Minnesota CYPM meeting July 17, 2013

1. Minnesota CYPM meeting July 17, 2013

2. Who are crossover youth?

3. What are the Pathways to Crossing Over?

4. The Research & Characteristics of Crossover Youth • 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.

5. How Many Youth in Child Welfare Cross Over into Delinquency

6. 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

7. Characteristics of Crossover Youth Child Welfare Experiences Individual Characteristics Juvenile Justice Experiences

8. 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

9. Overview of The Crossover Youth Practice Model

10. 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

11. 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.

12. CYPM Principles • 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 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.

13. CYPM Principles • We ensure authentic, intentional, and meaningful involvement of youth and families in policy and practice development, service planning and delivery. • 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. • 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.

14. CYPM Principles • We actively seek to reduce racial disproportionality and eliminate disparities within the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. • We provide opportunities for professional development and ensure adequate supervision for all staff. This is essential in ensuring workforce efficacy. • We ensure that policy and practice decisions are based on reliable data and evidence. • 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.

15. Crossover Youth Practice Model sites • 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 • 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. • Wyoming • Laramie Co. • Arizona • Maricopa 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 • Florida • Bartow • Duval Co. • Ft. Lauderdale • Miami-Dade • Volusia Co. • Iowa • Woodbury Co. • Maryland • Prince George’s Co. • Michigan • Oakland Co. • Nebraska • Douglas Co. • Nevada • Washoe Co. • New York • Monroe Co. • Bronx • Ohio • Carroll Co. • Clarke Co. • Cuyahoga Co. • Minnesota • Carver Co. • Hennepin Co. • Kandiyohi Co. • Olmsted Co. • Stearns Co. • Missouri • Greene Co. • Jefferson Co.

16. Crossover Youth Practice Model phases & practice areas 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 Guide can be found at: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pm/practicemodel.html

17. 25 System Enhancements…. • Family engagement at the earliest point possible • 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. • Use of MDTs at key decision points along the pathway • Focus on reduction of disproportionality

18. Practice Area 1: Arrest, Identification, and Detention • Creation of protocols that specify how client information databases can be searched to identify crossover youth • 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 • Utilization of validated screening and cross system assessment tools while the youth is in detention

19. Practice Area 2: Decision Making regarding Charges • Conduct diversion meetings and pursue strategies to reduce youth crossing over into the juvenile justice system • Partner on identifying and funding prevention services to ensure that crossover youth have access to services funded by both systems

20. Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment, and Planning • 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 • 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).

21. Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment, and Planning • Creation of a joint assessment process of the family and youth • Complete an integrated case plan—while this may be documented on different forms there is a consistent set of expectations and services • Families should help guide the process of determining what interventions could best address their situation • 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 • Identify kin to care for crossover youth when placement is necessary

22. Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment, and Planning • 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.”

23. Practice Area 4: Coordinated Case Supervision and Ongoing Assessment • 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 • The CW social worker and the JJ case worker must have ongoing dialogue regarding each case at a minimum on a monthly basis

24. Practice Area 4: Coordinated Case Supervision and Ongoing Assessment • 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 • 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

25. Practice Area 5: Planning for Youth Permanency, Transition, and Case Closure • Permanency/transition planning begins at the onset of the case • 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

26. Questions? Comments? • The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform • cjjr.georgetown.edu/‎

27. Visual Depiction

28. Phase I: Practice Area 1 Arrest, ID & Detention

29. Phase I: Practice Area 2 Decision Making Regarding Charges

30. Phase II: Practice Area 3 Case Assignment & Planning

31. Phase II: Practice Area 3 Case Assignment Assessment & Planning

32. Phase III: Practice Area 4 Coordinated Case Supervision & Ongoing Assessment

33. Phase III: Practice Area 5 Planning for Permanency, Transition & Case Closure Supervision & Ongoing Assessment