Community Psychology and Mental Health Discussion

Answer both questions at-least 200 words EACH. Please use more words if needed to answer the entire question. Using the sources provided (chapter 6 reading that is below with the URL link and other articles in uploaded file) to answer both questions each. Use in text citation and no plagiarism!

 

Topic: Community Psychology and Mental Health

 

1. Discuss the differences between the four different Models of Mental health and Mental Disorders. How did Community Psychology respond to each of the Models? Choose one of the four models and explain how Community Psychology can better serve individuals than the model can? Is there an instance where you think Community Psychology cannot better serve individuals with mental health issues? Use scholarly sources to support your explanations.

 

2. How has the mental health system changed over time? How do you think it could continue to improve? Use scholarly sources to support your explanations.

 

 

The reading below with aid in both questions as well as other material in uploaded file.

*Chapter 6* Moritsugu, J., Vera, E., Wong, F. & Duffy, K. (2016). The mental health system. In Community Psychology. 5th ed. New York: Taylor and Francis. URL: https://www.homeworkforyou.com/static_media/uploadedfiles/Community%20Psychology-Routledge%20(2013)%20John%20Moritsugu.pdf

 

Please take note that other articles which are schloarly to help in answering both questions are in the uploaded file. Although, scholarly sources can be used, please consider the given material first.

Answer both questions at-least 200 words EACH. Please use more words if needed to answer the entire question. Using the sources provided (chapter 6 reading that is below with the URL link and other articles in uploaded file) to answer both questions each. Use in text citation and no plagiarism! Topic: Community Psychology and Mental Health

1. Discuss the differences between the four different Models of Mental health and Mental Disorders. How did Community Psychology respond to each of the Models? Choose one of the four models and explain how Community Psychology can better serve individuals than the model can? Is there an instance where you think Community Psychology cannot better serve individuals with mental health issues? Use scholarly sources to support your explanations.

2. How has the mental health system changed over time? How do you think it could continue to improve? Use scholarly sources to support your explanations.

The reading below with aid in both questions as well as other material in uploaded file. *Chapter 6* Moritsugu, J., Vera, E., Wong, F. & Duffy, K. (2016). The mental health system. In Community Psychology. 5th ed. New York: Taylor and Francis. URL: https://www.homeworkforyou.com/static_media/uploadedfiles/Community%20PsychologyRoutledge%20(2013)%20John%20Moritsugu.pdf

Please take note that other articles which are schloarly to help in answering both questions are in the uploaded file. Although, scholarly sources can be used, please consider the given material first.  C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 48(4), 2011 View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.20561 CLOSING THE GAP IN SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH: A COMMUNITY-CENTERED MODEL FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY JONI WILLIAMS SPLETT AND MELISSA A. MARAS University of Missouri-Columbia Disciplines involved in the development and/or provision of services in school mental health have recognized the promise of evidence-based practices in meeting the growing unmet mental health needs of children, adolescents, and families in this country. Community Psychology and Mental Health Discussion

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CUSTOM PAPERS

As a result, School Psychology has strongly emphasized the development and dissemination of evidence-based practices through professional development opportunities and published literature. Despite these efforts, evidencebased practices are not implemented as widely or as effectively as intended. This article describes a community-centered (CC) model for closing the research-to-practice gap in school mental health. CC models emphasize both adopting new practices successfully and improving existing practices through a process of planning, implementation, and evaluation, and an exemplar framework based in a CC model is presented and applied to school mental health. The role of school psychologists in leading schools to adopt CC models is discussed, and next steps for changes to training, practice, C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and research paradigms are presented.  Schools have rapidly evolved to become the de facto context for the provision of mental health supports and services for young people in this country. This shift has been paralleled by an increased emphasis across all health and service disciplines on “doing what works” to produce positive, measurable outcomes.

As such, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers in school mental health have focused almost solely on the development of evidence-based practices (i.e., evidence-based programs [EBPs]) for schools and the implementation of EBPs in schools (Hoagwood & Johnson, 2003). School Psychology as a field has been pivotal in this movement. The discipline includes researchers who are developing and researching school-based interventions and practitioners who are adopting EBPs in their schools. In these roles, school psychologists trained as research practitioners can work together to bridge the gap in school-based research and practice within a single discipline, making them crucial in efforts to translate evidence-based mental health practices to school settings. Despite laudable successes thus far, the development of EBPs has not resulted in the effective and widespread implementation of EBPs in schools. This article will argue that unilateral emphasis on EBPs in school mental health has stymied progress in the field of School Psychology and that a new framework that dually promotes best practices and best practice processes should be considered.

As key stakeholders supporting effective practices in school mental health, school psychologists’ knowledge of EBPs is necessary but not sufficient to achieve positive outcomes in schools. This article will describe the potential role of school psychologists in a comprehensive and concrete process of planning, implementing, and evaluating EBPs and existing practice in the school setting. Finally, the typical skills of a school psychologist will be compared to the skills required to engage in this process, and next steps for improving training and practice will be recommended. N EED FOR E VIDENCE -BASED P RACTICES IN S CHOOL S ETTINGS Unmet Mental Health Need An increase in the mental health needs of children coupled with poor access to services has made schools a popular and ideal access point for the delivery of mental health services to youth (President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003; Stephan, Weist, Kataoka, Correspondence to: Joni Williams Splett, School Psychology Department, University of Missouri, 16 Hill Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: jdwtn8@mail.missouri.edu 385 386 Splett and Maras Adelsheim, & Mills, 2007; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1991).

Schools not only offer improved access to treatment for all children, but they also provide a venue for prevention through early identification of mental health problems (Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001). The development of school-based prevention programs for mental health problems such as disruptive behaviors [e.g., First Steps to Success (Walker et al., 1998)], aggressive behaviors and anger outbursts [e.g., Coping Power Program (Lochman & Wells, 2004)], anxiety, suicide ideation, and poor social skills has proliferated over the last decade (Hoagwood, Burns, Kiser, Ringeisen, & Schoenwald, 2001; Kratochwill & Stoiber, 2002). With this increase in available prevention programming has come a simultaneous emphasis on evidence and accountability. EBPs in Schools The research supporting EBPs in schools establishes them as being the most effective, empirically supported practices available and suggests that schools could obtain more positive outcomes if such programs were implemented.

As a result, the increased focus on developing and disseminating EBPs to school mental health programs has drastically intensified the accountability demand on schools to meet not only students’ academic needs, but also their social and emotional needs. Moving the provision of mental health services from community-based agencies into schools and demanding inclusion of EBPs as the type of service provided requires comprehensive systems change to transform “business as usual” in schools (Lyons, 2004). Schools must possess a complex set of organizational and individual capacities to ensure that their daily practices include the provision of effective school mental health services. For example, schools must not only have adequate physical space, but also demonstrate an institutional commitment to providing evidence-based mental health services by hiring necessary personnel and allotting the financial and personnel resources needed to deliver quality and effective services. These demands present many obstacles for schools making the inclusion of EBPs delivered by well-trained staff with sufficient time in their schedules devoted to planning and implementation quite difficult. School psychologists are increasingly identified as the professionals called on to lead the way in implementing EBPs as part of the school mental health services, and they are required to be strong change agents with exceptional knowledge of EBPs and effective service delivery.

S CHOOL P SYCHOLOGY AND EBP S As a result of this new professional role and associated need for competency development in implementing and delivering EBPs, a significant amount of professional development time in the field of school psychology has focused on training for specific EBPs. Conventions and conferences, as well as the literature in school psychology, reveal this prioritized effort within the field (see Final Programs for National Association of School Psychologists [NASP] 2007, 2008, and 2009 Annual Conventions for a brief review; Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2004; Kratochwill, Volpiansky, Clements, & Ball, 2007). The Evidence-based Interventions in School Psychology Task Force (herein called the EBI Task Force) formed by Division 16 of the American Psychological Association has recommended that, in addition to professional development across local, state, regional, and national conferences of various professional organizations, graduate coursework should focus on integrating specific EBPs into their curriculum such that school psychologists are able to identify EBPs and demonstrate competency in implementing specific practices and programs upon entrance into the workforce (Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2004).

The movement toward EBPs within school psychology and across various fields and disciplines represents a serious investment of resources in producing demonstrable positive impacts at the societal level. Given that EBPs are cited as best practice in the field of school psychology, this Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits Closing the Gap in School Mental Health FIGURE 1. 387 Five steps of the RtP model and bidirectional arrow between research and practice in CC models. widespread effort is merited. The model underlying the processes of development and dissemination of EBPS supports the transfer of science to practice. Less attention has focused on the consideration of the school setting within these processes; that is, translating practice into science (Wandersman, 2003). Research-to-Practice Model EBPs are typically developed through a process articulated and promoted by the Institute of Medicine (Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994). This prevention research cycle is the dominant model for developing EBPs and has been referred to as the “Research-to-Practice” (RtP) model (Flaspohler, Duffy, Wandersman, Stillman, & Maras, 2008). Community Psychology and Mental Health Discussion

As seen in Figure 1, the RtP model includes five steps. The first four steps include activities to develop new practices and interventions and collect high-quality evidence to determine their effectiveness, requiring rigorous research methodology (e.g., randomized control trials) with high levels of control, internal validity, and sophisticated statistical analyses. The final step in the RtP model is referred to as the “knowledge exchange process” (Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994), which includes dissemination activities to implement the intervention (which is now an EBP) into a community setting, such as a school, health care clinic, mental health agency, or neighborhood. The knowledge exchange process is a challenging component of the RtP model because it seeks to bridge the gap between interventions developed in the research setting and interventions adopted and implemented in the real world (Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001). The vast differences between the needs, goals, and resources of each setting result in many obstacles in transporting EBPs to schools (Flaspohler et al., 2008). In an effort to address these challenges, the field has developed a variety of clearinghouses (e.g., the What Works Clearinghouse published online by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/); manuals (e.g., the Procedural and Coding Manual for Review of Evidence-Based Interventions produced by the Evidence-based Interventions in School Psychology Task Force, http://www.indiana.edu/∼ebi/EBIManual.pdf); and meta-analytic reviews of EBPs for specific concerns (e.g., bullying, violence, and substance abuse prevention; Derzon, 2006; Ennett et al., 2003), which have improved the accessibility of EBPs for practitioners across disciplines and settings.

Gaps in Translating RtP Despite these efforts, schools still face many difficulties in implementing EBPs as widely, quickly, or effectively as many would prefer (Chamberlin, 2009; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002). Research has found that factors related to the ability of schools to sustainably implement EBPs include degree of involvement in program selection by local school and community professionals, quality of training of service providers, integration of EBP into regular school operations, organizational capacity (e.g., communication), administrative support, and program standardization Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits 388 Splett and Maras (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002; Gottfredson et al., 2000; Payne, 2009). Research has shown that, when schools are adopting EBPs, programs are often not implemented as designed because of the challenging demands of implementing EBPs with existing school capacities (Battistich, Schaps, Watson, & Solomon, 1996; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Skroban, 1996).

This unintentional and often haphazard adaptation of a program based on a school’s capacity to implement the program compromises the integrity of the intervention such that (a) it may no longer meet the needs of the school, (b) the empirical basis for selecting the intervention may no longer be relevant, and (c) outcomes may be no better than if the intervention had not been implemented at all (Battistich et al., 1996; Wandersman & Florin, 2003). These challenges and organizational factors suggest that schools need more than just access to or knowledge of EBPs. Other fields producing EBPs through the RtP model are also encountering a dissemination and implementation roadblock (e.g., community psychology: Flaspohler, Anderson-Butcher, Paternite, Weist, & Wandersman, 2006; psychiatry: Glasgow, Lichtenstein, & Marcus, 2003; clinical psychology: Hoagwood et al., 2001). Some have suggested that the gap is an inherent flaw in the model because the linear process of demonstrating efficacy does not naturally flow to effectiveness (Glasgow et al., 2003).

In other words, the RtP model’s stepwise process of establishing the efficacy of EBPs in the research setting and expecting them to progress to effectiveness in practice and widespread dissemination in such a linear manner is highly unlikely and flawed. Rather, the process must include steps that consider the culture, values, concerns, existing practices, and capacity of the practice setting before expecting widespread adoption of EBPs. This type of community-centered (CC) process has been written about, proposed, and used by other fields, namely public health and community psychology. It could provide an expanded perspective for school psychology to support the field in bridging the gap between research and practice in school mental health.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CUSTOM PAPERS

C OMMUNITY-C ENTERED M ODELS AS AN A PPROACH TO C LOSING THE G AP Although CC models have not been written about or discussed a great deal in the field of school psychology, their application to the field’s recent emphasis on improving outcomes of school mental health services and closing the RtP gap deserves consideration. CC models differ philosophically and practically from the RtP model, and one important distinction is that the RtP model focuses solely on how research is brought into schools as new practices whereas CC models focus on both adopting new practices successfully and improving existing practices within schools (Flaspohler et al., 2008). CC models start with the identified needs of the community or practitioner and then identify best practices to address that need within the existing context. Best practices may include EBPs if available and relevant to the context and concern; alternately, the best practice may be an existing, indigenous practice that has informal, unscientific support but strong community/practitioner buy-in.

CC models rely heavily on high quality, iterative evaluation, and the skills of practitioners to engage communities in ongoing processes of improvement. In support of the CC approach, Wandersman (2003) argues that the RtP gap is bidirectional, thus implying that a gap is also present between practice and research and that there should be arrows going both ways between the fourth and fifth boxes of the RtP model (see Figure 1). In the RtP model, the gap occurs from left to right between research and practice (i.e., the right pointing arrow in Figure 1), suggesting that the need for change to close the gap lies within the practice setting (e.g., practitioners are not ready for change, capacity is not sufficient). In contrast, CC models suggest that the gap occurs from right to left between practice and research (the left pointing arrow in Figure 1), and the need for change lies within the research setting (e.g., development of EBPs should occur within the context of practice based on what the setting needs and can sustain). The process promoted by CC models is cited as a “best practice process” by several researchers, who also argue that it is Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits Closing the Gap in School Mental Health 389 just as important for schools to adopt best practice programs as it is to use a best practice process in planning, implementing, and evaluating EBPs (Green, 2001). Community Psychology and Mental Health Discussion

One key feature of best practice processes is that they are intended to simultaneously support the effectiveness of a targeted practice while building general capacity to identify, implement, evaluate, and improve other practices among practitioners or practice settings. For example, a best practice process may help a school’s staff to more effectively implement a suicide prevention program by building their knowledge of the specific program while also building the general capacity of the school staff to plan, implement, and evaluate other practices, such as bullying prevention or health promotion programs. Wandersman and Florin (2003) argue that the RtP model fails because it is insufficient in building capacity in these areas. They contend that, the RtP model, despite providing detailed and lengthy manuals and training specific to a given EBP, fails to provide guidance for practitioners in addressing their needs, resources, goals, community fit, implementation plan, process evaluation, continuous quality improvement (CQI) or sustainability (e.g., Steps 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10). In other words, while the RtP model for development and widespread implementation of EBPs provides a well-designed process for the researcher, it fails to provide an adequate process for the practitioner.

One best practice process that is grounded in a CC model and is practitioner-friendly is Getting to Outcomes (GTO), a framework developed to help practitioners achieve outcomes and satisfy accountability demands through processes of planning, implementation, and evaluation (Wandersman, Imm, Chinman, & Kaftarian, 1999, 2000) (the trademarks “Getting to Outcomes” and “GTO” are owned by the University of South Carolina). The basic GTO framework (described in detail later in text) has been used to develop comprehensive tools to promote effective practice in preventing teen pregnancy, promoting developmental assets, implementing systems of change, and emergency disaster planning (Wandersman, et al., 1999, 2000). In 2008, GTO received the American Evaluation Association’s Outstanding Publication Award in recognition of its significant contribution to research and practice. GTO: An Exemplar CC Model The GTO process includes 10 steps to guide readers and practitioners through the pl … Community Psychology and Mental Health Discussion