{"report_id":244,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"359","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Learning Point 1:\r\nThere was also an allocation of funds from the legislature based on performance, monitored by DHS, which reinforced the worker prioritizing timely face-to-face contacts for other cases on her caseload.  Also in existence was a perception that face-to-face timelines apply to victims only, and not to caregivers.  This perception was influenced by the pressure the agency felt from the media and the public regarding an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all or nothing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d mentality, as well as the 100% compliance measure for face-to-face contact, which included a public facing dashboard that was set by DHS, placing additional pressure on the local agency to meet this compliance measure.\r\n\r\nLearning Point 2:\r\nAdditionally influencing an in-home safety plan and family arrangement being made was the fact that there is a push from state statute (260C.181 Subd. 2) and DHS guidance to utilize least restrictive placement options prior to placement if possible.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:00:51 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:00:51 am","id":27162}