This article is a response to “Issues in Differential Response”, a review of the current evidence pertaining to differential response (DR) programs in child protective services (CPS). In my view, the Hughes, Rycus, Saunders-Adams, Hughes, and Hughes article suffers from several weaknesses. First, DR programs are critiqued as if they were a manualized intervention rather than a policy orientation, resulting in unhelpful conclusions. Second, the strength of existing evidence pertaining to child safety in DR is framed in an overly negative way. Finally, I attempt to place our understanding of DR in a broader perspective reflecting the continuing evolution of CPS and policies.
BaumanD. J.LawJ. R.SheetsJ.ReidG.GrahamJ. C. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of actuarial risk assessment models. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 465–490.
2.
BroadhurstK.HallC.WastellD.WhiteS.PithouseA. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the human project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in children’s statuatory services. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1046–1064.
3.
DrakeB.Jonson-ReidM. (2000). Substantiation and early decision points in public child welfare: A conceptual reconsideration. Child Maltreatment, 5, 227–235.
4.
DrakeB.Jonson-ReidM. (2007). A response to melton based on the best available data. Child Abuse & Neglect. 31, 343–360.
5.
HigginsD.KatzI. (2008). Enhancing service systems for protecting children: Promoting child wellbeing and child protection reform in Australia. Family Matters, 80, 43–50.
6.
HughesR.RycusJ.Saunders-AdamsS.HughesL.HughesK. (2013). Issues in differential response. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(5), 493–520.
7.
HusseyJ.MarshallJ.EnglishD.KnightE.LauA.DubowitzH.KotchJ. (2005). Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: Distinction without a difference?Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 479–492.
8.
Jonson-ReidM.DrakeB.ChungS.WayI. (2003). Cross-type recidivism among referrals to a state child welfare agency. Child Abuse & Neglect27, 889–917.
9.
KohlP.Jonson-ReidM.DrakeB. (2009). Time to leave substantiation behind. Child Maltreatment, 14, 17–26.
10.
LomanA.SiegelG. (2012). Effects of anti-povety services under the differential response approach to child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1659–1656.
11.
LomanL.FilonowC.SiegelG. (2010). Ohio alternative response evaluation: Final report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
12.
O’DonnellM.ScottD.StanleyF. (2008) Child abuse and neglect—Is it time for a public health approach. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32, 325–330.
13.
PetersR.BarlowJ. (2003). Systematic review of instruments designed to predict child maltreatment during the antenatal and postnatal periods. Child Abuse Review, 12, 416–439.
14.
ScottD. (2009). The landscape of child maltreatment. Lancet, 373, 101–102.
15.
Scottish Government. (2012). Getting it right for children and famlies: A guide to getting it right for every child. Retrieved fromwww.scotland.gov.uk/gettingitright
16.
ShustermanG. R.HollinsheadD.FlukeJ. D.YuanY. T. (2005). Alternative responses to child maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
17.
SiegelG.LomanL. A. (2006). Extended follow-up study of Minnesota’s family assessment response: Final report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
18.
TaylorJ.BaldwinN.SpencerN. (2008). Predicting child abuse and neglect: Ethical, theoretical and methodological challenges. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17, 1193–1200.
