{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Kristine Frick","Short_Answer__292":"Tiffany Kacir","Date__293":"09\/28\/2018","Multiple_Choice__294":"Near Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"2","Multiple_Choice__301":"St. Louis","Short_Answer__303":"Chase","Short_Answer__304":"Rumpel","Date__305":"12\/04\/2011","Date__307":"08\/28\/2018","Multiple_Choice__308":"7 Years","Multiple_Choice__309":"1","Short_Answer__310":"Father","Multiple_Choice__316":"2","Short_Answer__317":"The caregiver father was not involved in safety planning.","Free_Text__318":"Debrief #1 with staff:\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tStaff were aware of the family and chronic pattern of reports made for neglect \u00e2\u20ac\u201c inadequate supervision. There was constant work being done with the family for the same issue. \r\no\tInitial perception was that neighbors did not like the family and were making reports.\r\no\tFamily lived in a home in the outskirts of the city, a location where child protection reports are not commonly received by the agency. \r\no\tFamily had some support from grandmothers, but were mostly isolated from supports\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tDuring the Family Assessment safety planning was more informal versus formal. \r\no\tSafety 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. \r\no\tThe father was difficult to engage (i.e. would not answer the door, did not trust law enforcement or social services, etc).\r\no\tWhen contact was made with the father he denied\/ minimized the allegation, blamed neighbors for targeting him, etc.\r\no\tStaff utilized family assessment approach, letters, phone calls, leaving business card in door at the home, make contact with children at the school\r\no\tThe 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. \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tStaff prioritized putting in safety measures\r\no\tPurchasing and installing of child window and door locks and alarms.\r\no\tKept case open longer in assessment to monitor effectiveness of safety plan and parents' capacity to use the safety measure and follow the safety plan. \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tParents protective capacities to manage the children's behaviors was being monitored, as was the parents' mentality to enforce the safety measures\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tThe parents would \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcdo their own thing' and the children would be allowed to \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcdo what they wanted'.  \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tAware of older 14 year old sibling babysitting the children, where she reported no concerns for inadequate supervision at the time. \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tDidn't provide any services or interventions to parents for this at the time.\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tThe local agency initiative was to use Signs of Safety and Safety Organized Practice.\r\no\tSafety organized practice safety planning is more focused on participation, follow through by the family and workers; More accountability for all.\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tAt the time, the staff was most senior worker on the team (3 years of experience)\r\no\tHigher caseload of 30-40 cases\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tMost of the staff's cases were Investigations (sex abuse, egregious harm, birth matches) requiring 24-hour response\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tThis was FA and chronic neglect- shaped perception that not as high risk and had to prioritize investigations with 24 hour response\/higher risk \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tOutside pressure from two major hospitals in the county on multiple birth match cases to have discharge safety plans established for newborns right away.\r\no\tNew influx of new hire staff joining the workforce\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tAs an experienced staff, the staff was providing on the on the job training for new hires\r\no\tCases were assigned based by workers volunteering to take them from screeners\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tMore experienced staff take complex case assignments \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tStaff would take cases in which she was familiar with the family\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tLess time reviewing history since aware of it\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tNew 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\r\nDebrief #2 with supervisor: \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tSupervisor 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. \r\no\tRecalls 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. \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tLots of tools available for staff and challenge in understanding how to use them.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tEfforts made to educate caregivers about the danger associated with the inadequate supervision allegation.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tMonitoring the family's ability to help resolve safety concerns and enforce safety plan.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tStaff conduct safety planning in the field, talk about bottom lines with caregivers, what the worries are, and who is responsible to address concerns.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tStaff discuss support networks with the families in the field.\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tIn 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. \r\no\tSometimes formal safety planners can be brought in at time of intake as a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153rapid response\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to high risk cases.  \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\t2 staff work this role for all children and families services provided by the agency.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tReferrals for utilizing safety planner is informal, request a meeting and is based on availability of the safety planners\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tThere is not an established protocol when to request a safety planner, more upon a staff's request.","Short_Answer__320":"At close of family assessment, result of risk assessment was \u00e2\u20ac\u02dchigh', and ongoing CP case management was marked not needed\/family support services were not requested.","Free_Text__321":"Debrief #1 with staff:\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tLot of changes occurring in the agency at that time\r\no\t3 different directors in the previous year \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tBrought about a lot of changes to agency initiatives\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tFocus at the time was to focus on child safety and engagement\/ working with the family to establish safety plans, and for staff to monitor the parents enforcing of the developed safety plan over time, and its effectiveness.\r\no\tInflux in hiring new staff from new sources of funding\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tHiring of several new staff (8-9) to Investigation\/Assessment unit\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tMany of them had to attend CORE training first 2-3 months and not available to take cases\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tStaff serving as peer mentor and only had 3 years of experience\r\no\tUnit was spilt up and had 2 supervisors, one supervisor was new\r\no\tSupervisors were being pulled away for agency meetings and were less available for direct consulting\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tPeer to peer consulting occurred most often versus supervisor consults \r\no\tHigh caseloads\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tEfficiency trade-off for closing cases: only looked at bare minimum of why case was brought in and if safety issues were \u00e2\u20ac\u0153remedied\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tFamily Support Services were in place already when staff completed some family assessments with the family. \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tHigh risk cases were staffed with the supervisor and County Attorney but was difficult to do at this time due to limited availability of new supervisors and all the changes.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tSupervisors were scrambling to prioritize all their own workloads\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tThere was a less formal process in how to staff high risk cases with County Attorney during this time period than currently (agency has weekly time held for County Attorney consults for staffing high risk cases). \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tSolo staffing with County Attorney happened \u00e2\u20ac\u0153on the fly\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Staff was allowed to close the FA following consult as the case didn't meet the threshold for Court intervention \u00e2\u20ac\u201c CHIPS.\r\no\tStaff was not as aware or did not possess the same knowledge possesses now about the whole \u00e2\u20ac\u0153child protection process\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, from intake, assessment\/investigation, case management.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tHow to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153set up a case\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for ongoing case management services and safety planning resources available, what services are available and how to refer for services\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tWhat resources are available for safety planning through formal court intervention\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tStaff noted that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153root of the family issues were not able to get solved\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and identifying the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153right intervention, resources, consults needed, and understand the family's ability to follow through\u00e2\u20ac\u009d wasn't able to happen at the time.\r\nDebrief #2 with supervisor:\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tLot of changes occurring in the agency during this time, and it was a very overwhelming time for the supervisor.\r\no\tSupervisor had 7 \u00c2\u00bd years work experience in the intake\/screening area, time in adoptions and then left the agency for 2 years. \r\no\tUpon return to the agency, so much had changed. Recalls there being so much turnover. \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tSupervisor transitioning adoptions caseload while taking on new Supervisor role. \r\no\tSupervising high number of staff, averaging 15 per supervisor\r\no\tIn charge of coordination efforts with law enforcement and Children and Family Services Clerical support (clerk) staff, and triaging intake and screening needs. \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tHiring new staff was constant\r\no\tSenior workers were moving into different positions\r\no\tHad to hire new staff, fill 8-9 positions due to increase agency received in funding at this time to increase workforce capacity.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tHad to use Merit system and as new supervisor had to learn all the regulations and rules to follow and how to navigate the Merit System, along with the local agencies the civil system (two systems to navigate). \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tThere was no training for this. \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tSpent a lot of time interviewing for new hires\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tTook time away from being available to staff for consulting\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tWhen did meet with staff it was briefer check-ins \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tOften felt \u00e2\u20ac\u0153triaging\u00e2\u20ac\u009d situations and making decisions quickly\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tAlways feeling the need for more 1 on 1 time with staff and wanting to be more available to consult on cases.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tWent 7 months without a clerk \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tLead to inefficiencies routing calls into the agency\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tBecame issue for supervisor to resolve \u00e2\u20ac\u201c took more attention away from supervising.\r\no\tStaff was (currently is) supervising 15 staff\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tLittle time available for regular one to one supervision\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tRecognizes the nature of the job creates environment for high burnout of employees and is always trying to combat this, and nurture them so they will stay.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tGrateful the agency created lead worker position and this bringing the supervisor some support in supervising staff\r\no\tStaff carrying high caseloads\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tDoubled the number of intakes during that time\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tImpacted by new and changes to screening guidance\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tMore 24 hour responses\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tStaff would normally consult Supervisor on high risk cases before closure.\r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tConsulting County Attorney was not always necessary and was not normative practice.\r\no\tModerate or high risk cases not always meet threshold for CP ongoing case management. \r\no\tWhen caregivers are not motivated to comply, making them with a court order can result in minimal engagement. \r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tAdditionally formal court intervention not always the best option, because when threshold is not met after starting CHIPS process, and case gets dismissed anyways, there are no grounds to work with the family, and have to close the case.  \r\no\tBetter to strategize how to get family buy in to be more involved in safety planning and working collaboratively with child protection without court intervention (i.e. voluntarily). \r\no\tFamily has a choice to engage. \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tSupervisor didn't have a lot of time to review cases for closure especially balancing the demand of onboarding so many new staff \r\no\tRequested creation of lead staff \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tSupervisor had discretion, interpretation of case dynamics from staff consults and reviewed results of SDM tools.\r\n\u00ef\u201a\u00a7\tMany cases were not transitioned into ongoing case management\/ family support services.","Yes_or_No__370":"No"}