Minnesota CYPM meeting July 17, 2013

Who are crossover youth?

What are the Pathways to Crossing Over?

1. Youth has an Open Child Welfare Case

Youth is Arrested

Enter the Juvenile Justice System

2.Youth has an open child welfare case

Child welfare case is closed

Youth is arrested

Youth enters the juvenile justice system

3. Youth is victim of maltreatment but it is undetected by CW system

Youth is Arrested

Youth Referred to the Child Welfare System

4.Youth is arrested and put in a correctional facility

Youth is released from the facility but family abandons him/her

Youth referred to the child welfare system

• At least five studies have examined crossover youth characteristics (Herz & Ryan 2008b; Widom & Maxfield 2001; Halemba, Siegel, Lord, & Zawacki 2004; Kelley, Thornberry, & Smith 1997; Saeturn & Swain, 2009).

• Although these studies are not identical in their methodology, they all examine characteristics of crossover youth and report a tremendous amount of similarity.

• All provide evidence that childhood abuse and neglect are associated with an increased risk of crime and violence; it is important to highlight though that this relationship is neither inevitable nor deterministic.

The Research & Characteristics of Crossover Youth

How Many Youth in Child Welfare Cross Over into Delinquency

How Many Youth in the Delinquency System have Child Welfare Histories or are Referred to Child Welfare because of

Maltreatment?

•In overall juvenile justice populations, the percentage ranges from 17% to 67% across studies.

•Higher rates of dual-involvement, seem related to how deeply a youth penetrates the juvenile justice system.

Results Taken from Arizona—Halemba et al., 2004

Characteristics of Crossover Youth

Individual Characteristics

Juvenile Justice Experiences

Child Welfare Experiences

Improvements as a result of CYPM

• ¾ of CYPM youth were identified at arrest or as a result of a warrant. The majority of the remaining youth were identified at charging, which was a focal point for two CYPM sites

• CYPM Youth were most likely to receive some type of interagency meeting or handling in a one judge/one family court. The use of a specialized supervision unit drastically increased in the last nine months of implementation

• Only ¼ of CYPM youth were detained and this remained consistent over time (30% decrease in the use)

• Placement related offenses decreased in the last nine months

• CYPM youth were more likely to receive a diversionary option, probation supervision, or have their case dismissed or no action taken by the juvenile justice system

• CYPM delinquent youth were more likely to have remain at home (37%) as a permanency goal followed by reunification (26%) and PPLA (23%)

• 43% of Pre-CYPM youth had a new arrest within 6 months of being identified, while only 32% of CYPM Youth had a new arrest within that same time period

• 31% of Pre-CYPM youth had a sustained petition at 6 months after arrest/referral, while only 15% of CYPM had a sustained petition after they were identified as dually-involved

Overview of The Crossover Youth Practice Model

Overarching goals of CYPM

• Reduction in the number of youth placed in out-of-home care

• Reduction in the use of congregate care

• Reduction in the disproportionate representation of children of color; particularly in the crossover population

• Reduction in the number of youth crossing over and/or becoming dually-adjudicated

System improvements the model seeks to make

• Ensure greater uniformity in the mission and vision of the child welfare and juvenile justice agencies;

• Develop specific policies and changes in practices related to serving crossover youth;

• Improve cross-systems engagement related to case management functions;

• Increase the use of cross-systems data to track population trends and inform decision-making on all levels of the agencies;

• Conduct cross-systems trainings to improve agency knowledge about other system functions and process; and

• Create a mechanism that provides continuous quality improvement across the two systems.

1. We serve every child individually based on their history and experiences, seeking to achieve a sense of normalcy for all youth on a daily basis.

2. We believe the most advantageous place for youth to grow up is in their own family. We seek to ensure that all youth are provided a safe, nurturing, and permanent family environment and community. When immediate family is not available other viable extended family and community resources will be identified.

1. We believe that youth and families have strengths, and systems must learn about and use these strengths in order to effectively meet their needs. We must ensure that these strengths are being utilized to address the entire context of youth and family functioning.

CYPM Principles

4. We ensure authentic, intentional, and meaningful involvement of youth and families in policy and practice development, service planning and delivery.

5. We use an integrated approach between juvenile justice, child welfare, the courts, education, and behavioral health believing that partnerships are the best way to meet the needs of crossover youth and their families.

6. Our practices guarantee fair and equitable treatment for all youth and families regardless of race, ethnicity, and national origin. Service delivery honors and respects the beliefs and values of all families.

CYPM Principles

7. We actively seek to reduce racial disproportionality and eliminate disparities within the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

8. We provide opportunities for professional development and ensure adequate supervision for all staff. This is essential in ensuring workforce efficacy.

9. We ensure that policy and practice decisions are based on reliable data and evidence.

10. When out of home placement is necessary, it should be time limited, in the least restrictive environment with appropriate supports, while maintaining a focus on youth permanence.

CYPM Principles

ArizonaMaricopa Co.California•Alameda Co.•Los Angeles Co.•San Diego Co.Colorado•Broomfield Co•Denver Co.•Douglas Co.•El Paso Co.•Jefferson Co.•Larimer Co.•Morgan Co.•San Luis Valley

Minnesota•Carver Co.•Hennepin Co.•Kandiyohi Co.•Olmsted Co.•Stearns Co.MissouriGreene Co.Jefferson Co.

Ohio•Franklin Co.•Hamilton Co.•Lucas Co.•Mahoning Co.•Montgomery Co.•Ross Co.•Stark Co.•Summit Co.•Trumbull Co.Oregon•Marion Co.•Multnomah Co.Pennsylvania•PhiladelphiaSouth Carolina•Berkley Co.•Charleston Co. •Georgetown Co.Texas•Bexar Co.•Dallas Co.•El Paso Co.•McLennan Co.•Tarrant Co.•Travis Co.Washington•King Co.

Wyoming

Laramie Co.

 

Florida•Bartow •Duval Co.•Ft. Lauderdale•Miami-Dade•Volusia Co.Iowa•Woodbury Co.MarylandPrince George’s Co.MichiganOakland Co.

Crossover Youth Practice Model sites

NebraskaDouglas Co.NevadaWashoe Co.New YorkMonroe Co.BronxOhio•Carroll Co.•Clarke Co.•Cuyahoga Co.

Phase IPractice Area 1: Arrest, Identification, & Detention

Practice Area 2: Decision Making Regarding Charges

Phase IIPractice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment & Planning

Phase IIIPractice Area 4: Coordinated Case Management & Ongoing Assessment

Practice Area 5: Planning for Youth Permanency, Transition & Case Closure

The Crossover Youth Practice Model Guide can be found at:http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pm/practicemodel.html

Crossover Youth Practice Model phases & practice areas

1. Family engagement at the earliest point possible

2. Development of written documentation (i.e. brochure, family guide) to provide to families, that describes the way that the two systems will work together to serve their youth and their family.

3. Use of MDTs at key decision points along the pathway

4. Focus on reduction of disproportionality

5. Creation of protocols that specify how client information databases can be searched to identify crossover youth

6. Creation of a memorandum of agreement that describes the ability of child welfare and juvenile justice staff to share information about youth and families involved in both systems-including educational and behavioral health information

7. Utilization of validated screening and cross system assessment tools while the youth is in detention

Practice Area 1: Arrest, Identification, and Detention

8. Conduct diversion meetings and pursue strategies to

reduce youth crossing over into the juvenile justice

system

9. Partner on identifying and funding prevention

services to ensure that crossover youth have access

to services funded by both systems

Practice Area 2: Decision Making regarding Charges

10. Upon notification of a new crossover youth case, the newly assigned probation officer

should immediately make contact with the assigned social worker. This contact should

occur within three to five days. This level of contact may happen pre-or post

adjudication. Note: State Policy FOM722-6D Case Management of dual wards requires

that the contact by the assigned worker to the newly assigned cross system worker

occur within five business days

11. Conduct an inventory of the assessment tools used in both child welfare and juvenile

justice. (This will assist in the development of a consolidated assessment process for

the youth and family).

Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment, and Planning

12. Creation of a joint assessment process of the family and youth

13. Complete an integrated case plan—while this may be documented on different forms there is a consistent set of expectations and services

14. Families should help guide the process of determining what interventions could best address their situation

15. There is an expectation that all jurisdictions will make a commitment to

reduce its use of group care (including residential and institutional) for

crossover youth

16. Identify kin to care for crossover youth when placement is necessary

Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment, and Planning

17. Sites must implement one of the following Court models: • Dedicated court docket • One judge/one family• Multi-system planning and court reporting. MCL 600.1023, 1961 PA 236 Revised Judicature Act of 1961, “When

two or more matters within the jurisdiction of the family division of circuit court involving members of the same family are pending in the same judicial court, those matters, whenever practicable, shall be assigned to the judge to whom the first such case was assigned.”

Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment, and Planning

Practice Area 4: Coordinated Case Supervision and Ongoing

Assessment18. The CW social worker and JJ case worker must make a

determination as to which agency should take the lead in providing ongoing services on a case

19. The CW social worker and the JJ case worker must have ongoing dialogue regarding each case at a minimum on a monthly basis

20. The frequency of formal gatherings to review progress is dependent upon case dynamics but should certainly occur prior to court and whenever there is an issue that needs attention

21. If a youth involved with the juvenile justice system crosses over into the child welfare system, the process of integrated assessment, case planning and shared case coordination must be initiated

Practice Area 4: Coordinated Case Supervision and Ongoing

Assessment

22. Permanency/transition planning begins at the onset of the case

23. Concurrent planning is a requirement case practice

24. Ensure that youth who leave the system (regardless of where they are going to live) are afforded education, support and skill development so that they are as prepared as possible to transition successfully to adulthood

25. Institutionalize the use of Permanency Pacts or other tools to ensure youth have permanent connections with caring adults

Practice Area 5: Planning for Youth Permanency, Transition, and Case

Closure

Questions? Comments?

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform

cjjr.georgetown.edu/

Visual Depiction

29

30

31

32

33