CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part I of IV WHAT IS CONCURRENT PLANNING?

1
CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part I of IVWHAT IS
CONCURRENT PLANNING?

• Kylah Ross, MSW Sandra Lescoe, MSW
• Child Welfare Training Institute DES DCYF
  Policy
• August, 2009
• In collaboration with Ann E. MacEachron, PhD
• Professor, 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 Series

• 1. Define Concurrent Planning from a policy
  perspective (Part I)
• 2. Explain using the Reunification Prognosis
  Assessment Guide in assessment activities (Part
  II)
• 3. Describe Concurrent Planning activities from
  a family-centered approach (Part III Part IV)

4
Part IWhat is Concurrent Planning?
5
Part I Table of Contents

• 1. Original Idea
• 2. Federal Legislation
• AACW of 1980
• ASFA of 1997
• 3. Concurrent Planning Now
• Sequential vs. Simultaneous
• 4. Concurrent Planning Components
• Components
• Outcomes

6
1. Original Idea

• The Concurrent Planning model was developed in
  the 1980's by Washington State Department of
  Social Services and its work with Linda Katz.
  She defines this case management method as
  follows
• Original Idea
• Concurrent Planning is working intensively
  toward reunification of a child with his or her
  own family while,
• at the same time, developing an alternative
  plan for the childs permanency.

7
2. Federal Legislation

• Two federal laws define the fundamental policy
  purposes of Concurrent Planning

8
A. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
1980

• 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 Child Welfare Act
continued

• States responded to the passage of this Act by
  developing a sequential approach to permanency
  planning
• Child welfare workers first would actively pursue
  the childs 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?

• In the 1980s, it was forecasted that in the
  millennium there would be a growing number of
  children remaining in foster care because
  parents 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 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 Planning continued

• 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.. Simultaneous

• 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 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 continued

• We 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 continued

• 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 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 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?

• 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 Both 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 Components

• 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
Components

• 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 continued

• 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 continued

• 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 childrens needs

30
Our 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

• The long-term outcomes of Concurrent Case
  Planning include
• Early identification and engagement with birth
  parents 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 Reduce Placement Disruptions

• 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 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 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 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
Acknowledgements

• Policy
• CHERYL RUSSELL D II
• JACOB SCHMITT CO
• JENNIFER BILLARD D III
• KATHERINE GUFFEY CO
• LINDA BEDNAREK FCRB

• LINDA JOHNSON CO
• LYNNE SNYDER D V
• MYRIAM BARAJAS D I
• NANCY LOGAN Former AAG
  
• REGINA YAZZIE NAVAJO NATION
• SUE SCHMELZ CO

37
Acknowledgements

• Infrastructure
• AVARAE JOHN
• SALT RIVER PIMA
• BETH ROSENBERG CAC
• BILL CALLAGHAN FCRB
• CAROLINE LOTT-OWENS AOC
• CHERYL RUSSELL D II

• DELIA ARNOLD D IV
• JUDY SHEIRBON AAG
• MICHELLE PARKER D I
• NANETTE GERBER D I
• ROB SHELLEY CIP
• WARREN KOONTZ ITCA

38
Acknowledgements

• Stakeholders
• BEVERLEE KROLL CO
• BONNIE MARCUS CASA
• CAROLYN SMITH FCRB
• JEANINE KENYON ATTORNEY
• JIM YANG-HELEWELL CASEY

• LEWIS LANE CO
• NELSONJA BASTIAN SALT RIVER PIMA
• REGINA YAZZIE NAVAJO NATION
• SANDY GUIZZETTI FCRB
• VICKI TORRES D VI

39
References

• 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/?pWEB229DPHTMF3H
  

41
The End

• .