The Iarcca Outcome Measures Project

Transcription

The Iarcca
Outcome Measures Project
Executive Summary Report
for Calendar Year 2005
and Cross-Year Comparisons
IARCCA . . . An Association of Children and Family Services
5519 East 82nd Street, Suite A, Indianapolis, IN 46250
Phone (317) 849-8497 Fax (317) 576-5498
Email [email protected]
www.iarcca.org
THE IARCCA OUTCOME
MEASURES PROJECT
Executive Summary
Report for Calendar Year 2005
And Cross-Year Comparisons
Jacqueline Remondet Wall, Ph.D.
Steven M. Koch, Ph.D.
IARCCA… An Association of Children and Family Services
5519 East 82nd Street, Suite A, Indianapolis, IN 46250
Phone (317) 849-8497
Fax (317) 576-5498
Email: [email protected]
www.iarcca.org
Published July 28, 2006, Copyright © 2006, IARCCA . . . An Association of Children and Family Services. We
encourage you to share the Annual Report with others. Permission to copy, disseminate and otherwise use this
document or parts of it is granted as long as appropriate acknowledgement is given.
Introduction
What is the IARCCA Outcome Measures Project?
The primary aim of the IARCCA Outcome Measures Project (referred to as the Project) is to
evaluate the effectiveness of programs provided to children and families. The Project, conceived
in 1995 and initiated on a state-wide scale in 1998, has collected information on youth receiving
treatment from participating IARCCA member agencies.
In 2005, 62 agencies participated in the Project (representing 68.1% of IARCCA
member agencies). Since 1998, the average number of agencies participating in the
project has been 67, with a range from 62 (in 2005) to 75 (in 1999).
The total number of data packets1 submitted in 2005 was 11,886 (See figure below).
When compared to 1998, this number represents a 43.1% increase in number of packets
submitted.
The total number of packets across the eight years of data collection is 81,237.
The average number of data packets annually submitted by each agency has risen from
112 per agency in 1998 to 192 per agency in 2005. This represents an increase of 58.3%
for packets completed by each agency.
Total Number of Data Packets Submitted for the Project by Year
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1998
1
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
A packet is defined as the set of forms submitted for a youth at one of the three data collection times for the
Project – at Intake, Discharge, or Follow-Up. Thus, the Child Risk Factor Survey, Child Problem Checklist,
Family Problem Checklist, and the Intake Summary Sheet would constitute one packet.
1
Introduction
Program Types Included in the Project
Transitional Living
Day Treatment
Home-Based
Foster Care
Shelter Care
Residential Programs Utilizing Public Schools
Residential Programs Utilizing Both Public and On-Grounds Schools
Residential Locked & Staff Secure Facilities
Crisis Stabilization
Outcome Measures
A list of outcome measures for the Project is contained in the Appendix to this report, and
includes measures of clinical, functional and placement outcomes. Additional information is
collected related to risk factors, services provided during placement and consumer satisfaction.
Member agencies provide a packet of data on children and families at: 1) Intake; 2) Discharge;
and 3) Follow-Up (i.e., at 3 or 6 months after discharge, depending on the program).
What Should One Know to Understand the Results?
This report presents summary tables and highlights that describe selected characteristics
of youth in each program, summary outcome data for each program collected at discharge
and follow-up, and highlights of functional and placement outcomes, both from 2005 and
for the last eight years of data collection.
Outcome information has not been collected for all programs across all years. Therefore,
some programs may have selected outcome information reported for a shorter time frame.
The children and families served by any program are likely different from those served
by the other programs. Some of these differences are reflected in the problem(s)
presented at intake and the associated level of problem severity. There may also be
important differences among the children and families served across the programs that
the Project does not measure that impact program outcomes.
The data is collected on those youth who enter programs, are discharged from placement,
and are contacted for follow-up during each calendar year. For this Executive Summary
and Annual Report, no efforts have been made to follow individual children from intake
through discharge and follow-up. Therefore, no comparisons can be made about whether
individual children made progress during their placement. Other investigations have
been performed that examine how changes occur at the individual-level, and are available
from IARCCA in a series of Special Reports, published by the IARCCA Institute for
Excellence, Inc.
Information presented in this Executive Summary focuses on functional and placement
outcomes. It is not designed to comprehensively report on all outcomes, which are
provided in the Annual Report. The interested reader should contact IARCCA for the
Annual Report for 2005 or for information on the Project.
2
Characteristics of Youth Served in 2005
Youth Entering Care in 2005
Highlights
The average age across all programs is 12.4 years, with a range from under 1 to 20 years
of age. Children in the Foster Care program are significantly younger than youth in other
program types (M2 = 8.05 years). Youth in the Transitional Living program, on the other
hand, are significantly older than those in other programs (M=16.8 years).
Just over two-thirds of youth are Caucasian (68.3%). More than 2 in 10 youth are African
American (21.7%), just over three percent (3.4%) are Latino/Hispanic, and over six
percent (6.6%) are of other ethnicities or are identified as multiracial.
The average number of prior out-of-home placements is 2.1, with a range from 0 to 35
previous placements.
Over 1 in 3 youth have a history of neglect (36.2%), about one-fourth have been
physically abused (24.9%) and almost 1 in 5 have been sexually abused (18.8%).
Almost half have parents who abused substances (46.1%), over one-third have a parent in
jail (34.3%), and almost 1 in 5 youth have experienced the termination of parental rights
(18.3%).
Termination of parental rights across the years of the Project is shown below. A notable
increase in loss of rights has occurred for youth in Shelter Care programs across the last
year. Across the last eight years, increases are identified for Residential Care, and
Transitional Living programs.
Cross-Year Comparison of Termination of Parental Rights
1999-2005
Residential Care
40%
Foster Care
Transitional Living
Shelter Care
Hom e-Based
30%
Day Treatm ent
20%
10%
0%
1999
2
2000
2001
2002
M = Mean, or arithmetic average.
3
2003
2004
2005
4
Transitional
Living
242
16.8
38.8
61.2
61.6
25.2
3.3
9.9
4.0
31.0
5.4
8.3
66.1
28.5
46.7
33.9
29.3
45.0
20.2
16.9
39.7
62.4
45.9
26.9
72.3
31.8
9.6
21.8
0.4
6.0
All
Programs
5,319
12.4
53.8
46.2
68.3
21.7
3.4
6.6
2.1
26.7
1.0
1.5
48.1
31.4
36.2
24.9
18.8
30.5
14.5
27.1
37.0
46.1
34.3
17.8
55.5
18.3
6.5
11.4
0.4
4.5
58.5
28.1
4.7
8.8
1.0
16.9
0.6
1.2
14.5
48.3
9.3
11.6
5.2
14.0
21.5
40.7
32.6
29.7
25.0
8.7
58.7
15.2
7.3
7.9
0.0
3.4
70.9
29.1
172
13.8
Day
Treatment
88.6
5.8
1.6
4.0
0.8
24.8
1.3
1.4
23.6
32.8
27.3
14.6
11.3
29.8
16.8
17.5
18.8
46.1
44.6
23.0
50.3
11.0
7.2
3.8
0.0
3.7
50.5
49.5
762
10.9
HomeBased
58.5
27.1
5.0
9.4
1.6
20.0
0.8
0.6
84.8
5.8
62.0
22.2
13.3
24.1
6.5
16.9
20.3
44.2
31.2
10.9
59.3
14.5
4.1
10.3
0.1
4.3
49.5
50.5
1,335
8.5
Foster
Care
59.9
31.7
4.3
4.1
1.9
21.0
0.4
1.2
37.2
41.1
17.6
23.2
10.5
30.0
20.2
19.2
18.8
42.5
37.2
10.6
48.2
19.1
9.9
7.4
1.8
3.8
44.9
55.1
734
14.5
Shelter
Care
71.4
19.7
2.8
6.2
2.9
34.2
0.8
1.4
39.4
44.7
31.6
31.4
28.3
34.7
15.5
40.0
60.0
48.2
31.2
21.9
55.6
21.8
6.2
15.1
0.5
5.2
62.0
38.0
1,992
14.2
Residential
Care
79.4
16.8
0.9
2.8
1.0
28.0
0.9
0.0
16.8
7.5
9.3
26.2
19.6
32.7
16.8
36.4
73.8
45.8
24.3
33.6
49.5
11.3
3.8
7.5
0.0
4.1
45.8
54.2
107
13.0
Crisis
Stabilization
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. Parent rights indicated if one or both parents had rights terminated.
Number of youth
Age (Mean)
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African-American
Hispanic
Other
# Placements (Mean)
Past home-based Services
Pregnant
Have child(ren)
CHINS
Delinquent
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Witness domestic violence
Repeated grade
Special education
Psychotropic medication
Parent substance abuse
Parent incarceration
Parent diagnosis
Single-parent family
Parent rights terminated:
One parent
Both parents
Adoptive parents
Risk Score (Mean)
Variable
Child Risk Factor Survey – All Program Types (2005)
Child Risk Factor Survey – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2005)
Variable
Number of youth
Age (Mean)
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African-American
Hispanic
Other
# placements (Mean)
Past home-based services
Pregnant
Have child(ren)
CHINS
Delinquent
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Witness violence
Repeated grade
Special education
Psychotropic medication
Parent substance abuse
Parent incarceration
Parent diagnosis
Single-parent family
Parent rights terminated
One parent
Both parents
Adoptive parents
Risk Score (Mean)
Residential
Care –
Combined
1,992
14.2
Public
School
249
15.0
Public and
On-Grounds
1,347
14.3
Locked
Secure
396
13.3
62.0
38.0
34.3
65.7
68.4
31.6
57.9
42.1
71.4
19.7
2.8
6.2
2.9
34.2
0.8
1.4
39.4
44.7
31.6
31.4
28.3
34.7
15.5
40.0
60.0
48.2
31.2
21.9
55.6
21.8
6.2
15.1
0.5
5.2
73.5
22.1
0.8
3.6
2.8
28.9
3.6
3.2
39.8
58.6
37.8
19.7
11.6
34.1
14.5
30.1
29.3
39.8
28.1
13.7
61.8
19.2
7.7
11.5
0.0
4.5
72.1
18.8
2.7
6.5
2.7
35.6
0.4
1.3
42.5
48.0
31.2
31.8
30.1
32.9
17.6
39.2
57.9
47.9
33.0
19.7
53.7
20.5
5.5
14.4
0.6
5.2
67.8
21.6
4.3
6.4
3.5
32.8
0.3
0.5
28.3
25.0
29.0
37.4
32.6
41.2
8.8
49.0
86.6
54.5
27.0
34.6
58.1
27.8
8.1
19.5
0.3
5.6
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses.
Parent rights indicated if one or both parents had rights terminated.
5
Day
Treatment
172
47.2
7.1
0.52
3.8
Transitional
Living
242
62.2
4.8
n/a
n/a
63.8
5.3
0.46
3.4
762
HomeBased
60.8
4.5
0.63
5.6
1,335
Foster
Care
55.5
6.0
n/a
n/a
734
Shelter
Care
46.2
8.8
0.50
3.6
2,021
Residential
Care
30.4
8.0
n/a
n/a
107
Crisis
Stabilization
* These clinical outcomes list the average score identified for the youth at program admission. The score is based upon the child’s clinical
functioning for the 12 months prior to admission. GAF=Global Assessment of Functioning. CPC=Child Problem Checklist. FRS=Family
Risk Scales, Parent Centered Risk. FPC=Family Problem Checklist. n/a = data not collected on this item for the program type.
Number of youth
Clinical Outcomes
GAF at intake (Mean)
CPC at intake (Mean)
FRS at intake (Mean)
FPC at intake (Mean)
Variable
Child and Family Clinical Functioning at Intake* – All Program Types (2005)
Outcomes for Calendar Year 2005 & Cross-Year Comparisons for 1998-2005
6
Child and Family Clinical Functioning at Intake* –
Residential Care Program Subtypes (2005)
Residential
Care –
Combined
2,021
Public and
OnGrounds
1,349
Public
Locked
Variable
School
Secure
Number of youth
276
396
Clinical Outcomes
GAF at intake (mean)
46.2
57.2
45.7
40.4
CPC at intake (mean)
8.8
7.5
8.8
9.9
FRS at intake (mean)
0.50
0.56
0.50
0.46
FPC at intake (mean)
3.6
5.2
3.4
3.0
* These clinical outcomes list the average score identified for the youth at program admission.
The score is based upon the child’s clinical functioning for the 12 months prior to admission.
GAF=Global Assessment of Functioning. CPC=Child Problem Checklist. FRS=Family Risk
Scales, Parent Centered Risk. FPC=Family Problem Checklist. n/a = data not collected on this
item for the program type.
7
Youth Leaving Care in 2005
Highlights
These highlights report the range of percentage rates across the various program types.
A positive educational outcome was noted at discharge for between 64.0% and 89.7% of
the youth.
At the time of follow-up, between 71.4% and 96.0% of youth had either graduated or
were attending school.
At discharge, between 3.9% and 56.0% of youth 16 years of age and older were
employed. Youth in programs that are more restrictive (e.g., Residential Care with
Locked and Staff Secure) tended to have lower rates of employment at discharge. Youth
living in a home environment (e.g., Home-Based or Foster Care) tended to have higher
rates of employment. The difference between the programs may also be related to lower
sample sizes with some programs (e.g., Day Treatment), or related to the opportunities
afforded and emphases given to employment among the different program types.
At follow-up, between 22.4% and 51.5% of youth 16 years of age and older were
employed.
A majority of youth had experienced no new abuse at the time of follow-up (between
94.7% and 100.0%).
Most of the youth experienced no new court involvement at the time of follow-up
(between 75.0% and 95.6%).
Cross-Year Comparison of No New Abuse of Youth at Follow-Up
1999-20053
100%
98%
96%
94%
Residential Care
Foster Care
Transitional Living
92%
Home-Based
Day Treatment
90%
1999
3
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Follow-Up was conducted 6 months after discharge for Foster Care and Residential Care. Follow-Up was
conducted 3 months after discharge for Transitional Living, Home-Based and Day Treatment. Follow-Up data is
not collected for Crisis Stabilization and Shelter Care.
8
9
Day
Treatment
102
214.3
130.0
53.4
5.6
0.51
3.4
64.0
16.2
24.8
44.6
26.7
4.0
13.7
(51.8)
57.6
23.9
13.0
5.4
5.3
6.1
6.4
Transitional
Living
215
209.6
170.0
60.8
3.9
n/a
n/a
79.7
56.0
20.7
5.3
58.2
15.9
37.5
(52.3)
51.2
14.1
15.5
19.2
5.5
n/a
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.3
73.2
3.8
21.8
1.3
14.2
77.3
7.6
0.9
22.0
(69.4)
81.7
31.5
69.4
3.3
0.41
2.3
576
203.0
165.5
HomeBased
5.7
5.9
6.0
67.4
9.2
19.7
3.6
19.1
8.1
71.2
1.5
56.8
(67.6)
80.8
28.9
63.7
3.9
0.42
2.3
985
350.2
222.0
Foster Care
n/a
n/a
6.1
81.3
4.8
9.8
4.0
24.8
4.3
67.4
3.5
19.8
(52.7)
n/a
n/a
57.8
4.9
n/a
n/a
609
37.6
21.0
Shelter
Care
5.4
6.0
6.1
71.8
10.7
13.2
4.3
16.6
5.2
75.0
3.2
41.0
(62.1)
82.7
16.7
54.8
5.1
0.43
2.5
1,734
259.7
195.5
Residential
Care
4.6
6.0
5.4
97.2
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.9
11.6
85.5
0.0
7.6
(83.3)
n/a
n/a
47.4
3.3
n/a
n/a
72
12.1
8.0
Crisis
Stabilization
Checklist. ROLES=Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale; Permanency Plan achieved refers to either primary or concurrent plan achieved.
Education and employment are reported for the percent of youth who are of appropriate age. n/a = data not collected on this item for the program type.
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. Due to rounding, some percentage totals may not equal
100.0%. GAF=Global Assessment of Functioning. CPC=Child Problem Checklist. FRS=Family Risk Scales, Parent Centered Risk. FPC=Family Problem
Number of youth
Length of Stay: Mean
Median
Clinical Outcomes
GAF mean at discharge (Mean)
CPC mean at discharge (Mean)
FRS mean at discharge (Mean)
FPC mean at discharge (Mean)
Functional Outcomes
Positive education at discharge
Employed at discharge
Placement Outcomes
ROLES at discharge
More restrictive
Similar restrictiveness
Less restrictive
Runaway
Permanency plan achieved
(only those with required plan)
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Removed by referring source
Administrative discharge
Runaway
Satisfaction Outcomes
Child (Mean)
Parent (Mean)
Referring source (Mean)
Variable
Discharge Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2005)
Outcomes for Calendar Year 2005 & Cross-Year Comparisons
Discharge Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2005)
Variable
Number of youth
Length of Stay: Mean
Median
Clinical Outcomes
GAF mean at discharge (Mean)
CPC mean at discharge (Mean)
FRS mean at discharge (Mean)
FPC mean at discharge (Mean)
Functional Outcomes
Positive education at discharge
Employed at discharge
Placement Outcomes
ROLES at discharge
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
Permanency plan achieved
(only those with plan required)
Nature of discharge
Planned
Removed by referring source
Administrative discharge
Runaway
Satisfaction Outcomes
Child (Mean)
Parent (Mean)
Referring source (Mean)
Residential
Care –
Combined
1,734
259.7
195.5
Public
School
213
127.0
92.0
Public and
OnGrounds
1,186
310.8
243.5
Locked
Secure
337
182.5
136.0
54.8
5.1
0.43
2.5
59.7
6.0
0.51
4.7
54.4
5.2
0.42
2.4
53.1
4.2
0.39
1.8
82.7
16.7
71.8
35.3
82.7
16.4
89.7
3.9
16.6
5.2
75.0
3.2
41.0
(62.1)
17.1
5.7
68.7
8.5
31.5
(54.7)
19.4
5.3
72.3
3.1
46.7
(64.6)
6.5
4.8
88.4
0.3
26.9
(54.5)
71.8
10.7
13.2
4.3
57.1
17.1
15.2
10.5
70.0
10.8
14.9
4.3
87.1
6.3
6.3
0.3
5.4
6.0
6.1
5.1
5.6
6.5
5.4
5.9
6.1
5.5
6.3
5.9
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. Due to
rounding, some percentage totals may not equal 100.0%. GAF=Global Assessment of
Functioning. CPC=Child Problem Checklist. FRS=Family Risk Scales, Parent Centered Risk.
FPC=Family Problem Checklist. ROLES=Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale.
Permanency Plan achieved refers to either primary or concurrent plan achieved. Education and
employment are reported for the percent of youth who are of appropriate age.
10
11
Day
Treatment
40
0.40
96.0
50.0
94.7
97.4
92.5
16.2
81.1
2.7
0.0
Transitional
Living
120
n/a
71.4
45.9
99.1
n/a
81.7
13.0
62.6
24.3
0.0
6.4
75.4
18.2
0.0
91.7
51.5
98.4
97.8
89.9
0.37
201
Home-Based
10.0
76.2
13.7
0.2
94.1
31.1
97.8
98.2
95.6
0.37
575
Foster Care
14.7
67.5
16.9
0.8
91.5
29.2
98.6
98.6
80.9
0.38
954
Residential
Care
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. Due to rounding, some percentage totals may not
equal 100.0%. GAF=Global Assessment of Functioning; CPC = Child Problem Checklist. FRS=Family Risk Scales, Parent Centered
Risk; ROLES=Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale. Education and employment are reported for the percent of youth who are of
appropriate age. n/a = data not collected on this item for the program type.
Number of youth contacted
Clinical Outcomes
FRS mean at follow-up
Functional Outcomes
Positive education at follow-up
Employed at follow-up
No new abuse of child
No new abuse in family
No new court involvement
Placement Outcomes
ROLES at follow-up
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
Variable
Follow-up Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2005)
Follow-up Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2005)
Variable
Number of youth contacted
Clinical Outcomes
FRS mean at follow-up
Functional Outcomes
Positive education at follow-up
Employed at follow-up
No new abuse of child
No new abuse in family
No new court involvement
Placement Outcomes
ROLES at follow-up
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
Residential
Care –
Combined
954
Public
School
130
Public and
OnGrounds
659
Locked
Secure
165
0.38
0.47
0.38
0.35
91.5
29.2
98.6
98.6
80.9
89.9
35.7
100.0
100.0
75.0
92.2
29.5
98.2
98.7
81.7
90.3
22.4
98.8
97.4
82.7
14.7
67.5
16.9
0.8
22.4
60.8
16.8
0.0
14.1
68.3
16.8
0.8
11.3
70.0
17.5
1.3
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. Due to
rounding, some percentage totals may not equal 100.0%. FRS=Family Risk Scales, Parent
Centered Risk; ROLES=Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale
12
Transitional Living
Functional Outcomes – 2005‡
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
Parent Rights Terminated – 2005
Parent rights terminated: 31.8%
For one parent
9.6%
For both parents
21.8%
For adoptive parents
0.4%
No Court Involvement
Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scales
at Discharge - 2005
Runaway
15.9%
More
20.7%
Outcome Highlights from 2005
Over half of the youth were discharged
according to goals set in their
permanency plan (52.3%).
Close to 4 in 5 youth were in school at
discharge (79.7%). Over 7 of every 10
youth demonstrated a positive educational
outcome at follow-up (71.4%).
Over 3 of every 5 (63.5%) youth were in similar or
less restrictive places at discharge. At follow-up,
this was true for 9 in 10 (86.9%) youth.
Two of 10 youth returned to court during the follow-up
period because of a new infraction (81.7%).
‡
Education and employment outcome variables are reported for the percent of youth who are of appropriate age
who had a positive outcome. Education (Discharge n=172; Follow-up n=84); Employment (Discharge n=200;
Follow-up n=85); Child abuse (n=114); Court involvement (n=115).
13
Same
5.3%
Less
58.1%
Transitional Living
Percent of Youth with Successful Functional Outcomes at Discharge – Cross-Year
Comparison
100%
Education
90%
Employment
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Percent of Youth in a Similar or Less Restrictive Placement – Cross-Year Comparison
Discharge
Follow-up
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
14
2003
2004
2005
Day Treatment
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
For one parent
7.3%
For both parents
7.9%
0.0%
No Family Abuse
at Discharge - 2005
Less
26.7%
Same
44.6%
Two in 3 youth had positive educational
outcomes at discharge (64.0%).
Of youth over the age of 16, about 1 in 6
was employed at discharge (16.2%).
Just over 7 in 10 youth were placed in a
similarly or less restrictive environment
at discharge (71.3).
The sample at follow-up, although small in size,
reported positive outcomes in education, employment,
and placement. Also, few youth were subject to abuse
and few had returned to court for a new infraction.
‡
No Court Involvement
Runaway
4.0%
More
24.8%
Follow-up n=10); Child abuse (n=38); Family abuse (n=38); Court involvement (n=40).
15
Day Treatment4
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
4
2004
Outcomes for Day Treatment programs have been collected since 2003.
16
2005
Home-Based
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
For one parent
7.2%
For both parents
3.8%
0.0%
No Family Abuse
at Discharge - 2005
Same
77.3%
Over 4 in 5 youth had positive
educational outcomes at discharge
(81.7%); at follow-up, 9 out of 10 youth
had a positive outcome (91.7%).
Almost 85% of youth were placed in a
similarly or less restrictive placement at
discharge. Over 9 of every 10 youth
contacted at follow-up were in similar or
less restrictive settings (93.6%).
Suspected or substantiated abuse occurred in less
than 3% of youth contacted at follow-up.
At follow-up, 9 in 10 of those contacted had not
returned to court (89.9%).
‡
No Court
Involvement
Less
7.6%
Runaway
0.9%
More
14.2%
17
Home-Based
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Discharge
Follow-up
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001
2002
2003
18
2004
2005
Foster Care
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
No Family Abuse
For one parent
4.1%
For both parents
10.3%
0.1%
at Discharge - 2005
Runaway
1.5%
Less
71.3%
The average age of children entering
Foster Care was 8.5 years. In 1999, the
average age was 10.9 years; since then,
the average age has steadily decreased.
Four of every 5 youth (80.8%) had a
positive educational outcome at discharge.
Over 9 of every 10 youth (94.1%) had a
positive educational outcome at follow-up.
Nearly 4 of every 5 youth were placed in a less or
similarly restrictive placement at discharge (79.3%). This
was the case for almost 9 in 10 youth at follow-up
(89.9%).
‡
No Court
Involvement
More
19.1%
Same
8.1%
19
Foster Care
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Discharge
Follow-up
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
20
2003
2004
2005
Shelter Care
For one parent
9.9%
For both parents
7.4%
1.8%
at Discharge - 2005
Runaway
1.5%
Less
Average program length was just over 71.3%
five weeks (37.5 days).
Seven of every 10 youth (71.7%) were
discharged to a less or equally restrictive
placement.
Over 8 of every 10 youth were discharged
according to program plan (81.3%).
More
19.1%
Same
8.1%
100%
Discharge
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004
2005
21
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
For one parent
7.7%
For both parents
11.5%
0.0%
No Court
Involvement
at Discharge - 2005
Less
68.7%
Over 7 in 10 youth (71.8%) had a positive
education outcome at discharge. Nearly 9
in 10 youth had a positive education
outcome at follow-up (89.9%).
Over 2 of every 3 youth were placed in less or
equally restrictive placements at discharge
(74.4%). At follow-up, over three-fourths
were in similar settings (77.6%).
Those contacted at follow-up reported no new
abuse.
‡
No Family Abuse
Runaway
8.5%
More
17.1%
Same
5.7%
22
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
23
2003
2004
2005
Residential Programs Utilizing Public and On-Grounds Schools
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
For one parent
5.5%
For both parents
14.4%
0.6%
No Family Abuse
at Discharge - 2005
Runaway
3.1%
Less
72.2%
Approximately 4 of very 5 youth
(82.7%) had a positive educational
outcome at discharge. Nine of every 10
youth (92.2%) had a positive educational
outcome at follow-up.
Nearly 8 of every 10 youth (77.5%) were
placed in a similar or less restrictive setting
when discharged. Over 85% of those
contacted at follow-up reported similar
placements.
Nearly all youth (98.2%) experienced no new abuse at time of
follow-up. Four of every 5 youth had not been in court for a new
infraction (81.7%).
‡
No Court
Involvement
More
19.4%
Same
5.3%
who had a positive outcome. Education (Discharge n=1,092; Follow-up n=486); Employment (Discharge n=634;
24
Residential Programs Utilizing Public and On-Grounds Schools
Percent of Youth with Successful Functional Outcomes at Discharge – Cross-Year Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
25
2003
2004
2005
Residential Locked & Staff Secure
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
No Family Abuse
at Discharge - 2005
For one parent
8.1%
For both parents
19.5%
0.3%
No Court
Involvement
Less
88.4%
Nearly 9 in 10 youth experienced a
positive educational outcome at
discharge (89.7%).
Nearly 9 in 10 youth (88.4%) were
placed in a less restrictive placement at
discharge. A similar percentage (87.5%)
was reported for follow-up for
placement in similar or less restrictive
placement.
A majority of youth experienced no new abuse (98.8%) at
follow-up.
Over 4 in 5 youth had no new court involvement (82.7%) at follow-up.
‡
Runaway
0.3%
More
6.5%
Same
4.8%
26
Residential Locked & Staff Secure
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Discharge
Follow-up
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
27
2003
2004
2005
at Discharge - 2005
For one parent
3.8%
For both parents
7.5%
0.0%
Less
85.5%
More
2.9%
Youth remained in this program an
average of 12.1 days.
Most all youth (97.1%) were placed in a
less or equally restrictive setting at
discharge (e.g., two-thirds went to their
parent’s home).
Most all youth were planfully discharged
(97.2%).
Same
11.6%
100%
Discharge
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004
2005
28
Conclusions
Conclusions
The 2005 results are consistent with previous years of analyses for the Project. Youth
entering care in the various programs during 2005 present with a variety of significant
child- and parent-specific risk and protective factors. Youth discharged from programs
appear to be functioning better than the youth admitted to that program. In addition, youth
contacted at follow-up demonstrate similar levels of functioning to those at discharge,
suggesting that better functioning is maintained for several beyond program discharge.
In some programs, more youth are entering their current program after having their parents’
rights terminated. This is especially true in Residential and Transitional Living programs.
Although youth admitted present with significant problems, those leaving treatment
consistently demonstrate positive outcomes at discharge, including educational outcomes
and movement to a similar or less restrictive placement.
Employment outcomes vary more across the years than do other functional and placement
outcomes. This greater variability may be due to greater fluctuations in sample size (since in
many programs the majority of youth are not of employment age), factors external to the
program (e.g., changes in local unemployment rates impacting job availability) and how
focused each agency and program is on employment for their youth of employment age.
There continues to be a steady increase in the number of cases submitted for the Project.
This is important to consider, since fewer agencies are participating. Further examination of
this increase in cases per agency may yield information for IARCCA and its member
agencies. For example, investigation of placement rates across the state may help determine
whether or not the population of youth needing out-of-home care is contributing to this
increase. In addition, the relationship between lengths of stay and placement rates should
be investigated to determine if the increase reflects greater agency capacity to serve children
in a given year. Another possibility is that agencies are able to complete the Project packets
for more of the youth and families they serve. A fourth possibility is that agencies are using
the EON™ computer software developed for data collection.
Additional analyses of trends should be monitored. With the advent this year of the EON™
software for data entry, more finely tuned analyses of youth receiving services are possible.
For example, information on specific services received by youth and their families is now
collected, and will allow for an investigation on how services received impact outcomes.
Referral sources, parents, and interested parties are encouraged to review the data presented
in this document and in the Annual Report for 2005. They are encouraged to contact
individual agencies to discuss how their agency results compare with the state aggregated
data. A discussion should ensue, to identify how the agencies’ referral base (e.g., problems
and risk factors identified in youth the agency serves) are similar and different from the
IARCCA aggregate, as this could explain differences in outcomes.
29
(Three Months)
¾ Difficulty of Family
¾ ROLES
¾ Education
¾ Employment
¾ New Court
Follow-Up
30
(Three Months)
¾ ROLES
¾ Education
¾ Employment
¾ New Court
Difficulty of Child
ROLES
Nature of Discharge
Education
Employment
Satisfaction (Child,
Placing Agency)
¾ Services
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾ Difficulty of Child
¾ Demographics
Transitional Living
Key:
Difficulty of Child = Global Assessment of Functioning; Child Problem Checklist
Difficulty of Family = Family Risk Scales; Family Problem Checklist
Demographics = Child Risk Factor Survey
ROLES = Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale
Nature of Discharge = Nature of Discharge; Permanency Plan Met
Education = Education Outcome
Employment = Employed if age 16 or older
Satisfaction = Child Survey; Parent Survey; Placing Agency Survey
Services = Services Form
(Six Months)
¾ ROLES
¾ Education
¾ Employment
¾ New Court
Difficulty of Child
Difficulty of Family
ROLES
Nature of Discharge
Education
Employment
Satisfaction (All)
Services
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Discharge
Difficulty of Child
Difficulty of Family
ROLES
Nature of Discharge
Education
Employment
Satisfaction (All)
Services
¾ Demographics
¾ Demographics
Foster Care &
Residential Care
Intake
Home-Based &
Day Treatment
Data Collection across the Program Types
¾
¾
¾
¾
N/A
Difficulty of Child
Nature of Discharge
Satisfaction (All)
Services
¾ Demographics
Shelter Care &
Appendix
Program Types Evaluated & Outcome Measures Assessed
Appendix
IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Participating Agencies (2005)
Resource Inc., Indianapolis
Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services,
Valparaiso
Specialized Alternatives for Families and Youth,
Indianapolis
St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Center, Dyer
Triple L Youth Ranch, Anderson
United Methodist Youth Home, Evansville
Vigo County Homes for Children, Terre Haute
The Villages of Indiana, Bloomington &
Indianapolis
Wernle, Inc. Services for Children and Families,
Richmond
White’s Residential and Family Services,
Wabash
Whitewater Valley Care Pavilion, Connersville
Whitington Homes & Services for Children &
Families, Columbia City
Willowglen Academy, Gary
Wyandotte House, Corydon
Youth Encouragement Services, Aurora
Youth Hope, Columbus
Youth Opportunity Center, Muncie
Youth Service Bureau, Jay County, Portland
Youth Services Center of Allen County, Ft.
Wayne
Ada’s Place, Indianapolis
Anderson Center of St. John’s Health System,
Anderson
Anchor Families, New Castle
Baptist Children’s Home, Valparaiso
Bashor Home of the United Methodist Church,
Goshen
Campagna Academy, Schererville
Childplace, Jeffersonville
Children’s Bureau, Inc., Indianapolis
The Children’s Campus Inc., Mishawaka
Children’s Sanctuary, Ft. Wayne
Christian Haven, Wheatfield
Crisis Center Inc., Gary
Crossroad, Fort Wayne
Damar Services, Inc., Camby
Debra Corn Agency, Winslow
Edgewater Systems for Balanced Living, Gary
Fairbanks, Indianapolis
Family Service Society, Marion
Floyd County Youth Service Bureau, New
Albany
Fresh Start Home, Elizabethtown
Friendship Home, Kokomo
Gateway Woods, Leo
George Jr. Republic in Indiana, Columbus
Gibault, Inc., Terre Haute
Group Homes for Children, Lafayette
Hamilton Centers Youth Service Bureau Inc.,
Noblesville
Hillcrest-Washington Youth Home, Evansville
Indiana United Methodist Children’s Home,
Lebanon
Indiana Youth Advocate Program, Indianapolis
Jefferson County Youth Shelter, Madison
Lifeline Youth and Family Services, Ft. Wayne
Lutheran Child and Family Services,
Indianapolis
Madison Center, South Bend
Mentor, Highland
Middle Passage, Gary
Midwest Center for Youth and Families, Kouts
Midwest Institute, Indianapolis
New Horizons Youth Ministries, Marion
N.O.A.H., Inc., Indianapolis
Oaklawn, Goshen
Prep Program, Bloomington
Regional Youth Services Inc., Jeffersonville
Resolute Program, Indianapolis
31
Appendix
IARCCA Outcome Project Committee Members (2005)
Gina Alexander, MSW, MS
Monique Busch, MSW, ACSW
Elaine Daniel
C.L. Day, MSW
Cathleen Graham, MSW, LCSW
Bruce Hillman
Kristen Kinder
John Link, MS, LMFT
Don Mobley
Jessica Morris
Vicki Murgaw
Dan Peck, MSW, LCSW
Jennifer Rolsen, BA
Jeff Schumacher, MS
Jenny Sisson
Rebecca Stevens, MS
Jennifer Vanskyock
The Villages of Indiana, Inc.
IARCCA
IARCCA
N.O.A.H., Inc.
IARCCA
Campagna Academy
Bashor
Crossroad – Ft. Wayne Children’s Home
Wernle, Inc.
Whitewater Valley Care Pavilion
Triple L Youth / Family Connection, Inc.
Oaklawn
Crossroad – Ft. Wayne Children’s Home
Gateway Woods
Youth Opportunity Center
Gibault, Inc.
Youth Service Bureau, Jay Co.
Author Notes
Jacqueline Remondet Wall, Ph.D., is currently the Director of Undergraduate Programs at
the School of Psychological Sciences (SoPS), University of Indianapolis. She also holds the
academic rank of Assistant Professor in the SoPS. Her doctorate degree is in industrial /
organizational psychology. She completed a post-doctoral respecialization in clinical
psychology, and a National Institutes of Health post-doctoral fellowship with an emphasis in
neuropsychology and rehabilitation psychology. Dr. Wall is licensed to practice psychology
in the state of Indiana. She has evaluated individuals, services, and programs in industry,
academia, and health care. Her work has included developing selection systems for industry,
serving as an objective reviewer for a federal grant program, working on a statewide needs
assessment to predicted employment patterns for older adults, performing training needs
analyses and conducting program evaluation activities, including those for professional
continuing education. She has served as an external evaluator with IARCCA since 1998.
Steven M. Koch, Ph.D., is currently the Interdisciplinary Training Director for the Riley
Child Development Center, located in the James Whitcomb Riley Hospital for Children. He is
a clinical assistant professor in pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine,
adjunct assistant professor at Indiana University School of Education, and adjunct professor
at the University of Indianapolis School of Psychological Sciences. Dr. Koch completed his
doctoral degree in school psychology, with a minor concentration in research and evaluation.
He is licensed as both a clinical psychologist and as a school psychologist in the state of
Indiana, and has been involved in individual- and program evaluation activities for the past
eleven years, and has been involved with the IARCCA Outcome Measures Project since
1996.
32

The Iarcca Outcome Measures Project

Transcription

Similar documents

YTX14AHL-BS

YTX12-BS

mixer-blenders

GRAIN CART 30TN ASCANELLI.cdr

The Iarcca Outcome Measures Project

PS-1212 12 Volt 1.4 AH - Power

NO DISCHARGE ZONE

BA 5590 Lithium/Sulfur Dioxide Primary Battery System The BA

Patient Logistics Center: A New Model for Improving Patient Flow

brush chipper