|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Substantiation and Adverse Appeal Outcomes: Content Analysis and Testing of Drake's Harm/Evidence Model
Sunday Bolanle Fakunmoju*
University of Maryland School of Social Work
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: SFakunmoju{at}ssw.umaryland.edu.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Little is known about the influence of evidentiary and case characteristics on adverse appeal outcomes for substantiated cases of maltreatment. This article, therefore, reports on a sample of adverse appeal outcomes during a 2-year period. Using Drakes Harm/Evidence model to examine the adverse outcomes, the study describes differences between substantiated cases that were "modified" versus "overturned" during appeal, as well as differences in their evidentiary characteristics across different types of maltreatment. Content analysis and logistic regression analysis of administrative data were used to predict overturned versus modified outcome. Overall, child neglect, substantiated cases that did not meet basic evidentiary standards, and cases that were deemed as not credible were more likely to be overturned in comparison to being modified. A substantiation assessment framework (SAF) is developed and implications of Drakes Harm/Evidence model for investigating maltreatment as well as for understanding judicial decision making in appealed cases of maltreatment is highlighted.
First published on July 8, 2008, doi:10.1177/1077559508320386
Child Maltreatment 2009;14:53.
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?
|
|