News

Sarah Bryer Consulting Evaluates Counsel for Kids Campaign

Executive Summary of Initial Outcome Evaluation of NACC’s Counsel for Kids Campaign by Sarah Bryer Consulting

In the spring of 2021, the National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC) launched a state-based “Counsel for Kids Campaign” (Campaign) to ensure the right to counsel for every child in the child welfare system. The Campaign incorporated twin goals of advancing reform and building out local advocacy capacity. NACC provided tools, resources, and direct technical assistance (TA) to statebased partners seeking to initiate, expand or improve upon children’s legal representation.

Halfway into an initial three-year grant, NACC commissioned a neutral, third-party evaluator to conduct an evaluation of the Campaign’s progress and understand its impact. At that point, NACC had worked with seven states in different stages of policy change. The evaluation found that the Campaign provided relevant TA that met or exceeded its initial goals, and that with additional resources it could achieve even greater impact establishing and expanding access to counsel for kids.

Methodology
The evaluator collected qualitative data to surface patterns and uplift nuances that might be clouded by a quantitative approach. The evaluator conducted a full document review and semi-structured, qualitative interviews with NACC national staff and with the lead advocate in each of the seven states (AK, CO, FL, IN, ID, SC, WA).

Support for State Campaigns
State-based advocates appreciated and utilized NACC’s substantive assistance. The evaluation revealed several themes related to this support.

On-Point Assistance: NACC staff provide a variety of assistance including campaign strategy planning, communications support, research, talking points, help identifying allies, coalition building,and answering questions from legislators. NACC staff serve as a sounding board, give feedback on materials, provide the muscle for drafting more extensive documents, testimony, and letters, and present at committees, trainings and working groups.

“NACC was able to respond to legislators quickly … They had a high level of
specificity and accuracy.”


A Culture of Humility: The Campaign incorporates a “culture of humility” to its work by treading carefully in state waters. Campaign staff are both respectful of and sensitive to the local advocates’ desires and the political contexts in which they operated. NACC typically strategizes with local partners about how best to wield their influence and frequently conducted work out of the public eye to avoid a perception of meddling by a national organization.

“People (here) really don’t like being told what to do. (NACC) was very
appropriate in not stepping on toes.”


“NACC is persuasive with some but not all attorney groups, so we strategized about the best place for NACC to be the most effective.”


National, Independent Expertise: NACC successfully walk the tightrope of knowing when to step back from the spotlight while also capitalizing on the benefit it brings as a national expert that wasn’t entangled in local politics.

“Having NACC at the table brought the conversation up out of the personal and back into the realm of best practice.”


“NACC gave the work national credibility. [We] could talk about this being a national movement and paint a bigger picture.”


Enhancing Local Advocacy Capacity
NACC’s secondary goal for their campaign is to build out local advocacy acumen. By providing state advocates with support around strategic planning, coalition development, cross-state connections and communications infrastructure, the Campaign both advances current efforts while deepening advocacy know-how. Five states that were either initiating their campaigns or were at an inflection point benefited from capacity building assistance. Most of the states that received capacity building TA indicated that the assistance was crucial.

“When NACC came in, it became a campaign. Gave it a backbone.”

“Because of NACC, things happened more quickly than they otherwise would have.”

NACC staff help formalize the coalition structure with principles and guidelines so that members of the public could see how it operated, allowing for healthy membership expansion.

“We developed a broader coalition, so it wasn’t just lawyers – but included people with lived experience: parents, foster parents of youth, young adults who were youth in the system. In the past we had just turned to the usual suspects. Our coalition has now doubled in size.”


NACC Campaign Staff would have liked the state coalitions to include even greater racial and ethnic diversity. This remains challenging and requires further investigation and action.

Communications Infrastructure: The Campaign helps to build out some states’ infrastructure for communications through website improvements and increased social media presence, but states have limited capacity to maintain these channels independently of NACC staff.

Creating Peer Connections: Several states expressed that NACC’s facilitation of cross-state connections improved their work and were eager for more peer-to-peer opportunities. Similarly, five states elevated NACC’s national conference as a critical place to learn about the campaign, gain new strategies and hold discussions with key state stakeholders on neutral ground.

Campaign Growth Areas
States identified multiple ways that the campaign could have even greater impact.

Advocacy Support: State advocates almost universally felt stretched thin. Suggestions for
increased advocacy support included:

  • Funding for a full-time staff person in the state, having the Campaign take over their website and social media channels, and funding a lobbyist in the state;
  • Resources for communications strategy such as ad purchases and help writing and placing editorials and news stories;
  • Discretionary funds to pay for campaign activities such as food for meetings or stipends for youth focus groups.

Evaluation and Research: Multiple states mentioned the need for assistance with data collection and evaluation during both legislative and implementation stages and national research such as studies that compare the best interest attorney model to a client-directed attorney model.

Increased Capacity for NACC to Influence State Actors: Several states were interested in NACC building out its capacity to influence state actors. Suggestions for NACC included:

Developing connections with the departments of children’s services in every state;

  • Developing connections with the departments of children’s services in every state;
  • Establishing NACC’s independent relationships with state legislators;
  • Bringing the heads of administrative bodies from other states to present to legislators; and
  • Expanding national connections to CASA to help shift thinking on the local level.

Peer-To-Peer Connections: States were interested in more peer-to-peer connections both for advocates and state actors. Two ideas for these connections included:

  • Building out cohorts of advocates at different stages of their campaigns; and
  • Connecting state actors (administrators, judges, legislators etc.) to similarly positioned actors in other states, who could serve as trusted sources of information.

Litigation: While litigation was not part of NACC’s strategy, several states indicated a desire for connections to law firms and/or help building out a litigation strategy.

Implementation: Finally, states thought that after a change in policy, it would be helpful for the Campaign to provide on-going support for trainings, standards setting, data collection and evaluation.


Conclusion
The Counsel for Kids Campaign provides crucial and unduplicated support to state-based advocates.Campaign staff navigated the needs of local coalitions and the varied political waters in which they operated. State advocates universally appreciated the support from the National Campaign and could articulate, with specificity, how the Campaign’s involvement advanced their advocacy skills and goals. Recommendations for improvements centered on requests for increased services and supports rather than a change in the current practice of TA provision.

For more information about the Counsel for Kids evaluation and Counsel for Kids Campaign please contact NACC Executive Director Kim Dvorchak at [email protected]. Contact Sarah Bryer Consulting on LinkedIn or at [email protected]

PDF version of this summary.

Pending Legislation Across the Country to Advance Children’s Right to  Counsel

Momentum is building around the country to ensure counsel for kids experiencing the child protection system.

Florida Senate Bill 488 would expand the categories of dependent children who are 
entitled to counsel and require the state agency to work directly with the Justice Administrative Commission to obtain Title IV-E funds for children’s legal representation. The bill was referred to Senate Judiciary, Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice, and Fiscal Policy on February 9. 

 
Illinois Senate Bill 1478 would grant children placed in foster care the right to a court-appointed, client-directed attorney in any abuse or neglect proceeding. Senator Ann Gillespie convened a press conference in Springfield, Illinois on February 8 and NACC’s National Law School Student Organizer Leyda Garcia-Greenawalt shared her support for children’s right to counsel. The bill was assigned to the Judiciary Committee on February 14. 

 
Indiana House Bill 1172 originally would guarantee legal counsel for a small 
subset of children involved in child in need of services or termination of parental 
rights cases. NACC offered written comments in support of the bill. Unfortunately, on 
February 16, the House Judiciary Committee removed all language extending youth’s right to counsel. 

 
Kansas House Bill 2381 would require the court to appoint an attorney to represent a child who is the subject of a child in need of care proceeding and permit the optional appointment of a guardian ad litem. This bill would change Kansas’ best interest attorney model to a client directed model. The House Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing on February 16. NACC submitted written comments in support of the bill. 

 
Montana House Bill 37 would require the appointment of legal counsel to any child subject to abuse and neglect court proceedings notwithstanding the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on January 10. NACC Policy Counsel Natalece Washington offered written and public comments (@9:55) in support of counsel for kids. The committee voted 18-1 to approve the bill for consideration by the whole House. A companion bill, Montana Senate Bill 148, would also guarantee legal counsel for children in dependency cases.  

 
Mississippi House Bill 1149 would ensure children are appointed client-directed legal counsel at all stages of a proceeding and ensure the child is deemed a party to the proceeding. The bill passed the House on February 2 was transmitted to the Senate and referred to Senate Judiciary A. 

 
Missouri House Bill 1170 would guarantee the appointment of client-directed legal 
counsel for children at all stages of a child abuse and neglect or termination of 
parental rights proceeding and make discretionary the appointment of a guardian ad 
litem. 

 
New Hampshire House Bill 535 would permit the court to appoint counsel for a child in abuse and neglect proceedings where the child’s expressed interests conflict with any recommendation of the guardian ad litem. The House Children and Family Law committee held a public hearing on the bill on January 24. NACC submitted written comments in support of the bill. The bill was considered in executive session on February 21. 

 
Oklahoma SB 907 (Companion Bill HB 1017) would establish the Family Representation and Advocacy Program, an entity that would be responsible for ensuring parents, legal guardians, and Indian custodians, and children are appointed counsel who have the training, support, and access to resources. The bill passed the Judiciary committee and was referred to Appropriations on February 14. 

 
Connecticut Senate Bill 1008 would continue the appointment of legal representation for youth involved in extended foster care court proceedings. The Joint Committee on Children heard the bill on February 16. NACC submitted written comments

 
Georgia House Bill 460 would guarantee the right to counsel to youth receiving extended foster care services. 

CBS Sunday Morning Underscores Systemic Problems; Counsel for Kids is Part of the Solution

Earlier this week, CBS Sunday Morning news shared the experiences of Vanessa Peoples, Samantha Mungai, and their respective families, with the child protection system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSC1IKHrKt4 

The report underscored racial and economic injustice in the system and the impossible choices families often face. It also grappled with the fact that family separation often harms children. 

The majority of child protective services investigations are for neglect, not abuse. Professor Dorothy Roberts noted: “Neglect is usually confused with poverty. Neglect is defined by most states as parents failing to provide the resources children need… because parents can’t afford them.”

And black families are twice as likely as white families to be impacted by the system. 

The system is “responding to harm and inflicting an intervention on those children in a way that causes further harm,” according to Alan Detloff. 

Children have legal rights: the right to their families, the right to sibling connections, the right to be heard, the right to be safe, the right to education, and more.  

But a legal right, without the ability to enforce that right, is often useless. When the child protection system makes the wrong decision, or threatens a child’s rights, it often requires legal representation to address it. As Vanessa People’s family’s experience showed, the only recourse to address systemic flaws came through legal representation. 

We’ve heard the same from other individuals with lived experience in foster care.

However, 14 states still don’t guarantee legal representation for children experiencing the child protection system. The one person at the center of a case is the one person who doesn’t get their own attorney.

That means courts make vital decisions about a child’s life and future—where they will live, where they will go to school, what connection they will have with family—without hearing their voice. 

Counsel for kids also reduce unnecessary school moves, help kids exit the foster care system quicker, and promote racial equity by challenging disparate treatment and ensuring fair access to court and services, among other benefits.  

We need #Counsel4Kids to protect children’s rights, ensure their voices are heard, and help address systemic issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSC1IKHrKt4 

The C4K Cheat Code Revealed: Collaborative Champions and Centering Lived Expertise

The momentum around Counsel for Kids (C4K) continued to grow during the 2022 legislative session, thanks to strong legislative champions and lived experience experts.   Dedicated policy advocates buoyed C4K Campaign efforts in Colorado and Indiana this year.  In each state, diverse coalitions of youth with lived experience in the child protection system, attorneys, foster parents, and national leaders lobbied in support of client-directed representation for youth. Their advocacy highlighted the attorney’s role in holding a state accountable for its duties to children in foster care, expediting permanency, increasing well-being, and in centering and amplifying youth voice. 

This session, three state legislative champions emerged as leaders in the fight to achieve counsel for kids.  Even while committed to other pending bills, they worked tirelessely to educate their peers on the unique needs of children experiencing foster care and the positive impact of attorneys on their experience. 

In Indiana, Senator Jon Ford (R) leveraged his cooperative spirit, knowledge of foster care, and respected position to elevate the issue and encourage discussion of counsel for kids. Sen. Ford told NACC that in his state, “ […]everyone in the child welfare system is represented but the child. The very person who needs the help most doesn’t have someone working for their best interest.” He added, “I believe legal representation can get a child through the system to permanency faster and I hope with less trauma.”

Ford filed Senate Bill 180, a proposal to appoint legal counsel for children in child protection proceedings. When the bill stalled in the Appropriations committee after passing unanimously through the Family and Children Services committee, Sen. Ford skillfully pivoted. He amended the bill to request examination of children’s legal representation by an interim study committee.  Later, when the legislative council declined to assign the topic to an interim study committee, Sen. Ford announced his decision to conduct an independent study on the issue with a diverse group of stakeholders including lived experience experts, agency representatives, the judiciary, Court Appointed Special Advocates, public defenders, and other legislators.  Sen. Ford’s actions—drafting a bill, educating his peers, debating the importance of C4K—have laid the groundwork for eventual lasting change in Indiana.

In Colorado, Representatives Lindsey Daugherty (D) and Tonya Van Beber (R) successfully led the charge to pass House Bill 22-1038, legislation that guarantees client-directed legal counsel for children age 12 and older in child protection court proceedings.  As a lawyer-legislator with extensive experience as a Guardian ad litem attorney, Rep. Daugherty understood the importance of legal representation for children and the value of centering young people who have experienced foster care in any systemic reform efforts. Rep. Van Beber, the bill’s co-sponsor, has lived expertise as a young person in the child protection system, as an adoptee, and as a foster parent.  She purposefully committed to engaging a diverse array of stakeholders in a collaborative legislative process.  Rep. Van Beber told NACC, it was critical to her that “everyone who is impacted has a voice in the process” including “the youth who are at the mercy of a system that they find themselves in under difficult circumstances and through no fault of their own.”

With this dynamic duo in place, HB 22-1038 sailed smoothly and unanimously through committees to the Governor’s desk for signing.   But they were not alone:  Rep. Daugherty explained that the testimony of youth with experience in the foster care system resonated the most with her peers—helping them understand the need for client-directed legal counsel.  Support for the bill was solidified after legislators -heard directly from young people about the need for an attorney to ascertain and advance “what they actually [want].” Rep. Daugherty told NACC that,  “Empowering our youth is essential for them to create a positive future. We need to ensure that our youth have the tools and resources necessary to make something of themselves, and that all starts with amplifying our children’s voices so that they know they are actually heard.”  

Stakeholders in both Indiana and Colorado agree that effective collaboration with a bill’s legislative sponsor is key to policy reform.  Sponsors who understand the value of counsel for kids and are best positioned to persuade their legislative peers. Trust and effective communication cement the partnership between policy advocates, staffers, and the legislative sponsor.  Communicating about the schedule of committee hearings, arguments raised by opponents, and areas where constituent voice is needed are particularly vital to the advocacy campaign. 

2022’s C4K movement in Indiana and Colorado demonstrated that policy advocacy thrives with the support of committed legislators.  Thank you to Sen. Ford,  Rep. Daugherty, and Rep. Van Beber for centering the voices of individuals that have experienced foster care and championing children’s rights in the community, in committee hearings, and on the voting floor. Onwards!

Pictured Below left to right: Tonya Van Beber; Lindsey Daugherty,  Jon Ford

Alaska Foster Youth Get More Input in their Cases

Alaska foster youth will soon have more of a say in what happens with their cases. 

In early April, the Alaska Supreme Court passed Order No. 1979, which amends court rules to allow foster youth the ability to attend hearings and have court-appointed attorneys argue their own wishes in their cases….

Under the new order, youth in foster care will now have their lawyers represent their wishes when they refuse residential or psychiatric treatment, are themselves parents, want their therapy records private, or are on “runaway status” from a foster home. 

Read more in The Imprint.