{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Ryan Hartneck","Short_Answer__292":"Niki Hoglund","Date__293":"03\/14\/2019","Multiple_Choice__294":"Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"6","Multiple_Choice__301":"Olmsted","Short_Answer__303":"Alayna","Short_Answer__304":"Khamsavang","Date__305":"06\/16\/2018","Date__307":"02\/27\/2019","Multiple_Choice__308":"8 Months","Multiple_Choice__309":"2","Short_Answer__310":"Mother","Short_Answer__311":"Father","Multiple_Choice__316":"2","Short_Answer__317":"No face-to-face contact with primary caregiver within 5-day timeline","Free_Text__318":"The agency worker shared that the family was historically difficult to get a hold of (per coworkers and school staff). She was able to connect with the mother on the second day of the assessment by phone, at which time the mother stated her first availability was a week out. Also learned in the phone conversation was that the mother was a single parent, she was in her last months of pregnancy, she had health issues including gestational diabetes and that she was also having to make other personal appointments. The worker attempted a home visit at that time and the mother did not answer the door. She connected again with the mother and was finally able to conduct a face to face with her the following week. In attempting to find ways to best connect with the mother, the worker consulted with another agency worker, who had truancy open with an older sibling. Additionally, the case came in as an educational neglect case at the end of the school year (late April) and she reported that since the child wouldn't be in school over the summer, this case was not as high a priority as other cases she was working.","Free_Text__319":"Face-to-face contact with the primary caregiver not occurring within the 5-day timeline was influenced by the mother's lack of engagement with the local agency.  Historically, the mother was difficult to get a hold of and when the worker connected with the mother on the second day of the assessment via phone, the mother stated her first availability was a week out, which was past the 5-day timeline.  In an attempt to find additional ways to connect with the mother, the worker consulted with another agency worker who had an open truancy case with an older sibling of the subject child.  The worker did attempt a home visit; however, the mother did not answer the door.  Additionally supporting the face-to-face not occurring was the fact that the mother was a single parent, was in her last months of pregnancy, had health issues, and was having to make other personal appointments for herself and her children. As a result, there was limited time for the mother to meet with the CP worker.\r\nFurthermore, this case came in as an educational neglect case, at the end of the school year, which put this case at a lower priority as the child would not be in school over the summer and this case was not as high of a priority as other cases she was working.  There was also an allocation of funds from the legislature based on performance, monitored by DHS, which reinforced the worker prioritizing timely face-to-face contacts for other cases on her caseload.  Also in existence was a perception that face-to-face timelines apply to victims only, and not to caregivers.  This perception was influenced by the pressure the agency felt from the media and the public regarding an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all or nothing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d mentality, as well as the 100% compliance measure for face-to-face contact, which included a public facing dashboard that was set by DHS, placing additional pressure on the local agency to meet this compliance measure.","Short_Answer__320":"In-home safety plan made for children between family and agency after the critical incident","Free_Text__321":"The agency staff shared that the agency's protocol\/belief is to keep children with families if possible and to help the families be the best they can be. This includes using family connections and kin to develop plans that best support the needs of the family as it is believed that the family is the expert on their children and it is best to give the family the resources to be successful long-term. The staff also noted that when it's possible to keep children with family, it is less traumatic for the child to stay with parents than to be placed. While developing a plan for the family arrangement, a safety plan was created through a Rapid Response Case Planning Conference (RCPC), which was held at the hospital. This meeting included family, friends, agency staff and hospital staff. During this meeting, the agency assesses the family's willingness to implement a safety plan based on family's competency, willingness, and confidence in being able to follow through with the safety plan. Through this process, a safety plan was created that included an additional adult, excluding the mother or mother's partner, to be present with the kids at all time. After-hour staff were utilized (often) to ensure the plan was being followed using unannounced visits, in addition to agency worker's unannounced visits during regular business hours. When there was a break in safety plan, the caseworker immediately had a meeting with friends, family, and the subject child's mother and reiterated that there always had to be two adults with the children and that could not be both the mother and her partner. Subsequently, consultation with a team (supervisor and co-workers) was utilized to evaluate whether there was sufficient evidence to continue the family arrangement. \r\nLastly, the agency staff shared the belief that the court process is traumatizing and utilizes too many staff resources. Also, it was shared that court timelines do not always match up with the family needs (can give families more time to work on case).","Free_Text__322":"Normative agency practice encourages keeping children with their families when possible while using family connections and kin to develop plans that best support the needs of the family, which supported an in-home family arrangement being made for the children following the critical incident.  In addition to the in-home family arrangement, a safety plan was also created through a Rapid Response Case Planning Conference (RCPC), which was held at the hospital.  The safety plan was created using family, friends, agency and hospital staff and included using an additional adult to be present with the children at all times.  After hour staff, as well as agency staff (during business hours) conducted unannounced home visits in order to ensure there was an approved adult with the children, which supported the in-home safety plan and family arrangement that was created.  Additionally influencing an in-home safety plan and family arrangement being made was the fact that there is a push from state statute (260C.181 Subd. 2) and DHS guidance to utilize least restrictive placement options prior to placement if possible.\r\n\r\nLastly, agency staff belief that the court process is traumatizing and utilizes too many staff resources. The relationship between the local agency, law enforcement, and the county attorney's office played a role in supporting an in-home safety plan being created.  Specifically, law enforcement did not place the children on a 72-hour hold and the county attorney's office did not support out-of-home placement for children.  Furthermore, the local agency has a trauma informed agency culture, which supports creating less trauma to children by keeping them with their families when at all possible and this, in turn, reduces adversarial relationships with families when trying to complete case plan goals.","Multiple_Choice__346":"2","Free_Text__347":"Learning Point 1:\r\nAlso in existence was a perception that face-to-face timelines apply to victims only, and not to caregivers.  This perception was influenced by the pressure the agency felt from the media and the public regarding an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all or nothing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d mentality, as well as the 100% compliance measure for face-to-face contact, which included a public facing dashboard that was set by DHS, placing additional pressure on the local agency to meet this compliance measure\r\n\r\nLearning Point 2:\r\nLastly, agency staff belief that the court process is traumatizing and utilizes too many staff resources.","Multiple_Choice__348":"0","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"2","Free_Text__355":"Learning Point 2:\r\nThe relationship between the local agency, law enforcement, and the county attorney's office played a role in supporting an in-home safety plan being created.  Specifically, law enforcement did not place the children on a 72-hour hold and the county attorney's office did not support out-of-home placement for children.","Multiple_Choice__356":"0","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"2","Free_Text__359":"Learning Point 1:\r\nThere was also an allocation of funds from the legislature based on performance, monitored by DHS, which reinforced the worker prioritizing timely face-to-face contacts for other cases on her caseload.  Also in existence was a perception that face-to-face timelines apply to victims only, and not to caregivers.  This perception was influenced by the pressure the agency felt from the media and the public regarding an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all or nothing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d mentality, as well as the 100% compliance measure for face-to-face contact, which included a public facing dashboard that was set by DHS, placing additional pressure on the local agency to meet this compliance measure.\r\n\r\nLearning Point 2:\r\nAdditionally influencing an in-home safety plan and family arrangement being made was the fact that there is a push from state statute (260C.181 Subd. 2) and DHS guidance to utilize least restrictive placement options prior to placement if possible.","Multiple_Choice__360":"2","Free_Text__361":"Learning Point 1: Furthermore, this case came in as an educational neglect case, at the end of the school year, which put this case at a lower priority as the child would not be in school over the summer and this case was not as high of a priority as other cases she was working.","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"2","Free_Text__367":"Learning Point 1: Furthermore, this case came in as an educational neglect case, at the end of the school year, which put this case at a lower priority as the child would not be in school over the summer and this case was not as high of a priority as other cases she was working.","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}