John S. Lyons, Ph.D. University of Ottawa/CHEO

 The child serving system has been systematically destroying itself by managing the wrong business. It is not a service, it is a transformational offering.  It is possible to manage transformations but this is different than managing services.  It is hard to shift to transformation management, but it is possible if we can all commit to trying to work differently.  Fundamentally, this process is about restoring trust in the system

I.Commodities II.Products III.Services IV. Experiences V.Transformations - Gilmore & Pine, 1997

 Find people and get them to show up  Assessment exists to justify service receipt  Manage staff productivity (case loads)  Incentives support treating the least challenging youth.  Supervision as the compliance to process  An hour is an hour. A day is a day  Outcomes are defined as status at discharge  System management is about doing the same thing as cheaply as possible.

 Find people you can help, help them and then find some one else  Accuracy is advocacy. Assessment communicate important information about the people we serve  Impact (workload) more important that productivity  Incentives to treat the most challenging youth.  Supervision as teaching  Time early in a treatment episodes is more valuable than time later.  Outcomes require personal CHANGE  System management is about maximizing effectiveness of the overall system

 Because of our service management mentality the lowest paid, least experienced people spend the most time with our youth and families.  Need to take collective wisdom and somehow help young staff get up to speed on being effective really fast.  Pilots don’t fly planes anymore. Planes fly themselves. Is there a lesson there for us?

 Many different adults in the lives of the children we serve  Each has a different perspective and, therefore, different agendas, goals, and objectives  Honest people, honestly representing different perspectives will disagree  This creates inevitable conflict.  In residential treatment, this reality has created a significant amount of distrust

Judge Child Welfare Case Worker Mental Health Case Worker Juvenile Justice Case Worker Treatment Providers Educators Youth’s Supporters Youth Youth’s Family Others Decision making authority concentrated at the top Complex and confusing webs of communication & accountability Characteristics of Ineffective Communication in Child Serving Systems Multi-systemic child serving systems with ineffective communication are typically characterized by: Information flows upward Decisions flow downward Multiple stakeholders hierarchical relationships

”Tight” integration of system stakeholders Characteristics of Effective Communication in Child Serving Systems Multi-systemic Child serving systems with effective communication are typically characterized by: Judge Youth Child Welfare Case Worker Juvenile Justice Case Worker Treatment Providers Youth’s Family Mental Health Case Worker Educators Youth’s Supporters Others A system-wide increase in the System of Care sensibility An increase in the importance of collaboration, interdisciplinary team work and group decision making Flexible, non-linear communication that is not constrained by formal hierarchical structures A decrease in the importance of decision making authority determined solely by rank The system-wide use of simple, standardized, and non-pejorative language that is readily understood by all stakeholders

 Different perspectives cause inevitable conflict. Resolving those perspectives requires conflict resolution strategies.  There are two key principles to effective conflict resolution  There must be a shared vision  There must be a strategy for creating and communicating that shared vision

 We need to create and communicate a shared vision that is about wellbeing of our children and families. This shared vision has to involve the participation of all key partners in order to restore trust.  We need to use that information to make good decisions about having an impact (rather than spending time and space with youth). This information must be used simultaneously at all levels of the system to ensure that we are all working towards the same goals.  This is not going to be easy.

 Total means that it is embedded in all activities with individual & families as full partners.  Clinical means the focus is on child and family health, well-being, and functioning.  Outcomes means the measures are relevant to decisions about approach or proposed impact of interventions.  Management means that this information is used in all aspects of managing the system from individual family planning to supervision to program and system operations.

 Philosophy—always return to the shared vision. In the mental health system the shared vision are the children and families  Strategy—represent the shared vision and communicate it throughout the system with a standard language/assessment  Tactics—activities that promote the philosophy at all the levels of the system simultaneously

 Most measures are developed from a research tradition. Researchers want to know a lot about a little. Agents of change need to know a little about a lot. Lots of questions to measure one thing.  Traditional measurement is arbitrary. You don’t really know what the number means even if you norm your measures.  Traditional measurement confounds interventions, culture and development and become irrelevant or biases. You have to contextualize the understanding of a person in their environment to have meaningful information.  Triangulation occurs post measurement which is likely impossible.

 Items are included because they might impact care planning  Level of items translate immediately into action levels  It is about the child not about the child in care  Consider culture and development  It is agnostic as to etiology—it is about the ‘what’ not about the ‘why’  The 30 day window is to remind us to keep assessments relevant and ‘fresh’

1. Accurate documentation of the real strengths and needs of the child and family 2. Effective communication of the documented strengths and needs to all stakeholders in the child and family’s treatment 3. Continual observation of the child and family’s strengths and needs 4. Measurement of changes in the child and family’s documented strengths and needs over time 5. Regular reporting of measurements back to all participants in the child and family’s treatment 6. Monitoring and reporting on all participants’ fidelity to the treatment process. What is needed to create a TCOM system? A functional TCOM system requires six basic building blocks: The shorthand version of these building blocks might make the TCOM basics easier to remember

Family & YouthProgramSystem Decision Support Care Planning Effective practices EBP’s Eligibility Step-down Resource Management Right-sizing Outcome Monitoring Service Transitions & Celebrations EvaluationProvider Profiles Performance/ Contracting Quality Improvement Case Management Integrated Care Supervision CQI/QA Accreditation Program Redesign Transformation Business Model Design TCOM Grid of Tactics TCOM Grid of Tactics

 A conversation  About the what, not about the why—no shame or blame  Time spent in understanding pays off in impact  Output of an assessment process  It is not an event  Once one CANS/ANSA is completed you don’t ‘redo’ it, you check in on it.

 Matching (with prioritization)  Transformational Care Planning (CIMH)  Clustering (Northwestern)  Cross Cutting Needs (San Francisco)  Treatment and Recovery Planning (TARP)

 Ensure compliance with policies and procedures  Help manage schedules and workloads  Improve quality of care provided by supervisees  Facilitate professional development  Problem solve challenges as they arise

 Developing marketable skill sets including basic management skills  Broadening clinical expertise through vicarious treatment experiences  Mentoring bright young workers  Helping improve the lives of a larger group of children and families

 Review and sign off on any CANS/ANSA before submitted  Discuss any case by first reviewing the CANS/ANSA so that it serves as Cliff/Coles Notes on the case  Shadow a supervisee doing a CANS/ANSA with a family or individual  Have a supervisee shadow supervisor doing a CANS/ANSA with a family or individual  Use CANS/ANSA at the start of any discussion in case presentations or team supervisions  Review family service plans using the SPANS or another approach to ensure that planning is guided by how the family or individual is understood using CANS/ANSA  Monitor supervisee level reports on the status of their cases and outcomes from episodes of care and review performance with supervisees

 Define Choices/Options  Treatment or placement type  Intensity of care  Level of Care  Define Child/Family Level inputs into good decision making  Create version of the tool that reflects that information  Model and test algorithm

Key Decision Support CSPI Indicators Sorted by Order of Importance in Predicting Psychiatric Hospital Admission If CSPI Item Rated asStart with 0 and Suicide2,3Add 1 Judgment2,3Add 1 Danger to Others2,3Add 1 Depression2,3Add 1 Impulse/Hyperactivity2,3Add 1 Anger Control3Add 1 Psychosis1,2,3Add 1 Ratings of ‘2’ and ‘3’ are ‘actionable’ ratings, as compared to ratings of ‘0’ (no evidence) and ‘1’ (watchful waiting).

Change in Total CSPI Score by Intervention and Hospitalization Risk Level (FY06)

 Item Level  Actionable vs Not Actionable and  Useful vs Not Useful  Dimension Scores  Average items and multiply by 10  Total Score  Combine dimension scores for functioning, symptoms and risks  Reliable Change Indices

Illinois Trajectories of Recovery before and after entering different types of Child Welfare Placements

 To be successful we must learn to:  embed shared vision approaches into the treatment planning and supervision at the individual level  treat documentation with the same level of respect that we treat our youth and families  aggreggate and use this information to inform policy decisions  change financing structures to support transformation management, not service receipt.  trust each other