Re: Articles

[rbarth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Debbie: The six month standard has more to do with "countability" 
than "vulnerability."  That is, if you collect data on a yearly basis 
(which we do) then you need to close enough cases within that year to 
see if they are re-reported in that year.  So, you can't wait for 12 
months to go by.  That doesn't mean that children do not continue to be 
vulnerable after six months, certainly.  I agree with what I assume is 
the underlying premise of your question that we should be keeping track 
or re-reports for several years.

Rick Barth

Quoting Debbie Shiell <debbie.shiell@mail.state.ar.us>:

> I am trying to locate any articles that discuss recividism of child
> maltreatment.  Specifically anything that gives or provides the
> rational of
> why states and the national standards would look at repeats of
> reports 6
> months after the 1st report instead of 12 months after the first
> report.
>
>