{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Ryan Hartneck","Short_Answer__292":"Wendy Woessner","Date__293":"06\/16\/2018","Multiple_Choice__294":"Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"9","Multiple_Choice__301":"Ramsey","Short_Answer__303":"Prophecy","Short_Answer__304":"Watley","Date__305":"03\/19\/2018","Date__306":"04\/14\/2018","Multiple_Choice__308":"<1 Month","Multiple_Choice__309":"1","Short_Answer__310":"Mother","Multiple_Choice__316":"2","Short_Answer__317":"Father not added as participant in workgroup","Free_Text__318":"It was learned that the social workers are typically responsible for adding any additional participants that they come across during an assessment or investigation. These situations often arise as a result of minimal information being available at intake and additional information about sibs\/parents\/relatives coming in during assessment\/investigation interviews. At the time of the critical incident, after-hours staff had responded to the report and conducted initial interviews. There was then a transition of the case back to her and she was to conduct the additional interview with the child's father as the on-call worker was unable to do so. The worker reported not adding the father to the participants in SSIS was an oversight on her part, however stated that the dad wasn't technically living in the apartment, so that may have been part of why she didn't add him. She reported that her caseload was heavy at the time due to rotating schedule for assignment of new cases and turnover rates and she often times has to sacrifice some things being done over others to ensure safety for children on her case load. Additionally, she stated that this is not one of those things that would pop up on a data clean-up in SSIS, further supporting why she never caught that the father wasn't added.","Free_Text__319":"The father not being added as a participant in the workgroup was influenced by worker transitions within the agency as well as SSIS functionality and workload levels. The critical incident case came into the agency during after-hours. The after-hours process was new for the agency and was in process regarding smoothing out the progression of case duties when cases come in after-hours. As a result of this, the after-hours worker is responsible for completing initial interviews when needed and is also tasked with gathering as much information as available at the time and sharing this information with the worker that takes the case from there. In this case, the father was not able to be interviewed during the after-hours response as he was not a resident of the home. When the case was transferred from the after-hours worker to the assigned investigator, communication gaps existed regarding family information and as a result, it was not relayed that the father was not added as a participant. In addition to this, the investigator that received the case from the after-hours worker was experiencing high caseload levels due to turnover within the agency. This caseload was managed through a rotation schedule for getting cases, which doesn't account for cases the worker already has. As a result of this high caseload pressure, the worker was sacrificing some case duties, in this case adding participants, in order to prioritize safety for children on her caseload. \r\nFinally, at completion of a case, there is a case consultation with supervisors. It was reported that the consultations do not pertain to every detail of the case. Supporting this oversight in not adding the father as a participant was the fact that while closing the case in SSIS, there is not a data-cleanup function that pertains to father-related fields, so the worker was not directed to add him. Generally, SSIS is focused on mothers and not fathers.","Short_Answer__320":"Sibling children not placed per agency policy","Free_Text__321":"The worker reported that she initially received this case as a THC positive newborn (family assessment response). She went and completed a face to face with the mother and child and was able to conduct a short, not exhaustive, assessment of safety for the other children, which she identified as safe and healthy. Safe sleep was discussed. When the case came in after the critical incident, it was received by agency after-hours staff, which was just recently added to Ramsey County's work tasks as it was previously contracted out. This new process created gaps in communication and transition between workers. Due to a snowstorm, the after-hours staff was unable to make it to the children's home. The after-hours worker had questioned the need for removal of the children given their ages, and that LE had not identified a need for removal at the time of the incident, but was told that it was agency policy to remove siblings when a child dies and neglect is suspected.\r\n\r\nAfter the attempt to place the children in shelter was hampered by an April snowstorm, there was no further conversation regarding the need to remove the children. The worker provided risk and safety assessments regarding the sibling children during subsequent home visits and did not identify the need to remove. The worker stated she looks at removal of children on a case-to-case basis, however believed it to be typical of other staff to remove other children after a child death and then figure out next steps after that. The worker was unsure if policy existed around placement of remaining children when a child death occurs.","Free_Text__322":"The sibling children to the subject child not being placed after the critical incident was influenced by agency procedures, having multiple workers on the case and Law Enforcement's (LE) response to the incident. When the case came in after the critical incident, it was received by agency after-hours staff, which was just recently added to the agency's work tasks as it was previously contracted out. This new process created gaps in communication during transitions between after-hour workers and subsequently-assigned FA\/FI workers. Due to a snowstorm, the after-hours staff was unable to make it to the children's home during the after-hours response. The after-hours worker had questioned the need for removal of the children at the time given their ages, and also because LE had not identified a need for removal at the time of the incident. The case was then assigned to an agency staff that was working with the family in a family assessment workgroup at the time and that worker subsequently conducted in-home face to face contact with the family and identified the children as safe. In situations such as this, after a home visit and assessment that children are safe, manager overrides may occur. \r\nRegarding policy within the agency concerning removal of children after a child death suspected due to neglect, it was identified that the policy was not \u00e2\u20ac\u0153transferred well\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to staff and thus, the worker had no knowledge of the policy. Without this knowledge, the worker assessed the need for removal on a case-to-case basis. In this case, the worker provided risk and safety assessments regarding the sibling children during subsequent home visits and did not identify the need to remove.","Multiple_Choice__346":"2","Free_Text__347":"Learning Point 2:\r\nThe after-hours worker had questioned the need for removal of the children at the time given their ages, and also because LE had not identified a need for removal at the time of the incident.","Multiple_Choice__348":"0","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"2","Free_Text__353":"Learning Point 1: \r\nWhile closing the case in SSIS, there is not a data-cleanup function that pertains to father-related fields, so the worker was not directed to add him. Generally, SSIS is focused on mothers and not fathers.","Multiple_Choice__354":"3","Free_Text__355":"Learning Point 1:\r\nWhen the case was transferred from the after-hours worker to the assigned investigator, communication gaps existed regarding family information and as a result, it was not relayed that the father was not added as a participant.","Multiple_Choice__356":"2","Free_Text__357":"Learning Point 2:\r\nRegarding policy within the agency concerning removal of children after a child death suspected due to neglect, it was identified that the policy was not \u00e2\u20ac\u0153transferred well\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to staff and thus, the worker had no knowledge of the policy.","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"2","Free_Text__359":"Learning Point 1:\r\nThe after-hours process was new for the agency and was in process regarding smoothing out the progression of case duties when cases come in after-hours.\r\n\r\nLearning Point 2:\r\nWhen the case came in after the critical incident, it was received by agency after-hours staff, which was just recently added to the agency's work tasks as it was previously contracted out. This new process created gaps in communication during transitions between after-hour workers and subsequently-assigned FA\/FI workers.","Multiple_Choice__360":"2","Free_Text__361":"Learning Point 1:\r\nThe investigator that received the case from the after-hours worker was experiencing high caseload levels due to turnover within the agency. This caseload was managed through a rotation schedule for getting cases, which doesn't account for cases the worker already has. As a result of this high caseload pressure, the worker was sacrificing some case duties, in this case adding participants, in order to prioritize safety for children on her caseload.","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"1","Multiple_Choice__366":"0","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}