{"report_id":256,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Child protection investigation safety planning norms influenced the child protection worker's decision to not conduct safety planning for the sibling children at the time the family arrangement was made by law enforcement. Common practice in this agency are for child protection workers to trust law enforcement's assessment of safety as law enforcement are the only ones able to place children on hold, which guides the need for the agency to conduct safety planning. The social worker presumed the grandmother was a safe caregiver as the family arrangement with the grandmother, who lived 2 hours away, had already been decided as safe by law enforcement for the sibling children. Additionally, it is common practice to not safety plan when the perpetrator does not reside in the same home since the perpetrator does not have access to the child(ren).\r\nThere were changes in government regulation, such as the implementation of the Governor's Task Force recommendations and Governor's Order (directive), which had recently been put into practice. These directives included implementation of a Rapid Consultation line and creation of a DHS CP Screen-out Review Team. This screening oversight by DHS resulted in increased screened in reports by the agency and thus, an increase in worker caseloads. This increase resulted in prioritization of case duties other than safety planning in this case, as safety had already been assessed by law enforcement In addition to this, there was heightened media coverage on DHS policy changes, influencing defensive practices by the agency which likely supported the agency in screening in cases out of fear of liability. \r\nFurther influencing the worker to not safety plan was that during this time, limited funding for CP positions impacted the local agency's overall staffing levels. This led to an increase in caseload for staff resulting in the investigator carrying 60 open cases during this timeframe.  As a result, the worker prioritized other case duties over safety planning. The high level of case tasks required for each case impacts the ability to close cases, which compounds the amount of case tasks. This further decreased the amount of time the worker had available to complete all the necessary case tasks on each investigation. Additionally, the worker had limited availability for supervisor consultation as the supervisor was working cases as well. This reduced time available to consult regarding case duties, such as safety planning. Peer consultation is usually available on cases, but with egregious cases, chatter between coworkers is limited, so peer consultation is limited. This limited peer consultation also impacts the worker's ability to get feedback on case planning\/duties etc.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:32:25 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:32:25 am","id":28081}