1

CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, CONCURRENT PLANNING SERIES, Part II of IV:Part II of IV:

THE REUNIFICATION PROGNOSIS THE REUNIFICATION PROGNOSIS ASSESSMENT GUIDEASSESSMENT GUIDE

Kylah Ross, MSWKylah Ross, MSW Sandra Lescoe, MSWSandra Lescoe, MSWChild Welfare Training InstituteChild Welfare Training Institute DES DCYF PolicyDES DCYF Policy

June, 2009June, 2009

In collaboration with Ann E. MacEachronIn collaboration with Ann E. MacEachronProfessor, School of Social Work,Professor, School of Social Work,

College of Public Programs, ASU – Downtown CampusCollege of Public Programs, ASU – Downtown Campus

2

Directions• Full directions are on the website. Click

the icon for ‘video-camera’ to switch between the short & long control panels. The short control panel has buttons like a VCR. The long control panel allows for scrolling, and shows the exact time for each slide and the presentation

• At the end of each session, there is a required survey to show that you have completed the training to receive credit, and then an optional feedback form. Thank you!

3

Part II: Table of ContentsPart II: Table of Contents

The Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide

For whom? CSA/SRA/CP and the Assessment Guide Tentative Hypothesis Purpose of Poor Prognosis Indicators Concurrent Permanency Plan Goal Poor Prognosis Indicators

4

For whom? Not Every ChildFor whom? Not Every Child

Not every child entering out-of-home care requires a Concurrent Plan

A comprehensive assessment is critical in identifying children in need of Concurrent Planning

5

Arizona’s Arizona’s Safety and Risk AssessmentSafety and Risk Assessment

In Arizona, the CSA/SRA/CP process is:

the comprehensive assessment foundation for informed decision–making and case planning

a uniformed and rigorous approach to safety and risk assessment and safety planning

an improved approach to case planning that focuses on identifying the specific behaviors/conditions that need to change

6

The RPA Guide: PurposeThe RPA Guide: Purpose

The Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide is utilized as part of the assessment process to determine:

whether or not timely reunification will be difficult or unlikely, and

to identify children in need of Concurrent Planning

7

When?

Must occur within 45 days of the child’s initial placement in out-of-home care. This Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide is also completed at critical decision points in the life of the case, for example, staffings, progress reviews, & case plan reassessment

The Guide is completed by CPS Specialist and in consultation with their Supervisor

Completed for both parents of the child

8

Tentative HypothesisTentative Hypothesis

The CPS Specialist considers the family’s strengths, resources, and case history, to develop a reasoned, tentative hypothesis about the potential of the family to make required changes within one year

9

Poor Prognosis IndicatorsPoor Prognosis Indicators

The Guide Provides a list of conditions, called “Poor Prognosis” indicators, which make timely reunification difficult or unlikely to occur within 12 months of child’s initial removal

Review Exhibit 28 in the Children’s Services Manual

10

A Checked Indicator If one or more of the “Poor Prognosis”

indicators are marked “yes” then Concurrent Planning activities and/or a Concurrent Plan is recommended

If a “Poor Prognosis” indicator is identified during the initial assessment and a Concurrent Permanency Goal was not identified, review and update the Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide at each case plan staffing

11

Concurrent Concurrent Permanency GoalPermanency Goal

If a “Poor Prognosis” indicator is identified, a final Concurrent Permanency goal must be established within six months of actively working with the family on both the reunification plan and Concurrent Planning activities

The selection of the Concurrent Permanency Goal will be determined based upon case specific circumstances and consistent with the child’s best interest

12

Alternatives to ReunificationAlternatives to Reunification

The federally-defined hierarchy is:

Termination and Adoption

Permanent Guardianship

Another permanent planned living arrangement (APPLA) if there is a compelling reason why termination is not in the child’s best interests

13

Reasonable EffortsReasonable Efforts

“Court shall order the Department to make reasonable efforts to provide services” for reunification of the family

14

Aggravating Aggravating CircumstancesCircumstances

Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) and Arizona law, if certain aggravating circumstances are present the Court may, after a hearing, relieve the Department of its duty to provide reunification services

The Court may order a Concurrent Case Plan based on circumstances, and

The CPS Specialist should staff these circumstances with their Supervisor and AAG

15

Aggravating CircumstancesAggravating Circumstances

Extreme Conditions Make Family Extreme Conditions Make Family Reunification UnlikelyReunification Unlikely

Extreme conditions define circumstances which permit the Court to relieve the Department of providing reunification services. Some examples are as follows:

16

Extreme ConditionsExtreme Conditions

Parent’s felony conviction for murder/sexual assault/of a child

Parent’s rights to a sibling have been involuntarily terminated, parent has not addressed problems, and cannot currently discharge parental responsibilities

17

Extreme ConditionsExtreme Conditions

Parent has seriously abused (physical or emotional) a child or parent knew or reasonably should have known another person was abusing his or her child and did not protect

Parent suffers from severe mental illness/deficiency and will not benefit from reunification

18

AZ’s 19 Indicators.

19

Indictor TypesIndictor Types

Indicators marked with “*” are extreme conditions making family reunification a very low probability

Most of the remaining indicators reflect a history of the family

20

# 1 (Extreme Condition)

* Is there evidence the parent or legal custodian murdered any child?

21

# 2 (Extreme Condition)# 2 (Extreme Condition)

* Is there evidence the parent or legal guardian has aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit murder of any child?

22

# 3 (Extreme Condition)# 3 (Extreme Condition)

* * Has the parent repeatedly inflicted chronic abuse, neglect, or torture on the child, a sibling or any child in the household where the child resides; the parent has repeatedly and with premeditation harmed or tortured any child?

23

# 4# 4

Has the child experienced physical or sexual abuse in infancy by the parent or due to parent’s failure to protect?

24

# 5# 5

Does the parent demonstrate persistent lack of emotional commitment to the child or does the parent dislike the child?

25

# 6 (Extreme Condition)# 6 (Extreme Condition)

* Is the parent’s only visible support system and only visible means of financial support illegal drugs, prostitution, or street life?

26

# 7# 7

Is there evidence the parent is chronically addicted to debilitating illegal drugs or alcohol? Examples of such evidence may include repeated drug related arrests or conviction, or abuse of drugs or alcohol during pregnancy?

27

# 8# 8

Is there a pattern of domestic violence which placed the child at risk of harm, with the inability to correct the situation?

28

# 9# 9

Does the parent have a recent history of serious criminal activity, repeated detentions or incarcerations?

29

# 10 (Extreme Condition)# 10 (Extreme Condition)

* Has the parent’s rights to another child been terminated following a period of service delivery to the parent with no discernable change in behavior or conditions causing the child to be unsafe?

30

# 11# 11

Have there been three or more CPS interventions for serious separate incidents, indicating a chronic pattern of abuse or severe neglect?

31

# 12# 12

Have these or other children been placed in foster care or with relatives for periods of six months or longer or had repeated placements with CPS intervention with no discernable change in behavior or conditions causing children to be unsafe?

32

# 13# 13

Has the parent abandoned the child with friends, relatives, hospital, or in foster care; or once the child is placed in substitute care, has the parent not visited on his/her own accord?

33

# 14# 14

Has CPS provided preventive services (which may include in home services) more than three months which failed to keep the child with the parent?

34

# 15# 15

Has the child been in out-of-home placement pursuant to a court order and reunified and then subsequently removed and placed in out-of-home placement?

35

# 16# 16

Does minor parent have no parenting support systems and placement of the child and parent together have failed due to the parent’s behavior?

36

# 17# 17

Has the parent or legal custodian asked to relinquish the child on more than one occasion?

37

# 18 (Extreme Condition)# 18 (Extreme Condition)

* Has the parent been diagnosed with severe mental illness (psychosis, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, sociopathy) for which he/she has not responded to previously delivered mental health services? Do the parent’s symptoms continue, rendering the parent unable to protect and nurture child?

38

# 19# 19

Is the parent intellectually or mentally impaired showing significant self-care deficits and lacking a support system able to share parenting?

39

Handout of Guide

The Reunification Prognosis Assessment Guide is attached

40

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsPolicyPolicy

CHERYL RUSSELL – D IICHERYL RUSSELL – D II

JACOB SCHMITT – COJACOB SCHMITT – CO

JENNIFER BILLARD – D IIIJENNIFER BILLARD – D III

KATHERINE GUFFEY – COKATHERINE GUFFEY – CO

LINDA BEDNAREK – FCRBLINDA BEDNAREK – FCRB

LINDA JOHNSON – COLINDA JOHNSON – CO

LYNNE SNYDER – D VLYNNE SNYDER – D V

MYRIAM BARAJAS – D I MYRIAM BARAJAS – D I

NANCY LOGAN – Former NANCY LOGAN – Former AAG AAG

REGINA YAZZIE – REGINA YAZZIE – NAVAJO NATIONNAVAJO NATION

SUE SCHMELZ – COSUE SCHMELZ – CO

41

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsInfrastructureInfrastructure

AVARAE JOHN – AVARAE JOHN – SALT RIVER PIMASALT RIVER PIMA

BETH ROSENBERG – BETH ROSENBERG – CACCAC

BILL CALLAGHAN – BILL CALLAGHAN – FCRBFCRB

CAROLINE LOTT-OWENS CAROLINE LOTT-OWENS – AOC– AOC

CHERYL RUSSELL – D IICHERYL RUSSELL – D II

DELIA ARNOLD – D IVDELIA ARNOLD – D IV

JUDY SHEIRBON – AAGJUDY SHEIRBON – AAG

MICHELLE PARKER – D IMICHELLE PARKER – D I

NANETTE GERBER – D INANETTE GERBER – D I

ROB SHELLEY – CIPROB SHELLEY – CIP

WARREN KOONTZ – WARREN KOONTZ – ITCAITCA

42

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

StakeholdersStakeholders

BEVERLEE KROLL – COBEVERLEE KROLL – CO

BONNIE MARCUS – CASABONNIE MARCUS – CASA

CAROLYN SMITH – FCRBCAROLYN SMITH – FCRB JEANINE KENYON – JEANINE KENYON –

ATTORNEYATTORNEY

JIM YANG-HELEWELL – JIM YANG-HELEWELL – CASEYCASEY

LEWIS LANE – CO LEWIS LANE – CO

NELSONJA BASTIAN – NELSONJA BASTIAN – SALT RIVER PIMASALT RIVER PIMA

REGINA YAZZIE – REGINA YAZZIE – NAVAJO NATIONNAVAJO NATION

SANDY GUIZZETTI – SANDY GUIZZETTI – FCRBFCRB

VICKI TORRES – D VIVICKI TORRES – D VI

43

ReferencesReferencesChildren and Family Services. Practice guide for

concurrent permanency planning. Minnesota Department of Human Services. St. Paul, MN. www.dhs.state.mn.us.

Katz, L., Spoonemore, N., & Robinson, C. (1994). Concurrent Planning From Permanency Planning to Permanency Action, Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043.

Katz, L. (2001). Concurrent planning: Benefits & pitfalls. In Kathy Barbell & Lois Wright (eds), Family foster care in the next century. Transaction Publishers.

44

REQUIREMENT

• It is a requirement to show you have completed the training by doing this survey. The bottom half of the survey is optional feedback on the training. Thank you!

• Please click on the link below to open and then complete the survey

• http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB229DQHTN2LQ

45

The EndThe End

..