State to give back control of child welfare services of Nash Social Services, documents show

State Transfers Control of Child Welfare Services Back to Nash County Department of Social Services

More than six months after the state took over child welfare services at the Nash County Department of Social Services, the state announced it would transfer control back to Nash DSS on Thursday.

Investigation Reveals Failures in Child Welfare Services

The probe into the department began after a WRAL News investigation into the beating death of 8-year-old Christal Lane. Law enforcement told WRAL News that they recommended to Nash DSS that the child be removed two weeks before her death. Lane’s grandmother was charged with first-degree murder and felony child abuse, and arrest warrants show Lane died of severe blunt force trauma to her head and body – leaving many to question why Nash DSS hadn’t removed the child from the dangerous situation weeks earlier.

A second investigation revealed another child died in their care three years prior. In that case, social workers with the department itself recommended the baby be removed. Chase Hillard, age 2, had died in 2020 after his mother, Vonquetta Hilliard, said he fell from a bed. Despite the claim, the mother was charged with second-degree murder nearly a year after her son’s death.

The state’s investigation resulted in the removal of the head of Nash DSS.

Incidents Prompt State Takeover

In two letters obtained by WRAL News on Wednesday, state officials said three final incidents in August led them to take over child welfare services.

In one of the cases, a father contacted the department multiple times about his child’s well-being. When state officials asked Nash DSS to review the case, they “learned the case lacked any narrative and none of the structured decision-making tools were implemented.”

According to the letters, the state also learned there were “200 or more cases that had been closed…but there was no documentation to support the case decision that was made.”

Progress Made by Nash DSS

In the months since the state took over the department, it says Nash DSS has made “significant” progress, including:

• Assessing the safety of children in all open child welfare cases.
• Notifying the Nash County Sheriff’s office about abuse and neglect cases.
• Providing full-time management, supervision, and evaluation of child welfare cases.
• A new after-hours unit.
• Hiring and training new child welfare staff members.

The state says the goal is to regain trust in the community that Nash DSS can keep children safe. On Thursday, the county manager said people can once again have confidence that the agency can protect them.

“I do have confidence moving forward because I know what the game plan is,” said Nash County Manager Stacie Shatzer.

“I will acknowledge that we are not perfect,” Shatzer said. “We are not ever going to be perfect. What I have confidence in is in our growth in our development and our professionalism that we have gained in the last six and a half months.”

While the state said Nash DSS will resume control of child welfare on Thursday, it will still maintain oversight and monitor the progress of the agency in the future.

“We appreciate the state’s leadership in helping Nash County to better protect children involved in the child welfare system,” said Shatzer. “Moving forward, we will continue to work closely with NCDHHS to ensure we are meeting state expectations and doing all we can for children and families in our county.”

Shatzer said the takeover exposed a number of weaknesses, including over 200 cases that were closed without proper documentation. Over the last six months, staff members were retrained, given new roles, and a new director was named.

Shatzer said now they are working on filling vacancies and hiring an outside agency to help with documentation.

Shatzer was asked about the previous director and other upper management positions before the takeover. She said many of those employees still work with the county, but are in different roles.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 4: Quality Education
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
• Target 3.2: By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births.
• Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
• Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.
• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems, by sex, distinguishing children, unemployed persons, older persons, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, newborns, work-injury victims and the poor and vulnerable.
• Indicator 3.2.1: Under-five mortality rate.
• Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.
• Indicator 5.2.1: Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age group.
• Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by sex, age and persons with disabilities.
• Indicator 16.6.2: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services.

SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: wral.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.