ISSUE BRIEF 

Differential Response 

to Reports of Child 

Abuse and Neglect 

What’s Inside: 

• Defining differential response 

• 	 Why the growing interest in differential 


response?
 

• Experience in the fi eld 

• Evaluation fi ndings 

• 	 Opportunities for improving child 


welfare practice
 

• Guiding principles for implementation 

• For more information 

February 2008 

This issue brief was developed by 

Child Welfare Information Gateway, 

with contributions from Patricia 

Schene, Ph.D., of Patricia Schene 

and Associates, LLC. This document 

is made possible by the Children’s 

Bureau, Administration on Children, 

Youth and Families, Administration 

for Children and Families, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. The conclusions discussed 

here are solely the responsibility of 

the authors and do not represent 

the offi cial views or policies of the 

funding agency. 

Child Welfare Information Gateway 

Children’s Bureau/ACYF 

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW 

Eighth Floor 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Administration for Children and Families Washington, DC 20024 Administration on Children, Youth and Families 703.385.7565 or 800.394.3366 

Children’s Bureau Email: info@childwelfare.gov 

www.childwelfare.gov 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

During the past several decades, child 

protective services (CPS) agencies have been 

challenged by large volumes of child abuse 

and neglect reports, growing caseloads 

involving increasingly complex problems, and 

limited resources (U.S. General Accounting 

Office, 1997; Shusterman, Hollinshead, Fluke, 

& Yuan, 2005). At the same time, there has 

been growing recognition that “one size does 

not fit all” in responding to child maltreatment 

reports. As a result, State and local CPS 

agencies have introduced signifi cant reforms 

to child protection systems. One such reform 

is differential response, in which CPS agencies 

offer both traditional investigations and 

assessment alternatives to families reported 

for child abuse and neglect, depending 

on the severity of the allegation and other 

considerations. 

The introduction of differential response has 

been driven by the desire to: 

• 	 Be more flexible in responding to child 

abuse and neglect reports 

• 	 Recognize that an adversarial focus is 

neither needed nor helpful for all cases 

• 	 Understand better the family issues that lie 

beneath maltreatment reports 

• 	 Engage parents more effectively to use 

services that address their specifi c needs 

This issue brief provides an overview of 

differential response and highlights lessons 

learned through research and experience. 

The brief was written primarily for child 

welfare administrators and policymakers, 

particularly those who may be considering 

implementation or expansion of differential 

response. It also may be useful to CPS 

caseworkers, community partners who work 

with vulnerable children and families, and 

others interested in strategies to improve 

child protection. 

This issue brief reflects a review of 

selected research efforts and recent 

literature on differential response. A 

list of references and other resources 

is presented at the end of the brief. To 

highlight key issues, this brief draws from 

a few sources in particular: 

• 	 Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and 

Children’s Bureau reports from the 

National Study of Child Protective 

Services Systems and Reform Efforts 

(Literature Review, Review of State CPS 

Policy, and Findings from Local CPS 

Practices) (U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2001, 2003a, & 

2003b) 

• 	 National Study on Differential Response 

in Child Welfare, published jointly 

by American Humane and the Child 

Welfare League of America (MerkelHolguin, Kaplan, & Kwak, 2006) 

• 	 Differential Response in Child Welfare , 

a special issue of the American Humane 

journal, Protecting Children (MerkelHoguin, L., Ed., Volume 20, Numbers 2 

& 3, 2005) 

• 	 Mallon & Hess’ (Eds.) book, Child 

Welfare for the Twenty-First Century: 

A Handbook of Practices, Policies, and 

Programs (2005) 

• 	 National Child Welfare Resource Center 

for Family-Centered Practice’s Spring 

2001 issue of Best Practice, Next 

Practice (Schene, 2001) 

• 	 ASPE study summarizing Alternative 

Responses to Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS (Shusterman, 

et al., 2005) 

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 2 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

Defining Differential Response 


Differential response is a CPS practice that 

allows for more than one method of initial 

response to reports of child abuse and 

neglect. Also called “dual track,” “multiple 

track,” or “alternative response,” this 

approach recognizes variation in the nature of 

reports and the value of responding differently 

to different types of cases (Schene, 2001). 

While definitions and approaches vary 

from State to State, differential response 

generally uses two or more “tracks” or paths 

of response to reports of child abuse and 

neglect. Typically, these responses fall into two 

major categories: 

• 	 Investigation. These responses involve 

gathering forensic evidence and require a 

formal determination regarding whether 

child maltreatment has occurred or the 

child is at risk of abuse or neglect. In a 

differential response system, investigation 

responses are generally used for reports of 

the most severe types of maltreatment or 

those that are potentially criminal. 

• 	 Assessment (alternative response). These 

responses—usually applied in low- and 

moderate-risk cases—generally involve 

assessing the family’s strengths and needs 

and offering services to meet the family’s 

needs and support positive parenting. 

Although a formal determination or 

substantiation of child abuse or neglect 

may be made in some cases, it is typically 

not required. 

However, not all jurisdictions that employ 

differential response focus simply on choosing 

an assessment or investigation track. In some 

areas, there is more variation in types of 

response. Additional tracks may include a 

resource referral/prevention track for reports 

that do not meet screening criteria for CPS 

but suggest a need for community services, 

or a law enforcement track for cases that may 

require criminal charges. 

Similarities Between Differential 

Response and Traditional CPS 

While introducing a more flexible way of 

responding to reports, differential response 

systems still share many underlying principles 

with the traditional child protection approach. 

Both: 

• 	 Focus on the safety and well-being of the 

child 

• 	 Promote permanency within the family 

whenever possible 

• 	 Recognize the authority of CPS to make 

decisions about removal, out-of-home 

placement, and court involvement, when 

necessary 

• 	 Acknowledge that other community 

services may be more appropriate than CPS 

in some cases 

Differential response systems acknowledge 

that investigations are necessary in some 

cases. They typically allow for changes in the 

response track if circumstances change or 

information emerges that indicates a different 

type of response is needed to ensure child 

safety or better respond to the family. 

The National Study of Child Protective 

Services Systems and Reform Efforts (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

2003a), which included a survey of a nationally 

representative sample of local CPS agencies, 

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 3 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

found that despite the differences in focus, 

many of the approaches and practices used 

in conducting investigations and alternative 

responses were similar. During investigations, 

almost all agencies reviewed CPS records, 

interviewed or formally observed the child, 

and interviewed the caregiver. A slightly 

lower proportion of agencies conducted the 

same activities during alternative responses. 

Under both responses, a majority of agencies 

sometimes discussed the case with other 

CPS workers or with a multidisciplinary 

team, visited the family, and interviewed 

professionals. 

Differences Between Assessment 

and Investigation Approaches 

In traditional child protection practice, all 

accepted reports receive an investigation 

response. Investigations are conducted to 

determine if children have been harmed or 

are at risk of being harmed and to provide 

protection if needed. In differential response 

systems, investigations are no longer the 

singular focus of CPS response to reports of 

child maltreatment. While investigations are 

conducted for some reports (typically the 

more serious and severe), assessment is used 

for most other screened-in reports. 

In comparison to investigations, assessment 

responses tend to: 

• 	 Be less adversarial 

• 	 Focus more on understanding the 

conditions that could jeopardize the child’s 

safety and the factors that need to be 

addressed to strengthen the family 

• 	 Tailor approaches and services to fi t 

families’ strengths, needs, and resources 

• 	 Place importance on engaging parents to 

recognize concerns that affect their ability 

to parent and to participate in services and 

supports 

• 	 Tap into community services and the 

family’s natural support network 

• 	 Offer voluntary services 

Unlike investigations, assessment responses 

typically do not require caseworkers to make a 

formal finding regarding whether child abuse 

or neglect occurred, identify victims and 

perpetrators, or enter perpetrator names into 

central registries. 

For a comparison of the two approaches, see 

Table 1 on page 5. 

Why the Growing Interest in 

Differential Response? 

A number of factors explain the growing 

national interest in differential response. 

Some of the most significant are discussed 

below, including limitations of traditional CPS 

practice, recognition of the importance of 

family engagement, and an increased focus on 

accountability and outcomes. 

Limitations of Traditional 

CPS Practice 

In the two decades following the passage of 

the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment 

Act (CAPTA) of 1974, reports of abuse and 

neglect rose sharply, reaching 3 million per 

year in the mid-1990s without a corresponding 

increase in available staff. In response, 

CPS practice became more bureaucratic, 

standardized, and legalistic (Farrow, 1997). 

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 4 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

Table 1
 

Comparison Between Investigation and Assessment Approaches1
 

Focus 

Goal 

Disposition 

Central Registry 

Services 

Investigation 

• Did an incident of child abuse or 

neglect occur? 

• Who was responsible? 

• What steps need to be taken to 

ensure the child’s safety? 

To determine the “findings” related to 

allegations in the report and identify 

perpetrators and victims. 

A decision must be made whether 

to substantiate the allegation of 

maltreatment. 

Perpetrators’ names are entered into a 

central registry, in accordance with State 

statutes and policies. 

If a case is opened for services, a case 

plan is generally written and services are 

provided. Families can be ordered by 

the court to participate in services if CPS 

involves the court in the case. 

Assessment 

• 	What underlying conditions and 

factors may jeopardize the child’s 

safety? 

• 	What strengths and resources exist 

within the family and community? 

• 	What areas of family functioning need 

to be strengthened? 

To engage parents, extended family, 

and community partners in identifying 

problems and participating in services 

and supports that address family needs. 

Caseworkers are not typically required to 

make a formal finding regarding whether 

child maltreatment occurred. 

Alleged perpetrators’ names are not 

entered into a central registry. 

Voluntary services are offered. If parents 

do not participate, the case is either 

closed or switched to another type of 

response. 

At the same time, families coming into the 

system were experiencing multiple and 

increasingly complex problems, such as 

co-occurring substance abuse, mental health, 

and domestic violence issues. As the numbers 

and severity of cases overwhelmed CPS 

agencies, many States adopted narrower 

definitions for forwarding a report on for 

formal investigation, and those investigations 

became more rigorous (Daro, Budde, Baker, 

Nesmith, & Harden, 2005). These conditions 

combined to create seemingly confl icting 

objectives for CPS: investigate and sanction 

perpetrators of maltreatment, while providing 

therapeutic and support services to families to 

address complex problems (U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2001). 

In this context, a growing dissatisfaction 

with traditional CPS practices contributed 

to the emergence of differential response 

systems. This dissatisfaction refl ects several 

perceived shortcomings in a system focused 

predominantly on investigation, including: 

• 	 Limited capacity for response . While 

every State has legal mandates for CPS to 

1 Adapted from Schene, 2005, p.5. 

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 5 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

respond to all legitimate reports of child 

abuse and neglect, overwhelmed agencies 

with heavy caseloads and limited resources 

cannot thoroughly consider risks and needs 

in all accepted reports. Some legitimate 

reports—frequently those judged to be of 

lower risk or severity—are screened out or 

closed without further action. 

• 	 Adversarial orientation. Investigations 

help CPS to identify victims and provide 

evidence for prosecution of perpetrators 

in the most severe cases. Parents and 

caregivers often, understandably, perceive 

investigations as accusatory and are fearful 

of the threat of out-of-home placement 

of their children if they agree to receive 

in-home services while being monitored 

by the investigative agency. This can make 

parents less willing to accept services and 

less motivated to change their behavior. 

• 	 Low rates of services. Some argue that 

many families are inappropriately subjected 

to intrusive interventions that lead to little 

in the way of services. Nationally, less 

than 30 percent of reports of suspected 

child maltreatment result in substantiation 

of abuse or neglect, and even fewer are 

opened for ongoing services. 

• 	 Family problems not addressed . Although 

immediate safety issues are normally 

resolved before a CPS case is closed, 

the underlying causes for those threats 

to safety frequently are not. As a result, 

many families experience subsequent 

maltreatment reports while their problems, 

stresses, and issues remain unresolved. 

As a result of these issues, CPS agencies with 

a focus on investigation have been perceived 

both as being overly intrusive into family life 

and as not doing enough to protect children 

(Schene, 2005; Schene, 2001; Farrow, 1997; 

Waldfogel, 1998; Orr, 1999). 

The child welfare community has been open 

to approaches that can be more immediately 

helpful to families and that can promise 

more lasting change. Differential response 

developed largely as a way to overcome 

the limitations identified in the traditional 

response by differentiating among the types 

of situations reported, recognizing that 

adversarial investigations can create barriers 

to working with families effectively, and fi nding 

ways to protect children and stabilize families 

through comprehensive assessments followed 

by connections to existing community-based 

services and supports. 

Recognition of the Importance 

of Family Engagement 

A second force behind the emergence of 

differential response is a growing recognition 

of the importance of family-centered practice 

and, specifically, family engagement. 

Family-centered practices, such as family 

team meetings, are generally understood 

to improve the level of cooperation with 

services compared to investigations that 

lack more comprehensive assessments 

and individualized service planning. 

Family involvement in the assessment and 

service planning process fosters a shared 

understanding about how the family got to the 

point of a maltreatment report, what needs to 

change, what services might help, and who 

is expected to do what, by when. Differential 

response systems leverage opportunities 

to engage families, identify motivations to 

change, build on family strengths, and involve 

extended family networks and community 

supports in protecting children (Schene, 2005). 

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 6 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

Increased Focus on Accountability 

and Outcomes 

A third factor in the evolution of differential 

response systems is the growing interest in 

establishing accountability for agency actions 

beginning with the passage of the 1994 

amendments to the Social Security Act. The 

introduction of the Child and Family Services 

Reviews (CFSRs) has heightened awareness 

within the child welfare community that the 

work of child protection should be measured 

against the outcomes of safety, permanency, 

and child well-being. The findings of the initial

round of reviews indicated serious defi ciencies

in most jurisdictions in the area of assessments

of children and families and indicated that 

improvements in this area could lead to better

outcomes. As a result, many jurisdictions are 

paying attention to the value of responding 

more individually to reports and learning more

about what has to change in each family to 

achieve and sustain a better end result. 

Experience in the Field 

During the past two decades, differential 

response systems have been implemented 

in more than two dozen States across the 

country. Some jurisdictions are still in the 

early stages of implementation, with just a 

few pilot sites, while others are expanding 

or institutionalizing their systems statewide. 

This section discusses what we know about 

States and local agencies that have adopted 

differential response, what those systems have 

in common, and how they differ. 

Prevalence 

According to The National Study of Child 

Protective Services Systems and Reform 

Efforts (U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2003a), 20 States had identifi able 

policies in 2001 that refl ected differential 

or alternative response.2

 The policy review 

portion of the study noted that 11 States 

had implemented the approach statewide, 

although not uniformly, while in other States 

differential response was available only in 

demonstration or pilot sites (U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2003a). 

The local agency survey of the same study 

found that approximately two-thirds (64 

percent) of local agencies nationwide (1,660) 

were conducting both investigations and some 

alternative to investigation (U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2003b). While 

2001 is the last year for which such Federal 

data were collected, similar reforms have since 

been adopted or are being considered by 

additional agencies. 

Between 2005 and 2006, American Humane 

and the Child Welfare League of America 

(CWLA) conducted a study of differential 

response to build upon the 2003 National 

Study of Child Protective Services Systems 

and Reform Efforts. Their report includes State 

and county profiles of differential response 

efforts, as well as responses from some States/ 

counties to a descriptive survey on the topic 

(Merkel-Holguin, Kaplan, & Kwak, 2006). It 

identified 15 States with differential response 

initiatives, as well as 3 States whose previous 

2 The National Study of Child Protective Services Systems 

and Reform Efforts used the following defi nition of alternative 

response: “a formal response of [the] agency that assesses the 

needs of the child or family without requiring a determination 

that maltreatment has occurred or that the child is at risk of 

maltreatment.” 

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 7 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

initiatives were no longer active at the time of 

the study.3 

Some States also include differential response 

in statute. As of April 2006, 11 States had 

statutes that require the use of differential 

response systems, in which more serious child 

abuse and neglect cases are assigned to 

be investigated while less serious cases are 

assigned to family assessment (Child Welfare 

Information Gateway, 2006). 

Drawing on the above sources, the table in 

Appendix A identifies States with differential/ 

alternative response policies or practice 

protocols, those that had related statutes 

in 2006, and those that have implemented 

differential response statewide or in more 

limited areas. States that previously had 

a differential response system but are not 

currently operating under the system, 

that have incorporated some elements of 

differential response into their system, or that 

are operating a pilot project but do not have a 

formal differential response system are noted 

in the last column. Given the current interest 

in differential response, more States may soon 

be added to this list. 

Common Characteristics 

Regardless of where they are implemented, 

differential response systems tend to be: 

• 	 Assessment focused. The primary focus 

tends to be on assessing families’ strengths 

and needs. Substantiation of an alleged 

incident is not the priority. 

• 	 Individualized. Cases are handled 

differently depending on families’ unique 

needs and situations. 

• 	 Family-centered . They use a strengthsbased, family engagement approach. 

• 	 Community oriented. Families on the 

assessment track are referred to services 

that fit their needs and issues. This requires 

availability and coordination of appropriate 

and timely community services and 

presumes a shared responsibility for child 

protection. 

• 	 Selective. The alternative response is not 

employed when the most serious types of 

maltreatment are alleged, particularly those 

that are likely to require court intervention, 

such as sexual abuse or severe harm to a 

child. 

• 	 Flexible. The response track can be 

changed based on ongoing risk and 

safety considerations. If a family refuses 

assessment or services, the agency may 

conduct an investigation or close the case. 

Variations in Approaches 

Across States 

Despite sharing some basic characteristics, a 

differential response system in one State may 

look very different from a system in another 

State. Differential response systems vary in the 

following ways (Schene, 2001): 

Number of tracks or paths of response. 

Initially, differential response systems 

reflected only two tracks—assessment and 

investigation. Over time, some States saw 

the value of multiple tracks. States with three 

tracks (e.g., Wyoming) frequently have: 

3 The study’s authors acknowledge there is great variation 

in State and county implementation of differential response, 

but they defi ne it generally as a system in which “low- and 

moderate-risk cases receive a non-investigation assessment 

response without a formal determination or substantiation of 

child abuse and neglect.” 

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 8 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

1. An investigation track to determine 

if abuse or neglect took place and 

provide intervention to stop the 

maltreatment 

2. An assessment track to evaluate 


family strengths and needs and 


provide services to address needs
 

3. A prevention track for cases with no 

clear allegations of abuse or neglect 

but identified risk factors and a need 

for services 

In West Virginia, a variation of the three-track 

approach includes a “safety check” by a CPS 

worker as part of the assessment/services 

track. 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). 

Some States have added or eliminated tracks 

over time. 

When the track is selected. Often the 

response track is identified immediately when 

the report is accepted or screened in. Some 

States, however, choose to conduct an initial 

standardized CPS assessment/investigation 

and then, based on what is found, determine 

which track to pursue. 

Who responds to initial reports. In some 

States, all initial reports are handled by CPS, 

while in others the initial response to some 

reports is handled by a community agency. 

For example, the public health system might 

immediately receive a report for assessment if 

it is clear that substance abuse evaluation and 

treatment will be needed. 

Ongoing CPS involvement. In some States, 

once the decision is made to pursue a more 

voluntary approach, the case is closed to CPS 

and opened by a community agency. In other 

States, CPS remains involved and works in 

partnership with the community agency. In still 

others, the case is never opened by CPS and 

goes directly from the reporting hotline to the 

community agency. 

As more States implement differential 

response, the number of patterns and 

variations is likely to increase. 

Evaluation Findings 

With any systems reform effort, evaluation is 

critical to understanding whether the program 

is being implemented as intended, assessing 

overall effectiveness, and identifying and 

sharing lessons learned. Several States— 

including Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, North 

Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington— 

have conducted evaluations of their statewide 

or pilot differential response systems. In 

addition, the first large-scale, multistate study 

was published in 2005 (Shusterman et al.) 

based on an analysis of case data reported 

from six States (Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, 

New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) to 

the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data 

System (NCANDS). 

Overall, the evaluations of differential 

response systems have demonstrated positive 

outcomes, particularly in terms of sustained 

child safety, improved family engagement, 

increased community involvement, and 

enhanced worker satisfaction. Evaluations 

of pilot programs have generally led to 

decisions to expand implementation. Several 

evaluations, however, noted that continuing 

problems with the adequacy of resources 

such as staffing and services limited both 

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 9 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

implementation and the degree of positive 

change. 

Specifi c findings from these evaluations 

are presented below as they relate to the 

following topics: 

• 	 Referral and substantiation 

• 	 Child and case characteristics 

• 	 Child safety 

• 	 Investigations and prosecution 

• 	 Services to families 

• 	 Family satisfaction and engagement 

• 	 Cost effectiveness 

• 	 CPS staff perspectives and issues 

Referral and Substantiation 

The research revealed: 

• 	 The proportion of reports diverted to 

an alternative response varied greatly 

across States. The multistate study found 

that during 2002, referrals ranged from a 

low of 20 percent to a high of 71 percent 

across the six States studied. An analysis of 

multiyear trends suggested that States were 

experiencing growth or steady use of the 

alternative approach over time (Shusterman 

et al., 2005). 

• 	 The proportion of investigations that 

were substantiated increased (Loman 

& Siegel, 2004a; Virginia Department of 

Social Services, 2004). This refl ects the 

inclusion of a larger share of serious cases 

in the investigation track after less serious 

cases were diverted to receive services, 

which is in line with the stated intentions of 

differential response systems (Shusterman 

et al., 2005). 

• 	 Differential response resulted in a 

decrease in the numbers of both victims 

and nonvictims identifi ed by States. The 

amount of the decrease varied by State, 

however, and in one State the number of 

nonvictims increased (Shusterman et al., 

2005). Decreases are to be expected given 

that cases on most assessment tracks do 

not require a decision on substantiation. 

Child and Case Characteristics 

Research on child and case characteristics 

noted: 

• 	 An alternative response was more likely 

to be used for cases with less immediate 

safety concerns, and less likely to be 

used in sexual abuse cases (Shusterman 

et al., 2005; Virginia Department of Social 

Services, 2004; Loman and Siegel, 2004a; 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2003a). This finding is consistent 

with the stated intentions of differential 

response systems. While both the multistate 

study and single-State research found that 

the link between maltreatment type and 

referral track was strong, the relationships 

varied across States (Shusterman et al, 

2005). 

• 	 Older children generally were more likely 

to receive an alternative response, while 

younger children were more likely to be 

assigned to investigation (Shusterman et 

al., 2005; Siegel & Loman, 2000; Chipley, 

Sheets, Baumann, Robinson, & Graham, 

1999; English, Wingard, Marshall, Orme, 

& Orme, 2000). This suggests that track 

assignment may take into account the 

greater vulnerability of younger children. 

• 	 Children and families who were referred 

to an alternative response were similar 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 10 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

in demographics (e.g., gender, race, 

ethnicity, family structure) to those 

who received traditional investigations 

(Shusterman et al., 2005; English et al., 

2000; Siegel and Loman, 2000). 

• 	 Prior victimization was often related to 

a decreased likelihood of an alternative 

response, but not in all States (Shusterman 

et al., 2005). 

• 	 Referrals from social workers, medical 

personnel, and legal or criminal justice 

sources were less likely to receive an 

alternative response. Referrals from 

parents, relatives, friends, schools, or the 

children themselves were more likely to 

be referred to an alternative response 

(Shusterman et al., 2005; English et al., 

2000). 

Child Safety 

The ability of differential response systems to 

protect child safety is a significant concern. 

Research findings suggest that: 

• 	 Child safety was not compromised under 

differential response systems. Single State 

studies revealed that children whose cases 

received an alternative response were less 

likely or as likely as children who received 

an investigation to be the subject of a 

subsequent report or investigation (Chipley 

et al., 1999; English et al., 2000; Loman 

& Siegel, 2004a; Loman & Siegel, 2004b; 

Virginia Department of Social Services, 

2004; Center for Child and Family Policy, 

2004). Likewise, the multistate study found 

that the rate of recurrence within 6 months 

was comparable for children whose cases 

received an alternative response versus 

investigation; in Oklahoma, the likelihood 

of receiving a subsequent CPS response 

within 6 months was lower for children 

receiving alternative response (Shusterman 

et al, 2005). 

• 	 Safety was maintained even when 

comparable families were randomly 

assigned to tracks. In an experimental 

study conducted in Minnesota, families 

randomly assigned to assessment were 

significantly less likely to be re-reported 

than families randomly assigned to 

investigations (27 percent versus 30 

percent) (Loman & Siegel, 2004b). 

• 	 Increased services to families lowered 

recurrence. Analyses using Minnesota’s 

experimental design support this expected 

outcome. In addition, the nonadversarial 

and participatory approach to families was 

linked to reduced recurrence whether or 

not services were delivered (Institute of 

Applied Research, 2005). 

Investigations and Prosecution 

Limited research has focused on investigations 

and prosecution. Findings thus far suggest: 

• 	 States differed widely in the extent to 

which the existence of an alternative 

response option resulted in fewer 

investigations (Shusterman et al, 2005). 

• 	 The use of a differential response system 

improved investigations and increased 

criminal arrests in one State. A recent 

study (Loman, 2005) examined the arrests 

in cases of child sexual abuse and severe 

and moderate physical abuse in Missouri’s 

differential response system, which 

diverts the majority of other reports to a 

nonadversarial home visit. The study found 

that limiting the number of investigations 

led to more intense investigations and a 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 11 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

greater likelihood of criminal prosecution of 

perpetrators of the more serious offenses. 

Services to Families 

Research on services provided to families on 

the assessment track showed: 

• 	 Services were provided more often to 

children and families on the assessment 

track (Shusterman et al, 2005; Loman & 

Siegel, 2004a; Virginia Department of 

Social Services, 2004; Hernandez & Barrett, 

1996). In Minnesota, for example, 54 

percent of families on the assessment track 

received specific services (other than case 

management), compared to 36 percent of 

families on the investigation track (Loman & 

Siegel, 2004a). 

• 	 The number of services received by 

families on the assessment track was 

greater than on the investigation 

track. Linkages of families to funded and 

unfunded community providers increased 

in both Minnesota and Missouri (Loman & 

Siegel, 2004a; Loman & Siegel, 2004b). In 

addition, the types of services delivered to 

families shifted in both States toward family 

support services related to basic fi nancial 

needs (Institute of Applied Research, 2005). 

• 	 Services may be provided to families 

earlier on the assessment track. Missouri 

found that services occurred in a more 

timely manner under differential response 

(service activity was initiated on average 

within 17 days in the pilot areas, versus 

35 days for comparison families) (Siegel & 

Loman, 2000). 

• 	 Greater use of community resources was 

reported in pilot areas of at least three 

States (Florida, Minnesota, and Missouri) 

(Siegel and Loman, 2000; Loman & Siegel, 

2004b; Hernandez & Barrett, 1996). One 

evaluation report, however, indicated that 

community agencies were not always able 

to make contact with families or make 

contact within time frames anticipated by 

CPS (Washington State DSHS, 2005). 

• 	 Children were more likely to be placed in 

foster care if they received investigations, 

in several but not all States (Shusterman 

et al., 2005; Virginia Department of Social 

Services, 1999; Chipley et al., 1999; 

Loman & Siegel, 2004b). Recurrence of 

maltreatment resulting in removal declined 

for families receiving alternative response in 

the Minnesota study, but no corresponding 

evidence could be found in the Missouri 

study (Institute of Applied Research, 2005). 

Family Satisfaction and Engagement 

A few States conducted surveys to explore 

family and worker perspectives on family 

satisfaction and engagement. They found: 

• 	 Families reported satisfaction with 

the differential response system in 

Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, and 

Virginia (Loman & Siegel, 2004a; Siegel 

& Loman 2000; Center for Child and 

Family Policy, 2004; Virginia Department 

of Social Services, 1999). Further, the 

Minnesota families receiving alternative 

response reported that they were treated 

in a friendly and fair manner, were listened 

to by workers, were connected to other 

community resources, and benefi ted from 

the CPS intervention more often than 

families receiving a traditional response. 

These same families more often reported 

being hopeful and encouraged (Loman & 

Siegel, 2005). 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 12 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

• 	 The family’s sense of participation in 

decision-making increased in several 

States (Loman & Siegel, 2004a; Loman & 

Siegel, 2004b). In Minnesota, 68 percent 

of assessment families said they were 

involved a great deal in decisions that were 

made about their families and children, 

compared to 45 percent of control families 

(Loman & Siegel, 2005). In Virginia, families 

were included in planning for services in 

95 percent of assessments and 67 percent 

of investigations (Virginia Department of 

Social Services, 1999). 

• 	 Workers reported families were more 

cooperative and willing to accept 

services. In Minnesota, for example, 

workers rated the primary caregiver as 

uncooperative in less than 2 percent of 

assessment families, compared to 44 

percent of control families (Loman & Siegel, 

2005). In Missouri, it was hypothesized that 

cooperation between families and the child 

welfare agency was linked to the more 

positive and supportive orientation and 

earlier service contacts (Siegel & Loman, 

2000). 

Cost Effectiveness 

A cost analysis showed promising results: 

• 	 Differential response appears to be cost 

effective over the long term. Minnesota’s 

cost-effectiveness study suggested that 

costs of alternative response in the early 

stages of a case, including worker time 

during case opening, were greater than 

in traditional CPS interventions. However, 

costs for case management and other 

services following the closing of the initial 

case through the end of the follow-up 

period were lower. Savings achieved later 

more than offset investment costs early on 

and, as such, total costs were less for the 

alternative response cases than the control 

cases (Loman & Siegel, 2005). 

CPS Staff Perspectives and Issues 

Surveys and interviews with CPS staff 

underscore: 

• 	 CPS staff like the differential response 

approach. In Missouri, workers and 

community representatives preferred 

the family assessment approach (Loman 

& Siegel, 2004a). North Carolina social 

workers and supervisors overwhelmingly 

agreed that the differential response 

system was a more respectful way to serve 

families and allowed them to consider all 

family circumstances (Center for Child and 

Family Policy, 2004). Virginia CPS staff also 

expressed favorable views of their multiple 

response system (Virginia Department of 

Social Services, 1999). 

• 	 Large caseloads and limited resources 

are obstacles to differential response 

effectiveness. Missouri’s evaluation 

concluded that the impact of the 

demonstration was mitigated by large 

caseloads and limited resources. Although 

the results of the evaluation favored the 

family assessment approach over the 

traditional CPS approach, the effects were 

relatively modest. To achieve greater 

impact, the evaluators recommended 

reducing worker caseloads, as well as 

increasing and accelerating community 

development activities and resources 

(Loman & Siegel, 2004a). In North Carolina, 

staff members experienced increased 

challenges in managing cases while working 

with new reports, leading to increased 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 13 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
 

Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

stress levels. Evaluators recommended 

limiting caseload sizes to six to eight 

families per worker or implementing team 

models (Center for Child and Family Policy, 

2004). 

• 	 Training is needed . The Virginia evaluation 

led to some specific recommendations for 

program expansion, including providing 

training for both frontline staff and 

administrators to communicate changes to 

other agencies and the community (Virginia 

Department of Social Services, 1999). 

Similarly, North Carolina evaluators called 

for additional and better training for line 

staff, supervisors, and management. 

Opportunities for Improving 

Child Welfare Practice 

As mentioned earlier, the CFSRs conducted 

nationwide by the Children’s Bureau have 

underscored some specific areas of weakness 

in CPS practices, including: 

• 	 Comprehensive assessment and 

identification of strengths and needs 

• 	 Family involvement in the service planning 

process 

• 	 Availability and accessibility of services 

for families and children, and inconsistent 

services to address risk, especially for 

in-home cases 

• 	 Timeliness of response to lower-risk reports 

Differential response systems, and in particular 

the assessment tracks of these systems, offer 

opportunities for CPS agencies to address 

these weaknesses and improve child welfare 

practice. 

Improved Assessment 

One distinctive feature of the assessment track 

is that its focus is broader than the allegations 

in the referral or the specific incident leading 

to the report. Staff move away from a focus on 

“what happened” toward a process that seeks 

to understand the child and family’s broader 

needs. The assessment process looks for 

strengths within the child and family, as well as 

factors contributing to the child’s vulnerability 

and underlying issues that keep parents 

from being able to sustain safe, supportive 

parenting. 

Family-Centered Practice 

Assessment tracks reflect the values of familycentered practice and family engagement. 

Program evaluations, particularly in Minnesota 

and Virginia, point to routine involvement 

of families in both assessment and service 

planning. Since services are voluntary, workers 

must engage families in order to secure their 

participation in interventions. Engagement 

involves gaining the family’s perspective 

on problems and learning what they feel 

would help them to make changes. This 

results in more dialogue during service plan 

development within assessment tracks than in 

typical investigatory practice. 

Enhanced Service Delivery 

Evaluations of differential response systems 

have shown that families tend to receive 

services sooner within assessment tracks 

compared to investigations, and the level of 

service provision seems to be more robust. 

There are several potential reasons for this: 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 14 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

• 	 Although many traditional systems are 

permitted to serve families even when an 

investigation is not substantiated, their 

ability to do so is restricted by resource 

availability. Moreover, the adversarial nature 

of investigation undermines some parents’ 

motivation to participate in case planning 

and avail themselves of services. 

• 	 Traditional practice focuses the majority 

of service provision on foster care cases, 

rather than in-home cases, according to the 

CFSR findings. Within assessment tracks, a 

larger percentage of in-home cases (which 

constitute the majority of cases referred for 

assessment versus investigation) receive 

services. 

• 	 Evaluations of differential response have 

demonstrated that children can be just 

as safe or safer without an adversarial 

investigation to initiate intervention. In 

cases of lower risk, workers can begin to 

explore needs and offer services without 

stopping to undertake an investigation, 

resulting in more timely services and more 

efficient use of staff time. 

Potential for Earlier 

Intervention and Prevention 

Responding to the large volume of child 

maltreatment reports early enough to make a 

difference in the lives of children and families 

is a major objective of differential response 

efforts. Many of the cases on assessment 

tracks are lower risk cases that might have 

been screened out or closed after one contact 

if an alternative to investigation were not 

available. Some of these cases are known to 

reappear later with more serious allegations. 

Differential response offers the opportunity for 

earlier intervention and possible prevention of 

child abuse or neglect. 

Guiding Principles for 


Implementation
 

Lessons learned from research and 

experiences with differential response can 

help move the field forward. Child welfare 

administrators and policymakers may benefi t 

from the following considerations when 

implementing or expanding differential 

response systems at the State or local levels: 

Address the core concerns of child safety 

and risk. It is important to remember that all 

of the children and families served, regardless 

of assigned track, have been reported to CPS 

for potential maltreatment and their cases 

have been screened in as legitimate referrals. 

As such, all of these situations warrant an 

assessment of both the children’s safety 

and the parents’ capacity and willingness to 

participate in protective interventions. CPS 

systems must take care to ensure that initial 

contacts, even if made by another agency, 

address safety and risk. 

Implement systematic structures for 

selecting a response track and allowing 

changes. When and how the choice of 

response track is made has important practice 

implications. Tracks should be assigned based 

on a careful assessment of the family’s safety, 

needs, and resources. Experience indicates 

that track changes are very infrequent—usually 

less than 2 percent. This may be appropriate, 

but comprehensive and ongoing assessment 

of the family often leads to the discovery 

of information about the family that would 

not have come to light through a traditional 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 15 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

investigation. This additional information 

gathered by workers should help them 

identify when changes in track assignments 

are warranted, particularly to protect a child’s 

safety. 

Promote assessments that explore 

underlying conditions and needs. Differential 

response is based on the assumption that 

assessments will be comprehensive and go 

beyond traditional risk and safety assessments. 

More comprehensive assessment processes 

explore the strengths and needs of children 

and families and develop service plans that 

respond to underlying issues affecting the 

child’s safety. 

Ensure service availability and strengthen 

community relationships. Successful 

implementation of differential response 

systems requires the availability of an array of 

community services to support families. Child 

welfare agencies implementing differential 

response 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. 

Increasing and diversifying relationships with 

other service providers may require CPS 

agencies to address issues such as resource 

allocation, confi dentiality agreements, 

accountability for shared case management, 

and co-training of staff. 

Foster natural supports. Bringing broader 

systems of support to bear on the protection 

of children has proven to be a challenging 

task for some jurisdictions implementing 

differential response. Identifying, assisting, 

and nurturing families’ informal support 

systems can complement traditional services 

to help sustain healthy family functioning and 

child well-being over time. 

Train staff. To conduct comprehensive 

assessments and encourage parents’ 

participation in voluntary services, CPS 

caseworkers must be skilled in engaging 

families. Jurisdictions implementing 

differential response have noted that training 

administrators, supervisors, and frontline staff 

is critical to the success of this approach. 

Examine workload impact. Building trusting 

relationships, fully exploring strengths and 

needs, linking families to other services 

and supports, and developing case plans in 

partnership with families can take more time 

than typical caseloads allow. Evaluations 

in Missouri and elsewhere suggest the 

full benefit of differential response was 

not realized because of the counteracting 

pressures of large caseloads. 

Track outcomes. States implementing 

differential response systems learned a great 

deal from measuring outcomes. Collecting 

data, tracking outcomes, and conducting 

rigorous evaluations can help States and 

local agencies understand the effectiveness 

of reforms and make mid-course corrections 

as needed. These efforts can also help 

shape plans for statewide expansion of pilot 

programs and communicate benefi ts to 

various stakeholders. 

Accommodate and explain changes in data. 

Differential response may affect reporting 

and recurrence data and create apparent 

oddities in multiyear trends. When a majority 

of the referrals are not accompanied by a 

substantiation decision—as is the case with 

the families not on the investigation track—the 

proportion of substantiated reports to total 

reports decreases significantly. The important 

work done with families whose reports were 

not substantiated must be accommodated 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 16 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect	 www.childwelfare.gov 

within existing information systems and 

communicated to policymakers. 

Tap into lessons learned. Contact with 

State and local agencies experienced in 

implementing differential response can help 

those who are just starting the process to 

replicate promising approaches or avoid 

common mistakes. In addition, the Children’s 

Bureau’s National Resource Centers and 

Child Welfare Information Gateway can 

provide technical assistance and information 

on a number of topics related to differential 

response. Selected published reports, many 

of which are available through Information 

Gateway, are presented in the fi nal section 

of this brief. For more information, visit www. 

childwelfare.gov or call 800.394.3366. 

Conclusion
 

Differential response has been a positive 

development in child protection. Evaluations 

demonstrate that: 

• 	 Children are at least as safe as in traditional 

practice. 

• 	 Parents are engaging in services. 

• 	 Families, caseworkers, and administrators 

are supportive of the approach. 

While past evaluations shed some light on the 

effectiveness of this reform, the fi eld needs 

to continue collecting and analyzing data to 

improve understanding of how the practices 

associated with differential response affect 

outcomes for children and families. Questions 

for further research may include: 

• 	 How vulnerable to further maltreatment are 

children in families that do not voluntarily 

participate in services? 

• 	 Is there sufficient follow-up for families 

initially identified as low to moderate risk 

to prevent more serious situations from 

developing? 

• 	 By engaging parents more comprehensively 

in making sustainable changes, are children 

safer in the long term? 

• 	 How can States address infrastructure 

issues, such as worker caseloads and the 

availability of community resources, to 

support implementation of this approach? 

• 	 How does differential response affect the 

child welfare agency’s ability and willingness 

to build and sustain partnerships with 

community agencies to support families? 

Jurisdictions implementing differential 

response still face hurdles. For example, 

collaboration and coordination with other 

agencies and broader community stakeholders 

is an area likely to receive more attention as 

CPS shares more of the responsibility for the 

protection of children with local communities. 

In addition, limited resources—including 

services, supports, and time for caseworkers to 

facilitate connections to these resources—will 

be a continuing challenge. 

Nonetheless, building from lessons learned, 

States and agencies continue to move 

forward, refining existing differential response 

systems and expanding into new jurisdictions. 

And, as they do, they draw upon fl exible, 

family-centered practices and community 

resources to more effectively strengthen our 

nation’s families and promote the safety and 

well-being of children. 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 17 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

For More Information
 

References Cited 

Center for Child and Family Policy. (2004). 

Multiple Response System (MRS) evaluation 

report to the North Carolina Division of 

Social Services (NCDSS). Durham, NC: 

Author. Retrieved September 18, 2006, 

from www.childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/ 

news/MRS%20Report.pdf 

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2006). 

Making and screening reports of child 

abuse and neglect: Summary of State 

laws. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services. Retrieved 

July 13, 2007, from www.childwelfare.gov/ 

systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/repproc. 

cfm 

Chipley, M., Sheets, J., Baumann, D., 

Robinson, D., & Graham, J. C. (1999). 

Flexible response evaluation. Texas 

Department of Protective and Regulatory 

Services. 

Daro, D., Budde, S., Baker, S., Nesmith, A., 

& Harden, A. (2005). Creating community 

responsibility for child protection: Findings 

and implications from the evaluation of 

the Community Partnerships for Protecting 

Children Initiative. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall 

Center for Children. Retrieved September 

18, 2006, from www.cssp.org/uploadFiles/ 

FindingsImplications.pdf 

English, D., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., 

Orme, M., & Orme, A. (2000). Alternative 

responses to child protective services: 

Emerging issues and concerns. Child Abuse 

& Neglect, 24(3), 375-388. 

Farrow, F. (1997). Child protection: Building 

community partnerships. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University. 

Hernandez, M., & Barrett, B. A. (1996). 

Evaluation of Florida’s Family Services 

Response System. Tampa, FL: University of 

Southern Florida. 

Institute of Applied Research. (2005). 

Alternative response research in Missouri, 

Minnesota, and Virginia. Findings in six 

areas. PowerPoint presentation to California 

CPS Practitioners, March 2005. Retrieved 

July 11, 2005, from www.iarstl.org/papers/ 

CAPresentation.pdf 

Loman, A. (2005). Differential response 

improves traditional investigations: 

Criminal arrests for severe physical and 

sexual abuse. St. Louis, MO: Institute of 

Applied Research. Retrieved September 

18, 2006, from www.iarstl.org/papers/ 

DiffRespAndInvestigations.pdf 

Loman, A., & Siegel, G. (2004a). Differential 

response in Missouri after fi ve years. St. 

Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. 

Retrieved September 18, 2006, from www. 

iarstl.org/papers/MODiffResp2004a.pdf 

Loman, A., & Siegel, G. (2004b). Minnesota 

Alternative Response Evaluation: Final 

Report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of 

Applied Research. Retrieved September 

18, 2006, from www.iarstl.org/papers/ 

ARFinalEvaluationReport.pdf 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 18 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

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

response in Minnesota: Findings of 

the program evaluation. In Differential 

Response in Child Welfare. Protecting 

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

September 18, 2006, 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 and Child Welfare 

League of America. Retrieved August 10, 

2007, from www.americanhumane.org/site/ 

DocServer/National_Study.pdf?docID=4761 

Orr, S. (1999). Child protection at the 

crossroads: Child abuse, child protection, 

and recommendations for reform. Los 

Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute. 

Schene, P. (2001). Meeting each family’s 

needs: Using differential response in reports 

of child abuse and neglect. In Best Practice, 

Next Practice. Spring 2001, 1-14. National 

Child Welfare Resource Center for FamilyCentered Practice. Retrieved September 

18, 2006, from www.hunter.cuny.edu/ 

socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/newsletter/ 

BPNPSpring01.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 

September 18, 2006 from http://aspe.hhs. 

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

Siegel, G., & Loman, A. (2000). The Missouri 

Family Assessment and Response 

Demonstration impact evaluation: Digest 

of findings and conclusions (Updated). St. 

Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research. 

Retrieved September 18, 2006, from www. 

iarstl.org/papers/MoFamAssess.pdf 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration for Children and 

Families/Children’s Bureau and Offi ce 

of Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation. (2001). National study of 

child protective services systems and 

reform efforts: Literature review. Retrieved 

September 18, 2006, from http://aspe.hhs. 

gov/hsp/protective01/index.htm 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration for Children and 

Families/Children’s Bureau and Offi ce 

of Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation. (2003a). National study of 

child protective services systems and 

reform efforts: Review of State CPS policy. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. Retrieved September 2006 from 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CPS-status03/ 

state-policy03 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration for Children and 

Families/Children’s Bureau and Offi ce 

of Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation (2003b). National study of child 

protective services systems and reform 

efforts: Findings on local CPS practices. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 19 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

Office. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CPS-status03/cpspractices03 

U.S. General Accounting Offi ce. (1997). Child 

protective services: Complex challenges 

require new strategies. Washington, DC: 

Author. 

Virginia Department of Social Services. (1999). 

Final report on the multiple response 

system for child protective services in 

Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author. 

Virginia Department of Social Services. (2004). 

Evaluation of the differential response 

system. Richmond, VA: Author. 

Waldfogel, J. (1998). Rethinking the paradigm 

for child protection. Future of Children, 8(1), 

104-119. Retrieved September 18, 2006, 

from www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/ 

vol8no1ART7.pdf 

Washington State Department of Social and 

Health Services (DSHS). (2005). Alternative 

response systems program progress report 

July 1, 2003 – June 30, 2004. Retrieved 

September 18, 2006, from www1.dshs. 

wa.gov/pdf/ca/ARS_FY04.pdf 

Other Resources 

Gordon, A. (2000). What works in child 

protective services reforms. In M. Kluger, G. 

Alexander, & P. Curtis (Eds.), What works in 

child welfare (pp. 57-66). Washington, DC: 

Child Welfare League of America. 

Institute of Applied Research. (1998). 

Missouri Child Protection Services Family 

Assessment and Response Demonstration: 

Impact evaluation digest of fi ndings and 

conclusions. St. Louis, MO: Author. 

Mallon, G., & Hess, P. (Eds.). (2005). Child 

welfare for the twenty-first century: A 

handbook of practices, policies, and 

programs. New York: Columbia University 

Press. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration for Children and 

Families/Children’s Bureau and Offi ce 

of Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation. (2003). National study of child 

protective services systems and reform 

efforts: Summary report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Offi ce. Retrieved 

September 18, 2006, from http://aspe.hhs. 

gov/hsp/CPS-status03/summary 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration on Children, Youth 

and Families. (2007). Child maltreatment 

2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Offi ce. 

Yuan, Y. (2005). Potential policy implications 

of alternative response. In Differential 

Response in Child Welfare. Protecting 

Children, 20(2&3), 22-31. 

Zimmerman, F. (2003). Doing business 

differently: Changing policy and practice 

in the St. Louis Division of Family Services. 

New York: The Center for Community 

Partnerships in Child Welfare. 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 20 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

Appendix A
 

States With Policies, Practices, and Statutes Refl ecting 


Differential/Alternative Response
 

Identifi ed in 

Policy/Practice Authorized Statewide 

State Protocols by Statute Implementation 

Local/County/ 

Regional 

Implementation 

Other 

Experience* 

Alaska X X 

Arizona X 

California X X 

Delaware X 

Florida X X 

Georgia X X 

Hawaii X X 

Idaho X 

Iowa X 

Kansas X X 

Kentucky X X X 

Louisiana X X X 

Maine X X 

Massachusetts X 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota X X X 

Missouri X X X 

Nevada X 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X 

North Carolina X X X X 

North Dakota X 

Oklahoma X X X 

Pennsylvania 

South Carolina 

X X X 

X 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 21 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

Identifi ed in Local/County/ 

Policy/Practice Authorized Statewide Regional Other 

State Protocols by Statute Implementation Implementation Experience* 

South Dakota
 X X 

Tennessee
 X X X 

Texas
 X 

Utah
 X 

Vermont
 X X 

Virginia
 X X X 

Washington
 X X 

West Virginia
 X X 

Wisconsin
 X 

Wyoming
 

Total 

X 


22 

X X 

12 16 7 12 

*Other experience includes States that previously had a differential response system but are not 

currently operating under the system. It also includes States that have incorporated some elements 

of differential response into their system or that are operating a pilot project but do not have a 

formal differential response system. 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 
 22 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

Appendix B
 

State Contacts Regarding Differential/Alternative Response
 

As noted in the text, some States are no 

longer using differential/alternative response, 

others are considering introducing it, while 

in other States it has become a formal part 

of the child protection system. The following 

individuals are either directly involved in 

differential response in their State or can 

provide information on previous or planned 

differential response efforts.4 

Alaska 

Sara Gray 

Program Coordinator 

Office of Children’s Services 

Phone: 907.465.3207 

Email: Sara_Gray@health.state.ak.us 

Arizona 

Carolyn Rice 

CPS Policy Specialist 

Phone: 602.542.4850 

Email: CRice@azdes.gov 

California 

Susan Nisenbaum 

Child Protection and Family Support 

Branch Chief 

California Department of Social Services 

Phone: 916.651.6600 

Email: susan.nisenbaum@dss.ca.gov 

Delaware 

Linda M. Shannon, M.S.W. 

Program Manager - Intake & Investigation 

Division of Family Services 

Phone: 302.633.2663 

Email: Linda.Shannon@state.de.us 

Information current as of July 2007. 

Florida 

Maria B. Leon, M.S.W. 

Program Specialist, Office of Family Safety 

Florida Department of Children and Families 

Phone: 850.921.2765 

Email: maria_leon@dcf.state.fl .us 

Patricia Badland 

Director, Office of Family Safety 

Florida Department of Children and Families 

Phone: 850.488.8762 

Email: pat_badland@dcf.state.fl .us 

Hawaii 

Amy Tsark 

Branch Administrator, Child Welfare Services 

Department of Human Services 

Phone: 808.586.5667 

Email: atsark@dhs.hawaii.gov 

John Walters 

Program Development Administrator, Child 

Welfare Services 

Phone: 808.586.5675 

Email: jwalters@dhs.hawaii.gov 

Idaho 

Shirley Alexander 

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare 

Phone: 208.334.6618 

Email: alexande@idhw.state.id.us 

Iowa 

Rosemary Norlin 

Bureau of Protective Services 

Phone: 515.281.8726 

Email: RNORLIN@dhs.state.ia.us 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 23 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 

4 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

Kansas 

Paula Ellis, M.S.W. 

Assistant Director, Child Welfare Programs 

Division of Children & Family Services 

Phone: 785.368.8191 

Email: pxke@srskansas.org 

Kentucky 

Lisa Durbin 

Child Safety Branch Manager 

Department for Community Based Services 

Phone: 502.564.2136 

Email: Lisa.A.Durbin@ky.gov 

Louisiana 

Walter Fahr 

Child Protection Investigative Program 

Manager 

Office of Community Services 

Phone: 225.342.6832 

Email: wfahr@dss.state.la.us 

Patrice Waldrop 

Child Protection Investigation Program 

Manager 

Office of Community Services 

Phone: 225.342.4008 

Email: pwaldrop@dss.state.la.us 

Maryland 

Steve Berry, Manager 

In-Home Family Services 

Department of Human Resources 

Phone: 410.767.7112 

Email: SBerry@dhr.state.md.us 

Massachusetts 

Leslie Akula 

Director of Policy Support 

Massachusetts Department of Social Services 

Phone: 617.748.2323 

Email: leslie.akula@state.ma.us 

Michigan 

Ted Forrest 

Child Protective Services Manager 

Michigan Department of Human Services 

Phone: 517.335.3704 

Email: forrestt@michigan.gov 

Minnesota 

David Thompson, M.S.W. 

Minnesota Department of Human Services 

Phone: 651.431.4701 

Email: david.thompson@state.mn.us 

Rob Sawyer 

Olmsted County Child and Family Services 

Phone: 507.285.8405 

Email: sawyer.rob@co.olmsted.mn.us 

Missouri 

Kathryn Sapp 

Children’s Division, Missouri Department of 

Social Services 

Phone: 573.522.5062 

Email: Kathryn.Sapp@dss.mo.gov 

L. Anthony Loman, Ph.D. 

Gary Siegel, Ph.D. 

Institute of Applied Research 

Phone: 314.909.1944 

Email: gsiegel@iarstl.org 

Nevada 

Marjorie Walker 

Office of Child Protective Services 

Phone: 775.684.4422 

Email: mwalker@dcfs.state.nv.us 

Caroline Thomas 

Office of Child Protective Services 

Phone: 775.684.4460 

Email: cthomas@dcfs.state.nv.us 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 24 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

New Jersey 

Mr. Steven Rutland 

New Jersey Department of Children and 

Family Services 

Phone: 609.292.2813 

Email: steve.rutland@dcf.state.nj.us 

New Mexico 

Jeromy L. Brazfi eld 

Differential Response Unit Supervisor 

Child, Youth and Families Department 

Phone: 505.841.6126 

Email: jeromy.brazfi eld@state.nm.us 

Romaine Serna 

Deputy Director 

Children Youth and Families Department 

Phone: 505.841.7800 

Email: romaine.serna@state.nm.us 

Linda Cravens-Rodriguez 

County Offi ce Manager 

Children, Youth and Families Department 

Phone: 505.841.6100 

Email: linda.cravens-rodriguez@state.nm.us 

North Carolina 

Patrick Betancourt 

Multiple Response Systems Coordinator 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Phone: 919.733.4622 

Email: patrick.betancourt@ncmail.net 

North Dakota 

Kate Kenna 

Deputy Director 

Northeast Human Service Center 

Phone: 701.795.3014 

Email: 84kenk@state.nd.us 

Ohio 

Kristin Gilbert 

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services 

Phone: 614.752.0236 

Email: Gilbek@odjfs.state.oh.us 

Steve Hanson 

Supreme Court of Ohio 

Phone: 614.387.9387 

Email: HansonS@sconet.state.oh.us 

Oklahoma 

Nelda Ramsey 

Programs Manager 

Children & Family Services Division 

Phone: 405.521.4266 

Email: Nelda.Ramsey@OKDHS.org 

Pennsylvania 

Cathy Utz 

Office of Children, Youth, and Families 

Phone: 717.705.2912 

Email: cutz@state.pa.us 

South Dakota 

Jaime Reiff 

South Dakota Department of Social Services 

Child Protective Service Division 

Phone: 605.773.3103 

Email: Jaime.Reiff@state.sd.us 

Tennessee 

Shalonda Cawthon, Executive Director 

Office of Child Safety 

Department of Children’s Services 

Phone: 615.741.8278 

Email: Shalonda.Cawthon@state.tn.us 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 25 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response. 
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect www.childwelfare.gov 

Utah 

Cora Peterson 

Division of Child and Family Services 

Phone: 801.538.4154 

Email: corapeterson@utah.gov 

Virginia 

Rita Katzman, M.S.W. 

Child Protective Services Program Manager 

Virginia Department of Social Services 

Phone: 804.726.7554 

Email: rita.katzman@dss.virginia.gov 

Washington 

Sherry Brummel 

Research Supervisor 

Office of Children’s Administration Research 

Phone: 360.902.8050 

Email: brus300@dshs.wa.gov 

West Virginia 

Toby Lester 

CPS Program Specialist 

Phone: 304.558.2997 

Email: tobylester@wvdhhr.org 

Wisconsin 

Teressa Pellett 

Programs Director 

Children’s Trust Fund 

Phone: 608.267.3678 

Email: teressa.pellett@ctf.state.wi.us 

Wyoming 

Debra Hibbard 

CPS Consultant 

Department of Family Services 

Phone: 307.777.5479 

Email: dhibba@state.wy.us 

Child Welfare Information Gateway 

Children’s Bureau/ACYF 

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW 

Eighth Floor 

Washington, DC 20024 

703.385.7565 or 800.394.3366 

Email: info@childwelfare.gov 

www.childwelfare.gov 

Suggested Citation: Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2008). Differential Response to Reports 

of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services