Ecological outcomes of adolescents in a psychoeducational residential treatment facility.

Abstract

Cross-sectional follow-up data on 111 adolescents in a re-education residential facility were obtained in three domains--school, legal, and level of care--at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postdischarge. Reports by community-based professionals on individual functioning were assessed on several criteria, the most stringent of which indicated successful outcomes for nearly 60% of the adolescents. Characteristics of the more successful students are noted, applications of the psychoeducational residential approach for program structure are considered, and implications for positive ecological outcomes are discussed.

Longitudinal Family and Academic Outcomes in Residential Programs: How Students Function in Two Important Areas of Their Lives

“…Successful graduates were also more likely to be engaged full time in some combination of work and school. In another study, a cross-sectional design using youth from one program found that the majority of youth performed satisfactorily in school after discharge: 94% at 6 months post discharge and 80% at 2 months and 24 months post discharge (Hooper, Murphy, Davaney, & Hultman, 2000).…”

So You Want To Run An Outcome Study? The Challenges To Measuring Adolescent Residential Treatment Outcomes

“…The definition of what constitutes residential treatment is further complicated by the range and variety of treatment models and philosophies currently in operation (Hooper et al, 2000). Bates et al (1997) noted that the efficacy of residential treatment is difficult to assess because of the utilization of different treatment modalities, making it difficult to compare different programs.…”

“…Yet the literature on the assessment of outcomes in adolescent residential treatment widely acknowledges the significant study design problems inherent in residential treatment outcome studies and the paucity of adequately designed studies (Chang et al, 996;Curry, 99;Curtis et al, 200;Gilliland-Mallo & Judd, 986;Goocher, 997;Gorske et al, 200;Hooper et al, 2000;Larzelere et al, 200;Mann-Feder, 996;Pfeiffer, 989;Pfeiffer & Strzelecki, 990;Swales & Kiehn, 995;Wilson et al, 98). These problems begin with a lack of consensus on what constitutes residential treatment (Bates et al,997;Curtis et al,200) and acknowledge that residential treatment outcome studies are inherently limited by the lack of appropriate comparison groups in the use of quasi-experimental designs (Curry,99).…”

“…Hooper et al (2000) noted the existence of a variety of residential treatment models currently in operation and stated that traditional research paradigms may not be suitable for evaluating the complexity of residential treatment environments. The complexity of potential therapeutic factors occurring within the milieu of a residential setting was the rationale for Swales & Kiehn's (995) proposal regarding theoretically motivated designs for outcome studies.…”

“…Additional information concerning referral reason, intelligence, medical issues (including the use of psychotropic medications), diagnoses and acuity (and how these are measured), history of previous treatment, juvenile delinquency problems, family history, physical or sexual abuse history, education history and problems, substance abuse problems, SES, and other protective and risk factors are variably identified and measured. Studies may vary from describing basic demographic data and limited information on educational history (Hoagwood & Cunningham,992) to detailed demographic data and psychosocial histories, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, IQ, diagnoses, family history, sexual/ physical abuse history, previous treatment history, school problems, and medical history (Hooper et al, 2000). Wilson et al (98) listed four essential components that should be used to define a population in residential treatment: (a) presenting problems, (b) strengths and weaknesses, (c) family structure, and (d) demographic data.…”