Innovative Evaluation: Collaborating to
Develop Population-based Measurement
for the Future
2012 CBHC Conference Panel
September 28, 2012
Breckenridge, CO
CBHC Panel Abstract, Session # 605
This multi-disciplinary panel will discuss how the future direction
in behavioral health care informs the need to develop and
implement program outcome measures which reflect an integrated
and collaborative approach to service delivery and affect positive
change throughout Colorado’s community behavioral health
system.
CBHC Panelists & Facilitator
 Michael Allen, LCSW, CAC III, MBA – Vice President, Health
Network/TeleCare, AspenPointe
 Sharon Raggio, LPC, LMFT, MBA - Chief Executive Officer, ColoradoWest, Inc.
 Vicki Rodgers, MS, LPC – Vice President, Clinical Systems Administration, Jefferson
Center for Mental Health
 Richard Swanson, Ph.D., J.D. - Executive Director, Aurora Research Institute
 John Mahalik, Ph.D., MPA – Director, Data & Evaluation, Colorado Division of
Behavioral Health, Office of Behavioral Health, CDHS
CBHC Panelists’ Presentations
 Clinical focus:
 How do clinical staff know performance measures make a difference for
providers and practitioners?
 What are behavioral health service providers/clinicians using to monitor
client progress?
 AspenPointe –Wellness and chronic disease focus
 Colorado West – BASIS-24, RCCO focus
 Jefferson Center – CCAR, client-directed outcome informed treatment
 Aurora Research Institute – Recovery and client treatment rating scales
Past, Present and Future
 Paradigm shift from outputs and structure to outcomes and results.
 Mental health and substance abuse performance indicators task forces
 Access, customer satisfaction, continuity of care, quality and appropriateness of care,
outcomes (quality of life)
 ‘Future is now’ with foci on integration, prevention and wellness.
 Consumers lack information to select providers by quality and performance.
 Without objective data to demonstrate value, behavioral healthcare becomes
vulnerable to becoming a commodity purchased solely based on price.
 IHI’s ‘triple aim’ is to optimize the health system by accounting for:
 Experience of the individual;
 Health of a defined population;
 Cost for the population.
C-Stat Initiative – What is it?
 CDHS Director Reggie Bicha strategic initiative for 2012 is a performance-
based analysis strategy that will allow CDHS programs and services:
 To better focus on and improve performance outcomes;
 To make more informed, collaborative decisions;
 To align efforts and resources to affect positive change.
 Collaborative approach to affect change at every level – in concert with
provider leadership, Divisions determine strategies for improvement and
implement strategies, while Executive Leadership help to reduce barriers to the
Divisions’ success.
 Goals are to collect timely data, increase transparency, conduct regular
executive meetings to assess the effectiveness of the strategies, and to identify
new performance measures, all in support of continuous quality improvement.
DBH, Providers and C-Stat Process
 C-Stat initiative in developmental phase, as a collaborative, iterative process.
 Leadership and Technical Advisory Groups
 Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs)
 C-Stat changes through monthly updated data and presentations to CDHS
leadership.
 Access to SUD services, reduction SU, lesser MH severity, maintenance of housing
and employment, reduce SUD and MH drop-out rates,
 Benchmarks/goals and CY 2011 statewide averages
 Broad sphere of influence with feedback from CDHS, Governor’s Office, OBH,
DBH, and community behavior health provider network.
AspenPointe
Michael Allen, LCSW, CAC III, MBA
Looking Through the Data ‘Crystal Ball’…
 Data and information sharing will be critical to successful integrated
care
 It will be expected that providers demonstrate quality outcomes and
return-on-investment to funders
 Data will be crucial to providing a common language/common
lexicon between disparate healthcare systems
 Integrated care will be an essential component in Medicaid re-
procurement
How can the Department (HCPF) achieve greater
integration of services at the point of care?
“Services that engage and support clients in
making behavioral changes related to diet,
nutrition, smoking cessation, and physical
activity should be included in the package of
integrated services.”
CBHC, Input for the Design of the Request for Proposals for Behavioral Health Services
Contracts, September 7, 2012
Whole Person Wellness
Depression Care Management (DCM)/
Chronic Disease Management (CDM)
 An integrated/whole-person form of disease management
 DCM is a confidential, clinically proven program for screening,
managing, and supporting people with depression
 CDM is a confidential, clinically proven program for screening,
managing, and supporting people with chronic conditions and cooccurring mental health diagnoses
 Telephonic
Conditions Managed
 Depression
 Asthma
 Type II Diabetes
 Heart Disease
 Chronic Pain (new)
TeleCare Program Goals:
 Help clients understand their disease and the impact both physically






and emotionally
Educate clients on ways to self-manage their disease
Assess for mental health needs
Provide resources and information to help reduce barriers to success
With the client leading the way, develop a plan with achievable,
measureable goals
Encourage and support each step of the way
Celebrate each success no matter how small
Focus is on strengths!
Care Manager’s Role
Client Identification, Outreach
and Engagement
Assessment
Self Management Support
Coordination of Care
Evaluation Tools

Functional health and well being using the Short Form 12 (SF-12 v2 ®), a
12-question health inventory.

Depression severity using a tool developed for the PCP setting, the Patient
Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).

Condition specific tools using condition-specific tools designed to screen for
asthma, diabetes, chronic pain and heart disease and monitor symptom severity.

Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) recorded “pre-” and “post-”
discharge.

Colorado Patient Assessment Record (CCAR) Survey recorded “pre-” and
“post-” discharge.

Colorado Health Partnerships (CHP) Adult Outcome Questionnaire
recorded “pre-” and “post-” discharge.

Client satisfaction with the program using the AspenPointe TeleCare
satisfaction survey.
DIABETES
Program Participants
Information was analyzed for 40 clients participating in the AspenPointe TeleCare
Diabetes Care Management Program. The information in this report represents
approximately one year of program participation.
Changes in General Physical and Mental Health
Changes in health over the 12 month period were evaluated by the clients’ responses to
the SF-12 interview made up of 12 questions related to both general physical and mental
health.
SF-12 Results
Note: Higher Scores Indicate Improvement
** after domain name indicates statistically significant change
100
90
80
Score
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Pre
Follow-up
Vi
ta
So
lit
y
ci
al
Im
Fu
pa
nc
ct
tio
of
ni
E
ng
m
**
ot
io
na
lP
ro
bl
em
s*
*
M
en
ta
lH
Su
ea
m
lth
m
ar
**
y
P
hy
si
ca
Su
lH
m
ea
m
ar
lth
y
M
en
ta
lH
ea
lth
**
H
ea
lth
**
ai
n
G
en
er
al
P
B
od
y
Ph
ys
ic
al
Fu
nc
tio
Im
pa
ni
ng
ct
**
of
P
hy
si
ca
lH
ea
lth
0
Changes in Self-Care Activities
Changes in Diabetes Self-Care Activities after Approximately 12 Months of Program
Participation
Responses to Satisfaction Items
Score mean calculated with 1=Strongly Disagree to 4=Strongly Agree
A higher score indicates stronger agreement with an item or group of items
Item Mean
Score
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Mean for All Items
3.68
69%
31%
<1%
--
1. I am treated with respect and compassion.
3.77
77%
23%
--
--
2. My Care Manager listens to me and understands my
situation.
3. My Care Manager is knowledgeable about my disease
and its treatment.
4. My Care Manager considers any cultural consideration I
may have when work with me and making
recommendations.
5. My Care Manager and I discuss when I need to talk
with my doctor about my disease.
6. My Care Manager helps me identify and manage my
symptoms.
7. I am offered telephone appointments at convenient
days and times.
8. I believe my information was handled in a confidential
manner.
9. I am satisfied with the help/service I received through
this Chronic Disease Management program.
10. I would recommend this Chronic Disease Management
program to another person.
3.66
66%
34%
--
--
3.66
66%
34%
--
--
3.77
77%
23%
--
--
3.59
59%
41%
--
--
3.68
68%
32%
--
--
3.63
66%
31%
3%
--
3.71
71%
29%
--
--
3.69
69%
31%
--
--
3.74
74%
26%
--
--
Statement
Strongly
Disagree
Outcomes Summary – “Triple Aim”
IMPROVED POPULATION HEALTH
 Decrease in severity of depression/chronic condition
symptoms
 Increase in functional health and well-being
 Increase in self-care and self-management of condition
IMPROVED PATIENT EXPERIENCE
 Excellent scores on Satisfaction Survey
DECREASED PER CAPITA COSTS
 TBD = Opportunity!
Contact Information
Michael Allen, LCSW, CACIII, MBA
Vice President
Health Network and TeleCare
6208 Lehman Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
Phone (719) 314-2525
Michael.Allen@aspenpointe.org
Colorado West, Inc.
Sharon Raggio, LPC, LMFT, MBA
Colorado West, Inc.
 Measurement is important to our future
 CW currently measures:
 No shows-indication of engagement
 Time to first appt (intake)-indication of walk in access
 Time to first therapy appt (second contact)-used with
productivity measures to determine staffing needs
 productivity
 Hospital recidivism
 Quarterly client satisfaction
 Suicide rates
 BASIS 24
In Development with RCCO
 Outreach Specialist for Behavior Change
 CW employee paid by RCCO
 Goal is to outreach for behavior change,
regardless of having a MH diagnosis
 Have a 3 level triage tool used to ID need for
this level of intensity
 Go to people’s homes who are:
 Discharged from the acute care hospital
 Identified by PCP
Continued…..
 Other elements that the RCCO is tracking.
 Cost of clients care pre ICC interventions
 Cost of client care post ICC interventions
 Number of Hospital admits pre ICC interventions
 Number of Hospital admits post ICC interventions
 Number of ER services pre ICC interventions
 Number of ER services post ICC interventions
Jefferson Center for Mental Health
Vicki Rodgers, MS, LPC
Data Informed. Results Driven.
We have been busy…
 Overall, we have been working to improve the quality of our
use of data – including clinical outcomes.
 We will know we have achieved ongoing improvement in our
quality in use of data when we…
 Ask early in the decision making process, “What does data tell us
about that?”
 Use principles of a learning organization in our daily work and
planning.
 Use data to be accountable for our personal, team, and
organizational outcomes.
 Use data well for future planning,
forecasting, and continuous quality
improvement.
Meaningful Change
 There are two types of outcome measures that can describe
meaningful change in the lives of behavioral health consumers
at Jefferson Center:
 First, goals that are personalized to each individual’s needs and
desires for their life regarding their struggle with a behavioral
health condition.
 The other type of meaningful change is the kind that is
measured across individuals, programs, and systems to provide
statistically valid and reliable results about the outcomes that
occur as a result of treatment.
Using the CCAR
 Sometimes the CCAR gets a bad reputation because it is required
and many staff have not received feedback on the results that they
have entered year after year. However, after careful review of
results in CCAR change over time, we have found 3 valid and
reliable measures that we use to monitor meaningful, statistically
significant change the individual experiences and the health of
various populations and have made these key performance
indicators.
 CCAR Symptom Severity - Change between time 1 and time 2 –
Quality of service indicator.
 CCAR Level of Functioning – Change between time 1 and time 2
– Quality of service indicator.
 CCAR Hope Domain – Change between time 1 and time 2 Quality of service indicator related to Resilience and Recovery.
CCAR Scores
 Some of the good things about using CCAR scores are that:
 They can be compared across individuals and the organization by
many different factors, such as, age or payer.
 There are many years of data available for comparison, research,
and review.
 It is information that is collected already.
 It is in an easy to use a rating scale format and in some programs
we are comparing the client and clinician rating of these items.
 Results may be compared between organizations.
 Clinicians understand these 3 measures and can see the
relevance to their day-to-day work with clients.
Moving on to Client Directed Outcome
Informed Treatment (CDOI)
 Behavioral health outcomes that measure positive, meaningful
change for consumers are those that focus on improving
behavioral health and functioning and decreasing health risks
and behavioral health symptoms that interfere with the
individual’s ability to function in life domains.
 Behavioral health outcomes for individuals need to be
realistic, obtainable and measured on an on-going basis. In
order for these outcomes to measure meaningful change for a
consumer, they must include consumer input and involve ongoing assessment.
Relevance of CDOI
 Barry Duncan’s presentations on a Client Directed Outcome
Informed approach to treatment and change suggest:
 “The quality of the patient's participation . . . [emerges] as the most




important determinant of outcome."
“The quality of the alliance is a more potent predictor of outcome
than orientation, experience, or professional discipline.”
“Feedback improves Outcomes.”
“When clients are not benefiting it provides the opportunity to do
your best work. It gives you the possibility of being helpful to
everyone.”
“Change happens early.”
…and our Director of Effectiveness, Alan Girard, has posted on the
Heart and Soul of Change website that:
“CDOI provides a practical and realistic way to privilege the
client’s voice, participate in and bear witness to the change
process.”
Every session feedback!
 CDOI Outcome Measures are done at every session:
 Outcome Rating Scale (ORS): Individually, Interpersonally,
Socially, Overall – Client’s rating of their progress in
treatment.
 Session Rating Scale (SRS): Relationship, Goals & Topics,
Approach or Method, Overall – Client’s rating of the alliance
with therapist.
 The measures are important and the conversations are essential.
Change happens as a result of the conversation.
 Asking these questions increases the engagement between client
and therapist which increases the achievement of meaningful
outcomes for the client.
Outcome Rating Scale
 Blue line on graph: This line represents client ORS scores for
10 sessions rating how they feel progress in treatment is going.
 The circled area indicates that most clients experience significant
change for the better in sessions 1 – 3. This data informs about the
importance of fully engaging clients early in the therapeutic process.
 Also, a change of 5 or more points between sessions 1 and 10
indicates meaningful change has taken place for the client. We are
doing well in this area!
 The client sees their graphs each week and can view their progress
along the way. Research indicates that a client’s progress happens
much more slowly after 10 sessions so our goal is that more than half
of clients reach the clinical cutoff by the 10th session. We are achieving
this goal.
Session Rating Scale
 Red line on graph: This line represents client SRS scores for 10
sessions rating how they feel the strength of their alliance is with
the clinician.
 The clinician also see the client’s Session Rating Scale scores and can
discuss how the clinician can better engage with the client. We find
that this discussion reduces blaming clients for non-compliance, noshows, and lack of response.
 When the client is about done with treatment, their SRS scales may
begin to fall.
 Clinicians can also compare their client’s ORS and SRS scores to an
international database of other clinicians. Trust us, although average is
good in comparing scores – none of our clinicians want to be average!
Next Steps:
 Using these measures and service costs to understand potential






cost reduction for this population or subpopulations.
Using these measures for similar groups of people with various
behavioral health diagnoses and physical health diagnoses.
Preparing baselines for new information that can be compared to
current CCAR and CDOI measures.
Reviewing how to use client input in more meaningful ways to
further refine supports in resilience and recovery.
Continue developing meaningful measures for certain populations
of clients, such as, persons 60 and better or persons with criminal
justice involvement.
Continue development of comparison of client/clinician ratings
on the CCAR items and as key performance indicators.
Develop better methods to measure homelessness, employment,
and housing status.
Feel free to give me a call!
Vicki K. Rodgers, MS, LPC
Vice President, Clinical Systems Administration
Jefferson Center for Mental Health
4851 Independence
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
303-432-5093
vickir@jcmh.org
Aurora Research Institute
Richard Swanson, Ph.D., J.D.
Recovery and
Client Treatment
Ratings
PRESENTED AT THE
Colorado Behavioral HealthCare
Council
September 28, 2012
Richard M. Swanson, Ph.D., J.D.
Aurora Research Institute
An Aurora Research Institute Presentation
Recovery
At the heart of the recovery movement is the idea that instead
of focusing on the disease or pathology of (serious mental
illness) … emphasis is placed on the potential for growth in the
individual.
Patrick McGuire, February, 2000. APA Monitor, 31, No. 2.
People facing life challenges (such as serious illness, trauma,
disability, or disadvantage) are resilient and can significantly
improve the healing process when they have access to
knowledge, self-help resources, skilled professionals,
sustaining environment, and social justice.
Courtenay Harding, vision statement of the
Institute for the Study of Human Resilience, Boston University
48
Recovery Model
New Model
 Combination of traditional clinical and recovery
model
 Process
 Content
 Empowerment of client
 Client guided
 Clinician facilitates
49
Adult, Middle Childhood, and
Early Childhood Client Treatment Ratings
The Adult and Child Client Treatment Rating forms are
questionnaires that asks consumers and parents to rate their
mental health functioning.
There are eight separate sections:
Client Information
Community Involvement
Social Support
Overall Recovery
Involvement
Hope
Empowerment
Overall Symptoms
Family Functioning
50
Recovery Approach Overview
Purpose of Client Treatment Ratings
 Actively involve consumers in their own treatment.
 Consumers have opportunity to rate domains (sections) from
their perspective.
 Consumers also rate symptom recovery from their own
perspective.
Improve Therapeutic Experience
 Therapists want and welcome client input.
 Client feedback can be taken into account for treatment
planning.
 Client feedback may enhance rapport between therapist and
client.
51
Social Support Rating Scale
52
Hope Rating Scale
53
Empowerment Rating Scale
54
Community Involvement Rating Scale
55
Overall Recovery Involvement Rating Scale
56
Overall Symptoms Rating Scale
57
Family Functioning Rating Scale
58
Defining Mental Health Recovery
A journey of healing and transformation
enabling a person with a mental health
problem to find a meaningful life in a
community of his or her choice while
striving to achieve his or her full potential.
59
Client Treatment and CCAR
Ratings of Recovery: Psychometrics
Reliability Analysis
60
CTR
Adult
CTR
Middle
CTR
Early
CTR
All ages
CCAR
Adult
CCAR
Middle
CCAR
Early
CCAR
All ages
Alpha
.83
.81
.77
.82
.91
.90
.86
.90
Items
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
N
2710
1090
292
4092
3734
1960
346
6042
Client Treatment Ratings of Recovery
Means and Significance Level
Modal 6
months
Mean
Time 1
Significance
Average
Change Score
CTR – Social Support
6.44
6.83
.000
.39
CTR – Hope
6.11
6.68
.000
.57
CTR – Empowerment
6.05
6.37
.000
.32
CTR – Community Involvement
4.76
5.29
.000
.53
CTR – Overall Recovery
6.06
6.52
.000
.46
CTR – Overall Symptoms
5.66
6.02
.000
.36
CTR – Family Functioning
6.18
6.49
.000
.31
29.33
31.66
.000
2.23
CTR – Scale Score
61
Mean
Time 2
N = 440
CCAR Recovery Outcome Domains
Means and Significance Level
Model 12
months
Mean
Time 1
Significance
Average
Change Score
CCAR – Social Support
6.22
6.48
.000
.26
CCAR – Hope
6.34
6.65
.000
.31
CCAR – Empowerment
6.15
6.39
.000
.23
CCAR – Activity
5.61
5.91
.000
.29
CCAR – Overall Recovery
5.67
6.00
.000
.33
CCAR – Overall Symptoms
5.35
5.59
.000
.24
29.99
31.42
.000
1.43
CCAR – Scale Score
62
Mean
Time 2
N = 1636
Client Treatment Ratings of Recovery
Reliability Analyses
Inter-Scale Correlations
CTR
Social
Support
CTR
Empowerment
CTR
Community
Involvement
CTR
Overall
Recovery
CTR
Overall
Symptoms
CTR
Family
Functioning
1
4110
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CTR
Hope
.484 **
.000
4110
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CTR
Empowerment
.380 **
.000
4111
.516 **
.000
4112
CTR Community
Involvement
.440 **
.000
4100
.485 **
.000
4094
.451 **
.000
4093
CTR
Overall Recovery
.425 **
.000
4096
.494 **
.000
4094
.592 **
.000
4094
.522 **
.000
4095
.295 **
.000
4095
.474 **
.000
4093
.371 **
.000
4092
.381 **
.000
4095
.365 **
.000
4092
.529 **
.000
4099
.487 **
.000
4094
.413 **
.000
4092
.474 **
.000
4100
.452 **
.000
4095
.413 **
.000
4095
.704 **
.000
4113
.768 **
.000
4112
.765 **
.000
4096
.765 **
.000
4096
.788 **
.000
4097
.490 **
.000
4092
CTR
Social Support
CTR
Overall
Symptoms
CTR
Family
Functioning
63
CTR
Hope
CTR
Scale Score
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.611 **
.000
4115
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CCAR Reliability Analyses
Inter-Scale Correlations
CCAR Social
Support
CCAR
Empowerment
CCAR Activity
CCAR Overall
Recovery
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
CCAR
Social Support
64
CCAR
Hope
6042
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CCAR
Hope
.722 **
.000
6042
CCAR
Empowerment
.640 **
.000
6042
.685 **
.000
6042
CCAR
Activity
.761 **
.000
6042
.734 **
.000
6042
.777 **
.000
6042
CCAR
Overall Recovery
.504 **
.000
6042
.507 **
.000
6042
.553 **
.000
6042
.648 **
.000
6042
CCAR
Scale Score
.856 **
.000
6042
.866 **
.000
6042
.866 **
.000
6042
.921 **
.000
6042
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.743 **
.000
6042
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Client Treatment Ratings of Recovery
by CCAR Validity Analysis
65
CTR Social
Support
CTR
Hope
CTR
Empowerme
nt
CTR
Community
Involvement
CTR Overall
Recovery
CTR Overall
Symptoms
CTR Family
Functioning
CTR Scale
Score
CCAR
Social Support
.177 **
.000
3359
.246 **
.000
3347
.152 **
.000
3350
.197 **
.000
3337
.161 **
.000
3307
.172 **
.000
3319
.196 **
.000
3337
.246 **
.000
3358
CCAR
Hope
.161 **
.000
3359
.188 **
.000
3347
.147 **
.000
3350
.192 **
.000
3337
.145 **
.000
3307
.151 **
.000
3319
.183 **
.000
3337
.219 **
.000
3358
CCAR
Empowerment
.177 **
.000
3359
.196 **
.000
3347
.133 **
.000
3350
.244 **
.000
3337
.151 **
.000
3307
.141 **
.000
3319
.190 **
.000
3337
.239 **
.000
3358
CCAR
Activity
.197 **
.000
3359
.234 **
.000
3347
.173 **
.000
3350
.242 **
.000
3337
.181 **
.000
3307
.181 **
.000
3319
.226 **
.000
3337
.271 **
.000
3358
CCAR
Overall Recovery
.150 **
.000
3359
.216 **
.000
3347
.124 **
.000
3350
.265 **
.000
3337
.138 **
.000
3307
.230 **
.000
3319
.201 **
.000
3337
.222 **
.000
3358
CCAR
Scale Score
.206 **
.000
3359
.257 **
.000
3347
.174 **
.000
3359
.257 **
.000
3337
.185 **
.000
3307
.208 **
.000
3319
.236 **
.000
3337
.285 **
.000
3358
.133 **
.000
3307
.148 **
.000
3319
.215 **
.000
3337
.218 **
.000
3358
CCAR Overall
Symptom Severity
**
*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
.248 **
.162 ** at the 0.05
.108 **
.177 **
Correlation
is significant
level (2-tailed)
.000
3359
.000
3347
.000
3359
.000
3337
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CCAR and CTR Scores by Division,
Team, and Therapist
CCAR
66
CTR
Baseline
Time 2
Baseline
Time 2
Community Involvement
3
7
9
8
Empowerment
4
7
1
6
Hope
6
8
8
9
Overall Recovery Involvement
4
9
9
8
Social Support
4
9
9
9
7
6
Family Functioning
CCAR and CTR Scores by Division,
Team, and Therapist
CCAR
67
CTR
Baseline
Time 2
Baseline
Time 2
Community Involvement
5
8
7
9
Empowerment
5
7
8
9
Hope
7
7
9
9
Overall Recovery Involvement
5
7
8
9
Social Support
7
6
8
6
8
9
Family Functioning
CCAR and CTR Scores by Division and Team
CCAR
68
CTR
Baseline
(151)
Time 2
(151)
Baseline
(67)
Time 2
(67)
Community Involvement
5
5
4
4
Empowerment
5
5
6
5
Hope
6
6
6
6
Overall Recovery Involvement
4
5
6
6
Social Support
5
5
5
6
6
5
Family Functioning
CCAR and CTR Scores by Division and Team
CCAR
69
CTR
Baseline (43)
Time 2
(43)
Baseline
(11)
Time 2
(11)
Community Involvement
5
5
5
5
Empowerment
5
6
6
6
Hope
6
6
6
6
Overall Recovery Involvement
5
5
6
6
Social Support
5
6
6
5
CCAR and CTR Scores by Division
CCAR
70
CTR
Baseline
(217)
Time 2
(217)
Baseline
(121)
Time 2
(121)
Community Involvement
5
5
4
5
Empowerment
5
5
6
6
Hope
6
6
6
6
Overall Recovery Involvement
5
5
6
6
Social Support
5
6
6
6
6
6
Family Functioning
CCAR and CTR Scores by Division
CCAR
71
CTR
Baseline
(301)
Time 2
(301)
Baseline
(162)
Time 2
(162)
Community Involvement
5
6
5
5
Empowerment
6
6
5
6
Hope
6
6
6
7
Overall Recovery Involvement
5
6
6
6
Social Support
6
6
6
7
6
7
Family Functioning
CCAR and CTR Scores by Division
CCAR
72
CTR
Baseline
(743)
Time 2
(743)
Baseline
(240)
Time 2
(240)
Community Involvement
5
6
4
4
Empowerment
6
6
5
6
Hope
6
6
5
6
Overall Recovery Involvement
5
6
5
6
Social Support
6
6
6
6
6
6
Family Functioning
Contact Me
11059 East Bethany Drive, Suite 105 • Aurora, Colorado 80014 • TEL 303-617-2675 • FAX 303-617-2397
Aurora Research Institute
Richard M. Swanson, Ph.D., J.D.
Executive Director
Aurora Research Institute
11059 E. Bethany Dr., Suite 105
Aurora, CO 80014
(303) 617-2574
richardswanson@aumhc.org