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: 9339
Date: 2013-01-27

Author:Andrea Sedlak

Subject:RE: Centralized child abuse screening

The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) found that jurisdictions that relied on hotline screening investigated a lower percentage of the maltreated children (who fit the study definitions) identified by professionals in the communities. See Chapter 8 of the NIS-4 report to Congress. Andrea Andrea J. Sedlak, Ph.D. Vice President Westat 1600 Research Blvd Rockville, MD 20850 301-251-4211 andreasedlak@westat.com ________________________________ From: bounce-72623664-42416177@list.cornell.edu [bounce-72623664-42416177@list.cornell.edu] on behalf of Rich Gehrman [gehrm001@umn.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:32 AM To: child-maltreatment-research-L@cornell.edu Subject: Centralized child abuse screening Greetings, A group of stakeholders in Minnesota is considering legislation to centralize screening of child abuse and neglect reports. Minnesota has 86 county and two tribal agencies currently handling this function. A recent report by the state's Office of the Legislative Auditor showed wide variation in standards and practices across the state, meaning that whether children get screened in for child protection services depends to a signficant degree on where they live. The Child Welfare Information Gateway and other searches led us to a 2003 study 'National Study of Child Protection Services Systems and Reform Efforts Local Agency Survey' which was helpful but somewhat dated. We also found evaluations of centralized screening systems from Indiana, Kentucky and New Jersey. We also found information on an attempt to centralize child abuse screening in Colorado which was essentially tabled. Are there any other known research studies or evaluations on this topic that we have not found yet? Also we would be interested in comments from practitioners who have views on the relative effectiveness of centralized screening units or hotlines compared to decentralized county systems. Thank you for your help. Rich Gehrman Executive Director Safe Passage for Children of Minnesota www.safepassagemn.org

The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) found that jurisdictions that relied on hotline screening investigated a lower percentage of the maltreated children (who fit the study definitions) identified by professionals in the communities. See Chapter 8 of the NIS-4 report to Congress. Andrea Andrea J. Sedlak, Ph.D. Vice President Westat 1600 Research Blvd Rockville, MD 20850 301-251-4211 andreasedlakwestat.com ________________________________ From: bounce-72623664-42416177list.cornell.edu [bounce-72623664-42416177list.cornell.edu] on behalf of Rich Gehrman [gehrm001umn.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:32 AM To: child-maltreatment-research-Lcornell.edu Subject: Centralized child abuse screening Greetings, A group of stakeholders in Minnesota is considering legislation to centralize screening of child abuse and neglect reports. Minnesota has 86 county and two tribal agencies currently handling this function. A recent report by the state's Office of the Legislative Auditor showed wide variation in standards and practices across the state, meaning that whether children get screened in for child protection services depends to a signficant degree on where they live. The Child Welfare Information Gateway and other searches led us to a 2003 study 'National Study of Child Protection Services Systems and Reform Efforts Local Agency Survey' which was helpful but somewhat dated. We also found evaluations of centralized screening systems from Indiana, Kentucky and New Jersey. We also found information on an attempt to centralize child abuse screening in Colorado which was essentially tabled. Are there any other known research studies or evaluations on this topic that we have not found yet? Also we would be interested in comments from practitioners who have views on the relative effectiveness of centralized screening units or hotlines compared to decentralized county systems. Thank you for your help. Rich Gehrman Executive Director Safe Passage for Children of Minnesota www.safepassagemn.org