The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multiple response system: evaluation of policy change in North Carolina’s child welfare system.
Open accessAbstract
Systemic challenges within child welfare have prompted many states to explore new strategies aimed at protecting children while meeting the needs of families, but doing so within the confines of shrinking budgets. Differential Response has emerged as a promising practice for low or moderate risk cases of child maltreatment. This mixed methods evaluation explored various aspects of North Carolina's differential response system, known as the Multiple Response System (MRS), including: child safety, timeliness of response and case decision, frontloading of services, case distribution, implementation of Child and Family Teams, collaboration with community-based service providers and Shared Parenting. Utilizing Child Protective Services (CPS) administrative data, researchers found that compared to matched control counties, MRS: had a positive impact on child safety evidenced by a decline in the rates of substantiations and re-assessments; temporarily disrupted timeliness of response in pilot counties but had no effect on time to case decision; and increased the number of upfront services provided to families during assessment. Qualitative data collected through focus groups with providers and phone interviews with families provided important information on key MRS strategies, highlighting aspects that families and social workers like as well as identifying areas for improvement. This information is useful for continuous quality improvement efforts, particularly related to the development of training and technical assistance programs at the state and local level.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
As reported by Dodge et al, 80.1% of all eligible families scheduled a Family Connects home visit, and 85.7% of these families successfully completed the program (net completion rate 68.6%).
“As reported by Dodge et al,10 80.1% of all eligible families (1863 of 2327) scheduled an FC home visit; 85.7% of these families (1596 of 1863) successfully completed the program (net completion rate, 68.6%).”
From Effect of a Universal Postpartum Nurse Home Visiting Program on Child Maltreatment and Emergency Medical Care at 5 Years of Age: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [10]
The Process Evaluation methods and results describe North Carolina child protective services and caregiver interviews, not Family Connects home visits. Searches for Family Connects, the scheduling and completion percentages, and the cited family counts found no passage reporting these figures in our copy; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRandomization to Family Connects in the present randomized clinical trial was associated with a 37% reduction in child emergency medical care use through 24 months of age.
“randomization to FC is associated with a variety of positive child and family outcomes, including increased connections to community resources, higher-quality home environments and parenting during infancy, reduced postpartum mental health symptoms, and a 37% reduction in child emergency medical care use through 24 months of age.10,11”
From Effect of a Universal Postpartum Nurse Home Visiting Program on Child Maltreatment and Emergency Medical Care at 5 Years of Age: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [10]
The Results section (2.4) reports repeat child-protective-services assessments, not emergency medical care use. Searches for Family Connects, a 37% reduction, and emergency medical care through 24 months found no passage addressing the claimed trial outcome. The copy is an evaluation of North Carolina’s Multiple Response System, so it cannot verify this attribution. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
New Tools for Social Scientists: Advances and Applications in Research Methods.
Roweth, B., Berry, W. D., & Lewis‐Beck, M. S. (1987) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348866 · Cited by 126
(2007) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e628612012-443 · Cited by 83
Preventing child maltreatment: community approaches
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-3512 · Cited by 40
Preventing Child Maltreatment: Community Approaches
McCrory, E. J. P. (2010) · Child and Adolescent Mental Health · doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00582_2.x · Cited by 37
Differential response: A critical examination of a secondary prevention model
Wright, A. C. (2007) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.06.003 · Cited by 32
Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect
(2008) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e566602012-001 · Cited by 23
Rural Families' Connections to Services in an Alternative Response System
Zielewski, E. H., & Macomber, J. E. (2008) · Journal of Public Child Welfare · doi:10.1080/15548730802118215 · Cited by 13
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Goodman, W. B., Dodge, K. A., Bai, Y., Murphy, R. A., & O’Donnell, K. (2021) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.16024 · Cited by 59
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lawrence, C. N., Rosanbalm, K. D., & Dodge, K. A.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lawrence, C. Nicole
- Venue
- Children and Youth Services Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2355-2365
- ISSN
- 0190-7409 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3864820
- OpenAlex
- W2131414486
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Children and Youth Services Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (K05DA015226)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Child Welfare and Adoption
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal and Social Justice Studies
- Keywords
- differential response, child welfare policy, child abuse, child protection services, child safety, substantiation rates, shared parenting, North Carolina, continuous quality improvement, social worker training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review