DOCSLIB.ORG

“Is Illinois Truly Embracing a System of Care Model for Children and Adolescents?”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Is Illinois Truly Embracing a System of Care Model for Children and Adolescents?” Illinois Children’s Behavioral Health Association Annual Winter Conference December 10-11, 2018 “Is Illinois Truly Embracing a System of Care Model for Children and Adolescents?” Sheila A. Pires Managing Partner, Human Service Collaborative Core Partner, National Technical Assistance Network for Children’s Behavioral Health Senior Consultant, Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc. Let’s begin by talking about children and families ….and why they need a system designed for them. Prevalence and Utilization How Many Children Face Prevalence/Utilization Triangle Mental Health Challenges? “An estimated 13-20% of children Intensive More Services in the US (up to 1 out of 5 children) complex – 60% of experience a mental disorder in a needs Home and given year…” 2 - 5% $$$ community services and Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mental health surveillance among supports; children – United States 2005-2011. MMWR 2013;62 (Suppl; May 16, 2013):1- and 35. The report is available at www.cdc.gov/mmwr early Universal 15% intervention Health –35% of $$ Promotion About one out of every ten youth is – 5% of $ estimated to meet the SAMHSA Less criteria for a Serious Emotional complex Disturbance (SED), defined as a needs 80% mental health problem that has a significant impact on a child's ability to function socially, Pires, S. (2010). Building systems of care: A primer, 2nd Edition. Washington, academically, and emotionally D.C.: Human Service Collaborative for Georgetown University National Costello, EJ, Egger, H, Angold, A. 10-year research update review: The Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health. epidemiology of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders: 1. Methods and public health burden. J Am Acad Child Adolescent Psychiatry. 2005. Oct; 44 (10): 972-86 Costs Mental Health Costliest Health Children in Medicaid Who Condition of Childhood Use Behavioral Health Care Are Expensive Population $30.00 • 11% of children in Medicaid use Mental behavioral health care $25.00 $8.90 Health Disorders • Account for 36% of all Medicaid child expenditures $20.00 Asthma • Mean expense at $10,259 is 4x $8.00 $15.00 higher than for children who do not use behavioral health services BILLIONS of of BILLIONS Dollars Trauma Related $10.00 • Mean expense for children in foster care $6.10 Conditions (e.g. at $12,130 is 5x higher accidents) Mean expense for children on SSI at $5.00 $3.10 Acute Bronchitis • $15,159 is over 6x higher $2.90 Infectious Diseases $0.00 • Mean expense for children on TANF at $5,082 is over twice as high Soni, 2009 (AHRQ Research Brief #242)) Pires, S., Gilmer, T., McLean, J. and Allen, K. 2018. Faces of Medicaid Series: Examining Children’s Behavioral Health Service Use and Expenditures:, 2005-2011. Center for Health Care Strategies: Hamilton, NJ. Available at: https://www.chcs.org/resource/faces-medicaid-examining-childrens- behavioral-health-service-utilization-expenditures/ Children Using Behavioral Health Care in Medicaid with Top 10% Highest Expenditures Have mean expenditures Expense is driven by use of of $46,959 behavioral health, not physical • BH expense: $36,646 health care • PH expense: $10,314 Major cost drivers • Residential treatment and therapeutic group homes • Psychotropic medications Pires, S., Gilmer, T., McLean, J. and Allen, K. 2018. Faces of Medicaid Series: Examining Children’s Behavioral Health Service Use and Expenditures:, 2005-2011. Center for Health Care Strategies: Hamilton, NJ. Available at: https://www.chcs.org/resource/faces-medicaid-examining-childrens-behavioral-health-service-utilization-expenditures/ Co-Morbid Physical Health Conditions Among Children in Medicaid Using Behavioral Health Care Frequency of Chronic Disability Payment System Categories among Children Using Behavioral Health Services in Medicaid, 2005, 2008, 2011 No. of 2005 2008 2011 CDPS Most children (60%) do No. of No. of No. of Categories % of Total % of Total % of Total not have co-morbid Children Children Children physical health 0 520219 62.1% 475,316 56.0% 651,952 60.1% conditions 1 219846 26.3% 237,555 28.0% 284,365 26.2% Of those that do - 2 66449 7.9% 83,862 9.9% 92,299 8.5% High prevalence of 3 20012 2.4% 30,197 3.6% 32,072 3.0% asthma Low prevalence of high- 4 6444 0.8% 12,292 1.4% 12,795 1.2% cost medical conditions 5 2412 0.3% 5,476 0.6% 5,594 0.5% 6 1028 0.1% 2,563 0.3% 4,045 0.4% 7+ 721 0.1% 1,971 0.2% 1,145 0.1% Total 837131 100.0% 849,232 100.0% 1,084,267 100.0% Pires, S., Gilmer, T., McLean, J. and Allen, K. 2018. Faces of Medicaid Series: Examining Children’s Behavioral Health Service Use and Expenditures:, 2005-2011. Center for Health Care Strategies: Hamilton, NJ. Available at: https://www.chcs.org/resource/faces-medicaid-examining-childrens-behavioral-health-service-utilization-expenditures/ Distribution of Psychiatric Diagnoses among Children in Medicaid Using Behavioral Health Services* ADHD 36.4% Conduct Disorder 32.5% Mood Disorder 31.9% Anxiety 21.4% SUD 6.1% PTSD 5.9% *Do not add to DD 5.3% 100% because children may receive multiple Psychosis 2.7% diagnoses Pires, S., Gilmer, T., McLean, J. and Allen, K. 2018. Faces of Medicaid Series: Examining Children’s Behavioral Health Service Use and Expenditures:, 2005-2011. Center for Health Care Strategies: Hamilton, NJ. Available at: https://www.chcs.org/resource/faces-medicaid-examining-childrens-behavioral-health-service-utilization-expenditures/ Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Behavioral Health Use NH/PI, 0.2% 100% NH/PI, 0.5% 8% AI/AN, 1.2% 11% AI/AN, 1.4% 90% Asian, 2.4% Asian, 0.7% 80% 17% 28% Other/Unknown 70% 23% Native Hawaiian or Pacific 60% Islander American Indian or Alaska Native 50% 23% 40% Asian 30% Hispanic or Latino 47% 20% 37% Black or African American 10% White 0% All Children in Medicaid* Behavioral Health Service Users** Pires, SA, Gilmer, T, Allen, K., McClean, J. 2017. Faces of Medicaid: Examining Children’s Behavioral Health Service Utilization and Expenditures Over Time, 2005-2011. (In process). Center for Health Care Strategies: Hamilton, NJ Children and Youth with Serious Behavioral Health Conditions Are A Distinct Population from Adults with Serious and Persistent Mental Illness Have different mental health diagnoses (ADHD, Conduct Disorders, Anxiety; not so Do not have the same much Schizophrenia, Psychosis, Bipolar as in high rates of co- adults), and diagnoses change often. morbid physical health conditions. Coordination with other children’s systems (CW, JJ, schools) and among behavioral health providers, as well as family issues, consumes most of care coordinator’s time, not Are multi-system coordination with primary care, though involved – two-thirds primary care coordination also important. typically are involved with CW and/or JJ systems and 60% may be To improve cost and quality of care, focus in special education – must be on child and family/caregiver(s) – systems governed by takes time – implies lower care coordination legal mandates. ratios and higher rates. Pires, S. March 2013 Customizing Health Homes for Children with Serious Behavioral Health Challenges. Human Service Collaborative. Washington, D.C. Factors Leading to System of Care Reforms Patterns of utilization; Lack of home and Deficit-based/medical racial/ethnic community-based models, limited types Poor outcomes disproportionality and services and supports of interventions disparities Administrative Knowledge, skills and Rigid financing Cost inefficiencies; attitudes of key structures fragmentation stakeholders Pires, S. (2010). Building systems of care: A primer, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.: Human Service Collaborative for Georgetown University National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health. Identified Needs in Illinois* •Additional care coordination across service systems •Reduce psychiatric hospitalization and residential placements •Reduce segregation of funding that results in fragmentation •Family-driven, youth-guided care •More flexible array of services •Culturally competent services •Maximize funding through blending, braiding, pooling funds •Transparency in utilization and cost data *Source: DHS: Pathways – Illinois’ Strategic Plan for Children’s Mental Health. 2013 11 What is a System of Care? A broad, flexible array of evidence-informed services and supports for defined populations, which: Is organized into a coordinated network; Integrates care planning and care management across multiple levels; Is culturally and linguistically competent; Builds meaningful partnerships with families and with youth at service delivery, management, and policy levels; Has supportive and collaborative management and policy infrastructure; Is data-driven; and Is co-financed across child-serving systems Pires, S. (2010). Building systems of care: A primer, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.: Human Service Collaborative for Georgetown University National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health. 12 Illinois System of Care Grants and Recommendations* Focal point of management & accountability at the state level Interagency structures to set policy An individualized, Wraparound approach System of Care Grants • State Expansion Grant Family-driven, youth-guided services • Project Access, Champaign County Strong youth and family partnership (e.g., involvement in policy, training, funding) • Lake County • Project Connect, southern tip Reduce racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities; improve cultural and linguistic competence of services • McHenry County • Chicago Increase use of Medicaid • Proviso
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wraparound-Key Information, Evidence, and Endorsements
    Wraparound—Key information, evidence, and endorsements March, 2007 Brief Wraparound is a team-based planning process intended to provide Description individualized, coordinated, family-driven care to meet the complex needs of children who are involved with several child- and family-serving systems (e.g. mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice, special education), who are at risk of placement in institutional settings, and who experience emotional, behavioral, or mental health difficulties. The wraparound process requires that families, providers, and key members of the family’s social support network collaborate to build a creative plan that responds to the particular needs of the child and family. Team members then implement the plan and continue to meet regularly to monitor progress and make adjustments to the plan as necessary. The team continues its work until members reach a consensus that a formal wraparound process is no longer needed. The values associated with wraparound require that the planning process itself, as well as the services and supports provided, should be individualized, family driven, culturally competent and community based. Additionally, the wraparound process should increase the “natural support” available to a family by strengthening interpersonal relationships and utilizing other resources that are available in the family’s network of social and community relationships. Finally, wraparound should be “strengths based,” helping the child and family to recognize, utilize, and build talents, assets, and positive capacities. It should be noted that wraparound is more a specific method for treatment planning and care coordination than a single treatment like many that are often featured in lists of evidence-based practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Wraparound Milwaukee: Aiding Youth with Mental Health Needs. INSTITUTION Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention (Dept
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 442 031 CG 030 029 AUTHOR Kamradt, Bruce TITLE Wraparound Milwaukee: Aiding Youth with Mental Health Needs. INSTITUTION Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention (Dept. of Justice), Washington, DC. PUB DATE 2000-04-00 NOTE 11p. PUB TYPE Journal Articles (080) JOURNAL CIT Juvenile Justice; v7 n1 pp14-23 Apr 2000 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Adolescents; Family Involvement; Financial Support; Health Maintenance Organizations; Individual Needs; *Juvenile Justice; *Mental Health; Mental Health Programs; Outcomes of Treatment; Psychological Needs IDENTIFIERS *Wisconsin (Milwaukee County) ABSTRACT Finding effective treatment models for youth in the juvenile justice system with serious emotional, mental health, and behavioral needs can be difficult. The traditional categorical approach that the juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health systems often use places youth in a "one-size-fits-all" program, regardless of the youth's needs. Wraparound Milwaukee takes a quite different approach. This approach, which is based on the Wraparound philosophy, offers care that is tailored to each youth. The following elements of the Wraparound approach have been found to be of particular importance when working with children in the juvenile justice system: a strength-based approach to children and families; family involvement in the treatment process; needs-based service planning and delivery; individualized service plans; and an outcome-focused approach. This program, which began in 1994, is made up of the following components: care coordination; the Child and Family Team; a mobile crisis team; and a provider network. Because Wraparound Milwaukee blends system funds, it can provide a flexible and comprehensive array of services to delinquent youth and their families.
    [Show full text]
  • Year End Report
    2019Year End Report Wraparound Milwaukee System of Care 2019 Wraparound Milwaukee System of Care Year End Report i Wraparound Milwaukee Vision, Mission A Leader of Change and Values in Action Vision To help build healthy and strong communities by enhancing children and families’ ability to meet life’s challenges and to foster resiliency and hope for a better future. Mission 1. To serve each youth and family with respect and dignity acknowledging their strengths, needs, and preferences. 2. To partner with the agencies that work with families to create one plan for a better life. 3. To support youth and their families to remain safely in their homes and communities. 4. To provide quality care that is culturally responsive to the diverse needs of the families we serve. 5. To provide leadership in creating lasting resources for families in their communities. Values in Action Wraparound Milwaukee’s history and practice is driven by a steadfast commitment to core values. When questions arise, problems occur, and decisions need to be made, going back to these core values helps guide how Wraparound Milwaukee Wraparound Milwaukee was established in 1994 Wraparound uses a mix of local, state and federal funds responds. In addition, each of these values represent set of practices that have proven to be the most effective in promoting as part of a six-year, $15 million federal grant from the that are pooled to create a flexible source of funding to meaningful and sustainable success for Wraparound Milwaukee’s most important clients — the children and families. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for best meet the needs of children, youth, and their families.
    [Show full text]
  • Kinship Care Is Better for Children and Families
    clpABA Child Law Practice Vol. 36 No. 4 July/August 2017 CLP Online: www.childlawpractice.org SPECIAL FOCUS: KINSHIP CARE Kinship Care is Better for Children and Families What’s Inside: by Heidi Redlich Epstein 79 CASE LAW UPDATE he idea of family members assist- Both child welfare law and policy Ting and supporting each other is prioritize placing children with grand- 83 SYSTEM REFORM not new. This is a traditional practice parents, relatives, or close family Creating a Kin-First Culture in most cultures. The foster care sys- friends, known as kinship care. Pursu- in Child Welfare tem is starting to incorporate kinship ant to 42 U.S.C. 671, states must “con- care as a permanency option for chil- sider giving preference to an adult rel- 88 IN PRACTICE dren. Efforts are underway to remove ative over a nonrelated caregiver when Recruiting and Supporting barriers to kinship placements, includ- determining placement for a child, Kinship Foster Families ing removing bureaucratic processes provided that the relative caregiver and streamlining legal proceedings to meets all relevant state child protection 90 IN LITIGATION allow relatives to safely care for chil- standards.” Most state laws and poli- Sixth Circuit Case Opens dren and maintain important family cies also support a priority for place- Door to Equal Pay and Support connections. Efforts are also beginning ment with a relative. Additionally, the for Relative Caregivers to examine foster care licensing re- federal Fostering Connections Act to 92 LAW & POLICY UPDATE quirements, supports, and services for Success and Increasing Adoptions Act Promising Practices When kin, and approaches to complex family of 2008 acknowledges the important Working with Immigrant dynamics that affect kin and their abil- role relatives play in the life of a child Kinship Caregivers ity to care for children.
    [Show full text]
  • Life After Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community Kathy Gnall, Pennsylvania Department of Correction Miriam J
    Amy L. Solomon Jenny W.L. Osborne Stefan F. LoBuglio Jeff Mellow Debbie A. Mukamal Title of Section i 00-monograph-frontmatter.indd 1 4/29/08 11:10:25 AM 2100 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037 www.urban.org © 2008 Urban Institute On the Cover: Center photograph reprinted with permission from the Center for Employment Opportunities. This report was prepared under grant 2005-RE-CX-K148 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Offi ce of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Urban Institute, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, or the Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. About the Authors my L. Solomon is a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, where she works to link the research activities of the Justice Policy Center to the policy and A practice arenas. Amy directs projects relating to reentry from local jails, community supervision, and innovative reentry practices at the neighborhood level. Jenny W.L. Osborne is a research associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, where she is involved in policy and practitioner-oriented prisoner reentry projects and serves as the center’s primary contact for prisoner reentry research. Jenny is the project coordinator for the Jail Reentry Roundtable Initiative and the Transition from Jail to Community project.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES Mental Health Programs for Kansas
    November 2005 COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES Mental Health Programs for Kansas Children and Families: Wraparound Fidelity and Quality of Care The University of Kansas School of Social Welfare Office of Child Welfare and Children’s Mental Health This report was supported through a Contract with The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Division of Health Care Policy Sharon T. Barfield, Ronna Chamberlain, and Susan K. Corrigan, with Support from Young Joon Hong and Alexander Barket Mental Health Programs for Kansas Children and Families: Wraparound Fidelity CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………... 1 n 2. BACKGROUND OF COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICE PROGRAMS….......... 1 3. PURPOSE OF STUDY…………………………………………………………….. 2 4. METHODOLOGY OF STUDY…………………………………………………… 2 4.1. Descriptions of Centers………………………………………………………... 3 4.2. Study Questions……………………………………………………………….. 4 5. FINDINGS …………………………………………………………………………. 6 5.1. Population and Demographics……………………………………………….. 6 5.1.1. Identified Strengths of Youth…………………………………………... 8 5.1.2. Identified Diagnoses of Youth……………………………………...….. 9 5.2. Wraparound Model…………………………………………………………… 12 5.2.1. Wraparound Model Implementation…………………………………… 12 5.2.1.1. Composition of Team Membership………………………….. 15 5.2.1.2. Factors Impacting Team Membership……………………….. 17 5.2.2. Established Goals………………………………………………………. 18 5.2.3. Consistency Between Goal Establishment and Reasons Parents Seeking Services………………………………………………………. 19 5.2.4. Consistency Between Wraparound Team Membership and Established Goals…………………………………………………....... 20 5.2.5. School Personnel Wraparound Team Membership …………................ 22 5.3. Types and Frequencies of Service Utilization……………………………….. 24 5.4. Aggregated Client Status Report Outcomes……………………………........ 26 5.4.1. Family-Centered Outcomes………………………………………........ 27 5.4.2. Wraparound Outcomes……………………………………………......... 31 5.5. Application of Family-Centered Philosophy: Years One, Two, and Three. 36 5.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Goldman, Sybil K., Ed. Promising Practices in Wraparound For
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 429 422 EC 307 170 AUTHOR Burns, Barbara J., Ed.; Goldman, Sybil K., Ed. TITLE Promising Practices in Wraparound for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance and Their Families. Systems of Care: Promising Practices in Children's Mental Health 1998 Series. Volume IV. INSTITUTION Georgetown Univ. Child Development Center, Washington, DC. National Technical Assistance Center for Children's Mental Health.; American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC. SPONS AGENCY Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (DHHS/PHS), Rockville, MD. Center for Mental Health Services.; Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC. PUB DATE 1999-00-00 NOTE 141p.; Volumes I and II not in ERIC; for volumes III, IV, and V, see EC 307 169-171. CONTRACT 6H02MC00058; H237T60005 PUB TYPE Guides Non-Classroom (055) Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Agency Cooperation; Case Studies; *Court Litigation; Delivery Systems; Elementary Secondary Education; *Emotional Disturbances; Family Programs; *Integrated Services; *Mental Health Programs; Meta Analysis; Program Design; Program Implementation; Staff Development; Supervision; Surveys; Training ABSTRACT This is the fourth volume in a series of monographs from the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Service for Children and Their Families Program, which currently supports 41 comprehensive system of care sites to meet the needs of children with serious emotional disturbances (SED) . This volume identifies the essential elements of
    [Show full text]
  • A Narrative Review of Wraparound Outcome Studies
    This document was peer reviewed through the NWI. Theory and Research: Chapter 3.3 A Narrative Review of Wraparound Outcome Studies Jesse Suter, Faculty University of Vermont Eric Bruns, Co-Director, National Wraparound Initiative, and Associate Professor, University of Washington School of Medicine he wraparound process has been described as having a T promising body of evidence (Burns, Goldman, Faw, & Burchard, 1999; National Advisory Mental Health Council, 2001; New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003), to the point it has been included in two Surgeon General re- ports (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999, 2000), recommended for use in federal grant programs (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005), and presented as a mechanism for improving the delivery of evi- dence-based practices for children and adolescents with se- rious emotional and behavioral disorders ([SEBD] Friedman & Drews, 2005; Tolan & Dodge, 2005; Weisz, Sandler, Durlak, & Anton, 2006). Not everyone, however, is convinced. Bick- man and colleagues (Bickman, Smith, Lambert, & Andrade, 2003) have stated that “the existing literature does not pro- vide strong support for the effectiveness of wraparound” (p. 138). Farmer, Dorsey, and Mustillo (2004) recently char- acterized the wraparound evidence base as being “on the weak side of ‘promising’” (p. 869). There are several significant concerns about the state of the wraparound evidence base. As presented in Figure 1, though the number of publications about wraparound has grown steadily over time, the number of outcome studies remains relatively small. Many outcome studies that have been published used less rigorous designs and included rel- atively small samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Principles of the Wraparound Process
    This document was produced through the full NWI consensus process. The Principles of Wraparound: Chapter 2.1 Ten Principles of the Wraparound Process Eric Bruns, Co-Director, National Wraparound Initiative, and Associate Professor, University of Washington School of Med- icine Janet Walker, Co-Director, National Wraparound Initiative, and Research Associate Professor, Portland State University School of Social Work National Wraparound Initiative Advisory Group he philosophical principles of wraparound have long Tprovided the basis for understanding this widely-prac- ticed service delivery model. This value base for working in collaboration and partnership with families has its roots in early programs such as Kaleidoscope in Chicago, the Alaska Youth Initiative, Project Wraparound in Vermont, and other trailblazing efforts. Perhaps the best presentation of the wraparound value base is provided through the stories contained in Everything is Normal until Proven Otherwise (Dennis & Lourie, 2006). In this volume, published by the Child Welfare League of America, Karl Dennis, former Director of Kaleidoscope, presents a set of stories that illuminate in rich detail how important it is for helpers to live by these core principles in service delivery. As described in the Resource Guide’s Fore- word, these stories let the reader “experience the wrap- around process as it was meant to be” (p.xi). For many years, the philosophy of wraparound was ex- pressed through the work of local initiatives and agencies such as Kaleidoscope, but not formally captured in publica- tions for the field. Critical first descriptions were provided by VanDenBerg & Grealish (1996) as part of a special is- sue on wraparound, and by Goldman (1999) as part of an influential monograph on wraparound (Burns & Goldman, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • How, and Why, Does Wraparound Work: a Theory of Change
    This document was peer reviewed through the NWI. Theory and Research: Chapter 3.1 How, and Why, Does Wraparound Work: A Theory of Change Janet Walker, Co-Director, National Wraparound Initiative, and Research Associate Professor, Portland State University School of Social Work raparound has always had implicit associations with Wvarious psychosocial theories (Burchard, Bruns, & Bur- chard, 2002; Burns, Schoenwald, Burchard, Faw, & San- tos, 2000); however, until recently only preliminary efforts had been undertaken to explain in a thorough manner why the wraparound process should produce desired outcomes (Walker & Schutte, 2004). Using the foundation supplied by the specification of the principles (Bruns et al., 2004) and practice model (Walker et al., 2004) of wraparound, the National Wraparound Initiative (NWI) has proposed a more detailed theory of change to describe how and why wrap- around works. Figure 1 (see following page) provides an overview of this theory. Beginning at the left, the figure illustrates how, when wraparound is “true” to the principles and practice described by the NWI, the result is a wraparound process with certain characteristics. Moving across the figure to the right, the various boxes summarize the short-, intermedi- ate- and long-term outcomes that are expected to occur. The figure illustrates with arrows several “routes” by which the wraparound process leads to desired outcomes. It is important to remember, however, that this figure is a highly simplified representation of an extremely complex process. The various routes to change described here are not independent. They interact with and reinforce one an- other. Furthermore, the changes that emerge as a result of wraparound do not come about in a linear fashion, but rath- er through loops and iterations over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Wraparound Milwaukee's Model
    Innovative Approaches to Measuring and Monitoring Outcomes for Youth in Systems of Care – Wraparound Milwaukee’s Model For: Conference on “Expanding Access to Children’s Behavioral Health Care Services” Albany, NY October 8, 2014 Presented By: Bruce Kamradt, MSW, Director, Wraparound Milwaukee What is Wraparound Milwaukee . Created in 1995, it is a unique system of care for Milwaukee County children and adolescents with serious emotional, mental health and behavioral needs that cross child serving systems (e.g., mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare) who are at imminent risk of institutional type placements . 1,600 youth/families served annually (1,100 daily census) . Operated by Milwaukee County government as a unique Care Management Entity (CME) under the 1915(a) provision of Social Security Act, it acts as a type of behavioral health HMO 2 What is Wraparound Milwaukee (cont’d) . Pools funds across child serving systems ($53 million for 2014) to increase flexibility and availability of funding – Wraparound Milwaukee is single payer . One service plan and one care manager . 42% of youth served are from juvenile justice system and 25% are referred from child welfare system, 30% non-court involvement 3 Rationale for the Creation of Wraparound Milwaukee . Over utilization of out of home care for youth involved in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems including group/residential treatment, juvenile correctional placements, and psychiatric in-patient care – Too many youth being placed and for too long . High cost of out of home care expenditures was causing serious deficits in juvenile justice/child welfare budget in Milwaukee County . Poor outcomes for youth coming out of institutional placements concerned court, advocates and juvenile justice/child welfare officials 4 What is a Care Management Entity (CME)? .
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services
    A Short History of Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services t the turn of the 20th century, millions of Jewish families fled Eastern Europe to escape persecution. Many of them came to the United States and packed into eastern cities already A crowded and teeming with disease. In an effort to alleviate the crowded and unhealthy conditions, people were encouraged to move out west, where the population was sparse and where the warm, dry air was thought to be a cure for communicable illnesses like tuberculosis and polio. Unfortunately, many sufferers died of their illnesses anyway, leaving behind homeless and destitute families to fend for themselves. A Jewish Orphanage In Los Angeles, the plight of the Jewish homeless greatly worried the members of B’nai B’rith Lodge Number 487. Guided by lodge member Sigfried Marshutz, an optometrist by trade, the lodge decided to establish a Jewish orphanage to care for the growing population of Jewish children living in the streets. On October 3, 1908, the Jewish Orphans Home of Southern California was incorporated. The Alfred Stern mansion located on the corner of Mission and Macy (new Cesar Chavez) Streets in Boyle Heights served as the first home. Stern was a wine merchant who had passed away some years earlier, and the house was standing empty. Marshutz was able to secure a lease for only $50 a month. But a year and a half later, the mansion burned to the ground in the middle of the night. Although no one was injured, another home had to be quickly found.
    [Show full text]