Introduction to the NYC Crossover Youth Practice Model NYPWA - - PDF document

7/15/2014 1

Introduction to the NYC Crossover Youth Practice Model

NYPWA Conference July 2014

Who are Crossover Youth?

7/15/2014 2

Crossover Youth: The Overlap

Child Welfare System Juvenile Justice System

CROSS- OVER YOUTH

Characteristics of Crossover Youth

Child Welfare System

Persistent or adolescent-onset maltreatment Type and # of placements Absence of positive attachments

7/15/2014 3

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

• ffense charges

Who are the Child Welfare Involved Youth who Cross Over into Delinquency?

• Younger at the age of their first arrest than youth

not involved in child welfare

• Disproportionately young women and African-

American

• History of not attending school and special

education issues

• Parents and youth with history of mental illness,

substance abuse, domestic violence, and/or criminal behavior

6

7/15/2014 4

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

1% Diversion Cases 7% Probation Cases 42% Placement Cases

7

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

8

7/15/2014 5

Overview of the Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM)

Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Casey Family Programs

9

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

• utcomes of youth in the child welfare and juvenile

justice systems by building and enhancing communication and collaboration across multiple systems

7/15/2014 6

Purpose of CYPM

• Reduce the prevalence of child welfare youth crossing over into

delinquency

• Improve outcomes for crossover youth and reduce their further

involvement in the juvenile justice and/or criminal justice systems CYPM Process

• Aim to prevent youth from going further into the Juvenile Justice

System

• Identify crossover youth from the beginning
• Ensure that workers are exchanging information in a timely manner
• Include families in all decision‐making aspects
• Guard against foster care bias
• Maximize the services utilized by each system to prevent crossover

from occurring and to coordinate service planning

11

TARGET OUTCOMES

• Reduction in the number of youth placed in out‐of‐

home care

• Reduction in the use of congregate care
• Reduction in the use of APPLA as a permanency goal

for youth involved in both child welfare and juvenile justice systems

• Improve outcomes at each stage of the juvenile

justice case

– Increase the number of cases being diverted by Probation – Reduce the number of juvenile delinquency and/or criminal cases being filed – Increase the use of community‐based alternative programs

7/15/2014 7

Preliminary Data from CYPM Sites

June 2012

• Six months after CYPM youth were identified, the

tracked subgroup were more likely to live at home and less likely to have APPLA as their permanency goal and to be living in congregate care compared to Pre‐CYPM youth.

• CYPM youth were less likely to be detained at the time
• f arrest than Pre‐CYPM youth.
• CYPM youth are more likely to receive diversion

compared to Pre‐CYPM youth.

• CYPM youth were less likely to have a new arrest six

months after identification than Pre‐CYPM youth.

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.

• 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‐

• ut of the model expected in Fall of 2014.

7/15/2014 8

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

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

7/15/2014 9 Bronx crossover youth are identified as one of three types‐ Youth who are under 16 and get arrested and are involved in

• ne 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

Core Components of the CYPM Model

18

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

7/15/2014 10

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

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

7/15/2014 11

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

• ther system

22

Conferences – Pre‐Filing

Arrest Probation Intake Adjustment Case Resolved CYPM Adjustment Conference – led by DOP, Child Welfare staff may participate Possible ERC

7/15/2014 12

23

Conferences – Post Filing

Arrest Probation Intake Adjustment CYPM Post‐Filing Conference – ACS led Conference, Juvenile Justice provider participates Petition Filing

Ongoing Collaboration ‐ Post Filing

• Collaboration should continue throughout the

juvenile justice case

Petition Filing Fact Finding Disposition

Dismissed/ Not Guilty

7/15/2014 13

CYPM Court Procedures – Family Court Judges

• Bronx Family Court Decision Tree –

Determines which judge gets assigned the Art. 10 case and/or the Art. 3 case

• Bench Card

CYPM Court Procedures – Family Court Legal Services

• Preparing the office for CYPM
• ‐Pre‐Close To Home
• ‐Close to Home
• ‐ CYPM
• Culture Change
• Building Your Office
• Collaborating With Stakeholder
• New Practice Issues
• Ensuring that CPS and Foster Care Workers are supported through

the Process ‐Training ‐Culture Change ‐Confidentiality

7/15/2014 14

CYPM Court Procedures – Corporation Counsel’s Office

• Responsibilities in the CYPM Process
• Culture Change

Next Steps

• Launching in Brooklyn Fall/Winter 2014
• Training for all foster care and preventive

agencies on the CYPM

• Begin implementation in other boroughs in

2015