Kate Kenna, North Dakota Department of Human Services, Regional Director II shares how North Dakota implemented concurrent planning statewide.
Concurrent Planning in North Dakota, has been an evolution with the concept well established in each of our 53 counties. North Dakota is a rural state with 53 counties and approximately 2000 children in foster/kinship care. The counties are divided geographically into 8 regions, and each region has a regional supervisor who is responsible to provide: training, consultation, interpretation of laws and protocols and manuals.
In 1994 a decision was made to look into Concurrent Planning. As a result teams were sent from several regions to training in Utah. The team from Region 4 (NE corner of the state) decided we would heartily endorse the concept and implement. So we began training our workers in each of the counties.
In 1995 our Court Improvement Project selected Concurrent Planning as a concept to promote. I had the real honor of being one of the champions for concurrent planning and worked closely with statewide staff and our Child Welfare Training Center to develop a plan for state wide implementation.
In the meantime back in our region – our workers were trying on concurrent planning and loving it. The data for our region that first full year was: 116 children in care. 60 had a goal which was concurrent. Of those 60: 18 were adopted (15 of the TPR’s were voluntary), 8 went to live with a relative, 30 were reunified and 4 continued in care.
We were so pleased with the outcomes that we began to roll out statewide training to get the whole state on board. So in 1999 training was provided in all 8 regions. Child Welfare workers and partners of Child Welfare were included; Judges, States Attorneys, Private Attorneys our Juvenile Justice System, our Mental Health System and adoption agencies were all included in the training. We talked a lot about our shared values and worked towards a common understanding about how to get concurrent planning implemented in North Dakota. We worked closely with an attorney at the Training Center to develop model court orders incorporating concurrent planning language- and provided those to the Judicial system.
The goals that we were talking about included: encouraging early decision making, decreasing length of time in care, decreasing disruptions of placements, developing a network of resource families, engaging families early in case planning activities and maintaining continuity of relationships for the kids in care.
Why did it work so well in North Dakota. I think the following were all factors that led to a strong statewide implementation:
- Early Assessment of families—and that same assessment tool utilized for the life of the child’s time in care;
- Measurable case plan with clear objectives;
- All options were discussed openly;
- Voluntary TPR was discussed when that adoption was one of the concurrent goals;
- An early and wide search for extended family members;
- Services were provided—early in case;
- We worked for a non adversarial relationship;
- We continued to have a link with the family of origin and promoted this for families;
- Documentation was thorough and timely.
Lessons learned:
It is all about relationships—we needed our workers to have relationships with families—birth, foster and adoptive. This met frequently, individually with families and frequent team meetings, including families.
Early on we all had cheat sheets—what we needed to do, and when. We also provided written information to families about the concurrent process. Visits between the family and children must be in an environment that was positive for interaction.
Services needed to be flexible and individualized. Training with partners was essential to the successful roll out of concurrent planning. Ongoing staff development was essential. Resource families need ongoing training and reminders of their roles.
We truly found through the implementation of concurrent planning that North Dakota was keeping children safe and that safety required more than just promises, it required action by the whole team |
