Diana Bowser, Brandy F Henry, Gail A Wasserman, Danica Knight, Sheena Gardner, Kate Krupka, Bill Grossi, Margaret Cawood, Tisha Wiley, Angela Robertson
{"title":"Comparison of the Overlap between Juvenile Justice Processing and Behavioral Health Screening, Assessment and Referral.","authors":"Diana Bowser, Brandy F Henry, Gail A Wasserman, Danica Knight, Sheena Gardner, Kate Krupka, Bill Grossi, Margaret Cawood, Tisha Wiley, Angela Robertson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given the large proportion of youth involved in the juvenile justice system who meet criteria for behavioral health disorders, the system is charged with delivering not only criminal justice programing, but also behavioral health services. Behavioral health service delivery is typically done through collaborative partnerships with behavioral health agencies. This study created process maps which describe the flows and boundaries of these partnerships with respect to screening, assessment and referral to treatment. Process maps of juvenile justice and behavioral health systems from six juvenile departments in different states (Mississippi, Kentucky, New York, Georgia, Texas, and Pennsylvania) are presented. Both the methodology of creating process maps and results from the analysis of the maps are presented. Results indicate that behavioral health screening, assessment, and referral to treatment were occurring at all sites, typically with standardized tools. Overall trends were that juveniles tended to have more screenings, assessments, and referrals to behavioral health services as they moved deeper into the juvenile justice system and were placed into more formal juvenile justice services. Within the analysis of interagency communication, these results were mirrored; settings that were more formal and located deeper into the juvenile justice system had more robust interagency communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":73606,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied juvenile justice services","volume":"2018 ","pages":"97-125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6342497/pdf/nihms-1002791.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied juvenile justice services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Given the large proportion of youth involved in the juvenile justice system who meet criteria for behavioral health disorders, the system is charged with delivering not only criminal justice programing, but also behavioral health services. Behavioral health service delivery is typically done through collaborative partnerships with behavioral health agencies. This study created process maps which describe the flows and boundaries of these partnerships with respect to screening, assessment and referral to treatment. Process maps of juvenile justice and behavioral health systems from six juvenile departments in different states (Mississippi, Kentucky, New York, Georgia, Texas, and Pennsylvania) are presented. Both the methodology of creating process maps and results from the analysis of the maps are presented. Results indicate that behavioral health screening, assessment, and referral to treatment were occurring at all sites, typically with standardized tools. Overall trends were that juveniles tended to have more screenings, assessments, and referrals to behavioral health services as they moved deeper into the juvenile justice system and were placed into more formal juvenile justice services. Within the analysis of interagency communication, these results were mirrored; settings that were more formal and located deeper into the juvenile justice system had more robust interagency communication.