PubMed1981
The Bronx screening unit was established on the assumption that in a populous urban area, a central registry reporting system would receive a sizable number of bogus or malicious reports. The unit tried to identify some of these reports by their characteristics and then to verify these suspicions through the diagnostic skill of experienced and highly motivated workers. The short-term goal was the easing of a workload crisis. The experiences of the screening unit showed that the process was highly successful, and represents an important way to use staff more efficiently in case management. During the 19-month period, an average of 93 regular CPS workers processed 4282 cases, or 46 cases per worker. During that same period, four screening workers averaged 186 cases per worker. The screening process allows the regular CPS worker additional time to focus on serious cases. It also minimizes intrusion into the lives of persons harassed by bogus reporting. The process meets the legally mandated requirements of New York State and the federal government and provides for adequate case recording and record maintenance. One aspect of the Bronx screening unit worthy of special mention is the emphasis on referrals to community services. More than a third of the "unfounded" cases, though not requiring agency intervention, did warrant some type of social service and were referred for assistance. It is important that screening unit workers be familiar with community social service programs in order to serve as resource persons for clients. There exists a tendency to prematurely view cases for screening as easy or unfounded. Determining that a child abuse or neglect report is unfounded is the result of a specific investigative process, and only some cases lend themselves to shortening of this process. Administrative awareness of screening unit limitations will enable these units to function effectively and fulfill their primary responsibility of safeguarding children. Screening units can be a valuable adjunct to a child protective program, but they must not be viewed as a panacea for agency budget and staffing problems.