A statewide stratified sample of 1,000 adolescents aged 16 and 17 years who were the subject of a CPS referral for allegations of neglect were randomly selected and their records extracted from California’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS). Structured fields were used to formally code children based on demographic characteristics and CPS histories. Unstructured data (gathered at hotline call) and investigative narrative (gathered during the investigation stage) were used to conduct a content analysis of the reported concerns. Type of neglect, household risk factors, level of parental engagement, and service referrals are documented.
Findings suggest that approximately 43% of referrals pertained to the adolescent’s behavioral health and 31% to the adolescent’s emotional health. Among referrals related to child behavior, 1 in 4 were for truancy and approximately 1 in 3 were due to the child’s use of alcohol and drugs. Other frequent concerns were lack of supervision (22%) (i.e. caregiver absence, caregiver not allowing minor to live at the home), unmet material needs (18%) and lack of protection from physical or sexual abuse (32%). Commonly reported household concerns were caregiver alcohol or substance use (30%), domestic violence (12%), and caregiver mental illness (11%). Despite the frequency of mental and behavioral health concerns for the child and caregiver, less than 40% received service referrals and less than 10% had a CPS case opened.
This study provides new and compelling evidence on the nature and context of adolescent neglect and allow for clarification as to whether the concerns for adolescents being brought to the attention of CPS meet statutory guidelines for neglect – and therefore fall within the purview of CPS – or are largely callers seeking help for issues that would be outside of CPS’s scope for services. Findings indicate gaps in service need and referrals and also emphasizes the necessity for better coordination between mental health and social service agencies, as well as a reevaluation of intervention protocols.