Child Welfare Information Gateway

Children’s Bureau/ACYF

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20024

800.394.3366

Email: info@childwelfare.gov

http://www.childwelfare.gov

ISSUE BRIEF

April 2012

Concurrent Planning: 

What the Evidence Shows

Use your smartphone to 

access this issue brief online.

What’s Inside:

• How has the practice 

of concurrent planning 

progressed?

• What have the Child and 

Family Services Reviews 

identified regarding 

concurrent planning in 

States?

• What does the literature say 

about concurrent planning?

• What are successful 

examples from the field?

Concurrent planning is an approach that seeks to eliminate 

delays in attaining permanent families for children in the foster 

care system. Concurrent planning involves considering all 

reasonable options for permanency at the earliest possible 

point following a child’s entry into foster care and concurrently 

pursuing those options that will best serve the child’s needs. 

Typically the primary plan is reunification with the child’s family 

of origin. In concurrent planning, an alternative permanency 

goal (e.g., adoption) is pursued at the same time rather than 

being pursued sequentially after reunification has been ruled 

out. The National Resource Center for Permanency and Family 

Connections (n.d.) identifies the following nine core components 

of concurrent planning:
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows http://www.childwelfare.gov

2 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

1. Differential assessment and prognostic 

case review. An individualized 

understanding of the personal, 

interpersonal, and environmental 

context of the child and family through 

initial assessments of safety and 

risk, indepth assessment of family 

functioning, and child evaluation is 

combined with a consideration of 

factors that make timely reunification 

more or less difficult and more or less 

likely.

2. Full disclosure to all participants in the 

case planning process. A respectful, 

candid discussion that begins when the 

child enters foster care and continues 

throughout the life of the case includes 

the following topics: 

• Parental rights and responsibilities

• Identification of problems that led to the 

child’s placement in care 

• Changes needed to support reunification 

• Alternative decision-making

• Possible consequences

• These discussions are offered to birth 

parents, extended family, children and 

youth, foster parents, relative caregivers, 

Tribal representatives, attorneys, 

guardians ad litem, and service 

providers.

3. Family search and engagement 

4. Family group conferencing/teaming 

5. Parent-child visiting during out-of-home 

care

6. Setting clear time limits for 

permanency decisions. Establishing a 

timeframe in which both reunification 

and alternative permanency options are 

pursued helps focus case planning on 

early and intensive services to enhance 

a parent’s ability and willingness to 

make necessary changes.

7. Transparent written agreements and 

documentation give all parties a clear 

understanding of what both the agency 

and the family must do to achieve 

reunification.

8. Committed collaboration between 

child welfare, the courts, and service 

providers is necessary to ensure 

that timely casework is paired with 

smooth progress of cases through the 

court. Support from service providers, 

including foster parents, ensures that 

all parties are working toward the same 

goals.

9. Specific recruitment, training, and 

retention of dual licensed resource 

families 

Since the 1970s, child welfare agencies have 

sought ways to reduce children’s time in foster 

care and expedite paths to permanency. 

One method developed at this time was 

the foster-adoptive program, which placed 

children with preadoptive families prior to 

the termination of parental rights (TPR). The 

preadoptive family would agree to adopt the 

child if the parental rights were terminated 

(Rycraft & Benavides, 2011). This method 

also may be referred to as “legal risk” or 

How Has the Practice 

of Concurrent Planning 

Progressed?
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows

3 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

http://www.childwelfare.gov

“at-risk” adoption. In the 1980s, Lutheran 

Social Services in Washington State adapted 

this concept to develop the first concurrent 

planning model. Whereas the primary focus 

of foster-adoptive programs was adoption, 

concurrent planning works simultaneously 

toward both reunification and an alternate 

permanent family. Additionally, under the 

concurrent planning model, the preadoptive 

parents are expected to support reunification 

efforts (Rycraft & Benavides, 2011; Edelstein 

et al., 2002). 

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 

paved the way for the legal sanction of 

concurrent planning in States by requiring 

that agencies make reasonable efforts to 

find permanent families for children in foster 

care should reunification fail and stating that 

these efforts could be made concurrently with 

reunification attempts (D’Andrade, Frame, 

& Berrick, 2006). Additionally, the Fostering 

Connections to Success and Increasing 

Adoptions Act of 2008 may help expand the 

use of concurrent planning. Although the 

Fostering Connections Act does not directly 

address concurrent planning, it requires States 

to contact adult relatives within 30 days of a 

child entering foster care and notify them of 

their options to become a placement option, 

which may assist in concurrent planning efforts 

(National Resource Center for Permanency 

and Family Connections, n.d.).

The use of concurrent planning has steadily 

grown over the past two decades. The number 

of State statutes (including Washington, DC, 

and Puerto Rico) that, at a minimum, allow 

for concurrent planning to occur increased 

from approximately 33 in 2003 to 38 in 2009 

(National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and 

Neglect Information, 2003; Child Welfare 

Information Gateway, 2009).1 Statutes in some 

States require the practice under certain 

circumstances or require the State agency 

to establish a concurrent planning program. 

Additionally, data from the National Survey of 

Child and Adolescent Well-Being estimates 

that 87 percent of child welfare agencies in 

1999–2000 were implementing concurrent 

planning, with large and urban counties being 

less likely to have completed implementation 

(Mitchell et al., 2005).

The following two sections describe in more 

detail how concurrent planning practice 

has been discussed in the Child and Family 

Services Reviews (CFSRs) and child welfare 

literature.

What Have the Child and Family 

Services Reviews Identified 

Regarding Concurrent Planning 

in States?

Final Reports from the Federal CFSRs2 present 

results and discussion for each State regarding 

its substantial conformity with child safety, 

permanency, and well-being outcomes. In 

two full rounds of 52 reviews, no State was 

found to be in substantial conformity with 

the first permanency outcome, “Children 

1	 The word approximately is used to stress that States

frequently amend their laws.

2	 The Child and Family Services Reviews are designed to enable

the Children’s Bureau to ensure that State child welfare agency

practice is in conformity with Federal child welfare requirements,

to determine what is actually happening to children and families

as they are engaged in State child welfare services, and to assist

States to enhance their capacity to help children and families

achieve positive outcomes. For more information about the

CFSR process, visit the Children’s Bureau website at http://www.

acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows http://www.childwelfare.gov

4 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

have permanency and stability in their living 

situations.” The first permanency outcome 

is most closely connected to concurrent 

planning and, in the Final Reports, contains 

most of the references to concurrent planning.

While concurrent planning is not directly 

assessed in relation to the CFSR outcomes 

and indicators, it is mentioned in 51 of the 

52 State Final Reports in round 1, and in all 

52 reports in round 2. These reports serve 

as useful sources of information about State 

policies practices, training, and other issues 

related to concurrent planning.

Over the course of two review cycles, at least 

21 States have linked concurrent planning to 

positive results; these include reduced time 

to permanency and establishing appropriate 

permanency goals (IL, LA, NE, NM, NC, SD, 

VA, VT), enhanced reunification or adoption 

efforts by engaging parents (CO, IL, ND, SD), 

and reduced time to adoption finalization (AL, 

CA, HI, ID, MA, MN, NJ, ND, RI, UT, WA). In 

round 2 of the CFSRs, only 11 States linked 

concurrent planning to positive results.

The following are positive examples of and 

support for concurrent planning across the 

United States following the second round of 

reviews:

• At least 41 States have formal concurrent 

planning policies (an increase from 9 

States in the first round). These policies 

describe the circumstances under which 

concurrent planning must be practiced, 

such as mandating concurrent planning 

upon children’s entry into foster care, 

encouraging concurrent planning when it is 

in the child’s best interests and mandating 

the practice when the court orders it, and 

requiring concurrent planning in cases with 

poor prognosis indicators.

• All 52 State reports indicate that concurrent 

planning is being implemented to varying 

degrees.

• At least 20 States provide concurrent 

planning training to child welfare, court, or 

other staff. Only 11 States indicated they 

provided training in round 1.

A Federal summary and analysis of the first 

round of State reviews found that “concurrent 

planning efforts are not being implemented 

on a consistent basis when appropriate” in a 

majority of States (Children’s Bureau, 2004). 

The Final Reports discussed the concerns 

and difficulties related to concurrent planning 

in each State. One of the concerns was a 

disconnect between policy and practice: In 

some States with formal concurrent planning 

policies, little or no evidence of concurrent 

planning practices was found in case reviews. 

Similar findings occurred in some States 

in which stakeholders reported the use of 

concurrent planning, but little evidence 

supporting their assertions was found. In 

a number of States, concurrent goals were 

written in the case files, but case reviews 

showed that efforts toward the goals were 

sequential rather than concurrent.

At least 28 States included concurrent 

planning in their Program Improvement 

Plans (PIPs) following round 1 of the CFSRs. 

Improvement strategies included:

• Developing policy or changing existing 

policies, including standards of practice (14 

States)

• Instituting training for child welfare, court, 

and other staff (13 States)

• Beginning to implement or increasing the 

use of concurrent planning (5 States)
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows

5 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

http://www.childwelfare.gov

• Improving the review process for concurrent 

planning (2 States)

In the second round of reviews, the Final 

Reports continue to address concerns and 

difficulties related to concurrent planning. In 

at least 14 States, concurrent planning was 

mentioned as a key overall concern in the 

Final Report. Although the majority of States 

or localities now have formal concurrent 

planning policies, many indicated that the 

policies were not being implemented as 

described in the policies. At least 22 reports 

indicated that caseworkers were pursuing 

the concurrent goals sequentially rather than 

simultaneously. For example, stakeholders 

in three States noted that, in some cases, all 

efforts toward reunification are exhausted 

before any efforts are made toward the other 

goal (e.g., adoption). Additionally, at least 

12 reports indicated that some adoptions 

were not finalized in a timely manner due 

to caseworkers incorrectly implementing 

concurrent planning or not using it at all. 

Other difficulties reported for some States in 

the second round include:

• In 15 States, the practice was being 

implemented inconsistently across different 

areas of the State or within localities.

• In eight States, staff’s understanding of 

concurrent planning was unclear.

• In six States, there was a need for additional 

training about concurrent planning for child 

welfare staff.

• In six States, there was resistance from the 

courts and attorneys to the implementation 

of concurrent planning.

• There were limits in data systems. One 

report indicated that the State data system 

hinders concurrent planning because it 

allows only one goal to be on record at a 

time. 

The recent literature on concurrent 

planning yields little in the way of outcomes 

or evidence-based practice (Rycraft & 

Benavides, 2011; D’Andrade & Berrick, 2006). 

Most available studies consist of tracking 

permanency outcomes or gleaning qualitative 

information from focus groups, surveys, or 

interviews with caseworkers, families, foster/

adoptive parents, or other stakeholders. 

Despite the limitations, recent evaluations do 

appear to offer support for the approach.

Concurrent Planning Can Improve 

Outcomes for Children

The primary benefit of concurrent planning 

appears to be that children in foster care 

achieve permanency with families more 

quickly. A British study compared children 

in concurrent planning projects to children 

receiving traditional services and found that 

the children receiving concurrent planning 

services were placed with permanent families 

significantly faster and with fewer moves than 

the comparison group. The children in the 

concurrent planning projects, however, were 

unexpectedly much younger than the children 

in the comparison group, which may affect the 

results (Monck, Reynolds, & Wigfall, 2004). 

In an examination of case records of 640 

children in Connecticut who were legally free 

for adoption, Cushing and Greenblatt (2009) 

found that if the foster family with whom 

What Does the Literature Say 

About Concurrent Planning?
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows http://www.childwelfare.gov

6 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

the child is living at the time of the TPR is 

rejected as the adoptive family, the child is 

66 percent less likely to be adopted at all. 

Additionally, each additional year following 

the TPR resulted in an 80 percent decrease in 

the likelihood of adoption during the study 

period. 

The literature also suggests that openness and 

direct communication between birth parents 

and caregivers in concurrent planning may 

lead to more voluntary relinquishments and 

open adoptions—a seemingly logical outcome 

of this more open relationship. Finally, 

existing evaluations identify critical factors in 

successful concurrent planning efforts that 

can offer important guidance for child welfare 

practitioners.

Effective Concurrent Planning 

Programs Have Common Elements

Frame, Duerr Berrick, and Coakley (2006) 

examined the legislatively mandated 

implementation of concurrent planning (CP) 

in six California counties to identify factors 

that could be associated with success. They 

describe seven system characteristics that 

“appear necessary, in combination, for the full 

functioning of a system of CP.” These essential 

elements are:

• Agency support at all levels for the 

principles, priorities, and practices of 

concurrent planning

• Institutionalization of the approach through 

the use of formal systems for resolution 

of paternity issues and relative search, 

documented reunification prognosis, 

tracked timelines, procedures for referral 

between workers, and regular review 

meetings

• Support for caseworkers including formal 

and informal training, shared decisionmaking, and manageable caseloads

• Integration of child welfare and adoption 

units working toward the same concurrent 

goals 

• An adequate pool of concurrent caregivers

who are willing and able to work toward 

both reunification and adoption

• Services available to support birth parents

in achieving reunification-related goals

• Support from judges, attorneys, and other 

court personnel for concurrent planning 

philosophy and practice

Elements of Concurrent Planning 

Associated With Positive 

Permanency Outcomes

Potter and Klein-Rothschild (2002) conducted 

a study to identify the predictors of 

permanency attainment within 1 year in the 

Colorado Department of Human Services’ 

Expedited Permanency Planning (EPP) project, 

which used an intensive concurrent planning 

model. In this study of 125 children aged 

7 and younger, factors predicting timely 

permanency included:

• Race. African-American children were 

74 percent less likely to achieve timely 

permanency.

• Mental health. Children with emotional or 

behavioral problems were 89 percent less 

likely to achieve timely permanency.

• Caseworker consistency. Each additional 

caseworker decreased the likelihood of 

timely permanency by 63 percent.
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows

7 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

http://www.childwelfare.gov

• Fewer placements. Each additional 

placement a child experienced reduced the 

odds of attaining timely permanency by 32 

percent.

• Eligibility for title IV-E assistance. 

Children from families that were poor 

enough to qualify for title IV-E eligibility 

were 90 percent less likely to achieve 

timely permanence in 12 months. Thus, 

ineligibility due to higher income increased 

the odds for timely permanency.

• Substance abuse. When parental substance 

abuse was identified, timely permanence 

was 23 times more likely.

• Court timeframes. Each day less between 

the initial filing and the adjudication 

increased the chance of timely permanence 

by 1 percent, and each day less between 

the adjudication and the order for 

treatment plan increased the chance by 3 

percent.

Other factors found to relate to timely 

permanency included clear identification of 

the concurrent plan in the written service 

plan and parental signatures on the plan. This 

research also found agencies’ terminology 

regarding foster/adoptive parents appeared 

to be related to differences in how foster and 

adoptive families were viewed as a part of 

the concurrent planning process. Agencies 

using the term “resource families” for foster/

adoptive parents tended to involve them more 

fully in the planning process and make earlier 

foster/adoptive placements for children than 

did those who referred to such families as 

“legal risk.”

In a study of 885 children from six counties 

in California, D’Andrade (2009) compared 

permanency outcomes of children who 

received elements of concurrent planning 

(identified as the existence of a concurrent 

plan, a reunification prognosis, full disclosure, 

and a discussion of voluntary relinquishment) 

with those who did not. She found that, when 

full disclosure was present (i.e., notifying the 

birth parents of the consequences of failing 

to complete the case plan), children were less 

likely to be reunified with their parents, and 

discussion of voluntary relinquishment was 

associated with an increased likelihood of 

adoption. No other elements of concurrent 

planning were associated with either 

permanency outcome. However, some 

variables that were not elements of concurrent 

planning, including placement with kin and 

entry into care after concurrent planning 

was legislated in the State, were associated 

with an increased likelihood of reunification. 

Parents who were less likely to be reunited 

with their children included those who did 

not visit during out-of-home care, had a child 

previously removed, had current substance 

abuse issues, or had a developmental delay. 

More Research Is Needed 

Regarding the Indicators of a 

Poor Prognosis for Reunification

Concurrent planning models frequently use 

an assessment checklist to identify families 

that have little chance for reunification. Many 

programs use strengths assessments and poor 

prognosis tools developed by Katz and her 

colleagues, but some have developed their 

own tools. The most common poor prognosis 

indicators are the following (Lutz, 2000):

• Parent has previously killed or seriously 

harmed another child.
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows http://www.childwelfare.gov

8 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

• Parent has repeatedly and with 

premeditation harmed a child.3

• Parent’s only visible support system is 

a drug culture, which parent makes no 

significant effort to change.

• Parent has significant, protracted, and 

untreated mental health issues.

• Parent’s rights to another child have been 

involuntarily terminated.

At least one study has found no relationship 

between poor prognosis indicators and the 

likelihood of permanency through either family 

reunification or adoption (D’Andrade, 2009). 

Agencies should use poor prognosis indicators 

as only one part of a comprehensive family 

assessment, along with other assessment tools 

such as strengths, risk, and safety indicators. 

A differential diagnosis that includes all 

these tools may be more effective in helping 

caseworkers gather and assess all relevant 

information to determine services and 

concurrent planning needs. 

Several States have developed prognostic 

tools and guidelines for differential assessment 

that look at a variety of strengths and needs. 

(See the National Resource Center for 

Permanency and Family Connections at http://

www.nrcpfc.org/cpt/component-one.htm for 

more information.) State laws and policies vary 

as to when concurrent planning should be 

employed (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 

2009). 

3	 It should be noted that, with the 1997 passage of the

Adoption and Safe Families Act and corresponding legislation in

the States, attempts to reunite families are not typically required

when a parent has killed or seriously or repeatedly harmed a

child, as described in the first two bulleted items.

Courts Play an Important Role 

in Concurrent Planning

Juvenile court oversight of permanency 

planning and decision-making for children 

in foster care is mandated by the Adoption 

Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 

and given time limits by Adoption and Safe 

Families Act (ASFA); the failure to achieve 

timely permanency is frequently connected 

to delays in legal proceedings (Edwards, 

2007). Because most States legislatively allow 

for or require concurrent planning (Child 

Welfare Information Gateway, 2009), courts 

are critical to the successful implementation 

of concurrent planning and are responsible 

for ensuring that agencies implement it within 

ASFA timeframes.

The importance of judicial involvement in 

concurrent planning is highlighted by a study 

of the Kentucky Adoption Opportunities 

Project (KAOP) (Martin, Barbee, Antle, 

& Sar, 2002). In this model, the use of 

concurrent planning was combined with 

other permanency planning activities for 

achieving timely permanence: risk assessment, 

representation by a single attorney from initial 

filing to permanency, and early placement 

in foster/adoptive and kinship homes. These 

activities included changes in court procedures 

as well as efforts to improve communication 

between the child welfare agency and the 

courts. 

While it is difficult to isolate the effect of 

concurrent planning on the outcomes, the 

KAOP children experienced fewer placement 

changes and shorter lengths of stay relative 

to the overall foster care population in 

their counties. Study authors were unable 

to identify the effect of specific activities 

on permanency outcomes but point to 
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows

9 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

http://www.childwelfare.gov

increased awareness of early assessment, 

adherence to timelines, reasonable efforts, 

and coordination, communication, and 

cross-system collaboration. The study also 

pointed to several barriers to expedited 

permanency. Birth parents were often 

provided inappropriate service referrals 

that underestimated or misunderstood the 

incidence of mental illness, multigenerational 

abuse, and domestic violence. Other barriers 

included poor communication, confusion 

about roles, and delays in court hearings. 

Staff Acceptance and 

Understanding Are Critical

Although child welfare staff often believe 

that concurrent planning is fair, necessary, 

and helps move children more quickly to 

permanency, they also emphasize that 

concurrent planning is stressful, requires them 

to gather more information to determine 

permanency options early in the case, and 

necessitates additional training and support 

to implement the process effectively (Frame 

et al., 2006; Gerstenzang & Freundlich, 2006; 

Malm et al., 2001; Westat & Chapin Hall 

Center for Children, 2001). The literature, 

as well as anecdotal reports, indicates that 

caseworkers often experience difficulty 

grappling with the tension inherent in 

attempting to reunite a child with his or her 

family while also working on an alternative 

permanent plan (D’Andrade et al., 2006). 

It is important that both caseworkers and 

their supervisors accept the philosophy of 

concurrent planning and believe that it is 

possible to work in good faith with parents 

while at the same time planning for an 

alternative permanency goal. 

D’Andrade et al. (2006) found that concurrent 

planning practice often was well-developed 

and understood in the “back end” of the 

system but was poorly developed and 

understood by frontline workers. Caseworkers 

often fall back on the traditional method 

of sequential planning. In addition to 

understanding basic concurrent planning 

practice, caseworkers must be competent in 

conducting differential assessments and in 

working with parents and other professionals 

to plan and deliver targeted services and 

assess progress toward goals (Frame et al., 

2006; Lutz, 2000; Westat & Chapin Hall Center 

for Children, 2001). Supervisors play a key 

role in promoting collaboration among service 

recipients, providers, and others involved in 

each case. Concurrent planning requires that 

supervisors have the time and skills necessary 

to involve themselves closely in timely case 

planning and decision-making. 

Agency Policy Should Be Congruent 

With Concurrent Planning Practice

The implementation of concurrent planning 

also calls for close scrutiny of agency policies 

to assess their consistency with the philosophy 

and intent of this approach. Procedures for 

staff assignment, case review, documentation, 

and interaction with the courts and other 

service providers all have the potential to 

affect the success of efforts to achieve safe 

and timely permanency. Examples of agency 

policies that may help concurrent planning 

practice be congruent with policy include:

• Eliminating caseworker reassignment when 

children move from foster to adoptive 

status (Lutz, 2000)

• Reducing caseload size for caseworkers 

involved with both reunification and 

permanency efforts 
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows http://www.childwelfare.gov

10 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

• Ensuring that caseworkers have sufficient 

supports (e.g., supervisory feedback on 

decision-making) and experience in order 

to meet the more complex demands of 

concurrent planning practice (Frame et al., 

2006)

• Assigning two caseworkers (one for 

reunification and one for adoption) to 

reduce the burden on a single caseworker 

trying to meet both roles (D’Andrade & 

Berrick, 2006) or integrating child welfare 

and adoption staff organizationally 

and structurally to facilitate ongoing 

communication and collaborative goalsetting (Frame et al., 2006)

Foster/Adoptive Families 

Must Be Well Prepared

The concurrent planning approach demands 

much of foster/adoptive families, who must be 

well prepared and supported. They must be 

willing to make a permanent commitment to a 

child placed in their home before the child is 

available for adoption, while at the same time 

work cooperatively with the agency and family 

of origin to effect reunification. Their work 

often includes teaching and modeling skills 

for birth parents and other family members 

as well as mentoring new foster/adoptive 

families. 

In one study, child welfare staff and court 

personnel reported that although concurrent 

planning made fostering more emotionally 

difficult for foster parents, they believed that 

it provided a more clearly defined role for 

the foster parents (D’Andrade et al., 2006). 

Another researcher noted that one of the 

primary benefits of concurrent planning is that 

it allows the foster/adoptive parents to have 

a more accurate representation of the birth 

parents to provide to the adopted children as 

they grow up (Kenrick, 2010). 

Not surprisingly, the literature commonly 

points to the recruitment, preparation, and 

support of foster/adoptive families as one of 

the most challenging aspects of concurrent 

planning. A study of concurrent planning in 

New York State found that although most 

foster parents reported understanding 

concurrent planning, existing training, 

services, and supports may not be adequate 

to meet their complex needs during this 

process (Gerstenzang & Freundlich, 2005). 

A study by Gerstenzang and Freundlich (2006) 

indicates that foster parents should not be 

required to commit to adoption from initial 

placement, giving them an opportunity to get 

to know the child before making a permanent 

decision. Rather, the agency should inform the 

birth and foster parents that the foster family 

will be considered a possible resource.

In a study of 51 California counties, more 

than half of them reported difficulty recruiting 

foster/adoptive families. Additionally, more 

than half of all the counties also reported not 

providing any additional services to foster/

adoptive families beyond what they provided 

to standard foster families, which could 

be a reason for the recruitment struggles 

(D’Andrade, Mitchell, & Duerr Berrick, 

2003). In another study of six California 

counties, researchers found that there were 

an insufficient number of families willing and 

able to become foster/adoptive families. 

Explanations for the low numbers included, 

but were not limited to, not having special 

recruiting strategies for foster/adoptive 

families, and prospective families not being 

willing to accept the emotional risks involved 
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows

11 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

http://www.childwelfare.gov

in concurrent planning (Frame, Berrick, & 

Coakley, 2006).

Casework Practice Is Inconsistent

Even with the philosophy of concurrent 

planning gaining traction at the State and 

agency levels, casework practice has been 

inconsistent. For example, a 1997 law in 

California requires the documentation of 

concurrent plans in child welfare court reports. 

Through case file reviews and interviews 

with agency and court staff in six counties, 

D’Andrade, Frame, and Duerr Berrick (2006) 

determined that the requirement was being 

met in slightly more than half of all cases. 

The study also found that caseworkers who 

did implement concurrent planning were 

not doing so early enough in the case and 

sometimes were waiting until just before the 

TPR hearing. Additionally, much of the text 

that described concurrent plans in the case 

files was cursory or described sequential plans. 

The study listed several reasons provided 

by agency and court staff for the limited use 

of concurrent planning, including the belief 

that concurrent planning was too emotionally 

taxing for the birth parents, concerns about 

the duality of the caseworker’s role negatively 

affecting reunification, and that the practice 

may cause confusion or conflicting loyalties in 

children. 

What Are Successful Examples 

From the Field?

The following examples illustrate successful 

methods for planning and implementing 

concurrent planning in public agencies.

Idaho

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare 

(DHW) began focusing on concurrent planning 

soon after the Adoption and Safe Families 

Act of 1997. After its first CFSR in 2003, the 

State incorporated the development of a 

concurrent planning standard into its PIP. DHW 

also began training caseworkers on concurrent 

planning practice. During the second round 

of CFSRs in 2008, the State recognized 

that although it had concurrent planning 

policies in place, practice was not occurring 

as consistently and effectively as possible. In 

its next PIP, the State focused on providing 

support to supervisors and additional 

training to caseworkers and court staff. 

DHW developed a concurrent planning tool 

(available at http://healthandwelfare.idaho.

gov/portals/0/Children/MoreInformation/

Concurrent%20Planning.pdf) to assist 

supervisors in guiding their caseworkers. The 

tool provides definitions and a detailed outline 

of the concurrent planning-related actions that 

should occur at various stages in a case. The 

tool has helped supervisors and caseworkers 

implement the concurrent planning policies. 

Additionally, the National Child Welfare 

Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues 

conducted a training for caseworkers and 

court staff, including judges and prosecutors, 

about concurrent planning practice. 

 
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows http://www.childwelfare.gov

12 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

Other practices DHW uses to support 

concurrent planning include:

• Reviewing concurrent planning practice 

during semiannual quality assurance 

reviews. During these reviews, the 

caseworker and case reviewer are 

interviewed about strengths and areas 

needing improvement regarding how the 

case was coordinated, including the use of 

concurrent planning. The review tool is the 

same one used by Federal staff during the 

CFSRs.

• Conducting permanency roundtables to 

explore additional permanency options. If 

there is no viable permanency option for 

a case, DHW convenes a workgroup to 

consider other options, including the use of 

concurrent planning. This many include the 

use of family group decision-making early in 

a case, which may help facilitate concurrent 

planning efforts.

Idaho’s concurrent planning efforts have 

helped improve permanency outcomes for 

children in out-of-home care. The number of 

adoptions in the State has increased from 195 

in 2007 to 313 in 2010, and DHW attributes 

part of this increase to its concurrent planning 

efforts.

North Dakota

The North Dakota Department of Human 

Services (DHS) implemented concurrent 

planning statewide in 1999, following a 5-year 

period of development, training, and regional 

pilot-testing. Development of the approach 

involved DHS, the courts, and the mental 

health and juvenile justice systems. Concurrent 

planning also was promoted through the 

State’s Court Improvement Project. 

Comparisons of current State permanency 

indicators with those prior to implementation 

show clear differences. Average time in care 

decreased from 17 months in 1999 to 9.7 

months in 2003. In 2003, 50 percent more 

children were placed with relatives than in 

1999, while 92 percent of children with a goal 

of reunification were returned to their families 

(K. M. Kenna, personal communication, March 

1, 2004). In 2009, the median length of stay in 

foster care was 11.9 months. Of children who 

exited from foster care that year, 66 percent 

were reunified and 11 percent were adopted.4

Almost three-quarters of children who were 

reunified achieved that outcome within 12 

months; another 20 percent did so within 

24 months (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), n.d.) 

North Dakota DHS staff cite early family 

assessment, the development of measurable 

case plan objectives, full exploration of family 

resources, and timely service provision as key 

elements in the success of this approach.

4	 These numbers compare favorably to national outcomes, in

which the median length of stay was 13.7 months, 51 percent

were reunified, and 20 percent were adopted (HHS, 2010).

Suggested Citation:

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). 

Concurrent planning: What the evidence 

shows. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Children’s 

Bureau.
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows

13 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

http://www.childwelfare.gov

Note: The original (2005) version of this issue brief was developed in partnership with the Child 

Welfare League of America Research to Practice Initiative, under subcontract to the National 

Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. This update was developed by Child 

Welfare Information Gateway, in partnership with Susan Dougherty. This document is made 

possible by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration 

for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The conclusions 

discussed here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views or 

policies of the funding agency.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2009). Concurrent planning for permanency for children: 

Summary of State laws. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/

statutes/concurrent.cfm

Children’s Bureau. (2004). General findings from the Federal Child and Family Services Review. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/

genfindings04/index.htm

Cushing, G., & Greenblatt, S. B. (2009). Vulnerability to foster care drift after the termination of 

parental rights. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(6). 694–704. 

D’Andrade, A. C. (2009). The differential effects of concurrent planning practice elements on 

reunification and adoption. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(4). 446–459.

D’Andrade, A., & Duerr Berrick, J. (2006). When policy meets practice: The untested effects of 

permanency reforms in child welfare. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 33(1), 31–52.

D’Andrade, A., Frame, L., & Duerr Berrick, J. (2006). Concurrent planning in public child welfare 

agencies: Oxymoron or work in progress? Children and Youth Services Review, 28(1), 78–95.

D’Andrade, A., Mitchell, L., & Duerr Berrick, J. (2003). Permanency and child welfare reform: 

California and the United States. Paper presented at the conference of the Society for Social 

Work and Research, Washington, DC.

Edelstein, S. B., Burge, D., & Waterman, J. (2002). Older children in preadoptive homes: Issues 

before termination of parental rights. Child Welfare, 81, 101–121.

References
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows http://www.childwelfare.gov

14 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence

Edwards, L. P. (2007). Achieving timely permanency in child protection courts: The importance of 

frontloading the court process. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 58(2), 1–37.

Frame, L., Duerr Berrick, J., & Coakley, J. F. (2006). Essential elements of implementing a system of 

concurrent planning. Child and Family Social Work, 11(4), 357–367. 

Gerstenzang, S., & Freundlich, M. (2005). A critical assessment of concurrent planning in New York 

State. Adoption Quarterly, 8(4), 1–22.

Gerstenzang, S., & Freundlich, M. (2006). A critical assessment of concurrent planning: What is its 

role in permanency planning? Washington DC: CWLA Press.

Kenrick, J. (2010). Concurrent planning (2): ‘The rollercoaster of uncertainty.’ Adoption & Fostering 

Journal, 34(2), 38–48.

Lutz, L. (2000). Concurrent planning: Survey of selected sites. New York: Hunter College School 

of Social Work, National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning. Retrieved 

from http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/tools/cp-survey_all-tool.pdf

Malm, K., Bess, R., Leos-Urbel, J., Geen, R., & Markowitz, T. (2001). Running to keep in place: The 

continuing evolution of our nation’s child welfare system. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310358_occa54.pdf

Martin, M. H., Barbee, A. P., Antle, B. F., & Sar, B. (2002). Expedited permanency planning: 

Evaluation of the Kentucky Adoptions Opportunities Project. Child Welfare, 81(2), 203–224.

Mitchell, L. B., Barth, R. P., Green, R., Wall, A., Biemer, P., Duerr Berrick, J., et al. (2005). Child 

welfare reform in the United States: Findings from a local agency survey. Child Welfare, 84(1), 

5–24. 

Monck, E., Reynolds, J., & Wigfall, V. (2004). Using concurrent planning to establish permanency 

for looked after young children. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 321–331.

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (2003). 2003 Child Abuse and 

Neglect State Statute Series ready reference: Permanency planning: Concurrent planning. 

Washington, DC: Author.

National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections. (n.d.). The core components of 

concurrent planning. Retrieved from http://www.nrcpfc.org/cpt/core_components.htm

Potter, C. C., & Klein-Rothschild, S. (2002). Getting home on time: Predicting timely permanency 

for young children. Child Welfare, 81(2), 123–150.
Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows http://www.childwelfare.gov

Rycraft, J. R., & Benavides, G. (2011). Concurrent planning: In whose interest? In E. A. Rosman, C. 

E. Johnson, & N. M. Callahan (Eds.), Adoption Factbook V. Alexandria, VA: National Council for 

Adoption. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). The AFCARS report: Preliminary estimates 

as of July 2010. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/

report17.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Child welfare outcomes report data. 

Retrieved from http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data

Westat & Chapin Hall Center for Children. (2001). Assessing the context of permanency and 

reunification in the foster care system. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fostercare-reunif01

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau