Transcript Pennsylvania’s Evidence-Based Intervention Programs

Sustainability and Impact
OMHSAS Children’s Bureau of Behavioral Health Services
August 16, 2012
Presentation to OMHSAS Children’s Advisory Committee
 The Evidence-based Prevention and Intervention Support
Center (EPISCenter) is a project of the Prevention Research
Center, College of Health and Human Development and
Penn State University with funding and support from the
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
(PCCD) and the Pennsylvania Department of Public
Welfare (DPW) as a component of the Resource Center for
Evidence-Based Prevention and Intervention Programs and
Practices
 www.episcenter.psu.edu
2
 Collects quarterly Performance Measure data for
evidence based programs provided in Pennsylvania
that are funded through Special Grant funds from
OCYF, PCCD grants, or Medical Assistance. (MTFC,
MST, & FFT)
 Provides technical assistance to providers and
communities.
 Facilitates regular networking meetings for each
program to discuss timely issues.
3
 Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC)
 Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
 Functional Family Therapy (FFT)
4
 Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) is a
treatment alternative to group, residential treatment and/or
incarceration for youth who have problems with chronic
disruptive behavior.
 Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is an alternative to out of home
placement provided to youth with significant externalizing
behaviors, with the primary treatment population being
delinquent youth and chronic or violent juvenile offenders.
 Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an intensive, short-term
family therapy model provided to youth who present with
externalizing behaviors ranging from oppositional, defiant, and
disruptive behaviors (i.e., at risk for delinquency) to serious,
chronic criminal offenses.
5
FFT Sites
6
MST Teams
7
MTFC Teams
8
 On average, sites that close do so around the 3-year
mark.
 The top reasons for closure:
 Not enough referrals (low need in community or other
barriers/disincentives to referring)
 Financial (related to program census and unique
aspects of EBI implementation)
 For maps of active programs, visit:
www.episcenter.psu.edu/emaps
9
July 2010-Dec. 2011
Total Number
of Youth Served
Total Number
of Caregivers
Served
Percent of
New
Admissions at
Imminent Risk
of Placement**
FFT
2,027
2,027
8%
MST
3,121
4,209
62%
49%
MTFC
81
64
**More recent data suggest that the percent of youth at risk of
placement may be 10-20% higher than reported here.
10
11
FFT
 A total of 1,646 youth were discharged from July 2010-Dec. 2011.
 1,483 youth who had the opportunity to complete FFT (i.e., were
not administratively withdrawn):
 66% were successfully discharged (completed FFT with positive
outcome).
 34% were unsuccessfully discharged. Of these youth, 24% were
placed out-of-home.
 Average length of stay:
 4.0 months for successful cases
 2.9 months for unsuccessful cases
12
MST
 A total of 2,571 youth were discharged.
 2,313 youth who had the opportunity to complete MST (i.e.,
were not administratively withdrawn):
 76% were successfully discharged (completed MST and met
all 3 Ultimate Outcomes)
 24% were unsuccessfully discharged. Of these youth, 54%
were placed out of home.
 The average length of stay:
 4.1 months for successful cases
 3.4 months for unsuccessful cases
13
MTFC
 A total of 41 youth were discharged from July 2010-Dec.
2011.
 36 youth had an opportunity to complete MTFC (i.e., were
not administratively withdrawn):
 58% were successfully discharged (met treatment goals,
completed MTFC point & level system, discharged to a lower
level of care).
 42% were unsuccessfully discharged. Of these youth, 80%
were placed in a more restrictive setting.
 The average length of stay:
 8.0 months for successful cases
 3.4 months for unsuccessful cases
14
 The number of EBI programs and the number of
Pennsylvania counties implementing an EBI have grown
steadily over the past 7 years.
 Across all placement types (Juvenile Justice, C&Y, M.A.-
funded) there have been decreases in the numbers and
rates of placement.
 As a whole, counties implementing EBIs have shown
substantial decreases in placement rates while counties
without EBIs have shown no change or even increases.
15
 8 counties that did not have any EBI from 2006-2010 were
compared to 11 counties that began the implementation of
their first EBI between 2007 and 2009. Placement rates
were totaled across the counties in each group.
 Group 1, Counties without an EBI 2006-2010: Bedford, Carbon,
Franklin, Fulton, Lebanon, Schuylkill, Somerset, and Susquehanna
 Group 2, Counties beginning implementation 2007-2009:
Allegheny, Berks, Cameron, Clarion, Elk, Forest, Lackawanna,
McKean, Monroe, Pike, and Potter
16
Juvenile Court Placement Rates:
A comparison of counties with and without an EBI
Placement as a Percent of Dispositions
11.00
10.50
10.84
10.54
10.69
10.53
10.58
10.00
9.89
No EBI
during 6year
period
10.05
9.76
9.50
9.07
9.00
8.70
Adopted
EBI in '07,
'08, or '09
8.50
8.00
7.79
7.78
7.50
7.00
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
17
Percent of Youth In Care, Ages 10-17,
In a Restrictive Placement as of March 31
Children & Youth Placements:
A comparison of counties with and without an EBI
39
37.9
37
36.13
35
33
31
35.56
35.3
32.36
32.55
30.88
32.38
32.38
31.99
31.98
Adopted
EBI in
'07, '08,
or '09
29.48
29
No EBI
during 6year
period
27
25
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
18
19
Youth Discharged July 2010-December 2011
Program
Benefit Cost Youth
per Youth
Discharged
(2010$)
(2010)
Estimated Economic
Benefit (crime
reduction)
FFT
$57,341
1,646
$94,383,286
MST
$22,096
2,571
$56,808,816
MTFC
$33,047
41
$1,354,927
Pennsylvania’s immediate savings related to
reduced placement costs = approximately $2.4
Million
20
21
Outcomes
 EBI Programs Outcomes Summary, July 2010-Dec. 2011
 FAQ about INSPIRE
Placement Trends & Program Locations
 Electronic Maps
 Youth Placements & Placement Rates in PA
22
 Special Thanks to the EPISCenter, for allowing us to
use the Evidence-based Intervention Programs
Outcome Summary. For a full copy of this report please
visit the EPISCenter at
http://www.episcenter.psu.edu/resources/PRCmainres
earch/researchreports
 Website: http://www.episcenter.psu.edu
 Email:
[email protected]
 Liz Campbell, Intervention Programs Coordinator:
[email protected], 717-233-1350
23