{"report_id":361,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The agency documenting that maltreatment was determined however no formal maltreatment determination being made was influenced by multiple systemic contributions. These included the worker being new to the position, supervisor availability, external pressure and accessibility to training. The agency was experiencing high ongoing worker caseloads and subsequently, high worker turnover due to work demands. This turnover and available openings in field unit influenced the agency to make field-related case work a priority in the Induction Unit (training unit for new staff). As a result of this emphasis, Induction Unit staff did not receive specialized training on how to conduct investigations. This was the worker's first solo investigation case after leaving the Induction Unit. The worker also hadn't completed Foundations Training where a more comprehensive training on completing investigations occurs. Circumstances around the time of the Governor's Task force influenced long waitlist for Foundations Training. Not being able to attend Foundation Training as a result of the waitlist further impacted the worker's unfamiliarity with the investigations process. \r\n\r\nOnce investigations are completed, there was a process in the agency where cases needed to be reviewed by supervisors to ensure the case was completed accurately. This process was delayed as supervisors also had competing demands. They were balancing meetings and committee attendance with supervision and consultation for staff. This resulted in less time for supervisors to engage in case compliance\/oversight.\r\n\r\nDuring this time, the Governor's Task Force had recently made many recommendations regarding CW (child welfare) practice in the State. These recommendations, including new intake screening guidelines, resulted in more cases being screened in and additional media attention and community group scrutiny on the CW system. This, coupled with the Federal CFSR and subsequent PIP's, put pressure on managers and supervisors to implement change. This pressure was then overtly put on the worker completing the investigation to be more efficient.\r\n\r\nWith the agency staff being new to the CW system, the worker had minimal familiarity with the SSIS system and had only one day of training on the use of SSIS. The unfamiliarity with the system led to the staff making the assumption that she had clicked \u00e2\u20ac\u0153yes\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that maltreatment was determined.  The worker shared that her intentions were to click \u00e2\u20ac\u0153yes\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in SSIS to indicate maltreatment was found; however, she clicked \u00e2\u20ac\u0153no\u00e2\u20ac\u009d instead. As a result of clicking \u00e2\u20ac\u0153no\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, SSIS generated a Notice of Determination (NOD) letter that stated that maltreatment did not occur. When this document is generated by the SSIS system, the only thing a worker must do is put in the allegation detail and the final letter is created.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 3:19:42 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 3:19:42 pm","id":36096}