 |
 |
|
|||||||||
RSS
 |
Home > Concurrent Planning > What Are Successful Examples From the Field?
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows
Issue Brief
What Are Successful Examples From the Field? The following examples illustrate key elements found to be associated with the successful planning and implementation of concurrent planning in public agencies. Concurrent Planning in Colorado: Increasing Timely Permanency Helping foster/adoptive parents clarify and distinguish their multiple roles (providing a permanent commitment to a child while at the same time mentoring the birth family toward reunification) is a critical part of supporting them effectively. Evaluations of most public sector concurrent planning initiatives to date have lacked rigorous research design. Most consist of tracking changes in major data indicators (such as time in foster care or type of permanent placement). One exception is Colorado, which conducted a comparison group study of its Expedited Permanency Planning (EPP) process in two pilot counties. Colorado caseworkers trained intensively on concurrent planning from 1993 forward, particularly in counties and local jurisdictions implementing the State's 1994 EPP legislation, which required all children ages 6 and younger and their siblings to be in a permanent placement within 12 months of entering foster care. This legislation specifically directed the courts to work with public child welfare agencies at both the State and local levels to achieve this goal. EPP combined a concurrent planning approach with an accelerated judicial process for families with young children. The State developed procedures and resources that allowed for "front loading" of services to families. Counties were allocated up to $5,000 per family to make specific services available to families immediately following the child's entry into foster care. Jurisdictions used the additional funding to implement Family Group Conferencing or family team meetings, or to purchase additional substance abuse or mental health evaluation and treatment services. These enhancements supported expedited permanency through earlier identification of needs and resources and reduction of waiting time to obtain clinical appointments. Some counties also adopted the practice of assigning two caseworkers to a family - one serving and advocating for the parents and the other working primarily with the child in care. An evaluation of this approach was conducted in two pilot counties between 1995 and 1998, using a sample treatment group of 130 children and a comparison group of 105. These children were followed for 18 months following the filing of the initial dependency petition. Rates of permanency attainment within 1 year for the treatment groups in the two counties were 85 percent and 84 percent. This compared with rates of 22 percent and 32 percent in the comparison groups, a statistically significant difference. By 2001, Colorado had expanded EPP to all counties. Outcomes of EPP continue to appear favorable despite difficulties many families have faced due to the struggling economy and budget shortfalls that have forced some changes in the model's implementation (e.g., most jurisdictions can no longer allocate two caseworkers per family). A December 2003 report to the legislature notes that, of the 1,149 children served by the program during 2003, 939 (82 percent) attained permanency within 1 year. Many of the remaining 211 children were able to leave foster care after a stay of only a few months longer than the 12-month threshold. Of the 522 children for whom post-discharge placement data were available, 77 percent attained permanence within their family system. More than 41 percent returned to the parent from whom they had been removed, 9 percent were placed with another parent, and 26 percent were placed permanently with relatives (Colorado Department of Human Services, 2003). Requests for additional information about EPP in Colorado may be addressed to: Concurrent Planning in San Mateo County, California: Decreasing Length of Stay Concurrent planning practice in San Mateo County, California, dates to 1980, having grown out of an early family preservation model implemented in the county's Department of Human Services. Although the family preservation program was largely successful, agency staff began to notice a growing population of very young children in care who appeared to have little likelihood of reunification with their families. Parents of these children presented a constellation of challenges that could not be sufficiently improved, even with the program's abundant resources and skilled staff. The agency recognized the need to place these children in homes where they could be adopted should efforts to return them to their parents fail (Brinsont-Brown, 1995). Since establishing its foster/adoption program nearly 25 years ago, San Mateo County has developed a concurrent planning model emphasizing early identification of permanency resources, full involvement of the birth family, and a commitment to strong reunification efforts. Consensus-based indicators (such as a history of the children being placed out of the home, lack of parental visitation or involvement, and a history of parental drug use) are used to assess a family's prognosis for reunification. At one point, San Mateo tried having the same caseworkers perform both reunification and adoption functions. This practice was discontinued, however, as it was determined to be too exhausting and not sufficiently beneficial in terms of achieving greater caseworker objectivity. Currently, the county has separate reunification and adoption units, but they are housed in close proximity to encourage communication and coordination of responsibilities. An evaluation conducted between 1990 and 1996 showed the median length of stay for children entering foster care in the county was 5 months, compared with 17 months statewide. Rates of re-entry into foster care were also lower than in the State as a whole—12 percent in San Mateo, compared with 19 percent statewide—suggesting that children attained stability in their post-discharge placements (Schene, 2001). Current data continue to show that children in San Mateo County attain permanency more quickly than in the State as a whole. During the period July 2003 to June 2004, 76 percent of San Mateo children were reunited within 12 months, compared with 65 percent statewide. Of adopted children, 47 percent attained permanency within 12 months in San Mateo County, compared with 27 percent for the entire State. Recent data on re-entries into care have increased slightly, however, a trend that the county is currently assessing via a citizen's review panel (C. Brinsont-Brown, personal communication, April 12, 2005). San Mateo County stresses the importance of buy-in from administration, the courts, board members, staff, and the community. Program managers suggest that full involvement of court and agency staff in the program's design and implementation has been critical. Direct, honest communication and clarity of roles and responsibilities also is essential. The county attributes the court's continuing support primarily to two factors: complete honesty in disclosing alternative plans and referrals for foster/adoptive placement, and training and support of casework staff in making every reasonable effort to engage and provide services to the parent. San Mateo County is part of a six-county study of concurrent planning being conducted by the Child Welfare Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley. Preliminary findings from that research have identified a number of promising practices in concurrent planning, including preparation and support of resource families and intervention with birth parents. Details are available at http://cssr.berkeley.edu/research_units/cwrc/publications_details.html#promising. Requests for additional information about concurrent planning in San Mateo County may be directed to: Concurrent Planning in North Dakota: Increasing Relative Placement, Reunification The North Dakota Department of Human Services (DHS) implemented concurrent planning statewide in 1999, following a 5-year period of development, training, and regional pilot-testing. Development of the approach involved DHS, the courts, and the mental health and juvenile justice systems. Concurrent planning also was promoted through the State's Court Improvement Project. Comparisons of current State permanency indicators with those prior to implementation show clear differences. Average time in care decreased from 17 months in 1999 to 9.7 months in 2003. In 2003, 50 percent more children were placed with relatives than in 1999, while 92 percent of children with a goal of reunification were returned to their families (K. M. Kenna, personal communication, March 1, 2004). North Dakota DHS staff cite early family assessment, the development of measurable case plan objectives, full exploration of family resources, and timely service provision as key elements in the success of this approach. Requests for additional information about concurrent planning in North Dakota may be addressed to:
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. |
||||||
|
|||||||
Email
Print (PDF 156 KB)
Share
Rate This
