Why We Needed to Change JK Settlement: Arizona’s Roadmap
description
Transcript of Why We Needed to Change JK Settlement: Arizona’s Roadmap
Why We Needed to Change JK Settlement: Arizona’s Roadmap Pilots and Gurus: Figuring Out How to
Change Collaborative Voices and Structures Operationalizing Principles CQI: Structure, Process, Outcomes Results to Date Lessons LearnedWraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
Family Dissatisfaction
Fragmented Care
Inflexibility – Few Alternatives
Poor Outcomes
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
13287
20122 19225
2758028488
34924 34368
39020
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
2000 2002 2004 2006
Arizona T-19
Arizona Total
Rapidly Expanding EnrollmentJune 2000 - June 2006
Community InitiativesLegislation – Executive OrderSystem of Care Grant ProgramLitigation
Requires ADHS and AHCCCS to: Improve frontline practice (CFT, best practices) Enhance capacity to deliver needed services
Promote collaboration among public agencies and stakeholder participation
Develop quality management/improvement system
“In collaboration with the child and family and others, Arizona will provide accessible behavioral health servicesdesigned to aid children to:
achieve success in school live with their families avoid delinquency become stable and productive adults
Services will be tailored to the child and family and provided in the most appropriate setting, in a timely fashion, and in accordance with best practices, while respecting the child’s and family’s cultural heritage.”
J.K. vs. Eden et al. No. CIV 91-261 TUC JMR, Paragraph 18
Collaboration with the Child and Family Functional Outcomes Collaboration with Others Accessible Services Best Practices Most Appropriate Setting Timeliness Services Tailored to the Child and Family Stability Respect for the Child and Family’s Unique Cultural
Heritage Independence Connection to Natural Supports
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
Requires ADHS and AHCCCS to: Invite and heed Family Voice Improve frontline practice Enhance capacity to deliver needed services
Promote collaboration among public agencies
Develop a quality management and improvement system
Six Year Term of Agreement
“49. Defendant ADHS/DBHS shall initiate a 300 Kids Project.” Will serve multi-agency children. Sites to engage intensively in system
improvement activity.
50. The sites will serve two purposes: test strategies for providing behavioral health
services according to the 12 Principles. Serve as the first phase of a statewide effort to
deliver services according to the Principles.
Based on the Wraparound Approach:Service planning is family-centered, strength-based, highly individualized, culturally competent and collaborative across systems, promoting reliance on informal and natural supports in combination with formal services.
Congruent with: Family-Group Decision-Making (Child Welfare) Team Decision-Making (Child Welfare) Person-Centered Planning (Development Disabilities) Individual Family Service Planning (IDEA - Part C)
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
While ADHS and AHCCCS were named as defendants in the J.K. lawsuit, Arizona’s remaining child-serving agencies (child welfare, children with special health care needs, early childhood, juvenile justice, and public school system) signed a Memorandum of Understanding, voluntarily and collectively embracing the Arizona Vision and the 12 Arizona Principles. The entities joined the Governor’s new Children’s Cabinet in 2003, and all have continuously reaffirmed their mutual commitments to this shared Vision and Principles since 2002.
Attitudes and Values Language as an Organizing
Framework Leadership Parent/Professional Partnerships Early Innovators (Wraparound
Maine, THRIVE System of Care)
Attitudes and Values: The Relational Stance
From Problem to Competence
From Expert to Accountable Ally
From Professional Turf to Family Turf
From Teaching to “Learning With”
William C Madsen, Collaborative Therapy with Multi-Stressed Families (1999)
1. Structural Changes: Covered Services Funding “Structural Elements”
2. Process Changes: Training and Coaching,
Consultants Fidelity to Principles Clinical Guidance Documents
3. Outcomes Improve: Data-Driven Decision-Making
Arizona’s Covered BH Services
Medicaid, Behavioral Health, Licensing
Expanded Definition of “professional” Expanded Definition of “family” Expansion of Supportive Services Capacity and Competency, or
Quantity v. Quality
Funding
Variations in State Capitation Rates
Maximizing State Funding
Provider Contracting Methodology
Sustainability of Effort
On January 29, 2003, Gov. Janet Napolitano ordered the expansion of the 300 Kids Pilot to statewide implementation
01/31/2005: 13.5% of 34,000 with CFTs 05/31/2006: 32% with CFTs 12/31/2007: 51.6% with CFTs
Children involved with CPS & Juvenile Justice, residing in or at risk of placement in out-of-home care settings (RTC, TGH) are priority populations.
Training and Coaching
Coaching to Support Training Sequencing Who Needs to Transform? Costs/Investment Retention/Regeneration Strategies
Professional Roles
Transforming Roles – Relational Stance Movement to Strengths Based Values-Based Hiring Practices Training and Re-training Liability Myths Shared Expertise with Families
Clinical Guidance Documents
Operationalizing and MemorializingProcess for DevelopmentContract RequirementsStandardized Assessment (0-5, too)Example: Child and Family Team PIPPrior Authorization
Examples:
Enrollment/Penetration (Latino youth? 0-3 y.o.?) Number of functioning Child and Family Teams Number of counties with cross-system
protocols, agreements in place Number of children placed outside of Arizona Number of children placed out of home Percentage of children in foster care with BH
needs assessed beginning within 24 hours after removal
JK “Structural Elements” (monthly -> quarterly) CFT Capacity OOH Placements Urgent BH Responses
Other Key Indicators (monthly) - CFT Capacity by Provider Rehab/Support Spending as % of Total BH $ Latino Penetration by Provider “Under 12” Initiative
CFT Process Measurement:“The Four Big Questions”
1. Has a trusting relationship been established with the family (engagement)?
2. Does the Child and Family know the family and has it identified the strengths needs and culture of the family?
3. Has an Individualized Service Plan been created that meets the needs of the child and family?
4. Is the team implementing, monitoring and modifying the service plan toward a successful outcome for the child and family?
Fall 2005 ReviewsRegion A – 67.8%Region B – 64.1%Region C – 74.1%Region D – 66.3%Region E – 73.3%Region F – 41.7%
Statewide: 53.25% [n = 486]
Winter 2006 ReviewsRegion A – 70%Region B – 64%Region C – 71%Region D – 61%Region E – 81%Region F – 53%
Statewide: 60.45% [n = 418]
High Fidelity CFT Low Fidelity CFT
WFI Scores 85.3 53.6
CAFAS 132 128
CBCL Total 89 78
Level of Residential Placement
1.7 1.7
Number of Moves in Previous Six Months
2.2 1.6
Family Resource Scale 3.5 3.1
Improved Process Contributes to Improved Outcomes
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
8090
100110120130140150160
Inta
ke
6 M
onths
12 M
onths
Time Interval
Av
era
ge
CA
FA
S S
co
re
Overall HF CFT LF CFT
50
60
70
80
90
100
Intake 6Months
12Months
Time IntervalA
ve
rag
e C
BC
L T
ota
l S
co
re
Overall LF CFT HF CFT
Figure Two CAFAS and CBCL Scores. The graph on the left of figure two shows the average Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) Scores at intake and at six and twelve month intervals following intake. The open circles are the average scores for all 42 children, the black diamonds show the average for the 21 children receiving low fidelity wraparound and the grey squares show the data for the 21 children receiving high fidelity wraparound. The graph on the right shows the same data for the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) scores. From Rast, O’Day & Rider (2004)
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
1.01.52.02.53.03.54.0
Time Period
Av
era
ge
Re
sid
en
tia
l Le
ve
l
Overall Low Fidelity
High Fidelity
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Inta
ke
6 M
onths
12 M
onths
Ave
rag
e M
ove
s p
er S
ix M
on
ths
Overall Low Fidelity
High Fidelity
Figure Three Residential Outcomes. Figure Three shows a comparison of the impact of the fidelity of the Child and Family Team process on the restrictiveness of residential placement (left graph) and on the stability of placement (right graph). The figure on the left shows the average level of residential placement on a six level version of the ROLES. The open circles show the average for all 42 of the children, the black diamonds the 21 with low fidelity wraparound and the grey squares the 21 with high fidelity wraparound. The graph on the right shows the average number of residential moves for each group using the same symbols. From Rast, O’Day & Rider (2004)
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
2.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.63.84.0
Inta
ke
6 M
onths
12 M
onths
Ave
rag
e F
RS
Sco
reOverall
2.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.63.84.0
Inta
ke
6 M
onths
12 M
onths
Ave
rag
e F
RS
Sco
re
Low Fidelity High Fidelity
Figure Four Family Resource Scale. Figure Four shows the scores for the Family Resource Scale which measures a caregiver’s report on the adequacy of a variety of resources needed to meet the needs of the family as a whole, as well as the needs of individual family members. Higher ratings demonstrate more adequate resources. The graph on the left shows the average rating for the caregivers for all 42 children. The graph on the right shows the average rating for each group. The gray squares are for the caregivers with the high fidelity wraparound and the open circles are for the care givers with low fidelity wraparound. From Rast, O’Day & Rider (2004)
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
CFT
No CFT
CFT 73.6% 72.8% 83.3% 57.6% 69.0% 88.7%
No CFT 60.5% 63.4% 75.5% 49.6% 56.0% 88.3%
Increased Stability
Increased Safety
Avoids Deliquency
Prep for Adulthood
Success in School
Lives with Family
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
CFT
No CFT
CFT 75.5% 73.7% 78.6% 59.0% 69.8% 81.9%
No CFT 62.3% 65.1% 70.6% 49.5% 58.9% 84.6%
Increased Stability
Increased Safety
Avoids Deliquency
Prep for Adulthood
Success in School
Lives with Family
Wraparound Maine Symposium - Frank Rider
“Building on family strengths is essential if we are to prevent and control juvenile delinquency behavior. The Wraparound Process that embraces this concept can help prevent families from becoming abuse, neglect and delinquency statistics. It works well as an intervention model even for the most severe cases of abuse, neglect or delinquency.”
Hon. David C. Bonfiglio, Superior Court Judge, 6/01 Testimony before Indiana Select Legislative Committee on
Education
1. Adequacy and flexibility of case management (care coordination/wraparound facilitation) resources,
2. Adequacy and availability of direct supports and rehabilitative services as a significant enhancement to traditional clinical services, and
3. Continuing attention to maintain and improve observed, measured fidelity of wraparound (Child and Family Teams) process.
Arizona/JK Initiative - www.azdhs.gov/bhs
Frank Rider – [email protected]
"The slowness of change is always respectable in
the eyes of those who are in charge. It is a different story for the ones who are in
pain.” Jonathan Kozol (1967), Death at an Early Age.Wraparound Maine Symposium – April 10, 2008