Delaware's initial CIP assessment recommended that the court play a more active role in expediting permanency through: (1) setting dates and enforcing them at all key stages in the dependency process; and (2) holding parties accountable by scheduling more frequent hearings and requiring more information on which to base decisions. In response, Delaware implemented system-wide court reform consisting of multiple, interrelated interventions aimed at shortening time to permanency for dependent children. Key stakeholders in the state identified three of these reforms as critical:
One judge/one case assignment practice where one judge presides over all legal stages of a dependency case;
The provision of representation for indigent parents in child welfare proceedings.
In addition to the key reforms discussed above, the state implemented a range of other reforms reflecting the Resource Guidelines including: using time-certain docketing; expanding the CASA program; expanding training opportunities for judges, court staff, and child welfare workers; and enhancing the MIS system to better track case progress. Collectively, these reforms changed the basic structure of the hearing process. As a result, they are considered to be systemic in nature, making their individual impacts difficult to disentangle. Analysis is further complicated due to multiple reforms undertaken within the child welfare agency at the same time, which were implemented to improve casework quality and caseworker retention rates.
As shown in the Delaware logic model presented below, the three key reforms are expected to lead to earlier identification of fathers and relatives, increased visitation, improved compliance with case planning, and reductions in continuances and delays. In turn, these reforms lead to earlier permanency while maintaining child safety.
The selected study site is New Castle County, Delaware. A qualitative analysis is being conducted to document the process of implementing the systemic reforms in the county, and to describe the perceived impact that the interrelated reforms have had on the short-term outcomes specified in the logic model. Qualitative data collection includes court observations as well as interviews with judges, judicial case managers, attorneys, CASA volunteers, and Department of Family Services (DFS) administrators, supervisors, and caseworkers. Conducting a qualitative analysis in Delaware is important because its CIP reforms fundamentally changed the way in which both the Family Court and DFS process child dependency cases, and it provides insight into the issues surrounding the dramatically increased role of the courts.
The qualitative analysis is strengthened by a variation of a pre/post-test quasi-experimental design to assess selected long-term outcomes for two separate groups of children. Children entering the system prior to the implementation of the court reforms (non-CIP track) are being compared with those entering the system after the implementation of the court reforms (CIP track). The pre-CIP sample was drawn from cases entering the system in 1999 and the post-CIP sample was drawn from cases entering the system in 2001. (Most cases entering the system pre-CIP were maintained in a separate court hearing track from post-CIP cases.) The aggregate achievement of outcomes for these two groups will be compared.
In addition, a sample of the cases in the administrative data will be identified for case record reviews. The reviews will be used to assess short-term and intermediate outcomes that cannot be measured with the administrative data.
Given the comprehensiveness and simultaneity of court and child welfare reform, it is not possible to attribute outcomes achieved to specific interventions or strategies. However, the lessons that can be learned from this site are fundamental to CIP, and will be especially valuable for other sites that wish to undertake comprehensive reform.
