Results of the study show that across a range of measures, the California Family Risk Assessment (CFRA) had an imperfect but better-than-chance predictive validity in child maltreatment risk assessments. This study of the CFRA examined four questions: 1) is there evidence of the validity of the CFRA under field operating conditions; 2) are child welfare workers' service delivery decisions influenced by the results of actuarial risk assessments; 3) how frequently are CFRA risk scores overridden by child welfare workers; and 4) is there any difference in the predictive validity of CFRA risk assessments and clinical risk assessments by child welfare workers? Data for this study were obtained from analyses of 7,685 child abuse/neglect reports from 5 counties in California that followed the families for 2 years to identify additional incidences of substantiated child abuse/neglect. In 85 percent of the cases (n=6,543), the CFRA was found to have imperfect but better-than-chance predictive validity across a range of measures for child abuse/neglect. In cases where both CFRA risk assessments and child welfare worker clinical risk assessments were available (n=114), the CFRA assessments exhibited better-than-chance predictive validity while those of the child welfare worker were invalid. In 1.5 percent of the cases (n=114), child welfare workers overrode CFRA risk assessments. These findings indicate that until actuarial models with superior predictive validity are developed, the CFRA can be a valuable tool in assessing risk of child abuse/neglect. Tables and references