Answering the big questions about differential response in Colorado: Safety and cost outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. (January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Winokur, Marc; Ellis, Raquel; Drury, Ida; Rogers, John
• Is Part Of: Child abuse & neglect. Volume 39(2015)
• Page Start: 98
• Page End: 108
• Publication Date: 2015-01
• Subjects: Differential response -- Child abuse and neglect -- Child protective services -- Child welfare; Child abuse -- Periodicals; 362.76
• DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.06.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0145-2134

Abstract

Abstract: Over the past 20 years, jurisdictions across the United States have implemented differential response (DR), which provides child protective services with the flexibility to tailor their response to reports of child abuse or neglect based on the level of risk. Given the widespread adoption of DR, there has been an increasing demand from policymakers, practitioners, and community stakeholders to build the evidence base for this innovative child welfare approach. This study was designed to answer the big questions regarding the effect of differential response on child welfare outcomes and costs using a randomized controlled trial in five Colorado counties. Specifically, the study examined the safety outcomes and costs of families who were randomly assigned to either a family assessment response (FAR) or an investigation response (IR). According to the regression results, there were no differences between the tracks on measures of system re-involvement. However, survival analysis findings indicate that FAR families were 18% less likely, over time, to have a high risk assessment after their initial accepted referral than were IR families. The cost study revealed no differences between the tracks on initial costs for caseworker contacts, services, and out-of-home placements. However, the results suggest that follow-up costs for IR cases were significantly higher ( p < 0.001) than for FAR cases. The authors discuss policy and practice implications for jurisdictions considering DR.