Face to face contact regarding 3/9/2018 allegation of educational neglect not occurring was that the 3/9 allegation was same or similar allegation already assessed in January on 1/11, and 1/30 under this same workgroup.  Further influencing face to face contact not occurring in this case was that the CP Worker made a collateral contact with the reporter, and learned there was nothing new being reported about the twin half- sibling's truancy. Reporter felt obligated to report again due to the number of absences that one twin sibling had accumulated since the reporter last reported Ed neglect in January.  Also impacting face to face contact not being made in this case was that work was being done as prescribed and expected in regards to addressing Ed neglect concerns.  Staff was actively supporting the family's needs around getting the children's attendance to improve.  An additional face to face contact would not have changed the trajectory of work in this case as the educational neglect allegations had already been assessed and ongoing work with the family was being conducted.    
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.  
Additionally, priority is placed on making new face to face contacts for 24 hour reports when they are referred to current workgroup, not 5 day response reports for same or similar allegations that are already being assessed in current workgroup.