Nevada Garrett Lee Smith Local Evaluation Updates Local Evaluation Updates Nevada Garrett Lee Smith...

download Nevada Garrett Lee Smith Local Evaluation Updates Local Evaluation Updates Nevada Garrett Lee Smith Local Evaluation Updates Local Evaluation Updates June.

of 30

  • date post

    12-Jan-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    215
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Nevada Garrett Lee Smith Local Evaluation Updates Local Evaluation Updates Nevada Garrett Lee Smith...

  • Nevada Garrett Lee Smith Local Evaluation UpdatesJune 9-10, 2011

  • Stakeholder ReportsPreventionPays Text Messaging Service (PPTMS) Program UpdatePlans for PPTMS ExpansionLocal Evaluation Overview

  • PPTMS: Reports to StakeholdersBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation MethodQuarterly Reports to Stakeholders and Project Team:# of texts into systemFrequency, length, duration of textsTexter demographicsIssues reported by textersDetails of text conversations with suicidal textersOutcome of text conversationsHighlights from focus group conversations

  • PPTMS Pilot Implementation SitesBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation MethodSocial Marketing Materials

  • BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation MethodSocial Marketing Materials

  • BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Pilot Evaluation MethodsPost-intervention text sheetsCell phone carrier dataFocus groups with 113 middle and high school youthFocus groups with Crisis Call Centers 8 PPTMS staffBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Texter CharacteristicsFrequency of Texts:

    319 total text conversations49.4% of texters have texted in more than once

    Outcome of Texts:

    BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method61.7% information/support

    30.1% no resolution/opt out

    7.3% texter calmed/de-escalated

    1.0% thank-you/all is well

  • Length of Text ConversationsBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Texter DemographicsGender: 51.7% female 11.6% male36.7% unknownAge:60.8% are ages 17 and under 9.4% are ages 18 - 301.9% are ages 31 - 6027.6% age is unknownBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation MethodPrimary Issues Reported

    Chart1

    97

    54

    52

    44

    37

    34

    23

    22

    21

    20

    18

    23

    9

    Column1

    Sheet1

    Column1

    Concerned About Another97

    Family Conflict54

    Partner Conflict52

    Mental Health44

    Friend Conflict37

    Substance Use34

    Sexual Identity23

    Physical Health22

    Violence21

    Suicide20

    Other Relationship Conflict18

    Prank Call23

    Grief/Loss9

  • BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation MethodReferrals Provided

    Chart1

    19

    3

    9

    #

    Sheet1

    #

    Counseling Services19

    Substance Abuse Treatment3

    Other Non-Counseling Services9

    To update the chart, enter data into this table. The data is automatically saved in the chart.

  • 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?

    BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Youth Focus GroupsAre Youth Aware of Program?All youth were aware of programMost knew when they could use program

    Do They Know How to Use It?Nearly all understood how to use itSome confusion about who responds to texts

    BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Youth Focus GroupsDo they relate to marketing materials?Positive reaction to marketing materials and locationFrustration with destruction of materialsConsidered age and tone-appropriateWant more information on line confidentiality

    Would they use it?Most would refer friends to programBest when youth just want to talk and want anonymityMight not be appropriate for all crises

    BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Youth Focus GroupsWhat issues do youth face?Relational and physical bullying, depression, sex-related issues, drug/alcohol abuse, interpersonal violence and conflict

    What resources do they use when in crisis?Frustration with current resources availableReliance on friends during crisisMistrust of school-based resources

    BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Youth Focus GroupsBarriers to text line useNo cell phones (~19%)Concern about confidentiality/anonymityMay not be appropriate for all crises

    Know someone who has used it?8 knew someone who had used itGenerally positiveThey texted back pretty fast so that kinda shows like they like care. Yeah it showed they took it seriously and that they were concerned.

    BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • CCC Focus Groups

    Strengths of systemWeaknesses of systemOpportunities to improve systemThreats to improving system

    BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • CCC Focus Groups

    Strengths of the system:Meeting unmet youth needAnonymity of CCC staffSaved record of all text conversationsCall line strategies can be used with text line

    BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • CCC Focus Groups

    Weaknesses of the system:No voice cues from texter or staffLength of text conversationsNeed to multi-task between texting and callingFrequent opt-outsBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • CCC Focus Groups

    Opportunities to improve system in future:Acknowledging differences between texts and callsAssigning select staff to texting full-timeResource and strategy-sharingIdentification of staff who excel at textingAdapting call sheets to text capabilitiesBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Challenges to Overcome for the Future:Need more textsDifficult to connect youth to resourcesDifficult to transition crisis texter to phoneBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation MethodCCC Focus Groups

  • BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method New Social Marketing Materials

  • BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method New Social Marketing Materials

  • BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method New Social Marketing Materials

  • ConclusionPPTMS increased youth help-seeking behaviors Response to program and materials very positiveYouth and adults use Crisis Line differentlyPhone-based strategies can be adapted for text lineDifficult to gather demographics on textersBackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • Future DirectionsExpansion throughout NevadaFollow-up with text line users Coordination with other text-based treatment programsDevelopment of training materialsEvaluation of long-term outcomesPublication of evaluation findingsBook chapter on emerging crisis call center technologies in Crisis Intervention & Counseling by TelephoneJournal article in development

    *BackgroundProgramConclusionEvaluation ResultsEvaluation Method

  • I personally was like Finally! Something that this school needs.-16 year old femaleSometimes, 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

  • 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

    Implemented at 1 Native American High School, several rural middle and high schools, and four urban middle and high schools. Weve found it works best if the principal holds a presentation to announce the program so kids know administration is on board. Ideal if you can do a demo.

    (Pyramid Lake, Fernley, Dayton I, Dayton H, Virginia City, and 4 schools in WCSD (2 mid, 2 high), also on website, also presented to Winnemucca County as part of post-vention efforts after two suicides in county, and during presentation to Explain:Who designed these, background of EMS, how they came up with designsShow display case, explain why we put them in bathrooms (increased privacy)Why we use the word listenHow we link up with schools Signed agreement with principalAssign someone (either student or facilities manager) to maintain the posters How many cards do we give out at a time and restock the cardsImplemented at 1 Native American High School, several rural middle and high schools, and four urban middle and high schools. Weve found it works best if the principal holds a presentation to announce the program so kids know administration is on board. Ideal if you can do a demo.

    (Pyramid Lake, Fernley, Dayton I, Dayton H, Virginia City, and 4 schools in WCSD (2 mid, 2 high)http://sms.astracorp.com/User Name:Password: Remind audience that this keyword is for demonstration purposes only and is not manned 24 hours a day.*LORIE: Four sources of data for evaluation. Several months after program is in place, conducted focus groups with youth at the Native Am. School, a rural urban middle and high school, and an urban middle and high school.

    In addition, we are continuously collecting data on who is using the texting system. Counselors at CCC collect info from post-intervention text sheets (demographics, reason for texting, outcome of text) on all texters. Also collect cell phone carrier data on number of texts sent by youth and counselors over course of conversation, and *First implemented in May 2010. As of April 2, 2011, have 193 conversations. Roughly 1100 youth exposed to message in their school