Wraparound Discussions

Discussion Topics

WERT Learning Community (11)

WFI-EZ National Means in WrapTrack.net

May 24, 2016 | hquick@uw.edu

WERT has moved away from calculating combined scores across respondents for the WFI-EZ tool. We encourage sites not to calculate those kinds of scores either. We think that the experiences of youth, caregivers, and team members, and the perception of facilitators are all distinct components of wraparound fidelity, and that when you combine scores you wash out important differences.

If you would like to calculate a “total respondent” national mean, you could calculate the average of the four respondent-level means. However, this brings with it its own challenges. To reflect an accurate mean you would have to weight each average by the number of respondents nationally whose scores created the respondent-level means for each category (roughly those numbers are as follows: n=1071 facilitators, n= 1121 caregivers, n=443 youth, and n=557 team members). Without this step, creating a simple average of the 4 respondent-level means would skew the total average toward the averages of the categories with the most respondents, and therefore would not represent an accurate total-respondent mean.

There are several ways someone might calculate a “total” score in a situation like this: averaging each of the respondent-level averages, as suggested, weighing the scores by the number of respondents of each type (essentially putting everyone into a single pool), or first creating team-level averages and calculating means from there.

Each of these options has its own disadvantages, and we have decided that the most useful approach is to simply look at each of the scores separately. Please be reminded to view the Data Interpretation document on our website under the WrapTrack tab for Current Collaborators for more information on how to select respondent-level national means.

Leave a Reply

Check out our new tool, the TOM 2.0!

May 16, 2016 | hquick@uw.edu

WERT is excited to announce the revised Team Observation Measure called the TOM 2.0. WERT’s goal was to create a reliable and valid measure of adherence to the wraparound principles and key elements that is less burdensome and more sensitive to different elements of Wraparound practice implementation. In the revision, WERT was able to remove redundant items, make the language clearer and more consistent, remove non-essential items that show little variability on the original TOM, and separate the assessment of facilitation skills from fidelity to the Wraparound model.

Where the original TOM had 71 indicators across 20 items, the TOM 2.0 has 36 indicators across only 7 items. The TOM 2.0 is organized by the 5 Key elements, and includes indicators of meeting attendance, use of natural supports, facilitation, and outcomes based process. This aligns with the structure of the Wraparound Fidelity Index (WFI-EZ), our other widely-used fidelity assessment tool.

Helpful Tips

  • From our pilot testing we can conclude that differences in training level and who administers the tool will affect the score;
  • Ensuring observers are trained appropriately to complete observations, using the TOM 2.0 Manual and training PowerPoint will limit issues; and
  • Staying up-to-date with training by completing the quizzes and continuing to use the TOM 2.0 materials will ensure reliability and validity of the information collected.

For more information about the TOM 2.0 or to sign up as a collaborator to use the tool, please visit our website.

Leave a Reply

New WERT Website

December 29, 2015 | hquick@uw.edu

The Wraparound Evaluation and Research Team (WERT) at the University of Washington is excited to announce that we have renovated the WERT website!

The updated website offers an interactive slideshow to keep you informed of new developments in Wraparound, extensive information about what we offer, and a structured presentation of our fidelity monitoring tools. We continually update the publications and presentations produced by our team, as well as current news in the Wraparound field to ensure our collaborators are informed with new research and developments.

If you are a current collaborator, and need assistance in accessing the materials, please email wrapeval@uw.edu and UW WERT will help set up the account for your licensed tools.

Leave a Reply


March 20, 2015 | anh118@uw.edu


A community is interested in learning more about the WFI-EZ.


The WFI-EZ is a self-administered survey which can be completed on paper on online, and usually takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. Respondents answer questions in 3 categories: 1) Experience in Wraparound (25 items), 2) Outcomes (8 items), and 3) Satisfaction (4 items). Licensing the WFI-EZ also allows access to WrapTrack, an online data entry and reporting system. WrapTrack permits data to be entered and stored into a HIPAA-compliant manner, and generates reports on demographic information, fidelity scores, and more.

Please take some time to review our website, http://depts.washington.edu/wrapeval/wfiez_colab.html, which has information about the tool, fees for use, sample reports, collaboration steps, and more. For more specific inquiries, you may contact wrapeval@uw.edu.


  1. For those who use the WFI-EZ, can you share your comments about how the tool works for your organization or community?
  2. How beneficial are the Outcomes and Satisfaction items on the WFI-EZ? How has your site utilized that feedback?

Leave a Reply


February 25, 2015 | hquick@uw.edu


A community asked about when is the best time to get accurate data for the Transition phase questions on the WFI-4.


An interviewer must wait a minimum of 60-90 days to complete the interview. The transition questions should be able to be answered after that timeframe. Based on the WFI-4 manual, it says “focus on transition activities is most apparent during the latter portions of the Wraparound process; however, attention to transition issues begins with the earliest activities in a Wraparound process.” Meaning, this discussion should occur during the beginning conversations with a family and team, while recognizing that the majority of the work might not occur until just before transition out of formal Wraparound.

When scoring the WFI-4, please keep in mind the following statement: “Items in this section may be difficult for some respondents, especially if the family has not been involved in Wraparound for more than a few months. If this is the case, scores of ‘666’ or Not Applicable may be appropriate for many items.”


  1. How can a provider agency ensure the Transition discussion is happening early in the process?
  2. What would you do if all Transition questions are answered N/A?
  3. If your organization or community has lower scores in the Transition Phase, what are some steps you have taken to improve that part of the Wraparound process?
  4. Does your site have a specific time-frame in which WFI-4 interviews are completed? E.g., at 3 months, 6 months, etc.

Leave a Reply