IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v104y2019ic11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do measures of child protection recurrence obscure the differences between reporting and substantiation?

Author

Listed:
  • Jenkins, Brian Q.
  • Tilbury, Clare
  • Hayes, Hennessey
  • Mazerolle, Paul

Abstract

After an initial child protection involvement, the same factors predict all types of recurrence including subsequent reports and subsequent substantiations. It has been concluded that there are no meaningful differences between children reported and substantiated because child protection decisions are determined primarily by availability of evidence rather than genuine differences in underlying need. However, an alternative explanation is that differences exist between children most likely to be reported and most likely to be substantiated, but that these differences are obscured in measures of recurrence. The aim of this study was to test this alternative explanation. Administrative data used in a previous recurrence study conducted in Queensland, Australia were reanalysed. A sample of 9608 children subject to their first ever screened-in report in 2010–11 were followed for 12 months. Odds ratios were calculated to measure bivariate associations between 21 independent variables and decisions to report and substantiate harm. Despite finding no differences in the factors that predicted different types of recurrence, different factors predicted high rates of reporting and high rates of substantiation. Furthermore, children subject to high rates of reporting were relatively unlikely to be subject to high rates of substantiation. There are meaningful differences in the factors associated with reporting and substantiation. The similarity in factors associated with different types of recurrence is an artefact of the way recurrence measures are constructed. Findings have implications for performance measurement and risk assessment instruments constructed and tested using measures of recurrence, which are poor indicators of need for statutory intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenkins, Brian Q. & Tilbury, Clare & Hayes, Hennessey & Mazerolle, Paul, 2019. "Do measures of child protection recurrence obscure the differences between reporting and substantiation?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:104:y:2019:i:c:11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740919301756
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104391?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johnson, Will, 2006. "The risk assessment wars: A commentary: Response to "Evaluating the effectiveness of actuarial risk assessment models" by Donald Baumann, J. Randolph Law, Janess Sheets, Grant Reid, and J. C," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 704-714, June.
    2. Fuller, Tamara & Nieto, Martin, 2014. "Child welfare services and risk of child maltreatment rereports: Do services ameliorate initial risk?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 46-54.
    3. Bae, Hwa-ok & Solomon, Phyllis L. & Gelles, Richard J., 2009. "Multiple child maltreatment recurrence relative to single recurrence and no recurrence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 617-624, June.
    4. Hearn, Jody, 2011. "Unmet needs in addressing child neglect: Should we go back to the drawing board?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 715-722, May.
    5. Palusci, Vincent J., 2011. "Risk factors and services for child maltreatment among infants and young children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1374-1382, August.
    6. Casanueva, Cecilia & Tueller, Stephen & Dolan, Melissa & Testa, Mark & Smith, Keith & Day, Orin, 2015. "Examining predictors of re-reports and recurrence of child maltreatment using two national data sources," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-13.
    7. Coohey, Carol & Johnson, Kristen & Renner, Lynette M. & Easton, Scott D., 2013. "Actuarial risk assessment in child protective services: Construction methodology and performance criteria," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 151-161.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jenkins, Brian Q. & Tilbury, Clare, 2024. "An evaluation of the racial equity of the actuarial Family risk assessment instrument used in Queensland, Australia," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiang, Chien-Jen & Jonson-Reid, Melissa & Drake, Brett, 2020. "Caregiver physical health and child maltreatment reports and rereports," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Russell, Jesse Rio & Kerwin, Colleen & Halverson, Julie L., 2018. "Is child protective services effective?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 185-192.
    3. Lee, Bong Joo & Jeong, Haerynn, 2022. "An evaluation of the comprehensive child protection support services in South Korea: Focusing on preventing maltreatment recurrence and improving safety," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    4. Helton, Jesse J., 2016. "Food neglect and maltreatment re-report," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 77-83.
    5. Kim, Hyunil & Jonson-Reid, Melissa & Kohl, Patricia & Chiang, Chien-jen & Drake, Brett & Brown, Derek & McBride, Tim & Guo, Shenyang, 2020. "Latent class analysis risk profiles: An effective method to predict a first re-report of maltreatment?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Shipe, Stacey L. & Uretsky, Mathew C. & Shaw, Terry V., 2022. "Family outcomes in alternative response: A multilevel analysis of recurrence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    7. Johnson, Will & Clancy, Thomas & Bastian, Pascal, 2015. "Child abuse/neglect risk assessment under field practice conditions: Tests of external and temporal validity and comparison with heart disease prediction," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 76-85.
    8. Luhamaa, Katre & McEwan-Strand, Amy & Ruiken, Barbara & Skivenes, Marit & Wingens, Florian, 2021. "Services and support for mothers and newborn babies in vulnerable situations: A study of eight European jurisdictions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    10. Emily Hurren & Anna Stewart & Susan Dennison, 2017. "New Methods to Address Old Challenges: The Use of Administrative Data for Longitudinal Replication Studies of Child Maltreatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-12, September.
    11. Simon, James David & Brooks, Devon, 2019. "Targeting services to reduce need after a child abuse investigation: Examining complex needs, matched services, and meaningful change," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 386-394.
    12. Palusci, Vincent J., 2011. "Risk factors and services for child maltreatment among infants and young children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1374-1382, August.
    13. Simmel, Cassandra & Shpiegel, Svetlana, 2013. "Describing the context and nature of emotional maltreatment reports in children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 626-633.
    14. Tomas Havranek & Anna Sokolova, 2016. "Do Consumers Really Follow a Rule of Thumb? Three Thousand Estimates from 130 Studies Say "Probably Not"," Working Papers 2016/08, Czech National Bank.
    15. Sinha, Vandna & Ellenbogen, Stephen & Trocmé, Nico, 2013. "Substantiating neglect of first nations and non-aboriginal children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 2080-2090.
    16. Dias, Daniela & Nunes, Rafaela & Coelho, Joana & Martinho, Gabriela & Santos, Anita, 2024. "Optimizing child protection systems: A systematic review of the literature on risk assessment practices," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    17. Semanchin Jones, Annette & Logan-Greene, Patricia, 2016. "Understanding and responding to chronic neglect: A mixed methods case record examination," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 212-219.
    18. Zhang, Lixia & Topitzes, James, 2022. "The association between family physical environment and child maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    19. Johanna Caldwell & Vandna Sinha, 2020. "(Re) Conceptualizing Neglect: Considering the Overrepresentation of Indigenous Children in Child Welfare Systems in Canada," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 13(2), pages 481-512, April.
    20. Hélie, Sonia & Poirier, Marie-Andrée & Turcotte, Daniel, 2014. "Risk of maltreatment recurrence after exiting substitute care: Impact of placement characteristics," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 257-264.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:104:y:2019:i:c:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.