1. Crossover Youth: Research, Policy and Practice CYPM Overview
Shay Bilchik
Nebraska Juvenile Justice Association Conference
May 6, 2015

2. For more information on the various programs, visit: http://cjjr
CJJR Overview
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Juvenile Justice Leadership Network
Center for Coordinated Assistance to States
Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project
Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative
Certificate Programs
(Diversion; Multi-System Integration; Racial and Ethnic Disparities; School Justice Partnerships; Youth in Custody)
Public Information Officers Learning Collaborative

3. Who Are Crossover Youth?
Dually-Involved
Dually-Adjudicated

4. Pathways to Crossing Over
1. Open CW Case  Arrest  Enter JJ System 2. 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 CW

5. Research Supporting the CYPM

6. Prevalence Juvenile Justice Referrals Child Welfare Population
10-29% 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 Cases
Overall: 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”

7. What Contributes to Crossing Over?
Experiences w/ Child Welfare System
Placement Type
Adolescent-Limited and Persistent Maltreatment
Absence of Positive Attachments
Placement Instability

8. Characteristics of Youth
Living in group home at time of arrest
26%
AWOL at time of arrest
47%
Attending school
94%
(80% of whom had academic or behavior problems)

9. Characteristics of Youth
African American Youth Overrepresented
About 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

10. System Experiences
Overrepresented in detention (25-50%) and underrepresented in diversion
5 years avg. time in child welfare
59% had a prior criminal history
22% arrest was related to placement
56% had a placement change 6 months prior to arrest

11. Overview of the CYPM Phases

12. CYPM - Phases Phase I: Arrest, Identification and Detention
Phase II: Joint Assessment and Planning
Phase III: Coordinated Case Management

13. Goals Reductions in: the number of youth placed in out-of-home care
the use of congregate care
the disproportionate representation of youth of color, particularly in the crossover population
the number of youth crossing over and becoming dually-adjudicated

14. Process and Practice Goals
Reduce
Juvenile Justice Penetration
Use of Pre-Adjudication Detention
Rate of Recidivism
Re-entering CW from JJ

15. Process and Practice Goals
Increase
Information Sharing
Family Voice In Decision Making
Youth/Parent Satisfaction
Joint Assessment and Case Planning
Coordinated Case Management
Family and Youth Engagement
Pro-Social Bonds
Diversion

16. Coordinated Case Management
Themes
Permanency
Coordinated Case Management
Information Sharing
Family Engagement
Funding / Resources
Gender
Disproportionality

17. What do CYPM sites do? Clarify how to legally share information
Identification of youth at the point of arrest
Develop Prevention Strategies
Ensure youth are not held in detention for extended time
Ensure there is no foster care bias in offering diversion
Creation of a consolidated case plan
Utilization of a joint assessment process
Creation of a Crossover Court
Permanency/Self-Sufficiency Planning

18. CYPM Data Collection Process
Baseline
Comparison
Target Youth

19. Highlights from the 2010 Data Pathway 1 Youth Only
CYPM Outcomes
Highlights from the 2010 Data Pathway 1 Youth Only

20. 2010 CYPM Sites (N=12) Seattle Portland Rochester Sioux City
Austin
Miami
Seattle
Cincinnati
Rochester
Sioux City
Denver
Portland
Los Angeles
Polk
Philadelphia
Broward

21. Who Are CYPM Youth in These Sites?
60%
Are African American
31%
Not
Attending
School
84%
Have a MH and/or SU Problem
79%
Have Academic and/or Behavioral Problems at
School
40% Are Female

22. Child Welfare Characteristics of CYPM Youth in These Sites
55%
Had One or More Placement Changes in the Past 6 Months
35%
Living at Home at Time of Arrest
55%
Involved with CW for Neglect
25%
Living Congregate Care at Time of Arrest
Average Time in CW
4.3 years
(Median 2.2 years)

23. Juvenile Justice Characteristics of CYPM Youth in These Sites
61%
Had at Least One Prior Offense
25% Detained at Arrest
41%
Violent Offense
Charge Type for Current Offense
37%
Other
Offense*
70% Assaults
22%
Property Offense
39%
At Living Situation
20%
At School
*Other offenses include alcohol and drug offenses, resisting arrest, and status offenses

24. Focus of CYPM Reform Efforts in These Sites
100% Enhanced Coordination
91%
Joint Assessment
Multi-
Disciplinary
Teams
82%
Arrest at School
82% Increased Diversion
82%
Focus on
Permanency
82%
Early
Identification
64% Reduced Detention
64%
Arrest at Living Situation
55%
Crossover
Courts/
Units
85% of CYPM youth across sites received a Promising Practice compared to 37% of Pre- CYPM youth.

25. % of Sites Showing Improvement in Educational Outcomes
Increased
Enrollment (42%)
Austin
Miami
Portland
Rochester
Seattle
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Sioux City
Improved Academic
Performance (33%)
Austin
Reduced Behavior
Problems at School (58%)
Denver
Los Angeles
Miami
Philadelphia
Sioux City
Circuit 17
Portland
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.

26. % of Sites Showing Increased Contact with Support Systems
Parents (83%)
Cincinnati
Los Angeles
Miami
Seattle
Sioux City
Circuit 10
Circuit 17
Denver
Philadelphia
Portland
Austin
Circuit 10
Circuit 17
Cincinnati
Los Angeles
Miami
Seattle
Portland
Other Family (92%)
Denver
Philadelphia
Sioux City
Non-Family (58%)
Philadelphia
Portland
Rochester
Denver
Seattle
Sioux City
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.

27. % of Sites Showing Improvement in Behavioral Health (CYPM v
% of Sites Showing Improvement in Behavioral Health (CYPM v. Pre-CYPM at tracking only)
Mental Health
(42%)
Circuit 10
Cincinnati
Los Angeles
Portland
Sioux City
Substance Use
(25%)
Cincinnati
Miami
Portland
Indicates more than a 10% difference between CYPM youth and Pre-CYPM youth.

28. Status of Disposition Outcome. for the Current Arrest (CYPM vs
Status of Disposition Outcome* for the Current Arrest (CYPM vs. Pre-CYPM)
43%
Diversion
23%
Probation
Supervision
19%
Placement
15%
Dismissed
35%
Diversion
29%
Placement
25%
Probation
Supervision
11%
Dismissed
*Pending cases were removed from analysis.
Average across sites for CYPM youth.
Average across sites for Pre-CYPM youth.

29. Status of Permanency Goal at the End of Tracking (CYPM vs. Pre-CYPM)
65%
Remain Home
or Reunification
24%
PPLA
Emancipation
Sup. Ind. Living
12%
Guardianship
or Adoption
47%
Remain Home or
Reunification
33%
PPLA
Emancipation
Sup. Ind. Living
19%
Guardianship
or Adoption
Average across sites for CYPM youth.
Average across sites for Pre-CYPM youth.

30. Status of JJ and CW cases at the End of Tracking (CYPM Vs
Status of JJ and CW cases at the End of Tracking (CYPM Vs. Pre-CYPM only)
40%
Both Cases Open
34%
CW Open
JJ Closed
18%
Both Cases Closed 8%
CW Closed
JJ Open
51%
Both Cases Open
20%
CW Open
JJ Closed
12%
CW Closed
JJ Open
18%
Both Cases Closed
Average across sites for CYPM youth.
Average across sites for Pre-CYPM youth.

31. % of CYPM Sites with Lower Recidivism than Pre-CYPM Sites
Had a New Arrest
(42%)
Austin
Circuit 17
Cincinnati
Philadelphia
Seattle
Had a New Sustained Petition
(17%)
Portland
Seattle
Indicates more than 10% difference between CYPM youth and Pre-CYPM youth.

32. CYPM Jurisdictions
Since Spring 2010, CJJR has worked in 88 counties in 20 states across the U.S. implementing the CYPM

33. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS