Substantiation and adverse appeal outcomes: content analysis and testing of Drake's harm/evidence model

Little is known about the influence of evidentiary and case characteristics on adverse appeal outcomes for substantiated cases of maltreatment. This article, therefore, reports on a sample of adverse appeal outcomes during a 2-year period. Using Drake's Harm/Evidence model to examine the adverse outcomes, the study describes differences between substantiated cases that were "modified" versus "overturned" during appeal, as well as differences in their evidentiary characteristics across different types of maltreatment. Content analysis and logistic regression analysis of administrative data were used to predict overturned versus modified outcome. Overall, child neglect, substantiated cases that did not meet basic evidentiary standards, and cases that were deemed as not credible were more likely to be overturned in comparison to being modified. A substantiation assessment framework (SAF) is developed and implications of Drake's Harm/Evidence model for investigating maltreatment as well as for understanding judicial decision making in appealed cases of maltreatment is highlighted.