Child Protective Services Guidelines for Substantiating Exposure to Domestic Violence as Maltreatment and Assigning Caregiver Responsibility: Policy Analysis and Recommendations.

The purpose of this study was to examine the range of policy approaches used by child welfare systems in the United States to guide workers in classifying and substantiating child exposure to domestic violence (CEDV) as an actionable form of maltreatment. To that end, we conducted a qualitative document analysis of child protective services (CPS) policy manuals from all state-administered child welfare systems in the U.S. (N = 41). Our findings indicate that a majority of state-administered systems (71%) have adopted policy requiring workers to demonstrate that children have endured harm or the threat of harm before substantiating CEDV-related maltreatment. Many state systems (51%) also include policy directives that require workers to identify a primary aggressor during CPS investigations involving CEDV, while far fewer (37%) provide language that potentially exonerates survivors of domestic violence from being held accountable for failure to protect on the basis of their own victimization. Based on our findings and identification of policy exemplars, we offer a recommended set of quality policy indicators for states to consider in the formulation of their policy guidelines for substantiating children's exposure to domestic violence that promotes the safety and wellbeing of both children and adult survivors of domestic violence.

Child Protective Service Referrals Involving Exposure to Domestic Violence: Prevalence, Associated Maltreatment Types, and Likelihood of Formal Case Openings.

Childhood exposure to domestic violence (CEDV) is widely understood as potentially harmful to children. Accordingly, many child welfare systems in the United States construe CEDV as maltreatment when the exposure results in harm or threatened harm to the child. The purpose of the current study was to investigate substantiated child welfare referrals directly related to CEDV to better understand the prevalence and patterns of CEDV-related maltreatment and how child welfare workers respond under the "harm or threatened harm" standard. Data were drawn from 23,704 substantiated referrals between 2009 and 2013 in a large Midwestern child welfare system. Approximately 20% of substantiated referrals were CEDV related. A plurality of CEDV-related referrals included both a male caregiver and female caregiver who were co-substantiated for maltreatment. The most common maltreatment types substantiated for these referrals were neglect based rather than abuse based, and just under a quarter (23%) of CEDV-related referrals were formally opened for services. Referrals involving co-occurring substance abuse were most likely to be opened for services based on predicted probabilities derived from multilevel modeling. Implications for policy and practice are considered.

Timing matters: A randomized control trial of recovery coaches in foster care.

Substance use disorders are a major problem for child welfare systems. The abuse of and dependence on alcohol and drugs by parents increases the risk of child maltreatment and interferes with efforts to locate a permanent home for children in foster care. The current study focuses on an intervention designed to increase the probability of reunification for foster children associated with substance using families. We focus specific attention on the timing of the intervention, in particular the timing of comprehensive screening and access to substance abuse services in relation to the temporary custody hearing. A diverse group of children (n=3440) that were placed in foster care and associated with a parent diagnosed with a substance use disorder were randomly assigned to either a control (services as usual) or experimental group (services as usual plus a recovery coach for parents). Binomial logistic regression models indicated that early access to substance use services matters (within two months of the temporary custody hearing) but only when parents were connected with a recovery coach. Additional findings indicated that the recovery coach model eliminated racial disparities in reunification. The implications of these findings are discussed.