A critical component of the criminal justice system that influences families is the juvenile justice system. In the U.S., the approach to responding to youth who have engaged in criminal activity has changed over time. One major change was establishing policies that treated adults differently to juveniles under the age of 18. We have moved from a belief that punishment for crimes committed as a youth should include a detention sentence and separation from the family to the belief that youth and their family should be kept together, if possible. In an attempt to reduce future criminal activity, services are provided to the entire family. These changes are evolving, but are clearly seen in most states in the form of diversionary services provided to youth who commit low-level crimes.

Another important implication is that the family context and developmental histories of youth are considered. This requires knowledge of other services and systems involved. There is growing recognition that some of the youth are involved with both child welfare and juvenile justice systems. These two systems mostly work independently of each other. As such, they focus on specific needs that directly relate to their specific focus. Collaboration between systems, which could result in greater coordination of services to better address the needs of children and families, rarely occurs. Mechanisms for routine data sharing between systems are seldom in place. One reason for this disconnect is confidentiality. When case files are shared across systems a breach of confidentiality could be risked or bias another system's perceptions of the family which in turn could jeopardize the family's efforts to obtain services. Families and youth often receive fragmented services. The family may receive the same service in multiple places at different times or may not receive a service due to lack of access.

Defining Crossover Youth

Increasingly, there is an emphasis on cross-system collaboration efforts to better serve targeted youth and minimize duplication of services. Youth known to both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems could benefit from collaboration. This group has been identified as crossover youth or dually involved youth because they have been served by both systems. Having experienced both maltreatment and delinquency, these young people cross from one system to another. This definition does not specify the initial system, whether system involvement is concurrent or periodic. It does not specify details about the level of involvement of each system.

There are four general paths that can lead to crossing-over between systems. First, a youth may experience maltreatment resulting in child welfare involvement; at some point after the child welfare case closes, the youth engages in behavior that comes to the attention of the juvenile justice system. Alternatively, for some youths, maltreatment comes to the knowledge of the child welfare system and while the case is still open, the youth becomes involved in the juvenile justice system. Third, a youth may be experiencing maltreatment that goes undetected until the youth becomes involved in the juvenile justice system, and upon further investigation a referral is made to the child welfare system. Finally, a youth may have no past child welfare involvement but is arrested and sent to a correctional facility. When the youth is released from the correctional facility, the youth's family is unwilling to have the youth return home. At that point, the youth would enter the child welfare system.

Review of the Research Understanding this Population

It has long been recognized that those who experience maltreatment are at higher risk for engaging in delinquent behavior. Research suggests that those who experience prolonged, repeated occurrences of abuse seem to be at greatest risk for delinquency. Those who experience maltreatment in adolescence, or late-onset maltreatment, also tend to be at higher risk for delinquency. Whether child welfare involvement includes out-of-home care seems to matter as well. Research has found that those who experience multiple placements are at greater risk for being involved in delinquency. Most of this research, however, is based on retrospective studies. A few districts have initiatives to examine crossover youth. We highlight three of these studies.

In 2011, King County in Washington State produced a report that provided an overview of the crossover youth population in their jurisdiction. Females and African Americans were overrepresented when compared to the general juvenile justice population, particularly for those with more extensive child welfare involvement. Crossover youth were more likely to be repeat offenders, were younger at the age of first offense, and were more likely to be arrested for violent offenses. Finally, 42% of youth experienced an average of 12 placements while under the care of the child welfare system.

In their 2008 report, Los Angeles County in California undertook an initiative to understand the crossover youth population in their area. They looked at a three-year period and compared this group to other youth involved in the juvenile justice system. The characteristics of this population were similar with those in Kings County. Crossover youth were younger at first offense, had higher rates of repeat offenses, and were more likely to commit a violent crime.

Connecticut has been the latest state to undertake an assessment of crossover youth. The child welfare agency, juvenile justice system, and the Office of Policy and Management came together around a joint desire to better understand and address the needs of crossover youth in Connecticut. The initial step used a panel approach to examine the current population of crossover youth born between 1996 and 2002. The sample was about 40% female, similar to the composition in King County. Ninety percent began in the child welfare system and the remainder began in the juvenile justice system from where they crossed over to the child welfare system. Approximately 63% of the sample were repeat offenders, and were more likely to be male, African American, and victims of physical abuse. They were younger at the age of first substantiated maltreatment and more likely to have experienced at least one out-of-home placement. Those placed in out-of-home care at any point committed their first offense at a younger age.

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform's Practice Model

As the evidence base grows, meeting the needs of these young people in an optimal manner needs to be addressed. The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University (CJJR.georgetown.edu) has created a practice model that states can use as a conceptual map to implement the systems-level changes required to appropriately address the needs of these families. The goals are to tailor services to the specific needs of those being served by both systems and, in the long-term, to reduce the number of crossover youth. The model focuses on the day-to-day case load of the child welfare and juvenile justice case managers and how they address the needs of the children and families they are assigned. The practice model includes five practice areas: (1) Arrest, identification, and detention; (2) decision-making regarding charges; (3) case assignment, assessment, and planning; (4) coordinated case supervision and ongoing assessment; (5) planning for youth permanency, transition, and case closure, which are implemented across three phases.
The uniqueness of this model is that it requires collaboration across systems from the very point at which youth cross over. This requires a proactive approach to identifying these youth. This model also uses a strength-based perspective, requiring that the systems uncover and capitalize on the strengths in the family system to prevent future negative outcomes. There are three other key components of this model. It views the voice of the family and family engagement as paramount. It requires continuous data sharing between the two systems, and it requires collaborative case planning. The model emphasizes the fair and equal treatment of all youth as they interact in these two systems. Some states are now beginning to engage in this change process, and future evaluations will provide further evidence concerning the outcomes in addressing these needs.

Family Policy Implications

Implementing the practice model and changing the way the child welfare and juvenile justice system address family needs and preventing crossing-over has clear implications for family policy. Currently, there are separate policies that guide the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. The result is a fragmented service-delivery system. Moving toward a system that puts families at the center and requires collaboration across all systems in which the family is involved will require a key paradigm and policy shift. As CJJR notes, these two youth-serving systems will have to create parallel and complimentary missions that create an environment for data sharing and streamlined service provision. It also requires that families are not penalized or judged for their past involvement or incidents. The practice model described supports this policy change.
Although this is a national issue, it is important to consider the context of a particular state. The relationship between the child welfare system and juvenile justice system varies from state to state. It is important to identify and recognize the current organizational structure and system of relationships that foster an organizational culture that is family-focused, strengths-based, and collaborative.