End of the Year Report Adult Block Grant 2004-2005

1. End of the Year ReportAdult Block Grant2004-2005

2. Types of Adult Programs • Transitional Living • Drop-In Centers • Peer Support • Education • Miscellaneous • PATH

3. Transitional LivingNumbers Served in 2004-2005

4. Drop-In CentersNumbers Served in 2004-2005

5. Peer Support ProgramsNumbers Served in 2004-2005

6. Education ProgramsNumbers Served in 2004-2005

7. Miscellaneous ProgramsNumbers Served in 2004-2005

8. PATH ProgramsNumbers Served in 2004-2005

9. All ProgramsNumbers Served in 2004-2005 • 7428

10. Counties Served through Block Grant

11. Counties Served through Block Grant • The Block Grants serve 55% of the counties in West Virginia.

12. Gender of Individuals

13. Gender of Individuals • The majority (58%) served are males

14. Age of Individuals

15. Race of Individuals

16. Services • Drop-In Centers • PATH • All others refer to individual reports.

17. Services-Drop-In Centers

18. Services-PATH

19. Outcomes-Transitional Living • Hospitalizations-The transitional living programs believe, that if supports and assistance is provided to individuals experiencing homelessness and hospitalization, then they will be less likely to return to the hospital due to not being able to cope with the transition. Information is not included from Valley Outreach. Only 6 people had to hospitalized out of 183 from January –June 2005 while in the transitional programs. That means that 97% of the people were able to remain in the community.

20. Outcomes-Transitional Living • Stable Housing-In order for individuals to remain out of hospitals and shelters, stable housing must be obtained. Stable housing has been difficult to track by most of the programs due to definition. Changes will need to be made in FY 2006. Programs should be reviewed individually.

21. Outcomes-Transitional Living • Satisfaction-The transitional living programs each created their own satisfaction surveys to fit their specific programs. Each was asked to evaluate overall satisfaction with their program. In the 4 programs from January 2005-June 2005, the satisfaction rate ranged from 93%-100%.

22. Outcomes-Drop-In Centers • Satisfaction-Overall Satisfaction with the drop-in center was asked through a survey from each center. All of the drop-in Centers other than Westbrook and Eastridge reported satisfaction rates either in Quarter 3, Quarter 4 or a combination of both. A Raleigh county was able to report for the entire year. The range of satisfaction was from 63%-100% satisfaction. The number of surveys was not always known. Nicholas county received the lowest rate with 63% reporting being satisfied with the overall program.

23. Outcomes-Drop-In Centers • Isolation-The following statement was made the individual was asked to rate on a scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree. “The center helps me have friends and a good social life.” There were approximately 490 people who responded to the question in Quarter 3 and 4. The range of agreement was from 71%-100%, with Nicholas county being at 71%. Four of the drop-in centers were at 100% on this question.

24. Outcomes-Drop-In Centers • Key Recovery Concept-The following statement was made the individual was asked to rate on a scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree. “I have learned about my recovery in the centers activities.” The number surveyed was not known. Almost all were surveyed in Quarter 4. The individuals who agree to strongly agreed with the above statement ranged from 72%-100%.

25. Outcomes-Peer Support • Hospitalizations-Although many factors play into a person having to be hospitalized form mental health issues, it is believed that peer support programs help individuals remain in the community. In the Club House and Friendship Room programs a total of 139 people were asked about hospitalization in the quarter 3 and 4; At the Club House only 1 person in the last 6 months had to be hospitalized. That means 97% of the individuals were able to remain in the community. At the Friendship Room 33 out of 85 had been hospitalized in the last 6 months. That means 61% were able to remain in the community. The data above does not include data from Compeer. For the Compeer program data is collected slightly differently. They asked their consumers if they had had fewer hospitalizations in the last 6 months. 33% reported fewer hospitalizations.

26. Outcomes-Peer Support • Decreased Isolation-The Peer Support programs help individuals to develop a support system of peers, so that they will not feel alone or isolated from the community. Social activities and group support help to decrease these feelings.75%-100% reported feeling less isolated.

27. Outcomes-Peer Support • Improved Self-Esteem-Individuals were asked if they feel better about themselves now that they participate in a peer support program. Many of the programs offer educational classes, social outings, and linkage and referral services to assist individuals in improving their lives. 79%-100% of the individuals reported feeling better about themselves or an improved self-esteem.

28. Outcomes-Peer Support • Increased Support-Of course, one of the main goals of peer support programs is to assure people feel they are getting the support they need from their peers. This can be from a group of peers or just 1 peer in the case of Compeer and the Peer 2 Peer support programs. (Data is not available from Compeer).86%-100% reported feeling support from their peers.

29. Outcomes-Peer Support • Satisfaction-The Peer Support Programs each created their own satisfaction surveys to fit their specific programs. Each was asked to evaluate overall satisfaction with their Peer Support Program. 90%-100% of the participants surveyed reported being satisfied with the program they were participating in.*

30. Outcomes-PATH • Hospitalizations-The PATH programs are tracking hospitalization because it is believed that through the support of case management, supportive counseling, supportive services and the other services provided above, that less people will have to be hospitalized for mental health issues. Out of 312 individuals served in this quarter 21 had to be hospitalized. The percentage of people able to remain in the community ranged from 66%-99% for the programs. Westbrook had the largest percentage requiring hospitalization and Roark Sullivan had the lowest %.

31. Outcomes-PATH • Stable Housing-Stable housing has been difficult to track by most of the programs due to definition. Changes will need to be made in FY 2006. The three PATH programs connected with the shelters in Kanawha and Raleigh counties are tracking stable housing by reporting individuals who have obtained stable housing upon discharge from the program. They do not have the ability to track after discharge from the PATH program. These programs have different expected outcomes but reported that 42%-68% discharged from the shelter were able to obtain stable housing before discharge. The other programs should be reviewed individually for specific housing stability data.

32. Outcomes-PATH • Satisfaction-The PATH programs each created their own satisfaction surveys to fit their specific programs. Each was asked to evaluate overall satisfaction with their program. Overall, 92%- 100% of the consumers reported being satisfied with the PATH Program they were participating in. Satisfaction information not available for Southern Highlands or WVMHCA.