Intensive Care Coordination Using High Fidelity Wraparound/High Fidelity Wraparound
Intensive Care Coordination Using High Fidelity Wraparound (Wraparound), also known as High Fidelity Wraparound, uses an individualized, team-based, collaborative process to provide a coordinated set of services and supports. It is typically targeted toward children and youth with complex emotional, behavioral, or mental health needs, and their families. Throughout the process, youth and their families work with a care coordinator who convenes, facilitates, and coordinates efforts of the wraparound team. The care coordinator further helps the family navigate planned services and supports, including informal and community-based options; tracks progress and satisfaction to revise the plan of care as needed; and ensures program fidelity.
Wraparound has four phases. In Phase 1, a care coordinator learns more about the family, stabilizes immediate crises, and begins to orient the youth and their family to Wraparound. Together, the care coordinator, youth, and family identify the strengths, needs, culture, and goals of the youth and their family. The care coordinator engages other family members, friends, and care providers to serve as members of the wraparound team. In Phase 2, the team develops an initial care plan that identifies needs, services, strategies, action steps, and outcomes to achieve over the course of Wraparound. The team also updates the initial crisis and safety plan. In Phase 3, the team implements the care plan, and each team member focuses on action steps assigned to them. The team meets regularly and uses progress and satisfaction monitoring to identify modifications to the plan and celebrate successes. In Phase 4, the team creates a transition plan that includes community-based supports and services for the youth and family.
Wraparound is rated as a promising practice because at least one study achieved a rating of moderate or high on study design and execution and demonstrated a favorable effect on a target outcome.
Date Last Reviewed (Handbook Version 1.0): Jan 2022
Sources
The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information were informed by the following sources: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, and the studies reviewed.
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0
Target Population
Wraparound is typically targeted toward children and youth birth to age 21 with complex emotional, behavioral, or mental health needs, and their families.
Dosage
During Phase 1 of Wraparound, which lasts 1–4 weeks, the care coordinator conducts an initial 1- to 3-hour meeting with the youth and family and engages all potential additional team members. In Phase 2, completed within the first 30–45 days of referral, the wraparound team meets once or twice for up to 90 minutes per meeting. During Phase 3, which varies in duration, the wraparound team typically meets for 60–90 minutes every 4 weeks or as needed. Wraparound support in Phase 3 typically continues until the wraparound team determines that Wraparound is no longer needed. At that point, the team begins Phase 4 and holds meetings as needed to prepare the youth and family for transitioning out of Wraparound services.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
Wraparound can be delivered in a range of settings, including participants’ homes, alternative residential placements (e.g., foster care, residential facilities, or group homes), or community-based settings such as schools or mental health clinics.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- Home
- Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office
- Community Center (e.g., religious or recreational facility)
- Correctional Facility
- Non-Correctional Residential Center
Education, Certifications and Training
Wraparound is implemented by care coordinators with participation from additional team members depending on family needs, such as parent and youth support partners, direct support service providers, and clinicians. The process is supported by program supervisors/directors and administrative staff. Education requirements are determined by the organization implementing Wraparound and the specific role.
Training is recommended for care coordinators implementing Wraparound. The National Wraparound Implementation Center (NWIC) provides training, written protocols, assessment tools, and implementation support to states, sites, and organizations implementing Wraparound. Following training, care coordinators may go through an apprenticeship phase where they observe a peer or supervisor implementing Wraparound, practice implementing Wraparound while being observed, and receive coaching feedback and skill assessment.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
The resource guide is implemented in conjunction with the implementation guide.
Bruns, E. J., & Walker, J. S. (Eds.) (2015). The resource guide to Wraparound. National Wraparound Initiative.
Miles, P., Brown, N., & The National Wraparound Initiative Implementation Work Group. (2011). The Wraparound implementation guide: A handbook for administrators and managers. National Wraparound Initiative.
Available languages
Wraparound materials are available in English. The family handbook and overview materials are also available in Spanish.
Other supporting materials
Wraparound Short Animated Videos
Wraparound Basics: Frequently Asked Questions
Ten Principles of the Wraparound Process
For More Information
National Wraparound Initiative
Website: https://nwi.pdx.edu/
Contact form: https://nwi.pdx.edu/contact-national-wraparound-initiative/
National Wraparound Implementation Center
Website: www.nwic.org
Contact forms: nwic@ssw.umaryland.edu
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Intensive Care Coordination Using High Fidelity Wraparound/High Fidelity Wraparound |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 91 |
| Eligible for Review | 11 |
| Rated High | 1 |
| Rated Moderate | 4 |
| Rated Low | 6 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports |
-0.19
-7 |
1 (1) | 188 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child permanency: Least restrictive placement |
0.25
10 |
2 (2) | 234 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child permanency: Placement stability |
0.09
3 |
2 (8) | 546 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.19
7 |
2 (16) | 224 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 15 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.08
3 |
2 (3) | 140 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Delinquent behavior |
0.18
6 |
2 (6) | 179 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 6 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment |
0.22
8 |
1 (1) | 70 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.20
8 |
1 (2) | 135 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
-0.22
-8 |
1 (1) | 135 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group.
| Outcome | Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports |
-0.19
-7 |
1 (1) | 188 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Variable Intensity of Services (Sacramento County) (Cohen, 2004) | |||||
| Substantiated Maltreatment (Sacramento Site) |
-0.19
-7 |
- | 188 | - | 0 |
| Child permanency: Least restrictive placement |
0.25
10 |
2 (2) | 234 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Variable Intensity of Services (Sacramento County) (Cohen, 2004) | |||||
| Exited from Care to Incarceration (Sacramento Site) |
0.31
*
12 |
- | 188 | - | 0 |
| Study 11719 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Community Treatment as Usual (Coldiron, 2019) | |||||
| Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale (Weighted Average) |
0.05
1 |
- | 46 | - | 3 |
| Child permanency: Placement stability |
0.09
3 |
2 (8) | 546 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Standard Child Welfare Services (Alameda County) (Cohen, 2004) | |||||
| Number of Placement Moves (Alameda County Site) |
-0.13
-4 |
- | 212 | - | 0 |
| Three or Fewer Placement Moves (Alameda County Site) |
0.23
9 |
- | 212 | - | 0 |
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Alternative Service Plan (Los Angeles County) (Cohen, 2004) | |||||
| Number of Placement Moves (Los Angeles Site) |
0.15
6 |
- | 102 | - | 0 |
| Three or Fewer Placement Moves (Los Angeles Site) |
-0.43
-16 |
- | 102 | - | 0 |
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Variable Intensity of Services (Sacramento County) (Cohen, 2004) | |||||
| Number of Placement Moves (Sacramento Site) |
0.10
4 |
- | 188 | - | 0 |
| Three or Fewer Placement Moves (Sacramento Site) |
0.08
3 |
- | 188 | - | 0 |
| Study 11719 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Community Treatment as Usual (Coldiron, 2019) | |||||
| Runaway Incidents Per Month in Care |
0.38
14 |
- | 44 | - | 3 |
| Days on Runaway (%) |
0.30
11 |
- | 44 | - | 3 |
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.19
7 |
2 (16) | 224 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 15 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11717 - FIAP (High Fidelity Wraparound) vs. Standard Practice Foster Care (Clark, 1994) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing |
0.32
12 |
- | 109 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquent Behavior |
0.14
5 |
- | 109 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Somatic Complaints |
0.34
13 |
- | 109 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior |
0.28
10 |
- | 109 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Thought Problems |
0.31
12 |
- | 109 | - | 0 |
| Youth Self-Report: Externalizing |
0.31
12 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Youth Self-Report: Aggressive Behavior |
0.30
11 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Youth Self-Report: Internalizing |
0.02
0 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Youth Self-Report: Anxious-Depressed |
-0.03
-1 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Youth Self-Report: Somatic Complaints |
0.00
0 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Youth Self-Report: Withdrawn |
-0.03
-1 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Youth Self-Report: Attention Problems |
0.24
9 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Study 11706 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Traditional Case Management Comparison Group (Mears, 2009) | |||||
| Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (6 month) |
0.63
*
23 |
- | 115 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing |
0.11
4 |
- | 79 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing |
0.08
3 |
- | 79 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problems |
0.02
0 |
- | 79 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.08
3 |
2 (3) | 140 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11717 - FIAP (High Fidelity Wraparound) vs. Standard Practice Foster Care (Clark, 1994) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Social Problems |
0.16
6 |
- | 109 | - | 0 |
| Youth Self-Report: Social Problems |
-0.13
-5 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Standard Child Welfare Services (Alameda County) (Cohen, 2004) | |||||
| Social Skills Rating System (Caregiver Report, Alameda County Site) |
0.32
12 |
- | 31 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Delinquent behavior |
0.18
6 |
2 (6) | 179 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 6 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11717 - FIAP (High Fidelity Wraparound) vs. Standard Practice Foster Care (Clark, 1994) | |||||
| Percentage with at Least One Day of Incarceration |
0.10
3 |
- | 132 | - | 0 |
| Study 11719 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Community Treatment as Usual (Coldiron, 2019) | |||||
| Arrested At Least Once (%) |
0.27
10 |
- | 47 | - | 3 |
| Arrests (Number) |
0.12
4 |
- | 47 | - | 3 |
| Misdemeanor Offenses (Number) |
0.23
9 |
- | 47 | - | 3 |
| Rearrested (%) |
0.31
12 |
- | 47 | - | 0 |
| Rearrested (%) |
0.42
16 |
- | 47 | - | 3 |
| Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment |
0.22
8 |
1 (1) | 70 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11706 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Traditional Case Management Comparison Group (Mears, 2009) | |||||
| Grade Point Average |
0.22
8 |
- | 70 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.20
8 |
1 (2) | 135 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11704 - Wraparound (High Fidelity Wraparound) vs. Usual Care (Browne, 2016) | |||||
| Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) |
0.31
12 |
- | 135 | - | 0 |
| Parental Stress Scale |
0.10
3 |
- | 135 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
-0.22
-8 |
1 (1) | 135 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 11704 - Wraparound (High Fidelity Wraparound) vs. Usual Care (Browne, 2016) | |||||
| Family Resource Scale |
-0.22
-8 |
- | 135 | - | 0 |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes and statistical significance (see Section 7.3.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Age or Grade-level
|
Race, Ethnicity, Nationality
|
Gender
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Variable Intensity of Services (Sacramento County) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Sacramento County, CA, USA | 1999 | Average age: 12 years; Age range: 5-17 years |
55% White 30% Black 13% Hispanic 2% Asian/Other |
64% Male 36% Female |
100% Children residing in or at risk of placement into the highest levels of group care (RCL 12-14) in California; 40% Residing in RCL12-14 group care at the time of study enrollment; Most recent reason for removal: 61% Neglect, 19% Other, 13% Physical abuse, 5% Sexual abuse; Median number of placements prior to study enrollment: 6 Placements | -- |
| Study 11719 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Community Treatment as Usual | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Florida, USA | 2014 | Average age: 16 years; 57% age 14-16, 43% age 17-19 |
64% Black, non-Hispanic 26% White, non-Hispanic 11% Hispanic |
66% Male 34% Female |
100% Youth were involved in the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF); Average age at first DCF investigation: 8 years; Average placements since entering care: 2 Placements; Living restrictiveness at randomization: 21% Low, 13% Moderate, 53% Elevated, 9% High; 100% Youth involved in juvenile justice system; 77% had committed misdemeanor; 72% had committed a felony; Average arrests prior to 2015: 3 Arrests; 81% Spent time in secure detention prior to 2015; 4% Youth living in a runaway setting at the time of randomization |
-- |
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Standard Child Welfare Services (Alameda County) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Alameda County, CA, USA | 1999 | Average age: 12 years; Age range: 4-17 years |
77% Black 15% White 7% Hispanic 1% Asian/Other |
62% Male 38% Female |
100% Children residing in or at risk of placement into the highest levels of group care (RCL 12-14) in California; 20% Residing in RCL12-14 group care at the time of study enrollment; Most recent reason for removal: 76% Neglect, 17% Physical abuse, 6% Sexual abuse, 1% Other; Median number of placements prior to study enrollment: 6 Placements | -- |
| Study 11716 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Alternative Service Plan (Los Angeles County) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Los Angeles County, CA, USA | 2000 | Average age: 13 years; Age range: 6-18 years |
44% Hispanic 31% Black 19% White 2% Asian/Other |
52% Male 44% Female |
100% Children residing in or at risk of placement into the highest levels of group care (RCL 12-14) in California; 17% Residing in RCL12-14 group care at the time of study enrollment; Most recent reason for removal: 51% Neglect, 24% Other, 15% Physical abuse, 3% Sexual abuse; Median number of placements prior to study enrollment: 5 Placements | -- |
| Study 11717 - FIAP (High Fidelity Wraparound) vs. Standard Practice Foster Care | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| USA | -- | -- |
61% White 36% African American 3% Hispanic |
61% Male 39% Female |
100% Youth were in temporary custody of the state (regular foster home or emergency foster shelter facility) due to having been abused or neglected; Average years in placement: 2.6; Average annualized rate of placement changes: 3.8; 39% Youth who had run away from placement at least once; 17% of children had spent time incarcerated in detention, jail, correctional centers or adult prisons during pre or post or both |
-- |
| Study 11706 - High Fidelity Wraparound vs. Traditional Case Management Comparison Group | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Nevada, USA | -- | Average age: 12 years; Age range: 5-19 years |
61% White 17% Black or African American 16% Hispanic origin 13% Other 6% American Indian/Alaskan Native 2% Asian 1% Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander |
63% Male 37% Female |
100% Youth diagnosed with severe emotional disturbance (SED) meeting the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria; 62% Youth in state custody foster care |
-- |
| Study 11704 - Wraparound (High Fidelity Wraparound) vs. Usual Care | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Ontario, Canada | 2007 | Average age: 6 years | -- | 47% Female | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Ontario, Canada | 2007 | Average age: 32 years | -- | -- |
100% of families had a substantiated investigation for child maltreatment between 2007 and 2009; 27% Single parents |
28% Employed |
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated High
Study 11704Browne, D. T., Puente-Duran, S., Shlonsky, A., Thabane, L., & Verticchio, D. (2016). A randomized trial of wraparound facilitation versus usual child protection services. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(2), 168-179.
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Moderate
Study 11717Clark, H. B., Prange, M. E., Lee, B., Boyd, L. A., McDonald, B. A., & Stewart, E. S. (1994). Improving adjustment outcomes for foster children with emotional and behavioral disorders: Early findings from a controlled study on individualized services. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2(4), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669400200403
Clark, H. B., Lee, B., Prange, M. E., & McDonald, B. A. (1996). Children lost within the foster care system: Can wraparound service strategies improve placement outcomes? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234677
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)Study 11716
Center for Social Services Research. (2004). California's Title IV-E child welfare demonstration project: Final evaluation report executive summary. University of California Berkeley.
Cohen, E., Ferguson, C., Berzin, S., Thomas, K., Lorentzen, B., & Dawson, W. (2004). California’s Title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration project evaluation: Final report, selected chapters. University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare, Child Welfare Research Center.
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)Study 11706
Bruns, E. J., Rast, J., Peterson, C., Walker, J., & Bosworth, J. (2006). Spreadsheets, service providers, and the statehouse: Using data and the wraparound process to reform systems for children and families. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3-4), 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9074-z
Mears, S. L., Yaffe, J., & Harris, N. J. (2009). Evaluation of wraparound services for severely emotionally disturbed youths. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(6), 678-685.
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)Study 11719
Coldiron, J. S., Hensley, S. W., Parigoris, R. M., & Bruns, E. J. (2019). Randomized control trial findings of a wraparound program for dually involved youth. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 27(4), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426619861074
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Low
Study 11711West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. (2018). Semi-annual progress report: October 1, 2017-March 31, 2018. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Bureau for Children and Families.
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 11708
Bruns, E. J., Pullmann, M. D., Sather, A., Denby Brinson, R., & Ramey, M. (2015). Effectiveness of Wraparound versus case management for children and adolescents: Results of a randomized study. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(3), 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0571-3
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 11779
Teel, M. K. (2014). Strong Start Wraparound: Addressing the complex needs of mothers in early recovery. ZERO TO THREE, 35(1), 27-36.
Teel, K. M. (2014). Strong Start Study final report. JFK Partners and University of Colorado.
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 11766
Schneider-Muñoz, A. J., Renteria, R. A. M., Gelwicks, J., & Fasano, M. E. (2015). Reducing risk: Families in wraparound intervention. Families in Society, 96(2), 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2015.96.18
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 11757
Pullmann, M. D., Kerbs, J., Koroloff, N., Veach-White, E., Gaylor, R., & Sieler, D. (2006). Juvenile offenders with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism using Wraparound. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 375-397.
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 11714
Carney, M. M., & Buttell, F. (2003). Reducing juvenile recidivism: Evaluating the wraparound services model. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(5), 551-568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731503253364
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 11694
Aboutanos, M. B., Jordan, A., Cohen, R., Foster, R. L., Goodman, K., Halfond, R. W., Poindexter, R., Charles, R., Smith, S. C., Wolfe, L. G., Hogue, B., & Ivatury, R. R. (2011). Brief violence interventions with community case management services are effective for high-risk trauma patients. The Journal of Trauma, 71(1), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31821e0c86
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11695
Michigan Public Health Institute. (2013). Mission Inn research study evaluation report. Arbor Circle Corporation.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11696
Armstrong, M. I., & Evans, M. E. (1992). Three intensive community-based programs for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance and their families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01321342
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11697
Bartlett, N. A., & Freeze, T. B. (2019). Examining Wraparound fidelity for youth with mental health needs: An illustrative example of two rural Canadian schools. International Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 846-868.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11698
Bernard, S., Whitson, M., & Kaufman, J. (2015). The moderating effect of positive father engagement and accessibility on a school-based system of care intervention for mental health outcomes of children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(10), 2923-2933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0096-0
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11699
Bernstein, A., Chorpita, B. F., Rosenblatt, A., Becker, K. D., Daleiden, E. L., & Ebesutani, C. K. (2015). Fit of evidence-based treatment components to youths served by wraparound process: A relevance mapping analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.828296
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11700
Bertram, R. M., Schaffer, P., & Charnin, L. (2014). Changing organization culture: Data driven participatory evaluation and revision of Wraparound implementation. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 11(1-2), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2013.837339
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11701
Bickman, L., Smith, C. M., Lambert, E. W., & Andrade, A. R. (2003). Evaluation of a congressionally mandated Wraparound demonstration. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12(2), 135-156.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11702
Blizzard, A. M., Glos, L. J., Stephan, S. H., Medoff, D., & Slade, E. P. (2017). Impacts of a Medicaid Wraparound model demonstration program on youth specialty mental health services use. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 44(3), 373-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-016-9520-0
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).
Study 11703
Brown, R. A., & Hill, B. A. (1996). Opportunity for change: Exploring an alternative to residential treatment. Child Welfare, 75(1), 35-57.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11705
Bruns, E. J., Burchard, J. D., & Yoe, J. T. (1995). Evaluating the Vermont system of care: Outcomes associated with community-based Wraparound services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02233966
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11707
Bruns, E. J., Walker, J. S., Bernstein, A., Daleiden, E., Pullmann, M. D., & Chorpita, B. F. (2014). Family voice with informed choice: Coordinating Wraparound with research-based treatment for children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(2), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.859081
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11709
Bruns, E. J., Hook, A. N., Parker, E. M., Esposito, I., Sather, A., Parigoris, R. M., Lyon, A. R., & Hyde, K. L. (2018). Impact of a web-based electronic health record on behavioral health service delivery for children and adolescents: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(6), e10197. https://doi.org/10.2196/10197
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11710
Burt, M. R., Gearing, M. E., & McDaniel, M. (2016). Evolution in programs offering supportive housing to child welfare-involved families: Services integration and systems change at the half-way point. The Urban Institute.
Burt, M. (2019). Sustainability of supportive housing for families in the child welfare system: The state of services integration and systems change in participating communities as a federal demonstration ends. The Urban Institute.
Cunningham, M., Pergamit, M., McDaniel, M., Gearing, M., Zhang, S., & Howell, B. (2014). Supportive housing for high-need families in the child welfare system. The Urban Institute.
Pergamit, M., Cunningham, M., Hanson, D., & Stanczyk, A. (2019). Does supportive housing keep families together? The Urban Institute.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11712
Cameron, C., & Ellis, E. (2005). Mission Inn services: Grant period 9/30/01-9/30/05. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.
Cameron, C., & Ellis, E. (2009). Mission Inn services: Grant period 10/1/05-9/30/09. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11715
Carr, E., & Semel, M. (2004). Predictors of efficacy in Wraparound care with severely psychiatrically disturbed adolescents. Home for Little Wanderers.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11718
Clarke, R. T., Schaefer, M., Burchard, J. D., & Welkowitz, J. W. (1992). Wrapping community-based mental health services around children with a severe behavioral disorder: An evaluation of project Wraparound. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1(3), 241-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322069
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11720
Copp, H. L., Bordnick, P. S., Traylor, A. C., & Thyer, B. A. (2007). Evaluating Wraparound services for seriously emotionally disturbed youth: Pilot study outcomes in Georgia. Adolescence, 42(168), 723-732.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11721
Cordell, K., & Snowden, L. (2015). Emotional distress dispositions and crisis intervention for children treated for mental illness. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(9), 2699-2709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0072-8
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11722
Cordell, K. D., & Snowden, L. R. (2017). Reducing mental health emergency services for children served through California's full service partnerships. Medical Care, 55(3), 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000641
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).
Study 11723
Cosgrove, J. A., Lee, B. R., & Unick, G. J. (2020). A longitudinal evaluation of Wraparound's impact on youth mental health service use. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 28(3), 156-166. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1063426619842568
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11724
Cox, K., Baker, D., & Wong, M. A. (2010). Wraparound retrospective: Factors predicting positive outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18(1), 3-13.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11725
Crusto, C. A., Lowell, D. I., Paulicin, B., Reynolds, J., Feinn, R., Friedman, S. R., & Kaufman, J. S. (2008). Evaluation of a wraparound process for children exposed to family violence. Best Practices in Mental Health, 4(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1063426609336955
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11726
Dudley, C., Gray, M., Boal, A., & Jarvis, K. (2012). Northeast Oregon Collaborative for Child Safety (NOCCS): Final program report 2007-2012. Northeast Oregon Collaborative for Child Safety; RMC Research Corporation.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11727
Eastwood, J. (2019). Big data evaluation of an integrated care initiative for vulnerable families. International Journal of Integrated Care, 19(S1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3084
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11728
Eber, L., Osuch, R., & Redditt, C. A. (1996). School-based applications of the Wraparound process: Early results on service provision and student outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234680
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11729
Eber, L., & Rolf, K. (1997). Education's role in the system of care: Student/family outcomes. (ED407807). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED407807.pdf
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11730
Evans, M. E., Armstrong, M. I., Dollard, N., Kuppinger, A. D., Huz, S., & Wood, V. M. (1994). Development and evaluation of treatment foster care and Family-Centered Intensive Case Management in New York. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2(4), 228-239. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F106342669400200405
Evans, M. E., Armstrong, M. I., & Kuppinger, A. D. (1996). Family-Centered Intensive Case Management: A step toward understanding individualized care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234678
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11732
First, R. J., Rife, J. C., & Kraus, S. (1990). Case management with people who are homeless and mentally ill: Preliminary findings from an NIMH demonstration project. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 14(2), 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099442
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11733
Ford, R., Ryan, P., Norton, P., & Beadsmore, A. (1996). Does intensive care management work? Clinical, social and quality of life outcomes form a controlled study. Journal of Mental Health, 5(4), 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638239619275
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11734
Furlong, M., Stokes, A., McGilloway, S., Hickey, G., Leckey, Y., Bywater, T., O'Neill, C., Cardwell, C., Taylor, B., & Donnelly, M. (2018). A community-based parent-support programme to prevent child maltreatment: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial. HRB Open Research, 1, 13. https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12812.2
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11735
Gooden, M., & Barkdull, C. (2002). Training opportunities for cultural responsiveness and awareness (TOCRA): Final report. University of Utah.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11736
Grimes, K. E., Schulz, M. F., Cohen, S. A., Mullin, B. O., Lehar, S. E., & Tien, S. (2011). Pursuing cost-effectiveness in mental health service delivery for youth with complex needs. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 14(2), 73-83.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11737
Hansen, M., Litzelman, A., Marsh, D. T., & Milspaw, A. (2004). Approaches to serious emotional disturbance: Involving multiple systems. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(5), 457-465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.5.457
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11738
Hyde, K. L., Burchard, J. D., & Woodworth, K. (1996). Wrapping services in an urban setting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234679
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).
Study 11739
Jeong, S., Lee, B. H., & Martin, J. H. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of a special needs diversionary program in reducing reoffending among mentally ill youthful offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(9), 1058–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x13492403
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11740
Kamradt, B. (2000). Wraparound Milwaukee: Aiding youth with mental health needs. Juvenile Justice, 7(1), 14-23.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11741
Loman, L., Anthony, F., Christine, S., & Siegel, G. L. (2011). Indiana IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration extension final evaluation report: A report for the Children's Bureau prepared for the Indiana Department of Child Services. Institute of Applied Research.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11742
Lopez, M. A., & Cohen, D. A. (2018). Achieving a Texas system of care: Final evaluation report. Texas Institute for Excellence in Mental Health.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11743
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. (2015). Los Angeles County annual system improvement plan (SIP) progress report: Quarter 2, 2013 through quarter 1, 2014.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.2).
Study 11744
Matthews, K., Enyart, M., & Freeman, R. (2019). Putting the pieces together: Perceptions of longitudinal Wraparound, systems of care, and positive behavior support implementation. Community Mental Health Journal, 55(6), 932-941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-019-00379-8
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11745
McCarter, S. A. (2016). Holistic representation: A randomized pilot study of Wraparound services for first-time juvenile offenders to improve functioning, decrease motions for review, and lower recidivism. Family Court Review, 54(2), 250-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12216
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11747
Michigan Department of Human Services. (2012). Michigan title IV-E waiver child welfare demonstration project. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11748
Morgan, S., Pullon, S., & McKinlay, E. (2019). Interagency collaborative care for young people with complex needs: Front‐line staff perspectives. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(4), 1019–1030. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12719
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11749
Morgenstern, J., Hogue, A., Dauber, S., Dasaro, C., & McKay, J. R. (2009). A practical clinical trial of coordinated care management to treat substance use disorders among public assistance beneficiaries. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 257-269. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014489
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11750
Morton, T. D. (2003). Is there evidence for strengths-based practice? Child Welfare Institute.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.2).
Study 11751
National Council on Crime & Delinquency. (2015). A profile of youth in the Los Angeles County delinquency prevention pilot. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11752
Naylor, D. (2010). Overview of collaborative systems of care in Wisconsin. White Pine Consulting Service.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.2).
Study 11753
Ogles, B. M., Carlston, D., Hatfield, D., Melendez, G., Dowell, K., & Fields, S. A. (2006). The role of fidelity and feedback in the Wraparound approach. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(1), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-9008-7
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11754
Ono, E., Friedlander, R., & Salih, T. (2019). Falling through the cracks: How service gaps leave children with neurodevelopmental disorders and mental health difficulties without the care they need. British Columbia Medical Journal, 61(3), 114–124.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11755
Painter, K. (2012). Outcomes for youth with severe emotional disturbance: A repeated measures longitudinal study of a Wraparound approach of service delivery in systems of care. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41(4), 407-425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-011-9167-1
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11756
Pringle, J. L., Edmondston, L. A., Holland, C. L., Kirisci, L., Emptage, N. P., Balavage, V. K., Ford, W. E., Etheridge, R. M., Hubbard, R. L., Jungblut, E., & Herrell, J. M. (2002). The role of wrap around services in retention and outcome in substance abuse treatment: Findings from the wrap around services impact study. Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, 1(4), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1097/00132576-200211000-00001
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11758
Rast, J., Bruns, E. J., Brown, E. C., Peterson, C. R., & Mears, S. L. (2008). Outcomes of the Wraparound process for children involved in the child welfare system: Results of a matched comparison study [Unpublished program evaluation].
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.2).
Study 11759
Rauso, M., Ly, T. M., Lee, M. H., & Jarosz, C. J. (2009). Improving outcomes for foster care youth with complex emotional and behavioral needs: A comparison of outcomes for Wraparound vs. residential care in Los Angeles County. Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 9, 63–75.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).
Study 11760
Ray, J., Stromwell, L. K., Neumiller, S., & Roloff, M. (1998). A community response to tragedy: Individualized services for families. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022293420801
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11761
Roberts, J. M., Roberts, J. L., Harrington, A., Vudy, V., & Krumenacker, J. (2016). Clinical supervision dilemmas related to child abuse in Wraparound treatment. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 25(7), 2258-2267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0394-9
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11762
Rose, W., Aldgate, J., McIntosh, M., & Hunter, H. (2009). High-risk children with challenging behaviour: Changing directions for them and their families. Child & Family Social Work, 14(2), 178-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00622.x
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11763
Running Wolf, P., Soler, R., Manteuffel, B., Sondheimer, D., Santiago, R. L., & Erickson, J. S. (2002). Cultural competence approaches to evaluation in tribal communities. Symposium on Research and Evaluation Methodology: Lifespan Issues Related American Indians/Alaska Natives with Disabilities.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11764
Sacramento Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Sacramento County final RPG progress report: Early Intervention Family Drug Court (EIFDC).
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11765
Sapokaite, L., Filonow, C. S., & Siegel, G. L. (2010). Case studies: Use of flexible funding in Indiana's child welfare demonstration: Part of a comprehensive evaluation of the Indiana title IV-E. Institute of Applied Research.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11767
Schreier, A., Horwitz, M., Marshall, T., Bracey, J., Cummins, M., & Kaufman, J. S. (2019). Child and family team meeting characteristics and outcomes in a statewide system of care. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3/4), 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12323
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11768
Shailer, J. L., Gammon, R. A., & Terte, I. (2013). Youth with serious mental health disorders: Wraparound as a promising intervention in New Zealand. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 34(3), 186-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1028
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11769
Shannon, L. M., Walker, R., & Blevins, M. (2009). Developing a new system to measure outcomes in a service coordination program for youth with severe emotional disturbance. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.09.006
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11770
Siennick, S. E., Brown, S. J., Mears, D. P., Pesta, G. B., Montes, A. N., & Collier, N. L. (2019). School-based services for youth with prior police contact: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16, 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09376-z
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11771
Sieracki, J. H., Fuller, A. K., Leon, S. C., Bai, G. J., & Bryant, F. (2015). The role of race, socioeconomic status, and system of care services in placement decision-making. Children and Youth Services Review, 50, 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.12.013
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11772
Smelson, D. A., Perez, C. K., Farquhar, I., Byrne, T., & Colegrove, A. (2018). Permanent supportive housing and specialized co-occurring disorders Wraparound services for homeless individuals. Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 14(4), 247-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2018.1506195
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11773
Snider, C., Jiang, D., Logsetty, S., Strome, T., & Klassen, T. (2015). Wraparound care for youth injured by violence: Study protocol for a pilot randomised control trial. BMJ Open, 5(5), e008088. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008088
Snider, C. E., Jiang, D., Logsetty, S., Chernomas, W., Mordoch, E., Cochrane, C., Mahmood, J., Woodward, H., & Klassen, T. P. (2020). Feasibility and efficacy of a hospital-based violence intervention program on reducing repeat violent injury in youth: A randomized control trial. CJEM, 22(3), 313-320. https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2019.406
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11774
Snyder, E. H., Lawrence, C. N., & Dodge, K. A. (2012). The impact of system of care support in adherence to Wraparound principles in child and family teams in child welfare in North Carolina. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(4), 639-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.12.010
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11775
Snyder, A., Marton, J., McLaren, S., Feng, B., & Zhou, M. (2017). Do High Fidelity Wraparound services for youth with serious emotional disturbances save money in the long-term? The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 20(4), 167-175.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).
Study 11776
Stambaugh, L. F., Mustillo, S. A., Burns, B. J., Stephens, R. L., Baxter, B., Edwards, D., & DeKraai, M. (2007). Outcomes from Wraparound and Multisystemic Therapy in a center for mental health services system-of-care demonstration site. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(3), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10634266070150030201
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11777
Swenson, C. C., Randall, J., Henggeler, S. W., & Ward, D. (2000). The outcomes and costs of an interagency partnership to serve maltreated children in state custody. Children’s Services, 3(4), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326918CS0304_1
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11778
Tai, M.-H., Lee, B., Onukwugha, E., Zito, J. M., Reeves, G. M., & dosReis, S. (2018). Impact of coordinated behavioral health management on quality measures of antipsychotic use. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 45(1), 174-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-017-0807-0
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).
Study 11780
Toffalo, D. A. D. (2000). An investigation of treatment integrity and outcomes in Wraparound services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(3), 351-361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026496524181
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11781
Vorhies, V., Glover, C. M., Davis, K., Hardin, T., Krzyzanowski, A., Harris, M., Fagan, M., & Wilkniss, S. (2009). Improving outcomes for pregnant and parenting foster care youth with severe mental illness: An evaluation of a transitional living program. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 33(2), 115-124. https://doi.org/10.2975/33.2.2009.115.124
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11782
Walker, J. S., Pullmann, M. D., Moser, C. L., & Burns, E. J. (2012). Does team-based planning "work" for adolescents? Findings from studies of Wraparound. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 35(3), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.2975/35.3.2012.189.198
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11783
Walker, J., Seibel, C., & Jackson, S. (2017). Increasing youths' participation in team-based treatment planning: The Achieve My Plan enhancement for Wraparound. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2090-2100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0738-0
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11784
Wallace, N. M., Quetsch, L. B., Robinson, C., McCoy, K., & McNeil, C. B. (2018). Infusing Parent-Child Interaction Therapy principles into community-based Wraparound services: An evaluation of feasibility, child behavior problems, and staff sense of competence. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 567-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.007
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).
Study 11785
Wu, B., Bruns, E. J., Tai, M.-H., Lee, B. R., Raghavan, R., & dosReis, S. (2018). Psychotropic polypharmacy among youths with serious emotional and behavioral disorders receiving coordinated care services. Psychiatric Services, 69(6), 716-722. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700357
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).
Study 11786
Yoe, J. T., Santarcangelo, S., Atkins, M., & Burchard, J. D. (1996). Wraparound care in Vermont: Program development, implementation, and evaluation of a statewide system of individualized services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234676
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).
Study 11787
Yohannan, J., Carlson, J. S., Shepherd, M., & Batsche-McKenzie, K. (2017). Exploring attrition, fidelity, and effectiveness of Wraparound services among low-income youth of different racial backgrounds. Families, Systems & Health, 35(4), 430-438. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000313
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).