{"id":32043,"date":"2023-05-31T13:47:46","date_gmt":"2023-05-31T13:47:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caseyfamilyv2.wpengine.com\/hotline-screening-threshold-analyses-2\/"},"modified":"2026-08-04T22:45:31","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T22:45:31","slug":"analisis-del-umbral-de-seleccion-de-la-linea-directa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.casey.org\/es\/hotline-screening-threshold-analyses\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00bfC\u00f3mo pueden los an\u00e1lisis de los umbrales de cribado contribuir a mejorar las decisiones de ingesta?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n

This summary synthesizes findings from a single research study, Child welfare triage: Use of screening threshold analysis to evaluate intake decision-making<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n

What can we learn from this study?<\/h2>\n \n \n \n

<\/p>\n

Child welfare agencies must constantly balance the need to keep children safe with the commitment to minimize unnecessary investigations, which are intrusive, cause trauma<\/a> for children and families, and reduce the availability of agency resources for service provision. This study tracks the disposition of initial (index) hotline reports to determine the percent of reports that were accurately screened out or screened in for investigation.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n

Study details<\/h2>\n \n \n \n
    \n
  • Population:<\/b> 252,161 unduplicated reports to the centralized hotline in Indiana (IN)<\/li>\n
  • Data source:<\/b> IN’s child welfare information system<\/li>\n
  • Methodology:<\/b> Screening threshold analysis, including receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC); regression analysis<\/li>\n
  • Dates: <\/b>Initial (index) reports made between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2018<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Citation:<\/strong> Kearney, A. D., Wilson, E. S., Hollinshead, D. M., Poletika, M., Kestian, H. H., Stigdon, T. J., Miller, E. A., & Fluke, J. D. (2023). Child welfare triage: Use of screening threshold analysis to evaluate intake decision-making. Children and Youth Services Review, 144<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    \n
    \n\n \n

    What are the critical findings?<\/h2>\n \n \n \n

    <\/p>\n

    All adults in Indiana are mandated reporters. The screening accuracy of Indiana’s Department of Children’s Services (DCS) central intake unit was assessed by conducting a screening threshold analysis. This analysis compared the screening decision (that is, whether or not to investigate) with outcomes that occurred within the following 180 days to determine whether the screening decision was accurate. Outcomes within 180 days that were defined as warranting a screen-in (true positive) at baseline included: 1) substantiated allegations, 2) a subsequent report that was screened-in, 3) a subsequent assessment, or 4) a case opening.<\/p>\n

      \n
    • A very high proportion of reports (92.8%) were screened in for investigation, but only 41.7% were true positives<\/b> (that is, they were appropriate decisions to screen in based on the presence of maltreatment or need for services).<\/li>\n
    • The false positive rate was 51.1%.<\/b> About half of cases screened in for investigation were not substantiated (and did not have a subsequent screened in report, a subsequent assessment, or a case opening during the following 180 days).<\/li>\n
    • Decisions based on agency screening practices were only slightly better than chance.<\/b><\/li>\n
    • The false negative rate was 2.4% and the true negative rate was 4.8%,<\/b> both considered low.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
        \n
      • <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
        \n