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 I:What 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 child’s permanency.”

7. 2. Federal Legislation Two federal laws define the fundamental policy purposes of Concurrent Planning

8. A. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Actof 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 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? 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 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 Planningcontinued • 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 children’s 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 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: 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. 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 Acknowledgements

37. 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 Acknowledgements

38. 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 Acknowledgements

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/?p=WEB229DPHTMF3H

41. The End .