The Juvenile Court and Dependency Cases

Medicine, Science and the Law

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 100-110

  Barth, Richard P ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD ADVOCACY; CUSTODY; ETHNOLOGY; HUMAN; INFANT; LEGAL ASPECT; NEWBORN; PRESCHOOL CHILD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD ADVOCACY; CHILD CUSTODY; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1842530706     PISSN: 00258024     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. In most communities across the country, instances of child abuse and neglect are reported either to the child protective services agency or to law enforcement. These agencies investigate the reports. If a criminal case against an adult for child abuse and neglect is pursued, law enforcement and local prosecutors stay involved. Otherwise, child abuse and neglect cases are typically handled primarily by child protective services and the juvenile court.
2. For a good discussion of the major national data sources and the difficulties in collecting child abuse data, see Lewit, E.M., Child indicators: Reported child abuse and neglect. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1994) 4,2:233-242. For a review of the nearly nonexistent national adoption data, see Stolley, K.S. Statistics on adoption in the United States. The Future of Children (Spring 1993) 3,1:26-42. Whittaker and Pfeiffer recently reviewed the research on residential group child care and showed that related research may be the most limited of that available for any child welfare service program. Whittaker, J.K., and Pfeiffer, S.I. Research priorities for residential group care. Child Welfare (1994) 73:583-601. The most promising advance in the development of child welfare data is that data can now be analyzed on the individual level in at least five large states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas) as part of the multistate data archive effort led by the Chapin Hall Center for Children in Chicago, Illinois. More detailed analyses are available within some states and jurisdictions from administrative data or case reviews. The very idiosyncratic nature of child welfare services makes broad generalizations from these studies suspect, but they are worth consideration when they raise questions that bear review in each jurisdiction.
3. For a good discussion of the major national data sources and the difficulties in collecting child abuse data, see Lewit, E.M., Child indicators: Reported child abuse and neglect. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1994) 4,2:233-242. For a review of the nearly nonexistent national adoption data, see Stolley, K.S. Statistics on adoption in the United States. The Future of Children (Spring 1993) 3,1:26-42. Whittaker and Pfeiffer recently reviewed the research on residential group child care and showed that related research may be the most limited of that available for any child welfare service program. Whittaker, J.K., and Pfeiffer, S.I. Research priorities for residential group care. Child Welfare (1994) 73:583-601. The most promising advance in the development of child welfare data is that data can now be analyzed on the individual level in at least five large states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas) as part of the multistate data archive effort led by the Chapin Hall Center for Children in Chicago, Illinois. More detailed analyses are available within some states and jurisdictions from administrative data or case reviews. The very idiosyncratic nature of child welfare services makes broad generalizations from these studies suspect, but they are worth consideration when they raise questions that bear review in each jurisdiction.
4. For a good discussion of the major national data sources and the difficulties in collecting child abuse data, see Lewit, E.M., Child indicators: Reported child abuse and neglect. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1994) 4,2:233-242. For a review of the nearly nonexistent national adoption data, see Stolley, K.S. Statistics on adoption in the United States. The Future of Children (Spring 1993) 3,1:26-42. Whittaker and Pfeiffer recently reviewed the research on residential group child care and showed that related research may be the most limited of that available for any child welfare service program. Whittaker, J.K., and Pfeiffer, S.I. Research priorities for residential group care. Child Welfare (1994) 73:583-601. The most promising advance in the development of child welfare data is that data can now be analyzed on the individual level in at least five large states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas) as part of the multistate data archive effort led by the Chapin Hall Center for Children in Chicago, Illinois. More detailed analyses are available within some states and jurisdictions from administrative data or case reviews. The very idiosyncratic nature of child welfare services makes broad generalizations from these studies suspect, but they are worth consideration when they raise questions that bear review in each jurisdiction.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Child maltreatment 1994: Reports from the states to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996. Because some states report more than one type of abuse per victim, totals may not equal 100%.
6. Hampton, R.L. Race, class and child maltreatment. Journal of Comparative Family Studies (1987) 18,1:113-26.
7. Neuspiel, D.R., Zingman, T.M., Templeton, V.H., et al. Custody of cocaine-exposed newborns: Determinants of discharge decisions. American Journal of Public Health (1993) 83:1726-29.
8. Courtney, M.E., Barth, R.P., Berrick, J.D., et al. Race and child welfare services: Past research and future directions. Child Welfare (1996) 75:99-137.
9. Sabotta, E.E., and Davis, R.L. Fatality after report to a child abuse registry in Washington State, 1973-1986. Child Abuse & Neglect (1992) 16:627-35.
10. U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. A nation's shame: Fatal child abuse and neglect in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.
11. Berrick, J.D., Needell, B., Barth, R.P., and Jonson-Reid, M. The tender years: Toward developmentally sensitive child welfare services for very young children. New York: Oxford University Press. In press.
12. Tjaden, P.G., and Thoennes, N. Predictors of legal intervention in child maltreatment cases. Child Abuse & Neglect (1992) 16:807-21.
13. The Administrative Practices Improvement Project in Santa Clara County, California, found that, in 1993, of 24,454 reports received, 22,437 (91.8%) were closed at intake, 1,142 (4.7%) resulted in voluntary services to the families, and 875 (3.6%) resulted in a petition to the juvenile court to take jurisdiction. For additional information about this project, call John Oppenheim, Chief Deputy Director, Social Services Administration, at (408) 441-5666.
14. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Public Law 96-272, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670-679a.
15. Westat and James Bell Associates. National study of preventive, protective, and reunification services delivered to children and their families: Preliminary findings. Unpublished paper. Washington, DC, 1995.
16. California Department of Social Services. Preplacement preventive services for children in California. Annual statistical report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Social Services. It should be noted as well that nearly 46% of the cases seen in the in-home services program (including investigations and family maintenance) had been seen in the child welfare system at least once before. Hill, E.G. Child abuse and neglect in California. Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst's Office, 1996.
17. California Department of Social Services. Preplacement preventive services for children in California. Annual statistical report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Social Services. It should be noted as well that nearly 46% of the cases seen in the in-home services program (including investigations and family maintenance) had been seen in the child welfare system at least once before. Hill, E.G. Child abuse and neglect in California. Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst's Office, 1996.
18. Schuerman, J.R., Rzepnicki, T.L., and Littel, J.H. Putting families first: An experiment in family preservation. New York: Aldine DeGruyter, 1994; Barth, R. Long-term in-home services. In When drug addicts have children. D. Besharov, ed. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1979, pp. 175-94.
19. Schuerman, J.R., Rzepnicki, T.L., and Littel, J.H. Putting families first: An experiment in family preservation. New York: Aldine DeGruyter, 1994; Barth, R. Long-term in-home services. In When drug addicts have children. D. Besharov, ed. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1979, pp. 175-94.
20. Yuan, Y.Y., McDonald, W.R., Wheeler, C.E., et al. Evaluation of AB1562 in-home care demonstration projects. Sacramento, CA: Walter McDonald Associates, 1990.
21. Goerge, R.M., and Harden, A.W. Child welfare services for drug-exposed children. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 1993.
22. Tatara, T. Voluntary Cooperative Information System research notes. Washington, DC: American Public Welfare Association, August 1995.
23. Goerge, R.M., Wulczyn, F.H., and Harden, A.W. Foster care dynamics, 1983-1993: An update from the multistate foster care data archive. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 1995.
24. Chipman, R., England, P., Wells, S., and Fluke, J. Predictive validity of risk assessment models. Englewood, CO: American Association for Protecting Children, 1994.
25. Texas has a far smaller number of children in kinship foster care which lowers their prevalence rate.
26. Barth, R.P. Permanent placements for young children placed in foster care: A proposal for a child welfare services performance standard. Children & Youth Services Review. In press.
27. See also Jellinek, M.S., Little, M., Benedict, K., et al. Placement outcomes of 206 severely maltreated children in the Boston juvenile court system: A 7.5-year follow-up study. Child Abuse & Neglect (1995) 19:1051-64. In this study, the plan after seven years for two-thirds of the children was adoption or other permanent placement. Despite this plan, 21% were still awaiting a permanent placement.
28. Barth, R.P., and Blackwell, D.L. Child deaths as an outcome indicator for child welfare services. Paper presented to the 36th annual meeting of the National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics. San Francisco, CA, July 9, 1996.
29. Courtney, M.E. Reentry to foster care of children returned to their families. Social Service Review (1995) 69:226-41.
30. Wulczyn, F. Caseload dynamics and foster care reentry. Social Service Review (1991) 65:133-56.
31. Curtis, P., Boyd, J.D., Liepold, M., and Petit, M. Child abuse and neglect: A look at the states. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1994.
32. Needell, B. Dynamics of kinship care. In Child welfare research review. Vol. II. J.D. Berrick, R.P. Barth, and N. Gilbert, eds. New York: Columbia University Press. In press.
33. Texas's proportion of children in congregate care is higher relative to other placements because they do not have a relative foster care designation and have a very low prevalence of children in out-of-home care. Goerge, R.M., Wulczyn, F.H., and Harden, A.W. An update from the multistate foster care data archive. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1995, note no. 19.