[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65902-65904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21674]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program.
    OMB No.: New Collection.
    Description: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement 
Program will describe the many paths followed by state courts to 
improve their oversight of child welfare cases, and will provide the 
field with information on effective models for juvenile and family 
court reform. Funded by the Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2004, the five-year study is being 
carried out by a partnership of three organizations consisting of 
Planning and Learning Technologies (Pal-Tech, Inc.), the Urban 
Institute and the Center for Policy Research.

[[Page 65903]]

    The Federal Court Improvement Program (CIP) was established in 1994 
as a source of funding for state courts to assess and improve their 
handling of foster care and adoption proceedings. The funding is 
codified in title IV-B, subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, Section 
438, as part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. 
Although anecdotal information documents the program's success, this is 
the first national evaluation of CIP. This study builds on the 
recommendations of a Children's Bureau funded evaluability assessment 
(EA) of the program completed in 2003 by James Bell Associates, Inc.
    The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program involves 
three interrelated components:
    1. Reviewing and synthesizing state and local court reform 
activities: This component will describe the full range of CIP-funded 
court reforms undertaken by states at the beginning and ending of the 
study's data collection period. Additionally, it will provide insights 
into states' reform priorities and how these shift over time. 
Especially promising models of reform will be highlighted. Finally, 
this component will provide important contextual information for the 
study's in-depth evaluation component of select models of reform. 
Information for this activity will be synthesized from existing reports 
submitted by states to the Children's Bureau.
    2. Reviewing and synthesizing existing court reform evaluations: 
This component will identify and synthesize findings from research and 
evaluation conducted on family and juvenile court reforms. It will 
provide important context for the study's in-depth evaluation component 
in two ways. Findings on reform activities beyond those captured within 
the study sites will be provided. It will also help inform evaluation 
within the study sites by providing information on previously conducted 
evaluation of similar reform models. Information for this activity will 
be synthesized from existing evaluations and studies of court reform. 
Evaluations will be prioritized for synthesis based on their 
methodological rigor and findings reported in the substantive areas 
defined by the EA. These are:
    <bullet> Alternative dispute resolution.
    <bullet> Training and educational materials.
    <bullet> Case tracking and management.
    <bullet> Improvements to the consistency and quality of hearings.
    <bullet> Parent/caregiver outreach, education, and support.
    <bullet> Systemic court reforms.
    3. Conducting in-depth studies of reform models: In-depth 
evaluation of select models of reform will be undertaken within three, 
diverse sites across the country. The study designs vary among sites, 
and include quasi-experimental and descriptive outcome methodologies. 
Reflecting the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the primary outcome 
areas of interest will be child safety, the timely achievement of 
permanency, and child well-being. Within each site, outcome evaluation 
will be complemented by a qualitative study of the many factors that 
impacted reform including other related reform efforts, the evolution 
of the target reform over time, barriers encountered, and methods by 
which these barriers were overcome.
    The outcome evaluation will utilize information from existing court 
and child welfare agency management information systems. Within select 
sites, information from these sources will be supplemented with 
information abstracted from existing court and/or child welfare agency 
case records. The process evaluation will help inform outcome findings 
within the study sites as well as provide important insights for the 
replication of the model within other sites. It will involve the 
collection of new information through structured focus groups and 
interviews with key individuals, as well as court observations of child 
dependency hearings. This descriptive information will be collected 
twice during the study.
    The three sites selected for in-depth analysis are the following:
    <bullet> Connecticut's Case Management Protocol: Piloted in 
December 1997, the protocol involves a pre-hearing conference of 
professionals held early in the dependency court process coupled with 
expanded parent representation.
    <bullet> Delaware's Systemic Reform: Piloted in 2000, the three 
primary components of the state's comprehensive reform effort are:
    <bullet> One judge/one case assignment practice where one judge 
presides over all legal stages of a dependency case
    <bullet> Defined sequence of hearings and reviews that 
significantly increases the number of hearings and oversight role of 
the courts
    <bullet> Representation for indigent parents in child welfare 
proceedings
    <bullet> Texas' Cluster Courts: Piloted in 1997, these courts are 
located in rural areas of the state. Each court serves a cluster of 
contiguous counties, and a specially trained judge is appointed to 
travel to each county within a cluster on a given day to hear that 
county's child welfare cases. The cluster courts were formed to enable 
rural counties to meet the state's strict permanency statute guidelines 
that were enacted January 1, 1998.
    Collectively, findings from the three study components will capture 
the ongoing nationwide process of court reform supported by the Court 
Improvement Program. A technical work group comprised of leading 
researchers, judicial and child welfare agency officials and 
representatives of public interest groups has been assembled to provide 
input at key points during the study.
    Respondents: Study respondents include individuals in the following 
categories among the three study sites noted above:
    <bullet> Court Improvement Program (CIP) administrators.
    <bullet> Judges.
    <bullet> Attorneys (representing the parent, child, and agency).
    <bullet> Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) and Guardians Ad 
Litem (GALs).
    <bullet> Child welfare agency administrators.
    <bullet> Regional child welfare directors and supervisors.
    <bullet> Child welfare agency caseworkers.

Annual Burden Estimates

                                             Annual Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of    Average burden
                   Instrument                        Number of     responses per     hours per     Total burden
                                                    respondents     respondent       response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIP Administrators..............................               8               1               2              16
Judges..........................................              30               1               1              30
Attorneys (parent and agency)...................              95               1               2             190
CASAs and GALs..................................              55               1               2             110
Child Welfare Agency Administrators.............              10               1               1              10
Child Welfare Agency Directors & Supervisors....              30               1               2              60

[[Page 65904]]

 
Child Welfare Agency Workers....................             120               1               2             240
                                                 -----------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............             656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 656.

Additional Information

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the 
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, 
Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 
Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests 
should be identified by the title of the information collection. e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#650c0b030a060a09090006110c0a0b250406034b0d0d164b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87eee9e1e8e4e8ebebe2e4f3eee8e9c7e6e4e1a9efeff4a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

OMB Comment

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document 
in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of 
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Attn: Desk Officer 
for ACF, E-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#377c56435f52455e595268631968764443455e545f77585a551952584719505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cb80aabfa3aeb9a2a5ae949fe5948ab8bfb9a2a8a38ba4a6a9e5aea4bbe5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 28, 2005.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21674 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>