National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts:

Chapter 2.
Administrative Structures and Responsibilities

[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

• Introduction
• Administrative Structure
• Functional Responsibilities in Policy
• Primary Responsibility
• Shared Responsibility
• Summary

INTRODUCTION

In this section, policy is examined in relation to CPS administrative structure and assignment of responsibilities. In addition, the delegation of responsibility and authority for specific CPS functions is discussed.

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE

Data from the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) were used to characterize the administrative structure of each State. Thirty-eight States (74.5%) were categorized as State-administered. Thirteen States (25.5%) were categorized as State-supervised, county-administered.

Of the 38 State-administered systems, eight States indicated in the interviews that the local counties were largely responsible for CPS. These States were re-categorized as "State-administered systems with strong county structure and discretion." Figure 2-1 shows the States by these three categories.

Figure 2-1:
Administrative Structure of Child Protective Services

State-Administered = Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

State-Supervised, County- Administered = California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,Virginia, and Wisconsin.

State-Administered with Strong County Structure and Discretion = Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia.

FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN POLICY

Although the National Study indicated that written policies varied as to what was explicitly discussed, the locus of responsibility for the functions of screening, investigation, and assessment was generally addressed. (See table 2-A.)

• Fifty-one States (100%) specified the locus of responsibility for screening referrals;
• Fifty States (98.0%) specified the locus of responsibility for conducting investigations;
• Forty-nine States (96.1%) specified the locus of responsibility for receiving referrals;
• Forty-nine States (96.1%) specified the locus of responsibility for conducting safety and risk assessments;
• Forty-four States (86.3%) delineated the responsibility for maintaining the hotline; and
• Thirty-eight States (74.5%) specified a responsibility for conducting additional family functioning assessments.

^a Arkansas' "other" = contracted out to State police
^b Supportive Services Procedure, (II-B1) assessing families in relation to strengths and needs
^c Alternative Investigation
^d Sub-Office
^e E.g., Foster Home Concern
^f Hawaii's "other" = Per Island
^g Field Office & Multidisciplinary Teams
^h Idaho's "other" = Field Office
ⁱ State responsibility when an institutional perpetrator; county responsibility when a noninstitutional perpetrator
^j Multidisciplinary Teams
^k Community agencies under contract
^l Institutional referrals to central office
^m State will refer if nondispositioned.
ⁿ One local regional center has responsibility for the entire State.
^o State-level Special Investigation Unit responds to all reports of child abuse and neglect in out-of-home care.
^p State central intake office
^q Ten pilots in late Spring 2002
^r Assessment
^s The county agency is supposed to have a system for receiving calls 24/7, but can contract with outside agency
^t Referrals may also be received by "other public agencies."
^u Law enforcement - "The PCSA may request assistance of law enforcement at any time during an assessment and investigation for any reason including, but not limited to, worker safety."
^v Multidisciplinary Teams are recommended and can be used as consultants.
^w Contact Multidisciplinary Teams and law enforcement as described by local protocol
^x Regional office has primary responsibility if alleged perpetrator is agent of the county.
^y Assistance from law enforcement must be requested for: child sexual abuse cases, serious physical abuse and neglect likely to result in criminal charges, and situations potentially dangerous to worker or child.
^z Contracted out
^aa Interagency agreement between the county offices and law enforcement for collaboration during joint or parallel investigations and for notifying law enforcement about reports. Ho-Chunk Tribe - notice of receipt of report to tribe for Indian children (the county must notify tribe within 24 hours that a report was received).
^bb Law enforcement center

[Go To Contents]

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY

For each of several functions, State policies were reviewed in terms of delineations of primary and shared responsibility. Responsibility usually was interpreted to mean to have the mandate to actually carry out the task or function. Therefore, regardless of official administrative structure, the locus of responsibility was most often described as being at the county level. In some cases, sharing of responsibility was clearly enunciated by either indicating that the task was shared by the State and the counties, or by giving primary responsibility to one entity and shared responsibility to another.

• Twenty-six States (51.0%) assigned primary responsibility for all functions to the counties;
• Another 10 States (19.6%) assigned primary responsibility for all functions to the counties with the exception of the hotline, which was assigned to a State-level agency;
• Seven States (13.7%) assigned primary responsibility for all functions to the State or to regional offices in the State; and
• Six States (11.8%) specified mixed patterns of primary responsibility by type of function.

These patterns were not systematically related to administrative structure. The clearest relationship between administrative structure and responsibilities was applicable for those States classified as State-supervised, county-administered. Of the 13 State-supervised, county-administered systems, 8 described the county as having primary responsibility for all functions, and 5 described the county as sharing responsibility with the State for maintaining the hotline, receiving referrals and reports, and screening.

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Although the primary responsibility for CPS functions generally rested with one agency--either the State or the county--State policy indicated a shared responsibility between the State and the counties for specific functions.

• Twenty-one States (41.2%) discussed sharing responsibility for receiving referrals;
• Fifteen States (29.4%) discussed joint responsibility for screening referrals;
• Ten States (19.6%) discussed sharing investigation responsibilities;
• Seven States (13.7%) discussed sharing the responsibility for maintaining the hotline--often with one or two large counties; and
• Five States (9.8%) shared conducting safety and risk assessments, and two States (3.9%) had policy on shared conducting of family functioning assessments.

In all cases, the responsibility for conducting an alternative response was with the county or local level agencies. (Responsibility for assigning cases to the alternative response option was shared between the State and county or local agency in one State.)

The policies of a few States discussed sharing the responsibility for conducting CPS functions with non-child welfare public agencies or with private or community agency partners. The function that was shared most frequently was conducting investigations. This function was shared with law enforcement in four States, and with a multidisciplinary team in two States.

One State indicated that law enforcement had primary responsibility for conducting investigations. In that State, the State police were assigned primary responsibility for the hotline, receiving reports and referrals, and screening. Although there has been much attention paid to the idea of law enforcement taking on the role of investigative authority in order to allow CPS staff to carry out their family support and helping roles more effectively, this type of structure was found infrequently in the State policy manuals and in subsequent interviews with State administrators.

[Go To Contents]

SUMMARY

The policy review showed that CPS functions are implemented in general at the local or county level. Many States that are traditionally considered to be State-administered systems delegate responsibility for abuse and neglect to the local counties. Regardless of administrative structure, most State manuals explicitly discussed responsibility for certain functions such as maintaining the hotline, receiving referrals, screening referrals, conducting an investigation, and conducting safety and risk assessments. (See table 2-1.)

The CPS agency-- whether State or local--is portrayed in policy as the primary agency responsible for abused and neglected children. Fewer than one-third of the State policy manuals discussed sharing the responsibility for screening, investigation, or conducting assessments with other public or private agencies.

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)