Foundations of Wraparound
Values, Practice Patterns and Essential Ingredients
By Patricia Miles and John Franz
Wraparound has grown and evolved since its introduction about 12 years ago. Now many communities
across the United States and Canada are implementing some form of the wraparound approach. Yet what
is being called wraparound in one place can look strikingly different from what is happening in another
location. The goal of this article is to provide an introduction to the basic elements of wraparound and to
offer some guidelines for measuring the degree to which the current state of practice in a community
reflects wraparound principles.
The metaphor of help
Wraparound challenges us to reinvent the metaphor of help – and as such it confronts many of our
unspoken assumptions about human services.1 At its heart, wraparound presents a choice in how we relate
to people with complex needs. Should we provide support to help them address and resolve their needs or
should we intervene to compel changes in their behavior or situation?
All of us experience needs across the various domains of our lives: finding a place to live, maintaining
positive relationships in our family, learning, obtaining physical and emotional healing, finding fulfilling
work to do, and so forth. None of us is able to meet all of our needs; but most of us, either by ourselves or
more often through our interdependence with friends and family members are able to meet enough of our
needs to get along. For some of us, however, our life situation, our physical, developmental or emotional
state, or a combination of situation and state makes it more difficult to meet our needs. The more we are
cut off from others, the more likely it is that we will be frustrated in our attempts to meet our own needs.
The more this frustration grows, the more destructive our behaviors can become.
When people are cut-off, frustrated and destructive one option for the community is to step in and take
control. This may prevent people from hurting themselves or others, but often at the cost of walling them
off even more. Another option is to offer basic comfort, support and assistance. This may help them
address their needs, but may not insure sufficient stability and safety.
Wraparound challenges the assumption that there is a complete dichotomy between intervention and
support. Instead we look for a common sense synthesis that brings together the best of what we know
works in human services, while acknowledging that there are times when we don't know what to do.
Wraparound is our way of figuring out what to do when we don't know what to do, and getting it done
together.
The technology of wraparound
Creating a supportive social context, a circle of care, around one person or family requires no technology.
This is a natural human response that can be found in every culture. We gather together and pitch in to
help. But where there are many disconnected people engaging in behaviors that are harmful to themselves
For a thorough, thoughtful and extraordinarily challenging critique of our country’s systems for professional helping, please
read Careless Society: Community and its Counterfeits by John McKnight. 1995. Basic Books: New York, NY.
1
or others, the wave of need can overwhelm our natural and informal responses. Then we have to get
organized to in order to do wraparound on a larger scale.
The wraparound approach is a method of translating a core set of values into action by incorporating them
in the processes and structures of a community's human service system. As all of us know from our own
lives, espousing a set of values is one thing. Putting them into action on a day in, day out basis is another.
In order to make wraparound happen for a large group of people, we have found that six technologies are
needed:

A strength-based team planning and action process

A value-driven information management system

A flexible cross-system infrastructure for accessing resources and funding

Consistent and sustained staff development, supervision and support

A quality management system that insures client access, voice and ownership

Policies and provider contracts that assure sustained relationships and an unconditional
commitment to success
These technologies can be implemented in many ways, depending on the nature of the needs of the
individuals and families being supported, the current human service infrastructure and the culture and
traditions of the community. But without these tools, our aspirations for a strength-based, family-driven
comprehensive system of care are likely to evaporate. The pressure to re-categorize services and return to
a control-oriented, deficit-driven model is simply too strong.
Misconceptions of wraparound
Wraparound is not a funding source. It's not therapy. It's not a program. It's not a new way to get stuff.
Wraparound is sometimes compared to or even confused with two of the better known types of intensive
family interventions: Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Systemic Therapy. But it isn't MST or FFT or
a competitor to them. Wraparound isn't case management. Wraparound isn't a residential treatment center
without walls. Wraparound isn't a specialized treatment option for a small group of children or adults.
Wraparound is a different way of organizing formal help. It can be hard work for everyone because it
requires individualized action with each family. But the six technologies can help service systems blend
support and intervention in a unified response that reveals creative opportunities where none appeared to
exist before.
2
These technologies are not new, nor are they associated only with wraparound. Practitioners in many
human service disciplines have proposed strength-based human service approaches.2 Similarly, there are
several models for developing collaborative systems of care, for blended or braided funding of services,
for family-centered practice, and client-driven quality assurance. What makes wraparound different is
combining these elements in order to establish alignment and coherence at the four levels of human service
operations: practice with individual clients, program operations in each agency, system connections among
agencies, and in the broader relationships throughout the community. Wraparound is a whole systems
model for organizational and operational change.
The wraparound equation
Relationships are at the heart of healing. Wraparound facilitates healing relationships by creating an
infrastructure for forming and sustaining circles of support for people and families that have complex
needs. Underlying this model is a simple equation: strengths + team + needs + plan + unconditional care =
wraparound.
Here's an example: Julie and Peter Jones are having trouble holding their family together. Peter is a 15
year old who has been labeled as having a bi-polar mental health disorder. He has been in and out of
school and has gotten in trouble with the law. His mother, Julie, provides a foster home for an adult with
developmental disabilities and also works as an advocate at an agency for people with disabilities. Peter
was in a residential treatment center and is at risk of being returned to one because of his destructive
behaviors.
With the goal of keeping Peter at home following his return to the community, Peter's probation
officer/case manager developed a treatment plan for the summer months: Peter is to attend a day treatment
program in the morning and find a part time job in the afternoon. He is to be monitored for medication by
a psychiatrist and see a therapist at least twice a month. A paraprofessional will spend time with Peter
twice a week. Julie is required to stop allowing Peter to smoke, to drop him off at day treatment every
morning and to find a therapist to help her work on her own issues. Julie is not to intervene if Peter's
behavior gets out of control, but should call the assigned paraprofessional or the local crisis intervention
unit.
This is a reasonable, well-resourced plan, but it is not working for this particular family. Peter and Julie
are still having blowups and the paraprofessional and the crisis team haven't been able to respond quickly
or effectively when called. Peter has had two psychiatric hospitalizations as a result
Strengths. It was decided to use a wraparound team to support the family. The team facilitator began by
meeting with Julie and Peter to identify some of their strengths. The facilitator learned that Peter was a
good hockey player. This was the source of several functional strengths: including the fact that Peter can
do well as a team member in a contact sport and that Peter can often follow the directions of a coach.
Peter also had an ability to use humor to strike up a conversation and keep it going when things are
stressful, a deep sensitivity for the needs of the older man for whom his mother provides foster care, and a
playful attitude that leads younger kids in the neighborhood to look up to him.
2
See, for example, Saleebey, Dennis (1996) "The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions"
Social Work: Vol. 41, No. 3, p. 296ff..
3
Julie's strengths included her strong sense of independence, her thorough understanding of bi-polar
disorder based on years of research and attending conferences, her commitment to hold onto her son, her
quick wit, her ability to mobilize resources when the chips are down, and her ability to tolerate
experimentation on the part of the system as it struggled to find answers for her son's situation.
Team. A small team was assembled including Julie, Peter, the hockey coach, a friend of Julie's, the
probation officer, an outpatient therapist who had seen Peter off and on for years, a staff person from day
treatment, the psychiatrist and the facilitator.
At their first meeting, the team expanded the strengths inventory to include resources that all of the
members brought to the circle and then adopted a mission statement: to help Julie and Peter get along well,
live safely together and contribute to their community.
Needs. Continuing the equation, the team listened as Peter and Julie considered what they would need in
order to accomplish this mission. Peter needed to be in control of age appropriate parts of his life, to have
good friends who didn't get him in trouble, to learn positive ways to ask for time with his mom, to be able
to play hockey, to develop good job skills and to start finding ways to be more independent from his
mother, but still feel sure that she would be there for him.
Some of Julie's needs were to be reassured that the professionals weren't going to take her son away from
her, to feel like she is not alone in dealing with her son when he is moody or mouthy, to feel reassured that
she is a good mother and to feel like she has reliable back-up when she sets limits for her son.
Plan. The team decided to use the resources from the day treatment program in a different way. Instead
of continuing to fight with Peter about going to summer day treatment, they would contract with a staff
person from the agency to support Peter in getting and keeping a full time job. A second component of the
plan related to Peter's medication. Peter was not doing well with taking his medicine, and this was the
source of many of the conflicts with his mother. The hockey coach and the psychiatrist agreed to work
together to organize a group of other boys in the community who were also having a difficult time taking
their medicines. The coach and psychiatrist developed a role playing game in which kids made points for
taking their medicine. The two would meet with the group regularly to see which team was ahead. To
help Julie have backup when setting limits, the paraprofessional was reassigned from taking Peter out
twice per week to sitting outside the home during times when Peter was apt to get confrontational. The
paraprofessional would go into the home when things were tense, but instead of intervening directly with
Peter, he would stand behind Julie and reassure her that she could set limits.
Unconditional care. Practicing unconditional care means constantly improving on action plans. The team
was able to evolve Peter and Julie's wraparound plan from the original probation plan when the team
members agreed to stop doing some things in order to start doing others. Day treatment quit requiring
Peter to fill a day treatment slot in order to have a staff member work with Peter in a job, the psychiatrist
elected to see Peter along with a local hockey coach rather than always seeing him alone, and the
paraprofessional quit seeing Peter individually so he could meet the family need to have back-up for Julie.
When an idea doesn't work, the support team figures out what's been learned and modifies the plan
accordingly. Core relationships are maintained through transitions in action strategies. For Peter and
Julie, several more iterations in the plan were needed, but finally a new pattern established itself.
Membership on the child and family team also shifted several times then settled in. Probably the most
4
interesting addition was Bob, Julie's adult foster client, who didn't have a lot to say, but kept things real for
everyone.
Wraparound. Help doesn't always mean cure. As action planning with Julie and Peter moved through
stages of stabilization, implementation and transition their lives got better - but Peter still had a
neurobiological disorder and Julie didn't lose her ornery independence. Through the summer and fall Peter
did learn how to be a teenager and started holding onto friends who didn't always get him into trouble. A
balanced medication regimen evolved. Peter and Julie worked out rules and roles for living together more
peacefully. Peter almost made the high school hockey team and was able to stick with a less competitive
club team, continuing to work part time to pay for his equipment and ice time.
Putting wraparound into action
Wraparound is a developmental approach to organizational change. Every practitioner, agency, interagency group and community follows a different pattern of growth. The following chart is offered to help
you decide where you are in this process. Examples are given for gauging implementation of the six
technologies across the four levels of human service operation. This chart can be used to produce a
baseline of your system's current strengths and challenges and to benchmark various strategies for putting
these technologies into action. One way to do so would be to ask a representative group of stakeholders to
assign a subjective value to each of the 24 nodes in the chart, with a 1 indicating little or no development
and a 5 indicating a high degree of implementation. Similarities and differences in the resulting patterns
can then be the basis for further discussion and planning.
Template for Creating a System Development Baseline
Practice
Program
System
Strength-based
team planning
and action
Functional strengths
are articulated &
recorded for every
family and form the
basis for each team's
action plan.
Agencies align their
operations with a
strength-based
approach. Strengths
are reviewed in the
agency's staffing &
supervision functions.
Cross-system
funding and
resource access
infrastructure
Infrastructure allows
teams to produce and
implement
comprehensive plans.
Individual teams have
reasonable access to
formal & informal
monetary and nonmonetary resources.
Agencies see their
roles as sharing
resources, not
guarding them.
Supervisors are able to
work together across
agencies/systems in
order to assure
resource access for
individual teams.
Hidden as well as
explicit mandates are
aligned with strengthsbased process.
Strengths are
incorporated in system
wide review processes
including personnel,
contract audits, etc.
System managers
consistently work to
remove barriers to
cooperation and
combine efforts
around development
of resource pools.
Community
Community members
regularly participate in
circles of support &
community strengths
are evidenced in
system interventions.
Community
understands, supports
and participates in the
management of the
integrated system.
Community resources
are blended into every
plan/team & system
resources enhance
community resources.
5
Consistent staff
development,
support and
guidance
Staff understand their
roles, are competent
with required tasks,
are rewarded for
innovation and
supported in making
necessary changes.
Value-driven
information
management
Required
documentation guides
staff through
appropriate steps and
reinforces both
process and values.
Staff are given up-todate data measured
against operational
values.
Teams check to make
sure that process and
content are on target
and whether planned
actions have had their
intended results from
the point of view of
consumers.
Teams stay together
even when significant
changes in strategy are
required to meet client
or system needs.
Quality
management to
assure access,
voice and
ownership
Policies and
contracts to
insure
unconditional
care
Each agency has a
consistent pre-service
and in-service staff
development system
that is consistent with
wraparound values.
Supervisors and
managers understand
and support the model.
Each agency's internal
and external reporting
and billing systems are
aligned with the core
values.
Frequent opportunities
occur for formal and
informal cross
training, crossplacement and
blending of staff.
Consistent training
occurs throughout the
service chain.
Inter-agency
agreements and
policies simplify and
coordinate reporting
and documentation
requirements.
Family members,
consumers and
community members
have input into
training content,
design and delivery.
Agency accountability
systems are based on
measures of client
participation, buy-in,
satisfaction and
outcomes.
Data on agency
accountability for
these elements is used
for contract renewal
and expansion,
licensure and
benchmarking.
Community
participation and
marketing programs
build awareness of and
support for responsive,
client-driven services.
Agencies have
sufficient flexibility to
adapt services to
respond to major
alterations in client
needs including
ceasing certain
activities in order to
try other activities.
Inter-agency
agreements insure
consistency in helping
relationships, despite
service changes.
The community
experiences an
accountable and
seamless system of
care and is encouraged
to invest in system
customers.
Community is
informed regularly
what is happening, and
why, how dollars are
spent and what
outcomes are
produced.
Searching for the real wraparound
Making wraparound happen consistently and effectively can be a challenge. Many places have
experienced surges of progress only to find themselves sliding back. To hold onto the gains we have
made, and to use them as a basis for improvement, wraparound must be more than a philosophy or a
buzzword. It must be real. Real enough that we can tell when we are using it and when we aren't. Real
enough that other people know what to expect from us. Real enough that we can teach it to the next
generation of helpers. Real enough that they can see it for what it is and find ways to make it better.
©2001 by Patricia Miles and John Franz. Permission is granted to reproduce this article for educational purposes so long as it
is distributed without cost to the recipients and this notice is included. John has a private consulting practice in Madison,
Wisconsin. Pat lives in Portland, Oregon and is a principle in the Brown-Miles Partnership. Both can be reached via email
directed to info@paperboat.com.
6