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:

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