Definition
Coordination of services refers to the centralized process by which multiple services and supports, often provided by multiple agencies, are synchronized to address the needs and strengths of each child, youth, or family. This process commonly follows a strength-based child and family team approach to develop a service plan. Coordination of services for families involved in child welfare may occur through methods such as Family Group Decision-Making, Team Decision-Making, wraparound, case management, and care coordination.
Service array refers to the range of service options, including methods for coordinating services available to address holistically the individual needs of children, youth, and families, as determined by a thorough assessment, within a geographic area. Services may include family preservation and case management services, out-of-home placement, and permanency planning. The service array consists of the network of all local public, private, faith-based, and nonprofit community-based organizations designed to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of children, youth, and families.
The service array, including child and family team processes, must be supported by available funding, policies and a strong service provider network to serve children and families in their home community, as illustrated in the following visual developed by Portland State University (2004).

Figure 1 - Three Levels of Supports for Child and Family Teams.
Why Use a Coordination of Services and Service Array Toolkit?
This toolkit outlines how to integrate a comprehensive array of services and supports to actualize your system of care, as well as the processes necessary to individualize services for a particular child and family. This toolkit addresses three questions you might have:
- How do we tailor services for each child and family?
- How do we use a strength–based approach in assessments and service delivery?
- How do we integrate a robust array of services and supports to ensure we serve children and families within their home community whenever possible?
Systems of Care Principles and Values
Incorporating systems of care principles and values into the daily operations of coordinating services and service array development will set the tone and direction for moving forward. Principles help guide actions and lend focus to systems of care work. Principles and values are the foundation on which you build your system of care.
The following are a few ways systems of care principles and values might be evident in your community's coordination of services and service array:
- Services and supports directly address the needs and strengths of the child, youth, and/or family.
- Services and supports are accessible to the children, youth and families of focus.
- Families and youth are actively engaged in coordinating services and developing service plans.
- Culture, race, class, and gender factor into the design and implementation of services or support.
- Service providers use strength–based, culturally competent needs assessments to guide case planning.
- Children, youth, and families are not subject to multiple interviews or invasive, exhaustive questionnaires from multiple sources.
- Individual service plans include service providers who represent diverse agencies and organizations.
- Establishing and using community–based services.
- Serving children, youth and families within the context of their home whenever possible.
- When children and youth must be placed out of their homes, placements are in close proximity to their homes, so that children are kept in the same communities and schools whenever possible.
- Service outcomes and utilization data are regularly tracked, provided to front line staff, supervisors, administrators and policy makers, and used to determine if services should be changed, created, or eliminated.
- Service outcomes and utilization data are used to inform policymakers and drive budget decisions and service system reform.
- Service coordination is essential for case planning and service delivery for all children, youth, and families in the target population.
- The community, agency funders, and key leaders support the array of services available and methods for coordinating services.
Below is an example of how systems of care principles envelop the entire process of serving children, youth and families. As the graphic demonstrates, system of care principles influence the actions of service providers, system partners and all activities involved within a system of care (DeCarolis, Southern, & Blake, 2007).

Figure 2 - Systems of Care Principles.
Goals for Implementation
- A comprehensive set of services and supports are available and accessible to the population of focus.
- The interagency network of service providers works on behalf of all children and families in the population of focus.
- Each child, youth, and family actively/meaningfully participates in coordinating services as part of the case plan.
- All children, youth, and families receive a comprehensive, strength–based, culturally sensitive, family–friendly, and family–driven assessment that is accepted by all participating agencies prior to development of a case plan.
- All service providers and the family are part of the service planning process to produce one individualized, multi–agency service plan per family, regardless of the number of agencies involved.
- Flexible funds are available to purchase services that meet the unique needs of a child, youth, or family, and may fall outside the normal or traditional menu of services offered.
- Services and supports are arranged for a child, youth, or family to optimize efficient and effective delivery.
- Models for coordinating services such as Team Decision–Making or Family Group Decision–Making are recognized as part of the broader service array available to children, youth, and families in the system of care.
- Agencies that fund services allocate revenue to the system of care to support, purchase, or develop services for the population of focus, including methods for coordinating care.
- Agencies and organizations support the service array and service coordination methods fiscally and through policies and procedures.
- These are only a few examples of goals some communities have established. Your community's goals might be very different.
The purpose of this phase of coordination of services and service array is to begin to understand how your current system operates. Inventory what services and processes are available to families so you can build on what already exists. In this phase, you also should research what is available nationally in terms of needs assessments, logic models, and processes for individualizing services for children and families. Pre–planning can last up to 6 months.
Activities, Questions to Consider
Coordination of services and service array pre–planning activities and tasks in your community might include:
- Providing a process for the agency and community to describe the existing community service array and detail the resources and services available.
- Have you developed an interagency service needs assessment?
- Will families be involved in responding to the needs assessment?
- Identifying the mechanism used to deliver child welfare services to the population of focus.
- Are services privatized, contracted, or provided by the agency?
- Do these agencies have policies, procedures, and practices that embrace systems of care values?
- Identifying service providers to participate in systems of care activities (governance body, committees, planning group).
- Will the service providers involved represent the cultural diversity of your community?
- Identifying the methods for coordinating services to the population of focus.
- Which agency will serve as the lead and/or coordinating agency?
- What process for individualizing services and supports are you using: Family Group Decision–Making, wraparound, Team Decision–Making, other?
- Identifying children, youth and families to participate in the assessment and development of the service array, which includes assessment and development of service coordination methods.
- How will you support their participation?
- Inviting community service providers; agency staff who provide services to children, youth, and families; and children, youth and families to participate in systems of care activities.
- How will you ensure the service providers and agency staff represent all the child–serving systems?
- Do you have e–mail addresses for all providers?
- Do you share those e–mail addresses among all providers?
Key Partners
- Youth and family members
- Culturally competent and diverse community–based service providers
- Individuals responsible for coordinating services
- Agency leaders responsible for funding services and making policy
- Directors of agencies responsible for developing services
- Individuals responsible for training service providers
- Supervisors of staff providing direct services to children, youth, and families
- Key service system evaluators
- Legal Services
- Judges
- Legislative representation
- Advocacy group member representation
Sustainability
- Research and identify robust systems of care to understand the kinds of individualizing processes, services, and supports that are available to children, youth, and families.
- Confirm the strategies, activities, and people needed to inventory your current system of services and supports.
- Compile needs assessment results to help shape your community's service and support assets.
- Determine how feedback will be gathered from families participating in needs assessments.
- Hire a full–time person to oversee service array and service coordination activities.
Resources
Colorado – Using Logic Models (PDF - 417 KB)
A 16–slide PowerPoint presentation that details the steps for putting together a logic model for a service or system change project. Includes a framework for a logic model and a step–by–step explanation of each component.
North Carolina – Sample Needs Assessments (PDF - 146 KB)
Caregivers, staff, community collaborative members, supervisors/senior management, and other stakeholders received this set of needs assessments that were used to determine the assistance each group required to adhere to systems of care principles.
The planning phase features information gathering activities to complete an assessment of your current service array and determine the services that are needed to ensure you can provide a flexible and comprehensive array of services for children, youth, and families. During the planning phase, you want to gain a clear understanding of how services are delivered and the process for individualizing services to children, youth, and families. This phase addresses the who, what, where, and how of assessing your service array. Planning can take 6–18 months.
Activities, Questions to Consider
Coordination of services and service array planning activities and tasks in your community might include:
- Outlining the process (e.g., surveys, focus groups) for assessing community resources and needs, assessing child and family strengths and needs, and coordinating services.
- Assessing the existing service delivery system and identifying service gaps.
- Do agency decision–makers support services to the target population fiscally and through agency policies and practices?
- Are judges, legal system representatives, advocates, and law enforcement personnel involved in identifying service gaps and needs?
- Assessing how families receive multiple services.
- Do families have more than one case manager if they are involved with more than one agency?
- How will you unify case management so there is one care plan and one case manager?
- Assessing service utilization by service type.
- Is there a waiting list for services? What can be done to alleviate the waiting list?
- Is there underutilization of a particular service? If so, why?
- Is a particular service available in all parts of the service area?
- Are certain services used more or less in certain parts of the service delivery area? If so, why?
- Is service utilization related to costs and outcomes for youth and families using those services?
- Assessing outcomes associated with each service type.
- Are processes in place to assess the effectiveness of services delivered?
- Developing or utilizing existing assessment tools that are used throughout all agencies.
- Are you selecting assessment tools that are comprehensive, integrated, culturally appropriate, and not burdensome?
- Addressing culture, language, and accessibility issues; considering where services are delivered, by whom, for whom, and when they are offered.
- Providing training to service providers, service coordinators, and service recipients in systems of care and service coordination methods. Involve parents/youth as co–trainers
- Defining integrated or coordinated care.
- Defining case management or service coordination.
- Conducting outreach to nontraditional providers of services and support, such as community and faith–based organizations.
- Developing tools to measure service effectiveness and customer satisfaction.
- Defining processes for monitoring and addressing out–of–home placement rates.
- What are the service needs of the youth (and their families) who warrant an out–of–home placement?
- How do their needs differ from those of youth served within their family/community/home State?
- Developing tools to assess the effectiveness of child and family team meetings (e.g., wraparound, Family Group Decision–Making, Family–to– Family, Team Decision–Making).
- Determining how services will be funded.
- What is your activity logic model for funding services?
- Developing procedures for accessing, using, and monitoring a flexible fund account, if applicable.
- Determining what policies, rules, and regulations need to be created, revised, or eliminated to support changes in the way services are coordinated and delivered in the home and community.
Key Partners
- Youth and family members
- Culturally competent and diverse community–based service providers
- Individuals responsible for coordinating services
- Agency leaders responsible for funding services and making policy
- Directors of agencies responsible for developing services
- Individuals responsible for training service providers
- Supervisors of staff providing direct services to children, youth, and families
- Key service system evaluators
- Judges
- Legal Services
- Legislative representation
- Advocacy group member representation
Sustainability
- Work with stakeholders to develop logic models for various components of your service delivery system.
- Conduct a comprehensive service needs assessment with all stakeholders to determine the resources you have, at what levels, and what resources you need.
- Identify champions of your systems of care work.
- Engage key stakeholder groups that will support funding and policy initiatives centered on your service array.
- Highlight data that show successful outcomes of your service array for children and families.
- Research evidence–based approaches to individualizing services to children and families and adopt an approach for your system of care.
Resources
Kansas – Family Navigator Concept Paper (PDF - 22 KB)
This one–page concept paper discusses the barriers to timely and helpful support to families newly involved with the child welfare system and addresses the benefits of the family navigator program for the family and the child welfare agency.
Kansas – Community–based Services Overview (PDF - 26 KB)
A five-page document that outlines how Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services contracts with nonprofit providers will be structured in the future. All systems of care principles are embedded in the contract provisions for community–based services and supports.
North Carolina – Memorandum of Understanding (PDF - 31 KB)
A comprehensive four–page interagency agreement among system of care partners in Alamance County, North Carolina. Areas covered in the agreement include collaborative service development, coordinated sustainable funding, common planning team intake form development, cross–training calendars, and maximizing family involvement in all aspects of the system of care.
North Carolina – Medicaid Billable Service Definitions (PDF - 743 KB)
This 156-page document lists all Medicaid eligible services for children, youth, and families involved in the child welfare system. Areas covered in the document include service definitions and required components, provider requirements, staffing requirements, service type/setting, program requirements, utilization management, entrance criteria, continued stay criteria, discharge criteria, expected outcomes, documentation requirements, and service exclusions/limitations.
In the implementation phase, a set of new practices and services to enhance your system of care is delivered. Coordinated and individualized case plans, unified case management, budget requests for new or expanded services, applications for Federal and/or foundation grants to add services, integrated management information systems, and outcome–driven service provision characterize the work in this phase. The duration of the implementation phase varies across communities and is likely to continue throughout the life of your system of care.
Activities, Questions to Consider
Coordination of services and service array implementation activities and tasks in your community might include:
- Creating case plans that link strengths and needs with services and supports.
- Are all relevant agencies involved in developing and supporting case plans?
- Is the service plan strength–based?
- Are case plans culturally competent?
- Are families involved in the development of all case plans?
- Assessing the quality and accessibility of services continuously.
- How accessible are court–ordered services for parents?
- Conducting family risk and safety assessments.
- Requiring service providers to participate in annual systems of care training.
- Are service providers aware of systems of care principles and expectations for service delivery based on those principles?
- Are your systems of care trainings led jointly by parents and professionals?
- Requiring service providers to participate in ongoing professional development and training in systems of care principles and service coordination methods as a condition of employment or funding.
- Have you specified ongoing professional development and training in systems of care principles and service coordination in contracts with service providers?
- Establishing processes for monitoring and addressing out–of–home placement rates.
- Establishing processes for conducting child and family team meetings and developing individualized case plans.
- Is the family a partner in designing the service plan?
- Do case plans address the child's needs at home, in school, and in the community?
- Is staff assigned to ensure the service plan is coordinated, realistic, strength–based, and flexible enough to adjust to changing needs?
- Establishing processes for documenting, monitoring, and tracking child and family team meetings.
- Establishing processes for accessing, using, and monitoring flexible funds, if applicable.
Key Partners
- Youth and family members
- Culturally competent and diverse community–based service providers
- Individuals responsible for coordinating services
- Agency leaders responsible for funding services and making policy
- Directors of agencies responsible for developing services
- Individuals responsible for training service providers
- Supervisors of staff providing direct services to children, youth, and families
- Key service system evaluators
- Judges
- Legal Services
- Legislative representation
- Advocacy group member representation
Sustainability
- Incorporate evidence–based practices when implementing any new service or process.
- Check with line staff and families frequently to learn the quality and impact of service delivery.
- Be open to modifying a particular service to ensure optimum utilization and benefits.
- Ensure agencies blend or braid (See Finance Toolkit for detailed description of these two funding mechanisms) various funding streams so payment for services is seamless to families.
- Increase the impact of a care plan by having a flexible pool of funds available to meet the individual needs of children and families. Document the expected and actual use of flexible funds to demonstrate their value to policymakers.
Resources
Pennsylvania – Implementation Tool (PDF - 47 KB)
This seven–page document details an organized process for advancing a system of care from pre–planning to implementation.
Kansas – Family Engagement Handbook (PDF - 401 KB)
This 41–page handbook, written by and for families, is designed to help families understand what may happen during their involvement with the child welfare system, provide them with information so they can be prepared, and describe important steps they can take and available resources.
Nevada – Child and Family Team Meeting Training Presenters Guide (PDF - 168 KB)
A comprehensive 31–page outline that addresses the why, who, when, where, and what of child and family team meetings. Also discusses child and family team meeting follow–up strategies and provides samples of supporting forms.
A focus on ongoing performance improvement calls for the development of tools to collect and assess information for systems of care decision–making. Gaining consensus on outcomes to be measured for children, youth, and families receiving services will support implementation of a coordinated management information system based on those outcomes. Presenting the results to all stakeholder groups from frontline staff to policymakers is a crucial step to ensure that the necessary services and supports continue to be supported and expanded where necessary.
Activities, Questions to Consider
Coordination of services and service array quality improvement activities and tasks in your community might include:
- Developing outcome measurements for each child, youth, and family enrolled within the system of care.
- Were all stakeholder groups, including families, involved in generating your outcome measures?
- Telling the story of the impact of your service array on individual children and families.
- Are you using both quantitative and qualitative information to tell the story?
- Are families being asked to discuss the difference your system of care has had on their lives?
- Including families in measuring the effectiveness of services.
- Will you use surveys, focus groups, and interviews to attain this information?
- How will you protect privacy in releasing information related to children, youth, and families?
- Developing an interagency management information system to track system of care enrollees across agencies.
- Are there processes to assess the effectiveness of services delivered?
- Are families involved in any quality improvement bodies or councils in your State/county/tribe/territory/community?
- Are you addressing issues of confidentiality that may present barriers to sharing information and use of management information systems?
Key Partners
- Youth and family members
- Culturally competent and diverse community–based service providers
- Individuals responsible for coordinating services
- Agency leaders responsible for funding services and making policy
- Directors of agencies responsible for developing services
- Individuals responsible for training service providers
- Supervisors of staff providing direct services to children, youth, and families
- Key service system evaluators
- State Kids Count organization
- Legislative representation
- Advocacy group member representation
Sustainability
- Follow the plan–do–study–adjust approach to all services and supports offered in your system of care.
- Ensure policymakers and other stakeholders are informed regularly about outcome data related to services delivered to children and families.
- Involve youth and parents in the implementation of evaluation and the communication of findings.
- Use data to modify practices and programs to improve effectiveness, accessibility, and availability of services.
Resources
Pennsylvania – Assessment Tool (PDF - 57 KB)
This 11–page assessment tool helps communities examine whether their service delivery system incorporates systems of care values and principles.
( Back to the top )
Example from the Field
Site
Medicine Moon Initiative to Improve Tribal Child Welfare Outcomes through Systems of Care, Spirit Lake, Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, and Turtle Mountain Reservations, North Dakota
Goal
To develop a culturally competent, locally administered tribal system of care for child welfare-involved families that integrates natural and cultural supports into the child welfare service array and includes cultural well-being as part of the quality improvement process.
Strategy/Approach
What Was Done
To enhance culturally competent services, expand the service/support array, and develop a culturally appropriate quality improvement process, the Medicine Moon Initiative conducted seven group interviews with elders and community members from the four reservations and seven groups of Dakota, Lakota, Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, and Chippewa tribal people. The goal was to identify cultural supports, values, and protocols that could improve the cultural appropriateness of services, identify values that can be used to enhance child welfare practice, and identify elements/indicators that can be used as part of the development of a culturally relevant quality improvement process.
Who Was Involved
The approach involved multiple key stakeholders including, community members and elders from each tribal group from the four reservations; child welfare staff; Native American Training Institute Medicine Moon Initiative staff; a University of North Dakota graduate and intern; a local community member who facilitated the meetings; and the Medicine Moon Initiative evaluation team.
Time Frame
The initial conceptualization of the cultural interview process began in September 2004 and interviews were completed in December 2005.It took approximately 15 months to develop and conduct the group interviews.
Why This Approach Was Selected
- Recognition that cultural well-being and identity are protective factors for Native American children and youth.
- In a survey, many Native American families reported they did not know their cultural values and history, which helped identify training needs for Native American parents and foster parents.
- Many Native American children and youth are in the North Dakota State child welfare system; it is difficult to find cultural information and/or cultural supports for these children and Native American families.
- Many reservation-based child welfare practitioners, whether they are Native American or not, do not know what cultural supports, values, and protocols are available in the communities where they reside or practice.
Systems of Care Principles
The principle of strengths-based care is incorporated because it recognizes culture as a strength of Native American communities. To be culturally competent, one must be aware of the necessary competencies. It was necessary to involve community members who are knowledgeable about how community-based strengths can be utilized. Accountability to Native American children and families must include identification of issues of cultural well-being. Enhancement of services and supports to Native American children and families that can be sustained over time is also critical to the system of care because they are ingrained in the community.
Lessons Learned
Facilitators
Additional training had to be provided to local community facilitators; they had difficulty staying focused on the purpose of the interview when some of the elders reminisced or socialized. Adequate time should be allocated to address cultural issues because they frequently will be discussed in a story or another indirect way. Facilitators need to be patient, be communicators, and have basic knowledge of cultural protocols.
Barriers
While valuable information was gained, the group was not as diverse as it could have been as everyone was from the same community and many were related. Unforeseen circumstances prevented a large turnout in one group. Initial resistance by some child welfare staff involved in the process, partly due to cultural identity issues, was a barrier.
What Might Have Been Done Differently
The Medicine Moon Initiative central staff might consider conducting more interviews and consulting with community members about who should be interviewed instead of relying solely on the child welfare staff. Another round of interviews could be used to validate the findings from the first set of interviews.
Example from the Field 2
Site
Clackamas, Umatilla/Morrow, and Washington Counties, Oregon
Goal
To improve permanency outcomes for children in the care and custody of child welfare by integrating systems of care values into child welfare practice, engaging families more inclusively at all levels, and increasing interagency partnership.
Strategy/Approach
What Was Done
While some aspects of family involvement in service planning and interagency cooperation were identified as strengths in the Child and Family Services Reviews, areas needing improvement included permanency outcomes for children and the service array. Building on a decade of statewide practice improvement through a strength-based system of care and wraparound implementation in all county branches, as well as use of Title IV-E waiver funds, the State Department of Human Services participated in the Children's Bureau Improving Child Welfare Outcomes through Systems of Care demonstration initiative. This grant program focuses on strength-based practice through family decision meetings, increased attention to child safety through family engagement, and increasing interagency and community involvement through local and State advisory boards.
Local child welfare branches conduct a 30-day, 4-month and/or 8-month case review to ensure services are appropriate to meet a child's safety, permanency, and well-being needs and a viable plan is in place. Systems of care funds are used to meet the individual needs of the child (e.g., mediation, adoption preparation services, skills training, and therapeutic supports). Children in substitute or in-home care are eligible for these funds as long as there is funding and the service request meets the safety and attachment, permanency, or well-being needs of the child.
In Washington County, there were gaps in the advisory board membership. To enlist new members, the coordinator provided an overview of systems of care principles and child welfare goals and objectives. This put members on an equal footing and raised awareness of the goals. As a result, membership increased from three to five participants to 25–30 members. Parent leaders now sit on the board and are more actively involved, as are other community leaders.
Members are committed to continuing what is working well in the county and refining areas that need improvement. This collaboration has evolved to discussions of increasing strength-based and family-involved practice.
The development of parent leaders and parent partners in the child welfare system is a key component of the grant. A contract with a local community agency provided consultation, training, and support to parent leaders at the participating sites. Areas of training and consultation included parent engagement strategies for both project and child welfare staff, presentations for parent leaders at monthly meetings, semi-annual training on parent leadership/shared leadership, and weekly support groups for parent participants.
Who Was Involved
The State Department of Human Services applied for the grant in cooperation with Portland State University's Graduate School of Social Work as the local evaluation contractor. Paring down the number of participating sites to three (Clackamas, Umatilla/Morrow, and Washington counties), the State refocused its effort by hiring county system of care coordinators to develop and improve family involvement, build family leadership in the grant program, and improve advisory board participation in order to maintain and sustain innovations through sustainable cross-agency commitment. Permanency facilitators in each county identified internal barriers to permanency and made recommendations for practice changes.
Time Frame
The work began in November 2005 with the addition of systems of care coordinators. Many aspects of the work are ongoing and predated this grant, but the coordination and refocusing aspects of the grant program were directed toward improved permanency outcomes.
Why This Approach Was Selected
Child and Family Services Review results provided some impetus, as did other evaluations of State practice and its outcomes. Integrating previous systems of care practice to increase child safety demonstrated that increased engagement of families in all aspects of child welfare practice improves child safety, permanency outcomes, and caseworker satisfaction.
System of Care Principles
System of care practice encourages family involvement, a strength-based approach to planning and service delivery, and an interagency team approach to service planning, delivery, and evaluation. These values are integrated into practice by developing family leadership, partnerships at local and State levels, and increasing interagency partnership in county and State advisory boards.
Lessons Learned
Facilitators
A chain of communication and "command" from the State advisory board to the local advisory boards and including staff and families were essential. Permanency facilitators were initially helpful in identifying strategies to improve outcomes, but because they lacked reporting mechanisms and support, demonstrating effectiveness was a challenge. Practice change must be addressed in policy if it is to be sustained. Communication of effectiveness and efficacy is essential to elevate practice improvement from a value to an outcome and eventually into policy and system change.
Barriers
Initially, too many counties were participating with insufficient oversight and lines of communication. This was addressed by refocusing the target of the grant on three sites (four counties), increasing communication and accountability at the State and local levels, and identifying clearer expectations and reporting mechanisms.
What Might Have Been Done Differently
More discussion among line staff, supervisors, and administrators at the county branches and at administrative levels in the State office would have helped to ensure everyone was committed to the goals of the grant and understood their individual roles in achieving them.
Acknowledgements
The National Technical Assistance and Evaluation Center for Systems of Care would like to thank the numerous individuals whose hard work and dedication made this toolkit a possibility. Thank you to the Children's Bureau staff, specifically Bethany Miller and Pamela Johnson (retired), Federal Project Officers, for their guidance and support throughout the writing and editing process. A special thank you goes to Susan Franklin, Gary Ander, and Beth Evans for graciously volunteering to be interviewed for the Voices from the Field Section of the toolkit. Many thanks to the representatives from the nine Systems of Care grant communities of the Improving Child Welfare Outcomes through Systems of Care demonstration initiative who willingly shared sample products and tools which have been highlighted in the Resources Section. Finally, we thank the members of Infrastructure Toolkit Workgroup, who all brought their expertise to the table:
- Susan Franklin, Program Manager, Jefferson County, Colorado, Department of Human Services
- Beth Evans, Children and Family Services Administrator, Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
- Angela Braxton, Parent Leader, Kansas
- Susan Franklin, Jefferson County, Colorado
- Peggy Taylor, Evaluator, Kansas
- Angela Mendell, Casework Supervisor, Bladen County, North Carolina
- Marie Parrott–Withers, Parent/Provider, North Carolina
- Helen Spence, System of Care Outreach Coordinator, Foster/Adoptive Parent
- Ervin Talley, Community Member, Bedford–Stuyvesant, New York City, New York
- Kamelia No Moccasin, Oglala Lakota Tribe
- Paula Loud Hawk (deceased), Caseworker, Lakota Oyate Wakanyeja Owicakiya Pi Okolakiciye (Helping Children of the Lakota People)
Resources
Bruns, E. J., Koroloff, N., Schutte, K., & Walker, J. S. (2004). Organizational and system support for wraparound: An introduction. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children's Behavioral Health, Portland State University.
DeCarolis, G., Southern, L., & Blake, F. (2007). Improving child welfare outcomes through systems of care: Building the infrastructure: A guide for communities. Fairfax, VA: National Technical Assistance and Evaluation Center for Systems of Care.