Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Differentialresponse 130419135105-phpapp02
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Differentialresponse 130419135105-phpapp02


Published on

Published in: Self Improvement

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Many parents, reporters, and social workers become frustrated with the limited responses available to children and familiesThe CPS “investigation” is perceived as overly accusatory and adversarial as an initial response for many reportsFocus on substantiation and identifying a perpetrator does not contribute to a family’s readiness to engage in servicesThe majority of investigations do not result in any services being providedSince overwhelming majority of cases are not served through court orders, evidence collection is not always needed
  • Differential Response allows system to move more quickly to address safety needsDifferential response can support families by applying available resources to services rather than investigationsDifferential response is often accompanied by greater efforts to identify, build, and coordinate formal and non-formal services and supportsChildren are safer sooner
  • Transcript

    • 1. DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSENational OverviewTheresa Costello, MADirectorNational Resource Center for Child ProtectiveServices (NRCCPS)April 17, 2013
    • 2. Defining Differential Response• CPS practice that allows for more thanone method of initial response toreports of child abuse and neglect• Also called “dual track”, “multipletrack”, or “alternative response”
    • 3. What differential response isNOT…• Differential response has not focusedmainly on cases screened out asinappropriate for child protectiveservices; rather it has focused onresponding differentially to acceptedreports of child maltreatment.
    • 4. History of Child Welfareand the Purpose ofDifferential Response
    • 5. Purposes ofDifferential Response and Child Protection CPS was established torespond to all reports ofsuspected childmaltreatment, but numbersoverwhelm availableresources Systems either screen out ordo not open for servicesmore than half ofreports, yet many childrenare vulnerable
    • 6. Purposesof Differential Response in Child Welfare Traditional investigatorypractice is often adversarial& alienates parents DR is a way to respond tomore reports (screened in)at an earlier stage byengaging families in a non-adversarial process oflinking them to neededservices
    • 7. Why ImplementDifferential Response?Recent Study on CPInvestigations : Do little to reduce risk Do not result in long-term improvement infamily functioning orchild behavior Are associated withincreased depressionamong mothers“Child Protective Services HasOutlived Its Usefulness”Dr. KristineCampbell, Assistant Professorof Pediatrics at the Universityof UtahPublished inThe Archives of Pediatrics andAdolescent MedicineOct. 2010
    • 8. Why ImplementDifferential Response?“A lot of times the [family] situation calls for the formation ofa healing relationship so the very act of going there in aninvestigatory mode impairs the ability [for workers] to forma meaningful relationship in which parents can beopen, ask for and get help”~Dr. Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph. DSenior FellowChild Trauma
    • 9. Why ImplementDifferential Response?Increasingly, concerned citizens and organizations arerealizing that the best way to prevent child abuse is to helpparents develop the skills and identify the resources theyneed to understand and meet their childrens needs andprotect them from harm
    • 10. Why ImplementDifferential Response?According to National Study of Child Protective ServicesSystems and Reform Efforts (2003), 20 states identified oneof 3 purposes as reason for DR system: child safety (55%) family preservation or strengthening (45%) prevention of CA/N (20%)
    • 11. Why Differential Response?• Driven by the desire to….– Be more flexible in the response to child abuse andneglect reports– Recognize that an adversarial focus is neitherneeded nor helpful in all cases– Better understand the family issues that lie beneathmaltreatment reports– Engage parents more effectively to use servicesthat address their specific needs– Serve more families; majority of traditionalinvestigations do not result in any services beingprovided
    • 12. Why Differential Response?• Driven by desire to…– Address family needs more quickly; mostcases not driven by court intervention, soevidence collection is not necessary– Build family support systems; DRS is oftenaccompanied by greater efforts toidentify, build and coordinate formal andnon-formal family supports
    • 13. Shared Principles of TraditionalCPS and Differential Response• Focus on safety and well-being of the child• Promote permanency within the familywhenever possible• Recognize the authority of CPS to makedecisions about removal, out of homeplacement and court involvement, whennecessary• Acknowledge that other community servicesmay be more appropriate than CPS in somecases
    • 14. Principles and Assumptionsof Differential Response The circumstances and needs of families differ and soshould the response The majority of reports do not need an adversarialapproach 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
    • 15. Principles and Assumptionsof Differential Response Effective assessment toolscan be put in place toassure safety and aninformed response Frontline staff in CPS andother agencies are trainedin strength based andcollaborativeinterventions Only cases of greaterseverity need to be onstate central registry Cases are monitoredsufficiently to changecourse/paths whensituation requires
    • 16. Practice Framework and Assumptions The primary goal of noninvestigative approach ischild safety Most families want toaddress threats to childsafety Most families can bepartners in achieving childsafety Families are more thanthe presenting concerns Family protective factorscan assist in keepingchildren safe Families are helpedthrough connections withcommunity services andresources
    • 17. Comparing TraditionalChild ProtectionModels andDifferential Response
    • 18. Traditional Child Protection Practice ModelInvestigation model isrooted in the determinationof whether: A child has been harmed A child is at risk of beingharmed An individual is culpablefor this conduct.Report screened todetermine appropriatenessof child welfare agencyinterventionInvestigation(Is this a Child in Need of Protective Services?)1. Safety and Risk Assessments2. Gathering of EvidenceDispositionRe. Child in Need ofProtective ServicesUnsubstantiated SubstantiatedCategory IVVoluntaryservicesrecommendedCategory VNo services areneededCategory IRemovalrequiredCategory IICourt mandatedservicesrequiredCategory IIIServices areneeded
    • 19. Model for Differential ResponseReport screened todetermine appropriatenessof child welfare agencyinterventionReport is screened out.Referral for other communityservices may be made.Alternative Response Screening1. Is there an administrative rule requiringthat the report be investigated?2. Are there other factors that wouldnecessitate an investigation?Family Assessment1. Safety and Risk Assessments2. Complete assessment of familystrengths, needs and resources.Investigation(Is this a Child in Need of Protective Services?)1. Safety and Risk Assessments2. Gathering of EvidenceAssessment OutcomeDispositionRe. Child in Need ofProtective ServicesFamily declinesneeded servicesVoluntary ServicesRecommendedServices areNeededAgencyassesses thatservices areneeded tomaintain childsafely at home.Unsubstantiated SubstantiatedNo YesNoYesNo ServicesNo servicesneededFamily andagency agreeupon servicesFamilydeclinesservicesFamilyacceptsneededservicesCategory IVVoluntaryservicesrecommendedCategory VNo services areneededCategory IRemovalrequiredCategory IICourt mandatedservicesrequiredCategory IIIServices areneededDifferentialResponseSystemfocusing on achild in needof protectiveservices andsupport andengagementof the family.
    • 20. The Core Elementsof DifferentialResponse
    • 21. Core Elements of Differential Response1. Use of two or more discreteresponses to reports ofmaltreatment that arescreened in and accepted2. Assignment to responsepathways determined by anarray of factors3. Original responseassignments can be changed4. Ability of families whoreceive a non-investigatoryresponse to accept or refuseto participate in differentialresponse or to choose thetraditional investigatoryresponse
    • 22. Core Elements of Differential Response5. Establishment of discreteresponses codified instatute, policy, protocols6. After assessment, servicesare voluntary for familieswho receive a non-investigatory response (aslong as child safety is notcompromised)7. No substantiation of allegedmaltreatment and servicesare offered without formaldetermination that childmaltreatment has occurred8. Use of central registry isdependent upon type ofresponse
    • 23. Pathways in the DifferentialResponse Continuum• There are at least two categories ofresponse ( SC 3)– Investigation: reports that are immediatelyrecognized as presenting serious safety issuesfor children/placement more likely/may becriminal charges– Assessment: reports that indicate the childmay be in need of protection and the familyrequires services to better address child andfamily safety and well being.
    • 24. 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 assignedto assessment)• Willingness and capacity of the parentsto participate in services
    • 25. Assessment is the Key• Assessment must be comprehensive-more than simply a risk and safetyassessment-understanding underlyingfamily conditions• Must also identify protective factors infamily and larger social context thatcould be mobilized to strengthen family
    • 26. Family Engagement• Family members have significant expertiseand whenever possible it is important toengage them in identifying issues and tohonor family choices when they do notjeopardize safety• Seek collaboration with family and theirformal and informal support system• Whenever possible, eliminate practices thatproduce resistance such as drop invisits, joint visits with law enforcement, andinterviewing child without parentalknowledge
    • 27. Evaluation items/progressmeasures• Child safety• Permanency: subsequent removals and placement• Family satisfaction and cooperation• Family functioning and well-being, skills of individualfamily members, financial well-being and socialsupport• Services to families• Worker satisfaction• Judicial system: referrals to juvenile/familycourt, reduction in court hearings, childremovals, TPR orders, etc.• Cost savings/effectiveness
    • 28. Potential Challenges• Subsequent reports• Family does not participate voluntarily• Insufficiency of service resources• Inadequate involvement of fathers andother significant stakeholders• Communication with/withincommunity service system
    • 29. Prospective Benefits• More children are better protected over timeby engaging more parents in the process ofmaking sustainable changes• The rate of subsequent repeat reports to CPShas been demonstrated to decrease• Both families and agency child protectionworkers are more satisfied with theoutcomes• Involvement of larger systems of support• The approach is cost neutral or saves moneyover time
    • 30. Lessons Learned• There is intrinsic value of family voice -as partners, guiding service planningand decision making• Community partnerships are mosteffective ways to protect children• There is a need to involve families andcommunity stakeholders early inprocess
    • 31. Lessons Learned• Communication among/acrossjurisdictions is essential - establishvehicles for regular contact• Assessment is ongoing and cumulativeas trust builds• Evaluation matters - bring evaluators inearly and make the investment to do itwell
    • 32. 32Washington, D.C.Regional/ County ImplementationPlanning/ ConsideringDiscontinuedTribalScreen Out ResponseStatewideDifferential Response ImplementationUpdated October 31. 2012
    • 33. Service Types and Needs forDRS families• Concrete Services (clothing, food, utilitypayment, 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)
    • 34. Differential ResponseResearch and Evaluation
    • 35. EVALUATION FINDINGS• Child Safety– Child safety was not compromised underdifferential response systems– Safety was maintained even whencomparable families were randomlyassigned to tracks– Increased services to families loweredrecurrence
    • 36. EVALUATION FINDINGS• Services to Families– Services were provided more often tochildren and families on the assessmenttrack– The number of services received byfamilies on the assessment track wasgreater than on the investigation track– Services may be provided to familiesearlier on the assessment track– Greater use of community resources wasreported in pilot areas of at least 3 States
    • 37. EVALUATION FINDINGS• Family Satisfaction and Engagement– Families reported satisfaction with thedifferential response system inMissouri, Minnesota, North Carolina andVirginia– The family’s sense of participation indecision making increased in severalStates– Workers reported families were morecooperative and willing to accept services
    • 38. EVALUATION FINDINGS• Cost Effectiveness– Differential response appears to be costeffective over the long term. (Minnesotastudy only)
    • 39. EVALUATION FINDINGS• CPS Staff Perspectives and Issues– CPS staff like the differential responseapproach– Large caseloads and limited resources areobstacles to differential responseeffectiveness– Training is needed to makeimplementation successful
    • 40. Reduction in DisproportionalityHawaii results
    • 41. 0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008PercentofInvestigtionsTrends in Placements as a Percentage ofInvestigationsWhite RemovalsNative Hawaiian or PartHawaiian Removals
    • 42. Questions?