National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts: Findings on Local CPS Practices

Chapter 3.
Screening and Intake

[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

• Receipt of Referrals
• Processing Referrals
• Role of State Hotline
• Conclusion

Endnote

This chapter examines local CPS agency practices and procedures for receiving and screening child maltreatment referrals.⁽¹⁾ The sections cover CPS practices on receiving and processing referrals, and on the role of the State hotline.

There was little variation in how referrals entered the CPS agencies. Overall, most agencies screened locally, received referrals from individuals, schools or hotlines, and used on-call staff to handle referrals after regular business hours. At the same time, the survey findings revealed that CPS agencies had some flexibility in processing referrals. Agencies utilized multiple response options for both screened-in and screened-out referrals. While most CPS agencies received referrals from their State hotline, they were not bound to the response recommendations or timeline of the hotline.

3.1 Receipt of Referrals

Individuals, State or local hotlines, and schools were the primary sources of referrals alleging maltreatment. Table 3-1 depicts the percentage of CPS agencies that ranked a list of possible referral sources as either the most common or the second most common. For 32 percent of agencies, individuals were the most common source of referrals. In almost as many agencies (28%), State or local hotlines and schools were the most common source of referrals. In one-third of agencies, schools were the second most common, and in one-fourth of agencies law enforcement was the second most common source of referrals.

Less than one-half of the agencies (38%) automatically accepted all referrals (Table 3-2). Among those that would accept all referrals, more than one-half accepted from specific agencies such as law enforcement, hospitals, or the courts and another one-third accepted referrals from mandated reporters.

Most CPS agencies assigned referrals received during nonbusiness hours — weekday evenings or weekends — to on-call staff. As Table 3-3 illustrates, for some agencies, State hotlines were used to accept these after-hours referrals.

Few agencies had staff that could respond to calls received from non-English speakers (Table 3-4). Few agencies had non-English speakers on staff (13%) or on call (9%). Most agencies, if they had means of accepting such referrals, used other methods, such as contracting with interpreters from the community or another agency or accessing a "language line" by which a third party joins the conversation as the interpreter. Surprisingly, 15 percent of all CPS agencies were not able to accept calls from non-English speakers because of a lack of appropriate staff to handle such calls.

The majority of CPS agencies (81%) handled written referrals in the same manner as other types of referrals (Table 3-5). A few agencies handled these with priority status (8%) while the rest were handled by the person or unit receiving the written referral (2%) or in some other way (5%).

[Go To Contents]

3.2 Processing Referrals

The screening and intake module examined how CPS agency processed referrals, the available response options, and the activities that were performed during screening and intake. The majority of agencies (83%) conducted their own screening activities (Table 3-6). For 14 percent of agencies, the State hotline performed screening.

CPS agencies had a variety of response options for both screened-out and screened-in referrals. Screened-out referrals could be either referred to another agency — such as law enforcement (84%) or a community-based agency (75%) — or closed without further action (72%), (Table 3-7).

Once a referral was screened in, the majority of CPS agencies referred to the CPS investigation response for new referrals, for referrals concerning children who already had an open investigation, for children who had been previously referred, and for children in foster care (Table 3-8). In nearly one-half (44%) of agencies, multiple response options were available when the referral concerned a child or household with an open investigation, while in approximately one-fourth of the agencies there were multiple response options for new referrals and children who had been previously referred. This indicates that there may be considerable flexibility even within the same agency in how referrals were handled.

More than three-quarters of agencies (86%) always searched for previous CPS records for the children who were alleged to be victims of maltreatment previously; 81 percent of agencies always searched for information on the alleged perpetrator (Table 3-9). While these activities are supposed to be uniformly carried out by all CPS agencies, the survey responses indicate that not all agencies follow this practice. Safety assessment tools were always used by more than two-thirds of agencies (69%). Screening and intake staff at one-third to one-half of CPS agencies sometimes searched other records, called collateral contacts, called family members, and established the credibility of the reporter. It is interesting to note that 37 percent of CPS agencies always visited the family during the screening process while 31 percent never visited the family.

[Go To Contents]

3.3 Role of State Hotline

Another area of interest is the role of the State hotline in the screening function. More than one-half of local CPS agencies received referrals from a State hotline (Table 3-10). For these agencies, caseworkers and supervisors usually managed referrals from the hotlines. One-quarter of the agencies that received State hotline referrals indicated that someone received them other than a caseworker or supervisor. Other persons who might handle referrals included secretaries, clerks, directors, or administrators.

CPS agencies were evenly divided as to whether the State hotline made recommendations as to what the response of the agency should be. Most local agencies had autonomy in regards to action since 74 percent of agencies that received recommendations did not have to follow them and one-half of all agencies did not receive recommendations from the State hotline (Table 3-11). However, most were required to respond within timeframes established by the State hotline (Table 3-12).

[Go To Contents]

3.4 Conclusion

The findings indicate that many of the local CPS agencies shared some core practices when conducting the screening and intake functions. Also indicated is that CPS agencies had some flexibility in how they handled referrals.

Core practices shared by many of the local CPS agencies in conducting the screening and intake functions included the types of referral sources and the acceptance of referrals. Further, activities undertaken during the screening process were often similar among CPS agencies.

While CPS agencies received referrals from many sources, the most common sources were individuals, State or local hotlines, and schools. The second-most common source of referrals to CPS agencies was law enforcement. Responses to referrals made during weekend or evening hours were often conducted by on-call staff; however, agencies were more limited in accepting referrals from non-English speakers. A substantial minority of CPS agencies automatically accepted referrals from certain sources such as specific agencies or mandated reporters.

CPS agencies undertook a wide variety of activities during the screening process. Typical activities performed by the agencies often involved paperwork, such as searching CPS records for information on the alleged victims and perpetrators. Less frequently conducted activities were those that required direct contact with the child, family, or reporter.

While many CPS agencies shared several core functions in the screening and intake of referrals, they also had some flexibility in how they handled these referrals. This level of flexibility was evident in the use of multiple responses for both screened-out and screened-in referrals as well as collaboration with State hotlines to respond to the referrals.

A large majority of CPS agencies used multiple response options for screened-out referrals, including making referrals to other agencies. For all types of screened-in referrals, the most common response option was a CPS investigation; however, approximately one-quarter to one-half of agencies had multiple response options for screened-in referrals.

While approximately two-thirds of local CPS agencies received State hotline referrals, they retained some flexibility in handling these referrals. Close to one-half of CPS agencies indicated that their State hotline made recommendations as to their agency's response. However, most agencies were not bound to follow these recommendations, and many assigned their own priority status to the recommendation.

[Go To Contents]

Endnote

1.  Calls that are received by the CPS agency are considered to be referrals to the agency, which may be screened -in or screened- out by the agency. Screened-in referrals are considered reports alleging child abuse or neglect.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)