the crisis residential center’s

25
The Crisis Residential Center’s Direction Program Effectiveness Study

Upload: reed

Post on 16-Feb-2016

36 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

The Crisis Residential Center’s. Direction Program Effectiveness Study. To Those Who Made This All Possible. Supportive Figures Eastern Washington University Dr. Ed Byrnes Katie Clemons-Handy Dr. Sarah Keller Dr. Kim Stansbury Crisis Residential Center Brandon Livingston Teresa Wright. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Crisis Residential Center’s

The Crisis Residential Center’s

Direction ProgramEffectiveness Study

Page 2: The Crisis Residential Center’s

To Those Who Made This All PossibleResearch Fellows• Jennifer Boisen• Jacob Campbell• Shireen Wheeler

Supportive FiguresEastern Washington University-Dr. Ed Byrnes-Katie Clemons-Handy-Dr. Sarah Keller-Dr. Kim StansburyCrisis Residential Center-Brandon Livingston-Teresa Wright

Page 3: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Presentation Roadmap• What it’s all about• What we did• What it means• What to take away

Page 4: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Literature ReviewWhat it’s all about

Page 5: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Working with At-risk Youth• Reasons for Runaway and Homeless Youth– Support and nurturing– Single parent homes– Abuse and neglect– Substance use / abuse

• Common Problems– Academic– Positive social networks– Mental & physical health issues

Page 6: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Programs & At-risk Youth• Milieu environment• Individual• Group• Family • Referrals

Page 7: The Crisis Residential Center’s

About the CRC• YFA Connections• Safety-net for Spokane• General population• Three programs

Page 8: The Crisis Residential Center’s

MethodologyWhat we did

Page 9: The Crisis Residential Center’s

MethodologyThe Plan:• Archive data from files.– Demographics, programmatic info, hx & GAIN-SS

• Parent surveys– Quantitative & Qualitative.

• Client surveys– Post GAIN-SS

• In-depth interviews

Reality:• Archive data from files.– Demographics, programmatic info. & hx.

• Parent surveys– Qualitative only.

Page 10: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Data Analysis• Data from files– Descriptive Analyses

• Demographic variables• Programmatic variables• Client history & issues

– Cross tabulation– Chi Square

• Qualitative info– Look for commonalities and use to support/discuss

findings/recommendations.

Page 11: The Crisis Residential Center’s

}{ Findings }{}{ Limitations}{}{}{ Implications

What it means

Page 12: The Crisis Residential Center’s

AGEAge Frequency Percentage13 19 14.8414 31 24.2215 25 19.5316 28 21.8817 25 19.53

The majority of the youth, 31, were 14 years old. This is followed by 16 year olds, 17 and 15 year olds 28, 25, and 25 respectively. Thirteen year olds constituted the least at 19.

Page 13: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Length of StayThe average stay or mean for the youth was 190.30. In addition, there was the same number youth who spent more than 187 hours and spent less than 187 hours. The most frequent length of stay was 1.5 hours.

Mean Median Mode (n)190.30 hours

187 hours

1.5 126

Page 14: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Gender Gender Frequency PercentageMale 58 46.03Female 67 53.17Transgender F to M

0

Transgender M to F

1 0.79

Other 0Not known/determined

0

The majority of the youth were female at 67 and the next was highest was male at 58. There was 1 individual who said that they felt that they were a woman instead of a man.

Page 15: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Limitations• Time• Response rate• Outdated information• Biases-social bias• Not being able to support our hypotheses • Only sent surveys to legal guardian addresses• Instrumentation not tested and no control

group

Page 16: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Implications for Social Work• Further research• Begins to determine the effectiveness of the

program

Page 17: The Crisis Residential Center’s

}{ Correlative data}{}{ Recommendations }{}{}{ Future research}{}{}{}{ Conclusions

What to take away

Page 18: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Correlative dataHomelessness & School Status• n = 21 yes homeless• Problems: Irregular, dropped out, suspended,

and expelled• Total: 33.4%• Pearson Chi-Square: 0.351

Page 19: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Correlative dataHomelessness & Mental Health Issues• n = 21 yes homeless• n = 35 yes mental health issues• Problems: Issues related to the mental health

status of youth or family members• Total: 23.8%• Pearson Chi-Square: 0.000 (a. 5 cells (55.6%) have

expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .13.)

Page 20: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Correlative dataFamily Sessions & Household Dynamics• n = 120 yes household dynamics• Problems: issues related to interactions and

interrelationships within the household (for example, frequent arguments between household members

• By the numbers: 0 hours → 26.7% || 0.01-2 hours → 26.7% || 2.01-4 hours → 24.2% || 4.01- 6 hours → 21.7% || Over 6.01 hours → 0.8% ||

• Pearson Chi-Square: 0.758

Page 21: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Correlative dataFamily Sessions & Drug Use and Abuse• n = 31 yes Drug Use and Abuse• Pearson Chi-Square: 0.907

Page 22: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Recommendations• File / data collection• Aftercare• Follow-up• More training regarding therapy• More individual time• Substance use / abuse

Page 23: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Future Research• In-depth interviews• More surveys• Secondary paper

Page 24: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Conclusion• New questions• Poor and dynamic data• Expected data continuation

Page 25: The Crisis Residential Center’s

Questions

?’s