Transcript Promising Practices In Reducing Juvenile Justice Contact

Promising Practices
In Reducing
Juvenile Justice Contact
Alan O’Malley-Laursen, MSW, LICSW
Program Manager
Adolescent Behavioral Health Unit
Olmsted County Community Services
[email protected]
Promising Practices
In Reducing Juvenile Justice Contact
I. What is “Mental Health”
II. Mental Health Screening
III. Crossover Youth Practice Model
IV. Trauma Informed Practices
Mental Health
DSM V – 22 Classification Categories
 approx. 490 different diagnoses
 Range from psychotic disorders to mood disorders to stress
related disorders to behavioral and substance related disorders
Critical NOT to lump all “mental health” concerns into one
conceptual category
 For example: The implications of childhood schizophrenia and those of
oppositional defiant disorder on juvenile justice involvement are vastly different
 In terms of correlation/“causation”
 In terms of intervention


Modifying risk and protective factors
Responsiveness to intervention – complicating factors
Mental Health Screening
2003 Legislature enacted statewide mental
health screening for certain child welfare and
juvenile justice populations
• Early intervention is cost effective
• Untreated mental health problems get worse over time
• Not addressing causes increasing and additional complications for
families, schools, and communities
Mental Health Screening
Screening
Assessment
Services
Mental Health Screening
Key to Effective Screening
Get the information in the hands of
someone who can do something with it
Parent
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Definition of “Crossover Youth”:
…youth who are simultaneously receiving
services…from both the Child Welfare and
Juvenile Justice systems.
- **Crossover Youth Practice Model
Casey Family Programs and Center for Juvenile Justice Reform [Georgetown University]
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Shortcoming of “Definition”
Defines the youth by the nature of their
involvement in the system……
Rather than by their emotional, social and
behavioral dynamics, developmental history,
family patterns and structure
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Child Welfare “vs” Juvenile Justice Youth
Research:
– High overlap in the risk and protective factors of
youth in either system
– Addressing these factors in either system will
impact outcomes in the other
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Risk Factor Overlap
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Essence of CYPM:
• Prevent/avoid unnecessary
involvement of youth in the juvenile
justice system
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Principles of CYPM:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Early identification of risks and needs
Integration and collaboration between C.W. and J.J.
Joint/consolidated court processes
Shared funding
Joint/shared case planning
Use of evidenced based practices
Reduced use of group/residential care
Relative/kinship care
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Historical Perspective:
– Wasn’t until 1899 that there was separation of
juvenile and adult offenders – Illinois being the
first
– By 1925, all but two states had established
juvenile courts
American Bar Association Division for Public Education, Dialogue on Youth and Justice . 2012
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Historical Perspective:
– Original goal of juvenile justice system:
 Rehabilitation vs. Punishment
 Civil vs. Criminal
 Consideration of child/adolescent development
American Bar Association Division for Public Education, Dialogue on Youth and Justice . 2012
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Historical Perspective:
• “The child who must be brought into court should,
of course, be made to know that he is face to face
with the power of the state, but he should at the
same time, and more emphatically, be made to
feel that he is the object of its care and solicitude
[attentive care and protectiveness].”
Julian Mack, “The Juvenile Court,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 23 (1909)
American Bar Association Division for Public Education, Dialogue on Youth and Justice . 2012
Crossover Youth Practice Model
Historical Perspective:
– 1980’s – “get tough on crime”
 Increase in punitive laws across the country
 Dispositions based more on the crime than on individual
needs
 Juvenile courts look more and more like adult courts
American Bar Association Division for Public Education, Dialogue on Youth and Justice . 2012
Trauma Informed Practices
“Trauma Informed”:
Recognizing and responding to the impact of
traumatic stress on youth, caregivers, and service
providers
– Physical/biological and psychological effect on
• Behavior
• Social relations
• Emotions
Trauma Informed Practices
Significant National and State Effort
 National Child Traumatic Stress Network – San Diego
 DHS/Ambit Network initiative
 Training multiple clinicians across the state
 Trauma-Informed Child Welfare Services
 Multiple sites across the country
o Including S.E. Minnesota
 Improved screening/assessment/services
 Safety-Well Being-Permanency
 Growing emphasis on “Well Being”
o “Safety” is essential, but not sufficient
Trauma Informed Practices
Goals:
– Maximize physical and psychological safety
– Identify trauma related needs
– Enhance youth well being and resilience
– Enhance family well being and resilience
Trauma Informed Practices
Screening
Assessment
Services
Trauma Informed Practices
Evidenced Based Best Practices
 TF-CBT [Trauma Informed Cognitive Behavior Therapy]
 EMDR [Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing]
 Child-Parent Psychotherapy [CPP]
• TGCT-A [Trauma and Grief Component Therapy for
Adolescents]/TARGET-A [Trauma Affect Regulation: Guidelines
for Education and Therapy for Adolescents
Trauma Informed Practices
“Trauma”
aka
“Adverse Childhood Experiences” [ACE]
Thank You!!!