Addressing the Needs of Multi- System Youth: Strengthening the connections between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice. DOUGLAS COUNTY CROSSOVER YOUTH PRACTICE MODEL 1

 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. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY; 2

 Douglas County is part of the first cohort along with Broomfield, Larimer, and Morgan Counties, which began in August  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. HISTORY OF CROSSOVER YOUTH PRACTICE MODEL IN DOUGLAS COUNTY 3

 Reduce the number of youth placed in out-of- home care,  Reduce the use of congregate care,  Reduce the disproportionate representation of children of color, and  Reduce the number of youth being dually adjudicated. GOALS OF THE PRACTICE MODEL 4

 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. ADDITIONAL GOALS 5

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. ACTION STEPS TO ACHIEVE GOALS 6

 Dr. Drew Sylvester, MD  Dr. Sylvester is the Medical Director at Arapahoe/Douglas Mental Health Network. GUEST SPEAKER 7

 Since October 2012, we have held 90 Family and Child Engagement Support (FACES) meetings over the past 9 months. WHO DID WE SERVE? 8

WHERE ARE REFERRALS COMING FROM? 9

JUVENILE RISK SCORES 10

WHAT BROUGHT THEM? 11

WHAT TREATMENTS WERE RECOMMENDED? 12

 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 WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES? 13

 The purpose of using a QIT is to ensure that services are implemented and gaps are identified.  QIT Tool/case management/satisfaction- helps 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. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TOOL (QIT) 14

AgreeNeutralDisagreeI Don’t Know 1. We understood the purpose of the FACES meeting. DYC – We Understood the purposes of the meeting 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 Our ideas and opinions were respected in the process and we were able to participate 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 We had a clear understanding of the plan at the end of the meeting Our family’s values, beliefs, and traditions were understood and respected during the process We felt the meeting was efficient and productive Can we contact you again for future follow-up?321 0 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TOOL (QIT) Family Satisfaction We have had a 78% response rate Of those who responded the average satisfaction was 92%

 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. LESSONS LEARNED 16

 Magistrate Beth A. Elliott-Dumler  18 th Judicial District Juvenile Magistrate  Sarah Ericson  18 th JD Juvenile District Attorney’s Office GUEST SPEAKER 17

 Evaluation with CSU/Marc Winokur  July 1 st, 2013  Long term outcomes  Stakeholders Presentation summer of 2014 THINGS TO COME 18

 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. BREAKOUT GROUPS 19

 Laurie Elliott, LCSW  Child & Family Clinical Director at Arapahoe/Douglas Mental Health Network GUEST SPEAKER 20

QUESTIONS? 21

 WORKS CITED 22