Skip over navigation

Journal Issue: Preventing Child Maltreatment Volume 19 Number 2 Fall 2009

Prevention and the Child Protection System
Authors: Jane Waldfogel

Endnotes

  1. All statistics in this paragraph are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 2006 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008) (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf [accessed July 29, 2008]).
  2. For an overview of alternative response systems, see Jane Waldfogel, “Differential Response,” in Community Prevention of Child Maltreatment, edited by Kenneth Dodge (New York: Guilford Press, 2009).
  3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2006 (see note 1), p. 83.
  4. These studies are reviewed by John D. Fluke and Dana Hollinshead, “Child Maltreatment Recurrence,” report prepared for the National Resource Center on Child Maltreatment (Duluth, Ga.: NRCCM, 2003) (www.nrccps.org/PDF/MaltreatmentRecurrence.pdf) [accessed April 1, 2009]), and by John D. Fluke and others, “Reporting and Recurrence of Child Maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS,” report prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (DHHS, 2005) (www.aspe.hhs.gov [accessed August 1, 2008]). See also Jessica Kahn, “Child Welfare Recidivism,” doctoral dissertation, Columbia University School of Social Work, 2006. These reviews cite only a few studies that find that families who received services had a lower likelihood of being re-reported. See Brett Drake and others, “Substantiation and Recidivism,” Child Maltreatment 4, no. 4 (2003): 297–307; M. J. Camasso and R. Jagannathan, “Modeling the Reliability and Predictive Validity of Risk Assessment in Child Protective Services,” Children and Youth Services Review 22, no. 11/12 (2000): 873–96; T. L. Fuller, S. J. Wells, and E. E. Cotton, “Predictors of Maltreatment Recurrence at Two Milestones in the Life of a Case,” Children and Youth Services Review 23, no. 1 (2001): 49–78; and Diane DePanfilis and Susan J. Zuravin, “The Effect of Services on the Recurrence of Child Maltreatment,” Child Abuse and Neglect 26, no. 2 (2002): 187–205.
  5. Fluke and others, “Reporting and Recurrence of Child Maltreatment” (see note 4). The study also found that among children who had initially been substantiated, about 17 percent were the subject of another substantiated investigation over the next five years. Nationally, data compiled for the Child and Family Services Reviews indicate that in 2005, 6.6 percent of substantiated victims were the subject of another substantiated investigation in the next six months, an improvement over the rate of 7.5 percent in 2002; see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Child Welfare Outcomes 2002–2005: Report to Congress” (DHHS, 2008) (www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cwo05/chapters/executive.htm [accessed September 12, 2008]).
  6. Patricia Kohl and Richard Barth, “Child Maltreatment Recurrence among Children Remaining In-Home: Predictors of Re-Reports,” in Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice, edited by Ron Haskins, Fred Wulczyn, and Mary Bruce Webb (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2007).
  7. The “surveillance effect” is discussed on p. 13 of Fluke and Hollinshead, “Child Maltreatment Recurrence” (see note 4).
  8. Ron Haskins, Fred Wulczyn, and Mary Bruce Webb, “Using High-Quality Research to Improve Child Protection Practice: An Overview,” in Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice, edited by Haskins, Wulczyn, and Webb (see note 6).
  9. Michael Hurlburt and others, “Building on Strengths: Current Status and Opportunities for Improvement of Parent Training for Families in Child Welfare,” in Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice, edited by Haskins, Wulczyn, and Webb (see note 6).
  10. See reviews by Fluke and Hollinshead, “Child Maltreatment Recurrence” (see note 4), and Fluke and others, “Reporting and Recurrence of Child Maltreatment (see note 4); and Nick Hindley, Paul G. Ramchandani, and David P. H. Jones, “Risk Factors for Recurrence of Maltreatment: A Systematic Review,” Archives of Disease in Childhood 91, no. 9 (2006): 744–52.
  11. See, for example, Martha G. Roditti, “Child Day Care: A Key Building Block of Family Support and Family Preservation Programs,” in Child Day Care, edited by Bruce Hershfield and Karen Selman (Edison, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1997).
  12. State of Alaska, Office of Children’s Services (OCS), “OCS Family Preservation” (OCS, 2008) (www.hss.state.ak.us/ocs/services.htm [accessed July 10, 2008]).
  13. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, “Day Care and Early Childhood”(DCFS, 2008) (www.state.il.us/dcfs/daycare/index.shtml [accessed July 10, 2008]).
  14. Regarding cognitive development, see, for example, Margaret O’Brien Caughy, Janet A. DiPietro, and Donna M. Strobino, “Day-Care Participation as a Protective Factor in the Cognitive Development of Low-Income Children,” Child Development 65, no. 2 (1994): 457–71. Regarding social development, see, for example, Sylvana Cote and others, “The Role of Maternal Education and Nonmaternal Care Services in the Prevention of Children’s Physical Aggression Problems,” Archives of General Psychiatry 64, no. 11 (2007): 1305–12.
  15. Although a small-scale study (of twenty-two children) found that infants placed into protective day care were more likely than other infants to be removed from their families subsequently, this appears to be an isolated finding. See Patricia M. Crittenden, “The Effect of Mandatory Protective Daycare on Mutual Attachment in Maltreating Mother-Infant Dyads,” Child Abuse and Neglect 7, no. 3 (1983): 297–300.
  16. Information on Head Start from the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2008 Green Book (www.waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=2168 [accessed August 1, 2008]).
  17. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Head Start Impact Study: First Year Findings” (Washington: DHHS, 2005) (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study [accessed August 6, 2008]).
  18. John M. Love and others, “Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start. Final Technical Report” (Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, 2002).
  19. Judith R. Smith and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, “Correlates and Consequences of Mothers’ Harsh Discipline with Young Children,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 151 (1997): 777–86.
  20. Katherine Magnuson and Jane Waldfogel, “Pre-School Enrollment and Parents’ Use of Physical Discipline,” Infant and Child Development 14, no. 2 (2005): 177–98.
  21. Arthur J. Reynolds and D. Robertson, “School-Based Early Intervention and Later Child Maltreatment in the Chicago Longitudinal Study,” Child Development 74 (2003): 3–26.
  22. Differential response reforms in many states have complicated efforts to measure the effectiveness of services provided by CPS in preventing future maltreatment, because states now differ sharply in how they define reports and substantiated cases. For a discussion of the origins and rationale for differential response, see Jane Waldfogel, The Future of Child Protection: Breaking the Cycle of Abuse and Neglect (Harvard University Press, 1998), and Jane Waldfogel, “The Future of Child Protection Revisited,” in Child Welfare Research: Advances for Practice and Policy, edited by Duncan Lindsey and Aron Shlonsky (Oxford University Press, 2008). For a brief overview, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect,” an issue brief prepared for the Child Welfare Information Gateway (DHHS, 2008) (www.childwelfare.gov [accessed August 1, 2008]).
  23. Waldfogel, “Differential Response” (see note 2).
  24. The Minnesota results are reported in Anthony L. Loman and Gary L. Siegel, Minnesota Alternative Response Evaluation: Final Report (St. Louis: Institute of Applied Research, 2004) (www.iarstl.org [accessed July 24, 2006]); Anthony L. Loman and Gary L. Siegel, “Alternative Response in Minnesota: Findings of the Program Evaluation,” Protecting Children 20, no. 2–3 (2005): 79–92; and Anthony L. Loman and Gary L. Siegel, “Extended Follow-Up Study of Minnesota’s Family Assessment Response: Final Report” (St. Louis: Institute of Applied Research, 2006) (www.iastl.org [accessed September 18, 2007]). Results from Minnesota as well as other states are reviewed in Waldfogel, “Differential Response” (see note 2).
  25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2006 (see note 1).
  26. Ibid., p. 83.
  27. All statistics in this paragraph are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2006 (see note 1).
  28. These other sources of funding are quite varied and include other federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, and the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as a variety of state and private funding sources.
  29. In particular, I rely on estimates from various editions of the Green Book, published at regular intervals by the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. As of this writing, the 2008 version of the Green Book was being published in stages. For some sections, the 2008 version is available, while for others, the latest release was the 2004 version. See also Emilie Stoltzfus, “Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress,” CRS Report for Congress RL34388 (Congressional Research Service, 2008) (http://opencrs.cdt.org [accessed January 15, 2009]); and Emilie Stoltzfus, “Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding,” CRS Report for Congress RL34121 (Congressional Research Service, 2007) (http://opencrs.cdt.org [accessed January 15, 2009]).
  30. Data from the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2004 Green Book, Section 11—Child Protection, Foster Care, and Adoption Assistance (http://waysandmeans.house.gov [accessed January 15, 2009]).
  31. Data from the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2008 Green Book, Section 10—Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=2168 [accessed January 15, 2009]).
  32. See Stoltzfus, “Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress” (see note 29), and Stoltzfus, “Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding” (see note 29).
  33. In 2005, federal funds were 49 percent of total child welfare spending, with state funds making up 39 percent and local funds making up 12 percent; see Cynthia Andrews Scarcella and others, “The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children, V: Understanding State Variation in Child Welfare Financing” (Washington: Urban Institute, 2006).
  34. Ibid.
  35. David Thomas and others, “Emerging Practices in the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect,” report prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (DHHS, 2003) (www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/programs/whatworks/report [accessed July 28, 2008]). The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are also involved in reviewing the effectiveness of prevention programs; see, for example, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, “Using Evidence-Based Parenting Programs to Advance CDC Efforts in Child Maltreatment Prevention” (CDC, 2004) (www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/parenting/ChildMalT-Briefing.pdf [accessed August 3, 2008]).
  36. Quote from p. 15 of Thomas and others, “Emerging Practices in the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect” (see note 35).
  37. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Child Welfare Outcomes 2002–2005: Report to Congress” (DHHS, 2008) (www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cwo05/chapters/executive.htm [accessed September 12, 2008]).
  38. Quote from p. 2 of Haskins, Wulczyn, and Webb, “Using High-Quality Research to Improve Child Protection Practice” (see note 8).
  39. See discussion in Fred Wulczyn, “A Community’s Concern,” Child Welfare Watch 14 (Summer 2007): 29–30.
  40. The need for coordination arises, in large part, because children at risk for maltreatment often have multiple needs and thus require services that cut across agencies. See Roger Bullock and Michael Little, “The Contribution of Children’s Services to the Protection of Children” (Dartington, England: Dartington Social Research Unit, 2002) (www.dartington.org.uk); and Nick Axford and Michael Little, Refocusing Children’s Services towards Prevention: Lessons from the Literature (London: Department for Education and Skills Research Report RR10, 2004) (www.dartington.org.uk).