CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part I of IV WHAT IS CONCURRENT PLANNING? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part I of IV WHAT IS CONCURRENT PLANNING? PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 50b2f6-OWZjM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

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

Description:

CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part I of IV WHAT IS CONCURRENT PLANNING? Kylah Ross, MSW Sandra Lescoe, MSW Child Welfare Training Institute DES DCYF Policy – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:107
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: D0374
Learn more at: http://www.azcourts.gov
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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
  • .
About PowerShow.com