{"report_id":318,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"SCIR - Narrative\r\nLP: Face to face occurred after 5 day timeline. \r\nThe face to face occurring after the 5 day timeline was impacted by the face to face timeline passing before the case could be assigned to a frontline worker. In March of 2016, more report were coming into the local agency, which placed pressure on the system, due to the amount of reports being made. Tending to this production pressure, the local agency brought on a group of professionals, to assist in entering and screening intakes. An increased volume of screened in CP intakes occurred when practices became defensive at the local level as a result of increased media exposure of a high profile child death. At the state level continual changes were being made to the intake, screening and response path guidelines stemming out of the 93 governor's task force recommendations, which also required the local agency to screen in more CP intakes. Further contributing to the volume of reports being made and screened in, was the time of year (March). At this time annually, a pattern of increased reporting occurs from mandated reporters in the school system just prior to the end of the school year. Commonly reporters will make multiple reports since they will no longer have the ability to check in with the children when school is let out for the summer. Systemically, the overall increased volume of CP intakes screened in at this time created backlogs in FA\/FI units, contributing to delays in case assignment. Additionally, this FA\/FI unit was also a specialty unit, meaning in addition to being on the general rotation for CP intakes being assigned to all FA\/FI units, this FA\/FI unit also took all reports for a delegated city which receives a large amount of new screened in CP reports. This specialty FA\/FI unit had the highest backlog of all the FA\/FI units, approximately 90 FA\/FI's pending case assignment, many which were for educational neglect. \r\nA demand \u00e2\u20ac\u201c resource mismatch existed which limited the amount of time one employed FA\/FI program manager could provide to all supervisors needing consult time for cases needing to be triaged for case assignment. As a result, direction was given from the program manager to supervisors to prioritize assignment for CP allegations that involved children under the age of 2, and allegations physical abuse and sexual abuse for all aged children. Supervisors were allowed to use professional discretion when triaging and prioritizing safety\/risk of all other cases pending assignment. Strategically, educational neglect cases were placed at lower priority for case assignment, and an accepted procedural drift away from meeting face to face timelines for educational neglect types of cases occurred. Further impacting the delay in face to face, was the limited resource of human capital to do the work. There were not enough FA\/FI frontline staff employed to assign backlogged FA\/FI cases to. With 10 workers in a FA\/FI unit, each taking 5 reports a week, supervisors could get 50 cases assigned a week, but the volume continued to flow into the FA\/FI unit backlog. This volume surpassed the unit's ability to stay caught up especially considering staff turnover was also high. Supervisors made the strategic trade off to keep unassigned cases in his\/her name in the backlog when face to face timeline had passed, as a method of protecting and retaining frontline staff.  A cyclical pattern existed between high caseload sizes per worker and the high rate of staff turnover at this time. The agency attempted to combat the production pressure of the 100's of educational neglect cases pending case assignment in backlog by re-hiring a former staff who had retired, to specifically work unassigned educational neglect cases in the FA\/FI unit backlog.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:06:30 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:06:30 pm","id":32834}