Provider Perspectives on Principle-Adherent Practice in Empirically Supported Interventions for Emerging Adults with Serious Mental Health Conditions



In recognition of the need to create new treatment approaches that will be appealing to and effective for emerging adults with serious mental health conditions, researchers have begun to create and evaluate programs and interventions that are specifically tailored to reflect the preferences and needs of the population. The literature that describes these new approaches—including both descriptions of interventions and guidelines based on expert consensus—expresses a high degree of agreement regarding practice principles that should guide intervention. However, beyond naming these principles, the literature provides little information about what the principles mean, or how principle-adherent practice can be recognized. This article describes a qualitative investigation of providers’ understanding of principle-driven practice in the context of programs and interventions for emerging adults with serious mental health conditions. The goal was to learn about how providers conceptualize the principles that drive their practice, and how they describe principle-adherent practice.


  1. 1.
    Arnett J. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist 2000; 55(5): 469–480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis M, Banks S, Fisher W, et al. Longitudinal patterns of offending during the transition to adulthood in youth from the mental health system. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2004; 31(4): 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis M, Vander Stoep A. The transition to adulthood for youth who have serious emotional disturbance: Developmental transition and young adult outcomes. Journal of Mental Health Administration 1997; 24(4): 400–426.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vander Stoep A, Beresford S, Weiss N, et al. Community-based study of the transition to adulthood for adolescents with psychiatric disorders. American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 152: 352–362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kessler R, Demler O, Frank R, et al. Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders 1990 to 2003. New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 352(24): 2515–2523.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pottick R, Bilder S, Vander Stoep A, et al. US patterns of mental health service utilization for transition-age youth and young adults. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2008; 35(4): 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    US Government Accountability Office. Young Adults with Serious Mental Illness: Some States and Federal Agencies are Taking Steps to Address Their Transition Challenges. Publication No. 08–678, Washington DC: US GAO, 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Department of Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. What a Difference a Friend Makes: Social Acceptance is Key to Mental Health Recovery. SMA 07–4257, Washington DC: National Mental Health Anti-Stigma Campaign, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walker JS, Gowen LK. Transition for youth with serious mental health conditions. In: ML Wehmeyer, KW Webb (Eds). Handbook of Adolescent Transition Education for Youth with Disabilities. New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 475–493.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dresser K, Clark HB, Deschênes N. Implementation of a positive development, evidence-supported practice for emerging adults with serious mental health conditions: The Transition to Independence Process (TIP) Model. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 2015; 42(2).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hagner D, Malloy JM, Mazzone MW, et al. Youth With Disabilities in the Criminal Justice System: Considerations for Transition and Rehabilitation Planning. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 2008; 16(4): 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilmer TP, Ojeda VD, Fawley-King K, et al. Change in mental health service use after offering youth-specific versus adult programs to transition-age youths. Psychiatric Services 2012; 63(6): 592–596.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Powers LE, Geenen S, Powers J, et al. My Life: Effects of a longitudinal, randomized study of self-determination enhancement on the transition outcomes of youth in foster care and special education. Children and Youth Services Review 2012; 34(11): 2179–2187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haber MG, Karpur A, Deschênes N, et al. Predicting improvement of transitioning young people in the partnerships for youth transition initiative: Findings from a multisite demonstration. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2008; 35(4): 488–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melton RP, Roush, SN, Sale, TG, et al. Early intervention and prevention of long-term disability in youth and adults: The EASA model. In: K Yeager, D Cutler, D Svendsen et al. (Eds). Modern Community Mental Health: An Interdisciplinary Approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 256–275.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gowen LK, Bandurraga A, Jivanjee P, et al. Development, testing, and use of a valid and reliable assessment tool for urban American Indian/Alaska Native youth programming using culturally appropriate methodologies. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work 2012; 21:77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cobb RB, Lipscomb S, Wolgemuth J, et al. Improving post-high school outcomes for transition-age students with disabilities: An evidence review. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fraker T, Rangarajan A. The Social Security Administration’s Youth Transition Demonstration Projects. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 2009; 30: 223–240.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blau GM, Caldwell B, Fisher SK, et al. The Building Bridges Initiative: Residential and community-based providers, families, and youth coming together to improve outcomes. Child Welfare 2010; 89(2): 21–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Podmostko M. Tunnels & Cliffs: A Guide for Workforce Development Practitioners and Policymakers Serving Youth with Mental Health Needs. Washington DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership, 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herz D, Lee P, Lutz L. Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth: Strengthening the Connection between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps, 2013.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability. Guideposts for Success, Second Edition. Washington DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability, 2013.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luecking DM, Luecking RG. Translating research into a seamless transition model. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2013: Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/216514341.
  24. 24.
    Koball H, Dion R, Gothro A, et al. Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support At-Risk Youth, OPRE Report # OPRE 2011–22. Washington DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marsenich L. A Road Map to Transition Services for Transition Aged Young Women: A Research Review. Sacramento: California Institute for Mental Health, 2005.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walker JS, Gowen K, Jivanjee P, et al. Pathways to Positive Futures: State-of-the-Science Conference Proceedings (Part 1). Portland, OR: Portland State University, Research and Training Center for Pathways to Positive Futures, 2013.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker JS. A theory of change for positive developmental approaches to improving outcomes among emerging adults with serious mental health conditions. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 2015; 42(2).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holburn S, Cea CD. Excessive positivism in person-centered planning. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2007; 32(3): 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walker JS, Schutte K. Practice and process in wraparound planning. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 2004; 12: 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Walker JS, Schutte K. Quality and individualization in wraparound. Journal of Child and Family Studies 2005; 14: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dumbrill G. Parental experience of child protection intervention: A qualitative study. Child Abuse and Neglect 2006; 30: 27–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith B. Child welfare service plan compliance: Perceptions of parents and caseworkers. The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 2008; 89: 521–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McCammon SL. Systems of care as asset-building communities: Implementing strengths-based planning and positive youth development. American Journal of Community Psychology 2012; 49(3–4): 556–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lietz C. Theoretical adherence to family centered practice: Are strengths-based principles illustrated in families’ descriptions of child welfare services? Children and Youth Services Review 2011; 33: 888–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taylor JE, Taylor JA. Person-centered planning: Evidence-based practice, challenges, and potential for the 21st century. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation 2013; 12(3): 213–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mitchell PF. Evidence-based practice in real-world services for young people with complex needs: New opportunities suggested by recent implementation science. Child Youth Services Review 2011; 33(2): 211–216..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Research on Social Work Practice. 2013; 24(2): 192–212.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, et al. Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oliver P. Purposive sampling. In: V. Jupp (Ed). The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd., 2006, pp. 245–246.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006; 2: 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Muhr T. ATLAS.ti - A Prototype for the Support of Text Interpretation. Qualitative Sociology 1991; 14(4): S.349-371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sawyer R. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing, Third Edition: Helping People Change (Applications of Motivational Interviewing). New York: Guilford Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barth RP, Lee BR, Lindsey MA, et al. Evidence-based practice at a crossroads: The timely emergence of common elements and common factors. Research on Social Work Practice 2011, 22(1): 108–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bruns EJ, Walker JS, Bernstein AD, et al. Family voice with informed choice: Coordinating wraparound with research-based treatment for children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 2014; 43(2): 256–269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gullan RL, Power TJ, Leff SS. The role of empowerment in a school-based community service program with inner-city, minority youth. Journal of Adolescent Research 2013; 28(6): 664–689.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brink AJW, Wissing MP. Review article: A model for a positive youth development intervention. Journal of child and adolescent mental health 2012; 24(1): 1–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Morton MH, Montgomery P. Youth empowerment programs for improving adolescents’ self-efficacy and self-esteem: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice 2012; 23(1): 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Frechtling JA. Logic Modeling Methods in Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rogers PJ, Petrosino A, Huebner TA, et al. Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation 2000; 87: 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Savaya R, Waysman M. The logic model: A tool for incorporating theory in development and evaluation of programs. Administration in Social Work 2005; 29(2): 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    US Government Accountability Office. Young adults with serious mental illness: Some states and federal agencies are taking steps to address their transition challenges. GAO Publication No. 08–678, Washington DC: Author, 2008.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pottick KJ, Bilder S, Vander Stoep A, et al. US patterns of mental health service utilization for transition-age youth and young adults. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2008; 35(4): 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Frazier SL, Bearman SK, Garland AF, et al. Dissemination and implementation in children’s mental health: Closing the research to training gap. In: RS Beidas, PC Kendall (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Child and Adolescent Mental Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 98–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Behavioral Health 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research and Training Center for Pathways to Positive Futures, Regional Research InstitutePortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Center for Improvement of Child and Family Services, School of Social WorkPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations