X hits on this document

PDF document

Diane Rae Davis, PhD and Amber Cleverly, MSW - page 57 / 80

163 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

57 / 80

Figure 32 Treatment Completion

Terminated By Facility

11 15%

10 14%

Against Professional Advice

Other

11 15%

Completed Treatment

14 20%

Closed for Unknown Re a so n

Criminal Justice System

6 8%

Still Open

5 7%

4 5%

12 16%

Closure Status/ Reason M i ssi n g

Discussion.

Although the rate of treatment entry was higher than those of comparable projects and the treatment completion for PTP participants was comparable (and could be higher, since 20% were still in treatment at the end of the project), the rate still was relatively low. Factors that could explain the low treatment completion rate include lack of accessible treatment facilities, lack of state funding for treatment during several months of the study, the complexity of meth- amphetamine addiction in a population typically oppressed by financial duress, and co-occur- ring mental and physical problems.

3. CHILD SAFETY AND PERMANENCY (REMAIN HOME AND REUNIFICATION) OUTCOMES

A primary objective of the PTP was to increase the likelihood of family reunification and to decrease subsequent child maltreatment substantiated referrals. Data from participants were collected from program entry through a six-month follow-up from the Idaho Child Welfare FOCUS information system.

Child Safety

In comparison to Idaho as a whole (State of Idaho Child Welfare Outcome Measures Report, FOCUS information system), children in the PTP were significantly less likely than children in the state as a whole during the same time period to experience a substantiated re-referral during the PTP and at six-month follow-up (Figure 33).

Idaho Pre-Treatment Program

56

Document info
Document views163
Page views163
Page last viewedFri Oct 28 21:57:54 UTC 2016
Pages80
Paragraphs2133
Words26225

Comments