 |
|
|
 |
|
ResourcesSearchable Annotated Differential Response BibliographyUpdated October 6, 2009
Shusterman, G., & Ortiz, M. J. (2008, November). Using quantitative methods to guide qualitative research in differential response. Presentation at the American Humane Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare, Columbus, OH. This recent presentation uses data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) to demonstrate the applicability of quantitative data in qualitative research related to differential response (DR). It discusses the challenges that states encountered when attempting to report on DR, which were primarily related to tracking services, progress, repeated maltreatment and patterns of harm. The use of quantitative data in developing research questions and instruments and in identifying sources is also discussed. Potential qualitative research topics generated by the analysis of NCANDS data are listed, including the association between out-of-home care and DR, the interaction between DR and placement, and the relationship between DR and substantiation, re-reporting and recurrence. A history of the development of NCANDS reporting of DR is presented, and an overview of the most recent DR data reported to NCANDS is provided, including national maps showing the status of DR in various states. A re-reporting trajectory analysis examines five states. This analysis tracked unique children for 12 months subsequent to an initial report, to identify track assignment and victim status for each re-report received. A detailed analysis of data also examines the possible existence of disproportionality in DR in three representative states. This examination reports that, when the number of African American children is compared to the overall number of children in “screened-in” reports over a five-year period, data for two states show decreased disproportionality over time and the third state had fewer African American victims as the number of African American children in DR increased. Keywords: quantitative methods, qualitative research, disproportionality, NCANDS, safety, foster care, substantiation, recurrence, re-reporting, risk factors, workforce, disposition, central registry, voluntary services, victimization, caseloads Siegel, G. L., & Loman, L. A. (1997, November). Missouri family assessment and response demonstration: Final evaluation report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.iarstl.org/papers/MO%20FAR%20Final%20Report-for%20website.pdf Siegel, G. L., & Loman, L. A. (2000, January). The Missouri family assessment and response demonstration impact evaluation: Digest of findings and conclusions. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.iarstl.org/papers/MoFamAssess.pdf Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2004, February). Differential response in Missouri after five years: Final report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.iarstl.org/papers/MODiffResp2004a.pdf The original, 1997 evaluation study of the Missouri Family Assessment and Response (FAR) demonstration includes an impact evaluation which used a quasi-experimental research design for 14 counties and portions of the Saint Louis metro area. Based on the generally positive results of the FAR demonstration, the Missouri State Legislature made the FAR model permanent and extended it statewide in 1998. Counties were gradually added to the system during the following 18 months. By the end of 1999, the system was implemented in all Missouri counties. A total of 7,711 families with substantiated investigations, preventive service cases and (in the FAR demonstration areas) family assessments in which services were determined to be needed, and who entered the child welfare system from July 1995 through December 1996 were included. Data were collected from the state MIS to assess long-term outcomes of child abuse and neglect (CA/N) recurrence, removal and placement. The original evaluation found that families with reports that would have probably resulted in “unsubstantiated investigations” were identified as “services needed” after a family assessment; therefore, these differences between the demonstration and comparison counties are considered in the evaluation. Additionally, a consolidated measure of 13 family characteristics that indicate risk of CA/N recurrence was created, based on the intercorrelations of these 13 variables. This allowed families to be grouped into four categories of low, moderate, high and very high risk. This, in turn, allowed demonstration and comparison families at the same level of risk to be compared with “risk” as a control variable. Controlling for risk using this consolidated measure, the number of new hotline reports received during the follow-up period were determined, in order to measure CA/N recurrence. The 2000 report updates the original 1997 study, finding a decline in hotline reports, quicker delivery of services, an increase in both worker and parent satisfaction and greater use of community resources. It also finds that the family assessment approach did not compromise child safety and that in certain cases it improved. The 2004 report partially replicates the original 1995-1998 evaluation. Findings are presented related to four topics: family outcomes, county staff perceptions, an analysis of CA/N report screening data to examine FAR implementation at the state and county levels and the Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools used by county staff. Results indicate that the positive effects of FAR over traditional investigation, in terms of recurrence of child abuse and neglect reports, continued to hold after five years. Surveys of county administrators and line staff indicate that FAR increased service appropriateness and family involvement in decision making, improved family satisfaction and did not compromise child safety. The respondents indicate that FAR implementation was hampered by insufficient staff time and resources to purchase services. At the time of the 2004 study, the state of Missouri was in the process of adopting versions of SDM tools for safety assessment and family risk assessment. Two approaches were taken to analyze these tools. An analysis was conducted of a survey of investigators and family assessment workers who had begun to use the SDM tools, to determine their attitudes toward the new tools and their assessment of strengths and problems associated with their use. Secondly, a case-specific study was conducted asking workers to provide additional safety- and risk-related information and ratings of one CA/N report for which they were responsible. These responses were then compared to scoring of the safety and risk tools. A sample of 261 workers was selected from counties that had reportedly received training on the SDM risk and safety tools in the period from November 2002 through January 2003. On the worker survey, little more than one worker in five said that the new SDM safety assessment tool had affected their practice moderately or very much. For the case-specific portion of the evaluation of the instrument, when safety questions were asked in a different way or in more detail with the possibility of checking the severity of the item, workers responded in different ways -- for a minority of families. While the evaluators feel that these findings did not prove that the SDM tool was invalid or unreliable, they feel that the lack of correspondence raises questions relevant to the usefulness and dependability of the tool. Keywords: community-based initiative, family-centered services, family engagement, recurrence, service delivery, worker satisfaction, workload, central registry, client information system, criminal characteristics, family outcomes, family risk assessment, mental health, preventive services, quasi-experimental design, safety assessment tool, staff time, Structured Decision Making, SDM, worker training, voluntary services, alternative response, child safety, child welfare practice, child welfare system, community-based initiative, community resources, differential response, family assessment, family-centered, family engagement, family participation, family satisfaction, investigation, prevention, recidivism, recurrence, screening, service delivery, substantiation, worker satisfaction, workload Siegel, G., & Loman, L. (2002). Minnesota alternative response demonstration project after one year: Executive summary. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. Siegel, G., & Loman, L. (2003). Minnesota alternative response demonstration project after two years: Executive summary. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2004, November). Minnesota alternative response evaluation: Final report. Saint Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.iarstl.org/papers/ARFinalEvaluationReport.pdf These three reports present evaluation findings for the Minnesota alternative response (AR) demonstration project, from its initial implementation in 2000 until mid-2004. This longitudinal evaluation includes a process study and impact analysis, in addition to detailed descriptions of the study populations. For the 2004 report, a cost study was also conducted. The demonstration project initially included 20 counties, 14 of which chose to participate using an experimental design which applied random pathway assignment. The process study was designed as a longitudinal study of child protective services offices and personnel, families in contact with these agencies over the course of the study and community stakeholders. Surveys were conducted to collect data during the early phases of the demonstration and again near the end of the evaluation period. These surveys asked the same questions of administrators, workers and community representatives at these two times. The impact study was a field experiment conducted in 14 of the 20 demonstration counties that agreed to permit a control group to be selected. Variables for the impact study centered on outcomes for families and children, such as improvements in child safety, reductions in child abuse and neglect report recurrence and reductions in out-of-home placement. Data were assembled from the SSIS as experimental and control families were tracked. Because certain detailed information was missing from SSIS, some outcomes were measured through more detailed data collection with subsamples of experimental and control families. The study population for the first year evaluation consisted of 7,784 families screened as appropriate for AR between Feb. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2002. This was the number of families with accepted child maltreatment reports during the initial study period in the 20 project counties that were considered appropriate for alternative response. Among these families, 5,733 were in the 14 counties participating in the impact portion of the study. Of these, in turn, 3,177 (55.4 percent) were randomly assigned to the experimental group and received the alternative response, and 2,211 (38.6 percent) were assigned to the control group and received the traditional investigation response. This initial study population continued to be tracked throughout 2003 and into 2004. The studies found differences in the way counties implemented AR, primarily determined by county size and pre-existing organizational structure. Differences among counties included 1) continuity or discontinuity between the assessment and service phases of a case, 2) separate units of AR and traditional response workers dedicated to one approach or the other versus combined work teams in which workers were involved in both approaches and 3) case management and service delivery provided by county social workers versus community agencies. Overall, counties with small staffs were more constrained in the manner in which they implemented the new program and were less likely to have separate workers dedicated only to the alternative or traditional approach. All counties used contracted service vendors in their communities to provide special therapeutic services and other assistance to families with specific needs. Hennepin and Ramsey counties involved community agencies at an earlier stage in the planning process and contracted with them to work directly with families, without a county social worker as an intermediary. The 2004 final report of the Minnesota AR demonstration project collects and analyzes longitudinal data from 20 pilot counties for the years 2001-2004. In addition to a process and impact study, the evaluation includes an examination of cost. Reported findings include 1) child safety was not compromised and there was evidence that the safety status of AR children improved, 2) families that received AR were less likely to have new child maltreatment reports, 3) most families liked the AR approach and responded more positively to workers who used it, 4) most workers also liked AR and saw it as a more effective way of approaching families and 5) while the initial cost of AR in services provided and worker time was greater than in traditional interventions, it was less costly and more cost-effective in the long term. Over the course of the evaluation, approximately five percent of the reports initially screened for AR were switched to a traditional response. While it was possible for counties to switch from a traditional response to AR, this was done for less than one percent of reports initially screened into a traditional response. Keywords: basic needs, protection threshold, community stakeholders, control group, cost-effectiveness ratio, experimental group, dedicated workers, handoff visit, recurrence, outcome evaluation, pilot demonstration, presenting problem, process study, random assignment, recurrence, service vendors, Social Services Information System, SSIS, Structured Decision Making, SDM, worker perspective, McKnight Foundation Siegel, G. L., Loman, L. A., Cline, J., Shannon, C., & Sapokaite, L. (2008, November). Nevada differential response pilot project: Interim evaluation report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.iarstl.org/papers/Nevada%20Differential%20Response%20Pilot%20Project-Interim%20Report%20November%202008.pdf This first evaluation report of the newly initiated Nevada differential response (DR) pilot project provides descriptive and baseline findings in the areas of screening, services, practice, family response and program outcomes. Data for this initial analysis were derived from the state’s child welfare data system, UNITY, and case-specific surveys of workers. Site visits, interviews, child protective services and family resource center staff, family surveys, and financial data were used to conduct a cost-effectiveness study. The report recommends expanding the impact of DR geographically and in terms of eligibility requirements, and by improving the current system’s capacity to adequately serve DR families. Keywords: public-private partnership, family resource centers, FRCs, service referrals, staff turnover, family-centered, service-oriented, eligibility, system capacity, substantiation, training, collaboration; tri-level CPS structure, model fidelity Sphere Institute. (2006, January 31). Implementing differential response: An assessment of community organizations' capacity and interest. Burlingame, CA: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.sphereinstitute.org/publications/DR_Report_Final.pdf This report presents the results of information obtained through three different survey instruments, sent to 233 community organizations in San Mateo County, of which 60 responded. The purpose of the survey was to assess the service capacity and interest in participating in a multiyear project to implement differential response in the county. The results of the survey suggest that organizations with larger budgets that operate multiple sites in San Mateo County might initially be best prepared to participate in a differential response initiative because they often provide multiple types of services, are more likely to have pre-existing relationships with the county Human Services Agency and already possess extensive data management capabilities. However, results also indicate that mid-size organizations are likely to be more willing to expand their capacity to serve families referred for DR services. Education and outreach are recommended, to more accurately assess the extent of what service providers require to build capacity to fully participate in county DR efforts. Keywords: child welfare practice, cost-effectiveness, family engagement, community engagement, service delivery, training, community capacity building, data management Thompson, D., Siegel, G. L., & Loman, L. A. (2008). The Parent Support Outreach Program: Minnesota’s early intervention track. Protecting Children, 23(1 & 2), 23-29. This article provides a description of the Parent Support Outreach (PSOP) pilot project in Minnesota, which ran from 2005 to 2009. The PSOP is a preventive pathway that grew from the outcomes of Minnesota’s alternative response evaluation findings. Minnesota found it screened out about 60 percent of all reports received by the child welfare agencies and wanted to find a way to impact these families before they became a part of the formal system. The PSOP allows workers to try to engage families in services that may reduce their likelihood of being re-reported to the agency. The initial target population was families with pre-school-age or younger children, but eligibility was expanded to children under 10. Another modification to the program was to allow families to self-refer or allow community professionals to refer to the program. Initial family surveys show that 92 percent of families in the program reported that they received the services they needed. Initial findings by the Institute of Applied Research show that families reported to the PSOP do not look much different than families that were accepted into the formal child welfare system; this finding warrants future inquiry into how to engage families earlier in their struggles so as to prevent further harm. Keywords: alternative response, child welfare policy, child welfare practice, community-focused approach, cost-effectiveness, differential response, early intervention, family assessment, family engagement, family group decision making, Minnesota Child Welfare Training System, Parent Support Outreach Program, prevention, prevention track, service planning, statutory exclusions, strengths-based, structured decision making, system reform Trocmé, N., & Chamberland, C. (2003). Re-involving the community: The need for a differential response to rising child welfare caseloads in Canada. In N. Trocmé, D. Knoke, & C. Roy (Eds.), Community collaboration and differential response: Canadian and international research and emerging models of practice (pp. 32-48). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Child Welfare League of Canada. This 2003 presentation was given during the fourth National Child Welfare Symposium in Banff, Alberta, Canada. It illustrates the increasing number of Canadian child welfare caseloads and investigations, substantiated cases of maltreatment, children in care (especially First Nations children) and families receiving services. The presenters differentiate between forms of maltreatment when describing their prevalence, substantiation, relationship with systemic factors and type of worker response. For example, there was a general increase in substantiations for “less severe” cases of maltreatment; this may be due to broadening definitions of child maltreatment and thus, more assessments and investigations (e.g., the inclusion of emotional maltreatment). The decrease in substantiations for “more severe cases” (i.e., sexual abuse) could be due to either a decreasing incidence of sexual abuse or a decrease in sexual abuse reporting. In addition, the presenters stress the necessity to prioritize child safety and well-being, to focus on preventing the recurrence of abuse by breaking the cycle of maltreatment, to protect abused and neglected children from “endangered development,” and to assess families according to their individual levels and types of need. The presenters supported the consideration of an “ecological framework” when working with families; every case of maltreatment, depending on its form and degree of severity, necessitates individualized and differential response approaches that incorporate wide community involvement and collaboration. Keywords: child development, child protection epidemiology, community collaboration, cycle of maltreatment, differential response, ecological framework, emotional maltreatment, endangered development, First Nations, legislation, multilevel needs, poverty, province, recurrence, sexual abuse, social assistance, substantiated investigations U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Children's Bureau. (2003, April). National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts: Review of State CPS Policy. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cps-status03/state-policy03/chapter5.htm This report chapter summarizes child protective services (CPS) policy in the 20 states that, at the time of the report, offered one or more alternatives to traditional CPS investigatory response. It defines alternative response as “a formal response of your agency that assesses the needs of the child or family without requiring a determination that maltreatment has occurred or that the child is at risk of maltreatment.” The chapter examines the differences and similarities among the 20 states’ policies and provides percentages of states with some common policies, including usage of services, purpose of alternative response and response options. It also provides tables of information summarizing each state’s policies. Keywords: alternative response, differential response, child protective services policy, child protective services systems, child safety, child welfare policy, family preservation, family support, prevention, substantiation, tracks of response Vermont Department for Children and Families. (2007, November 1). Report and recommendations to the legislature: Act 77, an act relating to the child abuse registry and sex offender registry requirements. Waterbury, VT: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://dcf.vermont.gov/sites/dcf/files/pdf/fsd/portChildAbuseRegistryandSexOffenderRegistry.pdf This state report focuses on the development of Vermont’s central registries for child abuse and sexual offenders. It specifically explores how a “tiered approach” to child maltreatment investigation affects child and community safety, and recommends ways to address this issue. A literature review, focus groups, an online survey and interviews were used for data collection for the report. Findings regarding differential response indicated that participants saw child safety and child and family outcomes positively for this approach, but that serious concerns regarding workload were raised. A detailed examination of cases is presented, which projects the percentage of cases that might be assigned to an assessment pathway, and the state’s readiness to adopt the approach is deemed to be positive. Keywords: tiered approaches, child abuse and neglect registry, alleged maltreatment, substantiation, front-end services, family group conferencing, community resource capacity, strengths-based, community partners Virginia Department of Social Services. (2006, December 15). Evaluation of the differential response system. Richmond, VA: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/about/reports/children/cps/all-other/2006/differentialresponsesystem_annualreport_2006.pdf Virginia Department of Social Services. (2007, December). Evaluation of the differential response system. Richmond, VA: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/about/reports/children/cps/all-other/2007/differentialresponsesystem_evaluation_annualreport_2007_12-07.pdf Virginia Department of Social Services. (2008, December). Evaluation of the differential response system. Richmond, VA: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/about/reports/children/cps/all-other/2008/differentialresponsesystem_evaluation_annualreport_2008_12-08.pdf These three evaluation studies are the most recent reports prepared and submitted by the Virginia Department of Social Services to the state legislative committees that oversee child protective services (CPS). The reports are primarily based on data from the state’s Online Automated Services Information System regarding child maltreatment referrals received for the preceding year. State fiscal data, case reviews and staff surveys are also used. Descriptive data regarding track assignment and service provision are provided yearly, as well as an exploration of a special topic. For the 2006 report, the special topic is invalid referrals. The report discovered local variations in screening and documentation practices but determined that valid complaints were not inappropriately screened out in this process. Recommendations include suggestions that training and technical assistance be provided to local departments to ensure consistency of screening practices and that CPS policy regarding differential response incorporate evaluation findings. The 2007 report special topic is timing of first meaningful contact and reviews of cases not accepted by CPS. These reviews find that late first initial contact correlated with overall lower level of effort and local variations in screening guidelines, lack of physical marks and lack of information were the most common reasons for rejecting a report. Recommendations address continued exploration of slow response times and subsequent training, the need for a more accurate data system and examining service provision decision making. In 2008, the special study regarding ongoing service cases found that providing ongoing services seemed to reduce the risk of future abuse or neglect, particularly when the services addressed the full range of the families’ needs. No recommendations were offered. Keywords: track assignment, Structured Decision Making, ongoing services, risk assessment, recurrence, response time, automated data system, screening practices, worker training, Integrated Early Childhood State Plan, central registry, OASIS, invalid complaints, local agency, first meaningful contact
|
| ||||