Home > Statistics & Research > Child Maltreatment Report 2002 > Chapter Two > Table 2-8

 

Child Maltreatment 2002
Table 2-8     Child Protective Services Workforce, 2002

State	Screening and Intake Workers	Investigation and Assessment Workers	Screening, Intake, Investigation, and Assessment Workers	Screened-in Investigations or Assessments	Screened-In Investigations or Assessments per Investigation Worker
Alabama	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	237	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Alaska	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	73	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Arizona	42	629	671	33,151	53
Arkansas	28	364	392	18,697	51
California	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	3,317	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Colorado	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Connecticut	50	325	375	34,513	106
Delaware	5	54	59	5,163	96
District of Columbia	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	109	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Florida	158	1,639	1,797	142,547	87
Georgia	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Hawaii	10	63	73	3,619	57
Idaho	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	276	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Illinois	134	870	1,004	58,704	68
Indiana	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	448	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Iowa	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	268	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Kansas	12	432	444	17,504	41
Kentucky	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Louisiana	17	211	228	23,493	111
Maine	28	129	157	4,474	35
Maryland	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	445	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Massachusetts	73	238	311	38,306	161
Michigan	105	629	734	72,999	116
Minnesota	136	261	397	17,770	68
Mississippi	2	327	329	11,670	36
Missouri	44	1,278	1,322	53,116	42
Montana	14	193	207	10,336	54
Nebraska	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Nevada	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	131	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
New Hampshire	10	58	68	7,509	130
New Jersey	63	1,291	1,354	39,148	30
New Mexico	32	185	217	13,995	76
New York	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
North Carolina	147	580	727	63,747	110
North Dakota	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Ohio	306	1,179	1,485	68,236	58
Oklahoma	33	312	345	39,592	127
Oregon	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	255	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Pennsylvania	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	2,749	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Rhode Island	22	73	95	7,211	99
South Carolina	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	311	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
South Dakota	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	232	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Tennessee	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	363	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Texas	210	802	1,012	129,956	162
Utah	56	151	207	18,965	126
Vermont	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	55	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Virginia	37	191	228	20,619	108
Washington	114	373	487	18,423	49
West Virginia	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	119	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Wisconsin	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Wyoming	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	140	Blank Cell	Blank Cell
Total	1,888	12,837	24,253	973,463	Blank Cell
Weighted Average1	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	Blank Cell	75.8
Number Reporting	27	27	44	27	27

Data Source: Child File, Agency File, and SDC

Only States that were able to report workforce data by screening and intake workers and investigation or assessment workers and provided data for screened-in investigations were included in calculations for screened-in investigations per investigation or assessment worker.

¹ The weighted average number of screened-in investigations per investigation worker is based on dividing the total number of investigations by the total number of investigation and assessment workers for the 27 States that submitted these data. back

This table breaks down the CPS workers and the number of investigations that each must handle. The first column lists the States. The second column lists the number of screening and intake workers. The third column lists the number of investigation and assessment workers. The next column lists screening, intake, investigation, and assessment workers. Next are listed the screened-in investigations or assessments and the final column lists the screened-in investigations or assessments per investigation worker. Only States that were able to report workforce data by screening and intake workers and investigation or assessment workers and provided data for screened-in investigations were included in calculations for screened-in investigations per investigation or assessment worker.

Return to Chapter Two: Text

Return to Chapter Two: Figures and Tables