CYPM Overview Shay Bilchik Nebraska Juvenile Justice Association Conference May 6 2015 1 For more information on the various programs visit httpcjjrgeorgetownedu 2 CJJR Overview ID: 780811
Download The PPT/PDF document "Crossover Youth: Research, Policy and Pr..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Crossover Youth: Research, Policy and PracticeCYPM OverviewShay BilchikNebraska Juvenile Justice Association ConferenceMay 6, 2015
1
Slide2For more information on the various programs, visit: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu2
CJJR Overview
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Juvenile Justice Leadership Network
Center for Coordinated Assistance to States
Juvenile Justice System Improvement ProjectJuvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment InitiativeCertificate Programs (Diversion; Multi-System Integration; Racial and Ethnic Disparities; School Justice Partnerships; Youth in Custody) Public Information Officers Learning Collaborative
Slide3Who Are Crossover Youth?3
Slide4Pathways to Crossing Over1. Open CW Case Arrest Enter JJ System2. 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 CW4
Slide5Research Supporting the CYPM5
Slide6PrevalenceChild Welfare Population10-29% 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 CasesOverall: 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”
6
Slide7What Contributes to Crossing Over?7
Slide8Characteristics of Youth8
Slide9Characteristics of Youth9African American Youth OverrepresentedAbout 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
Slide10System Experiences 10
Slide11Overview of the CYPM Phases
Slide12CYPM - Phases12
Slide13GoalsReductions in: the number of youth placed in out-of-home carethe use of congregate carethe disproportionate representation of youth of color, particularly in the crossover populationthe number of youth crossing over and becoming dually-adjudicated13
Slide14Process and Practice Goals14
Slide1515Process and Practice Goals
Slide16Themes16Family EngagementPermanencyDisproportionality
Gender
Information Sharing
Coordinated Case Management
Funding / Resources
Slide17What do CYPM sites do?17Identification of youth at the point of arrest Clarify how to legally share information
Develop 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 planCreation of a Crossover Court
Permanency/Self-Sufficiency Planning
Slide18CYPM Data Collection Process18
Slide19CYPM Outcomes19Highlights from the 2010 DataPathway 1 Youth Only
Slide202010 CYPM Sites (N=12)
Austin
Miami
Seattle
Cincinnati
Rochester
Sioux City
Denver
Portland
Los Angeles
Polk
Philadelphia
Broward
Slide21Who Are CYPM Youth in These Sites?84% Have a MH and/or SU Problem60% Are African American 40% Are Female
79%
Have Academic and/or Behavioral Problems at
School
31%
Not AttendingSchool
Slide22Child Welfare Characteristics of CYPM Youth in These Sites35% Living at Home at Time of Arrest25% 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
Slide23Juvenile Justice Characteristics of CYPM Youth in These Sites61% Had at Least One Prior Offense25% Detained at Arrest
22% Property Offense
37%
Other
Offense*
39% At Living Situation20% At School*Other offenses include alcohol and drug offenses, resisting arrest, and status offenses 70% Assaults
41%
Violent
Offense
Charge Type for Current Offense
Slide2485% of CYPM youth across sites received a Promising Practice compared to 37% of Pre-CYPM youth. Focus of CYPM Reform Efforts in These Sites100% Enhanced Coordination82%
Early Identification
64% Reduced Detention
64%
Arrest at Living Situation
55% Crossover Courts/Units91%Joint Assessment Multi- Disciplinary Teams82% Arrest at School
82% Increased Diversion
82%
Focus on
Permanency
Slide25% of Sites Showing Improvement in Educational OutcomesIncreasedEnrollment (42%)AustinMiamiPortland RochesterSeattle
Reduced Behavior
Problems at School (58%)
Denver
Los
AngelesMiamiPhiladelphiaSioux CityCircuit 17 PortlandLos AngelesPhiladelphiaSioux CityImproved 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.
Slide26% of Sites Showing Increased Contact with Support SystemsNon-Family (58%)PhiladelphiaPortlandRochester
Denver
Seattle
Sioux City
Austin
Circuit 10Circuit 17CincinnatiLos AngelesMiamiSeattlePortlandOther Family (92%)DenverPhiladelphiaSioux CityIndicates 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%)
Cincinnati
Los Angeles
Miami
Seattle
Sioux
City
Circuit 10
Circuit 17
Denver
Philadelphia
Portland
Slide27% 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 10CincinnatiLos AngelesPortlandSioux City
Slide28Status of Disposition Outcome*for the Current Arrest (CYPM vs. Pre-CYPM)19%Placement23%Probation
Supervision
43%
Diversion
15%
Dismissed29%Placement25%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.
Slide29Status of Permanency Goal at the End of Tracking (CYPM vs. Pre-CYPM)12%Guardianship or Adoption24%
PPLAEmancipation
Sup. Ind. Living
6
5%
Remain Home or Reunification19%Guardianship or Adoption33%PPLAEmancipationSup. Ind. Living47%
Remain Home
or
Reunification
Average across sites for CYPM youth.
Average across sites for Pre-CYPM youth.
Slide30Status of JJ and CW cases at the End of Tracking (CYPM Vs. Pre-CYPM only)18%Both Cases Closed34%
CW OpenJJ Closed
40%
Both Cases Open
8
%CW ClosedJJ Open18%Both Cases Closed20%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.
Slide31% of CYPM Sites with Lower Recidivism than Pre-CYPM SitesHad a New Sustained Petition (17%)PortlandSeattleIndicates more than 10% difference between CYPM youth and Pre-CYPM youth.
Had a New
Arrest
(42%)
Austin
Circuit 17CincinnatiPhiladelphiaSeattle
Slide32CYPM JurisdictionsSince Spring 2010, CJJR has worked in 88 counties in 20 states across the U.S. implementing the CYPM32
Slide33QUESTIONS & ANSWERS33