{"id":366,"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\":\"Colette Roesler\",\"Date__293\":\"07\\\/05\\\/2017\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"No\",\"Short_Answer__297\":\"Licensed\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"9\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Ramsey\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Talayia\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Sabillon-Suazo\",\"Date__305\":\"02\\\/01\\\/2017\",\"Date__306\":\"06\\\/06\\\/2017\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"4 Months\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Non-relative foster care provider\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"2\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"Screening of 2\\\/3\\\/2017 CP intake occurred beyond 24-hour timelines.\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tToo many unknowns at the time the report was made \\r\\no\\tLimited knowledge at first, go off information had at the time, it was difficult to know because the mother used a false identity, and claimed to live in Wisconsin.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tMother and Father were not honest about identity and home address at time the report was made, and attempted to mislead and confuse the CP Systems in WI and MN. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tPrevious report was made on 2\\\/1 that was screened out and referred to the jurisdiction the parents alleged as their home address in Wisconsin. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tGetting the information back on 2\\\/3 in a new CP Intake increased the suspicion of suspected child abuse and neglect; report was screened in. Worker believed it was timely screened, but also stated she gave to her supervisor who she had been consulting with about the intake information. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe worker reported she would not have authority to make changes to information documented in the CP intake.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tWisconsin do things differently than MN, no police holds. Ramsey County Intake requested to place infant on a hold, but WI Law enforcement does not place holds on children. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tOnce the Child Maltreatment Report was screened in the investigator learned the mother's real identity and that information was used to make changes to the Child Maltreatment report; Mother's identity and previous TLC's\\\/TPR was not known until after the CP investigation was opened\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tTPR look up in SSIS is not reliable\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tIdentifying people is not reliable in SSIS\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tIn Feb. 2017, there was pressure to complete screening within the allotted 24 hour timeframe, which the team of screeners prioritized. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tWorker was not certain why SSIS shows 3 days in between the open and close date on the intake. It is not uncommon to gather information to see if the information meets criteria before closing the intake; but if the timeline is near the 24 hour mark, the report is screened with what information could be gathered.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tMeeting the 24 hour screening timeline is priority, however it is one the worker does not believe increases safety, and can sometimes feel like it is in place to hold staff accountable versus trust the professionals doing the work; understandable to have checks and balances enmeshed in guidance though.  \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe worker did not know how the technical change of the mother's name was corrected in the SSIS system  \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tIt was presumed that the SSIS Helpdesk would have likely had to be involved because the SSIS CP Intakes would not be merged for an circumstance like this\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tPossible a new CP intake would have been created?\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe worker is one of 6 screeners who document all the intakes coming into Ramsey County and screen them as a team or with supervisor; they are also responsible for all calls that come in not related to child protection; The screeners do not have a support staff or receptionist to field calls.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"The CP intake being screened beyond the 24-hour timelines was influenced by multiple states and jurisdictions being involved with the family.  The last known address for the family was in the State of Wisconsin; consequently, a CP report that came into the local agency in MN two days prior to the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 report was screened out and referred to Wisconsin's CP system.  When the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 report came in, the worker believed the report was screened in within the 24-hour timeline as she had consulted with her supervisor and gave the report to her.  Additionally, the parents did not provide current or correct information regarding their identity and home address, further contributing to the confusion as to who had jurisdiction over the CP intake.\\r\\n\\r\\nFurther influencing the screening of the CP intake occurring beyond the 24-hour timelines was the fact that the report came in on a Friday and the local agency does not have the ability to screen reports after regular business hours.  In addition to the report coming in on Friday, the worker's high caseload, coupled with the need to verify participants in the case and determine jurisdiction, added complexity to screening the report within the 24-hour timelines. Complicating factors included two states being involved, as well as the ambiguity of the family's home address, which further support the report not being screened timely.\\r\\n\\r\\nScreeners felt an added pressure to prioritize screening reports within 24-hour timelines in order to meet this metric.  Due to this added pressure, the worker was unclear as to why SSIS showed the report being screened outside of the 24-hour timelines.  Additionally, it is not uncommon for the screener to gather more information to see if the information meets criteria before closing the intake; however, if it is near the 24-hour timeline, normative practice is to screen the report with the information the screener has at the time.  Screeners are responsible for all calls that come into the agency, which include those that are not specific to child protection, placing additional responsibilities on the screeners.\",\"Short_Answer__320\":\"CP Intake made on June 7. 2017 for suspected neglect (inadequate supervision) regarding a licensing violation incident that occurred on May 2, 2017.\",\"Free_Text__321\":\"\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tIt was a chaotic environment that day, the 2 year old being outside unnoticed by the foster mother was circumstantial, isolated, and atypical.  \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe front door was observed to be left open for the delivery of a freezer multiple times after the foster mother had repeatedly closed it. The door had a chime alarm which was dismissed as the delivery professionals coming in and out of the door.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe 2 year old was somewhat higher need; very active and impulsive with his behavior.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe foster home had been licensed since 1999; Foster mother was reliable and resourceful. Had adopted children, had taken in many children as a Traditional placement option and as a Substitute shelter care placement option\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tNever had a violation in the past\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tFoster mother was an active in Ramsey County Training initiatives; Helping teach parents\\\/supervising visitation for children and parents in her home\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe foster home was described as \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153one of Ramsey County's best\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d providers.  \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tMay 2 \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u201c Worker consulted with supervisor and colleagues about the child not being supervised at the moment when she approached the home.  A correction order was decided to be appropriate at that time; A CP intake\\\/Child Maltreatment report was not made on May 2.  \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tTypical normative process would be for CP Program worker to collaborate with Lic Social Worker prior to the placement about the number of children and needs of all the children placed in the foster home at the time. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tA shortage of foster home placement options places pressure on CP Program workers to find placement option for children, and would contact the foster provider directly asking if there was space for substitute shelter care. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe pressure behind the needed placement would make the provider feel guilty, especially if mention of a \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153variance\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d was stated, she didn't like to say no.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tPlacements for children with higher behavioral needs aren't meeting criteria of residential, or if they are there are wait lists; so many foster homes are managing high needs children with added supports \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tAfter hours placements would sometimes occur before the licensing worker was made aware. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tLic worker believed the foster mother would've felt obligated to keep trying to help the overwhelmed system with shortage of placement options, because she was committed to raising the foster kids.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tFoster home's only violation\\\/corrective action order was the May 2 corrective action order.\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tNot all corrective action orders are CP reports\\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\t Foster home was current on all trainings, and had just received SUID\\\/Unsafe sleep training and abusive head trauma just prior to the child fatality incident. \\r\\n\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u00a2\\tThe child fatality was \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153unfortunate and shocking\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d; the lic worker was out on medical leave when she learned of the child's death.\",\"Free_Text__322\":\"A CP report made on June 7, 2017, for suspected neglect regarding a licensing violation incident that occurred on May 2, 2017 was influenced a local agency response using defensive practice, as the critical incident occurred on June 6, 2017. At the time of the licensing violation on May 2, prior to the critical incident, the local agency made the decision to issue a correction order to the foster home rather than make a CP intake report for suspected neglect. The decision to not make a CP report was made through consultation between the worker, colleagues, and a supervisor. Supporting the consultation between agency staff was the belief that not every licensing violation is a CP report, as well as, the perception that the CP system would be inundated if every incident was reported.  \\r\\n\\r\\nFurther supporting a CP report being made on June 7, 2017 for an incident that occurred on May 2, 2017 was the fact that the foster mother reported that she was having a freezer delivered that day and the delivery people were coming in and out of the house, making the door alarm go off each time. The foster mother did shut the door behind the delivery people when it was left open as they went in and out. At the time, she was also vacuuming the house to get ready for the foster child's parents to come for a visit. Given this information, the staff's perception was that the safety risk did not reach the threshold of needing to make a CP report, and the child escaping outside when the door was left open was considered to be accidental in nature.\\r\\n\\r\\nAdditionally, the worker was new and was still learning the process of making a CP report.  This was also influenced by the guidance and interpretation of the guidance in regards to making a CP report.  Overarching this was the foster care licensing statute which supported a consult between the licensing social worker and a CP screener to discuss an incident and determine what action needed to be taken.  Normative practice for when these consultations occur is for the information to be documented on a form, rather than documenting it in SSIS.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__347\":\"LP1: The supervisor supported the staff by taking the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 CP intake off the staff's workload and the staff believed the report was screened timely within the 24 hour timeline. \\r\\nLP2: Supporting the consultation between agency staff was the belief that not every licensing violation is a CP report, as well as, the perception that the CP system would be inundated if every incident was reported.  \\r\\nFurther supporting a CP report being made on June 7, 2017 for an incident that occurred on May 2, 2017 was the fact that the foster mother reported that she was having a freezer delivered that day and the delivery people were coming in and out of the house, making the door alarm go off each time. The foster mother did shut the door behind the delivery people when it was left open as they went in and out. At the time, she was also vacuuming the house to get ready for the foster child's parents to come for a visit. Given this information, the staff's perception was that the safety risk did not reach the threshold of needing to make a CP report, and the child escaping outside when the door was left open was considered to be accidental in nature.\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__349\":\"LP1: The CP intake being screened beyond the 24-hour timeline was influenced by jurisdictional complexity in this case. There were multiple states and several county jurisdictions identified as having responsibility to serve the family. Further adding to the jurisdictional complexity was the fact that the parents did not provide current or correct information regarding their identities and home address. This contributed to the confusion as to who had jurisdiction over the CP intake, and subsequently it took the agency more than 24 hours to decipher the facts before the agency was able to screen in the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 CP intake. \\r\\nThe agency had knowledge of the family, as a CP intake had been reported to the local agency on 2\\\/1\\\/2017, which was screened out and referred to Wisconsin's CP system due to the last known address for the family being located in the State of Wisconsin. When the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 report came in, staff consulted with their supervisor about the complexity of jurisdiction that needed attention for the case and gave the CP intake to their supervisor. The intake and screening workload was high at this time and the staff did not have time to dedicate to the complexity around jurisdiction. Therefore, the supervisor supported the staff by taking the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 CP intake off the staff's workload and the staff believed the report was screened timely within the 24 hour timeline.\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__351\":\"LP2: Overarching this was the foster care licensing statute which supported a consult between the licensing social worker and a CP screener to discuss an incident and determine what action needed to be taken.  Normative practice for when these consultations occur is for the information to be documented on a form, rather than documenting it in SSIS.\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__353\":\"Staff experienced a SSIS glitch\\\/SSIS was down at the time of the critical incident. This posed a barrier for frontline staff, as the agency could not access information, and the inability to access information delayed staff in learning relevant history about the participants in this case. The technology barrier posed concern, as staff made decisions without having access to all information available, due to not being able to access it, and there was urgency to safety plan at the time of the critical incident.\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__355\":\"LP1: The CP intake being screened beyond the 24-hour timeline was influenced by jurisdictional complexity in this case. There were multiple states and several county jurisdictions identified as having responsibility to serve the family. Further adding to the jurisdictional complexity was the fact that the parents did not provide current or correct information regarding their identities and home address. This contributed to the confusion as to who had jurisdiction over the CP intake, and subsequently it took the agency more than 24 hours to decipher the facts before the agency was able to screen in the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 CP intake. \\r\\nLP1: The supervisor supported the staff by taking the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 CP intake off the staff's workload and the staff believed the report was screened timely within the 24 hour timeline. \\r\\n\\r\\nOther: Coordination of interviews regarding child death investigation were conducted separately by law enforcement and child protection.\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__357\":\"LP2: The worker was new and was still learning the process of making a CP report.\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"LP1: The CP intake being screened beyond the 24-hour timeline was influenced by jurisdictional complexity in this case. There were multiple states and several county jurisdictions identified as having responsibility to serve the family. Further adding to the jurisdictional complexity was the fact that the parents did not provide current or correct information regarding their identities and home address. This contributed to the confusion as to who had jurisdiction over the CP intake, and subsequently it took the agency more than 24 hours to decipher the facts before the agency was able to screen in the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 CP intake. \\r\\n\\r\\nLP1: Further contributing to the delay in screening was the fact that the report came in on a Friday. At the time, the local agency did not have the ability to screen reports after regular business hours. On Mondays, screeners felt added pressure to prioritize screening reports within 24-hours in order to meet the compliance metric, as CP reports accumulated over the weekend, increasing Monday's workload every week. It is not uncommon for screeners to gather more information using collateral contacts or contacting the reporter prior to making a screening decision. Yet if a CP intake is nearing the end of the 24-hour timeline, the agency's normative practice is to screen the report with the information the screener has been able to gather at the time. \\r\\n\\r\\nLP2: Additionally, the worker was new and was still learning the process of making a CP report.  This was also influenced by the guidance and interpretation of the guidance in regards to making a CP report.  Overarching this was the foster care licensing statute which supported a consult between the licensing social worker and a CP screener to discuss an incident and determine what action needed to be taken.  Normative practice for when these consultations occur is for the information to be documented on a form, rather than documenting it in SSIS.\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__361\":\"LP1: The agency had knowledge of the family, as a CP intake had been reported to the local agency on 2\\\/1\\\/2017, which was screened out and referred to Wisconsin's CP system due to the last known address for the family being located in the State of Wisconsin. When the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 report came in, staff consulted with their supervisor about the complexity of jurisdiction that needed attention for the case and gave the CP intake to their supervisor. The intake and screening workload was high at this time and the staff did not have time to dedicate to the complexity around jurisdiction. Therefore, the supervisor supported the staff by taking the 2\\\/3\\\/2017 CP intake off the staff's workload and the staff believed the report was screened timely within the 24 hour timeline. \\r\\nFurther contributing to the delay in screening was the fact that the report came in on a Friday. At the time, the local agency did not have the ability to screen reports after regular business hours. On Mondays, screeners felt added pressure to prioritize screening reports within 24-hours in order to meet the compliance metric, as CP reports accumulated over the weekend, increasing Monday's workload every week. It is not uncommon for screeners to gather more information using collateral contacts or contacting the reporter prior to making a screening decision. Yet if a CP intake is nearing the end of the 24-hour timeline, the agency's normative practice is to screen the report with the information the screener has been able to gather at the time. The local agencies intake and screening staff were responsible for answering all the calls that came into the agency. The calls include those that are not specific to child protection. This universal answering coverage for the agency placed additional pressure on screeners at times when a 24-hour timeline screening decision needed to be made, especially when reports had complicating factors like this CP intake did (unknown information\\\/ jurisdiction issue\\\/ screener & supervisor had little to no time to gather additional information). \\r\\n\\r\\nLP2: Supporting the consultation between agency staff was the belief that not every licensing violation is a CP report, as well as, the perception that the CP system would be inundated if every incident was reported.\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__367\":\"LP2: A CP report made on June 7, 2017, for suspected neglect regarding a licensing violation incident that occurred on May 2, 2017 was influenced a local agency response using defensive practice, as the critical incident occurred on June 6, 2017. At the time of the licensing violation on May 2, prior to the critical incident, the local agency made the decision to issue a correction order to the foster home rather than make a CP intake report for suspected neglect. The decision to not make a CP report was made through consultation between the worker, colleagues, and a supervisor. Supporting the consultation between agency staff was the belief that not every licensing violation is a CP report, as well as, the perception that the CP system would be inundated if every incident was reported.\",\"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 1:34:11 pm","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Talayia Sabillon-Suazo"}