Reducing Recurrence in Child Protective Services: Impact of a Targeted Safety Protocol

Abstract

Statewide implementation of a child safety assessment protocol by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in 1995 is assessed to determine its impact on near-term recurrence of child maltreatment. Literature on the use of risk and safety assessment as a decision-making tool supports the DCFS's approach. The literature on the use of recurrence as a summative measure for evaluation is described. Survival analysis is used with an administrative data set of 400,000 children reported to DCFS between October 1994 and November 1997. An ex-post facto design tests the hypothesis that the use of the protocol cannot be ruled out as an explanation for the observed decline in recurrence following implementation. Several alternative hypotheses are tested: change in use of protective custody, other concurrent changes in state policy, and the concurrent experience of other states. The impact of the protocol to reduce recurrence was not ruled out.

Avaliações em situações de risco e perigo para as crianças: Um roteiro organizador

“…Esta avaliação deve decorrer o mais rapidamente possível, existindo orientações para que não ultrapasse os 7 dias que se seguem a uma denúncia (Children's Research Center, 2008;Fowler, 2003). Tem havido algum esforço de avaliação do impacto da implementação de protocolos de avaliação da segurança que, noutros países, têm apresentado resultados positivos na prevenção da reincidência dos maus tratos (Children's Research Center, 2008;Fluke, Edwards, Bussey, Wells, & Johnson, 2001). A avaliação da segurança, independentemente dos métodos ou instrumentos em que se apoie, deverá permitir decidir pela manutenção da criança na família, com a elaboração de um plano de segurança nos casos em que o perigo imediato resida no ambiente familiar, ou pela sua colocação em ambientes em que possa ser considerada segura (e.g., acolhimento familiar; acolhimento junto de pessoa idónea; acolhimento em instituição) (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003;Fowler, 2003).…”

Double Jeopardy: Risk Assessment in the Context of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence

“…Child protection safety and risk assessment tools have also been in use for some time (Fluke, Edwards, Bussey, Wells, & Johnson, 2001;Johnson, 1984;McDonald& Marks, 1991;Wald & Woolverton, 1990 ), though the quality of the measures and the integrity of their application vary. In general, these tools are designed to predict the risk of immediate harm (safety assessment) or risk of maltreatment recurrence over time (risk assessment).…”

“…Unfortunately, most of the early tools lacked sufficient predictive validity to be of much use in the field (Lyons, Doueck, & Woodarski, 1996). More recently, however, safety and risk assessment tools have been successfully used in the field to more accurately contend with unsafe situations and high-risk families (Fluke et al, 2001;Johnson, 2004;Wagner & Johnson, 2003). However, these instruments also suffer from an inability to predict at high levels of accuracy for the same problems detailed above (i.e., high sensitivity and low specificity).…”

“…For instance, there are an unknown number of children who are maltreated but are not reported to CPS (English, Marshall, & Orme, 1999). Similarly, there may be a surveillance effect (families receiving CPS services are under increased scrutiny), and such children may be reported more often than would otherwise be expected (Fluke et al, 2001;Lindsey, 1994). Practically speaking, however, substantiation remains the best measure available for reabuse.…”

Risk factors for repeated child maltreatment

“…It can be expected that the goal of intervention, following reported child maltreatment, would be to decrease risk of future maltreatment (DePanfilis & Zuravin, 1998;Levy, Markovich, Chaudhry, Ahart & Torres, 1995). There is some empirical support for the hypothesis that intervention decreases the likelihood of recurrence (DePanfilis & Zuravin, 1998, 2002Fluke, Edwards, Bussey, Wells & Johnson, 2001;Fuller, Wells & Cotton, 2001;Lutzker & Rice, 1987;Silverman & Avard, 1985), such as supportive services/case work (DePanfilis & Zuravin, 1999b;Jones, 1987) and…”