[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
The Local Agency Survey (LAS) component of the National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts provided a unique national perspective on CPS agency processes. The survey represented a pioneering effort in the field, as it was the first to gather information from a nationally representative sample of local CPS agencies about different aspects of how the agencies work. Despite a challenging research environment where many CPS agencies were being asked to participate in other concurrent Federally-sponsored initiatives, the study's data collection methodology achieved a high response rate.
[Go To Contents]
A primary goal of the LAS was to gain a better understanding of the functions performed by CPS agencies. The findings revealed that almost all of the estimated 2,610 local CPS agencies in the nation performed screening and all of them conducted investigations. Two-thirds of CPS agencies also were estimated to perform some type of alternative response as part of their work. Alternative response was defined as a function of the agency that assesses the needs of the child or family without requiring a determination that maltreatment has occurred and/or that the child is at risk of maltreatment. However, agencies indicated that this definition was not the critical distinguishing characteristic of these alternative responses. Rather, two-thirds of agencies make a distinction among responses based on the type and severity of the alleged maltreatment.
Nationally, local agencies were responsible for screening of child abuse or neglect referrals for almost all children and were responsible for investigating child abuse or neglect for all children. However, just over one-half of children lived in jurisdictions served by agencies with alternative CPS responses. The difference between the percentage of agencies offering alternative responses (two-thirds) and the percentage of children under the jurisdiction of such agencies (just over
one-half) suggests that alternative responses were more often used in smaller agencies. Given their size, these agencies may have been able to operate more flexibly or be case-specific in response to allegations of maltreatment.
[Go To Contents]
Nationally, most CPS agencies were relatively small. Staff size averaged about 26 persons, with 17 of them functioning as caseworkers or social workers, 3 as supervisors, and the remainder as support staff.
Very few agencies had vacancies at the time of the survey. Agencies in State-administered systems had larger staffs compared to agencies in county-administered.
On average more than one-half of all workers employed by CPS agencies were specialized in either screening/intake or investigations. Most agencies that offer an alternative response provide this response with the same workers who provide investigations. Based on the size of the agencies with the size of the population of children residing in locales that are served by the agencies, larger agencies had more specialized staffs. These findings undoubtedly reflect the relatively small size of agencies nationwide with smaller agencies being less specialized, compared to larger agencies with a greater number of specialized staff.
In terms of workload, CPS agencies handled an average of 64 referrals per month as part of the screening/intake response and completed an average of 43 investigations per month. For those agencies providing an alternative CPS response, an average of 16 were completed each month. The majority of CPS agencies were experiencing what they considered to be excessive workloads at the time of the study. Further, approximately three-quarters of children were in jurisdictions in which the agencies had excessive workloads. While recognizing that no objective measure of workload has been made, the existence of widespread concerns regarding excessive workload is important.
CPS agencies also provided followup services to children and families as part of their responses. Almost all agencies were allowed to provide services regardless of the result of investigations, but nearly one-quarter provided services only if a report was substantiated or did not provide followup services at all. The range of potential service offerings available to most agencies was quite extensive, with educational or therapeutic services most commonly available, and financial services less commonly available.
[Go To Contents]
Overall, there was little variation across CPS agencies with how referrals entered the agency. Most CPS agencies screened locally, as opposed to only relying on State hotlines, and typically received referrals from individuals, schools, or hotlines. CPS agencies made widespread use of on-call staff to handle calls after-business hours, on weekends, and from non-English speakers. Some agencies were not at all able to accept referrals from non-English speakers because of a lack of appropriate staff or arrangements with interpreters to handle such calls.
CPS agencies had some flexibility in the processing of referrals. Agencies had multiple response options available for both screened-in and screened-out referrals. Further, agencies that received referrals from a State hotline were not bound to follow the Hotline's response recommendation or the timeframe for completing the referral. Agency screening activities generally involved paperwork; activities that required direct contact with the child, family, or reporter were conducted less frequently. CPS agencies almost always conducted such activities as searching CPS records, while they only sometimes conducted activities involving contact with individuals such as calling or visiting the family or calling collaterals during screening.
Once a referral was screened into the agency for further action, two-thirds of CPS agencies used an alternative response in combination with investigation. More response options were available for referrals on children with an open investigation or for referrals on children in foster care than for other types of screened-in referrals. Those referrals that were screened out by the agency were often referred elsewhere, many to the police, because they involved maltreatment by third-party perpetrators.
The survey found many similarities in the approaches and practices used to conduct the responses. The majority of agencies extended both the investigation response and the alternative response to all children in the household. In making determinations at the conclusion of the investigation response, most agencies made separate determinations for each child. Moreover, CPS agencies almost universally considered factors such as severity and policy standards during the investigation response. Fewer agencies required practices under alternative response related to imminent safety issues — such as removing the child — because such cases were handled by investigations.
Agencies carried out a wide range of activities while conducting both responses. During investigations, nearly all CPS agencies interviewed the child and caregiver, reviewed previous records, and interviewed witnesses. Some activities were less frequent during investigations, such as conducting family group conferencing and criminal background checks. During the alternative response, agencies almost always talked to the child and reviewed prior records. However, they focused less on gathering forensic evidence, and they less frequently used multidisciplinary teams, interviewed witnesses, gathered physical evidence, or conducted criminal background checks.
While a majority of agencies followed guidelines for conducting assessment during the investigation response, only a minority used formal assessment tools during the investigation to gauge the extent of risk, safety, substance abuse, or domestic violence. This finding may contradict what many in the field believe to be a more widespread use of these tools during investigations. Overall, there is less use of standard instruments and tools during the alternative CPS responses.
CPS agencies had access to a broad range of specialists while conducting investigation and other responses, particularly clinicians and substance abuse specialists. The analyses also revealed that the reliance on professionals might cause a bottleneck in completing the response. Access to professionals was frequently cited as a barrier to timely completion of both responses. These findings suggest that while CPS agencies may have had access to specialists, this access could be delayed or not prompt enough to fit into the timeline for responses.
Decisionmaking practices were similar for both responses where workers made decisions with supervisory review. At the conclusion of the response, notifications to the perpetrator and reporter were more common during the investigation response compared to the alternative response. For responses not completed during the required time frame, investigations typically remained open, while alternative responses had more flexible standards for concluding the case.
[Go To Contents]
Another important aspect of how CPS agencies operate is their involvement with other agencies in the community. The study shows that few CPS agencies had lead responsibility for the investigation and alternative response functions across all types of maltreatment. Rather, agency responsibility for these functions typically varied depending on the type of maltreatment. Further, the findings reveal a distinction between the role of law enforcement and that of other agencies in CPS work. The specific circumstance of the maltreatment also shaped the role of CPS agencies with more sharing of lead responsibility for the more serious forms of maltreatment. At the same time, across the different types of perpetrators similar percentages of CPS agencies shared lead responsibility with other agencies.
The findings also reveal a distinction between the role of law enforcement and that of other agencies. Looking at the different types of maltreatment, CPS agencies reported sharing lead responsibility with law enforcement more often than with any other type of agency. The same pattern holds true for different types of perpetrators, with more sharing of lead responsibility with law enforcement agencies. This consistent pattern highlights the unique role of law enforcement in responding to different types of maltreatment and perpetrators.
Overall, most agencies reported fairly stable processes for the screening and intake, investigation, and alternative response functions with about one-fifth reporting changes during the last 2 years.
However, when asked about specific changes in different areas, agencies reported a wide variety of changes and new developments. The most frequent changes came in the area of CPS organization. These included such efforts as improvement or expansion of staff training and increased use of information technology. CPS agencies were also working to increase collaboration with a variety of community partners such as domestic violence agencies, alcohol and drug agencies, and other agencies. While somewhat less frequent, changes were also evident in the specific functional areas. A number of CPS agencies had made changes in the use of assessments or other tools during the screening/intake function, had new efforts related to the use of multidisciplinary teams during the investigation function, and changed their use of risk assessments or other tools while conducting the alternative CPS response.
[Go To Contents]
The LAS provides a rich source of information about the processes and practices of CPS agencies. The survey's focus on the different functional areas as well as reform efforts within the agencies contributes to the overall study's ability to describe the status of the CPS system nationally and to characterize the reform efforts underway. With a unique national perspective lacking in other research efforts, the LAS findings can help both policymakers and practitioners understand how CPS agencies nationwide operate.
The LAS findings provide concrete evidence of both the commonalities and diversity of CPS practices throughout the Nation. The diversity is at the very core of CPS practice. While all CPS agencies investigated child abuse and neglect, they did not all have the same lead responsibility. To a certain degree, the more serious the type of maltreatment, the more likely they were to share the responsibility for investigating the maltreatment. This obviously requires clear lines of responsibility and collaboration in order to be effective.
Furthermore the majority of CPS agencies conceptualized their practice as having different responses for different types of maltreatment. Not only were responsibilities shared, but the responses were different. In general these responses were less focused on obtaining forensic evidence, but the clear difference was that they focused on different types of maltreatment than did investigation.
At each level of practice, the areas of common practice could be identified. A few examples follow:
These findings raise important questions for the field. Is the field strengthened or weakened by this diversity? Can agencies be held accountable to their communities and to national standards without a greater understanding of what "should be" common practice? Can families have expectations from agencies that encourage individual assessments, but have few common standards of practice?
The LAS provides data on CPS practice as it existed during 2002. It is hoped that it will assist in planning for improved CPS practices in future years.
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)