|
|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has completed
an evaluation of the Homeless Youth Intervention
Program (program) administered by the Arizona
Department of Economic Security (DES). The
evaluation was conducted pursuant to Laws 1999,
Ch. 328, §1(D).
The
program’s goal is to reunify homeless youth with
their families. It facilitates the reunification
process by providing services and working with
youths and families to improve parent-child
relationships. When reunification is not
possible, the program then works to enhance the
youth’s ability to become self-sufficient.
The Arizona Department of Economic Security
administers the program. The Legislature
appropriated $800,000 for its first 18 months of
operation, from January 1, 2000 through June 30,
2001, and $400,000 for fiscal year 2002 program
operations. DES contracted with the Tumbleweed
Center for Youth Development to operate the
program. Tumbleweed provides services through
one site in Maricopa County, and oversees two
subcontractors who provide services through two
sites in Pima County and one site in Yavapai
County. The program provides youths with
services in three phases: referral, assessment,
and service plan; and receives capitated
payments for each phase.
Program Should Work
To Increase Youths’ Focus
on Reunification or
Self-Sufficiency
(See pages 13 through 23)
Even though
half of the program’s youths were reunified with
their families or on the path to
self-sufficiency at case closure, this does not
mean they are now living in a stable situation.
These youths often enter the program while
living in volatile environments that frequently
involve serious, long-term problems. Therefore,
when they leave the program, many youths return
to a living situation that is still unstable.
For example, one girl who had repeatedly run
away from her grandmother’s home was reunified
with her grandmother after a week in the
program. However, neither she nor her
grandmother appeared for scheduled counseling
services and 3 weeks later, the girl again ran
away. Over half of the program youths who
reunited with their families, and half of the
youths who appeared to be on the path to
self-sufficiency, were living in an unstable
situation or in a situation in which the
stability is unknown. The program needs to
systematically track youths after they leave to
measure the program’s impact on their lives in
critical areas, such as the youth’s living
situation, family relations, and ability to live
independently. While the program has collected
follow-up information for some youths, it has
not done so consistently.
Although
many youths who leave the program return to
unstable living conditions, a majority do
complete some of the goals they set while in the
program. However, most of the completed goals
are designed to meet basic needs, such as
shelter/housing or providing cash assistance for
food. Youths complete fewer goals related to
reunifying with their families or becoming
self-sufficient. Further, the service plans’
goals and tasks developed under the program
often fail to address critical behavioral
issues, such as
substance use treatment or mental health
problems. Even though two-thirds of the youths
reported current or past alcohol and/or other
drug use and more than one-third reported
mental health problems, only 6 of 223 goals
youths set were related to these issues. For
example, one youth with mental health and substance use
problems had only one goal, which addressed
basic needs but not mental health or substance use
problems. The program should assist youths in
developing goals that address critical
behavioral needs and help them see the
connection between addressing such needs and
achieving reunification or self-sufficiency
goals.
In
addition, even though most youths identified
family relationships as their main stressor in
life, family members were rarely involved in the
development and completion of service plan
goals. Only 25 percent of the tasks youth
identified as part of their reunification goals
involved family members, and only 6 of 36 case
files evaluators reviewed included a family
assessment. The program should increase efforts
to involve the family in the assessment and
service plan phases.
DES Should Monitor
Program Costs
(See pages 25 through 30)
DES needs
to monitor program costs related to the
capitated rates and housing costs. First,
although the capitated rate for the referral
phase approximates the actual costs incurred,
the capitated rates paid for the assessment and
service plan phases are higher than actual
average costs. Specifically, the capitated rate
for the assessment phase is 267 percent, or $160
higher, than the average cost to perform the
assessment. Further, the capitated rate for the
service plan phase is 15 percent, or $423,
higher than the average cost of services. The
initial rates were based on the estimated costs
from Tumbleweed, the program contractor. DES has
since renewed Tumbleweed’s contract through June
30, 2002, and anticipates that it will renew it
one additional year. DES should monitor program
costs so that it can ensure that the capitated
rates more closely match actual costs in future
contracts.
Although
the program is able to serve all youths who
enter it now, high housing costs for a few more
youths could hinder the program from serving
additional clients. More than 80 percent of the
program’s expenditures are for housing, and most
of this money has been spent to house 12 youths.
These 12 youths were in shelter care and/or
transitional living for an average of 108 days
each and accounted for over 56 percent of all of
the monies spent during the service plan phase.
While other homeless youth programs strictly
limit the length of time they will support
youths in shelters, this program has the
flexibility to support its clients for longer
periods.
However, to
ensure that the program can help as many youths
as possible, DES needs to consider policies that
control housing costs, such as limiting shelter
care and transitional living stays based on
reviews of youths’ progress while they are in
the program.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format
|
|
