Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - December 22, 2017 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8261
Date: 2009-09-17

Author:aron shlonsky

Subject:Re: indicated reports vs unfounded reports

With some trepidation, I'll make the following comment:

Substantiation is a legal decision and its absence may not accurately

reflect whether maltreatment occurred. It is most certainly not an

exact measure, so it's no surprise that it has little predictive value

in terms of whether children are harmed later. See Fuller and Wells,

2001 for yet another article in this vein. Another thing to think about

is 'risk of what?' Recurrence? Developmental well-being? School

success? Mental health concerns? etc...

Aron



Kristen Shook Slack wrote:

> Melissa Jonson-Reid and Brett Drake have also done some interesting

> work around comparing substantiated and unsubstantiated (or indicated

> vs. unfounded) reports in terms of future CPS involvement--not sure

> off-hand of the best citation to give you but they are both at the

> George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University.

>

> In response to another comment in this thread, I do think there is

> value in comparing these two categories of report outcomes even

> without a "non-reported" comparison group, if the purpose is to

> understand whether the CPS decision-making around substantiation has

> any predictive value for re-involvement down the road.

> A final comment: the federal government, in the context of Child and

> Family Service Reviews, defines one of the safety indicators that

> states must measure based on substantiated reports. Given practice

> changes throughout the country with respect to differential response

> reforms, and the fact that in practice, case opening is not

> necessarily contingent on or synonymous with substantiation, there is

> still room to learn more about the value of this CPS decision outcome

> for differentiating risk among CPS entrants.

>

> -kristi

>

> Deborah Stone wrote:

>> THis is the article I always refer to:

>> Hussey JM, Marshall JM, English DJ, Knight ED, Lau AS, Dubowitz H,

>> Kotch JB (2005)

>> /Defining Maltreatment According to Substantiation: Distinction

>> Without a Difference?/.

>> Child Abuse & Neglect: vol.29, p.479-492.

>>

>> >>> Todd McDonald 09/15/09 9:45 PM >>>

>> Dear list members. Does anyone know if unfounded cases of abuse or

>> neglect are as at risk for problems down the road compared with

>> indicated cases? Are these children just as vulnerable?

>> Todd

>>

>>

>







With some trepidation, I'll make the following comment:

Substantiation is a legal decision and its absence may not accurately

reflect whether maltreatment occurred. It is most certainly not an

exact measure, so it's no surprise that it has little predictive value

in terms of whether children are harmed later. See Fuller and Wells,

2001 for yet another article in this vein. Another thing to think about

is 'risk of what?' Recurrence? Developmental well-being? School

success? Mental health concerns? etc...

Aron



Kristen Shook Slack wrote:

> Melissa Jonson-Reid and Brett Drake have also done some interesting

> work around comparing substantiated and unsubstantiated (or indicated

> vs. unfounded) reports in terms of future CPS involvement--not sure

> off-hand of the best citation to give you but they are both at the

> George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University.

>

> In response to another comment in this thread, I do think there is

> value in comparing these two categories of report outcomes even

> without a "non-reported" comparison group, if the purpose is to

> understand whether the CPS decision-making around substantiation has

> any predictive value for re-involvement down the road.

> A final comment: the federal government, in the context of Child and

> Family Service Reviews, defines one of the safety indicators that

> states must measure based on substantiated reports. Given practice

> changes throughout the country with respect to differential response

> reforms, and the fact that in practice, case opening is not

> necessarily contingent on or synonymous with substantiation, there is

> still room to learn more about the value of this CPS decision outcome

> for differentiating risk among CPS entrants.

>

> -kristi

>

> Deborah Stone wrote:

>> THis is the article I always refer to:

>> Hussey JM, Marshall JM, English DJ, Knight ED, Lau AS, Dubowitz H,

>> Kotch JB (2005)

>> /Defining Maltreatment According to Substantiation: Distinction

>> Without a Difference?/.

>> Child Abuse & Neglect: vol.29, p.479-492.

>>

>> >>> Todd McDonald 09/15/09 9:45 PM >>>

>> Dear list members. Does anyone know if unfounded cases of abuse or

>> neglect are as at risk for problems down the road compared with

>> indicated cases? Are these children just as vulnerable?

>> Todd

>>

>>

>