Unraveling "unsubstantiated"

Substantiation rates have long been the primary variable associated with research into child protective services (CPS) early intervention. Rates of substantiation have been used to criticize the efficiency of CPS screening procedures, to suggest that mandated reporting laws are cumbersome and require revision, and to posit that large numbers of CPS assessments result in high levels of unintended negative consequences for reported families. Substantiation is commonly used in empirical research as a proxy for the appropriateness of CPS referrals. These practices are problematic for several reasons. This article argues that many or most unsubstantiated reports involve either some form of maltreatment or preventive service needs appropriate to CPS intervention, and that using substantiation as a means of gauging the validity of a CPS referral is therefore intrinsically fallacious. A harm/evidence model is presented as an aid to conceptualizing the heterogeneity of unsubstantiated reports. The validity of the model is explored through a review of relevant empirical work. The article concludes with a series of suggestions for future research.