Child Maltreatment in New Hampshire

1. Child Maltreatment in New Hampshire Assessing the Substantiation Process Sakina Abu Boakye, Irene Cofie, and Mariel Wallace The contents of this report were developed under grant P116B100070 from the U.S. Department of Education. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

2. Executive Summary • Quantitative Analysis • Qualitative Analysis: State Comparisons • Qualitative Analysis: DCYF Interviews • Conclusions

3. Quantitative Findings: NCANDS Data Analysis

4. Data and Methods • Goal: Are certain demographic characteristics in children and caregivers associated with substantiation? • Data: 2010-2012 NCANDS data sets • Tests: chi square with a 95% confidence level

5. 2012 Data Findings • Significant relationships • County of Report: Merrimack, Rockingham • Report Source: Law Enforcement, Social Services • Living Situation: Non-parent relative, non-parent • Maltreatment type: physical, sexual • Risk Factors—higher rate of substantiation if 1+ risk factors present

6. Changes Over Time • Significant relationships • County of Report • Report Source • Living Arrangement • Prior Victim Status • Public Assistance • Mental Retardation-Child • Alcohol/Drug Abuse-Caregiver • Emotionally Disturbed-Caregiver • Inadequate Housing

7. Data Analysis Conclusions • Cases with unusual or “red flag” characteristics tend to have a higher chance of substantiation • Majority of significant relationships do not change over time • Child Protection Act amended in 2011—slight effects on substantiation

8. Qualitative Findings: State Comparison

9. State Comparison • In New Hampshire, 3 out of every 1,000 children substantiated maltreatment. • Possible Influences: • Screening Process • Definition • Discrepancy

10. State Comparison • Assessment Process: • The assessment process for most states is generally similar; however, variations exist that may influence the substation rates of the respective states. • Timeframe of Assessment • Trends

11. Qualitative Findings: DCYF Interviews

12. Factors leading to a low substantiation rate • Screening process • Anonymous reports • Incomplete reports • State Definition of physical harm • High standard of proof

13. Proposed solutions • Screening process • Required questions for reporters • Screen out anonymous reports • State Definition of physical harm • Move from abuse to neglect grouping • Classification of cases • Founded/unfounded v. Founded/unfounded/unfounded at risk

14. Conclusions • Cases with risk factors have higher rate of substantiation • NH definition of abuse and screening process perhaps leading to low substantiation • States with a higher number of categories, that do not address psychological harm and have a shorter investigation period have higher rates of substantiation