CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part II of IV: THE REUNIFICATION PROGNOSIS ASSESSMENT GUIDE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part II of IV: THE REUNIFICATION PROGNOSIS ASSESSMENT GUIDE PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 54801a-YjhhZ



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 II of IV: THE REUNIFICATION PROGNOSIS ASSESSMENT GUIDE

Description:

Title: Developing & Implementing a Concurrent Permanency Plan Author: D037361 Last modified by: Arizona Supreme Court Created Date: 1/27/2009 8:47:16 PM – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:57
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 46
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 II of IV: THE REUNIFICATION PROGNOSIS ASSESSMENT GUIDE


1
CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part II of IVTHE
REUNIFICATION PROGNOSIS ASSESSMENT GUIDE
  • Kylah Ross, MSW Sandra Lescoe, MSW
  • Child Welfare Training Institute DES DCYF Policy
  • June, 2009
  • In collaboration with Ann E. MacEachron
  • 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
Part II Table of Contents
  • The Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide
  • For whom?
  • CSA/SRA/CP and the Assessment Guide
  • Tentative Hypothesis
  • Purpose of Poor Prognosis Indicators
  • Concurrent Permanency Plan Goal
  • Poor Prognosis Indicators

4
For whom? Not Every Child
  • Not every child entering out-of-home care
    requires a Concurrent Plan
  • A comprehensive assessment is critical in
    identifying children in need of Concurrent
    Planning

5
Arizonas Safety and Risk Assessment
  • In Arizona, the CSA/SRA/CP process is
  • the comprehensive assessment foundation for
    informed decisionmaking and case planning
  • a uniformed and rigorous approach to safety and
    risk assessment and safety planning
  • an improved approach to case planning that
    focuses on identifying the specific
    behaviors/conditions that need to change

6
The RPA Guide Purpose
  • The Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide is
    utilized as part of the assessment process to
    determine
  • whether or not timely reunification will be
    difficult or unlikely, and
  • to identify children in need of Concurrent
    Planning

7
When?
  • Must occur within 45 days of the childs initial
    placement in out-of-home care. This
    Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide is also
    completed at critical decision points in the life
    of the case, for example, staffings, progress
    reviews, case plan reassessment
  • The Guide is completed by CPS Specialist and in
    consultation with their Supervisor
  • Completed for both parents of the child

8
Tentative Hypothesis
  • The CPS Specialist considers the familys
    strengths, resources, and case history, to
    develop a reasoned, tentative hypothesis about
    the potential of the family to make required
    changes within one year

9
Poor Prognosis Indicators
  • The Guide Provides a list of conditions, called
    Poor Prognosis indicators, which make timely
    reunification difficult or unlikely to occur
    within 12 months of childs initial removal
  • Review Exhibit 28 in the Childrens Services
    Manual

10
A Checked Indicator
  • If one or more of the Poor Prognosis indicators
    are marked yes then Concurrent Planning
    activities and/or a Concurrent Plan is
    recommended
  • If a Poor Prognosis indicator is identified
    during the initial assessment and a Concurrent
    Permanency Goal was not identified, review and
    update the Reunification Prognosis Assessment
    Guide at each case plan staffing

11
Concurrent Permanency Goal
  • If a Poor Prognosis indicator is identified, a
    final Concurrent Permanency goal must be
    established within six months of actively working
    with the family on both the reunification plan
    and Concurrent Planning activities
  • The selection of the Concurrent Permanency Goal
    will be determined based upon case specific
    circumstances and consistent with the childs
    best interest

12
Alternatives to Reunification
  • The federally-defined hierarchy is
  • Termination and Adoption
  • Permanent Guardianship
  • Another permanent planned living arrangement
    (APPLA) if there is a compelling reason why
    termination is not in the childs best interests

13
Reasonable Efforts
  • Court shall order the Department to make
    reasonable efforts to provide services for
    reunification of the family

14
Aggravating Circumstances
  • Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
    (ASFA) and Arizona law, if certain aggravating
    circumstances are present the Court may, after a
    hearing, relieve the Department of its duty to
    provide reunification services
  • The Court may order a Concurrent Case Plan based
    on circumstances, and
  • The CPS Specialist should staff these
    circumstances with their Supervisor and AAG

15
Aggravating Circumstances
  • Extreme Conditions Make Family
  • Reunification Unlikely
  • Extreme conditions define circumstances which
    permit the Court to relieve the Department of
    providing reunification services. Some examples
    are as follows

16
Extreme Conditions
  • Parents felony conviction for murder/sexual
    assault/of a child
  • Parents rights to a sibling have been
    involuntarily terminated, parent has not
    addressed problems, and cannot currently
    discharge parental responsibilities

17
Extreme Conditions
  • Parent has seriously abused (physical or
    emotional) a child or parent knew or reasonably
    should have known another person was abusing his
    or her child and did not protect
  • Parent suffers from severe mental
    illness/deficiency and will not benefit from
    reunification

18
AZs 19 Indicators
  • .

19
Indictor Types
  • Indicators marked with are extreme conditions
    making family reunification a very low
    probability
  • Most of the remaining indicators reflect a
    history of the family

20
1 (Extreme Condition)
  • Is there evidence the parent or legal
    custodian murdered any child?

21
2 (Extreme Condition)
  • Is there evidence the parent or legal guardian
    has aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or
    solicited to commit murder of any child?

22
3 (Extreme Condition)
  • Has the parent repeatedly inflicted chronic
    abuse, neglect, or torture on the child, a
    sibling or any child in the household where the
    child resides the parent has repeatedly and with
    premeditation harmed or tortured any child?

23
4
  • Has the child experienced physical or sexual
    abuse in infancy by the parent or due to parents
    failure to protect?

24
5
  • Does the parent demonstrate persistent lack of
    emotional commitment to the child or does the
    parent dislike the child?

25
6 (Extreme Condition)
  • Is the parents only visible support system
    and only visible means of financial support
    illegal drugs, prostitution, or street life?

26
7
  • Is there evidence the parent is chronically
    addicted to debilitating illegal drugs or
    alcohol? Examples of such evidence may include
    repeated drug related arrests or conviction, or
    abuse of drugs or alcohol during pregnancy?

27
8
  • Is there a pattern of domestic violence which
    placed the child at risk of harm, with the
    inability to correct the situation?

28
9
  • Does the parent have a recent history of serious
    criminal activity, repeated detentions or
    incarcerations?

29
10 (Extreme Condition)
  • Has the parents rights to another child been
    terminated following a period of service delivery
    to the parent with no discernable change in
    behavior or conditions causing the child to be
    unsafe?

30
11
  • Have there been three or more CPS interventions
    for serious separate incidents, indicating a
    chronic pattern of abuse or severe neglect?

31
12
  • Have these or other children been placed in
    foster care or with relatives for periods of six
    months or longer or had repeated placements with
    CPS intervention with no discernable change in
    behavior or conditions causing children to be
    unsafe?

32
13
  • Has the parent abandoned the child with friends,
    relatives, hospital, or in foster care or once
    the child is placed in substitute care, has the
    parent not visited on his/her own accord?

33
14
  • Has CPS provided preventive services (which may
    include in home services) more than three months
    which failed to keep the child with the parent?

34
15
  • Has the child been in out-of-home placement
    pursuant to a court order and reunified and then
    subsequently removed and placed in out-of-home
    placement?

35
16
  • Does minor parent have no parenting support
    systems and placement of the child and parent
    together have failed due to the parents
    behavior?

36
17
  • Has the parent or legal custodian asked to
    relinquish the child on more than one occasion?

37
18 (Extreme Condition)
  • Has the parent been diagnosed with severe
    mental illness (psychosis, schizophrenia,
    borderline personality disorder, sociopathy) for
    which he/she has not responded to previously
    delivered mental health services? Do the
    parents symptoms continue, rendering the parent
    unable to protect and nurture child?

38
19
  • Is the parent intellectually or mentally
    impaired showing significant self-care deficits
    and lacking a support system able to share
    parenting?

39
Handout of Guide
  • The Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide is
    attached

40
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

41
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

42
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

43
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.

44
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/?pWEB229DQHTN2LQ

45
The End
  • .
About PowerShow.com