Table 16 summarizes mean score and frequencies for the Areas within this practice Domain, which contained the third lowest scoring Area, Cultural Sensitivity & Responsiveness (3.0). Across ICC and IHT, practice for Domain 3 was Fair or better in 75% of instances. in ICC experienced Fair practice or better 82% of the time, while the proportion for youth in IHT was 68%. While Domain 3 clearly represents an opportunity for improvement in both ICC and IHT, the discrepancy between services is quite pronounced in this domain. 16: Culturally Competent Area Mean Scores & Frequencies Domain/Area Mean Frequencies (n) %* Exemplary/ Percent Adverse Poor Fair Good Best Fair or Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice ** 1 2 3 4 5 Cultural Awareness 3.2 (2) 2% (20) 17% (55) 46% (42) 35% (1) 1% 82% -ICC 3.3 - (5) 8% (31) 51% (24) 39% (1) 2% 92% -IHT 3.0 (2) 3% (15) 25% (24) 41% (18) 31% - 71% Cultural Sensitivity & 3.0 (5) 4% (33) 28% (46) 38% (33) 28% (3) 3% 68% Responsiveness -ICC 3.0 (3) 5% (14) 23% (23) 38% (19) 31% (2) 3% 72% -IHT 2.9 (2) 3% (19) 32% (23) 39% (14) 24% (1) 2% 64% *Due to rounding of percentages, some Area totals may not equal 100%. ** Accurately rounded percentages; with 70% Fair or above are in bold. & Family Progress Domain Domain Mean Scores Table 17 shows that overall mean scores for the Youth and Family Progress Domain ranged from 1.5 to 4.5, with an overall mean score of 3.1. Table 17: Youth & Family Progress Domain Mean Scores Domain Min Max Mean Standard Deviation Domain 4: Youth/Family Progress 1.5 4.5 3.1 .76 -ICC 1.5 4.0 3.1 .72 -IHT 1.5 4.5 3.2 .81 illustrates the distribution of mean scores in the Progress Domain. Figure 5 Figure 5: Youth & Family Progress Mean Scores
Table 16 summarizes mean score and frequencies for the Areas within this practice Domain, which contained the third lowest scoring Area, Cultural Sensitivity & Responsiveness (3.0). Across ICC and IHT, practice for Domain 3 was Fair or better in 75% of instances. in ICC experienced Fair practice or better 82% of the time, while the proportion for youth in IHT was 68%. While Domain 3 clearly represents an opportunity for improvement in both ICC and IHT, the discrepancy between services is quite pronounced in this domain. 16: Culturally Competent Area Mean Scores & Frequencies Domain/Area Mean Frequencies (n) %* Adverse Practice 1 Poor Practice 2 Fair Practice 3 Good Practice 4 Exemplary/ Best Practice 5 Percent Fair or ** Cultural Awareness -ICC -IHT 3.2 3.3 3.0 (2) 2% - (2) 3% (20) 17% (5) 8% (15) 25% (55) 46% (31) 51% (24) 41% (42) 35% (24) 39% (18) 31% (1) 1% (1) 2% - 82% 92% 71% Cultural Sensitivity & Responsiveness -ICC -IHT 3.0 3.0 2.9 (5) 4% (3) 5% (2) 3% (33) 28% (14) 23% (19) 32% (46) 38% (23) 38% (23) 39% (33) 28% (19) 31% (14) 24% (3) 3% (2) 3% (1) 2% 68% 72% 64% *Due to rounding of percentages, some Area totals may not equal 100%. ** Accurately rounded percentages; with 70% Fair or above are in bold. & Family Progress Domain Domain Mean Scores Table 17 shows that overall mean scores for the Youth and Family Progress Domain ranged from 1.5 to 4.5, with an overall mean score of 3.1. Table 17: Youth & Family Progress Domain Mean Scores Domain Min Max Mean Standard Deviation Domain 4: Youth/Family Progress -ICC -IHT 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 3.1 3.1 3.2 .76 .72 .81 Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of mean scores in the Progress Domain. Figure 5: Youth & Family Progress Mean Scores
mpr-year-end-summary-report-fy2016.docx