Independent Living Resource Center

1. Independent Living Resource Center Exploring Permanency for Youth: May 16, 2002 Gerald P. Mallon, DSW National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning At the Hunter College School of Social Work

2. All Youth Need Independent Living Skills to Foster Self Sufficiency, and Transition to Independence

3. and . . .They Also Need a Permanency Plan and Life Time Connections

4. Permanency is not Independent Living a.k.a. Long term Foster Care orAdoption . . . It is much more

5. What are the Array of Permanency Options? • Reunification with parent(s) • Family search – Red Cross model • Permanent connections with significant person – formal or informal • Adoption • Mentoring relationship • Life time connections with agency staff

6. Resources • Iowa project • Ohio report • You Gotta Believe • NRCYD Report • Permanency Planning for the Older Adolescent - Joan Morse

7. Iowa Report:Permanency for Teens ProjectLandsman, M.J., Tyler, M., Black, J., Malone, K., and Groza, V. (February 1999). The Permanency for Teens Project.  Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa School of Social Work, 79 pp.

8. AFSA means timely permanency, but not rushed permanency!

9. Challenge 1:Developing a Comprehensive Definition of Permanency Barriers to Change • Child welfare typically defines permanency as adoption • The terms permanence and placement are synonymous in child welfare • Permanency goals are frequently placement options, not permanent relationships

10. Challenge 1:Developing a Comprehensive Definition of Permanency Recommendations • Persistent and consistent training on the absolute necessity of identifying and sustaining permanent relationships for youth • Comprehensive training in areas of adolescent development, issues around attachment disorders, and the importance of permanent relationships in the lives of youth

11. Challenge 2:Prioritizing Youth in Permanency Planning Barriers to Change • A common attitude is that youth are “unadoptable” • Child welfare professionals do not view permanency for youth as a priority; youth get attention when they are in crisis

12. Challenge 2:Prioritizing Youth in Permanency Planning Recommendations • States and contract agencies must very assertive in their supervision to direct line staff concerning permanency for adolescents • Develop a purchase of service rate for permanency activities • Incorporate a team approach to planning

13. Challenge 2:Prioritizing Youth in Permanency Planning Recommendations • Lower caseloads for adolescent permanency workers • Continuity of staff • Hire staff that enjoy working with adolescents

14. Challenge 3:Reliance on the Practice of Sequential Planning Barriers to Change • This practice has historically been the dominant planning method used by child welfare professionals • The legal system tends to view this practice as the only planning method that insures reasonable efforts at reunification

15. Challenge 3:Reliance on the Practice of Sequential Planning Recommendations • Adopt an approach to concurrent permanency planning • Training in concurrent permanency planning • Supervision and support for concurrent approaches to permanency planning

16. Challenge 4:Limited Involvement of Youth in Their Own Permanency Plans Barriers to Change • Typically case planning and case management has been a function of professionals involved in the case • Child welfare professionals have spent limited time and effort locating individuals significantly connected to youth

17. Challenge 4:Limited Involvement of Youth in Their Own Permanency Plans Barriers to Change • Emotional and behavioral issues of youth may prevent them from active participation in the Permanency Planning Process • Lack of recognition regarding the importance of birth families in the lives of youth • Youth are often not invited to the table or meetings are held while they are in school or working

18. Challenge 4:Limited Involvement of Youth in Their Own Permanency Plans Recommendations • Youth need to be viewed as equal members of the team • Greater openness to birth family involvement • Time and resources need to be allocated to locate individuals connected to youth

19. Challenge 4:Limited Involvement of Youth in Their Own Permanency Plans Recommendations • Invite to the table any person who has demonstrated an interest in the well-being of the youth • The team must make a commitment to helping the youth establish a life long connection and relationship before discharge to self • Nurturing relationships between siblings and or extended family should be a priority in working toward permanency

20. Challenge 5:Lack of Permanent Resources Barriers to Change • General Recruitment and Retention Strategies of Resource Families Does Not Work for Youth • Focus on adoption rather than a range of permanent options and permanent connections

21. Challenge 5:Lack of Permanent Resources Recommendations • Youth must be allowed to fully participate in the identification of individuals with whom they have felt a connection in their lives • Recruit for connections in addition to placement options • Target child-specific recruitment to meet the needs of individual youth

22. Challenge 6:Lack of Pre-Post Placement Support Services Barriers to Change • Current reimbursement strategies do not permit the range of support services necessary to promote permanency • Rigid definitions of pre and post support services defies creative approaches

23. Challenge 6:Lack of Pre-Post Placement Support Services Recommendations • Develop funding options that may be accessed for permanency activities • Broaden the definition of permanency activities to allow for creative use of funds and innovative initiatives • Provide intensive services before and after placement as needed

24. Challenge 7:Lack of Financial Flexibility to Foster Permanent Relationships Barriers to Change • Financial structures support placements in limited ways, but fail to support activities related to permanent connects • Accessing financial assistance necessary to support permanence is difficult

25. Challenge 7:Lack of Financial Flexibility to Foster Permanent Relationships Recommendations • Develop funding pools with less restrictions allowing for greater creativity and innovation • Make funding for permanency activities accessible to case managers

26. Challenge 8:Legal Barriers to Alternate Forms of Permanency Barriers to Change • Unwillingness of the legal system to recognize alternate forms of permanence, such as guardianship in some states • Inconsistency between regions of legal permanent options • Severe delays in some state systems, such as the Interstate Compact office

27. Challenge 8:Legal Barriers to Alternate Forms of Permanency Recommendations • Courts need to be more consistent in recognizing and endorsing alternative forms of permanent connections for youth, including connections with biological family, and fictive kinship networks • Concurrent permanency planning language should be adopted by the courts • Courts need to consider reinstating parental rights if appropriate

28. Challenge 8:Legal Barriers to Alternate Forms of Permanency Recommendations • Current systems which are deemed to be ineffective need to be retooled to foster rather than hinder permanency for youth • Adult and juvenile systems need better integration or services

29. Conclusions Permanency for Youth is NOT Simply a Matter of Providing Independent Living Services or Offering Adoption

30. Conclusions Youth in Out-of-Home Care need the same things that all youth need: 1. preparation for self sufficiency and life skills so that they can learn to live independently as they transition toward adulthood 2. an array of permanency options – not placements that consistently promote life long connections and facilitate healthy relationships

31. NRCFCPP Can Help Gerald P. Mallon, DSW, Director The National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning Hunter College School of Social Work 129 East 79th Street New York, New York 10021 (212) 452-7043 Mrengmal@aol.com www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp