Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 7.2 Social Program Participation

01/08/2001

In the second interview, at the completion of family preservation services for the experimental group, caretakers were asked about their participation in the same set of social programs they were asked about in the initial interview (see Chapter 6), except this time they were asked to report their participation since the time of the first interview (Table 7-2).

Table 7-2.
Participation in social programs, post-treatment interview
(percents)
  Kentucky New Jersey Tennessee
Program Control Experimental p Control Experimental p Control Experimental p
Food Stamps 60 66   51 48      65 64     
Job Training 3 8 0.09 2 3   3 4  
WIC 32 45 0.02 22 20   51 41  
AFDC 47 49   38 40   49 50  
Housing Vouchers 15 20   17 16   11 11  
Social Security Disability 39 34   32 28   22 36  
Alcoholism Program 5 5   5 5   5 6  
tment Program 3 1   6 9   8 9  
Marriage Couseling 0 7 0.006 (FE) 2 2   0 1  
Community Mental Health program 11 15   21 28   14 18  
Head Start/Pre-school 26 21   33 32   25 38  

NOTE: "FE" indicates significance determined by Fisher’s exact test


Kentucky. The proportions of involvement were remarkably similar to those in the first interview with less than a 2 percent change for most programs in the participation of both groups combined. Exceptions to this were a 2.6 percent decrease in participation in WIC services (from 41% to 38%), a 4 percent decrease in the proportion of respondents receiving food stamps (from 67% to 63%), and a 6.3 percent decrease for participation in Head Start or Pre-school programs (from 30% to 24%). Similar to results of the first interview, there were significant differences in experimental and control group participation in the WIC program, with 45 percent of the experimental group reporting participation at the post-treatment interview (n = 148) compared to 32 percent of the control group (n = 146) (p = .021). Differences between experimental and control groups were also found with respect to participation in job training and marriage counseling. For job training, 8.1 percent of the experimental group reported participation (n = 148) compared to 3.4 percent of the control group (n = 146) (p = .085). Seven percent of the experimental group (n = 102) but none of the control group respondents (n = 105) reported participation in marriage counseling (Fisher’s exact p = .006). No significant differences were found with respect to the total number of income support programs or treatment programs in which respondents participated since the time of the first interview.

New Jersey. As in Kentucky, the proportions of involvement were similar to those in the first interview except for community mental health programs (26% in the second interview compared to 31% in the first) and using Head Start or another pre-school program (32% vs. 42%). There were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups. There were no significant differences between groups in the number of income support programs and treatment programs.

Tennessee. Participation in social programs at the post-treatment interview was similar to that at the initial interview, except for declines in use of food stamps (from 72% to 64%), AFDC (from 61% to 50%) and head start/preschool (38% to 34%). There were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in participation in any program post-treatment, nor were there significant differences in the average number of income support or treatment programs.