Child Maltreatment 2011 Key Findings and Expanded Discussion
Webinar Q&A
Participants submitted the following questions during the webinar: Child Maltreatment 2011 Key
Findings and Expanded Discussion on February 7, 2013. The responses were developed by the
Administration on Children, Youth and Families staff and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
System (NCANDS) Technical Team. The Child Maltreatment report series is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment
Question 1: Where will the webinar materials be posted?
Answer: The audio recording, slides, and audience questions and answers are posted on the National
Resource Center for Child Protective Services (NRCCPS) website at www.nrccps.org.
Question 2: Who reports data to NCANDS?
Answer: The 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico submit data
voluntarily to NCANDS. These entities are commonly referred to as the 52 States in NCANDS. For
additional information on NCANDS reporting, please go to chapter 1, Introduction beginning on p. 2 of
the Child Maltreatment 2011 report.
Question 3: What happens to screened-out referrals?
Answer: CPS agencies use a two-stage process for handling allegations of child maltreatment: (1)
screening and (2) response. During the screening stage, an initial notification—called a referral—alleging
child maltreatment is received by CPS. Agency hotline or intake units conduct the screening process to
determine whether the referral is appropriate for further action.
Referrals that do not meet agency criteria are screened out. The reasons behind the determination to
screen out a referral may include one or more of the following:
 did not meet the State’s intake standard
 did not concern child abuse and neglect
 did not contain enough information for a CPS response to occur
 response by another agency was deemed more appropriate
 children in the referral were the responsibility of another agency or jurisdiction (e.g., military
installation or Tribe)
 children in the referral were older than 18 years
For additional information about referrals, please go to chapter 2, Reports beginning on p. 5 of the Child
Maltreatment 2011 report. State-specific information about the screening process may be found in
appendix D, State Commentary beginning on p. 129.
Question 4: What is the definition of disposition?
Answer: The definition of disposition is:
DISPOSITION: A determination made by a social service agency that evidence is or is not sufficient
under State law to conclude that maltreatment occurred. A disposition is applied to each individual
child within a report and to the overall report. Each State defines the types of child abuse and neglect
in State statute and policy.
1
Child Maltreatment 2011 Key Findings and Expanded Discussion
Webinar Q&A
Child protective services (CPS) agencies determine the appropriate response for the alleged maltreatment
based on those statutes and policies. The most common response is an investigation. The result of an
investigation response is a determination (also known as a disposition) about the alleged child
maltreatment. The two most prevalent dispositions are:
 Substantiated: An investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or
risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by State law or policy.
 Unsubstantiated: An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient
evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at-risk of being
maltreated.
For additional definitions used in NCANDS and the Child Maltreatment report, please go to appendix B,
Glossary beginning on p. 112. For additional information about dispositions, please go to chapter 3,
Children beginning on p. 15.
Question 5: What is the definition of alternative response and what disposition do families receive
in alternative response programs?
Answer: Some States use an alternative approach to an investigation, which may be called alternative
response, family assessment response (FAR), or differential response (DR). Cases assigned this response
often include early determinations that the children have a low-risk of maltreatment. This response
usually includes the voluntary acceptance of CPS services and the mutual agreement of family needs.
Such cases do not usually make a specific determination of the allegation of maltreatment.
However, in cases where services are required by the agency rather than provided solely on a voluntary
basis, some States also use the concept of a victim. While in general, families who are assigned to an
alternative response do not receive a finding on the allegations, in this report the term disposition is used
for the determinations of both investigation responses and alternative responses. Each State that uses
alternative response decides how to map its codes for these programs to the National Child Abuse and
Neglect Data System (NCANDS) codes:
 Alternative Response Victim: The provision of a response other than an investigation that
determines that a child was a victim of maltreatment.
 Alternative Response Nonvictim: The provision of a response other than an investigation that did
not determine that a child was a victim of maltreatment.
As alternative response programs evolve, there are more variations to the programs. For example, 11
States mention in their commentary (appendix D) that they have a type of alternative response program
that does not go through CPS and (appropriately) the data are not reported to NCANDS. Many of these
additional programs provide services for families that do not have allegations of maltreating children and
do not meet the State’s criteria for CPS intervention. The 11 States with these programs are Alabama,
California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and South Dakota. Other States commented that an alternative response program might be
implemented in the coming years. Readers are encouraged to review appendix D for more information
about these programs.
2
Child Maltreatment 2011 Key Findings and Expanded Discussion
Webinar Q&A
Question 6: What were the two States that reported reduced death rates due to successful
prevention programs?
Answer: This question is in response to the decrease in the reported number and rate of child fatalities
from 2009 to 2010 (see the two graphics below). Table 4–2, Child Fatalities, 2007–2011 (p. 64 in Child
Maltreatment 2011) shows 29 States reported fewer child fatalities in 2010 when compared with 2009.
Several States provided explanations for the decrease in their State commentaries in Child Maltreatment
2010 (because the reduction occurred from 2009 to 2010, the explanations are provided in the 2010
report).
Explanations for the reduction included system improvements that reduced case backlog and successful
prevention programs that explained the dangers of cosleeping, unsecured medications and weapons, and
unsupervised pool or other water play. Due to the relatively low frequency of child fatalities, the national
estimate and national rate are sensitive to which States report data and changes in the child population
estimates produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Two States with the largest decrease, California (-65
fatalities) and Texas (-57 fatalities) are also two of the largest States in the country and their populations
have a larger effect on the national estimate and rate. State commentary from 2010 cited the following
reasons for reporting fewer child maltreatment deaths:
 California adopted new regulations and developed a new data source for child fatality data.
Calendar year 2008 is the most recent validated data, and the 120 fatalities is the number reported
by the State for 2010.
 Indiana increased staffing to complete fatality reviews in a more timely manner than had been
done previously and reduced backlog.
 Nevada cited an unusually large number of drowning and overdose deaths in one year followed
by successful prevention programs focused on safe sleeping environments, weapon safety, proper
medication storage and usage, and adult supervision during water play.
 Texas reviewed a decade’s worth of child maltreatment fatalities and concluded that during 2009,
an unusually large number of children died due to maltreatment. The State commented that the
number of child fatalities reported for 2010 is a return to the historical trend.
Question 7: Were children with disabilities included in the data?
Answer: Children who were reported with any of the following risk factors were considered to have a
disability: mental retardation, emotional disturbance, visual or hearing impairment, learning disability,
physical disability, behavioral problems, or another medical problem. Children with risk factors may be
undercounted as not every child receives a clinical diagnostic assessment.
3
Child Maltreatment 2011 Key Findings and Expanded Discussion
Webinar Q&A
Table 3–9, Victims With a Reported Disability, 2011 (p. 46 in Child Maltreatment 2011) shows that 11.2
percent of (unique count) victims were reported as having a disability. Nearly 4 percent (3.8%) of victims
were reported as having a medical condition not classified in NCANDS, 2.6 percent of victims had
behavior problems, and 2.1 percent were emotionally disturbed. A victim could have been reported with
more than one type of disability.
Question 8: What were the ages of the children who suffered sexual abuse?
Answer: This question is about the crosstab relation analysis that was conducted to delve further into the
characteristics of (unique count) victims (see graphic below). Selected maltreatment types of victims were
analyzed by age to examine the distribution of age within each maltreatment type. Of the victims who
were sexually abused, 26.3 percent were in the age group of 12–14 years and 21.8 percent were in the age
group of 15–17 years. Exhibit 3–G, Selected Maltreatment Types of Victims by Age, 2011 (p. 22 in Child
Maltreatment 2011) displays all of the data for this analysis.
4
Child Maltreatment 2011 Key Findings and Expanded Discussion
Webinar Q&A
Question 9: Why are the rates of victimization for children of Asian descent lower than other races
and ethnicities?
Answer: Table 3–7, Victims by Race and Ethnicity, 2007–2011 displays the rates and percentages of
victims across 5 years. The victimization rate for Asian children has fluctuated from a low of 1.7 per
1,000 children to 2.2 per 1,000 children of Asian race. We do not have an explanation as to why the rates
are so much lower than for other races. There have been several studies that examined racial
disproportionality in the child welfare system. We suggest using the Digital Library at the National Data
Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at
http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/bibliography.html to answer your question.
Question 10: Which States require all States individuals to report suspected child abuse and neglect
and which States allow anyone to report?
Answer: This question is related to the additional research conducted by the NCANDS Technical Team
and is not part of the annual Child Maltreatment report. The analysis is based on a document posted to the
Child Welfare Information Gateway titled Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect. The
document discusses State statutes related to mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect and is located
at http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm. For analytical purposes,
the States were categorized as one of the following groups:
 Required: States require all individuals to report suspected child abuse and neglect (19 States).
Those States are Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
 Permissive: Any individual may report suspected child abuse and neglect, but not everyone is
required to report maltreatment (The remaining 33 States).
Question 11: In the 19 States where all individuals are required to report suspected maltreatment,
is there any racial disproportionality?
Answer: The proportions of rates by race and ethnicity did not change for the larger racial groups. In the
smaller racial groups where populations may not be distributed evenly across the States, the rate per 1,000
for American Indian and Alaska Native decreased and the rate per 1,000 for Pacific Islander increased.
There have been several studies that examined racial disproportionality in the child welfare system; we
suggest using the Digital Library at the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN)
at http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/bibliography.html to answer your question.
5
Child Maltreatment 2011 Key Findings and Expanded Discussion
Webinar Q&A
Question 12: Does NCANDS collect and report data about the time to permanency?
Answer: NCANDS does not collect and report data about how long children were in foster care and the
timeliness to permanency. Data on children in foster care are submitted by States and tribal title IV-E
agencies to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). AFCARS data are
used to monitor several outcomes, including timeliness of reunification and adoption, used in the Child
and Family Services Reviews. State performance on these outcomes is published in the Child Welfare
Outcomes Report to Congress and available on the Child Welfare Outcomes Report Data Site at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/cwo. For additional
information about AFCARS, please visit http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-datatechnology/reporting-systems/afcars.
Question 13: What information is available on child well-being?
Answer: The Information Memorandum (IM) ACYF-CB-IM-12-04, released April 2012, explains the
priority of ACYF to promote social and emotional well-being for children and youth receiving child
welfare services, and to encourage child welfare agencies to focus on improving the behavioral and
social-emotional outcomes for children who have experienced abuse and/or neglect. This IM is available
on the Children’s Bureau website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/im1204
Question 14: Are any studies available that examine how changes in the CPS workforce can affect
child maltreatment?
Answer: The effects of CPS workforce and caseload on the rates of victimization have been examined by
others throughout the years. We suggest using the Digital Library at the National Data Archive on Child
Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/bibliography.html to answer
your question.
6