Child Welfare Policies Guiding the Substantiation of Childhood Exposure to Domestic Violence As Maltreatment: A National Analysis and Recommendations

Background and purpose: Because childhood exposure to domestic violence (CEDV) is known to potentially harm children, child welfare systems frequently respond to reports of CEDV and construe such exposure as maltreatment. In the United States, however, jurisdictions vary in their conceptualization/classification of various forms of child abuse and neglect. To date, our knowledge is limited in terms of whether and when workers are instructed to substantiate CEDV as a form of maltreatment and which caregiver(s) to hold responsible. Thus, the first aim of the current study was to describe the range of policy approaches used by state-level child welfare systems for substantiating CEDV as maltreatment and the guidance provided to workers for holding caregivers responsible. The second aim of the study was to then evaluate the extent to which those policy approaches aligned with emerging best practices in this area. More specifically, we assessed whether identified policy approaches used a substantiation standard that required workers to demonstrate that children had been harmed by CEDV, whether workers were instructed to identify a primary aggressor/perpetrator in DV-related cases, and whether the state’s policy protected DV survivors from being substantiated in connection with their own victimization.

Methods: In this study we employed qualitative document analysis, a method that combines content and thematic analyses to systematically summarize categories of interest within written materials. Data were drawn from the child protective services manuals of all state-administered child welfare systems in the U.S. (N = 41). Manuals were downloaded or obtained through public records requests, and then converted into machine-readable documents to facilitate identification of relevant passages through a structured text search. Relevant data from each manual was then reviewed independently by two reviewers who deductively and inductively established a set of codes that were subsequently tested and refined. Based on our analysis and prior research, we then established four quality policy indicators for assessing the alignment of each state’s policy with emerging best practices.

Findings: Nearly three-fourths (71%) of state-administered child welfare systems have adopted a policy approach that requires workers to demonstrate that children have endured harm or the threat of harm before substantiating CEDV as maltreatment. A majority of state-administered systems (51%) also instruct workers to identify a primary aggressor during CPS investigations involving CEDV, while far fewer (37%) provide language that potentially exonerates DV survivors from responsibility for failure to protect on the basis of their own victimization. Just one state – Oregon – met all four quality policy indicators.

Conclusions and implications: While the widespread use of a “harm or threat of harm” standard was encouraging, more troubling was the limited adoption of CPS policy designed to ensure that DV perpetrators are solely held responsible for the harm generated by their use of abusive tactics. This study – and the set of policy exemplars identified – may be useful to child welfare administrators, organizers and advocates in appraising their current CPS policy related to CEDV, and making revisions intended to promote the safety and wellbeing of children and adult DV survivors.