1. Promising Practices In Reducing Juvenile Justice Contact Alan O’Malley-Laursen, MSW, LICSW Program Manager Adolescent Behavioral Health Unit Olmsted County Community Services omalley.laursen.alan@co.olmsted.mn.us

2. Promising Practices In Reducing Juvenile Justice Contact I.What is “Mental Health” II.Mental Health Screening III.Crossover Youth Practice Model IV.Trauma Informed Practices

3. Mental Health DSM V – 22 Classification Categories  approx. 490 different diagnoses  Range from psychotic disorders to mood disorders to stress related disorders to behavioral and substance related disorders Critical NOT to lump all “mental health” concerns into one conceptual category  For example: The implications of childhood schizophrenia and those of oppositional defiant disorder on juvenile justice involvement are vastly different  In terms of correlation/“causation”  In terms of intervention  Modifying risk and protective factors  Responsiveness to intervention – complicating factors

4. Mental Health Screening 2003 Legislature enacted statewide mental health screening for certain child welfare and juvenile justice populations Early intervention is cost effective Untreated mental health problems get worse over time Not addressing causes increasing and additional complications for families, schools, and communities

5. Mental Health Screening Screening Assessment Services

6. Mental Health Screening Key to Effective Screening Get the information in the hands of someone who can do something with it Parent

7. Crossover Youth Practice Model Definition of “Crossover Youth”: …youth who are simultaneously receiving services…from both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice systems. -**Crossover Youth Practice Model Casey Family Programs and Center for Juvenile Justice Reform [Georgetown University]

8. Crossover Youth Practice Model Shortcoming of “Definition” Defines the youth by the nature of their involvement in the system…… Rather than by their emotional, social and behavioral dynamics, developmental history, family patterns and structure

9. Crossover Youth Practice Model Child Welfare “vs” Juvenile Justice Youth Research: – High overlap in the risk and protective factors of youth in either system – Addressing these factors in either system will impact outcomes in the other

10. Crossover Youth Practice Model Risk Factor Overlap

11. Crossover Youth Practice Model Essence of CYPM: Prevent/avoid unnecessary involvement of youth in the juvenile justice system

12. Crossover Youth Practice Model Principles of CYPM: – Early identification of risks and needs – Integration and collaboration between C.W. and J.J. – Joint/consolidated court processes – Shared funding – Joint/shared case planning – Use of evidenced based practices – Reduced use of group/residential care – Relative/kinship care

13. Crossover Youth Practice Model Historical Perspective: – Wasn’t until 1899 that there was separation of juvenile and adult offenders – Illinois being the first – By 1925, all but two states had established juvenile courts American Bar Association Division for Public Education, Dialogue on Youth and Justice. 2012

14. Crossover Youth Practice Model Historical Perspective: – Original goal of juvenile justice system:  Rehabilitation vs. Punishment  Civil vs. Criminal  Consideration of child/adolescent development American Bar Association Division for Public Education, Dialogue on Youth and Justice. 2012

15. Crossover Youth Practice Model Historical Perspective: “The child who must be brought into court should, of course, be made to know that he is face to face with the power of the state, but he should at the same time, and more emphatically, be made to feel that he is the object of its care and solicitude [attentive care and protectiveness].” American Bar Association Division for Public Education, Dialogue on Youth and Justice. 2012 Julian Mack, “The Juvenile Court,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 23 (1909)

16. Crossover Youth Practice Model Historical Perspective: – 1980’s – “get tough on crime”  Increase in punitive laws across the country  Dispositions based more on the crime than on individual needs  Juvenile courts look more and more like adult courts American Bar Association Division for Public Education, Dialogue on Youth and Justice. 2012

17. Trauma Informed Practices “Trauma Informed”: Recognizing and responding to the impact of traumatic stress on youth, caregivers, and service providers – Physical/biological and psychological effect on Behavior Social relations Emotions

18. Trauma Informed Practices Significant National and State Effort  National Child Traumatic Stress Network – San Diego  DHS/Ambit Network initiative  Training multiple clinicians across the state  Trauma-Informed Child Welfare S ervices  Multiple sites across the country o Including S.E. Minnesota  Improved screening/assessment/services  Safety-Well Being-Permanency  Growing emphasis on “Well Being” o “Safety” is essential, but not sufficient

19. Trauma Informed Practices Goals: – Maximize physical and psychological safety – Identify trauma related needs – Enhance youth well being and resilience – Enhance family well being and resilience

20. Trauma Informed Practices Screening Assessment Services

21. Trauma Informed Practices Evidenced Based Best Practices  TF-CBT [Trauma Informed Cognitive Behavior Therapy]  EMDR [Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing]  Child-Parent Psychotherapy [CPP] TGCT-A [Trauma and Grief Component Therapy for Adolescents]/TARGET-A [Trauma Affect Regulation: Guidelines for Education and Therapy for Adolescents

22. Trauma Informed Practices “Trauma” aka “Adverse Childhood Experiences” [ACE]

24. Thank You!!!