{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Kelly Knutson","Short_Answer__292":"Paul Lennander-CQI Redesign Pilot - Face to face (24 Hour) for all of Kandioyhi","Multiple_Choice__294":"Other","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"5","Multiple_Choice__301":"Kandiyohi","Short_Answer__303":"Aubri","Short_Answer__304":"Guerrero","Multiple_Choice__308":"13 Years","Multiple_Choice__309":"1","Short_Answer__310":"Step Father","Multiple_Choice__316":"1","Short_Answer__317":"Face to face contact with all alleged victims occurred beyond the 24 hour response timeframes-6 cases and 3 staff debriefed","Free_Text__318":"Information learned during the debriefs (3 staff-6 cases):\r\nAfter hour's intake:\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tConsultation and deference to LE (good working relationship between CP and LE) safety planning occurred and assured together-no access to alleged offender\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tConsultation also occurred with on-call worker and supervisor \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tNo hold placed on the child(ren)\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tCooperative family-mother agreed to bring the child in first thing Monday am\r\nIntake for a Koran speaking family:\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tTransitioning from carrying ongoing cases to investigations-a lot to balance and prioritize\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tDocumented PM instead of AM\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tDelays occurred within timeframes due to difficult accessing an Interpreter and simultaneously coordinating  with LE\r\no\tLimited Koran interpreters available\r\no\tDad was reluctant to meet with CP and LE and LE wanted dot meet with dad before mom and the youngest-CP followed LE's lead\r\nIntake for complex case with significant history:\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tCross reporting did not occur from LE-CP found out about incident through a MDT meeting\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tDue to history and complexity was assigned to a staff that had previously worked with the family \r\no\tSignificant history-mother was dangerous-complicated court history \r\no\tMale victim of DV \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tThis staff was only carrying overflow cases since she was now h role in the agency and only took cases when the team needed help\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tThere was a delay in when the staff was notified of assignment.  Upon notification staff conducted first face to face within an hour.  \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tInterview with the first victim at the school took longer than anticipated (an hour and a half)  Alleged victim keep disclosing and then recanting-this influenced how much time CP had to see the other children \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tDifficulties reaching father-no current phone number.  \r\nIntake re: newborn baby to prior TPR:\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tScreening staff that day was not typically on the screening team-less familiar with the process and protocol for assignment\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tThere was a snowstorm that day and the Inv. Assigned had left a few hours early-so had not been notified of the case until the following day\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tCase was open to an ongoing worker that made arrangements with the hospital to separate the mother and child at birth and assure that the child remained in hospital-hospital was aware that the baby would be placed on a hold\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tChild was also born in a hospital two hours away\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tHospital was aware that mom was under a civil commitment as well\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tArrangements had been made by ongoing CP for the foster care to pick the child up from the hospital\r\nAlleged Sexual Abuse Intake 1\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tChild was not going to be available to interview until after timeframes\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tAlleged perpetrator was in jail\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tDANCO was already in place\r\nAlleged Sexual Abuse Intake 2\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tSaw sibling children within timeframes\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tAlleged victim was in another state (North Dakota) visiting grandparents and would not be back until the following week\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tContact was made with the County in ND where grandparents resided to conduct a curiosity face to face-they were unable to complete this due to the size of the county\r\nIntake Types:\r\n1)\tAfterhours with LE response\/AP went to Jail\r\n2)\tNewborn child in hospital-safety assured\r\n3)\tLanguage barrier case (delays, however made timelines)\r\n4)\tComplex cases due to history-DV with male victim\r\n5)\tSexual abuse where AP was not in the home\r\n6)\tSexual abuse where AP was not in the home","Free_Text__319":"Learning Point: Face to face did not occur with all alleged victims within the required 24 hour response timeframes \r\n\r\nThere were many influences to time contact with alleged victims of maltreatment in cases requiring a 24 hour timeline. First, difficulties in accessing alleged victims due to circumstances such as bad weather, lack of access to interpreters, and staff vacations surfaced as an influence to missed 24 hour face-to-face contacts. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, four recent changes to the child protection screening statutes and process in the state surfaced as an influence to timely face-to-face contact with alleged victims of maltreatment through the creation of additional demands on staff time and increased caseloads. Specifically, a statute regarding predatory offenders, which created a requirement of face-to-face contact with alleged victims within 24 hours even when the offender no longer has access to the alleged victim(s) increased the number of cases that required a 24 hour response for local agencies, increasing caseload demands. Other changes such as a requirement to screen 24\/7 and increased documentation requirements in SSIS regarding intakes created additional requirements and demands on staff time. Finally, the use of fiscal withholds based on performance standards attached to recent increases in funds by the state legislature make it difficult for agencies to rely on and therefore use the funds to hire additional staff, offsetting the goal of reducing caseloads with the additional funds. These increased demands on staff time and caseloads influenced the need to prioritize cases other than the ones with the missed 24 hour timeline based on perceptions of safety in those cases. The presumption of safety was influenced by involvement by, and assessments of, safety from trusted partners such as local law enforcement and medical professionals. The presumption of safety was also influenced by the worker's knowledge of the alleged offender's access to the alleged victim.\r\n\r\nFace to face delays in contact were also commonly affected by delays in case assignment. In some cases, the new DHS requirement to do screening by a team led to the local agency deciding to pull in team members unfamiliar with the screening process which resulted in slower screening decisions because of the need to explain and talk through the screening decision with the newer screening team member. These delays influenced delays in case assignment which meant less time for the worker assigned to the case to make the initial face-to-face contact with the alleged victim.   Further contributing to reports being held up in the screening process include the time it takes to obtain identifiable information when it is not contained within the original child maltreatment report. Sometimes a reporter may not have all of the identifiable information necessary to screen in a report and the local agency will take some time to do follow up with collaterals. However, SSIS doesn't allow an agency to indicate the date and time when they have actually received the minimum information necessary for the report to be considered an accepted child maltreatment report in accordance with state statute (626). Instead, the only information available to calculate the time to first face-to-face contact is the date and time the intake was first opened. Therefore, it can appear that there was a delay in seeing the alleged victim when additional time was used to get the minimum information necessary to screen in the maltreatment report.   \r\nMulti-agency jurisdictional involvement of child protection reports can further delay face-to-face contact with alleged victims beyond required timeframes through the additional time that is involved in working with multiple partners.  Additionally, best practices set forth by the Department of Human Services encourages local agencies to coordinate efforts with all agencies involved with multi- jurisdictional child maltreatment reports, including deference to law enforcement agencies needs occasionally (e.g. a law enforcement request to delay contact with alleged victims as a result of a criminal investigation). The need for coordination between multiple agencies such as law enforcement can also influence the worker to delay contact with alleged victims when waiting on the other agency for a particular need. For example, the worker may need to partner with law enforcement to make the visit in cases where either the law enforcement agent or worker may feel that law enforcement is necessary to ensure safety of the worker. \r\n\r\nFinally, further supporting delays in making contact with alleged victims is the fact that SSIS now automates the intake transfer from a receiving agency to the agency with jurisdiction and the agency with jurisdiction won't see that new intake until the agency checks a log in SSIS. As a result, when an intake is transferred across agencies within SSIS, the county of jurisdiction could be unaware that this intake was received which influences delays in making timely face-to-face contact with alleged victims.","Multiple_Choice__346":"0","Multiple_Choice__348":"2","Free_Text__349":"Face to face delays in contact were also commonly affected by delays in case assignment. In some cases, the new DHS requirement to do screening by a team led to the local agency deciding to pull in team members unfamiliar with the screening process (when staff that were typically involved in these decisions were not available) which resulted in slower screening decisions because of the need to explain and talk through the screening decision with the newer screening team member. These delays influenced delays in case assignment which meant less time for the worker assigned to the case to make the initial face-to-face contact with the alleged victim.","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"2","Free_Text__353":"However, SSIS doesn't allow an agency to indicate the date and time when they have actually received the minimum information necessary for the report to be considered an accepted child maltreatment report in accordance with state statute (626). Instead, the only information available to calculate the time to first face-to-face contact is the date and time the intake was first opened. Therefore, it can appear that there was a delay in seeing the alleged victim when additional time was used to get the minimum information necessary to screen in the maltreatment report.   \r\n\r\nFinally, further supporting delays in making contact with alleged victims is the fact that SSIS now automates the intake transfer from a receiving agency to the agency with jurisdiction and the agency with jurisdiction won't see that new intake until the agency checks a log in SSIS. As a result, when an intake is transferred across agencies within SSIS, the county of jurisdiction could be unaware that this intake was received which influences delays in making timely face-to-face contact with alleged victims.","Multiple_Choice__354":"2","Free_Text__355":"Multi-agency jurisdictional involvement of child protection reports can further delay face-to-face contact with alleged victims beyond required timeframes through the additional time that is involved in working with multiple partners.  Additionally, best practices set forth by the Department of Human Services encourages local agencies to coordinate efforts with all agencies involved with multi- jurisdictional child maltreatment reports, including deference to law enforcement agencies needs occasionally (e.g. a law enforcement request to delay contact with alleged victims as a result of a criminal investigation). The need for coordination between multiple agencies such as law enforcement can also influence the worker to delay contact with alleged victims when waiting on the other agency for a particular need. For example, the worker may need to partner with law enforcement to make the visit in cases where either the law enforcement agent or worker may feel that law enforcement is necessary to ensure safety of the worker.","Multiple_Choice__356":"0","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"3","Free_Text__359":"Additionally, four recent changes to the child protection screening statutes and process in the state surfaced as an influence to timely face-to-face contact with alleged victims of maltreatment through the creation of additional demands on staff time and increased caseloads. Specifically, a statute regarding predatory offenders, which created a requirement of face-to-face contact with alleged victims within 24 hours even when the offender no longer has access to the alleged victim(s) increased the number of cases that required a 24 hour response for local agencies, increasing caseload demands. Other changes such as a requirement to screen 24\/7 and increased documentation requirements in SSIS regarding intakes created additional requirements and demands on staff time. Finally, the use of fiscal withholds based on performance standards attached to recent increases in funds by the state legislature make it difficult for agencies to rely on and therefore use the funds to hire additional staff, offsetting the goal of reducing caseloads with the additional funds. These increased demands on staff time and caseloads influenced the need to prioritize cases other than the ones with the missed 24 hour timeline based on perceptions of safety in those cases. The presumption of safety was influenced by involvement by, and assessments of, safety from trusted partners such as local law enforcement and medical professionals. The presumption of safety was also influenced by the worker's knowledge of the alleged offender's access to the alleged victim.\r\nFace to face delays in contact were also commonly affected by delays in case assignment. In some cases, the new DHS requirement to do screening by a team led to the local agency deciding to pull in team members unfamiliar with the screening process which resulted in slower screening decisions because of the need to explain and talk through the screening decision with the newer screening team member. These delays influenced delays in case assignment which meant less time for the worker assigned to the case to make the initial face-to-face contact with the alleged victim.   Further contributing to reports being held up in the screening process include the time it takes to obtain identifiable information when it is not contained within the original child maltreatment report. Sometimes a reporter may not have all of the identifiable information necessary to screen in a report and the local agency will take some time to do follow up with collaterals.\r\n\r\n.  Additionally, best practices set forth by the Department of Human Services encourages local agencies to coordinate efforts with all agencies involved with multi- jurisdictional child maltreatment reports, including deference to law enforcement agencies needs occasionally (e.g. a law enforcement request to delay contact with alleged victims as a result of a criminal investigation). The need for coordination between multiple agencies such as law enforcement can also influence the worker to delay contact with alleged victims when waiting on the other agency for a particular need. For example, the worker may need to partner with law enforcement to make the visit in cases where either the law enforcement agent or worker may feel that law enforcement is necessary to ensure safety of the worker.","Multiple_Choice__360":"3","Free_Text__361":"Additionally, four recent changes to the child protection screening statutes and process in the state surfaced as an influence to timely face-to-face contact with alleged victims of maltreatment through the creation of additional demands on staff time and increased caseloads. Specifically, a statute regarding predatory offenders, which created a requirement of face-to-face contact with alleged victims within 24 hours even when the offender no longer has access to the alleged victim(s) increased the number of cases that required a 24 hour response for local agencies, increasing caseload demands. Other changes such as a requirement to screen 24\/7 and increased documentation requirements in SSIS regarding intakes created additional requirements and demands on staff time. Finally, the use of fiscal withholds based on performance standards attached to recent increases in funds by the state legislature make it difficult for agencies to rely on and therefore use the funds to hire additional staff, offsetting the goal of reducing caseloads with the additional funds. These increased demands on staff time and caseloads influenced the need to prioritize cases other than the ones with the missed 24 hour timeline based on perceptions of safety in those cases.  (Prescribed practice is connected to an increase in production of caseload tasks creating production\/efficiency pressures for staff)\r\n\r\nFace to face delays in contact were also commonly affected by delays in case assignment. In some cases, the new DHS requirement to do screening by a team led to the local agency deciding to pull in team members unfamiliar with the screening process which resulted in slower screening decisions because of the need to explain and talk through the screening decision with the newer screening team member. These delays influenced delays in case assignment which meant less time for the worker assigned to the case to make the initial face-to-face contact with the alleged victim.   Further contributing to reports being held up in the screening process include the time it takes to obtain identifiable information when it is not contained within the original child maltreatment report. Sometimes a reporter may not have all of the identifiable information necessary to screen in a report and the local agency will take some time to do follow up with collaterals. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, best practices set forth by the Department of Human Services encourages local agencies to coordinate efforts with all agencies involved with multi- jurisdictional child maltreatment reports, including deference to law enforcement agencies needs occasionally (e.g. a law enforcement request to delay contact with alleged victims as a result of a criminal investigation). The need for coordination between multiple agencies such as law enforcement can also influence the worker to delay contact with alleged victims when waiting on the other agency for a particular need. For example, the worker may need to partner with law enforcement to make the visit in cases where either the law enforcement agent or worker may feel that law enforcement is necessary to ensure safety of the worker.","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"2","Free_Text__367":"These increased demands on staff time and caseloads influenced the need to prioritize cases other than the ones with the missed 24 hour timeline based on perceptions of safety in those cases. The presumption of safety was influenced by involvement by, and assessments of, safety from trusted partners such as local law enforcement and medical professionals. The presumption of safety was also influenced by the worker's knowledge of the alleged offender's access to the alleged victim.","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}