ࡱ> edK(@ / 0DArialngsRomanllK` -a0"DTimes New RomanllK` -a0 DWingdingsRomanllK` -a0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` phT    _ e   !"#$% 0AA@8no!R ʚ;U_8ʚ;g4^d^d|` -a0ppp@ <4dddd8))0ltK`  <4!d!d8K*0l<4BdBd8K*0l0___PPT10 pp^___PPT9@8z ?  %O  =@Differential Response "oCommunity Prevention of Maltreatment, Duke University October 8-9, 2007 Jane Waldfogel Columbia University pPpmOverview    *An increasing number of states are experimenting with  differential response -- separating reports into those that warrant a traditional investigative response, and those that could benefit from an alternative, more assessment-oriented response. Differential response could prevent maltreatment: engaging low-risk families in a more helpful way and increasing the likelihood they receive services; increasing the willingness of family and community members to cooperate with CPS; focusing investigations on the highest-risk cases.$+ -  xOverview (continued)&     A national survey by AHA and CWLA (Merkel-Holguin et al., 2006) identified 15 states with differential response programs -- that provide two or more discrete responses to screened-in CPS reports, with the assessment-oriented response providing services on a voluntary basis and without listing perpetrators or victims on a central registry. I focus mainly on evidence from those 15 states and consider what we know about differential response and the role it might play in the community prevention of child maltreatment. X ZZZ"  n8Problems with traditional CPS response (Waldfogel, 1998)(9'  &(    YOver-inclusion. Under-inclusion. Capacity. Service delivery. Service orientation. xZ Z oDifferential response   FThese fundamental problems and tensions within CPS point to the need for a new approach to child protection, one that I and others have called  differential response. The key element is a more customized approach to families at intake. In the long run, this should lead to: the development of a more community-based system of child protection; and greater involvement on the part of informal and natural helpers. (Z -Z  q3How many states have adopted differential response?44  4 A 2003 study identified 20 states offering an alternative response ( 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 ) (U.S. DHHS, 2003a). Using a tighter definition, the AHA and CWLA study (Merkel-Holguin et al., 2006) identified 15 states with differential response reforms. I focus on evidence from those 15  in particular, Missouri, Minnesota, and North Carolina.>Z5  {"Overview of findings from Missouri##  # Missouri, one of the earliest adopters, has been most extensively studied. Missouri s pilot began in 1994 and was extended statewide in 1999). Quasi-experimental evaluations have found that with differential response, recurrence is lower, and families receive services sooner, are more cooperative, and are more satisfied (Siegel & Loman, 2000; Loman & Siegel 2004a). Cases receiving an investigative response in differential response areas are more likely to result in criminal prosecution (Loman, 2005). >ZC,}tM           |)Overview of findings from North Carolina**  * ZNorth Carolina has also been extensively studied. Its program began with a pilot in 2002 and was extended statewide in 2006. A quasi-experimental evaluation found that the reform led to better coordination and communication across agencies and was viewed positively by family members and workers (Center for Child and Family Policy, 2004, 2006).*[Z)0 [ t#Overview of findings from Minnesota$$  $ This random assignment study began in 2001. Results (Loman and Siegel, 2004b, 2005, 2006) indicate: families randomly assigned to the alternative response received more services and were less likely to have a repeat report than similar families assigned to the investigative track both families and workers liked the assessment approach better, and families were more likely to say they had been involved in decision-making and had benefited from their involvement with CPS handling a case on the assessment track cost more money in the short run (due to increased worker time and services costs), but saved money in the long-run, due to lower recurrence rates XeP1 -P -P5%<&6  \ z?Differential response and community prevention of maltreatment @@  @ If differential response is to enhance community prevention, two key questions: Does it increase family engagement? Does it increase the availability and receipt of services? 0P`P`  }Family engagement   Evidence is mixed. Some programs do not make a sharp distinction between traditional and alternative response (e.g. Urban Institute study of Kentucky and Oklahoma found families did not know which response they had received) (Zielewski et al., 2006). Other programs do offer a clearly defined alternative response but report difficulty in engaging families (e.g. Virginia, Washington).*P&    ~Family engagement   #But Minnesota provides a number of indications that families were more engaged and more satisfied (Loman and Siegel, 2004b, 2005, 2006). For example, 2% of caregivers were uncooperative at initial contact vs. 44% in control group. Missouri found caregivers more cooperative, satisfied, and involved in decision-making (Siegel & Loman, 2000; Loman & Siegel 2004a). North Carolina found families reporting very high satisfaction and participation; workers found families more open and less resistant (Center for Child and Family Policy, 2004, 2006).R$Pb%,0Zc       $Availability and receipt of services%%  % SHere too the evidence is mixed. Often reforms focus mainly on the initial response and little if at all on how services for families are to be obtained (e.g. Urban Institute study of KY and OK found those states relied on existing resources and networks). Several states (e.g. Virginia) have identified funding for services as a challenge.TZT T $Availability and receipt of services%%  % Minnesota is obtained funding from McKnight Foundation allowing it to expand service provision to low-risk families. Evaluators found (Loman and Siegel, 2004b, 2005, 2006): families received more services and were more likely to have their case opened; families received more traditional services but also more non-traditional services not paid for by CPS (employment assistance, TANF, food stamps, day care, etc.); families were more likely to say that they received services they needed and enough services families reported lower levels of stress, and lower levels of drug abuse problems and domestic violence but no impacts on child well-being or parenting.<P -P%&    $Availability and receipt of services%%  % Missouri s reform was cost-neutral, but evaluators found reform families received services more quickly and received more services. As in Minnesota, families received more services addressing basic needs and from providers not paid by CPS. Evaluators attribute this to greater knowledge by workers and improved communication between workers and community-based resources. (Siegel & Loman, 2000; Loman & Siegel 2004a) In North Carolina, too, evaluators found reform families received services more quickly. This frontloading of services reduced the likelihood of children re-entering CPS in next 6 months. Parents said services helped them improve parenting and know who to contact in the community for help. (Center for Child and Family Policy, 2004, 2006)4Pt,$1@~    e u Conclusions    There is mounting evidence that providing an alternative response to lower-risk families can reduce the risk of recurrence for those families. There is also evidence from Missouri that reserving the investigative response for highest-risk cases results in more criminal prosecutions. And, the results regarding the impact of differential response on family engagement and service provision are promising. But, we do not yet know the extent to which communities are changing. We do not know if differential response is increasing the willingness of reporters, community members, and family members to cooperate with CPS or increasing the supply of services for families. P  vThe good news &    CA decade ago, differential response was a new approach that had been implemented in just 2 pilot states (FL and MO). Today, only 13 states have not experimented with differential response, alternative response, or something similar. To the extent that child safety and repeat maltreatment can be measured, children seem to be as well, or better, off on these indicators under differential response. And, families seem to be more engaged, receiving more services, and more satisfied with them, although long-term outcomes for children and families have yet to be established. >PY -P D w(Challenges remain &    Even with a more assessment oriented response for lower-risk cases, the challenges of working with families referred to CPS remain  engaging families and connecting them to services, while assessing risk and walking that fine line between protecting children and preserving families. Differential response requires well-trained staff, good relations with community agencies, and funding for services for low- and high-risk families. But, even with these challenges, the evidence suggests that differential response may offer an improved response for lower-risk families, without jeopardizing children s safety. If so, then differential response should contribute to community prevention of maltreatment, at least for those families coming to the attention of CPS.   /!  0` %%/3f3` E1Affff` ffCIfff` CI33̙` rCI]2}/<̙` q3fff3` 3ffffff` ff3f` ff3̙f` ffff3f>?" dd@*?Fd@lK " d@0`4 n?" dd@   @@``PP   @ ` `6p>> F> (    <D{`  #" `x:  X Click to edit Master title style!! (  00`  " `  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!    S   0g`  "`P `  ^*    0`  "`0  `  b*     0<-`  "` `  `*  `B  s *DԔ"``2  6h` "` H0 2   6X` "T H0 2   6(` "H H0 H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i. O +D=' = @B + Echo 0 ' (    6m`  "`@0 `  X Click to edit Master title style!!   0' "0 @0 `  [#Click to edit Master subtitle style$$   0+ "`p0 `  ^*    0 ' "``    b*     0p "`pp  `*  B  s *Dm",$D02  6"-gB H0 2   6w".  H0 2   6".>  H0 H  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10. O 0 X(  X X N-{ƽ{ƽ *   n*  d22dd X N{ƽ{ƽ  *  p*  d22ddd X c $ ?v  4 X N{ƽ{ƽ    RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  X T@{ƽ{ƽ ?   n*  d22dd  X TZ{ƽ{ƽ  ?  p*  d22ddH X 0m.F ? 3380___PPT10.qW0 0(  x  c $HEM `  x  c $0 @0  H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i. 1+D=' = @B +} 0 $(  r  S x:   r  S   H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.v3a+D=' = @B +} 0 $(  r  S (Ǹx:   r  S Ǹ  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.s V+D=' = @B +} 0 $(  r  S `ʸx:   r  S H@  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.v"+D=' = @B + 0 :(  r  S x:  `    S DC  "hp`PpH  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.vQE+D=' = @B +} 0 $(  r  S xx:   r  S P  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.vr,+D=' = @B +$ 0 $(  r  S {x:   r  S   H  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10.p`$ 0 $(  r  S Ըx:   r  S <ո  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10.pIk} 0 @$(  r  S ׸x:   r  S $  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.vi+D=' = @B +: 0 :(  r  S $ x:     S   "8@08XH  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10.o#$ 0 $(  r  S  x:   r  S x!  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10.rk[$ 0  $(  r  S 1x:   r  S 2  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10.r@$ 0 0$(  r  S 0x:   r  S _  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10.sP$ 0 @$(  r  S  x:   r  S    H  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10.tA^$ 0 P$(  r  S \[x:   r  S 4\  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff80___PPT10.uo} 0 P$(  r  S Lx:   r  S `M  H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.vI+D=' = @B +} 0 `$(  r  S x:   r  S   H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.v`E)+D=' = @B +} 0 p$(  r  S ďx:   r  S   H  0޽h ? 3ffffff___PPT10i.vp)Rw+D=' = @B +0 t,(  t^ t S Xv    t c $fX    " H t 0m.F ? 3380___PPT10. A#rhan K Y0lkvpru@s| mxGz~:fɕ1Oh+'0 hp     Getting the Early Years RightSuntoryEchoA&SIST106Microsoft PowerPoint@*엷@0rm@0w 3Gg  Z@  y--$xx--'--%!!9--'3ff--&$$%%&')*****) '&%%$--'--&$$% % & ' ) *****)'&%%$--'--&$$%%&')*****)'&%%$--'@"Arial-. '2 )$Differential Response."System`}$-@"Arial-. @2 F'&Community Prevention of Maltreatment, .-@"Arial-. 2 M'Duke University.-@"Arial-. 2 Y' October 8e.-@"Arial-.  2 Y>-.-@"Arial-. 2 Y@9, 2007.-@"Arial-. 2 f'Jane Waldfogel .-@"Arial-. $2 m'Columbia Universitys.-՜.+,0$    On-screen ShowSTICERDyZ ArialTimes New Roman WingdingsEchoDifferential Response OverviewOverview (continued)9Problems with traditional CPS response (Waldfogel, 1998)Differential response4How many states have adopted differential response?#Overview of findings from Missouri*Overview of findings from North Carolina$Overview of findings from Minnesota@Differential response and community prevention of maltreatment Family engagementFamily engagement%Availability and receipt of services%Availability and receipt of services%Availability and receipt of services ConclusionsThe good news Challenges remain  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles_UA&SISTA&SIST  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSUVWXYZ[]^_`abcfRoot EntrydO)Current User\SummaryInformation(LPowerPoint Document(yDocumentSummaryInformation8T