CHILD AND FAMILY DISASTER RESEARCH TRAINING AND EDUCATION

1. CHILD AND FAMILY DISASTER RESEARCH TRAINING AND EDUCATION

2. Federal Sponsors NIMH National Institute of Mental Health NINR National Institute of Nursing Research SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

3. Principal Investigators Betty Pfefferbaum, MD, JD University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Alan M. Steinberg, PhD University of California, Los Angeles Robert S. Pynoos, MD, MPHUniversity of California, Los Angeles John Fairbank, PhDDuke University

4. Evaluating Disaster Mental Health Programs Part II: From Theory to Practice Clark Johnson, Ph.D. Adopted / Modified from materials prepared by: Fran Norris Ph.D., Craig Rosen, Ph.D. Helena Young, Ph.D. National Center for PTSD

5. We will start the next session in about 10 minutes and will begin with a discussion of the following text “Disaster research is different from most other fields in that much of the work is motivated by a sense of urgency and concern. Disaster research has both benefited and suffered from this. It has benefited because the cadre of researchers is fluid, and new ideas are accepted and welcomed. It has benefited also because the result has been an impressively diverse database that includes samples from all different regions of the United States[...]. However, disaster research has also suffered from this situation. Scholarship is not always the best because studies often are undertaken under conditions where there simply is not time to absorb a literature that is scattered across a variety of journals and is mixed in quality. Concerns about experimental designs and scientific rigor must often take a back seat to provider beliefs, consumer demands, and clinical necessities. Most of the research is atheoretical and little of it is programmatic. On the basis of this review, we will state our opinion unequivocally that we do not need more research that establishes only that severely exposed disaster victims develop psychological disorders or, worse, that barely exposed disaster victims do not. We need carefully conceived and theory-driven studies of basic process that are longitudinal in design. [...] We need more research that addresses the needs of diverse populations. We need more complex studies of family systems and community-level processes. We need to identify and investigate novel approaches to community intervention, where the intervention itself has been designed to produce collective rather than individual improvements.” Source : Norris, Friedman, & Watson. (2002) 60,000 Disaster Victims Speak: Part II. Summary and Implications of the Disaster Mental Health Research. Psychiatry 65(3), 240-260

6. Disaster research is motivated by a sense of urgency and concern. • It has benefited from this because: • The cadre of researchers is fluid, and new ideas are accepted and welcomed. • The result has been an impressively diverse database that includes samples from all different regions of the United States

7. Disaster research is motivated by a sense of urgency and concern. • It has suffered from this situation because: • Scholarship is not always the best because studies often are undertaken under conditions where there simply is not time to absorb a literature that is scattered across a variety of journals and is mixed in quality. • Concerns about experimental designs and scientific rigor must often take a back seat to provider beliefs, consumer demands, and clinical necessities. • Most of the research is atheoretical and little of it is programmatic.

8. On the basis of this review, we will state our opinion unequivocally that • We do not need • more research that establishes only that “severely exposed disaster victims” develop psychological disorders or, worse, that “barely exposed disaster victims” do not. • We do need: • carefully conceived and theory-driven studies of basic process that are longitudinal in design. • more research that addresses the needs of diverse populations. • more complex studies of family systems and community-level processes. • to identify and investigate novel approaches to community intervention, where the intervention itself has been designed to produce collective rather than individual improvements.

9. Let’s pretend we’re starting today • When disaster strikes the Psychosocial health of the children and families in our community will be adversely impacted. • Our goal is to implement a program that is designed to minimize this impact. • The evaluation of this program must be designed to: • Guide development (Proactive / Clarificative) • Monitor implementation (Interactive) • Summarize outcomes and results (Impact) • How should we proceed?

10. Psychological First Aid (PFA)http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/manuals/nc_manual_psyfirstaid.html • PFA is an evidence-informed modular approach for assisting people in the immediate aftermath of disaster and terrorism: to reduce initial distress, and to foster short and long-term adaptive functioning. • It is for use by mental health specialists including first responders, incident command systems, primary and emergency health care providers, school crisis response teams, faith-based organizations, disaster relief organizations, Community Emergency Response Teams, Medical Reserve Corps, and the Citizens Corps in diverse settings.

11. Ex Ante Evaluation EX ANTE EVALUATION: A practical guide for preparing proposals for expenditure programmes Available: (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/evaluation/pdf/ex_ante_guide_en.pdf) • Overview of key elements • Lessons from the past • Problem analysis and needs assessment • Objective setting • Alternative delivery mechanisms and risk assessment • Added value of this activity • Planning future monitoring and evaluation • Helping to achieve cost-effectiveness

12. Pubmed “Psychological first aid” May 28th, 2007

13. Pubmed “Psychological first aid” • 23 hits • General overview • 1 - Technology • 6 - Disaster Planning / Policy • 7 - How to’s • 1 - Personal Experiences w/ • 8 - N/A • One article that might help us along • Macy, et.al. (2004).Community-based, acute posttraumatic stress management: A description and evaluation of a psychosocial-intervention continuum. Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 12,217-228.

14. Focus on Macy, et. al. (2004). • Helps us avoid “re-inventing the wheel” • Literature – paucity of evidence that CISD is effective (p218) • “Conceptual and practice framework for assessing and intervening with children, youths, families and their various types of adult caregivers” (p219) • Template for intervention process and practice protocols (p221-222) • An evaluation study that can be used as a preliminary template (p223) • Stakeholders study • Case records study • Study of training • Results (p226): Program effective because • It helped communities handle crises • Trained a network of local people to lead or assist with the interventions • Identifies study’s limitations (p226-7) • No comparison group • No use of standardized / validated instruments • No analysis of quantitative client-outcome data • Long-term effectiveness unclear

15. Evaluation Study • The study was conducted over a five-month period, between June and October 2003. The design was essentially that of a case study structured to capture PTSM’s essential elements and to enable an assessment of program effectiveness, specifically through a three-component design: • (1) a study of stakeholders in order to assess their views of the program, its impact on individuals and communities, and its quality • (2) a study of case records of interventions with individuals and community groups experiencing traumatic events in order to assess the breadth and depth of the interventions, the manpower and time required, and the effectiveness of the interventions; and • (3) an assessment of the effectiveness of the training that was designed to create a cadre of people to assist with community interventions.

16. Generate an initial intervention plan • A this point the “plan” is – just a rough sketch of your ideas for: • Training • Process • ?? • Documents include: • Training • Program logic • ??

17. Ex Ante Evaluation • Lessons from the past • Problem analysis and needs assessment • Problem Analysis • What is the problem to be solved? • What are the main factors and actors involved? • Needs Assessment • What is the concrete target group • What are the needs and / or interests of this group • Objective setting • Alternative delivery mechanisms and risk assessment • Added value of this activity • Planning future monitoring and evaluation • Helping to achieve cost-effectiveness

18. Problem analysis • Roadmap • Define the key aspects of the situation to be addressed by the program • Identify factors that are likely to influence the key problem • Identify the main groups of actors that influence or that are being influenced by the situation • Analyze the cause-effect relations between the factors identified and the interests and motivation of the actors • Construct a visual presentation of these relationships

19. Needs assessment • Roadmap • Identify the target population and the most important subgroups within it • Investigate the situation, motivations and interests of these groups • Make sure that the identified needs actually correspond with social, economic and environmental objectives of the community

20. Ex Ante Evaluation • Lessons from the past • Problem analysis and needs assessment • Objective setting • Define general, specific and operational objectives • Define indicators that measure inputs, outputs, results and impacts • Alternative delivery mechanisms and risk assessment • Added value of this activity • Planning future monitoring and evaluation • Helping to achieve cost-effectiveness

21. Key questions

22. - Inputs - Resources Available for Achieving Goals • Some inputs are tangible resources, such as funding, program staff, office space, supplies, and transportation • Others are less concrete, such as the skills of staff and relationships among staff and with local community leaders • Lack of these resources can greatly limit an organization’s ability to deliver services • Given the unexpected nature of disasters, programs often are initiated before all of the necessary inputs are in place, creating challenges for both the program and its evaluation

23. Outputs – The Measurable Units of Products from Program Processes • Evaluations often focus on the outputs of the service delivery process, such as: • Number of outreach visits concluded • Number of children receiving counseling • Number of people reached in public education • Number of individuals screened and referred for more extensive treatment • In some cases, evaluations conclude with outputs, which are used as a proxy for outcomes

24. Indicators Of Outputs And Outcomes • Indicators are the observable measures or standards used to monitor or evaluate program success or outcome (e.g., number of clients receiving services, changes in consumer self-reported symptoms or behaviors, or changes in community conditions) • It is the job of the evaluator to ensure that these criteria are defensible • For indicators of success to be meaningful, they must exhibit good construct validity (measure what they claim to be measuring)

25. Processes – Activities or Means to Bring About Program Objectives • Such processes might include: • outreach to affected people in the community • providing classes or community education on normal responses to trauma • public relations efforts to increase community awareness of the agency’s services • training secondary helpers in how to provide reassurance and support to facilitate recovery • providing brief individual or group counseling or more extensive intervention • arranging treatment referrals for individuals with more severe mental health needs

26. Ready-to-use Data Collection, Data Management, And Reporting Tools • If possible locate and use tools that someone else has developed and validated (!)

27. Individual Encounter Log • Used to document interactions with individuals or families lasting 15+ minutes and involving participant disclosure. • Captures encounter characteristics, risk categories, participant characteristics, & referrals. • Completed by the crisis counselor immediately after the encounter is over. • Training considerations: Eliciting personal information through “active listening” without asking directly.

28. Participant Survey (1) • Used to obtain feedback about the program. • In one selected week each quarter, all adults receiving individual or group crisis counseling are given a packet containing a cover letter, survey, pen, and stamped return envelope. • Survey provides some data about immediate outcomes of crisis counseling, such as learning about common reactions to disasters, normalization of feelings and help-seeking, and finding ways to take care of one’s self & family.

29. Participant Survey (2) • Data on disaster experiences (p. 1) and distress (p. 2) provide information about participant needs. • Distress measure is the SPRINT-E. • Training considerations: The counselor must be convinced that the survey is the recipient’s opportunity to tell the program about community needs and how well program is meeting those needs.

30. Provider Survey (1) • Used to capture crisis counselors’ opinions about training, resources, services provided, and overall quality of the CCP. • The provider survey is collected anonymously from crisis counselors and their supervisors at 6 and 12 months post-disaster. • A packet containing a cover letter, survey, and pen is given to each crisis counselor together with a stamped return envelope, addressed to an external evaluator (presently NCPTSD).

31. Provider Survey (2) • The survey also measures worker stress (p. 2). • Respondent’s identity is protected by lack of identifying information, return of the survey to an external evaluator, and aggregation of results. • Training considerations: Conveying reasons for, and importance of, the survey; explaining why high response rate matters.

32. Resources • For further information about: • Tools • Databases • Evaluation manual • Contact the SAMHSA’s Disaster Technical Assistance Center (DTAC). (http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/dtac/) • Email -- http://nmhicstore.samhsa.gov/emails/contact.aspx • Phone – 1-800-308-3515

33. Ex Ante Evaluation • Lessons from the past • Problem analysis and needs assessment • Objective setting • Alternative delivery mechanisms and risk assessment • Added value of this activity • Planning future monitoring and evaluation • What types of evaluations are needed and when should they be carried out? • Are the proposed methods of collecting, storing and processing the follow-up data sound? • Is the monitoring system fully operational already from the outset of the program implementation? • Helping to achieve cost-effectiveness

34. Ex Ante Evaluation • Lessons from the past • Problem analysis and needs assessment • Objective setting • Alternative delivery mechanisms and risk assessment • Added value of this activity • Planning future monitoring and evaluation • Helping to achieve cost-effectiveness

35. Where are experts and resources • Let your exploration identify the experts and resources that are available • For our hypothetical example we have the following leads: • Fran Norris - fran.norris@dartmouth.edu • Robert Macy – rdmacy@verizon.net • SAMHSA’s Disaster Technical Assistance Center (DTAC). (http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/dtac/) • Email -- http://nmhicstore.samhsa.gov/emails/contact.aspx • Phone – 1-800-308-3515

36. Blank

37. Conducting program evaluation in the aftermath of disasters poses special challenges Barriers and Challenges to Conducting Program Evaluation

38. Crisis And Chaos • In the immediate aftermath of disasters, decisions need to be made quickly on the basis on limited information. The prejudice is towards action, not deliberation. • During the crisis, there may be little interest in collecting systematic information on how the program is working. This shortcoming makes it difficult to monitor program progress and provides few data with which to later evaluate program achievements • In this context, evaluation may be viewed as arbitrary and burdensome, imposed by outsiders without a stake in serving survivors

39. Evolving, Adapting Services • The nature of the services may evolve over time as the needs of survivors change • Program models often must be adapted to the community, and providers in the field have a sense of “learning as they go” • Evaluations cannot assume that services are being delivered based on a pre-ordained model. It is essential to continually document program services and delivery strategies in order to be able to evaluate what the program is actually doing at different points in time

40. Evolving Community Context • Evaluation results are influenced by the community context, which also evolves over time. • For example, client satisfaction results may be higher during early phases of recovery than during later stages, when disillusionment sets in. • Outreach programs may discover problems that existed prior to the disaster. • Evaluations must be careful to differentiate new mental health problems from pre-existing problems

41. How do we establish an evaluation infrastructure that will allow us to maximize learning in future disasters. Factors That Boost Capacity For Program Evaluation

42. Advance Political Support • Building evaluation capacity in disaster mental health requires creating an evaluation planning component in State Emergency Disaster Preparedness programs • Embedded in this ethos would be a respect for quality management informed by empirical feedback, and the expectation of accountability • A dialogue among key stakeholders involved in post-disaster recovery -- at federal, state, and local levels -- to set evaluation policy is needed to ensure that the evaluation mandate is feasible, relevant to real-world concerns, and not unduly burdensome

43. Outcomes – The Societal Benefits • While outputs assess “how much” was done, outcomes focus on “how much good” was done. They are the least well-specified arenain disaster mental health • Outcomes differ over time: • Immediate outcomes can be observed directly after completing an activity • Intermediate outcomes derive from immediate outcomes such as alleviation of psychiatric symptoms, reduced substance use, or improved role functioning • Long-term outcomes are program benefits such as community cohesion or disaster preparedness