1. Presented at the Leadership Symposium on Evidence-Based Practice in Child Welfare Services June 28, 2007 Davis, CA It Can Work! Lessons Learned from a Successful University-County Partnership to Study Contra Costa County’s Differential Response System Amy Price, MPA, Center for Child & Youth Policy, University of California at Berkeley Debi Moss, MA, Contra Costa County Children & Family Services

2. Center for Child & Youth Policy, UCB  Staff  GSRs Contra Costa County Children & Family Services  Manager, Analyst & Researcher  Contractual Relationship with CBOs History of CCYP & CFS Working Together 2 The Partnership

3. Differential Response Paths  Path 1: The issues, while of concern, do not rise to the level of abuse/neglect and can be addressed by community services.  Path 2: Face-to-face assessment by ERW shows there is no need for continued CFS involvement, and issues can be addressed by community services.  Path 3: CFS intervention needed.

4. Differential Response Overview

5. Differential Response Path 1

6. Differential Response Path 2

7. Purpose of Study To develop an evidence based curriculum on differential response based on lessons learned from Contra Costa County. Program development Training Implementation Outcomes

8. Study Design  Face-to-face interviews with direct and supervisory staff of participating CBOs and CFS staff involved in implementing DR  Phone interviews with clients receiving services through Paths 1 and 2  Review of outcome data collected by CFS (RCT study)

9. Roles & Responsibilities  CCYP Develop study methods and instruments including staff survey and client survey Obtain IRB approval Conduct staff and client interviews Analyze qualitative survey data Report back to CFS staff on findings Write curriculum based on findings 9

10. Roles continued  CFS Review all materials developed by CCYP Provide names and contact information for staff and clients Provide opportunities for CCYP staff to meet with CFS and CBO staff, and serve as liaison between CCYP and CBOs Collect client outcome data and provide CCYP with summaries

11. Additional Partnerships  Other CCYP staff conducting parallel study of Alameda County’s Alternative Response System—development of joint curriculum  The Results Group—evaluating early implementers of the CW Redesign 11

12. Key Findings  Strengths and weaknesses of DR  Staff training and preparation to implement DR  Family assessment  Staff roles & responsibilities  Communication between CBOs and CFS  Client engagement  Service needs and availability  Cultural sensitivity and appropriateness

13. Successes  Excellent working relationship with CFS High level of agency commitment Manager with ability to make decisions and make things happen Culture that accepts and embraces research  High response rate for staff interviews  Opportunity to interview clients receiving services through DR  Ability to combine lessons learned from Contra Costa & Alameda in 1 curriculum

14. Challenges  Numerous research efforts happening simultaneously—burden on staff  Developing joint curriculum without comparing approaches or findings  Timing—simultaneously writing curriculum and collecting data  Limits of CalSWEC funding  Change in county administration

15. Dissemination of Findings  Report to county  Curriculum Overview & literature review Program planning, design & implementation Client experiences & client outcomes Best practices/lessons learned in providing direct services to families via DR Implications for policy and practice Case vignettes Discussion questions Bibliography of important reading

16. Future Research  Replicate study in other counties and do comparative analysis of different DR models.  Follow families over time.  Follow-up in a few years to monitor program progress and changes.  Look at success of DR in relation to available resources in the community.  Look at DR effectiveness with different allegations, age groups, ethnicities, etc.

17. Discussion Questions  How can a curriculum based on the experiences of one county sufficiently represent the experiences of all counties in educating students or child welfare workers about DR?  How do you coordinate multiple research efforts to maximize resources and minimize duplication of efforts?  Who are the different stakeholders and how do you coordinate efforts to meet all of their needs?  The CalSWEC funded projects are designed to produce evidence based curricula. What happens if the research suggests that the model is not effective or results in negative outcomes?  How do you account for the “surveillance factor” when interpreting results?