{"report_id":326,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"322","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Active Efforts, in accordance with ICWA\/MIFPA, not being made; specifically to preserving connections to the child's culture and Tribe, as well as active efforts to engage the Tribe and family members as support and as permanency options were influenced by the perception that active efforts requirements are not the responsibility of children's mental health staff.  In cases such as this when it is a voluntary children's mental health case and a contracted children's mental health worker is assigned to the case, it is normative practice that staff's primary focus of attention is to support the mental health needs of the identified child.  This perception is supported by the coordination of guidance around active efforts requirements between DHS's Children's Mental Health Division and DHS's Child Safety and Permanency Division.  Until recently, coordination between Divisions has been minimal with regards to guidance around active efforts requirements.  This has contributed to ambiguity in guidance and staff not wanting to overstep boundaries and roles that can exist between child protection and children's mental health case management within local social service agencies in cases such as this one.  The coordination of guidance around role responsibilities of child protection workers and children's mental health staff has been further impacted by the resources (staff) available at DHS within the Child Safety and Permanency Division and other areas to provide guidance and training around active efforts. \r\nFurthermore, it isn't typical practice for contracted children's mental health staff to transport family members or arrange for or provide transportation for visitation of family members when a child is in treatment which constitutes active efforts. Impacting staff not transporting family members is that it can be a contracted provider agency's policy such as in this case to not allow workers to transport family members of clients.  Further impacting connection to the subject child's Tribe, community, and culture was that the staff did not perceive supporting mom and other relatives in both visitation and connection with the subject child, as well as engaging the Tribe in the subject child's treatment to be within their scope of work with Children's Mental Health cases.  Often, Children's Mental Health staff operate with the belief that this is child protection's responsibility.  \r\nAn additional influence to active efforts not being made can be staff's comfort level to learn about, explore, and expose themselves to others' cultural frameworks such as in Native American cultures.  This can impact keeping Native American children connected and engaged with cultural activities such as Pow Wows and other cultural practices.  This comfort level is influenced by several factors.  There are often agency\/union policies that don't allow attending such activities with clients on the weekends and after traditional business hours as this can pose risks and liabilities to the agency. This can be further supported by not having the space (emotional) to engage in these activities with clients and not having the knowledge of where to locate such activities.  Self-preservation with regards to both personal and professional boundaries can also impact staff engaging in cultural activities with clients that support active efforts.  Staff also noted that their own lack of understanding and not wanting to offend Native American clients further impacts the comfort level to explore cultural differences.  Lastly, staff's own cultural differences and broader sense of culture can further impact exploration of other cultures influencing how Native American children are being supported to stay connected with their Tribe and culture.\r\nAlso, there was a perception among staff that all relatives known to the agency had engaged in some type of abusive or neglectful behaviors toward the subject child supporting staff's decision to not actively engage other known family members. Staff's mental model of traditional funeral practices and conditions created by poverty (moving from house to house, eating gas station food, etc.) may have been perceived as neglectful when the child was home with relatives. This may have further impacted the engagement of relatives and other tribal members as supports or placement options for the subject child.\r\nAn additional factor that influences when active efforts are not made is that staff have the perception that they are meeting ICWA\/MIFPA requirements when the Judge rules that active efforts have been achieved.  Varying levels of understanding and knowledge regarding fulfillment of ICWA\/MIFPA requirements by Judges further supports active efforts not being met when the court rules that active efforts have been made when they may not have not been in accordance with ICWA\/MIFPA.  Communication gaps between DHS and local agencies has resulted in changes being made that were not fully communicated around active effort requirements have further impacted the implementation and interpretation of active efforts requirements by local agencies.  Funding also influences active efforts not being achieved as additional resources have not been allocated to both the local agencies and Tribes to ensure additional active effort requirements are fulfilled.  For example, there has not been any additional funding provided to Tribes to support Tribal Child Welfare infrastructure in being able to meet the demands of the county agencies state and federal requirements. The additional requirements have placed demands on both the local agencies and Tribes in which both agencies struggle to have the resources to ensure active efforts are met on all cases.  \r\n\r\nAn additional factor contributing to active efforts not being fulfilled is that staff have less time to complete active effort activities due to needing to prioritize and complete the significant amount documentation for all cases, including the documentation of active efforts.  Redundancies in documentation requirements increase the amount of time needed to document active efforts.  \r\n\r\nFurther impacting active efforts not being made in this case was that the subject child reported that she was not connected to the Tribe and her mother reported being somewhat connected to the Tribe.  Normative practice for local agencies is to defer to the family regarding their involvement with the Tribe and the connection that they have to their culture.  Different interpretations around active efforts in such circumstances supports why staff perceive once someone says they are not connected to his\/her Tribe that staff stop pursing this with the client.    This can make it challenging to try and engage the Tribe and support the family in connecting with their culture and Tribe if they indicate they are not connected. Staff noted that it can be difficult to engage families with their culture when not connected before they are involved with child protection. \r\nFurthermore, barriers also occurred in this case in communicating with the Tribe as the Tribal worker is very hard to reach as her availability is limited due to the scope of responsibility placed on her.  She is responsible for the Tribes Child Protection Services as well as the out of state ICWA cases and is therefore in high demand.  As a result, the local agency was unable to obtain any additional names of relative tribal members that may be able to care for the subject child or keep her connected to her Tribe.  \r\n\r\nAn additional influence into not being able to achieve active efforts is knowing who to go to at the Tribe and what constitutes active efforts.  This is impacted by local agencies knowledge of ICWA\/MIFPA and who the Tribal contacts are for ICWA\/MIPFPA cases.  The communication gap from DHS around revisions regarding implementation of state changes has impacted local agencies knowledge of requirements which can create further create challenges on what to do to ensure active efforts are met.  \r\n\r\nLastly, when this case was assigned to staff in 2015 a knowledge gap existed as this was staff's first child protection case and first ICWA case.  There was limited guidance on ICWA cases during this time, further impacting the achievement of active efforts not being made.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:16:53 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:16:53 pm","id":33380}