Community/School
Partnerships for
Tier 3 Wraparound
Implementation
Session A12 | October 18, 2012 | 10:00am – 11:15am
Lucille Eber, Illinois PBIS Network
Carol Ewen, Missoula County Public Schools
Conan Green, Children’s Mental Health Bureau
2012
National PBIS
Leadership
Forum
Hyatt Regency
O’Hare
Rosemont
Illinois
Context
• At least twice as many youth need high levels of support for
emotional/behavioral needs than currently identified as EBD.
• Nationally, youth who are identified as EBD have experienced
very poor outcomes.
• Behavior support for students with emotional/behavioral
challenges is not just a “Special Education” issue.
• Prevention-based systems, with capacity to scale-up and
provide effective interventions for those youth with or at-risk
of EBD are being developed and implemented in schools.
• Schools can’t do it alone…partnerships with
communities are needed to ensure success.
We Know the Practices that Work…
• Proactive, strength-based; “set kids up” to experience
success
• High rates of consistent, supported instruction;
teach/practice/reinforce
• Predictable and consistent environments
• Know unique “why?” for each student/problem
• Contextual fit: Strategic use of natural supports, and
settings
• Careful monitoring of data over time with
ongoing revisions to guide incremental
improvements in quality of life
We Know the System Features Needed
to Support the Effective Practices…
• A Team unique to each individual child & family
– Blend the family/natural supports with the school
representatives who know the child best
• A defined Meeting Process
– Meet frequently and use data
– Develop, implement, review range of interventions
• Facilitator Role
– Bringing team together
– Blending perspectives; guiding consensus
– Systematic use of data (strengths and needs)
SCHOOL-WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
Tier 2/
Secondary
ODRs,
Attendance,
Tardies, Grades,
DIBELS, etc.
Check-in/
Check-out
Social/Academic
Instructional Groups
Daily Progress
Report (DPR)
(Behavior and
Academic Goals)
Illinois PBIS Network,
Revised Aug.,2009
Adapted from T.
Scott, 2004
Competing Behavior
Pathway, Functional
Assessment Interview,
Scatter Plots, etc.
Individualized CheckIn/Check-Out, Groups &
Mentoring (ex. CnC)
Tier 3/
Tertiary
Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/
Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)
Complex FBA/BIP
SIMEO Tools:
HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Wraparound
History
1982 Unclaimed Children (Jane Knitzer)
• SOC needed to be seamless continuum,
community-based and culturally relevant
1983 CASSP: Technical Assistance plan to develop SOC
1986 System of Care (Stroul & Freidman)
• Called for collaboration & community-based services
• Resulted in increments of service development
• (i.e. case mgmt, respite, day treatment, in-home
supports)
• But not a coordinated system or continuum
• Did not indicate practices needed for a SOC
History (cont.)
1989-1993 RWJ Projects
• 27 states and local communities
• introduced managed care
• effected state systems in some places (i.e. KY, NC)
1992-present Comprehensive Community
Mental Health Services for Children & Their
Families Program
• 85 states local tribes & territories
• Decrease use of restrictive placements while increasing
access, satisfaction, and youth/family outcomes
• Systemic change across systems
• Development of state & community structures
Wraparound: A SOC Tool
• Emerged from practitioners struggling to
implement SOC (grassroots)
• Keep/bring youth home
• Flexible, creative, non-categorical
• Natural support networks
• Community-based
• Unconditional-Commit to “stay the course”
• Let family voice guide service development
• Non-traditional supports and services
What is Wraparound?
Wraparound is a process for developing
family-centered teams and plans that are
strength and needs based
–
(not deficit based)
–
across multiple settings and life domains.
Implementing Wraparound:
Key Elements Needed for Success
• Engaging students, families & teachers
• Team development & team ownership
• Ensuring student/family/teacher voice
– Getting to real (big) needs
• Effective interventions
– Serious use of strengths
– Natural supports
– Focus on needs vs. services
• Monitoring progress & sustaining
• System support buy-in
Features of Wraparound
•
individual students
•
built upon strengths
•
voice, priorities of youth and family
•
based on unique youth and family needs
•
culturally relevant teams and plans
•
plans include natural supports
•
traditional and non-traditional interventions
•
multiple life domains
•
unconditional
Unique Fit
Wraparound plans should be uniquely
designed to fit individual students needs
as opposed to making a student fit into
existing services or a prescribed program.
Life Domain Areas to Consider
•
•
•
•
•
Physical
Needs/Living
Situation
Family/Attachment
Safety
Socialization
Cultural/Spiritual
•
•
•
•
Emotional/
Psychological
Health
Educational/
Vocational
Legal
Value Base
• Build on strengths to meet needs
• One family-one plan
• Increased parent choice
• Increased family independence
• Support for youth in context of families
• Support for families in context of community
• Unconditional: Never give up
P. Miles, 2004
What’s New in Wraparound?
• Skill set specificity
• Focus on intervention design/effectiveness
• Integration with school-wide PBS
• Phases to guide implementation/supervision
• Data-based decision-making
• Integrity/fidelity assessment (WIT)
• Tools to guide teams:
– Home School Community
– Education Information Tool
Wraparound Skill Sets
1.
Identifying “big” needs (quality of life
indicators)
•
2.
“Student needs to feel others respect him”
Establish voice/ownership
3. Reframe blame
4. Recognize/prevent teams’ becoming
immobilized by “setting events”
5. Getting to interventions that actually work
6. Integrate data-based decision-making into
complex process (home-school-community)
Four Phases of Wraparound
Implementation
I.
Team Development
• Get people ready to be a team
• Complete strengths/needs chats (baseline data)
II. Initial Plan Development
• Hold initial planning meetings (integrate data)
• Develop a team “culture” (use data to establish voice)
III. Plan Implementation & Refinement
• Hold team meetings to review plans (ongoing data collection and
use)
• Modify, adapt & adjust team plan (based on data)
IV. Plan Completion & Transition
• Define good enough (Data-based decision-making)
• “Unwrap”
Data-Based Decision-Making
and Wraparound
Can wraparound teams use data-based decisionmaking to prioritize needs, design strategies, &
monitor progress of the child/family team?
• more efficient teams, meetings, and plans?
• less reactive (emotion-based) actions?
• more strategic actions?
• more effective outcomes?
• longer-term commitment to maintain success?
Jacob
• Poor school attendance
• Tardiness
• Refusal to participate in 2nd grade classroom
activities. Did work independently in
office/partial school days.
• Previous hospitalization (Bipolar Disorder?)
• Retention – currently repeating 2nd grade
year
• Failing Grades
“Jacob”
Home/School/Community Tool
Getting to Strengths & Needs at Baseline
Integrating Wraparound in
Montana 2012
Carol Ewen, M.A., MCPS RTI Coordinator
Conan Green, MSW,
State Wraparound Coordinator, CMHB
National Consultants:
Lucille Eber
Dr. John VanDenBerg
Philosophical approach
• Wraparound is, by definition, an integration
process. It is defined by working in multiple
community domains to support healthy
development of children, adults and families.
• Montana’s goal is to ensure that any family
receiving wraparound support have only one
integrated plan.
• OPI and CMHB (Children’s Mental health
Bureau) are working hand in hand to ensure
that this goal is met.
How we Got Here…
• High Fidelity Wraparound was introduced
through the PRTF Waiver in 2008.
• In (2009) CMHB implemented HF Wrap
training to support the development of:
– HF Wraparound Facilitators
– Coaches
– Peer to Peer Support
– Wraparound Process Mentors
Being in the Right Place at the Right Time
• In 2011 OPI Grant selected two school pilot
sites to participate in Integrated Systems
Framework (ISF)Project
• ISF Project introduced school Wraparound for
Tier 3 school interventions
• OPI and CMHB recognized the need to
integrate approaches and clarify
Putting it all together
• State commissioned Eber and VanDenBerg to
design a crosswalk and layout a foundation
for integrated practice.
• OPI contracted with school staff to present
PBIS and School Wraparound at state HF
Wraparound trainings
• CMHB funded State HF Wraparound
Coordinator to support school Wraparound
implementation
Creating a Unified Approach
CMHB
OPI
Ingredients for Collaborative Work
• Trusting Relationships between
State Department staff
• Vertical and Horizontal Communication
Channels
• Passionate Innovators
• Open Minds
• Child and Family Centered Approach
Train
employees to
ensure both
agencies are
trained in MBI
and High
Fidelity
wraparound.
CMHB and OPI
Agree to
blend the
practice of
mental health
and education
services.
CMHB and OPI
CMHB and OPI
State Departments…
Agree to
share
materials,
process and
progress
measurement
tools and
resources
Activity
• Identify your State/District Strengths and
Needs for community school-collaboration
Integrating Practice In Missoula
• HF Wraparound staff and school based
PBIS staff initiated a process to ensure that
crosswalk comes to fruition.
• Let’s look at how this will be implemented.
Creating Common Commitments in Missoula
CMHB
OPI/Pilot Site
Free HF Wrap 101 trainings for school
staff -texts and workbooks along with
support in credentialing
Free PBIS/Wrap presentation in HF
Wrap 101
Monthly Facilitator Coaching for both
school and community staff
Free PBIS training for Peer to Peer
Coach and HF Wrap facilitators
“Hands on” site specific training in
cross walk implementation
Develop HF/School Wraparound model
through crosswalk (paper work,
process)
Access to CMHB Peer to Peer Coach
Develop referral process for Peer to
Peer Coaches and parents in need of
support
Creating Sustainable Coordinated Practices
State support
for HF Wrap
and PBIS
Blending
funding and
resources
School/Com
munity
referral and
collaboration
Ongoing
training for
new staff
Ongoing
coaching for
existing staff
Increasing Parent & Family Involvement
• School based wraparound teams have access
to and understand role of the Peer to Peer
supports.
• The Peer to Peer Coach works with pilot site
staff to increase parent involvement.
• School staff assist Peer to Peer Coach in
identifying and involving parents
– Supporting the development of Peer to Peers
within the schools offers parents more
opportunities to be involved in multiple domains
within the Wraparound process.
BENFITS of Collaboration
• Support for wraparound staff in schools
on individualized interventions for
children in need of wraparound.
• Access to consultation and
implementation of high fidelity
wraparound process.
• State Wraparound Coordinator available
to MBI coaches for skill building and
trouble-shooting
• MBI coaches available to State
Coordinator for skill building
Benefits…
• Cross training community and school based
wraparound coaches and staff
• Ongoing assistance in development of Tier 3
wraparound interventions by a State HF
Wraparound Coordinator (credentialed as a
national wraparound mentor)
• Consultation on planning, functional behavior
assessments, and crisis planning from the
high fidelity wraparound curriculum
Benefits…
• An integrated agreement to blend the
wraparound plan if receiving both
community and school supports.
• Flexibility and support to ensure consistent
functional behavior assessments and crisis
plans across domains.
• Getting the best of both worlds (i.e.
Strengths, Needs, and Culture Discoveries
and Home School Community Tool).
Program Strengths…
School
Wrap
HF Wrap
Access to Tier 1 and
2 interventions
Family Engagement
Academic
Engagement
Fidelity
Data based Decision
making
Community
resources
Activity
• What facilitator strengths do each training
model foster? What are needs facilitators
might have based on training model?
Thank you!