Issues in risk assessment in child protective services

Journal of Public Child Welfare

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 85-116

  Huges, Ronald C ^a   Rycus, Judith S ^a  

^a Institute for Human Services   (United States)

Author keywords

Child; Child welfare decision making; Protective service investigation; Risk; Risk assessment; Safety assessment; Safety decisions

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747279703     PISSN: 15548732     EISSN: 15548740     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J479v01n01_05     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (56)

1. Adshead, G. (2003). Dangerous and severe parenting disorder? Personality disorder, parenting and new legal proposals. Child Abuse Review, 12, 227-237.
2. Albers, M., & Roditti, M. (2004). Management values and decision making tools: Nuts and bolts of risk assessment in California. Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Academy.
3. Baird, C., Ereth, J., & Wagner, D. (1999). Research-based risk assessment: Adding equity to CPS decision making. Madison, WI: Children's Research Center.
4. Baird, C., & Rycus, J. (2005, fall/winter). The contribution of decision theory to promoting child safety. APSAC Advisor, 16/17, 2-10.
5. Baird, C., & Wagner, D. (2000). The relative validity of actuarial and consensus-based risk assessment systems. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11/12), 839-871.
6. Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T., & Johnson, K (1999). Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability. Child Welfare, LXXVIII(6), 723-749.
7. Bay Area Social Services Consortium (2005, July). Risk and Safety Assessment in Child Welfare: Instrument Comparisons. Evidence for Practice: An Executive Summary, 2. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley School of Social Welfare.
8. Camasso, M., & Jagannathan, R. (2000). Modeling the reliability and predictive validity of risk assessment in child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11/12), 873-896.
9. Camasso, M., & Jagannathan, R. (1995, September). Prediction accuracy of the Washington and Illinois risk assessment instruments: An application of receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Social Work Research, 19(3), 174-183.
10. Cash, S. (2001). Risk assessment in child welfare: The art and science. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(11), 811-830.
11. Children's Research Center (2005). Structured Decision Making™ in child welfare. Madison, WI: Author.
12. Cicchinelli, L. (1995, Winter). Risk assessment: Expectations and realities. The APSAC Advisor, Special Issue on Risk Assessment, 8(4), 3-8.
13. Curran, T. (1995, Winter). Legal issues in the use of CPS risk assessment instruments. The APSAC Advisor, Special Issue on Risk Assessment, 8(4), 15-20.
14. Curry, D., Caplan, P., & Knuppel, J. (1994). Transfer of training and adult learning (TOTAL). Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(1), 8-14.
15. Dawes, R. (1993, June 9). Finding guidelines for tough decisions. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A40.
16. Dawes, R., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. (1993). Statistical prediction versus clinical prediction: Improving what works. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.) Handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. DePanfilis, D. (1996). Implementing child maltreatment risk assessment systems: Lessons from theory. Administration in Social Work, 20(2), 41-59.
18. DePanfilis, D., & Scannapieco, M. (1994, May-June). Assessing the safety of children at risk of maltreatment: Decision-making models. Child Welfare, LXXIII(3), 229-245.
19. Doueck, H., English, D., DePanfilis, D., & Moote, G. (1993, September-October). Decision-making in child protective services: A comparison of selected risk-assessment systems. Child Welfare, LXXII(5), 441-453.
20. English, D., & Pecora, P. (1994, September-October). Risk assessment as a practice method in child protective services. Child Welfare, LXXIII(5), 451-473.
21. English, D., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., Orme, M., & Orme, A. (2000). Alternative responses to child protective services: Emerging issues and concerns. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(3), 375-388.
22. Gambrill, E. (2000, Fall). Honest brokering of knowledge and ignorance. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(3), 387-397.
23. Gambrill, E. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Sea change or the emperor's new clothes? Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), 3-23.
24. Gambrill, E., & Shlonsky, A. (2000). Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11/12), 813-837.
25. Goddard, C., Saunders, B., Stanley, J., & Tucci, J. (1999). Structured risk assessment procedures: Instruments of abuse? Child Abuse Review, 8, 251-263.
26. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293-323.
27. Hall, J. (2003). Philosophy of Religion. Lecture, The Great Courses Series. Chantilly, Virginia: The Teaching Company.
28. Hutchinson, J., Lloyd, M., Landsman, M., Nelson, K., & Bryce, M. (1983). Family centered social services: A model for child welfare agencies. Oakdale, IA: National Resource Center on Family Based Services, The University of Iowa School of Social Work.
29. Johnson, W. (2004). Effectiveness of California's child welfare Structured Decision Making™ model: A prospective study of the validity of the California Family Risk Assessment. Anaheim, CA: Author.
30. Johnson, W. (1996). Risk assessment research: Progress and future directions. Protecting Children, 12(2), 14-19.
31. Leung, P., Cheung, M., & Stevenson, K. (1994). A strengths approach to ethnically sensitive practice for child protective service workers. Child Welfare, LXXIII(6), 707-721.
32. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (1996). Family assessment risk variables. Adapted from Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (1994), Risk assessment training manual. Fresno, CA: California State University at Fresno, School of Health and Social Work.
33. Lyons, P., Doueck, H., & Wodarski, J. (1996). Risk assessment for child protective services: A review of the empirical literature on instrument performance. Social Work Research, 20(3), 143-155.
34. Lyons, P., Salovitz, B., Doueck, H., & Crawford, F. (1999). Preliminary results of a national survey on risk assessment use by the states. Thirteenth National Roundtable on Child Protective Services Risk Assessment, Summary of Proceedings, July 7-9, 1999. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association.
35. Macdonald, G. (2001). Risk assessment and decision making. In Effective interventions for child abuse and neglect: An evidence-based approach to planning and evaluating interventions, 269-284. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
36. Munro, E. (2005). Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem. Children and youth Services Review, 27, 375-391.
37. Munro, E. (2004). A simpler way to understand the results of risk assessment instruments. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 873-883.
38. Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(8), 745-758.
39. Nash, J., & Bowen, G. (2002, June). Defining and estimating risk and protection: An illustration from the school success profile. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 19(3), 247-261.
40. Pecora, P., Whittaker, J., Maluccio, A., & Barth, R. (2000). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
41. Rossi, P., Schuerman, J., & Budde, S. (1996). Understanding child maltreatment decisions and those who make them. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.
42. Ruscio, J. (1998, May.) Information integration in child welfare cases: An introduction to statistical decision making. Child Maltreatment, 3(2) 143-156.
43. Ryan, S., Wiles, D., Cash, S., Siebert, C. (2005). Risk assessments: Empirically supported or values driven? Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 213-225.
44. Rycus, J., & Hughes, R. (1998). Field guide to child welfare, I-IV. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
45. Rycus, J.S., & Hughes, R.C. (2002). Survey and analysis of state and provincial risk assessment models and instruments. Unpublished. Columbus, OH: Institute of Human Services.
46. Salter, A., (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders: Who they are, how they operate, and how we can protect ourselves and our children. New York: Basic Books.
47. Salter, A. (1995). Transforming trauma: A guide to understanding and treating adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48. Schene, P. (1996). The risk assessment roundtables: A ten-year perspective. Protecting Children, 12(2), 4-8.
49. Shlonsky, A., & Wagner, D. (2005). The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 409-427.
50. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth, & Families, Children's Bureau (2004). New Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requirements concerning parental notification and legal rights. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/initiatives/capta/legalissues.htm.
51. Wagner, D., Johnson, K., & Caskey, R. (1999, June). Family Independence Agency of Michigan: Safety assessment validation report. Madison, WI: Children's Research Center.
52. Wald, M., & Woolverton, M. (1990, November-December). Risk assessment: The emperor's new clothes? Child Welfare, LXIX(6), 483-511.
53. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (2001). The practice guide to risk assessment: Kids come first, and safety assessment. Seattle: Author.
54. Wells, S. (1995, Winter). Introduction. The APSAC Advisor, Special Issue on Risk Assessment, 8(4), 1.
55. Whitaker, D.J., Lutzker, J.R., & Shelley, G.A. (2005). Child maltreatment prevention priorities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Child Maltreatment, 10(3), 245-259.
56. Wollert, R., (2002). The importance of cross-validation in actuarial test construction: Shrinkage in the risk estimates for the Minnesota sex offender screening tool-Revised. Journal of Threat Assessment, 2(1), 87-102.