DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE

1
DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE

• Theresa Costello, MA
• Director
• National Resource Center for Child Protective
  Services (NRCCPS)
• March 16, 2009

2
Defining Differential Response

• CPS practice that allows for more than one method
  of initial response to reports of child abuse and
  neglect
• Also called dual track, multiple track, or
  alternative response

3
What differential response is NOT

• Differential response has not focused mainly on
  cases screened out as inappropriate for child
  protective services rather it has focused on
  responding differentially to accepted reports of
  child maltreatment.

4
Why Differential Response?

• Driven by desire to
• Address family needs more quickly most cases not
  driven by court intervention, so evidence
  collection is not necessary
• Build family support systems DRS is often
  accompanied by greater efforts to identify, build
  and coordinate formal and non-formal family
  supports

5
Comparison Between Investigation and Assessment
Approaches1
6
Core Elements

• Use of two or more discrete responses to reports
  of maltreatment that are screened in and
  accepted Investigation and Assessment
• Assignment to response pathways is determined by
  an array of factors.
• Original response assignments can be changed.
• Family participation is voluntary some families
  who choose not to participate in non-traditional
  response may be referred to traditional track.

7
Core Elements

• Establishment of discrete responses is codified
  in statute, policy, protocols.
• No substantiation of alleged maltreatment and
  services are offered without formal determination
  that child maltreatment has occurred.

8
Pathways in the Differential Response Continuum

• There are at least two categories of response
• Investigation reports that are immediately
  recognized as presenting serious safety issues
  for children/placement more likely/may be
  criminal charges
• Assessment reports that indicate the child may
  be in need of protection and the family requires
  services to better address child and family
  safety and well being.

9
Factors Determining Response

• Statutory limitations
• Severity of the allegation
• History of past reports
• Ability to assure the safety of the child (if
  safety threats at intake not assigned to
  assessment)
• Willingness and capacity of the parents to
  participate in services

10
Assessment is the Key

• Assessment must be comprehensive- more than
  simply a risk and safety assessment-understanding
  underlying family conditions
• Must also identify protective factors in family
  and larger social context that could be mobilized
  to strengthen family

11
Family Engagement

• Family members have significant expertise and
  whenever possible it is important to engage them
  in identifying issues and to honor family choices
  when they do not jeopardize safety
• Seek collaboration with family and their formal
  and informal support system
• Whenever possible, eliminate practices that
  produce resistance such as drop in visits, joint
  visits with law enforcement, and interviewing
  child without parental knowledge

12
Potential Challenges

• Subsequent reports
• Family does not participate voluntarily
• Insufficiency of service resources
• Inadequate involvement of fathers and other
  significant stakeholders
• Communication with/within community service system

13
Prospective Benefits

• More children are better protected over time by
  engaging more parents in the process of making
  sustainable changes
• The rate of subsequent repeat reports to CPS has
  been demonstrated to decrease
• Both families and agency child protection workers
  are more satisfied with the outcomes
• Involvement of larger systems of support
• The approach is cost neutral or saves money over
  time

14
EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD

• National Study on Differential Response in Child
  Welfare indicates 15 states currently
  implementing DRS to some degree.
• An additional 10 jurisdictions currently
  implementing another innovative strategy.

15
Implementation Variability

• Statewide
• Multiple sites within State
• Single jurisdiction
• No longer in existence
• Other innovative practices

16
Lessons Learned

• There is intrinsic value of family voice - as
  partners, guiding service planning and decision
  making
• Community partnerships are most effective ways to
  protect children
• There is a need to involve families and community
  stakeholders early in process

17
Lessons Learned

• Communication among/across jurisdictions is
  essential - establish vehicles for regular
  contact
• Assessment is ongoing and cumulative as trust
  builds
• Evaluation matters - bring evaluators in early
  and make the investment to do it well

18
Service Types and Needs for DRS families

• Concrete Services (clothing, food, utility
  payment, housing, job training, transportation)
• Parenting Classes
• Domestic Violence services
• Mental Health services
• Substance Abuse treatment
• Counseling (adults and children)
• Home-based services
• Population-specific services (e.g.
  Spanish-speaking clients, children with
  disabilities)

19
Evaluation items/progress measures

• Child safety
• Permanency subsequent removals and placement
• Family satisfaction and cooperation
• Family functioning and well-being, skills of
  individual family members, financial well-being
  and social support
• Services to families
• Worker satisfaction
• Judicial system referrals to juvenile/family
  court, reduction in court hearings, child
  removals, TPR orders, etc.
• Cost savings/effectiveness

20
The Developmental Process

• Different Phases pose Different Challenges and
  Opportunities
• Design
• Early Implementation
• Mid-Implementation
• Maturity
• Ongoing

21
Model Fidelity What we have learned thus far...

• AR works best when basic model is followed
• Non-adversarial, respectful approach to families
• Open invitation to families to participate in
  group decision making
• Broad and early assessments of family strengths
  and needs and indicators of child well-being
• Increased service response and community
  referrals
• Mutual worker-family decision to continue
  contacts and support

22
Model Fidelity, continued

• AR works best when.
• Child safety is primary consideration
• Readiness to change tracks (assessment to
  investigation) when safety (present or impending
  danger) is found

23
EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Referral and Substantiation
• The proportion of reports diverted to an
  alternative response varied greatly across States
  (20 to 71)
• Proportion of investigations that were
  substantiated increased
• Decrease in the numbers of both victims and
  non-victims identified by States

24
EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Child and Case Characteristics
• An AR was more likely to be used for cases with
  less immediate safety concerns and less likely to
  be used in sexual abuse cases
• Older children generally were more likely to
  receive an AR
• Children and families who were referred to an AR
  were similar in demographics (gender, race,
  ethnicity, family structure) to those who
  received traditional investigations

25
EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Child and Case Characteristics
• Prior victimization was often related to a
  decreased likelihood of an AR
• Referrals from social workers, medical personnel,
  and legal or criminal justice sources were less
  likely to receive an AR

26
EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Child Safety
• Child safety was not compromised under
  differential response systems
• Safety was maintained even when comparable
  families were randomly assigned to tracks
• Increased services to families lowered recurrence

27
EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Services to Families
• Services were provided more often to children and
  families on the assessment track
• The number of services received by families on
  the assessment track was greater than on the
  investigation track
• Services may be provided to families earlier on
  the assessment track
• Greater use of community resources was reported
  in pilot areas of at least 3 States

28
EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Family Satisfaction and Engagement
• Families reported satisfaction with the
  differential response system in Missouri,
  Minnesota, North Carolina and Virginia
• The familys sense of participation in decision
  making increased in several States
• Workers reported families were more cooperative
  and willing to accept services

29
EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Cost Effectiveness
• Differential response appears to be cost
  effective over the long term. (Minnesota study
  only)

30
EVALUATION FINDINGS

• CPS Staff Perspectives and Issues
• CPS staff like the differential response approach
• Large caseloads and limited resources are
  obstacles to differential response effectiveness
• Training is needed to make implementation
  successful

31
Hawaiis Differential Response
32
DRS Outcomes

• Since implementation of the DRS in Hawaii on
  December 16, 2005
• 4,217 families were referred for CWS
  investigations of allegations of abuse or
  neglect.
• 1,188 families were referred for VCM services
  from CWS intake.
• 2,447 families were referred for FSS services
  from CWS intake.

33
DRS Outcomes

• Recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect
  decreased from 5.7 in SFY 2004 to 2.2 in SFY
  2007. Currently at 1.5.
• 38 of Referrals to CWS intake are being triaged
  to the FSS and VCM programs.
• Approximately 15 of referrals to FSS and VCM are
  returned due to safety concerns.
• Children in out-of-home care decreased by
  approximately 20 since the implementation of the
  DRS.
• The average caseload for each CWS worker has
  decreased from 24 to 18 cases.

34
CONCLUSION

• Differential response has been a positive
  development in child protection. Evaluations
  demonstrate that
• Children are at least as safe as in traditional
  practice
• Parents are engaging in services
• Families, caseworkers, and administrators are
  supportive of the approach