{"id":248,"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\":\"KariLee Pietz\",\"Date__293\":\"09\\\/27\\\/2018\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"No\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"7\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Dakota\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Anthony\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Herkal\",\"Date__305\":\"07\\\/31\\\/2018\",\"Date__306\":\"08\\\/14\\\/2018\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"<1 Month\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Father\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"At close of CP Investigation, result of the risk assessment was \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dchigh', and ongoing CP services were marked needed, however ongoing CP case management was not opened.\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tIn 2016, SSIS did not have an override\\\/underride feature incorporated within the safety and risk assessments. Currently this is an available option. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tWorker had 20+ years of experience working CP investigations\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe mother's reaction was cooperative and protective. Mother is able and willing to keep her kids safe. Mother is a safe caregiver. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tShe followed recommendations of no contact\\\/Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO)\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tHalf-sister did not report witnessing violence; had heard yelling between the adults\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tMother had family support network in the area\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tPrevious maltreatment determination was made against the half-sister's biological father, not the subject child's father. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tFather compliant with Probation Officer and was making impressive strides at completing required programming. He was doing well. \\r\\no\\tFather comply with no contact, was not living at the home\\r\\no\\tFather was engaged in DBT therapy and domestic violence programming \\r\\no\\tFather was sober\\\/ clear UA's\\r\\no\\tCounty Attorney would likely not accept CHIPS petition due to all the services family receiving and completing successfully \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tJudge made decision to lift the DANCO\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tConsult with Supervisor and support decision to close without opening ongoing CP case management\\r\\no\\tSDM Tool is used more for discussion during supervisory consult at CP Inv. closing for worker with more experience. Safety Assessment results were either safe\\\/conditionally safe \\r\\no\\tTools are prescriptive\\\/ black and white, but child protection practice is very gray\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"When determining if CP services were needed, the SDM tool's result of \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dchigh' for the risk assessment was considered, however, it was not the only factor used to determine if CP services would be provided at the time the CP investigation closed. There was a domestic abuse no contact order (DANCO) (MN Statute 629.750), issued by the court, which was being complied with by the mother and the offender. In addition, the mother's protective capacities and safety assessment result of \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153safe\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d was considered following DHS FA\\\/FI guidance. \\r\\nThe fact that the probable cause standard was not met for a child in need of protection and\\\/or services defined by juvenile court law (MN statute 260C.007 Subd. 6 and 260C.141 Subd. 1), and\\\/or the prescriptive legislation provided in MN Statute 626.556 Subd. 10e. (g), \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153a determination that child protective services are needed means that the local welfare agency has documented conditions during the investigation sufficient to cause a child protection worker, to conclude that a child is at significant risk of maltreatment if protective intervention is not provided and that the individuals responsible for the child's care have not taken or are not likely to take actions to protect the child from maltreatment or risk of maltreatment,\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d\\r\\nwhich supported the agency to close the investigation and not open ongoing CP CM workgroup, in spite of the high risk assessment result. Protective iintervention was not in the best interests of the children (MN statute 518.17), as the mother was not an offending caregiver, she was a safe parent\\\/caregiver. She actively displayed protective capacities to keep the children safe.  She was engaged with the staff and followed the recommendations within the safety plan, she complied with having no contact with the offender after issuance of a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO), and the mother was also utilizing her family for support. \\r\\nIn 2016, the agency employed professionals with a wealth of practice experience and longevity, many with 20+ years in child welfare and assessing child safety and risk. The knowledge possessed by the staff, coupled by a functional working relationship with the local agency's county attorney office, supported the decision to not open ongoing child protection case management services. The local agency's mental model was a presumption that the County Attorney would not accept a petition for CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) as the local agency had collaborated with many service providers to address safety concerns and provide the family resources, which the caregivers were compliant and completed successfully throughout the CP investigation. The circumstances did not present a need to consult with the County Attorney to file a CHIPS petition, and staff consulted with their supervisor to resolve this goal conflict.\\r\\nAlthough it is suggested in the SDM manual to consult with the county attorney when the result of a risk assessment is \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153high\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d, this case did not have unresolved safety threats efforts, and the efforts made to provide for child safety were successful, indicating the legal threshold for court intervention was not met, as there were no other conditions known at the time to indicate child safety was at risk. The staff's supervisor supported the decision to close the investigation without opening an ongoing CP case management workgroup. \\r\\nProfessionals believe the SDM tools are prescriptive (black and white), but child protection practice is subjective (gray), where staff are required to use their professional ethics and judgement to assess child safety and risk based on wide array of variable circumstances.  Staff considered the Probation Officer reported positive feedback regarding the offending caregiver, that he had been compliant with the DANCO and was not residing in the home, was providing clean UA's, and was successfully engaging and completing other programming (DBT therapy and domestic violence program). Additionally, the Judge lifted the DANCO, further influencing staff's perception of strengthened caregiver capacities, and lessened risk to child safety. In this case the risk to child safety was actively being controlled for using safety planning, which both caregivers engaged and followed local agency recommendations. The perception is that the risk assessment result does not speak directly to when ongoing services are necessarily needed, and the risk assessment result is used as a functional starting point during supervisor and county attorney consultation, as well as during conversations with the family. Staff believe the risk assessment is used to establish a baseline, considering many other factors when deciding if ongoing CP services need to be provided. Other factors considered is if the risk to child safety continues to exist. Although, contrary to State guidance and local practice norms, (that staff seek a consult with their supervisor and the county attorney to inquire CHIPS and the need for ongoing case management services when there is a \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dchigh' result on the risk assessment at the close of a CP investigation), the staff had Supervisor support to close the CP investigation and not open a workgroup for ongoing CP case management services in this case. When the result of the risk assessment is \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dchigh' in combination with a safety assessment result of \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dcsafe', a discrepancy surfaces. The discrepancy highlights a double bind\\\/goal conflict for staff to navigate and resolve when children are \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dcpresumed safe' as the presenting reality of conditions do not suspect substantial child endangerment (Minn. Stat. 626.556, subd. 2(o )) and\\\/or services are not needed to ameliorate immediate risk to child safety.\\r\\nIn 2016, when SSIS did not yet have an override\\\/underride feature incorporated within the safety and decision making tools for supervisors and\\\/or staff, the potential influence of training available to professionals about the purpose of the risk assessment, and how the SDM tools were developed in order to understand functional use for frontline staff was a systemic feature existing across the state and local levels. Applicability and interpretation of the results of the safety and risk assessments, and using the results to inform decision making in real time practice with children and families, in order to capture all risks, were contributing variables when staff use the SDM decision making tools. Additionally the staff's interpretation of the training and knowledge retained from training contributes to how knowledge is accessed when staff complete the child safety and risk assessments with the family in real time.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__347\":\"In 2016, the agency employed professionals with a wealth of practice experience and longevity, many with 20+ years in child welfare and assessing child safety and risk. The knowledge possessed by the staff, coupled by a functional working relationship with the local agency's county attorney office, supported the decision to not open ongoing child protection case management services. The local agency's mental model was a presumption that the County Attorney would not accept a petition for CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) as the local agency had collaborated with many service providers to address safety concerns and provide the family resources, which the caregivers were compliant and completed successfully throughout the CP investigation. The circumstances did not present a need to consult with the County Attorney to file a CHIPS petition, and staff consulted with their supervisor to resolve this goal conflict. Although it is suggested in the SDM manual to consult with the county attorney when the result of a risk assessment is \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153high\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d, this case did not have unresolved safety threats efforts, and the efforts made to provide for child safety were successful, indicating the legal threshold for court intervention was not met, as there were no other conditions known at the time to indicate child safety was at risk. The staff's supervisor supported the decision to close the investigation without opening an ongoing CP case management workgroup. \\r\\n2.) Professionals believe the SDM tools are prescriptive (black and white), but child protection practice is subjective (gray), where staff are required to use their professional ethics and judgement to assess child safety and risk based on wide array of variable circumstances.  Staff considered the Probation Officer reported positive feedback regarding the offending caregiver, that he had been compliant with the DANCO and was not residing in the home, was providing clean UA's, and was successfully engaging and completing other programming (DBT therapy and domestic violence program). Additionally, the Judge lifted the DANCO, further influencing staff's perception of strengthened caregiver capacities, and lessened risk to child safety. In this case the risk to child safety was actively being controlled for using safety planning, which both caregivers engaged and followed local agency recommendations. The perception is that the risk assessment result does not speak directly to when ongoing services are necessarily needed, and the risk assessment result is used as a functional starting point during supervisor and county attorney consultation, as well as during conversations with the family. Staff believe the risk assessment is used to establish a baseline, considering many other factors when deciding if ongoing CP services need to be provided. Other factors considered is if the risk to child safety continues to exist.\\r\\n3.)In 2016, when SSIS did not yet have an override\\\/underride feature incorporated within the safety and decision making tools for supervisors and\\\/or staff, the potential influence of training available to professionals about the purpose of the risk assessment, and how the SDM tools were developed in order to understand functional use for frontline staff was a systemic feature existing across the state and local levels. Applicability and interpretation of the results of the safety and risk assessments, and using the results to inform decision making in real time practice with children and families, in order to capture all risks, were contributing variables when staff use the SDM decision making tools. Additionally the staff's interpretation of the training and knowledge retained from training contributes to how knowledge is accessed when staff complete the child safety and risk assessments with the family in real time.\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__353\":\"In 2016, when SSIS did not yet have an override\\\/underride feature incorporated within the safety and decision making tools for supervisors and\\\/or staff, the potential influence of training available to professionals about the purpose of the risk assessment, and how the SDM tools were developed in order to understand functional use for frontline staff was a systemic feature existing across the state and local levels. Applicability and interpretation of the results of the safety and risk assessments, and using the results to inform decision making in real time practice with children and families, in order to capture all risks, were contributing variables when staff use the SDM decision making tools. Additionally the staff's interpretation of the training and knowledge retained from training contributes to how knowledge is accessed when staff complete the child safety and risk assessments with the family in real time.\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__355\":\"Staff considered the Probation Officer reported positive feedback regarding the offending caregiver, that he had been compliant with the DANCO and was not residing in the home, was providing clean UA's, and was successfully engaging and completing other programming (DBT therapy and domestic violence program). Additionally, the Judge lifted the DANCO, further influencing staff's perception of strengthened caregiver capacities, and lessened risk to child safety. In this case the risk to child safety was actively being controlled for using safety planning, which both caregivers engaged and followed local agency recommendations.\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"1.) When determining if CP services were needed, the SDM tool's result of \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dchigh' for the risk assessment was considered, however, it was not the only factor used to determine if CP services would be provided at the time the CP investigation closed. There was a domestic abuse no contact order (DANCO) (MN Statute 629.750), issued by the court, which was being complied with by the mother and the offender. In addition, the mother's protective capacities and safety assessment result of \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153safe\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d was considered following DHS FA\\\/FI guidance. \\r\\nThe fact that the probable cause standard was not met for a child in need of protection and\\\/or services defined by juvenile court law (MN statute 260C.007 Subd. 6 and 260C.141 Subd. 1), and\\\/or the prescriptive legislation provided in MN Statute 626.556 Subd. 10e. (g), \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153a determination that child protective services are needed means that the local welfare agency has documented conditions during the investigation sufficient to cause a child protection worker, to conclude that a child is at significant risk of maltreatment if protective intervention is not provided and that the individuals responsible for the child's care have not taken or are not likely to take actions to protect the child from maltreatment or risk of maltreatment,\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d\\r\\nwhich supported the agency to close the investigation and not open ongoing CP CM workgroup, in spite of the high risk assessment result. Protective iintervention was not in the best interests of the children (MN statute 518.17), as the mother was not an offending caregiver, she was a safe parent\\\/caregiver. She actively displayed protective capacities to keep the children safe.  She was engaged with the staff and followed the recommendations within the safety plan, she complied with having no contact with the offender after issuance of a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO), and the mother was also utilizing her family for support. \\r\\n2.) In this case the risk to child safety was actively being controlled for using safety planning, which both caregivers engaged and followed local agency recommendations. The perception is that the risk assessment result does not speak directly to when ongoing services are necessarily needed, and the risk assessment result is used as a functional starting point during supervisor and county attorney consultation, as well as during conversations with the family. Staff believe the risk assessment is used to establish a baseline, considering many other factors when deciding if ongoing CP services need to be provided. Other factors considered is if the risk to child safety continues to exist. Although, contrary to State guidance and local practice norms, (that staff seek a consult with their supervisor and the county attorney to inquire CHIPS and the need for ongoing case management services when there is a \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dchigh' result on the risk assessment at the close of a CP investigation), the staff had Supervisor support to close the CP investigation and not open a workgroup for ongoing CP case management services in this case. When the result of the risk assessment is \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dchigh' in combination with a safety assessment result of \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dcsafe', a discrepancy surfaces. The discrepancy highlights a double bind\\\/goal conflict for staff to navigate and resolve when children are \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dcpresumed safe' as the presenting reality of conditions do not suspect substantial child endangerment (Minn. Stat. 626.556, subd. 2(o )) and\\\/or services are not needed to ameliorate immediate risk to child safety.\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"1\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__363\":\"The potential influence of training available to professionals about the purpose of the risk assessment, and how the SDM tools were developed along with the staff's interpretation of the training and knowledge retained from training contributes to how knowledge is accessed when staff complete the child safety and risk assessments with the family in real time.\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"1\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__367\":\"In 2016, the agency employed professionals with a wealth of practice experience and longevity, many with 20+ years in child welfare and assessing child safety and risk. The knowledge possessed by the staff, coupled by a functional working relationship with the local agency's county attorney office, supported the decision to not open ongoing child protection case management services. The local agency's mental model was a presumption that the County Attorney would not accept a petition for CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) as the local agency had collaborated with many service providers to address safety concerns and provide the family resources, which the caregivers were compliant and completed successfully throughout the CP investigation.\\r\\nThe circumstances did not present a need to consult with the County Attorney to file a CHIPS petition, and staff consulted with their supervisor to resolve this goal conflict.\\r\\nAlthough it is suggested in the SDM manual to consult with the county attorney when the result of a risk assessment is \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153high\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d, this case did not have unresolved safety threats efforts, and the efforts made to provide for child safety were successful, indicating the legal threshold for court intervention was not met, as there were no other conditions known at the time to indicate child safety was at risk. The staff's supervisor supported the decision to close the investigation without opening an ongoing CP case management workgroup. \\r\\nProfessionals believe the SDM tools are prescriptive (black and white), but child protection practice is subjective (gray), where staff are required to use their professional ethics and judgement to assess child safety and risk based on wide array of variable circumstances.  Staff considered the Probation Officer reported positive feedback regarding the offending caregiver, that he had been compliant with the DANCO and was not residing in the home, was providing clean UA's, and was successfully engaging and completing other programming (DBT therapy and domestic violence program). Additionally, the Judge lifted the DANCO, further influencing staff's perception of strengthened caregiver capacities, and lessened risk to child safety. In this case the risk to child safety was actively being controlled for using safety planning, which both caregivers engaged and followed local agency recommendations. The perception is that the risk assessment result does not speak directly to when ongoing services are necessarily needed, and the risk assessment result is used as a functional starting point during supervisor and county attorney consultation, as well as during conversations with the family. Staff believe the risk assessment is used to establish a baseline, considering many other factors when deciding if ongoing CP services need to be provided. Other factors considered is if the risk to child safety continues to exist. Although, contrary to State guidance and local practice norms, (that staff seek a consult with their supervisor and the county attorney to inquire CHIPS and the need for ongoing case management services when there is a \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dchigh' result on the risk assessment at the close of a CP investigation), the staff had Supervisor support to close the CP investigation and not open a workgroup for ongoing CP case management services in this case. \\r\\n2.) Additionally the staff's interpretation of the training and knowledge retained from training contributes to how knowledge is accessed when staff complete the child safety and risk assessments with the family in real time.\",\"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 10:07:20 am","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Anthony Herkal"}