The Differential Response System in Connecticut: Implementation and Early Outcomes of the Community Support for Families Program

Background

The Differential Response System (DRS) is a set of policies establishing multiple pathways for families reported for child maltreatment: (1) serious reports are still investigated, and (2) families with allegations involving low to moderate risk reports with no safety factors are offered services to meet their needs.  In 2012, Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) launched its DRS, Family Assessment Response (FAR), statewide.  FAR offers a voluntary, family-driven, individualized program, Community Support for Families (CSF).  The purpose of CSF is to promote child and family well-being, build and strengthen natural and community-based supports, and provide linkages to community services.  This study addressed the implementation and effectiveness of CSF; specifically, who utilized the program, were families connected with services and supports, was the program successful in improving family functioning and access to community resources, and was there a decrease in subsequent reports.

Methods

Individual, and family data collected by regional community partner agencies contracted by DCF and administrative DCF data were used.  Quantitative methods were used to provide a descriptive analysis of program utilization by region and various demographic factors.  The Protective Factors Survey (PFS) was used to assess connection to services and supports and family functioning.  Survival analysis using the Cox regression model was applied to examine the amount of time to the first substantiated report following treatment discharge.  Classification and Regression Tree (C&RT) analysis was used to identify factors that were related to meeting treatment goals.

Results

Since March 2012, CSF has served over 3,000 families consisting of 4,960 children. Of the caregivers, 65% reported being a single parent and 65% reportedly had a high school diploma/GED or less.  Of the children, 37% reported a history of trauma.  Family needs assessed and addressed include resource management, social supports, parenting skills, household relationships and coping skills.  The majority of families met treatment goals at the time of discharge: only 4% were discharged because a new report was received.  Multivariate statistics were used to further explore outcomes.  There was statistically significant improvement over time for all PFS domains. There was an overall decrease in subsequent reports after CSF implementation and survival analysis indicated a 96.5% six-month survival rate for substantiated reports.  C&RT analysis indicated that the factors that had the greatest impact on meeting treatment goals at discharge included length of time in the program, family functioning and permanent housing.

Conclusions and Implications

Early outcome results indicate that CSF is having a positive effect on program families; assessed needs and treatment goals are being met, and families are being connected to appropriate community supports and services.  Further, there is a decrease in subsequent substantiated reports to DCF.  Challenges lie in the utilization of administrative data collected from multiple agencies.  The results contribute to the evolving DRS knowledge base.  Lessons learned from this study inform research practice around effectively measuring and monitoring the impact of comprehensive and integrated approaches to DRS.