Wraparound Model
Projects' Lessons Learned

Introduction

Public Safety Canada's (PS) National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) funds the implementation and impact evaluations of select crime prevention projects. These impact evaluations are conducted by external, third party evaluators, who are hired by the project administrators. For projects that choose to undertake an impact evaluation, funding is provided for this work via the project's grant and contribution agreement. Results and learnings from these project evaluations are often synthesized and shared with stakeholders to develop the knowledge base about what works in crime prevention in Canada.

Wraparound Model

The Wraparound model is an intensive care management program for youth with serious or complex emotional, behavioural, and/or mental health conditions, whose needs have not been adequately addressed by other available services alone^{Footnote 1}. Instead of leaving youth and their families to deal with multiple service providers on their own, the Wraparound model provides a coordinated approach to the needs of the youth, their family, and other involved parties (e.g., court counsellor, teacher, social worker, physician, support networks, etc.).

Although Wraparound's principles and phases should remain central and consistent, the program is not "one size fits all" or manualized. Implementation can be adapted to reflect local contexts, resources, and specific participant or community needs.

This product presents learnings from 11 Wraparound project impact evaluations funded by the NCPS between 2008 and 2019.

Methodology

Content from the impact evaluations was coded thematically using qualitative analysis software, MAXQDA, to identify key project challenges and recommendations^{Footnote 2}.

Results — Key Project Challenges

Process Challenges

Project design and implementation challenges including management/administration issues, unsafe working conditions, unclear or inconsistent practices (referenced in 9 of 11 project evaluations).

• Inconsistent referrals and intake practices was the most commonly cited challenge (mentioned in 5 evaluations).

Examples:

• "The program faced recruitment and uptake challenges [by] having too many points of entry… each staff sharing the responsibility of completing [referral intakes] resulted in inconsistent and conflicting information being given to potential participants."
• "During the first year, the majority of referrals...were not eligible. In addition, the assessment of the appropriateness of referrals… often occurred after youth had been on the wait-list for a lengthy period of time."

Recommendations:

The evaluations offered strategies to help mitigate these challenges:

Participation Challenges

Participant recruitment, engagement and retention challenges (referenced in 9 of 11 project evaluations).

• Participant attrition/irregular contact (4) and difficulties finding participants meeting eligibility criteria (4) were the most commonly cited challenges.

Examples:

• "The … program experienced challenges recruiting participants (and their families) from the target population and maintaining contact with them over time as their participation was voluntary."
• "Staff also expressed difficulty in recruiting youth from the target age range. Reasons cited for this difficulty included a limited number of youth in the community that met recruitment criteria, and resistance by high-risk youth to participate in the program."

Recommendations:

The evaluations offered strategies to help mitigate these challenges:

Fidelity^{Footnote 3} Challenges

Challenges implementing the projects following Wraparound principles and phases (referenced in 8 of 11 project evaluations)^{Footnote 4}.

Examples:

• "In general, the 5-year funding period proved to be insufficient time to effectively deliver and evaluate high fidelity wraparound – a brand new model within a complex collaborative. Youth Facilitators began to feel comfortable with the model in Year 4, but at that point began working with the final cohort of youth. The staff then began to look for other employment opportunities. Five years does not provide adequate time to learn, implement, and test a new model."
• "Wraparound facilitators … found, early on, that the youth they served were not comfortable with a high fidelity style of meeting, instead preferring small meetings with one or two supports (formal and/or informal) and the Wraparound facilitator. The target groups for the [project] tended to be older youth with some degree of gang affiliation and/or a history of criminality, whereas the more historical and traditional style of Wraparound meeting was developed to serve children with mental health issues and their families."

Recommendations:

The evaluations offered strategies to help mitigate these challenges:

Partnership Challenges

Challenges involving partners' networking and interactions (referenced in 8 of 11 project evaluations).

• Negative working relationships was the most commonly cited challenge (mentioned in 6 evaluations).

Examples:

• "Concerns [between project staff and host agency] included poor communication, lack of understanding and trust, budgetary problems, and professional conduct issues. These issues are commonly experienced by small grass-roots agencies [when new programs are implemented]."
• "[There was] reluctance of service providers to meet in teams or participate in community committees. This unduly burdens [project staff with] coordinating services and advocating with different organizations for the resources youth and families require in order to prevent future problems."

Recommendations:

The evaluations offered strategies to help mitigate these challenges:

Staff Challenges

Challenges involving staff hiring, training and retention (referenced in 8 of 11 evaluations).

• Heavy workloads were the most frequently cited challenge (mentioned in 7 evaluations).

Examples:

• "When taking into account the meeting time (bi-weekly meetings, additional meetings that are occasionally required), data collection requirements, intensive wrap training and bi-weekly coaching, it can be challenging for Facilitators to make time for those components and ensure that they continue to meet with youth and facilitate the wrap process. This is especially true when a number of these factors occur within a short amount of time."
• "Most positions [in the project] required that staff work very late evenings, week-ends and holidays. With the exception of the Team Leader and Circle Keeper positions, typical shifts of other staff involved being on call and responding to emergencies between midnight and 4 or 5 a.m. This took a toll on staff, both in their professional and personal lives, and also resulted in recruitment challenges and high staff turnover".

Recommendations:

The evaluations offered strategies to help mitigate these challenges:

Date modified:

2026-02-03