Toward an effective treatment system for adolescents with substance use disorders: The role of the states

Children and Youth Services Review

Volumn 33, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2011, Pages

  Cavanaugh, Doreen ^a   Kraft, M Katherine ^b   Muck, Randolph ^c,e   Merrigan, Daniel M ^d  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b US Department of Health and Human Services ^*  (United States)

^c SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION   (United States)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Advocates for Youth and Family Behavioral Health   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescent substance use disorders; Financing; Reclaiming futures; Systems change; Treatment; Workforce development

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051580261     PISSN: 01907409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Aldrich H., Herker D. Boundary spanning roles and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review 1977, 2:217-230.
2. Cavanaugh, D. A., & White, A. (2003). Adolescent substance abuse treatment system summit report. Unpublished report submitted to the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
3. DeFur S. Transition planning: A team effort. Transition summary 1999, 10. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY), Washington, DC.
4. Degeling P. The significance of "sectors" in calls for urban public health inter-sectoralism: An Australian perspective. Policy and Politics 1995, 23(4):289-301.
5. Dennis M.L., White M.K. The effectiveness of adolescent substance abuse treatment: A brief summary of studies through 2001, prepared for Drug Strategies adolescent treatment handbook 2003, Chestnut Health Systems, Bloomington, IL, Retrieved from. http://www.drugstrategies.org.
6. McGuire M. Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review 2006, 66(s1):33-43.
7. Nissen L.B. Boundary spanners revisited: A qualitative inquiry into cross-system reform through the experience of youth service professionals. Qualitative Social Work 2010, 9(3):365-384. 10.1177/1473325010367815.
8. Noble D. Knowledge foundations of effective collaboration. Ninth international command and control research and technology symposium coalition transformation: An evolution of people, processes, and technology to enhance interoperability 2004, Copenhagen, Denmark.
9. Pratt J., Gordon P., Plamping D. Working whole systems: Putting theory into practice in organisations 1999, King's Fund, London.
10. Ranade W., Hudson B. Conceptual issues in inter-agency collaboration. Local Government Studies 2003, 29(3):32-50.
11. Shrum W. Status incongruence among boundary spanners: Structure, exchange, and conflict. American Sociological Review 1990, 55(August):496-511.
12. Smith S.L., Hornberger S., Brewington-Carr S., Finck C., O'Neill C., Cavanaugh D., Bender C. Family involvement in adolescent substance abuse treatment. Improving access to and quality of treatment for adolescents with substance use/co-occurring mental health disorders 2009, March, 1(1):1-7. Retrieved from. http://www.momstell.com/downloads/SAC_Fam_Involve_Issue_Brief%20FINAL.pdf.
13. U.S.Government Accountability Office (GAO) Results-oriented government: Practices that can help enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 2005.
14. Williams P. The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration 2002, 80(1):103-125.