Advertisement

Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 51–66 | Cite as

Demographic, Clinical, and Functional Characteristics of Youth Enrolled in Six California Systems of Care

  • Abram Rosenblatt
  • Jennifer Rosenblatt
Article

Abstract

We describe the demographic, functional, and clinical status of children served across six California counties implementing a longstanding integrated system of care approach called the California System of Care Model. The children enrolled in the care systems are an ethnically diverse group of predominantly pre-adolescent and adolescent males. The level of functional impairment and degree of symptomatology is high. Seventy to 80% of the youth were in the clinical or borderline clinical ranges as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist. Scores on the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale, provided by the treating clinician, indicated that up to 94% of the youth were in the moderate to severe levels of impairment. Children and adolescents rated themselves on the Youth Self Report as having lower levels of impairment than did parents. Caregivers and youth ratings emphasized externalizing rather than internalizing problems. Clinician ratings as captured by the CAFAS and the clinical diagnoses, presented a mix between internalizing and externalizing diagnoses and functional impairment areas. The six counties are serving children who have levels of impairment, similar to, or higher than, youth enrolled in other systems of care nationwide.

demographics clinical and functional status children and adolescents mental health services systems of care 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  2. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the Youth Self Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). DSM-IV: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, C. C., Rosenblatt, A., Harris, L., & Attkisson, C. C. (1992). Use of mental health services among severely emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in San Francisco. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 1, 183–207.Google Scholar
  5. Bickman, L., Guthrie, P., Foster, E. M., Lambert, E, W., Summerfelt, W. T., Breda, C., & Heflinger, C. A. (1995). Evaluating managed mental health care: The Fort Bragg experiment, pp. xxx-xxx. New York: Plenum Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Duchnowski, A. J., Johnson, M. K., Hall, K. S., Kutash, K., & Friedman, R. M. (1993). The alternatives to residential treatment study: Initial findings. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 17–25.Google Scholar
  7. Duncan, B., Forness, S., & Hartsough, C. (1995). Students identified as seriously emotionally disturbed in school-based day treatment: Cognitive, psychiatric, and special education characteristics. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 238–252.Google Scholar
  8. Epstein, M. H., Cullinan, D., Quinn, K. P, & Cumblad, C. (1994). Characteristics of children with emotional and behavioral disorders in community-based programs designed to prevent placement in residential facilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 51–57.Google Scholar
  9. Epstein, M. H., Cullinan, D., Quinn, K., & Cumblad, C. (1995). Personal, family, and service utilization characteristics of young people served by an interagency community-based system of care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 55–64.Google Scholar
  10. Hodges, K. (1990). CAFAS Training Manual: A self training manual which contains example scoring and vignettes for establishing interrater reliability. Author.Google Scholar
  11. Hodges, K., & Wong, M. M. (1996). Psychometric characteristics of a multidimensional measure to assess impairment: The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 445–467.Google Scholar
  12. Illback, R. J., Neill, T. K., Call, J., & Andis, P. (1993). Description and formative evaluation of the Kentucky IMPACT Program for children with serious emotional disturbance. Special Services in the Schools, 7, 87–108.Google Scholar
  13. Illback, R. J., Nelson, C. M., & Sanders, D. (1998). Community-based services inKentucky: Description and 5-year evaluation ofKentucky IMPACT. In M.H. Epstein, K. Kutash, & A. Duchnowski (Eds.), Outcomes for children and youth with behavioral and emotional disorders and their families: Programs & evaluation best practices (pp. 141–172). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
  14. Landrum, T. J., Singh, N. N., Nemil, M. S., Ellis, C. R., & Best, A. M. (1995). Characteristics of children and adolescents with serious emotional disturbances in systems of care: II. Communitybased services. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 141–149.Google Scholar
  15. Quinn, K. P., & Epstein, M. H. (1998). Characteristics of children, youth, and families served by local interagency systems of care. In M.H. Epstein, K. Kutash, & A. Duchnowski (Eds.), Outcomes for children and youth with behavioral and emotional disorders and their families: Programs & evaluation best practices (pp. 81–114). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
  16. Roberts, R. E., Attkisson, C. C., Rosenblatt, A. (1998). Prevalence of psychopathology among children and adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 715–725.Google Scholar
  17. Rosenblatt, A., & Attkisson, C. C. (1992) Integrating systems of care in California for youth with severe emotional disturbance I: A descriptive overview of the California AB377 Evaluation Project. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1, 93–113.Google Scholar
  18. Rosenblatt, J. A., Robertson, L. M., Bates, M. P., Wood, M., Furlong, M. J., & Sosna, T. (1998).Troubled or troubling? Characteristics of youths referred to a system of care without system-level referral constraints. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, 42–54.Google Scholar
  19. Silver, S. E., Duchnowski, A., J., Kutash, K., Friedman, R. M., Eisen, M., Prange, M. E., Brandenberg, N. A., & Greenbaum, P. E. (1992). A comparison of children with serious emotional disturbance served in residential and school settings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1, 43–59.Google Scholar
  20. Singh, N. H., Landrum, T. J., Donatelli, L. S., Hampton, C., & Ellis, C. R. (1994). Characteristics of children and adolescents with serious emotional disturbance in systems of care. Part I: Partial hospitalization and inpatient services. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 13–21.Google Scholar
  21. Snowden, L. (1987). Reaching the underserved: Mental health needs of neglected populations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1996). The system of care concept and philosophy. In B. A. Stroul & R. M. Friedman (Eds.), Systems of care for children's mental health. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  23. Wood, M., Furlong, M. J., Rosenblatt, J. A., Robertson, L. M., Scozzari, F., & Sosna, T. (1997). Understanding the psychosocial characteristics of gang-involved youths in a system of care: Individual, family, and system correlates. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 281–294.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abram Rosenblatt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jennifer Rosenblatt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryThe University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Child Services Research Group, Department of PsychiatryThe University of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Clinical Services Research Training Program, Department of PsychiatryThe University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations