FFY 2019 Court Performance Measures Report

8/25/2020 Indiana Court Improvement Program

Colleen Saylor CIP Data Analyst Angela Reid-Brown CIP Administrator LaJuan Epperson Project Manager, Trial Court Technology

This report and the statewide collec�on of metrics is made possible by Court Improvement Program funding granted to the Indiana Supreme Court by the United States Department of

Health and Human Services, Administra�on for Children and Families

Court Improvement Program Court Performance Measures Report

Fiscal Year 2019 Reporting Period 10/1/2018 – 9/30/2019

Introduction

The Court Performance Measures were established by Administrative Rule 1(F) in 2013 to track and measure court performance in Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) and Termination of Parental Rights (“TPR”) cases. The Court Performance Measures allows courts to assess compliance with state and national standards, identify strengths and areas needing improvement, improve quality and timeliness of hearings and ultimately improve outcomes for children and families involved with child judicial proceedings. Nine of the Court Performance Measures are taken from Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, commonly known as the “Toolkit.” The Toolkit is a set of resources developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National Center on State Courts, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law in 2008. One measure is an expansion of a Toolkit Measure. The Toolkit Measures were selected based in part on the importance to court function and relevance of these data to title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility and Child and Family Service Reviews authorized by the 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act. Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews monitors the federal Title IV-E Foster Care Program, which provides funds to states to assist with the costs of foster care maintenance for eligible children. Child and Family Service Reviews (“CFSR”) evaluate child and family services to ensure conformity with federal child welfare requirements; determine what is actually happening to children and families engaged in child welfare services and assist states in enhancing their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. The CFSR national standards for timely achievement of permanency provide a focus on the child welfare agency’s responsibility to reunify or place children in safe and permanent homes as soon as possible after removal. The national standard for reunification is 12 months, in Indiana the median time to reunification is slightly higher at 14.2 months (see page 26). The national standard for a permanency outcome of adoption is 24 months, in Indiana the median time to adoption is significantly greater at 34.8 months (see page 26). The national standard for a permanency outcome of guardianship is 18 months, Indiana’s median time to guardianship is very close at 18.7 months (see page 26). The overall median time to permanency has increased 43% since 2015 (see page 20). The 2018 data shows CHINS caseloads began decreasing in 2018 with JC filings at 15,375 and 2019 figures at 13,610 (see page 27). The median time to permanency increased by 13% from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 despite

State of Indiana

the recent reduction in CHINS caseloads (see page 20). With a national and state focus on adoption permanency, the median Indiana time to permanency for those children with a permanency plan of adoption was 1,044 days (2.9 years). Reunification continues to be the most frequent outcome for permanency, with 4,294 cases being closed with a median time to permanency of just 426 days (see page 26). Time from filing of the CHINS petition to filing of termination of parental rights showed only a 1% increase (see page 12) and time to termination of parental rights increased by 4% from FFY 2018 data (see page 15). Indiana has consistently maintained a state median time to first permanency hearing of less than twelve months from the filing of the CHINS petition, in compliance with the Indiana Code (see page 8). The county breakdown of this metric shows a small number of counties with a median greater than one year, but a majority of those counties have fewer than fifty cases in their sample. Once a case requires additional subsequent permanency hearings, Indiana places a high priority in scheduling these hearings. The median time to additional subsequent permanency hearings is just over six months with an even shorter time between permanency hearings for the next scheduled permanency hearing.

The metric which tracks the median number of days between the filing of the original CHINS petition and the issuance of an order adjudicating a CHINS reflects this process is taking a median of 53 days throughout the state for FFY 2019 (see page 1)This has been consistently below the statutory requirement of 60 days, unless an extension is agreed, in the years this metric has been tracked.

This report lists several metrics, such as time to filing termination of parental rights and time to first permanency hearing with both a multi-year comparison graph and FFY 2019 by county chart. Some of the data in the county wide chart should be carefully considered based on the number of cases contained in the sample. Many counties that have lengthier times in these categories have very few cases to evaluate. Individual cases may require more time to serve the best interest of the child and families and are not able to be balanced out in volume of cases when looking at the median days for a measurement. Effective drug treatment can take multiple months and sometimes more than a year to complete. If parents are making consistent progress towards reunification, trial courts may be allowing parents to continue to work toward achieving reunification with their children even after the federal requirement to file a termination of parental rights petition when a child has been placed outside the home for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months. Thus, where a county’s data is based on only a small number of cases (particularly less than ten), caution should be used before making negative inferences about the county’s commitment to timely permanency.

Overall, the 2019 Court Performance Measures indicate that there continues to be a delay in the processing of cases through the system in some areas. The most concerning is the time to permanency, and more specifically, those cases with a permanency outcome of adoption. There are other measures that show Indiana in compliance with statutory requirements and many counties remain well under the median times in those metrics. Indiana does a great job in holding the first permanency hearing within twelve months and subsequent permanency hearings much sooner than required. The Court Improvement Program will continue to monitor these metrics amidst federal child welfare reform initiatives and substantial practice changes by the Indiana Department of Child Services.

State of Indiana Court Improvement Program – Performance Measures Report Fiscal Year 2019

State Data Summary The data in this report includes only those cases that opened on or after October 1, 2014 and closed (the CHINS

wardship was terminated) between October 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019

4B. Time to Adjudication 53 days (median number of days between filing and the issuance of an order adjudication a CHINS) 4D. Time to Disposition Hearing 81 days (median number of days between filing and the issuance of a dispositional decree) 4E. Timeliness of Dispositional Hearing 1-20 days 35% (percentage of cases in which disposition occurs within listed days of adjudication) 11-30 days 37% 31-60 days 16% More than 60 days 11% 4G. Time to First Permanency Hearing 348 days (median time from the filing of the original CHINS petition to first permanency hearing) 4N. Time to Subsequent Permanency Hearing (median time from the filing of the original CHINS petition to each subsequent permanency hearing) First Subsequent Permanency Hearing 189 days Second Subsequent Permanency Hearing 166.5 days Third Subsequent Permanency Hearing 147 days Fourth Subsequent Permanency Hearing 110 days Fifth Subsequent Permanency Hearing 105 days 4H. Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition 524.5 days (median time from the filing of the original CHINS petition to the filing of the TPR petition) 4I. Time to Termination of Parental Rights 736 days (median time from the filing of the original CHINS petition to the order of termination of parental rights) 4J. Timeliness of Parental Rights Proceedings (percentage of cases in which there is a final TPR order within listed days of the TPR petition)

within 90 days 12% within 120 days 11% within 180 days 25% more than 180 days 52% 4K. Time from Disposition Hearing to Termination of Parental Rights 0-3 months 2% (percentage of cases in which TPR is filed within listed months of disposition) 4-6 months 4% 7-12 months 25% 12-18 months 37% More than 18 months 24% 4A. Time to Permanent Placement 591.5 days (median time from the filing of original CHINS petition to legal permanency) Time to Reunification 426 days Time to Adoption 1044 days Time to Guardianship 561 days Time to Relative Placement 536 days Time to APPLA 806 days

Throughout the report the median of data is used. The median is a simple measure of central tendency. To find the median, we arrange the data in order from smallest to largest value. If

there is an odd number of data points, the median is the middle value. If there is an even number of data points, the median is the average of the two middle values.

STATE DATA FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2019

STATE METRICS SUMMARY PAGEEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GRAPHS AND CHARTS

1-3

4-64E: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing 7

8-104N: Time to Subsequent Permanency Hearings 11

12 - 14

15 - 174J: Timeliness of Parental Rights Proceedings by County - Percentage 184K: Time from Disposition Hearing to Termination of Parental Rights - Percentage 19

20 - 22

23-254A: Median State Time to Permanency by Permanency Type 26

APPENDIX

27

Yearly comparisons use FFY 2015 through FFY 2019, unless data was not being collected during that time range

Table of Contents

State of Indiana

4H: Median State Time to Filing of Termination of Parental Rights (TPR), by county- high to low, by county - alphabetical4I: Median State Time from CHINS Filing to Termination of Parental Rights (TPR), by county- high to low, by county - alphabetical

4A: Median Time to Permanency by County for Adoption Type, by county- high to low, by county - alphabetical

4B: Median State Time to Adjudication, by county- high to low, by county - alphabetical4D: Median State Time to Disposition, by county- high to low, by county - alphabetical

4G: Time to First Permanency Hearing, by county- high to low, by county - alphabetical

4A: Median State Time to Permanency, by county- high to low, by county - alphabetical

Appendix A - CHINS Cases (JT) and Termination of Parental Rights (JT) cases filed 2015 - 2019

4449

5358

63 64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2017 2018 2019

Days

to A

djud

ciat

ion

Federal Fiscal Year

Median Days to Adjudication Average Days to Adjudication

4B: Time (in Days) to Adjudication - this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINSpetition and the date upon which the child’s factfinding hearing was completed.

State Statute: Indiana Code 31-34-11-1 requires the juvenile court to complete a factfinding hearing not more than 60 days after a petition alleging that a child is a child in need of services is filed. The juvenile court may extend the time to complete a factfinding hearing for an additional 60 days if all parties in the action consent to the additional time.

Explanation: This measure shows the time it takes from the date the proceedings have formally begun to the date on which the case has been adjudicated. “Adjudication” refers to the court’s formal finding as to whether or not a child is a child in need of services.

Purpose: To help courts evaluate their efficiency and their impact on abused and neglected children. The timeliness of adjudication figures significantly in the timeliness of permanency for abused and neglected children, especially those who have been placed in foster care.

Analysis: There has been a 20% increase in the median and a 14% increase in the average time to adjudication since 2017 when data first started being collected for this measure. The median increase from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 is 8% and the average increase from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 is 2%. The median is the "middle" value in the list of numbers, which can minimize the impact of the cases with the extreme high or low values. The average is the sum of all numbers divided by the total number of values.

Possible Improvements:

• Hold earlier pretrial hearings or require pretrial hearings in every case, especially where service of process hasnot been completed within a specified date

• Implement a mediation program• Set and enforce strict criteria for granting continuances• Meet with stakeholders to identify and reduce delays in adjudication

Page 1

Benton and LaGrange county’s data were incomplete, measures could not be calculated.

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to adjudication

Average days to adjudication County

Number of cases

Median days to adjudication

Average days to adjudication

Jennings 84 106 131 LaPorte 97 51 62Steuben 43 98 129 Jackson 75 50 79Marion 1,864 98 97 Clark 129 50 59Lawrence 114 96 117 Wayne 85 50 58Boone 46 94 109 Daviess 59 50 48Brown 46 91 105 Marshall 49 49 52Union 8 81 71 Montgomery 94 49 52Orange 44 81 100 Washington 14 49 1Henry 106 77 89 Spencer 72 49 62Hendricks 74 77 91 Noble 80 48 68White 10 75 65 DeKalb 40 47 64Warren 8 73 64 Johnson 138 45 57Switzerland 22 71 69 Morgan 143 45 55Kosciusko 49 70 95 Fulton 57 44 46Shelby 73 70 81 Cass 35 43 44Miami 28 69 73 Putnam 87 43 41Tippecanoe 200 68 73 Newton 10 43 39Blackford 24 68 205 Jay 55 42 53Delaware 259 67 92 Vigo 243 42 52Hamilton 96 67 79 Clay 58 40 37Randolph 53 67 73 Posey 94 37 62Knox 66 66 68 Huntington 16 36 93Ohio 2 66 66 Hancock 41 36 39Monroe 167 65 71 Sullivan 81 36 38Lake 602 64 87 Carroll 34 35 55Perry 43 63 120 Decatur 84 34 50Crawford 27 63 86 Floyd 152 32 49Martin 26 61 43 Wells 60 31 36Parke 18 61 63 Allen 366 29 39Fayette 64 60 80 Whitley 52 28 42Scott 105 60 66 Gibson 159 28 37Tipton 44 60 72 Vermillion 37 26 46Owen 71 59 75 Starke 61 26 31Franklin 21 59 64 Wabash 65 25 38Dearborn 94 59 58 Pike 3 24 31Jefferson 65 58 70 Porter 120 22 37Grant 98 57 65 St. Joseph 382 21 37Pulaski 29 56 64 Adams 75 20 34Harrison 40 55 58 Dubois 66 15 25Jasper 45 55 57 Vanderburgh 619 12 18Fountain 52 55 57 Elkhart 186 11 19Rush 13 55 46 Warrick 109 9 39Howard 115 54 55 Madison 248 6 10Ripley 70 54 47 Clinton 87 1 18Bartholomew 106 54 70 LaGrange 0Greene 59 53 55 Benton 0STATEWIDE 10,110 53 64

4B: Time (in Days) to Adjudication – listed by county (highest to lowest) – this measures the mediantime between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the date upon which the child’s factfinding hearing was completed.

Page 2

Benton and LaGrange county’s data were incomplete, measures could not be calculated

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to adjudication

Average days to adjudication County

Number of cases

Median days to adjudication

Average days to adjudication

Adams 75 20 34 Madison 248 6 10Allen 366 29 39 Marion 1,864 98 97Bartholomew 106 54 70 Marshall 49 49 52Benton 0 Martin 26 61 43Blackford 24 68 205 Miami 28 69 73Boone 46 94 109 Monroe 167 65 71Brown 46 91 105 Montgomery 94 49 52Carroll 34 35 55 Morgan 143 45 55Cass 35 43 44 Newton 10 43 39Clark 129 50 59 Noble 80 48 68Clay 58 40 37 Ohio 2 66 66Clinton 87 1 18 Orange 44 81 100Crawford 27 63 86 Owen 71 59 75Daviess 59 50 48 Parke 18 61 63Dearborn 94 59 58 Perry 43 63 120Decatur 84 34 50 Pike 3 24 31DeKalb 40 47 64 Porter 120 22 37Delaware 259 67 92 Posey 94 37 62Dubois 66 15 25 Pulaski 29 56 64Elkhart 186 11 19 Putnam 87 43 41Fayette 64 60 80 Randolph 53 67 73Floyd 152 32 49 Ripley 70 54 47Fountain 52 55 57 Rush 13 55 46Franklin 21 59 64 Scott 105 60 66Fulton 57 44 46 Shelby 73 70 81Gibson 159 28 37 Spencer 72 49 62Grant 98 57 65 St. Joseph 382 21 37Greene 59 53 55 Starke 61 26 31Hamilton 96 67 79 STATEWIDE 10,110 53 64Hancock 41 36 39 Steuben 43 98 129Harrison 40 55 58 Sullivan 81 36 38Hendricks 74 77 91 Switzerland 22 71 69Henry 106 77 89 Tippecanoe 200 68 73Howard 115 54 55 Tipton 44 60 72Huntington 16 36 93 Union 8 81 71Jackson 75 50 79 Vanderburgh 619 12 18Jasper 45 55 57 Vermillion 37 26 46Jay 55 42 53 Vigo 243 42 52Jefferson 65 58 70 Wabash 65 25 38Jennings 84 106 131 Warren 8 73 64Johnson 138 45 57 Warrick 109 9 39Knox 66 66 68 Washington 14 49 1Kosciusko 49 70 95 Wayne 85 50 58LaGrange 0 Wells 60 31 36Lake 602 64 87 White 10 75 65LaPorte 97 51 62 Whitley 52 28 42Lawrence 114 96 117

4B: Time (in Days) to Adjudication – listed by county (alphabetical) – this measures the mediantime between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the date upon which the child’s factfinding hearing was completed.

Page 3

70

7781

99103

109

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2017 2018 2019

Days

to D

ispos

ition

Federal Fiscal Year

Median Days to Disposition Average Days to Disposition

4D: Time (in Days) to Disposition – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the date of the child’s dispositional hearing.

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the time a case begins to the disposition hearing.

Purpose: To help courts evaluate the timeliness of the disposition hearing. Timeliness of disposition is a significant factor in the timeliness of permanency.

Analysis: There has been a 16% increase in the median and a 10% increase in the average time to adjudication since 2017 when data first started being collected for this measure. The median increase from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 is 5% and the average increase is. is 6%. The median is the "middle" value in the list of numbers, which can minimize the impact of the cases with the extreme high or low values. The average is the sum of all numbers divided by the total number of values.

Possible Improvements:

• Establish case flow management techniques, conduct training, and periodically measure and report on the results.

• Involve the child welfare agency in meetings and training programs aimed at improving the timeliness of agency predisposition reports, also include others who contribute information to these reports or prepare their own reports

• Set and enforce strict policies regarding the timely filing of predisposition reports • Assign responsibilities to court employees to monitor delays in disposition and bring delays to the attention of

the judge

Page 4

Benton, LaGrange, LaPorte and St. Joseph county’s data were incomplete, measures could not be calculated accurately.

CountyNumber of Cases

Median days to Disposition

Average Days to Disposition County

Number of Cases

Median days to Disposition

Average Days to Disposition

St. Joseph 2 564 564 Henry 106 80 99Gibson 144 356 425 Switzerland 22 79 96Washington 14 339 384 Dearborn 94 79 79Morgan 143 189 308 Posey 93 77 108Hancock 38 187 271 Perry 1 77 77Jennings 83 170 175 Montgomery 94 75 79Orange 44 159 255 Daviess 59 75 77Warren 7 151 189 Rush 12 75 78Delaware 259 141 159 Jay 55 74 88Hendricks 74 140 202 Miami 28 72 84Lawrence 114 133 149 Lake 592 71 100Steuben 43 126 158 Vermillion 37 71 88Boone 46 126 139 Huntington 13 69 159Knox 65 121 117 Bartholomew 106 69 84Brown 46 120 146 Johnson 131 67 130Martin 26 117 86 Pulaski 28 67 80Greene 59 107 108 Newton 9 65 60Hamilton 96 106 153 DeKalb 39 63 85Marion 1,852 106 111 Sullivan 81 62 66Union 8 105 105 Floyd 152 61 88Randolph 51 104 123 Vigo 242 61 75Shelby 72 103 115 Scott 105 61 70Crawford 27 102 250 Putnam 84 60 98Franklin 21 100 98 Marshall 49 60 73Blackford 23 98 249 Howard 108 60 67Grant 98 97 114 Jackson 75 59 89Fayette 64 97 108 Cass 35 57 62Parke 18 97 98 Clay 57 56 66Kosciusko 49 95 115 Starke 59 53 108White 10 95 85 Pike 3 52 57Owen 71 94 104 Wabash 65 50 66Jefferson 65 93 101 Porter 120 50 61Ohio 2 93 93 Dubois 64 47 53Tipton 42 92 106 Fulton 57 44 46Clark 129 91 228 Madison 217 43 69Decatur 81 91 94 Warrick 105 42 69Noble 79 87 106 Wells 58 41 49Tippecanoe 200 87 100 Vanderburgh 607 41 49Harrison 40 87 83 Adams 75 39 53Monroe 152 85 196 Elkhart 186 38 42Spencer 71 84 100 Clinton 85 36 49Fountain 52 84 87 Whitley 52 33 52Carroll 34 83 87 Allen 366 30 52Ripley 69 82 111 LaPorte 0Jasper 44 82 88 LaGrange 0Wayne 85 81 122 Benton 0STATEWIDE 9,438 81 109

4D: Time (in Days) to Disposition – listed by county (highest to lowest) Disposition – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the date of the child’s dispositional hearing.

Page 5

Benton, LaGrange, LaPorte and St. Joseph county’s data were incomplete, measures could not be calculated accurately.

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to disposition

Average days to disposition County

Number of cases

Median days to disposition

Average days to disposition

Adams 75 39 53 Madison 217 43 69Allen 366 30 52 Marion 1,852 106 111Bartholomew 106 69 84 Marshall 49 60 73Benton 0 Martin 26 117 86Blackford 23 98 249 Miami 28 72 84Boone 46 126 139 Monroe 152 85 196Brown 46 120 146 Montgomery 94 75 79Carroll 34 83 87 Morgan 143 189 308Cass 35 57 62 Newton 9 65 60Clark 129 91 228 Noble 79 87 106Clay 57 56 66 Ohio 2 93 93Clinton 85 36 49 Orange 44 159 255Crawford 27 102 250 Owen 71 94 104Daviess 59 75 77 Parke 18 97 98Dearborn 94 79 79 Perry 1 77 77Decatur 81 91 94 Pike 3 52 57DeKalb 39 63 85 Porter 120 50 61Delaware 259 141 159 Posey 93 77 108Dubois 64 47 53 Pulaski 28 67 80Elkhart 186 38 42 Putnam 84 60 98Fayette 64 97 108 Randolph 51 104 123Floyd 152 61 88 Ripley 69 82 111Fountain 52 84 87 Rush 12 75 78Franklin 21 100 98 Scott 105 61 70Fulton 57 44 46 Shelby 72 103 115Gibson 144 356 425 Spencer 71 84 100Grant 98 97 114 St. Joseph 2 564 564Greene 59 107 108 Starke 59 53 108Hamilton 96 106 153 STATEWIDE 9,438 81 109Hancock 38 187 271 Steuben 43 126 158Harrison 40 87 83 Sullivan 81 62 66Hendricks 74 140 202 Switzerland 22 79 96Henry 106 80 99 Tippecanoe 200 87 100Howard 108 60 67 Tipton 42 92 106Huntington 13 69 159 Union 8 105 105Jackson 75 59 89 Vanderburgh 607 41 49Jasper 44 82 88 Vermillion 37 71 88Jay 55 74 88 Vigo 242 61 75Jefferson 65 93 101 Wabash 65 50 66Jennings 83 170 175 Warren 7 151 189Johnson 131 67 130 Warrick 105 42 69Knox 65 121 117 Washington 14 339 384Kosciusko 49 95 115 Wayne 85 81 122LaGrange 0 Wells 58 41 49Lake 592 71 100 White 10 95 85LaPorte 0 Whitley 52 33 52Lawrence 114 133 149

4D: Time (in Days) to Disposition – listed by county (alphabetical) Disposition – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the date of the child’s dispositional hearing.

Page 6

35%

41%

17%

6%

35%39%

17%

9%

35%37%

16%

11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1-10 Days 11-30 Days 31-60 Days > 60 Days

2017 2018 2019

4E: Timeliness of Disposition Hearing - this shows the percentage of cases in which disposition occurs within listed days of adjudication.

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding, this data was not tracked prior to 2017

State Statutes: Indiana Code 31-34-19-1 requires the juvenile court to complete a dispositional hearing not more than 30 days after the date the court finds that a child is a child in need of services.

Explanation: This measure shows the percentage of child abuse or neglect cases for which a disposition hearing is held within reasonable periods of time following adjudication.

Purpose: To help courts evaluate the timeliness of disposition hearings.

Analysis: The percentage of cases which completed disposition in 1-10 days and 31-60 has remained consistent the pasts three years. The percentage of cases which completed disposition in 11-30 days has decreased yearly with a 34% decrease from the date the figures were first tracked in 2017 to 2019 and a 31% decrease from last fiscal year to 2019. Unfortunately, the cases that were taking more than 60 days to complete disposition have increased 83% from 2017 to 2019 and 22% from 2018 to 2019. The figures for >60 days are a low percentage of the overall cases, but the increase is still a concern. 72% of the total cases for FFY 2019 were completed within the 30-day timeframe. The median is the "middle" value in the list of numbers, which can minimize the impact of the cases with the extreme high or low values. The average is the sum of all numbers divided by the total number of values.

Possible Improvements:

• Establish case flow management techniques, conduct training, and periodically measure and report on the results

• Involve the child welfare agency in meetings and training programs aimed at improving the timeliness of agency predisposition reports. Also include others who contribute information to these reports or prepare their own reports

• If disposition hearings occur very quickly after adjudication and are not thorough or complete, enhance requirements for disposition by strengthening the content of predisposition court reports and post disposition court orders

• Set and enforce strict policies regarding the content and timely filing of predisposition reports. • Assign responsibilities to court employees to monitor delays in disposition hearings and bring delays to the

attention of the judge

Page 7

324 334 344 345 348

275 278

314 317 327

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Days

to F

irst P

erm

anen

cy H

earin

g

Median Days to First Permanency Hearing Average Days to First Permanency Hearing

4G: Time (In Days) to First Permanency Hearing – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the first permanency hearing.

State Statute: Indiana Code IC 31-34-21-7(a) requires the court to hold a permanency hearing not more than 30 days after a court finds that reasonable efforts to reunify or preserve a child’s family are not required; every 12 months after the date of the original dispositional decree; or a child in need of services was removed for the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; whichever comes first; or more often if ordered by the juvenile court.

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes to complete the first permanency hearing. Under this measure, the time begins to run with the filing of the original petition and ends on the day the first permanency hearing is completed.

Purpose: To help courts comply with minimum times set by Federal and State laws by which States must complete permanency hearings.

Analysis: There has been a 7% increase in median and 19% increase in the average time to first permanency hearing from FFY 2015 to FFY 2019. The median increase from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 is only 1% and the average increase is only 3%.

Possible Improvements:

• Organize and participate in case flow management training as part of an overall effort to reduce delays and meet court deadlines.

• Refine and enforce deadlines for adjudication, disposition, review, and permanency hearings. • Develop and enforce strict grounds and procedures for continuances. Track and measure delays in adjudication,

disposition, review, and permanency hearings. • Develop a project to reduce delays.

o Assign to court employees the responsibility for monitoring delays and bringing them to the judges’ attention. This could be done using automated information system exception reports.

o Identify causes of delays in adjudication, disposition, review, and permanency hearings. o Involve agency representatives, attorney groups, and others. o Identify and implement solutions.

Page 8

Benton and Perry county’s data were incomplete, measures could not be calculated

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to 1st permanency

hearing

Average days to 1st permanency

hearing CountyNumber of cases

Median days to 1st permanency

hearing

Average days to 1st permanency

hearingUnion 7 438 420 Vermillion 23 349 335DeKalb 17 411 422 Lawrence 87 349 381Switzerland 18 407 392 Johnson 110 349 385Starke 28 399 595 Ripley 45 348 390Jennings 52 374 431 STATEWIDE 7,283 348 327Pulaski 5 370 359 Pike 1 347 347Orange 30 370 469 Hamilton 62 347 332Huntington 13 367 454 Dearborn 58 347 355Grant 73 367 373 Allen 336 347 337Noble 44 366 364 Vigo 193 346 349Jefferson 49 366 398 Jay 25 343 338Washington 8 365 337 Tipton 13 342 358White 3 364 364 Vanderburgh 263 341 338Madison 179 364 374 Parke 6 340 350Delaware 192 363 384 Shelby 48 338 375Boone 31 363 379 Spencer 36 334 331Steuben 22 362 359 Posey 57 333 349Clay 41 361 364 Wells 57 332 324Jackson 52 361 371 Adams 60 331 320Morgan 77 360 371 Decatur 47 329 335Crawford 1 360 360 Daviess 36 329 345Wayne 63 359 358 Carroll 31 329 337Newton 7 359 353 Sullivan 28 328 320Blackford 15 359 572 Miami 25 328 323Floyd 118 359 364 Knox 53 328 335Wabash 37 358 364 Putnam 49 327 348Marion 1,512 358 347 Randolph 25 325 316Clark 100 358 377 Clinton 48 325 335Whitley 35 357 358 Fountain 29 323 310Monroe 140 357 351 Warrick 58 322 363Harrison 24 357 366 Marshall 26 322 357Franklin 21 357 417 Tippecanoe 177 321 319Fayette 47 357 351 Greene 13 321 395Bartholomew 92 357 352 Warren 1 318 318Kosciusko 29 356 380 Owen 53 318 316Henry 62 355 358 Scott 80 316 314Ohio 2 354 354 Cass 20 313 306Montgomery 68 353 358 Elkhart 153 308 306Howard 68 353 351 Martin 17 297 262Hancock 32 353 350 Fulton 33 296 299Rush 3 352 345 Dubois 48 281 288Hendricks 57 352 354 St. Joseph 357 183 203Brown 33 352 369 Lake 592 163 187LaPorte 77 351 352 Porter 120 50 61LaGrange 17 351 321 Perry 0Gibson 64 351 403 Benton 0Jasper 19 350 368

4G: Time (in Days) to First Permanency Hearing – listed by county (highest to lowest) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the first permanency hearing.

Page 9

Benton and Perry county’s data were incomplete, measures could not be calculated

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to 1st permanency

hearing

Average days to 1st permanency

hearing CountyNumber of cases

Median days to 1st permanency

hearing

Average days to 1st permanency

hearingAdams 60 331 320 Madison 179 364 374Allen 336 347 337 Marion 1,512 358 347Bartholomew 92 357 352 Marshall 26 322 357Benton 0 Martin 17 297 262Blackford 15 359 572 Miami 25 328 323Boone 31 363 379 Monroe 140 357 351Brown 33 352 369 Montgomery 68 353 358Carroll 31 329 337 Morgan 77 360 371Cass 20 313 306 Newton 7 359 353Clark 100 358 377 Noble 44 366 364Clay 41 361 364 Ohio 2 354 354Clinton 48 325 335 Orange 30 370 469Crawford 1 360 360 Owen 53 318 316Daviess 36 329 345 Parke 6 340 350Dearborn 58 347 355 Perry 0Decatur 47 329 335 Pike 1 347 347DeKalb 17 411 422 Porter 120 50 61Delaware 192 363 384 Posey 57 333 349Dubois 48 281 288 Pulaski 5 370 359Elkhart 153 308 306 Putnam 49 327 348Fayette 47 357 351 Randolph 25 325 316Floyd 118 359 364 Ripley 45 348 390Fountain 29 323 310 Rush 3 352 345Franklin 21 357 417 Scott 80 316 314Fulton 33 296 299 Shelby 48 338 375Gibson 64 351 403 Spencer 36 334 331Grant 73 367 373 St. Joseph 357 183 203Greene 13 321 395 Starke 28 399 595Hamilton 62 347 332 STATEWIDE 7,283 348 327Hancock 32 353 350 Steuben 22 362 359Harrison 24 357 366 Sullivan 28 328 320Hendricks 57 352 354 Switzerland 18 407 392Henry 62 355 358 Tippecanoe 177 321 319Howard 68 353 351 Tipton 13 342 358Huntington 13 367 454 Union 7 438 420Jackson 52 361 371 Vanderburgh 263 341 338Jasper 19 350 368 Vermillion 23 349 335Jay 25 343 338 Vigo 193 346 349Jefferson 49 366 398 Wabash 37 358 364Jennings 52 374 431 Warren 1 318 318Johnson 110 349 385 Warrick 58 322 363Knox 53 328 335 Washington 8 365 337Kosciusko 29 356 380 Wayne 63 359 358LaGrange 17 351 321 Wells 57 332 324Lake 592 163 187 White 3 364 364LaPorte 77 351 352 Whitley 35 357 358Lawrence 87 349 381

4G: Time (in Days) to First Permanency Hearing – listed by county (alphabetical) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the first permanency hearing.

Page 10

189

166.5

147

110 105

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

First SubsequentPermanency Hearing

Second SubsequentPermanency Hearing

Third SubsequentPermanency Hearing

Fourth SubsequentPermanency Hearing

Fifth SubsequentPermanency Hearing

Med

ian

Days

to S

ubse

quen

t Per

man

ency

He

arin

gs

Time to Subsequent Permanency Hearings

4N: Time to Subsequent Permanency Hearings – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and each subsequent permanency hearing.

State Statute: Indiana Code IC 31-34-21-7(a) requires the court to hold a permanency hearing not more than 30 days after a court finds that reasonable efforts to reunify or preserve a child’s family are not required; every 12 months after the date of the original dispositional decree; or a child in need of services was removed for the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; whichever comes first; or more often if ordered by the juvenile court. Definition: Average (median) time from the first permanency hearing to the second, the second to the third, etc.

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes to complete the subsequent permanency hearings. Under this measure, the time begins to run from the date of the first permanency hearing to the second, from the second to the third and from the third to the fourth, and lastly, from the fourth to the fifth permanency hearing.

Purpose: To help courts comply with minimum times set by Federal and State laws by which States must complete subsequent permanency hearings.

Analysis: The median time to the first subsequent permanency hearing is just over six months with even less time in between each subsequent permanency hearing.

Possible Improvements:

• Organize and participate in case flow management training as part of an overall effort to reduce delays and meet court deadlines

• Refine and enforce deadlines for adjudication, disposition, review, and permanency hearings • Develop and enforce strict grounds and procedures for continuances. Track and measure delays in adjudication,

disposition, review, and permanency hearings • Develop a project to reduce delays

o Assign responsibilities to court employees to monitor delays and bring them to the judges’ attention. This could be done using automated information system exception reports

o Identify causes of delays in adjudication, disposition, review, and permanency hearings o Involve agency representatives, attorney groups, and others to identify and implement solutions

Page 11

476 471 500 520 524.5

508 519 547 556 574

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Days

to F

iling

of T

erm

inat

ion

of

Pare

ntal

Rig

hts P

etiti

on

Federal Fiscal Year

Median Days to Filing of TPR Average Days to Filing of TPR

4H: Time (in Days) to Filing of Termination of Parental Rights Petition (TPR) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the filing of the TPR petition.

State Statute: Indiana Code IC 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(A)) specifies a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship must allege that one of the following are true:

i. The child has been removed from the parent for at least 6 months under a dispositional decree. ii. A court has entered a finding that reasonable efforts for family preservation or reunification are not required.

iii. The child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a local office for at least 15 of the most recent 22 months, beginning with the date the child is removed from t he has as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in need of services.

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date the original petition alleging that a child is a child in need of service is filed to the date the termination of parental rights petition is filed.

Purpose: To help the courts determine how long it takes from the date the original child in need of services case began (when the original petition was filed) to the date the petition for TPR was filed. This helps courts determine their success, and that of public child welfare agencies, in complying with Federal and State laws setting deadlines for the filing of TPR petitions.

Analysis: There has been a 10% increase in the median and a 13 % increase in the average time to filing of TPR from FFY 2015 to FFY 2019. The median increase from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 is only 1% and the average increase is 3%. The median is the "middle" value in the list of numbers, which can minimize the impact of the cases with the extreme high or low values. The average is the sum of all numbers divided by the total number of values.

Possible Improvements:

• Set and enforce shorter time limits for earlier court hearings • Clarify and improve the court process leading to the TPR trial, including initial and pretrial hearings, discovery,

trial, and preparation of the court order • Assign responsibilities to court employees to monitor delays in litigation and bring them to the judges’ attention • Set and enforce strict criteria for the granting of continuances • Take more time to address the possibility of TPR during reviews and permanency hearings. Identify and act on

appropriate cases where reasonable efforts to reunify the family are not required • Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps are being taken to achieve reunification and adoption • Train judges and attorneys on TPR issues and procedures • Train family case managers on preparing cases for TPR

Page 12

Many counties in this metric did not report any cases where a TPR was filed

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to filing of TPR

Average days to filing of TPR County

Number of cases

Median days to filing of TPR

Average days to filing of TPR

Crawford 2 942 942 Orange 2 504 504Scott 39 888 897 Hendricks 27 501 503Clark 20 879 703 Tippecanoe 112 499 528Lawrence 7 844 898 Posey 29 498 572Boone 8 808 772 Spencer 11 482 470Fulton 4 785 809 Carroll 5 481 570Ripley 27 770 688 Jackson 22 480 478Perry 5 764 811 Marshall 4 477 584Jennings 10 741 658 Clinton 24 477 609Grant 29 713 744 St. Joseph 92 473 469Henry 27 703 711 Bartholomew 14 473 579Madison 79 693 746 Parke 4 469 469Jasper 6 690 501 Gibson 23 468 448Allen 110 688 736 Fayette 6 468 464Wayne 9 680 599 Owen 30 467 515Floyd 29 678 672 Starke 1 462 462Franklin 18 659 763 LaGrange 5 459 477Rush 2 638 638 Vanderburgh 110 457 439Hancock 13 637 619 Johnson 63 457 501Hamilton 25 630 645 Knox 3 452 726Daviess 14 628 660 Miami 3 444 496Blackford 2 626 626 Dearborn 8 444 474Sullivan 5 618 574 Monroe 123 442 489Kosciusko 13 610 596 Vermillion 13 430 439Delaware 74 610 646 Wabash 10 425 480Fountain 19 588 542 Whitley 11 424 473Howard 49 580 596 Porter 30 417 453Vigo 80 578 603 Newton 3 412 440Wells 23 573 588 Dubois 24 392 451Warrick 8 566 833 Cass 6 317 325Elkhart 43 565 638 White 0Noble 11 563 574 Washington 0Clay 8 562 544 Warren 0Greene 14 561 626 Union 0Brown 3 560 567 Tipton 0Adams 13 560 592 Switzerland 0Jefferson 18 559 595 Steuben 0Lake 311 547 595 Randolph 0Putnam 17 541 633 Pulaski 0Harrison 9 533 486 Pike 0DeKalb 10 533 626 Morgan 0Shelby 15 532 475 Martin 0STATEWIDE 3,326 524.5 574 Jay 0Ohio 1 518 518 Huntington 0Montgomery 14 513 531 Decatur 0Marion 1,235 511 554 Benton 0LaPorte 30 505 494

4H: Time (in Days) to Filing of TPR Petition – listed by county (highest to lowest) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the filing of the TPR petition.

Page 13

Many counties in this metric did not report any cases where a TPR was filed

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to filing of TPR

Average days to filing of TPR County

Number of cases

Median days to filing of TPR

Average days to filing of TPR

Adams 13 560 592 Madison 79 693 746Allen 110 688 736 Marion 1,235 511 554Bartholomew 14 473 579 Marshall 4 477 584Benton 0 Martin 0Blackford 2 626 626 Miami 3 444 496Boone 8 808 772 Monroe 123 442 489Brown 3 560 567 Montgomery 14 513 531Carroll 5 481 570 Morgan 0Cass 6 317 325 Newton 3 412 440Clark 20 879 703 Noble 11 563 574Clay 8 562 544 Ohio 1 518 518Clinton 24 477 609 Orange 2 504 504Crawford 2 942 942 Owen 30 467 515Daviess 14 628 660 Parke 4 469 469Dearborn 8 444 474 Perry 5 764 811Decatur 0 Pike 0DeKalb 10 533 626 Porter 30 417 453Delaware 74 610 646 Posey 29 498 572Dubois 24 392 451 Pulaski 0Elkhart 43 565 638 Putnam 17 541 633Fayette 6 468 464 Randolph 0Floyd 29 678 672 Ripley 27 770 688Fountain 19 588 542 Rush 2 638 638Franklin 18 659 763 Scott 39 888 897Fulton 4 785 809 Shelby 15 532 475Gibson 23 468 448 Spencer 11 482 470Grant 29 713 744 St. Joseph 92 473 469Greene 14 561 626 Starke 1 462 462Hamilton 25 630 645 STATEWIDE 3,326 524.5 574Hancock 13 637 619 Steuben 0Harrison 9 533 486 Sullivan 5 618 574Hendricks 27 501 503 Switzerland 0Henry 27 703 711 Tippecanoe 112 499 528Howard 49 580 596 Tipton 0Huntington 0 Union 0Jackson 22 480 478 Vanderburgh 110 457 439Jasper 6 690 501 Vermillion 13 430 439Jay 0 Vigo 80 578 603Jefferson 18 559 595 Wabash 10 425 480Jennings 10 741 658 Warren 0Johnson 63 457 501 Warrick 8 566 833Knox 3 452 726 Washington 0Kosciusko 13 610 596 Wayne 9 680 599LaGrange 5 459 477 Wells 23 573 588Lake 311 547 595 White 0LaPorte 30 505 494 Whitley 11 473Lawrence 7 844 898

424

4H: Time (in Days) to Filing of TPR Petition – listed by county (alphabetical) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the filing of the TPR petition.

Page 14

646 627671 707 736

693 676733 732

777

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Days

to T

erm

inat

ion

of P

aren

tal R

ight

s

Federal Fiscal Year

Median Days from CHINS to Termination of Parental Rights Average Days from CHINS to Termination of Parental Rights

4I: Time (in Days) from CHINS filing to Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the termination of parental rights.

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date the original petition alleging that a child is a child in need of services is filed to the date the termination of parental rights proceeding is completed.

Purpose: To enable the court to determine how long it takes the court to reach TPR from the time the original abuse and neglect case began.

Analysis: There has been a 14% increase in median time and a 12% increase in the average time to completion of TPR from FFY 2015 to FFY 2019. The median increase from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 is 4% and the average increase is 6%. The median is the "middle" value in the list of numbers, which can minimize the impact of the cases with the extreme high or low values. The average is the sum of all numbers divided by the total number of values.

Possible Improvements:

• Set and enforce shorter time limits for earlier court hearings • Clarify and improve the court process leading to the TPR trial, including initial and pretrial hearings,

discovery, trial, and preparation of the court order • Set and enforce strict, specific time limits to govern each step of the court process from filing to completion

of TPR • Implement a project with agency representatives, attorney groups, and other organizations to identify and

reduce delays in TPR and all stages of the court process leading to TPR • Assign responsibilities to court employees to monitor delays in litigation and bring them to the judges’

attention • Set and enforce strict criteria for the granting of continuances • Take more time to address the possibility of TPR during reviews and permanency hearings. Identify and act

on appropriate cases where reasonable efforts to reunify the family are not required • Train judges and attorneys on TPR issues and procedures • Revise TPR forms that help make the process more efficient while protecting the rights of the parties • Train family case managers on preparing cases for TPR • Support a wide range of more general legal and judicial system improvements related to this measure

Page 15

Many counties in this metric did not report any cases where a TPR was completed

CountyNumber of

casesMedian from

CHINS to TPRAverage from

CHINS to TPR CountyNumber of

casesMedian from

CHINS to TPRAverage from

CHINS to TPRJennings 3 1,418 1,307 Owen 20 676 673Scott 2 1,125 1,125 Gibson 14 649 745Lawrence 6 1,096 1,148 Elkhart 37 639 720Boone 8 1,058 1,012 Vermillion 13 630 600Allen 31 1,029 1,002 Dearborn 8 630 610Floyd 28 1,025 992 Warrick 7 626 982Grant 9 1,024 1,062 Vanderburgh 79 614 661Bartholomew 14 1,014 1,000 St. Joseph 36 611 664Delaware 45 939 914 Fayette 6 596 613Lake 136 915 911 Parke 4 588 588Shelby 3 909 909 Cass 3 584 639Madison 27 905 928 Wabash 10 552 650Franklin 18 894 893 Whitley 11 542 620LaPorte 10 881 814 Howard 3 538 698Sullivan 5 858 788 Newton 3 490 499Noble 11 855 768 Dubois 24 481 551Fulton 4 854 908 Miami 3 459 530Blackford 2 842 842 Knox 1 435 435Henry 15 822 735 Porter 30 424 518Daviess 12 820 798 White 0Putnam 17 819 879 Washington 0Monroe 15 812 805 Warren 0Hamilton 13 812 795 Union 0Jefferson 16 791 797 Tipton 0Rush 2 790 790 Switzerland 0Wayne 9 778 733 Steuben 0Hendricks 9 778 788 Starke 0Orange 2 774 774 Randolph 0Ohio 1 770 770 Pulaski 0Vigo 55 766 791 Posey 0Fountain 10 761 737 Pike 0Marshall 4 756 865 Perry 0Johnson 15 756 780 Morgan 0Adams 13 744 748 Martin 0Clinton 8 743 1,001 Jay 0Kosciusko 1 741 741 Jackson 0STATEWIDE 1,416 736 777 Huntington 0Brown 2 735 735 Harrison 0Jasper 5 734 659 Hancock 0Clay 8 734 705 Greene 0LaGrange 2 721 721 Decatur 0Tippecanoe 57 713 717 DeKalb 0Wells 15 706 739 Crawford 0Ripley 5 690 689 Clark 0Marion 406 690 740 Carroll 0Montgomery 14 685 733 Benton 0Spencer 11 683 796

4I: Time (in Days) from CHINS filing to Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) – listed by county (highest to lowest) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the termination of parental rights.

Page 16

Many counties in this metric did not report any cases where a TPR was completed

CountyNumber of

casesMedian from

CHINS to TPRAverage from

CHINS to TPR CountyNumber of

casesMedian from

CHINS to TPRAverage from

CHINS to TPRAdams 13 744 748 Madison 27 905 928Allen 31 1,029 1,002 Marion 406 690 740Bartholomew 14 1,014 1,000 Marshall 4 756 865Benton 0 Martin 0Blackford 2 842 842 Miami 3 459 530Boone 8 1,058 1,012 Monroe 15 812 805Brown 2 735 735 Montgomery 14 685 733Carroll 0 Morgan 0Cass 3 584 639 Newton 3 490 499Clark 0 Noble 11 855 768Clay 8 734 705 Ohio 1 770 770Clinton 8 743 1,001 Orange 2 774 774Crawford 0 Owen 20 676 673Daviess 12 820 798 Parke 4 588 588Dearborn 8 630 610 Perry 0Decatur 0 Pike 0DeKalb 0 Porter 30 424 518Delaware 45 939 914 Posey 0Dubois 24 481 551 Pulaski 0Elkhart 37 639 720 Putnam 17 819 879Fayette 6 596 613 Randolph 0Floyd 28 1,025 992 Ripley 5 690 689Fountain 10 761 737 Rush 2 790 790Franklin 18 894 893 Scott 2 1,125 1,125Fulton 4 854 908 Shelby 3 909 909Gibson 14 649 745 Spencer 11 683 796Grant 9 1,024 1,062 St. Joseph 36 611 664Greene 0 Starke 0Hamilton 13 812 795 STATEWIDE 1,416 736 777Hancock 0 Steuben 0Harrison 0 Sullivan 5 858 788Hendricks 9 778 788 Switzerland 0Henry 15 822 735 Tippecanoe 57 713 717Howard 3 538 698 Tipton 0Huntington 0 Union 0Jackson 0 Vanderburgh 79 614 661Jasper 5 734 659 Vermillion 13 630 600Jay 0 Vigo 55 766 791Jefferson 16 791 797 Wabash 10 552 650Jennings 3 1,418 1,307 Warren 0Johnson 15 756 780 Warrick 7 626 982Knox 1 435 435 Washington 0Kosciusko 1 741 741 Wayne 9 778 733LaGrange 2 721 721 Wells 15 706 739Lake 136 915 911 White 0LaPorte 10 881 814 Whitley 11 542 620Lawrence 6 1,096 1,148

542

4I: Time (in Days) from CHINS filing to Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) – listed by county (alphabetical) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and the termination of parental rights.

Page 17

13% 13%

27%

47%

15%10%

26%

49%

12% 11%

25%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Within 90 Days Within 120 Days Within 180 Days More than 180 Days

2017 2018 2019

4J: Timeliness of Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings- this shows the percentage of cases in which there is a final TPR order within listed days of the TPR petition.

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding, this data was not tracked in our system prior to 2017

State Statute: Indiana Code 31-35-2-6 requires that whenever a hearing is requested, the court shall commence a hearing on the petition not more than ninety days after a petition is filed; and complete a hearing on the petition not more than 180 days after a petition is filed.

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date the termination of parental rights proceedings have formally begun to the date TPR is finalized.

Purpose: The purpose of this measure is to enable the court to determine how long it takes the court to reach a decision on TPR from the time that TPR began.

Analysis: Most of the data in this measure has remained consistent since tracking began in 2017. The increase for cases that took more than 180 days for a final order on a termination of parental rights petition in FFY 2017 to the FFY 2019 report has increased 11%. The increase from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 was just 6%.

Possible Improvements:

• Set and enforce shorter time limits for earlier court hearings. Assume that a child has been in foster care for 17 months, as required by the Federal measure. The 6-month time period within which the child must have become legally free is not limited to the time period after TPR proceedings begin. Enforce specific and strict time limits to govern each step of the court process from filing to completion of TPR

• Implement a project with child welfare agency representatives, attorney groups, and other organizations to identify and reduce delays in TPR

• Assign responsibilities to court employees to monitor delays in TPR litigation and bring them to the judges’ attention

• Set and enforce strict criteria for the granting of continuances • Train judges and attorneys on TPR issues and procedures • Revise TPR forms to make the process more efficient while protecting the rights of the parties • Train family case managers on TPR

Page 18

1%

5%

38%

33%

23%

2%4%

34%

38%

23%

2%4%

33%

37%

24%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0-3 Months 4-6 Months 7-12 Months 13-18 Months More than 18 Months

4K: Time from Disposition Hearing to Termination of Parental Rights

2017 2018 2019

4K: Time (in Days) from Disposition Hearing to Termination of Parental Rights- this shows the percentage of cases in which the TPR petition is filed within the listed months of disposition.

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding, this data was not tracked in our system prior to 2017

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes from the date of the disposition hearing to the date of the filing of the termination of parental rights petition.

Purpose: To enable the court to determine how long it takes from the time the court has completed the disposition hearing to the time the TPR petition is filed. If delays are identified, the court can begin working to speed up this process and thereby improve the quality of litigation.

Analysis: Most of the data in this measure has remained consistent. For cases where the TPR petition was filed within 7-12 months, the median time decreased 13% from FFY 2017 to FFY 2019. For cases where the TPR petition was filed within 13-18 months, the median time increased 12% from FFY 2017 to FFY 2019. Both measures decreased by 3% from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019. The median is the "middle" value in the list of numbers, which can minimize the impact of the cases with the extreme high or low values. The average is the sum of all numbers divided by the total number of values.

Possible Improvements:

• Set and enforce shorter time limits for review and permanency hearings • Set early review and permanency hearings in challenging cases • During review and permanency hearings, carefully review whether sufficient steps are being taken to achieve

reunification and/or adoption • Take more time to address the possibility of TPR during review and permanency hearings • Identify and act on appropriate cases in which reasonable efforts to reunify the family are not required • Work with agency representatives, attorney groups, and other organizations to identify and reduce delays

between the disposition and TPR petitions • Develop a plan to systematically inform governmental bodies of service delays that reduce the court’s ability to

make timely permanency decisions • Work with the child welfare agency to provide feedback on the quality of casework (including forensic casework)

by its staff • Train judges and attorneys in review and permanency hearing management • Train family case managers to prepare for review and permanency hearings and TPR cases

Page 19

413 428463

525592

524 541 570611

677

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Days

to P

erm

anen

cy

Federal Fiscal Year

Median Days to Permanency Average Days to Permanency

4A: Time (in Days) to Permanency– this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and when the child reaches legal permanency.

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes for child in need of services cases to achieve legal permanency, following the filing of the original petition.

Purpose: To help courts evaluate their success in eliminating needless delays in achieving legal permanency for child in need of services cases.

Analysis: There has been a 43% increase in the median and 29% increase in the average time to permanency from FFY 2015 to FFY 2019. The There has been a 13% increase in the median and 11 % increase in the average time to permanency from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019. The median is the "middle" value in the list of numbers, which can minimize the impact of the cases with the extreme high or low values. The average is the sum of all numbers divided by the total number of values.

Possible Improvements:

Family Reunification

• Take more time to address safety issues during reviews and permanency hearings • Before accepting other permanency plans during permanency hearings, require evidence that the child cannot

safely return home, even with realistically available services and help • Train judges and attorneys on safety issues, such as focusing on the capacity of parents and relatives to keep the

child safe, focusing on the special vulnerabilities of children, and understanding other basic elements of good safety analysis. The training should include how to address these issues in review and permanency hearings.

• Improve agency reports to the court by working with the agency to develop new forms (or supplements to forms) in connection with recommendations for reunification. The forms should address matters such as the reasons why reunification is or is not now safe; how relatives will be involved, when appropriate, to help oversee the child’s safety; and transitional visitation arrangements

• Adopt new forms (or supplements to forms) to be used for court orders for family reunification. The forms should address matters such as those noted above for agency reports

• Before case closure, implement family group conferencing models that involve the family in making safety plans to maintain their children in a safe and secure environment upon reunification

Page 20

Adoption

• Take more time to address adoption issues during reviews and permanency hearings • Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps are being taken to recruit adoptive parents, properly

screen applicants, conduct thorough and timely home studies, and make timely decisions. This review helps to avoid the need to make hasty decisions later in the process or to choose among insufficiently qualified candidates

• Before accepting other non-reunification permanency plans during permanency hearings, require evidence that the child cannot or should not be adopted

• Train judges and attorneys on adoption issues, such as the details of the steps in the process, adoption recruitment, adoption screening and selection, financial barriers, and issues concerning adolescents

• Revise the legal grounds for terminating parental rights to eliminate inappropriate barriers to adoption for children who are unable to return home within a reasonable time, when adoption is in their best interests. Simplify procedures for terminating parental rights, thereby encouraging agency workers and attorneys to seek that option and reducing delays

• Train family case managers to document and present to the court better information regarding reunification

Legal Guardianship

• Take more time to address the possibility of legal guardianship during reviews and permanency hearings, at least for cases in which family reunification and adoption are seriously questioned as proper case goals

• Review ongoing cases to ensure that sufficient steps are being taken to recruit guardians, properly screen applicants, and make timely decisions. This review helps avoid the need to make hasty decisions later in the process or to choose among insufficiently qualified candidates

• Before accepting lower priority permanency plans (such as APPLAs) during permanency hearings, require evidence that the child cannot or should not be placed in a legal guardianship

• Revise legal procedures for guardianship to simplify the process • Train judges and attorneys on legal guardianship issues, such as the process to establish legal guardianship,

including, where applicable, coordination between the court handling the guardianship proceeding and the court handling the abuse and neglect case; the financial implications of legal guardianship, including possible financial benefits available; the legal rights and obligations of legal guardians under State law; and consent to guardianship

• Revise forms for legal guardianship to help simplify the process, clarify the authority and responsibilities of the guardian, and set forth the reasons for choosing legal guardianship rather than reunification or adoption

• Train family case managers to document and present to the court better information regarding legal guardianship

Page 21

Union, Crawford and Benton counties reported no cases where the child was removed from the home

CountyNumber of cases

Median time to permanency

Average time to permanency County

Number of cases

Median time to permanency

Average time to permanency

Ohio 1 1,687 1,687 Elkhart 163 543 682Starke 13 1,256 1,183 Wayne 82 540 570Franklin 17 1,062 982 Spencer 53 531 599Lake 260 982 978 Newton 9 525 451Allen 286 961 979 Fayette 63 522 630Huntington 9 872 831 Clark 79 521 588Perry 24 869 921 Clay 47 520 608Monroe 59 833 803 Whitley 39 514 604Vermillion 30 763 714 LaGrange 29 495 495Hamilton 72 754 759 Harrison 34 490 590Grant 88 742 790 Ripley 41 483 543Cass 17 741 779 Switzerland 15 482 478Wells 57 713 773 Gibson 92 481 552Marion 1,747 696 720 Orange 21 462 530Adams 55 687 698 Howard 108 457 584Tipton 35 683 611 Kosciusko 48 449 475Fountain 17 679 626 St. Joseph 314 447 563Delaware 240 678 769 Porter 106 442 564Boone 49 672 723 Blackford 24 439 658Tippecanoe 173 664 748 Greene 31 431 637Hendricks 49 649 739 Pulaski 16 429 411Floyd 132 649 744 Sullivan 60 428 512Bartholomew 102 641 748 Marshall 32 423 460Decatur 67 637 648 Shelby 61 417 544Lawrence 98 636 764 Carroll 21 410 502Posey 67 635 731 Daviess 50 402 655Jennings 70 622 785 DeKalb 21 401 463Madison 236 619 742 Clinton 65 395 565LaPorte 87 616 632 Dubois 70 393 467Vigo 200 609 693 Randolph 37 387 457Johnson 129 609 676 Warrick 95 385 476Steuben 13 604 897 Wabash 63 372 498Noble 57 603 644 Knox 15 371 366STATEWIDE 7,820 591.5 677 Fulton 53 359 406Henry 79 583 682 Jasper 36 350 496Putnam 57 581 694 Vanderburgh 426 344 475Jefferson 54 580 695 Martin 24 332 503Montgomery 83 579 672 Morgan 8 316 453Dearborn 72 576 615 White 10 296 306Scott 83 575 738 Jay 51 292 419Parke 6 573 572 Rush 11 251 399Jackson 44 570 638 Washington 2 245 245Pike 21 563 547 Warren 5 151 193Miami 28 563 662 Union 0Owen 54 555 673 Crawford 0Brown 35 547 621 Benton 0Hancock 18 545 566

4A: Time (in Days) to Permanency – listed by county (highest to lowest) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and when the child reaches legal permanency.

Page 22

Union, Crawford and Benton counties reported no cases where the child was removed from the home

CountyNumber of cases

Median time to permanency

Average time to permanency County

Number of cases

Median time to permanency

Average time to permanency

Adams 55 687 698 Madison 236 619 742Allen 286 961 979 Marion 1,747 696 720Bartholomew 102 641 748 Marshall 32 423 460Benton 0 Martin 24 332 503Blackford 24 439 658 Miami 28 563 662Boone 49 672 723 Monroe 59 833 803Brown 35 547 621 Montgomery 83 579 672Carroll 21 410 502 Morgan 8 316 453Cass 17 741 779 Newton 9 525 451Clark 79 521 588 Noble 57 603 644Clay 47 520 608 Ohio 1 1,687 1,687Clinton 65 395 565 Orange 21 462 530Crawford 0 Owen 54 555 673Daviess 50 402 655 Parke 6 573 572Dearborn 72 576 615 Perry 24 869 921Decatur 67 637 648 Pike 21 563 547DeKalb 21 401 463 Porter 106 442 564Delaware 240 678 769 Posey 67 635 731Dubois 70 393 467 Pulaski 16 429 411Elkhart 163 543 682 Putnam 57 581 694Fayette 63 522 630 Randolph 37 387 457Floyd 132 649 744 Ripley 41 483 543Fountain 17 679 626 Rush 11 251 399Franklin 17 1,062 982 Scott 83 575 738Fulton 53 359 406 Shelby 61 417 544Gibson 92 481 552 Spencer 53 531 599Grant 88 742 790 St. Joseph 314 447 563Greene 31 431 637 Starke 13 1,256 1,183Hamilton 72 754 759 STATEWIDE 7,820 591.5 677Hancock 18 545 566 Steuben 13 604 897Harrison 34 490 590 Sullivan 60 428 512Hendricks 49 649 739 Switzerland 15 482 478Henry 79 583 682 Tippecanoe 173 664 748Howard 108 457 584 Tipton 35 683 611Huntington 9 872 831 Union 0Jackson 44 570 638 Vanderburgh 426 344 475Jasper 36 350 496 Vermillion 30 763 714Jay 51 292 419 Vigo 200 609 693Jefferson 54 580 695 Wabash 63 372 498Jennings 70 622 785 Warren 5 151 193Johnson 129 609 676 Warrick 95 385 476Knox 15 371 366 Washington 2 245 245Kosciusko 48 449 475 Wayne 82 540 570LaGrange 29 495 495 Wells 57 713 773Lake 260 982 978 White 10 296 306LaPorte 87 616 632 Whitley 39 514 604Lawrence 98 636 764

4A: Time (in Days) to Permanency – listed by county (alphabetical) – this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and when the child reaches legal permanency.

Page 23

Many counties did not have cases with a permanency outcome of adoption

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to permanency

Average days to permanency County

Number of cases

Median days to permanency

Average days to permanency

Perry 8 2,059 1,633 Cass 5 1,021 1,037Marshall 1 1,948 1,948 Morgan 2 1,010 1,010Ohio 1 1,687 1,687 Fayette 20 1,003 1,031Steuben 6 1,567 1,457 Vanderburgh 87 997 996Starke 8 1,406 1,575 Noble 11 976 869Hendricks 11 1,363 1,246 Johnson 33 971 985Posey 20 1,344 1,288 Sullivan 7 960 904Madison 55 1,332 1,333 Marion 582 953 994Delaware 59 1,319 1,254 Clay 10 943 989Grant 21 1,316 1,259 St. Joseph 15 928 699Bartholomew 24 1,315 1,307 Wayne 14 909 984Floyd 28 1,312 1,334 Huntington 2 905 905Franklin 5 1,308 1,383 Miami 9 904 981Spencer 10 1,300 1,213 Fountain 6 899 943Shelby 6 1,243 1,247 Wabash 10 888 870Allen 69 1,240 1,239 Tipton 13 862 880Carroll 1 1,235 1,235 Gibson 14 849 978Jennings 13 1,229 1,473 Porter 29 829 879Lake 130 1,221 1,250 Blackford 7 824 1,337Lawrence 14 1,215 1,301 Wells 25 812 959Montgomery 18 1,173 1,258 Warrick 8 809 1,042Dearborn 9 1,168 1,186 Owen 26 808 972Clinton 9 1,157 1,342 Jackson 5 807 823Elkhart 32 1,146 1,132 Brown 3 797 814Jay 4 1,139 1,137 Adams 17 785 884Vigo 54 1,130 1,134 Dubois 13 784 953Daviess 13 1,129 1,142 Whitley 11 774 1,150Jefferson 16 1,127 1,045 Jasper 4 764 657Decatur 12 1,126 1,038 LaGrange 9 752 695Boone 14 1,124 1,207 Pike 2 748 748Henry 21 1,119 1,128 Harrison 8 710 850Greene 10 1,116 1,127 Newton 3 653 681Rush 1 1,103 1,103 Randolph 3 619 851Scott 15 1,103 1,290 Benton 0Fulton 4 1,102 1,237 Crawford 0Putnam 16 1,095 1,199 DeKalb 0Hancock 4 1,061 1,032 Knox 0Monroe 29 1,054 1,087 Martin 0Tippecanoe 71 1,050 1,036 Orange 0Vermillion 9 1,045 1,080 Parke 0Howard 31 1,044 1,081 Pulaski 0STATEWIDE 1,965 1044 1085 Switzerland 0Ripley 4 1,036 1,028 Union 0Kosciusko 3 1,035 1,040 Warren 0LaPorte 20 1,034 1,017 Washington 0Hamilton 32 1,030 1,035 White 0Clark 11 1,022 1,016

4A: Time (in Days) to Permanency (Adoption only) – listed by county (highest - lowest) – this chart shows the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and when the child reaches legal permanency for those children whose permanency outcome was adoption.

Page 24

Many counties did not have cases with a permanency outcome of adoption

CountyNumber of cases

Median days to permanency

Average days to permanency County

Number of cases

Median days to permanency

Average days to permanency

Adams 17 785 884 Madison 55 1,332 1,333Allen 69 1,240 1,239 Marion 582 953 994Bartholomew 24 1,315 1,307 Marshall 1 1,948 1,948Benton 0 Martin 0Blackford 7 824 1,337 Miami 9 904 981Boone 14 1,124 1,207 Monroe 29 1,054 1,087Brown 3 797 814 Montgomery 18 1,173 1,258Carroll 1 1,235 1,235 Morgan 2 1,010 1,010Cass 5 1,021 1,037 Newton 3 653 681Clark 11 1,022 1,016 Noble 11 976 869Clay 10 943 989 Ohio 1 1,687 1,687Clinton 9 1,157 1,342 Orange 0Crawford 0 Owen 26 808 972Daviess 13 1,129 1,142 Parke 0Dearborn 9 1,168 1,186 Perry 8 2,059 1,633Decatur 12 1,126 1,038 Pike 2 748 748DeKalb 0 Porter 29 829 879Delaware 59 1,319 1,254 Posey 20 1,344 1,288Dubois 13 784 953 Pulaski 0Elkhart 32 1,146 1,132 Putnam 16 1,095 1,199Fayette 20 1,003 1,031 Randolph 3 619 851Floyd 28 1,312 1,334 Ripley 4 1,036 1,028Fountain 6 899 943 Rush 1 1,103 1,103Franklin 5 1,308 1,383 Scott 15 1,103 1,290Fulton 4 1,102 1,237 Shelby 6 1,243 1,247Gibson 14 849 978 Spencer 10 1,300 1,213Grant 21 1,316 1,259 St. Joseph 15 928 699Greene 10 1,116 1,127 Starke 8 1,406 1,575Hamilton 32 1,030 1,035 STATEWIDE 1,965 1044 1085Hancock 4 1,061 1,032 Steuben 6 1,567 1,457Harrison 8 710 850 Sullivan 7 960 904Hendricks 11 1,363 1,246 Switzerland 0Henry 21 1,119 1,128 Tippecanoe 71 1,050 1,036Howard 31 1,044 1,081 Tipton 13 862 880Huntington 2 905 905 Union 0Jackson 5 807 823 Vanderburgh 87 997 996Jasper 4 764 657 Vermillion 9 1,045 1,080Jay 4 1,139 1,137 Vigo 54 1,130 1,134Jefferson 16 1,127 1,045 Wabash 10 888 870Jennings 13 1,229 1,473 Warren 0Johnson 33 971 985 Warrick 8 809 1,042Knox 0 Washington 0Kosciusko 3 1,035 1,040 Wayne 14 909 984LaGrange 9 752 695 Wells 25 812 959Lake 130 1,221 1,250 White 0LaPorte 20 1,034 1,017 Whitley 11 774 1,150Lawrence 14 1,215 1,301

4A: Time (in Days) to Permanency (Adoption only) – listed by county (alphabetical) – this chart shows the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and when the child reaches legal permanency for those children whose permanency outcome was adoption.

Page 25

Federal Fiscal Year 2019

4A: Median Time (in Days) to Permanent Placement - by Permanency Type– this measures the median time between the date of filing of the CHINS petition and when the child reaches legal permanency.

Explanation: This measure shows how long it takes for children in abuse and neglect cases to achieve legal permanency, following the filing of the original petition. “Legal permanency” means that there is a permanent and secure legal relationship between the adult caregiver and the child.

Purpose: To help courts evaluate their success in eliminating needless delays in achieving legal permanency for children in abuse and neglect cases.

Time to permanency in adoption cases continues to be one of the biggest challenges across the country and a focus for statewide initiatives. Nationally there were 121,099 children and youth waiting for adoption on the first day of the Federal Fiscal Year 2018 (the federal data for FFY2019 is not yet available), in Indiana there were 4,195 children and youth waiting. The FFY 2018 data for median time to permanency for adoption in Indiana was 996.5 days, while the national median was 813 days.

Permanency TypeNumber of Cases

Median Time to Permanency (in days)

Adoption - The child was adopted 1,965 1,044Another APPLA - The child was placed in another planned permanent living arrangement 243 806Guardianship - A guardianship was established over the child by a court, where the legal guardian is responsible for the care, custody, control and decision making concerning the child 980 561Relative Placement - the child was placed with a responsible adult sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle ,custodial parent of the child's sibling, or another relative who will act as the child's permanent custodian 338 536

Other - Cases that reach disposition but close for other reasons (e.g. "aging out", case transfer, death of the child, runaway, emancipation, or other such reasons unrelated to the child's permanency) may be listed as other 544 493Reunification - The child was returned to the care and custody of either parent, whether originally custodial or non-constodial, or with the legal guardian or custodian from whom the child was originally removed, without further DCS supervision 4,294 426

Page 26

17,491

20,063 20,068

15,375

13,610

3,1214,284

4,8465,657 5,700

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

State Totals

CHINS cases filed (JC) Termination of Parental Rights cases filed (JT)

*2019 is provisional data and subject to change

The data contained in this graph was obtained from the public access information provided by Indiana Courts Online Reports (ICOR) https://publicaccess.courts.in.gov/ICOR/

Explanation: This graph shows the fluctuation in cases filed over the past six years. 2019 data was not yet available.

Purpose: To help courts identify trends in case filings and make data-based policy and procedure adjustments. This data may explain lags in case processing in years where there is a surge in CHINS and/or TPR filings.

Analysis: There was a 15% increase in CHINS filings from FFY 2015 to FFY 2017, the year with the highest filings. From FFY 2015 to FFY 2019 CHINS filings decreased by 22%. From FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 the decrease was 11%.

There has been an 83% increase in TPR filings from FFY 2015 to FFY 2019. The increase from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 was 1%.

CHINS (JC) and Termination of Parental Rights (JT) Cases Filed – this graph shows number of CHINS (JC) cases and Termination of Parental Rights (JT) cases filed each calendar year in the

Page 27