Due Process: Termination of Employees at CPS

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Due Process of Employee Termination at CPS
Background and Analysis of the Policy Issue
Conclusions
References

Introduction

CPS is a specialized social service targeting children who are believed to be abused or neglected to their parents or other adults who had an effect on their parental responsibility (Steingold, 2008). The aim of the organization is to reduce the risk of continued sexual, physical or mental abuse. Child Protective Services (CPS) is present in every state in the United States and is mandated under ARS 8-802 to protect children who are alleged to be neglected or abused (Steingold, 2008). The CPS program offers specialized social services that aim at preventing abuse, neglect and dependency of children (Mauk, 2008).

CPS collects screens and scrutinizes accusations of child neglect and abuse, analyses a child’s impending risk of harm, assesses the child safety and weighs up the conditions that refute or support the alleged neglect or abuse and requirement for emergency intervention (Koch, 2007).

The program also offers services tailored to stabilize a family unit in crisis and conserve the unit by reducing risk factors. The purpose of understanding the policies governing the staffing and termination of employment of the child protection services is to assess their formulation, application and enforcement. In addition, this will aid in the identification of any loopholes in their formulation or implementation (Mauk, 2008).

Due Process of Employee Termination at CPS

Problem Statement

It is clearly stated in the employment policy that an employee shall be provided with an electronic copy of the employment policy which also comprises of the employment termination clauses and this shall be published at the CPS website besides being discussed at the new employee orientation (Bayer, 2007; Steingold, 2008). Unfortunately, this is not true since such policy neither exists at the site address nor is it discussed at the employee orientation (Koch, 2007; Steingold, 2008). An understanding of the termination policy as it relates to employees is necessary for them to seek legal redress in cases of infringement (Koch, 2007). Therefore, the problem at CPS is one of failing to communicate the policy to the employees.

Background and Analysis of the Policy Issue

Organizational structure

The Child Protective Services is supervised by the state and administered by the counties. The CPS at the state level is divided into six organizational units. The Family and Services Units deals with in-home services; the Abuse and Neglect Unit deals with the child neglect and abuse cases; the Behavioral Services Unit deals with the cases which involve children placements while the Special Services Unit deals with the fostering placement recruiter.

The Administrative Unit deals with clerical functions (Steingold, 2008). The organization is headed by the Executive Director.

The Child Protection Services has got several stakeholders including US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children’s Bureau, the state child welfare director, state court system representatives, state child welfare program specialist, major tribal representatives, local child welfare agency administrator, juvenile court judge, foster parent (s), law enforcement representative, local administrative review bodies, guardian ad litem (Steingold, 2008; Koch, 2007).

Termination at Child Protection Services may occur due to: misconduct, inability to execute job responsibilities, poor job performance, disagreements with other employees or managers, or lack of “fit” with the business (Hernnerman, 2006). However, there are other instances where the fired has no control, for instance downsizing, acquisition (reduction in force), restructuring, relocation or even death. Under the CPS termination policy, there are three types of terminations. These include: voluntary termination, involuntary termination, and death (Steingold, 2008).

Voluntary termination of employment is where an employee notifies the Administrator of the employee’s resignation, or termination occurred when the employee abandons work for three successive days without contacting the Administrator (Steingold, 2008). The procedure of termination as stated by the policy includes:

The employee is supposed to give a two week advance notice of the intended resignation so as to provide a practical time allowance for transferring ongoing workloads. This should be a written notification (Bayer, 2007).
Thereafter, the Administrator must notify the human resource manager of the resignation by giving him a duplicate of the resignation letter. If necessary, pertinent information for resigning should be annotated (Steingold, 2008).
The HR administrator then harmonizes the employee’s out-processing by
1. 1. Submitting all company possessions (ID cards, keys, parking passes etc.)
2. 2. Benefits status review.
3. 3. Completion of an exit interview questionnaire. These exit questionnaires provide the director with employees’ feedback data whenever necessary (Koch, 2007).

The Administrator then completes a Supervisory Termination Summary form, located in the leader handbook, and returns it to the HR Administrator who files it in the employee’s personnel file.

The employee is cleared and a security clearance form is provided. The employee is then required to check out and debrief the security officer not later than his or her last day of employment (Koch, 2007).

When it comes to involuntary termination, the procedure of termination includes:

Before taking any action to fire an employee, the Administrator informs the director to request an assessment by the Termination Review Board (Hernnerman, 2006).
Thereafter, the board consisting of the employee’s director, the HR head; reviews the discharge and establish if the dismissal is justified.
If the board recommends that the employee be dismissed, the Administrator notifies the employee and synchronizes with the HR Administrator to ensure that the employee follows the checkout procedure as articulated in the voluntary termination process.
The Administrator then goes ahead and notifies the HR Administrator of the employee’s last day at work (Steingold, 2008).

When it comes to deceased employees, the termination of employment is effective from the date of death. The following procedure is used in termination:

The Administrator must immediately notify the Benefits Administrator upon receiving notification
The Benefits Administrator will then process all payments from the various benefits plans.

Therefore is the due process of the law is followed, cases of litigation against the agency would be alleviated (Bayer, 2007).

Conclusions

An important aspect of dealing and preventing lawsuits with CPS is communicating the agency policies with every employee at the time they become employees of the organization. There is need for necessary checklists and forms to assist in communicating the employment policies and keep track of the communication processes. Termination of an employee is one of the painful tasks many organizations face but being prepared through proper communication can alleviate this problem.

References

Arizona Department of Economic Security. Child Protection Services. Web.

Gerald, G.F. (2007). Employee issues at Child Protection Service. Public Administration Review, 12 (4): 436-44.

Bayer, R. (2007). Termination with dignity. Journal of Social Policy, 11 (4): 963-67.

Hernnerman, T. (2006). Ignoring the signs of communication policy can be fatal. Public Personnel Management, 14 (5): 687-93.

Steingold, F. (2008). Firing CPS employees and avoiding trouble. Review of Public Personnel Administration Governance, 8 (12): 364-71.

Koch, J. J. (2007). Child Protection Services policies do not help protect employee rights. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (5): 826-35.

Mauk, W.L. (2008). Future damages: the right remedy for wrongful discharge: safeguarding employee rights. Public Productivity and Management Review, 9(3): 729-33.

Employee termination policy. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!