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

05/01/2003

Even though differences in the availability of specific services were found by administrative structure, no clear pattern differentiating agencies by administrative structure was identified. Statistically significant differences with respect to administrative structure were found for the following services categories:

  • Investigation
    • Dental exams (provided less often by State-administered agencies);
    • Transportation (provided more often by county-administered agencies);
    • Tutoring (provided less often by State-administered agencies and most often by State-administered agencies with strong county structure);
    • Financial planning (provided less often by State-administered agencies);
    • Child care (provided more often by county-administered agencies); and
    • Employment services (provided less often by State-administered agencies).
  • Alternative response
    • Marital counseling (provided less often by county-administered agencies and State-administered agencies with strong county structure).

It appears that State-administered agencies could offer fewer services following an investigation when compared to county-administered agencies. The situation for alternative response is less conclusive (Table 7-4).

Table 7-4:
Services by Agency Structure
Service State-administered County-administered State-administered with strong county structure
Estimate Percen t Estimate Percent Estimate Percent
Investigation
Dental examsa 550 50% 620 64% 330 60%
Transportationb 660 60% 680 71% 320 59%
Tutoringc 370 34% 410 43% 280 52%
Financial planningd 490 45% 600 63% 380 69%
Child caree 820 74% 780 81% 390 71%
Employment servicesf 520 48% 640 66% 340 62%
Alternative response
Marital counselingg 590 78% 430 75% 200 61%
aX2 = 14.509, p < 0.05
bX2 = 16.344, p < 0.05
cX2 = 13.007, p < 0.05
dX2 = 20.539, p < 0.01
eX2 = 19.232, p < 0.01
fX2 = 19.162, p < 0.01
gX2 = 22.564, p < 0.05

State-administered agencies more often required that services be provided within 31-60 days compared to either county-administered or State-administered agencies with strong county structure (Table 7-5).

Table 7-5:
Timeframe for Investigation Services by Agency Structure
Timeframe State-administered County-administered State-administered with a strong county structure
Estimate
(C.I.)
Percent Estimate
(C.I.)
Percent Estimate
(C.I.)
Percent
No time limit 180
(100-260)
16% 240
(170-310)
25% 140
(20-260)
26%
Time limit determined by supervisor 310
(190-430)
28% 310
(230-380)
32% 100
(30-170)
18%
No more than 1-30 days 30
(0-60)
3% 90
(50-140)
10% 40
(<1-90)
7%
No more than 31-60 days 140
(50-230)
12% 60
(30-90)
7% --- <1%
No more than 61-90 days 90
(<1-160)
8% 10
(<1-20)
<1% 10
(<1-30)
2%
Other 320
(210-430)
29% 240
(170-320)
25% 230
(140-330)
43%
No response 30
(0-60)
3% 10
(0-20)
<1% 30
(<1-70)
5%
Total 1,100
(970-1,220)
100% 960
(890-1,030)
100% 550
(350-750)
100%
X2 = 44.761, p < 0.001

Among agencies providing alternative response, more State-administered agencies and State-administered agencies with strong county structure have service priority arrangements with multiple providers compared to county-administered agencies. County-administered agencies tend to have such a relationship with only one provider. A greater proportion of State-administered agencies (36%) and State-administered agencies with strong county structure (48%) had established priority service provision arrangements with multiple providers compared to county-administered agencies (22%). The results also indicate that county-administered agencies had more priority service relationships with mental health providers (9%) compared to the other two types of agencies; less than 1 percent for both of the other structure categories (Table 7-6).

Table 7-6:
Priority Status Arrangements for Alternative Response
Arrangements State-administered County-administered State-administered with a strong county struc ture
Estimate
(C.I.)
Percent Estimate
(C.I.)
Percent Estimate
(C.I.)
Percent
Agency does not have priority status arrangements 340
(230-450)
45% 250
(180-320)
43% 160
(60-250)
47%
Agency has priority status arrangements with mental health providers 20
(<1-40)
<1% 50
(10-90)
9% 10
(<1-30)
<1%
Agency has priority status arrangements with substance abuse providers 50
(20-90)
7% 40
(10-80)
8% --- ---
Agency has priority status arrangements with other providers 60
(10-110)
8% 40
(10-70)
7% --- ---
Agency has priority status arrangements with multiple types of services providers 270
(180-360)
36% 130
(60-190)
22% 160
(70-250)
48%
No response 10
(<1-20)
1% 60
(30-100)
11% 10
(<1-30)
3%
Total 760
(640-870)
100% 570
(480-660)
100% 340
(210-470)
100%
X2 = 22.584, p < 0.05