1

WHAT'S INSIDE

Differential Response: A Primer 

for Child Welfare Professionals

Conclusion

Overview

Recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach 

does not serve children and families well, many 

agencies have implemented differential response 

(DR), a system reform that establishes multiple 

pathways to respond to child maltreatment 

reports. DR routes families with a screenedin report of child maltreatment through a 

traditional investigation pathway or an alternative 

assessment response pathway, depending on 

other State policies and program requirements. 

Rather than initiating an investigation every time 

a family has a screened-in report, DR practice 

seeks to assess a family's needs and connect 

them with services that will help them keep their 

children safe. By linking families with services 

that will strengthen their ability to safely care 

for their children, DR can reduce the number of 

children entering foster care and decrease future 

involvement with the child welfare system. 

This factsheet provides child welfare professionals 

with an overview of DR and considerations for 

practice.

Approaches to implementing differential 

response

Differential response in the field

Children's Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov

References

FACTSHEETS | OCTOBER 2020
Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov 2

OVERVIEW

DR—also called alternative response, family 

assessment response, multiple response, 

or dual track—is a way of structuring child 

protective services (CPS) to allow for more 

flexibility in how it responds to low- and 

moderate-risk cases and better meet the 

needs of families. In DR systems, screenedin reports are assigned to one of two (or 

more) tracks based on factors such as the 

type and severity of the maltreatment, the 

number and sources of previous reports, and 

the willingness of a family to participate in 

services. While definitions and approaches 

vary by jurisdiction, DR responses typically fall 

into the following two categories:

 Investigation response (IR) (also called 

the traditional response or high-risk 

assessment). These responses involve 

gathering forensic evidence and making 

a formal determination (substantiation 

decision) of whether child maltreatment has 

occurred or if the child is at risk of abuse 

or neglect. In CPS systems with DR, IR is 

generally used for reports of maltreatment 

that occurs in institutions, the most severe 

types of maltreatment (e.g., serious physical 

harm, sexual abuse), and those that may 

involve the legal or judicial systems.

 Alternative response (AR) (also called an 

assessment response or family assessment 

response).1

 These responses—usually 

applied in low- and moderate-risk 

cases—typically do not require a formal 

determination or substantiation of child 

abuse or neglect or the entry of names into 

a central registry. 

1 The term "alternative response" can have two meanings: (1) as a synonym for DR that refers to a broader child welfare 

approach or (2) as the name of one of the dual pathways within the DR approach. Except where otherwise specified, in this 

publication "alternative response" or "AR" refers to the second meaning. 

Both pathways share underlying principles 

and goals, including a focus on child safety, 

permanency, and well-being, and include 

child safety and/or risk assessments. The 

pathway assignment for a family could change 

based on new information, such as potential 

criminal behavior or imminent danger of 

maltreatment. 

When jurisdictions adopt a DR approach, 

caseworkers strive to develop a supportive—

rather than adversarial—relationship with 

families and broadly assess a family's situation 

so they can work with its members to better 

identify and meet their underlying needs. This 

broad assessment typically occurs without 

a formal determination or substantiation 

of child maltreatment, which is different 

from the traditional CPS approach. DR's 

nonadversarial approach allows caseworkers 

to initiate a therapeutic alliance that seeks 

to support families and make them feel 

comfortable and be more open about their 

needs. The AR pathway involves parents in 

identifying their individual needs, which can 

help create the motivation for change. Taking 

such an approach—rather than automatically 

investigating all reports—can help to 

encourage family engagement with services 

and lead to better outcomes for children 

and families. For example, a study of DR in 

six States found that higher rates of AR were 

associated with fewer rereports, including 

fewer substantiated rereports, indicating the 

approach was effective in addressing family 

needs (Fluke et al., 2016).
Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov 3

APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTING 

DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE 

DR in one jurisdiction may look very different 

from DR in another. The following are 

examples of variations that may occur (Casey 

Family Programs, 2014):

 Number of response pathways. While DR 

initially involved only two tracks (IR and 

AR), some States have created a response 

pathway for screened-out reports that 

relies on community-based organizations 

to provide families with outreach and 

service connections. These supports are 

designed to help families in need overcome 

challenges to their health and well-being. 

 Criteria for assigning pathways. States use 

different criteria for assigning pathways, 

including immediate safety concerns, risks, 

the nature and type of the maltreatment, 

prior reports of abuse or neglect, the 

victim's age and relationship to the alleged 

perpetrator, reports of domestic violence 

and/or substance use, and other factors.

 Person who makes the pathway decision.

The selection of a response track is 

typically made immediately after a report 

is accepted and screened in. Depending on 

the jurisdiction, it may be made by a hotline 

operator, a caseworker, or a supervisor. 

Some jurisdictions rely on a group process 

for making the pathway decision. 

 Assessment process and timeframe. This 

varies across jurisdictions depending upon 

local CPS policies and procedures.

 Ongoing child welfare involvement and 

service provision. After the initial CPS 

assessment is completed, child welfare 

agencies decide whether to close the case 

or keep it open for further involvement. 

Depending on that decision, families that are 

designated for the AR pathway may receive 

services provided by the child welfare 

agency, community-based organizations, 

other government agencies, or other 

external contracted service providers.

 Funding for services. In some States, 

jurisdictions may obtain supplemental 

funding from a variety of sources to provide 

services, including Federal, State, and local 

governments and foundations. 

Differential Response Laws and 

Policies

Although the 2010 reauthorization of the 

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment 

Act (P.L. 111-320, Sect. 106) required State 

plans to describe laws, policies, or programs 

reflecting DR in screening and assessments, 

it did not include a formal definition of DR, 

leaving States and localities to interpret 

and tailor it to their local needs. As of 2019, 

23 States had statutes enacting DR, and 

7 additional States included DR in their 

practice through regulations or policy 

(National Conference of State Legislatures 

[NCSL], 2019). For more information, see 

Differential Response in Child Protective 

Services: Analysis of State Provisions by 

NCSL and Making and Screening Reports of 

Child Abuse and Neglect by Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. 
Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov 4

As agencies implement DR or consider 

incorporating it into their practice, they 

should review how they will address the 

following factors (Casey Family Programs, 

2012):

 Stakeholder buy-in. Endorsement from key 

stakeholders can facilitate implementation 

and sustainability of DR approaches. 

 Peer-to-peer learning. Contact with 

State and local agencies that have DR 

experience has helped other agencies avoid 

mistakes and adopt promising strategies. 

Jurisdictions have benefited from 

shadowing opportunities and peer-to-peer 

networks to learn valuable lessons.

 Training and staff development 

opportunities. Evaluations point to 

the need for training all staff (both IR 

and AR workers) to promote a shared 

understanding of DR. They also indicate the 

importance of coaching and development 

activities for supervisors, who play an 

important role in supporting new practices.

 Impact on workload. Administrators need 

to assess what impact DR will have on 

workload and caseload management. They 

will also need to be sensitive to perceived 

inequities in the workloads of workers on 

different DR tracks and the staff responses 

to them (e.g., resentment, pushback).

 Support for the entire child protection 

structure and not just new pathways. It 

is important to create the right messaging 

about DR—that both the IR and AR 

pathways are critical functions of the 

agency. 

 Service capability and community 

relationships. DR has spurred discussions 

on which families involved with child 

welfare are provided with services when 

there are limited resources available. 

Successful implementation of DR requires 

child welfare agencies to have access 

to community services and understand 

government programs that support families. 

Evaluations have shown that child welfare 

agencies find it helpful to work with 

community partners to identify and secure 

services from public and private agencies 

and to help them develop additional 

services as needed. 

 Using evaluations to inform practice. 

Agencies should evaluate their DR practices 

to shape ongoing development.
Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov 5

DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE IN THE FIELD

Title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration projects allowed States to test innovative strategies 

in child welfare service delivery and financing. Waiver projects in three States—Arkansas, Nebraska, 

and Washington—implemented DR as part of their strategies. The table below provides key 

evaluation findings from each project.

Arkansas Department of 

Human Services, Division 

of Children and Family 

Services (Hornby Zeller 

Associates, 2019)

Nebraska Department of 

Health and Human Services, 

Division of Children and 

Family Services (Center on 

Children, Families, and the 

Law, 2019)

Washington Department 

of Children, Youth, and 

Families (TriWest, 2019)

 Families receiving AR were 

significantly less likely than 

comparison group families 

to have a subsequent CPS 

case opened within 3, 6, 

and 12 months following 

AR.

 Children in the AR group 

were significantly less 

likely than those in the 

comparison group to be 

removed from their homes.

 There was an average cost 

savings of $150 per family 

in the AR group compared 

to the comparison group. 

For additional information, 

see the project’s final 

evaluation report. 

 Individuals in the AR group 

experienced significantly 

fewer subsequent outof-home placements 

than those involved in a 

traditional response.

 Caseworkers indicated AR 

families had significantly 

greater improvement 

related to education, 

transportation and 

material needs compared 

to traditional response 

families.

 AR families followed 

through on accepting 

support services to a 

greater degree than 

traditional response 

families, including greater 

use of mental health, 

material needs, and 

transportation services.

For additional information, 

see the final evaluation report

as well as An Alternative 

Response to Child Protection 

in Nebraska.

 Families in the AR track were 

less likely to experience 

removals than families in the 

comparison group. 

 The costs for serving 

AR families was higher 

than for the comparison 

group families for the 

first 6 months after intake 

due to needed family 

support services, but 

AR expenditures were 

considerably lower after 12 

months and beyond.

For additional information, see 

the final evaluation report.
Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov 6

CONCLUSION

With its flexibility and multiple pathways, DR 

can help keep families together by providing 

the services needed for them to have a safe 

and stable home life. By actively engaging 

families as partners and securing communitybased services to help them achieve their 

goals, DR practice has the potential to 

identify new service partners, increase family 

participation in services, and reallocate 

resources to meet the emerging needs of 

children and families. As agencies establish 

or strengthen their own DR approaches, they 

can turn to the lessons learned from previous 

research and practice to guide them.

REFERENCES

Casey Family Programs. (2012). Comparison 

of experiences in differential response 

(DR) implementation: 10 child welfare 

jurisdictions implementing DR. https://

caseyfamilypro-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/

media/DifferentialResponseReport.pdf

Casey Family Programs. (2014). The differential 

response (DR) implementation resource kit: 

A resource for jurisdictions considering or 

planning for DR. Author.

Center on Children, Families, and the Law. 

(2019). Nebraska IV-E waiver final report. 

University of Nebraska–Lincoln. http://

dhhs.ne.gov/Documents/Nebraska%20

IV-E%20Waiver%20Final%20Report.pdf

Fluke, J. D., Harlaar, N., Heisler, K., Darnell, 

A., Brown, B., & Merkel-Holguin, L. 

(2016). Differential response and the 

safety of children reported to child 

protective services: A tale of six States. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Planning and Evaluation. https://aspe.

hhs.gov/pdf-report/differential-responseand-safety-children-reported-childprotective-services-tale-six-states

Hornby Zeller Associates. (2019). Arkansas 

IV-E waiver demonstration project: Final 

evaluation report. https://humanservices.

arkansas.gov/images/uploads/dcfs/AR_

Waiver_Final_Evaluation_Report.pdf

National Conference of State Legislatures. 

(2019). Differential response in child 

protective services: Analysis of State 

legislative provisions. https://www.ncsl.

org/research/human-services/statelegislation-differential-response.aspx

Differential Response Practice 

Resources

The following resources from the field can 

help child welfare workers, supervisors, and 

administrators as they implement or develop 

DR approaches:

 Ohio Differential Response: Caseworker 

Self-Assessment and Field Tools (Ohio) 

 Ohio Differential Response: Coaching 

and Supervision Tools (Ohio)

 Differential Response Family 

Engagement Toolkit (Oregon) 

 Alternative Response [Training modules] 

(Wisconsin) 

 Alternative Response Resource Guide

(Texas) 
Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov 7

TriWest Group. (2019). Washington State 

IV-E waiver demonstration project: Family 

assessment response final evaluation 

report. https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/sites/

default/files/pdf/reports/FAR_Final_

Report_8.2019.pdf

SUGGESTED CITATION: 

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2020). 

Differential response: A primer for child 

welfare professionals. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Children’s Bureau.

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

Gateway. This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/differential-response/.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau