IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Actuarial risk assessment in child protective services: Construction methodology and performance criteria

Listed author(s):
  • Coohey, Carol
  • Johnson, Kristen
  • Renner, Lynette M.
  • Easton, Scott D.
Registered author(s):

    To prevent the recurrence of child maltreatment, actuarial risk assessment can help child protective services (CPS) workers make more accurate and consistent decisions. However, there are few published articles describing construction methodologies and performance criteria to evaluate how well actuarial risk assessments perform in CPS. This article describes methodology to construct and revise an actuarial risk assessment, reviews criteria to evaluate the performance of actuarial tools, and applies a methodology and performance criteria in one state.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Children and Youth Services Review.

    Volume (Year): 35 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 151-161

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:35:y:2013:i:1:p:151-161
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.020
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Shlonsky, Aron & Wagner, Dennis, 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, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 409-427, April.
    2. Simpson, Douglas G. & Imrey, Peter B. & Geling, Olga & Butkus, Susan, 2000. "Statistical estimation of child abuse rates from administrative databases," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(11-12), pages 951-971.
    3. Camasso, Michael J. & Jagannathan, Radha, 2000. "Modeling the reliability and predictive validity of risk assessment in child protective services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(11-12), pages 873-896.
    4. Baird, Christopher & Wagner, Dennis, 2000. "The relative validity of actuarial- and consensus-based risk assessment systems," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(11-12), pages 839-871.
    5. Dettlaff, Alan J. & Rivaux, Stephanie L. & Baumann, Donald J. & Fluke, John D. & Rycraft, Joan R. & James, Joyce, 2011. "Disentangling substantiation: The influence of race, income, and risk on the substantiation decision in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1630-1637, September.
    6. MacKenzie, Michael J. & Kotch, Jonathan B. & Lee, Li-Ching, 2011. "Toward a cumulative ecological risk model for the etiology of child maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1638-1647, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:35:y:2013:i:1:p:151-161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.