 |
|
|
 |
|
ResourcesSearchable Annotated Differential Response BibliographyUpdated October 6, 2009
Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2005). Alternative response in Minnesota: Findings of the program evaluation. Protecting Children, 20(2 & 3), 78-92. This article presents the evaluation findings of the Minnesota alternative response (AR) project implemented in 2001. The study was a field experiment conducted in 14 counties with a control group (received a traditional investigation) and an experimental group (received alternative response). The families were screened and those families deemed inappropriate for AR (due to egregious harm or imminent danger to children) were put in the control group. The experimental group was made up of families with less serious reports or threats to child safety and screened as appropriate for AR. General AR model characteristics included an assessment, family decision making, a strengths-based approach, a focus on family welfare and child safety, and an emphasis on additional services. Formal research questions examined include child safety, family engagement, service changes, recurrence of child abuse and neglect reports and later child removals, family outcomes, worker responses and program costs. This study found numerous positive benefits resulting from the use of AR, including better services offered to families, higher family engagement, lower recurrence, more positive worker attitudes and lower cost. There was also no evidence that child safety was jeopardized under AR and AR appeared to shift the system toward prevention. Keywords: Minnesota Alternative Response Project, dual track, multiple response, differential response, alternative response, Minnesota Social Services Information System, SSIS, Structured Decision Making, SDM, family risk assessment, cost benefit, prevention, engagement, decision making, strengths-based, services, worker attitude, recurrence, model characteristics Marts, E. J., Lee, E.-K. O., McRoy, R., & McCroskey, J. (2008). Point of engagement: Reducing disproportionality and improving child and family outcomes. Child Welfare, 87(2), 335-358. This article describes a service delivery model developed to serve families in a primarily African American and Latino area of Los Angeles. Beginning with a detailed history of the origins and development of the approach, the authors describe the model process and share evaluation results, initial outcomes findings and a case example. Among the outcomes highlighted are 1) an overall more positive perception of child protective services in the neighborhood served, 2) increased collaboration between public and private agencies and other community groups and stakeholders, 3) decreased out-of-home placements, 4) the highest reunification rate in the county, 5) vastly shortened stays in out-of-home care and 6) a 200 percent increase in the number of adoptions for the neighborhood. Keywords: disproportionality, child and family outcomes, legal permanency, service delivery model, informal resources, voluntary services, intensive services workers, team decision making, child safety conferences, kinship support, multidisciplinary assessment teams, MATS, Children and Families Research Consortium, CFRC, best practice, multicultural community Maryland Department of Human Resources. (2008). Child welfare operating budget analysis. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://mlis.state.md.us/2009RS/budget_docs/All/Operating/N00B_-_DHR_Social_Services.pdf Maryland Department of Legislative Services. (2008). Maryland General Assembly fiscal and policy note: House bill 262. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/fnotes/bil_0002/hb0262.pdf These recent documents address the state of Maryland’s plan to initiate a differential response system. The operating budget analysis provides a history of differential response in the state and detailed concerns regarding how it would be funded. Concern is also expressed regarding the potential lack of community capacity to fulfill resulting service requirements. The fiscal and policy note provides the budget and summary of the proposed legislation that the budget analysis sought to address. Keywords: data collection, worker retraining, central registry, Place Matters, family engagement, community engagement, statutory changes, service array assessment, staffing Merkel-Holguin, L., Kaplan, C., & Kwak, A. (2006, November). National study on differential response in child welfare. Englewood, CO: American Humane and Child Welfare League of America. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/protecting-children/PC-DR-national-study2006.pdf This document reports the descriptive findings of a 2006 national survey of jurisdictions regarding implementation of differential response (DR). After a national summary of findings, state and county profiles are presented. Sections reporting which states no longer use DR and a description of “other innovations” in child welfare related to this approach are also included. For the majority of profiles, state or county respondents were interviewed, provided background material on their work and drafted the profiles. Profiles were then reviewed by the respondents and CWLA and American Humane staff. Quantitative survey findings are presented for Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. The report also provides qualitative profiles for 15 states and one county that had DR initiatives, three states that had defunct DR initiatives and nine states and one county that had “other innovations in child protective services and child welfare.” National findings include aggregate comparisons of number of response pathways, response protocols for screened-out reports, scope of implementation, case criteria and maltreatment categories. Keywords: case assignment, case-level decision making, central registry, core elements, defunct initiatives, front-line practice, policy protocols, practice protocols, reassignment, reporting source, screened-out reports, statutes, substantiation, voluntary services Michigan Department of Human Services. (2008). Children’s protective services investigation process. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5452_7119_7194-159484--,00.html This document from the state of Michigan’s website describes the Department of Human Services process for investigating child maltreatment reports. The five possible categories for a report are presented, based on the disposition determined by the child protective services investigator. The criteria for choosing the category are based on the preponderance of evidence of child abuse or neglect, and the categories range from no evidence (Category V) to the most serious (Category I), for which court involvement is required from the very beginning of the case. Keywords: preponderance of evidence, safety assessment, risk assessment, family assessment, structured decision making, community-based services, court order Minnesota Department of Human Services. (2005, April 4). Minnesota's child welfare report for 2003 (Bulletin #05-68-03). Saint Paul, MN: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/children/documents/pub/dhs16_141408.pdf This bulletin includes 2003 evaluation findings regarding the state’s child maltreatment activities, including differential response (DR). Descriptive data is presented regarding both DR and traditional pathways, including report status, maltreatment type, service type, report source, perpetrator relationship, abuse severity, family conditions, child demographics and recurrence. Some data is also provided at the county level. Keywords: strengths-based, family focused, determined report, mandated reporters, assessment type, case management services, recommended services, Structured Decision Making, SDM Monterey County Department of Family and Children's Services. (2006). Differential response: Phase I: A report on the Monterey County differential response planning process. Salinas, CA: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://mcdses.co.monterey.ca.us/reports/downloads/DR_Report_Final.pdf These reports provide detailed historical descriptions of Monterey County’s process in implementing California’s three-tiered adaptation of differential response as a pilot project. The sites chosen for the pilot were two existing family resource centers in communities with a high number of child maltreatment reports. The 2006 report is largely a process evaluation, with recommendations for the successful implementation of DR in the county. Recommendations include developing an oversight committee, building community service capacity and streamlining the referral process as needed. Also included are descriptions of site visits to other counties that had implemented a DR approach. The 2008 report presents analytical results of CWS/CMS case data and data collected in a system designed specifically for the initiative (Efforts To Outcomes) regarding referral process, case characteristics, family participation and engagement, length of service, family needs assessment and case planning, identified needs at intake, service planning, funding utilization, and referral/recurrence and family assessment outcomes. Community capacity-building efforts through funding, organizational technical assistance and training were also evaluated at this time. Recommendations from the 2008 report include more timely assessments, better oversight of community partner staff and standardization of service delivery, enhancement of the role of multidisciplinary teams, cost analysis of the project and a focus on long-term sustainability of the initiative. Keywords: family engagement, service capacity, oversight, referral process, CWS, CMS, Efforts to Outcomes, ETO, service planning, case planning, case management, funding utilization, caseload size, cost-effectiveness, training, multidisciplinary teams, MDTs, organizational assessment, family assessment tool, FAST, family strengths North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). North Carolina's multiple response system of child protective services. North Carolina Division of Social Services, Family Support and Child Welfare Section. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from Center for Child and Family Policy. (2004, April). Multiple response system (MRS) evaluation report to the North Carolina Division of Social Services (NCDSS). Raleigh, NC: Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University. Center for Child and Family Policy. (2006, June). Multiple response system (MRS) evaluation report to the North Carolina Division of Social Services (NCDSS). Raleigh, NC: Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University. The initial 2004 report regarding North Carolina’s differential response (DR) approach, prepared by the state child welfare agency for the state legislature, presents findings from a series of discussions held with staff from the North Carolina Division of Social Services, the 10 original multiple response system (MRS) demonstration counties and the Duke University Center for Child and Family Policy. These discussions resulted in recommendations regarding lower caseloads; the development of an outcome-tracking information system; DR training for workers, supervisors and community-based service providers; and DR-friendly changes in state statutes and county policies. A complementary report was prepared the same year by the Center for Child and Family Policy (CCFP), which analyzed findings from the initial 10 pilot counties in the areas of child safety, timeliness of response, timeliness of service, coordination of local human services and cost-effectiveness. Nine of the 10 pilot counties were matched with a “control” county based on similar total populations, child populations, reported rates of investigated and substantiated child maltreatment, rates of children in Department custody, and rates of children in foster care for the first time. (The 10th county was too large to have a comparable county, and was compared to itself at two points.) MRS was not found to have significantly impacted child safety, timeliness of response or timeliness of service provision. It was found to contribute to better coordination and communication among service providers, and families and agency staff were satisfied with the program in its support of a more respectful relationship. Recommendations included creating the assessment track decision category Services Received, No Further Services Recommended;” and more detailed and systematic evaluation, particularly of implementation efforts. The 2006 report is a two-year follow-up to the initial 2004 CCFP evaluation. Though by this time, an additional 42 counties had implemented MRS, the study examines data only for the initial 10 pilot counties and their comparison counties, to be comparable to the 2004 report. Quantitative data from administrative sources and qualitative data from case reviews, interviews and surveys were collected and analyzed, and then pilot counties were compared to themselves at two points, and (for all but one large county) with a matched non-MRS county. MRS was found to be associated with a higher proportion of on-time case decisions, an increase in “frontloaded” service minutes, more specific identification of family risks and needs and a positive perception of caregiver-worker relationship, on the part of the caregiver. Recommendations of the report include the continuation of MRS at the statewide level, the refinement of indicators and standardization of forms and protocols, staff training, the development of collaborative capacity, more consistent caregiver feedback and a future study of the effectiveness of the Services Recommended finding. Keywords: caregiver-worker relationship, child and family teams, community collaboration and capacity, cost-effectiveness, in-home services, law enforcement, multiple response system, MRS, resource allocation, Services Information System, SIS, shared parenting meetings, staff training and support, Structured Decision Making, timeliness, worker caseloads, Work First, frontloaded services, quality assurance, Services Needed finding, Services Not Recommended finding, Services Recommended finding, centralized database, medical neglect, worker recruitment and retention, statutory changes, voluntary services Office of Children's Administration Research. (1998). Alternative response systems evaluation progress report. Seattle, WA: Unpublished report. Office of Children's Administration Research. (1999). Alternative response systems evaluation progress report. Seattle, WA: Unpublished report. Office of Children's Administration Research. (2000). Alternative response systems evaluation progress report. Seattle, WA: Unpublished report. Office of Children’s Administration Research. (2005). Alternative response systems program progress report. Seattle, WA: State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Children’s Administration Practice Improvement Division, Office of Children’s Administration Research. Washington State Department of Social & Health Services. (2008, March). Report to the legislature: Consideration of a differential response in Washington State's child protection system. Olympia, WA: Author. This group of reports is representative of the annual evaluation studies conducted by the state of Washington regarding its differential response (DR) initiative. Because they span such a long period of time, this series of documents also gives insight into the historical development of a state’s DR efforts over time, specifically the shift that took place between 2005 and 2008 as part of Washington’s efforts to redesign its child welfare system. The 1998 report provides baseline data from the programs implementing three program model types in six regions of the state. The model types include a public health nurse model, a family support center model and a direct service/case management model. A total of 37 state-contracted providers received a total of 431 referrals, approximately one-third of the anticipated referrals. Demographic, service engagement, goal attainment, child health and safety, participation termination and placement/re-referral data are presented, as well as largely positive customer satisfaction findings from 58 respondents. The 1999 and 2000 evaluation studies document similar case and client satisfaction data, and present recommendations based on findings. Recommendations for those two years largely center on exploring the reasons behind specific quantitative findings and improving service provision or the evaluation process. The 2005 report includes several other types of data, such as family engagement rates in services, lengths of services, outcomes for families at six months after service and regional service differences, as the result of the introduction of a new data collection form downloaded and submitted by regional coordinators. Demographics, case characteristics, re-referral and placement information were captured through electronic matches to the Case and Management Information System. A client satisfaction survey was also distributed. Recommendations from this report include improving family engagement, training intake staff to improve path assignment and better matching services to meet family needs. The 2008 report indicates that the DR program that had been in place for several years was going to be redesigned and renamed Early Family Support Services (EFSS). The improvements included new assessment tools, service standards, training requirements and evidence-based practices based on others’ recent work in the field. Initial change efforts focused on instituting the new assessment protocol, improving response times and making family engagement more effective. The changes in this specific program were among several relatively new initiatives, including Structured Decision Making risk assessment, family team decision making and the development of a new data collection system. The plan was also to change the child protection findings structure from a three-tiered to a two-tiered system, and to make current planned improvements, then revisit the institution of DR as it is currently defined in the child welfare field. Keywords: public health nurse model, direct service, case management model, family support center model, family engagement, goal attainment, child safety, re-referral, consumer satisfaction, service provision, informal services, out-of-home placement, exit summary, voluntary services, CAMIS data system, referral and tracking systems, outcome measures, service standards, staff training, family assessment, Structured Decision Making, family decision making, evidence-based programs, in-home services O’Neill Murray, K., & Gesiriech, S. (2008). A brief legislative history of the child welfare system. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://pewfostercare.org/research/docs/Legislative.pdf This recent report made available by the Pew Charitable Trust, provides a broad overview of federal child welfare legislation throughout the history of the country. Its central thesis is that legislation has changed as perceptions regarding the role of government in protecting children have changed. It indicates that legislation began in the early 1900s with the Social Security Act of 1935. The report also mentions Aid to Dependent Children, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272), the Multi-Ethnic Placement ACT (MEPA) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in 1997. Keywords: government intervention, child welfare policy, dependent children, child welfare services, financial assistance, the Flemming Rule, Native American children, reasonable efforts, family preservation and support, diversity, permanency
|
| ||||