The Effectiveness of Service Integration: Studying the Crossover Youth Practice Model

Crossover youth includes any youth who has experienced maltreatment and also has engaged in delinquent activity. Prior studies indicate that crossover youth have higher rates of reoffending than delinquent youth without a history of child welfare involvement. The higher rates of reoffending among crossover youth are of concern given the exorbitant cost of providing services within the juvenile justice system. Moreover, having more juvenile arrests is associated with a greater risk of continuing delinquent or criminal behaviors into the future. Little is known, however, about which interventions could effectively direct crossover youth from continuous involvement in the justice system. The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) is the only existing practice model for serving crossover youth. The CYPM was developed by the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University. This study evaluated CYPM using a quasi-experimental design with group assignment at the county level. Miami-Dade County (MDC) was selected as the experimental county and Palm Beach County (PBC) as the control county. This study used a mixed-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in both counties. Qualitative data were collected to understand and compare their procedures of processing crossover youth in the two counties. Quantitative data was collected to compare the recidivism outcomes between crossover youth from the two counties. In the qualitative section, data were collected through interviews, focus group meetings, observations, and reviewing procedures. In MDC, CYPM has been mainly implemented through the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, in which crossover youth, their invited family members, and professionals from the child welfare, the juvenile justice, and the juvenile court systems participate. Overall, the implementation of CYPM in MDC showed several deviations from the guidelines. Suggestions were provided for further improvement. In PBC, although the administration never adopted CYPM, in 2012 all parties involved in serving crossover youth worked together to develop a procedure manual titled 15th Judicial Circuit Crossover Case Management (CCM). Their crossover hearing is similar to the MDT meetings in MDC. Upon reviewing the manual, the authors found that the CCM provides more structured and specific guidelines for the participants to prepare for the crossover hearing as compared with the MDT meetings. In the quantitative section, data was collected from administrative data from Department of Juvenile Justice, Our Kids, and ChildNet. The study sample included 86 crossover youth from Our Kids in MDC and 87 crossover youth from ChildNet in PBC. The authors first identified confounding variables through comparing the two groups of crossover youth on their demographics, previous delinquency history, and receipt of dental and medical services. Comparing their demographics and previous delinquency history, the results showed three statistically significant differences: 1) the crossover youth from ChildNet were older than the youth from Our Kids; 2) ChildNet had a greater percentage of White youth and a smaller percentage of Hispanic youth than Our Kids; and 3) a greater proportion of ChildNet’s crossover youth had prior DJJ referrals than the youth from Our Kids. Comparing their receipt of dental and medical services after their arrest, the results showed, as compared to their peers at ChildNet, the youth from Our Kids received their first medical services sooner after their MDT meeting. Results show that crossover youth from Our Kids are associated with a lower risk of re-offending within a year than their peers from ChildNet, after controlling the confounding variables of demographics and their prior offenses. This difference was not mediated by juvenile justice processing but mediated by receiving dental and medical services referred by the child welfare agencies. Since the sample is all crossover youth from Our Kids served by the CYPM, the results indicate that the CYPM can have an effect on reducing the risk of juvenile recidivism. June 14, 2017 Principal Investigator: Hui Huang, PhD, Assistant Professor Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work Florida International University Co-author: Michelle-Ann Rhoden, MSW, Research Assistant Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work Florida International University Funded through a contract with the Florida Institute for Child Welfare CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................1 Project Description ..............................................................................................................................................2 Study Sites .......................................................................................................................................................2 Qualitative Section ...............................................................................................................................................3 Research Questions ........................................................................................................................................3 Methods ...........................................................................................................................................................3 Participants ..................................................................................................................................................3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................4 Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................4 Results .............................................................................................................................................................4 Crossover Youth Practice Model in Miami-Dade County ...........................................................................5 Steps of the Crossover Youth Practice Model Implementation ............................................................5 Areas for Improvement ...........................................................................................................................7 Crossover Case Management in Palm Beach County ..............................................................................7 Definition of Crossover Youth and Identification in Palm Beach County .............................................. 7 Crossover Hearing..................................................................................................................................8 Cross-system Training ............................................................................................................................8 Quantitative Section ...........................................................................................................................................8 Research Questions ........................................................................................................................................8 Methods ...........................................................................................................................................................9 Sample Selection .........................................................................................................................................9 Measures .....................................................................................................................................................9 Analytic Strategies .....................................................................................................................................10 Results ...............................................................................................................................................................10 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................................14 Policy Recommendations..................................................................................................................................15 Appendix 1 .........................................................................................................................................................16 References ........................................................................................................................................................17 RESEARCH REPORT