Table 1. Mean AIPS and PIPS scores pre- and post-implementation compared
with scores from a UK sample of young people recently exited foster care
|
Measure |
Pre-implementation |
Post-implementation |
UK sample |
|
|
PIPS |
|
|
|
|
|
(n) Vic. |
(n) UK |
Mean = 19.5 SD = 7.1 |
Mean = 16.6 SD = 6.9 |
Mean = 10.1 SD = 7.9 |
|
37 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
AIPS |
|
|
|
|
|
(n) Vic. |
(n) UK |
Mean = 17.0 SD = 8.3 |
Mean = 11.2 SD = 4.8 |
Mean = 18.8 SD = 6.3 |
|
11 |
28 |
|
|
|
Source: Looking After Children Project, Australian Institute of Family Studies 1999.
Table 2. Comparison of SEI scores pre- and post- implementation
|
|
Pre-implementation (n=8) |
Post-implementation (n=8) |
||
|
Scale name |
Mean |
Median |
Mean |
Median |
|
General self sub-scale score |
18.9 |
19.0 |
20.1 |
21.0 |
|
Social self-peers sub-scale scores |
6.4 |
7.0 |
6.9 |
8.0 |
|
Home-parents sub-scale score |
5.7 |
6.0 |
5.8 |
6.0 |
|
School academic |
5.0 |
6.0 |
5.8 |
5.0 |
|
Short-form total self score |
66.0 |
68.0 |
61.9 |
72.0 |
|
Total self-esteem score |
72.8 |
74.0 |
77.1 |
76.0 |
|
Lie scale |
3.1 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
3.0 |
*High scores correspond to high self-esteem
Source: Looking After Children Project, Australian Institute of Family Studies 1999.
Table 3. Adapted Rutter Problem Behaviour Scores pre- and post-implementation
|
|
Pre-implementation (n=13) |
Post-implementation (n=13) |
||
|
Sub-scale |
Mean |
Median |
Mean |
Median |
|
Hyperactivity score |
.9 |
.8 |
.8 |
.8 |
|
Depression score |
.8 |
.7 |
.6 |
.7 |
|
Social aggression score |
1.0 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
. 8 |
|
Total problem score |
25.9 |
29.0 |
16.1 |
16.0 |
*High scores correspond to behavioural problems
Source: Looking After Children Project, Australian Institute of Family Studies 1999.
Table 4. What are the needs of the sample before and after implementation?
|
Item description |
Pre-implementation |
Post-implementation |
Total (n) |
|
Care Provider Interview Questionnaire |
|||
|
Child experiences serious illness or disability |
6 (16%) |
6 (16%) |
37 |
|
Child short for age |
10 (27%) |
8 (22%) |
37 |
|
Child overweight for height |
9 (24%) |
8 (22%) |
37 |
|
Child underweight for height |
10 (27%) |
7 (19%) |
37 |
|
Child has special educational needs |
9 (30%) |
7 (23%) |
30 |
|
Child school/playgroup age and does not attend |
8 (27%) |
3 (10%) |
30 |
|
Child experiences developmental delay |
4 (19%) |
8 (38%) |
21 |
|
Child has few or no peer friends |
5 (33%) |
4 (27%) |
15 |
|
Child Interview Questionnaire |
|||
|
Child does not have attachment to any adult person |
4 (36%) |
1 (9%) |
11 |
Source: Looking After Children Project, Australian Institute of Family Studies 1999.
Table 5. How far does the service succeed in meeting needs?
|
Item description |
Pre-implementation |
Post-implementation |
Total (n) |
|
Care Provider Interview Questionnaire |
|||
|
Child received scheduled health checks |
4 (50%) |
8 (38%) |
21 |
|
Routine dental visits undertaken |
11 (42%) |
9 (35%) |
26 |
|
Adolescent health promotion undertaken |
6 (67%) |
7 (78%) |
9 |
|
Routine immunisations undertaken |
20 (54%) |
24 (65%) |
37 |
|
Child’s educational attainment average or above |
6 (75%) |
7 (88%) |
8 |
|
No unscheduled visits to the doctor |
13 (37%) |
14 (40%) |
35 |
|
Improvement in child’s state of health |
14 (38%) |
30 (81%) |
37 |
|
Care provider satisfied that educational needs are being met at school (attends school only) |
8 (73%) |
11 (100%) |
11 |
|
Child Interview Questionnaire |
|
|
|
|
Child receives assistance with school work from care providers |
7 (100%) |
7 (100%) |
7 |
|
Key Variable Questionnaire |
|||
|
Child receiving psychiatric treatment |
6 (46%) |
3 (23%) |
13 |
|
Child receiving other psychological or counselling/therapeutic service |
6 (46%) |
5 (39%) |
13 |
Source: Looking After Children Project, Australian Institute of Family Studies 1999.
Table 6. How extensive are the risk factors?
|
Item description |
Pre-implementation |
Post-implemenation |
Total (n) |
|
Care Provider Interview Questionnaire |
|||
|
Child enrolled in school less than 12 months (excludes scheduled changes, such as transition from primary to high school) |
2 (17%) |
4 (33%) |
12 |
|
Child excluded from school |
1 (8%) |
1 (8%) |
12 |
|
Child suspended from school |
3 (27%) |
3 (28%) |
11 |
|
Care provider rates peer relationships problematic |
15 (63%) |
9 (38%) |
24 |
|
Child has less than monthly contact with family of origin |
6 (17%) |
9 (26%) |
35 |
|
Child in contact with police |
11 (52%) |
7 (33%) |
21 |
|
Child Interview Questionnaire |
|||
|
Child smokes cigarettes on a daily basis |
5 (46%) |
4 (36%) |
11 |
|
Child consumes alcohol frequently |
5 (46%) |
4 (36%) |
11 |
|
Child does not attend all scheduled classes |
2 (29%) |
2 (29%) |
7 |
|
Child has suicidal thoughts |
1 (12%)* |
0 (0%) |
9 |
|
Child describes relationship with teachers as problematic |
4 (57%) |
2 (29%) |
7 |
|
Child bullied by peers |
3 (33%) |
1 (11.1%) |
9 |
|
Child uses other substances |
5 (46) |
4 (36%) |
11 |
*It should be noted that those responsible for this child were also aware of these feelings.
Source: Looking After Children Project, Australian Institute of Family Studies 1999.
Table 7. How much information does the care provider have of the child?
|
Item description |
Pre-implementation |
Post-implementation |
Total (n) |
|
Care Provider Interview Questionnaire |
|||
|
Child’s health details unknown |
13 (35%) |
7 (19%) |
37 |
|
Child’s immunisation record unknown |
2 (5%) |
1 (3%) |
37 |
Source: Looking After Children Project, Australian Institute of Family Studies 1999.