Home  «  Program  « 

Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol (CERAP)

Scientific Rating:
3
Promising Research Evidence
See scale of 1-5
Child Welfare Relevance Rating:
1
High
See scale of 1-3

Note: The CERAP program was not responsive to the CEBC's inquiry. The following information was obtained from publicly available sources.

Brief Description

The Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol (CERAP) program has been rated by the CEBC in the area of: Child Welfare Initiatives.

  • Child Welfare Outcome: Permanency
  • Types of Maltreatment: Does not target any specific kind of maltreatment
  • Target Population: Not Specified

CERAP is a protocol designed to provide workers with a mechanism to quickly assess the potential for moderate to severe harm to children in the near future. Workers use the protocol to help focus their decision making to determine whether the child is in unsafe circumstances and to decide what measures or actions should be taken to assure the safety of the child. CERAP is one that is used, by design, throughout the life of a case from intake to closure. An assessment form is required to be completed at specified points in cases of alleged abuse. The protocol provides a list of 15 risk factors, the presence of which might indicate that a child is in danger of abuse or neglect. If any factor is potentially present, caseworkers can also make note of any family strengths or mitigating factors, which would make it unlikely for the risk factor to result in abuse or neglect. In the event that the protocol results in a decision of "Unsafe," a safety plan must be implemented or the child or children removed from the home.

Education and Training Resources

Publicly available information indicates there is some training available for this program.
See contact info below.

Training Contact:

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

This program is rated a "3 - Promising Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The practice must have at least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list study) establishing the practice's benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. Please see the Scientific Rating Scale for more information.

Show relevant research...

Fuller, T. L., Wells, S. J., & Cotton, E. E. (2001). Predictors of maltreatment recurrence at two milestones in the life of a case. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(1), 49-78.

Type of Study: 2 separate case control design studies.
Number of Participants: Study 1: 200 cases with a recurrence of maltreatment, 180 comparison cases without an occurrence of maltreatment. Study 2 (Intact families): 171 cases with a recurrence of maltreatment, 179 cases with no recurrence.

Population:

  • Age range — 0-18
  • Race/Ethnicity — Study 1: 67.6% Caucasian, 24% African American, 5% Hispanic, 3% Other. Study 2: 55% Caucasian, 36% African American, 9% Hispanic, 1% Other.
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Families who had been investigated for child maltreatment.

Location / Institution: Illinois

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Researchers randomly drew cases from the Illinois Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking System, where there was a recurrence of abuse within 60 days of investigation initiation. Cases where re-abuse had not occurred were also drawn. Two samples were drawn: One from the overall database and one from a subgroup of intact families only. In Study 1, the presence of a CERAP Assessment within 24 hours of initial investigation was not a predictor of whether maltreatment reoccurred. However, in this sample, virtually all cases had a completed assessment. In the intact family sub-sample, completion of a CERAP within 5 days of assignment was associated with significantly lower odds of having maltreatment reoccur. The data suggests the effect may be related to higher rates of contact caseworkers and receipt of more services within the 60-day period. One limitation is that the data was unable to provide explanations of why a CERAP had not been completed in those cases where it was not.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.

Fluke, J., Edwards, M., Bussey, M., Wells, S., & Johnson, W. (2001). Reducing recurrence in Child Protective Services: Impact of a targeted safety protocol. Child Maltreatment, 6(3), 207-218.

Type of Study: Pretest/Posttest using archival data
Number of Participants: Unknown

Population:

  • Age range — 0-17
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Families involved with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

Location / Institution: Illinois

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Using the Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking System (CANTS), rates of child abuse reports were measured before and after the introduction of the Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol (CERAP). The researcher examined total number of reports, allegations, substantiated reports and cases where protective custody was taken. Decreases were shown in all reports over the first two years that the program was implemented. Short-term recurrence (within 60 days), the main target of risk assessment, also showed statistically significant reduction over the first two years. Statistical analysis was done to rule out the possibility that the apparent effects of the program were due to a general decline in abuse reports or changes in policy that redefined risk among cases where children were in the care of relatives. The program was shown to have probable effects independent of those factors. However, the design of the study did not allow all possible contributing factors to the reduction in abuse reports.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.

References

No reference materials are currently available for Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol (CERAP).

Contact Information

Name: Richard Calica
Agency/Affiliation: Juvenile Protective Association
Email:
Phone: (312) 698-6940

Date Reviewed: June 2011 (originally reviewed in June 2008)