The wraparound process is rapidly becoming a part of mainstream human services. The first state-wide system of care-based wraparound effort was established in Alaska in 1986 (VanDenBerg & Minton, 1987; Burchard, et.al, 1990). This effort was based on the creative agency-based individualized planning being done at the Kaleidoscope Agency in Chicago (Kendziora, 1999), which was based on de-institutionalization and normalization efforts from Canada. The process has grown to include locally innovated efforts across North America and in other parts of the world. During the more than 25-year history of the wraparound process, wraparound has emerged as a primary method of integration and delivery of services and supports for children and youth with complex behavioral health needs and their families.

In many sites, wraparound started in reaction to the common practice of use of long term and sometimes out-of-state placements of children and youth with complex behavioral health needs. States such as Michigan, Maine, and Kansas have used the process to reduce the use of these potentially harmful long-term placements and serve children and youth in their homes.

In the earliest days of the wraparound process in Alaska (VanDenBerg & Minton, 1987; VanDenBerg, 1993), Illinois, Washington, Vermont (Burchard & Clarke, 1990), and in many other states, “wraparound” was based primarily on the key principles of individualization, unconditional care, and increasing family voice and choice. Little, if any, standardization of what the process actually entailed was defined.

By 1988, early replications of the work in Alaska, Illinois and Vermont had already begun to vary “wraparound” in quality and in scope. Implementation varied through local innovations and policy and funding constraints.

By the mid 1990s, efforts in numerous sites had resulted in life-changing improvements for thousands of families. In several other sites and communities implementing “wraparound” had been identified as failures by implementers and researchers. Close examination of these efforts revealed that what was called wraparound more closely resembled children’s case management: no real individualization, no child and family teams, no integration of services, and little if any youth and parent voice and choice.

By 1997, many of the early innovators felt that although dozens of efforts were reporting positive results, the wide range of what was being called “wraparound” and the resulting negative evaluation results threatened future support for all wraparound. To address this, a meeting was held at Duke University and the first major organized effort to provide consistency to the definition of the wraparound process began (Burns and Goldman, 1998). This group grew into the National Wraparound Initiative (NWI) and developed standardized principles, and described the process of wraparound through standard phases and activities (Walker and Bruns 2006).