The following article was published in the November/December 1993 issue of Sharing, the PIN Newsletter.

When Wrapaound Becomes Runaround

By John VanDenBerg, Ph.D., a Pittsburgh area father of a girl with learning disabilities who is receiving wraparound services from her school district. Dr. VanDenBerg is also the president of a national consulting group helping communities implement the wraparound process.

In the last 90 days I have been fortunate to consult with 13 different states that are in various stages of implementing the wraparound process. I would like to share my perspective from the road about what wraparound services should not be, and what ideally the wraparound process can become.

As I travel, I see the well intentioned, the horrid, and the sometimes brilliant implementations of the simple wraparound process of first looking at the needs of a child and family, partnering with the family to meet its needs, and then delivering unconditional care. This basic wraparound process is being bastardized at a high rate. For example, I was in a Northern state site, visiting a juvenile detention facility, when the Superintendent proudly showed me his Wraparound Unit. After my life flashed before me, I asked what made the unit a wraparound unit. He replied that all of the youth had completely individualized programs. My random audit of 20 treatment plans for the unit showed no variations from the behavior modification level system that all the boys were under. The unit had been renamed as a wraparound unit for political reasons, and not due to individualization of services.

Another variation I witnessed in the Midwest surfaced when a parent at a conference informed me that she and her son were receiving wraparound services. After congratulating her on her advocacy, I asked her what the services looked like. She replied that the county had given her a voucher for $500 and had given her a list of persons who had been laid off from a state hospital. She was told to call anyone on the list if she needed something. Yes, this was wraparound. AARRRGGGHHH!!!

Services reform is sometimes used as an excuse to eliminate services. One state took the money it saved from returning youth from out-of-state placements and returned it all to the general fund, leaving the youth and families with no real services or support except for a few hundred dollars a year of case management. Yep, wrap-around again!

I also see what can happen when a state or county really does implement a pure wraparound process. In Columbus, Ohio, public and private agencies have collaborated to return all of the youth to the county, and the funds have followed the youth home. This has allowed funds that were saved to be used to support other children and families and dramatically improve services. In rural Idaho, the social services agencies are partnering specialized foster families with the families of youth with severe emotional problems to bring the youth home to their communities. Each family has a truly individualized plan that is based on the strengths of the family. In Idaho, the first 60 children have been returned home successfully, and the families of the children again have hope.

We are also seeing private agencies begin to change how they are serving families. The largest private children's mental health agency in San Jose, California, Eastfield Ming Quong, is in the process of involving families as never before done at the agency. As the agency moves from a set of one size fits all categorical services to more individualized services, staff have embraced the concept of unconditional care. This means that if a family needs something other than is provided by core services, staff will create and individualize new options instead of rejecting the family from services, and will never give up on the family and themselves.

In my own family my wife, Janene, and I have witnessed how one school district (North Allegheny) has begun practicing true individualization of special education services, and how much this has helped our daughter progress educationally. Two years ago, I called my friend, Glenda Fine of PIN, because of my frustration in dealing with the school's desire to force my daughter out of her classroom into a special class-room where she would be away from her peers. Now, our daughter has a simple, inexpensive, inclusion-based wraparound program. The school does not call her program a wraparound program, but it truly is one. We are proud of her - this sweet child who just two years ago considered herself stupid, now considers herself a reader and a writer. She still has learning disabilities, and has trouble with reading and writing, but she is experiencing support, success, and pride in her work.

A final message from the road: communities can change how services and education are delivered to families. Unfortunately, some states and counties are trotting out old categorical services dressed in new clothes, but that are the same old tired service models that have not met the needs of families. We need to be diligent in insisting that services be truly individualized, that they be based on the strengths of the families, and the communities that they live in, and that they be unconditional. Because of literally dozens of successful wraparound programs around the U.S., we no longer need to tolerate excuses about how difficult it is to reform services. My child and your child deserve the best.

Ten Top Things To Say To Avoid Doing Wraparound (What They Really Are Saying)

As I travel around the U.S. consulting and training, I hear many reasons why the wraparound process cannot be implemented in counties. I have listed some of the more interesting reasons along with my accompanying interpretation of what they really are saying. I sort of apologize for the sarcasm, but there really are no good excuses for not improving services.

1. There is no funding. (We have a ton of our money tied up in placements.)
2. We have to protect the integrity of our model. (If you don't fit what we do, it is not our problem.)
3. We already do wraparound. (I think somebody bought a child in foster care a bike once.)
4. It is not clinically indicated. (I know better than what you really need.)
5. People in this town don't want these children to live here. (Let's all pretend that they won't move back here when they turn 18.)
6. Medicaid won't pay for it. (It is too much trouble to change our state Medicaid plan.)
7. Parents will take advantage of the program. (This is my money and I don't want these parents to get access to it unless it is my idea.)
8. Doing wraparound is a form of enabling. (If people get their needs met, what is next? Wanting more needs met?)
9. This isn't what I went to all those years of graduate school for. (I get uncomfortable learning new things.)
10. Our private providers are too entrenched. (And we want to keep them that way.)