Differential Response and Children Re-Reported to Child Protective Services: County Data From the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

• Published in: Child maltreatment Vol. 24; no. 2; pp. 127 - 136
• Main Authors: Fluke, John D., Harlaar, Nicole, Brown, Brett, Heisler, Kurt, Merkel-Holguin, Lisa, Darnell, Adam
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.05.2019; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Child; Child Abuse; Child abuse & neglect; Child Abuse - prevention & control; Child Abuse - statistics & numerical data; Child Neglect; Child Protective Services - statistics & numerical data; Child welfare; Child, Preschool; Children; Counties; Data Systems; Family Involvement; Family Needs; Humans; Needs assessment; Protection; Re-reporting; Recurrence; Referrals; Risk Factors; differential response; child maltreatment; assessment; alternative response; risk; child protective services
• ISSN: 1077-5595; 1552-6119
• DOI: 10.1177/1077559518816381

Child protection systems that implement differential response (DR) systems screen to route referrals to an investigation response (IR) or alternative response (AR). AR responses emphasize family engagement, assessment of family needs, and service linkage. Usually, AR state-level policy does not require child welfare staff to make a maltreatment determination. Jurisdictions implement DR systems differently, leading to variations in the proportion of AR cases, risk levels of cases served, and the ways families access and use services. County data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System were analyzed for six states from 2004 to 2013 that implemented DR. Variation in county-level AR rates were associated with county-level re-report rates using regression models with risk adjustments for socioeconomic and other county characteristics. Counties had 3% fewer re-reports overall for each percentage increase in AR use; higher levels of AR use are related to lower levels of re-reporting. When county AR and IR cases were analyzed separately, increasing rates of AR were associated with lower re-report rates for IR cases, but higher re-report rates for AR cases. Findings for the AR and IR subgroup must be interpreted with caution as a number of technical factors may be driving these results.