Adolescents in Residential Centers: Characteristics and Treatment Outcome

Gorske, Tad T.; Srebalus, David J.; Walls, Richard T.

doi:10.1016/s0190-7409(03)00014-8

Cited by 47 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the patients admitted to the center for treatment, 41.8% were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, while 41.8% were diagnosed with conduct disorders, 6.9% with depression, 2.8% with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and 2.8% with acute stress disorder. According to previous studies, children who are victims of sexual abuse are often diagnosed with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, conduct disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, dissociation and impulse control disorder (38)(39)(40), and in our study also, it was observed that abuse and neglect victims were given similar diagnoses according to the DSM-IV.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Treatment and Rehabilitation of Abused and Neglected Children an Inpatient Center Model

Fırat¹,

Çekin²,

Gülmen³

et al. 2014

Bull Leg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Treatment and Rehabilitation of Abused and Neglected Children an Inpatient Center Model

Fırat¹,

Çekin²,

Gülmen³

et al. 2014

Bull Leg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The selection of these items was based on the limited empirical evidence that identifies factors that predict placement type (TFC vs. group care) or are associated with youth outcomes (Collins, Schwartz, & Epstein, 2001;Drais-Parillo, 2004;Gorske, Srebalus & Walls, 2003;Piotrowski & Baker, 2004;Ryan, 2006;Sunseri, 2001;Teare et al, 1999). In addition to basic demographics (age, gender, race), the population density of the county of origin was also considered.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing outcomes for youth in treatment foster care and family-style group care

Lee

Thompson

2008

Children and Youth Services Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group care programs are often criticized for producing poor outcomes, especially in light of community-based alternatives like treatment foster care that have a stronger evidence base. In this study, data from Girls and Boys Town were used to compare outcomes of youth in treatment foster care (n=112) and group care (n=716) using propensity score matching, a method that can minimize selection bias in nonrandomized designs. Eighteen background covariates were used to develop propensity scores for the likelihood of receiving treatment foster care rather than group care. Several matching methods generated balanced samples on which the outcomes were compared. Results found that group care youth were more likely to be favorably discharged, more likely to return home, and less likely to experience subsequent placement in the first six months after discharge. Legal involvement and residing in a home-like environment at follow-up did not differ. Positive outcomes for group care youth suggest that family-style group care programs may promote effectiveness. Keywordstreatment foster care; family-style group care; propensity score matching Prevailing wisdom in systems of care for youth promotes a philosophy of least restrictive and community-based care (Stroul & Friedman, 1986). A growing body of evidence suggests that specialized foster care settings like treatment foster care (Chamberlain & Reid, 1991;Fisher & Chamberlain, 2000) are more effective and cost-efficient than group care (Chamberlain & Reid, 1998;Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 1999). In a continuum of care, group care often serves youth whose needs surpass the capacity of traditional family foster care, but are not acute enough to warrant inpatient hospitalization (CWLA, 2004). With the emergence of treatment foster care as a possible alternative to group placements, questions about the continued broad use of group care are increasing (Barth, 2005).Despite widespread questions about youth safety during care (Barth, 2002) and equivocal outcomes following care (Hair, 2005;Wells, 1991), group care programs are prevalent. In this article, the term group care will be used interchangeably with residential care to label programs Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptChild Youth Serv Rev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 January 1. Published in final edited form as:Child Youth Serv Rev. 2008 ; 30(7): 746-757. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript that provide services 24-hours a day to...

show abstract

“…For instance, The National Adolescent and Child Treatment Study found that youth treated for "serious emotional disturbance" in public RTPs took three years to move from clinical to normal range of functioning (Greenbaum, Dedrick, Friedman, Kutash, Brown, Lardieri, & Pugh, 1996). In addition, based on published outcomes, reviewers have concluded that residential treatment is most appropriate for higher functioning, less vulnerable youth (Connor, Miller, Cunningham, & Melloni, 2002;Epstein, 2004;Gorske, Srebalus, Walls, 2003;Wells, 1991). Numerous other reviews of public RTPs conclude there is "no evidence" of lasting benefits for youth who received treatment: a significant portion of adolescents who function well at discharge subsequently experience a decline when transferred to a lower level-of-care (Curry, 1991;Epstein, 2004;Hair, 2005;Little, Kohm, & Thompson, 2005).…”

Section: A Multi-center Study Of Private Residential Treatment Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These null findings stand in contrast to the findings in the public RTP research corpus. A critical mass of research suggests that youth with relatively numerous and severe problems are less likely to benefit from treatment in public RTPs (Connor et al, 2002;Curry, 1991;Epstein, 2004;Gorske et al, 2003;Hussey & Guo, 2002). This finding, however, did not bear out in the present study.…”

Section: Jtsp • 41mentioning

confidence: 99%