{"id":275,"form_id":"22","user_id":"92","question_id":null,"organization_id":"13","tab_id":null,"question_type":null,"text_answer":"{\"Multiple_Choice__291\":\"Kristine Frick\",\"Short_Answer__292\":\"Kelly Knutson\",\"Date__293\":\"01\\\/04\\\/2018\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"No\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"9\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Ramsey\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Elijah\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Johnson\",\"Date__305\":\"08\\\/15\\\/2017\",\"Date__306\":\"10\\\/27\\\/2017\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"2 Months\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"2\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Mother\",\"Short_Answer__311\":\"Father\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"Face to Face contact with alleged victim did not occur within the 5 day response time frame.\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"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.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"Staffing resources impacted the initial face to face not being met within the 5 day timeframe  In July of 2016, the culture of Minnesota's child welfare system was defensive in nature, as evidenced by an influx in number of suspected child maltreatment reports being made into the system, which were also being screened in at a higher rate. The defensive practice occurred simultaneous in regard to media scrutiny regarding child welfare practices and following the Governor's Task Force on the Protection of Children releasing 93 recommendations for change to the system's practices. With the local agency having one of the largest populations of child welfare clients served in the state, the increased volume of reports flooding the agency's intake and screening unit was also complicated by continual changes being made to the Intake, Screening and Reponses Path Guidelines, by the Child Safety and Permanency Division's Safety and Prevention Unit. CSP's Safety and Prevention Unit was under pressure to develop implementation guidance based on the 93 Governor's Task Force recommendations. Guidance was also issued for the predatory offender statute put into law in 2012, which required agencies to prioritize making contact with alleged victims within 24 hours, even at times when the alleged victim was not alleged to be in contact with the alleged predatory offender and presumed safe, adding to the amount of reports and cases being assigned to staff of FA\\\/FI units backlogs, trumping all other case assignments, as there was no discretion for the supervisor or staff regarding predatory offender reports. For staff, the frequent updates and changes to guidance added complexity, constraining staff to make goal conflict and trade off decisions as managed workload tasks like, prioritizing allegations screened in, making initial safety and risk decisions based on vulnerability of alleged victim children, and compliance metrics, as well as more work tasks and documentation requirements that needed to be completed for each case. This lead to more stress as staff were already managing high caseload sizes with limited staffing resources. During this time, the local agency saw high turnover as frontline staff prioritized their health and wellbeing over attempting to manage high caseload sizes. Further intensifying the staff available for case assignment was staff utilizing LOA to prioritize their health and wellbeing creating an unpredictability if staff out on leave of absence would return to work or not. When staff out on leave did not to return to their position, time was required to hire and onboard a new staff to fill their position, which placed even higher demand and stress on the staff taking on new case assignments, who were already managing high caseloads.\\r\\nThe local agency placed higher importance on meeting 24 hour face to face timelines over 5 day face to face timelines, which was a procedural adaptation made in effort to triage the volume of cases sitting in a backlog of 200-400 reports that were in pending screening and assignment to FA\\\/FI units. Once assigned to FA\\\/FI units, supervisors of each unit prioritized and made the decision for frontline staff to go beyond the 5 day face to face timeline based on the allegation(s) and safety\\\/risk known at the time, such as in this case. There was higher demand and pressure on the local agency to meet compliance measures to avoid legislative withholds of money\\\/funding that an agency would not receive when out of compliance.\\r\\n\\r\\nAt this time, the local agency also regionalized the geographic areas within their jurisdiction, and changed normative practice away from using zip codes. The local agency decision was to utilize one special unit to take on all potential qualifying ICWA FA\\\/FI's, as an effort to comply with new ICWA and BIA regulations and provide consistent practices, especially for cases with known have previous history with Transfer of Legal Custody (TLC), as the County Attorney had a policy for CP staff to adhere to, further impacting the demand and pressure on the frontline staff working in this ICWA specialty unit.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__349\":\"Staffing resources impacted the face to face not being met in this case. In July of 2016, the culture of the child welfare system was defensive in nature, as evidenced by an influx in number of reports being made into the CW system, which were being screened in at a higher rate. The defensive practice occurred simultaneous in regard to media scrutiny regarding child welfare practices and following the Governor's Task Force on the Protection of Children releasing 93 recommendations for change to the system's practices. With the local agency having one of the largest populations of child welfare clients served in the state, the increased volume of reports flooding the agency's intake and screening unit was also complicated by continual changes being made to the Intake, Screening and Reponses Path Guidelines, by the Child Safety and Permanency Division's Safety and Prevention Unit. CSP's Safety and Prevention Unit was under pressure to develop implementation guidance based on the 93 Governor's Task Force recommendations. Guidance was also issued for the predatory offender statute put into law in 2012, which required agencies to prioritize making contact with alleged victims within 24 hours, even at times when the alleged victim was not alleged to be in contact with the alleged predatory offender and presumed safe, adding to the amount of reports and cases being assigned to staff of FA\\\/FI units backlogs, trumping all other case assignments, as there was no discretion for the supervisor or staff regarding predatory offender reports. For staff, the frequent updates and changes to guidance during this time added complexity, constraining staff to make goal conflict and trade off decisions as they needed to balance prioritizing allegation, alleged safety and risk, and compliance metrics, as well as more work tasks and documentation to be completed for each case. This lead to more stress as staff were already managing high caseload sizes with limited staffing resources. A demand \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u201c resource mismatch existed reinforcing a production pressure cycle of high caseload size, high stress for staff to manage, and staff turnover. During this time, the local agency saw high turnover as frontline staff prioritized their health and wellbeing over attempting to manage high caseload sizes. Further intensifying the staff available for case assignment was staff utilizing LOA to prioritize their health and wellbeing creating an unpredictability if staff out on leave of absence would return to work or not. When staff out on leave did not to return to their position, time was required to hire and onboard a new staff to fill their position, which placed even higher demand and stress on the staff taking on new case assignments, who were already managing high caseloads.  \\r\\nThere was higher demand and pressure on the local agency to meet compliance measures to avoid legislative withholds of money\\\/funding that an agency would not receive when out of compliance. The local agency placed higher importance on meeting 24 hour face to face timelines over 5 day face to face timelines, which was a procedural adaptation made in effort to triage the volume of cases sitting in a backlog of 200-400 reports that were in pending screening and assignment to FA\\\/FI units. Once assigned to FA\\\/FI units, supervisors of each unit prioritized and made the decision for frontline staff to go beyond the 5 day face to face timeline based on the allegation(s) and safety\\\/risk known at the time, such as in this case.\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"1.) Maltreatment determined accidental sleep related child death; co-sleeping with parents.\\r\\nThere is absent, conflicting, or vague guidance regarding maltreatment determinations on fatalities related to unsafe sleep practices. \\r\\n2.) With the local agency having one of the largest populations of child welfare clients served in the state, the increased volume of reports flooding the agency's intake and screening unit was also complicated by continual changes being made to the Intake, Screening and Reponses Path Guidelines, by the Child Safety and Permanency Division's Safety and Prevention Unit. CSP's Safety and Prevention Unit was under pressure to develop implementation guidance based on the 93 Governor's Task Force recommendations. Guidance was also issued for the predatory offender statute put into law in 2012, which required agencies to prioritize making contact with alleged victims within 24 hours, even at times when the alleged victim was not alleged to be in contact with the alleged predatory offender and presumed safe.\\r\\n3.) At this time, the local agency also regionalized the geographic areas within their jurisdiction, and changed normative practice away from using zip codes. The local agency decision was to utilize one special unit to take on all potential qualifying ICWA FA\\\/FI's, as an effort to comply with new ICWA and BIA regulations and provide consistent practices, especially for cases with known have previous history with Transfer of Legal Custody (TLC), as the County Attorney had a policy for CP staff to adhere to, further impacting the demand and pressure on the frontline staff working in this ICWA specialty unit.\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__361\":\"In July of 2016, the culture of the child welfare system was defensive in nature, as evidenced by an influx in number of reports being made into the CW system, which were being screened in at a higher rate. The defensive practice occurred simultaneous in regard to media scrutiny regarding child welfare practices and following the Governor's Task Force on the Protection of Children releasing 93 recommendations for change to the system's practices. With the local agency having one of the largest populations of child welfare clients served in the state, the increased volume of reports flooding the agency's intake and screening unit was also complicated by continual changes being made to the Intake, Screening and Reponses Path Guidelines, by the Child Safety and Permanency Division's Safety and Prevention Unit. CSP's Safety and Prevention Unit was under pressure to develop implementation guidance based on the 93 Governor's Task Force recommendations. Guidance was also issued for the predatory offender statute put into law in 2012, which required agencies to prioritize making contact with alleged victims within 24 hours, even at times when the alleged victim was not alleged to be in contact with the alleged predatory offender and presumed safe, adding to the amount of reports and cases being assigned to staff of FA\\\/FI units backlogs, trumping all other case assignments, as there was no discretion for the supervisor or staff regarding predatory offender reports. For staff, the frequent updates and changes to guidance during this time added complexity, constraining staff to make goal conflict and trade off decisions as they needed to balance prioritizing allegation, alleged safety and risk, and compliance metrics, as well as more work tasks and documentation to be completed for each case. This lead to more stress as staff were already managing high caseload sizes with limited staffing resources. A demand \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u201c resource mismatch existed reinforcing a production pressure cycle of high caseload size, high stress for staff to manage, and staff turnover. During this time, the local agency saw high turnover as frontline staff prioritized their health and wellbeing over attempting to manage high caseload sizes. Further intensifying the staff available for case assignment was staff utilizing LOA to prioritize their health and wellbeing creating an unpredictability if staff out on leave of absence would return to work or not. When staff out on leave did not to return to their position, time was required to hire and onboard a new staff to fill their position, which placed even higher demand and stress on the staff taking on new case assignments, who were already managing high caseloads.  \\r\\nThere was higher demand and pressure on the local agency to meet compliance measures to avoid legislative withholds of money\\\/funding that an agency would not receive when out of compliance. The local agency placed higher importance on meeting 24 hour face to face timelines over 5 day face to face timelines, which was a procedural adaptation made in effort to triage the volume of cases sitting in a backlog of 200-400 reports that were in pending screening and assignment to FA\\\/FI units. At this time, the local agency also regionalized the geographic areas within their jurisdiction, and changed normative practice away from using zip codes. The local agency decision was to utilize one special unit to take on all potential qualifying ICWA FA\\\/FI's, as an effort to comply with new ICWA and BIA regulations and provide consistent practices, especially for cases with known have previous history with Transfer of Legal Custody (TLC), as the County Attorney had a policy for CP staff to adhere to, further impacting the demand and pressure on the frontline staff working in this ICWA specialty unit.\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__365\":\"Once assigned to FA\\\/FI units, supervisors of each unit prioritized and made the decision for frontline staff to go beyond the 5 day face to face timeline based on the allegation(s) and safety\\\/risk known at the time, such as in this case.\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__367\":\"Once assigned to FA\\\/FI units, supervisors of each unit prioritized and made the decision for frontline staff to go beyond the 5 day face to face timeline based on the allegation(s) and safety\\\/risk known at the time, such as in this case.\",\"Yes_or_No__370\":\"Yes\"}","mcq_answer":null,"other_answer":"0","status":"1","created_by":"92","updated_by":81,"created_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:33:23 pm","updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:07:14 am","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Elijah Johnson"}