Juvenile Mental Health Court Implementing a Multi-Agency Model 1st Judicial District Implementing a Multi-Agency Model 1st Judicial District

 Youth with mental illness are falling through the cracks of this country’s social safety net and are landing in the juvenile justice system at an alarming rate.  Advocates for the mentally ill are increasingly concerned over the “Criminalization” of the mentally ill.  Youth with mental illness are falling through the cracks of this country’s social safety net and are landing in the juvenile justice system at an alarming rate.  Advocates for the mentally ill are increasingly concerned over the “Criminalization” of the mentally ill.

1.Youth should not have to enter the juvenile justice system solely in order to access mental health services or because of their mental illness. 2.Whenever possible and when matters of public safety allow, youth with mental health needs should be diverted into evidence-based treatment in a community setting. 3.If diversion out of the juvenile justice system is not possible, youth should be placed in the least restrictive setting possible, with access to evidence-based treatment.

PRINCIPLESPRINCIPLES 4.Information collected as part of a pre-adjudicatory mental health screen should not be used in any way that might jeopardize the legal interests of youth as defendants. 5.All mental health services provided to youth in contact with the juvenile justice system should respond to issues of gender, ethnicity, race, age, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and faith. 6.Mental health services should meet the developmental realities of youth. Children and adolescents are not simply little adults.

7.Whenever possible, families and/or caregivers should be partners in the development of treatment decisions and plans made for their children. 8. Multiple systems bear responsibility for these youth. While at different times, a single agency may have primary responsibility, these youth are the community’s responsibility and all responses developed for these youth should be collaborative in nature, reflecting the input and involvement of the mental health, juvenile justice, and other systems. 9.Services and strategies aimed at improving the identification and treatment of youth with mental health needs in the juvenile justice system should be routinely evaluated to determine their effectiveness in meeting desired goals and outcomes.

There is no single “model” of a Mental Health Court. Each court operates under its own rules and procedures, and has its own way of addressing service issues There is no single “model” of a Mental Health Court. Each court operates under its own rules and procedures, and has its own way of addressing service issues

 Broward County Mental Health Court, FL  Mental Health Treatment Court of Santa Clara, CA  King County Mental Health Court, WA  Franklin County Mental Health/SAMI Court, OH  Court Coordinated Services, OR  Broward County Mental Health Court, FL  Mental Health Treatment Court of Santa Clara, CA  King County Mental Health Court, WA  Franklin County Mental Health/SAMI Court, OH  Court Coordinated Services, OR

 The rate of incarceration for people with an emotional/behavioral disorder is three times that of those who do not have a diagnosis. (Clark, R., 2001)  This rate for youth in the juvenile justice system is as high as 60% (OJJDP, 2000; Cocozza, 1992)  The rate of incarceration for people with an emotional/behavioral disorder is three times that of those who do not have a diagnosis. (Clark, R., 2001)  This rate for youth in the juvenile justice system is as high as 60% (OJJDP, 2000; Cocozza, 1992)

2002 Prob. File Review 950 Cases reviewed: 27.68% Had a documented Mental Health Diagnosis in their file 2002 Prob. File Review 950 Cases reviewed: 27.68% Had a documented Mental Health Diagnosis in their file MAYSI DATA MAYSI screens: 198 Females 632 Males 35.9% Report MH issues in their MAYSI Screen MAYSI DATA MAYSI screens: 198 Females 632 Males 35.9% Report MH issues in their MAYSI Screen

TRADITIONAL JUVENILE COURT * Magistrate * District Attorney * Public Defender * Diversion Supervision up to 1 year * Probation Supervision up to 2 years * Adjudication * Sentencing * Six Months Review * Termination

Judicial

District Magistrate District Attorney’s Office Jefferson Center for Mental Health Juvenile Probation Department of Human Services Colorado Federation of Families R 1 School District Senate Bill 94 Jefferson County Juvenile Assessment Center Colorado State Public Defenders Office/Golden Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center District Magistrate District Attorney’s Office Jefferson Center for Mental Health Juvenile Probation Department of Human Services Colorado Federation of Families R 1 School District Senate Bill 94 Jefferson County Juvenile Assessment Center Colorado State Public Defenders Office/Golden Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center

Advisory Committee 1st Judicial District Magistrate 1st Judicial District, District Attorney’s Office 1st Judicial District Senate Bill 94 1st Judicial District Juvenile Probation Jefferson Center for Mental Health Jefferson County Division of Children, Youth and Families Jefferson Cty. Affiliate of Federation of Families Jefferson County Juvenile Assessment Center Colorado State Public Defenders Office/Golden Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Ctr. Operations Planning 1st Judicial District Magistrate 1st Judicial District Juvenile Probation Jefferson Center for Mental Health 1st Judicial District Senate Bill 94

Eligibility / Referral

1st Judicial District Juveniles and their families:  Between the ages of 10 and 18, and  Evidence of a Major Mental Health disorder, or Substance abuser with evidence of Major Mental Health Disorder  Note: Severe post traumatic stress disorder (approval of Psychologist required) may be a qualifying factor Qualifying Factors/ Eligibility Criteria

Cases may be referred by:  Judges  Magistrates  Probation, JAC, SB94, JCDCYF, DAs complete referral form and send to JMHCt Navigator  Mental Health Center  GALs, defense attorneys, or other legal counsel may also complete and submit a referral form through the JMHCt Navigator.  Office of the Public Defender Source of Referrals

REFERRAL PROCESS  Received referral  Contact family via phone  Home Visit  Present to Screening Committee  Contact parents to inform of outcome

 Current charge or previous conviction for a class 1 felony  Most serious charge is a status offense  Aggravated or Violent Juvenile Offender  defined in Colorado Children’s Code.  Age 18 or under age 10  Behavioral Disorder as primary diagnosis  Mental retardation or brain injury  Sexually abusive youth

Eligibility / Referral Multi Disciplinary Screening Committee

25 Screening Team  Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center  GAL’s Public Defender’s Office  District Attorney’s Office  Probation  Division of Children, Youth and Families  Jefferson Center for Mental Health  SB94 25

Eligibility / Referral Multi Disciplinary Screening Committee Assessment and Tx Planning

ASSESSMENT TOOLS  Standard Assessment/Intake for JCMH  Psych Evaluations  SB94 Reports  PSI Reports  IEP/SIED and Other School Documents  Hospital Documentation  Medication Evaluations  Verbal Reports from Psychiatrists, Nurse Practitioners, Psychologist, Therapists  Teachers/School Staff

Multi-Systemic Treatment (MST) Functional Family Treatment (FFT) Federation of Families Crossroads Substance Abuse Services Medication Management Families Together Government Agency Contacts (Medicaid, family services) Community Services

30 YOUTH NOT ACCEPTED AT SCREENINGS  Declined Participation= 5  Competency= 1  DYC= 1  Out of County Youth= 5  Already adjudicated/  in placement= 7 Reason (As of 08/10)  Withdrawn by counsel = 1  Parent decision to not/ no follow through = 11  Not Eligible (age/dx/legal hx) = 32  Appropriate Services in place = 8  Case Dismissed = 3 JUVENILES SCREENED: 161 NOT ACCEPTED: 74 54% Accepted (86 served)

Eligibility / Referral Multi Disciplinary Screening Committee Assessment and Tx Planning MH Court

 Navigator  Consumer  Juvenile Magistrate  Guardian Ad Litem  Case Worker  Public Defender  Probation Officer  District Attorney  Family  Natural Supports  Family Advocate  Others

Eligibility / Referral Multi Disciplinary Screening Committee Assessment and Tx Planning MH Court Progress reviews

 Utilization of the “Informal Adjustment” statute: to C.R.S  Deferred Adjudications (one year): C.R.S  Voluntary participation.  Up to 6 months, with additional extension for 6 months with good cause shown.  Advisement and waiver of rights including right to speedy trial.  Intermediate sanctions for noncompliance.  Frequent judicial reviews to monitor progression in the program.  Utilization of the “Informal Adjustment” statute: to C.R.S  Deferred Adjudications (one year): C.R.S  Voluntary participation.  Up to 6 months, with additional extension for 6 months with good cause shown.  Advisement and waiver of rights including right to speedy trial.  Intermediate sanctions for noncompliance.  Frequent judicial reviews to monitor progression in the program.

 Frequent judicial reviews to monitor progression in the program.  Successful completion of court contract required for graduation from the program.  Case dismissed upon graduation.  Prosecution will resume upon unsuccessful termination from the program.  Frequent judicial reviews to monitor progression in the program.  Successful completion of court contract required for graduation from the program.  Case dismissed upon graduation.  Prosecution will resume upon unsuccessful termination from the program.

Eligibility / Referral Multi Disciplinary Screening Committee Assessment and Tx Planning MH Court Progress reviews Successful Discharge

39 GRADUATION CEREMONY Picture March 2008 Ceremony: 13 Graduates February 2009 Ceremony:22 Graduates March 2010 Ceremony:17 Graduates

DATA Data as of August 12, 2010 Average Age = 14.5 Average Length of Stay - 10 Months Most Common Diagnosis = Bipolar Most Common Offense = 3 rd Degree Assault Most Common Victim = Family Member 22 Current Active Clients

DATA  DISPOSITION:  Deferred Adjudication (17)  Informal Adjustment (63)  Probation (6)  Pending (0)  Of 64 cases discharged, 51 were successful  (80% Success rate for program completion)

"There are better things ahead than any we leave behind." C.S. Lewis

43 CONTACT US

44