The limitations of the quality legal representation indicators are just that - they are indicators, and may not tell a complete story. To fully understand the quality of legal representation in the jurisdiction, the CIP will likely need to pull or collect additional data from a variety of sources, including court observations, attorney, youth, and/or judge surveys, review of data and records, and longitudinal studies, to name a few. Such additional data points may be:

• Outcomes of written/oral advocacy (how often does the judge order the permanency goal, service, type of visitation, etc., requested by the youth’s attorney?)
• Changes in youth case engagement based on legal representation (how does quality of attorney representation impact in-court participation of youth?)
• Appellate outcomes (how does quality legal representation impact whether issues are preserved/case overturned on appeal?)

Although it is important to look for and assess additional data where needed, no data set is ever complete, and many intervening factors besides quality legal representation can influence dependency case outcomes. The important things to remember are to be willing to get more data when you need it, determine what data is actionable, and decide when you have enough data to take action.