Differential Response
Many child welfare agencies use some form of differential response (DR), also known as alternative response, multiple track response, dual track, or family assessment response. Through DR, lower-risk cases receive a more supportive, service-oriented, and strengths-focused approach, as opposed to the traditional assessment and intervention process. Given limited resources, child welfare services have typically focused on the families at greatest risk, resulting in families at lower risk being screened out of services altogether or receiving limited services. Evidence is clear, however, that even low-risk families have unmet needs and that families who are screened out of services at one point in time often encounter child welfare services again at a later time.
DR is not a single, uniform, standardized program that can be reviewed by the CEBC using our Scientific Rating Scale. DR models vary between the states and counties utilizing them, with differences in eligibility requirements, implementation, and response track configurations. In general, however, high-risk families continue to receive the traditional child welfare investigation. In contrast, lower-risk families with no immediate safety concerns receive an alternative family assessment to examine the family's needs and strengths and engage them in services, typically delivered by community partners, in a non-adversarial, non-accusatory manner. The common core elements across the agencies delivering DR have been identified (Merkel-Holguin et al., 2006) as follows:
- Use of multiple, discrete tracks of intervention when screening in and responding to maltreatment reports; these tracks are codified in statute, policy, and/or protocols.
- Determining track assignment by one or more the following:
- Presence of imminent danger
- Level of risk
- The number of previous reports
- The source of the report
- Presenting case characteristics, such as the type of alleged maltreatment and the age of the alleged victim.
- The ability to decrease or elevate original track assignments based on additional information gathered during the investigation or assessment phase.
- Providing voluntary services for families who receive a non-investigatory response, meaning families can accept or refuse the offered services without consequence.
- No identification of perpetrators and victims for the alleged reports of maltreatment that receive a non-investigation response.
- No entry of the alleged perpetrator’s name into the central registry for those individuals who are served through a non-investigation track.
The use of DR in the United States began in the early 1990s and grew rapidly in the 2000s. A formal definition of DR was developed in 2005 by the American Humane Association and Child Welfare League of America. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services established the National Quality Improvement Center on Differential Response in Child Protective Services (QIC-DR). By 2014, 29 states had DR policies in place.
Evaluations conducted of statewide and pilot DR programs show largely positive outcomes in terms of child safety, maltreatment re-reports, family engagement, community involvement, and worker satisfaction (e.g., Fuller & Zhang, 2017; Janczewski & Mersky, 2016; Johnson-Motoyama et al., 2023; Loman & Siegel, 2004, 2013, 2015; Lawrence et al., 2011; Ruppel et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2013; Shipe et al., 2022; Winokur et al., 2015). However, concerns have also been raised about the methodology used in these studies, which limits confidence in the research findings and conclusions. In addition, DR programs appear to prioritize allocating services and resources for families in alternative tracks, resulting in DR families receiving interventions and supports unavailable to families in the traditional services track (Hughes et al., 2013; Piper et al., 2019). Finally, more recent research has identified concerns about racial disparity in DR track assignments (Choi et al., 2021; Connell, 2020)
The CEBC has reviewed one DR model that met the criteria for inclusion in the CEBC – the Family Assessment Response used by the State of Minnesota. Additional information on the model is available at http://www.cebc4cw.org/program/family-assessment-response/
Key Resources:
California Department of Social Services’ page on Differential Response - https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/child-welfare-protection/differential-response
Differential Response: A Primer for Child Welfare Professionals (2020) - https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/differential-response/
References:
Choi, M. J., Kim, J., Roper, A., LaBrenz, C. A., & Boyd, R. (2021). Racial disparities in assignment to alternative response. Children and Youth Services Review, 125, Article 105988.
Connell, T. (2020). Accessing alternative response pathways: A multi-level examination of family and community factors on race equity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 108, Article 104640.
Fuller, T., & Zhang, S. (2017). The impact of family engagement and child welfare services on maltreatment re-reports and substantiated re-reports. Child Maltreatment, 22(3), 183–193.
Hughes, R. C., Rycus, J. S., Saunders-Adams, S. M., Hughes, L. K., & Hughes, K. N. (2013). Issues in differential response. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(5), 493–520.
Janczewski, C. E., & Mersky, J. P. (2016). What's so different about differential response? A multilevel and longitudinal analysis of child neglect investigations. Children and Youth Services Review, 67, 123–132.
Johnson-Motoyama, M., Ginther, D. K., Phillips, R., Beer, O. W., Merkel-Holguin, L., & Fluke, J. (2023). Differential response and the reduction of child maltreatment and foster care services utilization in the US from 2004 to 2017. Child Maltreatment, 28(1), 152–162.
Lawrence, C. N., Rosanbalm, K. D., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Multiple response system: Evaluation of policy change in North Carolina's child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), 2355–2365.
Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2004). An evaluation of the Minnesota SDM family risk assessment: Final report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2014). Ohio alternative response evaluation extension: Final report. Institute of Applied Research. http://www.iarstl.org/papers/OhioAREvaluation.pdf
Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2015). Effects of approach and services under differential response on long term child safety and welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 86–97.
Merkel-Holguín, L. A., Kaplan, C., & Kwak, A. (2006). National study on differential response in child welfare. Washington, DC: American Humane Association and Child Welfare League of America.
Murphy, J., Newton-Curtis, L., & Kimmich, M. (2013). Ohio SOAR project: Final report. Tualatin, OR: Human Services Research Institute.
Piper, K. A., Rycus, J. S., Hughes, R. C., Vandervort, F., Schunk, S., Kelly, C., & Holzrichter, J. (2019). Issues in differential response: Revisited. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Child Policy. http://centerforchildpolicy.org/assets/IssuesInDifferentialResponseRevisited.pdf
Ruppel, J., Huang, Y., & Haulenbeek, G. (2011). Differential response in child protective services in New York State: Implementation, initial outcomes and impacts of pilot project. New York: New York State Office of Children and Family Services.
Shipe, S. L., Uretsky, M. C., LaBrenz, C. A., Shdaimah, C. S., & Connell, C. M. (2022). When families, organizational culture, and policy collide: A mixed method study of alternative response. Children and Youth Services Review, 139, Article 106564.
Winokur, M., Ellis, R., Drury, I., & Rogers, J. (2015). Answering the big questions about differential response in Colorado: Safety and cost outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 98–108.
