Multi-agency child protection

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-49
Author(s):  
Julia Stroud ◽  
Chris Warren-Adamson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Assessment Framework ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Actuarial Risk

Public concern over, and recent developments in, the field of child protection are well known (Munro 2012). Within these developments, there has been a strengthening of the role of social work with an increased focus on, and recognition of, professional knowledge, skills and ‘expert’ decision making (Munro 2011; Gilbert et al. 2011). Focus on inter-professional and multi-agency practice has developed alongside (Frost and Lloyd 2006; Frost and Robinson 2007; Ruch 2009), and continues to have a clear focus in the recently issued Working Together to Safeguard Children (H.M. Government 2013).This paper enquires into a relatively under-explored area of multi-agency child protection practice, specifically, that of the police (that is,. non-specialists in child protection) making an urgent, first response to a child protection call, often out of hours and without immediate recourse to the expertise and knowledge of child protection practitioners. In these situations, the police are called upon to make key decisions: for example, whether to immediately protect and remove children using police protection powers (Section 46(1) Children Act 1989), to refer on to local authority social services for a s47 investigation or s17 services, or to take no further action. There is exploration of the issues raised by a request from the police to develop an assessment framework as an aid to practice in these situations. The police had in mind an equivalent instrument to a domestic abuse framework already adopted by them. The paper reviews debates, particularly about predictive efficacy, in the construction of assessment and decision-making tools. The nature and distinction between consensus based and actuarial risk assessment instruments are examined, as are challenges for general multi-agency working, alongside the specific challenges for front line police officers. It is proposed that a consensus based assessment framework to support decision making, drawing on empirically tested, actuarially informed risk assessment evidence, which is collaboratively tested with a multi-agency group, is indicated.

Evidence-Based Sentencing

Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Oleson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Measures ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Community Safety ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Criminogenic Needs ◽  
Actuarial Risk ◽  
Using Data

The evidence-based practice (EBP) movement can be traced to a 1992 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, although decision-making with empirical evidence (rather than tradition, anecdote, or intuition) is obviously much older. Neverthless, for the last twenty-five years, EBP has played a pivotal role in criminal justice, particularly within community corrections. While the prediction of recidivism in parole or probation decisions has attracted relatively little attention, the use of risk measures by sentencing judges is controversial. This might be because sentencing typically involves both backward-looking decisions, related to the blameworthiness of the crime, as well as forward-looking decisions, about the offender’s prospective risk of recidivism. Evidence-based sentencing quantifies the predictive aspects of decision-making by incorporating an assessment of risk factors (which increase recidivism risk), protective factors (which reduce recidivism risk), criminogenic needs (impairments that, if addressed, will reduce recidivism risk), the measurement of recidivism risk, and the identification of optimal recidivism-reducing sentencing interventions. Proponents for evidence-based sentencing claim that it can allow judges to “sentence smarter” by using data to distinguish high-risk offenders (who might be imprisoned to mitigate their recidivism risk) from low-risk offenders (who might be released into the community with relatively little danger). This, proponents suggest, can reduce unnecessary incarceration, decrease costs, and enhance community safety. Critics, however, note that risk assessment typically looks beyond criminal conduct, incorporating demographic and socioeconomic variables. Even if a risk factor is facially neutral (e.g., criminal history), it might operate as a proxy for a constitutionally protected category (e.g., race). The same objectionable variables are used widely in presentence reports, but their incorporation into an actuarial risk score has greater potential to obfuscate facts and reify underlying disparities. The evidence-based sentencing literature is dynamic and rapidly evolving, but this bibliography identifies sources that might prove useful. It first outlines the theoretical foundations of traditional (non-evidence-based) sentencing, identifying resources and overviews. It then identifies sources related to decision-making and prediction, risk assessment logic, criminogenic needs, and responsivity. The bibliography then describes and defends evidence-based sentencing, and identifies works on sentencing variables and risk assessment instruments. It then relates evidence-based sentencing to big data and identifies data issues. Several works on constitutional problems are listed, the proxies problem is described, and sources on philosophical issues are described. The bibliography concludes with a description of validation research, the politics of evidence-based sentencing, and the identification of several current initiatives.

A Review of the Validity of Juvenile Risk Assessment Across Race/Ethnicity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Campbell ◽  
William Miller
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Racial Ethnic

Juvenile risk assessment instruments have provided juvenile courts with the opportunity to make standardized decisions concerning sentences and intervention needs. Risk assessments have replaced the reliance on professional decision-making practices in which court officials relied on their hunches or previous experience to determine what to do with youth once they became involved in corrections. A primary goal of juvenile risk assessment is to improve case management and help courts focus resources on juveniles who exhibit the greatest intervention needs. Further, juvenile risk assessments play a critical role in estimating which juveniles will likely reoffend by identifying factors that increase the propensity of future offending. Although some researchers believe that the implementation of standardized juvenile risk assessments is a good strategy for reducing biased decision-making for racial/ethnic minorities, other researchers have called into question the extent to which risk assessments overestimate risk for certain juveniles, especially those in minority groups who have a history of being marginalized due to their race, culture, or ethnicity. This article provides an overview of how well juvenile risk assessment instruments predict future delinquency across race and ethnicity. The review suggests that in general, risk assessments do a good job in predicting recidivism across racial/ethnic groups for diverse populations inside and outside the United States. However, there is still some room for improvement concerning the assessment of risk and needs for ethnic minorities. In addition, while there are some studies that do not report the predictive validity of risk assessment scores across race/ethnicity, risk assessments overall seem to be a promising effort to correctly classify and/or identify juveniles who are at greatest risk for future recidivism.

Safeguarding outcomes of 16 and 17-year-old service users of Sexual Health London (SHL.uk), a pan-London online sexual health service

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (14) ◽  
pp. 1373-1379
Author(s):  
Sara Day ◽  
Ryan Kinsella ◽  
Sophie Jones ◽  
Victoria Tittle ◽  
Tara Suchak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Sexual Health ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Transmitted Infection ◽  
Sexually Transmitted ◽  
Health Clinics ◽  
Sti Testing ◽  
Sexual Health Service ◽  
Sexual Health Clinics

Guidance around how to safeguard young people using online sexual health services (e-SHSs) is limited. Sexual Health London (SHL.uk) is an e-SHS, integrated with London’s sexual health clinics (SHCs), offering users aged 16 years and above sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing. For a safeguarding risk assessment, under 18s must complete a safeguarding e-triage, and any concern raised results in a ‘call back’ (CB) by the SHL.uk team. The safeguarding outcomes of CBs between 8 January 2018 and 18 September 2018 were reviewed; 261/454 (57.5%) users never triggered a CB on their e-triage (non-CB group) and 193/454 (42.5%) users triggered one or more CB(s) (CB group). Safeguarding concerns disclosed predominantly related to drug/alcohol use and partner's age imbalance. Successful telephonic risk assessment took place in 84.5% CB cases. Safeguarding outcomes comprised referrals to: SHC in 35.5%; child protection team in 8.5%; social services in 7%. STI positivity was 16.4% and 15.2% in the CB and non-CB groups, respectively. Although a high number of safeguarding triggers were disclosed, only a small proportion warranted referral for further support/intervention. Using e-triage with telephony support to screen and safeguard adolescents accessing an e-SHS was acceptable to users and enabled their clinical and safeguarding needs to be safely met. e-SHS integration within a network of SHCs further supported this model.

Child protection, risk assessment and blame ideology

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Gillingham ◽  
Leah Bromfield
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Child Maltreatment ◽  
Significant Influence ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Risk Society ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
The Future

In this article we use qualitative data drawn from a sample of child protection cases to demonstrate how the process of attributing blame to parents and carers for child maltreatment is a significant influence on decisionmaking, sometimes to the detriment of assessing the future safety of children. We focus on two cases which both demonstrate how the process of apportioning blame can lead to decisions which might not be considered to be in the best interests of the children concerned. We conceptualise blame as an ‘ideology’ with its roots in the discourse of the ‘risk society’, perpetuated and sustained by the technology of risk assessment. The concept of blame ideology is offered as an addition to theory which seeks to explain the influences on decision making in child protection practice.

Sex Offender Risk Assessments in the Child Protection Context. Helpful or Not?

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Broadley
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Dynamic Risk ◽  
Sex Offender Risk Assessment ◽  
Dynamic Risk Assessment

When a convicted or alleged child sex offender is living, or having contact, with his own children or stepchildren, the obvious worry is that these children are victims or will become victims of sexual abuse. One way of determining the risk of this occurring is for the convicted or alleged offender to undergo a forensic sex offender risk assessment. In this article I raise questions regarding the usefulness of sex offender risk assessments within the statutory child protection context. Most importantly, I ask whether static and dynamic risk assessment instruments can accurately predict the risk an alleged or convicted sex offender poses to his own children. I conclude that ‘high’, ‘moderate’, and ‘low’ risk outcomes of forensic sex offender risk assessments in the child protection context are unreliable and can result in error, and explain that these errors have consequences that, within the child protection context, have consequences that can be dangerous to children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document