Commentary: Taking a deep breath before reflecting on differential response

Community sidelined: The loss of community focus in differential response

“…Studies building on the core elements framework do not necessarily directly cite the 2006 national study, relying instead on subsequent studies that reference the core elements framework (e.g., Bagdasaryan, Furman, & Franke, ; Christenson, Curran, DeCook, Maloney, & Merkel‐Holguin, ; Comer & Vassar, ; Conley & Duerr Berrick, ; Fluke et al, ; Franke, Bagdasaryan, & Furman, ; Fuller, ; Kaplan & Merkel‐Holguin, ; Kirk, ; Kyte et al, ; Lonne, Brown, Wagner, & Gillespie, ; Marshall & Charles, ; Ortiz, Shusterman, & Fluke, ; Samuels & Brown, ). The result is a DR literature —ranging from theoretical pieces (Fuller, ; Kyte et al, ; Merkel‐Holguin & Bross, ) to implementation or outcome reports (Child Welfare Information Gateway, ; Guterman et al, ; Marshall & Charles, ; QIC‐DR, , , )—that focuses on the core elements as benchmarks for planning, development, and success. The reproduction of the core elements in this fashion naturally sidelines the role of community in discussions of DR, placing the emphasis on the operationalization of a multiple track system, rather than the engagement of community in provision of services and supports to families within these tracks.…”

“…Although there is evidence that the subject of community, central to DR at inception, is integrated into DR programming on the ground, a review of the American literature—which is the focus of this paper—reveals that recent DR literature has focused largely on operations and implementation from an agency perspective. Some of key debates in this context include ongoing discussion about whether DR adequately protects the safety of children (English, Wingard, Marshall, Orme, & Orme, ; Loman & Siegel, , ; Winokur, Ellis, Drury, & Rogers, ), the cost of DR programs compared to investigative response (QIC‐DR, ; Winokur et al, ), how the level of risk is determined (Alaggia, Gadalla, Shlonsky, Jenney, & Daciuk, ; Harries, Cant, Bilson, & Thorpe, ; Merkel‐Holguin & Bross, ), and parent or guardian perceptions of the service delivery method (Merkel‐Holguin, Hollinshead, Hahn, Casillas, & Fluke, ). Our interest is in the role of community in DR, a topic that has received little attention in recent literature.…”

“…investigative response (QIC-DR, 2014;Winokur et al, 2015), how the level of risk is determined (Alaggia, Gadalla, Shlonsky, Jenney, & Daciuk, 2015;Harries, Cant, Bilson, & Thorpe, 2015;Merkel-Holguin & Bross, 2015), and parent or guardian perceptions of the service delivery method (Merkel-Holguin, Hollinshead, Hahn, Casillas, & Fluke, 2015). Our interest is in the role of community in DR, a topic that has received little attention in recent literature.…”

Research to Consider while Effectively Re-Designing Child Welfare Services: A Response to Commentaries

“…For example, home visitation as a standalone intervention, despite status as an evidence-based intervention, has not shown a large effect in maltreatment prevention (Chen & Chan, 2016). As Merkel-Holguin and Bross (2015) remind us, we have a tendency to abandon innovations before we sufficiently build the science to test results alone or in combination with other efforts. Given the assertion in research that families involved in maltreating behaviors generally, and neglect specifically, may face a number of barriers to healthy functioning (Clément et al, 2016; Mulder et al, 2018), it should not surprise us that families may need a combination of preventive interventions.…”