One finding that has programmatic implications was that participants who had previous substantiated CPS referrals were far less likely to enter treatment after SAL services. One may take this finding to imply that such individuals should not participate in SAL services. Two equally plausible conclusions also can be drawn. First, SAL services with such partici- pants may need to be intensified, either through modified program services or greater judicial interaction that is similar to the family dependency drug court model. Second, because of state funding fluctuations in available professional AOD treatment, this subset of participants is more sensitive to service availability challenges, such as waiting lists.
Another finding that has systemic implications is that participants who were designated, ac- cording to ASAM criteria, as needing inpatient treatment were 97% less likely to enter AOD treatment at all. Further study is needed by the IDHW about systemic factors, such as the availability of supported inpatient beds, which may inhibit these individuals with the most severe needs from engaging in services at all.
In closing, family reunification, child safety, and substance abuse treatment are historically difficult goals with parents who have substance abuse problems and are referred to child wel- fare for child maltreatment. The PTP was a small intervention in the midst of the maelstrom that generally accompanies this kind of referral. In spite of this, the program achieved success with stakeholders and participants, and was associated with modest success in reunification and child safety and comparable rates of treatment entry and retention as other demonstration projects. The final evaluation of this project indicates that the PTP model offers a beacon of hope for making progress in this difficult terrain.
Idaho Pre-Treatment Program