Information learned during the debriefs (3 staff-6 cases):
After hour's intake:
•	Consultation and deference to LE (good working relationship between CP and LE) safety planning occurred and assured together-no access to alleged offender
•	Consultation also occurred with on-call worker and supervisor 
•	No hold placed on the child(ren)
•	Cooperative family-mother agreed to bring the child in first thing Monday am
Intake for a Koran speaking family:
•	Transitioning from carrying ongoing cases to investigations-a lot to balance and prioritize
•	Documented PM instead of AM
•	Delays occurred within timeframes due to difficult accessing an Interpreter and simultaneously coordinating  with LE
o	Limited Koran interpreters available
o	Dad was reluctant to meet with CP and LE and LE wanted dot meet with dad before mom and the youngest-CP followed LE's lead
Intake for complex case with significant history:
•	Cross reporting did not occur from LE-CP found out about incident through a MDT meeting
•	Due to history and complexity was assigned to a staff that had previously worked with the family 
o	Significant history-mother was dangerous-complicated court history 
o	Male victim of DV 
•	This staff was only carrying overflow cases since she was now h role in the agency and only took cases when the team needed help
•	There was a delay in when the staff was notified of assignment.  Upon notification staff conducted first face to face within an hour.  
•	Interview with the first victim at the school took longer than anticipated (an hour and a half)  Alleged victim keep disclosing and then recanting-this influenced how much time CP had to see the other children 
•	Difficulties reaching father-no current phone number.  
Intake re: newborn baby to prior TPR:
•	Screening staff that day was not typically on the screening team-less familiar with the process and protocol for assignment
•	There was a snowstorm that day and the Inv. Assigned had left a few hours early-so had not been notified of the case until the following day
•	Case was open to an ongoing worker that made arrangements with the hospital to separate the mother and child at birth and assure that the child remained in hospital-hospital was aware that the baby would be placed on a hold
•	Child was also born in a hospital two hours away
•	Hospital was aware that mom was under a civil commitment as well
•	Arrangements had been made by ongoing CP for the foster care to pick the child up from the hospital
Alleged Sexual Abuse Intake 1
•	Child was not going to be available to interview until after timeframes
•	Alleged perpetrator was in jail
•	DANCO was already in place
Alleged Sexual Abuse Intake 2
•	Saw sibling children within timeframes
•	Alleged victim was in another state (North Dakota) visiting grandparents and would not be back until the following week
•	Contact was made with the County in ND where grandparents resided to conduct a curiosity face to face-they were unable to complete this due to the size of the county
Intake Types:
1)	Afterhours with LE response/AP went to Jail
2)	Newborn child in hospital-safety assured
3)	Language barrier case (delays, however made timelines)
4)	Complex cases due to history-DV with male victim
5)	Sexual abuse where AP was not in the home
6)	Sexual abuse where AP was not in the home