Caregiver perceptions of Parent Peer Support Services within the Wraparound Service Delivery Model
- 255 Downloads
This qualitative study examined caregivers’ perceptions of Parent Peer Support (PPS) services, embedded in the Wraparound service delivery model for youth with severe emotional and behavioral disturbances (SEBD), to identify potential engagement facilitators and barriers. Wraparound is a holistic process involving multiple formal and informal providers to collectively implement an individualized, family-centered plan of care focused on maintaining youth with SEBD within the community. PPS are frequently referred to caregivers involved in Wraparound to provide additional support. Caregivers (n = 35) previously involved in an evaluation of one state’s Wraparound model participated in a single 30–60-min interview. Interview questions examined caregivers’ expectations about PPS, reasons for accepting or refusing PPS, and caregivers’ perceived impact of PPS. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using strategies from grounded theory methodology. Perceived need, as well as desire for shared experiences, knowledge, and assistance in accessing resources, facilitated accepting the PPS service. Barriers included inaccurate expectations of PPS, time limitations on Wraparound services, escalating youth behavior requiring more restrictive placements, scheduling difficulties, perceived unresponsiveness, and caregivers feeling overwhelmed by the number of providers. Caregivers indicated that PPS provided several benefits for themselves, youth in the care, and their families. However, potential barriers to ongoing engagement included perceived intrusiveness, as well as misalignment between services offered and caregivers’ needs.
KeywordsParent peer support Wraparound Engagement Perceived impact Youth Severe emotional and behavioral disturbances
G.G. designed and executed the study, assisted with the data analyses, and wrote the paper. M.J.H. collaborated with the design, data analysis and writing of the study. E.B. collaborated in the writing and editing of the final manuscript. M.C. analyzed data, and contributed to writing and editing of the final manuscript. S.M. analyzed data, and contributed to writing and editing of the final manuscript. M.P. analyzed data, and contributed to writing and editing of the final manuscript. T.L. analyzed data, and contributed to writing and editing of the final manuscript. M.M. collaborated in the writing and editing of the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Adams, J., Westmoreland, E., Edwards, C., & Adams, S. (2006). The “keys for networking”: Targeted parent assistance. Focal Point, 20(1), 15–18.Google Scholar
- Bruns, E. (2008). Measuring wraparound fidelity. In E. J. Bruns & J. S. Walker (Eds.), The resource guide to wraparound (Chapter 5e.1). Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center for Family Support and Children’s Mental Health.Google Scholar
- Bruns, E. J., Pullmann, M. D., Sather, A., Brinson, R. D., & Ramey, M. (2014). Effectiveness of wraparound versus case management for children and adolescents: Results of a randomized study. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bruns, E. (2015). Wraparound is worth doing well: An evidence-based statement. In E. J. Bruns, J. S. Walker (Eds.). The resource guide to wraparound. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative. Chapter 5e.4.Google Scholar
- Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Gopalan, G., Lee, S.J., Harris, R., Acri, M., & Munson, M.R. (2017). Utilization of peers in services for youth with emotional and behavioral challenges: A scoping review. Journal of Adolescence, 55, 88–115.Google Scholar
- Koroloff, N. M., Friesen, B. J., Reilly, L., & Rinkin, J. (1996). The role of family members in systems of care. In B.A. Stroul (Ed.), Children’s mental health: Creating systems of care in a changing society (pp. 409–426). Baltimore: P.H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
- Kutash, K., Acri, M., Pollock, M., Armusewicz, K., Olin, S., & Hoagwood, K. E. (2014). Quality indicators for multidisciplinary team functioning in community-based children’s mental health services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41(1), 55–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Green, A. L., & Ferron, J. M. (2011). Supporting parent who have youth with emotional disturbances through a parent-to-parent support program: A proof of concept study using random assignment. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(5), 412–427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Mann, C. (2013). Joint CMCS and SAMHSA informational bulletin: Coverage of behavioral health services for children, youth, and young adults with significant mental health conditions. Baltimore, MD: Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Google Scholar
- Matarese, M., & Harburger, D. (2014) Technical Assistance on the Integration of Health Homes and Managed Care for Children with Behavioral Health Needs. New York: Presentation presented at the New York State Planning Meeting, Albany.Google Scholar
- Miles, P. (2008). Family partners and the Wraparound process. In E.J. Bruns & J.S. Walker (Eds.), The resource guide to wraparound (Chapter 4b.3). Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center for Family Support and Children’s Mental Health.Google Scholar
- Miles, P., & Brown, N., The National Wraparound Initiative Implementation Work Group. (2011). Wraparound implementation guide: A handbook for administrators and managers. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative.Google Scholar
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Munsell, E. P., Cook, J. R., Kilmer, R. P., Vishnevsky, T., & Strompolis, M. (2011). The impact of child and family team composition on wraparound fidelity: Examining links between team attendance consistency and functioning. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(6), 771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Obrochta, C., Anthony, B., Armstrong, M., Kalil, J., Hust, J., & Kernan, J. (2011). Issue brief: family-to-family peer support: Models and evaluation. Atlanta, GA: ICF Macro. Outcomes Roundtable for Children and Families.Google Scholar
- Olin, S. S., Kutash, K., Pollock, M., Burns, B. J., Kuppinger, A., & Craig, N., et al. (2014). Developing quality indicators for family support services in community team-based mental health care. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Osher, T., & Penn, M. (2008). Family partners in systems of care and wraparound. Focal Point Research, Policy, and Practice in Children’s Mental Health, 22(1), 16–18.Google Scholar
- Penn, M., & Osher, T. (2008). The application of the ten principles of the wraparound process to the role of family partners on wraparound teams. In E.J. Bruns & J.S. Walker (Eds.), The resource guide to wraparound (Chapter 4b.1). Portland, OR: Portland State University, Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health, National Wraparound Initiative.Google Scholar
- Pires, S. A. (2013). Customizing health homes for children with serious behavioral health challenges. Rockville, MD: U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
- Stephens, T., Gopalan, G., Bowman, M., Acri, M., & McKay, M. M. (In press). Culturally relevant trauma-informed family engagement with families experiencing high levels of exposure to trauma and stress. In V. Strand, G. Sprang & L. Ross (Eds.), Developing Trauma Informed Child Welfare Agencies and Services. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Van Den Berg, J., Bruns, E.J., & Burchard, J. (2008). History of the wraparound process. In E. J. Bruns & J. S. Walker (Eds.), The resource guide to wraparound (Chapter 1.3). Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center for Family Support and Children’s Mental Health.Google Scholar
- Walker, J. S. (2008). How, and why, does wraparound work: A theory of change. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative.Google Scholar