State Child Welfare Policy Guide: Part of the Policy Matters Series

10.4 Multiple Response System

Children who are reported as neglected make up two-thirds of the cases screened in after a protective services investigation, even though many of these cases may be considered low risk and could benefit from community supports. Most child welfare agencies lack an intervention specific to these families and apply the same approach that is used for the most serious neglect or abuse cases.  In response to this problem many agencies are now undertaking steps to develop differential approaches to address the needs of low-risk families that are screened in for potential risk of harm to the child. This multiple response system needs to include several key elements:

• Identification of low-risk families and non-investigatory response;

• Omission of the name of the alleged perpetrator in low-risk cases from the central child abuse registry;

• Provision of voluntary family supports and connection with community resources for low-risk families;

• Adequate and available network of community resources and supports for families;

• Required, available and ongoing training to implement system.

The American Humane Association defines differential response as “an approach that allows child protective services to respond differently to accepted reports of child abuse and neglect, based on such factors as the type and severity of the alleged maltreatment, number and sources of previous reports, and willingness of the family to participate in services” [i] .  Differential response is also known as “dual track”, “multiple track”, or “alternative response”.  There are variations across the country in the implementation of a differential or alternative response approach, but in most instances the child welfare agency has developed an assessment of family needs, separate from the child protection system, with a corresponding program for providing services or community referrals to address those needs.  A five year evaluation of Missouri’s differential response program found that:

• The percentage of reported incidents in which some action was taken increased.

• Child safety was not compromised, and in certain types of cases was improved.

• In cases where child safety was threatened, children were made safer sooner.

• Recurrence of child abuse and neglect reports decreased.

• There was greater utilization of community resources.

• Cooperation of families improved.

• Families were more satisfied and felt more involved in decision-making.

• Workers judged the family assessment approach to be more effective [ii] .

Minnesota has demonstrated equally impressive outcomes in the evaluation of their differential response program after three years. [iii] An interesting finding in a study of California’s differential response approach was a review of cases by professionals, both inside and outside of the child welfare agency, to determine how the system would respond under a differential response approach. Under the traditional system about 8% of the cases are screened in for risk of harm and provided services.  However these professionals reported that 94% of the cases would receive services appropriate to their level of risk and need under a differential response system. [iv]

According to a 50 state survey, conducted jointly by the Child Welfare League of America and the American Human Association, approximately 16 states are at varying stages of implementing a differential response approach. [v] California has implemented a three path approach to differential response piloted through the Breakthrough Series Collaborative process that documented the successes and challenges through an intensive testing process. [vi]   Families who are reported for neglect or abuse without an allegation or indication of harm, or risk of harm, would be formally referred for community assistance. Where the report and the assessment indicate a low to moderate risk of harm to the child, the case would be opened with child welfare and services provided through a partnership with community services.  In the third path, where the risk of harm is elevated, families would be served through a traditional child welfare approach.

Policy Option: States can require a multiple response system for child abuse and neglect reports that are screened in and accepted.

---