“Key Strategies to Design, Develop and Implement a System of Care for Children from the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems with Serious Emotional and Mental Health Needs” Bruce Kamradt, MSW, Director, Wraparound Milwaukee Illinois Child Care Association November 13, 2013 Created in 1995, it is a unique system of care for Milwaukee County children & adolescents with serious emotional, mental health and behavioral needs that cross child serving systems (e.g. Mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare) who are at imminent risk of institutional type placements 1,500 youth/families served (1050 daily census) Operated by Milwaukee County government as a unique Care Management Entity (CME) under the 1915a provision of Social Security Act, it acts as a type of behavioral health HMO Pools funds across child serving systems ($51 million for 2013) to increase flexibility and availability of funding – Wraparound Milwaukee is single payer One service plan and one care manager 47% of youth served are from juvenile justice system and 25% are court-ordered from child welfare system. 2009—Named by Harvard University—Kennedy School of Government as Best Innovation in American Government Over utilization of out of home care for juvenile justice and child welfare youth including group/residential treatment, juvenile correctional placements, and psychiatric in-patient care – Too many kids being placed and for too long High cost of out of home care expenditures was causing serious deficits in juvenile justice/child welfare budget in Milwaukee County Poor outcomes for youth coming out of institutional placements concerned court, advocates and juvenile justice/child welfare officials 4 Youth must meet the State eligibility definition under the Medicaid Program DSM-IV diagnosis Functional or psychiatric impairment Condition that is likely to persist for a year or more Involvement in two or more child serving systems i.e. mental health, Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice or special education At immediate risk of institutionalization in a residential treatment center, psychiatric hospital or juvenile correctional facility 60% of families under U.S. federal poverty level 70% boys Average age 13.5; 11.0 for voluntary REACH program 67% African American, 23% Caucasian, 9 % Hispanic Major DSM-IV Diagnosis ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 60% Conduct disorder/oppositional defiant 50% Depressive disorders 40% Attention deficit 30% Substance abuse 30% Learning /developmental disabilities 8% Psychotic disorders 6 Regular wraparound – youth under a child welfare order or adjudicated delinquent youth with serious emotional disturbance (SED) at risk of placement in a psychiatric impatient hospital , residential treatment center or juvenile correctional placement – 610 youth FOCUS – youth with SED committed to the State Dept. of Corrections with “stayed order” – 40 youth Re-Entry – youth with SED being transitioned out of a state juvenile correctional facility – 25 youth 7 REACH – non-adjudicated SED youth and their families who are at risk of imminent placement in a group home, residential treatment center, psychiatric hospital who have had contact with two or more child serving systems – 350 children/families Healthy Transitions – 17 to 24 year old, young adults with SED transitioning out of foster care settings – 75 young adults 8 Family Directed Care – “Families needed to be seen as the solution to meeting their children’s needs and not the problem” Strength-Based Care – “Needed to build on child and family strengths and resources and not focus on their perceived deficits” Individualized Care – “Every child and family is unique and deserves a care plan that addresses their unique needs and is tailored to meet those needs – categorical approaches don’t work” Community-Based Care – “Services are usually more effective when delivered in the child’s own home and community versus institutional settings” Coordinated Care Across Serving Systems – “Coordinated care across child serving systems works better than fragmented care – One Family – One Plan” Culturally Competency in Service Provision “Respect and understanding for cultural differences is paramount to effectively work with families” Unconditional Responses – “ We never can give up – plans fail, not people” Ten Critical Strategies for Designing, Developing and Implementing Systems of Care •An effective and logical administrative structure •A blended financing model •Strong collaboration across child serving systems •Strong family and youth partnerships •Ability to provide individualized, tailored care to participants Ten Critical Strategies for Designing, Developing and Implementing Systems of Care •Availability of mobile crisis services and crisis supports 24/7 •A high quality and diverse Provider Network •A comprehensive array of mental health and support services that are evidence-informed •Ability to create a good quality assurance, quality improvements and outcomes measurement program • Effective Information Technology System 1. An effective and logical administrative structure •It is best to create a separate administrative structure for the day-to-day operation of the system of care, called a Care Management Entity (CME) What is a Care Management Entity (CME)? •An organizational entity that serves as the “locus of accountability” for defined populations of youth with complex challenges across service systems •Is accountable for improving the quality, outcomes and cost of care for historically high-cost/poor outcomes populations •In Milwaukee County, most youth with serious emotional mental health needs at risk of institutional placement served in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems are referred to the Wraparound Milwaukee CME Administration Program oversight Enrollment Finance – claims processing and payment of providers Quality assurance/quality management including utilization review Evaluation Information technology Contracting/procurement Public relations Liaison with courts Dispute resolution Programmatic Assessment Care Coordination Provider Network Crisis services Medical/clinical oversight Family Advocacy Training/consultation 15 2. A blended funding system •It is desirable for child serving systems to pool, or “blend” funds to create a more sufficient and flexible funding source •A single payor system is more efficient than having each child serving system funding care separately for the same children CHILD WELFARE $131.00 Case Rate (Budget for Institutional Care for CHIPS Children) 10.0M JUVENILE JUSTICE (Funds Budgeted for Residential Treatment and Juvenile Corrections Placements) 10.0M MEDICAID CAPITATION (1923 per Month per Enrollee) 23.0M CARE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (CMO) $51.0 M FAMILIES UNITED $475,000 PLAN OF CARE OR FUTURES PLAN •CRISIS BILLING •HTI GRANT •HMO COMMERCIAL INSUR 8.0 M WRAPAROUND MILWAUKEE CHILD & FAMILY TEAM OR TRANSITION TEAM MENTAL HEALTH Child Welfare Medicaid Alternative to out-of-home care high costs/poor outcomes Alternative to IP/ER-high cost System of Care Alternative to Residential & Correctional placements Juvenile Justice Alternative to DayTreatment costs Special Education With help of managed care consultant, we costed out potential costs of caring for residential treatment youth in the community including shorter RTC stays, anticipated service needs, etc. Proposed $3300 per month case rate versus $5600 average cost of RTC placement (1996) 18 month period of time to enroll all existing youth in residential treatment plus all newly identified youth needing RTC level of care MHD’s Wraparound Milwaukee Program would assume fiscal risk Dane County (Madison) and Milwaukee County began negotiating with Medicaid in 1995 to create “behavioral health carve-outs” in the two most populous Wisconsin counties proposed model would include access to child welfare/juvenile justice funds though this was not absolutely required under waiver Used 1915(a) provision of Social Security Act to create a voluntary managed care program for this defined group of youth Ability to access child welfare/juvenile justice funds plus potential of reducing RTC placements offered Medicaid potential cost savings in reduced acute inpatient psychiatric bed days Actual Analysis of costs of these RTC/SED youth performed and Wraparound Milwaukee (Milwaukee County) offered 95% of per child per month cost and would assume fiscal risk 3. Strong collaboration across child serving systems CHALLENGE 1. Language Differences “Mental Health Jargon vs. Court Jargon” ◦ Cross Training Needs ◦ Share Literature On Wraparound 2. Role Definition: “Who’s in Charge?” ◦ Family Driven / Philosophy ◦ Team Development Training ◦ Job Shadowing CHALLENGE 3. Information Sharing Between Systems ◦ Set up a Common Data Base for Shared Access to Information ◦ Share Org. Charts / Phone Lists ◦ Share Paperwork Responsibility ie: Court Letters, Reports, etc. ◦ Promote Flexibility in Schedules to Support Attendance in Meetings 4. Addressing Issues of Community Safety ◦ Document Safety Plans ◦ Develop Protocol for High Risk Kids ◦ Demonstrate Adherence to Court Orders CHALLENGE 5. Maintaining Investment from Stakeholders ◦ Invest in Relationships with Partners in Collaboration ie: Judges, DA’s, Probation, etc. ◦ Track & Provide Meaningful Outcomes 6. Sharing Value Base ◦ Infuse Values into all Meetings, Trainings & Workshops ◦ Share Documentation and Include Parents in as Many Meetings as Possible Having a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) for key stakeholders/funders Define roles to avoid “Turf Issues” Financial arrangements Reporting requirements Creating a conflict resolution protocol Care Coordinator & Bureau Worker Care Coordinator & Probation Officer Care Coordinator Supervisor & Bureau Supervisor Care Coordinator Supervisor & Probation Supervisor Wraparound Milwaukee Liaison & Bureau Section Manager Wraparound Milwaukee Liaison & Probation Program Manager Wraparound Milwaukee Director & Director Delinquency Services or Director Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare Developing a standard curriculum for training of all staff Creating and disseminating meaningful program, fiscal and clinical outcomes Making available a single information system for improved data sharing Delinquency & court services uses Synthesis for their IT needs Standardizing flexible court orders Each system’s role with child/family is specifically written into court order Child Welfare workers, Probation and Wraparound Milwaukee care coordinators share court duties regarding reports, filing of legal documents, etc. Participating on Child Welfare & Juvenile Justice committees, workgroups, councils, e and expecting Child Welfare & Juvenile Justice staff to participate in plan of care and other wraparound meetings. Developing a coordinating Committee of Key Stakeholders. Advisory committee to the Wraparound Milwaukee Program Consists of representatives from key child serving agencies i.e. Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, schools, Medicaid, etc. Judicial representation Families/advocates Providers from network CEO’s from 8 care coordination agencies Advise Wraparound management on program, fiscal, and clinical issues, etc.; review QA/QI and evaluation studies; review training/education needs of program, etc. 4. Strong Family and Youth Partnerships •Families want “Voice, Choice and Ownership” in decisions related to their children and families need to be actively engaged in directing the care of these children •Systems of care utilize Family Advocacy agencies to provide 1:1 advocacy and other supports for families •Developing a Youth Council, Clubhouse Model, Young Adult Peer Specialists and other approaches can provide positive community experiences for youth •Families and Youth need to be invited to participate on all agency committees, councils, training and staff development and other activities Orientations Advocacy on Child & Family Team Crisis Intervention Serve on Wrap Committees /Work Groups Relaxation and Support Groups Families United Recruitment /Training of Families Family Events Educational Advocacy Youth Council/Yout h Advocacy Assist Families in Court 5. Ability to provide individualized, tailored care to participants •It is best to utilize a family driven process called “wraparound approach” where a care plan is created unique to each family and utilizing the strengths of the Child and Family Team to meet their needs and reach desired outcomes •Child and Family Teams, made up of the family, friends, and providers chosen by the family, create the individualized tailored care plan •Care Coordinators facilitate coordinated service teams and help the family identify and arrange for needed services •Care Coordinators should work with no more than eight families -The goal is to have “One Family – One Plan” Wraparound is a family driven process where a plan unique to the family is created utilizing the strengths and supports of the Child and Family to meet their needs and reach their desired outcomes In Wraparound, Child and Family teams are formed, made up of the family, friends & providers to create an individualized tailored care plan • • • • • • • • Teams are facilitated by a Care Coordinator whose roles and responsibilities include: Home visits (weekly) Monthly Team Meetings Plan of Care Meetings, every 60 – 90 days Collaborating with System Partners Court appearances when indicated School meetings as needed Authorizing and arranging supports and services Ongoing monitoring of the Plan of Care and service provision Strengths Community Based System Integration Unconditional Care Normalization Values & Principles Family Centered Cultural Competency Refinancing Collaboration Needs Driven Agencies provide a welcoming environment Staff use family friendly language Information is shared with permission only and on a need to Know basis Meetings are not held without the youth and family present Brochures, documents, spaces are sought out, reviewed and approved by the families they will be serving Staff embrace and adhere to strength based language in conversation and documentation Staff are taught to reframe in a meaningful way that leads to hope for the families and realistic planning Creative resource development and planning is encouraged and supported Agencies respond to the unique needs of families in their communities Staff are trained to listen to needs rather than diagnoses and deficits only Plans of care are developed that are responsive to the individualized needs of youth and families rather than service driven based on what we have and know • • • Agencies demonstrate diversity in their hiring practices, policies and training All committees, trainings and events have youth and family input, membership and participation Family norms and culture are sought out, embraced and incorporated into the family’s plan for the success of the family Money flows in the system of care to support needs at the community and individual family level Agencies are imbedded in the communities where the families live and/or are easily accessible. Operating hours of business, meetings, trainings and events are responsive to families’ schedules Families get what they need rather than what we have Community Stakeholders are easily mobilized to take action in times of need Agencies are at the table to break down barriers and partner in an effective and sustainable way on behalf of families A single care plan format has been developed to decrease confusion, avoid duplication of efforts or dollars and enhance coordination for the best care of youth and families Agencies are not permitted to kick kids and families out of the very programs established to meet their needs. Blame the plan if it isn’t working, not the family Develop methods to hold everyone accountable for follow through on promised actions in committees as well as plan of care meetings Develop methods to measure outcomes and remain outcome driven 6. Availability of mobile crisis services and crisis supports 24/7 •Crisis Safety Plans need to be created for all youth with serious emotional and mental health needs •Mobile Crisis Teams need to provide crisis intervention services, 24/7 and see the child and family in the community wherever the crisis occurs, whether at home, school or other location •It is advantageous to create an array of crisis stabilization services such as utilizing crisis 1:1 stabilizers to provide follow-up support to families, teachers and others and can implement crisis/safety plans to prevent re-occurrence of the crisis and/or teach strategies to the family to more effectively deal with future crisis Crisis Teams (24/7) Crisis Plans Crisis Beds in foster, group homes and residential centers Crisis 1:1 Stabilizers Preferred Inpatient Providers 7. A high quality and diverse Provider Network •Rather than contracting for a more limited array of programs, Wraparound Milwaukee created a network of nearly 200 mental health and social service agencies to provide a broader array of services – whatever the family needs •Providers are paid on a fee-for-service basis and emphasis is put on quality and achieving positive outcomes •Families need to have a choice of service providers rather than be assigned to a specific agency 8. A Comprehensive Array of Mental Health and Support Services •To individualize care based on needs, systems of care need a broad service array of mental health and supportive – “one size or service does not fit all” services available to children and families •Systems of care need both formal “paid services” as well as informal or “unpaid services” Supportive Services Service Coordination Mentors Care coordination Crisis 1:1 stabilizer Respite Tutor Crisis/planned respite Parent/family aide Residential respite Life coach – independent living Discretionary Medication management Employment preparation and placement Clothing Day treatment Job – internship Behavioral & Clinical Services Crisis intervention Individual therapy Intensive in-home therapy Evaluation Substance abuse therapy (individual and group) Special therapy (i.e.Placement behavioral management Services team) Acute hospitalization Other Supportive Flex Funds Food/groceries Housing assistance Child care Camps Furniture, appliances Foster home and treatment foster home After school YMCA membership Suspension accountability Educational expenses Group home care Transportation Residential treatment Interpretive services Crisis/residential, group care, treatment foster care Equine therapy Supported independent living Consultation with other professionals 47 9. Ability to create a good quality assurance/quality improvement and outcomes measurement program •Policies and mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that care and services are being provided consistent with program expectations •Outcomes to be measured should be meaningful to stakeholders 10. Effective Information Technology Systems •One electronic health record and single information system should link all Care Coordinators, Service Providers and System Partners •Create immediate access for system partners, care coordinators and managers to information including demographic and enrollment information, care plans, services authorized, vendor lists, program notes as well as utilization data, medical information and other reports should be available to support system 1. QA/QI Workplan 2. Policies and Procedures 3. Auditing Plans of Care b. Progress Notes c. Charts d. Provider Network a. Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement 4. Family Satisfaction Surveys Care Coordinator b. Provider c. Out of Home a. 5. Complaint/Grievance /Critical Incident Process 6. Outcome Evaluation 7. Utilization Review 8. Agency Performance Reports a. Care Coordination monitoring Outcomes currently being measured include programmatic, fiscal, clinical, public safety, child permanency and consumer satisfaction Programmatically – the average daily residential treatment population has dropped from 375 youth to 80 youth, inpatient psychiatric days from 5000 to under 500 days per year Fiscally – the averages cost for a child/family in Wraparound is about $3,400 per month (2013)versus nearly $9,500 per month for a residential treatment placement, nearly $9000 per month for a correctional placement or well over $10,000 for a 7-day hospital stay Clinically – children function better at home, school and in the community based on administration of nationally normed measures such as the CBCL (Achenbach) used at the time of enrollment and discharge Public Safety – recidivism rates for delinquents are low (15.2%) for youth in the program for at least one year and even lower (6.7%) for high risk offenders including juvenile sex offenders (this is considerably under national standards) Child Permanence – 80% of youth achieve permanency, i.e., return to parents, relatives, adoptive resources or subsidized guardianship upon leaving Wraparound Family Satisfaction – families surveyed upon completing Wraparound (average 18 months) gave the program a rating of 4.4 out of 5 points in terms of their perception of the progress their child made while in the program Overall recidivism rate for Wraparound Milwaukee (Oct 2009 – June 2012) Re-offending rate for high risk (juvenile delinquent) youth in Wraparound Milwaukee Statistically significant improvement in functioning on Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL), Youth Self Report (YSR). Overall, 85% of youth at disenrollment have an improved level of functioning on the CBCL. 40% increase in school attendance from time of enrollment to disenrollment. Youth attended 87% of school days in 2012. 85% of youth achieved permanency plan of return home, relative placement or independent living at time of discharge from Wraparound Milwaukee Cost Effectiveness Wraparound Milwaukee vs. Institutional Placements Over Past Five Years (average monthly cost of service) Wraparound Milwaukee’s Impact on Reducing Utilization of State Correctional Placements and Costs Over Past Six Years* *Wraparound Milwaukee serves 40% of youth in Milwaukee County on probation and most of youths at immediate risk of residential treatment/correctional placement.