Case Practice Lab 3: Further Information Gathering for ...centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/Preservice...– prior successful engagement of supports (e.g., willingness to reach out

March 2015

Case Practice Lab 3: Further Information Gathering for

Impending Danger Assessment

Core Child Welfare Pre-Service Curriculum | CPI Lab 3 1

March 2015

Case Practice Lab 3: Further Information Gathering for

Impending Danger Assessment

Display Slide 3.1

Time:

Unit Overview: The purpose of this unit is to review the standards for

sufficient information in order to develop the FFA-Investigations, and determine whether or not a child is safe. Participants will practice the assessment of information sufficiency, danger threat and protective capacity assessment and impending danger determination by applying the Sandler case example.

Display Slide 3.2

Review the Learning Objectives with the participants.

Learning Objectives: 1. Explain and demonstrate the criteria for information sufficiency. 2. Describe present danger safety plan management.


March 2015

3. Assess a completed FFA against the practice standards for information sufficiency and safety analysis.

Display Slide 3.3 (PG: 3)

We have gathered much information thus far in the Sandler case, certainly enough to establish that James was in present danger and needed a present danger safety plan. The purpose of collecting and analyzing further information is to determine:

o Whether any maltreatment incidents did occur o Whether the child is unsafe given assessment of danger

threats and caregiver protective capacities (impending danger)

o Is the family at risk of further reports and/or maltreatment. Display Slide 3.4

We will have sufficient information to determine whether a child is in impending danger when all of the information domains present a concise, logical and integrated (i.e., no need for further validation or reconciliation of inconsistent information) description justifying


March 2015

the overall safety determination. The final, written FFA-Investigation will have a written summary of pertinent information gathered in each assessment area.

Trainer Note: Trainer should review and discuss each of the points on the

slide: o Information is domain relevant o It is essential to know o Describes the role of other persons in the household and/or are a

family resource o Fully describes the domain o Provides information that will support the application of threshold

criteria o Provides sufficient information to determine whether a protective

capacity for each parent/caregiver responsible is sufficient, or not sufficient.

Information gathering and analysis must present CPI decisions based on information that has been validated and reconciled.


While the CPI is gathering sufficient information to develop the FFA Investigations, to make an impending danger safety determination, the other critical responsibility is to manage the Present Danger Safety Plan. When Present Danger is found, a Present Danger Plan must be established and actively managed to ensure that it is being implemented as planned and is actively managing the present danger threat.


March 2015

These next slides are intended to provide generalized guidance as to when parents/caregivers with different conditions/behaviors may be in the home with an in-home safety plan, or when they are able to return to the home with an in-home safety plan. Every case needs to be evaluated based on unique circumstances and conditions. Whenever a safety plan provider, formal or informal, can dependably manage the danger threat when it is likely to occur, and the other criteria for an in-home safety plan is present, an in-home safety plan is the least intrusive option. Review and discuss the points on each slide.


Parent may be in-home with child when: • Parent with substance abuse disorder can demonstrate

– prior successful engagement of supports (e.g., willingness to reach out to an AA/NA sponsor, self-admit to detox, etc.) to help user deal with likely relapse issues (e.g., drug cravings, “triggers”, etc.)

– an understanding of how their use creates a danger threat to child

• Non-maltreating parent and safety service providers – recognize drug use behavior in the maltreating parent – have specific safety actions in place to protect child

should a lapse occur • Sufficient safety services are available • CPI/CM needs on-going communication with treatment

professional to make this call

• Parent may NOT be in-home with child until the investigator or case manager can affirmatively validate above criteria.


March 2015


Parent may be in-home with child when: • Parent with poorly or unmanaged mental illness needs to

demonstrate: – a successful past history of symptom management – have already initiated actions to more effectively

manage symptoms – an understanding of their symptoms of mental illness

and how they lead to danger threats for child • Non-maltreating parent and safety service providers

– recognize signs or symptoms of improper medication management

– have specific safety actions in place to protect child should mental illness not improve or continue to deteriorate

• Sufficient safety services are available • CPI/CM needs on-going communication with treatment




March 2015


Parent may be in-home with child when: • Parent who perpetrates acts of power and control

demonstrate: – follow through with initial safety plan actions agreed

to – an understanding of how their actions create danger

threat(s) to child – an ability to handle “triggers” appropriately

• Non-maltreating parent and safety service providers – recognize signs of power and control by maltreating

parent – have specific safety actions in place to protect children

from being exposed to new incidents of domestic violence

• Sufficient safety services are available • CPI/CM needs on-going communication with treatment



When present danger plans are not being implemented as planned, what are the possible consequences?

Endorse:

Lead discussion of each, particularly discussing the last two bullets. As necessary, reframe these as questions to generate an opportunity for participants to come up with the right answer, e.g. “If a safety plan is not being implemented and the CPI does not notice and/or


March 2015

correct the situation, what is the family likely to think?” PG: 6

• Harm to the child and other family members may continue • Child, other family members may be pressured to say that

everything at home is o.k., no need for child welfare involvement

• Family believes that CPI does not really mean what is said about safety concerns and the need to actively manage

• Family gets over immediate crises and becomes self-lulled into thinking they have things under control

• CPI is convinced by family that everything is o.k. without safety plan, influencing the integrity of the remainder of investigation

So in the Sandler Case, the Present Danger Plan was put into place to manage the danger threat related to Mr. Braun’s out-of-control behavior which initially appears to only manifest while he has been drinking. The primary safety action at this point is Mr. Braun staying out of the home until the investigator can gather sufficient information to complete the FFA and determine for the presence of impending danger and the overall safety determination. The investigator and family members developed additional safeguards to ensure this primary safety action could be continually monitored which included: (1) the paternal grandmother alerting Ms. Block, the maternal grandmother to get the children from the home if Mr. Braun was suspected of going over to the home; (2) monitoring of the children when Mr. Braun might more likely attempt an unscheduled visit to the home (i.e., after work and/or when he’s been drinking), and; 3) the arrangement of supervised visitation to provide for appropriate interactions between Mr. Braun and his children. These actions are intended to buy the investigator sufficient time to complete the FFA-Investigation.


March 2015

Based upon what you have read in the chronological notes, where do you think the CPI should focus in regard to additional information collection for completion of the FFA?

Trainer Note: Allow for a brief discussion by participants on where they thing information collection has already been thorough and robust (e.g., “lots of maltreatment information”, etc.) and where there are obvious gaps (e.g., “need more around Mr. Braun’s adult functioning”, etc.). Use open ended questions to elicit more complete justification on their rationale for their answers (e.g., “What do you already know about child functioning?” or “What else would you like to know about Mr. Braun’s adult functioning?” etc.).

Lab Activity #1: Analysis of Information Sufficiency or “When do I have enough?”

Display Slide 3.9

Materials: • PG: 7-8, Analysis of Information Sufficiency or “When do I have

enough?” instructions and worksheet • PG: 10-13, Interviews

Trainer Instructions: Instruct class to read each additional interview conducted after the present danger plan was instituted, one at a time, and identify what new information we have learned about the following concerns:

1. What dynamics are primarily responsible for the difficult relationship between James and his step-father?

2. How are the other two children in the home affected by family interactions? 3. What else have you learned regarding Mr. Braun’s use of alcohol? 4. What new information have you learned and in which information domain

does it belong?


March 2015 5. What information needs to be validated or reconciled?

Exercise debrief

• Have each identify a reporter who will report their group’s findings. • As each group’s report is given, record new information learned,

information gaps and what information needs to be validated or reconciled on a flip chart.

• Post the list for further use during the next exercises.

Activity STOP


March 2015 Lab Activity One – Information Sufficiency Trainer Answer Guide

Pam Block MGM Michael Sandler Ed Barth 1. Dynamics primarily responsible for James/StF difficult relationship?

St/F very critical of James and calls him names like “brat” and “sissy”

James is a “hard kid”, “smart-mouthed” and doesn’t know when to stop.

2. How are other two children affected by family interactions?

Has no concerns for other two children.

3. What else have you learned about Mr. Braun’s drinking?

When sober nice person, different animal when drinking (nasty, hostile).

“Angry drunk” and loses temper easily when he drinks.

Drinking is interfering with marital relationship as well.

4. New information learned and in which domain?

“Quiet time” works well in controlling James behavior –Child Functioning.

St/F works hard to provide for family; driven to be a good father – Adult Functioning. Bruce has “unrealistic expectations” for James expecting him to recognize authority, not be disrespectful or argumentative – Parenting. * Bruce expects Melanie to provide structure for James and hold him accountable to his behavior – Parenting.

5. What information needs to be validated or reconciled?

This isn’t the first time things have got physical while St/F has been drinking – other incidents when Melanie was pushed and smacked. Validate that MGM is no longer depressed or dealing with mood swings; stable for years.

Validate Mr. Sandler’s concerns about Melanie being bipolar.

Rough patches in marriage that involve pushing and shoving (limited to when Bruce has been drinking).

*Trainer Note – Discuss with class. Are these unrealistic expectations for James? Does James ADHD make them unrealistic? Caution against placing personal viewpoints (Mr. Barth’s) in information domains.


March 2015 Interview with MGM Pam Block 01.10.2014 5:00 PM Field Visit to home of MGM Pam Block Collateral interviews with MGM and Michael Sandler (biological father of James) Address: Grandmother’s home, Florida City, FL MGM got to the house after the fact. She called the police when Melanie called her and was hysterical. Melanie told MGM that Bruce was drunk and that he had hit her and was hitting James. MGM’s biggest concern was that Bruce went after her grandson, James. She doesn’t think that Bruce treats James well. He now has two of his own children. Bruce is hard on James. He is very critical of James and calls him names like “sissy”. Bruce’s whole family is that way with James. On Christmas, Bruce’s mother didn’t buy anything for James. She said that she couldn’t afford it, but she bought presents for the other two, the biological children of Bruce. MGM does not think that Melanie and Bruce’s relationship nor the relationship between Bruce and James is a good situation. She feels bad for James. James has a hard enough time. His own father doesn’t pay much attention to him. James’ father has been living with her on and off for two years, and most recently for the last two months because he got evicted. Pam is good friends with Michael’s mother and agreed that she would take him in. She said that he needs to find a place to live. James comes over to her house on weekends most of the time. She will go and get him from school. Sometimes she has been to the house and Bruce has disciplined James and she is fine with that. She doesn’t like the language that is used. Bruce uses the “f” word. She doesn’t think that the children need to hear. He calls James a brat and sends him upstairs. She is worried about James’ self-esteem. She said that James has ADHD and he has trouble concentrating. She said that he has some behavioral issues even when he is with her. He doesn’t have respect for Bruce because Bruce drinks on the weekend and his behavior changes; he becomes more aggressive, especially with James; James has also seen and heard Bruce and Melanie argue and things get nasty verbally and sometimes physically. This contributes to James having no respect for Bruce. She said that with her and with James’ father Michael, James will get disrespectful and argumentative, refuse to help, yell and scream when he doesn’t get his way, stomp off and slam doors. She said she usually allows him time to calm down in his room then she talks with him after he is calm. Pam noted that he is always remorseful after they talk but she thinks he just has a hard time controlling his behavior sometimes. She’s found that quiet time “for as long as it takes” helps him settle his emotions and get back on track. The other two children are adorable and there are no concerns. Bruce and Melanie treats the two little ones with patience. Melanie disciplines James by correcting him when he is wrong and she will send him to his room and takes things away when he needs it. She follows through most of the time. She lets him off early some of the time. James likes to interject himself into adult conversations and that is frustrating to Bruce.


March 2015 Overall, as a parent she thinks Melanie is a good mother. All that she does for her children. Pam said that Melanie doesn’t know she is a good mother, you can just tell; her self-esteem is low. Melanie gets no help from Bruce. He doesn’t even pick up his clothing. He does nothing to help. Melanie has her hands full; she is working and taking care of three children. When Bruce is sober, he can be a very nice person. He took over as Boy Scout leader; he’s great with other kids and with James in situations like that. When he is drinking, he is a different animal. She said that sometimes she thinks Bruce and Melanie are good for each other, but other times, they don’t complement each other. She thinks Melanie stays with Bruce because she needs help financially and because they have two kids together and Bruce is great with the kids. She said that her daughter puts up with Bruce, “because she is stupid.” Melanie has told him that it is over if he doesn’t cut it out (stop binge drinking on weekends) which makes him nasty and hostile. She said that he doesn’t drink during the week, not to intoxication, that she knows of. Bruce got into a fight with his brother once because Bruce’s brother was saying something nasty about Melanie and James. That was one of the only times that Pam was aware of where Bruce stood up for Melanie. This isn’t the first time things have been physical when Bruce is drinking; it is the first time reported and the first time police were called. One time, they had been to a craft show and Melanie went to get Byron. Bruce and his brother had been drinking and they wouldn’t let her take the baby. Bruce’s brother pushed Melanie down and kicked her. Bruce didn’t intervene. They have her believing that if she calls the police, she will be arrested and the children will be taken from her. Pam has told her she is ridiculous. MGM said that there has been other incidents where Bruce has pushed Melanie and smacked her. She said that it is the drinking that is the problem because he has never laid a hand on Melanie when he is sober. MGM thinks that Bruce’s brother Steven is a bad influence on Bruce. When they get together, it is all drinking and Melanie bashing. Steven does not like Melanie because he thinks Melanie is trying to change and control Bruce. MGM Pam stated that she did self-admit to a hospital several years ago due to depression. She stated she was overcome with emotions after her parents died and she thought she needed help; to talk with someone about it. She is currently prescribed anti-depressant Zoloft but does not suffer from depression any longer. She denied that she was or has ever been suicidal or homicidal but rather that she was just sad all the time and didn’t take pleasure in things she ordinarily would have. She is employed full time and has been her entire life as a consultant. She used to have to travel more for her job but that slowed down quite a bit over the years. She stated she is not prone to mood swings and has been stable for years. MGM stated that there was one other time when Melanie was a little baby after Melanie’s dad left them that she was depressed and sort of “disengaged from life” – which she described as similar to above, did not find pleasure in things and could only think about him leaving and speculating endlessly about why, what she did wrong, what she could have done differently. She said she realizes now that there was nothing she could have done, but when she was like that, her mother helped her out with taking care of Melanie and providing for them financially. She stated that she and Melanie lived with her mother for about two years and that her mother was a miracle to Pam and Melanie. Pam agreed to be a safety service provider and she understands that the children’s safety is the most important thing. She understands what actions she must


March 2015 take and agreed to contact the Department if there were any issues with continuing the safety plan. Pam signed the safety plan. 01.10.2014 6:00 PM Interview with James’ biological father, Michael Sandler who resides with the MGM Pam Block Michael stated that he doesn’t really know a lot about Melanie and Bruce’s relationship but that overall, he likes Bruce. He provided that a couple of years ago, he reported a concern regarding Bruce based on something James had told him but that ended up being James misrepresenting the situation. Now, he said he is more cautious about what he hears or takes from his conversations with James rather than taking his information at face value. He said that James had called him once and told him that Bruce had beat him up. Michael contacted the police to check on James and found that none of that had happened. Bruce had slapped James then, but it was more a reaction to James yelling that he hated Bruce and didn’t have to listen to Bruce. He said knowing what he knows now, he didn’t think Bruce’s reaction then was necessarily inappropriate. He described James as “a hard kid to be around sometimes because he is so smart-mouthed and he doesn’t know when to stop” He said that he recently had to discipline James with a spanking after James was incredibly rude and yelling at his MGM and at him, throwing things and slamming doors. He doesn’t usually resort to spanking, but felt it was necessary on that day given the level of James’ behavior. Michael said that James usually takes medication for ADHD but on the weekends when he sees James, James is not on any medication. He acknowledged that that may contribute to how James behaves sometimes at MGM’s home. Michael provided that he and Melanie did not get along and that he believes she is bipolar, too. He stated that he has bipolar disorder and that it impacts his ability to work and function at times. He admits that he was committed to a mental facility for about two months several years ago because he was having thoughts of hurting himself. He said he had stopped taking his medication then and that was the reason he was feeling that way. He is on medication to manage his mood swings and has been stable for several years. Michael stated that he knows Bruce drinks and that when he drinks he sometimes gets physical with Melanie and James. Michael stated that he has heard that Bruce is “an angry drunk” and loses his temper easily when he drinks. He does not know the extent of the aggression in Melanie’s and Bruce’s marriage, and he usually doesn’t ask James about it because he doesn’t think it is right to put James in the middle of anything and have him feel like he has to tattle on his mom or stepdad or even himself. Michael thinks that Melanie and Bruce overall do a good job with their kids and that the only time he would worry about anyone’s safety might be when Bruce is drinking heavily.


March 2015 01.14.2014 2:30 PM TC from Ed Barth, family friend of both Bruce and Melanie Mr. Barth stated he has been friends with Melanie and Bruce for several years and he enjoys spending time with each of them. He acknowledged that Melanie contacted him after the incident and he stated that on the afternoon of the incident, he had had lunch with Bruce and they’d had a few beers together and talked about football mostly. He said that Melanie confides in him quite a bit and he is under the impression that Bruce’s drinking is interfering in their marital relationship as well as in his relationship with James. Mr. Barth stated that Bruce has a tendency to get ‘loud’ and argumentative when he is drinking and that he not usually like that when he is sober. He described Bruce as a man with high principles and expectations who is driven to be a good father and to work hard in life to provide for his family in a way that his own father never did. Mr. Barth stated that he has never had concerns for anyone’s safety in Melanie and Bruce’s household but acknowledged that as a couple, they have rough patches that sometimes involve pushing and shoving however that is limited to only times when Bruce has been drinking. He has never been told about any altercations that did not involve drinking and Bruce. Mr. Barth said the same regarding Bruce and James. He has not had concerns for James’ safety in anything he has heard from Melanie but he doesn’t always agree with the approach Melanie and Bruce use to try to control James’ behavior. He said he thinks that most of the issue between Bruce and James is Bruce’s expectations of Melanie and James in that he expects Melanie to teach and provide structure for James and to hold him accountable to his behavior and he expects James to recognize authority and to not be disrespectfully and argumentative. Mr. Barth offered check on Melanie and the kids on a daily basis and stated he is a resource for both Melanie and Bruce and is willing to be available for any visitation between Bruce and his family.


When the CPI feels that enough information has been gathered, reconciled and validated, to form a clear picture of what specifically occurred regarding the alleged maltreatment and how


March 2015

the family functions on a day by day basis, the information is ready to be used to develop the FFA-Investigation. The essence of determining whether a child is unsafe or safe lies in the sufficiency of information gathered for each domain. When the domains are sufficiently developed, they will provide enough information to identify danger threats, caregiver protective capacities, and the specific details which support the danger threshold criteria. The FFA-Investigations is the formal assessment and documentation of all the pertinent information that the CPI has gathered and assessed. It is not a cut and paste of your chronological notes, although it might be useful to include any specific quote you have captured. It will be the most salient and concise assessment of each domain based on all of your activities. An FFA should be so well-developed that there is not a need to read the chronological notes. The FFA should summarize:

• Who is in the family, who is a support to the family? Are caregivers with legal and significant responsibility for care and protection of the child identified and protective capacities sufficiently assessed?

• What was the reason for the hotline intake, did maltreatment occur (findings), and if so how did the maltreatment come about?

• What negative family conditions have been identified? • How often do the family conditions happen? • What is the extent of the family conditions? • What is the effect on the family? • Do the negative family conditions meet the five danger

threshold criteria for impending danger? • How likely is it that the family conditions will continue

without intervention?


March 2015


The practice standards for an impending danger assessment, as formally documented and presented in an FFA-Investigation, are that:

• The Impending Danger Assessment was complete. • Impending Danger Threats were correctly identified and can

be justified using the danger threat threshold criteria.

In the next activity, you are going to review the FFA-Investigations developed for the Sandler Case. As with previous exercises, the worksheet comprises all of the sub components of the two practice standards for an Impending Danger Assessment.

Lab Activity #2: Analysis of Completed FFA-Investigation Worksheet, Information Domains

Display Slide 3.12

Materials: • PG: 16, Analysis of Competed FFA-Investigation, Information Domains

instructions


March 2015

• PG: 17-27, Family Functioning Assessment

Trainer Instructions • In this exercise, participants will get the portion of the FFA-

Investigations that includes the information domains, the identified danger threats, and the protective capacity assessment. They will review the safety analysis section of the FFA in the next exercise.

• Participants should complete their reviews of the Impending Danger Assessment and the worksheet independently.

• After they have completed the worksheets, they should work as a group to determine if they are all in agreement as to the answers. Have one person in each group record the areas where they are not able to agree.

• Debrief as a large group, walking through each item and determining if all groups are in agreement, where there were some disagreements that need to be worked through.


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015

PG: 28-29 Analysis of Completed FFA-Investigation Worksheet,

Trainer Version

1. Is there sufficient information collected on all family members? Yes

2. Is each information domain succinct, relevant and consistent with notes reviewed, including background history learned? Note any opportunities for improvement: There are several mistakes in the recorded information in the maltreatment domain. James is reported to have refused to go to his room when told to by his stepfather, which is not accurate. It is also reported that James began to hit his stepfather which is also not the case but was only part of the father’s initial story to law enforcement to help justify his actions of having to restrain James.

3. Does the information provided by the CPI meet the Danger Threshold

Criteria? Yes • What is clearly observable about the condition? James had scratches on his

arm and throat. His mother suffered a broken finger during the altercation. • How is the condition out-of-control Mr. Braun threw chairs, hit James on

the head, punched him and twice grabbed James around the throat/neck area. Mrs. Braun twice jumped on her husband’s back to restrain him. The incidents of violence and aggression are increasing in frequency and severity.

• What harm result/could result (severity)? Although current injuries were relatively minor the potential for harm was great due to the slapping, punching and grabbing of the neck and head areas. The younger children were also present and Mr. Braun has a history of throwing objects that could result in significant harm to the small children.

• Imminence (frequency and duration) Mr. Braun’s inability to control his behavior appears to be directly related to his abuse of alcohol. He appears to have a significant personality change while under the influence of alcohol which is extremely different from his usual day to day functioning. While drinking he is angry, hostile and prone to use physical force to control or discipline James. He normally drinks heavily on weekends but this incident occurred during the week after Mr. Braun arrived home from a bar. Children in home are considered unsafe any time Mr. Braun has been using alcohol. Mr. Braun reported he drinks most days.

• How is the child vulnerable to the family condition? James’ tendency to talk back or be argumentative with his stepfather which seems to trigger Mr. Braun’s hostility and anger. While not responsible for the abuse the child’s ongoing behavior is likely to result in more altercations if Mr. Braun has been drinking. James reports that for the first time he was actually afraid of his stepfather, so much so, that he vomited as a result of the incident.


March 2015 James’ younger siblings were present in the home while incident occurred. Although not physically injured Byron and Shane were extremely upset as indicated by their hysterical crying and Byron’s imploring his father to “stop hitting Bubba.” They also cannot protect themselves when Mr. Braun is throwing objects around the house.

4. Did the CPI accurately identify Impending Danger threats? Yes

5. Did the CPI use the Definitions for Impending Danger Threats when analyzing

the information? Explain: No. Analysis was very limited and simply noted that excessive consumption of alcohol is a significant contributing factor. A more direct link should have been established pointing out how often Mr. Braun loses his temper when drinking and in this instance his behavior was so out of control that his wife was so concerned for her son’s safety that she twice attempted to pull Mr. Braun off his stepson. The analysis should have included statements related to severity and imminence as well.

6. Is there sufficient information in each domain to assess the associated

caregiver protective capacities? Is the corresponding “yes or no” for each protective capacity correct? When discussing Protective Capacities ensure that trainees are looking holistically at the parents but also remember the holistically means that recent events are considered. For example, If Mr. Braun is controls himself at work and social activities, but when he returns home loses impulse control, then he doesn’t control his impulses.

CPI Practice Standards

Indicate a “Yes” or “No” for each standard below.

• Impending Danger Assessment was complete. Yes

• Impending Danger Threats were correctly identified and can be justified using the danger threat threshold criteria. Yes

• Protective capacities were correctly identified for each

parent/caregiver as sufficient or insufficient and information was presented in the domains to justify each one. Yes

• Appropriate safety determination was made. Yes

Activity STOP


March 2015


The next section of the FFA-Investigation is where the CPI will document their determination as to whether or not all of the criteria for an in-home safety plan are met.

Trainer Note: Trainer should review the 5 criteria.

If any of the criteria for an in-home safety home are checked no, the FFA will require an out-of-home Safety Plan, the placement of the child with a relative or in licensed care and the specific Conditions for Return that need to be met before the child can safely return home.


To identify and document the Conditions for Return the investigator wants to make sure that the behaviorally based actions and behaviors which the caregivers in the home must demonstrate prior to the return of the children relate specifically to the danger threat(s) and any of the ‘No’ responses selected during the assessment of the appropriateness for the use of an in-home safety plan.


March 2015

For instance, in the Sandler case, if had Mr. Braun refused to leave the home after the maltreatment incident the investigator would have appropriately selected a ‘No’ response for either the home environment being “calm and consistent” to allow for the use of an in-home plan or ‘No’ to the “the parent/ caregiver is willing and has demonstrated they will cooperate with the in-home safety plan,” or both. The Conditions for Return in this case would want to follow from the combination of the danger threat (Mr. Braun’s violent, impulsive behavior related to his out-of-control drinking) essentially was the determining factor in the home not being calm and consistent enough or the behavior (out of control drinking) being manageable by any safety service in the home. Consequently, the Conditions for Return would require That Mr. Braun’s triggers for his alcohol abuse and violence are understood and recognized by caregivers and in home safety service providers can sufficiently monitor and manage Mr. Braun’s behavior to control his impulsivity and aggressiveness. Conditions for Return are not simply about a parent’s participation in a program (i.e., compliance-based) but more importantly about what behaviors the parent needs to demonstrate to safely allow safety service providers to manage the danger threat in the home. This is why the investigator or case manager must work very closely with domestic violence, substance abuse or mental health professionals to understand what concrete behavioral changes should be exhibited prior to agreeing that the Conditions for Return have been met. A related issue to Conditions for Return is the consideration of Reasonable Efforts.


March 2015


The Safety Analysis section of the FFA also documents the reasonable efforts to keep the child with the non-maltreating parent, or at home. This happens by summarizing how all criteria for an in-home plan is met, or not met. The Safety Analysis provides a picture as to whether the danger threat is operating at specific times, or is so out-of-control that when it occurs can’t be predicted and mitigated. Rarely will the home situation be “under control” by having someone else, say Grandmother, move in to the home to be vigilant 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Another criterion for having an in-home safety plan is that there are providers who are able and dependable to participate in a safety plan. As you know, safety plan providers might be relatives who are dependable and aligned with the child or there might be a more formal safety service provider in the home. The Safety Analysis in the FFA will document how any service provider has the skills/resources etc. necessary to provide the safety action that is needed.


March 2015

Lab Activity #3: Review of Completed FFA-Investigation, Safety Analysis Worksheet

Display Slide 3.16

Materials:

• PG: 32, Review of Completed FFA-Investigation, Safety Analysis worksheet

• PG: 33-34, FFA-Investigation Trainer Instructions:

• In this exercise, participants review the safety analysis section of the FFA for the Sandler Case which begins at the bottom of FFA-Investigations page 11.

• Participants should complete their reviews of the Safety Analysis and the worksheet independently.

• After they have completed the worksheets, they should work as a group to determine if they are all in agreement as to the answers. Have one person in each group record the areas where they are not able to agree.

• Debrief as a large group, walking through each item and determining if all groups are in agreement, where there were some disagreements that need to be worked through.


March 2015


March 2015


March 2015

PG: 35 Analysis of Completed FFA-Investigation,

Safety Analysis Worksheet, Trainer Version

1. Does the CPI is clearly describe how Impending Danger is manifested in

the home? Yes

2. The CPI’s level of effort (due diligence) in completing the In-Home Safety Planning Analysis was sufficient to determine the least intrusive and most appropriate safety plan. • Parents were sufficiently engaged Yes

• Parent’s right for self-determination is balanced against non-negotiables Yes

• Child’s need to be protected by persons the child is most familiar and comfortable with Yes

• Child’s need for routines and surroundings are “normalized” to the extent possible Yes

3. The safety analysis summary provides a clear description of how the criteria for an in-home safety plan is met or not met. No, analysis does not address criteria at all.

Activity STOP


March 2015

Display Slide 3.17

That completes CPI Case Practice Lab 3. In the next Lab, we will be creating an Impending Danger Plan for the Sandler Case and completing the Risk Assessment. We will discuss and practice the closing that should occur with every family to discuss our FFA as well as the family’s Risk Level. We will also review the Case Transfer process.


Documents

Case Practice Lab 3: Further Information Gathering for ...centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/Preservice...– prior successful engagement of supports (e.g., willingness to reach out