[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
Two main sources were used for the analysis of policy--the collection of current State policy manuals maintained by the American Humane Association (AHA) Children's Services research library and interviews with State administrators conducted to confirm, update, and expand on information contained in the initial reviews. The review began during April 2001 and used the most recent manuals and updated sections that were available at the time. Information from updates or new manuals that were identified during the State administrator interviews was incorporated into the final profiles on which this analysis is based. Thus, the information contained in this report is current through March 2002 when the administrator interviews were completed. Administrator interviews were conducted for all States that agreed to participate in the study. Three States--California, Nevada, and New Jersey--declined to participate in the interviews, and therefore information included for these States may not be up-to-date.(1) All States were invited to review the report during Spring 2003; 11 States provided corrections.
Several policy manuals contained statutory references or, in some cases, actual statutory language. When information relevant to a policy feature was contained only in statute and referenced in the policy manual or by the administrator during the interview, the statutory information was reviewed and included in the State profile. Central Registry and due process elements of the National Clearinghouse for Child Abuse and Neglect database of State laws, policies, and statutes were used when little information existed in policy manuals. (See appendix B, List of State Policy Manuals.) The overall reviews were based primarily on policy manuals, which reflect State policy and regulation interpreting statutory requirements. Unless it is based on one of the exceptions identified above, most information from the reviews is consistent with, although not identical to, statutory language.
One additional source of data was an existing database of law and policy data collected for a recently completed study at AHA of unsubstantiated cases. These data were incorporated into the reviews where the policy element of interest overlapped and the information in the unsubstantiated study database was the most current available.
A formal template was developed to guide the policy review of each source document. (See appendix C, Blank CPS Policy Review Form.) The same form also was used to capture the updates and corrections resulting from the State administrator interviews. The instrument focused on four functional areas--administrative structure, intake, investigation, and alternative response. Administrative structure included items on State versus county administrative structure and locus of responsibility for such key functions as maintaining a hotline, receiving reports, screening reports, conducting investigations, conducting alternative response activities, and conducting safety, risk, and other assessments. Screening included items on reporters, criteria for acceptance or exclusion of a case at screening, procedures and timeframes for accepting referrals, results of screening, and notification requirements. Investigation included definitions of maltreatment, disposition definitions and evidentiary requirements, purpose of the investigation, joint responsibility with other agencies, timeframes, results of investigations, priority standards for investigation, assessments conducted and contact requirements, Central Registry and due process provisions, and requirements for short-term services. The alternative response section first asked if the State explicitly defined an alternative track in policy. The additional items were completed only if "yes." Additional items included purpose of the alternative response, extent of implementation (e.g. limited pilot or statewide), descriptions of the response options and which cases may be assigned to them, role of other agencies, assessment and contact requirements, results of inclusion in the response, and decisionmaking.
Three reviewers analyzed three State manuals to identify problems with item clarity and establish inter-rater reliability. Based on the pilot reviews, the instrument was revised to better reflect the types of information available in the State policy manuals while addressing the research hypotheses. All six reviewers piloted the revised instrument with several more States. After the second pilot review, all reviewers met to discuss their findings, with particular emphasis on areas of disagreement, to finalize the instrument, and refine a common framework for interpretation of the items.
A team of six reviewers with child welfare and policy expertise was assembled to conduct the State policy reviews during April and May of 2001. The reviewers used a structured review guide, described above, to ensure that the reviews were as thorough, complete, and uniform as possible. As initial reviews were completed, information was entered into two databases.
Interviews with State administrators were conducted during February and March of 2002. A team of 12 interviewers from all project partner agencies conducted 48 interviews with participating States to update, correct, and expand on the original policy reviews. This information was used to update summary tables from the initial draft of this report. These changes were entered directly into the tables rather than into the databases for efficiency.
1. New Jersey issued a new manual during August 2002.
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)