Research Summary By Dr. Denise Herz Professor California State University-Los Angeles This research summary was created as an addendum to the Crossover Youth Practice Model. The information contained in this document is structured based on the practice elements outlined in the model. For more information regarding the Crossover Youth Practice Model, please visit http://cjjr.georgetown.edu .
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ResearchSummaryByDr.DeniseHerz
ProfessorCaliforniaStateUniversityLosAngeles
ThisresearchsummarywascreatedasanaddendumtotheCrossoverYouthPracticeModel.Theinformationcontainedinthisdocumentisstructuredbasedonthepracticeelementsoutlinedinthemodel.FormoreinformationregardingtheCrossoverYouthPracticeModel,pleasevisithttp://cjjr.georgetown.edu.
Increasedattentiontocrossoveryouthinthepastdecadehasgeneratedagrowing
bodyofresearchrelatedtotheintersectionofthechildwelfareandjuvenilejustice
systems.Theresultsandreflectionsofthisliteraturestresstheneedforthese
systemstoworktogetherandofferwaystoovercomethechallengesinherentto
cross‐systemswork.Thepurposeofthisresearchsummaryistoprovidean
overviewof“whatweknow”aboutcrossoveryouthandtheirexperiencesinthetwo
systems.Tothisend,researchfindingsforeachofthefollowingareaswillbe
reviewedrelativetoeachstageofthepracticemodel.
• Therelationshipbetweenmaltreatmentanddelinquency
• Thepathwaysthatdefineandhelptoidentifycrossoveryouth
• Thecharacteristicsofcrossoveryouth
• Juvenilejusticeprocessingoutcomesforcrossoveryouth
• Promisingapproachesforhandlingcrossoveryouth
PracticeAreaI:Arrest,Identification,andDetention
MaltreatmentasaRiskFactorforDelinquency:WhatLeadstoanArrest?
Asubstantialamountofresearchdemonstratesthatmaltreatment(i.e.,abuse—
physicalorsexual—and/orneglect)isariskfactorfordelinquency.1Inother
words,achildwithahistoryofmaltreatmentismorelikelythanachildwithouta
historyofmaltreatmenttocommitadelinquentact.Morespecifically,thepresence
ofmaltreatmentincreasesthelikelihoodofdelinquencyby47%to55%forany
arrest(Ryan&Testa,2005andWiig,Widom,&Tuell,2003,respectively),anda
maltreatmenthistoryincreasesthelikelihoodofcommittingaviolentoffenseby
96%(Wiigetal.,2003).Althoughtherelationshipbetweenmaltreatmentand
delinquencyiswell‐established,themechanismsbywhichmaltreatmentincreases
1Areviewofthisresearchisbeyondthescopeofthisresearchreview.ReadersareencouragedtoreferenceHerz&Ryan(2008),Petro(2006);Widom,Wiig,&Tuell(2004);Jonson‐Reid,1998;andWidom(1989)foramoreextensivediscussionofthisliterature.
thelikelihoodofdelinquency(i.e.,underwhatconditionswillmaltreatmentleadto
delinquency)remaintenuous.Identifyingthemechanismsbywhichmaltreatment
leadstodelinquencyisvitalbecausedespiteconsistentfindingsrelatedtothe
relationshipbetweenmaltreatmentanddelinquency,notallchildrenwhoare
victimsofmaltreatmentcommitdelinquency.Tobemosteffective,preventionof
andearlyinterventionfordelinquencymustbetargetedtochildrenwhoneedthese
servicesthemost.
Alimitednumberofresearchstudieshaveidentifiedfourfactorstofurther
understandtherelationshipbetweenmaltreatmentanddelinquency:(1)theageat
whichmaltreatmentwasexperienced,(2)theabsenceofsocialbonds,(3)the
numberofplacementsreceivedwhileinthecareofchildprotectiveservices,and(4)
thetypeofplacementsreceivedwhileinthecareofchildprotectiveservices.Using
datafromtheRochesterYouthDevelopmentStudy,forinstance,researchersfound
thatchildrenwhoexperiencedmaltreatmentonlyduringchildhoodwerelesslikely
toengageindelinquency(aswellasotherproblembehaviorsuchasdruguseand
pregnancy)thanthosewhoexperiencedmaltreatmentpersistentlythrough
childhoodandadolescenceorinadolescenceonly(Smith,Ireland,&Thornberry,
2005;Ireland,Smith,&Thornberry,2002;Thornberry,Ireland,&Smith,2001).
Withregardtosocialbonds,Ryan,Testa,andZhai(2008)examinedtherelationship
betweenattachmentandcommitmentandfutureoffendinginalongitudinalstudy
of278AfricanAmericanmalesinfostercare.Fortheseyouths,positive
attachments/relationshipsbetweenfosteryouthandfosterparentsaswellas
commitment(asmeasuredbyyouths’involvementinreligiousorganizations)
reducedtheriskofdelinquency.AfricanAmericanmalessuspendedfromschool,on
theotherhand,weremorelikelytoengageindelinquencybehavior.
Inadditiontoageatthetimeofmaltreatmentandsocialbonds,thenumberof
placementsandthetypeofplacementsexperiencedbyfostercareyouthsalso
appearstomediatetheeffectofmaltreatmentondelinquency(seealsoJonson‐Reid
&Barth,2000b;Petro,2006;Kapp,Schwartz,&Epstein,1994;Kapp,2000fora
discussionofthisissue).Ryan&Testa(2005)examinedthenumberofplacements
foradolescentmalesandfoundthatmaleswiththreeplacementswere1.54times
morelikelytohaveadelinquencychargeandmaleswithfourormoreplacements
were2.13timesmorelikelytohaveadelinquencychargethanadolescentmales
withoneplacement.Ryan,Marshall,Herz,&Hernandez(2008)analyzedtheimpact
ofcongregatecareonsubsequentdelinquencyusingasampleofyouthsinchild
protectiveservicescareinLosAngelesbetween2002and2005.Overall,theyouths
placedincongregatecareweredisproportionallyAfricanAmericanandmaleand
weremorelikelytohaveahistoryofmultipleplacementepisodescomparedto
youthinfostercareplacements.Livinginacongregatecareplacementandrunning
awayfromplacementwerethetwogreatestriskfactorsforsubsequentdelinquency
overall,andtheyouthswithatleastonecongregatecareplacementweremorethan
twiceaslikelytobearrestedasyouthswhowereplacedonlyinafostercare
placement.
AmorerecentstudybyRyan,Hong,Herz,andHernandez(underreview)examined
delinquencyacrosskinshipcareplacementsandnon‐kinshipcareplacementsinLos
AngelesCounty.Overall,theyfoundthatkinshipcareplacementsweremorelikely
toservemalesandAfricanAmericanyouth,andkinshipcareplacementsincreased
thelikelihoodofdelinquencyforAfricanAmericanmalesandCaucasianmalesliving
inkinshipplacementscomparedtonon‐kinshipplacements.Kinshipplacements
(versusnon‐kinshipcareplacements)didnotincreasethelikelihoodofdelinquency
forfemalesinthesample.
Thefindingsrelatedtocongregatecareandkinshipcareraiseimportantquestions
aboutwhattypesofplacementsareproblematicforyouth;however,before
sweepingchangesaremadetotheuseofsuchplacements,itisnecessarytoidentify
theconditionsunderwhichtheseplacementsandrelatedchildwelfaredecisions
maybecriminogenic(Jonson‐Reid&Barth,2000a;Jonson‐Reid&Barth,2000b;
Jonson‐Reid,2004).Forinstance,congregatecareplacementswiththefollowing
characteristicsmaybedrivingtherelationshipwithdelinquency:theuseof
inexperiencedanduntrainedstaff,theabsenceofclearde‐escalationtechniquesand
procedures(i.e.,notrelyingonlawenforcementtoresolvethesituation),the
absenceofappropriatetreatmentmodalities,highconcentrationsofhigh‐riskyouth
inonefacility(e.g.,thepeercontagioneffect),and/ortheabsenceofbehavioral
modificationtechniquesappropriateforthepopulationservedbythefacility(see
Ryan,etal.2008formorediscussiononthesepoints).Similarly,forkinshipcare
placements,itisnecessarytoexplorewhetherplacementsthatleadtodelinquency
arewell‐supportedwiththeservicestheyneedandwhethertheyaredifferentially
exposedtoneighborhoodsimpactedbygangs,drugs,andviolence(Sampson&
Bean,inpress).
IdentifyingCrossoverYouth:TheNeedforDefinitions
Cleardefinitionsofcrossoveryoutharestillformingasresearchexpandsinthis
area,butmultiplereferencestodifferentsubgroupsofthispopulationcananddo
causeconfusion.Forinstance,atleastthreetermsareusedtorefertothis
population:crossoveryouth,dually‐involvedyouth,anddually‐adjudicatedyouth.
Althoughthesetermsareoftenusedinterchangeably,webelievetheyreferto
differentsubgroupsofcrossoveryouth.Toprovideclarity,weofferthefollowing
definitionstodistinguishcategoriesorsubgroupsofcrossoveryouth.
CrossoverYouth:Anyyouthwhohasexperiencedmaltreatmentand
engagedindelinquency.Thisisthebroadestdefinitionbecauseitrefersto
youthwiththeseexperiencesregardlessofwhetherthemaltreatment
and/ordelinquencyhavecometotheattentionofthechildwelfareand/or
delinquencysystems.
Dually‐InvolvedYouth:Asubgroupofcrossoveryouthwhoare
simultaneouslyreceivingservices,atanylevel,fromboththechildwelfare
andjuvenilejusticesystems.2
Dually‐AdjudicatedYouth:Asubgroupofdually‐involvedyouth,
encompassingonlythoseyouthwhoareconcurrentlyadjudicatedbyboth
thechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems.3
Identificationofyouthwithinthesecategoriescanoccurthroughmultiplepathways.
Themostcommonpathwayiswhenayouthunderthecareofchildprotective
servicesbecomesinvolvedinthedelinquencysystematsomelevel.Asecond
pathwayoccurswhenayouthwithaprevious,butnotcurrent,casewithchild
protectiveservicesentersthedelinquencysystem.Thepresenceofapreviouscase
inchildwelfaremayormaynotresultinacurrentreferraltochildwelfarefromthe
delinquencysystem;thispotentialreferralbeingdependentuponareviewofthe
2Twoclarifyingnotes:(1)thephrase“servicesatanylevel”encompassesawidearrayofpossibleinterventionbyeitherthechildwelfareordelinquencysystem.Forinstance,dualinvolvementwouldincludebeingadjudicatedbyonesystemandreceivingdiversionaryservicesfromtheotherORreceivingformalservicesafteradjudicationinbothsystems.(2)“Simultaneously,”inthiscase,doesnotrequirethatinvolvementinbothsystemsbeganatthesametime.Inmostcases,ayouth’sinvolvementwillbegininonesystemfirstandincludethesecondsystematsomepointafterward.Thus,“simultaneous”inthiscontextindicatesthatinvolvementinbothsystemsoccursatthesametimeregardlessofwhichsystemwasinitiallyinvolved.
Thetermdually‐involvedyouthhasitsoriginsintheworkofanumberofpeoplewhohavefocusedonyoungpeopleknowntoboththechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems,includingJanetWiig,SeniorConsultantwithCWLA,inworkcarriedoutundercontractwiththeArizonaGovernor’sOfficeforChildren,Youth,andFamiliesinthedevelopmentofArizona’sBlueprintforchildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystemsintegration(2008)andGregHalemba,GeneSiegelandRachaelLordandSusannaZawackiintheNationalCenterforJuvenileJustice'sArizonaDualJurisdictionStudy(2004).
3Twoclarifyingnotes:(1)Adjudicationreferstoformalcourtprocessingthatresultsinayouthbecomingaformal“dependent”or“delinquent.”Receivingdiversionaryservices,forinstance,wouldnotconstituteadjudication.(2)Similartothenoteabove,“concurrent”adjudicationassumesthattheadjudicationofayouthinonesystemoccursbeforethatyouth’sadjudicationinasecondsystem.Inotherwords,ayouthwillcometotheattentionofonesystem(e.g.,thechildwelfaresystem)priortocomingtotheattentionofthesecondsystem(e.g.,juvenilejusticesystem).
currentcircumstances.Athirdpathwayoccurswhenayouthwhoiscurrentlya
victimofmaltreatmentwithoutany(i.e.,previousorcurrent)contactwithchild
welfareentersthedelinquencysystem.Uponinvestigationofthecase,areferralto
childwelfarefromdelinquencyensues.Afourthpathwayincludesayouthwhoexits
juvenilejustice(mostoftenacorrectionalfacility)andentersthechildwelfare
systembecausehe/sheisdoesnothaveahometowhichtoreturn(Cusick,Goerge,
&Bell,2009).4Youthidentifiedinallthesepathwaysareallconsideredcrossover
youth;however,theextenttowhichtheyaredually‐involvedyouthordually‐
adjudicatedyouthdependsonthelevelofcontacttheyhavewithbothsystems.
Determininghowmanyyouthfallintoeachofthesepathwaysisnearlyimpossible
becauseinformationsystemsacrossagenciesarerarely,ifever,integrated;data
fieldstoidentifywhenayouthhascontactwiththeothersystemareoftenabsent
fromindividualagencyinformationsystems;andnochildwelfarerecordexists
whenabuse/neglectwasneverreported(e.g.,pathway3;seeHerz&Ryan,2008a
formorediscussionofthisissue).Asapracticalmatter,thesechallengesmakeit
difficulttoidentifyyouthwhentheycrossintoanothersystem,andtheyoftenlimit
thefocusofresearchlargelytocrossoveryouthcurrentlyorpreviouslyinthecare
ofchildprotectiveserviceswhosubsequentlyreceiveadelinquencycharge.
Therefore,integratedinformationsystemsarestronglyrecommendedtofacilitate
practiceimprovementsforcrossoveryouth(Siegel&Lord,2004;Wiig&Tuell,
2004;Petro,2007),andwhenintegratedsystemsarenotpossible,creatingand
consistentlyusingadatafieldtocaptureinvolvementinanothersystemisdesirable
(Herz&Ryan,2008a).
4Note:Whenanoffenderundertheageof18completeshis/herdelinquencydispositionandisabandonedbyparents/relativesorthathomeisnotsafetoreturnto,he/shemayenterthechildwelfaresysteminordertotransitionoutofthedelinquencysystem.Itshouldalsobenotedthatinsomestates,delinquentoffendersareplacedinchildwelfareplacementsasaresultoftheirdisposition(i.e.,fosterhomesandcongregatecare).Theseyouthwouldnotbeconsideredcrossoveryouthorduallyinvolvedyouthbecausetheirinvolvementinthechildwelfaresystemisnotbecauseofmaltreatment.
Withoutintegratedinformationsystemsorafieldtoindicatedualsystem
involvement,measuringtheprevalenceofcrossoveryouthisdifficultbutnot
impossible.Datacanbematchedacrosssystemstoidentifyyouthwithdualsystem
contact.Ingeneral,suchstudiesestimatebetween929%ofchildwelfareyouthalso
hascontactwiththejuvenilejusticesystem(Zingraff,Leiter,Myers,&Johnsen,
1993;Smith&Thornberry,1995;Kelley,Thornberry,&Smith,1997;Widom,1989;
Dennison&Waterson,2002;Johnson,Ereth,&Wagner,2004;Smith,Thornberry,
Ireland,&Elwyn,2008).UsingmatchedadministrativerecordsinLosAngeles
Countybetween2002through2005,Ryan,Herz,Hernandez,andMarshall(2007)
reportedthatof69,009first‐timeoffenders,7%(N=4,811)enteredthejuvenile
justicesystemfromthechildwelfaresystem.Whenconsideringspecific
race/ethnicitygroups,14%offirst‐timeAfricanAmericanoffendersenteredthe
juvenilejusticesystemfromthechildwelfaresystem.UsingdatafromArizona,
Halemba,Siegel,Lord,andZawacki(2004)foundthatthepercentageofprobation
casesincreasedasonemoveddeeperintothejuvenilejusticesystem.Only1%ofall
informaldiversioncasesweredualjurisdictionyouth,but7%ofprobation
supervisioncasesand42%ofcasesplacedinaprivategrouphomeoraresidential
treatmentfacilityweredualjurisdictionyouth.
CrossoverYouthCharacteristics
Atleastfourstudiescurrentlydescribethecharacteristicsofcrossoveryouth
adjudicatedfordelinquencycharges(Herz&Ryan2008b;Halemba,Siegel,Lord,&
Zawacki2004;Kelley,Thornberry,&Smith1997;Saeturn&Swain,2009).
Collectively,thesestudiesshowconsiderableconsistencywithregardtocrossover
characteristicsdespitetheuseofdifferentmethodologicalapproachesandtheuse
ofsamplesdrawnfromdifferentgeographicallocationsandwithdifferentselection
criteria.Insum,thesestudiesreportedthefollowing:5
5SeeHerz&Ryan(2008)orHerz,Ryan,&Bilchik(inpress)foramoredetailedreviewofthesestudiesandtheirfindings.
• Approximatelyone‐thirdofcrossoveryouthappeartobefemale,which
exceedstherepresentationoffemalesingeneraldelinquencystatistics.
• AfricanAmericanyouthareoverrepresentedinthecrossovernumbers
relativetothegeneralpopulation,childwelfarereferrals,andjuvenilejustice
referrals(thisfindingwasspecifictoHerz&Ryan,2008andSaeturn&
Swain,2009).
• Overall,crossoveryouthappeartoenterthesystemwhentheyareyoung
childrenandremaininthesysteminto(andsometimesthrough)
adolescence;
• Crossoveryouthoftencomefromfamiliesinwhichthereisahistoryof
criminalbehavior,mentalhealth,and/orsubstanceabuseproblems.
• Duringtheirtimeincare,crossoveryouthexperiencenumerousplacements,
oftenresultinginoneormoreplacementsincongregatecare;
• Crossoveryouthareoftentruantfromschool.Whentheydoattendschool,
theyoftenhavepooracademicperformanceandexhibitbehavioral
problems.
• Crossoveryouthhavehighratesofmentalhealthandsubstanceabuse
problems—overthree‐quartersoftheseyouthexhibitsymptomsorhave
diagnosesforamentalhealthdisorderand/orsubstanceabuse.
• Atleastone‐thirdofarrestsforcrossoveryoutharerelatedtotheir
placement,andmostofthesesituationsoccurinagrouphomeplacement
(thisfindingwasspecifictoHerz&Ryan,2008andSaeturn&Swain,2009).
• Betweenone‐halfandthree‐quartersofcrossoveryouthhavehadprevious
contactwiththejuvenilejusticesysteminsomeway(i.e.,statusoffense,
delinquencychargeresultingindiversionornotresultinginprocessing).
Whilethesecharacteristicsprovidesubstantialinsightinto“who”crossoveryouth
are,researchhasnotdirectlycomparedtheprevalenceofthesecharacteristicsto
fosteryouthwhodonotenterthejuvenilejusticesystemortooffenderswithouta
maltreatmenthistory.Suchcomparisonswoulddeterminewhethertherisksand
needsofcrossoveryoutharesimilarordifferentfromnon‐crossoveryouth.Even
withoutsuchacomparison,however,thefindingsfromthesestudieshighlightthe
needto(1)interveneearlyinthelivesofchildrenwhoexperiencemaltreatmentto
preventdelinquency,and(2)bringsystemstogethertointerveneasearlyas
possiblewhenescalationsinantisocialbehaviorresultindelinquency.
IdentifyingCrossoverYouth:TheEarliertheBetter
ThePracticeModelFlowChartstressestheneedtoidentifycrossoveryouthasearly
intheprocessaspossible(Siegel&Lord,2004).Arguably,thefirstopportunityto
identifyacrossoveryouthwithcurrentorpreviouschildwelfarecontactisatthe
pre‐adjudicationdetentionintakedecisionoratthepointofchargingifpre‐
adjudicationdetentionisnotapplicable.CongerandRoss’(2001,2009)workwith
ProjectConfirminNewYorkCitydemonstratestheimportanceofearly
identificationandsystemcollaborationforcrossovercases.Theirworkevolved
fromaVeraInstituteofJusticestudyexamininginteragencycommunicationwhen
fosteryouthwerearrested.Studyresultsindicatedthatdetentionwasusedmore
oftenforfosteryoutheventhoughtherewerenosignificantdifferencesinthe
numberofcrimesortheseverityofcrimescommittedbyfosteryouthandnon‐
fosteryouth(formorediscussionseeRoss&Conger,2009;seealsoConger&Ross,
2001).Interviewsconductedwithcourtandagencypersonnelfurtherrevealed:
Forfosterchildrenthelocusofresponsibility[inthecourtprocess]isoften
uncleartofrontlinestaff,casemanagers,andfosterparents.Confusionabout
roles,delaysintransmittinginformation,andmisunderstandingbetween
frontlineworkersinthechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticeagenciesmay
increasethelikelihoodthatarrestedfosterchildrenaredetainedinjuvenile
detentionfacilitiesratherthanreleasedtolegalcaregiversorcaseworkers
(p.178).
ProjectConfirmwascreatedin1998toaddresstheseproblemsbyimplementinga
notificationsystemandcourtconferencing.Thenotificationsystemrequires
detentionstafftocontactProjectConfirmeachtimeayouthwasadmittedtothe
detentionfacility.AscreeneratProjectConfirmthendeterminesiftheyouthhasan
opencasewithchildwelfare.Foryouthwithopencases,thescreenercoordinates
contactbetweenthefostercareprovider,thechildwelfaresocialworker,andthe
juvenilejusticecaseworkerinordertoassurethatallchildwelfarepartieswith
legalresponsibilityovertheyouthattendthedetentionhearing.Increased
notification,inturn,wasexpectedtoincreasetheamountofinformationavailableto
juvenilejusticedecisionmakers.Next,courtconferencingisusedtofacilitatecross‐
systemsdiscussionofthecase.Onceagain,aProjectConfirmcoordinatorintroduces
allpartiesacrossagenciespriortothecourthearinginordertoimprove
informationexchangeandholdappropriatepartiesaccountable(Ross&Conger,
2009).
CongerandRoss(2009;2001)evaluatedtheimpactofProjectConfirmandfound
post‐implementation,thepercentageoffosteryouthdetaineddidnotdecrease
relativetothepre‐implementationofProjectConfirm,butfostercarebiaswas
eliminated.Inotherwords,thepercentageoffosteryouthdetainedwasstatistically
equivalenttothepercentageofnon‐fosteryouthdetained(56.5%comparedto
50.9%)afterProjectConfirmwasimplemented.Morenotablefindingswerefound
whendetentionratesforyouthchargedwithlessseriousoffenseswerecompared
toratesforyouthchargedwithmoreseriousoffenses.Only35%offosteryouth
chargedwithlessseriousoffensesweredetained,andnofostercarebiaswasfound;
however,thedetentionrateforfosteryouthchargedwithmoreseriousoffenses
increasedto75%,whichwas14percentagepointshigherthanfornon‐fosteryouth
(61%).Thisfindingindicatedthatimprovedinformationsharingincreased
assessmentsofriskformoreseriousoffenders.Whilethesefindingareconsistent
withbestpractice(i.e.,detainthehigherriskyouthsandreleaselowerriskyouths),
CongerandRoss(2009)stresstheneedtoclearlyexplaintheinformationprovided
tojuvenilejusticedecisionmakerstoavoidinaccurateperceptionsofrisk(e.g.,
interpretingahistoryofAWOLasamarkerofhighriskandneedfordetention).
ProjectConfirmwasultimatelyinstitutionalizedbychildwelfareinNewYorkCity
andwasshowcasedbySiegelandLord(2004)asapromisingapproachtoidentify
crossoveryouthearlyinthejuvenilejusticeprocessandavoidunnecessary
incarceration.
PracticeAreaII:Decisionmakingregardingcharges
PracticeAreaIIfocusesonthechargingdecisionmadeforeachcase.Incharging
decisions,probationintakeorprosecutorstypicallymakethisdecisionshortlyafter
ayouthisarrestedorimmediatelyaftertheyouthisdetained(ifapplicable).
Possibleoutcomesinthisprocessinclude:droppingthecharges;offeringdiversion
asanalternativetoformaljuvenilejusticeprocessing;petitioningthecharge
formallytothejuvenilecourt;orfiling/requestingtofilethecaseinadultcourt.To
date,researchoncrossoveryouthissilentonthisdecisionpointinjuvenilejustice
processing;consequently,howcrossoveryoutharechargedandhowchargingfor
theseyouthcomparestonon‐crossoveryouthisunknown.6
Theabsenceofresearchatthisstagerepresentsasignificantgapintheliterature.
Thechargingdecisionisarguablyoneofthemostimportantdecisionpointsinthe
juvenilejusticeprocessbecauseitprovidesanopportunitytoidentifyacrossover
youthandaddresshis/herrisksandneedsearlyintheprocess.Suchintervention,in
turn,maypreventacrossoveryouthfromformallyenteringthejuvenilejustice
system.Forexample,ayouthmayreceivediversioninsteadofformalprocessingif
appropriateprogrammingisprovidedbychildwelfare(e.g.,coordinatingwiththe
schooltoaddresstheyouth’sspecialeducationneeds,providingsubstanceabuse
treatmentthroughthechildwelfaresystem,etc.).Additionally,identificationofa
crossoveryouthearlyinjuvenilejusticeprocessingfacilitatesinformationsharing,
improvesthequantityandqualityofdataavailable,andprovidesacritical
opportunitytogivecontextualexplanationsforparticularfactors(e.g.,multiple
6Thisisconcerningforanumberofreasons,butparticularlyconcerningistheabsenceofnumbersonhowmanycrossovercasesareprocessedinadultcourt.Oncetheyentertheadultcourtsystem,itisextremelydifficulttoidentifythesecases.
placements,goingAWOLfromplacements,etc.).Contextualexplanationsare
significantbecausetheycanpreventexaggeratedperceptionsofriskbyjuvenile
justicepersonnel(Conger&Ross,2009).Ultimately,amorecomprehensiveand
accurateunderstandingofthecasemayalsohelpavoidtheunnecessarypenetration
ofthejuvenilejusticesystem(i.e.,placementwitharelativeorfostercareplacement
insteadofcongregatecareoracorrectionalplacement).
PracticeAreaIII:CaseAssignment,Assessment,andPlanning
JuvenileCourtProcessingOutcomes
Researchrelatedtocrossoveryouthexperiencesinthejuvenilejusticesystem
concludesthatcrossoveryouthreceiveharsherprocessingoutcomescomparedto
delinquentyouthswhohavenoconnectiontothedependencysystem(Ryan,Herz,
Hernandez,&Marshall,2007;Morris&Freundlich,2004;Conger&Ross,2001).As
mentionedabove,CongerandRoss(2001)reportedthatcrossoveryouthwere
morelikelytobedetainedthannon‐crossoveryouthregardlessofoffenseseverity.
Similarly,MorrisandFreundlich(2004),interviewedavarietyofstakeholders(e.g.
fosterparents,youngadults,judges,andchildwelfareadministrators)aboutfoster
youthexperiencesinthejuvenilejusticesystemandconcludedthat(1)theoffenses
associatedwithdependentyouthenteringthejuvenilejusticesystemwereless
seriouscomparedtonon‐dependentdelinquents,and(2)manystakeholders
believedcrossoveryouthweretreateddifferentlythantheirdelinquency‐only
counterparts.Differentialdecisionmakingwasperceivedtoberelatedtodecision
makers’perceptionsofthelivingarrangementsoftheseyouth(e.g.grouphome
placement)andtheirperceptionsoftheyouth’srisktoreoffend.Theauthorsalso
reportedthatfosteryouthwereconsistentlydissatisfiedwiththeirlegal
representationandfeltthatthepunishmentswereoftenmoreseverefordependent
youth.Similarly,fosterparentsperceivedinequitiesinthejudicialdispositionsgiven
tofosteryouth.
Perceptionsregardingthedisparatetreatmentofcrossoveryouthatthedisposition
stagewerevalidatedinastudyconductedinLosAngelesCounty,CaliforniabyRyan,
Herz,Hernandez,andMarshall(2007).Ryanetal.(2007)examineddispositionsfor
first‐timeoffenderswithachildwelfarecasecomparedtofirst‐timeoffenders
withoutachildwelfarecasebetween2002and2005.Althoughnodifferenceswere
foundinthedismissalofcasesbasedonchildwelfarestatus,first‐timeoffenders
withachildwelfarecasewerelesslikelytoreceivehomeonprobation(58%v.
73%)andmorelikelytoreceive“suitableplacement”(i.e.,placementincongregate
care—21%v.11%).Additionally,youthwithachildwelfarecasewereslightlymore
likelytoreceivecorrectionalplacements(21%v.16%),butthisdifferencewasnot
statisticallysignificant(seealsoHalembaetal.,2004forasimilarfinding).
CaseAssignment
Regardlessofhowthecaseischarged(i.e.,diversionorformaljuvenilejustice
processing),theresearchdocumentingtheprocessingdisparitiesbetween
crossoverandnon‐crossoveryouthstressestheneedtocoordinatealldecision
makingrelatedtothecasewithinandacrosssystems.Promisingapproachesto
ensurethecontinuityofdecisionmakersthroughoutthecourtprocessandto
facilitateinformationsharinginatimelymannerwereidentifiedanddescribedby
SiegelandLord(2004;seealsoPetro,2006andPetro,2007)as“caseassignment”
and“caseflowmanagement”approaches.Caseassignmentapproachesconsolidate
courtprocessingsothatthedependencyanddelinquencycasesarehandled
simultaneouslyandaresupervisedbyattorneysfamiliarwithbothsystems.Atleast
threetypesofapproachesfallintothiscategory:onefamily/onejudge,dedicated
dockets,andspecialqualificationsforattorneys(seeforexample,Herzetal.,2010
andScrivner,2002).Caseflowmanagementapproachesbringchildwelfare,juvenile
justice,andanyotherrelevantpersonneltogethertoshareinformationandmake
coordinatedrecommendationstothecourt.Approachesthatfallintothiscategory
include:jointpre‐hearingconferences,combiningdependencyanddelinquency
hearings,jointcourtordersandcourtreports,andmandatoryattendanceofthe
case‐carryingCWsocialworkerandJJcaseworkerathearings.SiegelandLord
(2004)classifytheseapproachesaspromisingbecause,thusfar,theireffectiveness
hasnotbeenevaluatedbeyondtheuseofanecdotalevidence.7
JointAssessmentandCoordinatedCasePlanning
Acommonandprimarygoalofallpromisingapproachesforcrossoveryouthis
bringinginformationtogetheracrosssystemsandusinginteragencydiscussionsof
sharedinformationtodevelopacoordinatedplanfortheyouthandhis/her
family/caregiver.Theuseofajointassessmentandcoordinatedcasemanagement
forcrossoveryoutharecriticalactivitiesinthisprocess.Conductingassessmentsfor
andprovidingappropriatelevelsofsupervisionandtreatmenttocrossoveryouths
isparticularlychallengingbecauseitrequirescoordination,ataminimum,and
collaboration,ideally,acrossthedependencyanddelinquencycourtsystems(Nash
&Bilchik,2009).Whilethereisagrowingamountofliteraturethatdocumentsthe
needtointegratetreatmentandaccountabilitytosuccessfullyreducerecidivism,
thereislittleevidencetoindicatethatsuchintegrationisoccurringacrosssystems
(Brezina,1998;Halemba&Lord,2005;McMackin&Fulwiler,2001;Pumariegaet
al.,1999).
Traditionally,forexample,assessmentoftheyouth’srisks(bothpersonalsafetyand
publicsafety)andintervention/treatmentneedsiscompletedbyindividual
agenciesresponsibleforsomeaspectoftheyouth’swellbeing.Foracrossover
youth,thiscouldeasilyinvolvesixdifferentsystems:Childwelfare,juvenilejustice,
education,mentalhealth,substanceabuse,andmedical.Thesesystemsrarelywork
withoneanothertocoordinateassessments;rather,eachsystemconductsitsown
assessmentandproducesitsownrecommendationsinisolationorwithlittle
contactwithothersystems.Additionally,theviewpointsofyouthand
parent/caregiverareoftenmarginalizedinthisprocess.Asaresult,ayouthand
familymayhavemultiplecaseplansthateitherconflictwithoneanother,duplicate
7ForadescriptionofspecificinitiativesthatfallintothecategoriesdefinedbySiegel&Lord(2004),pleaseseeSiegel&Lord(2004),Petro(2007),Herz&Ryan(2008a),andHalemba&Lord(2005).
services,orcontainexpectationsthatareunattainable.Jointassessmentseeksto
improveuponthismethodbycoordinatingassessmentsinanefforttoincreasethe
validityoftheinformationcollecteddecreaseinconveniencetoyouthsanddecrease
inconveniencetoyouthandtheirfamilies/caregivers.Thismayinvolvetheuseof
onetoolthatservestheneedsofallagenciesortheuseofmultipletoolsfromwhich
therecommendationsarediscussedacrossagenciesandcompiledintoonecase
plan.Totheextentpossible,theyouth’sandparent/caregiver’sperspectiveshould
becentraltotheassessmentprocess.8Acaseplancollectivelyinformedbyallthese
perspectivesshouldthenbeusedasabasisforcoordinatedcasesupervision.
SeveralpromisingapproacheswereidentifiedbySiegelandLord(2004;seealso
Petro,2006,Petro,2007andHalemba&Lord,2005)tofacilitatejointassessment
andcoordinatedcaseplanning.The“caseplanningandsupervision”approaches
thatfocusspecificallyonassessmentandcaseplanningincludetheuseof:jointcase
plans,multi‐disciplinaryteamassessment,specialqualificationsand/ortrainingfor
casemanagers,andtheuseofchildprotectiveservicesliaisonsand/orprobation
liaisons.Asmentionedearlier,theseapproachesareconsidered“promising”
becauseevaluationsoftheireffectivenesshavenotbeenconductedwithone
exception.In2007,LosAngelesCountyimplementeda“241.1Multidisciplinary
TeamPilotProgram(MDT).”9TheMDTwasresponsibleforcompletingajoint
assessmentreportandrecommendationsforthecourt.Theteamwascomprisedof
ajuvenilejusticecaseworker,childwelfaresocialworker,mentalhealthclinician,
andeducationalrightsattorney.Oncetheteamreceivedareferral,eachmember
collectedinformationrelatedtothecasefromtheirrespectiveagencyfiles.They
8Includingtheyouth’svoiceinassessmentspre‐adjudicationcanbedifficultgivendueprocessandconfidentialityconcernsrelatedtothejuvenilejusticecourtprocess.Engagingpublicdefendersinthedevelopmentofajointassessmentprocesscanhelpfindwaystoincludetheyouth’svoiceasearlyaspossiblewithoutputtinghim/heratriskforself‐incrimination.9A“241.1”youthinCaliforniareferstoayouthcurrentlyinthecareofchildprotectiveserviceswhoreceivesadelinquencycharge.Thenumberisareferencetothestatutorylanguage(WelfareandInstitutionsCode241.1)outliningtheprocessbywhichthedelinquencycourtmustadjudicatethesecases.
thenmetasateamtosharetheinformation,discusstheinformation,and
collectivelymakerecommendationstothecourt.
AnevaluationwasrecentlycompletedontheMDTusing50youthreferredtothe
MDTand44youthmatchedfromapoolofcrossoveryouthwhowerenotreferred
totheMDT(Herz,unpublished).10Theresultsweregenerallypositive:
• TheMDTincreasedthequalityandquantityofinformationcollectedon
crossoveryouth.Specifically,theavailabilityofeducationalinformation,
numberofstrengths,andthenumberofrecommendationsforcaseplanning
incourtreportsimproved.
• TheMDTwasmorelikelytorecommendinformalsupervisionforcrossover
youthcomparedtorecommendationsmadeinthetraditionalassessment
process,andMDTcasesweremorelikelytoreceiveinformalsupervision,
particularlylowerlevelsofinformalsupervision,atdispositionthannon‐
MDTyouth.
• MDTreducedrecidivismbyabout20%(percentchangebetweengroups);
however,thisdifferencewasnotstatisticallysignificant.
Thisprogramwasnotwithoutitschallenges.AlthoughtheMDTreducedthe
numberofyouthbecomingformaldelinquencywards(i.e.,theyreceivedinformal
supervisioninstead),15%oftheinformalprobationyoutheventuallybecame
formalwardsofthedelinquencycourt.Thisratewasstatisticallyequivalenttothe
ratefornon‐MDTyouth.ThisfindingraisesquestionsabouttheMDT’sabilityto
improveaccesstoappropriateservicesandplacements.Whileitappearsthatthe
qualityofinformationimprovedwithinthejointassessmentforcrossoveryouth,
theMDTdidnothaveaneffectivemechanismorstructuretotransitionfromthe
assessment/planningstagetothecoordinatedcasesupervisioninthefield.Thus,10Initially,matcheswerefoundfor50youth;however,sixoftheselectedyouthdidnotmeettheselectioncriteriaforthisstudy(i.e.,theirdelinquencychargeprecededtheinvolvementofchildprotectiveservices).
thefullbenefitsandutilityofjointassessmentandcoordinatedcaseplanning
dependsheavilyonthesuccessfulimplementationofthecaseplan—inotherwords,
theuseofsuccessfulcoordinatedcasesupervision.
PracticeAreaIV:CoordinatedCaseSupervisionandOnGoingAssessment
Interagencyapproachesaimedatimprovingtheoversightandimplementationof
caseplansforyouthalsofallintoSiegelandLord’s(2004;seealsoPetro,2006,
Petro,2007andHalemba&Lord,2005)“caseplanningandsupervision”category.
Initiativesspecifictocoordinatedcasesupervisioninthiscategoryinclude:
specializedcasemanagementandsupervisionunits,multi‐disciplinaryteamcase
management,specialqualificationsand/ortrainingforcasemanagers,andtheuse
ofchildprotectiveservicesliaisonsand/orprobationliaisons.Eachofthese
approachesstressestheneedtoformallylinkcaseoversighttostaffinboththechild
welfareandprobationsystems.Jurisdictionsthatcombinetheseapproacheswith
collaborativefundingagreements(e.g.,blended,braided,orpooledfunding)
enhanceaccesstoafullcontinuumofservicesthatcomprehensivelyaddressthe
risksandneedspresentedbycrossoveryouth(Siegel&Lord,2004;seealsoPetro,
2006,Petro,2007andHalemba&Lord,2005).
Coordinatedcasesupervisionisoftenchallengingbecauseitrequiresseveral
elementstobesuccessful.Beforecoordinatedcasesupervisionispossible,for
instance,administratorsmustformallydevelopamemorandumofunderstanding
thatclearlyoutlinestherolesandresponsibilitiesofeachagency,resolvesissuesof
informationconfidentiality,andprovidesclearandequitableproceduresforthe
mediationofconflict(Wiig&Tuell,2004;Siegel&Lord,2004).Onceanagreement
isinplace,staffinterestedinworkingwithcrossoveryouthandbuilding
collaborativeapproachesmustbeselectedfortheinitiative,andon‐goingcross‐
trainingandsupportmustbeprovidedtoincreasestaffknowledgeofandabilityto
accessservicesandplacementsacrosssystems(Wiig&Tuell,2004).
Coordinatedcasemanagementisnotlimitedtothechildwelfareandjuvenilejustice
systems;additionalpartnersmustbesoughtandengagedinthisprocess.For
instance,theyouth’sparents/caregivers,school,mentalhealthtreatmentprovider,
substanceabusetreatmentprovider,andanyotherrelevantparty(e.g.,connections
tothecommunitysuchaspastorormentor)mustactivelyparticipateinthe
implementationandsupervisionofthecaseplan.Ataminimum,thechildwelfare
socialworkerandjuvenilejusticecaseworkershouldbe“onthesamepage,”
keepingeachotherinformedandpresentinga“unitedfront”aswellasa“united
supportsystem”totheyouthandhis/herfamilyorcaregiver.
Thegoalofcoordinatedcasesupervisionistoreducethelikelihoodofreoffending
andimprovetheoverallwellbeingofthecrossoveryouth.Herz,Ryan,&Bilchik(in
press)examinedfactorsrelatedtorecidivismamong581crossoveryouthprocessed
inLosAngelesCountyin2004.Intotal,64%oftheseyouthhadanewarrestfora
criminaloffensebytheendof2008.Todeterminewhatfactorsincreasedthe
likelihoodofdelinquency,regressionmodelswereestimated.Youthwithsubstance
abuseandyouthwhoweretruantfromschoolweretwiceaslikelytocommit
delinquencyastheircounterparts.Theseresultsstresstheneedtoprioritizeschool
engagementforcrossoveryouthandmakingsureappropriatetreatmentservices
areprovidedtotheyouthandhis/herfamily.AsdemonstratedintheMDT
evaluationstudy,coordinatedcaseplanswillfallshortoftheirpotentialiftheyare
notfullyimplementedandcloselymonitored(Herz,2009).Forcrossoveryouth,this
requireschildwelfareandjuvenilejusticetoworkcloselywithayouth’ssocial
network,school,treatmentprovider,andcommunity‐basedprogramtoconnect
him/hertothecommunitywhiletheyreceiveappropriatelevelsofsupervisionand
treatment.
Akeypartofcoordinatedcasesupervisionisaccessingappropriateservicesand
placementforcrossoveryouth.In2008,Herz&Ryanconductedanationalsurveyof
stateandcountyadministratorsforchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice.11Following
theadministrationofasurveyregardingpracticesandpoliciesrelatedtocrossover
youth,asmallgroupofrespondentswasselectedforphoneinterviews(N=9).
Duringthephoneinterviews,respondentswereaskedwhattypesofservices
crossoveryouthneeded.Althoughrespondentsfeltthatcrossoveryouthdidnot
necessarilyrequiredifferentservicesfromnon‐crossoveryouth,theybelievedthat
crossoveryouthrequiredmorecasemanagementthannon‐crossoveryouthand
moreaccesstoeducationalassessmentsandservices,gender‐specificprogramming,
daycenters,mentalhealthandsubstanceabusetreatment;mentoring,and
community‐basedservicesingeneral.Stabilizingplacementsandaddressing
permanencyissueswereconsideredprimaryissuesforcrossoveryouth.For
placement,respondentsstressedtheneedformoretherapeuticlivingarrangements
thatwerestructuredandintensivelysupervised.Severalrespondentsfeltthat
currentplacementswereofteninappropriatebecausetheydidnotofferappropriate
levelsofsupervisionandstructurecombinedwithappropriatelevelsoftreatment.
Ingeneral,respondentsinthephoneinterviewsemphasizedtheimportanceof
consistencyandthewillingnesstolistenandrespondtocrossoveryouthneedsand
desires.Interestingly,thefindingsfromthephoneinterviewsparallelthethoughts
andfeelingsoffivecrossoveryouthwhowereinterviewedaspartoftheLos
AngelesCountyMDTprogram(Herz,unpublished).Whenaskedwhattheywanted,
alloramajorityofrespondentsofferedthefollowing:
• tostaywiththeirfamiliesorstayconnectedtotheirfamilies;
11Herz&Ryan(2008a)distributedsurveystoseveraladministratorsanddecision‐makergroupswhorepresentedthechildwelfareandthejuvenilejusticesystematboththestateandcountylevels.Atthestatelevel,surveysweresenttochildwelfareadministrators,probationadministrators,institutionalcorrectionsadministrators,andjuvenilejusticespecialists.Atthecountylevel,surveysweresenttochildwelfaresystemdirectors,chiefofficersofprobationdepartments,countyadministratorsforinstitutionalcorrections,andjudges.144staterepresentativesand220countyrepresentativesreceivedanemailinvitingthemtoparticipateinthesurvey.104(73%)staterepresentativesenteredthesurveysiteand77(53%)completedthesurvey.141(64%)countyrepresentativesenteredthesurveysiteand107(49%)completedthesurvey.Intotal,thereare182surveyrespondents.Atotalof47states(includingtheDistrictofColumbia)andoneU.S.Territorywererepresentedbystateand/orcountyrespondents.
• tobeinformedandgivenchoicesinthedecisionmakingprocess;
• tobegivenclearexpectationsandreasonablelevelsofsupervision(i.e.,
probation)tohelpthemstayoutoftrouble;
• tohaveaccesstoindividualcounselingandfamilycounseling;and
• tohaveaccesstoactivitiesthathelpthemexploretheirinterests—from
sportstohobbiestoeducational/vocationalinterests.
Asignificantchallengefacingcoordinatedcasesupervisionisthechildwelfaresocial
worker’sandjuvenilejusticecaseworker’sabilitytoaccessappropriateservices
andplacementsforcrossoveryouth.Eventhoughthereisnoresearchrelatedtothe
effectivenessofprogramswithcrossoveryouthspecifically,alargebodyofresearch
currentlyidentifiescharacteristicsofeffectiveprogramsaswellasspecific
promisingorevidence‐basedprogramsforchildwelfare,juvenilejustice,and
behavioralhealth(Whitehead&Lab,1989;Palmer,1991;Lipsey,1992;Leone,
Quinn,&Osher,2002;Hansen,Litzelman,&Marsh,2004;Howell,Kelly,Palmer,&
Mangum,2004;Huser,Cooney,Small,O’Conner,&Mather,2009).Jurisdictions
shouldnotexcludetheuseoflocalprogramswithoutrigorousevaluations,butthey
shouldprioritizetheuseofprogramsortypesofprogrammingconsistentwith
“whatworks.”Simultaneously,theyshouldstronglyencouragelocalprogramsto
demonstratetheireffectivenessbytrackingoutcomes.
Basedontheprofilespresentedbycrossoveryouth,thereareseveralprogramsthat
shouldbeconsideredwhenworkingwithcrossoveryouth.Forinstance,programs
suchas(butnotlimitedto)Wraparound,Multi‐DimensionalTherapeuticFoster
Care,AngerReplacementTherapy,andcognitivebehavioraltraumaprograms
representafewprogramsthataddressthecomplexissuespresentedbycrossover
youth(Kamradt,2001;Bruns,Walker,Adams,Miles,Osher,Rast,&VanDenBerg,
2004;WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy,2004;WashingtonStateInstitute
forPublicPolicy,2008;Drake,Aos,&Marna,2008;FosterFamily‐BasedTreatment
Association,2008;McLendon,2009).Thechallengeforchildwelfaresocialworkers
andjuvenilejusticecaseworkers,then,ishowtoaccesstheseprogramsaswellas
othersforyouthsandtheirfamilies/caregivers.
Afinalconsiderationforchildwelfaresocialworkersandjuvenilejusticecase
workerscollaborativelysupervisingcrossoveryouthisutilizingfamily‐centered
programs,gender‐basedprogramming,andculturallycompetentprogramming
wheneverpossible.Stabilizingplacementandachievingpermanencyareprimary
issuesforcrossoveryouth;thus,childwelfaresocialworkersandjuvenilejustice
caseworkersmustthinkcreativelyaboutfamily(e.g.,locatingfamilymembersthat
liveoutsideofthecountyorjurisdiction)andengagefamilyinordertoprovidethe
supportneededtoreuniteyouthswiththeirparentsorrelativeswhenparentsare
notavailable(Kumpfer,1999;Stoep,Williams,Jones,Gileen,&Truplin,1999;
FamilyStrengtheningPolicyCenter,2004;Campbell,2005;Gordon,Tullis,Hanson,
&Sowders,2005;Marsh,Ryan,Choi,&Testa,2005;Brock,Burrell,&Tulipano,
2006;Osher,Osher,&Blau,2008;Pullman,2009).Inmanycases,reunitingwith
familymaynotbepossible,soitbecomesimportanttolookforacaregiverthatcan
playasignificantroleintheyouth’slife.Asindicatedabove,therepresentationof
femalesincrossoverpopulationsisslightlyhigherthaningeneraldelinquency
populations.Thisstatisticunderscorestheneedtointegrategender‐specific
programmingincaseplansforfemalecrossoveryouth.Similarly,childwelfare
socialworkersandjuvenilejusticecaseworkersshouldseekoutculturally
competentprogrammingforminorityyouth.
PracticeAreaV:PlanningforYouthPermanency,Transition,andCaseClosure
Aspartofsuccessfulcasemanagement,bothchildwelfaresocialworkersand
juvenilejusticecaseworkersmustpaycloseattentiontoachievingyouth
permanencyandeffectivelytransitioningyouthuponcaseclosure.Whiletheseare
importantissuesforallyouthinchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice,theyare
particularlyrelevantforcrossoveryouthbecausetheyoftenfacethelossoffamilial
connections,communityconnections,andthesupportofsocialnetworksasaresult
oftheirinteractionwithbothsystems.
Cusick,Goerge,andBell(2009),forexample,examinedeightcohortsofyouth
correctionalexits(1996–2003)inIllinoisandfoundthat65%ofyouthexitshad
priorchildwelfarehistorybeforeenteringthecorrectionalfacility.Uponexiting
correctionalfacilities,9%ofyouthexitsintheStateofIllinoisand11%ofexitsin
Chicagowereinanout‐of‐homeplacementinchildwelfareoneyearaftertheirexit.
Inotherwords,manyyouthreturnedtocaresimplybecausetheydidnothave
accesstoastablesupportsystemwhentheyreturnedtothecommunity.
ParticularlyconcerningwasCusicketal.’sfindingwithregardtoeducation.
Althoughlessthan1%ofcorrectionalexitshadcompletedhighschool,only36.5%
ofyouthexitswereenrolledinschoolaftertheirrelease.
EquallyalarmingaretheresultsfromWidomandMaxfield(2001;seealsoWidom&
Maxfield,1996).Theirprospectivestudytrackedchildrenwithsubstantiatedchild
abusecasesbetween1967and1971andamatchedcomparisongroupofchildren
withoutasubstantiatedchildabusecasefor25yearstoassesstherelationship
betweenchildhoodabuse/neglectandoffending.Theirresultsshowedthatnotonly
werechildrenvictimizedbychildabuse(i.e.,physicalabuse,sexualabuse,and/or
neglect)morelikelytocommitcrimesasjuvenilescomparedtochildrenwithout
suchhistories(27%and17%,respectively),butchildrenwithchildabusecases
werealsomorelikelytocommitcrimesinadulthood(42%comparedto33%),and
theywereatanincreasedrisktocommitviolentcrimesspecifically(18%compared
to14%).
ThesefindingsfromCusicketal.(2009)andWidomandMaxfield(2001)
underscoretheimportanceofstabilizingpermanencyforcrossoveryouthand
providingthemwiththeappropriateservicesthatwillincreasetheirsuccessafter
theircasescloseinboththechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems.
Unfortunately,thereiscurrentlynoresearchthatexamines“whatworks”for
crossoveryouthinthisarea;however,thereisagrowingamountofresearchrelated
toeffectiveprogramsandpracticesforjuvenilejusticereentry(Altschuler&
Armstrong,1994;Zimmerman,Hendrix,Moeser,&Roush,2004;Harris,2006;
Altschuler,2008;Gagnon&Richards,2008;Altschuler,Stangler,Berkley,&Burton,
2009)andachievingpermanencyforyouthinchildwelfare(Freundlich2009;Frey,
2009;Neff,2000).Jurisdictionsimplementingthepracticemodelshouldconsider
thisbroaderliteratureastheydeveloptheirownapproachestoimprovethelong‐
termoutcomesforcrossoveryouth.
Summary
Insum,improvingoutcomesforcrossoveryouthrequiresaclearunderstandingof
“who”crossoveryouthareaswellastheirexperiencesinboththechildwelfareand
juvenilejusticesystems.Agrowingbodyofresearchoncrossoveryouthindicates
thatcrossoveryouthareofteninthechildwelfaresystemforlongperiodsoftime;
theyareatanincreasedlikelihoodtobefemalecomparedtogeneraldelinquency
populations;andminorities,particularlyAfricanAmericans,appeartobe
overrepresentedincrossoverpopulationsinsomeareas.Mostcrossoveryouthhave
beenplacedoutofthehomeandoftenexperiencenumerousplacementsincluding
multipleplacementsincongregatecare.Theyareoftentruantand/orperforming
poorlyatschool,andoverhalfofcrossoveryouthhavemultiplecontactswithlaw
enforcement.Betweenaquarterandonehalfofcrossoveryoutharealsodetained
priortoadjudication(Herz&Ryan2008b;Halemba,Siegel,Lord,&Zawacki2004;
Kelley,Thornberry,&Smith1997;Saeturn&Swain,2009).Additionally,research
indicatesthatcrossoveryouthareperceivedashigherriskbyjuvenilejustice
decisionmakersandreceiveharsherdispositionsthantheirnon‐crossover
counterparts(Ryan,Herz,Hernandez,&Marshall,2007;Morris&Freundlich,2004;
Conger&Ross,2001).
Increasingly,crossoveryouthresearchpointstothenecessityofmulti‐system
collaborationtocomprehensivelyaddresstherisksandneedsofcrossoveryouth
(Wiig&Tuell,2004;Siegel&Lord,2004;Halemba,2005;AmericanBarAssociation,
2008;Herz&Ryan,2008;andBilchik&Nash,2009;Garland,Hough,Landsverk&
Brown,2001;Maschi,Hatcher,Schwalbe,&Rosato,2008).Sucheffortsrequire,ata
minimum,theuseofcoordinatedcaseassignment,jointassessment,coordinated
caseplans,andcoordinatedcasesupervision.Additionally,jurisdictionsare
challengedtointegratetheuseofbestpracticeandevidence‐basedprogramsas
theyrelatetochildwelfare,juvenilejustice,mentalhealthandsubstanceabuse,and
educationpractices.Withoutsuchintegratedandcomprehensiveefforts,crossover
youthsarelesslikelytoreceivetheappropriateservicesandplacementstheyneed
toimprovetheiroutcomesinboththeshort‐termandlong‐term(Widom&
Maxfield,1996;Widom&Maxfield,2001;Cusick,Goerge,&Bell,2009).
References
(Note:Thislistincludesreferencesforboth
theResearchSummaryandthePracticeModelDocumentoverall.)
Altshuler,D.M.(2008).Rehabilitatingandreintegratingyouthoffenders:Are
residentialandcommunityaftercarecollidingworldsandwhatcanbedoneabout
it?JusticePolicyJournal,5(1),1–26.
Altshuler,D.M.&Armstrong,T.L.(1994).Intensiveaftercareservicesforhighrisk
juveniles:Acommunitycaremodelprogramsummary.Washington,DC:Department
ofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,OfficeofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquency
Prevention.
Altshuler,D.,Stangler,G.,Berkley,K.&Burton,L.(2009).Supportingyouthin
transitiontoadulthood:Lessonslearnedfromchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice.
Washington,DC:CenterforJuvenileJusticeReform.
AmericanBarAssociation.(2008).ABApolicyandreportoncrossoveranddual
jurisdictionyouth.Chicago:AmericanBarAssociationCommissiononYouthatRisk.
Barth,R.P.(2002).Institutionsvs.FosterHomes:TheEmpiricalBaseforaCenturyof
Action.ChapelHill,NC:UNCSchoolofSocialWork,JordanInstituteforFamilies.
Barth,R.P.,Courtney,M.,Berrick,J.D.,&Albert,V.(1994).Pathwaysthroughchildwelfareservices:Fromchildabusetopermanencyplanning.NewYork:AldineDeGruyter.
Berrick,J.D.,Barth,R.P.,&Needell,B.(1994).Acomparisonofkinshipfosterhomes
andfamilyfosterhomes:Implicationsforkinshipcareasfamilypreservation.
ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,16(1/2),33–63.
Brezina,T.(1998)Adolescentmaltreatmentanddelinquency:Thequestionof
interveningprocesses.JournalofResearchinCrimeandDelinquency,35,71–99.
Brock,L.,Burrell,J.,&Tulipano,T.(2006).Familyinvolvement.NDTACIssueBrief.
Washington,DC:NETAC.
Bruns,E.J.,Walker,J.S.,Adams,J.,Miles,P.,Osher,T.,Rast,J.,VanDenBerg,J.&
NationalWraparoundInitiativeAdvisoryGroup.(2004).Tenprinciplesofthe
wraparoundprocess.Portland,OR:NationalWraparoundInitiative,Researchand
TrainingCenteronFamilySupportandChildren’sMentalHealth,PortlandState
University.
Campbell,K.(2005).Lightingthefireofurgency:Familieslostandfoundin
America’schildwelfaresystem.Seattle,WA:CatholicCommunityServicesofWestern
Washington.
Christensen,D.,&AntleB.(2004).EngagingChildWelfareFamilies:ASolution‐
BasedApproachtoChildWelfarePractice.CenterforFamilyResourceDevelopment.
Conger,D.&Ross,T.(2009).AnoutcomeevaluationofProjectConfirm.InT.Ross
(ed.),Childwelfare:Thechallengesofcollaboration(pp.193–212).Washington,DC:
UrbanInstitute.
CongerD.,&Ross,T.(2006).ProjectConfirm:Anoutcomeevaluationofaprogram
forchildreninthechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems.YouthViolenceand
JuvenileJustice,4,97–115.
Conger,D.,&Ross,T.(2001).Reducingthefostercarebiasinjuveniledetention
decisions:Theimpactofprojectconfirm.NewYork,NY:AdministrationforChildren’s
Services,TheVeraInstituteofJustice.
Courtney,M.E.,&Needell,B.(1997).Outcomesofkinshipcare:Lessonsfrom
California.InBarth,R.,Berrick,J.D.,&Gilbert,N.(Eds.),Childwelfareresearch
review–volumetwo(pp.129–159).NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Cusick,G.R.,Goerge,R.M.,&Bell,K.C.(2009).Fromcorrectionstocommunity:The
juvenilereentryexperienceascharacterizedbymultiplesystemsinvolvement.Chicago,
IL:ChapinHallCenterforChildrenatUniversityofChicago.
Drake,E.K.,Aos,S.,&Miller,M.G.(2009).Evidence‐basedpublicpolicyoptionsto
reducecrimeandcriminaljusticecosts:ImplicationsinWashingtonstate.Victims
andOffenders,4,170–196.
Dishion,T.,McCord,J.,&Poulin,F.(1999).WhenInterventionsHarm:PeerGroups
andProblemBehavior.AmericanPsychologist,54,755–764.
FamilyStrengtheningPolicyCenter.(2004).Mentoringasafamilystrengthening
strategy.PolicyBriefNumber4.Washington,DC:NationalHumanServices
Assembly.
FosterFamily‐basedTreatmentAssociation.(2008).Implementingevidencebased
practiceintreatmentfostercare:Aresourceguide.Hackensack,NJ.
Freudlich,M.(2009).AdolescentsintheChildWelfareSystem:Improving
PermanencyandPreparationforAdulthoodOutcomes.In,CW360:Acomprehensive
lookatprevalentchildwelfareissue.CenterforAdvancedStudiesinChildWelfareat
UniversityofMinnesotaSchoolofSocialWork.
Frey,L.(2009).PermanencyorAgingOut?AMatterofChoice.In,CW360:A
comprehensivelookatprevalentchildwelfareissue.CenterforAdvancedStudiesin
ChildWelfareatUniversityofMinnesotaSchoolofSocialWork.
Gagnon,J.C.,&Richards,C.(2008).Makingtherightturn:Aguideaboutimproving
transitionoutcomesofyouthinvolvedinthejuvenilecorrectionssystem.Washington,
DC:NationalCollaborativeonWorkforceandDisabilityforYouth,Institutefor
EducationalLeadership.
Garland,A.F.,Hough,R.L.,Landsverk,J.A.,&Brown,S.A.(2001).Multi‐sector
complexityofsystemsofcareforyouthwithmentalhealthneeds.Children's
Services:SocialPolicy,Research,andPractice,4(3),123–140.
GeorgetownUniversity:CenterforJuvenileJusticeReform&ChapinHallatthe
UniversityofChicago.(2008)RacialandEthnicDisparityandDisproportionalityin
ChildandJuvenileJustice:ACompendium.Washington,DC.
Gordon,L.J.,Tullis,K.,Hanson,A.,&Sowders,S.(Eds.).(2005).Buildingonfamily
strengths:Researchandservicesinsupportoftheirchildrenandtheirfamilies.2004
ConferenceProceedings.Portland,OR:PortlandStateUniversity,Researchand
TrainingCenteronFamilySupportandChildren’sMentalHealth.
Halemba,G.,&Lord,R.(2005).Effectivelyinterveningwithdualjurisdictionyouth
inOhio.In,Children,Families,andtheCourts,OhioBulletin,2,1–28.
Halemba,G.J.,Siegel,G.,Lord,R.D.,&Zawacki,S.(2004,November30).Arizonadual
jurisdictionstudy:Finalreport.Pittsburg,PA:NationalCenterforJuvenileJustice.
Hansen,M.,Litzelman,A.,Marsh,D.T.,&Milspaw,A.(2004).Approachestoserious
emotionaldisturbance:Involvingmultiplesystems.ProfessionalPsychology:
ResearchandPractice,35(5),457–465.
Harris,L.(2006).Makingthejuvenilejusticeworkforcesystemconnectionforre
enteringyoungoffenders:Aguideforlocalpractice.Washington,DC:CenterforLaw
andSocialPolicy.
Herz,D.,Ryan,J.,&Bilchik,S.(2010).Challengesfacingcrossoveryouth:An
examinationofjuvenilejusticeDecision‐MakingandRecidivism.FamilyCourt
Review48,2,305321.
Herz,D.(2009November).Anevaluationofthe241.1MDTpilotprogram.Presented
attheNewBeginningsPartnershipConference,LosAngeles,CA.
Herz,D.C.,&Ryan,J.P.(2008a).Bridgingtwosystems:Youthinvolvedinthechild
welfareandjuvenilejusticesystems.GeorgetownUniversity,CenterforJuvenile
JusticeReform:Washington,DC.
Herz,D.C.,&Ryan,J.P.(2008b).Exploringthecharacteristicsandoutcomesof241.1
youthsinLosAngelescounty.SanFrancisco,CA:CaliforniaCourts,The
AdministrativeOfficeoftheCourts.
Howell,J.C.,Kelly,M.R.,Palmer,J.,&Mangum,R.L.(2004).Integratingchild
welfare,juvenilejustice,andotheragenciesinacontinuumofcare.ChildWelfare,83
(2),143–156.
Huser,M.Cooney,S.,Small,S.,O’Connor,C.&Mather,R.(2009).Evidencebased
programregistries.UniversityofWisconsin–Madison.
Ireland,T.O.,Smith,C.A.,&Thornberry,T.P.(2002).Developmentalissuesinthe
impactofchildmaltreatmentonlaterdelinquencyanddruguse.Criminology,40,
359–399.
Johnson,K.,Ereth,J.,&Wagner,D.(2004).Juveniledelinquencyamongchildren
involvedinachildmaltreatmentinvestigation:Alongitudinalstudy.Madison,WI:
Children’sResearchCenter.
Jonson‐Reid,M.(1998).Youthviolenceandexposuretoviolenceinchildhood:An
ecologicalreview.AggressionandViolentBehavior,3,159–179.
Jonson‐Reid,M.,&Barth,R.P.(2000a).Frommaltreatmentreporttojuvenile
incarceration:Theroleofchildwelfareservices.ChildAbuseandNeglect,24,505–
520.
Jonson‐Reid,M.,&Barth,R.P.(2000b).Fromplacementtoprison:Thepathto
adolescentincarcerationfromchildwelfaresupervisedfosterorgroupcare.
ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,22,493–516.
Jonson‐Reid,M.,&Barth,R.(2003).Probationfostercareasanoutcomeforchildren
exitingchildwelfarefostercare.SocialWork,48,348–361.
Jonson‐Reid,M.(2004).Childwelfareservicesanddelinquency:Theneedtoknow
more.ChildWelfare,83(2),157–174.
Kamradt,B.(2001).WraparoundMilwaukee:Aidingyouthwithmentalhealthneeds.
Washington,DC:OJJDP.
Kapp,S.(2000).Pathwaystoprison:Lifehistoriesofchildwelfareandjuvenile
justicesystemconsumers.JournalofSociologyandSocialWelfare,27(3),63–74.
Kapp,S.,Schwartz,I.,&Epstein,I.(1994).Adultimprisonmentofmalesreleased
fromresidentialchildcarelongitudinalstudy.ResidentialTreatmentforChildrenand
Youth,12(2),19–36.
Kelley,B.T.,Thornberry,T.,&Smith,C.(1997).Inthewakeofchildmaltreatment.
OJJDPJuvenileJusticeBulletin.Washington,DC:OfficeofJuvenileJusticeand
DelinquencyPrevention.
Kotter,J.(1996).LeadingChange.HarvardSchoolBusinessSchoolPress.
Kumpfer,K.L.(1999).StrengtheningAmerica’sfamilies:Exemplaryparentingand
familystrategiesfordelinquencyprevention.Washington,DC:OJJDP.
Leone,P.,Quinn,M.M.,&Osher,D.M.(2002).Collaborationinthejuvenilejustice
systemandyouthservingagencies:Improvingprevention,providingmoreefficient
services,andreducingrecidivismforyouthwithdisabilities.Washington,DC:
AmericanInstitutesforResearch.
Lipsey,M.(1992).Juveniledelinquencytreatment:Ameta‐analyticinquiryintothe
variabilityofeffects.InT.D.Cook,H.Cooper,D.S.Cordray,H.Hartmann,L.V.Hedges,
R.J.Light,T.A.Louis,andF.Mosteller(Eds.),Metaanalysisforexplanation:A
casebook,.NewYork,NY:RussellSageFoundation.
Madsen,B.(1999).CollaborativeTherapyWithMultiStressedFamilies:FromOld
ProblemstoNewFutures.GuilfordPressFamilyTherapySeries.
Mallon,G.(2003).PermanencyToday.NationalResourceCenterforFosterCareand
PermanencyPlanning.
Marsh,J.C.,Ryan,J.P.,Choi,S.,&Testa,M.(2006).Integratedservicesforfamilies
withmultipleproblems:Obstaclestofamilyreunification.ChildrenandYouth
ServicesReview,28,1074–1087.
Morris,L.,&Freundlich,M.(2004).YouthInvolvementintheChildWelfareand
JuvenileJusticeSystems.WashingtonDC:CWLAPress.
McLendon,T.(2009).Bestpracticesforengagingparentsofchildrenreceiving
mentalhealthservices.InPetr,C.G.(Ed.),Multidimensionalevidencebasedpractice:
Synthesizingknowledge,researchandvalues.NewYork:Routledge.
McMackin,R.&Fulwiler,C.(2001).Apublichealth‐juvenilejusticecollaborationto
addressthepsychiatricneedsofincarceratedyouth.InS.Hartwell&R.Schutt
(Eds.),TheOrganizationalResponsetoSocialProblems(pp.335‐358).NewYork,NY;
ElsevierScienceLtd.
Nash,M.&Bilchik,S.(2009).Childwelfareandjuvenilejustice:twosidesofthe
samecoin,PartII.JuvenileandFamilyJusticeToday.
NationalResourceCenterforPermanencyPlanning.(1998).ToolsforPermanency:
ConcurrentPermanencyPlanning.HunterCollege,SchoolofSocialWork,City
UniversityofNewYork.
Neff,M.(2000).Bestpracticesofempowermentorientedpermanencyplanning:
facilitatingchangeandselfdevelopmentinparentsandfamilies:ahandbookfor
caseworkers.NewYork:CouncilofFamilyandChildCaringAgencies.
Osher,T.W.,Osher,D.&Blau,G.M.(2008).Familiesmatters.InT.P.Gullottta&G.M.
Blau(Eds.),Familyinfluencesonchildhoodbehavioranddevelopment:evidencebased
preventionandtreatmentapproaches.
Palmer,T.(1991).Theeffectivenessofintervention:Recenttrendsandcurrent
issues.CrimeandDelinquency,37(3),330–346.
Patterson,K.,Grenny,J.,Maxfield,D.,McMillian,R.,&Switzler,A.(2008).Influencer:
Thepowertochangeanything.NewYork,NY:McGrawHill.
Petro,J.(2006).Increasingcollaborationandcoordinationofthechildwelfareand
juvenilejusticesystemstobetterservedualjurisdictionyouth:Aliteraturereview.
Washington,DC:ChildWelfareLeagueofAmerica,ResearchandEvaluation
Division.
Petro,J.(2007).Juvenilejusticeandchildwelfareagencies:Collaboratingtoserve
dualjurisdictionyouthsurveyreport.Washington,DC:ChildWelfareLeagueof
America,ResearchandEvaluationDivision.
Pullman,M.D.(2009).Participationresearchinsystemsofcareforchildren’smental
health.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,44,43–53.
Pumariega,A.,Atkins,D.L.,Rogers,K.,Montgomery,L.,Nybro,C.,Caesar,R.,&Millus,
D.(1999).MentalhealthandincarceratedyouthII:Serviceutilization.Journalof
ChildandFamilyStudies,8,205‐215.
Ross,T.&Conger,D.(2009).Bridgingchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice:Preventing
theunnecessarydetentionoffosterchildren.InT.Ross(Ed.),Childwelfare:The
challengesofcollaboration(pp.173–192).Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute.
Ryan,J.P.,Herz,D.,Hernandez,P.,&Marshall,J.(2007).Maltreatmentand
delinquency:Investigatingchildwelfarebiasinjuvenilejusticeprocessing.Children
andYouthServicesReview,29,1035–1050.
Ryan,J.,Hong,J.,Herz,D.,&Hernandez,P.(underreview).Kinshipfostercareand
theriskofdelinquency.ChildMaltreatment.
Ryan,J.P.,Marshall,J.M.,Herz,D.,&Hernandez,P.(2008).Juveniledelinquencyin
childwelfare:Investigatinggrouphomeeffects.ChildrenandYouthServicesReview.
Ryan,J.P.,&Testa,M.K.(2005).Childmaltreatmentandjuveniledelinquency:
Investigatingtheroleofplacementandplacementinstability.ChildrenandYouth
ServicesReview,27,227–249.
Ryan,J.P.,Testa,M.F.,andZhai,F.(2008).AfricanAmericanyouthinfostercareand
theriskofdelinquency:Thevalueofsocialbondsandpermanence.ChildWelfare.
Sampson,R.andBean,L.(inpress).Culturalmechanismsandkillingfields:A
revisedtheoryofcommunity‐levelracialinequity.InR.Peterson,L.Krivo,andJ.
Hagan(eds.)TheManyColorsofCrime:InequalitiesofRace,EthnicityandCrimein
America.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.
Schein,E.(1993).OrganizationalCultureandLeadership.InShafritz,J.andSteven
Ott,J.(Eds.)ClassicsofOrganizationTheory.(323‐324)2001.FortWorth:Harcourt
CollegePublishers.
Schwartz,I.,Kapp,S.,&Overstreet,E.(1994).Juvenilejusticeandchildwelfare:
LongitudinalresearchinthestateofMichigan.InWeitekamp,E.,andKerner,H.J.
(Eds.),Crossnationallongitudinalresearchonhumandevelopmentandcriminal
behavior(pp.111–115).Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademic.
Scrivner,K.W.(2002).Thedilemmaoftheabuseddelinquent.FamilyCourtReview,
40,135–149.
Siegel,G.,&Lord,R.(2004).Whensystemcollide:Improvingcourtpracticesand
programsdualjurisdictioncases.TechnicalAssistancetotheJuvenileCourt:Special
ProjectBulletin,NCJJ,Pittsburgh,PA.
Smith,C.A.,Ireland,T.O.,&Thornberry,T.P.(2005).Adolescentmaltreatmentandits
impactonyoungadultantisocialbehavior.ChildAbuseandNeglect,29,1099–1119.
Smith,C.,&Thornberry,T.P.(1995).Therelationshipbetweenchildhood
maltreatmentandadolescentinvolvementindelinquency.Criminology,33,451–
461.
Stoep,A.V.,Williams,M.,Jones,R.,Green,L.,&Trupin,E.(1999).Familiesasfull
researchpartners:What’sinitforus?JournalofBehavioralHealthServicesand
Research,26(3),332–344.
Testa,M.F.(1997).KinshipfostercareinIllinois.InR.Barth,J.D.Berrick,&N.Gilbert
(Eds.),Childwelfareresearchreview:Volumetwo(pp.101–129).NewYork:
ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Testa,M.F.,Shook,K.L.,Cohen,L.,&Woods,M.G.(1996).Permanencyplanning
optionsforchildreninformalkinshipcare.ChildWelfare,75(5),451‐470.
TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation.(1999).Pathwaystojuveniledetentionreform,
volumes1through15.Baltimore,MD:TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation.
Thornberry,T.P.,Ireland,T.O.,&Smith,C.A.(2001).Theimportanceoftiming:The
varyingimpactofchildhoodandadolescentmaltreatmentonmultipleproblem
outcomes.DevelopmentandPsychopathology,13,957–979.
U.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice.(July11,2007).AfricanAmericanChildrenin
FosterCare:HHSAssistanceNeededtoHelpStatesReducetheProportioninCare.
GAO‐07‐816.Washington,D.C.
WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy.(2008).Evidencebasedprogramsto
preventchildrenfromenteringandremaininginthechildwelfaresystem:Benefits
andcostsforWashington.Olympia,WA.
WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy.(2004).Outcomeevaluationof
WashingtonState’sresearchbasedprogramsforjuvenileoffenders.Olympia,WA.
Whitehead,J.T.,&Lab,S.P.(1989).Ameta‐analysisofjuvenilecorrectional
treatment.JournalofResearchinCrimeandDelinquency,26,276–295.
Widom,C.S.(1989).Childabuse,neglect,andviolentcriminalbehavior.Criminology,
27,251–271.
Widom,C.S.,&Maxfield,M.G.(1996).Aprospectiveexaminationofriskforviolence
amongabusedandneglectedchildren.AnnalsofNewYorkAcademyofSciences,224–
237.
Widom,C.S.,&Maxfield,M.G.(2001).Anupdateonthe“cycleofviolence”:Researchin
Brief.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,
NationalInstituteofJustice.
Wiig,J.K,&Tuell,J.A.(2004;revised2008).Guidebookforjuvenilejusticeandchild
welfaresystemintegration:Aframeworkforimprovedoutcomes.Washington,DC:
ChildWelfareLeagueofAmericaPress.
Wiig,J.K.,Widom,C.S.,&Tuell,J.A.(2003).Understandingchildmaltreatmentand
juveniledelinquency:Fromresearchtoeffectiveprogram,practice,andsystemic
solutions.Washington,DC:ChildWelfareofAmericaPress.
Wulczyn,F.,&Goerge,R.M.(1994).FostercareinNewYorkandIllinois:The
challengeofrapidchange.SocialServicesReview,66,278–294.
Wulczyn,F.,Hislop,K.,&Goerge,R.(2000).FosterCareDynamics1983–1998.
Chicago:ChapinHallCenterforChildren.
Yu,E.,Day,P.,&Williams,M.(2002a).Improvingeducationaloutcomesforyouthin
care.SymposiumSummaryReport.Washington,DC:ChildWelfareLeagueof
America.
Zimmerman,C.R.,Hendrix,G.,Moeser,J.,&Roush,D.W.(2004).Desktopguideto
reentryforjuvenileconfinementfacilities.EastLansing,MI:NationalPartnershipfor
JuvenileServices.
Zingraff,M.,Leiter,J.,Myers,K.,&Johnsen,M.(1993).Childmaltreatmentand
youthfulproblembehavior.Criminology,31,173–202.
Related Documents
