Additionally, four recent changes to the child protection screening statutes and process in the state surfaced as an influence to timely face-to-face contact with alleged victims of maltreatment through the creation of additional demands on staff time and increased caseloads. Specifically, a statute regarding predatory offenders, which created a requirement of face-to-face contact with alleged victims within 24 hours even when the offender no longer has access to the alleged victim(s) increased the number of cases that required a 24 hour response for local agencies, increasing caseload demands. Other changes such as a requirement to screen 24/7 and increased documentation requirements in SSIS regarding intakes created additional requirements and demands on staff time. Finally, the use of fiscal withholds based on performance standards attached to recent increases in funds by the state legislature make it difficult for agencies to rely on and therefore use the funds to hire additional staff, offsetting the goal of reducing caseloads with the additional funds. These increased demands on staff time and caseloads influenced the need to prioritize cases other than the ones with the missed 24 hour timeline based on perceptions of safety in those cases. The presumption of safety was influenced by involvement by, and assessments of, safety from trusted partners such as local law enforcement and medical professionals. The presumption of safety was also influenced by the worker's knowledge of the alleged offender's access to the alleged victim.
Face to face delays in contact were also commonly affected by delays in case assignment. In some cases, the new DHS requirement to do screening by a team led to the local agency deciding to pull in team members unfamiliar with the screening process which resulted in slower screening decisions because of the need to explain and talk through the screening decision with the newer screening team member. These delays influenced delays in case assignment which meant less time for the worker assigned to the case to make the initial face-to-face contact with the alleged victim.   Further contributing to reports being held up in the screening process include the time it takes to obtain identifiable information when it is not contained within the original child maltreatment report. Sometimes a reporter may not have all of the identifiable information necessary to screen in a report and the local agency will take some time to do follow up with collaterals.

.  Additionally, best practices set forth by the Department of Human Services encourages local agencies to coordinate efforts with all agencies involved with multi- jurisdictional child maltreatment reports, including deference to law enforcement agencies needs occasionally (e.g. a law enforcement request to delay contact with alleged victims as a result of a criminal investigation). The need for coordination between multiple agencies such as law enforcement can also influence the worker to delay contact with alleged victims when waiting on the other agency for a particular need. For example, the worker may need to partner with law enforcement to make the visit in cases where either the law enforcement agent or worker may feel that law enforcement is necessary to ensure safety of the worker.