Hello Team,

Senate Bill 942 was officially signed into law and we have discontinued our practice of Differential Response (DR). There are lessons to be learned from everything we do. In an effort to learn from our implementation and practice of DR in Oregon, back in 2014 we contracted with the Children and Family Research Center (CFRC) at the University of Illinois at Burbana-Champaign to conduct a 3-part evaluation which included an evaluation on Process, Outcomes, and Cost. To help inform their evaluation, CFRC collected information through site visits, focus groups, case record reviews, surveys, interviews, and administrative data analyses.

We received our final DR evaluation and I wanted to share a few of their findings that will help inform our work moving forward. There are many more in the 152 page report. If you would like to read the entire report it’s posted our website.

Please note, evaluations are done by comparing a group that received a specific service with ‘like’ groups that do not receive the same service. You will see the terms AR-Matched, TR Matched, and Non-DR Matched in the findings below. These identify similar cases that were compared to the cases receiving the service(s).

  • One of the most common findings from both site visits and the statewide staff survey was the negative impact of heavy workloads on Child Protective Service (CPS) practice throughout the state.
  • Families in Alternative Response (AR) assessments had lower rates of founded re-reports than families in AR-matched assessments.
  • When outcomes were examined by race, both White families and Latino/Hispanic families in AR assessments had lower rates of founded re-reports compared to similar families in the AR-matched groups.
  • Overrepresentation of African American children in care for longer than 12 months and overrepresentation of Native American children at all stages noticeably declined in DR and non-DR matched counties.
  • Interviews with parents suggested that calling ahead was very much appreciated; conversely, parents that did not receive a call to schedule initial contact reported feeling “confused” and “threatened” by the worker showing up unannounced.
  • Parents in AR assessments reported higher levels of social support than parents in non-DR assessments.
  • Service costs among AR assessments were significantly higher than those among AR-matched assessments. Service costs among Traditional Response (TR) assessments were also significantly higher than those among TR-matched assessments.
  • Staff supported DR; they like the increased focus on family engagement and have a strong sense of the agency’s purpose.
  • As found in the interim evaluation, families assessed in DR counties (on both AR and TR tracks) were no more likely to experience a re-report within 6 months nor have a child removed.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts, opinions and work experience with the evaluators. Please continue to support one another, practice strong family engagement, and offer services when appropriate to keep children safe and with family whenever possible.

I appreciate the work you do every day and your ongoing commitment to children and families.

Thank you!

Laurie