Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 8.6.4 Household Condition

01/08/2001

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 follow-up, nor did they differ on change in these proportions over time (see Table 8-3). 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).17 There were no significant differences on any of the individual items at follow-up.

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 follow-up, nor did they differ on change in these proportions between interviews (see Table 8-4). There were no significant differences between the groups on any of the ten individual items at post-treatment. At follow-up, 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 follow-up, nor were there differences in change over time (see Table 8-5). 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 follow-up.


(17)  This difference was maintained but not significant in the secondary analysis (5% vs. 1%, Fisher's exact p-value = .077).