Integrating systems of care in California for youth with severe emotional disturbance. I. A descriptive overview of the California AB377 evaluation project

In systems of care, the term family friendly is used to describe services that are aligned with the needs of the families and delivered in a manner that shows professionals value and respect family involvement, empowerment, and cultural differences. The authors devised a 42-item structured observation instrument to rate the family friendliness of one component of the systems of care in Virginia for children with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and their families. The instrument covers typical aspects of the meeting process, such as meeting management, case presentation, and formulation of service plans. It also allows for the collection of data on relevant characteristics of the meeting participants as well as demographic information on the children and their families. This instrument was used to rate the family friendliness of Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT) meetings, the purpose of which is to develop community-based service plans for children with EBD who are referred to the team. These teams meet in local communities and typically consist of representatives from the local juvenile court, education, health, mental health, and social service agencies. The authors observed 79 case presentations at 31 FAPT meetings in 7 localities. Although there were variations within, between, and among localities, the overall rating of family friendliness across all case presentations was good (63%). Improvements in the FAPT process are needed to assure increased family friendliness in the planning of services for children with EBD and their families.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Family Friendliness of Community-Based Services for Children and Adolescents with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and Their Families

Singh

Curtis

Wechsler

et al. 1997

“…For example, Epstein et al (1995) reported that the average age of their sample was 15 years. Rosenblatt and Attkisson (1992) reported the modal (most frequent age) was 17 years in two counties (San Mateo and Santa Cruz) and 15 years in the other (Riverside). Further, they found that increasing age was correlated with higher rates of out-of-home placements, a relationship not investigated in most other studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, Evans, Dollard, and McNulty (1992) investigated the characteristics of youths with SED who either did or did not engage in substance abuse and were in intensive case management. Rosenblatt and Attkisson (1992) described the characteristics of youths with SED who were enrolled in integrated systems of care in three California counties (San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Riverside), and Barber, Rosenblatt, Harris, and Attkisson (1992) described the sociodemographic correlates of children and adolescents with SED who received mental health services in San Francisco. Singh et al (1994) analyzed the characteristics of children and adolescents with SED who received mental health services in partial hospitalization and inpatient settings.…”

Section: R Ecent Reports In the Litera-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Children and Adolescents with Serious Emotional Disturbance in Systems of Care. Part II

Landrum

Singh

Nemil

et al. 1995

This is the second in a series of investigations designed to study the characteristics of children and adolescents with serious emotional disturbance (SED) who are currently being served in various systems of care, ranging from community-based services to psychiatric hospitalization and residential placement. The sociodemographic, educational, psychological, and treatment history characteristics of children and adolescents who were provided with community-based services as an alternative to residential placement were examined. Of the 363 children and adolescents who were judged by community service providers to be at imminent risk of residential placement, complete sociodemographic data were available for only 228 (63%). These 228 children and adolescents were grouped according to their school-identified disability status at the time they were targeted to receive community-based services: (a) those identified as SED (54%); (b) those identified with other disabilities, such as mental retardation or learning disabilities (28%); and (c) those with no identified disabilities (18%). The data were analyzed for the total study sample—as well as for the three groups—on the following variables: age, gender, race, referral source, guardianship, living arrangements, special education status, psychotropic medication, criminal record, prior involvement with the service system, and history of residential placement. Significant differences among the three groups were found on a number of variables, including guardianship, medication, criminal record, prior involvement with the service system, and history of residential placement. Findings are discussed in terms of community-based service needs of children and adolescents with SED.

“…For example, in the AB377 counties in California (San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Riverside), youth who are in, or at risk for, out-of-home placement are referred into the systems of care (Rosenblatt & Attkisson, 1992). Other systems allow for integral individuals involved in the system (e.g., parents, youth, service providers, agency administrators) to determine the criteria.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Troubled or Troubling? Characteristics of Youth Referred to a System of Care Without System-Level Referral Constraints

Rosenblatt

Robertson

Bates

et al. 1998

The characteristics of 128 youth with emotional and behavioral disorders referred to a system of care were investigated according to agency referral, behavioral and emotional issues, and risk factors. The referral process in this system of care was unique, with each agency referring youth deemed to need multiagency services. The primary analysis used a two-step clustering procedure to examine characteristic profiles, and results produced evidence of four types of referral profiles: Troubled, Troubling. Troubled and Troubling, and At Risk. It was found that youth with various impairments and corresponding needs were referred by different agencies (e.g., troubling youth were most likely to be referred by juvenile probation), but all agencies referred youth across the four clusters. The results of this study are examined with respect to the long-standing policy debate regarding which youth with emotional and behavioral disorders should be given priority to receive services. Implications about evaluating outcomes in systems of care are also discussed.