Skip to main content

Risk Assessment: Issues and Implementation in Child Protective Services

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence-Informed Assessment and Practice in Child Welfare
  • 1519 Accesses

Abstract

The primary goal of child welfare is “to protect children from harm.” In order to fulfill this goal the child protective services use assessments of risk as an essential part of service. Historically, assessment of risk and investigation are what workers use to determine the likelihood of maltreatment. Therefore, the assessment of risk is a key aspect of child protective agencies. In this chapter, the history, goal, issues, and implementation of formal risk assessments in child protective services will be discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Wastell, D., White, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in children’s statutory services. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1046–1064. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camasso, M. J., & Jagannathan, R. (2012). Decision making in child protective services: A risky business? Risk Analysis, 33(9), 1636–1649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Children’s Bureau, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, & DePanfilis, D. (2006). Child neglect: A guide for prevention, assessment and intervention. http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/neglect/index.cfm. Accessed June 22, 2013.

  • Coohey, C., Johnson, K., Renner, L. M., & Easton, S. D. (2013). Actuarial risk assessment in child protective services: Construction methodology and performance criteria. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(1), 151–161. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’andrade, A., Austin, M. J., & Benton, A. (2008). Risk and safety assessment in child welfare. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5(1–2), 31–56. doi:10.1300/J394v05n01_03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, Y., Healy, K., & Feeney, J. A. (2010). Approaches to assessment and intervention across four types of child and family welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(3), 356–364. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorsey, S., Mustillo, S. A., Farmer, E. M. Z., & Elbogen, E. (2008). Caseworker assessments of risk for recurrent maltreatment: Association with case-specific risk factors and re-reports. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambrill, E., & Shlonsky, A. (2000). Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11/12), 813–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. C., & Rycusa, J. S. (2006). Issues in risk assessment in child protective services. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(1), 85–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B., & Beecroft, E. (2008). The impacts of actuarial risk assessment on child protective services in Virginia. Office of Research: Virginia Department of Social Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R. S. (2008). Development and field-testing of a family assessment scale for use in child welfare practice settings utilizing Differential Response. Protecting Children, 23(1–2), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. J., Sobeck, J. L., Djelaj, V., & Agius, E. (2013). When practice and policy collide: Child welfare workers’ perceptions of investigation processes. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(4), 634–641. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlechild, B., & Hawley, C. (2009). Risk assessments for mental health users: Ethical, valid, and reliable? Journal of Social Work, 10(2), 211–229. doi:10.1177/1468017309342191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennen, F. E., Kim, K., Sang, J., & Trickett, P. K. (2010). Child neglect: Definition and identification of youth’s experiences in official reports of maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(9), 647–658. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. (2007). “Giving up the culture of blame”: Risk assessment and risk management in psychiatric practice’, briefing document to Royal College of Psychiatrists. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, E. (2008). Assessing risks throughout the life of a child welfare case. In D. Lindsey & A. Shlonsky (Eds.), Child welfare research: Advances for practice & policy (pp. ADD). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neglect. (n. d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/neglect. Accessed June 18, 2013.

  • Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J. K., Maluccio, A. N., Barth, R. P., DePanfilis, D., & Plotnick, R. D. (2010). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice and research (3rd ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risk. (n. d.). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/risk. Accessed June 18, 2013.

  • Safety. (n. d.). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/safety. Accessed June 18, 2013.

  • Schwalbe, C. S. (2008). Strengthening the integration of actuarial risk assessment judgment in an evidence based practice framework. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1458–1464. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 409–427. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sledjeski, E. M., Dierker, L. C., Brigham, R., & Breslin, E. (2008). The use of risk assessment to predict recurrent maltreatment: A classification and regression tree analysis (CART). Society for Prevention Research, 9, 28–37. doi:10.1007/s11121-007-0079-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). The child abuse and prevention treatment including adoption opportunities and the abandoned infants assistance act as amended by the keeping children and families safe act of 2003. Administration for Children and Families, Administration of Children Youth and Families. Children’s Bureau, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Holosko .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Additional Resources

Additional Resources

Evaluation Methodology: Child Protection

http://www.aifs.gov.au/cfca/bibliographies/evaluationchildprotect.php

Consensus Based Model

http://seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

Hartnett’s Consensus Oriented Decision making Model

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/codm.htm

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Holosko, M., Ojo, J. (2015). Risk Assessment: Issues and Implementation in Child Protective Services. In: Wodarski, J., Holosko, M., Feit, M. (eds) Evidence-Informed Assessment and Practice in Child Welfare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12045-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics