A New Method of Assessing Judicial Workload in Juvenile Dependency Cases

Abstract

This article describes a new method for calculating judicial workload in dependency or child abuse and neglect cases. In contrast to traditional judicial workload methods, the method described herein produces estimates of judicial workload that take into account the complex role of the juvenile dependency court judge-a role that includes both on-and off-the-bench activities. The method provides workload estimates that give guidance to courts not only about the minimally sufficient judicial resources needed to accommodate current caseload needs, but also what level of judicial resources would be required to hold substantive dependency court hearings that comport with nationally recognized practice recommendations. The article reviews commonly used judicial workload methods, outlines the new method, and uses a pilot of the method as an example of how the method works in practice. Broader implications of this workload method are also discussed.

From ambiguity to action: Reframing child safety measurement in the child welfare court system

“…The most commonly adapted definition is a new filing of a petition after the case has closed or achieved permanency, which has been used in multiple court evaluation efforts (e.g., Gonzalez & Summers, 2014; Shdaimah & Summers, 2013; Summers, Gatowski, & Gueller, 2017; Zinn & Slowriver, 2008). There have been several variations on this metric, including whether there is a new removal after a trial home visit or a return of the child to the care of their parent (Harper, Brennan, & Szolnoki, 2005; Summers et al., 2011), whether there are additional petitions alleging abuse or neglect (Casanueva et al., 2013), and whether a child had a substantiated investigation within 24 months following petition filing (Gerber et al., 2019). In the research literature, safety outcomes have also included a broader definition, including percentage of children with an outcome of death or runaway (Pitchal, Freundlich, & Kendrick, 2009).…”

Examining the Judge's role in achieving permanency for children in Foster Care: Judicial best practice‐focused performance measurement

“…To help courts in implementing JCAMP, a series of guides and template tools have been published outlining a six‐step process to a successful court performance measurement effort: (1) forming an interdisciplinary team, (2) selecting and prioritizing measures, (3) visualizing a path, (4) getting data, (5) using data, and (6) sustaining performance measurement efforts (Gatowski et al., 2022; Summers et al., 2022b). The JCAMP implementation process stresses the importance of having diversity in performance measurement teams, including people with lived experience on those teams (and as participants in the measurement process) and building a measurement approach that allows for disaggregation of data by the race and ethnicity of families to build capacity for obtaining data on disparities (Gatowski et al., 2022; Summers et al., 2022a; Summers & Cantamessa, 2024).…”

“…To engage, interested pilot and implementation sites were required to assemble a multidisciplinary team and commit to receiving guidance and assistance from the JCAMP Technical Assistance (TA) Team. Throughout their implementation process, sites received written implementation materials and tools (e.g., Gatowski et al., 2022; Summers et al., 2022b) as well as direct support from the TA team, including aiding sites in assessing their data capacity, choosing and prioritizing among the measures, and selecting suitable data collection methods for each measure (see Johnson & Schulterbrandt, 2024 for more detail about the JCAMP implementation sites and process).…”