Login
     

QIC ChildRep User Forum

In the interest of fairness and transparency, all inquiries and responses regarding the RFP will be posted here for sharing.  Please email questions to QIC-ChildRep@umich.edu and we will respond to your email and post your questions and the responses to the Forum below titled "Q & A for RFP." 

We look forward to your questions.

Forum

 
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsQ & A about RFPQ & A about RFPQuestion from Jane Okrasinski from GAQuestion from Jane Okrasinski from GA
Previous Previous
 
Next
 Disabled
New Post
 2/2/2011 12:22 PM
 

Hi Don--

To follow up on our conversation during the webinar, Willie Lovett and I are concerned that neither of the GA counties under the Kenny A. consent decrees would be qualified for inclusion in a Georgia proposal, because we think their practice models are likely too similar to the QIC model. Because of the number of attorneys involved, however, I wanted to make sure, and I have attached Fulton County's current practice model.

Would you or your staff please let me know whether, given their current practice, Fulton County attorneys are qualified to be included in a Georgia proposal?

If we may include the Fulton County attorneys, I would like to confirm that the 18 attorneys who practice in that office would be treated as a law firm, and to get clarification about how many other Georgia lawyers would need to be included in the proposal to meet the RFP.

Finally, I'm still not clear about whether or not we can include lawyers who are supported by social workers, investigators or CASAs, along with lawyers who are not.

Thanks,
Jane



--
Jane Okrasinski, Attorney
Executive Director
Georgia Assn. of Counsel for Children

Hi Jane,

Our Needs Assessment revealed that there is often quite a gap between the law on the books and the law in practice. Standards in place are not necessarily realized despite the best intentions. The Fulton county attorneys would be eligible for inclusion in a GA study. They may get allocated to the comparison or treatment group. Although their inclusion would be acceptable, they may not be the ideal group from our perspective. As you know, we are looking for a jurisdiction with "room to grow". It might be somewhat advantageous from our perspective to have lawyers who are not operating with standards so near the QIC Model. But their participation is not disqualifying, by any means.

Should the Fulton County office be included, Andy Zinn of Chapin Hall developed a small table below that lists the total number of additional attorneys needed under different assumptions about the average number of attorneys per firm. For example, if all of the other attorneys operate as sole practitioners, then they would need 88 additional attorneys to have sufficient power. As the number of attorneys per firm increases, the total number of required attorneys also increases.

1 attorney per firm: 88 additional attorneys
2 attorneys per firm: 136 additional attorneys
3 attorneys per firm: 183 additional attorneys
4 attorneys per firm: 230 additional attorneys

These attorneys would be in our pool of child representatives and would be divided in half for the treatment and comparison groups.

As Britany Orlebeke mentioned during the RFP technical assistance conf call, sites that have fewer attorneys than the numbers cited above should still be encouraged to apply, given that there are a number of unknowns not factored into these calculations. Specifically, if the number of attorneys available in the GA site is equal to 80 percent of the numbers cited above, it would still be worth everyone's time if you applied.

Lawyers assisted by social workers, paralegals or CASA would not be disqualified for that reason only. They would be placed in the pool along with everyone else and assigned to one group or another. I would sound a caution similar to what I said on the question of including Fulton County attorneys. That is, these attorneys practicing in a multidisciplinary setting or with supports are more likely to be practicing at a QIC Model level already so there would be less comparison opportunities. Starting with a total group of attorneys in a "room to grow" position would have many advantages for us.

I hope this helps. We are delighted that GA may be interested in this.

Let me know if you need further clarification or have other questions.

Don


Previous Previous
 
Next
 Disabled
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsQ & A about RFPQ & A about RFPQuestion from Jane Okrasinski from GAQuestion from Jane Okrasinski from GA

QIC-ChildRep Best Practice Model initial two-day training agenda, with links to original training material. 

Please see Children's Justice: How to Improve Legal Representation for Children in the Child Welfare System chapter 5 for a full narrative about the training materials.

DAY ONE

1.     Introduction and Enter the Child’s World
(Presenter’s Notes; Power Point Slides)

2.     Identity Circle
(Presenter’s Notes)

3.     Child Development & Trauma
(Presenter’s Notes; Power Point; Video)

4.     Interviewing and Counseling Child Clients
(Presenter’s Notes; Power PointVideo)
Part One 0 - 15.05
Part Two - Marco's Choice - 15.05-30:00

5.     Child Safety Decision-making
(Presenter’s Notes and Graphic1 & 2)

DAY TWO

6.     Emergency Removal and Placement - Case Scenario - Marco’s Case Part One 

7.     Actively Evaluate Needs
(Presenter’s Notes; Power Point)

8.     Theory of the Case
(Power Point; Case Scenario)

9.     Advocate Effectively; Non-Adversarial Case Resolution
(Presenter’s Notes; Power Point)

10.  Advance Case Planning
(Presenter’s Notes; Case Plan Example, GA;  Power Point)

11.  Disposition - Case Scenario – Marco’s Case Part Two 

12.  Monitoring Well-being
(Presenter’s Notes; Power Point)

13. Permanency Decisions - Case Scenario – Marco’s Case Part Three