Crystal Mitchell, executive director of the Louisiana Alliance of Children's Advocacy Centers, told the task force that CACs initiate services only after a report from an investigative agency: "we cannot receive, or, well, we cannot provide any services unless we receive a report from either DCFS or law enforcement." Mitchell described the multidisciplinary team (MDT) model that brings law enforcement, DCFS, district attorneys, forensic interviewers and mental‑health providers together and said CACs try to promote joint investigations.

By contrast, Morgan LaMondre of STAR and other non‑CAC sexual‑assault providers said some survivors who do not receive a CAC referral still need services and that providers sometimes fill gaps for children who fall through referral cracks. "Whenever a child maybe goes to a forensic interview and they do not make a disclosure, those services that attach with that do not get provided at that CAC," LaMondre said, describing why STAR and like providers receive some referrals outside of the CAC pathway.

Thomas Mitchell, executive director of Hope House (a Children’s Advocacy Center serving the 22nd Judicial District), told the task force any child who receives a forensic interview through his center gets NCAC‑certified victim advocacy and follow‑up services regardless of whether the child discloses abuse during the interview. "Every child who walks through our doors... we provide services to all children based on assessment of their unique needs," Mitchell said, noting his center’s protocols for extended interviews, specialized interviews for children with disabilities, and an MDT review that can escalate cases to a district attorney.

Several CAC directors and task force members described instances where law enforcement or other agencies conducted interviews outside CAC protocols or conducted immediate interviews in hospital settings that later complicated prosecution or therapy. Representatives from CACs said MOUs with local MDT partners require case referral and joint investigation, but speakers also acknowledged that practice varies across jurisdictions and that reinterviews or non‑CAC interviews can re‑traumatize children and complicate evidence handling.

Local and out‑of‑state models were discussed as possible fixes. Doctor Hook and other witnesses described Tennessee’s Child Protective Investigation Team (CPIT/CIPIT) classification system and an "MDT enhancement project" used in other states that links CAC coordinators to child‑welfare intake systems (MACWIS/CWIS) so referrals visible to DCFS intake also trigger CAC follow‑ups. Mitchell and others said such system links require funding and a facilitator for each jurisdiction but improved referral capture where piloted.

The task force asked providers and locals to map where protocol gaps exist and to report back with proposals for standardized referral criteria, shared intake or portal access, and MDT facilitation by November. No formal policy was adopted at the Sept. 26 meeting.