Looks can be deceiving: Using a risk assessment instrument to evaluate the out-comes of child protection services

Lyle, Charles Gene; Graham, Elliott

doi:10.1016/s0190-7409(00)00119-5

Cited by 33 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in this connection, Gebo et al (2006) describe how some practitioners in the juvenile court believed a local detention tool did not take into account variables that were important in making detention decisions, sometimes adding extra points to the risk score to achieve the detention-required threshold. A study by lyle and Graham (2000) came to a similar conclusion in a child welfare context: Some workers seemed to deliberately inflate risk scores to ensure clients were placed into a category that would ensure continued services.…”

Section: Tool Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 87%

Practitioner Compliance With Risk/Needs Assessment Tools

Miller

Maloney

2013

Criminal Justice and Behavior

120

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines practitioners' compliance and noncompliance with risk/needs assessment tools, using a national survey of frontline community corrections staff. Focusing on respondents required to complete tools and make decisions based on them, analysis showed that tools were mostly filled out when required, but decisions were not always based on the tool result. latent class analysis suggests about half of the tool-using subgroup were "substantive" compliers who completed tools carefully and honestly and tended to use them for decision making. The remaining tool users were "formal" in their compliance: filling out the tools, but often making decisions that did not correspond with tool results, and in some cases even manipulating the information included in them. Multivariate analysis suggests that practitioners' belief in risk/needs tools, agency monitoring and training, perceptions of agency procedural justice, and agencies' projected confidence in their local risk/need tool may help explain patterns of compliance and noncompliance.

show abstract

Section: Tool Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 87%

Practitioner Compliance With Risk/Needs Assessment Tools

Miller

Maloney

2013

Criminal Justice and Behavior

120

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…English and Pecora described workers completing a decision making instrument after they had made their decision, to justify and document it rather than to guide them in making the decision (English and Pecora 1994). Lyle and Graham found workers deliberately inflating their rating of risk items on a risk assessment instrument to ensure that families were classified as at high enough risk to be given the services the worker wanted them to have (Lyle and Graham 2000). Research on risk assessment instruments in other disciplines has found worker scepticism about their accuracy, preferring to trust their own clinical judgement instead (Harris, Rice et al…”

Section: Resources and Constraints: This Second Category Includes Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem

Munro¹

2005

Children and Youth Services Review

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although in an ideal situation it may be perceived that professional judgements are based exclusively on case-specific clinical variables, certainly the interpretation of these variables may differ depending on the personal characteristics of the professional and the organisation or the context in which that judgement is exercised. Despite efforts to develop objective risk assessment tools, research indicates that although these tools are applied, assessment variability remains (Gillingham & Humphreys, 2010;Lyle & Graham, 2000). Therefore, actuarial judgement cannot substitute for clinical judgement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensions for argument and variability in child protection decision-making

Pascual

Beloki

Sobremonte

et al. 2018

Journal of Social Work Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to analyse the arguments presented by 181 professionals in the child protection system of the Basque Country (Spain) to justify their decisions regarding the implementation of measures related to family preservation or separation. The implementation of a case vignette demonstrated variability in professional decision-making, with 62% of professionals choosing family preservation and 38% opting for family separation. A series of argument categories which can be used by most professionals when making decisions are extracted from analysis of the content. However, in spite of using similar types of arguments, the professionals differed in the importance they attributed to such criteria and their interpretations. Differences in decision thresholds were directly related to professionals' beliefs regarding the benefits of the interventions analysed. To reduce this variability, reflecting on these beliefs and analysing the effectiveness of interventions in child protection to incorporate evidence of professional judgement are recommended. The present study, on the one hand, identifies the argument categories used to justify decisions and, on the other, analyses the existing variability when interpreting these categories.

show abstract

Looks can be deceiving: Using a risk assessment instrument to evaluate the out-comes of child protection services

Cited by 33 publications

References 8 publications

Practitioner Compliance With Risk/Needs Assessment Tools

Practitioner Compliance With Risk/Needs Assessment Tools

Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem

Dimensions for argument and variability in child protection decision-making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About