Intensive Care Coordination Using High Fidelity Wraparound/High Fidelity Wraparound

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, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications.

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.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers. To receive a rating of supported or well-supported, the favorable evidence for a program or service must have been obtained from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting.

Studies Rated High

Study 11704

Browne, 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 Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 11717

Clark, 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 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 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 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 Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Low

Study 11711

West 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).