DOUGLAS COUNTY CROSSOVER YOUTH PRACTICE MODEL Addressing the Needs of Multi System Youth: Strengthening the connections between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice . 1 THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY; Chief Judge William Sylvester & Magistrate Beth Elliott -Dumler House Bill 1451 Collaborative Management Program 18 th Judicial District Probation Department Douglas County Department of Human Services Juvenile Assessment Center Senate Bill 94 (Pre-Trial Release) Douglas County Guardians Ad Litem Douglas County School District Arapahoe/Douglas Mental Health Network Douglas County Sheriff’s Office 18 th Judicial District Attorney’s Office Special Thanks to Shelly Sack, Doug Gray, Sherry Hansen, Marissa Long, Kelly Abbott, Rhonda Riley, Kari Yutzy, Laurie Elliott, and Kira Suurvarik . 2 HISTORY OF CROSSOVER YOUTH PRACTICE MODEL IN DOUGLAS COUNT Y Douglas County is part of the first cohort along with Broomfield, Larimer, and Morgan Counties, which began in August 2011. The second cohort includes Jefferson, Rio Grande, Alamosa and Conejos counties. A new cohort for 2013 is being planned for additional Colorado Counties to participate. Technical Support with Georgetown University has ended for our cohort. Douglas completed 6 site visits and 24 cluster calls for support during the implementation process. 3 GOALS OF THE PRACTICE MODEL Reduce the number of youth placed in out-ofhome care, Reduce the use of congregate care, Reduce the disproportionate representation of children of color, and Reduce the number of youth being dually adjudicated. 4 ADDITIONAL GOALS Increased communication amongst agencies. Increased cooperation, coordination and integration of services provided by Douglas County Department of Human Services, Juvenile Justice and any other youth serving agencies. Increased youth and family engagement. Increased collaboration in joint assessment, case planning and case supervision. 5 ACTION STEPS TO ACHIEVE GOALS • Consistent Court Oversight: One magistrate handling both Delinquency and Dependency and Neglect cases. Avoiding inconsistent orders and multiple hearings. • Increased Collaboration: Coordinated joint case planning with families and agencies. Family engagement through joint case planning. • Improved Service Delivery: Expedited service delivery. Identifying the right service at the right time. 6 GUEST SPEAKER Dr. Drew Sylvester, MD Dr. Sylvester is the Medical Director at Arapahoe/Douglas Mental Health Network. 7 WHO DID WE SERVE? Since October 201 2, we have held 90 Family and Child Engagement Suppor t (FACES) meetings over the past 9 months. At point of referral to FACES Placement, 8% Community, 49% Detention, 43% 8 WHERE ARE REFERRALS COMING FROM? Dept. of Human Services, 17% Referring Agency SB 94 49% Probation, 34% 9 JUVENILE RISK SCORES CJRA Risk Unknown, 4% High Risk, 21% Low Risk, 44% Moderate Risk, 29% 10 WHAT BROUGHT THEM? 60% Presenting Problems 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Substance Abuse Family Conflict School Struggles Mental Health Needs 11 WHAT TREATMENTS WERE RECOMMENDED? 60% Treatment Recommendations 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% School Interventions Individual Therapy Family Therapy Substance Abuse Treatment Pro-Social Activities 12 WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES? Family and Child Engagement (FACES) Re-Staffings 15% of youth came back for an additional FACES meeting to re-plan for services. Successful Terminations/case closures 1 youth was successfully terminated from Probation 2 youth were offered Diversion 1 youth had their delinquency cases closed/dropped 3 youth had their Human Services involvement dismissed 13 QUALIT Y IMPROVEMENT TOOL (QIT) The purpose of using a QIT is to ensure that services are implemented and gaps are identified. QIT Tool/case management/satisfactionhelps to identify plans that are not followed through with. The QIT has been implemented since February 2013 and is administered to all families who have come to FACES. 14 QUALIT Y IMPROVEMENT TOOL (QIT) 1. We understood the purpose of the FACES meeting. DYC – We Understood the purposes of the meeting. 2. My family, natural supports, and youth were included in the FACES planning meeting. DYC – My family, natural supports, and youth were included in the meeting. 3. Our ideas and opinions were respected in the process and we were able to participate. 4. The discussion during the meeting accurately identified the issues, our needs and built on family strengths. DYC - The discussion during the meeting accurately identified the issues. 5. We had a clear understanding of the plan at the end of the meeting. 6. Our family’s values, beliefs, and traditions were understood and respected during the process. 7. We felt the meeting was efficient and productive. 8. Can we contact you again for future follow-up? Agree Neutral Disagree 3 2 1 I Don’t Know 0 0 3 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 • Family Satisfaction • We have had a 78% response rate • Of those who responded the average satisfaction was 92% 0 0 0 0 LESSONS LEARNED Identifying a Case Lead Modifications to the FACES process Time management Valuing family input first Availability of assessments Joint case plans are completed at FACES meetings. Scheduling additional FACES meetings, as needed. QIT Tool/case management/satisfaction- is helpful and needed for quality implementation. Assessing and addressing Trauma -Informed treatment and care for Crossover Youth. 16 GUEST SPEAKER Magistrate Beth A. Elliott-Dumler 18 th Judicial District Juvenile Magistrate Sarah Ericson 18 th JD Juvenile District Attorney’s Office 17 THINGS TO COME Evaluation with CSU/Marc Winokur July 1 st, 2013 Long term outcomes Stakeholders Presentation summer of 2014 18 BREAKOUT GROUPS Please assign a recorder and presenter for your group. Answer these questions What do you see going well? What do you see as the challenges? What do you see as the solutions? You have 15 minutes to complete this exercise. 19 GUEST SPEAKER Laurie Elliott, LCSW Child & Family Clinical Director at Arapahoe/Douglas Mental Health Network 20 QUESTIONS? 21 WORKS CITED http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/resources.html 22