IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v164y2024ics0190740924004638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation of the racial equity of the actuarial Family risk assessment instrument used in Queensland, Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Jenkins, Brian Q.
  • Tilbury, Clare

Abstract

Risk assessment instruments used in child protection to guide intervention decisions should be equitable. To be considered equitable, two criteria are necessary: instruments should avoid discriminatory logic and display comparative validity for children of different races. Empirical evidence about the equity of risk assessment instruments is limited. Objective: To investigate the racial equity of a widely used risk assessment instrument, the Structured Decision Making Family Risk Assessment (FRA). Participants and setting: Administrative data were obtained for all children subject to investigation in Queensland, Australia in 2018, for whom an FRA was completed (n = 17,851).

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:164:y:2024:i:c:s0190740924004638
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740924004638
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107891?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chiang, Chien-Jen & Jonson-Reid, Melissa & Drake, Brett, 2020. "Caregiver physical health and child maltreatment reports and rereports," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Jenkins, Brian Q. & Tilbury, Clare & Hayes, Hennessey & Mazerolle, Paul, 2019. "Do measures of child protection recurrence obscure the differences between reporting and substantiation?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Schwalbe, Craig S., 2008. "Strengthening the integration of actuarial risk assessment with clinical judgment in an evidence based practice framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(12), pages 1458-1464, December.
    7. Jay P Singh & Martin Grann & Seena Fazel, 2013. "Authorship Bias in Violence Risk Assessment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-8, September.
    8. 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.
    9. 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Keddell, Emily, 2014. "Theorising the signs of safety approach to child protection social work: Positioning, codes and power," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 70-77.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Dias, Daniela & Nunes, Rafaela & Coelho, Joana & Martinho, Gabriela & Santos, Anita, 2024. "Optimizing child protection systems: A systematic review of the literature on risk assessment practices," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Beth Coulthard & John Mallett & Brian Taylor, 2020. "Better Decisions for Children with “Big Data”: Can Algorithms Promote Fairness, Transparency and Parental Engagement?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Lavi, Iris & Katz, Carmit, 2016. "Neglected voices: Lessons from forensic investigation following neglect," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 171-176.
    14. Harden, Brenda Jones & D'Amour Meisch, Allison & Vick, Jessica E. & Pandohie-Johnson, Lisa, 2008. "Measuring parenting among foster families: The development of the Foster Parent Attitudes Questionnaire (FPAQ)," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 879-892, August.
    15. de Kwaadsteniet, Leontien & Bartelink, Cora & Witteman, Cilia & ten Berge, Ingrid & van Yperen, Tom, 2013. "Improved decision making about suspected child maltreatment: Results of structuring the decision process," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 347-352.
    16. Jeff Galak & Barbara E. Kahn, 2021. "2019 Academic Marketing Climate Survey: motivation, results, and recommendations," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 275-297, September.
    17. Emily Hurren & Anna Stewart & Susan Dennison, 2017. "New Methods to Address Old Challenges: The Use of Administrative Data for Longitudinal Replication Studies of Child Maltreatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-12, September.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:cysrev:v:164:y:2024:i:c:s0190740924004638. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    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.