CHILD WELFARE MANUAL

Section 2, Chapter 3 (County Protocol: Review and Assignment of Reports), Subsection 3 – Duplicate CA/N Reports and Non-CA/N Referrals

(Effective 04/15/19)

Table of Contents

3.3 Duplicate CA/N Reports and Non-CA/N Referrals

3.3.1 ‘Already Investigated’ CA/N Conclusions

 

3.3 Duplicate CA/N Reports and Non-CA/N Referrals

Duplicate CA/N Reports or Non-CA/N Referrals contain allegations involving a specific incident or concern that has been previously reported in a report or referral made by a different reporter, or possibly the same reporter.  These types of calls most commonly arise when a specific incident or concern is observed or made known to multiple mandated or permissive reporters.  Due to the individual reporting requirement for mandated reporters with changes in statute in 2013, there has been an increase in the number of duplicate reports and referrals.

To eliminate unnecessary work and to be as least intrusive to families as possible, staff must duplicate reports when the following criteria are met:

  • The allegations involve the same specific incident or event;
  • The report or referral contains the same allegations (but not necessarily the same reporter description codes), and;
  • The report or referral includes the same participants (e.g., victims, parents, and alleged perpetrators).

Children’s Service Supervisors should give consideration to the classification and track assignment of each report and referral, and may duplicate the following combination of reports by track assignment:

  • Reports with the same track assignment (e.g., Investigation to Investigation or Family Assessment to Family Assessment).
  • Family Assessments may be duplicated to pre-existing Investigations.
  • Referrals may be duplicated to pre-existing referrals.  However, discretion should be given to the specific nature in each referral to ensure that all concerns presented in each referral have been addressed in the pre-existing referral(s).

Staff should use caution when considering duplicating a report to a previously investigated report, especially when the prior report was unsubstantiated.  Staff should first screen these reports and possibly make cursory contacts to determine if the new report warrants investigation based on new, specific, and credible evidence that was not contained within the original report(s).  If staff are unsure whether the new report meets the new, specific, and credible evidence criteria they may contact the Division of Legal Services (DLS) or the Central Office CA/N Program Development Specialist, through supervisory channels, for guidance.

Each county shall designate at least one Children’s Service Supervisor to duplicate reports and referrals.  Only Children’s Service Worker IV’s, Supervisors, or above level administrators, may duplicate reports and referrals in FACES.  Supervisors should ensure that reporters of duplicated reports and referrals are contacted and made aware their concern has been received by the Local Office.

3.3.1 ‘Already Investigated’ CA/N Conclusions

There may be times when a CA/N Investigation cannot be duplicated to an open or concluded Investigation.  Examples of situations in which an ‘already investigated’ conclusion may be appropriate include:

  • Investigations that contain a combination of new allegations and previously investigated allegations.  The previously investigated allegations may be concluded as ‘already investigated’. 
  • Reports that were investigated by another state.
  • Investigations that contain the same allegations as an expunged report.

There may be times when a family’s history is known to the Children’s Division, but a previously unsubstantiated CA/N Investigation has been expunged pursuant to Section 210.152 RSMo.  When this occurs, it becomes necessary to seek additional sources of information, such as records maintained by other multidisciplinary team members.

When previously investigated allegations within a CA/N Investigation cannot be duplicated to a prior report because of one of the reasons listed above, the ‘already investigated’ conclusion is appropriate when the reports meet all of the following criteria:

  • The allegations involve the same specific incident or event;
  • The new report contains the same allegations (but not necessarily the same reporter description codes) as the previously investigated report;
  • The subsequent report involves the same victim(s) and alleged perpetrator(s); and
  • The Children’s Division maintains the record of the prior report, or, there is a record of the Division’s expunged CA/N Investigation maintained by the Juvenile Office, law enforcement, Child Advocacy Center, or other multidisciplinary team member.

Supervisors should forward matters which involve previously expunged CA/N Investigations, and any supporting information, to their Circuit Manager, Program Manager or above level administrator for approval of the use of the ‘already investigated’ conclusion.  Staff must document authorization to make a determination of ‘already investigated’ in the report narrative.

NOTE: The ‘Already Investigated’ CA/N conclusion should not be used in situations in which the new report could have been duplicated to the original report.