Concurrent Planning:Ideals and Realities

Jill Duerr BerrickJill Duerr BerrickU.C. BerkeleyU.C. Berkeley

Race and Child Welfare:Race and Child Welfare:Disproportionality, Disparity, Discrimination:Disproportionality, Disparity, Discrimination:

Re-Assessing the Facts, Re-Thinking the Policy OptionsRe-Assessing the Facts, Re-Thinking the Policy Options

Harvard Law SchoolHarvard Law SchoolJanuary 29, 2011January 29, 2011

Concurrent Planning:What is it?

Reasonable efforts toward an alternative permanent placement, should reunification fail.

Elements include:• Development of a concurrent plan;• Reunification prognosis;• Full disclosure• Discussion of voluntary relinquishment• Fost-adopt placement

(D’Andrade, 2009)

Concurrent Planning:What is the Legal

Framework?Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997)

Clarifies that reasonable efforts may be made concurrently

Concurrent Planning:Who Does it?

51 of 52 CFSR state reports mention Concurrent Planning(Children’s Bureau, 2004)

87% of local public child welfare agency administrators indicate implementing concurrent planning(Mitchell, et al., 2005)

At least 36 states have formal policies

4 states require it(Gerstenzang & Freundlich, 2005)

Theoretical Benefits of Concurrent Planning

1. Reduced length of stay in care2. Increased likelihood of

permanency, including reunification3. Increased placement stability4. Increased opportunity for stable

attachment relationships.5. Increased opportunity for positive

and ongoing relationships between birth and foster parents

Findings from Concurrent Planning Studies

Pre-experimental studies show positive effects on permanency(Katz, 1990)

Non-experimental comparison group studies show positive effects on placement stability and time-to-adoption(Brennan et al., 2003; Cooperative Ventures, n.d.; Martin, et al., 2002; Monck, Reynolds, & Wigfall, 2003; Schene, 1998)

Single-group correlational studies show positive effects on timely permanency(Potter & Klein-Rothschild, 2001)

Findings (con’t)

CA Observational study (n=885)• Concurrent Planning not associated

with overall permanency.• Full Disclosure associated with a

lowered likelihood of reunification• Discussion of voluntary

relinquishment associated with increased likelihood of adoption

(D’Andrade, 2009)

Is Concurrent Planning Really Happening?

“Concurrent planning efforts are not being implemented on a consistent basis when appropriate” (Children’s Bureau, 2004)

A Look at Concurrent Planning Activities

in CaliforniaReunification prognosis 29%

Concurrent Plan identified (at Dispo) 55%

Concurrent Plan identiied (later court hearing)

42%

2 social workers 18%

SW explored permanency with FP 29%

SW searched for alternative perm plan 32%

Child in fost-adopt home 6%

Voluntary relinquishment discussed 23%

Full disclosure 54%

(D’Andrade, Frame, & Berrick, 2006)

A Look at Concurrent Planning Guidelines in New York State

Five Core Elements of practice:• Differential assessment to determine likelihood of

reunification• Open, honest dialogue between caseworker,

parents, and foster parents• Good family assessments and constant evaluation

of progress towards reunification• Extra emphasis on visiting• Early seeking out and assessment of relatives for

possible placement, or alternatively, early determination that a relative would be an inappropriate placement for the child.

(Gerstenzang & Freundlich, 2005)

Concurrent Planning is Hard to Pull Off

• Concurrent Planning is:• Resource intensive for agencies• Emotionally-intensive for foster

parents and birth parents• Inappropriate for the majority of

children entering care as they are likely to reunify

Evidence-Informed Poor Prognosis Indicators

• Younger child• Behavior problems• Child health problems• Child of color• Limited or no visiting• Multiple placements in care• Prior removals• Neglect or emotional abuse• Parent “emotional problems”• Parent commission of a criminal

offense• Parental housing problems• Parental substance abuse

Are Some Expedited Permanency Decisions More

Clear?

• Reunification Bypass provisions

• Murder of another child• Voluntary

manslaughter• Aided, conspired etc. to

commit murder;• Felony assault

resulting in injury to child

• Parental rights terminated for a sibling

From Concurrent Planning Promise

to Concurrent Practice

What will it Take to Implement Concurrent Planning?

1. 1. A pro-concurrent planning philosophy permeating the agency –

including an understanding that concurrent planning may result in increased reunification

What will it Take to Implement Concurrent Planning?

2. The availability of necessary services for birth parents

What will it Take to Implement Concurrent Planning?

3. The presence of formal systems to insure concurrent planning occurs

procedures for resolution of paternity issues early on

Family Finding to identify kinship supports documentation of reunification prognosis

and concurrent plan time-sensitive systems to track cases procedures for referral to a concurrent

planning track, regularly scheduled review meetings

related to the concurrent plan

What will it Take to Implement Concurrent Planning?

4. The ability of child welfare staff to actively embrace concurrent planning –

Including formal and informal training A collaborative approach to casework and

case decision-making Integration or communication between

child welfare and adoption units and/or agencies

What will it Take to Implement Concurrent Planning?

5. The availability of an adequate pool of concurrent planning caregivers

What will it Take to Implement Concurrent Planning?

6. The active promotion of concurrent planning in court.

(Berrick, Frame, & Coakley, 2006)

ReferencesBerrick, J.D., Choi, Y., D’Andrade, A., & Frame, L. (2008). Reasonable efforts?

Implementation of the reunification exception provisions of ASFA. Child Welfare, 87(3).

Berrick, J.D., Frame, L., & Coakley, J.F. (2006). Essential elements of implementing a system of concurrent planning. Child and Family Social Work, 11(4).

Brennan, K., Szolnocki, J., & Horn, M. (2003). Lutheran Community Services concurrent planning evaluation Stuart Foundation final report. Seattle, WA. University of Washington, School of Social Work, N9rthwest Institute for Children and Families.

Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005). Concurrent planning: What the evidence shows. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence/index.cfm

Children’s Bureau. (2004). General findings from the Federal Child and Family Services Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/genfindings04/intro.htm

Cooperative Ventures (n.d.). Concurrent permanency planning: Department of Human Services report of evaluation. Report for the Minnesota Department of Human Services. St Paul, MN: Author.

D’Andrade, A. (2009). The differential effects of concurrent planning practice elements on reunification and adoption. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(4), 446-459.

D’Andrade, A., & Berrick, J.D. (2006). When policy meets practice: The untested effects of permanency reforms in child welfare. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 33(1).

D’Andrade, A., Frame, L., & Berrick, J.D. (2006). Concurrent planning in public child welfare agencies: Oxymoron or work in progress? Children and Youth Services Review, 28(1), 78-95.

References (con’t)Gerstenzang, S., & Freundlich, M. (2005). A critical assessment of concurrent planning

in New York State. Adoption Quarterly, 8(4). Katz,, L. (1990). Effective permanency planning for chldren in foster care. Social

Work, 35, 220-226.Martin, M.H., Barbee, A.P., Antle, B.F., & Sar, B./ (2002). Expedited permanency

planning: Evaluation of the Kentucky Adoptions Opportunities Project. Child Welfare, 81(2).

Mitchell, L.B., Barth, R.P., Green, R., Wall, A., Biemer, P., Berrick, J., Bruce Webb, M., and the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being Research Group (2005). Child Welfare Reform in the United States: Findings from a local agency survey. Child Welfare, 83(1).

Monck, E., Reynolds, J., & Wigfall, V. (2003). The role of concurrent planning: Making permanent placements for young children. British Association for Adoption and Fostering, London.

Potter, C.C., & klein-Rothschild, S. (2001). Getting home on time: predicting timely permanence for young children. Child Welfare, 81(2), 123-150.

Schene, P. (1998). Expedited permanency planning in Colorado: An evaluation prepared for the Colorado Department of Human Services. Available from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Children, Youth and Families, Denver, CO.