Skip to main content
Log in

Barriers and facilitators to use of services following intensive family preservation services

  • Articles
  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The primary caregivers of 101 families that used short-term, intensive home-based services were interviewed 2 months after the services to ascertain use of the recommended aftercare services, perceived barriers to service use, and perceived facilitators of service use. While 88% of the families accessed at least some of the recommended services, more than 50% failed to access all of the recommended aftercare services. The most often noted barriers to service use were enabling factors at the agency or community level. Yet, many of the services were used, and the respondents indicated that professionals played a role in helping them link to services. Researchers should continue to study the use of recommended aftercare services and the relationship between aftercare service use and clinical outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Forsythe P: Homebuilders and family preservation.Children and Youth Services Review 1992; 14:37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kinney J, Haapala D, Booth C, et al.: The Homebuilders model. In: Whittaker JK, Kinney J, Tracy EM, et al. (Eds.):Reaching High-Risk Families: Intensive Family Preservation in Human Services. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 31–64.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Whittaker JK, Tracy EM: Family preservation services and education for social work practice: Stimulus and response. In: Whittaker JK, Kinney J, Tracy EM, et al. (Eds.):Reaching High-Risk Families: Intensive Family Preservation in Human Services. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barth RP: Theories guiding home-based intensive family preservation services. In Whittaker JK, Kinney J, Tracy EM, et al. (Eds.):Reaching High-Risk Families: Intensive Family Preservation in Human Services. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Grigsby RK: Theories that guide intensive family preservation service: A second look. In: Morton ES, Grigsby RK (Eds.):Advancing Family Preservation Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993, pp. 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Besharov DJ: Looking beyond 30, 60, and 90 days.Children and Youth Services Review 1994; 16:445–452.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yelton SW, Friedman RM: Family preservation services: Their role within the children's mental health system. In: Wells K, Biegel DE (Eds.):Family Preservation Services: Research and Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991, pp. 223–240.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Adams P: Marketing social change: The case of family preservation.Children and Youth Services Review 1994; 16:417–431.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stroul BA:Series on Community-Based Services for Children and Adolescents Who Are Severely Emotionally Disturbed, Vol. 1:Home-Based Services. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Unrau YA: Predicting use of child welfare services after intensive family preservation services.Research on Social Work Practice 1997; 7:202–215.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wells K, Whittington D: Child and family functioning after intensive family preservation services.Social Service Review 1993; 76:55–83.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pfeiffer SI, Strzelecki SC: Inpatient psychiatric treatment of children and adolescents: A review of outcome studies.Journal of American Academy Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1990; 29:847–853.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Allerhand M, Weber R, Haug M:Adaptation and Adaptability: The Bellefaire Follow-up Study. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Blotcky MJ, Dimperio TL, Gossett JT: Follow-up of children treated in psychiatric hospitals: A review of studies.American Journal of Psychiatry 1984; 141:1499–1506.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gossett JT, Lewis SB, Lewis JM, et al.: Follow-up of adolescents treated in a psychiatric hospital: I. A review of studies.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1973; 43:602–610.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meyerson AT, Herman GS: What's new in aftercare? A review of recent literature.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1983; 34:333–342.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Solomon P, Evans D, Delaney MA: Use of aftercare services by children and adolescents discharged from a state hospital.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1993; 9:932–934.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schuerman J, Rzepnicki TL, Littell JH:Putting Families First: An Experiment in Family Preservation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Epstein MH, Quinn K, Cumblad C:Needs Assessment Procedures and Measures. DeKalb, IL: Educational Research and Services Center, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Quinn KP, Epstein MH, Cumblad CL: Developing comprehensive, individualized community-based services for children and youth with emotional and behavior disorders: Direct services providers' perspectives.Journal of Child and Family Studies 1995; 4:19–42.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Quinn K, Epstein MH, Cumblad C, et al.: Needs assessment of community-based services for children and youth with emotional or behavioral disorders and their families: II. Implementation in a local system of care.Journal of Mental Health Administration 1996; 23:432–446.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Soderlund J, Epstein MH, Quinn KP, et al.: Parental perspectives on comprehensive services for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders 1995; 20:157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Andersen RM: Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter?Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1995; 31:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hu T-W, Snowden LR, Jerrell JM, et al.: Ethnic populations in public mental health: Services choice and level of use.American Journal of Public Health 1991; 81:1429–1434.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Staudt M:The Use of Aftercare Services following Intensive Family Preservation Services. Paper presented at the Tenth National Symposium on Doctoral Research in Social Work, Columbus, OH, May 8, 1998.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marlys Staudt Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Staudt, M. Barriers and facilitators to use of services following intensive family preservation services. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 26, 39–49 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287793

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287793

Keywords

Navigation