moving forward with wisconsin’s community response program
DESCRIPTION
Moving Forward with Wisconsin’s Community Response Program. Prepared for Wisconsin Children’s Trust Fund Erik Bakken, Michele Dickinson, Austin Frerick, Kate Grannemann , Marianne Griffin, and Ye Wang. 1: How do current practices of CRP sites influence potential for evaluation? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Moving Forward with Wisconsin’s Community Response Program
Prepared for Wisconsin Children’s Trust Fund
Erik Bakken, Michele Dickinson, Austin Frerick, Kate Grannemann, Marianne Griffin, and Ye Wang
1: How do current practices of CRP sites influence potential for evaluation?
2: Which states have programs similar to Wisconsin’s CRP?
3: How should CTF evaluate CRP to inform statewide implementation?
Research Questions
Community
High PovertyResidential InstabilityHigh Unemployment
Poor Social Connections
Family
Social IsolationFamily DisorganizationViolence in the Home
Parenting StressPoor Parent-Child
RelationshipsNegative Interactions
Individual
Substance AbuseMental Health Issues
Lack of Parenting SkillsHistory of Maltreatment
Young AgeLow EducationSingle ParentLow Income
Risk Factors for Perpetration
CRP Service Areas
Domestic Violence Services
Employment/ Job Assistance
Family Medical Needs
Financial Support
Household or Family NeedsHousing
Substance Abuse
Services
Parent Education &
Child Development
Mental Health Services
Referral for Alleged Child Maltreatment
Screened Out
Referred to CRP
No FurtherAction
Screened In
Referral for Alleged Child Maltreatment
Screened Out
Referred to CRP
No FurtherAction
Screened In
Traditional CPS Investigation
CPS Case Closed
Referred to CRP
No FurtherAction
Case Opened for Ongoing Services
Referral for Alleged Child Maltreatment
Screened Out
Referred to CRP
No FurtherAction
Screened in
Traditional CPS Investigation
CPS Case Closed
Referred to CRP
No FurtherAction
Case Opened for Ongoing Services
AlternativeResponse
Case Closed
Referred to CRP
No FurtherAction
Case Opened for Ongoing Services
1: How do current practices of CRP sites influence potential for evaluation?
2: Which states have programs similar to Wisconsin’s CRP?
3: How should CTF evaluate CRP to inform statewide implementation?
Research Questions
Areas of Variation #1: Point of ReferralReferral for Alleged Child Maltreatment
Screened Out
GROUP 1
No FurtherAction
Screened in
Traditional CPS Investigation
CPS Case Closed
GROUP 2
No FurtherAction
Case Opened for Ongoing Services
AlternativeResponse
Case Closed
GROUP 3
No FurtherAction
Case Opened for Ongoing Services
Areas of Variation #2: Involvement in Referral Process
CPS Staff&
CRP Staff
CommunityResponseProgram
Only CPS Staff
CommunityResponseProgram
Areas of Variation #3: Service Type & Provision
Service Area Site A Site B Site C Site D
Domestic violence services R R R R
Employment/job assistance DO/R R DO/R R
Family medical needs DO/R DO/R DO/R R
Financial support DO DO/R DO/R DO/R
Household or family needs DO DO/R DO/R R
Housing DO R DO DO
Mental health services R R R R
Parent education and child development DO DO R DO
Substance abuse services R R R R
R: Referral to non-profit organization or other agencyDO: Directly offered
Consistency in Defining Success
● Short Term: Completion of family’s service goals
● Long Term: Reduction in Re-Referrals to CPS
1: How do current practices of CRP sites influence potential for evaluation?
2: Which states have programs similar to Wisconsin’s CRP?
3: How should CTF evaluate CRP to inform statewide implementation?
Research Questions
All Referrals Accepted Referrals Screened
Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa , Kansas, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wyoming
Total: 15
Arizona, Arkansas , Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana*, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire*, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee*, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin
Total: 36
* Denotes insufficient data
Alternative and Traditional Response Traditional Response
All Referrals Accepted
Referrals Screened
All Referrals Accepted
Referrals Screened
DelawareDistrict of Columbia
MarylandNew York
North CarolinaOhio
Wyoming
Total: 7
ArizonaColorado
ConnecticutKentuckyLouisiana
MinnesotaNevada
OklahomaTexas
VermontVirginia
WashingtonWisconsin
Total: 13
AlabamaAlaska
CaliforniaIdahoIowa
KansasNorth DakotaSouth Dakota
Total: 8
Arkansas FloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIllinois
Indiana*
MaineMassachusetts
MichiganMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska
New Hampshire*New Jersey
New MexicoOregon
PennsylvaniaRhode Island
South CarolinaTennessee*
UtahWest Virginia
Total: 23
* Denotes insufficient data
Alternative and Traditional Response Traditional Response
All Referrals Accepted
Referrals Screened
All Referrals Accepted
Referrals Screened
No Formal Response for Screened-Out
Referrals
DelawareDistrict of Columbia
MarylandNew York
OhioWyoming
Total: 6
ArizonaLouisianaOklahomaVermontVirginia
Washington
Total: 6
AlabamaAlaskaIdaho
KansasNorth DakotaSouth Dakota
Total: 6
Arkansas FloridaHawaiiMaine
MassachusettsMichigan
MississippiMontanaNebraska
New Hampshire*New Mexico
OregonRhode Island
UtahWest Virginia
Total: 15
Formal Response for Screened-Out
Referrals
North Carolina
Total: 1
ColoradoConnecticut
KentuckyMinnesota
NevadaTexas
Wisconsin
Total: 7
CaliforniaIowa
Total: 2
GeorgiaIllinois
Indiana*
MissouriNew Jersey
PennsylvaniaSouth Carolina
Tennessee*
Total: 8* Denotes insufficient data
2011
2014
1: How do current practices of CRP sites influence potential for evaluation?
2: Which states have programs similar to Wisconsin’s CRP?
3: How should CTF evaluate CRP to inform statewide implementation?
Research Questions
Recommendations
1. Randomized Controlled Trial
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Observational Quasi-Experimental
Randomization Dosage County
Design Overview
Observation of differences in outcomes for CRP participants as compared to non-participants
The measurement of treatment received and the level of problems families had prior to service
The measurement of differences in outcomes in CRP and non-CRP counties
Random assignment before consent that creates two similar groups to measure differences between treatment and non-treatment
Observational Quasi-Experimental
Randomization Dosage County
Design Overview
Observation of differences in outcomes for CRP participants as compared to non-participants
The measurement of treatment received and the level of problems families had prior to service
The measurement of differences in outcomes in CRP and non-CRP counties
Random assignment before consent that creates two similar groups to measure differences between treatment and non-treatment
Internal Threats to
Validity
History bias Maturation bias Omitted
variable bias Selection bias
Hawthorne effects
History Maturation bias Omitted variable
bias Selection bias
Hawthorne effects
Omitted variable bias
Attrition Omitted variable
bias Selection bias
Observational Quasi-Experimental
Randomization Dosage County
Design Overview
Observation of differences in outcomes for CRP participants as compared to non-participants
The measurement of treatment received and the level of problems families had prior to service
The measurement of differences in outcomes in CRP and non-CRP counties
Random assignment before consent that creates two similar groups to measure differences between treatment and non-treatment
Internal Threats to
Validity
History bias Maturation bias Omitted
variable bias Selection bias
Hawthorne effects
History bias Maturation bias Omitted variable
bias Selection bias
Hawthorne effects
Omitted variable bias
Attrition Omitted variable
bias Selection bias
Cost $ $$ $$ $$$
Observational Quasi-Experimental
Randomization Dosage County
Design Overview
Observation of differences in outcomes for CRP participants as compared to non-participants
The measurement of treatment received and the level of problems families had prior to service
The measurement of differences in outcomes in CRP and non-CRP counties
Random assignment before consent that creates two similar groups to measure differences between treatment and non-treatment
Internal Threats to
Validity
History bias Maturation bias Omitted
variable bias Selection bias
Hawthorne effects
History bias Maturation bias Omitted variable
bias Selection bias
Hawthorne effects
Omitted variable bias
Attrition Omitted variable
bias Selection bias
Cost $ $$ $$ $$$
Strengths
Limited change required at agency level and buy-in is typically easier to achieve
Demonstrates whether various levels of program participation result in different outcomes for families
Provides a non-participant comparison group and shows differences in effects
Allows for causal inferences regarding program effects because it provides a non-participant comparison group
Recommendations
1. Randomized Controlled Trial
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Project GAIN Cost-Savings Analysis
EstimatedProgram Savings
Societal (non-program) savings
Total Savings
Annual Savings
$62,000-108,000
$679,000-694,000
$741,000-802,000
Cost-Benefit Analysis Data Needs• CPS administration costs• CPS and CRP staff salaries and benefits• Re-referral rates among CRP participants and non-participants• Substantiated re-referral rates among CRP participants and non-
participants • Out-of-home placements rates among CRP participants and non-
participants• Estimate of time spent by CPS workers on re-referred cases, re-
referred cases that are substantiated, and re-referred cases that result in out-of-home placement
• Out-of-home placement costs• CRP costs
Recommendations
1. Randomized Controlled Trial
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
For further informationContact Michele Dickinson at (608) 516-6992 or
Visit this website after June 1, 2014 for a PDF copy of our report:www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workshops.html
Variable Lower Bound Upper Bound
Savings from reduced re-referrals
(total dollars per case)
Low Estimate $1,496 Low
Estimate $1,278
High Estimate $1,538 High
Estimate $2,012
Number of screened-out cases(total number) 6,661 6,661
CRP take-up rate(percent participating) 39% 54 %
Case reduction rate(percent reduction) 5% 15%
Program costs(total annual dollars) $380,000 $430,000
Estimated lifetime societal costs (health care, mental, productivity, criminal justice, etc.)- endangerment only
(present value of costs at 3% discount rate)
$97,952 $210,012