Community-based Treatment Alternatives for Justice-involved Youth in Child Welfare Norín Dollard Kimberly McGrath Mary Armstrong John Robst Melissa Johnson.

Community-based Treatment Alternatives for Justice-involved

Youth in Child Welfare

Norín DollardKimberly McGrathMary Armstrong

John RobstMelissa JohnsonJames Gimbel

Presented at the 2013 FADAA/FCCMH Annual Conference, August 8, 2013, Orlando, Florida

Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute

Support

This work is supported in part by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration contract #MED134


Why enhanced therapeutic foster care?

Many interventions targeted to youth with justice involvement are not effective (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011).

♦ Blueprints Initiative reviewed the evidence base for over 600 prevention and intervention programs

♦ Of the few found effective, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care was included

Evidence for the presence of a group contagion effect with delinquent youth in group settings (Lee & Thompson, 2009)


Why enhanced therapeutic foster care?

Florida studies over the past five years suggest:♦ There are large proportions of youth entering

Statewide Inpatient Psychiatric Programs (SIPP) (42%, n=195) and Therapeutic Group Care (TGC) (31%, n=86) with juvenile justice contacts in the six months prior to placement

♦ The higher the proportion of justice-involved youth in SIPPs or TGC, the more likely youth treated in such will have higher rates of future criminal activity after discharge.

♦ Youth treated in Specialized Therapeutic Foster Care have lower rates of delinquent activity after discharge.


Florida context

No practice model with evidence base for Specialized Therapeutic Foster Care

Closure of youth commitment settings in Miami-Dade

Statewide move towards adopting EBPs

♦ ReDirections (AHCA – DJJ) and DCF

♦ Georgetown Crossover Youth Practice Model


Implementation of a pilot program

Engagement of system partners at state and community level

Commitment to identify evidence-based model that is cost feasible statewide within Florida’s publicly funded children’s system

Review of evidence base for therapeutic foster care

♦ Investigation of feasibility of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

♦ Decision to use Together Facing the Challenge


What is Together Facing the Challenge?

Evidence-based model that includes training and coaching for treatment foster care supervisors and parents on:

♦ Supportive and involved relationships between supervisors and treatment parents;

♦ Effective use of behavior management strategies by treatment parents; and;

♦ Supportive and involved relationships between treatment parents and youth

• Farmer, E. M., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., Murray, M. M., & Southerland, D. G. (2010)


What is Together Facing the Challenge?

Foster parents are an active member of the treatment team and are held accountable for behavioral interventions.

Allows therapists the opportunity to focus on core issues with their clients while still addressing behavioral concerns.

Provides a structured and consistent framework for parents within a system which reduces differences between homes in the program.

Provides clear, consistent and obtainable treatment goals for clients.


Study purpose:

To implement and evaluate a small pilot study (n=10) of Together Facing the Challenge

♦ for feasibility in real world public sector settings,

♦ fidelity to the supervision and teaching model,

♦ longer term outcomes and costs.


Research Questions

1. To what extent is the therapeutic foster care model implemented with fidelity?

2. How are youth outcomes for this pilot in comparison with outcomes for similar youth with similar JJ profiles, in Mental Health and JJ group care settings, and in RTCs in child welfare custody?

3. What are the program costs, and what is the cost-effectiveness of the pilot program in comparison with youth with similar JJ profiles, in Mental Health and JJ group care settings, and in RTCs in child welfare custody?


PopulationInclusion criteria

♦ 9-17 years old

♦ History of juvenile justice involvement

♦ Referred by Miami-Dade multidisciplinary child welfare team for appropriate placement

♦ Meets criteria for Florida’s Specialized Therapeutic Foster Care according to Medicaid handbook

♦ Is in the child welfare dependency system

♦ Is enrolled in Medicaid

♦ Assent and consent obtained, as well court authorization if applicable


Population (continued)

Exclusion criteria

♦ Sex offenders (Felony sex offenses including kidnapping involving sex offenses, sexual assaults, sexual battery, lewd & lascivious, and other felony sex offenses

♦ Violent offenders (Violent crime includes murder, forcible sex offenses, robbery, and aggravated assault)

♦ Axis I diagnosis of substance abuse


Data collection

Fidelity data to ensure fidelity of implementation

Data from Citrus, adult and youth justice, state mental health, and Medicaid management information systems

Primary data are collected from youth and their caregivers at baseline, every three months while in treatment, discharge, and three and six months post-discharge


Fidelity data

Therapeutic Treatment Parents as Front-Line Treatment Providers - the caregiver’s ability to effectively implement the parenting skills and techniques presented during the training on the Together Facing the Challenge curriculum


MIS data elements

Age, race / ethnicity, gender, and diagnoses

Completion of the program, run away behaviors, delinquent behaviors, permanency goal attainment, treatment plan goal attainment, academic outcomes (e.g., grades, suspensions, expulsions, referrals for behavior), response to treatment, positive interactions with adults and peers, urinalysis results, and Baker Act initiations


Outcome data collected from Youth & Caregivers

Peer associations: Delinquent peer associations are assessed using the Interaction with Antisocial Peers Scale (Youth Report)

Wellness: Child Health Questionnaire - Provides indicators of physical wellness, psychosocial wellness and an overall wellness (Caregiver Report)

Youth strengths: Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale—Second Edition, Parent Rating Scale and Youth Rating Scale (Caregiver & Youth Report)

♦ interpersonal strength, involvement with family, intrapersonal strength, school functioning, affective strength, and career strengths


Data collected from Youth & Caregivers – Mental Health Issues

Child Behavior Checklist & Youth Self- Report

♦ Total Problem Behavior Score, Internalizing Behaviors and Externalizing Behaviors (Youth and Caregiver Report.

♦ Narrow band syndromes including Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Caregiver Report)

♦ One overall scale and Four scales – Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity Scale, Peer Problems, and Prosocial Scale.


Preliminary Findings

Youth Demographics (n = 9)

♦ 44% Male

♦ 89% Black or African American

♦ 11% Hispanic / Latino

♦ 14.6 Years of age at baseline (range 13-17)


Therapeutic Treatment Parents as Front-Line Treatment Providers

Builds a therapeutic relationship

Est. & effectively uses a daily checkin

Teaches cooperation

Uses praise to encourage positive behavior

Tracks positive and negative change

Gives effective instructions

Establishes and maintains house rules

Interrupts the conflict cycle

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not at all Somewhat like ModeratelyLike Very much like


Therapeutic Treatment Parents as Front-Line Treatment Providers

Develops & implements behavior contracts

Implements consequences

Uses effective communication

Incorporates family fun time

Utilizes problem solving techniques

Addresses thoughts, feelings & behaviors

Teaches relevant life skills

Takes care of self

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not at all Somewhat like ModeratelyLike Very much like


Youth Strengths at Baseline

Strength subscale a

BERS2C Average Score (n=7)

BERS 2Y Average Score (n=9)

Interpersonal Strength 10.14 7.44Family Involvement 9.33 7.44Intrapersonal Strength 8.67 8.44School Functioning 5.83 7.33Affective Strength 9.17 8.22Career Strength 10.17 10.44Strength Index b

84 85

[a] Strength subscales on the BERS–2C range from 1 to 16, and on the BERS–2Y from 1 to 18. Average scores on both instruments range between 8 and 12. Higher scores indicate greater strength.[b] Strength Indexes for both BERS–2C and BERS–2Y range from 38 to 161, with an average index between 90 and 110. A higher index indicates greater overall strengths.


Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Total Difficulties Score = Average 22.6 (n=7)

‘Normal’ 0

‘Borderline’ 14.3%

‘In need of further assessment’ 85.7%

Most challenging areas (% ‘borderline or abnormal’)

♦ Conduct Problems 42.9%

♦ Hyperactivity 42.9%

♦ Peer Problems 42.9%

♦ Emotional Symptoms 14.3%

♦ Prosocial 14.3%


Problem Behaviors & SymptomsAverage Score CBCL (n=6) YSR (n=9)

Internalizing T-Score

60.2 (range 44-71) 43.8 (range 32-58)

Externalizing T-Score

62.5 (range 40-73) 55.3 (range 42-67)

Total Problem T-Score

64.5 (range 52-75) 46.9 (range 32-61)

Borderline clinical range 60-63, clinical range 64 and higher


Child and Youth Physical Well-being – Caregiver’s impression of overall health

Excellent Very Good Good Fair0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

14.3%

42.9%

14.3%

28.6%

Column1

N = 7


Impact on family life (CHQ)

Limit family activities

Interrupted family activities

Limited ability to 'pick up and go'

Caused tension or conflict

Been a source of disagreement

Caused you to cancel / change plans at the last minutes

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17%

17%

33%

17%

0%

33%

33%

50%

50%

50%

60%

33%

Very often Fairly often Sometimes Almost never Never

N = 6-7


Association with Antisocial Peers

Suspended from school

Carried a handgun

Sold illegal drugs

Stolen a motor vehicle

Arrested

Dropped out of school

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

50%

75%

63%

100%

37%

75%

01234

Thinking about your four best friends. In the past year how many of your best friends have been….

N = 8


Challenges to implementation

Acquiring administrative or executive support and understanding within your agency of the implementation process is essential.

Transitioning staff from “Business as usual” to implementation of new techniques and procedures can be challenging!

Be prepared to face resistance to change from your foster parents –especially experienced or “expert” parents.

Foster parents may feel as though they are being critiqued or evaluated unfairly during the implementation process.


Challenges to implementation

Successful implementation requires constant training and education for system partners (i.e judicial system, CBC providers, GAL) regarding the program requirements and the treatment process.

Incentives and rewards for participation in the evaluation process help keep clients and parents engaged throughout the treatment process.


Strengths & Successes

This program provides an opportunity for intensive treatment services in the community for a population of clients that typically would not be served at this level of care.

We are now integrated into the system of care in Dade county and we have a waiting list.

Foster parents and staff are receptive to expanding the program.

Case example of a successful client: D.L.


Next steps

Working with AHCA to modify discharge criteria for STFC pilot programs to allow children the opportunity to benefit from one year of treatment services.

Engaging in intensive foster parent recruitment efforts to facilitate program expansion.

Agreement from the FL Department of Juvenile Justice to share in the program costs

If the outcomes are positive, work with system partners to move towards statewide implementation


Questions?

Community-based Treatment Alternatives for Justice-involved Youth in Child Welfare Norín Dollard Kimberly McGrath Mary Armstrong John Robst Melissa Johnson.

Documents

florida slide

foster parents

delinquent youth

florida agency

florida studies

youth farmer

likely youth

challenge slide