{"id":300,"form_id":"22","user_id":"84","question_id":null,"organization_id":"13","tab_id":null,"question_type":null,"text_answer":"{\"Multiple_Choice__291\":\"Kelly Knutson\",\"Short_Answer__292\":\"Paul Lennander\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Other\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"Yes\",\"Multiple_Choice__296\":\"Other Tribe\",\"Short_Answer__297\":\"Sisseton-Wahpeton\",\"Yes_or_No__298\":\"Yes\",\"Multiple_Choice__299\":\"Licensed\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"8\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Hennepin\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Jenecio\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Prentice\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"<1 Month\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Grandfather\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"3\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"Placement occurred when licensing concerns were noted\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"The human factors debriefing information was not documented at the request of the local agency due to pending litigation.  All of the local rationality information is captured in the narrative.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"The decision to place the child in a home when licensing concerns were noted was influenced by federal, state, and local agency policies that prioritize the placement of children with relative caregivers and siblings whenever possible.  Minnesota State Statues 260C.212; 260C.221 and Stat. \\u00c2\\u00a7 260C.212, subd. 2 requires additional due diligence beyond the federal requirements with regards to locating and placing children with relatives as well as placing children with their siblings whenever possible.  Further placing pressure on staff to place children with relatives in cases like this is the metric of relative placement in which is set at 35.7% for agencies to achieve. This placement was not only a relative provider but also had the child's siblings in his care as well.  Additionally, there were no other relatives available to take the subject child and this relative care provider was excited to take the child when he was born and wanted the child in his care.  \\r\\nFurther supporting the agency's decision to place the child in this home was that this child was Native American and the child's Tribe was recommending placement with this relative. Deferring to the child's Tribe and following their recommendation as well as placement preferences is shaped by both the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act as well as the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act.  As a result of this, the local agency's normative practice is to defer to the Tribe for placement options.  It was also staff's perception that placing with this relative would further preserve the relationship between the Tribe and the worker.  An additional influence into this placement occurring with this relative was that there was limited availability of Native American foster care homes for children qualifying under the ICWA.\",\"Short_Answer__320\":\"Placement with the relative provider occurred beyond capacity\",\"Free_Text__321\":\"The human factors debriefing information was not documented at the request of the local agency due to pending litigation.  All of the local rationality information is captured in the narrative\",\"Free_Text__322\":\"Influencing placing the subject child with the relative provider beyond the providers licensed capacity was the fact that this provider was both a relative placement and all of the child's siblings were placed with this relative.  Additionally, multiple workers were assigned to this case within the placing agency. The multiple workers assigned to cases such as this has resulted in the agency's need to have specialized workers on a case that better support the agency being more child focused.  Having multiple workers on this case contributed to role confusion in providing services to this child and family.  This role confusion impacted communication between the placing worker and the licensing worker at the agency that was responsible for licensing the home.  As a result, communication barriers between the two agencies occurred around the licensing process; including notification of the child being placed in the home.  This further contributed to the placing agency not being aware that the home was only licensed for 3 children, not 4.  Staff within this local agency also do not have offices and as a result, often work remotely and separate from one another.  The location of the multiple staff on the case within the agency also created communication barriers between staff. Further supporting this placement decision was staff's limited knowledge of all of the licensing requirements as child protection workers are not typically responsible for the licensing process with families.\",\"Short_Answer__323\":\"Services were not provided to the relative caregiver\",\"Free_Text__324\":\"The human factors debriefing information was not documented at the request of the local agency due to pending litigation.  All of the local rationality information is captured in the narrative\",\"Free_Text__325\":\"Services not being provided to the relative caregiver was influenced by the multiple workers and agencies involved with this case.  Having this many workers on one case impacted communication and consultation between the two agencies involved with regards to which agency was assessing and providing services to the relative caregiver. Furthermore, in relative foster care placements such as this, agencies are less likely to provide services to relative placements.  This was often supported by relative placement providers having and utilizing informal supports. It is also common in cases such as this that a history of mistrust exists between the family and the local agency, impacting the relative placement provider requesting services for support.  Furthermore, there are a lack of culturally appropriate services available for relative placement providers.  Lastly, staff perceived that this provider was getting all of the services he needed as it was common that he would reach out for basic need items and allowances for the children he was caring for.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__347\":\"LP 1- It was also staff's perception that placing with this relative would further preserve the relationship between the Tribe and the worker.  \\r\\n\\r\\nLP 3-Lastly, staff perceived that this provider was getting all of the services he needed as it was common that he would reach out for basic need items and allowances for the children he was caring for.\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__355\":\"LP 2-Additionally, multiple workers were assigned to this case within the placing agency. The multiple workers assigned to cases such as this has resulted in the agency's need to have specialized workers on a case that better support the agency being more child focused.  Having multiple workers on this case contributed to role confusion in providing services to this child and family.  This role confusion impacted communication between the placing worker and the licensing worker at the agency that was responsible for licensing the home.  As a result, communication barriers between the two agencies occurred around the licensing process; including notification of the child being placed in the home.  This further contributed to the placing agency not being aware that the home was only licensed for 3 children, not 4.  Staff within this local agency also do not have offices and as a result, often work remotely and separate from one another.  The location of the multiple staff on the case within the agency also created communication barriers between staff. Further supporting this placement decision was staff's limited knowledge of all of the licensing requirements as child protection workers are not typically responsible for the licensing process with families.  \\r\\n\\r\\nLP 3-\\r\\nServices not being provided to the relative caregiver was influenced by the multiple workers and agencies involved with this case.  Having this many workers on one case impacted communication and consultation between the two agencies involved with regards to which agency was assessing and providing services to the relative caregiver.\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"LP 1-The decision to place the child in a home when licensing concerns were noted was influenced by federal, state, and local agency policies that prioritize the placement of children with relative caregivers and siblings \\r\\nwhenever possible.  Minnesota State Statues 260C.212; 260C.221 and Stat. \\u00c2\\u00a7 260C.212, subd. 2 requires additional due diligence beyond the federal requirements with regards to locating and placing children with relatives as well as placing children with their siblings whenever possible.  Further placing pressure on staff to place children with relatives in cases like this is the metric of relative placement in which is set at 35.7% for agencies to achieve. This placement was not only a relative provider but also had the child's siblings in his care as well.  Additionally, there were no other relatives available to take the subject child and this relative care provider was excited to take the child when he was born and wanted the child in his care. \\r\\n\\r\\nFurther supporting the agency's decision to place the child in this home was that this child was Native American and the child's Tribe was recommending placement with this relative. Deferring to the child's Tribe and following their recommendation as well as placement preferences is shaped by both the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act as well as the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act.  As a result of this, the local agency's normative practice is to defer to the Tribe for placement options.  \\r\\n\\r\\nLP2-Influencing placing the subject child with the relative provider beyond the providers licensed capacity was the fact that this provider was both a relative placement and all of the child's siblings were placed with this relative.\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__361\":\"LP 2-Additionally, multiple workers were assigned to this case within the placing agency. The multiple workers assigned to cases such as this has resulted in the agency's need to have specialized workers on a case that better support the agency being more child focused.  Having multiple workers on this case contributed to role confusion in providing services to this child and family.  This role confusion impacted communication between the placing worker and the licensing worker at the agency that was responsible for licensing the home.  As a result, communication barriers between the two agencies occurred around the licensing process; including notification of the child being placed in the home.  This further contributed to the placing agency not being aware that the home was only licensed for 3 children, not 4.  Staff within this local agency also do not have offices and as a result, often work remotely and separate from one another.  The location of the multiple staff on the case within the agency also created communication barriers between staff. Further supporting this placement decision was staff's limited knowledge of all of the licensing requirements as child protection workers are not typically responsible for the licensing process with families.\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__363\":\"An additional influence into this placement occurring with this relative was that there was limited availability of Native American foster care homes for children qualifying under the ICWA.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP 3-Furthermore, there are a lack of culturally appropriate services available for relative placement providers.\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"0\",\"Yes_or_No__370\":\"Yes\"}","mcq_answer":null,"other_answer":"0","status":"1","created_by":"84","updated_by":71,"created_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:33:23 pm","updated_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:01:46 pm","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Jenecio Prentice"}