DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02310
title: Justice Systems Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases in a Local Jurisdiction (County) in the United States, 1993-1994
title: Archival Version

description: The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive,
 case-level examination of the full spectrum of case processing of
 serious child abuse and neglect cases as they flowed 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 samples of serious child abuse cases reported to child
 protective services and law enforcement agencies. The four agencies
 that participated directly by providing case samples and case files
 for tracking were: (1) Child Protective Services (CPS), (2) the
 sheriff's office, (3) Dependency Court Legal Services (DCLS), and (4)
 the county prosecutor's office. Each case was abstracted at the point
 of sampling and then tracked throughout the other participating
 agencies. Data were collected over a nine-month period. 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, and whether the victim was placed in
 foster care. Part 2, Dependency Court Abstract Data, provides
 information on the case, the reason the case was closed, and the
 outcome as determined by the court. 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 dates of incidents, reports, and
 arrests, details of the case, and how the case was handled. Part 5,
 State Attorney's Office Abstract Data, offers data on the case
 closing, charges, and sentencing, as well as information on the type
 of defense attorney representing the perpetrator, if a juvenile, how
 the defendant was referred to adult court, whether the state attorney
 filed cases on other perpetrators in the case, 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.
description: 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.
description: 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.
description: 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.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: 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.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Maltreatment Abstract, Person Roster, and CPS Abstract Data
DS2: Dependency Court Abstract Data
DS3: Juvenile Court Schedule of Hearings Data
DS4: Law Enforcement Abstract Data
DS5: State Attorney's Office Abstract Data
DS6: Criminal Court Schedule of Hearings Data
DS7: State Attorney Addendum Data
description: All serious child abuse and neglect cases in the sample
county.
description: (1) The structure of the data files for Parts 1-6 is
 not conceptually or physically a true hierarchical structure. All of
 these files contain multiple record types and some contain repeating
 records within a record type and/or missing record types. Also, some
 repeating series of information may span more than one record
 type. The number of records in Part 1 ranges from 369 to 1,037 in the
 26 record types with 1,284 variables and a logical record length of
 125. The number of records in Part 2 ranges from 145 to 2,463 in the
 10 record types with 486 variables and a logical record length of
 129. The number of records in Part 3 ranges from 145 to 1,295 in the 2
 record types with 31 variables and a logical record length of 46. The
 number of records in Part 4 ranges from 472 to 4,158 in the 5 record
 types with 151 variables and a logical record length of 79. The number
 of records in Part 5 ranges from 144 to 258 in the 7 record types with
 255 variables and a logical record length of 132. Finally, the number
 of records in Part 6 ranges from 247 to 2,172 records in the 2 record
 types with 28 variables and a logical record length of 34. (2) The
 user guide, codebooks, and data collection instruments are provided as
 Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
 developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
 reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
 to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR
Website on the Internet.