Connecticut's initial CIP assessment cited the need to improve the manner in which child dependency cases, especially temporary removal hearings and termination of parental rights cases, were scheduled and docketed. Continuances of hearings were found to be common when (1) parents requested representation at the preliminary hearing and (2) parties were not formally convened outside of the courtroom to review case management and service needs until two to four months into a case. Piloted in 1997, the Case Management Protocol is a system to assist in ensuring continuity in hearings and trials. Included in the protocol are pre-hearing conferences of professionals and the expanded availability of attorneys for indigent parents.
Attorneys for all parties, child welfare agency personnel and a trained facilitator participate in the pre-hearing Case Management Conference in an attempt to address all early procedural requirements of a case (notice, paternity, reasonable efforts, etc.) and to discuss issues such as settlement options. Stand-by attorneys are available to meet with eligible parents prior to the Case Management Conference to review paperwork and gather information to speak on the parent's behalf in the conference. The Case Management Conference is held on the same day as the Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) Hearing. The product of the Case Management Conference is a written case management order summarizing the central topics discussed during the meeting. The order is then submitted to the judge at the OTC hearing for approval and signature.
As shown by the logic model for Connecticut, it is anticipated that the Case Management Protocol will result in fewer contested hearings, earlier service assessments, earlier and increased visitation, earlier consideration of relative placements, and an earlier determination of the permanency goal. In turn, these outcomes will lead to the achievement of decreased time to permanency while maintaining child safety. Similarly, the State's use of stand-by attorneys may lead to earlier appointment of counsel, services, permanency and return home.
The most rigorous evaluation design possible for evaluating Connecticut's CIP reform is a matched-site comparison study. Relying on historical data, we are comparing the outcomes observed over time among jurisdictions that had implemented the reforms with those that had not yet done so.
To address differences among the sites resulting from activities not related to the case management protocol, we are collecting pre-reform data on our outcomes of interest and focusing on the "difference in differences" observed in two sites, Hartford and New Haven. This means we are measuring the difference in outcomes pre- and post- reform achieved in Hartford, an early reform jurisdiction, and comparing that observed difference to the difference in outcomes observed in New Haven, a jurisdiction that had not yet implemented the reforms in the same time period. Subsequently, we will measure outcomes for New Haven pre- and post- reform and compare that difference to any divergence in outcomes observed in Hartford, while their reforms remained in place. This will help us separate the impact of the reforms from other factors that might have influenced the observed outcomes over time. We are furthermore assessing differences in observed outcomes pre- and post-reform in all jurisdictions throughout the
state, but in a more limited fashion (i.e., those outcomes for which information can be supplied through administrative data).
In our analyses we will compare families that did and did not receive the case management protocol and examine their outcomes within a minimum of two years after their OTC hearing. We are collecting administrative data for all new Orders of Temporary Custody (OTCs) from November 1, 1996 to December 31, 2004, and following cases through December 31, 2006. Thus, for the last group of families on which we will collect information (those with OTCs in December 2004), we will have only two years of outcome data. Obviously for OTCs occurring earlier, we will be able to track outcomes over a much longer period of time.
In addition to these analyses, qualitative data in the forms of court observations and interviews with child welfare agency and court stakeholders has also been collected in Hartford and New Haven. The qualitative data is being used to provide context for the reform and to aid in explaining the quantitative data.
