Substantiation as a Multitier Process: The Results of a NIS-3 Analysis

Abstract

Background: Previous studies on child maltreatment reporting have focused mainly on one level of substantiation. This article analyzes factors influencing the multitiered substantiation process. Method: The 1993 Third National Incidence Study (NIS-3) data of substantiated and non-substantiated reported incidents (N=7,263) of maltreatment were analyzed. Substantiation was classified into three categories: unfounded, indicated, and founded. Independent variables included demographic characteristics, case-processing variables, and maltreatment characteristics. Data analysis: Bivariate and multiple logistic regression (MLR) analyses were calculated to determine whether demographic and case processing variables predicted unfounded or founded/indicated dispositions. Second-level analysis examined demographic, case processing, and maltreatment characteristics as predictors of founded or indicated status. Results: These results showed that 60.2% of CPS investigations conducted were evaluated as unfounded, about 22% were categorized as founded, and 17% were classified as indicated. In the MLR analysis for the first level of substantiation, case processing variables were highly significant predictors of founded/indicated status. In the second-level substantiation MLR model, cases in the mid-range income level ($15,000-29,999) had a lower probability (adjusted OR = .58, p = .02) of being founded than those of less than $15,000, and reports involving Hispanic children (OR = 3.04, p = .05) were more likely than the “all other” race-ethnic social classification to have been substantiated as founded. Conclusions: This analysis of NIS-3 data suggests that a three-tiered rather than a two-tiered system is a more accurate representation of the CPS substantiation process. Further analysis of substantiation patterns is required to provide a basis for developing more effective investigation systems.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ards, S., & Harrell, A. (1993). Reporting of child maltreatment: A secondary analysis of the national incidence surveys. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 337-344.

Besharov, D. (1987). Contending with overblown expectations. Public Welfare, 45(1), 7-11.

Child Maltreatment 2000: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).

Craft, J., Epley, S., & Clarkson, C. (1980). Factors influencing legal disposition in child abuse investigations. Journal of Social Service Research, 4(1), 31-46.

Delaronde, S., King, G., Bendel, R., & Reece, R. (2000). Opinions among mandated reporters towards child maltreatment reporting policies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(7), 901-910.

DiLeonardi, J. W. (1980). Decision making in protective services. Child Welfare, 59(6), 356-364.

Drake, B. (1995). Associations between reporter type and assessment outcomes in child protective services referrals. Children and Youth Services Review, 17(4), 503-522.

Drake, B. (1996). Unraveling “unsubstantiated.” Child Maltreatment, 1(3), 261-271.

Eckenrode, J., Munsch, J., Powers, J., & Doris, J. (1988). The nature and substantiation of official sexual abuse reports. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 311-319.

10.

Eckenrode, J., Powers, J., Doris, J., Munsch, J., & Bolger, N. (1988). Substantiation of child abuse and neglect reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(1), 9-16.

11.

Flango, V. E. (1991). Can central registries improve substantiation rates in child abuse and neglect cases? Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 403-413.

12.

Freeman, J. B., Levine, M., & Doueck, H. (1996). Child age and caseworker attention in child protective services investigations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(10), 907-920.

13.

Giovannoni, J. M. (1989). Substantiated and unsubstantiated reports of child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 11, 299-318.

14.

Groeneveld, L. P., & Giovannoni, J. M. (1977). Disposition of child abuse and neglect cases. Social Work Research & Abstract, 13, 24-30.

15.

Hampton, R. L., & Newberger, E. H. (1985). Child abuse incidence and reporting by hospitals: Significance of severity, class, and race. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 56-60.

16.

Hasket, M. E., Wayland, K., Hutcheson, J. S., & Tavana, T. (1995). Substantiation of sexual abuse allegations: Factors involved in the decision-making process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(2), 19-47.

17.

Hutchinson, E. D. (1989). Child protective screening decisions: An analysis of predictive factors. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 25(3), 9-15.

18.

Inkelas, M., & Halfon, N. (1997). Recidivism in child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 19(3), 139-161.

19.

King, G., Reece, R., Bendel, R., & Patel, V. (1998). The effects of sociodemographic variables, training, and attitudes on the lifetime reporting practices of mandated reporters. Child Maltreatment, 3(3), 276-283.

20.

Lindsey, D. (1994). The welfare of children. London: Oxford University Press.

21.

McDonald, A. E., & Reece, R. M. (1979). Child abuse: Problems of reporting. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 26(4), 785-791.

22.

Rosen, H. (1981). How workers use cues to determine child abuse. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 14(8), 27-33.

23.

Sedlak, A. (1991). National incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect: 1988. Rockville, MD: Westat.

24.

Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

25.

Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B., Daciuk, J., Billingsley, D., Tourigny, M., et al. (2001). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect: Final report. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

26.

Trocmé, N., Tam, K. K., & McPhee, D. (1995). Correlates of substantiation of maltreatment in child welfare investigations. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Child welfare in Canada: Research and policy implications. Toronto, Canada: Thompson Educational Press.

27.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services—Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (1993). Child maltreatment 1993: Reports from the states to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

28.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services—Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (1999). Child maltreatment 1999: Reports from the states to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

29.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services—Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (2000). Child maltreatment 2000: Reports from the states to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

30.

Wells, S., Fluke, J., & Brown, C. H. (1995). The decision to investigate: Child protection practice in 12 local agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 17(4), 523-546.

31.

Winefield, H. R., & Bradley, P. W. (1992). Substantiation of reported child abuse or neglect: Predictors and implications. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 661-671.

32.

Zellman, G. L. (1990). Report decision-making patterns among mandated child abuse reporters. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(3), 325-336.

33.

Zellman, G. L. (1992). The impact of case characteristics on child abuse reporting decisions. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16(1), 57-74.

34.

Zuravin, S., Orme, J. G., & Hegar, R. L. (1995). Disposition of child physical abuse reports: Review of the literature and test of a predictive model. Children and Youth Services Review, 17(4), 547-566.

35.

Zuravin, S. J., Watson, B., & Ehrenschaft, M. (1987). Anonymous reports of child physical abuse: Are they as serious as reports from other sources? Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 521-529.