Designing and Interpreting Cross-Sector Research

Preview:

DESCRIPTION

Designing and Interpreting Cross-Sector Research. John A. Pandiani, Ph.D. Vermont Department of Mental Health and The Bristol Observatory. Data Are Everywhere. Cross-Sector Research. Why ? How ? and Thinking About Findings. Why Use Cross-Sector Research?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Designing and Interpreting Cross-Sector Research

John A. Pandiani, Ph.D.Vermont Department of Mental Health

and The Bristol Observatory

Data Are Everywhere

Cross-Sector Research

Why ? How ?

and

Thinking About Findings

Why Use Cross-Sector Research?

Enhance the Value of Your Data

Already Paid For

No New Data Collection

Improve Data Quality

Two CMH Homeless Rates CMH MIS HMIS Overlap

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Total SA AOP CRT

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Total SA AOP CRT

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Total SA AOP CRT

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Total SA AOP CRT

Why Use Cross-Sector Research?

ProvidesProspective, Retrospective,

andGeneral Population Comparisons

How to do Cross-Sector Research

Direct Linkage

Probabilistic Linkage Case Management

Probabilistic Overlap EstimationService Systems Research

jl

ijj ilP

1 365

365

This equation counts the number of birth dates to estimate the unduplicated number of people.

Probabilistic Population Estimation

Birth Dates Number of People1 1.003 ± 0.10310 10.15 ± 0.776100 117 ± 9200 290 ± 22300 632 ± 64350 1,177 ± 171360 1,603 ± 325

For Specified Numbers of Birth Dates Within a Given Year

Probabilistic Population Estimation

(A B) = A + B – (A B)

Caseload Overlap

Two Critical Dimensions

Time and Space

Geographical SpaceOrganizational Space

Thinking About Findings

Program Evaluation Paradigm

Access to Care

Treatment Outcomes

Practice Patterns

Thinking About Findings

Thinking About Findings Discovery vs. Verification

My Approach

ObservationalIncrementalPragmatic

Follow the Flow of Analysis

Widespread Sharing

Broad Community of Learners

Variety of Perspectives

Disseminating Findings

Access to Care

Treatment Outcomes

Practice Patterns

Other Cross-Sector Analyses

Sixteen Examples of Cross-Sector Research Findings

Access to Care

0%

20%

40%

60%

Total Male Female 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont New Hampshire

Homeless Adults’ Access to CMH Services

0%

20%

40%

60%

Total Male Female 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont New Hampshire

Homeless Adults’ Access to CMH Services

0%

20%

40%

60%

Total Male Female 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont New Hampshire

Homeless Adults’ Access to CMH Services

0%

20%

40%

60%

Total Male Female 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont New Hampshire

Homeless Adults’ Access to CMH Services

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Total Men Women 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont Population Criminal Charge Homeless

Community MH Utilization

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Total Men Women 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont Population Criminal Charge Homeless

Community MH Utilization

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Total Men Women 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont Population Criminal Charge Homeless

Community MH Utilization

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Total Men Women 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont Population Criminal Charge Homeless

Community MH Utilization

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Total Men Women 18-34 35-49 50+

Vermont Population Criminal Charge Homeless

Community MH Utilization

Percent of SMI

<10% 10%-15%

15%-20% 20%+

SMI in Section 8 Housing in VT and CT

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Total Male Female 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ White Other

Connecticut Vermont

SMI with Section 8 Housing

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Total Male Female 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ White Other

Connecticut Vermont

SMI with Section 8 Housing

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Total Male Female 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ White Other

Connecticut Vermont

SMI with Section 8 Housing

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Total Male Female 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ White Other

Connecticut Vermont

c

SMI with Section 8 Housing

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Medical MH SA

Homeless General Population

ER Utilization by Diagnosis, VT Adults

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Medical MH SA

Homeless General Population

ER Utilization by Diagnosis, VT Adults

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Medical MH SA

Homeless General Population

ER Utilization by Diagnosis, VT Adults

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Medical MH SA

Homeless General Population

ER Utilization by Diagnosis, VT Adults

Relative Rate of ER Utilization Homeless vs. Other VT Adults

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Total Male Female 18-34 35+

Rela

tive

Rate

Medical Mental Health Substance Abuse

Relative Rate of ER Utilization Homeless vs. Other VT Adults

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Total Male Female 18-34 35+

Rela

tive

Rate

Medical Mental Health Substance Abuse

1

Treatment Outcomes

Pe

rce

nt

Arr

es

ted

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Region

Before Treatment After Treatment

VT Substance Abuse Service Recipients Arrested Before and After Treatment

Pe

rce

nt

Arr

es

ted

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Region

Before Treatment After Treatment

Pe

rce

nt

Arr

es

ted

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Region

Before Treatment After Treatment

VT SMI Service Recipients Incarcerated Before and After Treatment

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Total M F 18-34 35-49 50-64 M F M F M F

Gender Age 18-34 35-49 50-64

Per

cen

t In

carc

erat

ed

Before Treatment After Treatment

VT SMI Service Recipients Incarcerated Before and After Treatment

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Total M F 18-34 35-49 50-64 M F M F M F

Gender Age 18-34 35-49 50-64

Per

cen

t In

carc

erat

ed

Before Treatment After Treatment

VT SMI Service Recipients Incarcerated Before and After Treatment

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Total M F 18-34 35-49 50-64 M F M F M F

Gender Age 18-34 35-49 50-64

Per

cen

t In

carc

erat

ed

Before Treatment After Treatment

Relative Risk of ArrestYoung Males (18 - 34) in Washington, DC

Post 9/11

Sep 2001 - Sep 2002

Post 9/11

Sep 2001 - Sep 2002

Pre 9/11

0

1

2

3

4

Rel

ativ

e R

isk

Oct 1999 - Aug 2001

Pre 9/11

0

1

2

3

4

Rel

ativ

e R

isk

Oct 1999 - Aug 2001

Practice Patterns

Residential Situation after State Hospital Discharge

0%

25%

50%

75%

Nursing

CMHC

Inpatient

Incarcerated

Section 8

Total M F M F M F M F

Gender 18-34 35-49 50+

Residential Situation after State Hospital Discharge

0%

25%

50%

75%

Nursing

CMHC

Inpatient

Incarcerated

Section 8

Total M F M F M F M F

Gender 18-34 35-49 50+

Residential Situation after State Hospital Discharge

0%

25%

50%

75%

Nursing

CMHC

Inpatient

Incarcerated

Section 8

Total M F M F M F M F

Gender 18-34 35-49 50+

Residential Situation after State Hospital Discharge

0%

25%

50%

75%

Nursing

CMHC

Inpatient

Incarcerated

Section 8

Total M F M F M F M F

Gender 18-34 35-49 50+

Adult MH Outpatient Clients with Less than 4 Services

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Homeless Other

Per

cen

t o

f C

lien

ts S

erve

d

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Homeless Other

Per

cen

t o

f C

lien

ts S

erve

d

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Homeless Other

Per

cen

t o

f C

lien

ts S

erve

d

Other Cross-Sector Analyses

Relative Rate of Domestic Violence Homeless Compared to General Population

0

5

10

15

20

25

Overall Men Women 18-34 35+

Rel

ativ

e R

ate

Offender Victim

0

5

10

15

20

25

Overall Men Women 18-34 35+

Rel

ativ

e R

ate

Offender Victim

0

5

10

15

20

25

Overall Men Women 18-34 35+

Rel

ativ

e R

ate

Offender Victim

0

5

10

15

20

25

Overall Men Women 18-34 35+

Rel

ativ

e R

ate

Offender Victim

1

Homeless Adults with Services as Youth

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Men Women

Perc

ent o

f Hom

eles

s Yo

ung

Adul

ts

Youth with Subsequent Adult Homelessness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Boys Girls

Perc

ent o

f You

th

CMH (SED) DCF (Delinquent) Special Education (EBD)

Children’s Services & Adult Homeless

Homeless Adults with Services as Youth

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Men Women

Perc

ent o

f Hom

eles

s Yo

ung

Adul

ts

Youth with Subsequent Adult Homelessness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Boys Girls

Perc

ent o

f You

th

Homeless Adults with Services as Youth

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Men Women

Perc

ent o

f Hom

eles

s Yo

ung

Adul

ts

Youth with Subsequent Adult Homelessness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Boys Girls

Perc

ent o

f You

th

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Total Men Women Men Women Men Women18-49 50+

Pe

rce

nt

Ho

me

les

s

Veterans Non-veterans

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Total Men Women Men Women Men Women18-49 50+

Pe

rce

nt

Ho

me

les

s

Veterans Non-veterans

Homelessness among MH Service Recipients

People with Homeless Services in Bordering Counties of Vermont & New Hampshire

Vermont (n =355)

New Hampshire

(n =706)

Both(n = 5)0.5%

CMHC Overlapwith Eleven Caseloads in CT

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Medicaid

Food Stamps

State Medical

Substance Abuse

Corrections

Probation

Cash Benefits

Temporary Family Assist.

Abuse/Neglect Offenders

Motor Vehicle Violators

Mental Retardation

Thanks to

People who collected these dataPeople who manage the databases

Barbara Carroll, Brennan Martin, & Walter OchsVermont MH Performance Indicator Project

Karen DanyowThe Bristol Observatory

USE THE

DATA

Recommended