 |
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
View My Cart: 0 Items |
 |
Home > Concurrent Planning > What Does the Literature Say About Concurrent Planning?
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows
Issue Brief
What Does the Literature Say About Concurrent Planning? The recent literature on concurrent planning yields little in the way of evidence-based programs and practices. Most available studies consist of tracking permanency outcomes or gleaning qualitative information from focus groups, surveys, or interviews with caseworkers, families, foster/adoptive parents, or other stakeholders. Despite the limitations, recent evaluations do appear to offer support for the approach, especially with younger children. The primary benefit appears to be earlier attainment of a permanent family outside of the foster care system. Anecdotal evidence within the literature also suggests that openness and direct communication between birth parents and caregivers in concurrent planning may lead to more voluntary relinquishments and open adoptions—a seemingly logical outcome of this more open relationship. Finally, the existing evaluations identify critical factors in successful concurrent planning efforts that can offer important guidance for child welfare practitioners. Effective Concurrent Planning Programs Share Common Elements In 2000, a survey of concurrent planning programs in 12 sites was conducted for the National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning (Lutz, 2000). Telephone interviews with staff familiar with concurrent planning showed that, despite some variation among models, the following significant characteristics were common among the sites:
In 1997 and 1998, Potter and Klein-Rothschild (2002) conducted the only published study identifying predictors of permanency attainment in the context of concurrent planning. Their research used case reviews of 366 children served by the Colorado Department of Human Services Expedited Permanency Planning Process to determine which factors were associated with achieving permanency within 1 year. Factors predicting timely permanency included:
Other factors found to relate to timely permanency included clear identification of the concurrent plan in the written service plan and parental signatures on the plan. This research also found agencies' terminology regarding foster/adoptive parents appeared to be related to differences in how families were viewed as part of the concurrent planning process. Agencies using the term "resource families" for foster/adoptive parents tended to involve them more fully in the planning process and make earlier foster/adoptive placements for children than did those who referred to such families as "legal risk." Younger Children May Be More Likely to Benefit From Concurrent Planning Although many agencies use concurrent planning for children of all ages, the practice was originally developed for younger children considered at risk for delayed permanency (Katz, 1999). Some evaluation research has found that younger children are more likely than older children to benefit from concurrent planning:
Neither of these studies examined or analyzed practice-related variables such as the available pool of resource families for younger children. On the other hand, an Iowa study (Landsman, Malone, Tyler, Black, & Groza, 1999) examined the use of concurrent planning to attain permanency for teens. The Permanency for Teens Project (PTP), implemented through a public-private agency partnership, targeted youth ages 11 to 18. An initial assessment conducted with each participating youth identified persons with whom the teen had a significant connection. The program then used Family Unity Meetings, a variation of Family Group Decision Making, to bring these people together regularly with the youth to identify and concurrently explore multiple options for permanency. Findings of the program evaluation were mixed, but some youth did attain permanency, and others moved to less restrictive placements. More Research Is Needed Regarding the Indicators of a Poor Prognosis for Reunification Concurrent planning models frequently use some type of uniform assessment to identify families who have little chance for reunification. Many programs use strengths assessments and poor prognosis tools developed by Katz and her colleagues, but some have developed their own tools. The most commonly used poor prognosis indicators are the following (Lutz, 2000):
At least one study has found no relationship between poor prognosis indicators and the likelihood of family reunification (D'Andrade, Choice, Martin, & Berrick, 2001). Therefore, agencies should use poor prognosis indicators as only one part of a comprehensive family assessment, along with other assessment tools such as strengths, risk, and safety indicators. A differential diagnosis that includes all these tools may be more effective in helping caseworkers gather and assess all relevant information to determine services and concurrent planning needs (National Resource Center on Foster Care and Permanency Planning, n.d.). Courts Play an Important Role in Concurrent Planning The importance of judicial involvement in concurrent planning is highlighted by a study of the Kentucky Adoption Opportunities Project (KAOP) (Martin, Barbee, Antle, & Sar, 2002). In this model, the use of concurrent planning was combined with other permanency planning activities for achieving timely permanence: risk assessment, representation by a single attorney from initial filing to permanency, and early placement in foster/adoptive and kinship homes. These activities included changes in court procedures and roles of court personnel, as well as efforts to improve communication between the child welfare agency and the courts. The goal was to achieve permanency within 1 year of entering care for children ages 8 or younger from families with multiple risk factors. Pilot sites included one urban and one rural court. A highly specific risk assessment tool completed by an attorney at the court was used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the project. Under the jurisdiction of the urban court, 84 children enrolled in the program; the rural court had jurisdiction over 30. While it is difficult to isolate the effect of concurrent planning on the outcomes, the KAOP children did experience stability of placement and shorter lengths of stay relative to the foster care population in their counties. In the urban county, the length of stay was 11.6 months (compared to 31.8 months for children in the State's general foster care population), and 33 percent of the KAOP urban children achieved permanency within 12 months. In the rural counties, children in the KAOP had a length of stay of 16.9 months (compared to 24.7 months for the general foster care population). Twenty-seven percent of these children were in the process of adoption by foster/adoptive homes within 1 year, although no adoptions had been completed at the time of the evaluation. The evaluation of the KAOP's results and interviews with participants revealed several challenges of multiple systems working toward a common goal. Barriers included poor communication, lack of collaboration, lack of role clarity across systems, and lack of early and accurate assessment of child and birth parent needs, as well as the lack of involvement of service providers for mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence issues —all essential in meeting the complex needs of high risk families. The integral role of the court in concurrent planning is further demonstrated by the success of the Expedited Permanency Planning model in Colorado (see Examples From the Field, below). A notable component of the Colorado initiative was that State legislation mandated the courts to work with the child welfare agency to achieve more timely permanence for children who were 6 years old or younger when they entered foster care. As a result, courts developed ways to accelerate the judicial process in child dependency cases. Staff Acceptance Is Critical A report based on interviews with staff at three public child welfare agencies found that most caseworkers believed concurrent planning is fair, necessary, and helps move children more quickly to permanency (Westat & Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2001). At the same time, staff in this study and in a 2001 study by the Urban Institute emphasized that concurrent planning is stressful and requires more information to determine various permanency options early in the case. The literature, as well as anecdotal reports, indicates that caseworkers often experience difficulty grappling with the tension inherent in attempting to reunite a child with his or her family while also working on an alternative permanent plan. For this reason, agency staffing is an important consideration in the implementation of concurrent planning, at both the caseworker and supervisor levels and in terms of agency policy. Caseworkers must have an understanding of the dynamics underlying child maltreatment and be skilled in conducting differential assessments. They also must be competent in working with parents and other professionals to plan and deliver targeted services and assess progress toward goals (Lutz, 2000; Westat & Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2001). Both caseworkers and their supervisors must accept the philosophy of concurrent planning and believe that it is possible to work in good faith with parents while at the same time planning for an alternative permanency goal. Supervisors play a key role in promoting collaboration among service recipients, providers, and others involved in each case. Concurrent planning requires that supervisors have the time and skill necessary to involve themselves closely in timely case planning and decision-making. Finally, the implementation of concurrent planning calls for close scrutiny of agency policies to assess their consistency with the philosophy and intent of this approach. Procedures for staff assignment, case review, documentation, and interaction with the courts and other service providers all have the potential to affect the success of efforts to achieve safe and timely placement in a permanent family. A noteworthy example, drawn from the work of Katz and her colleagues, is the elimination of caseworker reassignment when children move from foster to adoptive status (Lutz, 2000). Foster/Adoptive Families Must Be Well Prepared Not all concurrent planning models use foster/adoptive families. When taking this approach, however, these families must be well-prepared and supported. The approach demands much of these families. They must be willing to make a permanent commitment to a child placed in their home, while at the same time working cooperatively with the agency and family of origin to effect reunification. Their work often includes teaching and modeling skills for birth parents and other family members as well as mentoring new foster/adoptive families. Not surprisingly, the literature commonly points to the recruitment, preparation, and support of foster/adoptive families as one of the most challenging aspects of concurrent planning. 2 It should be noted that, with the 1997 passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and corresponding legislation in the States, attempts to reunite families are not typically required when a parent has killed or seriously or repeatedly harmed a child as described in the first two bulleted items. Back
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
