Substantiation can have an important effect on what interventions are pursued for children investigated for maltreatment, but researchers lack knowledge about how the decision to substantiate is made. Using information from 4,515 children from a national probability study of children investigated for maltreatment, this study examined how caseworker judgments of harm, risk, and evidence predicted substantiation. The substantiation rate was 29.9%, but the majority of cases were substantiated when caseworkers reported at least moderate harm, at least moderate risk, and/or probably to clearly sufficient evidence. Each judgment variable significantly predicted substantiation in a multivariable model, with evidence the strongest predictor. Child gender and age were significant predictors beyond harm, risk, and evidence, suggesting that other judgments also influence substantiation. In 9 of 100 cases, reports were not substantiated despite moderate to severe harm. Thus, substantiation is generally based on judgments of harm, risk, and evidence but not exclusively. The findings underline previous researchers' conclusions that substantiation is a flawed measure of child maltreatment and suggest that policy and practice related to substantiation are due for a fresh appraisal by state child welfare service agencies.
Alter, C. (1985). Decision-making factors in cases of child neglect . Child Welfare, 74, 99-111.
2.
Besharov, D.J. (1988). Child abuse and neglect reporting and investigation: Policy guidelines for decision making. Family Law Quarterly , 22, 1-15.
3.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2003, June). Decision-making in unsubstantiated child protective services cases: Synthesis of recent research. Retrieved January 11, 2007, from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/decisionmaking/decisionmaking.pdf
4.
DePanfilis, D., & Girvin, H. (2005). Investigating child maltreatment in out-of-home care: Barriers to effective decision-making. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 353-374.
5.
DePanfilis, D., & Salus, M.K. (2003). Child protective services: A guide for caseworkers . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at http://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/faculty_and_research/bios/depanfilis/cps.pdf
6.
Drake, B. (1995). Associations between reporter type and assessment outcomes in child protective services referrals. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 503-522.
7.
Drake, B. (1996). Unraveling "unsubstantiated." Child Maltreatment, 1, 261-271.
8.
Drake, B. (2000). How do I decide whether to substantiate a report? In H. Dubowitz & D. DePanfilis (Eds.), Handbook for child protection practice (pp. 113-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
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, 9-16.
10.
English, D.J., Marshall, D.B., Coghlan, L., Brummel, S., & Orme, M. (2002). Causes and consequences of the substantiation decision in Washington State child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 817-851.
11.
Fluke, J.D., Hollinshead, D.M., & Walter R.McDonald & Associates. (2003, January). Child maltreatment recurrence. Duluth, GA: National Resource Center on Child Maltreatment. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from http://www.nrccps.org/PDF/MaltreatmentRecurrence.pdf
12.
Gambrill, E., & Shlonsky, A. (2000). Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 813-837.
13.
Giovannoni, J.M. (1989). Substantiated and unsubstantiated reports of child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 11, 299-318.
14.
Jason, J., Andereck, N., Marks, J., & Tyler, C. (1982). Child abuse in Georgia: A method to evaluate risk factors and reporting bias. Journal of Public Health, 72, 1353-1358.
15.
King, G., Trocmé, N., & Thatte, N. (2003). Substantiation as a multi-tier process: The results of a NIS-3 analysis. Child Maltreatment, 8, 173-182.
16.
Leiter, J., Myers, K., & Zingraff, M. (1994). Substantiated and unsubstantiated cases of child maltreatment: Do their consequences differ? Social Work Research , 18, 67-78.
17.
Levine, M. (1998). Do standards of proof affect decision making in child protective investigations? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 341-347.
18.
NSCAW Research Group. (2002). Methodological lessons from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being: The first three years of the USA's first national probability study of children and families investigated for abuse and neglect. Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 513-541.
19.
Pecora, P. (1991). Investigating allegations of child maltreatment: The strengths and limitations of current risk assessment systems. Child & Youth Services, 15, 73-92.
20.
RTI International. (2002). SUDAAN user's manual, release 8.0 (Vol. 2). Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.
21.
Ryan, S., Wiles, D., Cash, S., & Siebert, C. (2005). Risk assessments: Empirically supported or values driven? Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 213-225.
22.
Schene, P., Oppenheimer, S., & Senderling, C. (2005, Summer). Choosing the path less traveled: Strengthening California families through differential response . Sacramento, CA: Foundation Consortium for California's Children and Youth. Retrieved August, 2007, from http://www.cwda.org/downloads/DifferentialResponsePolicyBrief_FINAL.pdf
23.
Trocmé, N., Knoke, D., Fallon, B., & MacLaurin, B. (2006). Substantiating child maltreatment: CIS-2003. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare. Retrieved September 14, 2007, from http://www.cecw-cepb.ca/files/file/en/SubChildMaltreatment40E.pdf
24.
Trocmé, N., Tam, K.K., & McPhee, D. (1995). Correlates of substantiation of maltreatment in child welfare investigation. In J. Hudson & B. Galaway (Eds.), Child welfare in Canada: Research and policy implications (pp. 20-39). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thompson Educational Press.
25.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2002). Child maltreatment 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
26.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2005). National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being: CPS sample component, Wave 1 data analysis report. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2007). Child maltreatment 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
28.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (n.d.). Does the substantiation of child maltreatment relate to child well-being and service receipt? Findings from the NSCAW Study. [National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being Research Brief No. 9.]Washington, DC: Author.
29.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2003). The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. Washington, DC: Author.
30.
Wald, M.S., & Woolverton, M. (1990). Risk assessment: The emperor's new clothes? Child Welfare, 69, 483-511.
31.
Walter R.McDonald & Associates. (2003). National study of child protective services systems and reform efforts. Denver, CO.
32.
Winefield, H.R., & Bradley, P.W. (1992). Substantiation of reported child abuse or neglect: Predictors and implications. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 661-671.
33.
Yuan, Y.Y., Schene, P., English, D., & Johnson, C. (2005, April 18-23). Whither substantiation? The role of substantiation in future child protective service policies and practice . Paper presented at the 15th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Boston, MA.
34.
Zuravin, S.J., 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, 547-566.
