Debrief #1 with staff:
•	Staff were aware of the family and chronic pattern of reports made for neglect – inadequate supervision. There was constant work being done with the family for the same issue. 
o	Initial perception was that neighbors did not like the family and were making reports.
o	Family lived in a home in the outskirts of the city, a location where child protection reports are not commonly received by the agency. 
o	Family had some support from grandmothers, but were mostly isolated from supports
•	During the Family Assessment safety planning was more informal versus formal. 
o	Safety planning with the father was difficult to complete due to his lack of investment in and unwillingness to participate in contacts with child protection staff. 
o	The father was difficult to engage (i.e. would not answer the door, did not trust law enforcement or social services, etc).
o	When contact was made with the father he denied/ minimized the allegation, blamed neighbors for targeting him, etc.
o	Staff utilized family assessment approach, letters, phone calls, leaving business card in door at the home, make contact with children at the school
o	The chronic neglect allegation did not have the urgency like other allegations where immediate danger exists and staff need to involve law enforcement in the moment and not leave until contact made with the caregivers and put eyes on the children. 
•	Staff prioritized putting in safety measures
o	Purchasing and installing of child window and door locks and alarms.
o	Kept case open longer in assessment to monitor effectiveness of safety plan and parents' capacity to use the safety measure and follow the safety plan. 
ï‚§	Parents protective capacities to manage the children's behaviors was being monitored, as was the parents' mentality to enforce the safety measures
•	The parents would ‘do their own thing' and the children would be allowed to ‘do what they wanted'.  
ï‚§	Aware of older 14 year old sibling babysitting the children, where she reported no concerns for inadequate supervision at the time. 
ï‚§	Didn't provide any services or interventions to parents for this at the time.
•	The local agency initiative was to use Signs of Safety and Safety Organized Practice.
o	Safety organized practice safety planning is more focused on participation, follow through by the family and workers; More accountability for all.
•	At the time, the staff was most senior worker on the team (3 years of experience)
o	Higher caseload of 30-40 cases
ï‚§	Most of the staff's cases were Investigations (sex abuse, egregious harm, birth matches) requiring 24-hour response
•	This was FA and chronic neglect- shaped perception that not as high risk and had to prioritize investigations with 24 hour response/higher risk 
•	Outside pressure from two major hospitals in the county on multiple birth match cases to have discharge safety plans established for newborns right away.
o	New influx of new hire staff joining the workforce
ï‚§	As an experienced staff, the staff was providing on the on the job training for new hires
o	Cases were assigned based by workers volunteering to take them from screeners
ï‚§	More experienced staff take complex case assignments 
ï‚§	Staff would take cases in which she was familiar with the family
•	Less time reviewing history since aware of it
•	New hires not assigned complex cases; since staff had more experience it made sense for the staff to take this case due to her knowing the complex chronic neglect history and family dynamics involved
Debrief #2 with supervisor: 
•	Supervisor was not able to remember much of her involvement working with this family. Her mental model is shaped mostly in remembering the critical incident case and there being a history of involvement for inadequate supervision concerns, and chemical dependency concerns. 
o	Recalls the agency focus being on engaging the family in safety planning and the rejuvenation efforts to use Signs of Safety and Safety Organized Practice initiatives. 
ï‚§	Lots of tools available for staff and challenge in understanding how to use them.
ï‚§	Efforts made to educate caregivers about the danger associated with the inadequate supervision allegation.
ï‚§	Monitoring the family's ability to help resolve safety concerns and enforce safety plan.
ï‚§	Staff conduct safety planning in the field, talk about bottom lines with caregivers, what the worries are, and who is responsible to address concerns.
ï‚§	Staff discuss support networks with the families in the field.
•	In this case father had chemical use concern, and it would likely be stated in a safety plan to not leave him in a caregiving role. 
o	Sometimes formal safety planners can be brought in at time of intake as a “rapid responseâ€ to high risk cases.  
ï‚§	2 staff work this role for all children and families services provided by the agency.
ï‚§	Referrals for utilizing safety planner is informal, request a meeting and is based on availability of the safety planners
ï‚§	There is not an established protocol when to request a safety planner, more upon a staff's request.