Understanding the Landscape of Community Response Programs

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The design and implementation of Community Response (CR) programs has shifted the maltreatment prevention landscape. "CR fills a gap in the child maltreatment prevention continuum by serving families who "touch" the CPS system, but who are not further served by that system because their circumstances do not currently meet statutory definition of maltreatment" [2] (Slack & Berger, 2020, p.190). Many of these CR programs seek to serve families screened out at the CPS Hotline stage just like the focus populations across the OPT-In sites. Despite the burgeoning practice of CR programs and other programs that focus on prevention, little is known about best practices and strategies for successful implementation. The purpose of this rapid review is to identify the best practices and offer practical solutions for a community response model to inform OPT-In implementation efforts. In our review, we focus on CR literature but also include relevant DR programs, which we will refer to under the umbrella term of Alternative Response [AR].

Methods: This study involved a rapid review of the literature of Community Response programs, which aim to prevent future system involvement for families who are the subject of a screened-out referral. First “seminal” articles that describe programs or community response models of importance were identified. References from those articles were searched to identify other relevant work. A Google Search was conducted using the key terms from the seminal articles. In total, we found twenty-four records. Records were excluded if they were not relevant and or if they were repetitive (e.g., describe the same program). A total of fourteen records with unique programs were reviewed and synthesized to provide an overview of the current state of community response programs.

Results: The rapid review identified that community response and differential response programs occur across states, several of which serve urban and rural communities. CR programs employ various strategies used to engage families with varying degrees of success, which ultimately impact their implementation and evaluation success. Five studies report a positive outcome where re-referrals or subsequent child maltreatment reports were fewer among families that participated in the program. Three studies reported no change or no impact because of the program. For example, in these studies there were no noticeable differences in re-reports or child maltreatment rates, or family stability because of program participation. Noticeably absent from the literature is a concerted effort to co-design or adapt programs to reflect family needs, as well as their preferences for service delivery.

Conclusions and Implications: As there is continued investment in CR programs, there is a critical need to understand how CR programs are implemented and their degree of success in achieving desired outcomes. This literature provides insight to opportunities for improvement both in design and implementation of these programs to bolster their success and enhance their ability to be evaluated.