Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stecher, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Vaccaro, J. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Stecher, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Vaccaro, J. V.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 18, No. 6, 689-717 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9401800603
© 1994 SAGE Publications

Implementation of Residential and Nonresidential Treatment for the Dually Diagnosed Homeless

Brian M. Stecher

Social Model Recovery Systems

Christina A. Andrews

Social Model Recovery Systems

Laurie McDonald

Social Model Recovery Systems

Sally C. Morton

Social Model Recovery Systems

Elizabeth A. McGlynn

Social Model Recovery Systems

Laura P. Petersen

Social Model Recovery Systems

M.Audrey Burnam

Social Model Recovery Systems

Charles Hayes

Social Model Recovery Systems

Jerome V. Vaccaro

University of California, Los Angeles

An implementation analysis conducted as part of a 2-year experimental study of residential and nonresidential treatment programs for the dually diagnosed homeless found significant differ ences in client engagement and retention, as well as unexpected variations in the treatment conditions. Fully 40% of subjects assigned to either treatmentfailed to become engaged for even one day, although a significantly higher percentage of those assigned to the residential program than the nonresidential program graduated from the first 3-month phase of treatment. The analysis revealed significant differences in the type and amount of services provided by the two treatment programs, as well as potentially important difficulties in program management. Such process data are valuable toolsfor understanding client outcomes and interpreting experimental results.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?