X hits on this document

PDF document

Diane Rae Davis, PhD and Amber Cleverly, MSW - page 60 / 80

232 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

60 / 80

86

Home during Program &

34%

Follow -up

Figure 35 Child Status During Program and Follow-up

18 7%

107 43%

Returned Home

Out of Home during Program & Follow-up

Removed

39 16%

Discussion.

Child Safety. A primary objective of the PTP was to decrease subsequent child maltreatment substantiated referrals. In comparison to Idaho as a whole (State of Idaho Child Welfare Out- come 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.

Permanency: Remaining Home and Reunification. The Illinois Demonstration project using “recovery coaches” reported a returned home rate of 15.5% compared to their control group rate of 11.6%. Meanwhile, PTP showed that 27% (39 of the 144 children) who were initially out of home at referral were returned home during the program and at six-month follow-up.

Eighty-six percent (34%) of all 250 children were able to remain at home during the program and at six-month follow-up even though they had received an initial substantiated referral.

The higher PTP rate of 27% with another 34% able to remain in the home does not reflect the ideal, but it is very encouraging given the history of family reunification difficulties with this population.

Idaho Pre-Treatment Program

59

Document info
Document views232
Page views232
Page last viewedSun Dec 11 06:18:15 UTC 2016
Pages80
Paragraphs2133
Words26225

Comments