{"report_id":264,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"321","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"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.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:41:35 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:41:35 am","id":28560}