The purpose of the Family and Youth Engagement
Best Practices Report and this overview is to make recommendations based on what has worked for family, youth,
including transition aged youth that will support best practices for the full inclusion of the family and, youth
sector within public child family systems. Download a copy
of the full report
Report Overview
CMHS Family Youth Liaison surveys those receiving services each quarter on the subject of
engagement
[i]. Represented below are the results of 168
participants.
Respondents were asked if Children’s Mental Health Services, other public child-family serving agencies or
their/their child’s provider has tried to engage them, a majority (76%) of respondents answered no. Those that had
been asked to be involved were then asked if they felt the process in which they were asked to participate was
successful.
55 % responded, “No it was not
successful,”
45% responded, “Yes it was successful.”
Barriers identified:
26% Engagement approaches that do not explain purpose and benefits for
involvement. 24% Time interferes with Work/School, 11% Day/Family Care, 14% Would not know how or what they
could contribute, 10% Transportation.
Factors that made previous engagement successful: 42% Peer invited and explained purpose, 18%,
Time worked, 39% There was a coordinated point of contact (hub) 1% It was their job, .5% Clear
expectations.
Factors that made previous engagement unsuccessful: 37% Time of function interfered with my
family/work/school obligations, 31% Did not understand what was expected, 18% did not have transportation to the
location of event, 9% needed to be paid for their time, 5% felt they did not know what they could
contribute.
How would you like to
be engaged: 21% Peer or someone I know, 14% identify what benefits the engagement has for me or others, 17%
having a point of contact/hub. 13% Contact or let me participate using email or internet, 6% Clear
expectations.
|
Recommendations
|
Approach
|
|
Organizations must have a
coordinating hub or point of contact assigned to their family/youth engagement and partnership
efforts
|
Assign a senior management
staff as the coordinating hub so that all programs within your agency may
benefit
|
|
Get to know Family/Youth’s
aspirations; whenever possible, assign them work that fits with their personal growth
plan
|
From the point of intake
and throughout your agency’s relationship with your “clients” let them know your agency wants their
partnership. Continually let them know your agency inclusion functions. Ask them how they might
want to get involved in these functions. Be prepared to offer support and assistance in identifying
how their involvement will benefit them and potentially others.
|
|
Organizations need to
offer various means of engagement
|
Not all people will have
the capacity to participate in meetings, committees, or in other like
settings. Provide a variety of ways “clients” may participate on projects. Examples:
Call clients, ask their point of view, provide message boards, continually promote your
agency’s variety of avenues for involvement and ask ‘clients” how they might want to give
input or get involved.
|
|
Continuous review by organizations’ leadership, management, line staff and
family/youth (clients) of the organizations’ policy (s) on: A) operationalizing a family-centered
practice. B) family/youth (client) satisfaction; and C) Community, Family Youth and Stakeholders
partnership
|
If your agency does not
have a quality review type panel/committee that holds representation from leadership thru “clients”
receiving services, establish one. This body should
review agency policies and make recommendations that adapt policies to meet the evolving needs of
clients, agency and community.
|
Advancement of a comprehensive community driven family centered
service delivery requires engagement of all stakeholder/sectors.
Membership in a sector is most likely the result of one’s employment/career. Membership in the Family/Youth
sector is the result of one’s life experience.
This, coupled with other unique factors, created challenges/barriers for the inclusion of this crucial
sector, County of San Diego Children’s Mental Health (CMHS) recognized the need
to support this sector’s engagement and established a coordinating hub for this sector’s involvement. This hub
operates similar to professional associations. Furthermore, CMHS continuously reviews and adapts their policies
and procedures with all stakeholders.
These two steps have contributed greatly to this sector’s engagement and
contribution in the progression of a comprehensive CMHS service delivery system. In 2009, the coordinating hub
supported family/youth sector representatives’ participation in over 650 policies and/or program administrative
functions which influence CMHS practices.
[i] We defined “engagement” for the
purpose of this report and surveys: Has CMHS or service providers identified you and/or requested your
point of view, thoughts, ideas for any or all of the following types of functions: Meetings, forums, task
forces committees, policy and other problem solving/decision making sessions, program evaluation and/or
practice review
|