IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH THAT CROSSOVER BETWEEN CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices: A Policy Institute New Orleans, LA September 21, 2012
Macon Stewart, MSW, LGSW Program Manager, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform Georgetown University
Key Concepts Crossover Youth: Any youth who experiences maltreatment and engages in delinquency
Dually-Involved Youth: A crossover youth who has had some level of system contact in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems
Dually-Adjudicated Youth: A dually-involved youth who has court involvement in both systems
Dual Involvement Pathways Pathways with Known CW History
Pathways without Known CW History
• Pathway 1: Open CW case with subsequent delinquency charge • Pathway 2: Previous but not current CW case at time of delinquency new referral
• Pathway 3: Upon JJ investigation after delinquency occurs, maltreatment discovered referral to CW • Pathway 4: Term of correctional placement ends, but no home or no safe home to return to referral to CW
What is the prevalence of youth in child welfare that crossover into delinquency
Between 7% and 30% of youth aged 10 or older involved in child welfare are subsequently arrested
Experiences with Abuse/Neglect and the system -Persistent maltreatment -Type of placement -Placement instability -Lack of positive attachments
Demographics -More likely to be male -Increased likelihood of being female -More likely to be African-American -Younger at the age of 1st arrest than youth not involved in CW
Prevalence of youth in the delinquency system with a history of child welfare involvement or who are referred to child welfare due to maltreatment In overall juvenile justice populations, the percentage ranges from 17% to 67% across studies. Higher rates of dual-involvement, however, seem related to how deeply a youth penetrates the juvenile justice system.
1% Diversion cases
7% Probation Cases
42% Placement Cases
Results taken from Arizona Halemba et al 2004
Long Term Outcomes • Higher rates of substance abuse • Higher rates of mental illness • Higher rates of criminal involvement as adults • Higher rates of child welfare involvement as parents/perpetrators of maltreatment
What does research tell us?
Prevention and early intervention for maltreatment is critically important System responses must be carefully considered • •
Use of placements should addressed Assessing risk for delinquency and providing appropriate intervention is important
Results suggest that the trauma of maltreatment and system involvement is critically important to understanding the delinquency trajectory.
Origin of CYPM Systems Integration Initiative Infrastructure Building
Bridging Two Worlds: A Policy Guide Recommendations to federal, state/tribal, and local policy makers
Breakthrough Series Collaborative Testing promising practices in local jurisdictions to improve outcomes for youth
Overarching goals of CYPM
Reduction in the number of youth placed in out-ofhome care; Reduction in the use of congregate care; Reduction in the disproportionate representation of children of color, particularly in the crossover population; and Reduction in the number of youth crossing over and becoming dually-involved.
CYPM Principles at a glance 1. 2.
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. 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.
We provide opportunities for professional development and ensure adequate supervision for all staff. This is essential in ensuring workforce efficacy.
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.
Phase I Practice Area 1: Arrest, Identification, & Detention Practice Area 2: Decision Making Regarding Charges
Phase II Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment & Planning
Phase III Practice Area 4: Coordinated Case Management & Ongoing Assessment Practice Area 5: Planning for Youth Permanency, Transition & Case Closure
The Crossover Youth Practice Model Phase I Practice Area 1: Arrest, Identification, & Detention Practice Area 2: Decision Making Regarding Charges
This phase focuses on the front-end of the system and the experiences of crossover youth prior to and immediately after crossing over into the second system of care
The Crossover Youth Practice Model Phase II
Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment & Planning
This phase focuses on dual-system case management functions after a youth is formally involved in both systems
The Crossover Youth Practice Model Phase III
Practice Area 4: Coordinated Case Management & Ongoing Assessment
Practice Area 5: Planning for Youth Permanency, Transition & Case Closure This phase focuses on on-going case management and planning for permanency.
California • Los Angeles Co. • San Diego Colorado • Broomfield Co • Denver Co. • Douglas Co. • El Paso Co. • Jefferson • Larimer Co. • Morgan Co. • San Luis Valley Florida • Bartow • Duval Co. • Ft. Lauderdale • Miami-Dade • Volusia Co. Iowa • Woodbury Co. Minnesota • Carver Co. • Hennepin Co. • Kandiyohi Co. • Olmsted Co. • Stearns Co. Nebraska • Douglas Co.
Current CYPM Sites
Nevada • Washoe Co. New York • Monroe co. • NYC (Bronx) Ohio • Cuyahoga Co. • Franklin Co. • Hamilton Co. • Lucas Co. • Montgomery Co. • Stark Co. Summit Co. • Oregon • Marion Co. • Multnomah Co. Pennsylvania • Philadelphia South Carolina • Berkley Co. • Charleston Co. • Georgetown Co. Texas • Bexar Co. • Dallas Co. • El Paso Co. • McLennan Co. • Tarrant Co. • Travis Co. Washington • King Co.
Crossover Youth Practice Model Preliminary Aggregate Data Findings—From January 2012 and earlier data findings 16
African-American youth are overrepresented in dually-involved populations more than in the child welfare and juvenile justice system populations. This is consistent with other research on the dually-involved population. Females represent a higher proportion of dually-involved youth compared to the general delinquency population. Dually-involved youth are significantly more likely to be living in congregate care at the time of their arrest than other child welfare youth. They are also more likely to have Planned Permanent Living Arrangements (APPLA’s) as their permanency goal than other child welfare youth, though this likelihood is reduced with CYPM implementation. CYPM youth, relative to pre-CYPM youth, are being identified earlier, are more likely to be handled using promising practices (i.e. special units, one judge/one family, MDT, etc.), are more likely to receive joint assessment, and are less likely to be detained following arrest.
Additional Findings from June 2012 17
Six months after CYPM youth were identified, the tracked subgroup of CYPM youth were more likely to live at home and less likely to have Permanent Planned Living Arrangements as their permanency goal and to be living in congregate care compared to Pre-CYPM youth. Pre-CYPM youth were more likely to be detained at the time of arrest than CYPM youth. CYPM youth are more likely to receive diversion compared to Pre-CYPM youth. CYPM youth were less likely to have a new arrest six months after identification than pre-CYPM youth.
THE CROSSOVER YOUTH PRACTICE MODEL GUIDE CAN BE FOUND AT: HTTP://CJJR.GEORGETOWN.EDU/PM/PRACTICEMODEL.HT ML