Search

Ronald Hughes, Judith Rycus, and their colleagues have produced a seminal review of differential response (DR) programs implemented across the nation. Their review questions nearly every aspect of the DR movement, beginning with the concept on which all DR programs are based and ending with serious concerns about the quality of evaluations conducted to date. Given current support for DR initiatives and wide variation of existing DR models, not all in the social sciences will agree with their conclusions. Nevertheless, this review represents the type of analysis critical to advancing practice in the field. Although many issues are raised in the Hughes et al. review, our response focuses on four critical points, which we believe represent the core problems identified. These include the concept that serves as the foundation for the DR movement, the role of assessments, and the primary problems with evaluations conducted to date.

The Hughes et al. paper is critiqued generally and in specific areas. The weak nature of the authors' empirical work is discussed along with their enigmatic writing and vague and incorrect use of references, and their simultaneous use of sweeping statements of opinion and narrow analytical focus. This review examines the authors' errors regarding differential response (DR) and child safety, confusion of child safety and family risk, incorrect portrayal of DR family assessments, incomplete review and analysis of inconsistency in pathway (track) assignment, incomplete analysis of external validity, and mistaken interpretation of field experiments. A short essay on the purpose of DR is presented along with other literature which readers are encouraged to read and interpret for themselves.

This article is a response to "Issues in Differential Response", a review of the current evidence pertaining to differential response (DR) programs in child protective services (CPS). In my view, the Hughes, Rycus, Saunders-Adams, Hughes, and Hughes article suffers from several weaknesses. First, DR programs are critiqued as if they were a manualized intervention rather than a policy orientation, resulting in unhelpful conclusions. Second, the strength of existing evidence pertaining to child safety in DR is framed in an overly negative way. Finally, I attempt to place our understanding of DR in a broader perspective reflecting the continuing evolution of CPS and policies.

This article is an invited commentary and analysis of the authors' completed systematic evaluation of Child Protective Services (CPS) differential response (DR) models. I write this commentary based on 25 years of public child welfare experience followed by 13 years as a social work professor and researcher. In their review of DR, the authors' identify critical and unresolved issues in DR implementation and program evaluation as well as recommendation to improve DR within CPS. In the course of the authors' evaluation, they completed interviews with key informants in states that have implemented DR; an important contribution to CPS literature. Concepts, issues, and controversies in the DR literature are discussed in view of CPS practice models and history of policy making.

Ronald Hughes and his colleagues have written a groundbreaking article on child welfare's use of differential response. Their research addresses the matter from a "lessons learned" and "ways to improve" approach. Our comments focused on three key issues: (1) the importance of evidence-based practice; (2) the recognition that no one practice modality can be a cure-all for child protection; and (3) the necessity of better quality training for child welfare professionals. We believe the value of this article goes beyond theoretical and ideological discussion, but should be used to promote and support research-informed knowledge in policy and practice.

Hughes, Rycus, Saunders-Adams, Hughes, and Hughes's article represents an important effort to critically examine the foundation of thought and empirical evidence associated with the rise in prominence of differential response (DR) within child welfare systems throughout the United States. The insights and criticisms offered are an important contribution to the professional literature. The arguments and perspective put forward can best be understood within the context of continuing conflict and debate (within child welfare) stemming from the countervailing influences of the principle of least intrusion and demands to ensure child safety. Although effective arguments are put forth that support many of the conclusions and interpretations, there are a few comments that require further discussion and reflection. More specifically, it is unclear if there is sufficient evidence to support their claim that children in DR alternative tracks may or are at a more heightened safety risk.

This reaction article highlights areas of agreement and disagreement with the study conducted by Hughes, Rycus, Saunders-Adams, Hughes, and Hughes on the current state of research and practice in differential response (DR). Overall, we agree with several of the arguments put forth by Hughes et al. regarding the limitations of DR research and the lack of a consistently defined and implemented DR practice model. These areas of agreement offer common ground on which to work together to move the field forward. However, we have concerns about the methodological rigor of the Hughes et al. study and questions about some of their findings and conclusions. We draw upon our current evaluation of a five-county DR research and demonstration project in Colorado to provide recommendations for enhancing the design and implementation of research on DR.

Purpose: Child neglect is prevalent in children's social work and assessing neglect is complex because it is multifaceted and opaque. This systematic review identifies and evaluates evidence of tools or measures to better assess child neglect. Methods: Informed by Cochrane methodology and adapted to the needs of social work practice, a systematic search and review of measures of child neglect was undertaken. Ten databases were searched, augmented by grey literature, and contact with relevant experts. Results: Only two measures, the Child Neglect Index (CNI) and modifications of the Maltreatment Classification System (MCS), met the inclusion criteria. Neither tool was completely comprehensive for child neglect. Discussion: Our findings indicate (a) a dearth of suitable tools to measure neglect and (b) the need for robust testing of neglect measures in the social work setting. The current evidence based on measuring child neglect is too limited to effectively inform policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differential response (DR), also referred to as alternative response (AR), family assessment response (FAR), or multiple track response, was developed to incorporate family-centered, strengths-based practices into child protective services (CPS), primarily by diverting lower risk families into an assessment track rather than requiring the traditional CPS investigation. Since the program’s inception, researchers have conducted several large evaluation studies of DR programs, and a large body of research and program literature has been published touting the success and benefits of DR. In response to significant concerns about the clarity and consistency of DR program models and the validity and generalizability of its associated research, the authors undertook a comprehensive, three-pronged evaluation to provide guidance in shaping the ongoing development of DR programs. This report summarizes the methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the review. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: This study examines the impact of the Family Connections (FC) intervention on preventing behavioral problems among urban, predominantly African American children at risk of neglect. Method: Secondary data analyses using mixed model analyses of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures were used to examine gender differences in child behavior outcomes among 111 participating families across three time points (intake, closing, and 6 months following intervention participation). Results: From intake to closing, boys appeared to experience a larger decrease in internalizing and externalizing behaviors than girls. At 6-month follow-up, boys’ behaviors remained stable relative to results at closing; girls showed a slight decrease in behaviors over the same period. Findings also indicate a greater decrease in problem behaviors for participants in the 9-month versus 3-month version of FC. Conclusions: Positive effects of the FC intervention for African American children indicate the potential of this prevention intervention to avert negative behavior trajectories. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]