Transcript St. Louis County - Amazon Web Services

Solution Focused Journey to Family Dependency
Treatment Court
Agenda
 Introduction
 Inquiry
 Family Engagement - Tools
 Organization Challenges
 Community Forum
 Family Dependency Treatment Court – Drug Court
 Video – Drug Court Participant
 Video – Drug Court Team Member
 Acknowledgements/References
Introductions
 Mark Wilhelmson
 Social Service Supervisor
 St. Louis County Public Health & Human Services
 [email protected]
 Mark Snyder
 Social Service Supervisor
 St. Louis County Public Health & Human Services
 [email protected]
Location
 Map of U.S. /Minnesota/St. Louis County
DULUTH
Olympic Gold Medals
 List of Countries and Medal Count
COUNTRY
GOLD
SILVER
BRONZE
TOTAL
1. USA
9
15
13
37
2.Germany
10
13
7
30
3.Canada
14
5
6
26
18. Australia
2
1
0
3
27. Estonia
0
1
0
1
Miserable finish by Curling Team From Duluth 
St. Louis County Golf Team
 Team: Mark Wilhemson,
Mark Snyder, Tom
Rendulich, Rick Benson,
John Nachsheim, James
Ellingson, Jenny Fick,
Melissa Lehr
 Andrew Turnell – Honorary
Team Member
 Golf Cap
Child Safety
 Be Gentle With The Young
 Juvenal (55 AD-127 AD)
 Children begin by loving their parents; as they grow older they
judge them; sometimes they forgive them
 Oscar Wilde (1854 – 1900)
 Always be nice to children because they are the ones who will
choose your rest home
 Phyllis Diller (1917 -
)
Change
 We must become the change we want to see.
Mahatma Ghandi (1869 – 1948)
 A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an
optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Winston
Churchill
 There is nothing wrong with change if it is in the right
direction. Winston Churchill
Inquiry - The Journey Begins
 Collaboration with Key Actors
 Focus on safety
 Language Change
 Solution Building
 Exploration for details
 Search for exceptions
 Individuals
Tools
 Elicit, Amplify, Reflect, Start Over
 3 Houses
 3 Columns
 Safety Plans
 Words and Pictures
 Time Line
 Maps
‘Three Houses’ Child Protection Risk Assessment
Process to use with Children and Young People
Created by Nicki Weld, Wellington NZ
House of Worries
House of Good
Things
House of Dreams
On 3 separate pieces of paper draw with the children their experience and
vision of each house. Use these drawings with the adults in deepening the
assessment and planning process.
More Info: www.signsofsafety.net/Around_the_World.html - New Zealand: Child Youth and Family
3 Columns
WHAT ARE WE WORRIED
ABOUT
WHAT’S WORKING WELL?
WHAT’S WORKING WELL?
Strengths
Our View
Safety
Your View
Rate the situation on a scale of 0-10, where 0
means things are so bad the family can no
longer care for the children and 10 means
that everything that needs to happen for the
children to be safe in the family is happening
 Safety plan (blank)
TIME LINE
1st report to IIUPrenatal
exposure- THC
also left AMA
29weeks preg
June 28 09
June 2009
Destani
born
Weighed 3
lbs 4 oz
June 29 09
Liana and
Susan begin
working with
Autumn and
JacobDestani to
stay in
hospital for 6
weeks
July 2009
Domestic
between
Jacob and
AutumnCharged w/
domestic
assault
Aug 29 .09
Aug 2009
Destani
discharged from
hospital Autumn
and Jacob
successfully
completed all
hospital
recommendations
Aug 11.09
Safety plan
developed w/
public health
Nurse- Autumn
no longer wants
SS involved
Sept 25. 09
Sept 2009
Jacob goes
to NERCC
on violation
D.V.
ADR-April
3, 2010
PH notifys
Liana that she
has not seen
Autumn in a
few weekscanceling appts
possible drug
use
Oct 23. 09
Oct 2009
Liana
receives
reports that
Autumn is
dealing and
using methrefused UA
Nov 2009
Autumn admits to
using THC 2x
since last visit- not
going to 1st yesronly met w/ PHN
2X
Nov 23. 09
Dec 2009
Admin
review…
close case
Feb 9.10
Feb 2010
H.V. @
Autumns –
Patrick admits
to meth relapse
– states he is
homicidal/
suicidal during
visit
Dec 15, 09
Mar 2010
Concerns
about
Autumns
ability to care
for child*police hold*
March 5 2010
Building Safety & Strengthening Families Practice
Danger/Harm
Safety
10 month old Sam was held by Judy when Pete
punched Judy, she fell while holding Sam and Sam’s
head hit a table causing a large bruise and bump
Genogram
Neighbors called 911 and Pete was arrested
Aunt Rose has a spare bedroom for Judy & Sam
Pete and Judy have argued before without threats or
violence.
Safety = Strengths
Strengths/Protective Factors
Demonstrated As Protection
(Ahlquist 2000)
Over Time.
Risk Statement(s)
• We are worried because this is the second time Pete has
been physical with Judy and this time was more violent.
• We are worried because Pete’s father punched
both he and his mother and injured them, from the
time Pete was 6 years old and until his father left
the home when Pete was 14
Next Steps
• Judy clearly loves Sam; he goes to her, they
cuddle, she responds to him being upset
• Judy’s aunt Rose lives close to her, is supportive of her
and provides care for Sam so Judy & Pete can have a break
(Immediate Progress)
Safety Protection Required
Complicating Factors
Pete usually interacts well with Sam, plays with him
and has never hurt him when caring for him
• Pete and Judy have met separately with
Current
the social workers and both appear
Ranking
honest
and open about what happened.
• Pete has a job that pays well and he
•
Pete
views the domestic violence as
1
Judy
has
decided
to
spend
some
time
with
provides most resources for the
serious
and believes he needs help.
family
2 Sam at Rose’s house to see if Pete takes
•Pete has no supportive family and no 3 action
Pete’s boss has tried to befriend
friends he is close to or can rely on.
Pete has told his boss about the
4
him and is a good example for Pete
both on the job and at home
incident & he will be part of a
5
safety plan.
6
Pete has contacted DAIP and will
7
begin the Men’s education group.
8
Pete will visit Sam at Rose’s house and Rose will Focus/Purpose of Consultation
9
10
be in charge of the visit.
Pete will provide financial resources to Judy and
Sam, through Rose
Enough Safety to Close
Organizational Practice
 Intake transfers to case management; 1200 intakes in
2009
 Pre-petition Screening; 188 petitions for juvenile court
What is working, useful considered strengths?
 SOS offers different ways to look at cases with a focus on safety with some
discussion of absolute sobriety
 SOS methods allow an opportunity to really develop a working relationship and find
out what is going on in a family. SOS consult formats, 3 houses help develop the








relationship
SOS allows to focus on impact of danger and harm on children and to set
measurable behavioral goals for parents both short and long term.
Mapping forces Social Workers to focus on real concerns regarding impacts on child
safety and parents behavior and helps develop goals as well as getting detail
Stronger working relationships mean better outcomes for families
3 column used with care givers helps set small goals which result in success and the
goals are generated by the care givers
Mapping limits story telling about families and situations
Words and pictures has been helpful for children
Skillful questioning for detail allows a balance look at the family
Detail helps direct case rather than formula response like placing all pre-natally
exposed children
What are the concerns, worries?
 Judges, Guardian ad Litems acceptance of practices is a worry
 Judges may be concerned that the Social Workers relationship with care givers is more
important than the safety of children
 SOS takes more time than workers have ie Words and Pics, 3 houses 3 columns
 SOS as practiced may be too focused on short term goals than safety (strengths re concern
demonstrated over time)
 Coordination of the use of tools from intake to ongoing, families or children ask why are we
doing this again, we already did that?
 Case mapping is not a friendly process, too long, too structured, too much of a critique of the
mappee, mapper, not as purposeful as it could be
 There are not enough opportunities to learn SOS
 Safety plans are a joke...parents bring unsafe people to the network, do they really provide for
safety, do they rely too much on the child to keep themselves safe (safety objects, logs) do they
create an opportunity for secrets between child and care giver? The issue of secrets with
parents could be confusing and give the wrong message.
 Varied use of SOS creates questions from the parents and children
 Lets use plain language, not buzz words like “appreciative inquiry”
 With words and pictures, parents get defensive re what the child will be told and negotiation is
required
Next Steps
 Specialized training should continue such as W & P
DVD etc
 Set up a library of resources
 Training of the CP community, Judges, Foster Parents,
GAL etc
 Agency Conference as a training tool
 Social Workers need materials for WP, etc.
Community Forum on Child Protection
1. What strategies/methods or examples of community collaboration
for child safety are you aware of that have worked well?
Intense cross training w/shelters and cps staff so we can understand
each others philosophies i.c. crisis response teams in the past.
As a new worker, go out to the partnering organizations i.e. a shelter worker went out to First Witness in
her new employee orientation.
Building relationships one on one with the client in the center of the relationship (small collaborations are
significant).
Advantages of being a small urban area and “recognize” each other and has a sense of each others work.
Learning about each others service i.e. a mother wanted to give her child up for adoption and the “love
basket.”
Monthly team meetings with Fond du Lac and SLCPHHS
Quarterly dialog meetings with FDL and SLCPHHS
Co-case manager (ICWA social workers from FDL & SLC)
Collaboration review meetings among the ICWA Court Case parties so each has a sense and does not
have “surprises.” Does not mean we always agree w/one another.
Joint Family Group Decision Making meetings for families
Professional community is willing to collaborate – with differences, still coming together. Important to
“getting to know one another so there is less adversarial. This also helps define “who family is” to people.
Community dialog initiated with cultural, professional aspects of what is going on in the community.
SLC & FDL &Carlton May 22nd 1 p.m. (3rd one coming up) This session will focus on “gangs.”
Networking is key and SLC is a helpful resource
After school programming w/Grant School, PATCH coordinates and
has an Americorp staff person
3. What are some ideas or solutions to the challenges you have considered?
In Alaska I had all the e-mails of critical people across systems – a big address book. i.e. SLCPHHS
www.stlouiscounty.org and isd709….
Creation of our first Family Justice Center – it will reduce barriers for women once they leave the shelter
….Family Justice Center will wrap around women, probation, prosecutors, Shelter, therapists, minor
medical treatment, child care, transportation in the old Water and Gas Building with goal of opening 2008.
American Indian Advisory Board is working w/DHS and others to help make a difference with specific
concerns with native people.
Building networks and bridges: Formal Cross training with one another; Formal
network over a case together, a short term program together or more longer term.
Carlton Co. Collaboratin w/FDL to discover what the “left and right hand is doing” which grew to a “wrap
around” program called a “Children’s Collaborative.”
To address “our own silos” we need to have training together or problem-solving with further “focus
groups.”
Go back to work and take a risk to get your “foot stepped on” and we can each “choose our mindset.”
As a person in the trenches, it would be great to have “one release” to work together. HIPAA is a barrier
to this work – can we do a “multidisciplinary team release.”
2. What are some of the challenges for communities collaborating
for child safety?
Honoring tribal court orders in across - IV E funding available to
tribes and education will need to happen.
Funding is needed for all services
Funding challenges also force us to change and often creates the perception we will then have “less”
dollars and get locked in programs. We can get locked in our trenches….
oIf the family had know we were going to spend $150,00 collectives, would the family have
wanted to purchase these services?
Funding driving “quotas”
Challenges of “entrenched thinking.”
Breaking out of old patterns/molds i.e. break out of old histories and generalizations about services and
people within systems. These relationships have to begin a new with the heart of safety for the child as
most important.
Network w/culturally appropriate services for the client
Services needs to be culturally appropriate
PTSD and other emotional distresses is devastating but does not drive the system – we need legislative
mandates around emotional abuse of children.
We are so use to looking to the County for “abc…” answer we need to look creatively, we need to
“challenge”
Information sharing – defining/committing to this..
Professionals time
4. What action steps could the group recommend today?
A model for working collaboratively with the child at the center FLC Educational team calls a meeting to get a common release form
for the student through a meeting.
Crisis Response team could model this with a multi
Training done jointly
Dialog between PHHS and partners
Relationship gathering/quarterly, same time, place, topic could change. Could be a brown-bag, lunch.
Traditionally, food provided means “forgiveness” is part of the offering.
When meeting collaboratively, don’t take things personally.
Regular MFIP, Social Worker: Shared caseload
Family Dependency Tx Court
Purpose/Goal
 National Model
 Promote recovery through a coordinated response to
participants dependent on alcohol and other drugs
 Improve outcomes for alcohol and other drug addicted
individuals in the courts through collaboration, thereby:
 Enhancing public safety, ensuring participant accountability,
and reducing costs to society system
FDTC – Team Members
 Judge
 Drug Court Coordinator
 County Attorney
 Public Defender
 Guardian ad Litem
 Public Social Services – Social Worker & Supervisor
 Tribal Social Services – Social Worker
 Clinical Providers
FDTC - Participants
 Currently open in Juvenile Court
 Screened by the Family Drug Court Team
 Volunteers to participate in good faith
 Signs terms of participation
FDTC Process - Phases
 ONE: Assessment; Detox; Primary Treatment; Random
Urinalysis; 12 weeks sobriety; weekly court attendance
 TWO: Sobriety; After care; Relapse Prevention; Random
Urinalysis; 12 weeks sobriety; every other week court
appearance
 THREE: Sobriety; Cognitive Behavioral Skills; Sober
Parenting; Random Urinalysis; complete 52 weeks; ever
third week court appearance
FDTC - Incentives
 Praise/recognition by the Court
 Gift certificates
 Bus passes
 Treatment medallions
 Certificates of accomplishment
 Clothing vouchers
 Gas cards,
 Respite care
 Recognition of birthdays; birthdays of children
Sanctions
 Civil Contempt of Court: reprimand – community
service - incarceration
 Graduation from FDC requires 52 consecutive weeks
of clean Urinalyses
 Any positive Urinalysis or documented use – back to
phase one reporting
 Any failure to call in for a Urinalysis, failure to report
for a Urinalysis or failure to provide a Urinalysis will
be deemed a positive and will result in sanctions.
St. Louis County Family Drug Court
Participant:
Date: March 18, 2010
Danger/Harm/Worries: History: Mother using methamphetamines, methadone, pot, adderral; connected to criminal element; arrested for
possession of Meth; assaulted and abused by her partner; Daughter exposed; witnessed violence; expressed fear of mom’s partner and
concern for her mother. Mom re-engaged with violent partner – phone calls & visit at jail; lied to drug court team; jailed. Ticketed for
shoplifting. Recently: No concerns.
Safety/Strengths/Working Well: Strong family support ties: Regular contact and visits with parents; honest discussion about relationships and
addiction; reconnected with daughter’s father – their relationship appears amiable and supportive; He has been providing primary care for
his daughter at times. All reports indicate complete sobriety – even in light of reconnection with ex-partner. Actively seeking
employment. Engaged with daughter: baking, crafts, trips to events, shopping in the community, valentines day party at school. Purchased
a puppy for daughter – teaching her to provide care. Daughter – regular attendance in pre-school – mom transports. Mom attending
individual therapy - expresses anger, frustration, and some gratitude with team and family – this is a change. Developing a stronger
relationship with sober graduate of family Drug Court Completed a court ordered peer review. Advanced to Phase II. Safety Team:
Mother, Father, Brother, two sober friends, some Family Drug court team members, & sponsor; Plan: Family 3x weekly check in
w/mom & daughter; 2x weekly face-to-face contact by friends and sponsor; weekly contact with SW; Court - 2x monthly
appearance = ensure sobriety and primary care of daughter
Complicating Factors: Mom’s father is seriously ill – creates stress and anxiety. Struggles with establishing and maintaining safe boundaries
with ex-partner; does not recognized his negative impact on her family.
Next Steps:1. Continue present efforts to work her recovery plan and care for daughter. 2. Find a job. 3. Continue individual therapy. 4.
Continue Cognitive-Behavioral group at Bethel. 5. Continue Phase II. 6, Address shoplifting ticket.
Scale
How effective has FDTC been in helping you remain sober: 0 = drug court total waste of time; 10 = absolutely critical to my sobriety?
Ans: 9; How come? Ans: Having to face people on the team and UA’s – Wish I could take them after FDTC is over. How has the
drug court process work for you: 0 = not all all – 10 = fantastic; Ans: 3; How come: confused about roles – who does what, when
and stuff like that; new UA procedure is confusing; don’t know the rules – some go to jail, others don’t – not always fair; and I
never know what’s going to happen.
0________________________________________________10
St. Louis County Family Drug Court
Participant:
Date: March 18, 2010
Danger/Harm/Worries: History: Son born six-eight weeks premature; spent the first month in a neo-natal isolet; wore a heart lung monitor; diagnosed
FASD – due to mom’s alcohol and drug use. Son is presently developmentally delayed. Mom recovered but relapsed after 10 months of sobriety
alcohol and methamphetamines: Took son to the “seedy hotel” and bar while using – placing him in danger again: Recently: The present
worry/concern is potential relapse which would place son at risk.
Safety/Strengths/Working Well: Present safety is provided through a close monitoring/supervision by the Drug Court Team; Mom’s mother and extended
family closely observe and would report in as flash – Mom lives with her mother. Mom sober for six months and cooperating with recovery –
completed treatment and working on a recovery plan. Mom has followed through with action steps. Relationship with the social worker is more real –
honest, straightforward; feels trusting and close. Completed a thorough sobriety plan. Cooperating in an individual therapy program/making progress.
Has three sober friends and convenes a bi-monthly get together. Demonstrated responsibility: cared for her disabled sister over the holidays – bathed,
toileted, fed, etc.; while performing the same duties with Robert. Participated in family traditions. Offered an apartment by the housing authority –
turned it down; it was one block from the “seedy hotel” and neighborhood where she used – advocated for her self with the housing authority – they
agreed and didn’t change her position on the waiting list. Identifies what she needs and does not need – articulates clearly her wants – expressed
concerns about the sober parenting class.
Complicating Factors: Poor – poverty; unemployed. Long history of alcohol and drug abuse; Son’s father – Mom’s ex-partner is a career criminal and
drug abuser. Housing issue – a concern for some team members; although living with her mother provides safety, security, family connectedness, and
nurturance. Little transportation other than public bus. Lacks a sober network of friends. Low self-esteem and unresolved clinical issues. . Safety
Team/Safety Plan: Team: Mom’s mother, aunt and uncle, two former foster parents, program at Bethel, cousin, father in Grand Rapids,
Minn., sponsor; Safety Plan: Relatives/Kin report to social worker weekly regarding status; personal face-to-face contact bi-monthly at
minimum with son.
Next Steps:1. Enlarge her sober network of friends 2. Remain in safe housing. 3. Seek employment. 4. Continue parent education/support
Scale
0_________________________________________________________________10
How helpful has drug court been in maintaining your sobriety: 0 = not at all; 10 = most helpful. Ans: 8; how so? Ans: having relationships with
people who care. Who? Ans: You just want me to say you; but then said team members. What else? Ans: Random UA’s – I don’t want to
disappoint people. Who? Ans: Robert, my family and you. It got a little silly at this point.
SLC FDTC Drug Court Map
What is working well?
What are your concerns?
What are your hopes or next steps?
Team comprised of professionals with diverse
skills and knowledge
Leadership is warm, compassionate, fair, and
firm
Different perspectives and opinions
Respect for others
Team members are creative and innovative
Team is committed to hard work
Team is committed to FDTC participant’s
success; provides structure, support, &
accountability; a kind of “restorative justice”
Willingness to learn and improve
Flexible – there is give and take
Able to see the bright side – have humor
Represent the community
Open to participant’s view and ideas
Not sure who is on the team
Not clear how team members are added
Not clear how team members are dropped
Worried about who does what, where, when,
and how – clarity about roles; clarity about
responsibilities
How do we communicate – especially in
crisis? E-mail, phone, etc.?
Worried about data & privacy. What
information is critical to the whole team?
What do we keep, if anything, between
individuals or share with the team?
What do we share outside the team?
Worried we don’t always hear everyone
Do not want to recreate the wheel; but,
worried we model a family court process after
criminal court. What might the differences, if
any, be?
Hear from each team member: How are we
doing; do we need to do anything different;
what might their preferred vision for the
team’s future.
Hear from present drug court participants:
same as above; incorporate their viewpoint
into our design; establish a process to obtain
their perspective (e.g. conduct an appreciative
inquiry or mapping with present drug court
participants – video and share with team)
Review present procedures and processes:
present and future team membership; roles;
responsibilities; boundaries; data privacy;
communication techniques, rewards,
sanctions, etc. Re-establish or redesign – how
might we be different from criminal drug
court?
Design or identify a training; attend as a team
Discuss and agree on a periodic team building
plan
Drug Court Participant Video
Drug Court Team Member
Next Steps
 Continued Mapping/Search for Detail With Families
 Continued Sharing of Maps with Families and Team
 Attach Maps and Safety Plans to Reports to Juvenile
and Family Drug Court
 Map Family Drug Court Process With Team Members
 Combine Team Member Maps, Discuss at Retreat
 Start Over
Special Thanks
 Roxanne Esler – Drug Court Social Worker
 Catherine Ramm – Drug Court Participant
Acknowledgements
 Andrew Turnell
 Rob Saywer & Sue Lorbach, Olmsted County Staff
 Dan Koisolek & Michelle Sellinger Carver County Staff
 Minnesota Department of Human Services
 Dick Pingry & Children’s Division, St. Louis County
 Special Assistance: Mary Ness, Jenny Fick & James
Ellingson
References
 Ellingson, James & Fick, Jenny – Time Line
 Lorbach, Sue – Consultation Framework
 Turnell, A. & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety: A
Solution and Safety Oriented Approach to Child
Protection Casework. New York: Norton & Company
 Turnell, A. & Essex, S. (2006). Working with ‘Denied’
Child Abuse: The Resolutions Approach. Berkshire,
England: Open University Press.
 Weld, Nikki – 3 Houses