IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v155y2023ics0190740923003420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contextual determinants of re-reporting for families receiving alternative response: A survival analysis in a Midwestern State

Author

Listed:
  • Lai, Jianchao
  • Graef, Michelle
  • Franke, Todd
  • Burnham, Toby

Abstract

Differential response (DR) has been widely adopted in over 30 states to address shortcomings of the traditional approach to child maltreatment reports in complex family and case circumstances. However, despite continued evaluation efforts, evidence of the effectiveness of DR remains inconclusive. The current study aims to assess the impact of a DR program and potential predictors, including service match and number of family case workers, on maltreatment re-reports in a Midwestern state. The study utilized a randomized control trial and assigned eligible families to either the Alternative Response (AR) track or Traditional Response (TR) track. The enrollment was implemented in a phased rollout covering all counties in the state. Data were drawn from state child welfare administrative datasets and case worker surveys. The probability and time to re-reporting was calculated using survival analysis, while adjusting for case-level covariates. Prior ongoing case (HR = 3.24, p < 0.001), high risk level (HR = 1.43, p < 0.05), and having only one worker (HR = 1.92, p < 0.001) serve the case were strong predictors of re-reporting. The effect of service match within each level of prior ongoing case (No, Yes) was also a significant predictor of re-reporting (p < 0.05). AR had limited, but nonsignificant, impact on preventing re-reporting after adjusting for these factors, as there was no difference in terms of re-reporting between DR tracks. However, findings suggest that matching child welfare service with family needs is an important component of child welfare practice. Implications for DR policy and practice are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Lai, Jianchao & Graef, Michelle & Franke, Todd & Burnham, Toby, 2023. "Contextual determinants of re-reporting for families receiving alternative response: A survival analysis in a Midwestern State," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:155:y:2023:i:c:s0190740923003420
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107146
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740923003420
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107146?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon, James David & Brooks, Devon, 2019. "Targeting services to reduce need after a child abuse investigation: Examining complex needs, matched services, and meaningful change," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 386-394.
    2. Ryan, Joseph P. & Schuerman, John R., 2004. "Matching family problems with specific family preservation services: a study of service effectiveness," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 347-372, April.
    3. Ryan, Joseph P. & Garnier, Philip & Zyphur, Michael & Zhai, Fuhua, 2006. "Investigating the effects of caseworker characteristics in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 993-1006, September.
    4. Marcenko, Maureen O. & Lyons, Sandra J. & Courtney, Mark, 2011. "Mothers' experiences, resources and needs: The context for reunification," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 431-438, March.
    5. Camasso, Michael J. & Jagannathan, Radha, 2000. "Modeling the reliability and predictive validity of risk assessment in child protective services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(11-12), pages 873-896.
    6. Lawrence, C. Nicole & Rosanbalm, Katie D. & Dodge, Kenneth A., 2011. "Multiple Response System: Evaluation of Policy Change in North Carolina's Child Welfare System," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 2355-2365.
    7. Kahn, Jessica M. & Schwalbe, Craig, 2010. "The timing to and risk factors associated with child welfare system recidivism at two decision-making points," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1035-1044, July.
    8. Piper, Kathryn A., 2017. "Differential response in child protection: How much is too much?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 69-80.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chambers, Ruth M. & Brocato, Jo & Fatemi, Maryam & Rodriguez, Angel Y., 2016. "An innovative child welfare pilot initiative: Results and outcomes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 143-151.
    2. Choi, Mi Jin & Kim, Jangmin & Roper, Ayla & LaBrenz, Catherine A. & Boyd, Reiko, 2021. "Racial disparities in assignment to alternative response," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    3. D'Andrade, Amy C. & Chambers, Ruth M., 2012. "Parental problems, case plan requirements, and service targeting in child welfare reunification," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 2131-2138.
    4. Mersky, Joshua P. & Janczewski, Colleen, 2013. "Adult well-being of foster care alumni: Comparisons to other child welfare recipients and a non-child welfare sample in a high-risk, urban setting," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 367-376.
    5. Simon, James David & Lau, Caitlin & Franke, Todd, 2024. "An examination of re-referrals and substantiations among families referred to home-based, differential response services and a comparison group: Does successful completion matter?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    6. Shipe, Stacey L. & Uretsky, Mathew C. & Shaw, Terry V., 2022. "Family outcomes in alternative response: A multilevel analysis of recurrence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    7. Sorek, Yoa & Szabo-Lael, Rachel & Almog-Zaken, Aya, 2024. "“Welfare used to mean darkness – Now it’s beaming with light”: Professionals and parents’ perceptions of a family preservation program in Israel," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    8. Simon, James David & D'Andrade, Amy & Hsu, Hsun-Ta, 2021. "The intersection of child welfare services and public assistance: An analysis of dual-system involvement and successful family preservation completion on a maltreatment re-report," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    9. Emily Keddell, 2022. "Mechanisms of Inequity: The Impact of Instrumental Biases in the Child Protection System," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, May.
    10. Pelton, Leroy H., 2011. "Concluding commentary: Varied perspectives on child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 481-485, March.
    11. Marsh, Jeanne C. & Ryan, Joseph P. & Choi, Sam & Testa, Mark F., 2006. "Integrated services for families with multiple problems: Obstacles to family reunification," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 1074-1087, September.
    12. Elgin, Dallas J., 2018. "Utilizing predictive modeling to enhance policy and practice through improved identification of at-risk clients: Predicting permanency for foster children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 156-167.
    13. Kang, Jiyoung, 2012. "Pathways from social support to service use among caregivers at risk of child maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 933-939.
    14. Cheng, Tyrone C. & Lo, Celia C., 2021. "With their children placed in kinship care, did parents get the services they needed?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    15. Chambers, Ruth M. & Crutchfield, Rashida M. & Goddu Harper, Stephanie G. & Fatemi, Maryam & Rodriguez, Angel Y., 2018. "Family reunification in child welfare practice: A pilot study of parent and staff experiences," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 221-231.
    16. Hollingsworth, Leslie D. & Bybee, Deborah & Johnson, Elizabeth I. & Swick, Danielle C., 2010. "A comparison of caseworker characteristics in public and private foster care agencies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 578-584, April.
    17. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    18. Winters, Drew E. & Pierce, Barbara J. & Imburgia, Teresa M., 2020. "Concrete services usage on child placement stability: Propensity score matched effects," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    19. Simon, James David & Brooks, Devon, 2019. "Targeting services to reduce need after a child abuse investigation: Examining complex needs, matched services, and meaningful change," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 386-394.
    20. Daniela Rita Ribeiro Cunha & Maria Emília Leitão & Ana Isabel Sani, 2024. "Domestic Violence Victimization Risk Assessment in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:155:y:2023:i:c:s0190740923003420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.