The Ventura planning model: A proposal for mental health reform

Abstract

The Ventura Planning Model is a proposal for public mental health reform. It addresses the decline in mental health funding. It offers a rationale for increased support--and funding--for public mental health services. The Planning Model grew out of the experience of implementing and operating the Ventura Children's Demonstration Project. The model has five characteristics, or planning steps: 1) multi-problem target population; 2) systems goals; 3) interagency coalitions; 4) services and standards; and 5) systems monitoring and evaluation. The Ventura Children's Demonstration Project implemented these planning steps, with an infusion of $1.54 million in funds from the state legislature. The project offset at least 66 percent of its cost by reducing other public agency costs and improved a variety of client-oriented outcomes. The success of the project in offsetting its costs has led the legislature to provide additional funds for three more California counties to implement the model for children and youth, and $4 million a year for four years for Ventura County to test the model for adults and seniors. Emphasizing cost offsets in addition to client-oriented outcomes provides a practical rationale for proposing increases in public mental health funds. This rationale also implies substantial changes in the operations of many public mental health agencies.

Use of mental health services among severely emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in San Francisco

“…These landmark commission findings have been supported by numerous reports by professionals in the field, which consistently address the need to increase services in the context of an integrated network of service agencies (Coren & McKale, 1985;Inouye, 1988;Julius, Lipton, Pettifor, & Smith, 1980;Knitzer, 1982;Rae-Grant, 1976). Some attempts at such integration have been attempted in North Carolina (Behar, 1984) and Ventura County, California (Feltman & Essex, 1989;Jordan & Hernandez, 1990).…”

Outcomes of children with emotional disturbance in residential treatment for educational purposes

“…These individuals can play a crucial role in coordinating services to include all of the major service providers in a child's life, in part because schools that are providing special education services to students must, by law, individualize their educational plans on behalf of the student. In one county's model of a community-based continuum of care, interagency coordinated services in a school-based day treatment program resulted in measured academic gains for students, and in a reduction in recidivism, residential placement, and costs of mental health services (Jordan & Hernandez, 1990). In another state's model for transitioning children from out-of-state residential programs back to their community, educational services were a key component of collaborative interagency coordination in providing individualized care (Burchard & Clarke, 1990).…”

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

“…A description of the model system of care and results from the original demonstration are presented in Jordan and Hernandez (1990). In essence, the model was designed as a set of five planning steps which could theoretically be followed to implement an effective system of care in a community.…”

“…Two of the most notable attempts at integrating services have been conducted in North Carolina (Behar, 1985), and Ventura County, California (Feltman & Essex, 1989;Jordan & Hernandez, 1990). In California, through enabling legislation [Assembly Bill 377 (AB377) (Children's Mental Health Services Act, 1987)], the model system of care pioneered in Ventura County was extended to three additional counties.…”