DCFS overturned investigations, hotline screening and CACD quarterly data prompt committee questions on screen‑out process

Tiffany Wright, director of the Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and Major Jeff Drew, commander of the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division (CACD), briefed the committee on overturned investigations and CACD quarterly data and answered extended committee questions about how hotline screen‑outs and appeals are handled.

Wright presented an overturned investigations summary for a recent period by county (example: Benton County line item). She said, as an example, Benton County received 5,300 reports to the hotline, 1,985 were accepted for investigation, 311 were substantiated (15%), 18 were appealed (5% of substantiated cases), and 3 appeals were overturned (16% of appeals). She emphasized those figures were consistent with a prior report presented to the committee.

Major Drew presented CACD’s quarterly statistics (January–March): the hotline received 16,480 calls, with 9,042 accepted; CACD handled 15,593 cases and DCFS handled 5,423, with 2,026 differential‑response matters. For the quarter the closed cases included 422 substantiations (a 27% substantiation rate among closed investigations); 2,530 active cases were open at the time of the report, 133 had been open more than 45 days. CACD also provided county breakdowns and prosecution submission statistics (508 cases submitted to prosecutors; 237 filed; 179 pending; 92 declined).

Committee members repeatedly asked about the hotline “screen‑out” process and whether repeated calls concerning the same individual or household are tracked and combined. Major Drew and Wright explained the intake process: an operator initially screens reports; if a report does not meet criteria it is “screened out,” a supervisor reviews the decision before it is finalized, and the record is entered into the CRIS system. Drew said DHS/DCFS maintain the CRIS system and that DCFS can pull screen‑out counts by county and provide those to the committee; he and Wright said they would supply that county‑level screen‑out data on request. Committee members noted concerns that multiple similar calls could indicate escalating risk and asked for clarity on whether historical calls are reviewed during screening. Wright and Drew said operators check case history during intake and supervisors review screen‑out decisions; they clarified that multiple reports may appear as duplicates in the system and are not automatically consolidated into a single open investigation absent additional corroborating information.

The committee requested a future briefing that lays out the hotline tiering, screening criteria, the supervisory review process and how duplicate or repeated calls are handled in practice. Several members asked that DCFS/CACD provide the number of screen‑outs by county for committee review.

Why it matters: Lawmakers said understanding screening thresholds and the appeals/overturn process is important to ensure children at risk are identified and to improve oversight and policy. The panel agreed to follow up with requested county‑level and procedural information.