아동 학대  대응 방안 연구

System’s Response to Child Abuse and Neglect

2018 년 4 월

대 검 찰 청

배 준 호

차 례

국외훈련개요	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

훈련기관개요	------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-5

Abstract         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-7

Ⅰ. Introduction	------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8-9

Ⅱ. Characteristics of Law toward Improving Child Protection	------------------- 9-26

A. Rule of Evidence	---------------------------------------------------------- 9-10

B. The Exception of Hearsay Rule	------------------------------------- 10-11	C. Child Witness Testimony	----------------------------------------------- 11-24	D. Court Accommodations	----------------------------------------------- 24-25	E. Special Response to Sexual Child Abuse	---------------------------  25-26

Ⅲ. Child Protection Law and Child Welfare System	---------------------------  26-97

A. History, Variations, and Fallacies of Child Protection Law	-------- 26-30	1. Footsteps for child protection law	------------------------------------- 26-28	2. Variations of child protection law	------------------------------------- 28-29	3. Fallacies of the law	--------------------------------------------------------  29-30	B. Process of Child Protection Services	------------------------------------- 30-60	C. System’s Failure in the Context of the Child Welfare	-----------------  61-68	D. Alternative Solutions	-------------------------------------------------------- 68-97	1. Regal reform	--------------------------------------------------------  68-69	2. Differential response programs	------------------------------------- 69-97

Overview of Differential Response in California	-----------------  70-71

Overview of Differential Response in Contra Costa County -------- 71-79

Overview of Differential Response in Illinois	-----------------  79-97 Ⅳ. Conclusion	---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97-99

References	------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100-104

국외훈련개요

1. 훈련국 : 미국 Pennsylvania(州)

2. 훈련기관명 : 인디애나 대학교 (펜실베니아주 소재)

(Indiana University of Pennsylvania)

3. 훈련분야 : 범죄학 석사 (Master’s Degree of Criminology)

4. 훈련기간 : 2016. 7. 3. - 2018. 6. 17.

훈련기관개요

ㅇ 연 혁

- 1875년에 설립된 이 대학은 연구 및 학문, 학생 중심의 대학 커뮤니티로서, 개별화 및 친밀한 학습 분위기의 소규모 COLLEGE가 결합된 종합대학임

- 14,000여 명의 학부 및 대학원생들은 미 전역에서 권위 있는 프로그램을 이수하고 있으며, 전통적이면서도 세련된 수업과 교수진과 함께 연구 및 활발한 사회 활동에 참여하여 보다 발전적인 삶과 시민으로서의 리더십을 발전시켜 나가고 있음

ㅇ 인터넷 웹주소 : www.iup.edu

ㅇ 주소 : 920 Grant Street, Iniana, PA15705

ㅇ 전화번호: 724-357-2100

o 대학 인지도

- 이 대학은 미 전역에서 "Best for Vets" 대학으로 선정됨 : Military Times, 2013

- 이 대학은 President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll로 선정되었음, 2013

- 이 대학은 사회적으로 책임 있는 대학교로 선정됨 : Washington Monthly, 2012

- 이 대학은 설립이후 지금까지 지역에서 가장 우수하고, 학비가 저렴한 학교임

- 미 전역에서 공립대학 중 상위 100위 안에 랭크됨 : U.S. News and World Report, 2014

o 캠퍼스

이 대학의 메인 캠퍼스는 인디애나(펜실베니아주)에 위치하고 있으며, 면적은 374 acres에 달하며, 고풍적이면서도 현대적인 59개 주요 빌딩과 11개의 경기장을 갖추고 있음

부설 캠퍼스는 Northpointe (Armstrong County)과 Punxsutawney에 위치함

Academy of Culinary Arts(요리전문학교)는 Punxsutawney에 위치함

일부 과정은 the State System’s Dixon Center(Harrisburg) 및 online으로 이수 가능함

Stapleton/StableyLibrary는 메인 캠퍼스에 위치하고 있으며, 900,000권 이상의 책과   100,000부 이상의 영상 및 오디오 자료를 소장하고 있음

o 교수진

18:1의 학생:교수 비율을 가지고 있으며, 미 전역에서 가장 우수한 교수진 중의 하나로 평가받고 있고(Princeton Review, 2012), 60명 이상이 Fulbright scholarships을 수여받아 여러 나라에서 연구 및 공부하고 있고, 교수진의 연구는 the National Science Foundation, NASA, the American Chemical Society, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Education 등 많은 공공기관으로부터 지원받고 있음

ㅇ 학부 및 대학원 programs

Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education중 철학 박사학위를 수여하는 유일한 대학이며, 132개의 학부 및 52개의 대학원, 12개의 박사 학위 과정이 있음

ㅇ 대학 Value

학비가 타 대학에 비해 저렴함 (2014 – 2015년도)

학부과정 in-state tuition : $3,530 per term

대학원 과정in-state tuition: $470/credit

ㅇ 범죄학 석사과정 (Criminology, MA)

20여 년 이상, 형사사법기관에서 행정 및 연구를 하고자 하는 학생들이 주로 이수하는 과정으로서, 박사 학위는 미 전역에서 상위권에 속함. 석사 학위를 졸업하기  위해서는 30학점 이상을  이수하여야 하며, 논문과 종합시험 중 선택할 수 있음

범죄학 이론, 형사법적인 이슈, 연구방법론, 양적 및 질적 분석,    윤리적 및 철학적인 이슈, 테러리즘 등을 다룸

- 미 전역 랭킹 : 28위 (US News 기준)

Abstract

A series of tragic child abuse cases provoked the attention of the media in South Korea. Subsequently, legislatures have created stringent child protection laws in response to stimulus of media movements in recent years. However, these types “get-tough” penal policies have little impact on reducing child abuse in the long term. Criminological policies responding to child maltreatment and abuse that only focus on punitive tactics are not sufficient to addressing ceaseless child abuse. This report starts with these questions and observation of U.S. penal policies and laws related to child abuse. Then, this explores measures taken by the U.S. Federal and State governments to address this social ill. Specifically, federal and state laws that have provided child protection statutes are the priority of observation to make, including exception of the evidence rule, hearsay rule, witness testimony and court accommodations during a child testimony. Under influence of the federal and state laws, the child protection services (CPS) have addressed countless cases in relation to child abuse. This report also explores work-flow of the CPS and a variety of problems facing CPS, implementing an investigation-oriented approach. Unsatisfactory achievement of the CPS toward protecting children is largely caused by infrastructural deficiencies and absence of more lenient policies. Finally, this discusses rational and fundamental settlements within the broader context of child health, offender’s rehabilitation, and social welfare, with a focus on the cooperation of governments, local organizations and communities, in terms of prevention rather than punishment. This suggests alternative solutions. As alternative solutions, differential response programs have been introduced within the broader context of child health, parents’ rehabilitation, and child-centered wellbeing, with a focus on the cooperation of expanded families, friends, professionals, and local communities. These programs showed mixed outcomes in reducing child safety in each state.

Keywords: child protection law, character evidence, hearsay rule, child witness testimony, court accommodations, child protection services (CPS), differential response programs

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION

Since non-governmental agency called the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC) was created in response to repetitive abuse and neglect of a nine-year-old girl named Mary Ellen in 1875, the federal and state laws have addressed serious challenges in regards to child abuse in an attempt to improve children protection.

This report covers the developments and limits of children protection laws. Specifically, it focuses on federal statutes, such as “Character Evidence” and “Hearsay Rule.”

The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to enjoy a constitutional right to take witnesses who accused the defendant of a crime to court (Bochte, 2015; Kaiser, 2015). According to this Clause, child witnesses are treated same as adults for the most part (Bochte, 2015). However, confronting the perpetrators terrifies child victims and makes them difficult to testify in court (Bochte, 2015). Taking a child’s vulnerability to testimony in court into account, Child victims’ and child witnesses’ rights are stipulated in 18 U. S. Code §3509. Noticeable protective options include alternatives to live in-court testimony: (1) child’s live testimony by 2-way closed circuit television and (2) videotaped deposition of child. In addition to alternatives, testimonial aids are supplemented in live in-court testimony. For instance, the court may permit a child to use anatomical dolls, drawings, mannequins, or any other demonstrative device the court deems appropriate for the purpose of assisting a child in testifying (18 U. S. Code §3509). With many technological developments, alternatives to in-court testimony are prevalent in recent decades and offer significant advantages to child or difficulties for a legal system unaccustomed to the use of advanced methods (American Law Reports, 2016). This report explores courts decisions with regard to child testimony in court and court accommodations, mainly highlighting the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgments.

Further, it explores general work-flow of child protection services (CPS) and causes of the fundamental problems in traditional practices of the CPS. Aside from the traditional approach, differential responses are introduced as alternative solutions.

Ⅱ. CHARACTERISTICS OF LAW TOWARD                IMPROVING CHILD PROTECTION

A. Rule of Evidence

Federal Rule of Evidence 404 stipulates “character evidence” and its admission to court (i.e., when a defendant’s character becomes an element of the crime in itself, evidence of the defendant’s character can be admissible (Gochnour, 2016, p. 419). However, if the defendant’s previous action in a certain manner that is coherent with his character is not associated with an element of the crime itself, this action is classified as “circumstantial” evidence and its use is prohibited in court (Gochnour, 2016, p. 3). Character evidence is admitted only when it is offered on some other reasons that the judge deems relevant (Gochnour, 2016).This ban statute was established in order to avoid prejudice and pre-decision of the jury based on the defendant’s traits or disposition (Gochnour, 2016).

However, Congress considered that sexual violence and child abuse are the crimes deserving more special treatments (Carey & Solomon, 2014). As a result, Federal Rules of Evidence 413, 414, and 415 permit the admission of “prior convictions, similar specific instances, or even testimony of previous allegations or uncharged actions, when a defendant is accused of sexual assault or child molestation” (Gochnour, 2016, p. 428).

Based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, California Evidence Code section 1109 stipulates exception to the character evidence: this statute is applied to “cases in which the defendant has been accused of an offense concerning domestic violence, elder abuse, or child abuse” (Gochnour, 2016, p. 432).

However, since the section 273d of the Penal Code defines child abuse as “willfully inflict[ing] upon a child any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or an injury resulting in a traumatic condition,” previous repetitive actions of psychological, emotional, and mental child abuse would not be allowed to prove a defendant’s traits or propensity in a subsequent trial (Gochnour, 2016, p. 432). Taking secrecy and repetition of emotional child abuse into consideration, exception to character evidence should be expanded to include these types of child abuse (Gochnour, 2016).

B. The Exception of Hearsay Rule

In general, out of court testimony about the disclosure of child abuse is regarded as hearsay (Fell, 2013). The hearsay rule is prohibiting ‘hearsay’ from being admitted as evidence. Victims of violent crimes must raise a “hue and cry” to prosecute the crime under English common law (Fell, 2013). If a victim did not raise outcry promptly, her testimony in court was not admitted unless it fits in a hearsay exception (Fell, 2013).

However, sexual crimes are usually disclosed in a few years or decades after crimes occur. Further, after more rampant child sexual abuse occurred since in the mid-2000s, legislators turned their eyes to the amendment of existing laws in order to allow more sexually victimized children to appeal to the laws within the criminal justice system (Roffman, 2014). An example of this effort is alleviating application of the hearsay rule (Roffman, 2014). One of the exceptions to the hearsay rule is that if victims of sexual crimes raised complaints promptly after crimes occurred, the fact of the complaints were admitted into evidence without in-court testimony (Fell, 2013).

Although New York State remains the rule that a complaint made by a victim of sexual abuse is admitted into evidence if the complaint was made promptly within two months after the crime occurred, other states admit complaints into evidence even though the complaints were made years after the sexual abuse took place (Fell, 2013). For example, Virginia courts admitted delayed complaints if the delay could be explained sufficiently through testimony of the victims (Fell, 2013). Some states including Massachusetts do not impose time limit of a complaint under the first complaint doctrine (i.e., evidence of a victim’s complaint is not ruled out merely because it was not made promptly after the crime took place) (Fell, 2013). Moreover, some state legislatures have enacted “window legislation for bringing previously-expired claims to creating legislation that applies retroactively” (Roffman, 2014).

C. Child Witness Testimony

Federal and most state constitutional Confrontation requirements apply to criminal proceedings and have been held in an attempt to achieve two goals: they were designed “to secure the opportunity of cross-examination and to obtain the benefit of the moral impact of the court atmosphere as it affects the witness' demeanor” (American Law Reports, 2016, p. 7). However, alternatives to live in-court testimony offers the advantage of allowing a heavy-scheduled expert witness to testify from his convenient place without expending time traveling to and from the courtroom (American Law Reports, 2016). Specifically, the advantage of facilitating the testimony of a child witness who is emotionally traumatized by the defendant is substantial. Because of these advantages, alternatives to in-court testimony are supposed to become more widespread in the future and courts will be required to develop rules and standards governing their use (American Law Reports, 2016).

Trial court’s intrinsic discretion of using alternatives

Even though trial procedure is governed by practice statutes or court rules, trial courts are generally given a wide range of discretion in the conduct of trials (American Law Reports, 2016). Then, in a situation that is absent a specific statute or rule prohibiting testimony through alternatives to in-court testimony, the question is that trial courts have a broad discretion to allow the use of the alternatives (American Law Reports, 2016).

Court of Appeals of Arizona in Montgomery v. Padilla (2016) recognized that a trial court may exercise its discretion to restrict a self-represented defendant from personally cross-examining a child witness without violating a defendant's constitutional rights to Confrontation and self-representation only after considering evidence and making individualized findings that such a restriction is necessary to protect the witness from trauma. (Leagle Inc, 2017). Then, finding sufficient evidence that Z.S. would likely suffer trauma from face-to-face contact with her father and alleged perpetrator at trial, the court ordered Z.S.'s examination to proceed by closed-circuit television as provided in A.R.S. § 13-4253(A) (Leagle Inc, 2017).

The basic facts of the case are as follows: The State charged Chris A. Simcox with three counts of sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of molestation of a child, and one count of furnishing obscene or harmful items to minors for conduct occurring in 2012 and 2013. The alleged victims are Simcox's nine-year-old daughter, Z.S., and Z.S.'s eight-year-old friend, J.D. (Leagle Inc, 2017). The importance of this decision lies in that “so long as sufficient evidence was presented to support the ordered accommodation, trial court was not bound by specific requests of the parties and could order any procedure necessary and appropriate under specific circumstances presented, whether provided for by statute, proposed by the parties, or otherwise” (American Law Reports, 2016, p. 9).

However, Court of Appeals in Kansas v. Bejarano (2009) determined that three foundational principles are required before allowing a child victim witness to testify by closed-circuit television: (1) hear evidence and determine use of the one-way closed-circuit television is necessary, (2) find that the child witness would be traumatized by the presence of the defendant, and (3) find that the emotional distress suffered by the child witness in the presence of the defendant is more than mere nervousness or excitement or some reluctance to testify (Kansas Courts, 2015).

Meanwhile, some jurisdictions held that a trial court does not possess inherent power to authorize procedure. In a criminal trial involving a murder arising out of defendant's stabbing of woman with whom he lived, New Jersey Superior Court pointed out that trial court erred in permitting victim's five-year-old and nine-year-old children to testify on closed circuit television (Justia U.S. Law, 2017).

The rationale of the Superior Court in State v Nutter (1992) was based on the fact that such testimony was not authorized by statute permitting testimony of child witnesses via closed circuit television because children were not victims and action was murder prosecution, not action alleging abuse or neglect (Justia U.S. Law, 2017). This decision acknowledged that “in the absence of explicit statutory legislative authority, the trial court lacks the inherent power to promulgate a procedure which substitutes examination of the state’s principal witness by closed-circuit television for the long-established in-court examination” (American Law Reports, 2016, p. 9-10).

In-court screen to block view

In State v. Parker (2008), the Supreme Court of Nebraska determined that placement of large screen between child victim and defendant while victim testified in open court was inherently prejudicial to defendant’s right to a fair trial and it was not justified by an essential state interest specific to defendant’s trial, even if protection of a child witness from harm was a compelling state interest, and there was testimony that victim could suffer serious psychological harm if forced to defendant face to face (American Law Reports, 2016). Instead, the court recommended that trial court had available another equally effective method of protecting victim that would not have been inherently prejudicial to defendant, specifically the use of videotaped or closed-circuit television procedures (American Law Reports, 2016).

The videotaped or closed-circuit television

The courts in some cases dealing with this issue have held that the use of the videotaped or closed-circuit television in child testimony does not constitute an inherent violation of the defendant’s Confrontation right (American Law Reports, 2016). However, courts decisions have not been unchanged in several decades.

In State v Sheppard (1984), a criminal trial for sexual assault of a child, the court held that the planned video set-up for presenting the testimony of the child victim did not violate the defendant's Confrontation right under the Sixth Amendment and the relevant provision of the state constitution (Cleaveland, 1986).

The prosecution proposed at trial to place the child, the prosecuting attorney, and defense counsel in a room near the courtroom, which was equipped with video and audio systems; that the defendant, judge, jury, and public would remain in the courtroom and see and hear the child's testimony through monitors placed appropriately in the courtroom; and that private communication between the defendant and his attorney would be possible through an audio connection (Cleaveland, 1986).

At the hearing to determine whether to grant the prosecution's application for videotaped testimony, the prosecution offered a number of expert witnesses in support of the application (American Law Reports, 2016). A forensic psychiatrist testified that the avoidance of an in-court presentation through the use of video equipment would improve the accuracy of the child's testimony, because the child, when placed in the courtroom setting with the defendant present, might become fearful, anxious, guilty, and traumatized, and thus the truthfulness of her testimony would be undermined (American Law Reports, 2016). Two attorneys with substantial experience in the prosecution of child sexual abuse cases testified to the difficulties related to the child victim testifying, stating that in most of the cases they handled the emotional condition of the child prevented him or her from testifying and thus most cases ended in generous plea agreements (American Law Reports, 2016). The final witness for the prosecution was a video expert, who testified that the video equipment to be used at the trial would provide prompt transmission of images and voices from a remote room to the courtroom, providing more than acceptable clarity (American Law Reports, 2016).

Stating that the Confrontation Clause was not implacable in its demands, and might be subject to exceptions, the court concluded that the use of videotaped testimony was permissible, since it was accepted fact that only a modest erosion of the Clause, if any, would take place (American Law Reports, 2016). The court explained that the child, through the use of video, would not be obliged to see the defendant or to be exposed to the usual courtroom atmosphere, but nevertheless, the defendant as well as the judge, the jury, and the spectators, would be able to hear her clearly, and that an adequate opportunity for cross-examination would be provided (American Law Reports, 2016). Furthermore, it was stated that the trial court possessed broad discretion in determining the proper limitations of cross-examination of a witness, and that in the present case there would be no reduction of cross-examination, only a restriction upon the means of transmitting questions and answers (American Law Reports, 2016).

Additionally, the court expressed the opinion that no rule requires eye contact between the defendant and the witness testifying against him, and that sometimes eye contact is not possible even in the courtroom due to the distances involved (American Law Reports, 2016). The court concluded that despite the fact that the child had stated that she could testify, the concern which the trial court had for her, and for all children, allowed a different course, when that course would not significantly impair the defendant’s rights (American Law Reports, 2016).

The court in People v Algarin (1986) reasoned that the use of live two-way closed-circuit television was an acceptable method of balancing the interests of the children and the constitutional rights of the defendant while at the same time giving the jury the maximum opportunity to reveal the truth by listening to the witnesses and observing their demeanor (CARA Research Suite, 2017).

Pursuant to statute, the following procedure was utilized upon a determination that a child victim was a vulnerable child witness: a testimonial room for conducting the examination of the child witness was set up in the robing room located immediately behind and connected to the main courtroom; in addition to the child witness, the attorneys for the prosecution and one attorney for the defense were also within the testimonial room; the other defense attorney was seated beside the defendant at the counsel table in the courtroom; the image and voice of the child witness, as well as those of the attorneys, were transmitted live by means of closed-circuit television to the courtroom, where the judge, jury, defendant, his other attorney and the public could listen to the testimony and observe the demeanor of the witness, and simultaneously, the voice of the judge as well as the images of the jury and the defendant were transmitted to the testimonial room; and a two-way private communication system was set up from the defense table in the courtroom to the testimonial room so that immediate conversations could take place among the defendant and his attorneys (CARA Research Suite, 2017).

The court rejected the argument that in order to satisfy the Confrontation Clause the defendant must be given the opportunity to physically confront the witness against him, stating that while a literalistic reading of the Confrontation Clause would entitle the defendant to confront every witness against him in person in court, an adequate opportunity for cross-examination satisfied the Clause even in the absence of physical confrontation, and that the Confrontation guaranteed by the Clause was not necessarily one in a courtroom (CARA Research Suite, 2017). Moreover, the court found that it was demonstrated that the closed-circuit television equipment used in the case had the capacity to present clear and accurate sounds and images (CARA Research Suite, 2017). The court reasoned that since it had been held that videotape testimony was sufficiently similar to live testimony to permit the jury to properly perform its function, then closed-circuit television must surely satisfy the dictates of the Confrontation Clause (CARA Research Suite, 2017).

It was further reasoned by the court that even if it was assumed that the operation of the statute resulted in some reduction of the right of confrontation, nearly every authority acknowledged that this right, though expressed in absolute terms, was subject to exceptions (CARA Research Suite, 2017). Observing that it has been held that safeguarding the psychological well-being of a child and protecting children who have been victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment were compelling state interests, the court concluded that in the present case, the compelling state interests involved with the protection of the emotional well-being of child sex-offense victims and the need for their testimony to insure successful prosecutions more than outweighed any infringement of the defendant's right of Confrontation arising out of the selective utilization of closed-circuit television (CARA Research Suite, 2017).

However, a criminal trial for sexual assault of a child, the court held that under the particular circumstances, the employment of live closed-circuit television to present the testimony of a child victim violated the defendant's Confrontation right (American Law Reports, 2016).

In State v Warford (1986), the Supreme Court of Nebraska found that the procedure of closed-circuit television by a trial court did not require the prosecution to stay within minimal constitutional guidelines (CARA Research Suite, 2017). The examination of the child was conducted in the judge's chambers, where a camera was set up to videotape the examination and cross-examination (CARA Research Suite, 2017). The judge and counsel for the parties joined the child witness in chambers for the direct examination, while the defendant and the jury viewed the examination on video equipment set up in the courtroom (CARA Research Suite, 2017). The defendant did not have any means of communicating with his attorney during this part of the proceeding, nor could the judge monitor what was happening in the courtroom (CARA Research Suite, 2017).

The court reasoned that the record by video equipment did not reveal a compelling need to protect the child witness from further injury, nor did it show that the attempt to examine the child in open court was frustrated by the child's failure to cooperate (CARA Research Suite, 2017). The court pointed out that without a showing that the child would be further traumatized or was intimidated by testifying in the courtroom in defendant’s presence, the use of closed-circuit television would not withstand constitutional scrutiny (CARA Research Suite, 2017). Stating that the defendant was in the courtroom while his attorney was in chambers where the child victim was testifying, the court concluded that leaving the defendant with no means of communicating with his attorney unduly inhibited his Confrontation right (CARA Research Suite, 2017).

In Commonwealth v Bergstrom (1988), Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that in criminal procedure for rape and indecent assault and battery of two children, trial court inappropriately allowed children to testify outside courtroom by means of live closed-circuit television, although statute allowed protective procedure for child witnesses under 15-year-old who were allegedly supposed to be victims of, or witnesses to, a variety of criminal acts violated Confrontation right of state constitution and Sixth Amendment (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2017).

The court expressed the view that constitutional rights should be interpreted as stating broad and general principles of government and no fundamental distinction could be drawn between child witnesses and any other class whom the congress might deem in need for special treatment (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2017).  However, the court stated that while it is not to say that testimony videotaped outside the courtroom never can be utilized, the procedures applied in this case fall short on in terms of two additional grounds (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2017).

In addition to the denial of the defendant's Confrontation right, the quality of the transmission of the video utilized was insufficient to allow the jury adequately to fulfill their responsibilities (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2017). Furthermore, the court found that in the absence of a waiver, the Commonwealth must show a compelling need for use of closed-circuit television and such a compelling need should be shown where the recording of the testimony of a child witness via closed-circuit television is shown to be necessary so as not to cause severe and long-lasting emotional and psychological trauma to the child (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2017).

Meanwhile, U.S. Supreme Court’s decision has changed regarding the Confrontation Clause over time (Bochte, 2015). For instance, In Coy v. Iowa (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that placement of screen between defendant and child sexual assault victims during testimony against defendant violated defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights, based on the fact that Confrontation is essential to fairness, and helps to ensure the integrity of the fact-finding process by making it more difficult for witnesses to lie (Hasselbach, 1989). Also, the Court found that there is no merit to the State’s assertion that its statute creates a presumption of trauma to victims of sexual abuse that outweighs appellant’s right to Confrontation and an exception created by a 1985 statute can hardly be viewed as firmly rooted, and there have been no individualized findings that these particular witnesses needed special protection (Hasselbach, 1989).

However, U.S. Supreme Court in Maryland v. Craig (1990) clarified the Confrontation Clause that this statute involves “physical presence, oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor by the trier of fact” (Bochte, 2015, p 2) and allowed children to testify through one-way closed circuit television (Bochte, 2015; Kaiser, 2015; Murphy, 2014). In other words, the defense counsel or the prosecutor is able to question the child witnesses within the courthouse, or a close room to the courtroom, while other persons concerned (e.g., the judge, the defendant, and the jury) remain in the courtroom watching the testimony via a video monitor (Bochte, 2015; Kaiser, 2015; Mulkey, 2015).

The Court reasoned that the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee defendants an absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial and Clause’s central purpose is served by the combined effects of the elements of confrontation (American Law Reports, 2016). Also, the Court found that Maryland’s interest in protecting child witnesses from the trauma of testifying in a child abuse case is sufficiently important to justify the use of its special procedure, thus adequately ensures that the testimony is both reliable and subject to rigorous adversarial testing in a manner functionally equivalent to that accorded live, in-person testimony (American Law Reports, 2016). Noting that the requisite necessity was found in this case, the Court stated the necessity as follows: “(1) the trial court must hear evidence and determine whether the procedure’s use is necessary to protect the particular child witness’ welfare, (2) find that the child would be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the defendant’s presence, and (3) find that the emotional distress suffered by the child in the defendant’s presence is more than de minimis” (the Court expressed the view that “the Maryland statute, which requires a determination that the child will suffer serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate, clearly suffices to meet constitutional standard”) (American Law Reports, 2016, p. 19-20).

The basic principles to justifying alternatives to Confrontation of defendant in Maryland v. Craig became legal standards in the upcoming decisions. In Government of Virgin Islands v Riley (D.V.I. 1990), the court reasoned that in murder prosecution, the use of closed-circuit television is permitted only where necessary to protect child witness from trauma caused by testifying in defendant’s physical presence and child was traumatized by courtroom setting, or became so nervous among strangers that he could not speak (American Law Reports, 2016). Pointing out that there was no indication that child's apparent trauma was defendant-generated, the court held that prosecutor would not be permitted to have four-year-old son of victim testimony outside courtroom by use of closed-circuit television procedure (American Law Reports, 2016).

In Myles v. State (Fla. 1992), the Supreme Court of Florida determined that in criminal proceedings for sexual battery on child less than age of 12 years in which trial judge, according to statute providing closed-circuit television witness examination, allowed child victim to testify through closed-circuit television from judge's chambers while defendant remained in courtroom with jury, oral relay system whereby defendant was forced to communicate with counsel by oral messages delivered to chambers by bailiff, violated defendant's right to assistance of counsel under state constitution and encroached on privacy of attorney-client communications, and could have resulted in violation of attorney-client privilege (Weissenberger & Stephani, 2012).

In Lewis v. State (1993), Court of Appeals stated that trial court erred in allowing child victim to testify by closed-circuit television outside the courtroom where defendant was present, as authorized by statute, where decision was based on testimony of mother that child would be intimidated if she were forced to testify in defendant’s presence, which did not meet U.S. Supreme Court standards (American Law Reports, 2016).

In George v Commonwealth (1994, Ky), the Supreme Court of Kentucky determined that allowing 11-year-old half-sister of 8-year-old child victim of sexual abuse to testify against father by closed-circuit television was error under statute that allowed sexual-abuse victim under age of 12 to testify by television, and especially where psychiatric nurse had testified that the child witness could testify in father's presence, but that she would be more traumatized than average child by confronting father (American Law Reports, 2016).

In State v. Bray (1999) Court of Appeals of South Carolina found that the testimony for child victim of alleged sexual abuse through closed-circuit television (CCTV) was not supported by ample evidence, where trial judge did not interview child directly, social worker who was not an expert in child sexual abuse case testified generally about child's fear by courtroom setting, and child's mother conceded that child victim loved defendant and regarded him as her best friend (Findlaw, 2017).

In prosecution for aggravated sexual abuse of child, U.S. v. Bear (2004), the court found a similar reason not to permit use of closed-circuit television. The court held that only the fact that child was unable to testify in big courtroom because of her fear of combination of defendant, jury, and prosecutor was legally insufficient to support use of closed–circuit television during child testimony, and thus use of closed–circuit television violated Sixth Amendment right of Confrontation (CARA Research Suite, 2017).

In child sexual abuse prosecution case, U.S. v. Bordeaux (2005), United States Court of Appeals determined that trial court's finding, after alleged child victim had begun in-court testimony, that child was afraid both of defendant and of testifying in front of jury in courtroom was insufficient to guarantee use of two-way closed-circuit television as a substitute for live testimony (CARA Research Suite, 2017). The court reasoned that trial court had to find that witness's intimidation was predominantly from defendant rather than from mixture of various factors, and fact that closed-circuit television was two-way method rather than one-way did not remove need for such finding (CARA Research Suite, 2017).

In State v. Boyd (Kan. 2006), Kansas Supreme Court held that trial court's action in allowing alleged child victims to testify through closed-circuit television violated defendant's Confrontation right in prosecution for felony murder and abuse of a child; psychologist's report noting that the alleged child victims would suffer emotional injury if they were to testify in the courtroom focused on whether the witnesses would be able to testify in the presence of their parents, not any perpetrator, and there was no probable evidence associated with defendant that the child victims would be traumatized severely by testifying against her (American Bar Association, 2007).

In People v. Mosley (2007), the court of appeals reasoned that trial court's placement of a visual barrier between defendant and 14-year-old victim at trial for sexual assault on a child deviated from requirements of statute solidifying procedure to use in particular circumstances when child witnesses testify (Findlaw, 2017). Pointing out that trial court dispensed with defendant's Confrontation right because her age was not eligible for special protection, the court concluded that trial court violated the limit to authorize closed-circuit television procedure (Findlaw, 2017).

In State v. Folk (2011), the Idaho Supreme Court held that court’s order requiring defendant to write out questions to be asked of child victim on cross-examination by defendant's standby counsel rather than directly ask child victim his questions violated defendant's Confrontation right, in criminal procedure for lewd conduct in which child victim testified through closed-circuit television per trial court's order, since there was no evidence supporting trial court's finding that child victim would suffer serious psychological trauma that would significantly impair victim's capability to communicate if he were to testify in the presence of defendant (Children's Advocacy Institute, 2017).

Based on accumulative courts’ decisions, several states have passed statutes with broad statutory language which enable to make two-way video testimony (Mulkey, 2015). However, more detailed language and specific procedures are required in these statutes (Mulkey, 2015). Mulkey (2015) suggested that U.S. Supreme Court clarify regulations regarding “testimony from a remote location, outside the courthouse” to “meet the constitutional guarantees of the Confrontation Clause under narrow circumstances” and that the Court outline those narrow circumstances by adopting a requirement of medical unavailability for child witnesses (Mulkey, 2015, p. 11). The court also should outweigh the need to ensure policy aims of protecting children through the way to facilitate a child testimony than a strict application of the Confrontation Clause (Kaiser, 2015). To heighten the credibility of a child testimony, some states can use experts “to help explain a child’s behavioral reaction to abuse” (Bochte, 2015, p. 9).

D. Court Accommodations

“According to a 2010 survey by the National District Attorneys’ Association,” forty-seven states made provisions for support persons (e.g., victim advocates and assistance) to help child victims (Bochte, 2015, p. 205). Besides, many states allow child victims to use support objects such as favorite toys, blankets, diagrams, anatomically correct dolls, or stuffed animals as well as support dogs during a child’s testimony (Bochte, 2015; Murphy, 2014).

Kaiser (2015) contended that “Pennsylvania was the first state on the East Coast to adopt a courthouse dogs program for victims entangled in the legal system” (p. 343). However, Pennsylvania did not establish clear legal standard for courthouse dogs unlike Washington, New York, and California (Kaiser, 2015). The rational foundation of accommodating dogs during child testimony is based on three legal standards: first, “it is not the defendant’s burden to prove that he or she has been prejudiced.” Second, “it is the prosecution’s burden to prove that a special dispensation for a vulnerable witness is necessary…” Third, “the court does not require a showing of substantial need or compelling necessity…” (Kaiser, 2015, p. 345-346). Under these standards, the Washington Supreme Court allowed use of dogs in the courthouse (Kaiser, 2015).

Meanwhile, some states have laws that allow children to testify sitting in smaller chairs, turning away from the accused (Murphy, 2014). However, some states restrict or substantially limit special protective measures under their state constitutions (Murphy, 2014). For these states having comparatively weak child protection laws, Murphy (2014) suggested that the Title Ⅱ of the Americans with Disables Act (“ADA”) (p. 361) be applied to all victimized children caused by the child abuse. Murphy’s suggestion has a foundation on that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PDST), other serious mental health problems are highly correlated with abuse and are recognized disabilities under the ADA (Murphy, 2014). The special protective measures based on the ADA include extensive accommodations (e.g., “testimony outside the courtroom or away from the away from the accused, communication using gestures, diagrams and other non-verbal means, holding a comforting item such as a stuffed animal, forbidding repetitive or protracted questioning of children, allowing a family member, medical caregiver, or expert familiar with the child’s disability”) (Murphy, 2014, p. 365-366).

E. Special Response to Sexual Child Abuse

Both Federal and state legislators have enacted a broad range of laws associating with the child sexual abuse in the last two decades (Roffman, 2014). Responding to a series of children abductions and murders, the first legislative actions taken between 1990 and 2006 laid emphasis on “registration and identification of convicted child sexual abusers” (Roffman, 2014, p. 301). Since in the mid-2000s, various measures were taken to tackle protect sexual child abuse. By 2011, forty-five states had passed laws mandating harsh sentencing for child sex offenders, thirty-nine of which allow for electronic tracking of those convicted criminals (Roffman, 2014, p. 307).

However, these types of laws (i.e., focus on the registration and notification) proved ineffective in deterring sexual offenders (Roffman, 2014). It is not only because local law enforcement agencies had difficulty in keeping track of all registered offenders, but also these policies made the sexual offenders lose social standing and undermined bonds with society. Consequently, it increased recidivism rate (Roffman, 2014).

Roffman (2014) emphasized on the protection of the abuse before occurring child sexual abuse. Focusing on primary intervention through children education regarding child sexual abuse could help eliminate “the taboo of talking about sex when children become naturally curious” and help them feel safe disclosing their abuse “when they are being exploited in some way” (Roffman, 2014, p. 314). In addition to children education, parents, teachers, and professionals who interact with children should learn more concerning signs of abuse and how to react when they identify a child is being abused (Roffman, 2014, p. 315). Behavior therapy for sexual offenders is another type of intervention (Roffman, 2014). Specifically, this type of therapy is effective to rehabilitate juvenile sexual offenders and prevent recidivism (Roffman, 2014). As characteristic of sexual child abuse is occurring abuse repeatedly but has a relatively low recidivism rate, identifying abusers through increased disclosure as soon as possible is imperative (Roffman, 2014).

For commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC), it is required to recognize them as victims of abuse rather than criminals and implement more educational programs for the juvenile and adult to reduce the demand (Liebolt, 2015).

Meanwhile, Todres (2016) examined child abuse reporting laws of the fifty states and found that ten states included both sex and labor trafficking, while an additional four states included only sex trafficking. Todres (2016) concluded that funding for training of mandatory reporters and more wholehearted support for the child welfare system as well as implementation of legal reform are required to prevent exploitation by human trafficking (Todres, 2016).

Ⅲ. CHILD PROTECTION LAW AND CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

A. History, Variations, and Fallacies of Child Protection Law

1. Footsteps for child protection law

Creation of child protection laws resulted from serial child abuse cases (Gochnour, 2016). In 1874, a terrible case involving a nine-year-old orphan, Mary Ellen Wilson, aroused nationwide concern for abused children. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) rescued Mary Ellen in place of government organizations (Gochnour, 2016, p. 418). In 1875, NYSPCC (the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children), the world’s first child protection organization, was established (Gochnour, 2016, p. 418; James, 2014, p. 1036). Shortly after, hundreds of private child protection organizations across the U.S. rescued abused and neglected children with authorization of the federal and local governments (James, 2014).

However, the Great Depression factor as well as the federal and state governments’ awareness of the need to protect children led to a shift from private to public protection by the mid-1900s (James, 2014). When Congress passed the Social Security Act, the Children’s Bureau, which was created in 1912, worked with state agencies and supported funds for the protection abused and neglected children (James, 2014, p. 1036).

Many medical professionals (e.g., radiologists and psychiatrists studied the x-rays of children who had skull fractures) made a turning point to implement federal laws for protection of abused and neglected children (Gochnour, 2016; James, 2014). Consequently, child abuse reporting laws that mirrored the Children’s Bureau model statute were created and generalized in every state in America between 1963 and 1972 (Gochnour, 2016; James, 2014). However, subjects of the mandatory reporting have a discrepancy among states (i.e., some states require all citizens to report about child abuse, whereas some states require certain professionals to report (Walther, 2013).

The first major federal legislation named the Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) was enacted in 1974 (James, 2014; Meyer-Thompson, 2013). CAPTA played a significant role in that it shaped the nationwide system in the level of governmental child protective services and provided funding to states, helping them expand a variety of prevention programs and training to protect abused children (James, 2014). States have to follow the CAPTA statutes such as mandating reporting systems, expending sufficient resources to investigate allegations of child abuse, and mandating cooperation among criminal justice systems in exchange for federal funding (Meyer-Thompson, 2013).

Afterwards, Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (CWA) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), representing that family preservation might be considered prior to the placement of a child into foster care (Meyer-Thompson, 2013, p. 272). Recently, the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (CFSIIA) authorized funding support to states for projects that have demonstrated innovative and creative child welfare programs (Meyer-Thompson, 2013, p. 273).

2. Variations of child protection law

Child protection is related to various fields in which the laws play significant roles (Gupta-Kagan, 2016). However, outstanding legal variations exist between states, and consequently outcomes of child protection systems vary in different states (Gupta-Kagan, 2016). For example, Missouri authorities estimated that 1.3 out of every 1,000 children were victimized due to abuse or neglect in 2013; the figure was 7.5 times higher than in Illinois, 12 times higher than in neighboring Iowa, and 15 times higher than in Kentucky (Gupta-Kagan, 2016). The percentage of children having experienced abuse or neglect, whose cases were brought to court, varied from 2.2 % in Mississippi to 61.6 % in New Hampshire (Gupta-Kagan, 2016). The rates of children removed from families and placed in foster care by state agencies ranged from 5.5 % to 91.5 % according to states (Gupta-Kagan, 2016). Adoption rates from foster care also indicated enormous deviations (Gupta-Kagan, 2016).

Furthermore, states have different hearing timelines in courts, appointed counsel systems, permanency options available, structure of child protection agencies and policies for supervision of children’s mental health care in foster care under minimum regulations of the federal law (Gupta-Kagan, 2016). Thus, laws and legal systems, specifically, courts and agencies have a huge impact on child protection at every stage of justice systems (Gupta-Kagan, 2016). It is not only required to make up loopholes of child protection laws, but also apply them more ex aequitate.

3. Fallacies of the law

Mandatory investigation and reporting statutes cause over-caseloads of caseworkers, which overwhelm CPS with a huge amount of relatively minor allegations (Gupta-Kagan, 2014). As a result, these statutes make it harder for CPS to protect children from major severe abuse cases (Gupta-Kagan, 2014). Additionally, when child protection services determined that a parent neglected or abused a child, they put parents’ names on child protection registries (Gupta-Kagan, 2014). This sanction resulted in restricting parents’ job opportunities, and consequently children become unstable economically (Gupta-Kagan, 2014).

Even though funding support of federal government is not restricted only in foster care, strict federal mandates encourage states to make decisions and approve services to foster children, taking federal reimbursement rates into account (Meyer-Thompson, 2013).

Moreover, broad definitions of “abuse” and “neglect” in state laws enables CPS and family court judges to impose dispositions or interventions with broad discretion. As a result, some children are removed from their families unnecessarily (Gupta-Kagan, 2014, p. 899).

The rash approach to address fatalities of child abuse is associated with a heavy burden on caseworkers. For instance, Marchella Pierce’s Law seeks to amend Section 421 of the Social Services Law in New York, which required the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) to establish uniform requirements among the local social service departments (James, 2014, p. 1042). The departments require every caseworker to report each contact with a photograph taken of the child during each visit (James, 2014, p. 1042). A new picture requirement makes matters worse in terms of caseloads (James, 2014).

Another approach focuses on the criminalization for caseworker’s misconduct such as lack of oversight, improper investigation, and manipulation of reporting records (James, 2014). However, if criminal culpability of a caseworker becomes a growing stream, “turnover rates” could increase and well-qualified caseworkers would not apply for CPS (James, 2014, p. 1047). Furthermore, the unintended consequence that child removal rates will grow may occur as caseworkers hinge on foster care placements not to be prosecuted (James, 2014).

B. Process of Child Protection Services

Since non-governmental agency called NYSPCC was founded responding to repetitive abuse and neglect of nine-year-old girl named Mary Ellen In 1875, child protection services had a significant development over time (Gochnour, 2016; James, 2014). In particular, the Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) played an integral role in forming child-welfare protection system in place today (James, 2014). Additionally, with the development of the social work profession, America began to officially investigate and professionalize child protection work (James, 2014, p. 1037).

Although child protection services of each state have respective workflow for protecting children, general process of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) in New York City can be summarized as follows: mandatory reporting of professionals, such as “physicians, police officers, social workers, school officials and teachers,” is conducted about allegations of abuse to the ACS. If the reporting involves in the death of a child, physical injuries, and sexual abuse, ACS must notify the proper district attorney and local law enforcement (James, 2014, p. 1038). Then, ACS transmits the information to the State Central Registry (SCR) (anyone who recognized child abuse can report allegations to the SCR). After that, SCR reviews the reporting and assigns the case to an individual caseworker in ACS. Next, caseworker investigates and reports to ACS, which finally makes dispositions as either “indicated” or “unfounded” of the abuse (James, 2014, p. 1040).

According to child protection services’ guide for caseworkers, it premises that practitioners agree that a “child-centered, family-focused, and culturally responsive framework for child welfare practice will promote the best outcomes for children” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 15). This integrative framework for practice is based on five main perspectives described below (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003):

(1) Ecological perspective. This perspective characterizes human behavior, social functioning and harmony within an environmental context. Personal, family, and environmental elements interact with one another to influence the family. Child maltreatment is viewed as the consequence of the interact between a complicated set of risk and protective elements at the individual, family, neighborhood, and society levels.

(2) Strength-based perspective. This perspective means practice methods and strategies that induce the strengths of children, families, and neighborhoods. Strength-based practice is related to a shift from a deficit approach, which lays emphasis on problems and pathology, to a positive and proactive partnership with the family. The assessments emphasize the complex interplay of risks and strengths associated with individual as family members, the family as a unit, and the broader community and environment.

(3) Developmental perspective. This perspective means understanding individual growth and improvement and family development from a whole life perspective, and studies individuals and families interplaying with their environments over the time. Effective case planning considers which interventions are effective with a specific child or family trouble, in a particular environmental setting, and at a specific developmental stage.

(4) Permanency planning orientation. This orientation upholds that all children have a right to live in a permanent home. Child welfare service delivery must focus on safely staying children in their own homes or, if it is necessary, maintaining them permanently with other families. Interventions include a series of goal-directed activities on a purpose of helping children to live in safe families who provide a sense of belonging and legal, family solidarities.

(5) Cultural competence perspective. This perspective requires CPS caseworkers to understand the perspective of peers who may come from culturally various backgrounds and to adapt their practice harmoniously. Basic cultural competence is accomplished when organizations and caseworkers accept and respect differences, involve in ongoing cultural self-assessment, improve their diversity knowledge and skills, and “adapt service models to fit the target populations, culture, situation, and perceived needs” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 15).

Meanwhile, developing CPS caseworker competence is a never-ending process. Caseworkers improve competence through education, training, experience, and supervision. Model examples of the vital qualities, values, knowledge, and skills related to competency in CPS are described follow (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003):

(1) Core Values. All people have a storage of untapped, renewable, and expandable abilities in terms of mental, physical, emotional, social, and spiritual beings that can be utilized to facilitate change. Each child has a right to live in a permanent family. Each child and family member must demonstrate abilities toward his or her own needs and goals. All practitioners should make a commitment to using a strength-based, child-centered, family-oriented practice, making sure the safety of children in the range of their family, practicing perfect confidentiality, ensuring responsibility and an end-results orientation, phasing in quality professional practice, and continuing seek for knowledge and skills to effectively achieve the mission of CPS. Additionally, all practitioners should respect for persons of diverse racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds, and a belief that there is merit in diversity.

(2) Core knowledge. All practitioners have understanding of family systems, the family’s environment, the family in a historical backgrounds, diverse family context, and concepts of family empowerment. In addition, they should not ignore individual growth and development with specific attention to attachment, separation, loss, and identity improvement and know child abuse and neglect dynamics. They should understand “continuum of placement services, including the foster care system, the residential care system, kinship care, placement prevention, familial ties maintenance, family reunification, and adoption” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 17). Most of all, they should understand services, including “crisis intervention, parenting skills training, family counseling, conflict resolution, and individual and group counseling” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 17). they have commands of case management issues and responsibilities,   child well-being and protection programs and models, and principles of permanency processing for children and the role of forster care. Additionally, they should be familiar with special problems of poverty, suppression, and deprivation. they should be sensitive to substance abuse problems and their negative effect on children and families. they must understand well interacts of community and family violence, including partner abuse and the effect of trauma. They also have to know various types of services: “Direct services available to children and families in the mental health, health care, substance abuse treatment, education, juvenile justice, and community systems. Wraparound services available for families through the economic security, housing, transportation, and job training systems. Legal systems related to child welfare practice. Political and advocacy processes and how they relate to funding and acquiring services” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 17).

(3) Core Skills. All practitioners should have abilities to identify strengths, weaknesses, and needs and engage the family in a strength-based evaluation process and to take decisive and proper action when a child needs protection and to analyze complex information and to be consistent in approach to CPS work. They should employ crisis-intervention and early-intervention services and evaluate a family’s willingness to change and employ proper strategies for increasing motivation and improving the helping alliance. All practitioners are required to have aptitudes for  improving and maintaining professional relationships with families and listening, remaining flexible and working with clients reluctant to involving voluntarily, including those who are hostile or resistant. They must work with legal systems, including documentation and court testimony and “empower the child and family to sustain gains and use family and community supports” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 18). They should expertise in evaluating for abuse, neglect, maltreatment, and the safety of the child and other members in the family context and negotiating, implementing, and assessing the case plan with the family. Most of all, they should be professional in applying knowledge of human behavior and fruitful intervention strategies with children and adolescents at various developmental phases.

Since the 1990s, the need for competent caseworkers has increased (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). This reflects worries about the quality of the delivery of child protection services; the increasing complexity of child protection cases; and the need for inter- and intra-system cooperation and “coordination with the courts as well as mental health, juvenile justice, education, domestic violence, health care, and substance abuse services” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 15). It also derives from “the legislative mandates of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, which requires the provision of timely assessment and intervention services to the children and families served within the CPS system” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 15-16).

In response to persistent staffing crises, some child protection agencies attempt to address organizational weaknesses and overburdened staff by setting standards for caseworker educational background and licensure—an effort toward “re-professionalization” of child welfare (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 16).  To improve the competency of CPS staff, many States have implemented competency-based education and certification programs (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Some of these programs include readiness evaluations and competency tests (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). There is research that strongly recommends that higher education is vital for improving caseworker competencies (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). “Both the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) and the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) suggest that CPS staff should have a bachelor’s or master’s degree in social work (B.S.W. or M.S.W.) or a degree in a closely related field” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 19). Social work education seems to be associated with job retention and staff stability, which helps yield better child protection practice (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

A worthy strategy for improving the preparedness of CPS workers is to direct Federal funding resources toward the education and recruitment of social work potential employees into public child protection work-fields (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

“According to the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA), the mission of the child protective services (CPS) agency is to assess the safety of children, intervene to protect children from harm, strengthen the ability of families to protect their children, and to provide either a reunification or an alternative, safe family for the child” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 27). CPS is the vital agency in each community that takes reports of suspected child abuse and neglect; evaluates the risk to and safety of children; and provides or arranges for services to accomplish “safe, permanent families for children who have been abused or neglected or who are at risk of abuse or neglect” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 27). The CPS agency also facilitates community cooperations and engages formal and informal community partners to aid families and protect children from abuse or neglect (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). To achieve its mission, CPS must provide services, either directly or through other protection agencies, which are child-centered, family-oriented, and culturally responsive to accomplish safety, well-being, and permanency for children (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). When families are unable or unwilling to place children safe, CPS makes a petition juvenile or family court on the behalf of a child either to suggest strategies to place children safe at home or to be placed in foster care (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). In general, there are seven stages of the CPS process (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

INTAKE

CPS has a responsibility for receiving and assessing reports of suspected child abuse and neglect, makes a decision if the reported information satisfies the statutory and agency guidelines for child abuse and neglect, and makes a judgment the urgency with which the agency should respond to the report (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Additionally, CPS educates persons who report allegations of child abuse and neglect (frequently referred to as “reporters”) “about State statutes, agency guidelines, and the roles and responsibilities of CPS” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 27). Specific guidelines for performing the intake process vary each State and community (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). In general, caseworkers should: collect sufficient information from the reporter and agency records in order to identify and locate the children and the family or primary caregiver; make a decision whether the report satisfies the statutory and agency guidelines for child abuse or neglect; evaluate if the child is safe; assess the motives of the reporter (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Caseworkers must provide aid and encouragement to the reporter by: explaining that the goal of CPS is to protect children and strengthen family solidarities; laying emphasis on the importance of reporting and understanding the process in which the report will be traced; giving a description the types of cases approved by CPS as well as the types of information required from the reporter; responding immediately and sensitively to the dreads and concerns of the reporter; discussing the State’s regulations concerning confidentiality, including the situations under which a reporter’s identity may be uncovered (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). In addition, caseworkers should handle emergency situations such as: calming the caller; making a decision how to meet the imminent needs of the child and family members being reported (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Caseworkers also must check agency records and the State’s vital registry (if appropriate) to make a decision “if the family or child is known or has been reported to the agency previously” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 29). Judging the urgency of the action to the report is vital to the safety assessment (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). CPS’s primary concern should be to build up whether the child is safe, pending a face-to-face contact by the protection agency or another professional trained in evaluating safety (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Many States have their own standards for response times based on the characteristic of the report (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The standards considered are the level of severity of the case or the harm to the child, the individual responsible for the alleged maltreatment, and the family’s situation (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Once it has been made a decision that an initial assessment or investigation is guaranteed, the next step is to judge the safety of the child and how quickly CPS should respond to the case (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

The following elements generally are used by CPS agencies to differentiate between reports that require an immediate action, reports requiring an action within 24 hours, and reports that require a CPS action but do not involve immediate or ongoing danger of severe harm to the child (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). CPS must respond immediately when: The child’s injury is serious or the alleged abuse or neglect could have resulted in severe harm—for example, shooting a gun, thrusting a child down the stairs, locking a child in a enclosed space, not supplying enough food to eat over an extended duration, or locking a toddler out of the house without surveillance (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The child is specially “vulnerable because of age, illness, disability, or proximity to the alleged perpetrator, or the child is a danger to himself or herself, or others” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 38). The behavior of the parent or tender, including an inability to look after the child, is known to have triggered harm or endangered the child or others (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Or the behavior of the parent or tender is unpredictable and could end in serious harm to the child (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). There is no individual who is able and willing to take an action on the child’s behalf in the exact time that is required to keep the child protected long enough for CPS to involve within normal time frames (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The family is likely to run away the area with the child or desert the child (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The report is related to child sexual abuse, and the child continues to make contact with the alleged perpetrator (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The child has present physical injuries that need to be reported, such as photographing injuries or measuring injuries (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

The caseworker should examine the total picture to assess whether there is an obvious opportunity for the child to be severely harmed if there is no instant intervention (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). To make a decison how quickly the agency should respond to a specific case, caseworkers must consider the elements that individually show a risk to the child, as well as any elements (“such as domestic violence or substance abuse”) that in combination show a far greater risk to the child (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 39). The presence of several elements and one or more combinations of elements requires an instant response by CPS (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

A Case Requiring an instant CPS Response: A single mother who has been made a diagnosis “as having paranoid schizophrenia is having delusions of killing her 6-month-old infant” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 38). The mother ceased to take her medication (often required when she is pregnant) and has been drinking over-heavily (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). “The community psychiatric nurse who has been visiting the home weekly was told by the mother never to come back” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 38).

A Case Requiring a CPS Action Within 24 Hours: “A daycare provider reports a 31⁄2-year-old child because he has bruises and welts on his buttocks. The child provides three different stories of how they occurred, none of which seem plausible. There are no previous reports of maltreatment and the daycare provider who has been caring for this child for 18 months has never seen bruises before. The daycare provider reports that the mother drops off and picks up the son. The child is very active, difficult to manage, and has attempted to hurt other children” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 38).

A Case Not Requiring a CPS Action Within 24 Hours: “During the first 3 months of school, the children of a single mother were absent over one-half of the days. When the 7-year-old girl and 10-year-old boy do come to school, they have severe body odor and dirty clothes. The school nurse treated the children for lice and scabies, and the 7-year-old falls asleep in class. The school has contacted the mother, who has not followed through with any of her commitments regarding the children” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 38).

CPS is dependent on the normal public and community professionals to document suspected child abuse or neglect (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). CPS has a responsibility for educating the general community on how to identify alleged child abuse or neglect and what types of referrals are proper (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Intake provides an imperative opportunity to educate the public concerning the types of incidents that must be reported to CPS, the type of information required in a report, and CPS’s initial evaluation or investigation and intervention efforts (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). In addition, it is vital to treat reporters professionally and with reverence and sensitivity (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Communication and interplay at the intake stage affect how the community regards CPS and impact on the community’s willingness to document cases in the future (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

INITIAL ASSESSMENT OR INVESTIGATION

After receiving a report, CPS performs an initial assessment or investigation to make a decision: If child abuse or neglect occurred; If the child’s immediate safety is precarious and, if it is, the interventions that will make sure the child’s protection while placing the child within the family or with other family members (e.g., “kinship care or subsidized guardianship”) (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 27), If there is a risk of upcoming abuse or neglect and the level of that risk; If consistent agency services are needed to address any negative outcomes of child abuse or neglect and to reduce the risk of future abuse or neglect (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

The terms “assessment” and “investigation” are utilized interchangeably in many States and territories (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). However, they are not the same (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Investigation includes the efforts of the CPS agency to make a decision if abuse or neglect has occurred (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Assessment goes beyond this concept to assess a child’s safety and risk, and to make a decision whether and what services are needed to improve or prevent child abuse and neglect (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

The initial assessment or investigation is never simply a fact-finding process; it builds up the tone for all upcoming work that may occur with a particular family (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). During the initial assessment or investigation, CPS should determine whether child abuse or neglect occurred and can be proved and whether to conduct an assession to determine the risk of abuse or neglect occurring in the future (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). CPS also must build up rapport with family members and bring them in the intervention process (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

To make decisions effectively in the period of the initial assessment or investigation process, a caseworker should have competent interviewing skills; be able to collect, organize, and analyze information; and reach accurate conclusions (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Critical decisions that should be made at this step of the CPS process encompass the following:

• Is child maltreatment substantiated as defined by State	statute or agency policy?

• Is the child at risk of maltreatment, and what is the level	of risk?

• Is the child safe and, if not, what type of agency or	community	response will ensure the child’s safety in the	least intrusive manner?

• If the child’s safety cannot be assured within the family,	what	type and level of care does the child need?

• Does the family have emergency needs that must be met?

• Should ongoing agency services be offered to the family?

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 41)

Substantiating Maltreatment

The proving decision rests on the answers to two questions: “Is the harm to the child severe enough to constitute child maltreatment?” and “Is there sufficient evidence to support this being a case of child maltreatment?” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 41). Even in those cases lacking sufficient evidence, caseworkers should still report information since unproved reports may finally produce a pattern that can be substantiated (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). In account of varying State regulations concerning the removal of records, this may be impossible for all agencies (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

Upon finishing the initial assessment, the caseworker should make a decision the disposition of the report founded on State laws, agency criteria, and the information gathered (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). CPS agencies use various terms for this disposition—“substantiated, confirmed, unsubstantiated, founded, or unfounded” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 41). To guide caseworker determination in making the substantiation decision, each State has improved policies that overview what consists of credible evidence that abuse or neglect has occurred (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). “Most States have a two-tiered system: substantiated-unsubstantiated or founded-unfounded. Some States have a three-tiered system of substantiated, indicated, or unsubstantiated” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 42). The indicated classification means that the caseworker has some evidence that abuse or neglect occurred, but not enough to prove the case (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

At this moment in the decision-making process, caseworkers must ask themselves:

• Have I obtained enough information from the children,	family, and collateral contacts to adequately reach a	determination about the alleged abuse or neglect?

• Is my decision on substantiation based upon a clear	understanding of State laws and agency policies?

• Have I assessed the need for other agency or community	services when CPS intervention is not warranted?

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 42)

The following sections show substantiation decisions for various types of maltreatment — “child neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and psychological maltreatment” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 42).

Determining Child Neglect

Determining child neglect is founded on the answers to two questions: “Do the conditions or circumstances indicate that a child’s basic needs are unmet?” and “What harm or threat of harm may have resulted?” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 42). Answering these questions requires substantial information to evaluate the degree to which deprivations in care have resulted in crucial harm or crucial risk of harm (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Unlike the other types of maltreatment, this determination may not be accomplished by looking at one incident; the determination often requires looking at styles of care over time (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).  The analysis must concentrate on examining how the child’s fundamental needs are met and identifying circumstances that may indicate particular omissions in care that have caused harm or the risk of imminent harm to the child (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

Positive answers to the following questions may show that a child’s physical and medical needs are unsatisfied:

• Have the parents or caregivers failed to provide the child	with needed care for a physical injury, acute illness, physical	disability, or chronic condition?

• Have the parents or caregivers failed to provide the child	with regular and ample meals that meet basic nutritional	requirements, or have the parents or caregivers failed to	provide the necessary rehabilitative diet to the child with	particular health problems?

• Have the parents or caregivers failed to attend to the	cleanliness of the child’s hair, skin, teeth, and clothes? It is	difficult to determine the difference between marginal	hygiene and neglect. Caseworkers should consider the	chronicity, extent, and nature of the condition, as well as the	impact on the child.

• Does the child have inappropriate clothing for the weather	and conditions? Caseworkers must consider the nature and	extent of the conditions and the potential consequences to	the child.

• Does the home have obvious hazardous physical	conditions? For example, homes with exposed wiring or easily	accessible toxic substances.

• Does the home have obvious hazardous unsanitary	conditions? For example, homes with feces- or trash-covered	flooring or furniture.

• Does the child experience unstable living conditions? For	example, frequent changes of residence or evictions due to	the caretaker’s mental illness, substance abuse, or extreme	poverty?

• Do the parents or caregivers fail to arrange for a safe	substitute caregiver for the child?

• Have the parents or caregivers abandoned the child	without arranging for reasonable care and supervision? For	example, have caregivers left children without information	regarding their whereabouts?

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 42-43)

Even though State statutes vary, most CPS caseworkers agree that “children under the age of 8 who are left alone are being neglected” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 43). It is also agreed that children older than 12 can spend 1 to 2 hours alone everyday (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). In determining if neglect has occurred, the following issues must be considered, specially when children are between the ages of 8 and 12:

• The child’s physical condition and mental abilities, coping	capacity, maturity, competence, knowledge regarding how to	respond to an emergency, and feelings about being alone.

• Type and degree of indirect adult supervision. For example,	is there an adult who is checking in on the child?

• The length of time and frequency with which the child is	left alone. Is the child being left alone all day, every day? Is	he or she left alone all night?

• The safety of the child’s environment. For example, the	safety of the neighborhood, access to a telephone, and	safety of the home.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 43)

Determining Physical Abuse

In making a decision whether physical abuse occurred, the important questions to answer are “Could the injury to the child have occurred in a nonabusive manner?” and “Does the explanation given plausibly explain the physical findings?” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 43). The caseworker should gather information separately from the child, the caregivers, the parents, and other possible witnesses concerning the injuries (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The following questions may help judge whether abuse occurred:

• Does the explanation fit the injury? For example, the	explanation of a baby falling out of a crib is not consistent	with the child having a spiral fracture. It is important to	know the child’s age and developmental capabilities to assess	the plausibility of some explanations. It is also crucial to	receive input from medical personnel and exams.

• Is an explanation offered? Some caregivers may not offer	an explanation, possibly due to denial or an attempt to hide	abuse.

• Is there a delay in obtaining medical care? Abusive	caregivers may not immediately seek medical care for the	child when it is clearly needed, possibly to deny the	seriousness of the child’s condition, to try to cover up the	abuse, or in hope that the injury will heal on its own.	(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 43)

Caseworkers must also investigate the nature of the injury, “such as bruises or burns in the shape of an implement, e.g., a welt in the shape of a belt buckle or a cigarette burn”  (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 43).

Determining Sexual Abuse

In addition to the elements commented in determining physical abuse, the caseworker must ask the following questions to determine if sexual abuse has occurred:

• Who has reported that the child alleges sexual abuse? For	example, caseworkers should be alert to separated or	divorced parents making allegations against each other.

• What are the qualifications of the professional reporting	the physical findings? For example, if the health care	providers do not routinely examine the genitalia of young	children, they may mistake normal conditions for abuse or	vice versa.

• What did the child say? Did the child describe the sexual	abuse in terms that are consistent with their developmental	level? Can the child give details regarding the time and place	of the incident?

• When did the child make a statement or begin	demonstrating behaviors suspicious of sexual abuse and	symptoms causing concern? Was the child’s statement	spontaneous? Has the child been exposed to adult sexual	acts?

• Where does the child say the abuse took place? Is it	possible for it to have occurred in that setting? Is it possible	that the child is describing genital touching that is not sexual	in nature? For example, bathing the child.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 43-44)

Determining Psychological Maltreatment

Psychological maltreatment has been paid relatively little earnest attention in studies and practice until recently (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). There are many reasons for this phenomenon, including drawbacks with inadequate definitions, failure to build up cause-and-effect relationships, and the difficulty of identifying the cumulative impact of psychological maltreatment (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). In order to determine whether psychological maltreatment or emotional abuse occurred, CPS caseworkers should have information on the caregiver or parent’s behavior over time and the child’s acts and condition (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Caseworkers should determine if there is a chronic behavioral style of psychological maltreatment, such as “caregivers who place expectations on the child that are unrealistic for the child’s developmental level, threaten to abandon the child, or direct continually critical and derogatory comments toward the child” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 44). There also should be indicators in the child’s acts suggestive of psychological maltreatment; however, the child’s acts alone are often insufficient to prove a case (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Caseworkers should determine if the child has suffered emotional abuse (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The following questions may help determine whether psychological maltreatment has occurred:

• Is there an inability to learn not explained by intellectual,	sensory, or health factors?

• Is there an inability to build or maintain satisfactory	interpersonal relationships with peers or adults?

• Are there developmentally inappropriate behaviors or	feelings in normal circumstances?

• Is there a general pervasive mode of unhappiness,	depression, or suicidal feelings?

• Are there physical symptoms or fears associated with	personal or school functioning, such as bedwetting or a	marked lack of interest in school activities?

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 44)

Indicating a causal relationship between the caregiver’s acts and the child’s acts is often difficult to prove (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). This minimally necessitates that the caseworker examine caregiver-child interaction on several situations, as well as be informed from other credible sources’ observations (e.g., school teachers and personnel, relatives, and neighbors) (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

Determining risk factors is vital because they are influences present in the child, the caregivers, the parents, the family, and the surroundings that may increase the propensity that a child will be maltreated (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Risk evaluation involves assessing the child and family’s circumstance to identify and measure the risk factors, family merits and resources, and agency and community protection services (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). While risk assessment has been a vital part of CPS since the area’s inception, the formation of the process and decision-making, via the development of risk assessment instruments, has occurred just within the last 15 years (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Most States use risk assessment models or systems that are aimed to:

• Guide and structure decision-making;

• Predict future harm and classify cases;

• Facilitate communication within the agency and with other	community stakeholders.

• Aid in resource management by identifying service needs	for children and families served;

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 44-45)

Determining Child Safety

A child is regarded unsafe when he or she is at immediate risk of serious harm (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Safety is an issue throughout the life-course of a case (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires that States evaluate and make sure a safe environment for children in the families, out-of-home placements, and adoptive homes (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). It is important to remember that judging the risk of abuse or neglect and the child’s safety are two different decisions (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Children may be at risk of serious harm at a certain time in the future (risk assessment) and they may presently be safe (no threat of immediate serious harm) (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The following sections demonstrate the key safety decision points, the steps for achieving at the safety decision, and the improvement of a safety plan (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

There are two key decision stages during the initial assessment or investigation where the child’s safety is assessed. During the first interaction with the child and family, the caseworker should make a decision if the child will be secure during the initial assessment or investigation (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The question caseworkers should ask themselves is, “Is the child in danger right now?” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 49). Caseworkers evaluate current danger by searching for elements in the family circumstance and caregiver behavior or situation, including emotions, physical situations, and social contexts (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Examples include: young children with severe injuries that are not consistent with the caregiver’s explanation; children in the support of people who are uncontrollable or violent; and premeditated abuse or neglect, or cruelty (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

The second critical time for assessing safety is at the wrap-up of the initial assessment (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). This safety assessment follows the judgment of the validity of the report and the degree of risk (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Caseworkers should determine:

• Whether the child will be safe in his or her home or	without continuing CPS services;

• Under what circumstances a case can be diverted to	community partners;

• Under what circumstances intensive, home-based services	are necessary to protect a child;

• Whether the child needs to be placed in out-of-home care.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 49)

To determine safety at this stage, the caseworker uses the results of the risk assessment (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The caseworker identifies the risk elements that directly impact on the safety to the child; the risk elements that are operating at a more intensive, explosive, imminent, or dangerous level; or those risk elements that in combination show a more dangerous mix (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The caseworker weighs the risk elements directly influencing the child’s security against the family protective elements (i.e., strengths, resiliencies, resources) to judge if the child is safe (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

The subsequential steps for reaching the safety decision include:

1. Identifying the behaviors and conditions that increase	concern for the child’s safety, and considering how they	affect each child in the family.

2. Identifying the behaviors or conditions (i.e., strengths,	resiliencies, resources) that may protect the child.

3. Examining the relationship among the risk factors. When	combined, do they increase concern for safety?

4. Determining whether family members or other community	partners are able to address safety concerns without CPS	intervention.

5. Considering what in-home services are needed to address	the specific behaviors or conditions for each risk factor	directly affecting the child’s safety.

6. Identifying who is available (CPS or other community	partners) to provide the needed service or intervention in the	frequency, timeframe, and duration the family needs to	protect the child.

7. Evaluating the family’s willingness to accept and ability to	use the intervention or service at the level needed to protect	the child.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 49)

If the protection services or interventions are not available or accessible at the stage imperative to protect the child, or if the caregivers or parents are unable or unwilling to respond to the services, the caseworker must consider if the abusive caregiver or parent can leave home and the non-violent caregiver or parent can protect the child (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). If not, the caseworker should consider if foster care and court intervention is needed to make sure the child’s protection (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

The safety and the case plan have two separate purposes (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The interventions in the safety plan are aimed to control the risk elements placing a safety threat to the child (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Interventions in the case plan, however, are aimed to facilitate positive change in the underlying situations or contributing elements resulting in abuse or neglect (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). To control the risk elements directly influencing child safety, the safety interventions should:

• Have a direct and immediate impact on one or more of	the risk factors;

• Be accessible and available in time and place;

• Be in place for the duration of the threat of harm;

• Fill the gaps in caregiver protective factors.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 50)

In identifying safety interventions and improving a safety plan, caseworkers are required to make reasonable and considerate efforts to preserve or reunify families (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Child safety is the most valuable consideration in these efforts (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). ASFA also writes that when certain elements are present (e.g., “abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, some forms of sexual abuse, killing of another person or the child’s sibling, or termination of parental rights for another child”), they consist of enough threat to a child’s security that reasonable efforts are not required to forbid placement or to reunify the family (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The sequence of the least intrusive to the most intrusive safety interventions encompass:

• In-home services, perhaps combined with partial	out-of-home services (e.g., daycare services);

• Removal of abusive caregiver;

• Relative or kinship care;

• Out-of-home-placement.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 50)

When possible, the safety assessment must be conducted in collaboration with the family; it may be, however, unsafe to include the perpetrator (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The safety plan also must be negotiated with the family (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). This achieves the following:

• Caseworker and caregiver can assess the feasibility of the	caregiver following the safety plan.

• Caseworker can be assured that the caregiver understands	the consequences of his or her choices.

• Caregiver is provided with a sense of control over what	happens.

• Caregiver is able to salvage a sense of dignity.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 50)

Initial Assessment or Investigation Process

To make accurate and meaningful decisions during the initial assessment or investigation, caseworkers should:

• Employ a protocol for interviewing the identified child, the	siblings, all of the adults in the home, and the alleged	maltreating parent or caregiver;

• Observe the child, the siblings, and the parent or	caregiver’s interaction among family members, as well as the	home, the neighborhood, and the general climate of the	environment;

• Gather information from any other sources who may have	information about the alleged maltreatment or the risk to	and safety of the children;

• Analyze the information gathered in order to make	necessary decisions.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 51)

The initial assessment or investigation of alleged abuse or neglect of children requires that CPS caseworkers respond in an orderly, organized manner to collect sufficient information to make a decision whether abuse or neglect occurred and to evaluate the risk to and security of the child (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Employing an organized interview protocol makes sure that all family members are engaged and that information-collection is thorough; increases staff surveillance over the process; develops the capacity of CPS staff to cooperate with other disciplines; and increases staff confidence and competence in the initial assessment or investigation conclusions (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). If at all possible, family members must be interviewed separately in the following order:

• Identified child

• Any siblings or other children in the home

• Alleged perpetrator

• All other adults in the home separately

• Family as a whole

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 51)

Depending on the situations of the report, it should be determined if it is in the child’s best interest or benefit for the CPS caseworker to make an unannounced visit to interview the caregiver or parent or to contact them to schedule an interview (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). “If the child is out of the home at the time (e.g., the child is at school), the process should begin with an introduction to the parent(s) to explain the purposes of the initial assessment or investigation and, if required by law, request permission to interview all family members individually, beginning with the identified child” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 52). It is imperative to remember that the security of the child is of vital importance in every case (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). If there is a concern that talking with the parents first or getting their permission to interview the child puts the child at risk of immediate harm, then the CPS caseworker must proceed in a manner that makes sure the child’s safety (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). All family members must be interviewed individually to establish rapport, trust, and openness with the caseworker, which is aimed to increase the accuracy of the information collected (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). A benefit stated across professional boundaries concerning the use of individual interviewing protocols is that it allows the caseworker to utilize information collected from one interview to aid in the next interview (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

Based on the information collected at intake, each initial assessment or investigation must be designed with consideration given to:

• Where the interviews will take place;

• When the interviews will be conducted;

• How many interviews will likely be needed;

• How long each interview will likely last;

• Whether other agencies should be notified to participate in	the interviews.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 51)

During the initial assessment or investigation process, CPS caseworkers must conduct interviews with the following individuals:

• Identified child victim. The purpose of the initial interview	with the identified child is to gather information regarding	the alleged maltreatment and any risk of future maltreatment,	and to assess the child’s immediate safety. Because CPS’s	purpose is beyond just finding out what happened with	respect to any allegations of maltreatment, the interview with	the child addresses the strengths, risks, and needs regarding	the child, his or her parents, and his or her family.

• Siblings. Following the interview with the identified child,	the next step in the protocol is to interview siblings. The	purpose of these interviews is to determine if siblings have	experienced maltreatment, to assess the siblings’ level of	vulnerability, to gather corroborating information about the	nature and extent of any maltreatment of the identified child,	and to gather further information about the family that may	assist in assessing risk to the identified child and any	siblings.

• All of the non-offending adults in the home. The primary	purpose of these interviews is to find out what adults know	about the alleged maltreatment, to gather information related	to the risk of maltreatment and the safety of the child, to	gather information regarding family strengths or protective	factors, and to determine the adults’ capacity to protect the	child, if indicated.

• Alleged maltreating parent or caregiver. The purpose of this	interview is to evaluate the alleged maltreating caregiver’s	reaction to allegations of maltreatment as well as to the	child and his or her condition, and to gather further	information about this person and the family in relation to	the risk to and safety of the child.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 51)

Community Involvement

While CPS agencies have the primary authority for conducting initial assessment or investigation, other agencies or professionals must be integrally involved in the process (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Since CPS and law enforcement usually work in collaboration in responding to child abuse or neglect (in some States, all abuse or neglect documents go initially to the police), it is imperative for them to establish strong working cooperations and collaborate effectively (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). A memorandum of understanding (MOU) and protocols must be established between CPS and law enforcement agencies to recognize roles and responsibilities as well as the situations that dictate when:

• Reports should be initiated and shared between agencies;

• Joint initial assessment or investigation should be initiated;

• Cases necessitate immediate notification to other agencies;

• Oral and written reports should be initiated and shared.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 65)

After an MOU or protocol is built up, training and education must provide CPS caseworkers with familiarity of the aimed roles and responsibilities (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

In addition, parameters should be built up for cases where law enforcement aid may be required to remove a child or an alleged perpetrator from the home, or when there is a concern for the caseworker’s security (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

In addition to law enforcement agencies, other disciplines usually have a role in the initial assessment or investigation process:

• Medical personnel may be involved in assessing and	responding to medical needs of a child or parent and	perhaps in documenting the nature and extent of	maltreatment.

• Mental health personnel may be involved in assessing the	effects of any alleged maltreatment and in helping to	determine the validity of specific allegations. They may also	be involved in evaluating the parent’s or caregiver’s mental	health status and its effect on the safety to the child.

• Alcohol and other drug specialists may be involved in	evaluating parental or caregiver substance abuse and its	impact on the safety of the child.

• Partner abuse experts may be asked to assist in examining	the safety of the child in cases where partner abuse and	child maltreatment co-exist. These professionals may also be	involved in the safety planning process.

• Educators may be involved in providing direct information	about the effects of maltreatment and other information	pertinent to the risk assessment.

• Other community service providers who have had past	experience with the child or family may be a resource in	helping to address any emergency needs that the child or	family may have.

• Multidisciplinary teams may be used to help the CPS	agency analyze the information related to the substantiation	of maltreatment and the assessment of risk and safety.

• Other community partners such as intensive, home-based	service workers; parent aides; daycare providers; afterschool	care providers; foster parents; volunteers; or relatives may be	used to help the agency implement a plan to keep the child	safe within his or her own home.

• Juvenile court may be involved in helping to assure the	safety of the child and to provide continuing protective	services to the child and family when the child’s safety	cannot be protected, and the parents or caregivers have	refused agency intervention.

(DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 65-66)

FAMILY ASSESSMENT

Once a decision of child abuse or neglect has been made and the child’s safety has been guaranteed, the next step is to perform a family assessment. During this step, the caseworker brings family members in a process to catch on their strengths and needs (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Specifically, the caseworker collaborates with the family to identify family strengths that can supply a foundation for change; reduce the risk of abuse or neglect by identifying and addressing elements that put children at risk; help children to cope with the negative outcomes of abuse or neglect (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Since the impact of child abuse or neglect depends on the interplay of risk and protective elements, using an ecological developmental basic structure for this assessment is often appropriate (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

CASE PLANNING

In order to accomplish the desired programmatic positive outcomes of CPS, interventions should be well planned and purposeful (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). These outcomes are accomplished through three types of plans (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003): A safety plan, which is improved whenever it is made a decision that the child is at risk of immediate harm; A case plan, which succeeds the family assessment and presents goals and outcomes and gives a description how the family will cooperate toward these outcomes; A concurrent permanency plan, which appreciates alternative forms of permanency and resolves both how reunification can be accomplished and how legal permanency with a new-assigned family might be accomplished if reunification efforts fail (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). All three plans must be developed collaboratively, when possible, “among the CPS caseworker, the family, and community professionals who will provide services to the family” (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003, p. 28).

SERVICE PROVISION

This is the stage where the case plan is implemented (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). It is CPS’s role to arrange, supply, and coordinate the delivery of protection services to children and families (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). When possible, the services that are chosen to help families to achieve goals and outcomes must be based on an proper match of services to goals and must use best practice principles (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). When needed services are not willingly available or accessible, an interim or alternative option must be made with families (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

FAMILY PROGRESS

Assessment is an ongoing process that starts with the first client contact, continues throughout the entire life of the case, and should incorporate reports from other protection service providers (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). When assessing family progress, caseworkers focus on: making sure the child’s safety; reducing the risk of abuse or neglect; addressing successfully any of the negative outcomes of abuse or neglect on the child and family; accomplishing the goals and duties in the case plan; achieving family-level positive outcomes (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

CASE CLOSURE

The process of completing the relationship between the CPS caseworker and the family is associated with a mutual examination of the progress made throughout the supporting relationship (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Optimally, cases are closed when families have accomplished their goals and the risk of abuse or neglect has been reduced or eliminated (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Some undesirable closings occur because the client is reluctant to receive services, and the agency does not have a sufficient foundation to refer the circumstance to juvenile or family court (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Other cases are closed, however, when family members still need supports and assistance (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). When this occurs, the caseworker should cautiously document what risks may still be in existence so that this information is available if the family should be referred to the agency at a later time (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). At the time of closure, caseworkers should place the family in a discussion about what has improved over time and what aims they may still have (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). When family needs are still obvious and are outside the range of the CPS system, every effort should be made to support the family to receive services through appropriate community agencies (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003).

C. System’s Failure in the Context of the Child Welfare

General process of criminal justice system’s interventions for children protection is summarized as follows: CPS’s interventions → separation children from their parents → entering foster care or other options such as living with relatives → permanency hearing → parents’ rights termination or reunification → adoption or other options such as foster care, a safe and stable home.

The aims and procedure of the permanency hearing, and permanency options are summarized as follows:

Court hearings are used to review the status and determine the permanent placement of children who have been placed in out-of-home care, including foster care. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) amended title IV-E of the Social Security Act in an effort to provide added safety and permanency for children in out-of-home care. ASFA placed an emphasis on improving planning and expediting decision-making for the permanent placement of children in the child welfare system.

ASFA requires that the status of each child in out-of-home care be reviewed at least once every 6 months by either a court or an administrative review. All States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands require case reviews in either statute or regulation for children placed in out-of-home care. In addition, under ASFA, a permanency planning hearing must be held within 12 months of the date the child entered care, and then every 12 months thereafter, to review and approve the permanency plan for the child. If a determination is made by the court that “reasonable efforts” to reunite the child with a parent are not required, a permanency planning hearing must be held within 30 days. This generally occurs because grounds exist for the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights. Permanency hearings are required in the statutes of all States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

All States’ statutes specify the persons who are entitled to receive notice of hearings so that they may attend and offer testimony. Approximately four States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands limit attendance to the parties. In child welfare proceedings, the term “parties” generally includes the child, the parent or guardian of the child, and the agency or department having custody of the child. Most States also allow other persons who have an interest in the child’s welfare, such as the foster parent, pre-adoptive parent, or relative currently providing care for the child, to attend hearings. Other persons who may be allowed to attend, including the child’s grandparent or other relative who is not currently caring for the child, the child’s guardian ad litem, the child’s court-appointed special advocate, and a representative of the Tribe when the child is an Indian child.

However, in approximately 21 States and Puerto Rico, the law explicitly states that the opportunity to attend the hearing does not confer party status on the individual. In other words, the individual may be allowed to testify, but his or her interests will not be addressed by the court. The main determination made at any hearing is whether the child’s current placement is safe and appropriate for the child’s needs. The hearing also serves as a forum for the court to make the following determinations, such as whether the case plan developed by the State agency is appropriately addressing the service needs of the child and his or her family, and whether the agency or department has made reasonable efforts to provide services that meet the child and family’s needs.

At the permanency hearing, a plan must be developed that includes the desired permanency goal and the timeframe for achieving that goal. Reunification of the child with his or her family is the preferred permanency option whenever that can be safely achieved. In those cases where reunification is not appropriate, adoption is viewed as providing the greatest degree of permanence. In some situations, however, adoption may not be a realistic or appropriate option. For example, some older children may object to losing legal ties to their birth parents. Or some children have special needs that prevent placement in a home environment, so an adoptive placement is difficult to achieve. Consequently, in those cases, attention may be focused on alternative permanency options such as guardianship with relatives. Such options do not provide the same level of permanency available through adoption but frequently facilitate continuity of family ties, which may be in the child’s best interests.

While permanency preferences vary somewhat from State to State, in general, statutes addressing legal permanency options include the following elements, such as reunification with the parent(s), adoption with placement preference to a relative or current foster parent, permanent placement and legal guardianship with a fit and willing relative (kinship care), legal guardianship or custody with another adult, and another planned permanent living arrangement (Children’s Bureau, 2016).

In addition, statues of permanency hearing in Pennsylvania are stipulated as follows:

Pennsylvania Schedule of Hearings

Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 42, § 6351; Admin. Code Tit. 55, § 3130.71

The court shall conduct a permanency hearing:

• Within 6 months of the child’s removal from the home and every 6 months thereafter

• Within 30 days of a finding that reasonable efforts to reunify are not required

In regulation: The county agency shall ensure that the status of a child in placement under its case management responsibility is reviewed periodically but no less frequently than once every 6 months. The child’s first review shall occur no later than 6 months from the date of placement. Subsequent periodic reviews shall be held no later than 6 months from the date of the previous periodic review.

Persons Entitled to Attend Hearings

Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 42, §§ 6310; 6336.1(a)

The court may order a parent, guardian, or custodian of a child to be present at and to bring the child to any proceeding under this chapter.

Notice of the hearing shall be provided to:

• The child’s foster parent

• Any pre-adoptive parent

• A relative providing care for the child

The court shall provide the child’s foster parent, pre-adoptive parent, or relative providing care for the child the right to be heard at any hearing under this chapter. Unless a foster parent, pre-adoptive parent, or relative providing care for a child has been awarded legal custody, nothing in this section shall give the foster parent, pre-adoptive parent, or relative providing care for the child legal standing in the matter being heard by the court.

Determinations Made at Hearings

Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 42, § 6351

At each permanency hearing, a court shall determine all of the following:

• The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement

• The appropriateness, feasibility, and extent of compliance with the permanency plan developed for the child

• The extent of progress made toward alleviating the circumstances that necessitated the original placement

• The appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for the child

• The likely date by which the placement goal for the child might be achieved

• Whether reasonable efforts were made to finalize the permanency plan in effect

• Whether the child is safe

• If the child has been placed outside the Commonwealth, whether the placement continues to be best suited to the safety, protection, and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child

• The services needed to assist a child who is age 16 or older to make the transition to independent living

• If the child has been in placement for at least 15 of the last 22 months or aggravated circumstances exist, whether a petition to terminate parental rights has been filed

• If a sibling of a child has been removed from the home and is in a different placement setting than the child, whether reasonable efforts have been made to place the child and his or her sibling together or whether such joint placement is contrary to the safety or well-being of the child or sibling

• If the child has a sibling, whether visitation of the child with that sibling is occurring no less than twice a month, unless a finding is made that visitation is contrary to the safety or well-being of the child or sibling

Permanency Options

Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 42, § 6351

Permanency options include:

• Return to the parent

• Adoption

• Placement with a legal custodian

• Placement with a fit and willing relative

• Another planned permanent living arrangement

(Children’s Bureau, 2016).

Gupta-Kagan (2014) pointed out that the American child welfare system focused on a “parental-fault paradigm” (i.e., the system mainly uses regal authority to identify and prove allegations of parental misconduct rather than the broad context of children’s and their families’ lives and needs) (p. 898). This approach hinders an effective means of helping the parent-child relationship and protecting children from abuse (Gupta-Kagan, 2014). Truly child-centered approach is to minimizing system’s coercive intervention and implementing a wider range of supportive and less invasive alternatives for protection children and families (Gupta-Kagan, 2014).

Although statutory mandates and CPS training and procedures were set in place, too many abused and neglected children die after the intervention of child protective services (James, 2014). 8.8% of the child fatalities involved families who had been supported protective services within the five years before the fatality (James, 2014, p. 1035). The main reason lies behind the “infrastructural deficiencies including insufficient training and oversight, and heavy caseloads” within CPS (James, 2014, p. 1040).

Meanwhile, the interaction between incarceration and CPS involvem-ent (including out of home placement) is more correlated with socially and economically disadvantaged population (Berger et al. 2016). In other words, the same individuals and families are more likely to be at risk of experiencing both systems (Berger et al. 2016).

Most of all, foster care is not a permanent placement and children who age out of foster care are more inclined to be involved in the criminal justice system (Shaughnessy, 2014). According to a number of researches about relationship between child abuse and delinquency, child abuse increased the risk of arrest for crimes (Widom, 1989; Zingraff et al. 1993; Smith and Thornberry, 1995). To uncover what factors cause delinquency, Morris (1994) examined foster care and concluded that its lack of performance put youth at the risk of arresting for crimes and staying at foster care was a preparatory step prior to committing a crime. By extension, Baskin & Sommers (2010) examined the criminal justice experiences among foster care youth, living with relatives, foster families, and living in congregate care, dependents receiving in-home care, and non-dependent youth. As a result, Baskin & Sommers (2010) discovered that youth who were older at foster care and youth with at least one more foster care change had a tendency to be more arrested for crimes (Baskin & Sommers, 2010).

Once a child is removed from his or her family, he is inclined to be a scapegoat of ‘foster care drift’ (Meyer-Thompson, 2013). For instance, Nevada removed children from their families at an above-median rate, and consequently it had the largest increase of children entering foster care between 2000 and 2009 (Meyer-Thompson, 2013, p. 268). Child abuse in the foster care in Nevada became rampant due to the standards falling short of the Federal and State law, professional judgment, and indifference to children’s health and safety (Meyer-Thompson, 2013).

In particular, Foster care system has proven to be an insufficient settlement to the problem of the neglected poor children (Shaughnessy, 2014). Although most courts have held that children cannot be separated from their parents solely because of poverty, there are many cases indicating the fact that parental unfitness relies on manifestations of parental poverty (Shaughnessy, 2014). Foster care and adoption cannot absorb all the neglected poor children and children who drift from one foster care to another are more likely to be under poverty line (Shaughnessy, 2014).

To counteract high levels of “inter- and intra-generational overlap” between incarceration and CPS involvement, child protection services should take a meticulous consideration of children with incarcerated parents (Berger et al. 2016, p. 191).

D. Alternative Solutions

1. Regal reform

Gupta-Kagan (2014) suggested that when school officials identified children who have been abused, the law give them options to provide necessary supports for children and their families other than calling CPS “because they are familiar with children in their full context, including their families, peer groups, and communities” (p. 900). In addition, federal funding law that prefers foster care should permit broader flexibility to provide more various and effective interventions (Gupta-Kagan, 2014).

Meanwhile, harms induced by delayed permanency are significant to the child welfare (Meyer-Thompson, 2013). Thus, proper time limits should be placed on reunifying families, and if reunification fails, other permanency choices must be selected timely (Meyer-Thompson, 2013). If reunification does not occur quickly, federal law requires that state courts hold permanency hearings within twelve months of the child’s entry into foster care and at least every twelve months after that (Gupta-Kagan, 2016, p. 402). However, shortening permanency deadlines is required in consideration of suffering lifelong psychological consequences (Meyer-Thompson, 2013). Additionally, providing an attorney for a foster child can speed the process in favor of reunification with parents or another permanency choice in a safe home (Meyer-Thompson, 2013).

2. Differential response programs

Gupta-Kagan (2014) contended that comprehensive prevention strategy should be taken such as “early childhood programs, mental-health and substance-abuse screenings for parents with young children, and evidence-based treatments for specific conditions” (p. 907). In addition, authorities must select interventions based on what is most likely to fit children’s mental, environmental and social conditions and provide meaningful services with families before removal occurs (Gupta-Kagan, 2014).

To overcome current laws’ weaknesses, at least eighteen states have implemented alternative responses or differential response programs (Gupta-Kagan, 2014, p. 1002). Although specific standards and procedures of programs are various among states, their goals is to improve cooperation with families and assist families in crisis (Meyer-Thompson, 2013).  These programs are based on family assessments and subsequent services voluntary and less stigmatized (Gupta-Kagan, 2014; Shaughnessy, 2014).

In the family assessment response, CPS does not make formal determination or disposition associated with the specific allegations that provoked the reports (Children’s Bureau, 2016). Consequently, families are more likely to take part in services, develop stronger bonds with CPS or social workers and make sure that they are treated fairly (Gupta-Kagan, 2014).

The model of Minnesota’s program named “Parent Support Outreach Program” bypasses CPS intervention, which permits any service providers to refer families directly to the program for assistance (Gupta-Kagan, 2014, p. 1009). This program has been successful to prevent families from involving CPS and has led to significant improvement to help children and families in need (Gupta-Kagan, 2014).

Washington’s “Family Assessment Response Program” includes performance-based contracting and the use of evidence-based practices (Meyer-Thompson, 2013, p. 276). The aim of this program focuses not only on helping to reduce the number of children in foster care, but also on helping to address the considerable correlation between poverty and child abuse (Meyer-Thompson, 2013).

In addition, “family group conferencing” means cooperation among family, community members, and professionals in order to support parents and children at risk of maltreatment (Shaughnessy, 2014). The principles of this approach are based on the fact that almost all families can make well-informed decisions regarding keeping their children safe when supported (Children’s Bureau, 2016; National Institute of Justice, 2016).

“Home visiting programs” that send a medical team or volunteers into the homes of new mothers (Maternal and Child Health Bureau,2016), “pilot programs” that mobilize neighborhood resources, and other “community-focused programs” were introduced in many states (Shaughnessy, 2014).

Overview of Differential Response in California

In California, the child welfare system is lead and supervised by “the state government, but administered by counties at the local level” (Berrick et al., 2009. p. 40). This allows counties to both satisfy the criteria set by the state and implement and organize programs that fit the various needs of California communities (Berrick et al., 2009). Contra Costa County (CCC) was picked as one of 11 counties to improve and test strategies suggested “as part of the statewide Child Welfare Redesign” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 40). As a result, in 2005, “Contra Costa County Children and Family Services (CFS)” started to pilot and assess a multi-tiered DR system (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 40).

Overview of Differential Response in Contra Costa County

Contra Costa is one of the most populated and various counties in the state of California (Berrick et al., 2009). On account of its relative size, the county did not obtain enough funds to pilot the distribution of DR services to all families that would fit for them (Berrick et al., 2009). Therefore, the county chose to concentrate its resources on children under the age 5 (the group which data recommend has the greatest propensity of “re-referral and are also one of the most vulnerable populations) in Family-to-Family Team Decision Making areas, which historically have the highest number of referrals and removals” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 41). These areas encompass “North Richmond, the Iron Triangle area of Richmond, San Pablo, the Monument Corridor area of Concord, Pittsburg, and old Antioch” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 41).

The communities selected for the pilot program are mainly low income and African American, with an growing Latino population (Berrick et al., 2009). These communities were chosen, in part, to settle the concern that a disproportionate figure of children of color are shown in California’s CWS (Berrick et al., 2009). Statistics indicate that this is the case among children in CCC, in particular when comparing African American with Caucasian children (Berrick et al., 2009). Specifically, in 2005, one-fourth of children referred to CFS were African American in spite of the fact that African American children only account for 11% of the population in CCC (Berrick et al., 2009). Meanwhile, in 2005, “only 37% of children referred to CFS were Caucasian despite the fact that Caucasian children made up 43% of the population in CCC” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 41).

A review of over 700 evaluated cases in the county helped  make a decision the types of services required through DR (Berrick et al., 2009). Under CCC’s DR pilot, an evaluation of a document to a hotline screener results either in a family being accessed out of this new system, because the document does not guarantee further action and/or does not satisfy the inclusion standards, or in a referral to one path among three paths of service (Berrick et al., 2009).

Path 1. If a screener makes a decision that there is not sufficient evidence to guarantee an investigation, but the family is required for services and aids, has a child under 5 years old, and resides in the catchment area, the county dispatches “a community engagement specialist (CES)” to do a face-to-face contact with the family (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 42). The CES seeks to involve the family and register them in services with one of some “community-based organizations (CBOs) based on location within the county” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 42). If the family agrees, the CES refers the case to the proper CBO (Berrick et al., 2009). Each CBO has one distinctive case manager whose full-time accountability is to collaborate with the CES members and families in Path 1 (Berrick et al., 2009).

Path 2. A screener makes a decision that there is sufficient concern to require an initial face-to-face evaluation “by a CFS Emergency Response (ER) social worker” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 43). If the ER social worker makes a decision that a child welfare case will not be available for the family, the ER social worker will seek to connect the family to community management services to help resolve their needs (Berrick et al., 2009). If proper, the ER social worker may aim to cooperate with a CBO manager from the client’s area of the county to go together to the home for the initial face-to-face evaluation with the family (Berrick et al., 2009).

Path 3. A screener makes a decision that the document does guarantee investigation and that the degree of risk and safety concern is beyond for inclusion in Paths 1 or 2 (Berrick et al., 2009). This is a traditional child welfare and protection investigation (Berrick et al., 2009).

The table below outlines “information about Contra Costa County’s Differential Response Staffing System” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 44). It encompasses staff positions, affiliation, and role (Berrick et al., 2009).

Table 1. Contra Costa County Differential Response Staffing System

Position	Employed with	Role description
Hotline Screener	Children and Family Services	• Takes calls and reports of suspected child abuse and neglect. • Conducts the initial screening to determine whether or not the call should be sent to the Emergency Response unit for investigation. • For assessed-out reports, makes the initial assessment to determine if the case qualifies for Path I services. • For assessed-in calls, flags potential Path II cases.
Hotline Supervisor	Children and Family Services	• Oversees hotline unit. • Reviews all assessed-out cases. • Sends all Path I referrals to the Path I supervisor.
Path I Supervisor	Children and Family Services	• Receives all Path I referrals, and checks to make sure they meet Path I criteria. • Assigns the Community Engagement Specialists to Path I cases. Oversees the work of the Community Engagement Specialists.
Community Engagement Specialist (hired from community with knowledge of local resources)	Children and Family Services (Initially contractual position; in 2008 became permanent positions with the CFS)	• Contacts Path I referrals and attempts to engage them in services. • When families engage in services, contacts a Path I case manager, and arranges a joint visit with the family, where the family is introduced to the Path I case manager. • Serves as link between CFS and community case managers. • Promotes community activities such as fairs and picnics, to boost Children and Family Services’ image with the public.
Emergency Response Social Worker	Children and Family Services	• Investigates allegations of abuse and neglect. If the allegations do not rise to the level of meeting the legal definitions of abuse and neglect, closes the case. • When closed cases meet the criteria for Path II community services, makes the initial decision about whether to offer the family Path II services or not. • Collaborates with the ER supervisor to make the final determination about offering Path II services. • Collaborates with the family about services and engages the family. • When Path II services are offered, contacts an appropriate CBO case manager for Path II services, and arranges to do a joint visit where the case manager is introduced to the family.
Emergency Response Supervisor	Children and Family Services	• Oversees the ER unit. • Receives referrals and assigns workers to investigate them. • Flags all potential Path II referrals. • Reviews all cases that are identified for closure. • Collaborates with ER social workers to make the final decision about offering Path II community services. • Maintains contact with community-based organizations in order to know about case openings. • Is responsible for ensuring that all workers know about Differential Response, and all relevant rules, procedures, and changes.
Case Manager, Path I	A community-based organization	• Receives referrals from the Community Engagement Specialist • Conducts a joint visit to the family with the Community Engagement Specialist when the case is transitioning from the Specialist to the Path I case manager. • Works with families for up to 1 year, providing support around the clock—24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Provides most services in the family’s home. • Links families to services, ranging from mental health to day care. • Provides transportation to appointments if needed. • Teaches parents how to conduct professional business, such as making phone calls. • Provides information about how to navigate the services system. • Provides emotional support, and uses a strengths-based approach to help the family identify and reach goals.
Case Manager, Path II	A community-based organization	• Receives referrals from the Emergency Response Worker. • Conducts a joint visit with the Emergency Response Worker to the family when the case is transitioning from the Emergency Response worker to the case manager. • All of the same duties as described above for Case Manager, Path I.
Case Manager Supervisor, Path I and/or II	A community-based organization	• Supervise Path I and/or II case managers. • Provide one-on-one weekly supervision to each case manager. • Keep monthly data about how many families engage, and which services they engage in; pass the information along to the county. • Inform Emergency Response Supervisors of case openings on the case managers’ caseloads.

(Berrick et al., 2009, p. 45-47)

Purposes of DR in Contra Costa County encompass maintaining child safety (e.g., fewer children put into foster care), and developing well-being through access to helping services (e.g., receipt of physical and  mental health services) (Berrick et al., 2009). The purposes closely correspond with the description of core outcomes for child welfare in California (Berrick et al., 2009). Contra Costa County’s DR implementation also aims to address the role of community joining in serving families in child welfare (Berrick et al., 2009). To this goal, CFS has built up contracts with 11 agencies to supply services with families referred to Paths 1 and 2 (Berrick et al., 2009). “Two of these CBOs are faith-based; several are small, grass-roots organizations; and others are larger, more established agencies” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 47).

Each joining CBO has at least one case manager particularly dedicated to providing DR services (Berrick et al., 2009). Case managers conduct caseloads that range from 12-15 families (Berrick et al., 2009). Working toward the purposes described above, case managers cooperate with families for up to 1 year utilizing a strengths-based approach that attempts to help the family identify and achieve their goals (Berrick et al., 2009). Overall, the greatest needs documented by case managers are emotional support and help understanding systems (Berrick et al., 2009). Other typical services supported by case managers include:

● transportation (e.g., bus & BART tickets)

● referrals for food and parenting classes

● crisis support

● advocacy

● information about services

●  referral to services such as domestic violence	counseling/help, substance abuse treatment, mental health	services, housing, childcare, jobs, clothing, diapers, high chairs,	tutoring, bilingual	services, transportation

(Berrick et al., 2009, p. 48)

Developing community willingness and participation is a vital aspect of accomplishing positive results for children, and providing the necessary education and information to CWS and CBO personnels is imperative to the successful implementation of DR (Berrick et al., 2009).  To this end, CCC made an effort to training personnels prior to the implementation of DR, and supports ongoing professional improvement opportunities and aid to help DR personnels meet the needs of the families they support (Berrick et al., 2009). As part of their endeavour to foster cooperative relationships among all DR partners, CFS holds monthly regional meetings and quarterly county-wide meetings for all DR personnels from CFS and participating CBOs (Berrick et al., 2009).

In 2005, Contra Costa County (CCC) started to pilot a three-tiered Differential Response (DR) system for children below the age 5 in several predominately low-income minority communities (Berrick et al., 2009).  “In CCC’s system, a Children and Family Services (CFS) hotline screener” allocates each case of suspected abuse or neglect to one of three paths (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 48).  Those cases that are in the mark age and geographic area, but in which the degree of risk is not high enough to guarantee a CFS investigation, are lead to Path I (Berrick et al., 2009).  “In Path I, a Community Engagement Specialist (CES) visits the family and attempts to engage them in community-based case management services” (Berrick et al., 2009, p. 49). When a case requests for an in-person evaluation “by a CFS Emergency Response (ER) social worker,” but the worker makes a decision that no further CFS engagement is needed, the case is allocated to Path II (Berrick et al., 2009). At this stage, the ER worker links the family to community-based case management protection services (Berrick et al., 2009). The third path in the DR system is arranged for high-risk cases that require imminent and ongoing child welfare services (Berrick et al., 2009).

The general purpose of DR in CCC is to warrant child safety, develop well-being via community-based services, and involve the community in serving families (Berrick et al., 2009). To meet the various needs of families that are in contact with the child welfare system, CCC’s DR system builds up partnerships between CFS and CBOs within the county (Berrick et al., 2009). DR personnels are provided with training, education, and ongoing professional improvement support to meet the system’s aims (Berrick et al., 2009).

Overview of Differential Response in Illinois

This section demonstrates the Illinois DR program as it is supposed to be, according to official procedures and policy (Fuller et al., 2012). Official procedures are as follows:

Section 300.45

Five Year Demonstration of the Differential Response Program

a) Differential Response recognizes that there are variations in	the severity of reported maltreatment and allows for an	investigation or family assessment response to reports of	child neglect. Both responses focus on the safety and	well-being of the child; promote permanency within the	family whenever possible; and recognize the authority of child	protection to make decisions about protective custody and	court involvement when necessary.

An investigation response involves gathering forensic evidence	and requires a formal determination regarding whether there	is credible evidence that child maltreatment has occurred. A	family assessment response involves assessing the family's	strengths and needs and offering services to meet the	family's needs and support positive parenting.

b) Differential Response Criteria

During the demonstration period, reports of neglect that	meet all the following criteria may be assigned to an	assessment pathway:

1) Identifying information for the family members and their	current address is known at the time of the report;

2) The alleged perpetrators are birth or adoptive parents,	legal guardians or responsible relatives;

3) The family has no pending or prior indicated reports of	abuse and/or neglect or prior indicated reports have been	expunged within	the timeframe or timeframes established	by the Department for the indicated allegation or	allegations;

4) The alleged victims, or other siblings or household	members, are not currently in the care and custody of the	Department or wards of the court;

5) Protective custody of the children has not been taken or	required in the current or any previous case; and

6) Allegations

A) The reported allegation or allegations shall only include	Mental and Emotional Impairment (neglect only),	Inadequate Supervision, Inadequate Food, Inadequate	Shelter, Inadequate Clothing, Medical Neglect, and	Environmental Neglect. The following circumstances	involving the allegations of Mental and Emotional	Impairment, Inadequate Supervision, and Medical Neglect	prohibit the report from being assigned to a family	assessment pathway.

i) Mental and Emotional Impairment reports taken as	abuse (Allegation #17) will be assigned an investigation	pathway.

ii) Inadequate Supervision reports involving a child or	children under the age of eight, or a child older than	eight years of age with a physical or mental disability that	limits his or her skills in the areas of communication,	self-care, self-direction, and safety will be assigned an	investigation pathway.

iii) Medical Neglect reports that involve a child with a	severe medical condition that could become serious	enough to cause long-term harm to the child if untreated	will be assigned an investigation pathway.

B) All other allegations are considered to involve substantial	child abuse and neglect, and are ineligible for assignment	to the assessment pathway.

c) Differential Response Team (DRT) Supervisors

Prior to assigning reports to Differential Response (DR)	Specialists, DRT Supervisors will review all reports assigned	to their teams within two hours after receipt in the team’s	electronic mailbox, excluding evenings, weekends and	holidays to determine their appropriateness for Differential	Response. DRT Supervisors will also contact reporters of	medical neglect reports, and may contact reporters of other	allegations to confirm the information reported to the State	Central Register and obtain any additional information that	will enable the supervisor to determine the appropriateness	of the report for Differential Response. Reports determined	to be inappropriate for Differential Response will be	redirected by the supervisor to the State Central Register	for investigation in accordance with subsection (e).

d) Initial and Ongoing Contacts with the Family

The initial Differential Response contact will occur in the	family’s home within three business days from the time the	report is received at the State Central Register excluding	weekends and holidays, and the contact shall involve the	DR Specialist, Strengthening and Supporting Families (SSF)	worker, adult family members and all children.

1) If a family accepts assessment pathway services, the DR	Specialist must do the following at the initial meeting with	the family:

A) Verify identifying information and legal relationships of	all household members.

B) Complete a Child Endangerment Risk Assessment	Protocol Safety Assessment.

C) Obtain the names and addresses of any non-custodial	parents.

D) Complete a home safety checklist.

E) Obtain consent for release of information signed by a	family member with the authority to give consent.

AGENCY NOTE: If the family will not allow the DR Specialist	access to the child or children, the family has declined family	assessment services and the requirements of subsection (e)	will be followed.

2) The SSF worker will provide intensive strength-based	family-focused services during the Strengthening and	Supporting Families service period, which will include the	following:

A) A comprehensive and collaborative evaluation of the	family’s strengths and needs that will include the family’s	financial status, basic educational screening for the children,	and physical health, mental health and behavioral health	screening for all family members. Information obtained will	be used to construct a Genogram and Ecomap for use	with the family;

B) Services to meet any immediate needs of the family,	including food, shelter and clothing;

C) A minimum of twice weekly contacts with the family,	which will include the children in the household;

D) Service planning;

E) Services to mitigate or control the causes of neglect;

F) Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol Safety	Assessments completed in accordance with the	requirements for intact families established by the Child	Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol;

AGENCY NOTE: The Child Endangerment Risk Assessment	Protocol (CERAP) is used within the larger protocol of child	protection practice to identify information consistent with	threats to child safety; to analyze safety threats to determine	how they are occurring within a particular family; and for	safety planning to control identified safety threats. The major	steps that are required to apply the protocol include an	assessment and analysis of the safety factors using the Safety	Determination Form (CFS 1441).

G) Assessment of the family’s reasonable progress in	resolving the issues that brought them to the attention of	the Department;

H) Advocacy services; and

I) Discharge planning.

AGENCY NOTE: If at anytime during the service period the	family denies the SSF worker access to the child or children,	the SSF worker will follow the requirements of Subsection	300.45 (e).

3) Strengthening and Supporting Families supervisors will	provide management services that will include review and	approval of assessments, service plans, Child Endangerment	Risk Assessment Protocol Safety Assessments, cash assistance	requests, appropriateness of service referrals, case file	documentation, requests for assessment service extensions,	and requests to close family assessment cases.

A) Supervisory review and approval of Child Endangerment	Risk Assessment Protocol Safety Assessments will be in	accordance with the Child Endangerment Risk Assessment	Protocol.

B) Families receiving Family Assessment services are eligible	for cash assistance through the Differential Response Cash	Assistance Program. The Differential Response Cash	Assistance Program provides cash assistance to families	facing environmental issues (i.e. inadequate food, shelter,	or clothing, or environmental neglect) to address an	immediate need due to environmental issues, which may	be addressed by the delivery of some immediate cash	assistance.”

The program provides cash assistance to families in the	assessment pathway. Cash assistance requests are granted	based upon the identified need of the applicant. An SSF	worker submits a completed DR cash assistance form to his	or her SSF Supervisor who forwards the form to the	Regional DR Supervisor. Regional DR Supervisors are	authorized to approve requests for $400 or less. Requests	over $400 must be approved by the DCFS DR Project	Director. Requests will be approved within 24 hours of	application excluding holidays and weekends.

C) Supervisory monitoring of service provider reports to	assess service delivery and appropriateness of services.

D) Approval of service extensions shall be based on the	child’s safety and well-being, family’s needs and progress	made in mitigating those conditions that contributed to	their involvement with the Department.

E) The following documents must be submitted to the SSF	Supervisor before formalizing case closing with the family:

I) Case Closing Summary

ii) Child and Family Service Aftercare Plan

iii) Child and Family Service Aftercare Plan Case note	documentation of required child interviews and	documentation

iv) Provider treatment reports

v) CFS 1441, Safety Determination Form

vi) Completed LEADS and SACWIS/CANTS checks for all	adult members of the household and all adults who are	frequently in the home

e) Pathway Reassignment

1) Differential Response Specialist

If a Differential Response Specialist determines that a child	is unsafe, that there is an immediate need for intervention,	or that maltreatment allegations are not within the scope of	differential response, the Differential Response Specialist shall	contact his or her supervisor within one hour after	completion of the initial contact with the family to discuss	case information and possible referral to the investigation	pathway. If the supervisor determines that the report should	be re-directed to an investigation pathway, he or she will	contact the State Central Register Supervisor without delay	to have the report transferred to investigations. The State	Central Register Supervisor will enter the date and time of	the contact with the supervisor as the report taken date	and time and enter an appropriate response code.

2) Strengthening and Supporting Families Worker

If the family refuses services anytime during the service	period and/or the SSF Supervisor and worker have	reasonable cause to believe that a child has been or is	being abused or neglected and at risk of harm at anytime	during the service delivery period, the supervisor will contact	the State Central Register Supervisor without delay to make	a report of abuse or neglect. The State Central Register	Supervisor will enter the date and time of the contact with	the SSF Supervisor as the report taken date and time and	enter an appropriate response code.

AGENCY NOTE: A case assigned to the investigation pathway	may not be reassigned to an assessment pathway.

f) Families May Refuse Assessment Pathway Services

A family may refuse to accept assessment pathway services.	However, if it is determined by the DR Supervisor after	review of available assessment and safety information that	the child’s safety is compromised by the refusal, the DR	Supervisor will re-direct the report to the investigation	pathway in accordance with subsection (e) (1). If no safety	concerns are identified, the case will be closed.

g) No Formal Determination of Maltreatment

Family members whose case follows an assessment pathway	are not labeled as perpetrators. Children in an assessment	pathway case are not labeled victims. Names of children or	family members involved in the assessment pathway are not	entered in the State Central Register, and services are	provided without a formal substantiation of alleged	maltreatment.

(Fuller et al., 2012, p. 172-177)

Organizational Structure and Staffing Differential Response takes a unique status “within the organizational structure of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 38).  Unlike a lot of other States or jurisdictions, “the State of Illinois did not locate DR within its Division of Child Protection or within an in-home services unit or prevention unit (in Illinois, Intact Family caseworkers are located within DCP)” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 38).  Instead, Illinois established a separate DR unit within the Department (Fuller et al., 2012).

Differential Response is staffed by supervisors and caseworkers employed by both the public (i.e., Department) and private sector (i.e., community-based social service agencies), who collaborate in paired teams (Fuller et al., 2012). On the public part, DCFS DR supervisors are allocated regionally throughout the state; these supervisors make a report to the DR Project Director (Fuller et al., 2012). At the stage of the site visit, “DCFS employed five DR supervisors in Illinois: one each in Cook County and the Northern, and Southern regions, and two in the Central region” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 39). Each DR supervisor oversees several frontline personnel known as DR specialists (Fuller et al., 2012). The DCFS DR specialists have a responsibility for evaluating the safety of the children via completion of the CERAP following allocation of a case to DR (Fuller et al., 2012). After completing this evaluation, they should consult with their DR supervisor who then determines finally about if the case is proper for DR or if it must be reprocessed to the investigative pathway because of the presence of safety concerns (Fuller et al., 2012).

Illinois Differential Response Organizational Structure

The Department keeps contracts with a number of private agencies responsible for supplying DR services in each of its regions (Fuller et al., 2012). The number of agencies contracted to supply DR services in each region varies, and was built up based on projected official caseloads (Fuller et al., 2012). In each agency, a Strengthening and Supporting Families supervisor and a number of caseworkers were hired (Fuller et al., 2012). SSF caseworkers have a responsibility for completing a family evaluation, improving a voluntary family development plan, and providing direct services to qualified families (Fuller et al., 2012).

Caseloads and Staffing

On the part of private-sector, SSF workers have at best caseloads of 12 cases per worker (Fuller et al., 2012). The SSF worker can be allocated to work only on DR cases ( i.e., they do not work in any other programs in the contracted agency) (Fuller et al., 2012). The SSF worker cannot oversee any staff (Fuller et al., 2012).

On the part of public-sector, “a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department and the union that governs Illinois State agency workers (AFSCME [American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees])” summarizes the staffing parameters for the newly made DCFS DR specialist and DR supervisor status, including the least job requirements and caseload considerations (Fuller et al., 2012). DR team positions are regarded temporary details that are full for 12- or 18-month terms for DR specialists and 24-month terms for DR supervisors (Fuller et al., 2012). The MOU does not specify an utmost caseload for DR specialists but writes that “the Department may set monthly case assignment goals…consider an employee’s availability, as well as the geographic locations of the case assignments…and will adjust the number of monthly case assignments accordingly” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 45).	Screening and Eligibility

“The State Central Register call floor workers” have a responsibility for processing suspected reports of neglect according to “Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Rules and Procedures” (Fuller et al., 2012). Reports that meet the standards for DR are randomly allocated to DR and forwarded to the proper regional DCFS DR supervisor for oversee and assignment. Reports that meet all of the Rules and Procedures 300.45 standards may be allocated to the DR pathway.

Eligibility for DR is based mainly on the type of suspected abuse or neglect being documented to the State Central Register, even though other elements (e.g., the age of the child) are considered for allegations of insufficient supervision (Fuller et al., 2012). After the SCR worker approves the report and allocates the allegations, eligible cases are randomly allocated to either the DR pathway or the specified investigation pathway (Fuller et al., 2012). Therefore, Even though no case can be allocated to the DR pathway that is not qualified, SCR workers have a quite amount of discretion in determining what allegations they assign to approved reports, which subsequently can affect if a case is eligible for DR (Fuller et al., 2012).

During the focus groups, participants stated that SCR workers were fabricating the allegations that they were allocating to reports, so that specific cases would not be qualified for the DR pathway (Fuller et al., 2012). Specifically, it was documented that “SCR workers were adding Allegation #60 (risk of harm due to neglect) to reports” that would otherwise be qualified for DR so that the case would need an investigation (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 46). According to one SSF worker: “And the hotline worker, two different times, has said: ‘Let's say it’s an Allegation 82, or it's environmental neglect, or it's inadequate food.  But, I added a 60 [Allegation #60] to it, so it wouldn't go to DR’ " (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 46).

It should be mentioned that “in June 2011, the time that the focus groups were conducted, the allegation of risk of harm due to neglect (#60 in the DCFS list of allegations) was not among the list of DR-eligible allegations (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 46). However, this allegation was appended to the list in July 2011, immediately after the focus groups were completed (Fuller et al., 2012).

Reassignment of Cases from DR to Investigation

When requested about the figure of cases that had been reallocated from the DR pathway to the further investigation pathway, statistics  demonstrated that a significantly large percentage (maybe as high as 15%) had been reallocated, based on the internal numbers provided to DCFS DR Project Director on a monthly basis.  It was mentioned, however, that the vast majority of these cases were reallocated because of the errors made by the SCR workers in deciding the eligibility standards during the initial screening rather than due to safety concerns with the family (Fuller et al., 2012). More specifically, a lot of reports in which the family had a prior contact with the Department (e.g., “a prior investigation or an open case”) were falsely allocated to the DR pathway, and this error typically was not identified until “the DCFS DR specialist and SSF worker” made their initial visit (Fuller et al., 2012). Once it is identified that a family has a prior document or open case, current policy writes that the case should be reallocated from the DR pathway to an further investigation (Fuller et al., 2012). Almost all groups of workers that were interviewed showed frustration with these types of trivial errors and the disruption reallocation caused for the families (Fuller et al., 2012).

Several methods exist through which individual cases that have been randomly allocated to the DR pathway can become reassigned (also well known as reprocessed in Illinois) to an investigation (Fuller et al., 2012). A case allocated to the investigation pathway usually does not be reassigned to the DR pathway (Fuller et al., 2012).

1. DCFS DR supervisors have the authority to reassign a case that has been allocated to DR into an investigation process if the case does not meet the standards for DR (Fuller et al., 2012). Before assigning reports to DCFS DR specialists, DCFS DR supervisors will oversee all reports allocated to their teams within 2 hours of receiving in the team’s e-mail, excluding out of regular time (evenings, weekends, and holidays), to make a decision their appropriateness for DR (Fuller et al., 2012).  DCFS DR supervisors also will make a contact with reporters of medical neglect allegations and may have a meeting with reporters of other allegations to back up the information communicated to the State Central Register and to acquire any additional information that may enable them to judge the appropriateness of the report for DR (Fuller et al., 2012). The DCFS DR supervisor will forward reports made a decision to be inappropriate for DR to the State Central Register for further investigation (Fuller et al., 2012).

2. If a DCFS DR specialist makes a decision during a safety evaluation that a child is unsecure, that there is an imminent need for intervention, or that abuse or neglect allegations are beyond the scope of DR, the DCFS DR specialist should have a meeting with the DR supervisor within 1 hour of finishing the initial evaluation with the family to discuss specific case information (Fuller et al., 2012). If the DR supervisor makes a decision that the report must be reallocated to an investigation on account of safety concerns, the DR supervisor will have a meeting with the SCR Supervisor promptly to have the report transferred (Fuller et al., 2012).

3. If any contact is not made with the family “by the sixth business day after case assignment”, the DCFS DR supervisor will make sure that information in SACWIS is renewed and will contact the SCR Supervisor promptly, “no later than the seventh day after case assignment,” to get the report transferred to investigations (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 41).

4. If the SSF caseworker (or supervisor) has probable suspicion to believe that “a child has been or is being abused or neglected and at risk of harm at any time during the DR service delivery period,” the SSF supervisor will make a meeting the State Central Register Supervisor promptly to make a document of abuse or neglect and have the case reallocated to investigations (Fuller et al., 2012).

Initial Contact with Families

The DCFS DR specialist has a responsibility for making a contact with the family by call within one day after case assignment to explain DR, make an initial schedule of in-home family visit, and confirm the names and dates of all family individuals and other persons residing in the household (Fuller et al., 2012). The initial visit is to take place in the family’s home within 3 business days after the report is informed at the State Central Register, excluding out of regular days (weekends and holidays) (Fuller et al., 2012). The visit will “involve the DCFS DR specialist, an SSF caseworker, adult family members, and all children” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 42).

During the initial visit of in-home meeting, the DCFS DR specialist evaluates the safety of the child(ren) at home using a organized safety evaluation instrument (“the Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol”) (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 42). If there are not any safety concerns, the DCFS DR specialist, with the aid of the SSF worker, will explain DR to family members, covering the fact that participation is voluntary (Fuller et al., 2012). The team will further explain that if the family is unwilling to take part in the program the case may either be completed (if no safety issues are discovered) or referred for investigation found on evaluated risk and/or safety issues (Fuller et al., 2012). In addition, the DCFS DR specialist should do the following at the initial contact with the family:

□ Verify identifying information and legal relationships of all	household members

□ Obtain the names and addresses of any noncustodial	parents

□ Complete a home safety checklist

□ Complete a Domestic Violence Screen

□ Obtain consent for release of information signed by a	family member with the authority to give consent.

(Fuller et al., 2012, p. 42)

Safety Assessment

In both the DR and specific investigation pathways, child safety is evaluated during the initial home-visit using “the Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol, or CERAP” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 42). In the DR pathway, the DCFS DR specialist has a responsibility for conducting the initial safety evaluation (Fuller et al., 2012). To complete the CERAP, the DCFS DR specialist collects information from all family members and through other tools to evaluate “the presence (Yes) or absence (No) of 14 safety threats” that may exist in the home, such as “caretaker has not, will not, or is unable to provide sufficient supervision to protect child from potentially moderate to severe harm.” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 42). If the DR specialist signs a “Yes” response to a threat, the response may be alleviated by family strengths or other situations, which the DR specialist writes on the evaluation form (Fuller et al., 2012). The DCFS DR specialist then determines safety issues and acquires DR supervisor approval (Fuller et al., 2012). If a DR case is unfolded for services, the SSF worker conducts a second CERAP safety evaluation prior to case closure (Fuller et al., 2012).

Voluntary Services

As stated earlier, a family may be reluctant to accept DR services (Fuller et al., 2012). In that circumstance, the following steps will be taken:

1. The DR specialist will make a contact with the DCFS DR supervisor within 1 hour of the time in the initial home-visit with the family to discuss specific case information, encompassing the intake summary, information acquired from the reporter, examinations made during the initial home-visit, CERAP, information acquired from the family, and other appropriate information (Fuller et al., 2012).

2. The DCFS DR supervisor will assess the case to make a decision if safety issues exist and if the report must be forwarded to an investigation (Fuller et al., 2012).

a. If safety is a concern, the supervisor will make a contact with the SCR Supervisor promptly to get the report transferred to investigations (Fuller et al., 2012).

b. If both the DCFS DR specialist and DCFS DR supervisor make a decision that there are not safety concerns, the case is completed without a CPS investigation (Fuller et al., 2012).

3. In the case that the DCFS DR supervisor is not accessible or vailable and there are evaluated safety issues, the DCFS DR specialist will make a contact with “the SCR Supervisor to complete the transfer of the report to the investigation pathway” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 43).

Case Opening and Services

If the family is willing to join in services, “the SSF worker will complete a Family Assessment (Form CFS 613-1) as part of the development of a Voluntary Family Enhancement Plan (Form CFS 613-2)” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 43). The SSF worker will provide comprehensive strength-based, family-oriented services during the service period, which  encompass the following:

□ A comprehensive and collaborative evaluation of the	family’s strengths and needs that will include the family’s	financial status; basic educational screening for the children;	and physical health, mental health, and behavioral health	screening for all family members. Information obtained will	be used to construct a Genogram and Ecomap for use with	the family.

□ Services to meet any immediate needs of the family,	including food, shelter and clothing.

□ A minimum of twice weekly contacts with the family,	which will include the children in the household.

□ Service planning.

□ Services to mitigate or control the causes of neglect.

□ Completion of a CERAP safety assessment in accordance	with the requirements for intact families established by the	Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol.

□ Assessment of the family’s reasonable progress in	resolving the issues that brought them to the attention of	the Department.

□ Advocacy services.

□ Discharge planning.

(Fuller et al., 2012, p. 43-44)

The SSF worker will provide intensive and specific case management via a mix of services patronized to satisfy the needs of the family (Fuller et al., 2012). The SSF caseworker’s role is anticipated to be that of “a change agent” (Fuller et al., 2012, p. 44). The SSF worker will play a role as a family consultant or advocate, and in that role will supply crisis intervention and short-term interventions; refer to and broker for in need services, if get an approval by the DCFS DR Project Director ; identify services available or accessible in the community; transport clients to vital appointments; evaluate the family of available or accessible federal, state, and local benefits; provide cash aid and in-kind assistance; connect families to community aid groups; assist with appropriate infant care and parent education; and aid the family in establishing and maintaining a safe home environment (Fuller et al., 2012). Twice per week in-home visits are required unless a family asks for fewer contacts (Fuller et al., 2012). If fewer weekly visits are asked for by the family, the SSF supervisor should discuss the call with the family and should document the discussion in SACWIS (Fuller et al., 2012). At least one visit per week is required (Fuller et al., 2012). The SSF agencies should conduct most, if not all, of the services in the client home (Fuller et al., 2012).

SSF supervisors will provide management services encompassing review and approval of: evaluations, service plans, CERAP safety evaluations, cash aid requests, appropriateness of service referrals, case  documentation, calls for evaluation service extensions, and calls for to close family evaluation cases (Fuller et al., 2012).

The service period will last 60 days on average and will last no more than 90 days without an approval of the extension (Fuller et al., 2012). Three 1-month service extensions may be approved by the DCFS DR Project Director (Fuller et al., 2012). Approval of service extensions must be based on the child’s security and well-being, the family’s needs, and improvement made in mitigating those circumstances that dedicated to the family’s engagement with the Department (Fuller et al., 2012).

DR Cash Assistance Program

The DR Cash Assistance Program is qualified for families confronting environmental issues (i.e., insufficient food, shelter, or clothing, or environmental abuse or neglect) to resolve an immediate need (Fuller et al., 2012). Cash assistance requests are granted founded on the discovered need of the family (Fuller et al., 2012). SSF workers have a responsibility for turning in a filled DR cash assistance form to their SSF supervisor, who transfers the form to the regional DCFS DR supervisor (Fuller et al., 2012). Regional DCFS DR supervisors have an authority to approve requests up to $400 (Fuller et al., 2012). Requests for larger than $400 should be approved by the DCFS DR Project Director (Fuller et al., 2012). Requests will be approved within one-day of application, excluding irregular days (holidays and weekends) (Fuller et al., 2012).

Case Closure

Before officially formalizing a DR case closing, the SSF supervisor should receive the following documents:

1. Case Closing Summary

2. Child and Family Service Aftercare Plan

3. Case note documentation of required child interviews and documentation

4. Provider treatment reports

5. CERAP Safety Determination Form

6. Law Enforcement Agency Data Systems (LEADS) and SACWIS checks for all adult members of the household and all adults who are frequently in the home

(Fuller et al., 2012, p. 45)

Although differential response programs did not show distinctive outcomes in reducing child safety in some states, a number of states appear to help children remain safe than more coercive investigation (Gupta-Kagan, 2014; Shaughnessy, 2014). One reason of the failure in some states lies in the fact that “families must first be reported to CPS and CPS handles the response” (Gupta-Kagan, 2014, p. 915). Many families called in CPS are unwilling to cooperate with CPS in fear of negative consequences (Gupta-Kagan, 2014).

Ⅳ. CONCLUSION

As for legal perspective regarding child protection from abuse, exception of the evidence rule, hearsay rule, witness testimony and court accommodations during a child testimony have been developed over time. Specifically, U.S. Supreme Court decision in Maryland v. Craig (1990) has played a significant role in establishing child witness testimony via alternatives to live testimony in defendant’s presence. Its decision clarified the interpretation of the Confrontation Clause that involves physical presence, oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor by the trier of fact, not warranting defendants an absolute right to confrontation with witnesses against them during testimony. The requisite necessity to permit alternatives to face-to-face meeting with child witnesses is somewhat stringent. To begin with, trial court should determine the necessity of child protection via evidence. Additionally, the court should recognize that the child would be traumatized substantially by the defendant’s presence.

The following courts decisions not to permit alternatives since Maryland v. Craig have been based on the deficits of this requisite necessity. These alternatives can be broadly phased in our country. In addition to one-way closed-circuit television, however, more various types of alternatives to live and face-to-face testimony between defendants and child witnesses should be allowed under more detailed and specific statute unlike the environments of U.S. According to some scholars’ suggestions, it is required to alleviate narrow requisites to the extent that child witnesses are basically regarded as medically weak people. By doing so, child witnesses can testify more freely outside the courtroom only if experts’ testimony supports the psychological or emotional trauma of the child witnesses. Also, child witnesses can utilize more easily support persons as well as support objects during in-court testimony.

Since non-governmental agencies had rescued quite a number of abused children, interventions of the federal and state governments mainly were fulfilled through child protection laws. CAPTA, the first federal law about specific standards of child protection, shaped the backbone of current child welfare systems. In the upper and lower structures of federal and state laws, outcomes of protecting children at risk of abuse are varied in each state. The failure of the CPS is the result of infra-structural deficiencies and absence of more flexible policies. To address the CPS’s failure, differential response programs have been introduced as a child-centered wellbeing strategy. These programs indicated inconsistent outcomes according to states in reducing children safety.

The differential response programs across the States can be phased in our country. they are focused on the prevention of the maltreatment (child abuse or neglect) rather than on the punishment of offenders. Considering the nature of offenders (almost all of them are parents, relatives, and well-known neighbors), punishment results in more worse situations where the maltreated children are placed. Thus, we should focus primarily on the prevention of maltreatment for the well-being of the child.

References

——. Closed-circuit television witness examination: American Law Reports.	61 A.L.R.4th	1155 (2016).

American Bar Association. (2007). Family Law in the Fifty States	2005–2006: Case Digests, 40(4), 609-751.

Baskin, D. R., & Sommers, I. (2010). Child maltreatment, placement	strategies, and delinquency. American Journal of Criminal Justice,	36, 106-119. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-010-9088-9.

Berger, L. M., Cancian, M., Cuesta, L., & Noyes, J. L. (2016). Families	at the intersection of the criminal justice and child protective	services systems. The Annals of the American Academy, 665,	171-194.

Berrick J. D., Bryant, M., Conley, A., de Elizalde, L., Garcia, V., Geer, A.,	et al. (2009). Differential response and alternative response in diverse	communities: An empirically based curriculum. Berkeley: University of	California at Berkeley, California Social Work Education Center.

Bochte, A. E. (2015). The double-edged sword of justice: The need for	prosecutors to take care of child victims. Children’s Legal Rights	Journal, 35(3), 200-214.

CARA Research Suite. (2017). State v Warford, 223 Neb 368, 389 NW2d	575 (1986).	Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/state-v-	warford-1.

CARA Research Suite. (2017). U.S. v. Bear, 357 F.3d 730 (8th Cir.	2004). Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/us-v-turning-bear.

CARA Research Suite. (2017). U.S. v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548 (8th Cir.	2005). Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/us-v-bordeaux-5.

CARA Research Suite. (2017). People v Algarin, 129 Misc 2d 1016, 498	NYS2d 977 (1986). Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/	people-v-algarin-7.

Carey, C., & Solomon, R. A. (2014). Impossible choices: Balancing safety	and security in domestic violence representation. Clinical Law	Review, 21(1), 201-254.

Children's Advocacy Institute. (2017). State v. Folk, 151 Idaho 327, 256	P.3d 735 (2011). Retrieved from http://www.caichildlaw.org	/Misc/MA_v_Padilla_amicus_brief.pdf.

Children's Bureau. (2016). Court Hearings for the Permanent Placement of	Children. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide	/laws_policies/statutes/planning.cfm.

Children's Bureau. (2016). Differential response programs. Retrieved from	https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/differential-response/.

Children’s Bureau. (2016). Family group conferencing. Retrieved from	https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/famcentered/decisions/.

Cleaveland , P. A. (1986). Use of Closed Circuit Television for Victims	of Child Abuse. University of Baltimore Law Forum. 16(3). 18-25.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (2017). commonwealth v bergstrom, 402	Mass. 534 (1988). Retrieved from http://masscases.com/cases

/sjc/402/402mass534.html.

DePanfilis, D. & Salus, M. K. (2003). Child Protective Services: A Guide	for Caseworkers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;	Administration for Children and Families; Administration on	Children, Youth and Families; Children’s Bureau; Office on Child	Abuse and Neglect.

Fell, C. T. (2013). Crying out for change: A call for a new child abuse	hearsay exception in New York State. Albany Law Review, 76,	1853-1889.

Findlaw. (2017). People v. Mosley, 167 P.3d 157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).	Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-court-of-appeals/	1586631.html.

Findlaw. (2017). State v. Bray, 335 S.C. 514, 517 S.E.2d 714 (Ct. App.	1999). Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/sc-supreme-court/	1443175.html.

Fuller, T.L., Kearney, K.A., & Lyons, S.L. (2012). Differential Response in	Illinois: 2011 Site Visit Report. Urbana, IL: Children and Family	Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

Gouchnour, L. (2016). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words	will always hurt me: Why California should expand the	admissibility of prior acts of child abuse. Pepperdine Law Review,	43, 417-460.

Gupta-Kagan, J. (2014). Toward a public legal structure for child welfare.	Nebraska Law Review, 92, 897-965.

Gupta-Kagan, J. (2016). Child protection law as an independent variable.	Family Court Review, 54, 398-412.

Hasselbach, W. A. Placing a child victim of sexual abuse behind a screen	during courtroom	testimony as violation of sixth amendment	confrontation clause: Coy v. Iowa. 57 U.	Cin. L. Rev. 1537	(1989).

Health Resources & Services Administration. (2016). Home visiting	programs. Retrieved from http://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternal-child-heal	th-initiatives/homevisiting.

James, E. A. (2014). Criminal liability against child protective services	caseworkers: An unsuitable solution to decrease the number of	preventable child fatalities in New York. Howard Law Journal,	57(3), 1033-1070.

Justia U.S. Law. (2017). State v Nutter, 258 NJ Super 41, 609 A2d 65	(1992). Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey

/appellate-division-published/1992/258-n-j-super-41-1.html.

Kaiser, M. (2015). Sit…stay…now beg for me: A look at the courthouse	dogs program and the legal standard Pennsylvania should use to	determine whether a dog can accompany a child on the witness	stand. Villanova Law Review, 60, 343-382.

Kansas Courts. (2015). State v. Bejarano, 202 P. 3d. 39 (Kan. Ct. App.	2009). Retrieved from http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and opinions	/Opinions/Unpublished/Ctapp/2015/20151023/112370.pdf.

Kutulakis, J. P. (2015). Once lagging, Pennsylvania now leads in how to	identify, investigate and treat child abuse. The Pennsylvania Lawyer,	37, 28-33.

Leagle Inc. (2017). Montgomery v. Padilla, 239 Ariz. 314, 371 P.3d 642	(Ct. App. Div. 1	2016). Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com	/decision/In%20AZCO%2020160317011/STATE%20EX%20REL.%	20MONTGOMERY%20v.%20PADILLA.

Liebolt, C. (2015). Using criminal justice theories to create more effective	policy for commercially sexually exploited children. Berkeley	Journal of Criminal Law, 20(1), 135-162.

Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2016). Home visiting programs.	Retrieved from http://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternal-child-health-initiatives      /home-visiting.

Meyer-Thompson, M. C. (2013). Wanted: Forever home achieving	permanent outcomes for Nevada’s foster children. Nevada Law	Journal, 14, 268-303.

Mulkey, E. A. (2015). Confronting legal and technological incongruity:	Reform testimony for child witnesses. Vanderbilt Journal of	Entertainment & Technology Law,17, 463-496.

Murphy, W. (2014). Traumatized children who participate in legal	proceedings are entitled to testimonial and participatory	accommodations under the Americans with disabilities act. Roger	Williams University Law Review, 19(2), 361-381.

National Institute of Justice. (2016). Family group conferencing. Retrieved	from http://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/restorative-justice/promising	-practices/pages/family-group-conferencing.aspx.

Roffman, A. H. (2014). The evolution and unintended consequences of	legal responses to childhood sexual abuse: Seeking justice and	prevention. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 34(3), 301-325.

Shaughnessy, J. M. (2014). An essay on poverty and child neglect: New	interventions. Washington & LeeJournalofCivilRightsandSocialJustice,	21(1), 5-15.

Todres, J. (2016). Can mandatory reporting laws help child survivors of	human trafficking? Wisconsin Law Review Forward, 2016, 69-78.

Walther, D. L. (2013). Duty to report abuse. American Journal of Family	Law, 28(4), 201-203.

Weissenberger , G., & Stephani, A. J. (2012). Florida Evidence 2012	Courtroom Manual.	LexisNexis Press.