{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Ryan Hartneck","Short_Answer__292":"Aaron Strong","Date__293":"09\/09\/2016","Multiple_Choice__294":"Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"8","Multiple_Choice__301":"Hennepin","Short_Answer__303":"Trinity","Short_Answer__304":"Shelby","Date__305":"08\/04\/2015","Date__306":"03\/24\/2016","Multiple_Choice__308":"7 Months","Multiple_Choice__309":"1","Short_Answer__310":"Father","Multiple_Choice__316":"3","Short_Answer__317":"Multidisciplinary team (MDT) or supervisor consult at point of screening was not done as required by policy.","Free_Text__318":"It was learned during the debriefing that screening staff were allowed to screen most intakes individually without consultation of a multidisciplinary team or supervisor.  Staff are encouraged to utilize supervisor consultation as needed for screening decisions.","Free_Text__319":"Not utilizing consultation with a MDT or supervisor at the point of screening the child protection report was influenced by staff's discretionary use for when to use a MDT or supervisor for screening consultation.  The agency's procedural adaptation of allowing screeners to discretionarily consult with a MDT or supervisor which deviates from state policy was governed by an overall increase in screening staff's workload, affecting staff's time to access and utilize a MDT or supervisor for screening consultation.  This increase in staff's workload has been impacted by recent changes to the Minnesota Intake, Screening, and Response Path Guidelines resulting from legislative changes following the recommendations made by the Governor's Task Force on the Protection of Children.  These changes have expanded intake and screening requirements for local agencies, leading to an increase in intake and screening related tasks. Recent media coverage on high profile child protection cases coupled with the local agency's press release on their 24 hour child protection coverage has also generated an increase in the volume of calls received by the local child welfare agency further contributing to an increase in screening staff's workloads.  Furthermore, procedural changes made by the agency requiring screening staff to thoroughly document all calls as intakes into SSIS (Social Service Information System) has also added to screening staff's workload.  This process has lengthened the time for staff to complete their required tasks, compromising the efficiency of their works as entering all of this information in SSIS is a burdensome process for staff.  This efficiency thoroughness tradeoff has further impacted staff's time to seek out a MDT or supervisor for screening consultation when needed. \r\n\r\nAlso influencing the agency's procedural adaptation of allowing screeners to discretionarily consult with a MDT or supervisor was the limited availability of supervisors for consultation. Limited supervisory consultation time was impacted by increased workload demands for supervisors that included, only two supervisors being on per shift, the number of staff supervised, and a meeting culture in the agency that affected supervisor's availability due to attending multiple meetings per week.","Short_Answer__320":"Intake placed in pending status for 22 hours","Free_Text__321":"The intake received on 3\/23\/2016 was taken by the screener by phone and placed in pending status. Per the supervisor, this is not an uncommon practice (for non-immediate response cases) as screeners often receive high volumes of calls and are given the ability to prioritize those calls based on allegation\/circumstances.","Free_Text__322":"The worker's limited experience with child abuse reports to understand the complexities of screening decisions and inconsistent policy guidance provided by the Minnesota Department of Human Services influenced the intake being placed in pending status for 22 hours.  As a result of the increased volume of child welfare calls received by the agency during this time and the demand to thoroughly complete all intake and screening related tasks staff had less time available to attend training to understand the complexities of child protection screening decisions. Without adequate training, knowledge, and experience to recognize the emergent details within a child protection report, the report may have been seen as a lower priority for the screening staff and thus placed in pending status until consultation with a supervisor or MDT could occur.  The overall increase in volume of child welfare calls also influenced the screening supervisor's in making a sacrifice decision for staff to prioritize the completion of workload tasks over attending training.  Furthermore, the high volume of calls taken by screeners reduced the time and opportunity to utilize a MDT or supervisor for consultation further explaining this intake being placed in pending status until consultation with a MDT or supervisor could occur.","Short_Answer__323":"Signs of abuse previously identified by child care facility were not reported to child protection.","Free_Text__324":"No debriefing took place on this finding.","Free_Text__325":"Barriers to reporting signs of child abuse by the child care facility may have been influenced by the fear of retaliation by caregivers of the child which could include caregivers removing their child from the agency.  The decision to not report previous signs of abuse may have been further impacted by an overall distrust of the child protection system, as some child care facilities perceive that nothing is done when they do report child abuse and neglect. Often times the relationship that is developed between caregivers and child care staff influences staff's mental model of when to make child protection reports as to not second guess the parent's explanation of how injuries occurred, further justifying staff's decisions to not report signs of suspected child abuse.  The cumbersome process of calling to report child abuse that includes long waits and calls being held in the que for lengthy periods of time also affects child care agencies not reporting signs of suspected abuse and neglect to the local agency.","Multiple_Choice__346":"2","Free_Text__347":"Finding 3: Often times the relationship that is developed between caregivers and child care staff influences staff's mental model of when to make child protection reports as to not second guess the parent's explanation of how injuries occurred, further justifying staff's decisions to not report signs of suspected child abuse.","Multiple_Choice__348":"1","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"2","Free_Text__355":"Finding 3: The decision to not report previous signs of abuse may have been further impacted by an overall distrust of the child protection system, as some child care facilities perceive that nothing is done when they do report child abuse and neglect.","Multiple_Choice__356":"3","Free_Text__357":"Finding 2: As a result of the increased volume of child welfare calls received by the agency during this time and the demand to thoroughly complete all intake and screening related tasks staff had less time available to attend training to understand the complexities of child protection screening decisions.","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"2","Free_Text__359":"Finding 2: The worker's limited experience with child abuse reports to understand the complexities of screening decisions and inconsistent policy guidance provided by the Minnesota Department of Human Services influenced the intake being placed in pending status for 22 hours.","Multiple_Choice__360":"2","Free_Text__361":"Finding 1: The agency's procedural adaptation of allowing screeners to discretionarily consult with a MDT or supervisor which deviates from state policy was governed by an overall increase in screening staff's workload, affecting staff's time to access and utilize a MDT or supervisor for screening consultation.\r\n\r\nFinding 2: The overall increase in volume of child welfare calls also influenced the screening supervisor's in making a sacrifice decision for staff to prioritize the completion of workload tasks over attending training.  Furthermore, the high volume of calls taken by screeners reduced the time and opportunity to utilize a MDT or supervisor for consultation further justifying this intake being placed in pending status until consultation with a MDT or supervisor could occur","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"2","Free_Text__365":"Finding 1: Supervisor availability was impacted by increased workload demands, which includes the number of staff supervised, a meeting culture in the agency, which impacts their availability due to attending multiple meetings per week, and only two supervisors being on per shift.","Multiple_Choice__366":"2","Free_Text__367":"Finding 1: The agency's procedural adaptation of allowing screeners to discretionarily consult with a MDT or supervisor which deviates from state policy was governed by an overall increase in screening staff's workload, affecting staff's time to access and utilize a MDT or supervisor for screening consultation.\r\n\r\nFinding 2: The high volume of calls taken by screeners reduced the time and opportunity to utilize a MDT or supervisor for consultation further justifying this intake being placed in pending status until consultation with a MDT or supervisor could occur.","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}