Progress and issues in the implementation of the 1984 out-of-home care protection amendment

CAPTA and the Residential Placement: A Survey of State Policy and Practice

“…As they pointed out in their report of the findings, those states that defined a conflict-ofinterest as the third type would be unable to investigate complaints regarding even foster care providers if these policies were fully implemented (Rindfleisch and Nunno 1992). These definitions do not deal with the conflict apparent to many social work practitioners involving the interrelationships of local CPS offices when one office is responsible for a placement and another is providing the investigation, or similarly with state and local offices.…”

“…A review of child welfare literature showed that the relatively minor attention to problems of maltreatment in out-of-home care is mostly focused on foster home care even to this date. 3 As Rindfleisch and Nunno (1992) point out, however, the decision to seek independency in out-of-home care investigations should not lead to a decrease in attention to the role of protective services in providing intervention services for children in out-ofhome care, nor an assumption of this authority by local law enforcement or licensing agencies in lieu of providing specialized protective services. It is licensing services that should set and monitor standards to prevent maltreatment, and protective services that should investigate and intervene in maltreatment.…”

“…Three out of four states had designated local and/or state CPS offices as the child protection agency, with a wide range of policy regarding avoiding conflicts of interest, with local offices designated 60% of the time, but ''insufficiently selfcritical about this practice of investigating themselves'' (Rindfleisch and Nunno 1992). In other words, the majority of out-of-home child protective services was undertaken by local CPS offices, who often had conflicted relationships with other local providers of day care centers, as well as being the placement agency for foster care, group home, and often residential and institutional placements.…”

“…By 1989, most states had become compliant with the eligibility requirement to broaden the mandatory reporting of child abuse to providers in out-of-home care, but it was clear by then that the states were providing incomplete and Child Youth Care Forum (2009) 38:55-68 57 inconsistent information regarding out-of-home maltreatment. Further, according to a follow-up study by Rindfleisch and Nunno (1992).…”

“…When public attention turned to child abuse and neglect in the 1970s, early estimates suggested that the risk was actually higher in out-ofhome care-placement such as institutions, residential treatment facilities, group homes, foster homes, and day care services-than familial care. Although the information is limited, the risk for child abuse and neglect while in residential or institutional placements has been found to be as great or greater than that of the familial setting (Rindfleisch and Rabb 1984;Rindfleisch and Nunno 1992;Spencer and Knudsen 1992) with estimates given at 2-7 times the rate of familial abuse (Nunno and Rindfleisch 1991;Spencer and Knudsen 1992). These early estimates have been challenged in some recent studies (Tittle et al 2008;Garnier and Poertner 2000;Poertner et al 1999); then again, within categories of out-of-home care, rates for full-time care, as found in institutions, and residential facilities, have been found far higher than those in part-time care such as day care (Spencer and Knudsen 1992).…”