ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ON HEARING AND

OUTCOME TIMELINESS IN JUVENILE DEPENDENCY CASES
Steve M. Wood, Jesse R. Russell, Stephanie O. Macgill, and Alicia Summers

This article examines how the amount of judicial personnel work hours available for each juvenile dependency case in a county
may be related to the percentage of cases reaching key decision hearings in a timely manner. Panel analyses of data from
Washington State indicate that, when controlling for community risk factors, counties with more judicial personnel per case
held timely fact-finding and permanency planning hearings more often and more often achieved timely adoptions. Judicial
personnel per case, however, was not a significant predictor of the percentage of permanent placements completed within
timeliness goals.
Keypoints
Many states are not achieving the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), leading to children
languishing in care
The juvenile dependency system needs to examine ways in which it can increase the timeliness of safe and permanent
placements for children
Courts are being overburdened with an increase in juvenile dependency petition filings without a corresponding
increase in judicial personnel
Courts should increase their number of judicial staff, so they can process cases faster and meet outcome goals more easily
Keywords: Judicial Personnel; Juvenile Dependency; Permanent Placement; Timeliness; and Workload.

Identifying the factors that critically relate to increases in the number of safe and timely permanent
placements for children has been a focus of many researchers in the juvenile dependency field
(e.g., Benedict & White, 1991; Courtney, 1994; Harris & Courtney, 2003). With the passage of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in 1997, federal mandates require children to be placed in
safe and permanent homes. ASFA also requires that this placement occur in a timely manner. Unless
exceptions exist, states must initiate termination of parental rights proceedings if the child has been
in foster care for 15 months or more of the most recent 22 months. In addition to ASFA, states have
implemented their own statutes to decrease the amount of time between the removal of children to
foster care and key hearings. For example, Washington State requires a fact-finding hearing within 75
days of petition filing (RCW 13.34.070[1]) because there is an expectation that delays in holding this
hearing may result in prolonged court involvement and lengthy stays in foster care for children (Center
for Court Research, 2010).
The federal government has not been satisfied with the performance of many states in meeting the
requirements of ASFA (Meckler, 2003). The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) allows the
federal government to examine whether states have been successful on seven child welfare outcomes
related to safety (e.g., timeliness of investigations), permanency (e.g., re-entry and stability of foster
care placements), and well-being (e.g., educational needs of child). The findings from these reviews
indicate that only a small percentage of states achieved substantial conformity with any of the seven
outcomes. To be considered to have substantial conformity, at least 90% of applicable cases reviewed
in a state must have been rated as substantially achieving the specific outcome. Of the seven, none
Correspondence: swood@ncjfcj.org

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 52 No. 1, January 2014 9099

2014 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Wood et al./THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ON HEARING

91

had substantial conformity greater than 31% and several had conformity as low as 0%. Further, no
state achieved substantial conformity with all seven (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
n.d.). Similarly, timeliness to case outcomes is receiving increased focus in the juvenile dependency
system from the Childrens Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families. In the current
Court Improvement Program instructions, for example, the Childrens Bureau mandates that all states
report on five key performance measures related to timeliness, such as time to first permanency
hearing, time to permanent placement, and time to termination of parental rights (Administration for
Children and Families, 2012).
States shortcomings with regard to performance measures mandates have led researchers to
attempt to identify factors that may facilitate more timely and safe permanent placements. One
emergent factor in the literature is judicial workload. Judicial workload has gained attention because
courts understand that increases in judicial caseloads, without increases in judicial personnel, places
a burden on the courts with regard to case processing (Outley, 2006). In an early descriptive analysis,
Dobbin and Gatowski (2001) found that 79% of judges cited time constraints as the biggest challenge
they face in successfully completing their judicial duties both on and off the bench. According to
the judges, time constraints led to an inability to hear testimony from all involved parties, cover all
relevant case topics, and ensure that parties understood the proceedings. A later survey conducted by
Fostering Results (2004) produced similar findings. Fifty-two percent of judges whose dockets
consisted of more than one quarter of child abuse and neglect cases and 64% of judges whose dockets
consisted of more than three quarters of child abuse and neglect cases indicated that overcrowded
court dockets led to delays in permanent placement. Because of these findings, states like Washington
(National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2011), West Virginia (National Center for
State Courts, 2006), Texas (National Center for State Courts, 2007), and Michigan (National Center
for State Courts, 2011) began examining the number of judicial officers necessary to thoroughly and
efficiently handle juvenile dependency caseloads.
These descriptive studies laid the foundation for more rigorous examinations of judicial workload
and juvenile dependency outcomes. Research conducted in Spokane, Washington indicated that
having sufficient judicial personnel to meet caseload needs allowed for timely case processing,
frequent relative (as opposed to foster care) placements, and high levels of parental attendance at
hearings (Summers, Wood, & Russell, 2011). This research could be built upon in three ways. First,
prior research did not attempt to examine judicial personnel within a rigorous statistical framework.
Specifically, the research did not control for community-level variables and did not use an analysis
procedure that would allow for examination of outcomes across several years. Second, prior research
did not examine whether differences in judicial personnel between counties is related to timeliness and
outcome differences. Finally, differences within a county over time were not examined. The purpose
of this paper is to address these areas and to answer four questions concerning judicial workloads
relationship with timeliness to critical hearings and permanent placement outcomes.
Research Question 1: Is the amount of judicial personnel per case related to timely fact-finding
hearings?
Research Question 2: Is the amount of judicial personnel per case related to timely permanency
planning hearings?
Research Question 3: Is the amount of judicial personnel per case related to achieving timely
permanent placements for children?
Research Question 4: Is the amount of judicial personnel per case related to achieving timely
adoptions for children?
METHOD
SAMPLE

The Permanency Planning for Children Department (PPCD) of the National Council of Juvenile
and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), in conjunction with Washington State Administrative Office of

92

FAMILY COURT REVIEW

the Courts, acquired the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) of judges through structured phone
interviews with court staff in each of the 39 counties of Washington State. Data on community-level
factors for each county were obtained from the Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services (2011) risk profile report. Timeliness and outcome measures for each county were obtained
from Washington State Center for Court Researchs (2010) annual timeliness report.
MEASURES
Independent Variable

Of direct interest in the current study is the amount of judicial personnel available for each
dependency case brought to the courtthe number of full-time equivalent (FTE) judges and commissioners (herein judicial personnel) overseeing juvenile dependency cases in each county. For each
year, FTE was divided by the number of petitions filed that year (2009, 2010, and 2011).1
The FTE value for each county was acquired through structured interviews with court staff
(the court clerk, court administrator, or both) in each jurisdiction. In the event that a county had more
than one judicial officer, the individual FTE scores were summed. For example, a county with two
judicial officers who each work 13 hours a week on dependency cases would have an FTE of 0.65
(13 / 40 = .325, 0.325 + 0.325 = 0.65).
The judicial personnel per case variable was then calculated by dividing the calculated FTE value
by the annual number of petitions filed in that county. For example, a county with an FTE value of 2.0
and with 3,131 petitions filed annually would have a judicial personnel per case value of 0.0006 (2 /
3,131). Higher values indicate that a county has more judicial personnel available to hear each juvenile
dependency case for which a petition was filed in a given year. Lower values indicate that a county has
fewer judicial personnel to hear each juvenile dependency case in that year.
Control Variables

Based on previous research (for a review see Goldman, Salus, Wolcott, & Kennedy, 2003), several
community risk factors were included as control variables. Although prior research has shown that
community risk factors are related to entries into care, they were controlled for in this analysis to
account for possible differences in the types and severity of cases entering the system across
jurisdictions. For example, a community with a higher risk factor of alcohol related outlets might
experience more alcohol related dependency cases. Not all risk factors are directly related to specific
dependency case types, but community risk factors do provide some insight into how each community
experiences different types of underlying risks. The explanations for how each variable was calculated
are detailed in the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (2011) Risk Profile
report.
Alcohol Retail Outlets. The alcohol retail outlets variable was created using the ratio of annual
number of alcohol retail licenses active during the year, per 1,000 persons, in each county. Retail
licenses include restaurants, grocery stores, and wine shops, but not state liquor stores and agencies.
TANF Provision Rate. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provision rate
variable was a ratio created using the number of children (birth to 17 years of age) participating in the
federal TANF program in the fiscal year, per 1,000 children (birth to 17 years of age).
Unemployment Rate. The unemployment rate variable is the ratio of unemployed individuals (age
16 and over), per 100 persons, in the civilian labor force. Unemployed persons are those individuals
who self-report that they are currently available for work, have actively looked for work, and do not
have a job. The civilian labor force includes persons who self-report that they are working or looking
for work. The monthly numbers are gathered on approximately the twelfth of each month and then a

Wood et al./THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ON HEARING

93

yearly estimate is produced by averaging the monthly numbers. The TANF provision rate and the
unemployment rate are indicators of the level of income and financial stability of a countys residents.
Unregistered Voter Rate. The unregistered voters variable is a ratio derived from the annual
number of individuals, per 100 adults (age 18 and over), not registered to vote in the November
elections. The number of unregistered voters in an area is a measure of civic and political engagement
of a countys residents.

Dependent Variables

Four separate dependent variables were included to construct a clear picture of the relationship
between judicial workload and juvenile dependency case processing and outcomes. Each is described
below.
Fact-finding Hearings. The fact-finding hearings variable is the percentage of cases each year that
reached the fact-finding hearing within 75 days of petition filing. Unless there are exceptional reasons
for continuing a case, conducting a fact-finding hearing within 75 days of petition filing is a statutory
requirement of Washington State (RCW 13.34.070[1]).
Permanency Planning Hearings. The permanency planning hearings variable represents the
percentage of cases in one year that reached a permanency planning hearing within 12 months of
placement. This is a statutory requirement of Washington State (RCW 13.34.145[1][a]).
Permanency Outcomes. The permanency outcomes variable is the percentage of cases in a year
that reached a permanent placement before 15 months of out-of-home care. There was no indication
as to what type of permanent placement occurred before 15 months. The 15-month timeframe is not
a statutory requirement, but a goal of Washington State (RCW 13.34.145[1][c]).
Adoption Outcomes. The adoption outcomes variable is the percentage of cases that completed
adoption within six months of a termination of parental rights order. Completing adoption within six
months of a termination of parental rights order is a goal of Washington State (RCW 13.34.145[1][c]).

RESULTS
A separate statistical analysis was conducted for each of the four dependent variables to examine
whether a relationship exists between judicial personnel per case and timeliness to key hearings and
outcomes. For each analysis, a fixed effect for each county in Washington State across three years
(20092011) was estimated. A panel analysis is appropriate when analyzing data using the same
cases across several time-periods (Gujarati & Porter, 2008). This type of analysis accounts for both
variations across time, and variations across individual counties. It is thus able to provide insight into
why counties might differ from each other and why counties might change over time. See Table 1 for
judicial personnel per case values for each county across the three years. Additionally, see Table 2
for the median percentage of cases reaching each of the four prescribed outcomes across the three
years.
Prior to analyses, the distribution of each variable was tested for normality to ensure regression
assumptions were met. All of the dependent variables were normally distributed, except for the
percentage of cases that reached the fact-finding hearing within 75 days of petition filing, which was
negatively skewed. To correct for the skew, the variable was transformed by squaring the values.
The residuals of each regression model were also examined. A Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that all
residual distributions deviated significantly from normal, ps < .05. To correct for this, the judicial

94

FAMILY COURT REVIEW

Table 1
Judicial Personnel per Case for Each County across the Years 2009 to 2011
2009

2010

2011

Adams
Asotin
Benton

0.0015
0.0045
0.0003

0.0014
0.0036
0.0003

0.0014
0.0022
0.0004

Chelan
Clallam
Clark
Columbia
Cowlitz
Douglas
Ferry
Franklin
Garfield
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittitas
Klickitat
Lewis
Lincoln
Mason
Okanogan
Pacific
Pend Oreille
Pierce
San Juan
Skagit
Skamania
Snohomish
Spokane
Stevens
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Whitman
Yakima

0.0007
0.0004
0.0010
0.0045
0.0004
0.0002
0.0057
0.0002
0.0600
0.0022
0.0007
0.0014
0.0005
0.0007
0.0008
0.0023
0.0013
0.0010
0.0005
0.0004
0.0004
0.0005
0.0010
0.0012
0.0075
0.0005
0.0011
0.0003
0.0007
0.0019
0.0004
0.0060
0.0009
0.0009
0.0047
0.0012

0.0008
0.0004
0.0009
0.0069
0.0004
0.0002
0.0053
0.0001
0.0086
0.0024
0.0007
0.0010
0.0005
0.0008
0.0007
0.0022
0.0011
0.0010
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0005
0.0009
0.0009
0.0027
0.0004
0.0010
0.0003
0.0007
0.0018
0.0004
0.0012
0.0013
0.0010
0.0033
0.0008

0.0010
0.0004
0.0011
0.0089
0.0005
0.0003
0.0038
0.0001
0.0200
0.0022
0.0007
0.0010
0.0007
0.0008
0.0008
0.0015
0.0007
0.0009
0.0003
0.0005
0.0004
0.0004
0.0010
0.0009
0.0043
0.0004
0.0028
0.0004
0.0008
0.0016
0.0004
0.0060
0.0008
0.0012
0.0033
0.0011

Table 2
Median Percentage of Cases Reaching Prescribed Outcome

Fact-finding Hearings
Permanency Planning Hearings
Permanency Outcomes
Adoption Outcomes

2009

2010

2011

65%
0%
23%
15%

68%
80%
28%
24%

70%
83%
25%
50%

Wood et al./THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ON HEARING

95

personnel per case variable was transformed by inverting the original values. A follow-up ShapiroWilk test indicated that all of the residuals, with the exception of the permanency outcomes, were now
normally distributed. Although the permanency outcomes residuals remained somewhat non-normal,
the transformation did improve the Shapiro-Wilk statistic.

FACT-FINDING HEARINGS

The first statistical analysis examined the relationship between judicial personnel per case and
timeliness to fact-finding hearings. As a single predictor, the judicial personnel per case estimate was
found to be a significant predictor of the percentage of cases that reached the fact-finding hearing
within 75 days of petition filing, between R2 = .18, within R2 = .02, p = .02. The between R2 indicates
how much the judicial personnel per case variable can explain differences across the counties
themselves. The within R2 indicates how much the judicial personnel per case variable can explain
year-to-year variance in timeliness.
When controlling for county-level risk factors in the model, judicial personnel per case was a
significant predictor of the percentage of cases with a fact-finding hearing within 75 days of petition
filing, between R2 = .29, within R2 = .00, p = .09. The alcohol retail outlets, p = .04, and TANF
provision rate, p = .07, control variables were also significant. Research Question 1 was answered in
the affirmative. In general, counties with more judicial personnel in relation to petition filings had
timely fact-finding hearings more often. The R-squared statistics indicate that together judicial
personnel per case and community characteristics explain 29% of the variance in timeliness across
counties, but none of the variance across time.

PERMANENCY PLANNING HEARINGS

The second statistical analysis examined the relationship between judicial personnel per case and
timeliness to permanency planning hearings. By itself, the judicial personnel per case estimate was a
significant predictor of the percentage of cases with a permanency planning hearing within 12 months
of placement, between R2 = .07, within R2 = .03, p = .02. After controlling for county-level risk factors
in the second model, judicial personnel per case continued to be a significant predictor of the
percentage of cases with a permanency planning hearing within 12 months of placement, between
R2 = .12, within R2 = .51, p = .01. The TANF provision rate control variable was also significant,
p = .003. Similar to fact-finding hearings, counties with greater judicial personnel per case tended to
have a higher percentage of timely permanency planning hearings, which also translates into higher
percentage of statutory compliance. This finding answered Research Question 2 in the affirmative. The
R-squared statistics indicate that judicial personnel per case and community characteristics together
explain 12% of the variance in timeliness across counties and 51% of the variance across time.

PERMANENT PLACEMENT OUTCOMES

The third statistical analysis examined the relationship of judicial personnel per case and permanent placement outcomes. The judicial personnel per case estimate was not a significant predictor of
the percentage of cases with a permanent placement before 15 months of out-of-home care, between
R2 = .00, within R2 = .01, p = .98. Inclusion of county-level risk factors did not significantly alter the
influence of the judicial personnel per case variable, as it remained a non-significant predictor of the
percentage of cases with a permanent placement before 15 months of out-of-home care, between R2
= .05, within R2 = .01, p = .63. None of the county-level risk factors were significant. Research
Question 3 was not answered in the affirmative. For this model, judicial personnel per case and
community characteristics can only explain 5% of the differences across counties and 1% of the
change over time in timeliness outcomes.

96

FAMILY COURT REVIEW

ADOPTION OUTCOMES

The final statistical analysis examined whether judicial personnel per case is related to the timeliness
of adoptions. In the first model, judicial personnel per case was related to the percentage of cases with
adoption completed within six months of a termination of parental rights order, between R2 = .08, within
R2 = .00, p = .06. When controlling for county-level risk factors, the judicial personnel per case variable
remained a significant predictor of the percentage of adoptions completed within six months of a
termination order, between R2 = .13, within R2 = .00, p = .06. None of the county-level risk factors were
significant predictors. These findings answered Research Question 4 in the affirmative. R-squared
statistics indicate that judicial personnel per case and community characteristics together explain 13%
of the variance in adoptions across counties, but none of the variance across time.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current study is to examine whether judicial personnel per case is related to
timeliness to key hearings and outcomes in juvenile dependency cases. After controlling for countylevel risk factors, greater judicial personnel per case is associated with a higher percentage of cases
with a: (1) fact-finding hearing within 75 days of the petition filing; (2) permanency planning hearing
within 12 months of placement; and (3) adoptions completed within six months of a termination of
parental rights order. Counties with greater FTE judicial personnel per case achieve timeliness goals
for hearings and outcomes more often.
JUDICIAL PERSONNEL AND HEARING TIMELINESS

Judicial personnel per case is related to the timeliness of key hearings. The more judicial personnel
work hours available for each petition filed in a year, the more that court tends to be timely on its
percentage of fact-finding and permanency planning hearings. This supports prior research (Summers
et al., 2011) on timely hearings in Spokane, Washington. In addition, these findings offer policy
implications for counties both with and without adequate judicial personnel. For counties that
currently possess adequate judicial personnel, these findings reiterate that having a sufficient number
of judicial officers is important. Moreover, these empirical findings are consistent with the notion that
eliminating judicial officers may lead to children drifting in foster care (NCJFCJ, 1995, p. 79) with
little oversight or case progressionboth a burden for children and families, and on governmental
budgets.
JUDICIAL PERSONNEL AND OUTCOME TIMELINESS

Judicial personnel per case is related to the percentage of cases with an adoption within six months
of a termination of parental rights order. In counties with more judicial personnel per case, cases tend
to reach adoptions within timeliness goals more often than cases in counties with fewer judicial
personnel. This has implications for counties contemplating whether to add more judicial officers.
Prior research (Peters, Dworsky, Courtney, & Pollack, 2009; see also Zerbe et al., 2009) estimated the
cost to government of a child in foster care to be $57 each day. With 10,136 children in care on
September 30, 2010 in Washington State (Administration for Children and Families, 2011), a one-day
decrease in time in care for each child would equate to a savings of $577,752. The fiscal costs of
adding one or more judges may be greatly outweighed by the fiscal benefits. An area of future research
would be to examine other outcome measures that are not measured through timeliness, such as
reentry rates and stability of foster care placements that might have similar fiscal impacts.
Although greater judicial personnel per case was significantly related to adoption outcomes,
it was not related to the percentage of cases with a permanent placement before 15 months
of out-of-home care. We speculate that this null finding might be due to a lack of variance in the

Wood et al./THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ON HEARING

97

permanency outcome. All sites had a similarly small number of cases reaching this goal (the
average percentage across sites was 27.6% and the standard deviation across sites was 17.46). This
lack of broad variance may be the reason that differences in judicial personnel were not found to
be a strong predictor of this outcome.

JUDICIAL PERSONNEL AND BEST PRACTICES

The judicial personnel per case variable and county-level risk factors provide only a partial
explanation of outcome timeliness. For example, the between R2 that resulted from the analyses of
permanency planning hearings using the judicial workload resource and county-level factors was
.12leaving 88% unaccounted for by these variables. Much of this unexplained variance may be due
to particular court practices and policies. Best practices, like early appointment of quality legal
representation (Courtney & Hook, 2011) and early case mediation (Summers et al., 2011), have
become more prevalent in Washington State. For example, King County began a mediation program
during 2009. An assessment of King Countys mediation program indicated that 84% of mediated
cases reached a fact-finding hearing within 75 days of petition filing, compared with 50% of
non-mediated cases (Summers et al., 2011). These and other best practices (see Summers, Wood,
McClellan, & Russell, 2011 for a description of practices in Washington State) may be related to the
length of time in care and efficiency of case processing, but they cannot be accounted for in the current
analyses.
Other counties may also run programs (e.g., pre-trial conferences and alternative dispute resolution) designed to make the court process more efficient and timely. Future research should explore the
influence of these practice-related implementations on our outcome measures. Despite the fact that the
current study did not control for such programs, the findings indicate that much of the variance in
performance measure attainment may be related to local practices and programs. This is an area that
could benefit from future research.
The amount of variation accounted for by the models was different when examining variance over
time versus variation across counties. For fact-finding, permanent placement, and adoption hearings,
the models accounted for practically none of the variance across time. This suggests that judicial
personnel is not a large factor in year to year changes in a countys ability to achieve performance
measure goals for fact finding, permanent placement, and adoption hearings.
In contrast, the models accounted for 51% of the variance over time for percentage of cases with
a permanency planning hearing within 12 months of placement. This indicates that timeliness of
permanency planning hearings is more sensitive to judicial personnel per case. If the number of
petitions increases or the number of judicial personnel decreases, conducting permanency planning
hearing within 12 months of placement becomes more difficult. Of course, other factors (like reports
submissions, attorney schedules, or services availability) may also create difficulties for judicial
personnel to ensure that these hearings are held within timeliness goals. The judicial personnel per
case variable, however, explains more than half of the variance year to year in the ability to meet this
performance measure.

CONCLUSION
Ensuring safe, timely, and permanent placements for children is a top priority of the juvenile
dependency system. The number of judicial personnel is a critical factor that can help achieve these
goals. By increasing the number of judicial officers per case, judges may be afforded the opportunity
to ensure parties understand the proceedings and attend more to the needs of the family. Moreover, a
reduction in judicial workload will allow states to increase their compliance with ASFA mandates
as well as their own state-level mandatesan area where many are currently struggling. Increasing
judicial resources will help states overcome these shortcomings.

98

FAMILY COURT REVIEW

NOTE
1. Judicial personnel did not vary substantively across the state during the dates of interest (20092011). A single FTE value
was used for each county across all three years.

REFERENCES
Administration for Children and Families. (2011). Foster care FY2002-FY2010 entries, exits, and numbers of children in care
on the last day of each federal fiscal year. Retrieved on October 17, 2011 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
stats_research/afcars/statistics/entryexit2010.pdf
Administration for Children and Families. (2012). Program instructions. Retrieved on October 1, 2013 from http://
archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2012/pi1202.pdf
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 10589, 111 Stat. 2115 (1997).
Benedict, M. I., & White, R. B. (1991). Factors associated with foster care length of stay. Child Welfare, 70(1), 45
48.
Center for Court Research. (2010). Timeliness of dependency case processing in Washington State: 2010 annual report.
Retrieved from http://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/Timeliness%20of%20Dependency%20Case%20Processing%20
Annual%20Report%202010.pdf
Courtney, M. E. (1994). Factors associated with the reunification of foster children with their families. Social Service Review,
68(1), 81108.
Courtney, M. E., Hook, J. L., & Orme, M. (2011). Evaluation of the impact of enhanced parental legal representation on the
timing of permanency outcomes for children in foster care. Seattle, WA: Partners for Our Children at the University of
Washington.
Dobbin, S. A., & Gatowski, S. I. (2001). Judicial workload estimates: Redefining the concept of judicial work. Reno, NV:
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Fostering Results. (2004). View from the bench: Obstacles to safety & permanency for children in foster care. Retrieved
from http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Foster_care_reform/fostering_results_070104
.pdf
Goldman, J., Salus, M. K., Wolcott, D., & Kennedy, K. Y. (2003). A coordinated response to child abuse and neglect:
The foundation for practice. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundation
.pdf
Gujarati, D., & Porter, D. (2008). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Harris, M. S., & Courtney, M. E. (2003). The interaction of race, ethnicity, and family Structure with respect to the timing of
family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6), 409429.
Meckler, L. (2003, August 19). States failing new test of child welfare system. St. Augustine Record. Retrieved from
http://staugustine.com/stories/081903/sta_1743920.shtml
National Center for State Courts. (2006). West Virginia Circuit Court judicial workload assessment. Williamsburg, VA:
Author.
National Center for State Courts. (2007). Measuring current judicial workload in Texas, 2007. Williamsburg, VA:
Author.
National Center for State Courts. (2011). Michigan judicial workload assessment. Williamsburg, VA: Author.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1995). Resource guidelines: Improving court practice in child abuse
and neglect cases. Reno, NV: Author.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2011). Judicial workload in Washington State. Reno, NV: Author.
Outley, A. (2006). Overcoming barriers to permanency: Recommendations for juvenile and family courts. Family Court
Review, 44(2), 244257.
Peters, C. M., Dworsky, A., Courtney, M. E., & Pollack, H. (2009). Extending foster care to age 21: Weighing the costs to
government against the benefits to youth. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Summers, A., Wood, S. M., & Russell, J. (2011). Assessing efficiency and workload implications of the King County mediation
pilot. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1, 4859.
Summers, A., Wood, S., McClellan, J., & Russell, J. (2011). PPCD research report: Washington workload site assessment.
Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). General findings from the federal Child and Family Services Review.
Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/genfindings04/genfindings04.pdf
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. (2011). Risk profiles dataState & counties. Retrieved July 20,
2011 from http://www.dshs.wa.gov/rda/research/4/47/updated/default.shtm
Zerbe, R. O., Plotnick, R. D., Kessler, R. C., Pecora, P. J., Hiripi, E., OBrien, K., Williams, J., English, D., White, J. (2009).
Benefits and costs of intensive foster care services: The Casey Family Programs compared to state services. Contemporary
Economic Policy, 27(3), 308320.

Wood et al./THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ON HEARING

Steve M. Wood is a research assistant with the Juvenile Law Programs of the National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges. He is responsible for assisting with the design and implementation of research and evaluation within the
juvenile dependency court system. He has been conducting research within the juvenile dependency field for four years
and has published several research reports and academic journal articles on this topic. He is a doctoral candidate in
the Interdisciplinary social psychology program at the University of Nevada, Reno and holds a B.S. and M.S. in
psychology from Central Michigan University.
Jesse R. Russell is the director of research in the Madison office of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. He
graduated from Dartmouth College and in 1999 earned his masters degree in economic policymaking. He completed
his doctorate at the University of California, Santa Barbara in political economy in 2006. Since then, he has held the
position of assistant professor at the John Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall
University. He facilitates research efforts relating to a broad array of local, statewide, and national projects. His
research on child welfare, foster care, courts, and broad system improvement efforts has been published broadly,
including in the Journal of Juvenile Justice, Children and Youth Services Review, and Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law.
Stephanie O. Macgill is a former research associate at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She
holds a B.A. from Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts and a masters in public administration from the
University of Nevada, Reno. She has worked as an advocate for individuals experiencing homelessness in Boston and
Reno and studied federal and local homelessness policies. In her capacity as a research associate, she collaborated on
research projects that sought to inform systems change and improve outcomes within the juvenile dependency court
system.
Alicia Summers is a senior research associate at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She is
responsible for designing and conducting research and evaluation within the juvenile and family court system. Her
interest is in the intersection between social psychology and law. She received her Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the
University of Nevada, Reno.

99