Although it is a widely used indicator, the use of substantiation in child welfare practice and research is not without critics. Much of this criticism concerns the ability of the substantiation disposition to distinguish between child protective services (CPS) investigations in which maltreatment occurs or does not occur. This study examined the relationship between substantiation and maltreatment rereporting using an analytic technique known as propensity score matching (PSM). Children with initially substantiated maltreatment reports were at significantly higher risk for rereporting than those with initially unsubstantiated reports, even after matching the two groups on propensity scores based on several demographic and case characteristics. Although additional study using PSM on other samples is warranted, this evidence supports the predictive validity of the substantiation disposition and its continued use as one factor to consider when allocating limited post-investigation services.
Baird, C., & Wagner, D. (2000). The relative validity of actuarial- and consensus-based risk assessment systems. Children and Youth Services Review , 22, 839-871.
2.
Barth, R.P., Gibbons, C., & Guo, S. (2006). Substance abuse treatment and the recurrence of maltreatment among caregivers with children living at home: A propensity score analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 30, 93-104.
3.
Barth, R.P., Greeson, J.K.P., Guo, S., Green, R.L., Hurley, S., & Sisson, J. (2007). Outcomes for youth receiving intensive in-home therapy or residential care: A comparison using propensity scores. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 497-505.
4.
Baumann, D., Law, J., Sheets, J., Reid, G., & Graham, J. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of actuarial risk assessment models. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 465-490.
5.
Connell, C.M., Bergeron, N., Katz, K.H., Saunders, L., & Tebes, J.K. (2007). Re-referral to child protective services: The influence of child, family, and case characteristics on risk status. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 573-588.
6.
D'Agostino, R.B. (1998). Tutorial in biostatistics: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265-2281.
7.
Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2000). Substantiation and early decision points in public child welfare: A conceptual reconsideration. Child Maltreatment, 5, 227-235.
8.
Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., Way, I., & Chung, S. (2003). Substantiation and recidivism. Child Maltreatment, 8, 248-260.
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., Harper, C., Parry, C., & Yuan, Y. (2003). National survey of child protective services systems and reform efforts: Review of state CPS policy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
12.
Fluke, J.D., Shusterman, G.R., Hollinshead, D., & Yuan, Y.T. (2005). Rereporting and recurrence of child maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
13.
Fluke, J.D., Shusterman, G.R., Hollinshead, D., & Yuan, Y.T. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of repeated child abuse reporting and victimization: Multistate analysis of associated factors. Child Maltreatment, 13, 76-88.
14.
Fluke, J.D., Yuan, Y., & Edwards, M. (1999). Recurrence of maltreatment: An application of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 633-650.
15.
Fuller, T., & Wells, S. (2003). Predicting maltreatment recurrence among CPS cases with alcohol and other drug involvement. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 553-569.
16.
Fuller, T., Wells, S., & Cotton, E. (2001). Predictors of maltreatment recurrence at two milestones in the life of a case. Children and Youth Services Review , 23, 49-78.
17.
Guo, S., Barth, R.P., & Gibbons, C. (2006). Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating substance abuse services for child welfare clients. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 357-383.
18.
Hussey, J.M., Marshall, J.M., English, D.J., Knight, E.D., Lau, A.S., Dubowitz, H., et al. (2005). Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: Distinction without a difference? Child Abuse and Neglect , 29, 479-492.
19.
Kataoka, S.H., Zhang, L., & Wells, K.B. (2002). Unmet need for mental health care among U.S. children: Variation by ethnicity and insurance status. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1548-1555.
20.
Lau, A.S., Leeb, R.T., English, D., Graham, C.J., Briggs, E., Brody, K.E., et al. (2005). What's in a name? A comparison of methods for classifying predominant type of maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 533-551.
21.
Leiter, J., Myers, K.A., & Zingraff, M.T. (1994). Substantiated and unsubstantiated cases of child maltreatment: Do their consequences differ? Social Work Research, 18, 67-82.
22.
Loman, L.A. (2005). Differential response improves traditional investigations: Criminal arrests for severe physical and sexual abuse. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
23.
Loman, L.A., & Siegel, G.L. (2004). Minnesota alternative response evaluation final report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
24.
Manly, J.T. (2005). Advances in research definitions of child maltreatment . Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 425-439.
25.
Marshall, D., & English, D. (1999). Survival analysis of risk factors for recidivism in child abuse and neglect. Child Maltreatment, 4, 287-296.
26.
Merkel-Holguin, L., Kaplan, C., & Kwak, A. (2006). National study on differential response in child welfare. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association.
27.
Rolock, N., & Testa, M. (2006). Conditions of children in or at risk of foster care in Illinois: An assessment of their safety, stability, continuity, permanence, and well-being. Urbana, IL: Children and Family Research Center.
28.
Rosenbaum, P.R., & Rubin, D.B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
29.
Rosenbaum, P.R., & Rubin, D.B. (1985). Constructing a control group using matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician , 39, 33-38.
30.
Thompson, K.M., Wonderlich, S.A., Crosby, R.D., Ammerman, F.F., Mitchell, J.E., & Brownfield, D. (2001). An assessment of the recidivism rates in substantiated and unsubstantiated maltreatment cases. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 1207-1218.
31.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2008a). Child maltreatment 2006. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2008b). National survey of child and adolescent well-being research brief #9: Does substantiation of child maltreatment relate to child well-being and service receipt? Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/reports/substan_child/substan_child.html
33.
Wells, S.J., Downing, J., & Fluke, J. (1991). Responding to reports of abuse and neglect. Children and Youth Services Review, 15, 63-72.
34.
Wolock, I., Sherman, P., Feldman, L.M., & Metzger, B. (2001). Child abuse and neglect referral patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 21-47.
