{"report_id":248,"form_id":"22","user_id":92,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"367","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"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.","created_by":92,"updated_by":92,"updated_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:07:29 pm","created_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:07:29 pm","id":43224}