Dual Status Youth -- Challenges & Opportunities 11/12/2018 Dual Status Youth -- Challenges & Opportunities Hon. Tarita Dunbar Family Court Judge 13th Judicial Circuit, South Carolina Hon. Sheri Roberts Presiding Judge Newton County Juvenile Court, Georgia February 2018 Welcome and Introductions

perhaps the clearest mirror of our performance, 11/12/2018 “Here in America today, perhaps the clearest mirror of our performance, the truest measure of whether we live up to our ideals, is our youth.” The National Resource Center, which launched in 2013 as a program of the Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps. The RFK Children’s Action Corps was founded in 1969 as a living memorial to the late Robert F. Kennedy and strives to improve the lives of children and families through care, treatment, education and advocacy. We are guided by what is expressed in the quote on your screen, that the truest measure of whether we live up to our ideals is our youth. Through its longstanding partnership with the MacArthur Foundation, the Action Corps has worked to help numerous jurisdictions better understand the unique needs of youth in the juvenile justice system who have suffered abuse and/or neglect, and the critical importance of collaborating across multiple systems of care. 11/12/2018

11/12/2018 The NCJFCJ seeks to improve the standards, practices, and effectiveness of the nation’s juvenile, family, and tribal courts while upholding victims’ rights, and the safety of all family members and communities. In 2017, the NCJFCJ trained 70 South Carolina justice system professionals. The NCJFCJ’s research division, the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ), is a resource for independent and original research on topics related to the filed of juvenile justice. www.NCJFCJ.org The NCJFCJ advances federal policy development and provides cutting-edge training, research, technical assistance to judicial officers and justice system professionals - court administrators, social and mental health workers, educators, police.

Long history of working to better understand Dual Status Youth 11/12/2018 Long history of working to better understand Dual Status Youth Arizona Dual Jurisdiction Study (2002) The National Center for Juvenile Justice—the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, coined the term Dual Status Youth in a research report on cases handled in Arizona in 2002. Since then NCJJ’s researchers have conducted several ground-breaking studies and worked with jurisdictions to improve outcomes for dual status youth. Middlesex Vicinage, NJ Dual System Collaboration/Integration Project (2012-2013)

Dual Status Youth Initiative - Development 11/12/2018 Dual Status Youth Initiative - Development Initial Grant - Raised awareness of the relationship and trajectory (2000) Created a Framework for multi-system coordination Site-based practice reform beginning in 2003 Guidebook developed in 2003, revised in 2008 OJJDP/MacArthur supported DSY Initiative Round One launched (2011) Revised Guidebook; Developed Dual Status Youth - Technical Assistance Workbook (2013) OJJDP/MacArthur supported DSY Initiative Round Two launched (2014) DSY Training Initiative launched (2016) 11/12/2018 5 5

DUAL STATUS YOUTH INITIATIVE 11/12/2018 DUAL STATUS YOUTH INITIATIVE State of Arizona   California Los Angeles County Santa Clara County El Dorado County Connecticut Connecticut Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division Georgia Newton County Fulton County  Hall County Illinois Cook County DuPage County Ogle County Indiana Marion County Massachusetts Essex County Hampden County   Minnesota Beltrami County White Earth Indian Nation   New Jersey Middlesex County Washington Clark County King County Spokane County Wisconsin Outagamie County 11/12/2018

Dual Status Youth Initiative - Activities 11/12/2018 Dual Status Youth Initiative - Activities Practice Network – Site-based personnel convening to highlight advances in reform, identify innovations, engage new sites, and explore legislative opportunities Technical Assistance / Consultation – Provide support for local & state jurisdictions using proven frameworks, tools, and resources Training – On-site in jurisdictions to allow for full multi-system participation Publications - Effective Approaches to Secure Education / Schools as Multi-System Reform Partner; Trauma and DSY; Data Planning in DSY Initiatives; Creating Cross-system Culture Change Symposium – 2016 in Boston; next in 2019 11/12/2018

Dual Status Youth Framework 11/12/2018 Dual Status Youth Framework Guidebook for Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration: Framework for Improved Outcomes www.rfknrcjj.org Dual Status Youth – Technical Assistance Workbook www.rfknrcjj.org 8 11/12/2018 8

What Doesn’t Work Working in Silos Costly and Ineffective Responses 11/12/2018 What Doesn’t Work Working in Silos Costly and Ineffective Responses Poor Outcomes

What Does Work Routine identification of dual status youth 11/12/2018 What Does Work Routine identification of dual status youth Individualized outcomes Validated screening and assessment instruments Alternatives to formal processing at earliest opportunity and key decision points One family, One Judge Family focused & Child-centered Engagement of families Joint assessment process across systems (includes families) Coordinated: case planning court processes case management Focus on family stability, placement stability, and community connections NCJFCJ’s Project ONE – One family-one judge, No wrong door, Equal and coordinated access to justice. The NCJFCJ has adopted policy and corresponding initiatives that support judicial leaders in convening, developing, and maintaining programs of interagency cooperation and coordination among the court and various public agencies that serve at-risk children, victims, and families. The NCJFCJ has been leading the way in changing working relationships, culture, and operating environments of juvenile and family courts to be more holistic through support of judicially-led collaborations. Among other policy positions, through the Key Principles of Project ONE (One family-one judge, No wrong door, Equal and coordinated access to justice) the NCJFCJ supports engagement of families, professionals, and communities to effectively support child safety, permanency, and well-being; victim safety; offender accountability; healthy family functioning; and community protection.

Terminology Dually-Identified Youth Dually-Involved Youth 11/12/2018 Terminology Dually-Identified Youth Dually-Involved Youth Dual Status Youth: Broadly defined as youth with current or prior involvement with child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Also referred to as dual system youth or crossover youth. Dually-Identified Youth: Currently involved with the juvenile justice system and have a history in the child welfare system, but no current involvement. Dually-Involved Youth: Current involvement with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Dually-Adjudicated Youth: Concurrently adjudicated in both child welfare and juvenile justice systems Dually-Adjudicated Youth

Target Population

What’s the big deal about dual status youth? Outcomes and Experiences Youth in foster care begin offending earlier, spend more time incarcerated, and commit a greater number of offenses than youth not in foster care. (Yang, 2017) Dual status youth have higher rates of recidivism (Lee & Villagrana, 2015) Dual status youth are detained more often; and for longer periods of time. (Conger & Ross, 2001; Halemba & Siegel, 2011) Dual status youth experience negative outcomes related to permanency, with significant numbers of placement changes and AWOL episodes. (Halemba & Siegel 2011) Dual status youth are more likely than youth in just one system to experience a jail stay, lack of education and employment in young adulthood. (Center for Innovation through Data Intelligence, 2015) There are consequences to not targeting this population for reform - costs to the youth, the systems, and our communities More offenses, higher recidivism More time in costly detention and incarcerated, with retraumatization as a real concern More disruption – impacting the youth’s education, treatment success, ability to establish caring relationships, and the system’s resources being depleted addressing the constant changes Becoming adults with greater needs and criminal behavior We are not in a situation where we don’t know what to do for these youth. We know what we can do – protective factors give us a roadmap. Prevention is one focal point – how can we address the risk early and effectively? We are going to have some youth who do come into contact with both systems. How do we avoid that jurisdictional food fight? We focus on system collaboration and coordination.

These outcomes are neither inevitable nor deterministic 11/12/2018 IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER These outcomes are neither inevitable nor deterministic

How it works – Getting started FOUR PHASE PROCESS I. MOBILIZATION / ADVOCACY II. STUDY & ANALYSIS - Data Collection, Mgmt., & Performance Measurement - Resources and Practice - Law, Policy, and Information Sharing III. ACTION STRATEGY IV. IMPLEMENTATION NCJFCJ as a resource – NCJJ – training, TA, research

STRUCTURE & GOVERNANCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 11/12/2018 STRUCTURE & GOVERNANCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Governance & Decision-Making Oversight & Mgmt. of Subcommittees Legal & Policy Analysis Subcommittee 3. Law, Policy & Information Sharing Subcommittee 3. 1. 2. 1. Data Collection, Management, & Performance Measurement Subcommittee 2. Resources & Practices Subcommittee

Important Areas of Examination and Analysis 11/12/2018 Important Areas of Examination and Analysis Collaboration & Infrastructure (Executive) Judicial Leadership Adolescent Development (Executive & Practices and Resources) Data Collection, Management and Performance Measurement (Data) Process Mapping (Practices & Resources) Risks-Needs-Responsivity Structured Decision Making (Practices & Resources) Coordinated Case Planning & Management (Practices & Resources) Information Sharing (Law & Policy) Trauma (Practices & Resources) Family Engagement (Practices & Resources) Implementation & Sustainability (Executive & Data) NCJFCJ – judicial leadership, adolescent development, trauma-informed courts/trauma audits, needs of homeless youth and families, School-Justice Partnerships

Data sharing is easier for integrated & centralized agencies

Data Collection & Management 5 critical data elements Youth’s status in each system (active/not, adjudicated/not) Whether the youth was securely detained by the juvenile justice system (yes/no) The youth’s current placement (home/relatives/CW placement/JJ placement) JJ initial disposition (release/placement/probation/other sanctions) & CW dispositions (reunification/adoption/other placement) Key dates (referral/petition/adjudication/disposition/case closure)

11/12/2018

LIPT as a Targeted Intervention 11/12/2018 LIPT as a Targeted Intervention The LIPT meeting is a solution-focused targeted intervention to ensure that the youth receives individualized, family-driven, strength-based, culturally competent collaborative community-based care, resources and supports at the earliest possible opportunity. This targeted intervention is designed to reduce out-of-home placements and further involvement in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems.

DESIRED OUTCOMES: Findings Action Strategy Implementation 11/12/2018 DESIRED OUTCOMES: Reduce recidivism Improve family functioning Reduce out-of–home placement Improve behavioral health Increase individual competencies Improve educational performance Increase pro-social bonds System(s) performance enhancement Findings Recommendations Here is a graphic representation of how the process unfolds and leads to desired outcomes. I want to emphasize that this is why the framework exists. Jurisdictions take on this work because they want to improve the outcomes for the youth they serve. So all of the study/analysis/consideration of recommendations/ development of implementation strategies exist as a method for ultimately achieving better outcomes. Each jurisdiction creates its own specific desired outcomes, but those listed on the slide are an example of commonly identified desired outcomes. Note that these outcomes for youth look far beyond the traditional goal of reducing recidivism. Although usually an essential driver of the work, it is just one among a list of areas for improvement that truly focuses on a youth’s well being. Once outcomes are identified, the development of an evaluation strategy can help a jurisdiction determine how it will measure success in relation to those outcomes. In our guidebook, we provide an example of the specific outcomes designed by one of our sites as well as the measures for tracking progress toward outcomes. They also identified the data sources they needed to access in order to collect the data necessary to evaluate measures. Our sites are immersed in the process of collecting data this year, with the expectation that by year’s end there will be the opportunity to evaluate the success of their work in relation to their desired outcomes. Action Strategy Implementation Desired Outcomes 11/12/2018

11/12/2018

The South Carolina Story What do we know now? Will the Dual Status Youth framework help our kids?

From the Department of Juvenile Justice’s 2016 “Report Card”

From the Department of Juvenile Justice’s 2016 “Report Card”

From the SC Committee on Children 2017 Annual Report 11/12/2018 From the SC Committee on Children 2017 Annual Report 30,519 children were the subject of a child abuse or neglect investigation (2015) 3,985 children lived in foster care for some period of time (2016) 15,429 juvenile delinquency cases were referred to the Department of Juvenile Justice (2016) 26,039 children received mental health treatment (2016) 4,763 children were in treatment for drug or alcohol abuse (2016)

Disturbing School Laws 11/12/2018 Disturbing School Laws A crime to “interfere with or to disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school or college…, to loiter about such school or college premises or to act in an obnoxious manner thereon.” Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice noting, “the criminalization of everyday and ordinary childhood behavior under imprecise statutes can have disastrous and discriminatory consequences.”

Disturbing School Laws 11/12/2018 Disturbing School Laws 8th most common charge resulting in juvenile detention in South Carolina in 2015-2016 2nd most common juvenile charge referred to the solicitor’s office, accounting for 9% of all such 2015-2016 referrals

11/12/2018 From the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice’s Annual Statistical Report for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Disturbing Schools Truancy

11/12/2018 Ten Most Frequent Offenses Associated with Juvenile Cases to the Solicitor FY 2015/2016

Dual status youth efforts in SC 11/12/2018 Dual status youth efforts in SC

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010 Juveniles who were currently in out-of-home placement or were in the community but at elevated risk for secure detention, probation violations, removal from school, commitment, or other out-of-home placement. Children defined as at risk were those who are not following their probation/parole guidelines or who were exhibiting behavioral problems at school; Juveniles who were receiving services from another agency in addition to DJJ or appeared to have unmet needs that could be addressed through services of another agency.

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010 A DJJ study (Trotti, 2006) of 12,610 juveniles born in 1981 who had involvement with the juvenile justice system: 1 in 4 received Department of Mental Health (DMH) treatment at some time in their childhood. Committed juveniles were nearly 3 times more likely to have received DMH services than those never committed. During the MAT Project, the agency with the highest rate of common clients with DJJ was DMH.

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010 A DJJ study (Trotti, 2006) of 12,610 juveniles born in 1981 who had involvement with the juvenile justice system: 1 in 16 of these children had been placed into DSS foster care at some time in their childhood. Juveniles with 2 or more DJJ referrals were 3 times more likely to have a prior DSS foster care placement than those with only 1 DJJ referral. Committed juveniles were nearly 3 times more likely to have a prior DSS foster care placement than those never committed.

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010 DJJ’s school for committed juveniles has 4 times as many special education students compared with the state as a whole. More than 30% of the juveniles committed to DJJ are designated special education students though South Carolina’s average is only 8%.

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010

From the Children’s Law Center (CLC) Multi-Agency Team (MAT) Project 2010 The MAT Project collected feedback from participants on the effectiveness of multi-agency meetings. Participants consistently identified the following components of these meetings as beneficial and instrumental in creating a positive atmosphere: Advanced notice of meetings Clear agenda Clear schedule which was followed Perceived equality among participants Use of facilitator for focused and organized meetings

More NCJFCJ Resources Project ONE - http://www.ncjfcj.org/our-work/project-one Training and TA - http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/daysonthehill/2018/onepagers/Training_and_TA-FNL-2-2018.pdf School-Justice Partnership - https://www.schooljusticepartnership.org/ Resolutions: Addressing the Needs of Homeless Youth and Families in Juvenile and Family Courts - http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Fnl_Adopted%20Homelessness%20Resolution_7-2017.pdf Regarding Juvenile Probation and Adolescent Development - http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Fnl_AdoptedProbationPolicyResolution_7-2017_1.pdf Regarding Judicial Training on Adolescent Brain Development - http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/FINALResolution_AdolBrainDevel_7-2016_0.pdf Regarding Trauma-Informed Juvenile and Family Courts - http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Resolution%20Trauma%20Informed%20Courts_July2015.pdf

13th Judicial Circuit, South Carolina tdunbarj@sccourts.org 11/12/2018 Hon. Tarita Dunbar Family Court Judge 13th Judicial Circuit, South Carolina tdunbarj@sccourts.org Hon. Sheri Roberts Presiding Judge Newton County Juvenile Court, Georgia sroberts@co.newton.ga.us 11/12/2018