IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i9p1636-1649.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Making in Child Protective Services: A Risky Business?

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Camasso
  • Radha Jagannathan

Abstract

Child Protective Services (CPS) in the United States has received a torrent of criticism from politicians, the media, child advocate groups, and the general public for a perceived propensity to make decisions that are detrimental to children and families. This perception has resulted in numerous lawsuits and court takeovers of CPS in 35 states, and calls for profound restructuring in other states. A widely prescribed remedy for decision errors and faulty judgments is an improvement of risk assessment strategies that enhance hazard evaluation through an improved understanding of threat potentials and exposure likelihoods. We examine the reliability and validity problems that continue to plague current CPS risk assessment and discuss actions that can be taken in the field, including the use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve technology to improve the predictive validity of risk assessment strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Camasso & Radha Jagannathan, 2013. "Decision Making in Child Protective Services: A Risky Business?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1636-1649, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:9:p:1636-1649
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01931.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01931.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01931.x?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. 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. Roger E. Kasperson, 1986. "Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 275-281, September.
    3. Rzepnicki, Tina L. & Johnson, Penny R., 2005. "Examining decision errors in child protection: A new application of root cause analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 393-407, April.
    4. DePanfilis, Diane & Girvin, Heather, 2005. "Investigating child maltreatment in out-of-home care: Barriers to effective decision-making," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 353-374, April.
    5. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    6. English, Diana J. & Marshall, David B. & Coghlan, Laura & Brummel, Sherry & Orme, Matthew, 2002. "Causes and Consequences of the Substantiation Decision in Washington State Child Protective Services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(11), pages 817-851, November.
    7. Regehr, Cheryl & Hemsworth, David & Leslie, Bruce & Howe, Phillip & Chau, Shirley, 2004. "Predictors of post-traumatic distress in child welfare workers: a linear structural equation model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 331-346, April.
    8. Schwartz, David R. & Kaufman, Adam B. & Schwartz, Ira M., 2004. "Computational intelligence techniques for risk assessment and decision support," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(11), pages 1081-1095, November.
    9. Shook, Jeffrey J. & Sarri, Rosemary C., 2007. "Structured decision making in juvenile justice: Judges' and probation officers' perceptions and use," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1335-1351, October.
    10. Gambrill, Eileen & Shlonsky, Aron, 2001. "The need for comprehensive risk management systems in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 79-107, January.
    11. Osmo, Rujla & Benbenishty, Rami, 2004. "Children at risk: rationales for risk assessments and interventions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 1155-1173, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Camasso, Michael J. & Jagannathan, Radha, 2019. "Conceptualizing and testing the vicious cycle in child protective services: The critical role played by child maltreatment fatalities," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 178-189.
    2. Cheryl Regehr & Guy Enosh & Emily Bosk, 2021. "An Ecological Model for High-Risk Professional Decision-Making in Mental Health: International Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-11, July.

    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. Gambrill, Eileen D., 2005. "Decision making in child welfare: Errors and their context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 347-352, April.
    2. Bolton, Annalese & Lennings, Chris, 2010. "Clinical opinions of structured risk assessments for forensic child protection: The development of a clinically relevant device," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1300-1310, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Emily Keddell, 2014. "Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, November.
    5. Lee, Shawna J. & Sobeck, Joanne L. & Djelaj, Valentina & Agius, Elizabeth, 2013. "When practice and policy collide: Child welfare workers' perceptions of investigation processes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 634-641.
    6. Rzepnicki, Tina L. & Johnson, Penny R., 2005. "Examining decision errors in child protection: A new application of root cause analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 393-407, April.
    7. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    8. Smith, Kenneth S. & Blackburn, Ashley G., 2011. "Is teen court the best fit? Assessing the predictive validity of the Teen Court Peer Influence Scale," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 198-204.
    9. de Haan, Irene & Connolly, Marie, 2014. "Another Pandora's box? Some pros and cons of predictive risk modeling," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 86-91.
    10. Duersch, Peter & Römer, Daniel & Roth, Benjamin, 2013. "Intertemporal stability of ambiguity preferences," Working Papers 0548, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    11. W. Kip Viscusi & Scott DeAngelis, 2018. "Decision irrationalities involving deadly risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 225-252, December.
    12. Gu, Qianxin & Chen, Yang & Pody, Robert & Cheng, Rong & Zheng, Xiang & Zhang, Zhenxing, 2015. "Public perception and acceptability toward reclaimed water in Tianjin," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PA), pages 291-299.
    13. 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.
    14. Branden B. Johnson, 1993. "“The Mental Model” Meets “The Planning Process”: Wrestling with Risk Communication Research and Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-8, February.
    15. Claudio A. Bonilla & Pablo A. Gutiérrez Cubillos, 2021. "The effects of ambiguity on entrepreneurship," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, February.
    16. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    17. Stevens, Sonya & Fiene, Richard & Blevins, Daniel & Salzer, Amber, 2020. "Identifying predictive indicators: The state of Washington foster care home study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    18. Annika Styczynski & Jedamiah Wolf & Somdatta Tah & Arnab Bose, 2014. "When decision-making processes fail: an argument for robust climate adaptation planning in the face of uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 478-491, December.
    19. Gérard Mondello, 2020. "Building Belief Systems and Medical Ethics: The Covid-19 Controversies," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-35, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    20. Nagisa Shiiba & Hide-Fumi Yokoo & Voravee Saengavut & Siraprapa Bumrungkit, 2023. "Ambiguity Aversion And Individual Adaptation To Climate Change: Evidence From A Farmer Survey In Northeastern Thailand," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(01), pages 1-29, February.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:9:p:1636-1649. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.