|
Differential Response
Differential response, also referred to as “dual track,” “multiple track,” or “alternative response,” is an approach that allows child protective services to respond differently to accepted reports of child abuse and neglect, based on such factors as the type and severity of the alleged maltreatment, number and sources of previous reports, and willingness of the family to participate in services.
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) and American Humane national survey on differential response in child welfare showed great variation in state and county implementation of this approach, with generally low- and moderate-risk cases receiving a non-investigation assessment response without a formal determination or substantiation of child abuse and neglect. It is suggested that families receiving the non-investigation assessment response are more likely to be receptive to and engaged in the receipt of services when approached in a non-adversarial, non-accusatory way. The incident-based, often perceived adversarial, investigation is reserved for those accepted reports that are high-risk and egregious.
CWLA and American Humane (2006) identified core elements in differential response as an attempt to achieve definitional clarity and distinguish among the multitude of child protection reforms across the nation’s state and county child welfare systems. These core elements included:
- Two or more discrete tracks of intervention.
- Multiple responses for reports of maltreatment that are screened in and accepted for response.
- Track assignment determined by presence of imminent danger, level of risk, the number of previous reports, the source of the report, and/or presenting case characteristics such as type of alleged maltreatment and age of the alleged victim.
- A possible decrease or elevation in original track assignments based on additional information gathered during the investigation or assessment phase. An increase or decrease in threats of harm or risk level can trigger a change in track assignment.
- Establishment of multiple tracks codified in statute, policy and/or protocols.
- Voluntary services for families who receive a non-investigatory response, meaning families can accept or refuse the offered services without consequence.
- No substantiation of alleged maltreatment for families served in a non-investigation track and services offered without a formal determination of child maltreatment (i.e., substantiation). This means that perpetrators and victims are not identified for the alleged reports of maltreatment that receive a non-investigation response.
- Differential use of central registry depending on track, meaning the name of the alleged perpetrator is not entered into the central registry for those individuals who are served through a non-investigation track.
Registration Is Now Open!
American Humane's 2008 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare
Please join us Nov. 12-14, 2008, at the Hyatt on Capitol Square in Columbus, Ohio, for American Humane's second annual Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare. The conference aims to build knowledge and skills, disseminate ongoing practices, and provide an exchange of ideas across states, counties and provinces on a range of topics related to implementing and sustaining differential response in child welfare.
Download the conference brochure for all the details and to register.
We hope to see you in Ohio!
Ohio Alternative Response Pilot Project
The Supreme Court of Ohio and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, with support from the AIM team (American Humane Association, Institute of Applied Research and Minnesota leaders), implemented a pilot alternative response project in 10 counties. In fall 2007, the pilot counties were selected and began the design phase of an alternative response system to accepted reports of alleged child maltreatment. American Humane leads the AIM team in assisting pilot counties in the creation and establishment of their alternative response systems.
With the completion of the design phase, the AIM team helped prepare the counties for implementation through trainings with community stakeholders and agency workers and supervisors. As of July 1, 2008, Clark, Fairfield, Franklin, Greene, Guernsey, Licking, Lucas, Ross, Trumbull and Tuscarawas counties entered the second phase of the project, to implement alternative response. As part of the pilot project, data will be collected for 18 months (July 2008-December 2009) on a variety of issues, including child safety, services, family involvement and participation, and workers’ reaction to the approach.
At the conclusion of the pilot project, the AIM team will provide the state with evaluation findings and recommendations. The state will use this information to determine whether or not to proceed with statewide implementation of alternative response systems in all 88 Ohio counties.
This is a very exciting endeavor for the 10 pilot counties, the state of Ohio and anyone interested in the lives of families served by the child welfare system.
Now Available to Download: Differential Response in Child Welfare
Vol. 20, No. 2-3
This double volume of Protecting Children explores differential response, including specific issues regarding differential response implementation in small counties, ethnically diverse neighborhoods, and large, urban child welfare agencies. Numerous articles explore innovative designs and strategies for serving families whose reports do not meet a legal threshold for a formal CPS response. Family assessment instrumentation and data analyses from NCANDS on subsequent CPS engagement of families served through an assessment pathway are also presented. Other articles feature organizational context, design, and change issues for agencies considering implementing differential response.
Download the entire volume. (PDF;1.86MB), 101 pages
2007 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare
American Humane’s 2007 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare was held Nov. 14-16 in Long Beach, Calif. The conference program featured 37 presenters from 10 states and four countries, including New Zealand, England and Ireland. The target areas for the conference included Community Partnerships, Practice with Children and Families, Workforce Issues, Policy Issues, Sustainability, and Research and Evaluation Issues.
Following are selected presentations on differential response from the conference and other sessions.
Practicing for Outcomes: Differential Response Model, New Zealand Style
American Humane was privileged to have Dr. Marie Connolly from New Zealand’s Ministry of Social Development present a keynote address at the conference. Addressing more than 400 conference participants, Dr. Connolly shared “Practicing for Outcomes: Differential Response Model, New Zealand Style.” Dr. Connolly holds the position of chief social worker within the New Zealand government and has published extensively in the area of child and family practice. She has been an advisor to governments across international jurisdictions. Download Dr. Connolly's PowerPoint presentation.
Getting Started with Differential Response: Fundamentals and First Steps
Caren Kaplan, director of child protection reform at American Humane, and Patricia Schene, American Humane senior fellow, presented a preconference session entitled "Getting Started with Differential Response: Fundamentals and First Steps." The session, which included important considerations for jurisdictions moving to implement differential response, addressed the purpose of implementing differential response, statutory changes, relating to stakeholders, preparing staff, addressing issues of assessment, engaging families and coordinating with community services. View the presentation. (PDF)
Alternative Response: What It Is and Why It Works
This session, by Caren Kaplan of American Humane and Theresa Costello of the National Resource Center for Child Protective Services, provided participants with a foundation and shared understanding of alternative response. The experiences of “experienced” jurisdictions, such as Minnesota, Missouri and Hawaii, were examined, and lessons learned were highlighted. On the practice level, issues of child safety, assessment, family engagement and coordination with community services were noted to be of greater importance when undertaking alternative response. Findings of program evaluations conducted to date were detailed. Download the presentation. (PDF) |
 |
|
To view Adobe PDF documents, install the free 