{"id":311,"form_id":"22","user_id":"90","question_id":null,"organization_id":"13","tab_id":null,"question_type":null,"text_answer":"{\"Multiple_Choice__291\":\"Ryan Hartneck\",\"Short_Answer__292\":\"Meg Carriveau\",\"Date__293\":\"09\\\/27\\\/2016\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"No\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"8\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Hennepin\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Lamel\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Stewart\",\"Date__305\":\"04\\\/06\\\/2015\",\"Date__306\":\"07\\\/04\\\/2015\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"3 Months\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"2\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Mother\",\"Short_Answer__311\":\"Mother's partner\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"2\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"24 hour Face to Face timelines not met after screen-in of 24 hour response sexual abuse allegations (Hennepin Co)\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"Information obtained during the debrief was minimal due to the length of time that has passed since those events occurred. However, it was noted by one of the staff debriefed that it was a difficult time due to having multiple high-profile cases and upwards of 25 investigations\\\/assessments on their caseload. The child was also no longer in the care of his father when either of the sexual abuse reports were made and screened in (with grandmother for the 8\\\/15\\\/15 report and at a residential treatment center at the time of the 2\\\/10\\\/16 report). Additionally, at the time that the 2\\\/10\\\/16 report was forwarded to the investigator, she had seen the child just 3 days prior.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"The agency staff not making 24 hour face to face timelines was influenced by the worker already having an open case at the time. When the new report came in, the worker had seen the child just 3 days prior. The child was identified as safe at the time and additionally, the child was not with the alleged perpetrator and thus in no imminent harm. Also, the child's location was a significant distance from the staff's office, further supporting the decision to not go back out to the child's home to make timelines. Due to the nature of the child's injury, multiple law enforcement agencies were involved resulting in additional coordination time being needed to move through the investigation. Law enforcement's homicide unit was also involved and the agency was asked to not interview the child. As a result of the implementation of the Governor's Task Force recommendations, there was increased media coverage and a subsequent public perception that the child protection system failed. This perception led to staff movement within the agency and also increased turnover. This turnover and staff movement increased caseload levels, further impacting the worker needing to prioritize other cases in which safety and risk concerns were more imminent, especially given that the staff had just seen the child 3 days prior. \\r\\nAs a consequence of heightened media coverage, there was additional oversight by DHS on high profile cases and thus, more oversight by the local agency administration (managers, supervisors, County Attorney's, etc.). This additional oversight then resulted in more consult time needed as there were more people involved in high profile cases. The additional time needed for this further exacerbated the worker's ability to complete case duties.  As a result, staff needed to prioritize their time to best meet the needs of the families they were working with, and since the worker had seen the child just 3 days earlier, and identified the child as safe, the worker prioritized other more pressing caseload demands rather than going out again to make timelines.\",\"Short_Answer__320\":\"Family Assessment was not closed within the 45 day timeframe (Anoka Co)\",\"Free_Text__321\":\"Staff identified that the amount of paperwork needed to complete an assessment influences delays in getting workgroups closed. This paperwork includes writing assessment summaries for every assessment or investigation that is completed, and often times these take considerable amount of time to complete. SSIS is also cumbersome, with a lot of clicks to complete everything needed to work on and subsequently close an assessment. During the time that the worker was working with the family on the CP Assessment (FA), an additional CP intake was received that was screened in for CP Family Investigation (FI) response. Due to the worker having an open assessment with the family, the case was assigned to this same worker for the Family Investigation. The worker reported that the FI response took precedence while the FA stayed open. Both were closed at essentially the same time in mid-October. Lastly, the worker shared that when completing an assessment with a family, knowing that Case management services will not be necessary, staff will often do case management-like services with the family and keep the assessment open a little longer to provide the family with what they need to ensure safety. It was also shared that the Agency has a philosophy that you serve and provide the family with what they need, even if that means that the assessment is open longer than the 45 day timeframe.\",\"Free_Text__322\":\"The family assessment not closing within 45 day timelines was influenced by the amount of work needed to complete assessments, SSIS functions, prioritization of cases and family-centered work. Agency staff primarily identified that the amount of work to close assessment cases was a contributing factor in this assessment not closing on time. Both paper and SSIS tasks were stated to be barriers as SSIS requires many clicks to complete an assessment, including redundancies, such as ICWA documentation and limitations within the system such as FA and FI workgroups not being allowed to exist together (within one workgroup). This results in duplication of work as an FA and FI were both being worked by the same staff and separate case summaries to be written on each workgroup. Within this, the worker was prioritizing the FI work in order to meet the more pressing issues that arose within the FI workgroup. \\r\\nAlso, the Federal PIP (Program Improvement Plan) requirements and State CFSR reviews resulted in the local agency having additional requirements needing to be completed to close out cases, including those contained within the PIP that resulted from the state CFSR's agency review. Recent high profiles cases had also increased the amount of work needed to close out cases. The increased media coverage due to high profile cases (including subsequent lawsuits) had resulted in defensive practices. This has an adverse effect on closing cases timely as there had been additional oversight protocols, including the need for supervisor consult\\\/review needed to close a case put in place, to ensure consistency in work practices. \\r\\nFinally, the agency culture supports working to serve families what they need, regardless of timelines. This trade-off between family-centered work and meeting administrative deadlines (45 day assessment closing deadlines) creates conflicts for workers when trying to balance quality vs. quantity.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__349\":\"LP 1: As a result of the implementation of the Governor's Task Force recommendations, there was increased media coverage and a subsequent public perception that the child protection system failed. This perception led to staff movement within the agency and also increased turnover. This turnover and staff movement increased caseload levels, further impacting the worker needing to prioritize other cases in which safety and risk concerns were more imminent\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__353\":\"LP 2: Both paper and SSIS tasks were stated to be barriers as SSIS requires many clicks to complete an assessment, including redundancies, such as ICWA documentation and limitations within the system such as FA and FI workgroups not being allowed to exist together (within one workgroup).\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__355\":\"LP 1: Due to the nature of the child's injury, multiple law enforcement agencies were involved resulting in additional coordination time being needed to move through the investigation. Law enforcement's homicide unit was also involved and the agency was asked to not interview the child.\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"LP 1: When the new report came in, the worker had seen the child just 3 days prior. The child was identified as safe at the time and additionally, the child was not with the alleged perpetrator and thus in no imminent harm. Also, the child's location was a significant distance from the staff's office, further supporting the decision to not go back out to the child's home to make timelines\\r\\n\\r\\nLP 2: Both paper and SSIS tasks were stated to be barriers as SSIS requires many clicks to complete an assessment, including redundancies, such as ICWA documentation and limitations within the system such as FA and FI workgroups not being allowed to exist together (within one workgroup).\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__361\":\"LP 1: When the new report came in, the worker had seen the child just 3 days prior. The child was identified as safe at the time and additionally, the child was not with the alleged perpetrator and thus in no imminent harm. Also, the child's location was a significant distance from the staff's office, further supporting the decision to not go back out to the child's home to make timelines\\r\\n\\r\\nLP 1: As a consequence of heightened media coverage, there was additional oversight by DHS on high profile cases and thus, more oversight by the local agency administration (managers, supervisors, County Attorney's, etc.). This additional oversight then resulted in more consult time needed as there were more people involved in high profile cases. The additional time needed for this further exacerbated the worker's ability to complete case duties. As a result, staff needed to prioritize their time to best meet the needs of the families they were working with, and since the worker had seen the child just 3 days earlier, and identified the child as safe, the worker prioritized other more pressing caseload demands rather than going out again to make timelines.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP 2: Agency staff primarily identified that the amount of work to close assessment cases was a contributing factor in this assessment not closing on time. Furthermore, the worker was prioritizing the FI work in order to meet the more pressing issues that arose within the FI workgroup. In addition recent high profiles cases had also increased the amount of work needed to close out cases. The increased media coverage due to high profile cases (including subsequent lawsuits) had resulted in defensive practices. This has an adverse effect on closing cases timely as there had been additional oversight protocols, including the need for supervisor consult\\\/review needed to close a case put in place, to ensure consistency in work practices. Finally, the agency culture supports working to serve families what they need, regardless of timelines. This trade-off between family-centered work and meeting administrative deadlines (45 day assessment closing deadlines) creates conflicts for workers when trying to balance quality vs. quantity.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP 2: Also, the Federal PIP (Program Improvement Plan) requirements and State CFSR reviews resulted in the local agency having additional requirements needing to be completed to close out cases, including those contained within the PIP that resulted from the state CFSR's agency review.\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__367\":\"LP 2: Finally, the agency culture supports working to serve families what they need, regardless of timelines. This trade-off between family-centered work and meeting administrative deadlines (45 day assessment closing deadlines) creates conflicts for workers when trying to balance quality vs. quantity.\",\"Yes_or_No__370\":\"Yes\"}","mcq_answer":null,"other_answer":"0","status":"1","created_by":"90","updated_by":81,"created_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:33:23 pm","updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:51:11 am","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Lamel Stewart"}