Crisis Response programs are made up of teams of individuals trained to intervene in cases where youth’s health or safety is threatened, resolve serious conflicts between parent/guardians and the youth regarding the youth’s conduct or disregard for authority, or runaway behavior. Law enforcement notifies Crisis Response teams when they are called to a location where there is a situation as mentioned above, and the staff/team works with the youth and their family/those involved in the situation to come to a solution the make sure the youth and others are safe. The solution can include creating a safety plan with the youth and family, services being provided to the youth and family to keep the youth at home, and/or the youth being places outside of the home. The Crisis Response staff/team can also recommend services within the community to address the needs of the youth/family as part of the resolution process, and follow-up with the family if needed.
Crisis Respite falls under Crisis Response programs, and is a temporary placement for a youth outside of the home to provide relief for parents or caregivers. This is not an extended placement.
This video reviews the steps to add referral information to the Crisis Respite screens in the JCMS.
This video reviews the steps to add follow-up and referral information to the Crisis Response screens in the JCMS.
A Meta-Analysis of 36 Crisis Intervention Studies (Roberts, A. & Everly, Jr., G 2006)
This article is designed to increase our knowledge base about effective and contraindicated types of crisis intervention. A number of crisis intervention studies focus on the extent to which psychiatric morbidity (e.g., depressive disorders, suicide ideation, and posttraumatic stress disorder) was reduced as a result of individual or group crisis interventions or multicomponent critical incident stress management (CISM). In addition, family preservation, also known as in-home intensive crisis intervention, focused on the extent to which out-of-home placement of abused children was reduced at follow-up. There are a small number of evidence-based crisis intervention programs with documented effectiveness. This exploratory meta-analysis of the crisis intervention research literature assessed the results of the most commonly used crisis intervention treatment modalities. This exploratory meta-analysis documented high average effect sizes that demonstrated that both adults in acute crisis or with trauma symptoms and abusive families in acute crisis can be helped with intensive crisis intervention and multicomponent CISM in a large number of cases. We conclude that intensive home-based crisis intervention with families as well as multicomponent CISM are effective interventions. Crisis intervention is not a panacea, and booster sessions are often necessary several months to 1 year after completion of the initial intensive crisis intervention program. Good diagnostic criteria are necessary in using this modality because not all situations are appropriate for it. PDF
Is Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Evidence-Based ?(Kim, Smock, Trepper, McCollum, & Franklin, 2010)
This article describes the process of having solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) be evaluated by various federal registries as an evidence-based practice (EBP) intervention. The authors submitted SFBT for evaluation for inclusion on three national EBP registry lists in the United States: the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Results of our submission found SFBT was not reviewed by SAMHSA and WWC because it was not prioritized highly enough for review, but it was rated as “promising” by OJJDP. Implications for practitioners and recommendations regarding the status of SFBT as an EBP model are discussed. PDF
Randomized trial on the effectiveness of long and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy and solution-focused therapy on psychiatric symptoms during 3-year follow-up (P. Knekt, et al 2007)
Background. Insufficient evidence exists for a viable choice between long- and short-term psychotherapies in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. The present trial compares the effectiveness of one long-term therapy and two short term therapies in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders.
Method. In the Helsinki Psychotherapy Study, 326 out-patients with mood (84.7%) or anxiety disorder (43.6%) were randomly assigned to three treatment groups (long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy, short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy, and solution-focused therapy) and were followed up for 3 years from start of treatment. Primary outcome measures were depressive symptoms measured by self-report Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and observer rated Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), and anxiety symptoms measured by self-report Symptom Check List Anxiety Scale (SCL-90-Anx) and observer-rated Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA). Results. A statistically significant reduction of symptoms was noted for BDI (51 %), HAMD (36 %), SCL-90-Anx (41%) and HAMA (38%) during the 3-year follow-up. Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy was more effective than long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy during the first year, showing 15–27% lower scores for the four outcome measures. During the second year of follow-up no significant differences were found between the short-term and long-term therapies, and after 3 years of follow-up long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy was more effective with 14–37% lower scores for the outcome variables. No statistically significant differences were found in the effectiveness of the short-term therapies. Conclusions. Short-term therapies produce benefits more quickly than long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy but in the long run long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy is superior to short-term therapies. However, more research is needed to determine which patients should be given long-term psychotherapy for the treatment of mood or anxiety disorders. PDF