000			02077nab a22002417a 4500
999			_c5162 _d5162
005			20250625151418.0
008			160920t2016 -nz||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_94218 _aKeddell, Emily
245			_aSubstantiation decision-making and risk prediction in child protection systems _cEmily Keddell
260			_bInstitute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, _c2016
490	0		_aPolicy Quarterly
500			_aPolicy Quarterly, 2016, 12(2): 46-56
520			_a"In the last few years, predictive risk modelling has been suggested for use in the child welfare environment as an efficient means of targeting preventive resources and improving practitioner decision-making. First raised in the green paper on vulnerable children, then translated into the white paper on vulnerable children and the Children’s Action Plan, and now part of the Child, Youth and Family review remit, this particular tool has provoked a barrage of opinions and wide-ranging analyses, concerning ethical implications, feasibility and data issues, possible uses and political consequences (Ministry of Social Development, 2011, 2012). This has resulted in a flurry of media, academic and policy debates, both here and internationally, and many reviews and related publications (Dare, 2013; Fluke and Wulczyn, 2013; Oakley, 2013; Blank et al., 2013; Keddell, 2015a, 2015b; Oak, 2015; Gillingham, 2015; de Haan and Connolly, 2014; Ministry of Social Development, 2014a; Pierse, 2014; Shlonsky, n.d.). While there are many aspects of the tool that require debate and analysis, this article focuses on one: its use of substantiation data as the outcome variable it attempts to predict." (Author's abstract). Record #5162
650			_aCHILD PROTECTION _9118
650		0	_94928 _aPREDICTIVE RISK MODELLING
650		0	_aSOCIAL POLICY _9551
650			_9103 _aCHILD ABUSE
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
773	0		_tPolicy Quarterly, 2016, 12(2): 46-56
856			_uhttps://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/4587
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE