The initial CIP assessment conducted in 1996 cited numerous issues in the child welfare and court systems in Texas. Although there were interim deadlines in dependency court processes, the path to permanency for children in foster care could be extended for years. Additionally, judicial caseloads were excessively high, insufficient judicial attention was given to child dependency cases and judges were insufficiently trained on child welfare issues. The recommended priorities for the Texas Court Improvement Program in 1996 were:
To seek statutory changes establishing new permanency guidelines to limit the time children remained in temporary foster care, and
To expand the use of associate or visiting judges to hear child dependency cases.
In 1998, the new Texas Permanency Guidelines that went into effect required (1) dismissal of a case or (2) the entrance of a Final Order within one year of the initial hearing after removal of a child from the home. State officials feared that judges in rural counties would have difficulty complying with the new timeframes, and in response they formed specialized courts by clustering primarily rural counties together to create a full child dependency caseload for an associate or visiting judge with specialized training in child welfare. The judge would travel to one or more counties in a given day to hear all the child dependency cases in the county. The first piloted "cluster courts" in 1997 and 1998 were able to clear a backlog of child dependency cases. By 2000 and 2001, the Texas Legislature appropriated funding for dedicated child protection courts.
Currently there are 15 dedicated Child Protection Courts (formerly known as Cluster Courts) serving 121 primarily rural counties in Texas. As shown in the Texas logic model presented below, the implementation of dedicated Child Protection Courts is expected to lead to greater compliance with statutory timeframes, improved court tracking and documentation, fewer scheduling conflicts, more active participation and attendance of parties, additional hearings as needed, earlier appointment of parental representation, and improved information exchange. In turn, these reforms lead to earlier permanency while maintaining child safety.
Because all foster care cases in counties within a Child Protection Court are required to be referred to that court upon placement into out-of-home care, a quasi-experimental evaluation approach is being used. The study sample includes children entering CPS legal responsibility between September 1, 2001 and August 31, 2004, with each child tracked for a minimum of two years. Thus, data is being collected through August 31, 2006.
Outcomes for cases in Child Protection Court counties are being compared to those in non-Child Protection Court counties, using a "differences of differences" model to analyze the impact of the reform. Comparing the relative differences in outcomes between the two types of counties provides:
Insights into the relative impact of the implementation of the Child Protection Courts
Insights into the relative impact between Child Protection Courts (for instance, those implemented earlier as opposed to those implemented later, or differences in the training, background and/or judicial experience of judges).
Site visits, consisting of court observation and interviews with key stakeholders, were conducted in eight rural Texas counties, six with a Child Protection Court and two without. Interview data provides descriptive information on the implementation and impact of CIP reforms and contextual data on other court and child welfare reforms implemented during the study timeframe.
