Cross Over Youth: Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems

1

CROSS-OVER YOUTH

Ryan Spohn, Ph.D., DirectorNebraska Center for Justice Research

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

University of Nebraska at Omaharspohn@unomaha.edu

2

OVERVIEW OF THE TRAINING

• Why is this important?

• Definitions• Prevalence• Negative outcomes

• How do you work with cross-over youth?

• Your experiences? • What do you do different?

• Suggested policies and practices

• Cross-Over Youth Practice Model in Douglas County

• Conclusions and final questions

3

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Definitions:

• “Crossover youth”

• Dually-involved youth

• Dually-adjudicated youth

• A youth has an open child welfare case and has been placed on diversion in the juvenile justice system: in which category would you place this youth?

Adopted from Douglas County CYPM

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

4

5

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CROSSOVER YOUTH• Often in child welfare system for long periods of time

• More likely to be female as compared to the general delinquency population

• Minorities, particularly African Americans, appear to be over represented

• Most are placed out of the home and often experience multiple placements

• They are often truant or performing poorly in school

• Over half are detained prior to adjudication

Herz & Ryan (2008), Halemba, Lord & Zawacki (2004), Kelley, Thornberry & Smith (1997), Saeturn &

Swain (2009)

Douglas Co. CYPM, Herz (2009) 6

MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS

7

PREVALENCE

• “In general, people who experience any type of maltreatment in childhood…are more likely than people who were not maltreated to be arrested later in life.” ~Loeber & Farrington (1998)

8

PREVALENCE: MALTREATMENT AS STARTING POINT

9

PREVALENCE: MALTREATMENT AS STARTING POINT

10

PREVALENCE: MALTREATMENT AS STARTING POINT

Sources: Halemba & Siegel (2011), Ryan et al (2007), Halemba et al.(2004)

11

PREVALENCE: JUVENILE JUSTICE AS STARTING POINT• King County Washington: 67% of juvenile justice

cases had some type of child welfare history

• Missouri: Of 79,766 youth between 2002 & 2009 with at least on delinquency referral and one risk assessment, 17% had child maltreatment history

• Arizona: Presence of dual involvement was 1% for diversion, 7% for probation, and 42% of probation placement cases

12

PREVALENCE: JUVENILE JUSTICE AS STARTING POINT

• Overall, results indicate that dual-system involvement may be greater for youth with greater penetration into the juvenile justice system

Source: Dannerbeck (2004)

Sources: Widom & Maxfield (2001), Culhane, Metraux, & Moreno (2011)

13

OUTCOMES FOR DUALLY-INVOLVED YOUTH• Comparing dually involved youth to a non-maltreated

control group over 25 years, maltreatment increased the likelihood of arrest as a juvenile by 59% and as an adult by 28%

• In Los Angeles County, compared to youth involved only in child welfare or probation, dually-involved youth were more likely to:

• have adult criminal justice involvement• be on public welfare• access health services• access mental health and substance abuse services

Douglas Co. CYPM 14

LONG TERM OUTCOMES• Higher rates of substance abuse and mental

illness

• Higher recidivism rates

• Higher rates of adult criminal involvement

• Higher rates of child welfare involvement as parents/perpetrators of maltreatment

Spohn (2000) 15

MY WORK WITH WIDOM’S DATA: FEMALES, MALTREATMENT, & CRIME

Spohn (2000) 16

MY WORK WITH WIDOM’S DATA: MALES, MALTREATMENT, & CRIME

17

WHAT ARE YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH CROSSOVER YOUTH?

HOW IS YOUR WORK DIFFERENT WHEN WORKING WITH CROSSOVER YOUTH?

18

CHALLENGES FOR THE SYSTEMS

19

CHALLENGES: COMMUNICATION

• “The absence of an infrastructure to facilitate communication and collaboration across the child welfare and juvenile justice systems is perhaps the most significant problem underlying the ineffective handling of dually-involved youth.” ~Hertz et al. 2012:19

• Are there policies that prevent information to be shared by workers in one system with workers in other systems?

• COMMUNICATION!!!• COMMUNICATION!!!• COMMUNICATION!!!

20

CHALLENGES: FUNDING

• How are costs to be allocated if multiple systems serve crossover youth in an integrated fashion?

21

CHALLENGES: VIEWS OF THE YOUNG PERSON

• Child Welfare:• Young person is viewed as a victim and efforts are

made to nurture and protect him or her

• Juvenile Justice:• Young person is viewed as a perpetrator or

someone who puts society at risk

22

CHALLENGES: VIEWS OF THE YOUNG PERSON

• The Reality:

• Dually-involved youth need to be protected AND their behavior needs to change so that they do not harm others

• The systems must serve the youth both to protect them AND to effect behavioral change

23

CHALLENGES: INFORMATION SHARING BARRIERS• There is often no avenue for agency personnel in

the two systems to routinely interact in relation to cases they have in common

• This results in a lack of data to inform practice with crossover youth

• Prevents the two systems from planning for crossover youth in a coordinated fashion that addresses individual needs

• Legal and policy issues govern how information can or cannot be shared

24

CHALLENGES: INFORMATION SHARING BARRIERS

• How do these information sharing barriers impact you in your work?

25

CHALLENGES: INEFFECTIVE SERVICE DELIVERY• Little or no coordination to achieve optimal case

plans; may be duplicative or contradictory

• Can push youth further into juvenile justice system when they fail to meet the requirements of contradictory case plans

• Assessments are duplicate; little attention is given to the integration of findings from various assessments

26

CHALLENGES: FAILURE TO ENGAGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM

• Mental health & substance abuse systems can exert a fair amount of power on these youth, so these systems should be engaged in an integrated fashion

27

CHALLENGES: FAILURE TO BE TRAUMA-INFORMED • Recognizing the ways in which practice can be

more effective when applied through a “trauma lens”

• Failure to do so leads to flawed interventions that most often miss the central issues facing the young person

• To what extent is Nebraska’s child welfare system trauma-informed?

• How about the juvenile justice system?

28

CHALLENGES: FAILURE TO ENGAGE FAMILIES• Best outcomes occur when families are full

partners in the process

• Child-serving system representatives and parents exist in an imbalance of power

• Family members may fear sharing feelings regarding case plans out of fear of appearing “resistant” or “noncompliant”

• Lack of family involvement often results in case plans that are not successful

29

CHALLENGES: ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES FOR INTEGRATED SERVICES

• Will families have a primary case worker despite their involvement in multiple programs & services?

• Will services be co-located?

• Will there be joint case plans or simply joint case planning (multiple plans, but they are complimentary, not conflicting)?

30

SUGGESTIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

• Key Principles in the literature:1. Community-wide involvement

2. Use of risk and protective factors

3. Continuum of services beginning with primary intervention and ending with interventions for the most serious behaviors

4. Data-informed activities

5. Evidence-based and feasible practices

31

PROMISING PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES• Family Engagement:

• Effective communication with families and strength-based approaches to working with them

• Family stakeholders are looked to for advice and guidance

• Interventions are implemented that empower youths, families, victims, and other key stakeholders

• Services are designed to meet the expressed needs of youths and families

• Fostering Connections and the Second Chance Act

32

PROMISING PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES

• “Family engagement at all key decision points and at all levels of involvement is critical to achievement of successful outcomes for the population of dual status youth in a jurisdiction.” ~Wiig and Tuell (2013)

33

PROMISING PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES• Conduct an Inventory of Assessment Tools:

• List of all assessments used in both child welfare and juvenile justice systems

• Identify overlap: seek to increase efficiency

• Identify assessment tools that could be used by both systems or in concert with one another

Wiig and Tuell (2013) 34

SUGGESTED PRACTICES• Develop individual outcomes for each youth focused on

competencies and connections to family and community

• Routinely identify dual status youth within a prescribed time frame

• Use validated screening and assessment instruments

• Develop and use a joint assessment process

• Develop opportunities for alternatives to formal processing at key decision points

• Use a structured process for consideration of diversion, early intervention, and formal processing alternatives at earliest opportunity

Wiig and Tuell (2013) 35

SUGGESTED PRACTICES, CONTINUED• Develop procedures for routine, ongoing contact

between probation officers and child welfare workers over the life of each crossover case

• Employ coordinated case planning, coordinated court processes, and coordinated case management

• Focus on family stability, placement stability, and community connections

• Engage families in decision making processes that impact their children as well as in policy and program development decisions that impact cross system handling of all dual status youth

Wiig and Tuell (2013) 36

SUGGESTED PRACTICES, CONTINUED• Need for good individualized assessment of the child

cannot be overemphasized…services must be tailored to address the child’s needs

• Finally, be sensitive to the potential negative effects of increased attention to, and surveillance of, crossover youth

• Why might this be an issue?

Wiig, Widom and Tuell (2003) 37

SUGGESTED PROGRAMS• Home visitation: provide family support

services, model effective parenting, health screening, social service referral

• Perry Preschool Program: included home visits

• Family Assessment Approach/Alternative Response: respond to family’s needs, build on strengths, engage the family in development of a plan to improve conditions putting child at risk

Wiig, Widom and Tuell (2003) 38

SUGGESTED PROGRAMS• Structured Decision-Making (SDM): set of

instruments designed to assist with each key decision point in a child protection case to bring structure, objectivity, and consistency to cases

• CIVITAS/CCC Core Assessment: Focuses on six domains relating to the child with the goal of providing placement and services that more closely meet the child’s needs

Wiig, Widom and Tuell (2003) 39

SUGGESTED PROGRAMS• Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST): intensive family-

and community-based program that addresses the multiple risk factors for delinquency in the youth and her environment: family, peers, school, and neighborhood

• Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC): Focuses on six domains relating to the child with the goal of providing placement and services that more closely meet the child’s needs

40

EXAMPLE: DOUGLAS COUNTY CROSSOVER YOUTH PRACTICE MODEL

Douglas Co. CYPM 41

CYPM PRACTICE AREAS

Douglas Co. CYPM 42

CYPM PHASES OF IMPLEMENTATION

Douglas Co. CYPM 43

CYPM GOALS

Douglas Co. CYPM 44

CYPM GOALS

45

CREATION OF DOUGLAS CO. CYPM

• Initiated in January 2012

• Agreement between Nebraska Supreme Court, Department of Health and Human Services and Douglas County

46

PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

Partners

Juvenile Assessment Center Douglas County Juvenile County Attorney

Boys Town Douglas County Juvenile Probation

NDHHS Nebraska Families Collaborative

Project Harmony Nebraska Family Support Network

UNO Others…

47

TARGET POPULATIONA youth:

1. Referred to the County Attorney’s office for a delinquency, truancy, or status offense

AND

2. Has a Child Welfare case as the victim that is open or closed, within the last 12 months. The case can be voluntary or court involved.

• Strengths? Weaknesses?

48

Douglas Co. CYPM 49

STAFFING/TEAM MEETING PROTOCOL• Introduction/ Purpose/ Identification Information• Current Law Enforcement/ School Referral Information• Previous Justice Interactions• Current Services Status• Child Welfare Background• NFC-Current Services Status• Parent’s Statement• Youth’s Statement• School/Education Statement (if representative present)• Mental Health Provider Statement (if applicable)• Team Discussion• Team Recommendation

• Form completed• signed by all• approved by County Attorney• copied and provided to family

50

CYPM YOUTH 11/1/2012 – 12/31/13

51

CYPM YOUTH 11/1/2012 – 12/31/13• 157 youth identified were eligible for Team

Meetings.

• Team Meetings could yield four potential outcomes:

1. Nolle Prosequi (no further action on law violation or status referral)

2. Enhanced Child Welfare Coordinated Case Plan (no further action on law violation or status referral)

3. Diversion

4. Court filing

52

CYPM YOUTH 11/1/2012 – 12/31/13• 77 of the youth identified were considered Data

Only• Data Only Definition: cross‐over youth identified

who is already Court‐involved for delinquency or status; and/or who is being held in Detention

• These youth are not eligible for a Team Meeting at the level of Diversion

• These youth can be served with Coordinated Case Planning

53

GENDER OF CYPM YOUTH

54

RACE OF CYPM YOUTH

55

AGE OF CYPM YOUTH

56

57

58

CYPM QUESTIONS?

59

CONCLUSIONS• Addressing the risks and needs of crossover

youth can:

• Promote positive system collaborations

• Reduce duplication, increase coordination, and increase cost-effectiveness of service provision

• Produce positive short-term impacts for youth

• Produce positive long-term impacts for youth

• But, challenges are many due to the extent of system coordination required

• Questions?

60

Ryan Spohn, Ph.D.rspohn@unomaha.edu