 |
 |
 |
Vol.
24, No. 2
May 2019
Assessing Safety and Risk Are Key to Timely Case Closure
An Interview with Amanda Tanner-McGee
When the federal government assessed our state's child welfare system in 2015, it was concerned some families' cases were closed before agencies had assessed safety, offered services, or addressing the presenting problem (USDHHS, 2017). To support efforts to strengthen this area of practice, Practice Notes spoke with Amanda Tanner-McGee. A veteran with 35 years in our field, Ms. Tanner-McGee was Social work Program Administrator for Rutherford County DSS until fall 2018, when she became Director at Cherokee County DSS.
Why is timely case closure so important?
Closing a case too early can be very dangerous. Leaving a case open too long is also dangerous.
To close a case we need to answer the question: "A child is assessed to be safe when..."
When what? When there is no threat of danger within the home or family. Or, if a threat exists, the family has protective capacities to protect the child and manage the threat.
How do you determine that?
I teach social workers to continually assess safety and whether the child is in immediate danger. If the child is not in immediate danger or if there is a threat but the family can protect the child, the worker must assess risk and document the family's protective factors before closing the case. If we don't do this, we're closing too early.
Risk factors fall into four domains: those related to the parent or caregiver, those related to the child, those around the family, and those around the environment in general.
There also are protective factors that must be assessed and weighed against the family's risk factors before closing a case. If risk, safety, and protective factors aren't assessed accurately, cases may be closed prematurely.
How does supervision play into this?
Child welfare supervisors should be well grounded in assessing safety and risk and protective factors. They must listen for statements during individual supervision that answer the questions: Is the child safe? Is there risk of future maltreatment? They should ask probing questions to help social workers use critical thinking skills to make appropriate case decisions.
In addition, the supervisor is responsible for assessing the well-being of the social worker to ensure they have clarity of thought.
For example, say a worker has worked a great deal of overtime, has been involved in multiple serious cases, and is also experiencing personal stress. The supervisor needs to touch base to make sure the worker is OK and not operating in an impaired manner. This is trauma-informed practice. The supervisor has to say: "Talk to me. Are you OK? Can I send someone with you? Do you need a break from this one--can I send someone else?"
It is unethical to continue to work if you are so tired your thinking is impaired, or you have personal issues distracting your clarity of thought on the job, or you have a bias that will keep you from making good decisions on a specific case. At the end of the day, the supervisor must make the call if they believe a worker is impaired to the point of not being able to make good judgements.
As leaders and supervisors, it is important to support critical thinking, ethical practice, and continuous self-care. We have to build a culture where critical thinking and self-care are expected. This is a primary function of individual supervision in child welfare. If we don't make this a priority, we run the risk of sending out workers who are unable to think critically or skillfully assess child safety.
Does family engagement affect our ability to close cases timely?
Safe closure also depends on parent or caregiver family engagement. When there's engagement, it is more likely the parent will commit to a plan that is feasible and likely to succeed. Engaged parents take the actions they want and agree to take.
True engagement means we have a trusting relationship with the client. It's much more than texts and phone calls.
What can agency leaders do to support timely case closure?
Agency leaders have to know where their cases are. Some data and reports I look at every week. Others I look at every month. I look for indicators that cases are moving. If cases are closed very early or open longer than policy allows, I ask why. I want to be sure our decisions clinically solid.
In my view data should not be a source of fear in the agency. I prefer to let data tell the story and use it as a learning tool and driver for change. An "off with your heads" approach can make staff afraid to talk about mistakes or problems. We need to build and support a culture where it is OK to talk with curiosity about both good and problematic data. If people are afraid to bring a mistake to the table, children are going to be at risk.
As a director, I want bad news to travel to me fast. My line is: "If we have a mistake, tell me. You're not going to be in trouble. I'll support you and we'll work it out." I support mistakes as a tool for improvement. But for this to work, staff need to be comfortable "owning" mistakes.
It is exhilarating to watch a high-performing team talk about mistakes and ways to keep them from happening again. THIS is how practice improves, regardless of what model you use.