VOL. 4, NO. 1 SPRING 2005

1

TH

E

LI

NK

CONNECTING JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILD WELFARE

Director’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Children of Prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Child Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Public Policy Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Juvenile Justice News and Resources . . .12

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

The King County Systems Integration Initiative (KC-SII)is a collaboration of state and local agencies andorganizations in King County (Seattle), Washington,that came together in March 2004 to examine andimprove the coordination and integration of programand policy development, enhance service delivery, andimprove outcomes for children, youth, and families.

For KC-SII, child protection and well-being are nolonger viewed as the responsibility of one or two pub-lic entities, but rather as a shared responsibility ofmany agencies, individuals, and institutions (formaland informal) in a community. Similarly, responsibilityfor guidance and accountability for delinquent youthrequires the engagement of many supportive entities.Achieving desired outcomes for children and youthserved by child welfare and juvenile justice agenciesrequires concerted effort and communication amongmany organizations and individuals, and the activeengagement and support of their families. Success ismore likely when all invest in the common goal andfully carry out their part in meeting it. KC-SII partnershave worked to develop appropriate supports andteamwork to successfully address these dual jurisdic-tion families and youth.

In recent years, there has been a greater understand-ing of the undeniable link between child maltreatmentand juvenile delinquency. Many youth are served bythe child welfare and juvenile justice systems simulta-neously, and many graduate from one to the other. Infact, the initial point-in-time data examination conduct-ed for this effort reflects that nearly 40% of delinquentoffenders ages 12–17 have current or past dependencyhistories. This troubling percentage does not reflectpreliminary data suggesting an equally alarming per-centage of very young offenders (8–12) who experi-ence this dual jurisdiction involvement.

The rich body of credible research also confirms thatmany of these same youth and families need mentalhealth, substance abuse, and specialized educationalservices. As with most jurisdictions throughout thecountry, however, King County lacks the servicesand supports youth and their families need tochange course and adequately address these multi-ple needs. To further compromise well-intentionedefforts at safety, reduced recidivism, and overallwell-being, each system too often provides servicesin isolation, without adequate sharing of information,joint case planning and management, and a coordi-nated, collaborative effort to support their success.

KC-SII also recognizes recent changes in federalstatute that provide additional incentive to examinethis effort with greater rigor. The amendments to theJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act,enacted in 2002, specifically require that statesimplement a system that makes public child welfarerecords known when a juvenile is before a court inthe juvenile justice system, and that these recordsare incorporated into juvenile justice records toestablish and implement treatment plans.

King County System Integration InitiativeReform to Impact Dual Jurisdiction Youth and Families

see King County, page 4

THE LINKCHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA

2

TH

E

LI

NK

DIRECTOR’S MESSAGEAs I watched the outpouring of support for the victims of the SouthAsian tsunami, I was astonished by the response of the American peopleand the hundreds of billions of dollars designated by governments anddonated by citizens. This amazing generosity was fueled by a desire tohelp the overwhelming number of children who were in desperate need.

As a country, we understand the critical importance of meeting chil-dren’s basic needs of housing, clothing, and food. We also grasp thenecessity of keeping them safe and ensuring they do not fall into a pathof self-destruction or get lured away by some predator. Americans knowthe serious consequences children face when they do not have parentsto care for them or a home to call their own. We have tremendous sympathy and strong emotional responses, and we are able to lend our support.

This tragic global event has reinspired me about the work I do on behalfof children here in the United States. In so many ways, the needs of thechildren affected by the tsunami highlight the needs of children every-where, including those in our own country. I can see on CNN or hear onthe radio the individual stories of devastation and desperation. It is clearhow much children need nurturing, caring adults in their lives. And notjust as a temporary presence to meet their basic needs. No, they need afamily, a group of people who say, “This is your home. We will love youand support you for life.”

I challenge each of you working in this field—practitioners, law and poli-cymakers, advocates, and parents, as well as national, state, and localgovernments—to continue to strive to meet the needs of the children,youth, and families in this country and around the world. Of particularimportance are those children and families living in chaos and crisis,those without permanent homes and safe places to feel nurtured andsupported. Let us commit to doing the very best we can and giving evenmore than before to ensure all children have what they need to grow totheir fullest potential. Keep going! We can do it!

Sincerely,Christy SharpDirector, Juvenile Justice

© 2005 CWLA. For more informa-tion about The Link or CWLA’sJuvenile Justice Division, contactDodd White at 202/639-4959, or e-mail juvjus@cwla.org.

Christy SharpDIRECTOR

JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION

Dodd WhitePROGRAM MANAGER

JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION

Danielle MolePROGRAM COORDINATOR

JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION

John TuellDIRECTOR CORE SERVICES

NATIONAL CENTER FORPROGRAM LEADERSHIP

HEADQUARTERS

440 First Street NW, Third FloorWashington, DC 20001-2085202/638-2952FAX 202/638-4004www.cwla.org

The Child Welfare League ofAmerica is the nation’s oldest andlargest membership-based childwelfare organization. We are com-mitted to engaging people every-where in promoting the well-beingof children, youth, and their fami-lies, and protecting every child fromharm.

A list of staff in CWLA service areasis available online at www.cwla.org/whowhat/serviceareas.asp.

Shay BilchikPRESIDENT/CEO

Eve Malakoff-KleinDIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS

Steven S. BoehmASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

PUBLICATIONS

THE LINKCONNECTING JUVENILE JUSTICE

AND CHILD WELFARE

TH

E

LI

NK

3

Renaissance Eden Roc Hotel, Miami, Florida

CWLA invites you to the 2005 Juvenile Justice National Symposium: Joining Forces for Better Outcomes. The symposiumwill focus on the integration and coordination of the juvenile justice and child welfare systems to better serve ournations children.

Providing a unique cross-system opportunity for information sharing, networking, and collective learning, the symposiumwill highlight juvenile justice and child welfare system integration and the connection between child maltreatment andjuvenile delinquency. Topics will include:

• Examples of state or local reform leading to more effective coordination between child welfare and juvenile justice.

• Jurisdictional coordination of community-based services for abused and neglected youth populations involved or atrisk for involvement with the juvenile justice system.

• Legal and policy analysis of barriers to more effective coordination between juvenile justice and child welfare.

• Integrated and coordinated funding streams to better serve shared populations of children, youth, and families.

• Efforts to reduce the detention bias for foster care populations.

In addition, the symposium will also focus on traditional juvenile justice issues such as mental health and juvenile delin-quency, alternatives to incarceration, girls in juvenile justice, transfer and waiver, disproportionate minority representa-tion, zero tolerance, juvenile death penalty, delinquency prevention, evidenced-based practice, and restorative justice.

For more information contact Dodd White at dwhite@cwla.org or 202/639-4959. For information about the RenaissanceEden Roc Hotel, visit www.edenrocresort.com.

SA

VE

TH

E D

AT

E 20052005Juvenile Justice National Symposium: Joining Forces for Better Outcomes

Juvenile Justice National Symposium: Joining Forces for Better Outcomes

June 1–3, 2005June 1–3, 2005

For more on meetingthe special needs ofgirls in the child welfareand juvenile justice systems, see theJanuary–February2005 issue of Children’s Voicemagazine.

To purchase or subscribe,

call 800/407-6273, or order online at

www.cwla.org/pubs; or see selected

articles online atwww.cwla.org/

articles.

TH

E

LI

NK

4

Additionally, new amendments to the Child AbusePrevention and Treatment Act, enacted in 2003,added to permissible uses of basic state grants theenhanced collaboration between CPS and juvenilejustice to improve service delivery and treatmentcontinuity as children transition between the two sys-tems. Also, states are now required to report thenumber of children in CPS care who are transferredto the juvenile justice system.

As a result of this research and statutory foundation,a broad-based group of King County’s governmentand community entities concerned about improvingsuccess for our children and youth came together insupport of a more integrated system of services andresponses for dependent children and youthfuloffenders. Initially invited by Casey Family Programsto begin a dialogue on systems integration, the coali-tion developed a unified focus intent on examiningclient populations, methods of communication, col-laborative processes, and ways to improve out-comes. KC-SII has been able to build upon manyexisting examples in the county to advance this criti-cal enterprise.

Background

After attending CWLA’s National Juvenile JusticeSymposium in June 2003, Lyman Legters, Director ofthe Seattle Field Office for Casey Family Programs,reached out to CWLA’s John A. Tuell to discuss thestrategic planning framework on system coordinationand integration featured at the event. Legters andTuell invited an array of youth-serving system leadersto attend a local training symposium that detailedCWLA’s strategic planning framework for the childwelfare and juvenile justice systems coordinating andintegrating.

An initial one-day symposium was convened inOctober 2003, and reconvened in December forstakeholders who could not attend initially.Representatives from multiple disciplines at the coun-ty and state level attended these meetings, includingthe King County Superior Court, the Region IVDepartment of Social and Health Services, the KingCounty Department of Community and HumanServices, the Puget Sound Educational SchoolDistrict, the Department of Social and Health ServicesJuvenile Rehabilitation Administration, the KingCounty Council, the King County Executive’s Office,state legislators, and private providers and communityorganizations. From these two meetings, an

Executive Steering Committee was chosen and givenresponsibility and oversight for the initiative. Thisleadership group contracted with CWLA in March2004 to partner with the collaborative partners toexamine and analyze relevant issues affectingimproved system coordination and integration.

The KC-SII initiative has worked to achieve its goalswith the guidance, active involvement, and support ofits Executive and Steering Committees, which helpedestablish the initiative’s goals and scope of work.

Goals

• Promote increased cooperation, coordination, andintegration at the administrative and service deliv-ery levels for the benefit of children and familieswithin the purview of the child welfare and juvenilejustice systems.

• Through a comprehensive strategic planningprocess that embraces and values inclusion ofyouth, families, and a broad representation ofyouth-serving agencies and organizations, achieveand institutionalize greater multisystem coordina-tion and integration to improve outcomes for KingCounty children, youth, and families.

Scope of Work

Each member agency and organization agreed towork with CWLA to:

• Produce an inventory of resources in local childserving systems, including programs and services;a comparative analysis of missions, mandates, andpolicies; identification of best practices nationallyand locally; determination of the use of assess-ment instruments; review and analysis of the fund-ing to support the services and programs; and cre-ation of training for personnel in both systems.

• Assess the current management information sys-tems used by participating agencies and organiza-tions, and help CWLA prepare a report on the cur-rent capacity to share information across agenciesand organizations. The report will identify barriersand obstacles and provide recommendations toovercome identified impediments to enhancedinformation sharing. The report will also identifycritical information that must be shared to enhancecase management and service delivery to youthand families.

• Inventory available data systems and identify datasets that must be shared across agencies and

King County, from page 1

TH

E

LI

NK

5

organizations, and ensure this information con-tributes to improved analysis of current trends.This effort will lead to enhanced decisionmaking,particularly regarding the allocation of sharedresources among agencies and organizations.

• Examine the legal, policy, and procedural man-dates unique to each agency and organization tomake recommendations for changes that will con-tribute to improved coordination of initial decision-making, case management, and service delivery.The parties agree to provide a report of their find-ings and recommendations available to participat-ing agency and organization leadership.

• Have agency representatives who participate in anongoing oversight committee (Executive Commit-tee), as well as have members assigned to and par-ticipate in subcommittee meetings organized toaddress the multiple issues articulated in thisagreement. Each representative shall serve until heor she resigns or a replacement is appointed. Thecommittee may add additional members at anytime.

• Use the best available information, research, andpractices to guide the process.

• Maintain confidentiality of client information.

• Help develop a means to track and evaluate theprogram’s success.

• Compile subcommittee reports to produce findingsand recommendations for strategies that result inyouth-serving system coordination and integration.

• Jointly produce an implementation strategy withbenchmarks and timelines no later than 120 daysfrom adoption of the final report.

During nine months, KC-SII has engaged in rigorousfact gathering, examination, and analysis detailed inthe charter agreement, and moved through four ofthe five phases of activity:

Mobilization and Planning• Identifying and commitment to strategic goals and

objectives of the collaboration.

• Identifying and determining means of measuringcollective client-oriented outcomes.

• Identifying and addressing sticking points that actas barriers to teamwork.

• Developing a governance structure.

Data Collection and Analysis• Identifying and sharing available baseline data.

• Determining countywide data elements that mayinform priorities and action steps of the collabora-tion; planning for gathering and study.

• Examining King County information against appli-cable state and national data.

• Developing common client identification and study.

• Developing capacity for sharing data.

Assessment and Inventory• Inventorying resources and resource shortage

across the continuum.

• Concluding a structural analysis of youth-servingsystems.

• Identifying key decision points and makers.

• Examining the legal, policy, and procedural man-dates unique to each agency and organization torecommend changes that will improve coordina-tion of initial decisionmaking, case management,and service delivery.

• Studying of funding and funding structures.

• Identifying and analyzing issues.

Action Strategy Development• Developing a prioritized action agenda.

• Reaching consensus among all partners.

• Planning action steps.

• Developing funding mechanisms necessary to sup-port integrated approaches.

Implementation• Assigning leadership responsibility.

• Agreeing on timelines, phasing, and milestones.

• Evaluating outcomes with periodic measurement.

• Evaluating the process toward further improvingcollaboration.

Three additional subcommittees were formed toaddress the many tasks and issues detailed in thesefive phases of activity.

Subcommittees met in person at least monthly andestablished a network of electronic communication,conference calls, and special presentations.Subcommittee memberships have been dynamic

see King County, page 10

TH

E

LI

NK

TH

E

LI

NK

6

By Arlene F. Lee, Director, Federal Resource Centerfor Children of Prisoners

Every day, adults are arrested or sentenced to servetime in jail or prison. Our nation’s incarcerated popu-lation exceeded 2 million people in 2002, the highestever. As more parents are incarcerated, more chil-dren are serving time as well. Rarely, however, dopeople stop to consider the effect this has on thechildren in our communities. They were hidden fromview. But when President George W. Bush, in threeState of the Union addresses, called for volunteers tomentor children with parents in prison, he shined alight on a population that has grown at a rate thatstuns even professionals in the criminal justice andhuman services fields. An estimated 7 million chil-dren, or 10% of the population younger than 18,have a parent under some form of correctionalsupervision. These children are in every community,every school, and every church. Their stories andtheir survival are important to all of us.

Why Should We Care?When we support the relationship between incarcer-ated parents and their children, research showseveryone benefits.

It’s good for kids.Strong family relationships decrease rates of delin-quency for children of incarcerated parents, and par-ents’ frequent contact with their children while incar-cerated facilitates future reunification.

It’s good for inmates and the community.Male prisoners who maintain strong family ties havemuch better post-release success. Inmates whomaintain frequent outside contacts while in prisonalso do significantly better on parole. For femaleinmates, family relationships are a key indicator ofpost-release success.

It’s good for the institutions.Anecdotal evidence suggests inmates who partici-pate in parenting programs have far fewer infractionsbecause the contact with their children is too impor-tant to them. Family visits are inmate motivators,they are free, and they don’t require the same degreeof staff training as other treatment approaches.Family ties and frequent visitations are also associ-ated with lower recidivism.

The Children’s StoriesThere are many stories about the ways children havesurvived the incarceration of their parent. Take“Andre,” a 23-year-old Rhodes scholar from YaleUniversity; or “Barbara,” a 10-year-old who has livedwith her grandmother and learned to understand hermother’s cycle of incarceration and addiction; or“Camille,” a 27-year-old college graduate who hasbeen parented and nurtured by her father frombehind bars since the age of 6; or “Danielle,” whohas been reunited with her mother, and together theyhave found success and stability. Each of these chil-dren has a different story to tell, but all tell oneimportant story: The hardest part of having a parentin prison is the shame and stigma they felt from theircommunity.

What happens to the children?The extent to which a child is affected by the incar-ceration of a parent depends on a number of vari-ables, including the age of the child, the length of theseparation, the health of the family, the child’s famil-iarity with the new caregiver, previous separations,length of sentence, and the availability of family orcommunity support. Without appropriate support,however, children with incarcerated parents suffer insome common ways:

Self-image. Identification with the incarcerated par-ent, awareness of social stigma, and low self-esteem.

Cognitive. Intrusive thoughts about parents, concernabout outcomes and uncertain futures, fatalism, andflashbacks to traumatic events.

Children of Prisoners, Children of Promise

STATISTICS

The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 2.3 million children areaffected by the 1.1 million parents in prisons or jails.

Seventy-two percent of women prisoners with children younger than 18lived with those children before entering prison.

Six percent of women entering prison are pregnant.

From 1990 to 2000, the number of mothers in prison grew 87%, while the number of fathers increased by 61%.

Approximately 75% of incarcerated women are mothers, and two-thirdshave children younger than 18. Fifty-four percent of mothers in state prisons said they never had visits from their children.

Approximately 55% of incarcerated men are fathers of children youngerthan 18. Fifty-seven percent of fathers in state prisons reported never having visits from their children.

TH

E

LI

NK

7

Emotional. Fear, anxiety, anger, sadness, loneliness,abandonment, embarrassment, guilt, resentment, andemotional withdrawal from friends and family.

Mental health. Depression, eating and sleeping disor-ders, anxiety and hyperarousal, attention disorders,and developmental regression.

Behavioral. Physical aggression, acting out, and dis-ruptive behavior.

Educational. Diminished academic performance,classroom behavior difficulties, and truancy.

Involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice sys-tems. Children with a parent in prison are more likelyto become involved in the system themselves

Programs That Help

Effective programs can help reduce the stigma chil-dren experience, foster opportunities to maintain con-tact with the incarcerated parent, and support thechildren, parents, and caregivers.

CWLA operates the Federal Resource Center forChildren of Prisoners in collaboration with the U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections. The center conducts research and evalu-ation, collects and disseminates information, providestraining and technical assistance, and increasesawareness among the many disciplines and servicesystems that come into contact with families separat-ed by incarceration. The goal is to improve the qualityof information available about children with incarcer-ated parents and to develop resources that will helpcreate better outcomes for these children and theirfamilies. Other programs that provide direct servicesto families include:

Centers for Youth and Families, Little Rock,ArkansasServes children whose mothers are incarcerated withenhanced visitation programs, support services, andparenting programs for the mothers.

Community Works, Berkeley, California Provides case management services and an after-school program.

Family Preservation Program, Indiana Women’sPrison, Indianapolis, IndianaCreated partnerships with the Children’s Bureau;YWCA; the Departments of Corrections, Health, Childand Family Services; and various community organi-

zations. Programs include therapeutic parenting edu-cation and support groups, children’s center, summercamp, parent/teen day, holiday parties, responsiblemother/healthy baby program, family care plan, par-enting class, and outreach/case management.

Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, Baltimore, MarylandIncarcerated mothers and their daughters participatein Girl Scout activities and meetings in prisons.

La Bodega de la Familia, New York, New YorkEstablishes family visits, conducts assessments andfamily and systems mapping, and creates a familyaction plan.

The Osborne Association, Brooklyn, New YorkProvides parenting education, counseling, children’scenters at prisons, and other services.

Visiting Program, Administration for Children andFamilies, New York, New York Provides facilitated visits with incarcerated mothersand fathers detained on Rikers Island.

RESOURCESFederal Resource Center for Children of Prisoners202/638-2952www.childrenofprisoners.orgE-mail: childrenofprisoners@cwla.org

Directory of Programs Serving Families of Adult Offenders, 2001www.nicic.org/pubs/general.htm.

Families and Corrections Networkwww. fcnetwork.org

Center for Children of Incarcerated Parentswww.e-ccip.org

Women’s Prison Association and Home Inc.212/674-1163www.wpaonline.org

Publications From CWLAWorking with Children and Families Separated by Incarceration, by Cynthia Beatty Seymour and Lois Wright

Reuniting: Money, Family and You; A Guide for Women Leaving Prison.

The Kissing Hand, by Audrey Penn, a book for children temporarily separated from loved ones.

Available for purchase at www.cwla.org/pubs.

TH

E

LI

NK

8

By Christine B. Siegfried and Susan J. Ko

A significant number of American youth have beenexposed to traumatic events. In a national survey of12- to 17-year-olds, 8% of youth reported sexualassault experiences, 17% reported physical assaults,and 39% reported witnessing violence (Kilpatrick etal., 2003). Among Native American, AfricanAmerican, and Hispanic youth, more than one-fourthhave experienced at least one physical assault, andmore than half have witnessed violence.

Among youth who enter the juvenile justice system,the rates of trauma exposure are even higher. In fact,some studies show posttraumatic stress disorder(PTSD) rates among youth in the justice system maybe up to eight times as high as rates of other similarage peers. A recent study in the Cook CountyJuvenile Detention Center (Abram et al., 2004)revealed that about 92% of youth had experienced atleast one traumatic event.

Effects of Trauma

Exposure to trauma, including child maltreatmentand witnessing violent events, can have a number ofdeleterious and long-lasting effects on how teen-agers see the world and the way they functionsocially, interpersonally, and academically. It canaffect their behavior, their problem-solving skills, andtheir ability to modulate their emotions, and it caneventually give rise to patterns of conflict andaggression towards others. It can also affect theirability to respond to rehabilitative programming andinteract positively with peers and staff.

For example, children who have experienced repeat-ed trauma may remain in a constant state of fear andanxiety, characterized by high arousal and hypervigi-lance. They may have trouble sleeping, paying atten-tion, and concentrating. Trauma leads to heightenedawareness of threat and misperceptions of provoca-tion. That is, traumatized youth often misinterpret thebehavior of others as hostile when it is not, andrespond with aggression.

Trauma also makes it difficult for children and ado-lescents to modulate their behavioral reactions andregulate their emotions. They may feel physically

and emotionally numb or, alternately, they may beflooded with emotions. Fears or memories of traumat-ic events may intrude and trigger angry or avoidantresponses to staff or other youth. Trauma can resultin avoiding situations or people that remind the youthof a previous traumatic experience. Extreme avoidantbehavior can curtail normal activity. Unfortunately,adolescent avoidant behavior may be unnoticed ormisinterpreted, and alcohol and drug use can be an effort to mask posttrauma emotions and physio-logical responses.

Abused and neglected children are likely to have cog-nitive and intellectual deficiencies and developmentalproblems, which, in turn, affect their decisionmakingabilities in stressful situations. Fear interferes with theyouth’s ability to make choices, and self-protection isprominent. Traumatic stress can also interfere withthe development of emotional maturity, moral andidentity development, and the acquisition of skills.Most youth who have been abused need nurturing asif they were much younger than their chronologicalage, but they may be reluctant to accept this becausetheir trust has been violated in the past. They maylack the skills and trust to establish healthy, support-ive relationships.

Trauma may leave a child or adolescent feeling isolat-ed, different, helpless, and damaged. Some childrenmay injure themselves in an attempt to gain somecontrol over their overwhelming emotions. Repeatedexposure to maltreatment or violence can result in achild or adolescent accommodating to chronic stressin maladaptive ways. Past victimization can lead toantisocial and/or self-destructive survival strategies.Adolescents often experience feelings of shame andguilt about the traumatic event and may express fan-tasies about revenge and retribution. Alternately, theymay respond to their experience through dangerousreenactments or recklessness.

Perhaps most important, a traumatic event may fostera radical shift in the way children and adolescentsthink about the world. Trauma experiences can createthe sense that things can suddenly go horribly wrong,that no one can really provide protection, and thatlaws don’t really work. Traumatized youth are likely toevidence terminal thinking—an absence of future ori-entation. They develop a distrust of others, particular-

Addressing Child Trauma in JuvenileJustice and Residential Settings

9

TH

E

LI

NK

ly adults and believe society cannot protect them.They may develop alternative, often aggressive orviolent methods to protect themselves. Becausemany times their own victimizer has not been heldaccountable, many youth fail to develop a sense oflegal or moral responsibility for their own behaviors.

Screening and Assessment for Trauma

Since trauma histories may interfere with youths’rehabilitation and contribute to reoffending risk, trau-ma screening and assessment are essential toenhancing the juvenile justice system’s capacity fortriage, case-finding, and decisionmaking. If profes-sionals can divert youth from situations where theirtrauma symptoms continue to be unaddressed, oreven worse, are retraumatizing, and instead providethem with dispositions and service plans that moreappropriately meet their needs, then perhaps theycan ultimately lower recidivism rates.

Screening and assessment are also importantbecause children who have PTSD symptoms are atrisk of being misdiagnosed for a variety of disorders,including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,depression, oppositional defiant disorder, conductdisorder, specific phobias, and learning disorders.

Professionals have recommended that mental healthinformation collected through assessment andscreening should inform identification of both emergent risk and mental health service needs(Wasserman et al., 2003). Similarly, screening andassessment procedures should be used to collecttrauma information, including trauma history, trig-gers, and reminders. Given the complexity of thejuvenile justice system and the various stages of processing, it is useful to consider the differencesbetween screening and assessment.

Screening is a simple, brief, usually inexpensive pro-cedure used to identify emergent risk. It is not intend-ed to be definitive; persons who screen positiveshould receive further assessment (Valanis, 1999;cited in Wasserman et al., 2003). By contrast, assess-ment entails a comprehensive evaluation with multi-ple components (e.g., interviews with youth and fami-ly, review of records), usually intended to identifyservice and treatment needs. Thorough traumascreening and assessment are a prerequisite to pre-venting the potentially chronic and severe problemsin biopsychosocial functioning that can occur whentrauma and associated or comorbid mental healthdisorders go undiagnosed and untreated (Nader,1997; Wolpaw & Ford, 2004).

A number of approaches and instruments are avail-able for trauma screening and assessment (e.g.,PTSD Reaction Index, Trauma Events ScreeningInventory, and Trauma Symptom Checklist forChildren), but few instruments have been systemati-cally evaluated with juvenile justice populations.Given the high prevalence of trauma exposure andPTSD in juvenile justice populations, careful clinicalapplication and scientific study of the trauma historyand PTSD assessment instruments is an importantstep toward enhanced services and outcomes for thislarge, high-risk, and typically underserved population.

When deciding what type of screen or assessment touse, a number of clinical issues should be reviewed,such as the format of the screen or assessment, thejuvenile justice context, and developmental and eth-nocultural considerations.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Problems of confidentiality and self-incrimination canconfound assessment within juvenile justice settings,especially early in the juvenile justice process.Assessors need to think about how certain types ofinformation might be used as part of the legal caseagainst a child or the child’s family. For example, achild or adolescent’s admission of substance abusemay carry sanctions; an admission of serious mentalhealth problems or symptoms may carry the conse-quence of an involuntary hospital admission; and achild’s admission of domestic violence in the homemay result in a case being filed with protective servic-es or police and removal of the child from the home.

Assessors should be careful to inform children andadolescents of the limitations of confidentiality.Juvenile justice facilities, especially detention set-tings, should also carefully consider the timing of theassessment. For example, if the assessment occurspre-adjudication, questions regarding substance usemay need to be asked at another point in processing.One possible option is that a window could be creat-ed between adjudication and disposition duringwhich time a comprehensive mental health assess-ment could be conducted to inform service planning.

Developmental and Ethnocultural Considerations

Children and adolescents from cultural and ethnicminority groups are overrepresented in juvenile jus-tice settings, with the overrepresentation growing asthey move deeper into the system. This overrepre-sentation has implications for help-seeking behaviors,treatment effectiveness, screening, and assessment.

see Trauma, page 14

TH

E

LI

NK

10

throughout the process. As new tasks have emerged,additional expertise was enlisted to effectively andthoroughly examine the questions and issues.

The subcommittees’ efforts resulted in a compilationof almost 100 pages of new documentation that cap-tures data, data systems, sharable information, surveyresults, inventories of programs, funding sources,assessment instruments, existing interagency agree-ments, system case flow diagrams, applicable andrelevant state and federal codes, preliminary findingsand reports, and meeting notes and minutes, amongothers. From this examination and analysis, each sub-committee has produced findings and recommenda-tions for action strategies approved by the ExecutiveCommittee and endorsed by the Steering Committee.

Legal Analysis Subcommittee

This subcommittee undertook an extensive examina-tion of the legal landscape in King County and how itaffects the ability of the child welfare and juvenile jus-tice systems to collaborate on behalf of their commonclients. This examination involved two main tasks:legal research and analysis focusing on laws, regula-tions, and policies that regulate information sharing;and qualitative research consisting of interviewsdesigned to assess the impact of the laws, regula-tions, and policies.

The legal research component required an in-depthexploration of federal and state law in child welfare,juvenile justice, physical and mental health, sub-stance abuse, education, and privacy. Other sourcessuch as administrative codes, Rules of ProfessionalConduct, and agency administrative policies werealso reviewed. The research component also involvedsurveying information-sharing statutes in other statesand reviewing current literature on legal issues sur-rounding system collaboration.

The subcommittee also interviewed more than 20people in various positions in King County’s child-serving entities. Participants were questioned abouttheir knowledge and impressions of current informa-tion sharing and collaboration practices and of thelaws and regulations affecting such practices.

Resource Inventory and Assessment Subcommittee

This subcommittee undertook a comprehensivereview of program resources and their accompanyingfunding sources from the King County Juvenile Court;the Washington Department of Social and Health

Services (Region IV), which included the JuvenileRehabilitation Administration; the Mental Health,Chemical Abuse and Dependency Services Division;the King County Department of Community andHuman Services; and the Puget Sound EducationalSchool District.

Additionally, the subcommittee examined current ini-tiatives and interagency agreements that affect cross-system youth populations. The work was to ensurethat an opportunity to build on existing efforts. Theexamination of case processing across the child wel-fare and juvenile justice systems also allowed for anunderstanding of key decision points within each sys-tem that may subsequently allow for joint case dispo-sition recommendations and case management.

The subcommittee’s initial findings resulted in a com-mitment to develop blended funding initiatives forspecific target populations of youth and families whooccupy the child welfare and juvenile justice systems,and to identify the specific target populations thatmost commonly occupy these systems (e.g., youthtransitioning out of Juvenile RehabilitationAdministration care, and young offenders enteringthe juvenile justice system).

The subcommittee has also committed to developinginteragency protocols that will specify the process forcarrying out joint case management for target popula-tions, and has formed two new task force groups todevelop a cross-system training academy for multi-system caseworker and management staff, andaddress multiple issues concerning the coordinationand integration of services for youth from the educa-tion system who are involved with the juvenile justiceand child welfare systems.

Data and Information Management Subcommittee

This subcommittee undertook an extensive examina-tion of the multiple data systems that informed thework of child- and youth-serving agencies in KingCounty and the state. The subcommittee membersexamined the ownership of each of these systems,data contained therein, and responsibility for dataentry. They then identified who had access to theinformation. This work allowed the committee to con-struct a sharable information grid that would bedeveloped for approval by KC-SII. This merged sys-tem, designed with protocols for access, would allowfor more effective cross-system communication incase decisionmaking and resource allocations.

from King County, page 5

TH

E

LI

NK

11

The subcommittee also conducted cross-system sur-veys of case workers and managers to identify whatinformation they most needed to execute theirresponsibilities and to learn of the perceived and realbarriers in accessing that information. Additionally,the subcommittee explored available technologiesthat would allow this information database to bemerged on to a web-based system. The subcommit-tee’s ongoing work will include constructing a user’sguide for accessing and sharing relevant and neces-sary information, and will rely heavily on the findingsof the Legal Analysis Subcommittee to ensure thatadequate protections are constructed.

Finally, the subcommittee considered a data collec-tion and management system that would allow aggre-gate reports (and disaggregated for additional detail)on a periodic basis for particular populations.

For the work of this initiative to be evaluated, thiseffort must allow for measuring the effects of newlycreated protocols and interventions on discreet andtargeted populations (i.e., 8–12 years entering thejuvenile justice system).

Conclusion

The initiative has worked to address the many issuesthat affect the capacity for multiple systems to moreeffectively coordinate their service provision onbehalf of the population of children and youth thatare dually involved in the dependency and delinquen-

cy systems. As with any major system reform initia-tive, the tedium and detail of perplexing and compli-cated issues confront progress. There is no doubtthat the inclusive involvement of all of the affectedpublic and private institutions, as well as the voice oflegislators, community providers, and parents andyouth, are essential to the long term success of anysuch effort. KC-SII has endeavored to address theseissues and demonstrate openness to each new inter-ested party throughout the process. Remarkablycommitted, KC-SII participants have engaged inexcellent discourse to resolve the matters that con-front this effort. KC-SII still has a road to travel, butthe unified goal setting, organizational structure, andgovernance of the initiative, comprehensive examina-tion of issues, use of local and national expertise, andextraordinary leadership and commitment from aremarkably broad base of King County professionalshas put this community in a position to institute trulyoutstanding collaborative reforms.

The CWLA Juvenile Justice National Symposium,June 1-3, 2005, in Miami, Florida, will feature some ofthe initiative leaders and additional details about theirwork in an opening plenary session. A more detailedaccount of the subcommittee findings, recommenda-tions, and action strategies that will be part of theImplementation Plan for KC-SII will be available inApril 2005 under Consulting Initiatives atwww.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice.The site nowhas much of the project’s supporting documentation.

Federal Youth Coordination Act to Be IntroducedThe Federal Youth Coordination Act (FYCA) was introduced February 16, 2005, by Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Representative Tom Osborne (R-NE). FYCA fulfills a key recommendation of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth to establish a national council to oversee federal youthpolicy.

The legislation establishes a federal council on youth development that will oversee, coordinate, and make recommendations to improve federal effortsto enhance and expand access to positive youth development for America’s youth.

The legislation ensures communication between federal agencies affecting youth policies, sets research-based objectives and quantifiable five-yeargoals for youth programs, develops a plan to help agencies coordinate youth programs to achieve the goals and objectives enumerated in the plan, andmakes recommendations for the allocation of resources in support of these goals and objectives. FYCA also authorizes grants to states to support statecouncils.

The council will submit an annual report and recommendations to the President and Congress that includes an assessment of the needs of youth, acompilation of recent research, and recommendations for better integration and coordination of federal, state, and local policies affecting youth.

Effort Underway to Restore Accountability Based Sanctions Supplement

An effort is underway in Congress to restore the Accountability Based Sanctions supplement to the juvenile justice State Formula Grants. The supplement was not included in the FY 2005 budget as originally passed by Congress in December. Many states face cuts to their allocations under the formula grants unless the supplement is restored. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who until recently was chair of the Senate Appropriations subcommitteewith jurisdiction over juvenile justice, supports restoring the funding and is seeking to get the supplement fully funded.

PUBLIC POLICY UPDATE

TH

E

LI

NK

12

Access to Council

Jones, J. (2004). Washington DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP).

The second in OJJDP’s online Juvenile JusticePractices Series, this 34-page bulletin describes prob-lems affecting access to counsel at each stage of thejuvenile justice process, discusses factors that hinderaccess to and quality of counsel, and identifies ele-ments of effective counsel. It also outlines fiveapproaches to improving access (program initiatives,legislation, administrative reforms, research, and liti-gation), cites examples of the approaches, and listsresources for practitioners. The bulletin closes with abrief discussion of the challenges in ensuring accessto effective legal counsel for all youth in the juvenilejustice system. Available at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubAbstract.asp?pubi=11679.

Changing the Status Quo for Status Offenders: New York State’s Efforts to Support Troubled Teens

Chiu, T., Mogulescu, S. (2004). New York: VeraInstitute for Justice.

Over the past three years, child welfare and proba-tion leaders in New York have been transforming thestate’s status offender system to provide timely sup-port to troubled teens and their families in the com-munities and rely less on courts, law enforcement,and detention. This brief examines how the shift ishelping get disobedient, but not delinquent, childrenback on track while yielding significant cost savings.Jurisdictions looking to better serve their own statusoffender populations will find useful models in thissummary of lessons learned in New York. Availableat www.vera.org/publication_pdf/253_496.pdf.

Criminal Neglect: Substance Abuse, JuvenileJustice and the Children Left Behind

(2004). Washington DC: National Center on Addictionand Substance Abuse at Columbia University

Criminal Neglect reports the results of a five-year,comprehensive study of substance abuse and statejuvenile justice systems. The report found that sub-stance abuse and addiction were involved in 1.9 mil-lion of 2.4 million juvenile arrests, but only 68,600 ofthose juveniles received substance abuse treatment.Based on the findings, the CASA report calls for a

complete overhaul of the juvenile justice system toensure that each child receives a comprehensiveassessment of needs, substance abuse treatment,and other appropriate services. Available atwww.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/templates/PressReleases.asp?articleid=371&zoneid=56.

Detection and Prevalence of Substance Use AmongJuvenile Detainees

Abram, K.M., McClelland, G.M., Teplin, L.A. (2004).Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP.

Assesses substance use detection methods andprevalence among high-risk youth detained in CookCounty, Illinois. Based on data from a NorthwesternJuvenile Project study, this OJJDP bulletin covers awide range of substances but focuses on cannabisand cocaine, the drugs most commonly used byjuvenile detainees. It includes analyses by age, sex,and race/ethnicity and confirms a high rate of sub-stance use among detainees. The authors concludethe best detection approach is to combine self-report and urinalysis with data from treatment anddrug arrest histories and information from schoolsand families.

Guidebook for Juvenile Justice and Child WelfareSystem Coordination and Integration: Frameworkfor Improved Outcomes

Wiig, J., Tuell, J. (2004) Washington DC: Child WelfareLeague of America

Most of the youth who enter the juvenile justice sys-tem have also been victims of maltreatment andrequire multisystem interventions. Built from years ofCWLA work, research, partnerships, and analysis, theGuidebook is designed to help state and local juris-dictions achieve greater system coordination andintegration. Available at www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjguidebook.htm.

JUVENILE JUST ICE NEWS AND RESOURCES

TH

E

LI

NK

13

National Institute of Justice Journal 251

(2004) Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice,NIJ.

Rural and urban gangs differ in many respects, andresearchers suggest in this journal issue that policiesand practices related to urban gangs may not applyto rural ones. Other articles discuss ways to ensuresuccessful collaboration among law enforcementagencies, the Campbell Collaboration’s review ofcriminal justice research, and NIJ’s Data ResourcesProgram. The At-a-Glance section summarizes recentresearch on child custody mediation and domesticviolence, effects of child abuse, hung juries, problem-oriented policing in public housing, and frugal pro-gram evaluations. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/jr000251.htm.

Prostitution of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRSOJJDP Crimes Against Children Series

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. (2004). Washington DC: U.S.Department of Justice, OJJDP.

Examines the prostitution of juveniles by analyzingincidents of this problem that come to the attentionof law enforcement. Part of the Crimes AgainstChildren Bulletin Series, this bulletin draws on datafrom the FBI’s National Incident-Based ReportingSystem (NIBRS) to provide a profile of juvenile prosti-tution, noting characteristics that distinguish it fromits adult counterpart. Although information about theprostitution of juveniles is scarce, NIBRS data can be used to help juvenile justice officials and othersbetter identify and respond to the sexual exploitationof youth.

Screening and Assessing Mental Health andSubstance Use Disorders Among Youth in theJuvenile Justice System: A Resource Guide for Practitioners

Grisso, T., Underwood, L. A. (2004). Washington DC:U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP.

Presents information on instruments that can be usedto screen and assess youth for mental health andsubstance use-related disorders at various stages ofthe juvenile justice process. The guide includes pro-

files of more than 50 instruments, guidelines forselecting instruments, and best practice recommen-dations for diverse settings and situations. It isintended as a basic tool for early, accurate identifica-tion of youth with mental disorders. Once identified,these youth can receive the services required toimprove their lives, reduce recidivism, and promotecommunity safety. Available at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubAbstract.asp?pubi=11936.

Toward Safe and Orderly Schools—The NationalStudy of Delinquency Prevention in Schools

Gottfredson, G., Gottfredson, D., Czeh, E., Cantor, D.,Crosse, S., Hantman, I. (2004). Washington DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,National Institute of Justice.

What are schools doing to prevent delinquency andpromote school safety? This brief presents findingsfrom a national survey of elementary, middle, andsecondary schools. Problem behavior is widespreadand most common in urban areas and middleschools. Schools have adopted a large, diverse arrayof activities, curricular programs, and security meas-ures, but many of these are unproven or poorlyimplemented. Key characteristics of successful pro-grams and how schools can improve program qualityand implementation are identified. Available atwww.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/205005.htm.

Trauma Among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

(2004). Los Angeles CA and Durham NC: NationalChild Traumatic Stress Network

Thanks to the hard work of Julian Ford’s group at theUniversity of Connecticut School of Medicine, Yale/UConn Center for Children Exposed to Violence, andthe Juvenile Justice Working Group, four new factsheets are available on the National Child TraumaticStress Network Website. Trauma Among Girls in theJuvenile Justice System, Victimization and JuvenileOffending, Assessing Exposure to PsychologicalTrauma and Posttraumatic Stress in the JuvenileJustice Population, and Trauma-FocusedInterventions for Youth in the Juvenile Justice SystemAvailable at www.nctsnet.org/nccts/nav.do?pid=ctr_tool_educ_juv.

TH

E

LI

NK

14

The optimal wording and order of questions on vari-ous assessment instruments may vary for children ofdifferent ages, developmental levels, ethnicities, andcultural backgrounds. What constitutes a symptom(versus expected age-appropriate behaviors) mayalso differ developmentally and ethnoculturally. Forexample, the behavior of an American Indian adoles-cent who averts his eyes when speaking to an adultshould not necessarily be perceived as insubordinate,but consistent with cultural norms of respectful com-munication. Children of different ages and ethnocul-tural backgrounds also may respond differently tointerview versus questionnaire formats, as well as toassessors with different styles and backgrounds.

Assessors may find that many assessment tools havenot been translated into other languages or normedfor members of minority groups. Furthermore, sincechildren and adolescents in the justice system aver-age two years behind expected grade level(Wasserman et. al., 2002), cognitive and develop-mental delays should also be considered in theassessment process as this will affect their perform-ance on instruments and may also impact theirbehavior in the juvenile justice or residential setting.

Trauma Treatment and Interventions

Research conducted with the juvenile justice popula-tion over the last decade generally shows the mosteffective trauma-focused treatment programs arehighly structured, emphasize the development ofbasic skills, and provide individual counseling thatdirectly addresses behavior, attitudes, and percep-tions (Altschuler, 1998).

Although to date no known studies exist on the useof cognitive behavioral therapy for trauma with youthinvolved in the juvenile justice system, it has beenshown to be effective for youth exposed to a varietyof traumatic events and has received the strongestempirical support from studies with abused children(Saunders et al, 2003). This therapy can be used inindividual, family, and group formats, and in office- orschool-based settings.

Several other therapies that do not address traumadirectly, but do target symptoms and functional prob-lems that are relevant to trauma, have empirical sup-port and are widely used to address behavioral healthproblems of youth in the juvenile justice system.These include Behavioral Parent Training,Multisystemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy,Treatment Foster Care, and Brief Family Therapy(Borduin et al, 2000; Chamberlain & Moore, 2002;

Ford et al., 2003; Kashani et al., 1999). Most of theseinterventions do not report data on cultural differ-ences in technique or outcomes.

Most of the trauma-focused treatments share anemphasis on teaching skills such as emotion identifi-cation, processing, and regulation; anxiety manage-ment; identification and alteration of maladaptivecognitions; and interpersonal communication andsocial problem solving.

Some interventions also seek to enhance parent-childrelationships by promoting positive interactions,reducing negative interactions, and using effectivebehavior management skills.

Family-Based Interventions

Evidence suggests that involving family members inthe treatment and rehabilitation of traumatized chil-dren is important for reasons related to both childand family functioning and delinquency (Sherman etal., 1998). But a variety of barriers may exist toinvolving the families of youth involved in the juve-nile justice system (Ko et al., 2004). Some facilitiesare located far from the home communities of chil-dren they serve, making family participation impossi-ble; many families need transportation or other assis-tance to participate in treatment. Families may feelangry, ashamed, or burdened by their child’s delin-quent behavior and the additional hardship it hasbrought to the family.

If the parent was a perpetrator (e.g., domestic vio-lence, or sexual or physical assault), and the child isstill living with or in regular contact with that parent,the parent may not yet have accepted responsibilityfor the traumatic events. Nonoffending parents mayexperience loyalty conflicts between the victim andthe perpetrator. They also may feel significant dis-tress and helplessness due to not having been ableto prevent the victimization. Parents who witnesstheir children’s exposure to trauma may experiencesignificant posttraumatic stress themselves, and thishas been shown to be associated with traumatizedchildren’s levels of PTSD (Winston et al., 2002).Finally, caregivers themselves may be victimized orabused, or suffer from depression, anxiety or trau-matic stress and feel unable to help their children.

Growing evidence from studies of children exposedto different types of trauma shows that less parentaldistress and more familial support mitigates the neg-ative impact of trauma on children. There are different approaches to conducting clinical

Trauma, from page 9

TH

E

LI

NK

15

intervention with families, including shared familysessions in conjunction with individual or group treat-ment for the child, group or individual treatment withadjunctive family/parent sessions, family therapy, andfamily group therapy.

Therapists need to be especially alert to family mem-bers who were together during a traumatic experi-ence, such as a violent assault or death. Not only dofamily members have very different psychologicalneeds and different courses of recovery, but familymembers can actually serve as traumatic remindersto each other. One goal of therapy is to help familymembers to better anticipate, identify, and managetrauma and loss reminders. Another goal of therapyshould be to improve understanding and timely sup-port and tolerance among family members, and torepair trauma-related estrangement.

Group-Based Interventions

Although some have suggested that group interven-tions may inadvertently reinforce problem behaviors(Dishion, 1999), not all interventions with peer groupshave shown adverse effects. Some strategies toguard against these potential adverse effects includeinvolving parents in treatment, mixing antisocial andprosocial youth in groups, limiting group size, andusing cofacilitators so inappropriate behaviors can beaddressed immediately prior to peers reinforcementof the negative behavior.

Julian Ford’s Trauma Adaptive Recovery GroupEducation and Therapy, Adolescent Version, is a nine-session intervention intended to introduce conceptsof trauma to youth in a nonthreatening way and tohelp youth with self-regulation techniques. It is not anexposure approach. That is, youth are not asked totalk directly about their traumatic memories. Instead,the curriculum helps them understand the relation-ship between thoughts and feelings and make betterchoices based on their goals.

Another promising trauma-focused group interven-tion is Sandy Bloom’s Sanctuary Model, whichemphasizes the importance of creating a safe envi-ronment where people can heal. The goal of theintervention is to develop a more trauma-focusedmilieu through a commitment to changing the envi-ronment to one of nonviolence and decreased seclu-sion and restraint.

Gender-Specific Programming

Studies have found that traumatic events experi-enced by delinquent girls differ from those experi-

enced by delinquent boys. Boys are more likely toreport witnessing a violent event and being threat-ened by a weapon, while girls are more likely to men-tion being victims of violence and being forced intosexual activity. Girls tend to report higher levels ofpsychological distress than boys (Wood et al., 2002).

Connection with others is a central organizing featureof development in girls. Likewise, much of the traumagirls face is interpersonal and relational in nature.Juvenile justice and residential programs must helpgirls address complex and conflictual relationshipswith family members, boyfriends, and children. Theyshould help girls negotiate gender and family roles,determine appropriate boundaries in relationships,and avoid conflict and violence in dating relation-ships. Programs should also help girls learn appropri-ate coping strategies and constructively explore andresolve their feelings. Given the growing number ofgirls in the juvenile justice system, high rates of expo-sure to violence among girls, and higher rates ofPTSD among incarcerated girls than boys, gender-specific programming is essential to meeting the spe-cific needs of girls and to prevent their retraumatiza-tion while in the system.

Since 2000, the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Projectin Pennsylvania has been developing a training cur-riculum to respond to the needs of traumatized girlsby conducting statewide trainings on trauma withdetention workers, judges, and probation officers.They have also been conducting psychoeducationgroups with girls.

Recommendations for Addressing Trauma inJuvenile Justice and Residential Facilities

Unfortunately, many detention and residential facili-ties simply aren’t equipped to care for young peoplewho have trauma histories. They may even inadver-tantly make things worse for these children. Thearrest, detention, juvenile processing, and placementcan be frightening and confusing for the child andfamily. Some detention facilities are overcrowded,which increases the risk of injury and suicideattempts, and placement may trigger separation anxiety for many youth.

Detention and residential settings may expose chil-dren to verbal or physical aggression and exacerbatefears or trauma symptoms a child is already experi-encing. Use of seclusion and restraint may triggerreactions and memories of prior traumatic experi-ences, especially among sexually-abused girls. Beingseparated from families can also leave youth agitated,sad, and homesick.

TH

E

LI

NK

16

Doing No Harm

Juvenile and residential facilities should take steps toreduce the likelihood of triggering traumatic reactionsin youth or retraumatizing them:

• Juvenile justice and residential staff should avoidpower assertion to reduce the experience of threat.

• Juvenile justice and residential staff should betrained and demonstrate competence in nonphysi-cal control techniques to manage crises.

• Interventions should be focused on reducing theperception of provocation and undermining thelegitimacy of aggression as a response.

• Seclusion and restraint on young people should beused as a last resort. Prior-abuse victims shouldnot be restrained.

• Youth should not be punished for thinking andbehavior that is immature or reactive to trauma.

• Facilities should forego some of the traditionalmethods of preserving order and asserting author-ity, especially tough, military-style physically con-frontational approaches.

• Trauma treatment with youth, particularly discus-sion of painful emotional experiences, should beundertaken only by qualified professionals, andonly when there is sufficient time to help the youthdevelop coping skills.

• Adequate screening and assessment for traumashould be done before initiating treatment.Residential staff should collect information on achild’s trauma triggers and cues, as well as traumahistory and reactions.

• Youth who have been exposed to significant trau-ma should not be combined in treatment groupswith children who have little or no exposure.

• Rehabilitation and educational programs are notsubstitutes for treatment.

Creating a Trauma-Informed Environment

Children who have experienced trauma need to betreated in safe, structured, and predictable environ-ments that provide continuity in their development,teach adaptive responses to stress, and create poten-tial for change (Rivard et al., 2003).

Safety is paramount. Trauma researcher SandraBloom says the residential environment must bephysically, psychologically, socially, and morally safefor both and staff. She advocates individual safety

plans developed jointly by youth and their counselorsto identify alternative ways to feel safe in stressful sit-uations. These safety plans are implemented whenyouth show signs of distress. The whole communityalso uses safety plans when it feels unsafe due toconflict or acting out within the facility.

The environment should create and model healthy,supportive relationships between individuals, anddevelop an atmosphere of hope and nonviolence. Itshould encourage prosocial connections with peers.Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral techniquesshould be used to teach youth how to develop empa-thy, reduce anxiety, identify and manage feelings,accurately process information, and solve problems.

Training Staff

Staff who interact daily with traumatized youth mustbe trained about child trauma. Eruptions of aggres-sive or avoidant behavior can leave residential stafffeeling off-balance, either leading them to distancethemselves from the residents or call for stricter con-trols (Abramovitz & Bloom, 2003). Staff trained abouttrauma know that children who have sustained physi-cal, psychological, social, and moral insults havedevelopmental injuries.

Trauma-informed residential staff understand thatchildren are not mad or bad but have psychologicalinjuries resulting from exposure to overwhelming lifeevents. They must be able to engage in complexnegotiations with clients, families, and each otheraround boundaries, traumatic reenactment behavior,dependency, anger and sometimes identification withthe aggressor, and the courage it takes to change.

Juvenile justice and residential treatment profession-als have an opportunity to raise the standard of carefor youth by reducing the likelihood of triggering trau-matic reactions, creating trauma-informed environ-ments, training staff about trauma, and providingeffective trauma-focused assessment and treatment.

The National Child Traumatic Stress Network is work-ing to advance effective interventions and services toaddress the affect of traumatic stress on children andadolescents. Network centers are working with theirchild welfare and juvenile justice systems to bringthese practices and services to local communities.

Christine Siegfried, MSSW, and Susan Ko, PhD, arewith the National Center for Child Traumatic Stress atthe UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute and Hospital.For more information, visit www.nctsnet.org. For alist of resources, e-mail csiegfried@mednet.ucla.eduor sko@mednet.ucla.edu.