Evaluation Results

1. Evaluation Results Ohio’s SAMHSA Garrett Lee Smith Grant

2. Evaluation of Ohio’s Infrastructure for Statewide Mental Health Check Ups Responsivity Continuous Quality Improvement Do-Study-Reflect-Plan School Climate Capability (Stakeholder perception of innovation adoption) Responsivity Consent Climate Referral Climate Program Providers Receptivity Family motivation to give consent, complete referral Output Consents and screenings offered “Counts” Youth and Families Activitiesconsent, screening, referral Outcomes Consents granted; Referrals completed

3. Consents Distributed* Not Returned Returned No Returned Yes Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % 25,662 100% 3,791 15% 8,434 33% 13,430 Consents Returned = 12,232 (48%) Returned No Returned Yes Count Row % Count Row % 3,791 31% 8,434 69% Consents Total Offered NOT Returned Row % Count 52% *October 1, 2006- June 30, 2008

4. Consents We need to improve consent rates by applying what we have learned in Year 1 & 2 *Barriers, Challenges and Strategies Newsletter

5. What Works & What Doesn’t*Barriers, Challenges and Strategies Newsletter • Strategies Proven to Work • Sending consent form home with begin-year registration • Sending consent from a classroom combined with prevention education • Strategies that are Not Effective • Mailing consents • Incentives

6. Education + Mental Health = Higher Consent Rates • Of consents returned: • TeenScreen YES = 63.4% • SOS YES= 81.2%

7. Project Totals* • Screenings Offered 25,662 • Consents Returned 12,232 • Screenings 7,658 • Clinical Interviews 1,936 • Referrals Made 1,238 * Oct 2006 – June 2008

8. Program Outputs and Outcomes • Offer Screening • Obtain Parental Consent • Conduct Screenings • Conduct Clinical Interviews • Refer for Counseling

9. Consents by Program Type

10. Screens by Program Type The TeenScreen Tool is more sensitive and finds more positive youth.

11. Clinical Interview by Program Type

12. Clinical Interview Results • TeenScreen and SOS programs completed 100% of clinical interviews of youth positive • TeenScreen programs identified 27 youth that needed emergency care

13. Referrals by Program Type

14. Crisis Referrals: 27 (2.3%) • 18 Accepted by youth and parent • 4 Accepted by parent not youth • 1 Accepted by youth not parent • 4 rejected by youth and parent

15. Does Follow-up Aid Intervention? • 1238 Referrals made, 990 received first follow-up call • 680 First appointments made • 576 First appointments kept (85%) • 34 First appointments missed (5%) • 68 Made Second appointments (9 missed the 2nd appt.) • Of 34 known missed first appointments, • 5 Missed due to lack of interest • 1 Missed due to provider not accepting insurance • 3 Had transportation concerns • 25 Did not report or reported other reasons

16. Referrals Rejected: 116 • 72 (62%) received follow-up call • 4 made and kept an appointment • 68 made no appointment • 44 (38%) not called

17. Referrals by type of site

18. System Motivation 18

19. Perception of Screening (Innovation Adoption)

20. Perception of Screening Questionnaire Stakeholders’ Perceptions of • Compatibility • Complexity • Observability

21. Correlations Relative advantage Complexity Observability Appointment mean mean mean Yes Relative advantage mean Pearson Correlation 1 .159 * .776 ** .149 Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .000 .083 N 261 261 261 136 Complexity mean Pearson Correlation .159 * 1 .411 ** -.110 Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .000 .204 N 261 261 261 136 Observability mean Pearson Correlation .776 ** .411 ** 1 .199 * Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .020 N 261 261 261 136 Appointment Yes Pearson Correlation .149 -.110 .199 * 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .083 .204 .020 N 136 136 136 1164 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Stakeholder Perceptions

22. Referral Climate Youth Parent

23. Provided choices and options Understood me Conveyed confidence Listened to me Encouraged questions Tried to understand how I see things before making suggestions Referral Climate Items

24. Referral Climate

25. Referral Climate Correlations Relative Mean - Mean - advantage Complexity Observability Youth RCQ Parent RCQ mean mean mean Kendall's tau_b Mean - Youth RCQ Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .261 ** .087 -.168 ** -.076 Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .112 .002 .170 N 180 115 180 180 180 Mean - Parent RCQ Correlation Coefficient .261 ** 1.000 .081 .093 -.055 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .208 .151 .399 N 115 150 144 144 144 Relative advantage mean Correlation Coefficient .087 .081 1.000 .019 .455 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .112 .208 . .673 .000 N 180 144 261 261 261 Complexity mean Correlation Coefficient -.168 ** .093 .019 1.000 .354 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .151 .673 . .000 N 180 144 261 261 261 Observability mean Correlation Coefficient -.076 -.055 .455 ** .354 ** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .170 .399 .000 .000 . N 180 144 261 261 261 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

26. Referral Climate Findings • Lowest Rated Youth Item “The person who talked with me showed confidence that I can make changes if I want to”

27. Referral Climate Questioner Findings • Lowest Rated Adult Item “The person who talked with me understands how I see things with respect to seeing a counselor”