Home > Concurrent Planning > What Have the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) Identified Regarding Concurrent Planning in States?

Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows
Issue Brief

Author(s):  Child Welfare Information Gateway

Year Published:  2005

Email  Print  (PDF 156 KB)  Share

Rate This    5.0/5, 4 Reviews

previous

You are in section: Table of Contents Concurrent Planning: What the… What Have the Child and Family… What Does the Literature Say… What Are Successful Examples… What Are Some Guiding Principles… References

next

What Have the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) Identified Regarding Concurrent Planning in States?

Final Reports from the Federal Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs)¹ present results and discussion for each State regarding its substantial conformity with child safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. In the first full round of 52 reviews, no State was found to be in substantial conformity with the first permanency outcome, "Children have permanency and stability in their living situations" (Children's Bureau, 2004).

While concurrent planning is not directly assessed in relation to the CFSR outcomes and indicators, it is mentioned in 51 of the 52 State Final Reports. These reports serve as a useful source of information about State policies regarding concurrent planning, implementation practices, comprehensive training, and staff acceptance of the practice.

Concurrent planning is linked to positive results in at least 11 States; these include reduced time to permanency and establishing appropriate permanency goals (LA, NE, VT), enhanced reunification or adoption efforts by engaging parents (CO, ND), and reduced time to adoption finalization (CA, HI, ID, MA, ND, RI, UT, WA). In addition, the following offer positive examples of and support for concurrent planning across the United States:

• At least nine States have formal concurrent planning policies. These policies describe the circumstances under which concurrent planning must be practiced, such as mandating concurrent planning upon children's entry into foster care (AR), encouraging concurrent planning when it is in the child's best interest and mandating the practice when the court orders it (KS), and requiring concurrent planning in cases with poor prognosis indicators (ID).



• A number of other reports indicate that concurrent planning is being implemented to varying degrees.



• Concurrent planning training has been provided to staff in at least eight States; a few other States also mention training for others involved in the work, including court staff (ID, NM) and foster/adoptive families (KY).



• Mississippi and Oklahoma indicated the support of the courts for concurrent planning. In Mississippi, the courts require concurrent plans and review the agency's progress on them.

A Federal summary and analysis of State reviews found that "concurrent planning efforts are not being implemented on a consistent basis when appropriate" in a majority of States (Children's Bureau, 2004). The Final Reports discuss the concerns and difficulties related to concurrent planning in each State. One of the concerns was a disconnect between policy and practice. In some States with formal concurrent planning policies, little or no evidence of concurrent planning practices was found in case reviews. Similar findings occurred in some States in which stakeholders reported the use of concurrent planning, but little evidence supporting their assertions was found. In a number of States, concurrent goals were written in the case files, but case reviews showed that efforts towards the goals were sequential rather than concurrent.

A number of reports indicated that staff's understanding of concurrent planning was unclear - concurrent planning was defined as having a "back-up" goal should the first goal prove unattainable. Some reports indicated that staff expressed concerns about concurrent planning. In some cases, the concerns focused on difficulties related to working towards two goals simultaneously. In other cases, the staff's concerns were with the concurrent planning concept; for example, believing that it can cause anxiety for birth and/or foster/adoptive parents and impede reunification efforts.

Other difficulties reported for some States include:

• Resistance from the courts - at least two reports indicated that the courts only approve one goal at a time.



• Specialized private agency contracts - at least two reports indicate that concurrent planning is difficult to implement when some services, such as adoption, are provided by specialized agencies; the adoption work does not begin until the case is transferred.



• Limits in data systems - at least three reports indicated that State data systems hinder concurrent planning because they only allow for one goal to be on record at a time.

In general, many States are implementing some form of concurrent planning in at least some areas of the State. Many are in the process of enhancing their concurrent planning practices by considering new policies, implementing training enhancements, and implementing new service delivery systems based on concurrent planning principles. The largest issues seem to be clear understanding of concurrent planning and consistent implementation throughout each State.

¹ The Child and Family Services Reviews are designed to enable the Children's Bureau to ensure that State child welfare agency practice is in conformity with Federal child welfare requirements, to determine what is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in State child welfare services, and to assist States to enhance their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. For more information about the CFSR process, visit the Children's Bureau website at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/index.htm. Back

previous

You are in section: Table of Contents Concurrent Planning: What the… What Have the Child and Family… What Does the Literature Say… What Are Successful Examples… What Are Some Guiding Principles… References

next

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.

Email  Print  (PDF 156 KB)  Share

Updated on October 9, 2009