{"id":258,"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\":\"Fintan Moore\",\"Date__293\":\"01\\\/02\\\/2018\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"No\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"9\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Ramsey\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Brandi\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Bell\",\"Date__305\":\"07\\\/23\\\/2017\",\"Date__306\":\"12\\\/03\\\/2017\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"4 Months\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"2\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Mother\",\"Short_Answer__311\":\"Father\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"Face to face contact with alleged victims did not occur within 5 day response timeframe\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"Worker indicated that the case was not assigned to her by her supervisor until 5 days after the intake disposition. She reported that at this time, there was a significant backlog of cases in Hennepin County in addition to the annual influx on Ed. Neglect cases that come at the end of the school year. As a result of the backlog, they were triaging the cases on how\\\/when to assign them. Cases would be screened and if screened in, intake worker would identify which unit it would be assigned to and then send the cases to the unit supervisor to then assign to a specific worker. The worker described lower urgency being placed on this assessment response for a couple reasons. First being that it had taken 5 days to even get the case to her and secondly, that the child was staying with the mother and was no longer with the alleged perpetrators. Addition information learned that she reported as complicating the process was that she had been with Hennepin County for approx.. 6 months, she had a brand new worker from the Induction Unit shadowing her, they were in a transition where they were adding new staff to the unit, the supervisor was new and she had a couple days of vacation in the week following her assignment to the case.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"Face to face contact not occurring in the 5 day response timeline was influenced by a delay in the worker being assigned the case, caseload demands, and legislation. During this time period, the agency was trying to work through 200-400 pending cases that hadn't been assigned. This resulted from changes in government regulation, such as the implementation of the Governor's Task Force recommendations. These recommendations created changes to the Intake, Screening and Response Path guidelines, further increasing the number of 24 hour response cases the agency needed to respond to. Additionally, there was an influx of Educational Neglect cases from schools during this time period (spring), which were lower priority cases. Supervisors needed to triage cases and prioritize those needing a 24 hour response, resulting in a delay in assignment of 5 day response cases. This, coupled with the TSO system (technology used by local agency for distribution of cases to units) and the time it takes to review and assign cases, further impacted supervisor workload, which delayed the cases being assigned.  Supervisor workload was also adversely impacted by having 10 staff to supervise with high turnover rates for those staff.  Also, induction staff was not being trained in the investigation response, resulting in a larger learning curve for those coming from the induction unit and responding to child protection assessments and investigations.  \\r\\n\\r\\nThe worker assigned to the case identified the case as lower priority as well because the child was no longer in the care of the alleged offender. When attempting to schedule a face to face visit with the family, which was difficult due to workload levels, the worker did safety plan with the child's mother via phone. The workload which made it difficult for scheduling included the worker training a new staff and the number of checklists needing to be completed for each case. Further supporting staff's need to prioritize immediate response cases is that Minnesota State Statute 626.556, subd. 10(j) governs immediate response timeframes for predatory offenders and is based on allegations versus actual risk to the alleged victim.  As a result of this statute and since funding is tied to compliance with this measure, staff don't have discretion to respond to alleged victims based upon actual risk and are forced to respond based on allegation type and need to prioritize these cases over ones that come in as a 5 day response which may actually be at greater risk in some cases.\\r\\nFurther influencing the delay in contact was the interpretation of guidance and statute that CP can delay contact with alleged victims in 5 day response cases if directed by law enforcement such as in this case.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__347\":\"The worker assigned to the case identified the case as lower priority as well because the child was no longer in the care of the alleged offender.\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__349\":\"The workload which made it difficult for scheduling included the worker training a new staff and the number of checklists needing to be completed for each case.\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__353\":\"This, coupled with the TSO system (technology used by local agency for distribution of cases to units) \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u201c add complexity to the system just for assigning cases.\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__357\":\"Also, induction staff was not being trained in the investigation response, resulting in a larger learning curve for those coming from the induction unit and responding to child protection assessments and investigations\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"This resulted from changes in government regulation, such as the implementation of the Governor's Task Force recommendations. These recommendations created changes to the Intake, Screening and Response Path guidelines, further increasing the number of 24 hour response cases the agency needed to respond to.\\r\\n\\r\\nFurther supporting staff's need to prioritize immediate response cases is that Minnesota State Statute 626.556, subd. 10(j) governs immediate response timeframes for predatory offenders and is based on allegations versus actual risk to the alleged victim. As a result of this statute and since funding is tied to compliance with this measure, staff don't have discretion to respond to alleged victims based upon actual risk and are forced to respond based on allegation type and need to prioritize these cases over ones that come in as a 5 day response which may actually be at greater risk in some cases.\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__361\":\"During this time period, the agency was trying to work through 200-400 pending cases that hadn't been assigned.\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__365\":\"The time it takes to review and assign cases, further impacted supervisor workload, which delayed the cases being assigned.  Supervisor workload was also adversely impacted by having 10 staff to supervise with high turnover rates for those staff.\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"0\",\"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 10:36:57 am","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Brandi Bell"}