Debrief #1 with staff:
•	Lot of changes occurring in the agency at that time
o	3 different directors in the previous year 
ï‚§	Brought about a lot of changes to agency initiatives
•	Focus at the time was to focus on child safety and engagement/ working with the family to establish safety plans, and for staff to monitor the parents enforcing of the developed safety plan over time, and its effectiveness.
o	Influx in hiring new staff from new sources of funding
ï‚§	Hiring of several new staff (8-9) to Investigation/Assessment unit
ï‚§	Many of them had to attend CORE training first 2-3 months and not available to take cases
ï‚§	Staff serving as peer mentor and only had 3 years of experience
o	Unit was spilt up and had 2 supervisors, one supervisor was new
o	Supervisors were being pulled away for agency meetings and were less available for direct consulting
ï‚§	Peer to peer consulting occurred most often versus supervisor consults 
o	High caseloads
ï‚§	Efficiency trade-off for closing cases: only looked at bare minimum of why case was brought in and if safety issues were “remediedâ€
•	Family Support Services were in place already when staff completed some family assessments with the family. 
ï‚§	High risk cases were staffed with the supervisor and County Attorney but was difficult to do at this time due to limited availability of new supervisors and all the changes.
ï‚§	Supervisors were scrambling to prioritize all their own workloads
•	There was a less formal process in how to staff high risk cases with County Attorney during this time period than currently (agency has weekly time held for County Attorney consults for staffing high risk cases). 
•	Solo staffing with County Attorney happened “on the flyâ€. Staff was allowed to close the FA following consult as the case didn't meet the threshold for Court intervention – CHIPS.
o	Staff was not as aware or did not possess the same knowledge possesses now about the whole “child protection processâ€, from intake, assessment/investigation, case management.
ï‚§	How to “set up a caseâ€ for ongoing case management services and safety planning resources available, what services are available and how to refer for services
ï‚§	What resources are available for safety planning through formal court intervention
ï‚§	Staff noted that the “root of the family issues were not able to get solvedâ€ and identifying the “right intervention, resources, consults needed, and understand the family's ability to follow throughâ€ wasn't able to happen at the time.
Debrief #2 with supervisor:
•	Lot of changes occurring in the agency during this time, and it was a very overwhelming time for the supervisor.
o	Supervisor had 7 ½ years work experience in the intake/screening area, time in adoptions and then left the agency for 2 years. 
o	Upon return to the agency, so much had changed. Recalls there being so much turnover. 
•	Supervisor transitioning adoptions caseload while taking on new Supervisor role. 
o	Supervising high number of staff, averaging 15 per supervisor
o	In charge of coordination efforts with law enforcement and Children and Family Services Clerical support (clerk) staff, and triaging intake and screening needs. 
•	Hiring new staff was constant
o	Senior workers were moving into different positions
o	Had to hire new staff, fill 8-9 positions due to increase agency received in funding at this time to increase workforce capacity.
ï‚§	Had to use Merit system and as new supervisor had to learn all the regulations and rules to follow and how to navigate the Merit System, along with the local agencies the civil system (two systems to navigate). 
•	There was no training for this. 
ï‚§	Spent a lot of time interviewing for new hires
ï‚§	Took time away from being available to staff for consulting
•	When did meet with staff it was briefer check-ins 
•	Often felt “triagingâ€ situations and making decisions quickly
•	Always feeling the need for more 1 on 1 time with staff and wanting to be more available to consult on cases.
ï‚§	Went 7 months without a clerk 
•	Lead to inefficiencies routing calls into the agency
•	Became issue for supervisor to resolve – took more attention away from supervising.
o	Staff was (currently is) supervising 15 staff
ï‚§	Little time available for regular one to one supervision
ï‚§	Recognizes the nature of the job creates environment for high burnout of employees and is always trying to combat this, and nurture them so they will stay.
ï‚§	Grateful the agency created lead worker position and this bringing the supervisor some support in supervising staff
o	Staff carrying high caseloads
ï‚§	Doubled the number of intakes during that time
•	Impacted by new and changes to screening guidance
•	More 24 hour responses
ï‚§	Staff would normally consult Supervisor on high risk cases before closure.
•	Consulting County Attorney was not always necessary and was not normative practice.
o	Moderate or high risk cases not always meet threshold for CP ongoing case management. 
o	When caregivers are not motivated to comply, making them with a court order can result in minimal engagement. 
ï‚§	Additionally formal court intervention not always the best option, because when threshold is not met after starting CHIPS process, and case gets dismissed anyways, there are no grounds to work with the family, and have to close the case.  
o	Better to strategize how to get family buy in to be more involved in safety planning and working collaboratively with child protection without court intervention (i.e. voluntarily). 
o	Family has a choice to engage. 
•	Supervisor didn't have a lot of time to review cases for closure especially balancing the demand of onboarding so many new staff 
o	Requested creation of lead staff 
•	Supervisor had discretion, interpretation of case dynamics from staff consults and reviewed results of SDM tools.
ï‚§	Many cases were not transitioned into ongoing case management/ family support services.