2017 CMHO TorontoLaura Mills, Ph.D. (Q.M., Psych); Director, Research & Evaluation

Jennifer Bingley, M.A. (Psych); Research Associate

Pine River Institute Hope is a place.

Our Objectives Today

Outcomes of comprehensive treatment agency

Evaluation to inform value

Social return on treatment investment

Optimizing evaluation at your agency

Our Roles TodayPRI Demonstrate value of Pine River Institute Propose investment for expansion

YOU Act as investors Please ask questions throughout Ascertain value of investment Expand on why / why not you would invest in our proposal

Pine River Institute Hope is a place.

40 bed co-ed residential. Four phases Wilderness Residence Transition Aftercare

Therapeutic Approach

addressing obstacles to maturity

DBT + Satir Family Therapy + other EBP tools & approaches.

Structured, intentional family therapy

Pine River Institute Hope is a place.

Research & Evaluation Dedicated to understanding outcomes, improving treatment,

and knowledge exchange Mental, physical, behavioural, & relationship health

Changes over time Mechanisms of change

Pine River Institute Hope is a place.

Overview of Investment BenefitsClient Oriented Outcomes

Family Oriented Outcomes

Process Oriented Outcomes

Social Return on Investment

Mental Health

Behavioural Health

Relationship Health

Mental Health - CBCL Internalizing Disorder

Withdrawn / Depressed Anxious / Depressed Somatic Symptoms

Externalizing Disorder Rule Breaking Aggression

90%

20%40%

22%40%

Com

plet

ers

Parti

al C

ompl

eter

s

Com

plet

ers

Parti

al C

ompl

eter

s

BeforePRI (N =

69)

3-6M After PRI (N =96)

1-2 After PRI (N =106)

CBCL Clinically Problematic Internalizing Disorder Scores -

Parent Report

42%

22% 21% 21%

38%

Com

plet

ers

Parti

al C

ompl

eter

s

Com

plet

ers

Parti

al C

ompl

eter

s

Before PRI(N = 175)

3-6M After PRI (N =51)

3-6M After PRI (N =37)

Clinically Problematic Internalizing Disorder Scores -

Youth Self-Report

75%

19% 21%12%

31%

Com

plet

ers

Parti

al C

ompl

eter

s

Com

plet

ers

Parti

al C

ompl

eter

s

BeforePRI (N =

175)

3-6M After PRI (N= 51)

3-6M After PRI (N= 37)

Clinically Problematic Externalizing Disorder Scores - Youth Self-

Report91%

7%

27%12%

29%

Com

plet

ers

Parti

al C

ompl

eter

s

Com

plet

ers

Parti

al C

ompl

eter

s

Before PRI(N = 69)

3-6M After PRI (N =96)

1-2 After PRI (N =106)

CBCL Clinically Problematic Externalizing Disorder Scores -

Parent Report

Parent- Reported Family Functioning Before and After PRI

1

2

3

4

Before PRI 3-6 Months 1-2 YearsAfter PRI After PRI

Social Return on Investment (SROI) Counterfactual

Gen pop, no PRI, with MH conditions Reference ‘dollar’ is 2011, with ‘discount rate’ applied for future

Health Care Costs Hospital Costs Averted Crime Costs Averted Tax Revenue Loss of income averted for caregivers (assume 40a+, work to 65) Assume PRI grads live to 65a

$(2)

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Mill

ions

PRI Net Benefit 2010 - 2014 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

PRI Current Financials

Current funding supports 29 MOH beds, 10 private pay Private pay sustain our increasing operational costs Donations support bursaries, capital investments, & strategic growth

Fundraising 3M for 20-bed ‘Girl’s Dorm’ and related program expansion Gender separation to reduce trauma triggers & support healthy boundaries Alleviate waitlist (currently 200 families waiting 1.5 years for MOH beds) Help more youths & families

Our Proposal – 4M Annually 20 new ‘beds’ + related wilderness program additions Staff & administrative expansion Larger kitchen & cafeteria Extra vehicles Utility & maintenance increases Research & evaluation

Discussion Benefits of evaluation

Clients & families Staff & agency Funders System

Resources required for evaluation What would it take at your agency? What are some first steps at your agency? How can we collaborate toward outcome-oriented evaluation?