View in EDS

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Answering the big questions about differential response in Colorado: Safety and cost outcomes from a randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Winokur, Marc1, Ellis, Raquel2, Drury, Ida3, Rogers, John2
Source: Child Abuse & Neglect. Jan2015, Vol. 39, p98-108. 11p.
Subject Terms: *Child welfare, Child protection services, Randomized controlled trials, Prevention of child abuse
Geographic Terms: Colorado, United States
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Child Abuse & Neglect is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:01452134
DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.06.005