From October 2004 through April 2005, all regions suffered from lack of state funding for treatment. By the time the federal Access to Recovery (ATR) funding became accessible, several treatment programs had closed or reduced staff, making access to treatment services even more problematic.
2.Are children in the PTP more likely to be reunified safely with their parents or able to remain at home?
Thirty-nine children (27%) of those who were initially placed out-of-home at referral (N=144) were returned home during the program or at six-month follow-up, and 86 (34% of the total 250 children) were able to remain at home during the entire period even though they had received an initial substantiated referral. Historically families with substance abuse issues achieve low rates of reunification. The Illinois Demonstration project using “recovery coach- es” reported a rate of 15.5% compared to the control group of 11.6%. The higher PTP rate of 27% with another 34% able to remain in the home does not reflect the ideal, but is encourag- ing given the history of family reunification difficulties with this population.
3.Are families in the PTP less likely to experience subsequent maltreatment?
A primary objective of the PTP was to decrease subsequent child maltreatment substantiated referrals. Data from participants in the PTP were collected from program entry through a six- month follow-up from the IDHW FOCUS information system. In comparison to Idaho as a whole (State of Idaho Child Welfare Outcome Measures Report, FOCUS), children of partici- pants in the PTP were statistically 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.
4.Will the advent of the PTP positively affect the collaboration between the IDHW and substance abuse treatment providers via the work of the SALs?
Findings from interviews, surveys, focus groups, and feedback forms from stakeholders (i.e., parents enrolled in the program, SALs, IDHW social workers, supervisors, managers, and substance abuse treatment providers) overwhelmingly support that this objective was reached. Specifically, supervisors and social workers perceived the program as significantly effective in motivating parents to agree to and enter substance abuse assessment, completing assessment, coordinating child protective plans with substance abuse treatment, and col- laborating with substance abuse professionals. A common theme is that SALs “bridge both worlds.” For example, because SALs attend staffings at the treatment center, substance abuse counselors are exposed to specific child welfare concerns that previously were not apparent. At the same time, child welfare social workers are educated on substance abuse issues and perspectives through the individual consultation on their case plans and formal training sessions given by SALs.
Idaho Pre-Treatment Program