Transcript Ohio Family and Children First

Service Coordination:
A Recipe for Success



Shared philosophy among providers
Collaborative policy and funding
infrastructure
Unique services and supports
7/18/2015
1
History of Service Coordination:
1980’s – Celeste Administration





Clusters – county level cross system clinical/treatment
teams.
Participants were clinical level cross system personnel.
Parents and children often not involved in plan
development.
Focus on problems/concerns.
Creation of state cluster fund & application process.
7/18/2015
2
History of Service Coordination:
1990’s – Voinovich Administration





Family and Children First Councils created and
responsible for service coordination mechanism.
Cross system approach
Mandates included needs assessment of child,
development of individual family plan, and
dispute resolution process.
State Inter-systems fund application simplified.
SC required to access funds.
7/18/2015
3
History of Service Coordination:
2000’s - Taft Administration




Methods to divert children from juvenile court and
address at-risk unruly and adjudicated unruly youth.
Family access to referral and dispute resolution
processes
Strengths based assessment of family
Required Family Team meetings with specific timelines
when there are emergency or planned out-of-home
placements.
7/18/2015
4
History of Service Coordination:
2000’s - Taft Administration




Shifted from child focus to family focus.
Strong emphasis on family engagement and
empowerment.
Required access to Family Advocates or support
person(s).
Alignment of SC with many high fidelity
WrapAround principles.
7/18/2015
5
History of Service Coordination:
2000’s - Taft Administration



State inter-systems fund was discontinued and
redistributed as an allocation to each mental
health and recovery services board (404 dollars).
ABC 404 dollars allocated based on population.
$5,681 non-behavioral health funds allocated
equally to each county FCFC.
7/18/2015
6
Service Coordination Mechanism
ORC 121.37 (C)
What’s in the law?

Each county shall develop a
county service coordination
mechanism. The county
service coordination
mechanism shall serve as
the guiding document for
coordination of services in
the county.
7/18/2015
7
Service Coordination Mechanism
The overarching requirements for coordinating services for
multi-need children in a county:
Referral
Confidentiality
Parent
Participation
Assessment of Strengths and Needs
Culturally Responsive
Least Restrictive Environment
Dispute Resolution
Comprehensive Family Service Coordination Plan Process
Juvenile Court Diversion
Monitoring and Tracking Outcomes
7/18/2015
8
Comprehensive Family Service Plan:
An Individual Family Plan
Requirements for developing and implementing:
 Notification of and Invitation to CFSP Meetings
 Pre-Out of Home Placement Team Meeting
Family Rights
 Confidentiality
 Participate in Meetings and Decisions
 Invite Informal Supports / Family Advocate
 Approve Team Leader Assignment
 Initiate Meetings
 Dispute Resolution
7/18/2015
9
Comprehensive Family Service Plan:
An Individual Family Plan
IN THE PLAN
 Goals and Services
 Designation of Service
Responsibilities
 Timelines for Goals
 Crisis and Safety Plan
 Regular Reviews
7/18/2015
10
Service Coordination Process:









1. Referral from family member, agency, or provider.
2. Determine level of need.
3. Explain SC & family rights & sign necessary documents
4. Complete Strengths & Needs Assessment & Culture
Discovery
5. Determine Family Team/Offer Family Advocate
6. Develop Family Plan including Crisis and Safety Plan
7. Implement Plan
8. Regular follow up team meetings held to monitor
progress
9. Final team meeting to address transition issues &
celebrate success.
7/18/2015
11
The Many Names of Service
Coordination






Service Coordination
 FAmily Stabilty Team
(FAST)
Family Support Teams
 Community Wraparound
Wrap Around /Hi-Fi Wraparound
 Child and Family Team
Cluster
 Intersystem
ICAT (Inter-systems Community
AssessmentDiversion
Team)
Team (IDT)
ICAT (Inter-agency Clinical Assessment
Team)
 Kids in Different Systems
(KIDS)
 Diversion Assessment
Team (DAT)
 Coordinated Care Program
7/18/2015
12
Service Coordination Data
Top 7 Referral sources for 1,700 children receiving service
coordination from 24 counties:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mental Health
Juvenile Court
Children’s Services
Schools
Family Member
MRDD
HMG
7/18/2015
13
Examples of County Results


Columbiana County served 93 children and 71
families in FY07 and showed a significant drop in risk
assessment scores for children participating in
Wraparound.
Trumbull County in last year’s report showed that
after children are referred to the Wraparound process
there tends to be a significant drop in hospitalizations.
This year’s data shows a very similar pattern.
7/18/2015
14
Erie County Results


Erie County showed statistically significant
family improvement for 122 families in 13 of the
14 life domains in the Family Development
Matrix.
One domain, immigration, did not show a
change because it was not indicated as a
problem area for any of the families in service
coordination at that time.
7/18/2015
16
Butler County Results




Butler County found that mental health services were in
place at the time of referral for 83% of the 212 children
referred to Wraparound.
Statistical analysis of Ohio Scales found that most
youth moved from clinical to non-clinical levels in both
Problem Behaviors and Youth Functioning
Most youth were able to be maintained in a stable
living environment without frequent changes in
guardianship or level of care.
The majority of children who entered Wraparound
while in out of home placement moved to a lower level
of care.
7/18/2015
17
Butler County Results, cont.

88% of parents reported improved satisfaction with support

75% of parents reported feeling more hopeful about the future

86% of parents reported feeling more involved in their child's treatment

86% of parents reported reduced safety issues in the home

88% of parents reported improved overall family functioning

88% of parents reported improved behavior in school
7/18/2015

88% of parents reported improved child behavior in the home
18
SService coordination mechanism for multisystem involved youth
EEvidence based model of National
WrapAround Initiative
IImplemented in 2006
FFamily Council - Funded by SCC
3
1
1
1
FTE WrapAround Service Coordinators
FTE Clinical Reviewer/WrapAround Service Coordinator
FTE & 1 PT Family Advocate
FTE Supervisor
CChild & Adolescent Behavioral Health
CCommunity Services of Stark County
154 youth referred in SFY 08
 69% male
 Mean age of 13.7
 Median age 15
 Race
Caucasion
African American
Multi-Racial
Hispanic
FFamily Court = 40%
MMental Health and Alcohol & Drug = 15%
FFamily self-referral = 14%
JJob & Family Services = 6%
Questions?
7/18/2015
23