{"report_id":275,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"318","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Working in Child Welfare in July 2016 presented different challenges for the local agency than today. Both the CP Supervisor and the CP Investigator spoke to practice being exceptionally overwhelming in 2016. It was a time driven by compliance with many newly passed legislative mandates and new DHS guidance. Specifically, the ICWA unit was being taxed more than ever before. The unit was seeing an extremely high amount of cases being screened in for assessment\/investigation due to the Governor's Task Force and the 93 new recommendations and guidance from DHS.  \r\nThe ICWA unit was responsible for completing more CP Investigations and Assessments than any other unit at the agency. The unit received all ICWA cases, including cases with pending ICWA eligibility. In addition the local agency is considered to be one of the largest in the state; densely populated and a large geographic jurisdiction. The agency experienced change on a continual basis due to the Legislative Recommendations, the CP worker voiced the work environment to be in a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153constant state of change\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. \r\nIn 2016 media coverage was focused on child welfare, and the agency's County Attorney Office used a conservative approach, enforcing local agency policy. There was a heightened sense of needing to be cautious and aware of liability.  This defensive practice placed additional stress on CP workers in the agency for many reasons. The CP Worker stated he\/she \u00e2\u20ac\u0153felt they were staying involved with families for longer than they needed to\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as a result of the defensive practice decisions made by the County Attorney Office.  \r\nIn 2016, the agency had one ICWA unit that was made up of 11 staff and two of those staff were assigned to a work crisis situations. Compared to 2016, the local agency now has two ICWA units, comprised of 8-9 staff within each unit for a total of 16-18 investigator\/assessment workers. Caseload size was discussed to be approximately 20 open cases for the CP investigator in 2016 compared to the current (2018) caseload size of 8 open cases. It was expected that CP workers would receive 4-5 new cases a week in 2016, which i different from current assignments of 2-3 cases per week. \r\nWith less staff employed in 2016, and with the increase in the amount of screened in assessment\/investigations coming in, the CP supervisor would \u00e2\u20ac\u0153triage\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the cases as they came in, as there were not enough staff to assign the volume of cases coming in for assignment.  There were no open positions to hire more staff into either. \r\nAnother impact on the workforce was more 24 hour response guidance issued by DHS. The direction given was for CP workers to prioritize 24 hour response cases. For example the predatory offender 24 hour response guidance. The CP worker spoke about unintended consequences that stem from all the mandates.  He\/she indicated even if the child was safe and not in contact with the alleged offender, all other cases had to be put on hold so a case like this could have his\/her primary attention. The worker expressed black and white guidance like this makes practice hard because child welfare is filled with a lot of gray circumstances. The CP worker was passionate about the purpose of her position and ensuring child safety.  She stated the purpose behind child welfare gets lost when mandates direct the work and take away flexibility of the worker being able to manage his\/her caseload tasks.\r\nThe ICWA unit staff placed pressure on themselves too. They worried a lot about all the new guidance and how they would be able to keep up with the workload. It was a stressful time and staff worried they would not be able to meet every task timely, and the CP Supervisor worried that cases she could not get assigned had the potential for bad outcomes to happen. This impacted staff turnover.\r\nBoth the CP Supervisor and the CP worker debriefed spoke to times in 2016 as being \u00e2\u20ac\u0153unmanageable\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153overwhelming\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Although we were not able to speak with the first CP worker who was originally assigned this case, after speaking to the CP supervisor and the CP worker, differences in CP practice were evident in 2016 compared to 2018. In 2016, there was an unsettled and defensive approach to child welfare practice, the agency was in a constant state of change along with overwhelming caseload sizes and increased tasks to be completed for each case. Turnover and stress was high. The first CP Worker assigned to make the face to face, was struggling to manage the high caseload and manage all the tasks associated with all the cases. He\/she subsequently went out on a leave of absence and the 5 day response was not able to be met. The worker's caseload of approximately 20+ cases were distributed amongst the ICWA unit. Although not within the 5 day response, the second CP Assessment worker was assigned to this case met with the family and successfully assessed safety and addressed family needs.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:07:14 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:07:14 am","id":29306}