1 / 24

Consistent Protocol, Unique Sites: Seeking Cultural Competence in a Multisite Evaluation

Consistent Protocol, Unique Sites: Seeking Cultural Competence in a Multisite Evaluation. Carolyn Sullins , Ph.D. Ladel Lewis, Ph.D. candidate The Kercher Center for Social Research Western Michigan University. National Study.

makala
Download Presentation

Consistent Protocol, Unique Sites: Seeking Cultural Competence in a Multisite Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Consistent Protocol, Unique Sites: Seeking Cultural Competence in a Multisite Evaluation Carolyn Sullins, Ph.D. Ladel Lewis, Ph.D. candidate The Kercher Center for Social Research Western Michigan University

  2. National Study • Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families Program: “Systems of care.” • incorporates a broad, flexible array of effective services and supports for a defined, multi-system population that is organized into a coordinated network… is culturally and linguistically competent, builds meaningful partnerships with families and youth at service delivery, management and policy levels, and has supportive policy and management infrastructure. (Pires, Lazear, & Conlan, 2008).

  3. Systems of Care • 144 sites have been or are in the process of being evaluated. Each 1-2 year cohort: +/- 30 sites. • Each SoC has distinct: • geographic location and scope (e.g., statewide, county wide, city-wide, tribal) • Ages of the youth served • Mental health issues facing the targeted youth • Racial, ethnic, and cultural factors

  4. Core Values • Child centered and family driven • Community based • Culturally competent

  5. Common Variables • Presenting issues of the youth • Youth’s level of functioning (strengths and weaknesses) • Family strengths and barriers • Types of services family and youth are receiving • Satisfaction with services • Cultural competence of services • Youth and family input into services

  6. Barriers to Evaluation Implementation • “One size fits all” battery of questions • HSIRB mandates re language on consent forms • Ensuring an adequate sample size • Ensuring retention in a mobile population

  7. Barriers to Participation • History of racist abuse by researchers (E.g., Tuskegee syphilis study) • Misinterpretation of data, or no access to results • Sensitive or stigmatized topics even more difficult  • Families overwhelmed or embarrassed

  8. Local System of Care:“Kalamazoo Wraps” Ages 7-17 Diagnosed with a Severe Emotional Disturbance Caucasian: 49.1% (including White Latino/a: < 5%) African-American/Multiracial: 50.9%

  9. Academic/Professional vs. Local Population Perspectives • Informed consent • Voluntary participation • Confidentiality and its exceptions

  10. Evaluation Work Group Parents, various social service workers, eval staff • Reviewed consent forms for clarity • Gave opinions to HSIRB re child abuse reporting • Parent input re: communication among clinicians, families, and interviewers • Interpretation of data • Reporting of results

  11. Youth Group • We came to their group • Help re local language • Helped us make it more comfortable for participants • Info that later helped us interpret data

  12. Academic Culture vs. Local Communities’ Culture Does confidentiality mean… • No interviews in public places, even if that’s what participants request? • Kicking Grandma out of the room? • Pretending you don’t see participant in public?

  13. Problems with Interviews • Some found it emotionally draining • Too long and redundant • Questionnaires with overlapping questions • Categories of services – national vs. local terms • Keeping in touch with families every 6 months

  14. Easing Stressful Processes • “Evaluating System of Care – not you” • Yet up front about sensitive, personal questions • Non-judgmental attitude for better rapport, retention, AND accuracy. • Balance – we can’t act as friends or counselors! • If SoC not working, or not working with all groups of people, we need to know.

  15. Interviewers: Pay Attention – So Participants Will Too! • Offer breaks, gum, stress balls, etc. to participants • Coloring books, DVDs for young kids • Redundant questions from multiple surveys: propriety and accuracy trump methodological “letter of law.”

  16. Keeping in Touch with Families • Family address tracking form • Birthday and holiday cards with coupons • Incentives for families to contact us • Annual dinner as a “thank you” • Results in bimonthly newsletter, website, and other venues

  17. Recruitment/Retention Results

  18. Recruitment Rates (N=224) Chi Square (1, N=224) = .466, p = .495

  19. 6 Month Interviews (N = 145) Chi Square= (1, N= 145) = .665, p = .415

  20. 12 Month Interviews (N=119) Chi Square= (1, N=119) = .511, p = .561

  21. 18 Month Interviews (N=91) Chi Square= (1, N=91) = .071, p = .834

  22. 24 Month Interviews (N=52) Chi Square= (1, N=52) = 1.055 , p = .402

  23. Conclusion • Fulfilling national evaluation requirements within a local context is a constant balancing act. • With enough input from local stakeholders at each stage, it can be achieved!

  24. Questions? Comments? • Please contact carolyn.sullins@wmich.edu • Or Ladel_lewis@yahoo.com • For more info, please see also • http://www.wmich.edu/sociology/kzoowraps.html

More Related