X hits on this document

PDF document

Diane Rae Davis, PhD and Amber Cleverly, MSW - page 40 / 80

205 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

40 / 80

Nampa

Boise

Overall

Nampa

Boise

Overall

Nampa Boise Overall

df P-value df P-value df P-value

2.00

1.67

1.80

2.71

2.55

2.61

0.67

0.78

0.73

5

0.025

8

0.230

14

0.001

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.86

2.82

2.83

0.83

0.78

0.80

5

0.042

8

0.008

14

0.000

2.17

1.67

1.87

2.71

2.55

2.61

0.50

0.89

0.73

5

0.076

8

0.009

13

0.001

1.83

1.67

1.73

3.00

3.00

3.00

1.71

1.25

1.21

5

0.013

8

0.002

13

0.000

1.83

1.89

1.87

3.00

3.00

3.00

1.71

1.00

1.07

5

0.013

8

0.001

13

0.000

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

1.00

0.88

0.93

5

0.041

8

0.000

13

0.000

Table 10 Initial 2004 Perception of Change in Effectiveness of working with CPS- referred par- ents with substance abuse issues before and after Pre-Treatment Program in Region III (Nampa) and Region IV (Boise).

Q1: Motivating parent to agree to substance abuse treatment

Q2: Getting a substance abuse assessment completed

Q3: Motivating parent to enter substance abuse treatment

Q4: Coordinating child protective plans with substance abuse treatment

Q5: Collaborating with substance abuse treatment professionals

Q6: Following up parent's in substance abuse treatment

BEFORE SAL

AFTER SAL

DIFFERENCE

Overall

Nampa

SIGNIFICANCE

Boise

2004 focus group findings from IDHR supervisors and social workers. Further elabora- tion of approaches and strategies to improve communication among all three systems (SAL, treatment providers, and the DHW) occurred in a focus group with the supervisors and social workers of Region IV (n=15) on September 7, 2004. Following are key topic questions with bulleted comments from group participants.

  • 1.

    A clear understanding of the purpose of the program

    • The SAL met with different teams and small groups

    • Through the process of referrals

    • Through the easy access of co-location

    • Through the accessibility of the SAL

  • 2.

    Communication between the staff and the SAL was evaluated as excellent

    • No improvement needed

  • 3.

    Changes in CPS relationship with substance abuse treatment professionals

    • Don’t deal much directly with substance abuse treatment professionals – SAL keeps us informed

    • Get feedback on treatment from SAL – she updates us through phone calls, provides weekly progress notes from one treatment center

    • Sometimes SAL will put us on the phone with one to discuss a case

Idaho Pre-Treatment Program

39

Document info
Document views205
Page views205
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 02:14:55 UTC 2016
Pages80
Paragraphs2133
Words26225

Comments