|
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT REPORTS Resource Assessment Workgroup "Prevention is an important strategy among other strategies in integrating social services throughout the county."…….Mary Tomlinson ,Department of Human Services, Baker County Partnership LeaderREPRESENTATION T he Resource Assessment Workgroup was composed of members representing the school district, private non-profit organizations, higher education, and governmental agencies.FUNCTION T his workgroup was responsible for collecting information about existing prevention and graduated sanction programs. Using surveys with measurable responses, as well as provider feedback, the workgroup identified key issues and gaps related to the programs and made subsequent recommendations to address those gaps.PROCESS I t was the goal of the group to conduct an informative program assessment, while keeping in mind the large number of surveys that have been sent out in the last few years. Using a survey utilized in other Comprehensive Strategy communities, the group was able to customize the questions to obtain results that were measurable yet still provided a full range of information about the various programs, schools, churches, and agencies receiving the survey (see Appendix 4). The survey was brief and could be completed within ten minutes. While some questions (such as those on cultural and gender specific needs) were not included, these questions were covered later through personal interviews with programs self-reporting as addressing one or more of the risk factors.Of the 89 programs returning surveys, 69 met one or more of the risk factors as their focus area. The resource assessment group, in order to determine the availability of services from prevention to aftercare, assessed each program based on self-reporting and determined the primary focus of the program. The 69 programs were also surveyed for gender and cultural specificity. This was a telephone survey to which 58 of the programs responded. While every program identified themselves as providing services to girls and boys, very few had programs designed with girls in mind. Of 67 programs with a prevention focus, only two of the 58 respondents stated that they had prevention programs specifically designed for girls. Of 49 intervention programs, only one is specifically designed for girls. In the process of determining what constituted prevention or intervention, the group agreed on definitions of intervention as being reactive and prevention as being proactive. Those groups which provide education were listed as prevention programs. Additionally, the group felt it was important to take into consideration the age groups served, and the statements of the service providers in examining gaps. Throughout the process, the resource assessment group members continued to emphasize the importance of partnering among organizations and agencies, and the need to fully support existing quality programs and agencies. The group would encourage enhancement of existing quality programs over development of additional programs when possible. Both Partnership II and the Department of Human Services Service Integration were consistently held forth as two important programs that needed to be supported by the Comprehensive Strategy as valuable county resources and partners. The group sent out 177 surveys and 89 were returned. Of the programs responding, 69 addressed as a focus area at least one of the four targeted risk factors, as follows:
GAPS
T he resource assessment group looked at gaps from two different viewpoints, and in their final analysis considered both. First, they considered the gaps that programs identified in the surveys, which are as follows (Total is more than 100, since some programs identified more than one area):
The 69 programs were then reviewed by the workgroup for gaps. Following the recommendations given in the Comprehensive Strategy Curriculum, the group examined each program for (1) Availability (2) Accessibility (3) Adequacy (4) Appropriateness and (5) Acceptability. Using these guidelines, each was analyzed using the "Five A’s." The highest gap areas for the reviewed programs were:
Gaps were not necessarily identified simply based on the answer to a question. For instance, if a program stated that it served only Baker City, that was not considered a gap if the target population for the program was intentionally designed for Baker City (i.e., a church). However, if that same organization stated that transportation was not a problem, but people had to rely on a taxi or walking as a form of transportation, that was considered a potential gap in service, especially for people living outside of the town in which the service is provided. One must have money for a taxi, and/or the ability to walk the distance. Without one or both, accessing that service becomes a problem. Transportation is the highest identified gap area among service providers. Adequate funding was another high gap area. This gap was viewed in two ways. First, if the program relied solely on grant funding, the group considered that a potential gap area, since the program could undergo a loss of service to clients if it loses funding. Additionally, many programs stated the program was not adequately funded. With adequate funding, these groups might be able to enhance their programs to cover various gap areas. With that, an equal portion of programs stated that they were serving a great deal of clients, some stating that they had "too many clients to serve them all." Obviously, a program that is serving too many clients finds itself in the position of having to deny service to clients. This gap cannot be ignored. Eligibility requirements can be a gap, from a client standpoint. If a program serves only children who are referred by a government agency, a client who could benefit goes unserved if a parent or their child does not and cannot receive a referral. The group felt that while some eligibility requirements were simply part of a program’s design, others were service inhibitors.
While there are certainly programs in Baker County that provide services to at-risk youth and families, the resource assessment group found in evaluating existing programs that many programs are limited [primarily due to funding] to serving only high-risk families, or those who are low-income. Consequently, there exists a range of families who are not eligible to receive services. Several programs indicated the same concern – that there are families who "fall between the cracks." Reasons given included: a) too high of an income, even though the family may only be low-middle, or middle-income groups; b) the behavior of the youth is not serious enough to be at the level a program can serve. Additional gaps in this area come in Early Intervention, specifically, ages 0 – 8. RECOMMENDATIONS One of the questions in the survey asked whether a program could accommodate people with disabilities yet the survey did not define "disability." In answer to the question, most programs limited their answer to matters of physical disabilities. Learning, psychological, auditory, speech, and visual disabilities were not covered within most answers. As a result, the topic of community awareness and education around disabilities arose. The workgroup recommends that community education, especially for programs, be provided on the topic of defining and understanding disabilities. This will help raise awareness, improve program accommodation for a wider range of disabilities, and, benefit the community in general by increasing compassion and tolerance for those who may have a disability not easily recognized. The topic of transportation is one that has arisen on a number of occasions regarding county gaps and needs. Baker County is geographically very large. In the winter travel becomes even more of a hindrance for some. Moreover, the sheer distance from other programs that may be providing necessary service can be prohibitive to those seeking services. The resource assessment workgroup is not alone in recognizing the transportation issue for many Baker County residents. It is also a point of interest for Baker County Commissioners and other leaders, who have worked with consultants on addressing the many transportation needs of county residents (see Section 1, page 8). It is the recommendation of the resource assessment workgroup that solutions to the transportation issue continue to be a priority area, and that the Baker County Prevention Coalition and DHS Service Integration partners work with Baker County Commissioners to adequately address these needs. The group noted the outcome of questions that asked programs to identify the five factors most directly addressed by their programs (see Survey, Appendix 4). Of the top five chosen by programs, only two are pertinent to the five priority risk factors. This, combined with other gaps and self-reported service issues, indicates a need for those programs that are directly serving targeted risk factors, to be supported. Building support for those priority risk factors that fall in the low range could help improve those service areas. In reviewing programs, the workgroup noted that there are almost no aftercare programs available in Baker County. Aftercare programs provide ongoing contact, supervision, and counseling, helping clients to continue on a non-offending path and are an important link along the continuum of care. This lack of aftercare was a point of some concern from the group. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Resource Assessment workgroup that additional aftercare programs be implemented in Baker County. The Resource Assessment group recommends that the work of the Service Integration group, as well as the work of Partnership I and II, be supported, and that existing resources and partnerships be strengthened and improved to effectively serve all at-risk families and youth, regardless of income or need level. A second recommendation is that existing services for youth 0 – 8 be expanded and enhanced in an effort to more thoroughly address early intervention needs within the community. One avenue for approaching this recommendation could be the use of Commission on Children and Family funds. Third, the group recommends that the Baker County Juvenile Department receive adequate support to address the needs of offending youth. While the group understands that not all programs can or should be "formally associated" with the Juvenile Department, it was felt that some juveniles (such as first-time or status offenders) may be well-served through a process that would refer them to programs via the juvenile department. Some programs responding to the survey are prevention programs that target at-risk youth and families. An informal association, via a partnership, could serve this population. Those programs with eligibility requirements that limit referrals (ex. those that only accept referrals from agencies such as Services to Children and Families), could possibly begin serving a wider range of at-risk youth by expanding their referral base and/or eligibility requirements. These programs were identified during the gap assessment. Utilizing the surveys and input from providers, analyzing the data and information, and using their own experience and knowledge, the group was able to identify specific priority area outcomes. |