Skip to main content



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

Browse or Search All Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages (10,000+). The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - September 14, 2018 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: 8268
Date: 2009-09-18

Author:dfmcmahon1msn.com

Subject:Re: indicated reports vs unfounded reports

My post was brief but a lot of lurking considerations which might boil down

thus:



confounding factors that increase the likelihood of being the subject of a

report--these might be "demographic factors," community/neighborhood

factors, and others--and is the confounding effect multiplied by each

subsequent report, whether indicated or not, with the number of prior

reports becoming an additional confounding factor



I think it is always important to consider whether one is understanding

"substantiation" as an entity in itself (which is inherently part artifact)

vs substantiation understood to represent ("indicate") an independent

entity/actuality (keeping in mind that statistical conclusions are always

understood to be approximations of an essentially unknowable actuality. . .

and no, this is not merely a philosophical reflection). So, by "risk" does

one mean risk of maltreatment (actual independent reality) or risk of being

the subject of "indicated" or "substantiated" maltreatment?



(To the extent "philosophical reflections" are contemplated in this field,

they seem to be restricted to ethics/ political philosophy considerations,

but underneath there are, well, epistemological issues--with real moral,

political, etc impact on real individuals)



Sheri McMahon





--------------------------------------------------

From: "Rhenda Hodnett"

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:11 AM

To: "Child Maltreatment Researchers"



Subject: Re: indicated reports vs unfounded reports



> This line of thinking would also be supported by the Structured Decision

> Making risk assessment (which we are using in Louisiana) since unfounded

> reports are counted as well in determining risk level for future

> maltreatment.

>

> Rhenda H. Hodnett, MSW, LCSW

> Director Prevention & Protection Services

> DSS/Office of Community Services

> 627 N. Fourth Street, P. O. Box 3318

> Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821

> 225-342-4013

> rhodnett@dss.state.la.us

>

>

>>>> 09/15/09 10:00 PM >>>

> Immediate thought:

> Existence of previous reports is considered a risk factor, whether

> formally or as something that tends to influence the person making the

> risk determination.

> Sheri McMahon

>

>

> From: Todd McDonald

> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:48 PM

> To: Child Maltreatment Researchers

> Subject: indicated reports vs unfounded reports

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

>







My post was brief but a lot of lurking considerations which might boil down

thus:



confounding factors that increase the likelihood of being the subject of a

report--these might be "demographic factors," community/neighborhood

factors, and others--and is the confounding effect multiplied by each

subsequent report, whether indicated or not, with the number of prior

reports becoming an additional confounding factor



I think it is always important to consider whether one is understanding

"substantiation" as an entity in itself (which is inherently part artifact)

vs substantiation understood to represent ("indicate") an independent

entity/actuality (keeping in mind that statistical conclusions are always

understood to be approximations of an essentially unknowable actuality. . .

and no, this is not merely a philosophical reflection). So, by "risk" does

one mean risk of maltreatment (actual independent reality) or risk of being

the subject of "indicated" or "substantiated" maltreatment?



(To the extent "philosophical reflections" are contemplated in this field,

they seem to be restricted to ethics/ political philosophy considerations,

but underneath there are, well, epistemological issues--with real moral,

political, etc impact on real individuals)



Sheri McMahon





--------------------------------------------------

From: "Rhenda Hodnett"

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:11 AM

To: "Child Maltreatment Researchers"



Subject: Re: indicated reports vs unfounded reports



> This line of thinking would also be supported by the Structured Decision

> Making risk assessment (which we are using in Louisiana) since unfounded

> reports are counted as well in determining risk level for future

> maltreatment.

>

> Rhenda H. Hodnett, MSW, LCSW

> Director Prevention & Protection Services

> DSS/Office of Community Services

> 627 N. Fourth Street, P. O. Box 3318

> Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821

> 225-342-4013

> rhodnettdss.state.la.us

>

>

>>>> 09/15/09 10:00 PM >>>

> Immediate thought:

> Existence of previous reports is considered a risk factor, whether

> formally or as something that tends to influence the person making the

> risk determination.

> Sheri McMahon

>

>

> From: Todd McDonald

> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:48 PM

> To: Child Maltreatment Researchers

> Subject: indicated reports vs unfounded reports

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

>