1. Pennsylvania Permanency Barriers Project Anne Marie Lancour Heidi Redlich Epstein Mimi Laver Kathleen McNaught Elizabeth Thornton Cristina Cooper Jeffrey Adolph Margaret Burt Honorable Stephen Rideout (ret.) Scott Trowbridge American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law

2. History of the Project 1989 – Termination Barriers Project began with funding from the New York State Department of Social Services and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1989 – Termination Barriers Project began with funding from the New York State Department of Social Services and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991— NYS Office of Children and Family Services continued to fund the Termination Barriers Project for the next 13 years. 1991— NYS Office of Children and Family Services continued to fund the Termination Barriers Project for the next 13 years. 2004 – The project was successfully completed in 20 small, medium, and large counties throughout NYS. 2004 – The project was successfully completed in 20 small, medium, and large counties throughout NYS. 2004 – Pennsylvania contracts with ABA for largest Permanency Barriers Project to date. 2004 – Pennsylvania contracts with ABA for largest Permanency Barriers Project to date. 2004 – KY and WY contract with the ABA for the Permanency Barriers Project 2004 – KY and WY contract with the ABA for the Permanency Barriers Project 2005 – ABA wins Adoption Excellence Award for work on the NY Permanency Barriers Project 2005 – ABA wins Adoption Excellence Award for work on the NY Permanency Barriers Project

3. Goal: Reduce children’s stay in foster care Approach Approach Locally developed action plans Locally developed action plans Small steps that add up Small steps that add up Permanency planning focus Permanency planning focus Key Components Key Components Permanency Planning Specialist Permanency Planning Specialist Advisory Board Advisory Board ABA Project Director ABA Project Director

4. Project Tasks The project undertakes five major tasks: 1.Identifying and analyzing delays; 2.Interactively developing recommendations and implementing reforms; 3.Establishing written protocols, procedures, and providing multidisciplinary training; 4.Monitoring reforms and changes; and 5.Sharing project results throughout the state.

5. Reform Efforts Early identification of children’s needs Early identification of children’s needs Refining court procedures in permanency planning areas Refining court procedures in permanency planning areas Legal analysis and technical assistance Legal analysis and technical assistance Training the child welfare agency and legal staff Training the child welfare agency and legal staff Sharing information with other counties and states Sharing information with other counties and states

6. Problems Causing Delays Missing or unidentified parents Missing or unidentified parents Relatives entering case late Relatives entering case late Increase in adolescent population Increase in adolescent population Lack of training on permanency planning issues Lack of training on permanency planning issues Lack of written procedures Lack of written procedures Late starts in offering services Late starts in offering services Inadequate concurrent planning Inadequate concurrent planning Difficulty in obtaining evaluations and/or expert testimony Difficulty in obtaining evaluations and/or expert testimony Delays in court procedures Delays in court procedures

7. Current PA Project Counties Beaver Beaver Butler Butler Clearfield Clearfield Lehigh Lehigh Montgomery Montgomery Washington Washington Westmoreland Westmoreland

8. Past PA Project Counties Armstrong Armstrong Berks Berks Blair Blair Centre Centre Cumberland Cumberland Huntingdon Huntingdon Lancaster Lancaster Lackawanna Lackawanna Luzerne Luzerne Lycoming McKean Mifflin Northampton Northumberland Philadelphia Venango Warren York

9. New York Results Average Time Saved in 20 Counties 15 months Total Money Saved $15,272,000

10. Pennsylvania Results County Avg. Time Saved Money Saved Luzerne 22 months $660,000 Cumberland 7 months $621,600 Northumberland 5 months $240,000 Berks $420,000 Mifflin $222,000 Lancaster 7 months $386,400 Huntingdon 5 months $234,000 Northampton 15 months $468,000 York 12 months $446,400 Venango 10 months $ 60,000 Blair 4 months $552,000 Lycoming 9 months $788,400 McKean 10 months $ 60,000 Philadelphia 15 months $2,070,000 Warren 2.4 months $109,440 Armstrong 6 months $243,600 Centre 21 months $400,000 Totals 9 months avg $7,981,840

11. Project Achievements: Blair County The Barriers to Permanency Project has permitted Blair County to develop a Family Treatment Drug Court. The Project Director in Blair County has facilitated the county’s participation in the upcoming National Drug Court Institute Training to develop a family treatment court model. The Project Director in Blair County has facilitated the county’s participation in the upcoming National Drug Court Institute Training to develop a family treatment court model. A family treatment drug court will provide coordinate services, track progress, and encourage accountability for substance abusing families. A family treatment drug court will provide coordinate services, track progress, and encourage accountability for substance abusing families.

12. Project Achievements: Northampton County Northampton County successfully utilized the Barriers to Permanency Project to improve collaboration and communication between the Agency and the Court. The Agency and the Juvenile Court developed an Interim Court Directive/Permanency Plan which is prepared at the conclusion of every permanency hearing and distributed to families before they leave court. The Agency and the Juvenile Court developed an Interim Court Directive/Permanency Plan which is prepared at the conclusion of every permanency hearing and distributed to families before they leave court. The Interim Directive outlines expectations of both the family and the agency and eliminates delays in service referrals. The Interim Directive outlines expectations of both the family and the agency and eliminates delays in service referrals.

13. Project Achievements: Lackawanna County Lackawanna County successfully utilized the Project to introduce a new court procedure to increase accountability and expedite permanency. The Agency and the Juvenile Court created an informal Dependency Compliance Conference which documents and tracks compliance by both the agency and family. DCC hearings track both success and failure and permits an immediate response when a family starts to struggle. DCC hearings track both success and failure and permits an immediate response when a family starts to struggle. More frequent and meaningful reviews of family progress promotes concurrent planning. More frequent and meaningful reviews of family progress promotes concurrent planning.

14. Project Achievements: Westmoreland County Westmoreland County has used the Project to initiate a 90-day multidisciplinary case conference process. The 90-day case conference seeks to promote permanency, engage families, frontload services, and encourage cross-system collaboration. The 90-day case conference seeks to promote permanency, engage families, frontload services, and encourage cross-system collaboration. The case conference is used in every new case 90 days after removal from the home to evaluate progress, review service referrals, and prepare for the first permanency hearing. The case conference is used in every new case 90 days after removal from the home to evaluate progress, review service referrals, and prepare for the first permanency hearing.

15. Questions/Contact Information Anne Marie Lancour ABA Center on Children and the Law 740 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202)662-1756 (phone) (202)662-1755 (fax) AnneMarie.Lancour@americanbar.orgwww.abanet.org/child