{"report_id":333,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"An accepted procedural drift away from guidance to not close the family's workgroup within 45 days, influenced the two CP intakes (not same or similar allegations) to be referred to the open workgroup in SSIS. Considering the new allegations and information within the CP intakes was learned and being documented by the frontline staff working with the family, the agency's decision to prioritize continuity of care for the children and family was made, versus opening a new assessment for the allegations as the frontline staff already had the knowledge regarding the new allegations, as he\/she reported them.\r\n\r\nLocal agency practice within the intake and screening unit considers the totality of the circumstances, and has discretion to either open a new workgroup if an already open assessment\/investigation is near 45 days, or they can refer to the current workgroup when an assessment\/investigation is not closed. Commonly, the intake and screening unit consults with the Family Assessment\/Family Investigation (FA\/FI) unit, and refers CP intakes to the same FA\/FI unit who has a frontline staff already assigned and actively working with the family in an open workgroup. Priority is placed on continuity of care for the family, regardless if the workgroup is near the 45 day case closure timeline. This agency practice of one frontline assessment\/investigation staff assigned to work all allegations, beyond the 45 day case closure timeline, is a procedural adaptation that is viewed as best practice and a strength, as it is client focused and reduces trauma for families coping with child protection involvement in their lives. The sacrifice decision to not meet the 45 day compliance measure, was perceived to ease the pressure of needing to meet face to face timelines for allegations referred to an open assessment\/investigation, as staff believed SSIS reports only track face to face compliance for the first screened in CP Intake, and not for any others in which are referred to an already open workgroup. This workaround was believed to not impact face to face contact requirements that was tied to the legislative withhold funding when face to face compliance metrics are not met by the agency.  \r\n\r\nDocumentation practices are also simplified and more efficient for one frontline staff when they can chronologically document the information they are learning about the family under one workgroup over time. The tradeoff decision to not open an additional workgroup as a result of the new allegations that were made near the 45 day timeframe was made because with every new workgroup opened, there are a multitude of tasks to complete and document in SSIS (i.e. Safety Decision Making tools, ICWA screening tools, etc.). In effort to reduce workload tasks and requirements driven by both MN Statues\/Admin Rule and DHS guidance around the requirements for assessment and investigations, avoiding duplication of the same information being documented in multiple places better supports frontline staff's daily work as well as the agency's ability to retain staff and reduce turnover.\r\nResearch and best practice around continuity of care resulting in safe and healthy outcomes for children and families presented a competing priority and pressure for the local agency to adapt to in this case. Furthermore, this research and best practice presents a goal conflict for child welfare staff regarding the need for pursing the continuity of care while simultaneously trying to meet the requirements to open and document new CP intakes and allegations on the same family. In cases such as this a procedural adaptation was made by the local agency to refer the CP intakes to the open workgroup (although near the 45 day timeline) to support continuity of care for the family.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:24:46 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:24:46 pm","id":33853}