{"id":351,"form_id":"22","user_id":"92","question_id":null,"organization_id":"13","tab_id":null,"question_type":null,"text_answer":"{\"Multiple_Choice__291\":\"Kristine Frick\",\"Short_Answer__292\":\"Lynn Shafer\",\"Date__293\":\"09\\\/21\\\/2016\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Near Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"No\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"8\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Hennepin\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Rainy\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Darden\",\"Date__305\":\"09\\\/17\\\/2016\",\"Date__307\":\"09\\\/17\\\/2016\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"<1 Month\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Mother\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"CP Intake was not made for allegation of neglect (failure to protect from serious endangerment) to subject child's half-brother by Aunt's former husband in the 3\\\/30\\\/15 -CP Family Assessment.\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"Information obtained during the Debrief regarding Learning Point:\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tFamily dynamics are convoluted and intertwined coupled by SSIS database challenges \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tComplexity of family dynamics impacted how to document in SSIS, along with two family assessments overlapping.  \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tCP Intake sets up the participants and victim children in SSIS\\r\\no\\tCP intake came in around 4pm on Friday (03\\\/27). The CP intake was entered into SSIS and screened in for family assessment on Monday (03\\\/30). \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tKnowledge of complex social services history for subject child's half-brother was limited by accessibility of intakes and workgroups as all of them do not appear in the \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u02dcassociated workgroups feature' of SSIS.  \\r\\no\\tNot associated because documented under the legal guardian, which was the subject child's half-brother's deceased grandmother \\r\\no\\tMNCIS was used, MGA Court Records online did not exist in 2015\\r\\no\\tProcess of accessing court documents for subject child's half-brother entailed calling the clerk, who could sometimes find requested information, but sometimes could not. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tBelief about family assessments being less severe allegations and lower safety risk, a softer approach, and perceived to be voluntary work with families, similar to PSOP cases. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tBecause maltreatment determinations are not made for family assessments, attention was on providing services to the family, especially legal permanency for the subject child's half-brother through guardianship with his Aunt.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThis family assessment was lower priority on workers caseload due to the nature of the allegations, perception of family assessment being voluntary, and that there was a family assessment workgroup open with the subject child's half-brother already (opened on March 4), where the professional was already providing services regarding legal permanency. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe subject child's half-brother was included as a participant on the FA, therefore the he would qualify for CP Family Assessment - Case Management. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tGuidance on how to add victim child and\\\/or allegation to a victim child in an already open FA\\\/FI had changed around March 2015, it did not make sense to the professional to make a new CP report for allegation of neglect (failure to protect from serious endangerment) to subject child's half-brother by Aunt's former husband. \\r\\no\\tTime and attention to the new guidance about how to document in SSIS was not priority for the professional because the goal was to work with the family to address needs and provide services. \\r\\no\\tThe professional believed the Aunt was following through with expectations in regard to establishing legal permanency for the subject child's half-brother. \\r\\no\\tIt did not make sense to make a CP intake because it would have been documented under the deceased grandmother's name and the professional would have to duplicate documentation between the workgroups. This would have been time intensive and hard for the professional to track. \\r\\no\\tThe workaround met the goal of getting the child and family the services they needed, and did not require the worker to document in two separate family assessment workgroups.\\r\\n\\u00ef\\u201a\\u00a7\\tLess confusing since would have had to document under the deceased grandmother in SSIS\\r\\no\\tThe SSIS technicality was not priority. \\r\\n\\u00ef\\u201a\\u00a7\\tMondays were especially stressful for assessment workers\\\/investigators, because the intake backlog from Friday late afternoon and over the weekend was entered and distributed amongst the assessment\\\/investigation units for assignment to assessment workers\\\/investigators.\\r\\n\\u00ef\\u201a\\u00a7\\tThere was a significant amount of family assessments\\\/investigations backlogged and ready to be assigned as well. There were not enough assessment workers\\\/investigators available to work the influx number of cases being screened in. \\r\\n\\u00ef\\u201a\\u00a7\\tThe time to juggle notes back and forth in SSIS for companion cases would not have been productive given the totality of the circumstances.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"SCIR Narrative - Hennepin County\\r\\nLP: CP intake was not made for allegation of neglect (failure to protect from serious endangerment) to subject child's half-brother by Aunt's former husband in the 3\\\/30\\\/2015 CP Family Assessment.\\r\\nIn March 2015, resource constraints existed for the local agency. The local agency was overwhelmed with reports being made to the child protection (CP) system, resulting in an influx of CP intake reports, approximately 400, backlogged and waiting to be screened. Family assessment (FA) and investigations also had a backlog of cases pending assignment to staff. While triaging priority for case assignment from the backlogs, the agency concurrently experienced production pressure to meet data metrics for the amount of reports receiving FA response. Local agencies were not only motivated to comply and meet a certain percentage rate conveyed by the state, but also to produce a successful percentage rate, as the results of the agency's success was published in a formal report, released by the state for all local agencies to see the results, intensifying the pressure for the local agency to meet this demand. \\r\\nStaying aware of new DHS guidance changes and having the time to comprehend how to implement them, was a duty that staff were not always able to stay up-to-date on.  The amount changes being made to state guidance, stemming from the Governor's Task Force recommendations, along with high caseload sizes, there was not time to learn the new technical guidance. Trying to meet timelines for cases backlogged in the intake\\\/screening and assessment\\\/investigation units was prioritized and the main focus of the agency.\\r\\nStaff were faced with a goal conflict, to work the case in accordance to local agency normative practice and expected family assessment response best practice guidance (engagement with children and families to meet their needs), versus following the DHS technical requirement to document a new CP Intake for new allegations. Knowing that documenting the CP Intake would contribute to the backlog and not change the course of work with the family influenced the local agency's decision to prioritize family engagement over the documentation requirement.  Additionally, there was a belief about neglect being viewed as a less severe allegation.  The belief was that safety risk was lower than other allegations and neglect reports commonly were assigned FA response. This notion combined with the fact that less attention was paid to the allegation details and identifying victim children in family assessment cases, since maltreatment determinations are not made in family assessment response, supported decision not to make a new CP report as well. Instead staff prioritized engagement, assessing safety, risk, needs and recommending services for the family. Ultimately, the documentation requirement is\\\/was not aligned with the work the staff were conducting with the family in an already open family assessment workgroup (opened on 03\\\/04\\\/2015) and the child was able to continue receiving CP Case Management (field services).\\r\\nWhen staff received a new case assignment, they took the report at face value, trusting how the allegations and victim children were identified and documented in the CP intake by the CP intake worker. A procedural adaptation was made to not document the allegation of neglect under the deceased grandmother's name in a new CP intake in SSIS in order to cope with production pressure and efficiently manage worker caseload. Additionally, the staff believed the Aunt would follow through and complete establishing legal custody for the child. Making a new CP report for the neglect allegation (labelling the intake and workgroup under the maternal grandmother's name in SSIS), did not align with the trajectory of work being completed with the family at the time. There was not a feature in SSIS available to link workgroups when they are labelled under different names, and duplicating documentation of same information in separate workgroups in SSIS was time intensive for staff. This enhanced the agency's decision to make the procedural adaptation.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__347\":\"Local agency belief about allegation of neglect and FA response being less severe. Additionally, there was a belief about neglect being viewed as a less severe allegation. The belief was that safety risk was lower than other allegations and neglect reports commonly were assigned FA response. This notion combined with the fact that less attention was paid to the allegation details and identifying victim children in family assessment cases, since maltreatment determinations are not made in family assessment response, supported decision not to make a new CP report as well.\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__349\":\"The local agency was overwhelmed with reports being made to the child protection (CP) system, resulting in an influx of CP intake reports, approximately 400, backlogged and waiting to be screened.\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__353\":\"Ultimately, the documentation requirement is\\\/was not aligned with the work the staff were conducting with the family in an already open family assessment workgroup (opened on 03\\\/04\\\/2015) and the child was able to continue receiving CP Case Management (field services).\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"-Staying aware of new DHS guidance changes and having the time to comprehend how to implement them, was a duty that staff were not always able to stay up-to-date on.  The amount changes being made to state guidance, stemming from the Governor's Task Force recommendations, along with high caseload sizes, there was not time to learn the new technical guidance. Trying to meet timelines for cases backlogged in the intake\\\/screening and assessment\\\/investigation units was prioritized and the main focus of the agency.\\r\\n\\r\\n-Staff were faced with a goal conflict, to work the case in accordance to local agency normative practice and expected family assessment response best practice guidance (engagement with children and families to meet their needs), versus following the DHS technical requirement to document a new CP Intake for new allegations.\\r\\n\\r\\n-Ultimately, the documentation requirement is\\\/was not aligned with the work the staff were conducting with the family in an already open family assessment workgroup (opened on 03\\\/04\\\/2015) and the child was able to continue receiving CP Case Management (field services).\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__361\":\"While triaging priority for case assignment from the backlogs, the agency concurrently experienced production pressure to meet data metrics for the amount of reports receiving FA response. Local agencies were not only motivated to comply and meet a certain percentage rate conveyed by the state, but also to produce a successful percentage rate, as the results of the agency\\u2019s success was published in a formal report, released by the state for all local agencies to see the results, intensifying the pressure for the local agency to meet this demand. The amount changes being made to state guidance, stemming from the Governors Task Force recommendations, along with high caseload sizes, there was not time to learn the new technical guidance Knowing that documenting the CP Intake would contribute to the backlog and not change the course of work with the family influenced the local agency\\u2019s decision to prioritize family engagement over the documentation requirement.\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"1\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__367\":\"A procedural adaptation was made to not document the allegation of neglect under the deceased grandmother's name in a new CP intake in SSIS in order to cope with production pressure and efficiently manage worker caseload. Additionally, the staff believed the Aunt would follow through and complete establishing legal custody for the child. Making a new CP report for the neglect allegation (labelling the intake and workgroup under the maternal grandmother's name in SSIS), did not align with the trajectory of work being completed with the family at the time. There was not a feature in SSIS available to link workgroups when they are labelled under different names, and duplicating documentation of same information in separate workgroups in SSIS was time intensive for staff. This enhanced the agency's decision to make the procedural adaptation.\",\"Yes_or_No__370\":\"Yes\"}","mcq_answer":null,"other_answer":"0","status":"1","created_by":"92","updated_by":81,"created_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:33:23 pm","updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:53:30 pm","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Rainy Darden"}