Intervention with youth dually involved in child welfare and juvenile justice systems (Crossover Youth Series)

Crossover Youth Series
Written by Wendy Haight, PhD, Gamble-Skogmo Chair

In our first blog post, we described crossover youth and why we should be especially concerned about their well being. The goal of this blog post is to describe an innovative intervention to correct the developmental trajectories of youth dually-involved with child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM)

The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) was designed by social workers and juvenile justice professionals concerned about dually-involved youth. Their overarching aim was to minimize these youths’ involvement in the juvenile justice system, primarily through enhanced cross-systems communications, especially between child welfare and juvenile justice professionals, and increased family engagement. At the time of this writing, the CYPM has been implemented in more than 45 jurisdictions in 14 states (see Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2012).

The CYPM is implemented in three phases. These three phases lead professionals through a series of key decision points beginning at the arrest and identification of crossover youth through final case closure.

Phase I focuses on arrest, identification of crossover youth, and decisions regarding detention and charges. Primary goals include the early identification of crossover youth and, when appropriate, diversion of child welfare-involved youth from juvenile justice system involvement. Practices at this phase may include the development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and information-sharing protocols to specify how client information databases can be shared between child welfare and juvenile justice systems to identify child welfare-involved youth as soon as they have contact with the juvenile justice system. They also may include diversion meetings with youth, family members, and juvenile justice and child welfare professionals.

Phase II focuses on dual-system case assessment and planning after a youth is formally involved in both systems. Practices at this phase include joint case assessment and planning by a multidisciplinary team, minimally including a child welfare social worker and juvenile justice professional and preferably the youth and family members. Practices also may include consolidated court processing to handle delinquency and dependency hearings together, joint referrals to community service providers, and placement decisions which reduce the use of out-of home placement, especially group care.

Phase III focuses on ongoing case management and planning for case closure. Practices at this phase include regular information sharing between the child welfare and juvenile justice professionals. Practices also focus on planning for permanency, including the partnering of child welfare and juvenile justice systems professionals around securing any necessary ongoing mental health, employment, housing, health care, and education support.

Family engagement is fundamental to the CYPM. Families who are engaged early in the intervention process are more likely to participate in services, stay in contact with their workers, and achieve their goals. In order to facilitate family engagement, child welfare and juvenile justice system workers meet together with the family, including any friends, members of community groups, or other collateral family partners, to explore how they will work together and support family participation in all phases of the CYPM (see Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2012).

Evidence-based practice is another central feature of the CYPM. Professionals at each implementation site are supported in the collection and analysis of outcome data. A number of internal reports have been generated from the original 13 implementation sites suggesting that fewer youth are crossing over from child welfare to juvenile justice system involvement, and those who do cross over are less extensively involved. They also suggest reductions in congregate placements and recidivism and improvements in permanency planning, contact with
family and other supportive adults, and youth involvement in prosocial activities (see Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2012).

In our next blog post in this series, we will describe facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the CYPM in five Minnesota counties from the perspectives of administrators and front line workers.