often, after judges return children home from foster care and close their cases, 

children are brought back to court and placed again into foster care within a relatively short time. The measure focuses on 

the quality of judicial decisions to return children home from foster care on a permanent basis. (When a judge closes a case 

following a child’s return home, this decision indicates that the judge regards the child’s return home as permanent.) 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate their success in correctly deciding to return children home. The higher the percentage of 

children who reenter foster care relatively soon after having been returned home, the more critically courts should examine 

how they make family reunification decisions.1 

For many children, it is particularly traumatic to reenter 

foster care after having been removed from home, placed 

in foster care, and returned home. In addition, reentry of 

a child into foster care represents a failure to achieve a 

timely permanent placement for the child. 

Children reenter foster care for a number of reasons. Most 

Measuring Additional Factors 

As with other measures, the court may decide to calculate 

foster care reentry rates by case characteristics it suspects 

may be factors in reentry. Such factors might include the 

type of abuse or neglect, the child’s age or race/ethnicity, 

the age of the case at closure, or a combination of factors. 

Reentry Into Foster Care 

After Return Home 

often, they are placed in foster care after being abused or 

neglected again by their families. In some cases, children 

suffer from physical or psychological complications requiring more intensive care than parents can provide. In still 

others, children run away from home and are subsequently 

placed into foster care. In these situations, the courts 

apparently were in error in deciding to return the child 

home and close the case. 

Implementation Issues 

Using Child-Based Information 

As with the safety measures, this measure must be calculated by individual child—not by family. Different children 

in the same family may or may not be removed and reunified, or may be removed or reunified at different times. 

Thus, the court must separately record the removal and 

reunification (or the lack thereof) for each child. In addition, 

the court may close cases regarding individual children 

in the same family at different times, and this factor must 

also be taken into account. 

Many courts open a new case with a new case number 

when a child is returned to foster care following case 

closure. The data collection system must include a link 

between the original and new cases. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report (the beginning and 

ending date for case closure). The ending date must be 

at least 24 months ago. 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range 

selected, the universe included in this measure is 

children who were in foster care at some time while 

their case was open and whose cases were closed as 

a result of court-ordered permanent reunification. (A) 

3. From dataset (A), select cases in which the court 

returned the child to foster care within 12 months 

after closure (B) and between 13 and 24 months after 

closure. (C) 

4. Compute the percentage of children returned to foster 

care within each of these two time periods by dividing 

(B) and (C) by (A). 

Possible Modifications 

1. Include in this measure children who reentered foster 

care after being returned home by court order before 

the case was closed. 
68 

Technical Guide
 

2. To measure the success of reunification over longer 

periods of time, include in this measure children who 

reentered foster care 36 and 48 months following case 

closure. 

3. Report separately on cases by categories such as
 

child’s race/ethnicity and age.
 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Foster care flag = “yes.” 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Case closure reason = reunification. 

u	Child returned to foster care date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

The following Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) 

standard for State child welfare agencies is somewhat 

similar to Toolkit Measure 2D: 

CFSR PC1B:2

 Of all children who were discharged from 

foster care to reunification in the 12-month period prior 

to FY 2004 (i.e., FY 2003), what percent reentered foster 

care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge? 

One difference between CFSR PC1B and Toolkit Measure 

2D is that the former measures reentry for a single time 

period (12 months) whereas the latter measures two time 

periods (12 and 24 months). Another difference is that 

unlike the CFSR measure, Toolkit Measure 2D requires 

court-ordered reentry. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other measures, Measure 2D lends itself to a variety of graphic representations. Tables and graphs should 

be designed to help courts evaluate the meaning of the 

data. For example, if reentry into foster care is uncommon, 

a pie chart is a good way to highlight the large proportion 

of cases in which reunifications succeed. Bar graphs are 

especially useful for illustrating significant differences 

among individual courts (small differences in percentages 

will be more apparent in a bar graph than a pie chart). Bar 

graphs can also compare rates for a particular category of 

children (e.g., those thought to be at high risk of reentry) 

with overall rates. Finally, bar graphs showing local and 

statewide reentry rates at 12 and 24 months would be 

useful, as would a trend line incorporating results from 4 or 

more years. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data to demonstrate how results for this measure might be reported in 

tables and graphs. 

Sample 2D–1 uses a tabular format to compare the success of reunification in four judicial districts. In this sample, 

District D has the best performance, with 81 percent of 

children not returning to foster care within 24 months after 

reunification and case closure. District C has the lowest 

percentage of children not returning to foster care (47 

percent). The statewide rate is 61 percent. Sample 2D–2 

shows how data for one of the districts can be presented 

in an “exploded” pie chart. 

Sample 2D–3, based on data from a large court, compares 

reentry data for each of the court’s five full-time judges 

and includes detail for specific racial/ethnic categories 

Sample 2D–1. Return to Foster Care Within 24 Months After Reunification, by Judicial District, Cases 

Closed in 2003 

Judicial District 

Return in 

1 to 12 Months 

Return in 

13 to 24 Months No Return to Foster Care Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Cases

A 99 23% 78 18% 259 59% 436 

B 77 24% 50 15% 198 61% 325 

C 100 28% 89 25% 166 47% 355 

D 28 9% 29 9% 250 81% 307 

Statewide 304 21% 246 17% 873 61% 1,423 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 
measure 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care After Return Home 

Sample 2D–2. Return to Foster Care Within 24 

Months After Reunification, Cases Closed in 2003: 

Judicial District A 

No Return 

Return in 1 to 12 Months 

59% 

18% 

23% 

Return in 13 to 24 Months 

of children. In this sample, of the 500 children for whom 

Judge A ordered reunification in 2003, 133 (27 percent) 

returned to foster care within 24 months. Judge A’s 

reentry rates varied by racial/ethnic category (26 percent 

for Caucasian children, 32 percent for African American 

children, etc.). The table’s “total” line enables the court to 

determine its overall performance. Of the 2,319 children 

reunified with their families in 2003, 608 (26 percent) 

returned to foster care within 24 months; the percentages 

for racial/ethnic groups ranged from a high of 39 percent 

for Asian children to a low of 10 percent for children in the 

“other” category. This type of table could also show data 

by judicial district and statewide. 

Finally, using data from sample 2D–3’s “total” line, the bar 

graph in sample 2D–4 highlights racial/ethnic variations in 

foster care reentry rates for the court as a whole. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Knowledge of Judges Regarding 

Reunification Decisions 

The quality of judicial decisions about reunification is 

affected by judges’ knowledge regarding issues such as 

safety assessments and the kinds of services and assistance available to keep children safe at home following 

reunification. With such knowledge, judges can make 

better informed decisions and ask better questions of 

witnesses. 

Role of Judges in Reunification 

Decisions 

A related factor is how active judges are in reunification 

decisions. For example, judges may set conditions for 

family reunification (caseworker visits during a transitional 

period, demonstrable improvements in parenting practices, 

etc.). Judges may require detailed written information from 

the agency on how parents have improved and why such 

improvements will make the home safer or more stable for 

the child. Judges may also require ongoing agency help to 

the family, visits by caseworkers and family members to 

monitor the home, periodic reports back to the court, and 

periodic expert evaluations. Judges may also instruct advocates to gather and present specific types of information 

following reunification, for use in assessing the safety and 

stability of the home. 

Reunification decisions frequently occur during shelter 

care, permanency, and review hearings, and often in 

hearings following motions for reunification. Judges can 

restructure these hearings in ways that will improve the 

quality of reunification-related information provided, so 

they will be better prepared to make reasoned decisions 

about reunification. 

Quality of Advocacy 

The quality of advocacy affects the quality of information 

on which judges base reunification decisions. When advocates are knowledgeable, conduct active investigations 

regarding reunification decisions, and advocate vigorously 

regarding reunification, the quality of judicial decisions is 

likely to improve. 

69 
70 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 2D–3. Return to Foster Care Within 24 Months After Reunification, by Child’s Racial/Ethnic 

Category, by Judicial Officer, Cases Closed in 2003 

Judicial 

Officer 

Child’s Racial/Ethnic Category 

Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian 

Cases 

Reunified 

Returned 

to Foster 

Care Cases 

Reunified 

Returned 

to Foster 

Care Cases 

Reunified 

Returned 

to Foster 

Care Cases 

Reunified 

Returned 

to Foster 

Care 

Cases Percent Cases Percent Cases Percent Cases Percent 

Judge A 190 50 26% 213 68 32% 45 5 11% 15 5 33% 

Judge B 145 23 16% 167 80 48% 56 8 14% 0 0 0% 

Judge C 178 65 37% 198 40 20% 71 11 15% 18 7 39% 

Judge D 123 18 15% 203 48 24% 59 5 8% 8 3 38% 

Judge E 200 55 28% 169 70 41% 49 17 35% 10 5 50% 

Total 836 211 25% 950 306 32% 280 46 16% 51 20 39% 

Judicial 

Officer 

Child’s Racial/Ethnic Category (continued) 

Native 

American Other 

All 

Racial/Ethnic Categories 

Cases 

Reunified 

Returned 

to Foster 

Care Cases 

Reunified 

Returned 

to Foster 

Care Cases 

Reunified 

Returned 

to Foster 

Care 

Cases Percent Cases Percent Cases Percent 

Judge A 34 5 15% 3 0 0% 500 133 27% 

Judge B 52 7 13% 0 0 0% 420 118 28% 

Judge C 19 1 5% 0 0 0% 484 124 26% 

Judge D 39 2 5% 6 1 17% 438 77 18% 

Judge E 48 9 19% 1 0 0% 477 156 33% 

Total 192 24 13% 10 1 10% 2,319 608 26% 

Workloads and Caseloads of Judges 

and Advocates 

The quality of judicial decisions regarding family reunifications depends, in part, on how much time judges have 

(or take) to consider family reunification and to guide 

family reunification efforts. It also depends on how much 

time advocates have (or take) to focus on and investigate 

the safety and appropriateness of family reunification. 

Thus, judges’ and advocates’ workloads and caseloads 

are important determinants of the quality of reunification 

decisions. 

Quality of Casework and 

Recommendations by Caseworkers 

In reality, courts and agencies share responsibility for 

performance on this measure. A high level of agency performance helps to reduce the number of failed reunifications, and an effective court can identify and block unwise 

reunification recommendations by caseworkers. 

More specifically, the quality of judicial decisions regarding 

reunification depends in part on the quality of caseworkers’ decisions and recommendations, which, in turn, can 

depend on the quality of safety assessment instruments 
measure 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care After Return Home 

Sample 2D–4. Percentage of Children Returned to Foster Care Within 24 Months After Reunification, 

by Child’s Racial/Ethnic Category, Cases Closed in 2003 Percentage of Children 

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Caucasian African Hispanic Asian Native 

10% 

25% 

32% 

39% 

16% 

13% 

Other Total 

26% 

American American 

Child’s Race/Ethnicity 

the workers use, workers’ training in family safety assessment, and supervisory oversight of workers as they decide 

whether to return children home. Caseworkers’ recommendations also reflect the availability and types of help 

provided to families following family reunification, including 

after case closure. 

Possible Reforms 

If data from this performance measure indicate room for 

improvement in reducing the number of returns to foster 

care following reunification, the court should consider 

possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of course, depend 

on local conditions and the court’s analysis of the causes 

of failed reunifications in its jurisdiction. A court might, for 

example, consider the following improvements:3 

u	Before deciding to return a child home from foster care 

or closing a case after doing so, take more time to hear 

evidence regarding the capability and commitment of 

parents and the special needs of the child. 

u	Before deciding to return a child home or closing a 

case after doing so, require the child welfare agency to 

submit a report specifically describing how the parents 

are more capable of (or committed to) properly caring 

for the child now compared with when the child was 

removed from home. 

u	When the agency requests permission to return a child 

home, require the agency to provide a specific plan 

to ensure the child’s safety. This plan should include 

steps for transitional visits and observation before 

reunification and steps to maintain the safety and 

stability of the placement after reunification. 

u	When appropriate, order a family group conference 

after the child is returned home to develop a plan under 

which the extended family will assist and monitor the 

parents in their care of the child to help ensure the 

child’s safety. 

u	Before closing a case following the child’s return home, 

require guardians ad litem or court-appointed special 

advocate (CASA) volunteers to visit the parents’ home 

and report to the court. This report should supplement 

the caseworker report. 

u	Train attorneys (or require or help arrange for training) to 

more effectively investigate and present evidence about 

the safety and stability of family homes. 

u	Train caseworkers (or help arrange for training) to 

document and present safety information to the court. 

u	Seek and participate in judicial training regarding risk 

assessment and family evaluation. 

u	Hold periodic discussions among judges and staff about 

cases in which reunification failed. 

u	Support a wide range of more general legal and judicial 

system improvements related to this measure. 

71 
72 

Technical Guide
 

Endnotes 

1. Although there is significant overlap between this 

measure and Toolkit Measure 1B: Child Safety After 

Release From Court Jurisdiction, the focus of the two 

measures is different. Whereas Measure 1B focuses 

on child safety, this measure focuses on permanency. 

Furthermore, the overlap is not complete. Many children reenter foster care for reasons other than further 

abuse and neglect. In addition, Measure 1B counts 

subsequent abuse or neglect regardless of why court 

jurisdiction ended, not only following reentry into foster 

care. Finally, many children suffer further abuse or 

neglect, as counted in Measure 1B, without reentering foster care (e.g., such children may be placed with 

relatives not licensed as foster parents). 

2. The CFSR designation “PC1B” refers to Permanency
 

Composite 1, Component B. Permanency Composite
 

1 (PC1), “Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification,” includes components A (timeliness) and B
 

(permanency). Component A includes three measures; 

component B includes one measure. PC1 combines 

these measures in a single “national standard” relative 

to the timeliness and permanency of reunification. The 

national standard for PC1 is the 75th percentile of a 

scaled score taking values from 50 to 150 (rather than 

a percentage). Although CFSR does not have a national 

standard for each component measure, a State child 

welfare agency would need to score near the 75th percentile for most of the component measures to meet 

the national standard for the composite. The following 

table illustrates the PC1 components and measures. 

3. For additional information, see C. Fiermonte and J. 

Renne, Making It Permanent: Reasonable Efforts To 

Finalize Permanency Plans for Foster Children 

(Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2002), 

pp. 12–26. 

CFSR Permanency Composite 1. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, and Composite 

National Standard 

Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and permanency of 

reunification 

Range Median 

National 

Standard 

50–150 113.7 122.6 or higher 

Component A: Timeliness of reunification 

Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in FY 2004 

who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent were 

reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal 

from home? (This includes the “trial home visit adjustment.”) 

44.3–92.5% 69.9% No standard 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification 

in FY 2004, and who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what 

was the median length of stay in months from the date of the latest 

removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification? (This 

includes the “trial home visit adjustment.”) 

1.1–13.7 months 6.5 months No standard 

Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the 6-month 

period just prior to FY 2004, and who remained in foster care for 8 days 

or longer, what percent were discharged from foster care to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of latest removal from home? 

(This includes the “trial home visit adjustment.”) 

17.7–68.9% 39.4% No standard 

Component B: Permanency of reunification 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in 

the 12-month period prior to FY 2004 (i.e., FY 2003), what percent reentered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge? 

1.6–29.8% 15.0% No standard 
measure 2e 

Definition: Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order within 12 and 24 months of case 

closure following adoption or placement with a legal guardian. 

Explanation: This measure shows the percentage of children who reenter foster care because their adoptions or legal 

guardianships fail within a relatively short period of time (i.e., the children do not stay in the homes of their adoptive parents 

or guardians for at least 12 or 24 months). “Legal guardianship” refers to legal placement options, established by State law, 

that are consistent with the Federal definition1

 of legal guardianship. Legal guardians are not subject to the oversight of the 

public child welfare agency. They generally have full decisionmaking authority over a child, as with biological and adoptive 

parents. The legal guardian is an individual or couple with whom the child is permanently placed. 

Purpose: To help courts determine the success rates of adoptions and legal guardianships as permanent placements. For 

most children, it is traumatic to reenter foster care after having been adopted or placed in a legal guardianship with new 

parents. In addition, disruption of the adoption or guardianship represents a failure to achieve a successful permanent 

placement for the child.2 

As with many of the performance measures, the results 

of this measure may reflect the combined performance of 

on the other court to provide the date that adoption or 

legal guardianship is final. If the court ordering adoption or 

Reentry Into Foster Care After 

Adoption or Guardianship 

child welfare agencies, courts, and service providers. For 

example, a child sometimes returns to foster care because 

the adoptive parents or legal guardians were unable or 

unwilling to deal with the child’s special mental, emotional, 

or physical needs. Errors in the evaluation, selection, 

or preparation of adoptive parents or guardians may 

contribute to placement disruptions. Another possibility is 

that the children themselves were not prepared for their 

new homes and as a result have disrupted the homes or 

rejected the adoptive parents. In any case, such circumstances should ideally have been addressed by the court, 

the child welfare agency, and, if applicable, the private 

adoption service provider. 

Implementation Issues 

Data Sharing Between Different Courts 

A challenge in capturing data for this measure is that 

in many States, the courts that hear adoption and legal 

guardianship matters are different from the courts that 

hear abuse and neglect cases (i.e., dependency courts). 

For example, if the start date for this measure is the 

date of the final decree of adoption or approval of legal 

guardianship (that is also the date that the dependency 

court’s jurisdiction ends), the dependency court must rely 

legal guardianship automatically electronically notifies the 

dependency court or the adoption or guardianship and this 

triggers case closure by the dependency court, this is not 

only efficient, but adds to the precision of the measure. 

It is also possible to obtain the information needed for this 

measure by relying on the child welfare agency. If the child 

welfare agency is required to submit a copy of the decree 

of adoption or order of legal guardianship to the court 

when the agency closes a dependency case, court staff 

can enter the date of the decree or order into the court’s 

database. 

Data Regarding Foster Care Reentry 

An even more difficult challenge can be to consistently 

capture data regarding foster care reentry. Children are 

often placed for adoption or legal guardianship in other 

counties or States. When adoptions and legal guardianships subsequently are disrupted and children reenter 

foster care, they often do so in the county or State in which 

the child was placed for adoption or legal guardianship, 

not in the county or State that originally heard the abuse 

or neglect case. The court that heard the original abuse or 

neglect case may not be informed of the reentry. 

To avoid these difficulties, courts may choose to limit the 

cases they count for this measure to adoptions and legal 
Technical Guide
 

guardianships by residents of the county where the original 

child abuse or neglect proceedings were heard. Technological advances may enable courts to also count adoptions 

and guardianships by residents of a different county in 

the same State—but only after (a) the State agency has a 

statewide management information system, (b) the State 

courts have a statewide management information system, 

or (c) the State courts and State child welfare agency 

can electronically exchange data. With such technology, 

courts and agencies might work out an automated process 

whereby the agency electronically notifies the court that 

heard the abuse or neglect case whenever a child reenters 

foster care from an adoptive home or from legal guardians. 

Comparing Foster Care Reentry Rates 

for Different Groups 

It may be useful for courts to calculate separate reentry 

rates for adoption and legal guardianship cases. It can also 

be helpful to distinguish between cases in which children 

are adopted by relatives and nonrelatives, to see how 

this factor may affect the disruption rate. The court may 

also decide to calculate foster care reentry rates by case 

characteristics it suspects may be factors in reentry, such 

as the type of abuse or neglect, the child’s age or race/ 

ethnicity, the age of the case at closure, or a combination 

of factors. Whether such separate reports actually cast 

light on what factors contribute to reentry will depend on 

the numbers of children reported in each sample. 

Reentry Rates Over Longer Periods of 

Time 

Another possibly useful modification to this measure is to 

calculate reentry rates after longer periods of time, such 

as within 3 or 4 years after adoption or legal guardianship. 

It is important to keep in mind, however, that the longer 

the period of time after the child has been adopted or a 

legal guardianship established, the more the measure may 

understate the percentage of reentries into foster care. As 

more time passes, adoptive parents and legal guardians 

are more likely to have moved outside the jurisdiction. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report (the beginning and 

ending date for case closure). The ending date must be 

at least 24 months ago. 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range 

selected, the universe included in this measure is 

children who were in foster care at some time while 

their case was open and whose cases were closed as 

a result of adoption or legal guardianship. (A) 

3. From dataset (A), select cases in which the court 

returned the child to foster care within 12 months 

after closure (B) and between 13 and 24 months after 

closure. (C) 

4. Compute the percentage of children returned to foster 

care within each of these two time periods by dividing 

(B) and (C) by (A). 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately on cases closed for adoption and
 

cases closed for legal guardianship.
 

2. Report separately on cases by additional categories, 

such as child’s race/ethnicity, child’s age, age of case 

at closure, etc. 

3. Report on cases closed for a longer period of time,
 

such as 36 or 48 months.
 

4. Select cases in which children reentered foster care 

during a specific time period, and report on whether 

the children were adopted or placed with legal guardians, and other case characteristics such as child’s 

race/ethnicity and age. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Foster care flag = “yes.” 

u	Case closure date (original case). 

u	Case closure reason = adoption or legal guardianship. 

u	Child returned to foster care date. 

74 
measure 2e: Reentry Into Foster Care After Adoption or Guardianship 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) standard for 

State child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 2E. For discussion of a CFSR standard that relates 

to the measurement of foster care reentry rates following family reunification, see “Related CFSR Standards” in 

Measure 2D. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other measures, Measure 2E lends itself to a variety of graphic representations. Tables and graphs should 

be designed to help courts evaluate the meaning of the 

data. Both pie charts and bar graphs can be used to make 

geographic comparisons. Bar graphs are especially useful 

for illustrating significant differences among individual 

courts (small differences in percentages will be more apparent in a bar graph than a pie chart). Bar graphs can also 

compare rates for a particular category of children (e.g., 

those thought to be at high risk of reentry) with overall 

rates. Finally, bar graphs showing local and statewide reentry rates at 12 and 24 months would be useful as would 

a trend line showing results from 4 or more years. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data to demonstrate how results for this measure might be reported in 

tables and graphs. 

Sample 2E–1 uses a tabular format to compare the success of permanent placements—reunification, adoption, 

guardianship, and other—in the first and second years 

after case closure. In effect, this is a combined report for 

Measure 2D and Measure 2E. Sample 2E–2 shows how 

data for all types of permanent placements combined 

(i.e., the “total” row of the table) can be presented in an 

“exploded” pie chart. Even though the chart shows that 

most children do not reenter foster care, the reentry rates 

are, nevertheless, high and would be reason for concern. 

Sample 2E–2. Return to Foster Care After 

Permanent Placement, Cases Closed in 2004 

7% 

From 1 to 12 Months 

76% 

17% 

From 13 to 24 Months 

No Return to Foster Care 

Sample 2E–1. Return to Foster Care After Permanent Placement, by Type of Placement, 

Cases Closed in 2004 

Type of 

Permanent 

Placement 

Returned 1–12 

Months After Closure 

Returned 13–24 

Months After Closure 

No Return to 

Foster Care Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Reunification 23 18% 6 5% 97 77% 126 100% 

Adoption 8 24% 2 6% 24 71% 34 100% 

Guardianship 2 11% 1 5% 16 84% 19 100% 

Other 0 0% 4 31% 9 69% 13 100% 

Statewide 33 17% 13 7% 146 76% 192 100% 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

75 
Technical Guide
 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Knowledge of Judges Regarding 

Adoptions and Legal Guardianships 

The quality of judicial decisions about adoption and guardianship is affected by judges’ knowledge regarding options 

for legal permanent placement. Judges need to be aware 

of available adoption and guardianship subsidies for children with special needs, postadoption and postguardianship services, adoption and guardianship processes, and 

common reasons for disruption of adoptive and guardianship homes. With such knowledge, judges can make better 

informed decisions and ask better questions of witnesses. 

Role of Judges in Adoption and 

Guardianship Decisions 

A related factor is how active judges are in adoption and 

guardianship decisions. Although it is not the judge’s job 

to micromanage agencies’ recruitment, screening, and 

selection of prospective permanent homes, it is the judge’s 

job to ensure that these steps are carried out adequately, 

sensibly, and on a timely basis. For example, judges should 

require agencies to demonstrate that they are actively recruiting prospective permanent parents and are conducting 

thorough and timely screenings of prospective permanent 

families. 

Judges must receive from agencies detailed written 

explanations of why adoption or guardianship is necessary 

and what steps will be taken to improve the likelihood that 

placement will be permanent. This information must be 

provided in a timely manner, well before the judge rules on 

the adoption or guardianship. 

The structure of hearings is another important factor. Adoption and guardianship decisions are made in permanency, 

post-termination review, and other types of hearings. 

Judges can restructure these hearings to demand more 

information about case progress, barriers, and strategies 

to overcome barriers. They can also require structured inquiries about progress toward finalization of the permanent 

placement. 

Quality of Advocacy 

The quality of advocacy affects the quality of judicial 

decisions regarding adoption and legal guardianship. 

Advocates’ sophistication and diligence affect the quality 

of advocacy, as does their training and knowledge 

regarding adoption, legal guardianship, and other 

permanent placement options. The level of expectations 

imposed on advocates by judges is another factor, 

especially for court-appointed advocates and those whose 

fees are paid by the court. 

Finally, the quality of advocacy regarding adoption and 

legal guardianship depends on the court process itself. 

For example, whether advocates can expect routine and 

difficult questions from the judge regarding proposed permanent places will affect the quality of their advocacy. 

Workloads and Caseloads of Judges 

and Advocates 

The quality of judicial decisions regarding adoption and 

legal guardianship depends, in part, on how much time 

judges have (or take) to consider the process of adoption 

and guardianship and to evaluate the appropriateness of 

the proposed adoptive parents or guardians. It also depends how much time advocates have (or take) to focus on 

and investigate these issues. Thus, judges’ and advocates’ 

workloads and caseloads are important determinants of 

the quality of adoption and guardianship decisions. 

Quality of Casework, Services, and 

Recommendations by Caseworkers 

As with reunification decisions, courts and agencies share 

the responsibility for the results concerning adoption and 

legal guardianship. In many places, private agencies also 

provide adoption- or guardianship-related services. A high 

level of performance by agencies can help reduce the 

numbers of disrupted adoptions and legal guardianships. 

The quality of judicial adoption and guardianship decisions 

also depends on the quality of casework and caseworker 

recommendations. This casework involves, among other 

things, adoption recruitment and screening procedures, 

home studies, and assistance to families following adoption or legal guardianship. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in reducing the number of returns to 

foster care following adoption and legal guardianship, the 

court should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms 

will, of course, depend on local conditions and the court’s 

76 
measure 2e: Reentry Into Foster Care After Adoption or Guardianship 

analysis of the causes of failed adoptions and guardianships in its jurisdiction. A court might, for example, 

consider the following improvements: 

u	Review proposed adoptive and legal guardianship 

placements more intensively. 

u	Before approving the adoption or legal guardianship, 

take more time to hear evidence regarding the capability 

and commitment of proposed adoptive parents and legal 

guardians and the special needs of the child. 

u	Before approving the adoption or legal guardianship, 

require the child welfare agency to submit a report 

specifically describing the results of its home studies, 

including the capabilities and commitment of the 

proposed parents and other household members. 

u	Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps are 

being taken to recruit adoptive families or guardians, 

properly screen applicants, conduct thorough and timely 

home studies, and make timely decisions. This review 

helps to avoid the need to make hasty decisions later in 

the process or to choose among insufficiently qualified 

candidates. 

u	When the child welfare agency recommends a family 

for adoption or legal guardianship, require the agency 

to provide a specific plan to support the placement after 

the case is closed. 

u	In difficult cases, ask guardians ad litem, courtappointed special advocate volunteers, or other experts 

to report on the availability of specific services or the 

ability of the prospective family to meet the child’s 

special needs. This report would supplement the agency 

report. 

u	Train attorneys (or require or help arrange for training) to 

more effectively investigate and present evidence about 

adoptions and legal guardianship. 

u	Train caseworkers (or help arrange for training) to 

document and present better information to the court 

regarding adoption or legal guardianship. 

u	Seek and participate in judicial training on adoption 

and guardianship issues and on agency processes for 

adoption and legal guardianship. 

u	Hold periodic discussions among judges and staff about 

cases in which adoptions and legal guardianships were 

disrupted. 

u	Support a wide range of more general legal and judicial 

system improvements related to this measure. 

Endnotes 

1. 42 U.S.C. § 675(7) states that: 

The term ‘legal guardianship’ means a judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which 

is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as 

evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of the person, custody 

of the person, and decision-making. The term ‘legal 

guardian’ means the caretaker in such a relationship. 

2. Although there is significant overlap between this measure and Toolkit Measure 1B: Child Safety After Release 

From Court Jurisdiction, the focus of the two measures 

is different. Whereas Toolkit Measure 1B focuses on 

child safety, this measure focuses on permanency. Furthermore, the overlap is not complete. Many children 

reenter foster care for reasons other than abuse or neglect in an adoptive or legal guardian home. In addition, 

Measure 1B counts subsequent abuse or neglect (i.e., 

abuse or neglect after the child was initially removed 

from home) regardless of why court jurisdiction ended, 

not only following foster adoption or legal guardianship. 

Finally, many children suffer further abuse or neglect, 

as counted in Measure 1B, without reentering foster 

care (e.g., such children may be placed with relatives 

not licensed as foster parents). 

77 

measure 3a 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the same judicial officer presides over all hearings.1 

Explanation: This measure shows how consistently child abuse and neglect cases are handled by only one judge throughout the entire case. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate how often entire child abuse and neglect cases are heard by one judge—an important 

factor affecting the quality of judges’ work. 

The quality of abuse and neglect litigation improves when 

the same judge hears all stages of the case, from the date 

of removal through adoption or other permanent placement.2 RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice 

in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases—endorsed by the 

American Bar Association, the National Council of Juvenile 

and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), and the Conference 

of Chief Justices—cites the following reasons for this 

improvement:3 

u	The judge has a greater sense of responsibility for 

learn about dysfunctional families in general and gain 

an understanding of the child welfare agency. 

u	Parties can feel more connected with the judge. 

Dealing with just one judge, families are more likely 

to feel they know the judge and that the judge knows 

them. (Judges are not counselors or caseworkers, but 

they are important authority figures.) 

u	Directives for families are more consistent. When 

parents have tried to follow a judge’s directives, it can 

Number of Judges Per Case 


the case. With this enhanced sense of “ownership,” 

the judge feels more empowered to exercise active 

oversight in the case and to determine the ultimate 

outcome. The judge also feels more accountable for 

the case result. 

u	The case plan for the child and family is usually 

more stable. If different judges hear a case, they may 

give inconsistent instructions to the agency and parents, 

and the basic plan for the child is more likely to shift and 

become unpredictable. When the same judge hears all 

stages of the case, that judge is better prepared to make 

a final decision once the court’s work with the family 

has run its course. 

u	The judge is better prepared for each new hearing. 

Having presided over previous hearings, the judge can 

review the file more efficiently and grasp the pertinent 

facts more easily. Hearing all stages of the case helps 

the judge understand the complexities of the family 

situation. 

u	The judge more readily learns about child welfare 

law and practice. Following cases from beginning to 

end helps judges understand how cases evolve and 

enables them to handle early hearings in a way that 

lays the groundwork for later hearings. Judges also 

be frustrating if a new judge at the next hearing is 

unfamiliar with those directives. (Even if the second 

judge has a written record from the first judge that is 

a weak substitute for actually having presided over the 

first hearing.) In addition, children may begin to feel that 

strangers who know little or nothing about them are 

controlling their lives. 

u	Parents are more likely to comply with judicial 

orders. If parents expect a different judge at each 

hearing, they may think they can avoid consequences 

for not obeying orders and may be able to recycle old 

excuses and reargue the same points. 

Of course, there are circumstances in which it is impossible for one judge to preside over all stages of a case. For 

example, it may become apparent after a case has begun 

that there is a conflict of interest and the judge cannot 

continue to hear the case. Or a judge might be called away 

by a family emergency or decide to retire or resign. These 

circumstances are, however, relatively uncommon, and 

the ideal is one judge per case (or an average close to that 

ideal).4 
Technical Guide
 

Implementation Issues 

Actual Versus Assigned Judges 

The case management system must store information on 

the judge who actually presided at each hearing over the 

life of the case, not just the judge assigned to the case or 

the judge on whose calendar the case was scheduled. This 

measure requires recording who actually sat on the bench 

for each hearing. 

Alternatives for Computing This 

Measure 

Although this measure is defined as the percentage of 

cases in which the same judge conducts all hearings, 

circumstances in some jurisdictions may call for a different 

approach. 

In some States, a single judicial officer rarely presides over 

an entire case. For example, subordinate judicial officers 

may preside over emergency removal hearings, and judges 

may preside over all other hearings. The more useful 

distinction between courts in such States probably would 

be whether there were two, three, four, or more than four 

judicial officers. 

In States where one judicial officer per case is relatively 

common, it might be useful to calculate the proportion 

of hearings not heard by the judge who presided over the 

most hearings. For example, assume that Judge A presided 

over eight hearings in a particular case, Judge B presided 

over one hearing, and Judge C presided over one hearing. 

The percentage of hearings not heard by the judge who 

presided over the most hearings (Judge A) would be 20 

percent. This approach would distinguish between cases in 

which the principal judge missed only one or two hearings 

and cases with little consistency on the bench. (It is better 

for one judge to miss a hearing or two than for a case to 

move back and forth between judges or be transferred to 

a new judge.) 

When Different Judges Hear Different 

Stages of a Case 

Even in courts where different judges hear the early 

stages of child abuse and neglect cases, proceedings for 

termination of parental rights (TPR), and adoption and legal 

guardianship proceedings, it is still desirable to capture the 

total number of judges throughout the life of a case. 

Some argue that a new judge should be assigned to hear 

TPR proceedings because a judge who orders the initiation 

of these proceedings may be biased. However, appellate 

courts have rejected that argument.5

 Judges are expected 

to be capable of making decisions based on the evidence 

rather than on personal feelings. 

When State law requires that different courts hear dependency, TPR, and adoption and legal guardianship proceedings, courts may need to separately measure the number 

of judges per case in each of the different courts. Because 

it is best practice to have only one judge per case regardless of a State’s judicial structure, courts should consider 

the benefits of developing a performance measure that 

can capture changes of judges as a case moves through 

multiple courts.6

 However, barriers may make it difficult 

to collect data in different courts. For example, different 

courts may use different information systems applications that are unable to share information, or systems may 

collect and store different data. Although overcoming such 

barriers should be a goal, the barriers can be formidable, 

and the goal may need to be a long-term one. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases that 

were closed within the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each hearing
 

documenting the presiding judicial officer.
 

4. For each case in (A), compare the officer presiding at 

the first hearing against the officer presiding at each 

subsequent hearing, and divide (A) into two categories: 

(B) cases in which the hearing officer did not change in 

subsequent hearings and (C) cases in which the officer 

did change in at least one subsequent hearing. 

5. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately on cases with two, three, four, and
 

more than four judicial officers.
 

80 
measure 3a: Number of Judges Per Case 

2. Report on the average (mean) number of judicial hearing officers per case. 

3. In States where different courts hear different types 

of proceedings involving children (child abuse and 

neglect, TPR, and adoption and legal guardianship), 

limit the report to cases heard by judges in the court 

that has jurisdiction over abuse and neglect cases. 

4. Report on the percentage of hearings presided over by 

someone other than the judge who presides over the 

greatest number of hearings. That is, select the judge 

who presided over the most hearings in each case and 

calculate the percentage of hearings not presided over 

by that judge. 

5. Report separately on age of cases at closure. That is, 

calculate and compare the number of judges per case, 

basing categories on the length of time cases were 

open (less than 1 year, 1–2 years, etc.). 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Hearing date. 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Judicial officer presiding at hearing. 

Optional Element 

u	Abuse or neglect petition date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3A. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3A lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 3A–1 uses a tabular format to compare judicial 

assignment practices in five districts. This table goes beyond the basic requirements of the performance measure 

to break down the cases into categories based on the 

number of judges hearing the case. Clearly, the assignment 

practices vary considerably: the percentage of cases heard 

by one judge ranges from a low of 12 percent in District C 

to a high of 97 percent in District E. The statewide average 

is 51 percent. In only two districts are the majority of cases 

heard by one judge. In sample 3A–2, a bar graph illustrates 

data from the table. 

Sample 3A–1. Judicial Officers Per Abuse and Neglect Case, by District, Cases Closed in 2006 

Judicial 

Number of Judicial Officers Per Case 

Total Number 

1 2 3 4 or more 

Number Number Number Number 

District of Cases Percent of Cases Percent of Cases Percent of Cases Percent of Cases 

A 660 66% 156 16% 167 17% 22 2% 1,005 

B 1,120 50% 440 20% 613 28% 56 3% 2,229 

C 120 12% 650 65% 188 19% 45 4% 1,003 

D 577 49% 467 40% 135 11% 0 0% 1,179 

E 566 97% 15 3% 0 0% 0 0% 581 

Statewide 3,043 51% 1,728 29% 1,103 18% 123 2% 5,997 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

81 
82 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 3A–2. Judicial Officers Per Abuse and Neglect Case, by District, Cases Closed in 2006 

100%

80%

s 

60%

rcentage of Case

40%

Pe

20%

0%

Judicial 

District A 

Judicial 

District B 

Three Judicial Officers 

One Judicial Officer 

Judicial 

District C 

When results for this measure show striking disparities 

among districts, it is important to identify court procedural 

or organizational factors that might account for the differences. Identifying these differences should not be difficult. 

In this hypothetical example, possible explanations might 

include: 

u	Certain hearings are assigned to subordinate judicial 

officers. 

u	Judges in District C avoid scheduling hearings when 

they know they will be absent (e.g., during vacations 

or training), whereas judges in other districts arrange 

for temporary judges to cover absences. 

u	Judges in Districts A, B, D, and E occasionally “fill in” 

for each other, whereas judges in District C avoid this 

practice. 

66% 

16%17% 

2% 

50% 

20% 

28% 

3% 

12% 

65% 

19% 

4% 

49% 

40% 

11% 

0% 

97% 

3% 0% 0% 

51% 

29% 

18% 

2% 

u	In Districts A and B, different judges are assigned to 

different types of hearings (e.g., one judge presides over 

the early stages of child abuse and neglect cases and 

another hears TPR proceedings). 

u	Court structure varies (e.g., in some but not all districts, 

a separate probate court hears TPR, adoption, and legal 

guardianship cases). 

Once this measure has been recorded for several years, it 

is useful to look at performance trends over time. The table 

in sample 3A–3 shows trends in judicial assignment practices over a 5-year period (the trends could be statewide 

or for a particular district, court, or judge). 

Sample 3A–4 illustrates the same trends in a line graph. 

Note that because this measure has several categories 

Judicial Judicial 


District D District E
 

Two Judicial Officers
 

Four Judicial Officers
 

Statewide
 

Total
 

Sample 3A–3. Trend in Number of Judicial Officers Per Abuse and Neglect Case, Cases Closed in 

2001–2005 

Year 

Percentage of Cases by Number of Judicial Officers 

One Officer Two Officers Three Officers Four or More Officers 

2001 21% 25% 41% 13% 

2002 30% 45% 15% 10% 

2003 37% 33% 13% 17% 

2004 55% 27% 6% 12% 

2005 73% 23% 4% 0% 
measure 3a: Number of Judges Per Case 

Sample 3A–4. Trend in Number of Judicial Officers Per Abuse and Neglect Case, Cases Closed in 

2001–2005
 Percentage of Cases

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

One Judicial Officer Two Judicial Officers 

41% 

15% 

13% 4% 

25% 

45% 

33% 27% 

23% 

21% 

30% 

37% 

55% 

73% 

13% 

10% 

17% 

12% 

6% 0% 

Three Judicial Officers 

(one judge, two judges, etc.), it is best to depict performance for just one entity (district, court, etc.) over time; 

comparing multiple entities would require too many lines 

and result in a confusing graph. To develop a readable 

graph like sample 3A–4, plot the datapoint for each 

category for each year on the graph and then connect 

the datapoints with a line. Use a different color for each 

category’s trend line. This sample also uses a different 

symbol to indicate each category’s datapoints on the trend 

line. Alternatively, to compare the performance of several 

entities (e.g., districts), limit the comparison to a single 

category (e.g., cases with just one judge) and plot a trend 

line for each entity. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Efforts of Individual Judges To Avoid 

Substitution 

When individual judges are careful to avoid the need for 

substitutions, e.g., by scheduling hearings around planned 

absences (vacations, trainings, etc.), fewer substitutions 

are necessary and changes in the judge presiding over 

a case are minimized. 

Four or More Judicial Officers 

Individual Judicial Calendars 

A key factor in a court’s ability to have each case heard by 

one judge is to organize judicial calendars and schedules 

around that principle. The related practice is widely known 

as using “individual calendars.” With this system, each 

judge (or the judge’s staff) manages scheduling of his or 

her own cases. 

By contrast, in courts with “master calendars,” employees 

of a court division or of the presiding judge manage all 

scheduling, randomly assigning each stage of the proceedings to a different judge. With this system, a different judge 

presides over each hearing in a case. 

In courts that use “hybrid calendars,” not every hearing is 

assigned randomly, but cases are shifted to new judges at 

some points in the litigation.7

 Each case is heard by more 

than one judge, but typically not by as many judges as 

would be the case in a master calendar system. 

Length of Judicial Assignments 

Another key factor determining the likelihood that all 

stages of a case will be heard by the same judge is the 

length of judicial assignments. When judges are assigned 

to a particular division and courtroom for relatively long 

periods of time, it is less likely that a case will be heard 

by more than one judge. On the other hand, if judges are 

83 
Technical Guide
 

rapidly rotated in and out of a child abuse and neglect 

docket, the same case is likely to come before multiple 

judges.8 

Subordinate Judicial Officers 

Many courts use subordinate judicial officers (e.g., referees, commissioners, magistrates, hearing officers) to hear 

child abuse and neglect cases. If a court uses subordinate 

officers in all stages of abuse and neglect proceedings, the 

“one judge/one case” principle can be observed. However, 

the principle is undermined if a court uses subordinate 

officers only for certain types of hearings, or if subordinate 

officers work with one or more judges as part of a team in 

which subordinates help only with certain hearings. 

Court Organization 

How courts are organized—i.e., whether or not the same 

court has jurisdiction over all phases of child abuse and 

neglect cases—is another key factor affecting whether 

one judge can preside over all stages of a case. Judicial 

continuity is possible if the same court hears all phases 

of a case. Continuity is impossible, however, if State 

law assigns jurisdiction to different courts for different phases—e.g., one court hears cases from initiation 

through reviews and permanency hearings, a second hears 

TPR proceedings, and a third hears adoption and guardianship proceedings. 

Special Designation or Assignment of 

Judges 

In many States, one court hears abuse and neglect cases 

and a separate court, such as a probate court, hears, 

for example, adoption and guardianship cases. Some 

States have enacted laws specially assigning judges from 

the abuse and neglect court to also hear adoption and 

guardianship proceedings that arise from their abuse and 

neglect cases. 

Judicial Workloads 

When judicial workloads are heavy, it becomes more difficult for judges to avoid reassignment of specific hearings. 

For example, if a judge’s calendar fills with routine hearings, that judge may not be able to conduct an extended 

trial without major delays. In this situation, a court is more 

likely to assign contested trials to other judges. The court 

may, from time to time, use temporary judges to reduce 

delays caused by judicial backlogs. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in reducing the number of cases heard by 

more than one judge, the court should consider possible 

reforms. Specific reforms will, of course, depend on local 

conditions and the court’s analysis of barriers to implementing the one judge/one case principle. A court might, 

for example, consider the following improvements: 

u	Establish statewide court rules calling for individual 

calendars and requiring that one judicial officer preside 

over all hearings in a child abuse or neglect case. 

Establish strict criteria and procedures for exceptions 

to this practice. 

u	Establish local court rules or guidelines requiring that 

one judicial officer preside over all hearings in a child 

abuse or neglect case. 

u	Pass State laws (and, if necessary, amend State 

constitutions) to give a single court responsibility for 

all stages of child abuse and neglect cases. 

u	Pass State laws (and, if necessary, amend State 

constitutions) to enable judges who hear abuse 

and neglect cases to also hear TPR, adoption, and 

guardianship proceedings that arise from those cases. 

u	Educate judges about the need to have one judge hear 

all stages of the same case (i.e., the benefits of judicial 

continuity) and about practical means for achieving this 

goal. 

u	Lengthen judicial assignments to abuse and neglect 

dockets, and either eliminate judicial rotation or provide 

for multiyear intervals. 

u	Either eliminate the practice of using subordinate 

judicial officers to hear certain phases of abuse and 

neglect cases or permit these officers to hear all stages 

of these cases. 

u	Analyze judicial workloads and use the results of this 

analysis to improve scheduling practices so judges are 

better able to keep up with their caseloads. 

84 
measure 3a: Number of Judges Per Case 

Endnotes 

1. When this guide uses the term “judge,” it generally is 

referring to all judicial officers who perform the role of 

the judge. Other judicial officers are variously known as 

referees, magistrates, commissioners, or hearing 

officers. They may be appointed by a presiding or chief 

judge of a particular court or by an individual judge 

handling child abuse and neglect cases. If a single 

case is heard by both a judge and another judicial 

officer such as a referee, whether or not appointed by 

the individual judge, the case has not been heard by 

a single judicial officer. 

2. Many of the NCJFCJ Model Court jurisdictions report 

improved case processing when one judge or judicial 

team hears the child abuse and neglect case from 

inception to case closure (e.g., better information 

exchange leading to better decisionmaking, clearer 

expectations for parties and greater accountability for 

practice, and more efficient hearings). As jurisdictions 

begin to collect data on judicial continuity in child 

abuse and neglect cases, and analyze that continuity’s 

impact on case processing outcomes, a body of empirical evidence supporting judicial continuity as best 

practice (or disproving it) will be developed. 

3. See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges, RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court 

Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: 

NCJFCJ, 1995), p. 19. 

4. The concept of one judge per case is related to the 

“one family/one judge” concept. For a discussion of 

the advantages and disadvantages of this concept, 

see Carol R. Flango, Victor E. Flango, and H. Ted Rubin, 

How Are Courts Coordinating Family Cases? (Williamsburg, VA: The National Center for State Courts, 1999), 

Chapter 2. The one family/one judge concept calls for 

the same judge to hear not only all stages of the same 

abuse or neglect case but also any related litigation 

affecting the same family. This concept can encounter 

special barriers when multiple types of litigation affect 

a single family. For example, different judges may have 

different areas of expertise, and it may not make sense 

for the same judge to sort out the financial aspects 

of a divorce and also handle the related dependency 

proceedings. In addition, docketing complications 

may arise when different types of proceedings for the 

same family are making their way through the courts. 

Although the one family/one judge concept is sound, 

exceptions will probably be more common for this 

concept than for the one case/one judge concept as 

applied to abuse and neglect litigation alone. 

5. There are a number of circumstances in which courts 

make initial judgments in early stages of proceedings 

and continue to ultimately decide the merits of the 

case. Examples include judges who hear temporary 

restraining orders and preliminary injunctions before 

ruling on final injunctions, judges who preside over 

preliminary hearings before trying criminal cases (in 

some States), and judges who order temporary custody 

before making final custody decisions in cases involving the dissolution of a marriage. 

6. Courts may prefer not to include more than one court 

in measurements of the number of judges per case, 

because one court cannot control the other. On the 

other hand, courts may choose to measure the number 

of judges per child in related proceedings being heard 

in multiple courts in States where the law allows some 

flexibility in consolidating court proceedings or in 

restructuring the court process—or where local presiding judges have administrative authority over multiple 

types of courts. Finally, having data on the number of 

judges per child may be helpful in seeking administrative or legislative change to keep cases within one 

court. 

7. Hybrid calendar systems may take a variety of approaches. For example, one judge may preside over the 

emergency removal hearing, adjudication, and disposition, and then a different judge may preside over the 

TPR hearing. 

8. For example, in some courts, judges are rotated in and 

out of the child abuse and neglect or juvenile docket on 

an annual, semiannual, or even monthly basis. In these 

courts, judges do not hear all stages of a case because 

they are not assigned to child abuse and neglect litigation long enough to do so. If courts do rotate judges, 

longer (e.g., multiyear) intervals between rotations 

not only will reduce the number of abuse and neglect 

cases heard by multiple judges but also will give 

judges opportunities to develop expertise in this area 

of litigation. 

85 

measure 3B 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which both parents receive written service of process of the 

original petition. 

Explanation: This measure shows how consistently both parents receive service of process of the original petition preceding the adjudication.1 “Service of process of the original petition” means that parents 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. For purposes of this measure, “original petition” refers to the petition on which the adjudication is based 

(including any amended and supplemental petitions), as opposed to a petition for a later stage of the proceedings, such as 

termination of parental rights (TPR).2 

Purpose: To help courts ensure that they consistently give both parents proper written notice of hearings in child abuse and 

neglect cases. Written notice affords parents the opportunity to appear in court and be heard. 

In a broader sense, this measure helps to protect the rights 

of both parents in the earlier stages of the case and also 

helps to ensure timely permanent placements for children 

who are in foster care. Looking at what may happen when 

only one parent is notified helps to clarify the importance 

A mother abuses her child while under the influence of 

methamphetamine. She persuades her caseworker not 

to notify the father, and the government and judge concur. The petition does not mention the father, and there 

is no attempt to locate or serve process on him. Thus, 

Service of Process to Parties 


of notifying both parents. 

In some courts, the government and its attorneys typically 

choose to serve process only on the parent currently 

caring for the child (most often the mother). For example, 

a mother who is alleged to have abused or neglected a 

child in her care states that the father is not involved in the 

child’s life or has disappeared. Only the mother receives 

service of process of the original petition. Not serving the 

father in this case is unfair to him and possibly harmful to 

the child. 

A mother who has allegedly abused or neglected a child 

may not be truthful in what she says about the father. The 

father may actually be involved in his child’s life, and the 

mother may even know where the father lives. If the father 

receives notice, he may want to seek custody of the child, 

perhaps with the support of other relatives, and foster care 

may be avoided. The father may also want to visit the child 

or ask the child welfare agency to help him prepare to take 

custody of the child. If the father does not receive notice, 

both the father and the child may miss an opportunity for 

the father to become involved in the child’s life. 

Failure to serve the original petition on a noncaregiver 

father often delays permanency. Consider the following 

situation: 

the father is not involved in any court hearings, including 

adjudication, disposition, review hearings, permanency 

hearings, etc. Meanwhile, the child welfare agency 

develops a case plan in which the child resides in a 

foster home while the agency tries to help the mother 

end her dependence on methamphetamine and improve 

her care and protection of the child. 

After the agency has worked unsuccessfully with the 

mother for several months (the mother repeatedly fails 

to complete drug treatment the agency has arranged), 

the agency and court are convinced that reunification with the mother is inappropriate. At this point, the 

agency and the court consider adoption as a backup 

permanency plan but realize that the child cannot be 

legally considered for adoption without terminating the 

father’s rights. 

Only when the mother and father are served with the 

termination petition does the father discover that his 

child has been in foster care. As it turns out, the father 

did not know the child’s whereabouts but had not abandoned the child. He is not, however, ready yet to take 

custody of the child. 

Lacking grounds for terminating the father’s parental 

rights, the agency must develop a new case plan and 

begin its work with the father. Meanwhile, the child 

remains in foster care with no permanent home. 
Technical Guide
 

Serving the original petition on both parents at the beginning of the case can avoid such unfortunate scenarios. If 

both parents are served, both become parties to the case. 

Perhaps the noncustodial parent will be ready to take 

custody immediately and the child need not enter foster 

care. Or, perhaps the noncustodial parent will agree from 

the beginning to give up parental rights, and permanency 

need not be delayed. 

When both parents receive service of process, the child 

welfare agency may choose to develop a case plan in 

which the agency works with both parents to help each try 

to gain custody. Such a plan provides an incentive for each 

parent to make improvements in an effort to avoid losing 

custody to the other parent. In the end, one of the parents 

may gain custody; if, however, neither is able to assume 

custody within a reasonable time, both parents’ rights can 

be terminated at the same time, legally freeing the child for 

adoption—an outcome that will occur much more quickly 

than would have happened had the noncustodial parent 

not been involved in the case plan from the beginning. 

To summarize, by serving the original petition on both 

parents, the agency and court may avoid the need to place 

the child in foster care, may maintain or strengthen the 

relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent, 

and may achieve earlier permanency for the child. 

One final note: These principles apply to unmarried, as well 

as married, fathers. A large proportion of children in foster 

care have parents who were not married at the time of 

conception or birth. State laws vary with regard to which 

categories of putative fathers have the right to be notified 

of adoption proceedings and the circumstances in which 

they can block an adoption. The original petition should, 

at a minimum, be served on any father who by State law 

would have to consent to adoption or have his rights terminated before adoption could take place. 

Implementation Issues 

Identifying All Persons Who 

Must Be Served 

In many management information systems, it may be 

difficult to extract information from the database regarding which persons should be served. The difficulty stems 

from the fact that the categories of persons to be served 

depend on the circumstances of each case. For example, 

there may or may not be a legal guardian for the child or 

a relative with physical custody of the child; depending on 

State law, both may need to be served. In addition, more 

than one possible father may need to be served. 

To ensure that the management information system has 

enough information to determine who must be served, the 

system may need additional data elements and additional 

mandatory fields in data entry screens. For example, if legal guardians and relatives with physical custody must be 

served, the entry screen could ask whether such guardians 

and relatives exist in this case; if the answers are “yes,” 

the screen would seek additional information about these 

individuals, who then would be added to the list of persons 

to be served. 

Obtaining Agency Data on Parties, 

Marital Status, and Paternity 

Court staff will need ready access to all the information 

called for on data entry screens, including identification 

of all parties and information on marital status, proof 

of paternity, etc. Obtaining this information will require 

coordination with the child welfare agency. Among other 

things, early agency reports to the court may need to be 

redesigned to provide paternity information, and agency 

staff may need training on how to provide that information 

in the appropriate format. 

Obtaining Data on the Return 

of Service 

Reporting on this measure may require changes beyond 

database redesign. One such change involves information 

on the return of service.3 A judicial information system may 

not record this information or may record it only in the register of actions.4

 Because register of actions files are very 

large, extracting return of service data from them may be 

prohibitively time consuming. Therefore, this measure may 

require some adaptations of the case management system, even if data on return of service are already present. 

Service of the Original Petition 

As noted earlier, “original petition” refers to the petition on 

which the adjudication is based, as opposed to subsequent 

petitions such as the TPR petition. 

If the original petition alleging abuse or neglect is amended 

before a party is served, the amended version should be a 

sufficient substitute for the original petition. 

88 
measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties 

If a supplemental or amended petition adds new parties, 

the service on the new parties after adjudication should be 

considered the same as service of the original petition.5

 If, 

for example, the first version of the petition is served only 

on the mother but a supplemental petition alleging further 

acts of abuse or neglect is served on both the mother and 

the father, then both parents should be considered to have 

been served.6 

Note, however, that if a father is first served long after the 

adjudication, he will have been deprived of the opportunity to seek custody and visit the child during the months 

between the time the first petition was filed and the time 

he was first served. If the interval between the first petition 

and the father’s first service is lengthy, the child’s permanency may be delayed. 

To address situations in which the father is first served 

long after the mother, this measure might be modified to 

count service of both parents only up to a specified time. 

For example, the deadline for service to be counted might 

be 2 months after adjudication is complete. The timing of 

the deadline should allow for a comprehensive search for 

the father and the completion of substitute service (e.g., 

service by publication), if necessary. 

Service on “Both Parents” 

The definition of the measure refers to “both parents.” In 

many cases, “both parents” means one mother and one 

father. However, as discussed earlier, others may be functioning as parents, such as a person previously designated 

as the child’s legal guardian by a court, or a relative who 

has been caring for and taking responsibility for the child. 

Furthermore, more than one man may claim to be the 

child’s father. 

To determine who should be included in “both parents” 

and should, therefore, be served with the original petition, 

it is necessary to consult State law. The statutes and court 

rules governing child abuse and neglect proceedings address the question of who must be served. These statutes 

may be explicit or vague, requiring service on the “parent 

or legal guardian,” “parents and legal guardian,” “parent,” 

or “parents.” They may be silent regarding putative fathers 

or may require that putative fathers be served. 

Consulting statutes and court rules is only a starting point 

in deciding who to count in this measure. It is also useful 

to think in terms of best practices. For example, in deciding whom to serve, consider what practice will lead to an 

efficient adoption process should the need arise. To avoid 

the type of scenario described above, best practice is to 

serve all persons who might collaterally attack an adoption, including any putative father who might be involved 

in the termination of parental rights or adoption process.7 

To identify these persons, it may help to review the State’s 

version of the Uniform Parentage Act, as well as State 

adoption laws and related case laws. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases
 

closed within the date range selected for which
 

adjudication has been conducted on the original or 


amended petition and on any supplemental petition
 

adding parties. (A)
 

3. For each case in (A), determine who is entitled to 

service of process (to include, but not necessarily to 

be limited to, the mother and a father). Then, for each 

case, determine which parties received service of the 

original or amended petition, and sort the cases into 

two categories: (B) cases in which all parties entitled to 

service received service and (C) cases in which some 

parties who were entitled to service were not served. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

A note about the business rules: The universe of cases 

in this measure may be defined in various ways (see 

“Possible Modifications,” below) but must always meet 

the requirement explained in rule 2. If a supplemental 

petition filed after adjudication adds parties, this measure 

should encompass service of process on those new parties. In such circumstances, the reopened or supplemental 

adjudication must have been completed for the case to be 

included in the universe for this measure. 

Possible Modifications 

1. Select all cases for which adjudication was conducted 

with a petition filing date in a specified date range 

(e.g., a calendar year). In selecting the date, be certain 

that the statutory time for service has lapsed. 

89 
Technical Guide
 

2. Set a deadline for service on both parents in each case 

(e.g., 60 days after adjudication). Count the percentage 

of cases in which service was not completed within the 

deadline. 

3. To provide detail on parties who are not being served, 

divide cases into categories such as the following: 

all parties entitled to service received service; not all 

fathers who should have received service did receive 

service; no father received service; mother did not 

receive service; no parties received service. 

4. Report separately on cases by additional categories, 

such as child’s race/ethnicity, child’s age, type of abuse 

or neglect, etc. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Adjudication date. 

u	Party ID. 

u	Party type. 

u	Party entitled to service date. 

u	Service of process date. 

u	Case closure date. 

Optional Element 

u	Abuse or neglect petition date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3B. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3B lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 3B–1 is a basic tabular report for this measure, 

showing the percentage of cases in which all parties who 

were entitled to service did and did not receive service. 

Note that this report could be based on cases closed or 

cases filed during a particular period. If filing is used as the 

reference point for selecting the sample, the court should 

make sure that the statutory time for service has lapsed. 

The bar graph in sample 3B–2 is based on data from the 

table. 

Sample 3B–3 analyzes which parties entitled to service 

are not being served. Such analysis requires modifying 

the business rules for the measure to include information 

about parties. In the sample, 14 percent of all 2,932 parties 

involved in cases closed statewide during 2005 were not 

served with the initial petition. In Court A, for example, 2 

percent of mothers, 20 percent of fathers, 16 percent of 

legal guardians, and 25 percent of others entitled to be 

served were not served. 

Creating a graph to clearly illustrate all of the data in a 

table as complex as the one in sample 3B–3 would be 

difficult. An alternative is to illustrate selected data from 

the table, such as data for one court, as shown in sample 

3B–4. 

Once this measure has been recorded for several years, 

it is useful to look at performance trends over time. For 

example, a chart could be created with trend lines (perhaps using different colors for different courts or judges) 

showing the percentage of cases in which all parties were 

served, for cases in which original petitions were filed 

in 3 to 5 successive years. A trend line graph that could 

be adapted for this measure is found in the discussion 

of Reporting the Data under Measure 3J. Such trend 

line graphs will make it clear whether service of process 

has improved or declined. Using the original filing date to 

define the sample makes it possible to include relatively 

recent data in the trends. 

90 
measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties 

Sample 3B–1. Service of Process for Initial Petitions, by Court, Cases Closed in 2005 

Court 

All Parties Were Served Some Parties Were Not Served Total Number 

Number of Cases Percent Number of Cases Percent of Cases

A 125 79% 34 21% 159 

B 75 93% 6 7% 81 

C 68 72% 27 28% 95 

D 243 76% 76 24% 319 

E 199 94% 13 6% 212 

Statewide 710 82% 156 18% 866 

Sample 3B–2. Percentage of Cases in Which All Parties Received Service of Process, by Court, Cases 

91 

Closed in 2005 

Court A 

Court B 

Court C 

Court D 

Court E 

Statewide 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates 

Regarding Service of Process 

If judges and advocates understand the potential implications of failing to serve the original petition on all parties 

who should be served, this aspect of child abuse and 

neglect litigation is less likely to be overlooked. 

Judges and advocates also need to be familiar with the 

different methods of service (including substitute service, 

such as publication of notice) and should also know at 

what points in the process service is required for the original abuse and neglect case, for TPR (in States that require 

separate service for TPR), and adoption. 

82% 

76% 

94% 

72% 

79% 

93% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of Cases 

Laws and Procedures for Service 

of Process 

If State laws or court rules clearly require service of the 

original petition on both parents and set forth practical 

procedures for doing so, correct service is more likely to 

take place. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in the percentage of cases in which both 

parents are served with the original petition, the court 

should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of 

course, depend on local conditions and the court’s analysis 

of the best procedures for accomplishing this goal. A court 

might, for example, consider the following improvements: 
92 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 3B–3. Service of Process, by Court and Party, Cases Closed in 2005 

Court 

Type of Party 

Mother Father Legal Guardian Other All Parties 

Total 

Not 

Served Total 

Not 

Served Total 

Not 

Served Total 

Not 

Served Total 

Not 

Served 

# % # % # % # % # % 

A 225 5 2% 328 66 20% 25 4 16% 12 3 25% 590 78 13% 

B 143 8 6% 179 18 10% 36 2 6% 17 6 35% 375 34 9% 

C 367 23 6% 469 121 26% 21 6 29% 31 20 65% 888 170 19% 

D 198 0 0% 287 26 9% 44 3 7% 19 11 58% 548 40 7% 

E 201 14 7% 299 58 19% 8 2 25% 23 12 52% 531 86 16% 

Statewide 1,134 50 4% 1,562 289 19% 134 17 13% 102 52 51% 2,932 408 14% 

Sample 3B–4. Percentage of Parties Not Served, Cases Closed in 2005: Court A 

Mother 

Father 

Legal 

Guardian 

Other 

u	Educate judges and advocates about the need to serve 

the original petition on both parents. 

u	Educate judges, advocates, and process servers about 

methods for notifying both parents, even when a parent 

is difficult to locate. 

u	Educate judges and advocates about how to determine 

whether an individual named as a putative father must 

be served for the original abuse and neglect, TPR, and 

adoption proceedings. 

u	Prepare forms for original petitions. The forms should 

require allegations against both parents. (Note that if 

a parent is missing or has abandoned the child, these 

facts can constitute the allegations against that parent.) 

0 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 

Percentage of Parties Not Served 

16% 

2% 

20% 

%

25% 

u	Prepare packets of forms for service of process of 

the original petition. These packets should provide for 

service on all parties, including putative fathers. 

u	Enact statutes and court rules that: 

G	Require service on both parents. 

G	Clarify service requirements for putative fathers. 

G	Set forth efficient procedures for service, including 

timely substitute service if reasonable efforts to locate 

and serve the parent have not been successful. 

u	Allow adjudications to go forward when, after a 

reasonable effort, it has been possible to serve only 

one parent. However, require completion of service 
measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties 

against the missing parent as soon as possible after 

adjudication. If that service is successful within a 

reasonable time after the adjudication, allow the 

previously missing parent to request that the court 

award him or her custody and dismiss the case. 

Endnotes 

1. In a few States, if service of process on both parents is 

not possible in time for a regularly scheduled adjudication, the adjudication for one parent can take place 

before the other parent has been served. After service 

of process on the second parent, however, the second 

parent may reopen the adjudication. Such laws are 

consistent with this measure, because both parties will 

have eventually been served with the original petition, 

and service will have taken place prior to completion of 

the adjudication for both parties. 

2. If an amended petition is filed, adding a sibling or other 

party, service of process with regard to the sibling or 

other party should be included in this measure. If such 

an amended petition is filed after adjudication, then 

this measure encompasses service for any reopened 

or subsequent adjudication, as well as for the original 

adjudication. 

3. “Return of service” refers to documentation of service 

to a particular party. Individuals who serve process 

must provide this documentation to the court. 

4. The “register of actions” is usually a list of official 

documents, hearings, and court orders, including dates, 

and is called a “docket” in some courts. 

5. Thus, if a mother who is named in the original petition 

does not receive that petition but receives only a copy 

of the supplemental petition, this should not count 

as timely service. However, if a party is added in the 

supplemental petition, then service of the supplemental 

petition is essentially the “original” petition for that 

party and counts as timely service. 

6. Even if the supplemental petition served on the father 

does not include the original allegations served on the 

mother, the father or his attorney can get copies of the 

first petition once the father has formally been notified 

of the litigation. Even if the father does not receive 

service of process of a supplemental petition until after 

the adjudication, he can either reopen the adjudication 

or have a new trial based on the facts of the supplemental petition. 

7. Some State laws require service prior to adoption only 

on fathers whose paternity has been determined by 

a court, fathers who have entered their name in a 

registry, or fathers who have been involved in the 

child’s life in specified ways. Such provisions make it 

legally permissible for a child to be adopted without 

notification of certain fathers who are thought not to 

have lived with the child. The danger in not serving 

such fathers, however, is that despite the mother’s 

assertions and agency’s beliefs, the father may have 

been living with the child before the proceedings 

began and may later appear and reverse the adoption. Therefore, unless a putative father whose rights 

have not been terminated has been located and denies 

paternity, it may be prudent to include him in service of 

the original petition. 

93 

measure 3C 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which an attorney, guardian ad litem (GAL), or court-appointed 

special advocate (CASA) volunteer is appointed in advance of the emergency removal hearing.1 

Explanation: This measure shows how often legal advocates for children are appointed before emergency removal 

hearings. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate whether legal advocates for children are appointed in time to play an active role in what 

is usually the first critical stage of litigation—the emergency removal hearing. 

This measure addresses whether children are represented 

prior to the emergency hearing by an advocate, i.e., someone officially designated to speak for, or on behalf of, the 

child in court. An advocate may be an attorney, a GAL, or 

a CASA volunteer. 

The emergency removal hearing is a critical stage of 

child abuse and neglect litigation, in that it can affect the 

ultimate outcome of the case. At this hearing, the court 

decides whether to prolong the separation between parent 

u	Issue orders regarding conduct expected of parents and 

services to be provided by the child welfare agency. 

u	Determine whether the agency made reasonable efforts 

to avoid having to remove the child from home. 

u	Formally notify the parties of the litigation through 

service of process. 

u	Schedule the next hearings in the case. 

Early Appointment of 


Advocates for Children 


and child following an emergency removal. The hearing 

has other important purposes. When a child cannot be 

returned home immediately, the judge should do the 

following during the hearing:2 

u	Ensure that parents understand the reasons for State 

intervention and are informed about court proceedings. 

u	Set the terms of immediate parent-child visitation. 

u	Inquire about missing parents (if any) and relatives who 

might care for the child as an alternative to relying on 

unrelated foster parents. If necessary, the judge should 

issue orders to ensure that missing parents and relatives 

are located, notified, and, if appropriate, evaluated as 

possible caretakers. 

u	Consider the appropriateness of the child’s current 

emergency placement, including whether it a family 

environment (when possible) and as close to the child’s 

home as is practical. 

u	Ensure that the child is attending school, preferably the 

school the child attended before removal from home. 

u	Determine whether the child needs immediate services, 

such as evaluations or medical care, and issue orders 

accordingly. 

Active and effective representation of the child is important 

to ensuring that the emergency removal hearing fulfills its 

functions. Effective representation of the child can help 

accomplish the following: 

u	Prevent the unnecessary removal of a child from home 

by carefully evaluating the level of danger in the home 

and considering possible safe alternatives to removal. 

u	Limit the trauma the child may experience upon 

separation from the parents by proposing early and 

frequent parent-child visits. 

u	Speed casework when a child must be removed, by 

proposing early evaluations of the parents and the family 

unit and by making a more complete record, during the 

hearing, of the facts leading up to the removal of the 

child. 

u	Ensure that the child receives services that are needed 

immediately, such as medical care, psychological 

evaluation, and trauma counseling. 

u	Prevent any unnecessary interruption in the child’s 

education and ensure that educational services for the 

child will be appropriate. 

To achieve these goals, the advocate should be introduced 

to the child before the emergency removal hearing. The 

advocate should do the following: 
Technical Guide
 

u	Observe the child’s condition and circumstances, 

and ascertain the child’s wishes. 

u	Conduct a quick investigation or inquiry regarding 

the facts of the case; include a discussion with the 

caseworker. 

u	Discuss the case with attorneys for the agency. 

u	Prepare for the hearing as thoroughly as time allows. 

Of course, the early appointment of child advocates does 

not guarantee that they will fulfill their responsibilities 

prior to the hearing. They will, however, at least have the 

opportunity to do so. 

Advocates are important not only before and during the 

emergency removal hearing but throughout all stages of 

the litigation. They represent an independent point of view, 

focusing exclusively on what is best for the child. They are 

not constrained by the organizational needs or limitations 

of the child welfare agency, as government attorneys may 

be. They are not bound to advocate for the parents’ views, 

as parents’ attorneys are. Even more broadly, advocates 

help to achieve procedural fairness for children, ensure 

that complete and accurate information is provided to the 

judge, and support fair and equal application of the law. 

Implementation Issues 

Information Storage 

For this performance measure, the information system 

must permanently store data on the timing of the appointment of the first advocate for each child. Some systems 

are not currently set up to do this; instead, each time a 

new advocate is appointed, the system deletes information 

on prior appointments. Such systems must be reconfigured 

to retain information on each child’s first advocate. 

Defining “In Advance Of” 

This measure records the percentage of cases in which the 

child’s advocate is appointed in advance of the emergency 

removal hearing. A key question is whether “in advance 

of” means at least the day before the hearing or can also 

include appointment on the day of the hearing. 

In defining this aspect of the measure, courts should 

consider the importance of allowing a reasonable amount 

of time for the advocate to discuss the case with the child, 

the caseworker or the caseworker’s attorney, and other 

attorneys involved in the case. Courts also need to consider 

whether it is realistic to appoint advocates prior to the day 

of the hearing, and whether it is practical to record the 

time of day when appointments occur and hearings begin. 

Whether it is realistic to appoint advocates prior to the 

day of the emergency removal hearing depends largely 

on the legal deadline for these hearings. For example, in 

States where the hearing must take place within 48 hours 

of the child’s removal from home (excluding weekends 

and holidays), appointing advocates before the day of the 

hearing should not be difficult. If, however, the deadline is 

24 hours (including weekends and holidays), consistently 

appointing advocates before the day of the hearing will be 

more difficult. 

Whether it is practical to record the appointment time 

depends in part on whether the application software has 

been programmed to capture this information. A simple 

approach is for a court employee to click a button or a 

check box on a screen to indicate whether an advocate 

was appointed prior to the emergency removal hearing 

(“yes” or “no”). Other approaches, which require comparing the appointment time to the hearing time, include: 

u	The court employee who completes the appointment 

document could fill in a data entry screen for the 

appointment date and time. (Alternatively, the 

appointment date and time could be entered when 

the advocate confirms the appointment.) 

u	If a court employee completes an electronic form that 

includes appointment date and time, the system could 

automatically capture and save that information. 

If an advocate is chosen or appointed by someone located 

outside the court, the court might consider the appointment 

to have occurred at the moment the court transmitted its 

request for a child advocate to the outside organization. 

Alternatively, the court might ask the organization to notify 

it of the exact appointment time and then enter that information in the system. 

Clearly, having to record the appointment time may involve 

extra work for court employees. The next consideration 

is whether the extra effort will consistently yield accurate 

information and, if so, whether the information will be 

worth the additional effort. 

If it is impractical either to appoint an advocate before the 

day of the emergency removal hearing (because of constraints imposed by a State deadline for these hearings) 

or to capture the time of the appointment, the best practical substitute may be to measure how often a child’s 

96 
measure 3C: Early Appointment of Advocates for Children 

advocate was present during these hearings (see Toolkit 

Measure 3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings). 

Many courts may have standardized procedures that make 

the timing of child advocates’ appointments obvious (e.g., 

all advocates are appointed at the emergency removal 

hearing). If such procedures are widespread in the State, a 

sensible alternative to developing a precise measure might 

be for courts to simply report their procedures. In many 

States, however, practices vary enough to make developing 

this performance measure worthwhile. 

State Laws and Court Rules 

Courts may wish to use this measure even if State law 

does not require the appointment of child advocates before 

emergency removal hearings. As long as State law does 

not prohibit such appointments, the court can measure 

its performance relative to best practice regarding early 

appointments. 

Measuring More Than One Time of 

Appointment 

It may be sensible to measure the percentage of cases 

complying with each of several possible times of appointment of child advocates, as opposed to making this an 

“all or nothing” measure. For example, a measure might 

show the percentage of children whose advocates were 

appointed at the following points: 

u	In advance of the emergency removal hearing. 

u	At the beginning of (or during) the hearing. 

u	Within X days after the hearing. 

u	Within X or more days after the hearing, but at least 

Y days before adjudication. 

u	Later than any of these alternatives. 

The options measured can reflect the apparent range of 

practices in a State or a local court. For example, if it is 

near certain that child advocates are rarely or never 

appointed more than X days after the emergency removal 

hearing, the last three of the five options in the above list 

could be replaced by two options: “Fewer than X days after 

the hearing” and “X or more days after the hearing.” 

Knowing exactly when advocates are appointed is an 

important indicator of the quality of representation. The 

earlier the appointment occurs, the sooner the interests of 

the child begin to be represented. Early appointment may 

help to minimize traumatic separation from parents, improve protection from further abuse or neglect, and ensure 

more efficient delivery of needed services. Furthermore, 

the more refined the measurement of appointment timing, 

the more information individual courts and judges will have 

regarding their performance. 

Different Categories of Advocates for 

Children 

Some States and local courts use various types of advocates to represent children and may want to know which 

types of advocates tend to be appointed earlier (e.g., 

whether CASA volunteers tend to be appointed earlier than 

attorneys). The judicial information system may need to be 

reconfigured to capture this information. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases for 

which an emergency removal hearing was held within 

the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), determine when a child advocate 

was assigned. Then, sort the cases into two categories: 

(B) advocate appointed prior to hearing date and 

(C) advocate not appointed prior to hearing date. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately by type of representation (e.g., 

attorneys, attorney GALs, lay GALs, CASA volunteers). 

2. Report separately by demographic categories, such
 

as child’s race/ethnicity and age.
 

3. Include later appointment categories, such as at the
 

hearing, within X days after the hearing, more than
 

X days before adjudication, at or after adjudication.
 

4. Correlate the results of this measure with other outcomes, such as achievement of permanency (Toolkit 

Measure 2A), timeliness of permanency (Measure 4A), 

and timeliness of adjudication (Measure 4B). 

97 
98 

Technical Guide
 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Emergency removal hearing date-time. 

u	Appointment of advocate date-time. 

u	Party ID. 

u	Advocate ID. 

u	Advocate-party link. 

Optional Elements 

u	Advocate type. 

u	Adjudication date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3C. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3C lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 3C–1 is a basic tabular report for this measure, 

showing the percentage of cases in which child advocates 

were appointed prior to the emergency removal hearing. In 

this sample, practices vary widely among the three courts 

in Judicial District A. The percentage of children appointed 

advocates before the hearing is far lower in Court A than in 

Court C, with Court B ranking in between. The bar graph in 

sample 3C–2, based on data from the table, clearly shows 

how each court’s percentage compares with the percentages for other courts and for the district as a whole. 

Sample 3C–3 analyzes early appointment rates for different types of advocates. It also shows striking differences 

among courts. For example, Court B has a CASA program, 

but Court A and Court C do not. The fact that Court A uses 

neither CASAs nor GALs may help to explain why it has the 

lowest overall early appointment rate of all three courts. 

The pie chart in sample 3C–4 illustrates District A totals 

from the table, clearly showing the different rates for the 

three types of advocates. 

In addition to these samples, several other presentations 

may be useful for this measure. For example, if the measure is expanded to document rates for different appointment times (before the hearing, during the hearing, etc.), 

bar graphs or pie charts might be used to compare these 

rates. Pie charts could also show comparisons between a 

local court and the State as a whole or to compare rates 

for several years. Trend lines could be used to show increases or decreases in early appointment rates over time. 

Sample 3C–1. Appointment of Child Advocate Prior to Emergency Removal Hearing, by Court, 2006: 

Judicial District A 

Court 

Appointed Prior to ERH Not Appointed Prior to ERH 

Total Number 

of Cases Number of Cases Percent Number of Cases Percent 

A 54 31% 123 69% 177 

B 87 52% 80 48% 167 

C 198 67% 99 33% 297 

Districtwide 339 53% 302 47% 641 
measure 3C: Early Appointment of Advocates for Children 

Sample 3C–2. Percentage of Children Appointed an Advocate Prior to Emergency Removal Hearing, 

by Court, 2006: Judicial District A 

31%

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

52%

67%

53%

Court A Court B Court C Judicial District A 

Sample 3C–3. Appointment of Child Advocate Prior to Emergency Removal Hearing, by Type of Advocate, by Court, 2006: Judicial District A 

Court 

Type of Advocate Appointed Prior to ERH 

No Appointment 

Prior to ERH Total 

Number 

of Cases 

Legal Counsel CASA* GAL† 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

A 54 31% 0 0% 0 0% 123 69% 177 

B 9 5% 78 47% 0 0% 80 48% 167 

C 175 59% 0 0% 23 8% 99 33% 297 

Districtwide 238 37% 78 12% 23 4% 302 47% 641 

*Court-appointed special advocate. 

†Guardian ad litem. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

State Law Regarding the Early 

Appointment of Child Advocates 

State law may specify when advocates are to be appointed 

for children. Some laws may require the appointment of 

advocates at or before the emergency hearing or the filing 

of the petition. Other laws may require appointment at 

the emergency hearing or after the filing of the petition 

(in effect blocking early appointment). 

Most conducive to early representation for children are 

statutes or local court rules requiring immediate appointment of an advocate as soon as the court is informed that 

a child has been removed from home and a hearing must 

be scheduled. 

Understanding the Importance of 

Emergency Removal Hearings and the 

Role of Advocates at Those Hearings 

When courts and advocacy organizations understand the 

potential benefits of a thorough emergency removal hearing 

and the role of the child advocates in the hearing, they are 

more likely to take steps to ensure early appointment of 

advocates. Judges and advocates must understand the 

appropriate roles of the advocate in the emergency 

removal hearing. 

99 
100 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 3C–4. Appointment of Child Advocate 

Prior to Emergency Removal Hearing (Percentage 

of Cases with Legal Counsel, CASA, GAL, and No 

Advocate), 2006: District A 

47% 37% 

12% 

4%
 

Legal counsel
 

CASA (court-appointed special advocate) 

GAL (guardian ad litem) 

None 

Overcoming Administrative Obstacles 

There are a number of potential obstacles to the early 

appointment of child advocates. For example, the court 

and attorneys may be in the habit of making appointments 

during or after the emergency removal hearing. There may 

not be enough attorneys available to meet with clients on 

short notice. The court or advocacy organizations may be 

reluctant to pay the costs associated with early involvement of child advocates in the litigation process. 

Overcoming these obstacles often requires determination 

and persistence. Nevertheless, many courts consistently 

arrange for representation by child advocates before 

emergency removal hearings. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room for 

improvement in providing for early legal representation of 

children, the court should consider possible reforms. Specific 

reforms will, of course, depend on local conditions and the 

court’s analysis of the best procedures for accomplishing 

this goal. A court might, for example, consider the following 

improvements: 

u	Establish a State law or local court rule requiring 

appointment of a child advocate as soon as a court is 

notified of a case. 

u	Appoint a child advocate immediately upon receiving 

information that an emergency removal hearing will be 

scheduled. 

u	Arrange for the advocate and the child to meet at the 

courthouse a few hours before the emergency removal 

hearing. 

u	Revise judicial contracts with attorneys or advocacy 

organizations to require that advocates accept 

appointments and begin their work on the case before the 

hearing. 

u	Establish standards of representation specifying 

immediate actions child advocates must take upon 

receiving an appointment. 

Endnotes 

1. “Emergency removal hearing” refers to the hearing that 

State law dictates must take place shortly after a child 

is removed from home in an emergency situation. One 

purpose of the hearing is to give parents the opportunity 

to seek the immediate return of their child. The emergency removal hearing is variously known as the shelter 

care hearing, temporary removal hearing, initial hearing, 

preliminary hearing, detention hearing, and preliminary 

protective hearing. 

2. See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice 

in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 

1995), pp. 40–41. 
measure 3D 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which attorneys for parents are appointed in advance of the 

emergency removal hearing.1 

Explanation: This measure shows how often attorneys for parents are appointed before emergency removal hearings. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate whether attorneys for parents are appointed in time to play an active role in what is 

usually the first critical stage of litigation—the emergency removal hearing. 

The emergency removal hearing is a critical stage of 

child abuse and neglect litigation, in that it can affect the 

ultimate outcome of the case. At this hearing, the court 

decides whether to prolong the separation between parent 

and child following an emergency removal. The separation 

of parent and child between the emergency removal hearing and adjudication may protect the child from serious, 

long-term harm. On the other hand, this separation may 

traumatize the child and ultimately make it more difficult 

u	Determine whether the child needs immediate services, 

such as evaluations or medical care, and issue orders 

accordingly. 

u	Issue orders regarding conduct expected of parents and 

services to be provided by the child welfare agency. 

u	Determine whether the agency made reasonable efforts 

to avoid having to remove the child from home. 

Early Appointment of Counsel 

for Parents 

for the parent to correct the problems that led to State 

intervention. 

The emergency removal hearing also has other important purposes. When a child cannot be returned home 

immediately, the judge should do the following during the 

hearing:2 

u	Ensure that parents understand the reasons for State 

intervention and are informed about court proceedings. 

u	Set the terms of immediate parent-child visitation. 

u	Inquire about missing parents (if any) and relatives who 

might care for the child as an alternative to relying on 

unrelated foster parents. If necessary, the judge should 

issue orders to ensure that missing parents and relatives 

are located, notified, and, if appropriate, evaluated as 

possible caretakers. 

u	Consider the appropriateness of the child’s current 

emergency placement, including whether it a family 

environment (when possible) and as close to the child’s 

home as is practical. 

u	Ensure that the child is attending school, preferably the 

school the child attended before removal from home. 

u	Formally notify the parties of the litigation through 

service of process. 

u	Schedule the next hearings in the case. 

Active and effective representation of the parents is important to ensuring that the emergency removal hearing fulfills 

its functions. Effective representation of parents can help 

accomplish the following: 

u	Prevent the unnecessary removal of a child from home 

by carefully evaluating the level of danger in the home 

and considering possible safe alternatives to removal. 

u	Limit the trauma both the child and parents may 

experience because of their separation by proposing 

early and frequent parent-child visits (supervised only as 

necessary). 

u	Speed casework when a child must be removed, by 

proposing early evaluations of the parents and the family 

unit and by making a more complete record, during the 

hearing, of the facts leading up to the removal of the 

child. 

u	Ensure that the child receives services that are needed 

immediately, such as medical care, psychological 

evaluation, and trauma counseling. 
102 

Technical Guide
 

u	Prevent any unnecessary interruption in the child’s 

education and ensure that educational services for the 

child will be appropriate. 

To achieve these goals, the attorney should meet the parents before the emergency removal hearing. The attorney 

should do the following: 

u	Observe the parents’ condition and circumstances, 

ascertain their wishes, and understand their version 

of the events leading up to State intervention. 

u	Conduct a quick investigation or inquiry regarding 

the facts of the case; include a discussion with the 

caseworker. 

u	Discuss the case with attorneys and advocates for the 

other parties in the litigation. 

u	Prepare for the hearing as thoroughly as time allows. 

Of course, the early appointment of attorneys for parents 

does not guarantee that they will fulfill these responsibilities prior to the hearing. They will, however, at least have 

the opportunity to do so. If the parents’ attorneys are not 

involved prior to the emergency removal hearing, the court 

is more likely to place children away from the parents. 

Parents’ attorneys are important not only before and 

during the emergency removal hearing but throughout 

all stages of the litigation.3

 Many parents in abuse and 

neglect cases—especially individuals who are relatively 

uneducated and/or inarticulate—cannot effectively present 

legal arguments and issues that would work in their favor. 

Many are facing difficult life crises, including the trauma 

of having their child taken from them. Finally, in any type 

of litigation, it is difficult for people to view their own case 

objectively. For these reasons, parents need attorneys to 

help them present their cases effectively. 

Even more broadly, attorneys help to achieve procedural 

fairness for parents. Their involvement supports the public’s sense of justice (i.e., that it is unfair to take children 

away from parents without giving parents a chance to 

defend themselves effectively in court). Furthermore, 

parents’ attorneys help to ensure that complete and 

accurate information is provided to the judge and also 

support fair and equal application of the law. 

Implementation Issues 

Multiple Persons Identified 

as Possible Father 

It is not unusual in child abuse and neglect cases for 

multiple men to be named as possible fathers of the child. 

Depending on State law and the facts of each case, it may 

or may not be appropriate to appoint an attorney for each 

possible father. 

For purposes of this measure, it should be sufficient that 

an attorney is appointed for at least one identified father 

before the emergency removal hearing. When multiple 

possible fathers are identified, it may not be necessary or 

appropriate to appoint counsel for all of them (e.g., a man 

whose formal denial of paternity has been accepted by the 

government or child welfare agency). This measure is not 

designed to make such distinctions. 

Whether the Mother and Father Should 

Be Assigned Separate Attorneys 

In most abuse or neglect cases, it is appropriate to appoint 

separate attorneys for the mother and the father. This is 

because the parents are likely to have conflicting interests. 

For example, if only one parent is found to have abused or 

neglected the child, the other may be entitled to custody— 

especially if the nonabusing parent agrees to separate 

from the other parent and limit that parent’s access to the 

child. 

For purposes of this measure, it should be sufficient for 

court staff to identify the individual(s) whom the attorney 

represents. For example, if one attorney is appointed to 

represent both parents, this fact must be recorded, and the 

appointment date should apply to both parents. 

It is beyond the scope of this measure to compute how 

often attorneys are appointed to represent both parents 

in those cases where separate counsel should have been 

appointed because of conflicts of interest. (Conflicts of 

interests between parents exist in a high percentage of 

child abuse and neglect cases.) It is, however, possible 

to compute how often the same attorney is appointed to 

represent both parents. 
measure 3D: Early Appointment of Counsel for Parents 

Information Storage 

For this performance measure, the information system 

must permanently store data on the timing of the original 

appointment of the parents’ attorneys. Some systems are 

not currently set up to do this; instead, each time a new 

attorney is appointed, the system deletes information on 

prior appointments. Such systems must be reconfigured 

to retain information on each parent’s first attorney. 

Defining “In Advance Of” 

This measure records the percentage of cases in which 

the parent’s attorneys are appointed in advance of the 

emergency removal hearing. A key question is whether 

“in advance of” means at least the day before the hearing 

or can also include appointment on the day of the hearing, 

perhaps at least a few hours before the hearing begins. 

In defining this aspect of the measure, courts should 

consider the importance of allowing a reasonable amount 

of time for the attorney to discuss the case with the parent, 

the caseworker or the caseworker’s attorney, and other 

attorneys involved in the case. Courts also need to consider whether it is realistic to appoint attorneys prior to the 

day of the hearing, and whether it is practical to record the 

time of day when appointments occur and hearings begin. 

Whether it is realistic to appoint attorneys prior to the 

day of the emergency removal hearing depends largely 

on the legal deadline for these hearings. For example, in 

States where the hearing must take place within 48 hours 

of the child’s removal from home (excluding weekends 

and holidays), appointing attorneys before the day of the 

hearing should not be difficult. If, however, the deadline is 

24 hours (including weekends and holidays), consistently 

appointing attorneys before the day of the hearing will be 

more difficult. 

Whether it is practical to record the appointment time 

depends in part on whether the application software has 

been programmed to capture this information. A simple 

approach is for a court employee to click a “radio button” 

or a check box on a screen to indicate whether an attorney 

was appointed prior to the emergency removal hearing 

(“yes” or “no”). Other approaches, which require comparing the appointment time to the hearing time, include: 

u	The court employee who completes the appointment 

document could fill in a data entry screen for the 

appointment date and time. (Alternatively, the 

appointment date and time could be entered when 

the attorney confirms the appointment.) 

u	If a court employee completes an electronic form that 

includes appointment date and time, the system could 

automatically capture and save that information. 

If an attorney is chosen or appointed by someone located 

outside the court, the court might consider the appointment to have occurred at the moment the court transmitted its request for an attorney to the outside organization. 

Alternatively, the court might ask the organization to notify 

it of the exact appointment time and then enter that information in the system. 

Clearly, having to record the appointment time may involve 

extra work for court employees. The next consideration is 

whether the extra effort will consistently yield accurate 

information and, if so, whether the information will be 

worth the additional effort. 

If it is impractical either to appoint an attorney before the 

day of the emergency removal hearing (because of constraints imposed by a State deadline for these hearings) 

or to capture the time of the appointment, the best practical substitute may be to measure how often a parent’s 

attorney was present during these hearings (see Toolkit 

Measure 3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings). 

Many courts may have standardized procedures that make 

the timing of attorneys’ appointments obvious (e.g., all 

parents’ attorneys are appointed at the emergency removal 

hearing). If such procedures are widespread in the State, a 

sensible alternative to developing a precise measure might 

be for courts to simply report their procedures. In many 

States, however, practices vary enough to make implementing this performance measure worthwhile. 

State Laws and Court Rules 

Courts may wish to use this measure even if State law 

does not require the appointment of parents’ attorneys 

before emergency removal hearings. As long as State law 

does not prohibit such appointments, the court can measure its performance relative to best practice regarding 

early appointments. 

Measuring More Than One Time of 

Appointment 

It may be sensible to measure the percentage of cases 

complying with each of several possible times of appointment of parents’ attorneys, as opposed to making this an 

“all or nothing” measure.4

 For example, a measure might 

103 
104 

Technical Guide
 

show the percentage of cases in which parents’ attorneys 

were appointed at the following points: 

u	In advance of the emergency removal hearing. 

u	At the beginning of (or during) the hearing. 

u	Within X days after the hearing. 

u	Within X or more days after the hearing, but at least 

Y days before adjudication. 

u	Later than any of these alternatives. 

It is particularly important to measure a full range of possible times for the appointment of fathers’ attorneys. The 

difficulty of identifying fathers at the very beginning of the 

case sometimes necessitates not appointing attorneys for 

fathers before the emergency removal hearing. 

Knowing exactly when attorneys are appointed is an 

important indicator of the quality of representation. The 

earlier appointment occurs, the sooner the interests of the 

parent begin to be represented. Early appointment may 

enable the case to proceed faster, minimizing the length of 

separation between parent and child and clearing the way 

for delivery of needed services earlier rather than later. 

Thus, the more refined the measurement of appointment 

timing, the more information individual courts and judges 

will have regarding their performance. 

Different Categories of Attorneys 

for Parents 

Some States and local courts use various types of attorneys to represent parents. These may include staff 

attorneys (working for legal services, a public defender’s 

office, or other nonprofit organizations), contract attorneys 

(contracting individually with the court or as members of a 

consortium or contracting law firm), and attorneys selected 

from appointment lists. 

Knowing which types of attorneys tend to be appointed 

earlier may be useful. For example, if appointments are 

slowest for attorneys selected from a list, the court may 

make a special effort to speed up such appointments. If 

appointments are fastest for contract attorneys, that may 

be an argument in favor of using contracts. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases for 

which an emergency removal hearing was held within 

the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), determine when parents’ attorneys were assigned. Then sort the cases into four 

categories: (B) attorney for mother appointed prior to 

hearing date, (C) attorney for mother not appointed 

prior to hearing date, (D) attorney for father appointed 

prior to hearing date, (E) attorney for father not appointed prior to hearing date, (F) attorneys appointed 

for both mother and father prior to hearing date, 

(G) attorneys for both mother and father not appointed 

prior to hearing date. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

A note about the business rules: If more than one possible father has been identified in a case, include the case 

in category (D) or (F) if an attorney was appointed for at 

least one identified father prior to the hearing. 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately by demographic categories, such
 

as parents’ race/ethnicity.
 

2. Include later appointment categories, such as at the 

hearing, within X days after the hearing, at or within 

X days after adjudication, and more than X days after 

adjudication. 

3. Compute separately the number and percentage of 

cases in which one attorney is appointed to represent 

both parents. 

4. Compare results for different type of attorneys (staff
 

attorneys, contracts, appointment lists).
 

5. Correlate the results of this measure with other outcomes, such as the achievement of permanency (Toolkit Measure 2A), timeliness of permanency (Measure 

4A), and timeliness of adjudication (Measure 4B). 
measure 3D: Early Appointment of Counsel for Parents 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Emergency removal hearing date-time.
 

u	Appointment of advocate date-time.
 

u	Party ID.
 

u	Party type.
 

u	Advocate ID.
 

Optional Elements 

u	Adjudication date. 

u	Father’s race/ethnicity. 

u	Mother’s race/ethnicity. 

u	Advocate type. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3D. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3D lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 3D–1 is a basic tabular report for this measure in 

one judicial district, showing the percentage of cases in 

which attorneys were appointed for mothers and fathers 

prior to the emergency removal hearing. The table shows 

that in all courts in Judicial District A, early appointments 

are far more common for mothers than for fathers. Court B 

has the highest rates of early appointment for both mothers (78 percent) and fathers (45 percent). The bar graph 

in sample 3D–2, based on data from the table, focuses 

on early appointment rates for mothers and clearly shows 

how each court’s percentage compares with the percentages for other courts and for the district as a whole. A 

similar graph could be produced for fathers. 

Sample 3D–1. Appointment of Parents’ Attorneys Prior to Emergency Removal Hearing, 

by Court, 2006: Judicial District A 

Court 

Mother Father 

Total 

Number 

of Cases 

Appointed 

Prior to ERH 

Not Appointed Prior 

to ERH 

Appointed 

Prior to ERH 

Not Appointed 

Prior to ERH 

Number of 

Cases Percent 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

Number of 

Cases Percent 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

A 160 64% 89 36% 80 32% 169 68% 249 

B 155 78% 45 23% 90 45% 110 55% 200 

C 115 44% 145 56% 65 25% 195 75% 260 

D 123 41% 180 59% 39 13% 264 87% 303 

E 220 50% 220 50% 112 25% 328 75% 440 

Districtwide 773 53% 679 47% 386 27% 1,066 73% 1,452 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

105 
Technical Guide
 

106 

Sample 3D–3 analyzes trends in early appointment rates appointments for mothers in 2003; District C improved to 

from 2003 through 2006, statewide and for each judicial 47 percent in 2006, District D to 37 percent. Early appointdistrict. The State made impressive gains in early appoint- ments for fathers lagged statewide; the best performance 

ments for mothers, from 19 percent in 2003 to 47 percent was District E’s 33 percent in 2006. 

in 2006. Judicial Districts C and D both had no early 

Sample 3D–2. Percentage of Cases With Appointment of Attorney for Mother Prior to Emergency 

Removal Hearing, by Court, 2006: Judicial District A 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Court A Court B Court C Court D Court E 

36% 23% 

56% 59% 50% 47% 

Judicial 

64% 78% 44% 41% 50% 53% 

District A 

No attorney appointed prior to ERH Attorney appointed prior to ERH 

Sample 3D–3. Percentage of Cases With Appointment of Parents’ Attorneys Prior to Emergency 

Removal Hearing, by Judicial District, 2003–2006 

Judicial 

District 

2003 2004 2005 2006 

Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father 

A 46% 19% 45% 18% 50% 53% 53% 27% 

B 0% 0% 5% 1% 18% 7% 34% 16% 

C 0% 0% 12% 8% 23% 12% 47% 15% 

D 16% 4% 19% 7% 35% 9% 37% 5% 

E 34% 23% 27% 22% 48% 29% 65% 33% 

Statewide 19% 9% 21% 11% 43% 16% 47% 19% 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 
measure 3D: Early Appointment of Counsel for Parents 

The statewide improvements shown in sample 3D–3 suggest that all districts implemented reforms between 2003 

and 2006, but the wide range of early appointment rates 

for both mothers and fathers in 2006 suggests that important differences remain in the practices of the five districts. 

Although the courts should be commended for steady 

improvements, it is especially important to find out why 

District D’s rates for fathers remain so low and determine 

what reforms are needed. 

The chart in sample 3D–4 illustrates trends for Judicial 

District C, where early appointment of counsel for parents 

began in 2004. It clearly shows the divergence in trends 

for mothers and fathers. A chart like this would raise many 

questions about the reasons for the diverging trends; what 

is important to note here is how effectively the chart shows 

the divergence. This type of chart is an excellent tool for 

bringing issues to the attention of judicial leadership in a 

district. 

In addition to these samples, several other presentations may be useful for this measure. For example, if the 

measure is expanded to document rates for different types 

of attorneys (staff, contract, etc.) or appointment times 

(before the hearing, during the hearing, etc.), bar graphs 

might be segmented to compare these rates, or the rates 

might be compared in side-by-side pie charts. Side-byside pie charts could also show comparisons between a 

local court and the State as a whole or compare rates for 

several years. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

State Law Regarding the Early 

Appointment of Parents’ Attorneys 

State law may specify when attorneys are to be appointed 

for parents. Some laws may require legal assistance at all 

stages of the case. Because advance appointment of an 

attorney is necessary for effective representation, such 

laws could be interpreted to require appointment prior 

to the emergency removal hearing. Other laws require 

appointment at the emergency hearing or after the filing of 

the petition (in effect blocking early appointment). It may, 

however, be possible to interpret such laws in a way that 

permits early appointment, or to argue that early appointment actually is necessary under the State constitution, 

because parents are entitled to effective representation at 

all critical stages of legal proceedings. 

Most conducive to early representation for parents are 

statutes or local court rules requiring immediate appointment of an attorney as soon as the court is informed that a 

child has been removed from home and a hearing must be 

scheduled.5 

Sample 3D–4. Percentage of Mothers and Fathers With Appointment of Attorney Prior to Emergency 

Removal Hearing, 2003–2006: Judicial District C 

50%
 

45%
 

40%
 

35%
 

30%
 

25%
 

20%
 

15%
 

10%
 

5% 

0% 

2003 2004 2005 2006 

0% 

47% 

23% 

8% 

12% 12% 

15% 

Mothers Fathers 

107 
108 

Technical Guide
 

Understanding the Importance of 

Emergency Removal Hearings and the 

Role of Parents’ Attorneys at Those 

Hearings 

When courts understand the potential benefits of a thorough emergency removal hearing and the role of parents’ 

attorneys in the hearing, they are more likely to take steps 

to ensure early appointment of counsel. Judges and 

attorneys must understand the appropriate roles of 

parents’ attorneys in the emergency removal hearing. 

Overcoming Administrative Obstacles 

There are a number of potential obstacles to the early 

appointment of parents’ attorneys. For example, the court 

may be in the habit of making appointments during or after 

the emergency removal hearing. There may not be enough 

attorneys available to meet with clients on short notice. 

The court may be reluctant to pay the costs associated 

with early involvement of parents’ attorneys in the litigation 

process. Finally, judges and court staff may believe (correctly or incorrectly) that appointments cannot occur until 

parents have been financially screened. 

Overcoming these obstacles often requires determination 

and persistence. Nevertheless, many courts consistently 

appoint parents’ attorneys before emergency removal 

hearings. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in providing for early legal representation 

of parents, the court should consider possible reforms. 

Specific reforms will, of course, depend on local conditions 

and the court’s analysis of the best procedures for accomplishing this goal. Courts might, for example, consider the 

following improvements: 

u	Support the enactment of a State law requiring 

appointment of parents’ attorneys as soon as a court is 

notified of a case. 

u	Adopt a State or local court rule requiring appointment 

of parents’ attorneys as soon as a court is notified of 

a case. 

u	Establish a local practice of appointing parents’ 

attorneys immediately upon receiving information that 

an emergency removal hearing will be scheduled. 

u	Arrange for the attorney and the parent to meet at the 

courthouse a few hours before the emergency removal 

hearing. 

u	Revise judicial contracts with attorney organizations 

to require parents’ attorneys to accept appointments 

and begin their work on the case before the emergency 

removal hearing. 

u	Establish standards of representation specifying 

immediate actions parents’ attorneys must take upon 

receiving an appointment. 

Endnotes 

1. “Emergency removal hearing” refers to the hearing that 

State law dictates must take place shortly after a child 

is removed from home in an emergency situation. One 

purpose of the hearing is to give parents the opportunity to seek the immediate return of their child. The 

emergency removal hearing is variously known as the 

shelter care hearing, temporary removal hearing, initial 

hearing, preliminary hearing, detention hearing, and 

preliminary protective hearing. 

2. See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges, RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court 

Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: 

NCJFCJ, 1995), pp. 40–41. 

3. Note, however, that this measure is not intended to 

address overall representation of parents. Measure 3J: 

Continuity of Counsel for Parents also relates to the 

quality of representation for parents, as does Measure 

3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings (if results 

are broken down by category of advocate). 

4. It is especially important to measure different possible 

times of appointment for fathers’ attorneys. Because it 

may be difficult to identify the father at the beginning 

of a case, it may not be possible to appoint an attorney 

for him before the emergency removal hearing. 

5. Increasing numbers of courts are appointing attorneys 

for parents as soon as the court learns that a child has 

been removed from home. See Status Report 2005: A 

Snapshot of the Child Victims Act Model Court Project 

(Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 2005). Although some courts express the concern that attorneys cannot be appointed 

until the parents’ financial eligibility for court-appointed 

counsel has been determined, prior financial screening 
measure 3D: Early Appointment of Counsel for Parents 

may not actually be required by State law. Furthermore, the added cost of early appointments reportedly is small. If the court appoints counsel for parents 

and subsequent screening determines they are not 

financially eligible for appointed counsel, the parents 

can choose whether to hire (and pay for) the attorney 

who represented them at the emergency removal 

hearing. Most parents accused of abuse or neglect are, 

in fact, financially eligible for court-appointed counsel, 

and most who are not financially eligible elect to hire 

the appointed attorney who represented them in the 

emergency removal hearing. 

109 

measure 3e 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases with documentation that written notice was given to parties in 

advance of every hearing. 

Explanation: This measure shows how often individual parties entitled to notice (including both parents) receive advance 

written notice of each hearing. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate how consistently they are providing advance written notice of hearings. 

In a broader sense, this measure is intended to improve attendance of parties at hearings. Attendance at hearings is 

important to the quality of litigation, and providing written 

notice is one of the most important things that courts can 

do to encourage attendance. 

When parties are consistently present at hearings throughout the case, the quality of the litigation improves for the 

following reasons: 

u	Parties can propose actions by the court and either 

u	When parties are absent and, therefore, cannot be 

questioned during hearings, important records that may 

be useful in later stages of the litigation (e.g., contested 

proceedings for reunification, adoption, or legal 

guardianship) are lost. 

u	If reunification fails, the case for termination of parental 

rights (TPR) or legal guardianship is weakened if parties 

were not notified of hearings, advised about the case, or 

offered—on the record—opportunities for services and 

other assistance. 

Advance Notice of 


Hearings to Parties 


support or oppose actions proposed by others. 

u	When parties are consistently present and feel they have 

participated in court decisions, they may be more likely 

to comply with court orders. 

u	Parties can provide information to judges, helping to 

ensure the accuracy and completeness of information 

on which judges base their decisions. 

u	Parties are more likely to understand what is happening 

in court and the actual meaning of court orders, which 

may make them more likely to comply with the orders. 

u	Scheduling of future hearings can be done “on 

the spot”—more efficiently and with less need for 

rescheduling. 

A party’s absence from hearings may not prevent the court 

from issuing the necessary orders to protect the child. 

However, failure to notify parties (resulting in absence from 

hearings) may have more subtle adverse effects on the 

child, such as: 

u	Parties who are absent from hearings may be less 

likely to seek and obtain visitation rights. (Research has 

shown the value of visitation to foster children.)1 

u	Parties who are absent from hearings may be less 

involved in the case, which may interfere with the 

eventual success of a reunification plan. 

For related discussions, see Toolkit Measure 3B: Service 

of Process to Parties and Measure 3H: Presence of Parties 

During Hearings. 

Implementation Issues 

Arguments Against This Measure 

Some courts are reluctant to implement this measure, 

based on arguments such as the following: 

u	At the end of each hearing, the court provides verbal 

notice of the time of the next hearing. Therefore, written 

notice is not necessary. 

u	The court hands out written notice at hearings, so 

further notice is not necessary. 

u	Notifying parties of court hearings and helping them get 

to court is the responsibility of the child welfare agency, 

not the court. 

Sending advance written notice to parties is necessary 

even if the court provides verbal or written notices during 

hearings. Repeated notice helps to ensure that parties will 

appear at the next hearing. Furthermore, not all parties 

may be present when notices are provided during hearings. Finally, as with many areas covered by the Toolkit 
112 

Technical Guide
 

measures, notice to parties should be a responsibility 

shared by agencies and courts. 

Data Collection 

One challenge in implementing this measure is the extra 

effort that may be required to collect the necessary 

information and enter it into the computerized information 

system. Many courts do not currently notify parties in writing of hearings in child abuse and neglect cases. Employees in these courts may not be accustomed to entering 

and maintaining current addresses for parties (as opposed 

to contact information for the attorneys). Such courts may 

encounter challenges in capturing all of the information 

needed for this measure. 

Methods of Notice To Be Included in 

This Measure 

Although the basic method of notice is written notice by 

mail, possible alternatives or additions to this measure can 

include, for example, verbal notice (possibly provided when 

the parties are in court or by telephone) or written notice 

handed out at the end of each hearing. 

Verbal Notice 

If written notice is required, it is not essential to also report, 

for purposes of this measure, whether verbal notice was 

also provided. Although redundant notice of hearings is 

desirable, courts need to balance the need for specific 

information and the effort required to obtain and report 

that information. To report verbal notice, court staff must 

be especially observant, conscientious, and consistent in 

entering information at a time when they are likely to be 

distracted by other duties. Furthermore, if written notice 

is distributed at the end of each hearing, it is likely that 

verbal notice was also given—because scheduling the 

hearing probably involved a discussion in the presence 

of the parties in open court. 

Written Notice at the End of the Hearing 

Recording the distribution of a written notice at the end of 

each hearing would place more modest demands on the 

court staff compared to documenting verbal notice. The 

system could be programmed to enter this information 

automatically when the notice is generated; alternatively, 

court staff could enter the information on the data entry 

screen by filling in a check box or using a drop-down list. 

Another option is to include information about the next 

hearing in court orders, combining the court order and the 

notice form. A disadvantage of this approach, however, 

is that although it may be relatively easy to consistently 

complete and distribute notices at the end of each hearing, 

it may be difficult to achieve the same consistency with 

court orders (especially for complex hearings). 

Rather than having court employees record, for each 

hearing, whether notices were handed out to all parties 

present, the court could choose to assume that all 

preprinted notices were distributed. Although this may 

be a less reliable indicator, the court may decide it is an 

acceptable compromise to save time. Of course, an 

automated solution will be possible only with a relatively 

sophisticated system that maintains information used for 

performance measurement in a readily accessible form 

when the notice is produced. 

Mailed Notice 

Regardless of whether notice is provided during each 

hearing, notice by mail is an essential part of this measure. 

First, redundant notice is especially important in abuse 

and neglect cases, as discussed earlier. Second, a court’s 

effort to notify parties who are not present at hearings is a 

critical factor in best practice. 

Parties Whose Location Is Unknown 

This measure should take into account, but not excuse, 

situations in which the court does not provide written 

notice because the whereabouts of a particular party is 

unknown. When there is no known address for a party, 

or mail has been returned, this measure should consider 

notice not to have been provided. 

Best practice is for courts to insist that child welfare agencies persist in their efforts to locate missing parties. A high 

percentage of unknown locations indicates a shortcoming 

of both the court and the agency and should be reflected in 

reports for this measure. Reports on failure to notify missing parties might distinguish between parties whose location was known and those whose location was unknown. 

Identifying All Persons Who 

Must Be Notified 

Many court information systems record the sending of notices in the register of actions.2 However, because register 

files are very large, extracting notice data from them may 
measure 3e: Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties 

be difficult. In addition, the system may not specify who 

has been sent notice. Therefore, this measure may require 

some adaptations of the management information system, 

even if some of the necessary data are present. 

The simplest way to enable the management information 

system to identify all parties who should be notified of 

hearings is to include in the list of parties to receive notice 

only those parties who have been successfully served (see 

Measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties). For parties who 

have received service of process but have not appeared, 

courts should provide notice of each subsequent hearing, 

unless and until the judge orders that such notice is no 

longer necessary. 

Court staff should record in the case management system 

when a party’s location is unknown or changes from 

known to unknown. This information will make it possible 

to report separately on failures to notify parties whose 

location was known and failures to notify those whose 

location was unknown. It will also help users track and 

report on efforts to locate missing parties during ongoing 

litigation (e.g., in TPR proceedings). 

Notice to Foster Parents3 

Foster parents live with the child on a daily basis and 

typically have invaluable information for the court. Foster 

parents also participate in implementation of the case plan. 

Furthermore, foster parents often become adoptive parents 

(in fact, most foster children who are adopted are adopted 

by their foster parents). 

Some of the considerations that apply to parents, who 

are parties and must be notified of hearings (see earlier 

discussion under “Purpose”), also apply to foster parents, 

who may or may not be notified of hearings.4 

Notice to foster parents is addressed separately in Toolkit 

Measure 3F: Advance Written Notice of Hearings to Foster 

Parents, Preadopted Parents, and Relative Caregivers. A 

court may instead choose to incorporate notice to foster 

parents in Measure 3E; if so, additional issues arise (see 

discussion in Measure 3F). 

Percentage of Cases Versus Percentage 

of Hearings 

This measure is defined as the percentage of cases in 

which all parties received advance notice of all hearings. 

An alternative definition is the percentage of hearings in 

which all parties received advance notice. Using hearings 

as the basis for the calculation simplifies analysis of the 

data and makes it possible to report on hearings during 

any time period (as opposed to reporting only on closed 

cases). The two approaches are discussed further under 

“Business Rules” and “Presenting the Data.” 

Specifying When Notice Is Due 

This measure should recognize only notice that is provided 

sufficiently in advance of each hearing to give the parties 

a realistic opportunity to attend. Ideally, State laws or court 

rules should specify a deadline for mailing notices. If such 

a deadline exists, this measure should reflect it. In the 

absence of a specified deadline, the measure should use 

a reasonable timeframe. It is important that courts understand how far in advance of hearings notice is expected. 

Notice to Children 

In States where children are considered parties, they must 

receive notice and should be included in this measure. 

Elsewhere, courts should decide what constitutes best 

practice with regard to notifying children and reflect that 

practice in this measure. Ideally, State laws or court rules 

should specify circumstances in which children should 

receive notice. Regardless of whether criteria for notifying children are based on legal specifications or best 

practice, it is important that courts understand the criteria. 

State statutes or State or local court rules may specify 

whether this depends on the child’s age. Note, however, 

that a recent change in Federal law requires that the court 

“consult” with “the child” during permanency hearings.5 

This requirement has not yet been clarified by Federal 

regulations or policy. 

In any case, some courts have determined that children 

over a certain age should attend hearings and receive 

notice, unless a court order specifies otherwise. Analysis 

of this measure can be customized to reflect this and 

other definitions of best practice with regard to notifying 

children. 

Notice to Attorneys as Substitute for 

Notice to Parties 

In many types of court proceedings, it is considered sufficient to notify attorneys of future court dates without 

contacting the parties involved. Attorneys are expected 

to keep parties informed, and parties are expected to 

realize the importance of attending. In many child abuse 

113 
114 

Technical Guide
 

and neglect cases, however, attorneys for parents 

and children do not inform their clients of hearing 

dates and, in particular, do not remind parties as 

the hearing date approaches. (This problem may be 

more serious in these cases compared to other case 

types because (a) attorneys are less accountable to 

their clients, who do not pay their fees, and (b) there 

is less risk of reversal for incompetent representation compared to, for example, criminal cases.) 

Furthermore, parents involved in these cases often 

have many problems and tend not to be attentive to matters such as hearing dates. Therefore, 

it is recommended that notice to attorneys not be 

considered a sufficient substitute for notice to the 

parties themselves. A possible exception would be 

that notice to children could be made through their 

attorneys and/or guardians ad litem, perhaps based 

on age. 

Procedural Hearings 

Because individual parties need not be present at 

(or notified of) purely procedural hearings, this measure should not report on notices for these types 

of hearings.6

 Procedural hearings should be clearly 

identified as such, and court staff (and possibly 

judges) may need training in this regard. 

Notice for Different Types 

of Hearings or Parties 

A court may want to break down the data for this 

measure by type of hearing. For example, if a court 

suspects a problem with permanency hearings, 

it may want to analyze how often parties receive 

advance notice of these hearings. 

A court that wants to determine specifically who is 

not receiving advance notice may choose to break 

down the data for this measure by type of party 

(mothers, fathers, legal guardians, foster parents). 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all 

cases closed within the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), build a record in a dataset for 


each party entitled to notice for each hearing, documenting the following information for each hearing:
 

hearing date, party ID, party type, party entitled to
 

notice date, legal notice deadline, notice method of
 

delivery, and notice date.
 

4. Evaluate the data in (A) and sort the cases into two categories: (B) all parties entitled to notice received mailed 

written notice in accordance with legal deadlines for 

every hearing or (C) some parties entitled to notice did 

not receive mailed written notice in accordance with 

legal deadlines for some hearings. 

5. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

A note about the business rules: “Notice” refers to a 

mailed written notice. The types of parties entitled to notice 

include, but are not necessarily limited to, mothers and fathers; other types of parties may include, for example, legal 

guardians, foster parents, children above a certain age, 

and court-appointed special advocate (CASA) volunteers 

(see “Possible Modifications,” below.) For each hearing, it 

is necessary to determine whether each party was entitled 

to notice for that particular hearing (a father may not have 

been identified before some hearings or a CASA volunteer 

may have been appointed after the hearing). As noted 

earlier, the universe of cases in this measure may be based 

on hearings rather than cases (see “Possible Modifications,” below). 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately by type of party entitled to notice. 

2. Report separately by type of hearing. 

3. By gathering and analyzing additional data, report 

separately by age of case at closure, by type of hearing, and/or by method of notice delivery. 

4. Define the universe of cases in the report as those for 

which a specific type of hearing was held during the 

reporting period, rather than closed cases. (In hearings-based analyses, cases may be opened or closed, 

as long as the hearings were held during the selected 

date range. These analyses make it possible for the 

court to evaluate its recent performance.) 

5. Track whether each party’s current location is known; 

either exclude missing parties from reports, or report 

separately for that category. 
measure 3e: Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Party ID.
 

u	Party entitled to notice date.
 

u	Hearing date.
 

u	Notice date.
 

u	Notice method of delivery.
 

u	Legal notice deadline.
 

u	Case closure date.
 

Optional Elements 

u	Hearing date.
 

u	Abuse and neglect filing date.
 

u	Notice method of delivery.
 

u	Hearing type.
 

u	Address unknown status date.
 

u	Party type.
 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3E. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3E lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 3E–1 is a basic tabular report for this measure, 

showing the percentage of cases in which all parties 

entitled to notice received notice for every hearing and the 

percentage of cases in which at least one party who was 

entitled to notice for a particular hearing did not receive 

it. The data are based on cases closed in 2005 and are 

compared for the State’s five judicial districts. 

Sample 3E–1. Advance Notice of Hearings, by Judicial District, Cases Closed in 2005 

Judicial District 

Notice Given to All Parties for All Hearings 

Total Number 

of Cases 

Yes No 

Number of Cases Percent Number of Cases Percent 

A 121 23% 409 77% 530 

B 154 19% 671 81% 825 

C 101 23% 339 77% 440 

D 22 6% 321 94% 343 

E 35 33% 72 67% 107 

Statewide 433 19% 1,812 81% 2,245 

115 
116 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 3E–2 presents data for one court. This sample 

compares the percentage of hearings in which advance 

notice was provided versus was not provided for specific 

types of parties. 

Note that the data are based on hearings held during 2006; 

the actual cases in the sample may be either opened or 

closed. 

It is important to understand the difference between samples 3E–1 and 3E–2. Sample 3E–2 reports rates of successful notification for each type of party for all hearings 

held during a specific timeframe, whereas 3E–1 reports 

the rate of successful notification of all parties collectively 

for every hearing throughout the life of the case. 

In a State where all parties are notified in the vast majority of hearings, the analysis illustrated in sample 3E–1 

could distinguish between very good and truly excellent 

performance. Sample 3E–2, because it analyzes data by 

type of party instead of for all parties collectively, may be 

more useful in a State where notice is less consistent. In 

addition, 3E–2 enables a court to see its performance in 

notifying specific types of parties. 

The bar graph in sample 3E–3 illustrates results from the 

table in sample 3E–2. 

The table in sample 3E–4 presents additional detail for the 

data from sample 3E–2, breaking down the notification 

numbers for each type of party in two ways: notification 

success by notice delivery method, and notification failure 

by party’s location status (address known or unknown). 

Note again that the calculations in these samples are 

based on hearings, not cases. 

As in sample 3E–2, 3E–4 shows an overall notification 

success rate of 82 percent for this court, which means that 

in 82 percent of the times that a particular party was entitled to receive advance notice of a particular hearing, that 

party did receive notice—either verbally in court, through a 

written notice distributed in the courtroom, or by mail. The 

numbers in sample 3E–4 provide the following additional 

information for the court: 

u	Parties who were present in the courtroom usually 

received dual notice (i.e., both verbal and written) of 

the next hearing. However, notification was somewhat 

more common by verbal notice than by written notice, 

perhaps because some parties leave the courtroom 

before written notices are distributed. 

u	Notification by mail was far less common, perhaps 

because the court in this example only mails notices to 

those parties who do not receive written or verbal notice 

in the courtroom. 

u	The numbers of hearings for which parties did not 

receive advance notice are far larger in the “address 

unknown” column than in the “address known” column, 

indicating that lack of a current address usually was the 

reason the court failed to notify a party of a hearing. The 

“address known” column may reflect situations in which 

court staff failed to send a notice even when the party’s 

address was known. 

Sample 3E–2. Advance Notice of Hearings Held in 2006, by Party Type: Court X 

Party Type Total Parties Total Hearings 

Advance Notice Provided to Parties 

Yes No 

Number of 

Hearings Percent 

Number of 

Hearings Percent 

Mother 280 980 872 89% 108 11% 

Father 375 1,312 774 59% 538 41% 

Legal guardian 67 235 220 94% 15 6% 

CASA* 120 420 403 96% 17 4% 

Foster parent 200 700 679 97% 21 3% 

Children 100 351 340 97% 11 3% 

Other 15 52 34 65% 18 35% 

Total 1,157 4,050 3,322 82% 728 18%

 *Court-appointed special advocate. 
measure 3e: Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties 

Sample 3E–3. Advance Notice of Hearings Held in 2006, by Party Type: Court X 

4% 3% 3% 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

11% 

41% 

6% 

96% 97% 97% 

35% 

89% 94%

59% 65%

Mother Father Legal CASA Foster Children Other 

Guardian Parent 

Party Type 

Advance notice provided Advance notice not provided 

Sample 3E–4. Advance Notice of Hearings Held in 2006, by Party Type, Notice Method, and Party’s 

Location Status: Court X 

117 

Percentage of Hearings 

Party 

Type 

Total 

Parties 

Total 

Hearings 

Advance Notice Provided to Eligible Parties 

Yes No 

Number of Hearings 

Total 

Percentage of 

Hearings 

With Notice 

Provided 

Number of Hearings 

Total 

Percentage 

of 

Hearings 

With Notice 

Not 

Provided 

Verbal 

Notice 

Written 

Notice in 

Court 

Mail 

Notice 

Party’s 

Address 

Known 

Party’s 

Address 

Unknown 

Mother 280 980 632 632 240 89% 27 81 11% 

Father 375 1,312 280 267 494 59% 54 484 41% 

Legal 

guardian 

67 235 120 112 100 94% 4 11 6% 

CASA* 120 420 155 143 248 96% 4 13 4% 

Foster 

parent 

200 700 600 600 79 97% 5 16 3% 

Children 100 351 250 75 90 97% 3 8 3% 

Other 15 52 20 15 14 65% 5 13 35% 

Total 1,157 4,050 2,057 1,844 1,265 82% 102 626 18%

 *Court-appointed special advocate. 
118 

Technical Guide
 

It is also possible to mine additional information from 

the table in sample 3E–4. For example, because it is this 

court’s practice to mail notices only when parties do not 

receive verbal or written notices in court, the fact that the 

court mailed 240 notices to mothers suggests that mothers 

were absent from court in 240 out of the 980 hearings, 

or 24 percent of the time. Overall, parties may have been 

absent in 1,265 out of 4,050 hearings, or 31 percent of the 

time. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Judges’ and Attorneys’ Attentiveness 

to Notification Issues 

Court staff may be tempted to “cut corners” and not 

always provide advance written notice of hearings (e.g., 

not consistently mailing notices to parties who were absent 

from the most recent hearing). Judges and attorneys need 

to pay close attention to notification practices and insist on 

consistent written notification. 

Clarity and Specificity of State Law 

Regarding Notice to Parties 

Although any judge or attorney understands that parties 

must be notified in advance of hearing dates and times, 

some subtleties regarding notice are less widely understood. For example, if a parent missed the last hearing, 

is that parent entitled to notice of the next hearing? If a 

parent failed to appear at the adjudication, is that parent 

entitled to notice of later disposition, review, and permanency hearings? Are some, or all, putative fathers entitled 

to notice of each hearing? State laws or court rules may 

not clearly answer such questions. 

Judges and attorneys may also have questions regarding 

how notice must be provided. Is it sufficient to provide 

verbal notice in court of the time and place of the next 

hearing? Precisely what information must be included in 

that notice? Is it sufficient to provide notice of hearings 

to parents’ attorneys rather than the parents themselves? 

Must notices use a particular form or language? Again, 

State laws or court rules may not address these issues. 

Finally, State law may or may not require redundant notice 

for parties in child abuse and neglect cases. Because of 

their life situations, parents in these cases often require 

repeated assistance from the court and the child welfare agency to be clear about the court process, what is 

expected of them, and when they should appear in court. 

Redundant notices of hearings, like reminders of medical 

appointments, help to ensure that parents are present in 

court when they need to be. Maintaining a record of these 

notices also shows that parties have had ample opportunity to attend if they choose to do so. 

Judges’ and Attorneys’ Appreciation 

of the Importance of Parties’ Presence 

at Hearings 

Many judges and attorneys do not fully understand the 

importance of securing the presence of all parties at all 

substantive hearings. The earlier discussion of the purpose 

of this measure explains how the parties’ presence improves the quality of abuse and neglect litigation and how 

their absence may adversely affect outcomes for the child. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in notifying parties of hearings, the court 

should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of 

course, depend on local conditions and the court’s analysis 

of the causes of failure to notify parties. A court might, for 

example, consider the following improvements: 

u	Support a State law or adopt a State or local court rule 

setting forth specific requirements for advance notice 

of hearings. Require redundant notice (i.e., verbal and 

written notice, when possible, at the end of each hearing 

and written notice shortly before each hearing). 

u	Incorporate notice of the next hearing in the court 

order. (This step is practical only if court orders are 

consistently sent to the parties.) Alternatively, develop 

notice forms. If possible, automatically generate a 

computerized form (that already includes basic case 

information) for each hearing. The computerized form 

could have blanks for the next hearing’s date, time, and 

type, and could also include a brief generic explanation 

of hearing types. 

u	Require, as part of the court order, judicial findings 

regarding which parties were present at each hearing 

and whether absent parties had received written 

advance notice of the hearing. Specify whether parties 

were served written notice in court and by mail. 

u	In judicial and attorney training programs, include 

information regarding the importance of advance 
measure 3e: Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties 

notification of hearings and the steps judges and 

attorneys should take to ensure proper notification. 

u	Require and measure court notification of foster parents 

regarding the time, date, and location of court hearings. 

(See earlier discussion of foster parent notification.) 

u	Clarify practices regarding when notice is to be provided 

for children. For example, a court rule might require 

notification of all children over a certain age unless the 

judge specifically orders otherwise. 

u	Require that notice of hearings be provided to parties 

rather than only to attorneys for parties. 

Endnotes 

1. L.M. McWey and A.K. Mullis, “Improving the Lives of
 

Children in Foster Care: The Impact of Supervised
 

Visitation,” 53 Family Relations 293 (2004).
 

2. The “register of actions” usually is a list of official 

documents, hearings, and court orders, including dates, 

and is called a “docket” in some courts. 

3. Federal law [42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(G) as amended by 

Public Law 109–239, § 8(a) (2006)] actually requires 

notice not only of foster parents, but also of “preadoptive parents” and “relative caregivers.” For the sake 

of brevity, however, in this measure we refer only to 

notice to foster parents. Note that preadoptive parents 

caring for children nearly always are also foster parents (assuming the term “preadoptive parents” refers 

to persons actually caring for the child) and, in addition, 

relative caregivers who are not also foster parents 

generally have custody or guardianship of the child and 

therefore are independently entitled to notice as parties. Most State laws follow the language of the Federal 

law and also require notice to preadoptive parents and 

relative caregivers. 

4. Although Federal law [42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(G) as 

amended by Public Law 109–239, § 8 (a) (2006)] and 

most State statutes require that foster parents be notified of court hearings and have the opportunity to be 

heard, many courts and child welfare agencies do not 

follow through in practice. 

5. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C)(iii), as amended by Public Law 

109–171 (2006)] 

6. “Procedural hearings” refers to hearings in which the 

court may issue orders regarding the court process 

itself (i.e., the “mechanics” of the process). For 

example, such hearings may address admissibility of 

evidence, pretrial exchange of information (discovery), or how a forthcoming trial will be organized. By 

contrast, in nonprocedural (i.e., substantive) hearings, 

the court may issue orders directing parties to take (or 

refrain from taking) specific actions, or orders otherwise affecting the rights of the parties outside of court. 

Examples of substantive hearings include emergency 

removal, disposition, review, and permanency hearings. 

Although Federal law does not explicitly distinguish 

between procedural and substantive hearings, it seems 

sensible for courts and agencies to make the distinction in considering their notification practices. For the 

relevant Federal statutory language, see 42 U.S.C. 

§ 675(5)(G), as amended by Public Law 109–239, 

§ 8(a) (2006). 

119 

Advance Written Notice of Hearings 

to Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, 

and Relative Caregivers measure 3F 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases with documentation that written notice was given to foster 

parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers in advance of every hearing for which they were entitled to notice. 

Explanation: This measure shows how often foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers receive advance 

written notice of each nonprocedural hearing for which they are entitled to receive notice. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate how consistently they are providing advance written notice of hearings to foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers. 

In a broader sense, this measure is intended to encourage 

courts to notify foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers of hearings. Once courts have gathered 

data on notification consistency, they are encouraged to 

collaborate with child welfare agencies to develop effective means for promoting foster parents’ attendance at 

hearings. Although notification is not the only thing courts 

do that affects foster parents’, preadoptive parents’, and 

the court, the more important consideration is that, for 

whatever reason, foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers usually are not present at hearings.3 

As with many areas covered by Toolkit measures, notice to 

foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers 

should be a responsibility shared by agencies and courts. 

Data Collection 

relative caregivers’ attendance at hearings, notification is 

essential.1 

Having foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative 

caregivers present at hearings is important to the case 

because foster parents live with the child on a daily basis 

and typically have invaluable information for the court. 

Their input helps to ensure the accuracy and completeness 

of the information on which judges base their decisions. 

In addition, preadoptive parents and relative caregivers 

who attend hearings are more likely to understand what 

is happening in court and are in a better position to help 

implement the judge’s orders. Furthermore, preadoptive 

parents and relative caregivers often become adoptive 

parents (most foster children who are adopted are adopted 

by foster parents).2 

Implementation Issues 

Arguments Against This Measure 

Some courts may be reluctant to implement this measure 

because they feel that notifying foster parents, preadoptive 

parents, and relative caregivers of hearings is the responsibility of the child welfare agency, not the court. Although 

legally this responsibility may fall to the agency and not 

One challenge in implementing this measure is the extra 

effort that may be required to collect the necessary 

information and enter it into the computerized information 

system. Currently, most judicial information systems do 

not store information about whether (and when) notice of 

hearings is provided to foster parents, preadoptive parents, 

and relative caregivers, and few court employees are 

accustomed to entering such information. 

Methods of Notice To Be Included in 

This Measure 

Although the basic method of notice is written notice by 

mail, possible alternatives or additions to this measure can 

include, for example, verbal notice (possibly provided when 

the parties are in court or by telephone) or written notice 

handed out at the end of each hearing. It is important to 

note that because foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers typically are not required or expected 

to come to court and because Federal policy requires such 

notice only for review and permanency hearings held by 

the court,4

 foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative 

caregivers often will not be present in court to receive 

notice. 
122 

Technical Guide
 

Identifying Foster Parents, Preadoptive 

Parents, and Relative Caregivers 

To notify foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative 

caregivers, the court must first obtain their names and 

addresses from the child welfare agency. Many agencies 

currently do not provide this information. An agency may 

be concerned that some biological parents might get access to their addresses from the court file and then harass 

or interfere with the them.5 

When the court provides written notice of a hearing, the 

notice generally must appear in the court record. The 

content of the court record is available to parents and their 

attorneys. Thus, to avoid giving biological parents access to 

foster parents’, preadoptive parents’, or relative caregivers’ 

addresses, the court must ensure that any copies of the 

notice sent to them are kept in a paper file with addresses 

redacted or addresses not printed on the file copy. Online 

access to addresses is easier to control with the security 

available through automated systems. Alternatively, agencies and courts may use notice forms that do not include 

the names or addresses of foster parents, preadoptive 

parents, or relative caregivers. 

To determine who meet the definitions of foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers, we recommend that courts rely and child welfare agency definitions. 

It is worth noting that the categories of preadoptive parents 

and relative caregivers are not highly significant: First, 

preadoptive parents are nearly always also foster parents 

(assuming this term refers to persons actually caring for 

the child); second, relative caregivers who are not also 

foster parents generally have custody or guardianship and 

are therefore are full parties to the case, who are independently entitled to notice. Likewise, courts must rely primarily on child welfare agencies to identify persons serving in 

those capacities. 

Specifying When Notice Is Due 

This measure should recognize only notice that is provided 

sufficiently in advance of each hearing to give the foster 

parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers a 

realistic possibility to attend. If State laws or court rules 

specify a deadline for mailing notices, this measure should 

reflect that deadline. In the absence of a specified deadline, the measure should use a reasonable timeframe. 

Hearings for Which Notice Is Required 

Because foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative 

caregivers not having custody need not be present at 

(or notified of) purely procedural hearings, this measure 

should not report on notices for these types of hearings.6 

Procedural hearings should be clearly identified as such, 

and court staff (and possibly judges) may need training in 

this regard. 

As noted above, Federal policy interpreting the recent 

Federal statutory amendment states that notice to foster 

parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers is 

required only for review and permanency hearings. Some 

States have chosen, however, to require such notice at all 

nonprocedural hearings where children are placed in foster 

care. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases
 

closed within the date range selected. (A)
 

3. For each case in (A), build a record in a dataset for 

foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative 

caregivers entitled to notice for each nonprocedural 

hearing, documenting the following information for 

each hearing: hearing date, party ID, party type, party 

entitled to notice date, legal notice deadline, notice 

method of delivery, and notice date. 

4. Evaluate the data in (A) and sort the cases into two 

categories: (B) foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers entitled to notice received mailed 

written notice in accordance with legal deadlines for 

every hearing or (C) some foster parents, preadoptive 

parents, and relative caregivers entitled to notice did 

not receive mailed written notice in accordance with 

legal deadlines for some hearings. 

5. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

A note about the business rules: “Notice” refers to a 

mailed written notice. 
measure 3F: Advance Written Notice of Hearings to 

Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, and Relative Caregivers 

Possible Modifications 

1. By gathering and analyzing additional data, report 

separately by age of case at closure, by type of hearing, and/or by method of notice delivery. 

2. Define the universe of cases in the report as those for 

which a specific type of hearing was held during the 

reporting period, rather than closed cases. (In hearingsbased analyses, cases may be opened or closed, as 

long as the hearings were held during the selected 

date range. These analyses make it possible for the 

court to evaluate its recent performance.) 

3. Calculate notice to foster parents, preadoptive parents, 

and relative caregivers for different hearing types. 

4. Calculate notice to foster parents, preadoptive parents, 

and relative caregivers only for review and permanency 

hearings. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Party ID. 

u	Party type (foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers). 

u	Party entitled to notice date. 

u	Hearing start date. 

u	Notice date. 

u	Legal notice deadline. 

u	Case closure date. 

Optional Elements 

u	Abuse and neglect petition date. 

u	Notice method of delivery. 

u	Hearing type. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3F. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3F lends itself 

to a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. The two 

samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious 

State to demonstrate how results for this measure might 

be reported in tables and graphs. 

Samples 3F–1 and 3F–2 both report basic findings for 

the measure—the percentage of cases in which foster 

parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers did 

versus did not receive written notice for every nonprocedural hearing—for individual courts in one judicial district. 

In addition to these samples, tables, bar graphs, and pie 

charts can be used to show how different districts compare to each other and to the State as a whole. Trend lines 

can be used to illustrate performance over time. See other 

measures for examples. 

Sample 3F–1. Advance Notice of Hearings to Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, and Relative 

Caregivers, by Court, Cases Closed in 2006: Judicial District A 

Court 

Notice Provided to Foster Parents for All Hearings 

Total Number 

of Cases 

Yes No 

Number of Cases Percent Number of Cases Percent 

A 160 64% 89 36% 249 

B 155 78% 45 23% 200 

C 115 44% 145 56% 260 

D 123 41% 180 59% 303 

E 220 50% 220 50% 440 

Districtwide 773 53% 679 47% 1,452 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 123 
124 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 3F–2. Advance Notice of Hearings to Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, and Relative 

Caregivers, by Court, Cases Closed in 2006: Judicial District A Percentage of Cases 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

78% 

64% 

44% 

41% 

50% 53% 

A B C D E Judicial 

District A 

Total 

Factors That May Affect 

Results 

Judges’ Appreciation of the 

Importance of Foster Parents, 

Preadoptive Parents, and Relative 

Caregivers’ Presence at Hearings 

Judges who understand why it is important for foster 

parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers to be 

present in court are more likely to require notice to them. 

Attentiveness to Notification of 

Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, 

and Relative Caregivers 

If a court does not recognize its responsibility for notifying 

foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers 

of hearings, it is unlikely to communicate the importance 

of timely notice to court staff and child welfare agency 

caseworkers, who in turn may not make the extra effort 

required to notify those who did not attend the most recent 

hearing. Judges, child advocates, and agency administrators and supervisors all need to share responsibility for 

ensuring notification of them by paying close attention 

to notification practices and insisting that court staff and 

caseworkers consistently provide timely notice. 

Clarity and Specificity of State Law 

Regarding Notice to Foster Parents, 

Preadoptive Parents, and Relative 

Caregivers 

Judges and attorneys may have questions regarding how 

notice should be provided to foster parents, preadoptive 

parents, and relative caregivers. For example, is it 

sufficient to provide verbal notice in court of the time and 

place of the next hearing? For reasons discussed above, 

we recommend notice by mail as well as verbal and written 

notice at hearings. 

Other questions are precisely what information must be 

included in the notice? Must notices use a particular form 

or language? State laws may or may not address these 

issues, and they should be addressed in forms or court 

rules. 

Judicial Workloads 

Because it takes time to supervise the consistent provision 

of advance notice to foster parents, preadoptive parents, 

and relative caregivers, judicial workloads may affect the 

results for this measure. 
measure 3F: Advance Written Notice of Hearings to 

Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, and Relative Caregivers 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in notifying foster parents, preadoptive 

parents, and relative caregivers of hearings, the court 

should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of 

course, depend on local conditions and the court’s analysis 

of the causes of failure to notify foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers. A court might, for 

example, consider the following improvements: 

u	Introduce a State law or local court rule setting forth 

specific requirements for notifying foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers of hearings. 

u	Incorporate notice of the next hearing in the court 

order. (This step is practical only if court orders are 

consistently sent to the parties.) Alternatively, develop 

notice forms. If possible, automatically generate a 

computerized form (that already includes basic case 

information) for each hearing. The computerized form 

could have blanks for the next hearing’s date, time, and 

type, and could also include a brief generic explanation 

of hearing types. 

u	In judicial and attorney training programs, include 

information regarding the importance of notice to foster 

parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers 

and the steps judges and attorneys should take to 

ensure proper notification. 

u	Analyze judicial workloads and use the results of this 

analysis to improve scheduling practices so judges 

have more time to attend to matters such as notification 

of foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative 

caregivers. 

Endnotes 

1. Although Federal law [42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(G), as 

amended by Public Law 109–239, § 8(a) (2006)] 

and many State statutes require that foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers be notified 

of court hearings and have the opportunity to be heard, 

many courts and child welfare agencies do not follow 

through in practice. 

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 

Interim Estimates for FY 2003 as of June 2006 (10), 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb. 

3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 

Findings From the Initial 2001–2004 Child and Family 

Services Reviews, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb. In 

many States, child welfare agencies, as opposed to 

courts, are required by law to notify foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers of hearings. Even in those States, however, foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers report that 

they do not consistently receive notices from agencies. 

Although courts in many States are not legally required 

to notify foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers of hearings, a recent amendment 

to Federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 638(b), as amended by 

Public Law 109–239, § 8(b) (2006), now calls on 

courts to at least ensure that notice is provided. Under 

this amendment, the adoption of a court rule requiring notice to foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers is a condition of maintaining the 

courts’ eligibility to receive Federal funds for the Court 

Improvement Project. 

4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, Administration 

on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 

Federal Child Welfare Policy Manual, TITLE IV–E, Foster 

Care Maintenance Payments Program, State Plan/ 

Procedural Requirements, § 8.3C.2b, Case review 

system, notice and right to be heard. 

5. Although it is generally good practice for biological parents to have the addresses of foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers, some 

biological parents involved in child abuse and neglect 

cases (e.g., those whose backgrounds include violent 

criminal offenses or mental health problems such as 

serious conduct disorders) should not be trusted with 

such information. 

6. “Procedural hearings” refers to hearings in which the 

court may issue orders regarding the court process itself (i.e., the “mechanics” of the process). For example, 

such hearings may address admissibility of evidence, 

pretrial exchange of information (discovery), or how a 

forthcoming trial will be organized. By contrast, in nonprocedural (i.e., substantive) hearings, the court may 

issue orders directing parties to take (or refrain from 

taking) specific actions, or orders otherwise affecting 

the rights of the parties outside of court. Examples 

125 
Technical Guide
 

126 

of substantive hearings include emergency removal, 

disposition, review, and permanency hearings. 

Although Federal law does not explicitly distinguish 

between procedural and substantive hearings, it seems 

sensible for courts and agencies to make the distinction in considering their notification practices. For the 

relevant Federal statutory language, see 42 U.S.C. 

§ 675(5)(G), as amended by Public Law 109–239, 

§ 8(a) (2006). 
measure 3G 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which legal counsel for the government or other petitioner and 

for other parties who have been served is present at every hearing. 

Explanation: This measure shows how consistently advocates are present in court during hearings. The measure includes 

the government, the petitioner, and other parties who have received service of process. It does not include potential parties 

who have not been served (e.g., a missing parent), because the court generally does not appoint counsel for such parties.1 

(See Toolkit Measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties.) 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate whether the government, the petitioner, and other parties who have been served are 

consistently represented by advocates at hearings. 

It is important for advocates to participate in court hearings 

throughout the litigation for a number of reasons: 

u	The stakes are high. Hearings affect the immediate 

lives and the futures of children and their families. At 

stake are the well-being of the child and the survival 

of the family as a unit. Because the stakes are so high, 

issues that often arise in abuse and neglect cases, such 

as the rights of unwed and noncustodial fathers; the 

rights to notice, confrontation, and cross-examination 

of witnesses (in hearings where rules of evidence do 

not apply); Federal requirements affecting child abuse 

and neglect; and State and Federal confidentiality and 

privacy laws and rules. 

Presence of Advocates 

During Hearings 

each party must be represented by a well-trained 

advocate. 

u	Advocates have a major impact during hearings. 

Advocates decide which facts to present to the judge, 

thus largely determining the facts on which the judge’s 

decision is based. Advocates also help to frame the 

arguments and issues for the judge. Advocates who are 

attorneys decide what laws, legal principles, and legal 

arguments to assert. 

u	Parties need knowledgeable representation. Without 

counsel, many important facts known to parties—as 

well as parties’ points of view—may not be heard. 

Parents may not be fully literate, children and youth 

cannot advocate effectively for themselves, and child 

welfare agency caseworkers often can be overwhelmed 

by opposing counsel. In addition, parties may not 

understand the relevance or appreciate the importance 

of particular facts or may not know how to present the 

facts effectively. 

u	Advocates make valuable contributions to judicial 

decisions. To make the best decisions for children and 

families, judges need to hear balanced and complete 

facts and legal arguments. Advocates can provide the 

needed facts and clearly articulate the parties’ points 

of view. They can also address the challenging legal 

u	Advocates need to be present in court to build or 

shape the record. Important facts may be introduced 

during review hearings and permanency hearings. 

Parties may make critical admissions, and evidence 

may be presented regarding services to families. When 

elicited in earlier hearings, this type of information 

can be used (if necessary) to impeach witnesses who 

later testify to the contrary. Advocates can rely on 

such information to narrow the factual issues (through 

stipulation) for later hearings. Parties can propose 

factual findings or instructions to parties, intending 

to ask the judge to take judicial notice (e.g., of the 

court-approved case plan and the court order directing 

the parties to comply with the case plan) later in the 

process. 

u	Caseworkers may be barred from appearing 

without counsel. A caseworker who represents an 

agency in court without counsel may be engaging in 

the unauthorized practice of law. At least one State 

supreme court has so held. Because of laws against the 

unauthorized practice of law, some judges have barred 

caseworkers from appearing without counsel. 

For related discussions of the importance of involving 

children’s advocates and parents’ attorneys in the 

emergency removal hearing, see Toolkit Measure 3C: Early 
128 

Technical Guide
 

Appointment of Advocates for Children and Measure 3D: 

Early Appointment of Counsel for Parents. 

Implementation Issues 

Need for This Measure 

Some courts may feel that this measure is unnecessary 

because they already know how often attorneys appear 

at hearings. In many courts, either all types of attorneys 

are nearly always present in court, or certain categories of 

attorneys routinely do not appear in certain types of hearings. In either case, implementing this measure may not be 

worth the effort, especially if a court’s performance in this 

area is already obvious to all. 

However, in States that are creating statewide judicial 

performance measurement, this measure can be invaluable, because presence of advocates in hearings may 

vary from court to court (or even among judges within a 

county or judicial district). Furthermore, this measure can 

help a court see which types of hearings advocates miss 

most often and which types of advocates most often miss 

hearings. 

Which Hearings To Include in This 

Measure 

It may not be necessary for all advocates to attend isolated 

types of hearings (e.g., certain uncontested motions). However, court systems should think carefully before excluding 

a specific type of hearing from this measure. All substantive hearings should be included whether contested or not; 

these include emergency removal, adjudication, disposition, 

review, permanency, and termination of parental rights 

(TPR) hearings. Most procedural hearings should also be 

included. 

Presence of Advocates for Parties Who 

Do Not Receive Service of Process 

It is recommended that this measure not count the presence or absence of advocates for parties who have not 

yet been served or have not become active parties in the 

litigation. Courts generally are not expected to appoint 

counsel for parties not served, nor should they be.2 For 

calculations of how consistently parties receive service of 

process, see Measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties. 

Of course, some parties do not require service of process. 

The petitioner becomes a party by filing the petition. Usually, the government files the petition and thereby becomes 

a party. In those relatively unusual cases where private 

individuals file abuse or neglect petitions, the government 

is either served or otherwise joined as a party. In any case, 

because it is a party, the government should be included in 

this measure, and it is important that the government be 

represented by counsel. 

Parents Who Waive the Right to 

Counsel or Are Financially Ineligible 

for Appointed Counsel 

Another question is whether, for purposes of this measure, 

parent’s counsel should be considered absent from court if 

a parent has waived the right to court-appointed counsel. 

A court may feel that such absences should be excluded 

from the measure because the parent has declined 

representation. However, because waivers of counsel may 

be encouraged by some courts (and therefore prevalent), 

excluding them from this measure is not recommended. 

Instead, it is recommended that the measure be enhanced 

to calculate separately absences attributable to waiver of 

counsel. 

Courts may also be interested in the proportion of parents 

who are found to be financially ineligible for appointed 

counsel.3

 It is recommended that courts consider calculating separately absences of counsel for parents who were 

financially ineligible for appointed counsel. 

The reason for recommending that waivers and financial 

ineligibility not be excluded from this measure is that the 

percentage of parents who are not represented by legal 

counsel—for these reasons—may reflect on the quality of 

court performance. Some judges and court staff discourage representation, whereas others encourage it. Some 

jurisdictions have stricter financial screening requirements 

than others; in some States, requirements vary from 

county to county. A high rate of representation generally 

reflects a high level of court performance. 

Entering the Data 

Data entry for this measure may require additional work for 

court staff. In every hearing, someone must observe and 

record whether the advocate for each party is present. In 

many jurisdictions, court staff already routinely record this 

information in the minute order (a short summary of the 
measure 3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings 

hearing prepared by court staff) or the official court order. 

The challenge is to modify the automated management 

information system in a way that avoids duplication of 

effort. Courts may need to work with information systems 

personnel to develop the most efficient and effective data 

entry method.4 

If court staff do not already enter such information as part 

of their duties, persuading them to do so may present a 

challenge. As with other performance measures, court 

administrators must be committed to ensuring that the 

necessary information is consistently and accurately 

recorded. 

Reporting on Different Categories 

of Advocates 

It is important for judges and court administrators to 

know whether certain categories of advocates are absent 

from hearings more often than others. Having this kind 

of information makes it easier to diagnose and correct a 

problem.5 Advocates may be categorized, for example, as 

private attorneys, court-appointed attorneys, government 

attorneys, court-appointed special advocate (CASA) volunteers, or guardians ad litem (GALs). Advocates may also be 

categorized according to the type of party they represent: 

mothers, fathers, legal guardians, child welfare agencies, 

and children. 

Percentage of Cases Versus Percentage 

of Hearings 

This measure is defined as the percentage of cases in 

which parties are represented by legal counsel at every 

hearing. An alternative definition is the percentage of hearings in which these advocates are present. If advocates 

are frequently absent, the percentage of cases in which 

advocates were present at all hearings will be extremely 

low, and a hearings-based calculation may produce more 

informative results. If, on the other hand, advocates are 

rarely absent, a hearings-based percentage will be very 

high, and a case-based calculation may be more informative. Another consideration is that a hearings-based calculation makes it possible to report on hearings during any 

time period (as opposed to reporting only on closed cases). 

Reporting on Different Categories of 

Hearings 

In many courts, advocates are most often absent from 

particular categories of hearings, such as emergency 

removal hearings or review hearings. Reporting separately 

on categories of hearings can help courts and the State 

court system diagnose why legal representation is lacking 

in these hearings. 

Cross-Tabulating Categories of 

Advocates and Hearings 

The ability to determine which categories of advocates 

consistently attend or miss specific categories of hearings 

can be helpful. Although this level of detail may not be 

necessary in routine reports, it is useful to build into the 

system the capacity to generate such reports as the need 

arises. 

Identifying Individual Advocates 

This measure may also be enhanced to identify individual 

advocates present at hearings. This will make it possible to 

determine the percentage of attorneys who neither attend 

hearings nor secure substitutes to attend on their behalf. 

(Note, however, that this measure differs from Measure 

3I: Continuity of Advocates for Children and Measure 3J: 

Continuity of Counsel for Parents.) This would also make 

it possible for courts to identify attorneys who are frequently absent and to reprimand them or drop them from 

appointment lists. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases
 

closed within the date range selected. (A)
 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each hearing, 

documenting whether legal counsel was present for 

each party served prior to that hearing. Then sort the 

cases in (A) into two categories: (B) all parties were 

represented by counsel at every hearing or (C) some 

parties were not represented by counsel at some 

hearings. 

129 
130 

Technical Guide
 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

A note about the business rules: Exclude from the record 

for each hearing any party (other than the government and 

the petitioner) who had not received service of process 

at the time of the hearing. But for emergency removal 

hearings occurring prior to adjudication, count attorneys 

for all parties served prior to adjudication, whether or not 

such parties were served prior to the emergency removal 

hearing. 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report on how consistently the three main categories 

of advocates (attorneys for parents, attorneys for the 

government,6

 and advocates for children) were present 

at all hearings. In addition, report detail for different 

categories of children’s advocates (e.g., distinguish 

between children’s attorneys and nonattorney representatives such as GALs or CASA volunteers), and 

distinguish between mothers’ and fathers’ attorneys. 

2. In addition to, or instead of, basing calculations on the 

percentage of cases in which advocates were present 

for all parties (or in which different categories of advocates were present) at all hearings, base calculations 

on the percentage of hearings in which all advocates 

(or different categories) were or were not present. (In 

hearings-based analyses, cases may be opened or 

closed, as long as the hearings were held during the 

selected date range. These analyses make it possible 

for the court to evaluate its recent performance.) 

3. Report separately on specific categories of hearings 

(e.g., emergency removal, adjudication, disposition, 

review, permanency, TPR). The universe for the calculation could be either all hearings in the selected date 

range, or all cases closed in the selected date range. 

4. Report on the percentages of specific categories of 

hearings in which specific categories of advocates are 

present. 

5. Report separately by demographic categories, such
 

as child’s race/ethnicity and age.
 

6. Report separately on absence of representation for 

parties who have waived their right to court-appointed 

counsel and/or parties found to be financially ineligible for court-appointed counsel. (The alternative of 

excluding such absences from the calculation is not 

recommended.) 

7. By gathering data on attendance at hearings by individual advocates, report on the percentage of advocates who neither attend hearings nor send substitutes 

on their behalf. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Party ID. 

u	Party type. 

u	Service of process date. 

u	Advocate ID. 

u	Appointment of advocate date-time. 

u	Advocate-party link. 

u	Advocate present at hearing. 

u	Hearing date. 

Optional Elements 

u	Advocate type. 

u	Hearing type. 

u	Waiver of counsel. 

u	Financial ineligibility of parents for appointed counsel. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3G. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3G lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 
measure 3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 3G–1 is a basic tabular report for this measure, 

showing the percentage of cases in which all parties were 

versus were not represented by legal counsel at every 

hearing. The data are based on cases closed in 2006 and 

are compared for the State’s six judicial districts. 

Although the percentage of cases with full representation 

may seem low, such a conclusion could be misleading. In 

fact, with the exception of Judicial Districts E and F, the 

percentages in the table suggest the following: 

u	No categories of hearings or parties are consistently 

lacking legal representation (if either were the case, the 

percentages would be much lower). 

u	It is likely that in any given hearing, all parties were 

represented. 

To understand why this is the case, assume the following 

is true for Judicial District F: All parties except the government were represented 100 percent of the time. Government attorneys were present 100 percent of the time 

in every type of hearing except for emergency removal 

hearings where, as a matter of longstanding practice, they 

were never present. In 96 percent of the cases brought to 

court, an emergency removal hearing is held, because the 

child welfare agency seldom brings cases to court without 

first removing a child from home. Therefore, because most 

cases have an emergency removal hearing, and because 

in these hearings one party (the government) is unrepresented, it follows that in less than 4 percent of cases are 

all parties represented in all hearings in the case. 

This example demonstrates how a court can have a very 

low percentage for this measure even when all parties 

are represented in the vast majority of hearings. As noted 

earlier, reporting on the percentage of cases with full representation at every hearing (as opposed to the percentage of hearings with full representation) is most useful in 

States where attendance by counsel is generally high, as 

in this hypothetical example. In such States, a case-based 

measure can serve as a sensitive indicator of the performance of different courts or districts. If a hearing-based 

measure were used, the percentages in the table would be 

much higher (and more favorable) but less informative. 

The bar graph in sample 3G–2 illustrates the data from the 

table in sample 3G–1. 

The table in sample 3G–3 presents legal representation 

percentages by type of hearing, for one juvenile court that 

hears dependency cases only. The data are based on hearings held during July–December 2006 and include both 

opened and closed cases. 

The kind of information in sample 3G–3 is a valuable addition to that presented in 3G–1. A key piece of information 

in 3G–3 is that emergency removal hearings and reviews 

generally did not have full representation for all parties. 

On the other hand, all parties were usually represented at 

most of the other types of hearings. It is also possible to 

infer that it is not a matter of uniform policy or practice for 

any one category of advocates (e.g., parents’ attorneys) not 

to attend a specific type of hearing; if that were the case, 

Sample 3G–1. Legal Representation of Parties at Hearings, by Judicial District, Cases Closed in 2006 

Judicial District 

All Parties Represented at All Hearings in Case 

Total Number of Cases 

Yes No 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

A 175 80% 43 20% 218 

B 24 50% 24 50% 48 

C 78 62% 48 38% 126 

D 65 44% 82 56% 147 

E 34 11% 275 89% 309 

F 6 4% 153 96% 159 

Statewide 382 38% 625 62% 1,007 

131 
Technical Guide
 

132 

Percentage of Cases 

Sample 3G–2. Legal Representation of Parties at Hearings, by Judicial District, Cases Closed in 2006 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

20% 50% 38% 56% 89% 96% 

80% 

11% 

62% 

50% 62% 44%

11% 

38% 

Judicial Judicial Judicial Judicial Judicial Judicial Statewide 

District A District B District C District D District E District F 

Some Parties Not Always Represented at Hearings in Case 

All Parties Represented at All Hearings in Case 

Sample 3G–3. Legal Representation of Parties at Hearings During July–December 2006, 

by Type of Hearing: Court X 

Type of Hearing 

All Parties Represented 

Total Number of 

Hearings 

Yes No 

Number 

of Hearings Percent 

Number 

of Hearings Percent 

Emergency Removal 35 10% 320 90% 355 

Adjudication 220 82% 48 18% 268 

Disposition 230 81% 54 19% 284 

Permanency 194 67% 95 33% 289 

Review 43 20% 167 80% 210 

TPR* 12 100% 0 0% 12 

Average 734 52% 684 48% 1,418 

*Termination of parental rights. 
measure 3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings 

the percentage for that type of hearing would be zero. It 

is, however, quite possible that certain individual attorneys 

consistently did not attend emergency removal hearings 

and review hearings. The ability to identify such attorneys 

could be a useful additional function for the system. 

The bar graph in sample 3G–4 illustrates the data from the 

table in sample 3G–3. 

The table in sample 3G–5 is similar to sample 3G–3 but 

breaks down legal representation by type of party rather 

than type of hearing. Sample 3G–5 reports on the percentage of parties who were represented by counsel at every 

hearing held during July–December 2006. It indicates 

that legal representation was least consistent for fathers 

and guardians. Such data can help the court and the child 

welfare agency identify what changes may be needed in 

representation practices. 

The line graph in sample 3G–6 looks at party-specific 

representation trends over a 3-year period, enabling the 

court to assess whether changes in representation policies 

are having the desired effect. The graph shows that, with 

one exception (child welfare agencies), representation of 

parties has improved since 2004; the improvement is most 

notable for fathers (from 18 percent in 2004 to 38 percent 

133 

Sample 3G–4. Legal Representation of Parties at Hearings During July–December 2006, 

by Type of Hearing: Court X 

100% 

Emergency Adjudication Disposition Permanency Review TPR* Average 

Removal 

Type of Hearing 

*Termination of parental rights. 

Sample 3G–5. Legal Representation of Parties at Hearings During July–December 2006, 

by Type of Party: Court X 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

100% 

Percentage of Hearings With All 

Parties Represented 

10% 

82% 81% 

67% 

20% 

52% 

Type of Party 

Party Represented at All Hearings 

Total Number of 

Parties 

Yes No 

Number 

of Parties Percent 

Number 

of Parties Percent 

Mother 480 65% 260 35% 740 

Father 201 38% 325 62% 526 

Agency 465 54% 404 46% 869 

Guardian 42 33% 87 67% 129 

Child 620 61% 400 39% 1,020 

Average 1,808 55% 1,476 45% 3,284 
 

134 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 3G–6. Legal Representation of Parties of Hearings During 2004–2006, 

by Type of Party: Court X 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Percentage of Parties 

Represented at All Hearings 

in 2006). Note that this kind of graph can become difficult 

to read if there are too many lines crossing at too many 

points. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

State Laws and Local Court Rules 

State laws and court rules may (1) require advocates, 

particularly attorneys, to be present during all hearings; 

and (2) clarify whether presentation of the child welfare 

agency’s case by a caseworker without an attorney present constitutes unauthorized practice of law at every type 

of hearing. 

Judges’ Expectations 

If State laws or court rules do not clearly specify representation requirements, individual judges must decide whether 

it is acceptable for a party not to be represented by an 

attorney or other advocate, either in individual instances or 

routinely for particular categories of hearings. 

Standards for Advocates 

States can adopt standards that address the attendance 

issue for any category of advocate. Many States have 

adopted standards for children’s attorneys, calling for them 

to appear at every hearing. The American Bar Association 

(ABA) has adopted such standards for attorneys representing children, parents, and child welfare agencies.7 The 

National CASA Association (based in Seattle, Washington) 

sets standards for CASA programs; individual programs 

may have policies requiring CASA volunteers to be present 

at all substantive hearings. 

Review and Enforcement of Laws, 

Rules, and Standards 

For State laws, court rules, and standards to be fully effective, processes must be in place for evaluating how well 

they are implemented and for systematically enforcing 

them. This can be done in various ways.8

 Implementing 

this performance measure can help a jurisdiction monitor and enforce compliance with legal requirements and 

standards regarding advocates’ participation in hearings. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in legal representation at hearings, the 

court should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms 

will, of course, depend on local conditions and the court’s 

analysis of the causes of incomplete representation. A court 

might, for example, consider the following improvements: 

2004 2005 2006 

18% 

25% 33%

48% 

23% 

38% 

56% 

59% 

54% 

61% 

65% 

79% 68%

57% 

Mother Father Agency Guardian Child 
measure 3G: Presence of Advocates During Hearings 

u	Introduce a State law or local court rule requiring 

attorneys and other advocates for all parties (including 

attorneys for the government) to be at all hearings 

following their appointment. 

u	Adopt standards for all categories of attorneys—those 

representing parents, children, and the government— 

requiring their presence at all hearings. 

u	Clarify requirements regarding the unauthorized practice 

of law, to make it clear that caseworkers cannot 

represent child welfare agencies in court without the 

presence of an attorney. 

u	Systematically enforce laws, rules, and standards calling 

for the participation of attorneys (and other advocates, 

such as CASA volunteers) in all hearings. 

u	In judicial and attorney training programs, include 

information about the importance of attorney 

involvement in all hearings. 

Endnotes 

1. A few jurisdictions appoint counsel for missing parents 

(see discussion under “Presence of Advocates for 

Parties Who Do Not Receive Service of Process,” and 

endnote 2). In such jurisdictions, this measure might be 

modified accordingly. 

2. Some jurisdictions do require the appointment of 

attorneys for missing fathers to help ensure that 

they receive notice and to represent their interests. 

This practice is not recommended, because (a) there 

are more efficient and cost-effective ways to ensure 

reasonable efforts to locate and notify fathers (e.g., 

imposing this obligation on agency and court staff) 

and (b) attorneys have no way to know the wishes and 

interests of missing fathers. 

3. In some States, financial eligibility criteria for appointed 

counsel are inconsistent or are inconsistently applied. If 

a State has uniform criteria for court-appointed counsel 

and uniform processes for financial screening, measuring the proportion of parents who are denied courtappointed counsel is less important. 

4. One technical solution to minimizing the data entry 

burden is to program the computer screen default to 

attorneys who attended previous hearings and then 

require staff to either affirm that all were present at the 

current hearing or make changes to reflect who was, 

or was not, there. Check boxes might be used for this 

purpose. 

5. If, for example, government attorneys frequently miss 

hearings, solutions may include developing and enforcing standards and rules of attendance for government 

attorneys, and clarifying State law and policy regarding 

the unauthorized practice of law by unrepresented 

caseworkers. 

6. Attorneys for the government may include attorneys 

employed by the State or local child welfare agency, 

attorneys employed by the State attorney general, 

employees of the county attorney or district attorney, 

or private attorneys retained by the agency. 

7. The National Association of Counsel for Children has 

endorsed the ABA standards for children’s attorneys 

(with slight modifications) as well as the ABA standards 

for government attorneys and parents’ attorneys. 

8. For example, in at least one State, attorneys who 

request payment of fees for representing children must 

describe how they have complied with a number of 

requirements, including attendance at hearings. Attendance by government attorneys can be enforced by 

the employing government entity or by the court. 

135 

measure 3H 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which parties who have been served are present at every 

substantive hearing.1 

Explanation: This measure shows how often parties attend substantive court hearings. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate how consistently parties are present at substantive hearings. 

It is important for parties to participate in substantive court 

hearings throughout the litigation for a number of reasons: 

u	The stakes are high. Hearings affect the immediate 

lives and the futures of children and their families. At 

stake are the well-being of the child and the survival 

of the family as a unit. 

u	Parties have a major impact on hearings. Parties 

often have the best knowledge of the pertinent facts, 

which they can share with their advocates to present 

to the judge during the hearing. Parties can ensure that 

u	Parties should experience the full emotional impact 

of the hearing. If they do not attend hearings, parties 

may find it easier to disregard the court process and 

may feel alienated from it. It is especially important that 

the judge’s instructions and cautions have an impact 

on parents, who often must modify deeply ingrained 

behaviors. A child who is old enough to understand the 

proceedings may benefit from being present during the 

exchange between the judge and the parents, and the 

child’s presence may also affect the parents’ response. 

Caseworkers should be present when court orders 

Presence of Parties 

During Hearings 

advocates understand their point of view and advance 

arguments to the judge with that point of view in mind. 

u	Not attending hearings places parties at a distinct 

disadvantage. Without access to parties during 

hearings, advocates are less effective in arguing on their 

behalf. Furthermore, absence from hearings may create 

the impression that a party is not concerned with the 

outcome of the litigation or may cause the judge to be 

less mindful of the party’s interests and concerns. 

u	Attending hearings facilitates parties’ compliance 

with court orders. When parties are present at 

hearings, the judge can address orders and instructions 

directly to them and will be in a stronger position to hold 

them accountable for compliance. In addition, parties 

will be more likely to fully understand what is expected 

of them. They can observe the judge and listen to verbal 

pronouncements, which may include important details 

that are missing from written court orders. 

u	Parties who attend hearings can contribute to the 

record. When parties are present at hearings, they can 

help the advocates and judge develop a full record of 

the case. For example, during review and permanency 

hearings, both advocates and judges should have the 

opportunity to question the parties regarding their 

compliance with the case plan and their progress 

toward case goals. 

are issued, so they are motivated to follow the court’s 

instructions. 

For related discussion, see Toolkit Measure 3E: Advance 

Notice of Hearings to Parties. 

Implementation Issues 

Need for This Measure 

Some courts may be reluctant to implement this measure 

because they feel that it is the responsibility of the parties 

or the parties’ representatives, not the court, to ensure that 

parties appear at hearings. Courts may feel that parties 

who do not appear are demonstrating their lack of commitment to achieving a favorable case outcome. 

Although these views have some validity, there is much 

that courts can do to encourage attendance at hearings, and there are important reasons for doing so. Most 

importantly, the involvement of parties helps to achieve 

successful outcomes for abuse and neglect cases. Furthermore, it is understandable that the parents in these cases 

may sometimes fail to appear, given the likelihood that 

their lives are in turmoil, that the court process may seem 

strange and even frightening to them, and that the hearings may seem uneventful and difficult to understand. 
138 

Technical Guide
 

Therefore, courts should measure how often parties attend 

hearings and should set a goal of achieving high rates of 

attendance. 

Presence of the Caseworker 

It is recommended that courts measure the presence 

or absence in court of the primary caseworker as the 

representative of the government. The primary caseworker 

is the child welfare agency employee who maintains direct 

contact with the parents, child, and foster parents and is 

responsible for developing and implementing the case 

plan. The primary caseworker’s presence in court is important because valuable information may be omitted from the 

caseworker’s written report to the court and may become 

apparent only during questioning at the hearing. 

If the primary caseworker changes shortly before a hearing, and the former caseworker still works for the agency, 

both the former and current caseworker should appear at 

the hearing. 

Presence of Parties Who Have Not 

Received Service of Process 

An important consideration for this measure is whether 

to count the presence or absence of parties (especially 

fathers) who have not become active parties in the 

litigation. Because fathers often cannot be located and 

notified, and because their involvement in court proceedings is an important consideration, it is recommended that 

this measure count their presence or absence if they have 

been served, regardless of whether they have become 

active parties. For calculations of how consistently all 

parties receive service of process, see Toolkit Measure 3B: 

Service of Process to Parties. 

Similarly, because service of process generally cannot 

have occurred prior to emergency removal hearings, when 

counting parties present at that hearing, it is logical to 

count the presence or absence of parties not yet served 

(including at least one father) for the purpose of this 

measure. 

Entering the Data 

Data entry for this measure may require additional work for 

court staff. In every hearing, someone must observe and 

record whether each party is present. In many jurisdictions, 

court staff already routinely record this information in the 

minute order (a short summary of the hearing prepared by 

court staff) or the official court order. The challenge is to 

modify the automated management information system in 

a way that avoids duplication of effort. Courts may need to 

work with information systems personnel to develop the 

most efficient and effective data entry method.2 

If court staff do not already enter such information as part 

of their duties, persuading them to do so may present a 

challenge. As with other performance measures, court 

administrators must be committed to ensuring that the 

necessary information is consistently and accurately 

recorded. 

Reporting on Different Categories 

of Parties 

It is important for judges and court administrators to 

know whether certain categories of parties are absent 

from hearings more often than others. Having this kind 

of information makes it easier to diagnose and correct a 

problem.3

 Categories of parties whose presence in court 

might be computed separately include mothers, fathers, 

primary caseworkers, age-appropriate children, and legal 

guardians. 

Reporting on Different Categories 

of Hearings 

In many courts, parties are most often absent from 

particular categories of hearings, such as emergency 

removal hearings or review hearings. Reporting separately 

on categories of hearings can help courts determine 

whether this is the case. 

Cross-Tabulating Categories of Parties 

and Hearings 

The ability to determine which categories of parties consistently attend or miss specific categories of hearings can be 

helpful.4 Although this level of detail may not be necessary 

in routine reports, it is useful to build into the system the 

capacity to generate such reports as the need arises. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases
 

closed within the date range selected. (A)
 
measure 3H: Presence of Parties During Hearings 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each substantive hearing, documenting whether each party was 

present. Then, sort the cases in (A) into two categories: 

(B) all hearings were attended by all parties or (C) some 

hearings were not attended by all parties. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A). 


A note about the business rules: In general, exclude from 

the record for each hearing any party (other than the government and the petitioner) who had not received service 

of process at the time of the hearing. But for emergency 

removal hearings occurring prior to adjudication, count all 

parties served prior to adjudication, whether or not served 

prior to the emergency removal hearing. 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report on attendance of all parties for each type of
 

substantive hearing (emergency removal hearings,
 

adjudication, disposition, etc.).
 

2. Report on attendance by each party type (mother,
 

father, agency, child, etc.) at all substantive hearings.
 

3. Report on attendance by each party type at each type 

of substantive hearing. 

4. Report on the presence at hearings of at least one
 

person identified as father of the child, regardless of
 

whether or not the father has been served.
 

5. Report on the presence of all categories of parties, 

regardless of whether they have been served, at emergency removal hearings. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Party ID. 

u	Party type. 

u	Service of process date. 

u	Hearing date. 

u	Party present at hearing. 

Optional Elements 

u	Hearing type. 

u	Father’s race/ethnicity. 

u	Mother’s race/ethnicity. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3H. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3H lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for fictitious 

judicial districts and courts to demonstrate how results for 

this measure might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 3H–1 is a basic tabular report for this measure, 

showing the percentage of cases in which all parties were 

versus were not present at every hearing. The data are 

based on cases closed in 2006 and are compared for three 

courts in Judicial District 1. 

The table in sample 3H–2 shows the attendance of various 

types of parties at four types of hearings.5 The data are 

based on hearings held during 2005 and are shown for a 

single three-judge court. The bar graph in sample 3H–3 

illustrates data from the table. 

This type of report could help a court determine which 

types of parties attend hearings less frequently than others 

and which types of hearings are less well attended. There 

may be many reasons for low attendance. This report, 

especially when viewed together with reports for Toolkit 

Measure 3B: Service of Process to Parties and Measure 3E: 

Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties, can provide a starting point for diagnosing the reasons for low attendance 

and developing strategies for improving attendance by key 

parties at key hearings. 

To illustrate the value of information about the attendance 

of different types of parties at different types of hearings, 

139 
Technical Guide
 

140 

Sample 3H–1. Attendance of Parties at Hearings, by Court, Cases Closed in 2006: Judicial District 1 

Court 

All Parties Present at All Hearings in Case 

Total Number of Cases 

Yes No 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

A 230 17% 1,120 83% 1,350 

B 450 68% 210 32% 660 

C 650 65% 350 35% 1,000 

Districtwide 1,330 44% 1,680 56% 3,010 

Sample 3H–2. Attendance of Eligible Parties at Selected Types of Hearings During 2005, 

by Party Type: Court A 

Party Type 

Emergency 

Removal Hearings Adjudication Hearings Permanency Hearings Review Hearings 

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended 

Mother 350 326 93% 340 320 94% 156 142 91% 313 282 90% 

Father 350 60 17% 340 122 36% 156 63 40% 313 113 36% 

Foster parents n/a n/a n/a 282 40 14% 130 25 19% 260 52 20% 

Age-appropriate 

children n/a n/a n/a 170 60 35% 72 31 43% 144 58 40% 

Primary 

caseworker 350 301 86% 340 286 84% 156 126 81% 313 247 79% 

Sample 3H–3. Attendance of Eligible Parties at Selected Types of Hearings During 2005, 

by Party Type: Court X Percentage of Eligible Parties Attending 

100% 93% 94% 91% 90% 

86% 84% 81% 79% 

80% 

60% 

43% 40% 40% 

40% 36% 35% 36%

19% 20%

20% 17% 14% 

0% 0% 

0%
 

Emergency Adjudication Permanency Review 


Removal Hearing Hearing Hearing Hearing
 

Type of Hearing 

Mother Primary Caseworker 

Father 

Foster Parents 

Age-Appropriate Children 
measure 3H: Presence of Parties During Hearings 

note in samples 3H–2 and 3H–3 the low percentage 

of fathers attending emergency removal hearings. It is 

important to determine why fathers are often absent from 

these critical hearings. One possibility is that they are not 

being identified or notified in time, especially if the hearings are held within 24 to 48 hours of the child’s removal 

from home. If it is practical to calculate the percentage of 

fathers who were notified prior to the emergency removal 

hearing (see Toolkit Measure 3E: Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties), it would also be helpful to calculate the 

percentage of those not present who were versus were 

not notified of the hearing. Such a calculation could help 

the court evaluate the impact of notification on fathers’ 

attendance at these hearings. 

Samples 3H–2 and 3H–3 also show that attendance by 

primary caseworkers ranged from 79 percent to 86 

percent, depending on the type of hearing. This means 

that in 14 to 21 percent of hearings, either no one from the 

child welfare agency attended, or the attending caseworker 

was not the primary worker. 

These samples assume that 50 percent of cases involve 

age-appropriate children (i.e., children who are eligible 

to attend hearings).6 The samples show, for example, a 

35-percent attendance rate for age-appropriate children 

at adjudication hearings—the number attending (60) 

divided by the number of relevant hearings (170). Similarly, 

the samples assume that fewer cases involve foster 

parents than biological parents, and the attendance rates 

for foster parents are based on a proportionately reduced 

number of hearings. Legal guardians could also be added 

to this report, but the numbers for any one court are likely 

to be too small to be meaningful statistically. 

The table in sample 3H–4 shows the attendance of fathers 

at four types of hearings held during 2005 in five courts in 

a large metropolitan judicial district. Although attendance 

of fathers is low for all courts and all hearing types, the 

“total” column shows that overall attendance of fathers 

is considerably better in Courts A and C than in the other 

courts, and that Court D is significantly below the districtwide norm. Similar reports could be devised to show attendance by other types of parties (mothers, caseworkers, 

etc.) or by all parties for one type of hearing. 

Because of the complexity of the table in sample 3H–4, 

any graph based on the same data should focus on a 

specific element. Too many elements (courts, party types, 

hearing types) can make a graph difficult to read. The bar 

graph in sample 3H–5 illustrates districtwide data from 

the table. Alternatively, each court’s results could be the 

subject of an individual graph, comparing attendance to a 

districtwide or statewide goal or average. 

Sample 3H–4. Attendance of Fathers at Selected Types of Hearings During 2005, by Court: Judicial 

District 1 

Court 

Emergency 

Removal 

Hearings 

Adjudication 

Hearings 

Permanency 

Hearings 

Review 

Hearings 

All Types of 

Hearings 

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended

Total 

Hearings

Number

Attended

Percent 

Attended 

A 350 60 17% 340 122 36% 156 63 40% 313 113 36% 1,159 358 31% 

B 260 52 20% 250 70 28% 115 32 28% 230 28 12% 855 182 21% 

C 175 53 30% 150 57 38% 69 22 32% 138 41 30% 532 173 33% 

D 190 13 7% 175 30 17% 81 6 7% 161 8 5% 607 57 9% 

E 460 51 11% 380 57 15% 175 40 23% 350 63 18% 1,365 211 15% 

Districtwide 1,435 229 16% 1,295 336 26% 596 163 27% 1,192 253 21% 4,518 981 22% 

141 
142 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 3H–5. Attendance of Fathers at Selected Types of Hearings During 2005: Judicial District 1 Percentage of Eligible Fathers Attending 

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

16% 

26% 27% 

21% 

22% 

Emergency Adjudication 

Removal Hearing 

Hearing 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Time-Certain and Party-Friendly 

Scheduling 

A major factor influencing parties’ attendance at hearings 

is the extent of the burden attendance places on them. 

Scheduling hearings for specific times and then starting 

hearings on time reduces that burden. By contrast, if parties must wait for hours for hearings to begin, fewer can 

and will attend—and it is unrealistic for judges to expect 

them to do so. 

Another factor is parties’ availability to appear in court. If 

judges consult parties (as well as advocates) concerning 

their availability to appear in court at specific times, attendance at hearings is likely to improve. 

Finally, with sophisticated case management software, 

courts can try to schedule hearings at times that are 

convenient for child welfare agency staff as well as for 

the court and advocates. For example, software can be 

programmed to suggest a hearing date and time that coordinate with the primary caseworker’s presence at court for 

other purposes. 

Treatment of Parties in Court 

Parties are more likely to attend hearings if they perceive the hearings to be meaningful events in which they 

Permanency Review All Types 

Hearing Hearing of Hearings 

Type of Hearing 

actually participate. They are more likely to attend if the 

judge and court staff treat them with courtesy and if the 

judge directly questions them in court. 

Quality, Thoroughness, and 

Transparency 

Parties are more likely to attend hearings when they 

observe “things really happening” that appear to make a 

difference. By contrast, parties will feel that their presence 

is not important or necessary if, for example, hearings 

take place in chambers without parties present, if hearings 

seem cursory, or if parties have difficulty understanding 

what is going on. 

Motivating Caseworkers 

Caseworkers often play a critical role in ensuring that 

parents, children, and foster parents appear in court. It is 

important for the court to understand what motivates caseworkers to encourage or discourage attendance by parties. 

When court proceedings are substantive and thorough, a 

caseworker may see the benefit of having parties present 

(particularly in having the judge hear what the parties have 

to say) and may encourage the parties to attend, caution 

them as necessary, and instruct them to participate in the 

case plan. On the other hand, a caseworker may find it 

inconvenient for parents, older children, or foster parents 
measure 3H: Presence of Parties During Hearings 

to be present in court, where they might contradict the 

caseworker’s statements or make requests contrary to 

those made by the caseworker. 

To increase the likelihood that caseworkers will encourage 

parties to attend hearings, the court can question caseworkers about their efforts to notify parties of hearings. 

It can also schedule additional hearings if parties fail to 

appear, especially if the caseworker appears not to have 

done enough to encourage attendance. Caseworkers will 

come to see that it is in their own interest to encourage 

attendance, thereby avoiding the inconvenience of an 

additional hearing. 

Judges’ Expectations 

Judges decide whether repeated absences from court are 

permitted and what excuses for absence are acceptable. 

Judges must also decide whether to enforce their rules, as 

necessary, through court orders and, on occasion, bench 

warrants and contempt proceedings. 

State Laws and Local Court Rules 

State laws and court rules can (1) specify that parties 

are to attend all substantive court hearings; (2) allow for 

limited exceptions and require specific procedural steps for 

exceptions to apply; (3) specify proceedings and possible 

sanctions to enforce the presence of parties; (4) specifically 

address the presence of parents (including noncustodial 

parents, children (especially of a specified age), primary 

caseworkers, and others named as parties. 

Court Order Forms 

Courts can add standard or optional provisions to forms for 

court orders, which direct parties to be present during the 

next hearing. To allow for exceptions, such orders might 

specify or refer to a procedure for requesting delays or 

special permission not to attend. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate 

room for improvement in the attendance of parties at 

hearings, the court should consider possible reforms. 

Specific reforms will, of course, depend on local conditions 

and the court’s analysis of the causes of parties’ failure to 

attend. A court might, for example, consider the following 

improvements: 

u	Develop and enforce written guidelines for the presence 

of age-appropriate children in court. 

u	Order parties to appear at hearings, and order 

caseworkers to remind and assist them as necessary. 

u	Introduce a State law or local court rule requiring judges 

to order parties (including age-appropriate children and 

primary caseworkers) to attend court hearings, subject 

to specified exceptions. 

u	Establish procedures to limit exceptions allowing parties 

to miss court appearances. For example, require the 

court to state its reasons for not ordering the presence 

of parties, set deadlines for parties or their advocates 

to request exceptions in nonemergency situations, and 

require affidavits or statements from parties explaining 

their reason for not wanting to be present. 

u	Modify court order forms to require parties to be 

present, except under special circumstances. 

u	Schedule additional hearings when parties fail to appear, 

particularly when caseworkers make insufficient effort 

to ensure their presence. 

u	Adopt caseflow management to ensure time-certain 

scheduling of hearings. 

u	Develop scheduling software that can take into account 

the needs of agency staff. 

u	In judicial, attorney, and caseworker training, include 

information about the importance of the parties’ 

involvement in all hearings. For caseworkers, also 

explain how parties’ involvement is in the best interests 

of the agency as well as the parties. 

Endnotes 

1. “Substantive hearings” address issues affecting the 

behavior of parties, such as where the child will be 

placed, visitation arrangements, services to be provided, orders addressed to parties, and sanctions for 

disobeying court orders. Examples of substantive 

hearings include emergency removal, adjudication, 

disposition review, permanency, and termination of 

parental rights hearings. By contrast, procedural (i.e., 

nonsubstantive) hearings concern the “mechanics” 

of the court process. For example, such hearings may 

address admissibility of evidence, pretrial exchange of 

information (discovery), or how a forthcoming trial will 

be organized. 

143 
144 

Technical Guide
 

2. One technical solution to minimizing the data entry 

burden is to program the computer screen default 

to parties who attended previous hearings and then 

require staff to either affirm that all were present at the 

current hearing or make changes to reflect who was, 

or was not, there. Check boxes might be used for this 

purpose. 

3. If, for example, fathers or age-appropriate children 

frequently miss hearings, solutions may include 

developing and enforcing guidelines concerning their 

presence. 

4. For example, it might be useful for a State court system 

to know that fathers are rarely present at emergency 

removal hearings in certain parts of the State. 

5. For the sake of simplicity, the sample assumes that 

there is one mother and one father for each case. 

6. Age-appropriate children may attend hearings more 

regularly in some jurisdictions than in others, and the 

age at which children may attend varies among States. 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 

RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 

1995) recommends that age-appropriate children be 

present at all of the types of hearings listed in these 

samples. 
measure 3I 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the same legal advocate represents the child throughout 

the case. 

Explanation of measure: This measure shows how consistently children in abuse and neglect cases are represented by 

one advocate throughout the life of the case. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate how often children’s legal representation in the courtroom is stable throughout the life of 

the case. 

Consistency of legal representation for children is an 

important factor affecting the quality of child abuse and 

neglect litigation. Advocates can do a better job when they 

represent their clients at all stages of the proceedings, 

from the date of removal through termination of parental 

rights (TPR) or the child’s return home. Consistency of 

representation is important for a number of reasons: 

u	The advocate has a greater sense of responsibility 

for the case. With this enhanced sense of “ownership,” 

another, it is disconcerting for the child, especially if the 

new advocate knows little about the case or the family. 

The child may feel forced to depend on a stranger. 

Finally, changes in advocate may add to the sense of 

instability already experienced by a child who has been 

removed from home. 

Of course, there occasionally are circumstances in which it 

is necessary and appropriate to change a child’s advocate. 

For example, an advocate may be called away by a family 

Continuity of 

Advocates for Children 

the advocate feels more able to influence the ultimate 

outcome of the case and, therefore, more accountable 

for the results. 

u	The advocate is better prepared for each new 

hearing. Having represented the child at previous 

hearings, the advocate can review the file more efficiently, interview the child more effectively, and grasp 

the pertinent facts more easily. Furthermore, advocates 

who represent clients during all stages of each case 

deal with fewer families overall and thus can get to 

know the families better. Handling all stages of the case 

helps the advocate understand the complexities of each 

family’s situation. 

u	The advocate more readily learns about child 

welfare law and practice. Following cases from 

beginning to end helps advocates understand how 

cases evolve and enables them to handle early hearings 

in a way that effectively lays the groundwork for later 

hearings. Advocates also learn about “marginal” families 

in general and gain an understanding of the child 

welfare agency. 

u	Children benefit. With one advocate throughout the 

case, the child feels connected to the advocate and 

comfortable relying on that individual for protection and 

a good outcome. When one advocate is replaced by 

emergency, or it may be necessary to replace an advocate 

who is not doing a good job. 

Implementation Issues 

Identifying Advocates 

The case management system must store information 

about the persons who actually advocate for the child 

at each hearing over the life of the case, not just the 

advocates appointed for the child. This measure requires 

recording the name of the individual advocate who actually 

appears on behalf of the child, not just the name of a law 

firm, public defender’s office, or court­appointed special 

advocate (CASA) program. 

To accurately identify advocates in cases and link them 

to parties, it usually is helpful to use a code such as 

an attorney’s bar number. Using a code helps to avoid 

problems that can arise when names are misspelled 

or two advocates have the same name. (The larger the 

scale of the system, the more likely that advocates will be 

misidentified.) Ideally, programs should be written to make 

it easy for court staff to accurately record the identity of 

an advocate appearing for a child and to call up identifying 

information about an advocate. 
146 

Technical Guide
 

Alternatives for Computing This 

Measure 

Although this measure is defined as the percentage of 

cases in which the same advocate appears for the child 

throughout the case, different approaches might be more 

useful in States where multiple advocates commonly 

appear for the same child in a case (e.g., where more than 

one court is typically involved in a case). 

One alternative is to examine the percentage of cases in 

which one, two, three, or more advocates represent the 

child. Where most cases involve multiple advocates, such 

a calculation could provide useful distinctions for determining the extent to which children lack stable representation. 

Another useful approach is to report on the average (or 

mean) number of advocates per case. 

States that rarely have one child advocate per case might 

also consider calculating the proportion of hearings in 

which the child’s primary advocate (i.e., the advocate present at the most hearings) was not present. For example, 

this approach would distinguish between (a) cases in 

which the primary attorney only missed 2 of 10 hearings 

(the 2 were handled by different substitute attorneys) 

and (b) cases in which 3 different attorneys each handled 

several hearings. Representation for the child is far less 

consistent in (b) than in (a). 

Reporting on Different Categories 

of Advocates 

Depending on the State or locale, children’s advocates may 

by attorneys or nonattorneys (including CASA volunteers). 

In addition, depending on State law and local interpretations of the law, attorneys may represent the wishes of the 

child, present their own opinion of what is in the child’s 

best interest, or both. 

These distinctions raise several issues. Should this measure be applied separately to each type of representation? 

For example, if both CASA volunteers and attorneys for 

children serve in a State’s courts, should changes in each 

category be recorded separately? What if CASA volunteers 

speak for children in one court, and attorneys in another? 

What if one or the other is appointed only for select stages 

of the litigation? 

Thus, changes in representation might be measured 

separately for specific types of legal representatives used 

by the court so that comparisons between various types 

of representation can be made. 

When More Than One Court Is 

Involved in a Case 

In some States, one court hears the early stages of child 

abuse and neglect cases, another hears TPR proceedings, 

and still another hears legal guardianship or adoption proceedings. Regardless of a State’s court structure, it is best 

practice to have only one advocate for a child throughout 

all proceedings. If a State falls short in this regard, this 

measure should not be redefined in a way that obscures 

the problem. 

A State may encounter formidable barriers to calculating 

this measure if cases are heard in more than one court. 

For example, different courts may have different application modules (computer programs designed to deal with 

particular types of cases), or the case number may change 

as the case moves from court to court (requiring the 

creation of links to ensure a complete record). 

Another possibility is that the management information 

system in one or more of the courts involved in a case 

may not capture data on the number of child advocates 

per case. Correcting that shortcoming may have to be a 

long­term goal. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases
 

closed within the date range selected. (A)
 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each hearing, 

documenting the presence of a legal advocate 

representing the child. Then sort the cases in (A) into 

three categories: (B) no advocates appeared for the 

child throughout the case, (C) one advocate appeared 

throughout the case, or (D) more than one advocate 

appeared. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

Possible Modifications 

1. If appropriate, substitute “attorney, guardian ad litem, 

or CASA” for “legal advocate.” 
measure 3I: Continuity of Advocates for Children 

2. Report separately on cases with two, three, and more 

than three advocates for the child. 

3. Report on the average (mean) numbers of advocates
 

representing the child per case.
 

4. In each case, separately identify the advocate who 

represented the child in the largest number of hearings. Report on the percentage of hearings in which 

anyone other than that advocate represented the child. 

(This report is a quality measure—the percentage of 

hearings in which the child may have been represented 

by an advocate with relatively little knowledge of the 

case.) 

5. Report separately by age of case at closure. That is,
 

calculate and compare the number of advocates per 


case, basing categories on the length of time cases
 

were open (less than 1 year, 1–2 years, etc.).
 

6. In States where more than one category of legal representation exists, report separately for different categories of representation for children, rather than limiting 

the report to the most predominant category. (Alternatively, if most cases are handled by one category of 

representative, limit the measure to that category.) 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Party ID. 

u	Party type. 

u	Hearing date. 

u	Advocate ID. 

u	Advocate­party link. 

u	Advocate present at hearing. 

Optional Elements 

u	Advocate type. 

u	Abuse and neglect petition date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3I. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3I lends itself 

to a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. The 

samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious 

court to demonstrate how results for this measure might 

be reported in tables and graphs. Additional examples may 

be found in Toolkit Measure 3J: Continuity of Counsel for 

Parents, which parallels this measure. 

Sample 3I–1 uses a tabular format to present data on 

representation of children in a single court that uses two 

specialized judges to hear abuse and neglect cases. The 

table is based on cases closed during 2006 and shows 

the percentage of children who were unrepresented and 

the percentages represented by one, two, three, and more 

than three attorneys over the course of the case—with 

additional detail by age of case (i.e., how long the case 

was open). This table combines two of the “possible modifications” mentioned in the section on “Business Rules.” 

A similar format could be used to report for a different 

category of legal representative, such as CASA volunteers. 

(Note that a more basic report for this measure, simply 

showing the percentage of cases with one and more than 

one advocate—which reflects the definition and basic 

business rules for the measure—would look more like 

sample 3J–1 in Measure 3J. 

The table in sample 3I–1 shows that the number of attorneys tends to increase with the age of the case. Among 

cases closed after 3 or more years, 22 percent of children 

had more than three attorneys. Although older cases might 

be expected to have more attorneys, this percentage may 

indicate that the court’s policy regarding substitution of 

advocates is too lenient. 

Because of the complexity of this table, a graph that 

attempted to represent all of the data would be too confusing. A better choice is to focus on the totals from the table, 

as in the pie chart in sample 3I–2. 

147 
148 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 3I–1. Number of Attorneys Representing Child Throughout Life of Case, by Age of Case, 

Cases Closed in 2006: Court X 

Unrepresented 

One 

Attorney 

Two 

Attorneys 

Three 

Attorneys 

More Than 

Three 

Attorneys Total 

# of # of # of # of # of Number 

Age of Case Cases % Cases % Cases % Cases % Cases % of Cases 

0–6 mos. 8 18% 35 78% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 45 

7–12 mos. 2 2% 70 67% 27 26% 4 4% 2 2% 105 

13–24 mos. 0 0% 45 40% 34 30% 24 21% 10 9% 113 

25–36 mos. 0 0% 9 13% 20 29% 27 40% 12 18% 68 

>36 mos. 0 0% 4 5% 34 39% 31 35% 19 22% 88 

Total 10 2% 163 39% 117 28% 86 21% 43 10% 419 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Sample 3I–2. Percentage of Cases in Which 

Child Was Unrepresented by Legal Counsel or 

Represented by One, Two, Three, or More Than 

Three Attorneys Throughout Life of Case, Cases 

Closed in 2006: Court X 

2% 10% 

39% 

21% 

28% 

Unrepresented 

One Attorney 

Two Attorneys 

Three Attorneys 

More Than Three Attorneys 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Routine Substitutions and Withdrawals 

of Advocates for Children 

In some courts, children’s advocates frequently (and 

even casually) arrange for others to take their place for 

individual abuse and neglect hearings. If they can ask a 

colleague to fill in for them, they may give precedence to 

other types of proceedings or even schedule vacations 

that conflict with previously scheduled hearings. These 

practices are most common among attorneys who work 

for private law firms or public law offices such as public 

defender programs. 

Judges should not tolerate such practices. When individual 

judges refuse to accept substitutions, except for compelling reasons, this practice will become less widespread. 

Similarly, advocates should not be allowed to withdraw 

from abuse and neglect cases, absent specified types of 

extenuating circumstances. 

Court Rules 

If court rules prohibit substitutions of children’s advocates 

(especially attorney advocates) for specific hearings and 

limit withdrawals of advocates appointed to represent 

children, more judges will feel justified in blocking such 

actions, and continuity of representation for children will 

improve. 
measure 3I: Continuity of Advocates for Children 

Court rules can also establish strict criteria for exceptions 

and outline procedures to help deter substitutions and 

withdrawals. For example, substitutions and withdrawals are likely to decrease if advocates must file written 

motions (accompanied by statements of supporting facts) 

requesting approval of such actions, and if the court must 

enter findings to grant these motions. 

Contractual Provisions 

Rather than permitting practices that cause unstable 

representation for children, the court’s contracts for legal 

representation can bar or strictly limit substitutions and 

also limit withdrawals. To be fully effective, these provisions must be enforced. 

Education of Judges and Advocates 

Education and training programs for judges and advocates 

can provide information on the importance of consistent 

representation for children. Presentations describing the 

experiences and views of former clients could helpful. 

Court Organization 

As noted earlier, some States divide jurisdiction over child 

abuse and neglect cases among several courts. For example, one court hears cases from removal through review 

and permanency hearings, another hears TPR proceedings, 

and a third hears adoption and guardianship proceedings. 

In other States, one court hears all stages of these cases. 

When jurisdiction is divided, each court may appoint a 

different advocate for the child. However, it is possible for 

different courts to coordinate appointment of counsel to 

ensure continuity of representation. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in reducing the number of cases in which 

children are represented by more than one advocate, the 

court should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms 

will, of course, depend on local conditions and the court’s 

analysis of reasons for inconsistency in children’s legal 

representation. A court might, for example, consider the 

following improvements: 

u	Establish statewide and/or local court rules barring 

substitutions of counsel, with limited exceptions. Also 

limit the resignation of counsel for children. Include 

procedural provisions, such as written motions, 

supporting affidavits, and judicial findings, to deter 

substitutions and resignations. 

u	In education and training programs for judges and 

advocates, include information on the importance 

of consistent representation for children. 

u	Add requirements for continuous representation 

to contracts with children’s advocates. 

u	If different courts handle different phases of abuse and 

neglect cases, develop written procedures to ensure that 

the same advocate represents the child in each court. 

u	Improve compensation, caseloads, and working 

conditions of child advocates to reduce the motivation 

for substitutions and resignations. 

u	Work with courts in neighboring jurisdictions to limit 

scheduling conflicts for attorneys who practice in more 

than one jurisdiction. For example, if courts A and B both 

have abuse and neglect cases scheduled for Monday 

and Thursday, conflicts are likely to arise for attorneys 

who practice in both courts. Such situations often exist 

in rural areas. 

149 

measure 3J 

Definition: Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the same legal counsel represents the parent throughout 

the case. 

Explanation: This measure shows how consistently parents in abuse and neglect cases are represented by one attorney 

throughout the life of the case. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate how often parents’ legal representation in the courtroom is stable throughout the life of 

the case. 

Having the same attorney throughout the life of the case 

is an important (although not the only) factor affecting the 

quality of legal representation for parents. Attorneys can 

do a better job when they represent their clients at all 

stages of the proceedings, from the date of removal 

through termination of parental rights (TPR) or the child’s 

return home. Consistency of representation is important for 

a number of reasons: 

comfortable relying on that individual. When one 

attorney is replaced by another, it is disconcerting for 

the parent, especially if the new attorney knows little 

about the case or the family. If a parent has worked 

with an attorney and tried to follow that attorney’s 

advice, it can be frustrating when a new attorney offers 

different advice. The parent may feel forced to depend 

on a stranger, who knows little about the situation, for 

Continuity of Counsel for Parents 


u	The attorney has a greater sense of responsibility 

for the case. With this enhanced sense of “ownership,” 

the attorney feels more able to influence the ultimate 

outcome of the case and, therefore, more accountable 

for the results. 

u	The attorney is better prepared for each new 

hearing. Having represented the parent at previous 

hearings, the attorney can review the file more 

efficiently, interview the parent more effectively, and 

grasp the pertinent facts more easily. Furthermore, 

attorneys who represent clients during all stages of each 

case deal with fewer families overall and thus can get to 

know the families better. Handling all stages of the case 

helps the attorney understand the complexities of each 

family’s situation. 

u	The attorney more readily learns about child welfare 

law and practice. Following cases from beginning 

to end helps attorneys understand how cases evolve 

and enables them to handle early hearings in a way 

that effectively lays the groundwork for later hearings. 

Attorneys also learn about “marginal” families in general 

and gain an understanding of the child welfare agency. 

u	Parents benefit. With one attorney throughout the 

case, the parent feels connected to the attorney and 

assistance in court. 

Of course, there occasionally are circumstances in which it 

is necessary and appropriate to change a parent’s attorney. 

For example, an attorney may be called away by a family 

emergency, or it may be necessary to replace an attorney 

who is not doing a good job. 

Implementation Issues 

Identifying Attorneys 

The case management system must store information 

about the attorneys who actually represented the mother 

and father at each hearing over the life of the case, not just 

the attorneys appointed to represent the mother and father. 

This measure requires recording the name of the individual 

attorney who actually appears on behalf of each parent, 

not just the name of a law firm or the public defender’s 

office. 

To accurately identify attorneys in cases and link them 

to parties, it usually is helpful to use a code such as 

an attorney’s bar number. Using a code helps to avoid 

problems that can arise when names are misspelled or two 

attorneys have the same name. Ideally, computer programs 

should make it easy for court staff to accurately record the 
152 

Technical Guide
 

identity of an attorney appearing for a parent and to call up 

identifying information about an attorney 

Alternatives for Computing This 

Measure 

Although this measure is defined as the percentage of 

cases in which the same attorney appears for the parent 

throughout the case, different approaches might be more 

useful in States where multiple attorneys commonly 

appear for the same parent in a case (e.g., where more 

than one court is typically involved in a case). 

One alternative is to examine the percentage of cases 

in which one, two, three, or more attorneys represent the 

parent. Where most cases involve multiple attorneys, such 

a calculation could provide useful distinctions for determining the extent to which parents lack stable representation. 

Another useful approach is to report on the average (or 

mean) number of attorneys per case. 

States that rarely have one attorney per case might also 

consider calculating the proportion of hearings in which 

the primary attorney for the mother or father (i.e., the 

attorney present at the most hearings) was not present. 

For example, this approach would distinguish between 

(a) cases in which the primary attorney only missed 2 

of 10 hearings (the 2 were handled by different substitute 

attorneys) and (b) cases in which 3 different attorneys each 

handled several hearings. Representation for the parent is 

far less consistent in (b) than in (a). 

When More Than One Court Is 

Involved in a Case 

In some States, one court hears the early stages of child 

abuse and neglect cases, another hears TPR proceedings, 

and still another hears legal guardianship or adoption proceedings. Regardless of a State’s court structure, it is best 

practice to have only one attorney for a parent throughout 

all proceedings. If a State falls short in this regard, this 

measure should not be redefined in a way that obscures 

the problem. 

A State may encounter formidable barriers to calculating 

this measure if cases are heard in more than one court. 

For example, different courts may have different application modules (computer programs designed to deal with 

particular types of cases), or the case number may change 

as the case moves from court to court (requiring the creation of links to ensure a complete record). 

Another possibility is that the management information 

system in one or more of the courts involved in a case 

may not capture data on the number of attorneys for each 

parent per case. Correcting that shortcoming may have to 

be a long-term goal. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases
 

closed within the date range selected. (A)
 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each hearing, 

documenting the attorneys representing the mother 

and father. Then sort the cases in (A) into six categories: (B) no attorney appeared for the mother throughout the case, (C) one attorney for mother throughout 

the case, (D) more than one attorney for mother 

throughout the case, (E) no attorney appeared for the 

father throughout the case, (F) one attorney for father 

throughout the case, (G) more than one attorney for 

father throughout the case. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these
 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each
 

category by (A).
 

A note about the business rules: Where more than one 

father is named in the case, select only one to include in 

the calculations, using the following order of preference: 

(1) the man determined by the court to be the biological or 

adoptive father (whichever applies), (2) the man identified 

by the court as legal guardian, (3) the first man named 

as father who was appointed counsel, or (4) if no named 

father was appointed counsel, the named father whose 

name comes first alphabetically. 

Possible Modifications 

1. Report separately on cases with two, three, and more 

than three attorneys for parents. 

2. Report on the average (mean) numbers of attorneys
 

representing the mother and father per case.
 

3. For each parent in each case, separately identify the 

attorney who represented that parent in the largest 

number of hearings. Report on the percentage of 

hearings in which anyone other than that attorney 
measure 3J: Continuity of Counsel for Parents 

represented the parent. (This report is a quality 

measure—the percentage of hearings in which the 

mother or father may have been represented by an 

attorney with relatively little knowledge of the case.) 

4. Report separately by age of case at closure. That is, 

calculate and compare the number of attorneys per 

case, basing categories on the length of time cases 

were open (less than 1 year, 1–2 years, etc.). 

5. Report separately by mother’s and father’s race/
 

ethnicity
 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	Case closure date. 

u	Party ID. 

u	Party type. 

u	Hearing date. 

u	Advocate ID. 

u	Advocate-party link. 

u	Advocate present at hearing. 

Optional Elements 

u	Abuse and neglect petition date. 

u	Father’s race/ethnicity. 

u	Mother’s race/ethnicity. 

u	Waiver of counsel. 

u	Hearing type. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 3J. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 3J lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data from a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 3J–1 uses a tabular format to show the legal representation status of mothers and fathers—the percentage 

Sample 3J–1. Number of Attorneys Representing Parent Throughout Life of Case, by Judicial District, 

Cases Closed in 2005 

Judicial 

District 

Mother Father 

Total 

Number 

of Cases 

No Attorneys One Attorney 

More Than 

One Attorney No Attorneys One Attorney 

More Than 

One Attorney 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

A 7 2% 96 29% 230 69% 121 36% 45 14% 167 50% 333 

B 19 7% 56 21% 190 72% 81 31% 34 13% 150 57% 265 

C 4 2% 45 20% 178 78% 28 12% 10 4% 189 83% 227 

D 23 5% 88 20% 325 75% 46 11% 200 46% 190 44% 436 

E 6 3% 24 13% 156 84% 15 8% 37 20% 134 72% 186 

Statewide 59 4% 309 21% 1,079 75% 291 20% 326 23% 830 57% 1,447 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

153 
154 

Technical Guide
 

of cases in which the parent was unrepresented by an 

attorney throughout the life of the case, represented by the 

same attorney at all hearings, and represented by different 

attorneys. The data are based on cases closed in 2006 and 

are compared for five judicial districts. 

Although this measure focuses on the continuity of representation for parents from hearing to hearing, the measure 

also reveals how often parents are unrepresented by legal 

counsel throughout the case. As the statewide totals in this 

table show, a far larger proportion of fathers than mothers 

are unrepresented throughout the case: 20 percent of 

fathers compared to only 4 percent of mothers. The table 

also shows marked differences from district to district; 

for example, only 8 percent of fathers were unrepresented 

in District E, compared to 36 percent in District A. 

The bar graph in sample 3J–2 is drawn from the statistics 

in the table and highlights the difference in the stability of 

representation for mothers as compared with fathers in 

Judicial District A. The graph clearly shows that not only 

are fathers much more likely than mothers to be unrepresented throughout the case, but also those who are 

represented are much less likely to have the same attorney 

at every hearing. 

Sample 3J–3 shows trends in parents’ legal representation 

status in one court, based on cases closed from 2001 to 

2005. The table shows a steady increase over the 5-year 

period in the percentage of parents represented by just one 

attorney throughout the life of the case, from 16 percent 

to 48 percent for mothers, and 9 percent to 37 percent for 

fathers. 

Sample 3J–2. Number of Attorneys Representing Parent Throughout Life of Case, Cases Closed in 

2005: Judicial District A Percentage of Cases 

80%
 

70%
 

60%
 

50%
 

40%
 

30%
 

20%
 

10%
 

0%

2% 

36% 

29% 

14% 

69% 

50% 

No Attorneys One Attorney More Than 

One Attorney 

Number of Attorneys Representing Parent 

Mother Father 

Sample 3J–3. Percentage of Cases in Which Parent Was Unrepresented by Legal Counsel or Represented by One, Two, or Three or More Attorneys Throughout Life of Case, Cases Closed in 2001–2005: Court X 

Mother Father 

No 

Attorneys 

One 

Attorney 

Two 

Attorneys 

Three or More 

Attorneys 

No 

Attorneys 

One 

Attorney 

Two 

Attorneys 

Three or More 

Attorneys 

2001 3% 16% 54% 27% 56% 9% 11% 25% 

2002 2% 21% 50% 27% 44% 19% 22% 15% 

2003 3% 27% 44% 26% 43% 17% 27% 13% 

2004 2% 34% 40% 24% 27% 30% 23% 10% 

2005 1% 48% 38% 13% 32% 37% 23% 8% 
60%

measure 3J: Continuity of Counsel for Parents 

The table in sample 3J–3 could be simplified considerably 

by eliminating all of the columns except the second one for 

each parent, to show trends in the percentage of cases in 

which the same attorney represented the parent at every 

hearing. That data could also be highlighted in a line graph, 

as shown in sample 3J–4. The upward slope of both lines 

immediately tells the viewer that representation is becoming more consistent for both mothers and fathers, and the 

percentages show that there is still room for improvement. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Routine Substitutions and Withdrawals 

of Parents’ Attorneys 

In some courts, parents’ attorneys frequently (and even 

casually) arrange for others to take their place for 

individual abuse and neglect hearings. If they can ask a 

colleague to fill in for them, they may give precedence to 

other types of proceedings or even schedule vacations 

that conflict with previously scheduled hearings. These 

practices are most common among attorneys who work 

for private law firms or public law offices such as public 

defender programs. 

Judges should not tolerate such practices. When individual 

judges refuse to accept substitutions, except for compelling reasons, this practice will become less widespread. 

Similarly, attorneys should not be allowed to withdraw 

from abuse and neglect cases, absent specified types 

of extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, law offices 

should be discouraged from rotating attorneys rapidly 

among assignments—a practice that results in different 

attorneys being involved at different stages of the same 

case. 

Court Rules 

If court rules prohibit substitutions of parents’ attorneys for 

specific hearings and limit withdrawals of attorneys appointed to represent parents, more judges will feel justified 

in blocking such actions, and continuity of representation 

will improve. 

Court rules can also establish strict criteria for exceptions 

and outline procedures to help deter substitutions and 

withdrawals. For example, substitutions and withdrawals 

are likely to decrease if attorneys must file written motions 

(accompanied by statements of supporting facts) requesting approval of such actions, and if the court must enter 

findings to grant these motions. 

Contractual Provisions 

Rather than permitting practices that cause unstable 

representation for parents, the court’s contracts for legal 

representation can bar or strictly limit substitutions and 

Sample 3J–4. Percentage of Cases in Which Parent Was Represented by the Same Attorney at Every 

Hearing, Cases Closed in 2001–2005: Court X Percentage of Cases

50% 48%

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

16% 

9% 

21% 

19% 

27% 

17% 

34% 

30% 

37% 

Mother Father 

155 
156 

Technical Guide
 

also limit withdrawals. To be fully effective, these provisions must be enforced. 

Education of Judges and Attorneys 

Education and training programs for judges and attorneys 

can provide information on the importance of consistent 

representation for children. Presentations describing the 

experiences and views of former clients could helpful. 

Court Organization 

As noted earlier, some States divide jurisdiction over child 

abuse and neglect cases among several courts. For example, one court hears cases from removal through review 

and permanency hearings, another hears TPR proceedings, 

and a third hears adoption and guardianship proceedings. 

In other States, one court hears all stages of these cases. 

When jurisdiction is divided, each court may appoint a 

different attorney for the parent. However, it is possible for 

different courts to coordinate appointment of counsel to 

ensure continuity of representation. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in reducing the number of cases in which 

parents are represented by more than one attorney, the 

court should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms 

will, of course, depend on local conditions and the court’s 

analysis of reasons for inconsistency in parents’ legal 

representation. A court might, for example, consider the 

following improvements: 

u	Establish statewide and/or local court rules barring 

substitutions of counsel, with limited exceptions. Also 

limit the resignation of counsel. Include procedural 

provisions, such as written motions, supporting 

affidavits, and judicial findings, to deter substitutions 

and resignations. 

u	In education and training programs for judges and 

attorneys, include information on the importance of 

consistent representation for parents. 

u	Add requirements for continuous representation to 

contracts with parents’ attorneys. 

u	If different courts handle different phases of abuse and 

neglect cases, develop written procedures to ensure that 

the same attorney represents the parent in each court. 

u	Improve compensation, caseloads, and working 

conditions of attorneys for parents to reduce the 

motivation for substitutions and resignations. 

u	Work with courts in neighboring jurisdictions to limit 

scheduling conflicts for attorneys who practice in more 

than one jurisdiction. For example, if courts A and B both 

have abuse and neglect cases scheduled for Monday 

and Thursday, conflicts are likely to arise for attorneys 

who practice in both courts. Such situations often exist 

in rural areas. 
measure 4a 

Definition: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to legal permanency. 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes for children in abuse and neglect cases to achieve legal permanency, 

following the filing of the original petition. “Legal permanency” means that there is a permanent and secure legal relationship between the adult caregiver and the child. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate their success in eliminating needless delays in achieving legal permanency for children 

in abuse and neglect cases. 

Placement in safe, legally permanent homes as soon as 

possible is a central goal in Federal law and most State 

laws regarding children in court-ordered foster care. 

Measuring and comparing average times to permanency 

makes it possible to identify courts with good practices 

and those that need improvement—an important step in 

diagnosing the causes of delays and developing strategies 

for addressing delays. 

This measure is related to Toolkit Measure 2A: AchieveAdoption 

The legal position of adoptive parents is essentially the 

same as that of biological parents who have had no adjudication of child abuse or neglect. 

Legal Guardianship 

“Legal guardianship” refers to legal placement options, 

established by State law, that are consistent with the 

Federal statutory definition1

 of legal guardianship. Legal 

Time to Permanent Placement
 

ment of Child Permanency, which shows the percentage 

of children in foster care who reach legal permanency by 

reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship. 

Implementation Issues 

Legal Characteristics of Permanent 

Placement Options 

The three preferred legal placement options are family 

reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship. 

Family Reunification 

Family reunification, followed by closure of the court 

case, restores the original legal position of the family 

prior to court involvement. The parents have undivided 

legal decisionmaking power regarding the child (subject 

to mandatory education laws, child labor laws, etc.). The 

parents no longer must accept supervision by the child 

welfare agency. Strong legal barriers (i.e., required proof in 

court of further abuse or neglect), comparable to those for 

parents with no court involvement, block future removal of 

the child from the home. 

guardians are not subject to the oversight of the public 

child welfare agency. They generally have full decisionmaking authority over a child, as with biological and adoptive parents. In some States, however, the legal guardians’ 

legal security against removal of the child is weaker than 

for most biological and adoptive parents. That is, in some 

States, if biological parents seek to regain custody of the 

child, the guardian may need to prove those parents unfit 

to resume care. This position is the reverse of that of the 

biological or adoptive parents, who can maintain control 

of the child unless they are proved unfit as parents. On the 

other hand, some States have amended their guardianship 

laws to create legal preferences for keeping children with 

legal guardians when challenged by parents. 

In some States, more than one legal option may fall within 

the definition of “legal guardian.” For example, both “legal 

custody”2 and guardianship (pursuant to the probate code) 

may qualify as legal guardianship. Thus, some jurisdictions 

may wish to include more than one form of legal guardianship in this measure. 

“Another Planned Permanent Living 

Arrangement” 

Some jurisdictions may wish to include APPLA in this 

measure, as Federal law3

 recognizes APPLA as a type of 

permanency plan. However, what many States consider 
158 

Technical Guide
 

to be APPLAs are actually legal arrangements that do not 

provide legally permanent placements. For example, simply 

deciding to continue a child in foster care is not an APPLA. 

If this is encompassed by a State’s definition of APPLA, it is 

inappropriate to count APPLAs in this measure. 

States that define the term APPLA narrowly, as intended 

by Federal law,4

 may appropriately include APPLA in this 

measure. For example, if State law authorizes a court to 

order a permanent placement with a specific foster parent 

and that placement cannot be disrupted without a court 

order, a State may choose to include that placement within 

the measure.5 A State might even choose to include as an 

APPLA a group home placement for a child who is unable 

to live with a family, if an adult commits to serving as a 

lifelong mentor and substitute parent for the child, and the 

child accepts that relationship. 

Calculating Times for Different Legal 

Permanency Options 

Because a court may be effective in achieving permanency 

with some placement options but not others, it is important to calculate this measure separately for the different 

options. A single calculation combining all options is less 

informative. Furthermore, if APPLA is included as an option 

in a combined calculation, the timeliness of permanency 

based on numerous APPLAs may be misleading. 

Case Outcomes Not Constituting 

Permanency 

Case outcomes that do not constitute permanency and 

therefore should not be included in the time calculations 

include “aging out,” independent living, emancipation, and 

other nonpermanent legal placement categories. 

Aging Out 

If the court closes a case because a child has “aged out” 

of its jurisdiction, and the child remains in foster care after 

case closure, that child will be considered to have achieved 

legal permanency only if the court has ordered permanent 

placement with the foster parent(s) as an APPLA. 

Independent Living 

Cases labeled “independent living” (e.g., youth who are 

receiving services to help them function better after reaching adulthood) should not be classified as having achieved 

permanency. An independent living situation does not meet 

the goal of legal permanency, which should include, among 

other things, having a permanent family upon reaching 

adulthood. Effective services to help youth function independently upon reaching adulthood, although commendable and helpful, have little to do with permanency. 

Emancipation 

As with independent living, “emancipation” is sometimes 

used as a euphemism for aging out of foster care. In 

addition, an emancipated youth may be a young person 

who is granted some aspects of adult legal status before 

reaching the age of majority. For example, depending on 

State law, an emancipated youth may be granted the right 

to live alone without any adult supervision and to enter into 

certain contracts.6 

Other Nonpermanent Legal Placement Categories 

Examples of other categories of court case closure that 

would not be considered legal permanency for purposes of 

this measure include death of child, transfer of the case to 

another geographic jurisdiction (e.g., another State’s court 

system or another judicial district), transfer of the case to 

another agency, and a runaway or missing child. The Federal Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System (AFCRS), 

which applies to State child welfare agencies, includes 

the following nonpermanent placement categories for 

foster care “discharge”: emancipation, transfer to another 

agency, runaway, and death of the child.7 

Children who are transferred to another jurisdiction 

before case closure or who die in foster care (presumably 

through no fault of the State) should not be included in this 

measure, because such cases are not a reflection of the 

State’s degree of success in achieving timely permanency. 

Likewise, a runaway or other missing child or a child who 

is transferred to another agency (e.g., a juvenile justice 

agency or developmental disabilities agency) also does not 

achieve permanency and therefore should not be included 

in this measure regarding the timeliness of permanency. 

Such cases usually reflect the court’s and the child welfare 

agency’s success in planning, oversight, and decisionmaking with regard to the child. 

Other Measures as Context 

As is often the case, data based on this measure should 

be considered in light of data based on other measures. 

For example, while it is helpful to know how long it takes 

to achieve permanency, it is also helpful to know percentage of children reaching permanency by the time the 

case is closed (Toolkit Measure 2A: Achievement of Child 
measure 4a: Time to Permanent Placement 

Permanency). It is also useful to know what percentage 

of permanent placements subsequently break up, making 

it necessary for the child to reenter foster care (Toolkit 

Measures 2D: Reentry Into Foster Care After Return Home 

and 2E: Reentry Into Foster Care After Adoption or 

Guardianship). 

Measure Limited to Youth 

in Foster Care 

This measure should be limited to youth in foster care. 

Otherwise, it would substantially reflect the percentage of 

abused and neglected children who come before the court 

but never enter foster care rather than the percentage of 

children in foster care who have achieved permanency. 

(Note that the rate of permanency for children who come 

before the court but never enter foster care, excluding 

categories such as children who die while in foster care or 

who are transferred to another jurisdiction, would be close 

to 100 percent.) 

If courts prefer to include all youth under court jurisdiction 

in this measure, they should maintain separate statistics 

on the permanency rate for youth in foster care. 

Choosing a Start Date for Measuring 

Time to Permanency 

Considerations in choosing a start date for this measure 

are (1) consistency with start dates for most of the other 

timeliness measures, (2) consistency with State statutory framework regarding timelines, (3) consistency with 

related child welfare agency performance measures, and 

(4) ease of obtaining data. Possibilities include the date the 

original petition is filed, the date the child is removed from 

home, the date of the first court order authorizing removal, 

and the date of the emergency removal hearing. 

Date Original Petition Is Filed 

The date the petition is filed is clear and easily applied. 

Because the start date is based on the beginning of the 

litigation, the measure will include cases in which the child 

was never removed from home. (Sometimes a child may 

remain at home with the parents throughout the case, 

albeit under court supervision.) Moreover, if a child enters 

foster care long after the petition is filed, the calculated 

time to permanency will be much longer than the time the 

child actually spends in foster care. 

Thus, when the original petition date is used as the start 

date, this becomes in essence a measure of the length of 

the court case leading to permanency. If a court wishes 

to focus instead on children’s loss of permanency based 

on the length of time they are actually placed outside 

the home, another start date (e.g., date of removal, as 

discussed below) may be preferable. Another reason for 

considering other options would be if a court experiences 

frequent but uneven delays in filing petitions.8 

Date Child Is Removed From Home 

Using the removal date as the start date is similar to the 

child welfare agency’s use of the foster care placement 

date, except the calculation will also include children who 

are placed with relatives not licensed as foster parents. 

The rationale for using the removal date as the start date 

is that the time to permanency should relate to the child’s 

experience of not having a permanent home. The assumption is that children most intensely feel the lack of permanency only after removal. As long they are left at home, 

even if under the supervision of the child welfare agency 

and court, they have not experienced the trauma of being 

separated from their parents and generally do not feel a 

loss of permanency as they would in foster care. 

On the other hand, data regarding the removal date must 

come from the child welfare agency and might not be 

readily available. Persuading the agency to provide the 

information in a format that court staff can easily retrieve 

may take time and effort, as may convincing staff to 

consistently enter the information. The development of automated data exchange capabilities may eventually make it 

easier for agencies and courts to share such information. 

Date of First Court Order Authorizing 

Removal of the Child From Home 

The first court order authorizing removal may be (a) an ex 

parte9

 removal order, (b) an emergency non ex parte removal order (where all parties had the chance to be heard), 

(c) an emergency removal hearing order that occurs 

within a few days after removal and typically is the court’s 

first substantive involvement in the case, or (d) any later 

removal order that occurs at a subsequent hearing. 

One advantage of this start date is that it is based on 

action by the court itself; therefore, it is unnecessary to 

obtain information from the agency. Moreover, court staff 

may already be entering information on court orders into 

159 
160 

Technical Guide
 

the court information system. Finally, this start date filters 

out cases in which the child is not removed from the home. 

On the other hand, court employees may be unaccustomed 

to referring to this date, and using it as a start date for the 

measure may require extra training and programming to 

facilitate data entry. 

Date of Emergency Removal Hearing 

In the absence of reliable information from the child welfare agency on removal dates, the court may choose to use 

emergency removal hearing dates as a proxy (substitute) 

start date.10 The date of this hearing should be readily 

available to any court. (Every State has a standard deadline 

for this hearing; that deadline is shortly after the removal 

date.) 

One potential drawback to substituting the emergency 

removal hearing date for the removal date is that the calculation will omit cases in which the child is first removed 

from home later in the process, such as at the disposition or review hearing. If such late removals are rare, the 

emergency removal hearing date may be an acceptable 

start date for this measure. 

Separate Start Dates for In-Home and 

Out-Of-Home Cases 

Courts may choose to adapt this measure to calculate 

timeliness separately for cases in which the child remains 

at home and cases involving out-of-home care. The petition filing date could be used as the start date for in-home 

cases, the removal date as the start date for out-of-home 

cases. 

Identifying the Date Permanency Is 

Achieved 

Calculations of the date that permanency is achieved 

may vary depending on the category of permanency. For 

reunification, the recommended date is the date the case 

is closed following the child’s return home (i.e., the court’s 

jurisdiction over the case has ended). For adoption or legal 

guardianship, the recommended date is the date on which 

the adoption or guardianship is finalized. If the court that 

hears abuse and neglect cases does not also preside over 

adoption and guardianship proceedings, there may be 

significant delays between the date the adoption or guardianship is finalized and the date the original court closes 

its case. Realistically, however, permanency is achieved as 

soon as the adoption or legal guardianship is finalized. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Select a date range for the report. 

2.	 From the cases that were closed within the date range 

selected, the universe included in this measure is 

children who were in foster care at some time while 

their case was open. (A) 

3.	 From dataset (A), select the cases in which the reason 

for closure meets the State’s definition of a permanent 

placement (e.g., family reunification, adoption, or legal 

guardianship). (B) 

4.	 For each case in (B), compute the number of days 

from filing of the petition to closure, and store this 

number in the case record. 

5.	 Determine the median time to permanency in (B) by 

finding the number of days that falls midway between 

the shortest and longest cases (see calculation note, 

below). 

6.	 Determine the average time to permanency in (B) by 

counting the number of cases (C), totaling the days for 

all cases (D), and dividing (D) by (C). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the 

median is simply the middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 

4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of numbers, the median 

is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median of 

2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

Possible Modifications 

1.	 Report on median and average time to permanency 

separately for each type of permanency (reunification, 

adoption, legal guardianship). 

2.	 Report separately on cases by categories such as 

child’s race/ethnicity, child’s age, or age of case at 

closure. 

3.	 Add other permanency options legally recognized 

under State law as additional case closure categories, 

if applicable. 

4.	 Expand the measure by also including children who 

were placed with relatives at some point in the case. 
measure 4a: Time to Permanent Placement 

5.	 In addition to the median and average values, 

calculate and report 75th and 90th percentiles. Such 

a report can clearly show not only the typical case but 

also “outliers” (less common, yet still accounting for 

significant proportions of cases). 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Case closure date. 

u	 Abuse or neglect petition date. 

u	 Case closure reason (includes reunification, adoption, 

or legal guardianship). 

Optional Elements 

u	 Foster care flag = “yes.” 

u	 Case closure reason (includes all legal permanent 

placement types recognized under state law). 

Related CFSR Standards 

The following Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) 

standards for State child welfare agencies are related to 

Toolkit Measure 4A: 

CFSR PC1A1: Of all children discharged from foster care 

to reunification in FY 2004 who had been in foster care 

for 8 days or longer, what percentage was reunified in 

less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal 

from home? 

CFSR PC1A2: Of all children exiting foster care to reunification in 2004 who had been in foster care for 8 days 

or longer, what was the median length of stay in months 

from the date of the most recent entry into foster care 

until the date of reunification? 

CFSR PC1A3: Of all children entering foster care for 

the first time in the second 6 months of FY 2003 who 

remained in foster care for 8 days or longer, what 

percentage was reunified in less than 12 months of the 

date of entry into foster care? 

CFSR PC2A1: Of all children who were discharged from 

foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 2004, what 

percentage was discharged in less than 24 months from 

the time of the latest removal from the home? 

CFSR PC2A2: Of all children who were discharged from 

foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 2004, what was 

the median length of stay in foster care (in months) 

from the time of removal from the home to the time of 

discharge from foster care? 

There are three key differences between these CFSR 

measures and Toolkit Measure 4A. First, Measure 4A 

computes the median/average time only, whereas the 

CFSR measures compute both medians and percentages. 

Second, Measure 4A reflects children’s time under court 

jurisdiction, whereas the CFSR measures reflect their time 

in foster care (regardless of whether they were under court 

jurisdiction). Third, Measure 4A, under the basic business 

rules, computes a single time for all types of permanency, 

whereas the CFSR measures compute times separately for 

reunification and adoption.11 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4A lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data from fictitious jurisdictions to demonstrate how results for this 

measure might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 4A–1. Median Days From Petition to 

Permanency, by Type of Placement, Cases Closed 

in 2005: Court X 

Permanent Placement Type Median Days 

Reunification 254 

Adoption 386 

Guardianship 750 

All Cases 402 

161 
162 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 4A–2. Median Days From Petition to Permanency, by Type of Placement, Type of Permanent Placement 

Cases Closed in 2005: Court X 

Reunification 254 

Adoption 

Guardianship 

All Cases 

The table in sample 4A–1 shows one court’s median days 

from petition to permanency for three types of permanent 

placement, based on cases closed in 2005. A similar table 

could present data statewide or for a particular judicial 

district. 

The bar graph in sample 4A–2 illustrates the data from the 

table in 4A–1. 

Sample 4A–3 presents median, percentile, and average 

values for each of five judicial districts in a small State. By 

including the percentiles, the table shows the “outliers”— 

the length of time it takes the shortest cases (the 25th 

percentile level) and the longest cases (the 90th percentile 

level) to go from petition to permanency. For example, 

Judicial District D has the most extreme outliers within the 

longest 10 percent of cases: At the 90th percentile level, it 

750 

402 

386 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 

Days to Permanency 

takes 602 days for a case to go from petition to permanency. Even though District D has the second fastest median 

time in the State, its longest cases are taking much more 

time than the longest cases take statewide. Not surprisingly, District D has the second highest average days to 

permanency. 

The bar graph in sample 4A–4 illustrates selected data 

from the table in sample4A–3. Although a variety of bar 

graphs or line graphs could be created from the table, 

simple graphs showing only a portion of the data from 

the table are most likely to communicate information 

effectively. 

The table in sample 4A–5 compares time to permanency by 

child’s race/ethnicity, based on cases closed during 2005 

in one medium-sized judicial district. Such information may 

Sample 4A–3. Days From Filing of Petition to Permanency, Cases Closed in 2005, by Judicial District 

Judicial 

District 25th Percentile 

50th Percentile 

(Median) 75th Percentile 90th Percentile Average 

Number of 

Cases 

A 12 79 278 552 230 76 

B 24 110 220 457 203 89 

C 23 135 190 299 162 113 

D 19 101 290 602 253 45 

E 31 167 367 576 285 200 

Statewide 22 118 269 497 227 523 

800 
measure 4a: Time to Permanent Placement 

Sample 4A–4. Days From Filing of Petition to Permanency, Cases Closed in 2005: Judicial District E 

163 

Days

and Statewide 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

25th Percentile
 

50th Percentile (Median)
 

be more useful to a district in the form of a bar graph, as in
 

sample 4A–6.
 

A note about reporting: A variety of other tables and 

graphs could be produced for this measure, showing, for 

example, breakdowns by child’s age at case closure or 

by additional categories of permanency. In deciding what 

information to share with local courts, State-level staff 

might take into consideration the apparent importance of 

the numbers, the cost of producing reports, and the need 

to avoid “statistical overload.” It may make sense to e-mail 

a few graphs and post more on an intranet. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

This section suggests some possible court-related reasons 

for performance results related to timeliness in achieving permanency. Because factors may be different for 

reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship, they are 

described separately for each of these permanency 

options. 

For a broader discussion of factors, see the related 

discussion in Toolkit Measure 2A: Achievement of Child 

Permanency. Many of the factors discussed in Measure 2A 

also apply to this measure. The discussion that follows is 

relatively brief and focuses on those factors most closely 

related to timeliness. 

31 

District E Statewide

227 

497 

269 

118 

22 

285 

576 

367 

167 

75th Percentile Average
 

90th Percentile
 

Sample 4A–5. Average Days From Petition to 

Permanency, by Child’s Race/Ethnicity, Cases 

Closed in 2005: Judicial District X 

Child’s Race/Ethnicity 

Average Days 

to Permanency 

Number 

of Cases 

African American 225 65 

Asian 141 21 

Caucasian 249 66 

Hispanic 201 37 

Native American 189 45 

Other 199 17 

Average 201 251 

Factors Affecting Family Reunification 

Timeliness 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Safety Planning 

The impact of judges and advocates on the timeliness of 

reunification depends in part on their ability to analyze 

safety issues. To help resolve cases quickly, they need to 

know what services are available, what constitutes a good 

case plan, and how to recognize when conditions are safe 

enough for reunification. 
Technical Guide
 

164 

Sample 4A–6. Average Days From Petition to Permanency, by Child’s Race/Ethnicity, Cases Closed in 

2005: Judicial District X 

300
 

250
 

200
 

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

249 

201 

225 

189 

141 

199 

African Asian Caucasian Hispanic Native Other 

American American 

Child’ Race/Ethnicity 

Days 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates in 

Reunification Planning 

The impact of judges and attorneys on the timeliness of 

reunification also depends on the intensity of their involvement in the reunification planning process. By examining 

plans carefully, keeping tabs on implementation, and 

scheduling early and substantive review and permanency 

hearings, they can help to ensure that parents, caseworkers, and service providers do not let matters slip and delay 

progress on the case. 

Legal Criteria and Judicial Conditions for 

Reunification 

A clear goal supported by clear, stable criteria for reunification makes it possible for parents and caseworkers to 

focus on the necessary steps to achieve the goal. If the criteria change as the case moves forward, momentum is lost 

as services are dropped and new approaches introduced. 

In addition to clear legal criteria, parents need to know the 

specific conditions they must meet before the child can 

return home. The judge should work with the parties to 

establish these conditions, focusing on actual changes the 

parents need to make rather than on activities (such as 

attending a program) that may or may not make the home 

safer for the child. 

Factors Affecting Adoption Timeliness 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Adoption 

Judges and advocates need to know enough about the 

adoption process to be able to ask pertinent questions, 

identify sources of delay, and request or issue orders to 

address problems. They also need to be able to identify 

and reject weak excuses for delays or refusals to pursue 

adoption. Finally, they should be aware that adoption is 

an option for a wide range of children and that many 

resources are available for placing children and providing 

assistance following adoption. 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates in the 

Adoption Process 

Judges and advocates need to be actively involved in 

maintaining the momentum of the adoption process. This 

includes holding frequent review hearings when necessary and overseeing agencies’ efforts to place children in 

adoptive homes. 

Judges and advocates must not allow reunification plans 

to continue once it becomes clear that such plans cannot 

succeed. In extreme cases, special steps are required to 

secure early adoption. Such steps may include judicial 

findings that reunification efforts are not required, early 

permanency hearings to consider changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, and early filing 

of petitions for termination of parental rights (TPR). 
measure 4a: Time to Permanent Placement 

Finally, judges and advocates need to remain actively 

involved after TPR if a prospective adoptive family has 

not yet been identified and approved. Frequent, indepth 

reviews and permanency hearings after TPR can greatly 

reduce delays in adoption. 

Legal Criteria and Procedures Relevant to 

Adoption 

The efficiency of TPR procedures is an important factor in 

the timeliness of adoption. For example, mediation, 

effective pretrial proceedings, and strong caseflow management to reduce delays (including timelines governing 

the court process in TPRs) can dramatically shorten TPR 

proceedings and decisions. Similarly, the grounds for TPR 

and the case law interpreting those grounds can affect the 

timeliness of TPR and adoption. 

Adoption law and procedure are also important. Arbitrary 

procedural barriers and overly complex procedures add 

to the amount of time required. Adoptions can unravel 

because of the strain that long waits impose on adoptive 

parents and children. 

Factors Affecting Legal Guardianship 

Timeliness 

Knowledge of Judges and Advocates Regarding 

Legal Guardianship 

Because legal guardianship proceedings are relatively uncommon, judges and advocates must make a special effort 

to become familiar with them. For example, they should 

understand the financial implications of legal guardianship for the guardians, the legal procedures to achieve 

guardianship, and the legal protections (or lack thereof) of 

guardianship under State law. 

Involvement of Judges and Advocates in 

Guardianship Planning 

Judges and advocates can help speed the guardianship 

process by paying attention to and staying involved in 

planning for guardianship. For example, they can ensure 

timely home studies of the guardian household. If multiple 

courts must be involved, they can take steps to expedite 

and coordinate the proceedings. 

Legal Criteria and Judicial Conditions for Legal 

Guardianship 

If the law makes legal guardianship a permanent placement 

for a child, the legal grounds for establishing guardianship 

should reflect that fact. Generally speaking, legal grounds 

for guardianship should require proof that (a) the child 

should not or cannot be returned to his or her parents within 

a reasonable time and (b) legal guardianship, rather than 

adoption, is in the child’s best interests. 

Procedures to establish legal guardianship should be 

efficient but should also provide strong legal protections for 

the parents and child. For example, State laws that allow 

the same court that heard the abuse and neglect case to 

also decide whether to grant legal guardianship strengthen 

procedural protections for the parties (e.g., by providing 

court-appointed counsel for parents) and enhance the 

efficiency of the permanency process. 

Finally, the legal characteristics of legal guardianship 

should reinforce the legal permanency of the arrangement, for the sake of both the child and the guardian. Legal 

guardians should not be subject to ongoing supervision by 

the State child welfare agency and should not be highly 

vulnerable to custodial challenges by biological parents. 

Possible Reforms 

If data from this performance measure indicate room for 

improvement regarding the percentage of cases resulting in permanent placements, the court should consider 

possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of course, depend 

on local conditions and the court’s analysis of the best 

procedures and steps for achieving permanency in its 

jurisdiction. 

The sections that follow present examples of additional 

actions a court might take to improve permanency rates 

for reunification, adoption, and legal guardianship.12 

Family Reunification 

u	 Take more time to address safety issues during 

reviews and permanency hearings. 

u	 Before accepting other permanency plans during 

permanency hearings, require evidence that the child 

cannot safely return home, even with realistically 

available services and help. 

u	 Train judges and attorneys on safety issues, such 

as focusing on the capacity of parents and relatives 

to keep the child safe, focusing on the special 

vulnerabilities of children, and understanding other 

basic elements of good safety analysis. The training 

should include how to address these issues in review 

and permanency hearings. 

165 
166 

Technical Guide
 

u	 Secure the assistance of skilled forensic psychologists 

and psychiatrists in analyzing the safety of 

reunification. 

u	 Improve agency reports to the court by working with 

the agency to develop new forms (or supplements 

to forms) in connection with recommendations for 

reunification. The forms should address matters such 

as the reasons why reunification is or is not now safe; 

how relatives will be involved, when appropriate, 

to help oversee the child’s safety; and transitional 

visitation arrangements. (See endnote 12.) 

u	 Adopt new forms (or supplements to forms) to be used 

for court orders for family reunification. The forms 

should address matters such as those noted above for 

agency reports. (See endnote 12.) 

u	 Before case closure, implement family group 

conferencing models that involve the family in making 

safety plans to maintain their children in a safe and 

secure environment upon reunification. 

Adoption 

u	 Take more time to address adoption issues during 

reviews and permanency hearings. 

u	 Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps 

are being taken to recruit adoptive parents, properly 

screen applicants, conduct thorough and timely home 

studies, and make timely decisions. This review helps 

to avoid the need to make hasty decisions later in the 

process or to choose among insufficiently qualified 

candidates. 

u	 Before accepting other nonreunification permanency 

plans during permanency hearings, require evidence 

that the child cannot or should not be adopted. 

u	 Train judges and attorneys on adoption issues, 

such as the details of the bureaucratic steps in the 

process, adoption recruitment, adoption screening and 

selection, financial barriers, and issues concerning 

adolescents. 

u	 Revise the legal grounds for terminating parental 

rights to eliminate inappropriate barriers to adoption 

for children who are unable to return home within 

a reasonable time, when adoption is in their best 

interests. 

u	 Simplify procedures for terminating parental rights, 

thereby encouraging agency workers and attorneys to 

seek that option and reducing delays. 

u	 Train caseworkers to document and present to the 

court better information regarding reunification. 

Legal Guardianship 

u	 Take more time to address the possibility of legal 

guardianship during reviews and permanency 

hearings, at least for cases in which family 

reunification and adoption are seriously questioned as 

proper case goals. 

u	 Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps 

are being taken to recruit guardians, properly screen 

applicants, conduct thorough and timely home studies, 

and make timely decisions. This review helps avoid the 

need to make hasty decisions later in the process or to 

choose among insufficiently qualified candidates. 

u	 Before accepting lower priority permanency plans 

(such as APPLAs) during permanency hearings, require 

evidence that the child cannot or should not be placed 

in a legal guardianship. 

u	 Revise legal procedures for guardianship to simplify 

the process. 

u	 If legal protection for guardians against biological 

parents seeking to regain custody is inadequate under 

State law, amend statutes to correct the problem. 

u	 Train judges and attorneys on legal guardianship 

issues, such as the process to establish legal 

guardianship, including, where applicable, 

coordination between the court handling the 

guardianship proceeding and the court handling the 

abuse and neglect case; the financial implications 

of legal guardianship, including possible financial 

benefits available; the legal rights and obligations 

of legal guardians under State law; and consent to 

guardianship. 

u	 Revise forms for legal guardianship to help simplify the 

process, clarify the authority and responsibilities of the 

guardian, and set forth the reasons for choosing legal 

guardianship rather than reunification or adoption. 

u	 Train caseworkers to document and present to the 

court better information regarding legal guardianship. 
measure 4a: Time to Permanent Placement 

Endnotes 

1.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(7) states that: 

The term ‘legal guardianship’ means a judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which 

is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as 

evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of the person, custody 

of the person, and decision-making. The term ‘legal 

guardian’ means the caretaker in such a relationship. 

2.	 The term “legal custody,” when used as a type of 

permanent placement, means a court order that 

gives indefinite custody (permanent care and control) 

of a child to an individual or couple. Used in this 

sense during child abuse or neglect proceedings, 

legal custody would survive after the proceedings 

have been closed. However, not every State has 

the option of awarding legal custody of this type in 

the course of child abuse and neglect proceedings. 

The term “legal custody” is different from “physical 

custody” in that legal custody connotes full legal 

decisionmaking powers concerning the child, whereas 

physical custody generally means little more than 

the right to physical care and control of the child. 

Another type of custody in child abuse and neglect 

proceedings, “temporary custody,” typically means 

custody that lasts only as long as the abuse or neglect 

case remains open. Note, however, that the precise 

meaning of custody, legal custody, physical custody, 

and temporary custody can vary from State to State. 

3.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C). 

4.	 For further discussion regarding the meaning of the 

statutory term “another planned permanent living 

arrangement,” see Fiermonte, C., and J. Renne, 

Making It Permanent: Reasonable Efforts To Finalize 

Permanency Plans for Foster Children (Washington, 

DC: American Bar Association, 2002), pp. 78–81. 

5.	 Although “permanent foster family care” is not as 

legally permanent as reunification, adoption, or 

legal guardianship, it is significantly more so than 

conventional foster placements. “Permanent foster 

family care” should be distinguished from “long-term 

foster care,” which generally means that the State or 

court has given up on securing a legally permanent 

placement for the child. The Federal Adoption and Safe 

Families Act of 1997 [42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C)] eliminated 

long-term foster care, so defined, as an acceptable 

permanent placement option. If, however, the term is 

used under State law or practice in a narrower, more 

precise sense to actually mean “permanent foster 

family care,” it may be considered as another type of 

legal permanent placement option for purposes of this 

measure. 

6.	 Some States authorize legal emancipation before age 

18 under certain circumstances, typically after a youth 

has reached age 16 or 17. 

7.	 45 C.F.R. § 1355, Appendix A, Section I(X)(B). 

8.	 For example, the validity of the measure may be 

reduced if petitions are filed during emergency 

removal hearings and the court encounters delays in 

scheduling these hearings. 

9.	 An ex parte order is generated by a judge without 

requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be 

present. 

10. During the emergency removal hearing, the court 

decides whether to return the child home or place the 

child in foster care. Such hearings may be known by 

a variety of other names, such as temporary removal, 

initial, preliminary, detention, preliminary protective, or 

shelter care hearings. 

11. The CFSR designation “PC1” refers to Permanency 

Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of 

Reunification. PC1 includes components A (timeliness) 

and B (permanency), each of which includes separate 

measures. Thus, “PC1A1,” for example, refers to 

Permanency Composite 1, Component A, Measure 1. 

“PC2” refers to Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness 

of Adoption, which includes three components, each 

with separate measures. Each permanency composite 

combines its component measures into a single 

“national standard,” which is the 75th percentile of a 

scaled score taking values from 50 to 150. Although 

CFSR does not have a national standard for each 

component measure, a child welfare agency would 

need to score near the 75th percentile for most of 

the components to meet the national standard for the 

composite. The following tables illustrate the PC1 and 

PC2 components and measures: 

12. See also Fiermonte, C., and J. Renne, Making It 

Permanent: Reasonable Efforts To Finalize Permanency 

Plans for Foster Children (Washington, DC: American 

Bar Association, 2002). 

167 
Technical Guide
 

168 

CFSR Permanency Composite 1. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, 

and Composite National Standard 

Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and permanency of reunification 

Range Median 

National 

Standard 

50–150 102.0 

122.6 

or higher 

Component A: Timeliness of Reunification 

Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in FY 2004 who had 

been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent were reunified in less than 

12 months from the date of the latest removal from home? (This includes the 

“trial home visit adjustment.”) 

44.2–88.8% 69.5% No 

standard 

Of all children exiting foster care to reunification in 2004 who had been in foster 

care for 8 days or longer, what was the median length of stay in months from 

the date of the most recent entry into foster care until the date of reunification? 

(This includes the “trial home visit adjustment.”) 

2.0–13.7 months 6.5 

months 

No 

standard 

Of all children entering foster care for the first time in the second 6 months of 

FY 2003 who remained in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent were 

reunified in less than 12 months of the date of entry into foster care? (This 

includes the “trial home visit adjustment.”) 

15.7%–65.4% 35.3% No 

standard 

Component B: Permanency of reunification 

Of all children exiting foster care to reunification in FY 2003, what percentage 

reentered foster care in less than 12 months? 1.6%–29.8% 15% No 

standard 

CFSR Permanency Composite 2. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, 

and Composite National Standard 

Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of adoption 

Range Median 

National 

Standard 

50–150 96.5 

102.1 

or higher 

Component A: Timeliness of adoptions of children discharged from foster care 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 

2004, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the time of the latest 

removal from the home? 

6.4–74.9% 27.1% No 

standard 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 2004, 

what was the median length of stay in foster care (in months) from the time of removal 

from the home to the time of discharge from foster care? 

16.2–55.7 

months 

32.0 

months 

No 

standard 

Component B: Progress toward adoption for children who meet ASFA time-in-care requirements 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster care for 

17 continuous months or longer, what percent were adopted before the end of the 

fiscal year? 

8.0–25.1% 18.0% No 

standard 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster care for 

17 continuous months or longer, what percent became legally free for adoption (i.e., a 

TPR was granted for each living parent) within 6 months of the beginning of the fiscal 

year? 

0.2–17.2% 9.0% No 

standard 

Component C: Progress toward adoption of children who are legally free for adoption 

Of all children who became legally free for adoption during FY 2004, what percent were 

discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months? 18.9–85.2% 43.7% No 

standard 
measure 4B 

Definition: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to adjudication. 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date the proceedings have formally begun to the date on 

which the case has been adjudicated. “Adjudication” refers to the court’s formal finding, at the conclusion of the adjudication hearing, whether or not the petition alleging child abuse or neglect has been sustained. If the petition is not sustained, 

the case is dismissed. If the petition is sustained, the court has legal authority and responsibility, at a minimum, to determine who will gain custody of the child. The court will also have ongoing responsibility to oversee the case until the child is 

safe in his or her own home or has been placed in a new permanent home. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate an important element not only of their efficiency but also of their impact on abused and 

neglected children. The timeliness of adjudication figures significantly in the timeliness of permanency for abused and 

neglected children, especially those who have been placed in foster care. This is true partly because case planning, which 

requires cooperation between the family and child welfare agency, often cannot effectively begin until the court has resolved whether the child is legally considered to have been abused or neglected. In addition, the more quickly adjudication 

is completed, the shorter the period of anxiety and uncertainty for parent and child while awaiting the outcome of the case. 

The timeliness of adjudication is also important, if less 

critically so, for children not placed in foster care before 

The possibility of data entry errors in this regard may be 

avoided through system design, staff training, and quality 

Time to Adjudication
 

adjudication. (Some children can remain safely at home or 

with an adult relative until adjudication, when the family is 

placed under the temporary supervision of the agency and 

court.) Waiting for the court to decide whether there has 

been abuse or neglect is not easy for these children and 

their families. Only after adjudication does the family know 

with certainty whether it must cooperate with the child 

welfare agency and follow longer term court orders. 

This measure is related to Toolkit Measure 4C: Timeliness 

of Adjudication, which shows the percentage of cases that 

are adjudicated within 30, 60, and 90 days after filing of 

the petition. 

Implementation Issues 

Combined Adjudication-Disposition 

Hearings 

Courts sometimes conduct adjudication immediately 

before disposition, in what court staff may view as a single 

hearing. Because such hearings address two distinct 

functions, staff must record separate adjudication and 

disposition dates for purposes of the Toolkit performance 

measures. 

control. For example, the data entry screen can provide 

prompts asking whether an adjudication hearing also involved disposition and vice versa. Judges can inform staff 

when a hearing includes both adjudication and disposition. 

The titles and content of court orders should reflect when 

adjudication and disposition are combined in a single 

hearing. 

Choosing a Start Date for Measuring 

Time to Adjudication 

A key consideration in choosing the start date for measuring time to adjudication is whether State laws or court 

rules set legal deadlines for adjudication. If so, courts 

should select a start date that will help them measure the 

extent of their compliance with such requirements. Aside 

from State law, there are arguments for using each possible start date. These dates include the following: 

u	 Date the original petition is filed. In addition to 

cases in which the child is removed from home prior 

to adjudication, this clearly defined date will include 

cases in which the child is not removed. If a court 

frequently experiences filing delays of more than 2 

or 3 days, however, it should consider other options. 

u	 Date the child is removed from home. Using this 

start date to calculate the timeliness of adjudication 
170 

Technical Guide
 

encourages the court to address the very earliest, 

most critical delays related to the court process. 

u	 Date of emergency removal hearing. In the absence 

of reliable information from the child welfare agency 

on removal dates, the court may choose to use 

the emergency removal hearing date as a proxy 

(substitute) start date.1 The date of this hearing should 

be readily available to any court. (Every State has a 

standard deadline for this hearing; that deadline is 

shortly after the removal date.) 

For a related, more detailed discussion of start dates, see 

Toolkit Measure 4A: Time to Permanent Placement. 

Separate Start Dates for In-Home and 

Foster Care Cases 

Courts may choose to adapt this measure to calculate 

timeliness of adjudication separately for cases in which the 

child remains at home and cases involving out-of-home 

care. The petition filing date could be used as the start 

date for in-home cases and the removal date as the start 

date for out-of-home cases. 

Choosing a Completion Date for 

Measuring Time to Adjudication 

Possible completion dates for this measure include the beginning of the adjudication hearing, the completion of that 

hearing, the entry of the adjudication order, and the date 

that order becomes final. The best choice is the date the 

adjudication hearing is completed. At that point, the court’s 

decision regarding whether or not the child was abused or 

neglected is first known. It is then clear whether the court 

will take jurisdiction of the case and whether the family 

and agency must negotiate and implement a case plan. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Select a date range for the report. 

2.	 The universe included in this measure is all cases 

with an adjudication date within the date range 

selected. (A) 

3.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days 

from filing of the petition to adjudication, and store 

this number in the case record. 

4.	 Determine the median time to adjudication in (A) 

by finding the number of days that falls midway 

between the lowest and highest number of days (see 

calculation note below). 

5.	 Determine the average time to adjudication in (A) by 

counting the number of cases (B), totaling the days 

from filing to adjudication for all cases (C), and dividing 

(C) by (B). 

A note about the business rules: Under the basic rules, 

the universe for this measure includes both open and 

closed cases. The measure could also be limited to closed 

cases only or open cases only. 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the 

median is simply the middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 

4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of numbers, the median 

is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median of 

2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

Possible Modifications 

1.	 When the child has been removed from home prior to 

the filing of the petition, count the start date from the 

date of removal or from the date of the emergency 

removal hearing. 

2.	 Limit the measure to include only children who were in 

foster care before the filing of the petition. 

3.	 Separately measure the time to adjudication for 

children removed from home and children not 

removed from home prior to the filing of the petition. 

4.	 Separately measure the time to adjudication for 

children removed from home or not removed from 

home prior to the adjudication. 

5.	 In addition to the median and average values, 

calculate the time to adjudication at the 25th, 75th, 

and 90th percentiles. 

6.	 Also calculate the percentage of cases that meet the 

national standard of 60 days from the filing of the 

petition to the adjudication. 

7.	 Report on cases separately by type of abuse or neglect 

(when available). 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 
measure 4B: Time to Adjudication 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Abuse or neglect petition date. 

u	 Adjudication date. 

Optional Elements 

u	 Removal date. 

u	 Emergency removal hearing date-time. 

u	 Placement type. 

u	 Placement beginning date (first placement date, if 

more than one) 

u	 Type of abuse or neglect. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 4B. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4B lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. Note that it may be 

useful to combine data from Measures 4B and 4C in some 

reports. 

The table in sample 4B–1 shows quarterly trends in one 

court’s median days to adjudication over a 6-year period. 

This court clearly has had ups and downs in its performance. In the first quarter of 2001, the median days to 

adjudication jumped from 80 to 105 (an increase of more 

than 25 percent), beginning a reversal of the downward 

trend of the previous four quarters. Such a precipitous 

change calls for close examination to determine the cause. 

This 6-year history indicates that the court took action to 

adjudicate cases more quickly, eventually meeting with 

considerable success. The median days for the most recent 

quarter (68) are down almost 40 percent from the 110-day 

high point in the fourth quarter of 2001. 

The line graph in sample 4B–2 uses data from the table to 

illustrate the overall downward trend in this court’s median 

days to adjudication. It clearly shows how long it took the 

court to bring its performance back to the pre-2001 level 

and then to improve performance even further. 

Sample 4B–3 uses a tabular format to compare median, 

average, and selected percentile values for days to adjudication in a small State’s five judicial districts during 2005. 

Sample 4B–1. Quarterly Trends in Time to 

Adjudication, 2000–2005: Court X 

Median Days 

From Filing of Petition 

Quarter to Adjudication 

2000 Q1 89

 Q2 83

 Q3 87

 Q4 80 

2001 Q1 105

 Q2 108

 Q3 108

 Q4 110 

2002 Q1 102

 Q2 100

 Q3 97

 Q4 95 

2003 Q1 95

 Q2 92

 Q3 90

 Q4 82 

2004 Q1 78

 Q2 85

 Q3 75

 Q4 83 

2005 Q1 77

 Q2 75

 Q3 70

 Q4 68 

171 
172 

Technical Guide
 

Because the State has a statutory requirement of 60 days, 

the table also includes the percentage of cases that meet 

that standard. (The national standard, as set forth in the 

ResouRCe Guidelines,

2

 is also 60 days.) 

The table shows that judicial districts A, B, and C meet 

the State and national standard for a median of 60 days 

to adjudication. The statewide median of 62 days comes 

close to the standard, and 54 percent of cases statewide 

were adjudicated within 60 days. 

Of course, it is not possible to meet a 60-day deadline for 

adjudication in every case, even with best practices to 

avoid delays. For example, if a custodial parent disappears, 

locating the parent and completing service of process 

may take longer than 60 days. Such cases can take much 

longer than is typical. On the other hand, many cases 

settle early and adjudication may take place shortly after 

the case begins (e.g., during a pretrial hearing or even an 

emergency removal hearing). By calculating percentile 

values in addition to medians and averages, courts can 

capture such timeliness “outliers” and evaluate their frequency. For example, in sample 4B–3, the statewide 75thpercentile value of 86 means that 75 percent of cases 

were adjudicated in 86 or fewer days, and 25 percent took 

longer. 

Using data from the table, the bar graph in sample 4B–4 

illustrates the average and median days to adjudication 

for all five courts and the district as a whole. This graph 

makes it easy to see how the courts compare to each other 

and to the overall performance of the district. The shorter 

the bar, the faster the time to adjudication—and the better 

the performance of the court. 

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 

Sample 4B–3. Time to Adjudication for Cases Adjudicated in 2005, by Judicial District Median Days From Filing of Petition to Adjudication

Judicial 

District 

Days From Filing of Petition to Adjudication % of Cases 

Adjudicated 

Within 60 Days 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile (Median) 

75th 

Percentile 

90th 

Percentile Average 

A 30 60 74 102 67 50% 

B 40 55 87 105 72 62% 

C 21 48 80 109 65 65% 

D 37 78 99 129 86 35% 

E 25 70 89 160 86 60% 

Statewide 31 62 86 121 75 54% 
measure 4B: Time to Adjudication 

Sample 4B–4. Average and Median Days From Filing of Original Petition to Adjudication, 

by Judicial District, 2005 Days 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

67 

86 

65 

60 

70 72 

86 

75 

55 

62 

Average Days Median Days 

48 

78 

Judicial District 

A B C D E Statewide

Factors That May Affect Results 

Court Control of Scheduling 

By using effective caseflow management, courts can set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes court control of scheduling, short timeframes for 

steps in the court process, and strict limits on the granting 

of continuances. 

In contrast, if the child welfare agency and the attorneys 

set the pace of the process, the timing of the adjudication 

hearing is likely to reflect their preferences. For example, 

busy attorneys may seek frequent delays for perceived 

tactical advantages. 

Timely Service of Process on Parties 

Speedy service of process on all parties is an important 

factor in timely adjudication. The child welfare agency 

must be diligent in quickly identifying and locating parties, 

preparing court papers for service of process, and making 

referrals to those who actually serve the papers. 

Early and Effective Emergency 

Removal and Pretrial Hearings 

Early emergency removal hearings can speed the 

completion of adjudication. Parties who are present at the 

emergency removal hearing can be served at that hearing. 

Emergency removal hearings can also help the agency and 

the court identify and locate other parties to be served if 

not present at the emergency removal hearing. Effective 

emergency removal hearings can also begin to clarify and 

narrow the issues for adjudication. 

Similarly, pretrial hearings can reduce delays and narrow 

issues before the adjudication hearing. Pretrial hearings 

can review the progress of efforts at service of process, 

determine whether or not the case will be contested, and 

set or confirm the adjudication hearing date. By narrowing the issues, pretrial hearings can shorten adjudication 

hearings, thus allowing more cases to be adjudicated in 

less time. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in the timeliness of adjudication, the court 

173 
174 

Technical Guide
 

should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of 

course, depend on local conditions and the court’s analysis 

of the best procedures for accomplishing this goal. A court 

might, for example, consider the following improvements: 

u	 Meet with the sheriff’s office or other entity 

responsible for service of process, to design more 

efficient procedures. 

u	 Set and enforce shorter time limits for emergency 

removal hearings. 

u	 Strengthen emergency removal hearings by requiring 

agencies to be more diligent in their efforts to induce 

parties to be present. 

u	 Hold earlier pretrial hearings or require pretrial 

hearings in every case where service of process has 

not been completed within a specified date. 

u	 Meet with agency representatives and attorney groups 

to identify and reduce delays in adjudication. 

u	 Assign court employees responsibility for monitoring 

delays in adjudication and bringing delays to the 

attention of the judge. 

u	 Set and enforce strict criteria for granting 

continuances. 

u	 Overall, set and enforce shorter time limits for 

adjudication. 

u	 Implement a preadjudication mediation program. 

u	 Support a wide range of more general legal and 

judicial system improvements related to this measure. 

Endnotes 

1.	 During the emergency removal hearing, the court 

decides whether to return the child home or place the 

child in foster care. Such hearings may be known by 

a variety of other names, such as temporary removal, 

initial, preliminary, detention, preliminary protective, or 

shelter care hearings. 

2.	 See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges, ResouRCe Guidelines: improving Court 

Practice in Child Abuse and neglect Cases (Reno, 

NV: NCJFCJ, 1995), p. 47. 
measure 4C 

Definition: Percentage of cases that are adjudicated within 30, 60, or 90 days after the filing of the original petition. 

Explanation: This measure shows the percentage of child abuse and neglect cases that are adjudicated within reasonable 

periods of time following the filing of the petition. 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate an important element not only of their efficiency but also of their impact on abused and 

neglected children. The timeliness of adjudication figures significantly in the timeliness of permanency for abused and 

neglected children, especially those who have been placed in foster care. This is true partly because case planning, which 

requires cooperation between the family and child welfare agency, often cannot effectively begin until the court has resolved whether the child is legally considered to have been abused or neglected. In addition, the more quickly adjudication 

is completed, the shorter the period of anxiety and uncertainty for parent and child while awaiting the outcome of the case. 

The timeliness of adjudication is also important, if less 

critically so, for children not placed in foster care before 

adjudication. Waiting for the court to decide whether there 

has been abuse or neglect is not easy for these children 

and their families. Only after adjudication does the family 

know with certainty whether it must cooperate with the 

Choosing a Start Date for Measuring 

Timeliness of Adjudication 

A key consideration in choosing the start date for measuring timeliness of adjudication is whether State laws or 

court rules set legal deadlines for adjudication. If so, courts 

should select a start date that will help them measure the 

extent of their compliance with such requirements. Aside 

from State law, there are arguments for using each possible start date. These dates include the following: 

u	 Date the original petition is filed. In addition to 

cases in which the child is removed from home prior 

to adjudication, this clearly defined date will include 

cases in which the child is not removed. If a court 

frequently experiences filing delays of more than 2 

or 3 days, however, it should consider other options. 

u	 Date the child is removed from home. Using this 

start date to calculate the timeliness of adjudication 

encourages the court to address the very earliest, 

most critical delays related to the court process. 

u	 Date of emergency removal hearing. In the absence 

of reliable information from the child welfare agency 

on removal dates, the court may choose to use 

the emergency removal hearing date as a proxy 

(substitute) start date.1 The date of this hearing should 

be readily available to any court. (Every State has a 

standard deadline for this hearing; that deadline is 

shortly after the removal date.) 

For a related, more detailed discussion of start dates, see 

Toolkit Measure 4A: Time to Permanent Placement. 

Timeliness of Adjudication
 

child welfare agency and follow longer-term court orders. 

This measure is related to Toolkit Measure 4B: Time to 

Adjudication, which shows the average (median) time from 

filing of the petition to adjudication. 

Implementation Issues 

Combined Adjudication-Disposition 

Hearings 

Courts sometimes conduct adjudication immediately 

before disposition, in what court staff may view as a single 

hearing. Because such hearings address two distinct 

functions, staff must record separate adjudication and 

disposition dates for purposes of the Toolkit performance 

measures. 

The possibility of data entry errors in this regard may be 

avoided through system design, staff training, and quality 

control. For example, the data entry screen can provide 

prompts asking whether an adjudication hearing also involved disposition and vice versa. Judges can inform staff 

when a hearing includes both adjudication and disposition. 

The titles and content of court orders should reflect when 

adjudication and disposition are combined in a single 

hearing. 
176 

Technical Guide
 

Separate Start Dates for In-Home and 

Foster Care Cases 

Courts may choose to adapt this measure to calculate 

timeliness of adjudication separately for cases in which the 

child remains at home and cases involving out-of-home 

care. The petition filing date could be used as the start 

date for in-home cases and the removal date as the start 

date for out-of-home cases. 

Choosing a Completion Date for 

Measuring Timeliness of Adjudication 

Possible completion dates for this measure include the beginning of the adjudication hearing, the completion of that 

hearing, the entry of the adjudication order, and the date 

that order becomes final. The best choice is the date the 

adjudication hearing is completed. At that point, the court’s 

decision regarding whether or not the child was abused or 

neglected is first known. It is then clear whether the court 

will take jurisdiction of the case and whether the family 

and agency must negotiate and implement a case plan. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Select a date range for the report. 

2.	 The universe included in this measure is all cases with 

an adjudication date within the date range selected. 

(A) 

3.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days 

from filing of the petition to adjudication, and store this 

number in the case record. Then divide the cases in (A) 

into four categories based on the number of days from 

filing to adjudication, as follows: within 30 days (B), 

between 31 and 60 days (C), between 61 and 90 days 

(D), and more than 90 days (E). 

4.	 Compute the percentage of cases in each of these 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each 

category by (A). 

Possible Modifications 

1.	 When the child has been removed from home prior 

to the filing of the petition, count from the date of 

removal or from the date of the emergency removal 

hearing. 

2.	 Limit the measure to include only children who were in 

foster care before the filing of the petition. 

3.	 Separately measure the time to adjudication for 

children removed from home and children not 

removed from home prior to the filing of the petition. 

4.	 Separately measure the time to adjudication for 

children removed from home and not removed from 

home prior to the adjudication. 

5.	 Report on cases separately by type of abuse or 

neglect. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Abuse or neglect petition date. 

u	 Adjudication date. 

Optional Elements 

u	 Removal date. 

u	 Emergency removal hearing date-time. 

u	 Placement type. 

u	 Placement beginning date (the earliest date, if more 

than one). 

u	 Type of abuse or neglect. 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 4C. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4C lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 
measure 4C: Timeliness of Adjudication 

Sample 4C–1. Time to Adjudication, by Court, 2005: Judicial District 1 

Court 

Days From Filing of Original Petition to Adjudication 

Total 

Cases 

1–30 Days 31–60 Days 61–90 Days 

More Than 

90 Days Average 

Days 

Median 

# % # % # % # % Days

A 23 15% 60 40% 46 31% 21 14% 55 53 150 

B 12 16% 44 60% 17 23% 0 0% 48 43 73 

C 18 41% 23 52% 2 5% 1 2% 50 58 44 

D 44 75% 7 12% 8 14% 0 0% 25 26 59 

E 6 6% 34 36% 39 41% 15 16% 45 60 94 

Districtwide 103 25% 168 40% 112 27% 37 9% 45 48 420 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. Note that it may 

be useful to combine data from Measures 4B and 4C in 

some reports. 

The table in sample 4C–1 compares the timeliness of 

adjudication in five different courts in one judicial district 

during 2005. Court D had the timeliest adjudications by far: 

all of its adjudications occurred within 90 days of filing, 86 

percent occurred within 60 days, and 75 percent occurred 

within 30 days. By contrast, Court E held 83 percent of its 

adjudications within 90 days, 42 percent within 60 days, 

and just 6 percent within 30 days. This table also presents 

median and average data from Measure 4B, providing a 

full picture of timeliness to adjudication in this district. 

A pie chart, as in sample 4C–2, is a good way to illustrate 

one court’s performance, based on the Measure 4C data 

from the preceding table. Multiple charts displayed side by 

side would be useful for comparing courts. 

The bar graph in sample 4C–3 illustrates the percentage of cases adjudicated within 60 days, adding up the 

information from the first two sets of columns in sample 

4C–1 (percentage of cases adjudicated within 1–30 days 

plus percentage of cases adjudicated within 31–60 days). 

It displays the districts in order of performance, with the 

best performers at the right. The graph makes it easy to 

Sample 4C–2. Distribution of Cases by Days 

From Filing of Original Petition to Adjudication in 

2005: Court A 

14% 15% 

31% 

40% 

1–30 days 61–90 days 

31–60 days >90 days 

177 
178 

Technical Guide
 

see the range of performance and to compare each court 

to the districtwide average (three are above the average, 

two below). 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Court Control of Scheduling 

By using effective caseflow management, courts can set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes court control of scheduling, short timeframes for 

steps in the court process, and strict limits on the granting 

of continuances. 

In contrast, if the child welfare agency and the attorneys 

set the pace of the process, the timing of the adjudication 

hearing is likely to reflect their preferences. For example, 

busy attorneys may seek frequent delays for perceived 

tactical advantages. 

Timely Service of Process on Parties 

Speedy service of process on all parties is an important 

factor in timely adjudication. The child welfare agency 

must be diligent in quickly identifying and locating parties, 

preparing court papers for service of process, and making 

referrals to those who actually serve the papers. 

Early and Effective Emergency 

Removal and Pretrial Hearings 

Early emergency removal hearings can speed the 

completion of adjudication. Parties who are present at the 

emergency removal hearing can be served at that hearing. 

Emergency removal hearings can also help the agency and 

the court identify and locate other parties to be served if 

not present at the emergency removal hearing. Effective 

emergency removal hearings can also begin to clarify and 

narrow the issues for adjudication. 

Similarly, pretrial hearings can reduce delays and narrow 

issues before the adjudication hearing. Pretrial hearings 

can review the progress of efforts at service of process, 

determine whether or not the case will be contested, and 

set or confirm the adjudication hearing date. By narrowing the issues, pretrial hearings can shorten adjudication 

hearings, thus allowing more cases to be adjudicated in 

less time. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in the timeliness of adjudication, the court 

should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of 

course, depend on local conditions and the court’s analysis 

of the best procedures for accomplishing this goal. A court 

might, for example, consider the following improvements: 

Sample 4C–3. Percentage of Cases Adjudicated in 2005 Within 60 Days After Filing of Petition, 

by Court: Judicial District 1 

100% 93%

87%

80% 76%

65%

60% 55%

42%

40%

20%

0%

E A

Judicial Districts 

B D C Districtwide
measure 4C: Timeliness of Adjudication 

u	 Meet with the sheriff’s office or other entity 

responsible for service of process to design more 

efficient procedures. 

u	 Set and enforce shorter time limits for emergency 

removal hearings. 

u	 Strengthen emergency removal hearings by requiring 

agencies to be more diligent in their efforts to induce 

parties to be present. 

u	 Hold earlier pretrial hearings or require pretrial 

hearings in every case where service of process has 

not been completed within a specified date. 

u	 Meet with agency representatives and attorney groups 

to identify and reduce delays in adjudication. 

u	 Assign court employees responsibility for monitoring 

delays in adjudication and bringing delays to the 

attention of the judge. 

u	 Set and enforce strict criteria for granting 

continuances. 

u	 Overall, set and enforce shorter time limits for 

adjudication. 

u	 Implement a preadjudication mediation program. 

u	 Support a wide range of more general legal and 

judicial system improvements related to this measure. 

Endnote 

1.	 During the emergency removal hearing, the court 

decides whether to return the child home or place the 

child in foster care. Such hearings may be known by 

a variety of other names, such as temporary removal, 

initial, preliminary, detention, preliminary protective, or 

shelter care hearings. 

179 

measure 4D 

Definition: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to the disposition hearing. 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the time a case begins to the disposition hearing. “Disposition 

hearing” refers to the hearing in which the court, following adjudication, decides who will have temporary legal custody of 

the child.1 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate the timeliness of the disposition hearing, particularly for children who have previously 

been placed in foster care. Timeliness of disposition is a significant factor in the timeliness of permanency, particularly in 

States where the court approves or modifies the terms of the case plan at the disposition hearing. The disposition hearing 

generally represents the first formal consideration of the case plan by the court and firmly establishes the plan for the child. 

Furthermore, at this hearing, the court decides whether or not to authorize placement of the child into foster care for an 

extended period of time. 

The timeliness of disposition is also important for children 

not placed in foster care before adjudication. Waiting for 

the court to decide about the case plan and the terms of 

court and agency oversight is difficult for these children 

and their families. In addition, there is the possibility that 

and quality control personnel must devote special attention 

to this issue. 

Choosing a Start Date for Measuring 

Time to Disposition 

Time to Disposition Hearing
 

the court will decide at the disposition hearing to remove 

the child from home. 

This measure is related to Toolkit Measure 4E: Timeliness 

of Disposition Hearing, which shows the percentage of 

cases in which disposition occurred within 10, 30, and 60 

days after adjudication. 

Implementation Issues 

Combined Adjudication-Disposition 

Hearings 

Courts sometimes conduct disposition hearings immediately after adjudication, in what court staff may view 

as a single hearing. Because such hearings address two 

distinct functions, staff must record separate adjudication 

and disposition hearing dates for purposes of these Toolkit 

performance measures. 

Judges can inform staff when a hearing includes both 

adjudication and disposition. The titles and content of court 

orders should reflect when adjudication and disposition are 

combined in a single hearing. 

Finally, because there is a substantial risk that court staff 

will enter data indicating that only one of these hearings 

took place, case management system designers, trainers, 

A key consideration in choosing the start date for measuring time to disposition is whether State laws or court rules 

set legal deadlines for disposition hearings to be held. If 

so, courts should select a start date that will help them 

measure the extent of their compliance with such requirements. Aside from State law, there are arguments for using 

each possible start date. These dates include the following: 

u	 Date the original petition is filed. In addition to 

cases in which the child is removed from home prior 

to adjudication, this clearly defined date will include 

cases in which the child is not removed. If a court 

frequently experiences filing delays of more than 2 

or 3 days, however, it should consider other options. 

u	 Date the child is removed from home. Using this 

start date to calculate the timeliness of disposition 

encourages the court to address the very earliest, 

most critical delays related to the court process. 

u	 Date of emergency removal hearing. In the absence 

of reliable information from the child welfare agency 

on removal dates, the court may choose to use 

the emergency removal hearing date as a proxy 

(substitute) start date.2 The date of this hearing should 

be readily available to any court. (Every State has a 

standard deadline for this hearing; that deadline is 

shortly after the removal date.) 
182 

Technical Guide
 

For a related, more detailed discussion of start dates, see 

Toolkit Measure 4A: Time to Permanent Placement. 

Choosing a Completion Date for 

Measuring Time to Disposition 

Possible completion dates for this measure include the 

beginning of the disposition hearing, the completion of that 

hearing, the entry of the disposition order, and the date 

that order becomes final. The best choice is the date the 

disposition hearing is completed. At that point, the parties 

will know that they are obliged to implement a case plan, 

either under the terms specified by the court or (in States 

where the court does not perform that function) as specified by the child welfare agency. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Select a date range for the report. 

2.	 The universe included in this measure is all cases 

with a disposition hearing date within the date range 

selected. (A) 

3.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days from 

filing of the petition to completion of the disposition 

hearing, and store this number in the case record. 

4.	 Determine the median time to disposition in (A) 

by finding the number of days that falls midway 

between the lowest and highest number of days (see 

calculation note below). 

5.	 Determine the average time to disposition in (A) by 

counting the number of cases (B), totaling the days 

from filing to disposition for all cases (C), and dividing 

(C) by (B). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the 

median is simply the middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 

4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of numbers, the median 

is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median of 

2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

Possible Modifications 

1.	 When the child has been removed from home prior 

to the filing of the petition, count from the date of 

removal or from the date of the emergency removal 

hearing. 

2.	 Limit the measure to include only children who were in 

foster care before the filing of the petition. 

3.	 Separately measure the time to disposition for children 

removed from home and not removed from home prior 

to filing of the petition. 

4.	 In addition to the median and average values, 

calculate the time to adjudication at the 25th, 75th, 

and 90th percentiles. Also calculate the percentage of 

cases that reached disposition within 30, 60, and 90 

days from filing of the petition. 

5.	 Report on cases separately by type of abuse or 

neglect. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Abuse or neglect petition date. 

u	 Disposition hearing date. 

Optional Element 

u	 Removal date. 

u	 Emergency removal hearing date-time. 

u	 Type of abuse or neglect. 

u	 Placement type. 

u	 Placement beginning date (the earliest date, if more 

than one). 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 4D. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4D lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 
measure 4D: Time to Disposition Hearing 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. Note that it may 

be useful to combine data from Measure 4D with data from 

Measure 4B: Time to Adjudication or Measure 4E: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing in some reports. 

The table in sample 4D–1 compares the average and 

median days from filing to disposition for the five judicial 

Sample 4D–1. Average and Median Days From 

Filing of Original Petition to Disposition Hearing, 

by Judicial District, 2006 

Judicial District 

Average 

Days 

Median 

Days Total Cases 

A 67 70 239 

B 56 57 264 

C 63 70 520 

D 70 80 243 

E 83 95 368 

Statewide 67 72 1,634 

districts in a small State. The bar graph in sample 4D–2 

illustrates the statistics from the table. The disposition 

hearings in this State are very timely, and the differences 

among districts are relatively small. Even so, it might be 

worthwhile to investigate why disposition hearings are so 

much timelier in District B than in District E. 

In addition to medians and averages, it might also be 

useful to report time to disposition at the 25th, 75th, and 

90th percentiles, to get a clearer picture of the fastest 

and slowest cases. For a related discussion, see Measure 

4A: Time to Permanent Placement, “Reporting the Data,” 

sample 4A–2. 

Sample 4D–3 provides a more detailed look at when 

dispositional hearings are occurring in the different districts. The table shows that District B has a relatively high 

proportion of cases reaching disposition within 30 days 

after filing. Such cases may have been rushed, as could 

happen if, for example, an early adjudication and disposition occurred on the same day, with insufficient time to 

consider the case plan. To check that possibility, the district 

could analyze the quality and completeness of case plans 

in the 30-day disposition category. If the analysis shows 

that these case plans were relatively complete or that early 

reviews were scheduled to review and revise the plans, 

then District B should be pleased by the frequency of these 

early disposition hearings. 

Sample 4D–2. Average and Median Days From Filing of Petition to Disposition Hearing, 

by Judicial District, 2006 

100 95
 

90
 83 

80 80 

72 70 70 70

70 67 67

63
 

60
 56 57
 

50
 

40
 

30
 

20
 

10
 

0
 

A B C D E Statewide

Judicial District 

Days From Filing of Petition to Disposition

183 

Average Days Median Days 
Technical Guide
 

184 

By adding the percentages of cases in the first three to compare each district’s performance to the statewide 

categories of the previous table, the bar graph in sample average and to the national standard. It shows, among 

4D–4 shows the percentage of cases reaching disposi- other things, that unless this State has a legal deadline for 

tion within 90 days—the national standard, as set forth in disposition hearings that is substantially shorter than 90 

the REsouRCE GuiDEliNEs.3 The chart makes it possible 

Sample 4D–3. Time to Disposition Hearing in 2006, by Judicial District 

Judicial District 

Days From Filing of Original Petition to Disposition Hearing 

Total Cases 

1–30 Days 31–60 Days 61–90 Days 

More Than 

90 Days 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

A 15 6% 79 33% 100 42% 45 19% 239 

B 33 13% 116 44% 99 38% 16 6% 264 

C 45 9% 201 39% 187 36% 87 17% 520 

D 15 6% 69 28% 103 42% 56 23% 243 

E 23 6% 80 22% 75 20% 190 52% 368 

Statewide 131 8% 545 33% 564 35% 394 24% 1,634 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Sample 4D–4. Percentage of Cases Reaching Disposition Within 90 Days of Filing, 

by Judicial District, 2006 Percentage of Cases 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

19% 6% 17% 23% 52% 24% 

81% 94% 83% 77% 48% 76%

A B c D E Statewide 

Judicial District 

90 Days and Under More Than 90 Days 
measure 4D: Time to Disposition Hearing 

days, the courts’ performance in three of the districts (B, C, 

and A) is excellent. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Court Control of Scheduling 

By using effective caseflow management, courts can set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes court control of scheduling, short timeframes for 

steps in the court process, and strict limits on the granting 

of continuances. 

In contrast, if the child welfare agency and the attorneys 

set the pace of the process, the timing of the disposition 

hearing is likely to reflect their preferences. For example, 

busy attorneys may seek frequent delays for perceived 

tactical advantages. 

Timeliness of Adjudication 

Disposition cannot take place until adjudication has occurred. Therefore, all of the steps in the court process that 

contribute to the timeliness of adjudication (as discussed 

in Toolkit Measure 4C: Timeliness of Adjudication) also 

contribute to the timeliness of disposition. 

Timeliness of Predisposition Reports 

Most courts require the child welfare agency to file a report 

to the court with recommendations regarding disposition. 

If this report is submitted to the court and mailed to the 

parties well in advance of the disposition hearing, both the 

court and the parties can become familiar with the issues 

in the case and be prepared for the hearing. 

Timeliness of the predisposition report affects not only the 

timeliness of the disposition hearing but also the quality of 

the hearing. Without a timely report, parties are less likely 

to offer useful criticisms of the proposed case plan, suggest refinements, and present counterproposals. 

Despite the importance of timely predisposition reports, 

it is common practice for child welfare agencies to file 

these reports close to or during the disposition hearing. 

When this happens, the parties have legitimate cause to 

request a delay in the hearing so they can investigate the 

sources of information used in the report, line up witnesses 

to respond to proposals, and prepare for the hearing. 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in the timeliness of disposition, the court 

should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of 

course, depend on local conditions and the court’s analysis 

of the best procedures for accomplishing this goal. A court 

might, for example, consider the following improvements: 

u	 Establish caseflow management techniques, conduct 

training, and periodically measure and report on the 

results. 

u	 Set and enforce shorter time limits for disposition 

hearings. 

u	 Involve the child welfare agency in meetings and 

training programs aimed at improving the timeliness of 

agency predisposition reports. Also include others who 

contribute information to these reports or prepare their 

own reports. 

u	 Set and enforce strict policies regarding the timely 

filing of predisposition reports. 

u	 Assign court employees responsibility for monitoring 

delays in disposition hearings and bringing delays to 

the attention of the judge. 

In addition, the “Possible Reforms” section of Toolkit Measure 2A: Achievement of Child Permanency lists reforms 

that affect the timeliness of the overall court process. 

These reforms are also relevant to this measure. 

Endnotes 

1.	 When the court approves a child’s continued 

placement in foster care, it generally awards 

temporary custody (or the State’s equivalent to 

temporary custody) to the child welfare agency. In 

many States, the court makes a number of additional 

decisions during the disposition hearing, such as 

approving or modifying the case plan, setting terms of 

visitation, and issuing a variety of other orders. 

There are two possible sources of confusion regarding 

the function and purpose of disposition hearings. 

First, many courts use the term “disposition” to 

refer to the closing of the case. By contrast, the 

term “disposition hearing,” as generally used in 

child protection cases, is a relatively early stage 

of litigation. Second, Federal foster care law prior 

to 1997 used the term “dispositional hearing” in 

185 
186 

Technical Guide
 

reference to a hearing that would take place within 

18 months after removal from the home and annually 

thereafter. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 

1997, Public Law 103–89, amending 42 U.S.C. § 

675(5)(C), changed the term “dispositional hearing” 

to “permanency hearing,” shortened the deadline 

for the first permanency hearing, and tightened the 

functions of the permanency hearing. Accordingly, 

a permanency hearing generally takes place much 

later than a disposition hearing (as the term is used 

herein). Whereas the disposition hearing is intended 

to set the initial long-term case goal for the child, the 

permanency hearing is intended to set the final case 

goal. 

2.	 During the emergency removal hearing, the court 

decides whether to return the child home or place the 

child in foster care. Such hearings may be known by 

a variety of other names, such as temporary removal, 

initial, preliminary, detention, preliminary protective, or 

shelter are hearings. 

3.	 See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges, REsouRCE GuiDEliNEs: improving Court 

Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: 

NCJFCJ, 1995), p. 55. 
measure 4e 

Definition: Percentage of cases in which the disposition hearing occurs within 10, 30, or 60 days after adjudication. 

Explanation: This measure shows the percentage of child abuse or neglect cases for which a disposition hearing is held 

within reasonable periods of time following adjudication. “Disposition hearing” refers to the hearing in which the court, 

following adjudication, decides who will have temporary legal custody of the child.1 

Purpose: To help courts evaluate the timeliness of disposition hearings, which is especially important for children who have 

been placed in foster care before adjudication. 

Timeliness of this hearing is a significant factor in the 

timeliness of permanency, particularly in States where the 

court approves or modifies the terms of the case plan at 

the disposition hearing. This hearing generally represents 

the first formal consideration of the case plan by the court 

and firmly establishes the plan for the child. Furthermore, 

at this hearing, the court decides whether or not to authorize placement of the child into foster care for an extended 

period of time. 

orders should reflect when adjudication and disposition are 

combined in a single hearing. 

Finally, because there is a substantial risk that court staff 

will enter data indicating that only one of these hearings 

took place, case management system designers, trainers, 

and quality control personnel must devote special attention 

to this issue. 

Possible Concerns About Very Early 

Disposition Hearings 

A very short time between adjudication and disposition 

may or may not be a positive indicator of court performance. The question is whether the quality of dispositions 

suffers when they often take place on the day of adjudication or shortly thereafter. 

For example, where disposition immediately follows 

adjudication and, due to the lack of time to prepare for 

disposition, there is little careful focus on disposition, this 

is reason for concern. It is important that the disposition 

hearing consider very carefully whether to place or continue the child in foster care, what will be the permanency 

goal for the case (reunification, adoption, legal guardianship, etc.), and the terms of the case plan. On the other 

hand, if disposition often immediately follows adjudication, 

but the parties receive predisposition reports well in advance and disposition orders are consistently specific and 

well crafted, it is an indication of excellence. 

Choosing a Start Date for Measuring 

Time From Adjudication to Disposition 

Hearing 

Possible start dates for this measure include the beginning 

of the adjudication hearing, the completion of that hearing, 

Timeliness of Disposition Hearing
 

The timeliness of the disposition hearing is also important 

for children not placed in foster care before adjudication. 

Waiting for the court to decide about the case plan and the 

terms of court and agency oversight is difficult for these 

children and their families. In addition, there is the possibility that the court will decide, at the disposition hearing, to 

remove the child from home. 

This measure is related to Toolkit Measure 4D: Time to Disposition Hearing which shows the average (median) time 

from filing of the original petition to the disposition hearing. 

Implementation Issues 

Combined Adjudication-Disposition 

Hearings 

Some courts routinely conduct the disposition hearing 

immediately after the adjudication, in what court staff may 

view as a single hearing. Because such hearings address 

two distinct functions, staff must record separate adjudication and disposition hearing dates for purposes of the 

Toolkit performance measures. 

Judges can inform staff when a hearing includes both 

adjudication and disposition. The titles and content of court 
188 

Technical Guide
 

the entry of the adjudication order, and the date that order 

becomes final. The best choice is the date the adjudication 

hearing is completed because that is the recommended 

completion date for Toolkit Measure 4B: Time to 

Adjudication. 

Choosing a Completion Date for 

Measuring Time From Adjudication 

to Disposition 

Possible completion dates for this measure include the 

beginning of the disposition hearing, the completion of that 

hearing, the entry of the disposition order, and the date 

that order becomes final. The best choice is the date the 

disposition hearing is completed. At that point, the parties 

will know that they are obliged to implement a case plan, 

either under the terms specified by the court or (in States 

where the court does not perform that function) as specified by the child welfare agency. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Select a date range for the report. 

2.	 The universe included in this measure is all cases 

with a disposition hearing date within the date range 

selected. (A) 

3.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days from 

adjudication to completion of the disposition hearing, 

and store this number in the case record. Then divide 

the cases in (A) into four categories based on the 

number of days from adjudication to disposition, as 

follows: within 10 days (B), between 11 and 30 days 

(C), between 31 and 60 days (D), and more than 60 

days (E). 

4.	 Compute the percentage of cases in each of these 

categories by dividing the number of cases in each 

category by (A). 

Possible Modifications 

1.	 Limit the measure to include only children who were in 

foster care before the filing of the petition. 

2.	 Separately measure the time from adjudication to 

disposition for children removed from home and not 

removed from the home prior to the disposition. 

3.	 Also compute median and average values for time 

from adjudication to disposition. 

4.	 Report on cases separately by type of abuse or 

neglect. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Adjudication date. 

u	 Disposition hearing date. 

Optional Elements 

u	 Type of abuse or neglect. 

u	 Removal date 

u	 Placement type. 

u	 Placement beginning date (the earliest date, 

if more than one). 

Related CFSR Standards 

No Child and Family Services Review standard for State 

child welfare agencies relates specifically to Toolkit 

Measure 4E. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4E lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. Note that it may 

be useful to combine data from Measure 4E with data from 

Measure 4D: Time to Disposition Hearing. 
measure 4e: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing 

The table in sample 4E–1 compares the timeliness of 

disposition in five judicial districts during 2006. Court D 

held the timeliest disposition hearings: 85 percent occurred within 10 days of adjudication, 89 percent within 

30 days. By contrast, District A held only 43 percent of its 

disposition hearings within 10 days of adjudication and 58 

percent within 30 days. 

It is also interesting to compare Districts A and B. District 

A’s percentages were much higher than District B’s for 

cases heard within 10 days of adjudication but much lower 

than District B’s for cases heard 11–30 days after adjudication; thus, District B’s percentage of cases heard within 

30 days was higher than District A’s (68 percent compared 

to 58 percent). 

One possible reason why the results are so different for 

Districts A and B is that District A might routinely combine 

adjudication and disposition hearings, while District B 

might do so only when the parties are well prepared for the 

disposition hearing at the time of adjudication. Of course, 

while this hypothesis is worth considering in studying the 

two courts, only a careful study of local conditions will 

identify the true causes of the differences. 

The fact that the median values for Districts C, D, and E 

are zero means that disposition hearings usually occur 

on the same day as adjudication. It might be helpful to 

review samples of files from these districts to assess the 

timeliness and thoroughness of predisposition reports sent 

to the parties. 

The table in sample 4E–2 shows trend data for one judge 

who spends about 20 percent of her time hearing child 

abuse and neglect cases. As the table indicates, the judge 

has gradually reduced the days from adjudication to disposition over a 5-year period. 

Sample 4E–3 uses trend lines to show time from adjudication to disposition for the same court over the same 5-year 

period. Based on the trend lines for the four time-todisposition categories, it appears that the overall trend is 

positive. For example, the percentages of cases taking 31 

to 60 days and more than 60 days have decreased, which 

is a good sign. The increase in the percentage of cases 

taking 1 to 10 days is also a good sign, but only if parties 

are receiving timely, thorough predisposition reports so 

they can be adequately prepared for the hearings. 

Sample 4E–4 also uses trend lines, this time to show average and median times from adjudication to disposition for 

the same court. This figure also indicates a positive overall 

trend. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Court Control of Scheduling 

By using effective caseflow management, courts can set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes court control of scheduling, short timeframes for 

Sample 4E–1. Timeliness of Disposition Hearings, by Judicial District, 2006 

Judicial 

Days From Adjudication to Disposition 

Total 

1–10 Days 11–30 Days 31–60 Days 

More Than 60 

Days 

# of # of # of # of 

District Cases % Cases % Cases % Cases % Average Median Cases 

A 321 43% 114 15% 218 29% 87 12% 34 28 740 

B 112 18% 312 50% 141 23% 53 9% 26 26 618 

C 1,786 64% 213 8% 354 13% 421 15% 14 0 2,774 

D 856 85% 45 4% 36 4% 75 7% 9 0 1,012 

E 1,211 76% 141 9% 76 5% 175 11% 11 0 1,603 

Statewide 4,286 64% 825 12% 825 12% 811 12% 19 11 6,747 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

189 
Technical Guide
 

190 

Sample 4E–2. Time From Adjudication to Disposition Hearing, 2002–2006: Court X 

Year 

Days From Adjudication to Disposition Hearing 

Total 

Cases 

1–10 Days 11–30 Days 31–60 Days 

More Than 60 

Days 

Average Median 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

# of 

Cases % 

2002 50 56% 17 19% 18 20% 5 6% 10 15 90 

2003 33 47% 14 20% 22 31% 1 1% 9 11 70 

2004 49 61% 15 19% 16 20% 0 0% 6 8 80 

2005 66 65% 21 21% 8 8% 6 6% 5 7 101 

2006 68 62% 27 25% 12 11% 2 2% 5 7 109 

5-yr. average 266 59% 94 21% 76 17% 14 3% 7 10 450 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Sample 4E–3. Days From Adjudication to Disposition Hearing, 2002–2006: Court X 

70%
 

60%
 

50%
 

40%
 

30%
 

20%
 

10%
 

0% 

56% 

61% 

6% 1%

20% 

31% 

19% 

20% 

19% 11% 

47% 

6% 

8% 

0% 

20% 

2% 

21% 

62% 

25% 

65% 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Year 

1–10 Days 11–30 Days 31–60 Days >60 Days

Percent of Disposition Hearings 
measure 4e: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing 

Sample 4E–4. Average and Median Days From Adjudication to Disposition Hearing, 2002–2006: Court X 

191 

Number of Days From Adjudication to

Disposition Hearing 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Average Days 

steps in the court process, and strict limits on the granting 

of continuances. 

In contrast, if the child welfare agency and the attorneys 

set the pace of the process, the timing of the disposition 

hearing is likely to reflect their preferences. For example, 

busy attorneys may seek frequent delays for perceived 

tactical advantages. 

Timeliness of Predisposition Reports 

Most courts require the child welfare agency to file a report 

to the court with recommendations regarding disposition. 

If this report is submitted to the court and mailed to the 

parties well in advance of the disposition hearing, both the 

court and the parties can become familiar with the issues 

in the case and be prepared for the hearing. 

Timeliness of the predisposition report affects not only the 

timeliness of the disposition hearing but also the quality of 

the hearing. Without a timely report, parties are less likely 

to offer useful criticisms of the proposed case plan, suggest refinements, and present counterproposals. 

Despite the importance of timely predisposition reports, it 

is common practice for child welfare agencies to file these 

reports close to or during the disposition hearing. When 

this happens, the parties have legitimate cause to request 

a delay in the hearing so they can investigate the sources 

of information used in the report, line up witnesses to 

respond to proposals, and prepare for the hearing. 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

15 

7 

8 

6 

9 

11 

10 

5 

7 

5 

Year 

Median Days 

Possible Reforms 

If the data from this performance measure indicate room 

for improvement in the timeliness of disposition, the court 

should consider possible reforms. Specific reforms will, of 

course, depend on local conditions and the court’s analysis 

of the best procedures for accomplishing this goal. A court 

might, for example, consider the following improvements: 

u	 Establish caseflow management techniques, conduct 

training, and periodically measure and report on the 

results. 

u	 Set and enforce shorter time limits for disposition 

hearings. 

u	 Involve the child welfare agency in meetings and 

training programs aimed at improving the timeliness of 

agency predisposition reports. Also include others who 

contribute information to these reports or prepare their 

own reports. 

u	 If disposition hearings occur very quickly after 

adjudication and are not thorough or complete, 

enhance requirements for disposition by strengthening 

the content of predisposition court reports and 

postdisposition court orders. 

u	 Set and enforce strict policies regarding the content 

and timely filing of predisposition reports. 

u	 Assign court employees responsibility for monitoring 

delays in disposition hearings and bringing delays to 

the attention of the judge. 
192 

Technical Guide
 

Endnotes 

1.	 When the court approves a child’s continued 

placement in foster care, it generally awards 

temporary custody (or the State’s equivalent to 

temporary custody) to the child welfare agency. In 

many States, the court makes a number of additional 

decisions during the disposition hearing, such as 

approving or modifying the case plan, setting terms of 

visitation, and issuing a variety of other orders. 

There are two possible sources of confusion regarding 

the function and purpose of disposition hearings. 

First, many courts use the term “disposition” to refer 

to the closing of the case. By contrast, the term 

“disposition hearing,” as generally used in child 

protection cases, is a relatively early stage of litigation. 

Second, Federal foster care law, 42 U.S.C. § 675(5) 

(C), at one time used the term “dispositional hearing” 

in reference to a hearing that would take place within 

18 months after removal from the home and annually 

thereafter. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 

1997, Public Law 103–89, amending 42 U.S.C. § 

675(5)(C), changed the term “dispositional hearing” 

to “permanency hearing,” shortened the deadline 

for the first permanency hearing, and tightened the 

functions of the permanency hearing. Accordingly, 

a permanency hearing generally takes place much 

later than a disposition hearing (as the term is used 

herein). Whereas the disposition hearing is intended 

to set the initial long-term case goal for the child, the 

permanency hearing is intended to set the final case 

goal. 
measure 4F 

Definition: Percentage of cases in which the court holds hearings to review case plans within the time limits set by law. 

Explanation: This measure shows how consistently courts conduct hearings to review case plans within time limits set by 

State and Federal law.1 

Because Federal law allows case reviews to be conducted either by a court or by administrative (that is, nonjudicial) 

review,2

 some States seek to fulfill Federal case review requirements using only administrative reviews. Some States that 

opt to comply with Federal requirements through administrative review still must conduct judicial case review hearings to 

satisfy the requirements of State law. In those States, courts may disregard the Federal deadline for purposes of this measure and may instead apply the applicable deadline from State law—even if State law falls short of complying with Federal 

deadlines. 

Purpose: To help determine how well courts comply with Federal and State laws that set time limits for case review 

hearings. 

Because case review hearings are intended to help ensure 

more timely permanency for children, the timeliness of 

these hearings is important. Courts must accomplish a 

Complexities, Proxies, and 

Barriers to Capturing This 

Information 

Start Date for Case in Measuring Time 

to First Review Hearing 

The start date for this measure can be based on either the 

Federal or the State deadline, whichever is earlier. If it is 

difficult to determine the legal start date, close approximations are possible—some examples are provided below. 

Possible start dates for calculating the deadline for 

completing the first case review hearing may include the 

following: 

u	 Date petition is filed. 

u	 Date child is removed from home. 

u	 Date of emergency removal hearing. 

u	 Date child is considered to have entered foster care. 

Date Petition Is Filed 

This clearly defined date presents no complications in 

States that rely entirely on administrative, rather than 

judicial, review to satisfy Federal case review requirements. But if the State seeks to satisfy Federal case review 

requirements through judicial review, it must consider 

carefully whether to use the date of the petition as a start 

date, as the petition date does not figure in Federal case 

Timeliness of 

Case Review Hearings 

number of tasks during case review hearings.3 These 

include: 

u	 Checking whether the child welfare agency is 

providing services as specified in the case plan. 

u	 Checking whether parents are cooperating with the 

case plan and complying with prior court orders. 

u	 Reviewing, and when necessary revising, the goals, 

tasks, and timetables set forth in the case plan, and 

issuing orders to ensure timely completion of essential 

tasks. 

u	 Reviewing progress toward accomplishing long-term 

case goals. 

u	 Determining whether the permanency goal for the 

child is still appropriate and, if necessary, resetting the 

target date for accomplishing the goal. 

u	 Reviewing the appropriateness of the child’s 

placement with regard to safety, education, medical 

care, and psychotherapy or other special care. 
194 

Technical Guide
 

review deadlines. The deadline for the first Federal case 

review is based on the date of removal and the date the 

court found that the child was abused or neglected. If 

abuse and neglect are first determined at the emergency 

removal hearing and petitions are filed later, using the 

petition date as a start date either risks noncompliance or 

requires complicated programming to adjust for possible 

delays in filing the petition. 

In contrast, if petitions are always filed no later than the 

hearing in which the court makes findings of abuse and 

neglect, and always within 60 days following removal, 

there is little risk of missing Federal deadlines by using the 

petition filing date as a start date. Assume that State law 

tracks the Federal deadline, which requires the first review 

hearing to occur within 6 months of the earlier of the following dates: 60 days after the removal of the child from 

home, or the date the court first determined that the child 

had been abused or neglected. Because the petition is 

consistently filed on or before both of those dates, reviews 

occurring within 6 months after the filing of the petition will 

be in compliance. 

Finally, State law may set a start date that occurs before 

the filing of the petition. For example, State law may set a 

deadline for review hearings based on the date of a child’s 

removal from home, but may not require the petition to 

be filed until after the removal. If that is the case, courts 

must adjust the deadlines for review hearings to take into 

account the time between removal and the filing of the 

petition. 

Assume that under State law review hearings are due 

180 days after the date of removal, and petitions must be 

filed within 3 days after the date of removal. Courts might 

choose to calculate the deadline for review hearings based 

on 177 days after the petition is filed. For the date of filing 

the petition to work as a substitute for the removal date, 

the filing deadline must occur within a set period after the 

removal date. 

Date Child Is Removed From Home 

For States where the deadline for review hearings is based 

on the date the child is removed from the home and placed 

in foster care, using that date as the start date is the most 

accurate approach to determining the timeliness of review 

hearings. 

Another advantage to using the removal date as the start 

date is that this automatically filters out in-home cases, 

in which children remain at home under court jurisdiction. 

Most States do not require judicial review hearings for children who are under court jurisdiction but living at home. 

The main problem with using the removal date as the start 

date is that some courts have trouble consistently finding 

out the removal date from State agencies. Courts that 

cannot reliably learn the removal date from State agencies might consider choosing a substitute start date, such 

as the date the petition is filed or the date the emergency 

removal hearing takes place. 

Date of Emergency Removal Hearing 

To understand how and why the date of the emergency removal hearing might work as a start date for this measure, 

consider the following example: 

In a particular State, statutes require review hearings 

within 6 months after children are removed from home and 

placed in foster care. But State law allows from 2 to 4 days 

following the removal date to hold an emergency removal 

hearing, depending on whether the removal date falls on a 

weekday or on a weekend or holiday. 

Under those circumstances, courts might choose to program their computers to set the first review hearing within 

6 months minus 4 days following the emergency removal 

hearing. 

Date Child Is Considered To Have Entered 

Foster Care 

Many States’ laws set deadlines for review hearings that 

use the Federal start date: the date that the child is considered to have entered foster care. 

Federal law defines the date the child is considered to 

have entered foster care as the earlier of either the date of 

the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to 

child abuse or neglect or 60 days after the date the child is 

removed from the home.4 

If the required judicial findings are entered within 60 days 

after removal, the start date will be the date of the finding 

of abuse or neglect, but if the finding occurs later, the start 

date will be 60 days after the date of actual removal. To set 

review hearings to occur within 12 months following this 

complex start date (and to measure how often this happens) requires careful computer programming. 

Date Review Hearing Occurs 

Another important milestone regarding this performance 

measure is when the review hearing is considered to have 
measure 4F: Timeliness of Case Review Hearings 

occurred. Alternatives include the date the review hearing 

begins, the date the review hearing is completed, the date 

the review hearing order is entered, and the date that the 

review hearing order becomes final. 

To select an appropriate date, consider the underlying purpose of this measure. The timeliness of the review hearing 

is important because not until the completion of that hearing does the court announce its orders adjusting the case 

plan and requiring parties to move the case forward by 

providing services for the child. This is important to placing 

the child permanently. Therefore, we recommend that the 

deadline for this measure be based on the date the hearing 

is completed. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Run this report using a sample of closed cases. 

2.	 Select as the starting point for purposes of measuring 

the due date of the first case review hearing either: 

(1) the date the petition is filed, (2) the date of the 

emergency removal hearing, (3) the date of the child’s 

removal from home, or (4) the date the child is first 

considered to have entered foster care. 

3.	 If (1), (2), or (3) is selected, skip to step 4 below. If (4) 

is selected, follow the directions below to determine 

how to calculate the actual start date for each case: 

a.	 Determine at which hearing—emergency removal 

hearing or adjudication—the judicial finding 

of abuse and neglect occurs in the State. This 

is based on State law and should therefore be 

consistent throughout the State. 

b. If the judicial finding occurs at removal, use the 

removal date as the start date. If the finding 

occurs at adjudication, use the earlier of the actual 

adjudication hearing date or 60 days after the 

removal date as the start date. Continue with step 

4 below. 

4.	 Select a date range for the report (date case closed). 

(A) 

5.	 Select cases falling within the date range for the 

preliminary sample. (B) 

6.	 Based on State or Federal law and the start date 

selected above, determine the maximum legally 

permissible number of days from the start date to the 

first review hearing. (C) 

7.	 For each case in (B), determine the length of the case 

(from the start date selected above to case closure 

date). Eliminate from (B) any cases that are not as 

old as (C) (cases that are not old enough at closure to 

have had a review hearing). 

8.	 For the cases remaining in (B) after step 7, create a 

record in the dataset with the following information: 

a.	 The start date for the case (as determined above). 

b. The date the first case review hearing was due 

(based on State or Federal law as determined in 

step 6 above). 

c.	 The date the first case review hearing was held. If 

no review hearing was held, store “00/00/0000.” 

d. The date each subsequent review hearing was due, 

i.e., second hearing due date, third hearing due 

date, and so forth. 

e.	 The date each subsequent review hearing was 

actually held, i.e., second hearing, third hearing, 

and so forth. If no hearing was held, store the date 

as “00/00/0000.” 

f.	 For cases with two removal dates for one child, 

treat the events occurring from the second removal 

date forward as though this segment of the case 

were a separate case. Then, evaluate the hearing 

dates in the same manner as described above in 

steps 8a–e and below in step 9.5 

9.	 Evaluate the data for each case as follows: 

a.	 If the first case review hearing was held in a timely 

fashion, store a “Y” in another field for the first 

hearing. If the first review hearing was not held in a 

timely fashion, or not held at all (“00/00/0000” was 

stored as the first review hearing date), store an 

“N” for the first hearing. 

b. Continue to evaluate the timeliness of each 

subsequent review hearing. Store a “Y” or an “N” 

to indicate timely or untimely hearing dates. 

10. Count the number of cases in which all first review 

hearings were held in a timely fashion. (D) 

195 
196 

Technical Guide
 

11. Calculate the percentage of cases with timely first 

review hearings by dividing (D) by (B). 

12. Count the number of cases where all review hearings 

were held in a timely fashion. (E) 

13. Calculate the percentage of cases with all review 

hearings held in a timely fashion by dividing (E) by (B). 

14. Count the total number of review hearings. (F) 

15. Count the number of review hearings held in a timely 

fashion. (G) 

16. Calculate the percentage of timely review hearings by 

dividing (G) by (F). 

Possible Modifications 

u	 Also report on average and/or median number of days 

from removal to the first review hearing and between 

review hearings. 

u	 Report separately on the timeliness of first review 

hearings and subsequent review hearings. 

u	 Report separately on the timeliness of review hearings 

after termination of parental rights (TPR). 

u	 Report on the percentage of review hearings held in a 

timely fashion in a specified time period (e.g., calendar 

year) using both open and closed cases. 

Data Elements 

These data elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Abuse or neglect petition date (if needed for “start 

date,” as described above). 

u	 Removal date (if needed for “start date,” as described 

above). 

u	 Adjudication date (if needed for “start date,” as 

described above). 

u	 Emergency removal hearing date-time. 

u	 Case closure date. 

u	 Case review hearing date. 

Optional Elements 

u	 Last TPR finalized date. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit Measures, Measure 4F lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Bar charts or pie charts are useful for illustrating the percentage of cases in which review hearings meet the legal 

deadline. Using this approach, the State Court Improvement Project might compare performance in several parts 

of the State and compare performance in recent years. 

Courts might also use trend lines to compare the percentage of review hearings that comply with legal deadlines 

during successive years or shorter successive time 

periods. In another example, two separate and differently 

colored trend lines might compare the State as a whole 

with a particular judicial district. 

Another way to illustrate this measure is to use bar graphs 

to report the median or mean number of days to the review 

hearing. However, calculating median and mean numbers 

of days (as opposed to percentages that do, and do not, 

comply with legal requirements) will require additional 

programming. 

Sample 4F–1 is based on statistics from a fictitious county 

with five courtrooms (Courts A through E). It shows the 

percentage of first court review hearings (the first review 

hearings following the opening of each case) that occurred 

on time. Compliance percentages range from 74 percent 

to 96 percent for individual courts, and 89 percent for the 

whole county. During the first round of Federal-State Child 

and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs), percentages below 

90 were not sufficient to meet CFSR requirements. 

In sample 4F–2, the vertical stacked bar graph shows, 

within each bar, the percentage of first review hearings 

that were held timely and those that were late (or not 

held) for five courtrooms. This graph clearly demonstrates 
measure 4F: Timeliness of Case Review Hearings 

Sample 4F–1. Timely vs. Untimely First Review Hearings, by Court, Cases Closed in 2005: County ABCDE 

Court 

Cases in Which First 

Review Hearings Were 

Held in a Timely Fashion 

Cases in Which First 

Review Hearings Were 

Not Held in a Timely Fashion 

Total Number of Cases in 

Which First Review Hearings 

Were Due Before Closure 

Number 

of Cases Percent 

Number 

of Cases Percent Number 

Court A 85 89% 10 11% 95 

Court B 93 90% 10 10% 103 

Court C 160 94% 11 6% 171 

Court D 120 96% 5 4% 125 

Court E 78 74% 28 26% 106 

Total 536 89% 64 11% 600 

Sample 4F–2. Timely vs. Untimely First Review Hearings, by Court, Cases Closed in 2005: County ABCDE 

100% 

89% 90% 94%

11% 10% 6%

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

Court A Court B Court C 

Timely Hearings 

the performance of each court and enables the viewer to 

compare each court with the other courts and with the 

total for the jurisdiction. 

Sample 4F–3 is based on statistics from a small State 

with four judicial districts. It focuses not on the percentage of cases in which all subsequent review hearings 

were held on time, but rather on the percentage of the 

subsequent review hearings themselves that were held on 

time. Sample 4F–4 depicts this information in a horizontal 

bar graph. 

4%

96%

26% 11%

74% 89%

Court D Court E Total 

Untimely Hearings 

Sample 4F–5 is based on statistics from the same fictitious county as sample 4F–1. Sample 4F–5 shows the 

percentage of cases in which all review hearings occurred 

on time before the case was closed. These compliance 

percentages are lower than for the first review hearings. 

This is logical given that most cases included more than 

one subsequent review hearing. Based on the overall 

compliance percentage, this county does not meet the 

requirements for CFSRs. 

Sample 4F–6 represents the total compliance percentage 

for the county, and is based on the totals in the bottom 

row of data from sample 4F–5. 

197 
Technical Guide
 

198 

Sample 4F–3. Timely vs. Untimely Subsequent Review Hearings, by Judicial District, 2006 

Judicial District 

Subsequent Review Hearings 

Held in a Timely Fashion 

Subsequent Review Hearings Not 

Held in a Timely Fashion Total Subsequent 

Number Percent Number Percent Review Hearings

Judicial District 1 430 91% 45 9% 475 

Judicial District 2 440 75% 145 25% 585 

Judicial District 3 541 88% 76 12% 617 

Judicial District 4 330 79% 88 21% 418 

Total 1,741 83% 354 17% 2,095 

Sample 4F–4. Timely vs. Untimely Subsequent Review Hearings, by Judicial District, 2006 

Judicial District 1 

Judicial District 2 

Judicial District 3 

Judicial District 4 

Total 

21% 

17% 

9% 

25% 

88% 

91% 

79% 

75% 

83% 

12% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of Hearings 

Timely Hearings Untimely Hearings

Sample 4F–5. Timely vs. Untimely Review Hearings, by Court, Cases Closed in 2005: County ABCDE 

County 

ABCDE 

Cases in Which All Review 

Hearings Were Held Timely 

Cases in Which Not All Review 

Hearings Were Held Timely Total Number of Cases in Which 

Subsequent Review Hearings 

Were Due Before Closure 

Number of 

Cases Percent 

Number of 

Cases Percent 

Court A 60 63% 35 37% 95 

Court B 87 84% 16 16% 103 

Court C 125 73% 46 27% 171 

Court D 90 72% 35 28% 125 

Court E 59 56% 47 44% 106 

Total 421 70% 179 30% 600 
measure 4F: Timeliness of Case Review Hearings 

Sample 4F–6. Timely vs. Untimely Review 

Hearings, Cases Closed in 2005: County ABCDE 

70% 30% 

Timely Hearings Untimely Hearings 

Possible Factors Affecting Court 

Performance 

Degree of Court Control Over 

Scheduling 

By managing caseflow effectively, courts can set firm 

schedules and expectations for the timeliness of all stages 

of the court process. Caseflow management includes 

judicial control of scheduling, short timeframes for steps 

in the court process, and strict limits on granting 

continuances. 

By contrast, if agencies and attorneys set the pace of the 

litigation, the timing of hearings is likely to be based on 

the pace of the slowest among them. Busy attorneys and 

caseworkers may seek frequent delays, and attorneys 

may seek delays for perceived tactical advantage. 

Timely Submission of Prehearing 

Reports 

Timely review hearings depend on the timely submission 

of prehearing reports, especially by child welfare agencies. 

When reports are filed late, parties often have a legitimate 

basis for requesting a delay—lack of notice regarding the 

facts submitted and agency proposals. 

Timely submission of reports requires oversight and 

diligence on the part of the court. Ensuring timely reports 

often leads to ongoing struggle between courts and child 

welfare agencies. When courts take the time and trouble 

to make sure that agency executives and staff understand 

the significance of timely reports, this struggle may be 

avoided. 

Timely Adjudication and Disposition 

Hearings 

When adjudication and disposition hearings are timely, 

there typically is less pressure to delay case review hearings. Timely adjudication and disposition hearings mean 

that the court has had ample prior opportunity to review 

and approve the case plan. 

Careful Monitoring of Deadlines 

Deadlines for review hearings can easily be missed. 

Because Federal deadlines for review hearings are complex and can easily be misunderstood, States following 

those deadlines must take special care to comply. States 

that have by law imposed their own simpler and stricter 

deadlines for review hearings must follow those deadlines 

instead. 

Possible Reforms 

u	 Organize and participate in caseflow management 

training as part of an overall effort to reduce delays 

and meet court deadlines. 

u	 Refine and enforce deadlines for adjudication, 

disposition, review, and permanency hearings. 

u	 Develop and enforce strict grounds and procedures for 

continuances. 

u	 Track and measure delays in adjudication, disposition, 

review, and permanency headings. 

u	 Develop a project to reduce delays. 

G	 Assign to court employees the responsibility for 

monitoring delays in review hearings and bringing 

those delays to the judges’ attention. 

G	 Involve agency representatives, attorney groups, 

and others. 

199 
200 

Technical Guide
 

G	 Identify causes of delays in adjudication,
 

disposition, and review hearings.
 

G	 Identify and implement solutions. 

u	 Work with the child welfare agency to speed 

submission of court reports. 

G	 Assign to court employees the responsibility to 

work with the agency on this issue. 

G	 Train agency staff on the importance of early 

reports. 

G	 Threaten to schedule and then schedule extra 

hearings when reports are submitted late. 

G	 Develop a simple process for caseworkers to 

submit supplemental information that becomes 

known too late to include in the regular report. 

G	 Insist that attorneys review the reports well before 

hearings are scheduled to begin. 

G	 Ensure that judges review reports before hearings. 

u	 Monitor due dates of review hearings. 

G	 Train court staff on review hearing deadlines. 

G	 Assign staff to monitor and ensure timely review 

hearings. 

G	 Enhance computers to project dates for review 

hearings, schedule hearings, and provide advance 

reminders of hearing due dates. 

G	 Develop and implement, if necessary, manual 

methods to identify due dates for review hearings, 

set hearing dates accordingly, and provide 

reminders. 

u	 Set review hearings earlier than their due dates to 

allow for common minor delays. 

The specific measures a court takes will depend on local 

conditions and the court’s analysis of the principal causes 

of delayed review hearings. 

Endnotes 

1.	 Federal law requires that reviews occur at least once 

every 6 months. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(B). The preamble 

to Federal regulations adopted in 2000 states that the 

first 6-month review must take place within 6 months 

after a child is “considered to have entered foster 

care.” 65 Federal Register 4030–32 (January 25, 

2000). The date a child is considered to have entered 

foster care is the earlier of the date the court finds 

that the child is abused or neglected or 60 calendar 

days after the child is removed from home. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 675(5)(F), 45 C.F.R. § 1355.20(a). States may set 

stricter deadlines by calculating the deadline from 

the date of actual removal from home or by setting 

intervals of less than 6 months. 

2.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(B). 

3.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(B). 

4.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(F). 

5.	 The reason for this exception is that when a child is 

returned home and custody is given to the parents, but 

the case remains open and the child is removed from 

the home a second time, a first review hearing is again 

due within the time specified by Federal or State law 

following the second removal date (6 months in many 

States) as though it were a new case. 
measure 4G 

Definition: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to first permanency hearing. 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes to complete the first permanency hearing. Under this measure, the 

time begins to run with the filing of the original petition and ends on the day the first permanency hearing is completed. 

Purpose: To comply with minimum times set by Federal and State laws by which States must complete permanency 

hearings. 

Compliance with this measure is important for several 

reasons. 

u	 At permanency hearings, courts determine the 

long-term direction of the case, whether toward 

family reunification, adoption, relative placement, legal 

guardianship, or another planned permanent living 

arrangement (APPLA). Completing these hearings 

on a timely basis is important to achieving timely 

permanent homes for foster children, a central goal 

of child welfare litigation. 

Complexities, Proxies, and 

Barriers to Capturing This 

Information 

Start Date for Measuring Time to First 

Permanency Hearing 

Because Federal and State laws set deadlines for the 

completion of permanency hearings, State courts should 

Time to First Permanency Hearing
 

u	 Permanency hearing time limits are specified by 

law. Nearly every State has enacted legislation to 

implement Federal time limits for these hearings, and 

many have set deadlines stricter than those of the 

Federal Government. 

u	 Federal reviews test States’ compliance with 

permanency hearing time limits. This is addressed 

in Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) and 

indirectly in Title IV–E eligibility reviews. Although Title 

IV–E eligibility reviews technically determine whether 

judicial findings of reasonable efforts to achieve 

permanency are timely, the time limits for those 

findings coincide with the time limits for permanency 

hearings, and those determinations are commonly 

made during permanency hearings. If noncompliance 

is found in either of these reviews, it can have 

potentially negative financial consequences. 

know how well they are complying with those deadlines. 

To select a start date for this measure, determine the 

Federal and State start dates and use whichever is earlier. 

If it is difficult to collect data regarding the legal start date, 

close approximations are usable. 

Start dates for hearings after the first hearing are generally 

based on the date of completion of the previous permanency hearing. This is discussed below. 

Selecting the correct start date for the first permanency 

hearing, however, is more complicated. Possible start dates 

for the first permanency hearing include the following: 

u	 Date abuse or neglect petition is filed. 

u	 Date child enters foster care. 

u	 Date of emergency removal hearing. 

u	 Date of court order authorizing the child’s placement 

into foster care. 

u	 Date child is considered to have entered foster care. 

The key consideration in choosing among these alternatives is the State or Federal law that governs the time 

limits for the first permanency hearing. The start date for 

the Federal deadline is the date that a child is “considered 

to have entered foster care.” Federal law defines that date 

as the earlier of either the date of the first judicial finding 

that the child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect, 
202 

Technical Guide
 

or 60 days after the date the child is removed from the 

home.1 

To apply this start date, one must know at what stage 

of the court proceedings under State law a court finds 

“whether a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect.” 

Depending on State law, this may occur at the emergency 

removal hearing or at adjudication. 

It is also important to remember that Federal law allows 

States to use earlier start dates than the date a child 

is considered to have entered foster care in setting the 

deadline for the first permanency hearing. 

Date Petition Is Filed 

Although the petition filing date provides a clearly defined 

start date, Federal law does not use this date in calculating case review deadlines. Therefore, the petition date 

may differ from the applicable start date under Federal 

and State law. 

In some States in which the start date is based on the 

date the child is considered to have entered foster care, 

the date the petition is filed can be used as a start date if 

abuse and neglect are first determined at the emergency 

removal hearing and petitions must be filed at that time. In 

those States, because emergency removal hearings occur 

well before 60 days after a child enters foster care, they 

are the effective start date for the Federal deadline. If petitions are filed later, however, using the date the petition is 

filed can be problematic. 

In other States, using the date the petition is filed as the 

start date can present problems because the petition is 

filed either before or after the emergency removal hearing, 

or the court first finds that a child has been subjected to 

abuse or neglect in the adjudication hearing. 

Date Child Actually Enters Foster Care 

In some States the deadline for permanency hearings is 

based on the date the child actually enters foster care, 

which is earlier than the Federal start date and therefore 

complies with Federal law. In these States, this is the 

most accurate approach to determining the timeliness of 

permanency hearings. 

In addition, using the date of actual entry into foster care as 

the start date automatically filters out children not in foster 

care. Using the date of entry as the start date automatically excludes “in-home cases,” in which children remain 

at home under court jurisdiction, or cases in which children 

are placed in the custody of relatives. Permanency hearings 

are not required for children who are under court jurisdiction but not in foster care. 

The main problem with using the date of entry as the start 

date is that some courts have trouble consistently finding 

out the date of entry from State child welfare agencies. 

Courts that cannot reliably learn the date of entry into 

foster care might consider choosing a substitute start date, 

such as the date the petition is filed or the date that the 

emergency removal hearing occurs. 

Date of Emergency Removal Hearing 

To understand how and why the date of the emergency removal hearing might work as a start date for this measure, 

consider the following example: 

State law requires permanency hearings to occur within 1 

year after each child is placed in foster care. But State law 

can allow up to 4 days from actual entry into foster care to 

hold an emergency removal hearing, taking into account 

evenings, weekends, and holidays. Under those circumstances, a court may program its computers to set the first 

permanency hearing within 1 year minus 4 days following 

the emergency removal hearing. 

As with the date of actual entry into foster care, using the 

date of the emergency hearing filters out children who are 

not in foster care. But a child may enter foster care after 

the emergency removal hearing, in which case the child 

should not be counted in this measure. 

Date of Court Order Authorizing Entry of Child Into 

Foster Care 

Another possible start date for this measure is the date of 

the first court order authorizing the entry of the child into 

foster care. This date avoids the problem posed by using 

the emergency removal hearing as a start date, that a child 

may enter care after that hearing and therefore may not be 

counted. 

This start date is workable, however, only if a court order 

is nearly always issued at or very near the date the child 

enters foster care, the written order has the correct issue 

date, and the date the court order is issued is recorded in 

the judicial management information system. 

Date Child Is Considered To Have Entered 

Foster Care 

Many States’ laws set deadlines for permanency hearings 

that use the Federal start date, the date that the child is 

considered to have entered foster care. As noted above, 
measure 4G: Time to First Permanency Hearing 

Federal law defines that date as the earlier of either the 

date of the first judicial finding that the child has been 

subjected to child abuse or neglect or 60 days after the 

date the child is removed from the home.2 

Therefore, if the required judicial findings are entered prior 

to 60 days after removal, the start date will be the date of 

the finding of abuse or neglect, but if the finding occurs 

later, the start date will be 60 days after the date of actual 

removal. To set permanency hearings to occur within 12 

months following this complex start date (and to measure how often this happens) requires careful computer 

programming. 

Completion of Permanency Hearing 

Another important consideration regarding this performance measure is when to consider the permanency 

hearing to have occurred. Alternatives include the date 

the permanency hearing begins, the date the permanency 

hearing ends, the date the permanency hearing order is 

entered, and the date that the permanency hearing order 

becomes final. 

Applicable Federal guidelines used in reviewing cases help 

simplify this issue. If a transcript or other record can be 

produced to show the date that the permanency hearing 

was completed and that the hearing met Federal requirements, then the date the hearing was completed can be 

used to determine compliance. If, however, it is necessary 

to refer to the court order to show compliance, the date of 

the court order will be definitive. 

Aside from Federal reviews, it is helpful to consider the 

underlying purpose of the measure. A permanency hearing 

is held to establish a relatively definitive permanency plan 

for the child. At that point, the case will proceed toward 

family reunification, termination of parental rights followed 

by adoption, or another type of permanency. 

Generally, the case can proceed once the permanency 

hearing is over, rather than waiting until the permanency 

order is signed. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

Basic specifications to measure median time from a start 

date to the date of the first permanency hearing are based 

on a start date of one of the following: (1) date of filing of 

petition; (2) date of actual entry into foster care; (3) date 

of emergency removal hearing; (4) date of order for child’s 

entry into foster care; or (5) date the child is considered to 

have entered foster care, as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 675(5) 

(F). 

This set of specifications assumes that only closed cases 

belong in the sample. If the court decides to examine 

recent performance to report on open cases, it must select 

only open cases that are old enough to have been eligible 

for a permanency hearing. Then, it may simply calculate 

the percentage of cases from this group in which the 

permanency hearing was held within 12 months of the 

starting date, rather than calculate the average or median 

days as called for in this measure. 

Open cases must have been open long enough to have 

been eligible for at least the first permanency hearing to 

be due, whether or not the hearing was actually held on 

time or at all. In practice, this means that the cases should 

be at least 12 months old if the starting date is measured 

from removal or filing of the petition, or at least 14 months 

old if the starting date is measured from when the child is 

considered to have entered foster care. If open cases are 

shorter in length than these timeframes, the first permanency hearing will not be due. 

1.	 Select the starting point for measuring the due date 

of the first permanency hearing by using one of the 

following: (1) date of filing the petition; (2) date of 

actual entry into foster care; (3) date of emergency 

removal hearing; (4) date of order for child’s entry into 

foster care; or (5) date the child is “considered to have 

entered foster care.” 

2.	 If (1), (2), (3), or (4) is selected, skip to step 3. If (5) is 

selected, follow the directions below to calculate the 

actual start date for each case: 

a.	 Determine at which hearing—emergency removal 

hearing or adjudication—the judicial finding 

of abuse and neglect occurs in the State. This 

is based on State law and therefore should be 

consistent throughout the State. 

b. If the judicial finding occurs at the emergency 

removal hearing, use the date of the emergency 

removal hearing as the start date. 

c.	 If the finding occurs at adjudication, use the earlier 

of two dates: either the date of completion of the 

adjudication hearing or 60 days after the date of 

actual foster care entry. 

d. Continue with step 3 below. 

203 
204 

Technical Guide
 

3.	 Select a date range for the report (date case closed). 

(A) 

4.	 Select and count cases falling within the date range 

(case closure date). (B) 

5.	 For each case in (B), calculate the number of days 

from the start date to the date of the first permanency 

hearing, and store each number in a dataset. If no 

first permanency hearing was held, remove that case 

from (B). You can also increment a counter to track the 

number of cases where no first permanency hearing 

was held. (This measure does not call for tracking the 

number of cases in which a permanency hearing was 

due but never held; however, that number may help 

supplement this measure.) 

6.	 Find the median case in the database (the case in the 

exact middle with half of the cases below it and half of 

the cases above it). (C) 

7.	 Add together the number of days for all cases in (B) 

The total will be (D). 

8.	 Compute the average time by dividing (D) by (B). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the 

median is simply the middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 

4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of numbers, the median 

is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median of 

2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

Alternative Specifications for 

Measuring the Percentage of All 

Permanency Hearings That Are Timely 

1.	 Run this report using a sample of closed cases. 

2.	 Select the starting point for measuring the due date of 

the first permanency hearing by using either: (1) date 

of filing the petition, (2) date of actual entry into foster 

care, (3) date of emergency removal hearing, (4) date 

of order for child’s entry into foster care, or (5) date the 

child is “considered to have entered foster care.” 

3.	 If (1), (2), (3), or (4) is selected, skip to step 4 below. If 

(5) is selected, follow the directions below to calculate 

the actual start date for each case: 

a.	 Determine at which hearing—emergency removal 

hearing or adjudication—the judicial finding of 

abuse and neglect occurs in the State. 

b. If the judicial finding occurs at the emergency 

removal hearing, use the date of the emergency 

removal hearing as the start date. 

c.	 If the finding occurs at adjudication, use the 

earlier of two dates: the date of completion of the 

adjudication hearing or 60 days after the date of 

actual entry into foster care. 

d. Continue with step 4 below. 

4.	 Select a date range for the report (date case closed). 

(A) 

5.	 Select cases falling within the date range for the 

preliminary sample. (B) 

6.	 For each case in (B), determine the age of the case at 

closure. Eliminate from (B) the following cases: 

a.	 If the petition filing date or the removal date is used 

as the start date, remove from (B) any case that is 

less than 12 months old. 

b.	 If 60 days after the date of actual entry into foster 

care is used as the start date, remove from (B) any 

case that is less than 14 months old. 

c.	 If the adjudication date is used as the start date, 

remove from (B) any case that is less than 12 

months old. 

7.	 For the cases remaining in (B) after step 6, create a 

record in a database with the following information: 

a.	 The start date for the case. 

b. The date the first permanency hearing was 

held. If no permanency hearing was held, store 

“00/00/0000.” 

c.	 The date of each subsequent permanency hearing 

(second hearing, third hearing, and so forth). 

d. For cases with two removal dates for one child, 

treat the time period from the second removal date 

forward as though it were a separate case, and 

evaluate the hearing dates as described below in 

step 8.3 

8.	 Evaluate the data for each case as follows: 

a.	 If the date of the first permanency hearing was 

timely (within 12 months of the start date), store a 

“Y” in another field for the first hearing. If the first 

permanency hearing was not timely or was not 

held at all (“00/00/0000” was stored as the first 
measure 4G: Time to First Permanency Hearing 

permanency hearing date), store an “N” for hearing 

number one. 

b. If the date of the second hearing was within 12 

months of the first hearing, store a “Y” for hearing 

number two. If the date of the second hearing was 

more than 12 months after the first hearing, store 

an “N” for hearing number two. 

c.	 Evaluate the timeliness of each subsequent 

permanency hearing (each hearing must have been 

held within 12 months of the previous permanency 

hearing, regardless of whether the previous 

hearing was timely or late). Store a “Y” or an “N” 

to indicate timely or untimely hearing dates. 

9.	 Count the number of permanency hearings held in all 

cases. (C) 

10. Count the number of timely permanency hearings. (D) 

11. Calculate the percentage of timely permanency 

hearings by dividing (D) by (C). 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Abuse or neglect petition date (if needed for “start 

date,” as described above). 

u	 Foster care entry date (if needed for “start date,” as 

described above). 

u	 Emergency removal hearing date-time (if needed for 

“start date,” as described above). 

u	 Adjudication date (if needed for “start date,” as 

described above). 

u	 Court-ordered entry into foster care date. 

u	 Case closure date. 

u	 Permanency hearing date. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit Measures, Measure 4G lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

This measure involves a simple number (the median or 

average) and is well represented through bar charts, 

including side-by-side bar charts. Graphs illustrating trend 

lines may help compare performance over different time 

periods. 

Both sample 4G–1 and sample 4G–2 (based on fictitious 

statewide statistics) illustrate the performance of a particular State regarding its average and median days to the 

first permanency hearing. Except for 2003, there is steady 

improvement from year to year. There is still much reason 

for concern, however, because the median date is very 

close to the legal deadline. 

Both sample 4G–3 and sample 4G–4 (also based on 

fictitious statistics) illustrate the performance statewide 

regarding the percentage of cases in compliance with the 

Federal deadline for the first permanency hearing. They 

show steady improvement from 2001 to 2005. Nevertheless, a significant percentage of the first permanency 

hearings misses the Federal deadline. 

Perhaps even more helpful would be a table or graph 

showing the percentage of cases in which all permanency hearings were held within the legal deadline. The 

alternative specifications for this measure provide for such 

a table or graph. 

Sample 4G–1. Days From Filing to First 

Permanency Hearing, Cases Closed in 2001–2005: 

Statewide 

Year Average Median 

2001 452 376 

2002 400 366 

2003 445 404 

2004 389 357 

2005 365 361 

205 
Technical Guide
 

206 

Sample 4G–2. Days From Filing to First Permanency Hearing, Cases Closed in 2001–2005: Statewide 

500
 

450
 

400
 

350
 

300
 

250
 

200
 

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

357

452

376 366

400 389

365 361

445

404

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year 

Average Median

Sample 4G–3. Compliance With Federal Time Standards for First Permanency Hearing, Cases Closed in 

2001–2005: Statewide Days From Filing to First Permanency Hearing 

Year 

Cases in Compliance 

(<12 months) 

Cases Out of Compliance 

(>12 months) 

Number of Cases Percent Number of Cases Percent Total Cases 

2001 123 35% 225 65% 348 

2002 167 46% 200 54% 367 

2003 189 55% 156 45% 345 

2004 226 74% 78 26% 304 

2005 280 89% 34 11% 314 

Possible Factors Affecting the 

Level of Court Performance 

Degree of Court Control Over 

Scheduling 

By using effective caseflow management, courts can set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes judicial control of scheduling, short timeframes for 

steps in the court process, and strict limits on the granting 

of continuances. 

By contrast, if the agencies and the attorneys set the pace 

of the litigation, the time of the hearing is likely to be based 

on the pace of the slowest among them. Busy attorneys or 

caseworkers may seek frequent delays based on workload 

or for perceived tactical advantage. 

Timely Submission of Reports 

Timely permanency hearings depend on timely submission 

of reports or petitions (as State law requires), especially by 

child welfare agencies. When reports or petitions are filed 

late, parties often have a legitimate basis for requesting a 

delay—lack of notice regarding the facts submitted and 

agency proposals. 

Timely submission of reports or petitions requires oversight 

and diligence on the part of the court. Ensuring timely 

reports often leads to an ongoing struggle between courts 

and child welfare agencies. When courts take the time and 
measure 4G: Time to First Permanency Hearing 

Sample 4G–4. Compliance With Federal Time Standards for First Permanency Hearing, 

207 

Percentage

Cases Closed in 2001–2005: Statewide 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Cases in Compliance (<12 mos) 

trouble to make sure that agency executives and staff understand the significance and importance of timely reports, 

this struggle may be avoided. 

Timely Disposition and Review Hearings 

When disposition and foster care review hearings are 

timely, there typically is less pressure to delay permanency 

hearings. Timely disposition and review hearings mean that 

the court has had ample prior opportunities to fine-tune, 

test, adjust, and fully implement the case plan. 

Careful Monitoring of Deadlines 

Deadlines for permanency hearings can easily be missed. 

Because Federal deadlines for permanency hearings are 

complex and can easily be misunderstood, States following 

these deadlines rather than their own simpler and stricter 

deadlines must take special care to comply. 

Possible Reforms 

u	 Organize and participate in caseflow management 

training as part of an overall effort to reduce delays 

and meet court deadlines. 

u	 Refine and enforce deadlines for adjudication, 

disposition, review, and permanency hearings. 

u	 Develop and enforce strict grounds and procedures for 

continuances. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

35% 46% 55% 74% 89% 

65% 54% 45% 16% 11% 

Year

Cases Out of Compliance (>12 mos) 

u	 Track and measure delays in adjudication, disposition, 

review, and permanency hearings. 

u	 Develop a project to reduce delays. 

G	 Assign to court employees the responsibility for 

monitoring delays and bringing them to the judges’ 

attention. This could be done using automated 

information system exception reports. 

G	 Identify causes of delays in adjudication, 

disposition, review, and permanency hearings. 

G	 Involve agency representatives, attorney groups, 

and others. 

G	 Identify and implement solutions. 

u	 Work with the child welfare agency to speed 

submission of court reports. 

G	 Agree on the deadlines. 

G	 Assign to specific court employee(s) the responsibility to work with the agency on this issue. 

G	 Train agency staff on the importance of early 

reports. 

G	 Threaten to schedule, and then schedule, extra 

hearings when reports are submitted late. 

G	 Develop a simple process for caseworkers to 

submit supplemental information that becomes 

known too late to include in the regular report. 
208 

Technical Guide
 

G	 Insist that attorneys review the reports well before 

hearings are scheduled to begin. 

G	 Ensure that judges review reports before hearings. 

G	 Monitor due dates of permanency hearings. 

D	 Train court staff on permanency hearing
 

deadlines.
 

D	 Assign staff to monitor and ensure timely 

permanency hearings. 

D	 Enhance computers to project dates for permanency hearings, schedule hearings, and provide 

reminders of hearing due dates. 

D	 Develop and implement, if necessary, manual 

methods to identify due dates for permanency 

hearings, set hearing dates accordingly, and 

provide reminders. 

D	 Set permanency hearings earlier than their due 

dates to allow for common minor delays. 

The specific measures a court takes to ensure timely permanency hearings will depend on local conditions and the 

court’s analysis of the principal causes of delays. 

Endnotes 

1.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(F). 

2.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(F). 

3.	 This exception occurs because when a child is 

returned home and custody is given to the parents (but 

the case remains open), and the child is subsequently 

removed from the home a second time, a first 

permanency hearing is again due within 12 months of 

the removal date just as though it were a new case. 
measure 4H 

Definition: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to filing the petition for termination of parental rights 

(TPR). 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date the original child abuse or neglect petition is filed to the 

date the termination of parental rights petition is filed. TPR means that a parent is permanently deprived of all rights to a 

child, including custody, visitation, or participation in decisionmaking for the child. TPR also means that the child may be 

adopted by a new parent without notice to or the consent of the parent whose rights have been terminated. 

Purpose: To help the courts determine how long it takes from the date the original abuse and neglect case began (when 

the original petition was filed) to the date the petition for TPR was filed. 

Termination of parental rights is a pivotal stage in the 

court process because it allows a child to be adopted. It is 

a gateway to permanency for children who cannot return 

home safely. 

The time from the beginning of the original proceedings 

to the filing of the TPR petition also represents the period 

during which the child welfare agency and family are 

In another example of how failure to achieve timely TPR 

can work against the child’s best interest, assume that, at 

a permanency hearing, a court does not conduct a thorough review of a recommendation to continue a permanency plan of reunification, accepts that plan, and that plan 

is later determined to not have been in the best interest of 

the child. The court has needlessly prolonged TPR. But if, 

Time to Termination of 


Parental Rights Petition 


working together to reunify the family. This time period 

must comply with the target times set forth in Federal and 

State law. Under Federal law, the norm is supposed to be 

within 15 months of entry into foster care.1 

The time to TPR reflects the efficiency of much of the court 

process, including the combined timeliness of the early 

steps, adjudication, disposition hearing, review hearings, 

and permanency hearings. 

The time to TPR also reflects the quality of the stages of 

the court process. For example, even if the adjudication 

is timely, it will not effectively advance the case toward 

TPR if all parents were not properly notified and served 

beforehand. In that instance, it may become necessary late 

in the case to search for the parent(s) not originally served, 

delaying TPR. 

Likewise, TPR proceedings may be delayed when reviews 

and permanency hearings are timely, but not thorough. 

Assume, for example, that during a review hearing, a 

court fails to challenge a child welfare agency’s failure 

to arrange timely services. By failing to acknowledge the 

problem and order corrective steps, the court probably has 

delayed TPR. But if, at that review hearing, the court requires the agency to correct the deficiency, it may facilitate 

timelier family reunification or speed TPR if reunification 

efforts fail. 

instead, the court carefully questions the reunification plan, 

recognizes that reunification has already failed, and orders 

a petition for TPR, this will speed TPR and adoption. 

Some child welfare agencies and their attorneys may delay 

initiating TPR until they can show that the parents have 

failed to improve over a long period of time. In some cases, 

it may be better for the children that TPR take place as 

soon as it is clear that reunification is not possible within 

a reasonable time. The child may best be served in these 

instances by going forward with a strong case for TPR, 

even though that case may be vigorously contested. 

Delays in TPR may also reflect delays in services and/or 

weaknesses in child welfare agency performance. If essential services are delivered late in the case, TPR may not be 

considered until the services have been delivered and have 

failed to produce results. This means the child is forced to 

wait for the opportunity for a permanent new home. 

Finally, this measure can help courts determine their success, and that of public child welfare agencies, in complying with Federal and State laws setting deadlines for the 

filing of TPR petitions. Federal law requires that petitions 

for the termination of parental rights be filed by the time 

children have been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 

months.2

 Many States have enacted legislation to implement this Federal law, and some require State agencies 
210 

Technical Guide
 

either to petition for TPR within the deadline or to submit 

documentation to the court showing that an exception 

applies. As discussed below, one can use this measure to 

roughly calculate the level of compliance without necessarily precisely tracking every detail of Federal laws and 

regulations. 

This measure cannot separate out the extent to which delays in initiating TPR proceedings are caused by the court, 

the child welfare agency, or others. But by considering the 

time to TPR petitions in light of the times to adjudication, 

disposition, and permanency hearings, important clues 

will emerge. These clues can help courts identify precise 

causes of delays by reviewing selected individual cases at 

specific points in their procedures. 

Complexities, Proxies, and 

Barriers to Capturing This 

Information 

Importance and Appropriateness 

of This Measure 

One argument against courts including this measure 

among its performance measures for child abuse and 

neglect litigation is that filing petitions is the responsibility 

of the executive branch, not the courts. Although that argument is worth considering, compelling counterarguments 

exist. First, an entire child abuse or neglect case comprises 

a single set of court proceedings, from the time of removal 

from home to the time a child is returned home and the 

case dismissed, or the child is adopted, ages out, or is 

placed in legal guardianship. A child abuse case cannot 

be dismissed until one of those outcomes (or their legal 

equivalents under State law) has occurred. 

The implication of a TPR petition’s being only part of a 

single set of court proceedings in a child abuse or neglect 

case is that it does not start new litigation even if it is filed 

in another court, but rather represents an important point 

in the ongoing resolution of the matter for the benefit of 

the child. Accordingly, the courts share a responsibility to 

ensure that this point in the litigation occurs on a timely 

basis. 

Courts have the power and responsibility to cause TPR 

petitions to be filed. By setting a goal of adoption during a 

permanency hearing, the court requires the State to file a 

petition for TPR.3

 Furthermore, by determining that reasonable efforts are not required,4

 a court may set in motion 

a permanency hearing, in which the court may cause the 

State to file a TPR petition.5 

Whether To Measure Precise 

Compliance With Federal Deadlines 

for Filing Termination of Parental 

Rights Petitions 

Before deciding whether to precisely track compliance 

with Federal deadlines for filing TPR petitions, State courts 

should carefully consider the complexity of the deadlines, 

all of the information needed to track compliance, access 

to such information and obstacles to obtaining access, the 

added burden for court staff who must enter the data, and 

the additional computer programming required to calculate 

compliance. 

Many courts will find it impractical, at least for the near 

future, to precisely measure compliance with Federal law 

governing the filing of TPR petitions. In some States, courts 

may be able to rely on the State child welfare agency to 

measure compliance for certain counties or regions of the 

State. 

Given the available data, other States may prefer to track 

compliance with some, but not all, of the technical provisions of Federal law. Following are some of the specific 

technical requirements raised by Federal statutes and 

regulations regarding the deadline for TPR petitions, and 

the challenges they present. 

Exceptions to Federal Deadline for 

Filing Termination of Parental Rights 

Petitions 

If the courts want to capture precisely the extent to which 

they meet Federal and State deadlines for TPR petitions, 

they need to note three exceptions when the deadlines for 

filing TPR petitions do not apply. 

u	 The child is being cared for by a relative. (The 

State may, or may not, decide to include this as an 

exception.) 

u	 A State agency has documented in the case plan 

(which shall be available for court review) a compelling 

reason for determining that filing such a petition would 

not be in the best interests of the child. 
measure 4H: Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition 

u	 The State has not provided to the family of the child, 

consistent with the time period in the State case 

plan, such services as the State deems necessary 

for the safe return of the child to the child’s home, if 

reasonable efforts to reunify the family are required to 

be made with respect to the child.6 

To be able to take these exceptions into account, the courts 

must either rule on the exceptions themselves or obtain information about them from the responsible public agency. 

This should not prove difficult in States with laws that 

require them to file for TPR within the deadline unless the 

court grants an exception, or in States whose laws require 

them to file documentation of the exception with the court. 

In the many States that require neither, the courts will have 

to arrange for agencies to provide this information to accurately measure compliance with Federal law. 

Additional Deadlines for Filing 

Termination of Parental Rights 

Petitions 

Federal law and regulations also require that petitions for 

TPR be filed within 60 days after a court has determined 

a child to be an abandoned infant,7

 or after a parent has 

been convicted of certain felonies.8 Tracking compliance 

with these deadlines requires automated information 

exchange from other courts that handle criminal and child 

abuse and neglect proceedings or reliable information from 

the child welfare agency. Not only must State law clearly 

call for findings that an infant is abandoned, but also data 

must be exchanged with any other court that might find 

the infant to be abandoned. 

On the other hand, State courts may choose to measure 

compliance only with the requirement that a TPR petition be filed when a child has been in foster care for 15 

of the previous 22 months (see the next section), not the 

deadlines regarding abandoned infants and parents guilty 

of specific felonies, as the latter situations are rare. 

Calculating Whether Children Have 

Been in Foster Care for 15 of the Last 

22 Months, Including Discounting 

“Trial Home Visits” 

Under Federal law, the State must file a petition for 

TPR when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the 

last 22 months. This deadline suggests two issues of 

interpretation: 

(1) What is foster care for the purpose of this deadline? 

(2) When should a child be considered to have left foster 

care? 

Practically speaking, whether or not a child is in foster care 

is based on who has custody of the child. If a State child 

welfare agency (or another public agency having a contract 

with the State child welfare agency) has custody of a child 

whom the agency has placed away from home, the child is 

considered to be in foster care.9

 Conversely, if a child is no 

longer in the custody of the child welfare agency, the child 

generally is no longer in foster care.10 This situation occurs 

when a child is returned home and the child’s custody is 

transferred back to the parents (with or without closing the 

cases) or when a child is placed in the custody of a relative 

or a private agency. 

A more complicated situation occurs when the court 

returns a child home without taking custody away from 

the public agency. If the child is considered to be having 

a “trial home visit” with parents, the duration of the visit 

should not to be taken into account when calculating the 

deadline for filing the TPR petition. 

A trial home visit is a relatively short visit home to prepare 

the child to return home permanently.11 A trial home visit 

may last no longer than 6 months, unless the court authorizes a longer visit.12 

The significance of whether or not a child’s temporary 

return home is a trial home visit is twofold: 

u	 If a child’s return home does not qualify as a trial home 

visit, and the child later reenters foster care, the foster 

care “clock” will start again because the child will be 

starting a new stay in foster care. 

u	 If a child’s return home is considered a trial home 

visit, the foster care “clock” is suspended during the 

visit, and the duration of the visit does not count in 

calculating the deadline for the TPR petition.13 

Given the complexity of the regulations regarding trial 

home visits, special additional data elements and programming are needed to enable the court’s information system 

to determine whether the TPR petition is filed within Federal deadlines. First, the court must be informed when and 

if a child is returned home and must enter that information 

into its information system. Second, the court’s information 

system must record whether or not the court approved the 

child’s return home as a trial home visit. If the visit extends 

beyond 6 months, or beyond the time period the court has 

211 
212 

Technical Guide
 

approved for the visit, it will not qualify as a trial home 

visit. 

Third, the court’s information system must record any 

judicially granted extension of the trial home visit. A judicial 

extension enables the visit to qualify as a trial home visit 

even if it lasts longer than 6 months. 

Finally, the court’s information system must be able to 

determine whether a child’s return home is a trial home 

visit (based on information from the agency or a court 

order), and deduct the duration of any trial home visit when 

calculating the deadline for filing a petition for TPR. 

Taking into account trial home visits is demanding in terms 

both of the data the court must obtain and enter, and the 

required programming. If either is impractical, courts can 

choose to set stricter standards than required by Federal 

law by disregarding trial home visits and counting them as 

time in foster care for the purpose of the deadline. 

Start Date for Measuring Time to 

Termination of Parental Rights Petition 

Because both Federal and State laws14 set deadlines for 

the filing of TPR petitions, State courts should know how 

well they are complying with the strictest of those deadlines. To select a start date for this measure, use the earlier 

of the Federal or State start dates. If it is difficult to collect 

data regarding the legal start date, close approximations 

are possible. 

Federal regulations do not identify the start date for the 

filing of TPR petitions to terminate the rights of parents 

who have committed specified crimes.15 It can be either 

the date the child actually enters foster care or the date 

that the court finding that the parent committed the crime 

becomes final, whichever comes later. The start date for 

the filing of the TPR petition in the case of a finding that 

a child is an abandoned infant is the date that finding 

becomes final. 

Possible start dates based on the length of time a child has 

been in foster care (the overwhelming majority of cases) 

include the following: 

u	 Date the abuse or neglect petition is filed. 

u	 Date the child actually enters foster care. 

u	 Date of the emergency removal hearing. 

u	 Date the child is “considered to have entered foster 

care,” which is the start date specified by Federal law. 

There are reasons why each may or may not be appropriate in a given State. 

Federal law defines the date that a child is “considered to 

have entered foster care” as the earlier of either the date 

of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected 

to child abuse or neglect or 60 days after the date the child 

is removed from the home.16 

To apply this start date, one must know at what stage of 

the State court proceedings a court finds “whether a child 

has been subjected to abuse or neglect.” Depending on 

State law, this may occur at the emergency removal hearing or at adjudication. 

Federal law allows States to use start dates earlier than 

the date a child is considered to have entered foster care 

in setting the deadline for filing the TPR petition. 

Date Petition Is Filed 

Using the date the petition is filed as a start date may 

create a problem if the petition date differs from the applicable start date under Federal and State law. 

In States in which the start date is based on the date the 

child is considered to have entered foster care, and if 

abuse and neglect are first determined at the emergency 

removal hearing and petitions are filed at that time, then 

the date the petition is filed is a viable start date. In these 

States, emergency removal hearings occur well before 60 

days after a child enters foster care, making their dates 

effective as start dates for the Federal deadline. 

In other States, using the date of the petition as the start 

date can present problems either because the petition is 

filed either before or after the emergency removal hearing, 

or because the court first finds that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect in the adjudication hearing. 

Date Child Actually Entered Foster Care 

In some States the deadline for filing the TPR petition is 

based on the date of the child’s entry into foster care, 

which is earlier than the Federal start date and therefore 

complies with Federal law. In these States, using this date 

as the start date of the measure is the most accurate 

approach to determining the timeliness of TPR petitions. 

Using the date of actual entry into foster care to start the 

“clock” automatically filters out children not in foster care, 

because it automatically excludes “in-home cases” in 

which children remain at home under court jurisdiction. 

TPR petitions are not required for children who are under 

court jurisdiction but not in foster care. 
measure 4H: Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition 

The problem with using the date of entry as the start date 

is that courts may have trouble consistently finding out 

the date of entry from State agencies. Courts that cannot 

reliably learn the date of entry into foster care might 

consider choosing a substitute start date, such as the date 

the petition is filed or the date that the emergency removal 

hearing takes place. 

Date of Emergency Removal Hearing 

To understand how and why the date of the emergency removal hearing might work as a start date for this measure, 

consider the following example: 

State law requires TPR petitions to be filed when a child 

has been in foster care during 15 of the most recent 22 

months following the child’s entry into foster care. But 

State law also allows up to 4 days from removal of the 

child from home (and actual entry into foster care) to 

hold an emergency removal hearing, taking into account 

evenings, weekends, and holidays. 

Under those circumstances, a court may program its computers to determine whether the TPR petition is filed at or 

before the time a child has been in foster care for 15 of the 

most recent 22 months, less 4 days, following the child’s 

actual entry into foster care. 

As with the date of actual entry into foster care, the date 

of the emergency hearing filters out children who were not 

in foster care. But a child may enter foster care after the 

emergency removal hearing, in which case the child should 

not be counted in this measure. 

Date of Court Order Authorizing Entry of the Child 

Into Foster Care 

Another possible start date for this measure is the date of 

the first court order authorizing the entry of the child into 

foster care. This avoids the problem posed by using the 

emergency removal hearing as a start date, that a child 

may enter care after that hearing and therefore not be 

counted. 

This start date is workable, however, only if a court order is 

nearly always issued at or near the date a child is removed 

from home and enters foster care, and the date of issuance 

of the court order is recorded in the court management 

information system. 

Date Child Is Considered To Have Entered 

Foster Care 

Many States’ laws set deadlines for filing the TPR petition 

that use the Federal start date, the date that the child is 

considered to have entered foster care. As noted above, 

Federal law defines that date as the earlier of either the 

date of the first judicial finding that the child has been 

subjected to child abuse or neglect or 60 days after the 

date on which the child is removed from the home.17 To 

determine that a child has been in foster care for 15 of 

the most recent 22 months after the child is considered to 

have entered foster care (and to measure how often this 

happens) requires careful computer programming. 

Completion Date for This Measure 

Another important consideration is whether to base the 

date of the TPR petition on the date the TPR petition is filed 

regarding the first parent or the last parent.18 It is preferable to use the date the petition is filed for the last parent, 

because only after termination of all parents’ rights is a 

child freed for adoption. Furthermore, the Federal and State 

deadlines apply to all parents. 

In many States, a judicial termination of parental rights is 

not required if parents sign a consent to adoption (or in 

some States, a consent to TPR). Based on State law, this 

consent may or may not have to be signed in the presence 

of a judge. Given that signing consent to adoption fulfills 

the purpose of TPR in some States, it is recommended that 

this measure be calculated in one of two ways, depending 

on State law. 

u	 In States where an adoption cannot go forward without 

a separate proceeding to terminate parental rights— 

even when a parent has already signed a consent to 

adoption—use the date the TPR petition regarding the 

last parent is filed. 

u	 In States where an adoption can go forward without 

a separate TPR proceeding when a parent signs a 

consent to adoption, use the earlier of the following 

dates: 

G	 The date the last parent signed a consent to 

adoption. 

G	 The date a petition was filed to terminate the last 

parent’s rights. 

To use the second approach, the court will need the 

agency to routinely provide either the dates of parental 

213 
214 

Technical Guide
 

consent to adoption or TPR, or copies of parents’ signed 

consent to adoption or TPR. Court employees will have to 

enter this information into the court’s data system. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Run this report using a sample of cases for which TPR 

petitions have been filed. 

2.	 Select a date range for the report (date TPR petition is 

filed).19 

3.	 Select and count cases for which the TPR petition date 

falls within the date range selected. (A) 

4.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days 

from the filing of the original abuse or neglect petition 

to the filing of the TPR petition. Store each number in a 

dataset. 

5.	 Find the median case in the dataset (the case that has 

the same number of cases below and above it). (B) 

6.	 Add the number of days for all cases in (A) together. 

(C) 

7.	 Compute the average time by dividing (C) by (A). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the 

median is simply the middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 

4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of numbers, the median 

is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median of 

2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

Possible Modifications 

u	 Count, in all cases, from the date of actual entry into 

foster care rather than from the date of the original 

abuse or neglect petition. 

u	 Calculate this measure based on the date of the 

emergency removal hearing. 

u	 Report separately on cases by demographic 

categories, including age and ethnicity. 

u	 Calculate compliance with Federal and State statutes 

regarding filing of TPR when a child has been in foster 

care 15 of the past 22 months: 

(1) Deduct from the calculation of how long a child has 

been in foster care the duration of trial home visits. 

(2) Restart the calculation of how long a child has been 

in foster care as of the point the child returned to 

foster care after leaving foster care (that is, the 

agency no longer had custody). 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Abuse or neglect petition date. 

u	 Last TPR petition date. 

Optional Elements 

u	 Emergency removal hearing date-time. 

u	 Foster care entry date. 

u	 Placement beginning date. 

u	 Placement end date. 

u	 Placement type. 

u	 Removal date. 

u	 Trial home visit begin date. 

u	 Trial home visit end date. 

u	 Adjudication date. 

u	 Last consent to adoption date. 

u	 Court-ordered entry into foster care date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

Federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) Permanency Composite 2, “Timeliness of Adoption,” includes 

three components: (A) timeliness of adoptions of children 

discharged from foster care, (B) progress toward adoption of children who meet Adoption and Safe Families Act 

(ASFA) time-in-care requirements, and (C) progress toward 

adoption of children who are legally free for adoption. 

Within component A, one measure is loosely related to 

Toolkit Measure 4H: 
measure 4H: Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition 

CFSR Permanency Composite 2. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, and Composite 

National Standard 

Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of adoption 

Range Median 

National 

Standard

 50–150 96.5 102.1 or higher 

Component A: Timeliness of adoptions of children discharged from foster care 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized 

adoption in FY 2004, what percent were discharged in less than 

24 months from the time of the latest removal from the home?

 6.4–74.9% 27.1% No standard 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in 

FY 2004, what was the median length of stay in foster care (in months) from 

the time of removal from the home to the time of discharge from foster care?

 16.2–55.7% 32.0% No standard 

Component B: Progress toward adoption for children who meet ASFA time-in-care requirements 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were 

in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent were 

adopted before the end of the fiscal year?

 8.0–25.1% 18.0% No standard 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were 

in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent became 

legally free for adoption (i.e., a TPR was granted for each living parent) 

within 6 months of the beginning of the fiscal year?

 0.2–17.2% 9.0% No standard 

Component C: Progress toward adoption of children who are legally free for adoption 

Of all children who became legally free for adoption during FY 2004, 

what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption 

in less than 12 months? 

18.9–85.2% 43.7% No standard 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 

who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or 

longer, what percent became legally free for adoption 

(i.e., a TPR was granted for each living parent) within 6 

months of the beginning of the fiscal year? 

The CFSR composite measure, however, is less helpful 

than Toolkit Measure 4H in measuring and identifying 

court-related delays concerning TPR. 

One key difference between Toolkit Measure 4H and the 

CFSR measure is that Toolkit Measure 4H involves the 

computation of the average (median) time period prior to 

termination of parental rights, whereas the CFSR measure 

involves the computation of the proportion of children freed 

for adoption within 6 months. Another key difference is 

that the sample of cases on which the CFSR measure is 

based differs greatly from the sample of cases for Toolkit 

Measure 4H. Whereas the case sample for the CFSR 

measure consists of cases in which children have been 

in foster care for 17 months or more, the case sample for 

Toolkit Measure 4H includes all cases closed within a specific date range (for example, within a year) in which the 

termination of parental rights occurred. A final difference is 

that whereas Toolkit Measure 4H measures the timeliness 

of TPR petitions, the CFSR measure addresses the time to 

completion of TPR. 

The combined components of Permanency Composite 2 

form a single national standard for the composite measure 

on the timeliness of adoption. This national standard is the 

75th percentile of a scaled score, taking values from 50 to 

150, rather than a percentage. 

Although there is a single composite national standard, it is 

possible to get a general idea of the level of performance 

expected regarding each individual measure, including 

the Toolkit measures. Results for most of the National 

Performance Measures must be near or above the 75th 

percentile if the State is to meet the national standard for 

the composite measure. 

The CFSR composite standard shows how the individual 

measures and components are combined to establish a 

national standard for the composite measure on timeliness 

of adoption. 

215 
216 

Technical Guide
 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4H lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

This measure involves only a simple number (the median 

or average) and is effectively illustrated through bar charts 

or line graphs to compare results from year to year or to 

display the results of multiple measures, as in the samples 

below. 

Percentiles regarding timeliness: For courts that use tables 

to show performance regarding this measure, besides 

computing medians and averages, the court might also 

compute the time to TPR hearings at the 25th, 75th, and 

90th percentiles to get a better idea of the time to TPR 

hearings for the fastest and slowest cases. Another alternative is to look at the range of times for all cases. 

The types of sample tables and graphs for other measures 

that compute average and median time intervals from 

filing to a major case processing milestone, such as Toolkit 

Measure 4I: Time to Termination of Parental Rights and 

Toolkit Measure 4A: Time to Permanent Placement, are 

suitable for reporting data for this measure. Please refer to 

those sections for types of recommended sample reports. 

Sample 4H–1 provides a historical perspective on a 

fictitious court’s performance on multiple performance 

measures over a 5-year period. This table combines 

information produced for six performance measures into 

one report, which provides a more comprehensive view of 

this court’s efforts to improve performance in timeliness of 

hearings. 

The cases evaluated to find the median days for each 

performance measure are those cases that reached a particular milestone during the year, regardless of when they 

were filed or whether they reached any other milestones 

that year. For example, the individual cases evaluated 

to find the median days for Toolkit Measure 4B: Time to Adjudication are those for which an adjudication hearing was 

held that year. They may differ from those cases examined 

to find the median days for Toolkit Measure 4H: Time to 

Termination of Parental Rights Petition. 

This court began with a relatively high number of days for 

the median case to progress to each of the main milestones of case processing in 2001. By 2005, the court had 

succeeded in reducing the number of days for the median 

case to reach every milestone measured. 

Sample 4H–2 displays this same data using a line graph. 

Possible Factors Affecting Level 

of Court Performance 

Degree of Court Control Over 

Scheduling 

Courts must use effective caseflow management to set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes controlling judicial scheduling, setting short but 

realistic timeframes for steps in the court process, and 

setting strict limits on the granting of continuances. 

Sample 4H–1. Comparison of Median Days for Milestones Reached in 2001–2005: Court X 

Median Days From Filing of Original Petition to: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Adjudication 85 83 79 72 70 

Disposition Hearing 96 91 93 88 80 

First Permanency Hearing 420 390 385 365 350 

TPR Petition 450 460 435 415 410 

Termination of Parental Rights 520 515 496 490 480 

Permanent Placement 399 420 408 389 390 
measure 4H: Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition 

Sample 4H–2. Comparison of Median Days From Filing to Milestones Reached in 2001–2005: Court X Median Days From Filing to Milestone 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

85 83 79 72 70 

96 91 93 88 80 

420 

390 385 

365 350 

399 

420 408 389 390 

450 460 

435 415 410 

520 515 496 490 480 

Adjudication Disposition Hearing First Permanency Hearing 

TPR Petition Termination of Parental Rights Permanent Placement 

By contrast, if agencies and attorneys set the pace of the 

litigation, the time of the hearing is likely to be based on 

the pace of the slowest among them. Busy attorneys or 

caseworkers may seek frequent delays based on workload 

or for perceived tactical advantage. 

Timely Service of Process on the Parties 

in the Original Proceedings 

An important factor contributing to timely TPR is the speed 

of service of process on all parties in the original abuse or 

neglect case. Such speed requires diligence on the part of 

the child welfare agency in quickly identifying and locating 

parties, timely preparation of court papers for service or 

process, and timely referral to those who will serve the 

papers. It also includes efforts to locate and serve process 

on missing parties, when necessary, after the original 

adjudication. 

Timeliness and Effectiveness of Earlier 

Stages of the Court Process 

As discussed above, the timeliness of TPR reflects how all 

of the earlier stages of the court process leading up to TPR 

are handled. The writeups of a number of measures detail 

specific factors related to stages in this court process. See 

the writeups for the following Toolkit measures: 4B: Time 

to Adjudication, 4C: Timeliness of Adjudication, 4D: Time to 

Disposition Hearing, 4E: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing, 

4F: Timeliness of Case Review Hearings, and 4G: Time to 

First Permanency Hearing. Toolkit Measure 4H: Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition helps courts assess the 

combined timeliness of court proceedings in child abuse 

and neglect cases. 

Possible Reforms 

u	 Meet with the sheriff’s office, child welfare agency, 

and other entities responsible for serving process and 

locating missing parties to develop a more effective 

and efficient service of process. 

u	 Set and enforce shorter time limits for earlier court 

hearings. 

u	 Clarify and improve the court process leading to 

the TPR trial, including initial and pretrial hearings, 

discovery, trial, and preparation of the court order. 

u	 Assign to court employees the responsibility for 

monitoring delays in litigation and bringing them to the 

judges’ attention. 

u	 Set and enforce strict criteria for the granting of 

continuances. 

u	 Take more time to address the possibility of TPR 

during reviews and permanency hearings. 

217 
218 

Technical Guide
 

u	 Identify and act on appropriate cases where 

reasonable efforts to reunify the family are not 

required. 

u	 Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps 

are being taken to achieve reunification and adoption. 

u	 Train judges and attorneys on TPR issues and 

procedures. 

u	 Train caseworkers on preparing cases for TPR. 

The specific measures a court takes will depend on local 

conditions and its analysis of the principal local causes of 

delays in filing TPR petitions. 

Endnotes 

1.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E). 

2.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E) provides in part that: 

[I]n the case of a child who has been in foster care 

under the responsibility of the State for 15 of the most 

recent 22 months ... the State shall file a petition to 

terminate the parental rights of the child’s parents 

(or, if such a petition has been filed by another party, 

seek to be joined as a party to the petition), and, 

concurrently, to identify, recruit, process, and approve 

a qualified family for an adoption, unless— 

(i)	 at the option of the State, the child is being cared 

for by a relative; 

(ii) a State agency has documented in the case 

plan (which shall be available for court review) a 

compelling reason for determining that filing such 

a petition would not be in the best interests of the 

child; or 

(iii) the State has not provided to the family of the child, 

consistent with the time period in the State case 

plan, such services as the State deems necessary 

for the safe return of the child to the child’s home, 

if reasonable efforts of the type described in 

section 471(a)(15)(B)(ii) are required to be made 

with respect to the child. 

3.	 42 U.S.C. §675(5)(C) provides in part that: 

[W]ith respect to each [child in foster care] procedural 

safeguards will be applied, among other things, to 

assure each child in foster care under the supervision 

of the State of a permanency hearing to be held, in 

a family or juvenile court or another court (including 

a tribal court) of competent jurisdiction, or by an 

administrative body appointed or approved by the 

court, no later than 12 months after the date the 

child is considered to have entered foster care (as 

determined under subparagraph (F)) (and not less 

frequently than every 12 months thereafter during 

the continuation of foster care), which hearing shall 

determine the permanency plan for the child that 

includes whether, and if applicable when, the child 

will be returned to the parent, placed for adoption and 

the State will file a petition for termination of parental 

rights, or referred for legal guardianship, or (in cases 

where the State agency has documented to the State 

court a compelling reason for determining that it 

would not be in the best interests of the child to return 

home, be referred for termination of parental rights, or 

be placed for adoption, with a fit and willing relative, 

or with a legal guardian) placed in another planned 

permanent living arrangement. 

4.	 Reasonable efforts to prevent removal or to reunite a 

child with his or her parents are not required where: 

G	 The court has determined that the parent has 

subjected the child to aggravated circumstances as 

defined by the State. 

G	 A court has determined that the parent has been 

convicted of certain categories of crimes, including 

homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or felony assault 

of another child of the parent or such attempted 

crimes against other children of the parent, 

including the child who is the subject of the court 

procedure. 

G	 The parental rights of the parent with respect to a 

sibling have been involuntarily terminated. 

5.	 That is, when a court determines that reasonable 

efforts to reunify the family are not required, pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 671(15)(D), the court must schedule 

a permanency hearing, at which the court may 

determine that the permanency plan is adoption and 

that the State must file a petition to terminate parental 

rights. 

42 U.S.C. § 671(15)(E) provides in part that: 

[I]f reasonable efforts of the type described in 

subparagraph (B) are not made with respect to 

a child as a result of a determination made by a 

court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with 

subparagraph (D)— 
measure 4H: Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition 

(i) a permanency hearing (as described in section 

475(5)(C)) shall be held for the child within 30 days 

after the determination. 

6.	 42 U.S.C. §§ 675(5)(E)(i), (ii), (iii). 

7.	 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(i)(1)(ii). 

8.	 Federal regulations specify that there must be a TPR 

petition within 60 days following conviction for the 

following felonies: murder or voluntary manslaughter 

of another child of the parent; aiding or abetting, 

attempting, conspiring, or soliciting to commit murder 

or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the 

parent; or felony assault that results in serious bodily 

injury to the child or another child of the parent. 45 

C.F.R. § 1356.21(i)(1)(iii). 

9.	 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2). It is possible for an agency 

to have responsibility for a child’s placement and 

care without having legal custody, but the Federal 

Government has never defined exactly in what 

circumstances this may occur. 

10. 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2). 

11. 65 Federal Register 4056 (January 25, 2000). 

12. 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(e). 

13. 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(i)(1)(i)(C). 

14. Some, but not all, States have statutes or court rules 

setting deadlines for the filing of TPR petitions. 

15. See note 8 above for the list of specified offenses. 

16. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(F). 

17. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(F). 

18 Because there may be more than one putative father 

and because the State may separately petition to 

terminate the rights of two or more putative fathers, 

we speak of the “last” rather than the “second” parent. 

Also, the State may petition to terminate the rights of 

an adoptive parent (e.g., the spouse of a biological 

parent) as well as those of the biological parents. 

19. The court may choose to develop reports of this 

measure—as for other time-based measures—using 

a date range based on the time children entered 

foster care. It may wish to report on the timeliness of 

TPR with reference to different times that the cases 

were opened. Using this kind of analysis, the sample 

should be limited to cases that are closed. There may 

be later TPR petitions to reopen some closed cases, 

and annual comparisons will leave out the longest 

cases. However, this approach has the advantage of 

comparing and evaluating the majority of TPR cases 

that presumably are closed within a reasonable time. 

When used in conjunction with samples of recently 

closed cases, this can show the percentage of TPR 

proceedings that are closed relatively early and thus 

contribute to an understanding of the overall pace of 

filing TPR petitions. 

219 

measure 4I 

Definition: Average (median) time from filing of the original child abuse and neglect petition to the termination of parental 

rights (TPR). 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date the original child abuse and neglect petition is filed to 

the date the termination of parental rights proceeding is completed. Termination of parental rights means that a parent is 

permanently deprived of all rights to a child, including custody, visitation, or participation in decisionmaking for the child. 

TPR also means that the child may be adopted by a new parent without notice to or the consent of the parent whose rights 

have been terminated. 

Purpose: The purpose of this measure is to enable the court to determine how long it takes the court to reach TPR from the 

time the original abuse and neglect case began. 

Termination of parental rights is a pivotal stage in the 

court process because it allows a child to be adopted. It is 

a gateway to permanency for children who cannot return 

home safely. 

The time to TPR is a period during which the family is 

stressed and uncertain concerning its future. From the time 

In another example of how failure to achieve timely TPR 

can work against the child’s best interest, assume that, 

at a permanency hearing, a court does not conduct a 

thorough review of a recommendation to continue a permanency plan of reunification, accepts that plan, and that 

plan is later determined to not have been in the child’s best 

Time to Termination of 

Parental Rights 

that a child is taken from the family to the time of TPR, neither the child nor the parents know whether or when the 

family unit will be permanently restored. Because this is a 

time of anxiety and hardship for both children and parents, 

it is important to keep the time to TPR as short as possible. 

Measuring and reporting on this time interval helps courts 

focus on the impact of scheduling decisions. 

The time to TPR reflects the efficiency of much of the court 

process. It represents both the timeliness and the quality 

of early stages in the court process, such as adjudication, 

disposition, review, and permanency hearings. Even if adjudication is timely, it will not effectively advance the case 

toward TPR if all parents have not been properly notified 

and served beforehand. In that instance, it may become 

necessary late in the case to launch the first search for the 

parent not originally served, thus delaying TPR. 

Likewise, TPR proceedings may be delayed when reviews 

and permanency hearings are timely but not thorough. 

Assume that, during a review hearing, a court fails to 

challenge a child welfare agency’s failure to arrange timely 

services. By failing to acknowledge the problem and order 

corrective steps, the court probably has delayed TPR. But 

if, at that review hearing, the court requires the agency 

to correct the deficiency, it may facilitate timelier family 

reunification or speed TPR if the reunification efforts fail. 

interest. The court has needlessly prolonged TPR. But if, 

instead, the court carefully questions the reunification plan, 

recognizes that reunification has already failed, and orders 

a petition for TPR, this will speed TPR and adoption. 

Furthermore, delays in achieving TPR may be caused by 

delays in the completion of the TPR proceedings themselves. TPRs, on average, are by far the most heavily 

contested and time-consuming proceedings in child abuse 

and neglect litigation. In most States, TPR requires a new 

service of process. Contested TPRs take far longer than 

any other type of contested proceeding in these cases. 

Some child welfare agencies and their attorneys may delay 

initiating TPR until they can show that the parents have 

failed to improve over a long period of time. In some cases, 

it is better for the children that TPR take place as soon as 

it is clear that family reunification is not possible within a 

reasonable time. The child may best be served in these 

instances by going forward with a strong case for TPR, 

even though that case may be vigorously contested. 

Delays in TPR may also reflect delays in services and/ 

or weaknesses in child welfare agency performance. If 

essential services are delivered late in the case, there may 

be no case for TPR, even if the child is forced to wait for 

the opportunity for a permanent new home. 
222 

Technical Guide
 

This measure cannot separate out the extent to which 

delays in TPR are caused by the court, the child welfare 

agency, or others. But by considering the time to TPR; 

the times to adjudication, disposition, and permanency 

hearings; and the time from TPR petition to TPR, important 

clues will emerge. These clues can help courts identify 

precise causes of delays by reviewing selected individual 

cases at specific points in their procedures. 

Complexities, Proxies, and 

Barriers to Capturing This 

Information 

Start Date for Case in Measuring Time 

to Permanency 

One possible consideration in choosing the start date for 

measuring the time to TPR is consistency with the start 

dates for most other timeliness measures, particularly 

Toolkit Measure 4K: Time From Disposition Hearing to 

Termination of Parental Rights Petition. Conversely, courts 

may choose different start dates for different measures to 

get different views of timeliness. 

Aside from consistency with other measures, there are 

reasons for and against several possible alternative start 

dates. The time to TPR may be measured from the following dates: 

u	 Date abuse and neglect petition was filed. 

u	 Date child is removed from home. 

u	 Date of first court order authorizing child’s removal 

from home. 

u	 Date of emergency removal hearing. 

u	 Date child is considered to have entered foster care, 

which is the start date under Federal law. 

Date Abuse and Neglect Petition Was Filed 

The date the original child abuse and neglect petition was 

filed is the recommended start date for most jurisdictions. 

It is a clearly defined and convenient start date because 

the legal proceedings formally begin on this date and 

because all courts have access to this information. In 

jurisdictions where the filing of the petition can be delayed, 

however, using this date can obscure early sources of 

court delay. 

Although delays in filing a petition would normally be regarded as outside the court’s responsibility, in some States, 

the courts themselves review and approve original petitions before they may be filed and so may be the cause of 

delays. Where petitions are filed during emergency removal 

hearings, courts can delay the timing of petitions through 

delays in scheduling emergency removal hearings. 

Date Child Is Removed From Home 

Calculating the timeliness of termination based on the date 

of the child’s removal from home encourages the court to 

address the earliest and most critical delays related to the 

court process. Agencies also use this start date, at least 

where children are placed in foster care as opposed to 

being placed with relatives.1 

The reason for measuring time to TPR is related to the 

experience of children not having permanent homes. It is 

likely that children feel the lack of a permanent home most 

intensely after having been removed from home. As long 

as children are left at home, even under the supervision of 

the child welfare agency and court, they have not undergone the trauma of separation from parents and generally 

do not feel a loss of permanency as they do in foster care. 

On the other hand, the child welfare agency may not make 

accurate data regarding the date of removal consistently 

available to courts. It may take time and effort to train the 

agency to provide this information in a form that is easily 

retrievable by court staff and to train court staff to record 

this information. Eventually, the agency may be able to 

share this information through automated electronic data 

exchange. 

Date of First Court Order Authorizing Removal of 

the Child From Home 

The first court order authorizing the child’s removal from 

home may be (a) an ex parte removal order, (b) an emergency non ex parte removal order (where all parties had 

the chance to be heard), (c) an emergency removal hearing 

order, which typically occurs within a few days after the 

child is removed from home and is the court’s first substantive involvement in the case, or (d) any removal order 

that occurs at a later hearing. 

An advantage of this start date is that, since it is based 

on action by the court itself rather than the child welfare 

agency, it does not require obtaining information from the 

agency. A related advantage is that court staff may already 

enter information regarding removal orders into the court 

information system. A final advantage is that this start date 
measure 4I: Time to Termination of Parental Rights 

filters out purely in-home cases, as discussed in previous 

Toolkit measures. 

A disadvantage of this start date could be that court employees are not used to referring to it and, therefore, it may 

require extra training and programming. 

Date of Emergency Removal Hearing 

If a court does not receive reliable information from the 

child welfare agency regarding the date of removal, 

the court may choose the date of the emergency removal hearing2

 as a substitute start date. The date of the 

emergency removal hearing is readily available to any 

court. Each State sets a standard deadline for emergency 

removal hearings (or their equivalent) shortly after the date 

of removal. 

Using the date of the emergency removal hearing as a 

proxy for the removal date eliminates cases in which 

children are first removed from home at later stages of the 

case, such as at a disposition or review hearing. If such 

late removals are rare in a jurisdiction, it may be acceptable to use the date of the emergency removal hearing as 

the sole beginning date for this measure. 

Date Child Is Considered To Have Entered 

Foster Care 

If the start date for this measure is to be consistent with 

Toolkit Measure 4H: Time to Termination of Parental 

Rights Petition, the start date must be the date the child is 

“considered to have entered foster care.” This start date 

is designed to help States measure compliance with the 

Federal deadline for TPR petitions. Federal law requires 

States to file TPR petitions by the time that children have 

been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months 

following the date they were considered to have entered 

foster care.3 

Federal law states that a child shall be considered to have 

entered foster care on the earlier of either the date of the 

first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to 

child abuse or neglect or 60 days after the date the child 

is removed from the home.4 

If the required judicial finding is entered before 60 days 

after removal, the start date for Toolkit Measure 4I will be 

the date of the finding, but if the finding occurs later, the 

start date will be 60 days after the date of actual removal. 

Then, the deadline will begin to run at whichever start 

date is the date the child is considered to have entered 

foster care. Using this variable start date requires careful 

programming. 

Completion of Termination of 

Parental Rights 

Another important consideration regarding this performance measure is when to consider the TPR proceeding 

to be over. Alternative suggestions include the dates of 

completion of the TPR hearing, the date the judge signs the 

TPR order, and when the order becomes legally final. An 

additional consideration is whether this should be the date 

of the TPR of the first parent or the last parent. It is recommended that the completion date be the date that the TPR 

of the last parent would be final if not appealed. 

Date of Completion of Termination of 

Parental Rights Hearing 

The date of completion of the TPR hearing is not recommended as an end date for this measure. When the court 

has completed other types of hearings such as adjudication, disposition, and permanency, the parties generally 

move on to the next stage of the case immediately.5

 By 

contrast, completion of the TPR hearing does not legally 

free the child for adoption, thus preventing the parties from 

initiating adoption proceedings in most States. 

Date Termination of Parental Rights Order 

Is Signed 

The date the TPR order is signed is closer to being an 

appropriate end date. The problem with this date as a 

completion date, however, is that parties still cannot move 

forward to the next stage of the case. An adoption proceeding cannot be initiated until after the order becomes 

final. 

Date Termination of Parental Rights Order Is Final 

The TPR order is final on the date on which a petition for 

adoption can be filed. A complication with this end date, 

however, is that many TPR cases are appealed, in which 

case the date the TPR order becomes final includes the 

time needed for the appellate process. This is inappropriate 

because these measures are designed only to aid in the 

evaluation of trial court performance and trial courts have 

limited influence over the timeliness of appeals. Instead, it 

is preferable to develop separate measures or methods for 

appellate courts to measure the timeliness of their appeals. 

In addition, trial courts in abuse and neglect cases could 

add an entirely separate measure to address those parts 

of the appellate process for which they are responsible. 

For example, they might measure the timeliness of the 

completion of the record on appeal. This approach is 

223 
224 

Technical Guide
 

practical, however, only if individual courts handle enough 

appeals to make the additional measure useful. 

Date Termination of Parental Rights Order 

Would Be Final if Not Appealed 

For most courts, the recommended end date is the date 

the TPR order will be final if it is not appealed. In many 

States, parties have 30, 60, or 90 days after the TPR order 

is signed to file an appeal, depending on the individual 

State. 

From the perspective of the trial court judge, the appeal 

deadline represents the true end of the TPR. If the case 

is not appealed, only then can the prospective adoptive 

parents immediately file a petition for adoption. If the case 

is appealed, the length of the appeal should not reflect on 

the performance of the trial court itself. 

Although this is also true using the date the court order is 

signed as the end date, the date the order would be final 

if not appealed (the end of the appeal period) more closely 

reflects the true completion of TPR. In addition, if the date 

the TPR order would become final is used as the end date 

for this measure, this may help persuade the courts or the 

State legislature to reduce the length of time it takes for a 

TPR order to become final (shorten the appeal period). 

Date of Termination of Parental Rights of All 

Parents 

Legal permanency is not possible without TPR of all 

parents, and it is recommended that this measure be 

calculated based on the completion of TPR of all parents. 

In some States, consent to adoption may be used in lieu of 

TPR. In those States, it is recommended that the measure 

be calculated using one of the following approaches, 

depending on State law. 

u	 The date on which either the parental rights of the last 

parent6

 were terminated or the last parent signed a 

consent to adoption (whichever applies). 

u	 The date on which TPR of the last parent is finalized. 

There may, however, be practical barriers to using the finalized TPR or the consent to adoption of the last parent as 

the end date. In some States, it may be difficult to program 

the logic necessary for the management information system to recognize the last parent or to distinguish between 

cases where it is necessary to bring a TPR proceeding for 

all parents or for only one parent. 

Solving this problem may require special efforts, such as 

changing the law to require the agency to inform the court 

when such consents are signed; collecting new data; or 

retraining court staff. In that case, it may be more practical 

to use the TPR of the first parent as the end date. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Run this report using a sample of cases for which a 

TPR would be finalized if not appealed. The TPR in 

question may be for the first parent or the last parent, 

as determined by the jurisdiction. In lieu of TPR, a 

jurisdiction may use the consent to adoption date for 

either the first or last parent, if it applies. 

2.	 Select a date range for the report (date the TPR order 

would be final if not appealed). (State law specifies a 

number of days [e.g., 30, 60, or 90 days] after the TPR 

order is signed by the trial court judge within which 

the order will be final if an appeal is not filed.) 

3.	 Select and count cases where the date of TPR falls 

within the date range selected. (A) 

4.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days 

from filing of the original abuse or neglect petition to 

the date the order for TPR was final (or would be final 

if it had not been appealed). Store each number in a 

dataset. (B) 

5.	 Find the median case in the dataset (B) (the number 

midway between the lowest and highest number of 

days). (C) 

6.	 Add the number of days for all cases in (A) together. 

(D) 

7.	 Compute the average time by dividing (D) by (A). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the 

median is simply the middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 

4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of numbers, the median 

is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median of 

2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

Possible Modifications 

u	 Limit the measure to include only children who were in 

foster care before the filing of the TPR petition and for 

whom parental rights were later terminated. 
measure 4I: Time to Termination of Parental Rights 

u	 Limit the measure to include only children who were in 

foster care before the filing of the TPR petition and for 

whom parental rights were later terminated, but count 

from the date of the emergency removal hearing. 

u	 Count, in all cases, either from the date of removal of 

the child from home, date of the emergency removal 

hearing, date of the court order authorizing removal 

of the child, or date the child is considered to have 

entered foster care, rather than from the date of the 

TPR petition. Do not mix start dates in one analysis. 

u	 Report separately on cases by demographic 

categories, including age and ethnicity of children. 

u	 Add a separate measure to calculate the length of time 

from the date the TPR order is signed to the date the 

trial court or court reporter has completed the record 

for appeal and submitted it to the appellate court. (This 

would measure the trial court’s contributions to the 

timeliness of appeals.) 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Abuse or neglect petition date. 

u	 Last TPR finalized date. 

Optional Elements 

u	 Removed from home flag.
 

u	 Removal date.
 

u	 Emergency removal hearing date-time.
 

u	 Foster care entry date.
 

u	 Removal order date.
 

u	 Last consent to adoption date.
 

u	 Last TPR record on appeal submission date.
 

u	 Last TPR order signed date.
 

Related CFSR Standards 

Federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) Permanency Composite 2, “Timeliness of Adoption,” includes 

three components: (A) timeliness of adoptions of children 

discharged from foster care, (B) progress toward adoption for children who meet Adoption and Safe Families Act 

(ASFA) time-in-care requirements, and (C) progress toward 

adoption of children who are legally free for adoption. 

Within CFSR Permanency Composite 2, the following 

measure relates to Toolkit Measure 4I and concerns the 

termination of parental rights. The CFSR measure, however, 

is less helpful than Toolkit Measure 4I in measuring and 

identifying court-related delays regarding TPR. 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 

who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or 

longer, what percent became legally free for adoption 

(i.e., a TPR was granted for each living parent) within 6 

months of the beginning of the fiscal year? 

One key difference between Toolkit Measure 4I and the 

CFSR measure is that Toolkit Measure 4I involves the 

computation of the average (median) time period prior 

to the achievement of TPR, whereas the CFSR measure 

involves the computation of the proportion of children freed 

for adoption within 6 months. Another key difference is 

that the sample of cases on which the CFSR measure is 

based differs greatly from the sample of cases for Toolkit 

Measure 4I. Whereas the sample of cases for the CFSR 

measure consists of cases in which children have been 

in foster care for 17 months or more, the sample of cases 

for Toolkit Measure 4I includes all cases closed within a 

specific date range (for example, within a year) in which 

the termination of parental rights occurred. 

The components of Permanency Composite 2 together 

form a single national standard for the composite measure 

on the timeliness of adoption. This national standard is the 

75th percentile of a scaled score, taking values from 50 to 

150, rather than a percentage. 

Although there is a single composite national standard, it is 

possible to get a general idea of the level of performance 

expected regarding each individual measure, including 

the Toolkit measures. The results for most of the Toolkit 

measures must be near the 75th percentile if the State is 

to meet the national standard for the composite measure. 

225 
226 

Technical Guide
 

CFSR Permanency Composite 2. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, 

and Composite National Standard 

Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of adoption 

Range Median 

National 

Standard

 50–150 96.5 102.1 or higher 

Component A: Timeliness of adoptions of children discharged from foster care 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized 

adoption in FY 2004, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months 

from the time of the latest removal from the home?

 6.4–74.9% 27.1% No standard 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption 

in FY 2004, what was the median length of stay in foster care (in months) 

from the time of removal from the home to the time of discharge from foster 

care? 

16.2–55.7 

months 

32.0 

months 

No standard 

Component B: Progress toward adoption for children who meet ASFA time-in-care requirements 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster 

care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent were adopted before 

the end of the fiscal year?

 8.0–25.1% 18.0% No standard 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster 

care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent became legally free 

for adoption (i.e., a TPR was granted for each living parent) within 6 months 

of the beginning of the fiscal year?

 0.2–17.2% 9.0% No standard 

Component C: Progress toward adoption of children who are legally free for adoption 

Of all children who became legally free for adoption during FY 2004, what 

percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 

12 months? 

18.9–85.2% 43.7% No standard 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4I lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

whether their performance has improved or declined over 

time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

This measure involves only a simple number (the median 

or average) and is effectively illustrated through bar charts 

or trend lines. 

Sample 4I–1 is based on a fictitious judicial district with 

five courts. The table presents the minimum amount of information that should be reported for this measure for each 

court and statewide on a yearly basis. It shows the average 

and median time from filing of the petition to finalization of 

TPR in courts throughout the district. 

Once a jurisdiction has accumulated statistics for several 

years, it is possible to look at trends in performance over 

time. Sample 4I–2, based on a fictitious State, represents 

the median and average number of days from the original 

child abuse and neglect petition to final TPR from 2002 

to 2005. If the goal is to reduce the number of days to 

final TPR, such a graph may be particularly useful to chart 

progress. 

Sample 4I–3 is based on fictitious statistics from a single 

State. This table provides a comparative analysis of the 

time to TPR based on foster children’s age and ethnicity. 

As illustrated, adoptions of Caucasian children occur much 

more quickly than for children from other ethnic groups. 

TPRs are slowest for African Americans and children in the 

“other” category. TPRs also occur most quickly for children 

4 years old and younger. 

Sample 4I–3 includes the number of cases on which the 

statistics are based. The statistics for categories with few 
227 

measure 4I: Time to Termination of Parental Rights 

Sample 4I–1. Time to Termination of Parental Rights, 2005: Judicial District 1 

Court Number of Cases Average Days Median Days 

Court A 23 293 284 

Court B 12 366 342 

Court C 45 322 356 

Court D 68 412 409 

Court E 102 404 445 

Judicial District 1 250 359 367 

Sample 4I–2. Time to Termination of Parental Rights, 2002–2005: Statewide 

460 

440 

440
 

420
 

400
 389 386 

399 367 

360 

380 

370 

359	 359 340
 

320
 

300
 

280
 

Average Days Median Days 

2002 	 2003 2004 2005 

Year 

Days to TPR 

children may be more volatile from year to year than those 

with many children, because large changes in one or two 

cases may have a more significant effect on the average 

or median in a smaller group. If a cell holds no data, the 

notation “n/a” should be used to indicate that there is no 

information on which to base a calculation, rather than “0” 

(which would mean that the average or median time was 

0 days). 

Sample 4I–3 also shows differences in the times to TPR 

for different age groups of children. Although times from 

petition to TPR are relatively short, they are shortest for 

children in the under 4 years old category. 

The information in this table could be the source of several 

different graphs, but it is important to limit the amount of 

information in each graph to avoid crowding and confusion. Sample 4I–4 shows the statewide average and 

median days from petition to TPR by ethnicity for 1 year. 

Sample 4I–5 shows average and median days from petition to TPR by both ethnicity and age for a single court. 

Although this performance measure looks specifically at 

the average and median time to TPR, an alternative is to 

look at the distribution of cases across time categories. 

Sample 4I–6 incorporates the actual time (instead of the 

average or median time) for each case from petition to 

TPR, and then assigns it to a time category, showing the 

percentage of cases that fall into 6-month categories. 

Sample 4I–7 illustrates this information for one county. 

Although samples 4I–6 and 4I–7 facilitate numerous 

comparisons, it is useful to provide a digest of the most 

significant information. 

u	 In this State, the bulk of cases (59 percent) are 

completed in the three time categories that together 

span 13–30 months. 
228 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 4I–3. Time to Termination of Parental Rights by Age and Ethnicity of Child, 2005: Statewide 

Ethnicity 

Up to 4 years 5–9 years 10–14 years 15–18 years All Cases Number of Cases Average Days Median Days Number of Cases Average Days Median Days Number of Cases Average Days Median Days Number of Cases Average Days Median Days Number of Cases Average Days 

Median Days 

Caucasian 73 194 145 89 248 290 100 340 320 3 390 380 265 293 284 

African 

American 146 398 276 201 505 498 134 577 530 8 402 443 489 471 437 

Asian 23 304 322 12 376 327 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 35 340 325 

Native 

American 105 300 330 66 376 380 48 390 290 2 399 367 221 366 342 

Hispanic 27 331 420 21 290 345 3 345 303 0 n/a n/a 51 322 356 

Other 23 389 588 19 603 578 14 433 499 0 510 529 56 484 549 

Overall 397 319 347 408 480 484 299 417 388 13 340 344 1,117 389 391 

Sample 4I–4. Time to Termination of Parental Rights by Ethnicity of Child, 2005: Statewide Ethnicity 

Other
 

African American
 

Overall
 

Hispanic
 

Native American
 

Asian
 

Caucasian
 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

549 

437 

391 

356 

342 

325 

284 

484 

471 

389 

322 

366 

340 

293 

u	 By adding the percentages in the first three time 

categories under the column heading “Statewide,” one 

can see that 29 percent of the TPRs finalized in the 

State were completed in 18 months or less. 

u	 By comparison, County A completed 51 percent of the 

finalized TPRs in 18 months or less. 

Days to TPR 

Median Days Average Days 

Sample 4I–7 also compares the TPR timing of cases closed 

in 2005 in County A and identifies the proportion of “early 

TPRs,” TPRs occurring without extended efforts to reunify 

the family. 
measure 4I: Time to Termination of Parental Rights 

Sample 4I–5. Average and Median Days From Petition to Termination of Parental Rights by 

Child’s Ethnicity, 2002–2003: Court A 

600 

534 517 

500 

423 

393 385 394 391 400 384 368 362 

291 300 265

200
 

100
 

0
 

Average Days Median Days 

Caucasian Other 

African American 

Asian 

Native American Average 

Sample 4I–6. Time to Termination of Parental Rights for Finalized TPRs by County, 2005: Statewide Days From Petition to TPR

229 

Months 

County A County B County C County D Statewide 

# of 

cases % 

# of 

cases % 

# of 

cases % 

# of 

cases % 

# of 

cases % 

1–6 0 0% 0 0% 3 1% 1 1% 4 1% 

7–12 34 14% 6 10% 8 3% 8 7% 56 8% 

13–18 93 37% 9 15% 19 8% 12 10% 133 20% 

19–24 69 28% 18 31% 23 9% 19 15% 129 19% 

25–30 22 9% 12 20% 66 27% 34 28% 134 20% 

31–36 16 6% 4 7% 68 28% 17 14% 105 16% 

37–42 9 4% 9 15% 33 14% 16 13% 67 10% 

43–48 6 2% 1 2% 10 4% 12 10% 29 4% 

>48 1 0% 0 0% 14 6% 4 3% 19 3% 

Total 250 100% 59 100% 244 100% 123 100% 676 100% 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Possible Factors Affecting the 

Level of Court Performance 

Degree of Court Control Over 

Scheduling 

Courts must use effective caseflow management to set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes controlling judicial scheduling, setting short but 

realistic timeframes for steps in the court process, and setting strict limits on the granting of continuances. 

By contrast, if agencies and attorneys set the pace of the 

litigation, the time of the hearing is likely to be based on 

the pace of the slowest among them. Busy attorneys or 

caseworkers may seek frequent delays based on workload 

or for perceived tactical advantage. 
Technical Guide
 

230 

Sample 4I–7. Time to Termination of Parental Rights, 2005: County A 

40% 

35% 

37% 

25% 

30%

PR Cases 

28% 

20% 

Tof 

15%

entage

14% 

5% 

10%

Perc

9% 

6% 

0% 

1–6 7–12 13–18 19–24 25–30 31–36 

Months to TPR 

2% 

4% 

0% 

37–42 43–48 >48 

Timely Service of Process on the Parties 

An important factor contributing to timely TPR is the speed 

of service of process on all parties. Such speed requires 

diligence on the part of the child welfare agency in quickly 

identifying and locating parties, timely preparation of court 

papers for service or process, and timely referral to those 

who actually will serve the papers. Moreover, for TPR, 

timely service of process sometimes requires substitute 

service, particularly by publication. Therefore, part of ensuring timely service of process is developing and implementing an efficient procedure for service by publication. 

Timeliness and Effectiveness of Earlier 

Stages of the Court Process 

As discussed above, the timeliness of TPR reflects how 

all of the earlier stages of the court process leading up to 

TPR are handled. The writeups of a number of different 

measures detail specific factors related to the various parts 

of this court process. See the writeups for the following 

Toolkit measures: 4B: Time to Adjudication, 4C: Timeliness 

of Adjudication, 4D: Time to Disposition Hearing, 4E: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing, 4H: Time to Termination of 

Parental Rights Petition, 4K: Time From Disposition Hearing 

to Termination of Parental Rights Petition, and 4M: Timeliness of Adoption Proceedings. Toolkit Measure 4I: Time 

to Termination of Parental Rights helps courts assess the 

combined timeliness of many steps in the court process in 

child abuse and neglect cases. 

Possible Reforms 

u	 Meet with the sheriff’s office, child welfare agency, 

and other entities responsible for serving process 

to develop a more effective and efficient service of 

process. 

u	 Set and enforce shorter time limits for earlier court 

hearings. 

u	 Clarify and improve the court process leading to 

the TPR trial, including initial and pretrial hearings, 

discovery, trial, and preparation of the court order. 

u	 Set and enforce strict, specific time limits to 

govern each step of the court process from filing 

to completion of TPR. 

u	 Implement a project with agency representatives, 

attorney groups, and other organizations to identify 

and reduce delays in TPR and all stages of the court 

process leading to TPR. 

u	 Assign to court employees the responsibility for 

monitoring delays in litigation and bringing them to 

the judges’ attention. 

u	 Set and enforce strict criteria for the granting of 

continuances. 

u	 Take more time to address the possibility of TPR 

during reviews and permanency hearings. 
measure 4I: Time to Termination of Parental Rights 

u	 Identify and act on appropriate cases where 

reasonable efforts to reunify the family are not 

required. 

u	 Train judges and attorneys on TPR issues and 

procedures. 

u	 Revise TPR forms that help make the process more 

efficient while protecting the rights of the parties. 

u	 Train caseworkers on preparing cases for TPR. 

u	 Support a wide range of more general legal and 

judicial system improvements related to this measure. 

The specific measures a court takes will depend on local 

conditions and its analysis of the principal local causes of 

delays related to termination of parental rights. 

Endnotes 

1.	 Agency performance measures begin with the date 

the child is placed into foster care and do not include 

placements with relatives where the relatives have 

custody of the child. 

2.	 An emergency removal hearing is the hearing that 

occurs within a short time of a child’s emergency 

removal from home, in which the court decides 

whether to promptly return the child home or place 

the child in foster care. In different jurisdictions the 

emergency removal hearing may be called a variety 

of other names such as temporary removal hearing, 

initial hearing, preliminary hearing, detention hearing, 

preliminary protective hearing, and shelter care 

hearing, 

3.	 42 U.S.C. §§ 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), 675(5)(E); 45 C.F.R. § 

1356.21(i)(1)(i). In addition, if a court has determined 

the child to be abandoned (as defined under State 

law), or has made a determination that the parent 

murdered another child of the parent; committed 

voluntary manslaughter against another child of the 

parent; aided, abetted, or conspired to commit such 

a murder or voluntary manslaughter; or committed 

a felony assault that seriously injured the child or a 

sibling, the State must file a petition for termination of 

parental rights. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E). 

4.	 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(F); 45 C.F.R. § 1355.20(a). 

5.	 For example, after the disposition hearing is 

completed, in most courts the agency is immediately 

able to implement the court orders. Likewise, after 

a permanency hearing in which a judge orders the 

agency to initiate TPR proceedings, the deadline 

verbally announced by the judge will apply. 

6.	 Because there may be more than one putative father 

and because the State may separately petition to 

terminate the rights of two or more putative fathers, 

we speak of the “last” rather than the “second” parent. 

Also, the State may petition to terminate the rights of 

an adoptive parent (e.g., the spouse of a biological 

parent) as well as those of the biological parents. 

231 

measure 4J 

Definition: Percentage of cases for which there is a final order within 90, 120, and 180 days of the filing of the termination 

of parental rights (TPR) petition. 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date the termination of parental rights proceedings have 

formally begun to the date TPR is finalized. 

Termination of parental rights means that a parent is permanently deprived of all rights to a child including custody, visitation, or participation in decisionmaking for the child. TPR also means that the child may be adopted by a new parent without 

notice to or the consent of the parent whose rights have been terminated. This measure includes all cases for which a TPR 

petition was filed, regardless of the outcome. 

Purpose: The purpose of this measure is to enable the court to determine how long it takes the court to reach a decision on 

TPR from the time that TPR began. 

Termination of parental rights is a pivotal stage in the 

court process because it allows a child to be adopted. It is 

a gateway to permanency for children who cannot return 

home safely. 

completed. Alternative suggestions include the date of 

completion of the TPR hearing, the date of the judge’s signature on the TPR order, the date when the order becomes 

legally final, and the date the order would be legally final if 

not appealed. 

Timeliness of Termination of 


Parental Rights Proceedings 


The time from TPR petition to finalization of TPR represents a period in which the biological parents, the child, 

and prospective adoptive parents (if any), are in suspense 

concerning the outcome. When TPR proceedings extend 

for a long time, prospective adoptive families sometimes 

break up under the stress. Because this is a period of such 

stress and uncertainty, it is important to keep it as short as 

possible. 

Delays in achieving TPR can be severe. TPRs are by far the 

most heavily contested and time-consuming proceedings 

in child abuse and neglect litigation. In most States, TPR 

requires a new service of process. A far higher percentage 

of TPRs are contested than any other proceedings, and 

they take far longer. In many courts, all of this is compounded by repeated continuances or setovers and long 

periods of time between segments of the TPR trial. 

Complexities, Proxies, Additions, 

and Barriers to Capturing This 

Information 

Date Termination of Parental Rights 

Proceedings Have Been Completed 

An important consideration regarding this performance 

measure is when to consider the TPR proceeding to be 

Date Termination of Parental Rights Hearing Is 

Completed 

The date of completion of the TPR hearing is not an 

acceptable end date for this measure. When the court 

completes other types of hearings such as adjudication, 

disposition, and permanency hearings, the parties generally can proceed immediately to the next stage of the case. 

For example, in most courts, after the disposition hearing 

is completed, the child welfare agency can immediately 

implement the court orders. Likewise, after a permanency 

hearing in which a judge orders the agency to initiate TPR 

proceedings, the deadline announced by the judge will 

apply. By contrast, completion of the TPR hearing does not 

legally free the child for adoption, thus impeding the parties from initiating adoption proceedings in most States. 

Date Termination of Parental Rights Order Is 

Signed 

The date the TPR order is signed is closer to being an 

appropriate end date. However, signing the order does not 

enable parties to proceed to the next stage of the case. 

An adoption proceeding cannot be initiated until the order 

becomes final. 
234 

Technical Guide
 

Date Termination of Parental Rights Order Is Final 

The date the TPR order is final is the date on which a petition for adoption can be filed. A complication with using 

this end date, however, is that many TPR cases are appealed. When this occurs, the date the TPR order becomes 

final includes the time required for the appellate process. It 

is inappropriate, however, to count appellate delays in this 

measure, which is designed to aid in the evaluation of trial 

court performance only. Trial courts have limited influence 

over the timeliness of appeals. Instead, it is preferable to 

develop separate methods for appellate courts to measure 

the timeliness of their appeals. 

An alternative to using the date that the TPR order is final 

as the end date may be for trial courts in abuse and neglect cases to add an entirely separate measure to address 

those parts of the appellate process for which they are responsible. For example, they might measure the timeliness 

of the completion of the record for appeal. This approach is 

practical, however, only if individual courts handle enough 

appeals to make the additional measure useful. 

Date Termination of Parental Rights Order Would 

Be Final If Not Appealed 

For most courts, this is the recommended end date. For 

example, in a particular State, a party has 30 days to file 

an appeal after the TPR order is signed by the trial court 

judge. The recommended end date in that State should 

be 30 days after the TPR order is signed by the trial court 

judge. In a State where the deadline is 60 days after the 

signing of the TPR order, that would be the end date for 

this measure. 

From the perspective of the trial court judge, this date represents the true end of the TPR. If the case is not appealed, 

only then can the prospective adoptive parents immediately file a petition for adoption. If the case is appealed, the 

length of the appeal should not reflect on the performance 

of the trial court. 

The date that the order becomes final if not appealed 

more closely reflects the true completion of TPR than the 

date the order is signed. In addition, if the date the TPR 

order becomes final is used as the end date, it may help 

persuade the courts or the State legislature to improve 

performance by reducing the length of time it takes for a 

TPR order to become final. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Run this report using a sample of cases for which 

a TPR proceeding has been finalized, regardless of 

the outcome (TPR is granted or denied). The TPR in 

question may be for either the first or the last parent, 

as determined by the jurisdiction. In lieu of TPR, a 

jurisdiction may also use the consent-to-adoption date 

for either the first or last parent, if it applies. 

2.	 Select a date range for the report (date the TPR order 

would be final if not appealed). State law specifies a 

number of days (e.g., 30, 60, or 90 days) after the TPR 

order is signed by the trial court judge, within which 

the order will be final if an appeal is not filed. 

3.	 Select and count cases where the TPR finalized date 

falls within the date range selected. (A) 

4.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days 

from filing of the TPR petition to the date the order 

for TPR was final (or would be final if it had not been 

appealed). Store each number in a dataset. (B) 

5.	 Count the number of cases from (B) that fall into each 

range: 1–90 days (C), 91–120 days (D), 121–180 days 

(E), and 181 or more days (F). 

6.	 Calculate the percentage in each category by dividing 

the number of cases in the category by (A) (example: 

C/A = percentage of cases finalized in 1–90 days). 

Possible Modifications 

1.	 Calculate the average and median time for cases 

where the TPR was granted. 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Last TPR petition date. 

u	 Last TPR finalized date. 
measure 4J: Timeliness of Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings 

Optional Elements 

u	 Last TPR granted. 

u	 Last consent to adoption date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

Federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) Permanency Composite 2, “Timeliness of Adoption,” includes 

three components: (A) timeliness of adoptions of children 

discharged from foster care, (B) progress toward adoption for children who meet Adoption and Safe Families Act 

(ASFA) time-in-care requirements, and (C) progress toward 

adoption of children who are legally free for adoption. 

Within CFSR Permanency Composite 2 one measure is 

loosely related to Toolkit Measure 4J: 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 

who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent became legally free for adoption (i.e., a 

TPR was granted for each living parent) within 6 months 

of the beginning of the fiscal year? 

The CFSR measure, however, differs from Toolkit Measure 

4J and is less helpful in measuring and identifying court 

delays related to TPR. One key difference between Toolkit 

Measure 4J and the CFSR measure quoted above is that 

Toolkit Measure 4J involves computing how long the 

judicial proceedings for TPR take, whereas the CFSR measure is not limited to the time of the judicial proceedings. 

Another key difference is that although the CFSR measure 

captures only cases within which TPR has occurred within 

6 months, Toolkit Measure 4J also addresses the percentage of cases in which TPR occurs within 90 and 120 days. 

The combined components of Permanency Composite 2 

form a single national standard for the composite measure 

on the timeliness of adoption. This national standard is the 

75th percentile of a scaled score, taking values from 50 to 

150, rather than a percentage. 

Although there is a single composite national standard, it is 

possible to get a general idea of the level of performance 

expected regarding each individual measure, including 

Toolkit Measure 4J. Results for most of the Toolkit measures must be near the 75th percentile if the State is to 

meet the national standard for the composite measure. 

CFSR Permanency Composite 2. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, 

and Composite National Standard 

Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of adoption 

Range Median 

National 

Standard 

50–150 96.5 

102.1 

or higher 

Component A: Timeliness of adoptions of children discharged from foster care 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 

2004, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the time of the 

latest removal from the home? 

6.4–74.9% 27.1% No 

standard 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 

2004, what was the median length of stay in foster care (in months) from the time 

of removal from the home to the time of discharge from foster care? 

16.2–55.7 

months 

32.0 

months 

No 

standard 

Component B: Progress toward adoption for children who meet ASFA time-in-care requirements 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster care for 

17 continuous months or longer, what percent were adopted before the end of the 

fiscal year? 

8.0–25.1% 18.0% No 

standard 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster care 

for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent became legally free for adoption 

(i.e., a TPR was granted for each living parent) within 6 months of the beginning of 

the fiscal year? 

0.2–17.2% 9.0% No 

standard 

Component C: Progress toward adoption of children who are legally free for adoption 

Of all children who became legally free for adoption during FY 2004, what 

percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 

months? 

18.9–85.2% 43.7% No 

standard 

235 
236 

Technical Guide
 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4J lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

whether their performance has improved or declined over 

time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 4J–1 is from a small fictitious State and shows 

data from each judicial district and statewide. 

This table facilitates comparison among the judicial 

districts and between an individual district and the entire 

State. For example, these numbers show that Judicial 

District A completed TPR proceedings for every case within 

120 days in 2005, but the State as a whole completed only 

78 percent within that time (that is, 33 percent of cases 

took between 1 and 90 days and 45 percent took between 

91 and 120 days). 

A pie chart can be used to illustrate the performance of 

one judicial district at a time, as seen in sample 4J–2. 

Comparisons can be shown best in bar graphs. 

Sample 4J–3 shows statewide average and median times 

of TPR proceedings during a 5-year period. 

Although this table shows trends for the State as a whole, 

similar tables can show trends for individual judicial districts and even individual judges. 

The data in sample 4J–3 become even more meaningful if 

the accompanying graph compares actual performance to 

a statutory timeframe or goal that has been established for 

completion of TPRs. Adding the line showing the 120-day 

goal (see sample 4J–4) demonstrates that this State has 

not yet achieved its goal, but is now heading in the right 

direction. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Degree of Court Control Over 

Scheduling 

Courts must use effective caseflow management to set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes controlling judicial scheduling, setting short but 

realistic timeframes for steps in the court process, and setting strict limits on the granting of continuances. 

By contrast, if the agencies and the attorneys set the pace 

of the litigation, the time of the hearing is likely to be based 

on the pace of the slowest among them. Busy attorneys or 

caseworkers may seek frequent delays based on workload 

or for perceived tactical advantage. 

Timely Service of Process on the Parties 

An important factor contributing to timely TPR is the speed 

of service of process on all parties. Such speed requires 

diligence on the part of the child welfare agency in quickly 

identifying and locating parties, timely preparation of court 

papers for service or process, and timely referral to those 

who actually will serve the papers. 

Moreover, for TPR, timely service of process sometimes 

requires substitute service, particularly by publication. 

Therefore, part of ensuring timely service of process is 

developing and implementing an efficient procedure for 

service by publication. 

Sample 4J–1. Timeliness of Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings by Judicial District, 2005 

District 1–90 days 91–120 days 121–180 days >180 days Total 

# of Cases % # of Cases % # of Cases % # of Cases % Cases

District A 45 71% 18 29% 0 0% 0 0% 63 

District B 19 17% 77 68% 18 16% 0 0% 114 

District C 28 20% 60 42% 27 19% 28 20% 143 

District D 36 54% 21 31% 8 12% 2 3% 67 

Statewide 128 33% 176 45% 53 14% 30 8% 387 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 
 

measure 4J: Timeliness of Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings 

Sample 4J–2. Timeliness of Termination of Sample 4J–3. Timeliness of Termination of 

Parental Rights Proceedings, 2005: District C Parental Rights Proceedings, 2001–2005: 

Statewide 

20% 20% 

19% 

42% 

Median Days Average Days 

2001 121 187 

2002 132 188 

2003 154 166 

2004 165 202 

2005 129 167 

237 

1–90 days 121–180 days 

91–120 days >180 days 

Sample 4J–4. Timeliness of Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings, 2001–2005: Statewide 

250 

202 

200 187 188

154 

165

166 167 

150 132 129 121 

100 

Goal = 120 days 

50 

0 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Year 

Median Days Average Days

Days to Final TPR Order
238 

Technical Guide
 

Possible Reforms 

If the data show that there is room to improve the timeliness of adjudication, a court might consider the following 

improvements: 

u	 Meet with the sheriff’s office, child welfare agency, 

and other entities responsible for service of process 

to develop a more effective and efficient service of 

process. 

u	 Set and enforce shorter time limits for earlier court 

hearings. Assume that a child has been in foster care 

for 17 months, as required by the Federal measure. 

The 6-month time period within which the child must 

have become legally free is not limited to the time 

period after TPR proceedings begin. Enforce specific 

and strict time limits to govern each step of the court 

process from filing to completion of TPR. 

u	 Implement a project with child welfare agency 

representatives, attorney groups, and other 

organizations to identify and reduce delays in TPR. 

u	 Assign to court employees the responsibility for 

monitoring delays in TPR litigation and bringing them 

to the judges’ attention. 

u	 Set and enforce strict criteria for the granting of 

continuances. 

u	 Train judges and attorneys on TPR issues and 

procedures. 

u	 Revise TPR forms to make the process more efficient 

while protecting the rights of the parties. 

u	 Train caseworkers on TPR. 

The specific measures a court takes will depend on the local conditions and its analysis of the principal local causes 

of delays related to the termination of parental rights. 
measure 4K 

Definition: Percentage of cases in which the termination of parental rights petition (TPR) is filed within 3, 6, 12, and 18 

months after the disposition hearing. 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date of the disposition hearing to the date of the filing of 

the termination of parental rights petition1

 or motion. Termination of parental rights means that a parent is permanently 

deprived of all parental rights, including child custody, visitation, and participation in decisionmaking for the child. The court 

may arrange for the child to be adopted by a new parent without notifying or gaining the consent of the parent whose rights 

have been terminated. 

Purpose: To enable the court to determine how long it takes from the time the court has completed the disposition hearing to the time the TPR petition is filed. If delays are identified, the court can begin working to speed up this process and 

thereby improve the quality of litigation. 

In child abuse and neglect cases, the disposition hearing 

is the context in which the court, following adjudication of 

the abuse and neglect petition, decides who will have legal 

custody of the child. When the court approves a child’s 

continued placement in foster care, the court generally 

note the problem and order corrective steps, the court 

probably has delayed TPR. But if at that review hearing the 

court requires the agency to correct the deficiency, this 

may facilitate timelier family reunification or, if reunification 

efforts fail, speed up the process of TPR. 

Time From Disposition 

Hearing to Termination of 

Parental Rights Petition 

awards temporary custody (or the State’s equivalent) to 

the child welfare agency. In many States, the court makes 

a number of additional decisions during the disposition 

hearing, such as approving or modifying the case plan, 

setting the terms of visitation, and issuing a variety of other 

orders. In nearly every jurisdiction, the agency presents a 

predisposition hearing report outlining the agency’s overall 

goal and plans for the child. 

Termination of parental rights is a pivotal stage in the 

court process because it allows a child to be adopted. It is 

a gateway to permanency for children who cannot return 

home safely. 

The time from the disposition hearing to the filing of the 

TPR petition represents the time between the formal approval of placement into foster care (and, in many States, 

the formal approval or modification of the agency’s case 

plan) and the time that proceedings are begun to legally 

free a child for adoption. During this period, the child welfare agency is formally working to reunify the family. 

The time from the disposition hearing to the filing date of 

the termination petition also reflects the quality of review 

hearings and permanency hearings. TPR petitions can be 

delayed when review and permanency hearings are timely, 

but not thorough or penetrating. Assume that during a 

review hearing, a court neglects to challenge a child welfare 

agency’s failure to arrange timely services. By failing to 

In another example of how failure to achieve timely TPR 

can work against the child’s best interest, assume that, 

at a permanency hearing, a court does not conduct a 

thorough review of a recommendation to continue a permanency plan of reunification, accepts that plan, and that 

plan is later determined to not have been in the child’s best 

interest. The court has needlessly prolonged TPR. But if, 

instead, the court carefully questions the reunification plan, 

recognizes that reunification has already failed, and orders 

a petition for TPR, this will speed TPR and adoption. 

Furthermore, delays in achieving TPR may be caused by 

delays in the completion of the TPR proceedings themselves. TPRs, on average, are by far the most heavily 

contested and time-consuming proceedings in child abuse 

and neglect litigation. In most States, TPR requires a new 

service of process. Contested TPRs take far longer than 

any other type of contested proceeding in these cases. 

Some child welfare agencies and their attorneys may delay 

initiating TPRs until they can show that the parents have 

failed to improve over a long period of time. In some cases, 

it is better for the children that TPR take place as soon as 

it is clear that family reunification is not possible within a 

reasonable time. The child may best be served in these 

instances by going forward with a strong case for TPR, 

even though that case may be vigorously contested. 
240 

Technical Guide
 

Delays in TPR may also reflect delays in services and/ 

or weaknesses in child welfare agency performance. If 

essential services are delivered late in the case, there may 

be no case for TPR, even if the child is forced to wait for 

the opportunity for a permanent new home. 

This measure cannot distinguish which delays in termination petitions are caused by the court, by the child welfare 

agency, or by others. But, as indicated earlier, when 

combined with the results of other measures, the causes 

can be clarified. By reviewing selected individual cases and 

specific points in their procedure, courts can identify the 

precise causes of the delays. 

Complexities, Proxies, Additions, 

and Barriers to Capturing This 

Information 

Basing the Date the Termination 

Petition Is Filed on the Date of Filing 

for the First or the Last Parent 

Another important consideration is whether the date of the 

TPR petition should be based on the date the petition was 

filed for the first parent or the date it was filed for the last 

parent.2

 It is recommended that the date for the last parent 

be used, because a child is freed for adoption only after the 

termination of all parents’ (or putative parents’) rights. As 

discussed earlier, this measure should reflect the date the 

agency formally declares it no longer is working toward a 

family reunification. Until the agency has initiated termination proceedings against the last parent, this step has not 

yet occurred. 

It is important to note that not all children are freed for 

adoption through a TPR proceeding. In some States, 

children can be freed for adoption when parents sign a 

consent to termination. State law may or may not require 

that this consent be signed in the presence of a judge. 

Given that providing written consent to adoption fulfills the 

purpose of TPR in some States, it is recommended that 

this measure be calculated in one of the following ways, 

depending on State law: 

u	 In States where an adoption cannot go forward without 

a separate TPR proceeding—even when a parent has 

already signed consent to adoption—use the date on 

which the termination petition of the last parent was 

filed. 

u	 In States where an adoption can go forward when a 

parent signs a consent to adoption without a separate 

proceeding to terminate parental rights, use the 

earliest of the following dates: 

G	 Date of consent to adoption. 

G	 Date final TPR petition was filed. 

To use the second approach, the court will need to have 

the agency routinely provide either the dates of parental 

consent to adoption or copies of the parents’ signed consent to adoption. Furthermore, court employees will have 

to enter this information into the court’s data system. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Run this report using a sample of cases for which 

a termination petition has been filed. 

2.	 Select a date range for the report (date of the 

termination petition). 

3.	 Select and count cases in which the date of the 

petition falls within the date range selected (A). 

4.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days from 

the date of the disposition hearing to the filing of the 

TPR petition. Store the elapsed time in a dataset. (B) 

5.	 Find the median number of days from the disposition 

hearing to the filing date of the TPR petition in dataset 

(B). The median is the time midway between the 

slowest and fastest cases. (C) 

6.	 Add the number of days for all cases in (B) together. 

(D) 

7.	 Compute the average time from the disposition 

hearing to the TPR filing by dividing (D) by (A). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the 

median is simply the middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 

4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of numbers, the median 

is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median of 

2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

Possible Modifications 

u	 For States that do not have TPR petitions, use the date 

of the TPR motion. If the State has neither petitions nor 

motions, use the date of the TPR hearing. 
measure 4K: Time From Disposition Hearing to Termination of Parental Rights Petition 

u	 Limit the measure to cases in which the children were 

in foster care before the filing of the petition and in 

which parental rights were eventually terminated. 

u	 Report on the time that has elapsed between the 

original petition and the petitioning of the last parent 

for TPR. 

u	 Report separately on cases by categories (types of 

abuse or neglect, child’s ethnicity, age of child, and so 

forth.) 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Disposition hearing date. 

u	 Last TPR petition date. 

Optional Elements 

u	 Last TPR motion date. 

u	 Last TPR hearing date. 

u	 Foster care flag = “yes.” 

u	 Last consent to adoption date. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4K lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 4K–1 is based on statistics from a fictitious State 

with five courts: 

During 2006, 25 percent of TPR petitions in this State 

were filed within 6 months after the disposition hearing. 

A larger percentage of early TPR petitions may be appropriate in jurisdictions that provide strong preventive services such as intensive home-based services prior to most 

foster placements. In cases in which intensive preventive 

services have been provided, reunification services (after 

removal from the home) may not need to be as extensive. 

In States where a relatively high percentage of families 

receive intensive preventive services prior to disposition, 

it is far likelier that TPR proceedings will take place early. 

Sample 4K–1 shows that the number of “early” termination petitions is very low in Court C. This may reflect 

weaknesses in preventive services, a reluctance by the 

agency or its attorneys to initiate early proceedings, or the 

agency’s prior lack of success in achieving early TPR in 

Sample 4K–1. Months From Disposition Hearing to Filing of Termination of Parental Rights Petition, 

2006: Statewide 

Court 

0–3 months 4–6 months 7–12 months 13–18 months >18 months Total Cases 

# % # % # % # % # % # 

Court A 20 5% 34 9% 174 44% 121 31% 46 12% 395 

Court B 90 10% 160 18% 400 45% 220 25% 21 2% 891 

Court C 9 2% 40 10% 79 19% 133 32% 156 37% 417 

Court D 15 2% 158 18% 180 21% 225 26% 280 33% 858 

Court E 84 31% 92 33% 61 22% 26 9% 12 4% 275 

Statewide 218 8% 484 17% 894 32% 725 26% 515 18% 2,836 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

241 
242 

Technical Guide
 

Sample 4K–2. Months From Disposition to Filing 

of Termination of Parental Rights, 2006: Court A 

5% 

12% 

9% 

31% 

44% 

0–3 months 13–18 months 

4–6 months >18 months 

7–12 months 

Court C. By contrast, in Court E the percentages are much 

higher. This may reflect good early preventive services and 

best practices, or it may mean the agency and court are 

too hasty in seeking to terminate parental rights. 

Sample 4K–2 represents the performance of Court A. 

This pie chart shows that 14 percent—a relatively high 

percentage—of the TPR petitions filed during 2006 were 

filed 6 months or sooner after the completion of the disposition hearing. In many of these cases, the court may have 

found that reasonable efforts to achieve reunification were 

not required,3

 or grounds for TPR may have applied according to which the State did not have to prove that reasonable 

reunification efforts were made. 

Possible Factors Affecting the 

Level of Court Performance 

Even more than many others, this measure reflects a 

combination of the level of performance of the courts, the 

child welfare agency, and its service providers. 

Degree of Court Control Over 

Scheduling 

Using effective caseflow management, courts can set firm 

schedules and expectations for the timeliness of all stages 

of the court process. Caseflow management includes, 

among other things, judicial control of scheduling, short 

timeframes for steps in the court process, and strict limits 

on the granting of continuances. 

If the agencies and attorneys set the pace of the litigation, 

the time of the hearing is likely to be based on the pace 

of the slowest among them. Busy attorneys or caseworkers may seek frequent delays based on workload or for 

perceived tactical advantage. 

Timeliness and Frequency of Review 

and Permanency Hearings 

As suggested earlier, review and permanency hearings can 

play a powerful role in advancing permanency plans for 

children in foster care. To do so, they must be timely and 

as frequent as required. If there are ongoing delays blocking case progress, late review and permanency hearings 

are often the inevitable result. 

Quality of Review and Permanency 

Hearings 

Although review and permanency hearings can play a 

powerful role in advancing permanency plans for children 

in foster care, they also can be ineffectual. This depends 

in large part on the thoroughness and incisiveness of the 

hearings themselves. 

Quality and Timing of Court Reports 

One important factor determining the quality of review and 

permanency hearings is the quality and timing of court 

reports. Both advocates and the judge depend on these reports for information about the progress of the case and for 

proposals for revised case plans and case goals. If reports 

are filed well before the hearings and include both good 

current case information and thoughtful recommended 

plans, the quality of discussion and argument at the hearings will be greatly improved. 
measure 4K: Time From Disposition Hearing to Termination of Parental Rights Petition 

Appropriateness and Timeliness of 

Delivery of Family Services 

In many instances, delays in the delivery of family services 

hinder the progress of cases. For example, when there are 

long waiting lists for substance abuse treatment, it is difficult for agencies to either reunify the family or seek termination of parental rights on a timely basis. Reunification 

usually will not be possible until the successful completion 

of treatment, and there will be no grounds for termination 

until the treatment has actually been offered or provided. 

Of course, the courts are not responsible for the timeliness or quality of services. But the services can affect the 

courts’ ability to meet their statutory responsibility to make 

timely permanency decisions for foster children. Courts 

can at least point out to responsible government bodies the 

impact of service delays or insufficiencies on the timeliness of termination proceedings. 

Quality of Advocacy 

Also key to the timeliness of these proceedings is the quality of advocacy. Good advocates identify and address slow 

casework or services. They argue against ill-advised case 

plans or case goals. 

Willingness of Caseworkers and 

Advocates To Initiate Termination 

Proceedings 

One important factor in the timing of termination petitions 

is the willingness of caseworkers and advocates to file 

petitions within a reasonable time. Delays may reflect a 

hesitancy on the part of agencies or their attorneys. As 

mentioned earlier, some agencies and their attorneys delay 

initiating TPR until parents have repeatedly demonstrated 

a failure to improve. In jurisdictions where advocates for 

children can file these petitions, the advocates can affect 

the timeliness of termination of parental rights. 

Possible Reforms 

u	 Set and enforce shorter time limits for review and 

permanency hearings. 

u	 Set early review and permanency hearings in 

challenging cases. 

u	 During review and permanency hearings, carefully 

review whether sufficient steps are being taken to 

achieve reunification and/or adoption. 

u	 Take more time to address the possibility of TPR 

during review and permanency hearings. 

u	 Identify and act on appropriate cases in which 

reasonable efforts to reunify the family are not 

required. 

u	 To ensure greater thoroughness and care, enact laws 

or adopt court rules to strengthen procedures for 

review and permanency hearings. 

u	 Revise State laws and court rules to set deadlines for 

TPR petitions after a judge sets a permanency plan of 

adoption at a permanency hearing. Also revise State 

laws and court rules to allow judges to set special 

deadlines. Clarify that setting such deadlines does not 

disqualify the judge from hearing the TPR proceeding. 

u	 To ensure greater thoroughness and care, adopt 

mandatory court forms for review and permanency 

hearings. Allow exceptions only with State approval. 

u	 Work with agency representatives, attorney groups, 

and other organizations to identify and reduce delays 

between the disposition and TPR petitions. 

u	 Develop a plan to systematically inform governmental 

bodies of service delays that reduce the court’s ability 

to make timely permanency decisions. 

u	 Work with the child welfare agency to provide 

feedback on the quality of casework (including 

forensic casework) by its staff. 

u	 Train judges and attorneys in review and permanency 

hearing management. 

u	 Train caseworkers to prepare for review and 

permanency hearings and TPR cases. 

The specific measures a court takes will depend on local 

conditions and its analysis of the principal local causes 

of delays between the disposition hearing and the TPR 

petition. 

243 
244 

Technical Guide
 

Endnotes 

1.	 Some States do not require a petition for termination 

of parental rights. In those States, the start date should 

be the date of the filing of the motion leading to TPR. 

In those few States that require neither a petition nor a 

motion, the completion of this measure should be the 

day that the date of the TPR hearing is scheduled. 

2.	 Because there may be more than one putative father 

(or there may be both a biological and an adoptive 

father or mother), and because the State may 

separately petition to terminate the rights of two or 

more putative fathers, the term “last,” rather than 

“second,” parent is used. 

3.	 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(15)(D), (E). 
measure 4l 

Definition: The percentage of cases in which the adoption petition is filed within 3, 6, and 12 months after the termination 

of parental rights (TPR). 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date of termination of parental rights to the date the adoption 

petition is filed. Termination of parental rights means that a parent is permanently deprived of all parental rights, including 

custody, visitation, or participation in decisionmaking for the child. 

TPR also means that the child may be adopted by a new parent without notice to and without the advance written consent 

of the parent whose rights have been terminated. Adoption means that the adoptive parents and child have a legal relationship that is essentially identical to the legal relationship between a child and biological parents whose parental rights are 

intact. 

Purpose: To enable the courts to determine how long it takes from the time a child is legally freed for adoption until 

proceedings for adoption have formally begun. Adoption is the final step in securing a permanent and legally secure parentchild relationship for a foster child who cannot safely be returned to his or her biological parents. 

During the period between TPR and the filing of the adoption petition, the child welfare agency may be involved in a 

number of activities, such as: 

efficiently. The court must periodically review each case 

from the time parental rights are terminated until the adoption has become final. During these review hearings (and 

Timeliness of Adoption Petition
 

u	 Searching for prospective adoptive parents. 

u	 Evaluating prospective adoptive parents. 

u	 Introducing the prospective adoptive parents to the 

child. 

u	 Providing prospective adoptive parents and the child 

with education and counseling regarding adoption. 

u	 Gathering the documentation necessary for initiating 

the adoption. 

u	 Arranging for an adoption subsidy or other support for 

the adoptive family (including assisting with attorney 

fees). 

u	 Working with an attorney for the prospective adoptive 

parent. 

While this is going on, adoptive parents need to learn about 

the child, evaluate their own willingness and suitability to 

adopt the child, secure an attorney, and—with the help of 

their attorney—evaluate any proposed adoption subsidy or 

other types of financial assistance. 

At the same time, the court should help ensure that both 

the child welfare agency and the prospective adoptive 

parents are fulfilling their responsibilities. The court must 

ensure that the adoption process is moving forward 

permanency hearings), the court must make sure the child 

continues to be well cared for, track the progress toward 

adoption, and encourage the agency and prospective 

adoptive parents to avoid unnecessary delays in completing the process. 

Thus, the courts have a significant, but far from exclusive, 

responsibility for moving cases to adoption. The public 

child welfare agency and any private adoption agencies 

involved also play an important role. This measure cannot 

distinguish the impact of the activities of the courts, the 

public child welfare agency, and private adoption agencies 

on the timeliness of adoption petitions. Further study is 

required to examine the role of each entity. This measure 

shows how timely adoption proceedings begin following 

TPR. By measuring the time that elapses between TPR and 

the initiation of adoption proceedings, this measure helps 

identify States and localities in which issues causing delay 

may require further work and study. 

For example, if there are unusually long delays between 

TPR and the filing of adoption petitions in a particular 

locality, it is up to the local court, the public child welfare 

agency, and any private adoption agencies involved to 

collaborate in studying the overall process and determining 

the reasons for the delay. In conducting such a study, the 

court, attorney representatives, the child welfare agency, 

and others can work together to: 
246 

Technical Guide
 

u	 Prepare a detailed, step-by-step description of the 

process. 

u	 Measure the actual times for each step in the process. 

u	 Examine several cases in detail and then identify the 

specific causes of delay. 

u	 Redesign and streamline the overall process. 

Complexities, Proxies, Additions, 

and Barriers to Capturing This 

Information 

Importance and Appropriateness 

of This Measure 

An important argument against courts implementing 

this measure is that filing adoption petitions is not the 

responsibility of the courts or even of the executive branch, 

but rather of the prospective adoptive parents. Although 

this is a serious point, there are strong counterarguments. 

First, a child abuse or neglect case progresses along a 

continuum—starting when a child is removed from home 

and ending with the moment the case is dismissed and the 

child is returned home, or the child is adopted, ages out, or 

is placed in legal guardianship. A child abuse case cannot 

be considered as complete until one of those outcomes 

(or their legal equivalents under State law) has occurred. 

The time that elapses between termination of parental 

rights and the adoption petition is an important step in that 

process. 

Furthermore, courts have the responsibility to help ensure 

that adoption petitions are timely. Courts conduct review 

hearings and permanency hearings after TPR to help 

ensure timely progress toward adoption. It is their legal 

responsibility to check on the progress of agencies and 

prospective adoptive parents and to issue orders, when 

needed, to overcome barriers to timely adoption. It is also 

their responsibility to determine whether the agency has 

made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan 

of adoption. 

Start Date of This Measure— 

Completion of Termination of Parental 

Rights 

Another important consideration regarding this performance measure is when to consider the TPR proceeding to 

be over. Suggestions have included the date of completion 

of the TPR hearing, the date of the judge’s signature on 

the TPR order, or the date when the order becomes legally 

final. An additional consideration is whether this should be 

the date of the termination of parental rights of the first, or 

last,1

 parent. It is recommended that the start date for this 

measure be the date that the termination of parental rights 

of all parents (or putative parents) is final. 

Date of Completion of Termination of Parental 

Rights Hearing 

The date of completion of the TPR hearing should not be 

used as a start date for this measure. When the court has 

completed other types of hearings such as adjudication, 

disposition, and permanency hearings, the parties generally can move on to the next stage of the case immediately.2 

By contrast, completion of the TPR hearing does not legally 

free the child for adoption, thus preventing the parties from 

initiating adoption proceedings in most States. 

Date TPR Order Is Signed 

The date the TPR order is signed is closer to being an appropriate start date. The problem with this date as a start 

date, however, is that parties still cannot move forward to 

the next stage of the case. An adoption proceeding cannot 

be initiated until after the order becomes final. 

Date TPR Order Is Final 

The date the TPR order is final is the date on which a 

petition for adoption can be filed. This is the recommended 

start date for this measure. 

Date of Termination of Parental Rights for All 

Parents 

Another important consideration is whether the start date 

of this measure should be based on the date of termination 

of parental rights of the first, or last, parent. Because the 

filing of the adoption petition is not possible without the 

termination of parental rights of all parents, it is recommended that this measure be calculated based on the 

date when the rights of all parents would be final if not 

appealed. 

In some States, consent to adoption may be used in lieu 

of termination of parental rights. It is recommended that 

this measure be calculated using one of the following approaches, depending on State law: 

u	 The date on which either the termination of parental 

rights of the last parent were finalized if not appealed 
measure 4l: Timeliness of Adoption Petition 

or the last parent signed a consent to adoption 

(whichever applies), in States where an adoption can 

go forward without prior termination of parental rights. 

u	 The date on which the termination of parental rights of 

the last parent is finalized, in States where an adoption 

cannot go forward without prior termination of parental 

rights. 

Availability of Data Regarding the Date 

the Adoption Petition Is Filed 

Many courts hearing child abuse and neglect cases do not 

also handle the adoption. Such courts may not consistently 

be informed of the date of the adoption petition. Furthermore, some courts hearing adoptions believe they cannot 

share that information due to the confidentiality of adoption 

proceedings. Finally, most agencies do not routinely provide the date of the adoption petition to the court hearing 

the dependency case. 

To solve these problems, dependency courts must either 

(a) work out arrangements with courts hearing adoptions, 

possibly including convincing them that the law allows 

them to share detailed case-by-case information; or (b) 

get the agency to routinely and accurately provide this 

information, preferably as part of its standard preadoption 

court reports. In either case, if the data are not provided 

electronically from the adoption court or the child welfare 

agency, the court will need to provide data entry screens 

for entering this information, train court employees to 

consistently enter this data, and secure the cooperation of 

court staff responsible for data entry. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Run this report using a sample of cases for which an 

adoption petition has been filed. 

2.	 Select a date range for the report. 

3.	 Select all cases where the date the adoption petition is 

filed falls within the selected date range. (A) 

4.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days from 

finalized termination of parental rights to the date the 

adoption petition is filed and store each number in a 

dataset. (B) 

5.	 Count the number of cases in (B) that fall into each of 

the following categories: (C) 1–90 days, (D) 91–180 

days, (E) 181–365 days, and (F) more than 365 days. 

6.	 Calculate the percentage of total cases represented 

by each category by dividing the number of cases in 

each category (C, D, E, F) by (A) (example: (C)/(A) = 

percentage of petitions filed within 1–90 days after 

termination of parental rights). 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Last TPR finalized date 

u	 Adoption petition date. 

Optional Elements 

u	 Last consent to adoption date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

Federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) Composite 2, “Timeliness of Adoption,” includes three components: 

(A) the timeliness of adoptions of children discharged from 

foster care, (B) progress toward adoption for children who 

meet Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) time-in-care 

requirements, and (C) progress toward adoption of children 

who are legally free for adoption. 

Component C includes one measure that is loosely related 

to Toolkit Measure 4L: Timeliness of Adoption Petition. 

Component C measures the percentage of all children who 

became legally free for adoption during FY 2004 who were 

discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less 

than 12 months. 

The CFSR measure, however, is less helpful in measuring and identifying court delays related to the timeliness 

of adoption petitions. One key difference is that the CFSR 

measure requires a finalized adoption, as opposed to 

a mere petition for adoption, as in Toolkit Measure 4L. 

Another key difference is that whereas the CFSR measure 

only captures cases in which adoption has occurred within 

12 months, Toolkit Measure 4L also separately reports the 

247 
248 

Technical Guide
 

CFSR Permanency Composite 2. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, and Composite 

National Standard 

Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of adoption 

Range Median 

National 

Standard 

50–150 96.5 102.1 or higher 

Component A: Timeliness of adoptions of children discharged from foster care 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 

2004, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the time of the 

latest removal from the home? 6.4–74.9% 27.1% No standard 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in 

FY 2004, what was the median length of stay in foster care (in months) from the 

time of removal from the home to the time of discharge from foster care? 

16.2–55.7 

months 

32.0 

months No standard 

Component B: Progress toward adoption for children who meet ASFA time-in-care requirements 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster care 

for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent were adopted before the end of 

the fiscal year? 8.0–25.1% 18.0% No standard 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster 

care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent became legally free for 

adoption (i.e., a TPR was granted for each living parent) within 6 months of the 

beginning of the fiscal year? 0.2–17.2% 9.0% No standard 

Component C: Progress toward adoption of children who are legally free for adoption 

Of all children who became legally free for adoption during FY 2004, what 

percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 

months? 18.9–85.2% 43.7% No standard 

percentage of cases in which adoption occurs within 3 and 

6 months. 

Components A, B, and C together form a single “national 

standard” for the composite measure on the timeliness of 

adoption. This national standard is the 75th percentile of 

a scaled score taking values from 50 to 150, rather than a 

percentage. 

Although there is a single composite national standard, it is 

possible to get a general idea of the level of performance 

expected regarding each individual measure, including 

the Toolkit measures. The results for most of the Toolkit 

measures must be near the 75th percentile if the State is 

to meet the national standard for the composite measure. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4L lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

whether their performance has improved or declined over 

time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 4L–1 shows the timeliness of adoption petitions in 

a small fictitious State with four judicial districts. 

Given the very small percentage of adoption cases filed 

within 30 and even 90 days after the completion of TPR, 

these data show that there are delays in this process. 

However, the relatively small percentage of cases in which 

it takes more than 1 year until the adoption petition is filed 

suggests that there are relatively few extreme delays in 

completing the adoption for those cases that proceed to 

adoption. However, it should be noted that this measure 

deals only with cases that proceed to adoption, not those 

which are reported in Toolkit Measure 2B: Children Not 

Reaching Permanency, which deals with children leaving 

foster care without permanency following the termination 

of their parents’ rights. 
measure 4l: Timeliness of Adoption Petition 

Sample 4L–1. Timeliness of Adoption Petitions, by Judicial District, 2005 

District 1–30 days 31–90 days 91–180 days 181–365 days >365 days Total 

# % # % # % # % # % Adoptions

District A 10 10% 21 22% 34 35% 20 21% 12 12% 97 

District B 6 3% 35 18% 50 26% 33 17% 70 36% 194 

District C 12 6% 22 11% 78 38% 58 28% 38 18% 208 

District D 9 4% 15 6% 65 27% 49 21% 100 42% 238 

Statewide 37 5% 93 13% 227 31% 160 22% 220 30% 737 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Sample 4L–2. Timeliness of Adoption Petitions, by Judicial District, 2005 

District A 

District B 

District C 

10% 22% 35% 21% 12% 

3% 18% 26% 17% 36% 

6% 11% 38% 28% 18% 

District D 4% 6% 27% 21% 42% 

Statewide 5% 13% 31% 22% 30%

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percentage of Adoption Petitions 

1–30 days 31–90 days

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Sample 4L–2 provides a visual comparison of the performance of the four judicial districts and the State as a 

whole. 

Sample 4L–3 compares the timeliness of adoptions of different age groups of children. 

The times to the filing of the adoption petition are longer 

for children 10 to 14 years old than for youth 15 to 18 

years old. Not surprisingly, the times to the filing of the 

adoption petition for children 1 to 4 years old are the shortest, suggesting that older children are more difficult to 

place with adoptive parents. 

91–180 days 181–365 days >365 days

Sample 4L–4 presents the same information in graphic 

form. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Frequency and Quality of 

Posttermination Review Hearings 

and Permanency Hearings 

Perhaps the most important thing that courts can do 

to hasten adoption petitions is to conduct frequent and 

249 
Technical Guide
 

250 

Sample 4L–3. Timeliness of Adoption Petitions, by Child’s Age, 2006: Court A 

Child’s 

Age 

1–30 days 31–90 days 91–180 days 181–365 days >365 days Total 

# % # % # % # % # % Adoptions

1–4 

years 4 6% 24 39% 18 29% 12 19% 4 6% 62 

5–9 

years 6 12% 8 16% 12 24% 18 37% 5 10% 49 

10–14 

years 1 2% 5 9% 11 19% 19 33% 21 37% 57 

15–18 

years 3 13% 2 8% 7 29% 4 17% 8 33% 24 

All 

Adoption 

Petitions 14 7% 39 20% 48 25% 53 28% 38 20% 192 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Sample 4L–4. Timeliness of Adoption Petitions, by Child’s Age, 2006: Court A Percentage of Adoption Petitions

45%

39% 40% 37% 37% 

35% 33% 

29% 

33% 

30% 29% 28% 

25% 

25% 24%

20% 20% 

20% 19% 19%

17% 16% 

15% 13% 12% 

10% 9% 10% 8% 

6% 6% 7%

5% 2% 

0%

1–4 years 5–9 years 10–14 years 15–18 years All Adoption Petitions 

1–30 days 31–90 days 91–180 days 181–365 days >365 days 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 
measure 4l: Timeliness of Adoption Petition 

penetrating review and permanency hearings after TPR. 

These hearings can help not only examine, clarify, and 

remedy sources of delay but also keep the attention of the 

public and private agencies on these cases. When courts 

conduct frequent review and permanency hearings that include a vigorous questioning process, workers are strongly 

encouraged to continue focusing on the case. 

Judicial and Attorney Expertise 

Regarding Adoption of Children in 

Foster Care 

To make review and permanency hearings effective, judges 

and attorneys must ask good questions and help develop 

workable ways to overcome barriers and address the 

causes of delay. They need to be informed about interstate 

placement laws; adoption subsidies, Social Security, and 

other public benefits for adopted children; all phases of the 

agency adoption process; and the legal requirements and 

procedures regarding adoption. 

Possible Reforms 

u	 Pass laws or adopt court rules calling for frequent 

review and permanency hearings following TPR. 

u	 Pass laws or adopt court rules setting forth issues to 

be addressed during post-TPR review and permanency 

hearings. 

u	 Adopt forms for agency reports and court orders to be 

used in post-TPR review and permanency hearings. 

The forms should include a list of key questions to be 

addressed. 

u	 Develop training curricula regarding adoption and 

require that judges and attorneys handling these cases 

participate in the training. 

u	 Implement a project with agency representatives, 

attorney groups, and others to reduce delays between 

TPR and adoption. Work with the group to develop time 

guidelines for each step in the process. Assign to court 

employees the responsibility for monitoring delays and 

bringing them to the judges’ attention. 

u	 Set and enforce strict criteria for the granting of 

continuances. 

u	 Ensure that courts get enough information to 

determine whether or not the agency has made 

reasonable efforts to finalize adoption. 

u	 Take the time to review ongoing cases to ensure that 

sufficient steps are being taken to achieve adoption. 

Of course, the specific steps a court takes to improve 

its performance on this measure will depend on local 

conditions and on the court’s analysis of the principal local 

causes of delays related to filing adoption petitions. 

Endnotes 

1.	 Because there may be more than one putative father 

(or there may be both a biological and an adoptive 

father or mother), and because the State may 

separately petition to terminate the rights of two or 

more putative fathers, the term “last,” rather than 

“second,” parent is used. 

2.	 For example, after the disposition hearing is completed 

in most courts, the agency can implement the court 

order immediately. Likewise, after a permanency 

hearing in which a judge orders the agency to initiate 

termination of parental rights proceedings, the 

deadline announced by the judge will apply. 

251 

measure 4m 

Definition: Percentage of adoption cases finalized within 3, 6, and 12 months after the filing of the adoption petition. 

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the filing of an adoption petition for a child in foster care to the 

date the adoption becomes final. Once the adoption is final, the adoptive parents and child have a legal relationship that is 

in all essential ways identical to the legal relationship between biological parent and child when parental rights are intact. 

Purpose: To measure the amount of time between the filing of the adoption petition and the conclusion of adoption 

proceedings for children in foster care. Adoption is the ultimate legal step in achieving permanency for a foster child who 

cannot return home. It also is a culturally and symbolically important step that represents the permanence of the new 

parent-child relationship. 

In most cases involving children in foster care, adoptions 

occur after biological parents have either consented to 

adoption or have had their parental rights terminated. 

Accordingly, relatively few adoptions (as opposed to termination of parental rights [TPR] proceedings) are contested. 

However, adoptions can be contested in many States 

where foster parents or others seek to adopt without the 

Complexities, Proxies, and 

Barriers to Capturing This 

Information 

Completion of Adoption 

An important consideration for this performance measure 

is how to define the conclusion of the adoption proceeding. 

It can be defined as one of the following: 

u	 Date of completion of the adoption hearing. 

u	 Date judge signs the adoption order. 

u	 Date adoption order is legally final. 

u	 Date order would become legally final if not appealed. 

These possible definitions are described in the following 

sections. A good date of completion for this measure is the 

date the order would become legally final if not appealed. 

Date of Completion of Adoption 

Hearing 

The date the adoption hearing is completed could serve 

as an end date for this measure because this is the day of 

the adoption ceremony—a symbolically important event. 

On the other hand, this is not necessarily the date that the 

adoption takes effect. 

Timeliness of Adoption Proceedings
 

permission of the child welfare agency that has custody of 

the child. 

In addition, in some States foster parents and others can 

petition for adoption without parental consent or prior 

termination of parental rights. In these cases, adoption 

proceedings may be delayed due to a contest between the 

biological (or current adoptive) parent and the prospective 

adoptive parent. In all but a few jurisdictions, however, this 

is relatively rare. 

Instead, delays in adoption proceedings most often are 

caused by delays in the court process or in the child welfare agency’s completion of required procedures and documentation. In addition, substantial delays may occur where 

the law requires the child to be placed in the adoptive 

home for an extended period before the adoption becomes 

final. Although this requirement may not apply when foster 

parents seek to adopt the child (as is the case in a large 

percentage of adoptions of children in foster care), it can 

be a major source of delay in the finalization of adoptions 

by persons other than former foster parents. 
254 

Technical Guide
 

Date Adoption Order Is Signed 

The adoption order is usually signed on the day of the 

adoption hearing because relatively few adoption cases 

for children in foster care are contested. The question is 

whether the adoption is final on that date. 

Date Adoption Order Is Final 

The date the adoption order is final depends on State 

law. When the adoption is not contested, there will be no 

appeal, and this will not affect the date of finality. Thus, 

except in a small number of cases, this is an appropriate 

date. When the adoption is appealed, however, this adds 

days to the length of the proceedings that should not be 

attributed to the trial court judge. 

Date Adoption Order Would Be Final 

if Not Appealed 

The best end date for this measure is probably the date 

the adoption order would be final if not appealed. This 

date represents the true end of the adoption from the 

perspective of the trial court judge. This end date takes into 

account the few contested adoptions that are appealed. 

Business Rules 

Basic Rules 

1.	 Run this report using a sample of cases for which an 

adoption has been finalized (date the adoption order 

would be final if not appealed). 

2.	 Select a date range for the report. 

3.	 Select all cases where the date the adoption would 

be final if not appealed falls within the selected date 

range. (A) 

4.	 For each case in (A), compute the number of days 

from the filing of the adoption petition to the date the 

adoption would be final if not appealed. Store each 

number in a dataset. (B) 

5.	 Sort the cases from (B) into the following categories: 

(C) 1–90 days, (D) 91–180 days, (E) 181–365 days, 

and (F) more than 365 days. 

6.	 Calculate the percentage of total cases represented by 

each category by dividing the number of cases in each 

of the categories (C, D, E, F) by (A). (For example: (C)/ 

(A) = percentage of cases finalized in 1–90 days). 

Data Elements 

These elements apply specifically to this measure. For 

elements that apply to all measures, see “Universal Data 

Elements,” page 7. For definitions of data elements, see 

appendix D, “Data Element Dictionary,” page 289. 

Required Elements 

u	 Adoption petition date. 

u	 Adoption finalized date. 

Related CFSR Standards 

Federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) Permanency Composite 2, ‘Timeliness of Adoption,” includes 

three components: (A) the timeliness of adoptions of 

children discharged from foster care, (B) progress toward 

adoption for children who meet Adoption and Safe Families 

Act (ASFA) time-in-care requirements, and (C) progress toward adoption of children who are legally free for adoption. 

Component C includes one measure that is loosely related 

to Toolkit Measure 4M: Timeliness of Adoption Proceedings. 

Component C calculates the percentage of all children who 

became legally free for adoption during FY 2004 who were 

discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less 

than 12 months. 

The CFSR measure, however, is less helpful in measuring 

and identifying court-related delays related to the timeliness of adoption petitions. 

One key difference is that the Toolkit measure includes a 

computation of how long the judicial proceedings for adoption take, whereas the CFSR measure is not limited to the 

time of the judicial proceedings. That is, the CFSR measure 

encompasses the period of time between termination 

of parental rights and the filing of the adoption petition, 

whereas the Toolkit measure does not. Another key difference is that whereas the CFSR measure only captures 

cases in which adoption has occurred within 12 months, 

the Toolkit measure also addresses the percentage of 

cases in which adoption occurs within 3 and 6 months. 

Components A, B, and C form a single “national standard” 

for the composite measure on the timeliness of adoption. 

The national standard is the 75th percentile of a scaled 

score taking values from 50 to 150, rather than a 

percentage. 
measure 4m: Timeliness of Adoption Proceedings 

CFSR Permanency Composite 2. Component Measures, Range and Median Scores, and Composite 

National Standard 

Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of adoption 

Range Median 

National 

Standard 

50–150 96.5 

102.1 

or higher 

Component A: Timeliness of adoptions of children discharged from foster care 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 

2004, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the time of the latest 

removal from the home? 

6.4–74.9% 27.1% No 

standard 

Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in FY 2004, 

what was the median length of stay in foster care (in months) from the time of removal 

from the home to the time of discharge from foster care? 

16.2–55.7 

months 

32.0 

months 

No 

standard 

Component B: Progress toward adoption for children who meet ASFA time-in-care requirements 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster care for 17 

continuous months or longer, what percent were adopted before the end of the fiscal 

year? 

8.0–25.1% 18.0% No 

standard 

Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 who were in foster care for 17 

continuous months or longer, what percent became legally free for adoption (i.e., a TPR 

was granted for each living parent) within 6 months of the beginning of the fiscal year? 

0.2–17.2% 9.0% No 

standard 

Component C: Progress toward adoption of children who are legally free for adoption 

Of all children who became legally free for adoption during FY 2004, what percent were 

discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months? 

18.9–85.2% 43.7% No 

standard 

Although there is a single composite national standard, 

results for most of the measures (including the CFSR 

measure) must be near the 75th percentile if the State is 

to meet the national standard for the composite measure. 

Reporting the Data 

As with other Toolkit measures, Measure 4M lends itself to 

a variety of tabular and graphic presentations. State Court 

Improvement Projects will need presentations that show 

performance statewide and for each jurisdiction. Individual 

courts will want to see how their performance compares 

with that of other courts and with the State as a whole, and 

also whether their performance has improved or declined 

over time. 

The samples that follow use hypothetical data for a fictitious State to demonstrate how results for this measure 

might be reported in tables and graphs. 

Sample 4M–1 reports fictional statewide statistics comparing the time from the adoption petition to the finalization 

of adoption over four categories: 1–60 days, 61–180 days, 

181–365 days, and more than 365 days. 

These statistics help courts answer the question, “How 

quickly are adoptions finalized after an adoption petition is 

filed?” They also facilitate comparison among jurisdictions. 

For example, if one adds the first two time categories 

together (1–60 days and 61–180 days), 48 percent of 

adoptions statewide are finalized within 180 days (13 

percent plus 35 percent), but in District D only 25 percent 

are finalized in 180 days. By comparison, District A shows 

the best performance within 180 days—59 percent of 

adoptions are finalized in that timeframe. 

Sample 4M–2 is a bar graph that depicts all the data in the 

table just shown. 

Sample 4M–3 compares the statewide performance in 

finalizing adoptions with the goal established by the courts 

for each year from 2001 to 2005. This is one way to simplify the data and to focus on the most important aspect of 

the performance measure—how it relates to an accepted 

standard. Although this fictional State had a goal of 55 percent of adoptions finalized within 180 days in 2001, only 

35 percent of adoptions were achieved within 180 days 

during that year. This State improved performance each 

year from 35 percent of adoptions finalized within 180 

255 
Technical Guide
 

256 

Sample 4M–1. Timeliness of Adoption, by Judicial District, 2005 

District 1–60 days 60–180 days 181–365 days >365 days Total 

# % # % # % # % Adoptions

District A 2 7% 14 52% 8 30% 3 11% 27 

District B 6 9% 25 38% 34 52% 1 2% 66 

District C 12 25% 14 29% 19 40% 3 6% 48 

District D 1 4% 5 21% 18 75% 0 0% 24 

Statewide 21 13% 58 35% 79 48% 7 4% 165 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

Sample 4M–2. Timeliness of Adoption, by Judicial District, 2005 

25% 29% 40% 6% 

9% 38% 52% 2% 

District A 7% 52% 30% 11% 

District B 

District C 

District D 4% 21% 75%

Statewide 13% 35% 48% 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 

Percentage of Adoptions Finalized 

80% 100% 

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. 

1–60 days 61–180 days 181–365 days >365 days 

Sample 4M–3. Adoptions Finalized Within 180 Days, 2001–2005: Statewide 

Year 

Total Number 

of Adoptions 

Adoptions Finalized Within 180 Days 

Number of Adoptions Percent of Adoptions Goal 

2001 230 81 35% 55% 

2002 257 100 39% 60% 

2003 290 131 45% 65% 

2004 325 172 53% 70% 

2005 408 253 62% 75% 
measure 4m: Timeliness of Adoption Proceedings 

257 

Sample 4M–4. Comparison of Percentage of Adoptions Finalized Within 180 Days With Goals, 

2001–2005: Statewide 

80%
 

70%
 

60%
 

50% 

40%
 

30%
 

20%
 

10%
 

0%
 

35% 

39% 

45% 

53% 

62% 

55% 

60% 

65% 

70% 

75% 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Adoptions Finalized Within 180 Days Goal 

Percentage of Adoptions Finalized 

days in 2001 to 62 percent in 2005. The gap between the 

performance and the goal was also narrowed from 20 percent in 2001 (55 percent minus 35 percent = 20 percent) 

to 13 percent in 2005 (75 percent minus 62 percent = 13 

percent), even as the number of adoptions nearly doubled. 

A State could set a goal using any of the time categories. 

Sample 4M–4 is a bar graph that compares the State’s 

performance to its goals for finalization of adoption for 

each year from 2001 to 2005. The graph depicts the 

State’s steady progress toward achieving its goals even as 

the goal itself increased. 

Factors That May Affect Results 

Court Control of Scheduling 

Through effective caseflow management courts can set 

firm schedules and expectations for the timeliness of 

all stages of the court process. Caseflow management 

includes judicial control of scheduling, short timeframes for 

steps in the court process, and strict limits on the granting 

of continuances. 

On the other hand, if the agencies and the attorneys set 

the pace of the litigation, the time of the hearing is likely 

to be based on the pace of the slowest among them. Busy 

attorneys or caseworkers may seek frequent delays based 

on workload or for a perceived tactical advantage. 

Quality and Frequency of Court 

Review Hearings While the Adoption 

Is Pending 

By conducting periodic review hearings while the adoption 

is pending, courts can ensure that the adoption process is 

moving forward in a timely manner. If the judges conducting 

reviews are familiar with the agency’s adoption process, 

they will be in a good position to identify and help correct 

needless delays. 

Adoption Waiting Periods 

It makes sense to require the child to be placed in an 

adoptive home for a set time period before finalizing an 

adoption. State law should include within this time period 

the time the child is in foster care with the prospective 

adoptive parent. 

Possible Reforms 

u	 Conduct frequent review hearings, if necessary, after 

an adoption petition has been filed. 
258 

Technical Guide
 

u	 Enact State laws allowing time in foster care with the 

prospective adoptive parent to be subtracted from 

adoption waiting periods. 

u	 Assign to court employees the responsibility for 

monitoring delays in the adoption process and bringing 

them to the judges’ attention. 

u	 Train judges and attorneys in adoption issues and both 

court and agency adoption procedures. 

The specific measures a court takes to achieve more 

timely adoptions should be based on local conditions and 

the court’s own analysis of the best steps to accomplish 

that goal. 
List of Performance Measures appendix a 

Number Safety Measures Short Definition 

1A Child Safety While Under Court 

Jurisdiction 

Percentage of children who are abused or neglected while 

under court jurisdiction. 

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. 

Permanency Measures 

2A Achievement of Child Permanency Percentage of children in foster care who reach legal permanency by reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship. 

2B Children Not Reaching Permanency Percentage of children in foster care who do not reach 

legal permanency by reunification, adoption, or legal 

guardianship. 

2C Children Moved While Under Court 

Jurisdiction 

Percentage of children who reside in one, two, three, four, 

or more placements while under court jurisdiction. 

2D Reentry Into Foster Care After Return 

Home 

Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant 

to court order within 12 and 24 months of case closure 

following reunification. 

2E Reentry Into Foster Care After Adoption or 

Guardianship 

Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant 

to court order within 12 and 24 months of case closure 

following adoption or placement with a legal guardian. 

Due Process and Fairness Measures 

3A Number of Judges Per Case Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the 

same judicial officer presides over all hearings. 

3B Service of Process to Parties Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which all 

parents receive written service of process of the original 

petition. 

3C Early Appointment of Advocates for 

Children 

Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which 

an attorney, guardian ad litem (GAL), or court-appointed 

special advocate (CASA) volunteer is appointed in advance 

of the emergency removal hearing. 

3D Early Appointment of Counsel for Parents Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which 

attorneys for parents are appointed in advance of the 

emergency removal hearing. 

3E Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases with 

documentation that written notice was given to parties in 

advance of every hearing. 

3F Advance Written Notice of Hearings to 

Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, and 

Relative Caregivers 

Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases with documentation that written notice was given to foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers in advance of 

every hearing for which they were entitled to notice. 

3G Presence of Advocates During Hearings Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which 

legal counsel for the government or other petitioner and 

for other parties who have been served is present at every 

hearing. 
Technical Guide
 

260 

Number Safety Measures Short Definition 

3H Presence of Parties During Hearings Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which parties who have been served are present at every substantive hearing. 

3I Continuity of Advocates for Children Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the 

same legal advocate represents the child throughout the 

case. 

3J Continuity of Counsel for Parents Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the 

same legal counsel represents the parent throughout the 

case. 

Timeliness Measures 

4A Time to Permanent Placement Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to 

legal permanency. 

4B Time to Adjudication Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to 

adjudication. 

4C Timeliness of Adjudication Percentage of cases that are adjudicated within 30, 60, or 

90 days after the filing of the original petition. 

4D Time to Disposition Hearing Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to 

the disposition hearing. 

4E Timeliness of Disposition Hearing Percentage of cases in which the disposition hearing 

occurs within 10, 30, or 60 days after adjudication. 

4F Timeliness of Case Review Hearings Percentage of cases in which the court holds hearings to 

review case plans within the time limits set by law. 

4G Time to First Permanency Hearing Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to 

first permanency hearing. 

4H Time to Termination of Parental Rights 

Petition 

Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to 

filing the petition for termination of parental rights (TPR). 

4I Time to Termination of Parental Rights Average (median) time from filing of the original child 

abuse and neglect petition to the termination of parental 

rights (TPR). 

4J Timeliness of Termination of Parental 

Rights Proceedings 

Percentage of cases for which there is a final order within 

90, 120, and 180 days of the filing of the termination of 

parental rights (TPR) petition. 

4K Time From Disposition Hearing to Termination of Parental Rights Petition Percentage of cases in which the termination of parental 

rights (TPR) petition is filed within 3, 6, 12, and 18 months 

after the disposition hearing. 

4L Timeliness of Adoption Petition Percentage of cases in which the adoption petition is 

filed within 3, 6, and 12 months after the termination of 

parental rights (TPR). 

4M Timeliness of Adoption Proceedings Percentage of adoption cases finalized within 3, 6, and 12 

months after the filing of the adoption petition. 
Comment [b1]: This chart refers to the first hearing in 

the sequence as a shelter care hearing. Although the 

term “shelter care hearing” appears in the text, I think 

the chart should follow the primary designation used in 

the text and begin with the term “emergency removal 

hearing.”

SRK: I Agree

Comment [b2]: Change “Termination of Parental Pretrial 

Hearings and Motions” to “Termination of Parental 

Rights Pretrial Hearings and Motions”

SRK: I agree

Comment [b3R2]: Add “Termination of Parental Rights 

Hearing” after “Termination of Parental Rights Pretrial 

Hearings and Motions” and before Post-Termination 

Review Hearings.”

SRK: I agree

Comment [b4R3]: Hyphenate “Post-Termination” in 

both boxes where it appears.

SRK: I agree

appendix B 

Stages of the Juvenile Court Process in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

This appendix provides a background to enable persons 

not already expert in child abuse and neglect proceedings 

to understand the court process in these cases. It begins 

with a simple chart of a typical sequence of hearings in a 

child abuse or neglect case, using the terminology most 

common in the States (figure B–1). Following the chart is a 

narrative description of the key stages of the juvenile court 

process in a child abuse or neglect case. 

Following the description of each stage is a discussion 

of key practice issues regarding that stage. Readers 

wishing only the most basic information about each stage 

may simply read the first several “overview” paragraphs 

describing each stage. 

Near the end of this appendix is a table (table B–1, p. 275) 

that shows the different possible rights and legal status of 

parents (or putative parents, in cases where a child’s paternity is in dispute) at different stages of the proceedings. 

Following the table is an explanation of the legal statuses 

it describes. 

Taken as a whole, this appendix is intended to serve as 

a primer to persons who are unfamiliar with the legal 

process in child abuse and neglect cases and who will be 

involved in conducting performance measurements for this 

type of litigation. 

Before proceeding to the specific stages of the legal 

process, it is helpful to consider two basic principles that 

should guide the court and the parties at every stage. First, 

the juvenile court process is best understood as a series of 

decisions concerning the future of the child. Each hearing 

should logically flow from the previous hearing and set the 

stage for the future hearings. That is, each hearing and 

decision must be handled in light of both its immediate 

and its long-term consequences. Second, the judge and 

the parties need to be aware of how they affect the speed 

of the court proceedings. Unwarranted delays in court 

proceedings interfere with case planning and ultimately 

delay legal permanency for children. 

The following chart shows the typical stages of the court 

process in the usual sequence. 

Figure B–1. Typical Sequence of Hearings for Foster Child Unable To Return Home 

Termination of Parental 

Rights Hearing 

Emergency Removal Hearing 

Pretrial Hearings and Motions 

Adjudication Hearing 

Disposition Hearing 

Review Hearing 

Permanency Hearing Guardianship Hearing 

Termination of Parental Rights 

Pretrial Hearings and Motions 

Post-Termination 

Review Hearings 

Post-Termination 

Permanency Hearings 

Adoption Hearing 
262 

Technical Guide
 

Emergency Removal Hearings 

Overview 

In certain emergency situations involving suspected child 

abuse or neglect, the law permits police officers and (in 

some States) caseworkers to remove children from their 

parents without first obtaining permission from a judge or 

judicial officer. However, in emergency situations where 

the child is not in such imminent danger that it is unsafe 

to contact a judge or judicial officer before removal, many 

States require police or caseworkers to apply for a court 

order before removal. 

After a child has been removed from home in an emergency, the “emergency removal hearing” occurs. This hearing—which, depending on the State, may also be called a 

“shelter care hearing,” “detention hearing,” “preliminary 

hearing,” or “preliminary protective hearing”—is required 

whenever a child is removed from the home without first 

giving the child’s parents or custodian the opportunity to 

challenge the decision in court. 

An emergency removal hearing must be held shortly after 

the child’s removal from the home, typically within 1 to 3 

days. Such hearings tend to be very brief and informal. In 

some courts, emergency removal hearings are conducted 

without attorneys. 

The central issue at the emergency removal hearing is 

whether the child should be held in foster care, returned 

home, or temporarily placed with a relative or familiar 

caretaker until the trial of the case. In deciding whether the 

child can safely remain at home, the court may take into 

account the availability of outside services and supervision that might be provided to the family in the home. 

Other issues that may come up in the hearing include the 

expulsion of an alleged abuser from the home rather than 

removing the child, ordering evaluations of children and 

parents, and ordering temporary services. 

Emergency removal hearings have gradually taken on additional functions related to achieving timely permanency 

for foster children. It is increasingly common during the 

emergency removal hearing for courts to do the following: (a) determine whether there are safe alternatives to 

removing the child from the home (for example, providing 

services in the home or removing the abuser from the 

home); (b) ensure that all parties learn about the court proceedings and are formally served as early as possible; (c) 

order early physical or psychological evaluations of parties; 

(d) decide whether children can be placed with relatives 

rather than strangers; and (e) make sure that parents, 

many of whom have little education, understand the nature 

of the proceedings.1 

Judges and attorneys must embrace these additional functions of the hearing. Judges must be willing and able to set 

aside enough time so that these added functions can be 

performed responsibly. 

Key Practice Issues at Emergency Removal 

Hearings 

The court and the child welfare agency should notify 

parents and involve them in the legal proceedings as 

rapidly as possible after removal. This involvement speeds 

the legal proceedings and in some cases can speed family 

reunification, which limits the traumatic effects of parentchild separation. To involve the parents, caseworkers must 

make immediate efforts to locate them, notify them that 

the child is in custody, and advise them of the time and 

place of the next court proceeding. 

Rapid appointment of advocates for the parents and the 

child also helps speed the abuse or neglect case. Parents 

should be given the opportunity to meet with their attorneys before the emergency removal hearing. On the other 

hand, it is permissible and reasonable for child welfare 

workers to interview parents before they have attorneys so 

long as the parents are not in police custody. 

It is essential for the child protective services agency staff 

to document the circumstances surrounding the emergency removal, to prepare not only for the abuse or neglect 

trial but also for later court proceedings. A vivid and accurate account of the circumstances compelling the child’s 

removal can set the tone for the entire court process. 

Accordingly, child protective services agency staff should 

consistently prepare precise, factual descriptions of what 

they saw and heard to convince the court to remove the 

child; take written or recorded statements from important 

witnesses at the time of the removal; record not only the 

names and addresses of witnesses but also the means of 

contacting the witnesses should they change addresses; 

and take photographs and preserve physical objects that 

are important evidence in the case. 

Adjudication 

Overview 

The next major event, the adjudication hearing, is also 

referred to as the “fact-finding hearing,” “jurisdictional 
appendix B: Stages of the Juvenile Court 

Process in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

hearing,” or “trial.” The adjudication hearing is the trial 

in which it is decided whether the child has, in fact, been 

abused or neglected. The adjudication is based on facts or 

circumstances alleged in the petition, the legal document 

that outlines the State’s case against the parents. Testimony and documents submitted at the adjudication must 

conform to relatively strict rules of evidence. If the court 

finds that the facts alleged in the petition are accurate, the 

court can assume jurisdiction over the case. That is, the 

juvenile court has the power to make certain critical decisions concerning the child’s future, including who will have 

the responsibility for the child’s placement and care. 

It is not unusual for the adjudication to be preceded by one 

or more pretrial hearing(s) to schedule and prepare for the 

adjudication. Pretrial hearings can be helpful in ensuring 

that service of process has been completed, discovery 

is complete, witnesses are available, and the court has 

scheduled sufficient time for the adjudication hearing. 

At adjudication, it once was enough to decide whether 

the child had been abused or neglected and therefore fell 

within the court’s jurisdiction. Knowledgeable practitioners 

now realize, however, that a carefully handled adjudication 

lays the groundwork for later judicial decisions. 

Key Practice Issues at Adjudication 

It is important that the judge and the parties focus carefully 

on the judicial findings at adjudication. They must keep 

in mind that the specific characteristics of the abuse or 

neglect, as determined by the judge, will shape later interventions by the child welfare agency and later decisions by 

the judge. For example, if the finding is physical abuse of a 

child by a parent unable to control her temper, the agency 

case plan will be quite different than if the finding were 

physical abuse by a parent under the influence of narcotics. In the past, before the law required written family 

reunification plans, the exact findings at adjudication were 

less critical. 

In addition, the court findings at adjudication typically must 

now address the deficiencies of both parents. For example, 

assume that a mother has physically abused a child and 

the father has failed to visit or support the child. The father 

remains unwilling to care for the child. In this case, it is important to enter findings concerning maltreatment by both 

mother and father. Based on those findings, the case plan 

should describe what reunification services, if any, both 

parents will receive. On the other hand, the father may 

have maintained a close relationship with the child, and it 

may be appropriate to award him custody without the need 

for further services, in which event the child protection 

case can be dismissed. 

It is important to give all parents (or putative parents) 

formal notice of the case at the beginning of the case. This 

includes not only parents who have lost legal custody after 

a divorce proceeding but also unmarried, absent fathers 

or putative fathers. Involving noncustodial parents and 

unmarried fathers not only protects all parents’ rights but 

also helps avoid long-term case delays. If a noncustodial 

parent is first brought into a case long after the child has 

been placed in foster care—and after the agency has 

finally given up working with the custodial parent—work 

with the newly involved parent must begin from scratch. 

When all parents are involved from the beginning, however, 

agencies can reach a final decision concerning the child 

more rapidly. Furthermore, noncustodial parents or their 

close relatives sometimes may be able to help the child 

while he or she is in foster care (for example, through 

providing child support or visiting the child) or they even 

may become caregivers. 

Cases may be delayed when a noncustodial parent or 

unwed father cannot be located, when a parent lives out of 

State, or when paternity has not been legally determined. 

On the other hand, in any of these situations, it may make 

sense to proceed with adjudication before providing notice 

or determining paternity. If the court proceeds with the 

adjudication then, as soon as possible after adjudication, 

the agency should give proper legal notification (or notice) 

about the case to the missing or out-of-State parent, or 

take immediate steps to resolve the question of paternity. 

Whether or not the court should go ahead with the adjudication before notifying both parents or before resolving 

paternity may depend on State law or may be a judgment 

call for the court. 

Legal notice should be given to a noncustodial parent 

or unwed father as soon as possible both because the 

noncustodial parent should have the opportunity to come 

to court and seek custody of the child and because delays 

in notice can delay permanency for the child. Likewise, 

when there is a putative unmarried father (a man who 

is potentially the father), it is critical to establish quickly 

whether he has legal rights as a parent. In many cases, 

this will require early paternity testing to determine if he is 

the child’s biological father. If a putative father does turn 

out to have parental rights, he should be able to participate 

in the court proceedings. 

263 
264 

Technical Guide
 

Disposition Hearing 

Overview 

Many courts now hold a separate “disposition hearing” 

following the adjudication. Disposition is the stage of the 

juvenile court process in which, after adjudication, the 

court determines whether the child may be placed in 

foster care, determines custody (who will be awarded the 

authority to care for and supervise the child), and, in many 

cases, sets the conditions under which the child is placed. 

State law in all but a few States distinguishes disposition 

from adjudication, although not all States use the terms 

“disposition hearing” or “dispositional hearing.” 

Although in the past, courts typically decided simply 

whether to transfer custody to the State and authorize foster care, courts are now expected to review the long-term 

goal and short-term plan for the child. In many States, the 

court is expected to approve or modify a written case plan 

submitted by the child protection agency. 

Agency case plans set forth, among other things, the goals 

of State intervention, tasks to be performed by parents 

and the child protection agency to achieve those goals, 

and timetables for their accomplishment. Case plans often 

identify the providers of various services for the child and 

family and address basic logistical issues to ensure that 

those services are provided. In addition, case plans often 

set forth arrangements for parent-child visits and, where 

applicable, visits among siblings. Before permanency planning, there was no separate disposition hearing. Rather, at 

the conclusion of the adjudication hearing, the court would 

simply decide, without further discussion, whether or not 

to transfer custody of the child to the agency for placement 

into foster care. 

The exact timing of the disposition hearing depends on 

both State law and the practice of the particular court. Disposition may take place immediately following adjudication 

or at a separate hearing some time after adjudication. 

Although disposition typically occurs within several weeks 

of removal, in some courts it occurs many months after 

removal. 

In most States, most rules of evidence that must be 

followed at adjudication do not apply at the disposition 

hearing. For example, the court may receive and consider 

secondhand, or hearsay, evidence during the disposition 

hearing. But even in States where hearsay evidence is 

allowed during the disposition hearing, opposing attorneys 

generally have the right to subpoena and cross-examine 

the authors of any agency disposition reports submitted to 

the court. In addition, because the court decides different 

issues at disposition than at adjudication, the parties have 

the right to present additional evidence about disposition 

after the adjudication has been completed. 

Most States require the child protection agency to submit 

a written predisposition report to the court for the purpose 

of explaining and justifying its recommendations and 

proposed plan. In some States, the predisposition report 

needs to be made available to the parties at least several 

days in advance of the disposition hearing to give them 

the opportunity to analyze and critique the agency’s 

recommendations. 

Key Practice Issues at Disposition 

Parties and their attorneys should plan and conduct 

disposition proceedings with great care. The court not 

only makes important decisions at the disposition hearing, 

including whether or not to place the child into foster care, 

but also may create an important record. For example, besides deciding whether the child will remain in foster care 

for an extended period of time, the court may specify what 

the agency and the parents are expected to accomplish 

over the next several months. 

Court rules and agency policy should require and enforce 

the early submission of predisposition reports so that 

the reports can contribute meaningfully to an intelligent 

disposition. Because these reports can be very influential 

in court, it is important that they not only inform the judge 

about the case but also help the judge decide what to 

include in the court order following the disposition hearing. To inform and help the judge, the report should both 

explain the family problems that contributed to the abuse 

or neglect, and suggest exactly what the agency and 

parents should do to resolve these problems and to meet 

the child’s immediate needs. 

A disposition report should include recommendations for 

disposition and explain the reasons for the recommendations. If removal is recommended, the report should outline 

how the child is likely to be harmed if left in the home, 

what services were provided to keep the child at home, 

and what should be done after removal to minimize the adverse affects of the family’s separation. This report should 

also include recommendations on visitation and contact 

between parents and child. 

If a case plan is completed prior to disposition, it might be 

attached to, or incorporated into, the predisposition report. 
appendix B: Stages of the Juvenile Court 

Process in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

The court’s disposition order may then approve or modify 

the plan the caseworker proposes in the predisposition report. Because this is a possibility, the plan should be clear, 

specific, and in the best interests of the child. 

When a specific, court-ordered case plan has been in 

effect, it often is easier for a judge to resolve a case decisively. If a parent has fully complied with a court-ordered 

case plan and met all conditions for the child’s return, 

the judge is more likely to return the child home without 

further delay. On the other hand, if a parent has failed to 

comply with the plan and has failed to make progress, the 

judge is more likely to approve a permanent plan for the 

child that does not involve returning home, such as adoption. Overall, a judge is more likely to rely on a case plan 

that was approved by the court as opposed to a plan unilaterally prepared by a caseworker. This is especially true 

when all parties had the opportunity to present evidence 

before the court approved the plan. 

Another possible reason to propose a detailed disposition 

order is to persuade the court to resolve disagreements 

concerning, for example, services, visitation, or medical or 

mental health evaluations. When the court resolves those 

disagreements, this encourages parents and their attorneys to cooperate with the agency, and makes it harder 

for the parents’ attorneys to argue in later hearings that 

the agency was unreasonable or that the parents had good 

reasons for refusing to cooperate with the agency. 

However, a detailed disposition order raises the risk that 

the parties will feel locked into the plan even after circumstances change or new information comes to light. Except 

in emergency situations, parties may feel compelled to 

follow a case plan that has become obsolete, unless they 

can quickly schedule a court hearing to request changes 

in the plan. 

Review Hearings 

Overview 

After disposition, most State courts conduct periodic 

review hearings to ensure that a child does not remain 

in foster care too long.2

 Review hearings examine case 

progress and the current well-being of the child. They 

also review progress under the current case plan, correct 

the plan as appropriate, and revise timetables to achieve 

case goals. During review hearings, the judge decides 

whether and how to modify court orders concerning the 

child’s placement and care and examines the child welfare 

agency’s efforts to secure long-term safety and permanency for the child. 

Review hearings generally must take place at maximum 

predetermined intervals, such as once every 6 months, 

but judges may set earlier times for review hearings based 

on the circumstances of the case. For example, a judge 

may schedule the next review hearing for a date soon 

after the result from an anticipated psychiatric evaluation is expected. Such scheduling enables the court and 

the parties to readjust the case plan after the psychiatric 

information becomes available. In addition, judges may set 

especially frequent review hearings in cases that require 

more intense judicial monitoring. 

Not every State’s laws require courts to conduct review 

hearings following disposition. Among the States that 

require periodic judicial review hearings, State laws vary 

regarding how often reviews must take place, what issues 

the court is to examine during the review, and what procedures must be followed during the hearing. Federal law 

requires a review at least once every 6 months that may 

be conducted by a court, a child welfare agency or other 

administrative body, or a citizen review board.3 

Some States use a combination of periodic judicial and 

nonjudicial reviews. In some States, periodic reviews are 

conducted by the child welfare agency or by volunteer 

citizen review boards, and court proceedings may build on 

these earlier reviews. 

Most States require the agency to submit a written prereview hearing report to the court to explain and justify its 

recommendations and propose revisions to the case plan. 

An agency’s prereview hearing report serves the same 

basic purposes as a predisposition report. In some States, 

the prereview hearing report must be made available to 

the parties at least several days in advance of the disposition hearing to give them the opportunity to analyze and 

critique the agency’s recommendations. 

Key Practice Issues at Review Hearings 

As with the predisposition report, it is important to send the 

prereview hearing report to the parties well in advance of 

the hearing. This allows more informed testimony at the 

review hearing. 

Generally, a prereview hearing report should describe 

the efforts the agency and parents have made to achieve 

safety and permanency for the child, explain what progress 

has occurred in the case, describe the child’s current 

265 
266 

Technical Guide
 

circumstances and condition, and recommend changes in 

case goals and activities. 

Review proceedings provide an opportunity to develop a 

record of how the case has progressed since the last court 

hearing. Because both the parents and the child welfare 

agency may still be working toward a common goal of 

family reunification, a full and frank disclosure of how the 

case is progressing may be much more possible than in a 

later, more adversarial proceeding, such as in a hearing for 

termination of parental rights. Parties may wish to place 

in the record what services have been (or have not been) 

offered to the family since the last court hearing; what efforts and progress, or lack thereof, the parents have made 

to respond to such services; what strengths the family 

has demonstrated; and what problems remain within the 

family. 

Not all courts are willing to specify goals, tasks, and 

services for the parties as part of the court order. In some 

States, State law may limit what the judge can order. 

Permanency Hearings 

Overview 

Federal law also requires a different type of postdisposition hearing to move the case forward to permanency. This 

hearing is most commonly known as a permanency hearing.4 The permanency hearing is designed to be a decision 

point for the final direction of the case. The permanency 

hearing was created because some judges were indecisive at routine progress review hearings and some child 

welfare agencies continued to pursue family reunification 

for years. 

Permanency hearings differ from review hearings in that 

the purpose of a review hearing is to oversee and refine 

the case plan, whereas the purpose of a permanency hearing is to set a permanent goal or devise a permanency plan 

for the child. Although either a court or a court-appointed 

or -approved administrative body may hold a permanency 

hearing, in practice permanency hearings are nearly 

always conducted by courts. 

The amendments to Title IV–E of the Social Security Act 

set forth in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 19975 

were designed to tighten the timing and procedures of 

permanency hearings. For example, if a child has not been 

returned home by the time of the permanency hearing 

(up to 14 months after placement) and returning the child 

home continues to be unsafe, the permanency hearing 

must decide on a new permanent placement goal for the 

child. 

If the judge decides that the new case goal is adoption, 

the judge is also to direct the agency to file a petition to 

terminate parental rights. Thus, a permanency hearing 

must determine the child’s permanent status. This new 

Federal requirement and others place major new demands 

on courts hearing child protection cases and make the 

need for court reform even more pressing. 

The parties, including age-appropriate children, must be 

able to participate in the permanency hearing. As in review 

hearings, foster parents must receive notice and have the 

opportunity to be heard. 

When deciding on a permanency plan, the court is to place 

highest priority on return home, adoption, legal guardianship, or other permanent placements with relatives. Before 

approving the placement of a child in some other planned 

permanent living arrangement, the agency must document 

and the court must find that there is a “compelling reason” 

why the higher priority options are not in the child’s best 

interest. 

Courts must conduct permanency hearings within 12 

months after a child is considered to have entered foster 

care and then at least once every 12 months thereafter 

as long as the child remains in foster care. When a court 

determines that the agency is not required to try to help a 

child safely return home, it must conduct a permanency 

hearing within 30 days. 

There are similarities and differences in the issues that 

arise in review and permanency hearings. In both, the child 

welfare agency presents its efforts to achieve a safe and 

permanent placement for the child. In the permanency 

hearing, however, the agency must also convince the court 

to find that the agency has made “reasonable efforts” to 

achieve this goal. If the case goal is family reunification, 

in both types of hearings the agency will present evidence 

on the parents’ efforts to enable the child to return home 

safely and on what progress, if any, parents have made in 

achieving the goal of reunification. 

On the other hand, whereas the review hearing focuses on 

possible adjustments and refinements in the current case 

plan, the permanency hearing determines the most appropriate permanent goal, or permanency plan, for the child. 

Accordingly, the parties’ preparation for the two types of 

hearings may vary. For the review hearing, the parties 

must prepare to explain and defend needed adjustments 
appendix B: Stages of the Juvenile Court 

Process in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

in the case plan. For the permanency hearing, the parties 

must show why they propose return home, adoption, legal 

guardianship, permanent placement with a relative, or 

another planned permanent living arrangement. In addition, 

they must show why all other choices are not practical or 

not in the child’s best interests, and propose a specific plan 

to achieve the proposed permanent goal and a timetable 

for achieving it. 

Note, however, that permanency hearings often incorporate 

the functions of review hearings. For example, when a 

permanency hearing and a review hearing are due at or 

about the same time, the court may conduct a hearing that 

performs the functions of both. Moreover, as time passes 

and it becomes increasingly apparent whether or not a 

child will eventually return home, review hearings often 

become more like permanency hearings. The court need 

not wait until the permanency hearing to decide to return a 

child home, approve proceedings for legal guardianship, or 

permanently place a child with a relative. Similarly, parties 

need not wait until the permanency hearing to initiate court 

proceedings to terminate parental rights and legally free a 

child for adoption. 

Key Practice Issues at Permanency Hearings 

The child welfare agency’s prepermanency hearing report 

should describe the agency’s recommended permanency 

plan, explain why other alternatives are not recommended, 

and propose specific steps and timetables to finalize the 

plan. As with other court reports, it is important that the 

agency submit it well in advance of the hearing. 

Termination of Parental Rights 

Hearings 

Overview 

If a child cannot be returned home following the permanency hearing, there may be termination of parental 

rights (TPR) proceedings to free the child for adoption. 

In some States, termination is referred to as “permanent 

commitment” or “permanent guardianship” with the right 

to consent to adoption. Whatever term is used, this legal 

action permanently ends the parents’ rights to visit or communicate with the child and removes their right to make 

any decisions concerning the child. It also eliminates the 

need for parental consent as a precondition for the child’s 

adoption. 

In the TPR hearing or hearings, the court must decide 

whether clear and convincing evidence exists to show 

that the child cannot safely return home.6

 If it is shown 

that the child cannot safely return home, the court must 

then decide whether termination will benefit the child, for 

example, whether adoption is a practical solution.7 After 

the court formally terminates parental rights, adoption 

hearings may take place. 

Termination of parental rights is a decision with extremely 

important implications for the child and the family. It 

involves complete and final severance of a parent’s legal 

rights and responsibilities to the child. 

In most States, termination of parental rights requires a 

new set of legal proceedings, including a new written set 

of allegations against the parent (the petition), new formal 

notice to the parents (summons), and a separate hearing or set of hearings. In many States, termination is the 

most formal of legal proceedings in child protection cases, 

more formal even than the adjudication. It is the proceeding most likely to be appealed to a higher court. In some 

States, termination is heard in a different court than the 

one that heard the earlier stages of the child protection 

proceedings. 

Key Practice Issues Regarding TPR Proceedings 

Preparation for a contested TPR case usually requires the 

child welfare agency to assemble a detailed and focused 

case history. In a typical TPR proceeding, the agency must 

demonstrate the following: the original parental problems 

or maltreatment that caused the child to be placed in foster care, the efforts by the child welfare agency and others 

to resolve the problem and unify the family, the inadequacy 

of the parents’ responses to agency efforts to help, and 

the necessity for termination of parental rights to meet the 

child’s current needs. Moreover, the agency needs to present a plausible plan to secure a new permanent home for 

the child. The success of a TPR case typically depends on 

the quality of both the agency’s casework and the services 

and assistance provided to parents. 

The most basic issue in a TPR proceeding is whether a 

reasonable likelihood exists that the child will be safe 

if it is returned to its parents. Although the grounds for 

termination of parental rights set forth in State laws vary 

and must be carefully adhered to, the chief focus of TPR 

cases concerns whether the child cannot or should not be 

reunited with his or her parents. 

267 
268 

Technical Guide
 

Five basic indicators can show that a child should not 

return home. When the facts are strong enough, one indicator alone may be sufficient to demonstrate that a return 

is unlikely, but more often, a combination of indicators will 

apply. 

First, the child may be unable to return because the parent 

has demonstrated an extreme lack of interest in or commitment to the child. Key examples are a parent’s failure 

to visit or communicate with the child while the child is 

in foster care, or a pattern of needlessly leaving the child 

with others for prolonged periods of time and then failing 

to pick up the child as agreed. When such behavior has 

extended over time and the agency has been supportive 

in helping the parent maintain contact and a relationship 

with the child, parental disinterest can be a strong basis 

for termination. In many States, parental disinterest comes 

under the legal heading of abandonment, though abandonment grounds can be more or less stringent depending on 

the State. 

Second, the child may be unable to return because the 

parent has failed to make necessary adjustments to 

prepare for the child’s return despite help from the child 

welfare agency and other service providers. This is the 

most common ground for termination of parental rights. 

The agency must prove that a child cannot return home 

by demonstrating that it has tried everything reasonable 

and possible to reunify the family, but the parent is still not 

ready to care for the child. To present proof of this type, the 

agency must demonstrate that the court and the child welfare agency formulated a program for the parent to alleviate the problems that caused the continued parent-child 

separation. The agency also needs to prove that it diligently 

attempted to follow through with its program of assistance, 

and that the parent persists in conduct that prevents the 

return of the child. Making this case for the termination of 

parental rights is specifically centered on the history of the 

parent’s problems with and behavior toward the child, and 

on the agency’s involvement with the family. 

Third, return may be inappropriate because of the unusual 

severity or repetition of abuse or neglect. Parental mistreatment of a child may be so chronic or severe that ever 

returning the child home presents an unacceptable risk. 

Fourth, return may be impractical because a diagnosable 

condition makes the parent unable to assume care of the 

child. Parental “condition” refers to an incapacity so severe 

that the parent cannot care for the child, such as intractable mental illness, mental deficiency, or in rare cases, 

extreme physical disability. Cases of this type should be 

provable without reference to parental fault. A diagnosis by 

an expert is usually critical proof in these cases. If a parent 

suffers from a condition that renders him or her totally unable to care for the child, it may or may not be necessary 

under State law to show that the agency has attempted to 

work with the parent. 

Fifth, return may be inappropriate because, as a result of 

the parent’s past behavior, the child is unalterably averse 

to returning home. Even though the parent may now be capable of providing appropriate care for the child, returning 

home may trigger a severe emotional reaction in a child 

because of abusive past experiences in the home. This 

basis for termination may or may not exist under State law. 

Besides demonstrating that a child cannot return home 

and satisfying the statutory grounds for termination of 

parental rights, it generally is necessary to demonstrate 

that termination will result in an appropriate permanent 

placement for the child. 

Alternatives to Termination 

of Parental Rights 

In some cases where children cannot return home, adoption may be inappropriate or unfeasible. For example, a 

child may be old enough to block adoption legally and may 

not want to be adopted in spite of the agency’s best counseling efforts. Or, perhaps, a State’s adoption subsidy benefits (or the availability of other services) are not sufficient 

to meet the needs of a child with extreme special needs. 

The possibility and amount of adoption subsidies and the 

availability of other needed services should be thoroughly 

explored in such cases. If adoption is not possible, it may 

be necessary to consider alternatives, such as (permanent) 

legal guardianship, or “another planned permanent living 

arrangement,” such as court-ordered or -approved permanent placement with a specific foster parent or parents. 

These alternatives often have the following disadvantages 

compared to adoption: the risk of further court battles over 

custody, continued State supervision, and the fact that the 

new parent may not have sole responsibility for the child. 

In some cases, where no subsidies or other economic 

supplements are available, the financial impact on the new 

parents may be devastating. 

It is important that the parties and the court not only 

understand the legal and practical implications of these 

alternative arrangements, but also learn to use them in 
appendix B: Stages of the Juvenile Court 

Process in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

a way most likely to make them permanent and secure. 

For example, parties can help reduce the risk of disrupted 

guardianships by requesting ceremonies to recognize the 

permanency. If, as in many States, a different court must 

approve a legal guardianship, the attorney for the legal 

guardians may need to introduce into the court record 

proof of the prior abuse or neglect to make it more difficult 

for parents to later seek the return of the child. 

Parties and judges also need to be aware of the impact of 

State law on the practicality of different types of permanent placement arrangements. States can relieve some of 

the financial burdens of legal guardianship by providing 

guardianship subsidies (legal payments to guardians of 

certain former foster children). State laws can also make it 

difficult for parents to regain custody after legal guardianship is established, thus making guardianship a relatively 

safe legal choice. 

State laws that allow ongoing limited contacts or communication under prescribed conditions between biological 

parents and children after adoption can forestall battles 

over termination of parental rights and make adoption 

more acceptable to some parties. 

Table B–1. Erosion of Parental Rights and Duties 

Division of Parental Rights and 

Responsibilities for Children 

in the Child Welfare System 

When the juvenile court and child welfare agency assume 

control of and responsibility for a foster child, the result 

may be erosion of parental responsibilities and, in many 

cases, a fragmentation of control of and responsibility for 

the child. The following section describes the transfer of 

rights and responsibilities regarding a child as the result of 

child protection court proceedings. 

Table B–1 illustrates some of the types of legal status 

regarding children in the child welfare system and the 

parental rights and duties attached to each. Although it illustrates the variations in the legal status of biological parents, this table does not show the full extent of fragmentation of control over the child among the juvenile court, 

public and private welfare agencies, and foster parents. 

In this table, N/A indicates that the right or duty is inapplicable. Shaded areas indicate that rights and duties exist. 

Blank spaces indicate that the parent does not have that 

right or duty. 

Legal Status 

Full Foster care Full 

Parental Rights and Duties 

custody 

(birth 

parents) 

Protective 

supervision 

(agency 

temporary 

custody) 

Legal 

guardianship 

Termination 

of parental 

rights 

custody 

(adoptive 

parent) 

Care and companionship of the child 

Freedom from court or child welfare 

agency supervision 

Right to hearing prior to removal of child 

from parental home N/A N/A N/A 

Duty of support and right to visit Parents 

retain these 

rights unless 

parental rights 

have been 

terminated 

Major decision (such as surgery, marriage, or military service of child) 

In many 

States, 

parents 

retain these 

rights 

Right to seek return of parental rights in 

court N/A N/A 

Source: Hardin, M., “The Erosion of Parental Rights,” in S. Downs and K. Taylor, Permanent Planning for Children in Foster Care: Resources for Training, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS Publication No. [OHDS] 81–30790, 1980. 

269 
270 

Technical Guide
 

The far left column lists some basic rights and responsibilities that parents in our society have in regard to their 

children. The first column under “Legal Status” illustrates 

the scenario where the parents retain full custody and the 

children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile 

court. In this case, the parents retain all parental rights 

listed. 

The second column under “Legal Status” illustrates 

“protective supervision,” a situation in which the juvenile 

court has determined through a formal proceeding that it 

has jurisdiction over a child not receiving proper care, but 

nevertheless has decided that the child or children may 

remain at home. 

Protective supervision means that the juvenile court has 

jurisdiction over the child, but the child remains with the 

parent by court order. The child cannot be removed from 

the home without a further court hearing, but the parent 

must cooperate with and submit to the supervision of the 

child welfare agency as specified in the court’s disposition 

order. In many States, the juvenile court may set forth specific conditions that the parents must meet while the child 

remains in their care. The child welfare agency ordinarily 

may clarify or add to such conditions, depending upon the 

wording of the court order. 

The third column under “Legal Status” shows the legal 

status of a child in court-ordered foster care. When a child 

is in foster care, biological parents cannot live with the 

child but are permitted to visit and may be required to pay 

support. The parents retain the right to request that the 

court return the child to their care and to share in planning 

the visiting and support schedules. 

This status differs from the situation in which parents 

voluntarily place their children in foster care without a 

court proceeding. Parents generally lose less legal authority over the child through a written foster care agreement 

than through court proceedings, although the fact that a 

child has been in foster care will have a bearing if a court 

proceeding subsequently takes place. 

Generally, biological parents of children in court-ordered 

foster care retain whatever other rights have not been 

taken from them: For example, most biological parents 

of children in foster care have the right to be consulted 

concerning the child’s educational and medical care. Some 

States require biological parents of children in foster care 

to give permission for the child’s major medical care, 

driver’s license, enlistment in the armed services, and 

marriage. 

Legal control over and responsibility for a child is most 

fragmented when a child is in foster care. First, the juvenile 

court itself assumes control over and responsibility for 

the child far greater than that of other courts that make 

decisions that affect children. Other court proceedings 

that affect children, such as suits for damages on behalf 

of injured children, suits for government benefits (Social 

Security or welfare), and divorce cases in which the custody of the child is at issue, are usually far less intrusive on 

the family. Even in a divorce case, the court does no more 

than assign custody and visitation in a decision resolving a 

conflict between two private contesting parties. 

In a juvenile court proceeding, as described earlier, 

the court assumes a supervisory function and may set 

conditions on the parents, review case progress, or even 

consider the appropriateness of the case plan. Furthermore, juvenile court proceedings are considered ongoing, 

whereas the custody decision in a divorce decision is 

generally regarded as final unless it is appealed or a new 

case is initiated. 

When the court authorizes foster care, it usually awards 

temporary custody of the child to the public child welfare 

agency. The agency will, subject to any conditions set by 

the court, decide where to place the child, supervise the 

foster home, develop the child’s case plan, and arrange or 

oversee services for the child. These responsibilities not 

only may be divided among different employees and subdivisions of the agency but also may be divided between the 

public child welfare agency and a private child placement 

agency in those jurisdictions in which the public agency arranges for a private agency to place the child in foster care 

and work with the foster family. 

In the case of foster family care, day-to-day care of the 

child is delegated to foster parents. Foster parents are 

bound by many legal constraints regarding the care they 

provide. They must meet licensing standards, comply with 

the rules of the agency, adhere to the terms of the contract 

they enter into with the agency, and accept supervision by 

the responsible public or private agency caseworker. This 

situation is in striking contrast to the ordinary legal position 

of the family in our society, which operates with far more 

autonomy. 

Because the foster parent spends time with the child and 

the social worker often depends on the foster parent for 

information about the child’s daily functioning, the foster 

parent often has a substantial influence on important 

decisions affecting the child. Still, foster parents may need 
appendix B: Stages of the Juvenile Court 

Process in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

agency permission to make many routine decisions, such 

as securing services for the child or dealing with schools. 

Some public agencies have created special categories of 

foster care parents who are delegated additional authority 

over and responsibility for the child. Particularly notable are 

the categories of permanent foster parents, who may have 

additional medical and educational responsibilities, and 

specialized foster parents, who have special training and 

expertise to deal with the particular handicaps or problems 

of the individual child. 

The fourth column under “Legal Status” refers to the 

situation in which a child is placed in “legal guardianship.” 

This term from Federal law refers to a legal arrangement in 

which a court grants an individual or couple legal authority 

over a child, the legal authority is intended to be permanent, and the individual or couple is not subject to agency 

oversight or control in the upbringing of the child. Legal 

guardians may be relatives, family friends, or, sometimes, 

foster parents who change to this more permanent status. 

When a legal guardian has been assigned, the rights of the 

parent are similar to those of a noncustodial parent after a 

divorce. The legal guardian is responsible for the daily care 

of the child and makes all significant decisions regarding 

the child. Neither the juvenile court nor the child welfare 

agency has responsibility for or control over the child or 

legal guardian. The biological parent can seek return of the 

child, as a noncustodial parent can sue to regain custody 

after a divorce. 

In many respects, State laws vary regarding legal guardianship. The procedures for establishing legal guardianship and the terminology used vary from State to State. 

Depending on the State, legal guardianship may be called 

“legal custody” or even “managing conservatorship” by a 

private individual. Finally, the degree of legal difficulty for 

parents seeking to regain the child after a legal guardianship varies from State to State. If parental rights are 

terminated before a legal guardianship is established, 

parents rarely can regain custody of the child through court 

proceedings. 

The fifth column under “Legal Status” presents the biological parents’ legal status after the termination of parental 

rights is finalized. At this point, the biological parent has 

permanently lost all rights and responsibilities for the child, 

including the right to ask the court to change its decision. 

Since the child is usually still in foster care at this point, 

responsibility for the child remains fragmented between 

the court, agency and foster parents, but excludes the 

biological parents. Generally, termination of parental rights 

is ordered in contemplation of a subsequent adoption by 

new parents. 

The last column under “Legal Status” refers to the 

authority of the adoptive parents. Adoptive parents obtain 

essentially the same rights to care and control of the 

child that the biological parents had originally (compare 

the far left and far right columns under “Legal Status.”). 

An exception is that, in States that allow birth parents to 

retain limited rights to contacts or communication with the 

child in certain cases, adoptive parents must respect those 

continuing rights. 

Endnotes 

1. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 

RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 

1995), Chapter III (D)–(E). 

2. Although semiannual case progress reviews may 

be conducted by a court, the State child protection 

agency, or a foster care review board, postdisposition 

“permanency hearings,” which are required within 

12 months of the date the child is considered to have 

entered foster care and annually thereafter, can only be 

held by courts or court-approved entities. 42 U.S.C. § 

675(5)(C). 

3. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5), (6). 

4. Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Public Law 

105–89, § 302, amending 42 U.S.C. § 675(5). 

5. Ibid. 

6. See M. Hardin, R. Lancour, American Bar Association 

Center on Children and the Law, and Edna McConnell 

Clark Foundation, Early Termination of Parental Rights: 

Developing Appropriate Statutory Grounds (Chicago, IL: 

American Bar Association, 1996), p. 9. 

7. Ibid. 

271 

Calculation Guide
 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

1 Safety 

1A Child Safety 

While Under 

Court 

Jurisdiction 

• Abuse or 

neglect 

petition date 

• Abuse or neglect incident 

date 

• Case closure 

date 

1. The universe of cases included in this measure is children that were under the 

court’s jurisdiction (had an open case) during a time period such as a calendar 

year. (A) 

2. From dataset (A), select only cases for which abuse or neglect occurred during 

that time period (i.e., cases with an abuse or neglect incident date during that 

time period). Count the number of cases meeting this criterion. (B) 

3. Compute the percentage of children with new abuse or neglect in that time 

period by dividing (B) by (A).

 Computation note: In the computation, (B) is the numerator population and (A) 

is the denominator population. 

1B Child Safety 

After Release 

From Court 

Jurisdiction 

• Case closure 

date 

• Abuse or 

neglect petition date (i.e., 

the new petition following 

case closure) 

1. The universe of cases included in this measure is children for whom cases 

were closed as a result of permanent placement (adoption, reunification or legal 

guardianship) during a time period such as a calendar year. (A) 

2. From dataset (A), select only cases for which a new petition alleging abuse or 

neglect of the same child was filed during the 12 months following case closure. 

Count the number of cases meeting this criterion. (B) 

3. Compute the percentage of children with new abuse or neglect following case 

closure by dividing (B) by (A). 

4. A note about the business rules: The report for this measure cannot be run 

until at least 12 months after the end date of the time period selected for the 

universe of cases (i.e., dataset A). For example, if the reporting time period was 

for cases closed in calendar year 2004 (January–December), the report could 

not be run before January 2006. 

2 Permanency 

2A Achievement 

of Child 

Permanency 

• Foster care

flag = “yes” 

• Case closure 

date 

• Case closure 

reason (e.g., 

1. Select a date range for the report (e.g., for a report spanning a 12-month period, 

select beginning and ending dates 12 months apart). 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range selected (A), exclude 

cases that were closed because the child died, was transferred to another 

geographic jurisdiction (e.g., to another judicial district or State), or was never in 

foster care while the case was open. (B) 

adoption, 

legal guardianship, 

reunification) 

3. Count the number of cases in (B) for which the case closure reason is one of the 

permanent placements recognized by the State (C). The remaining cases in (B) 

are those for which the case closure reason is a nonpermanent placement. (D) 

4. Compute the overall rate of permanency by dividing (C) by (B). Compute the 

overall rate of nonpermanency by dividing (D) by (B). 

5. Divide (C) into categories, each representing one type of permanent placement 

at case closure: family reunification (category 1), adoption (category 2), legal 

guardianship (category 3). If the State recognizes other permanent placement 

categories such as Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA), 

create a fourth category, and so forth. Divide (D) into categories, each representing a nonpermanent placement type (category 5, category 6, etc.) 

6. Compute the overall rate of permanency by dividing (D) by (C). 

appendix C 
Technical Guide
 

274 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

2 Permanency 

2B Children Not 

Reaching 

Permanency 

• Foster care

flag = “yes” 

• Case closure 

date 

• Case closure 

reason 

1. Select a date range for the report (e.g., for a report spanning a 12-month period, 

select beginning and ending dates 12 months apart). 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range selected (A), exclude 

cases that were closed because the child died, was transferred to another 

geographic jurisdiction (e.g., to another judicial district or State), or was never in 

foster care while the case was open. (B) 

3. Count the number of cases in (B) for which the case closure reason is one of the 

permanent placements recognized by the State. (C) The remaining cases in (B) 

are those for which the case closure reason is a nonpermanent placement. (D) 

4. Compute the overall rate of permanency by dividing (C) by (B). Compute the 

overall rate of nonpermanency by dividing (D) by (B). 

5. Divide (C) into categories, each representing one type of permanent placement 

at case closure: family reunification (category 1), adoption (category 2), legal 

guardianship (category 3). If the State recognizes other permanent placement 

categories such as APPLA, create a fourth category, and so forth. Divide (D) into 

categories, each representing a nonpermanent placement type (category 5, 

category 6, etc.) 

6. Compute the percentage of cases in each category by dividing the number of 

cases in that category by (B). 

2C Children 

Moved While 

Under Court 

Jurisdiction 

• Case closure 

date 

• Placement

beginning 

date 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is children whose cases were closed during that date range. (A) 

3. From dataset (A), select cases with one placement before case closure (B), two 

placements before case closure (C), three placements before case closure (D), 

four placements before case closure (E), five placements before case closure (F), 

and more than five placements before case closure (G). 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each category (B through G) by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

2D Reentry Into 

Foster Care 

After Return 

Home 

• Foster care

flag = “yes” 

• Case closure 

date 

• Case closure 

reason = 

reunification 

• Child 

returned to 

foster care 

date 

1. Select a date range for the report (the beginning and ending date for case 

closure). The ending date must be at least 24 months ago. 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range selected, the universe 

included in this measure is children who were in foster care at some time while 

their cases were open and whose cases were closed as a result of court-ordered 

permanent reunification. (A) 

3. From dataset (A), select cases in which the child was returned to foster care 

within 12 months after closure (B), and between 13 and 24 months after closure 

(C). 

4. Compute the percentages of children returned to foster care within these two 

time periods by dividing (B) and (C) by (A). 
appendix C: Calculation Guide 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

2 Permanency 

2E Reentry 

Into Foster 

Care After 

Adoption or 

Guardianship 

• Foster care

flag = “yes” 

• Case closure 

date (original 

case) 

1. Select a date range for the report (the beginning and ending date for case 

closure). The ending date must be at least 24 months ago. 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range selected, the universe 

included in this measure is children who were in foster care at some time while 

their cases were open and whose cases were closed as a result of adoption or 

• Case closure 

reason = 

adoption 

or legal 

guardianship 

• Child 

returned to 

foster care 

date 

legal guardianship. (A) 

3. From dataset (A), select cases in which the child was returned to foster care 

within 12 months after case closure (B), and between 13 and 24 months after 

case closure (C). 

4. Compute the percentage of children returned to foster care within each of these 

two time periods by dividing (B) and (C) by (A). 

3 Due Process and Fairness 

3A Number of 

Judges Per 

Case 

• Hearing date

• Case closure 

date 

1. Select a date range for the report 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases that were closed within the 

date range selected (A). 

• Judicial 

officer 

presiding 

at hearing 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each hearing held in the case documenting the presiding judicial officer. 

4. For each case in (A), compare the officer presiding at the first hearing against 

the officer presiding at each subsequent hearing, and divide (A) into two 

categories: (B) cases in which the hearing officer did not change in subsequent 

hearings and (C) cases in which the hearing officer did change in at least one 

subsequent hearing. 

5. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

3B Service of 

Process to 

Parties 

• Adjudication 

date 

• Party ID

• Party type

• Party entitled 

to service 

date 

1. Select a date range for this report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases closed within the date range 

selected for which adjudication has been conducted on the original or amended 

petition and on any supplemental petition adding parties. (A) 

3. For each case in dataset (A), determine who is entitled to service of process (to 

include, but not necessarily be limited to, the mother and a father). Then, for 

each case, determine which parties received service of the original or amended 

petition, and sort the cases into two categories: (B) cases in which all parties 

• Service of 

process date 

• Case closure 

date 

entitled to service received service and (C) cases in which some parties who 

were entitled to receive service were not served. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in that category by (A). 

5. A note about the business rules: The universe of cases in this measure may 

be defined in various ways, but must always meet the requirement explained 

in rule 2. If a supplemental petition filed after adjudication adds parties, this 

measure should encompass service of process on those new parties. In such 

circumstances, the reopened or supplemental adjudication must have been 

completed for the case to be included in the universe for this measure. 

275 
Technical Guide
 

276 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

3 Due Process and Fairness 

3C Early 

Appointment 

of Advocates 

for Children 

• Emergency

removal 

hearing 

date-time 

• Appointment

of advocate 

date-time 

• Party ID

• Advocate ID

• Advocateparty link 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases for which an emergency 

removal hearing was held within the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), determine when a child advocate was assigned. Then, sort 

the cases into two categories: (B) advocate appointed prior to hearing date and 

(C) advocate not appointed prior to hearing date. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

3D Early 

Appointment 

of Counsel for 

Parents 

• Emergency

removal 

hearing 

date-time 

• Appointment

of advocate 

date-time 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases for which the emergency 

removal hearing was held within the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), determine when parents’ attorneys were assigned. Then 

sort the cases into six categories: (B) attorney for mother appointed prior to 

hearing date, (C) attorney for mother not appointed prior to hearing date, (D) 

attorney for father appointed prior to hearing date, (E) attorney for father not ap­

• Party ID

• Party type 

• Advocate ID

pointed prior to hearing date, (F) attorneys for both mother and father appointed 

prior to hearing date, (G) attorneys for both mother and father not appointed 

prior to hearing date. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

A note about the business rules: If more than one possible father has been 

identified in a case, include the case in category (D) or (F) if an attorney was 

appointed for at least one identified father prior to the hearing. 
appendix C: Calculation Guide 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

3 Due Process and Fairness 

3E Advance • Party ID 1. Select a date range for the report. 

Notice of 

Hearings to 

Parties 

• Party entitled 

to notice 

date 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases closed within the date range 

selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), build a record in a dataset for each party entitled to notice 

• Hearing date

• Notice date

• Notice

method of 

delivery 

• Legal notice 

deadline 

• Case closure 

date 

for each hearing, documenting the following information for each hearing:

 • Hearing date

 • Party ID

• Party type 

 • Party entitled to notice date

 • Legal notice deadline

 • Notice method of delivery

 • Notice date

4. Evaluate the data in (A) and sort the cases into two categories: (B) all parties entitled to notice received mailed written notice in accordance with legal 

deadlines for every hearing or (C) some parties entitled to notice did not receive 

mailed written notice of the hearing in accordance with legal deadlines for some 

hearings. 

5. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

A note about the business rules: “Notice” refers to a mailed written notice. 

The types of parties entitled to notice include, but are not necessarily limited 

to, mothers and fathers; other types of parties may include, for example, legal 

guardians, foster parents, children above a certain age, and court-appointed 

special advocate (CASA) volunteers. For each hearing, it is necessary to determine whether each party was entitled to notice for that particular hearing (a 

father may not have been identified before some hearings or a CASA volunteer 

may have been appointed after the hearing). As noted earlier, the universe of 

cases in the measure may be based on hearings rather than cases. 

277 
Technical Guide
 

278 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

3 Due Process and Fairness 

3F Advance • Party ID 1. Select a date range for the report. 

Written Notice 

of Hearings 

to Foster Parents, Preadoptive Parents, 

and Relative 

Caregivers 

• Party type 

(foster 

parents, 

preadoptive 

parents, 

and relative 

caregivers) 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases closed within the date range 

selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), build a record in a dataset for foster parents, preadoptive 

parents, and relative caregivers entitled to notice for each nonprocedural hearing, documenting the following information for each hearing:

 • Hearing date

• Party entitled 

to notice 

date 

• Hearing start

date 

• Notice date

• Legal notice 

deadline 

• Case closure 

date 

 • Party ID

• Party type 

 • Party entitled to notice date

 • Legal notice deadline

 • Notice method of delivery

 • Notice date

4. Evaluate the data in (A) and sort the cases into two categories: (B) foster 

parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers entitled to notice received 

mailed written notice in accordance with legal deadlines for every hearing or 

(C) some foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers entitled to 

notice did not receive mailed written notice in accordance with legal deadlines 

for some hearings. 

5. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

A note about the business rules: “Notice” refers to a mailed written notice. 
appendix C: Calculation Guide 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

3 Due Process and Fairness 

3G Presence of 

Advocates 

During 

Hearings 

• Case closure 

date 

• Party ID

• Party type

• Service of 

process date 

• Advocate ID

• Appointment

of advocate 

date-time 

• Advocateparty link 

• Advocate 

present at 

hearing 

• Hearing date

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases closed within the date range 

selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each hearing, documenting whether 

legal counsel was present for each party served prior to that hearing. Then sort 

the cases in (A) into two categories: (B) all parties were represented by counsel 

at every hearing or (C) some parties were not represented by counsel at some 

hearings. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

A note about the business rules: Exclude from the record of each hearing 

any party (other than the government and the petitioner) who had not received 

service of process at the time of the hearing. But for emergency removal hearings occurring prior to adjudication, count attorneys for all parties served prior 

to adjudication, whether or not such parties were served prior to the emergency 

removal hearing. 

3H Presence of • Party ID 1. Select a date range for the report. 

Parties During 

Hearings • Party type

• Service of 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases closed within the date range 

selected. (A) 

process date 

• Hearing date

• Party present

at hearing 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each substantive hearing, documenting 

whether each party was present. Then sort the cases in A into two categories: 

(B) all hearings were attended by all parties or (C) some hearings were not attended by all parties. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

A note about the business rules: In general, exclude from the record of each 

hearing any party, other than the government and the petitioner, who had 

not received service of process at the time of the hearing. But for emergency 

removal hearings occurring prior to adjudication, count all parties served prior to 

adjudication, whether or not served prior to the emergency removal hearing. 

3I Continuity of 

Advocates for 

Children 

• Case closure 

date 

• Party ID

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases closed within the date range 

selected. (A) 

• Party type

• Hearing date

• Advocate ID

• Advocateparty link 

• Advocate 

present at 

hearing 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each hearing held in the case, documenting the presence of a legal advocate representing the child. Then sort the cases 

in (A) into three categories: (B) no advocates appeared for the child throughout 

the case, (C) one advocate appeared throughout the case, or (D) more than one 

advocate appeared. 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

279 
Technical Guide
 

280 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

3 Due Process and Fairness 

3J Continuity of 

Counsel for 

Parents 

• Case closure 

date 

• Party ID

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases closed within the date range 

selected. (A) 

• Party type

• Hearing date

• Advocate ID

• Advocateparty link 

3. For each case in (A), build a record for each hearing, documenting the attorneys 

representing the mother and father. Then sort the cases in (A) into six categories: 

(B) no attorney appeared for the mother throughout the case; (C) one attorney for 

mother throughout the case, (D) more than one attorney for mother throughout 

the case, (E) no attorney appeared for the father throughout the case, (F) one 

attorney for father throughout the case, (G) more than one attorney for father 

throughout the case. 

• Advocate 

present at 

hearing 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in each category by (A). 

A note about the business rules: Where more than one father is named in the 

case, select only one to include in the calculations, using the following order of 

preference: (1) the man determined by the court to be the biological or adoptive 

father (whichever applies), (2) the man identified by the court as legal guardian, (3) the first man named as father who was appointed counsel, or (4) if no 

named father was appointed counsel, the named father whose name comes first 

alphabetically. 

4 Timeliness 

4A Time to 

Permanent 

Placement 

• Case closure 

date 

• Abuse or 

neglect petition date 

• Case closure 

reason 

(includes 

reunification, 

adoption, 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. From the cases that were closed within the date range selected, the universe 

included in this measure is children who were in foster care at some time while 

their case was open. (A) 

3. From dataset (A), select the cases in which the reason for closure meets the 

State’s definition of a permanent placement (e.g., family reunification, adoption, 

or legal guardianship). (B) 

4. For each case in (B), compute the number of days from filing of the petition to 

closure, and store this number in the case record. 

or legal 

guardianship) 

5. Determine the median time to permanency in (B) by finding the number of days 

that falls midway between the shortest and longest cases (see calculation note 

below). 

6. Determine the average time to permanency in (B) by counting the number of 

cases (C), totaling the days for all cases (D), and dividing (D) by (C). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the median is simply the 

middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of 

numbers, the median is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median 

of 2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 
appendix C: Calculation Guide 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

4 Timeliness 

4B Time to 

Adjudication 

• Abuse or 

neglect 

petition date 

• Adjudication 

date 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases with an adjudication date 

within the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from filing of the petition to 

adjudication, and store this number in the case record. 

4. Determine the median time to adjudication in (A) by finding the number of days 

that falls midway between the lowest and highest number of days (see calculation note below). 

5. Determine the average time to adjudication in (A) by counting the number of 

cases (B), totaling the days from filing to adjudication for all cases (C), and 

dividing (C) by (B). 

A note about the business rules: Under the basic rules, the universe for this 

measure includes both open and closed cases. The measure could also be 

limited to closed cases only or open cases only. 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the median is simply the 

middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of 

numbers, the median is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median 

of 2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

4C Timeliness of 

Adjudication 

• Abuse or 

neglect 

petition date 

• Adjudication 

date 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases with an adjudication date 

within the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from filing of the petition to 

adjudication, and store this number in the case record. Then divide the cases in 

(A) into four categories based on the number of days from filing to adjudication, 

as follows: within 30 days (B), between 31 and 60 days (C), between 61 and 90 

days (D), and more than 90 days (E). 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in category by (A). 

281 
Technical Guide
 

282 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

4 Timeliness 

4D Time to Disposition Hearing • Abuse or 

neglect 

petition date 

• Disposition

hearing date 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases with a disposition hearing 

date within the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from filing of the petition to 

completion of the disposition hearing, and store this number in the case record. 

4. Determine the median time to disposition in (A) by finding the number of days 

that falls midway between the lowest and highest number of days (see calculation note below). 

5. Determine the average time to disposition in (A) by counting the number of 

cases (B), totaling the days from filing to disposition for all cases (C), and dividing (C) by (B). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the median is simply the 

middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of 

numbers, the median is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median 

of 2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

4E Timeliness of 

Disposition 

Hearing 

• Adjudication 

date 

• Disposition

hearing date 

1. Select a date range for the report. 

2. The universe included in this measure is all cases with a disposition hearing 

date within the date range selected. (A) 

3. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from adjudication to completion of the disposition hearing, and store this number in the case record. Then 

divide the cases in (A) into four categories based on the number of days from 

adjudication to disposition, as follows: within 10 days (B), between 11 and 30 

days (C), between 31 and 60 days (D), and more than 60 days (E). 

4. Compute the percentage of cases in each of these categories by dividing the 

number of cases in category by (A). 
appendix C: Calculation Guide 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

4 Timeliness 

4F Timeliness of 

Case Review 

Hearings 

• Abuse or 

neglect 

petition date 

(if needed for 

“start date”) 

• Removal 

date (if 

needed for 

“start date”) 

• Emergency

removal 

hearing 

date-time (if 

needed for 

“start date”) 

• Adjudication date (if 

needed for 

“start date”) 

• Case closure 

date 

• Case review

hearing date 

1. Run this report using a sample of closed cases. 

2. Select the starting point for purposes of measuring the due date of the first 

case review hearing either: (1) the date the petition is filed, (2) the date of the 

emergency removal hearing, (3) the date of the child’s removal from home, or (4) 

the date the child is first considered to have entered foster care. 

3. If (1), (2), or (3) is selected, skip to step 4 below. If (4) is selected, follow the 

directions below to determine how to calculate the actual start date for each 

case: 

a. Determine at which hearing—emergency removal hearing or adjudication— 

the judicial finding of abuse and neglect occurs in the State. This is based on 

state law and should therefore be consistent throughout the State. 

b. If the judicial finding occurs at removal, use the removal date as the start 

date. If the finding occurs at adjudication, use the earlier of the actual adjudication hearing date or 60 days after the date of removal as the start date. 

Continue with step 4 below. 

4. Select a date range for the report (date case closed). (A) 

5. Select cases falling within the date range for the preliminary sample. (B) 

6. Based on State or Federal law and the start date selected above, determine the 

maximum legally permissible number of days from the start date to the first 

review hearing. (C) 

7. For each case in (B), determine the length of the case (from the start date 

selected above to case closure date). Eliminate from (B) any cases that are not 

as old as (C) (cases that are not old enough at closure to have had a review 

hearing). 

8. For the cases remaining in (B) after step 7, create a record in the dataset with 

the following information: 

a. The start date for the case (as determined above) 

b. The date the first case review hearing was due (based on State or Federal 

law as determined in step 6 above). 

c. The date the first case review hearing was held. If no review hearing was 

held, store “00/00/0000.” 

d. The date each subsequent review hearing was due, i.e., second hearing due 

date, third hearing due date, and so forth. 

e. The date each subsequent review hearing was actually held, i.e., second 

hearing, third heading, and so forth. If no hearing was held store the date as 

“00/00/0000.” 

f. For cases with two removal dates for one child, treat the events occurring 

from the second removal date forward as though this segment of the case 

were a separate case. Then evaluate the hearing dates in the same manner 

as described above in steps 8a–e and below in step 9. 

Note: The reason for this exception is that when a child is returned home and 

custody is given to the parents, but the case remains open and the child is 

removed from the home a second time, a first review hearing is again due within 

the time specified by Federal or State law following the second removal date (6 

months in many States) as though it were a new case. 

(continued on following page) 

283 
Technical Guide
 

284 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

4 Timeliness 

4F Timeliness of 

Case Review 

Hearings 

(continued) 

9. Evaluate the data for each case as follows: 

a. If the date of the first case review hearing was held in a timely fashion, 

store a “Y” in another field for the first hearing. If the first review hearing 

was not held in a timely fashion, or not held at all (“00/00/0000” was stored 

as the first review hearing date), store an “N” for the first hearing; 

b. Continue to evaluate the timeliness of each subsequent review hearing. 

Store a “Y” or an “N” to indicate timely or untimely hearing dates. 

10. Count the number of cases in which all first review hearings were held in a 

timely fashion. (D) 

11. Calculate the percentage of cases with timely first review hearings by dividing 

(D) by (B). 

12. Count the number of cases where all review hearings were held in a timely 

fashion. (E) 

13. Calculate the percentage of cases with all review hearings held in a timely 

fashion by dividing (E) by (B). 

14. Count the total number of review hearings. (F) 

15. Count the number of review hearings held in a timely fashion. (G) 

16. Calculate the percentage of timely review hearings by dividing (G) by (F). 
appendix C: Calculation Guide 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

4 Timeliness 

4G Time to First 

Permanency 

Hearing 

• Abuse or 

neglect 

petition date 

(if needed for 

“start date”) 

• Foster care

entry date (if 

needed for 

“start date”) 

• Emergency

removal 

hearing 

date-time (if 

needed for 

“start date”) 

• Adjudication date (if 

needed for 

Basic specifications to measure median time from a start date to the date of the first 

permanency hearing are based on a start date of one of the following: (1) date of 

filing of petition; (2) date of actual entry into foster care; (3) date of emergency removal hearing; (4) date of order for child’s entry into foster care; or (5) date the child 

is considered to have entered foster care, as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(F). 

This set of specifications assumes that only closed cases belong in the sample. If the 

court decides to examine recent performance to report on open cases, it must select 

only open cases that are old enough to have been eligible for a permanency hearing. 

Then, it may simply calculate the percentage of cases from this group in which the 

permanency hearing was held within 12 months of the starting date, rather than 

calculate the average or median days as called for in this measure. 

Open cases must have been open long enough to have been eligible for at least the 

first permanency hearing to be due, whether or not the hearing was actually held on 

time or at all. In practice, this means that the cases should be at least 12 months old 

if the starting date is measured from removal or filing of the petition, or at least 14 

months old if the starting date is measured from when the child is considered to have 

entered foster care. If open cases are shorter in length than these timeframes, the 

first permanency hearing will not be due. 

“start date”) 

• Courtordered 

entry into 

foster care 

1. Select the starting point for measuring the due date of the first permanency 

hearing by using one of the following: (1) date of filing the petition; (2) date of 

actual entry into foster care; (3) date of emergency removal hearing; (4) date of 

order for child’s entry into foster care; or (5) date the child is “considered to have 

entered foster care.” 

date 

• Case closure 

date 

• Permanency 

hearing date 

2. If (1), (2), (3), or (4) is selected, skip to step 3. If (5) is selected, follow the directions below to calculate the actual start date for each case: 

a. Determine at which hearing—emergency removal hearing or adjudication— 

the judicial finding of abuse and neglect occurs in the State. This is based on 

State law and therefore should be consistent throughout the State. 

b. If the judicial finding occurs at the emergency removal hearing, use the date 

of the emergency removal hearing as the start date. 

c. If the finding occurs at adjudication, use the earlier of two dates: either the 

date of completion of the adjudication hearing or 60 days after the date of 

actual foster care entry. 

d. Continue with step 3 below. 

3. Select a date range for the report (date case closed) (A). 

4. Select and count cases falling within the date range (case closure date) (B). 

5. For each case in (B), calculate the number of days from the start date to the date 

of the first permanency hearing, and store each number in a dataset. If no first 

permanency hearing was held, remove that case from (B). You can also increment a counter to track the number of cases where no first permanency hearing 

was held. (This measure does not call for tracking the number of cases in which 

a permanency hearing was due but never held; however, that number may help 

supplement this measure.) 

6. Find the median case in the database (the case in the exact middle with half of 

the cases below it and half of the cases above it). (C) 

7. Add together the number of days for all cases in (B) The total will be (D). 

8. Compute the average time by dividing (D) by (B). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the median is simply the 

middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of 

numbers, the median is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median of 

2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 285 
Technical Guide
 

286 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

4 Timeliness 

4H Time to 

Termination 

of Parental 

Rights Petition 

• Abuse or 

neglect 

petition date 

• Last TPR 

petition date 

1. Run this report using a sample of cases for which TPR petitions have been filed. 

2. Select a date range for the report (date TPR petition is filed). 

Note: The court may choose to develop reports of this measure—as for other 

time-based measures—using a date range based on the time children entered 

foster care. It may wish to report on the timeliness of TPR with reference to different times that the cases were opened. Using this kind of analysis, the sample 

should be limited to cases that are closed. There may be later TPR petitions to 

reopen some closed cases, and annual comparisons will leave out the longest 

cases. However, this approach has the advantage of comparing and evaluating 

the majority of TPR cases that presumably are closed within a reasonable time. 

When used in conjunction with samples of recently closed cases, this can show 

the percentage of TPR proceedings that are closed relatively early and thus 

contribute to an understanding of the overall pace of filing TPR petitions. 

3. Select and count cases for which the TPR petition date falls within the date 

range selected. (A) 

4. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from filing of the original 

abuse or neglect petition to the filing of the TPR petition. Store each number in a 

dataset. 

5. Find the median case in the dataset (the case that has the same number of 

cases below and above it). (B). 

6. Add the number of days for all cases in (A) together. (C) 

7. Compute the average time by dividing (C) by (A). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the median is simply the 

middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of 

numbers, the median is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median 

of 2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

4I Time to 

Termination 

of Parental 

Rights 

• Abuse or 

neglect 

petition date 

• Last TPR 

finalized date 

1. Run this report using a sample of cases for which a TPR would be finalized if not 

appealed. The TPR in question may be for the first parent or the last parent, as 

determined by the jurisdiction. In lieu of TPR, a jurisdiction may use the consent 

to adoption date for either the first or last parent, if it applies. 

2. Select a date range for the report (date the TPR order would be final if not appealed). (State law specifies a number of days [e.g., 30, 60, or 90 days] after the 

TPR order is signed by the trial court judge within which the order will be final if 

an appeal is not filed.) 

3. Select and count cases where the date of TPR falls within the date range 

selected. (A) 

4. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from filing of the original 

abuse or neglect petition to the date the order for TPR was final (or would be 

final if it had not been appealed). Store each number in a dataset. (B) 

5. Find the median case in the dataset (B) (the number midway between the lowest 

and highest number of days). (C) 

6. Add the number of days for all cases in (A) together. (D). 

7. Compute the average time by dividing (D) by (A). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the median is simply the 

middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of 

numbers, the median is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median 

of 2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 
appendix C: Calculation Guide 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

4 Timeliness 

4J Timeliness of 

Termination 

of Parental 

Rights 

Proceedings 

• Last TPR 

petition date 

• Last TPR 

finalized date 

1. Run this report using a sample of cases for which a TPR proceeding has been 

finalized, regardless of the outcome (TPR is granted or denied). The TPR in question may be for either the first or the last parent, as determined by the jurisdiction. In lieu of TPR, a jurisdiction may also use the consent-to-adoption date for 

either the first or last parent, if it applies. 

2. Select a date range for the report (date the TPR order would be final if not appealed). State law specifies a number of days (e.g., 30, 60, or 90 days) after the 

TPR order is signed by the trial court judge, within which the order will be final if 

an appeal is not filed. 

3. Select and count cases where the TPR finalized date falls within the date range 

selected. (A) 

4. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from filing of the TPR petition 

to the date the order for TPR was final (or would be final if it had not been appealed). Store each number in a dataset. (B) 

5. Count the number of cases from (B) that fall into each range: 1–90 days (C), 

91–120 days (D), 121–180 days (E) and 181 or more days (F). 

6. Calculate the percentage in each category by dividing the number of cases in 

the category by (A) (For example, (C)/(A) = percentage of cases finalized in 1–90 

days). 

4K Time From 

Disposition 

Hearing to 

Termination 

of Parental 

• Disposition

hearing date 

• Last TPR 

petition date 

1. Run this report using a sample of cases for which a termination petition has 

been filed. 

2. Select a date range for the report (date of the termination petition). 

3. Select and count cases in which the date of the petition falls within the date 

Rights Petition range selected. (A) 

4. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from the date of the disposition hearing to the filing of the TPR petition. Store the elapsed time in a dataset. 

(B) 

5. Find the median number of days from the disposition hearing to the filing date of 

the TPR petition in dataset (B). (C) The median is the time midway between the 

slowest and fastest cases. 

6. Add the number of days for all cases in (B) together. (D). 

7. Compute the average time from the disposition hearing to the TPR filing by 

dividing (D) by (A). 

Calculation note: With an odd number of numbers, the median is simply the 

middle number; e.g., the median of 2, 4, and 7 is 4. With an even number of 

numbers, the median is the mean of the two middle numbers; e.g., the median 

of 2, 4, 7, and 12 is 5.5 (4 plus 7 divided by 2). 

287 
Technical Guide
 

288 

# Performance 

Measure 

Required Data Business Rules for Calculating Measure 

4 Timeliness 

4L Timeliness 

of Adoption 

Petition 

• Last TPR 

finalized date 

• Adoption 

petition date 

1. Run this report using a sample of cases for which an adoption petition has been 

filed. 

2. Select a date range for the report. 

3. Select all cases where the date the adoption petition is filed falls within the 

selected date range. (A) 

4. For each case in (A), compute the number of days from finalized termination of 

parental rights to the date the adoption petition is filed and store each number in 

a dataset. (B) 

5. Count the number of cases in (B) that fall into each of the following categories: 

(C) 1–90 days, (D) 91–180 days, (E) 181–365 days, and (F) more than 365 days. 

6. Calculate the percentage of total cases represented by each category by dividing 

the number of cases in each category (C, D, E, F) by (A). (For example, (C)/(A) 

= percentage of petitions filed within 1–90 days after termination of parental 

rights.) 

4M Timeliness 

of Adoption 

Proceedings 

• Adoption 

petition date 

• Adoption 

finalized 

date 

1. Run this using a sample of cases for which an adoption has been finalized (date 

the adoption order would be final if not appealed). 

2. Select a date range for the report. 

3. Select all cases where the date the adoption would be final if not appealed falls 

within the date range selected. (A) 

4. For each case in A, compute the number of days from filing of the adoption 

petition to the date the adoption order would be final if not appealed. Store each 

number in a dataset. (B) 

5. Sort the cases from (B) into the following categories: 1–90 days (C), 91–180 

days (D), 181–365 days (E), and more than 365 days (F). 

6. Calculate the percentage of total cases represented by each category by dividing 

the number of cases in each of the categories (C, D, E, F) by (A) (For example, 

(C)/(A) = percentage of cases finalized in 1–90 days). 
Combined Data Element Dictionary
 

Data Element Name Content Definition 

Abuse or Neglect Incident 

Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date an incident of abuse or neglect occurred while the 

child was under the jurisdiction of the court under the initial 

petition. 

Abuse or Neglect Petition 

Date mm/dd/yyyy 

Date the petition was filed with the court alleging child 

maltreatment, such as abuse or neglect or whatever it is called 

under State law such as “child in need of care,” “child in need 

of services,” “dependent child,” etc. If there has been more 

than one such petition affecting an individual child, this refers to 

the first child maltreatment petition filed. If more than one such 

petition has been filed, compare the petition dates to determine 

which is a subsequent petition. 

Abuser name 

The name of the person who abused the child while the child 

was under the jurisdiction of the court. 

Abuser Relationship alphanumeric code 

The relationship of the abuser to the child who was abused 

while the child was under the jurisdiction of the court. May 

include father, mother, foster mother, foster father, other 

relatives, counselor, teacher, or others. 

Abuser Visitation Status Y/N 

A yes/no flag indicating whether the abuser of a child under 

the jurisdiction of the court had been granted visitation with the 

child. 

Address Unknown Status 

Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the party’s address became unknown and notices 

stopped being sent. 

Adjudication Date mm/dd/yyyy 

Date the adjudication hearing was completed. Adjudication 

refers to the hearing in which the court determines whether 

or not the allegations of the petition were proved and, if so, 

the court should take jurisdiction (responsibility for and power 

concerning the case). 

Adoption Finalized Date mm/dd/yyyy The date the adoption order would be final if not appealed. 

Adoption Petition Date mm/dd/yyyy The date the adoption petition was filed. 

Advocate ID alphanumeric 

The bar number or other ID number of the advocate 

representing a party. 

Advocate Present at 

Hearing alphanumeric 

The ID of the advocate representing a party at a hearing (e.g., 

mother’s attorney, child’s guardian ad litem (GAL), father’s 

attorney). 

Advocate Type alphanumeric code 

The type of advocate representing the party such as private 

attorney, court-appointed attorney, government attorney, 

court-appointed special advocate (CASA), GAL, other. 

Advocate-Party Link advocate ID-party ID 

The link between the advocate and the party the advocate 

represents, e.g., mother, father, child, agency, guardian. 

Allegations Sustained Y/N 

A flag indicating whether the allegations of reabuse or reneglect 

were sustained by the court. For jurisdictions that require supplemental petitions when children are reabused or reneglected. 

Appointment of Advocate 

Date-Time mm/dd/yyyy/hhhh:mm The date and time the court appoints the party’s first attorney. 

appendix d 
Technical Guide
 

290 

Data Element Name Content Definition 

Case Closure Date mm/dd/yyyy Date case closed. 

Case Closure Reason alphanumeric code 

If case closed because of permanent placement, permanent placement type; if case closed for other reasons, shorthand description 

of such reason or nonpermanent placement type. State law may 

provide for additional types of permanent placements such as 

court-ordered permanent foster placements and permanent legal 

custody. Other reasons for nonpermanent placements may include, 

for example, transfer to another jurisdiction, death of the child, 

child missing, transfer of nonpermanent custody (as in delinquency 

cases). Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) 

definitions vary from State to State. 

Case Review Hearing Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the case review hearing was completed. A case review 

hearing is a hearing, following the disposition hearing, in which the 

court determines the whether the current case plan is appropriate, 

whether it is being implemented by the parties, whether the child’s 

needs are being met, whether sufficient progress is being made 

in the case, and other issues. Federal law requires case reviews 

to take place at least once every 6 months. States can decide 

whether or not case reviews will be conducted by courts and may 

also require them to occur more often than required by Federal 

law. 

Child Returned to Foster 

Care Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date a child is returned to foster care after closure of the 

original case following reunification, adoption, or guardianship. 

Child’s Date of Birth mm/dd/yyyy Date child was born. Used to calculate child’s age. 

Child’s Race/Ethnicity alphanumeric 

The ethnic identity of the child may be defined differently depending on the State. In the 2000 U.S. Census, the following racial 

categories are used: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black 

or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 

White. Ethnic categories include Hispanic or non-Hispanic. A person 

could list more than one race and could be listed as Hispanic or 

non-Hispanic regardless of race. http://www.census.gov/ 

population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html 

Court-Ordered Entry into 

Foster Care Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date of the court order ordering a child to be placed in foster 

care. 

Disposition Hearing Date mm/dd/yyyy Date the disposition hearing was completed. 

Emergency Custody Order 

Date mm/dd/yyyy 

If the court uses the issuance of an emergency custody order 

as indication of (proxy for) reabuse or reneglect in place of other 

methods. 

Emergency Removal 

Hearing Date-Time mm/dd/yyyy/hhhh:mm The date and time when the emergency removal hearing started. 

Father’s Race/Ethnicity alphanumeric code 

The ethnic identity of the child’s father may be defined differently 

depending on the State. In the 2000 U.S. Census, the following 

racial categories are used: American Indian or Alaska Native, 

Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander, and White. Ethnic categories include Hispanic or nonHispanic. A person could list more than one race and could be 

listed as Hispanic or non-Hispanic regardless of race. http://www. 

census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html 

Financial Ineligibility of 

Parents for Appointed 

Counsel Y/N 

A flag indicating that the party is financially ineligible for appointment of counsel by the court according to guidelines established in 

the jurisdiction. 
appendix d: Combined Data Element Dictionary 

Data Element Name Content Definition 

Foster Care Entry Date mm/dd/yyyy Date the child entered foster care. 

Foster Care Flag Y/N 

A yes/no flag indicating whether the child was in foster care during 

the period of time in which the court case was open. 

Hearing Date mm/dd/yyyy The date the hearing was completed. 

Hearing Start Date mm/dd/yyyy The date the hearing was started. 

Hearing Type alphanumeric code 

The type of hearing conducted, such as adjudication, disposition, 

review, permanency. 

Judicial Officer Presiding 

at Hearing alphanumeric 

The name or ID number of the judicial officer who actually presided 

at the specific hearing. 

Last Consent to Adoption 

Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the last parent or putative parent signed a consent to 

adoption of the child, clearing the way for the child to be adopted. 

Last TPR Finalized Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the termination of parental rights (TPR) order for the last 

parent would be final if not appealed. 

Last TPR Granted Y/N Whether the TPR petition for the last parent was granted. 

Last TPR Petition Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date of filing of the TPR petition for the last parent. TPR refers 

to the termination of parental rights, which eliminates all of the 

rights of the biological or adoptive parent to the child including the 

right to contest the child’s adoption. 

Last TPR Hearing Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date of the completion of the TPR hearing or trial for the last 

parent. 

Last TPR Motion Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date of filing of the motion for termination of parental rights of 

the last parent. 

Last TPR Order Signed 

Date mm/dd/yyyy The date the TPR order for the last parent is signed. 

Last TPR Record on Appeal 

Submission Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the record on appeal of the TPR for the last parent is 

submitted to the appellate court. 

Legal Notice Deadline integer 

Number of days prior to hearing date notice must be mailed or 

provided to parties by other means. 

Mother’s Race/Ethnicity alphanumeric code 

The ethnic identity of the child’s mother may be defined differently 

depending on the State. In the 2000 U.S. Census, the following 

racial categories are used: American Indian or Alaska Native, 

Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander, and White. Ethnic categories include Hispanic or nonHispanic. A person could list more than one race and could be 

listed as Hispanic or non-Hispanic regardless of race. http://www. 

census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html 

Notice Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the notice of hearing was mailed out or provided to the 

parties in the courtroom. 

Notice Method of Delivery alphanumeric code 

Method by which the notice of hearing is delivered to the party, 

such as first-class mail, by phone, handed out in courtroom, or as 

part of the court order. 

Party Entitled to Notice 

Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the party joined the case and became entitled to notice 

of hearing. 

Party Entitled to Service 

Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the party joined the case and became entitled to service 

of process. 

291 
Technical Guide
 

292 

Data Element Name Content Definition 

Party ID alphanumeric 

Unique number or other designation assigned to a party to the 

case. 

Party Present at Hearing Y/N 

A flag indicating whether a party was present in the courtroom for 

a hearing. 

Party Type alphanumeric 

The role of a party in the case, such as mother, father, legal 

guardian, foster parent, agency worker, child. 

Permanency Hearing Date mm/dd/yyyy The date the permanency hearing was completed. 

Placement Beginning Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date a child moves to a placement location while under court 

jurisdiction. 

Placement End Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date a child moves out of a placement location while under 

court jurisdiction. 

Placement Type alphanumeric code 

The child’s living situation, whether in the home in which the child 

was living before State intervention, foster care (foster care might 

be subdivided into subcategories such as foster family care, foster 

group homes, and foster residential placements), and placement 

with relatives (which may be subdivided into relative foster care 

placements or relative non-foster-care placements) 

Removal Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date a child is removed from the home by the child welfare 

agency. 

Removal Order Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date of signing of the court order ordering removal of the child 

from the home. 

Removed From Home Flag Y/N 

(Used if no removal date is known) Indicates a child was removed 

from home prior to the filing of the abuse or neglect petition. 

Service of Process Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date the party was served with the initial abuse or neglect 

petition, or any supplemental or amended petitions. 

Supplemental Petition Date mm/dd/yyyy 

For jurisdictions that require supplemental petitions when children 

are reabused or reneglected. 

Trial Home Visit Begin Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date a child begins a temporary home for the purpose of 

determining readiness to return home permanently. 

Trial Home Visit End Date mm/dd/yyyy 

The date a child ends a temporary home for the purpose of 

determining readiness to return home permanently. 

Type of Abuse or Neglect alphanumeric code 

The type of child maltreatment alleged in the initial or subsequent 

petitions, such as physical, neglect, sexual. Whether it is practical 

and useful to include the type of maltreatment and, if so, what the 

categories should be will depend on whether there are clear and 

distinct categories specified under State law or pursuant to rules or 

procedures governing the preparation of petitions. 

Waiver of Counsel Y/N A flag indicating that a party has waived the right to counsel. 

*NCJ~223570*
 

National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges 

National Center for State Courts 

ABA Center on 

Children and the Law