Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS

800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov

Concurrent planning is an approach that seeks 

to shorten a child or youth’s stay in foster care 

by promoting more than one permanent family 

solution at a time. While returning a child to his 

or her family of origin is the primary case plan 

for a child in foster care, concurrent planning 

involves the parallel pursuit of an alternative 

permanency goal (e.g., adoption) that would 

best serve the child in the event reunification 

fails. By considering all reasonable options for 

permanency as soon as a child enters foster care, 

and pursuing those that would best meet his or 

her needs, concurrent planning works to advance 

the child’s best interests and achieve timely 

permanence.

This bulletin outlines the development of 

concurrent planning practice, its use in casework 

practice today, and the important role of the 

court system. It provides information on how to 

evaluate a family for likelihood of reunification, 

how to prepare foster/adoptive families for 

concurrent planning, and State and local 

examples of successful concurrent planning.

WHAT’S INSIDE

Brief history of 

concurrent planning 

practice

Concurrent planning 

today

The role of the courts

Assessing reunification 

probability and 

preparing families

Examples from the field

Concurrent planning 

training

Conclusion

References

BULLETIN FOR 

PROFESSIONALS

July 2018

Concurrent Planning for 

Timely Permanence
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

2

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

Brief History of Concurrent Planning 

Practice

Since the 1970s, child welfare agencies have sought 

to reduce the amount of time that children spend in 

foster care and to expedite permanency. One method 

developed at this time was the foster-adoptive program—

also referred to as “legal-risk” or “at-risk” adoption—that 

placed children with preadoptive families while their 

parents retained legal rights. The preadoptive family 

would agree to adopt the child in the event parental rights 

were terminated (Rycraft & Benavides, 2011). In the 1980s, 

Lutheran Social Services in Washington State adapted this 

concept to develop the first concurrent planning model. 

This shifted the primary focus from adoption to a plan that 

works toward reunification and an alternative permanent 

family at the same time to expedite permanency. A key 

feature of the concurrent planning model is the high 

expectations and trust it places on preadoptive parents to 

support the child, the reunification efforts, and the family 

of origin (Edelstein et al., 2002; Rycraft & Benavides, 2011).

Two Federal laws have influenced concurrent planning as 

practiced today: the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 

1997 (ASFA) (P.L. 105-89) and the Fostering Connections 

to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-

351). ASFA mandates shortened timelines for achieving 

permanency for children in foster care and stipulates 

that efforts to place a child in an adoptive home or 

with a legal guardian “could be made concurrently.” 

The Fostering Connections Act provides timeframes 

in which States must contact adult relatives of children 

entering foster care to notify them of their eligibility to 

become placement resources. Both statutes address 

the central tenets of concurrent planning, including the 

simultaneous pursuit of two permanency placements and 

a commitment to timeliness. 

Child and Family Services Reviews

A review of archived Program Improvement 

Plans (PIPs)1 from round 2 of the Child and Family 

Services Reviews (CFSRs) shows that 40 States, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico addressed 

the need to improve concurrent planning in their 

plans. The PIPs included the following measures 

to strengthen concurrent planning efforts 

(Children’s Bureau, 2011):

 Simultaneous reunification services and efforts 

to identify an adoptive resource family 

 Open communication with birth parents about 

permanency and adoption

 Ability to quickly shift focus to the concurrent 

plan of adoption when reunification fails

 Concerted efforts to support concurrent 

planning 

Challenges included the following:2

 Failure to practice formalized concurrent 

planning or inconsistent practice county to 

county 

 Failure to complete concurrent planning 

activities early in case goal-setting

 Failure to involve birth and resource families in 

identifying or pursuing concurrent permanency 

goals, especially when reunification within 12 

months of removal appears unlikely

 Need to develop internal policies and 

procedures to guide concurrent planning 

practice

 Lack of clearly delineated roles and 

responsibilities for concurrent planning 

stakeholders 

1 2

1 PIPs and other CFSR reports can be found at the Children’s Bureau’s web 

page, Reports and Results of the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs), 

available at https://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/

SearchForm. 2 Challenges are based on a review of the PIPs on the Children’s Bureau’s 

website (https://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/

SearchForm).
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

3

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

Since fiscal year (FY) 2000, the Children’s Bureau has 

awarded several rounds of discretionary grants to promote 

concurrent planning efforts that stem from ASFA and the 

Fostering Connections Act, including activities that seek to 

do the following:

 Develop practice models for implementing concurrent 

planning 

 Increase the availability of concurrent and adoptive 

resource families to support the needs of a diverse 

population of children in care 

 Facilitate concurrent planning through the Family 

Finding Model, which seeks to locate and engage family 

members of children in foster care 

Specific examples of this work are included in the Examples 

From the Field section later in this bulletin.

Concurrent Planning Today

Current State statutes differ substantially in how they 

define concurrent planning and guide its implementation. 

Some States require concurrent planning under certain 

circumstances—in accordance with diligent recruitment 

efforts, for example, or they require the State agency to 

establish a concurrent planning program. As of November 

2016, approximately 24 States and the District of Columbia 

allow, but do not require, concurrent planning. Twenty-four 

other States require concurrent planning under certain 

circumstances (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2017b).

For more information, see Information Gateway’s 

Concurrent Planning for Permanency for Children from the 

State Statutes series (https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/

systemwide/laws-policies/Statutes/concurrent/). 

Successful concurrent planning depends on clear 

goal setting and time limits in engaging with families 

whose children are in out-of-home care. It begins with 

a caseworker’s initial contacts with all involved parties 

and continues throughout the case. It involves the 

continuous reassessment of the likelihood of reunification 

or the possibility of an alternative permanent placement 

for a child, as well as ongoing engagement with the 

child’s family regarding progress toward reunification or 

concurrent planning. 

Concurrent Planning Goals

The goals of concurrent planning include the following 

(CWDA, 2010): 

 Expediting sustainable permanency through 

reunification, kinship care, adoption, or guardianship 

 Minimizing a child’s separation from parents, relatives, 

and caretakers while maximizing attachment and 

permanent connections 

 Keeping siblings together 

 Empowering parents by involving them in alternative 

placement plans when reunification is not possible 

 Ensuring a child’s first placement is the last placement 

 Engaging a family’s relatives and support system 

immediately for potential placement and permanency 

plan discussions and actions 

 Communicating with parents directly at intake and 

throughout a case regarding their children’s need for 

permanence, case plan progress, and the agency’s 

concurrent planning policy

Concurrent Planning Benefits

Apart from cutting down on the amount of time a child 

spends in out-of-home care, the benefits of concurrent 

planning include the following (CWDA, 2010; Pennsylvania 

Child Welfare Resource Center, 2010):

 Quicker resolution and permanency for the child

 Reduced long-term court involvement

 Full disclosure/direct communication and clarity 

between the agency, birth parents, resource parents, 

the child, and kin regarding the plan for permanency, 

case plan time limits, and related consequences

 Fewer placements for a child in the event reunification 

fails

 Involvement of family members in identifying potential 

kinship placement options

 Ongoing relationship between birth parents and 

child’s caregivers seems to support child well-being
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

4

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

The National Center for Child Welfare Excellence 

(NCCWE) at the Silberman School of Social Work at 

Hunter College developed a toolkit for concurrent 

planning that lists the essential components of the 

practice and provides an online resource for States and 

Tribes with programs, practices, publications, and policies 

focused on concurrent planning. The toolkit, A WebBased Concurrent Planning Toolkit: The Core Components 

of Concurrent Planning, is available on the NCCWE 

website at http://www.nccwe.org/toolkits/concurrentplanning/core_components.htm.

For more information on concurrent planning practice, 

visit the Information Gateway web section at https://www.

childwelfare.gov/topics/permanency/planning/concurrent.

The Role of the Courts

The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 

(P.L. 96-272) entrusts juvenile courts with oversight of 

permanency planning and decision-making for children 

in foster care, and ASFA sets time limits and establishes 

juvenile and family court judges as the gatekeepers of 

foster care cases. These judges play an important role 

in introducing the subject of concurrent planning at the 

first hearing, giving courts the primary responsibility 

for ensuring that agencies implement it within ASFA 

timeframes (Gatowski, Miller, Rubin, Escher, & Maze, 2016; 

Hudson, 2017). 

Concurrent planning begins as soon as the court and 

child welfare agency become involved with a family. At 

each hearing, the judge should inquire about the status 

of reasonable efforts31

to achieve reunification, as well as 

the well-being of the child (Hudson, 2017). Many courts 

are not able to meet these demands and the associated 

delays in legal proceedings can slow permanency efforts. 

It is also common for cases of child abuse and neglect 

to have related cases pending in other courts or before 

other judges, further slowing down the permanency 

process. It is best when the court system can arrange to 

3 The term reasonable efforts refers to activities of State social services 

agencies that aim to provide the assistance and services needed to preserve 

and reunify families (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2016). It implies 

that agencies provide services in a timely manner to achieve the case plan 

goal and there are no unnecessary delays in services. The judge determines 

whether reasonable efforts have been made (Hudson, 2017).

have related cases presided by a single judge or, when 

that is not possible, coordinate with other court officials to 

facilitate orders that do not conflict (e.g., not scheduling 

case hearings at the same time) and that all parties can 

support (Gatowski et al., 2016). 

The following resources prepared by the National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, in partnership with 

the Quality Improvement Center for Research-Based 

Infant-Toddler Court Teams (QIC-CT), may help judges, 

attorneys, and other related court and child welfare 

professionals achieve timely permanency for children in 

the child welfare system:

 Key Principles for Permanency Planning for Children 

(http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Key%20

Principles%202011.pdf) 

 Technical Assistance Bulletin: Questions Every Judge 

and Lawyer Should Ask About Infants and Children in 

the Child Welfare System (http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/

default/files/NCJFCJ_ZeroToThree_Questions_Final.

pdf) 

 Bench Card: Questions Every Judge and Lawyer 

Should Ask About Infants and Children in the Child 

Welfare System (http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/

files/NCJFCJ_ZeroToThree_Benchcard_Final.pdf) 

The QIC-CT provides training and technical assistance 

to further develop and expand research-based infanttoddler court teams based on the Safe Babies Court 

Teams (SBCT) approach, which features concurrent 

planning as a core component. SBCT membership is by 

open invitation and may include child welfare agency 

staff, local government agency leaders (e.g., public 

health, Medicaid, or housing authority officials), foster 

parent organizations, primary health-care providers, 

dentists, attorneys, court-appointed special advocates 

and guardians ad litem, mental health professionals, 

Indian child welfare agencies, law enforcement, substance 

use disorder treatment providers, early intervention 

specialists, Early Head Start and child care providers, 

domestic violence service providers, higher education 

representatives, faith-based groups, child and family 

advocates, court improvement program staff, State and 

local legislators, and volunteer community leaders.
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

5

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

To facilitate concurrent planning efforts, the QIC-CT has 

prepared concurrent planning sample scripts for judges, 

attorneys, social workers, and other providers (http://www.

qicct.org/sites/default/files/CP%20Scripts.pdf). For more 

information, see http://qicct.org/safe-babies-court-teams. 

Families involved with the child welfare system can refer 

to Understanding Child Welfare and the Courts (https://

www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/cwandcourts) for 

additional information on the court system, including 

how to prepare for court hearings and frequently asked 

questions about court proceedings.

Safe Baby Court Teams

The Tulsa County Safe Babies Court Team (Tulsa SBCT), launched in 2015, seeks to ensure that every child’s first 

placement is also the last when reunification with the birth family is not possible. This effort relies on the identification 

of prospective foster/adoptive parents who are willing to serve as mentors and a support team for the child’s birth 

parents while reunification is pursued (S. Beilke, personal communication, September 13, 2017). In Oklahoma, where 

much of the foster care system is privatized, Tulsa SBCT cultivates relationships with the agencies responsible for 

recruiting and supporting foster families. Tulsa SBCT provides training, facilitates foster parent support groups, and 

explains concurrent planning in a way that engages birth parents and builds trust. Unlike traditional court teams that 

get involved in child welfare cases at adjudication, Tulsa SBCT gets involved with child protective services agencies as 

soon as a child is removed from the home to immediately explore the possibility of reunification and other appropriate 

permanency options (e.g., kinship care). 

The SBCT approach includes an innovative preremoval conference where a trained facilitator leads a meeting with 

the birth parents before a child is removed from the home. The preremoval conference seeks to create a welcoming 

tone and assure birth parents that the common goal is to reunify them with their child. The meeting typically includes 

anyone the birth parents consider a part of their support network, a child welfare representative, and the foster care 

caseworker. Before court hearings and case reviews, the birth parents, foster parents, and other members of the 

SBCT, including a therapist, have monthly family team meetings to discuss the family’s progress and other issues 

with the case. The preremoval conference and family team meetings help the birth and foster parents build trust and 

demonstrate whether the foster family can meet the child’s needs and is willing to adopt the child if reunification is not 

possible. Another important SBCT component is the availability of, and collaboration with, therapists who are ready to 

step in and navigate any issues that may arise with the child, birth parents, or foster/adoptive family. 

For more information, visit the website at http://www.qicct.org/safe-babies-court-teams, or contact court team 

coordinator, Sarah Beilke, L.C.S.W., at 918.513.2286.
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

6

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

Assessing Reunification Probability 

and Preparing Families

Concurrent planning requires caseworkers to conduct 

careful assessments to evaluate the probability of family 

reunification, while also preparing the foster/adoptive 

family for the likelihood of both reunification and 

adoption. 

Evaluating the Likelihood of Reunification

Concurrent planning models frequently use an 

assessment checklist to identify families who are unlikely 

to reunify—using tools that assess family strengths 

while at the same time checking for family dynamics or 

circumstances that make family reunification unlikely. 

Such an approach strives to balance a child’s need for 

permanency with the recognition that parents have the 

capacity for change. Under ASFA, reasonable efforts 

for reunification are not required when the court has 

determined certain circumstances would make it unsafe 

for a child to return to the family. Such circumstances 

are often described as “poor prognosis indicators” in 

assessment checklists and other tools used to assess the 

probability of reunification. Poor prognosis indicators 

recognized by several States include the following 

parental characteristics or history (Child Welfare 

Information Gateway, 2016): 

 Prior child abuse or neglect

 Felony conviction for murder or sexual assault of a 

child 

 Rights to a sibling involuntarily terminated

 Mental illness

 History of substance use and refusal to seek treatment 

or failure to respond to treatment

 Human trafficking conviction

 Demonstrated lack of interest in reuniting with the 

child 

Several States have developed prognostic tools and 

guidelines for differential assessment that look at a variety 

of family strengths and needs. Examples include the 

following: 

 Kansas’ Concurrent Planning Guide, which identifies 

children in need of concurrent planning in the Kansas 

foster care system based on a family assessment (http://

www.dcf.ks.gov/services/PPS/Documents/PPM_Forms/

Appendices/Appendix_3F.pdf)

 Kentucky’s Poor Prognosis Indicators, which include prior 

abuse, dangerous lifestyle, and a history of involvement 

with child protective services (http://manuals.sp.chfs.ky.

gov/Resources/Related%20Resources%20Library/High%

20Risk%20Indicators%20Which%20May%20Prevent%20

Reunification%20Worksheet.doc [Word document])

 Massachusetts’ Permanency Planning Policy, which 

includes a permanency planning differential assessment 

tool to help determine the prognosis for reunification 

based on family strengths and other indicators (http://

www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dcf/policies/permanencyplanning-policy.pdf) 

For additional information on reunification, including 

strategies for preventing reentry into foster care and 

promising practices being implemented by States and 

localities, see Supporting Successful Reunifications (https://

www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/supporting-successfulreunifications/) or the Information Gateway webpage on the 

topic at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/permanency/

reunification. 

Child welfare professionals can refer parents of children in 

foster care to Reunification: Bringing Your Children Home 

From Foster Care (https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/

reunification) for a general overview of the reunification 

process.

Preparing Foster/Adoptive Families

Well-prepared foster/adoptive families help ensure that 

concurrent planning is a success. Foster families who agree 

to take part in concurrent planning should be ready for 

all possible permanency outcomes and be aware of their 

ability to manage anxiety, stress, and loss. They should also 

assess what supports they may have available from families 

and friends. Some families considering concurrent planning 

support work may decide they are unwilling to live with the 

ambiguity of not knowing whether a child in their care will 

ultimately return to the birth family, be adopted by kin, or 

be adopted by them (North American Council on 

Adoptable Children [NACAC], 2017). 
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

7

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

Children who have been separated from their parents 

often experience profound losses, including loss of family, 

possessions, community, sense of safety and security, and 

sense of self (Resnick, 2011). Foster/adoptive parents are 

expected to bear the emotional burden of the children 

in their care and may need help comforting a child and 

managing related challenges. To prepare for this, many 

prospective foster/adoptive families benefit in learning 

from experienced resource families. The following are tips 

from experienced resource families for prospective foster/

adoptive families:

 Meetthebirthparents. Establish a relationship with 

the birth parents as soon as possible. It is important 

to show respect and genuine concern and understand 

that families often have different life experiences. 

 Mentorthebirthparentsandparticipatein

visitation. Prepare to participate in the visitation plan, 

coordinated by the social services agency, and serve 

as a mentor for the birth parents. Be willing to have 

contact with the child’s extended family also.

 Rememberthatthisisafosterplacement. Keep 

in mind that in most cases the child will be reunited 

with the birth family. Foster parents are expected to 

support and work with the birth family and agency on 

family reunification plans (Resnick, 2011).

 Thejuvenilecourtwilldeterminethebestinterests

ofthechild. Only when the court terminates parental 

rights are foster parents considered as prospective 

adoptive parents who can move forward to finalize 

plans. There are no guarantees this will happen 

(Resnick, 2011). 

 Thereisgriefandlossforconcurrentplanning

families. This is inherent in the foster care system. 

Despite the well-established fact that reunification 

is the most common permanency case plan goal for 

children in foster care (U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2017), many resource families 

experience feelings of grief when a child they have 

loved and nurtured leaves their home (Hebert, Kulkin, 

& McLean, 2016).

 Identifypotentialrespitecare.Find someone 

willing to provide respite care even if not immediately 

necessary. Extended family or friends asked to provide 

respite care should attend trainings with the resource 

parents.

Helping Parents and Children 

With Loss and Grief

 A training to address the emotional needs 

of foster caregivers, A Special Kind of Grief: 

A Foster Child Leaves the Home, developed 

at Southeastern Louisiana University, informs 

child welfare workers how to listen to foster 

parents and ask about their feelings following 

a removal. It also encourages foster parents 

to connect with other foster parents who can 

identify with their feelings. The training has 

four goals (Hebert, et al., 2016):

○ Ensuring that participants understand basic 

theories of grief and loss

○ Emphasizing that resource parents deal 

with grief and loss when a child is removed, 

whatever the reason

○ Showing that there may be hurdles to 

a caregiver’s ability to grieve (based 

on theories of ambiguous loss and 

disenfranchised or anticipatory grief)

○ Making child welfare workers aware that 

their relationship with foster caregivers 

and their ability to help them with the grief 

process can affect the retention of resource 

families 

 As part of a 5-year Children’s Bureau diligent 

recruitment grant, New Mexico’s Children, 

Youth and Families Department partnered with 

the Adoption Exchange and La Familia in 2015 

to implement Project Valor in several counties 

to provide grief and loss support to foster 

families. The monthly support groups help 

resource parents heal from their losses, remain 

committed to foster parenting, and help 

children process their own grief. A follow-up 

survey shows that respondents most valued 

sharing and hearing from others regarding 

their individual and collective experiences 

of loss and grief. Find more information on 

Project Valor on the NACAC website (https://

www.nacac.org/resource/project-valor/). 
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

8

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

To learn more about preparing foster/adoptive families 

for concurrent planning, visit the NACAC website (https://

www.nacac.org/resource/concurrent-planning). 

 Examples From the Field

Evidence shows that concurrent planning can improve 

outcomes for children in out-of-home care. Following are 

examples from the field:

Denver, Colorado: From 2008 to 2012, Denver Human 

Services implemented a 5-year Children’s Bureau diligent 

recruitment grant to help increase the number of families 

available to care for children removed from their homes. 

The project included concurrent planning as one of 

its primary components and resulted in significantly 

expedited permanency times from an average of 50 

months following home removal to an average of 27 

months. In its first year, only 6 percent of the children 

who participated in permanency roundtables achieved 

legal permanency. As of April 2012, 20 percent were 

achieving legal permanency, with others moving toward 

permanency or establishing permanent connections. 

For more information, see https://www.childwelfare.

gov/topics/management/funding/funding-sources/

federal-funding/cb-funding/cbreports/families/

denversvillage/. 

Ramsey County, Minnesota: The Ramsey County 

Community Human Services Department was the 

recipient of a Children’s Bureau diligent recruitment 

grant that promoted concurrent planning while seeking 

to increase the number of foster and adoptive homes 

for African-American and Hispanic children and youth 

ages 12 and older. Data indicate that the percentage of 

families referred to adoption agencies (who began the 

home-licensing process) rose from 9.8 percent during 

the first year to 26.3 percent by the fourth year. For more 

information, see https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/

management/funding/funding-sources/federal-funding/

cb-funding/cbreports/families/rasmeyco/#tab=summary. 

Illinois: The Recruitment and Kin Connection Project, 

a 5-year Children’s Bureau diligent recruitment grant 

launched in 2010 as part of a Family Finding intervention, 

involved a rubric designed to assess the compliance 

of concurrent plans with Federal and State guidelines. 

The group that received the Family Finding intervention 

services found nearly 75 percent more relatives than the 

control group and also found many family members or 

individuals who were significant figures in the child’s 

life (Leon, Saucedo, & Jachymiak, 2016). For more 

information, visit the Children’s Bureau Discretionary 

Grants (CBDG) Library (https://library.childwelfare.gov/

cbgrants/ws/library/docs/cb_grants/GrantHome) and 

search for Grant #90CT0156 (Initiative to Reduce LongTerm Foster Care/Permanency Innovation Initiative – PII/ 

HHS-2010-ACF-ACYF-CT-0022).

California: The California Partners for Permanency (CAPP), 

a Children’s Bureau Permanency Innovations Initiative 

grantee (2010–2015), was developed to reduce the foster 

care duration for children vulnerable to long-term stays 

and featured specific concurrent planning practices 

and procedures. With community and Tribal partners, 

CAPP grantees developed the Child and Family Practice 

model, which included a Family Teaming approach. CAPP 

met its goal of improving permanency outcomes42

and 

established effective, compassionate ways of interacting 

with birth and foster parents while meeting the ASFA 

concurrent planning timeframes and achieving child 

safety and well-being. The Child and Family Practice 

model is now used in all counties across California as a 

model of helping children achieve permanency. For more 

information about CAPP, see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/

resource/pii-capp. 

4 In two of five participating counties, children served by the practice model 

achieved permanency within 12 months at a 3 percent higher rate than 

historically matched children in the same county. In one county, CAPP-served 

children were placed with a permanent family within 12 months at a 9 percent 

higher rate. In another county, Hispanic children were placed into a permanent 

family at a 5 percent higher rate (This information was retrieved from a CAPP 

document titled The Journey to Outcomes: CAPP Evaluation Overview). 
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

9

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

New Mexico: The Children, Youth & Families Department 

(CYFD) received a 5-year diligent recruitment grant in 

2010 to enhance resource family recruitment of diverse 

populations and promote concurrent planning. To do 

so, CYFD developed a model called Partnering for 

Permanency to improve placement permanency in five 

targeted counties. The Partnering for Permanency project 

included the following:

 A concurrent planning curriculum that featured a riskbased assessment model; collaboration across child 

welfare staff, the courts, and service providers; written 

agreements and documentation; and recruitment, 

training, and retention of dually licensed resource 

families

 Training sessions and support groups for CYFD staff 

and concurrent foster parents to address feelings of 

grief and loss

 The incorporation of key concurrent planning concepts 

in trainings for family members and foster/adoptive 

parents

 A measurement of family participation in model 

components, outcomes for children in concurrent 

planning homes, and family satisfaction 

 Digital stories about successful concurrent planning 

experiences to share with concurrent foster parents 

and staff

More information is available on this grant (Diligent 

Recruitment of Families for Children in the Foster Care 

System HHS-2010-ACF-ACYF-CO-0012/Grant #90CO1050) 

through the CBDG Library (https://library.childwelfare.

gov/cbgrants/ws/library/docs/cb_grants/GrantHome).

Making Child Safety the Priority

Child welfare professionals often walk a fine 

line between supporting reunification for the 

families they serve and the need to distinguish 

adoption/guardianship as a child-only plan. To 

address this dilemma, California Partners for 

Permanency (CAPP) agencies have focused their 

reunification and adoption/guardianship plans on 

child safety. This helps parents understand the 

importance of child wellness and safety needs 

and the reality that adoption or guardianship 

may be necessary. CAPP’s safety framework 

is supported by a comprehensive concurrent 

planning training curriculum called Pathways to 

Permanence. Pathways to Permanence is hosted 

by the University of California, Berkeley School of 

Social Welfare (https://calswec-archive.berkeley.

edu/concurrent-planning-multiple-pathwayspermanence) and was developed by the California 

School of Social Work Education Center. Its 

advanced concurrent planning curriculum is 

for child welfare professionals, attorneys, care 

providers, and other community partners and 

comprises four components: modules for 

leadership, concurrent planning fundamentals, 

concurrent planning skill building, and concurrent 

planning partnerships. 

For more information, contact Jessica Carrillo of 

Fresno County Department of Social Services at 

carrijb@co.fresno.ca.us or at 559.600.2355.
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

10

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/concurrent-planning/.

Concurrent Planning Training

Concurrent planning requires ongoing engagement with 

the family, open communication, and case planning with 

the goal of timely permanency. Several training resources 

are available to help prepare child welfare professionals to 

work collaboratively with children, families, and all systems 

involved in the concurrent planning process:

 The Spaulding Institute training course in concurrent

planning assists child welfare professionals in

balancing efforts toward family reunification with

ongoing work toward an alternative permanency

plan (https://spaulding.org/professionals/spauldinginstitute/training-curricula/concurrent-planning/).

Trainings teach professionals how to manage risk and

support birth families, the importance of recruiting,

developing, and supporting foster/adoptive homes,

how to perform culturally respectful assessments, and

more.

 The California Social Work Education Center’s

(CalSWEC) online course, Concurrent Planning:

Multiple Pathways to Permanence, (https://calswecarchive.berkeley.edu/concurrent-planning-multiplepathways-permanence) educates child welfare staff,

attorneys, providers, and others about concurrent

planning. The curriculum includes a leadership

component and information on the essentials of

concurrent planning. Participants learn to recognize

best-practice models for concurrent planning and

achieving timely permanency.

 CalSWEC’s Common Core Online for Social Workers

features an eLearning module on concurrent planning

in its Engagement Block Online (https://calswec.

berkeley.edu/common-core-online-social-workers/

engagement-block-online-elearning-downloads).

 The Children and Family Services Training Center

at the University of North Dakota offers the PRIDE

Core Digital Curriculum, which features a Promoting

Permanency Outcomes section on concurrent

planning. Training exercises help child welfare

professionals identify the challenges of concurrent

planning and strengthen the supports needed to carry

out the process (http://und.edu/centers/children-andfamily-services-training-center/pride/curriculum.cfm).

Conclusion

Concurrent planning is a tool to help expedite 

permanency through the parallel development of an 

alternative solution for cases where returning to the 

family of origin might not be an option. Such an approach 

honors a child’s attachments and best interests while 

also acknowledging that reunification is not always the 

safest or best option. When concurrent planning is wellsupported and implemented effectively, it can provide an 

efficient and compassionate approach for helping birth 

parents and resource parents work together toward the 

best interests of the child and expedite permanency. 

References

Children’s Bureau. (2017). Children’s Bureau Discretionary 

Grant Awards [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.

acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/cb-discretionary-grant-awards

Children’s Bureau. (2011). Federal child and family services 

reviews aggregate report round 2. Retrieved from 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/fcfsr_

report.pdf

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016). Reasonable 

efforts to preserve or reunify families and achieve 

permanency for children. Retrieved from https://www.

childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/

statutes/reunify/

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017a). Reports and 

results of the child and family services reviews (CFSRs).

Retrieved from https://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/

cwmd/docs/cb_web/SearchForm

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017b). Concurrent 

planning for permanency for children. Retrieved from 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/

laws-policies/Statutes/concurrent/

Edelstein, S. B., Burge, D., & Waterman, J. (2002). 

Older children in preadoptive homes: Issues before 

termination of parental rights. Child Welfare, 81, 

101–121.
Concurrent Planning for Timely Permanence https://www.childwelfare.gov

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Administration for Children and Families 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Children’s Bureau

Gatowski, S., Miller, N., Rubin, S., Escher, P., & Maze, 

C. (2016). Enhanced resource guidelines: Improving 

court practice in child abuse and neglect cases.

Retrieved from https://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/

files/%20NCJFCJ%20Enhanced%20Resource%20

Guidelines%2005-2016.pdf

Hebert, C., Kulkin, H. S., & McLean, M. (2016). 

Attending to foster parent grief: Exploring the 

use of grief awareness training for child welfare 

workers. Adoption & Fostering, 40(2), 128 -139. doi: 

10.1177/0308575916644169

Hudson, L. (2017). A guide to implementing the Safe 

Babies Court Team approach. Washington, DC: ZERO 

TO THREE. Retrieved from https://www.zerotothree.

org/resources/1615-a-guide-to-implementing-the-safebabies-court-teams-approach

Leon, S. C., Saucedo, D. J., & Jachymiak, K. (2016). 

Keeping it in the family: The impact of a Family Finding 

intervention on placement, permanency, and wellbeing outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 

70, 163-170. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.020

North American Council on Adoptable Children. (2017). 

Considering concurrent planning: Is it right for you?

Retrieved from https://www.nacac.org/resource/

concurrent-planning/

Pennsylvania Child Welfare Resource Center. (2010). 

Concurrent planning summary. Retrieved from http://

www.pacwrc.pitt.edu/Curriculum/209_CncrrntPlnnng1/

Hndts/HO12_CncrrntPlnnngSmmry.pdf

Resnick, M. (2011, April 27). The foster care 

conundrum: Reunification. Psychology Today.

Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.

com/blog/adoption-stories/201104/

the-foster-care-conundrum-reunification

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. (2017). 

The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY 2016 estimates as of 

Oct 20, 2017 (No. 24). Retrieved from https://www.acf.

hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport24.pdf

Suggested citation:

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2018). Concurrent 

planning for timely permanence. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s 

Bureau.