[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
This review of CPS policies in the States has inventoried the major components governing front-end service provision by CPS agencies. These components cover the core functions of screening and intake, investigation, and in many States, alternative response options. The review established the following overall observations.
This chapter will focus on the implications of selected areas of variation in State CPS policy. There are two perspectives from which such variation is of interest. One perspective is in terms of best practice. Are some approaches or requirements better than others? Should these be encouraged and more widely adopted? A second perspective relates to community values. Does variation reflect differences in community standards? Underlying both perspectives are questions of accountability and equity. Would increased commonality among State policies help further greater accountability of the CPS system? Would citizens receive more equitable treatment, if policies were more common?
This chapter does not seek to answer such questions, but rather to identify the areas of variation that need further attention in terms of actual practice. The overarching goal of all CPS agencies is to ensure that children are safe from abuse and neglect. Policy variations may have meaningful impacts on achieving this goal.
The areas of variation that are identified and briefly discussed are as follows:
In addition, the use of alternative response options is also briefly discussed.
TheCPS system is a response system. It does not seek out and identify children who are maltreated. Nor does it encourage parents to seek help with their children. Instead, it is a system that responds to reports or referrals by professionals and other community members. The proportions of reports by professionals and nonprofessionals have not varied over the last several years.(1) There was, however, variation among States in defining the categories of mandated reporters.Almost all States required professionals to report suspected child abuse or neglect. In approximately one-quarter of the States, nonprofessional sources, including parents, relatives, and community members, as well as professionals, were required to report. Two-thirds of States accepted reports from anonymous reporters; one-third did not.(2)
There would be tensions in deciding whether to increase who would be required to report or to decrease or eliminate the requirements for reporting. The wider the requirement that persons report suspected maltreatment, the more referrals a department could expect to receive. (This phenomenon was noted in Idaho, a number of years ago, when the department undertook special efforts to encourage all citizens to report what they thought might be maltreatment.) The workload for screeners or for investigation staff would also increase, as would the number of children who were found to need services. This would result in an increase in the need for training and outreach to the population of professionals and nonprofessionals. If the requirement were narrowed, the CPS agency might improve its ratio of substantiated reports to all investigated reports, resulting in some increases in efficiency. For example, a higher proportion of reports by professionals have been found to be substantiated compared to reports by nonprofessionals.(3) However, the agency could also risk missing some children who were in need. Extensive public information and training of mandated reporters would be critical. Coordination with other agencies would also be necessary to meet the service needs of families who would not be part of the CPS system.
The dilemmas posed by such tensions might inhibit State agencies from changing their policies except when required to do so under legislation. Nevertheless, if there were more uniformity among States and local communities, the public might respond more consistently to instances of abuse and neglect, thus helping to protect children.
[Go To Contents]
Statesvaried in their definitions of the purpose of the investigation.In 31 States, the purpose was to determine if child abuse had occurred; 18 of these States also included the purpose of determining risk or safety of the child. In the remaining 20 States, policy stated the purpose of investigations was to protect the child or to establish the risk or safety of the child, but did not specifically mention making a determination.
The issue is further complicated by variation in standards of evidence and in the dispositions available to workers. There was considerable variation among States in both areas. Twenty-three States had relatively high standards for substantiation--most requiring preponderance of evidence. Nineteen States had lower standards, including credible or reasonable evidence, or probably cause. Nine States did not specify a standard.The majority of States used two levels of decisions (founded or unfounded; substantiated or unsubstantiated), while eight States had three levels of decisions, and some States had more than three.
These three dimensions of investigation--purpose, standards of evidence, and disposition options--may contribute to variations in the impact of CPS upon the community. For example, earlier research has shown that States with more disposition categories had higher rates of substantiation.(4) In 2001, State victimization rates varied from 1.6 per 1,000 children in the general population to 82.6 per 1,000 children in the general population, with a national rate of 12.4 per 1,000 children.(5) Thus, it appears that differences in policy, as well as other factors, may contribute to significant differences in responses to children and their families.
Thereare established domains of child maltreatment commonly accepted in the literature and in the policies of State agencies. Four types--neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment--are considered the core focus of CPS. States varied, however, in terms of additional conditions or behaviors that they considered and addressed in policy.For example, 8 States included educational neglect, 25 States specifically mentioned abandonment, and 27 States specifically mentioned medical neglect. Some States included exposure to substance abuse in the household as a type of neglect, while other States focused on harm to the child as a result of drug misuse.
This review did not examine the evolution of policy in the States and so could not determine if there was a trend toward identifying additional forms of maltreatment. However, an increase in the types of conditions considered to be maltreatment may result in higher rates of victimization of children. If determination of victimization is linked to service provision, this could be helpful to families. If such determinations do not result in services, then the investigation by CPS on a wide range of conditions might be questioned.
As society changes, the types of child maltreatment to be addressed by public agencies may need to be revisited. This review of policy indicated that maltreatment definitions ranged from conditions that resulted in harm to conditions that put a child at risk of harm. Harm was a broad concept not restricted to physical harm. Maltreatment was also defined in terms of conditions considered not to be conducive to the well-being or healthy development of a child. The considerable range of specificity and types of maltreatment among State policies indicated a need for greater debate as to what society considers child maltreatment.
CPSagency policies included guidelines for responding to allegations of child abuse or neglect. There was significant variation among States in how quickly workers were required to respond to referrals and complete investigations. Most States established that the most serious types of allegations must be responded to "immediately," usually specifying within 24 hours or less. Many States indicated that the lowest priority of response should take place within a week. For example, one State's policies specified that high-priority referrals should be responded to within 1-24 hours, intermediate referrals within 2-72 hours, and low-priority referrals within 3-7 calendar days.
States also varied in the time allowed for completing an investigation. Four States required the investigation to be completed within 2 weeks; 20 States within 2-4 weeks; 23 States allowed some or all investigations to be completed within more than 4 weeks.
These variations may reflect local conditions, including dispersed rural populations or dense urban communities, and transportation issues. They may also acknowledge the workloads of investigation workers. Without skilled screeners or the ability to make a rapid response to all referrals, such variation may put children at further risk of maltreatment. States that undertake to revise their CPS process may wish to review the timeframes allowed for initiating and completing investigations.
[Go To Contents]
While the public generally is aware that children may be removed from their homes if their safety cannot be assured by their parents, there are additional consequences to being subject to a CPS investigation. Services may be offered on a voluntary basis or court ordered. Another consequence is that a perpetrator's name may be filed on a Central Registry. States differed in the purposes of such registries, procedures for accessing information, expungement protocols, and due process requirements.
Almost all State policies specified that the Central Registry would be used for background employment and licensing checks. Many States also specified that they would share information from the Central Registry with other agencies upon request. Twenty-three States had policies restricting the Central Registry to substantiated or indicated reports; 10 States' policies also allowed unsubstantiated reports to be included on the registry. Twenty-one States stipulated that the alleged perpetrator should be notified if his or her name was placed on the registry, but timeframes for notifying the perpetrator varied from within one day to within 90 days of placing the name on the registry. Expungement rules varied considerably.
In addressing the overarching goal of protecting children, CPS agencies seek to ensure that information on perpetrators is maintained. Policies clearly addressed this need, but the variation in policies raised issues of whether the rights of persons found to be perpetrators are being addressed equitably. Because there are different maltreatment conditions and different situations under which children may be found to be victims, the field should consider whether listing persons on the Central Registry should vary according to different types of maltreatment.
Just over half of the States had policies for an "alternative response" that did not involve conducting an investigation. These responses were typically applied to only a subset of referrals, and the options were not available statewide for many States. Most policies indicated that families served under alternative response would not be included in Central Registries. Indeed in some, a finding of maltreatment would not be made.
There was even greater variation in alternative response policies among States than in investigation policies, reflecting more discretion given to the worker. Eleven States specified that child safety was a purpose of the alternative response; nine States identified family preservation or strengthening as a purpose of the response. Only three States discussed the role of law enforcement in conducting an alternative response compared to almost all States including policy on involving law enforcement in investigations.
Current literature reveals that alternative response is by far the most visible domain of reform in CPS.(6) From a policy perspective, the relative lack of specificity and the high degree of variation among States in the components of alternative response policy raise the issue of whether there should be a goal of reaching more consistent and explicit policy for this type of CPS response.
This chapter discusses only a few selected areas of variation in CPS policy. The review of State policies has clearly demonstrated that there are certain core policies that are common to almost all jurisdictions. If policy is the guidance for service delivery, the extensive variation from State-to-State in policies addressing some aspects of the CPS response is, potentially, of great concern. Such variations may be indicative of local standards or may imply that a systematic review of policy has not been undertaken recently by some of the States. If States decide to review and revise their CPS policies in order to better meet the needs of abused and neglected children, input from local communities and the agencies that serve them should be included. This report provides them with information on the policies of other States in the Nation.
[Go To Contents]
1. During the years of 1997-2001, the national average proportion of reports ranged from 53.4 to 56.6 percent for professionals and from 43.5 to 46.6 percent for nonprofessionals. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children and Families. Child Maltreatment 2001 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003).
2. While in general States agreed that social services personnel, medical personnel, mental health personnel, educators, law enforcement and legal professionals, child daycare providers, and substitute care providers should be mandated reporters, many States specified other professions. For example, commercial film and photographic print professionals, domestic violence shelter employees, clergy serving in nonpastoral capacities, dieticians, and other professionals were specifically named in some policy manuals.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau. Child Maltreatment 1996: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998.)
4. Ibid.
5. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children and Youth. Child Maltreatment 2001. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003.)
6. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts: Literature Review. (Washington, D. C.: Author, 2001.)
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)