Directions Program Effectiveness Study Results

489 views

Published on

Results presentation for Directions Program Effectiveness Study Results

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
489
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
75
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Major mental health concerns: depression, conduct disorder, and physical health issues
  • Family work leads to family reconciliationreunification leads to improvements on various aspects such as ed, runaway Bx, and family stability FS to SA
  • Directions Program Effectiveness Study Results

    1. 1. The Crisis Residential Center’s<br />Direction Program<br />Effectiveness Study<br />
    2. 2. To Those Who Made This All Possible<br />Research Fellows<br />Jennifer Boisen<br />Jacob Campbell<br />Shireen Wheeler<br />Supportive Figures<br />Eastern Washington University<br /><ul><li>Dr. Ed Byrnes
    3. 3. Katie Clemons-Handy
    4. 4. Dr. Sarah Keller
    5. 5. Dr. Kim Stansbury</li></ul>Crisis Residential Center<br /><ul><li>Brandon Livingston
    6. 6. Teresa Wright</li></li></ul><li>Presentation Roadmap<br />What it’s all about<br />What we did<br />What it means<br />What to take away<br />
    7. 7. Literature Review<br />What it’s all about<br />
    8. 8. Working with At-risk Youth<br />Reasons for Runaway and Homeless Youth<br />Support and nurturing<br />Single parent homes<br />Abuse and neglect<br />Substance use / abuse<br />Common Problems<br />Academic<br />Positive social networks<br />Mental & physical health issues<br />
    9. 9. Programs & At-risk Youth<br />Milieu environment<br />Individual<br />Group<br />Family <br />Referrals<br />
    10. 10. About the CRC<br />YFA Connections<br />Safety-net for Spokane<br />General population<br />Three programs<br />
    11. 11. Methodology<br />What we did<br />
    12. 12. Methodology<br />The Plan:<br />Archive data from files.<br />Demographics, programmatic info, hx & GAIN-SS<br />Parent surveys<br />Quantitative & Qualitative.<br />Client surveys<br />Post GAIN-SS<br />In-depth interviews<br />Reality:<br />Archive data from files.<br />Demographics, programmatic info. & hx.<br />Parent surveys<br />Qualitative only.<br />
    13. 13. Data Analysis<br />Data from files<br />Descriptive Analyses<br />Demographic variables<br />Programmatic variables<br />Client history & issues<br />Cross tabulation<br />Chi Square<br />Qualitative info<br />Look for commonalities and use to support/discuss findings/recommendations.<br />
    14. 14. }{ Findings }{}{ Limitations}{}{}{ Implications<br />What it means<br />
    15. 15. AGE<br />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. <br />
    16. 16. Length of Stay<br />The 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. <br />
    17. 17. Gender<br />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. <br />
    18. 18. Limitations<br /><ul><li>Time
    19. 19. Response rate
    20. 20. Outdated information
    21. 21. Biases-social bias
    22. 22. Not being able to support our hypotheses
    23. 23. Only sent surveys to legal guardian addresses
    24. 24. Instrumentation not tested and no control group</li></li></ul><li>Implications for Social Work<br />Further research<br />Begins to determine the effectiveness of the program<br />
    25. 25. }{ Correlative data }{}{ Recommendations }{}{}{ Future research }{}{}{}{ Conclusions<br />What to take away<br />
    26. 26. Correlative data<br />Homelessness & School Status<br />n = 21 yes homeless<br />Problems: Irregular, dropped out, suspended, and expelled<br />Total: 33.4%<br />Pearson Chi-Square: 0.351<br />
    27. 27. Correlative data<br />Homelessness & Mental Health Issues<br />n = 21 yes homeless<br />n = 35 yes mental health issues<br />Problems: Issues related to the mental health status of youth or family members<br />Total: 23.8%<br />Pearson Chi-Square: 0.000 (a. 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .13.)<br />
    28. 28. Correlative data<br />Family Sessions & Household Dynamics<br />n = 120 yes household dynamics<br />Problems: issues related to interactions and interrelationships within the household (for example, frequent arguments between household members<br />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% ||<br />Pearson Chi-Square: 0.758<br />
    29. 29. Correlative data<br />Family Sessions & Drug Use and Abuse<br />n = 31 yes Drug Use and Abuse<br />Pearson Chi-Square: 0.907<br />
    30. 30. Recommendations<br />File / data collection<br />Aftercare<br />Follow-up<br />More training regarding therapy<br />More individual time<br />Substance use / abuse<br />
    31. 31. Future Research<br />In-depth interviews<br />More surveys<br />Secondary paper<br />
    32. 32. Conclusion<br />New questions<br />Poor and dynamic data<br />Expected data continuation<br />
    33. 33. Questions<br />?’s<br />

    ×