Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect. Revised June 23, Morningside.

Transcription

1 Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Revised June 23, 2014 Morningside R e s e a r c h A N D C o n s u l t i n G, I n c

2 Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Revised June 23, 2014 Prepared by Shari Holland, President Lauren Glass, Research Analyst Esha Clearfield, Consultant Jesse Jenkins, Research Analyst Catrina Stevens, Research Analyst P.O. Box 4173 Austin, Texas Phone Fax All content included in this report, including text, graphics, and the selection and arrangement thereof, are the property of and protected by United States and international copyright laws. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Any use of materials from this document, including reproduction, modification, distribution, or republication, without the prior written consent of, is strictly prohibited. While every attempt has been made to provide accurate information, this document and the text, graphics, and tables included herein could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. may make improvements and/or changes to this document at any time.

3 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary Introduction Decentralized Intake Comparative Performance Measures Appendix A: Sources Cited... A1 Appendix B: Morningside Survey B1 Appendix C: Case Study: Texas...C1 Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Table of Contents

4 1. Executive Summary Overview and Referral Process Child abuse and neglect is an issue that affects every state and every local community. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require certain professionals and organizations to report potential cases of child abuse and neglect to the appropriate Child Protective Services (CPS) office. Concerned citizens may also report child maltreatment. There are several steps in the process of recording reports of child abuse and neglect. The first step in the intake process is to receive a referral of potential child abuse and neglect. During intake, a decision is made by a qualified, trained individual to screen and assess the gravity of each child abuse referral. If a referral is determined to be valid it is screened-in and becomes a report of child abuse or neglect and is assigned to a CPS worker for investigation. vs. Decentralized Intake Statewide intake (SWI) is defined in this report as a CPS system that has one centralized call center location that receives reports of child abuse and neglect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. SWI states have one or more statewide phone numbers that are routed to the call center. Intake workers assess each case and refer cases that require an investigation to a CPS worker in a local office. Twenty-five states and Washington, D.C. have centralized intake systems (SWI). Decentralized child abuse and neglect intake is defined as a CPS system where calls are not assessed at a central call center. In most decentralized states, referrals go to local county CPS offices. In other states, the calls are assessed by regional offices. Twenty-five states have a decentralized intake system. While states with SWI and states with decentralized intake perform similarly across some measures, such as foster care entry rate; the number of children in foster care; placement stability; and timeliness and permanency of reunification, the following differences are noted: SWI states have a longer response time to investigate referrals, but more cases are identified and more victims are confirmed. SWI states have a higher percentage of referrals that are screened-in and a lower percentage of referrals that are screened-out compared to states with decentralized intake. SWI states spend more per 1,000 population on child welfare than states with decentralized intake. Methodology Morningside Research and Consulting (Morningside) administered a survey to collect information about child abuse and neglect intake across the United States and to determine which states have an SWI system and which states have a decentralized intake system. This report presents the characteristics of SWI and analyzes the costs and benefits to states of a statewide, centralized intake system. In addition to the Morningside survey, information was obtained from state CPS websites and national reports on the performance and funding of state child welfare programs. Executive Summary Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 1

5 2. Introduction Overview Child abuse and neglect is an issue that affects every state and every local community. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require certain professionals and organizations to report potential cases of child abuse and neglect to the appropriate Child Protective Services (CPS) office. Concerned citizens may also report child maltreatment. According to the Child Maltreatment 2011 report published by the U.S. Children s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, nonprofessional reporters (i.e., friends, family, and other members of the community) made nearly twenty percent of the child abuse and neglect reports received nationwide. Nearly sixty percent of reports were made by professionals such as teachers, police, and counselors. The remainder of reports of child abuse and neglect came from anonymous, unknown, or unclassified sources. Referral Process There are several steps in the process of recording reports of child abuse and neglect. Table 2.1 below shows the various terms used in this process. Receiving a referral of potential child abuse and neglect is the first step in the intake process. Each referral is recorded in a computer system. During intake, a decision is made by a qualified individual to screen and assess the gravity of each child abuse referral. If a referral is determined to be valid it is screened-in and becomes a report of child abuse or neglect and is assigned to a CPS worker for investigation. Table 2.1: Child Abuse and Neglect Definitions Reporter Referral Intake Report Term (SWI) Decentralized Intake Definition A person who makes an allegation of child abuse or neglect. An allegation of child abuse or neglect reported by a citizen or professional. The process of recording, screening, and assessing the gravity of child abuse referrals. A screened-in referral of child abuse or neglect that CPS agencies will investigate. SWI states have one centralized call center location that receives reports of child abuse and neglect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These states have one or more statewide phone numbers that are routed to the call center. Intake workers assess the calls and refer cases that require an investigation to a CPS worker in a local office. Of the 50 states, half (plus the District of Columbia) have a statewide, centralized intake system for child abuse and neglect intake. In decentralized intake states, child abuse and neglect calls are received and assessed by regional or county offices. According to the Children s Bureau Child Maltreatment 2011 report, approximately 3.4 million referrals were made to CPS agencies in With an average of 1.82 children included in each referral, about 6.2 million children were included in these referrals. Of these referrals, approximately 61 percent were Introduction Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 2

6 screened-in, resulting in 2 million reports of child abuse and neglect that were investigated; 39 percent of referrals were screened-out and were not investigated. In 2011, 681,000 unduplicated children were victims of child abuse and neglect and 1,570 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have a statewide intake (SWI) system where all referrals are received through a single centralized call center staffed by trained intake workers. The intake workers then make an assessment about the appropriate response to the referral. Referrals that are screened-in are sent to local CPS staff for investigation. Twenty-five states have a decentralized intake system where referrals are received or assessed at the regional or local level. Methodology Morningside Research and Consulting (Morningside) administered a survey to collect information about child abuse and neglect intake across the United States and to determine which states have an SWI system and which states have a decentralized intake system. This report presents the characteristics of SWI and analyzes the costs and benefits to states of a statewide, centralized intake system. Morningside sent survey invitations to the State Liaison Officer for Child Abuse and Neglect in each state as listed in the Child Welfare Information Gateway on the website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. If the State Liaison Officer was not the appropriate person to participate in the survey, we asked the Officer to provide another appropriate contact. If contact with the State Liaison Officer was not made, Morningside contacted the department that oversees CPS for that state. Morningside contacted all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The states of California, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, and South Dakota did not participate in the survey. For these states, information was gathered from the website of the department administering the CPS program. Government statistics, reports, and other information were also used in the production of this report and are listed in Appendix A. Introduction Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 3

7 3. Statewide intake (SWI) is defined in this report as a Child Protective Services (CPS) system that has one centralized call center location that receives reports of child abuse and neglect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. SWI states have one or more statewide phone numbers that are routed to the call center. Intake workers assess each case and refer cases that require an investigation to a CPS worker in a local office. Characteristics Table 3.1 displays the states that have SWI and shows selected characteristics of each state s system. The information and data displayed in the table was collected through the Morningside survey, correspondence with the state contacts, and online research. The data included in the table are described below. Implementation Of the states who have SWI, 19 have known implementation dates. These dates range from New York s implementation in 1973 to Michigan and Idaho s implementation in Since 2010, 5 states have established an SWI system: Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, and Utah. Supervisor Approval Nine SWI states require supervisor approval of each intake for a report of child abuse and neglect. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia do not require supervisor approval for an assessment to be made. Educational Requirements Three of the SWI states and the District of Columbia require that intake workers be licensed social workers and 22 SWI states require intake workers to have a Bachelor s degree or higher. The state of Arkansas requires intake workers to have an Associate s degree or higher. The state of Louisiana requires intake workers to have previous CPS field experience. Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 4

8 Table 3.1: Characteristics State With SWI Implementation Date Supervisor Approval Required Number of Intake Workers Number of Intake Supervisors Minimum Intake Worker Education Required Arizona 1994 No Bachelor s Degree Arkansas 1994 No Associate s Degree Connecticut 1990s No Bachelor s Degree and previous experience District of Columbia Unknown No Bachelor s Degree, Licensed Social Worker with previous experience Delaware Late 1990s Yes Bachelor s Degree Florida 1989 No Bachelor s Degree Hawaii Unknown No Bachelor s Degree Idaho 2012 No Illinois 1980 No Bachelor s Degree and Licensed Social Worker Bachelor s Degree and previous experience Indiana 2010 No Bachelor s Degree Iowa Unknown Yes 23 4 Bachelor s Degree and three years of social work experience Kansas Unknown Yes Unknown Louisiana 2011 Yes Previous field experience Michigan 2012 Yes Bachelor s Degree Mississippi 2009 No Bachelor s Degree in Social Work or Licensed Social Worker Missouri Unknown No 47 7 Bachelor s Degree Montana 2002 No Bachelor s Degree Nebraska Unknown No Bachelor s Degree New Mexico 1997 Yes Bachelor s Degree New Jersey 2004 No Unknown New York 1973 No Rhode Island 1984 Yes Bachelor s Degree and previous experience Bachelor s Degree and previous experience Tennessee Unknown Yes Bachelor s Degree Texas 1999 No Bachelor s Degree Utah 2011 No 25 4 Bachelor s Degree Vermont 2008 Yes Bachelor s Degree Source: Morningside survey and communication with states. Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 5

9 Call Center Performance Statistics Table 3.2 shows available SWI call center statistics. This information was collected through the Morningside survey, correspondence with the contacts in each state, and online research. Some states provided all of the statistics requested, while others did not. Table 3.2: Call Center Statistics State With SWI Total Number of All Calls Per Year Total Number of Screened-In Referrals Per Year Call Wait Time (hh:mm:ss) Call Length (hh:mm:ss) Call Abandonment Rate Both Child Abuse and Elder Abuse Calls?** Arizona 00:07:30 00:15:00 Arkansas 62,038 Connecticut 92,666 Delaware 12,500 District of Columbia 24,000 Florida 450,000 Hawaii Kansas 37,000 27,000 6,250* 11, ,000 Both Both Idaho 43,866 7,858 00:01:30 6.9% Illinois 256,000 66,279 Indiana 150,000 77,000 00:01:20 00:11:16 Iowa 82,490* 53,290* 00:00:37 00:11:50 1.1%* Both Louisiana 104,915 48,933 Michigan 141,338 91,159 00:02:07 Mississippi 31,790 Missouri 135,000 00:20:00 10% Both Both Montana 33,000 Nebraska 34,000 New Jersey New Mexico 68,000 New York 350,225 Rhode Island 13,496 Tennessee 8,100 12,000 17, ,000 6,716 Both Texas 773,577 00:08:30 00:13:48 Utah 63,000* 00:00:21 00:08:57 Vermont 29.8% 2.8%* 8.5% Both Source: Morningside survey and communication with states. *Indicates totals calculated based on reported monthly averages or totals. **In most cases, data were not available to determine if the Call Center answers both child abuse and elder abuse calls. Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 6

10 Notes on Call Center Statistics Additional detail about the call center statistics provided by the states is described below. Arizona. Arizona s National Resource Center for Child Protective Services Technical Assistance Report from 2011 reported that the average wait time for the second part of 2010 was 7.5 minutes. The average talk time for the Arizona child abuse hotline in December 2010 was approximately 15 minutes. Arkansas. In response to the Morningside survey, Arkansas reported receiving 62,038 calls to their SWI center per year, 37,000 of which were child abuse and neglect calls and were referred to local staff for investigation. Connecticut. In response to the Morningside survey, Connecticut reported receiving 92,666 calls to their SWI center every year, of which 46,000 were child abuse and neglect calls. Of these calls, at least 27,000 were referred to local staff for investigation every year. Delaware. In response to the Morningside survey, Delaware reported receiving 12,500 calls annually and they sent approximately 50 percent of the calls to local staff for investigation. District of Columbia. In response to the Morningside survey, the District of Columbia reported receiving 24,000 calls annually, 13,200 of which were child abuse and neglect calls. Of those calls, 11,880 were referred to local staff for investigation. Florida. In response to the Morningside survey, Florida reported receiving 450,000 calls annually, of which 300,000 were child abuse and neglect calls. Of those calls, 225,000 were referred to local staff for investigation. Idaho. In response to the Morningside survey, Idaho reported receiving an estimated 25,000 calls total in individual offices across the state between October 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012 (Idaho did not implement SWI until October 1, 2012). During this period, Idaho received 19,100 child abuse and neglect calls. Of those calls, 7,400 were referred to local offices for investigation. Between October 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013, Idaho reported receiving 43,866 calls, of which 20,368 were child abuse and neglect calls. Of those calls, 7,858 were referred to local offices for investigation. During this period, 3,023 (6.9 percent) total calls were abandoned. For the same period, a maximum of 4.4 calls were in the queue and the average call wait time was 1 minute 30 seconds. Illinois. In response to the Morningside survey, Illinois reported receiving on average 256,000 calls between Fiscal Year , with 66,279 of those calls referred to local staff for investigation during the same period. Indiana. Indiana s Department of Child Services (DCS) Hotline Fact Sheet from October 2013 reported that 16,876 calls were handled in October. The call center received an average of 538 calls per business day in October and an average of 182 calls per weekend or holiday in October. The average speed of answer for law enforcement with an access code was 30 seconds and the average speed of answer for non-law enforcement calls was 1 minute 20 seconds. The average talk time was 11 minutes and 16 seconds. The total number of calls that the Indiana DCS hotline received between January and October 2013 was 132,159. According to the Morningside survey, 150,000 calls on average were received in 2011, of which 133,000 were child abuse and neglect calls. On average, 77,000 calls were Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 7

11 referred to local staff for investigation in Iowa. Based on data provided via by the state contact for normal operational hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday), the center was staffed on average by 4 clerical staff, 23 intake social workers, 2 lead social workers, 4 social work supervisors, and 1 social work administrator. On average, there were 226 calls per day with an average of 146 intakes per day. On average, 2.4 calls were abandoned each day. Callers also had an average wait time of 37 seconds per call and an average call length of 11 minutes and 50 seconds. Louisiana. In response to the Morningside survey, the average number of all calls received annually by Louisiana s SWI center was 104,915, of which 48,933 were referred to local staff for investigation for the year. Michigan. In response to the Morningside survey, the average number of child abuse and neglect calls received by Michigan s SWI center in 2012 was 141,338. In 2012, 91,159 of those calls were referred to local staff for investigation. According to data provided by the Morningside survey participant from Michigan, the average percent of calls that were abandoned between March 2012 and March 2013 was 10 percent. During the same period, the average wait time was 2 minutes and 7 seconds. Mississippi. According to the State of Mississippi s Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children s Services, Annual Progress and Services Report, the child abuse and neglect hotline reported receiving 28,147 calls in FY 2010 and had received 31,790 calls year-to-date for FY 2011 when the report was submitted on June 30, According to this report, their goals are to answer 95 percent of all calls in 5 minutes or less and answer 98 percent of calls from the hotline where social workers can make inquiries about cases in less than 3 minutes. Montana. In response to the Morningside survey, Montana reported receiving on average 33,000 calls, of which 12,500 were child abuse and neglect calls. Montana also referred on average 8,100 calls to local staff for investigation every year. Nebraska. In response to the Morningside survey, Nebraska reported receiving 34,000 calls on average, of which 31,000 were child abuse and neglect calls. Out of these calls, 12,000 were referred to local staff for investigation. New Mexico. In response to the Morningside survey, New Mexico reported receiving on average 68,000 calls annually, of which 35,200 were child abuse and neglect calls. New Mexico s SWI center also referred 17,000 child abuse and neglect calls to local staff for investigation. New York. In response to the Morningside survey, New York reported receiving on average 350,225 calls per year, of which 165,000 were referred to local staff for investigation. Rhode Island. In response to the Morningside survey, Rhode Island s SWI center reported receiving 13,496 calls during the last fiscal year and completed 6,716 CPS investigations. Rhode Island s SWI center also referred 7,000 calls to local staff for investigation. Texas. In response to the Morningside survey, the average number of calls received annually by the SWI was 773,577, of which 271,603 were child abuse and neglect calls. According to the Texas s Guide to Agency Programs, in 2012 the average hold time was 8.5 minutes. In 2012 Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 8

12 the program received 773,577 contacts including phone, internet, fax, mail, and walk-in contacts (80 percent of which were phone calls). According to data provided by the Texas SWI center, intake workers are also expected to handle approximately 1.5 calls per hour. Utah. In response to the Morningside survey, Utah reported receiving on average 63,000 calls, 37,000 of which were child abuse and neglect calls. They also referred 19,000 child abuse and neglect calls on average to local staff for investigation annually. Vermont. According to the Vermont Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division, Child Abuse Reporting System s Program Evaluation from October 2012, for the period between the beginning of July 2011 and the end of April 2012, there were 27,352 incoming calls. A total of 2,321 (8.5 percent) of these calls were abandoned. Sixty percent of calls during this period were received between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.. The highest call volume was experienced between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.. Benefits of The Morningside survey asked respondents about the benefits of statewide intake. Of the 25 states and the District of Columbia that have SWI for child abuse and neglect reports, 18 indicated the benefits of SWI in their state. Nearly all respondents (94.4 percent) indicated that consistency, accuracy, or efficiency were important benefits of SWI. One respondent stated that SWI is one stop shopping for all calls related to child abuse and neglect. Another respondent said that one set of people make decisions to allow for consistency. Several respondents remarked that they noticed an improvement in caseworkers dedication and availability, as well as the quality of their work. One respondent indicated that SWI has allowed their state to develop a core unit of trained intake workers which provides sustainability for the CPS program. Nearly one-quarter (22.2 percent) stated that statewide intake has freed up local and county staff to do other tasks associated with child welfare. One respondent said that county staff have been freed up from having to take turns covering the phones to take calls and are now able to dedicate their time to assessment of families. Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 9

13 Table 3.3 shows the responses on the perceived benefits of SWI by category as reported in the Morningside survey. Table 3.3: Benefits of Benefit Percentage of Respondents Consistency, accuracy, and efficiency 94.4% Dedication, quality, and availability of caseworkers 33.3% Freeing up local/county staff 22.2% Easy access to history for law enforcement and caseworkers 11.1% Removes bias from decisions 11.1% Quicker response times 5.6% Source: Morningside survey and communication with states. Selected Statistics Referrals Information about the 25 states (and the District of Columbia) that have SWI is shown in Table 3.4 on the following page. Table 3.4 also includes data on the number of child abuse and neglect referrals, the total child population, and the referral rate per 1,000 population for the states with SWI. The data included in the table are described below. Referral rates. Based on the Child Maltreatment 2011 report from the U.S. Children s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Children s Bureau), the average referral rate per 1,000 child population for SWI states is Texas has the lowest referral rate per 1,000 child population at 30.4 referrals and Vermont has the highest rate at Average response time to investigate abuse and neglect cases. According to the Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress report data from the Children s Bureau, the average length of time to respond to a referral of child abuse or neglect for SWI states is 79.7 hours. Iowa reported the shortest response time of 0.5 hours. Nebraska s response time is the longest at hours. Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 10

14 Table 3.4: State Population Statistics State with SWI Total Child Abuse & Neglect Referrals State s Child Population Total Referral Rate Per 1,000 Population Response Time (In Hours)* Arizona 51,553 1,625, Arkansas 45, , Connecticut 47, , Delaware 13, , District of Columbia 6, , Florida 208,437 3,994, Hawaii Not reported Not reported Not reported Kansas 34, , Idaho 14, , Illinois Not reported Not reported Not reported 12.6 Indiana 116,626 1,597, Iowa 49, , Louisiana 43,665 1,118, Michigan 123,566 2,295, Mississippi 26, , Missouri 100,761 1,412, Montana 12, , Nebraska 29, , New Jersey Not reported Not reported Not reported 17.8 New Mexico 31, , Not reported New York Not reported Not reported Not reported 3.9 Rhode Island 11, , Tennessee 93,799 1,492, Texas 211,949 6,960, Utah 33, , Vermont 13, , Average 60,041 1,244, Source: Child Maltreatment U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children s Bureau, December 12, * Child Welfare Outcomes : Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children s Bureau, no date. Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 11

15 Rate of Investigation and Expenditures Table 3.5 compares SWI states on the rates at which they select reports of child abuse and neglect for investigation and child welfare expenditures. The data included in the table are described below. Percent of referrals screened-in and screened-out. Based on data from the Children s Bureau s Child Maltreatment 2011 report, the states with SWI screened-in 61.1 percent of referrals and screened-out 38.9 percent of referrals, as shown on Table 3.5. State spending to address child abuse and neglect. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Casey Family Programs, and Child Trends released a report entitled Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFYs 2008 and This report lists total state expenditures on child abuse and neglect functions. Table 3.5 shows state expenditures on child abuse and neglect for 2010 per 1,000 children by state. The average annual state expenditure for SWI states on child abuse and neglect per child is $476,778. Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 12

16 Table 3.5: Referrals Screened-In and -Out and Expenditures State With SWI 2011 Screened-In Referrals (Percent) 2011 Screened-Out Referrals (Percent) 2010 Child Abuse and Neglect Expenditures per 1,000 Child Population* Arizona $323,174 Arkansas $196,427 Connecticut $958,980 Delaware $251,266 District of Columbia $2,621,695 Florida $292,934 Hawaii Not reported Not reported $419,554 Kansas $340,037 Idaho $121, 650 Illinois Not reported Not reported $397,777 Indiana $355,553 Iowa $382,760 Louisiana $318,053 Michigan $308,531 Mississippi $116,942 Missouri $329,487 Montana $306,562 Nebraska $579,955 New Mexico $192,024 New Jersey Not reported Not reported $447,429 New York Not reported Not reported $856,631 Rhode Island $892,012 Tennessee $333,041 Texas $195,952 Utah $190,472 Vermont $667,339 Average $476,778 Source: Child Maltreatment U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children s Bureau, December 12, * Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFYs 2008 and DeVooght, Kerry, Megan Fletcher, Brigitte Vaughn, and Hope Cooper. Child Trends, June Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 13

17 Foster Care and Reunification The measures below are shown on Table 3.6 on the following page and are from the Children s Bureau s Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress report data. Child maltreatment victims. The Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress from the Children s Bureau includes data on the number of victims of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. Foster care entry rate. The Child Welfare Outcomes report includes data on foster care entry rates, which is the number of children that enter foster care annually in each state per 1,000 children in the state population. The average foster care entry rate for states with SWI in 2011 is 3.9. The SWI state with the highest foster care entry rate is Nebraska (6.7) and the state with the lowest rate is Illinois (1.5). Children in foster care. The Child Welfare Outcomes report includes data on the number of children in foster care on September 30, Placement stability while in foster care. The Child Welfare Outcomes report calculates a composite score for placement stability while in foster care and is composed of three measures: Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for less than 12 months Two or fewer placements for children in care for 12 to 24 months Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for more than 24 months According to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill s (UNC) Definitions of Federal Measures, a state is in compliance with federal standards if the overall score is or higher. The average score for the stability of children s placements in the foster care system while they are in foster care for states with SWI is The range of scores is from 71 to Timeliness and permanency of reunification. The Child Welfare Outcomes report calculates a score based on measures related to the timeliness and permanency of reunification: Exits to reunification in less than 12 months Exits to reunification and median length of stay Entry cohort reunification in less than 12 months According to UNC s Definitions of Federal Measures, a state meets the federal standard for this composite measure of timeliness and permanency of reunification if the composite score is or higher. The average score for states with SWI is The SWI state scores range from 64.7 to Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 14

18 Table 3.6: Performance Measures State With SWI Child Maltreatment Victims Foster Care Entry Rate Children in Foster Care on 9/30/11 Placement Stability While in Foster Care (Score) Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification (Score) Arizona 9, , Arkansas 12, , Connecticut 10, , Delaware 2, , District of Columbia 2, , Florida 55, , Hawaii 1, , Kansas 1, , Idaho 1, , Illinois 27, , Indiana 19, , Iowa 12, , Louisiana 10, , Michigan 36, , Mississippi 7, , Missouri 6, , Montana 1, , Nebraska 4, , New Mexico 6, , New Jersey 8, , New York 83, , Rhode Island 3, , Tennessee 9, , Texas 65, , Utah 11, , Vermont , Federal Standard or higher or higher Source: Child Welfare Outcomes : Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children s Bureau, no date. Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 15

19 4. Decentralized Intake Decentralized child abuse and neglect intake is defined as a Child Protective Services (CPS) system where calls are not assessed at a central call center. In most decentralized states, referrals go to local county CPS offices. In other states, the calls are assessed by regional offices. Decentralized Intake Characteristics Table 4.1 displays the states that have decentralized child abuse and neglect intake and the characteristics of each state s system. The information and data displayed in the table were collected through the Morningside survey, correspondence with the state contacts, a CPS phone number report for all states from Childhelp.org, and online research. The data included in the table are described below. Location of Intake and Assessment Table 4.1 lists the states that have decentralized intake and indicates where the reports of child abuse and neglect are received and assessed. Twenty of the 25 decentralized states have county-level intake assessment. Three of the 25 have regional intake assessment, while 2 states have either multiple locations or ask reporters to contact local law enforcement or emergency services. In a county-based state, reporters may be encouraged to contact their county directly or may be directed through a hotline to their county number. In a regional system, reporters may be encouraged to contact their regional number first or calls to statewide hotlines may be sent to the regional level for assessment. Hotline Table 4.1 also indicates which states have a child abuse and neglect hotline and the hours that calls are received by the hotline. A child abuse hotline is characterized by a single telephone number that is used by a state for the intake of child abuse and neglect reports. Thirteen of the 25 decentralized intake states have child abuse and neglect hotlines. Of those 13 with hotlines, 11 are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Twelve of the 25 states do not have hotlines. Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 16

20 Table 4.1: Child Abuse and Neglect Decentralized Intake Location and Hotline Hours State with Decentralized Intake Location of Intake and Assessment Hotline Alabama County No Alaska 5 regions Yes, 24/7 California County No Colorado County No Georgia County Yes, 5 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. Kentucky 9 regions Yes, 24/7 Maine County Yes, 24/7 Maryland County No Massachusetts 4 regions Yes, 24/7 Minnesota County No Nevada County Yes, 24/7 New Hampshire Central office receives report and makes assessment Yes, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday North Carolina County No North Dakota County No Ohio County Yes, 24/7 Oklahoma Multiple locations Yes, 24/7 Oregon County No Pennsylvania County Yes, 24/7 South Carolina County No South Dakota County No Virginia County Yes, 24/7 Washington County Yes, 24/7 West Virginia County Yes, 24/7 Wisconsin County No Wyoming County No Source: Morningside survey and communication with states; State CPS Phone Number. Childhelp, no date; and online research. Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 17

21 Selected Statistics Referrals Information about the 25 states that have decentralized intake is shown in Table 4.2 on the following page. Table 4.2 also includes data on the number of child abuse and neglect referrals, the total child population, and the referral rate per 1,000 population for the states with decentralized intake. The data included in the table are described below. Referral rates. Based on data from the Child Maltreatment 2011 report from the U.S. Children s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Children s Bureau), Table 4.2 on the following page shows data for child abuse and neglect referrals, the total child population, and the referral rate per 1,000 child population for the states with decentralized intake. The average referral rate for decentralized states is 53.1 per 1,000 child population. Georgia has the lowest referral rate per 1,000 child population at 13.5 referrals, and West Virginia has the highest rate at Average response time to investigate abuse and neglect cases. According to the Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress from the Children s Bureau, the average length of time to respond to a referral of child abuse or neglect is hours. New Hampshire reported the shortest response time at 14.9 hours. Virginia s response time is the longest at hours. Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 18

22 Table 4.2: Decentralized Intake State Population Statistics State with Decentralized Intake Total Child Abuse & Neglect Referrals State s Child Population Total Referral Rate Per 1,000 Population Response Time (In Hours) Alabama 18,966 1,127, Alaska 15, , California 351,486 9,271, Colorado 70,747 1,230, Georgia 33,723 2,489, Kentucky 69,360 1,020, Maine 15, , Maryland 53,427 1,346, Massachusetts 73,294 1,405, Minnesota 58,185 1,277, Nevada 24, , New Hampshire 13, , North Carolina Unknown Unknown Unknown North Dakota 8, , Ohio 151,732 2,693, Oklahoma 67, , Oregon 74, , Pennsylvania Unknown Unknown Unknown South Carolina 27,837 1,080, South Dakota 15, , Virginia 64,596 1,853, Washington 75,992 1,581, West Virginia 33, , Wisconsin 64,175 1,326, Wyoming 6, , Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Average 60,355 1,381, Source: Child Maltreatment U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children s Bureau, December 12, 2012; and Child Welfare Outcomes : Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children s Bureau, no date. Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 19

23 Rate of Investigation and Expenditures Table 4.3 compares decentralized intake states on the rates at which they select reports of child abuse and neglect for investigation and child welfare expenditures. The data included in the table are described below. Percent of referrals screened-in and screened-out. Based on data from the Child Maltreatment 2011 report from the Children s Bureau, the decentralized intake states screened-in 33,110 (51.9 percent) of referrals and screened-out 27,245 (48.1 percent) of referrals, as shown on Table 4.3 on the following page. State spending to address child abuse and neglect. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Casey Family Programs, and Child Trends released a report entitled Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFYs 2008 and This report lists total state expenditures on child abuse and neglect functions. Table 4.3 on the following page shows state expenditures on child abuse and neglect for 2010 by state. The average expenditures per state with decentralized intake on child abuse and neglect is $407,514. Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 20

24 Table 4.3: Decentralized Intake Referrals Screened-in and Out and Expenditures State With Decentralized Intake 2011 Screened-In Referrals (Percent) 2011 Screened-Out Referrals (Percent ) 2010 Child Abuse and Neglect Expenditures per 1,000 Child Population* Alabama $295,158 Alaska $886,229 California $481,335 Colorado $344,924 Georgia $219,450 Kentucky $490,080 Maine $455,525 Maryland $412,879 Massachusetts $539,407 Minnesota $386,848 New Hampshire $277,142 Nevada $342,096 North Carolina Not reported Not reported $217,700 North Dakota $415,263 Ohio $301,758 Oklahoma $261,821 Oregon $479,567 Pennsylvania Not reported Not reported $688,830 South Carolina $231,699 South Dakota $279,053 Virginia $335,856 Washington $367,710 West Virginia $794,215 Wisconsin $320,027 Wyoming $363,269 Average $407,514 Source: Child Maltreatment U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children s Bureau, December 12, * Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFYs 2008 and DeVooght, Kerry, Megan Fletcher, Brigitte Vaughn, and Hope Cooper. Child Trends, June Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 21

25 Foster Care and Reunification The measures below are shown on Table 4.4 on the following page and are from the Children s Bureau s Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress report data. Child maltreatment victims. This measure refers to the number of victims of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. Foster care entry rate. The foster care entry rate is the number of children who enter foster care in each state per 1,000 children in the state population. The average foster care entry rate for states with decentralized intake in 2011 is 4.0. The decentralized state with the highest foster care entry rate is West Virginia (8.5) and the state with the lowest rate is Virginia (1.3). Children in foster care. This measure is the number of children in foster care on September 30, Placement stability while in foster care. The Child Welfare Outcomes report calculates a composite score for placement stability while in foster care and is composed of three measures: Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for less than 12 months Two or fewer placements for children in care for 12 to 24 months Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for more than 24 months According to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill s (UNC) Definitions of Federal Measures, a state is in compliance with federal standards if the overall score is or higher. The average score for the stability of children s placements in the foster care system while they are in foster care for decentralized states is The scores for decentralized intake states range from 52.7 to Timeliness and permanency of reunification. The Child Welfare Outcomes report calculates a score based on measures related to the timeliness and permanency of reunification: Exits to reunification in less than 12 months Exits to reunification and median length of stay Entry cohort reunification in less than 12 months According to UNC s Definitions of Federal Measures, the state meets the federal standard for this composite measure of timeliness and permanency of reunification if the composite score is or higher. The average score for decentralized intake states was The decentralized states scores range from 89.4 to Table 4.4 on the following page shows the results based on data from the Children s Bureau s Child Welfare Outcomes report data. Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 22

26 Table 4.4: Decentralized Intake Performance Measures State With Decentralized Intake Child Maltreatment Victims Foster Care Entry Rate Children in Foster Care on 9/30/11 Placement Stability While in Foster Care (Score) Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification (Score) Alabama 8, , Alaska 3, , California 86, , Colorado 11, , Georgia 19, , Kentucky 18, , Maine 3, , Maryland 14, , Massachusetts 21, , Minnesota 4, , Nevada 5, , New Hampshire North Carolina 24, , North Dakota 1, , Ohio 33, , Oklahoma 8, , Oregon 12, , Pennsylvania 3, , South Carolina 11, , South Dakota 1, , Virginia 6, , Washington 7, , West Virginia 4, , Wisconsin 5, , Wyoming Federal Standard or higher or higher Source: Child Welfare Outcomes : Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children s Bureau, no date. Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 23

27 Future Implementation of Of the 22 states with decentralized intake that responded to the survey, 14 reported that there have been discussions about implementing a statewide intake (SWI) system. When respondents were asked if they believe SWI is a good idea for their state, 42.1 percent responded yes, 42.1 percent responded maybe, and 15.8 percent responded no. States that do not have a SWI system indicated the cost of policy change, the preferences for local offices, negative feedback about SWI, and the success of their current systems as arguments against implementing SWI. Transitioning States Colorado has recently made efforts to implement some characteristics of SWI, including a statewide hotline. Pennsylvania just passed legislation implementing SWI. Colorado. In January 2015, Colorado will launch a new statewide child abuse hotline to address the problem of having confusing contact information to report child abuse. The governor of Colorado signed House Bill 1271 into law on May 14, 2013, which calls for a direct means of contacting officials to make a report of child abuse that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The bill s text also indicates that county departments will retain the responsibility of screening. According to the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) s Colorado Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline Fact Sheet, a steering committee was formed and visited the child abuse and neglect reporting systems in Columbus, Ohio and Albany, New York. The Fact Sheet also indicates that the hotline will route the call to the county where the child in question is located. Counties will continue to accept child abuse and neglect reports. According to the Fact Sheet, the system for directing calls from the statewide hotline to counties will be mostly automated, but callers will retain the option to speak with a live agent. Pennsylvania. Senate Bill 24 was introduced in March of 2013 to create a statewide database for CPS containing child abuse referrals, reports, and the identification of potential child victims. The statewide central registry allows for both electronic reporting and telephone reporting via a statewide toll-free number. At the time of the publication of this report, Senate Bill 24 had just been signed into law in April Additional information about the implementation of SWI in this state is not currently available. Decentralized Intake Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 24

28 5. Comparative Performance Measures Summary While states with statewide intake (SWI) and states with decentralized intake perform similarly across some measures (including foster care entry rate, number of children in foster care, placement stability, and timeliness and permanency of reunification), important differences can be noted when comparing the following: SWI states have a longer response time to investigate referrals, but more cases are identified and more victims are confirmed. SWI states have a higher percentage of referrals that are screened-in and a lower percentage of referrals that are screened-out compared to states with decentralized intake. SWI states spend more per 1,000 population on child welfare than states with decentralized intake. Comparative Performance While the average response time to investigate referrals is over 20 hours higher in SWI states than in decentralized states, more cases of child abuse and neglect are identified and more child maltreatment victims are confirmed. While SWI states spend more on average than states with decentralized intake, they have a higher number of referrals, screen in more referrals of child abuse, and report more child maltreatment victims. Although statewide intake states report longer response times to investigate referrals, the SWI states also report approximately 33 percent more child maltreatment victims. Referrals Chart 5.1 on the following page compares the average rate of referrals (allegations of child abuse and neglect) that a state received per 1,000 child population. Chart 5.2 compares the average percentage of child abuse and neglect referrals that are screened-in (flagged for investigation) and out (not marked for investigation). Chart 5.3 compares the number of substantiated child maltreatment victims. Chart 5.4 compares the child maltreatment victim rate per 1,000 child population. Comparative Performance Measures Answering the Call: How States Process Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect Page 25