3.2 Making an Intake Decision

Georgia State Seal

Georgia Division of Family and Children Services
Child Welfare Policy Manual

Chapter:

(3) Intake

Policy Title:

Making an Intake Decision

Policy Number:

3.2

Previous Policy Number(s):

N/A

Effective Date:

November 2023

Manual Transmittal:

2023-03

Codes/References

O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect
O.C.G.A. § 49-5-41 (a) (5) Persons and Agencies Permitted to Access Records
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)

Requirements

The Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) will:

  1. Thoroughly evaluate the Areas of Family Functioning, analyze DFCS history, results of other types of screening, and assess all other information gathered to determine child safety and well-being and whether an allegation of child abuse (maltreatment) exists. This determination results in a decision whether to screen-in or screen-out the Intake Assessment.

    This includes reports involving current or historical incidents of child abuse, irrespective of how long ago the incident may have occurred (see Practice Guidance: Reports Involving Historical Incidents of Child Abuse).

  2. Analyze and consider DFCS history when making an intake decision.

  3. Screen-in and assign Intake Reports to the Initial Safety Assessment when allegations reported meet the Georgia statute and DFCS policy requirements for child abuse (maltreatment). Assign to the Initial Safety Assessment (ISA) for response within the following timeframes to ensure child safety and wellbeing:

    1. Immediate: a present danger situation is indicated.

    2. 24 hours: an impending danger safety threat is indicated and there is no indication of a present danger situation.

    3. 5 weekdays: child abuse (maltreatment) is indicated, however there is no indication of a present danger situation or impending danger safety threat.

    Immediate and 24-hour response times are calculated from the date and time of receipt of the Intake Report. 5 weekdays response times are calculated from the day of receipt (day one is the date the Intake Report is received) and official state holidays count towards the 5 weekdays response time.

  4. Screen-in and assign Intake Reports to ISA with an immediate or 24-hour response time when a new intake is received on a family with a protective service alert, and:

    1. The previous case with the alert was an ISA, Family Support Services or Investigation and the allegations were not assessed.

    2. The previous case with the alert was in Family Preservation Services and the safety issues were not resolved.

  5. Screen-in reports of abuse on children who are not residents of Georgia when the intake assessment contains the three required components, and the following circumstances apply:

    1. The alleged maltreatment occurred in Georgia; and

    2. The alleged perpetrator resides in Georgia.

    Reports involving human trafficking shall be screened in regardless of where the maltreatment occurred or the state of residence of the victim child.

  6. Document justification to support case assignment, including the impact of DFCS history when determining the existence of an allegation of maltreatment, a present danger situation or an impending danger safety threat.

  7. Assign all Intake Reports that are screened in immediately or by the end of the shift in which the report was received.

  8. Screen-out Intake Reports that do not meet Georgia statute and DFCS policy requirements for child abuse (see policy 3.1 Intake: Receiving Intake Reports).

  9. Screen-out and refer to early intervention or prevention services any Intake Report that does not meet Georgia statute and DFCS policy requirements for child abuse but indicates the family may have non-safety related needs and community resources could provide support to the child and/or family.

  10. Allow County Directors to override the CICC intake acceptance decision, prior to response time expiration, when the County Director determines the intake assessment does not meet criteria for assignment and provides the rationale for the override decision. This authority does not include changing the response timeframe assigned by CICC.

    The override authority extends to Regional Safety Field Program Specialists (FPS) or Lead FPS.

  11. Maintain an override review process within each region. Conduct monthly quality assurance reviews of intake reports overturned by the region.

Procedures

Upon the exploration of the Areas of Family Functioning based on the reporter’s familiarity and knowledge of the family, the CPS Intake Communications Center (CICC) Centralized Intake Specialist (CIS) will:

  1. Review the information recorded in the Narrative section of the Intake Assessment and apply the information to the corresponding sections for each area of family functioning;

  2. Conduct, analyze and document all screenings as outlined in policy 19.9 Case Management: Safety Screenings.

  3. Analyze DFCS history as outlined in policy 19.10 Case Management: Analyzing DFCS History and document a summary of the analysis in the Case Manager Justification section of the Intake Assessment.

  4. Analyze the reporter’s concerns and Family Functioning information gathered during the Intake Assessment and determine if the reported information meets DFCS policy requirements for child abuse and assign the maltreatment code(s) that represents an evaluation of all information gathered from the reporter and screenings.

    It is critical to obtain as complete and as thorough information as possible at intake so that the most appropriate intake disposition can be made. When information is unknown or insufficient at intake regarding child safety, it increases the concern, not decreases it.

  5. Upon establishing that an allegation of maltreatment exists:

    1. Determine if there is an indication of a Present Danger situation or Impending Danger Safety Threat in any of the areas of family functioning using the Georgia Safety Threats tool, see policy (19.11 Case Management: Safety Assessment); and

    2. Select the corresponding safety threat box in the appropriate Family Functioning Area and provide a justification for the presence of a present danger situation or impending danger safety threat; or justification as to why the child(ren) is considered safe in the corresponding family functioning area.

  6. Immediately notify the Centralized Intake Specialist Supervisor (CISS) when a Present Danger situation is indicated, so notification can be provided to the County Division for immediate response to ensure child safety.

  7. When it is determined that the Intake Report will be screened in for the Initial Safety Assessment based on the presence of an allegation of maltreatment, and the indication of a safety threat (present danger or impending danger), assign for Initial Safety Assessment for response within the following timeframes to ensure child safety and wellbeing:

    1. Immediate: a present danger situation is indicated.

    2. 24 hours: an impending danger safety threat is indicated and there is no indication of a present danger situation.

    3. 5 weekdays: an allegation of child abuse (maltreatment) is indicated; however, there is no indication of a present danger situation or impending danger safety threat.

  8. When it is determined that the allegations in the Intake Assessment do not rise to the level of maltreatment:

    1. Screen-out: No agency intervention needed; or

    2. Screen-out and refer: Non-safety related needs were identified, and community resources could strengthen and support the family and/or child. Clearly document the family’s identified non-safety related need in Georgia SHINES. See policy 3.26 Intake: Screen out Refer Process.

    Document the notification to the appropriate County Division and oversight authority (as applicable) of the Intake Assessment being screened out.

  9. Document in the Intake Assessment’s Case Manager Justification Section in Georgia SHINES justification to support case assignment (Initial Safety Assessment, Investigations, Special Investigation, Policy Violation, Screen-out, Screen-out and Refer), including the impact of DFCS history when determining the existence of an allegation of maltreatment, a present danger situation or an impending danger safety threat.

  10. Participate in a supervisory staffing with the CISS to discuss the intake disposition. Be prepared to discuss the information gathered, intake disposition recommendations and how the gathered information supports the recommendations.

  11. Submit the Intake Assessment in Georgia SHINES to the CISS for approval.

Centralized Intake Specialist Supervisor

  1. Evaluate the information contained in each Intake Assessment and the CIS’s justification statement to ensure the appropriate intake recommendation including the response time assigned.

  2. If the recommended disposition and response time is appropriate, approve the intake recommendation from the CIS by documenting in the Supervisory Justification Section of the Intake Assessment the reasons the recommendation was approved.

  3. If the recommended disposition and/or response time is not appropriate or additional information/justification is needed to support the recommendation made by the CIS:

    1. Reject the intake disposition recommendation by documenting in the Supervisory Justification Section of the Intake Assessment the reason(s) for the rejection; and

    2. Discuss and provide guidance to the CIS if the Intake Assessment is insufficient to determine the appropriate intake disposition.

  4. Assign the completed and approved Intake Assessment to the appropriate County Division in Georgia SHINES.

  5. For approved screen-out and screen-out and refer Intake Assessments:

    1. Screen-out Intake Assessments involving a Child Death/Near Fatality/Serious Injury (CD/NF/SI): Submit the Intake Assessment for second level approval in accordance with policy 3.13 Intake: Intakes Involving Child Death, Near Fatality or Serious Injury.

    2. Screen-out and refer: Assign the Intake Assessment to the County Division to initiate the referral to a community-based prevention or early intervention services in accordance with policy 3.26 Intake: Screen-out and Refer Process.

Practice Guidance

At intake, it may not be possible to gather enough information from the reporter to meet all the safety threshold criteria. The CIS and CISS must then consider the information provided by the reporter and any patterns and trends identified from an analysis of the DFCS history and other types of screening; in order to make a professional judgment regarding the existence of Impending Danger safety threats. The threshold for evaluating this information during the Intake Assessment process is to take the information and consider “if it were true.” In other words, if what the reporter stated during the Intake Assessment were true, would the information indicate a severe, observable, out of control situation that was about to occur involving a vulnerable child? If the answer is yes, then an Impending Danger safety threat exists.

In order to make an informed decision the CIS and CISS must possess the ability to think critically about the information received during the Intake Assessment. This does not mean that the CIS and CISS jump to conclusions or make assumptions about negative family conditions based on their own values. The CIS and CISS must be able to apply critical thinking skills in order to determine what significant negative family conditions are alleged to exist. These conditions may or may not have involved an “incident” or event that has already occurred. The CIS and CISS must be able to adequately articulate their thought process and application of Impending Danger safety threat criteria. (See Georgia Safety Threats).

Making an Intake Decision with Limited Information

There are times when an Intake report is received that contains minimal information concerning allegations of abuse or the location of a child/family. In such circumstances, it is imperative to follow up with the reporter as soon as possible in order to obtain additional information. If the reporter is unable to give sufficient additional information or is unable to be contacted, consider the provided information in conjunction with any history regarding the family that may be available. If prior history is indicated, a detailed analysis of the information in the prior case record will be necessary. When there is a pattern of behavior indicative of child maltreatment or concerns for a child’s safety that can be established based on the DFCS history, ensure child safety by screening in for assignment. A review of the history may also reveal information as to where a family may be located based on their last known address and/or family members who may be able to be contacted. If the reported information is insufficient to either identify or locate a child and/or family and there is no history available or applicable to assist in locating them, the intake report may be considered for a screen out.

Intake Reports Involving Sexual Activity between Minor Children (Child on Child)

When reports are received that indicate two minor children have been engaged in sexual activity, the caregiver or person responsible for the care of the child must be evaluated to determine if any information indicates inadequate supervision/inadequate care and protection or any other applicable maltreatment contributed to the inappropriate sexual activity. Information gathered shall include the required components of a CPS report to be assigned (see policy 3.1 Intake: Receiving Intake Reports).

Example of a report that should be assigned: Two minor siblings are reported to be having sexual contact. Neither child was in a caregiver role or responsible for the care of a child. One of the children has a history of sexual inappropriate behavior (fondling other children’s private parts and exposing themselves to other children). The caregiver is aware of the child’s behavior and regularly leaves the children home alone without any adult supervision. When the caregiver became aware of sexual contact between the minors, the caregiver did not follow up or seek any assistance. In this instance the report may be considered for screened in.

Example of a report that may be considered to be screened out/screened out and referred: There are no indications of inadequate supervision or any other maltreatment on the part of the caretaker (no history of molestation, DFCS history of inadequate supervision, history of perpetration, etc.) and the family is reacting appropriately to deal with the issue (counseling, not allowing access etc.). In this instance the report may be considered for a screen out/screen out refer depending on the individual family circumstances and any other needs identified during the intake report.

Intake Reports Involving Alleged Maltreaters who are not a Caregiver or Person Responsible for the Care of a Child

If the allegations are regarding a maltreater who is not a caregiver, or a person responsible for the care of a child, the report should not be automatically screened out without attempts to gather information about a caregiver’s knowledge, willingness, and ability to protect the child from the alleged maltreater. When a third party is identified as an alleged maltreater, attempts must be made to gather and analyze information regarding the caregiver’s knowledge of the alleged abuse or neglect and the caregiver’s level of protection of the child during the alleged abuse or neglect or afterwards. If it becomes apparent during the Intake Assessment that the child’s caregiver was not negligent, nor involved in any form of abuse and the third party maltreater is not a caregiver of the child, then DFCS will screen out these Intake Assessments and refer the case to law enforcement. An exception to this rule is in reports alleging sexual exploitation or human trafficking (labor or sex trafficking). Persons not considered third parties are:

  1. Foster parents

  2. Non-custodial parent living outside of the home

  3. School or childcare personnel acting in a caregiver role

Intake Reports Involving Non-Resident Children

When an Intake Report is received regarding children who are not residents of Georgia and the report does not meet the criteria for assignment consideration, no action is taken unless the other state’s child welfare agency makes an official request (i.e., courtesy interview). All Intake reports screened out for failing to meet the assignment criteria must be assessed to determine the need to refer the report to the state of the child’s residence.

Due to the nature of human trafficking cases, and the need to secure the immediate safety of the child, reports involving a child that may be a victim of human trafficking (the child is currently located in Georgia), must be evaluated based on the information related to child maltreatment and should not be screened out solely based on the child’s state or country of residence (see Human Trafficking Case Management Statewide Protocol).

Reports Involving Historical Incidents of Child Abuse

When an intake report is received that indicates the allegations of abuse occurred months or even years prior to the date of the intake report, thoroughly analyze the allegations of maltreatment with respect to how it impacts the areas of family functioning (extent of maltreatment, maltreatment context and circumstances, family developmental stages, family pattern of discipline, caretakers’ patterns of behavior, child functioning, and family support). In addition to a thorough analysis of family functioning, special consideration should be given to:

  1. The severity of the allegations;

  2. Any prior DFCS involvement with the family including, the number of prior reports, nature of these reports and outcomes, severity of the reports, patterns observed, interventions implemented with the family, etc. (see policy 19.10 Case Management: Analyzing DFCS History);

  3. Whether the alleged child victim is visible or isolated from mandated reporters or the community.

    This includes school, daycare, or children who have been withdrawn from school to be homeschooled under circumstances which the reporter believes is an effort to circumvent the school or DFCS’ oversight of the child(ren).

  4. If the alleged victim has reached the age of 18 at the time of the report, are there other children in the home that may be unsafe.

The result of the analysis determines whether the intake report should be screened in for assignment. Intake reports of historical incidents of abuse should not be screened out based on the time that has passed since the alleged incident.

Person Responsible for the Care of a Child Means

  1. An adult member of a child’s household;

  2. A person exercising supervision over a child for any part of the 24-hour day; or

  3. Any adult who based on his or her relationship to the parent, guardian or legal custodian or a member of a child’s household has access to such child.

Anyone designated as a person responsible for the care of a child should be entered as a principal in Georgia SHINES and screened in all systems for any history that could affect child safety (see policy 19.9 Case Management: Safety Screenings).

Forms and Tools

Family Functioning Assessment Tool
Maltreatment Codes