Patterns of movement for youth within an integrated continuum of residential services

Huefner, Jonathan C.; James, Sigrid; Ringle, Jay L.; Thompson, Ronald W.; Daly, Daniel L.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.02.005

Cited by 32 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A related controversy in the literature surrounds whether youth are appropriately matched to level or restrictiveness of care based on clinical need (e.g., Farmer et al, 2008; Huefner et al, 2010). Although youth in group homes have high rates of maltreatment and psychiatric disorders (Chow et al, 2012; Lee & Thompson, 2009), little is known about patterns of such characteristics, including their co-occurrence, among youth in group homes and variation across levels or restrictiveness of care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within a continuum of services framework, it is often assumed that a youth’s emotional and behavioral needs correspond with the intensity of their treatment (Barth, 2002). Indeed, certain youth may present with greater needs that require a more restrictive placement that provides more intensive services than a lower level of care can provide (Huefner, James, Ringle, Thompson, & Daly, 2010; Lieberman, 2004). However, there are inconsistent findings on the match between youth needs and level of care.…”

Section: Match Between Clinical Needs and Level Of Carementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patterns of maltreatment and diagnosis across levels of care in group homes

Seifert

Farmer

Wagner

et al. 2015

Child Abuse & Neglect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patterns of Axis I psychiatric diagnosis and maltreatment history were explored among youth in group homes, including match of clinical need to level or restrictiveness of care. Data on demographics, diagnoses, maltreatment, and group home level of care (Level I, II, or III homes, representing lower to higher intensity of supervision and treatment) were obtained from 523 youth who participated in a quasi-experimental study of group homes. Three quarters of youth had a diagnosis and two thirds of youth had a maltreatment history. Youth in higher level homes had more diagnoses and higher rates of all disorders except adjustment disorders. Youth in Level I homes had a history of more maltreatment types, particularly high rates of neglect. Sexual abuse, physical abuse, and emotional abuse were most common among youth in higher level homes. Regardless of diagnosis history, comparable proportions of youth had a maltreatment history, and similar patterns were found across levels of care. Together, findings indicate that group homes with varying degrees of restrictiveness serve youth with different psychiatric diagnosis and maltreatment histories. Youth triaged to higher level homes had more diagnoses, while youth placed in the least restrictive homes had a history of more maltreatment subtypes. Further, distinct patterns of diagnosis types and maltreatment subtypes were seen across homes. Implications include the importance of assessing unique clinical needs of youth to promote an appropriate match to level of care and treatment plan.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Match Between Clinical Needs and Level Of Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of maltreatment and diagnosis across levels of care in group homes

Seifert

Farmer

Wagner

et al. 2015

Child Abuse & Neglect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As such, placement assignment may not always be intentional or reflect the logic on which the continuum of services is based. Regardless of these confounding factors, behavior problems are, at least in theory, viewed as an important factor that should affect both initial placement into group care as well as eventual stepping down from group care placement to less restrictive settings (Huefner, James, Ringle, Thompson, & Daly, 2010). …”

Section: Behavior Problems and Other Predictors Of Group Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics and Behavioral Outcomes for Youth in Group Care and Family-Based Care

James

Roesch

Zhang

2011

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to answer two questions: (a) Given expected differences in children who are placed in group care compared to those in family-based settings, is it possible to match children on baseline characteristics? (b) Are there differences in behavioral outcomes for youth with episodes in group care versus those in family-based care? Using data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, the study sample included 1,191 children with episodes in out-of-home care (n = 254 youth with group care episodes; n = 937 youth with episodes in family-based care and no group care). Conditioning variables were identified, which distinguished between the two groups of youth. Using propensity score matching, all youth placed into group care were matched on the propensity score with family-based care youth. Behavioral outcomes at 36 months, as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist, were compared for the matched sample. Of the total 254 youth with group care episodes, 157 could be matched to youth with episodes in family-based care. No significant differences remained between the two groups in the matched sample, and findings revealed no significant differences in longitudinal behavioral outcomes.

show abstract

“…Some studies have indicated that movement to a more restrictive placement and an increase in the severity of behavior problems are correlated (Handwerk, Friman, Mott, & Stairs, 1998; Huefner, James, Ringle, Thompson, & Daly, 2010; Nash, Thompson, & Kim, 2006). Yet there is also countervailing evidence that a substantial number of children placed into the most restrictive settings have needs that are no more severe than those of children in lower level family-based care (Breland-Noble, Farmer, Dubs, Potter, & Burns, 2005; Farmer, Mustillo, Burns, & Holdern, 2008; James, Roesch, & Zhang, 2011; Lyons, Libman-Mintzer, Kisiel, & Shallcross, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

12-month follow-up outcomes for youth departing an integrated residential continuum of care

Ringle

Huefner

James

et al. 2012

Children and Youth Services Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the 12-month post-departure outcomes for youth who exited a residential treatment program at differing levels of restrictiveness. Study participants were 120 youth who entered an integrated residential continuum of care at its most restrictive level and then either departed the program at the same level or stepped down and departed at a lower level of restrictiveness. Results indicate that youth who stepped down and exited at the lowest level of restrictiveness were the most likely to be living at home or in a homelike setting and experienced fewer formal post-departure out-of-home placements. However, there were no differences in post-departure rates of substance use, arrests, or being in school or having graduated. These results suggest that youth who were served in the integrated continuum and departed at the lowest level of restrictiveness had more positive outcomes at 12-month post-discharge.

show abstract

Patterns of movement for youth within an integrated continuum of residential services

Cited by 32 publications

References 53 publications

Patterns of maltreatment and diagnosis across levels of care in group homes

Patterns of maltreatment and diagnosis across levels of care in group homes

Characteristics and Behavioral Outcomes for Youth in Group Care and Family-Based Care

12-month follow-up outcomes for youth departing an integrated residential continuum of care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About