Crossover Youth Practice Model
In 2010, CJJR developed the Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) to address the unique needs of youth that are at risk of or are fluctuating between the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. These youth are commonly referred to as “crossover youth.”
The Crossover Youth Practice Model is a nexus between research and best practices that outlines systemic changes youth serving systems can make to improve their ability to serve youth.
The CYPM has four overarching goals:
- Reduction in the number of youth crossing over and becoming dually-involved;
- Reduction in the number of youth placed in out-of-home care;
- Reduction in the use of congregate care; and
- Reduction in the disproportionate representation of youth of color, particularly in the crossover population
Implementing the Practice Model
Implementing the Practice Model
CJJR provides on-site technical The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform provides on-site training and technical assistance to communities implementing the Model. Through implementation, jurisdictions will strengthen their organizational structure and develop or improve practices that have an impact on the day-to-day experiences of youth who have crossed over or are at risk of crossing over.
Training and Technical assistance includes:
- A Gap Analysis of the jurisdiction’s current ability to support crossover youth
- Training on the Practice Model, including a review of the academic research and independent data showing the effectiveness of the Model
- The development of a work plan to structure the technical assistance activities
- Support in the creation of new policies and procedures,(i.e. crossover protocol manual) related to the implementation of the Model
- An evaluation package to measure the effectiveness of the model in the jurisdiction
- Peer-to-peer learning opportunities with other sites in the CYPM network
Data collection is an important component of the model. The CYPM emphasizes the importance of developing cross-systems data capacity and the need to use good data to make program and policy decisions.
Tailored to the needs of each participating jurisdiction, the implementation of the model ensures that practices are consistent for all youth within a system and resources are shared between the systems to maximize their impact. This will include but is not limited to the following practices: creating a process for identifying youth at the point of crossing over, ensuring that workers are exchanging information in a timely manner, ensuring that foster care bias is not occurring at the point of detention or disposition, and maximizing the services utilized by each system to prevent crossover from occurring.
Arizona
Apache Co.
Cochise Co.
Coconino Co.
Gila Co.
Graham Co.
Greenlee Co.
La Paz Co.
Maricopa Co.
Mohave Co.
Navaho Co.
Pima Co.
Pinal Co.
Santa Cruz Co.
Yavapai Co.
Yuma Co.
California
Alameda Co.
Los Angeles Co.
Sacramento Co.
San Diego Co.
Colorado
Alamosa Co.
Broomfield Co.
Conejos Co.
Costilla Co.
Denver Co.
Douglas Co.
Gunnison Co.
Jefferson Co.
Larimer Co.
Mesa Co.
Mineral Co.
Morgan Co.
Rio Grande Co.
Saguache Co.
Connecticut
New London Co.
Idaho
Bannock Co.
Oneida Co.
Power Co.
Florida
Brevard Co.
Broward Co.
Duval Co.
Flagler Co.
Marion Co.
Miami-Dade Co.
Polk Co.
Putnam Co.
Seminole Co.
Volusia Co.
Iowa
Woodbury Co.
Kansas
Sedgwick Co.
Maryland
Allegany Co.
Carroll Co.
Frederick Co.
Harford Co.
Howard Co.
Montgomery Co.
Prince George’s Co.
Washington Co.
Michigan
Berrien Co.
Genesee Co.
Oakland Co.
Wayne Co.
Minnesota
Carver Co.
Hennepin Co.
Kandiyohi Co.
Olmsted Co.
Stearns Co.
Missouri
Camden Co.
Cass Co.
Greene Co.
Jefferson Co.
Johnson Co.
Laclede Co.
Miller Co.
Moniteau Co.
Morgan Co.
Nebraska
Dodge Co.
Douglas Co.
Gage Co.
Lancaster Co.
Sarpy Co.
Nevada
Washoe Co.
New York
Bronx Co.
Kings Co.
Monroe Co.
New York Co.
Queens Co.
Richmond Co.
Ohio
Carroll Co.
Clarke Co.
Cuyahoga Co.
Franklin Co.
Hamilton Co.
Lucas Co.
Mahoning Co.
Montgomery Co.
Ross Co.
Stark Co.
Summit Co.
Trumbull Co.
Oregon
Clackamas Co.
Douglas Co.
Jackson Co.
Lane Co.
Marion Co.
Multnomah Co.
Washington Co.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co.
Philadelphia Co.
South Carolina
Berkley Co.
Charleston Co.
Georgetown Co.
Texas
Bexar Co.
Dallas Co.
El Paso Co.
Harris Co.
McLennan Co.
Tarrant Co.
Travis Co.
Virginia
City of Alexandria
Washington
King Co.
Wyoming
Laramie Co.
Consultants
Consultants
Shay Bilchik
Director, CJJR
Macon Stewart
Deputy Director, Multi-System Operations, CJJR
Denise Herz
Dir., Cal State LA School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics
Karen Kolivoski
Consultant/Professor, Howard University
Lyman Legters
Senior Director, Casey Family Programs
Lisa Pilnik
Consultant
Michael Umpierre
Anticipated Outcomes
Anticipated Outcomes
Implementation of the CYPM will result in a jurisdiction developing a set of formalized protocols, tailored to their specific needs, to ensure consistent practice and resource sharing for all crossover youth. These protocols address three phases that follow a youth’s trajectory through the life of their case between the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. This chart represents the Practice Phases the Model addresses and the Process Measures those practices will impact:
Research & Evaluation
Research & Evaluation
Since launching the CYPM in 2010, the Model has grown substantially in communities across the country. In 2017, we celebrated reaching our 100th jurisdiction, and those numbers continue to grow each year. CJJR works closely with jurisdictions to collect, analyze, and provide data that demonstrates the Model’s impact. Those results are provided directly to the jurisdiction and are not for public distribution. However, CJJR has developed an aggregate data report and CYPM-in-Brief Series to highlight the work of jurisdictions participating in the Model. Additionally, several independent institutions, including the University of Minnesota and the University of Nebraska, Omaha, have conducted evaluations on the CYPM. Each of these studies supports the validity of the CYPM as a promising and effective model for system change. Some of the outcomes these evaluations have linked the CYPM to include:
- An overall reduction in recidivism, a reduction in the severity of new crimes, and an increase in the time before recidivism;
- An increase in cases being dismissed or diverted and a reduction in sustained juvenile petitions;
- An improvement in crossover youth living at home and a reduction in detention and congregate care;
- An improvement in pro-social behavior.
All research briefs and articles can be found here.
If you would like to receive more information about the CYPM or are interested in bringing the Model to your county, please contact us.
Testimonials
Testimonials
“Crossing Over a New Path”
Da’Von was 14, in and out of trouble for most of his young life, and headed down the wrong path as he neared adulthood. Then, he entered into a unique partnership between the San Diego County Departments of Probation and Health & Human Services that helped turn his life around.
“The CYPM initiative in our community has served as a great tool in working with youth in the Dallas area. The initiative has opened lines of communication which previously have been limited or almost nonexistent, with our local CPS community partner. Not only has the communication improved tremendously, but quality and substantive dialogue has been achieved when working cases of youth involved in both systems. In addition, this dialogue has also afforded the opportunity for the respective agencies to truly understand the goals and objectives guiding the daily decisions when working with youth. We are still working to enhance this initiative here locally, and have already incorporated specialized case management staff, as we move forward to implement other processes and protocols that the CYPM brings. To this point, everything coming from our CYPM commitment and involvement has been positive and we truly look forward to us incorporating more of the model in our community.”