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


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)


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


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)


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)


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)


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


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


“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

Why We Needed to Change JK Settlement: Arizona’s Roadmap

Documents

Transcript of Why We Needed to Change JK Settlement: Arizona’s Roadmap