The Iarcca Outcome Measures Project

Transcription

The Iarcca
Outcome Measures Project
Executive Summary
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
inside front cover
THE IARCCA OUTCOME
MEASURES PROJECT
Executive Summary
Report for Calendar Year 2006
And Cross-Year Comparisons
Steven M. Koch, Ph.D.
Jacqueline Remondet Wall, Ph.D.
IARCCA… An Association of Children and Family Services
5519 East 82nd Street, Suite A, Indianapolis, IN 46250
Phone (317) 849-8497
Fax (317) 576-5498
Email: [email protected]
www.iarcca.org
Published October 12, 2007, Copyright © 2007, IARCCA . . . An Association of Children and Family Services. We
encourage you to share the Executive Summary with others. Permission to copy, disseminate and otherwise use this
document or parts of it is granted as long as appropriate acknowledgement is given.
Introduction
What is the IARCCA Outcome Measures Project?
The primary aim of the IARCCA Outcome Measures Project (referred to as the Project) is to
evaluate the effectiveness of programs provided to children and families. The Project, conceived
in 1995 and initiated on a statewide scale in 1998, has collected information on youth receiving
treatment from participating IARCCA member agencies.
In 2006, 69 agencies participated in the Project (representing 68.0% of IARCCA
member agencies). Since 1998, the average number of agencies participating in the
project has been 67, with a range from 62 (in 2005) to 75 (in 1999).
The total number of data packets1 submitted in 2006 was 11,669 (See figure below).
When compared to 1998, this number represents a 40.5% increase in number of packets
submitted.
The total number of packets across the nine years of data collection is 92,906.
The average number of data packets annually submitted by each agency has risen from
112 per agency in 1998 to 192 per agency for both 2005 and 2006. This is an increase
(58.3%) in the average number of packets completed by each agency.
Total Number of Data Packets Submitted for the Project by Year
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1998
1
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
A packet is defined as the set of forms submitted for a youth at one of the three data collection times for the
Project – at Intake, Discharge, or Follow-Up. Thus, the Child Risk Factor Survey, Child Problem Checklist,
Family Problem Checklist, and the Intake Summary Sheet would constitute one packet.
1
Introduction
Program Types Included in the 2006 Annual Report of the Project
Transitional Living
Day Treatment
Home-Based
Foster Care
Shelter Care
Residential Programs Utilizing Public Schools
Residential Programs Utilizing Both Public and On-Grounds Schools
Residential Locked & Staff Secure Facilities
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities
Crisis Stabilization
Outcome Measures
A list of outcome measures for the Project is contained in the Appendix to this report, and
includes measures of clinical, functional and placement outcomes. Additional information is
collected related to risk factors, services provided during placement, educational activities at
discharge and consumer satisfaction. Member agencies provide a packet of data on children and
families at: 1) Intake; 2) Discharge; and 3) Follow-Up (i.e., at 3 or 6 months after discharge,
depending on the program).
What Should One Know to Understand the Results?
This report presents summary tables and highlights that describe selected characteristics
of youth in each program, summary outcome data for each program collected at discharge
and follow-up, and highlights of functional and placement outcomes, both from 2006 and
for the last nine years of data collection.
Outcome information has not been collected for all programs across all years. Therefore,
some programs may have selected outcome information reported for a shorter time frame.
For example, 2006 is the first year that information has been collected on Psychiatric
Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTF).
The children and families served by any program are likely different from those served
by the other programs. Some of these differences are reflected in the problem(s)
presented at intake and the associated level of problem severity. There may also be
important differences among the children and families served across the programs that
the Project does not measure that impact program outcomes.
The data is collected on those youth who enter programs, are discharged from placement,
and are contacted for follow-up during each calendar year. For this Executive Summary,
no efforts have been made to follow individual children from intake through discharge
and follow-up. Therefore, no comparisons can be made about whether individual children
made progress during their placement. Other investigations have been performed that
examine how changes occur at the individual-level, and are available from IARCCA in a
series of Special Reports, published by the IARCCA Institute for Excellence, Inc.
Information presented in this Executive Summary focuses on functional and placement
outcomes. It is not designed to comprehensively report on all outcomes, which are
provided in the Annual Report. The interested reader should contact IARCCA for the
Annual Report for 2006 or for information on the Project or go to www.iarcca.org.
2
Characteristics of Youth Served in 2006
Youth Entering Care in 2006
Highlights
The average age across all programs is 12.8 years, with a range from under 1 to 21 years
of age. Children in the Foster Care program are significantly younger than youth in other
program types (M2 = 9.2 years). Youth in the Transitional Living program, on the other
hand, are significantly older than those in other programs (M=16.8 years).
Over 3 in 5 of youth are Caucasian (64.3%). One in four youth are African American
(25.0%), just over four percent (4.1%) are Latino(a)/Hispanic, and over six percent
(6.6%) are of other ethnicities or are identified as multiracial.
The average number of prior out-of-home placements is 2.3, with a range from 0 to 35
previous placements.
Over 1 in 3 youth have a history of neglect (38.1%), over one-fourth have histories of
physical abuse (25.2%) and almost 1 in 5 have been sexually abused (19.9%). Nearly half
have parents who have abused substances (49.9%), over one-third have a parent in jail
(38.2%), and almost 1 in 5 youth have experienced the termination of parental rights
(17.9%).
The percent of youth who have had parental rights terminated among the different
programs across the years of the Project is shown below. Notable decreases in loss of
rights for 2006 appear in Transitional Living and Shelter Care programs. However, the
percent of those experiencing loss of rights is consistent with that seen in previous years.
In Residential Care programs, though, there is an increase in the percentage of youth
whose parents have had their rights removed.
Percent of Parents with Parental Rights Terminated: 1999-2006
Residential Care
40%
Foster Care
Transitional Living
Shelter Care
Home-Based
30%
Day Treatment
20%
10%
0%
1999
2
2000
2001
2002
2003
M = Mean, or arithmetic average.
3
2004
2005
2006
4
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
Unless otherwise noted, numbers refer to percentages of affirmative responses.
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
Psychotropic medication
Parent substance abuse
Parent incarceration
Parent diagnosis
Single-parent family
Parent rights terminated:
One parent
Both parents
Adoptive parents
Risk Score (Mean)
Variable
Child Risk Factor Survey – All Program Types (2006)
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
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
Psychotropic medication
Parent substance abuse
Parent incarceration
Parent diagnosis
Single-parent family
Parent rights terminated
One parent
Both parents
Adoptive parents
Risk Score (Mean)
Residential
Care –
Combined
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.
5
214
59.1
5.0
n/a
n/a
51.6
7.0
0.52
4.1
Transitional
Living
5,271
All
Programs
47.6
7.4
0.49
3.5
220
Day
Treatment
62.9
5.6
0.44
3.4
416
HomeBased
59.3
4.4
0.62
5.2
1.264
Foster
Care
56.5
5.8
n/a
n/a
799
Shelter
Care
45.2
8.8
0.49
3.6
2,264
Residential
Care
32.9
8.8
n/a
n/a
94
Crisis
Stabilization
These clinical outcomes list the average score identified for the youth at program admission. The score is based upon the child’s clinical
functioning for the 12 months prior to admission. GAF=Global Assessment of Functioning. CPC=Child Problem Checklist. FRS=Family
Risk Scales, Parent Centered Risk. FPC=Family Problem Checklist. n/a = data not collected on this item for the program type.
Number of youth
Clinical Outcomes
GAF at intake (Mean)
CPC at intake (Mean)
FRS at intake (Mean)
FPC at intake (Mean)
Variable
Child and Family Clinical Functioning at Intake* – All Program Types (2006)
Outcomes for Calendar Year 2006 & Cross-Year Comparisons for 1998-2006
6
Child and Family Clinical Functioning at Intake
Residential Care Program Subtypes (2006)
Variable
Number of youth
Clinical Outcomes
GAF at intake (mean)
CPC at intake (mean)
FRS at intake (mean)
FPC at intake (mean)
Residential Care
– Combined
2,264
Public
School
354
Public and
On-Grounds
1,339
Locked
Secure
310
Residential
Psychiatric
261
45.2
8.8
0.49
3.6
55.5
7.2
0.55
4.9
46.3
8.7
0.48
3.4
36.8
10.1
0.52
4.0
36.4
10.4
0.46
2.8
These clinical outcomes list the average score identified for the youth at program admission. The
score is based upon the child’s clinical functioning for the 12 months prior to admission.
GAF=Global Assessment of Functioning. CPC=Child Problem Checklist. FRS=Family Risk
Scales, Parent Centered Risk. FPC=Family Problem Checklist. n/a = data not collected on this
item for the program type.
7
Youth Leaving Care in 2006
Highlights
These highlights report the range of percentage rates across the various program types.
A positive educational outcome was noted at discharge for between 59.5% and 84.7% of
the youth.
At the time of follow-up, between 78.6% and 93.2% of youth had either graduated or
were attending school.
At discharge, between 1.8% and 49.4% of youth 16 years of age and older were
employed. Some of the lower employment rates were seen in programs with higher levels
of restriction (e.g., Residential Care with Locked and Staff Secure and Psychiatric
Residential Treatment Facilities). Another program with lower rates of employment was
Day Treatment. Youth living in a home environment (e.g., Home-Based or Foster Care)
tended to have higher rates of employment. Youth in programs that focus on independent
living (e.g., Transitional Living) had higher rates of employment. The difference between
the programs may also be related to lower sample sizes of youth over the age of 16 within
the different programs, or related to the opportunities afforded and emphases given to
employment among them.
At follow-up, between 23.9% and 50.7% of youth 16 years of age and older were
employed.
A majority of youth had experienced no new abuse at the time of follow-up (between
96.0% and 100.0%).
Most of the youth experienced no new court involvement at the time of follow-up
(between 71.9% and 94.7%).
Cross-Year Comparison of No New Abuse of Youth at Follow-Up
1999-20063
100%
98%
96%
Residential Care
Foster Care
94%
Transitional Living
Home-Based
Day Treatment
92%
1999
3
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Follow-Up was conducted 6 months after discharge for Foster Care and Residential Care. Follow-Up was
conducted 3 months after discharge for Transitional Living, Home-Based and Day Treatment. Follow-Up data is
not collected for Crisis Stabilization and Shelter Care.
8
9
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. Due to rounding, some percentage totals may not equal 100.0%.
GAF=Global Assessment of Functioning. CPC=Child Problem Checklist. FRS=Family Risk Scales, Parent Centered Risk. FPC=Family Problem Checklist.
ROLES=Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale; Permanency Plan achieved refers to either primary or concurrent plan achieved. Education and
employment are reported for the percent of youth who are of appropriate age. 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
Similar restrictiveness
Less restrictive
Runaway
Permanency plan achieved
(only those with required plan)
Nature of Discharge
Planned
Removed by referring source
Administrative discharge
Runaway
Satisfaction Outcomes
Child (Mean)
Parent (Mean)
Referring source (Mean)
Variable
Discharge Outcome Summary – All Program Types (2006)
Outcomes for Calendar Year 2006 & Cross-Year Comparisons
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
Removed by referring source
Administrative discharge
Runaway
Satisfaction Outcomes
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.
10
11
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)
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. Due to
rounding, some percentage totals may not equal 100.0%. FRS=Family Risk Scales, Parent
Centered Risk; ROLES=Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale
12
Transitional Living
Functional Outcomes – 2006‡
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
Parental Rights Terminated – 2006
22.3%
For one parent
9.7%
For both parents
12.1%
For adoptive parents
0.5%
No Court Involvement
Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scales
at Discharge - 2006
Runaway
14.0%
More
22.8%
Outcome Highlights from 2006
Half of the youth were discharged
according to goals set in their
permanency plan (50.0%).
Close to 4 in 5 youth were in school at
discharge (78.6%) and 4 in 5 youth
demonstrated a positive educational
outcome at follow-up (78.6%).
Over 3 of every 5 (63.2%) youth were in similar or
less restrictive places at discharge. At follow-up,
this was true for over 8 in 10 (84.3%) youth.
Eight of 10 youth (80.9%) had no new court involvement
at the time of follow-up.
‡
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).
13
Same
5.3%
Less
57.9%
Transitional Living
Percent of Youth with Successful Functional Outcomes at Discharge – Cross-Year
Comparison
100%
Education
90%
Employment
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Percent of Youth in a Similar or Less Restrictive Placement – Cross-Year Comparison
Discharge
Follow-up
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
14
2003
2004
2005
2006
Day Treatment
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
11.8%
For one parent
6.9%
For both parents
4.9%
0.0%
No Family Abuse
at Discharge - 2006
Same
53.9%
Two in 3 youth had positive educational
outcomes at discharge (59.5%).
Of youth over the age of 16, about 3 in
20 were employed at discharge (14.9%).
Almost 2 in 3 youth were placed in a
similarly or less restrictive environment
at discharge (65.0%).
For youth contacted at follow-up, nine in ten (90.0%)
reported positive educational outcomes.
Less than 1 in 20 youth contacted at follow-up were
subject to abuse.
Close to 8 of every 10 youth (78.7%) had no new court
involvement at the time of follow-up.
‡
No Court Involvement
Less
11.2%
Runaway
7.1%
More
27.8%
Follow-up n=45); Child abuse (n=75); Family abuse (n=75); Court involvement (n=75).
15
Day Treatment§
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
§
2004
2005
Outcomes for Day Treatment programs have been collected since 2003.
16
2006
Home-Based
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
10.4%
For one parent
6.3%
For both parents
3.9%
0.2%
No Family Abuse
at Discharge - 2006
Same
79.0%
Over 3 in 4 youth had positive
educational outcomes at discharge
(77.3%); at follow-up, over 8 out of 10
youth had a positive outcome (86.7%).
Over 85% of youth were placed in a
similarly or less restrictive placement at
discharge. Over 9 of every 10 youth
contacted at follow-up were in similar or
less restrictive settings (90.4%).
Suspected or substantiated abuse occurred in less
than 2% of youth contacted at follow-up.
At follow-up, 3 in 20 of those youth contacted had
not returned to court (85.4%).
‡
No Court
Involvement
Less
6.5%
Runaway
2.8%
More
11.7%
17
Home-Based
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Discharge
Follow-up
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
18
2005
2006
Foster Care
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
No Family Abuse
14.8%
For one parent
3.3%
For both parents
11.0%
0.5%
No Court
Involvement
at Discharge - 2006
Runaway
2.4%
More
15.2%
Less
The average age of children entering
76.7%
Foster Care was 9.2 years. Although
this figure is six months older than the
average age in 2005, a trend suggesting a
decrease has occurred since 1999 when
the average age was 10.9 years.
Over 4 of every 5 youth (82.9%) had a
positive educational outcome at discharge.
Over 9 of every 10 youth (93.2%) had a
positive educational outcome at follow-up.
Over 4 of every 5 youth were placed in a less or similarly
restrictive placement at discharge (82.5%). This was also
the case at follow-up (86.5%).
‡
Same
5.7%
19
Foster Care
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Discharge
Follow-up
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
20
2003
2004
2005
2006
Shelter Care
12.0%
For one parent
5.7%
For both parents
5.7%
0.6%
at Discharge - 2006
The average program length of stay was
just over five weeks (36.5 days).
Over 2 of every 3 youth (68.9%) were
discharged to a less or equally restrictive
placement.
Almost 8 of every 10 youth were planfully
discharged (78.5%).
Runaway
4.3%
Less
68.6%
More
26.9%
Same
0.2%
100%
Discharge
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004
2005
21
2006
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
18.9%
For one parent
5.7%
For both parents
12.9%
0.3%
No Family Abuse
No Court
Involvement
at Discharge - 2006
Less
71.9%
Runaway
5.8%
Over 3 in 4 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%).
Three of every 4 youth were placed in less or
equally restrictive placements at discharge
(75.0%). At follow-up, almost 4 in 5 youth
were in similar settings (79.1%).
Those contacted at follow-up reported no new
abuse (98.2% reported no new abuse).
‡
More
19.1%
Same
3.2%
22
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
23
2004
2005
2006
Residential Programs Utilizing Public and On-Grounds Schools
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
Parent rights terminated: 23.6%
For one parent
7.3%
For both parents
15.9%
0.4%
No Family Abuse
at Discharge - 2006
Less
74.6%
More than 4 of very 5 youth (83.0%) had
a positive educational outcome at
discharge. Nine of every 10 youth
(90.5%) had a positive educational
outcome at follow-up.
Over 8 of every 10 youth (81.8%) were
placed in a similar or less restrictive setting
when discharged. Over 87% of those
contacted at follow-up reported similar
placements.
Nearly all youth (99.0%) contacted at follow-up experienced no
new abuse. Almost 4 of every 5 youth (78.4%) had no new court
involvement at the time of follow-up.
‡
No Court
Involvement
Runaway
3.3%
More
15.0%
Same
7.1%
who had a positive outcome. Education (Discharge n=1,240; Follow-up n=472); Employment (Discharge n=651;
24
Residential Programs Utilizing Public and On-Grounds Schools
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
100%
Discharge
Follow-up
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
25
2004
2005
2006
Residential Locked & Staff Secure
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
For one parent
6.9%
For both parents
16.2%
0.3%
No Family Abuse
No Court
Involvement
at Discharge - 2006
Less
81.9%
Eight in 10 youth experienced a positive
educational outcome at discharge
(80.6%).
Nearly 9 in 10 youth (89.2%) were
placed in a less restrictive placement at
discharge. Almost all youth (99.1%)
contacted at follow-up were in similar or
less restrictive placements.
Almost no youth experienced new abuse at follow-up
(Reported to occur in 0.1% contacted).
Over 4 in 5 youth had no new court involvement (81.1%) at follow-up.
‡
Runaway
3.1%
More
7.7%
Same
7.3%
26
Residential Locked & Staff Secure
Comparison
100%
Education
Employment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Discharge
Follow-up
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
27
2004
2005
2006
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities**
100%
Discharge
90%
Follow-up
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Education
Employment
No Child Abuse
No Family Abuse
at Discharge - 2006
For one parent
10.2%
For both parents
18.8%
0.8%
No Court
Involvement
Less
86.7%
Seventeen of every 20 youth
experienced a positive educational
outcome at discharge (84.7%).
Over 9 in 10 youth (93.6%) were placed
in a less restrictive placement at
discharge. Although few youth were
eligible for follow-up, 3 in 5 (60.0%) of
those contacted reported placements in
similar or less restrictive settings.
No youth contacted at follow-up experienced new abuse
and less than 1 in 5 youth had new court involvement.
**
Runaway
0.0%
More
6.4%
Same
6.9%
Collection of information from this program was initiated in 2006. Although the number of youth available to be
contacted at follow-up is small, results are presented in the same fashion as for other program types.
‡
28
For one parent
Outcomes
for Calendar9.7%
Year
For both parents
7.5%
0.0%
at Discharge - 2006
2006 & Cross-Year Comparisons
Same
6.0%
at Discharge - 2006
YouthRights
remained
in this program
Parental
Terminated
– 2006 an
Parent
rights
terminated:
17.2%
average of 17.0 days.
For
parent
All one
youth
(100.0%) were9.7%
placed in a less
Forequally
both parents
7.5%at discharge
or
restrictive setting
For adoptive
(e.g.,
Almostparents
2 in 3 youth0.0%
went to their
Runaway and
More
0.0%
Less
parent’s home, 58.3%).
94.0%
Three in 4Highlights
youth who had
a permanency
plan
Outcome
from
2006
received
planned discharges
(75.0%).
Youth remained
in this program
an
average of 17.0 days.
All youth (100.0%) were placed in a less
or equally
restrictive setting at discharge
(e.g., Almost 2 in 3 youth went to their
Less
parent’s home, 58.3%).
100%
94.0%
Three in 4 youth who had a permanency plan
Discharge
90%
received planned discharges (75.0%).
80%
70%
60%
100%
Discharge
50%
90%
40%
80%
30%
70%
20%
60%
10%
50%
0%
40%
2004
2005
2006
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004
2005
29
29
2006
Same
6.0%
Runaway and
More
0.0%
Conclusions
Conclusions
The 2006 results are generally consistent with previous years of analyses for the Project.
Youth entering care in the various programs during 2006 present with a variety of
significant child- and parent-specific risk and protective factors. Youth discharged from
programs appear to be functioning better than the youth admitted to that program. In
addition, youth contacted at follow-up demonstrate similar levels of functioning to those at
discharge, suggesting that better functioning is maintained for several months beyond
program discharge.
In some programs, more youth are entering their current program after having parental
rights terminated. This is especially true in Residential and Transitional Living programs.
Although youth admitted present with significant problems, those leaving treatment
consistently demonstrate positive outcomes at discharge, including educational outcomes
and movement to a similar or less restrictive placement.
Employment outcomes vary more across the years than do other functional and placement
outcomes. This greater variability may be due to greater fluctuations in sample size (since in
many programs the majority of youth are not of employment age), factors external to the
program (e.g., changes in local unemployment rates impacting job availability) and how
focused each agency and program is on employment for their youth of employment age.
There continues to be a steady increase in the number of cases submitted for the Project.
This is important to consider, as there are more cases submitted per participating agency.
Further examination of this increase may yield information for IARCCA and its member
agencies. For example, investigation of placement rates across the state may help determine
whether or not the population of youth needing out-of-home care is contributing to this
increase. In addition, the relationship between lengths of stay and placement rates should
be investigated to determine if the increase reflects greater agency capacity to serve children
in a given year. Another possibility is that agencies are able to complete the Project packets
for more of the youth and families they serve. A fourth possibility is that agencies are using
the EON™ computer software developed for data collection.
Additional analyses of trends should be monitored. With the advent this year of the EON™
software for all data entry, more finely tuned analyses of youth receiving services are
possible. For example, information on specific services received by youth and their families
is now collected, and will allow for an investigation on how services received impact
outcomes.
Referral sources, parents, and interested parties are encouraged to review the data presented
in this document and in the Annual Report for 2006. They are encouraged to contact
individual agencies to discuss how their agency results compare with the state aggregated
data. A discussion should ensue, to identify how the agencies’ referral base (e.g., problems
and risk factors identified in youth the agency serves) are similar and different from the
IARCCA aggregate, as this could explain differences in outcomes.
30
31
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
Program Types Evaluated & Outcome Measures Assessed
Appendix
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
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
Indiana Youth Advocate Program, Indianapolis
Indiana Developmental Training Center,
Indianapolis & Lafayette
Indiana United Methodist Children’s Home,
Lebanon
Interact Family Services, Indianapolis
Jefferson Co. Youth Shelter, Madison
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
32
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
Resource, Indianapolis
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
Wyandotte Home, Corydon
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
Appendix
IARCCA Outcome Project Committee Members (2006)
Gina Alexander, MSW, MS
Monique Busch, MSW, ACSW, PhD
Elaine Daniel
C.L. Day, MSW
Cathleen Graham, MSW, LCSW
Kristen Kinder
John Link, MS, LMFT
Don Mobley
Jessica Morris
Dan Peck, MSW, LCSW
Jennifer Rolsen, BA
Jeff Schumacher, MS
Jenny Sisson
Rebecca Stevens, MS
Vercena Stewart, DMIN
Jennifer Vanskyock
Carmen Young
The Villages of Indiana, Inc.
IARCCA
IARCCA
N.O.A.H., Inc.
IARCCA
Bashor
Crossroad – Ft. Wayne Children’s Home
Wernle, Inc.
Whitewater Valley Care Pavilion
Oaklawn
Crossroad – Ft. Wayne Children’s Home
Gateway Woods
Youth Opportunity Center
Gibault, Inc.
Campagna Academy
Youth Services Bureau, Jay County
Lutheran Child & Family Services
Author Notes
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.
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
needs analyses and developing training 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.
33
inside back cover

The Iarcca Outcome Measures Project

Transcription

Similar documents

YTX14AHL-BS

YTX12-BS

mixer-blenders

GRAIN CART 30TN ASCANELLI.cdr

The Iarcca Outcome Measures Project

PS-1212 12 Volt 1.4 AH - Power

NO DISCHARGE ZONE

BA 5590 Lithium/Sulfur Dioxide Primary Battery System The BA

Patient Logistics Center: A New Model for Improving Patient Flow