{"report_id":276,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed was influenced by staff's perception that notification had been given, as the worker previously informed the licensing agency of the intention to place the sibling child with the relatives. Given the circumstances of the case, multiple workers had been assigned to the case (licensing worker, Family Investigation (FI) and Family Assessment (FA) worker, and an adoption worker) which contributed to role ambiguity regarding placement decisions on the case. There was also an assumption made by the FI worker that notice was given by the current worker. Additionally, the agency was put in a position to assign multiple workers to manage the case due to state and federal requirements relating to placement, permanency, and adoption. These requirements place agencies in a position to need specialized workers to fulfill the multiple requirements of these statutes. Furthermore, the number of federal and state documentation requirements within SSIS related to permanency\/adoption cases such as this, place staff in a position to balance multiple competing tasks and documentation requirements further impacting the licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed. \r\n\r\nGiven the staff's limited time at the agency, staff did not have prior experience and knowledge of placement requirements when cross jurisdictional placements occur, further influencing the licensing agency not being notified when the sibling child was placed. The limitations and knowledge regarding this were impacted by the agency's ability to teach staff everything they need to know about placement requirements. The perceived lack of clarity on guidance and direction regarding emergency and non-emergency placements has an effect on the agency's ability to teach these requirements; therefore impacting staff's knowledge on such requirements. The number of requirements in child welfare can also make it difficult to teach staff everything they need to know. Further influencing the licensing agency not being notified was staff's focus of attention on supporting the relative's ability to care for 3 children, ages 3 years and younger. The need to provide a high level of support was influenced by state statute requirements to place siblings together (260C.212 subd. 2d) and relative placement (260C.221) to make sure the relatives were able to maintain the placement.\r\n\r\nFurther influencing the licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed was the relationship between the licensing worker and the foster care parents (relatives), as the foster care parents would likely have informed the licensing worker that the sibling child had been placed, which influenced the perception that notification was given.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:07:48 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:07:48 am","id":29375}