The Iarcca Outcome Measures Project

Transcription

The Iarcca
Outcome Measures Project
Report for Calendar Year 2006
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
TheOUTCOME
Iarcca
THE IARCCA
MEASURES
Outcome Measures Project
PROJECT
Report for Calendar Year 2006
Jacqueline Remondet Wall, Ph.D.
Steven M. Koch, Ph.D.
5519 East 82nd Street, Suite A, Indianapolis, IN 46250
Phone (317) 849-8497
Fax (317) 576-5498
www.iarcca.org
Published September 4, 2007, Copyright © 2007, 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.
Foreword
Foreword
In 2006, the IARCCA Outcome Measures Project (the Project) completed its ninth year of data
collection. This is the first year that information was collected entirely using the electronic
software (EON™) developed for the Project. Even though the data entry approach has changed,
we have strived to maintain consistency with reporting practices from previous years, to allow
for cross-year comparisons. Although the potential impact of change is described more fully in
the introduction of this report, the differences are mentioned here as they may influence
comparisons made by those reading the document.
As with last year’s report, information for each program is presented in its own section.
This allows the reader ready access to all information related to a specific program type.
Cross-program tables are provided at the end of the report, listing risk factors known at
admission, and outcomes reported at discharge and at follow-up. These tables allow the
reader to quickly examine similarities and differences across the program types.
New to the cross-program tables this year is an aggregate outcome column. With the new
format of the data, calculating aggregate outcomes across programs is now possible. This
information allows for a quick overview of the overall outcomes for all youth
participating in IARCCA member agencies’ programs.
For this year, a tenth program type is introduced: Residential Care – Psychiatric
Residential Treatment Facilities. The inclusion of this new program type, however, does
not necessarily mean that this is a new group of youth being served by IARCCA member
agencies. Rather, in previous years these youth were likely served in other program types
measured by the Project. Specifically, many who are now identified as participating in
the Residential Care – Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities were most likely
served in the past by Residential Care – Locked and Staff Secure or in Crisis Stabilization
programs. Thus, cross-year comparisons for these two programs in particular should be
viewed with this in mind, as differences in data from previous years may be due to the
elimination of a select group of youth from these programs in 2006.
With the introduction of the EON™ software, information regarding the placement of
youth has become more specific. In response to the Restrictiveness of Living
Environment Scales (ROLES; Hawkins, Almeida, Fabry & Reits, 1992), a checklist has
replaced free response to an open-ended question about where the child was placed.
Although this minimizes variability, it enhances standardized responding.
The current Annual Report is available on the IARCCA website’s reference library,
found at www.iarcca.org.
Jacqueline Remondet Wall, Ph.D.
Steven M. Koch, Ph.D.
Author Notes
Author Notes
Jacqueline Remondet Wall, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the University of Indianapolis.
She serves as Director of Undergraduate Programs in the in the School of Psychological
Sciences. Her doctorate degree is in industrial / organizational psychology. She also completed a
post-doctoral respecialization in clinical psychology, and post-doctoral fellowships 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, conducting
training needs analyses and developing programs, completing statewide needs assessments for
service development and advocacy, evaluating programs, and developing educational offerings.
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 twelve years, and
has been involved with the IARCCA Outcome Measures Project since 1996.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction
History ............................................................................................................
Changes in 2006 Data Collection and Analyses ............................................
Outcome Measures ........................................................................................
Comments on Interpreting the Data................................................................
2006 Program Outcomes:
Transitional Living .........................................................................................
Day Treatment ................................................................................................
Home-Based ...................................................................................................
Foster Care......................................................................................................
Shelter Care ....................................................................................................
Residential Programs Utilizing Public Schools..............................................
Residential Programs Utilizing Public and On-Grounds Schools ..................
Residential Locked & Staff-Secure ................................................................
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities .................................................
Crisis Stabilization..........................................................................................
Conclusions...........................................................................................................
Recommendations.................................................................................................
References ............................................................................................................
Appendices
A. IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Participating Agencies (2006)......
B. IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Committee Members (2006) ........
C. Data Collection across the Program Types ..............................................
D. Child Risk Factor Survey – All Program Types (2006) ...........................
E. Child Risk Factor Survey – Residential Care Program Subtypes ............
F. Discharge Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2006) ...................
G. Discharge Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes.....
H. Follow-up Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2006)...................
I. Follow-up Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes ....
J. Agency Program Outcomes......................................................................
Page
1
2
4
6
7
14
21
28
35
41
48
55
62
69
75
77
78
79
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Introduction
Introduction
THE IARCCA OUTCOME MEASURES PROJECT
REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2006
History
The primary aim of the IARCCA Outcome Measures Project (hereafter referred to as the
Project) is to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services provided to children and
families by IARCCA member agencies. In 2006, IARCCA represented 102 private agencies
within Indiana that provide a broad range of services and programs across the spectrum of
placement setting restrictiveness, including Transitional Living, Day Treatment, Home-Based,
Foster Care, Shelter Care, Residential Care (programs using only public schools, using publicand on-grounds schools, staff / locked secure programs, and psychiatric residential treatment
facilities), and Crisis Stabilization. For 2006, there were 69 agencies (68% of the 102 member
agencies) participating in the Project (Appendix A contains a list of IARCCA member agencies
that participated in the Project during 2006). The proportion of agencies that participate has been
relatively constant; across the nine years of data collection, annual participation rates between
65-75% of IARCCA agencies have been noted.
The Project was originally developed and implemented with the support of the Indiana Council
of Juvenile and Family Court Judges to assure referral / funding sources, providers and clients
that IARCCA agencies would continually assess the strengths and limitations of their programs.
An Outcome Committee was formed in 1996, comprised of volunteers from IARCCA member
agencies. Regional meetings were held to obtain input from stakeholders throughout the state.
Following these meetings, the Outcome Committee met regularly across a one-year timeframe to
design the Project (see Appendix B for a list of 2006 Outcome Committee members). In 1997,
after the project was designed, a pilot study was completed. The Outcome Committee analyzed
pilot study results (Link, 1998) and made minor modifications to data collection procedures. In
1998, an invitation was offered to the full IARCCA membership to participate. Also in 1998,
external evaluators were hired to independently analyze, interpret, and develop an Annual Report
for the year’s data. The external evaluators have reviewed data each year since 1998, developing
an Annual Report, an accompanying Executive Summary that included a cross-year comparison
of the data, and Special Reports. A more comprehensive history of the Project, including
1
Introduction
Introduction
information on the methods and instruments used for data collection, has been published
elsewhere (Wall, Busch, Koch, Alexander, Minnich, & Jackson-Walker, 2005). Appendix C
describes the current data collection strategies for each program type. The outcome information
presented in this Annual Report examines the data for youth served by agencies in 2006. During
2006, agencies submitted 11,669 packets1 of data (5,271 packets at intake, 4,513 at discharge,
and 1,885 at follow-up). This number is only slightly lower than the number of packets
submitted in 2005 and is higher than the number of packets submitted in previous years.
Changes in 2006 Data Collection and Analyses
The data collected for the Project has produced consistent results across the years, supporting the
reliability of obtained findings. However, changes made to both data collection and analyses in
2006 may make interpretation and comparisons with previous years less reliable. Therefore, the
specific changes are described below.
A significant change in the data collection procedure began in 2005 and was more fully
implemented in 2006. Prior to 2005, data was exclusively sent to IARCCA by member agencies
on de-identified paper-based forms and entered into SPSS databases or Excel spreadsheets by
IARCCA staff. These spreadsheets or databases were then shared with the external evaluators for
analyses. Thus, the data was stored in multiple files separated by program and time frame (e.g.,
intake, discharge, follow-up). In 2005 as EON™ was implemented, 83% of the data was
provided to the evaluators in the earlier format. The remaining 17% of the data was provided
through the EON™ database and shared as separate Excel spreadsheets. In 2006, the entire
dataset was shared with the evaluators through the EON™ database. Some agencies entered data
electronically into EON™, while other agencies sent their paper forms to IARCCA where
IARCCA staff entered it into the program. A second change in data collection involved the
addition of the Residential Care – Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTF) program
type. Although this has been identified as a new program type since 2006, it does not necessarily
mean that youth being served by PRTF programs are new to IARCCA agencies. In past years,
these youth were likely served by agencies under other program types measured by the Project.
1
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 submitted at intake.
2
Introduction
Introduction
Specifically, many of the youth who participated in PRTF programs in 2006 were likely served
in earlier years under Residential Care – Locked and Staff Secure or Crisis Stabilization
programs. This could also suggest that youth who were listed as being discharged from PRTF in
2006 may have been listed as being admitted to another program (e.g., Crisis Stabilization) in
2005. Thus, cross-year comparisons for these two program types in particular should be viewed
with this reallocation of youth in mind, as differences seen in sample size, risk factors and
outcomes may be due to the youth being served currently in PRTF.
For this Annual Report and each of the eight previous annual reports, every effort has been made
to maintain consistency in analyses and reporting (Jackson-Walker & Wall, 1999, 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003; Koch & Wall, 2005a, 2006; Minnich & Wall, 2004). In this year’s Annual Report,
however, there are four changes of note. The first change is related to the placement to where the
youth is discharged upon program completion. With the introduction of the EON™ software,
information indicating the child’s living environment on the Restrictiveness of Living
Environment Scales (ROLES; Hawkins, Almeida, Fabry, & Reits, 1992) has been changed to an
established list of 24 options. In previous years, when the ROLES was completed, the youth’s
living arrangement was shared with IARCCA in response to an open-ended question. Thus, the
tables related to where a youth was discharged have been changed to reflect these new response
choices. The second change is related to individual agency’s efforts at follow-up to locate the
youth and obtain information. In past years, agencies submitted the follow-up form with data or
with an indication that the youth could not be contacted after three attempts. With the exclusive
use of EON™ during 2006, agencies indicated in the software if they were unable to contact the
youth; however, upon subsequent attempts to contact, they may have been able to complete the
form. Unfortunately, the database may still indicate that the youth could not be contacted.
Therefore, the number of youth identified as “unable to contact” yielded a large number of false
positives. Due to this potential loss of valid data, an algorithm was employed that considered the
youth “contacted” if at least 3 of 6 critical outcomes items were answered – youth’s current
living arrangement, education, employment, subsequent court contact, subsequent abuse of the
youth, and/or subsequent abuse in the home the child is living. If fewer than 3 of these items
were answered, then the youth was considered “not contacted” for purposes of analyses. The
third change is found in the cross-program outcomes tables (see Appendixes F and H), which
now include a summary of the aggregate outcomes for the entire Project’s discharge and follow3
Introduction
Introduction
up samples for the 2006 data. Lastly, some of the risk factor variables do not contain uncertain
(i.e. “Don’t know”) responses. Variables where this change in data reporting occurred include
classification as CHINS, adjudication as delinquent, indication of abuse or neglect, and being
witness to domestic violence. Although results in 2006 are consistent with previous years, if this
represents a change in data collection, it may affect future and cross-year comparisons.
Outcome Measures
Data for the Project is provided to IARCCA by member agencies on the children the families
they serve. Data is collected at: (1) Intake; (2) Discharge; and (3) Follow-Up (i.e., at 3 or 6
months after discharge, depending on the program). See Appendix C for program-specific
measures collected and data collection timeframe. More detailed description of the instruments
can be obtained from IARCCA.
Clinical Outcomes
Child-specific clinical outcomes.
Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
Higher scores are associated with better functioning.
Child Problem Checklist (CPC). Lower scores are associated with fewer identified child
problems.
Family-specific clinical outcomes.
Family Risk Scales: Parent Centered Risk (FRS; Magura, Moses, & Jones, 1987). Lower
scores are associated with lower levels of parent-centered risk.
Family Problem Checklist (FPC). Lower scores are associated with fewer identified family
problems.
Functional Outcomes
Educational outcome. Youth are assessed for attendance, school related behavior, and
academic performance. Education at discharge is positive if two of the three areas are
positive. Education at follow-up is positive if the youth is attending school or has graduated.
This measure is not reported for children under school age.
Educational status. While not an outcome measure, educational status identifies whether the
youth is currently in preschool, elementary or secondary school, has graduated, is in postsecondary education, or has been expelled.
Employment outcome. Youth aged 16 and older are identified as being employed or not
employed at discharge and at follow-up. Information is considered positive if youth are
identified as being employed.
Absence of subsequent court involvement. Youth are identified as not having court
involvement for a new infraction.
Absence of subsequent abuse of child. Youth are identified as not having a new incident of
abuse or neglect reported or substantiated since being discharged.
Absence of subsequent abuse in family. Youth are identified as not living a setting where a
new incident of abuse or neglect has occurred or been reported.
4
Introduction
Introduction
Effectiveness of Placement
Length of Stay. The number of calendar days in treatment is calculated by subtracting the
admission date from the discharge date.
Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scales (ROLES; Hawkins et al., 1992). Youth are
identified as being placed in a more, similar, or less restrictive placement. They may also be
coded as a runaway.
Achievement of primary or concurrent permanency plan. Youth are identified as meeting
their primary permanency plan, concurrent plan, not meeting either permanency plan, or not
having a case plan.
Nature of discharge. Youth are identified as having a planned discharge, being removed by
the referral source, administratively discharged, or running away.
Consumer Satisfaction
Parent satisfaction survey. Scores are an average of a 14-item, Likert-type scale ranging from
1 to 7. Higher scores are associated with greater satisfaction.
Child satisfaction survey. This instrument is collected for youth aged 12 and older. Scores
are an average of a 15-item, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 7. Higher scores are
associated with greater satisfaction.
Referring agency satisfaction survey. Scores are an average of a 14-item, Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 to 7. Higher scores are associated with greater satisfaction.
Risk Factors
Demographic variables. Items include: gender, ethnicity, and age.
Child-specific risk factors. Items include: being victim of neglect or abuse, witness to
domestic violence, receiving special education, repeating a grade and taking psychotropic
medication.
Parent-specific risk factors. Items include: parent incarceration, psychiatric diagnosis, and
substance abuse, as well as single parent family and parent rights terminated.
Total Risk Score. A “total risk score” is calculated for each child by summing the major risk
factors identified.2
Services Provided
Alcohol / drug services.
Early childhood services.
Educational services.
Employment services.
Family-based services.
Legal services.
Medical services.
Mental health services.
Recreational services.
Physical rehabilitation services.
2
Specific risk factors that increase the score by one point each include: youth pregnant; youth with children; Child
in Need of Service (CHINS); delinquent; victim of neglect, physical abuse, and/or sexual abuse; witness to
domestic violence; grade retention; special education; psychotropic medication; parent substance abuse; parent
incarceration; parent psychiatric diagnosis; single parent family; parent rights being terminated for one parent, and
for both parents. The score increased by two points if parent rights were terminated for adoptive parents.
5
Introduction
Introduction
Comments on Interpreting the Data
The primary purpose of the Project is to assess outcomes at a programmatic level, and not at an
individual child or family level. To this end, the results reported in this Annual Report identify
the characteristics of families and children who entered programs during the calendar year 2006
(at intake), those who left the programs during calendar year 2006 (at discharge), and those who
were contacted in 2006 several months after being discharged (at follow-up). Therefore, no
efforts were made in these analyses to follow individual children across time (i.e., at admission,
discharge, and/or follow-up). Thus, it is important to limit comparisons between the three data
collection periods (i.e., between intake and discharge, intake and follow-up, and between
discharge and follow-up), as they include different groups of children and families. In other
words, it would be inappropriate to conclude that youth and families improved from intake to
discharge, as it is unclear whether the same youth and families were measured at both points in
time.
It should also be noted that the Project does not collect data on children and families who have
not been placed in a program, or have not received services. In other words, there is no
comparison or control group. Thus, it is not possible to claim confidently that positive (or
negative) outcomes are due to particular services or programs provided to the children and their
families. It is possible that there were initial differences for those youth and families who
received the services, or that other factors may have impacted placement decisions (e.g., judicial
or legislative factors) that are at least partly responsible for the outcomes reported. Thirdly, data
from the follow-up sample may not be representative of the overall sample of youth and families
who receive services from a program. The follow-up sample size for each program is
considerably smaller, and is based only on those youth and families where half of the items were
completed. It is possible that individuals with better (or worse) outcomes may not have been as
easily contacted as others from the program. And finally, it is important to note that the results
presented in this Annual Report do not represent all children and families served by the various
programs, and do not represent all programs or agencies that are members of IARCCA. In
addition, results reported are aggregate figures, reflecting averages and percentages across a
large number of programs that may vary widely in the type, nature and quality of services
provided.
6
2006 Program
Outcomes: Transitional
Living
2006 PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Transitional Living
Transitional Living
Transitional Living programs provide services to youth needing supervised and supported
opportunities to live in a community in preparation for full emancipation. Transitional living
programs are generally not considered appropriate for youth with a goal of family reunification
or adoption. A goal of transitional living programs is for the youth to demonstrate an ability to
handle increased freedom and responsibility in the community. This includes transitional living
programs, independent living programs, scattered site apartment programs, and on-campus
transitional living cottages/homes. This does not include independent living services provided
within another program such as residential or foster care (IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
In general, findings from the 2006 data are consistent with those from the previous years, and are
not judged to be beyond normal fluctuations. Listed below are highlights from 2006.
Child and Family Risk Factors
One in 3 youth (33.2%) admitted to Transitional Living programs were adjudicated
delinquent during 2006, while approximately 3 in 5 youth (57.9%) were classified as
CHINS.
Approximately 3 in 5 youth (57.5%) had a permanency plan for emancipation.
Roughly 1 in 20 youth were pregnant (4.8%) and 1 in 10 were already parents (9.4%).
About 1 in 5 youth had repeated a grade (19.0%) in school or were receiving special
education support (22.2%). Over 1 in 3 youth (36.2%) were on psychotropic medication.
The average Risk Score dropped nearly one point (5.1 in 2006 vs. 6.0 in 2005). This is
more consistent with previous years of data collection, with average annual Risk Scores
ranging from 4.9 to 5.8 between 1999 and 2004).
Clinical Functioning
The average GAF at intake (59.1) was consistent with previous years. From 1998-2005,
average GAF scores ranged between 58.4 and 64.7.
The average CPC at intake (5.0) was also consistent with previous years, which ranged
between 4.5 and 7.1 between 1998 and 2005.
More than half of the youth were admitted with known difficulties reported on the CPC
as being depressed / withdrawn (55.1%) and / or failing to follow instructions (53.3%). In
addition, over 2 in 5 had reported substance involvement (44.4%).
The average GAF for youth discharged from Transitional Living was 60.5. The average
number of items endorsed on the CPC at discharge was 3.8.
At discharge, approximately half of the youth had identified difficulties reported on the
CPC in following directions (47.8%). In addition, 2 of 5 youth had difficulties with
feeling depressed / withdrawn (41.8%), and 1 in 3 youth had reported substance
involvement (34.6%).
7
2006 Program
Living
2006 PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Transitional Living
Functional Outcomes
Nearly 4 of every 5 youth had a positive educational outcome (78.6%) at discharge. The
same proportion of youth demonstrated a positive educational outcome at follow-up
(78.6%).
Just under half of the youth were employed at discharge (49.4%). Just over half of the
youth were employed at follow-up (50.7%).
No youth experienced new abuse (100.0% with no new abuse) when contacted at followup.
Approximately 4 of 5 youth had no new court involvement (80.9%) at follow-up.
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was just under 7 months (average of 209.2 days). The median
length was just under 6 months (176 days).
Two of every 3 youth were discharged to a similar or less restrictive placement (63.2%).
Approximately 1 in 7 had run away from placement (14.0%).
Satisfaction Outcomes
Referral sources were generally pleased with the program provided to the youth (an
average rating of 5.9 on a 7-point scale). This is consistent with previous years, which
ranged from 5.5 to 6.2 between 1998 and 2005.
Youth were generally satisfied with their program as well (5.5 on a 7-point scale). This is
slightly higher than in previous years, which between 1998 and 2004 ranged from 4.8 to
5.4.
Services Provided
Eleven services were provided to over half of the youth. Of these 11 services, 6 were
medical in nature (e.g., medical exam, dental exam, and vision screening). The other
services were psychosocial, employment or recreational in nature.
Teaching in independent living skills was provided to 3 of every 4 youth (75.8%).
Of the top 25 services, alcohol / drug screening was provided to approximately 2 of every
5 youth (44.9%).
8
2006 Program
Living
2006 PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Intake
Sample Size
Discharge
214
183
Transitional Living
Follow-up
Contacted
Not able to contact
71
22
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Witness to domestic violence
CHINS
Delinquent
Previous home-based services
16.8
37.4%
62.6%
57.9%
33.2%
3.3%
5.7%
46.3%
29.9%
20.1%
29.2%
57.9%
36.0%
28.3%
Variable
Average # Prior Placements
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Psychotropic medication
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Psychiatric diagnosis
Incarceration
Single parent family
Parent rights terminated:
For one parent
For both parents
For adoptive parents
Mean Risk Factor Score
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
Average Child Problem Checklist Total
4.8%
9.4%
19.0%
22.2%
36.2%
49.1%
13.3%
34.6%
68.9%
22.3%
9.7%
12.1%
0.5%
5.1
Intake
Discharge
59.1
5.0
60.5
3.8
Child Problem Checklists
Top 5 CPC Items at Intake (n=214)
Depression / withdrawn 55.1%
Failure to follow instructions 53.3%
Substance involvement 44.4%
School learning problems 41.6%
Verbally aggressive 35.5%
Top 5 CPC Items at Discharge (n=182)
Peer relationship problems 32.4%
9
3.7 placements
2006 Program
Living
2006 PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Transitional Living
Functional Outcomes̅
100
100
78.6
Percent
80
80.9
78.6
Discharge
Follow-up
60
49.4
50.7
40
20
0
on
ati
uc
d
E
E
t
en
ym
o
l
mp
No
C
e
us
Ab
d
hil
No
Co
nt
me
e
olv
Inv
urt
School Status at Discharge‡
Enrolled in pre-school
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Enrolled in high school vocational program
Obtained certificate of completion
Obtained GED
Obtained high school diploma
Enrolled in post-secondary vocational training program
Enrolled in college or university
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
̅
‡
Percent
0.0%
38.3%
0.0%
25.7%
1.1%
1.1%
14.8%
8.7%
0.5%
3.8%
0.0%
6.6%
0.5%
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=168; Follow-up n=70); Employment (Discharge n=166;
Follow-up n=67); Child abuse (n=47); Court involvement (n=47).
Individual children may be counted in more than one category (e.g., obtained high school diploma and enrolled in
college). In addition, school status may not have been noted for some children. Thus, the cumulative percentage
may not equal 100%.
10
2006 Program
Living
2006 PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Transitional Living
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 209.2 days
Median = 176.0 days
Permanency Goal
Reunification with parent
Adoption
Emancipation / independent living
Permanent custodial relationship
Legal guardianship
Other planned permanent living arrangement
Placement without case plan
No case plan required:
Department of Correction
Department of Education
Probation
Private
Other / not specified
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Specialized / treatment foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Residential treatment center
In-patient in medical hospital
Drug/alcohol rehab center
Intensive treatment unit
Detention / correctional center
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Similar restrictiveness
Less restrictive
Runaway
11
Discharge
22.8%
5.3%
57.9%
14.0%
Intake
10.4%
0.0%
57.5%
0.9%
0.0%
4.2%
0.9%
26.0%
0.0%
0.0%
17.0%
1.9%
7.1%
Percent
31.8%
19.3%
9.7%
0.6%
2.3%
1.1%
1.7%
2.3%
1.7%
4.0%
0.6%
0.0%
1.7%
8.5%
0.6%
0.6%
13.6%
Follow-up
14.3 %
62.9%
21.4%
1.4%
Discharge
14.9%
0.0%
47.5%
1.7%
0.0%
5.5%
2.2%
28.1%
0.0%
0.0%
20.4%
3.3%
4.4%
2006 Program
Living
2006 PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Transitional Living
Placement Outcomes (continued)
Was discharge permanency goal achieved?
Yes
No
Yes, for concurrent plan
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
32.2%
(46.0%)
35.0%
(50.0%)
2.8%
(4.0%)
30.0%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Removed by referring source
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
48.4%
12.1%
22.0%
17.6%
Satisfaction Outcomes†
7
Mean Score
6
5.4
5.9
5
4
3
2
1
†
Child
Referral Source
Child Satisfaction (n=53); Referral Source Satisfaction (n=66).
12
2006 Program
Living
2006 PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Transitional Living
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Top 25 Services Provided (n=178)
Case management
Routine medical care
Physical examination
Independent living training
Dental examination
Life skills assessment
Routine dental care
Individual therapy
Vision examination
Routine vision care
On campus recreation
Drug screening
Job coaching
Mental health evaluation
Group therapy
Extracurricular activities
Unsupervised visitations
Nutrition assessment
GED classes
Transportation
Vocational assessment
Job placement
Social skills training
Budget training
13
Service Area
Psychosocial
Medical
Medical
Employment
Medical
Employment
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Medical
Recreational
Alcohol / Drugs
Employment
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Recreational
Family
Medical
Educational
Psychosocial
Family
Employment
Employment
Educational
Family
Percent
83.1%
80.3%
79.2%
75.8%
74.7%
73.6%
69.1%
67.4%
62.9%
59.6%
56.7%
44.9%
41.0%
37.6%
35.4%
34.8%
34.3%
33.7%
32.6%
32.6%
30.3%
30.3%
29.8%
29.8%
29.2%
2006 Program
Day Treatment
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Day Treatment
Day Treatment
Day treatment programs allow youth to live in the community while receiving therapeutic and
support services outside their home. Generally, these services are provided up to fourteen (14)
hours per day for up to six (6) days a week (IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
Day Treatment findings have only been analyzed separately since 2003, and with sample sizes
greater than 100 for only the past 3 years (2004-2006). In general, findings from the 2006 data
are consistent with the 2 earlier years. However, trends in functional outcomes of education and
employment at discharge appear to suggest poorer outcomes each year. Listed below are
highlights from 2006.
A greater proportion of youth in Day Treatment were male (70.9%) than were female
(29.1%).
One in 10 youth entering Day Treatment had a known history of neglect (10.5%), as did
youth experiencing physical abuse (10.0%). Less than 1 in 10 had a known history of
sexual abuse (8.6%).
Approximately 1 in 7 youth were classified as CHINS (14.5%), while over half were
adjudicated delinquent (57.7%).
A greater number of youth in Day Treatment had participated in previous home-based
services (26.6%) than in the past two years (15.5% in 2004 and 16.9% in 2005).
Nearly 2 in 3 youth were from single-parent households (65.5%).
The average CPC at intake (7.4) is consistent with findings from 2005 (7.1). Failing to
follow instructions was the most commonly identified problem on the CPC at intake
(67.6%).
The average FPC score at intake was 3.5, which is consistent with previous years.
Children being unsupervised in the home was the most commonly identified problem on
the FPC (59.9%) at program admission.
At discharge, youth in Day Treatment had an average CPC score of 6.1, which was
consistent with the previous years. Failing to follow instructions was the most frequently
identified problem on the CPC at discharge (60.9%).
At discharge, families of youth in Day Treatment had an average FPC score of 3.7, which
was consistent with earlier years. Lack of outside support was the most commonly
identified family problem at discharge (44.5%).
14
2006 Program
Day Treatment
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Day Treatment
Functional Outcomes
Nearly 3 of every 5 youth in Day Treatment had a positive educational outcome at
discharge. The percent has dropped for each of the past three years (59.5% in 2006,
64.9% in 2005, and 66.1% in 2004). While the difference each year is small, this outcome
should continue to be monitored to determine if it is part of normal fluctuations, or a
potential negative trend.
Approximately 1 in 7 youth were employed at discharge. The percent of employed youth
has dropped for each of the past three years (14.9% in 2006, 16.2% in 2005, and 26.7% in
2004). Similar to education, this outcome should continue to be monitored to determine if
it is part of normal fluctuations, or a potential negative trend.
Almost 9 of 10 youth (88.1%) had a positive educational outcome at follow-up.
Similarly, few youth experienced new abuse personally (96.0%) or in their home
(97.3%).
About 4 in 5 youth had no new court involvement (78.7%).
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was approximately 6 months (180.3 days). Half of the youth
were in care for 4 months or less (Median 133 days).
Nearly 2 of 3 youth were placed in a similar or less restrictive placement at discharge
(65.0%). Nearly half of the youth were returned to their parents (45.0%).
Over half of the youth were planfully discharged (54.2%).
Less than 1 in 10 youth (7.1%) were removed from their Day Treatment program by the
referring source. This is lower than in the previous two years (25.8% in 2004 and 23.9%
in 2005). At the same time, a greater percent of youth were administratively discharged
(29.8% in 2006 vs. 12.1% in 2004 and 13.0% in 2005). This increase in administrative
discharges could be associated with the poorer education and employment rates for the
year, as noted in the Functional Outcomes.
Over 4 of every 5 youth (83.3%) were living in a similar or less restrictive placement at
follow-up.
Referring agencies were generally satisfied with the program provided by Day Treatment
providers (average of 6.5 on a 7-point scale). This is consistent with previous years.
Youth (5.2 on a 7-point scale) and parents (6.2 on a 7-point scale) also were satisfied with
the program provided. This also is consistent with previous years.
Services Provided
Eleven services were provided to more than half of the youth. Of these 11, six were
psychosocial (such as individual therapy, case management, and mental health
evaluation).
Two of the top services were educational in nature. Educational evaluations were
provided to roughly 7 of every 10 youth (71.0%), and social skills classes were provided
to nearly 4/5 of the youth (79.9%).
15
2006 Program
Day Treatment
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Intake
Sample Size
Discharge
220
169
Day Treatment
Follow-up
Contacted
Not able to contact
75
13
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
14.5
70.9%
29.1%
55.0%
30.9%
7.7%
6.4%
10.5%
10.0%
8.6%
20.3%
14.5%
57.7%
26.6%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
Family
Average Family Risk Scales Total
Average Family Problem Checklist Total
Intake
Discharge
47.6
7.4
49.7
6.1
0.49
3.5
0.49
3.7
0.9 placements
1.4%
1.4%
19.8%
38.8%
40.5%
35.3%
13.9%
25.5%
65.5%
11.8%
6.9%
4.9%
0.0%
3.7
Follow-up
0.39 (n=24)
Intake Child and Family Problem Checklists
Top 5 Child Problem Checklist Items (n=219)
Top 5 Family Problem Checklist Items (n=142)
Children unsupervised 59.9%
Lack of family supports 55.6%
School attendance problems 60.7%
Severe family conflict 43.0%
Caregiver not invested 31.7%
Caregiver unemployed 31.0%
Discharge Child and Family Problem Checklists
Caregiver judgment impaired 40.5%
Out of control 43.8%
16
2006 Program
Day Treatment
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Day Treatment
100
96.0
Discharge
Follow-up
97.3
88.1
80
78.7
Percent
59.5
60
40
20
14.9
26.7
0
n
tio
ca
u
Ed
Em
nt
me
y
o
pl
No
C
se
bu
A
d
hil
No
se
bu
A
ly
mi
Fa
C
No
rt
ou
t
en
em
v
l
o
Inv
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
̅
‡
Percent
0.6%
73.4%
1.2%
5.3%
1.2%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
10.1%
5.9%
Follow-up n=45); Child abuse (n=75); Family abuse (n=75); Court involvement (n=75).
may not equal 100%.
17
2006 Program
Day Treatment
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Day Treatment
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 180.3 days
Median = 133.0 days
Permanency Goal
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Other / Not Specified
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
18
Discharge
27.8%
53.8%
11.2%
7.1%
Intake
27.3%
1.4%
1.4%
0.5%
0.9%
1.8%
3.6%
63.1%
0.0%
19.5%
37.7%
0.0%
5.9%
Percent
1.2%
45.0%
5.9%
0.6%
0.6%
1.2%
2.4%
0.6%
0.6%
15.4%
0.0%
0.0%
4.1%
10.0%
4.7%
0.6%
7.1%
Follow-up
13.9%
59.7%
23.6%
2.8%
Discharge
34.9%
1.8%
5.3%
3.6%
0.6%
4.7%
3.0%
46.2%
0.6%
19.5%
22.5%
0.0%
3.6%
2006 Program
Day Treatment
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Day Treatment
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
20.1%
(57.0%)
29.0%
(39.5%)
1.8%
(3.5%)
49.1%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
54.2%
7.1%
29.8%
8.9%
7
Mean Score
6
6.5
6.2
5
5.2
4
3
2
1
†
Child
Parent
Referral Source
Child Satisfaction (n=86); Parent Satisfaction (n=56); Referral Source Satisfaction (n=58).
19
2006 Program
Day Treatment
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Day Treatment
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
Case management
Educational evaluation
Group therapy
Individual therapy
Family therapy
Behavior management therapy
Psychoeducational therapy
Drug screening
Vocational assessment
Behavior management plan
Drug / alcohol assessment
Arts / crafts
Drug / alcohol education
Individualized education plan
Study skills training
Special education
Extended school year
Family preservation / reunification
Sex education
Cultural / arts events
Parenting assessment
20
Service Area
Educational
Recreational
Psychosocial
Educational
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Alcohol / Drugs
Employment
Recreational
Family
Alcohol / Drugs
Psychosocial
Recreational
Employment
Alcohol / Drugs
Educational
Educational
Educational
Educational
Family
Educational
Recreational
Family
Percent
79.9%
79.9%
71.6%
71.0%
68.0%
64.5%
59.2%
56.8%
52.7%
50.3%
50.3%
49.7%
49.7%
49.1%
47.9%
47.3%
46.2%
44.4%
43.8%
38.5%
35.5%
32.5%
32.0%
24.9%
24.3%
24.3%
2006 Program
Home-Based
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Home-Based
Home-Based
Home-based programs provide intensive services to a child within his/her identified family
system. A major component of home-based programs is to provide and access services that wrap
the identified child(ren) and the identified members of his/her family with resources and support
within the local community. A goal of home-based programs is to help families achieve a level
of functioning necessary to maintain that child in the family and/or return the child to his/her
family by reducing the risk factors that may contribute to or prolong an out-of-placement. This
includes programs that provide intensive case management and/or therapeutic support within the
home, such as family preservation, family reunification, and pre-adoptive services. This does not
include after-care services provided within other programs, such as foster care, when that service
is considered a part of the out-of-home care program (IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
In general, findings from the 2006 data are consistent with those from the previous year, and are
not judged to be beyond normal fluctuations. It should be noted that prior to 2003, Home-Based
programs and Day Treatment programs were considered the same. Thus, the data for HomeBased programs prior to 2003 may be somewhat different than the current data findings.
Therefore, comparisons across the years will be restricted to 2003-2005 for Home-Based
programs. Listed below are highlights from 2006.
The average age of youth starting a Home-Based program is 10.7. The average age has
continually dropped over the past several years.
Approximately 3 in 10 youth were classified as CHINS (27.1%). The proportion of youth
in Home-Based programs that are classified as CHINS has continually increased over the
past several years. This fact and the decreasing average age are likely related.
Over 4 of every 5 youth in Home-Based programs were Caucasian (86.2%).
Approximately 3 in 10 youth had experienced neglect (29.5%) and / or domestic violence
(32.9%).
Over half of the parents had known substance abuse issues (56.4%) and / or were
incarcerated (53.2%). Nearly 3 of 5 youth (59.7%) were from single parent households,
and more than 1 in 10 (10.4%) had parents whose rights were terminated.
Youth had an average of 5.6 items endorsed on the CPC at intake. The most frequently
identified items on the CPC at intake included failure to follow instructions (59.5%), and
academic problems (47.0%).
The average FPC at intake had 3.4 items endorsed. The most commonly identified
problem on the FPC at intake was a home with severe family conflict (46.5%).
At discharge, the average CPC score was 3.5 items endorsed. The most commonly
identified child problem at discharge was failing to follow instructions (40.6%).
At discharge, the average FPC score was 2.6 items. The most commonly identified family
problem at discharge was an unemployed caregiver (33.1%).
21
2006 Program
Home-Based
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Home-Based
Functional Outcomes
Over 3 in 4 youth had a positive educational outcome at discharge (77.3%). Almost 9 in
10 youth had a positive educational outcome at follow-up (86.7%).
One of every 3 youth age 16 and older was employed at discharge (33.0%) and at followup (37.2%). The rate at follow-up is consistent with the rate for 2 of the 3 previous years
(38.9% in 2003, 33.8% in 2004, and 51.5% in 2005).
At follow-up, most youth experienced no new abuse (98.1% for child; 99.0% within the
family), and nearly 9 in 10 youth experienced no new court involvement (85.4%).
Placement Outcomes
On average, Home-Based services were provided for over 33 weeks (average of 232
days). This is an increase of one month over 2005 (average of 203 days in 2005). Half of
the youth participated in the program for about one-half of a year (Median of 186.5 days).
This is an increase of 3 weeks when compared to 2005 (Median of 165.5 days in 2005).
Approximately 3 of every 5 youth (58.6%) started their Home-Based program without a
permanency plan established or required (25.2% of the youth were from probation, and
0.2% from the Department of Education or privately placed, while 33.0% were not
specified). For those youth with a case plan, over 3 of every 4 youth had achieved either
their permanency or concurrent plan (76.4%) upon discharge.
Over 4 of every 5 youth (85.5%) were discharged to a similar or less restrictive
environment – 82.9% were placed with parents, relatives, or adoptive parents.
Over 9 of every 10 youth were in a similar or less restrictive environment at follow-up
(90.4%).
Over 1 in every 10 youth (11.9%) were removed by the referring source prior to the
youth and family completing their home-based program. Between 2001 and 2005,
however, referring sources removed between 3.4% and 7.8% of the youth.
Youth, parents and referral sources were all generally satisfied with the programs and
services provided in their programs (6.1, 6.4, and 6.3 on a 7-point scale, respectively).
Services Provided
There were 4 identified services provided to over half of the youth in Home-Based
programs – case management (69.8%); parent training (59.2%); family preservation or
reunification (58.9%); and individual therapy (51.1%).
Seven of the top 25 services provided were family-focused (such as development of a
safety plan or a behavior intervention plan, budget planning, and assistance with
transportation).
22
2006 Program
Home-Based
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Intake
Sample Size
Discharge
416
328
Home-Based
Follow-up
Contacted
Not able to contact
106
45
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
10.7
51.4%
48.6%
86.2%
5.1%
1.2%
7.5%
29.5%
17.6%
11.8%
32.9%
27.1%
38.9%
24.6%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
Family
Intake
Discharge
62.9
5.6
68.5
3.5
0.44
3.4
0.41
2.6
1.1 placements
1.2%
1.0%
22.5%
24.9%
21.8%
56.4%
29.0%
53.2%
59.7%
10.4%
6.3%
3.9%
0.2%
4.3
Follow-up
0.38 (n=37)
Hyperactive / inattentive 25.1%
23
2006 Program
Home-Based
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Home-Based
100
98.1
77.3
99.0
86.7
Discharge
Follow-up
85.4
Percent
80
60
40
33.0
37.2
20
0
n
tio
ca
u
Ed
Em
nt
me
y
o
pl
No
C
se
bu
A
d
hil
No
se
bu
A
ly
mi
Fa
C
No
r
ou
t
en
em
v
l
vo
t In
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
̅
‡
Percent
3.0%
74.7%
0.6%
3.0%
2.4%
0.3%
2.1%
0.3%
0.6%
0.0%
0.9%
9.8%
0.6%
may not equal 100%.
24
2006 Program
Home-Based
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Home-Based
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 232.0 days
Median = 186.5 days
Permanency Goal
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
25
Discharge
11.7%
79.0%
6.5%
2.8%
Intake
28.9%
1.5%
0.2%
1.2%
1.0%
0.5%
8.0%
58.6%
0.0%
0.2%
25.2%
0.2%
33.0%
Percent
0.9%
72.4%
9.3%
1.2%
0.6%
0.9%
4.4%
0.0%
0.3%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
Follow-up
8.6%
71.4%
19.0%
1.0%
Discharge
22.4%
1.9%
0.3%
2.8%
2.8%
1.2%
10.3%
58.2%
0.0%
0.0%
24.9%
0.9%
32.4%
2006 Program
Home-Based
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Home-Based
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
21.6%
(71.0%)
7.2%
(23.7%)
1.6%
(5.4%)
69.5%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
67.6%
11.9%
18.7%
1.8%
7
Mean Score
6
6.4
6.1
6.3
5
4
3
2
1
†
Child
Parent
Referral Source
26
2006 Program
Home-Based
2006Outcomes:
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Home-Based
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case management
Parent training skills
Individual therapy
Family therapy
Transportation
Drug screening
Safety plan
Routine dental care
Tutoring
Drug / alcohol education
Dental examination
Budget training
Special education
27
Service Area
Psychosocial
Family
Family
Psychosocial
Family
Psychosocial
Family
Family
Psychosocial
Medical
Medical
Alcohol / Drugs
Family
Educational
Medical
Educational
Alcohol / Drugs
Alcohol / Drugs
Psychosocial
Educational
Educational
Medical
Family
Educational
Psychosocial
Percent
69.8%
59.2%
58.9%
51.1%
39.6%
38.6%
34.9%
33.3%
30.8%
26.8%
25.2%
21.5%
20.9%
20.6%
19.3%
19.3%
18.4%
17.8%
17.8%
17.8%
17.4%
16.8%
16.5%
15.6%
15.0%
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Foster Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Foster Care
Foster Care
Foster care programs provide community-based services to a child in a family or mentor setting
other than his/her own family on a long or short-term basis. Major components of foster care
programs may include on going training/support of the foster parents, individual/family
counseling, case management support, school advocacy, and supervised family visitations. A
goal of foster care programs is to meet permanency goals such as family reunification,
emancipation, adoption, and/or community reintegration from residential or institutional
settings. This includes programs such as therapeutic foster care, public agency foster care,
special needs foster care, medical needs foster care, and kinship care. This does not include
group home programs, shelter care programs, or home-based programs provided to a child with
his/her relatives (IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
The average Total Risk Score for 2006 was 4.5, which is the second lowest for Foster
Care programs across the years. The range of average Total Risk Scores between 1998
and 2005 is from 4.3 to 5.6.
The average age for Foster Care youth for 2006 was 9.2 years. This is the first year since
1998 that the average age of youth entering foster care has not declined. This recent
increase may represent random fluctuation or a stabilization in the average age.
Approximately 1 in 4 youth were on psychotropic medication (24.4%) at admission, and
1 in 5 were receiving special education services (20.6%) at admission.
Over 2 of every 3 youth experienced neglect in the past (67.9%), while 1 in 5 experienced
physical abuse (21.6%), 1 in 7 experienced sexual abuse (14.5%) and over 1 in 5
witnessed domestic violence (23.4%).
In general, youth in Foster Care for 2006 had clinical functioning scores that suggested
better functioning youth and families on average when compared with scores all other
years that data has been collected for the Project. This functioning was noted at both
intake and discharge.
Youth in Foster Care had an average of 4.4 items endorsed on the CPC at intake, the
lowest average number of problems identified across the years (scores ranging from 4.5
to 6.7 between 1998 and 2005). The most frequently endorsed items at intake were
depression / withdrawal (45.2%) and failure to follow instructions (41.6%).
Also at intake, the youth’s family had an average FPC score of 5.2 items endorsed at
intake. This was the lowest average score across the years (scores ranging from 5.5 to 7.1
between 1998 and 2005). The most frequently endorsed item was suspected neglect of
child (62.9%).
At discharge, youth had an average of 3.9 items endorsed on the CPC, and 2.4 on the
FPC. The CPC was the lowest and the FPC was the second lowest average score across
the years for the discharge data for youth in Foster Care (CPC scores ranging from 3.9 to
5.4, and FPC scores ranging from 2.3 to 5.0 between 1998 and 2005).
28
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Foster Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Foster Care
Functional Outcomes
Over 4 of every 5 youth (82.9%) had a positive educational outcome at discharge. This
was the highest percent for education across the years of data collection (ranging from
74.7 to 80.8 between 1998 and 2005). Over 9 of every 10 youth (93.2%) had a positive
educational outcome at follow-up.
Over one in three of the youth age 16 and older in Foster Care (36.9%) was employed at
discharge. This is comparable to other years. One of every 3 youth age 16 and older
(35.3%) were employed at follow-up.
Nearly all youth experienced no new abuse (96.0% for child abuse; 95.4% for family
abuse) or new court involvement (94.7%) at follow-up.
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was just over one year (mean of 389.6 days). Half of all the
youth in Foster Care programs were in care for under eight months (Median of 235 days).
Over 4 of every 5 youth were placed in a less or similarly restrictive placement at
discharge (82.5%). Nearly two of every three youth (65.6%) were placed with parents,
relatives, or adoptive parents.
For nature of discharge, 7 of 10 youth were planfully discharged (70.0%). This percent is
higher than all previous years (ranging from 57.5% to 67.4% between 1998 and 2005).
At the same time, less than 1 of 5 youth were administratively discharged (18.5%). This
percent is lower than all previous years (ranging from 19.7% to 27.7% between 1998 and
2005).
Over 8 of every 10 youth were in a similar or less restrictive placement at follow-up
(86.5%).
The referral sources and parents were the most satisfied consumer of Foster Care
programs (both with average scores of 6.0 on a 7-point scale). Youth were also generally
satisfied with the program (average scores 5.7 on a 7-point scale).
Services Provided
Nine services were provided to over half of the youth in Foster Care. Of the top 10
services, 6 were medical in nature (e.g., medical exam, dental exam). The remaining
services addressed psychosocial or family needs.
Two of every 3 youth participated in individual therapy (68.9%), and nearly 2 in 5
participated in family therapy (37.9%).
29
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Foster Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Intake
Sample Size
Discharge
1,264
1,059
Foster Care
Follow-up
Contacted
Not able to contact
558
102
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
9.2
49.8%
50.2%
58.9%
27.0%
4.7%
9.4%
67.9%
21.6%
14.5%
23.9%
83.8%
6.6%
24.8%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
Family
Intake
Discharge
59.3
4.4
64.5
3.9
0.62
5.2
0.41
2.4
1.8 placements
1.0%
1.0%
10.8%
20.6%
24.4%
50.6%
11.2%
36.3%
57.4%
14.8%
3.3%
11.0%
0.5%
4.5
Follow-up
0.35 (n=200)
Top 5 Family Problem Checklist Items (n=1,061)
Neglect suspected 62.9%
Caregiver substance abuse 42.6%
Transportation lacking 21.2%
Neglect suspected 18.7%
30
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Foster Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Foster Care
100
82.9
96.0
93.2
Discharge
Follow-up
94.7
95.4
Percent
80
60
40
36.9
35.3
20
0
n
tio
ca
u
Ed
Em
nt
me
y
o
pl
No
C
se
bu
A
d
hil
No
se
bu
A
ly
mi
Fa
C
No
rt
ou
t
en
em
v
l
o
Inv
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
̅
‡
Percent
5.8%
66.2%
1.0%
1.4%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
1.9%
0.4%
1.1%
0.8%
20.9%
0.6%
may not equal 100%.
31
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Foster Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Foster Care
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 389.6 days
Median = 235.0 days
Permanency Goal
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
32
Discharge
15.2%
5.7%
76.8%
2.4%
Intake
59.1%
12.2%
6.2%
1.2%
0.6%
1.2%
14.0%
5.5%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
0.1%
1.8%
Percent
3.6%
35.2%
14.1%
16.3%
1.2%
6.0%
5.3%
2.6%
1.5%
7.2%
0.5%
0.0%
1.3%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
Follow-up
13.3%
71.0%
15.5%
0.2%
Discharge
53.6%
22.4%
9.1%
3.4%
1.5%
2.3%
3.4%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.4%
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Foster Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Foster Care
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
56.0%
(61.9%)
29.1%
(32.2%)
5.3%
(5.9%)
9.6%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
70.0%
8.0%
18.4%
3.6%
7
Mean Score
6
5.7
6.0
6.0
5
4
3
2
1
†
Child
Parent
Referral Source
33
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Foster Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Foster Care
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Top 25 Services Provided (n=1,033)
Dental examination
Case management
Individual therapy
Routine dental care
Supervised visitations
Vision examination
Routine vision care
Transportation
Unsupervised visitations
Respite care
Family therapy
Guardian ad litem / CASA
Youth group activities
Hearing examination
Court appointed attorney
Parent skills training
34
Service Area
Medical
Medical
Medical
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Medical
Family
Medical
Medical
Family
Family
Psychosocial
Family
Family
Psychosocial
Family
Legal
Recreational
Recreational
Medical
Legal
Family
Psychosocial
Educational
Educational
Percent
86.9%
77.9%
76.1%
75.0%
68.9%
67.7%
59.7%
58.7%
51.3%
47.4%
46.6%
40.6%
40.2%
38.6%
37.9%
29.0%
43.7%
36.9%
28.8%
27.9%
27.4%
26.9%
26.6%
24.6%
24.4%
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Shelter Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Shelter Care
Shelter Care
Shelter care programs provide a safe environment for a child who is self- referred, in protective
custody, or at risk. These programs may provide a range of services including custodial care,
diagnostic assessment, and referral services (IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
The average Total Risk Score for 2006 was 4.1, which is consistent with previous years
tracking this statistic. The range of average Total Risk Scores between 1999 and 2005 is
3.8 to 4.3.
There were a greater number of females served in Shelter Care programs than males
(53.1% females vs. 46.9% males).
The percent of youth classified as CHINS (34.4%) in 2006 is generally consistent with
previous years.
There was a greater proportion of youth adjudicated as delinquent in 2006 (47.3%),
which is consistent with previous years.
Approximately 3 in 10 youth were on medication (27.0%), and 1 in 10 were in special
education (20.4%), or had repeated a grade (22.4%).
The average CPC score at intake was 5.8, which is consistent with the average intake
from previous years of data collection. At intake, roughly 3 of every 5 youth had
difficulties following directions (63.0%).
At discharge, youth in Shelter Care programs had an average CPC score of 4.6 items
endorsed. In addition, half of the youth had difficulties following directions (52.6%), and
over 2 in 4 (44.1%) were depressed or withdrawn or were described as being out of
control (42.6%). Another 1 in 3 youth were verbally aggressive (33.6%).
35
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Shelter Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Shelter Care
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was just over five weeks (36.5 days) and the median length
was just over 3 weeks (24 days).
Over half of the youth (54.8%) had no case plan.
Two of every 3 youth (68.7%) were discharged to a less restrictive placement, with
almost half being placed with their parents (46.3%).
Approximately 1 of every 10 youth were discharged to Foster Care (11.9%), while
approximately 1 in 5 were placed in either residential treatment or a group home (18.0%).
Referral sources were generally pleased with the program provided to the youth (6.2 on a
7-point scale).
Services Provided
Only 3 services were provided to over half of the youth in Shelter Care programs – oncampus recreation (73.3%), case management (55.3%), and a physical examination
(50.2%).
Three of the top 10 services provided to youth in Shelter Care were medical in nature
(such as physical or dental examination), and another 3 were psychosocial (such as
individual therapy or mental health evaluation). The other four of the top ten were
recreational or family-based.
36
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Shelter Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Sample Size
Intake
799
Shelter Care
Discharge
663
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
14.4
46.9%
53.1%
59.1%
28.6%
5.8%
6.5%
20.2%
21.3%
13.5%
32.6%
34.4%
47.3%
27.8%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
1.0%
0.9%
22.4%
20.4%
27.0%
44.0%
8.9%
42.5%
61.3%
12.0%
5.7%
5.7%
0.6%
4.1
Intake
Discharge
56.5
5.8
59.4
4.6
Depressed / withdrawn 53.4%
Depressed / withdrawn 44.1%
37
1.7 placements
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Shelter Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Functional Outcomes
Shelter Care
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
Percent
0.9%
88.2%
0.6%
2.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
5.0%
1.2%
7
6.2
Mean Score
6
5
4
3
2
1
‡
†
Referral Source
may not equal 100%.
Referral Source Satisfaction (n=421).
38
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Shelter Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Shelter Care
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 36.5 days
Median = 24.0 days
Permanency Goal
Intake
36.5%
0.5%
1.8%
2.5%
0.4%
8.3%
22.1%
27.9%
0.0%
0.0%
24.3%
0.0%
3.6%
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
39
Percent
1.2%
46.3%
7.3%
0.5%
0.3%
7.6%
4.3%
0.2%
1.8%
16.2%
0.6%
0.0%
2.4%
6.8%
0.5%
0.2%
4.2%
Discharge
26.9%
0.2%
68.7%
4.3%
Discharge
28.9%
0.2%
0.8%
2.6%
0.3%
7.6%
23.0%
36.7%
0.0%
0.0%
31.5 %
0.2%
5.0%
2006 Program
Outcomes:
Shelter Care
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Shelter Care
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
25.8%
(57.0%)
16.5%
(36.6%)
2.9%
(6.4%)
54.8%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
78.5%
5.0%
11.1%
5.3%
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case management
Supervised visitation
Individual therapy
Unsupervised visitation
Tutoring
Arts / crafts
Group therapy
Dental examination
Vision examination
Family therapy
Routine dental care
Hearing examination
Court appointed attorney
Mentoring
Transportation
Routine vision care
40
Service Area
Recreational
Psychosocial
Medical
Family
Psychosocial
Family
Educational
Recreational
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Educational
Medical
Psychosocial
Educational
Recreational
Psychosocial
Medical
Medical
Legal
Psychosocial
Family
Medical
Medical
Psychosocial
Percent
73.3%
55.3%
50.2%
47.6%
46.7%
43.7%
43.0%
43.0%
36.0%
34.2%
30.4%
25.3%
23.0%
22.9%
22.9%
20.7%
19.8%
18.5%
16.4%
16.1%
14.4%
14.2%
13.6%
13.4%
13.4%
Residential
2006
Program
Outcomes: Residential
Programs Utilizing
PublicPrograms
Schools
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Utilizing Public Schools
Residential Programs Utilizing Public Schools
Residential programs provide a therapeutic 24 hour structured, safe treatment setting for
children. A major component of residential programs is to address the emotional, behavioral,
educational, and family, related issues of (for) each child. A goal of residential programs is to
teach the child more appropriate strategies for successful community reintegration. Residential
programs do not include crisis care programs, acute care programs, diagnostic programs, and
shelter care programs. For residential programs utilizing public schools, children attend public
schools and participate in extra-curricular activities, as appropriate. Community and in-house
resources may be utilized for recreation, counseling, tutoring, and employment. Home visits and
family visitations are provided as defined in the treatment plans. Awake-night staff optional
(IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
The average Total Risk Score was 5.2, which is higher than the 2005 average score of
4.5. However, between the years 1999 and 2005 this number has varied, ranging from 4.5
to 5.6.
The average age for youth admitted to Residential Programs Utilizing Public Schools is
14.6 years, nearly 2 of every 3 youth are female (65.5%), seven in 10 are Caucasian and 3
in 10 represent ethnic minorities. These figures are similar to those from last year and
years’ past.
Similar to 2005, over 1 of every 3 youth experienced neglect in the past (39.3%) and 1 in
6 experienced physical abuse (16.4%). Over 1/3 of the youth witnessed domestic violence
(37.1%).
Over half of the youth served have a parent with known substance abuse issues (55.8%),
over two in five have a parent incarcerated (44.7%) and close to 2 in 3 youth come from a
single-parent home (65.5%). These parental risks are higher that seen in 2005, but are
more consistent with data from 2001-2004.
More than half of the youth were adjudicated delinquent (53.6%), and more than 2 of
every 5 were classified as CHINS (45.5%).
Youth had an average of 7.2 items endorsed on the CPC at intake. The most frequently
identified problems from the CPC at intake were failure to follow instructions (77.7%);
being out of control (60.3%); and depressed / withdrawn (53.4%).
The families of youth entering this program had an average of 4.9 items endorsed at
intake. The most frequently identified problems on the FPC at intake included severe
family conflict (57.1%), children unsupervised (55.1%), and lack of outside support
(51.3%).
At discharge, youth had an average of 5.1 items endorsed on the CPC. Some of the most
frequently identified problems on the CPC at discharge included failure to follow
instructions (55.2%) and verbal aggression (46.2%).
41
Residential
2006
Program
Programs Utilizing
PublicPrograms
Schools
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Also at discharge, the average FPC score had 3.8 items endorsed. One of the more
frequently identified problems at discharge on the FPC included lack of outside support
(44.5%).
Functional Outcomes
Almost 8 in 10 youth (78.3%) had a positive education outcome at discharge. Nearly 9 in
10 youth had a positive education outcome at follow-up (88.2%).
Over 1/3 of the youth age 16 and older were employed at discharge (37.2%) and at
follow-up (32.4%).
A majority of the youth experienced no new abuse (98.2% for no new child; 97.4% for no
new abuse in family), and 7 out of 10 youth had no new involvement with the juvenile
courts (71.9%).
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was just over 5 months (mean of 163.0 days). Half of the
youth, however were in care for approximately 4 months or less (Median of 128.0 days).
Over 7 of every 10 youth were placed in a less restrictive placement at discharge
(71.8%). Close to half (49.8%) were placed with parents, relatives, or adoptive parents.
At follow-up, almost 8 in 10 youth (79.1%) remained in a less- or similarly restrictive
placement.
Approximately 1 in 5 youth were placed in a more restrictive setting at discharge
(19.1%). About 1 in 20 youth (5.8%) were discharged after running away (vs. 8.5%
runaway in 2005).
For those youth with a permanency plan (61.4% with a permanency plan), over 3 in 5
(63.0%) achieved either their primary or concurrent plan at discharge.
The referral sources were the most satisfied consumer group (average of 6.4 on a 7-point
scale). Parents and youth were also generally satisfied with the program provided
(average scores of 6.1 and 5.5 respectively)
Services Provided
Fifteen services were provided to over half of the youth.
Six of the top 10 services provided were medical in nature (e.g., physical exam, dental
exam). Other services in the top 10 included individual therapy (89.1%), case
management (84.6%), on-campus recreation (68.8%) and unsupervised visitation
(68.4%).
42
Residential
2006
Program
Programs Utilizing
PublicPrograms
Schools
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Intake
Sample Size
Discharge
354
289
Follow-up
Contacted
Not able to contact
115
29
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
14.6
34.5%
65.5%
69.8%
23.4%
2.5%
4.2%
39.3%
16.4%
22.6%
37.1%
45.5%
53.4%
39.8%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
Family
Intake
Discharge
55.5
7.2
60.9
5.1
0.55
4.9
0.50
3.8
2.9 placements
5.4%
4.8%
17.8%
30.4%
37.2%
55.8%
19.3%
44.7%
65.5%
18.9%
5.7%
12.9%
0.3%
5.2
Follow-up
0.48 (n=22)
43
Residential
2006
Program
Programs Utilizing
PublicPrograms
Schools
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
100
78.3
98.2
88.2
Discharge
Follow-up
97.4
80
Percent
71.9
60
40
37.2
32.4
20
0
on
ati
c
u
Ed
Em
nt
me
y
pl o
C
No
hil
b
dA
e
us
m
Fa
No
se
bu
A
ily
No
urt
Co
o
Inv
me
l ve
nt
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
̅
‡
Percent
0.3%
73.4%
0.0%
15.2%
0.3%
0.3%
3.8%
1.7%
0.7%
0.7%
1.4%
3.1%
0.0%
may not equal 100%.
44
Residential
2006
Program
Programs Utilizing
PublicPrograms
Schools
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 163.0 days
Permanency Goal
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
45
Discharge
19.1%
3.2%
71.8%
5.8%
Median = 128.0 days
Intake
44.9%
3.1%
12.2%
2.3%
0.3%
6.8%
3.7%
26.8%
0.6%
0.0%
19.9%
2.0%
4.3%
Percent
11.9%
37.2%
11.2%
1.4%
1.8%
6.5%
1.8%
0.8%
1.4%
3.2%
0.4%
0.0%
2.9%
12.9%
0.4%
0.4%
5.8%
Follow-up
20.9%
54.8%
24.3%
0.0%
Discharge
35.9%
2.8%
15.7%
2.1%
0.3%
15.0%
2.1%
26.1%
1.0%
0.0%
21.6%
1.4%
2.1%
Residential
2006
Program
Programs Utilizing
PublicPrograms
Schools
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
40.8%
(58.0%)
26.1%
(37.0%)
3.5%
(5.0%)
29.6%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
56.9%
11.8%
19.1%
12.2%
7
Mean Score
6
5.5
6.4
6.1
5
4
3
2
1
†
Child
Parent
Referral Source
46
Residential
2006
Program
Programs Utilizing
PublicPrograms
Schools
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Individual therapy
Case management
Dental examination
Routine dental care
Vision examination
Routine vision care
Arts / crafts
Tutoring
Group therapy
Independent living curriculum
Transportation
Family therapy
47
Service Area
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Medical
Recreational
Medical
Family
Medical
Family
Recreational
Educational
Psychosocial
Employment
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Educational
Educational
Recreational
Family
Employment
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Family
Percent
93.0%
89.1%
85.3%
84.6%
84.2%
77.9%
68.8%
68.4%
68.4%
64.2%
59.3%
58.2%
57.2%
52.3%
50.5%
48.8%
47.4%
46.7%
46.3%
46.0%
45.3%
43.9%
42.5%
40.0%
32.6%
Programs
UtilizingSchools
Program
Programs Residential
Utilizing Public
and On-Grounds
2006
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Public and On-Grounds Schools
Residential Programs Utilizing Public and On-Grounds Schools
shelter care programs. For residential programs utilizing public and on-grounds schools,
education may be provided on-grounds, at public school, or a combination of the two. An ongrounds educational program exists and is used for some of the clients. Community and in-house
resources may be utilized for recreation, counseling, tutoring, and employment. Home visits and
family visitations are provided as defined in the treatment plans. Awake-night staff may be
utilized (IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
The average Total Risk Score was 4.8. Although lower than the average score obtained
by youth in 2005 (5.2), it is consistent with the average number of risks identified across
the years (ranging from 4.8 to 5.5 between the years 1999 to 2005).
Two of every 5 youth were classified as CHINS (41.0%), and almost half of the youth
were adjudicated delinquent (48.7%).
Approximately 3 of every 10 youth had experienced neglect (29.1%), physical abuse
(33.3%), sexual abuse (28.3%), and / or witnessed domestic violence (33.8%).
Nearly 3 of every 5 youth were taking psychotropic medication at intake (59.4%) and 2
of every 5 youth received special education assistance (41.4%).
Approximately half of the youth had a parent with substance abuse issues (49.3%) or
came from a single parent family (54.9%). Another 1/3 had an incarcerated parent
(34.1%), and more than 1 of every 5 had a parent whose rights were terminated (23.6%).
Youth entering Residential Programs Utilizing Public and On-Grounds Schools had an
average CPC score at intake of 8.7. Those items most frequently identified on the CPC
include failing to follow instructions (81.6%), verbal aggression (62.6%), and peer
problems (60.0%).
Families of youth in this program had an average of 3.4 items identified on the FPC at
intake. Some of the items most frequently identified include severe family conflict
(50.0%), children left unsupervised (35.8%) and lack of outside support (33.8%)
At discharge, youth had an average CPC score of 4.7. Some of the more frequently
identified problems from the CPC at discharge include failing to follow instructions
(47.7%), peer problems (44.9%), and depressed / withdrawn (44.2%). Also at discharge,
families of youth had an average of 2.2 items endorsed on the FPC. Frequently identified
family problems at discharge include lack of outside family support (27.2%), limited
transportation (26.0%) and children unsupervised (25.0%).
48
Programs
UtilizingSchools
Program
Utilizing Public
and On-Grounds
2006
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Functional Outcomes
Approximately 4 of every 5 youth (83.0%) had a positive educational outcome at
discharge. Over 9 in 10 youth (90.5%) had a positive educational outcome at follow-up.
Approximately 1 of every 5 youth age 16 and older (22.1%) were employed at discharge.
This number is within the range found in previous years (16.4% to 28.3% between 1999
and 2005). One of every 3 youth over the age of 16 (33.9%) were employed when
contacted at follow-up.
Nearly all youth (99.0%) experienced no new abuse at time of follow-up.
Four of every 5 youth had no new court involvement at follow-up (78.4%).
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was under 10 months (295.6 days), and the median length was
approximately 8 months (250.5 days).
Almost 3 of every 4 youth (74.7%) were placed in a less restrictive setting when
discharged. Another 1 in 6 youth (15.0%) were placed in a more restrictive setting. Half
(50.5%) of the youth in this program were discharged to their parents, relatives, or
adoptive parents. Another 11.1% of youth were placed in a foster home; while 10.4%
were placed in a corrections facility, jail, or detention center.
Of those with a permanency plan, more than 2 of every 3 youth (68.8%) achieved either
their primary or concurrent plan at time of discharge.
At follow-up, 87.0% of youth were in a similar or less restrictive setting.
Referring sources and parents both rated satisfaction with treatment consistently high
(both averaged 6.1 on a 7-point scale). Youth (5.5 on a 7-point scale) also generally were
satisfied with the program and services. These numbers are consistent with previous
years.
Services Provided
Twenty-two services were provided to over half of the youth. A majority of these
services were medical (9 of the 21) or psychosocial (8 of 21) in nature. The other most
frequently provided services included recreational, educational, and family-focused.
Nearly all youth (97.8%) received individual therapy as part of their treatment.
49
Programs
UtilizingSchools
Program
Utilizing Public
and On-Grounds
2006
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Intake
Sample Size
Discharge
1,339
1,272
Follow-up
Contacted
Not able to contact
487
103
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
14.4
65.3%
34.7%
65.4%
25.4%
3.4%
5.7%
29.1%
33.3%
28.3%
33.8%
41.0%
48.7%
33.6%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
Family
Intake
Discharge
46.3
8.7
54.3
4.7
0.48
3.4
0.41
2.2
2.6 placements
1.0%
1.4%
16.1%
41.4%
59.4%
49.3%
16.5%
34.4%
54.9%
23.6%
7.3%
15.9%
0.4%
4.8
Follow-up
0.39 (n=187)
Top 5 Child Problem Checklist Items (n=1,339) Top 5 Family Problem Checklist Items (n=1,139)
Top 5 Child Problem Checklist Items (n=1,264) Top 5 Family Problem Checklist Items (n=1,020)
Inappropriate boundaries 30.2%
50
Programs
UtilizingSchools
Program
Utilizing Public
and On-Grounds
2006
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
100
98.8
90.5
80
Percent
Discharge
Follow-up
99.0
83.0
78.4
60
40
22.1
33.9
20
0
n
tio
ca
u
Ed
Em
nt
me
y
o
pl
No
C
se
bu
A
d
hil
No
se
bu
A
ly
mi
Fa
C
No
rt
ou
t
en
em
v
l
o
Inv
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
̅
‡
Percent
0.2%
82.3%
0.2%
6.4%
2.0%
0.9%
2.8%
1.7%
0.6%
0.7%
0.1%
1.3%
0.8%
who had a positive outcome. Education (Discharge n=1,240; Follow-up n=472); Employment (Discharge n=651;
may not equal 100%.
51
Programs
UtilizingSchools
Program
Utilizing Public
and On-Grounds
2006
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 295.6 days
Median = 250.5 days
Permanency Goal
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
52
Discharge
15.0%
7.1%
74.7%
3.3%
Intake
43.7%
3.3%
9.3%
2.6%
0.7%
8.1%
3.4%
28.8%
0.3%
1.0%
20.8%
3.6%
3.1%
Percent
6.1%
41.4%
7.0%
2.5%
0.2%
5.9%
5.2%
0.7%
6.6%
6.4%
0.6%
0.0%
3.2%
10.1%
0.3%
0.6%
3.2%
Follow-up
12.8%
63.7%
23.3%
0.2%
Discharge
38.8%
3.7%
12.9%
1.7%
0.6%
12.0%
1.7%
28.5%
0.4%
1.0%
20.1%
3.7%
3.3%
Programs
UtilizingSchools
Program
Utilizing Public
and On-Grounds
2006
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
44.7%
(62.8%)
22.2%
(31.2%)
4.3%
(6.0%)
28.9%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
71.2%
9.3%
15.0%
4.5%
7
Mean Score
6
6.1
6.1
5.5
5
4
3
2
1
†
Child
Parent
Referral Source
53
Programs
UtilizingSchools
Program
Utilizing Public
and On-Grounds
2006
2006
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES:
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Top 25 Services Provided (n=1,259)
Individual therapy
Group therapy
Dental examination
Routine dental care
Vision examination
Case management
Routine vision care
Family therapy
Hearing examination
Arts / crafts
Routine hearing care
54
Service Area
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Recreational
Medical
Medical
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Educational
Medical
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Recreational
Family
Medical
Medical
Educational
Psychosocial
Educational
Employment
Family
Percent
97.8%
92.3%
92.2%
92.1%
90.2%
89.4%
88.6%
85.1%
82.2%
81.2%
79.3%
76.6%
68.8%
66.7%
63.1%
61.3%
58.8%
58.6%
57.3%
56.0%
52.2%
50.2%
45.4%
44.1%
41.4%
Locked and
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Locked & StaffResidential
Secure
OUTCOMES:
Staff Secure
Residential Locked & Staff Secure Programs
educational, and family related issues of (for) each child. A goal of residential programs is to
shelter care programs. For residential locked and staff secure programs, all services are provided
within the facility. Children cannot leave the living unit unless accompanied by staff, do not
attend public schools, or have off-campus jobs. Family visitation is generally in the facility
unless a staff person accompanies resident. Awake-night staff required. Higher staff to child
ratio, more intensive treatment services (IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
It should again be noted that the youth treated in Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities
(PRTF) in 2006 may have influenced data for Residential Locked & Staff Secure programs. Any
significant variation in the data when compared to previous years should take this into account.
Thus, comparisons with earlier years will be limited in this year’s report.
The average Total Risk Score was 5.6 for 2006. This was the second highest average
Total Risk Score across the program types, with only PRTF being higher.
The percent of youth who were privately placed dropped considerably this past year to
1.3% (in 2005, 19.1% were privately placed). This likely is a reflection of youth who are
privately placed are now being served by PRTF programs.
The percent of male youth served in Residential Locked & Staff Secure programs
dropped over 10% between 2005 and 2006 (46.8% in 2006; 57.9% in 2005). This
significant change may be related to more male youth being served in PRTF in 2006.
The percent of African American youth nearly doubled between 2005 and 2006 (38.2%
in 2006, and 21.6% in 2005). This also is a likely reflection of variation due to a
significant percent of Caucasian youth being served by PRTF in 2006.
Seven of every 10 youth in Residential Locked & Staff Secure programs were on
psychotropic medication (70.5%), while in 2005, this figure was 8 in 10 (86.6%). This
change is likely due to many youth on medication being switched to PRTF programs in
2006.
Over half of youth were receiving special education support (53.1%) at admission.
Almost half of the youth had parents with known substance use issues (49.3%), over one
in five had parents with a known psychiatric diagnosis (22.6%) and 3 in 10 had an
incarcerated parent (29.9%).
With the exception of Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities and Crisis
Stabilization, clinical functioning of youth placed into Locked & Staff Secure programs
was more problematic.
The average CPC score at intake was 10.1 (an average of 9.9 in 2005). Frequently
identified problems on the CPC at intake were failing to follow instructions (84.8%),
depression/withdrawal (76.1%), and verbal aggression (74.2%).
55
Locked and
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Secure
OUTCOMES:
Staff Secure
The average GAF at intake (36.8) also indicated that youth in Locked and Staff Secure
programs were experiencing substantive clinical difficulties.
On the FPC at intake (average score of 4.3), severe family conflict (59.8%) was the only
item endorsed for over half of the youth. Lack of outside support (46.7%) was the second
most frequently identified item.
Youth discharged from Residential Locked & Staff Secure programs had an average CPC
score of 4.3 items endorsed. The most frequently identified items endorsed on the CPC at
discharge include depression/withdrawal (47.9%) and peer problems (41.8%).
The average GAF score at discharge (54.8) was similar to that obtained by youth leaving
other Residential Care programs.
The most frequently endorsed items on the FPC (average score of 1.9) at discharge
include lack of outside family support (35.3%) and limited transportation (26.6%).
Functional Outcomes
Nearly 8 in 10 youth experienced a positive educational outcome at discharge (80.6%).
97.0% were enrolled in K-12 education, working on a GED or completing a vocational
program.
For youth age 16 and older, less than 1 in 20 (3.8%) were employed at discharge.
Approximately 1 in 5 youth age 16 and older were employed at follow-up (23.9%).
A majority of youth experienced no new abuse (99.1%) at follow-up.
Over 4 in 5 youth had no new court involvement (81.1%) at follow-up.
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was eight months (mean of 242.2 days). Half of the youth
were in care for less than 6.5 months (Median of 198 days). From 1999 to 2004, both the
average and median lengths of stay demonstrated a continued decrease. In 2005 and
2006, however, this trend reversed. The average length of stay increased by
approximately 11 weeks from the 2004 level, and the median increased by nearly 3
months.
Eight in 10 youth (81.9%) were placed in a less restrictive placement at discharge. Two
in 5 (44.2%) were placed with parents, relatives, or adoptive parents. More than 1 in 4
(25.8%) were placed in a residential treatment center.
Referral sources were the most satisfied consumer of Residential Locked & Staff Secure
Programs (average of 6.2 on a 7-point scale). Parents (6.1 on a 7-point scale) and youth
(5.4 on a 7-point scale) were also generally satisfied with the program and services.
Services Provided
Twenty-five services were provided to over half of the youth in Residential Locked &
Staff Secure Programs.
Half of the top 10 services were medical in nature (e.g., medical exam, dental exam), 4
were psychosocial (e.g., therapy, medication, mental health evaluation), and one was
recreational.
56
Locked and
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Secure
OUTCOMES:
Staff Secure
Intake
Sample Size
Discharge
310
261
Follow-up
Contacted
Not able to contact
107
24
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
14.2
46.8%
53.2%
52.1%
38.2%
5.5%
4.2%
32.9%
33.5%
30.3%
36.8%
50.6%
33.5%
35.3%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
Family
Intake
Discharge
36.8
10.1
54.8
4.3
0.52
4.0
0.37
1.9
3.4 placements
0.6%
2.3%
15.3%
53.1%
70.5%
49.3%
22.6%
29.9%
63.9%
23.4%
6.9%
16.2%
0.3%
5.6
Follow-up
0.34 (n=55)
57
Locked and
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Secure
OUTCOMES:
Staff Secure
100
80.6
98.1
90.2
80
Percent
Discharge
Follow-up
99.1
81.1
60
40
20
23.9
3.8
0
n
tio
ca
u
Ed
Em
nt
me
y
o
pl
No
C
se
bu
A
d
hil
No
se
bu
A
ly
mi
Fa
C
No
rt
ou
t
en
em
v
l
o
Inv
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
̅
‡
Percent
0.0%
87.4%
0.8%
6.5%
3.1%
0.4%
0.8%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
0.8%
may not equal 100%.
58
Locked and
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Secure
OUTCOMES:
Staff Secure
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 242.2 days
Median = 198.0 days
Permanency Goal
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
59
Discharge
7.7%
7.3%
81.9%
3.1%
Intake
50.0%
5.5%
9.4%
1.3%
1.3%
7.5%
2.3%
22.8%
0.0%
2.3%
11.4%
1.3%
7.8%
Percent
3.5%
35.0%
6.9%
2.3%
0.4%
2.3%
3.1%
0.0%
3.1%
25.8%
0.4%
2.7%
3.1%
5.7%
0.4%
2.4%
3.1%
Follow-up
15.0%
69.2%
29.9%
0.9%
Discharge
40.6%
5.0%
10.7%
2.3%
0.8%
9.2%
3.8%
27.6%
0.0%
0.0%
9.2%
8.4%
10.0%
Locked and
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Secure
OUTCOMES:
Staff Secure
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
37.3%
(53.3%)
26.2%
(37.4%)
6.5%
(9.3%)
30.0%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
77.0%
7.3%
12.3%
3.4%
7
Mean Score
6
6.1
6.2
5.4
5
4
3
2
1
†
Child
Parent
Referral Source
60
Locked and
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Secure
OUTCOMES:
Staff Secure
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Individual therapy
Group therapy
Dental examination
Vision examination
Routine dental care
Family therapy
Case management
Routine vision care
Arts / crafts
Hearing examination
Routine hearing care
61
Service Area
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Medical
Medical
Recreational
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Educational
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Medical
Recreational
Educational
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Medical
Educational
Family
Family
Alcohol / Drugs
Percent
99.6%
94.6%
93.5%
93.1%
91.2%
90.0%
88.8%
85.8%
84.2%
81.2%
81.2%
80.4%
79.2%
76.2%
75.0%
70.4%
70.0%
69.6%
65.8%
61.9%
53.5%
53.1%
51.5%
50.0%
50.0%
Psychiatric
Residential
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Outcomes: Psychiatric
Residential Treatment
Facilities
OUTCOMES:
Treatment Facilities
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities
shelter care programs. For psychiatric residential treatment facilities, clients are placed for
medically necessary services in a Medicaid approved PRTF facility. Funding for the child is
provided through the PRTF fund. In Indiana, the facility must be licensed as a private, secure,
child-caring institution and must be accredited by one of three accrediting bodies: Joint
Commission for Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO), American Osteopathic
Association (AOA) or the Council on Accreditation (COA) (IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
The 2006 data reflect the first year that Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTF) has
been designated as a distinct program type. It should be noted that PRTF programs had a limited
sample size for follow-up for 2006. This was anticipated, as data was primarily collected for
youth who were admitted into programs after January 2006. Thus, follow-up information could
only be collected on youth discharged after being admitted during this past year. Highlights from
2006 data follow.
The average Total Risk Score was 5.8 for 2006. This was higher than all other program
types.
The average age of youth in PRTF Programs was 13.0 years.
Most youth were on psychotropic medication (94.6%) when admitted to PRTF programs,
and almost 3/5 were receiving special education support (59.8%).
Nearly 1 of 6 youth were classified as CHINS (14.9%) or adjudicated delinquent
(17.2%). Another 1 in 3 (32.7%) were privately placed.
Over 3 in 5 of the youth had parents with known substance use issues (60.6%), over 2 in
5 of the parents had a known psychiatric diagnosis (43.2%) and almost 2 in 5 had an
incarcerated parent (38.2%). Approximately 3 in 10 youth had experienced termination of
parental rights (29.8%).
Youth in PRTF programs had previously been in an average of 4 placements. This is
higher than all other program types.
Nearly 3 in 10 youth (29.8%) in PRTF programs had parental rights terminated, either for
one or both parents. This was higher than all other program types.
The average CPC score at intake was 10.4. Frequently identified problems on the CPC at
intake were failing to follow instructions (90.0%), peer relationship problems (77.8%)
and verbal aggression (77.4%).
The average GAF at intake (36.4) also indicated that youth in PRTF programs were
experiencing more significant clinical difficulties than all other program types, with the
exception of Residential Care Locked and Staff Secure and Crisis Stabilization programs.
62
Psychiatric
Residential
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Facilities
OUTCOMES:
Average score on the FPC at intake was 5.2. Items on the FPC endorsed by more than
half of the respondents included severe family conflict (53.1%).
At discharge from PRTF programs, youth had an average CPC score of 5.2. The most
frequently identified items endorsed on the CPC at discharge include peer problems
(61.9%), failure to follow instructions (56.9%) and verbal aggression (56.9%).
The average GAF score at discharge was 48.5.
The average score on the FPC at discharge was 2.2. The most frequently endorsed items
on this scale include lack of outside family support (33.9%) and severe family conflict
(31.7%).
Functional Outcomes
Over 8 in 10 youth experienced a positive educational outcome at discharge (84.7%).
For youth age 16 and older, less than 1 in 50 (1.8%) were employed at discharge.
The sample size for the follow-up sample (n = 21 youth contacted) is small, so findings
should be viewed with even greater caution.
Two of the five youth who were age 16 and older were employed at follow-up (40.0%).
No youth experienced new abuse at follow-up (100.0%).
Nine in 10 youth had no new court involvement (90.5%) at follow-up.
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was five and three-quarter months (mean of 172.7 days). Half
of the youth were in care for 5 months or less (Median of 158 days).
Over 8 in 10 youth (86.7%) were placed in a less restrictive placement at discharge.
Almost two-thirds (65.5%) were placed with parents, relatives, or adoptive parents. One
in five 1 in 5 (21.2%) were placed in a residential treatment center.
Of those youth with a case plan (44.6% of the sample), over half (55.6%) achieved their
primary or concurrent permanency goal.
On the survey, parents and the referring source both generated high levels of satisfaction
(average of 6.2 on a 7-point scale).
Youth also reported general satisfaction with the program and services (5.4 on a 7-point
scale).
Services Provided
Twenty-four services were provided to over half of the youth in Residential Care –
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities programs.
Six of the top 10 services were psychosocial in nature (e.g., therapy, medication, mental
health evaluation), and the remaining 4 services were medical in nature (e.g., medical
exam, dental exam).
63
Psychiatric
Residential
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Facilities
OUTCOMES:
Intake
Sample Size
Discharge
261
203
Follow-up
Contacted
Not able to contact
21
7
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
13.0
64.4%
35.6%
81.2%
11.5%
2.3%
5.0%
29.9%
36.0%
31.8%
41.2%
14.9%
17.2%
37.6%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
Family
Intake
Discharge
36.4
10.4
48.5
5.2
0.46
2.8
0.42
2.2
4.0 placements
0.0%
1.1%
17.0%
59.8%
94.6%
60.6%
43.2%
38.2%
50.8%
29.8%
10.2%
18.8%
0.8%
5.8
Follow-up
0.40 (n=11)
64
Psychiatric
Residential
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Facilities
OUTCOMES:
100
100.0
Discharge
Follow-up
100.0
84.7
90.5
90.5
Percent
80
60
40
40.0
20
1.8
0
n
tio
ca
u
Ed
Em
nt
me
y
o
pl
No
C
se
bu
A
d
hil
No
se
bu
A
ly
mi
Fa
C
No
r
ou
t
en
em
v
l
vo
t In
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
̅
‡
Percent
0.5%
85.7%
3.0%
3.9%
2.0%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
2.5%
may not equal 100%.
65
Psychiatric
Residential
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Facilities
OUTCOMES:
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 172.7 days
Median = 158.0 days
Permanency Goal
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
66
Discharge
6.4%
6.9%
86.7%
0.0%
Intake
38.1%
0.8%
3.8%
0.8%
1.2%
3.1%
2.3%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.1%
32.7%
14.2%
Percent
1.0%
54.2%
6.9%
4.4%
0.5%
3.0%
1.0%
0.5%
1.0%
21.2%
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
Follow-up
40.0%
50.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Discharge
35.5%
1.0%
4.4%
0.5%
1.0%
3.4%
2.0%
52.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
28.1%
23.2%
Psychiatric
Residential
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Facilities
OUTCOMES:
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
19.8%
(47.8%)
21.3%
(44.4%)
3.5%
(7.8%)
55.4%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Percent
76.8%
9.4%
13.8%
0.0%
7
Mean Score
6
6.2
6.2
5.4
5
4
3
2
1
†
Child
Parent
Referral Source
67
Psychiatric
Residential
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Facilities
OUTCOMES:
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Individual therapy
Group therapy
Family therapy
Dental examination
Routine dental care
Vision examination
Case management
Routine vision care
Arts / crafts
Hearing examination
Special education
68
Service Area
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Medical
Medical
Medical
Educational
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Recreational
Medical
Educational
Recreational
Family
Family
Educational
Family
Medical
Educational
Percent
98.5%
96.0%
95.0%
92.6%
91.6%
90.6%
90.1%
89.6%
88.1%
86.6%
81.7%
77.7%
77.7%
77.2%
72.8%
69.3%
68.8%
65.8%
61.9%
59.4%
56.9%
56.9%
53.0%
52.5%
49.5%
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Outcomes: CrisisOUTCOMES:
Stabilization
Crisis Stabilization
Crisis stabilization programs provide short-term acute care to children who are at-risk for severe
harm to themselves or others, or are unmanageable at their current placement. These children
may currently be failing outpatient services or day treatment settings and need a more intensive
level of care. These programs may include, short-term hospitalization, diagnostic evaluation, or
other short-term treatment focused residential programs. These programs do not include hospital
based residential treatment programs, shelter care, and programs in correctional facilities
(IARCCA, 2005).
2006 Highlights
The average Total Risk Score for 2006 was 4.6. This is consistent with previous years
(between 1999 and 2005), where the average scores ranged from 3.5 to 4.9.
Two in five of the youth served were female (44.7%). This figure suggests a decrease
from youth served in 2005, where over half (54.2%) of the youth were female. Between
1999 and 2004, however, the proportion of female youth served ranged from 26.6% to
48.8%.
Less than one in five (17.1%) were classified as CHINS and very few (2.1%) were
adjudicated delinquent. However, over 2 in 5 had witnessed domestic violence (45.2%)
and one in four (25.5%) had a history of suspected neglect.
Almost 3 in 4 youth (74.4%) were on medication at intake.
Over 1 of every 3 youth (35.2%) had a parent with an identified psychiatric diagnosis and
over half (52.2%) had patents with known substance abuse.
Almost half of these youth (49.5 %) had an incarcerated parent. This is an increase from
2005, when the percentage was 24.3%.
The average GAF score for youth in Crisis Stabilization programs at intake was lower
than all other programs in 2005 (average score of 32.9). In addition, the average GAF
score was lower than in all other years for Crisis Stabilization (with average scores
ranging from 30.4 to 50.4 between 1998 and 2005).
On the CPC at intake, 3 of every 4 youth were identified as being verbally aggressive
(77.7%) or having difficulties following instructions (75.5%). In addition, 3 of every 5
youth exhibited peer problems (59.6%) at intake.
The average GAF score for youth in Crisis Stabilization programs at discharge was 45.3,
which is consistent with previous years (average scores ranging from 41.4 to 57.3
between 1998 and 2005).
At discharge on the CPC, the most frequently identified problems include failure to bond
to parent (45.3%), peer problems (41.9%), failure to follow instructions (41.9%), verbal
aggression (41.9%) and hyperactivity / inattention (39.5%).
69
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Stabilization
Placement Outcomes
The average length of stay was 17.0 days, and half of the youth were in care for 8.0 days
or less.
Almost 3 in 5 of the youth had been privately placed into Crisis Stabilization (57.5%).
Therefore, a large percentage of youth (81.0%) had no case plan. Of those youth with a
case plan, 75.0% were discharged according to that plan.
In addition, almost 2 of every 3 youth were placed with their parents at discharge
(58.6%).
Children demonstrated the highest level of satisfaction (5.9 on a 7-point scale), when
compared to parents and referring sources. However, both parents and referral sources
(other than parents) also generally reported satisfied with the youth’s program (average
scores of 5.3 and 5.4 respectively on 7-point scales).
Services Provided
Thirteen services were provided to over half of the youth in Crisis Stabilization programs.
Of these 13 services, 7 were psychosocial in nature, including various therapy modalities
(e.g., individual, family, and group). Another 3 of the top 14 services were family-based
(family visitation, reunification, preservation, and aftercare services), and were provided
to approximately 3 in 5 of the youth in Crisis Stabilization programs. The other three
services frequently offered to youth were medical (i.e., physical examination),
educational (i.e., educational evaluation) and recreational (i.e., arts and crafts activities).
70
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Stabilization
Sample Size
Intake
94
Discharge
86
Variable
Average Age
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
History of:
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
CHINS
Delinquent
11.7
55.3%
44.7%
78.7%
14.9%
2.1%
4.3%
25.5%
35.1%
19.1%
45.2%
17.0%
2.1%
30.1%
Variable
Child Factors
Pregnant
Have children
Grade retention
Special education
Parent Factors
Substance abuse
Incarceration
For one parent
For both parents
Clinical Outcomes
Child
Average GAF
0.0%
1.1%
17.0%
31.5%
74.4%
52.2%
35.2%
49.5%
46.7%
17.2%
9.7%
7.5%
0.0%
4.6
Intake
Discharge
32.9
8.8
45.3
4.9
Self-injurious threats 57.4%
Physically assaultive to peers 56.4%
Failure to bond to parent 45.3%
71
1.4 placements
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Stabilization
Functional Outcomes
Enrolled in K-12
Home schooled
Working on GED
Obtained GED
Youth expelled
None apply
Unknown
Percent
2.3%
87.2%
0.0%
4.7%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
0.0%
7
Mean Score
6
5.9
5
5.3
5.4
4
3
2
1
‡
†
Child
Parent
Referral Source
may not equal 100%.
72
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Stabilization
Placement Outcomes
Length of Stay
Mean = 17.0 days
Median = 8.0 days
Permanency Goal
Intake
16.1%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
1.1%
8.0%
12.6%
60.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
57.5%
2.3%
Adoption
Legal guardianship
Probation
Private
Discharged to:
Independent living
Parent’s home
Relative’s home
Adoptive home
Friend’s home
Regular foster care
Emergency shelter
Group home
Jail
Other
Runaway
ROLES
More restrictive
Less restrictive
Runaway
73
Percent
1.2%
58.3%
6.0%
1.2%
0.0%
4.8%
3.6%
1.2%
2.4%
17.9%
1.2%
0.0%
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Discharge
0.0%
6.0%
94.0%
0.0%
Discharge
16.7%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
17.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
56.0%
3.6%
2006 2006
ProgramPROGRAM
Stabilization
Yes
No
No caseplan
Percent
Total Sample
Caseplan only
14.3%
(75.0%)
4.8%
(25.0%)
0.0%
(0.0%)
81.0%
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative
Runaway
Services Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Individual therapy
Inpatient hospitalization
Case management
Arts / crafts
Group therapy
Aftercare / followup plan
Family therapy
Drug screening
Special education
Other legal services
74
Percent
91.8%
3.5%
4.7%
0.0%
Service Area
Psychosocial
Medical
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Family
Psychosocial
Educational
Recreation
Psychosocial
Family
Family
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Psychosocial
Medical
Alcohol / Drugs
Medical
Recreational
Alcohol / Drugs
Family
Family
Educational
Legal
Educational
Percent
98.8%
96.5%
93.0%
80.2%
77.9%
76.7%
75.6%
69.8%
69.8%
67.4%
60.5%
58.1%
51.2%
47.7%
45.3%
45.3%
39.5%
34.9%
31.4%
30.2%
16.3%
14.0%
12.8%
11.6%
10.5%
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
Conclusions
In general, the findings from the 2006 data demonstrate that youth who enter care into the
various programs present with a variety of significant stressors, including behavioral concerns,
many of which are child- or parent-specific risk factors. Outcome findings from the 2006 data
also suggest that the youth who were discharged from their programs appear to be functioning
better than the youth at program intake. Further, youth who were contacted at follow-up
demonstrated similar gains in functioning. These results are consistent with previous years of
analyses for the Project, lending support to the reliability of the data across the years. Specific
trends and differences with this year’s data were reported earlier in the report within the various
program sections, and are noted in the Highlights sections.
The exclusive use of the EON™ software for data entry in 2006 allows for additional data
analyses, some of which have been included in this report. Specifically, the location of where
youth are discharged has been explored more stringently in this report. However, additional
consideration should be made by IARCCA and by the Outcome Committee regarding the use of
the data in the future. EON™ will allow for: 1) the tracking of individual youth over time in the
program; and 2) richer analyses of the data. With regard to tracking youth over time, EON™
specifically matches the data entered for a child across the three times – at intake, discharge, and
follow-up. In previous years, the matching of data across intake, discharge, and follow-up was
conducted by using computer matching followed by visual inspection. Given such, the use of
human perception can introduce error. Thus, EON™ provides more confidence in the matched
data, and allows for greater certainty of the findings.
With regard to specific data analyses, EON™ allows for more finely detailed analyses than was
previously possible. For example, IARCCA and the Outcome Committee may consider
conducting item analyses on the satisfaction surveys. Such analyses could: 1) identify particular
items associated with lower or higher levels of satisfaction by the stakeholder group (youth,
parent, or referral source); 2) identify particular items that are more salient to a particular
program (e.g., Shelter Care vs. Home-Based); and 3) determine the internal consistency of each
satisfaction survey. Another set of analyses could more closely examine the education outcome
variable at discharge, by investigating the flowchart path taken related to the youth’s attendance,
75
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
behavior, and achievement. A third potential analysis could be to examine data from the Services
form. For example, investigation of the correlations between individual services could identify
whether certain items are frequently co-identified, or nearly always marked when another item is
marked (e.g., the correlation between physical examination and routine physical care). Another
analysis using the Services form could identify which particular services correspond with
improved outcomes (e.g., individual therapy for a child with a history of sexual abuse, and
meeting permanency plan upon discharge), when controlling for known risk factors (e.g., history
of sexual abuse). A fourth analysis made possible with EON™ would be additional factor
analyses on the Child Problem Checklist and Family Problem Checklist. Preliminary factor
analyses of these two instruments were conducted (see Koch & Wall, 2005b), and yielded a 10factor solution for the CPC, and a 5-factor solution on the FPC. Plans are currently underway to
conduct additional exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of these items, using subsets of
the large sample. A final set of analyses could examine information obtained at intake to
determine which particular items could impact the youth’s outcomes (e.g., impact of physical
abuse on restrictiveness of discharge placement). Earlier examinations of risk factors were
conducted in three Special Reports (Jackson-Walker, Wall & Minnich, 2003; Koch & Wall,
2005; Wall & Minnich, 2004). However, with the EON™ data, these risk factor analyses could
include items that were not available during the earlier examinations, such as the impact of
specific youth diagnoses (e.g., ADHD, autism), individual items from the Child Problem
Checklist (e.g., peer relationship problems) and items from the Family Problem Checklist (e.g.,
caregiver not invested in treatment).
Starting in 2007, data is being collected for a separate program type. Outpatient Services will
become the eleventh program. Assessment of Outpatient Services should add to the valuable mix
of programs and services already provided to youth involved in care with IARCCA member
agencies. Also, the Project has entered its tenth year of data collection in 2007. A retrospective
examination of the data across the past 10 years, including any particular trends related to youth
referred to each program, or changes in outcomes should be considered by IARCCA and the
Outcome Committee.
76
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
Recommendations
Specific recommendations are provided for IARCCA and the Outcome Committee, for agencies
providing the actual programs and services, and for referral sources and parents.
For IARCCA & Outcome Committee
Share copies of the report with stakeholders, including consultants working with
agencies, individual agencies, referral sources, policy makers, and parents.
Talk with agencies about using the data contained in this Annual Report to compare with
their individual agency data.
The Outcome Committee should review and discuss the findings from this report in one
of their monthly meetings. At this meeting, it is recommended that the Outcome
Committee identify next steps for analyses to IARCCA.
A separate report for the out-of-state participants should be developed to examine their
results.
For Agencies (e.g., executive directors, outcome coordinators, boards of
directors, etc.)
Agencies are encouraged to use the aggregate data provided in this report to compare
with their agency’s data. A set of blank data pages is provided as Appendix J to assist
agencies in reporting their data. An electronic copy of these blank pages is available for
participating agencies from IARCCA.
Participating agencies are encouraged to contact IARCCA to obtain a consultant to help
them with understanding the data, and how it can be used to help with programmatic
improvement.
Agencies should consider holding a meeting with the management team to review the
data in the Highlights and program-specific findings, compare their agency data with the
IARCCA aggregate, and identify particular agency strengths and weaknesses. Specific
strategies for additional agency analysis, program improvement and development may
result from such a discussion.
For Referral Sources & Parents
Referral sources and parents are encouraged to review the data in this report. They should
contact individual agencies to discuss how their agency results compare with the
aggregate. Part of this discussion should also identify how the referral base (e.g., Child
Risk Factors) are similar and different from the IARCCA aggregate, as this could explain
some of the differences in outcomes.
77
References
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Hawkins, R., Almeida, M., Fabry, B., & Reits, A. (1992). A scale to measure restrictiveness of
living environments for troubled children and youth. Hospital and Community
Psychiatry, 43, 54-58.
IARCCA. (2005). Definitions of the seven broad program types. (3rd Edition). Indianapolis,
Author.
Jackson-Walker, S. & Wall, J.R. (1999). The IARCCA outcome project report for calendar year
1998. Indianapolis: IARCCA.
Jackson-Walker, S. & Wall, J.R. (2000). The IARCCA outcome project report for calendar year
Jackson-Walker, S. & Wall, J.R. (2001). The IARCCA outcomes project report for calendar year
Jackson-Walker, S., Walll, J.R., & Minnich, H. (2003). IARCCA outcome project special report:
An analysis of outcome measures for children in residential care, transitional living and
foster care. Indianapolis: IARCCA.
Koch, S.M., & Wall, J.R. (2006). The IARCCA outcome measures project report for calendar
year 2005. Indianapolis: IARCCA.
Koch, S.M., & Wall, J.R. (2005a). The IARCCA outcome measures project report for calendar
year 2004. Indianapolis: IARCCA.
Koch, S.M., & Wall, J.R. (2005b). Special report 2005: An analysis of variables related to
intake and discharge in residential care, foster care, transitional living, home-based
programs, day treatment, shelter care and crisis stabilization. Indianapolis, IARCCA.
Link, J.W. (1998). Outcomes pilot study results. Indianapolis, IN: IARCCA.
Magura, S., Moses, B.S., & Jones, M.A. (1987). Assessing risk and measuring change in
families: The family risk scales. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Minnich, H., & Wall, J.R. (2004). The IARCCA outcome project report for calendar year 2003.
Indianapolis: IARCCA.
Wall, J.R., Busch, M., Koch, S.M., Alexander, G., Minnich, H., & Jackson-Walker, S. (2005).
Accountability in Child Welfare Services: Developing a Statewide Outcome Evaluation
Project. Psychological Services, 2, 39-53.
Wall, J.R. & Minnich, H.M. (2004). IARCCA outcome project for Indiana special report II: An
analysis of variables related to outcome at discharge and follow-up in residential care,
transitional living, foster care, and home-based programs. Indianapolis: IARCCA.
78
Appendix A.
IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Participating Agencies (2006)
Appendix A. IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Participating Agencies (2006)
Ada’s Place, Indianapolis
Anchor Families, New Castle
Anderson Center of St. John’s, Anderson
Baptist Children’s Home & Family Ministries, Valparaiso
Bashor Children’s Home, Goshen
Blue River Services, Corydon (formerly Wyandotte Home)
Campagna Academy, Schererville
Childplace, Jeffersonville
Children’s Bureau, Inc., Indianapolis
Children’s Sanctuary, Ft. Wayne
Christian Haven, Wheatfield
Crisis Center, Gary
Crossroad / Ft. Wayne Children’s Home, Ft. Wayne
Damar Services, Inc., Camby
Debra Corn Agency, Winslow
Edgewater Systems for Balanced Living, Gary
Fairbanks, Indianapolis
Family and Youth Service Bureau, Valparaiso
Floyd County Youth Service Bureau, New Albany
Four County Counseling, Logansport
Fresh Start Home, Elizabethtown
Friendship Home, Kokomo
Gateway Woods, Leo
George Junior Republic, Columbus
Gibault, Inc., Terre Haute
Group Homes for Children, Lafayette
Hamilton Centers Youth Service Bureau, Noblesville
Hillcrest-Washington Youth Home, Evansville
National Youth Advocate Program, Indianapolis (formerly IYAP)
Indiana Developmental Training Center, Indianapolis & Lafayette
Indiana United Methodist Children’s Home, Lebanon
Interact Family Services, Indianapolis
Pathways Youth Shelter & Family Services Madison (formerly Jefferson Co. Youth Shelter)
Life Choice, Inc., Evansville
Lifeline Youth and Family Services, Ft. Wayne
Lutheran Child & Family Services, Indianapolis
Madison Center for Children, South Bend
Madison County Youth Center, Anderson
Mentor, Indianapolis
Middle Passage, Gary
Midwest Center for Youth & Families, Kouts
New Horizons Youth Ministries, Marion
N.O.A.H., Inc., Indianapolis
Oaklawn, Goshen
Regional Youth Services, Jeffersonville
ResCare Residential Program, Greencastle
Resolute Treatment Facility, Indianapolis
79
Appendix A.
IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Participating Agencies (2006)
Appendix A. IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Participating Agencies (2006)
Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, Valparaiso
Specialized Alternatives for Families & Youth, Indianapolis
St. Elizabeth’s / Coleman, Indianapolis
St. Francis Center, Dyer
St. Monica Home, Dyer
The Children’s Campus, Mishawaka
The Villages of Indiana, Bloomington & Indianapolis
Triple L Youth Ranch, Anderson
United Methodist Youth Home, Evansville
Valle Vista Health System, Greenwood
Vigo County Homes for Children, Terre Haute
Wernle Home for Children, Inc., Richmond
White’s Residential and Family Services, Wabash
Whitewater Valley Care Pavilion, Connersville
Whitington Homes & Services, Columbia City
Willowglen Academy, Gary
Youth Encouragement Services Home, Aurora
Youth Hope, Columbus
Youth Opportunity Center, Muncie
Youth Services Bureau of Jay Co., Portland
Youth Services Center of Allen Co., Ft. Wayne
80
Appendix B.
IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Committee Memebers (2006)
Appendix B. IARCCA Outcome Measures Project Committee Members (2006)
Gina Alexander, MSW, MS
The Villages of Indiana, Inc.
2405 North Smith Pike
Bloomington, IN 47404
Dan Peck, MSW, LCSW
Oaklawn
330 Lakeview Drive
Goshen, IN 46527
Monique Busch, MSW, ACSW, PhD
IARCCA
5519 East 82nd Street, Suite A
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Jennifer Rolsen, BA
Crossroad – Ft. Wayne Children’s Home
2525 Lake Avenue
Fort Wayne, IN 46805
Elaine Daniel
IARCCA
Jeff Schumacher, MS
Gateway Woods
14505 Klopfenstein Road
PO Box 151 Leo, IN 46765
CL Day, MSW
N.O.A.H., Inc.
1800 North Meridian Street, Suite 502
Jenny Sisson
Youth Opportunity Center
3700 W. Kilgore Ave.
Muncie, IN 47304
Cathleen Graham, MSW, LCSW
IARCCA
Rebecca Stevens, MS
Gibault, Inc.
6301 South US Highway 41
PO Box 2316
Terre Haute, IN 47802
Kristen Kinder
Bashor
PO Box 843
Goshen, IN 46527-0843
Vercena Stewart, DMIN
Campagna Academy
7403 Cline Avenue
Schererville, IN 46375
John Link, MS, LMFT
Crossroad – Ft. Wayne Children’s Home
2525 Lake Avenue
Fort Wayne, IN 46805
Jennifer Vanskyock
Youth Service Bureau, Jay Co.
603 West Arch
Portland, IN 47371
Don Mobley
Wernle, Inc.
PO Box 1386
Richmond, IN 47357
Carmen Young
Lutheran Child & Family Services
1525 North Ritter Avenue
Jessica Morris
Whitewater Valley Care Pavilion
450 Erie Street, PO Box 929
Connersville, IN 47331-0929
81
82
Difficulty of Child
Difficulty of Family
ROLES
Nature of Discharge
Education
Employment
Satisfaction (All)
Services
(Six Months)
¾ Difficulty of Family
¾ ROLES
¾ Education
¾ Employment
¾ New Court
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾ Difficulty of Child
¾ Demographics
Foster Care &
Residential Care
(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 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
(Three Months)
¾ ROLES
¾ Education
¾ Employment
¾ New Court
Follow-Up
Difficulty of Child
Difficulty of Family
ROLES
Nature of Discharge
Education
Employment
Satisfaction (All)
Services
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾ Demographics
Discharge
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 C. Data Collection across the Program Types
Appendix C.
Data Collection across the Program Types
83
214
16.8
37.4
62.6
57.9
33.2
3.3
5.7
3.7
28.3
4.8
9.4
57.9
36.0
46.3
29.9
20.1
29.2
19.0
22.2
36.2
49.1
34.6
13.3
68.9
22.3
9.7
12.1
0.5
5.1
53.4
46.6
64.3
25.0
4.1
6.6
2.3
30.0
1.4
1.8
48.1
34.2
38.1
25.2
19.9
31.4
17.2
31.6
42.3
49.9
38.2
17.0
58.8
17.9
6.1
11.4
0.4
4.7
Transitional
Living
5,271
12.8
All
Programs
55.0
30.9
7.7
6.4
0.9
26.6
1.4
1.4
14.5
57.7
10.5
10.0
8.6
20.3
19.8
38.8
40.5
35.3
25.5
13.9
65.5
11.8
6.9
4.9
0.0
3.7
70.9
29.1
220
14.5
Day
Treatment
86.2
5.1
1.2
7.5
1.1
24.6
1.2
1.0
27.1
38.9
29.5
17.6
11.8
32.9
22.5
24.9
21.8
56.4
53.2
29.0
59.7
10.4
6.3
3.9
0.2
4.3
51.4
48.6
416
10.7
HomeBased
58.9
27.0
4.7
9.4
1.8
24.8
1.0
1.0
83.8
6.6
67.9
21.6
14.5
23.9
10.8
20.6
24.4
50.6
36.3
11.2
57.4
14.8
3.3
11.0
0.5
4.5
49.8
50.2
1,264
9.2
Foster
Care
59.1
28.6
5.8
6.5
1.7
27.8
1.0
0.9
34.4
47.3
20.2
21.3
13.5
32.6
22.4
20.4
27.0
44.0
42.5
8.9
61.3
12.0
5.7
5.7
0.6
4.1
46.9
53.1
799
14.4
Shelter
Care
66.1
25.2
3.4
5.3
3.0
35.3
1.5
2.1
40.0
43.5
31.4
30.9
28.1
35.7
16.4
43.5
61.7
51.8
35.9
21.1
57.4
23.5
7.3
15.8
0.4
5.1
57.8
42.2
2,264
14.3
Residential
Care
78.7
14.9
2.1
4.3
1.4
30.1
0.0
1.1
17.0
2.1
25.5
35.1
19.1
45.2
17.0
31.5
74.4
52.2
49.5
35.2
46.7
17.2
9.7
7.5
0.0
4.6
55.3
44.7
94
11.7
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
Grade retention
Special education
Parent substance abuse
Parent incarceration
Parent diagnosis
Single-parent family
One parent
Both parents
Adoptive parents
Risk Score (Mean)
Variable
Child Risk Factor Survey – All Program Types (2006)
Appendix D. Child Risk Factor Survey - All Program Types (2006)
Appendix D.
Child Risk Factor Survey - All Program Types (2006)
Appendix E.
Child Risk Factor Survey – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
Appendix E. Child Risk Factor Survey – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
Child Risk Factor Survey – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
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
Grade retention
Special education
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
2,264
14.3
Public
School
354
14.6
Public and
On-Grounds
1,339
14.4
Locked
Secure
310
14.2
Psychiatric
Residential
Treatment
261
13.0
57.8
42.2
34.5
65.5
65.3
34.7
46.8
53.2
64.4
35.6
66.1
25.2
3.4
5.3
3.0
35.3
1.5
2.1
40.0
43.5
31.4
30.9
28.1
35.7
16.4
43.5
61.7
51.8
35.9
21.1
57.4
23.5
7.3
15.8
0.4
5.1
69.8
23.4
2.5
4.2
2.9
39.8
5.4
4.8
45.5
53.4
39.3
16.4
22.6
37.1
17.8
30.4
37.2
55.8
44.7
19.3
65.5
18.9
5.7
12.9
0.3
5.2
65.4
25.4
3.4
5.7
2.6
33.6
1.0
1.4
41.0
48.7
29.1
33.3
28.3
33.8
16.1
41.4
59.4
49.3
34.4
16.5
54.9
23.6
7.3
15.9
0.4
4.8
52.1
38.2
5.5
4.2
3.4
35.3
0.6
2.3
50.6
33.5
32.9
33.5
30.3
36.5
15.3
53.1
70.5
49.3
29.9
22.6
63.9
23.4
6.9
16.2
0.3
5.6
81.2
11.5
2.3
5.0
4.0
37.6
0.0
1.1
14.9
17.2
29.9
36.0
31.8
41.2
17.0
59.8
94.6
60.6
38.2
43.2
50.8
29.8
10.2
18.8
0.8
5.8
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses.
Parent rights indicated if one or both parents had rights terminated.
84
85
183
209.2
176.0
60.5
3.8
n/a
n/a
78.6
49.4
22.8
5.3
57.9
14.0
35.0
50.0
48.4
12.1
22.0
17.6
5.4
n/a
5.9
58.3
4.5
0.42
2.4
80.6
26.9
16.3
12.3
66.7
3.6
43.1
65.4
70.2
8.5
16.2
5.1
5.5
6.1
6.1
Transitional
Living
4,513
244.7
164.0
All
Programs
5.2
6.2
6.5
54.2
7.1
29.8
8.9
27.8
53.8
11.2
7.1
21.9
60.5
59.5
14.9
49.7
6.1
0.49
3.7
169
180.3
133.0
Day
Treatment
6.1
6.4
6.3
67.6
11.9
18.7
1.8
11.7
79.0
6.5
2.8
23.2
76.4
77.3
33.0
68.5
3.5
0.41
2.6
328
232.0
186.5
HomeBased
5.7
6.0
6.0
70.0
8.0
18.4
3.6
15.2
5.7
76.8
2.4
61.3
67.8
82.9
36.9
64.5
3.9
0.41
2.4
1,059
389.6
235.0
Foster
Care
n/a
n/a
6.2
78.5
5.0
11.1
5.3
26.9
0.2
68.7
4.3
28.7
63.4
n/a
n/a
59.4
4.6
n/a
n/a
663
36.5
24.0
Shelter
Care
5.5
6.1
6.1
70.5
9.4
15.1
5.0
13.7
6.5
76.5
3.2
45.1
66.1
82.3
21.6
54.7
4.7
0.42
2.4
2,025
257.5
206.0
Residential
Care
5.9
5.3
5.4
91.8
3.5
4.7
0.0
0.0
6.0
94.0
0.0
14.3
75.0
n/a
n/a
45.3
4.9
n/a
n/a
86
17.0
8.0
Crisis
Stabilization
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. 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. n/a = data not collected on this item for the program type.
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 required plan)
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Administrative discharge
Runaway
Child (Mean)
Parent (Mean)
Referring source (Mean)
Variable
Discharge Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2006)
Appendix F. Discharge Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2006)
Appendix F.
Discharge Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2006)
Appendix G.
Discharge Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
Appendix G. Discharge Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
Discharge Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
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
Administrative discharge
Runaway
Child (Mean)
Parent (Mean)
Referring source (Mean)
Residential
Care –
Combined
2,025
257.5
206.0
Public
School
289
163.0
128.0
Public and
OnGrounds
1,272
295.6
250.5
Locked
Secure
261
242.2
198.0
Psychiatric
Residential
Treatment
203
172.7
158.0
54.7
4.7
0.42
2.4
60.9
5.1
0.50
3.0
54.3
4.7
0.41
2.2
54.8
4.3
0.37
1.9
48.5
5.2
0.42
2.2
82.3
21.6
78.3
37.2
83.0
22.0
80.6
3.8
84.7
1.8
13.7
6.5
76.5
3.2
45.1
66.1
19.1
3.2
71.8
5.8
44.3
63.0
15.0
7.1
74.7
3.3
49.0
68.8
7.7
7.3
81.9
3.1
43.8
62.6
6.4
6.9
86.7
0.0
23.3
55.6
70.5
9.4
15.1
5.0
56.9
11.8
19.1
12.2
71.2
9.3
15.0
4.5
77.0
7.3
12.3
3.4
76.8
9.4
13.8
0.0
5.5
6.1
6.1
5.5
6.1
6.4
5.5
6.1
6.1
5.4
6.1
6.2
5.4
6.2
6.2
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. 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.
86
87
71
n/a
78.6
50.7
100.0
n/a
80.9
14.3
62.9
21.4
1.4
0.38
90.1
34.7
97.7
97.3
84.8
13.9
66.2
19.4
0.5
Transitional
Living
1,540
All
Programs
13.9
59.7
23.6
2.8
88.1
26.7
96.0
97.3
78.7
0.39
75
Day
Treatment
558
0.35
93.2
35.3
96.0
95.4
94.7
13.3
71.0
15.5
0.2
0.38
86.7
37.2
98.1
99.0
85.4
8.6
71.4
19.0
1.0
Foster Care
106
Home-Based
15.1
62.7
21.9
0.3
90.1
32.6
98.9
98.4
78.1
0.39
730
Residential
Care
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. 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 (2006)
Appendix H. Follow-up Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2006)
Appendix H.
Follow-up Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2006)
Appendix I.
Follow-up Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
Appendix I. Follow-up Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
Follow-up Outcome Summary – Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
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
730
Public
School
115
Public and
OnGrounds
487
Locked
Secure
107
Psychiatric
Residential
Treatment
21
0.39
0.48
0.39
0.34
0.40
90.1
32.6
98.9
98.4
78.1
88.2
32.4
98.2
97.4
71.9
90.5
33.9
99.0
98.8
78.4
90.2
23.9
99.1
98.1
81.1
90.5
40.0
100.0
100.0
90.5
15.1
62.7
21.9
0.3
20.9
54.8
24.3
0.0
12.8
63.7
23.3
0.2
15.0
69.2
29.9
0.9
40.0
50.0
10.0
0.0
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses. FRS=Family
Risk Scales, Parent Centered Risk; ROLES=Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale
88
89

The Iarcca Outcome Measures Project

Transcription

Similar documents

YTX14AHL-BS

YTX12-BS

mixer-blenders

GRAIN CART 30TN ASCANELLI.cdr

Get the pdf HERE.

PS-1212 12 Volt 1.4 AH - Power

Residential Fire Safety Kits

NO DISCHARGE ZONE

BA 5590 Lithium/Sulfur Dioxide Primary Battery System The BA