Re: Questions re Substantiated vs Unsubstantiated Child Sexual Abuse Reports to CPS in the USA

["B. Jenkins" <bjenkins@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am curious with the CIS, given the similarity with the OIS.
If a worker was to mark down an "intentionally false" allegation -- i.e. make an allegation themselves -- would
the agency have legal onus to go to the police to seek
prosecution and would the worker be subject to professional
discipline and perhaps personal legal action. This would certainly be the case if the questionnaire was part of the file and there was no legal protection (which there is not in Canada) as to the confidentiality of thos communications.
 
This type of data in a highly litiguous and very emotionally
tense environment is exceedingly difficult to collect even with a double blind collection. I would doubt that the data
on "purposefully false" filings would be unaffected.
	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: Nico Trocme <mailto:nico.trocme@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
	To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <mailto:CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
	Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:12 AM
	Subject: re: Questions re Substantiated vs Unsubstantiated Child Sexual Abuse Reports to CPS in the USA

	Steve:
	
	We are doing some work on this question using data from a national Canadian study.  Table 7-10b of the published CIS report shows that custody disputes are noted in 11% of sexual abuse investigations.  The substantiation rate in these cases is very low, however, very few of the unsubstantiated cases were considered to be intentionally false allegations (intentionally false allegations are noted more often in situations of neglect and physical abuse, and do not often involve a custody dispute).  I am sorry that I do not yet have more of a breakdown.  Check our website in approx 6 months for news on release of the more specific analyses.
	 
	Nico Trocmé, 
	www.cecw-cepb.ca
	 
	 
	 
	Major descriptive findings from the first Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS) are available on line at:
	 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/publicat/cisfr-ecirf/index.html. 
	Copies can also be ordered from the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence at Health Canada 1-800-267-1291, or 613-957-2938.
	 
	 
		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Steve Herman <mailto:drsteveherman@xxxxxxxxx>  
		To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <mailto:CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
		Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 5:04 PM
		Subject: Questions re Substantiated vs Unsubstantiated Child Sexual Abuse Reports to CPS in the USA

		Does anyone know of any published or unpublished studies that might help to address the following questions:
		 
		1)       What percentage of substantiated reports of child sexual abuse arise in the context of (or include as a component) custody/visitation disputes?
		
		
		2)       What percentage of unsubstantiated reports of child sexual abuse arise in the context of (or include as a component) custody/visitation disputes?
		
		
		3)       What percentage of substantiated reports of child sexual abuse involve a direct accusation of abuse by the child victim, as opposed to reports that involve only accusations or statements from third parties (adults or children)?
		
		
		4)       What percentage of unsubstantiated reports of child sexual abuse involve a direct accusation of abuse by the child victim, as opposed to reports that involve only accusations or statements from third parties (adults or children)?
		
		
		5)       With regard to unsubstantiated reports, what percentage of these involve cases in which abuse was deemed unlikely to have occurred vs. cases where abuse was likely, but there was insufficient evidence to substantiate? 
		
		
		6)       What are current official criteria for substantiation of sexual abuse by CPS and how do these vary from State to State?
		 
		Any help would be greatly appreciated.
		
		Thanks,
		Steve Herman, Ph.D.
		**************************************
		voice/fax: (707) 371-4698
		drsteveherman@xxxxxxxxx
		http://thezoe.com/steve.htm
		**************************************
		Box 3A-204
		1060 E. County Line Road 
		Ridgeland, MS 39157-1937 USA
		**************************************
		 
>From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 16:40:47 2002
Status: U
Return-Path: 
Received: from elist02.mail.cornell.edu (elist02.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.15])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21950;
Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:37:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by elist02.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA08163;
Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:37:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from elist02.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by elist02.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA08062;
Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from postoffice6.mail.cornell.edu (postoffice6.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.21])
by elist02.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03868
for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:26:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by postoffice6.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26120
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:26:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hosting-network.com (UNIX66.HOSTING-NETWORK.COM [64.38.103.1])
by postoffice6.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA26059
for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:26:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 60571 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2002 20:22:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ron) (68.6.24.10)
by node-67.hosting-network.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2002 20:22:54 -0000
X-PH: V4.1@postoffice6
X-PH: V4.1@elist02 (Cornell Modified) 
From: "Ron Kokish" 
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers 
Subject: RE: re unrelated males in household--AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CREATING A VALID MEASURE OF IMMINENT DANGER 
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:27:05 -0700
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <11BFDEF1DCFFD111BD6500A0C9C56F09057F6FA2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-Tag: 4771
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09.cu.02/011115/14:19 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN

>>Very important to keep this issue alive.<<

Thanks for your response. I agree it's important to keep this issue alive.
A post earlier this morning worried me. Earlier today someone suggested
that we have to treat countless children with fevers to prevent a few cases
of meningitis. This is so, but treating a fever rarely involves police
officers forcibly moving children from their families to unfamiliar, often
institutional surroundings.

So, HOW can we keep this issue alive in ways that are likely to make a
difference in the real (political) world? I think this is a crucial
question for researchers and one that will take a lot of courage to address
meaningfully.


***************************************************************************
Ron Kokish at Delson-Kokish Associates, P.O. Box 476, Trinidad, CA 95570
Clinical and Forensic Evaluations, Consultation & Training
(707) 677-3181 voice 677-0187 fax
ron@xxxxxxxxx email www.delko.net
***************************************************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Johnson, Will@DSS
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:31 AM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: re unrelated males in household--AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF
CREATING A VALID MEASURE OF IMMINENT DANGER


Ron,

Very important to keep this issue alive. I was told by a researcher at a
prominent national child welfare association that child welfare is "moving
on... to safety assessment" (rough paraphrase). The implication is that
safety assessment, presumably some new kind with new scientific evidentiary
support, has arrived as the most important focus in child welfare case
assessment. This despite base rate/false positive problems that will
prevent development of safety assessments that can validly classify cases as
to the likelihood of "imminent danger", maltreatment in the very near
future, etc. This kind of evidence of validity is the most important kind
of evidence in evaluating the quality of a safety assessment, and no
research has ever shown that valid safety assessments for assessing the
likelihood of low base rate events are feasible.

For professionally accepted standards for evaluating tests and assessments
see the American Psychological Association's Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing, available through the APA website. These standards,
which cover "assessments" as well as "tests", were put together by APA, in
collaboration with other national research associations, including those in
the field of education.

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Kokish [mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:11 PM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: re unrelated males in household--AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF
CREATING A VALID MEASURE OF IMMINENT DANGER


>>The low base rate and accompanying false positives make a useful,
predictively valid safety assessment impossible to achieve. . .
There will be no useful way of validly differentiating children at greater
danger of imminent harm from those who are truly safe.<<

I'm no statistician but I tend to agree with Will Johnson's statement. So
what is our ethical obligation? (Those others of us who agree) If, "The
best that can be done is to construct a set of criteria for assessing
imminent danger that is reviewed by experts and administrators and have
everyone use it," what are the ethics of participating in this venture,
knowing its potential to waste large amounts of resources and unnecessarily
disrupts countless lives?

>>At the same time, society mandates that CPS agencies protect children from
serious harm<<

CPS agencies, individual social workers, universities and researchers are
not tools of vague construct called society - we are an active and powerful
part of it. Over the centuries and continuing into the present, "societies"
have mandated many useless, even cruel and evil things, often with good
intentions. Are researchers obliged only to publish accurate data in
journals that frankly, many social workers and most politicians don't know
exist and fewer care about? Or are researchers ethically obligated to do
more with such compelling information?

***************************************************************************
Ron Kokish at Delson-Kokish Associates, P.O. Box 476, Trinidad, CA 95570
Clinical and Forensic Evaluations, Consultation & Training
(707) 677-3181 voice 677-0187 fax
ron@xxxxxxxxx email www.delko.net
***************************************************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Johnson, Will@DSS
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 1:39 PM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: re unrelated males in household--AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF
CREATING A VALID MEASURE OF IMMINENT DANGER