The purpose of this study was to conduct a
comprehensive, case-level examination of how serious child abuse and
neglect cases flow through the justice process, from initial receipt
of a report to final disposition in the criminal and/or civil
court. This was accomplished by in-depth, detailed tracking, from a
single jurisdiction, of both prospective and retrospective case
samples of serious child abuse reported to child protective services
and law enforcement agencies. The researchers anticipated that the
results of this project would address some of the justice system's
data needs on abuse and neglect cases, and would enable the design of
a national-level system for tracking reported child abuse cases that
are investigated, prosecuted, or adjudicated by criminal justice
agencies.
The four agencies that participated directly by
providing case samples and case files for tracking were: (1) Child
Protective Services (CPS), from which 225 cases were sampled from CPS
files concerning reports received in 1993 in which serious abuse or
neglect was confirmed by investigation, (2) the sheriff's office, from
which 225 cases were sampled from the sheriff's 1993 arrest and
complaint records concerning child abuse or neglect offenses or abuse
offenses committed against minors, (3) Dependency Court Legal Services
(DCLS), from which 65 dependency court cases were sampled that
involved child abuse or neglect and were closed in 1994, and (4) the
county prosecutor's office, from which 60 criminal court cases were
sampled that involved child abuse and were closed in 1994. Two of the
samples (CPS and sheriff's office) were prospective, tracking cases
from the time the abuse or neglect was reported through the final
disposition of the case, whether in that agency, en route to the
court, or in the criminal or dependency court itself. Cases sampled at
the entry points in CPS and law enforcement were cross-checked to
identify their actual point of first entry to determine which agency
was first notified of the abuse. The other two samples (DCLS and
county prosecutor's office) were retrospective, tracking cases
backward to identify how they flowed though other agencies in the
county's system. Each case was abstracted at the point of sampling and
then tracked throughout the other participating agencies by data
collectors who were each trained in one of the four agencies involved
in the study. At their "home agency," the data collectors developed
expertise on how the agency handled cases, what to expect in agency
files, and whom to contact when questions arose about a case. Matches
were sought based on several identifiers such as name, birth date,
sex, race, description of the incident, date of the incident, and
nature of harm to the child. Once the cases were selected, the
researchers examined the cases against the information about the cases
sampled in the other agencies to identify and remove duplicates.
One county was selected out of the 42 counties in the
Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3),
sponsored by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect. This county was chosen for the high degree of
automation in its existing recordkeeping system and for the fact that
the prosecutor's office had undertaken a more aggressive approach to
prosecution. Within the county, sample selection from the four
agencies included only child abuse and neglect cases considered
serious throughout the life of the case, and represented the full
range of child abuse cases that occurred in a year. The CPS cases
included in the sample represented calls to the hotline from January 1
through October 10, 1993. Cases included in the DCLS sample were those
closed between January 1 and April 4, 1994. The sample from the
sheriff's office was selected in two phases. In the first phase, all
arrests that fit the specifications and were not duplicates with other
agencies resulted in 100 qualifying 1993 arrests. In the second phase,
the first 125 cases that involved complaints concerning violations of
the selected statutes and were reported to the sheriff's office
between January 1, 1993, and May 17, 1993, were selected. The sampling
framework from the prosecutor's office included all criminal cases
handled by the Child Abuse Unit that were closed between January 1,
1994, and August 25, 1994.
All serious child abuse and neglect cases in the sample
county.
All child abuse and neglect cases in the selected
county from 1993-1994.
case files and administrative records from four county
agencies
event/transaction data, and administrative records data
Part 1, Maltreatment Abstract, Person Roster, and
CPS Abstract Data, contains three types of data. First, information is
provided on each maltreatment incident committed by each perpetrator,
background of the perpetrator and the victim, and characteristics of
the incident. The data continue with a roster of persons, which covers
the relationships among the individuals in the case and whether any of
these individuals were living together at the time of the
maltreatment. Data from the CPS abstract include which source brought
the case to the attention of Protective Services, the dates, priority,
and investigation level of the report, if any prior allegations of
maltreatment had occurred that involved either the same victims and/or
perpetrators and, if so, information on those reports, and the
perpetrator's response to the incident and level of cooperation with
the investigation. For each victim, information is given on medical
findings, if applicable, whether photographs were taken, whether a
guardian was appointed, whether the victim was assigned an interim
placement, and the CPS disposition of the case. Part 1 concludes with
information on interviews with the victim, where the case was
referred, the assessment of risk in the case, whether the victim was
placed in foster care, and any amendments to the report after the
initial investigation and classification. Part 2, Dependency Court
Abstract Data, provides information on the source of the case, which
victims were named in the indictment, the relationship to the victim
of other persons who were party to the case, whether there were prior
charges against the defendant, and, if so, information on those
charges. Other variables provide information on the reason the case
was closed, whether actions included a termination of supervision and
a new dependency petition and, if so, a description of the petition or
motion, outcome as determined by the court, explanation of the
petition or court order, status of the case, victim's status at the
closing of the case or in the open case, whom the victim was living
with, what the child's wishes were as stated in the record, the date
and action at issue in the report, and whether a guardian was
present. Part 3, Juvenile Court Schedule of Hearings Data, focuses on
the schedule of hearings, such as who was present and if they were
represented by an attorney, whether the hearing took place, and, if
not, the reason for delay. Part 4, Law Enforcement Abstract Data,
contains data from law enforcement sources, including dates when
incidents to which the police responded first occurred and last
occurred, date a complaint report was taken, date the investigative
report was completed, arrest date, how the offense was cleared, where
the case was filed, whether the case was dropped by law
enforcement and, if so, why. Variables regarding the case cover the
number of charges, details of each charge, and prior offenses and
outcomes for the perpetrator, such as substance abuse, abuse of
children, and violence toward or abuse of spouse or partner, as well as
criminal status at the time of the offense. Additional information is
provided on how the case was handled: confession, victim interview,
and what measures were taken to protect the child. Part 5, State
Attorney's Office Abstract Data, offers data on the case closing,
charges, and sentencing, as well as information on whether a guardian
ad litem was appointed, whether a victim impact statement was
submitted, type of defense attorney representing for the perpetrator,
number of defendants, if a juvenile, how the defendant was referred to
adult court, and whether the state attorney filed cases on other
perpetrators in the case. Data are also provided on the defendant's
prior offenses, which agencies were involved in the investigation,
whether the victim was interviewed by the prosecutor prior to filing,
and whether the victim was deposed by the state attorney after the
case was filed. Part 6, Criminal Court Schedule of Hearings Data,
contains information on date of arrest, filing, and court hearing,
whether a public defender was assigned, number of hearings, type of
hearing, and coded remarks about the hearing. Part 7, State Attorney
Addendum Data, provides "no-file" data from the State Attorney
Questionnaire Addendum, including if the no-file was a warrant or
arrest, date of the no-file, and reason for the no-file.
Not applicable.
None.