PubMed · 261299
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M E Bushnell. Institutions in transition.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6163.1979.tb00988.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
A major aspect of the effort of the Mental Health Systems Evaluation Project of the Northwest Denver Community Health Center's has involved studying the utilization of program evaluation data by community mental health center managers and clinicians. The intent of this effort was twofold: to assess the impact of program evaluation feedback in the community mental health center per se; and to investigate factors that influenced this impact. The impact of such input was assessed initially at the level of "subjective utility." Later attempts involved more extended or interactive forms of input and impact assessment. Basic findings to date suggest that program evaluation data are most likely to have impact when directed at the managers most closely involved with the service at issue, and when presented, preferably simply and personally, in ways that insure an understanding of the data and its implications by those receiving it.
This paper reports on the status of consultation and education in the rural community mental health center: First, it describes the rural programs on several organizational dimensions as compared to nonrural programs. Second, it identifies several distinctive characteristics of rural programs. Third, it presents a case illustration of a successful consultation-education service. Finally, it discusses strategies for strengthening consultation and education in the rural setting. The paper is based on the findings of a study of prevention programs in community mental health centers in Region III (Pensylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Virginia, and West Virginia).
What happens to community mental health centers when federal funding ends? Analysis of the funding patterns of a cohort of "graduate" community mental health centers indicates that these centers remained fiscally viable subsequent to termination of basic federal grants. However, further analysis revealed two distinct funding patterns within the cohort. One group relied primarily on increased third-party reimbursements to offset the end of basic federal grants. The other sought more state funds and additional federal grants available through the Community Mental Health Center Amendments of 1975. As more centers "graduate," federal "floor funding" may be necessary to insure the survival of some of them.