1. 2 nd Annual FFT Symposium, April 23 & 24, 2009 Cricket Mitchell, PhD Research Associate, Child and Families Team, CIMH California FFT Outcome Evaluation

2. 2 Overview of Symposium Recent FFT Community Development Team Dashboard ReportRecent FFT Community Development Team Dashboard Report –Spring 2009 –Estimated distribution: May 2008 ElementsElements –Who’s served –Service delivery information –Program outcomes

3. 3 Recent FFT Outcome Evaluation Dashboard Report (handout)

4. Spring 2009 Outcome Evaluation Dashboard Report CSS data download February 2009CSS data download February 2009 –Reflecting youth served from each program’s inception thru 1/31/09 29 sites29 sites 133 active therapists133 active therapists –Active at the time of the CSS data download 4

5. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Who is Served Table 1: FFT StatusTable 1: FFT Status –“Entry Rate” The proportion of youth referred for FFT who have at least one session. –“Dropout Rate” The proportion of youth who started FFT and did not advance to the generalization phase. 5

6. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Who is Served 6 Table 1. FFT Status – Clients Referred to Active FFT Therapists (N=2473) Entry RateDropout Rate 94.5% (n=2337) 36.3% (n=849)

7. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Who is Served 7 Table 2. Client Demographics – Youth Served by Active Therapists Who Entered FFT (n=2337) GenderEthnicity Age (in years) Female Male African- American Asian/ Pacific Islander Biracial Caucasian Hispanic/ Latino Other 14.3 n=1038 35.0% n=819 62.0% n=1448 20.4% n=476 1.0% n=23 5.9% n=139 26.9% n=628 37.6% n=879 1.6% n=38

8. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Service Delivery Information Table 3: FFT Process DataTable 3: FFT Process Data –Families with at least one session in Behavior Change At least one pre-FFT YOQ (youth self-report, mother, and/or father) At least one CPQ completed in Engagement & Motivation and/or Behavior Change (youth self- report, mother, and/or father) –Indicates therapist adherence to FFT protocol 8

9. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Service Delivery Information 9 Table 3. FFT Process Data – Youth Served by Active Therapists Who Had At Least One Session in the Behavior Change Phase (n=1647) Families With At Least One Completed Youth Outcome Questionnaire (YOQ) Prior to FFT (Pre-YOQ) Families With At Least One Completed Counseling Process Questionnaire (CPQ) in Engagement & Motivation and/or Behavior Change 76.6% (n=1262) 65.3% (n=1076)

10. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Service Delivery Information Table 4: FFT Process Data (slide 1 of 2)Table 4: FFT Process Data (slide 1 of 2) –“Completed FFT” At least one session in Generalization AND At least one outcome measure (TOM, COMs, YOQs, any informant) 10

11. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Service Delivery Information Table 4: FFT Process Data (slide 2 of 2)Table 4: FFT Process Data (slide 2 of 2) –For youth who have Completed FFT Average number of sessions in each phase CPQ data, by informant, for the Generalization Phase –Average score for core items 1-16 (7-point Likert scale) –The percent improvement in scores from item 17 to 18 (“How good or bad were things when you first started coming” compared to “How good or bad are things now”) 11

12. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Service Delivery Information 12 Table 4. FFT Process Data – Youth Served by Active Therapists Who Completed FFT (n=884) Average Number of Sessions Counseling Process Questionnaire (CPQ) Data: Generalization Phase TotalE & MB. C.Gen. Mother ReportFather ReportYouth Report Avg 1-16 % ↑ 17-18 Avg 1-16 % ↑ 17-18 Avg 1-16 % ↑ 17-18 14.34.95.83.56.2180%5.9141%6.0138%

13. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Program Outcomes Table 5: FFT Outcome DataTable 5: FFT Outcome Data –For youth who have Completed FFT Percent improvement in YOQ & YOQ-SR total scores from pre- to post-FFT (mother, father, youth client) Possible YOQ/YOQ-SR total scores range -16 to 240 Clinical cutpoint YOQ = 47 Clinical cutpoint YOQ-SR = 46 13

14. FFT Dashboard Report Spring 2009 Program Outcomes 14 Table 5. FFT Outcome Data – Youth Served by Active Therapists Who Completed FFT (n=884) Youth Outcome Questionnaire (YOQ) – Percent Improvement Pre/Post MotherFatherYouth 27.0%** (n=536) [pre=65.6] 19.4%** (n=163) [pre=64.0] 21.1%** (n=620) [pre=52.2] **A statistically significant improvement, p<.01.

15. Interpreting FFT Outcomes Reported in Spring 2009 On average, for youth who participate in California’s FFT programs…On average, for youth who participate in California’s FFT programs… – Mothers report a 27% improvement and fathers report a 19% improvement in their overall mental health functioning (as assessed by the Youth Outcome Questionnaire © ). 15

16. Interpreting FFT Outcomes Reported in Spring 2009 On average, youth who participate in California’s FFT programs…On average, youth who participate in California’s FFT programs… –Self-report a 21% improvement in their overall mental health functioning (as assessed by the Youth Outcome Questionnaire–Self-Report © ). 16

17. Interpreting FFT Outcomes Reported in Spring 2009 FFT is performing equally well across gender and ethnicity in California’s programsFFT is performing equally well across gender and ethnicity in California’s programs –Follow-up analyses of aggregate data revealed no significant differences in FFT entry rate, dropout rate, or program outcomes by gender or ethnicity 17

18. 18 Questions & Discussion

19. 19 The End For More Information Contact Cricket Mitchell, PhDContact Cricket Mitchell, PhD Email: cmitchell@cimh.orgcmitchell@cimh.org Cell phone: 858-220-6355