Traditionally, the American child welfare system intervenes in cases of evident and severe child maltreatment. Families in need of help, but who have not yet reached a crisis level, are excluded from most government-provided family support services. Practitioners and researchers have recently promoted the incremental development of a complementary system. Under Differential Response (DR), families assessed as low-to-moderate risk are referred to community-based agencies that offer voluntary, home-based services and social service referrals. This study examined the first DR program implemented in the state of California, at three sites in Alameda County. The research addresses community aspects of the program's implementation, outcomes for children and families, and staff and parent experiences with service delivery.

A mixed-methods design was used. Interviews were conducted with all administrators (n=15), focus groups with all direct line staff (n=12), and telephone interviews with a convenience sample of clients (n=50). Transcripts were analyzed for emergent themes. A quasi-experimental static group design was used to examine client outcomes. All clients who completed services formed the treatment group (n=161); a comparison group was constructed with all families reported for child maltreatment in the same timeframe who were eligible for services, but were not referred because of program capacity (n=447). Survival analysis was used to compare rates of re-report and substantiated re-report for the treatment and comparison groups. In Differential Response, the community context plays a significant role. Geographic Information Systems software was used to analyze patterns in social service availability in the three DR target neighborhoods.

Based on interviews with staff, the program appears robust and maintains fidelity to the model; social science theory also supports the model. However, while there was a trend toward positive effects of the intervention, it was not statistically significant. These findings are in line with meta-analyses of child maltreatment prevention studies, and other studies of DR. The intervention may achieve beneficial outcomes with regards to proximal goals including, for example, families' connections to resources, however, the study design did not allow for examination of these effects.