{"report_id":264,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"318","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"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.","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":28557}