Building on Each Other’s Strengths

Building on Each Other’s Strengths Preliminary Baseline National Evaluation Results September, 2005

Identification of eligible families began in June 2004 • Idaho Data is forwarded to ORC MACRO for inclusion • in National Evaluation • Aggregate data for system level trends • Family specific data shared with families; others w/family consent • Data reflects information prior to adoption • of practice model and EBP (Wraparound)

Idaho National Evaluation Activity

Enrollment and Demographic Information Form (EDIF-Baseline) n=46

Enrollment and Demographic Information Form (EDIF) n=46

Enrollment and Demographic Information Form (EDIF-Baseline) n=46

Highest Rated Strengths Attends school regularly = 97% Trusts someone = 81% Accepts a hug = 80% Demonstrates a sense of belonging to family = 78% Participates in Family activities = 74% Expresses affection for others = 73% Lowest Rated Strengths Completes a task at 1st request = 10% Considers consequences of own behavior = 19% Accepts criticism = 21% Accepts responsibility = 25% Accepts no for an answer = 25% Reacts to disappointment in a calm manner = 30% Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS- Parent form- Baseline) n=31

Highest Rated Problems Impulsive or acts w/o thinking = 88% Argues a lot = 87% Stubborn, irritable = 85% Demands a lot of attention = 81% Nervous, high-strung, or tense = 81% Easily jealous = 77% Easily distracted = 77% Acts too young for age = 77% Feels worthless = 73% Lowest Rated Problems Overweight = 23% Sets fires = 23% Feels sick = 27% Speech problems = 27% Smokes, chews, or sniffs tobacco = 31% Too shy or timid = 31% Feels too guilty = 35% Overeating = 35% Sleeps a lot = 35% Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL- Parent form- Baseline) n=31

Multi-Sector Service Contacts (MSSC) Caregivers’ reports of services used, where and when the services were received, and how much of each service type. Family Satisfaction Questionnaire (FSQ) Assesses caregivers’ satisfaction with services, including progress, family’s involvement, providers’ cultural competence, and impact on caregivers’ ability to work outside the home. Youth Satisfaction Questionnaire (YSQ) Assesses satisfaction with services as a whole, the youth’s perception of his or her progress in treatment, and the cultural competence and individualization of services received. National Evaluation Tools to be added at 6 months

Services Received by Children Referred by Juvenile Justice System Services Percent Number of children varied from 439 to 530.

Building on Each Other’s Strengths Joint Report on Practice Model, Wraparound, and System of Care Implementation September 05

PRACTICE MODEL UPDATE October - November 2004: Local Council Business Practice Model drafted and adopted January – March 2005: Implementation begins/ Wraparound curriculum acquired / M.Grealish training March - May 2005: DHW FACS dedicates 8.0 FTE for Local Council Service Coordinator roles / Councils receive Orientation to Wraparound Parts I & II June – August 2005: RCs and DHW CMH PMs agree on qualifications, implementation guidelines / First and Second SOC Leadership Meetings guides roles for councils and Wraparound Specialists (formerly LCSCs)

PRACTICE MODEL UPDATE Update retains six phases (steps) and two track format Details qualifications for Wraparound Specialists Greater alignment to Core Values and Guiding Principles of Systems of Care and Family Centered Practice Local Councils will rarely meet “en banc” for service planning Local Councils able to rebalance service coordination with community capacity/resource development

WRAPAROUND IMPLEMENTATION Highlights: • Wraparound “Train the Trainer” attended by 20 from the community • All Local and Regional Councils received Wraparound Orientation • Local Councils received Wraparound Team Orientation • Consensus on Wraparound Specialists Qualifications • DHW first agency to dedicate FTE to Implementation • DHW reports several regions over or near capacity • Wraparound orientation now a part of DHW CMH Academy • Skills curriculum for wraparound in Idaho’s SOC near completion • Local Evaluation set to collect data to monitor fidelity to approach

WRAPAROUND IMPLEMENTATION Concerns: • Insufficient Number of Wraparound Specialists • Available FTE distributed on regions not council activity • Waiting lists and outstanding referrals (60-90 days reported) • Pressure to design “shortcuts” to increase case turnover • Some CMH staff given Specialist role as additional duty • Staff assigned to Wraparound Specialists w/o training • Tracking and reporting coming from multiple sources

SYSTEM OF CARE IMPLEMENTATION Highlights: • National Evaluation Data collection and reporting underway • Local Evaluation set to being tracking of wraparound fidelity • SOC Leadership Meetings built needed consensus on model • SOC website launched to aid outreach and communication • Councils with previous community activities progressing well

SYSTEM OF CARE IMPLEMENTATION Concerns: • Parents are leaving the system of care • Councils focused on “staffing” not transitioning to • wraparound well • Single Agency support for wraparound implementation • Councils feel ICCMH is distant and not participatory • Lack of comprehensive strategic plan for advancing and • sustaining Idaho’s SOC

Building on Each Other’s Strengths