Exploring Screened Out Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect in Maryland
MetadataShow full item record
Other TitlesMaryland State Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (2003). Research Committee Report. Child Protection Annual Report.
Research in Support of Child Welfare Policy & Programs
AbstractAs an effort to explore the degree to which screening practices and decision are consistent with state policies (DHR, 1996), a collaborative evaluation was undertaken by the Department of Human Resources (DHR) Social Services Administration (SSA), the State Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (SCCAN), and the University of Maryland Center for Families (UMCFF). Each of 24 local Maryland jurisdictions were asked to submit copies of all referrals received in their jurisdiction during one month in 2001. Twenty-three jurisdictions submitted copies of their screened out referrals for May 2001 and Baltimore City Department of Social Services submitted all screened out referrals for November 2001. Data regarding the number of investigated CPS reports each jurisdiction received during those same months were also collected from the state wide Client Information System (CIS). IN all, 5,023 referrals were received by CPS agencies during the one-month study period and 1,811 referrals were screened out (an average of 36%). Findings of the study indicate that most of the time (82%), the correct screening decision was made.
DescriptionProject name: Exploring Screened out Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect in Maryland; Principal Investigator: Diane DePanfilis; Project Dates: 2001 - 2002; 2002 - Present (secondary data analysis)
Series/Report No.Child Welfare Research;
SponsorsMaryland Department of Human Resources
Keywordchild protective services--screening decisions
University of Maryland, Baltimore. School of Social Work--Projects and Reports
Child Abuse--statistics & numerical data
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/247
The following license files are associated with this item:
- Creative Commons
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Quality Assurance Processes in Maryland Child Welfare. 4th Annual Child Welfare Accountability ReportAhn, Haksoon; Esaki, Nina; Gregory, Gillian, M.S.W.; Melz, Heidi; O'Connor, Julia, M.S.W.; Shaw, Terry V. (2010-12)Executive Summary: The Child Welfare Accountability Act of 2006 (Maryland Family Law, Section 1301-1311 inclusive) specified the development and implemntation of a proces to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of child welfare services in Maryland that addresses the safety, permanency and well-being of children in the care and custody [of] the Maryland Department of Human Resources/the Local Departments of Social Services. The Quality Assurance Process in Maryland Child Welfare does this through the evaluation of quality assurance and system implementation processes in Maryland's child welfare system. The state of Maryland made great strides in 2010 towards achieving the development of an integrated, comprehensive Quality Assurance system. Acknowledgements: This report was compiled by faculty and staff at the University of Maryland, School of Social Work's Ruth H. Young Center for Families & Children (RYC) in partnership with staff at the Department of Human Resources, Social Service Administration (DHR/SSA). Terry V. Shaw, Nina Esaki, Haksoon Ahn, and Diane DePanfilis co-managed the interagency agreement for the Quality Assurance process. Gillian Gregory and Julia O'Connor led the Local Supervisory Review process and Foster Parent Survey. Heidi Melz oversaw the Family Centered Practice evaluation component. Carnitra White, Richard Larson, David Ayer and Linda Carter at DHR/SSA guided the activities related to the Quality Assurance process. The Quality Assurance unit at DHR/SSA includes Linda Carter, Josephine Lambert, and Jewel Wilson-Crawford. A separate companion report, "Maryland Child Welfare performance Indicators: 4th Annual Child Welfare Accountability Report," describes Maryland's performance on the outcome and performance measures outlined by the Child Welfare Accountability Act.
Maryland Child Welfare Performance Indicators. 4th Annual Child Welfare Accountability ReportShaw, Terry V.; Ahn, Haksoon (2010-12)Executive Summary: The Child Welfare Accountability Act of 2006 (Maryland Family Law, Section 1301-1311 inclusive) specified the development and implementation of a process to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of child welfare services in Maryland that addresses the safety, permanency and well-being of children in the care and custody of the state. A set of performance indicators were established that encompassed and expanded upon extant federal measures in four areas of child welfare practice: 1. Child abuse and neglect, 2. Protecting children in out-of-home care from abuse and neglect, 3. Permanency and stability of children in out-of-home care, and 4. Effectiveness of efforts to address the health, mental health, education, and well-being of children in out-of-home care. This report, the fourth report completed, describes and documents the performance indicators mandated in the Act for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 and compares the states progress in relation to outcomes from prior years. A separate companion report entitled "Quality Assurance Processes in Maryland Child Welfare" describes and evaluates Quality Assurance processes in calendar year 2010. Acknowledgements: This rport was prepared by faculty and staff at the University of Maryland, School of Social Work's Ruth H. Young Center for Families & Children (RYC) in partnership with staff at the Department of Human Resources, Social Services Administration (DHR/SSA). Diane DePanfilis, Terry V. Shaw and Haksoon Ahn co-manage the interagency agreement that supports the development of this report. Terry V. Shaw developed the performance indicators found in this report with the assistance of David Ayer from DHR/SSA. Carnitra White, Richard Larson, David Ayer and Linda Carter at DHR/SSA guided the activities of the outcomes measurment and performance indicators process.
Primary care pediatricians' experience, comfort and competence in the evaluation and management of child maltreatment: Do we need child abuse experts?Lane, W.G.; Dubowitz, H. (Elsevier, 2009)Objective: We assessed the self-reported experience, comfort and competence of primary care pediatricians in evaluating and managing child maltreatment (CM), in rendering opinions regarding the likelihood of CM, and in providing court testimony. We examined pediatricians' need for expert consultation when evaluating possible maltreatment. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to 520 randomly selected AAP members. Pediatricians were asked how frequently they evaluated and reported children for suspected maltreatment, and whether child abuse pediatricians were available to and used by them. Pediatricians were asked to rate their knowledge, comfort and competence in the management of CM. Demographic information was also gathered. Pediatricians' experience with CM, their comfort, self-reported competence, and need for expert assistance is described. Logistic regression was used to assess factors that predicted pediatricians' sense of competence while controlling for covariates found to be significant in bivariate analyses. Results: One hundred forty-seven questionnaires were eligible for analysis. The majority of respondents had little experience evaluating and reporting suspected CM, and was interested in having expert consultation. While pediatricians often felt competent in conducting medical exams for suspected maltreatment, they felt less competent in rendering a definitive opinion, and did not generally feel competent to testify in court. Sense of competence was particularly low for sexual abuse. Increased practice experience and more courses in CM led to increased sense of competence in some areas. Conclusions: Pediatricians acknowledged many limitations to providing care to maltreated children, and expressed interest in subspecialist input. Practice implications: These findings add additional support to the American Board of Pediatrics' decision to create a Child Abuse Pediatrics subspecialty. The findings also indicate a need to ensure funding for fellowship training programs in this field. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.