Complete CMP Handbook June 2012

State of Colorado
Collaborative Management Program House Bill 04-1451 Coordinators Handbook

Version 3 Last revised: 6/1/2012
Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Contents
Commonly Used Acronyms Building and Sustaining Collaboration, an Introduction ................................................................................ i Chapter 1: Introduction to the Collaborative Management Program .......................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Administrative Structure ............................................................................................................. 5 CMP State Administrator .......................................................................................................................... 5 State Steering Committee ......................................................................................................................... 6 Sub-Committees ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 3: CMP Best Practices & Getting Started ........................................................................................ 9 Promoting CMP ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Promising Practices ................................................................................................................................. 10 New Coordinators Checklist ................................................................................................................... 15 IOG Member Interview ........................................................................................................................... 17 Everything You Need to Know about Colorados Collaborative Management Program ........................ 18 Chapter 4: How to create an Interagency Oversight Group ....................................................................... 19 What is an IOG and what are its responsibilities? .................................................................................. 19 Memorandum of Understanding ............................................................................................................ 20 Chapter 5: Individualized Service and Support Teams (ISSTs) .................................................................... 24 ISST Structures ........................................................................................................................................ 24 ISST Client Tracking ................................................................................................................................. 28 ISST Information Sharing......................................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 6: Statewide Program Evaluation.................................................................................................. 29 Evaluation Activities Overview................................................................................................................ 30 Guidance for Outcome/Indicator Selection for Your Memorandum of Understanding ........................ 33 CMP Client-level Tracking ....................................................................................................................... 35 Quantifying CMP Cost-shifting and Cost-savings .................................................................................... 36 Chapter 7: Family Involvement in the Collaborative Management Program ............................................. 38 Chapter 8: Incentive Funds ......................................................................................................................... 39 Chapter 9: Commonly Used Assessments .................................................................................................. 40 Colorado Juvenile Risk Assessment (CJRA) ............................................................................................. 40 Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2) ......................................................................... 41 Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) ............................................................................ 42 North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS) .................................................................................. 42 Chapter 10: Community Stories In Their Own Words.............................................................................. 44 IOG Family Adult Participant................................................................................................................... 44 IOG Youth Participant ............................................................................................................................. 44 ISST Youth Participant ............................................................................................................................. 47 IOG Agency Participant/State Agency Collaborative Management Participant ..................................... 47 ISST Agency Participants ......................................................................................................................... 48 Chapter 11: Ways to Get Involved in the Colorado Collaborative Management Efforts ........................... 50 Chapter 12: Sustainability ........................................................................................................................... 51
Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012
Commonly Used Acronyms

CJRA CMP CRS CW CCYIS D&N DHS DSS DYC ED FVC H/MH HB1451 IEP IOG ISST JAG JJ MOU OIT OJJDP PO RTI SB 94 SSC Colorado Juvenile Risk Assessment Collaborative Management Program Colorado Revised Statutes Child Welfare Colorado Children and Youth Information Sharing Dependency & Neglect Filing by Child Welfare Department of Human Services Department of Social Services Division of Youth Corrections Education Family Voice and Choice Committee Health/Mental Health Collaborative Management Program Individualized Education Plan Interagency Oversight Group Individualized Service and Support Team Juvenile Assistance Grant Juvenile Justice Memorandum of Understanding Office of Information Technology Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Probation Officer Response to Intervention Senate Bill 94: pre-adjudication services for juveniles State Steering Committee
Building and Sustaining Collaboration, an Introduction

By Carl Larson, Ph.D.
If you find yourself in a leadership position that involves building and sustaining collaboration among a group of stakeholders, you might be inclined to focus on how difficult such an under-taking will be. After all, the news media fill their respective communication channels with stories about conflict and contention among differing parties, interests, organizations, cultures, affiliations, religions, ethnicities, and so on. With all due respect to the difficulty of your leadership task (and some would say that getting people to set aside their own individual interests and concentrate on a common problem is the hardest of all leadership tasks) the good news is abundant: 1) Some bright and caring people have done it. They have served in the positions leading and coordinating the collaboratives you will be serving in leading. They have created this book as one of the many ways that they will help you succeed. There is an abundance of experience, wisdom and good will available to you. The statewide initiative, the Collaborative Management Program, is an exceptional one. Its origins were grassroots, community practices and leadership which initiated and informed legislative action. It is among the most effective legislated collaboratives I have ever studied. It seems to me very likely that collaboration will occur, or will be promoted within the infrastructure created by the legislation. There is an emerging consensus around a small set of principles that describe how you can build and sustain collaboration. The more we study collaboration, the more confident we become that certain essential qualities promote the outcomes we expect from collaborative relationships. This is what I was asked to tell you about.
2)
3)
The invitation to write the introduction to this book provided me an opportunity. I had been so busy completing a new book on leadership with my co-author, Frank LaFasto (LaFasto and Larson, The Humanitarian Leader in Each of Us, Sage: 2012) that I had not integrated or summarized my work with my colleagues on collaboration for about five years. This introduction prompted me to examine our work on collaboration, specifically to come up with what we have learned from research and field work that might be useful to you in your new positions. So, the conclusions and recommendations offered in this introduction are based on research which was selected because it either: a) was qualitatively rich in describing cases of successful or unsuccessful collaboration or, b) had measures of outcomes or sustainability. Given that I was trying to be real world and pragmatic in focus, I highlighted four major studies for this summary (references are given at the end of this introduction): 1) A study of 52 cases of unusually successful civic collaboration selected for us by the National Civic League. This research was done under contract to the American Leadership Forum. David Chrislip and I later published the research in a book entitled Collaborative Leadership. A study of legislated collaboratives engaged in long range strategic planning on transportation and other issues. These collaboratives are known as regional councils of governments.
2)
Page i

3) 4) A study of 16 Colorado collaboratives which brought the Nurse-Family Partnership to their communities. The research examined the influence of collaboration on program outcomes. A ten year follow-up evaluation of the Colorado Trusts Colorado Healthy Communities Initiative. Our research team evaluated the success and sustainability of the 26 communities which had received healthy community grants ten years previously.
With these four studies as the foundation and other research and field experiences as background, I identified a set of priorities. They are priorities in the sense of where you should focus your attention, what should come first if you have to choose, what is more important, where you start. But first, the a priori priority. There is one consideration so important that it exceeds the status of a priority. Some say it is everything. This consideration is the problem, the goal, the objective. What the group is trying to accomplish. The change that justifies the time and effort. The vision that creates the energy that must then be nurtured, respected, and sustained. Rarely will any leader ever articulate the goal and reinforce the vision enough. You should consider reading the single-sentence statements of the HB1451 goals at the beginning of each of your meetings. Perhaps make poster-sized wall charts of these goals for your meeting room. Find ways of helping your group stay focused on the goals on which they are deliberating. Strange as it may seem, one of the hardest things for a group to do is to keep its collective mental energy focused on a goal. Similarly, help the group appreciate the difference it is making. Consider having at least one real case example each time the group meets of a life which has been turned around for the better or is on a better path. Collaboration is all about the goal, what the group is trying to do together. Thats where they get their energy. The goal generates three kinds of energy: mental energy, as the group thinks together about the problem; physical energy, to the degree that they show up and are present to do the work; and spiritual energy, in terms of their confidence, commitment, trust and other aspects of their humanity. Helping the group develop clarity and appreciation for the goal builds and sustains collaborative energy and is the a priori quality of effective leadership. With that in mind, we can examine our research for the more important lessons we have learned about collaboration. PRIORITY ONE: BUILD A CREDIBLE, OPEN PROCESS, WITH STRONG PROCESS LEADERSHIP. When we talk to people who have been involved in a successful collaboration, they always talk about how genuine, or real, or open, or authentic the process was. Always. There is always a theme in their description of the process that has something to do with a connection between credibility and openness. Always. Make the process transparent, out in the open, nothing hidden, as open as you can reasonably be. Above all else, people want to be involved in something that is authentic, real, honest. Not false. When we studied successful civic initiatives, 52 out of 52 cases were described by stakeholders as having credible, open processes and strong process leadership. The only two qualities present in all 52 cases. We developed a scale which measured the overall quality of the collaboration which occurred among stakeholders and found a correspondence between the rated quality of the processes and the effectiveness of the long-range strategic planning, as assessed by the member governments of the regional councils of governments, in our study of legislated collaboratives. The most intriguing findings we have obtained are in the NFP research with Darrin Hicks. That research has found that the process quality ratings by the stakeholders who brought the NFP programs to the 16 Colorado communities predicts significant attrition of participants from the programs up to four years later. Young mothers Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page ii

were less likely to drop out of programs which were rated as having high quality collaborative processes in the stakeholder groups which originally brought the program to its community. I might suggest, therefore, that if you build a credible, open process, you might be building something that may transfer to others and may last for years. PRIORITY TWO: EMPHASIZE THE VALUES OF INCLUSIVENESS AND TRUST Some qualities are related to how a phenomenon performs by virtue of how they interact with it. This is simply the case with inclusiveness and trust as they interact with collaboration. Collaboration is about working together to reach a goal or solve a problem. Inclusiveness as a value simply means that you are more likely to have the point of view, or idea, or resource, or creative impulse needed to succeed, if you are inclusive than if you are exclusive. So it is not surprising that successful collaboratives are more likely to value, seek and encourage the participation of a diverse set of stakeholders. This is a subtle but important point you may want to remember as you help you group decide what other voices need to be heard in order to make the best decisions. Trust as a value simply means that the mental, physical, and emotional energy of the participants can be focused on the goal, rather than other non-goal distractions, if trust is high. Trust is very often a quality attributed to the climate of a successful collaboration. Most leaders will devote at least some time to building trust and sustaining it, if only through the ice-breakers, warm-ups, check-ins, or less structured opportunities for people to interact in non-task ways. So, if you have chosen collaboration as your path, you should value inclusiveness and trust. We see evidence throughout our research that these two values repeatedly appear, often in the qualities of individuals identified by interviewees as significant contributors to the success of a collaboration. PRIORITY THREE: ASSESSMENT WORK AND OUTREACH EFFORTS I assume that we all know that while all this process emphasis is going on, most of the energy of most everybody is focused on the content/goal of the collaboration. The task functions are occupying most everyones attentions. And thats okay. Thats as it will always be. If fact, you probably should turn your attention to two connections between process and task issues: 1) that the group has considered sufficiently the benefits of doing excellent assessment to get in touch with the real needs of the community in the interest areas it is addressing and 2) that the group has considered sufficiently the benefits of examining its own outreach efforts to involve other stakeholder groups. One of my greatest discoveries from the research I have done over the years involves the ease with which a group, absent a factual anchor, can talk themselves into a false reality. This has helped me to understand why, in our ten-year follow-up evaluation of the Colorado Trusts Colorado Healthy Communities Initiative, far and away the top explanation for success among the initiatives that were still active after ten years was in touch with community needs. On the other hand, many failings of individual initiatives can be traced to the success of an individual participant or group of participants convincing self or each other, or the majority, that what they wanted was really for the good of the community. I can remember standing next to an old rancher after interviewing him about his involvement with his community collaborative. We were looking out his plate glass window in his living room past his driveway, beyond which you could see across the plains for miles without seeing another structure. He said, Look at that. Our kids are killing themselves and we decided we need to recycle our bottles and tin cans.
Page iii

There is often a delicate balance between the value of a group pursuing goals that are energizing and engaging to its members, on the one hand, and the value of goals that are responsive to genuine needs on the other. This is why I suggested, above, that you take on the responsibility of making sure that the group has considered sufficiently the benefits of doing excellent assessment to get in touch with the needs of the community Another discovery Ive made from both research and experience is that successful collaborations are very effective at outreach efforts, at involving partners, especially strong stakeholder groups. Reaching out to other already established stakeholder groups and organizations, especially in this electronic age, saves inestimable time and effort on almost any imaginable initiative. Yet many initiatives overlook resources and experiences available to them in their own communities. PRIORITY FOUR: REINFORCE OPENNESS I have known very few, if any, leaders who have been able unilaterally to recognize and diagnose all problems confronting a group and to choose and implement solutions for those problems. The best leaders I have known are those who have the active assistance of the group in anticipating, diagnosing, and intervening when the performance of the group or team is threatened. You will be much better off if they are helping than if they are leaving everything for you to handle yourself. And the more effective groups and teams I have studied are those in which the members are sharing ideas and talking openly about how well they think they are doing and how they might do better. The least effective groups and teams are those in which the members are afraid to say what is on their minds and they keep to themselves, do their work, and shut their mouths. There is no doubt that openness is an important value for leaders in collaboratives. It is a part of Priority One, the credible, open process. It is an essential part of the values of Priority Two, inclusiveness and trust. And it is strongly implied by the outward reaching of Priority Three. And now, I am saying that you should reinforce openness as a value for the group. Make it a part of the groups culture. Because that is what effective groups do. They talk to each other about how they are doing and how they can do better. PRIORITY FIVE: CELEBRATE SUCCESS Take advantage of every opportunity to celebrate any success that the collaborative enjoys as they work toward their goals. This is a consistent feature of successful collaboratives. They celebrate successes along the way. The celebration need not be lavish. It can be quite unspectacular. Simple refreshments. Special guests are a nice touch. But anything that recognizes progress will help to sustain the collaborative energy that is challenged by a frequently slow and grinding process. BEST WISHES! I know you have a lot to think about, and a lot to do, judging from the material I see in this book. But it certainly seems well laid out. And if you read the cases and the stories, you will certainly feel some of the need that motivates the professionals who comprise the stakeholder groups which are involved. The initiative, overall, is not just good, it is a great one. One of the best I have ever seen. I have worked with quite a few of the IOGs. Most of the time the energy has been positive, problem solving, collaborative. If you experience issues with your collaborative similar to those I have written about in this introduction, feel free to call me if you would like to discuss them. Carl Larson 720-747-4720 Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page iv

References Chrislip. D. and C. Larson. 1994. Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goetz, A.R., P.S. Dempsey, and C.E. Larson. 2002. Metropolitan planning organizations: Findings and recommendations for improving transportation planning. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 32(1): 87105. Hicks, D., Larson, C., Nelson, C., Olds, D. and E. Johnston. 2008. The Influence of Collaboration on Program Outcomes: The Colorado Nurse-Family Partnership. Evaluation Review: A Journal of Applied Social Research 32(5): 453-477. Larson, C., Christian, A., Olson, L., Hicks, D. and C. Sweeney. 2002. The Colorado Healthy Communities Initiative: Ten Years Later. Denver: Colorado Trust.
Page v
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Collaborative Management Program

In the past two decades, much has been written about collaboration, integration and the creation of systems of care in the government and non-profit sectors. At the same time states, counties and cities struggle to find ways to achieve better outcomes for our youth and families, while responding to reduced funding and implementing best practices. Collaboration is no longer avant-garde: it is a necessity. From the highest levels of state government to the most rural county service departments, systems, agencies and families are striving to partner more effectively. Continuing to do business in a manner that lacks integration and collaboration does not serve our families well. The safety, health and well-being of individuals and communities are at risk as we see budgets decreasing and traditional practices failing to HB1451 has always astounded produce desired family outcomes. In response, we must me with how they work together find ways to collaborate that maximize our funding, reduce duplication and address the unmet needs of our to help families and youth in need. youth and families. We do not need to find ways to do I have never seen such dedication more with less; we need to find ways to be smarter with from so many people to come less. This is the challenge of our new service together and help others any way environment. they can. I believe that this group
is the pioneer of a new way to This is the perfect time for innovation and creative bring help to those who need it, thinking. Research continues to show that integrative and and I think that other counties will collaborative approaches to service delivery, particularly those with family engagement, work. But there is no take on HB1451 methods and magic pill. Just as we are recognizing that our clients do incorporate them to their own not respond well to cookie-cutter diagnoses and solutions, programs. we are also recognizing that there are no cookie-cutter approaches to collaboration. Each community is unique, --IOG Youth Participant and must develop its own vision and strategies toward system reform. That said, new and innovative examples of how to serve our populations continue to spring up. One such example is the Colorado Collaborative Management Program.
In 2004 a group of Colorado State Legislators established the Collaborative Management Program (CMP) to encourage and incentivize collaboration on behalf of multi-system youth. Also known as House Bill 04-1451, the CMP defined a county-level framework for collaboration whereby mandated providers must partner through a Memorandum of Understanding and create a Joint Interagency Oversight Group (IOG). As of 2012, these mandated partners* include the following:
Page 1

Figure 1: CMP Mandatory Partners
Social Services Judicial/ Probation Division of Youth Corrections
School District(s)
Interagency Oversight Group
Public Health
Managed Service Organization
Mental Health
Behavioral Health Organization
Domestic Violence Provider
*Other community partners may be added to the IOG.
Working as a collective entity, each county IOG sets out to address the following goals:
Goals of the CMP

Develop a more uniform system of collaborative management that includes the input, expertise, and active participation of parent advocacy or family advocacy organizations Reduce duplication and eliminate fragmentation of services provided to families Increase the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of services delivered to these children or families Encourage cost sharing among service providers Lead to better outcomes and cost-reduction for the services provided to children and families in the child welfare system, including the foster care system. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 2

Since the inception of CMP in 2004, the initiative has spread across Colorado to include 32 counties, as shown below. Figure 2: CMP participating counties by population density and year joined
This handbook was developed to provide in-depth information on the CMP initiative. It offers answers to frequently asked questions such as: Where do I start as a new CMP county? What can I give my partners to explain the components of CMP? If I am interested, how do I know if this is a good fit for our community? We created this Handbook for CMP Coordinators, IOG members, ISST members, heads of agencies, family partners, community and non-profit partners, legislators and educators interested in collaborative initiatives. As the initiative has evolved over the last seven years, there have been many successes and valuable lessons learned. This handbook provides a tool to support the development of new and innovative practices. At the heart of this handbook and the Collaborative Management Program are the families we serve. We dedicate this to you. As we stretch and grow to reach the next level of development, we keep you ever in mind. One day, we hope you will hear stories of how it used to be and be able to say, Thank you. This made a difference to me and my family. With hope, The CMP Handbook Committee
Page 3

We wish to acknowledge the dedicated work and contributions made by the following individuals in the development of this handbook:
Elaine Arnold David Arnold James Berg Marjorie Grimsley Kari Harp Chaffee County HB 04-1451 Coordinator/Wraparound Facilitator Chaffee County Fremont County HB 04-1451 Coordinator Federation of Families for Childrens Mental Health, Colorado Chapter Director, San Luis Valley Collaborative Management Program (Alamosa, Conejos, Rio Grande HB 04-1451) Collaborative Management Program Administrator, Colorado Department of Human Services (Prior) Morgan County HB 04-1451 Coordinator OMNI Institute, Denver, Colorado Eagle County CMP Coordinator, Single Point of Entry Project Director Pueblo County HB 04-1451 Coordinator
Norman Kirsch
Allie Miller Kate France Smiles Robin Smart Steffan Soto
Page 4
Chapter 2: Administrative Structure

The administrative structure is described within the Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 24-1.9-101 et. seq. and the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) Rules and Regulations, section 7.303. Figure 3: Structure of State Management of the Collaborative Management Program
DHS Program Director Provides guidance and oversight, reviews county-level memoranda of understanding and annual reports, and works jointly with the State Steering Committee to develop the earned incentive formula
State Steering Committee Provides program oversight, advances system reform goals of CMP legislation, composed of representatives of organizations of mandatory signatories, family advocacy, and participating counties
Incentive Formula Committee: Development of formula for distribution of incentive funds to IOGs who meet specific approved target outcomes
Family Voice and Choice Committee: Gathers and shares information about promising strategies to engage families at the IOG, ISST, and service-delivery levels
Evaluation Subcommittee: Guides statewide evaluation, promotes effective evaluation practices at the county level, and consults with OMNI Institute
Colorado Children and Youth Information Sharing: Developing strategies for sharing information to optimize services available and delivered to youth and families in Colorado
CMP State Administrator

The CDHS administrator is responsible for the conduct of the Program within the statutory and rule framework. The CDHS administrator is responsible for developing and submitting the earned incentive formula in conjunction with the State Steering Committee (SSC) to the State Board of Human Services (CRS 24-1.9-104) and for planning the yearly executive director meeting as required by statute (CRS 24-1.9-103).
Page 5

State Steering Committee
The State Steering Committee serves as a non-legislated oversight group responsible for the performance and implementation of the Program. The SSC consists of members of the following groups: County participants that have an approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the state fiscal year. Mandatory state participants (per statute). Family members and family organization members. Other members, such as service providers, may be added. The SSC originally consisted of two groups; one for state partners and one for county partners. The combined SSC was formed per county request and state agency agreement in the first year of the Program. Collaborative Management Program CRS 24-1.9 State Steering Committee Charter The purpose of the Collaborative Management Program State Steering Committee is to accelerate system reform that results in improved selected outcomes for children and families who receive services from multiple state-funded agencies. Such system reform shall facilitate collaborative work such as: Creating incentives and minimizing disincentives to collaborative work; Information sharing and development of legal avenues to share confidential information; Accessing, utilizing, and interpreting data to inform decision making; Strategic planning for multiple stakeholders; Developing common outcomes and performance based measures that meet the integrity of the legislation and individual community needs; Developing capacity to deliver technical assistance; Balancing a unified approach with a desire to maintain flexibility at the local level; and Ensuring family engagement and participation at the governance and operational levels. Family representation was added in the first year of the Program. The purpose of family representation is to provide family voice(s) directly into the conduct of the Program and to support and encourage the addition of family voice(s) to the local Interagency Oversight Groups (IOGs). The state and the counties must understand that the addition of family members and other partners needs to be accompanied by training offered to the IOGs and to family participants in order to create a positive, safe, productive, and supportive environment.
Sub-Committees
The SSC may establish subcommittees to perform detail work.
a) Evaluation Sub-Committee
Evaluation has as its foundation the statutory Program requirements. This evaluation is designed to track overall Program outcomes and to contribute to the annual executive report as required by statute. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 6

The intent is to communicate overall Program outcomes clearly and concisely and to assist the counties in developing and measuring incentivized outcomes. Counties are required by statute to participate in program evaluation. The evaluation subcommittee of the SSC is composed of county, state, and family members. Meeting minutes and related materials for the sub-committee can be found on the CMP Portal here.
b) Incentive Formula Sub-committee

All counties are invited to participate in the Incentive Formula Sub-committee (formed in 2011), which is responsible for developing and recommending the formula by which earned incentive funds will be distributed to participating counties. Counties are currently required to submit specific incentivized outcomes in the areas of juvenile justice, child welfare, education, and health/mental health/other health. It is expected that county IOGs will propose specific incentivized outcomes in the yearly MOU. The proposed incentivized outcomes will reflect the results of periodic community needs assessments. These outcomes are reflective of serving multi-system families and youth utilizing collaborative processes. It is expected that counties will substantiate these outcomes with information from staterecognized data systems. The earned incentives are available through the performance based earned incentive cash fund as provided by the statute. The earned incentive formula is developed in conjunction with the SSC, and is submitted yearly for approval to the State Board of Human Services as required by statute. Please refer to Chapter 8 for additional information about earned incentive funds.
c) Family Voice and Choice Committee

The Family Voice and Choice Committee was formed as a result of the first CMP Planning Retreat in 2007 when the need to focus work around family involvement was identified. It is comprised of local experts and members of family support organizations and serves to promote adherence to key goals of the CMP legislation, including the input, expertise, and active participation of parent advocacy or family advocacy organizations. The Family Voice and Choice Committee has a critical role in statewide CMP efforts. Comprised of local experts and family support organizations, the committee can serve to promote adherence to key goals of the CMP legislation and the continued importance of family engagement in both CMP governance and service planning.
Family Voice and Choice Committee Goals

Continue to increase the representation and engagement of family, youth and family-driven organizations in Family Voice and Choice committee work, state and local CMP efforts and individual service and support teams. Continue to collect and analyze data in order to impact funding decisions at both state and local levels. Increase quality and effectiveness of services and supports for families at the individual, service and policy levels. Offer technical assistance resources to counties wishing to increase family and youth involvement.
Page 7

Family Voice and Choice Committee meeting minutes, related reports and general family engagement resources can be found on the CMP Portal Site here.
d) Information Sharing Sub-Committee

Colorado Children and Youth Information Sharing Collaborative (CCYIS) is developing strategies for sharing information to optimize services that are available and delivered to children, youth and families in Colorado. Initiated in 2007 by the Colorado CMP State Steering Committee and the Colorado Prevention Leadership Council, the CCYIS is a collaborative effort working in partnership with the Center for Network Development, the developers of the national Guidelines for Juvenile Information Sharing (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006). For a PDF copy of the guidelines go to http://www.juvenileis.org/pdf/JuvInfoSharing.pdf In early 2008, the executive directors of five state departments, the commissioner of education and the state court administrator signed an MOU that included a commitment to work collaboratively on implementing the Guidelines for Juvenile Information Sharing and the formation of the Colorado Children and Youth Information Sharing Collaborative. In late 2008, the Colorado Children and Youth Information Sharing initiative became linked with the larger data sharing and data protocol initiative of the Governors Office of Information Technology (OIT). Currently, the CCYIS is one of three major information sharing initiatives linked with the Governors OIT and has regular communication with the newly established Government Data Advisory Board. Currently, the CCYIS Collaborative is working on an inventory of children and youth data systems that includes templates from the Governors Office of Information technology. The work is supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
CCYIS Purpose
Assist local agencies in accessing timely and reliable information for conducting assessments and determining and coordinating appropriate services for children, youth and families; Appropriately and securely share client level information among agencies that serve children and youth; Share data in the aggregate to inform decision making and policy development at the state and local level; and Partner with youth and families to develop effective information sharing practices that will positively impact their lives.
CCYIS Anticipated Outcomes

Data sharing agreements between State agencies that provide access to information for policy, program, service, and resource decisions; Access to client level information on a need to know basis" through secure methods by government and non-government agencies to better coordinate and determine effective services; Improved access to information by youth and families regarding information that is collected about them; and Improved health, safety and general well-being of Colorados children, youth and families. Additional information about CCYIS can be found at: http://www.juvenileis.org/pilot_colorado.html. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 8
Chapter 3: CMP Best Practices & Getting Started

Promoting CMP Value of CMP: Rationale and Benefits
The Collaborative Management Program (CMP) aims to improve both the quality and cost-effectiveness of interventions for Colorado children and families who face involvement with multiple governmental programs and community agencies as a result of health, education, child welfare, and juvenile justice system contact. The legislation calls for county agencies and partners to voluntarily develop a collaborative management structure and process that brings together agencies that provide diverse yet sometimes overlapping services for at-risk, high systems-use children and families. Participating partners in local CMPs have included county departments of human/social services, local judicial districts, health departments, school districts, community mental health centers and Behavioral Health Organizations, parent or family advocacy groups, and community organizations. Centrally, the legislation charges the state and counties to reform social service systems through the introduction of systemic changes that require collaboration between governmental agencies, namely the development of interagency oversight and management groups and the establishment of interagency policies and practices that target the duplication and fragmentation of and the effectiveness of services to families. The goal is to improve outcomes for multi-system involved youth and families by creating a highly coordinated network of services, which have numerous documented benefits including:
Legislative Goals of the Collaborative Management Program (CMP) Initiative Develop a more uniform system of collaborative management that includes the input, expertise, and active participation of parent advocacy or family advocacy organizations 2. Reduce duplication and eliminate fragmentation of services provided to children or families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services 3. Increase the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of services delivered to children or families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services 4. Encourage cost sharing among service providers 5. Lead to better outcomes and costreduction for the services provided to children and families in the child welfare system, including the foster care system, in the State of Colorado Colorado Revised Statute, Title 24, Article 1.9 (2010) 1.
Increased probability of improvement in child and family outcomes; Maximization of available resources for the provision of services; Increased coordination within and among service delivery systems; and Shared responsibilities across systems and service providers.
Page 9

The legislation reflects the Systems of Care philosophy which has had a significant influence on social service systems reform in Colorado. In the social service arena, core elements of the Systems of Care philosophy, including community collaboration, family involvement in service planning and delivery, and culturally competent services tailored to the unique needs of different populations, have broadened interagency collaborative efforts and decision-making processes to include community representatives. Community collaboration, family involvement and the Collaborationhas been seen as a means emphasis on cultural competence, has engaged by which complex problems with stakeholders outside of state government in consensusinterrelated causes can be addressed, a oriented efforts to manage public resources and solve problems through collective processes of public policy and strategy for maximizing the efficient use of limited resources, a way of reducing the procedure development and implementation. In part, fragmentation within and between community collaboration has become a hallmark of social bureaucracies, [and] a means of engaging services reform in Colorado due to research that has citizens in a democratic process of indicated that it can be an effective method for engaging decision-making. various disciplines to address issues that have multiple Emshoff et al., 2007, American Journal of causes and solutions. Community Psychology
Promising Practices Collaboration

In many respects, collaborative management in support of multi-systems youth and families, as supported by the Collaborative Management Program, remains an emerging model. Evaluation activities outlined below are intended to provide more concrete information about how specific county-level practices relate to youth and family outcomes in the future. However, reflections shared by CMP stakeholders, as well as a review of the existing The value of the work that is literature on collaborative management, have highlighted a being done by the IOG is that, core set of promising practices for CMPs to consider. from my agency's perspective, These are described briefly below. More in-depth findings youth and families are from a larger literature review and CMP dialogue about receiving supports and collaboration and systems integration are forthcoming treatment that help them and will be made available on the CMP Portal: avoid or reduce their chances http://collaboration.omni.org/sites/1451/SitePages/Home.aspx. of becoming involved in the legal system. --IOG Member
Page 10

Table 1: Concepts and Action Steps for CMP Interagency Oversight Groups
CMP stakeholder interviews indicate that collaboratives should... Broad Concept ..devote considerable time and effort to creating an authentic process. An authentic process is one in which the stakeholders perceive the decision-making process to be fair and open, decisions are made in equal partnership, and that stakeholders are not simply in meetings to confirm decisions that were decided in advance of i the collaborative process. Many projects discussed the importance of having a coordinator to support IOG and ISST efforts. Projects benefit from having a full-time coordinator given the complexity of the CMP model and the need for macro-level oversight and coordination. While there must be time built into the initial stages of the process to increase awareness of each agencys particular needs and capabilities, the focus of this work should be on joint planning and decisionmaking. The time spent collectively addressing difficult cases or issues will draw the collaborative closer and increase the working knowledge of each member. The participation of numerous agencies in CMP collaborative efforts results in an unprecedented opportunity to share and utilize information in service planning work. Agreements that foster transparency in the access and use of data will foster trust and commitment among partners. Data-driven decision-making will also engender a sense of equality among members, making it easier to develop and focus on shared outcomes. Action Steps
Ensure that there is a representative from each agency who is empowered to make binding commitments on the spot. Avoid, if possible, having IOG members who must go back to a CEO or agency head for permission to make or honor a commitment.
seek to hire or appoint a full-time IOG coordinator.
If possible, assign a full-time coordinator to manage the collaborative process, develop strategies for securing resources, and foster community recognition and support. Refer to the New Coordinators
Checklist and the IOG Member Interview elsewhere in this handbook.
use their meetings to engage in regular joint planning and problem solving rather than having representatives reporting to each other.
Organize your agenda for IOG meetings around issues or topics, not agencies. Assess the frequency with which meetings must occur to move IOG work forward while respecting member time and resources. Nearly all IOGs meet at least quarterly, with about half meeting on a monthly basis. Include data sharing as a standing item on your IOG meeting agendas.
develop transparent processes for sharing and assessing data and create a decision-making process that is datadriven.
Page 11

Table 1: Concepts and Action Steps for CMP Interagency Oversight Groups
CMP stakeholder interviews indicate that collaboratives should... Broad Concept include a family voice in each level of the process. While this may be difficult to implement, family members can play a valuable role in at every level of the CMP process. It is recommended that CMPs actively recruit family members as representatives to work with stakeholders in joint planning and problem solving efforts, making sure that they are not treated as token members that are used simply to legitimize the process. The genuine involvement of family voices will increase the quality and legitimacy of decisions and may help in the realization of more sustained outcomes. Stakeholders describe trans-disciplinary teams as professional teams that work together to achieve better outcomes on particularly difficult cases. They are made available to caseworkers or case managers for the staffing of especially challenging cases. Given the multi-agency involvement of many CMP-involved families, these teams may be critical to obtaining successful outcomes. Action Steps
See Chapter 7 for detailed suggestions.
create transdisciplinary teams.
Specification of the form and function of these teams, as well as the types of families they are best equipped to serve, is an area that will receive ongoing attention as the initiative evolves.
Page 12

There is a well-established body of literature regarding collaborative practices and the evolution of work across agencies/organizations. Figure 4 below synthesizes multiple models of collaboration, depicting the movement from relatively fragmented work to full integration of operations. Inter-agency relationships may reside on any location of the spectrum below, and each relationship type can play an appropriate role in organizational functioning. However, communities participating in the CMP initiative have articulated a commitment to moving activities toward the right end of the scale. It may be helpful for IOGs to use this figure to reflect on their practice and identify opportunities for future growth. Figure 4: Stage Models of Collaboration, from Frey et al.
Source: Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383.
Brief summaries of the models presented in the above figure are presented here: Peterson (1991) proposed three types of agency interaction: cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. These three types are described as distinct states of interactions among agencies and not offered as a strict series of stages. Source: Peterson, N. L. (1991). Interagency collaboration under Part H: The key to comprehensive, multidisciplinary, coordinated infant/toddler intervention services. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(1), 89-105. Hogue (1993) suggested five levels of community linkage: networking, cooperation or alliance, coordination or partnership, coalition, and collaboration. The levels differ by purpose, the structure of decision making, and the nature of leadership.
Page 13

Source: Hogue, T. (1993). Community-based collaboration: Community wellness multiplied. Bend, OR: Chandler Center for Community Leadership. Retrieved April 21, 2004, from http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab/wellness.html Bailey and Koney (2000) offered a model similar to these, with four steps ending with complete unification: cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and coadunation (which means having grown together). Source: Bailey, D., & Koney, K. (2000). Strategic alliances among health and human services organizations: From affiliations to consolidations (Abr. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. A five-stage model consistent with previous stage approaches was suggested by Gajda. The level-ofintegration model has five ordered steps: networking, cooperating, partnering, merging, and unifying. The steps differ on purpose, tasks and organizational strategies, leadership and decision making, and type and frequency of communication. Source: Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 65-77. A seven-stage model simply extends the previously identified stages to include the possibility that while both groups exist, there may be no collaboration whatsoever between them. Those interested in assessing collaboration might best include this lowest possible score or category of collaboration, which represents the state of participating agencies before any level of collaboration has begun. Source: Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383. Please refer to the CMP portal (http://collaboration.omni.org/sites/1451/SitePages/Home.aspx) for additional resources regarding promising practices related to collaborative management.
Page 14

The following is a list of suggested steps to take when first joining the Collaborative Management Program.
New Coordinators Checklist

I. II. http://collaboration.omni.org/sites/1451/SitePages/Home.aspx III. a. b. IV. a. i. ii. iii. iv. Selection of Chairperson(s) and Meeting Recorder v. Discuss Best Practice Individual Service and Support Team (ISST) processes give examples from other counties (High Fidelity Wraparound Process, Team Decision Making, etc.). Make selection after exploring successful processes vi. Agency attendees share activities of their organization b. Send agenda to partners one week in advance of the meeting c. Send minutes of each IOG meeting to all IOG members with reminder of all upcoming meetings d. At future IOG meetings agencies receiving grants present reports V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 15 -

XIII. -
XIV.
a.
b.
c. d. e. f. g.
Page 16

Assessing Partner Needs/Collaborative Readiness: Each community and its partners will be at varying stages of readiness concerning collaboration. It is recommended that mandatory MOU partners be given opportunity to provide input on the collaborative process and structure of the countys CMP. The following template can be used to facilitate the discussion with each partner.
IOG Member Interview

It is recommended that information be gathered through a semi-formal interview process in which the sample questions below can be used as a guide to engage the member in further discussion. Input from members in new CMP counties may indicate gaps that need to be addressed by the IOG and coordinator.
Date _______________________
Time _________________
Agency _______________________________________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________________ Person Interviewed ________________________ Phone ______________________ Title ______________________________
Email ____________________________________
1. What role does/will your agency fill in the collaboration for ___________________ County? 2. Who should be contacted if you are unavailable? Who else will have voting power on the IOG in your absence? 3. Who signs the MOU for your agency? Establish the time frame needed for the signature. 4. Are there any changes in the following areas for the new fiscal year? Goals, in kind services, services being provided, cost avoidance, etc. 5. In regards to the outcome goals your agency is tracking, what process should be followed in collecting data? Contact person, time frames, etc. How can data collection be improved? 6. How do you define collaboration and what does it look like to you? 7. How will you know if agencies and community members are collaborating effectively? 8. What do you think is working well in the area of interagency collaboration and integration of services in our county? 9. What barriers and/or challenges do you see that need to be overcome in the area of interagency collaboration and integration of services in our county? 10. What are the greatest needs in __________County that should be addressed by CMP (i.e. gaps in service, program improvement or development)? 11. As a new CMP county/For the new fiscal year, what expectations do you and your agency have of this initiative? 12. What are your expectations of the IOGs CMP coordinator? Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 17

Everything You Need to Know about Colorados Collaborative Management Program
You are required to: Determine your target population Develop an MOU that includes all mandated partners and meets State requirements Submit your MOU to the State by June 1st Convene your IOG on a regular basis to identify collaborative management processes and address barriers to crosssystem coordination Include on your IOG a voting member from each partner agency of your MOU Establish a multi-agency model for your Individualized Service and Support Teams Determine evaluation measures to show the impact of your model on children and families served Participate in State evaluation efforts, including the completion of an annual report each year Develop interagency agreements on information-sharing You are encouraged to: Include youth and family members on your IOG Determine the frequency of IOG meetings based on the needs of your county Seek input, support and collaboration from key stakeholders in the private and nonprofit sectors Involve parent advocacy or family advocacy organizations on your IOG or in other ways You are welcome to: Include representatives on your IOG from the public and nonprofit sectors Include representatives on your IOG from the private sector
Page 18
Chapter 4: How to create an Interagency Oversight Group

CRS 24-1.9-102. Memorandum of understanding - local-level interagency oversight groups individualized service and support teams - coordination of services for children and families requirements wavier. (d) Creation of an oversight group. The memorandum of understanding shall create a local-level interagency oversight group and identify the oversight group's membership requirements, procedures for selection of officers, procedures for resolving disputes by a majority vote of those members authorized to vote, and procedures for establishing any necessary subcommittees of the interagency oversight group. Each interagency oversight group shall include a local representative of each party to the memorandum of understanding specified in paragraphs (a) and (a.5) of subsection (1) of this section, each of whom shall be a voting member of the interagency oversight group. In addition, the interagency oversight group may include, but is not limited to, the following advisory nonvoting members: (I) Representatives of interested local private sector entities; and (II) Family members or caregivers of children who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services or current or previous consumers of integrated multi-agency services.
What is an IOG and what are its responsibilities?
IOG Characteristics
Local Authority to govern Capacity to govern Credibility to govern Clear about what it is governing
As mandated by statute, each participating CMP community must create an Interagency Oversight Group (IOG). The members of this group will be, at minimum, the mandated partners required in the MOU. IOGs may choose to add other partners to their membership at their own discretion, either with or without voting privileges. This group will be governed by the current CMP MOU template (see MOU section below) that includes signatures from all members. Each IOG may conduct business in its own fashion and on its own schedule, though monthly meetings are recommended. The IOG provides a forum for collaborative discussion and joint decision-making across the systems. Focus areas of an IOG may include*: 1. Coordination and oversight of programs and services 2. Conducting and coordinating assessments of community needs 3. Sharing and establishing best practices and continuous quality improvement 4. Arranging for and/or providing technical assistance and cross systems training 5. Funding support and coordination
Representative
Clear protocols Shared liability across systems for target population Develops protocols and distributes earned incentive money
(*Courtesy of Weld County Juvenile Assessment Centers Collaborative Management Program) Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 19

Memorandum of Understanding
CRS 24-1.9-102. Memorandum of understanding - local-level interagency oversight groups individualized service and support teams - coordination of services for children and families requirements wavier. (1) (a) Local representatives of each of the agencies specified in this paragraph (a) and county departments of social services may enter into memorandums of understanding that are designed to promote a collaborative system of local-level interagency oversight groups and individualized service and support teams to coordinate and manage the provision of services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services. (See below for required MOU components.) Per agency letter CW-07-10P and for the purpose of general program administration the Collaborative Management Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the upcoming fiscal year are due to the office of the State CMP Administrator by June 1 of the year preceding the plan year. The Collaborative Management Program (CMP) statute: CRS 24-1.9 contains requirements for the MOU. To view a current MOU template and get up-to-date MOU instructions, please visit the CMP portal: http://collaboration.omni.org/sites/1451/SitePages/Home.aspx DUE DATES June 1: August 1: September 1: October 1: Due to the State Collaborative Management Program Administrator; any extensions must be requested from the State Program Administrator Final due date for any extensions granted (i.e., No changes allowed after August 1) First year CMP counties have until September 1 to submit a final draft. Signed Memorandum of Understanding submitted to State
Note: MOU amendments may be submitted to the existing or current fiscal year MOU. Please contact the State Program Administrator for more information about the MOU amendment process. REQUIRED MOU COMPONENTS 1. Mandatory signatures: sec. 24-1.9-102 (1)(a). The mandatory signatures must include: Local Judicial Districts (e.g., District Judge or designee, such as Probation Services); County Department of Social/Human Services; Local Health Department; Local School District or School Districts (participation of all school districts in the county is encouraged); Each Community Mental Health Center; Each Behavioral Health Organization; Division of Youth Corrections; A Designated Managed Service Organization for the Provision of Treatment Services for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Pursuant to Section 25-1-206.5 C.R.S.; A Domestic Abuse Program as Defined in Section 26-7.5-102, C.R.S., if representation from such a program is available.
Page 20
2. Identification of Services and Funding Sources: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (b). Legal language: The MOU shall specify the legal responsibilities and funding sources of each party to MOU specified in Section 24-1.9-102 (1) (a) as those responsibilities and funding sources relate to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services, including the identification of the specific services that may be provided. Specific services that may be provided may include, but are not limited to: prevention, intervention, and treatment services; family preservation services; family stabilization services; out of home placement services; services for children at imminent risk of out of home placement; probation services; services for children with mental illness; public assistance services; medical assistance services; child welfare services; and any additional services which the parties deem necessary to identify. Please clarify whether or not the services and funding sources are direct or in-kind. What this means: Each agency will identify in the MOU: the types of services it will provide to members of the target population, the direct and/or in-kind resources it will allocate to provide those services, and funding sources associated with each type of resource. 3. Population to be served: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (c). The MOU shall include a functional definition of "children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services. This is a specific description of the multi-system target population that the local CMP will serve. 4. Oversight Group Creation: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (d). The Memorandum of Understanding shall create a local-level Interagency Oversight Group and identify the oversight group's membership requirements, procedures for selection of officers, procedures for resolving disputes by a majority vote of members authorized to vote, and procedures for establishing any necessary subcommittees of the interagency oversight group. Each Interagency Oversight Group shall include a local representative of each party to the memorandum of understanding specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, each of whom shall be a voting member of the interagency oversight group. In addition, the interagency oversight group may include, but is not limited to, the following advisory nonvoting members: (i) Representatives of interested local private sector entities; and (ii) Family members or caregivers of children who would benefit from integrated multiagency services or current or previous consumers of integrated multi-agency services. 5. Collaborative Management Processes: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (e). The Memorandum of Understanding shall require the Interagency Oversight Group to develop Collaborative Management processes to be utilized by Individualized Service and Support Team(s) authorized pursuant to paragraph (f) of this subsection (2) when providing services to children and families served by the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding. The Collaborative Management processes required to be established by the Interagency Oversight Group shall address risk-sharing, resource-pooling, performance expectations, outcome-monitoring, and staff-training, and shall be designed to do the following: (i) Reduce duplication and eliminate fragmentation of services provided to children or families who would benefit from Integrated multi-agency services; (ii) Increase the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of services delivered to children or families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services to achieve better outcomes for these children and families; and Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 21

(iii) Encourage cost-sharing among service providers. These processes must be specified in the MOU. It is not acceptable for ongoing counties to state that these will be developed sometime in the future. Individualized Service and Support Teams: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (f). The Memorandum of Understanding shall include authorization for the Interagency Oversight Group to establish Individualized Service and Support Teams to develop a service and support plan and to provide services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services. A description of the ISST(s) and its protocols are required. Authorization to Contribute Resources and Funding: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (g). The Memorandum of Understanding shall specify that each party to the Memorandum of Understanding specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section has the authority to contribute time, resources, and funding to solve problems identified by the local-level Interagency Oversight Group in order to create a seamless, collaborative system of delivering multi-agency services to children and families, upon approval by the head or Director of each agency or department specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section. Reinvestment of Moneys Saved to Serve Additional Children and Families: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (h). The memorandum of understanding shall require the interagency oversight group to create a procedure, subject to approval by the head or director of each agency or department specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, to allow any moneys resulting from waivers granted by the federal government and any state general fund savings realized as a result of the implementation of the collaborative system of management of multi-agency services provided to children and families related to the funding sources specified by the parties to the memorandum of understanding pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection (2) to be reinvested by the parties to the memorandum of understanding to provide appropriate services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services, as such population is defined by the Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subsection (2). A description of the reinvestment protocol is required. It is not acceptable for ongoing counties to state that this will be developed sometime in the future. (ii) A county that has implemented a Collaborative Management process for services to children and families, which services are not included as services to be provided to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services in the memorandum of understanding pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection (2), and that underspends the general fund portion of its capped or targeted allocation may use the general fund portion of its capped or targeted allocation for provision of existing services for such children and families in the county. Counties must elect in the MOU to participate in either surplus distribution or retention of the general fund portion of its allocation. This irrevocable election must be made no later than June 1, 2011 for State Fiscal Year 2011-2012 for the purpose of budgeting and general program administration. Performance Based Measures: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (i). The Memorandum of Understanding shall include a provision stating whether the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding will attempt to meet performance measures specified by the department of Human Services and elements of Collaborative Page 22
6.
7.
8.
9.

Management, as defined by rule of the State Board of Human Services. If the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding agree to attempt to meet the performance measures and elements of Collaborative Management, the Memorandum of Understanding shall require the Interagency Oversight Group to create a procedure, subject to the approval of the head or director of each agency or department specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, to allow any incentive moneys received by the department of Human Services and allocated pursuant to section 24-1.9-104, to be reinvested by the parties to the memorandum of understanding to provide appropriate services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multiagency services, as such population is defined by the Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subsection (2). The IOG develops the yearly outcomes and develops a procedure to reinvest any earned incentive money received to provide appropriate services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multiagency services as such population is defined by the MOU. It is not acceptable for ongoing counties to state that this procedure will be developed sometime in the future. PLEASE REFER TO THE SPECIFIC INDICATORS DEVELOPED BY THE STATE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THE FOLLOWING DOMAINS: CHILD WELFARE, JUVENILE JUSTICE, EDUATION, HEALTH/MENTAL HEALTH. 10. Confidentiality Compliance: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (2) (j). The Memorandum of Understanding shall include a provision specifying that state and Federal law concerning confidentiality shall be followed and that records used or developed by the Interagency Oversight Group or its members or the Individualized Service and Support Teams that relate to a particular person are to be kept confidential and may not be released to any other person or agency except as provided by law. It is recommended that the particular person(s) being served by the CMP actively participate in the collaborative process/ISST and provide a signed release(s) according to law that permits information sharing. 11. Waivers: Sec. 24-1.9-102 (4). The departments and agencies that provide oversight to the parties to the memorandum of understanding specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section are authorized to issue waivers of any rules to which the departments and agencies are subject and that would prevent the departments from effective implementation of the Memorandums of Understanding, However, the departments and agencies are prohibited from waiving a rule in violation of federal law or that would compromise the safety of a child. The waiver template is available on the CMP Portal.
The full Memorandum of Understanding Template can be found in the Appendix.
Page 23
Chapter 5: Individualized Service and Support Teams (ISSTs)

CRS 24-1.9-102. Memorandum of understanding - local-level interagency oversight groups individualized service and support teams - coordination of services for children and families (f) Authorization to create individualized service and support teams. The memorandum of understanding shall include authorization for the interagency oversight group to establish individualized service and support teams to develop a service and support plan and to provide services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services This chapter provides information about the goals, structure, and key activities of CMP Individual Service and Support Teams (ISSTs). The primary goal of an ISST meeting is to discuss the complex needs of the family in an open forum that will provide the family with a variety of options for services. At its core, an ISST is a multi-disciplinary assessment of service team that focuses on needs identified by and inclusive of family members, with the goal of developing an integrated service plan for that child and family. ISSTs may draw upon models such as Wraparound and Family Group Decision Making. An ISST should be a family friendly and family focused team bringing together children (when age appropriate), parents/guardians, extended family, family support partners, community supports and service agencies involved in the life of the family. ISST meetings are guided by the Family Voice & Choice principles in which the family members share their strengths, challenges, and support needs openly and without blame or shame.
ISST Planning
The goal of an ISST meeting is to develop an action plan to address the complex issues and safety needs of the child(ren) and family. It is recommended that information in the plan include, but is not limited to, the following: tasks for which each individual/organization is responsible, financial responsibilities, timeline for completion, and schedule for follow-up meetings. Sample ISST structures are presented below, followed by a discussion of two key activities for which ISSTs take lead responsibility: tracking of ISST client information and information sharing.
ISST Structures
The ISST team composition is determined by two factors: the service needs of the family and the support needs of the family. Service needs of the family are met through engagement of appropriate partnering organizations; whereas support needs of the family are met through involvement of natural, community, and/or familial support units as requested by the family itself. ISST facilitation requires a specific set of skills and abilities, including a working knowledge of System of Care principles and Wraparound principles. The ISST facilitator coordinates the meeting, invites appropriate individuals to attend, facilitates the meeting, allows time for all present to share, and writes up the final plan. The following diagrams identify categories of possible support for each family. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 24

Figure 5: Sample ISST Structure
Human Services Facilitator Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Probation
Education
Children, Youth & Family
Mental Health
Natural Supports
Law Enforcement
Community Supports
Natural Supports
Extended Family
ISST Principles: Team Based Strength Based Natural Supports Collaboration Flexible Resources Family Voice & Choice Outcome Based Unconditional Care
Page 25

Figure 6: Gunnison County Three-tiered ISST Model
3-Tier Model For Family Support and Intervention

Intervention/Services Highest skilled or paid facilitator Full Family Assessment Intensive Wraparound Services Frequent ISST meetings In Home Services Funded May require CET or Out of Home Review 1-5% of Pop.
HIGH RISK
Moderate Risk
5-15% of Population
Basic ISST/FAST services (semi- frequent) Family involved in 2 or more systems Volunteer/skilled facilitator More thorough needs ass. Evaluation of progress and transition planning.
LOW RISK
Parenting Classes Youth/Educational Groups Coordinated Services Assist Access to Community Resources May or may not have ISST
Page 26

Figure 7: TEAM Approach & ISST Flowchart (San Luis Valley) Alamosa, Rio Grande and Conejos Counties have created a continuum of care for youth that begins at their individualized level of need. If the presenting need is primarily a school issue such as truancy, behavior or attendance, a TEAM (Together Everybody Achieves More) employee based at the school receives a referral to meet with the family and offer to work with them to achieve its desired results. This referral can come after a Response to Intervention (RTI) meeting has been held with the youth and family or at any other time. If after working with the family the staff member sees multi-system needs that require a higher level of service coordination, a referral is then made to the county ISST. Referrals can also come directly to the ISST from any agency that recognizes a youth is in need of system coordination. At the ISST, the comprehensive needs of the youth and family will be discussed and a coordinated plan will be created on how best to serve the familys needs. This may mean a one-time service coordination meeting takes place between the family and service providers or the family may be connected to a wraparound facilitator to begin the High-Fidelity Wraparound Process which provides more intensive family engagement and service coordination. School-Based Needs RTI Referral Other Referral Complex, Multi-System Needs Referral is made to the community-based ISST
(Individualized Service & Support Team)
TEAM Approach Coordinated plan Avg. 7 9 weeks Connect w/services Celebrate success
ISST Familys comprehensive needs are identified and a plan of support is created Situation not resolved due to complexity or multi-system needs High-Fidelity Wraparound Process Alternative Integrated Plan
Success!
Success!
Page 27

ISST Client Tracking
In support of planning, implementation, and tracking of ISST services, a CMP Client Tracking Form is required to be completed at the initial ISST meeting for every youth involved in the countys CMP. The We have partnered with HB 1451 data gathered on this form must be entered into the Efforts to since its inception and have seen Outcomes (ETO) database managed by OMNI Institute, or into a dramatic shift in the way business is done within the an approved local database. These data are used to evaluate county. Collaboration has the effectiveness of the collaborative initiative, strategically become the norm. Agencies have identify and implement program improvements, provide increased their support of one supporting documentation for additional/increased funding another. And schools, my world, has been blessed opportunities, and ensure consistent communication of by the work. accomplishments within each county and across the state. As a IOG Partner breakthrough initiative, it becomes imperative to identify ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the process. These data collection efforts can then be shared as promising practices to other communities. Additional information on statewide and local evaluation efforts is presented in the next chapter. The Client Tracking Form appears in the appendix and can be found on the CMP Portal: http://collaboration.omni.org/sites/1451/SitePages/Home.aspx.
ISST Information Sharing

We met frequently to discuss our needs and what they/we could do to meet our needs. Even when we didnt meet face to face, I knew I could always pick up the phone at any time if I needed anything. The team that was put together was there for us every step of the way. Without that team we wouldnt be where we are today. --Family ISST Member The founding CMP legislation requires compliance with state and federal confidentiality laws. As such, personalized youth and family information can be shared within the context of an ISST only if a Release of Information (ROI) has been completed allowing all the agencies/personnel present to access the information. A sample ROI is provided in the appendix. Cases can be discussed anonymously if an ROI has not been signed. However the best and most effective practice is to have an ROI signed by the family prior to the ISST.
Page 28
Chapter 6: Statewide Program Evaluation

Evaluation activities for the initiative are specifically designed to address two sections of the program legislation, the first focuses on evaluation and the second on reporting to state officials. CRS 24-1.9-102.5 Evaluation. The department of human services is authorized to utilize moneys in the performance-based collaborative management incentive cash fund created in section 24-1.9-104 for ongoing external evaluations of the counties participating in memorandums of understanding pursuant to section 24-1.9-102, also known as the collaborative management program, as well as those counties that opted to not participate in the collaborative management program. The external evaluation shall include an evaluation that may be required in connection with a waiver authorized pursuant to section 24-1.9-102 (4). The department of human services, with input from the counties, agencies as listed in section 24-1.9-102 (1) (a) and (1) (a.5), the division of youth corrections in the department of human services, participating stakeholders in the private and nonprofit sector, and participating parent or family advocacy organizations that represent family members or caregivers of children who would benefit from multi-agency services participating in the collaborative management program, shall develop the criteria and components of the external evaluation. Each county participating in the collaborative management program shall participate fully in the annual external evaluation. The department of human services is authorized to perform an evaluation pursuant to this section on an ongoing basis as needed, as determined by the department of human services and subject to available appropriations. CRS 24-1.9-103. Reports executive director review (1) Commencing January 1, 2007, and on or before each January 1 thereafter, each interagency oversight group shall provide a report to the executive director of each department and agency that is a party to any memorandum of understanding entered into that includes: (a) The number of children and families served through the local-level individualized service and support teams and the outcomes of the services provided, including a description of any reduction in duplication or fragmentation of services provided and a description of any significant improvement in outcomes for children and families; (b) A description of estimated costs of implementing the collaborative management approach and any estimated cost-shifting or cost-savings that may have occurred by collaboratively managing the multiagency services provided through the individualized service and support teams; (c) An accounting of moneys that were reinvested in additional services provided to children or families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services due to cost-savings that may have resulted from or be due to meeting or exceeding performance measures specified by the department of human services and elements of collaborative management established by rule of the state board; (d) A description of any identified barriers to the ability of the state and county to provide effective services to persons who received multi-agency services; and (e) Any other information relevant to improving the delivery of services to persons who would benefit from multi-agency services 2)(a) Utilizing the reports created pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the persons specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2) shall meet at least annually with the governor, or his or her designee, to review the activities and progress of counties and agencies engaged in collaborative management of multi-agency services provided to children and families. The purpose of the meeting shall be to identify barriers encountered in collaborative management development or implementation (or reinvestment of moneys and to discuss and effectuate solutions to these barriers to achieve greater efficiencies and better outcomes for the state, for local communities and for persons who would benefit from multi-agency services. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 29

Evaluation Activities Overview
In July of 2009, CDHS hired OMNI Institute (OMNI) to conduct the statewide evaluation. OMNI is a Denver-based non-profit, research, evaluation and technical assistance firm established in 1976. In October of 2009, OMNI began working in partnership with the SSC and the Program Director at CDHS to develop the evaluation design and an Evaluation Subcommittee (EC) was created to guide evaluation efforts. Membership in the EC is open to CMP partners and current members include IOG coordinators from counties; the Program Director at CDHS; representatives from the Department of Criminal Justice and the State Judicial Branch; OMNI staff; and researchers from the University of Denver.
Phases of the evaluation

The focus of the evaluation is on examining the effectiveness of CMP efforts in achieving the legislative goals of CMP (e.g., increased family involvement; reduced duplication and fragmentation; increased quality, effectiveness and appropriateness of services; greater cost and resource sharing across agencies; and improved child and family outcomes). Because the program has been operational for several years prior to commencing the formal evaluation process, the design is being implemented in multiple phases, including: formative evaluation to service and describe current practices; infrastructure development to lay the foundation for standard data collection; and summative efforts to assess individual and cross-site effects. Each of these phases is described below. Phase I Formative assessment. Formative efforts collect data intended to help identify and refine program activities. The focus of data collection is to examine implementation and thereby identify barriers, observed successes, and other qualitative information in order to gain an understanding of the program. Formative evaluation methods help to gather information that can be used to develop strategies to strengthen the program, and to surface program needs that will be addressed in the second phase of infrastructure building. Phase II Infrastructure building. The second phase of the evaluation seeks to lay the foundation for standard evaluation practices across sites/counties. Evaluation efforts focus on the development of measurement strategies, implementation of data collection systems and building the capacity of local programs to participate in the evaluation. Formative evaluation techniques are also used in this phase to further inform program implementation and support improvement efforts. Phase III - Summative. Summative evaluations examine cumulative outcomes of a program or initiative. In this phase, evaluation efforts focus on analyzing data to examine variations in performance outcomes as a function of differences in practices and processes. Using this type of analytic approach, the evaluation can determine program effects as well as reflect on performance efforts to identify effective practices and opportunities for further program refinement. The CMP statewide evaluation is currently in Phase II. Phase I was completed in state fiscal year (SFY) 2009-2010 and documented the range of local efforts and selected outcomes. This work helped to illuminate wide variation in defined target populations, service models and measured outcomes. Such diversity poses significant challenges for the specification and application of a uniform measurement strategy and related outcomes analysis. To address these challenges, OMNI recommended that the program develop uniform output measures (e.g., clients served, services provided), a smaller set of common outcome measures, and a basic data management system to support local collection efforts. This effort to build evaluation infrastructure began in the second year (SFY 2010-2011) of the evaluation, with the EC and CMP stakeholders working to establish standard measurement and data systems to support future evaluation activities. Infrastructure building will continue and summative evaluation efforts will begin in the upcoming year. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 30

Overview of evaluation activities and general expectations
While the design of evaluation shifts according to evolving needs and phases of program implementation, there are standard evaluation activities coordinators facilitate each year in order to support the above legislative requirements. A general overview of evaluation activities and the corresponding timelines are defined below. Table 2: Key Statewide Evaluation Activities and Timeline
Activity CMP Client-level Tracking Timeline On-going throughout the year; quarterly data checks with OMNI; final reporting in July Due by the end of July Description Collaborative Management Programs (CMP) use standardized forms and data entry processes (most often the online Efforts to Outcomes (ETO) database) to track a series of both process and client-level outcomes for youth and families served through their ISST(s). Resources Client-level Tracking Form Tutorial
Annual Reporting
Collaborative Effectiveness Survey State Management Survey CMP MOUs
March/April
Typically administered in the fall Due June
Each CMP provides detailed information about their efforts and performance in key areas, including legislative goals (e.g., IOG and ISST activities, collaborative processes, family involvement, cost shifting and cost savings, and local performance measures). These reports are aggregated across all participating CMPs and summarized in an annual Statewide Evaluation Report. IOG members are asked to anonymously respond to this on-line survey about their perceptions of their IOGs effectiveness in collaborating on issues and in addressing key goals. Survey results are then aggregated by county and shared back with IOGs for local-level use. This online survey offers coordinators an opportunity to provide feedback about the State Management Office, as well as other state-level bodies (e.g., the State Steering Committee, Evaluation Sub-committee). While not specifically an evaluation or data collection activity, CMP MOUs include specification of both statewide (common) and local performance measures for the up-coming fiscal year. CMPs are required to sign and submit an MOU each year, even if signatories, processes, and/or performance measures remain unchanged.
Annual Report Template and Tutorial
Sample Collaborative Effectiveness Survey State Management Survey Report MOU Template
Page 31

Activity Other data collection efforts Timeline As needed (may or may not occur in any particular year). Description Could include voluntary focus groups, interviews, and informal surveys, intended to inform evaluation and reporting processes. Resources None.
Currently, evaluation activities typically occur as outlined in the calendar below. Figure 8: Recommended Statewide Evaluation Activity Timeline
tem be
Oc tob er
em be
be
ry
ry rua
Ma rch
ril
Jun e
Jan ua
cem
gus
Sep
No v
Task State Steering Committee Meetings Evaluation Sub-committee Meetings CMP Regional Meetings Client-level Tracking (ETO/local database) State Management Survey Collaborative Effectiveness Survey CMP Mid-year Data Monitoring CMP MOU Development and Finalization CMP Annual Reporting
Due Date Monthly Monthly Quarterly Ongoing Fall March/April December/ January June July
Au
De
Feb
Prepare MOU Prepare Report
Ap
Jul y
Ma
Page 32
Guidance for Outcome/Indicator Selection for Your Memorandum of Understanding

This section addresses, in greater depth, the process of selecting and specifying the performance measures that your Collaborative Management Program will track and report at various levels. Of note, some performance measures are primarily aligned with statewide evaluation activities, while others are expressly intended to closely reflect your local efforts and goals. This is described in detail below.
Specifying Outcomes/Indicators for Your MOU

The MOU submitted annually by each CMP requires you to specify your targeted outcomes and performance measures for the upcoming year. Each year, your IOG will be asked to complete three tables for your MOU: Table 1 (Parts I and II) Common Indicators These are the indicators your CMP will track as part of the statewide evaluation. Table 2 Primary Indicators The four primary indicators that your IOG includes in this table will be the ones that are reviewed by the CMP State Management Office to determine whether your IOG has met performance goals for the purpose of allocating incentive funding. You must choose a single performance goal for each domain. These should be the indicators that your IOG believes most clearly reflect the focus of CMP activities. Your common indicators may be included in this list, but they are not required to be. Table 3 Secondary Indicators These are any other indicators your CMP has chosen to track in the current fiscal year. This table is optional and should be used only if deemed useful by your IOG. Templates and detailed guidance on how to complete these forms can be found on the portal at: MOU Indicator Guide: http://collaboration.omni.org/sites/1451/CMP%20Documents/MOU%20Documents/MOU%20P erformance%20Measure%20Tables%20Guide.pdf Table Templates: http://collaboration.omni.org/sites/1451/CMP%20Documents/MOU%20Documents/MOU%20P erformance%20Measure%20Tables.docx
Guidance for Outcome/Indicator Selection

Because CMP performance relative to goals associated with the initiative is a key component of the evaluation, the following sections provide brief guidance for members of each IOG on identifying and defining local-level outcomes, indicators, and performance goals. Below is a series of questions for consideration as your IOG seeks to define and revise its performance goals. 1. Desired Outcome Guiding Question: What are you trying to achieve? Your outcome should identify the issue or activity of focus. Please note that one outcome may be assessed by multiple indicators.
Page 33
2. Target Population Guiding Question: Upon whom will efforts focus? In whom are you expecting to see change? Provide an estimate of the number of people in this population. Every measure should have a clear target population, which specifies precisely the target population in which you expect to see change as a result of your efforts. The target population is defined specifically enough that your CMP can provide an accurate count (total number) of youth represented in the population. 3. Indicator/Measure Guiding Questions: What is your target goal? How will you assess progress toward this outcome? What, specifically, can you measure to know how you are doing? To select and define each of your CMPs indicators, it may be helpful to think through the following: 1) Identify the type of change that is expected. Are you trying to change a situation, a condition, the level of knowledge, an attitude, a behavior, an activity? 2) Clarify whether you are trying to create/introduce a new service or practice, maintain a specific level of performance, or increase/decrease the presence of something 3) Identify the activities that your CMP has implemented to try to achieve the intended results and consider how the activities are believed to relate to the outcome. 4) Carefully define the final indicators and your targeted performance goal. The most well-defined, easily interpreted, and useful indicators will meet the criteria outlined in the table below, though the six criteria may not be equally important and must be balanced with one another. Criterion Definition Direct Measure a concept that is as closely related to both the intended outcome and the programs activities as possible. If using a direct measure is not possible, one or more less directly related indicators might be necessary. Objective/ Specific Be as specific as possible; measure one topic at a time; and replace ambiguous terms like successful or effective with more concrete definition. Quantitative/ Quantitative indicators are numerical (number or percentage of children for Measurable example). When indicators are numerically precise, it is easier to agree upon the interpretation of the data and the meaning of the results. Ability to be (If possible/appropriate) Disaggregating program results by gender, age, disaggregated by location, income-level or another dimension is often important from a reporting key client point of view. Disaggregated data can help to track whether or not specific characteristics groups participate in and benefit from activities intended to include them.
Practical Reliable/Highquality data Supporting data can be obtained in a timely way, with sufficient frequency, and at a reasonable cost. Stakeholders should agree that available data for a particular indicator are of sufficient quality that interpretation of findings will be meaningful and unlikely to be misleading.
Page 34

4. Measurement Process/Design Guiding Questions: What steps will you take to ensure accurate data collection, access to data for reporting, and analysis of data to assess progress? What data source(s) will you use to track progress on this indicator? Key questions to consider regarding measurement and tracking of indicators include: What data source(s) will you use? Potential data sources include state-level systems (e.g., Trails, Eclipse, etc.), as well as local data tracking systems specific to your county and/or program(s). How will you obtain and track the data required to track this indicator? Who will be responsible for data collection, data entry, analysis, and reporting? What steps will you take to ensure that the data are entered, analyzed, and reported accurately? 5. Justification & Baseline Guiding Questions: Why have you selected this indicator? And, what is the current status of this indicator in your community (your baseline)? You will want to be able to clearly describe your rationale for selecting an indicator. Specifically: How did you decide upon your specific performance goal? What information or process led to selecting this target? What is the current status of this indicator in your community (also referred to as a baseline)? For example, if your indicator were Increase by 5% the proportion of buses that arrive at their destinations on time, you would need to indicate the previous years proportion of buses arriving on time in order to know whether the goal had been achieved.
CMP Client-level Tracking

In FY2009-10, the initiative could not report an accurate number of children served by ISSTs or overall impact in these areas, because CMPs varied widely in measures of populations, processes, and outcomes. With over 125 different indicators across CMPs, there was no valid method to aggregate and report on outcomes at a state level. To address this challenge, in FY2011-12, local CMPs began collecting a small set of common data indicators to meet the statewide evaluation requirements of the legislation (above). This data collection is specifically aligned with the reporting for the statewide (common) indicators described above. Key information about these indicators and data tracking is provided below.
How and why were these measures selected?

A collaborative workgroup comprised of CMP stakeholders as required by CRS 24-1.9-102.5 (e.g., Program administrator, state agencies, county staff, county coordinators, family members, evaluators) identified a minimum set of client-level service indicators and child welfare and juvenile justice child/family outcome indicators needed to satisfy legislative requirements. This effort was guided by the desire to keep the number of items as small as possible while meeting the requirements of the CMP legislation.
How much data needs to be collected?

All of the data collected on CMP participants is contained on a one-page data collection form called the Client Tracking Form which is filled out during an ISST staffing (see CMP portal here). The form should take no more than 2 minutes to complete.
Page 35

How do counties manage the collected data?
OMNI has developed a simple, web-based data entry system using Efforts to Outcomes software. The system mirrors the one-page data collection form, and provides sites with a number of useful reports that can help with reporting local data and the management of cases. OMNI will accept data sets from other systems (e.g., Excel, Access), as long as these correspond to the one-page form and are approved by the State Administrator.
What are the common indicators?

Outcome indicators reflect common CMP program targets and are currently collected through existing statewide databases, thus reducing data collection burden. The following data indicators will be measured among children who participate in ISSTs: Number and type of agencies or systems o Families are involved in at time of enrollment o Participating in the familys service planning o Providing services to families Number of families participating in service planning Whether or not an integrated service plan was developed Outcomes (from selection of Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice outcomes) that are aligned with each case o Number (rate) of CMP youth with new open involvements in Trails after CMP services began, no substantiated abuse finding after CMP services began, and/or discharged to a permanent home o Number of moves that CMP youth experience when in out-of-home placement o Number (rate) of CMP youth who successfully complete probation and/or parole, or with no revocations by technical violations and/or recidivism
What are the benefits of collecting common data indicators?

The following are some of the benefits of collecting common process and outcome measures. Develop reliable counts of children and family served by CMP efforts Provide evidence that collaborative management leads to positive child and family outcomes at a state level Improve service delivery and programs (ability to connect CMP practices with outcomes) Ensure continued legislative support and funding
How will common measures be collected and analyzed?

County CMPs will collect client-level service data on every initial ISST meeting in a tracking form. CMPs will also locate and record child identifier numbers (Trails ID, ML#). CMPs can choose to enter these exact variables into local databases or enter data into a CMP ETO database at no cost. OMNI will use IDs to work with state offices to collect and analyze child and family indicators at the state level, and will provide individualized technical assistance to CMPs throughout implementation of this process.
Quantifying CMP Cost-shifting and Cost-savings

As described above, the legislation also promotes cost-shifting and cost-savings on the part of CMPs; however, assessing progress and success in these areas is complicated given the range and diversity of existing projects, processes and outcomes. Below, we outline key difficulties associated with quantifying Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 36

costs and benefits for CMP efforts; and then describe the supports needed to move toward the specification of one or more cost models for the initiative in the future. In its simplest form, cost-benefit analysis sums the value of the benefits accruing from a set of actions and then subtracts from this, the sum of the costs associated with those actions. Thus, in order to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, it is necessary to assign monetary figures to both sides of this basic equation: costs and benefits. This is challenging for the CMP initiative for a variety of reasons. First it is difficult to assign monetary values on the cost side of the equation as most CMP efforts do not have sufficiently clear program models and/or lack the required level of precision needed to specify costs. That is, models have not become standard enough or implemented with sufficient fidelity to enable accurate cost assignment to efforts. Because it is also critical to assign a standard cost regimen across multiple sites, this variability problem is compounded when several CMPs are considered for analysis. The benefits side is somewhat more complicated. It is assumed that CMP efforts result in outcomes that are achieved at lower cost because without the CMP, services would have been more expensive due to service duplication, fragmentation and a prolonged need for costly services. In order to assign monetary values to these benefits, one must hypothesize what would have happened without CMP services: that is, what the likely trajectory of negative outcomes from a given set of problems might have been without CMP intervention and what the associated costs would have been. If the total of these estimated costs exceeds the total cost of CMP collaborative processes plus provided services, then the CMP would be assumed to have had a net financial benefit. However, specification of these various hypothetical costs is very difficult because we do not have reliable methods of predicting long-term child and family outcomes. Should the initiative seek to develop a cost-benefit model in the future, many of the barriers described above would need to be addressed through the following: Broader adoption of a precise and standard program model Increased implementation fidelity Agreement on corresponding outcomes.
Page 37
Chapter 7: Family Involvement in the Collaborative Management Program

CRS 24-1.9-102. Memorandum of understanding d) Creation of an oversight group. The memorandum of understanding shall create a local-level interagency oversight group and identify the oversight group's membership requirements, procedures for selection of officers, procedures for resolving disputes by a majority vote of those members authorized to vote, and procedures for establishing any necessary subcommittees of the interagency oversight group. Each interagency oversight group shall include a local representative of each party to the memorandum of understanding specified in paragraphs (a) and (a.5) of subsection (1) of this section, each of whom shall be a voting member of the interagency oversight group. In addition, the interagency oversight group may include, but is not limited to, the following advisory nonvoting members: (I) Representatives of interested local private sector entities; and (II) Family members or caregivers of children who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services or current or previous consumers of integrated multi-agency services.
Families and youth bring another perspective to collaborative efforts that other IOG members do not: their life experiences as beneficiaries of services and systems. As consumers of services, they will know the barriers and benefits first hand. Since policy-focused boards are more likely to inspire conversations that are relevant to experiential knowledge, consumers will be better able to participate (Newberry, 2004). Colorado is joining many other states that have consumers, family members, and youth on policy boards, state planning entities, local governance boards, and agency boards. This very exciting movement brings great opportunity for change. The valuable contribution of new representation will naturally generate more family friendly and culturally responsive policies and practices. Policies will inevitably be more aligned to meet the needs of the service population and the community; and board structure may be more flexible to accommodate new local partners.
All in all, HB1451 has been an experience like none other. The dedication that I see from the members is unlike anything I have ever seen before. Not only do I believe this organization is doing great things in our county, I believe that it has the potential to benefit the state of Colorado
in incredible ways in the future. It has been an honor to serve on HB1451. -IOG Youth Participant
For in-depth information on how to incorporate family members and youth into your IOG process, please reference the Family Youth Involvement Workbook at: www.coloradofederation.org/toolkit.
Page 38
Chapter 8: Incentive Funds

CRS 24-1.0-104 Section 3 (a) Cash Fund
Our family appreciates
everyones efforts to 3) (a) On and after July 1, 2005, the executive director of the help [my child] find some department of human services shall allocate the moneys in the fund resources that will help to provide incentives to parties to a memorandum of understanding her become a happier and healthier young who have agreed to performance-based collaborative management woman. pursuant to section 24-1.9-102 (2)(i) and who have successfully --Parent implemented the elements of collaborative management specified by rule of the state board and also met or exceeded the performance measures specified by the department of human services. The incentives shall be used to provide services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services, as such population is defined by the memorandum of understanding pursuant to section 24-1.9-102 (2) (c).
The earned incentives are derived from the Performance-based Collaborative Management Incentive Cash Fund, 13-32-101 (1) (a) and CRS 24-1.9-104. This general formula has been in place since SFY 2005-2006. The formula below will be used for SFY 2010-11. Counties earn incentives upon meeting specified outcomes. Every county/local area that has an approved MOU and meets at least one performance-based outcome will receive an equivalent meaningful minimum. The meaningful minimum is $37,000 for each large participating large county and $28,000 for smaller participating counties. The share value is based on the size of the county, the number of children projected to receive services through the approved MOU, and the number of performance based outcomes that are met. Counties projecting to serve less than 1/3rd of their caseload will receive a lower proportionate share (one share) then a county projecting to serve between 1/3 rd and 2/3rd of their caseload (two shares). Counties projecting to serve more than 2/3rd of their caseload will receive the largest proportionate share (three shares). The four outcome areas are child welfare, juvenile justice, education, and health/mental health/other health. Any unearned shares will be calculated and plowed back into incentive pool that will ultimately serve to increase the overall proportionate share values available for this fiscal year. Counties will receive a proportionate share value of approved and available funds (spending authority) in the Performance Based Incentive Cash Fund for distribution for performance-based outcomes achieved in SFY10-11. As referenced above, the Incentive Formula Sub Committee, in conjunction with outside evaluators, meets regularly to identify the best practices for calculating and distributing the earned incentive funds. Each year, awarded funds are distributed in two installments to each IOG through the county Department of Human Services. The first installment is typically distributed in the late fall and the second in the winter of the fiscal year following the execution of the MOU. Use of these funds is at the discretion of the local IOG and shall support the delivery of integrated multi-agency services to children and families within the countys target population.
Page 39
Chapter 9: Commonly Used Assessments

Many Collaborative Management Programs use assessments to help identify the primary needs of a youth and family. Below is a list of commonly used assessments. This list is by no means exhaustive, but rather offers a brief overview of the types of instruments available. Information about many of the instruments described below, as well as other instruments, can be found at: http://cdpsweb.state.co.us/cccjj/Risk%20Assessment.html. In addition, Colorado counties are utilizing assessment tools that are currently being validated. Please contact the CMP State Administrator for additional information.
Colorado Juvenile Risk Assessment (CJRA)

The Colorado Juvenile Risk Assessment (CJRA), intended for use with youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system, is a state-of-the-art criminogenic risk assessment based on principles of juvenile justice strategy. The instrument has been validated in other sites as highly predictive of future offending. Its effectiveness has been proven through research and practice and it has become one of the leading juvenile risk assessment tools in the country. There are two parts to the CJRA: The CJRA Pre-Screen The CJRA Pre-Screen is made up of 32 items 12 related to Criminal History and 20 related to Social History. A single, directed interview at intake, supplemented with legal history data and targeted collateral contacts, provides information sufficient to make a risk classification that triages youth into low, moderate or high risk to re-offend. The CJRA Full Assessment Through the CJRA, each youths unique criminogenic needs are identified by a series of questions that probe the areas of a youths life that have been proven to predict pro- or anti-social behavior. The CJRA full-screen gives a clear picture of a youths whole range of risk and protective factors. Table 3: CJRA Domains 1. Criminal History 2. Demographics 3. School 4. Use of Free Time 5. Employment 6. Relationships CJRA Full Assessment Domains 7. Family 8. Alcohol and Drugs 9. Mental Health 10. Attitudes and Behaviors 11. Aggression 12. Skills
It is designed to make the assessment and case planning process more interactive and productive, and identifies the strengths that help the youth overcome adversity in addition to delineating risk factors. For example, the assessment may identify strengths that would suggest the type of service or community involvement that would be likely to lead to success. Similarly, the CJRA provides useable information about the youths community and family and helps determine if there is someone who can be supportive and help with the youths rehabilitation while also alerting providers to risks in the family that need to be addressed.
Page 40

Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2)
The MAYSI-2 is used to identify potential mental health problems in need of immediate attention. The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version is a brief screening tool designed to assist juvenile justice facilities in identifying youths at admission who may have special mental health needs. The MAYSI-2 was developed by Thomas Grisso, Ph.D. and Richard Barnum, M.D., at the University of Massachusetts Medical School during the 1990s with assistance from the William T. Grant Foundation, and was made available in 2000 after sufficient research had been done to establish initial reliability and validity. Technical assistance for use of the MAYSI-2 nationwide since 2000 has been provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundations support of the National Youth Screening Assistance Project (NYSAP) at University of Massachusetts Medical School. The MAYSI-2 is a paper-and-pencil self-report inventory of 52 questions designed to assist in identifying youths 12 to 17 years old who may have special mental health needs. Youths circle YES or NO concerning whether each item has been true for them "within the past few months." Youths read the items themselves (5th grade reading level) and circle the answers. Administration takes about 10 to 15 minutes and scoring requires approximately 3 minutes. The MAYSI-2 is available in both English and Spanish as well as in software form. Table 4: MAYSI-2 Scales ALCOHOL/DRUG USE The AD scale is intended to identify youths who are using alcohol or drugs to a significant degree, and who are therefore at risk of substance dependence and/or abuse. The scale has eight items. Five of the items are concerned with various negative consequences of substance abuse, and the remaining three address characteristics of substance use that are thought to represent factors for abuse. ANGRY-IRRITABLE The AI scale is intended to assess explicit feelings of preoccupying anger and vengefulness, as well as a general tendency toward irritability, frustration, and tension related to anger. The scale has 9 items. Four explicitly concern angry mood and thoughts, three others are concerned with irritability and risk of impulsive reactions, and the last two items pertain to behavioral expression of anger. DEPRESSED-ANXIOUS The DA scale is intended to elicit symptoms of mixed depression and anxiety. The scale has nine items. Five items inquire about manifestations of anxiety and inner turmoil, and four items are concerned with depressed mood. SOMATIC COMPLAINTS The SC scale includes six items that ask about various bodily aches and pains that may affect the youth, along with specific bodily expressions of anxiety. An elevated score on this scale could occur for a variety of reasons. For example, somatic complaints tend to co-occur with depression and anxiety, and sometimes they can be associated with trauma history and with thought disorder as well. On the other hand, aches, pains, and other somatic complaints may be symptoms of physical illness, and such complaints should not be overlooked as symptoms in their own right. SUICIDE IDEATION The SI scale has five items. Three of them specifically address thoughts and intentions about self-harm and two involve depressive symptoms that may present an increased risk for suicide. One of the items is shared with the DA scale. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 41

THOUGHT DISTURBANCE (BOYS ONLY) The TD scale is intended to indicate the possibility of serious mental disorder involving problems with reality orientation. The scale has five items, four of which refer explicitly to altered perceptions in reality that are frequently associated with psychotic disorders. The remaining item refers to a condition of derealization ("things don't seem real") that is a more general abnormality of perception and consciousness. It is sometimes an early indication of a psychotic state, but it may simply arise in anxiety or dissociative states as well. In the study with which the MAYSI-2 was developed, the various ways that we used to identify which items came together as scales did not identify a "thought disturbance" scale for girls using MAYSI-2 items. Thus the TD scale should not be applied to girls. TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCES The TE scale is intended to identify whether a youth has had greater exposure to traumatic events compared to other youths. Unlike other MAYSI-2 items, the TE items ask for responses regarding events or feelings over the youth's entire lifetime rather than just the "past few months." There are separate TE scales for boys and girls. Additional information about the MAYSI-2 can be found here: http://www.maysiware.com/MAYSI2.htm.
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI)

The SASSI is used to help identify people with a high probability of having a substance dependence disorder. Adolescent Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-A2) identifies high or low probability of substance dependence and substance abuse disorders for clients 12 to 18 years of age. The SASSI-A2 also provides clinical insight into family and social risk factors, level of defensive responding, and consequences of substance misuse. The SASSI is intended for use within the following parameters: Ages: 12 - 18 years Reading grade Level: 4.4 Accuracy: 94% Based on empirical studies Administration: 15 minutes to administer and score Additional information about the SASSI can be found here: http://www.sassi.com.
North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS)

The NCFAS is intended for use with low- to moderate-risk families to assess family functioning in the domains of Environment, Parental Capabilities, Family Interactions, Family Safety, and Child Well-being. The North Carolina Family Assessment Scale for General Services (NCFAS-G) is designed specifically for use by child and family serving agencies employing an integrated services model. Many families may be at low to moderate risk of child maltreatment, and not sufficiently high risk to warrant a child protection response. However, these families could benefit from services, particularly voluntary services that are intended to reduce future risk of child maltreatment, or simply to increase the families' level of family functioning, resource management, safety, self-sufficiency or health. The NCFAS-G assists workers to assess families in eight domains of family functioning: Environment, Parental Capabilities, Family Interactions, Family Safety, Child Well-Being, Social and Community Life, Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 42

Self-Sufficiency, and Family Health. The scale provides assessment ratings of problems and strengths, both at intake and at case closure. In 2006, the NCFAS-G was field tested in a large county child welfare system with its newly implemented differential response program. Results of the field test are very encouraging. The scale was employed with well over 100 families, involving more than 250 children. The psychometric properties of the Scale indicate a high degree of reliability. In addition, the ratings on the Scale that were obtained by workers in the field test were very consistent with the low to moderate risk families that the county was striving to engage, and the treatment outcomes suggest good concurrent validity. A comprehensive research report is being written that will provide the details of the field test, and it is being submitted for publication. Additional information about the NCFAS can be found here: http://www.nfpn.org/articles/97-ncfas-gan-assessment-scale-for-low-to-moderate-risk-families.html
Page 43
Chapter 10: Community Stories In Their Own Words

The following are quotes and stories from participants in the CMP initiative. No names are used, except where permission has been explicitly granted.
IOG Family Adult Participant

I have been involved with the Wraparound Program for two and a half years. I was a young, single mother of two small children and was struggling with a couple of finances. The job that I was involved in was not offering enough hours and the wage was not one that I could support my family on. I was also working on my nursing degree. I often had two or three jobs. I was referred to the Wraparound Program and my team was created. We brainstormed new job options for me and in a short time I was offered a job as a Family Support Partner with the Wraparound Program. Currently I am a trained Family Support Partner who assists a High Fidelity Wraparound Facilitator. We are referred families and create a team to help them with their needs. We brainstorm ways that we can help them through different resources around the community. My role as a family support partner is to attend all meetings to take notes and create documentation so that we can look back to see what goals or concerns we have, and which ones we still need to work on. I can also assist with paperwork, errands, and emotional support for the family. Along with being involved on Wraparound teams I serve as a voting member on the IOG Board. This group comes together around once per month to discuss issues in the community and brainstorm new ideas to improve. We also discuss and vote on grants. I believe that it is important that the community leaders that attend have the input of a young mother who has been focusing on working her way up the ladder and the struggles that come along the way. I grew up in the community so I know the resources and this program has allowed me to see just how many resources and how many people are involved in collaborating services to help those in need. I enjoy my part in the HB1451 program because I personally know the hardship that young people might face and I do my best to listen and learn, as well as, give some input and try to help. I believe that more young people reach out to me in the meetings because I have an understanding of what exactly they are going through and how they may be able to overcome these struggles and gain support. I have learned a lot.
IOG Youth Participant

House Bill 1451 has been a great experience for me. I began working with HB1451 as a predecessor to my sister who worked with HB1451 before me. As a student, HB1451 has been a great learning experience as I worked with the group on a project to give money to non-profit organizations in our county that benefited the local youth population. It has also been a great way for me to understand how to run a group and organize meetings to work toward a goal.
Page 44

ISST Family Adult Participants
Im a single father with two children. I have a three year old daughter with autism and a four year old boy. We moved to county about a year ago. I was introduced to the Wraparound team about six months ago. They were able to show me many different avenues to find help for my family from finding food to getting the best medical care for my children. As for the Wraparound crew themselves, they couldnt be a better group. They went out of their way to make sure we had what we needed. They would go to the food bank for me when I couldnt make it and they also helped me get to appointments on bad weather days. Thanks, Wraparound!
High Fidelity Wraparound came into our lives at a time when we really needed help. We were living in a tent and food stamps had a glitch and werent deposited on my card. We didnt have any money for gas or food and I had just started a new job. High Fidelity Wraparound helped us by giving us warmer blankets as it was getting really cold, making sure we had food to eat, and connecting us with other agencies and people that could help. Because of their help, we got out of the tent and found a place to live. They helped us find furniture for the new place. I recommend High Fidelity Wraparounds services to those who need help. You must be willing to help yourself, too. With a good attitude, a willingness to help yourself, and allowing the team to help you, too, maybe you could also be in a much better place.faster. We were on the program for three months. We have now graduated (transitioned). I know that if I still need anything they will be there. Help yourself and help them help you. They are fantastic!
Thanks for putting this together! Great idea to get everyone on the same page.
Thank you so very much for everything. I just wanted to pass some more good news on to you. I was hired as a teacher for a public school. Things are looking up. Yes I have a different address. I started my new job and am doing in-service now Mon-Fri. My son qualified for Medicaid and I have his card.
Im a 24 year old married, young mother. I have two beautiful kids and a husband of six years. As a child my family didnt have much, but we had love. As a child I have always struggled with reading and writing. The teacher would always sit me aside and give me work that was easy or coloring pages. So when I got to high school I didnt care and struggled to learn, but nobody wanted to teach me. I met my husband when I was sixteen years old and at seventeen I found out I was pregnant. I thought that I would go and get my GED. I was pregnant at the time and it (GED) was more difficult to get than I thought. I was six months pregnant when I found out that my oldest son was diagnosed with hydrocephalus. This set me back in finishing school. My son meant more to me. He made me grow up Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 45

faster and take on responsibility. I went back to school when my son was four years old. I had one more son and experienced more hospital stays than the normal parent. I went back to school and struggled with passing my writing test. I passed all my tests but one. I worked on it for almost 7 years off and on, but I finished in April, 2011. I enrolled in college in May, 2011 and I am still going. I learned so much throughout my life. I met people who believed in me and were always there for support. Im thankful for that.
I wish the meeting would have been held earlier and possible more options could have been addressed. Overall a great experience, just wish it would have been sooner.
I am the first family to be involved with Wraparound in my county. I'm not sure what any of us expected when we first started out but as we have gotten to know one another and to work as a group, I have gained so much help and hope from working with my group. In the beginning I felt so alone and didn't know where to start but now I feel that we have come so far in the last year. Wraparound is a place where I feel safe, where I can laugh or cry if I need to. I would never have known where to go or how to find the help I needed to be raising my grandson, who has had trauma in his life that no child should have to go through. When I first got my grandson home, he was a very frightened little boy that had been through so much and had lost so much. I too had been through a trauma that most people have never had to go through. My Wraparound group has helped me find ways to help my grandson and has helped me to get through the fear and hurt that I was feeling. They have been supportive and understanding and I know that my grandson and I have both come along way with the help of my Wraparound group. With their help I am more focused on what needs to be done and they have shown me where to go to find the help I need. My grandson and I have grown so much in the last year with the help and support of my Wraparound group. My grandson has gone from being that frightened little boy that he was, to a little boy that is doing well in school, and feels safe and has learned to trust again. He now has an over amount of self esteem and thinks he can save the world. I was someone that was so shattered by the events that I had been through and I felt that it was me against the world. I knew that I needed to protect my grandson and my Wraparound group has given me the tools to do that. We still have a very large hurdle to get past coming in the near future, and I know that my group with be with me every step of the way. I don't know where I would be today if I had not been able to become involved with the Wraparound program. My group has been supportive, and a life saver to me. I know that not only has my grandson grown and thrived with their help but, I too have grown with their help. I look forward to continuing to work with them and being able to overcome the things that are still in my road through life. I no longer feel alone in a battle that I didn't know how to fight on my own. I know that if I am having a bad day I can pick up a phone and contact someone that understands and knows what I am feeling. Thank you all so very much for being willing to be there for my grandson and myself. Thank you!
Im disappointed that [my grandson] is not responding to all the efforts everyone is putting forth. Im hoping something can happen soon before someone gets hurt or he hurts himself. Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 46
I would like to say a few words about the Wraparound Program. I have been in and out of the system since I was 12 years old. I had an extremely rough childhood. I am 21 years old now, with a four year old son as a single mother. I never knew who I was or who I could be until I got involved with the Wraparound Process. My facilitator and team members have helped me discover myself and have helped me realize that I am a good person and I can be whatever I want to be as long as I believe in myself. Wraparound has given me help through a lot of troubles that I have had and also though me skills that I can use throughout my whole life. I am very thankful that I do have Wraparound and it is most definitely something I would recommend to anybody! Thank you.
My family appreciated your time and efforts to help us. The FIRST meeting was extremely effective and I appreciated everyones feedback.
ISST Youth Participant

I was referred to juvenile services in September, 2011. At that time I was placed on home detention status and very quickly proved I could complete my goals and succeed in the program. During the month of October I was removed from home detention and placed on tracking services due to outstanding behavior. I have been working with my mentor consistently, attending school regularly, reporting to my tracker on time daily, and remaining drug free. I was in the local newspaper in October for my interest and efforts in the boxing program introduced to me by my mentor. I have proven I can take accountability for my actions and am interested in continuing on a new path I have created for my life.
IOG Agency Participant/State Agency Collaborative Management Participant

I have been involved in the IOG and House Bill 1451 meetings for about 18 months. I wish I had understood the value and had been involved from the beginning. This is a wonderful group of people to work with. First, it is just fun! Everyone seems to enjoy working with other on the team. Everyone has a common purpose and goal to make the lives of youth and families in the County better. However that looks, and whatever the agency does, they come together to achieve one purpose. The IOG has helped foster the sense of community within the County. I like the inclusiveness of the group. Every agency and group that is represented is encouraged to be involved and to have a voice. The leaders work effectively to draw people and agencies into the group. Youth are encouraged to participate. It is good to have the perspective of youth when this team makes spending and policy decisions that affect them. It is great to see their leadership skills being developed.
Page 47

When I was asked to serve on the original CMP State Steering Committee, little did I know that I would not only still be there as the family organization representative, but I would also be serving as the Family Voice and Choice Committee Co-Chair. Working as the TA Coordinator for the CO Federation of Families for Childrens Mental Health has allowed me to move from being in the family member role, advocating for my own son, to representing a family-driven state organization. Ive never really stopped being that parent, struggling to be valued and having my comments listened to. The difference is that now I am no longer at a table advocating for my own child, but instead, advocating for other families and their children. Reflecting upon my experiences as a parent and a family advocate, Ive come to realize that changes cannot be made by any one group alone. The CMPs emphasis on interagency collaboration provided an opportunity to promote families and youth becoming an integral part of this collaborative concept. Just one example of how this mattered to me is that by being part of the FVC Committee, I was able to impact how the CMP measured family and youth involvement on CMP governing boards. My concluding message is to never question the importance and value of family and youth participation. The FVC Committee demonstrates that by encouraging these collaborations amazing things happen!
For years we spun our wheels trying to get familys needs met within our county. As a school filled with at-risk students we were the ones to be caught in the middle of agencies failing to meet needs, redundantly meeting needs, or competitively meeting needs. It did not work. We have partnered with HB 1451 since its inception and have seen a dramatic shift in the way business is done within the county. Collaboration has become the norm. Agencies have increased their support of one another. And schools, my world, has been blessed by the work. My students have a place on the board to speak into the adult world and make a difference. The adults have looked to them for understanding and guidance. My students have not only been better supported when in need by agencies, but also they have found a place in society to take responsibility for the world they live in. For that alone I am a proud partner with HB 1451.
ISST Agency Participants

The Colorado Department of Education has identified our high school as an At-Risk Education Campus, which means that over 95% of our student body has documented abuse, addictions, or adjudicated factors. Working with HB1451 has been instrumental in providing me with networking support to help align the tools and resources available to assist struggling families in the midst of crisis situations. With current economic difficulties rampant in our county, we have seen a drastic increase in the number of families who are struggling to meet their basic needs. These drastic times are taxing and very detrimental to many of our families. As a partner with HB1451, I have been able to work more efficiently and effectively with key members in support agencies within the community to bring resources and support to our families. I have found this unified approach of supporting families to be invaluable in my ability to bring hope and encouragement to my families in dire need and desperate times. The teamwork and collaboration with experts in local Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 48

agencies provides me the opportunity to collaborate and activate action plans that bring strength-based support programs to my students and their families, which in turn helps them to identify the resources they need to help them become sufficient and successful in their lives after times of crisis pass.
I would like to inform any Human Services Department and the agencies they work with on behalf of the clients that request assistance in any form, that the HB1451/High Fidelity Wraparound Program is a huge asset. The Wraparound Program pulls together all of the resources that will assist the family with their immediate needs, as well as, their long term goals. When a meeting is done with the family and the agencies involved with the family this helps with all communications and questions that the family and/or the agencies have. This also helps with the family getting more sufficient services from all the agencies they are involved with. The other benefit that I have found in the last four years of working with the Wraparound Program is that we have had a reduction in our countys child welfare out-of-home placements. Families have gone from immediate crisis, such as: homelessness, no food, no job, to help within 24 to 48 hours. Once the immediate crisis is addressed then the Wraparound team addresses the next most immediate and long-term issues for the family. The family participates in the entire process as it all about their voice and choice. I believe that this helps with the best outcome for the family.
Page 49
Chapter 11: Ways to Get Involved in the Colorado Collaborative Management Efforts
Please contact the Collaborative Management Program Administrator at the Colorado Department of Human Services for information on how to participate in the following opportunities: State Steering Committee Incentive Formula Committee CCYIS Committee: Colorado Child and Youth Information Sharing Family Voice and Choice Committee Evaluation Sub-Committee Wraparound Coalition Crossover Youth Practice Model
Page 50
Chapter 12: Sustainability

One of the primary challenges of implementing a county CMP is long-term sustainability. Though participating counties benefit from earned incentive fund distributions, these funds are typically not sufficient in and of themselves to cover the program budget. As a result, counties must strategically determine how to leverage existing resources in each partnering agency, communicate accurately and appropriately to potential funders to increase revenue, capitalize on cost-shifting opportunities, and develop a competitive business model to ensure program longevity. Options to consider in working toward this sustainable model include, but may not be limited to: federal, state, and foundation grant funding; philanthropic donations from community members; various funding streams within partnering organizations; and fees for service. While the above options can augment the CMP budget, it is important that coordinators and IOG members consider the benefits and challenges presented by each when determining the method of sustainability for the program. Because collaboration, cost-effectiveness, improved efficiency, and integrated services have become priorities at both the federal and state level, grant funding provides a great deal of benefit to programs such as the CMP. Funds have been awarded to support the planning and development of infrastructure, the delivery of direct services, and the operational costs of maintaining a program. Grant funding is not without its limitations, however, as there is often less flexibility in how the funds can be used, a limitation on the number of subsequent awards an organization can receive from one funder, and a requirement that the organization have a previously developed plan for sustaining the program after the grant awards cease. In addition, economic challenges tend to reduce the amount of funds available for awards from federal, state, and local agencies, and from foundations. It is recommended that the IOG work toward a lesser dependence upon temporary funding streams such as grants. Donations from philanthropic members of the community can aid a CMP in efforts to achieve sustainability. CMPs are more likely to gain the financial support from these individuals if three things exist: 1) a personal (and oftentimes painful) experience with and/or a passion for children and youth who need integrated multi-agency services in order to be successful; 2) a strong, positive relationship between the donor and the coordinator or a member of the IOG; and 3) confidence in the integrity and accountability of the broader organization. Receiving donations from philanthropic individuals can present challenges in terms of potential expectations placed on the IOG by the donor. In some cases, these expectations may contradict established policies and processes of the CMP. While it is not recommended that IOGs decline philanthropic donations, it is recommended that members commit to maintaining the integrity and fidelity of the adopted ISST service delivery model. The budgets of partnering agencies are typically made up of various funding streams, each with its own requirements and restrictions. This does not preclude the use of some funds to support the CMP. It is recommended that coordinators and IOG members engage in strategic discussions surrounding the appropriate, legal use of available funds in partnering agency budgets. Examples of funding streams that can be used on a limited basis to support CMP services include Senate Bill 94 funds, diversion funds, etc. It is critical that coordinators not assume that partnering agency funding streams can be used to support the CMP. It is responsibility of agency representatives to ensure the appropriate legal use of funds. Though it may not be the sole solution to ensuring long-term sustainability, a fee for service model can be considered as a means for generating revenue. In its simplest form, referral agencies can pay a fee to Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012 Page 51

the CMP for the coordination of care. This may also require the payment of a fee to service providers, however. While it is desirable for service providers to receive compensation through state/federal program funds, Medicaid, indigent support, private insurance, or private pay, many counties are providing services to individuals who do not qualify for or cannot afford coverage. Before embarking on this option, it is recommended that IOG members and coordinators seek input from business planning professionals. Regardless of the method(s) by which CMPs obtain the funds to cover the budget, success will not be optimal without first identifying exactly what the CMP is working to sustain (i.e. the model, the services, etc.) or without consistent core messaging and the accurate communication about and marketing of the program. It is important to remember that marketing must target multiple stakeholder categories. The initial stages of marketing must occur internally. This will ensure that IOG members and the staff of each partnering organization understand the purpose, policies, processes, and value of the CMP and are able to consistently communicate the core message to colleagues and members of the community. External marketing is equally dependent upon communication of the core message but is targeted toward potential funders, clients, and the community at large. The primary challenge that is faced when marketing the CMP is developing a method of communication that is specific to each stakeholder category. Finally, the use of strategic marketing; resource leveraging; and fund seeking through grant, philanthropic, and budgetary opportunities is not limited to county CMPs. It is recommended that IOGs seek opportunities to engage in cross-county collaborative and strategic efforts to ensure sustainability and provide services. Further, the State Steering Committee should commit to the development of strategies to collaboratively seek funding to support both state and county initiatives associated with the Collaborative Management Program.
Hicks, D., Larson, C., Nelson, C., Olds, D., & Johnston, E. (2008). The influence of collaboration on program outcomes: The Colorado Nurse Family Partnership. Evaluation Review, 32, 453-477.
i
Page 52
Appendix A: MOU Template
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PURSUANT TO HOUSE BILL 04-1451 This Agreement is made by and between the _________________ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN/SOCIAL SERVICES (Social Services), located at __________________________________; the ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT PROBATION DEPARTMENT (Probation), AND THE _________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Judicial), located at __________________________________; the _____________________ HEALTH DEPARTMENT (Health), located at __________________________________; the ___________________________ SCHOOL DISTRICT(S) (School District(s)), located at __________________________________; the _________________ MENTAL HEALTH CENTER (Mental Health), a non-profit corporation whose principal place of business is located at __________________________________; the BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION (BHO), located at ____________________; the DIVISION OF YOUTH CORRECTIONS (DYC), located at __________________________________; DESIGNATED MANAGED SERVICE ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROVISION OF TREATMENT SERVICES FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE PURSUANT TO SECTION 251-206.5, C.R.S. (MSO), located at __________________________________; COMMUNITY DOMESTIC ABUSE PROGRAM PURSUANT TO 26-7.5 C.R.S. IF REPRESENTATION FROM SUCH PROGRAM IS AVAILABLE, located at __________________________________. If applicable, add other agencies with address and name by which they will be referred here, such as Family Advocacy Organization. Each signatory to this agreement is referred to as a Party, and collectively as Parties. WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has determined that a collaborative approach to the delivery of services to children and families may lead to the provision of more appropriate and effective delivery of services; and WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has determined that such collaboration may ultimately allow the agencies providing treatment and services to provide appropriate services to children and families within existing consolidated resources; and WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has determined that it is in the best interests of the State of Colorado to establish a collaborative management of multi-agency services provided to children and families; and WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 24-1.9-101, et.seq. authorizes the county department of social services to enter memorandums of understanding with specific agencies for the purpose of promoting a collaborative system of local-level interagency oversight groups and individualized service and support teams to coordinate and manage the provision of services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services; and
MOU / 1 of 7
WHEREAS, the undersigned desire to enter into an agreement for the collaboration of services to families and children who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services; and WHEREAS, the undersigned agencies include all of the agencies required by statute; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: The Agreement. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU or Agreement) is contained in this writing, which consists of ____ pages and __ Attachments. Term of the Agreement. This MOU shall be effective beginning _____________ and shall expire _________________ (one year). I. Renewal of MOU. The Parties may renew this MOU annually subject to mutual agreement. Each Party reserves the right to elect not to renew the MOU after expiration of the current term. If any Party intends not to renew the MOU, it should give notice of such intent at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the Agreement. II. Population to be Served. The persons who will be recipients of services under this MOU shall be children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services. This population of persons is defined as follows: Here insert the total number of children to be served and include the number of open child welfare involvements that are anticipated to be served for the county or region. Include the working definition to be used for purposes of this MOU. For example: children and families of children with complex needs. Complex needs are defined as needing or having involvement with multiple systems or agencies, and requiring supports or services in areas that limit a childs independence and functioning and may impede a childs ability to participate in daily activities at home, school or in the community. Complex needs include, but are not limited to, the need for substantial services and supports to address the areas of: developmental, physical and mental health; substance abuse; risk and/or criminal behaviors; homelessness; domestic violence; and abuse/neglect. If the MOU applies to a region specify the region to be served. III. Services and Funding Sources. The Parties agree to provide the following specific services and subject to available funds, hereby identify the following funding sources for the provision of such services. (Services provided may include but are not limited to prevention, intervention, treatment, family preservation, family stabilization, out-ofhome-placement, services for children at imminent risk of out-of home placement, probation services, services for children with mental illness, public assistance, medical assistance, child welfare)
MOU / 2 of 7
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Social Services. Social Services will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contributions that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources. Probation. Probation will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution which will be funded from the following sources specify funding sources Health. Health will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources School District(s). School District will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources Mental Health. Mental Health will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources BHO. BHO will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources DYC. DYC will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources MSO. MSO will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources DV. DV will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources (OTHER) (OTHER) will be responsible for specify in detail, including identifying services, staff, in-kind contribution that will be funded from the following sources: specify funding sources
IV. Oversight group. The Parties agree that there is hereby created an Interagency Oversight Group, IOG, whose membership shall be comprised of a local representative of each Party to this MOU, each such Party having voting member status. Membership requirements are: specify membership requirements Officers of the IOG shall be selected by: Here insert procedure for selection of officers MOU / 3 of 7
Procedures for resolving disputes by a majority vote of those members authorized to vote are: specify procedures. In the event that the IOG identifies a need for a subcommittee group, the following process shall be followed for creation of such subcommittee: Here insert process for creation of a subcommittee. The MOU can also provide for nonvoting members to be included in the IOG including but not limited to representatives of local private sector entities and family members or caregivers of children and families who would benefit from multi-agency services. If such members are included specify their participation here. V. Collaborative Management Processes. The IOG shall establish a collaborative management process to be utilized by individualized service and support teams described below. The collaborative management process shall address risk sharing, resource pooling, performance expectations, outcome monitoring, and staff training in order to do the following: A. Reduce duplication and eliminate fragmentation of services provided to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services. B. Increase the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of services delivered to children and families who would benefit from multi-agency services., to achieve better outcomes; and C. Encourage cost sharing among service providers. VI. Individualized Service and Support Teams. The IOG is authorized to create individualized service and support teams, (hereinafter ISST) to develop a service and support plan and provide services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services. VII. Authorization to Contribute Resources and Funding. Each Party to this MOU represents that it has the authority to approve the contribution of time, resources, and funding to solve problems identified by the IOG in order to create a seamless, collaborative system of delivering multi-agency services to children and families. The resources and funding to be contributed are identified on page 2, Section III. VIII. Reinvestment of Moneys Saved. The IOG will create a procedure, subject to the approval of the head or director of each Party agency, to allow any moneys resulting from waivers granted by the federal government and any state general fund savings realized as a result of the implementation of services provided to children and families who would benefit from multi-agency services and families who would benefit from multi-agency services. Pursuant to this MOU to be reinvested by the Parties to this agreement in order to provide appropriate services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services. _________________ County DHS elects to: retain the non-county share of the under-expenditure of our general fund county child welfare block allocation or participate in surplus distribution for SFY 2012-13.
MOU / 4 of 7
IX. Performance-Based Measures. The Parties hereby determine that they will/will not attempt to meet performance measures specified by the Department of Human Services (DHS) and elements of collaborative management as defined by rule of the State Board of Human Services, (State Board). If Parties agree to meet said measures and elements, include the following if not, delete: The IOG will create a procedure, subject to the approval of the head or director of each Party agency, to allow incentive moneys received by the DHS, and allocated pursuant to Section 24-1.9-104, C.R.S. to be reinvested by the Parties to provide appropriate services to children and families who would benefit from multi-agency services.. X. Confidentiality Compliance. Parties agree that State and Federal law concerning confidentiality shall be followed by the Parties and IOG. Any records used or developed by the IOG or its members or by the ISST that relate to a particular person are to be kept confidential and may not be released to any other person or agency, except as provided by law. Parties may want to indicate here that a single release of information will be developed that covers the confidentiality needs of all Parties and will then only need to be signed by children and families who would benefit from multi-agency services. one time to better facilitate the exchange of information. XI. Termination of MOU. The Parties acknowledge that withdrawal from this MOU of any statutorily required Party will result in the automatic termination of this Agreement and termination of the collaborative system of delivery of services developed hereunder. The withdrawing Party shall assist the other Parties to achieve an orderly dissolution of the collaborative system with as little disruption as possible in the delivery of services provided to children and families who would benefit from multi-agency services. A. Withdrawal/Termination. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement at any time by providing 30 days written notice to all other Parties. B. For Loss of Funds. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement, or modify the level of its commitment of services and resources hereunder, effective immediately, in the event of loss or reduction of resources from its funding source identified herein. Any Party withdrawing due to loss of funds will provide notice of withdrawal, in writing within 30 days.
MOU / 5 of 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their authorized representatives have executed this Memorandum of Understanding effective for the dates written above.
THE _______________ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN/SOCIAL SERVICES By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
THE ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
THE________ PROBATION DEPARTMENT By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
THE _______________ HEALTH DEPARTMENT By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
THE _______________ SCHOOL DISTRICT By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
THE _______________ MENTAL HEALTH CENTER By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
MOU / 6 of 7
THE _______________ BHO By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
THE DIVISION OF YOUTH CORRECTIONS - REGION: _______________________ By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
THE_____________________ MSO By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
THE_____________________ COMMUNITY DOMESTIC ABUSE PROGRAM By: _ ____________________________________________ Date_________________ Its: ______________________________________________
MOU / 7 of 7
Appendix B: Client Tracking Form
Collaborative Management Program Individualized Service and Support Team (ISST) Client Tracking Form
CLIENT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
First Name: ___________________ Middle Name: __________________ Last Name: ____________________ Date of Birth: __/__/____ Gender: Male Female Transgender Is the youth of Hispanic or Latino origin? Yes No Not Sure County of Residence: _______ Race of youth: White Black American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Multi-racial Other (please specify): ______________ Unknown Prefer not to disclose
CLIENT PARTICIPANT ASSESSMENT
Date of initial ISST Meeting: ISST name: ______________ Person completing form: ___________________ ____/_____/_____ Youth is involved in the following systems or organizations at time of enrollment in ISST (check all that apply): DHS Child Welfare DHS-CW open involvement if yes, please enter: o DHS Trails ID: ______________ Other child welfare (no open involvement) (please specify): ____________ Health/Mental Health/Other Health Mental health/behavioral health organization or services Health department program Other health program (please specify): __________ Education: School-based social, emotional, or behavioral services Special education/IEP Truancy program Counseling/at-risk services Other school-based program (please specify): ____________ Referral Source (please select all that apply): Juvenile Justice Division of Youth Corrections Detention/Commitment - if yes, please enter: o DYC Trails ID: ______________ Division of Youth Corrections Parole - if yes, please enter: o DYC Trails ID: ______________ Judicial and/or Probation if yes, please enter: o Judicial ML number: ___________ Diversion SB-94 program if yes, please enter: o Trails ID: ______________ Other juvenile justice program or agency (please specify): _____________
Domestic violence program Other system or organization

(please specify): _____________________
DHS Child Welfare Mental/behavioral health organization Health department School Division of Youth Corrections Judicial and/or Probation
Diversion SB-94 program Law enforcement (police, sheriff, etc.) Domestic violence Self/parent Other source (please specify): ________________
Page 1
Created by OMNI Institute June 2011
Collaborative Management Program Individualized Service and Support Team (ISST) Client Tracking Form Systems, organizations, agencies, and/or providers involved in ISST meeting (select all that apply): DHS Child Welfare Diversion Mental/behavioral health organization SB-94 Program Health department Family advocate/family facilitator (Paid) School Other family support person/friend for family/youth Division of Youth Corrections Other (please specify): __________________ Judicial and/or Probation Other (please specify): __________________ Please indicate the # of family members (other than Did family member(s) attend ISST meeting? If yes, please the youth) who were served as part of this ISST indicate which family members attended (check all that apply): process (i.e., family members who are specifically Mother included in the integrated service plan): __________ Father Youth Does this youth have a sibling(s) who are multi Legal guardian system involved and will be served as part of the Grandparent integrated plan (i.e., a separate client tracking form Foster parent has been completed for this sibling)? Yes No Sibling Other family member Name of primary guardian(s) who attended ISST Not applicable no family members present meeting: ____________________________ Was an integrated multi-agency service plan developed?
Yes
No
Which agencies or providers have a role in delivering services from the plan (check all that apply)? DHS Child Welfare Diversion Mental/behavioral health organization SB-94 Health department Other (please specify): __________________ School Other (please specify): __________________ Division of Youth Corrections Other (please specify): ___________________ Judicial and/or Probation Which of the following outcomes are potential target outcomes/treatment goals for this family (check all that apply)? Prevent new involvements in CW system Prevent abuse (no substantiated abuse finding) Reduce number of moves in out-of-home placement Discharge from out-of-home placement to permanent home Successful completion of: probation parole Prevent juvenile justice involvement/prevent additional juvenile justice involvement None of the above Date of exit from CMP services (if available): _____/_____/_____ Reason case closed/youth exit? (if available) Successfully completed Cannot locate/contact Family choice Unsuccessful Family moved Other (please specify): _____________________ This space is provided if you would like to include any comments (optional): ____________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Created by OMNI Institute June 2011
Page 2
Appendix C: Sample Release of Information (ROI)
WELD COUNTY
COMMON INFORMED CONSENT TO RELEASE FORM Purpose: To coordinate and manage the provision of services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services and to reduce the redundancy of completing multiple consent forms. Each agency is responsible for ensuring that their staff members are knowledgeable of confidentiality regulations pertaining to information sharing. I. Format The Consent to Release form is three pages in length.
II. Process A. Consent process Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative must sign. Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative receives a copy of form and any attachments. Form expires at the end of one year after signature date. Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative must complete new form. B. Completing the FormComplete the form with the appropriate persons in the language they are able to understand. Explain the purpose of the form. Read the form with the Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative. Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative must indicate approval of each information category with initials on the lines provided, and must sign and date the last page. Provide a copy of the form and any attachments to the Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative and recommend he or she share the form with agencies he or she uses. Staff and agency explaining the form to Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative must sign. C. Information Sharing Agency making referral for services provides copy of the form, and/or: Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative provides his or her copy of the form to the agency. Request for Information form is completed by agency making request, accompanied by copy of form. Agency requesting information notifies Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative when/what/where information is requested and confirms such notification on the Request for Information form. D. Changing Consent- Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative may change consent at any time. Adding Agencies Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative may add or delete agencies to/from the consent by filling out the Additional Agencies portion on page 2 of the form. Deleting Agencies Deletions from the agency list on page 3 of the form may be shown by a line through the agency name with an initial and date by the Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative. Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative provides revised form to currently involved agencies.
WELD COUNTY INFORMED CONSENT TO RELEASE FORM AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
I, ________________________________________, (Name) on behalf of myself and/or my children and/or wards, _______________________________________ _________________ ________________________________, (Name of child/ward) (date of birth) (Last 4 Digits of Soc. Sec. No.) _______________________________________ _________________ ________________________________, (Name of child/ward) (date of birth) (Last 4 Digits of Soc. Sec. No.) _______________________________________ _________________ ________________________________, (Name of child/ward) (date of birth) (Last 4 Digits of Soc. Sec. No.) _______________________________________ _________________ ________________________________, (Name of child/ward) (date of birth) (Last 4 Digits of Soc. Sec. No.) ______________________________________________, (Relationship to the child)
authorize(s) the agencies listed below to release and share among themselves the following confidential information: _____ Child Welfare Information, e.g., social worker case file; medical, psychological and education consultation reports, court reports, relinquishment and adoption records. _____ Juvenile Justice Information, e.g., arrest and criminal records, probation records, social and clinical studies, court reports, law enforcement records in general. _____ Mental Health Information* place check mark in box next to type(s) and format(s) of information to be released: enrollment status; treatment goals; brief report outlining progress in treatment; current NRBH medical staff prescribed medications; psychological testing results Information may be shared: Verbally Written _____ Education Information, e.g., to include standardized test scores, grades, report cards, attendance, IEPs, counseling, special education, learning disability and diagnoses related thereto, disciplinary, health, and social work records and reports. _____ Medical Information, e.g., records and reports of patient history, diagnoses, evaluations, treatment, including those related to developmental disability (with the exception of HIV and AIDSrelated information). _____ Vocational Rehabilitation Information, e.g., records and reports of disabilities, evaluations, and recommendations. _____ Other: _______________________________________________________________________ with exception of the following: ____________________________________________________ _____ Confidential information authorized for release above may be shared by way of email.
The Consent to Release includes any health information or medical records which may be a part of the abovestated records, protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 45 C.F.R. Pts. 160 & 164. I understand such records cannot be disclosed without my written consent, unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. I understand that none of the agencies listed herein may condition my treatment on whether or not I sign this form. 1
Purpose of Consent to Release: This Consent to Release is intended for the purpose of allowing the release of information critical to allow certain agencies, part of the committee formed pursuant to 04 H.B. 1451 (1451 Committee), and pursuant to memorandums of understanding between those agencies and the Weld County Department of Social Services, to coordinate and manage the provision of services to children and families who would benefit from integrated multi-agency services. This Consent to Release authorizes the sharing of information among the listed entities, many or all of which are authorized to view such information pursuant to applicable state or federal law. This Consent to Release automatically ends one year from the date I sign this form, or when the sharing of information is no longer needed to manage or provide services to me, my child(ren), or wards, or when I revoke my consent, whichever is sooner, except to the extent that the program or person authorized to make the disclosure has already acted in reliance on this consent. I understand I may revoke this authorization at any time by signing the revocation statement below and providing this document to the agencies listed in this Consent to Release. Agencies and providers who are listed in this Consent to Release and request information under this release may use a copy or facsimile (FAX) of this form in place of the original signed consent form. I agree that this information may be re-disclosed to all agencies listed if necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Consent to Release. This Consent to Release has been explained to me. I have read it (or it was read to me) and understand its provisions. I have been given a reasonable amount of time to ask questions and consider whether to permit sharing of this information. I hereby willingly agree to share of information as described above. I have received a copy of this Consent to Release.
Dated: _____________________________________ Signature of Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative Also known as: ______________________________ Last 4 Digits of Soc. Sec. No.: __________________ Date of Birth: _______________________________ Dated: __________________________________ Signature of Youth or Adolescent (*Also need signature of parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative if under 15 years of age) Last 4 Digits of Soc. Sec. No. ________________ Date of Birth: _____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ (Staff person facilitating this authorization) Title/Agency________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: If you choose to modify or revoke this Consent to Release, you must sign below and provide to the appropriate agency(ies). I hereby revoke this Consent to Release. Signed: _______________________________ Date: _________________________________ I hereby modify this Consent to Release as shown. Signed: ________________________________ Date: __________________________________
Authorization of Additional Releases for Agencies: I, _________________________________, ______________________________________, authorize the addition of the following agency(ies) to this consent form. Agency Name(s):___________________________________________________________________________________________ Effective Date: ____________________________ Date of Signature: ________________________
Signature of Parent, Guardian or Authorized Representative: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Youth or Adolescent
Witness to signature: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Representing: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
WELD COUNTY INFORMED CONSENT TO RELEASE FORM AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Participating Agencies
Effective Date: January 1, 2005

School District RE-1 School District RE-8 School District R2-J School District RE-11J School District RE-5J School District 50J Div. of Youth Corrections North Range Behavioral Health Weld County Dept. of Human Services Ault Police Department Eaton Police Department Firestone Police Department Greeley Police Department Lochbuie Police Department UNC Police Department Johnstown Police Department School District RE-7 School District RE-2 School District RE-10J School District RE-4 School District 27J School District 6 19 Judicial District, District Attorney Northeast Behavioral Health, LLC
th th
List Revised: Sept 14, 2010

School District RE-1J School District RE-9 School District RE-3J School District RE-12 School District RE-20J Court Appointed GAL Centennial BOCES Weld County DPHE Dacono Police Department Evans Police Department Ft Lupton Police Department LaSalle Police Department Platteville Police Department Gilcrest Police Department Youth & Family Connections
19 Judicial Dist. Courts, including Probation Colorado State Patrol Erie Police Department Frederick Police Department Kersey Police Department Milliken Police Department Windsor Police Department Weld County Sheriff

Complete CMP Handbook June 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Complete CMP Handbook June 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complete CMP Handbook June 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of Colorado

Collaborative Management Program House Bill 04-1451 Coordinators Handbook

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Commonly Used Acronyms

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Building and Sustaining Collaboration, an Introduction

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Collaborative Management Program

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Social Services Judicial/ Probation Division of Youth Corrections

Managed Service Organization

Behavioral Health Organization

Domestic Violence Provider

*Other community partners may be added to the IOG.

Goals of the CMP

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Allie Miller Kate France Smiles Robin Smart Steffan Soto

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Chapter 2: Administrative Structure

CMP State Administrator

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

b) Incentive Formula Sub-committee

c) Family Voice and Choice Committee

Family Voice and Choice Committee Goals

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

d) Information Sharing Sub-Committee

CCYIS Anticipated Outcomes

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Chapter 3: CMP Best Practices & Getting Started

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

Promising Practices Collaboration

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

seek to hire or appoint a full-time IOG coordinator.

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012

Collaborative Management Program Handbook

See Chapter 7 for detailed suggestions.

create transdisciplinary teams.

Version 3 - Last revised: 6/1/2012