Presented at the Leadership Symposium on Evidence-Based Practice in Child Welfare Services

1. It Can Work! Lessons Learned from a Successful University-County Partnership to Study Contra Costa County’s Differential Response System Amy Price, MPA, Center for Child & Youth Policy, University of California at Berkeley Debi Moss, MA, Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Presented at the Leadership Symposium on Evidence-Based Practice in Child Welfare Services June 28, 2007 Davis, CA

2. The Partnership Center for Child & Youth Policy, UCB • Staff • GSRs Contra Costa County Children & Family Services • Manager, Analyst & Researcher • Contractual Relationship with CBOs History of CCYP & CFS Working Together

3. Differential Response Paths • Path 1: The issues, while of concern, do not rise to the level of abuse/neglect and can be addressed by community services. • Path 2: Face-to-face assessment by ERW shows there is no need for continued CFS involvement, and issues can be addressed by community services. • Path 3: CFS intervention needed.

4. Differential Response Overview

5. Differential Response Path 1

6. Differential Response Path 2

7. Purpose of Study To develop an evidence based curriculum on differential response based on lessons learned from Contra Costa County. • Program development • Training • Implementation • Outcomes

8. Study Design • Face-to-face interviews with direct and supervisory staff of participating CBOs and CFS staff involved in implementing DR • Phone interviews with clients receiving services through Paths 1 and 2 • Review of outcome data collected by CFS (RCT study)

9. Roles & Responsibilities • CCYP • Develop study methods and instruments including staff survey and client survey • Obtain IRB approval • Conduct staff and client interviews • Analyze qualitative survey data • Report back to CFS staff on findings • Write curriculum based on findings

10. Roles continued • CFS • Review all materials developed by CCYP • Provide names and contact information for staff and clients • Provide opportunities for CCYP staff to meet with CFS and CBO staff, and serve as liaison between CCYP and CBOs • Collect client outcome data and provide CCYP with summaries

11. Additional Partnerships • Other CCYP staff conducting parallel study of Alameda County’s Alternative Response System—development of joint curriculum • The Results Group—evaluating early implementers of the CW Redesign

12. Key Findings • Strengths and weaknesses of DR • Staff training and preparation to implement DR • Family assessment • Staff roles & responsibilities • Communication between CBOs and CFS • Client engagement • Service needs and availability • Cultural sensitivity and appropriateness

13. Successes • Excellent working relationship with CFS • High level of agency commitment • Manager with ability to make decisions and make things happen • Culture that accepts and embraces research • High response rate for staff interviews • Opportunity to interview clients receiving services through DR • Ability to combine lessons learned from Contra Costa & Alameda in 1 curriculum

14. Challenges • Numerous research efforts happening simultaneously—burden on staff • Developing joint curriculum without comparing approaches or findings • Timing—simultaneously writing curriculum and collecting data • Limits of CalSWEC funding • Change in county administration

15. Dissemination of Findings • Report to county • Curriculum • Overview & literature review • Program planning, design & implementation • Client experiences & client outcomes • Best practices/lessons learned in providing direct services to families via DR • Implications for policy and practice • Case vignettes • Discussion questions • Bibliography of important reading

16. Future Research • Replicate study in other counties and do comparative analysis of different DR models. • Follow families over time. • Follow-up in a few years to monitor program progress and changes. • Look at success of DR in relation to available resources in the community. • Look at DR effectiveness with different allegations, age groups, ethnicities, etc.

17. Discussion Questions • How can a curriculum based on the experiences of one county sufficiently represent the experiences of all counties in educating students or child welfare workers about DR? • How do you coordinate multiple research efforts to maximize resources and minimize duplication of efforts? • Who are the different stakeholders and how do you coordinate efforts to meet all of their needs? • The CalSWEC funded projects are designed to produce evidence based curricula. What happens if the research suggests that the model is not effective or results in negative outcomes? • How do you account for the “surveillance factor” when interpreting results?