1

Crossover Youth: Research, Policy and Practice

CYPM OverviewShay Bilchik

Nebraska Juvenile Justice Association Conference

May 6, 2015

2For more information on the various programs, visit: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu

CJJR Overview

Crossover Youth Practice Model Juvenile Justice Leadership Network

Center for Coordinated Assistance to States

Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project

Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative

Certificate Programs

(Diversion; Multi-System Integration; Racial and Ethnic Disparities; School Justice Partnerships; Youth in Custody)

Public Information Officers Learning Collaborative

3

Who Are Crossover Youth?

Crossover Youth

Dually-InvolvedDually-

Adjudicated

4

Pathways to Crossing Over

1. Open CW Case Arrest Enter JJ System

2. Open CW Case CW Case Closed Arrest Enter JJ System

3. No Previous or Current CW Case JJ Investigation after Arrest or upon Release from Custody Referral to CW

5

S

Research Supporting

the CYPM

6

Prevalence

Child Welfare Population• 10-29% of youth ≥ 8 years old in CW are subsequently arrested

Juvenile Justice Referrals• Overall Cases:

67% with some type of CW history (King County)

• Diversion Cases• 1% (4 Arizona

Counties)• 34% (King

County)

Juvenile Justice Adjudicated Cases• Overall: 35%

(New Mexico)• Probation

Supervision: 7% (4 Arizona Counties)

• Probation Placement: 42% (4 Arizona Counties)

Herz, D. (2014) Building A Multi-Systems Approach: Defining and Identifying “Crossover Youth”

7

What Contributes to Crossing Over?

Experiences w/ Child

Welfare System

Placement Type

Adolescent-Limited and Persistent

Maltreatment

Absence of Positive

Attachments

Placement Instability

8

Characteristics of Youth

Youth

Living in group home at time

of arrest 26%

AWOL at time of arrest

47% Attending school94%

(80% of whom had academic or

behavior problems)

9

Characteristics of Youth

African American Youth Overrepresented

About 1/3 Female

Enter System Young and Remain into Adolescence

Families with History of Criminal Behavior, Mental Health and/or Substance

Abuse Problems

Truancy Academic and Behavioral Problems at School

Prior Contact with the Juvenile Justice System (½ to ¾)

High Rates of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Problems

10

System Experiences Overrepresented in detention (25-50%)

and underrepresented in

diversion

5 years avg. time in child welfare

59% had a prior criminal history

22% arrest was related to placement

56% had a placement change 6 months prior

to arrest

S

Overview of the CYPM Phases

12

CYPM - Phases

Phase I: Arrest, Identification and Detention

Phase II: Joint Assessment and Planning

Phase III: Coordinated Case Management

13

Goals

Reductions in:

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

the use of congregate care

the disproportionate representation of youth of color, particularly in the crossover population

the number of youth crossing over and becoming dually-adjudicated

14

Process and Practice Goals

Reduce

Juvenile Justice

Penetration

Use of Pre-Adjudicati

on Detention

Rate of Recidivism

Re-entering

CW from JJ

15

Increase

Information Sharing

Family Voice In Decision

Making

Youth/Parent Satisfaction

Joint Assessment

and Case Planning

Coordinated Case

Management

Family and Youth Engageme

nt

Pro-Social Bonds

Diversion

Process and Practice Goals

16

Themes

Family Engagement

Permanency

Disproportion

ality Gender

Information

Sharing

Coordinated Case

Management

Funding /

Resources

17

What do CYPM sites do?

Identification of

youth at the

point of arrest

Clarify how to legally share

informationDevelop Prevention Strategies

Ensure there is no foster care bias in offering

diversion

Ensure youth

are not held in

detention for

extended time

Utilization of a joint

assessment process

Creation of a

consolidated case plan

Creation of a Crossover Court Permanenc

y/Self-Sufficiency Planning

18

CYPM Data Collection Process

Baseline Comparison

Target Youth

19

CYPM Outcomes

Highlights from the 2010 Data

Pathway 1 Youth Only

2010 CYPM Sites (N=12)

Austin

Miami

Seattle

Cincinnati

Rochester

Sioux CityDenver

Portland

Los Angeles

Polk

Philadelphia

Broward

Who Are CYPM Youth in These Sites?

84% Have a MH and/or SU Problem

60% Are African American

40% Are Female

79% Have

Academic and/or

Behavioral Problems at

School

31% Not

AttendingSchool

Child Welfare Characteristics of CYPM Youth in These Sites

35% Living at Home at Time of Arrest

25% Living

Congregate Care at Time of Arrest

Average Time in CW4.3 years (Median

2.2 years)

55% Had One or

More Placement Changes in the Past 6

Months

55% Involved with CW

for Neglect

Juvenile Justice Characteristics of CYPM Youth in These Sites

61% Had at

Least One Prior

Offense

25% Detaine

d at Arrest 22%

Property

Offense

37% Other

Offense*

39% At

Living Situatio

n

20% At

School

*Other offenses include alcohol and drug offenses, resisting arrest, and status offenses

70% Assaults

41% Violent Offense

Charge Type for Current Offense

85% of CYPM youth across sites received a Promising Practice compared to 37% of Pre-CYPM youth.

Focus of CYPM Reform Efforts in These Sites

100% Enhanced

Coordination

82% Early

Identification

64% Reduced Detentio

n

64%Arrest

at Living

Situation

55% Crossover

Courts/Units

91%Joint Assessment

Multi- Disciplinary

Teams

82% Arrest at School

82% Increased Diversion

82% Focus on

Permanency

% of Sites Showing Improvement in Educational Outcomes

IncreasedEnrollment (42%)

AustinMiamiPortland RochesterSeattle

Reduced Behavior Problems at School (58%)

DenverLos AngelesMiamiPhiladelphiaSioux City

Circuit 17 Portland

Los AngelesPhiladelphiaSioux City

Improved Academic Performance (33%)

Austin

Indicates a greater than 10% improvement between the initial and tracking data for CYPM youth. Indicates that of those sites showing improvement for CYPM youth, the improvements held when compared to the Pre-CYPM youth.

% of Sites Showing Increased Contact with Support Systems

Non-Family (58%)

PhiladelphiaPortlandRochester

DenverSeattle Sioux City

AustinCircuit 10Circuit 17CincinnatiLos AngelesMiamiSeattlePortland

Other Family (92%)

DenverPhiladelphiaSioux City

Indicates a greater than 10% improvement between the initial and tracking data for CYPM youth. Indicates that of those sites showing improvement for CYPM youth, the improvements held when compared to the Pre-CYPM youth.

Parents (83%)

CincinnatiLos AngelesMiamiSeattleSioux City Circuit 10

Circuit 17DenverPhiladelphiaPortland

% of Sites Showing Improvement in Behavioral Health

(CYPM v. Pre-CYPM at tracking only)

Substance Use (25%)

CincinnatiMiami

Portland

Indicates more than a 10% difference between CYPM youth and Pre-CYPM youth.

Mental Health (42%)

Circuit 10Cincinnati

Los AngelesPortland

Sioux City

Status of Disposition Outcome*

for the Current Arrest (CYPM vs. Pre-CYPM)

19%Placement

23%Probation

Supervision

43%Diversion

15%Dismissed

29%Placement

25%Probation

Supervision

35%Diversion

11%Dismissed

*Pending cases were removed from analysis.

Average across sites for CYPM youth. Average across sites for Pre-CYPM youth.

Status of Permanency Goal at the End of Tracking (CYPM vs. Pre-CYPM)

12%Guardianship or Adoption

24%PPLA

EmancipationSup. Ind. Living

65%Remain Home

or Reunification

19%Guardianship or Adoption

33%PPLA

EmancipationSup. Ind. Living

47%Remain Home

or Reunification

Average across sites for CYPM youth. Average across sites for Pre-CYPM youth.

Status of JJ and CW cases at the End of Tracking

(CYPM Vs. Pre-CYPM only)

18%Both

Cases Closed

34%CW OpenJJ Closed

40%Both Cases

Open

8%CW Closed

JJ Open

18%Both

Cases Closed

20%CW

OpenJJ Closed

51%Both Cases

Open

12%CW Closed

JJ Open

Average across sites for CYPM youth. Average across sites for Pre-CYPM youth.

% of CYPM Sites with Lower Recidivism than Pre-CYPM Sites

Had a New Sustained Petition (17%)

PortlandSeattle

Indicates more than 10% difference between CYPM youth and Pre-CYPM youth.

Had a New Arrest (42%)

AustinCircuit 17Cincinnati

PhiladelphiaSeattle

32

CYPM Jurisdictions

Since Spring 2010, CJJR has worked in 88 counties in 20 states across the U.S. implementing the CYPM

33

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS