This was despite multiple recommendations from the staff that knew him best and interacted with him regularly, who indicated he had completed all courses offered through his placement and was routinely bored. Recommendations from child welfare and behavioral health professionals working with him, as well as his own opinions on his current and future needs and goals, were mostly ignored, Evan says.Įvan was placed in an institutional setting and was unable to attend public school. A juvenile corrections officer, who Evan met only rarely and briefly, made decisions determining the path of his life for 10 years. He says he experienced a complete lack of coordination between the two. The CYPM provides a roadmap for making systemic changes that involve these youth-serving systems.Īt age 14, Evan 9 was arrested and spent the remaining years of his childhood involved in both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. 8 Multi-system collaboration is essential and minimally must include coordinated case management, joint assessment processes, coordinated case plans, and coordinated case supervision. Research suggests that the best way to support the needs of crossover youth is to develop a comprehensive approach that involves integrated services from multiple systems including child welfare, juvenile justice, law enforcement, education, behavioral health, and the courts. While transformational changes like these should lead to a reduction in the number of crossover youth, an intentional cross-system approach is necessary for every young person at risk of dual involvement. Simultaneous efforts are underway within many child welfare systems to eliminate the need for group placements. The CYPM is a strengths-based model that focuses on family engagement and equitable treatment at every level of the system.īold efforts are underway in many jurisdictions to transform the juvenile justice system 7 and create alternatives that are less punitive and more restorative. In 2010, with support from Casey Family Programs, the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy developed the Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) to address the needs of crossover youth. Depending on the nature of the crime and specific laws in a jurisdiction, adjudication can have negative, lifelong implications on employment options and also on child welfare outcomes, leaving crossover youth with fewer options for placement and support. 3 Crossover youth also require special protection to shield them from the legal consequences of an adjudication of delinquency. Unfortunately, the quality and consistency of casework services provided to crossover youth leave them more vulnerable to placement in restrictive settings, such as group and institutional facilities, and without strong permanency planning activities in place. 1 An intentional approach is needed because involvement in both systems is associated with: higher risks for mental health, educational, and vocational challenges higher rates of recidivism longer stays in detention and poorer placement stability and permanency outcomes. Youth involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems - sometimes referred to as crossover, dually-involved, dually-adjudicated, or dual-system youth - require a special focus. Is there an effective model for serving youth involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems?

Crossover definition in research