The first group, referred to as casefinders, consisted of a representative sample of social workers drawn from the National Association of Social Workers, school social workers, family- based social workers, community agency staff members, and child protection workers. Of 775 surveys distributed, 659 (85 percent) were returned. The second group, referred to as gatekeepers, included child protection workers who screened referrals. Of 123 surveys distributed, 78 (63.4 percent) were returned. Findings revealed a marked disparity in judging criteria used by casefinders and gatekeepers. Responding to scarce resources, gatekeepers tended to assess neglect situations as being of less risk than did casefinders. If neglect cases did not pass the "imminent harm" test, they were not entered into the child protection system. Practicing social workers had a broad concept of child endangerment. They felt children were in hazardous situations when they were left alone, unsupervised, in charge of very young children, living in a deteriorated housing environment, personally uncared for, deprived of basic human needs, and exposed to households enmeshed in drug and alcohol use. The authors conclude that casefinders and gatekeepers must find common ground in addressing the needs of neglected children in order to restore confidence in the child welfare system. Appendixes contain additional information on risk assessment factors and the survey form. 55 references and 3 tables