Alternative Response (AR) - Detailed Report

Alternative Response is a program that responds the child abuse and neglect concerns by:

• Ensuring Child Safety: Rather than focusing on only the specific details of the reported incident to prove or disprove that abuse or neglect occurred, social workers and families focus on the safety of children and families strengths that contribute to child safety and the needs families have.
• Avoiding Negative Labels for Parents: Social services agencies have the flexibility to apply a response that best matches a families needs. Often, families will benefit more from a  Family Assessment than a traditional child protection response. Sometimes, however, parents are not able to keep from endangering their children, this is when a traditional child protection investigation and services are needed to keep kids safe.
• Setting Aside Fault Finding: There is no formal determination of maltreatment in a Family Assessment. Focusing on the broader picture of the family, rather than what brought them into the system allows the family and the social worker to focus on what's right and build on those assets. Families are more than the problem being identified. Search for competence rather than defining the family by the problems they are experiencing.
• Working in Partnership with Parents: Workers approach families in a non-adversarial way (including not conducting the assessment with law enforcement). Not all families have all the strengths and knowledge to solve all the problems that confront them overtime. Collaboration between social workers and families increases the likelihood of finding solutions to the areas of need. It is strongly recommended that the worker who conducts the initial assessment with the family continues to work with the family during the case management phase if the case is open for ongoing services.
• Identifying Families Needs: Social workers are encouraged to meet with the family as a whole, rather than interviewing the child and parent(s) separately. Listen to the family's story, it provides information on what worked, what didn't work, and their perception of the problem.
• Providing Services and Resources Matched to Family Needs: Engaging with the family and acknowledging their needs will increase the likelihood of family investment in change.
• Building on the Parents' and the Community's Strengths and Resources: Identifying individual and community strengths can provide guidance in establishing case plan goals. Developing and utilizing strengths that enhance the ability for a family to keep their children safe from harm helps keep the focus on what a family is able to do rather than what they are unable to do.
  

Alternative Response (AR) is rated a "3 - Promising Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The practice must have at least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list) establishing the practice's efficacy over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. For more information on the rating of a "3 - Promising Research Evidence," please see the Scientific Rating Scale.

Loman, A., & Siegel, G.L. (2005). Alternative response in Minnesota: Findings of the program evaluation. Protecting Children, 20(2/3), 78-92.

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 2,860 experimental families, 1,305 control families.
Population:

Age Range: Unknown
Race/Ethnicity: Unknown
Status (e.g., foster care, CW) Families with child abuse/neglect reports

Location/Institution: Minnesota
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Families in 14 Minnesota counties were randomly assigned to received Alternative Response (AR) services or standard CPS services following a report of abuse or neglect. Analysis found that AR families showed significantly greater improvements in overall safety and did not differ from standard service families in number of new abuse reports. AR families were also rated as more cooperative by caseworkers and families reported being more satisfied with their treatment.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: None

Johnson, C., Sutton, E.S., & Thompson, D. (2005).  Child welfare reform in Minnesota.  Protecting Children, 20(2/3), 55-60.

Sawyer, R., & Lohrbach (2005).  Differential Response in Child Protection: Selecting a pathway.  Protecting Children, 20(2/3), 62-77.

Loman, L.A., & Siegel, G.L. (2005). Alternative Response in Minnesota: Findings of the program evaluation.  Protecting Children, 20(2/3), 78-92