STATE OF NEVADA - Division of Child and Family Services

efused DR services or did not respond to DR communication; 3) Child in home under the age of 5 and reported to be
unsafe; 4) New allegation of abuse or neglect; and 5) Family not in area of service. Table 41 shows the breakdown of the
current cases open in the DR program statewide.
Table 41: Nevada Differential Response Current Status by Program
Program
Budgeted
DR Staff
Number of
cases
carried
forward
from SFY 09
Number of
Families
Referred to
DR from
CPS
Number of
Cases
returned to
CPS
Number of
cases
closed
Number of
open DR
cases
Las Vegas – South: HopeLink 2 21 37 4 35 19
Las Vegas – East
East Valley Services FRC 2 14 60 4 50 20
Las Vegas Central
East Valley Services FRC 2 20 57 7 52 18
Las Vegas – North
Olive Crest FRC 2 9 59 7 44 17
Las Vegas-West
Boys and Girls Club of LV FRC 2 19 56 6 54 15
Total Clark 10 83 269 28 235 89
Washoe FRC 2 10 68 7 45 26
Washoe Children’s Cabinet* 4 38 110 8 100 40
Total Washoe 6 48 178 15 145 66
Elko – FRC of NE NV 2 10 68 3 52 23
Lyon, Pershing, Mineral
Lyon Co. Human Services
FRC
2 19 82 6 56 39
Churchill - FRIENDS FRC 1 10 39 3 31 15
Carson City - Ron Wood FRC 1 13 36 4 39 6
Douglas (RWFRC) 0 5 0 1 4
Pahrump/S. Nye
NV Outreach Training FRC 1 4 16 5 6 9
Total Rural 7 56 246 21 185 96
Total State 23 187 693 64 565 251
Source: Nevada Differential Response Report July 1, 2009 – February 28, 2010
*Children’s Cabinet is funded by WCDSS to provide DR services. While they are not being funded by FRC state funding, they are participating in the
training and other DR activities and their data will be incorporated into the evaluation information.
A recent study on Nevada’s DR system conducted by the Institute of Applied Research in St. Louis, Missouri found that
the working relationship between CPS offices and FRC’s is quite good overall. Staff from CPS and the FRC’s understand
the role of the opposite agency and, in most locations, interact on a regularly scheduled basis. At this time, FRC DR
workers are limited to 15 family assessment cases at any one time. In most rural areas, DR workers are at or near case
capacity most of the time. In the two urban counties, but especially in Clark County, DR workers are often underutilized.
This study found that a high percentage of families who receive DR family assessments are satisfied with how they are
treated (96%) and with the help they receive (90%), and 3 out of 4 believe their family is better off because of the
experience. These responses compare very favorably to family surveys conducted in other states that have implemented
DR. Results of family surveys indicate that the DR program has been implemented in Nevada as designed and intended.
Families report that DR workers listen to them, treat them in a friendly manner and involve them in decisions that affect
them and their children. About equal percentages of families (67%) and workers (65%) report that services were provided
to DR families. Emergency food and clothing were the most frequently provided assistance, followed by counseling, and
assistance with utility payments and employment. Workers frequently connect families to other community resources.
While workers see their intervention as effective and helpful to families, they also recognize the complex and often chronic
nature of the problems of many families with whom they work. Although the follow-up period has not been long, DR
families are somewhat less likely than non-DR families to have subsequent CA/N reports that require an investigation.
Nevada APSR – SFY 2010
Page 76 of 108