Renewing Arizona Family Traditions 2000 Annual Report Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts April 2001
Table of Contents I. Introduction...1 II. Provider Agencies and Geographic Service Responsibilities...3 III. Service Descriptions...5 IV. Direct and Indirect Hours...7 A. All Counties - Direct/Indirect Hours... 8 B. By Region - Direct/Indirect Hours... 9 V. RAFT Emergency Funds...10 VI. Demographic Information...12 A. Gender of Youth: All Counties...13 By Region...14 B. Ethnicity of Youth: All Counties...15 By Region...16 VII. Intakes...17 A. Referrals All Counties/ By Region... 18 B. Time from Referral to First Meeting By Region...19 C. Total Intakes By County/ By Region... 20 VIII. Discharge and Outcome Criteria...21 IX. Discharge and Outcome Statistics...23 A. Discharges/Outcomes-All Counties...24 B. Discharges By Region...25 X. Average Months Youth In Program...26 A. All Counties...27 B. Region I...28 Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts i
C. Region II...29 D. Region III...30 E. Region IV...31 XI. Mohave County Building Up Families Services (MCBUFS)... 32 A. Number of Months Youth In Program...34 B. Gender...34 C. Time From Referral to First Meeting...35 D. Discharges/ Outcomes... 36 XII. RAFT Clinical Forums...37 Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts ii
I. Introduction Adolescents with serious behavior issues are traditionally one of the hardest populations to treat successfully. In response to this difficulty, approaches to working with such populations have evolved from removing adolescents from the home toward treating the youth and family within the family unit. This movement toward family preservation using a multisystems approach was first introduced to the Arizona Juvenile Courts by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in January of 1994 as the Renewing Arizona Family Traditions (RAFT) program. The RAFT concept is based on the Homebuilder s model, developed in 1974 by Doctors Jill Kinney and David Haapala to help families who were not successful in community-based programs. RAFT is an intensive in-home, therapeutic, case management and skillsoriented model of intervention. RAFT providers timely and intense interventions involve diffusing immediate crises, therapeutically engaging the family, developing goals with the family, teaching skills to family members, and providing case management, with the ultimate goal of eliminating or reducing the amount of court involvement with the juvenile. RAFT is not a preventative program for low-risk offenders, but is intended to intervene in high risk situations with multi-need families. The child or adolescent may be at risk of being removed from the family or family violence may threaten the stability of the family. RAFT intervenes and responds immediately in a wide variety of areas beyond the scope of many other intervention programs. Therapists employed to deliver RAFT services are required to possess a masters degree with training and/or experience in counseling or social work. The program model uses a single therapist to deliver the intensive services. The RAFT program supports the philosophy that the most effective therapeutic work occurs when the therapist is involved in doing concrete tasks with the family rather than doing traditional talk therapy. Services follow the client (home, school, neighborhood) rather than the client and family coming to the service. RAFT preservationists are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Therapists work closely and intensively with the youth and family, often having daily contact when necessary. Perhaps most importantly for families in crisis, RAFT preservationists focus on immediate, maximum effort by the staff, youth and family to attain goals which de-escalate the crisis and create stability. These differences between RAFT and traditional approaches have been identified as the very elements which attribute to the program s effectiveness. The responsiveness to the youth and family s needs, the flexibility of services, the setting where services occur, and the length and intensity of services are noted as major contributors to the success of the RAFT model. The RAFT program has evolved in response to several programmatic issues that have materialized since its inception in 1994. The original model was a crisis oriented, short term (four to six weeks long), therapeutic program without case management. RAFT providers had difficulty identifying community- Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 1
based, lower intensity follow-up services within the original four to six week time frame. Additionally, the availability of follow up services in rural areas remains a problem. In response to these issues, the RAFT program was changed in February 1999 to include case management as well as therapeutic and skill development services. The RAFT model also changed from purely a short term crisis intervention orientation to a goal-based performance model. Referrals now include intensive family reunification and social reintegration services to juveniles transitioning from detention, shelter or out of home placement who are in need of stabilization and support. The revised RAFT program has responded to other issues as well. Geographic coverage under the initial RAFT model was often limited, especially in rural areas. The number of families and clients which could be served was also highly limited. Under the revised model, the AOC has been able to expand both geographic coverage and the capacity of the service by giving the contracted providers the administrative authority to use therapists for services other than RAFT, as long as staff availability for RAFT services is maintained. RAFT contracts are performance-based and the contractors are financially incentivized to produce positive outcomes through a stepped case rate reimbursement payment process. Contractors are paid in increments as they deliver the services to the clients and meet established performance goals. For example, the contracts pay a higher rate for an intake completed within 24 hours of referral than one that is completed within 72 hours. The contractor who successfully discharges a client according to established criteria is paid a significant incentive. Conversely, the contractor does not receive an incentive for a client who is not successfully discharged. Finally, the contractor receives an additional significant incentive payment for clients who meet established outcome criteria 180 days post discharge. In this way, contractors are encouraged to develop treatment plans and deliver services in ways that promote long term success. The AOC believes that evaluating its contract services helps improve the effectiveness of those services. This report will examine the RAFT program through a presentation of the data collected by the AOC through its contract providers and other sources. The data outlined include provider agencies, service types provided, demographic data, and outcomes. The data cited cover the period from March 1999 through June 2000. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 2
II. Provider Agencies and Geographic Service Responsibilities Region I - Arizona s Children Association Arizona s Children Association provides RAFT services in Region I. This is a four county region which originally included Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai, Mohave, and Apache counties. However, Mohave county probation uses a modified home based counseling program for their service model instead of RAFT. This model is entitled Mohave County Building Up Families Services (MCBUFS). Because of service availability issues, at the time of contract Apache county was receiving services from a clinician employed by Providence Service Corporation. Therefore, the RAFT contract for Apache county became a part of the Providence contract. Arizona s Children Association joined in a subcontract with West Yavapai Guidance Clinic and the Verde Valley Guidance Clinic to deliver services to the remaining three counties: Coconino, Yavapai and Navajo. Region II and III - Providence Service Corporation Providence Service Corporation provides RAFT services to two regions in Arizona. Region II includes Gila, Graham, Greenlee and Pinal counties. As noted above, Apache county later became a part of this regional contract. Region III includes Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise counties. The Providence contract for RAFT services ended June 30, 2000 and a new provider is covering this area. Region IV - Arizona Baptist Children s Services Arizona Baptist Children s Services (ABCS) provides RAFT services in Region IV, which includes Maricopa, Yuma and La Paz counties. ABCS has been involved with the RAFT program in Arizona since its inception in 1994. The map on the following page shows each region and the agency which provides services to that region. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 3
Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 4
III. Service Descriptions RAFT providers throughout the state offer a wide variety of services to meet the needs of the youth and families with whom they work. The ultimate goal of RAFT services is to reduce recidivism. This goal is achieved using a variety of techniques and interventions which fall into three main categories of service: Case Management, Psycho-educational and Therapeutic. A description of each is provided below. Case Management Services RAFT therapists take an active role in securing community and faith-based supports for their clients and families. These services include locating assistance for families with paying bills, identifying interim housing, or applying for temporary financial assistance. School support is another important aspect of case management services. The therapist works with school administrators, teachers and school counselors to put plans in place to support youth in school. When formal schooling is not an option, alternative education may be recommended for the client. It may also be an option for the client s parent(s) who are interested in pursuing their education. If mental health issues are identified for the client or family, RAFT therapists assist in accessing these services through the Regional Behavioral Health Authority (RBHA). The RAFT therapist is responsible for coordinating RAFT services with other mental or behavioral health treatment services delivered through the RBHA. Clients and families frequently require general health care. When such needs are identified, the therapist works with the family to obtain medical coverage for youth, siblings and parents through plans such as AHCCCS or KidsCare. RAFT therapists work with families to take advantage of community-based resources such as JTPA, and with support programs such as the Boys and Girls Clubs. As one RAFT therapist expressed, You have to be imaginative and do whatever it takes to meet the child s needs. Psycho-educational Services RAFT therapists provide a great deal of issue-related education to their clients. For example, therapists may work with parents to help them understand the dynamics of their child s substance abuse. They may strive to help the family break dysfunctional patterns by providing all of the family members with information about their role in these patterns and encouraging new ways of relating to one another. Parenting skills development is often an area of need for the parents with whom RAFT providers work. RAFT providers may address this need by intervening directly to de-escalate situations between parents Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 5
and youth, modeling and coaching preferred behaviors or even referring parents to parenting skills classes. RAFT therapists teach parents to provide structure, set boundaries, develop and enforce rules, and deliver appropriate discipline. Therapeutic Services RAFT therapists typically need to deliver intensive services, work individually with clients, or with youth and family members together. Often, therapists have to work hard just to rebuild family unity prior to beginning any client specific interventions. According to a RAFT therapist, Parents get so tired of their child s disruptive behavior, they may feel ready to give up. We work to help parents get back in control. Therapists may have to work separately with the parent and child until they are ready to be brought together. RAFT therapists occasionally find that parents and other family members are very motivated to support changes in the youth, but are resistant to making changes themselves. In most cases, this resistance can be overcome and improvement in both the client and family occur, but sometimes a RAFT therapist must assist the youth in developing other support systems in addition to the immediate family. In addition to the variety of case management, psycho-educational and therapeutic services, RAFT therapists may assume the role of mentor with the individual youths they counsel. They may meet with the youth once or twice a week in this revised role to talk about school, sports, or friends. The RAFT therapist typically serves in this mentoring role to help transition the youth and family to other, more long-term community based support systems. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 6
IV. Direct and Indirect Hours RAFT service hours are classified as either direct or indirect. Direct hours include therapeutic sessions with the youth and family, skill development with the youth and family, crisis intervention, and case management activities requiring direct involvement with the client. Indirect hours include such activities as advocating for the client with his/her school and other community providers, accessing community resources for the client, accessing economic and social support systems on the client s behalf, and progress note and report writing. The graphs on the following two pages provide a partial report of RAFT therapists direct and indirect hours. Because of changes which occurred in AOC reporting requirements, these numbers do not reflect the total statewide direct and indirect hours provided by RAFT therapists. Statewide, provider agencies reported total service hours on 88 percent of their clients, and only 58.7 percent of those reports included a break down of direct and indirect hours. The first graph reflects that a total of 13,751 total service hours were provided for the 88 percent of total clients reported. Of those 13,751 hours, 5,030 were direct hours, and 3,786 were indirect hours. The AOC does not have reports from the provider agencies on whether the remaining 4,935 (36%) hours were direct or indirect. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 7
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts All Counties - Direct / Indirect Hours 7000 6000 (1) 5030 Total Hours = 13,751 4935 5000 3786 Hours 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Direct Hours Unknown Indirect Hours (1) 88% of reports from provider agencies included total service hours provided. y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\allcountiesdirectindirecthrs 8 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts By Region - Direct / Indirect Hours 3500 Total = 7217 (1) 3311 3000 (2) 2556 (2) 2742 2500 Total = 3519 Hours 2000 1500 1000 500 (1) 709 Total = 1924 (2) 432 (2) 783 Total = 1091 (1) 417 (2) 242 (2) 432 (1) 593 (2) 370 (2) 1164 0 Region I Region II Region III Region IV Total Hours All Regions = 13,751 Direct Hours Indirect Hours Unknown (1) 88% of reports from provider agencies included total service hours provided. (2) 58.7% of reports from provider agencies included a breakdown of direct and indirect hours. y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\byregiondirectindirecthrs 9 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
V. RAFT Emergency Funds Emergency fund monies are available for providing emergency services to referred client families. RAFT emergency fund use is not to exceed $400 per family. Each provider must develop a written policy and procedure for their RAFT emergency fund, and all disbursements or use of emergency funds must be in accordance with AOC approved policy and procedure. RAFT emergency funds are required to be kept in a separate account and available for AOC review. The following are highlights of the provider agencies emergency fund policies. Emergency Fund Policy and Use: < Arizona Baptist Children s Services Emergency funds are available for RAFT clients in crisis requiring financial assistance to mitigate the crisis. Emergency funds are available for rent, utilities, food, clothing, transportation, repairs, and certain medical expenses. From March 1999 through June 2000, Arizona Baptist Children s Services served 136 youth and their families with $36,167.73 in emergency funds. This is an average of $265.94 per client and family served. < Arizona s Children Association Emergency funds are for stabilizing a family during crisis, and are to be used only if they will reduce the stress and tension a family is experiencing due to lack of resources. A petty cash box is maintained for RAFT preservationists, who may utilize up to $50 for immediate emergency needs without authorization from their supervisor. Should the family require additional emergency funds, the monies used from the petty cash fund will be subtracted from the $400 available for the family s use. The agency budgets $100 per family, recognizing many families will be served through RAFT where no emergency funds are needed. RAFT emergency funds are available for assistance with rent, utilities, medical treatment, safety and essential comfort of living environment, food, transportation, and clothing. From March 1999 through June 2000, Arizona s Children Association provided $3,468.91 in emergency funds to 45 youth and their families, for an average of $77.09 per client and family. < Providence Service Corporation Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 10
Emergency funds are available for RAFT clients in need of emergency financial assistance. $250 per client family is budgeted. Any requests above $250 must receive prior authorization by the Chief Operating Officer or designee. Emergency fund disbursement is based on an urgent need to meet such basic needs as food, shelter, and utilities. From March 1999 through June 2000, Providence provided $5,765.61 in emergency funds to 28 clients and their families for an average of $205.91 per client and family. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 11
VI. Demographic Information The graphs on pages 13 and 14 represent the gender breakdown of RAFT clients, statewide and by region. The graphs on pages 15 and 16 represent the ethnicity of RAFT clients, statewide and by region. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 12
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts All Counties - Clients By Gender Total = 618 Female 243 Male 375 y\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\GenderGraphallcounties 13 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts - Gender by Region 400 375 Total = 618 350 300 Number of Youth 250 200 150 164 232 243 Female Male 100 50 50 24 25 30 30 63 0 Region I Region II Region III Region IV Total y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftgenderbyregion 14 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts 350 - All Counties - Ethnicity 334 (54%) Total = 618 300 Number of Youth 250 200 150 100 50 0 Caucasian 196 (31.7%) 53 (8.6%) 17(2.8%) Hispanic African American Native American Asian Pacific Islander 15 (2.4%) Other/Unknown 3 (.5%) Caucasian Hispanic African American Native American Asian Pacific Islander Other/Unknown y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftallcountiesethnicity 15 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts Ethnicity - All Counties by Region Caucasian Hispanic African American Native American Asian/ Pacific Islander Other/ Unknown Total Region I 52 11 2 9 0 0 74 Region II 40 11 3 1 0 0 55 Region III 35 38 9 0 10 1 93 Region IV 207 136 39 7 5 2 396 TOTAL 334 196 53 17 15 3 618 A:\raftethnicityallbyregtablepg16.wpd 16 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
VII. Intakes RAFT providers must accept youth who meet the following intake criteria: A. Incorrigibility/ Delinquency: Youth who present with incorrigible or delinquent behaviors which threaten the stability and unity of the family, and whose family is willing to learn how to improve parenting skills and positively impact their youth s behaviors. B. Substance Abuse: The youth and perhaps other family members present with substance abuse problems, but are interested in and available for assistance with education, treatment and other skill development and improvement. C. Family violence: Documented evidence exists that physical violence has existed in the family with a high likelihood that renewed or escalated violence will occur. Family members must express a commitment to learn new ways of expressing anger in non-violent ways. D. Behavioral Health: The youth or family member presents with a serious behavioral health problem negatively impacting family stability, but which may be addressed through a combination of medication, treatment and skill development. E. Sexual Behavior: The youth is engaging in promiscuous sexual behaviors in or outside of the home and/or the family s sexual boundaries are contributing to inappropriate sexual behaviors. RAFT providers may deny or terminate services according to the following criteria: A. The family s location is unknown. B. The therapist cannot gain access to or contact the family after multiple documented attempts. C. The youth/family presents a risk which is highly dangerous or life threatening. D. The youth/family adamantly refuses services and will not cooperate. Once the RAFT provider receives the referral from the juvenile court, the AOC prefers that the provider make face-to-face contact with the client and complete a written assessment of the family within 24 hours of receipt of the referral. If face-to-face contact within 24 hours is not possible, then a telephone contact is required and must be documented and sent to the probation officer. The provider then has an additional 48 hours to make face-to-face contact with the family and complete the initial assessment form. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 17
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts Referrals - All Counties 800 700 600 500 400 300 686 618 Total = 686 Total Referrals Total Accepted Total Denied 200 100 68 0 Referrals - By Region 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 432 427 109 109 79 6665 Region II Region II II Region Region III III Region Region IV IV Total Total = 686= 680 Region I Region I Region II Region II Region III Region III Region IV Region IV raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftreferralsall. 18 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts 1000 - By Region - Time from Referral to First Meeting 454 686 254 Number of Youth 100 10 51 56 12 10 6 3 93 8 4 2 2 6 91 46 36 112 56 58 6 1 Region I Region II Region III Region IV Total Unknown (Preexisting Clients) Within 24 Hours 24-48 Hours 48-72 hours Over 72 Hours Total y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftbyregionrefertofirstmtg 19 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts - Total Intakes By County Apache 21 Intakes = 612 Preexisting Clients = 6 Total = 618 Cochise 28 Coconino Gila 20 7 By Region Graham 8 Greenlee LaPaz 1 3 12% 9% Maricopa 356 Navajo 6 Pima 65 64% 15% Pinal 17 Santa Cruz 0 Unknown Yavapai 6 (Preexisting Clients) 48 Region I Region III Region II Region IV Yuma 32 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftintakesbyco 20 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
VIII. Discharge and Outcome Criteria The AOC contracts with each of the RAFT provider agencies using an incentivized case rate. The provider is paid an incentivized rate for intake, a set rate for acceptance of a case, an incentive for successful discharge, and a final incentive payment for a successful outcome 180 days after discharge. A successful discharge in the RAFT program is measured by the following criteria: A. The problem behaviors for which the client/family was referred have been eliminated or diminished and the family is stable as may be evidenced by documented achievement of service plan goals. B. The youth remains in the home or has been successfully transitioned from an out of home environment to the home or other relevant environment. C. The youth is actively attending school and achieving passing grades or is actively pursuing alternative education and/or is employed or seeking employment. D. The youth is compliant with the terms of probation The target performance goals of RAFT are that 80 per cent of RAFT referrals accepted into service will be successfully discharged, and 80 per cent of RAFT clients will not have been removed from the home during the six month period following discharge. Successful outcome is measured against the following criteria: A. The client remains in the home with no removal for out of home placement, detention on a new charge or detention or probation violation for longer then 72 hours, with no runaway for longer than 7 days, no commitment to the Department of Juvenile Corrections, or transferred to adult court and placed on probation or sentenced to the Department of Corrections; AND B. The client is meeting the terms of probation and has not received any new referrals excluding status offenses; AND C. The client is attending school and achieving passing grades, or, if not in school, is actively Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 21
pursuing alternative education and/or is employed. The graph on page 24 shows a total of 581 youth statewide who completed RAFT services from March 1999 through June 2000. The graphs on pages 27 through 31 show the average number of months those discharged youth spent in the RAFT program. The graph on page 24 shows whether the youth were successfully or unsuccessfully discharged, as well as whether their case was considered a successful or unsuccessful outcome (successful or unsuccessful outcomes are measured 180 days after discharge). The graph on page 25 shows successful and unsuccessful discharges by region. During the months from March 199 through June 2000, only those youth who were successfully discharged were followed to measure whether they achieved a successful outcome as well. In later discussions between the contractors and the AOC, agreement was reached that all discharged youth would be tracked for outcomes as well, but this change took place subsequent to the data collection for this report. Due to the fact that outcomes are measured 180 days (six months) after discharge, provider agencies were unable to locate and contact 63, or 15 percent, of successfully discharged clients. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 22
IX. Discharge and Outcome Statistics Please refer to the charts on pages 24 and 25. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 23
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts Raft 2000 Annual Report All Counties - Discharges / Outcomes 600 581 500 400 388 423 300 200 193 179 181 100 63 0 Total Discharges Successful= 67% Unsuccessful= 33% Total Outcomes Successful= 42% Unsuccessful= 43% Unknown= 15% y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftdischoutcomallcounties 24 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30,2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts By Region - Discharges 450 400 350 Total = 581 395 Number of Youth 300 250 200 150 100 50 59 32 95 Total = 388 39 22 68 259 Total = 193 20 10 27 136 0 Total Discharges Successful Unsuccessful Region I Region II Region III Region IV y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftbyregdischarges 25 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
X. Average Months Youths in Program Please refer to the charts on pages 27 through 31. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 26
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts All Counties - Average Months Youth in Program Total = 527 3% Less Than 1% 44% 17 Youth 1 Youth 53% 230 Youth 279 Youth 0-3 Months 4-6 Months 7-9 Months 10-13 Months y\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftallavgmoinprog 27 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts - Region I: Arizona's Children Association Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai - Average Months Youth in Program 14.5% 9 Youth 3.2% 2 Youth 14.5% 9 Youth Total = 62 35.5% 22 Youth 32.3% 20 Youth 2 Months 3 Months 4 Months 5 Months 6 Months y\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftregIavgmoinprog 28 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts - Region II: Providence Service Corporation Apache, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pinal Average Months Youth in Program 11.8% 6 Youth 2.00% 11.8% Total = 51 1 Youth 6 Youth 49% 25 Youth 25.5% 13 Youth 2 Months 3 Months 4 Months 5 Months 6 Months y\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftregIIavgmoinprog 29 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts - Region III: Providence Service Corporation Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz - Average Months Youth in Program 24.7% 20 Youth 2.5% 2 Youth Total = 81 29.6% 24 Youth 43.2% 35 Youth 2 Months 3 Months 4 Months 5 Months y\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftregIIIavgmoinprog 30 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts - Region IV: Arizona Baptist Children's Services Maricopa, Yuma, La Paz - Average Months Youth in Program 14.1% 47 Youth 7.8% 26 Youth 3.0% 10 Youth.09% 3 Youth 1.2% 4 Youth 0.3% 1 Youth 15.6% 52 Youth Total = 333 31.8% 106 Youth 25.2% 84 Youth 2 Months 3 Months 4 Months 5 Months 6 Months 7 Months 8 Months 9 Months 10 Months = 0 11 Months y\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftregIVavgmoinprog 31 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
XI. Mohave County Building Up Families Services (MCBUFS) The MCBUFS program, a Mohave county probation department alternative to the RAFT program, is provided by WestCare, Inc. s office located in Bullhead City. MCBUFS is a modified home- based counseling service. The Administrative Office of the Courts began contracting this service from WestCare on March 1, 1999. Therapists work closely with each youth s probation officer and the school, if applicable, in determining how best to meet the needs of the families. The frequency of the home-based counseling services is based on each individual family s needs. The therapists utilize a wraparound perspective. This service provides for home-based intake, counseling, referrals and development of a service plan. A. Method of Approach Using a family systems approach, the therapist will deliver all intake and counseling services in the home and focus on issues identified in the Individual Service Plan. B. Objective Establish a supportive family environment where relationships are successful in meeting family needs. C. Measurement Client disclosures; DSM-IV Global Assessment of Relational Functioning. D. Outcome Criteria Family maintains DSM-IV Global Assessment of Relational Functioning at a constant level for six months E. Testing Tool DSM-IV Global Assessment of Relational Functioning F. Discharge Criteria The juvenile is ready for discharge when the family makes credible statements of improved relational functioning and the family has improved by 10 points on the global assessment Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 32
of functioning scale. In addition, the client and family must meet all conditions of the MCBUFS program. Reimbursement The MCBUFS program was block purchased in order to create caseload and provider financial stability. The therapist s caseload is limited to ten families at any given time under the block purchase. Home-based services delivered to additional families over the block purchase limit of ten families are billed at the contracted fee for service rate. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 33
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts 4 Youth 13% Mohave County MCBUFS 2000 Annual Report Number of Months Youth in Program 1 Youth 3% 10 Youth 33% 10 33% Mohave County MCBUFS 2000 Annual Report Gender 7 Youth 23% Months 0-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 Over 12 20 67% Total = 30 8 Youth 27% Total = 30 Male Female y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\mohave 34 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts Mohave County MCBUFS 2000 Annual Report Time from Referral to First Meeting 7 Youth 23% 9 Youth 30% 8 Youth 27% Total = 30 5 Youth 17% 1 Youth 3% Within 24 Hours 24-48 Hours 48-72 Hours Over 72 Hours Unknown (In program prior to AOC involvement.) y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\mohave sheet 3 35 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts Mohave County MCBUFS 2000 Annual Report Discharges / Outcomes 30 30 30 25 20 (66.7%) 20 17 = (56.7%) 15 10 5 10 (33.3%) 13 = (43.3%) 0 Total Discharges Successful Unsuccessful Outcomes Successful Unsuccessful y:\jjsd\jts-noriega\raft\databases.reports\reports.data\annual\report 3.99 to 6.00\raftdischoutcommohave 36 Data from March 1, 1999 to June 30,2000 (Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.)
XII. RAFT Clinical Forums The AOC is committed to the continuing development of the RAFT service. Quarterly training forums have been sponsored and facilitated by the AOC for RAFT therapists, program supervisors, probation officers and probation supervisors since the service s inception. The forums aid in fostering understanding and cooperation between the probation departments and providers. RAFT forums have delivered a wide variety of clinical information and training to the attendees. Therapist safety in the client home, overcoming resistant families, substance abuse issues, domestic violence, and a host of other topics have been delivered throughout the years. Experienced therapists have used the forums to share their insights with their colleagues and probation staff. Probation staff have trained on court process, needs and procedures in order to help the providers understand and meet the court s needs. Therapists and probation officers have used the forums to communicate their need for support from each other when faced with resistant families and to form partnerships for improved services. The training opportunity is unique and the benefits to therapists, probation officers and the families they serve is a benefit to Arizona. Arizona Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts 37
Please direct all questions to: ekling@supreme.sp.state.az.us Eva Kling Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 337 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231 602-364-2216