{"report_id":366,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"361","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"LP1: The agency had knowledge of the family, as a CP intake had been reported to the local agency on 2\/1\/2017, which was screened out and referred to Wisconsin's CP system due to the last known address for the family being located in the State of Wisconsin. When the 2\/3\/2017 report came in, staff consulted with their supervisor about the complexity of jurisdiction that needed attention for the case and gave the CP intake to their supervisor. The intake and screening workload was high at this time and the staff did not have time to dedicate to the complexity around jurisdiction. Therefore, the supervisor supported the staff by taking the 2\/3\/2017 CP intake off the staff's workload and the staff believed the report was screened timely within the 24 hour timeline. \r\nFurther contributing to the delay in screening was the fact that the report came in on a Friday. At the time, the local agency did not have the ability to screen reports after regular business hours. On Mondays, screeners felt added pressure to prioritize screening reports within 24-hours in order to meet the compliance metric, as CP reports accumulated over the weekend, increasing Monday's workload every week. It is not uncommon for screeners to gather more information using collateral contacts or contacting the reporter prior to making a screening decision. Yet if a CP intake is nearing the end of the 24-hour timeline, the agency's normative practice is to screen the report with the information the screener has been able to gather at the time. The local agencies intake and screening staff were responsible for answering all the calls that came into the agency. The calls include those that are not specific to child protection. This universal answering coverage for the agency placed additional pressure on screeners at times when a 24-hour timeline screening decision needed to be made, especially when reports had complicating factors like this CP intake did (unknown information\/ jurisdiction issue\/ screener & supervisor had little to no time to gather additional information). \r\n\r\nLP2: Supporting the consultation between agency staff was the belief that not every licensing violation is a CP report, as well as, the perception that the CP system would be inundated if every incident was reported.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:34:11 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:34:11 pm","id":34427}