Languages
Pages
Legal
ResearchSummaryByDr.DeniseHerz
ProfessorCaliforniaStateUniversityLosAngeles
ThisresearchsummarywascreatedasanaddendumtotheCrossoverYouthPracticeModel.Theinformationcontainedinthisdocumentisstructuredbasedonthepracticeelementsoutlinedinthemodel.FormoreinformationregardingtheCrossoverYouthPracticeModel,pleasevisithttp://cjjr.georgetown.edu.
Increasedattentiontocrossoveryouthinthepastdecadehasgeneratedagrowing
bodyofresearchrelatedtotheintersectionofthechildwelfareandjuvenilejustice
systems.Theresultsandreflectionsofthisliteraturestresstheneedforthese
systemstoworktogetherandofferwaystoovercomethechallengesinherentto
cross‐systemswork.Thepurposeofthisresearchsummaryistoprovidean
overviewof“whatweknow”aboutcrossoveryouthandtheirexperiencesinthetwo
systems.Tothisend,researchfindingsforeachofthefollowingareaswillbe
reviewedrelativetoeachstageofthepracticemodel.
• Therelationshipbetweenmaltreatmentanddelinquency
• Thepathwaysthatdefineandhelptoidentifycrossoveryouth
• Thecharacteristicsofcrossoveryouth
• Juvenilejusticeprocessingoutcomesforcrossoveryouth
• Promisingapproachesforhandlingcrossoveryouth
PracticeAreaI:Arrest,Identification,andDetention
MaltreatmentasaRiskFactorforDelinquency:WhatLeadstoanArrest?
Asubstantialamountofresearchdemonstratesthatmaltreatment(i.e.,abuse—
physicalorsexual—and/orneglect)isariskfactorfordelinquency.1Inother
words,achildwithahistoryofmaltreatmentismorelikelythanachildwithouta
historyofmaltreatmenttocommitadelinquentact.Morespecifically,thepresence
ofmaltreatmentincreasesthelikelihoodofdelinquencyby47%to55%forany
arrest(Ryan&Testa,2005andWiig,Widom,&Tuell,2003,respectively),anda
maltreatmenthistoryincreasesthelikelihoodofcommittingaviolentoffenseby
96%(Wiigetal.,2003).Althoughtherelationshipbetweenmaltreatmentand
delinquencyiswell‐established,themechanismsbywhichmaltreatmentincreases
1Areviewofthisresearchisbeyondthescopeofthisresearchreview.ReadersareencouragedtoreferenceHerz&Ryan(2008),Petro(2006);Widom,Wiig,&Tuell(2004);Jonson‐Reid,1998;andWidom(1989)foramoreextensivediscussionofthisliterature.
thelikelihoodofdelinquency(i.e.,underwhatconditionswillmaltreatmentleadto
delinquency)remaintenuous.Identifyingthemechanismsbywhichmaltreatment
leadstodelinquencyisvitalbecausedespiteconsistentfindingsrelatedtothe
relationshipbetweenmaltreatmentanddelinquency,notallchildrenwhoare
victimsofmaltreatmentcommitdelinquency.Tobemosteffective,preventionof
andearlyinterventionfordelinquencymustbetargetedtochildrenwhoneedthese
servicesthemost.
Alimitednumberofresearchstudieshaveidentifiedfourfactorstofurther
understandtherelationshipbetweenmaltreatmentanddelinquency:(1)theageat
whichmaltreatmentwasexperienced,(2)theabsenceofsocialbonds,(3)the
numberofplacementsreceivedwhileinthecareofchildprotectiveservices,and(4)
thetypeofplacementsreceivedwhileinthecareofchildprotectiveservices.Using
datafromtheRochesterYouthDevelopmentStudy,forinstance,researchersfound
thatchildrenwhoexperiencedmaltreatmentonlyduringchildhoodwerelesslikely
toengageindelinquency(aswellasotherproblembehaviorsuchasdruguseand
pregnancy)thanthosewhoexperiencedmaltreatmentpersistentlythrough
childhoodandadolescenceorinadolescenceonly(Smith,Ireland,&Thornberry,
2005;Ireland,Smith,&Thornberry,2002;Thornberry,Ireland,&Smith,2001).
Withregardtosocialbonds,Ryan,Testa,andZhai(2008)examinedtherelationship
betweenattachmentandcommitmentandfutureoffendinginalongitudinalstudy
of278AfricanAmericanmalesinfostercare.Fortheseyouths,positive
attachments/relationshipsbetweenfosteryouthandfosterparentsaswellas
commitment(asmeasuredbyyouths’involvementinreligiousorganizations)
reducedtheriskofdelinquency.AfricanAmericanmalessuspendedfromschool,on
theotherhand,weremorelikelytoengageindelinquencybehavior.
Inadditiontoageatthetimeofmaltreatmentandsocialbonds,thenumberof
placementsandthetypeofplacementsexperiencedbyfostercareyouthsalso
appearstomediatetheeffectofmaltreatmentondelinquency(seealsoJonson‐Reid
&Barth,2000b;Petro,2006;Kapp,Schwartz,&Epstein,1994;Kapp,2000fora
discussionofthisissue).Ryan&Testa(2005)examinedthenumberofplacements
foradolescentmalesandfoundthatmaleswiththreeplacementswere1.54times
morelikelytohaveadelinquencychargeandmaleswithfourormoreplacements
were2.13timesmorelikelytohaveadelinquencychargethanadolescentmales
withoneplacement.Ryan,Marshall,Herz,&Hernandez(2008)analyzedtheimpact
ofcongregatecareonsubsequentdelinquencyusingasampleofyouthsinchild
protectiveservicescareinLosAngelesbetween2002and2005.Overall,theyouths
placedincongregatecareweredisproportionallyAfricanAmericanandmaleand
weremorelikelytohaveahistoryofmultipleplacementepisodescomparedto
youthinfostercareplacements.Livinginacongregatecareplacementandrunning
awayfromplacementwerethetwogreatestriskfactorsforsubsequentdelinquency
overall,andtheyouthswithatleastonecongregatecareplacementweremorethan
twiceaslikelytobearrestedasyouthswhowereplacedonlyinafostercare
placement.
AmorerecentstudybyRyan,Hong,Herz,andHernandez(underreview)examined
delinquencyacrosskinshipcareplacementsandnon‐kinshipcareplacementsinLos
AngelesCounty.Overall,theyfoundthatkinshipcareplacementsweremorelikely
toservemalesandAfricanAmericanyouth,andkinshipcareplacementsincreased
thelikelihoodofdelinquencyforAfricanAmericanmalesandCaucasianmalesliving
inkinshipplacementscomparedtonon‐kinshipplacements.Kinshipplacements
(versusnon‐kinshipcareplacements)didnotincreasethelikelihoodofdelinquency
forfemalesinthesample.
Thefindingsrelatedtocongregatecareandkinshipcareraiseimportantquestions
aboutwhattypesofplacementsareproblematicforyouth;however,before
sweepingchangesaremadetotheuseofsuchplacements,itisnecessarytoidentify
theconditionsunderwhichtheseplacementsandrelatedchildwelfaredecisions
maybecriminogenic(Jonson‐Reid&Barth,2000a;Jonson‐Reid&Barth,2000b;
Jonson‐Reid,2004).Forinstance,congregatecareplacementswiththefollowing
characteristicsmaybedrivingtherelationshipwithdelinquency:theuseof
inexperiencedanduntrainedstaff,theabsenceofclearde‐escalationtechniquesand
procedures(i.e.,notrelyingonlawenforcementtoresolvethesituation),the
absenceofappropriatetreatmentmodalities,highconcentrationsofhigh‐riskyouth
inonefacility(e.g.,thepeercontagioneffect),and/ortheabsenceofbehavioral
modificationtechniquesappropriateforthepopulationservedbythefacility(see
Ryan,etal.2008formorediscussiononthesepoints).Similarly,forkinshipcare
placements,itisnecessarytoexplorewhetherplacementsthatleadtodelinquency
arewell‐supportedwiththeservicestheyneedandwhethertheyaredifferentially
exposedtoneighborhoodsimpactedbygangs,drugs,andviolence(Sampson&
Bean,inpress).
IdentifyingCrossoverYouth:TheNeedforDefinitions
Cleardefinitionsofcrossoveryoutharestillformingasresearchexpandsinthis
area,butmultiplereferencestodifferentsubgroupsofthispopulationcananddo
causeconfusion.Forinstance,atleastthreetermsareusedtorefertothis
population:crossoveryouth,dually‐involvedyouth,anddually‐adjudicatedyouth.
Althoughthesetermsareoftenusedinterchangeably,webelievetheyreferto
differentsubgroupsofcrossoveryouth.Toprovideclarity,weofferthefollowing
definitionstodistinguishcategoriesorsubgroupsofcrossoveryouth.
CrossoverYouth:Anyyouthwhohasexperiencedmaltreatmentand
engagedindelinquency.Thisisthebroadestdefinitionbecauseitrefersto
youthwiththeseexperiencesregardlessofwhetherthemaltreatment
and/ordelinquencyhavecometotheattentionofthechildwelfareand/or
delinquencysystems.
Dually‐InvolvedYouth:Asubgroupofcrossoveryouthwhoare
simultaneouslyreceivingservices,atanylevel,fromboththechildwelfare
andjuvenilejusticesystems.2
Dually‐AdjudicatedYouth:Asubgroupofdually‐involvedyouth,
encompassingonlythoseyouthwhoareconcurrentlyadjudicatedbyboth
thechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems.3
Identificationofyouthwithinthesecategoriescanoccurthroughmultiplepathways.
Themostcommonpathwayiswhenayouthunderthecareofchildprotective
servicesbecomesinvolvedinthedelinquencysystematsomelevel.Asecond
pathwayoccurswhenayouthwithaprevious,butnotcurrent,casewithchild
protectiveservicesentersthedelinquencysystem.Thepresenceofapreviouscase
inchildwelfaremayormaynotresultinacurrentreferraltochildwelfarefromthe
delinquencysystem;thispotentialreferralbeingdependentuponareviewofthe
2Twoclarifyingnotes:(1)thephrase“servicesatanylevel”encompassesawidearrayofpossibleinterventionbyeitherthechildwelfareordelinquencysystem.Forinstance,dualinvolvementwouldincludebeingadjudicatedbyonesystemandreceivingdiversionaryservicesfromtheotherORreceivingformalservicesafteradjudicationinbothsystems.(2)“Simultaneously,”inthiscase,doesnotrequirethatinvolvementinbothsystemsbeganatthesametime.Inmostcases,ayouth’sinvolvementwillbegininonesystemfirstandincludethesecondsystematsomepointafterward.Thus,“simultaneous”inthiscontextindicatesthatinvolvementinbothsystemsoccursatthesametimeregardlessofwhichsystemwasinitiallyinvolved.
Thetermdually‐involvedyouthhasitsoriginsintheworkofanumberofpeoplewhohavefocusedonyoungpeopleknowntoboththechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems,includingJanetWiig,SeniorConsultantwithCWLA,inworkcarriedoutundercontractwiththeArizonaGovernor’sOfficeforChildren,Youth,andFamiliesinthedevelopmentofArizona’sBlueprintforchildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystemsintegration(2008)andGregHalemba,GeneSiegelandRachaelLordandSusannaZawackiintheNationalCenterforJuvenileJustice'sArizonaDualJurisdictionStudy(2004).
3Twoclarifyingnotes:(1)Adjudicationreferstoformalcourtprocessingthatresultsinayouthbecomingaformal“dependent”or“delinquent.”Receivingdiversionaryservices,forinstance,wouldnotconstituteadjudication.(2)Similartothenoteabove,“concurrent”adjudicationassumesthattheadjudicationofayouthinonesystemoccursbeforethatyouth’sadjudicationinasecondsystem.Inotherwords,ayouthwillcometotheattentionofonesystem(e.g.,thechildwelfaresystem)priortocomingtotheattentionofthesecondsystem(e.g.,juvenilejusticesystem).
currentcircumstances.Athirdpathwayoccurswhenayouthwhoiscurrentlya
victimofmaltreatmentwithoutany(i.e.,previousorcurrent)contactwithchild
welfareentersthedelinquencysystem.Uponinvestigationofthecase,areferralto
childwelfarefromdelinquencyensues.Afourthpathwayincludesayouthwhoexits
juvenilejustice(mostoftenacorrectionalfacility)andentersthechildwelfare
systembecausehe/sheisdoesnothaveahometowhichtoreturn(Cusick,Goerge,
&Bell,2009).4Youthidentifiedinallthesepathwaysareallconsideredcrossover
youth;however,theextenttowhichtheyaredually‐involvedyouthordually‐
adjudicatedyouthdependsonthelevelofcontacttheyhavewithbothsystems.
Determininghowmanyyouthfallintoeachofthesepathwaysisnearlyimpossible
becauseinformationsystemsacrossagenciesarerarely,ifever,integrated;data
fieldstoidentifywhenayouthhascontactwiththeothersystemareoftenabsent
fromindividualagencyinformationsystems;andnochildwelfarerecordexists
whenabuse/neglectwasneverreported(e.g.,pathway3;seeHerz&Ryan,2008a
formorediscussionofthisissue).Asapracticalmatter,thesechallengesmakeit
difficulttoidentifyyouthwhentheycrossintoanothersystem,andtheyoftenlimit
thefocusofresearchlargelytocrossoveryouthcurrentlyorpreviouslyinthecare
ofchildprotectiveserviceswhosubsequentlyreceiveadelinquencycharge.
Therefore,integratedinformationsystemsarestronglyrecommendedtofacilitate
practiceimprovementsforcrossoveryouth(Siegel&Lord,2004;Wiig&Tuell,
2004;Petro,2007),andwhenintegratedsystemsarenotpossible,creatingand
consistentlyusingadatafieldtocaptureinvolvementinanothersystemisdesirable
(Herz&Ryan,2008a).
4Note:Whenanoffenderundertheageof18completeshis/herdelinquencydispositionandisabandonedbyparents/relativesorthathomeisnotsafetoreturnto,he/shemayenterthechildwelfaresysteminordertotransitionoutofthedelinquencysystem.Itshouldalsobenotedthatinsomestates,delinquentoffendersareplacedinchildwelfareplacementsasaresultoftheirdisposition(i.e.,fosterhomesandcongregatecare).Theseyouthwouldnotbeconsideredcrossoveryouthorduallyinvolvedyouthbecausetheirinvolvementinthechildwelfaresystemisnotbecauseofmaltreatment.
Withoutintegratedinformationsystemsorafieldtoindicatedualsystem
involvement,measuringtheprevalenceofcrossoveryouthisdifficultbutnot
impossible.Datacanbematchedacrosssystemstoidentifyyouthwithdualsystem
contact.Ingeneral,suchstudiesestimatebetween929%ofchildwelfareyouthalso
hascontactwiththejuvenilejusticesystem(Zingraff,Leiter,Myers,&Johnsen,
1993;Smith&Thornberry,1995;Kelley,Thornberry,&Smith,1997;Widom,1989;
Dennison&Waterson,2002;Johnson,Ereth,&Wagner,2004;Smith,Thornberry,
Ireland,&Elwyn,2008).UsingmatchedadministrativerecordsinLosAngeles
Countybetween2002through2005,Ryan,Herz,Hernandez,andMarshall(2007)
reportedthatof69,009first‐timeoffenders,7%(N=4,811)enteredthejuvenile
justicesystemfromthechildwelfaresystem.Whenconsideringspecific
race/ethnicitygroups,14%offirst‐timeAfricanAmericanoffendersenteredthe
juvenilejusticesystemfromthechildwelfaresystem.UsingdatafromArizona,
Halemba,Siegel,Lord,andZawacki(2004)foundthatthepercentageofprobation
casesincreasedasonemoveddeeperintothejuvenilejusticesystem.Only1%ofall
informaldiversioncasesweredualjurisdictionyouth,but7%ofprobation
supervisioncasesand42%ofcasesplacedinaprivategrouphomeoraresidential
treatmentfacilityweredualjurisdictionyouth.
CrossoverYouthCharacteristics
Atleastfourstudiescurrentlydescribethecharacteristicsofcrossoveryouth
adjudicatedfordelinquencycharges(Herz&Ryan2008b;Halemba,Siegel,Lord,&
Zawacki2004;Kelley,Thornberry,&Smith1997;Saeturn&Swain,2009).
Collectively,thesestudiesshowconsiderableconsistencywithregardtocrossover
characteristicsdespitetheuseofdifferentmethodologicalapproachesandtheuse
ofsamplesdrawnfromdifferentgeographicallocationsandwithdifferentselection
criteria.Insum,thesestudiesreportedthefollowing:5
5SeeHerz&Ryan(2008)orHerz,Ryan,&Bilchik(inpress)foramoredetailedreviewofthesestudiesandtheirfindings.
• Approximatelyone‐thirdofcrossoveryouthappeartobefemale,which
exceedstherepresentationoffemalesingeneraldelinquencystatistics.
• AfricanAmericanyouthareoverrepresentedinthecrossovernumbers
relativetothegeneralpopulation,childwelfarereferrals,andjuvenilejustice
referrals(thisfindingwasspecifictoHerz&Ryan,2008andSaeturn&
Swain,2009).
• Overall,crossoveryouthappeartoenterthesystemwhentheyareyoung
childrenandremaininthesysteminto(andsometimesthrough)
adolescence;
• Crossoveryouthoftencomefromfamiliesinwhichthereisahistoryof
criminalbehavior,mentalhealth,and/orsubstanceabuseproblems.
• Duringtheirtimeincare,crossoveryouthexperiencenumerousplacements,
oftenresultinginoneormoreplacementsincongregatecare;
• Crossoveryouthareoftentruantfromschool.Whentheydoattendschool,
theyoftenhavepooracademicperformanceandexhibitbehavioral
problems.
• Crossoveryouthhavehighratesofmentalhealthandsubstanceabuse
problems—overthree‐quartersoftheseyouthexhibitsymptomsorhave
diagnosesforamentalhealthdisorderand/orsubstanceabuse.
• Atleastone‐thirdofarrestsforcrossoveryoutharerelatedtotheir
placement,andmostofthesesituationsoccurinagrouphomeplacement
(thisfindingwasspecifictoHerz&Ryan,2008andSaeturn&Swain,2009).
• Betweenone‐halfandthree‐quartersofcrossoveryouthhavehadprevious
contactwiththejuvenilejusticesysteminsomeway(i.e.,statusoffense,
delinquencychargeresultingindiversionornotresultinginprocessing).
Whilethesecharacteristicsprovidesubstantialinsightinto“who”crossoveryouth
are,researchhasnotdirectlycomparedtheprevalenceofthesecharacteristicsto
fosteryouthwhodonotenterthejuvenilejusticesystemortooffenderswithouta
maltreatmenthistory.Suchcomparisonswoulddeterminewhethertherisksand
needsofcrossoveryoutharesimilarordifferentfromnon‐crossoveryouth.Even
withoutsuchacomparison,however,thefindingsfromthesestudieshighlightthe
needto(1)interveneearlyinthelivesofchildrenwhoexperiencemaltreatmentto
preventdelinquency,and(2)bringsystemstogethertointerveneasearlyas
possiblewhenescalationsinantisocialbehaviorresultindelinquency.
IdentifyingCrossoverYouth:TheEarliertheBetter
ThePracticeModelFlowChartstressestheneedtoidentifycrossoveryouthasearly
intheprocessaspossible(Siegel&Lord,2004).Arguably,thefirstopportunityto
identifyacrossoveryouthwithcurrentorpreviouschildwelfarecontactisatthe
pre‐adjudicationdetentionintakedecisionoratthepointofchargingifpre‐
adjudicationdetentionisnotapplicable.CongerandRoss’(2001,2009)workwith
ProjectConfirminNewYorkCitydemonstratestheimportanceofearly
identificationandsystemcollaborationforcrossovercases.Theirworkevolved
fromaVeraInstituteofJusticestudyexamininginteragencycommunicationwhen
fosteryouthwerearrested.Studyresultsindicatedthatdetentionwasusedmore
oftenforfosteryoutheventhoughtherewerenosignificantdifferencesinthe
numberofcrimesortheseverityofcrimescommittedbyfosteryouthandnon‐
fosteryouth(formorediscussionseeRoss&Conger,2009;seealsoConger&Ross,
2001).Interviewsconductedwithcourtandagencypersonnelfurtherrevealed:
Forfosterchildrenthelocusofresponsibility[inthecourtprocess]isoften
uncleartofrontlinestaff,casemanagers,andfosterparents.Confusionabout
roles,delaysintransmittinginformation,andmisunderstandingbetween
frontlineworkersinthechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticeagenciesmay
increasethelikelihoodthatarrestedfosterchildrenaredetainedinjuvenile
detentionfacilitiesratherthanreleasedtolegalcaregiversorcaseworkers
(p.178).
ProjectConfirmwascreatedin1998toaddresstheseproblemsbyimplementinga
notificationsystemandcourtconferencing.Thenotificationsystemrequires
detentionstafftocontactProjectConfirmeachtimeayouthwasadmittedtothe
detentionfacility.AscreeneratProjectConfirmthendeterminesiftheyouthhasan
opencasewithchildwelfare.Foryouthwithopencases,thescreenercoordinates
contactbetweenthefostercareprovider,thechildwelfaresocialworker,andthe
juvenilejusticecaseworkerinordertoassurethatallchildwelfarepartieswith
legalresponsibilityovertheyouthattendthedetentionhearing.Increased
notification,inturn,wasexpectedtoincreasetheamountofinformationavailableto
juvenilejusticedecisionmakers.Next,courtconferencingisusedtofacilitatecross‐
systemsdiscussionofthecase.Onceagain,aProjectConfirmcoordinatorintroduces
allpartiesacrossagenciespriortothecourthearinginordertoimprove
informationexchangeandholdappropriatepartiesaccountable(Ross&Conger,
2009).
CongerandRoss(2009;2001)evaluatedtheimpactofProjectConfirmandfound
post‐implementation,thepercentageoffosteryouthdetaineddidnotdecrease
relativetothepre‐implementationofProjectConfirm,butfostercarebiaswas
eliminated.Inotherwords,thepercentageoffosteryouthdetainedwasstatistically
equivalenttothepercentageofnon‐fosteryouthdetained(56.5%comparedto
50.9%)afterProjectConfirmwasimplemented.Morenotablefindingswerefound
whendetentionratesforyouthchargedwithlessseriousoffenseswerecompared
toratesforyouthchargedwithmoreseriousoffenses.Only35%offosteryouth
chargedwithlessseriousoffensesweredetained,andnofostercarebiaswasfound;
however,thedetentionrateforfosteryouthchargedwithmoreseriousoffenses
increasedto75%,whichwas14percentagepointshigherthanfornon‐fosteryouth
(61%).Thisfindingindicatedthatimprovedinformationsharingincreased
assessmentsofriskformoreseriousoffenders.Whilethesefindingareconsistent
withbestpractice(i.e.,detainthehigherriskyouthsandreleaselowerriskyouths),
CongerandRoss(2009)stresstheneedtoclearlyexplaintheinformationprovided
tojuvenilejusticedecisionmakerstoavoidinaccurateperceptionsofrisk(e.g.,
interpretingahistoryofAWOLasamarkerofhighriskandneedfordetention).
ProjectConfirmwasultimatelyinstitutionalizedbychildwelfareinNewYorkCity
andwasshowcasedbySiegelandLord(2004)asapromisingapproachtoidentify
crossoveryouthearlyinthejuvenilejusticeprocessandavoidunnecessary
incarceration.
PracticeAreaII:Decisionmakingregardingcharges
PracticeAreaIIfocusesonthechargingdecisionmadeforeachcase.Incharging
decisions,probationintakeorprosecutorstypicallymakethisdecisionshortlyafter
ayouthisarrestedorimmediatelyaftertheyouthisdetained(ifapplicable).
Possibleoutcomesinthisprocessinclude:droppingthecharges;offeringdiversion
asanalternativetoformaljuvenilejusticeprocessing;petitioningthecharge
formallytothejuvenilecourt;orfiling/requestingtofilethecaseinadultcourt.To
date,researchoncrossoveryouthissilentonthisdecisionpointinjuvenilejustice
processing;consequently,howcrossoveryoutharechargedandhowchargingfor
theseyouthcomparestonon‐crossoveryouthisunknown.6
Theabsenceofresearchatthisstagerepresentsasignificantgapintheliterature.
Thechargingdecisionisarguablyoneofthemostimportantdecisionpointsinthe
juvenilejusticeprocessbecauseitprovidesanopportunitytoidentifyacrossover
youthandaddresshis/herrisksandneedsearlyintheprocess.Suchintervention,in
turn,maypreventacrossoveryouthfromformallyenteringthejuvenilejustice
system.Forexample,ayouthmayreceivediversioninsteadofformalprocessingif
appropriateprogrammingisprovidedbychildwelfare(e.g.,coordinatingwiththe
schooltoaddresstheyouth’sspecialeducationneeds,providingsubstanceabuse
treatmentthroughthechildwelfaresystem,etc.).Additionally,identificationofa
crossoveryouthearlyinjuvenilejusticeprocessingfacilitatesinformationsharing,
improvesthequantityandqualityofdataavailable,andprovidesacritical
opportunitytogivecontextualexplanationsforparticularfactors(e.g.,multiple
6Thisisconcerningforanumberofreasons,butparticularlyconcerningistheabsenceofnumbersonhowmanycrossovercasesareprocessedinadultcourt.Oncetheyentertheadultcourtsystem,itisextremelydifficulttoidentifythesecases.
placements,goingAWOLfromplacements,etc.).Contextualexplanationsare
significantbecausetheycanpreventexaggeratedperceptionsofriskbyjuvenile
justicepersonnel(Conger&Ross,2009).Ultimately,amorecomprehensiveand
accurateunderstandingofthecasemayalsohelpavoidtheunnecessarypenetration
ofthejuvenilejusticesystem(i.e.,placementwitharelativeorfostercareplacement
insteadofcongregatecareoracorrectionalplacement).
PracticeAreaIII:CaseAssignment,Assessment,andPlanning
JuvenileCourtProcessingOutcomes
Researchrelatedtocrossoveryouthexperiencesinthejuvenilejusticesystem
concludesthatcrossoveryouthreceiveharsherprocessingoutcomescomparedto
delinquentyouthswhohavenoconnectiontothedependencysystem(Ryan,Herz,
Hernandez,&Marshall,2007;Morris&Freundlich,2004;Conger&Ross,2001).As
mentionedabove,CongerandRoss(2001)reportedthatcrossoveryouthwere
morelikelytobedetainedthannon‐crossoveryouthregardlessofoffenseseverity.
Similarly,MorrisandFreundlich(2004),interviewedavarietyofstakeholders(e.g.
fosterparents,youngadults,judges,andchildwelfareadministrators)aboutfoster
youthexperiencesinthejuvenilejusticesystemandconcludedthat(1)theoffenses
associatedwithdependentyouthenteringthejuvenilejusticesystemwereless
seriouscomparedtonon‐dependentdelinquents,and(2)manystakeholders
believedcrossoveryouthweretreateddifferentlythantheirdelinquency‐only
counterparts.Differentialdecisionmakingwasperceivedtoberelatedtodecision
makers’perceptionsofthelivingarrangementsoftheseyouth(e.g.grouphome
placement)andtheirperceptionsoftheyouth’srisktoreoffend.Theauthorsalso
reportedthatfosteryouthwereconsistentlydissatisfiedwiththeirlegal
representationandfeltthatthepunishmentswereoftenmoreseverefordependent
youth.Similarly,fosterparentsperceivedinequitiesinthejudicialdispositionsgiven
tofosteryouth.
Perceptionsregardingthedisparatetreatmentofcrossoveryouthatthedisposition
stagewerevalidatedinastudyconductedinLosAngelesCounty,CaliforniabyRyan,
Herz,Hernandez,andMarshall(2007).Ryanetal.(2007)examineddispositionsfor
first‐timeoffenderswithachildwelfarecasecomparedtofirst‐timeoffenders
withoutachildwelfarecasebetween2002and2005.Althoughnodifferenceswere
foundinthedismissalofcasesbasedonchildwelfarestatus,first‐timeoffenders
withachildwelfarecasewerelesslikelytoreceivehomeonprobation(58%v.
73%)andmorelikelytoreceive“suitableplacement”(i.e.,placementincongregate
care—21%v.11%).Additionally,youthwithachildwelfarecasewereslightlymore
likelytoreceivecorrectionalplacements(21%v.16%),butthisdifferencewasnot
statisticallysignificant(seealsoHalembaetal.,2004forasimilarfinding).
CaseAssignment
Regardlessofhowthecaseischarged(i.e.,diversionorformaljuvenilejustice
processing),theresearchdocumentingtheprocessingdisparitiesbetween
crossoverandnon‐crossoveryouthstressestheneedtocoordinatealldecision
makingrelatedtothecasewithinandacrosssystems.Promisingapproachesto
ensurethecontinuityofdecisionmakersthroughoutthecourtprocessandto
facilitateinformationsharinginatimelymannerwereidentifiedanddescribedby
SiegelandLord(2004;seealsoPetro,2006andPetro,2007)as“caseassignment”
and“caseflowmanagement”approaches.Caseassignmentapproachesconsolidate
courtprocessingsothatthedependencyanddelinquencycasesarehandled
simultaneouslyandaresupervisedbyattorneysfamiliarwithbothsystems.Atleast
threetypesofapproachesfallintothiscategory:onefamily/onejudge,dedicated
dockets,andspecialqualificationsforattorneys(seeforexample,Herzetal.,2010
andScrivner,2002).Caseflowmanagementapproachesbringchildwelfare,juvenile
justice,andanyotherrelevantpersonneltogethertoshareinformationandmake
coordinatedrecommendationstothecourt.Approachesthatfallintothiscategory
include:jointpre‐hearingconferences,combiningdependencyanddelinquency
hearings,jointcourtordersandcourtreports,andmandatoryattendanceofthe
case‐carryingCWsocialworkerandJJcaseworkerathearings.SiegelandLord
(2004)classifytheseapproachesaspromisingbecause,thusfar,theireffectiveness
hasnotbeenevaluatedbeyondtheuseofanecdotalevidence.7
JointAssessmentandCoordinatedCasePlanning
Acommonandprimarygoalofallpromisingapproachesforcrossoveryouthis
bringinginformationtogetheracrosssystemsandusinginteragencydiscussionsof
sharedinformationtodevelopacoordinatedplanfortheyouthandhis/her
family/caregiver.Theuseofajointassessmentandcoordinatedcasemanagement
forcrossoveryoutharecriticalactivitiesinthisprocess.Conductingassessmentsfor
andprovidingappropriatelevelsofsupervisionandtreatmenttocrossoveryouths
isparticularlychallengingbecauseitrequirescoordination,ataminimum,and
collaboration,ideally,acrossthedependencyanddelinquencycourtsystems(Nash
&Bilchik,2009).Whilethereisagrowingamountofliteraturethatdocumentsthe
needtointegratetreatmentandaccountabilitytosuccessfullyreducerecidivism,
thereislittleevidencetoindicatethatsuchintegrationisoccurringacrosssystems
(Brezina,1998;Halemba&Lord,2005;McMackin&Fulwiler,2001;Pumariegaet
al.,1999).
Traditionally,forexample,assessmentoftheyouth’srisks(bothpersonalsafetyand
publicsafety)andintervention/treatmentneedsiscompletedbyindividual
agenciesresponsibleforsomeaspectoftheyouth’swellbeing.Foracrossover
youth,thiscouldeasilyinvolvesixdifferentsystems:Childwelfare,juvenilejustice,
education,mentalhealth,substanceabuse,andmedical.Thesesystemsrarelywork
withoneanothertocoordinateassessments;rather,eachsystemconductsitsown
assessmentandproducesitsownrecommendationsinisolationorwithlittle
contactwithothersystems.Additionally,theviewpointsofyouthand
parent/caregiverareoftenmarginalizedinthisprocess.Asaresult,ayouthand
familymayhavemultiplecaseplansthateitherconflictwithoneanother,duplicate
7ForadescriptionofspecificinitiativesthatfallintothecategoriesdefinedbySiegel&Lord(2004),pleaseseeSiegel&Lord(2004),Petro(2007),Herz&Ryan(2008a),andHalemba&Lord(2005).
services,orcontainexpectationsthatareunattainable.Jointassessmentseeksto
improveuponthismethodbycoordinatingassessmentsinanefforttoincreasethe
validityoftheinformationcollecteddecreaseinconveniencetoyouthsanddecrease
inconveniencetoyouthandtheirfamilies/caregivers.Thismayinvolvetheuseof
onetoolthatservestheneedsofallagenciesortheuseofmultipletoolsfromwhich
therecommendationsarediscussedacrossagenciesandcompiledintoonecase
plan.Totheextentpossible,theyouth’sandparent/caregiver’sperspectiveshould
becentraltotheassessmentprocess.8Acaseplancollectivelyinformedbyallthese
perspectivesshouldthenbeusedasabasisforcoordinatedcasesupervision.
SeveralpromisingapproacheswereidentifiedbySiegelandLord(2004;seealso
Petro,2006,Petro,2007andHalemba&Lord,2005)tofacilitatejointassessment
andcoordinatedcaseplanning.The“caseplanningandsupervision”approaches
thatfocusspecificallyonassessmentandcaseplanningincludetheuseof:jointcase
plans,multi‐disciplinaryteamassessment,specialqualificationsand/ortrainingfor
casemanagers,andtheuseofchildprotectiveservicesliaisonsand/orprobation
liaisons.Asmentionedearlier,theseapproachesareconsidered“promising”
becauseevaluationsoftheireffectivenesshavenotbeenconductedwithone
exception.In2007,LosAngelesCountyimplementeda“241.1Multidisciplinary
TeamPilotProgram(MDT).”9TheMDTwasresponsibleforcompletingajoint
assessmentreportandrecommendationsforthecourt.Theteamwascomprisedof
ajuvenilejusticecaseworker,childwelfaresocialworker,mentalhealthclinician,
andeducationalrightsattorney.Oncetheteamreceivedareferral,eachmember
collectedinformationrelatedtothecasefromtheirrespectiveagencyfiles.They
8Includingtheyouth’svoiceinassessmentspre‐adjudicationcanbedifficultgivendueprocessandconfidentialityconcernsrelatedtothejuvenilejusticecourtprocess.Engagingpublicdefendersinthedevelopmentofajointassessmentprocesscanhelpfindwaystoincludetheyouth’svoiceasearlyaspossiblewithoutputtinghim/heratriskforself‐incrimination.9A“241.1”youthinCaliforniareferstoayouthcurrentlyinthecareofchildprotectiveserviceswhoreceivesadelinquencycharge.Thenumberisareferencetothestatutorylanguage(WelfareandInstitutionsCode241.1)outliningtheprocessbywhichthedelinquencycourtmustadjudicatethesecases.
thenmetasateamtosharetheinformation,discusstheinformation,and
collectivelymakerecommendationstothecourt.
AnevaluationwasrecentlycompletedontheMDTusing50youthreferredtothe
MDTand44youthmatchedfromapoolofcrossoveryouthwhowerenotreferred
totheMDT(Herz,unpublished).10Theresultsweregenerallypositive:
• TheMDTincreasedthequalityandquantityofinformationcollectedon
crossoveryouth.Specifically,theavailabilityofeducationalinformation,
numberofstrengths,andthenumberofrecommendationsforcaseplanning
incourtreportsimproved.
• TheMDTwasmorelikelytorecommendinformalsupervisionforcrossover
youthcomparedtorecommendationsmadeinthetraditionalassessment
process,andMDTcasesweremorelikelytoreceiveinformalsupervision,
particularlylowerlevelsofinformalsupervision,atdispositionthannon‐
MDTyouth.
• MDTreducedrecidivismbyabout20%(percentchangebetweengroups);
however,thisdifferencewasnotstatisticallysignificant.
Thisprogramwasnotwithoutitschallenges.AlthoughtheMDTreducedthe
numberofyouthbecomingformaldelinquencywards(i.e.,theyreceivedinformal
supervisioninstead),15%oftheinformalprobationyoutheventuallybecame
formalwardsofthedelinquencycourt.Thisratewasstatisticallyequivalenttothe
ratefornon‐MDTyouth.ThisfindingraisesquestionsabouttheMDT’sabilityto
improveaccesstoappropriateservicesandplacements.Whileitappearsthatthe
qualityofinformationimprovedwithinthejointassessmentforcrossoveryouth,
theMDTdidnothaveaneffectivemechanismorstructuretotransitionfromthe
assessment/planningstagetothecoordinatedcasesupervisioninthefield.Thus,10Initially,matcheswerefoundfor50youth;however,sixoftheselectedyouthdidnotmeettheselectioncriteriaforthisstudy(i.e.,theirdelinquencychargeprecededtheinvolvementofchildprotectiveservices).
thefullbenefitsandutilityofjointassessmentandcoordinatedcaseplanning
dependsheavilyonthesuccessfulimplementationofthecaseplan—inotherwords,
theuseofsuccessfulcoordinatedcasesupervision.
PracticeAreaIV:CoordinatedCaseSupervisionandOnGoingAssessment
Interagencyapproachesaimedatimprovingtheoversightandimplementationof
caseplansforyouthalsofallintoSiegelandLord’s(2004;seealsoPetro,2006,
Petro,2007andHalemba&Lord,2005)“caseplanningandsupervision”category.
Initiativesspecifictocoordinatedcasesupervisioninthiscategoryinclude:
specializedcasemanagementandsupervisionunits,multi‐disciplinaryteamcase
management,specialqualificationsand/ortrainingforcasemanagers,andtheuse
ofchildprotectiveservicesliaisonsand/orprobationliaisons.Eachofthese
approachesstressestheneedtoformallylinkcaseoversighttostaffinboththechild
welfareandprobationsystems.Jurisdictionsthatcombinetheseapproacheswith
collaborativefundingagreements(e.g.,blended,braided,orpooledfunding)
enhanceaccesstoafullcontinuumofservicesthatcomprehensivelyaddressthe
risksandneedspresentedbycrossoveryouth(Siegel&Lord,2004;seealsoPetro,
2006,Petro,2007andHalemba&Lord,2005).
Coordinatedcasesupervisionisoftenchallengingbecauseitrequiresseveral
elementstobesuccessful.Beforecoordinatedcasesupervisionispossible,for
instance,administratorsmustformallydevelopamemorandumofunderstanding
thatclearlyoutlinestherolesandresponsibilitiesofeachagency,resolvesissuesof
informationconfidentiality,andprovidesclearandequitableproceduresforthe
mediationofconflict(Wiig&Tuell,2004;Siegel&Lord,2004).Onceanagreement
isinplace,staffinterestedinworkingwithcrossoveryouthandbuilding
collaborativeapproachesmustbeselectedfortheinitiative,andon‐goingcross‐
trainingandsupportmustbeprovidedtoincreasestaffknowledgeofandabilityto
accessservicesandplacementsacrosssystems(Wiig&Tuell,2004).
Coordinatedcasemanagementisnotlimitedtothechildwelfareandjuvenilejustice
systems;additionalpartnersmustbesoughtandengagedinthisprocess.For
instance,theyouth’sparents/caregivers,school,mentalhealthtreatmentprovider,
substanceabusetreatmentprovider,andanyotherrelevantparty(e.g.,connections
tothecommunitysuchaspastorormentor)mustactivelyparticipateinthe
implementationandsupervisionofthecaseplan.Ataminimum,thechildwelfare
socialworkerandjuvenilejusticecaseworkershouldbe“onthesamepage,”
keepingeachotherinformedandpresentinga“unitedfront”aswellasa“united
supportsystem”totheyouthandhis/herfamilyorcaregiver.
Thegoalofcoordinatedcasesupervisionistoreducethelikelihoodofreoffending
andimprovetheoverallwellbeingofthecrossoveryouth.Herz,Ryan,&Bilchik(in
press)examinedfactorsrelatedtorecidivismamong581crossoveryouthprocessed
inLosAngelesCountyin2004.Intotal,64%oftheseyouthhadanewarrestfora
criminaloffensebytheendof2008.Todeterminewhatfactorsincreasedthe
likelihoodofdelinquency,regressionmodelswereestimated.Youthwithsubstance
abuseandyouthwhoweretruantfromschoolweretwiceaslikelytocommit
delinquencyastheircounterparts.Theseresultsstresstheneedtoprioritizeschool
engagementforcrossoveryouthandmakingsureappropriatetreatmentservices
areprovidedtotheyouthandhis/herfamily.AsdemonstratedintheMDT
evaluationstudy,coordinatedcaseplanswillfallshortoftheirpotentialiftheyare
notfullyimplementedandcloselymonitored(Herz,2009).Forcrossoveryouth,this
requireschildwelfareandjuvenilejusticetoworkcloselywithayouth’ssocial
network,school,treatmentprovider,andcommunity‐basedprogramtoconnect
him/hertothecommunitywhiletheyreceiveappropriatelevelsofsupervisionand
treatment.
Akeypartofcoordinatedcasesupervisionisaccessingappropriateservicesand
placementforcrossoveryouth.In2008,Herz&Ryanconductedanationalsurveyof
stateandcountyadministratorsforchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice.11Following
theadministrationofasurveyregardingpracticesandpoliciesrelatedtocrossover
youth,asmallgroupofrespondentswasselectedforphoneinterviews(N=9).
Duringthephoneinterviews,respondentswereaskedwhattypesofservices
crossoveryouthneeded.Althoughrespondentsfeltthatcrossoveryouthdidnot
necessarilyrequiredifferentservicesfromnon‐crossoveryouth,theybelievedthat
crossoveryouthrequiredmorecasemanagementthannon‐crossoveryouthand
moreaccesstoeducationalassessmentsandservices,gender‐specificprogramming,
daycenters,mentalhealthandsubstanceabusetreatment;mentoring,and
community‐basedservicesingeneral.Stabilizingplacementsandaddressing
permanencyissueswereconsideredprimaryissuesforcrossoveryouth.For
placement,respondentsstressedtheneedformoretherapeuticlivingarrangements
thatwerestructuredandintensivelysupervised.Severalrespondentsfeltthat
currentplacementswereofteninappropriatebecausetheydidnotofferappropriate
levelsofsupervisionandstructurecombinedwithappropriatelevelsoftreatment.
Ingeneral,respondentsinthephoneinterviewsemphasizedtheimportanceof
consistencyandthewillingnesstolistenandrespondtocrossoveryouthneedsand
desires.Interestingly,thefindingsfromthephoneinterviewsparallelthethoughts
andfeelingsoffivecrossoveryouthwhowereinterviewedaspartoftheLos
AngelesCountyMDTprogram(Herz,unpublished).Whenaskedwhattheywanted,
alloramajorityofrespondentsofferedthefollowing:
• tostaywiththeirfamiliesorstayconnectedtotheirfamilies;
11Herz&Ryan(2008a)distributedsurveystoseveraladministratorsanddecision‐makergroupswhorepresentedthechildwelfareandthejuvenilejusticesystematboththestateandcountylevels.Atthestatelevel,surveysweresenttochildwelfareadministrators,probationadministrators,institutionalcorrectionsadministrators,andjuvenilejusticespecialists.Atthecountylevel,surveysweresenttochildwelfaresystemdirectors,chiefofficersofprobationdepartments,countyadministratorsforinstitutionalcorrections,andjudges.144staterepresentativesand220countyrepresentativesreceivedanemailinvitingthemtoparticipateinthesurvey.104(73%)staterepresentativesenteredthesurveysiteand77(53%)completedthesurvey.141(64%)countyrepresentativesenteredthesurveysiteand107(49%)completedthesurvey.Intotal,thereare182surveyrespondents.Atotalof47states(includingtheDistrictofColumbia)andoneU.S.Territorywererepresentedbystateand/orcountyrespondents.
• tobeinformedandgivenchoicesinthedecisionmakingprocess;
• tobegivenclearexpectationsandreasonablelevelsofsupervision(i.e.,
probation)tohelpthemstayoutoftrouble;
• tohaveaccesstoindividualcounselingandfamilycounseling;and
• tohaveaccesstoactivitiesthathelpthemexploretheirinterests—from
sportstohobbiestoeducational/vocationalinterests.
Asignificantchallengefacingcoordinatedcasesupervisionisthechildwelfaresocial
worker’sandjuvenilejusticecaseworker’sabilitytoaccessappropriateservices
andplacementsforcrossoveryouth.Eventhoughthereisnoresearchrelatedtothe
effectivenessofprogramswithcrossoveryouthspecifically,alargebodyofresearch
currentlyidentifiescharacteristicsofeffectiveprogramsaswellasspecific
promisingorevidence‐basedprogramsforchildwelfare,juvenilejustice,and
behavioralhealth(Whitehead&Lab,1989;Palmer,1991;Lipsey,1992;Leone,
Quinn,&Osher,2002;Hansen,Litzelman,&Marsh,2004;Howell,Kelly,Palmer,&
Mangum,2004;Huser,Cooney,Small,O’Conner,&Mather,2009).Jurisdictions
shouldnotexcludetheuseoflocalprogramswithoutrigorousevaluations,butthey
shouldprioritizetheuseofprogramsortypesofprogrammingconsistentwith
“whatworks.”Simultaneously,theyshouldstronglyencouragelocalprogramsto
demonstratetheireffectivenessbytrackingoutcomes.
Basedontheprofilespresentedbycrossoveryouth,thereareseveralprogramsthat
shouldbeconsideredwhenworkingwithcrossoveryouth.Forinstance,programs
suchas(butnotlimitedto)Wraparound,Multi‐DimensionalTherapeuticFoster
Care,AngerReplacementTherapy,andcognitivebehavioraltraumaprograms
representafewprogramsthataddressthecomplexissuespresentedbycrossover
youth(Kamradt,2001;Bruns,Walker,Adams,Miles,Osher,Rast,&VanDenBerg,
2004;WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy,2004;WashingtonStateInstitute
forPublicPolicy,2008;Drake,Aos,&Marna,2008;FosterFamily‐BasedTreatment
Association,2008;McLendon,2009).Thechallengeforchildwelfaresocialworkers
andjuvenilejusticecaseworkers,then,ishowtoaccesstheseprogramsaswellas
othersforyouthsandtheirfamilies/caregivers.
Afinalconsiderationforchildwelfaresocialworkersandjuvenilejusticecase
workerscollaborativelysupervisingcrossoveryouthisutilizingfamily‐centered
programs,gender‐basedprogramming,andculturallycompetentprogramming
wheneverpossible.Stabilizingplacementandachievingpermanencyareprimary
issuesforcrossoveryouth;thus,childwelfaresocialworkersandjuvenilejustice
caseworkersmustthinkcreativelyaboutfamily(e.g.,locatingfamilymembersthat
liveoutsideofthecountyorjurisdiction)andengagefamilyinordertoprovidethe
supportneededtoreuniteyouthswiththeirparentsorrelativeswhenparentsare
notavailable(Kumpfer,1999;Stoep,Williams,Jones,Gileen,&Truplin,1999;
FamilyStrengtheningPolicyCenter,2004;Campbell,2005;Gordon,Tullis,Hanson,
&Sowders,2005;Marsh,Ryan,Choi,&Testa,2005;Brock,Burrell,&Tulipano,
2006;Osher,Osher,&Blau,2008;Pullman,2009).Inmanycases,reunitingwith
familymaynotbepossible,soitbecomesimportanttolookforacaregiverthatcan
playasignificantroleintheyouth’slife.Asindicatedabove,therepresentationof
femalesincrossoverpopulationsisslightlyhigherthaningeneraldelinquency
populations.Thisstatisticunderscorestheneedtointegrategender‐specific
programmingincaseplansforfemalecrossoveryouth.Similarly,childwelfare
socialworkersandjuvenilejusticecaseworkersshouldseekoutculturally
competentprogrammingforminorityyouth.
PracticeAreaV:PlanningforYouthPermanency,Transition,andCaseClosure
Aspartofsuccessfulcasemanagement,bothchildwelfaresocialworkersand
juvenilejusticecaseworkersmustpaycloseattentiontoachievingyouth
permanencyandeffectivelytransitioningyouthuponcaseclosure.Whiletheseare
importantissuesforallyouthinchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice,theyare
particularlyrelevantforcrossoveryouthbecausetheyoftenfacethelossoffamilial
connections,communityconnections,andthesupportofsocialnetworksasaresult
oftheirinteractionwithbothsystems.
Cusick,Goerge,andBell(2009),forexample,examinedeightcohortsofyouth
correctionalexits(1996–2003)inIllinoisandfoundthat65%ofyouthexitshad
priorchildwelfarehistorybeforeenteringthecorrectionalfacility.Uponexiting
correctionalfacilities,9%ofyouthexitsintheStateofIllinoisand11%ofexitsin
Chicagowereinanout‐of‐homeplacementinchildwelfareoneyearaftertheirexit.
Inotherwords,manyyouthreturnedtocaresimplybecausetheydidnothave
accesstoastablesupportsystemwhentheyreturnedtothecommunity.
ParticularlyconcerningwasCusicketal.’sfindingwithregardtoeducation.
Althoughlessthan1%ofcorrectionalexitshadcompletedhighschool,only36.5%
ofyouthexitswereenrolledinschoolaftertheirrelease.
EquallyalarmingaretheresultsfromWidomandMaxfield(2001;seealsoWidom&
Maxfield,1996).Theirprospectivestudytrackedchildrenwithsubstantiatedchild
abusecasesbetween1967and1971andamatchedcomparisongroupofchildren
withoutasubstantiatedchildabusecasefor25yearstoassesstherelationship
betweenchildhoodabuse/neglectandoffending.Theirresultsshowedthatnotonly
werechildrenvictimizedbychildabuse(i.e.,physicalabuse,sexualabuse,and/or
neglect)morelikelytocommitcrimesasjuvenilescomparedtochildrenwithout
suchhistories(27%and17%,respectively),butchildrenwithchildabusecases
werealsomorelikelytocommitcrimesinadulthood(42%comparedto33%),and
theywereatanincreasedrisktocommitviolentcrimesspecifically(18%compared
to14%).
ThesefindingsfromCusicketal.(2009)andWidomandMaxfield(2001)
underscoretheimportanceofstabilizingpermanencyforcrossoveryouthand
providingthemwiththeappropriateservicesthatwillincreasetheirsuccessafter
theircasescloseinboththechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems.
Unfortunately,thereiscurrentlynoresearchthatexamines“whatworks”for
crossoveryouthinthisarea;however,thereisagrowingamountofresearchrelated
toeffectiveprogramsandpracticesforjuvenilejusticereentry(Altschuler&
Armstrong,1994;Zimmerman,Hendrix,Moeser,&Roush,2004;Harris,2006;
Altschuler,2008;Gagnon&Richards,2008;Altschuler,Stangler,Berkley,&Burton,
2009)andachievingpermanencyforyouthinchildwelfare(Freundlich2009;Frey,
2009;Neff,2000).Jurisdictionsimplementingthepracticemodelshouldconsider
thisbroaderliteratureastheydeveloptheirownapproachestoimprovethelong‐
termoutcomesforcrossoveryouth.
Summary
Insum,improvingoutcomesforcrossoveryouthrequiresaclearunderstandingof
“who”crossoveryouthareaswellastheirexperiencesinboththechildwelfareand
juvenilejusticesystems.Agrowingbodyofresearchoncrossoveryouthindicates
thatcrossoveryouthareofteninthechildwelfaresystemforlongperiodsoftime;
theyareatanincreasedlikelihoodtobefemalecomparedtogeneraldelinquency
populations;andminorities,particularlyAfricanAmericans,appeartobe
overrepresentedincrossoverpopulationsinsomeareas.Mostcrossoveryouthhave
beenplacedoutofthehomeandoftenexperiencenumerousplacementsincluding
multipleplacementsincongregatecare.Theyareoftentruantand/orperforming
poorlyatschool,andoverhalfofcrossoveryouthhavemultiplecontactswithlaw
enforcement.Betweenaquarterandonehalfofcrossoveryoutharealsodetained
priortoadjudication(Herz&Ryan2008b;Halemba,Siegel,Lord,&Zawacki2004;
Kelley,Thornberry,&Smith1997;Saeturn&Swain,2009).Additionally,research
indicatesthatcrossoveryouthareperceivedashigherriskbyjuvenilejustice
decisionmakersandreceiveharsherdispositionsthantheirnon‐crossover
counterparts(Ryan,Herz,Hernandez,&Marshall,2007;Morris&Freundlich,2004;
Conger&Ross,2001).
Increasingly,crossoveryouthresearchpointstothenecessityofmulti‐system
collaborationtocomprehensivelyaddresstherisksandneedsofcrossoveryouth
(Wiig&Tuell,2004;Siegel&Lord,2004;Halemba,2005;AmericanBarAssociation,
2008;Herz&Ryan,2008;andBilchik&Nash,2009;Garland,Hough,Landsverk&
Brown,2001;Maschi,Hatcher,Schwalbe,&Rosato,2008).Sucheffortsrequire,ata
minimum,theuseofcoordinatedcaseassignment,jointassessment,coordinated
caseplans,andcoordinatedcasesupervision.Additionally,jurisdictionsare
challengedtointegratetheuseofbestpracticeandevidence‐basedprogramsas
theyrelatetochildwelfare,juvenilejustice,mentalhealthandsubstanceabuse,and
educationpractices.Withoutsuchintegratedandcomprehensiveefforts,crossover
youthsarelesslikelytoreceivetheappropriateservicesandplacementstheyneed
toimprovetheiroutcomesinboththeshort‐termandlong‐term(Widom&
Maxfield,1996;Widom&Maxfield,2001;Cusick,Goerge,&Bell,2009).
References
(Note:Thislistincludesreferencesforboth
theResearchSummaryandthePracticeModelDocumentoverall.)
Altshuler,D.M.(2008).Rehabilitatingandreintegratingyouthoffenders:Are
residentialandcommunityaftercarecollidingworldsandwhatcanbedoneabout
it?JusticePolicyJournal,5(1),1–26.
Altshuler,D.M.&Armstrong,T.L.(1994).Intensiveaftercareservicesforhighrisk
juveniles:Acommunitycaremodelprogramsummary.Washington,DC:Department
ofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,OfficeofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquency
Prevention.
Altshuler,D.,Stangler,G.,Berkley,K.&Burton,L.(2009).Supportingyouthin
transitiontoadulthood:Lessonslearnedfromchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice.
Washington,DC:CenterforJuvenileJusticeReform.
AmericanBarAssociation.(2008).ABApolicyandreportoncrossoveranddual
jurisdictionyouth.Chicago:AmericanBarAssociationCommissiononYouthatRisk.
Barth,R.P.(2002).Institutionsvs.FosterHomes:TheEmpiricalBaseforaCenturyof
Action.ChapelHill,NC:UNCSchoolofSocialWork,JordanInstituteforFamilies.
Barth,R.P.,Courtney,M.,Berrick,J.D.,&Albert,V.(1994).Pathwaysthroughchildwelfareservices:Fromchildabusetopermanencyplanning.NewYork:AldineDeGruyter.
Berrick,J.D.,Barth,R.P.,&Needell,B.(1994).Acomparisonofkinshipfosterhomes
andfamilyfosterhomes:Implicationsforkinshipcareasfamilypreservation.
ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,16(1/2),33–63.
Brezina,T.(1998)Adolescentmaltreatmentanddelinquency:Thequestionof
interveningprocesses.JournalofResearchinCrimeandDelinquency,35,71–99.
Brock,L.,Burrell,J.,&Tulipano,T.(2006).Familyinvolvement.NDTACIssueBrief.
Washington,DC:NETAC.
Bruns,E.J.,Walker,J.S.,Adams,J.,Miles,P.,Osher,T.,Rast,J.,VanDenBerg,J.&
NationalWraparoundInitiativeAdvisoryGroup.(2004).Tenprinciplesofthe
wraparoundprocess.Portland,OR:NationalWraparoundInitiative,Researchand
TrainingCenteronFamilySupportandChildren’sMentalHealth,PortlandState
University.
Campbell,K.(2005).Lightingthefireofurgency:Familieslostandfoundin
America’schildwelfaresystem.Seattle,WA:CatholicCommunityServicesofWestern
Washington.
Christensen,D.,&AntleB.(2004).EngagingChildWelfareFamilies:ASolution‐
BasedApproachtoChildWelfarePractice.CenterforFamilyResourceDevelopment.
Conger,D.&Ross,T.(2009).AnoutcomeevaluationofProjectConfirm.InT.Ross
(ed.),Childwelfare:Thechallengesofcollaboration(pp.193–212).Washington,DC:
UrbanInstitute.
CongerD.,&Ross,T.(2006).ProjectConfirm:Anoutcomeevaluationofaprogram
forchildreninthechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems.YouthViolenceand
JuvenileJustice,4,97–115.
Conger,D.,&Ross,T.(2001).Reducingthefostercarebiasinjuveniledetention
decisions:Theimpactofprojectconfirm.NewYork,NY:AdministrationforChildren’s
Services,TheVeraInstituteofJustice.
Courtney,M.E.,&Needell,B.(1997).Outcomesofkinshipcare:Lessonsfrom
California.InBarth,R.,Berrick,J.D.,&Gilbert,N.(Eds.),Childwelfareresearch
review–volumetwo(pp.129–159).NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Cusick,G.R.,Goerge,R.M.,&Bell,K.C.(2009).Fromcorrectionstocommunity:The
juvenilereentryexperienceascharacterizedbymultiplesystemsinvolvement.Chicago,
IL:ChapinHallCenterforChildrenatUniversityofChicago.
Drake,E.K.,Aos,S.,&Miller,M.G.(2009).Evidence‐basedpublicpolicyoptionsto
reducecrimeandcriminaljusticecosts:ImplicationsinWashingtonstate.Victims
andOffenders,4,170–196.
Dishion,T.,McCord,J.,&Poulin,F.(1999).WhenInterventionsHarm:PeerGroups
andProblemBehavior.AmericanPsychologist,54,755–764.
FamilyStrengtheningPolicyCenter.(2004).Mentoringasafamilystrengthening
strategy.PolicyBriefNumber4.Washington,DC:NationalHumanServices
Assembly.
FosterFamily‐basedTreatmentAssociation.(2008).Implementingevidencebased
practiceintreatmentfostercare:Aresourceguide.Hackensack,NJ.
Freudlich,M.(2009).AdolescentsintheChildWelfareSystem:Improving
PermanencyandPreparationforAdulthoodOutcomes.In,CW360:Acomprehensive
lookatprevalentchildwelfareissue.CenterforAdvancedStudiesinChildWelfareat
UniversityofMinnesotaSchoolofSocialWork.
Frey,L.(2009).PermanencyorAgingOut?AMatterofChoice.In,CW360:A
comprehensivelookatprevalentchildwelfareissue.CenterforAdvancedStudiesin
ChildWelfareatUniversityofMinnesotaSchoolofSocialWork.
Gagnon,J.C.,&Richards,C.(2008).Makingtherightturn:Aguideaboutimproving
transitionoutcomesofyouthinvolvedinthejuvenilecorrectionssystem.Washington,
DC:NationalCollaborativeonWorkforceandDisabilityforYouth,Institutefor
EducationalLeadership.
Garland,A.F.,Hough,R.L.,Landsverk,J.A.,&Brown,S.A.(2001).Multi‐sector
complexityofsystemsofcareforyouthwithmentalhealthneeds.Children's
Services:SocialPolicy,Research,andPractice,4(3),123–140.
GeorgetownUniversity:CenterforJuvenileJusticeReform&ChapinHallatthe
UniversityofChicago.(2008)RacialandEthnicDisparityandDisproportionalityin
ChildandJuvenileJustice:ACompendium.Washington,DC.
Gordon,L.J.,Tullis,K.,Hanson,A.,&Sowders,S.(Eds.).(2005).Buildingonfamily
strengths:Researchandservicesinsupportoftheirchildrenandtheirfamilies.2004
ConferenceProceedings.Portland,OR:PortlandStateUniversity,Researchand
TrainingCenteronFamilySupportandChildren’sMentalHealth.
Halemba,G.,&Lord,R.(2005).Effectivelyinterveningwithdualjurisdictionyouth
inOhio.In,Children,Families,andtheCourts,OhioBulletin,2,1–28.
Halemba,G.J.,Siegel,G.,Lord,R.D.,&Zawacki,S.(2004,November30).Arizonadual
jurisdictionstudy:Finalreport.Pittsburg,PA:NationalCenterforJuvenileJustice.
Hansen,M.,Litzelman,A.,Marsh,D.T.,&Milspaw,A.(2004).Approachestoserious
emotionaldisturbance:Involvingmultiplesystems.ProfessionalPsychology:
ResearchandPractice,35(5),457–465.
Harris,L.(2006).Makingthejuvenilejusticeworkforcesystemconnectionforre
enteringyoungoffenders:Aguideforlocalpractice.Washington,DC:CenterforLaw
andSocialPolicy.
Herz,D.,Ryan,J.,&Bilchik,S.(2010).Challengesfacingcrossoveryouth:An
examinationofjuvenilejusticeDecision‐MakingandRecidivism.FamilyCourt
Review48,2,305321.
Herz,D.(2009November).Anevaluationofthe241.1MDTpilotprogram.Presented
attheNewBeginningsPartnershipConference,LosAngeles,CA.
Herz,D.C.,&Ryan,J.P.(2008a).Bridgingtwosystems:Youthinvolvedinthechild
welfareandjuvenilejusticesystems.GeorgetownUniversity,CenterforJuvenile
JusticeReform:Washington,DC.
Herz,D.C.,&Ryan,J.P.(2008b).Exploringthecharacteristicsandoutcomesof241.1
youthsinLosAngelescounty.SanFrancisco,CA:CaliforniaCourts,The
AdministrativeOfficeoftheCourts.
Howell,J.C.,Kelly,M.R.,Palmer,J.,&Mangum,R.L.(2004).Integratingchild
welfare,juvenilejustice,andotheragenciesinacontinuumofcare.ChildWelfare,83
(2),143–156.
Huser,M.Cooney,S.,Small,S.,O’Connor,C.&Mather,R.(2009).Evidencebased
programregistries.UniversityofWisconsin–Madison.
Ireland,T.O.,Smith,C.A.,&Thornberry,T.P.(2002).Developmentalissuesinthe
impactofchildmaltreatmentonlaterdelinquencyanddruguse.Criminology,40,
359–399.
Johnson,K.,Ereth,J.,&Wagner,D.(2004).Juveniledelinquencyamongchildren
involvedinachildmaltreatmentinvestigation:Alongitudinalstudy.Madison,WI:
Children’sResearchCenter.
Jonson‐Reid,M.(1998).Youthviolenceandexposuretoviolenceinchildhood:An
ecologicalreview.AggressionandViolentBehavior,3,159–179.
Jonson‐Reid,M.,&Barth,R.P.(2000a).Frommaltreatmentreporttojuvenile
incarceration:Theroleofchildwelfareservices.ChildAbuseandNeglect,24,505–
520.
Jonson‐Reid,M.,&Barth,R.P.(2000b).Fromplacementtoprison:Thepathto
adolescentincarcerationfromchildwelfaresupervisedfosterorgroupcare.
ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,22,493–516.
Jonson‐Reid,M.,&Barth,R.(2003).Probationfostercareasanoutcomeforchildren
exitingchildwelfarefostercare.SocialWork,48,348–361.
Jonson‐Reid,M.(2004).Childwelfareservicesanddelinquency:Theneedtoknow
more.ChildWelfare,83(2),157–174.
Kamradt,B.(2001).WraparoundMilwaukee:Aidingyouthwithmentalhealthneeds.
Washington,DC:OJJDP.
Kapp,S.(2000).Pathwaystoprison:Lifehistoriesofchildwelfareandjuvenile
justicesystemconsumers.JournalofSociologyandSocialWelfare,27(3),63–74.
Kapp,S.,Schwartz,I.,&Epstein,I.(1994).Adultimprisonmentofmalesreleased
fromresidentialchildcarelongitudinalstudy.ResidentialTreatmentforChildrenand
Youth,12(2),19–36.
Kelley,B.T.,Thornberry,T.,&Smith,C.(1997).Inthewakeofchildmaltreatment.
OJJDPJuvenileJusticeBulletin.Washington,DC:OfficeofJuvenileJusticeand
DelinquencyPrevention.
Kotter,J.(1996).LeadingChange.HarvardSchoolBusinessSchoolPress.
Kumpfer,K.L.(1999).StrengtheningAmerica’sfamilies:Exemplaryparentingand
familystrategiesfordelinquencyprevention.Washington,DC:OJJDP.
Leone,P.,Quinn,M.M.,&Osher,D.M.(2002).Collaborationinthejuvenilejustice
systemandyouthservingagencies:Improvingprevention,providingmoreefficient
services,andreducingrecidivismforyouthwithdisabilities.Washington,DC:
AmericanInstitutesforResearch.
Lipsey,M.(1992).Juveniledelinquencytreatment:Ameta‐analyticinquiryintothe
variabilityofeffects.InT.D.Cook,H.Cooper,D.S.Cordray,H.Hartmann,L.V.Hedges,
R.J.Light,T.A.Louis,andF.Mosteller(Eds.),Metaanalysisforexplanation:A
casebook,.NewYork,NY:RussellSageFoundation.
Madsen,B.(1999).CollaborativeTherapyWithMultiStressedFamilies:FromOld
ProblemstoNewFutures.GuilfordPressFamilyTherapySeries.
Mallon,G.(2003).PermanencyToday.NationalResourceCenterforFosterCareand
PermanencyPlanning.
Marsh,J.C.,Ryan,J.P.,Choi,S.,&Testa,M.(2006).Integratedservicesforfamilies
withmultipleproblems:Obstaclestofamilyreunification.ChildrenandYouth
ServicesReview,28,1074–1087.
Morris,L.,&Freundlich,M.(2004).YouthInvolvementintheChildWelfareand
JuvenileJusticeSystems.WashingtonDC:CWLAPress.
McLendon,T.(2009).Bestpracticesforengagingparentsofchildrenreceiving
mentalhealthservices.InPetr,C.G.(Ed.),Multidimensionalevidencebasedpractice:
Synthesizingknowledge,researchandvalues.NewYork:Routledge.
McMackin,R.&Fulwiler,C.(2001).Apublichealth‐juvenilejusticecollaborationto
addressthepsychiatricneedsofincarceratedyouth.InS.Hartwell&R.Schutt
(Eds.),TheOrganizationalResponsetoSocialProblems(pp.335‐358).NewYork,NY;
ElsevierScienceLtd.
Nash,M.&Bilchik,S.(2009).Childwelfareandjuvenilejustice:twosidesofthe
samecoin,PartII.JuvenileandFamilyJusticeToday.
NationalResourceCenterforPermanencyPlanning.(1998).ToolsforPermanency:
ConcurrentPermanencyPlanning.HunterCollege,SchoolofSocialWork,City
UniversityofNewYork.
Neff,M.(2000).Bestpracticesofempowermentorientedpermanencyplanning:
facilitatingchangeandselfdevelopmentinparentsandfamilies:ahandbookfor
caseworkers.NewYork:CouncilofFamilyandChildCaringAgencies.
Osher,T.W.,Osher,D.&Blau,G.M.(2008).Familiesmatters.InT.P.Gullottta&G.M.
Blau(Eds.),Familyinfluencesonchildhoodbehavioranddevelopment:evidencebased
preventionandtreatmentapproaches.
Palmer,T.(1991).Theeffectivenessofintervention:Recenttrendsandcurrent
issues.CrimeandDelinquency,37(3),330–346.
Patterson,K.,Grenny,J.,Maxfield,D.,McMillian,R.,&Switzler,A.(2008).Influencer:
Thepowertochangeanything.NewYork,NY:McGrawHill.
Petro,J.(2006).Increasingcollaborationandcoordinationofthechildwelfareand
juvenilejusticesystemstobetterservedualjurisdictionyouth:Aliteraturereview.
Washington,DC:ChildWelfareLeagueofAmerica,ResearchandEvaluation
Division.
Petro,J.(2007).Juvenilejusticeandchildwelfareagencies:Collaboratingtoserve
dualjurisdictionyouthsurveyreport.Washington,DC:ChildWelfareLeagueof
America,ResearchandEvaluationDivision.
Pullman,M.D.(2009).Participationresearchinsystemsofcareforchildren’smental
health.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,44,43–53.
Pumariega,A.,Atkins,D.L.,Rogers,K.,Montgomery,L.,Nybro,C.,Caesar,R.,&Millus,
D.(1999).MentalhealthandincarceratedyouthII:Serviceutilization.Journalof
ChildandFamilyStudies,8,205‐215.
Ross,T.&Conger,D.(2009).Bridgingchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice:Preventing
theunnecessarydetentionoffosterchildren.InT.Ross(Ed.),Childwelfare:The
challengesofcollaboration(pp.173–192).Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute.
Ryan,J.P.,Herz,D.,Hernandez,P.,&Marshall,J.(2007).Maltreatmentand
delinquency:Investigatingchildwelfarebiasinjuvenilejusticeprocessing.Children
andYouthServicesReview,29,1035–1050.
Ryan,J.,Hong,J.,Herz,D.,&Hernandez,P.(underreview).Kinshipfostercareand
theriskofdelinquency.ChildMaltreatment.
Ryan,J.P.,Marshall,J.M.,Herz,D.,&Hernandez,P.(2008).Juveniledelinquencyin
childwelfare:Investigatinggrouphomeeffects.ChildrenandYouthServicesReview.
Ryan,J.P.,&Testa,M.K.(2005).Childmaltreatmentandjuveniledelinquency:
Investigatingtheroleofplacementandplacementinstability.ChildrenandYouth
ServicesReview,27,227–249.
Ryan,J.P.,Testa,M.F.,andZhai,F.(2008).AfricanAmericanyouthinfostercareand
theriskofdelinquency:Thevalueofsocialbondsandpermanence.ChildWelfare.
Sampson,R.andBean,L.(inpress).Culturalmechanismsandkillingfields:A
revisedtheoryofcommunity‐levelracialinequity.InR.Peterson,L.Krivo,andJ.
Hagan(eds.)TheManyColorsofCrime:InequalitiesofRace,EthnicityandCrimein
America.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.
Schein,E.(1993).OrganizationalCultureandLeadership.InShafritz,J.andSteven
Ott,J.(Eds.)ClassicsofOrganizationTheory.(323‐324)2001.FortWorth:Harcourt
CollegePublishers.
Schwartz,I.,Kapp,S.,&Overstreet,E.(1994).Juvenilejusticeandchildwelfare:
LongitudinalresearchinthestateofMichigan.InWeitekamp,E.,andKerner,H.J.
(Eds.),Crossnationallongitudinalresearchonhumandevelopmentandcriminal
behavior(pp.111–115).Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademic.
Scrivner,K.W.(2002).Thedilemmaoftheabuseddelinquent.FamilyCourtReview,
40,135–149.
Siegel,G.,&Lord,R.(2004).Whensystemcollide:Improvingcourtpracticesand
programsdualjurisdictioncases.TechnicalAssistancetotheJuvenileCourt:Special
ProjectBulletin,NCJJ,Pittsburgh,PA.
Smith,C.A.,Ireland,T.O.,&Thornberry,T.P.(2005).Adolescentmaltreatmentandits
impactonyoungadultantisocialbehavior.ChildAbuseandNeglect,29,1099–1119.
Smith,C.,&Thornberry,T.P.(1995).Therelationshipbetweenchildhood
maltreatmentandadolescentinvolvementindelinquency.Criminology,33,451–
461.
Stoep,A.V.,Williams,M.,Jones,R.,Green,L.,&Trupin,E.(1999).Familiesasfull
researchpartners:What’sinitforus?JournalofBehavioralHealthServicesand
Research,26(3),332–344.
Testa,M.F.(1997).KinshipfostercareinIllinois.InR.Barth,J.D.Berrick,&N.Gilbert
(Eds.),Childwelfareresearchreview:Volumetwo(pp.101–129).NewYork:
ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Testa,M.F.,Shook,K.L.,Cohen,L.,&Woods,M.G.(1996).Permanencyplanning
optionsforchildreninformalkinshipcare.ChildWelfare,75(5),451‐470.
TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation.(1999).Pathwaystojuveniledetentionreform,
volumes1through15.Baltimore,MD:TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation.
Thornberry,T.P.,Ireland,T.O.,&Smith,C.A.(2001).Theimportanceoftiming:The
varyingimpactofchildhoodandadolescentmaltreatmentonmultipleproblem
outcomes.DevelopmentandPsychopathology,13,957–979.
U.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice.(July11,2007).AfricanAmericanChildrenin
FosterCare:HHSAssistanceNeededtoHelpStatesReducetheProportioninCare.
GAO‐07‐816.Washington,D.C.
WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy.(2008).Evidencebasedprogramsto
preventchildrenfromenteringandremaininginthechildwelfaresystem:Benefits
andcostsforWashington.Olympia,WA.
WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy.(2004).Outcomeevaluationof
WashingtonState’sresearchbasedprogramsforjuvenileoffenders.Olympia,WA.
Whitehead,J.T.,&Lab,S.P.(1989).Ameta‐analysisofjuvenilecorrectional
treatment.JournalofResearchinCrimeandDelinquency,26,276–295.
Widom,C.S.(1989).Childabuse,neglect,andviolentcriminalbehavior.Criminology,
27,251–271.
Widom,C.S.,&Maxfield,M.G.(1996).Aprospectiveexaminationofriskforviolence
amongabusedandneglectedchildren.AnnalsofNewYorkAcademyofSciences,224–
237.
Widom,C.S.,&Maxfield,M.G.(2001).Anupdateonthe“cycleofviolence”:Researchin
Brief.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,
NationalInstituteofJustice.
Wiig,J.K,&Tuell,J.A.(2004;revised2008).Guidebookforjuvenilejusticeandchild
welfaresystemintegration:Aframeworkforimprovedoutcomes.Washington,DC:
ChildWelfareLeagueofAmericaPress.
Wiig,J.K.,Widom,C.S.,&Tuell,J.A.(2003).Understandingchildmaltreatmentand
juveniledelinquency:Fromresearchtoeffectiveprogram,practice,andsystemic
solutions.Washington,DC:ChildWelfareofAmericaPress.
Wulczyn,F.,&Goerge,R.M.(1994).FostercareinNewYorkandIllinois:The
challengeofrapidchange.SocialServicesReview,66,278–294.
Wulczyn,F.,Hislop,K.,&Goerge,R.(2000).FosterCareDynamics1983–1998.
Chicago:ChapinHallCenterforChildren.
Yu,E.,Day,P.,&Williams,M.(2002a).Improvingeducationaloutcomesforyouthin
care.SymposiumSummaryReport.Washington,DC:ChildWelfareLeagueof
America.
Zimmerman,C.R.,Hendrix,G.,Moeser,J.,&Roush,D.W.(2004).Desktopguideto
reentryforjuvenileconfinementfacilities.EastLansing,MI:NationalPartnershipfor
JuvenileServices.
Zingraff,M.,Leiter,J.,Myers,K.,&Johnsen,M.(1993).Childmaltreatmentand
youthfulproblembehavior.Criminology,31,173–202.
Top Related