An Examination of Decision‐Making Processes and Pathway of Outcomes for Child Maltreatment Referrals in Madera County 

Jerica Ramos, MSW

Child Welfare Decision‐Making Processes: Understanding Screening Processes in Calaveras and Kings Counties

Maria Bravo, MSW

Purpose

Jerica• To seek out trends in decision-making processes for Madera

County Child Welfare Services.• To identify decision-making indicators that may be present.

Maria• To examine decision-making processes that occur when a child

welfare agency receives a child maltreatment referral. • To increase understanding of screening practices to better inform

child welfare practitioners, administrators, community members, and policymakers about complex nature of child welfare decision-making.

Problem StatementsJerica• Little understanding of the factors that may be associated with the decision-

making processes in child welfare.• Explore decision-making pathways for child maltreatment referrals that are

evaluated out in Madera County.Maria• Decision-making related to child maltreatment referrals can be risky

business even with advancements, such as safety assessment tools and training meant to improve the accuracy of detecting risk factors associated with maltreatment.

• Errors in decision-making or screening are sometimes manifested in evaluated out reports of child maltreatment.

• Screening errors can have unintended consequences such as public turmoil, private distress, and a loss in public confidence in CPS.

Conceptual FrameworksJerica• Decision complexity and organizational factors• Decision-making barriers• Decision-making models

Maria• Structured Decision-Making (SDM)

– Incorporates research-based risk assessment tools to guide decision-making in child welfare and to allow agencies to target cases that are most at risk (CDSS, 2007).

• Decision-Making Ecology (DME)– Mutual connections between case, organizational, community, and individual

factors influencing case decisions and client outcomes (Wells et al., 2007). • Organizational Operations Theory

– Organizational culture is shaped by several factors: management style, social function, autonomy level and expectations of workers (Rzepnicki & Johnson, 2005).

Research QuestionsJerica• What are the characteristics of child maltreatment referral for Madera County?

• What are the decision‐making pathways for child maltreatment referral in Madera County?

Maria• Does Calaveras County have higher incidences of evaluate‐out child maltreatment referrals in comparison to California? 

• Does Kings County have higher incidences of evaluate‐out child maltreatment referrals in comparison to California? 

Methodology

• Secondary Data Analysis: Data from Center for Social Services Research (CSSR) and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s (NCCD) Children’s Research Center (CRC). 

• Subjects: Children in California between the ages of 0 to 17, who are involved with Calaveras, Kings & Madera CWS due to alleged child maltreatment.

• Data Analysis: Descriptive analysis and discussion of findings.

Child Population by Age Group2012

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Calaveras Kings Madera California

0‐5

6‐10

11‐17

N=8,280 N=40,866 N=42,037 N=9,170,525

CA Dept. of Finance

Child Maltreatment Allegations:Incidences per 1000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012

Calaveras

Kings

Madera

California

Source: CSSR

Child MaltreatmentAllegation Type ‐ 2012

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Calaveras Kings Madera California

Sexual Abuse

Physical Abuse

General Neglect

Emotional Abuse

At Risk Sibling

Other

N=487,242

N=2,949

N=2,818N=664

Source: CSSR

Calaveras County: Disposition Type

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2010 2011 2012

Substantiated

Inconclusive

Unfounded

Assessment Only/Evaluated Out

N=699 N=664

Source: CSSR

N=866

Kings County: Dispositions Type

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2010 2011 2012

Substantiated

Inconclusive

Unfounded

Assessment Only/Evaluated Out

Not Yet Determined

Source: CSSR

N=2,472N=2,429

N=2,818

Madera County:Disposition Type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2010 2011 2012

Substantiated

Inconclusive

Unfounded

Assessment Only/Evaluated Out

Not Yet Determined

N=2,823

N=2,799 N=2,949

Source: CSSR

Evaluated Out: County/California Comparison

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

2009 2010 2011 2012

Calaveras

Kings

Madera

California

Source: CSSR

Calaveras County:Allegation Type/Evaluated Out

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010 2011 2012

Other

At Risk, SiblingAbusedEmotional Abuse

General Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

N=265

N=218

N=164

Source: CSSR

Kings County:Allegation Type/Evaluated Out

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2010 2011 2012

Other

Severe Neglect

CaretakerAbsence/IncapacityAt Risk, Sibling Abused

Emotional Abuse

General Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

N=2,472 N=2,429

N=2,818

Source: CSSR

Madera CountyAllegation Type/Evaluated Out

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2010 2011 2012

Other

Severe Neglect

CaretakerAbsence/IncapacityAt Risk, Sibling Abused

Emotional Abuse

General Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

N=2,823 N=2,799 N=2,949

Source: CSSR

Calaveras County:Evaluated Out by Age Group

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012

11‐17

6‐10

0‐5

N=316

48%

27%

25%

54%

23%

23%

44%

23%

33%

44%

32%

24%

N=265 N=218 N=164

Source: CSSR

Kings County:Evaluated Out by Age Group

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012

11‐17

6‐10

0‐5

N=707 N=612 N=570 N=580

42% 39% 41% 41%

28% 27% 25% 29%

30% 34% 34% 31%

Source: CSSR

Madera County:Evaluated Out by Age Group

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012

11‐17

6‐10

0‐5

N=766

46%

26%

28%

N=851

44%

26%

30%

N=439

40%

28%

32%

N=327

44%

27%

29%

Source: CSSR

Calaveras County: Recurrence of Allegation–Assessment Only

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011

Substantiated

Inconclusive

Unfounded

Evaluated Out

No Recurrence

B=408 B=302 B=274

Source: CSSR

Kings County:Recurrence of Allegation‐Assessment Only

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011

Substantiated

Inconclusive

Unfounded

Evaluated Out

No Recurrence

B=978 B=853 B=834

Source: CSSR

Madera County:Recurrence of Allegation‐Assessment Only

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011

Substantiated

Inconclusive

Unfounded

Evaluated Out

No Recurrence

B=1051 B=1147 B=615

Source: CSSR

CRC/SDM Safety Assessment ResultsRemoval/Placement

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2010 2011 2012

Calaveras

Kings

Madera

N=409

N=986

N=909 N=994

N=1,219

N=338

N=1,022

N=1,325

N=320

CRC/SDM 2012: Most Prevalent Safety Threats in Removal Households

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Calaveras Kings Madera

Caregiver Substance Abuse

Child Immediate Need not Meet

Failure to Protect

N=54

N=128

N=105

Source: CRC/SDM

CRC/SDM 2012Most Frequent Priority Family Need

Source: CRC/SDM

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Calaveras Kings Madera

Mental Health/Coping Skills

Substance Abuse/Use

Parenting Skills

N=88

N=62

N=142

CRC/SDM 2012Most Frequent Child Need

Source CRC/SDM

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Calaveras Kings Madera

Family Relationships

Emotional/Behavioral

Education

Peer/Adult Social Relationships

Child Development

N=94

N=280

N=193

Implications of Findings for Social Work Practice

Jerica• Increased knowledge of decision-making pathways in Madera CWS.• Service provision and need• Benefits to San Joaquin Valley and surrounding counties• Influence Madera CWS’ System Improvement Plan (SIP)

Maria• As outcomes of child maltreatment reports depend largely on

decisions of child welfare officials, it is important to consider factors that drive, influence, and affect these decisions to improve child welfare screening practices.

• It is important to understand how features of human experience can influence family involvement with CPS to strengthen child maltreatment prevention and intervention efforts.

Future Areas of StudyJerica• Further study of increased removal of children by Madera County 

CWS since 2011.• The extent to which substance abuse plays a role in child welfare 

involvement with families.• This basis of information can segue into a more descriptive review 

of decision making.Maria• Further exploration of the possible factors influencing child welfare 

decisions. • Further analysis state, and county policies and protocols used in the 

review of child maltreatment allegations. • Further qualitative analysis of child maltreatment referrals received 

directly by Calaveras and Kings Counties.