The journal of mental health administration

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 30–39 | Cite as

The quality of services in a children’s mental health managed care demonstration

  • Leonard Bickman
  • Wm. Thomas Summerfelt
  • Deborah Bryant


The Fort Bragg Demonstration and evaluation was designed to test the cost-effectiveness of a continuum of care model of service delivery for children and adolescents. A crucial aspect of the evaluation was the measurement of the quality of services provided in the Demonstration. Two key service components were examined: intake assessment and case management. It was concluded that these key components of the continuum of care were implemented with sufficient quality to have the theoretically predicted effects on mental health.


Mental Health Service Case Management Concept Mapping Evaluation Project Intake Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bickman L, Peterson K: Using program theory to describe and measure program quality. In: Bickman L. (Ed.):Advances in Program Theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990, pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peterson K, Bickman L (Eds.):Normative Theory and Program Quality in Mental Health Services. Westwood MA: Greenwood, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bickman L: Improving estabilhed statewide programs: A component theory of evaluation.Evaluation Review 1985; 9:189–208.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Trochim WM: Conceptualization for planning and evaluation.Evaluation and Program Planning 1986; 9(4): 239–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Psychological Association Practice Directorate: Integrated care challenges managed care.Practitioner 1992; 5(2):1.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jerrell J, Hargreaves W:The Operating Philosophy of Community Programs. Working Paper series 18. Berkeley: Institute for Mental Health, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leashore BR: Worker’s perceptions of foster care review in the District of Columbia.Child Welfare 1986; 65(1): 26–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Behar L: Changing patterns of state responsibility: A case study of North Carolina. Special issue: Mental Health Services to Children.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 1985; 14(3):188–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tuma J: Mental health services for children: The state of the art.American Psychologist 1989: 44(2): 188–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stroul BA, Friedman R:A System of Care for Children and Youth with Severe Emotional Disturbances. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Behar L: The North Carolina Willie M. Program: One model for services to multiple handicapped children. In: Stark JA, Menolascino FJ, Albarelli MH, Gray VC (Eds.):Mental Retardation and Mental Health: Classification, Diagnosis, Treatment, Services. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 416–429.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levine I, Fleming M:Human Resource Development: Issues in Case Management. College Park: University of Maryland, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weil M, Karls J: Conceptualization for planning and evaluation.Evaluation and Program Planning 1986; 9(4):239–308.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bagarozzi D, Kurtz L: Administrators’ perspectives on case management.Arete 1983; 8:13–21.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mueller B, Hopp M: Attitudinal, administrative, legal, and fiscal barriers to case management.Internal Journal of Mental Health 1987; 15:44–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Mental Health Administrators 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonard Bickman
    • 1
  • Wm. Thomas Summerfelt
    • 1
  • Deborah Bryant
    • 1
  1. 1.Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy StudiesVanderbilt UniversityNashville

Personalised recommendations