Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS

800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov

ISSUE BRIEF

November 2014

WHAT’S INSIDE

Defining differential 

response

Evolving implementation 

of differential response

Experiences in the field

Evaluation findings

Lessons learned

Conclusion

Differential Response 

to Reports of Child 

Abuse and Neglect

A growing number of child welfare agencies 

are employing differential response (DR) in 

an effort to respond more flexibly to child 

abuse and neglect reports and to better meet 

individual family needs. In these systems, 

families with screened-in child maltreatment 

reports may receive either a traditional 

investigation or an alternative assessment 

response, depending on the type of allegation 

and other considerations. This issue brief 

provides an overview of DR in the United 

States and highlights lessons learned through 

research and implementation experiences. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

2

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/

Defining Differential Response

Differential response, also called “alternative response,” 

“multiple response,” or “dual track,” is a way of 

structuring child protective services (CPS) that allows for 

more than one method of initial response to reports of 

child abuse and neglect. DR emphasizes the importance 

of broadly assessing all families’ situations to identify and 

meet underlying needs. While definitions and approaches 

vary, DR responses typically fall into two major categories:

 Investigation response (IR) (also called the traditional 

response or high-risk assessment): These responses 

involve gathering forensic evidence and making a 

formal determination of whether child maltreatment 

has occurred or the child is at risk of abuse or neglect. 

In CPS systems with DR, IR is generally used for reports 

of the most severe types of maltreatment and those 

that may involve the legal and judicial systems.

 Alternative response (AR) (also called an assessment 

response or family assessment response):1

1 In this publication, the terms alternative response (or pathway) and 

assessment response (or pathway) are used interchangeably.

 These 

responses—usually applied in low- and moderate-risk 

cases—typically do not require a formal determination 

or substantiation of child abuse or neglect, and names 

are not entered into a central registry.

Both pathways generally encompass assessments of child 

safety and/or risk. A comprehensive family assessment 

focused on family’s strengths and needs is central to 

AR and may also be included with IR. Both pathways 

share many underlying principles and goals, including 

a focus on child safety, permanency, and well-being.

DR recognizes the benefit of responding differently to 

different types of reports. So, for example, referrals for 

inadequate supervision are handled differently from 

cases of severe physical harm or sexual abuse. Most 

child welfare systems that use DR allow for changes in 

the response track if information emerges that indicates 

a different type of response is needed to ensure child 

safety or to better respond to the family’s circumstances.

In literature and practice, DR is described in various 

ways—as a restructuring of CPS, an approach, a practice, 

a systems reform effort, a policy orientation, and an 

organizational change. Given the diverse ways it has 

been defined and implemented across States and 

jurisdictions (see “Variations in Approaches” below), there 

is no single DR “model.” The highlight box summarizes 

core elements of DR as identified and explored in 

national surveys (Merkel-Holguin, Kaplan, & Kwak, 2006; 

National Quality Improvement Center on Differential 

Response in Child Protective Services [QIC-DR], 2009).

Core Elements in Differential 

Response 

Two or more discrete responses (pathways or 

Use of protocols and criteria to determine the 

The ability to cha

Formalization of DR in statute, policy, or 

For families on the assessment pathway:

Volunt

No formal determination (substantiation) of 

No listing of caregivers’ names in a central 

(Merkel-Holguin et al., 2006)
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

3

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/

Evolving Implementation of 

Differential Response

Over the past two decades, more than two-thirds of all 

States across the country have implemented or initiated 

plans for DR. Some jurisdictions are still in the early 

stages of planning or implementation with just a few DR 

sites, while others are expanding or institutionalizing 

DR statewide. This section briefly highlights some key 

influences driving implementation, presents a snapshot 

of the prevalence of current DR implementation and 

State laws enabling implementation, and describes some 

of the variations in approaches across jurisdictions.

Key Influences in DR’s 

Emergence and Expansion

The initial emergence of DR in the early 1990s and the 

subsequent growing interest over the following decades 

were rooted in concerns over traditional child welfare 

practices. Child protection was perceived both as being 

overly intrusive in family life (particularly for cases of 

neglect) and also as not doing enough to protect children 

and address underlying family problems (Schene, 2005). 

CPS workers faced seemingly conflicting objectives—to 

investigate and sanction perpetrators of maltreatment 

while also providing supportive services to families. 

DR evolved as a way to overcome perceived limitations 

in the traditional response system by recognizing that 

child maltreatment reports vary, and multiple pathways 

provide CPS with flexibility to meet differing family 

needs. Further, DR was intended to decrease the 

potentially adversarial nature of interactions between 

CPS and parents by conducting family assessments, 

connecting families to needed services, and eliminating 

the substantiation decision for AR families. 

A second force coinciding with the emergence of DR 

was the growing recognition of the importance of family 

engagement.2

2 For more information on family engagement, see https://www.

childwelfare.gov/famcentered/engaging/.

 DR approaches demonstrate shared 

values with family engagement practices (Christenson, 

Curran, DeCook, Maloney, & Merkel-Holguin, 2008; 

Lohrbach et al., 2005). They operate on the assumption 

that strong partnerships with parents will increasingly 

motivate families to use services, and such services 

will better fit assessed needs. It is important to note 

that, as part of best practice efforts, child welfare 

agencies across the nation are integrating family 

engagement and strengths-based approaches into 

their everyday practice. In those jurisdictions, there 

may be less distinction between IR and AR pathways.

Another impetus in the adoption of DR has been an 

enhanced focus in child welfare on accountability and 

outcomes. The Federal Children’s Bureau’s Child and 

Family Services Reviews (CFSRs)3

3 For more information on CFSRs, see https://www.childwelfare.gov/

management/reform/cfsr/.

 and the Bureau’s 

attention to continuous quality improvement (CQI)4

4 For more information on CQI, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/

cb/resource/im1207.

have heightened awareness of State performance in 

achieving outcomes. States have included DR as a 

strategy in their Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) 

to improve safety and well-being outcomes and 

also have integrated DR as a strategic component 

of their CQI and title IV-E waiver efforts. 

The 2010 reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention 

and Treatment Act (CAPTA; P.L. 111-320) represents 

another catalyst for DR expansion. CAPTA now requires 

State plans and assurances to describe laws, policies, or 

programs reflecting DR in screening and assessment, 

including “triage procedures for the appropriate referral 

of a child not at risk of imminent harm to a community 

organization or voluntary preventive service.” CAPTA 

also requires States to submit data in their annual reports 

that specify the number of families that receive DR as a 

preventative service.5

5 For the full CAPTA legislation, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/

cb/resource/capta2010.

 Neither the CAPTA legislation nor 

the related Information Memorandum (ACYF-CB-IM-11 

02)6

6 The Information Memorandum is available from http://www.acf.hhs.

gov/programs/cb/resource/im1102.

 provide a formal definition of DR and, as such, leave

room for interpretation and tailoring to local needs.
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

4

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/

Statewide and Regional/County Implementation of Differential Response

Since 1993–94, when Florida and Missouri first passed legislation and piloted DR approaches, implementation 

of DR has expanded across the nation. As of September 2014, the National Quality Improvement Center on 

Differential Response in Child Protective Services (QIC-DR) reported that 20 States and the District of Columbia 

had statewide DR programs,7

7 Statewide DR programs in 2014 included AL, AR, CT, DE, HI, KY, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, NC, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, VA, VT, and WY.

 another 7 States had regional or county implementation of DR,8

8 Regional or county DR programs in 2014 included CO, NV, NY, MD, OR, WA, and WI.

 and at least 8 States 

were in various stages of actively planning DR initiatives9

9 States in planning stages in 2014 included AZ, FL, GA, IA, ID, NE, TX, and UT. 

 (Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child 

Abuse and Neglect, 2014). Several Tribes or Tribal consortia also have piloted and practiced DR. A few States 

discontinued earlier pilot or demonstration initiatives, and some of those same States are planning subsequent 

implementation of DR programs.10

10 States that had initiated and discontinued DR programs included AK, AZ, FL, IL, TX, WA, WV; States that were planning subsequent implementation 

included AZ, FL, TX, and WA.

 A snapshot of 2014 DR implementation is illustrated in the map below.

Map used with permission from the Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment 

of Child Abuse and Neglect. Updated September 2, 2014.
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

5

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/

State Laws

State laws can require or enable the use of DR. As of 

February 2013, 21 States11

11 DR State statutes have been enacted in AZ, CO, CT, DE, IL, KY, LA, 

MD, MN, MO, NV, NY, NC, OH, OK, TX, VT, VA, WA, WI, and WY.

 and the District of Columbia 

had statutes that authorized the use of DR in responding 

to child abuse and neglect reports (Child Welfare 

Information Gateway, 2013). Statutory provisions related 

to DR differ from State to State and may include language 

related to the nature and scope of an investigation and 

assessment track, service provision, exclusion from the 

central registry of families assigned to the assessment 

pathway, pathway reassignment, and coordination 

with law enforcement (QIC-DR, 2010). Some statutes 

also specify the development of demonstration 

programs and/or evaluations of the approach.12

12 For more detailed information on related legislation, see Differential 

Response in Child Protective Services: An Analysis of State Legislative 

Provisions on the National Conference of State Legislatures website at 

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-legislationdifferential-response.aspx.

Variations in Approaches Across Jurisdictions

While child welfare systems that integrate DR tend 

to share basic characteristics (i.e., the use of multiple 

tracks, family-centered approaches, and communityoriented perspectives), DR in one jurisdiction may 

look very different from DR in another jurisdiction. 

DR approaches vary in system components, 

structure, and decision-making processes (Casey 

Family Programs, 2014; Casey Family Programs, 

2012; QIC-DR, 2011; QIC-DR, 2009), including:

 Number of tracks or paths of response. While 

initially child welfare systems included only two DR 

tracks, over time, some States (e.g., Hawaii, Minnesota,

and Tennessee) recognized the value of additional 

tracks. A 2011 survey indicated that at least 14 States 

(or jurisdictions within those States) had implemented 

a third track that provides services or community 

resource referrals to families who do not meet CPS 

intake criteria and would otherwise be screened out 

entirely from services (Morley & Kaplan, 2011).13

13 For more information on responses to nonscreened-in reports, see 

Formal Public Child Welfare Responses to Screened-Out Reports of 

Alleged Maltreatment at http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/

medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/can/DR/qicdr/General%20

Resources/General%20Resources/docs/issue-3_10-31-11.pdf.

 Other 

States (e.g., Kentucky) have incorporated as many 

as four tracks, including one for law enforcement 

response when the alleged perpetrator is not the 

caretaker. Olmsted County, MN, includes a specialized 

pathway tailored for families dealing with domestic 

violence (a separate assessment is conducted with the 

adult who was harmed and children.)

 Criteria for pathway assignments. States have 

different eligibility criteria based on legislation or 

agency policies for determining pathway assignments. 

In general, criteria are related to immediate safety 

concerns, risk, and the nature of the maltreatment. 

Some jurisdictions have additional criteria related to 

the type of maltreatment, previous reports of child 

abuse or neglect, age of the alleged victim, the 

relationship of the alleged perpetrator to the victim, 

domestic violence in the home, caregiver substance 

use, and other factors. A jurisdiction’s criteria likely 

affect the proportion of screened-in reports that are 

assigned to an AR track.

 Who makes the pathway decision. Typically, the 

selection of a response track is made immediately 

after the report is accepted or screened in. In some 

jurisdictions, a hotline worker, caseworker, and/

or supervisor make the pathway assignment. Other 

jurisdictions in Hawaii, Minnesota, North Carolina, 

and elsewhere rely on a group process. In a number 

of States, such as Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio, 

assignments are made by a group of cross-functional 

staff at the county level—including a supervisor, intake 

worker, assessment workers, investigative workers, 

and/or ongoing workers. 

 Assessment processes and timeframes. Assessment 

processes, service planning approaches, and 

timeframes for implementation can vary across 

jurisdictions and within a jurisdiction across tracks.
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

6

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/

 Ongoing child welfare involvement/privatization 

of services. Approaches vary in the extent that 

private community agencies serve families. In some 

jurisdictions, all assessments and services are provided 

by child welfare staff. In other jurisdictions, they are 

provided exclusively through contracts with external 

service providers, or there is a combined approach. For 

example, during the period that Illinois implemented 

DR, a paired team of a DR specialist from the child 

welfare agency and a Strengthening and Supporting 

Families (SSF) caseworker from a private agency jointly 

conducted the family assessment and, if there were no 

immediate safety concerns, the SSF worker continued 

to work with the family to provide services (Fuller, 

Nieto, Zhang, 2013). Nevada is atypical in that a private 

community-based agency (Family Resource Center) 

conducts all assessment and case management 

functions for families on the assessment pathway 

(Siegel, Filonow, & Loman, 2010).

 Funding for services. Some States and jurisdictions 

have leveraged supplemental funding to provide 

services, particularly for families on an assessment 

path during pilot phases. Funding sources include 

foundation grants; Federal funding (through title IV-B 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families, CAPTA, title 

IV-E demonstration waivers, QIC-DR grants, Social 

Services Block Grants, and Temporary Assistance to 

Needy Families [TANF]); and State and county funding 

streams.

Experiences in the Field

Like the DR components and processes, experiences 

in the field have varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

This section describes selected issues related to 

critical stages of DR implementation—the decision 

to implement, planning and early implementation, 

and ongoing systems change and evolution.

Decision to Implement

States and jurisdictions make the decision to implement 

DR for a variety of reasons. Motivations often reflect the 

desire for what is believed to be (1) a less adversarial way 

to meet children and family needs and (2) improvement 

in child welfare outcomes. In an online survey, a 

majority of States indicated that their current DR was 

introduced as part of system reform efforts. Others 

noted that DR was connected to reactions to a crisis, 

changes in leadership, and legislative mandates (QICDR, 2009). In many States, the call for implementation 

has come from State leadership—the Governor’s office, 

a high level commission on child abuse and neglect, 

a State legislative committee, or an oversight group. 

Several States have integrated implementation of DR 

into larger or parallel reform efforts—such as family 

engagement and systems of care in North Carolina 

or a new practice model and a statewide effort to 

address disproportionate representation in Colorado.

Missouri: Breaking New Ground

In 1994, the Missouri State Legislature 

spearheaded the DR movement by mandating 

a demonstration of a DR approach to child 

abuse and neglect reports. In pilot counties, 

less severe incidents were forwarded to a family 

assessment response, which did not require 

substantiation but rather determinations of 

‘services needed’ or ‘not needed.’ A significant 

result was the development of partnerships 

between child welfare workers and community 

resources to meet identified service needs. An 

impact analysis showed that families most helped 

were those who lived in poverty who received 

basic services that they may not have received 

under a traditional approach (Siegel, 2012a).14

14 For more information on Missouri’s DR experience, visit the 

Institute of Applied Research website at http://www.iarstl.org/.

Planning and Early Implementation

As with any system reform effort, introducing DR 

and changing traditional processes can be complex 

and challenging. Some common barriers to DR 

implementation include insufficient financial and staff 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

7

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/

resources, inconsistent application of assessment 

and casework protocols and tools, lack of community 

capacity for service provision, and stakeholder 

concerns that not conducting investigations will 

compromise child safety (QIC-DR, 2011).

A review of diverse jurisdictions’ DR experiences 

(Casey Family Programs, 2012) points to several 

important activities for successful planning and 

early implementation of DR, including:

Initiating a philosophical shift

Gaining buy-in

Drawing on peer expertise

Ensuring comprehensive service availability

Differential response involves significant practice 

changes for workers. Some changes result from the 

introduction of a new response pathway, for example, 

there may be new assessment procedures and changes 

in required timeframes. These changes also may trigger 

modifications in data systems to support and evaluate 

the new approach. Moreover, AR workers may need to 

rely on different skills and strategies to engage families, 

build partnership relationships, and conduct family 

assessments. DR sites should carefully consider workload 

and caseload issues, as well as the skills needed to 

handle AR (Brown, Cox, & Mahoney, 2012). The practice 

changes also create needs for training, supervision, and 

ongoing support to help staff transition to new practices.

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe: 

Aligning Values

In rural upstate New York, the St. Regis Mohawk 

Tribe turned to DR in 2009 to provide more 

inclusive and respectful responses when working 

with Tribal families. The Tribe was particularly 

interested in addressing growing trends of 

multiple reports for the same families in the areas 

of educational neglect, inadequate guardianship, 

and lack of supervision. A DR approach appealed 

to the Tribe because of the respectful ways in 

which families are engaged and offered choices 

on services, as well as the emphasis on support 

from extended family and kin (QIC-DR, 2012).15

15 For more information on Tribal implementation of DR, see 

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/

departments/pediatrics/subs/can/DR/qicdr/General%20

Resources/General%20Resources/docs/tribal-symposiumsummary.pdf.

Ongoing Systems Change 

and Evolution of DR

Over time, DR child welfare systems change and 

evolve. Many States (e.g., Colorado, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio) have 

begun implementation with a pilot test in one or more 

counties and an accompanying evaluation. In several 

of these States, early experiences have then led to 

further DR expansion and statewide rollout. Building 

from early experiences, many jurisdictions continue 

to modify the practices, processes, and structures of 

their DR approach (e.g., adding additional tracks).
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

8

Ohio: From Pilot to 

Statewide Rollout

Initiated by the State’s Supreme Court, Ohio 

began an 18-month pilot program with 10 

counties in 2008. The pilot’s experimental 

evaluation found that child safety was not 

compromised and there was a reduction, albeit 

modest, in re-referrals among AR families. In 

addition, there was evidence of greater family 

involvement in decision-making, more services 

provided, and high degrees of worker and 

family satisfaction (Loman, Filonow, & Siegel, 

2010). Based on the success of their pilot, Ohio 

progressed with a phased rollout of additional 

counties. Ohio’s DR expansion reflected a 

developmental process in which new counties 

were provided extensive training and peer-topeer support and benefited from earlier lessons 

learned (Carpenter, 2012).16 

16 For more information on Ohio’s DR experience, listen to 

the topical centennial webinar, Who Should Our Clients Be? 

Differential Response and the Provision of Services to Voluntary 

Clients, available from http://cb100.acf.hhs.gov/webinars.

In addition, the 

introduction of DR affected practices in both the 

AR and IR pathways, and subsequent training 

helped institutionalize the systems change 

(Murphy, Newton-Curtis, & Kimmich, 2014).

Several States (including Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, 

Texas, Washington, and West Virginia) made decisions 

to discontinue DR after pilot programs. Reasons for 

discontinuation included barriers related to resource 

limitations, inconsistent DR implementation, changes in 

leadership, changes in agency focus, and the absence 

of champions (Casey Family Programs, 2012; MerkelHolguin et al., 2006; QIC-DR, 2009). In some instances, 

suspension of DR also was influenced by concerns over 

child safety among stakeholder groups. (As discussed 

below, however, evaluation findings have not validated 

such concerns.) Several States that at one point 

discontinued DR later began to plan new DR initiatives, 

demonstrating a common “fits and starts” pattern of 

systems improvement (Casey Family Programs, 2012).

National Quality Improvement 

Center on Differential 

Response in Child Protective 

Services (QIC-DR)

In 2009, the QIC-DR, supported by the Children’s 

Bureau, funded three demonstration sites—

the State of Illinois and county consortiums 

in Colorado and Ohio—to implement and 

evaluate DR. The evaluations studied families 

who met AR eligibility criteria and compared 

families who were randomly assigned to AR 

and IR to answer the following questions:

Are children whose families participate in AR 

as safe as or safer than children whose families 

participate in IR?

How is the AR pathway different from the 

IR pathway in terms of family engagement, 

caseworker practice, and services provided?

What are the cost and funding implications to 

the child welfare agency of the implementation 

and maintenance of a DR approach?

For more information and evaluation reports, 

visit http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/

colleges/medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/

subs/can/QIC-DR/Pages/QIC-DR.aspx.

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

9

Evaluation Findings

17 

17 States (or counties within States) that have conducted DR evaluations 

include AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH, TN, 

TX, VA, WA, and WV.

Evaluations of DR have been completed in at least 20 

States (or counties within States), and additional ones 

are underway. The Children’s Bureau’s QIC-DR conducted 

a literature review in 2011 that examined existing 

evaluation findings18

18 For additional information on evaluation methodologies and findings, 

see the QIC-DR’s literature review, available from http://www.ucdenver.

edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/

can/DR/qicdr/General%20Resources/QIC-DR_Lit_Review%20version%20

%202.pdf.

and supported evaluations in three 

States along with cross-site analyses (see highlight box), 

finalized in 2014. While many DR evaluations generally 

have demonstrated positive outcomes, overall results 

have been mixed. Selected findings from multiple DR 

evaluations are presented below as they relate to three 

evaluation components—process, outcomes, and cost. 

Emphasis is placed on findings from experimental 

studies or those with a random control trial design. 

Process Findings

Process evaluations examine DR implementation, 

assess stakeholder attitudes, and identify variables 

that might affect DR’s impact. Selected findings from 

process evaluations fall into the following topic areas:

Fidelity. Many process evaluations examine whether 

DR is being implemented as intended. Some States 

have identified problems with fidelity and inconsistent 

practices, particularly early multisite initiatives (Casey 

Family Programs, 2012). A cross-site analysis of QIC-DR 

sites (Brown, Merkel-Holguin, & Hahn, 2012) found support 

for fidelity to core components, although intentional 

variations in implementation existed across jurisdictions. 

Family satisfaction. On client satisfaction surveys 

in 13 jurisdictions prior to 2011, AR parents reported 

having more positive responses to CPS than their IR 

counterparts (QIC-DR, 2011). Experimental evaluations 

in Ohio, Minnesota, and New York found that AR 

parents were more satisfied with their interactions with 

caseworkers and were more likely to feel respected and 

treated fairly. They also were more likely to participate 

in decision-making processes (Brown, Merkel-Holguin, 

& Rohm, 2012). In the 2014 QIC-DR cross-site evaluation, 

Illinois AR parents were likewise significantly more 

satisfied with the treatment by and help received from 

the caseworker than were the IR parents. In Ohio and 

Colorado, however, there were no statistical differences 

between parents on these indicators. In Colorado 

and Illinois, AR parents were statistically more likely to 

report that they would be willing to call the caseworker 

in the future if the family needed help (QIC-DR, 2014).

Family cooperation. In some DR studies (e.g., 

Minnesota, Ohio), workers reported that AR parents 

were more cooperative and willing to accept services 

(Loman et al., 2010; Loman & Siegel, 2005). To 

the contrary, in the QIC-DR cross-site evaluation, 

caseworkers in all three study sites rated the IR parents 

as having more positive engagement attributes 

(such as being cooperative, receptive to help, and 

engaged) at their first meetings as compared with AR 

parents. Study authors theorized that caseworkers 

working with these two groups may have different 

paradigms for viewing engagement (QIC-DR, 2014).

Worker satisfaction. In several studies, workers generally 

favored the AR approach to working with families (QICDR, 2011). In the early Ohio evaluation, for example, 

almost 40 percent of workers reported that DR had 

made it more likely that they would stay in the field of 

child welfare (Loman et al., 2010). The more recent Ohio 

evaluation found that while AR workers were five times 

more likely than IR workers to say that they intended to 

remain in this field of work because of DR implementation, 

there were no significant differences in overall satisfaction 

with their current child welfare job (Murphy, NewtonCurtis, & Kimmich, 2013). Across many sites, worker 

buy-in was not always instantaneous; as is typical in 

systems change, many agencies have encountered 

resistance among workers to the introduction of DR.

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

10

Outcomes

Outcome evaluations have assessed the impact of DR 

on various child and family outcomes and services:

Child safety. Collective evaluation results suggest 

that child safety has not been compromised where DR 

has been implemented (QIC-DR, 2011; QIC-DR, 2014). 

Early studies revealed that children in AR cases were 

less likely or as likely as children in IR cases to be the 

subject of a subsequent report or investigation (Center 

for Child and Family Policy, 2009; Loman et al., 2010; 

Shusterman, Hollinshead, Fluke, & Yuan, 2005; Siegel 

et al., 2010; Siegel & Loman, 2006). This finding was 

maintained even when comparable lower-risk families 

were randomly assigned to tracks, as in Minnesota and 

the early Ohio evaluation. While reductions in re-reports 

tended to be modest, they were statistically significant 

(Loman et al., 2010; Loman & Siegel, 2005). The 2014 

QIC-DR cross-site evaluation found that in Colorado and 

Ohio, AR families were less likely to be re-referred to 

CPS than IR families, whereas in Illinois, the AR families 

were more likely to be re-referred. In all three sites, the 

longer families received services, the more likely that 

there would be a re-referral (QIC-DR, 2014). Additional 

analyses conducted in Illinois explored the effects among 

different groups of AR families and found that families 

that were switched to IR (but were still considered AR 

families in the safety analysis) had significantly higher risk 

of re-reports and substantiation than families that initially 

received an investigation. Families that withdrew from 

DR services had significantly higher risk of re-reports 

but not of substantiation (Fuller, Nieto, & Zhang, 2013).

Subsequent out-of-home placement. Minnesota, 

Missouri, and the early Ohio evaluations demonstrated 

modest reductions in child removal for families on an 

assessment pathway (Brown et al., 2012). Following 

families for 31⁄2 years, Minnesota found that fewer 

children in AR families were placed in out-of-home 

care (17 percent) as compared with children in control 

families that received investigations (19 percent) (Siegel 

& Loman, 2006). In the QIC-DR cross-site evaluation, 

DR implementation did not appear to affect entry into 

out-of-home care, either positively or negatively. Less 

than 5 percent of children from AR families and likewise 

from the control group of IR families were removed 

at any time during the year study period (QIC-DR, 

2014.) A follow-up study in Ohio that extended the 

study period to 4 or 5 years found that out-of-home 

placements were significantly lower for AR families as 

compared to control families (Loman & Siegel, 2014).

Service delivery. Several early evaluations found that AR 

children and families received more services and received 

them earlier than did IR children and families (QIC-DR, 

2011). Studies found that when compared with families 

who were randomly assigned to receive an investigation, 

AR families tended to receive more concrete material 

assistance, such as support for housing costs, food, 

transportation, and clothing, as well as help with job 

training and child care (Brown et al., 2012). The QIC-DR 

cross-site evaluation found that across all three study 

sites, a statistically significant higher proportion of AR 

families in comparison to IR families received at least one 

service. As with other studies, AR families were more 

likely to receive services to meet material needs. Only 

in one site (Illinois) was there a significant difference in 

terms of AR families receiving services more quickly than 

IR families. Nevertheless, the vast majority of families in 

the study did not receive any services (QIC-DR, 2014).

Cost Analyses

Cost studies suggest that DR may be cost effective 

over the long term. Minnesota’s cost study found that 

costs of AR in the early stages of a case (including 

direct service costs and costs associated with worker 

time) were greater than costs of a traditional CPS 

intervention. However, costs for case management 

and other services were lower through two follow-up 

periods. Savings achieved later more than offset 

the early investment costs (Siegel, 2012b).

Results from the QIC-DR sites have been somewhat 

similar. A 2013 study using a small sample of data from 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

11

two of Ohio’s counties found that overall costs were 

slightly less for the AR families compared with costs 

for IR families (Murphy, Newton-Curtis, & Kimmich, 

2013). The QIC-DR cross-site examined initial case costs 

plus 1 year’s follow-up costs incurred in Colorado and 

Illinois. In Colorado, average AR cases were slightly 

more expensive than IR cases (overall mean of $1,212 

versus $954, respectively), but the differences were not 

statistically significant (Winokur et al., 2014). In Illinois, 

there were significant differences—AR cases cost on 

average substantially less than IR cases ($725 versus 

$2,738, respectively) (Fuller, Nieto, & Zhang, 2014). Across 

sites, evaluators noted that out-of-home placements, 

while infrequent, contributed to higher costs.

Lessons Learned

Evaluation and practice experiences across varied 

jurisdictions point to several important lessons 

learned. New jurisdictions starting out as well as 

those moving forward with DR implementation may 

benefit from the following recommendations:

Take time to plan and prepare.

Foster stakeholder buy-in.

Encourage peer-to-peer learning.

Incorporate training and ongoing staff 

Pay attention to workload impact.

Convey support and value for the entire child 

Be aware that the introduction of DR may lead 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

12

introduction of the new pathway (Murphy, NewtonCurtis & Kimmich, 2013; Winokur et al., 2014; QIC-DR, 

2014). Changes such as new screening procedures, 

family engagement activities, revised family service 

plan documents, and team case consultation processes 

were introduced throughout the agency and benefited 

families on both the AR and IR pathways. Over time the 

two pathways evolved so that they were both different 

from traditional child protection responses but not 

necessarily that different from each other. 

 Ensure service availability and strengthen 

community relationships. DR implementation has 

been a catalyst for conversations about which families 

who encounter child welfare are provided services, 

particularly given limited resource availability. A few 

DR evaluations showed that AR families received more 

services and/or received them more quickly than those 

randomly assigned to an IR pathway. One of the other 

results of DR implementation appears to be workers’ 

enhanced knowledge of and orientation toward 

accessing services for all families (Lisa Merkel-Holguin, 

personal communication, August 26, 2013). Successful 

implementation of all child protection responses 

requires that the child welfare agency can tap into 

a robust array of community services that support 

families (Casey Family Programs, 2014). Many agencies 

have found it helpful to work with community partners 

to identify and secure services from public and private 

agencies and help develop additional services as 

needed. 

 Recognize that implementation of DR is a 

developmental process. Expansion of DR is not 

always linear—to the contrary, often implementation 

of system change will start and stop, sometimes 

experiencing setbacks before advancing forward 

(Casey Family Programs, 2012). Lessons learned 

through evaluation, particularly when evaluation 

is incorporated early into implementation, can be 

valuable in shaping ongoing development. 

Conclusion

The expansion and enhancement of DR efforts represents 

significant child welfare reform. Child protection systems 

have been adapted to meet varying family circumstances 

with distinct responses. Moreover, DR supports agencies 

in adopting approaches that maintain a dual focus on 

keeping children safe and responding to families’ broadbased needs. In general, evaluations demonstrate that 

children are at least as safe in AR cases as in traditional 

IR cases, parents are engaging in services, and families, 

caseworkers, and administrators are supportive of DR. 

State and county experiences with DR also point 

to systemwide changes in attitudes, policies, and 

practices—evident among both AR and IR pathways. 

These shifts may result from the infusion of DR 

principles and procedures throughout child welfare 

agencies and also from parallel reform efforts in areas 

such as family engagement and solution-focused 

assessment. With increasing numbers of States and 

jurisdictions turning to DR, new variations are likely 

to emerge. At the same time, given the ongoing 

trends, the distinctions between alternative and 

investigative responses may continue to lessen.

References

Brown, K., Cox, S., & Mahoney, N. (2012). From “pie in 

the sky” to the reality of implementation: Lessons 

learned by the SOAR Consortium on the journey to 

differential response. Protecting Children, 26(3), 21-29. 

Brown, B., Merkel-Holguin, L., & Hahn, A. (2012). 

Differential response: Early implementation and fidelity. 

Cross site report of the National Quality Improvement 

Center on Differential Response in Child Protective 

Services. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/

academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/

pediatrics/subs/can/DR/qicdr/Documents/Year%20

1%20Site%20Reports/CrossSiteMay%202012.pdf

Brown, B., Merkel-Holguin, L., & Rohm, A. (2012). 

What works in differential response. In P. 

Curtis & G. Alexander (Eds.), What Works 

in Child Welfare (pp. 93-103). Washington, 

DC: Child Welfare League of America. 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

13

Carpenter, C. (October 22, 2012). Who should our 

clients be? Differential response and the provision 

of services to voluntary clients [Webinar]. In 

Children’s Bureau Centennial Topical Webinar Series. 

Available from http://cb100.acf.hhs.gov/webinars

Casey Family Programs. (2014). The differential response 

(DR) implementation resource kit: A resource for 

jurisdictions considering or planning for DR. Retrieved 

from the Kempe Center website: http://www.ucdenver.

edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/

pediatrics/subs/can/DR/Documents/Differential%20

Response%20%28DR%29%20Implementation%20

Resource%20Kit--May%202014%5B1%5D.pdf

Casey Family Programs. (2012). Comparison of 

experiences in differential response: 10 child 

welfare jurisdictions implementing DR. Seattle, 

WA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.casey.

org/differential-response-implementation/

Center for Child and Family Policy. (2009). Multiple 

response system (MRS) evaluation report to 

the North Carolina Division of Social Services 

(NCDSS). Durham, NC: Duke University. Retrieved 

from http://www.childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/

pdfs/pubpres/MRS_Report_June2009.pdf

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013). Making 

and screening reports of child abuse and 

neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. 

Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/

systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/repproc.cfm

Christenson, B., Curran, S., DeCook, K., Maloney, 

S., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (2008). The intersection 

between differential response and family 

involvement approaches. Protecting Children, 

23(1 & 2), 88-95. Retrieved from http://www.

americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/children/

protecting-children-journal/pc-23-1-2.pdf

Fuller, T., Nieto, M., & Zhang, S. (2013). Differential 

response in Illinois: Final evaluation report. 

Urbana, IL: Children and Family Research 

Center, School of Social Work, University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from 

http://cfrc.illinois.edu/pubs/rp_20140205_

DifferentialResponseInIllinoisFinalEvaluationReport.pdf 

Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment 

of Child Abuse and Neglect. (2014). Differential 

response implementation map. Englewood, CO: 

Author. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/

academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/

pediatrics/subs/can/QIC-DR/Documents/DR%20

Map%20as%20of%20Sept%202%202014.pdf

Lohrbach, S., Sawyer, R., Saugen, J., Astolfi, C., Schmitt, 

K, Worden., P, & Xaaji, M. (2005). Ways of working in 

child welfare: A perspective on practice. Protecting 

Children, 20(2&3), 93-100. Retrieved from http://www.

co.olmsted.mn.us/cs/cspublications/Documents/

CFSPublications/waysofworkinginchildwelfare.pdf

Loman, L. A., Filonow, C. S., & Siegel, G. L. (2010). Ohio 

alternative response evaluation: Final report. St. Louis, 

MO: Institute of Applied Research. Retrieved from 

http://www.iarstl.org/papers/OhioAREvaluation.pdf

Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2014). Ohio alternative 

response evaluation extension: Final report to the 

Ohio Supreme Court. St. Louis, MO: Institute of 

Applied Research. Retrieved from http://iarstl.org/

papers/OhioARFinalExtensionReportFINAL.pdf

Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2005). Alternative response 

in Minnesota: Findings of the program evaluation. 

In Differential Response in Child Welfare. Protecting 

Children, 20(2&3), 78-92. Retrieved from www.iarstl.

org/papers/ARinMNfromProtectingChildren.pdf

Merkel-Holguin, L., Kaplan, C., & Kwak, A. (2006). 

National study on differential response in child welfare. 

Washington, DC: American Humane Association and 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

14

Child Welfare League of America. Retrieved from 

http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/children/

pc-2006-national-study-differential-response.pdf

Morley, L., & Kaplan, C. (2011). Formal public child 

welfare responses to screened-out reports of 

alleged maltreatment. Englewood, CO: National 

Quality Improvement Center on Differential 

Response in Child Protective Services. Retrieved 

from http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/

colleges/medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/

subs/can/DR/qicdr/General%20Resources/

General%20Resources/docs/issue-3_10-31-11.pdf

Murphy, J., Newton-Curtis, L., & Kimmich, M. (2013). 

Ohio SOAR Project: Final report. Retrieved 

from the Human Services Research Institute 

website at http://www.hsri.org/files/uploads/

publications/OHIO_SOAR_Final_Report.pdf 

Murphy, J., Newton-Curtis, L., & Kimmich, M. (2014). 

Ohio SOAR Project: Executive summary. Retrieved 

from the Human Services Research Institute website 

at http://www.hsri.org/files/uploads/publications/

Ohio_SOAR_Final_Report-_Executive_Summary.pdf

National Quality Improvement Center on Differential 

Response in Child Protective Services (QIC-DR). (2014). 

Final report: QIC-DR cross-site evaluation. Englewood, 

CO: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/

academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/

pediatrics/subs/can/QIC-DR/Documents/Final%20

Cross%20Site%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf

National Quality Improvement Center on Differential 

Response in Child Protective Services (QIC-DR). (2012). 

Summary of the Tribal Symposium on Differential 

Response. Englewood, CO: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/

medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/can/

DR/qicdr/General%20Resources/General%20

Resources/docs/tribal-symposium-summary.pdf

National Quality Improvement Center on Differential 

Response in Child Protective Services (QIC-DR). 

(2011). Differential response in child protective 

services: A literature review. Version 2. Englewood, 

CO: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/

academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/

pediatrics/subs/can/DR/qicdr/General%20Resources/

QIC-DR_Lit_Review%20version%20%202.pdf

National Quality Improvement Center on Differential 

Response in Child Protective Services (QIC-DR). 

(2010). Differential response approach in child 

protective services: An analysis of State legislative 

provisions. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/

academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/

pediatrics/subs/can/DR/qicdr/General%20Resources/

General%20Resources/docs/differential-response.pdf

National Quality Improvement Center on Differential 

Response in Child Protective Services (QIC-DR). (2009.) 

Online survey of State differential response policies and 

practices. Findings report. Englewood, CO: Author. 

Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/

colleges/medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/

can/DR/qicdr/General%20Resources/General%20

Resources/docs/qic-dr-findings-report-jun09.pdf

Schene, P. (2005). The emergence of differential 

response. In Differential Response in Child 

Welfare. Protecting Children, 20(2 and 3), 4-7. 

Shusterman, G. R., Hollinshead, D., Fluke, J. D., & 

Yuan, Y. T. (2005). Alternative responses to child 

maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning 

and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.

gov/hsp/05/child-maltreat-resp/index.htm

Siegel, G.L. (2012a). Lessons from the beginning of 

differential response: Why it works and when it doesn’t. 

St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. Retrieved 

from http://www.iarstl.org/papers/DRLessons.pdf

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov

Siegel, G. (2012b). Worth the investment? Analysis 

of costs in a differential response program. 

Protecting Children, 26(3), 94-103. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/

medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/can/

DR/qicdr/General%20Resources/General%20

Resources/docs/protecting-children-2012.pdf

Siegel, G. L., Filonow, C. S., & Loman, L. A. (2010). 

Differential response in Nevada: Final evaluation 

report. Saint Louis: MO: Institute of Applied 

Research. Retrieved from http://www.iarstl.

org/papers/NevadaDRFinalReport.pdf

Siegel, G. L., & Loman, L. A. (2006). Extended 

follow-up study of Minnesota’s family assessment 

response demonstration. St. Louis, MO: Institute 

of Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.

iarstl.org/papers/FinalMNFARReport.pdf

Winokur, M., Ellis, R., Orsi, R., Rogers, J., Gabel, G., 

Brenwald, S., Holmquist-Johnson, H., & Evans, 

M. (2014). Program evaluation of the Colorado 

Consortium on Differential Response: Final 

report. Fort Collins, CO: Social Work Research 

Center, Colorado State University. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/

medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/can/

QIC-DR/Documents/Program%20Evaluation%20

of%20the%20Colorado%20Consortium%20on%20

Differential%20Response%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

Suggested citation:

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2014). 

Differential response to reports of child abuse 

and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Administration for Children and Families 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Children’s Bureau