08448380779 Call Girls In Friends Colony Women Seeking Men
Emqff wraparound institute june 2012 child and adolescent characteristics outcomes and wraparound fidelity results from eight california programs
1. Child and Adolescent Characteristics,
Outcomes, and Wraparound Fidelity:
Results from Eight California Programs
Abram Rosenblatt,
Michelle Coufal, Kate Cordell, Elisha Heruty,
Catherine Aspiras, Mary Ann Wong
EMQ FamiliesFirst
2. Presentation Overview
• Youth Profile and Core Outcomes
• Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths
(CANS) Outcomes
• Wraparound Fidelity Index (WFI-4) Profile and
Outcomes
• Longitudinal Outcomes
2
3. Number of Youth Served
3%
21%
42% Total Number of Youth Served
in Wraparound: 4,432
11%
24%
Bay Area Capital
Central Inland Empire
Los Angeles
3
4. Number of Youth Served in CY11
6%
28%
24%
Total Number of Youth Served in
Wraparound in CY11: 1,158
19%
24%
Bay Area Capital
Central Inland Empire
Los Angeles
4
5. Youth’s Profile
• Average Age at Admission: 14 years
• 61% Male; 39% Female
• Youth’s Ethnicity
Native American Other African American
1% 2% 21%
Latin American
30%
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
3%
Caucasian
40%
5
6. Youth’s Profile in CY11
• Average Age at Admission: 14 years
• 60% Male; 40% Female
• Youth’s Ethnicity
Native
American African
Other
1% American
1%
Latin American 17% Asian
46% American/
Pacific
Islander
2%
Caucasian
34%
6
8. Primary Diagnosis at Admission for Youths Served in CY11
100%
80%
60%
44%
39%
40%
20%
9% 7%
1%
0%
Adjustment Mood Disruptive Psychotic Other
Disorder Behavior
8
9. Living Situation at Admission
100%
80%
60% 55%
40%
24%
20% 16%
0.2% 2% 1% 2%
0%
Ho Fo Ho Ju Re Sh Ot
m st sp st si el her
e e rF it a ic de te
e nt r/ H
am l ia om
i ly l
el
es
s
9
10. Living Situation at Admission for Youths Served in CY11
100%
80%
60%
60%
40%
23%
20% 15%
0% 2% 0.3% 0.3%
0%
Ho Fo Ho Ju Re Sh Ot
m st sp st si el her
e e rF it a ice de te
l nt r/ H
am ia om
i ly l el
es
s
10
19. Why the CANS?
• Item Level Tool
• Items translate immediately into action levels
• It is about the youth, not about the service
• Cultural and developmental contexts are considered
before establishing action levels
• It is about the ‘what’, not about the ‘why’
• 30 day window for rating unless otherwise specified
19
27. What is the WFI-4?
• Measures implementation of wraparound process
• Set of interviews – Facilitator, Caregiver, and Youth
– 40 items for Facilitator and Caregiver
– 32 items for Youth
• Confidential interviews w/multiple respondents unique
perspectives
27
28. Summary of Respondents
Administration Time Frame: January 2008 – January 2012
1,498 interviews from 671 families
8 traditional wraparound Interview Detail:
programs in 7 counties: • 671 facilitators interviewed
•Santa Clara – 40.3 minutes average time
•Sacramento
•Nevada • 522 caregivers interviewed
•Yolo – 39.1 minutes average time
•Fresno • 305 youth interviewed
•San Bernardino – 34.3 minutes average time
•Los Angeles
28
29. Demographics of WFI Youth
• Average Age at Admission: 13.5 years
• 57% Male; 43% Female
• Youth’s Ethnicity
Native American Other
African American
Latin American 1% 1%
17%
41%
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
3%
Caucasian
38%
29
30. Primary Diagnosis at Admission for WFI Youth
100%
80%
60%
45%
39%
40%
20%
10%
6%
1%
0%
Adjustment Mood Disruptive Psychotic Other
Disorder Behavior
30
31. Living Situation at Admission for WFI Youth
100%
80%
60% 54%
40%
24%
20% 19%
0% 1% 0.3% 0.3%
0%
Ho Fo Ho Ju Re Sh Ot
m st sp st si el her
e e rF it a ic de te
e nt r/ H
am l ia om
i ly l
el
es
s
31
33. Living Situation: Admit vs. Discharge for WFI Youth
100%
81%
80% 70%
60%
40% 29%
17%
20%
1% 1% 0.3% 1%
0%
Community Facility Other Unknown
Admit Discharge
33
34. EMQ FF vs National Data: Overall Fidelity
100% 87%
83% 83% 80%
77% 75% 78%
80% 73%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Combined Facilitator Caregiver Youth
EMQ FF National Mean
34
35. EMQ FF vs National Data : Fidelity Scores by Phase
100% 88%
82% 86%
81%
80% 76% 76% 76%
69%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Engagement Plan Development Implementation Transition
EMQ FF National Mean
35
36. EMQFF Phase Scores by Program
100%
90% 90% 92%
89% 89%
86% 87% 87%
85% 85% 87% 87% 87%
87%
84% 83% 84%
81% 81% 81% 83%
80% 78% 80% 78% 78% 80% 78%
76% 76% 75% 75%
70%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5 Program 6 Program 7 Program 8
Engagement Planning
Implementation Transition
36
37. EMQFF Principle Scores by Program
100% 94% 94% 95% 94% 96%
93%
91% 92% 92% 90% 92% 90% 91% 92% 91%
89% 87% 89%
82% 80% 82% 82% 82%
79% 79%
80% 73%
78% 76% 76%
70%
70% 72% 72%
72% 72%
67% 67% 69%
65% 64%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5 Program 6 Program 7 Program 8
Family Voice and Choice Team-Based
Natural Supports Collaboration
Community-Based
37
38. EMQFF Principle Scores by Program continued
100% 97% 97% 95% 96% 98%
95% 96%
91% 90% 91% 90% 92%
89% 89%
85% 86%
84% 86% 85% 86%
82% 83% 83%
78% 79%
81% 80% 82% 81%
80% 78% 78%
74% 76%
78% 76% 76% 76%
72% 70%
66%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5 Program 6 Program 7 Program 8
Cultural Competence Individualized
Strength-Based Persistence
Outcome- Based
38
39. Average Total WFI Scores By Program
EMQ Wraparound Program Average Total WFI Score
Program 1 84%
Program 2 85%
Program 3 83%
Program 4 82%
Program 5 85%
Program 6 85%
Program 7 83%
Program 8 78%
39
40. Core Outcomes for Discharged WFI Youth
90%
100% 84%
80%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
In Home In School Out of Trouble
40
41. Longitudinal Core Outcomes for WFI Youth
100% 85% 88% 83%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
In Home In School Out of Trouble
41
42. Data Implications
• Further studies employing the WFI and CANS
on Outcomes
42
43. WFI and CANS Outcomes
• Is our fidelity associated with our outcomes?
• Which fidelity elements are more strongly
associated with which outcomes?
43
44. WFI & CANS Outcomes
• 324 clients with two CANS Outcomes at least 6 months apart
and a WFI at 6 months of service
44
45. WFI & Life Domain Functioning CANS
• Improved or Declined CANS groups determined by Reliable Change Index (RCI)
45
46. WFI & Child Strengths CANS
• Improved or Declined CANS groups determined by Reliable Change Index (RCI)
46
47. WFI & Caregiver Strengths/Needs CANS
• Improved or Declined CANS groups determined by Reliable Change Index (RCI)
47
48. WFI & Child Behav. & Emo. Needs CANS
• Improved or Declined CANS groups determined by Reliable Change Index (RCI)
48
49. WFI & Child Risk Behaviors CANS
• Improved or Declined CANS groups determined by Reliable Change Index (RCI)
49
50. WFI and CANS Outcomes
• Which source of fidelity scores are more
strongly associated with improved
outcomes?
50
51. WFI-Facilitator Source & CANS
• Facilitator fidelity scores are strongly associated with CANS outcomes scores.
51
52. WFI-Caregiver Source & CANS
• Caregiver fidelity scores are lower than facilitator fidelity scores.
52
53. WFI-Youth Source & CANS
• Youth fidelity scores are lower than facilitator scores and exhibit reversal of
pattern in some elements for association between fidelity and outcomes.
53
54. WFI and CANS Outcomes
• How is fidelity at different phases of the
program associated with CANS outcomes?
54
55. WFI by Phase & CANS
The group of clients who only
declined in CANS domains had
significantly lower fidelity scores at
the:
• Planning (p=0.04),
• Implementation (p=0.005)
• Transition (p=0.001)
phases of the Wraparound program
as compared to the group of clients
who improved in at least one CANS
domain.
55
56. WFI and CANS Outcomes
• Focused Quality Improvement:
– In what fidelity elements should we focus our energies in order
to maximize improvement in Child Behavioral and Emotional
Needs outcomes?
• Measurable Quality Improvement
– How much improvement (i.e., what increased percentage of kids
would have reliable improvement) would we expect to see if we
brought all of these elements in our programs up to ‘high fidelity’
56
57. Child Behavior and
Emotional Needs
317 Improving Fidelity
and CANS Outcomes
Improved 45.1 %
No Change 40.1 %
Declined 14.8 %
High fidelity (>=85%) for Element 5 (Community Based) = YES
Child Behavior and • There were 317 clients with a
Emotional Needs
176 CANS Child Behavioral and
Improved
No Change
47.2 %
38.1 %
Emotional Needs score which
Declined 14.8 %
could be reliably improved from
High fidelity (>=85%) for Element 6 (Culturally Competent) = YES
Time 1 (GTE RCI of 2.2).
Child Behavior and
Emotional Needs
168
• Overall, 45.1% of clients improved
48.8 %
between Time 1 and Time 2.
Improved
No Change 36.9 %
Declined 14.3 %
High fidelity (>=85%) for Element 9 (Persistent) = YES
• Programs with higher fidelity in
Child Behavior and
Emotional Needs
109
certain elements resulted in better
Improved 52.3 %
outcomes.
No Change 36.7 %
Declined 11.0 %
Order of elements determined by classification and
High fidelity (>=85%) for Element 10 (Outcomes Based) = YES regression tree (CART).
Child Behavior and
Emotional Needs
46
Improved 56.5 %
No Change 37.0 %
Declined 6.5 %
57
58. WFI and CANS Outcomes Summary
• Our fidelity scores are associated with our CANS
outcomes
• Facilitator fidelity scores are more strongly associated
with CANS outcomes
• The data suggests that focused quality improvement in
fidelity will result in a measurable improvement in CANS
outcomes
58
59. Challenges
New staff
New Measure Implementations
Difficult populations
Language barriers
Ratio of certified interviewers to interviewees
Relatively low response rates
59
60. Lessons Learned
Program buy-in
Work with Wrap teams
Use EMQ FF language certified employees
60
64. References
• Bruns, E. (nd). Wraparound Fidelity Assessment System. Retrieved
from Wrap Info website:
http://depts.washington.edu/wrapeval/WFI.html
• Lyons, J. Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths. Retrieved from
Praed Foundation website:
http://www.praedfoundation.org/About%20the%20CANS.html
• Wraparound Evaluation & Research Team. The Wraparound Process.
Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/wrapeval/approach.html
64
65. Contact Information
Abram Rosenblatt
arosenblatt@emqff.org (408) 364-4016
65
Editor's Notes
Currently, EMQ FF is serving 564 youths in Wraparound Total youth served excludes Tulare Wrap
N = 4432 Since Inception – excluding Tulare Wrap
N = 1158
n = 4119, Mood Disorder includes: Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar
n = 1033, Mood Disorder includes: Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar
Source: CEDE and then Masterclient as fill in n = 3943
Source: CEDE and Masterclient n = 972
Source: CEDE and then Masterclient n = 3293 Community includes: Home & Foster Family Facility: Hospital, Justice Related, Residential Other: Other & Shelter/Homeless
Source: CEDE and then Masterclient n = 525 Community includes: Home & Foster Family Facility: Hospital, Justice Related, Residential Other: Other & Shelter/Homeless
Home n = 205 School n = 182 Trouble n = 207
Home n = 181 School n = 160 Trouble n = 183
Home n = 185 School n = 179 Trouble n = 191
N = 563 Comparison of First Available and Last Available CANS
Program 1: Fresno Wrap Program 2: LAC Wrap Program 3: Nevada Wrap Program 4: Sac Wrap Program 5: SBC UPLIFT Program 6: SCC Matrix Program 7: SCC UPLIFT Program 8: Yolo Wrap
General Benchmarks: < 65% = Not wraparound 65 – 75% = Low average/Borderline 75 – 85% = High average/Acceptable > 85% = “High Fidelity”
Number of WFI Youth: N = 671
n = 611
n = 581
n = 364 Community includes: Home & Foster Family Facility: Hospital, Justice Related, Residential Other: Other & Shelter/Homeless Unknown
n= 438
n = 438 Phase 1: Building trust with the family and wraparound team members are established and a shared vision is established. During this phase, the tone is set for teamwork and team interactions that are consistent with the wraparound principles. Phase 2: Team trust and mutual respect are built during this phase and the team creates an initial plan of care using a high quality planning process that reflects the wraparound principles. During this phase, the youth and family should feel that they are being heard and that the needs chosen are the ones they want to work on. Phase 3: The wraparound plan is implemented, progress and success are continually reviewed and changes are made to the plan then implemented. Phase 4: During this phase plans are made for transitioning out of formal wraparound to a mix of formal and natural supports in the community.
n = 438
n = 438
n = 438
Program 1: Fresno Wrap Program 2: LAC Wrap Program 3: Nevada Wrap Program 4: Sac Wrap Program 5: SBC UPLIFT Program 6: SCC Matrix Program 7: SCC UPLIFT Program 8: Yolo Wrap
Home n = 97 School n = 89 Trouble n= 100
Home n = 73 School n = 69 Trouble n= 76
228 of 324 (70%) clients had improvement in at least on CANS domain between Time 1 and Time 2. The group of clients who only declined in CANS domains (n=57, 18%) between Time 1 and Time 2 had significantly lower All-Elements-WFI scores (p=0.04) as compared to the group of clients who improved in at least one CANS domain. When looking at individual elements of the WFI, the group of clients who only declined in CANS domains (n=57, 18%) between Time 1 and Time 2 had significantly lower fidelity of Natural Supports (p=0.0002) and Community Based (p=0.008) elements.
130 of 323 (40%) clients had improvement in the Life Domain Functioning (LDF) CANS domain between Time 1 and Time 2. The group of clients who declined in LDF CANS domain (n=142, 44%) between Time 1 and Time 2 had significantly lower All-Elements-WFI (p=0.015) , Voice and Choice (p=0.015), Natural Supports (p=0.0003), Community Based (p=0.007) and Strengths Based (p=0.001) fidelity scores as compared to the group of clients who improved in the LDF CANS domain.
87of 323 (27%) clients had improvement in the Child Strengths (CS) CANS domain between Time 1 and Time 2. The group of clients who declined in CS CANS domain (n=73, 23%) between Time 1 and Time 2 had significantly lower All-Elements-WFI (p=0.03) , Voice and Choice (p=0.04), Natural Supports (p=0.04), Individualized (p=0.04) fidelity scores as compared to the group of clients who improved in the LDF CANS domain.
71of 290 (25%) clients had improvement in the Caregiver Strengths and Needs (CGSN) CANS domain between Time 1 and Time 2. The group of clients who declined in CGSN CANS domain (n=57, 20%) between Time 1 and Time 2 had significantly lower Voice and Choice (p=0.02) fidelity scores as compared to the group of clients who improved in the LDF CANS domain.
143 of 324 (44%) clients had improvement in the Child Behavioral and Emotional Needs (CBEN) CANS domain between Time 1 and Time 2. There were no statistically significant differences between the group of clients who declined in CBEN CANS domain and the group who improved.
125 of 324 (39%) clients had improvement in the Child Risk Behaviors (CRB) CANS domain between Time 1 and Time 2. The group of clients who declined in CRB CANS domain (n=41, 13%) between Time 1 and Time 2 had significantly lower Natural Supports (p=0.01) and Community Based (p=0.02) fidelity scores as compared to the group of clients who improved in the LDF CANS domain.
If we look at all clients, 45.1% had reliable improvement in CBEN CANS between Time 1 and Time 2. If we look at just clients who had a high fidelity score for the Community Based element, 47.2% had reliable improvement. If we further limit the data to clients who also had a high fidelity score for the Culturally Competent element, 48.8% had reliable improvement. If we further limit the data to clients who also had a high fidelity score for the Persistent element, 52.3% had reliable improvement. If we further limit the data to clients who also had a high fidelity score for the Outcomes Based element, 56.5% had reliable improvement. These values are true frequencies in the data and not imputed or estimated based on any model. The order of the elements used to restrict the data was determined using Classification and Regression Tree with the regression model of Time2_CANS = Time1_CANS + WFI_Element(Tranformed) based on methodology of: Bruns, E. J., Suter, J. C., Force, M. M., & Burchard, J. D. (2005). Adherence to wraparound principles and association with outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14 , 521–534.