Offices with notable approaches to representing dependent children were identified and on-site visits with five such programs were arranged and conducted. The purpose of these visits was to review the practice of offices widely recognized by the field as providing interesting and innovative approaches to the representation of children in the child welfare system. Their approaches to addressing the ABA Standards of Practice for Lawyers who Represent Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases along with the lessons they learned was explored on-site. The information helps inform the direction of the Research and Demonstration (R&D) sites undertaken in out-years.
An initial listing of notable programs was developed by the project director. Further input was solicited from the project advisory panel and through focus groups held in conjunction with participants attending national and tribal conferences.
A standardized protocol was developed to guide information collection. It was piloted during the first site visit and revised. The protocol addressed the following areas:
· Overview: Mission and history of the program? What issues led to its formation? Overview of model of representation? Strengths and weaknesses with the approach? Primary changes over time and reasons for changes?
· Model of Representation: How are cases staffed? How are the child’s expressed wishes balanced with the child’s best interests? To what degree does representation appear to follow the 1996 ABA Standards?
· Staffing, Training, and Supervision: Staff qualifications? Recruitment? Salary range? Caseload size (average, maximum)? Initial training or shadowing requirements? In-service requirements? Content overview? Supervisory structure? Staff/supervisory ratio? What role do supervisors play in case representation and decision making?
· Referral, Assignment, and Representation Processes: What is the referral and assignment process? What is the representation process? What is the local dependency hearing process? Fit above within the legal process for hearing cases.
· Contextual Considerations: With all above questions, probe for local contextual issues that independently have an impact (negative or positive)?
· Evaluation Considerations: Number served, comparison groups.
Generally, discussions were held with individuals and groups at the following levels:
· Program Director Level: Overview of the program, its mission and approach, evolution over time, and interface with the child welfare system.
· Training and HR Level: Approach to hiring and training.
· Supervisory Level: Approach to management, training and supervision. Staff roles and responsibilities. Referral, intake, and assignment processes. Overview of issues across cases and staff.
· Attorney and Paraprofessional Level: Review representative cases to gain an understanding of their approach, issues encountered, and their knowledge of the cases and case law. Previous experience and qualifications.
· Court Personnel: Judges and court officers presiding over child dependency hearings.
The following five programs were visited:
· Center for Child Advocacy, Connecticut
· Children’s Law Center, Washington, DC
· KidsVoice, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
· Lawyers for Children, New York City, New York
· Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Practice (formerly known as the Juvenile Rights Division), New York City, New York
Following are the primary findings derived from the on-site visits.
Adherence to the Standards of Practice
Program directors and administrators were familiar with the ABA Standards of Practice as well as state and local enabling legislation based on these standards. They noted that their programs were aimed at implementing the activities described in these standards, consistently emphasizing the following practices:
· Timely attorney appointment early in the judicial process.
· Meeting with the child promptly and often to assess the child’s needs and provide advice and counseling.
· Meeting with collaterals to assess child needs further and follow-up on plans.
· Ensuring in-depth attorney knowledgeable of the goals, and legal strategy associated with each case.
· Having access to additional supports and expertise to address special needs and disabilities.
· Actively representing the child in court by filing pleadings, requesting services and negotiating settlements.
Consistent with these, programs assembled templates, binders and outlines to guide attorney activities, and provide initial and ongoing training. The programs provided necessary administrative structures consistent with the Standards (supervisions and training, caseload limits, adequate compensation, and other supports).
Programs also tracked their attorneys’ adherence to practice standards and used the information to guide the content of training curricula and policies. For instance, the Connecticut Center for Child Advocacy tracked the accomplishment of key activities through hourly billing records submitted by contract lawyers, as well as through an automated tracking system. The statewide office is widely perceived to have improved the quality of child representation. Still, program administrators estimate that only 20 percent of attorneys are fully compliant with state statute consistent with SOP. This information is being used to make additional needed contract and policy changes, and develop training.
As a testament to their leadership in the improvement of representation, administrators noted they helped craft state and local legislation and policies implementing standards of practice. For instance, administrators of both New York City programs reported they were very involved with the development of the New York State Bar Standards, based on the 1996 ABA standards. The programs remain involved in shaping policy by serving on boards and commissions and filing class action suits.
Methods and Approaches to Implementing the Standards
Other findings include the following:
· Administrative Structure: Administratively, four of the five programs developed stand-alone (or specialized) offices, or units within larger offices, dedicated to representing dependent children for a given jurisdiction within a state. One program visited, the Connecticut Commission on Child Protection, deviated from this approach, developing standardized contracts for the attorneys representing children throughout the state.
· Staffing: The four specialized offices provided a teamed approach – attorneys were teamed with social work professionals. Programs differed with respect to whether all cases were teamed, or only a subset of cases. One program also supplied paralegals. Depending on their role, programs differed on the credentials they required of the social services professionals.
· Caps on Caseloads: All programs sought to limit the caseloads of attorneys. One program, (Children’s Law Center, Washington, DC), limited caseloads to approximately 30 per attorney; attorneys had investigator assistance. Remaining teamed programs’ caseloads ranged from 130 – 200. Connecticut, which did not employ a teamed approach sought to limit their lawyers to a child welfare caseload of 100, although they acknowledged that a minority had higher caseloads of 130 – 150 on average and that contract attorneys could carry other cases.
· Approach to Representation: Representation in three of the five offices was client directed, one reported a dual role, while another reported that their local statute required them to represent the child’s best interests which may be informed by the child’s wishes and the attorney must inform the court of the child’s wishes even if those wishes differ from the attorney’s recommendation. Differences emerged with respect to whether the office felt that client discussions with their social service professionals fell under the protection of client/attorney privileges.
· Initial and Ongoing Training: All programs appeared to have well-developed initial and ongoing training policies and protocols, offered these on a regular basis, and tracked completion of required courses. The content often focused on the practical aspects of representing children through the life of a case by providing hypothetical examples, or tracking the legal process over the life of the case. Child welfare law was also emphasized, as was child development, and other topics.
· Supervision and Mentoring: All programs also emphasized supervision and/or mentoring. Connecticut, the statewide contract program, provided an additional stipend for more experienced lawyers to mentor less experienced ones. Programs assembled staff to discuss both representative cases, and particularly problematic ones, on a regular basis as a learning and strategy-building experience.
· Specialized Expertise and Resources: Programs sought to build and develop expertise in areas needed by their client base. These working committees developed forms, resources, and trainings.
Finally, challenges to evaluating these mature programs emerged and were explored on-site:
· Four of the five programs had standing contracts covering the representation of all such children within their local jurisdiction, or all dependent children within the state (Connecticut). Therefore, a local comparison group would be very difficult to identify.
· The Children’s Law Center in Washington, DC was an exception, having a contract to serve approximately one-quarter of the DC child welfare population. However, the highly specialized nature of this program (facilitated by a caseload of approximately 30 per team) may make the approach less applicable to other jurisdictions across the country. Additionally, the modest number served by this program each year (500 ) would make it difficult for the program to detect differences in outcomes between a treatment and control group, and subgroup analysis would probably not be possible.
The remainder of this section explores each of these areas in greater depth. This is followed by information summarizing each program presented in tabular form.
Administrative Structure
Administratively, four of the five programs implemented the standards of practice by developing stand-alone offices, or units within larger offices, dedicated to representing dependent children for a given jurisdiction. Attorneys, supervisors, administrators, support staff and other specialized staff are housed in these offices, KidsVoice in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Lawyers for Children in New York City represent specialized offices dedicated to the representation of child welfare cases. . The Children’s Law Center in Washington, DC represents children in neglect proceedings as well as families in special education, health and mental health care, housing, custody, adoption and guardianship proceedings. The Juvenile Rights Practice within the Legal Aid Society of New York City is devoted to representing child welfare clients in dependency court as well as juvenile offenders. Through offices established in each of the five city boroughs, representation is provided to all children placed in foster care within New York City.
The administrative structure of the Connecticut Commission on Child Protection, under the direction of the Chief Child Protection Attorney, differs from these offices. The Chief Child Protection Attorney administers the statewide system governing the practice of the contract attorneys providing representation for child welfare cases. These contracts are renewed annually and are used to govern initial and ongoing training, caseloads, and practice.[1]
Staffing
The four specialized offices provided a teamed approach for all or some of the cases represented:
· Children’s Law Center, Washington, DC: All cases are teamed by an attorney and investigator. Some cases also have an attorney who specializes in special education law assigned to the team. One investigator is assigned to 3 – 4 attorneys. Investigators serve subpoenas, gather child records and other needed information, drive clients to appointments, and visit with and observe clients. Attorneys are required to meet with child every 45 days, but attorneys report that they meet with clients much more frequently. They conduct frequent visits with collaterals.
· KidsVoice, Pittsburgh, PA: The office uses a teamed approach, pairing an attorney with a social services professional on each case. The program views the two as equal partners and encourages them to reach consensus on their approach on recommendations for placement and services, differing in philosophy from the other teamed approaches in which the attorney ultimately decided the case focus and legal strategy. The attorney and social services professionals teamed vary across cases. The Child Advocacy Specialists are primarily recruited from other relevant service systems (education, foster care, mental health) etc. Program administrators note they “want more than social workers, they want to hire those with expertise in local services.”
· Lawyers for Children, New York City, NY: A teamed approach is used – an attorney and a social worker are assigned to each case. The program strives for continuity over time, meaning that the goal is for the same attorney and social worker to be teamed for the duration of each child’s case. Attorneys read records, appear in court, prepare for trials and summations, prepare for examining witnesses, subpoena parties, converse with collateral attorneys, and meet with clients. Social workers also meet independently with clients, meet with biological and foster parents, converse with caseworkers, and attend family meetings through which case plans are developed in concert with the family and their natural supports. The program requires their social workers to be New York State licensed MSW's. This requirement insures that when the LFC attorney calls the LFC social worker to take the stand as a witness for the child, the social worker can be qualified as expert witnesses in support of the child's legal position.
· Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Practice, New York City, NY: Each case receives an attorney who can pull in additional team members (social workers and paralegals) for discrete tasks as needed. There is one social worker available for every five attorneys. The ratio used to be 1:3; however, the program hired 50 additional attorneys (along with five attorney supervisors) to reduce the caseload and did not increase social work staff. Participants noted differences among attorneys regarding the degree to which they enlisted the assistance of these additional resources.
Attorneys must conduct the initial interview with the child and follow-up interviews. Social workers also visit with the child. Additionally, they conduct initial assessment, and help arrange for counseling and other needed services. They track cases to help ensure that clients are provided and access these services.
Paralegals are charged with conducting conflict checks upon receiving the petition at intake, completing required paperwork, and accessing records. They can also gather records for trial and can perform legal research.
Caps on Caseloads
All programs sought to make caseloads manageable by placing caps on the number of cases attorneys could serve. One program, (Children’s Law Center, Washington, DC), limited caseloads to approximately 30 open cases per attorney. Remaining teamed programs’ caseloads ranged from 100 – 160 open cases.
The state of Connecticut, which did not employ a teamed approach, sought to limit their lawyers to an open caseload of 100, although administrators acknowledged that a minority had higher caseloads of 130 – 150 on average. Additionally, they acknowledged that lawyers can and typically do carry other non-child welfare cases outside of their contract with the state to provide child representation. Lawyers For Children supplements the funds provided through their state contract with private foundation, individual and corporate support. This additional funding is used to maintain the 1:1 attorney social worker ratio and to keep caseloads as close as possible to 100 per team.
Approach to Representation
Representation in three of the five offices was client directed. One of these four (the Connecticut Commission on Child Protection) clarified that in instances in which the representative disagrees with the client’s direction, they can file a motion requesting another representative be appointed to the case to represent the child’s wishes. Lawyers for Children in New York City believes that NYS statutory language mandating that social workers report suspected cases of abuse and neglect precludes the full extension of the attorney-client privilege to the social worker and noted that they informed clients that their discussions with the social service professionals were not fully protected by client/attorney privilege.
One program, KidsVoice in Pittsburgh, PA noted attorneys play a dual role, representing the child’s best interests and informing the court of the child’s expressed wishes. Another program, the Children’s Law Center in Washington, DC reported that they are required by statute to represent the child’s best interests which may be informed by the child’s wishes, but they are not bound by their client’s wishes. Attorneys are also required to inform the court of their clients’ wishes, even if those wishes differ from the attorneys’ recommendations
Initial and Ongoing Training
All programs appeared to have well-developed initial and ongoing training policies and protocols, offered these on a regular basis, and tracked completion of required courses. The content often focused on the practical aspects of representing children through the life of a case by providing hypothetical examples, or tracking the legal process over the life of the case. Child welfare law was also emphasized, as was child development, and other topics:
· Office of the Chief Child Protection Attorney, Commission on Child Protection, CT: Three days of initial training are required. Every year thereafter, 2 days of ongoing training are required along with 2 bi-monthly trainings (required in state statute). Contract system helps ensure these requirements are met. The Center provides the training and tracks who attends.
· Children’s Law Center, Washington, DC: Initial attorney training consists of a 6-week course, including a week-long “boot camp” on basic skills and legal preparation. Ongoing trainings are conducted twice monthly, with the majority of attorneys attending.
· KidsVoice, Pittsburgh, PA: Initial training is 4-6 weeks in duration on a range of subjects in addition to shadowing. Ongoing training consists of monthly mandatory meetings—one for attorneys and one for Child Advocacy Specialists.
· Lawyers for Children, New York City, NY: Initial attorney training continues for the first two months on nearly a daily basis. New hires also attend the legal training offered by the Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Practice (the other notable program in New York City). New hires are transitioned onto cases during the two-month training period. These cases are teamed with supervisors and are used as a further training experience. One to one second seating at trial and supervision continues for at least the first six months for a newly admitted attorney. Ongoing in-service training is consistent with the program’s CLE accreditation requirements. Social workers have their own training, but often attend the attorney trainings if applicable.
· Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Practice, New York City, NY: In the past, the program relied on a comprehensive 5-6 week initial training, but it was difficult for newly hired attorneys to assimilate in a timely fashion. The new training has been broken down into three modules:
o 1 – 2 weeks of training and shadowing is offered three times per year; to be completed through the next course opening following hiring.
o Remaining initial training is completed in 1 – 2 hour blocks weekly, to be completed within 3 months of being assigned to an office.
o For 18 – 20 months following hiring, a trial advocacy training is being developed and put into place.
In-service training follows state certification guidelines. Local offices supplement this with needed specialized training. Social workers have their own training, but can attend the attorney and paralegal trainings if applicable. Paralegal training follows state certification guidelines.
Supervision and Mentoring
All programs also emphasized supervision and/or mentoring, although the stand-alone or specialized programs placed greater emphasis on this. Connecticut, the statewide contract program relied on mentoring, providing an additional stipend for more experienced lawyers to mentor less experienced ones. Programs assembled staff to discuss representative cases, as well as particularly problematic ones, on a regular basis as a learning and strategy-building experience.
Supervisor to staff ratios within the four specialized programs varied from a low of 1:5 (Children’s Law Center, Washington, DC) to a high of 1:12 (KidsVoice, Pittsburgh, PA). Lawyers for Children, New York City, NY reported a ratio of 1:5 and the two remaining programs each reported ratios of 1:6. Attorneys and social work professionals had dedicated supervisors in three of these programs, while supervisors at Kid’s Voice oversaw teams of attorneys and Child Advocacy Specialists.
Supervisors met with attorneys and teams on a regular basis to review case progress, provide advice, and resolve differences of opinion between team members. Typically, management meetings were calendared twice monthly, with other meetings held monthly: all staff meetings, social work professional meetings, attorney meetings, illustrative case discussions.
Specialized Expertise and Resources
Programs sought to build and develop expertise in areas needed by their client base. These working projects developed forms, resources, and trainings in the following areas.
· School issues and Special Education: Working with area schools on inappropriate discipline policies and alternative education programs. Process around advocating and developing Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs).
· Mental Health: Assisting clients applying for services and providing follow-up as the application is processed. Follow-up on denial of services and treatment to ensure that process was correctly followed.
· Benefits advocacy and appeals: Developing resources and training for staff to apply for Social Security and Disabilities benefits and appealing when these benefits are lost.
· Independent Living: Resources for clients aging out of foster care.
· Criminal representation and record expungment: Resources for clients facing criminal or delinquency charges. Packages developed for (former) clients to request that their juvenile record be expunged.
· LGBTQ: Resources for lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, and/or questioning youth.
· Homeless clients: Arranging for homeless children to have educational continuity by re-enrolling in their home school, arranging transportation, placements in shelters etc.
· Immigration: Helping clients negotiate immigration rules, forms, and issues.
· Youth Aging Out of Foster Care
· Child Sexual Abuse
· Domestic Violence
Although participation in these projects did not always result in lowered caseloads, staff initiated the work in these areas in order to provide them and their clients with additional resources and specialized expertise. They took obvious pride in these and were eager to showcase their efforts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the five offices visited provided important insights into mature programs’ approaches to implementing Best Practice Standards. The notable programs did this by supplementing attorney staffing with non-lawyers, making caseloads manageable, providing quality training and tracking its completion, emphasizing supervision and mentoring, and building specialized expertise and providing resources in needed areas. Stakeholders agreed that these efforts improved the quality of representation.