Community Supports for Wraparound Inventory CSWI

1
Community Supports for Wraparound Inventory
(CSWI)

• Report
• Project ACCESS
• Champaign, Illinois
• July, 2007
• Prepared by
• Janet Walker, Portland State University
• Vicky Mazzone, Portland State University
• April Sather, University of Washington

2
The Community Supports for Wraparound Inventory

• The Community Supports for Wraparound Inventory
  (CSWI) is intended for use as both a research and
  quality improvement tool to measure how well a
  local system supports the implementation of high
  quality wraparound.
• The CSWI is based on the Necessary Conditions for
  Wraparound described by Walker Koroloff (2007),
  and presents 40 community or system variables
  that support wraparound implementation.

3
The Community Supports for Wraparound Inventory

• The 40 items are grouped within 6 themes
• Community partnership
• Collaborative action
• Fiscal policies
• Service array
• Human resource development, and
• Accountability
• Respondents complete the 40 items by rating the
  development of supports in their community or
  program on a 5 point scale
• 0 least developed and 4 fully developed

4
The Community Supports for Wraparound Inventory

• The CSWI can be used in several ways
• To help researchers determine how much these
  community support conditions affect fidelity and
  outcomes of wraparound.
• To help evaluators understand the system context
  for wraparound as part of their local evaluation
  projects.
• To help local evaluation groups to assess the
  supports for wraparound that are (and are not) in
  place in their community. Using this information,
  the community partners can make changes and track
  improvements in community supports over time.

5
Method

• 67 stakeholders in the Project ACCESS system of
  care were identified and invited to complete the
  CSWI.
• These stakeholders were sent a link to a web
  survey version of the CSWI.
• For 5 potential respondents, the emailed
  invitations bounced, so these people were removed
  from the sample.
• 29 of 62 remaining possible respondents completed
  the CSWI, 8 declined to complete the CSWI, and 25
  did not respond.
• Overall response rate 46.8

6
Response rate by category
Response rate 46.8 overall Response rate of
84.0 for key respondents Response rate of 21.6
for others
7
Respondents
Mean experience 3.1 years
8
Respondents Experience by Role in Wraparound
Implementation
This column total sums to more than total
respondents due to people having filled multiple
roles over time.
9
Respondents Current Role
10
Respondents Backgrounds
11
Analysis Overall scale and themes

• How does the site look overall and by theme? This
  is assessed by calculating the grand mean score
  for the whole scale and the themes, as well as
  the mean item total for the whole scale and the
  themes.
• Did participants agree with one another about the
  level of community development across the items?
  This is assessed in two ways, both of which take
  into account the possibility that some
  respondents are harsher raters than others
• The percentage of variance in responses that can
  be accounted for by agreement. 50 is OK, over
  60 is good
• The alpha statistic (a), which can range between
  0 and 1. Above .7 is generally good, but the
  statistic is inflated when there are a large
  number of items.
• For the overall scale, too much missing
  information to use these statistics For
  individual themes, agreement is very good for
  themes 4-6, reasonably good for 1 and 3. Theme
  two had two items that seemed to have low
  agreement, single plan and state interface. Those
  two items aside, there was good agreement on the
  theme.

12
Results Overall

• Scale
• Scale total (sum of item means) 41.6
• Grand mean 1.04 (small progress)
• Themes
• Means on themes ranged between .7 and 1.4
  (halfway between small progress and midway), with
  most progress on theme 1 community partnership
  and theme 2 collaborative action

13
CSWI Results Summary by Theme
Statistics in parentheses are for themes with
problematic item(s)I.e., those with lower
agreement among respondentsfrom last column
removed.
14
CSWI Results Theme Means
Least developed
Fully developed
Midway
15
Analysis Individual items

• Items grouped into strengths and challenges on
  the basis of
• The mean rating across respondents for that item
  (ratings can run from 0 least developed to 4
  fully developed)
• The mean ranking across respondents for that item
  (the item with the highest mean ranking got more
  of respondents highest ratings than other items)
• Each of these ways of measuring has advantages
  and disadvantages, so our analysis balances both
• Small sample size makes it harder to see
  meaningful differences across items, yet

16
Results

• Greatest relative strengths (highest ranked
  items are those that tend to be rated most like
  fully developed)

Strengths and challenges are grouped using a
combination of mean ranks and ratings. The
division of items into categories in the slides
immediately following is based on natural cut
points in the data.
17
Other areas of relative strength Modest
development
18
Slight development
19
Slight development (continued)
20
Minimal development
21
Results Lowest- v. Highest-Rated Items
Least developed
Midway
22
Results Big Picture summary

• Overall very high level of agreement among
  respondents about the relative strengths and
  challenges for the project
• Projects strengths are in the first two themes
  Community Partnership and Collaborative Activity
  however, within those themes, less progress on
  family voice and state interface
• Least developed areas fiscal policies and
  sustainability, access to supports/services, and
  accountability
• Overall picture is of a community still at the
  early stages of development

23
Results Comments

• Most positive things
• System is getting it
• Providers are learning about a new way of
  providing services and are being challenged to
  change business as usual.
• Progress is quite slow however, service
  providers with whom I have shared an ongoing
  working relationship are actually beginning to
  work together.
• The shared interest/vision among the providers,
  families and other stakeholders that a best
  practice model such as wraparound is needed in
  our community.
• There are some key people who 'get it' and want
  to see a legitimate system in place.
• Buy-in and support from system stakeholders.
• The diversity of the providers and their
  commitment to wraparound values

24
Results Comments

• Most positive things
• Giving youth families what they need
• How well that they are connected with all the
  agencies in Champaign County to give the families
  what ever support that is needed from Faith Based
  Community to the Educational areas.
• Giving youth and families service choice. Giving
  youth and families voice.
• It could alleviate gaps in services for those
  most in need, and it can empower families to be
  better advocates in the planning process.
• Families and youth can get the culturally
  sensitive and competent services they really need.

25
Results Comments

• Most positive things
• Collaboration in service provision
• Seamless services for families.
• Increased collaboration among service providers
  on behalf of youth/families
• Other
• It is extremely needed and vital for the people
  of our community.
• Our youth voice component has really begun to
  develop.
• The support from significant others volunteering
  their time to attend meetings and actively
  interact to help the family.

26
Results Comments

• Main challenges
• Fiscal issues
• Funding.
• Funding system does not presently support
  Wraparound.
• Lack of flexible funding.
• funding streams tied to certain services
• Collaboration between agencies needs more work
  and leadership
• Acquiring the buy-in and support of high level
  juvenile justice stakeholders
• Current funding structure results in 'silos' of
  services. No strong central leadership for the
  project.
• Lack of a leadership that has the skills and
  knowledge and authority to move the project on.
  Provider buy in comes from fear of losing
  funding.
• 'Silo' mentality.
• Leadership in cooperating systems/organizations.
• Turf issues
• Difficulty of engaging certain necessary
  stakeholders (schools and courts)

27
Results Comments

• Main challenges
• Other
• Willingness of service providers to shift
  dynamics in providing what's needed as opposed to
  what's available.
• There are too many people who don't get it and
  therefore continue to function as barriers to
  success. There are also some in our community
  who 'got it' some time ago and tried to make
  authentic wraparound work, but will little to no
  cooperation...
• The process is still largely agency driven -
  their is no room for community voice.
• Resistance of families to engage in services
• but from what I see generally in human service
  delivery here I think there is a long way to go
  to really embody the client/family driven nature
  of these service delivery approaches. This
  requires a philosophical shift.
• Lack of knowledge of wraparound process.
  Tracking wrong outcomes.
• Lack of consistency, lack of available capacity
  in local agencies.

28
Results Detail

• The following Figures present the percent of
  respondents who assigned scores of 0, 1, 2, 3,
  and 4 to each item
• For each item, description of the positive and
  negative anchors (i.e., for scores of 0 and 4) is
  also presented
• Figures also present the mean rating and number
  of respondents answering dont know for each
  item

29
CSWI ResultsTheme 1Community Partnership-
Detail

• Collective community ownership of and
  responsibility for wraparound is built through
  collaborations among key stakeholder groups.

30
Item 1.1 Community Team
Mean 1.65 Answered Q 26 DK 3 Skipped 0

• Fully Developed
• There is a formal collaborative structure (e.g.,
  a community team) for joint planning and
  decision-making through which community partners
  take collective responsibility for development
  and implementation of wraparound.
• Least Developed
• The wraparound effort is unsupported by any
  collaborative system-level decision-making
  entity, leaving facilitators and other wraparound
  staff without a higher-level body to bust
  barriers or solve system-level problems on their
  behalf.

31
Item 1.2 Empowered Community Team
Mean 1.52 Answered Q 27 DK 2 Skipped 0

• Fully Developed
• The community team includes leaders who are
  empowered to make decisions and commit resources
  on behalf of their organization to support the
  development and implementation of wraparound.
• Least Developed
• Leaders at the system- or community-level are
  reluctant or unable to make decisions or commit
  resources to support the development and
  implementation of wraparound.

32
Item 1.3 Family Voice
Mean 0.79 Answered Q 28 DK 1 Skipped 0

• Fully Developed
• Families are influential members of the
  community team and other decision-making
  entities, and they take active roles in
  wraparound program planning, implementation
  oversight, and evaluation. Families are provided
  with support and training so that they can
  participate fully and comfortably in these roles.
  
• Least Developed
• Family members are not actively involved in
  decision-making, or are uninfluential or "token"
  components of the community team, boards, and
  other collaborative bodies that plan programs and
  guide implementation and evaluation.

33
Item 1.4 Youth Voice
Mean 1.64 Answered Q 28 DK 1 Skipped 0

• Fully Developed
• Youth and young adults are influential members
  of the community team and other decision-making
  entities, and they take active roles in
  wraparound program planning, implementation
  oversight, and evaluation. Young people are
  provided with support and training so that they
  can participate fully and comfortably in these
  roles.
• Least Developed
• Young people are not actively involved in
  decision-making, or are uninfluential or "token"
  components of the community team, boards, and
  other collaborative bodies that plan programs,
  oversee implementation, and conduct evaluation.

34
Item 1.5 Full Agency Support
Mean 1.56 Answered Q 27 DK 2 Skipped 0

• Fully Developed
• The community team benefits from active
  collaboration across child-serving agencies.
  Relevant public agencies (e.g., mental health,
  child welfare, schools, courts) and major private
  provider organizations all participate actively
  and buy in to the wraparound effort.
• Least Developed
• The community team does not benefit from active
  participation or support from relevant child
  serving agencies or organizations. Those
  providing wraparound do so in the absence of
  "buy-in" from these other agencies and their
  staff.

35
Item 1.6 Community Stakeholders
Mean 1.04 Answered Q 28 DK 1 Skipped 0

• Fully Developed
• The community team includes leaders from the
  business, service, faith and other sectors, who
  partner in system design, implementation
  oversight, and evaluation and provide tangible
  resources (including human resources such as
  volunteers).
• Least Developed
• Representatives of the collaborating agencies
  are not actively involved in decision-making, or
  are unengaged members of the community team and
  other collaborative bodies.

36
Item 1.7 Community Representativeness
Mean 1.57 Answered Q 28 DK 1 Skipped 0

• Fully Developed
• The membership of the community team reflects
  the social, cultural, and economic diversity of
  the community and the families served by
  wraparound.
• Least Developed
• Members on the community team and/or other
  collaborative bodies do not reflect the social,
  cultural, and economic diversity of the community
  and the families served by wraparound

37
CSWI ResultsTheme 2Collaborative Action- Detail

• Stakeholders involved in the wraparound effort
  take concrete steps to translate the wraparound
  philosophy into concrete policies, practices and
  achievements

38
Item 2.1 Community Principles Values
Mean 1.46 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Key stakeholders in the wraparound effort have
  collectively developed and formally ratified
  statements of mission, principles, and desired
  outcomes that provide a clear direction for
  planning, implementation, and joint action.
• Least Developed
• Statements of mission, principles, and/or
  outcomes have not been developed. Each agency and
  organization has its own mission and values and
  there is no common vision or set of values or
  desired outcomes shared across agencies.

39
Item 2.2 High-level Leadership
Mean 1.15 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The system has multiple high level leaders
  (e.g., senior agency administrators, elected
  officials, and other influential stakeholders)
  who understand wraparound and who actively
  support wraparound development by forging
  partnerships among agencies and organizations,
  changing policies, inspiring individual
  stakeholders, and creating effective fiscal
  strategies.
• Least Developed
• There are few if any high-level leaders in the
  system who truly understand or actively support
  wraparound development. Leaders are unable or
  unwilling to forge partnerships, integrate
  systems, or create effective fiscal strategies to
  support the wraparound effort.

40
Item 2.3 Proactive Planning
Mean 1.73 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The wraparound effort is guided by a plan for
  joint action that describes the goals of the
  wraparound effort, the strategies that will be
  used to achieve the goals, and the roles of
  specific stakeholders in carrying out the
  strategies
• Least Developed
• There is no plan for joint action that describes
  goals of the wraparound effort, strategies for
  achieving the goals, or roles of specific
  stakeholders.

41
Item 2.4 Joint Action Steps
Mean 1.69 Answered Q 26 DK 32 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Collaborative and individual agency plans
  demonstrate specific and tangible collaborative
  steps (e.g., developing MOUs, contributing
  resources, revising agency regulations,
  participating in planning activities) toward
  achieving joint goals that are central to the
  wraparound effort.
• Least Developed
• Though there may be a stated commitment to the
  wraparound effort, agencies and other key
  stakeholders have NOT taken specific and tangible
  steps toward achieving central goals of the
  wraparound effort (such as developing MOUs,
  revising policies and regulations, etc).

42
Item 2.5 Partner Agency Staff Prep
Mean 1.88 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The collaborating agencies take concrete steps
  to ensure that their staff members are informed
  about wraparound values and practice. All staff
  who participate directly in the wraparound effort
  do so in a manner that is in keeping with
  wraparound principles, such as collaborative,
  strengths-based, and respectful of families and
  youth.
• Least Developed
• Providers and agency personnel are not informed
  about the wraparound philosophy, and staff who
  participate in the wraparound effort are unable
  or unwilling to do so in a manner that is in
  keeping with wraparound principles.

43
Item 2.6 Information Sharing
Mean 1.81 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Information is shared efficiently across systems
  (or is maintained centrally for the wraparound
  program) so as to provide the data needed to
  monitor wraparound quality, plan implementation,
  costs, and outcomes.
• Least Developed
• Agencies have not resolved legal issues and/or
  developed mechanisms for efficiently sharing the
  information that is required to monitor
  wraparound quality, plan implementation, costs,
  and outcomes.

44
Item 2.7 Single Plan
Mean 1.08 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The wraparound plan is the plan of care that
  structures and coordinates all partner agencies'
  work with a given child and family. The format
  and structure for documenting the plan reinforces
  relevant wraparound principles such as
  strengths-based, family-driven, and
  individualized.
• Least Developed
• Different agencies and systems that serve a
  child and family develop and maintain separate,
  uncoordinated plans of care and/or the
  wraparound plan or other agency plans are
  recorded in ways that are not in keeping with
  wraparound principles (e.g., plans reflect
  deficit-based, family-blaming, or expert-driven
  perspectives)

45
Item 2.8 State Interface
Mean 0.55 Answered Q 22 DK 6 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The wraparound effort has an active and
  productive partnership with state agencies. This
  partnership has been successful in motivating
  policy and funding changes that support
  wraparound programs and practice.
• Least Developed
• There is no organized interface between the
  community and state agencies around children's
  services and supports. State level policies,
  regulations, and funding are in conflict with the
  communitys wraparound effort and different
  stakeholder groups are competing for different
  types of changes to rules, regulations, and laws.

46
CSWI ResultsTheme 3Fiscal Policies
Sustainability- Detail

• The community has developed fiscal strategies to
  meet the needs of children participating in
  wraparound and methods to collect and use data on
  expenditures for wraparound-eligible children.

47
Item 3.1 Fiscal Understanding
Mean 1.16 Answered Q 25 DK 3 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Agencies and decision makers have access to
  accurate information about the types and
  magnitudes of expenditures from all funding
  streams (e.g., mental health, special education,
  juvenile justice, developmental disabilities) for
  services and supports for all children with
  serious and complex needs (regardless of whether
  or not they are actually enrolled in wraparound).
  
• Least Developed
• Information about expenditures for services and
  supports is fragmented across different
  information systems/sources such that decision
  makers cannot determine the use and costs of
  services and supports for children with serious
  and complex needs (regardless of whether or not
  they are actually enrolled in wraparound).

48
Item 3.2 Removing Fiscal Barriers
Mean 0.79 Answered Q 24 DK 4 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The community collaborative has a formalized
  process for identifying and acting to remedy
  fiscal policies that impede the implementation of
  the wraparound program or the fulfillment of
  wraparound plans. Important changes to fiscal
  policies have been made.
• Least Developed
• The community collaborative lacks formal
  understanding of the ways in which fiscal
  policies act as barriers to the implementation of
  the wraparound program or the fulfillment of
  wraparound plans and/or, where awareness exists,
  no action is taken to change policy.

49
Item 3.3 Collective Fiscal Responsibility
Mean 0.65 Answered Q 23 DK 5 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Key decision-makers and relevant agencies assume
  collective fiscal responsibility for children and
  families participating in wraparound and do not
  attempt to shift costs to each other or to
  entities outside of the wraparound effort.
• Least Developed
• Each agency has its own cost controls and
  agencies do not collaborate to reduce cost
  shifting, either to each other or to entities
  outside of the wraparound effort.

50
Item 3.4 Fiscal Monitoring
Mean 0.50 Answered Q 18 DK 10 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• There is a formalized mechanism for reviewing
  the costs of implementing the wraparound program
  and wraparound plans. This information is used to
  clarify/streamline spending policies and to seek
  ways to become more efficient at providing
  high-quality wraparound.
• Least Developed
• There is little or no information available
  about the costs of implementing the wraparound
  program or wraparound plans and/or what
  information is available is not used to
  streamline spending policies or improve
  efficiency.

51
Item 3.5 Fiscal Flexibility
Mean 1.00 Answered Q 21 DK 7 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Funds are available to pay for services and
  supports, and to fully implement strategies
  included in individual wraparound plans and
  safety/crisis plans.
• Least Developed
• Financing policies are rigid and are largely or
  entirely designed to facilitate payment for
  categorical services. There is little latitude
  for flexibility to provide creative,
  individualized care for children, youth, and
  families.

52
Item 3.6 Sustained Funding
Mean 0.52 Answered Q 21 DK 7 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• There is a clear and feasible plan for
  sustaining fiscal support for the wraparound
  effort over the long term, and this plan is being
  fully implemented.
• Least Developed
• There is no clear and feasible plan for
  sustaining fiscal support for the wraparound
  effort

53
CSWI ResultsTheme 4Access to Needed Supports
and Services- Detail

• The community has developed mechanisms for
  ensuring access to the wraparound process and the
  services and supports that wraparound teams need
  to fully implement their plans.

54
Item 4.1 Program Access
Mean 0.96 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Wraparound is adequately available and
  accessible so that families who can benefit from
  it are able to participate if they wish.
• Least Developed
• Children and families who would benefit from
  wraparound are not aware that it is available or
  they are unable to access it (e.g. because of
  eligibility barriers or lack of availability).

55
Item 4.2 Service/Support Availability
Mean 0.85 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Wraparound teams can readily access (or receive
  necessary support to create) the services and
  supports required to fully implement their plans
  (including services such as respite, in home
  services, family support, mentoring, etc., that
  are commonly requested by wraparound teams).
• Least Developed
• Services and supports needed to fully implement
  wraparound plans are not readily available or
  cannot be created in sufficient quantity.

56
Item 4.3 Building Natural Community Supports
Mean 0.88 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The wraparound effort devotes resources to and
  is able to develop connections with organizations
  in the community and individuals in families
  social support networks. Teams, family members,
  and youths regularly and effectively access these
  resources to implement individualized strategies
  contained in wraparound plans
• Least Developed
• The wraparound effort relies on individual team
  members to create natural and community support
  from scratch as needed to implement strategies
  in their plan. No staff time or other resources
  are specifically devoted toward increasing
  individual or community capacity to provide
  natural and community supports.

57
Item 4.4 Choice
Mean 0.77 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Children and families have the opportunity to
  select among service and support options when
  developing strategies for their wraparound plans
  (including options that rely on natural or
  informal supports rather than formal supports),
  They are able to choose different providers or
  strategies if they become dissatisfied.
• Least Developed
• Provider and service/support selection is
  dictated by agencies, availability, and funding
  streams with little choice for families.

58
Item 4.5 Service/Support Quality
Mean 1.08 Answered Q 26 DK 2 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Providers offer high-quality services and
  supports (e.g., therapies, treatments, in-home
  services, mentoring) that are "research based" in
  that they conform to current information about
  best practices and/or have research or evaluation
  data demonstrating their effectiveness.
• Least Developed
• Most formal and community services and supports
  are generic or unstructured and providers are not
  knowledgeable about current best practices.

59
Item 4.6 Crisis Response
Mean 0.52 Answered Q 23 DK 5 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Necessary support for managing crises and fully
  implementing teams' safety/crisis plans is
  available around the clock. The communitys
  crisis response is integrated with and supportive
  of wraparound crisis and safety plans. .
• Least Developed
• Support for managing crises is insufficient,
  inconsistently available, or uncoordinated with
  wraparound teams' crisis and safety plans.

60
CSWI ResultsTheme 5Human Resource Development
Support- Detail

• The policy and funding context supports
  wraparound staff and partner agency staff to work
  in a manner that allows full implementation of
  the wraparound model

61
Item 5.1 Wrap Job Expectations
Mean 1.05 Answered Q 20 DK 8 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The job expectations (duties and requirements
  from supervisors) of people with primary roles
  for carrying out wraparound (e.g., wraparound
  facilitators, parent partners) affords them
  adequate time, flexibility, and resources and
  encourages them to implement high-fidelity
  wraparound. . .
• Least Developed
• People with primary roles for carrying out
  wraparound are expected to do other jobs and/or
  the requirements for how they do their jobs
  conflict with expectations of high fidelity
  wraparound.

62
Item 5.2 Agency Job Expectations
Mean 1.37 Answered Q 19 DK 9 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The job expectations of people who participate
  on wraparound teams (e.g., providers and partner
  agency staff) affords them adequate time,
  flexibility, and resources to participate fully
  in team meetings and to carry out their assigned
  tasks for implementing wraparound plans.
• Least Developed
• Providers and agency staff who are asked to
  serve on wraparound teams are not given
  sufficient time, flexibility and/or resources to
  participate fully in team meetings and implement
  wraparound plans. .

63
Item 5.3 Caseload Sizes
Mean 0.88 Answered Q 16 DK 12 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Caseload sizes for people with primary roles for
  carrying out wraparound (e.g., wraparound
  facilitators, parent partners) allow them to
  consistently and thoroughly complete the
  activities of the wraparound process.
• Least Developed
• The case loads for people with primary roles for
  carrying out wraparound are too large to allow
  thorough completion of wraparound activities.

64
Item 5.4 Professional Development
Mean 1.06 Answered Q 18 DK 10 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• People with primary roles for carrying out
  wraparound (e.g., wraparound facilitators, parent
  partners) receive comprehensive training, shadow
  experienced workers prior to working
  independently, and receive ongoing coaching that
  focuses on systematically developing needed
  skills. .
• Least Developed
• People with primary roles for carrying out
  wraparound receive minimal training and no
  ongoing coaching or other professional
  development to ensure skillful implementation of
  wraparound

65
Item 5.5 Supervision
Mean 0.85 Answered Q 20 DK 8 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• People with primary roles for carrying out
  wraparound (e.g., wraparound facilitators, parent
  partners) receive regular individual and group
  supervision, and periodic "in-vivo" (observation)
  supervision from supervisors who are
  knowledgeable about wraparound and proficient in
  the skills needed to carry out the wraparound
  process.
• Least Developed
• People with primary roles for carrying out
  wraparound receive little or no regular
  individual, group, or observational supervision
  AND/OR supervisors are inexperienced with
  wraparound or unable to effectively teach needed
  skills.

66
Item 5.6 Compensation for Wrap Staff
Mean 0.91 Answered Q 11 DK 17 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• Compensation for people with primary roles for
  carrying out wraparound (e.g., wraparound
  facilitators, parent partners) reflects their
  value and encourages staff retention and
  commitment. These people have opportunities for
  career advancement based on the skills they
  acquire with wraparound.
• Least Developed
• People with primary roles for carrying out
  wraparound are paid less than comparable
  positions in the community (e.g., child welfare
  case workers, probation officers) and have no
  access to career advancement based on the skills
  they acquire with wraparound.

67
CSWI ResultsTheme 6Accountability- Detail

• The community has implemented mechanisms to
  monitor wraparound fidelity, service quality, and
  outcomes, and to assess the quality and
  development of the overall wraparound effort.

68
Item 6.1 Outcomes Monitoring
Mean 0.67 Answered Q 27 DK 1 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• There is centralized monitoring of relevant
  outcomes for children, youth, and families in
  wraparound. This information is used as the basis
  for funding, policy discussions and strategic
  planning .
• Least Developed
• There is no tracking of relevant outcomes for
  children and youth in wraparound, or different
  agencies and systems involved maintain separate
  tracking systems.

69
Item 6.2 Range of Outcomes
Mean 0.85 Answered Q 27 DK 1 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• The outcomes that are measured include outcomes
  that are typically important to families and that
  reflect the values of wraparound (e.g. child and
  family assets and strengths, caregiver
  well-being, family/youth empowerment). .
• Least Developed
• Outcomes that are measured are those that are
  primarily of interest to professionals or
  agencies and/or that reflect an expert-driven,
  family-blaming, or deficit-based perspective. .

70
Item 6.3 Wraparound Quality
Mean 0.56 Answered Q 27 DK 1 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• There is ongoing collection and review of data
  on the quality of wraparound provided, including
  live observation, plan review, and feedback from
  children and families. The methods used to assess
  quality are grounded in the principles of
  wraparound. Data is used as the basis for ongoing
  quality assurance/improvement.
• Least Developed
• No systematic monitoring of wraparound quality
  occurs and/or the data is not used as the basis
  for ongoing quality improvement efforts.

71
Item 6.4 Plan Fulfillment
Mean 0.78 Answered Q 27 DK 1 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• There is centralized monitoring and analysis of
  the types of services and supports included in
  wraparound plans, whether or not planned services
  and supports are provided, and whether or not the
  goals and needs that appear on wraparound plans
  are met. .
• Least Developed
• There is no centralized monitoring and analysis
  of the types of services and supports included in
  wraparound plans, whether or not planned services
  and supports are provided, and whether or not
  goals and needs are met.

72
Item 6.5 Grievance Procedure
Mean 0.43 Answered Q 21 DK 7 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• There is a grievance procedure that is easily
  accessible to families when they believe that
  they are not receiving appropriate supports and
  services or are not being treated in a manner
  consistent with the wraparound philosophy.
  Grievances are resolved in a timely manner, and
  families are in no way penalized for accessing
  the procedure.
• Least Developed
• There is no accessible grievance procedure that
  families can use if they are dissatisfied without
  being penalized for grieving.

73
Item 6.6 Satisfaction Monitoring
Mean 0.58 Answered Q 24 DK 4 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• There is an ongoing process to track
  satisfaction and buy-in among stakeholder groups,
  including youth and families and representatives
  of partner agencies and organizations.
• Least Developed
• There is no process in place to track
  satisfaction and buy-in among youth and families
  and key stakeholder groups.

74
Item 6.7 Addressing Barriers
Mean 0.83 Answered Q 24 DK 4 Skipped 1

• Fully Developed
• There is an ongoing process to track
  satisfaction and buy-in among stakeholder groups,
  including youth and families and representatives
  of partner agencies and organizations.
• Least Developed
• There is no process in place to track
  satisfaction and buy-in among youth and families
  and key stakeholder groups.