Evaluation of Implementation of the Kentucky Court Rules of Procedure and Practice: An Approach to Assessing the Impact of Court Reform Efforts

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12048
• Author: Corey Boes,Crystal Collins‐Camargo,Tammi Alvey Thomas
• Published date: 01 September 2015
• Date: 01 September 2015

Evaluation of Implementation of the Kentucky

Court Rules of Procedure and Practice:

An Approach to Assessing the Impact of

Court Reform Efforts

By Corey Boes, MSW, CSW, Crystal Collins-Camargo, MSW, Ph.D., and

Tammi Alvey Thomas, MSSW

ABSTRACT

This article describes a Supreme Court of Kentucky court improvement initia-

tive designed to promote uniformity and improved court practice with an ultimate

goal of the improvement of outcomes for children and families through implemen-

tation of Family Court Rules of Procedure and Practice. Twelve jurisdictions were

purposely selected to exhibit a range of family and non-family court jurisdictions,

rural and middle-sized locations. This article focuses on the results of court case file

review related to indicators of due process and timeliness. Implications for court

evaluation and reform activities are discussed.

Keywords: Family Court, Foster Care, Permanency, Court Improvement,

Court Procedure

Corey Boes graduated with his MSW in May of 2011 and is in his third year of the doctoral program

at the University of Louisville. Prior to pursuing his doctoral degree, he was employed as a Social Services

Worker by Department of Community Based Services. Mr. Boes joined this study of family court rules of

procedure and practice in its second year. His project responsibilities included on-site data collection and

quantitative data analysis. Correspondence: Corey.boes@louisville.edu

Crystal Collins-Camargo is on the faculty at the University of Louisville, and conducts research

primarily on organizational interventions to promote system improvement in child welfare, and juvenile and

family court practice. Crystal.collinscamargo@louisville.edu

Tammi Alvey Thomas graduated with her MSSW in May 2013 and is in her second year of the

doctoral program. She has worked on a study of implementation of family court rules of procedure and

practice to promote consistency and outcome improvement since it began. Her project responsibilities

included conducting an extensive literature review on similar projects across the country, organizing and

conducting interviews and focus groups and the qualitative data analysis. Tammi.thomas@louisville.edu

Editor’s Note: Corey Boes is not a member of NCJFCJ and is in no way affiliated with NCJFCJ.

Tammi Alvey Thomas is not a member of NCJFCJ and is in no way affiliated with NCJFCJ. Dr. Crystal

Collins-Camargo is not a member of NCJFCJ. Her previous interaction with NCJFCJ is limited to an

NCJFCJ member sitting on the advisory board of a previous research project. She is also aware and familiar

of the work of NCJFCJ from previous court-improvement projects.

bs_bs_banner

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 66, No. 4 (Fall) 1

© 2015 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

INTRODUCTION

Kentucky has a unified court system in that separate courts practicing in individual

jurisdictions are centrally administered. Across the country some court systems handle all

family law matters under a family court, whose main goal is to consolidate all issues

involving a family into one place (Sloan et al., 2013). Family courts cover an array of

issues that include child custody, divorce, equitable division of property, and juvenile

delinquency charges (Domitrovich, 1998). A typical case heard in such courts involves

children who are removed from the home and placed in foster care (Sloan et al., 2013).

Kentucky’s judicial system is comprised of three types of courts: Circuit Court,

Family Court and District Court. District Court is the court of limited jurisdiction

handling cases such as juvenile delinquency, domestic violence and abuse matters. Family

Court is a division of Circuit Court and hears cases that would otherwise be within the

jurisdiction of both Circuit and District courts such as status offenses, paternity, divorce,

child custody, adoption and termination of parental rights. There are 120 counties

throughout the State, and 59% (71) have a Family Court. In counties without a family

court, family law matters are handled by both circuit and district courts. The Kentucky

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), like many of its counterparts in other states,

has implemented numerous court initiatives to improve the court’s response to child

abuse, neglect and dependency matters. This article will focus on the evaluation of the

implementation of one such initiative: implementation of Family Court Rules of Proce-

dure and Practice (FCRPP).

The negative impact of children remaining in out-of-home care (OOHC) on their

physical, emotional, and psychological health has long been of concern (e.g., Katz, 1990;

Ravindra, 2003). Research has demonstrated that abused and neglected children remain-

ing in OOHC for long periods of time experience a range of negative psychosocial and

behavioral outcomes in areas such as: school performance and school attendance (Reilly,

2003); unemployment (Hughes et al., 2008); and involvement in crime, violence, and

substance misuse (Pecora et al., 2005; Stott & Gustavsson, 2010). When these youth

reach adulthood without having achieved permanency they are more likely than other

youth to be arrested (Courtney et al., 2005), experience housing instability (Pecora et al.,

2005), and suffer behavioral health issues (Brandford & English, 2004). Unfortunately,

youth experiencing placement instability while in OOHC appear to be at greatest risk

(Barber & Delfabbro, 2003; Mech, 2003). Some research has noted a direct and negative

effect of OOHC placement upon such outcomes independent of their well-being at

system entry (Rubin, O’Reilly, Luan, & Localio, 2007).

Federal policy has responded to these concerns, beginning with enacting the

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA, P.L. 96-272) (Seltzer &

Bloksberg, 1987), with a focus on reducing the number of children entering care and

limiting the length of stay while increasing permanent placements (Kernan & Lansford,

2004). The AACWA required development of a written case plan for each child, case

reviews at least every six months to monitor the need to remain in OOHC, and a date by

which the child should achieve permanency (Harrison & Johnson, 1994). Subsequently,

2 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL / Fall 2015