Differential Response System Update

1. Differential Response System Update Presentation to: Georgia Child Welfare Reform Council Presenter: Jo Ann Lamm, MSW Date: August 5, 2014

2. Updates Include: • What is the status nationally of Differential Response (DR)? • The Georgia Experience with Differential Response since 2004- (Analysis in 2010) • The impact, benefits and challenges of Differential Response • Recommendations • Successes/challenges/opportunities ahead?

3. What is Differential Response? • DR is an approach that allows for more than one way to respond to screened–in CPS reports of child maltreatment • Typically recognizes two tracks/responses - “Investigative or IR” and “Family Assessment or Alternative Response (AR)” • Assignment is based on an array of factors( type and severity of alleged maltreatment, number and sources of prior reports, age of child, risk and safety levels) • DR is a well organized CPS system that is supported by legislation, and/or State policies, procedures and protocols

4. Similarities Between the Two Responses… • Focus on child safety is paramount • Promotes family engagement when possible • Recognizes CPS authority to make decisions about risk and safety, removal, out of home placement and service provision • Recognition that other community partners may be the more appropriate service providers

5. National Differential Response Implementation… • 19 States and DC are using DR statewide • At least 7 additional States, tribes or jurisdictions are considering planning implementation of DR • Multiple evaluations have been conducted • Most recent evaluation by QIC-DR on Illinois, Colorado and Ohio July 2014

7. Themes/Findings from Multiple Evaluations … • Child safety is paramount and not compromised with either response • Improved family engagement • Rate of subsequent repeat CPS reports have decreased • Enhanced family and CPS staff satisfaction • Increased community involvement • Prompt services delivery • Family participation in decision making increased • Cost effectiveness

8. QIC-DR Evaluation: Posed Three Questions… • Are children as safe or safer in AR than children in investigative response (IR)? • How is AR different in terms of family engagement, caseworker practice and services provided from IR? • What are the costs to implement DR?

9. QIC-DR Findings… • In 2 of the 3 sites, AR families were less likely to be re-referred • Fewer than 5% of children either AR or IR were removed during the 1 year study • AR families were more likely to receive services such as social support, educational, parenting and other services while IR families more likely to receive substance abuse services • In 1 site AR families received services more rapidly • In 2 sites AR parents felt 1st meeting was more positive; IR families worried more at 1st meeting • In 1 site AR families were satisfied with treatment by CPS, the level of help received and likelihood of contacting caseworker in the future • Costs varied

10. Georgia’s DR Experience from 2004 to 2010 : Themes from Practice Analysis… • Lack of statewide policy; lack of consistent or uniform criteria of practice- unknown expectations of what is acceptable Diversion/Family Support practice • Data Integrity Issues • Distrust of Agency • Varying use of the word Diversion/criteria for assignment to Diversion

11. Impact, Benefits and Challenges… Differential Response restructures the entire CPS system: from casework foundation, training, supervision, coaching and practice

12. National Impact and Benefits … • DR influences how all aspects of CPS are implemented and delivered • It is difficult to determine the sole impact of DR due to states implementing other practice reforms simultaneously • Family engagement practice strategies influence how all CPS staff approach families

13. National Impact and Benefits… • Improved assessments • Absence of labeling may positively impact the relationship between CPS, partners and families • Substantiation rates increase • ACF guidance emphasizes family engagement • Innovative approaches-a third prevention track and community providers assume case responsibility

14. Challenges… • Leadership Influence • Buy-in and ownership by Drivers • Agreement on Vision, Mission and Values • Need strong practice foundation prior to DR • DR Design: Systemic Re-structuring of Infrastructure- statewide policy, training, technical assistance, on-going consultation, local supervision and casework practice

15. Challenges… • Implementation Variability • Implementation Inconsistencies • Communication Plan • Examine Caseloads • Limited Resources • Identify training needs for CPS staff, supervisors, agency leadership and community partners

16. Challenges… • Ensure efficient use of DR and model fidelity • Allow for switching tracks/responses • Track and explain changes in data • On-going need for coaching, assessing and revisions based on observations/data • CQI/Evaluation

17. Recommendations… Positive Steps and Actions…

18. Positive Steps DFCS has taken… • Development of statewide DR/Family Support policy and guidance • Centralized Intake • Statewide Intake Policy • Work in past with ACCWIC and NRCCPS to address safety- implemented Safety Response System • 2 Pilot sites are using Family Functioning Assessment process • Other?

19. Recommendations… • Clarity of Vision, Mission and Values that supports a strong CPS casework foundation • Develop strategic plan that addresses what needs to be accomplished to ensure good case work practice • Address the core concerns of child safety and risk

20. Recommendations… • Assess and address caseload size for success • Ensure appropriate resources • Streamline DR model and Safety Response System- Is there consensus on the use and how DR/Family Support and Safety Response System “fit’ together? • Fully implement DR and ensure accountability to model

21. Recommendations… • Family Support Policy must be followed and implemented consistently across the state • Was policy developed with counties and partners? • Ensure adequate and on-going training that supports foundation first and holds true to DR model fidelity for caseworkers, supervisors and agency leadership

22. Recommendations… • Determine role of State DFCS in accountability • Develop communication strategies to keep counties and partners informed of practice • Build an infrastructure to guarantee sustainability from the beginning • Build in a CQI process and an Evaluation

23. Questions… • What are the desired outcomes? • How do you get there? • What are the gains and losses? • What’s working well? • What are the successes/challenges/opportunities ahead?

24. References • National Quality Improvement Center on Differential Response in Child Protective Services. (2014, July).Final Report: QIC-DR Cross Site Evaluation. www.differentialresponseqic.org • Center for Child and Family Policy(2006,June). Multiple Response System Evaluation report to NCDSS, Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University. www.ncdhhs.gov/dss/publications • Child Welfare Information 242424Gateway. www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response.

25. References… • Lamm, JA.(2010).Differential Response System Implementation in Georgia.jalamm56@earthlink.net