A Systematic Approach to Meeting the Ongoing Needs of Children with Complex and Enduring Behavioral and Emotional Disorders and their Families.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Service Delivery Strategy for Colorados System of Care Draft July 11, 2012.
Advertisements

Maryland Choices “One Team – One Mission”. Regional CME Maryland Choices is …  The Northwest Regional Care Management Entity.
Statewide Children’s Wraparound Initiative COSA Conference Presenters: Erinn Kelley-Siel Mary Lou Johnson Larry Sullivan.
Campus Improvement Plans
Research Insights from the Family Home Program: An Adaptation of the Teaching-Family Model at Boys Town Daniel L. Daly and Ronald W. Thompson EUSARF 2014/
Catulpa Community Support Services.  Use of an electronic data entry program to record demographic data and case notes to reflect service delivery 
California Department of Social Services Program Improvement Plan
CW/MH Learning Collaborative First Statewide Leadership Convening Lessons Learned from the Readiness Assessment Tools Lisa Conradi, PsyD Project Co-Investigator.
Caregiver Support. Child Intervention Intake Statistics  Calgary and Area 2013:  The Region received 14,100 reports about a child or youth who may be.
Sacramento County RBS Reform Structure and Process March 2009.
Accreditation Planning and Preparation
Children’s Mental Health System Change Initiative COSA Conference March 10, 2006 Bill Bouska Matthew Pearl Office of Mental Health & Addiction Services.
Mark Lane Bay Area Consortium RBS Local Implementation Coordinator Transforming Bay Area Residential Services.
9/2/20151 Ohio Family and Children First An overview of OFCF structure, membership, and responsibilities.
Preventing Family Crisis Finding the Assistance that your Family Needs.
WRAPAROUND MILWAUKEE “Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.” Margaret.
NW Minnesota Council of Collaborative’s: “Our Children Succeed Initiative” Overview 2/7/07.
Bay Area Consortium RBS Stakeholders Communication Plan.
Beyond Barriers: A Housing Model for Families with Substance Abuse Issues.
1 Adopting and Implementing a Shared Core Practice Framework A Briefing/Discussion Objectives: Provide a brief overview and context for: Practice Models.
Prepared by American Humane Association and the California Administrative Office of the Courts.
A New Narrative for Child Welfare February 16, 2011 Bryan Samuels, Commissioner Administration on Children, Youth & Families.
Behavioral Health Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Coordination Community Policy Advisory Committee Mental Health Services Act, Capital.
Fundamentals of Evaluation for Public Health Programs ROBERT FOLEY, M.ED. NIHB TRIBAL PUBLIC HEALTH SUMMIT MARCH 31,
NYS HCBS Waiver. Services Process: NYS OMH solicited input from both children’s mental health services providers and families across NYS Sample of providers.
Mark Miller, Director of Training Maryam Fatemi; Regional Administrator Tedji Dessalegn Regional Administrator A Los Angeles “Regional Update” Fairness.
1. 2 Design and Funding Forum: Emerging Models for Innovation September 5, 2008 An RBS Evaluation Framework.
Strategic Planning and the Importance of Collaboration: A conversation... Barrett Johnson, L.C.S.W. | CalSWEC Lisa Molinar, M.A. | Shared Vision Consultants.
Los Angeles County RBS Demonstration RBS Forum Sacramento, CA March 4/5, 2009.
Making RBS Happen in the Bay Area Establishing a Regional Child and Family Reconnection Resource.
Intensive Therapeutic Service A joint initiative by: Berry Street Victoria & the Austin CAMHS In partnership with La Trobe University Faculty of Health.
Setting the Stage for Implementation Translating RBS Ideas into Action.
Katie A. Learning Collaborative For Audio, please call: Participant code: Please mute your phone Building Child Welfare and Mental.
Children’s Mental Health Reform Overview: North Sound Mental Health Administration Prepared by Julie de Losada, M.S./CMHS
What is a Family Connections Program? An Overview of a New Service Approach Being Developed by the Bay Area Residentially Based Services Consortium.
GEORGIA CRISIS RESPONSE SYSTEM- DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES Charles Ringling DBHDD Region 5 Coordinator/ RC Team Leader.
Innovation in Monroe County Jody Levison-Johnson Director Child & Family Service Quality & System Development Coordinated Care Services, Inc. Technical.
Bill Hogan, Commissioner Alaska Department of Health and Social Services.
Practice Model Elements Theoretical framework Values and principles Casework components Practice elements Practice behaviors.
A NEW RESOURCE FOR RECONNECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WITH COMPLEX AND ENDURING NEEDS Residentially Based Services.
High Fidelity Wraparound Pilot
Managing Residential Care to Improve Permanency Outcomes Presented by: Dr. Peter Mendelson, Chief, Bureau of Behavioral Health and Medicine, DCF Lori Szczygiel,
Toward a DCFS Protective Timeline for Strengthening Families.
Practice Area 1: Arrest, Identification, & Detention Practice Area 2: Decision Making Regarding Charges Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment &
THE KATIE A SETTLEMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR CalSWEC Child Welfare Committee Mental Health Committee Oakland February, 2012.
Los Angeles County Proposed RBS Demonstration Project RBS Forum Sacramento, CA September 4/5, 2008.
San Bernardino County RBS Demonstration Implementation RBS Forum Sacramento, CA March 4/5, 2009.
Los Angeles County’s Department of Children and Family Services Title IV-E California Well-Being Project and Strategic Plan June 3, 2015.
1 Executive Summary of the Strategic Plan and Proposed Action Steps January 2013 Healthy, Safe, Smart and Strong 1.
Educating Youth in Foster Care Shanna McBride and Angela Griffin, M.Ed.
1 DHS Board Meeting Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Overview Mark Washington Division of Family and Children Services August 18, 2010.
Lilliput Family Finding & Relative Support Efforts Karen Alvord, CEO, Beverly Johnson, CPO,
Georgia DFCS Outcome- Based Permanency Initiative A Proposal to Introduce Performance- Based Contracting and Partner for CFSR Success.
Developed by: July 15,  Mission: To connect family strengthening networks across California to promote quality practice, peer learning and mutual.
 Legislative mandate*: ◦ Reform Group Homes & FFAs with robust & diverse stakeholder input ◦ Legislative report with recommendations  Continuum of Care.
Comprehensive Youth Services Assessment and Plan February 21, 2014.
UPCOMING STATE INITIATIVES WHAT IS ON THE HORIZON? MERCED COUNTY HEALTH CARE CONSORTIUM Thursday, October 23, 2014 Pacific Health Consulting Group.
MAY 12, 2015 PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH EFFECTIVE SCHOOL SOLUTIONS.
Strategic Planning  Hire staff  Build a collaborative decision- making body  Discuss vision, mission, goals, objectives, actions and outcomes  Create.
Nurse Education Practice Quality and Retention- Interprofessional Collaborative Practice: Behavioral Health Integration (NEPQR-IPCP:BHI) Program FY 2016.
A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CARE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Ken Berrick, Founder and Chief Executive Officer Seneca Center for Children and Families
California’s Child Welfare Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) Overview California Department of Social Services January 2016.
1 RBS Implementation Preparation Forum Wednesday  March 4, 2009 The RBS Evaluation: Reviewing the Basics.
Improving the Lives of Mariposa County’s Children and Families System Improvement Plan October 2008 Update.
ROSIE D. V. ROMNEY Implementing the Court Order. The Court Decision 1/26/06: Court enters sweeping decision finding Massachusetts in violation of EPSDT.
1 Child and Family Teaming (CFT) Module 1 Developing an Effective Child and Family Team.
External Review Exit Report Campbell County Schools November 15-18, 2015.
Foster Care Managed Care Program
AspireMN Member Meeting
Performance and Quality Improvement
Presentation transcript:

A Systematic Approach to Meeting the Ongoing Needs of Children with Complex and Enduring Behavioral and Emotional Disorders and their Families

 A framework for a comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of a critical care population  Based on a review of research indicating the practices most likely to be associated with effectiveness  Not a single service, but a systematic approach to integrating the arc of care across multiple environments and multiple interventions

 Despite important strides in service development, we have children who are placed repeatedly in high-level group homes and remain in placement for long periods of time  This subset of children have highly disrupted family relationships that have been generated in a variety of ways and exhibit complicated behavior patterns

 Clinically, children and youth who experience multiple and extended high-end group home placement are distinguished by their complexity and heterogeneity  “Children manifest complex psychopathology, characterized by attachment difficulties, relationship insecurity, sexual behavior, trauma- related anxiety, conduct problems, defiance, inattention/hyperactivity, and less common problems such as self-injury and food maintenance behaviors.”  Tarren-Sweeney (2008) The Mental Health of Children in Out of Home Care. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, v. 21, pages 345–349.

 The subset of children and youth with repeated and extended group home placement also put a great deal of pressure on the demand for psychiatric hospitalization  Examined from the other perspective, the children and youth who experience repeated psychiatric hospitalization also are more likely to be in group care:  A recent study found that three factors are highly related to rehospitalization: ◦ living in a residential treatment facility, ◦ a diagnosis of oppositional/defiant or conduct disorder, ◦ prior history of hospitalization  Rehospitalized youth were also less likely to have family involvement  Chung, W., et. al. (2008) Psychiatric Rehospitalization of Children and Adolescents: Implications for Social Work Intervention, Journal of Child and Adolescent Social Work, v.25, pages 483–496

 Beyond the diagnostic criteria there are two practical characteristics of most of the children and youth in this subset:  “We don’t know what else to do”  Behavior-based placement disruptions ◦ James (2008) Entry Into Restrictive Care Settings: Placements of Last Resort? Families in Society, Vol. 89, No. 3, p. 348 ◦ McCurdy (2004) ‘And What About Residential…?’ Re- conceptualizing Residential Treatment As A Stopgap Service For Youth With Emotional And Behavioral Disorders. Behavioral Interventions, vol. 19, pages

 First, match the right services with the right kids and families  Most of the time, intensive in-home, day treatment or treatment foster care will be the best alternative for children with severe emotional disorders and their families  However, for the subset for whom those options are not effective, we should use short term group care as an integral component of a comprehensive response

 Short-term, highly intensive group care that is multi-modal, ecological and holistic  Continuous and extensive family involvement  Parallel services with the family and community to prepare for reconnection while the child is in group care  Ongoing post-group care services to address continuing to reinforce and continue to strengthen the connection with primary caregivers, to build family resilience and protective capacity, and to address the child’s ongoing mental and behavioral health needs. ◦ Hair (2006) Outcomes for Children and Adolescents After Residential Treatment: A Review of Research from 1993 to Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 551–575

 Make group care a part of a Re-Connection Engine  Learn to see group care settings not as places to live, but as components of an integrated, multi- environmental, multi-modal intervention designed to help children and their families achieve and maintain positive and productive permanency, despite the impact of their emotional and behavioral handicaps as well as any limitations of their primary caregivers.  Instead of raising other people’s children, find ways to help those people learn how to, and feel confident and competent in raising their children themselves.

Transformation From group care facilities that have associated therapeutic and family permanency services To family permanency resources that have integrated residential and therapeutic services

Step One:Convene a statewide stakeholder’s group to examine the current status of high level group care in California Step Two:Develop a framework for transforming the nature of group home services Step Three:Gather legislative support for this transformation Step Four:Obtain financial support for the transformation effort Step Five:Select four demonstration sites who are committed to carrying out the transformation Step Six:Assist each site in developing a community-specific approach to accomplishing these changes Step Seven:Work with state entities to help them adjust the fiscal and regulatory constraints that impede transformation Step Eight:Test out initial alternative program and funding models Step Nine:Adjust models to improve effectiveness Step Ten:Based on these results propose a statewide model

 Target population  Arc of Care  Service Innovations: ◦ Environmental interventions ◦ Intensive treatment ◦ Parallel services ◦ Post-placement services  Role of the placing agency  Child and Family Involvement  Evaluation: ◦ Permanency, safety, well- being ◦ Average length of stay ◦ Re-entry ◦ Family Connection ◦ Client satisfaction ◦ Utilization by county agencies ◦ Operation by the private agency ◦ Actual costs ◦ Payments ◦ Impact on state-county AFDC-FC budgets ◦ Impact on county MH payments

 Bay Area Consortium (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Solano Counties) (about 100 children) ◦ Children 6-12 years of age who are already in or referred to a level 12 or 14 group home using a regional approach  Sacramento County (about 24 children to start with) ◦ Children who are in a level 12 or 14 home and are likely to continue in care indefinitely using an integrated care model  Los Angeles County (about 80 children to start with) ◦ Any child who is currently in level 12 or 14 who cannot be returned home using SB 163 wraparound alone using res-wrap  San Bernardino County (about 35 children to start with) ◦ Children who have multiple psychiatric hospitalizations and are currently in a level 14 group home or placed out of state, using a trauma-focused, CBT model with the team following the child

 AB 1453 requires each site to prepare three documents for review by CDSS prior to implementation: ◦ Voluntary Agreement that describes the new care system in detail ◦ Alternative Funding Model that explains how the new system will be funded ◦ Waiver Requests to make it possible to operate the new system

 After input from a stakeholders’ group, CDSS is charged with reviewing the VAs, AFMs, and WRs to see if they meet the statutory requirements  Then CDSS has to determine if the requested waivers can and should be granted  Upon approval of the VA and AFM and granting of the waivers, a state-county MOU is created  Counties can then make arrangements with providers to begin offering RBS enrollment as an option

 Sites are able to present drafts for sections of their deliverables to CDSS and the Steering Committee for iterative feedback  CDSS and its partners are working internally to prepare for the formal review process  Demonstration sites are working through local implementation teams and subcommittees to lay the ground work for implementation  Consultants prepare templates and other tools to help the demonstration sites and the state manage the design and implementation process

 Everything takes longer than you would expect  At this point, we are hoping to begin serving children by July, if not sooner in some places  Transformation is much more complicated than we imagined when we started ◦ Lack of easily replicated models ◦ Fiscal constraints ◦ Regulatory restraints ◦ Newton’s first law of motion (organizational inertia) ◦ Inter-system constraints  Despite this and the enormous pressure of the fiscal crisis, the local teams are plugging along with dedication and inspiration

 The statute only briefly addressed the mental health component of RBS  EPSDT is a separately regulated resource, so it’s operation isn’t affected by AB 1453  This means the RBS providers will continue to use coordinated but distinct planning for the MH aspect of each child or youth’s care, based on individual needs, and in line with their local MH contracts

 The target populations are already using high levels of mental health services  Utilization tends to decrease as these youth achieve permanency  RBS is available as a resource to county MH agencies  Demonstration sites must explicitly address both AFDC-FC and EPSDT funded activities in their VAs and AFMs.  The point of service integration in a multi- modal system is to use synergy and efficiency to obtain better outcomes for the same or lower costs across the board

 Three agencies in each county use high end group home placements (MH, JJ, CW)  But group homes are regulated by CW  Each agency accesses group homes differently  Funding can be different depending on which agency makes the placement  Each county also funds group homes differently  Each group home has a different way of billing for the services it offers  Each placing agency has different expectations for the help that will be provided through placement, and in the way that it manages ongoing service delivery

 If we do nothing, more than half of the children in our target populations will eventually emancipate from care, run away, enter the criminal just system or graduate to the streets  We know that as the fiscal crisis deepens the pressure for more placements will increase  We have a narrow opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of the children and families in our community who have the greatest level of need

 Ultimately we want to design a resource that can be accessed quickly, consistently and reliably from multiple systems  So that we can rapidly and effectively interrupt the negative care trajectory of multiple and extended group home placements  And replace it with a positive and sustainable arc of care that anchors children with their families, and families with their communities.

Satisfaction: Youth, family, referring agency Youth/Family Outcomes : Safety, permanency, well-being; Developmental progress; Improved condition/behaviors Residentially-Based Services (RBS) Youth/Family referred for intervention 3. Match Youth/Family Need with Program Capability: “Which RBS program can best meet child/family needs?”  Family-Based Support & Services (At Home)  Family-Based Services (Out-of-Home)  Residentially-Based Services  Locked Detention 1. Select Intervention: “What intervention best meets the needs of this child/family?” 2. Select Intervention Setting: “Where can this child/family be most successful in getting their needs met?” Mission Service Quality Assess youth/family strengths & needs Case planning during RBS post discharge Service intervention goals Projected discharge date & timeline Team decision-making Service evaluation Service delivery Program quality Evaluated by Accrediting Body Management: Accountability, collaboration, communication, supervision Staffing: Hire, train, supervise, coach, evaluate, retain & advance quality staff Quality improvement  Respect  Child-centered  Family participation  Permanent connections  Developmental focus  Positive care environment  Strength-based  Reconnect youth with community ASAP RBS Youth at home, in school, out of trouble Title XXII Regs Facility quality Evaluated by Community Care Licensing Quality Assurance: Evidence-based, promising/best practices; program evaluation; program improvement Values Administration: Fiscal, program, personnel, community responsiveness Youth enters RBS Youth leaves residence After-care services & support Utilization Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness Comprehensive Assessment Program and Facility Quality Cost