Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 747–757 | Cite as

The Community Supports for Wraparound Inventory: An Assessment of the Implementation Context for Wraparound

  • Janet S. WalkerEmail author
  • Becca Sanders
Original Paper


The wraparound process has emerged as perhaps the most frequently implemented comprehensive approach for planning and providing individualized, community-based care for children and adolescents with serious mental health conditions. Providing comprehensive care through the wraparound process necessarily requires a high level of collaboration across organization and agency boundaries. This need for significant inter-agency or “system-level” collaboration creates a complex implementation environment for wraparound. It is therefore not surprising that creating and sustaining a hospitable implementation environment has proven to be extremely challenging. For the people who are responsible for managing the inter-organizational collaboration, it is not easy to evaluate the adequacy of local system-level support for wraparound and to see exactly what kinds of supports are lacking or where system-development efforts should focus. Furthermore, as system-development strategies are put into practice, it can be difficult to assess whether or not meaningful progress is occurring. The Community Supports for Wraparound Inventory (CSWI) was developed to respond to the need for an assessment of the extent to which a community has developed system-level capacity to implement wraparound. This article reports on a study that evaluated the reliability and validity of the CSWI for use in communities implementing wraparound. Findings indicate that the CSWI shows promise as a reliable, valid and useful tool.


Wraparound Implementation System integration Community-based care Inter-agency collaboration Implementation assessment System of care 


  1. Altschuler, D., Stangler, G., Berkley, K., & Burton, L. (2009). Supporting youth in transition to adulthood: Lessons learned from child welfare and juvenile justice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform.Google Scholar
  2. Brannan, A. M., Baughman, L. N., Reed, E. D., & Katz-Leavy, J. (2002). System-of-care assessment: Cross-site comparison of findings. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research & Practice, 5, 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bruns, E. J., Sather, A., & Stambaugh, L. F. (2008). National trends in implementing wraparound: Results from the state wraparound survey, 2007. In E. J. Bruns & J. S. Walker (Eds.), The Resource guide to wraparound. Portland, OR: Portland State University, National Wraparound Initiative.Google Scholar
  5. Bruns, E. J., Walker, J. S., Zable, M., Matarese, M., Estep, K., Harburger, D., et al. (in press). Intervening effectively in the lives of youth with complex behavioral health challenges and their families: The role of the wraparound process. American Journal of Community Psychology.Google Scholar
  6. Burchard, J. D., Bruns, E. J., & Burchard, S. N. (2002). The wraparound approach. In B. J. Burns & K. Hoagwood (Eds.), Community treatment for youth: Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 69–90). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. B., & Clarke, R. T. (1996). Research on the wraparound process and individualized services for children with multi-system needs. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10. Retrieved from
  10. Daleiden, E. L., Chorpita, B. F., Donkervoet, C., Arensdorf, A. M., & Brogan, M. (2006). Getting better at getting them better: Health outcomes and evidence-based practice within a system of care. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 749–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Starnes, A. L., Hamby, D. W., & Gordon, N. J. (1993). Building and evaluating family support initiatives. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  12. Elmore, R. F. (1979/1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94, 601–616.Google Scholar
  13. Evidence-Based Associates. (2008). Evidence-based programs’ global footprint, from
  14. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farmer, E. M. Z. (2000). Issues confronting effective services in systems of care. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 627–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farmer, E. M. Z., Dorsey, S., & Mustillo, S. A. (2004). Intensive home and community interventions. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13(1), 857–884.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fixsen, D., Naoom, S. F., Balase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.Google Scholar
  18. Frakera, T., & Rangarajan, A. (2009). The Social Security Administration’s Youth Transition Demonstration Projects. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30, 223–240.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman, R. M. (2003). A conceptual framework for developing and implementing effective policy in children’s mental health. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gagnon, J. C., & Richards, C. (2008). Making the right turn: A guide about improving transition outcomes of youth involved in the juvenile corrections system. Washington, DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership.Google Scholar
  21. Haber, M. G., Karpur, A., Deschenes, N., & Clark, H. B. (2009). Predicting improvement of transitioning young people in the Partnerships for Youth Transition Initiative: Findings from a multi-site demonstration. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 35, 488–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodges, S., Ferreira, K., Israel, N., & Mazza, J. (2010). Systems of care, featherless bipeds, and the measure of all things. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 4–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Institute of Medicine. (2006). Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use conditions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  26. Malekoff, A. (2000). Bureaucratic barriers to service delivery, administrative advocacy, and Mother Goose. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 81, 304–314.Google Scholar
  27. McGinty, K., McCammon, S. L., & Koeppen, V. P. (2001). The complexities of implementing the wraparound approach to service provision: A view from the field. Journal of Family Social Work, 5, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America: Final report (No. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832). Rockville, MD: New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.Google Scholar
  29. Rousson, V. (2007). The gamma coefficient reconsidered. Statistics & Probability Letters, 77, 1696–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sieler, D., Orso, S., & Unruh, D. K. (2009). Creating options for youth and their families. In H. B. Clark & D. K. Unruh (Eds.), Transition of youth and young adults with emotional or behavioral difficulties: An evidence-based handbook. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Stroul, B. A., & Blau, G. M. (Eds.). (2008). The system of care handbook: Transforming mental health services for children, youth, and families. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Stroul, B. A., & Blau, G. M. (2010). Defining the system of care concept and philosophy: To update or not to update? Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 59–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1986). A system of care for seriously emotionally disturbed children and youth. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center.Google Scholar
  35. Stroul, B. A., & Manteuffel, B. A. (2007). The sustainability of systems of care for children’s mental health: Lessons learned. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 34(3), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Cooperative agreements for Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and their Families Program (RFA) No. SM-08-004. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Center for Mental Health Services.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Cooperative agreements for state/community partnerships to integrate services and supports for youth and young adults 16–25 with serious mental health conditions and their families (RFA) No. SM-09-008. Washington, DC: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
  39. Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walker, J. S., & Bruns, E. J. (2006a). Building on practice-based evidence: Using expert perspectives to define the wraparound process. Psychiatric Services, 57, 1579–1585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walker, J. S., & Bruns, E. J. (2006b). The wraparound process: Individualized, community-based care for children and adolescents with intensive needs. In J. Rosenberg & S. Rosenberg (Eds.), Community mental health: Challenges for the 21st century. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Walker, J. S., Bruns, E. J., Conlan, L., & LaForce, C. (in press). The National Wraparound Initiative: A community of practice approach to building knowledge in the field of children’s mental health. Best Practices in Mental Health.Google Scholar
  43. Walker, J. S., Bruns, E. J., & Penn, M. (2008). Individualized services in systems of care: The wraparound process. In B. A. Stroul & G. M. Blau (Eds.), The system of care handbook: Transforming mental health services for children, youth, and families. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Walker, J. S., & Koroloff, N. (2007). Grounded theory and backward mapping: Exploring the implementation context for wraparound. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 34, 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walker, J. S., Koroloff, N., & Bruns, E. J. (2010). Defining “necessary” services and supports: Why systems of care must take direction from service-level processes. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 49–52.Google Scholar
  46. Walker, J. S., Koroloff, N., & Schutte, K. (2003). Implementing high-quality collaborative individualized service/support planning: Necessary conditions. Portland, OR: Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health.Google Scholar
  47. Walker, J. S., & Schutte, K. M. (2005). Quality and individualization in wraparound planning. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Research InstitutePortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.KalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations