|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Differentiating Between Substantiated, Suspected, and Unsubstantiated Maltreatment in Canada
Nico Trocmé1*,
Della Knoke2,
Barbara Fallon2,
and
Bruce MacLaurin3
1 McGill University
2 University of Toronto
3 University of Calgary
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: nico.trocme{at}mcgill.ca.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The decision to substantiate is a key factor in determining eligibility for services and decisions to press criminal charges or to remove a child, and it is frequently the basis for selecting samples of maltreated children or to measure recidivism or intervention effectiveness. Although there is a growing body of research on case substantiation in the United States, few studies have examined this decision in other jurisdictions. Using data from the 2003 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, this study examines the profiles of a national sample of 10,010 investigations. Multivariate analyses reveal that substantiation decisions are generally made in a fashion that is relatively consistent with the clinical characteristics of cases. Along with severity of harm, parent risk factors, and housing risk factors, police referrals are among the most important predictors of case substantiation. Cases involving multiple forms of maltreatment are also more likely to be substantiated.
First published on August 18, 2008, doi:10.1177/1077559508318393
Child Maltreatment 2009;14:4.
A more recent version of this article appeared on February 1, 2009

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Fluke
Allegory of the Cave: On the Theme of Substantiation
Child Maltreat,
February 1, 2009;
14(1):
69 - 72.
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|