edmontonfetalalcoholnetwork.files.wordpress.com · Web viewMay 26-29/09 Sol Gen College, Edmonton LP Workshop: Prevention 2 0 2 2 May 26/09 Days Inn, Edmonton Network Workshop:

Edmonton FASD NetworkNetwork Evalaution Report

Edmonton FASD NetworkNetwork Evaluation Report

January 2, 2012


Table of Contents1. Executive Summary................................................................................................................4

2. Network Overview..................................................................................................................5

3. Purpose of the Evaluation......................................................................................................7

4. Evaluation Methodology........................................................................................................8

4.1 Formative Evaluation Questions......................................................................................8

4.2 Summative Evaluation Questions....................................................................................8

4.3 Data Collection.................................................................................................................9

4.4 Limitations.....................................................................................................................11

5. Evaluation Findings...............................................................................................................13

5.1 Network Governance and Management........................................................................13

5.2 Service Program Enhancement......................................................................................15

5.3 Evaluation and Research Activity...................................................................................19

5.4 Training and Education Access.......................................................................................20

5.5 Service Network Program Implementation Support......................................................21

5.6 Program Guidelines.......................................................................................................23

5.7 Network Level Short-Term Outcomes...........................................................................23

5.8 Service Delivery Level Short-Term Outcomes................................................................33

6. Recommendations................................................................................................................39


Appendices

Appendix A Evaluation Framework........................................................................................41

Appendix B NLT Formative Focus Group Questions...............................................................51

Appendix C Request for Information: Network Coordinator.................................................53

Appendix D Request for Information: Provincial Coordinator...............................................63

Appendix E Summative Request for Information – Network Leadership Team.....................65

Appendix F Request For Information – PCAP Service Providers............................................66

Appendix G Service Provider/Community Partner Survey Data.............................................69

Appendix H Assessment and Diagnosis Parent/Caregiver Survey Data..................................75

Appendix I PCAP Client Survey Data.....................................................................................78

Appendix J Support Services Data - Adult Client and Parent/Caregiver Surveys...................80

Appendix K Support Services Data – Support Services Staff Survey......................................84


1. Executive Summary

To complete once first review of draft is complete.

4


2. Network Overview

Alberta’s FASD-Cross Ministry Committee (FASD-CMC) developed Alberta’s FASD 10-Year Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) in 2006. The vision presented through the plan is that Alberta has a comprehensive and coordinated provincial response to FASD across the lifespan and a continuum of services that is respectful of individual, family and community diversity. A Key component of the implementation of the Strategic Plan was launched in 2007 with the inception of the Alberta FASD-Service Networks Program (FASD-SNP). These Networks have been tasked with developing and enhancing FASD services and supports across the lifespan that are aligned with the strategic directions set out in the Strategic Plan.

The Edmonton FASD Network (EFAN) is one of the original seven FASD Networks. Their history though, extends long before the FASD-SNP began. Originally known as the Region 6 Steering Committee (Steering Committee), EFAN was founded in 1998 when community members with an interest in the issues surrounding FASD came together to support one another. At that time these were no specific services available for people with FASD, and many agencies were frustrated at their inability to help some of their clients.1 The Steering Committee was committed to prevention, awareness, and supporting each other as service providers.

From an original group of six participants, the Steering Committee grew to become a grassroots, consensus-based advocacy and supports group for FASD issues. While beginning as an ad hoc Network, as the Steering Committee grew and evolved it developed Terms of Reference, working subcommittees (Adults, prevention, and Child and youth), and regular planning cycles which became the basis for its formal structure. Alberta Child and Family Services (ACYS) provided operational funds to the group in order to support the administrative functions such as regular meetings. Through their contract with ACYS, the Steering Committee was able to secure one staff member starting in 2001. This staff position was established though a contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS), and was initially focused on providing supports to CSS. Over time, and with the guidance of a new Program Manager, this staff position became focused on supporting the Steering Committee as a whole. In 2005, the current Network Coordinator joined the Steering Committee as a staff member.

The Steering Committee experienced significant growth over 2005-06. The need for further formalization of the Steering Committee became clear, and so members met with the Fetal

1 Comprehensive Community Mobilization Efforts for FASD Case Study: Edmonton Fetal Alcohol Network. (2011) Public Health Agency of Canada.

5


Alcohol Network that was operating in Calgary, CFAN. This meeting resulted in the formal creation of EFAN, including a formal Network Governance model.

In 2007 the Alberta FASD-SNP was launched, which EFAN became a part of through FASD-CMC dollars. This marked a shift for EFAN in that with the FASD-SNP funding they became a fund-granting organization. EFAN faced significant challenges in moving from a grassroots group who had been operating for years with their own resources and procedures, to one that was required to meet the demands of the FASD-SNP. In order to support the required changes to their Network, they created the Network Coordinator position with some of the funds received from the FASD-CMC. In addition, they created a Network Leadership Team responsible for the business transactions of the Network as it pertains to the FASD-SNP and the funding it provides. However, Network decision making is still carried out at the broader membership level using a consensus based approach.

Becoming a part of the FASD-SNP necessitated some restructuring of EFAN’s operations, but they remain a consensus-based FASD community level group. The original members of the Steering Committee continue to be members of the Network today; they have achieved a balance between their grassroots-style operations that have existed since their founding in 1998, and the expectations of the FASD-CMC. The strength of EFAN lies in the long term relationships and collaborative spirit that have developed over time, and the group is vigilant in ensuring the continued health of the group’s relationships. EFAN now feels they are in a strong position where they have the ability to do long term planning to meet their changing needs.

3. Purpose of the Evaluation

This evaluation is structured in two parts: a formative evaluation and a summative evaluation. Each part has its own purpose, evaluation questions and data collection methods.

The purpose of the formative evaluation is to provide feedback on how EFAN has implemented program requirements, developed, and evolved since it became a part of the FASD-SNP, and its subsequent accomplishments since the inception of this program.

The formative evaluation questions focus on examining:

6

“The strength of EFAN lies in the long term relationships and

collaborative spirit that have developed over time, and the group is vigilant in ensuring the continued health of the group’s relationships.”

-Network Leadership Team member


The impact and effectiveness of the program and network level inputs such as guidelines, document templates, and opportunities for provincial collaboration;

How the FASD-SNP has been developed and implemented;

The completion of core activities in each of the three pillar areas of targeted prevention, assessment and diagnosis, and service provision;

The quality of Network outputs; and,

The effectiveness of Network outputs in supporting the implementation and management of the program.

The purpose of the summative evaluation is to assess the achievement of the short-term outcomes at both the Network level and the service delivery level. The summative evaluation questions are focused on achieving program accountability through understanding the changes that have resulted from the program in the Edmonton area.

7


4. Evaluation Methodology

4.1 Formative Evaluation Questions

The formative evaluation was guided by the following questions:

1. Have Networks developed governance and management structures to support the execution of the FASD Service Network Program? How?

2. Have Networks enhanced programs and services in the three service categories identified for funding by the FASD-CMC? How?

3. Have Networks participated in FASD Service Network Program evaluation and research activities? How?

4. Have Networks enhanced the access to FASD related training and educations for individuals, caregivers, service providers and community partners? How?

5. Have the program guidelines, resources and tools developed by the CMC supported Networks in the successful implementation of the program?

6. Have the program requirements of the FASD-CMC assisted Networks in (1) enhancing programs and services in the three service categories defined by the FASD-CMC; and (2) managing the Network Program?

4.2 Summative Evaluation Questions

The summative evaluation was guided by the following questions:

7. Have networks been established that enhance and/or expand programs and services within their defined geographic areas?

8. Are funded service providers and community partners aware of the programs and services available to support individuals affected by FASD and their caregivers?

9. Are Networks successful in coordinating services for individuals who are affected or suspected to be affected by FASD and their caregivers?

10. Have best practices, research, evaluation and quality improvement results been used to inform the delivery of services? If so, how?

11. What difference do assessment and diagnostic service make for individuals, parents, caregivers, and agency support persons?

8


12. Are clients satisfied with the assessment and diagnosis services provided?

13. How many women have successfully completed the Parent and Child Assistance Program (PCAP)?

14. Has PCAP influenced the alcohol and drug exposure among the future children of women involved in the program?

15. Are women satisfied with the services provided through PCAP?

16. Have support services assisted individuals, parents/families and/or caregivers to manage their situation?

17. Are clients satisfied with the support services they have received?

4.3 Data Collection

The evaluation was guided by an Evaluation Framework that was developed by an evaluation Working Group that included Network, Provincial, and CMC representatives. The Evaluation Framework provided a roadmap for the evaluation process, outlining the evaluation questions, the indicators, suggested data sources and data collection methods. The full Evaluation Framework is presented in Appendix A. The section that follows provides an overview of the data collection activities that were used to conduct the evaluation.

Focus Groups

A focus group was held on March 16, 2011 with self-selected members of the EFAN Network Leadership Team including the Network Coordinator. It was focused on gathering information and insights related to each of the formative evaluation questions (except #4) from a perspective internal to the Network. The focus group protocol consisted of 22 questions, and responses to the questions were recorded. From the responses, data was summarized into a common data collection tool for ease of analysis and standardization across Networks. The protocol used during the focus group session is available in Appendix B.

Requests for Information

Two requests for information were used to gather data for the formative evaluation: one directed to the Network Leadership Team and one directed to the Provincial FASD-SNP Coordinator. The data gathered using the requests for information were used to supplement and cross reference the information gathered during the focus group. The specific information collected in the requests for information is available in Appendix C and Appendix D.

9


Additionally, two requests for information were used to gather data for the summative evaluation: one directed to the Network Leadership Team and one to PCAP service providers. The Network Leadership team was engaged to understand:

How EFAN interacts, engages and communicates with funded and non-funded service providers and the benefits of these interactions.

Whether Network Leadership believes the Network has contributed to successful coordination of services.

Awareness, integration and assessment of best practices/ leading practices.

Performance measurement activities.

The Request for information to PCAP service providers was focused on understanding:

The level of services your organization provides with the funding you receive from your local FASD Service Network; and

The clients participating in PCAP and their successes.

The specific information collected in the requests for information is available in Appendix E and Appendix F respectively.

Surveys

Surveys were administered to clients in each of the three service delivery streams of the FASD-SNP. Surveys were intended to understand:

Client satisfaction.

Difference assessment and diagnostic services make for individuals, families and their caregivers.

The impact PCAP has made on the alcohol and drug exposure among future children among women who are pregnant.

Whether FASD-SNP funded support services assisted individuals manage their situation.

The implementation of surveys of clients, parents, caregivers and staff was supported by the Network Coordinator, with direct administration conducted by representatives of the service provider organizations. These were all administered in paper form, either face-to-face or over the telephone. The number of responses to each of the surveys is summarized in the table below:

10


Survey Number of Respondents

PCAP Client Survey 19

Assessment and Diagnosis Parent/Caregiver Survey 9

Support Service Client Survey 34

Support Service Parent/Caregiver Survey 27

Support Service Staff Survey 90

In addition to the client centric surveys an online survey was administered to EFAN service providers and community partners. The purpose of this survey was to understand their knowledge of the Network and the role of EFAN as it pertains to the FASD-SNP; enhancements or expansions of services as a result of the FASD-SNP funding; awareness of community partners providing FASD programs, services and supports and patterns of referral.

The survey was sent to 59 funded service providers and community partners. In total, 30 respondents completed the survey, of which 17 were funded service providers and 13 were unfunded community partners.

The data collected using surveys and used in this report is presented in Appendices G through K.

4.4 Limitations

The following limitations of this evaluation have been considered:

Focus group sampling bias - The Network was allowed to self-select the members of the Network leadership team who participated in the focus group. Self-selection has the potential to introduce bias to the focus group responses, as individuals with differing viewpoints might not be selected to participate in the focus group.

Impact of provincially standardized focus group protocol - The focus group protocol was developed for use across all Networks in the FASD-SNP. Because of the unique circumstances of each Network, the language used in the protocol may not be completely appropriate in its application to each network. This has the potential to introduce interpretation bias and therefore variability in the understanding of each question across Networks and their leadership teams.

11


Self reported data not validated - The requests for information are self-reported and not externally validated. This leads to the potential for misrepresentation of the data that is requested from the Network.

Survey administration by service providers – For the purpose of surveying, access to clients and their parents or caregivers was gained through the service providers that they interact with. Although every precaution was taken to ensure that the surveys were completed in a confidential manner, with data collection blind to the service providers, there still exists the possibility that response bias was introduced by this method.

Client limitations – Many of the surveys used during this evaluation were directed at clients who are affected or suspected of being affected by FASD. Because of the inherent challenges that people with FASD face, their desire or ability to accurately focus on and complete a survey may be impaired. This has the potential to significantly impact the reliability and validity of the survey data collected.

Data collection timeframe – Data collection was completed during the summer months, which may impact the availablility of people to administer or respond to surveys, influencing response rates.

12


5. Evaluation Findings

The findings of the evaluation are organized according to eight areas of inquiry:

Network Governance and Management

Service Program Enhancement

Evaluation and Research Activity

Training and Education Access

Service Network Program Implementation Support

Program Guidelines

Network Level Short-Term Outcomes

Service Delivery Level Sort-Term Outcomes

5.1 Network Governance and Management

Evaluation Question #1: Have Networks developed governance and management structures to support the execution of the FASD Service Network Program? How?

Findings

Network Governance, Policy, and Procedures: EFAN has very well established Network governance, operations, policies, procedures, and methods for conducting planning developed over its history. The original Network policy and procedures document was drafted with the assistance of a consultant, and although having evolved over time this document forms the foundation for all Network policies and procedures today. Upon becoming part of the FASD-SNP the Network made changes to its governance structures and operations in order to meet the requirements of the program. They felt that the changes that were made were not needed per se; rather the Network changed because it was made to, despite having a strong, long-term operations and governance record. In fact, it was noted that integrating their pre-existing operations with the expectations of the FASD-SNP posed significant challenges to the Network.

13

Key findings: EFAN has adapted and enhanced their existing governance and management structure to support the execution of the FASD Service Network Program. The Network conducts annual planning, which includes a needs assessment process.


The core governance model for EFAN includes the Network membership, leadership team, and coordinator. Ownership of the Network lies with its membership, which is defined as all agencies and community members who have an interest in FASD and its related issues. Under the collaborative decision making model that EFAN follows, the Network membership is responsible for participating in collective decision making and planning. The Network leadership team is comprised of representatives from agencies who receive funding through EFAN, and includes two co-chairs. The team is directly accountable to the Network membership and is responsible for overseeing all of the business of the Network as it pertains to the FASD-SNP. The Network coordinator is responsible for implementing the operational priorities of the Network and is directly accountable to the Network membership and leadership team.

Needs Assessment and Planning: In 2007 EFAN completed its first formal Community Needs Assessment with the assistance of a consultant. Since then, they have revised their Community Needs Assessment every August, and it is approved by the Network membership each January as an input into the Network’s collective planning process. The needs assessment includes a snapshot of the current state and trends occurring in the community. For example, in the most recent needs assessment it was learned that there is a trend of significantly increasing demand for services, to the extent that some programs needed to close their waiting lists because demand for services greatly exceed delivery capacity. In addition, it was recognized that there will be an increasing need for support for adult men with FASD. Through the identification of these trends in the community, EFAN has been able to incorporate addressing these needs into their planning, should additional funds become available. Although the Network conducts formal Community Needs Assessment annually, they also feel that they are able to remain in touch with the changing needs of their community through the continual involvement of their membership.

Network Membership and Decision Making: EFAN is a Network with strong grassroots community relationships built over its years of history. The core strength of EFAN lies in its membership, which is comprised of a broad cross section of agencies and community members who have an interest in issues surrounding FASD and participate in the Network. Membership is open to all agencies and community members with an interest in FASD and its related issues. Active members of the Network are required to pay a $25 annual fee, are extended a vote in Network decisions, and are expected to attend a minimum number of Network meetings. Currently there are 37 agencies and 67 frontline staff active in the Network, and they host over 30 members at each of their regular Network meetings.

14


EFAN adheres to a philosophy of consensus building and consensus based decision making, involving all network members. Groundwork for changes in policy, governance, reporting and planning occurs at the Network Leadership Level, but all planning, changes in Network documentation and decision making is reviewed and approved using a consensus based system at regular network meetings.

Operational Staff: EFAN employs a full time Network coordinator, who has been part of the Network since 2005. Over the past year they have added a Network Banker to their operations, and will be adding a Contract Manager this year. The primary responsibility of the Network coordinator is to implement the operational priorities of the Network. This includes overseeing Network planning, maintenance and review of Network documents, acting as the liaison between the Network and the FASD Cross Ministry Committee, and coordination of Network communications, and a host of other core operational functions. The Network contract manger and banker are both accountable to the coordinator. The banker is responsible for management and distribution of Network funds, while the contract manager is responsible for the maintenance and enforcement of the contracts that govern the funded service delivery of the Network.

5.2 Service Program Enhancement

Evaluation Question #2: Have Networks enhanced programs and services in the three service categories identified for funding by the FASD-CMC? How?

Findings

Community Inquiries and Referrals: EFAN has been actively receiving inquiries about services and funding from the community it serves, and also has made referrals to its funded service providers. During the 2010-2011 fiscal year, EFAN received 1104 inquiries from the community, and made 264 referrals to its funded service providers. Information regarding numbers of inquiries and referrals prior to 2010-2011 is not available.

PCAP Service Enhancement: Since 2008, EFAN has enhanced PCAP services in the community. Currently they fund two PCAP mentor full time equivalents (FTEs) with Catholic Social Services, and an additional PCAP mentor

15

Key findings: With funding from the FASD-SNP EFAN has:

Provided PCAP to 86 unique individuals.

Funded one additional assessment for Children and Youth (7-18 years of age) per month at the Glenrose since 2009.

Provided support services to 1184 individuals across the lifespan in a variety of settings.

Collaboration is an important part of the way that services have been delivered in the network and has contributed to improved service delivery for clients, improvements in how services are delivered and engaged new


FTE at Bosco Homes. The number of service providers and FTEs provided each year since 2008 are presented in the following table:

PCAP Service Enhancement

Jan 2008 –Dec 2008

Jan 2009 –March 2010

April 2010 –March 2011

PCAP Service Providers Funded 1 1 2

PCAP Supervisor FTEs Funded 0 0 0

PCAP Mentor FTEs Funded 2 2 3

During the focus group it was made clear that the value that is created through EFAN funding is far greater than the face value of the FASD-CMC dollars distributed. The service providers funded for PCAP enhancement also provide in-kind resources to support PCAP. These provided resources include supervision, office space, technology, office supplies, and other physical resources and materials such as Christmas Vouchers. It was noted however that the service providers no longer report on the in-kind resources they provide, at the request of the FASD-CMC.

Through its funded service providers, EFAN has been able to impact the number of individuals who have been able to participate in PCAP. The number of unique individuals who have participated in PCAP funded by the Network during the 2010-2011 is 44; during 2008 15 individuals participated, and from January 2009 to March 2010 27 individuals participated.

Assessment and Diagnostic Services: EFAN funds assessment and diagnostic services in the community through the Children’s FASD assessment and diagnostic clinic at the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital. Specifically, EFAN has funded one additional assessment for Children and Youth (7-18 years of age) per month at the Glenrose since 2009. With this funding 15 clients received an assessment between January 2009 and March 2010, and 12 clients received an assessment during the 2010-2011 fiscal year. EFAN does not fund diagnosis and assessment for adults as there is an appropriate level of capacity in the community for adult assessments.

As with PCAP service providers, Glenrose enhances the value of the funding it receives from EFAN by providing in-kind resources to support assessment and diagnosis services. In-kind resources provided by the Glenrose include program coordination, access to specialized services, training, technology, and infrastructure. Again it was asserted that the service

16


providers no longer report on the in-kind resources they provide, at the request of the FASD-CMC.

Support Services Enhancement: Since 2008, EFAN has provided funding to service providers to enhance FASD support services. Currently they fund eight service providers including Catholic Social Services, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and Bosco Homes, among others. The total number of service providers funded and the number of clients that have received support services in each year since 2008 is presented in the following table:

Support Services Enhancement

Jan 2008 –Dec 2008

Jan 2009 –March 2010

April 2010 –March 2011

Service Providers Funded 7 8 8

Clients Receiving Support 204 646 334

The number of clients who have received support services in the most recent fiscal year is not currently available, but it is expected that the number of clients served will again be significant. The target populations for the support services from agencies funded by EFAN are:

Children and youth suspected of FASD or diagnosed with FASD (in a community setting);

Children and youth suspected of FASD or diagnosed with FASD (in a school setting);

Youth transitioning to adulthood (completed high school);

Young adult females (26-35 years old);

Older adult females (36+ years old);

Parents and caregivers; and

Parents and caregivers suspected of FASD or diagnosed with FASD.

Young adult and older adult males are not considered a target population for the services funded by EFAN.

As noted above, the value that is created through EFAN funding is far greater than the face value of the FASD-CMC dollars distributed. Although it is not reported on, all funded service providers contribute in-kind resources to support service enhancement, not limited to contract management, technology, office space and supplies, and training. Funded support service providers are also expected to participate as active members of the Network, and are required

17


to attend 80% of all Network meetings and 75% of all Network Leadership Team meetings, hence contributing to the strength of EFAN in the community.

Collaborations: EFAN has been highly successful in creating collaborations that have improved service delivery for clients, improved how services are delivered, and have brought new members into the Network. Network members attribute the long term nature of the relationships that EFAN has been able to form with its community as a critical success factor which enables successful collaboration. It was noted that forming successful, trusting collaborations takes a long time; because of the long history of EFAN they have an advantage in this respect. Another success factor discussed was the way in which EFAN engages its membership to identify the gaps in the community and ways in which they could be filled by bringing in new collaborating organizations and people.

An example of a collaboration that has improved service delivery for clients is one that has been created between CASA and the Coaching Families program. These organizations have worked together to create a seamless flow of service delivery between them, which has streamlined service system navigation for clients and minimized waitlists. Another example of a collaboration that has improved service delivery is one involving the Children’s FASD assessment and diagnostic clinic at the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Catholic Social Services (CSS), and the Coaching Families program. The clinic coordinator at the Glenrose has developed strong, direct relationships with these support services in the community so that post-assessment, clients and caregivers can be directly referred to them by the coordinator rather than having to seek out and secure services on their own. Furthermore, collaboration between CSS and the Glenrose clinic has allowed CSS staff to participate in complete assessments in order to build deeper understanding of FASD and the diagnosis process in CSS staff, which in turn enhances their skills in understanding and interacting with their FASD affected clients and their caregivers.

Collaborations have also resulted in new members participating in the Network. For Example, the Chemo Project animal assisted therapy joined EFAN as a result of interest in the FASD youth programs that EFAN is collaborating with. As noted above, EFAN actively tries to identify organizations and individuals needed in the network to address community needs.

EFAN has identified collaborations with Aboriginal communities as an area in which more of their energy should be focused. They have several collaborations with Aboriginal-specific agencies such as Métis Nations and Bosco Homes. Currently EFAN is using enhanced PCAP dollars to develop a new program using the “Wellbriety Movement” which is an Aboriginal support program that was developed in the United States. They are collaborating with Aboriginal community members to bring in Wellbriety Movement trainers to teach clients

18


about the Movement. In addition, EFAN is using enhanced PCAP dollars to enhance the PCAP program available through the Enoch First Nation by establishing collaborations between them and the PCAP providers in Edmonton. It was noted during the focus group that relationships with aboriginal communities are slow to develop, but they are continuing to make them a priority.

5.3 Evaluation and Research Activity

Evaluation Question #3: Have Networks participated in evaluation and research activities? How?

Findings

FASD-CMC Mandated Activities: EFAN actively participates in evaluation and research activities. None of these however, are FASD-CMC mandated: FASD-SNP funds do not support any evaluation and research activities, but EFAN does.

Research Activities: EFAN has participated in many research activities over its history. For example, the Network has an excellent relationship with researchers at the University of Alberta. During the focus group it was noted that one of the consequences of sustained funding in the EFAN region is that it has enabled several researchers to make FASD their life’s work. The key researchers noted were Dr. Carmen Rasmussen and Dr. Jacqueline Pei, both from University of Alberta. These researchers are prominent in the international FASD research community, and are training and promoting the careers of their PhD students in the FASD field. EFAN’s relationships with researchers and their ability to bring together diverse service providers have facilitated information exchanges, where service providers are able to inform the researchers of their observations and needs. EFAN also is a formal participant in research projects such as the McDaniel Youth Research Project, which they are currently participating in, in collaboration with Dr. Rasmussen.

Evaluation Activities: EFAN has also continuously engaged in evaluation activities over its history. Most notably, the Public Health Agency of Canada has recently published a case study on comprehensive community mobilization efforts for FASD that focuses on EFAN as a model for evolving services and assisting people with FASD and their families.2

2 Comprehensive Community Mobilization Efforts for FASD Case Study: Edmonton Fetal Alcohol Network. (2011) Public Health Agency of Canada.

19

Key findings: EFAN actively participates in evaluation and research activities. Participation in these activities is a result of the sustained funding for FASD in the Edmonton area. None of these activities are funded through the FASD-SNP


5.4 Training and Education Access

Evaluation Question #4: Have Networks enhanced the access to FASD related training and educations for individuals, caregivers, service providers and community partners? How?

Findings

EFAN has provided access to provincial FASD-CMC education and training sessions for its Network Leadership Team (NLT) members, its Coordinator, funded service providers, and community Network members/partners. All have been represented at each Provincial CMC Education and Training session from September 2007 through November 2009. Overall Network Leadership Team (NLT) members, its Coordinator, funded service providers, and community Network members/partners have attended 15 sessions. A comprehensive listing of the FASD-CMC education and training sessions attended and a detailed overview of who attended is available in Appendix C

20

Key findings: The Network has been successful in involving funded service providers and community members/partners in training and education opportunities provided through the FASD-CMC.


5.5 Service Network Program Implementation Support

Evaluation Question #5: Have the program guidelines, resources, and tools developed by the CMC supported Networks in the successful implementation of the program?

Findings

EFAN has made use of many of the FASD-SNP guidelines, resources, and tools developed by the FASD-CMC to assist their planning and operations. They believe that the primary benefit of using the guidelines, resources, and tools was that they provided boundaries for the work that was required by the FASD-CMC, but they also stated that they felt that they were in many cases overly restrictive and repetitive for their Network.

Support Provided by the FASD-SNP Guidelines: In response to the request for information, EFAN indicated that the following specific FASD-SNP guidelines were useful for ensuring compliance with the program requirements:

Description of the expectations regarding when Networks need to be compliant;

Principles for the operation of the FASD Service Network Program;

Parameters, requirements and expectations of the FASD Service Network Program, Networks, Network members including roles, responsibilities and accountabilities and funding processes;

Program requirements and administrative timelines; and

Description of the three service categories in which Networks will deliver funding and service improvements, including the associated definitions, outcomes and emerging practices.

The Network noted that the description of the structure and organization of the FASD-SNP was not found to be useful to them. They also noted that challenges could arise in Networks given that different versions of the guidelines have been provided, each with timelines for implementation that could be challenging for Networks to meet. Furthermore, it was noted during the focus group that the Network wondered why guidelines are in place if they “can’t be

21

Key findings: The program guidelines developed by the FASD-CMC have provided EFAN with the direction necessary to ensure they understand the requirements of FASD-SNP and have assisted in ensuring compliance with the program requirements. The Network has made use of a number of the provincially developed templates


used” to hold Networks accountable for their operations, as it seems that there may be no recourse for non-compliance.

Support Provided by the Resources and Tools: EFAN used many of the resources and tools made available to them by the FASD-CMC. Tools they used included the business plan development workbook, business plan review criteria, grant application, and annual report template among others. The Network did not use the sample staffing agreement as they found it did not suit their Network needs. The resources and tools that EFAN did not use were:

Tool to Assist in the Development of Procurement Processes for Networks;

Contract management competencies;

Sample agreement between a Network and their Banker; and

Sample agreement between a Network and organization acting as their Contract Manager.

It was noted that ultimately, they used resources and tools because they felt they were required to, not because they needed to. Focus group participants were asked if they made use of the “Framework to Enable and Align FASD Evaluation in Alberta”, to which they responded that they did not. They noted that the document did not have a clear purpose, and so they chose not to use it.

Video Conferencing Equipment: EFAN does not have its own video conferencing equipment. They are able to access video conferencing as needed however, at the Alberta Children and Youth Services offices at Sterling Place in Edmonton. The Network generally believes that face to face meetings are optimal for relationship building and collaboration, but have used video conferencing to participate in provincial Network Leadership Team meetings, committee work, and council meetings.

22


5.6 Program Guidelines

Evaluation Question #6: Have the program requirements of the FASD-CMC assisted Networks in (1) enhancing programs and services in the three service categories defined by the FASD-CMC; and (2) managing the Network Program?

Findings

Focus group participants were asked what guidance requirements in the revised FASD-SNP guidelines provided their Network for managing the Network program. They responded that they did believe that the requirements provided guidance for managing their Network. Specifically, they again thought that the requirements provided them with boundaries and limitations to the work that was expected by the FASD-CMC. It was also noted that there was value in having consistency across the work of the Networks. For EFAN, the guidelines provided clear expectations surrounding the documentation and timelines required to receive funding, clear expectations regarding the conflicts of interest that may exist within the Network, and defined roles and responsibilities for the Leadership Team and Coordinator as they relate to the program.

5.7 Network Level Short-Term Outcomes

Evaluation Question #7: Have networks been established that enhance and/or expand programs and services within their defined geographic areas?

Findings

Information to inform this question was collected directly from EFAN’s funded service providers using an online survey (n=17). Overall, most service providers (88%) indicated that EFAN has allowed them to enhance their existing services and many service providers (59%) have been able to offer new services as a result of funding from EFAN. The complete data collected from service providers and community partners can be found in Appendix G.

23

Key findings: The program requirements of the FASD-CMC have not provided guidance in managing their Network. However, they did provide boundaries and limitation to the work that was expected by the FASD-CMC.

Key findings: As a result of FASD-SNP funding EFAN has enhanced and expanded FASD programs and services in their community.

59% of funded service providers are offering new services.

88% of funded service providers have been able to enhance their services.


New Services: EFAN funded service providers were asked to indicate whether they are able to offer new services using the funding they received from EFAN. 59% of funded service providers indicated that are offering new services using the funding they received from EFAN. Eight (47%) of the funded service providers indicated that they have been able to offer new support services since receiving EFAN funding, while new assessment and diagnosis and targeted and indicated prevention services are each being offered by one service provider. The remaining 41% of service providers are not offering new services.

Service Enhancement: Funded service providers were asked if their pre-existing services had been enhanced by the funding provided by EFAN, and 88% responded that their services had been enhanced. Some funded service providers have been able to enhance more than one of their services since receiving EFAN funding. Overall, 10 funded service providers (59%) have enhanced support services, seven (41%) have enhanced their targeted and indicated prevention services, and one (6%) has enhanced its assessment and diagnosis services. It is interesting to note that one funded service provider indicated that it does not have any new services, nor had it enhanced any of its existing services.

Geographic Reach: Service providers were asked which, if any, of their services were being offered in new geographic areas since EFAN was established. Most service providers (76%) have not been able to expand their geographic reach. However, one service provider (6%) is offering assessment and diagnosis services in a new geographic area, and targeted and indicated prevention services are being offered in new areas by three service providers (18%).

24


Evaluation Question #8: Are funded service providers and community partners aware of the programs and services available to support individuals affected by FASD and their caregivers?

Findings

Awareness of Network Leadership and Role: Overall, EFAN’s funded service providers and community partners have a good awareness of the Network’s leadership, roles, and mandate. When surveyed about whether they knew which individuals participate as leaders and staff of EFAN, almost all (93%) service providers and community partners indicated that they knew all or some of the individuals involved. 91% also have a good understanding or general sense of what the Network’s role and mandate are. Interestingly, knowing EFAN’s leadership, role, and mandate is not necessarily associated with receiving funding from the Network, as there is a funded service provider who indicated that they did not know EFAN’s leadership, role, and mandate.

Inter-Organizational Awareness and Service Referrals: When surveyed about whether they were aware of the FASD services provided by other organizations in the Network, 100% of service providers and community partners (n=30) indicated that they were aware of the services provided by other organizations. 70% of the respondents characterized their awareness as being aware of most or all of the other services that were available. The relative level of awareness is not impacted by whether or not an organization is receiving funding from EFAN.

Service providers and community partners were asked indicate how many referrals they made to services offered by other community organizations in an average month. 77% of the service providers and community partners refer up to 50 clients per month with most (43%) making between one and 10 referrals. Five (17%) do not make referrals in an average month, as illustrated by the following chart:

25

Key findings: There is a good awareness of EFAN among its funded service providers and community partners. Funded service providers and community partners also have good inter-organizational awareness and make service referrals for their clients.


Service providers and community partners refer individuals affected by or suspected of being affected by FASD to a variety of different services in the community. Survey respondents were asked to specify which types of services they had referred clients to over the previous month. As summarized in the table below, the most common referrals were to mental health services, healthcare services, income supports, housing services, and the food bank, with over 50% of the respondents making these referrals over the past month.

% of funded service providers & community

partners making a service referral

Types of Service Referrals

>50%

Mental health services Healthcare Income supports Housing Food bank

30-50%

Prevention programs Respite care Recreation Addiction services Employment services Education & training Legal/family supports Recreation

20-30% Detoxification Transportation services

<10% None or other (“do not refer clients specifically because of FASD”; “do not know”)

26


Service providers and community partners were asked how effective they thought that their referrals are in helping clients meet their goals. 80% of respondents to this question (n=25) responded that they though the referrals their organization makes are very effective or somewhat effective in helping clients meet their goals. 16% of respondents did not have a sense of the effectiveness of their organization’s referrals.

Evaluation Question #9: Are Networks successful in coordinating services for individuals who are affected or suspected to be affected by FASD and their caregivers?

Findings

Network Role in Coordinating Services – Leadership Team Perspective: In response to a request for information (Appendix E), members of the Network Leadership Team indicated that they believe establishment of EFAN has contributed to the successful coordination of services for individuals who are affected or suspected to be affected by FASD and their caregivers. They mentioned that the Network has helped agencies to cross refer clients to sister programs when waitlists become too long, which had not previously been the practice. This has been facilitated through the close relationships that the Network has helped to foster among agencies.

The Network Coordinator has functioned as a central referral source for individuals and caregivers seeking services in the region. This has allowed for persons seeking service to access appropriate program information in a timely fashion while also eliminating individual frustration at having to research the available services and admissions criteria themselves.

Much of the red tape and barriers to access that clients have experienced has been reduced by the close relationship between Network agencies. Programs have been able to offer a more cohesive wrap around service through a coordinated referral process. For example, once a child is assessed at the Glenrose Clinic, the Clinic Coordinator can refer the parents directly to the Coaching Families Program. Coaching Families can then assist the parents in obtaining respite services through the Kids Kottage FASD Respite Program. These coordinated, inter-organizational referrals were not possible prior to the establishment of EFAN.

27

Key findings: EFAN is successful at leading and fostering communications, interaction, and use of best practice research among its service providers and community partners, which results in coordination of services across their region. This has been facilitated by the Network Coordinator who functions as a central referral source for individuals and caregivers.


Communications Strategies of the Leadership Team: Members of the Leadership Team regularly communicate with funded service providers and unfunded community partners both through face-to-face and virtual means. The Network holds monthly face-to-face meetings, which are mandatory for funded providers to attend. A standing agenda item at these meetings is an update on the activities of Network members. The Leadership Team also meets monthly, and distributes the meeting agenda and minutes to Network members via email. This helps Network members stay abreast of the issues that the Leadership Team deals with and the decisions that result from their discussions. The Network also utilizes a blog to disperse Network information, resources, research and other valuable communications to the membership and funded service providers on an as needed basis, usually weekly. The Network Coordinator and Community Worker synchronize and organize the Network contact list to facilitate the transfer of information to members either via email, blog, telephone, or face-to-face.

In addition to these regular communication activities, the Network also engages funded service providers and unfunded community partners through special events such as training opportunities, educational sessions, community networking events such as FASD Day events, the Network’s annual strategic planning session, and the Annual General Meeting. EFAN actively recruits new members through direct invitations to join, and the Network co-chairs provide orientation sessions to new Network members.

These communications activities have benefitted both the Network and the organizations involved. The Network has benefitted through:

Increased membership from those agencies seeking support, resources and general FASD information from the Network.

Increased capacity of the Network to facilitate the development of new resources and host training and networking opportunities.

Increased development of leaders within the field of FASD in the Network.

Increased awareness of the Network and its activities within the community.

The organizations themselves have benefitted in the following ways:

Improved collaborations and partnerships between organizations has allowed for more seamless service delivery (e.g., the child assessment coordinator might refer a child to the McDaniel Youth Program and, at the same time, refer his or her parent to the Coaching Families program).

Improved access to new resources, information, programming, workshops, training.

28


Improved sense of community and belonging (i.e., a feeling that “we are all in it together”).

Improved partnerships have resulted in improved service delivery and fewer clients falling through the cracks.

Improved resource sharing and human resource capabilities.

Organizations have become leaders in the field of FASD.

Network Role in Coordinating Services – Community Perspective: When surveyed whether EFAN had assisted the coordination of services and collaboration among community organizations, most service providers and community partners indicated that they had. As illustrated in the diagram below, 90% of service providers and community partners agreed that EFAN played a key role in building new collaborative partnerships in the region and 80% agreed that EFAN assisted their organization to coordinate services with others provided in the region.

Percentage of Networks argreeing with the following statements:

Total Responses = 30 Completely agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat disagree

Completely disagree N/A

The Network has played a key role in building new collaborative partnerships in our region.

63% 27% 7% 0% 0% 3%

The Network has assisted our organization to coordinate our services with other services provided in our region.

37% 43% 10% 3% 0% 7%

Service providers and community partners were asked to specify the number of collaborations that EFAN had enabled between their organization and others over the past year. 21 (70%) of the service providers and community partners responded to the question. Of the respondents, 15 indicated that EFAN had enabled between one and five collaborations between their organization and others over the past year. Four respondents noted that they had over 11 collaborations enabled by EFAN over the past year. A variety of different collaborations were given as examples, including partnerships with the justice system, service delivery collaborations, and making assessment and diagnosis available. Some specific examples of collaborations given by the service providers and community partners include:

“One service provided me one of their clients as a mentor/volunteer for my program.”

“The Network allowed one of our programs to partner with the Hope Foundation to provide a support group for mothers with FASD.”

“Joint work between the Coaching Families Program and CASA Family Reno program.”

29


“Between the McDaniel Youth program and Terra Program to help teens see firsthand what it is like to care for a baby.”

“When there was funding for enhanced services to Aboriginal women in PCAP programs the network organized a committee to discuss how best to utilize this money. Several organizations participated in this process.”

“Collaboration between our home visitation services and those provided by another funded agency so that client support did not completely fall on my organization.”

“CSS FASD programs and Edmonton Young Offender Centre collaborated on CSS FASD staff working in the Centre.”

“Connection to adult assessment clinic.”

Inter-organizational Communication – Community Perspective: When asked whether EFAN had positively affected the level of communication among service providers regarding common clients, most service providers and community partners indicated that they had. Key findings in this area of inquiry include:

Most (70%) of the service providers and community partners surveyed indicated that they served between 1-50 clients over the past month.

Most (57.2%) funded service providers and community partners indicated that over 50% or more of their clients are receiving services from more than service category (assessment and diagnosis, targeted and indicated prevention, or support service). 21.4% did not know whether their clients were receiving more than one type of service.

64% of service providers and community partners indicated that they are aware of all or most of the services their clients receive outside their organization.

79% of organizations who work directly with clients affected by FASD typically communicate with other community partners about common clients on a monthly or more frequent basis.

Of the communications between community organizations regarding clients, 73% of service providers and community partners indicated that they are documented at least 90% of the time.

Network Impact on Service Delivery – Community Perspective: Funded service providers and community partners were asked whether they thought EFAN had positively affected the way that services are delivered in the region, most service providers and community partners indicated that they had. As illustrated in the diagram below, 87% of service providers and

30


community partners agreed that EFAN played a key role in enhancing the services provided in the region and 77% agreed that individuals have better access to services as a result of EFAN’s FASD-SNP funding.

Percentage of Networks argreeing with the following statements:


Somewhat agree


Somewhat disagree

Completely disagree N/A

The Network has played a key role in enhancing the services provided in our region.

70% 17% 7% 3% 0% 3%

Since the Network began receiving funding from the FASD-SNP, individuals have had better access to the services they require.

47% 30% 13% 7% 0% 3%

Evaluation Question #10: Have best practices, research, evaluation and quality improvement results been used to inform the delivery of services? If so, how?

Findings

Use of Best Practice Research – Leadership Team Perspective: In response to a request for information (Appendix E), members of the Leadership Team indicated that they stay aware and up to date with current research and best practice guidelines for FASD programs and services in a number of ways. Operational staff of the Network search for current and valid FASD research on a weekly basis. These resources are disseminated via email, through the FASD Frontline Newsletter, blog postings, and at Network meetings. Network member agencies and Network operational staff attend best practice training offered through the FASD-SNP, other Networks, and EFAN, including assessment and diagnosis training, case management training, and FASD training. The Network has financially supported Network members to attend both the Alberta FASD Conferences and International Conference on FASD annually. Information gathered at these conferences is shared through the Network.

Leadership Team members indicated that evaluation results, evolving best practice guidelines, and current research have affected Network planning through the Network’s annual SWOT analysis, environmental scan, and needs analysis. These documents are the primary source of information for the Network when determining service funding priorities each year at their Annual Strategic Planning Session.

31

Key findings: EFAN maintains active awareness of best practices, current research, and evaluation, and use it as the foundation of their yearly planning. EFAN promotes and motivates the use of best practices among their funded service providers and community partners, including a formal


Leadership Team members noted that EFAN encourages the use of best practice guidelines among service providers as much as possible. The Network encourages the use of these guidelines by disseminating them to all service providers as they become available, as well as through the discussion of these guidelines at the monthly Network meetings.

The Network reviews the performance of funded service providers each year through their contract management processes. The Network contract manager administers and enforces written agreements that govern funded service delivery. The Network contract manager completes the ‘Service Quality and Compliance Review’ with each funded service provider bi-annually. Criteria used to measure the performance of funded service providers include objectives, activities, baseline measures, and target measures. Performance of funded service providers is also discussed monthly at the Leadership Team meetings.

Use of Best Practice Research – Community Perspective

When asked whether EFAN had supported the incorporation of best practice research in the services they deliver, most service providers and community partners indicated that they had. Key findings in this area of inquiry include:

43% of the service providers and community partners surveyed indicated that they were very familiar with the best practice research that is relevant to the services their organization offers. The remaining 57% indicated that they were somewhat familiar with the best practices research.

Almost all service providers and community partners (94%) incorporate best practice research into the services that they offer.

80% of service providers and community partners noted that EFAN was involved in incorporating the best practice research into the services their organization offers.

32


5.8 Service Delivery Level Short-Term Outcomes

Evaluation Question #11: What difference do assessment and diagnostic services make for individuals, parents, caregivers, and agency support persons?

Findings

Information to inform this question was collected from a survey of parents and caregivers of children and youth who had received assessment and diagnosis services through the Network (n=9). The data collected through this survey is presented in Appendix H.

Generally, parents and caregivers expressed highly positive sentiments towards the difference assessment and diagnosis services have made for them and the children or youth that they care for. In particular:

100% of parents and caregivers agreed that they understand FASD better since they received the assessment and diagnosis services, and 89% agreed that they feel better prepared to help their dependent.

89% agreed that after the assessment and diagnosis they received guidance in getting the help their dependent needs, and that people made sure they got that help.

89% indicated that the assessment and diagnosis clinic met most or almost all of their dependent’s needs, and have helped their dependent to deal more effectively with their problems.

33

Key findings: Assessment and diagnostic services clients are highly satisfied with the services they receive, and would recommend assessment and diagnostic services to their


Evaluation Question #12: Are clients satisfied with the assessment and diagnosis services provided?

Findings

Information to inform this question was also collected from a survey of parents and caregivers of children and youth who had received assessment and diagnosis services through the Network (Appendix H). All of the parents and caregivers surveyed agreed that they were satisfied with the assessment and diagnosis services their dependent received, and all also indicated that they would recommend the services to a friend in need of similar help. On a more detailed level:

100% of the parents and caregivers surveyed rated the quality of the assessment and diagnostic services as good or excellent, and all agreed that the people who gave their dependent their assessment and diagnosis “really know what they are doing”.

100% of parents and caregivers were also satisfied with the amount of help they received, and would return to the same clinic if they needed assessment and diagnosis services again.

34

Key findings: As a result of assessment and diagnosis services parents and caregivers:

Understand FASD better

Are more prepared to help their dependent.

Received guidance in getting assistance for their dependent.

Feel their dependent is able to deal more effectively with


Evaluation Question #13: How many women have successfully completed the Parent and Child Assistance Program (PCAP)?

Findings

Information to inform this question was collected from a request for information to the PCAP providers that receive funding through EFAN; all of the collected information is presented in Appendix F. Three PCAP service providers responded to the request for information. Their responses indicate that in total, 58 women have enrolled in PCAP since the service providers began receiving funding from EFAN, and 69 women are currently enrolled in PCAP offered by those service providers. 25 women have successfully completed PCAP through one of the funded services providers. Among the three service providers receiving SNP funding from EFAN one has been providing PCAP for less than three years and therefore has not been offering PCAP long enough to have had any clients completing the program.

Evaluation Question #14: Has PCAP influenced the alcohol and drug exposure among the future children of women involved in the program?

Findings

Information to inform this question was collected from a request for information to PCAP providers that receive funding through EFAN (Appendix F). Their responses indicate that PCAP has helped participants to reduce their use of alcohol and drugs. More specifically, among the 58 women who have enrolled in the program through Network funds:

64% report the use of effective family planning methods.

75% were pregnant at intake into the program, and they were all alcohol or drug exposed.

78% report reduced alcohol use and 76% report reduced drug use since their enrolment in the program.

35

Key findings: 58 women have enrolled in PCAP offered through SNP funding from EFAN. 25 women have successfully completed PCAP through one of the funded services providers.

Key findings: Among the 58 women who have enrolled in the program through Network funds, 78% report reduced alcohol use and 76% report reduced drug use since their intake into the program.


Of those who were pregnant at intake into the program, 53% completed substance abuse treatment.

Of those who were pregnant at intake into the program, 84% experienced live births.

Evaluation Question #15: Are women satisfied with the services provided through PCAP?

Findings

Information to inform this question was collected from a survey of women who have participated in the PCAP program (n=19). The data collected through this survey is presented in Appendix I. Overall, PCAP participants expressed very positive feedback regarding the services they received through PCAP supported by EFAN. Specifically:

100% of the PCAP clients surveyed indicated that they are satisfied with the services they received through PCAP and would recommend PCAP to a friend in need of similar help.

100% of the PCAP clients surveyed indicated that most or almost all of their needs had been met by their PCAP mentor, and all were also satisfied with the amount of help they received from the program.

100% also described the services received though PCAP as good or excellent, and that PCAP has helped them deal more effectively with their problems.

36

Key findings: Clients who have received PCAP services offered through the service providers supported by EFAN are extremely satisfied with the services they have received, and all would recommend them to a friend.


Evaluation Question #16: Have support services assisted individuals, parents/families and/or caregivers to manage their situation?

Findings

Information to inform this question was collected from three sources: (1) a survey of support service adult clients (n=34); (2) parents and caregivers of minor support service clients (n=27); and, (3) support services staff who work closely with clients who would otherwise not be able to fill out a survey (n=90). The combined complete data for the adult client survey and the parent/caregiver survey is presented in Appendix J, and the data for the staff survey is presented in Appendix K.

All three of these groups were very positive about the way support services from EFAN funded service providers have assisted them. The results illustrate that support services play a strong role in helping clients in many ways. For example:

Of the adult clients, parents and caregivers surveyed, 89% indicated that the services helped them deal more effectively with their problems.

71% of adult clients agreed that as a result of the services they received they experience fewer crises in their daily life.

68% of adult clients agreed that as a result of the services they received they have a decent place to live, and 70% agreed that their ability to live on their own is improved.

85% of adult clients agreed that the services they received helped them use other programs and services in the community that they had not used before.

91% of the support staff surveyed agreed that their clients know more about their strengths and what they are good at as a result of the services they received, and that clients learned about things they need to change or do differently.

86% of parents and caregivers surveyed agreed that their dependents know more about their strengths and what they are good at as a result of the services they received, and that their dependents learned about things they need to change or do differently.

37

Key findings: As a result of the support services they receive, support services clients are able to better manage their situation:

Clients, parents and caregivers are able to deal more effectively with their problems.

Adult clients experience less crisis in their life, and have an improved ability to live on their own.

Adult clients are able to use community programs and service they had not used before.

Clients know more about their strengths and things they need to do differently.

Clients learned new skills.


91% of the support staff surveyed agreed that clients had learned new skills through the support they received.

88% of parents and caregivers agreed that their dependents learned new skills from the supports services they received.

Evaluation Question #17: Are clients satisfied with the support services they have received?

Findings

Information to inform this question was collected from two sources: (1) a survey of clients who had received support services from EFAN-funded providers, and (2) a survey of their parents and caregivers. The combined data for both surveys is presented in Appendix J. In total, 61 individuals were surveyed about their satisfaction with the support services they had received. Overall, clients, parents and caregivers indicated that they are satisfied with the services they had received. Specifically:

Of the clients, parents and caregivers surveyed, 86% were satisfied by the services they received, and 92% would recommend the support services they received to a friend.

85% of clients, parents, and caregivers rated the quality of the support services they received as good or excellent.

80% indicated that most or almost all of their needs had been met by the support services they received.

38

Key findings: 86% of Adult clients, parents and caregivers are satisfied with the support services provided by EFAN funded service providers, and 92% would recommend them to a friend.


6. Recommendations

The results of this evaluation reveal that EFAN has been successful in integrating the requirements of the FASD-SNP into their existing operations and leveraging the expertise and infrastructure of the local FASD community to expand and enhance programs and services for individuals and caregivers affected or suspected of FASD and improving outcomes for the individuals served by FASD-SNP funding. The following recommendations are suggested to continue to support the momentum influencing FASD in the province.

Recommendation #1: Continue to lead and act as a resource to other Networks of the FASD-SNP as they strive to strengthen their governance, operations, services and community engagement.

EFAN has established itself as a best practice for Network operations and governance. They have successfully integrated the requirements of the FASD-SNP into their governance and operations while maintaining a consensus-based decision making model. In this way, EFAN has an opportunity to lead and act as a resource to other Networks of the FASD-SNP as they strive to strengthen their governance, operations, and services.

In addition to sharing their experiences related to network governance and operations, EFAN has demonstrated success in relationship building, community engagement and service coordination. EFAN may wish to consider preparing a case study of its practices surrounding relationship building and engagement of its membership (both funded service providers and community partners) in order to inform both the FASD-SNP and other community based Networks through publication.

Recommendation #2: Continue to build and strengthen collaborations in Alberta’s FASD research community, acting as a natural interface between front line service providers and clients, and researchers and develop mechanisms to use findings to influence provincial planning for FASD.

Although beyond the expectations of the FASD-SNP EFAN has developed strong connections with Alberta’s FASD research community to further develop the knowledge and infrastructure supporting FASD in Alberta. It is recommended that EFAN continue to build and strengthen collaborations in Alberta’s FASD research community, acting as a natural interface between front line service providers and clients, and researchers and develop mechanisms to use these research findings to influence provincial planning for FASD.

39


Recommendation #3: Develop succession plans for the Network Leadership team members and Coordinator in order to mitigate risks when faced with attrition or turnover.

Currently, EFAN is lead by a very strong Network Leadership Team and Network Coordinator. This has been a strength which has contributed to building strong membership, efficiency in meeting the FASD-SNP requirements, collaboration and coordination among service providers, and a single point of contact for individuals affected by FASD. However, this strength presents a risk to the Network should personnel turnover occur. To mitigate this risk, it is recommended that EFAN build succession planning into governance documents and activities.

Recommendation #4: Continue to explore membership gaps and avenues for coordination of services among Network members and other organizations in the community even where obvious connections to FASD prevention, management, and services do not exist.

The diverse membership of EFAN has contributed to service coordination and improved service delivery for individuals affected by FASD. However there is a need to continually and deliberately explore and address gaps in membership in order to enable further coordination of services.

Recommendation 5: Continue to measure client outcomes as a mechanism to communicate the positive impact of the Network.

Increasingly, the public sector is shifting towards measurement of outcomes and away from measurements of system outputs (such as the number of clients served). The evaluation built a foundation for the ongoing collection and reporting of client outcomes resulting from the funding of the Network. This has created an opportunity to integrate these data collection tools into contracts with funded service providers and ensure Network level outcome data is available. The availability of this data can then be used to seek out additional funding for the Network and expand the programs and services offered to communities throughout the Network. As well, data could be integrated into the performance management process for funded service providers. This should be done in a very thoughtful and purposeful way in order to ensure funding for service providers is not at risk as a result of decisions made by an individual affected by FASD.

40


Appendix A Evaluation Framework

Formative Evaluation Questions Evaluation Indicators Data SourcesData Collection

Methods1 Have Networks developed

governance and management structures to support the execution of the FASD Service Network Program? How?

Historical description of the Network including:

When and how the Network was establishedChanges in leadership and operational staff and membershipChanges in mandate/ function

Completion of initial community needs assessment

Completion of strategic planning after initial needs assessment

Submission of annual business plans to CMC

Development of governance structure for network

Network has operational staff Completion of quarterly reporting Completion of annual reporting Implementation of processes to support

network management, such as contract management, funding criteria, and requests for expressions of interest.

Network Leadership TeamCMC membersNeeds assessmentNetwork terms of referenceAnnual business plansQuarterly reportsAnnual reportsProgram guidelinesAudit reportsPolicies and procedures manualsProgram evaluations

Network Leadership Focus Group Request for Information (RFI)

41



Methods2 Have Networks enhanced

programs and services in the three service categories identified for funding by the FASD-CMC? How?

PCAP mentors and supervisors funded Assessment and diagnosis clinics

funded FASD support services funded In-kind contributions of funded service

providers in PCAP, supports and assessment and diagnosis

Examples of new collaborations that improve services for clients

Examples of new collaborations that improve how services are delivered

Examples of new collaborations impacting the governance of the Network.

Factors contributing to successful collaborations

Number of individuals seeking FASD programs and services referred to funded programs

Number of service inquiries received by Network

Service providersNetwork Leadership TeamCMC membersAudit reportsQuarterly reportsAnnual reportsProgram evaluationsAnnual business plans

Network Leadership Focus GroupRequest for Information (RFI)

3 Have Networks participated in evaluation and research activities? How?

Examples of evaluation and research activities

Opportunities for evaluation and research activities

Network Leadership TeamAnnual business plans

Network Leadership Interviews

42



Methods4 Have Networks enhanced the

access to FASD related training and educations for individuals, caregivers, service providers and community partners? How?

Network personnel participation in CMC education and training sessions (learning series, best practice seminars, conferences)

Number of service provider staff attending education and training sessions

Network Leadership TeamCMC members

Request for Information (RFI)

5 Have the program guidelines, resources and tools developed by the FASD-CMC supported Networks in the successful implementation of the program?

Compliance with Network Program Guidelines

Use of templates and tools included in Program Guidelines

Evaluation framework was used to guide network evaluation planning

Regular use of videoconferencing equipment

Clear governance structure

Network Leadership TeamCMC membersNetwork terms of referenceAnnual business plansAnnual reportsProgram guidelinesProgram evaluations

Network Leadership Focus GroupRequest for Information (RFI)

6 Have the program requirements of the FASD-CMC assisted Networks in (1) enhancing programs and services in the three service categories defined by the FASD-CMC; and (2) managing the Network Program?

Defined roles for network members Goals and objectives set in business

plan achieved Funds for program delivery or

enhancement fully disseminated Community needs addressed Completion of all required reporting

Network Leadership TeamCMC membersNetwork terms of referenceAnnual business plansAnnual reportsProgram evaluations

Network Leadership Focus GroupProvincial Coordinator Request for Information (RFI)

43


Summative Evaluation Questions

Evaluation Indicators Data SourcesData Collection Methods 3

Network Level Short-term Outcomes

7

Have networks been established that enhance and or expand programs and services within their defined geographic areas?

1. Services provided under each of the three service categories

2. Change in reach of services (new geographic areas served) since inception of Network program

3. Change in capacity of existing programs

Service providers

Community Partners4

Service Provider/ Community Partner Survey

3 References are to questions in the data collection tools provided to Networks.

4 Community partners are defined individuals/organizations who have been involved or in contact with the FASD Network, but have not received funding from the Network. Community partners may, in the context of some Networks, be Network members at large.

44



Evaluation Indicators Data SourcesData Collection Methods

8

Are funded service providers and community partners aware of the programs and services available to support individuals affected by FASD and their caregivers?

1. Service provider/community partner awareness of Network and mandate

2. Cross-organizational awareness of programs and services provided by funded service providers/community partners.

3. Cross-organizational referrals made between funded service providers/community partners.

Service providers

Community partners


9

Are Networks successful in coordinating services for individuals who are affected or suspected to be affected by FASD and their caregivers?

1. Regular formalized communication with (other) service providers and community partners

2. Number of referrals to (other) funded service providers

3. New service provider collaborations enabled by network (and examples)

4. Number of clients engaged by more than one network program area (ex: diagnosis and then support services)

5. Impact of the network program on the providers services/community partners

Network Leadership Team

Service providers

Community partners

Network Leadership Team Focus Group


45




10

Have best practices, research, evaluation and quality improvement results been used to inform the delivery of services? If so, how?

1. Funded programs that follow best practice guidelines for provision of services (ex. Assessment and diagnosis guidelines)

2. Service providers and community partners have awareness of best practices

3. Performance measurement is a contract term with service providers

4. Participation in academic research5. Network access to research publications6. Network member attendance at

national/international conferences

Network Leadership Team

Network evaluations

Service providers

Community partners

Network Leadership Team Focus Group


Service/ Program Delivery Level Short-term Outcomes

Assessment and Diagnosis

46




11

What difference do assessment and diagnostic services make for individuals, parents, caregivers, and agency support persons?

1. Client feedback from assessment and diagnosis process5

2. Parent/caregiver feedback from assessment and diagnosis process

3. Increased knowledge and awareness of FASD and supports

Clients

Parents/ Caregivers

Assessment and Diagnosis Client Survey

Assessment and Diagnosis Parent/ Caregiver Survey

12

Are clients satisfied with the assessment and diagnosis services provided?

1. Client expectations2. Perceptions of service experience3. Level of satisfaction

Clients

Parents/ Caregivers

Assessment and Diagnosis Client Survey

Assessment and Diagnosis Parent/ Caregiver Survey

Targeted and Indicated Prevention

5 Clients surveyed will be over the age of 18.

47




13How many women have successfully completed PCAP6?

1. Number of women involved in program2. Number of years (if greater than three)

or months the program has been delivering direct client services.

3. Number of clients completing the program

PCAP Service providers Request for Information: PCAP service providers

14

Has PCAP influenced the alcohol and drug exposure among the future children of women involved in the program?

1. Number of women on effective family planning methods

2. Number of pregnancies among women involved in the program7

3. Number of live births among women involved in the program

4. Number of clients who abstained from alcohol and drug use during their enrolment in the program

5. Number of women who accessed alcohol or drug treatment

PCAP Service providers Request for Information: PCAP service providers

6 Successful completion is defined as a planned exit at or after three years in the program.

7 The is the number of women who disclosed being pregnant, not those who delivered

48




15

Are women satisfied with the services provided through PCAP?


PCAP Clients PCAP Client Survey

Support Service

16

Have support services assisted individuals, parents/families and/or caregivers to manage their situation?

1. Client/parent/caregiver changes regarding:

Knowledge of community-based services available to assist them in living life to the fullestUse of community-based servicesEmployment and employment trainingCrisis supportKnowledge about FASD Strengths to be successfulSupport networkHousingDaily adaptive functioning

Clients

Parents/ Caregivers

Staff

Support Services Client Survey

Support Services Parent/ Caregiver Survey

Support Services Staff Survey

Support Services Parent/ Caregiver as Primary Client Survey

49




17

Are clients satisfied with the support services they have received?


Clients

Parents/ Caregivers

Support Services Client Survey

Support Services Parent/ Caregiver Survey

Support Services Parent/ Caregiver as Primary Client Survey

50


Appendix B NLT Formative Focus Group Questions

1. Can you please provide a brief history of your Network, including a description of when and why it was established and how it has evolved since?

2. Has your Network completed a needs assessment in the past 4 years? Can you describe how you completed your needs assessment and who was involved?

3. How is the information contained in your needs assessment used to inform the development of your annual Network plan?

4. Has the Network developed a governance structure that is compliant with the FASD Service Network Program Guidelines? How was this structure developed and what were the top three challenges in developing this structure?

5. Does your Network employ operational staff using FASD-CMC funds? How many FTEs? What are they responsible for?

6. Has your Network developed operational processes to support the decision making and distribution of Network funds? How did your Network develop its operational processes?

7. Does the Network use funds provided by the FASD-CMC to fund new PCAP services and/or enhance existing ones? If no, why not?

8. Do(es) the service provider(s) provide in-kind contributions to support PCAP (e.g. Supervision, program coordination, contract management, donations of space, access to technology and infrastructure, travel costs, training, etc)?

9. Does the Network use funds provided by the FASD-CMC to fund new assessment and diagnostic services and/or enhance existing ones? If no, why not?

10. Do(es) the service provider(s) provide in-kind resources to support the assessment and diagnostic services (e.g. Access to specialized expertise, program coordination, contract management, donations of space, access to technology and infrastructure, travel costs, training, etc)?

11. Does your Network fund support services? If no, why not?

51


12. Do any of the service provider(s) provide in-kind resources to enhance support services for the Network (e.g. Supervision, program coordination, contract management, donations of space, access to technology and infrastructure, travel costs, training, etc)?

13. Has your Network created collaborations that have resulted in improved services for clients? Can you describe one example of this type of collaboration?

14. Has your Network created collaborations with Aboriginal and other cultural communities? Can you describe one example of this type of collaboration?

15. Has your Network created collaborations that have improved how services are delivered? Can you describe one example of this type of collaboration?

16. Has your Network created collaborations that have resulted in new partners participating in Network? Can you describe one example of this type of collaboration?

17. What factors have contributed to creating successful collaborations among FASD stakeholders in your community?

18. While it is recognized that Networks cannot use their core funding for evaluation and research activities, has your Network participated in any research or evaluation activities (excluding the needs assessment)?

19. Has the Leadership Team used the program guidelines, resources and tools developed by the FASD- CMC to assist the planning and operation of the Network? How did they help?

20. Has your Network used the “Framework to Enable and Align FASD Evaluation in Alberta” to guide Network evaluation planning? Please comment on the Framework.

21. Has the video conferencing equipment assisted the Leadership Team to communicate with service providers, Network stakeholders, the CMC and other Networks? For what purpose(s) has the Leadership Team used the video conference equipment?

22. What guidance did the requirements outlined in the revised Program Guidelines provide your Network for managing the Network Program?

52


Appendix C Request for Information: Network Coordinator

1. How many individuals has the Network Coordinator referred to Network funded service providers?

(In instances where you do not have this information, please insert N/A. When the answer is none, please insert 0)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

N/A N/A N/A 264

2. How many inquiries from the community (e.g. in regards to services or funding) have been received by the Network in each of the following fiscal years?


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

N/A N/A N/A 1104

53


3. How many service providers have received Network funding to provide PCAP in each of the following fiscal years?


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Number of service providers

0 1 1 2

4. How many PCAP mentors and supervisors were funded by the Network in each of the following fiscal years? Please report this data in terms of full-time equivalents (FTE’s).


Type of PCAP Worker 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Supervisor 0 0 0 0

Mentor 0 2 2 3

54


5. How many clients participated in the PCAP programs funded by the Network in each of the following fiscal years?


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Total number of unique clients

0 15 27 44

Number of new unique clients

N/A N/A N/A N/A

6. How many service providers have received Network funding to provide assessment and diagnostic services in each of the following fiscal years?


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


0 0 1 1

55


7. How many clients received an assessment by Clinics funded by the Network in each of the following fiscal years?


Clients Attending Clinic 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Children

(0-6 years of age)

0 0 0 0

Children and Youth

(7-18 years of age)

0 0 15 12

Adults

(18+ years of age)

0 0 0 0

8. How many service providers have received Network funding to provide support services in each of the following fiscal years?


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


0 7 8 8

56


9. How many clients received support services from agencies funded by the Network in each of the following fiscal years?


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Number of clients 0 204 646 334

10. What are the target populations for the support services from agencies funded by the Network?

(Check all that apply. Check N/A where you do not have this information)

Target Population Yes No N/A

Children and youth suspected of FASD or diagnosed with FASD (in a community setting)

X

Children and youth suspected of FASD or diagnosed with FASD (in a school setting)

X

Youth transitioning to adulthood (completed high school) X

Young adult males (26-35 years old) X

Young adult females (26-35 years old) X

Older adult males (36+ years old) X

Older adult females (36+ years old) X

Parents and caregivers X

Parents and caregivers suspected of FASD or diagnosed with FASD

X

57


11. Excluding the needs assessment and FASD-CMC mandated evaluations, how many evaluation and research activities has the Network taken part in during each of the following fiscal years?


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

0 0 0 0

12. Which components of the FASD Service Network Guidelines were found useful for ensuring the network was in compliance with the program requirements?

(Check all that apply.)

Guideline Component Yes No N/A

Description of the expectations regarding when Networks need to be compliant X

Description of the structure and organization of the FASD Service Network Program

X

Principles for the operation of the FASD Service Network Program X

Parameters, requirements and expectations of the FASD Service Network Program, Networks, Network members including roles, responsibilities and accountabilities and funding processes

X

Program requirements and administrative timelines X

Description of the three service categories in which Networks will deliver funding and service improvements, including the associated definitions, outcomes and emerging practices.

X

58


13. Which templates and tools developed by the FASD-CMC were used by the network to ensure compliance with the FASD Service Network Program requirements?

Templates and Tools Yes

No (please identify most appropriate reason for not using)

Already Developed by

Network

Not applicable to our Network

Did not suit Network needs

Sample staffing agreement X

GoA Schedule A Deliverable Reporting Template

X

Network Business Plan Addendum Template X

Network Business Plan Development Workbook X

Network Business Plan Review Criteria X

Network Grant Application X

GoA Schedule B Financial Reporting Template X

Quarterly Report Template X

Tool to Assist in the Development of Procurement Processes for Networks

X

Contract management competencies X

Sample agreement between a Network and their Banker

X

Sample agreement between a Network and organization acting as their Contract Manager

X

Annual Report Template X

59

14. The following list identifies all of the provincial CMC Education and Training sessions available for Leadership Team members, Coordinators, service providers and community members/partner. For each session please indicate the number of individuals in each category who attended.

Date Location Event NLT member

Coordinator

Funded Service

Provider

Community Member/ partner

Sep 18/07 Sterling Place, Edmonton & VC

VC with Networks: Introduce funding proposal process

2 1 2 2

Oct 2/07 Sierra Systems, Edmonton

Network Workshop: Proposal Building

2 1 2 2

Dec 3/07 Sterling Place, Edmonton & VC

Network Workshop: Business Planning

2 1 2 2

Feb 12/08 Shaw Conference Centre, Edm

Network Meeting with presentation on behalf of CMC

2 1 2 2

Mar 12, 13/08

Varscona Hotel on Whyte, Edmonton

Network Workshop: Strategic Planning

(in collaboration with PHAC)

2 1 2 2

April 23/08 Sterling Place, Edmonton & VC

Network Workshop: Leading Practices in Assessment and Diagnosis

2 1 3 2

60



Coordinator

Funded Service

Provider


Sep 23/08 Mayfield Inn, Edmonton Network Meeting with presentation/discussion on behalf of CMC

2 1 2 2

Nov 18, 19/08

Matrix Hotel, Edmonton LP Workshop: Assessment/Diagnosis 2 1 2 2

Nov 20/08 Matrix Hotel, Edmonton Network Workshop Business Planning Process

2 1 2 2

Jan 12, 13/09

Black Knight Inn, Red Deer

LP Workshop: Prevention

(Organized by Gerry Wright, in collaboration with PHAC)

2 1 2 6

Mar 26, 27 /09

Chateau Louis, Edmonton

LP Workshop: Supports (organized by Bonnie Stonehouse, SCS)

5 1 8 20

Oct 6/09 Westin Hotel, Edmonton

Network Workshop: Revised Funding Guidelines

2 1 2 2

61



Coordinator

Funded Service

Provider


May 26-29/09

Sol Gen College, Edmonton

LP Workshop: Prevention 2 0 2 2

May 26/09 Days Inn, Edmonton Network Workshop: Funding 2 1 2 2

Nov 22/09 Sterling Place, Edmonton & VC

Network Workshop: Assessment & Diagnosis

1 0 1 2

62

Appendix D Request for Information: Provincial Coordinator

1. Based on your records, have each of the following networks submitted annual business plans meeting the requirements outlined in the Program Guidelines? (Please place a N/A in the years prior to the establishment of the Network)

Network Name 2008 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Edmonton Y Y Y Y

2. Based on your records, have each of the following networks submitted quarterly reports that meet the requirements outlined in the Program Guidelines? (Please place a N/A in the years/ quarters prior to the establishment of the Network)

Network NameJan 2008 Jan 2009-Mar 2010

April 2010-Mar 2011

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Edmonton N/A

N/A

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

3. Based on your records, have each of the following networks submitted annual reports that meet the requirements outlined in the Program Guidelines? (Please place a N/A in the years prior to the establishment of the Network)

Network Name 2008 2009-2010 2010-2011

Edmonton Y Y See below

NOTE FROM THE FASD-SNP PROVINCIAL COORDINATOR: All Annual Reports were submitted on time (May 31, 2011). These have not yet been fully reviewed to ensure they meet the requirements outlined in the Program Guidelines. All networks require extension to June 30, 2011 to submit their audited financial which is part of the Annual Report. My review of the Annual Reports is scheduled to be completed late June. I will provide an update to this section once the review is complete.

63

4. Based on your records and the results of FASD-SNP guideline review please comment on each of the Network’s compliance with the Program Guidelines.8

Areas of Compliance

Network Name

Brief reason for non compliance (if relevant)9

Non-Compliance approved by

CMCEdmonton

Network Governance Y

Planning Y

Funding Decisions Y

Financial Management Y

Contract Management Y

Performance Reporting Y

8 An indicator of the fifth evaluation question: Have the program guidelines, resources and tools developed by the CMC supported Networks in the successful implementation of the program?

9 “At present, the only recognized reason that a Network shall not comply with these Program Guidelines is if the current state or historical development of services within its catchment area has led to the Network itself (as a legal entity) taking on the role of primary service provider.” FASD Service Network Program Guidelines, September 23, 2009, page 2)

64

Appendix E Summative Request for Information – Network Leadership Team

1. Does your Network regularly communicate with your funded service providers? What types of communication methods do you use?

2. Does your Network regularly communicate with other (non-funded) community organizations in your area? What types of communication methods do you use?

3. Please provide examples of how your Network interacts and engages with its funded service providers.

4. Please provide examples of how your Network interacts and engages with other (non-funded) community organizations in its area.

5. Please provide an example of how your Network’s regular communications and other interactions with organizations in the community have benefited your Network.

6. Please provide an example of how your Network’s regular communications and other interactions with organizations in the community have benefited those organizations.

7. Do you believe the establishment of your Network has contributed to the successful coordination of services for individuals who are affected or suspected to be affected by FASD and their caregivers? Please provide an example of how your Network has contributed to service coordination.

8. How does your Network stay aware and up to date with current research and best practice guidelines for FASD programs and services?

9. Have evaluation results, evolving best practice guidelines, and current research affected the planning you do in your Network? How?

10. From your perspective, do your funded service providers follow best practice guidelines when providing services? Has your network encouraged the use of best practice guidelines among your funded service providers? How?

11. Does your Network review the performance of your funded service providers each year? Please provide some examples of criteria you use to measure the performance of funded service providers.

65

Appendix F Request For Information – PCAP Service Providers.

Question

Responding PCAP Providers

(total = 3)

A B C

How many FTE (full-time equivalent) PCAP mentors are employed by your organization?

6.6 1 5

Of these, how many FTE are funded by the Network? 2 1 1.25

How long has your organization been delivering PCAP services to clients regardless of funding source?

>5 years7-12

months>5 years

How long has your organization been funded by the Network to deliver PCAP services to clients?

3-4 years7-12

months3-4 years

How many women are currently enrolled in PCAP (e.g., have ASI intake data)?

24 10 23

Please indicate the number of (current, correctly enrolled) clients in each year of the program:

1 – 12 months 13 10 5

13 – 24 months 6 0 15

25 - 36 months 5 0 5

How many clients have enrolled in your PCAP program since you started receiving Network funds?

42 11 16

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds), how many have had a planned exit at or after three years in the program?

9 0 16

66

Question


(total = 3)

A B C

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds), how many currently report the use of effective family planning methods?

22 5 10

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds), how many were pregnant at intake?

29 6 10

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds) and were pregnant at intake, how many have had a subsequent pregnancy?

4 4 7

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds), and were pregnant at intake, how many were alcohol or drug exposed?

29 11 7

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds), and were pregnant at intake, how many completed substance abuse treatment?

17 3 4

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds), how many self-report reduced alcohol use since enrolment?

32 6 7

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds), how many self-report reduced drug use since enrolment?

32 5 7

Among the women who have ever enrolled in the program, how many self-report a period of abstinence of alcohol and drug use since enrolment of:

67

Question


(total = 3)

A B C

0 - 1 months n/a 2 3

4 – 6 months n/a 3 2

7 – 12 months n/a 1 1

>12 months n/a 0 0

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds) and were pregnant at intake, how many have experienced live births?

26 6 6

Among all the women who have ever enrolled in the program (through Network funds), how many have completed any kind of alcohol or drug treatment during their enrolment in the program?

26 3 10

68

Appendix G Service Provider/Community Partner Survey Data

Do you receive funding from an FASD Service Network?

Of the services your organization provides with funding from the FASD Service Network Program, which are new since the Network was established?

Of the services your organization provides, which have been enhanced (i.e., expanded but not new) by the funding provided by the FASD Service

69

Of these services, which have been offered in new geographic locations since the Network was established?

Do you know which individuals participate as leaders and staff of your Network?

How would you describe your understanding of the role and mandate of the Network?

How would you describe your awareness of the FASD services provided by other organizations in the Network?

70

In the last month, to which of the following services did your organization refer individuals suspected of or affected by FASD?

In an average month, how many referrals for clients suspected of or affected by FASD does your organization make to services offered by other community organizations?

Overall, how effective have these referrals been in helping clients reach their goals?

71

Has the Network played a key role in any collaboration between your organization and other service providers?

How many collaborations between your organization and others has the Network enabled in the past year?

Among the staff who provide services to individuals affected by or suspected of FASD, how aware are they of the services these individuals receive outside of your organization?

How often do staff who work directly with clients affected by FASD typically communicate with other community partners about common clients?

72

How many of these interactions with other community partners are formally documented?

How many clients (suspected of or affected by FASD) have been served by your organization in the past month?

Of these, how many are receiving services from more than one service category (assessment and diagnosis services / prevention services / supports), either from your organization others?

How would you describe your awareness of existing research and best practices related to the services you offer?

73

To what extent do you believe best practice research has been incorporated in the services delivered by your organization?

To what extent do you believe the Network has been involved in supporting your organization in incorporating best practice research into the services you offer?

74

Appendix H Assessment and Diagnosis Parent/Caregiver Survey Data

How would you rate the quality of the assessment and diagnostic services your child/ dependant received?

Did your child/dependant get the kind of service that he/she wanted?

To what extent has the assessment and diagnosis clinic met your child/dependant's needs?

How satisfied are you with the amount of help your child/dependant received?

75

Have the services your child/dependant received helped him/her to deal more effectively with his/her problems?

If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend this clinic to him/her?

If you were to seek help again, would come back here?

In an overall, general sense, how satisfied are you with the service your child/dependant received?

76

77


Somewhat agree


Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know/don't remember Does not apply

It was easy to get my child/dependant's assessment and diagnosis

33.3% 11.1% 33.3% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0% 0.0%

I did not have to wait a very long time to get my child/dependant's assessment and diagnosis

11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 11.1% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0%

The staff that gave me my child/dependant his/her assessment and diagnosis really knew what they were doing

66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

I understand FASD better since we got the assessment and diagnosis

55.6% 44.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

I have a better understanding my child/dependant's strengths and limitations since we got the assessment and diagnosis

55.6% 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 11.1% 11.1% 0.0%

As a result of my child/dependant's assessment and diagnosis, I feel better prepared help him/her

66.7% 22.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Overall, I am satisfied with the service I received in obtaining my child/dependant's assessment and diagnosis

66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

After the assessment and diagnosis, people told me where to get help for my child/dependant

77.8% 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

After the assessment and diagnosis, people made sure I got help for my child/dependant

22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Appendix I PCAP Client Survey Data

How would you rate the quality of the services you received through PCAP?

Did you get the kind of service that you wanted?

To what extent has the PCAP mentor met your needs?

How satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?

78

Have the services you received help you to deal more effectively with your problems?

If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend the PCAP program to her?


In an overall, general sense, how satisfied are you with the service you received?

79

Appendix J Support Services Data - Adult Client and Parent/Caregiver Surveys

80

CLIENT RESPONSES (Total = 34) Completely agree

Somewhat agree


Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree


As a result of working with this Program, I understand FASD better.

35% 35% 21% 0% 3% 3% 3%

As a result of working with this Program, I know more about my strengths and what I am good at.

29% 44% 18% 3% 3% 3% 0%

As a result of working with this Program, I have learned about things I need to change or do differently.

29% 44% 18% 0% 6% 3% 0%

The support I received from this Program helped me know what programs, services and resources are available in the community.

50% 41% 3% 0% 3% 3% 0%

The support I received from this Program helped me use the programs and services available in the community that I hadn’t used before

44% 41% 9% 0% 3% 3% 0%

I learned new skills through this Program. 35% 44% 15% 0% 3% 3% 0%

I have used these skills in the past six months. 47% 26% 15% 0% 6% 0% 6%

The support I have received has helped to keep me safe.

41% 24% 21% 0% 3% 3% 9%

The support I have received has helped me to experience more stable housing.

44% 24% 6% 0% 0% 3% 24%

The support I have received has helped me to experience less disruptions/ crisis in my daily life.

47% 24% 12% 0% 3% 3% 12%

As a result of the supports I have received from this program, I have a decent place to live.

44% 24% 9% 0% 0% 3% 21%

As a result of the supports I have received from this program, my ability to live on my own has improved.

35% 35% 12% 0% 3% 3% 12%

As a result of the supports I have received from this program, I have a job.

9% 12% 9% 0% 3% 3% 65%

I have friends, family members, or other people that I can access if I need help in the future.

26% 15% 15% 18% 12% 3% 12%

81

PARENT/CAREGIVER RESPONSES (Total = 27) Completely agree

Somewhat agree


Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree


As a result of working with this Program, my child/dependent understands FASD better.

11% 30% 15% 7% 7% 0% 30%

As a result of working with the program, my child/ dependent knows more about their strengths and what they are good at.

30% 56% 11% 4% 0% 0% 0%

As a result of working with the program, my child/dependent has learned about things he/she needs to change or do differently.

30% 56% 11% 4% 0% 0% 0%

The supports received from the program helped my child/dependent know what programs, services and resources are available in the community.

19% 26% 7% 11% 11% 0% 26%

The supports received from the program helped my child/dependent use programs and services available in the community that hadn’t used before

26% 26% 11% 11% 11% 4% 11%

My child/dependent learned new skills from the program.

44% 44% 0% 7% 4% 0% 0%

My child/dependent has used these skills in the past six months.

59% 30% 0% 4% 4% 0% 4%

The support my child/dependent has received has helped him/her make goals.

37% 26% 11% 7% 11% 0% 7%

As a result of the supports my child/dependent has received from this program, his/her ability to deal with problems has increased.

44% 33% 4% 7% 11% 0% 0%

My child/dependent has friends, family members, or other people that he/she can access if he/she needs help in the future.

56% 33% 0% 7% 4% 0% 0%

How would you rate the quality of the services you received through this program?

Did you get the kind of service that you wanted?

To what extent has this program met your needs?

How satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?

Have the services you received help you to deal more effectively with your problems?

82

If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend this program to him/her?


In an overall, general sense, how satisfied are you with the service you received?

83

Appendix K Support Services Data – Support Services Staff Survey

84

STAFF RESPONSES (Total = 90) Completely agree

Somewhat agree


Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree


As a result of working with the program the child/ youth understands FASD better. 22% 27% 7% 3% 0% 0% 41%

As a result of working with the program, the child/ youth knows more about their strengths and what they are good at.

51% 40% 7% 2% 0% 0% 0%

As a result of working with the program, the child/ youth has learned about things he/she needs to change or do differently.

40% 51% 7% 2% 0% 0% 0%

The supports received from the program helped the child/youth knows what programs, services and resources are available in the community.

19% 41% 19% 1% 0% 1% 19%

The supports received from the program helped the child/youth use programs and services available in the community that hadn’t used before

21% 34% 23% 1% 0% 1% 19%

The child/youth learned new skills from the program. 61% 30% 8% 0% 0% 1% 0%

The child/youth has used these skills in the past six months. 51% 36% 10% 0% 0% 3% 0%

The support the child/youth has received has helped him/her make goals. 51% 39% 8% 1% 0% 1% 0%

As a result of the supports the child/youth has received from this program, his/her ability to deal with problems has increased.

32% 44% 16% 6% 0% 2% 0%

The child/youth has friends, family members, or other people that he/she can access if he/she needs help in the future.

29% 38% 10% 14% 8% 1% 0%

Documents

edmontonfetalalcoholnetwork.files.wordpress.com · Web viewMay 26-29/09 Sol Gen College, Edmonton LP Workshop: Prevention 2 0 2 2 May 26/09 Days Inn, Edmonton Network Workshop: