Transcript DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE

DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE
Theresa Costello, MA
Director
National Resource Center for Child
Protective Services (NRCCPS)
March 16, 2009
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.
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
Comparison Between Investigation and Assessment Approaches[1]
Investigation
Assessment
Focus
What happened to the child?
Who was responsible?
What steps need to be taken to ensure
the child’s safety?
What underlying conditions and factors may
jeopardize the child’s safety?
What strengths and resources exist within
the family and community?
What areas of family functioning need to be
strengthened?
Goal
To determine the “findings” related to
allegations in the report and identify
perpetrators and victims.
To engage parents, extended family, and
community partners in identifying problems
and participating in services and supports
that address family needs.
Substantiation
A decision on substantiation of the
allegation is made.
Reports are not substantiated.
Central Registry
Perpetrators’ names are entered into a
central registry, in accordance with State
statutes and policies.
Alleged perpetrators’ names are not entered
into a central registry.
Services
If a case is opened for services, a case
plan is generally written and services are
provided. Families can be ordered by the
court to participate in services if CPS
involves the court in the case.
Voluntary services are offered. If parents do
not participate, the case is either closed or
switched to another type of response.
Core Elements
 Use of two or more discrete responses to reports
of maltreatment that are screened in and
accepted: Investigation and Assessment
 Assignment to response pathways is determined
by an array of factors.
 Original response assignments can be changed.
 Family participation is voluntary; some families
who choose not to participate in non-traditional
response may be referred to traditional track.
Core Elements
Establishment of discrete responses is
codified in statute, policy, protocols.
No substantiation of alleged maltreatment
and services are offered without formal
determination that child maltreatment has
occurred.
Pathways in the Differential
Response Continuum
There are at least two categories of
response
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 comprehensivemore 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
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
EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD
National Study on Differential Response in
Child Welfare indicates 15 states currently
implementing DRS to some degree.
An additional 10 jurisdictions currently
implementing another innovative strategy.
Implementation Variability
Statewide
Multiple sites within State
Single jurisdiction
No longer in existence
Other innovative practices
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
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. Spanishspeaking clients, children with disabilities)
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
The Developmental Process
Different Phases pose Different
Challenges and Opportunities
Design
Early Implementation
Mid-Implementation
Maturity
Ongoing
Model Fidelity: What we have
learned thus far...
AR works best when basic model is
followed:
Non-adversarial, respectful approach to families
Open invitation to families to participate in group
decision making
Broad and early assessments of family strengths and
needs and indicators of child well-being
Increased service response and community referrals
Mutual worker-family decision to continue contacts
and support
Model Fidelity, continued
AR works best when….
Child safety is primary consideration
Readiness to change tracks (assessment to
investigation) when safety (present or
impending danger) is found
EVALUATION FINDINGS
Referral and Substantiation
The proportion of reports diverted to an
alternative response varied greatly across
States (20% to 71%)
Proportion of investigations that were
substantiated increased
Decrease in the numbers of both victims and
non-victims identified by States
EVALUATION FINDINGS
Child and Case Characteristics
An AR was more likely to be used for cases
with less immediate safety concerns and less
likely to be used in sexual abuse cases
Older children generally were more likely to
receive an AR
Children and families who were referred to an
AR were similar in demographics (gender, race,
ethnicity, family structure) to those who
received traditional investigations
EVALUATION FINDINGS
Child and Case Characteristics
Prior victimization was often related to a
decreased likelihood of an AR
Referrals from social workers, medical
personnel, and legal or criminal justice sources
were less likely to receive an AR
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
Hawaii’s Differential Response
Family
Strengthening
Service
Voluntary
Case
Management
CWS Case
Management
CWS
Permanency
Cases
Low
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderately
High to High
Risk
Parental Rights
Terminated
Child & Family
Services (Oahu,
Kauai, & E. Hawai`i)
Kona
Neighborhood
Place (West
Hawai`i)
Parents, Inc.
(Maui)
Neighborhood
Places (5)
Catholic Charities
(Central &
Windward Oahu)
Child & Family
Services (Maui
County)
Foster Family
Program (Leeward
Oahu & E. Hawai`i)
Personal Parenting
(Kauai & West
Hawai`i)
Voluntary Foster
Custody
Family Supervision
Foster Custody
Case Management
of Children in
Permanent
Custody
31
DRS Outcomes
Since implementation of the DRS in
Hawaii on December 16, 2005:
4,217 families were referred for CWS
investigations of allegations of abuse or neglect.
1,188 families were referred for VCM services
from CWS intake.
2,447 families were referred for FSS services
from CWS intake.
32
DRS Outcomes
Recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect decreased from 5.7%
in SFY 2004 to 2.2% in SFY 2007. Currently at 1.5%.
38% of Referrals to CWS intake are being triaged to the FSS and
VCM programs.
Approximately 15% of referrals to FSS and VCM are returned due
to safety concerns.
Children in out-of-home care decreased by approximately 20%
since the implementation of the DRS.
The average caseload for each CWS worker has decreased from
24 to 18 cases.
33
CONCLUSION
Differential response has been a positive
development in child protection.
Evaluations demonstrate that:
Children are at least as safe as in traditional
practice
Parents are engaging in services
Families, caseworkers, and administrators are
supportive of the approach