CHAPTER
6
The
Child Protection System
A
Brief Overview of the Massachusetts System
Massachusetts'
child abuse reporting law identifies over thirty types of
professionals that must report suspected abuse or neglect
immediately to the Department of Social Services (DSS).
A written report or 51A must be filed within forty-eight
hours.
The
law identifies physical or emotional injury resulting from
abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, malnutrition, and drug addition
at birth as the conditions that require reporting. Citizens
who have reasonable cause to believe a child is suffering
from or has died as a result of abuse are also encouraged
to report.[128]
The
law intends to help end the abuse inflicted on our state's
children. However, current strict legal interpretation of
the mandate has meant that in 1998, the most recent year
for which full data are available, abuse and neglect were
formally confirmed among only 28 percent of children reported
that year.[129]
Of the
97,432 children reported in 1998,[130] 54 percent or 52,899
were screened in to DSS for an investigation. The remaining
46 percent or 44,533 were screened out. Of those investigated,
child abuse or neglect was supported among only 27,559 children
(25,340 were screened out).
This
means that 72 percent of all reported cases or 69,873
children were screened out either immediately, or after
investigation without any services being offered.
*
This number includes children who may have been reported
more than once for the same incident of abuse or neglect,
or children who were reported more than once for different
types of abuse in the same year.
Source: Massachusetts Department of Social Services (2000)
A closer
look at the Massachusetts system and innovations in other
states' systems will help us understand how we can better
meet the needs of these children and families.
In the
present system, when a report falls within the state's definition
of child abuse or neglect, referral to an investigation
unit is made to determine if the child is at substantial
risk of imminent harm. The Massachusetts law states that
the Department of Social Services must carry out the following
protocol:
- Investigate and evaluate the information reported;
- Evaluate the household of the child named in the report
and make a written determination of the risk of physical
or emotional injury to any other children in the same
household;
- Take a child into immediate temporary custody if the
Department has reasonable cause to believe that the removal
of the child is necessary to protect him from further
abuse or neglect;
- Notify the District Attorney within 45 days of the
service plan, if any, developed for such child and his
family. In all cases in which the Department determines
that a report of abuse or neglect is not substantiated,
the Department shall notify in writing any and all sources
or recipients of information in connection with the investigation
that the report has not been substantiated.[131]
As is
typical in child protective systems across the country,
services are offered to the family only if the allegations
of abuse or neglect are confirmed.[132] Depending on the
severity of the maltreatment and the level of risk, the
child might be removed from the home and placed in out-of-home
care, or remain at home under the supervision of child protective
services.[133] However, comprehensive service plans which
address all of the child's and family's needs are not always
developed, due to such factors as case worker overload,
and lack of resources.[134]
In Massachusetts,
if a case does not meet the legal criteria for an investigation,
it is screened out and no services are provided to the child
or family. Cases are screened out for a variety of reasons,
including: the child is over eighteen; a non-caretaker is
alleged to have committed the abuse, in which case the police
and not DSS are responsible; the case is already active
with DSS; or there is lack of evidence.[135] Some cases
are screened out even though serious harm has been inflicted
on a child, for example, when abuse is committed by a caretaker
that no longer poses a threat to the child.
If a
case is investigated but not substantiated or confirmed,
services are not likely to be provided. In a high percentage
of these cases, however, there are underlying issues within
the family that, if not addressed, could be harmful to the
child's future well-being and safety. Many of these reported
families could clearly benefit from a range of family supports.
Currently, case management services that could plan for
and link families to these supports are not provided.
Conventional
Child Protective Services
Conventional
child protection systems are often criticized for being
"over-inclusive," that is, many families that could be provided
more appropriate informal supports in the community are
the subject of costly and intrusive investigations by the
state. This practice impacts the higher-risk families who
may not receive full attention because they are competing
in a system with limited resources. The system can also
be "under-inclusive," denying services to families who could
benefit from them, but who are turned away because they
do not fit the strict legal criteria required to get their
foot in the door.[136]
Characteristics
of traditional child protective services, then, are that
they are crisis-oriented, responding only after a serious
family problem has resulted in harm to a child; they respond
to all reports of abuse/neglect in a unilateral, investigative
mode; and they provide services only when cases are formally
within the system.[137]
In a
unilateral investigation model, the caseworker focuses on
the specific reported incident and attempts to prove or
disprove its occurrence. Another important focus is on who
caused or inflicted the harm. This investigation model by
its very nature highlights family weaknesses and failures.
Predictably, it often results in defensive families who
see themselves coerced by the state's authority to participate
in services they may not believe are necessary or appropriate.
Because this model's focus is not on understanding the underlying
stressors that may have caused the abuse, families may find
themselves no better able to cope with or eliminate those
factors after the state closes their case.
Because
the state vests full authority for such cases within a single
agency, caseworkers are not predisposed to collaborate on
each case, and so are often unaware of other agencies involved
with the family. Lack of coordination can result in competing
or conflicting treatment plans, mixed messages to the family,
and unnecessary costs. Though in Massachusetts cases involving
serious bodily injury must be reported by DSS to the District
Attorney, this collaboration focuses uniquely on issues
of prosecution and not treatment.
Return
to Top
Section
III: Protecting Our Children:
|
