Substantiation assessment criteria: a framework for evaluating contested substantiation in child protection practice

This article presents substantiation assessment criteria as an evidentiary framework for evaluating contested substantiation of child maltreatment in child protection practice. To accomplish this purpose, the article discusses contested substantiation and judicial outcomes in contested cases as a means of underscoring the criteria's evidentiary relevance. The article presents conceptually and empirically driven substantiation assessment criteria and highlights their relevance for guiding substantiation decisions, evidentiary hearings, and fhture research in contested substantiation of child maltreatment.Since contested substantiation of child maltreatment (i.e., appeal of substantiated findings of child abuse and neglect by child protective services [CPS]) was implemented over a decade ago (U.S. Department of Health 6c Human Services [DHHS], 1998), little empirical knowledge exists about how its outcomes (i.e., substantiation validation and invalidation outcomes) could be organized to guide research and child protection practice. Although implementation may be deemed as still in its early stages, several reasons may account for the sparse empirical knowledge, including lack of data for analysis and limited conceptual framework for evaluating its outcomes. For example, reports of child maltreatment (i.e., child abuse and neglect) by states to the DHHS or related bodies do not include data on contested substantiation. As a result, in-depth knowledge about contested substantiation is lacking compared to current knowledge about substantiation of child maltreatment (i.e., validation that past behavior harmed a child).However, despite being empirically disregarded, anecdotal reports from a few states accentuate the relevance of contested substantiation to CPS practice (Arizona Department of Health Services [ADHS], 2001; Arizona Office of the Auditor General [AOAG], 2002; Fakunmoju, 2009a; Department of Health 6c Family Services, [DHFS], 2006; Office of the State Auditor of Missouri [OSAM], 2000; Jones, Finkelhor, 6c Kopiec, 2001). These reports particularly suggest that contested substantiation influences (1) collection and interpretation of evidence, (2) case assessment outcomes, (3) maltreatment determination, (4) preventive or protective intervention for children and families, and (5) alignment of practice decisions/professional courses of action with official regulations. Specifically, the reports highlight the impacts of contested substantiation on practice decisions, policy revisions, and agency practices, including overturning or modifying of substantiation decisions.Although the broader impacts of contested substantiation to CPS practice is unknown, a legal mandate of its magnitude has the potential to influence decision making and case outcomes, impair workers' ability to execute protective decisions, or encourage practitioners to trade-off child's safety for compliance with legal procedures. Because contested substantiation may influence workers'legal considerations about cases, generating knowledge to understand its impacts is warranted. To this end, this article presents substantiation assessment criteria to discuss contested substantiation in CPS. The next section discusses implementation of the mandate and examines its impact as a means of laying groundwork for the criteria.Contested SubstantiationTo minimize decision errors associated with substantiation of child maltreatment and to ensure fairness in child protection work, the U.S. government mandated that by October 3,1998, states establish procedures to allow persons identified as perpetrators of maltreatment to contest the findings (DHHS, 1998). Reports from policy manuals, databases of law and policy data, written materials, and interviews of state administrators suggests that contested substantiation hearings are conducted in different ways across the United States, ranging from internal administrative review within the CPS agency in 27 states and the District of Columbia to review by an external independent legal body such as an Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH; 11 states) or a court (2 states; DHHS, 2003). …