When policy meets practice: the untested effects of permanency reforms in child welfare

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, March, 2006 by Amy D'Andrade, Jill Duerr Berrick

In addition to describing some similar parental characteristics, poor prognosis indicators and reunification exception conditions also share a potential for over-breadth and bias in their application. Additionally, for both practices overall there is a basic lack of information on when and how they are being implemented, and what their effects are on the families and children served by the child welfare system. Given the leeway states have in shaping these policies, and the history of racial inequities related to child welfare outcomes (Dezerotes, Poertner, & Testa, 2005), such a lack of accountability could be cause for concern.

Of course, the reforms share similar goals as well: improving safety and permanency outcomes for children removed from home. Clearly, ASFA has shifted the focus of child welfare services towards children's rights with an emphasis on promoting children's safety and legal permanency. The innovation states have shown in legislating approaches to reaching these goals are positive developments, and the concerns expressed here should not be taken as a condemnation of either reunification exception or concurrent planning. Thoughtfully and appropriately employed, both reforms hold promise for improving children's foster care experiences and outcomes. However, it must be noted that little is known about their practical application across states and localities, or their effects on children and families. As this paper suggests, much remains to be learned about these avenues to permanence. California's experiences with reunification exception and concurrent planning suggest care in the implementation and evaluation of these reforms will be critical to their success. The more complex and larger agenda--to promote children's development, health, and mental health within the context of child well-being--may be the next frontier, once we gain more confidence in our capacity to appropriately facilitate permanence.

References

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-272, 94 Stat. 500. Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub.L.No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115. (1997).

Baird, C., & Wagner, D. (2000). The relative validity of actuarial- and consensus-based risk assessment systems. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11/12), 839-871.

Berrick, J. D., Choi, Y., D'Andrade, A., & Frame, L. (in review). Reasonable efforts? Implementation of the reunification exception provision of ASFA.

Berrick, J.D., Needell, B., Barth, R.P., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1998). The tender years: Toward developmentally sensitive child welfare services for very young children. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brennan, K., Szolnoki, J., & Horn, M. (2003). Lutheran Community Services concurrent planning evaluation Stuart Foundation final report. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, School of Social Work, Northwest Institute for Children and Families, Evaluation Services.

California Department of Social Services, Adoptions Initiative Bureau. (1998). Concurrent planning implementation guide. Sacramento, CA: Author.