This Emily Douglas paper shows that children with a disability or medical condition are twice as likely to die from maltreatment. Some child welfare agencies are using research like hers to prioritize their case assignments, and are supplementing such studies with quantitative tools like predictive analytics to identify other high-risk groups unique to their jurisdictions.
This makes sense, right? If you know which children are at the highest risk, why wouldn’t you investigate maltreatment reports about them and, when appropriate, provide their families with more services?
But some are wary that quantitative tools will worsen racial disparities by increasing surveillance of families who are already disproportionately in child protection.
Quantitative tools definitely require special oversight. But if they can prevent harm to particularly defenseless children, isn’t it better to make sure these tools are used responsibly rather than oppose them?