REFERENCE: CHILDREN’S SERVICES 

Discussion:

The purpose of this memo is to introduce the revised CS-1, Child Assessment and Service Plan, and provide information about changes in policy related to appropriate ASFA permanency options. 

How were the CS-1 revisions made? 

The revisions to this form are based on feedback received through the Policy Review Team Process. Through this process, all comments and recommendations made by Children’s Services frontline and administrative staff, the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA), Juvenile Court personnel, GAL’s, and CASA’s regarding the CS-1 were considered and carefully evaluated during development. Additionally, the revised CS-1 was “tested” in three sites across the state. The end result of everyone’s hard work is a document that meets strict federal requirements but is flexible enough to meet individual circuit requirements. 

The CS-16 and the CS-1 

Best social work practice dictates that thorough assessments of the family and child must be done prior to development of the service plan. Needs and strengths identified during assessment, are the basis for service planning with a family.

Data from the Peer Record Reviews and Practice Development Reviews (PDR’s) demonstrate there can be disconnect between assessments and the service plans developed with families. The Council on Accreditation (COA) site reviews further illustrated the need for improvement in policy and field practice.

With these facts in mind, policy and practice regarding the CS-1 were examined in depth. Although the previous version of the CS-1 called for a great deal of information gathering, the flow of the form made using the information for the purpose of service planning a cumbersome task. For this reason, the “family assessment” part of the former CS-1 was removed entirely, with the exception of basic demographic family data. The new CS-1 is now a child specific form, as is federally required, which assesses the child’s individual safety, permanency, well-being needs. The family assessment is to be done by completing the CS-16. These forms compliment and partner with each other and both are to be completed when working with a family whose child(ren) is in out-of-home care. The CS-16 is currently undergoing revisions so that the formatting of both tools is the same and information gathered in the CS-16 will easily transfer to parts of the CS-1. 

CS-1 Enhancements 

• CS-1 as a Court Report 
• The CS-1 has been redesigned so that information gathered and entered into the document logically leads to summary sections which can be quickly located in the document and utilized by the court. These summary sections are outlined in bold throughout the document. When properly completed, these summary sections should provide most, if not all, of the critical information the court will need during a review: child and family data, summary of reasonable efforts to prevent placement, summary of reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification and provide permanency, summary of visitation, and summary of appropriateness and child/youth adjustment to placement. In the event the court needs more detailed information about the summary sections, that information can easily be found in the document right before each summary section.
• The final two sections of the CS-1, FST (Family Support Team) Data and Recommendations and the Written Service Agreement, are also outlined in bold for quick identification by the court. 
• Ideally, the court will accept a completed CS-1 as a court report. In circuits where the CS-1 is not accepted as a court report, the summary sections (when completed according to forms instructions) can easily be cut and pasted into a narrative report for the court. 
• CS-1 as an Electronic Document 
• The CS-1 has been redesigned to be a dynamic form. In other words, the CS-1 grows as information is continuously added over the life of the division’s involvement with the child. The CS-1 will no longer be printed and stored at the warehouse but will be stored electronically on the computer hard drive. After a CS-1 for a child is initially created, that CS-1 can be saved and retrieved later. In any subsequent CS-1, only new information or information which has changed must be entered in the document. 
• The new electronic CS-1 has “Add” buttons embedded in eight locations within the document. Clicking on these “Add” buttons allows additional lines to easily be added to the form making it “grow” as additional space is needed for future case information. The “Add” buttons allow the addition of new family members, service information, relative/kin options explored, placements, FST participants, and goals and tasks over the life of the division’s involvement with the child. When a reviewer of any kind retrieves the most recent CS-1 from the case file, they will be able to quickly see all the primary details for that individual child. In the cases where TPR must be pursued, most information needed can be easily located in last CS-1 because it has been gathered and entered. 

System Requirements for the CS-1 

In order to be able to use all the features of the new electronic CS-1, staff must have MS Office XP (2002) installed on their computer. This is the standard version all Children’s Division staff should have installed. If this is not the version of Word installed on your computer, please contact your local Regional Site Coordinator (RSC) or Area Technical Coordinator (ATC) for assistance. . 

Standardized Permanency Options 

The ASFA statute specifies five permanency options, in order of preferred legal permanency, for children who are in alternative care: Reunification, Adoption, Guardianship, Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative, and Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA). These permanency options and language are also included in the Missouri Supreme Court's Resource Guide for Best Practices in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases. In an effort to standardize the language used when discussing permanency for children, these permanency options have been added to the revised CS-1 in the FST Data and Recommendations section. 

Next to ensuring safety, meeting a child’s permanency needs is the single most important function performed by our agency. Permanency planning permeates every aspect of the child's placement in out-of-home care. The goal of out-of-home care is to provide to every child a stable and continuous relationship with nurturing adults. Acceptance of this goal implies that no child should be allowed to drift in out-of-home placement. The child should either be reunified with his/her parents or be freed from parental custody and placed for adoption within a definite time limit. When neither of these alternatives are possible, one of three plans is utilized to secure permanency for the child; Legal Guardianship; Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative; or Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA). 

Three of the permanency options; Reunification, Adoption, and Guardianship; are already addressed in current policy. Revisions to the forms instructions for the CS-1, Child Welfare Manual (CWM) Table of contents, CWM Section 4 Chapters 8, 9, 10, 12, 23, and Chapter 23 Attachment A reflect the addition of the other two permanency options to policy. 

• Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative 

• Choosing this option is appropriate when it is documented for the court that compelling reasons exist which make all other permanency options unacceptable. Relative placement does not prevent adoption or guardianship. If the child is with a relative who wishes to care for the child long-term, adoption and guardianship should still be explored as they offer more permanence than simple placement through the court. Additionally, a relative placement need not take precedence over a stable placement with another individual who may wish to adopt or become the child’s guardian. 

  This permanency option should be selected only under these circumstances: 

  • Return home has been ruled out; 
  • TPR and adoption or guardianship are not appropriate and the juvenile court and/or Division feels it is in the best interest of the child not to pursue termination; 
  • All relatives have been considered and there is an identified relative resource who is willing to make a permanent commitment to care for the child; 
  • The relative resource is able to meet the child’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs; 
  • The child wants to be placed with the relative; 
  • The relative has been fully informed of the legal effect of the placement and all available financial resources, including adoption or guardianship subsidies; 
  • The parent(s) has been informed about the placement of the child with relative provider;
  • If the relative plans on continuing contact with the parent from which the child was removed, they are prepared to protect the safety of the child and make decisions that enhance child’s well-being about the child’s contact with this parent; 

Placement with a fit and willing relative, without adoption or guardianship, is not a legally final permanency option. Therefore, the court must continue to hold annual permanency hearings until the court enters a legally final permanency order (return of child to legal custody of parent, TPR and adoption or guardianship) or the child reaches age 21. 

Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) 

APPLA is the least preferred permanency option. This option is a specific permanent placement for the child, not just a foster care placement that can be indefinitely extended. Choosing this option is appropriate when it is documented for the court that compelling reasons exist which make all other permanency options unacceptable and not in the best interests of the child. Examples include when there is a significant bond, but the parent cannot care for the child due to disability; and when an Indian tribe has identified an APPLA for the child. 

An APPLA should be selected as the most appropriate permanency option only under these circumstances: 

• Return home has been ruled out;  
• TPR and adoption or guardianship are not appropriate; 
• The child objects to TPR, and the juvenile court and/or Division believes it is in the best interest of the child not to pursue termination; 
• Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative has been ruled out; 
• There is an identified appropriate planned permanent living arrangement in which the child wishes to continue living; 
• All possible additional services are explored with the child and/or the placement provider to provide permanency; 
• The out-of-home care provider will make a formal Planned Permanency Agreement with the Division for this purpose. 

As with Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative, an APPLA is not a legally final permanency option. It is subject to ongoing court review. Therefore, the court must continue to hold annual permanency hearings until the court enters a legally final permanency order (return of child to legal custody of parent, TPR and adoption or guardianship) or the child reaches age 21. Just as court hearings should explore more permanent options for the child, members of the FST should continue to explore ways in which the child’s permanency and stability can be enhanced. To summarily rule out more permanent options based on the child’s age or needs is contrary to the goals of ASFA. Individual determinations about each child’s needs and circumstances are necessary. 

The following do not qualify as an APPLA: 

Extended Out-of-Home Care or Long-Term Foster Care. The ASFA statute explicitly prohibits long-term foster care as a permanency option. This is not considered a permanent living situation for a child. Long-term foster care is not stable and may disrupt, often leading to frequent moves and instability for the child and instability. All language in the CWM which refers to Extended Out-of-Home Care has been removed.

Emancipation. Emancipation is unfortunately what sometimes happens when children leave foster care. It is not a permanency goal because it lacks certain permanency features contemplated by APPLA. Emancipation implies a discharge from foster care simply by virtue of one’s age without the necessary support system to provide sustained stability for the youth. 

Independent Living. Independent Living is a set of services provided to a youth, not a permanency goal. A youth’s APPLA may include independent living classes and other services as part of their permanent plan. An APPLA implies not just simply making a youth “independent”, but implies a broader plan that includes a support system the youth can continue to access while in care as well as once they are no longer in custody. 

Information regarding the above material about Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative and Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement is credited to Making It Permanent: reasonable efforts to finalize permanency plans for foster children / by Cecilia Fiermonte and Jennifer L. Renne; copyright 2002 © American Bar Association. Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. 

SS-61 Goal Codes 

The permanency option selected on the CS-1 must match the goal selected in field 16 of the SS-61. Revisions to the SS-61 fields are currently in progress. Until such time that the SS-61 fields and code sheet can be updated and as of October 1, 2003, staff should use code 06 in field 16 for Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement and code 08 for Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative. Code 04, Long Term Foster Care, should no longer be used for any child in Out-of-Home Care. Revisions to the SS-61 code sheet reflecting this change will be forthcoming. 

The Planned Permanency Agreement 

Previously called the “Extended Out-of-Home Care Agreement”, a Planned Permanency Agreement should be completed whenever either of the two permanency options, Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative or APPLA, is selected for a youth. See attached CWM Section 4 Chapter 23 and Chapter 23 Attachment A.

ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 

1. Review this memorandum with all Children’s Division Staff. 
2. Remove the CS-1, dated 3/01, and CS-1 forms instructions dated 1/01, from the Forms Manual and replace with the revised CS-1 and revised forms instructions. 
3. Review revised: 
   • CS-1 FORM AND FORMS MANUAL INSTRUCTIONS; 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 2.2.2; PLANNED PLACEMENTS 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 8.1; SERVICES FOR FAMILYCENTERED OUT-OF-HOME CARE 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 8.2; FAMILY/CHILD MOVES FROM COUNTY 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 9.1; PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR PERMANENCY PLANNING 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 9.2; ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 9.4.2; ADOPTION 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 9.4.3; GUARDIANSHIP 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 9.4.4; PLACEMENT WITH FIT AND WILLING RELATIVE 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 9.4.5; ANOTHER PLANNED PERMANENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT (APPLA) 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 10.3; FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN REUNIFICATION 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 12.1; DEFINITION AND PURPOSE 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 23.1; DEFINITION AND PURPOSE 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 23.2; CASE STUDY EXAMPLES OF APPLAS 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 23.3; CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF APPLA AS A PERMANENCY OPTION 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 23.4; RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANNED PERMANENCY AGREEMENT 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 23.5; DISRUPTION OF A PLANNED PERMANENCY AGREEMENT 
   • CWM SECTION 4 CHAPTER 23 ATTACHMENT A; PLANNED PERMANENCY AGREEMENT 
4. Beginning October 1, 2003, use appropriate goal codes in field 16 of the SS-61. 
5. All computer/systems/technical questions should be directed to local ATC’s or RSC’s. 
6. All other questions regarding these procedures should be referred through normal supervisory channels. FS:SS