Can central registries improve substantiation rates in child abuse and neglect cases?

Abstract

Central registries for child abuse and neglect have been criticized because the high proportion of unsubstantiated cases are alleged to represent an unwarranted intrusion into family life. The response to this criticism is usually a spirited defense of the social worker investigation and data distinguishing false (“fictitious”) claims from unsubstantiated cases. This article asks what a reasonable substantiation rate would be in a system that operates flawlessly and examines the impact on substantiation rates of noninvestigatory variables, such as technical, legal, and policy factors. The research concluded that technical factors, such as number of maltreatment categories and number of disposition categories, did not affect substantiation rates. Legal factors, such as standards of proof, provision of notice and right to review records, were somewhat associated with lower substantiation rates, but changes in legal standards are definitely not recommended as a method of increasing substantiation rates. Of the policy factors, use of risk assessment models is an excellent way to improve substantiation rates without compromising due process safeguards.