Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Final Report - Volume Two. 3.6.4 Household Condition

09/01/2002

Caretakers were asked 10 questions about problematic conditions in the home (e.g., nonfunctioning heating, plumbing, or electrical systems; peeling paint; broken windows or doors).

Kentucky. In Kentucky, the experimental and control groups did not differ on the average proportions of the presence of such conditions at post-treatment or followup, nor did they differ on change in these proportions over time (see Table 3-3). On only one of the specific items were there any differences at post-treatment. Five percent of caretakers in the control group reported having broken windows or doors that were not fixed as compared to 1 percent in the experimental group (Fisher's exact p-value = .034). (39) There were no significant differences on any of the individual items at followup.

New Jersey. In New Jersey the experimental and control groups did not differ on the average proportions of the presence of such conditions at post-treatment or followup, nor did they differ on change in these proportions between interviews (see Table 3-4). There were no significant differences between the groups on any of the ten individual items at post-treatment. At followup, 8 percent of the experimental group respondents reported "a lot of peeling paint" compared to 2 percent of the control group respondents (p = .04). Also, 4 percent of the experimental group and none of the control group respondents reported that cooking appliances did not work (Fisher's exact p-value = .09).

Tennessee. There were no significant differences between experimental and control groups on the overall scales of household condition at either post-treatment or followup, nor were there differences in change over time (see Table 3-5). At post-treatment, more control group respondents reported bare electrical wires (8% vs. 0%, p = .08; Fisher's exact p-value = .03) while more experimental group respondents reported living in an "unsafe building because of illegal acts (5% vs. 0%, p = .05). There were no significant differences on any individual items at followup.

View full report

Preview
Download

"report2.pdf" (pdf, 978.24Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®