1

Introduction to the NYC Crossover Youth Practice Model

NCSL JUVENILE JUSTICE

MODEL SITE VISIT – NEW YORK

June 23, 2014

Sara Hemmeter, New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS)

Jennifer Gilroy Ruiz, New York City Law Department

2

What is CYPM?

• Casey Family Programs and the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute (CJJR) have partnered since 2007 to address the unique issues presented by crossover youth. New York City stakeholders agreed to do pilot in July 2012

• The Crossover Youth Practice Model is a particular

approach intended to improve the handling and outcomes of cases involving youth dually involved in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems by building and enhancing communication and collaboration across multiple systems

3

Arizona

Coconino Co.

Maricopa Co.

Mohave Co.

Yavapai Co.

California

• Alameda Co.

• Los Angeles Co.

• San Diego Co.

Colorado

• Broomfield Co

• Denver Co.

• Douglas Co.

• Gunnison Co.

• Jefferson Co.

• Larimer Co.

• Mesa Co.

• Morgan Co.

• San Luis Valley

Minnesota

• Carver Co.

• Hennepin Co.

• Kandiyohi Co.

• Olmsted Co.

• Stearns Co.

Missouri

Greene Co.

Jefferson Co.

Ohio

• Franklin Co.

• Hamilton Co.

• Lucas Co.

• Mahoning Co.

• Montgomery Co.

• Ross Co.

• Stark Co.

• Summit Co.

• Trumbull Co.

Oregon

• Lane Co.

• Marion Co.

• Multnomah Co.

• Washington Co.

Pennsylvania

• Allegheny

• Philadelphia

South Carolina

• Berkley Co.

• Charleston Co.

• Georgetown Co.

Texas

• Bexar Co.

• Dallas Co.

• El Paso Co.

• McLennan Co.

• Tarrant Co.

• Travis Co.

Washington

• King Co.

Wyoming

Laramie Co.

Florida

• Bartow

• Brevard

• Duval Co.

• Ft. Lauderdale

• Miami-Dade

• Seminole

• Volusia Co.

Iowa

• Woodbury Co.

Maryland

Prince George’s Co.

Michigan

Berrien Co.

Genesee Co.

Oakland Co.

Crossover Youth Practice Model sites

Nebraska

Dodge Co.

Douglas Co.

Gage Co.

Lancaster Co.

Nevada

Washoe Co.

New York

Bronx co.

Kings Co.

Monroe Co.

Ohio

• Carroll Co.

• Clarke Co.

• Cuyahoga Co.

4

• Most recent report on CYPM reflect a deeper and broader representation of dually-involved youth than has been accomplished by any other study and provides us with insight on the effectiveness of the CYPM.

• CYPM is having a positive impact on: identification

case management

improved outcomes for dually-involved youth

5

Findings

• Compared to Pre-CYPM Youth, CYPM youth were three times more likely to receive a promising practice. The improved access to promising practices for CYPM Youth was most notable for having:

an interagency meeting hearing the case in a one judge/one family courtroom being placed in a specialized unit

• Three-quarters of CYPM Youth were identified at arrest or as a result of a warrant.

• The majority of remaining youth were identified at charging, which was a focal point for the CYPM work in two sites.

• This is a significant increase in the percentage of youth identified at an early stage of their crossing over, thereby providing the opportunity for enhanced, cross-system case management.

6

Findings (cont.)

• CYPM Youth were most likely to receive:

a diversionary option

probation supervision

have their case dismissed or no action taken by the juvenile justice system

• Compared to Pre-CYPM Youth, CYPM Youth were slightly more likely to be dismissed or receive diversion and less likely to receive probation supervision or placement in corrections

• Compared to Pre-CYPM Youth, CYPM Youth were less likely to live in congregate care settings.

7

Findings (cont.)

• Compared to Pre-CYPM Youth, a lower percentage of CYPM Youth had Alternative Permanent Planned Living Arrangement (APPLA) as a permanency goal

• A higher percentage of CYPM Youth had remain at home as a permanency goal

compared to Pre-CYPM Youth

• CYPM Youth were more likely to have one or both cases closed than Pre-CYPM Youth

• Contact with family and parents and involvement in extracurricular and structured activities increased for CYPM Youth

• The percentage of CYPM Youth experiencing academic and/or behavioral problems decreased over time

• Compared to Pre-CYPM youth, CYPM Youth were more likely to show improvements in Mental Health.

8

Crossover Youth: The Overlap

Child Welfare System

Juvenile Justice System

CROSS-

OVER

YOUTH

9

Characteristics of Crossover Youth

Child Welfare System

Persistent or

adolescent-onset

maltreatment

Type and # of

placements

Absence of

positive

attachments

10

Crossover Youth: The Overlap

Juvenile Justice System

Less than ½ charged

with violent offenses

¼ to ½ detained at the

time of arrest

Prior contact with the

system for previous

criminal or status

offense charges

11

Proportion of Crossover Youth increases the further we look in the juvenile justice system

1% Diversion

Cases

7% Probation

Cases

42% Placement

Cases

11

12

What do we see if we fail to act?

• Higher rates of substance abuse and mental illness

• Higher recidivism rates

• Higher rates of criminal involvement as adults

• Higher rates of child welfare involvement when they become parents

12

13

NYC CYPM Implementation

• Since June 2012, collaboration and planning with all NYC stakeholders- ACS, Department of Probation, Family Court, Legal Aid, Bronx Defenders, Department of Education, Corporation Counsel, etc.

• Georgetown Site Visits

• Capstone Projects • CYPM began pilot in the Bronx on April 14, 2014 • Implementation team formed and started meeting in in Brooklyn in the

fall of 2013; roll-out of the model expected in Fall of 2014

• Implementation to continue to Queens, Manhattan , Staten Island

14

Identification & Notification: Confirm

• Launched in the late 1990s because kids in foster care were spending 70% more time in detention

• Every weekday, ACS’s Confirm Unit reviews reports of all arrested youth to determine which are crossover youth

• Since 2008, Confirm has helped to reduce the length of stay for crossover youth in juvenile detention by 50%

• They will be identifying and notifying CYPM youth

15

Implementation Activities

• Implementation Team Meetings

• Subcommittees

– Information Sharing Subcommittee – Review of all information sharing statutes, regulations and MOUs

– Family Engagement and Conferencing Subcommittee – drafted Citywide CYPM Protocols and CYPM Consents

– Data Subcommittee – Collection of CYPM data for Georgetown and on-going tracking and data collection

– Training Subcommittee – Develop training curriculum and training plan

16

Case Responsibility

• ACS and the Juvenile Justice agency will remain in their respective roles on shared cases.

• Different definitions of safety- child safety & community safety

• Different focus for intervention- child & parent

• ACS obligations to plan for the youth remain the same

17

Bronx CYPM: Target Population

Kids 7-15 with open child welfare cases who get arrested

Kids with open child welfare cases and Family Court delinquency involvement

Kids with ANY child welfare and ANY justice involvement

18

Bronx crossover youth are identified as one of three types- Youth who are under 16 and get arrested and are involved in

one of the following child welfare systems:

• Preventive

Family Support Services & the

Preventive Agencies

Court-Ordered Supervision

Division of Child Protection

Foster Care / Trial Discharge

Family Permanency

Services & the Foster Care

Agencies

19

Core Components of the CYPM Model

19

Arrest

• Identification &Notification

• Pre-Filing: CYPM Adjustment Conference

Court • Post-Filing: Court Identification & Notification

• Post-Filing CYPM Child Welfare Conference

Dispo • Disposition Planning

• Post-Dispo: Ongoing Collaboration & Discharge Planning

20

CYPM Conferencing

• Will be run using the existing protocols for DOP Adjustment conferences or ACS conferences such as Elevated Risk Conference, Family Team Conference or Division of Child Protection family meetings

• CYPM conferences cannot happen without consent

• Goal is always to coordinate planning so services and resources can complement those of the other system

21

21

Conferences – Pre-Filing

Arrest

Probation Intake

Adjustment

Case Resolved CYPM Adjustment Conference – led by DOP, Child Welfare staff may participate

Possible ERC

22

22

Conferences – Post Filing

Arrest

Probation Intake

Adjustment

CYPM Post-Filing Conference – ACS led Conference, Juvenile Justice provider participates

Petition Filing

23

Ongoing Collaboration - Post Filing • Collaboration should continue throughout the

juvenile justice case

Petition

Filing

Fact Finding

Disposition

Dismissed/ Not Guilty

24

Challenges

Permanency ( Art. 10) Information sharing Focus on Parent Younger children Youth not present Child Protection focus Less stringent timelines Lack of understanding of

other system Past practices Distrust Quality assurance

Juvenile Justice ( Art.3) Information sharing Focus on youth Older children Youth must be present Public Safety aspect Faster timelines Lack of understanding of

other system Past Practices Distrust Quality assurance

25

CYPM and Family Engagement

• Focus on Youth and Family

• Engage the Family from the beginning

• Elevated Risk Conference

• Adjustment Conference

• Informed Consent

• One Judge

• Joint System Response

• Avoid Duplication of Services/Assessment

www.courtinnovation.org/research/family-voices-juvenile-justice

27

FAMILY VOICES IN JUVENILE JUSTICE

http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/family-voices-juvenile-justice