1
CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part I of IVPart I of IV
WHAT IS CONCURRENT PLANNING?WHAT IS CONCURRENT PLANNING?
Kylah Ross, MSWKylah Ross, MSW Sandra Lescoe, MSW Sandra Lescoe, MSWChild Welfare Training Institute DES DCYF Policy
August, 2009
In collaboration with Ann E. MacEachron, PhDProfessor, School of Social Work,
College of Public Programs, ASU – Downtown Campus
2
Directions
Full directions are on the website. Click the icon for ‘video-camera’ to switch between the short & long control panels. The short control panel has buttons like a VCR. The long control panel allows for scrolling, and shows the exact time for each slide and the presentation
At the end of each session, there is a required survey to show that you have completed the training to receive credit, and then an optional feedback form. Thank you!
3
Objectives of the SeriesObjectives of the Series
1. Define Concurrent Planning from a policy 1. Define Concurrent Planning from a policy perspective (Part I)perspective (Part I)
2. Explain using the 2. Explain using the “Reunification Prognosis “Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide” Assessment Guide” in assessment in assessment activities (Part II)activities (Part II)
3. Describe Concurrent Planning activities 3. Describe Concurrent Planning activities from a family-centered approach (Part III from a family-centered approach (Part III & Part IV)& Part IV)
4
Part I:Part I:What is Concurrent What is Concurrent
Planning?Planning?
5
Part I: Table of ContentsPart I: Table of Contents
1. Original Idea1. Original Idea
2. Federal Legislation2. Federal Legislation
AACW of 1980AACW of 1980
ASFA of 1997ASFA of 1997
3. Concurrent Planning Now3. Concurrent Planning Now
Sequential vs. SimultaneousSequential vs. Simultaneous
4. Concurrent Planning Components4. Concurrent Planning Components
ComponentsComponents
OutcomesOutcomes
6
1. Original Idea1. Original Idea
The Concurrent Planning model was The Concurrent Planning model was developed in the 1980's by Washington developed in the 1980's by Washington State Department of Social Services and State Department of Social Services and its work with Linda Katz. She defines this its work with Linda Katz. She defines this case management method as follows:case management method as follows:
Original Idea:Original Idea:““Concurrent Planning is working Concurrent Planning is working
intensively toward reunification of a intensively toward reunification of a child with his or her own family while,child with his or her own family while,
at the same time, developing an at the same time, developing an alternative plan for the child’s alternative plan for the child’s permanency.” permanency.”
7
2. Federal Legislation2. Federal Legislation
Two federal laws define the fundamental policy purposes of Concurrent Planning
8
A. Adoption Assistance A. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Actand Child Welfare Act of of 19801980
This Act was passed to correct or alleviate problems in the foster care system and to promote permanency rather than multiple foster placements
Another goal of the Act was to encourage child welfare workers to work toward reunification of the family and to avoid long-term foster care for the children if possible
9
Adoption Assistance and Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act Child Welfare Act continuedcontinued
States responded to the passage of this Act by developing a sequential approach to permanency planning
Child welfare workers first would actively pursue the child’s reunification with his/her birth family
If reunification was not possible and ruled out, sequentially child welfare workers explored other permanency options such as adoption or guardianship
10
Why?Why?
In the 1980’s, it was forecasted that in the millennium there would be a growing number of children remaining in foster care because parent’s rights had been terminated
Yet little was done at that time to ensure these children had another permanent family to love and care for them
Concurrent Planning was a structured approach and strategy developed to move children into safe, permanent homes more quickly than traditional permanency planning
11
B. ASFA
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 was passed in response to deep concern about the increased numbers of children, especially under age 4, entering and remaining in foster care
It radically changed the child welfare environment by requiring states to act within tighter timeframes to establish and achieve permanent placements for children in care.
12
ASFA
Requires a judicial permanency hearing 12 months after a child enters foster care and every 12 months thereafter
Mandates that if a child has been in care 15 of the past 22 months, the child welfare agency must initiate a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) petition unless certain exceptions exist
13
ASFA
Encourages the use of Concurrent Planning, and requires that states make reasonable efforts to find permanency for children who can not return to their biological parents
14
3. CONCURRENT PLANNING NOW
..
15
Concurrent Planning NowConcurrent Planning Now
Concurrent Planning is actively implementing the case plan goal while also actively pursuing an alternative plan including adoption or legal guardianship for children in out-of-home care through a Voluntary Foster Placement Agreement or dependency action -- See Children's Services Manual, Glossary
16
Concurrent PlanningConcurrent Planning continuedcontinued
Concurrent Planning involves identifying and working toward a child's primary permanency goal such as reunification with the birth family, while simultaneously identifying and working on a secondary goal with Concurrent Planning activities
This shortens the time to achieve permanency because progress has already been made toward the secondary goal if efforts toward the primary goal prove unsuccessful
17
Sequential vs.. Sequential vs.. SimultaneousSimultaneous
In the past, child welfare agencies, including Arizona, worked sequentially instead of concurrently or simultaneously on case plan goals. For example, we would implement a Case Plan Goal of Family Reunification. After a year or so, if not achieved, only then would we implement a secondary plan or work on another goal. Meanwhile, children remained in out-of-home placements waiting for a permanent home or the agency to finalize a permanency goal.
18
Example of WaitingExample of Waiting
There are times the permanency goal is changed as mandated by law – such as, when a child has been in care 15 of the past 22 months, the child welfare agency must initiate a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) petition unless certain exceptions exist.
19
Example Example continuedcontinued
We mustWe must document the known history on relatives/kin, attempts to search for relatives/kin, and document discussions with the birth parents or the child about relatives/kin, etc. so permanency is not delayed.
20
Example Example continuedcontinued Permanency is delayed as the CPS
Specialist must then determine if relatives were considered as a permanent placement
If relatives were considered and ruled-out as a permanent caregiver, then the search for an adoptive placement must be initiated. The consequence is that the child remains in out-of home care waiting for permanency
21
Example & PolicyExample & Policy
ASFA encourages the use of Concurrent Planning, and it requires that states make reasonable efforts to provide permanency for children who can not return to their birth parents
Child welfare agencies can make structural and/or practice changes to initiate these activities early in the life of a case, so permanency is not delayed for a child
22
Start EarlyStart Early
Why begin Concurrent Planning activities early in the case?
It is not helpful to wait until the case is set for severance -- and only then to start a search for a permanent caregiver for the child. To wait delays permanence!
Even if the Court does not agree with a Concurrent Plan, implementing Concurrent Planning activities is still our internal policy
23
Why?Why?
To achieve more timely permanency planning, Concurrent Planning focuses on early implementation of a set of activities that lead to a family being ready to care for the child on a permanent basis if reunification cannot occur
24
Best Practice is Working Best Practice is Working Both Plans SimultaneouslyBoth Plans Simultaneously
It is a mistake to work hard towards reunification the first few months, then when a Concurrent Case Plan is implemented, they change gears and work towards the Concurrent Plan more intensely versus both plans
Both plans should be worked simultaneously and rigorously with sustained efforts to engage the parents
25
4. CONCURRENT PLANNING COMPONENTS
..
26
Key Feature of Key Feature of ComponentsComponents
“The central feature of Concurrent Planning is the early identification and genuine consideration of all reasonable permanency options for a child” (Lutz, 2001)
Sound Concurrent Planning includes the following components:
27
ComponentsComponents
Individualized assessment and intensive, time limited work with families to address problems which caused the need for out-of home care
Full, honest, and documented disclosure with birth parents concerning identified problems and behavioral changes that must be made, potential consequence, and time frames
28
Components Components continuedcontinued
Collaboration among parents, foster parents, service providers, and those within the child welfare and legal systems to identify and consider all the reasonable options for permanency early on in the life of the case
Frequent and constructive use of parent-child visitation as part of reunification efforts
29
Components Components continuedcontinued
Early identification and use of kinship placements or foster/adoptive placements that can provide permanence for children if they are unable to return to their birth parents
Involvement of kinship parents and foster/adoptive parents in working directly with the birth parents to communicate children’s needs
30
Our GoalOur Goal
It is ALWAYS our goal to safely reunify children with their birth family
When this cannot be accomplished, the goal is to ensure children live with people to whom they have an emotional, familial and cultural connection
31
Outcome: Prevent “Drift”Outcome: Prevent “Drift”
The long-term outcomes of Concurrent Case Planning include:
Early identification and engagement with birth parent’s and extended family members in the decision making improves permanency outcomes for children which prevent “case drift” within the system
This early identification and continuous engagement of birth parents and extended family members in decision-making is a family-centered and strengths-based approach
32
Outcome: Outcome: Reduce Placement Reduce Placement DisruptionsDisruptions
When we place children with kin or significant others who are willing to provide permanency for the child in the beginning of a case it is likely to: reduce placement disruptions, thus,
reducing the number of placements a child has to experience, and
minimize problems of attachment and trust the child may have from multiple moves or prolonged foster care
33
Outcome: Outcome: Services for All Families Services for All Families
Concurrent Planning requires authentic, focused, supportive services both to promote reunification and to support an alternative plan for the child which will:
Keep parents fully engaged in services and focused on changes necessary to support reunification so they can parent their children
Maintain a dual focus on reunification and an alternative permanency plan
Promote early and ongoing involvement of parents, family members, and resource parents
Help identify barriers to timely reunification or another permanency outcome
34
Outcome: ConsequencesOutcome: Consequences
When service providers, stakeholders, and the Court support interventions and timelines for Concurrent Planning:
There are less continuances in Court and legal timeframes are met for the child
Birth parents face the implications and consequences of their actions sooner and in some cases relinquish if they are not benefiting from services
35
Outcome: Open AdoptionOutcome: Open Adoption
When increased numbers of open adoption arrangements have been fostered through relationships built during Concurrent Planning, the child experiences:
Fewer adoption disruptions
Fewer identity issues in adolescence because they know “who they are,” and “where they came from,” and in most cases, have some type of ongoing relationship with their birth families
36
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsPolicyPolicy
CHERYL RUSSELL – D IICHERYL RUSSELL – D II
JACOB SCHMITT – COJACOB SCHMITT – CO
JENNIFER BILLARD – D IIIJENNIFER BILLARD – D III
KATHERINE GUFFEY – KATHERINE GUFFEY – COCO
LINDA BEDNAREK – LINDA BEDNAREK – FCRBFCRB
LINDA JOHNSON – COLINDA JOHNSON – CO
LYNNE SNYDER – D VLYNNE SNYDER – D V
MYRIAM BARAJAS – D I MYRIAM BARAJAS – D I
NANCY LOGAN – NANCY LOGAN – Former AAG Former AAG
REGINA YAZZIE – REGINA YAZZIE – NAVAJO NATIONNAVAJO NATION
SUE SCHMELZ – COSUE SCHMELZ – CO
37
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsInfrastructureInfrastructure
AVARAE JOHN – AVARAE JOHN – SALT RIVER PIMASALT RIVER PIMA
BETH ROSENBERG – BETH ROSENBERG – CACCAC
BILL CALLAGHAN – FCRBBILL CALLAGHAN – FCRB
CAROLINE LOTT-OWENS CAROLINE LOTT-OWENS – AOC– AOC
CHERYL RUSSELL – D IICHERYL RUSSELL – D II
DELIA ARNOLD – D IVDELIA ARNOLD – D IV
JUDY SHEIRBON – AAGJUDY SHEIRBON – AAG
MICHELLE PARKER – D IMICHELLE PARKER – D I
NANETTE GERBER – D INANETTE GERBER – D I
ROB SHELLEY – CIPROB SHELLEY – CIP
WARREN KOONTZ – WARREN KOONTZ – ITCAITCA
38
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
StakeholdersStakeholders
BEVERLEE KROLL – COBEVERLEE KROLL – CO
BONNIE MARCUS – CASABONNIE MARCUS – CASA
CAROLYN SMITH – FCRBCAROLYN SMITH – FCRB JEANINE KENYON – JEANINE KENYON –
ATTORNEYATTORNEY
JIM YANG-HELEWELL – JIM YANG-HELEWELL – CASEYCASEY
LEWIS LANE – CO LEWIS LANE – CO
NELSONJA BASTIAN – NELSONJA BASTIAN – SALT RIVER PIMASALT RIVER PIMA
REGINA YAZZIE – REGINA YAZZIE – NAVAJO NATIONNAVAJO NATION
SANDY GUIZZETTI – SANDY GUIZZETTI – FCRBFCRB
VICKI TORRES – D VIVICKI TORRES – D VI
39
ReferencesReferences
Children and Family Services. Practice guide for concurrent permanency planning. Minnesota Department of Human Services. St. Paul, MN. www.dhs.state.mn.us.
Katz, L., Spoonemore, N., & Robinson, C. (1994). Concurrent Planning From Permanency Planning to Permanency Action, Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho, Mountlake Terrace,
WA 98043.
Katz, L. (2001). Concurrent planning: Benefits & pitfalls. In Kathy Barbell & Lois Wright (eds), Family foster care in the next century. Transaction Publishers.
40
REQUIREMENT
It is a requirement to show you have completed the training by doing this survey. The bottom half of the survey is optional feedback on the training. Thank you!
Please click on the link below to open and then complete the survey
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB229DPHTMF3H
41
The EndThe End
..
