Differential Response in Connecticut: A Promising Reform
Background
Over the past 40 years, child protection services have expanded rapidly. This growth is primarily due to an
increase in reports in response to poverty, disparate access to resources, socio-economic conditions, and
insufficient information of vulnerable families and their children. The volume of reports, complexity of
families situations, and the limited resources of child protective service systems to assist families have been
and remain challenges to child welfare jurisdictions across the country. These factors coupled with the
emergence of promising practices and approaches such as family-centered practice and strength based
values have prompted a national movement for child welfare reform, specifically to support differentiated
system responses to accepted reports of maltreatment.
During the 1960′s both the Children’s Bureau and the American Humane Association published guidelines
for states to consider as they began to develop legislation that addressed community reporting when there
were concerns about child safety. Subsequently, many states passed legislation that attempted to respond
to this issue including the movement toward mandated reporting of abuse and neglect. For example in
1964, New Jersey passed the Physician’s Reporting Law which required physicians to report suspicions of
child abuse or neglect to county prosecutors who were required to investigate the case. After a decade of
similar actions by most states, the passage of the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in
1974 solidified these requirements and included clear provisions that states must have reporting laws in
order to qualify for federal funding.
Connecticut’s Reporting Framework
The national movement resulting in the implementation of reporting requirements did not envision that
reporting would increase over time to such a significant level. Consequently, states and child welfare
agencies needed to develop criteria for making a preliminary determination of whether to respond to all such
reports. In Connecticut, Chapter 319a (Child Welfare) and in particular Section 17a-101-101k of the
Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) define the parameters for reporting, the criteria for a determination of
abuse and neglect and requirements for investigations conducted on accepted reports by DCF.
The Department of Children and Families’ Child Protective Hotline implements these statutory
requirements and:
• Acts as the statewide centralized office for the receipt of all reports alleging that a child has been
abused or neglected or is in danger of being abused.
• Gathers and records as much identifying and relevant information as possible about the
allegations.
• Determines if an allegation meets legal sufficiency as a report of child abuse, neglect or in danger
of abuse in accordance with CGS 46b-120.
• Determines response time within which an investigation must begin. There are three possible
response time designations: same day, within 24 hours or within 72 hours.
• Dependent on the response time, initiates investigations when DCF Area Offices are closed.
In Connecticut, the criteria for accepting a call as a child protective service report are as follows:
• The alleged victim is under 18 years of age or is under 21 years of age and is an active DCF client.
• The child’s injuries were alleged to be inflicted by a person responsible for the child’s care or by a
person given access to the child by a person responsible for the child’s care.
• There is sufficient information to locate the child.
• The allegation meets the statutory definitions of abuse, neglect or in danger of abuse.
Connecticut’s Investigation Process
All investigations of accepted reports are conducted by DCF social work staff based upon a uniform protocol
that is completed within 45 days of the Hotline’s acceptance of the report. This is primarily a fact finding,
forensic investigation to determine whether a child has been abused or neglected. Social workers attempt to
gather and analyze information from multiple sources with a focus on immediate and continuing child safety
and well being. This occurs through several in- home visits as well as by making several collateral contacts.
Although in a limited fashion, investigation social workers also begin the process of identifying and attending
to both immediate (crisis) and other treatment or service needs. Following completion of the field response,
social work staff completes the investigation and make a determination regarding the following:
• Whether child abuse or neglect is substantiated or not substantiated.
• If substantiated, a determination if there is an identified person responsible for the child abuse or
neglect.
• If the identified person poses a risk to the health, safety or well being of children and should be
recommended for placement on the Central Registry as per CGS 17a-101k.
• And if the person is recommended for placement on the Central Registry, whether the Department
may disclose that the person is on the Central Registry pending exhaustion of all administrative
appeals.
Connecticut’s Numbers
The following summary represents the approximate number of reports made to the DCF Hot Line along with
subsequent substantiations and case openings in an average calendar year in Connecticut.
Number of Reports Made to the DCF Hotline 44,000
Number of Reports Accepted for Investigation 28,000 64%
Of Those Accepted for Investigation, Number With a
Previous Investigation by DCF
22,400 80%
Number of Investigations Resulting in a Substantiation 7,280 26%
Number of Substantiated Cases that are Opened for DCF
Ongoing Services
3,733
Number of Un-Substantiated Cases that are Opened for
DCF Ongoing Services
1,635
Total Cases Opened for DCF Ongoing Services 5,368 19% of 28,000 Reports Accepted for
Investigation
Total Cases Closed at the Investigation Stage 22,632 81% of 28,000 Reports Accepted for
Investigation
The Limitations of a Traditional Child Welfare Investigation
Connecticut’s reporting framework and investigation process as described in the sections above is
representative of the traditional child welfare response to reports of abuse and neglect adopted by states
across the country. It has its strengths and place as there will always be a need for a prompt investigative
response when information reported indicates children are not safe. And, there is considerable national
dissatisfaction with this one size fits all practice especially when additional options, alternatives or pathways
for working with families are under utilized or non-existent. The dissatisfaction can be characterized as both
stylistic (how families are approached) and fundamental (the indisputable correlation between a report and
risk) in nature. For example:
Families Do Not Feel Engaged
While there are hard earned exceptions, communities and families often perceive child welfare services in
an adversarial, authoritarian way. The implicit or explicit threat of the removal of children is powerful and
can be a significant barrier to engaging families. It is not surprising that family members are reluctant to fully
disclose and engage with an agency that is charged with finding fault with one of its members, that may
permanently place them on a list maintained by the State of those that have harmed children, and that will
potentially stigmatize the family by contacting others that know the family in the community.
Families May Not Be Viewed As Part of the Solution
It has been clearly demonstrated that families are more willing to respond and are more invested in the
result when seen and approached as part of the solution. A fundamental requirement in determining
whether assistance is needed and the type of assistance that would best help each family is information
from family members about its own strengths, needs, successes, hopes for the future of partners and
children and its commitment to the overall well-being of all family members.
Missed Opportunities for an Early Assessment and Intervention
As indicated, the investigation of a report primarily focuses on child safety and fact finding related to an
incident and an alleged perpetrator. Most cases where there is no substantiation are closed out and are not
referred for ongoing DCF or other community services even when screening tools utilized during the
investigation point to a service need. This practice misses the opportunity for an earlier and more
comprehensive assessment of the family that considers the interactive effects of mental health, substance
abuse, trauma, domestic violence, cognitive limitations as well as other core living and care-giving needs.
Left unattended to, these family member and caretaker issues are impacting the care of and safety of
children and are ultimately translating into repeat reports to the Hotline.
The Compelling Case Regarding Frequently Encountered Families and Risk
The literature clearly demonstrates that the principal risk factor for future child maltreatment is actually
coming to the attention of a child welfare agency (a report to the Hotline) and is unrelated to the presence
or absence of a prior substantiation. Since substantiation is predicated on meeting the burden of proof to
support the determination, many families having come to the attention of DCF and known to be in need of
services have their cases closed out at the end of the investigation because there is no substantiation.
Therefore the argument that closing a case where there is identified need with no alternative option or
pathway available may increase the likelihood of future harm to a child.
Connecticut data as indicated in the table above further illustrates and reinforces this point. During the
average calendar year, eighty percent (80%) of the reports, accepted by the Hotline for investigation, are
previously encountered or frequently encountered families.
A DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE MODEL: WHAT IS IT? AND WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT IT?
Differential Response is an approach to ensuring child safety by expanding the ability of child welfare
agencies to respond to reports of abuse and neglect. It focuses on a broader set of available responses for
working with families at the first signs of difficulty, including innovative partnerships with community based
organizations, both traditional and non-traditional, that can help support families who are in need. Also
called “dual track”, “multiple track” or “alternative response”, this approach appreciates the variation in the
nature of reports and therefore the value of responding differentially.
Nationally, Differential Response approaches have not focused on cases screened out, or not accepted, for
a child protection investigation; rather, they have focused on responding differently to accepted reports of
child maltreatment. With Differential Response, social workers and community members work with families
to engage them in solutions and to provide focused services, so that there is the best possible opportunity to
make needed improvements. Core principles of a Differential Response approach or practice include:
• Children are safer and families are stronger when communities work together.
• Identifying family issues and stepping in early leads to better results than waiting until a family is
experiencing real crisis.
• Families can more successfully resolve issues when they are viewed as part of the solution and
where they voluntarily engage in problem solving and the identification of services and supports
needed.
To date, approximately 30 jurisdictions have adopted a differential response approach. Minnesota’s
initiatives represent some of the earliest work in this area and can be traced back to 1995. Links to specific
differential response internet sites are included below.
Connecticut’s Differential Response Model
In 2006, the Department of Children and Families began developing a Differential Response System service
delivery model. Connecticut’s DRS model is a strength based, family centered approach to partnering with
family supports to protect children and enhance parental capacity. This approach is predicated on
partnerships and collaboration between families, the Department, and community providers. Following a
mandatory safety assessment and determination that children in the home are safe, the intervention shifts
from being agency to family driven. The Department and family partner to identify strengths, needs, formal
and informal supports. Community specific service linkage is offered to address the family’s identified needs
which can be accessed at the family’s discretion. Further, DRS families would be given access to an array
of the Department’s resources historically exclusive to active CPS cases including clinical assessment
services and flex funding.
The Department’s active engagement of community stakeholders, including families, community providers,
and inter-jurisdictional child welfare agencies, has informed all levels of program development thus far.
Inclusivity and inter-agency transparency, fostering community partnerships and creating a culture of
collaboration is the central vision of Connecticut’s DRS model. This philosophy of transparency and
collaboration is a critical component to facilitating the paradigm shift necessary for successful integration
into Connecticut’s child welfare infrastructure.

Incoming search terms:

• connectict dcf differential response