{"report_id":333,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"347","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"LP1 - The sacrifice decision to not meet the 45 day compliance measure, was perceived to ease the pressure of needing to meet face to face timelines for allegations referred to an open assessment\/investigation, as staff believed SSIS reports only track face to face compliance for the first screened in CP Intake, and not for any others in which are referred to an already open workgroup. This workaround was believed to not impact face to face contact requirements that was tied to the legislative withhold funding when face to face compliance metrics are not met by the agency.\r\n\r\nLP3 - Furthermore, staff believed that the investigation around the educational neglect allegations had been completed, although not officially closed within SSIS.  As a result staff's interpretation of this new allegation was that it was screened in and the allegations had already been assessed.  Therefore, not requiring an additional face to face to be completed since this was perceived by staff to be a duplicate report and therefore guidance (Intake, Screening, and Response Path Guidelines) would indicate that a report of this type can be screened out as already assessed which would not require face to face to contact.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:24:46 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:24:46 pm","id":33867}