Crossing the Age Divide: Cross-Age Collaboration Between Programs Serving Transition-Age Youth
Programs that serve transition-age youth with serious mental health conditions typically reside in either the child or the adult system. Good service provision calls for interactions among these programs. The objective of this research was to discover programmatic characteristics that facilitate or impede collaboration with programs serving dissimilar age groups, among programs that serve transition-age youth. To examine this “cross-age collaboration,” this research used social network analysis methods to generate homophily and heterophily scores in three communities that had received federal grants to improve services for this population. Heterophily scores (i.e., a measure of cross-age collaboration) in programs serving only transition-age youth were significantly higher than the heterophily scores of programs that served only adults or only children. Few other program markers or malleable program factors predicted heterophily. Programs that specialize in serving transition-age youth are a good resource for gaining knowledge of how to bridge adult and child programs.
This manuscript was developed under a grant with funding from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research and the Center for Mental Health Services of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Grant H133B090018, to the first author, The Learning and Working During the Transition to Adulthood RRTC). We are grateful to John Coppola, Pnina Goldfarb, Bruce Kamradt, and DeDe Sieler for their help with this project and the programs and their respondents who participated in this research. The contents of this paper do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR or SAMHSA and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
There are no conflicts of interest to report.
- 2.U.S. Government Accountability Office. Young adults with serious mental illness. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2008.Google Scholar
- 3.U.S. Census Bureau. Annual estimates of the resident population by single year of age and sex for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. Available online at https://www.census.gov/popest/data/datasets.html. Accessed March 15, 2017.
- 6.Wagner M, Newman L, Cameto R, et al. Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. A report of findings from the national longitudinal transition study (NLTS) and the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2005.Google Scholar
- 10.Davis M, Delman J, Duperoy T. Employment and careers in young adults with psychiatric disabilities. Worcester, MA: University of Massachusetts Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Center for Mental Health Services Research, Transitions RTC; 2013.Google Scholar
- 11.Fernandes-Alcantara AL. Runaway and homeless youth: Demographics and programs. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; 2013.Google Scholar
- 15.National Conference of State Legislatures. Extending Foster Care Beyond 18. Available online at http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/extending-foster-care-to-18.aspx. Accessed March 15, 2017.
- 17.Davis M, Hunt B. State adult mental health systems’ efforts to address the needs of young adults in transition to adulthood. Rockville, MD: U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services; 2005.Google Scholar
- 19.Friesen BJ, Koroloff N, Walker J, et al. Family and Youth Voice in Systems Care: The Evolution of Influence. Best Practices in Mental Health. 2011; 7(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
- 23.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. “Now is the Time” Healthy Transitions (HT): Improving Life Trajectories for Youth and Young Adults with, or at Risk for, Serious Mental Health Conditions: Request for Applications. Available online at https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/sm-14-017_0.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2017.
- 25.Wholey DR, Huonker JW. Effects of generalism and niche overlap on network linkages among youth service agencies. Academy of Management Journal. 1993; 36(2): 349–371.Google Scholar
- 26.Provan KG, Sebastian JG. Networks within Networks: Service Link Overlap, Organizational Cliques, and Network Effectiveness. The Academy of Management Journal. 1998; 41(4): 453–463.Google Scholar
- 29.Majchrzak A, Wang Q. Breaking the functional mind-set in process organizations. Harvard Business Review. 1996; 5:93–99.Google Scholar
- 38.Nicaise P, Tulloch S, Dubois V, et al. Using social network analysis for assessing mental health and social services inter-organisational collaboration: Findings in deprived areas in Brussels and London. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2013; 40(4): 331–339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Milward HB, Provan KG, Fish A, et al. Governance and collaboration: An evolutionary study of two mental health networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2009: 20(1): i125-i141.Google Scholar
- 40.Van de Ven AH, Ferry DL. Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley. 1980.Google Scholar
- 41.Morrissey JP, Johnsen MC, Calloway MO. Methods for system-level evaluations of child mental health service networks. In: MH Epstein, K Kutash, A Duchnowski (Eds). Outcomes for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders and their families: Programs and evaluation best practices. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, 1998, pp. 297–327.Google Scholar
- 42.Laumann EO, Marsden PV, Prensky D. The Boundary Specification Problem in Network Analysis. In: Freeman LC, White D, Romney AK, eds. Research methods in social network analysis. Fairfax, VA.: George Mason University Press, 1989: 18–34.Google Scholar
- 47.Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies; 2002.Google Scholar