Georgia DFCS Law

1. Georgia
http://apps.americanbar.org/abanet/child/statesum/allstate.cfm?y=2009#_Georgia
To Table of Contents
Georgia
www.gajusticeforchildren.org
Improving Legal Representation
The Georgia Court Improvement Project (CIP) continues to focus on improving legal representation by establishing standards of practice for
attorneys, ensuring attorneys have access to high-quality training, and developing a method for providing quality assurance.
· Parent Attorney Standards. As reported in prior Court Improvement Progress Reports, the Georgia CIP created aspirational guidelines for
all attorneys working in deprivation cases. The Parent Attorney Standards were adopted by the Parent Attorney Advocacy Council, housed
under the Public Defender Standards Council. The standards are available at http://parentattorney.org/index.php/standards/.
· Child Attorney Standards. The CIP hosted a session for judges and attorneys in March 2009 to determine if consensus could be reached
on the guidelines. Although consensus was reached, a vote by the Georgia Council of Juvenile Court Judges was not allowed to come to
their Rules or Executive Committee. There is pending legislation that would set standards and define roles for attorneys representing
children. The CIP will participate in legislative advocacy for the bill.
· Legal Trainings. Multiple legal trainings have been provided jointly and separately for all attorneys working in child deprivation cases,
including two beginner one-day child welfare attorney trainings (fall 2008 and spring 2009); monthly trainings at the Child Welfare Legal
Academy; and provision of scholarships for attorneys to attend two national conferences.
Legal Representation of Parties
Legal Representation of Parties: Appointing and Regulating Attorneys
Training and Education
Training and Education: Attorney/GAL Programs
Training and Education: Multidisciplinary Training
Court Measures
The CIP works closely with Fostering Court Improvement to provide agency data on safety and permanency for all children in foster care on a local
county or judicial circuit level. This data is published on an open website, found at www.fosteringcourtimprovement.org/ga, and is updated every

2. six months. This shared data allows the CIP to collect seven of the nine measures published in Building a Better Court (which can be found at
http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/603/427/), as well as additional data.
In 2009, the CIP launched the Cold Case Project, focusing on children who have been in foster care for long periods of time, particularly legal
orphans. The CIP is collaborating with the state agency to improve the state's performance on this measure. Findings are shared weekly with the
state agency and a final report will be complete in 2010. More information about the Cold Case Project can be found in Training Grant.
Technology
Technology: Data Collection
Expediting Appeals in Deprivation Cases
The CIP monitored HB 369, which passed as a direct result of research and education by CIP committee members. HB 369 changed the state’s
appellate process for TPR appeals from direct to discretionary appeal, requiring a decision to be made within 30 days. The law went into effect in
January 2008 and was constitutionally upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia in October 2009. A unanimous Court held that the state had a
legitimate interest in not having children languish in care and the discretionary appeal process offers effective expedited review while allowing for
a full appeal if warranted. In re A.C. 2009 WL 3161493 *4 (Ga. Oct. 5, 2009).
In February 2008, a CIP committee member and judge published How the Law is Changing and How You Can Shorten the Time Needed to Prepare
the Record. Both publications are available at http://tinyurl.com/3bmyou.
The CIP committee has identified two goals for improving TPR appeals: (1) reduce transcript delay and (2) undertake a comprehensive analysis of
the data provided by the Georgia Court of Appeals. In 2010, the CIP will have access to two years of data since the new law became effective and
will evaluate the impact of the law on TPR timeframes as well as timeframes to permanency. While the CIP anticipates that this legal change will
shorten some children’s time to permanency, it should be noted that less than 10 percent of TPRs in Georgia are appealed. Thus, this legal change
is unlikely to make a big difference in the statewide timeframe from TPR to adoption. Other measures to expedite the time frames for adoptions
must be adopted as well.
Timeliness of Decisions
Timeliness of Decisions: Appeals
Placement Stability
The CIP has included placement stability as a topic in multiple trainings. In January 2008, the CIP published Guide to the Implementation of House
Bill 153, which is available at http://tinyurl.com/yv8jek. The 2008 agency data showed improvement on the placement stability measure.
However, recent (and likely more accurate) agency data shows children are experiencing too many moves and Georgia is now failing on this
permanency composite measure. Thus, for 2010, the CIP will spend more resources on cross-training to let child welfare stakeholders know the
accurate data measures for placement stability and to discuss preventive strategies to reduce placement moves.

3. Legislation, Court Rules, Forms, and Orders
Legislation, Court Rules, Forms, and Orders: State Legislation
Technology
Technology: Data Collection
ICPC and Title IV-E Court Order Quality Assurance
Since the submission of the CIP's Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) report in June 2008, the judge who authored the report
meets regularly with the agency leadership to improve the ICPC process. In 2009, he taught several classes on ICPC, including at the Georgia CASA
conference, the Child Welfare Legal Academy, and the annual CIP Conference.
He is also working with the state agency on Title IV-E orders. He receives “bad” orders, notifies the judge or judges directly about the court order,
and provides a feedback loop to the field. He participated in the 2009 Title IV-E audit, where an oral report indicated the court orders showed
substantial improvement.
Legislation, Court Rules, Forms, and Orders
Legislation, Court Rules, Forms, and Orders: Forms and Orders
Training Grant
Funds from the CIP Training Grant have been used for the following initiatives:
 Summits. The CIP determined more people would be reached if summits could be done at a local court level where everyone who worked
in child welfare in that community could attend, instead of one big state summit where only a few people from each county could attend.
Since February 2007, the CIP has hosted 34 summits, reaching over 100 counties and over 2600 people. The one-day curriculum is built
around the measures for courts (safety and permanency measures, includes two timeliness measures and the Child and Family Services
Review (CFSR) measures). In partnership with the Office of the Child Advocate and the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), the
CIP discusses and reviews the law on permanency hearings and permanency plans. A final presentation includes former foster youth from
an advocacy group called EmpowerMEnt who urge the audience to include youth in the court permanency planning process, along with
specific recommendations and examples. At the end of the day, each county or circuit makes an action plan for change based on the child
outcome measures presented. Highlights from the summit in the Blue Ridge Circuit are archived as a web cast at
http://www.law.emory.edu/webcast/cherokee.ram. Other summit information is posted at www.gacipreport.org.
 Cold Case Project. The CIP launched the Cold Case project to focus on Permanency Composite 3, Children in Foster Care for Long Periods of
Time, which was a failure point for Georgia in the 2007 CFSR. Eleven attorneys have been working for the CIP for 10 hours a week reviewing
foster care cases that appear “cold.” The agency shares data and a successful predictive model is used to find the right children whose
cases need review. After the file is read and a summary is prepared, the CIP works with the agency and local attorneys to improve the case,

4. to strengthen the legal documentation in the file, and to make sure that permanency options are being explored with urgency. These
attorneys are also helping identify bureaucratic and legal barriers that prevent children from achieving permanency and bringing those
barriers to the attention of the state agency. The Cold Case Project works closely with the Permanency Roundtable Project run by the state
agency. The Cold Case attorneys are offered specific training opportunities, including participation in the ABA Conference on Children and
the Law, the National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC) training, and trial skills training. Ten attorneys are sitting for the NACC
certification test in 2010.
 Cross-Training for Attorneys in Child Deprivation Cases. In January 2009, the CIP launched the Legal Child Welfare Academy at Emory
University that consists of monthly classes by child welfare experts. Class topics included the following: (1) Diligent Search; (2) APPLA; (3)
Fostering Connections; (4) Permanency Hearings; (5) Family Preservation; (6) Protecting Children and Liberty; (7) Permanence and Rules of
Engagement; (8) ICPC; (9) Infant Brain Development; (10) Community Involvement in Juvenile Court; (11) EPSDT; and (12) Ethics in
Dependency Cases. More information about the Academy is available at http://www.law.emory.edu/centers-clinics/barton-child-law-
policy-clinic/presentations.html.
 Attorney Experts. Georgia developed a group of approximately six attorney experts, who received scholarships to attend conferences and
have been actively involved in summit presentations, judicial meetings, and certain CIP publications. The group brought a National Institute
of Trial Advocacy training to Georgia in March 2008. The training was hosted by Emory University and 56 attorneys attended.
Training and Education
Training and Education: Multidisciplinary Training
Training and Education: Attorney/GAL Programs
Data Collection and Analysis Grant
The CIP has one staff attorney solely assigned to translating the data measures for the judiciary and the legal community. This work includes
reviewing the information at www.fosteringcourtimprovement.org/ga every month, using the data for summit presentations and six-month follow-
up letters on summit action plans. This attorney analyzed data to identify Paulding County as a model court for the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges' National Model Court Program, based on their improved removal rate, length of time in foster care, and child abuse
recurrence rates.
Every six months, the Court Improvement Initiative (CII) group (which includes 13 judges, each bringing three team members) gathers for a two-day
meeting to review specific data and to develop best practices based on identified problems. In 2009, one meeting focused on family preservation
and chronic families and another on judicial bias and racial disproportionality in child welfare. Notes and presentations from these meetings are
posted at http://www.gacipreport.org.

5. In addition to the safety and permanency data being shared by flat file transfer, the GA CIP launched a system with the agency in 2008. The Case
Plan Reporting System 2 (CPRS2) allows for sharing of a subset of SACWIS data with the courts. Counties can now use CPRS2 as a tool for managing
cases.
Finally, the CIP supports the maintenance costs of a web-based court calendaring system and a web-based daily court scheduling system. The CIP
purchased computers and wireless cards to assist judges who travel to multiple courthouses in different counties.
Technology
Technology: Data Collection
Collaboration with the State Agency
For the past six years, the agency has been sharing their AFCARS data with the court, allowing it to be part of Fostering Court Improvement Project.
The website is updated every six months and the CIP sends individual reports to each judge. In 2007, the CIP provided judges with a list of every
child who has been in care over 18 months. In 2008, the CIP provided judges with a list of every child who had a plan goal of emancipation, as well
as every child age 14 and older still in foster care. The CIP asked each judge to make sure that every child on that list had a permanency hearing
and a Written Transitional Living Plan with a referral to Independent Living Services. In 2009, the CIP provided lists of all “cold cases” to the
judiciary and other child welfare partners.
In addition to AFCARS data, the agency began sharing safety data, as well as a subset of data from SHINES, their SACWIS system. The CIP Director
and Deputy Director of DFCS meet every month to review Program Improvement Plan (PIP) progress, strategies for addressing problems, and
periodic updating on various joint projects. CIP staff members serve on a number of agency PIP work committees and Advisory Boards and the
DFCS Deputy Director serves as a committee member to the CIP Advisory Board.
The CIP is working with the state agency on a number of PIP items surrounding permanency, especially adoptions and children in long-term foster
care or aging out.
Community Collaboration
Children Removed to Foster Care
During April 2014 through March 2015
Total
Removals
Average
Monthly
Reentries to Foster
Care
Reentries to Foster
Care within 12
Discharged within 1
Month of Removal
Permanency Within
12 months of April
IV-E Reimbursed
in Removal Cohort

6. to Foster
Care
Removals to
Foster Care
months of
Previous Discharge
2013 through
March 2014
Removal
(excludes latest 6
months)
DHRRegio
n
C
o
u
n
t
per
10K
R
a
n
k
Count
p
e
r
1
0
K
Ran
k
Count
Perce
nt
Ran
k
Count Perce
nt
Ran
k
Count
Perce
nt
Ran
k
Count
Perce
nt
Ran
k
Count Perce
nt
Ran
k
Region 5
51
1
29.6 6 42.6
2.
5
5.5 56/511 11.0% 14
30/51
1
5.9% 7.0 48/464 10% 13.0
135/38
3
35% 13.0
53/22
0
24% 13.5
Statistics for Clarke County
Charts:
 CPS Reports
 Removals
 Foster Care Population
 Discharges
 Child and Family Services Review
 Court Improvement Program
Statistics for Larger Regions: Region 5, Western Circuit, Non-Appalachian Counties.

7. Tables:
Clarke County Children Subject of Maltreatment Reports (duplicated)
During April 2014 through March 2015
Count Rate State Rate
Rank
(high=1 to
low=159)
Children Subject of Maltreatment Reports 1,271 47.7 per 10K 28.6 per 10K 18
Children Subject of Maltreatment Investigations 799 30.0 per 10K 16.7 per 10K 15
Children Subject of Alternative Response 0 0.0 per 10K 0.0 per 10K 80
Children Subject of Undetermined Reports 472 17.7 per 10K 11.9 per 10K 46
Children Subject of Non-Maltreatment Reports 0 0.0 per 10K 0.0 per 10K 80
Victim Reports 295 11.1 per 10K 6.4 per 10K 35.5
Victim Reports of Neglect 193 7.3 per 10K 4.5 per 10K 42
Victim Reports of Physical Abuse 74 2.8 per 10K 1.6 per 10K 37
Victim Reports of Sexual Abuse 9 0.3 per 10K 0.1 per 10K 41
Victim Reports of Other Abuse 19 0.7 per 10K 0.2 per 10K 18
Victims Removed to Foster Care 94/295 31.9% 23.2% 31
Victims Not Removed to Foster Care 201/295 68.1% 76.8% 129
Non-Victims Removed to Foster Care 9/504 1.8% 2.1% 54
Children Subject of Alternative Response Removed to Foster Care 0/0 na na na
Children Subject of Undetermined Reports Removed to Foster Care 11/472 2.3% 1.3% 23

8. Removed to Foster Care Before Report 0/114 0% 1.3% 96
Removed to Foster Care within 3 Days of Report 47/114 41.2% 45.4% 77
Removed to Foster Care within 7 Days of Report 56/114 49.1% 52.9% 83
Median Days from Report to Removal 114 7.0 days 7.0 days 91.5
Removed to Foster Care Prior to Start of Investigation NA/114 na na na
Victims Revictimized within 6 Months, Disposed October 2013 to September 2014 23/280 8.2% 5.6% 34.5
Removed Victims Revictimized within 6 Months, Disposed October 2013 to September 2014 6/87 6.9% 2.7% 22
Non-Removed Victims Revictimized within 6 Months, Disposed October 2013 to September
2014
17/193 8.8% 6.6% 40
Non-Victims Victimized within 6 Months, Disposed October 2013 to September 2014 35/485 7.2% 5.4% 41.5
Alternative Response Victimized within 6 Months, Disposed October 2013 to September 2014 0/0 na na na
Undetermined Reports Victimized within 6 Months, Disposed October 2013 to September
2014
39/582 6.7% 6.6% 70
Clarke County Children Removed to Foster CareDuring April 2014 through March 2015 Count Rate State Rate
Rank(high=1
to low=159)
Total Removals to Foster Care 150 67.3 per 10K 28.4 per 10K 10
Average Monthly Removals to Foster Care 12.5 5.6 per 10K 2.4 per 10K 10
Reentries to Foster Care 11/150 7.3% 15.9% 114
Reentries to Foster Care within 12 months of Previous Discharge 8/150 5.3% 6.7% 66

9. Removals for Neglect 131/150 87% 50% 22.5
Removals for Caretaker Drug or Alcohol Use 26/150 17% 29% 119
Removals for Physical Abuse 24/150 16% 11% 37.5
Removals for Caretaker Inability to Cope 14/150 9% 10% 77.5
Removals for Inadequate Housing 19/150 13% 22% 100.5
Removals for Incarceration 1/150 1% 10% 102.5
Removals for Child Behavior 4/150 3% 12% 122.5
Removals for Abandonment 11/150 7% 11% 76
Removals for Sexual Abuse 0/150 0% 3% 110.5
Discharged within 1 Month of Removal 10/138 7% 20% 93
Permanency Within 12 months of April 2013 through March 2014 Removal 19/85 22% 48% 127
IV-E Reimbursed in Removal Cohort (excludes latest 6 months) 17/66 26% 33% 105
Clarke County Children in Foster Care
During April 2014 through March 2015
Count Rate State Rate
Rank
(high=1 to
low=159)
Children in Region on March 31 2015 22,409 na na 30
Children in Care on March 31 2014 135 61.0 per 10K 29.0 per 10K 25
Children in Care on March 31 2015 219 98.0 per 10K 34.0 per 10K 7

10. Average Daily Children in Care 182 81.8 per 10K 31.6 per 10K 13
Total Out of Home Placement-Days on March 31 2015 94,728 42,272.0 per 10K 16,516.0 per 10K 14
Total Children Served in Foster Care During April 2014 through March 2015 285 na na 13
Total Days Children Spent in Foster Care During April 2014 through March 2015 65,264 29,294.0 per 10K 11,443.0 per 10K 14
Total Days Children Spent Out of Home During April 2014 through March 2015 65,159 29,247.0 per 10K 11,437.0 per 10K 14
Average Monthly Foster Care Costs During April 2014 through March 2015 250,014 112,220.0 per 10K 50,816.0 per 10K 19
Children in Congregate Settings on March 31 2015 18 8.0 per 10K 6.1 per 10K 56.5
Children In Care with Both TPRs on March 31 2015 26 11.6 per 10K 3.7 per 10K 17
17-Year-Olds In Care with Both TPRs on March 31 2015 0 0.0 per 10K 0.3 per 10K 103.5
Children in Non-Relative Foster Care on Last Day 128/219 58% 61% 87
Children in Relative Foster Care on Last Day 67/219 31% 20% 32
Children in Pre-Adoptive Home on Last Day 4/219 2% 1% 23
Children in Group Home on Last Day 0/219 0% 1% 92.5
Children in Institution on Last Day 18/219 8% 17% 116.5
Children in Home Visit on Last Day 1/219 0% 0% 84.5
Children in Runaway on Last Day 1/219 0% 0% 88
Children in ILP on Last Day 0/219 0% 0% 80
Children Investigated for Maltreatment in Care during February 2014 through January 24/275 8.73% 6.37% 44

11. 2015
Children Victimized in Care during February 2014 through January 2015 9/275 3.27% 1.88% 30
Children Victimized in Care during February 2014 through January 2015 by Parent 2/275 0.73% 0.68% 38
Children Victimized in Care during February 2014 through January 2015 by Foster
Parent or Facility Staff
3/275 1.09% 0.85% 34.5
Children Over 12 in Group Settings on March 31 2015 16/18 89% 85% 102
Children with 3+ Placements in Current Setting < 6 Months 14/232 6% 8% 80.5
Placements Moves Toward Permanency 19/88 22% 24% 85.5
Lateral Placements Moves 57/88 65% 62% 79.5
Placements Moves Away from Permanency 12/88 14% 14% 66
IV-E Reimbursement Rate, Children In Care on March 31 2015 53/219 24% 34% 126.5
Long Term Foster Care Plan Goal, Children In Care on March 31 2015 1/219 0% 3% 120
Median Length of Stay, Children In Care on March 31 2014 135 10.5 months 11.0 months 95
Median Length of Stay, Children In Care on March 31 2015 219 9.3 months 10.5 months 95
Permanency within 12 Months, Children In Care on March 31 2014 45/135 33% 38% 108
Permanency within 12 Months, Children with Both TPRs In Care on March 31 2014 6/40 15% 32% 115
In Care Over 18 Months on March 31 2015 48/219 22% 30% 110
In Care Over 24 Months on March 31 2015 39/219 18% 21% 90
In Non-Relative Care Over 24 Months on March 31 2015 37/219 17% 19% 87.5

12. In Non-Relative Care Over 24 Months with Both TPRs on March 31 2015 19/37 51% 40% 80
In Care Over 18 Months on March 31 2014 Permanent within 12 Months 9/39 23% 36% 116.5
In Care Over 24 Months on March 31 2014 Permanent within 12 Months 3/24 12% 32% 123
Entering 18th Month In Care during April 2013 through March 2014 Permanent
within 12 Months
18/42 43% 45% 97.5
Clarke County Children DischargedDuring April 2014 through March 2015 Count Rate State Rate
Rank(high=1
to low=159)
Total Discharges 66/22,279 29.6 per 10K 22.2 per 10K 47
Children Discharged for Reunification 41/66 62% 55% 55
Children Discharged for Relative 5/66 8% 10% 72.5
Children Discharged for Adoption 11/66 17% 13% 68.5
Children Discharged for Transfer 1/66 2% 2% 51
Children Discharged for Emancipation 3/66 5% 8% 95.5
Children Discharged for Guardianship 4/66 6% 11% 95
Children Discharged for Runaway 0/66 0% 1% 92.5
Children Discharged for Death 1/66 2% 0% 15.5
Children Discharged for Unknown 0/66 0% 0% 85.5
Median Length of Stay in Foster Care 66 13.0 months 8.8 months 64.5
Median Months from Removal to Reunification Discharge 41 11.9 months 4.1 months 50

13. Median Months from Removal to Relative Discharge 5 10.5 months 1.5 months 97
Median Months from Removal to Adoption Discharge 11 26.6 months 29.0 months 128
Reunified within 72 Hours 1/41 2% 10% 71.5
Reunified within 12 Months 22/41 54% 77% 131.5
Adopted within 24 Months 4/11 36% 29% 88.5
Adopted within 48 Months 11/11 100% 90% 96.5
Median Months from Removal to TPR Among Adoptions During Latest 12 Months 11 18.1 months 18.1 months 111
Median Months from TPR to Final Adoption Among Adoptions During Latest 12 Months 11 7.9 months 9.7 months 127
Paternal Followed Maternal TPR by Over 30 Days Among Adoptions During Latest 12
Months
6/11 55% 20% 70
In Care 12+ Months at Age 16, Discharged to Permanency by Age 18 1/3 33% 39% 125.5
In Care with Both TPRs at Age 16, Discharged to Permanency by Age 18 1/2 50% 34% 127
Adoption Discharges 11/22,279 4.9 per 10K 2.8 per 10K 40.5
Non-Permanent Discharges 5/22,279 2.2 per 10K 2.4 per 10K 71.5
Non-Permanent Discharges Among Children with Both TPRs 2/17 12% 8% 81.5
Discharged Runaways Under 18 on March 31 2015 0 na na 97
Children Victimized within 6 Months After Discharge during August 2013 through July 2014 0/60 0% 3.2% 114

14. Clarke County Child and Family Services Review Measures
During April 2014 through March 2015
Count Rate State Rate
Rank
(high=1 to
low=159)
Maltreatment Reports During Period 1,271 47.7 per 10K 28.6 per 10K 18
Substantiated Maltreatment Victims During Period 295 11.1 per 10K 6.4 per 10K 36
Removals During Period 150 5.6 per 10K 2.4 per 10K 10
In-care on March 31 2015 219 98.0 per 10K 34.0 per 10K 7
Total Children Served na na na na
Discharges During Period 66 na na 25
S1.1: Non-Recurrence of Substantiated Maltreatment within 6 Months 93/95 97.9% 96.2% 92.5
S1.2: Non-Maltreated by Foster Parent or Facility Staff 285/285 100% 100% 81.5
C1.1: Discharged to Reunification or Relative within 12 Months 25/45 56% 73% 124
C1.2: Discharged to Reunification or Relative Median Length of Stay 45 11.1 months 6.4 months 56.5
C1.3: Removed During 6-Months before April 01 2014, Discharged to Reunification or
Relative
7/49 14% 38% 120.5
C1.4: Discharged During 12-Months before April 01 2014, Reentering within 12 Months 0/33 0% 10.5% 122.5
C2.1: Discharged to Adoption within 24 Months 4/11 36% 29% 88.5
C2.2: Discharged to Adoption Median Length of Stay 11 26.6 months 29.0 months 128
C2.3: In-care 17+ Months on April 01 2014, Adopted During Period 7/39 18% 25% 99

15. C2.4: In-care 17+ Months on April 01 2014, Freed for Adoption During First 6 Months of
Period
7/23 30% 13% 66
C2.5: Legally Freed April 2013 through March 2014 , Adopted within 12 Months 11/22 50% 53% 102
C3.1: In-care 24+ Months on April 01 2014, Permanent By 18th Birthday 3/23 13% 32% 123
C3.2: Discharges to Permanency Among Legally Free Children 15/17 88% 92% 131.5
C3.3: Emancipated After In-care 3+ Years 2/3 67% 30% 73.5
C4.1: Two or Fewer Placement Settings, In-care <12 Months 113/156 72% 75% 108.5
C4.2: Two or Fewer Placement Settings, In-care 12 to 24 Months 42/74 57% 54% 93.5
C4.3: Two or Fewer Placement Settings, In-care Over 24 Months 13/48 27% 32% 110.5
Clarke County Court Improvement Program Reporting Measures
During April 2014 through March 2015
Count Rate State Rate
Rank
(high=1 to
low=159)
CIP1.1: Free for Adoption or Living with Family within 15 Months of January 2013 through
December 2013 Removal
32/60 53% 67% 121
CIP1.2: Discharged within 1 Month of Removal 10/153 7% 20% 96
CIP1.3: Permanent within 12 Months of April 2013 through March 2014 Removal 19/85 22% 48% 127
CIP1.4: In Care Over 24 Months on March 31 2014 Permanent within 12 Months 3/24 12% 32% 123
CIP1.5: TPRs Completed during Latest 12 Months within 15 Months of Removal 3/10 30% 33% 123
CIP1.6: In Care with Both TPRs on March 31 2014 Permanent within 12 Months 6/40 15% 32% 115
CIP1.7: In Care 12+ Months at Age 16, Discharged to Permanency by Age 18 1/3 33% 39% 125.5

16. CIP1.8: In Care 12+ Months with Both TPRs at Age 16, Discharged to Permanency by Age 18 1/2 50% 34% 127
[Georgia Child Welfare Measures Home]
http://www.fosteringcourtimprovement.org/ga/JudicialCircuit/cip1_summary.html
Court Improvement Program Reporting Measures
During April 2014 through March 2015
CIP1.1: Free for Adoption or
Living with Family within 15
Months of January 2013 through
December 2013 Removal
CIP1.2: Discharged within 1
Month of Removal
CIP1.3: Permanent within 12
Months of April 2013 through
March 2014 Removal
CIP1.4: In Care Over 24
Months on March 31 2014
Permanent within 12 Months
JudicialCircuit Count Percent Rank Count Percent Rank Count Percent Rank Count Percent Rank
Alapaha 28/42 67% 21.5 2/55 4% 47.5 20/48 42% 28.5 7/23 30% 29.5
Alcovy 59/91 65% 28.0 15/145 10% 34.0 37/121 31% 42.5 2/23 9% 47.0
Appalachian 74/112 66% 24.5 16/125 13% 27.5 46/114 40% 30.0 13/23 57% 5.0
Atlanta 318/397 80% 7.5 261/683 38% 2.0 408/562 73% 2.0 62/162 38% 19.0
Atlantic 26/40 65% 28.0 15/63 24% 10.0 24/48 50% 14.5 4/18 22% 36.0
Augusta 117/154 76% 14.0 25/153 16% 22.0 91/201 45% 22.5 8/37 22% 36.0
Bell-Forsyth 15/28 54% 41.0 17/61 28% 5.0 23/42 55% 11.0 5/6 83% 2.0

17. Blue Ridge 174/222 78% 11.0 66/319 21% 13.5 139/267 52% 12.0 13/34 38% 19.0
Brunswick 83/145 57% 38.5 20/148 14% 25.5 56/151 37% 37.5 38/81 47% 13.0
Chattahoochee 131/252 52% 43.5 12/212 6% 41.5 91/285 32% 41.0 18/54 33% 23.5
Cherokee 113/182 62% 31.5 46/289 16% 22.0 96/254 38% 34.5 19/52 37% 21.0
Clayton 127/192 66% 24.5 88/277 32% 3.0 137/224 61% 5.0 11/51 22% 36.0
Cobb 244/310 79% 9.5 228/472 48% 1.0 280/399 70% 3.0 17/51 33% 23.5
Conasauga 45/74 61% 33.5 31/198 16% 22.0 42/99 42% 28.5 5/29 17% 44.5
Cordele 27/44 61% 33.5 6/52 12% 29.0 10/47 21% 48.0 2/12 17% 44.5
Coweta 95/139 68% 19.5 31/231 13% 27.5 82/186 44% 25.0 23/69 33% 23.5
Dougherty 30/51 59% 35.5 10/68 15% 24.0 21/55 38% 34.5 2/17 12% 46.0
Douglas 17/31 55% 40.0 5/87 6% 41.5 7/39 18% 49.0 18/45 40% 17.0
Dublin 32/38 84% 5.0 5/66 8% 36.5 24/40 60% 6.0 10/19 53% 9.0
Eastern 51/98 52% 43.5 44/202 22% 11.5 63/135 47% 20.5 33/81 41% 15.5
Enotah 42/65 65% 28.0 13/67 19% 15.5 37/75 49% 17.0 7/25 28% 32.0
Flint 50/76 66% 24.5 31/109 28% 5.0 29/74 39% 31.5 5/17 29% 31.0
Griffin 88/129 68% 19.5 30/178 17% 19.0 80/157 51% 13.0 14/25 56% 7.5
Gwinnett 150/209 72% 16.5 117/465 25% 8.5 170/296 57% 8.0 22/98 22% 36.0

18. Houston 38/64 59% 35.5 25/88 28% 5.0 41/84 49% 17.0 1/16 6% 48.0
Lookout
Mountain
75/120 62% 31.5 44/212 21% 13.5 51/118 43% 27.0 18/35 51% 10.0
Macon 71/152 47% 47.5 13/187 7% 39.0 42/159 26% 45.0 17/62 27% 33.0
Middle 8/15 53% 42.0 2/39 5% 44.5 10/22 45% 22.5 2/3 67% 3.0
Mountain 60/69 87% 2.0 11/49 22% 11.5 56/71 79% 1.0 8/14 57% 5.0
Northeastern 70/144 49% 46.0 17/96 18% 17.0 52/155 34% 39.0 10/32 31% 27.5
Northern 52/72 72% 16.5 19/112 17% 19.0 33/66 50% 14.5 2/10 20% 39.5
Ocmulgee 81/102 79% 9.5 20/119 17% 19.0 41/93 44% 25.0 11/36 31% 27.5
Oconee 9/11 82% 6.0 13/51 25% 8.5 6/16 38% 34.5 0/8 0% 49.0
Ogeechee 41/59 69% 18.0 2/51 4% 47.5 12/51 24% 47.0 12/29 41% 15.5
Pataula 23/27 85% 4.0 3/27 11% 31.0 9/27 33% 40.0 4/7 57% 5.0
Paulding 26/51 51% 45.0 2/82 2% 49.0 24/64 38% 34.5 7/16 44% 14.0
Piedmont 88/131 67% 21.5 14/122 11% 31.0 57/130 44% 25.0 6/20 30% 29.5
Rockdale 43/50 86% 3.0 16/114 14% 25.5 42/75 56% 10.0 10/20 50% 11.5
Rome 108/187 58% 37.0 25/239 10% 34.0 72/195 37% 37.5 25/66 38% 19.0
Southern 69/146 47% 47.5 9/176 5% 44.5 47/152 31% 42.5 19/60 32% 26.0

19. South Georgia 35/44 80% 7.5 16/86 19% 15.5 26/46 57% 8.0 3/9 33% 23.5
Southwestern 27/36 75% 15.0 5/51 10% 34.0 22/45 49% 17.0 5/9 56% 7.5
Stone
Mountain
308/401 77% 12.5 197/760 26% 7.0 284/502 57% 8.0 24/122 20% 39.5
Tallapoosa 55/71 77% 12.5 19/170 11% 31.0 47/98 48% 19.0 7/38 18% 42.5
Tifton 44/67 66% 24.5 6/113 5% 44.5 29/75 39% 31.5 9/40 22% 36.0
Toombs 15/16 94% 1.0 2/28 7% 39.0 19/30 63% 4.0 0/0 na% na
Towaliga 47/73 64% 30.0 6/72 8% 36.5 40/85 47% 20.5 7/14 50% 11.5
Waycross 35/109 32% 49.0 8/168 5% 44.5 24/93 26% 45.0 9/50 18% 42.5
Western 39/68 57% 38.5 11/168 7% 39.0 24/92 26% 45.0 5/26 19% 41.0
Statewide 3,603/5,406 67% na 1,639/8,105 20% na 3,123/6,463 48% na 579/1,794 32% na
Back to Index Page
Court Improvement Program Reporting Measures
During April 2014 through March 2015
CIP1.5: TPRs Completed
during Latest 12 Months
within 15 Months of Removal
CIP1.6: In Care with Both TPRs
on March 31 2014 Permanent
within 12 Months
CIP1.7: In Care 12+ Months at
Age 16, Discharged to
Permanency by Age 18
CIP1.8: In Care 12+ Months
with Both TPRs at Age 16,
Discharged to Permanency by
Age 18

20. JudicialCircuit Count Percent Rank Count Percent Rank Count Percent Rank Count Percent Rank
Alapaha 1/3 33% 25.5 9/28 32% 24.5 0/2 0% 46.5 0/1 0% 43
Alcovy 6/10 60% 18.0 11/59 19% 38.0 3/4 75% 11.5 2/2 100% 19
Appalachian 2/13 15% 31.0 14/38 37% 18.0 2/3 67% 15.0 2/2 100% 19
Atlanta 4/9 44% 22.0 47/101 47% 8.0 11/32 34% 33.0 1/6 17% 35
Atlantic 0/0 na% na 3/9 33% 22.0 0/0 na% na 0/0 na% na
Augusta 3/6 50% 20.5 9/57 16% 41.0 4/7 57% 18.5 3/3 100% 19
Bell-Forsyth 0/4 0% 41.0 6/11 55% 3.5 0/0 na% na 0/0 na% na
Blue Ridge 0/0 na% na 18/39 46% 9.0 2/4 50% 21.5 1/2 50% 27
Brunswick 5/18 28% 28.5 33/88 38% 16.0 5/14 36% 31.0 0/2 0% 43
Chattahoochee 0/2 0% 41.0 5/24 21% 36.0 2/3 67% 15.0 1/1 100% 19
Cherokee 18/25 72% 16.0 28/95 29% 28.0 5/11 45% 24.0 0/1 0% 43
Clayton 0/7 0% 41.0 9/34 26% 32.5 0/4 0% 46.5 0/2 0% 43
Cobb 1/10 10% 32.0 17/57 30% 27.0 5/12 42% 26.0 1/1 100% 19
Conasauga 4/11 36% 23.0 24/69 35% 19.5 2/5 40% 28.5 1/1 100% 19
Cordele 0/0 na% na 0/3 0% 47.5 1/2 50% 21.5 0/0 na% na
Coweta 2/2 100% 13.5 25/66 38% 16.0 4/17 24% 42.0 1/8 12% 36

21. Dougherty 0/0 na% na 0/0 na% na 1/1 100% 9.5 0/0 na% na
Douglas 0/0 na% na 14/36 39% 13.5 5/7 71% 13.0 1/2 50% 27
Dublin 0/1 0% 41.0 7/16 44% 10.0 2/4 50% 21.5 1/2 50% 27
Eastern 0/3 0% 41.0 20/62 32% 24.5 6/9 67% 15.0 2/2 100% 19
Enotah 0/0 na% na 8/24 33% 22.0 1/3 33% 36.0 1/3 33% 32
Flint 0/1 0% 41.0 3/6 50% 7.0 3/4 75% 11.5 1/1 100% 19
Griffin 4/7 57% 19.0 32/57 56% 2.0 3/5 60% 17.0 0/0 na% na
Gwinnett 0/1 0% 41.0 14/51 27% 30.5 4/14 29% 39.0 0/3 0% 43
Houston 2/2 100% 13.5 2/15 13% 42.0 2/6 33% 36.0 0/1 0% 43
Lookout
Mountain
0/10 0% 41.0 20/53 38% 16.0 2/5 40% 28.5 1/3 33% 32
Macon 10/29 34% 24.0 24/101 24% 34.0 1/7 14% 43.0 1/4 25% 34
Middle 0/0 na% na 6/11 55% 3.5 0/0 na% na 0/0 na% na
Mountain 0/1 0% 41.0 10/25 40% 12.0 1/1 100% 9.5 1/1 100% 19
Northeastern 0/2 0% 41.0 17/52 33% 22.0 2/6 33% 36.0 0/5 0% 43
Northern 0/5 0% 41.0 3/25 12% 43.0 2/5 40% 28.5 0/1 0% 43
Ocmulgee 5/7 71% 17.0 10/49 20% 37.0 0/6 0% 46.5 0/4 0% 43

22. Oconee 0/0 na% na 0/4 0% 47.5 0/0 na% na 0/0 na% na
Ogeechee 0/1 0% 41.0 14/33 42% 11.0 0/0 na% na 0/0 na% na
Pataula 0/4 0% 41.0 0/4 0% 47.5 0/0 na% na 0/0 na% na
Paulding 0/1 0% 41.0 7/30 23% 35.0 2/4 50% 21.5 0/0 na% na
Piedmont 5/18 28% 28.5 14/54 26% 32.5 4/7 57% 18.5 1/2 50% 27
Rockdale 0/0 na% na 11/21 52% 5.5 1/4 25% 40.5 0/0 na% na
Rome 1/6 17% 30.0 35/100 35% 19.5 1/4 25% 40.5 0/2 0% 43
Southern 1/2 50% 20.5 24/62 39% 13.5 2/5 40% 28.5 1/3 33% 32
South Georgia 1/1 100% 13.5 4/13 31% 26.0 0/0 na% na 0/1 0% 43
Southwestern 0/8 0% 41.0 1/19 5% 45.0 0/1 0% 46.5 0/0 na% na
Stone
Mountain
3/3 100% 13.5 22/80 28% 29.0 7/20 35% 32.0 2/4 50% 27
Tallapoosa 0/1 0% 41.0 8/46 17% 39.5 0/1 0% 46.5 0/1 0% 43
Tifton 0/1 0% 41.0 9/33 27% 30.5 3/7 43% 25.0 0/0 na% na
Toombs 0/0 na% na 0/3 0% 47.5 0/0 na% na 0/0 na% na
Towaliga 2/6 33% 25.5 15/29 52% 5.5 1/3 33% 36.0 1/2 50% 27
Waycross 0/0 na% na 2/23 9% 44.0 0/3 0% 46.5 0/1 0% 43

23. Western 3/10 30% 27.0 7/41 17% 39.5 1/3 33% 36.0 1/2 50% 27
Statewide 83/251 33% na 621/1,956 32% na 103/265 39% na 28/82 34% na