IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v692y2020i1p162-181.html

A Practical Framework for Considering the Use of Predictive Risk Modeling in Child Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Brett Drake
  • Melissa Jonson-Reid
  • María Gandarilla Ocampo
  • Maria Morrison
  • Darejan (Daji) Dvalishvili

Abstract

Predictive risk modeling (PRM) is a new approach to data analysis that can be used to help identify risks of abuse and maltreatment among children. Several child welfare agencies have considered, piloted, or implemented PRM for this purpose. We discuss and analyze the application of PRM to child protection programs, elaborating on the various misgivings that arise from the application of predictive modeling to human behavior, and we present a framework to guide the application of PRM in child welfare systems. Our framework considers three core questions: (1) Is PRM more accurate than current practice? (2) Is PRM ethically equivalent or superior to current practice? and (3) Are necessary evaluative and implementation procedures established prior to, during, and following introduction of the PRM?

Suggested Citation

  • Brett Drake & Melissa Jonson-Reid & María Gandarilla Ocampo & Maria Morrison & Darejan (Daji) Dvalishvili, 2020. "A Practical Framework for Considering the Use of Predictive Risk Modeling in Child Welfare," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 692(1), pages 162-181, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:692:y:2020:i:1:p:162-181
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716220978200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716220978200
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716220978200?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Keddell, 2019. "Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Albert Meijer & Martijn Wessels, 2019. "Predictive Policing: Review of Benefits and Drawbacks," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(12), pages 1031-1039, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Amanda Agan & Sonja Starr, 2016. "Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00539, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Coohey, Carol & Johnson, Kristen & Renner, Lynette M. & Easton, Scott D., 2013. "Actuarial risk assessment in child protective services: Construction methodology and performance criteria," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 151-161.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jenkins, Brian Q. & Tilbury, Clare, 2024. "An evaluation of the racial equity of the actuarial Family risk assessment instrument used in Queensland, Australia," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    2. Schwartz, Ira M. & York, Peter & Nowakowski-Sims, Eva & Ramos-Hernandez, Ana, 2017. "Predictive and prescriptive analytics, machine learning and child welfare risk assessment: The Broward County experience," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 309-320.
    3. Johnson, Will & Clancy, Thomas & Bastian, Pascal, 2015. "Child abuse/neglect risk assessment under field practice conditions: Tests of external and temporal validity and comparison with heart disease prediction," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 76-85.
    4. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    5. Johanna Caldwell & Vandna Sinha, 2020. "(Re) Conceptualizing Neglect: Considering the Overrepresentation of Indigenous Children in Child Welfare Systems in Canada," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 13(2), pages 481-512, April.
    6. Allison Dwyer Emory, 2019. "Unintended Consequences: Protective State Policies and the Employment of Fathers with Criminal Records," Working Papers wp19-04-ff, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..
    7. Andrew Leigh, 2020. "The Second Convict Age: Explaining the Return of Mass Imprisonment in Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 96(313), pages 187-208, June.
    8. McCluney, Courtney L. & Schmitz, Lauren L. & Hicken, Margaret T. & Sonnega, Amanda, 2018. "Structural racism in the workplace: Does perception matter for health inequalities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 106-114.
    9. Baert, Stijn, 2017. "Hiring Discrimination: An Overview of (Almost) All Correspondence Experiments Since 2005," GLO Discussion Paper Series 61, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    10. Osborne Jackson & Riley Sullivan & Bo Zhao, 2017. "Reintegrating the ex-offender population in the U.S. labor market: lessons from the CORI Reform in Massachusetts," New England Public Policy Center Research Report 17-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    11. van der Put, Claudia E. & Stolwijk, Isidora J. & Reijneveld, Sijmen A., 2026. "Early assessment of the risk of child abuse in well-child care: The predictive validity of a family-centered approach," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    12. Geimer, Jennifer L. & Leach, Desmond J. & DeSimone, Justin A. & Rogelberg, Steven G. & Warr, Peter B., 2015. "Meetings at work: Perceived effectiveness and recommended improvements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 2015-2026.
    13. David Neumark & Ian Burn & Patrick Button & Nanneh Chehras, 2016. "Do State Laws Protecting Older Workers from Discrimination Reduce Age Discrimination in Hiring? Experimental (and Nonexperimental) Evidence," Working Papers wp349, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    14. Holzer, Harry J., 2019. "The US Labor Market in 2050: Supply, Demand and Policies to Improve Outcomes," IZA Policy Papers 148, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Katharine G. Abraham & Melissa S. Kearney, 2020. "Explaining the Decline in the US Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(3), pages 585-643, September.
    16. Joshua M. Congdon-Hohman, 2018. "The persistent labor market effects of a criminal conviction and �Ban the Box� reforms," Working Papers 1808, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    17. Peter Blair & Bobby Chung, 2017. "Job Market Signaling through Occupational Licensing," Working Papers 2017-50, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    18. Hunt, Priscillia E & Smart, Rosanna, 2020. "Investigation of Employers' Preferences for the Design of Staffing Agency Incentives to Hire Ex-Felons," IZA Discussion Papers 13520, IZA Network @ LISER.
    19. Amanda Agan & Sonja Starr, 2016. "Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00539, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Herring, David J., 2009. "Fathers and child maltreatment: A research agenda based on evolutionary theory and behavioral biology research," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 935-945, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:692:y:2020:i:1:p:162-181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.