Comprehensive Wraparound Social Services for High-Risk Teen Parents & Their Families
 
  Reports  
 
The EMU Wraparound Project submits semi-annual reports to the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Below are the reports for July 2009, January 2010, July 2010, and March 2011 (final report).

 March 2011 Report

Our final report for Earmark I was submitted March of 2011. The EMU Wraparound Project served clients for a total of 21 months and completed work with clients in December of 2010. While Earmark II will continue until December of 2011 for dissemination purposes, client data and analysis will not change.

The following report includes data for our high-risk teen parents, as well as our school-based wraparound clients, who still had to meet at least one of the four criteria (experiencing homelessness, court involvement, mental health issues, or foster care placement), but did not have to be parenting or pregnant.These graphs show demographics by county, as well as by program (teen parents or school pilot). This data was collected as baseline information (at entry into the program). Subsequent progress, stated below, is reported for each client every 90 days after their baseline measure.

One big difference in this report compared to our others is that outcomes are shown in relation to the level of client participation. This report includes demographics and risk factors, participation & outcomes, housing & housing solutions, mental health, court involvement, substance use, education, employment, parenting, change in knowledge, as well as a conclusion.

We also have a mentor program report available: EMU Wraparound Project Mentoring

AS OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2010:

A total of 42 clients (5 school-based clients) were served with the following demographics collected at baseline:

Demographics at Baseline

Gender

Females: 38

Males: 4 (3 from school-based program)

Parenting Status

 

(does not include the 5 school-based clients that are not teen parents)

Already Parent: 17

Pregnant with first child: 14

Pregnant & Parenting: 5

Ethnicity

African-American: 26

Caucasian: 12

Hispanic: 1

American Indian/Alaska Native:  1

Other: 2

Ages

11-12 years-old: 3 (all school-based clients)

13-15 years-old: 5 (2 school-based clients)

16-18 years-old: 24

19-20 years-old: 10

Risk Factors at Baseline

Note: Clients may be counted in several categories due to multiple risk factors at baseline.

With our tracking system, we were able to observe that the longer a client commits to the program, there is more follow through and therefore more success for the client is in completing goals. Our clients also tend to have crises (e.g. homelessness) that need to be stabilized before they have can begin working on other goals like education and employment, resulting in delays in goal progress until crises are stabilized.

Back to Top

Client Participation and Outcomes

Client stabilization happens after 3-6 months of their active participation in the wraparound program. The following chart highlights the differences between clients who did not engage in the program in the first place (Non-Engaged), those who actively participated before dropping out of the program (Early Drop Outs), and those clients who actively participated and finished the program (Participants).  No matter their level of participation, all clients received the same level of efforts and types of support and services from each facilitator, including outreach efforts to (re)engage client, coordination to needed community services and resources (including our mentor program), Flex Funds,  support coordination and facilitation of Child & Family Team meetings to discuss progress, goals, plans and assign tasks.

Level of Participation for All Wraparound Clients

Non-Engaged

Early Drop Outs

Participants

Number of clients

11 clients

11 clients

20 clients

Average Length of Contact

2.3 months

5.3 months

8.5 months

Child & Family Team (CFT)

  1. 0% (0/11) identified a team
  2. 0% (0/11) met with a team
  3. Ave. # meetings: 0
  1. 73% (8/11) identified a team
  2. 27% (3/11) met with their team
  3. Ave. # meetings: 2.3
  1. 100% identified a team

2. 100% met regularly with their team

3. Ave. # meetings: 6

Wraparound Plans, & Goals

  1. None had a plan or goals, therefore, no goals were attained
  1. 100% had plans
  2. 73% (8/11) completed at least 1 goal
  3. 35% of overall goals attained
  1. 100%  had plans
  2. 100% completed at least 1 goal
  3. 46% of overall goals attained

The chart shows that clients (Participants) who completed the most goals were in the program the longest and met regularly with their Child and Family Team (CFT).  As stated earlier, clients typically stabilized 3-6 months into the program, allowing them to focus on accomplishing their goals for the remainder of their time in wraparound.

Back to Top

Housing:
The graph below shows the number and percentage of clients who entered the program with housing needs compared to their housing needs at program exit. Twenty-five clients entered with housing needs.

Housing needs

In total, 16 clients (64%) improved their housing situations, with most of the improvement achieved by Participant clients who stayed in the program long enough to obtain and maintain stable housing.  Non-Engaged clients who did not resolve their housing issues were not in the program long enough for housing needs to be addressed. The number of clients who resolved their housing is not as high as we would like, but is an example of how we recognize that clients who continued with their wraparound support found more success in meeting their goals. In addition, our unique population encountered many barriers while tackling their housing goals. Barriers for teens finding solutions to their housing needs include:

  • Age: Clients under 18 could not sign a lease on their own
  • Affordability: Clients who could not afford their rent were at risk of eviction and/or affordable housing was difficult to find or had limited availability
  • Lack of Income/Unemployment: Clients needed to resolve this before housing could be addressed
  • Lack of State ID: Clients who did not have the required documents to obtain one
  • Client’s Resistance: Clients who had the opportunity to live in a group home with other teen parents, but did not want to adhere to the home’s rules and, therefore, chose not to live there
  • Non-engagement in wraparound program or dropping out of program before issue could be resolved

Housing issues were resolved in four different ways, shown in the chart below: (1) Clients who were old enough and could afford to obtain their own apartment, (2) The next best housing solution was to resolve issues with family members so that a stable and permanent housing agreement could be obtained, (3) Other resolutions were public or subsidized housing, as well as (4) transitional housing, which involved a program that housed teen mothers for up to 2 years or until they obtained their own housing.

Housing Solutions

Back to Top

Mental Health:
Second only to housing, mental health was the largest risk factor with 24 of 42 total clients having some kind of mental health concern. Our clients had a variety of mental health needs, including mental health assessment and diagnosis, mental health services, continuing mental health services, medication management, as well as setting up their Medicaid in order to receive mental health services.  As shown by the chart below, most mental health needs were addressed during their time in wraparound, whether they needed therapy, an assessment, or they had a mental health concern.

Participation Level

Need

# of Needs Met

Non-Engaged

Assessment & Diagnosis

0/3

Mental Health Services

0/0

Continuation of Mental Health Services

0/1

Medication Management

0/0

Medicaid

1/1

TOTAL

1/5

Early Drop Out

Assessment & Diagnosis

0/2

Mental Health Services

1/1

Continuation of Mental Health Services

3/3

Medication Management

3/3

Medicaid

0/0

TOTAL

7/9

Participant

Assessment & Diagnosis

0/0

Mental Health Services

4/5

Continuation of Mental Health Services

6/7

Medication Management

2/2

Medicaid

0/0

TOTAL

12/14

For Non-Engaged clients, 1/5 needs were met since one client stayed in the program long enough to get assistance with their Medicaid application in order to receive mental health services.  For Early Drop-Outs 7/9 mental health needs need were met, while 12/14 needs were met for Participant clients. It is interesting to note that none of Participant clients with mental health needs needed an assessment or diagnosis, most were already receiving services or needed to start participating in services.  Therefore, an indicator of “readiness for change” (individual's readiness to act on a new healthier behavior) may be a factor in the success of participants.

Back to Top

Court Involvement:
Court involvement for our clients included, retail theft, traffic tickets, breaking and entering (guilty by association), and check fraud.  All court involvement needs were addressed during clients’ time in the program, which mainly included completing probation requirements and paying fines. For the two clients that still had court involvement at the end of their time in the program, one was still on probation and the other received a ticket for cigarettes. Only 1 client re-offended during their time in the program with the offense of being a minor in possession cigarettes. The level of court involvement with our clients is very minimal.

The following chart shows court involvement pre and post by level of participation.

Court Involvement at Baseline

Back to Top

Substance Use:
At baseline, 10 clients reported past substance use, although none reported current use. These 10 were at-risk for substance use in the future. From these 10 clients, 9 did not use during their time in the program.

Substance Use Baseline

Back to Top

Education:
Our clients’ ages ranged from 11 to 20 years old.  School enrollment would, therefore, include possibilities for being in middle school or high school, actively engaged in earning a GED, or pursuing post-high school options.  

Education Status at Baseline

Overall, 14 clients improved their GPA while in the program, while 14 improved their attendance. Furthermore, three clients successfully graduated from high school, two of which began college courses, and 13 others remained enrolled in High School with plans to graduate. One client obtained a GED and 5 were enrolled in a GED program.  Client goals are tracked below.

Tracking Client Goals

Goal

# Client with Goal

Goal Completed

On track to Complete Goal

Changed Goal

Graduate High School

21

3 (14%)

13 (62%)

2 (10%)

Get a GED

8

1 (13%)

5 (63%)

1 (1%)

Attend Higher Education

6

2 (33%)

1 (17%)

0 (0%)

Back to Top

Employment & Job Skills:
 Many of our clients did not seek employment due to being in school, childcare issues, and/or transportation issues.  However, even if they could not work, many do have goals to increase their job skills in order to be prepared for when they are able to work. Employment for teens undoubtedly also reflects our state’s unemployment rate.  This said, 7 of 11 clients met job skill goals, such as job hunting, resume writing, application writing, and attending a Michigan Works! workshop. In terms of getting a job, 11 of 17 clients who had this goal reported obtaining employment during their time in the wraparound program.

Back to Top

Parenting:
Parenting and family functioning goals are addressed throughout a client’s wraparound services.  Using the Functioning Assessment Rating Scale (FARS), we are able to determine when clients improved on their family functioning and relationships. From our 20 Participants clients, our facilitators report through the FARS that 13 clients have improved relationships with their family members and 10 have improved in their family functioning.  Although safe sex discussions are a part of the dialog between facilitators and clients, four teens became pregnant while in the wraparound program, resulting in two miscarriages, one abortion, and one birth. 

Back to Top

Knowledge: 
Our facilitators also report clients who have demonstrated improvement in their knowledge based on self reports from clients. Of Participant clients who finished the program, 18 of 20 have reported an increase in knowledge since beginning wraparound services. Of Early Drop-Out clients, 9/11 increased their knowledge base, while 4 of 11 of Non-Engaged clients reported gaining knowledge. Increase in knowledge includes, but is not limited to:

  • Budgeting
  • Personal needs and how to advocate for them
  • Driving skills
  • Job skills
  • Parenting skills
  • Community resources

Back to Top

Conclusion
In conclusion, after 21 months of serving clients, we believe that our grant project, Comprehensive Wraparound Social Services for High-Risk Teen Parents and Their Families, has been successful.  We have supported 37 high-risk teen parents and 5 high-risk teens (school-based pilot program) to develop a natural support system and to empower them to set and reach goals that would help stabilized their lives. In addition, we have developed partnerships with community agencies in two counties in Michigan, resulting in an interest in our partners to continue to target high-risk teen parents for wraparound support programs. Our program has highlighted the needs of high-risk teen parents in our communities.

In the EMU Study we have concluded the following factors within the service delivery model to be effective.
1.  Dedicated use of the Person-Centered Model, which is embedded in the wraparound training  
by the state of Michigan.
2.  Availability of trained paid mentors so high-risk teens can have at least one member of their
support team that is not affiliated with a social service agency. This also alleviates the need
for a pre-existing stable support in that teen’s life, which is often a concern.
3.  Availability of programs that support high risk teens in schools, and also high risk young
adults between ages 18 and 21, ages not typically funded by many agencies.

Also as a result of the EMU study, the researchers are recommending the following additional
research studies or future focus areas:
1.  Length of stay of clients in wraparound programs seems to improve their outcomes.  Research into strategies to keep clients engaged longer is needed.
2.  Continued research into the effectiveness of wraparound model and services for students still in school as a dropout prevention approach is recommended.
3.  Research studies examining how “readiness for change” (Prochaska & Diclemente, 1983) effects wraparound program engagement and outcome attainment is suggested.

Back to Top

July 2010 Report

The following data was submitted as part of the July 30th, 2010 semi-annual report, which includes data from January 2009 to June 15th, 2010. Below are demographic graphs and a summary that describes our population, their risk-factors, and their wraparound process. Facilitators began taking referrals in late March of 2009. As a result of prudent spending, we were able to hire two additional part-time facilitators for each county to begin in March/April of 2010. In Washtenaw County, this facilitator provided wraparound service to a school pilot program (school-based wraparound), which aimed to increase awareness to schools about the effectiveness of wraparound as a Tier III intervention. This program still targeted clients who fit at least one of the four criteria (experiencing homelessness, court involvement, mental health issues, or foster care placement), but did not have to be parenting or pregnant. In Oakland County, the part-time facilitator helped attend to clients who were on the waitlist.

AS OF JUNE 15TH, 2010:

These graphs show demographics by county, as well as by program (teen parents or school pilot). This data was collected as baseline information (at entry into the program). Subsequent progress, stated below, is reported for each client every 90 days after their baseline measure. This includes progress on court involvement, housing , mental health, substance use, education, employment, parenting, change in knowledge, as well as a conclusion, which describes observations made throughout the program, attrition, and differences between our teen parents and school-based clients.

Back to Top

Number of teens served: As of our June 15, 2010 data collection, we have served a total of 36 clients, 13 clients in Washtenaw County (4 closed cases) and 23 clients in Oakland County (10 cases have closed)l.  Of the Washtenaw County clients, four have been from our school-based wraparound pilot program.

Gender: 32 females; 4 males (3 are school-based clients and 1 in Oakland County)

Client age at baseline, July 2010Parenting Status at Baseline, July 2010

Race & Ethnicity, July 2010 Risk Factors at Baseline, July 2010

Back to Top

Homelessness
Twenty-three clients were homeless upon starting our wraparound program, all of which were in the teen parent wraparound program. Homelessness has not been an issue with our school-based wraparound clients.At the 3 month mark, 8 of 23 clients had secured housing, and at 6 months in the program, 8 of 12 clients had secured housing.  After 9 months in the program 7 of 8 had secured housing, the other client’s housing status was unknown for this reporting period due to lack of contact on behalf of the client. After a year in the program, 6 of 6 clients had stable housing. These numbers show that a longer commitment to wraparound (9-12 months) is directly related to a positive and stable housing outcome.

It is important to note the barriers our clients experience in obtaining stable housing. Clients who are under the age of 18 cannot apply for section 8 housing or other public housing assistance, nor can they sign a lease. In Oakland and Washtenaw counties combined, there is currently only one agency that will provide short term or transitional housing for teen mothers under the age of 18, with a capacity of five clients at a time and a long waitlist. Shelters in the area that take teens 18 and under are not set up to house children or babies. Our facilitators are left to attempt to stabilize family relationships in order to make living with family members more permanent than short term. Many of our teens who come into the program in a housing crisis (couch surfing with friends and relatives, living on the streets) often move to temporary housing with a friend or relative (short term housing with friend or relative) within three months. However, since they do not have a permanent housing solution, they are still at-risk for homelessness, hence still counted in our homeless numbers.

Back to Top

Mental Health
 At the start of their wraparound services, 19 of 36 clients had mental health needs.These 19 clients with mental health needs include all four of our school-based clients, who were all receiving therapy at the start of wraparound. Many have a myriad of diagnoses, including Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, ADHD, Bi-Polar, Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Mood Disorder, and Depression. Two clients are on a variety of medications to help deal with their mental health needs and the two others are being evaluated for medications.

In general, five of these 19 clients needed mental health assessments, 9 were actively receiving therapy, 2 had open cases at a mental health agency, but were not actively participating, while the other 3 clients were not receiving any type of mental health services.  While participating in wraparound, assessments were obtained within 9 months for 4 of the 5 clients needing them.  Records show that the length of time it took to obtain assessments occurred in most cases because of other crisis conditions that were deemed to be a higher priority.  As for the clients who were actively receiving services at the start of wraparound (9 of 19), all 9 were still active in their therapy sessions throughout their time in wraparound and of these, 8 were on medication. At the 6 month mark, two were still receiving services. The two clients who were identified with mental health needs at the start of wraparound had open cases with a mental health agency, but were not actively participating in therapy services, were both receiving services after 6 months in the program.  The last 3 clients of the 19 who had mental health needs at baseline needed but were not receiving any mental health services at the start of wraparound. One client is new, hence no data is available, and one client closed before their 3 month mark. The other client received therapy services and medication at the 3, 6, and 9 month mark, and, at the 12 month mark, the client was still taking medication for his or her mental health needs.

Back to Top

Court Involvement
Upon entering the program, 6 of 36 clients were involved with the courts, though the charges were dropped for one client, and another was placed in a diversion program. Specifically for our school-based clients, one has a sexual misconduct charge that they are trying to get dropped and another client’s family has called the police often when the two siblings fight, but no charges have been made. We have also seen a trend of protective services involvement that we do not see as often with our teen parents. Three of the four school-based families have had history with protective services.

Overall, after 3 months of participating in the program, two clients continued to be on probation from before the start of wraparound and were meeting their probation requirements. A third client was put on probation within the client’s first 3 months in wraparound due to a traffic ticket fine.  After 6 months in the program, one client finished probation requirements, while two clients continued their probation periods. These two clients were still on probation 9 months into the program. Types of court involvement have included retail fraud, traffic fines, forgery, assault, theft/shoplifting, and breaking and entering. There has been no new court involvement for any of our clients reported beyond the 3 month mark. Therefore, there were no first time arrests and no repeat-offender arrests, as well as a reduction in court involvement.

Back to Top

Substance Use
At the beginning of wraparound services, 4 of 36 clients were identified as being at-risk for substance abuse (due to a past history), and 4 clients reported using at the time wraparound services began. For school-based wraparound, this included two of four clients who self-reported that they had used or tried substances in the past, but were not currently using substances. Therefore, these clients were identified as at-risk for using in the future.

At the 3 month check, 3 of the 4 who reported current use were no longer using. At the 6 month check, two clients self-reported using substances, which included one previously identified as at-risk due to history of past use. With the exception of the one who self-reported using throughout, 7 of the 8 clients in this category reported no substance use after 9 months in the program. At the one year mark, there were no other substance use reports.

Back to Top

Education
The age range of our clients goes from 11 to 20 years old.  School enrollment would therefore include possibilities for being in middle school or high school, actively engaged in earning a GED, or pursuing post-high school options.   Baseline information on our teen parents shows that 24 of 36 (67%) were enrolled in school, two of which were enrolled in a GED program.  Of the 12 not enrolled in any type of program, 5 had already received their HS diploma (two of which have goals to attend a trade school), one had been expelled and had a goal to re-enroll, 3 had a goal to get their GED, and another had a goal to re-enroll.  Of the clients who were enrolled in school during their time in wraparound, 7 improved their GPA and 14 improved in their school attendance. Furthermore, one client successfully graduated from high school after 6 months in the program and another obtained a GED after 9 months of wraparound services.

All four school-based clients were enrolled in a center-based school for children with severe emotional impairments. Three clients were enrolled full-time and one part-time, though this client later became a full-time student. One client had a goal to improve his or her academic skills, while two had goals to improved their social skills and peer interactions. Whereas our teen parent client educational goals focused on graduating, obtaining a GED, furthering their education, which are big picture goals, school-based clients’ goals were focused more on specific skills and interactions within a school setting.

Back to Top

Employment
Many of our clients do not seek employment due to being in school, childcare issues, and/or transportation issues.  However, even if they cannot work, many do have goals to increase their job skills in order to be prepared for when they are able to work. Employment for teens undoubtedly also reflects our state’s unemployment rate.  This said, 13 of 19 clients have met job skill goals, such as job hunting, resume writing, application writing, and attending a Michigan Works! workshop.  Twelve of 15 clients report improvement in their employment status (they got jobs) during their wraparound program. None of our school-based clients have jobs since they are aged 11-15 years. However, one client does have a goal to gain job skills, while another has a goal to get a job.

Back to Top

Parenting
Parenting and family functioning goals are addressed throughout a client’s wraparound services.  Eleven clients were pregnant with their first child when beginning with the EMU Wraparound Project, whereas sixteen were parenting, and four were both pregnant and parenting. Using the Functioning Assessment Rating Scale (FARS), we are able to determine when clients improved on their family functioning and relationships. Our facilitators report that 8 clients have improved relationships with their family members and 9 have improved in their family functioning.  Although safe sex discussions are a part of the dialog between facilitators and clients, four teens became pregnant while in the wraparound program, resulting in two miscarriages and one abortion. Parenting or pregnancy has not been a concern for our school-based clients at this time. 

Back to Top

Knowledge 
Our facilitators also report clients who have demonstrated improvement in their knowledge based on self reports from clients.  Currently 27 clients out 28 (includes only clients who have reached at least the 3 month mark and had a person-centered plan) have reported an increase in knowledge since beginning wraparound services. Increase in knowledge includes the following examples: budgeting, advocating, child care needs, driving skills, job skills, parenting skills, community resources, among others. Our school-based clients have not been in the program long enough to show a change in knowledge at this time.

Back to Top

Conclusion

Our EMU Wraparound Project data for June 2010 demonstrates that our high-risk teen parents in two counties in SE Michigan come to our program due mostly to issues of homelessness and mental health issues.  Clients in Oakland County outnumber those in Washtenaw County, but somewhat proportionately to the differences in population in each county.  We have re-allocated monies to provide a half-time facilitator in Oakland County to help with their waitlist of clients.  The clients in Oakland County are seen as having greater needs than their counterparts in Washtenaw County, which is an area that will be watched over the next 6 months of our grant period.  With our re-allocated funds, we have hired a half-time facilitator in Washtenaw County to begin work with students in a center-based school for students with severe emotional impairment.  We hope that by connecting with needy clients in a school setting, it will help raise awareness for the value of wraparound with these more severely at risk teens. 

This June 2010 data also demonstrates the differences between our teen parent clients and our school-based clients, both of whom are receiving wraparound services, but addressing different types of needs and goals. As we stated above, our teen parents come to our program due mostly to issues of homelessness and mental health issues and are between the ages of 15 and 20. Although school-based clients also struggle with mental health issues, they do not struggle with homelessness, but do struggle with court involvement. These clients are also younger, aged 11 to 15, and their goals tend to be targeted to improving situations and issues that are happening within their families and in school, like reducing conflict and spending more time together as a family. In comparison, teen parent goals focus more on getting a job or finishing school in order to get a better job. We can see that teen parents, despite their age, already have adult responsibilities that include caring for their child(ren) and tending to their basic needs (food, shelter, clothing). In contrast, school-based clients’ basic needs are, for the most part, provided for by their family, so their goals can be focused on improving family relationships and increasing social skills, for example. In this way, the needs and goals of our two client populations are different, despite the fact that they both enter the program with the same four risk factors (mental health issues, court involvement, foster care, homelessness).

Whereas we have had 14 clients close their cases with our wraparound program, eleven of these clients did so prematurely, not completing their goals. We interpret our results to show that most of our teen parents solve their immediate problems (crisis issues) and tend to stabilize during their wraparound support, but do not find the need to remain connected as they move towards more independence. Other clients stop participating in wraparound when new crises arise, and they find they have too much on their plate. However, as we have clients who have stayed in the program for 9-12 months, we are finding that they move from crisis conditions to goal setting and problem solving and even successful independence.  We are learning that the longer a client participates in wraparound, the more success they have in their goals and stabilizing their lives. Their commitment and active participation in wraparound also plays a big factor in their success. We are discussing the attrition issue and working to find improved ways to identify client needs and sustain client time in the wraparound program to move towards better long-term outcomes. 

Back to Top


January 2010 Report

The following data was submitted as part of the January 31, 2010 report, which includes data from January 1, 2009 to December 15, 2009. Below are graphs and a summary that demonstrates our population demographics and risk factors. Please note that our facilitators began taking referrals in late March of 2009.

AS OF DECEMBER 15TH, 2009:

The following graphs show demographics by county that were collected as baseline information on clients (when the client started wraparound services). Subsequent progress, stated below, is reported for each client after 90 days of participating in wraparound, and again at 180 days, etc. This includes progress on court involvement, homelessness, mental health, substance use, education, employment, as well as parenting, family functioning, and change in knowledge.

Number of teens served: As of December 15th, 2009, the EMU Wraparound Project had a total of 22 clients (15 open cases and 7 closed cases). In Oakland County, there have been 15 total cases, 10 currently open and 5 closed. Washtenaw County has had 7 total cases, 5 currently opened and 2 closed.

Gender: 21 of our clients have been female, while one male has been served in Oakland County.

Back to Top

Risk Factor Notes: Both clients in Foster Care/Aging Out category have aged out of foster care. Of the three who reported substance use the use was in their past history and were not currently using, therefore they were considered at-risk for reuse. Those with a mental health risk factor, include those who were receiving mental health services at start of wraparound services or needed to be assessed for mental health needs due to past history or current concerns.

Back to Top

TEEN PARENT PROGRESS

Court Involvement
Two clients began in the EMU Wraparound Project with court involvement, and neither of them re-offended, although one is still on probation.  A third client was put on probation within their first 3 months in wraparound, due to a traffic ticket fine, and continues on probation.   Therefore, there were no first time arrests, and no repeat-offender arrests, as well as a reduction in court involvement.

Homelessness
Using the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness, our data show that seventeen clients were homeless upon starting in our wraparound program.  At the 3 month mark, 9 of 12 clients had secured housing, and at six months in the program, 6 of 8 clients had secured housing.  Although most clients have solved their homelessness by securing housing, those that do not have stable housing are currently living with friends or family as a short-term solution and working with their facilitator to secure long-term housing.

Back to Top

Mental Health
Of the 22 clients in wraparound, 10 were identified at baseline as having mental health needs, which can include need for assessment, finding a therapist, or actively participating in therapy.  After 3 months, 6 of these clients were determined to no longer need these services, and a 7th client no longer needed services after 6 months. The other 3 clients continue to participate in therapeutic services and have reported improvement in mental health functioning.

Substance Use
At the beginning of their wraparound services, 4 of 22 clients were identified as being at-risk for substance abuse, due to a past history rather than current substance use for any of the 4 clients.  There was no substance abuse identified at the 3 month check for any client, but there was 1 client who admitted to using a substance at 6 months into the program, but who subsequently/currently is no longer using and reports being sober.

Back to Top

Education
Since the age range of our clients is 16-20 years-old, school enrollment would include possibilities for being in high school, having a high school diploma, actively engaged in earning a GED, or pursuing post-high school options.   Baseline information on our teen parents shows that 12 of 22 were enrolled in school, although none were in their final year of high school.  Of the 9 not enrolled in any type of program, 4 had already received their HS diploma and no clients had received a GED. 

Our EMU Wraparound Project facilitators address school completion goals if the teen parents identify this area as a priority in their wraparound plans.  Five clients chose to include school goals in their plans.  Two of these teen parents who were not-enrolled in school wanted to obtain a GED and two wanted to re-enroll in high school, while a fourth wanted to go to a trade or vocational school.  After 3 months of being involved in wraparound services, 7 of 12 clients were enrolled in school, 2 had their HS diploma, 1 wanted to go to college, 2 were actively pursuing GEDs, 1 wanted to re-enroll in school, and 1 wanted to go to a trade school.  After 6 months in the wraparound program, 6 of 8 clients were enrolled in school, 1 had a high school diploma, and 1 had dropped out.  One of the clients who had dropped out of school set a goal to obtain a GED and one set a goal to attend college. Clients provided the following reasons for dropping out of school during their time in wraparound:  lack of transportation, child(ren) needs (e.g. doctor appointments), lack of childcare, pregnancy, and being over the age limit for high school. 

Employment
Many of our clients have been unable to secure employment due to being in school, childcare issues, and/or transportation issues.  At the beginning of their wraparound services and again after 3 months in wraparound, 3 of 12 clients were employed.  After 6 months, 4 clients (of 8) were employed.  This reflects a total of 3 clients in Oakland (up from 1), but only 1 client in Washtenaw (down from 2).  Employment for teens undoubtedly also reflects our state’s unemployment rate.  This said, 4 of 12 clients have met job skill and employment goals, such as job hunting, resume writing, application writing, obtaining and maintaining employment, and attending a Michigan Works! workshop.  Six of 7 clients report improvement in their employment status (they got jobs) during their wraparound program.

Back to Top
 
Parenting, Family Functioning, & Change in Knowledge:

Parenting and family functioning goals are addressed throughout a client’s wraparound service.  Six clients were pregnant with their first child when beginning with the EMU Wraparound Project, whereas sixteen already had a child and three of those were also pregnant.  Although safe sex discussions are a part of the dialog between facilitators and clients, two teens became pregnant while in the wraparound program, resulting in one miscarriage and one abortion.  As part of our data tracking, facilitators score clients to track improvement in family relationships and family functioning. We have data on 12 clients who have been working with our facilitators 3 months in wraparound services, resulting in 5 reporting improved relationships with their family members, 5 staying the same, and two becoming worse.  In terms of family functioning, 3 have reported improvement, 7 have remained the same, and 2 report worse functioning.

Our facilitators also report clients who have demonstrated improvement in their knowledge.  Reporting on twelve clients who were in wraparound at least 3 months, 9 show a positive change in knowledge on life skills, especially the need for community and social support.  Four teen parents show a positive change in knowledge for baby care/parenting and 4 exhibit more knowledge for employment needs.  Three clients show a positive change in knowledge about their educational needs, two do likewise for mental health, and two do for budgeting.

Back to Top


July 2009 Report

The following data was submitted as part of the July 31, 2009 report, which includes data from the January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009 reporting period. Below are graphs and a summary that demonstrate our population demographics and risk factors. Our facilitators began taking referrals in March and April 2009; hence, we do not have outcomes for this reporting period.

AS OF JUNE 30TH, 2009:

Number of teens served: EMU Wraparound Project has served four teens in Washtenaw County and seven teens in Oakland County.

Gender: Of the eleven teens served, all are female.

Education Status: Ten clients are currently enrolled in high school, and one client recently received her high school diploma.

Back to Top

Race/Ethnicity: Ten clients identify as Black/African American and one identifies as White/Caucasian. Age Range: Four clients are aged 16-17 and seven are aged 18-19. 
   

Parenting Status: Four teens were pregnant when they entered the program, and two of these were pregnant with their second child.  Nine of the teens are parenting, with three children under one year old, three aged 1 year, one aged 2 years, and two aged 3 years.

Risk Factors: Eight teens do not have a permanent nighttime residence and are considered homeless, two have mental health needs, and one has been involved with juvenile justice as a first-time offender.  None of the teens are in or aging out of foster care, and two report past substance use, but do not currently use substances.

Back to Top

 
 
 
Eastern Michigan University College of Education