| |
If
you prefer to read this article separately from the other
articles listed in this section, please |
|
| |
 |
Perspectives
on Permanency Planning
Child
and Family Service Review Final Reports:
An Assessment of States' Success in Involving Children
and Families in Case Planning*
Prepared by Pamela Diaz** and Madelyn Freundlich***
One aspect of the federal Child and Family Service Reviews
is an assessment of states' success in involving children
and families in case planning. In the category of Permanency,
the Child and Family Service Reviews include Item #18 which
assesses "whether parents and children (if age appropriate)
had been involved in the case planning process, and if not,
whether their involvement was contrary to the child's best
interest. A determination of involvement in case planning
required that a parent had actively participated in identifying
the services and goals included in the case plan."
The
Child and Family Reviews define a case plan as a written document
between the family and the state agency that outlines a plan
of services and is clearly and easily understood by the involved
parties. The service plan specifies the expectations negotiated
with the family regarding participation in services and completion
of tasks that support the family member's ability to effect
these changes. The plan should be developed with the involvement
of family, age appropriate children, the foster parents, service
providers, social workers and other involved parties.
This report reviews the results of the Child and Family Service
Reviews with the twenty-two states for which final reports
had been issued as of February 2003. In Part I, the findings
for each state are detailed. Part II provides a synthesis
of the findings.
Part I: State Specific Findings
Alabama
Reviewed 50/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 36% of cases did not
include parents or children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
An Individualized Service Plan is used where workers bring
together all relevant parties in a case at least every 6
months to assess case progress and current family strengths
and service needs. This meeting includes biological parents,
foster parents, children, attorneys, guardians ad litem,
private providers, teachers and other professionals.
•
In some cases children in foster care are knowledgeable
about the contents of their services plan.
•
Agency policy and training of staff emphasize identification
of fathers and other relatives in the case plan development
process.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Children of appropriate age are not always involved in their
case plan.
•
Meetings can be difficult to schedule because of the large
number of people included in case plan meetings.
•
A sufficient effort is not being made to locate family members,
especially non-custodial parents and paternal relatives.
Arkansas
The number of cases reviewed is not available in the report.
State assessment: Needs Improvement.
Strengths
•
There was evidence in the case records that notices of case
plan meetings were sent to parents.
•
There were some cases where teens, parents, and family members
were involved in case planning.
•
Case plans were revised and amended when new issues or goals
surfaced.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
In some cases families and children were not involved in
case planning.
•
No effort was being made to involve fathers in the case
planning process.
•
Some cases were developed without input from the child and
the family, did not include signatures and one family did
not have a case plan developed.
•
Some case plans were mailed to the family without review
or discussion.
Arizona
Reviewed
46/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 33% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Arizona has implemented a program, the Family Group Decision
Making Program, which facilitates the communication between
parents and the agency. This program has been successful
in increasing parental control in case planning in the areas
of safety, placement, and services planning.
•
Successful cases had parent and/or caregiver participation
in case planning, made efforts to encourage parental participation
and made parents aware of services in the case plan.
•
Used focus groups and surveys to understand issues and concerns
of parents. Parents expressed that they have been able to
participate in case planning during meetings, court hearings,
and case manager contacts.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
There was lack of active parental involvement in the creation
of the case plan. Age appropriate children were not involved
in case planning development, and goal changes were not
made to the case plan during appropriate time frames.
•
Worker turnover did not allow for a comprehensive service
plan to be developed.
Connecticut
Reviewed 50/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 38% of the cases did
not include parents or children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Agency workers engage families using teleconferencing. Use
of teleconferencing for foster parents and providers makes
the process more inclusive.
•
One of the sites does focus on families in case plan development
and is usually effective in achieving this goal.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Not consistently encouraging and supporting the active participation
of parents in the development of case plans according to
policy requirements.
•
Scheduled meetings during work hours made it difficult for
working families to be present in meetings.
•
Too much focus on compliance within prescribed timeframes
and not enough on meaningful parent and provider participation
in the review and redevelopment process of the plan.
•
Workers developed case plans and only then presented them
to families.
•
Active participation of the family generally depended on
how assertive the family was.
•
If the family is resistant to participate, the agency does
not make greater efforts to engage them.
Delaware
The number of cases reviewed is not available in the report.
State assessment: Strength.
Strengths
•
Parents and foster parents were aware of case issues and
were involved in case planning.
•
Workers engaged parents in the case planning by printing
copies of the case plan form, working on it with parents
and then entering the information into the Family and Child
Tracking System.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Need for additional training for workers in order to ensure
more involvement of families and children in case planning.
•
At one site during the review process a quarter of the cases
did not have case plans available.
District of Columbia
Reviewed 50/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 55% of cases did not
include parents or children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
The agency instituted a Supervisory Review System that monitors
compliance with policy.
•
Older youth in Independent Living were found to be involved
in their case plan.
•
When the Family Group Decision Making process was used the
review found that it was a significant avenue to involve
families in case planning.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Staff more focused on completing a document rather than
engaging all the parties involved.
•
Agency lacks management/coordination between family, service
providers, foster parents, children, caseworkers, judges,
and attorneys.
•
Parents had signed case plans but were not involved in the
actual development of the plan.
•
Most updated cases were not filed in a timely basis.
•
Some case plans were found to be incomplete and not signed.
•
Services that were requested by parents and children were
at times not included in the case plan.
Florida
Reviewed 50/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 47% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Workers made efforts to schedule parents for case plan visits.
•
Agency workers involved families and children in the service
plan.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Older children were not included in the development of the
case plan.
•
In some of the case planning conferences fathers were absent
and workers did not do enough to engage them in the process.
•
Comprehensive assessment for the family was not completed
on a consistent basis.
•
Parents signed case plans without engaging in the development
process.
•
Worker turnover rates and high caseload contributed to low
attendance at case plan conferences.
Georgia
The
number of cases reviewed is not available in the report.
State assessment: Needs Improvement.
Strengths
•
There were some examples where workers explained to the
parents and the child what was needed from them in order
to develop the case plan. Parents also understood the contents
of the case plan.
•
In two sites, families were involved in the case planning
process. Case plans from these sites were found to be individualized
and to address the issues associated with the case and were
comprehensive with the inclusion of services requested by
parents.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
There were some cases where case planning was completed
without the families' input.
•
Need to focus on continued family involvement in case planning.
•
In general there was a lack of active involvement by children
and families, in some cases older children were not involved
at all in case planning.
•
Case managers developed case plans and then presented them
to parents.
•
Fathers were not included in the case planning process.
•
The agency did not make a sufficient effort to reach out
to family members.
•
The use of family group conferencing was not clearly reflected
in the cases reviewed.
•
There was no evidence of the agency setting goals on how
to improve the strengths, needs and services to be provided
to children involved in the system.
Indiana
Reviewed 50/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 40% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Use family group conferencing as a mechanism to engage children
and parents in case planning.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
The case plan is not user friendly. It is lengthy and complex
which has made it difficult for most family members to understand.
•
Parents and children did not participate in the development
of the case plan.
•
High turnover rate results in a lack of experienced employees
engaging families in the case planning process.
•
Foster parents felt that they could not reveal unpleasant
information during family case conferences in an open and
honest way.
Kansas
The number of cases reviewed is not available in the report.
State assessment: Strength.
Strengths
•
Majority of families participated in the case planning process.
•
Workers made an effort to conduct case planning meetings
in the home of the parent if necessary.
•
In some instances workers rescheduled meetings when the
parents could not make it.
•
Most families receive timely notice of case planning meetings.
•
Tribal representatives are notified of case planning conferences
and have participated in conferences.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Staff members need training on how to engage parents in the
case planning development since parents are not always active
participants in the planning process.
Massachusetts
Reviewed 47/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 34% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Agency workers engaged families in case planning.
Areas Needing Improvement
•
Case plans were completed without child and parental input
and presented to a parent for signature.
•
There is a lack of paternal participation in case planning
development.
•
In some case-specific interviews parents felt that there
was a lack of respect for them in the case planning process.
Minnesota
Reviewed 49/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 31% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Evidence of involvement by families and children in case
planning.
•
Older children and their birth parents were more likely
to be involved in case planning when it was either an ICW
case with ITO advocating for the family or a case where
family group conferencing was used.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Although parents signed the case plans, there were many
instances in which the parents were not involved in their
development. Since a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling requires
a case plan to be submitted at the hold hearing that is
held within 72 hours of the child's removal from the home,
there is little opportunity for child and parental involvement
in the initial case planning process.
•
There were inconsistencies in case planning from case to
case and from county to counties.
New
Mexico
Reviewed 50/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 20% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Majority of cases were found to have parent and child involvement
during case planning.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Parents and children were not actively involved in case
planning.
•
Although they were present at meetings, parents, children,
significant parties, and stakeholders were not actively
involved and engaged in the planning process.
•
Age appropriate teens and teen parents were not participating
in the case planning process.
New
York
Reviewed 49/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 12% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
There were 43 (88%) of the 49 cases in which the area was
rated as strength.
•
In cases in which children remained in their homes, parents
were actively engaged in service planning, while in those
cases in which children were in foster care the parents
were not actively engaged in developing case plans. There
is active engagement of parents in service planning on preventive
cases more than on foster care cases.
•
In cases involving children age 10 or older, case records
reflected that the children were involved in case planning
activities.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
6 (12%) of 49 applicable cases were rated as needing improvement.
•
Workers did not effectively engage parents that were categorized
as "challenging," specifically parents with cognitive
disabilities.
•
There is some concern as to whether workers are making an
effort to include parents in the decision making process
and engaging the active participation of parents in case
planning, specifically those issues affected by the termination
of parental rights.
•
There is a lack of active involvement of some foster parents
and prospective adoptive parents in case planning activities.
North
Carolina
Reviewed 50/50 cases
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 30% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Parents, foster parents and age appropriate children were
active participants in case planning.
•
At one site a professional mediator is available if disagreements
occur on case plans in court.
•
Some parents and children were involved in case planning
and plans were adjusted accordingly.
•
A greater number of participants in the case planning process
are more involved in its development and have a comprehensive
understanding of the case plan from beginning to end.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Some cases did not involve teenage children, there was a
failure to involve parents and some did not have a completed
plan.
•
A large number of caseloads at times prevented the inclusion
of parents and children in case planning.
•
Parents and children were present at the development of
the plan but were often not actively participating in identifying
issues and had to assert themselves to have their input
included.
North
Dakota
Reviewed 47/49 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 19% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Evidence from case records and interviews indicted that
parents and age appropriate children participated in case
planning in both foster care and in-home cases.
•
When some parents live out of state or are incarcerated,
the agency will set up conference calls with those parents.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Parents had been given case plans to sign without having
been involved in their development.
•
No discussion of either the parents' or the child's service
needs occurred until after the case plan had been developed.
•
Parent participation varies—parental presence does
not guarantee their participation.
Oklahoma
Reviewed 48/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 40% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Families are more involved in the initial development of
strengths and needs assessment process, which then drives
the development of the case plan.
•
Family group conferencing model is being piloted to enhance
permanency planning efforts and is considered to be a highly
effective tool for involving families in case planning as
well as keeping everyone focused on permanency.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
There is a lack of consistency with regard to involving
families in developing case plans.
•
Case plans are developed for families without their input
and then presented to them for signature.
•
Reviewers expressed the opinion that the case planning process
was confusing and not clear.
Oregon
Reviewed: 45/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 9% of cases did not include
parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
In 41 out of 45 cases reviewed, parents and children were
appropriately involved in case planning.
•
Cases with active involvement in case planning were more
likely to have had family decision meetings or family unity
meetings. These meetings were recognized as a key element
in successful planning with families.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
A few families reported that they were told what to do.
•
Parents reported that their needs or the needs of their
children were not addressed in the case plan.
South
Dakota
Reviewed 47/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 36% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Workers are encouraged to discuss the case plan with the
family to gather information for the plan.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Stakeholders varied in their perceptions of parent involvement
in case planning. Foster parents suggested that they often
have input into case planning, but that their involvement
depends on how assertive they are rather than on any systemic
policy on the part of CPS (child protective services).
•
No formal process exists for involving families in the case
plan and workers are not consistent in this regard.
•
Most workers develop case plans and then present them to
families for review and signature.
Tennessee
Reviewed 46/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 35% of cases did not
include parents or children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
The agency is making an effort to introduce family conferencing
and a new permanency plan format.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Case plans are not individualized and parents have little
or no input in their development.
•
Parents and other relatives are not meaningfully involved
in the planning process.
•
Stakeholders were divided on the level of involvement of
age appropriate children in the planning process with some
noting that children are not involved and others reporting
that children are involved in the planning process.
Texas
Reviewed 48/50 cases.
State assessment: Needs Improvement. 21% of cases did not
include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
High
level of parental and child involvement in case planning,
particularly with respect to parental participation in PPT
sessions.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
Most often the excluded person from the case planning process
was the father or the child.
•
There continue to be cases in which parents and or children
are not actively involved in the planning process; it is
more to hear what the State and other professionals have
to say. The parents and children are not themselves instrumental
in deciding the goals and objectives of the plan.
Vermont
Reviewed 45/50 cases.
State self-assessment: Needs Improvement. 15% of cases did
not include parents and children in case planning efforts.
Strengths
•
Most children in custody are assigned a treatment team,
which meets monthly. Parents often participate in these
teams. Case planning is most often a function of these treatment
team meetings.
•
Stakeholders and agency staff described the case planning
process as inclusive with parents, children/youth, foster
care providers, treatment providers and other important
case participants.
Areas
Needing Improvement
•
One stakeholder described the case planning process as a
formality which families at times have limited participation.
Part
II. Synthesis of Findings
The following synthesizes the results of this review in three
parts. First is a listing of all the states and the findings
regarding each state's compliance with the requirement of
family and child involvement in case planning. Second is a
synthesis of the strengths that were identified in states'
practice in this area. Third is a synthesis of the areas in
need of improvement with regard to states' practice.
Summary
of Case Reviews Regarding Compliance with the Requirement
for Family and Child Involvement in Case Planning:
| State |
Percentage
of Cases Which Did Not Include Parents or Children on
Case Planning Efforts |
| Alabama |
36%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Arkansas |
%
Not Available (Needs Improvement) |
| Arizona |
33%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Connecticut |
38%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Delaware |
%
not available (Strength) |
| District
of Columbia |
55%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Florida |
47%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Georgia |
%
not available (Strength) |
| Indiana |
40%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Kansas |
%
not available (Strength) |
| Massachusetts |
34%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Minnesota |
31%
(Needs Improvement) |
| New
Mexico |
20%
(Needs Improvement) |
| New
York |
12%
(Needs Improvement) |
| North
Carolina |
30%
(Needs Improvement) |
| North
Dakota |
19%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Oklahoma |
40%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Oregon |
9%
(Needs Improvement) |
| South
Dakota |
36%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Tennessee |
35%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Texas |
21%
(Needs Improvement) |
| Vermont |
15%
(Needs Improvement) |
Strengths
The
review of the listed strengths for each of the 22 states for
which there is a final Child and Family Service Review Report
indicates certain overall trends in the area of family and
child involvement in case planning:
•
In almost 60% of the 22 reviewed states, reviewers noted
efforts to actively involve parents in case planning. In
some cases, however, the reviewers noted that these efforts
were limited or were confined to certain groups of families
(such as families in which the children remained in the
home).
•
Seven of the 22 states are currently using or attempting
to develop family group decision making in an effort to
more fully involve families and children in case planning.
•
In about one-third of the states, strengths were noted in
efforts to involve older children in decision making. In
one of these states, the reviewers found this effort was
strongest where family group decision making also was being
used.
The
other identified strengths appeared to be more specific to
individual states. The strengths that were noted included:
•
Use of individualized service plans in connection with meetings
that involved parents, other family members, and other relevant
parties (Alabama)
•
A policy focus on identifying and involving fathers (Alabama)
•
A policy focus on identifying and involving other family
members (Alabama)
•
Use of focus groups and surveys to better understand the
concerns of parents (Arizona)
•
Use of teleconferencing (Connecticut and North Dakota)
•
Holding case planning meetings in the homes of parents (Kansas)
•
Rescheduling meetings to accommodate to parents' work schedules
(Kansas)
•
Timely notice to parents of case planning meetings (Arizona
and Kansas)
•
Notification to tribal representatives of case planning
meetings (Kansas)
Areas
in Need of Improvement
The
review of the identified areas in need of improvement for
each of the 22 states indicates certain common themes in the
area of family and child involvement in case planning:
•
In 55% of the states, reviewers identified a lack of parental
involvement in case plans in a significant number of cases.
•
In 45% of the states, reviewers found that social workers
were simply presenting case plans to parents for their signatures
without review or discussion or the parents' involvement
in the development of the case plan.
•
In more than one-third (36%) of the states, reviewers noted
that children (when age appropriate) were not regularly
involved in developing the case plan.
The
other areas in need of improvement appeared to be more specific
to individual states. The areas needing improvement that were
noted included:
•
A lack of sufficient effort to locate family members despite
a policy that directs this effort (Alabama)
•
Inadequate efforts to involve fathers (Arizona, Florida,
Georgia, and Texas)
•
Scheduling of meetings during parents' work hours (Connecticut)
•
Family involvement dependent on assertiveness of family
(Connecticut and North Carolina)
•
A focus on document completion rather than family involvement
(District of Columbia)
•
Unsigned case plans (District of Columbia)
•
Lengthy and complex case plans and/or case planning processes
that make it difficult for families to understand the plan
or process (Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota)
•
Failure to involve "challenging" parents, particularly
parents with cognitive disabilities (New York)
•
Failure to discuss parents' and children's service needs
before the case plan was developed (North Dakota)
Among
the systemic issues frequently identified in connection with
the areas in need of improvement were: worker turnover that
did not allow for a comprehensive service plan to be developed;
worker turnover and high caseloads that resulted in a lack
of experienced employees engaging families in the case planning
process; and the absence of training on how to engage parents,
extended family members and children in the case planning
process.
*This
report was reprinted by permission of CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, a
national nonprofit organization, is at the forefront in the
fight for the rights of poor children in the custody of child
welfare agencies across the country. Children's Rights currently
has six child welfare systems under some form of court supervision
and five others before the courts.
** Pamela Diaz is a Research
Assistant for Children's Rights
***Madelyn Freundlich is the Policy Director of Children's
Rights
|
