DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE National Overview

Theresa Costello, MADirectorNational Resource Center for Child Protective Services (NRCCPS)April 17, 2013

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”

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.

History of Child Welfare and the Purpose of

Differential Response

Purposes of Differential Response and Child Protection

CPS was established to respond to all reports of suspected child maltreatment, but numbers overwhelm available resources

Systems either screen out or do not open for services more than half of reports, yet many children are vulnerable

Purposes of Differential Response in Child Welfare

Traditional investigatory practice is often adversarial & alienates parents

DR is a way to respond to more reports (screened in) at an earlier stage by engaging families in a non-adversarial process of linking them to needed services

Why ImplementDifferential Response?

Recent Study on CP Investigations :

Do little to reduce risk

Do not result in long-term improvement in family functioning or child behavior

Are associated with increased depression among mothers

“Child Protective Services Has Outlived Its

Usefulness”

Dr. Kristine Campbell, Assistant Professor of

Pediatrics at the University of Utah

Published in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine

Oct. 2010

Why Implement Differential Response?

“A lot of times the [family] situation calls for the formation of a healing relationship so the very act

of going there in an investigatory mode impairs the ability [for workers] to form a meaningful

relationship in which parents can be open, ask for and get help”

~Dr. Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph. DSenior Fellow

Child Trauma Academywww.childtrauma.org

Why Implement Differential Response?

Increasingly, concerned citizens and organizations are realizing that the best way to prevent child abuse is to help parents develop the skills and identify the resources they need to understand and meet their children's needs and protect them from harm

Why ImplementDifferential Response?

According to National Study of Child Protective Services

Systems and Reform Efforts (2003), 20 states identified one

of 3 purposes as reason for DR system:

child safety (55%) family preservation or strengthening (45%) prevention of CA/N (20%)

Why Differential Response?

• Driven by the desire to….– Be more flexible in the response to child abuse and

neglect reports– Recognize that an adversarial focus is neither needed

nor helpful in all cases– Better understand the family issues that lie beneath

maltreatment reports– Engage parents more effectively to use services that

address their specific needs– Serve more families; majority of traditional

investigations do not result in any services being provided

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

Shared Principles of Traditional CPS and Differential Response

• Focus on safety and well-being of the child• Promote permanency within the family

whenever possible• Recognize the authority of CPS to make

decisions about removal, out of home placement and court involvement, when necessary

• Acknowledge that other community services may be more appropriate than CPS in some cases

Principles and Assumptions of Differential Response

The circumstances and needs of families differ and so should the response

The majority of reports do not need an adversarial approach or court-ordered interventions

Absent an investigation: child safety will not be jeopardized services can be in place more quickly families will be more motivated to use services

Principles and Assumptions of Differential Response

Effective assessment tools can be put in place to assure safety and an informed response

Frontline staff in CPS and other agencies are trained in strength based and collaborative interventions

Only cases of greater severity need to be on state central registry

Cases are monitored sufficiently to change course/paths when situation requires

Practice Framework and Assumptions

The primary goal of non investigative approach is child safety

Most families want to address threats to child safety

Most families can be partners in achieving child safety

Families are more than the presenting concerns

Family protective factors can assist in keeping children safe

Families are helped through connections with community services and resources

Comparing Traditional Child

Protection Models and Differential

Response

Traditional Child Protection Practice Model

Investigation model is rooted in the determination of whether:

A child has been harmed

A child is at risk of being harmed

An individual is culpable for this conduct.

Report screened to determine appropriateness

of child welfare agency intervention

Investigation(Is this a Child in Need of Protective Services?)

1. Safety and Risk Assessments2. Gathering of Evidence

DispositionRe. Child in Need of Protective Services

Unsubstantiated Substantiated

Category IVVoluntary services

recommended

Category VNo services are

needed

Category IRemoval required

Category IICourt mandated

services required

Category IIIServices are

needed

Model for Differential Response

Report screened to determine appropriateness

of child welfare agency intervention

Report is screened out.

Referral for other community services may be made.

Alternative Response Screening

1. Is there an administrative rule requiring that the report be investigated?

2. Are there other factors that would necessitate an investigation?

Family Assessment

1. Safety and Risk Assessments

2. Complete assessment of family strengths, needs and resources.

Investigation(Is this a Child in Need of Protective Services?)

1. Safety and Risk Assessments2. Gathering of Evidence

Assessment OutcomeDisposition

Re. Child in Need of Protective Services

Family declines needed services

Voluntary Services Recommended

Services are Needed

Agency assesses that services are needed to

maintain child safely at home.

Unsubstantiated Substantiated

No Yes

No

Yes

No ServicesNo services

needed

Family and agency agree upon services

Family declines services

Family accepts needed services

Category IVVoluntary services

recommended

Category VNo services are

needed

Category IRemoval required

Category IICourt mandated

services required

Category IIIServices are

needed

Differential Response System focusing on a child in need of protective services and support and engagement of the family.

The Core Elements of Differential Response

Core Elements of Differential Response

1. Use of two or more discrete responses to reports of maltreatment that are screened in and accepted

2. Assignment to response pathways determined by an array of factors

3. Original response assignments can be changed

4. Ability of families who receive a non-investigatory response to accept or refuse to participate in differential response or to choose the traditional investigatory response

Core Elements of Differential Response

5. Establishment of discrete responses codified in statute, policy, protocols

6. After assessment, services are voluntary for families who receive a non-investigatory response (as long as child safety is not compromised)

7. No substantiation of alleged maltreatment and services are offered without formal determination that child maltreatment has occurred

8. Use of central registry is dependent upon type of response

Pathways in the Differential Response Continuum

• There are at least two categories of response ( SC 3)– 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32

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)

Differential ResponseResearch and Evaluation

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

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

EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Family Satisfaction and Engagement– Families reported satisfaction with the

differential response system in Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina and Virginia

– The family’s sense of participation in decision making increased in several States

– Workers reported families were more cooperative and willing to accept services

EVALUATION FINDINGS

• Cost Effectiveness– Differential response appears to be cost

effective over the long term. (Minnesota study only)

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

Reduction in DisproportionalityHawaii results

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Trends in Placements as a Percentage of Investiga-tions

White RemovalsNative Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian Removals

Perc

ent o

f Inv

estig

tions

Questions?