|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: Mandated reporting policies, a core response to the identification of child maltreatment, are widely debated. Currently, there are calls to abolish or scale back these policies to include only certain professionals. These calls warrant evaluation of whether there are any differences in child welfare outcomes based on report source.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the initial report source predicts immediate and long-term risk of re-referral, substantiation, and placement. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: We used yearly National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) hotline report and placement data. Children (0-14y) with a first ever hotline report in 2012-2014 were followed for three years. The final sample included 2,101,397 children from 32 states.
METHODS: We use descriptive and bivariate statistics to show initial report outcomes by reporter source type and logistic regression models to evaluate the effect of report source on immediate and subsequent report outcomes.
RESULTS: Professional sources varied in levels of substantiation and placement, with law enforcement, medical, and social service sources showing much higher rates. Reports from professional sources have higher odds of initial report substantiation and foster care entry, and slightly lower odds of later re-report than nonprofessional sources. We found no differences between professional and nonprofessional sources in subsequent foster care entry.
CONCLUSIONS: Reports from professional, nonprofessional, and unclassified sources have varying levels of risk in some of their short- and long-term outcomes. To the degree that child protective services embrace a long-term preventative role, reports by nonprofessional report sources may provide opportunities for prevention.
Language: en |