In preparation for this Friday’s meeting of the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children, I’d like to highlight each workgroup’s proposed final recommendations (based on the February 27 Task Force meeting). On Friday the Task Force will meet to finalize the final recommendations. This post will focus specifically on the Screening and Transparency Workgroup and the Training and Supervision Workgroup recommendations.

Proposed Final Recommendations

Screening and Transparency

  1. Make needed SSIS (the state’s Social Services Information System) changes.
  2. Modify the child mortality review process by sending out a notice immediately, providing a summary within 90 days of what the review panel knows, and publishing a final conclusion.
    • Determine whether the Department of Human Services (DHS) could develop a public website for this purpose.
    • Disclose family’s child protection referral history (i.e., any screened out reports), if it is lawful to do so.
  3. Improve current child welfare data dashboard available online through DHS’s website.
  4. Restructure the annual child welfare report to better identify themes and outcomes statewide and county by county and to focus on meaningful outcome measures.
  5. Plan for long-term child welfare reform.
  6. DHS to design and institutionalize a multidisciplinary group similar to the Task Force.
  7. Require a score card for DHS.
  8. Promote public confidence through public reports on issues such as number of intake calls received and number of families with multiple reports screened out
  9. Require track assignment to be made by someone other than the initial screener

One concern acknowledged by all Task Force members was related to data privacy issues concerning county-by-county reports. Former Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz said one solution could be to combine smaller counties in annual reports on child welfare outcomes. Stacy Hennen was concerned that doing so would result in inaccurate pictures of individual counties and suggested that an internal private review could occur simultaneously in order to get a better understanding of county-level outcomes.

Training and Supervision

Recommendations for training:

  1. Develop a Minnesota workforce training advisory group to advise DHS on topics including worker competencies, supervisor best practice model, and interdisciplinary system of training opportunities.
  2. Develop 2 tiers of training for newly hired child protection workers: Tier 1 would provide a basic theoretical/philosophical foundation for non-social work degreed hires to help them build key social work skills, and Tier 2 would focus more in-depth on child protection practices and be for both social work degreed hires and those who complete Tier 1.
  3. Review and enhance existing caseworker and supervisor training on screening, Family Assessment, Family Investigation, cultural competency, trauma, injury identification, and SSIS case entry.
  4. Look at different delivery models in order to expand training opportunities (not just in person, but also hybrid and online formats).
  5. Take a multidisciplinary approach to training and responding to maltreatment.
  6. Develop an enhanced workload analysis tool, understanding that not every case has the same weight (e.g., workload for a family with 2 kids is different than the workload for a family with 5 kids).
  7. Allow gathering and review of caseload and workload information to identify caseload sizes, educational background of staff and supervisors, and training completion.
  8. Allow back-up child protection staff to receive the same training as other staff (requires a paradigm shift where training is weighted higher).
  9. Develop training resources for regions to facilitate timely training.
  10. Require counties to develop and submit a plan addressing secondary trauma in order to support the workforce.
  11. Expand existing student loan forgiveness program to include child protection workers as a way to recruit and retain qualified staff.
  12. Utilize existing partnerships with Title IV-E.
  13. Require all mandated reporters, including those licensed by DHS, to receive training on an annual basis.
  14. Require licensing boards for mandated reporters to include mandated reporting as a training requirement at initial licensure and subsequent licensure renewals.
  15. Require DHS to develop a certificate of completion for mandated reporting training that can be printed.

Recommendations for Supervision/Oversight:

  1. Establish a caseload standard of no more than 10 child protection cases per worker.
  2. Establish a caseload standard for newly hired workers: No more than 0.75 that of a full-time worker, and none that are high risk, until the worker completes training.
  3. Establish a ratio of 1 supervisor for every 8 child protection workers.
  4. Review, in partnership with counties, all forms and data requirements in order to determine ways to more efficiently gather information as a way to lessen the workload.
  5. Continue with the state Child and Family Services Review and increase the frequency among small counties (currently in a 5-year rotation).
  6. DHS to conduct monthly reviews of maltreatment reports in order to monitor consistency.
  7. Utilize the human services performance management system for sustained outcomes.
  8. Expand child mortality reviews to include all deaths of children without regard to child welfare involvement.
  9. Redesign child mortality reviews to include fatalities and near fatalities due to maltreatment.
    • On one level, the county would conduct reviews for those cases related to accidents, suicides, and natural causes.
    • On another level, DHS would conduct reviews due to maltreatment in licensed facilities (not due to natural causes).
  10. Engage an outside entity for oversight purposes.
  11. Change the ombudsperson for families to be ombudsperson for children and families in order to expand the scope to include all Minnesota children and families.

The workgroup was unable to come to a consensus on qualifications of county child protection workers (namely, whether they should be licensed social workers). The workgroup did recommend that for candidates applying to positions via the merit system, BSW and MSW degrees would be preferred, and in situations where the county would be unable to attract BSW/MSW candidates, those with 4-year degrees in a related field could then be hired.

Additionally, the workgroup stated that without additional state dollars to offset the cost to counties, they would be unable to endorse many of the Supervision/Oversight recommendations.

Robert O’Connor, who oversees Metro State University’s Title IV-E child welfare program, asked that the workgroup consider including university faculty and staff in training requirements so that they stay up-to-date with what is current best practice and be able to modify syllabi and coursework accordingly. He explained that when DHS changes what’s considered to be best practice, state and county staff are made aware of the changes but university staff are still teaching what was previously considered best practice. Another recommendation from the full Task Force related to training was that experienced child protection staff also receive regular training.