8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
1/30
Nevada Garrett Lee Smith
Local Evaluation Updates
June 9-10, 2011
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
2/30
Stakeholder Reports PreventionPays Text Messaging Service (PPTMS)
Program Update Plans for PPTMS Expansion
Local Evaluation Overview
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
3/30
PPTMS: Reports to Stakeholders
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
Quarterly Reports to Stakeholders and Project Team:
# of texts into system Frequency, length, duration of texts Texter demographics Issues reported by texters Details of text conversations with suicidal texters Outcome of text conversations Highlights from focus group conversations
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
4/30
PPTMS Pilot Implementation Sites
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
5/30
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
Social Marketing Materials
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
6/30
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
Social Marketing Materials
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
7/30
Pilot Evaluation Methods
Post-intervention text sheets Cell phone carrier data Focus groups with 113 middle and high school youth Focus groups with Crisis Call Centers 8 PPTMS staff
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
8/30
Texter Characteristics
Frequency of Texts:
319 total text conversations 49.4% of texters have texted in more than onceOutcome of Texts:
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
61.7% information/support 30.1% no resolution/opt out 7.3% texter calmed/de-escalated 1.0% thank-you/all is well
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
9/30
Length of Text Conversations
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
32% 32% 36%
0
20
4060
80
100
Short
Conversations
Medium
Conversations
Long
Conversations
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
10/30
Texter Demographics
Gender: 51.7% female 11.6% male 36.7% unknown Age: 60.8% are ages 17 and under 9.4% are ages 18 - 30 1.9% are ages 31 - 60 27.6% age is unknown
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
11/30
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
Primary Issues Reported
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
12/30
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
Referrals Provided
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
13/30
Youth Focus Groups
Focus Group Questions:
Are youth aware of program? Do they know how and when to use it? Do they relate to the social marketing materials? Do they think people their age would use the program? What issues do people their age face? What resources do they currently use during crises? What barriers would prevent them from using program? Do they know someone who has used the line already?
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
14/30
Youth Focus Groups
Are Youth Aware of Program?
All youth were aware of program
Most knew when they could use program
Do They Know How to Use It?
Nearly all understood how to use it Some confusion about who responds to texts
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
15/30
Youth Focus Groups
Do they relate to marketing materials?
Positive reaction to marketing materials and location Frustration with destruction of materials Considered age and tone-appropriate Want more information on line confidentiality
Would they use it?
Most would refer friends to program Best when youth just want to talk and want anonymity Might not be appropriate for all crises
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
16/30
Youth Focus Groups
What issues do youth face?
Relational and physical bullying, depression, sex-relatedissues, drug/alcohol abuse, interpersonal violence and
conflict
What resources do they use when in crisis?
Frustration with current resources available Reliance on friends during crisis Mistrust of school-based resources
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
17/30
Youth Focus Groups
Barriers to text line use
No cell phones (~19%) Concern about confidentiality/anonymity May not be appropriate for all crisesKnow someone who has used it?
8 knew someone who had used it Generally positive
o They texted back pretty fast so that kinda shows like they likecare. Yeah it showed they took it seriously and that they were
concerned.
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
18/30
CCC Focus Groups
Strengths of system Weaknesses of system Opportunities to improve system Threats to improving system
Background Program ConclusionEvaluationResultsEvaluationMethod
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
19/30
CCC Focus Groups
Strengths of the system:
Meeting unmet youth need Anonymity of CCC staff Saved record of all text conversations Call line strategies can be used with text line
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
20/30
CCC Focus Groups
Weaknesses of the system:
No voice cues from texter or staff Length of text conversations Need to multi-task between texting and calling Frequent opt-outs
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
21/30
CCC Focus Groups
Opportunities to improve system in future:
Acknowledging differences between texts and calls Assigning select staff to texting full-time Resource and strategy-sharing Identification of staff who excel at texting Adapting call sheets to text capabilities
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
22/30
Challenges to Overcome for the Future:
Need more texts Difficult to connect youth to resources Difficult to transition crisis texter to phone
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
CCC Focus Groups
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
23/30
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
New Social Marketing Materials
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
24/30
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
New Social Marketing Materials
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
25/30
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
New Social Marketing Materials
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
26/30
Conclusion
PPTMS increased youth help-seeking behaviors Response to program and materials very positive
Youth and adults use Crisis Line differently Phone-based strategies can be adapted for text line Difficult to gather demographics on texters
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
27/30
Future Directions
Expansion throughout Nevada Follow-up with text line users Coordination with other text-based treatment programs Development of training materials Evaluation of long-term outcomes Publication of evaluation findings
Book chapter on emerging crisis call center technologies in Crisis Intervention &Counseling by Telephone
Journal article in development
27
Background Program ConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
28/30
I personally was like Finally!
Something that this school needs.-16 year old female
Sometimes, you know, you just want
someone to talk to. You dont really want
them to fix the problem, but you just
want someone to talk to.
-13 year old male
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
29/30
I don't feel cornered anymore. I feel
like I can breathe a little bit better...You
have helped so much. Thank you very,
very much!
-34 year old male,father of three children
8/3/2019 Garrett Lee Smith Evaluation of the Text Message Crisis Hotline in Nevada
30/30
Contact Info:For information on project advocacy at the state and Local levels, or ifyou have specific questions about the Nevada schools text program,
contact Misty Vaughan Allen, Suicide Prevention Coordinator, Nevada
Dept of Health and Human Services, (775) [email protected]
Evaluation Conducted by: Bill Evans, Ph.D.University of Nevada, Reno [email protected]
For info on operational protocols, questions about the service (theresponders and responder guidelines) contact Kathy Jacobs, Director
Crisis Call Center at: 775-784-8085, crisiscallcenter.org
For information on PreventionPaysText Message Services, program
materials, marketing and implementation components contactJonathan or Tom at 805.653.6000,[email protected]
: