1. Richard P. Barth, PhD, MSW Presented to the Workshop on Child Maltreatment Research, Policy, and Practice for the Next Generation Washington, DC January, 30, 2012 Differential/Alternative Response: Toward Finding a More Engaging and Effective Child Welfare Service Array

2. Differential response provides a flexible approach to child welfare service delivery – Investigative pathway For referrals with severe child maltreatment or imminent risk of further abuse – Non-investigative pathway For referrals initially classified as low or moderate risk Focus on family engagement in assessment process and provision of services – Prevention pathway Some states do provide referrals for “screened out” cases or cases that do not meet the statutory requirements for child maltreatment Also referred to as dual track, multi-track, or multiple response systems (MRS) What is Differential Response?

3. Purposes of Differential Response Improved matching of case needs to services Better engagement of clients because no court involvement Reduction of “unnecessary” court and service costs – High end and forensically managed cases are reserved for only those cases with evident need Greater engagement of community agencies in serving CWS-connected clients Child abuse prevention with high risk cases (in some states) OVERALL: Children and families get what services they need when they need them (and nothing more)

4. Differential Response Implementation

5. Core Elements of Differential Response Two or more discrete responses to screened-in reports Assignment protocols and criteria based on assessment Capacity to reassign family to another pathway Codification of pathway responses Refusal of service in non-investigative pathway No determination of maltreatment Caregivers not perpetrators / not listed in central registry

6. 6 RCTs on Differential Response STATEExperimental Design with Random Assignment ColoradoX IllinoisX MinnesotaX New YorkX OhioX Ohio (SOAR)X

7. Research Findings Differential response has not been shown to result in increased reports of harm to children (studies with direct assessment of harm are not able to rule out that it does occur) Differential response is successful in achieving family engagement Parents in the non-investigative pathway have a more favorable attitude toward CPS Implementation of differential response increases cooperation between CPS and partner agencies Workers report greater satisfaction under the non- investigative pathway than the investigative pathway, but differential response does not reduce workload

8. Remaining Research Questions Which aspects of differential response implementation are most effective in improving outcomes for children and families? Are the positive effects on families due to assignment to a non-investigative pathway or actual service provision? How do criteria for assignment influence effectiveness of the non-investigative pathway?

9. Remaining Research Questions How does participation in the non-investigative pathway differentially affect families with different demographic, social, or cultural characteristics? Does assignment to a non-investigative pathway affect child and family well-being beyond safety? What is the total cost-effectiveness of differential response when costs to other service and support systems are considered?

10. Remaining Research Questions Will the key findings for child and family outcomes hold up under more rigorous evaluation designs? What is the impact on the CWS as a whole when multiple pathways are incorporated into the agency’s response to allegations of maltreatment? What changes in administrative data collection and analysis will best capture the impact of DR

11. Core Elements of Differential Response 1.Two or more discrete responses to screened-in reports 2.Assignment protocols and criteria 3.Capacity to reassign to another pathway 4.Codification of various responses 5.Ability to refuse services in non-investigative pathway 6.No formal determination of maltreatment in non- investigative pathway 7.Caregivers not listed in central registry A.Children’s central registry records may be time-limited

12. Sources Conley, A. (2007). Differential response: A critical examination of a secondary prevention model. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(11), 1454-1468. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.06.003 Conley, A., & Berrick, J. D. (2010). Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention: Outcomes Associated With a Differential Response Program in California. Child Maltreatment, 15(4), 282-292. doi: 10.1177/1077559510376236 Fuller, T., & Nieto, M. (2009). Substantiation and Maltreatment Rereporting: A Propensity Score Analysis. Child Maltreatment, 14(1), 27-37. doi: 10.1177/1077559508326925. Lawrence, C. N., Rosanbalm, K. D., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Multiple Response System: Evaluation of Policy Change in North Carolina's Child Welfare System. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), 2355-2365. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.007 Marshall, S. K., Charles, G., Kendrick, K., & Pakalniskiene, V. (2010). Comparing Differential Responses within Child Protective Services: A Longitudinal Examination. Child Welfare, 89(3), 57-77. Rogosch, F. A., Dackis, M. N., & Cicchetti, D. (2011). Child maltreatment and allostatic load: Consequences for physical and mental health in children from low-income families. [Article]. Development and Psychopathology, 23(4), 1107-1124. doi: 10.1017/s0954579411000587. Differential Response in Child Protective Services: A Literature Review, Version 2. A Project of the Children’s Bureau, US DHHS, ACF, ACYF. November 2011, CFDA Number 93:670. For more information: www.differentialresponseqic.org (Note: This was the source for all graphs and tables in this presentation.)www.differentialresponseqic.org