Issue Brief

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Traversing Two Systems: An Assessment of

Crossover Youth in Maryland Author(s): Douglas Young, Alex Bowley, Jeanne Bilanin,

Amy Ho Document No.: 248679 Date Received: March 2015 Award Number: 2010-JB-FX-0006 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally funded grant report available electronically.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Traversing Two Systems:

An Assessment of Crossover Youth in Maryland

Final Technical Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice

Douglas Young, Alex Bowley, Jeanne Bilanin, and Amy Ho

Institute for Governmental Service and Research

University of Maryland, College Park

This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-JB-FX-0006 awarded by the National Institute of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the

authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.

August 2014

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to several people who made essential contributions to this work over the course of the

project. Gerald Loiacono of the Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was invaluable in

providing assistance with court data, as were information system staff in several Maryland court

jurisdictions and the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS). Linda Koban, formerly of the

AOC, imparted her insights on many of the local issues and programs affecting crossover youth and

helped edit early draft sections of this report. Critical support came from AOC administrators Connie

Kratovil-Lavelle and Diane Pawlowicz, and Dave Crumpton and Jamie Walter lent their guidance early in

the project. Thanks to Sarah Kaplan of the AOC and Patricia Fanflik and John Irvine of DJS for their

thoughtful reviews of a draft of the report. This research was initially conceived by Christina Yancey,

formerly of IGSR, and Sara Betsinger managed the project in its early stages. Others from IGSR making

important contributions included Robin Parker Cox, Mischelle Van Brakle, Benjamin Falls, and Toni

Jennings. Our gratitude also goes to Eric Martin and Marilyn Moses of the National Institute of Justice for

their enthusiastic support of this work, to the NIJ peer reviewers for their astute input, and to the many

administrators and staff of Maryland’s child welfare and juvenile justice communities for the time and

effort they took in educating us about crossover youth.

Author Contact Information

Douglas Young

301-405-3297

[email protected]

Jeanne Bilanin

301-405-2178

[email protected]

Amy Ho

[email protected]

all at:

Institute for Governmental Service and Research

University of Maryland, College Park

4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 208

College Park, Maryland 20742-3225

fax: 301-314-9258

Alex Bowley

Baltimore City Mayor's Office of Human Services

7 E. Redwood St.

Baltimore, MD 21202

office: 410-396-1915

fax: 410-539-1091

[email protected]

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................i

Glossary .................................................................................................................ii

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................iii

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................1

2. Review of Crossover Youth Literature ..............................................................5

Prevalence of Crossover Youth .............................................................................. 5

Characteristics of Crossover Youth ........................................................................ 6

Risk Factors ................................................................................................................. 7

Best Practices ............................................................................................................. 9

3. Crossover Youth in Maryland: Traversing Two Systems .................................21

Maryland Law and Courts ....................................................................................... 21

Maryland Child Welfare System ............................................................................. 22

Maryland Juvenile Justice System .......................................................................... 23

Identifying Dual System Youth ................................................................................ 24

Dual System Youth Initiatives: State Efforts ............................................................ 25

Dual Jurisdiction Youth Initiatives: Judicial Efforts ................................................ 28

Dual Jurisdiction Youth Initiatives: Local Initiatives .............................................. 29

4. Survey of Stakeholders .....................................................................................31

Survey Methods and Sample .................................................................................. 31

Survey Results ............................................................................................................. 33

5. Crossover Youth in the Context of Two Systems:

Comparisons of Crossover and Single System Youth ....................................49

Method and Sample ................................................................................................ 49

Data Sources .............................................................................................................. 52

Numbers of Crossover Youth ................................................................................... 55

Delinquency-Based Results ..................................................................................... 57

CINA-Based Results ................................................................................................... 67

6. Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................73

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................. 73

Synthesis of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations ............................. 80

References .............................................................................................................83

Appendices ...........................................................................................................89

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

i

Abstract Awareness about the vulnerabilities of children who are involved in both the juvenile justice and

child welfare systems has grown exponentially over the past decade. The emergent challenge with helping

crossover youth – those involved at some point in their lives in the dependency and delinquency systems

– is not due to a lack of available guidance about what should be done for them. Rather, the challenges for

addressing crossover youth include properly identifying them and their needs, and implementing

evidence-based practices tailored to those needs. The present study was designed to begin to build a

knowledge base to address these challenges in Maryland. Employing a mix of qualitative and quantitative

methods, the research focused on the five most populous jurisdictions in the state, Baltimore City, and

Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Baltimore Counties.

Based on interviews with 26 officials in state and local agencies and survey responses from a

representative sample of 164 stakeholders working with crossover youth, our review of state and local

practices suggests a picture with preliminary signs of progress against a backdrop of general inattention to

this population. Several state-led initiatives are promising in that they incorporate practices encouraged in

the crossover youth practice literature, although none focus specifically on this group. Interview and

survey results revealed some local efforts involving information sharing, collaborative case reviews, and

joint attendance at court hearings on dual-system cases. About 60 percent of survey respondents reported

using routines for identifying dual-system youth, providing cross-system notifications on proceedings,

and holding family and multi-disciplinary team meetings for these cases. However, there was little use of

formal, structured efforts, such as collaborative funding agreements, joint attendance at all hearings, or

consolidated case planning or supervision. Survey results showed stakeholders were well aware of

crossover youths’ risks and needs and the challenges of working with these youth. Organizational

expertise on crossover youth, and attention and resources paid to this population were given low ratings.

Consistent with prior studies, quantitative analyses comparing samples of crossover youth

(N=526) and delinquency-only youth (N=601) showed crossover youth were engaged in the juvenile

justice system in deeper and more chronic ways, with their first arrest at an earlier age and having more

arrests and referrals. Detention, placement, and commitment outcomes for crossover youth were

particularly frequent, outsizing observed differences with delinquency-only youth on charges, filings, and

adjudication hearings and suggesting that crossover youth face more harsh responses in the juvenile

justice system. Compared with the delinquency-only group, crossover youth had less favorable results on

risk, need, and protective measures on school attendance and performance, peer and adult relationships,

and attitudes reflecting empathy, remorse, and self-control. The groups’ most stark differences were on

objective indicators of mental health needs. Analyses of Baltimore City crossover youth (N=200) and a

dependency-only sample (N=200) showed the crossover group to have somewhat different and more

persistent family problems, more placements, and longer length of placement.

These findings, together with the interview and survey results suggest a consensus need for more

focused efforts on crossover youth in Maryland. Several practices already in use – the one judge/one

family court model, case identification, family and multi-disciplinary meetings, information sharing,

collaborative case reviews, joint hearing attendance – should be expanded, routinized, and sustained.

Results from the risk and needs analyses underscore the importance of responding to the mental health

treatment needs of crossover youth in the state. These Maryland findings reinforce and extend those

reported in prior research, providing detailed information on needs and protective factors and risk factors

related to maltreatment. More generally, the results should heighten the urgency of increasing attention to

this population.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

ii

Glossary

CASA: Court Appointed Special Advocate; trained and supervised volunteers appointed by the

juvenile court to advocate in the best interests of children who are in out-of-home placements

CINA: Child in Need of Assistance; child found by the juvenile court to require intervention by the

court due to abuse or neglect and whose parent, guardian, or custodian are unable or unwilling to

provide proper care and attention to the child

DHR: Maryland Department of Human Resources; state executive agency responsible for oversight

of the child welfare system including protection, permanency, placement, and support services

for CINA youth

DJS: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services; state executive agency responsible for providing

intake, detention, probation, commitment, and aftercare services for youth charged with

delinquency and status offenses

LDSS: Local Departments of Social Services; county or city agencies responsible for child abuse and

neglect investigations and all local child welfare system operations under DHR oversight

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

iii

Executive Summary __________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Awareness about the vulnerabilities of children who are involved in both the juvenile justice and

child welfare systems has grown exponentially over the past decade. Both practitioners and researchers

have long known that youth who become dependents of the state due to maltreatment are at risk of

problems in numerous life areas, including school, peer and adult relationships, mental health, and

substance abuse (Jonson-Reid, Kohl & Drake, 2012; Kim & Cicchetti, 2010). They are also more likely to

become involved in the delinquency system (Chiu, Ryan, & Herz, 2011; Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000a;

Smith & Thornberry, 1995). More recent studies give further depth to our concern about these youth,

suggesting that the state’s intervention in their lives may contribute to future antisocial behaviors. Youth

placed in foster care are approximately twice as likely to commit crimes compared to children who

receive home-based services (English, Widom, & Brandford, 2000; Ryan & Testa, 2005).

Not only are abused or neglected youth at a greater risk for engagement with the delinquency

system, there are apparent system biases which account for disproportionately poor outcomes for

dependency youth, as well. Studies have indicated that the juvenile justice system may be biased against

youth with child welfare histories as their dispositional outcomes were found to be harsher than youth

without history in the dependency system (Ryan, Herz, Hernandez, & Marshall, 2007). Youth with a filed

report of abuse have been linked to higher rates of juvenile incarceration when compared to youth with no

history of abuse (Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000a). Evidence of cross-system bias for those who enter the

dependency system has also been reported, as those placed in group homes are more likely to show prior

juvenile justice involvement than those placed in traditional or specialized foster care settings (Ryan,

Marshall, Herz, & Hernandez, 2008).

The emergent challenge with helping crossover youth – those involved at some point in their lives

in the dependency and delinquency systems – is not due to a lack of available guidance about what should

be done for them. There is a growing consensus on policies and practices that are effective with this

population (ABA, 2008; Herz, Lee, Lutz, Stewart, Tuell, & Wiig, 2012). Rather, the challenges for

addressing crossover youth include properly identifying them and their needs, and implementing and

sustaining evidence-based policies and practices tailored to those needs.

Study Purpose and Research Questions. The present study was designed to begin to build a

knowledge base to address these challenges in Maryland. Policy and practice initiatives directed at

crossover youth in the state are in an early stage of development, and there have been no prior studies that

have focused on these youth. The goal of the research reported here, conducted by the University of

Maryland Institute for Governmental Service and Research (IGSR), was to gather and report information

on the crossover population and the current state of support for these youth to spur and advise policy and

practice improvements. The research sought to answer several basic questions about youth who are

involved in the state’s dependency and delinquency systems:

• What are the characteristics of crossover youth in the state? How are they the same or different

from other youth that are involved in the state’s dependency and delinquency systems?

• What are the service needs of crossover youth?

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

iv

• What efforts have been made by Maryland child-serving agencies and the juvenile court to

respond to crossover youth?

• To what extent do local practices comport with those identified as evidence-based in the

crossover literature? What are the barriers to effectively managing and serving crossover youth?

Although the investigation was limited to Maryland, by comparing and contrasting study results with

those reported in the current literature, a secondary aim of the research was to contribute to the wider

knowledge base on this population and advance effective system responses to crossover youth.

A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods were employed to address the research questions.

Specified below, these included document review, interviews and a survey of key stakeholders, and

targeted analyses of court and delinquency system data. Due to limited resources, the study focused on the

five most populous jurisdictions in the state, Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince

George’s, and Baltimore Counties. Following prevailing nomenclature, the term crossover youth is used

throughout to refer broadly to youth who have at some point in their lives been formally referred to the

dependency system due to suspected maltreatment and referred to the juvenile justice system for

suspected delinquency. Where applicable, the phrase “dual system” or “dually involved” youth is used,

referring to juveniles who are concurrently committed to the dependency and delinquency systems.

Study Results

State and Local Policies and Practices Relating to Crossover Youth. Information on policies and

practices affecting crossover youth in Maryland was obtained through document review and interviews

with 26 officials in state and local agencies. The Maryland Department of Human Resources (DHR) is

responsible for child welfare programs and services, and local county-based Departments of Social

Services (LDSS) deliver these programs and services. The term CINA – a Child in Need of Assistance –

is used to refer to youth who are placed under the protection of the juvenile court and are in need of court-

ordered services due to abuse or neglect. The Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) has

extensive responsibilities extending from intake to the delinquency system, through detention, probation,

commitment, and aftercare supervision.

Our review of state and local system processes and practices was more descriptive than evaluative.

Any assessment of the actual implementation and effectiveness of programs and initiatives relevant to

crossover youth in Maryland was beyond the scope of the study. Weighed against the consensus best

practice literature, the descriptions and anecdotal accounts gathered in the research present a picture with

preliminary signs of progress against a backdrop of general inattention to this population.

A number of recent DHR and DJS programs, although not targeted at crossover youth in particular,

have potential positive benefits for this group. Place Matters, initiated statewide by DHR in 2007, is

designed to reduce reliance on out-of-home care and increase reunification. Another DHR program,

Ready by 21, encompasses a set of strategies to ensure that youth are ready for adulthood. A standardized

assessment tool, the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths instrument has been used since 2011 for

youth in out-of-home placements and is designed to assess youth functioning in major life domains,

strengths, emotional and behavioral needs, and risk behaviors, as well as assess caregiver strengths and

needs. The Under-13 Initiative, a collaborative project between DJS, LDSS and local school systems,

targets offenders aged 12 and younger with the intent of halting their deeper involvement in the juvenile

justice system. Maryland is also participating in the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, a national

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

v

program coordinated by the Annie E. Casey Foundation to eliminate inappropriate and unnecessary

detention, and reduce no-shows at court hearings and racial and ethnic disparities in case processing. DJS’

Violence Prevention Initiative identifies youth at risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of violent

crime. The program is characterized by intensive supervision, enhanced service delivery, and immediate

and appropriate sanctions for noncompliance with supervision.

Several state-led initiatives are promising in that they incorporate practices encouraged in the

crossover youth literature, but none focus specifically on these youth. The state’s Interagency Strategic

Plan emphasizes family and youth involvement in decision making, individualized, family-centered

service delivery, and community-based services. A mandated component of the model, the Family

Involvement Meeting, was described in interviews as often serving to inform caseworkers from multiple

agencies about a dual system case, and to spur joint case planning. The state’s network of evidence-based

programs such as Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), High Fidelity Wraparound, and

Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) also represent best practice efforts, as does widespread mandated use of

validated strength-based needs assessments in placement settings.

Similar to these state-initiated practices, Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) play a

unique independent role in supporting youth involved in the dependency system; however, with no

explicit focus on crossover youth, their actual impact on the population is unclear. Trained and supervised

volunteers, CASAs have wide access to psychosocial assessments and child welfare records, and through

observations and meetings with the child, parents, and other caretakers, CASAs can be well-informed,

effective advocates in court. Nonetheless, the information flow to CASAs on youths’ delinquency

processing is limited, and CASAs’ overall impact on dual system youth appears bounded by their

voluntary status and uncertain capacity for case coverage.

There are no state or local-level systems in place in Maryland that are used routinely to notify

persons in either the dependency or delinquency system when an active case in one system becomes

involved in the other. Created by DHR in 2010, the web-based Child Safety Net Dashboard does provide

LDSS and DJS staff access to identifying information about youth who have active cases in either system.

State policies provide that the Dashboard be consulted at intake in either system, and in the case of DJS,

also when youth are assigned to probation or aftercare. Based on the interview data, feedback on the

Dashboard and its utility in identifying dual system youth is mixed, and its use varies by county. Other

mechanisms in place that can be used for these purposes include the statewide DJS information system,

and court databases in Montgomery County and Baltimore City, but these are not in routine use to target

these youth.

Again mirroring this pattern, model court approaches that appear beneficial for crossover youth are

in place in several jurisdictions in the state, but there are no dockets specifically dedicated to this

population. The one judge/one family model has been employed since 2007 in Baltimore City and is

under development in Prince George’s County. In the Baltimore Juvenile Court, a child or family is

assigned to appear exclusively before one judicial master who conducts both CINA and delinquency

hearings. The master can utilize the experience gained with the child and with caseworkers that have been

active with the case in one system to order integrated care when crossover occurs.

In early stages of implementation, local case management efforts that target dual system youth were

reported in some places. In Montgomery County, LDSS and DJS managers have established collaborative

procedures where staff from each agency meet bi-weekly to review co-committed cases. Caseworkers

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

vi

from both agencies have increased joint attendance at court hearings and they report stepped up efforts to

share information on these cases; plans for cost-sharing and training on dual-system youth were also

noted. Specific procedures to increase information sharing on active co-involved cases were also reported

in Baltimore City. Disputes over which agency assumes the lead in crossover cases were revealed in

interviews with some localities, indicating that policies and procedures need to be developed or refined.

Stakeholder Survey. The survey was targeted to persons in a variety of settings and agencies that

are involved in policy and practice related to crossover youth in Maryland. Identified with the assistance

of agency directors, a wide net was cast in sending out the web-based survey; about one in three returned

it. The final sample of 164 (120 of which returned a complete or nearly completed form) appeared diverse

and generally representative with regard to agency, position, and location.

Concerning consensus “best practices,” the most commonly reported ones involved efforts to

serve and identify crossover youth, and to inform staff about them across systems. About 60 percent

reported employing routine procedures for notifying and updating DJS and LDSS workers on court

proceedings. Similar proportions reported holding family and multi-disciplinary team meetings for

crossover cases, and that the local court used the one judge/one family model. The use of more formal

cross-system efforts – endorsed most strongly in the current literature – was reported by less than one-

third of the respondents. Included here were collaborative funding agreements, joint attendance of LDSS

and DJS caseworkers at all hearings, coordinated case supervision, joint or consolidated case plans, and

using dedicated court dockets for crossover youth. Ratings on the effectiveness of local practices for

crossover youth averaged below 2 on a simple scale of 1 (low) to 3 (highly effective).

On scales addressing knowledge about and attention to crossover youth, the two scales with the

highest scores were “awareness of crossover youths’ risks and needs” and “knowledge about the issues

and challenges in working with” these youth. Six of the eight scales had low average scores, with the two

lowest being “attention and resources given to crossover youth” and “knowledge about best practices” for

crossover youth. Organizational expertise in working with these youth also received low ratings, with all

seven organizations judged as having moderate to low/no expertise by over 60 percent of those surveyed.

With similar ratings, LDSS, DJS, the Juvenile Court, and public defenders were judged as moderate to

low/none on these items by three in four respondents (DHR, State’s Attorney’s Offices, schools, and

police were given even lower ratings). Scores on collaboration questions averaged higher scores, with the

Juvenile Court given the most points; DSS and DJS had the same average score. Lowest of all the specific

interagency collaboration ratings were given to LDSS-DJS.

More than 90 percent of respondents rated three factors as “major” or “somewhat” of a barrier in

working with crossover youth: lack of cross-training, “conflict among parties involved in crossover

cases,” and “LDSS and DJS have different innate philosphies in managing youth.” Indicative of the

challenges of working with this population, all 12 factors listed in this part of the survey was rated as at

least somewhat of a barrier by 40 percent or more of the respondents.

Quantitative Methods and Size of the Crossover Population. The absence of comprehensive cross-

system information sharing also poses challenges to conducting research on crossover youth in Maryland.

To address study questions about their numbers, needs, and risk factors for delinquency, multiple data

systems maintained for varied purposes were accessed. The primary analysis was designed to place

crossover youth in the context of the delinquency system and compared samples of (1a) youth who had

delinquency petitions filed in one of the five study jurisdictions between July 2009 and June 2011; and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

vii

(1b) a subset of these youth who also had CINA petitions filed at any time in the past. The final analytic

sample included 526 crossover youth and 601 delinquency-only youth. Comparisons examined court and

delinquency record information, and results of risk screens conducted at DJS intake and an extensive

needs assessment done at adjudication which includes scores on static and dynamic needs and protective

factors in several domains.

A second analysis was framed from the perspective of the dependency system and due to project

resource constraints was confined to Baltimore City. Analytic samples focused on youth (2a) born

between July 1991 and June 1994 who had a CINA petition filed in the City between 2003 and June

2011; and (2b) a subset of these youth who also were arrested and referred for intake to the juvenile

justice system through June 2011. Data on CINA proceedings and case histories were drawn from the

court-based information system. Data collection and analyses of CINA results involved 400 youth, 200 in

each of crossover and CINA-only groups.

Results concerning the size of the crossover youth population in the state were substantially

limited by the available data, which precluded calculation of accurate prevalence estimates. In the

delinquency-based analysis, the percentage of crossover youth among juveniles with delinquency

petitions varied from 1.4 percent to 8.2 percent across the five jurisdictions, with the crossover proportion

in Baltimore City two to five and one-half times greater than that found in the other counties. Much

different and higher figures were found when CINA-petitioned cases comprised the base. At 43 percent,

Baltimore County’s percentage approached three times that found for Baltimore City and Anne Arundel

County (both around 15%). A number of reasons could explain the different findings, including the more

inclusive delinquency criterion used in the CINA-based analysis.

Most notably, the findings together suggest that the relatively large proportion of crossover youth

from Baltimore City in the delinquency population is due to the inordinately large numbers of CINA

youth in the City compared to the counties, and not due to Baltimore City CINA youth being at greater

risk for delinquency. Youth from the City who have a CINA filing are no more likely to also show

delinquency involvement than CINA-petitioned youth in Anne Arundel, and youth from both jurisdictions

appear much less likely to show dual involvement than CINA youth in Baltimore County.

Comparisons of Crossover and Single System Youth. As in most states, youth of color are

disproportionately represented in both the delinquency and dependency systems in Maryland. In contrast

to prior studies, however, there was no greater disproportionality evident in the present crossover

analyses, as African American youth were about equally over-represented in both the crossover (80%)

and delinquency-only (76%) groups. In fact, in Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County, the

percentage of African American youth in the crossover group was about 20 points below the percentage

in the delinquency-only group that were African American. With regard to gender, the delinquency-based

findings were consistent with past research, with a higher proportion of females among crossover youth

(30%) than delinquency-only youth (20%). Different gender findings emerged from the CINA-based

analysis in Baltimore City, where females accounted for more than half (54%) of the CINA-only group,

but just one-third of the crossover youth.

Echoing common findings, crossover youth were younger at the time of their first arrest and

engaged in the juvenile justice system in deeper and more chronic ways when compared with

delinquency-only youth. Crossover youth had more arrests and intakes, and the proportion that was found

delinquent and committed was 1.4 times greater than the commitment figure for the delinquency-only

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

viii

group. These findings were reinforced by risk screening results, where crossover youth had significantly

higher scores on detention and placement measures. Regarding charge type, a higher proportion of

crossover youth had person felony and misdemeanor referrals and adjudications, but were no more likely

to show weapons charges or violent or property felony charges than the delinquency-only group.

The higher showing on measures of detention, placement, and commitment in the crossover

group did not accord directly with the finding that they were no more likely to be adjudicated delinquent

on a felony. Generally, the magnitude of differences between the groups on these system decisions and

outcomes outsized observed differences on charges, filings, and adjudication hearings. In part, this pattern

is likely attributable to crossover youth having fewer options for pre-adjudication detention and

placement in the home and community. It is also suggestive of prior studies that report evidence of

juvenile justice system biases, and that crossover youth face more harsh responses in the delinquency

system by virtue of their child welfare histories.

On risk and need measures reflecting maltreatment, shelter, and dependency-related placements,

crossover youth had predictably higher scores than the delinquency-only group. Crossover youth also

scored higher on a “compliance with parent/guardian rules” risk item and on both static and dynamic

family needs measures, and had lower protective family needs scores. In the CINA-based analyses,

crossover youth had different and more persistent family problems than CINA youth with no delinquency

involvement. Filings for the CINA-only group were more likely to be based on parental neglect related to

drug use while court records on crossover youth tended to cite abuse or neglect without reference to

drugs, or some other problem with the caretaker or child. Placement terminations for crossover youth

more frequently involved problems with family reunification efforts, and compared to CINA-only,

crossover cases had more multiple attempts at family reunification. The analyses of dependency cases

also showed that crossover youth were older at the time of the first CINA petition and first placement than

CINA-only youth.

Compared with the delinquency-only group, crossover youth had higher risk and need scores and

less favorable results on static and dynamic protective measures of peer and adult relationships in the

community. The same pattern was observed on dynamic needs and protective measures of safety in the

youth’s neighborhood. On school measures, crossover youth showed higher scores for both static and

dynamic factors, and had fewer static protective factors.

Crossover youth held attitudes reflecting less optimism for the future, empathy and remorse for

victims, and sense of control over their anti-social behavior. They also scored higher on measures

reflecting support for verbal and physical aggression as a means of resolving disputes. More importantly,

on less subjective measures based on formal diagnoses and being prescribed medication or other

treatment for mental disorders, crossover youth also scored significantly higher, with an average score on

the risk screen mental health measure that was nearly two and one-half times that of the delinquency-only

group. On the mental health static needs measure, the mean score for crossover youth was about triple the

delinquency-only group mean. This set of findings in regards to mental health contrasts with both the risk

and needs measures on substance abuse, where no group differences were found.

Analyses of the CINA-based samples showed that crossover youth had more placements than the

CINA-only group and a longer length of time in placement. Differences in placement types were

marginal, although crossover youth were somewhat less likely to be placed back with a parent and more

likely to be placed in a DSS home. Unfortunately, the court record was not sufficiently detailed to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

ix

distinguish between foster homes and group homes. The groups differed on the reasons given for

terminating placements, with more terminations among crossover youth attributed to child behavior issues

and having a family placement fail.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Improving Maryland Practices. The most notable finding from the review of state and local

practices is the absence of any major initiatives in Maryland focused specifically on crossover youth.

Although the interviews and an extensive document review revealed there to be a number of evidence-

based policies and practices present in the state’s dependency and delinquency systems, with the

exception of a few nascent local efforts, none targeted youth dually involved in these systems. Survey

scales addressing the level of attention and resources directed to crossover youth received very low scores

and about two-thirds of survey respondents rated LDSS, DJS, and the juvenile court as moderate to

low/none on attention and resources questions. Prevailing practices regarding notification and interagency

case planning on crossover cases are often unstructured, informal, and left to the initiative of case

workers. On related survey questions, about 60 percent said there was no regular collaboration on these

matters or admitted they did not know enough to answer them. And those who did answer – including

those who reported some collaboration – still rated these efforts as generally ineffective.

There is a consensus need for focused efforts on the crossover youth population. Several practices

already in use in the state should be expanded and sustained. One judge/one family is a step toward more

effective management of dual-system cases in the juvenile court. Incipient efforts in a few jurisdictions

around joint case planning, review, and attendance in hearings should be made a standard practice and

expanded to other jurisdictions. These efforts can build on the statewide ISP and particularly Family

Involvement Meetings as a means of engaging families and crossing system boundaries.

CASA should make crossover youth a priority and be afforded means of routinely identifying and

becoming assigned to co-committed cases. Resistance to use of the Dashboard for dual-system

identification and communications should be resolved. The state should consider allocating publicly-

funded slots in evidence-based programs such as MST and MTFC to dual-system youth and encourage

their use with these cases. In a more general sense, efforts should be made to build both state and local

knowledge about crossover youth. The state should address the need for cross-training on this population.

Leadership at the highest levels should resolve ongoing differences between LDSS and DJS regarding

responsibilities and communication in co-committed cases – a need acknowledged by both interviewees

and survey respondents.

Comparative Analysis Results and Future Research. More research and local expertise is needed

to explore the finding that CINA youth in Baltimore County appear much more likely to have

delinquency involvement than CINA cases in Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County. Data showing

the comparatively low proportions of African American youth in crossover groups in Baltimore and Anne

Arundel Counties deserves further study. It would be worthwhile to explore whether certain policies or

practices in these jurisdictions account for this finding. Similarly, future research should examine whether

the overrepresentation of girls in the crossover population is attributable to disparate system responses.

Additional data and analyses on pathways – the timing and direction of cross-system involvement – are

needed in the state. Jurisdictional comparisons will require larger study samples that originate in each of

the two systems.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

x

Results from the risk and needs analyses underscore the importance of attention to the mental

health treatment needs of crossover youth in the state. Preventing, anticipating, and responding to mental

health problems are clearly a priority. A few other findings on risk factors from the CINA-based

comparisons were notable. Youth from families with maltreatment histories that are not drug-related

appear more prone to delinquency than CINA-youth who experience drug –related neglect or abuse. As

with prior findings, Maryland results indicate particular consideration should be paid to youth who enter

CINA at a later age and those with placement instability and family reunification problems. Taken

together, results suggest that crisis-oriented responses to disruptive behavior in placements, ideally with

expertise in mental health, may be especially effective as an alternative to the conventional law

enforcement response of arrest and removal.

Attention and additional research is also called for to address the finding that crossover youth in

Maryland experience juvenile justice system responses – detentions, placements, commitments – which

appear to exceed their delinquency record. These findings reinforce the need to enhance diversion

alternatives and home and community-based detention options that reduce use of incarceration, while also

addressing the treatment needs of dual-system youth. Efforts with CINA youth must focus on preventing

delinquency crossover and for those who do, to reduce reliance on pre-adjudication detention and out-of-

home placements.

Current public economic realities heighten the need to identify and implement policies and

practices that can deter crossover and best address the extensive service needs of those who do become

dually-involved. While an extensive literature on evidence-based practices has emerged in recent years,

and a number of EBPs were in evidence in Maryland, comparative tests of policies and interventions

specifically targeted to at-risk and crossover youth are rare. More research on the relative effectiveness of

these practices is needed to inform decisions on allocation of public resources to this population.

Contributions to Crossover Youth Research. The Maryland findings varied somewhat from

published literature showing greater risk of substance abuse and a tendency toward violent offenses

among crossover youth – these were not evident in the present cohorts. Results related to gender were not

entirely consistent with prior literature and findings on race varied across jurisdictions and in two counties

ran counter to results reported previously.

For the most part, however, the present study replicated and extended findings reported in prior

studies on crossover youth. Results regarding comparatively early and more chronic delinquency

involvement were upheld, as were risk and needs domains involving mental health, family, peer and adult

relationships, and school. The CINA-based analyses also replicated prior findings regarding later

dependency involvement, placement instability and length, and more persistent family problems. The

finding regarding drug-related maltreatment is new to our knowledge. Similarly some of the detailed

results from the risk and needs assessments, including measures of protective factors, have not generally

been presented previously. Together, results of the present study should bring urgency to the state’s

response to the unique needs and vulnerabilities of crossover youth.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

1

Section 1

Introduction __________________________________________________________________

Awareness about the vulnerabilities of children who are involved in both the juvenile justice and

child welfare systems has grown exponentially over the past decade. Both practitioners and researchers

have long known that youth who become dependents of the state due to maltreatment are often robbed of

opportunities for healthy social and emotional development, and are at great risk of mental health and

substance abuse problems, and often struggle to succeed in school and to establish and maintain positive

relationships (Jonson-Reid, Kohl, & Drake, 2012; Kim & Cicchetti, 2010). They are also more likely to

commit crime and become involved in the delinquency system (Chiu, Ryan & Herz, 2011; Jonson-Reid &

Barth, 2000a; Smith & Thornberry, 1995). More recent studies give further depth to our concern about

these youth, suggesting that the state’s intervention in their lives may contribute to future antisocial

behaviors. Youth placed in foster care are approximately twice as likely to commit crimes compared to

children who receive home-based services (English, Widom, & Brandford, 2000; Ryan & Testa, 2005).

Not only are abused or neglected youth at a greater risk for engagement with the delinquency

system, there are apparent system biases which account for disproportionately poor outcomes for

dependency youth, as well. Studies have indicated that there may be juvenile justice system biases against

youth with child welfare histories as their dispositional outcomes have been found to be harsher than

youth without history in the dependency system (Ryan, Herz, Hernandez, & Marshall, 2007). Youth with

a filed report of abuse have been linked to higher rates of juvenile incarceration when compared to youth

with no history of abuse (Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000). Evidence of cross-system bias for those who enter

the dependency system has also been reported, as youth placed in group homes are more likely to have

prior juvenile justice system involvement than are those placed in traditional or specialized foster care

settings. (Ryan, Marshall, Herz, & Hernandez, 2008).

The emergent challenge with helping crossover youth – those involved at some point in their lives

in the dependency and delinquency systems – is not due to a lack of available guidance about what should

be done for them. There is increasing concordance on policies and practices that are effective with this

population and a number of extensive prescriptive models and guidebooks on the topic have appeared in

recent years (ABA, 2008; Herz, Lee, Lutz, Stewart, Tuell, & Wiig, 2012; Siegel & Lord, 2004; Wiig &

Tuell, 2013). Rather, the challenges for addressing crossover youth include properly identifying them and

their needs, and implementing and sustaining evidence-based policies and practices that are tailored to

those needs.

This report represents an attempt to begin to address these challenges in Maryland through

research. Reviewed in Section 3 of the report, policy and practice initiatives specifically directed at

crossover youth in the state are in a nascent stage of development. We know of no prior studies that have

focused on these youth. In an initial effort to build a knowledge base in these areas, the National Institute

of Justice provided support to the University of Maryland Institute for Governmental Service and

Research (IGSR) to conduct an investigation aimed at addressing several basic questions about youth who

are involved in the state’s dependency and delinquency systems. In the early stages of study design, and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

2

in the provision and coding of data used in the research, the project was undertaken in collaboration with

the Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).1 The research questions included:

• What are the characteristics of crossover youth in the state?

• In what ways are they the same or different from other youth that are involved in the

juvenile justice system in the state?

• How are they different from other youth in Maryland’s child welfare system? Are there

factors related to maltreatment or their dependency system experiences appear to put

these youth more at risk for delinquency?

• What are the service needs of crossover youth?

• What is the prevalence of the crossover youth population in Maryland?

• What efforts have been made by Maryland child-serving agencies and the juvenile court to

respond to crossover youth?

• To what extent are stakeholders who are involved with these youth aware of their unique

needs and what is the level of attention and resources allocated to them?

• What policies, practices, and programs are aimed at this population? How do these differ

by jurisdiction?

• To what extent do agencies collaborate in efforts to serve crossover youth? What

specifically is the court’s role in facilitating collaboration?

• To what extent do state and local practices comport with those identified as evidence-

based in the crossover literature? What are the barriers to effectively managing and

serving crossover youth?

A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods were employed to begin to address these questions.

Detailed in their respective sections of the report, these included document reviews and interviews with

26 individuals – judges, agency directors, and other key persons – working with crossover youth; a survey

of more than 120 stakeholders involved with these youth; and targeted analyses of court and delinquency

system data on selected samples of crossover youth and dependency and delinquency-only system youth.

Findings from these methods are presented in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the report, respectively. Following

this introduction, Section 2 of the report provides a context for the project, reviewing recent research on

crossover youth and summarizing literature on recommended policies and practices. The final section of

the report summarizes the study and its findings, and provides recommendations for future research and

improved system responses to crossover youth in Maryland.

We focused on the five most populous jurisdictions in the state, Baltimore City, and Anne

Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Baltimore Counties. Together these jurisdictions account for

about 60 percent of youth entering the juvenile justice system, 66 percent of committed placements, and

72 percent of the state’s dependency filings every year. On a final introductory note, we follow the

prevailing expertise regarding nomenclature, employing the term crossover youth (CY) to refer broadly to

youth who have at some point in their lives been formally referred to the dependency system due to

1 IGSR is solely responsible for the study findings, their interpretation, and all conclusions and recommendations

made in the report.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

3

suspected maltreatment2 and referred to the juvenile justice system for suspected delinquency. Where

applicable, the phrase “dual system” or “dually involved” youth is used, referring to juveniles who are

concurrently committed to the dependency and delinquency systems (Herz et al., 2012).

2 Specifically, Maryland law provides that a dependency petition is to be filed when a child “requires court

intervention because: (1) the child has been abused, has been neglected, has a developmental disability, or has a

mental disorder; and (2) the child's parents, guardian, or custodian are unable or unwilling to give proper care and

attention to the child and the child's needs” [Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-801(f)].

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

5

Section 2

Review of Crossover Youth Literature

_____________________________________________________________

The study team reviewed research from many fields, including social work, psychology,

criminology and law to document what is known about crossover youth. These studies, listed in Table 2.1

at the end of the section, shed light on the prevalence of crossover youth within the population of

maltreated youth and within the population of youth involved in the juvenile justice system;

characteristics of these youth, including demographics, family history, attitudes, behavior, needs and

experiences in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems; and risk factors associated with maltreated

youth becoming delinquent. Other reports, listed in Table 2.2, address best practices, including system

reform, operating policies and procedures and promising programmatic interventions, to improve

outcomes for crossover youth.

Prevalence of Crossover Youth

In general, neither child welfare nor juvenile justice agencies maintain ongoing counts of youth that

are or have been involved with both systems. Our understanding of the prevalence of crossover youth is

based largely on studies of the relationship between child maltreatment and delinquency. These studies

yield a range of results due at least in part to differences in how child maltreatment and delinquency are

defined and identified.

Studies examining the prevalence of juvenile justice involvement among children in the child

welfare system may focus on youth referred to child welfare agencies for abuse or neglect (Jonson-Reid,

2002; Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000a) or only youth with substantiated reports of maltreatment (Bogie,

Johnson, Ereth & Scharenbroch, 2011; Goodkind, Shook, Kim, Pohlig, & Herring, 2013; Zingraff, Leiter,

Myers & Johnsen,, 1993). They may consider youth receiving any child welfare services (Bogie et al.,

2011; Goodkind et al., 2013), only those with out-of-home placements, only those with a certain type of

out-of-home placement, or youth leaving the system (Culhane, Metraux, & Moreno, 2011). Studies in

different states of children with substantiated cases of abuse or neglect may differ because the definition

of abuse differs between the states (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011). Studies may compute delinquency rates

based on children who have been arrested (Chiu, Ryan, & Herz, 2011), adjudicated (Bogie et al., 2011),

or incarcerated (Goodkind et al., 2013), or consider both official and self-reported delinquency (Cusick,

Courtney, Havlicek, & Hess, 2011; Smith & Thornberry, 1995).

Rates of juvenile justice system involvement reported in the literature include the following: among

youth between 7 and 15 years of age with a maltreatment investigation resulting in an ongoing service

case, 7.1 percent were arrested and 4.5 percent adjudicated during a three-year follow-up period (Bogie et

al., 2011); among children with substantiated maltreatment reports 13.7 percent had complaints filed in

the juvenile justice system (Zingraff et al., 1993); among abused and neglected children who were made

dependents of the court 19.6 percent were arrested before they reached adulthood (English, Widom, &

Brandford, 2001); among children whose families were investigated for possible child abuse, 8 per 1,000

were incarcerated in a juvenile corrections facility during a follow-up period of one to five years(Jonson-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

6

Reid & Barth, 2000a); among children who received in-home services or out-of-home placement by a

child services agency, 9.6 percent spent time in a juvenile facility (Goodkind et al., 2013); among youth

who received in-home services or out-of-home placement and aged out of the child welfare system 24

percent spent time in a juvenile justice facility (Shook, Goodkind, Pohlig, Schelbe, Herring, & Kim,

2011); among youth with substantiated maltreatment, 45 percent had an arrest record and 79 percent self-

reported delinquent behavior (Smith & Thornberry, 1995).

Studies comparing youth in the child welfare system with non-maltreated youth or the population at

large find significantly higher rates of delinquency among the child welfare youth. This finding holds true

for self-reported delinquent behavior (Cusick et al., 2011; Smith & Thornberry, 1995), arrests (Chiu,

Ryan, & Herz, 2011; English, Widom, & Brandford, 2002; Smith & Thornberry, 1995; Zingraff et al.,

1993) and incarceration (Jonson-Reid, 2002; Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000a).

Studies examining the prevalence of maltreatment among youth in the juvenile justice system may

focus on arrested youth (Ryan et al., 2007); court-referred youth (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011; Halemba &

Siegel, 2011), incarcerated youth (Holsinger, Belknap, & Sutherland, 1999; Sedlak & McPherson, 2010),

or parolees (Wiebush, McNulty, & Le, 2000) or may include a range of offender statuses (Hartnett, Hurst,

& Berry, 2010). The studies may consider self-reported maltreatment (Holsinger, Belknap, & Sutherland,

1999; Sedlak & McPherson, 2010), various levels of contact with the child welfare system (Halemba &

Siegel, 2011; Hartnett, Hurst, & Berry, 2010), or both officially reported and self-reported abuse or

neglect (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011).

Among court-referred youth, court records and self-reports indicated that 17 percent had

experienced maltreatment (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011). Among incarcerated youth and parolees, reported

rates of physical range from 29 percent to 68 percent (Holsinger abuse, Belknap, & Sutherland, 1999;

Wiebush, McNulty, & Le, 2000; Sedlak & McPherson, 2010).

The prevalence of crossover youth among offenders depends on the depth of their involvement in

the juvenile justice system. Ryan and colleagues (2007) found that approximately 7 percent of new arrests

were associated with youth currently involved in the child welfare system. The study by Hartnett, Hurst,

and Berry (2010) found that 5 percent of arrested youth had child welfare system involvement compared

to 7 percent among juvenile probationers and 10 percent among incarcerated youth. The rates at which

offenders have had some child welfare system contact, ranging from 15 percent to 30 percent, are higher

than the rates at which they have been the subject of an abuse investigation, received child welfare

services, or are currently dually involved (Hartnett, Hurst, & Berry, 2010; Halemba & Siegel, 2011). A

study of youth exiting the child welfare and/or juvenile justice system (Culhane, Metraux, & Moreno,

2011) found that between one in ten and one in eight had experienced both a child welfare system out-of-

home placement and involvement in juvenile probation after age 16.

Characteristics and Experiences of Crossover Youth

Numerous studies have provided insight into the characteristics of crossover youth. These studies

paint a picture of youth who are disproportionally African American and predominately male, although

more likely to be female than their delinquency-only counterparts (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011; Halemba,

Siegel, Lord, & Zawacki, 2004; Herz & Ryan, 2008; Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010; Ryan et al., 2007;

Saeteurn & Swain, 2009). The percentages of African-American youth and females increase among

crossover youth as the extent of child welfare involvement intensifies (Halemba & Siegel, 2011).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

7

Crossover youth have a higher than average likelihood of having parents with histories of substance

abuse, incarceration and/or mental health issues (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011; Halemba et al., 2004;

Saeteurn & Swain, 2009). These youth often have impaired interpersonal skills, mental health and/or

substance abuse problems and school attendance and performance issues (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011;

Saeteurn & Swain, 2009).

Crossover youth typically have had multiple child welfare placements, have resided in a group

home at some point and are likely to have run away from placement (Halemba et al., 2004; Saeteurn &

Swain, 2009). Involvement in the child welfare system typically precedes juvenile justice involvement

(Halemba & Siegel, 2011). Compared to other offenders, crossover youth enter the juvenile justice system

at a younger age (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011; Halemba et al., 2004; Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010), are

more likely to commit violent crimes (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011; Saeteurn & Swain, 2009; Widom &

Maxfield, 2001), are more likely to be detained and adjudicated and spend more days in custody

(Halemba & Siegel, 2011) and are more likely to recidivate (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011; Halemba &

Siegel, 2011; Halemba et al., 2004; Saeteurn & Swain, 2009; Widom & Maxfield, 2001).

Risk Factors

As described above, research demonstrates that abused/neglected youth are more likely than their

non-maltreated counterparts to become involved in the juvenile justice system and fare worse in the

juvenile justice system than do other delinquents. A number of studies shed light on the factors that

influence whether or not a maltreated youth engages in delinquent behavior and the extent of their

juvenile justice system involvement.

Demographic Risk Factors

The prevalence and extent of involvement of child welfare youth in the juvenile justice system are

clearly affected by youths’ demographic characteristics. Although Zingraff and colleagues (1993)

reported higher rates of delinquency among maltreated youth compared to a school sample and a social

service sample, when they controlled for age, race, gender and family structure, they found no significant

difference in the rate at which maltreated youth committed violent or property crimes compared to the

school and social service groups. The only significant difference was in the rate of status offenses.

Research has consistently shown that age of involvement in the child welfare system affects

delinquency rates. As is true for the general population, the rate of juvenile justice system involvement of

child welfare youth increases with age (Ryan & Testa, 2005; Grogan-Kaylor, Ruffolo, Ortega, & Clarke,

2008; Bogie et al., 2011). A study by Jonson-Reid and Barth (2000b) found the highest rate of subsequent

juvenile incarceration among children who entered their first placement between the ages of 11 and 14;

children first placed between the ages of 12 and 15 had a higher risk of incarceration for a serious or

violent offense during adolescence. Goodkind and colleagues (2013) found that youth whose families’

cases remain open after age 13 were more than three times as likely to have juvenile justice involvement

as those whose cases closed at age 13 or younger. Older crossover youth are more likely to recidivate

(Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010).

Race, gender and combinations of race and gender are predictive of delinquent behavior among

child welfare clients (Ryan & Testa, 2005; Grogan-Kaylor, et al., 2008; Bogie et al., 2011; Dannerbeck &

Yan, 2011; Goodkind et al., 2013). Among maltreated youth, African Americans have the highest risk

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

8

of juvenile arrest (Ryan, Marshall, Herz, & Hernandez, 2008) and delinquency petitions (Ryan & Testa,

2005).

Consistent with delinquency rates in the general population, maltreated males offend more than

maltreated females (Ryan & Testa, 2005; Grogan-Kaylor, 2008; Bogie et al., 2011). However, as noted

above, the rate of juvenile justice system involvement of females in the child welfare system is higher

than that of non-maltreated females (Halemba et al., 2004; Herz & Ryan, 2008; Ryan et al., 2007).

Females with dependency court histories are also more likely than males to recidivate (Halemba et al.,

2004).

Among maltreated youth, males have a greater tendency toward violence than do maltreated

females (Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011). Maltreated boys are also more likely than girls to spend time in a

juvenile justice facility (Goodkind et al., 2013).

Risk Factors Associated with Abuse/Neglect History

It is unclear from the research whether neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse are equally likely

to lead to delinquent behavior, with some studies (Bogie et al, 2011; Widom & Maxfield, 2001) finding

no difference, but other studies (Grogan-Kaylor et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2008) finding higher levels of

delinquency associated with physical abuse than neglect. One study (Yun, Ball, & Lim, 2011) found that

sexual abuse and neglect were significant predictors of violent delinquency, whereas physical abuse was

not.

It appears that the more severe and frequent the maltreatment, the higher the likelihood that a child

will become involved in the juvenile justice system (Bogie et al., 2011; Jonson-Reid, Kohl, & Drake,

2012; Kelley, Thornberry, & Smith, 1997; Ryan & Testa, 2005; Verrecchia, Fetzer, Lemmon, & Austin,

2010). Also, it seems clear that abuse/neglect that begins during or extends into adolescence is associated

with higher likelihoods of juvenile justice involvement (Ireland, Smith, & Thornberry, 2002; Stewart,

Livingston, & Waterson, 2008).

Personal, Family and Social Risk Factors

Children with mental health or substance abuse issues appear to be more likely to become involved

in the juvenile justice system (Bogie et al., 2011; Goodkind et al., 2013; Jonson-Reid, 2002) and to

recidivate (Herz & Ryan, 2008). Behavioral problems, poor interpersonal skills and school performance

problems are also associated with higher levels of juvenile justice involvement among youth in the child

welfare system (Bogie et al., 2011; Herz & Ryan, 2008; Verrecchia et al., 2010) as are family conflict

(Bogie et al., 2011; Herz & Ryan, 2008; Verrecchia et al., 2010) and socially disorganized, transient

communities (Verrecchia et al., 2010).

Risk Factors Associated with Child Welfare System Experiences

Youth with reports of maltreatment that receive no services have a high likelihood of later juvenile

justice involvement (Jonson-Reid, 2002). Research findings regarding the effects on delinquency of in-

home services compared to out-of-home placement are mixed, with some studies (Bogie et al., 2011;

Runyan & Gould, 1985) reporting no differences in rates of delinquency between maltreated youth served

at home and those in foster care and other studies reporting higher rates of involvement in criminal

activity (English, Widom, & Brandford, 2002), delinquency petitions (Ryan & Testa, 2005) and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

9

confinement in a juvenile justice facility (Goodkind et al., 2013) among maltreated youth placed outside

the home.

Among youth in foster care, placement in group homes is associated with higher levels of juvenile

justice involvement – several times higher in some cases-- compared to placement in other out-of-home

settings (Bogie et al., 2011; Goodkind et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2008).

Researchers generally agree that the number of placements increases the rate of juvenile justice

involvement (Goodkind et al., 2013; Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000b; Runyan & Gould, 1985). Placement

changes that occur when a youth leaves a facility without permission and those due to behavioral

problems are associated with increased likelihood of arrest compared to movements for other reasons

(Ryan et al., 2008).

The effects of child-welfare-system experience on delinquent behavior also vary with gender and

race. For example out-of-home placement results in a much greater increase in delinquency rates of girls

than of boys (Goodkind et al., 2013). For minority children referred for lack of supervision, in-home

services reduced the rate of juvenile justice system involvement, whereas for non-minority children

referred for lack of supervision, receipt of services did not change the rate of involvement in the juvenile

justice system (Jonson-Reid, 2002). Congregate care placement is associated with a much larger increase

in juvenile justice involvement for White youth than for African American youth and for girls than for

boys (Goodkind et al., 2013).

Ryan and colleagues (2007) found that involvement in the child welfare system is itself a risk factor

with respect to the depth of involvement of youth in the juvenile justice system. They reported that

delinquency cases originating in child welfare are less likely to receive probation even after controlling

for age, race, gender, and offense type.

Best Practices

A number of organizations, including the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), John D. and

Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps, Center for Juvenile

Justice Reform (CJJR) at Georgetown University, Casey Family Programs, National Center for Juvenile

Justice and American Bar Association (ABA) have championed efforts to integrate the systems serving

crossover youth. These organizations have published or sponsored publication of numerous documents,

including those listed in Table 2.2, that identify system changes, operating policies and procedures and

promising programs designed to improve outcomes for crossover youth. The reports commonly

encourage collaboration, information-sharing, joint assessment and decision making among the agencies

responsible for crossover youth; a policy of one family/one judge in the courts; early intervention; and

holistic interventions that involve the youth and his/her family.

System Reform

In examining the impact of collaboration between child welfare and juvenile justice agencies on

the likelihood of youth receiving behavioral health services, Chuang and Wells (2010) found that having a

single agency accountable for youth care increased the odds of youth receiving both outpatient and

inpatient behavioral health services. They also found that interagency sharing of administrative data

increased youth odds of receiving inpatient behavioral health services.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

10

Consistent with these findings, the overriding theme in the discussion of system reform is the need

for collaboration and coordination among agencies that serve crossover youth. (Altschuler, Stangler,

Berkley, & Burton, 2009; Casey Family Programs & CJJR, 2010; CJJR & American Public Human

Services Association, n.d.; Petro, 2006; Siegel & Lord, 2004). A framework for achieving system change

begins with mobilization and advocacy for system integration, including identifying leaders, getting

support for the integration initiative and changing the organizational culture (Wiig & Tuell, 2013). These

efforts are needed to counteract what Petro (2006) describes as an adversarial relationship between child

welfare and juvenile justice agencies cited in the literature. Key system-change steps include securing

statutory authority that enables interagency collaboration and dual jurisdiction (ABA, 2008; Siegel &

Lord, 2004; Wiig & Tuell, 2013); determining resource needs (Wiig & Tuell, 2013); formalizing

governance and developing integrated or shared information systems (Siegel & Lord, 2004; Wiig & Tuell,

2013); and training across systems (Wiig & Tuell, 2013).

The added resources and duplication of efforts often required by crossover cases pose challenges to

agency collaboration (Petro, 2006). Blending funding streams to serve crossover youth effectively is

recommended by Wiig (2003), Siegel and Lord (2004), ABA (2008), CJJR and American Public Human

Services Assocation (n.d.) and Casey Family Programs and CJJR (2010). ABA (2008) recommends

creating a legal preference enabling youth to have their dependency proceedings remain open with

continued child and family support and extending the protections of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act

to delinquent youth placed in foster care under juvenile justice agency or court authority.

Wiig (2003) provides examples of system redesign programs that are still in effect, including the

Decategorization Project in Iowa, a legislatively mandated program that provides blended funding and

Wraparound Milwaukee, which integrates mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice and education

services for youth with mental health needs and their families. Best practice examples highlighted by

Wiig and Tuell (2013) include a King County, Washington, child welfare/juvenile justice systems

interagency charter agreement and an Oregon Executive Order mandating development of joint

recommendations and budgets, comprehensive plans and formal agreements among agencies that serve

children and families.

Operating Policies and Procedures

Information sharing between child welfare and juvenile justice agencies is viewed as fundamental

to improving outcomes for crossover youth (Altschuler et al., 2009; ABA, 2008; Lutz et al., 2009; Siegel

& Lord, 2004; Wiig & Tuell, 2013). While supporting information sharing, ABA (2008) cautions that

confidentiality protections should be developed for all shared child welfare information and the use of

information gathered from foster youth as part of screening, assessment, or treatment should be restricted

in pending or future delinquency or criminal proceedings.

Other common recommendations are protocols for early identification of crossover youth and

notification of child welfare agencies when youth enter the juvenile justice system (Siegel & Lord, 2004;

Lutz et al., 2009; Wiig & Tuell, 2013); joint assessments using validated tools and involving the youth

and family (Siegel & Lord, 2004; Lutz et al., 2009; Altschuler et al., 2009; Wiig & Tuell, 2013); engaging

the family and youth in case planning and decision making (Lutz et al., 2009; Altschuler et al., 2009;

Wiig & Tuell, 2013); diversion of youth with low level offenses out of the juvenile justice system (ABA,

2008; Lutz et al., 2009; Wiig & Tuell, 2013); use of the one family/one judge model for dependency and

delinquency hearings (Siegel & Lord, 2004; ABA, 2008; Lutz et al., 2009) and coordinated case

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

11

management, with ongoing contact between child welfare and juvenile justice staff (ABA, 2008; Lutz et

al., 2009; Wiig & Tuell, 2013);.

Practices recommended in one or two reports include additional resources dedicated to crossover

cases (ABA, 2008; Altschuler et al., 2009); use of specially trained attorneys (Siegel & Lord, 2004; ABA,

2008); interagency liaisons (Siegel & Lord, 2004); specialized case management units (Siegel & Lord,

2004); mandatory attendance of child welfare workers at delinquency hearings (Siegel & Lord, 2004;

Lutz et al., 2009); combined dependency and delinquency hearings (Siegel & Lord, 2004); strength-

focused assessments (Lutz et al., 2009; Altschuler et al., 2009); ensuring that an adult responsible for the

youth attend hearings in both types of proceedings (ABA, 2008); individualized outcomes and service

plans (Altschuler et al., 2009; Wiig & Tuell, 2013); early intervention (ABA, 2008; Wiig & Tuell, 2013);

family-centered interventions, gender-specific interventions and interventions for young offenders (Siegel

& Lord, 2004); engaging older youth in transition planning, providing developmentally appropriate

services to older youth as well as services that provide skills to succeed in adulthood and engaging the

community to provide support to youth exiting the system (Altschuler, 2009); reduced use of group

homes (Lutz et al., 2009); retention of case jurisdiction by child welfare (Altschuler et al., 2009; ABA,

2008); focus on community connections and community-based services (Altschuler et al., 2009; Wiig &

Tuell, 2013); permanency planning that begins early (Lutz et al., 2009); and a focus on placement

stability (Lutz et al., 2009; Wiig & Tuell, 2013).

Based on their national survey of state policies and procedures, Herz and Ryan (in CJJR and

American Public Human Services Association n.d.), reported that dedicated dockets/one judge approach

was the most widely used of the promising approaches to handling crossover cases, followed by

interagency planning meetings, use of multi-disciplinary teams to assess and manage cases, formal

delinquency notification protocols and continuity of counsel. Even so, these most popular approaches

were used, on average, between “some of the time” and “most of the time.” None was used, on average,

“most of the time” or “all of the time.” Only one of the approaches, Project Confirm, a program to notify

child welfare of youth arrests, had been evaluated to determine the effect on youth outcomes.

Promising Programs

A programmatic approach to prevent child abuse and neglect and delinquency encompasses child

abuse and neglect prevention, early intervention to prevent delinquency and interventions that respond to

incidents of child abuse/neglect, early delinquent behavior and serious juvenile offending (Wiig, 2003).

As recommended by the organization Prevent Child Abuse America, child abuse/neglect prevention

programs should include (a) support for new parents, (b) education for parents, (c) early and regular child

and family screening and treatment, (d) child care opportunities, (e) programs for abused children, (f) life

skills training for children and young adults, (g) family support services and (h) public information and

education (Wiig, 2003).

Programs designed for early intervention and prevention of delinquency share characteristics of

child abuse/neglect prevention programs. Successful programs “address the entire context of the families

and child’s functioning” while “single focus prevention programs are limited in their effectiveness”

(Wiig, 2003, p. 17). Services should be based on individualized assessments of child’s health, behavior

and needs (Wiig, 2003).

Regarding interventions in response to child abuse and neglect, Wiig (2003) notes that, historically,

child welfare programs have not been motivated by concern for future delinquency. Wiig cites the work

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

12

of Loeber and Farrington (1998) with respect to serious juvenile offenders, which emphasizes the need for

multi-modal programs to address multiple problems, including crime, substance abuse and academic and

family problems and the need for aftercare to reduce re-offending. Interpersonal skills training, behavioral

contracts, individual counseling and cognitive-behavioral treatment are among the techniques that have

shown success. Wiig identifies Multi-systemic Therapy (MST) and Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster

Care (MTFC) as two programs that employ the types of measures recommended by Loeber and

Farrington with documented success with serious offenders. MST is a home-based program that is

designed in collaboration with family members and guided by a therapist. It targets factors that contribute

to a youth’s antisocial behavior. In MTFC, the youth are provided with a therapeutic living environment

with community families trained to supervise them in a program of behavior management. The youth’s

parents are also involved in the treatment model.

Project Confirm, was designed to prevent unnecessary detention of children in foster care in New

York City by improving cooperation between child welfare and juvenile justice agencies (Conger & Ross,

2006; Ross, Conger, & Armstrong, 2002). Key components included the program’s notification of the

child welfare agency when a juvenile in foster care is arrested and placed in a detention facility and court

conferencing in which field coordinators guide child welfare caseworkers through the probation interview

and court hearing. Project Confirm field coordinators also meet with the child, child welfare

representatives and other involved parties to prepare for subsequent hearings. During the first year of

operations, Project Confirm obtained a caseworker appearance rate of 93 percent (Ross, Conger, &

Armstrong, 2002). The rate of release at the first hearing was 45 percent for foster care youth, matching

the rate of the general population. Agency staff involved in the project reported better communication

between agencies.

As noted earlier, the one family/one judge model is used in many jurisdictions. Other exemplary

practices are highlighted by Herz and Ryan (in CCJR & American Public Human Services Association,

n.d.):

 Department of Child and Family Services liaisons in pre-detention facilities in Connecticut to run

new intakes through their computer system to identify crossover youth. The liaison contacts the

social worker and probation office to initiate planning.

 Joint pre-hearing conferences, combining dependency and delinquency hearings, joint court

orders and court reports, mandatory attendance of child social workers and probation officer at

hearings and joint case plans in Bernalillo, New Mexico; Hillsborough, Florida; Ramsey,

Minnesota; and State of Connecticut.

 Specialized case management and supervision units in Maricopa, Arizona and Jefferson,

Alabama, multi-disciplinary team assessment and case management in Los Angeles, California;

special qualifications and/or training for case managers, the use of child protective services and

probation liaisons in Bexar and Tarrant, Texas and Lucas, Ohio.

 Court-facilitated interagency planning meetings, formal written agreements and collaborative

funding arrangements in Hamilton County, Ohio and integrated or shared information systems or

databases in Arizona, Delaware, Michigan and King County, Washington.

In reporting on the Breakthrough Series Collaborative, Casey Family Programs and CCJR (2010)

highlighted examples of best practices implemented in the participating jurisdictions, including the

following:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

13

 Transfer of the initial target population of crossover cases in Baltimore City to one judge to create

a crossover court in which all court hearings for these youth would occur at the same time;

engaging families in the system more quickly and routinely; flagging cases that had crossed over

in the Department of Juvenile Services information system; and conducting meetings to create a

joint case plan. (These initiatives are discussed in the next section of this report.)

 A similar crossover court, shared case plan meetings and joint unit meetings between child

welfare and juvenile justice workers to improve working relationships in King County,

Washington.

 In Los Angeles County, use of cross-system team decision making in support of improved

school-home connections for crossover youth and youth in foster care who are at risk of crossing

over into the delinquency system; multi-disciplinary team meetings to transition youth who were

entering a camp placement; and education mentors to work with youth on an individual basis.

 Involvement of a parent representative from the Breakthrough Series Collaborative core team to

facilitate conversations among parents about their experiences with the system and their

recommendations for changes to policy and practices in Georgetown County, South Carolina;

identification of alternatives to incarceration for crossover youth; and round table meetings

among child welfare and juvenile justice agencies and community partners to identify and share

resources for crossover youth and youth served by the individual systems.

 In Denver, creation of an integrated court report developed by the social worker and juvenile

probation officer to allow issues to be resolved prior to court hearings; joint case staffing on

residential placements; and family meetings during evening hours in a community setting.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

14

Table 2.1 Studies Related to Crossover Youth

Authors & Year of Publication Jurisdiction Study Subjects

Findings about Crossover Youth Cited in Literature Review

Prevalence

Characteristics and

Experiences

Risk Factors

Best Practices

Demographic Characteristics

Abuse/ Neglect History

Personal, Family and

Social Characteristics

Child Welfare System

Experiences

Bogie, Johnson, Ereth, & Scharenbroch, 2011

Los Angeles 3,566 children aged 7 to 15 with an ongoing service case due to maltreatment

    

Chiu, Ryan, & Herz, 2011

Los Angeles 12,273 children with substantiated abuse/ neglect allegations and a comparison group of 25,950 with unsubstantiated allegations



Chuang & Wells, 2010

92 counties in 36 states

Stratified sample of 178 youth from Child Protective Services cohort of National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well- Being (NSCAW)



Conger & Ross, 2008

New York, NY 583 children in foster care that were arrested



Culhane, Metraux, & Moreno, 2011

Los Angeles 2,388 youth exiting child welfare, 8,368 youth exiting juvenile justice and 268 youth exiting both



Cusick, Courtney, Havlicek, & Hess, 2011

Illinois, Iowa, & Wisconsin

730 youth who aged out of out-of-home care and comparison groups of youth from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health



This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

15

Table 2.1 Studies Related to Crossover Youth (continued)

Authors & Year of Publication Jurisdiction Study Subjects

Findings about Crossover Youth Cited in Literature Review

Prevalence

Characteristics and

Experiences

Risk Factors

Best Practices

Demographic Characteristics

Abuse/ Neglect History

Personal, Family and

Social Characteristics

Child Welfare System

Experiences

Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011

Missouri 79,766 youth who had a status or delinquency referral to the courts

  

English, Widom, & Brandford, 2002

Large urban county in the Northwest

877 abused and/or neglected children who were made dependents of the court and matched comparison group of equal size





Goodkind, Shook, Kim, Pohlig, & Herring, 2013

Allegheny County, PA

17,471 children who received in-home services or out-of- home placement from the child welfare agency





 

Grogan-Kaylor, Ruffolo, Ortega & Clarke, 2008

Nationwide Stratified sample of 1,180 youth from cohort of children with child welfare system contact in NSCAW

 

Halemba & Siegel, 2011

King County, WA

4,475 youth offenders referred to juvenile court

 

Halemba, Siegel, Lord, & Zawacki, 2004

Arizona 5,093 youth with dependency petitions and, 204 dual jurisdiction youth on probation supervision

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

16

Table 2.1 Studies Related to Crossover Youth (continued)

Authors & Year of Publication Jurisdiction Study Subjects

Findings about Crossover Youth Cited in Literature Review

Prevalence

Characteristics and

Experiences

Risk Factors

Best Practices

Demographic Characteristics

Abuse/ Neglect History

Personal, Family and

Social Characteristics

Child Welfare System

Experiences

Hartnett, Hurst, & Berry, 2010

DuPage County, Illinois

1,542 youth in detention 

Herz & Ryan, 2008

Los Angeles County, California

581 youth child welfare custody and charged with an offense





Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010

Los Angeles County, California

581 youth in child welfare custody and charged with an offense

 

Holsinger, Belknap, & Sutherland, 1999

Ohio Random sample of 350 boys and population of 163 girls incarcerated in juvenile facilities



Ireland, Smith, & Thornberry, 2002

Rochester, New York

Sample of 1,000 youth from cohort of 7th and 8th graders



Jonson-Reid, 2002

Missouri 36,563 children aged 5 to 16 with allegations of maltreatment



 

Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000a

10 California counties

159,549 children whose families were investigated for possible child abuse



Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000b

California 40,644 youth who had experienced foster care placements





This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

17

Table 2.1 Studies Related to Crossover Youth (continued)

Authors & Year of Publication Jurisdiction Study Subjects

Findings about Crossover Youth Cited in Literature Review

Prevalence

Characteristics and

Experiences

Risk Factors

Best Practices

Demographic Characteristics

Abuse/ Neglect History

Personal, Family and

Social Characteristics

Child Welfare System

Experiences

Jonson-Reid, Kohl, & Drake, 2012

St. Louis, Missouri

5,994 low-income children aged 1.5 to 11, including 3,521 with maltreatment reports



Kelley, Thornberry, & Smith, 1997

Rochester, New York

Sample of 1,000 youth from cohort of 7th and 8th graders





Ross, Conger, & Armstrong, 2002

New York, New York

295 children in foster care that were arrested



Runyan & Gould, 1985

6 central North Carolina counties

114 children in foster care and comparison group of 106 maltreated youth remaining in their own homes



Ryan, Herz, Hernandez, & Marshall, 2007

Los Angeles County, California

69,009 youth arrested for the first time

  

Ryan, Marshall, Herz, & Hernandez, 2008

Los Angeles County, California

20,309 youth aged 7 to 16 with at least one out-of-home placement episode

 



Ryan & Testa, 2005

Cook County, Illinois

18,676 youth with at least one substantiated report of maltreatment

 



This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

18

Table 2.1 Studies Related to Crossover Youth (continued)

Authors & Year of Publication Jurisdiction Study Subjects

Findings about Crossover Youth Cited in Literature Review

Prevalence

Characteristics and

Experiences

Risk Factors

Best Practices

Demographic Characteristics

Abuse/ Neglect History

Personal, Family and

Social Characteristics

Child Welfare System

Experiences

Saeteurn & Swain, 2009

Alameda and Los Angeles Counties, California

63 youth in Alameda and 581 in Los Angeles in child welfare custody and charged with an offense



Sedlak & McPherson, 2010

Nationwide Nationally representative sample of 7,073 youth in juvenile justice custody



Shook, Goodkind, Pohlig, Schelbe, Herring, & Kim, 2011

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

1,361 youth who aged out of child welfare 

Smith & Thornberry, 1995

Rochester, New York

Sample of 1,000 youth from cohort of 7th and 8th graders



Stewart, Livingston, & Waterson, 2008

Queensland, Australia

5,849 youth who had contact with child protective services



Verrecchia, Fetzer, Lemmon, & Austin, 2010

Pennsylvania 632 families receiving income assistance

 

Widom & Maxfield, 2001

Metropolitan area in the Midwest

908 children with substantiated cases of abuse/neglect and matched comparison group of 667 children





This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

19

Table 2.1 Studies Related to Crossover Youth (continued)

Authors & Year of Publication Jurisdiction Study Subjects

Findings about Crossover Youth Cited in Literature Review

Prevalence

Characteristics and

Experiences

Risk Factors

Best Practices

Demographic Characteristics

Abuse/ Neglect History

Personal, Family and

Social Characteristics

Child Welfare System

Experiences

Wiebush, McNulty, & Le, 2000

Colorado, Nevada & Virginia

150 high-risk male juvenile parolees from Colorado, 212 from Nevada and 121 from Virginia



Yun, Ball, & Lim, 2011

Nationwide 3,472 respondents to the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health



Zingraff, Leiter, Myers, & Johnsen, 1993

Mecklenberg County, North Carolina

Random sample of 655 youth with substantiated maltreatment reports and comparison groups totaling 458 youth





This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

20

Table 2.2. Reports Identifying Best Practices Concerning Crossover Youth

Authors & Year of Publication Organizations Report Title

Altschuler, Stangler, Berkley, & Burton, 2009

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative with support from John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and Child, Adolescent and Family Branch of Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Supporting Youth in Transition to Adulthood: Lessons Learned from Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice

American Bar Association, 2008 American Bar Association ABA Policy and Report on Crossover and Dual Jurisdiction Youth

Casey Family Programs & Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2010

Casey Family Programs and Center for Juvenile Justice Reform

Breakthrough Series Collaborative: Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Integration

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform & American Public Human Services Association no date

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and American Public Human Services Association with support of Casey Family Programs

Bridging Two Worlds: Youth Involved in the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems. A Policy Guide for Improving Outcomes

Herz, Lee, Lutz, Steward, Tuell, & Wiig, 2012

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps with support from John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth: Strengthening the Connection between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice

Lutz, Stewart, Legters, & Herz, 2009

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Casey Family Programs

Crossover Youth Practice Model

Petro, 2006 Child Welfare League of America Increasing Collaboration and Coordination of the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems to Better Serve Dual Jurisdiction Youth: A Literature Review

Petro, 2007 Child Welfare League of America Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Agencies: Collaborating to Serve Dual Jurisdiction Youth Survey Report

Siegel & Lord, 2004 National Center for Juvenile Justice with support of Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice

When Systems Collide: Improving Court Practices and Programs in Dual Jurisdiction Cases

Wiig with Tuell, 2004 Child Welfare League of America with support from John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Guidebook for Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration: A Framework for Improved Outcomes

Wiig, Widom, & Tuell, 2003 Child Welfare League of America Understanding Child Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency: From Research to Effective Program, Practice, and Systemic Solutions

Wiig & Tuell, 2013 Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps with support from John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Guidebook for Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration: A Framework for Improved Outcomes, 3rd Edition

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

21

Section 3

Crossover Youth in Maryland: Traversing Two Systems

_____________________________________________________________

The experiences of crossover youth in Maryland involve complex and largely distinct child welfare

and juvenile justice systems comprised of multiple state and local executive agencies, service and support

organizations, States' Attorneys' offices, the defense bar, and the Maryland Judiciary. This chapter

describes how the child welfare and juvenile justice systems in Maryland operate, how crossover youth

are identified, initiatives by state agencies, the Judiciary, and local jurisdictions to increase collaboration

and improve services to youth and their families, and how Maryland's efforts compare to best practices.

Information on practices in Maryland was obtained through review of public documents, which are

listed in Appendix A, as well as interviews with 26 officials in state and local agencies. At the state level,

interviews were conducted with four representatives of the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS), one

representative of the Social Services Administration of the Department of Human Resources, one

representative of the Judiciary’s Foster Care Court Improvement Project, and the Judiciary’s Juvenile

Law Manager. At the local level, 19 individuals were interviewed, including one from Anne Arundel

County, two from Baltimore County, five each from Baltimore City and Prince George’s Counties; and

six from Montgomery County. Local interviewees included four executive directors of Court-Appointed

Special Advocates (CASA) for children, one CASA staff member, three judges, one master, one

permanency plan coordinator, two local Department of Social Services (LDSS) directors, two LDSS staff,

two DJS regional directors, two local DJS staff, and a juvenile defense attorney.

Maryland Law and Courts

A child who enters the dependency system in Maryland is identified by the legal term “child in

need of assistance” or “CINA.” Maryland law defines CINA as a child who requires court intervention

because: (1) The child has been abused, has been neglected, has a developmental disability, or has a

mental disorder; and (2) The child's parents, guardian, or custodian are unable or unwilling to give proper

care and attention to the child and the child's needs. A delinquent child is defined in Maryland law as an

individual under the age of 18 who has committed an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult

and who requires guidance, treatment or rehabilitation. In Maryland, a delinquent child is legally distinct

from a “child in need of supervision,” which is the term used for status offenders, habitual truants, and

children deemed “ungovernable.”

Both CINA and delinquency cases are heard by Maryland’s circuit courts, sitting as juvenile courts.

These courts are located in each of the state's 23 counties and Baltimore City. In addition to juvenile court

judges, the larger jurisdictions have masters for juvenile causes, who are appointed to aid the court by

presiding over CINA and delinquency hearings. Masters’ decisions are not final and they are only able to

make recommendations that must be reviewed by a judge. In most of the jurisdictions sampled, both

judges and masters hear CINA and delinquency cases, although counties have devised a variety of case

assignment policies and practices.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

22

Maryland Child Welfare System

The Maryland Department of Human Resources (DHR) is responsible for child welfare programs

and services at the state level through its Social Services Administration (SSA) and local departments of

social services (LDSS) in each county and Baltimore City. Under SSA oversight, the LDSS directly

deliver child welfare programs and services to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse, or exploitation of

Maryland's children. The LDSS has a director appointed by the Secretary of DHR and approved by that

jurisdiction's governing body, in addition to an assistant director. Local DSS are hybrid state/local entities

whose policies and practices reflect these multiple influences.

The dependency process is initiated by a report of suspected abuse or neglect to the LDSS, the

police, or to a DHR state hotline. Reporters may choose to remain anonymous, and their identity is

closely guarded by the agency. Upon receipt of a report the local department, a law enforcement officer,

or both are mandated by statute and regulations to investigate whether the abuse or neglect occurred, what

the nature and extent are, and who are the potential persons responsible. The condition of siblings or other

children in the household are also assessed. Abuse investigations must be initiated within 24 hours of the

report; the LDSS must investigate an allegation of neglect within five days. Trained Child Protective

Services (CPS) workers conduct the investigation for the LDSS. Based on the investigation, they

determine whether the reported abuse or neglect is indicated, unsubstantiated, or ruled out. When child

abuse or neglect has not been ruled out, the LDSS intervenes to the extent necessary to protect the safety

of the child.

In recent years a greater effort has been made to keep children in the home or to identify family

members who can provide temporary care while adverse behaviors or conditions in the home are

addressed. There is a consensus at this point that it best to keep children with their parents and in their

home communities if safety concerns can be addressed. In the most serious cases where children are

severely injured, or parents are not cooperative in taking steps to improve the circumstances in the home

and the child is at imminent risk of harm from abuse or neglect, the CPS worker may remove the child

from the home and attorneys for the LDSS will file a CINA petition with the juvenile court listing the

specific reasons why removal was necessary. The court will conduct an emergency shelter care hearing

the next court day to decide if the child can return home, and if not, whether there is a less restrictive

placement for the child, such as a relative’s home. At the shelter care hearing the child is represented by

private attorneys contracted by DHR. The parents are also entitled to representation and if needed counsel

will be provided by the Public Defender’s Office.

Unless the LDSS withdraws the petition the matter is scheduled for a fact finding hearing or

adjudication, where the LDSS must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged in the

petition are true. If facts are sustained a disposition hearing is held, and the court determines if the child is

in need of the court’s assistance. For those “found CINA,” the court determines the least restrictive

placement for the child, which may involve returning home with services and/or supervision, or being

committed to the LDSS for placement with a relative, in a foster home, or treatment setting.

In each CINA case, the court will set an initial permanency plan. The goal of the plan is to

establish a permanent living situation for each child before the court. Reunification with the family is the

preferred permanency plan. When this is not feasible, the court will look to place the child in the care of a

relative. If there is no relative able and willing to care for the child, the child will be placed in the care of

a non-relative. In some cases, typically when the child is in need of long term medical care or for older

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

23

children who may benefit from independent living assistance, the court will permit another planned

permanent living arrangement. To ensure that the local department is working towards the permanency

plan, and that the placement is appropriate for the child, permanency planning reviews are conducted

every six months.

Maryland Juvenile Justice System

The Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) is responsible for the management,

supervision, and treatment of youth involved in the state’s juvenile justice system. The Department’s role

is to assess the individual needs of referred youth and provide intake, detention, probation, placement,

commitment, and aftercare supervision, often in collaboration with others including law enforcement,

courts, families, community partners, and public agencies. DJS has 14 facilities and 32 field offices

organized into six geographically-designated service regions.

A child with an arrest complaint is referred to DJS intake, where it is determined if the complaint

can be resolved, conditionally diverted to informal probation, or authorized for formal petitioning by the

State’s Attorney’s office. According to DJS’ FY 2013 Data Resource Guide, slightly less than half of the

27,510 cases referred to intake (48.5%) were resolved or the youth received 90 days of informal pre-court

supervision. The other half (51.5%) of the cases were forwarded to the Office of the State’s Attorney in

the local jurisdiction for prosecution. In FY 2012, State’s Attorney’s offices filed delinquency petitions

with the court for 12,196 cases or 86.0 percent of the cases referred to them by DJS. For the remaining

14.0 percent of cases, the petition was either denied by the State’s Attorney or withdrawn. Delinquency

petitions contain factual statements about acts committed by the defendant which contain the elements of

statutory or common law offenses.

In addition to the case forwarding decision, intake processes concern pre-trial detention. If an intake

worker authorizes detention when first receiving a case from the police, a request for detention is filed in

the juvenile court and the emergency detention hearing is held on the next court day. The Court detains a

child or orders community detention if the child is a risk to public safety or it appears likely the child will

not appear for the next court hearing. At the detention hearing and at all subsequent delinquency hearings

the child is represented by counsel. If the parent does not hire an attorney, the child is represented by an

assistant public defender.

An adjudication hearing is scheduled for all cases in which a petition has been filed, whether or not

the youth has been detained. The delinquency adjudication is a fact finding hearing comparable to the

CINA adjudication, but the state, is held to the higher standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. The

delinquency adjudication resembles a criminal trial, but there is no jury. If the court finds that facts are

sustained, a disposition hearing will be held on the same day or scheduled within two weeks.

At the disposition hearing, the court determines if the child is delinquent and, if so, what services

are appropriate. The judge may place the child on probation under the supervision of DJS or issue a

commitment order. The judge may also order that the child and parents pay restitution. If placed under

probation, the child returns to the community but must meet specified conditions, such as regular

meetings with a probation officer, curfews, school attendance, and mental health counseling. A

commitment order can place a child under DJS jurisdiction for up to three years and is renewable until the

child reaches 21 years of age. For the duration of the commitment, DJS makes decisions regarding the

child’s placement in residential facilities, including foster homes, youth centers with specialized treatment

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

24

capabilities, or secure facilities. A review hearing is held several months after the disposition hearing to

determine whether the treatment plan should be changed or terminated.

Court-Appointed Special Advocates for Children (CASA) play a unique independent role in

supporting youth involved in the dependency system, including dual-system youth. CASA is a national

network of 933 local non-profit organizations. CASAs in Maryland are supervised volunteers who receive

forty hours of training and are appointed by the juvenile court to advocate for CINA youth who are in out-

of-home placements; they typically work with a single child and family at a time. These volunteers can

play a critical role in the lives of these children. The court appointments allow CASAs access to

educational, medical, and mental health records in addition to child welfare records. They are encouraged

to meet the parents and care providers, to observe the child during visits, and to note reactions to

interactions with the parent. The goal of the CASA is consistent with the court’s goal, to achieve a safe,

loving, permanent home for the child. The CASA makes recommendations to the court based on what is

perceived to be in the best interest of the child, whereas the child’s attorney represents the child’s stated

position. Typically, the CASA meets with the CINA youth in person or via telephone twice a month in

addition to attending scheduled hearings and Family Involvement Meetings (see below). The CASA may

be more familiar with the child, the family, and the community than the child’s attorney or social worker.

CASA executive directors in the study jurisdictions and others interviewed for the research

indicated that CASAs can play an active role in dual system youth cases, with one former master active

with CASA Baltimore commenting that in recent years CASA offices have become more sensitive to

involvement in the delinquency system by CINA youth. Volunteers working with a CINA youth who is

dually involved can remain with the child through delinquency proceedings but their appointment ends

officially when the CINA case is closed. Described further below, the information flow to CASAs on

youths’ delinquency processing is limited, and CASAs’ overall impact on dual system youth appears

inevitably bounded by their voluntary status and lack of reach. Across the state, CASA volunteers work

with about 1,600 youth and families. CASA directors in several jurisdictions indicated that the number of

CASA-assigned cases involving dual system youth was low, although one CASA director reported having

a number of dual system youth on caseloads in her jurisdiction.

Identifying Dual System Youth

Interview and survey respondents (see next section) universally acknowledged that dual system

youth have special needs and confront unique obstacles, and recognized the need for these to be addressed

in Maryland’s child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Cited extensively in the literature on practice

improvement, one major challenge concerns identification of dual system youth. There are no state or

local-level systems in place in Maryland to routinely notify persons in either child welfare or juvenile

justice agencies when a youth with an active CINA case is arrested and referred to DJS intake or the

court, or is adjudicated delinquent, or when an active delinquency case is petitioned or found CINA by

the court.

Maryland DHR’s Child Safety Net Dashboard provides a means of identifying active cases

involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. The electronic Dashboard does not notify

child welfare or juvenile justice staff of dual system cases, but the Dashboard can be consulted by staff to

ascertain whether youth have open cases in either system. Discussed in more detail below, while the

Dashboard can potentially serve as a valuable resource for identifying dual system youth, reported use of

the system is uneven. In addition to the Dashboard, DJS staff has access to the ASSIST database, which

has been upgraded to identify crossover youth.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

25

In interviews, respondents in each jurisdiction reported varied means by which dual system youth

can and are identified at the local level. Montgomery County and Baltimore City appear to have the most

standardized means of identifying such cases through the local courts’ electronic data systems. In

Montgomery, court data indicate whether a particular juvenile has an open CINA case, delinquency case,

or both. In Baltimore City dual system youth can be identified through the court’s QUEST information

system, where a single youth identifier provides access to data on all petitions, both delinquency and

CINA. LDSS staff in Prince George’s County identifies dual system youth by asking youth themselves or

by finding out from the foster parent.

CASAs who are assigned to CINA cases typically learn about delinquency involvement in a fashion

similar to LDSS staff, obtaining information fortuitously or relying on the initiative of the CASA or

caseworker to seek this information from available electronic data, each other and counterparts at DJS, an

attorney, foster parent, caretaker, or the child herself. Awareness of dual system involvement may not

occur until the adjudication, and possibly not even then. A former child’s attorney and juvenile court

master in Baltimore City gave examples of how failure or delay in learning of the child’s dual system

status can result in grave harm to the child.

 At a detention hearing the intake worker may recommend that the child be placed on community

detention and returned to his parents’ home pending the adjudication. They may have seen a

CINA petition on the QUEST system, but haven’t been able to determine whether the child is

placed. The parent is present in court and the child is returned to the parent. Typically the court

would rather place the child, especially an older child, with the parent – a less restrictive

alternative – than detain him. The court will likely instruct DJS to contact LDSS or may even

order that the LDSS worker appear. Neither action is guaranteed to secure the social worker’s

presence for the next hearing. In the interim the child has been returned to a parent from whom he

was previously removed, without any investigation as to whether the parent addressed the

circumstances that led to the CINA finding.

 Vulnerable children from the child welfare system can be arrested and detained in state-operated

facilities which pose risks because neither DJS nor the court is aware of a child’s vulnerabilities,

despite their being documented in LDSS records. A CASA volunteer who had worked with a

child for more than five years was notified on a Friday afternoon that “her” 15-year-old boy had

been arrested for breaking and entering two days previous, and was detained in the Baltimore

City Juvenile Justice Center. The youth had been in foster care since birth, and had countless

placements, including four years in residential treatment centers. He had been prescribed

psychotropic medication and had acknowledged gender identity issues – information that was not

available to the court. The judge essentially made the detention decision in a vacuum.

Dual System Youth Initiatives: State Efforts

In 2005, the Governor's Office for Children (GOC) and Children's Cabinet were created by

Executive Order to ensure coordinated delivery of child and family-oriented care within Maryland's child-

serving agencies. Both are led by gubernatorial appointees and comprise the State Superintendent of

Education (MSDE) and Secretaries of the Department of Disabilities (MDOD); Department of Health and

Mental Hygiene (DHMH); Department of Human Resources (DHR); and Department of Juvenile

Services (DJS) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

26

Three years after its creation, the Children's Cabinet issued The Maryland Child and Family

Services Interagency Strategic Plan (ISP). The ISP sets goals and strategies for delivery of integrated

services to children and families that are guided by more individualized, family-centered service delivery

processes emphasizing prevention, early intervention, and community-based services. Developed through

a collaborative effort that included state agencies as well as families, local partners, and community

stakeholders, the ISP triggered the enactment of state legislation in 2011. HB 840 was designed to remove

interagency structural barriers and align Maryland's child and family-serving systems of care with the

goals and strategies outlined in the plan. While the comprehensive ISP is focused on Maryland's children

and families overall, several elements are notable with respect to dual system youth.

Central to the ISP is the commitment to family-driven policies and practice models, and the

mandate that families and youth must participate in making service decisions involving them. DHR

developed policy and training on the family-centered practice model (FCP) to facilitate its

implementation across populations and in all jurisdictions. As a component of the FCP, the Family

Involvement Meeting (FIM) is a facilitation meeting triggered by specific points in a youth’s case, such as

before shelter and between shelter and adjudication; it is mandated by DHR and the state Department of

Juvenile Services (DJS). Interview responses indicated that all jurisdictions in the study use FIMs. Each

of the CASA executive directors interviewed for example, point out that CASA volunteers attend Family

Involvement Meetings (FIMs) as part of their work, noting that it is at these meetings where they may

learn of a youth’s delinquency charge.

Another notable element of the ISP is the development of the Child Safety Net Dashboard,

mentioned previously. Rolled out in 2010 and designed to support appropriate information-sharing across

agencies, the web-based Dashboard provides child welfare and juvenile services staff access to

identifying information about youth served in both systems. DHR policy provides that, at CPS intake,

LDSS intake screeners check the Dashboard to see whether a youth is or has been served by juvenile

services; if so, the screener summarizes relevant information in the narrative section of the CPS report,

including name and telephone number of the DJS case manager. LDSS caseworkers are responsible for

contacting the DJS case manager by telephone within two business days of being assigned the case.

Similarly, the Dashboard is to be consulted during intake by DJS staff; it is also checked during

investigation, as well as when the youth is assigned to probation or aftercare. Certain information may be

communicated between LDSS and DJS only when both agencies have an active, open case involving the

youth.

Based on the interview data, feedback on the Dashboard and its utility in identifying dual system

youth is mixed. Because it includes information only about current cases, the Dashboard defines

Maryland's dual system youth in terms of active, open cases, which some find too limiting. Interviewees

in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County reported that the Dashboard is not being widely used by

LDSS staff there. On the other hand, a representative of a local DJS office expressed that the tool was

helping staff to identify dual system cases. It is not clear why this initiative intended to standardize

processes to promote timely and effective information-sharing across child-serving agencies has not

gained widespread adoption by staff in both systems.

DJS and DHR have initiated a number of programs directed at the youth populations they serve.

Two of these programs, Place Matters and Ready by 21, were mentioned by officials in the interviews on

crossover youth. All the programs described below, although not targeted at crossover youth in particular,

have potential positive benefits for this group. In addition to these programs, a study by the Institute for

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

27

Innovation and Implementation at the University of Maryland School of Social Work (Maryland DHR,

2013), identified the following evidence-based practices currently being implemented in Maryland: Brief

Strategic Family Therapy; Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation; Functional Family Therapy;

High Fidelity Wraparound; Home Visiting; Motivational Interviewing; Multi-Dimensional Treatment

Foster Care; Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Multi-Systemic Therapy; Parent Peer

Support Partners; and Social Emotional Foundations of Early Learning.

Place Matters represents a shift in SSA practice, policy, and service delivery that was initiated

statewide in July 2007 (Maryland DHR, 2014). The goals of the program are to place more children who

enter care with relatives or in resource families as appropriate and decrease the numbers of children in

congregate care; maintain children in their communities, keeping them with their families and offering

more services in their communities across all levels of care; reducing reliance on out-of-home care;

minimizing length of stay in out-of-home care and increasing reunification; using data to improve

decision-making, oversight, and accountability; and shifting resources from the back end to the front end

of services. Maryland DHR (2013) reports that as a result of Place Matters, the number of children in out-

of-home care has been reduced by 41 percent; the proportion of youth in group home placements has

decreased from 19 percent to 10 percent; and the proportion of family home placements has increased

from 70 percent to 73 percent. Place Matters is a key component of the Maryland Child and Family

Services Interagency Strategic Plan.

Ready by 21 encompasses a set of strategies developed by the Forum for Youth Investment to help

communities “improve the odds that all children and youth will be ready for college, work and life.”

(Forum for Youth Investment, 2014). The Ready by 21 Action Plan (Maryland Children’s Cabinet, 2009)

identifies benchmarks in the areas of education, employment, health, housing, and cross-cutting issues;

action steps for achieving the benchmarks; agencies responsible for each action; and time frames for

completion. Recognizing that youth in foster care have poorer outcomes than their peers in transitioning

to adulthood, goals established by Ready by 21 include that these youth have a high school diploma/GED

or be actively enrolled in an academic or occupational skills training program; be linked to appropriate

services to address physical and behavioral health needs; and have financial resources through

employment or entitlements to allow for self-sufficiency. Implementation of Ready by 21 involves

multiple state agencies, including DHR, LDSS, MSDE, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,

and others. DHR’s current Ready by 21 partners include AIDS Interfaith Residential Services, which

provides housing, education, employment, health care, financial literacy, and mentoring to 35 foster youth

in the Baltimore area who are preparing to age out, and University of Maryland School of Social Work,

which has a grant from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to develop an intervention

in five counties for foster youth who are at risk of homelessness and to evaluate the Ready by 21

framework (Hiers, 2014).

The Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) instrument is designed to assess youth

functioning in major life domains, strengths, emotional and behavioral needs, and risk behaviors as well

as assessing caregiver strengths and needs. Since July 2011, Maryland DHR staff has used the CANS tool

to assess youth in out-of-home placements. The policy is for all children over age 5 entering out-of-home

placement to have the CANS assessment completed within 60 days of entry into out-of-home care. The

assessment is also to be conducted for all children over age 5 already in out-of-home care. Private group

homes and treatment foster care agencies that contracted with DHR or DJS have used the CANS

assessment tool since 2009. A variation of the instrument, the CANS-Family (CANS-F) comprises a

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

28

comprehensive family system assessment as well as individual caregiver and youth assessments. Piloted

in three counties and expanded to statewide use in 2013, the CANS-F assessment is used by in-home

service workers to aid in the identification of strengths and underlying issues and needs for families that

have been brought to the attention of DHR (Maryland DHR, 2013).

The DJS Under-13 Initiative is a collaborative project between DJS, LDSS, and the local school

system, which began in Baltimore City during 2013 (Maryland DJS, 2014). The program targets youth

ages 12 years and younger based on the premise that there are usually problems at home when a youth is

being arrested at such a young age. When a child in this age group is brought to DJS’s intake offices, DJS

contacts the schools, which coordinate a meeting with the youth and his/her family at a local school. The

goal is to provide the youth and family the opportunity to receive services and support so the youth can

avoid going deeper in to the juvenile justice system. Youth and families are eligible to receive services

such as Family Preservation Intervention through the LDSS, wrap-around services facilitated by the care

management entity, and special education and student support services through Baltimore City Schools.

DJS, the LDSS, and Baltimore City Schools use existing resources to provide these services and support.

From the program’s inception in May 2013 to March 2014, there were 46 youth referred to the Under-13

Initiative, and one youth participant had re-offended. As of the end of 2013 there are plans to expand the

program to Prince George’s County (Maryland StateStat, 2013, December).

Maryland is also participating in the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), a national

program coordinated by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Maryland DJS, 2014). The goals are to improve

the efficiency and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system overall and, more specifically, eliminate

inappropriate and unnecessary detention, reduce the failures of juveniles to appear in court, and reduce

disproportionate minority confinement and contact. The initiative, which has a track record of success

nationally, has been operating in Baltimore City and recently expanded to Prince George’s County.

The Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI) is a data-driven tool to identify and appropriately

supervise youth at risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of violent crime (Maryland DJS, 2014). The

program is characterized by intensive supervision, including contact with youth during evenings and

weekends and electronic monitoring; enhanced service delivery; and immediate and appropriate sanctions

for noncompliance with supervision. Services address risks and needs correlated with delinquent behavior

including negative peer association, antisocial attitudes, insufficient adult supervision, gang involvement,

neighborhood safety, substance abuse, education, and impulsivity/anger management problems. VPI was

begun in Baltimore City and subsequently expanded statewide. As of September 2013, the number of

youth under VPI supervision totaled 533. VPI is credited with decreasing juvenile homicides statewide

and reducing non-fatal shootings of juveniles in Baltimore City (Maryland DJS, 2014).

Dual Jurisdiction Youth Initiatives: Judicial Efforts

With respect to case assignment and process flow, the interview data suggest that Maryland

jurisdictions are looking to frameworks advanced by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges (NCJFCJ), including “One Family/One Judge” and the “Unified Model Court,” which was

developed through concern over crossover youth and emphasizes court collaboration with community

agencies. One interviewee working with the state judicial agency estimated that about half of Maryland’s

24 jurisdictions follow the one family/one judge model where one judge, or master, handles all cases

involving a family through all court processes.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

29

The Baltimore City Juvenile Court is a Model Court, as designated by NCJFCJ in 2005. One

Master, One Family was implemented in 2007 under the label “Home Court,” where a child or family is

assigned to work exclusively with a master who conducts both CINA and delinquency hearings. Any

matter involving that child or family is heard by the same master who has personal experience with the

child in either or both systems, and brings that potentially valuable experience to bear in working with

dual system youth. The master not only is familiar with the child and his history; upon crossing into

delinquency or CINA, the master knows which workers should become involved from child welfare or

juvenile justice. Each of the eight Home Court masters has 2,700 cases. Another master handles all

intake court hearing arraignments, specials, and shelter care hearings and assigns new cases to each Home

Court; the tenth master presides over an overflow trial court. Several interviewees commented that this

initiative helps facilitate identification of dual system youth in the City and improved responses to this

population. An official with the state Administrative Office of the Courts applauded the one family/one

court model, not only in providing more effective treatment for dual system youth, but also in promoting

a more humanistic form of jurisprudence.

In August 2011, Prince George’s County adopted the Model Court concept with the goal of

improving the processing of CINA cases. The local DSS agency director and several judges visited a dual

system youth practice site in Austin, Texas, developed with guidance from Georgetown University’s

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (CJJR). These and other local stakeholders have formed a

subcommittee to plan and implement the one family/one judge model in the county. The relationship

between LDSS and the Judiciary appears to be closer in this county than in the other jurisdictions, and

several judges interviewed expressed interest in having specialized dual system youth dockets. There is

also an effort underway to flag dual system youth cases in the county’s court records.

Dual Jurisdiction Youth Initiatives: Local Initiatives

In the area of case planning and supervision for dual system youth, the study jurisdictions vary in

their approaches to service coordination and oversight. Interview respondents in Anne Arundel County

and Baltimore City reported that the local DSS typically serves as the lead agency. In Baltimore County,

disputes take place between the agencies regarding who will take the lead. In both Montgomery and

Prince George’s counties, DJS coordinates with LDSS to determine who will take the lead, unless the

youth is already committed to one agency, which then takes the lead. Judges’ orders in these two counties

typically do not specify a lead agency, but can include “co-committed.” In Baltimore City, judges’ orders

can specify coordination by DJS and LDSS and that LDSS stay involved through the delinquency

process. The interview data also suggest that once delinquency is a factor, however, in the absence of

orders or other specified agreements, LDSS often withdraws when the delinquency case is filed.

In an effort to better serve dual system youth in Montgomery County, relationships between DJS

and LDSS have become more reciprocal and coordinated, according to several interviewees. Local

directors of the county social services and juvenile justice agencies have established collaborative

procedures where staff from each agency meets bi-weekly to review co-committed cases. At these

meetings, four cases are reviewed, each for 30 minutes with the LDSS social worker and DJS case

manager discussing where the case is in the process, and where there are gaps and overlaps. Staff from

both agencies also has increased joint attendance at court hearings. Montgomery interview respondents

indicated that information sharing is key to enabling coordination and mitigates problems of overlapping

services and supervision. Youth benefit by receiving more attention, and the court can make more

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

30

informed judgments, with access to the child’s complete history and current situation outweighing

concerns about sharing sensitive information.

In addition to educating both agencies about each other, planners in Montgomery County also

intend to develop training on dual system youth, and designate point persons at each agency who are

knowledgeable about the substantive and systematic challenges of working with these youth.

Significantly, an agreement has been reached by the local DSS and DJS to share costs associated with

dual system youth, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Although there are no dedicated dual system

youth caseworkers, LDSS is open to this option and is seeking additional direction from the state DHR in

improving practices with this population.

Baltimore City interviewees also reported a collaborative effort where DJS and LDSS employ the

same forms and data fields with the aim of improved information sharing on dual system youth.

Respondents here indicated that increasing shared knowledge about case-planning and supervision

activities of both agencies concerning dual system youth was a greater priority than establishing roles in

specific cases. An LDSS representative reported a working partnership between the two agencies where

DJS takes the lead with youth who are detained or committed due to delinquency. LDSS and DJS work

together to identify youth in the gap where neither agency is responsible.

Several interviewees referred to Baltimore City’s participation in a dual system youth pilot project

conducted in 2009 under the auspices of Georgetown University’s CJJR and mentioned in Section 2 of

this report in the discussion of promising programs. DHR, LDSS, DJS, and the City juvenile court

participated in the interagency effort, which focused on case planning for co-committed youth between

the ages of 16 and 18. Targeted youth were assigned to the caseload of a DJS-LDSS caseworker team

who collaborated on protocols and processes to achieve coordinated treatment plans. According to one

interviewee, CJJR provided rules and procedures to follow, in addition to training on best practices. At

the end of the year, a debriefing session was held to discuss lessons learned and how the project could be

implemented citywide. While several additional meetings were held between the involved agencies after

the session, the interview data suggest that the project was discontinued due to the challenges of

implementing the dedicated, one-to-one LDSS and DJS staff ratio and in ensuring coordinated case

planning for youth in that age range. One interviewee indicated that LDSS is often reluctant to take

responsibility for older youth who may have returned from a residential placement but still need

additional support.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

31

Section 4

Survey of Stakeholders

__________________________________________________________________

The survey of stakeholders served as another means of gathering information about system

practices and policies in Maryland regarding crossover youth, and complements what was learned through

interviews and document review. The survey targeted over 350 individuals across various organizations

and institutions that are involved in setting and implementing these practices, and working together to

best serve the crossover youth population.

The survey in its entirety is included in Appendix B. Section 1 of the survey collects respondents’

views on the extent of use and effectiveness of certain practices, policies and programs involving

crossover youth in their jurisdiction. Section 2 inquires about the availability and participation of cross-

system training for stakeholders to help in handling crossover youth cases. Section 3 assesses

respondents’ views on the level of attention, knowledge, and resources that different stakeholder groups

have on issues involving crossover youth. Sections 4 and 5 solicits views on the level of collaboration

among key agencies and service sectors, and the role of the Judiciary in handling crossover youth cases.

Finally, Section 6 collects respondents’ assessment on the barriers that inhibit serving crossover youth in

their jurisdiction. Respondents’ basic demographic information, as well as their organization, title, and

jurisdictional location, were collected for the purpose of comparing survey responses with respect to these

variables. Further detail on survey items is provided in the results section below.

Survey Methods and Sample

Snowball sampling for the survey was incorporated into the stakeholder interviews, where

respondents were invited to recommend other persons with knowledge and experience regarding

crossover youth issues who would be appropriate survey recipients. This technique was complemented

with contact information obtained from publicly available sources and directly from agencies upon

request. Within each agency or institution, respondents were targeted primarily based on available

information about the nature of their work. Individuals presumed to have more contact with and

knowledge of crossover youth issues were prioritized. When such information was limited, we cast a wide

net and sought to include a large number of respondents from each stakeholder area in order to reach a

diverse sample pool. The sample was designed to have representation from the five study jurisdictions, as

well from key state executive agencies and the Judiciary. Given the disproportionately large numbers of

youth involved in the local CINA and delinquency systems in Baltimore City, stakeholders in this

jurisdiction accounted for a substantial portion of the target pool. The sampling also took into account

personnel data with the intent of reaching a diverse group in regard to job type and level, from case

workers to managers and agency directors.

Web-based survey software was used to administer the survey. Prospective participants were

recruited via email messages that included a survey URL tied to each recipients’ email address. Non-

respondents were sent up to three follow-up recruitment emails. The lone exception to the survey protocol

involved Baltimore City DSS, which was not able to provide a contact list of case workers targeted for

participation. Therefore, arrangements were made for the agency to send an email invitation to all case

workers, which included a survey URL not connected to individual recipients’ addresses.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

32

The survey administration took place in phases, starting in the fall of 2011, and ending in the fall of

2013. Recipients targeted in the first two phases were determined by ongoing snowball sampling. The

third phase, administered in the fall of 2013, covered only recipients from LDSS. The survey participation

recruitment message, as well as the title page of the survey, explained the survey objective and the

specific definition of crossover youth on which the survey was based (see Appendix B). As part of the

informed consent process, survey materials explained that participation was voluntary and answers would

be treated a confidential. The consent protocol was approved by the UMCP Institutional Review Board.

Table 4.1 shows the target sample and respondents by organization or institution. A total of 164

individuals responded to the survey at least partially. It was not possible to calculate a precise response

rate due to the recruitment arrangements in Baltimore City LDSS where the target pool was unknown (the

known target sample figure for the other LDSS and DHR is shown in the table). Excluding the LDSS

target sample and the 70 survey respondents from these agencies, the 94 other respondents represent 33.5

percent of the target sample of 279. Of the 164 persons returning a survey, 31 did not answer any items

beyond those on respondent characteristics and another 13 completed 40 percent or less of all the items.

In effect, these persons self-selected themselves out of survey participation and indeed several of them

and other non-respondents sent reply emails to us indicating they felt unsuited to complete the survey.

Given the survey’s tight focus on crossover youth issues and “wide net” sampling strategy, it is not

surprising that many persons chose not to respond. In examining differences between those completing

most of the survey and partial respondents, no clear patterns were evident with regard to their differences

with regard to jurisdiction, organization, or respondent characteristics.

Table 4.1. Stakeholder Survey Sample and Response Rates by Organization

Organization Target Sample Respondents

Response Rate

Completed > 60% of

Survey Items

Percentage of Respondent

Sample

Juvenile Court 87 31 35.6 25 20.8

State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) 27 8 29.6 6 5.0

Office of the Public Defender (OPD) 80 21 26.3 17 14.2

Private (Contracted) Legal Firm 30 13 43.3 12 10.0

Legal Aid 9 4 44.4 2 1.7

Dept. of Human Resources (DHR), Local Depts. of Social Services (LDSS)*

113 70 * 48 40.0

Dept. of Juvenile Services (DJS) 42 11 26.2 8 6.7

Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) 6 4 66.7 2 1.7

No answer/refused 2

Total 394 164 33.5* 120 100

*DSS case workers in Baltimore City were recruited for the survey indirectly through the DSS administration and the targeted number of participants for this agency is unknown. The known target sample for DHR and the other LDSS are shown in the table. Due to the unknown figures for Baltimore City DSS, the DHR/LDSS response rate was not calculated and the DHR/LDSS numbers were not included in the overall response rate.

The final respondent pool appears to be a diverse and largely representative group of stakeholders.

Of the 120 respondents who completed most of the survey, LDSS personnel accounted for a little over

one-third (35%) of the total. The next largest groups of respondents were juvenile court judges and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

33

administrators affiliated with the Judiciary, and various types of attorneys involved with CINA and

delinquency cases (although few DSS attorneys participated). DJS appeared to be the one agency group

that was under-represented in the respondent pool. When viewed by jurisdiction, as planned, Baltimore

City had the most respondents (30.8% of the 120). Baltimore County was under-represented compared

with the other jurisdictions (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2. Survey Sample by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Respondents

Completed > 60% of

Survey Items

Percentage of Respondent

Sample

Baltimore City 43 37 30.8

Anne Arundel County 28 19 15.8

Baltimore County 15 10 8.3

Montgomery County 29 22 18.3

Prince George’s County 28 23 19.2

State/other/no answer 21 9 7.5

Total 164 120 100

Survey Results

Practices Employed with Crossover Youth

Respondents were asked about a series of practices and policies that are commonly described in

literature on crossover youth as “evidence-based” or “best” practices. They were first asked to indicate if

the practice or policy “operates in my jurisdiction” (yes, no, or not sure) and if it was in use, to rate its

effectiveness (1=not effective, 2=somewhat effective, and 3= very effective); “not sure” and blank or

missing responses were excluded from the analyses. Table 4.3 shows the percentage reporting use, ratings

of effectiveness, and the number of respondents, in order of most to least used (letters after the items are

explained below).

Table 4.3. CY Practices and Policies: Extent of Reported Use and Effectiveness Ratings

Practice and Policy Scale Item

Use “In Your Jurisdiction”

Rating of Effectiveness (1= not effective;

2=somewhat effective; 3= very effective)

Percent Practicing

Number Responding*

Mean Rating (sd)

Number Responding*

Independent living services are provided to crossover youth (CW)

92.7 96 2.00 (.50) 80

If permanency is not possible, efforts are made to identify caring adults who may serve as support networks to the youth (CW)

86.00 100 2.01 (.51) 74

Employ routine procedures at DJS intake to determine whether the youth has an active CINA case (JJ)

75.50 49 2.02 (.71) 50

Efforts to reduce the use of group care for crossover youth (CW)

69.30 75 1.98 (.54) 52

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

34

Family or multi-disciplinary meetings aimed at diverting youth from the juvenile justice system (JJ)

64.90 77 1.88 (.66) 56

One judge/master, one family approach (CT) 64.20 106 2.24 (.75) 66

Routinely use procedures to notify DSS social worker upon new delinquency charge or updates in delinquency case (JJ)

59.40 69 1.81 (.70) 54

Employ procedures for notifying DJS case manager regarding updates in CINA case (CW)

59.20 71 1.85 (.74) 53

Multidisciplinary Teams (or Family Team Meetings) prepare case plans and review case progress (CO)

56.50 92 2.13 (.73) 54

Court orders that include instructions for both DSS and DJS (CT)

50.00 100 1.98 (.68) 59

Combined CINA/delinquency hearings for cases involving crossover youth (CT)

47.70 107 1.96 (.75) 67

Determination by DSS social worker and DJS case manager regarding which agency should take the lead (CO)

47.40 95 1.64 (.65) 56

DJS’ management information system identifies and tracks crossover youth (IS) (JJ)

42.90 28 1.63 (.65) 24

The courts’ management information system identifies and tracks crossover youth (IS) (CT)

42.30 52 1.76 (.66) 33

Coordinated case supervision between DSS and DJS (CO)

36.80 95 1.61 (.59) 56

DSS’ management information system specifically identifies and tracks crossover youth (IS) (CW)

31.80 44 1.68 (.55) 28

Electronic information system shared between DJS and DSS (IS) (CO)

31.60 76 1.68 (.73) 40

Joint or consolidated case plans between DSS and DJS (CO)

30.30 99 1.62 (.69) 53

Written memorandum of agreement between child welfare and juvenile justice agencies to communicate, share data, and coordinate on crossover cases (AG)

28.40 67 1.54 (.74) 35

DSS social worker and DJS case worker are present at all hearings (CT)

28.30 106 1.84 (.71) 50

Collaborative funding agreements between local child welfare and juvenile justice systems (AG)

24.60 61 1.70 (.65) 30

Coordinated use of validated youth risk/needs assessments between DSS and DJS (AG) (CO)

24.10 79 1.57 (.70) 42

Dedicated court dockets for crossover youth (CT)

23.80 105 1.81 (.79) 43

The same attorney represents the youth in child welfare and delinquency matters (CT)

7.70 104 1.40 (.65) 35

*Figures exclude persons who checked “don’t know.” Note: CW=Child Welfare Scale; CT=Court Scale; JJ=Juvenile Justice Scale; CO=Coordination Scale; AG=Agency Agreements Scale; IS=Information Sharing Scale

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

35

Use. The most commonly reported practices reflect a mixture of efforts to serve and identify

crossover youth, and to inform staff about youth across systems. Three of the four most common practices

reflect child welfare system efforts to provide independent living services (92% reported use), identify

caring and supportive adults when permanency is not possible (86%), and reduce the use of group care for

crossover youth (69%). Obtaining or sharing basic information about dual involvement was also reported

with relative frequency, including employing routine procedures at DJS intake to determine whether the

youth has an active CINA case (76%), routinely using procedures to notify DSS worker upon new

delinquency charge or updates in delinquency case, and procedures for notifying DJS case manager

regarding updates in CINA case (both at 60%). Of the ten practices or polices reported by half or more of

the respondents, two involved holding family and multi-disciplinary team meetings (64% and 57%) and

just two of the ten were court-based, including “one judge/master, one family” (64%) and court orders

that include instructions for both DSS and DJS (50%).

Survey practice and policy items that were reported with low frequency tended to be those that

involved more explicit, formal, and structured cross-system efforts with CY – and generally those

endorsed most highly in the current best practice literature on this population. These included

collaborative funding agreements between local child welfare and juvenile justice systems (25%), using

dedicated court dockets for crossover youth (24%), and several items on joint DSS-DJS efforts such as

coordinated case supervision (37%), using joint or consolidated case plans (30%), and having DSS and

DJS caseworkers present at all hearings (28%). Other less commonly reported practices were those

involving systematized information sharing, including an electronic information system shared between

DJS and DSS (32%), having a written memorandum of agreement or understanding between child

welfare and juvenile justice agencies to communicate, share data, and coordinate on crossover cases

(28%), and coordinated use of youth risk/needs assessments between DSS and DJS (24%).

Effectiveness. Only six of the practice/policy items had an average perceived effectiveness score

that was at or above two on the three-point scale. The one judge/master, one family approach was judged

the most effective practice by respondents (X̅=2.24), followed by the use of Multidisciplinary Teams (or

Family Team Meetings) to prepare case plans and review case progress (2.13). Not surprisingly, other

items with relatively high scores were also among those most frequently reported, including providing

independent living services for crossover youth, identifying caring adults who may serve as support

networks, reducing the use of group care, and employing procedures at DJS intake to determine whether

the youth has an active CINA case; all of these had a mean ranking at or very close to two. The fact that

all the remaining practice and policy items had mean scores indicating they were viewed as less than

somewhat effective would appear to speak to the perceived challenges of working with this population.

Use of Evidence-Based Programs

In addition to these questions about use of specific policies, the survey included questions about the

extent to which certain community-based program models that are widely regarded as evidence-based

were employed with crossover youth. Between 50 and 60 percent of the respondents reported use “some

of the time” for all six program models, and none of the programs were reported to be in use “all/most of

the time” by more than 35 percent of the respondents (see Figure 4.1). Wraparound Services and

Treatment Foster Care (TFC) were reported most commonly, with about 90 percent reporting at least

some use of these programs, while Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) and Multi-Dimensional Treatment

Foster Care (MTFC) were least used. Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and a general category of “other

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

36

cognitive-behavioral programs” fell between these other programs in terms of level of use with the

crossover population.

Practice Scales

Construction and Reliability. With the intent of creating simple summative scales that reflected

common practice domains and those specific to the judiciary, child welfare, and juvenile justice,

exploratory factor analyses and reliability analyses were performed on the 24 practice items. A principal

components analyses with varimax rotation yielded six factors that accounted for 60.4 percent of the

variance in the items. Item reliability analyses were done to refine the groups of responses that emerged in

the factor analyses and construct scales that met minimal reliability criteria of .60 or higher. Six general

practice scales were derived from this process. Three of the scales – coordination, agency agreements, and

information sharing – reflect different structures or forms of practice. The other three reflect the locus of

practices that centered around the juvenile court, child welfare, and juvenile justice. The scale to which

the items in Table 4.3 was assigned is represented by the letters in parentheses following each item,3 and

in the note at the bottom of the table.4 Shown in Table 4.4, the number of items in each scale ranged from

3 Five of the 24 items loaded on two of the scales and were employed in both. 4 The coordination scale included four practice items: joint or consolidated case plans between DSS and DJS;

coordinated case supervision between DSS and DJS; Multidisciplinary Teams (or Family Team Meetings) to

prepare case plans and review case progress; and determination by DSS social worker and DJS case manager

regarding which agency should take the lead. The agency agreements scale included three items: coordinated use of

validated youth risk/needs assessments between DSS and DJS; written memorandum of agreement or understanding

between child welfare and juvenile justice agencies to communicate, share data, and coordinate on crossover cases;

and collaborative funding agreements between local child welfare and juvenile justice systems. The information

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 4.1. Use of Evidence-Based Programs

% None of the time

% Rarely

% Some of the time

% Most of the time

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

37

three (agency agreements) to seven (court practices). Scale reliabilities were assessed separately for the

reported use (prevalence) and effectiveness responses. Given that most of the scales were composed of

just three to five items, alpha levels were adequate or better, ranging from .64 (court practices) to .89

(information sharing); eight of the twelve scales had coefficients above .70 and four were above .80.

Table 4.4. Practice Prevalence and Effectiveness Scales: Reliability and Jurisdictional Differences

Practice and Policy Scale

# of Items

Practice Prevalence (1=never/rarely, 4=frequent use)

Practice Effectiveness (1=not effective, 3=very effective)

Alpha Mean (sd)

Jurisdiction ANOVA Alpha

Mean (sd)

Jurisdiction ANOVA

Coordination 4 0.81 1.46

(1.43) F=6.20 p=.00

0.76 1.77

(0.53) F=2.46 p=.06

Agency Agreements 3 0.65 0.73

(1.11) F=2.98 p=.02

0.68 1.60

(0.63) F=0.85 p=.50

Information Sharing 4 0.89 0.75

(1.05) F=1.84 p=.13

0.84 1.78

(0.63) F=5.25 p=.00

Court Practices 7 0.64 1.19

(0.98) F=2.30 p=.06

0.85 1.99

(0.59) F=0.54 p=.71

Child Welfare Practices

5 0.79 1.92

(1.12) F=1.14 p=.34

0.77 1.95

(0.42) F=0.80 p=.53

Juvenile Justice Practices

4 0.73 1.43

(1.18) F=0.51 p=.73

0.62 1.88

(0.56) F=1.75 p=.15

The scales provided another means of assessing the relative prevalence of different types of practices with

crossover youth, and perceptions of their effectiveness. Scoring on the scales was standardized so the

prevalence (all of which ranged from one to four, with four representing use of more practices) and

effectiveness scores (one to three, three being most effective) could be compared across the scales and

across jurisdictions.

sharing scale included four items: electronic information system shared between DJS and DSS; DSS’ management

information system specifically identifies and tracks crossover youth; DJS’ management information system

specifically identifies and tracks crossover youth; and the courts’ management information system specifically

identifies and tracks crossover youth. The court practices scale included seven items: dedicated court dockets for

crossover youth; One Master/Judge, One Family approach; combined CINA/delinquency hearings for cases

involving crossover youth; court orders that include instructions for both DSS and DJS; the same attorney represents

the youth in both child welfare and delinquency matters; DSS social worker and DJS case worker are present at all

hearings; and the courts’ management information system specifically identifies and tracks crossover youth. The

child welfare practices scale included five items: efforts to reduce the use of group care for crossover youth; if

permanency is not possible for crossover youth, efforts are made to identify caring adults who may serve as support

networks to the youth; independent living services are provided to crossover youth; DSS’ management information

system specifically identifies and tracks crossover youth; and employ procedures for notifying DJS case manager

regarding updates in CINA case. The juvenile justice practice scale included four items: employ routine procedures

at DJS intake to determine whether the youth has an active CINA case; routinely use procedures to notify DSS

social worker upon new delinquency charge or updates in delinquency case; family or multi-disciplinary meetings

aimed at diverting youth from the juvenile justice system; and DJS’ management information system specifically

identifies and tracks crossover youth.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

38

Overall Differences. Mean prevalence scores across the six scales were all below the midpoint of

the four-point scales, ranging from .60 (agency agreements) to 1.90 (child welfare practices), indicating

that in general, these are not widely used practices. Consistent with the observations made above on the

individual item responses, formal interagency agreements regarding practices with crossover youth

(X̅=.60) and sharing of information about them (X̅=.75) were relatively rare compared to other forms of

coordination around case planning and supervision (X̅=1.46). Practices that were centered in the child

welfare system (X̅=1.90) were somewhat more prevalent than those associated with juvenile justice (1.43)

or the courts (X̅=1.21).

There was little range in the effectiveness scales scores. Notably, along with being the least

prevalent, formal agreements between agencies received the lowest effectiveness ratings (X̅=1.60). In

contrast, court-based practices, which were reported as less in use than those associated with child welfare

and juvenile justice, got the highest effectiveness ratings (X̅=1.99), although overall there was very little

difference between average scores on the latter three scales.

Jurisdictional Differences. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show scale scores for respondents from each of the

five jurisdictions on the prevalence and effectiveness scales. Here and throughout this section,

jurisdiction-specific findings and comparisons should be viewed with caution due to the low sample sizes

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Prince Georges County

Montgomery County

Baltimore County

Anne Arundel County

Baltimore City

Average Rating (0 = Not in Use; 4 = Commonly Used)

Figure 4.2. Practice Prevalence by Jurisdiction

Coordination

Agency Agreements

Information Sharing

Court Practices

Child Welfare Practices

Juvenile Justice Practices

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

39

in some of the counties.5 Analyses of variance conducted on each of the scales revealed significant

jurisdictional differences on three of the 12 scales, with two others showing marginal significance

(p=.06). On all three of the prevalence scales where mean differences were found to be significant

(coordination, agency agreements) or marginally significant (court practices), Baltimore County had the

highest scores across all the jurisdictions. Baltimore County also had the highest scores on perceived

effectiveness of coordination practices, where a marginal jurisdictional difference was observed in the

ANOVA tests. A difference was also found on information sharing effectiveness scores; here, Baltimore

City had the highest scores.

Knowledge About and Attention to Crossover Youth

Self and Stakeholder Ratings. On eight five-point Likert scales, respondents were asked to rate the

extent to which they and stakeholders in their jurisdiction were knowledgeable about and attentive to

issues and practices involving crossover youth (phrases appearing in quotes in this section are the actual

language used in the survey items and responses). Again, average ratings were consistently below the

midpoint between “very high” and “no/none” with regard to these measures. On all four scales,

respondents gave higher ratings to themselves than to local stakeholders; on just two of these, however

were the scores above three: “awareness of crossover youths’ risks and needs” (3.46), and “knowledge

about the issues and challenges in working with” these youth (X̅=3.44). The lowest ratings for both self

(X̅=2.85) and stakeholder (X̅=2.45) were on the question about the extent of “attention and resources

5 While the number of respondents included in analyses varied due to missing data on specific items, the median

sample sizes for each of the jurisdictions were as follows: Baltimore City-34; Anne Arundel County-15; Baltimore

County-9; Montgomery County-21; Prince George’s County-18.

1.00 2.00 3.00

Prince Georges County

Montgomery County

Baltimore County

Anne Arundel County

Baltimore City

Average Rating (1=Not Effective; 3 Very Effective)

Figure 4.3. Practice Effectiveness by Jurisdiction

Coordination

Agency Agreements

Information Sharing

Court Practices

Child Welfare Practices

Juvenile Justice Practices

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

40

given to crossover youth cases.” Similarly low ratings were evident on reported “knowledge about best

practices in working with crossover youth.”

Jurisdictional Differences. Simple scales were created by averaging across the four self

(alpha=.92) and stakeholder (alpha=.92) responses. The average self-rating was 3.16 and the local

stakeholder rating was 2.77. Baltimore County was the only jurisdiction with above mid-point (3.0)

ratings for both self (3.23) and local stakeholder (3.14) scales. Respondents from two counties gave

ratings below three on both sets of scales. Anne Arundel County’s ratings were 2.52 and 2.93, while

Prince George County’s ratings were 2.85 and 2.87 for stakeholder and self-ratings, respectively. Overall,

the county with the lowest stakeholder rating was Anne Arundel (2.52), and the jurisdiction with the

highest stakeholder rating was Baltimore County (3.14). The county with the lowest self-rating was

Prince Georges County (2.87) and the jurisdiction with the highest self-rating was Baltimore City (3.42).

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Attention and resources given to CY cases

Knowledge of best practices in working w/CY

Knowledge about issues and challenges in working w/CY

Awareness of CYs’ risks and needs

Average Rating (1=None; 5=Very High)

Figure 4.4. Knowledge and Attention Scores

Self

Stakeholders

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

41

Organizational Expertise, Attention and Resources Provided to Crossover Youth

Overall Ratings. Similar to the questions on self and stakeholder knowledge, a series of survey

items solicited respondents’ judgments on the level of “expertise in working with crossover youth” within

various system entities and agencies. Echoing patterns observed previously, respondents were less than

effusive in their ratings of expertise overall, with more than 60 percent of them judging the level of

expertise to be “moderate” to “low” or “none” in all seven agencies (Figure 4.6). Local Departments of

Social Service (DSS), the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS), Juvenile Court, and local Offices of the

Public Defender (OPD) all received very similar ratings, with 61.1 to 68.4 percent reporting that the level

of expertise was moderate or low/none in these agencies. Local State’s Attorney’s Offices (SAO) were

judged to have somewhat less expertise (moderate or low/none=75.9%), while the lowest levels were

reported for local police (86.8%) and school personnel (94.0%).

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Prince Georges County

Montgomery County

Baltimore County

Anne Arundel County

Baltimore City

All Respondents

Average Rating (1=None; 5=Very High)

Figure 4.5. Knowledge & Attention by Jurisdiction

Self

Stakeholders

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

42

The same set of agencies, along with the state Department of Human Resources (DHR), was also

rated on the level of “attention and resources provided to crossover youth.” Overall, these items were

given even lower ratings than the expertise questions (Figure 4.7). DSS, DJS, Juvenile Court, and OPD

were again given similar ratings, with DHR falling between these agencies and the three with the lowest

ratings on attention and resources provided to crossover youth. Seventy percent of respondents rated local

schools as providing no or low attention and resources to CY, followed by local police (65.7% of

respondents) and the State’s Attorney’s Office (54.3% of respondents). As expected, it appears that

agencies provide less attention and resources to crossover youth when there is less expertise within the

agency in working with this population.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Organization

Figure 4.6. Expertise in Working with CY

Low/None

Moderate

High

Very High

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Agency

Figure 4.7. Attention & Resources Provided to CY

Low/None

Moderate

High

Very High

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

43

Jurisdictional Differences. Ratings were averaged across all the agencies to create overall

expertise and attention/resources scales that could be compared across jurisdictions (Figure 4.8). The

overall scores confirmed that expertise ratings were higher than those for attention and resources. With

mean expertise ratings of 3.27 and 3.15, respectively, Baltimore County and Montgomery County were

the only two jurisdictions with average ratings above the midpoint on either of the scales. Compared to

the other three jurisdictions, Anne Arundel County and Baltimore City had slightly lower expertise and

attention and resources scores, but overall, jurisdictional differences were modest.

Collaboration Between Agencies

To assess perceived collaboration among local DSS offices, DJS, and the Juvenile Court,

respondents were asked to use a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) to indicate the

extent to which each of these agencies “collaborate closely” with each other and other system entities in

working with crossover youth; the other entities included the local OPD, SAO, CASA, private law firms

representing youth and families, schools, mental health service providers, and substance abuse treatment

providers. Overall aggregate scale scores were constructed for DSS, DJS, and the Court by averaging all

the collaboration items involving each of these agencies. Additionally, aggregate scores were created by

averaging scale responses specific to each combination of the three (i.e., DSS-DJS, DSS-Court, and DJS-

Court).

Overall Organizational Differences. Shown in Figure 4.9, the average rating for these scales fell

above the midpoint of the 5-point scale, from 3.14 to 3.79. The overall level of collaboration was rated

slightly higher for the Courts (X̅=3.72) than for DSS or DJS, which had the same average rating score

(X̅=3.45). On the more specific interagency aggregate scores, Court-DJS (X̅=3.79) and Court-DSS

(X̅=3.61) were similar. Lowest of all the collaboration scores was the DSS-DJS interagency scores (3.14).

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Prince Georges County

Montgomery County

Baltimore County

Anne Arundel County

Baltimore City

All Respondents

Average Rating (1=None; 5=Very High)

Figure 4.8. Expertise, Attention & Resources by Jurisdiction

Expertise

Attn & Resources

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

44

Jurisdictional Differences. Differences among the five jurisdictions were significant on the DSS

overall and Court-DSS aggregate scores, and marginally significant (F=2.29, p=.07) on the DSS-DJS

scores. As with other jurisdiction-specific results, these findings should be viewed with caution given the

low number of respondents in some counties. On the DSS overall collaboration measures, Montgomery

County had the highest average (3.98) and Baltimore City had the lowest (3.00). The significant

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

DSS-DJS

Court -DJS

Court-DSS

DJS Overall

DSS Overall

Courts Overall

Organization "Collaborates Closely" with Other Organizations (or Specified Organization)

(1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree)

Figure 4.9. Collaboration Among Organizations

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Prince Georges County

Montgomery County

Baltimore County

Anne Arundel County

Baltimore City

All Respondents

Average Rating (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree)

Figure 4.10. Coordination Scale Scores by Jurisdiction

DSS-DJS

Court -DJS

Court-DSS

DJS Overall

DSS Overall

Courts Overall

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

45

difference in jurisdictional scores on the more specific Court-DSS and DSS-DJS scales showed the same

pattern, with Baltimore City lowest (3.27 and 2.73, respectively) and Montgomery County highest (4.07;

3.48). On the DSS-DJS scales, Baltimore County also had the same high average score (3.48) as

Montgomery County.

Judicial Role in Facilitating Collaboration

The survey included several questions specific to the role of the Juvenile Court and the judge in

facilitating and ordering collaborative practices. The majority of respondents (52%) believed that the

Juvenile Court judge should be extensively involved in facilitating collaboration among the different

agencies involved in crossover youth cases (Figure 4.11). Only four percent of respondents believed that

the judge should have no or minor involvement in facilitating collaboration in these cases. Similarly, 63

percent of the respondents believed that it was the judge’s responsibility to hold agencies accountable for

collaboration in crossover youth cases whereas only 13% rated that it was not her or his responsibility

(Figure 4.12).

.

Moderate Involvement

44%

No/Minor Involvement

4%

Extensive Involvement

52%

Figure 4.11. Judge Involvement in Facilitating Collaboration

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

46

Other questions addressed judicial orders regarding collaboration. On three of these four questions,

more than two-thirds of the respondents did not answer, indicating they had no knowledge or opinion

about the question. Of those who did respond, 90.3 percent reported that judges in their jurisdiction

“make court orders that include explicit directions for interagency collaboration activities in crossover

cases, such as holding Family Team Meetings or pre-hearing conferences.” Roughly half this proportion

of respondents (43.0%) said that judges in their jurisdiction “provide joint family and delinquency court

orders that include explicit directions for which agency (DSS/DHHS or DJS) should take the lead in a

crossover case.” Of those who said no such orders were given, nine in ten (89.6%) indicated that they

would find judicial orders about which agency should take the lead helpful.

Barriers in Working with Crossover Youth

The final section of the survey asked respondents to indicate the extent to which several factors that

are frequently cited in the literature as barriers to working with crossover youth are present in their

jurisdiction. Three factors –“lack of cross-training among agencies,” “conflict among parties involved in

crossover cases,” and “DSS and DJS have different innate philosphies in managing youth” – were the

most commonly cited barriers, with more than 90 percent of respondents indicating each were “a major

barrier” or “somewhat of a barrier” in working with crossover youth (Figure 4.13). Two items citing

insufficient resources were judged as major or somewhat of a barrier by just under 80 percent of the

respondents, and “lack of judicial direction” drew the same marks as a commonly cited hindrance to

working with crossover youth.

Perhaps indicative of the challenges of working with this population, every item listed in this

section of the survey was rated, on average, as somewhat of a barrier or a major barrier by 40 percent or

more of the respondents. Lowest on these ratings were the “low prevalence of crossover youth” (42%

somewhat/major barrier) and “attention given to other matters” (58%). Other comparatively low ranked

items included “reluctance of DSS to work with delinquent youth” (59%) and “DSS and DJS duplicating

efforts” with crossover youth (62%). Comparisons between the jurisdictions showed no notable

differences in the reported prevalence of these various possible barriers to working with crossover youth.

Somewhat a judge's

responsibility 24%

Not a judge's responsibility

13%

Major responsibility

63%

Figure 4.12. Judge's Responsibility to Hold Agencies Accountable for Collaborating

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

47

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Low Prevelance of CY

DSS & DJS duplicating efforts

Numerous parties

Attention given to other urgent matters

DJS’ restrictive and punitive orientation

Reluctance of DSS

Lack of judicial direction

Not enough dedicated resources

Conflict among parties

Different philosophies

Lack of resources

Lack of cross-training

Figure 4.13. Barriers in Working with Crossover Youth

A major barrier Somewhat of a barrier Not a barrier

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

48

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

49

Section 5

Crossover Youth in the Context of Two Systems:

Comparisons of Crossover and Single System Youth

__________________________________________________________________

Research questions about the prevalence and nature of the crossover youth population in Maryland

were addressed through targeted quantitative analyses of court and delinquency system data. Guided by

prior research, our approach to these questions was necessarily determined by the availability and quality

of data. We learned, for example, that data limitations made it impossible to generate valid and reliable

estimates of the numbers or percentages of crossover youth within either the dependency or delinquency

system. Findings of interest on the relative proportions of crossover youth in these systems for different

jurisdictions could be produced, however, and are presented below. Most of this section is devoted to

descriptive information on crossover youth, and how they differ from youth who have never formally

“crossed” to a second system and are involved in either the delinquency or dependency systems. In the

delinquency analyses, in addition to assessing the official juvenile justice system record of study youth,

analyses incorporated data recorded from risk and needs assessment tools that have been implemented in

recent years by DJS. These data sources, along with the court information systems used for the

dependency-based analyses are described below, following a discussion of the study design and youth

sample cohorts.

Method and Samples

Delinquency Analysis

As the locus of both dependency and delinquency case processing, the juvenile court served as the

starting place for identifying both sets of planned analyses. In the delinquency analysis, data systems

maintained by courts in the five study jurisdictions were the initial source for identifying the crossover

study sample and a group of youth who had delinquency involvement alone. Based on case information

recorded in the local court data systems, youth in both study samples met the following initial

delinquency criterion:

1. had a delinquency petition filed in the two years between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2011 (state

fiscal years 2010 and 2011) in Baltimore City or Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Montgomery, or

Prince George's Counties.

Crossover youth were further defined as those who also:

2. had a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) petition filed on their behalf at some point in the past

(see page 3, footnote 2 for CINA petition definition).

Several important considerations and caveats accompany these criteria. Delinquency cases that

reach the petitioning stage in Maryland have been arraigned in court with formal complaint charges,

processed at intake to the juvenile justice system, and forwarded to the State’s Attorney for prosecution.

As noted in a previous section, about half of all cases statewide (51.5% in FY 2012) that are referred to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

50

the juvenile justice system are forwarded for prosecution. Cases meeting the delinquency criterion are not

necessarily “adjudicated and sustained delinquent,” although as detailed in the results below, nearly all

youth in the delinquency analyses were adjudicated delinquent on the sampling petition or on a prior or

subsequent referral.

There are two critical considerations on the CINA criterion. To reach the petitioning stage,

attorneys for the local DSS have determined that the investigation of maltreatment allegations has yielded

sufficient evidence for review and adjudication by the juvenile court. The criterion does not, however,

encompass the court’s disposition of the case or a ruling that the case was “found CINA.” Another

important consideration concerns date limitations on the court data systems used to identify youth

meeting the CINA criterion. These limitations informed refinements to the study sample, specified below.

The number of crossover youth meeting the criteria are shown in the first column of Table 5.1.

Figures on delinquency and CINA petitions recorded in the court data during the respective sampling

periods provide some context for these figures, though these should not be viewed as a basis for assessing

prevalence. For reasons outlined below, comparisons of the crossover and CINA figures across

jurisdictions are not appropriate.

Table 5.1. Delinquency, CINA Petitions, and Crossover Youth Identified in Court Data

Jurisdiction Crossover Youth Youth with CINA

Petitions*

Youth with Delinquency Petitions

FY 2010-2011

Baltimore City 1,012 31,503 4,359

Anne Arundel 37 2,726 1,563

Baltimore County 145 4,561 3,219

Montgomery 56 NA 1,586

Prince George's 53 NA 2,394

Total 1,303 38,790 13,121

*The applicable period for the CINA petition figures corresponds to the operational dates of court data systems in each jurisdiction; for Baltimore City, they are January 1994-June 2011; for Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, they are January 2000-December 2011. Data on CINA petitions were not available from Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties and staff responsible for court data systems identified the crossover youth in these jurisdictions. Crossover youth in the other three jurisdictions were identified by the research team through matching court-provided CINA and delinquency petition data.

Due to jurisdictional variations in the court data systems, adjustments to the crossover youth

sample were needed to ensure it was representative of the actual proportions of CY found in Baltimore

City and the four counties. Specifically, varying dates on which CINA data were reliably complete in

various computerized information systems affected the number of CY initially identified in the

jurisdiction.6 To make the local samples equivalent and the aggregated sample representative, CY with

6 In talking with court data personnel it was evident that the numbers of identified CY were determined in part by

dates at which information systems were initiated and could be used to reliably track CINA petitions and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

51

CINA petitions prior to 2003 (when the most recent of the local court systems became fully operational)

were deleted from the original sample. Identifying information (names and birthdates recorded in the

court data) on these crossover youth were then matched to state delinquency system data maintained by

DJS. Exact matches were found on 526 (88.0%) of the 598 youth;7 these youth comprised the final

analytic crossover sample for the delinquency analyses. Identifiers of the delinquency-only sample

initially identified from the court data were also matched to DJS data. The resulting sample pool was

subjected to a random selection process to achieve a final sample of roughly equivalent size that was

stratified by jurisdiction to match the proportion of youth found in the court delinquency data. Table 5.2

shows the crossover cohort sizes beginning with the initially identified groups, the adjusted samples, and

final analytic crossover and delinquency-only samples, overall and by jurisdiction.

Table 5.2. Adjusted Crossover Youth Sample and Final Analytic Samples for Delinquency Analyses

Jurisdiction

Identified Crossover

Youth

Crossover Youth Adjusted for

CINA Data Availability

Crossover Youth

Sample Matched to

DJS Data

Delinquency- Only Random

Sample

Final Analytic Sample

Baltimore City 1,012 359 313 201 514

Anne Arundel 37 22 17 72 89

Baltimore County 145 135 128 148 276

Montgomery 56 48 41 74 115

Prince George's 53 34 27 106 133

Total 1,303 598 526 601 1,127

Dependency Analysis

Although analyses based on dependency cases were not part of the original study plan, in the

course of court delinquency data collection we learned that information on CINA case processing in

Baltimore City and Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties was available dating back to 2003. This

provided an opportunity to explore crossover to dual system involvement from another perspective. In

this analysis, we compared court-recorded data on CINA cases, including types of alleged maltreatment,

and length, number, and types of placements, for CINA youth who were involved in the juvenile system

and those who did not cross into delinquency.

Youth in both the crossover and CINA-only groups met the following criteria:

dispositions. Baltimore City and Prince George’s had computerized systems that recorded CINA cases back to 1994

and 2003, respectively. The juvenile court in Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties shared a statewide database that

dated back to 2000, while Montgomery County staff reported that CINA data in their electronic system were

complete and reliable as of 2002. 7 Non-matched cases were primarily attributable to mis-entered information and inconsistencies in spelling and

reporting of names and birthdates across the court and DJS data systems.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

52

1. Had a CINA petition filed in the Juvenile Court in Baltimore City, Anne Arundel, or

Baltimore Counties between 2003 and June 2011, and born between July 1, 1991 and June

30, 1994.

Those in the crossover group also met this criterion:

2. Had an intake recorded in the state DJS delinquency database between 2001 (when the

database came fully online) and June 2011. (No youth in the CINA-only group had name or

date-of-birth matches in the DJS data.)

The date-of-birth specification was intended to provide a sufficient sample of youth for which

complete CINA and delinquency information could be reliably tracked during their most vulnerable late

childhood and teen years.8 A total of 6,034 youth met the CINA/DOB criterion and of these, 1,104 youth

met the crossover criteria; included here were 805 CY in Baltimore City, 46 in Anne Arundel, and 253 in

Baltimore County. Although data were obtained from all three counties, due to restricted project resources

the comparative analyses were limited to subsamples of 200 crossover youth and 200 CINA-only youth

selected at random without replacement from the Baltimore City sample pools.

Data Sources

Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) Data

Maryland is one of a small number of states where the state executive juvenile justice agency, the

Department of Juvenile Services, is involved in virtually all aspects of delinquency case processing, from

intake to the system through placement and aftercare. DJS maintains several databases that served as the

primary sources of information for this first set of analyses.

Delinquency Records. DJS’ central computerized ASSIST database includes official delinquency

case information, including data on complaint charges and dates for each intake, intake decisions (i.e.,

whether the case was resolved, diverted, or forwarded for formal petitioning), and adjudication,

disposition, and placement information. DJS data personnel reported that information in the ASSIST

system is reliable dating back to 2001. From the ASSIST database, several aggregate measures of

delinquency involvement were constructed, including total number of intake referrals (the great majority

of which originate as police arrests9), types (against persons, property, drug, etc.) and levels (felony,

misdemeanor) of charges at intake and at adjudication, whether charges were sustained delinquent, and

probation and commitment information. Age at first arrest was also taken from the ASSIST database.

Risk Screen. Two other sources of information employed in this first set of analyses were data

recorded in youth risk screening and needs assessments conducted by DJS. Together with classification

8 DJS delinquency data from the agency’s ASSIST system were complete and reliable back to 2001,while the court

CINA information varied by the court system, with Prince George’s system being the “youngest” with reliable

CINA data dating back to 2003. Delinquency data, then, was available for this cohort beginning at age 6½ (for

those born in June 1994) to 9½. CINA information was first reliably complete for these youth when they reached 8½

to 11½ years of age. 9 Police accounted for 90.3% of all complaints at Maryland DJS intake in FY2012, according to the Department’s

Data Resource Guide.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

53

grids used to help inform decision making, these tools comprise the Department’s Maryland

Comprehensive Assessment and Service Planning (MCASP) process. Employed at intake, the risk screen

is used to guide case forwarding decisions: “it factors in a youth’s history of delinquency, history of

social risk factors, and the seriousness of the current offense(s) to identify those cases requiring court

action” (DJS Data Resource Guide, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 3). Shown in Appendix C, the risk screen

consists of items common to similar tools used in many juvenile courts and agencies nationally. The

delinquency section includes ten items on numbers and types of intake referrals, detention, placements,

escapes, and failures-to-appear (FTAs), with higher scores reflecting greater chronicity and seriousness or

severity; the summed scores can range from 0 to 31. The social history section consists of one to four

scored items in each of several domains (school, peer, family, abuse/neglect, alcohol and drug use, mental

health), which together can sum up to 17. Score range varies by item, with one item in the delinquency

section (prior felony referrals) ranging as high as 6, although most are scored 0 to 4 and all but one of the

social items have scores no higher than 2. While the two overall scores, along with the current offense

charge, are designed to be used with a grid to generate a “recommended decision” regarding case

forwarding, our analyses focused on comparisons of the crossover youth and delinquency-only groups on

the domain scores and two aggregated measures (and not on the current offense aspect or DJS’s overall

risk classifications).

The risk screen was implemented by DJS in February 2009 and by policy is to be employed with

all youth at intake with the exception of those whose complaints are limited to traffic or status offenses

(runaway, truancy, ungovernable, alcohol, tobacco); are returned on violations of probation or parole; or

are cases waived down from adult jurisdiction. DJS provided all recorded risk screen data on the study

cohorts through July 2013, and of the 1,127 youth included in the comparative analyses, 1,067 (94.7%,

including 97.3% of the crossover youth and 92.3% of the delinquency-only group) had at least one

completed risk screen that included overall delinquency and social history scores.

Table 5.3. Needs Assessment Domains and Scores

Domain Number of Items

Score Range

Needs Scales Protective Scales

Static Dynamic Static Dynamic

School 13 0-29    

Use of Free time 2 0-2  

Employment 5 0-5    

Community Relationships 6 0-11    

Family 20 0-48    

Alcohol & Drugs 10 0-47    

Mental Health 11 0-11   

Attitudes 9 0-20  

Aggression 4 0-9  

Neighborhood Safety 3 0-12  

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

54

Two aspects of the risk screen scoring deserve additional mention. Scores on the delinquency

history section are determined directly from the official DJS record and thus do not have missing data. On

social history items, scores default to 0 if the item does not apply (e.g., when scoring school attendance or

conduct items for a youth who is home schooled), or the assessor does not have sufficient information to

assign a score (e.g., if the youth does not show for an intake interview). Data on cases with missing or

“unknown” results, available on three of the social history items, showed this applied to roughly one-

fourth of the cases, with similar proportions in the crossover youth and delinquency-only groups.10 The

occurrence of missing data was mitigated somewhat by the fact that multiple risk screenings were

completed on 90 percent of the youth. More specifically, 72.5 percent of the crossover group had two or

more screenings (25.5% had five or more) and 65.7 percent of the delinquency-only group had two or

more screenings (20.9% had five or more). For analysis purposes, results were aggregated across the

multiple screenings by taking the highest score for each item, thus minimizing use of missing information

reflected in scores of 0. Although when summed this yielded a higher risk score than would be found at

any single screening, aggregate risk scores were not central to the analyses which were instead focused on

comparisons of the two groups on individual risk items.

Needs Assessment. The MCASP needs assessment is employed later in case processing, with

youth who are adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation or committed to DJS; a copy of the

assessment can be found in Appendix D. The Data Resource Guide Fiscal Year, 2013 explains the needs

assessment is done “to identify the youth’s treatment and security needs, and serves as the basis for the

Treatment Service Plan (TSP) development. Using an objective instrument allows the Department to

make better matches between youth and the course of treatment available within the continuum of care”

(p. 3). Shown in Table 5.3, the assessment covers 10 different scored domains, including neighborhood

safety, community relationships (with peers and adults outside the family), and the youth’s beliefs and

opinions regarding delinquency, victims, authority figures and the like (scored separately as “Attitudes”

and “Aggression”), as well as the more conventional domains of family, school, employment, substance

abuse, and mental health. Up to four different scores are constructed for each domain addressing needs

and protective factors, scored separately as static or dynamic. Protective scores are distinct from low

needs scores (e.g., on a peer relations item, a needs score of one is assigned if the youth has no consistent

friends or a mix of pro-social and anti-social friends, while a protective score of one is assigned if the

youth has only pro-social friends). Static scores generally refer to events occurring any time in the past,

while the dynamic scores are based on events occurring in the past three months. More detailed

descriptions on the content of each domain are provided in the needs assessment results below.

The MCASP needs assessment was initiated statewide in February, 2010. One or more completed

needs assessments were available on 349 of 526 (66.3%) of the crossover youth and 351 of 601 (58.4%)

of the delinquency-only group. DJS policy is to conduct needs reassessments every 180 days. Of this

group who had a needs assessment, 63.1% of the crossover youth had 1 reassessment and 22.7% had three

or more, while 74.2% of the delinquency-only group had 1 reassessment and 14.2% had three or more.

As with the risk screening, a “maximum” score was used that reflected the highest score across the

multiple assessments on each item.

10 These items included history of physical abuse, family member involvement in criminal or juvenile justice

system, and effect of substance use on life functioning. Among crossover youth, 25.8% to 28.8% had missing data

on these items coded to 0 and this occurred with 22.7 to 22.5% of the delinquency-only group.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

55

Juvenile Court Data

Information on youth included in the CINA-based analyses were taken from data systems

maintained by the Baltimore City Circuit Court and for Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, a

statewide court database maintained by the Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts

(AOC). To initially identify study cases, data on delinquency and CINA filings and dispositions were

provided by court data personnel in Baltimore and the AOC.

Information from the Baltimore City Circuit Court’s QUEST Case Management System was used

for analyses of the crossover and CINA-only samples in this jurisdiction. QUEST contains electronic

copies of court documents in every juvenile delinquency and CINA case in the City’s Circuit Court. The

database contains entire electronic records for cases from 1994 to the present. For cases started before

1994, but continuing beyond 1994, docket line entries were converted to electronic summaries. Case

details from this transitional period are difficult to ascertain by review of the electronic record. QUEST

data pertaining to adjudications, dispositions, placements, reviews and referrals of the sampled cases was

taken from a review of the filings of parties and orders from the court. The review was conducted by

AOC legal staff familiar with the system.

Numbers of Crossover Youth

Plans to assess the prevalence of the crossover youth population in Maryland were curtailed when

it became apparent any definitive findings in this area could not be generated from the available data.

Analyses and results presented here are thus limited to an exploration of the numbers of crossover youth

identified through different views of data obtained for the delinquency and CINA group comparisons, and

any tentative implications regarding the size of this population.

Table 5.4. Crossover Youth Identified in Delinquency and CINA-Based Analyses

Jurisdiction

Youth with Delinquency

Petitions Filed FY 2010-2011

Youth Born 7/1991-6/1994

with CINA Petitions Filed CY 2003-2013

Crossover Youth N %

Delinquency-based analysis

Baltimore City 4,359 - 359 8.2

Anne Arundel 1,563 - 22 1.4

Baltimore County 3,219 - 135 4.2

Montgomery 1,586 - 48 3.0

Prince George's 2,394 - 34 1.4

Total 13,121 - 598 4.6

CINA-based analysis

Anne Arundel - 301 46 15.3

Baltimore County - 593 253 42.7

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

56

Baltimore City - 5,140 805 15.7

Total - 6,034 1,104 18.3

The figures shown in Table 5.4 show how estimates of the numbers of crossover youth vary

widely based on the analytic framework. The top rows of the table indicate that, within the context of the

criteria specified for the delinquency analysis above, the percentage of crossover youth among juveniles

with delinquency petitions varies from 1.4 percent to 8.2 percent, with Baltimore City showing

proportions nearly twice that of Baltimore County and 2½ to 5½ times the figures found in the other

counties. Much different figures were found when CINA-petitioned cases comprised the base. Here, the

overall percentages were much higher, and Baltimore County’s percentage approached three times that

found for Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County. One of the many possible reasons for the higher

percentages in the CINA-based analysis is that the delinquency criterion includes any juvenile justice

system intake, while the more exclusive criterion used in the other analysis involves a filed petition.

The jurisdictional comparisons do reveal some interesting differences. It is apparent the

relatively large proportion of crossover youth seen in the delinquency population from Baltimore City is

due to the inordinately large numbers of CINA youth in the city compared to the counties. This finding is

consistent with the overall CINA case filing figures reported for the five jurisdictions by the Maryland

Judiciary AOC (Table 5.5). In FY 2011, Baltimore City had more than four times as many CINA case

filings as Baltimore County, the jurisdiction with the second largest number on the list. Accounting for

size of the local youth population, youth CINA case filings in Baltimore City are six to 20 times more

common than the other study jurisdictions. The delinquency complaint figures in Table 5.5 also show that

Baltimore City has the largest numbers and rates per 1,000 youth compared to the counties.

Table 5.5. CINA Fillings and Delinquency Complaints, FY2011

Jurisdiction

CINA Case Filings

FY 2011* CINA Case Filings per 1,000 Youth*

Delinquency Complaints

FY2011

Delinquency Complaints

per 1,000 Youth

Baltimore City 1437 27.9 4,854 94.3

Anne Arundel 67 1.3 3,961 75.6

Baltimore County 330 4.4 5,515 73.6

Montgomery 257 2.3 2,817 25.5

Prince George's 270 2.9 4,377 46.3

*Includes new and reopened CINA filings. Sources: Maryland Judiciary Statistical Abstract, FY 010; DJS Data Resource Guide FY2012; US Census 2010 population data, ages 11-17

The CINA-based results further suggest that Baltimore City youth who are involved in CINA are

no more likely to also show delinquency involvement than CINA-petitioned youth in Anne Arundel, and

much less likely to show this dual involvement than youth in Baltimore County. The relatively high rates

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

57

of crossover youth revealed in this latter analysis for Baltimore County are not readily explained by other

aspects of the data nor to our knowledge, by policies or practices there.

Delinquency-Based Results

Analyses of delinquency records, risk, and needs data focused on comparisons of the crossover

youth and delinquency-only groups. To reduce verbosity, except where specifically noted in the text, all

comparative references in this section (e.g., to one group having a higher mean score or a higher

percentage of youth on a measure than the other group) are statistically significant, with a p-value of .05

or lower.

Demographics

Gender and race information on the two study groups are shown in Table 5.6. Across the five

jurisdictions, the proportion of females was greater in the CY group (29.8%) than the delinquency-only

group (20.5%). The same pattern was evident in each of the jurisdictions, with girls accounting for 29 to

37 percent of the crossover youth and 17 to 26 percent of delinquency-only youth. This difference of

proportionately more girls in the CY group was particularly pronounced in Prince George’s County and

Baltimore City.

Table 5.6. Gender and Race of Crossover and Delinquency-Only Youth by Jurisdiction

Measure

Group Percentage

Delinquency Only

(N=601)

Crossover Youth

(N=526) Chi-

Square p-value

Gender (percent female shown)* 20.5% 29.8% 13.0 .00

Baltimore City 17.4% 28.8% 8.55 .00

Anne Arundel County 26.4% 35.3% 0.54 .46

Baltimore County 24.3% 30.5% 1.31 .25

Montgomery County 17.6% 29.3% 2.12 .15

Prince George’s County 19.2% 37.0% 3.85 .05

Race African American White Other, mixed race, or unknown

75.5% 16.0% 8.5%

79.5% 15.8% 4.8%

6.46 .40

Baltimore City African American White

95.0% 5.0%

95.5% 4.2%

0.83 .66

Anne Arundel County African American White

48.6% 43.1%

29.4% 64.7%

2.60 .27

Baltimore County African American White

64.9% 31.1%

45.3% 51.6%

11.96 .00

Montgomery County African American

52.7%

75.6%

6.22 .05

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

58

White 17.6% 12.2%

Prince George’s County African American White

87.5% 5.8%

92.6%

0% 1.64 .44

*Due to missing information, the gender analysis included 599 delinquency-only youth.

There was very little difference in the racial makeup across the groups, with a little more than

three-fourths of CY and delinquency-only youth African American. Approximately 16 percent of both

groups were White, and the balance included Latinos (1.7% of CY compared to 5.0% for the non-CY

group), youth of mixed race, or Asians (1 to 2% in both groups). The racial distribution of the two groups

differed in two counties, in divergent directions. In Montgomery County, African American youth

accounted for a much higher proportion of CY (75.6%) than delinquency-only (52.7%), while in

Baltimore County, the reverse was true, with a lower CY proportion (45.3%) African American compared

with the non-CY group (64.9%).

While these jurisdictional breakdowns on gender and race are of interest descriptively, due to the

small numbers of youth in some of the counties jurisdiction-specific analyses were not conducted on the

more detailed delinquency, risk and need, or dependency variables and measures.

Delinquency Involvement

Analyses of delinquency involvement of the crossover and delinquency-only groups encompassed

charges at arrest, and offense types at petitioning and adjudication, and disposition. The charge types,

along with two general delinquency indicators are shown in Table 5.7. The CY group was younger at the

time of their first arrest (14.5 years) compared to delinquency-only youth (15.0). They also averaged

more intakes to Maryland’s juvenile justice system (X̅=4.8 as compared to 4.0 for the non-CY group), the

great majority of which originate in police arrests.11

11 Police accounted for 90.3% of all complaints at Maryland DJS intake in FY2012, according to the Department’s

Data Resource Guide.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

59

Table 5.7. Delinquency Involvement of Crossover and Delinquency-Only Youth: Age at First Arrest, Intakes, and Arrest Charges

Measure

Group Mean (sd) or Percentage

Delinquency- Only

(N=601)

Crossover Youth

(N=526) Statistic p-

value

Age at First Arrest* 15.01 (1.85) 14.53 (1.9) t=3.03 .00

Total JJ Intakes 4.03 (3.92) 4.78 (4.44) t=3.03 .00

Any Person Misdemeanor Charges 47.8% 54.4% 2=4.92 .03

Any Property Misdemeanor Charges 43.8% 51.3% 2=6.45 .01

Any Drug Misdemeanor Charges 26.8% 25.7% 2=.18 .67

Any Other Misdemeanor Charges 22.1% 25.3% 2=1.55 .21

Any Person Felony Charges 3.7% 6.7% 2=5.23 .02

Any Violent Felony Charges 26.6% 28.5% 2=.51 .48

Any Property Felony Charges 30.3% 28.1% 2=.62 .43

Any Drug Felony Charges 19.3% 24.1% 2=3.89 .05

Any Other Felony Charges 2.3% 1.9% 2=.25 .62

*Due to missing information on age this analysis includes 582 delinquency-only youth and 511 crossover youth.

On all the misdemeanor charges and three of the five felony charge types, proportionately more

crossover youth had one or more charges of that type than delinquency-only youth. CY were more likely

than non-CY youth to have been charged with person misdemeanor (54.4% and 47.8%, respectively) and

felony offenses (6.7% and 3.7%), although there were no difference between the groups on violent felony

charges. A higher percentage of crossover youth also showed histories of misdemeanor property (51.3%

as compared to 43.8% for non-CY) and felony drug offense charges (24.1% and 19.3% for non-CY).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

60

Table 5.8. Delinquency Involvement of Crossover and Delinquency-Only Youth: Adjudication Hearings, Delinquency Sustained, and Commitment

Measure

Group Percentage

Delinquency Only

(N=601)*

Crossover Youth

(N=526) Chi-

Square p-value

Adjudication Hearing, Person Misdemeanor 26.0% 32.7% 6.18 .01

Adjudication Hearing, Property Misdemeanor 17.3% 25.7% 11.74 .00

Adjudication Hearing, Drug Misdemeanor 16.6% 18.4% 0.63 .43

Adjudication Hearing, Other Misdemeanor 13.0% 15.2% 1.16 .28

Adjudication Hearing, Person Felony 2.7% 4.8% 3.50 .06

Adjudication Hearing, Violent Felony 17.3% 15.4% 0.74 .39

Adjudication Hearing, Property Felony 18.6% 19.4% 0.10 .75

Adjudication Hearing, Drug Felony 11.1% 14.8% 3.39 .07

Adjudication Hearing, Other Felony 3.8% 2.5% 1.67 .20

Delinquency Sustained, Misdemeanor* 45.4% 50.8% 3.02 .08

Delinquency Sustained, Felony* 19.1% 21.9% 1.22 .27

Probation Disposition* 60.0% 71.3% 3.37 .07

Commitment Disposition* 22.2% 31.4% 11.39 .00

*Due to missing information on disposition data fields these analyses include 559 delinquency-only youth and 484 crossover youth.

Analyses of the adjudication and disposition records of these youth showed a similar pattern with

crossover youth more likely than delinquency-only youth to have been petitioned, adjudicated, found

delinquent, and committed (Table 5.8). Differences were evident on two misdemeanor charge types, with

proportionately more of the CY being petitioned and adjudicated for person (32.7% compared to 26.0%

for non-CY) and property offense charges (25.7% and 17.3% for non-CY).12 Group differences on two of

the felony measures approached significance. Not surprisingly given the arrest charge results, CY were

somewhat more likely to have an adjudication involving a person felony (4.8% compared to 2.7% for

non-CY; p=.06) or drug felony charge (14.8% and 11.1% for non-CY; p=.07).

With regard to the court finding the youth delinquent, a somewhat higher proportion of crossover

youth had been sustained delinquent on a misdemeanor charge (50.8% compared to 45.4% for non-CY,

p=.08). No differences were evident between the groups in being found delinquent on a felony charge.

The CY group were somewhat more likely to have been placed on probation on at least one occasion

12 The data were coded such that an adjudication meant that the youth was petitioned and took part in an

adjudication hearing. This was distinct from the disposition coding, which indicated whether the adjudication charge

was sustained delinquent.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

61

(71.3% as compared to 60.0% for non-CY; p=.07), and significantly more likely to have had a formal

commitment (31.4% as compared to 22.2% for non-CY).

Table 5.9. Risk Factor Scores of Crossover and Delinquency-Only Youth: Delinquency Measures

Risk Score Measure

Delinquency- Only Youth

(N=555)

Crossover Youth

(N=512)

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) t-value p-value

Weapons Charge Referrals .03 (.16) .03 (.16) .22 .83

Person Misdemeanor Referrals .78 (1.10) .89 (1.11) 1.66 .10

Person Felony Referrals .83 (.82) 1.08 (.88) 4.85 .00

Felony Charge Referrals 2.56 (2.17) 2.82 (2.33) 1.92 .06

Detentions .55 (1.00) .87 (1.19) 4.67 .00

Placements .56 (1.25) .80 (1.44) 2.97 .00

FTA/No-Show Warrants .08 (.36) 0.12 (.43) 1.64 .10

Overall Delinquency History Score 9.06 (6.05) 11.24 (6.10) 5.86 .00

Risk Factors

The risk screening results on charge types were consistent with those presented above, which were

based on formal delinquency records (Table 5.9). Crossover youth had higher scores on both

misdemeanor and felony person items (the chi-square on the former measure was marginally significant,

p=.10), as well as the overall felony charge risk item (X̅=2.82 as compared to 2.56 for the non-CY group).

Two delinquency factors that were not assessed with the delinquency record data are scored items on the

risk tool and the CY group had higher scores on both items. The average score of crossover youth on the

detentions measure was .87 compared to .55 for the delinquency-only group. Very similar results were

evident on the placements risk item, where the mean CY group score was .80 compared to .50 for the

delinquency-only group.

Differences between the groups on a failure-to-appear (FTA)/warrants risk item were marginally

significant, with again the crossover group showing somewhat higher scores (X̅=.12 as compared to .08

for the non-CY group; p=.10). Given these results on individual items from the risk screen, differences on

the overall delinquency risk score were substantial, with crossover youth averaging 11.24 while the

delinquency-only group averaged a score of 9.06 on the summed measure.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

62

Table 5.10. Risk Factor Scores of Crossover and Delinquency-Only Youth: Social Items

Risk Score Measure

Delinquency- Only Youth

(N=555)

Crossover Youth

(N=512)

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) t-value p-value

School Summary 1.00 (.89) 1.06 (.89) 1.15 .25

Peer Relations .95 (.96) 1.13 (.94) 3.00 .00

Consequences of Drug/Alcohol Use .46 (.84) .44 (.83) .39 .69

Mental Health Diagnosis/Treatment .14 (.35) .33 (.47) 7.43 .00

Family Member has Criminal or Juvenile Justice History

.29 (.46) .32 (.47) .94 .35

Complies with Parent/Guardian’s Rules .65 (.78) .92 (.84) 5.55 .00

Victim of Neglect .07 (.36) .58 (.91) 11.86 .00

History of Physical, Sexual Abuse .04 (.19) .13 (.33) 5.44 .00

Prior Shelter Placements .14 (.35) .51 (.50) 13.72 .00

Overall Social History Score 3.68 (3.04) 5.29 (3.60) 7.87 .00

As in many states and localities, risk screening results in Maryland are used at juvenile justice

intake to inform decisions about forwarding petitions for formal processing by the state’s attorney. It is

evident from the above that crossover youth tend to have more extensive delinquency involvement and

higher delinquency risk scores. Results on social history items included in the screening tool (see Table

5.10) show how CY, by nature of their dependency involvement alone, are also more likely to score

higher on social risk measures, thus further increasing the chances their delinquency case will be

forwarded for prosecution.

There are three items on the screening tool that are clearly associated with maltreatment and child

welfare involvement – whether the child has been a victim of neglect, has a history of physical or sexual

abuse, and has had prior shelter placements. As expected, crossover youth had much higher scores on

these items, particularly the neglect (X̅=.50 compared to .07 for non-CY) and shelter placement items

(X̅=.51 compared to .14 for non-CY). The range on the abuse item was predictably more restricted but

still showed a substantial difference with the average CY score (X̅=.13) more than three times that of

delinquency-only youth (X̅=.04). A fourth social risk item that is related to these, but perhaps less directly

tied to maltreatment history is the child’s “current compliance with parent’s rules” (responses include

usually obeys, sometimes obeys, and consistently disobeys). This also showed higher scores for CY

(X̅=.92) than the non-CY group (X̅=.65). On another family-related item, whether the child’s current

living arrangement included “household members with [a] history of jail/prison/detention,” no differences

were found between the groups.

On the peer relations measure, where youth are scored on “current friends/companions that the

youth actually spends time with last three months” (responses include whether these peers are pro-social,

anti-social, and/or gang member/associate), crossover youth had higher scores (X̅=1.13) than

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

63

delinquency-only youth (X̅=.95). This may well reflect the view of intake screeners that many CY’s out-

of-home dependency placements expose them to anti-social peers.

A school summary measure, composed of four items addressing attendance, academic

performance, and conduct, showed similar scores across the two groups. There were also no differences

between CY and delinquency-only youth on a substance abuse item that assesses if alcohol/drug use

disrupts “current functioning” in family relations, education, health, peers, or contributes to delinquent

behavior. In contrast, the CY group’s mean score on the risk tool’s mental health item (X̅=.33) was more

than twice that of the non-CY group (X̅=.14). Higher scores on this item reflect any record of mental

health diagnoses, medication, or treatment. DJS instructions provided to scorers on this risk item carefully

note that only certain mental health problems should be considered, “[s]uch as schizophrenia, bi-polar,

anxiety, depression, personality and other diagnosed disorders. Exclude substance abuse, conduct

disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, ADD/ADHD and special education needs.” Again as expected CY

scores on the overall social history score (X̅=5.29 compared to 3.68 for non-CY), and the aggregate risk

score (X̅=2.14 compared to 1.75 for non-CY; 2= 8.56, p=.00; not shown in the table) were significantly

higher.

Youth Needs

As noted above, results from the DJS needs assessment were available on somewhat fewer youth

in both groups. Findings from the assessment are shown in three tables in this section. Needs and

protective scores on school, employment, and use of free time measures are shown in Table 5.11. While

the two groups showed differences on several of the scores, there was no apparent pattern regarding static

vs. dynamic factors, or needs vs. protective results. Up to 13 different school items are included in the

needs assessment instrument to yield the four scores in this domain. Areas addressed include prior and

current expulsions and suspensions, enrollment and attendance, academic performance, school conduct,

relations with teachers, involvement in school activities beliefs about the value of education and school

environment, and special education status. Group differences were found on three of the four school

scales, with crossover youth showing higher scores on static needs (X̅=3.85 compared to 3.01 for non-

CY) and dynamic needs (X̅=7.13 compared to 6.36 for non-CY), and lower on static protective factors

(X̅=.37 compared to .57 for non-CY). Scores on the dynamic protective measure showed no differences

between CY and delinquency-only youth.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

64

Table 5.11. Needs and Protective Factor Scores of Crossover and Delinquency-Only Youth: School, Employment, and Use of Free Time Measures

Needs Score Measure

Delinquency- Only Youth

(N=351)

Crossover Youth

(N=349)

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) t-value p-value

School, Static Needs 3.01 (1.64) 3.85 (1.37) 7.3 .00

School, Static Protective Factors .57 (.87) .37 (.76) 3.2 .00

School, Dynamic Needs 6.36 (4.81) 7.13 (4.67) 2.14 .03

School, Dynamic Protective Factors 9.04 (4.75) 9.09 (4.59) .16 .88

Employment, Static Needs .06 (.28) .05 (.29) .25 .80

Employment, Static Protective Factors .66 (.92) .50 (.84) 2.32 .02

Employment, Dynamic Needs .01 (.08) 0 (.05) .57 .57

Employment, Dynamic Protective Factors 1.84 (1.36) 1.62 (1.30) 2.15 .03

Use of Free Time, Dynamic Needs .32 (.47) .38 (.49) 1.72 .09

Use of Free Time, Dynamic Protective Factors 2.60 (1.65) 2.48 (1.74) .93 .35

Five items comprised the (youth) employment domain, including employment history and current

status, interest in employment, and relations on the job. The static and dynamic needs scores were

extremely low for both groups. The protective scales did show group differences, with crossover youth

scoring lower on both static (X̅=.50 compared to .66 for non-CY) and dynamic scores (X̅=1.62 compared

to 1.84 for non-CY). The use of free time domain was limited to dynamic measures, and included two

items addressing “current interest and involvement” in structured and unstructured activities. No

difference was evident on protective scores, while CY had marginally higher scores on the free time

dynamic needs measure (X̅=.38 compared to .32 for non-CY; p=.09).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

65

Table 5.12. Needs and Protective Factor Scores of Crossover and Delinquency-Only Youth: Substance Abuse, Mental Health, and Attitudes Measures

Needs Score Measure

Delinquency- Only Youth

(N=351)

Crossover Youth

(N=349)

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) t-value p-value

Substance Abuse, Static Needs 4.69 (5.14) 5.32 (5.52) 1.57 .12

Substance Abuse, Static Protective Factors 3.46 (1.37) 3.61 (1.40) 1.37 .17

Substance Abuse, Dynamic Needs 4.74 (6.10) 4.91 (6.31) .36 .72

Substance Abuse, Dynamic Protective Factors 2.14 (1.31) 2.17 (1.30) .33 .74

Mental Health, Static Needs 1.03 (1.80) 3.05 (2.51) 12.27 .00

Mental Health, Static Protective Factors 4.43 (.96) 3.60 (1.26) 9.80 .00

Mental Health, Dynamic Protective Factors 4.55 (1.11) 4.14 (1.45) 4.23 .00

Attitudes, Dynamic Needs 3.96 (3.81) 5.59 (3.74) 5.71 .00

Attitudes, Dynamic Protective Factors 9.64 (4.40) 7.80 (4.48) 5.50 .00

Aggression, Dynamic Needs 2.47 (2.23) 3.63 (2.32) 6.79 .00

Aggression, Dynamic Protective Factors 4.79 (2.81) 3.56 (2.83) 5.80 .00

Results on the substance abuse, mental health, and “attitudes and aggression” domains are shown

in Table 5.12. These findings showed a clear pattern, with crossover youth showing higher needs and

lower protective scores on both static and dynamic measures in areas of mental health and attitudes. The

two groups had similar scores on the four substance abuse scales, which addressed current and past use,

effects of alcohol and drug use on various life areas, substance abuse-related diagnoses and treatment.

Notably for crossover youth, in addition to including items concerning diagnoses, and past and

current medication and treatment, the static mental health measure included items on history of abuse and

neglect. It was not surprising then, that the CY group’s static needs score (X̅=3.05) was almost three times

that of the delinquency-only group (X̅=1.03). On the protective scales, CY had lower scores on both the

static (X̅=3.60 compared to 4.43 for non-CY) and dynamic measures (X̅=4.14 compared to 4.55 for non-

CY).

Thirteen different items comprise the attitudes and aggression section of the needs assessment

instrument, both of which yielded dynamic needs and protective scores (but not static scores). With

regard to attitudes, youth were assessed on primary emotion when committing delinquent act(s);

optimism about future; impulsive acts before thinking; belief in control over his/her own anti-social

behavior; empathy, remorse, or sympathy for the victim; respect for authority figures; attitude toward

laws/social norms; and belief in successfully meeting conditions of court supervision (all terms are taken

directly from the needs instrument). Crossover youth showed higher needs scores (X̅=5.59 compared to

3.96 for non-CY) and lower protective scores (X̅=7.80 compared to 9.64 for non-CY) on both the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

66

dynamic attitudes scales. Four items are included in the aggression domain: tolerance for frustration;

interpretation of actions and intentions of others in common, non-confrontational settings; belief in

yelling and verbal aggression to resolve a disagreement or conflict; and belief in fighting and physical

aggression to resolve a disagreement or conflict. Although significant group differences were found on

the two dynamic aggression scales, the magnitude of difference appeared lower than that observed on the

attitudes measures. Nonetheless the pattern was the same, with crossover youth averaging higher dynamic

needs scores (X̅=363 compared to 2.47 for non-CY) and lower protective scores (X̅=3.56 compared to

4.79 for non-CY).

Table 5.13. Needs and Protective Factor Scores of Crossover and Delinquency-Only Youth: Family and Community Measures

Needs Score Measure

Delinquency- Only Youth

(N=351)

Crossover Youth

(N=349)

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) t-value p-value

Family, Static Needs 1.64 (1.92) 3.84 (2.72) 12.35 .00

Family, Static Protective Factors 3.24 (.92) 2.28 (1.18) 11.97 .00

Family, Dynamic Needs 4.69 (4.46) 6.26 (5.11) 4.33 .00

Family, Dynamic Protective Factors 15.28 (4.37) 12.44 (4.75) 8.24 .00

Relationships in Community, Static Needs 1.25 (.85) 1.42 (.85) 2.57 .01

Relationships in Community, Static Protective Factors

.29 (.45) .21 (.41) 2.41 .02

Relationships in Community, Dynamic Needs 2.22 (1.82) 2.58 (1.81) 2.60 .01

Relationships in Community, Dynamic Protective Factors

3.80 (2.13) 3.59 (2.20) 1.28 .20

Neighborhood Safety, Dynamic Needs 2.63 (2.61) 3.13 (2.76) 2.49 .01

Neighborhood Safety, Dynamic Protective Factors

3.63 (1.36) 3.44 (1.49) 1.77 .08

Needs and protective measures involving family, the youth’s relationships in the community, and

neighborhood safety are also included in the assessment (Table 5.13). On all but one of these ten

measures, significant group differences were found. The family domain included 20 items, two of which

were directly related to dependency history and status – number of out-of-home and shelter care

placements and history of non-delinquency citations/petitions – and several others which are often

associated with child welfare involvement including the youth running away or having gotten kicked out

of home; level of parental emotional support (affection, caring); number of parents/parent figures live

with youth; problem history of parents/caretakers who live with youth; youth’s compliance with parent’s

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

67

rules; level of conflict in youth’s household between members; parents provide opportunities to

participate in family activities and decisions affecting the youth; problem history of siblings who live with

youth; number of family member(s) youth feels close to or has good relationship with; parental view of

youth's anti-social behavior; parental approach to discipline; parental approach to rewarding youth; and

household members living with youth who had a history of jail/prison/detention. Other family domain

items include current support network for youth’s family; youth living under “adult supervision” during

last three months; and annual combined income of youth and family.

The largest group difference on the four family measures was found on the static needs measure,

with the average CY score (X̅=3.84) nearly twice that of the non-CY group (X̅=1.64), and to a lesser

extent the dynamic needs measure (X̅=6.26 for CY compared to 4.69 for non-CY). Crossover youth also

had significantly lower static protective scores (X̅=2.28 for CY compared to 3.24 for non-CY). and

dynamic protective scores (X̅=12.44 for CY compared to 15.28 for non-CY).

The community relationships section of the assessment tool comprised both peer and adult items,

including having anti-social friends/companions; admires/emulates anti-social peers; resistance to anti-

social peer influence; “romantic” or sexual relationship; and relationships with adults in the community.

The same pattern of differences observed on the family measures was evident on these scales, however

the magnitude of the differences was smaller. Crossover youth had higher static (X̅=1.42 for CY

compared to 1.25 for non-CY) and dynamic needs scores (X̅=2.58 for CY compared to 2.22 for non-CY),

and lower static (X̅=.21 for CY compared to .29 for non-CY) and dynamic protective scores (X̅=3.59 for

CY compared to 3.80 for non-CY).

Dynamic needs and protective neighborhood safety measures were based on five items: safety of

the youth’s neighborhood; youth feels safe in the neighborhood; youth would like to move because of

concerns about own or family’s safety; safety of the youth’s neighborhood school; and the presence of

various problems in the youth’s neighborhood (e.g., crime, drug selling, gang activity, abandoned

buildings, etc.). The CY group had higher dynamic needs scores (X̅=.3.13 compared to 2.63 for non-CY);

differences on the neighborhood safety protective score were marginally significant (X̅=3.44 for CY

compared to 3.63 for non-CY).

CINA-Based Results

It will be recalled that the analyses based on CINA court data comparing youth with dependency

petitions alone and those who also have some delinquency system involvement were limited to Baltimore

City youth. Analyses compared the crossover and CINA-only groups on basic demographics, types of

maltreatment recorded in the case files; types, length, and number of placements; and the reasons for

termination of placements.

Demographics

Substantial differences in the gender distribution of the two groups were evident, with males

accounting for two-thirds (67.5%) of the crossover group, but less than half (45.7%) of the CINA-only

youth (Table 5.14). This was the converse of the pattern observed in the delinquency-based comparisons,

where the CY group was disproportionately female compared to the non-CY group. No group differences

were found in regards to race, as the vast majority of both CY and delinquency-only youth in these

Baltimore City study samples were African American.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

68

Table 5.14. Gender, Race and Age at Filing of Crossover and CINA-Only Youth

Measure

Group Percentage or Mean (sd)

CINA Only (N=200)

Crossover Youth

(N=200) Statistic p-value

Gender Male Female

45.7% 54.3%

67.5% 32.5%

2=19.25 .00

Race African American White Other, mixed race, or unknown

85.9% 12.1% 2.0%

89.5% 10.0%

.5%

2=5.54 .35

Age at First CINA Filing (mean years) 6.35 (4.80) 7.74 (4.91) t=2.88 .00

A comparison of the age at which the first CINA case was filed showed that the crossover youth

group were significantly older (X̅=7.7 years) than the CINA-only youth (X̅=6.3 years) at the time of

filing. Well over half the CINA-only group (55.6%) had petitions filed by age five or younger, as

compared to 37.9 percent of the crossover youth. In contrast, 54.7 percent of the CY group had their first

CINA petition filed when they were over the age of 10, compared with 38.4 percent of the non-CY group.

This finding is consistent with prior research showing that maltreatment during adolescence has a stronger

association with dual involvement than maltreatment at a young age.

Table 5.15. Grounds for CINA Petition of Crossover and CINA-Only Youth

Measure

Group Mean (sd)

or Percentage

CINA Only (N=146)

Crossover Youth

(N=151) Statistic p-

value

Number of Grounds Entered 1.40 (.66) 1.41 (.66) t=.12 .91

Type of Grounds, First Entry 2=8.25 .08

Problems with Child 4.1% 7.3%

Problems with Caretaker 2.7% 6.0%

Abuse, Physical or Sexual 13.0% 19.2%

Neglect, Drugs 67.1% 51.7%

Neglect, Other 13.0% 15.9%

CINA Filings and Grounds for Petitions

The number of cases where the CINA petition was withdrawn or dismissed was very similar

across the two groups as 40 (20.0%) of the crossover youth and 43 (21.6%) of the CINA-only group had

the petition withdrawn. Except where noted, all further analyses were limited to the 160 CY and 156

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

69

CINA-only youth who were “found CINA” with “facts sustained” at disposition. Evidence that form the

basis of the CINA petition are entered in the court record. Most cases had one or two types of grounds for

CINA petitions entered in the court file for individual cases. Up to three were recorded for each case and

these were coded into the five general categories shown in Table 5.15.13

Table 5.16. Age, Length, and Types of Placement of Crossover and CINA-Only Youth

Measure N*

Group Percentage

CINA Only Crossover

Youth Statistic p-

value

Age of First CINA Placement 311 5.92 (4.51) 7.38 (4.56) t=2.84 .01

Length of First Placement (years) 303 3.26 (3.36) 3.94 (4.13) t=1.59 .11

Number of Placements 316 1.78 (.87) 2.17 (1.09) t=3.46 .00

Total Length of Placements (years) 287 5.15 (4.62) 7.40 (5.33) t=3.81 .00

First Placement Type 315 2=10.23 .04

Non-Relative 5.1% 1.3%

Kinship (grandparent, other relative) 59.0% 60.4%

Back to Parent 12.2% 8.2%

DSS Home, Foster Home 23.7% 27.0%

Residential Treatment 0 3.1%

*Analytic sample sizes varied somewhat due to missing data on individual variables; there was no pattern of group differences on missing values.

Across both the CY and CINA-only groups, neglect associated with drug addiction was by far the

most common type of grounds for CINA found in the record for these Baltimore City youth. There was a

marginally significant difference (p=.08) between the groups in the type of grounds recorded in the first

entry, which reflects evidence of maltreatment that was most salient to the local DSS investigators and

attorney. Drug-related neglect was more common in the non-CY group, while all other categories – abuse,

problems with the child or caretaker, and neglect with no specific reference to drugs (e.g., abandonment)

– were found with somewhat greater frequency in the crossover group. On average, one to two types of

grounds were recorded for any case, and the two study groups showed no differences in the total number

recorded.

CINA Placements

Group differences in the age at which youth were assigned by the court to a placement showed the

same pattern as the age of first CINA petition, with crossover youth being significantly older on average

(X̅=7.4 years) than CINA-only youth (X̅=5.9 years) at the time of their first placement (Table 5.16).

Findings on the number and length of placements were consistent with hypothesized group differences

and prior literature.14 Crossover youth had significantly more placements (X̅=2.2) than CINA-only youth

13 Grounds information was missing from the court record on 9 CY and 10 CINA-only youth. 14 Changes in specific out of home placements that occurred between court events are not always noted in the

electronic court record, and the number of placements in DSS homes (and thus of placements in total) is likely

understated. LDSS are given discretion to determine specific placements in line with court orders for a type of

placement and these are not always noted to the court.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

70

(X̅=1.8) and their cumulative length of time in placement was also greater (7.4 years, compared to 5.2

years on average). The average length of the crossover group’s first placement (3.9 years) was also

slightly greater than that of the non-CY group (3.2 years); this difference was marginally significant

(p=.11).

Kinship placements were by far the most common type of placements regardless of group,

accounting for roughly 60 percent of the first placements for both crossover and CINA-only youth. The

relationship between group membership and placement type was significant. Somewhat more non-CY

were placed back with one or both parents (12.2%) compared to the CY group (8.2%) while placements

in DSS homes were slightly more common among crossover youth (27.0%) compared to CINA-only

youth (23.7%).15 More in the non-CY group were also placed with non-relatives (5.1%) than CY (1.3%),16

while placements in residential treatment or therapeutic foster care were more frequent for crossover

youth (3.3% compared to no youth in the CINA group).

Table 5.17. Reason for Placement Termination of Crossover and CINA-Only Youth

Reason

Group Percentage*

CINA Only (N=84)

Crossover Youth

(N=102) Chi-

Square p-

value

Behavior of Child (runaway, truancy,

unspecified behavior) 9.8% 23.2% 6.15 .10

Caretaker Problem (health, can’t provide

care, death, unspecified problem) 29.3% 22.2% 3.47 .32

Reunification with Family 50.9% 53.5 4.26 .12

Failed Reunification 15.9% 21.2% 2.40 .30

Compliance with Permanency Plan (other

than reunification) 29.3% 30.3% .07 .97

*Percentage reflects youth with 1 or more occurrences (of up to 3 possible) of the reason given. Chi-squares were based on the non-truncated reason measure.

As noted above, across the two groups, youth averaged approximately two CINA placements

between their first CINA petition and the close of data collection (February 2014). In terminating a

placement, the juvenile court must specify one or more reasons for termination. Shown in Table 5.17,

analyses compared the two groups on the frequency of the five most common reasons entered in the file.

Chi-square tests approached significance (p=.10) on one of these measures. Child behavior issues, such as

15 DSS homes include residences or facilities licensed and contracted by DHR and the local DSS to serve as

placements for CINA youth. They may include group homes or individual foster homes. Information in the court

record was insufficient for distinguishing the types of homes used as placements by the local DSS to house youth in

placements that were not with parents, relatives, or specified non-relatives (see footnote below) or treatment

facilities.

16 As used here, non-relative placements are with persons with whom the child has had a pre-existing relationship

but are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption; a common entry here is “godmother” or “godfather.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

71

runaway or truancy, were cited as the basis for termination more than twice as often for crossover youth

(23.2%) compared to CINA-only youth (9.8%). A slightly higher proportion in the CY group (21.2%)

also had a court-ordered placement with the family fail (and thus required a new out-of-home placement)

compared with CINA-only youth (15.9%).

Reunification attempts with the family were the most common basis for termination in both

groups, occurring in about half the cases. Just as crossover youth had more placements generally, more

also had multiple attempts at family reunification (10.1%) compared to the CINA-only group (2.4%).

Virtually all family reunification attempts reflect compliance with the permanency plan established by the

court. When the recorded reason reflected compliance with the youth’s permanency plan but was not

family reunification (e.g., terminating placement in a DSS home to live with a relative, moving to

independent living), this was coded as such. The proportion of youth terminating placement due to

compliance with the permanency plan or to caretaker problems was very similar across the two groups,

about 30 percent.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

72

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

73

Section 6

Discussion and Recommendations

__________________________________________________________________

This final section includes a summary and discussion of the findings presented in Sections 3, 4,

and 5 of the report. It concludes with a consideration of the implications of the study results for advancing

policies and practices to better serve crossover youth in Maryland. Priorities for expanded research on the

CY population and interventions in the state are also identified. We close with some observations on

relationships between study findings and the larger research literature on crossover youth.

Summary of Findings

Traversing Maryland’s Dependency and Delinquency System

Information on policies and practices affecting crossover youth in Maryland was obtained through

document review and interviews with 26 officials in state and local agencies. Administrators with

statewide responsibilities from the Maryland Judiciary and AOC, DHR, DJS were interviewed, as were

19 persons in the five study jurisdictions.

The basic structures of the state’s child welfare and juvenile justice systems and their case

processing procedures were reviewed. Maryland DHR is responsible for child welfare programs and

services at the state level, and local DSS agencies in each county and Baltimore City deliver these

programs and services under DHR oversight. LDSS files a petition in court when an investigation

indicates that the child has been abused, neglected, or suffering from a disability or disorder and the

parent or guardian is unwilling or unable to give proper care and attention to the child's needs. If the facts

are sustained at adjudication, the juvenile court determines if the child is “found CINA” – a Child in

Needs of Assistance – and orders the least restrictive placement for the child. With regard to the state’s

delinquency system, compared to most other states, Maryland DJS has extensive responsibilities

extending from intake through detention, probation, placement, commitment, and aftercare supervision.

Our review of state and local system processes and practices was more descriptive than evaluative.

Any assessment of the actual implementation and effectiveness of the various programs and specific

initiatives relevant to crossover youth in Maryland was beyond the scope of the study. Weighed against

the consensus best practice literature, the descriptions and anecdotal accounts gathered in the research

present a picture with preliminary signs of progress and potential against a backdrop of general

inattention to this population.

State Initiatives. Characteristic of this, several initiatives implemented at the state level, while not

focused specifically on crossover youth, are consistent with practices prescribed in the CY literature. The

creation of the Governor’s Office for Children, the state’s Interagency Strategic Plan (ISP), and

legislation passed in 2011 to remove structural barriers to collaboration are examples of system-change

activities cited in the CY literature. The emphasis in the ISP on family and youth involvement in decision

making; individualized, family-centered service delivery; prevention; early intervention; and community-

based services reflects best practices in operating policies. Several interviewees mentioned that the

Family Involvement Meeting (FIM), a mandated component of the state’s family-centered model, often

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

74

serves to inform LDSS, DJS, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) volunteers about a dual

system case, and can spur joint case planning efforts.

The state-supported network of evidence-based programs such as Multi-Dimensional Treatment

Foster Care (MTFC), High Fidelity Wraparound, Home Visiting, and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)

represent best practice efforts, as does widespread systematic use of the validated CANS strength-based

needs assessment in out-of-home placement settings. Various other initiatives – Place Matters, Ready by

21, Under 13, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, Violence Prevention Initiative – while also not

directed specifically at crossover youth, incorporate practices that will likely benefit those who participate

in them.

Court-Appointed Special Advocates. In a broad sense, similar to these state-initiated practices,

CASAs’ effect on crossover youth appears mixed – potentially very beneficial, but with no explicit focus

on CY, their actual impact on the population is unclear. It is evident that CASAs play a uniquely

important independent role in supporting youth involved in the dependency system. Appointed by the

juvenile court to advocate for CINA youth who are in out-of-home placements, CASAs have wide access

to psychosocial assessments and child welfare records and make recommendations to the court based on

what is perceived to be in the best interest of the child. Through observations and frequent meetings with

the child, parents, and other caretakers, CASAs are usually more familiar with the child and family than

others assigned to the case. Nonetheless, the information flow to CASAs on youths’ delinquency

processing is limited, and CASAs’ overall impact on dual system youth appears inevitably bounded by

their voluntary status and uncertain capacity for case coverage.

Identifying Crossover Youth. There are no state or local-level systems in place in Maryland to

routinely notify persons in either the dependency or delinquency system when an active case in one

system becomes involved in the other. Created by DHR in 2010, the web-based Child Safety Net

Dashboard does provide LDSS and DJS staff access to identifying information about youth who have

active cases in either system. State policies provide that the Dashboard be consulted at intake in either

system, and in the case of DJS, also when youth are assigned to probation or aftercare. Based on the

interview data, feedback on the Dashboard and its utility in identifying dual system youth is mixed, and

its use varies by county. In addition to the Dashboard, DJS staff have access to the Department’s ASSIST

database which can now identify dual system youth. Montgomery County and Baltimore City appear to

have the most standardized means of identifying such cases through their local courts’ data systems. In

other counties, identification depends on the initiative of the caseworker, day-to-day levels of interagency

communication, or fortuitously learning from an attorney, foster parent, caretaker, or the child.

Court Models and Other Local Initiatives. One interviewee working with the state judicial agency

estimated that about half of Maryland’s 24 jurisdictions follow the one judge/one family model and the

Baltimore City Juvenile Court has employed this approach since 2007. In Baltimore City, a child or

family is assigned to appear exclusively before one judicial master who conducts both CINA and

delinquency hearings. The master can utilize the experience gained with the child and with caseworkers

that have been active with the case in one system to order integrated care when crossover occurs.

Regarded as a best practice model for dually-involved youth, one family/one judge is also under

development in Prince George’s County. Local efforts in Montgomery County similarly reflect practices

recommended in the CY literature. Here, LDSS and county DJS managers have established collaborative

procedures where staff from each agency meet bi-weekly to review co-committed cases. Caseworkers

from both agencies also have increased joint attendance at court hearings and they report stepped up

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

75

efforts to share information on these cases; plans for cost-sharing and training on dual-system youth were

further noted in Montgomery County interviews. Baltimore City representatives also reported employing

specific procedures to increase information sharing on active co-involved cases.

These commendable efforts appear to be in the early stages of implementation, and in many cases,

are still under development. Despite creation of the Dashboard, information sharing regarding crossover

youth appears to vary widely by jurisdiction and is overly reliant on informal procedures and individual

initiative. Disputes over which agency assumes the lead in crossover cases were revealed in interviews

with some localities, indicating that policies and procedures need to be developed or refined.

Survey of Stakeholders

The survey was targeted to persons in a wide variety of settings and agencies that are involved in

creating and implementing policy and practice related to crossover youth in Maryland. Identified in

consultation with the Administrative Office of the Court, and through a snowball sampling process where

directors in various organizations suggested appropriate survey recipients, over 350 individuals were

invited to take part in the anonymous, web-based survey. About one in three of these returned the survey,

totaling 164 respondents; 120 of these returned a complete or nearly completed form (the total target

sample and response rate cannot be precisely calculated since one LDSS could not specify who were

recruited to participate in the survey). The final sample appeared diverse and generally representative.

Local DSS caseworkers and supervisors were the largest single group of respondents, accounting for

slightly more than one-third of those completing surveys, followed by the Judiciary and other court

personnel, the local public defender’s office, and other attorneys working with CINA and delinquency

cases; DJS was somewhat under-represented. As intended, Baltimore City-based respondents were the

largest jurisdictional group and Baltimore County was somewhat under-represented compared to the other

jurisdictions.

Practices, Policies, and Programs. Initial survey questions addressed the extent to which widely

acknowledged “best practices” were in use in the respondent’s jurisdiction, and their perceived

effectiveness. The most commonly reported practices included a mixture of efforts to serve and identify

crossover youth, and to inform staff about them across systems. Sixty percent of the respondents said

there were routine procedures employed for notifying DJS and LDSS case workers about updates

regarding delinquency or CINA proceedings. Roughly similar proportions (57% to 64%) said family and

multi-disciplinary team meetings were held for CY, and 64% reported that the local court used the one

judge/one family model.

In important contrast to the fairly frequent use of these practices, less than one in three

respondents reporting the use of more structured, formal cross-system efforts with CY. Endorsed most

strongly in the current best practice literature, these include collaborative funding agreements between

systems, joint attendance of LDSS and DJS caseworkers at all hearings, coordinated case supervision,

joint or consolidated case plans, and using dedicated court dockets for crossover youth. When respondents

rated the effectiveness of each practice in its current use locally, the majority of items averaged scores

below 2 on a simple scale of 1 (low) to 3 (highly effective). The one judge, one family approach was

judged the most effective practice, followed by Multidisciplinary Teams (or Family Team Meetings).

Factor analysis and scale construction procedures were applied to the 24 practice items to

generate summative scales reflecting three general types of practices (coordination, agency agreements,

and information sharing) and three practice settings (juvenile court, child welfare, and juvenile justice).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

76

Scores on the scales replicated the general finding noted above, as formal interagency agreements on

practices with crossover youth and sharing of information about them were reported to be infrequently

used compared to other forms of coordination around case planning and supervision.

Knowledge About and Attention to Crossover Youth. On six of eight scales where respondents rated

self and local stakeholder knowledge about and attention to CY, average ratings were at or below the

midpoint between 1 (low/none) and 5 (very high). Two scales had scores above 3: “awareness of

crossover youths’ risks and needs” and “knowledge about the issues and challenges in working with”

these youth. The lowest ratings were on a question about the extent of “attention and resources given to

crossover youth cases.” Lower ratings were also given to “knowledge about best practices in working

with crossover youth.”

Questions soliciting perceptions about organizational expertise in working with crossover youth

drew equally lukewarm responses, with more than 60 percent of them showing the level of expertise to be

“moderate” to “low or none” in all seven organizations. LDSS, DJS, the Juvenile Court, and local Offices

of the Public Defender all received very similar ratings, with 61 to 68 percent of the responses indicating

moderate to low/no expertise on CY in these organizations. Assessments of the level of “attention and

resources provided to crossover youth” by these organizations had even lower ratings than the expertise

questions. DSS, DJS, Juvenile Court, and OPD were again given very similar ratings with 72 to 76

percent rated moderate to low/none in attention and resource. These ratings, nonetheless, were more

favorable than those given to the state DHR, or local State’s Attorney’s Offices, schools, or police.

Collaboration, Judicial Role, and Barriers in Working with Crossover Cases. Scores on a similar

5-point scale rating level of collaboration were more favorable, with scale averages ranging from 3.1 to

3.8. Overall, the Juvenile Court was given the most points for collaboration; DSS and DJS had the same

average score. Lowest of all the specific interagency collaboration scores was given to DSS-DJS. A slight

majority of respondents believed that the Juvenile Court judge should be extensively involved in

facilitating collaboration among agencies involved in crossover youth cases and 63 percent agreed it was

the judge’s responsibility to hold agencies accountable for collaboration in crossover youth cases.

Three factors were reported by more than 90 percent of respondents to be a “major barrier” or

“somewhat of a barrier” in working with crossover youth: lack of cross-training among agencies,

“conflict among parties involved in crossover cases,” and “DSS and DJS have different innate philosphies

in managing youth.” Perhaps indicative of the challenges of working with this popuation, every barrier

listed in this part of the survey was rated as somewhat of a barrier or a major barrier by 40 percent or

more of the respondents.

Crossover Youth in the Context of Two Systems

The absence of structured, comprehensive cross-system information sharing also poses challenges

to conducting research on the crossover youth population in Maryland. To address study questions about

their numbers, needs, and risk factors for delinquency, it was necessary to traverse multiple data systems

maintained by different agencies for varied purposes. The two final analytic frameworks reflected the

realities of data quality and availability.

For both analyses, juvenile court data were initially used to identify study samples. The primary

analysis was designed to place crossover youth in the context of the delinquency system and compared

(1a) youth who had delinquency petitions filed in one of the five study jurisdictions between July 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

77

and June 2011; and (1b) a subset of these youth who also had CINA petitions filed at any time in the past.

A second analysis was framed from the perspective of the dependency system and compared (2a) youth

born between July 1991 and June 1994 who had a CINA petition filed in Baltimore City, Anne Arundel,

or Baltimore County between 2003 and June 2011; and (2b) a subset of these youth who also were

arrested and referred for intake to the juvenile justice system through June 2011. The detailed

comparative analyses of CINA histories were limited to Baltimore City youth.

While the sampling, data collection, and primary analysis plans focused on comparisons of the

crossover youth groups and the delinquency and CINA-only samples, analyses of the available data also

revealed results concerning the size of the crossover youth population in the state. These findings should

not be construed as prevalence estimates, as limitations to the available data precluded calculation of such

estimates. In the first analysis, the percentage of crossover youth among juveniles with delinquency

petitions varied from 1.4 percent to 8.2 percent across the five jurisdictions, with Baltimore City showing

a proportion nearly twice that of Baltimore County and 2½ to 5½ times that found in the other counties.

These overall proportions of CY are generally consistent with the anecdotal reports given in the

stakeholder interviews, where most respondents expressed the belief that there were few youth in

Maryland with dual system involvement. Much different figures were found when CINA-petitioned cases

comprised the base. Here, the overall percentages of CY were much higher, and at 43 percent, Baltimore

County’s percentage approached three times that found for Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County

(both around 15%). A number of reasons could explain the different findings, including that the

delinquency criterion used in the latter CINA-based analysis was much less stringent (and thus more

common) than that applied in the delinquency analysis.

Perhaps of more interest, the combined findings suggest that the relatively large proportion of

crossover youth from Baltimore City in the delinquency population is due to the inordinately large

numbers of CINA youth in the City compared to the counties, and not due to Baltimore City CINA-youth

being at greater risk for delinquency. Youth from the City who have a CINA filing are no more likely to

also show delinquency involvement than CINA-petitioned youth in Anne Arundel, and youth from both

these jurisdiction appear much less likely to show dual involvement than CINA youth in Baltimore

County. The relatively high rates of crossover youth shown for Baltimore County are not readily

explained by other aspects of the data and deserves further analysis, and consideration by those with local

expertise on the County.

Crossover Youth and Single System Youth: How Do They Differ?

Race. As is the case nationally, African American youth are over-represented in the CINA and

delinquency systems in Maryland (Maryland DHR, 2011; Young et al., 2011). However, in contrast to

prior studies which tend to show even greater disproportionality in crossover populations, there was no

consistent pattern of race differences evident in the Maryland data. Similarly disproportionate numbers of

African American youth were present in both the CY (79.5%) and delinquency-only (75.5%) groups, and

in Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, African Americans accounted for a smaller proportion of youth

in the crossover group than in the non-CY group; this difference was significant in Baltimore County. The

one jurisdiction that fit the pattern cited in crossover youth literature was Montgomery County, where

three-fourths (75.6%) of the CY group was African American, compared to about half (52.7%) of the

non-CY group. In Baltimore City and Prince George’s County, African American youth account for a

very high percentage of both groups (87 to 93% in PG, 95% for both CY and non-CY in Baltimore City.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

78

The CINA-based Baltimore City findings were limited in revealing any racial differences, given the high

proportion of African American youth in both systems in the City.

Gender. The delinquency analysis revealed findings consistent with those reported in the

literature, with females represented in higher proportion in the CY group (29.8%) than the delinquency-

only group (20.5%). This difference of roughly 10% between the percentage that girls account for in the

two groups was consistent in three of the study jurisdictions. The difference was more pronounced in

Prince George’s (where 37% of the 27 identified CY were female, compared to 19.2% of the non-CY

group) and less so in Baltimore County (30.5% compared to 24.3% in the non-CY group). A further

breakdown showed no interaction effect for race, as about three-fourths of the females in both the CY and

non-CY group were African-American.

A different set of gender findings emerged from the CINA-based analysis in Baltimore City,

where females accounted for more than half (54.3%) of the CINA-only group, and less than one-third

(32.5%) of the CY group. The results for the non-CY group is consistent with the overall CINA

population in Maryland, which is roughly split equally between females and males (Maryland DHR,

2010). The finding for the CY group may be attributable to the low threshold of delinquency used in the

CINA analyses. Further analysis should explore if the proportion of females is higher among CINA youth

who have delinquency filings or adjudications, possibly paralleling Halemba & Siegal’s (2011) finding

that the female proportion in their crossover groups increased with greater involvement in the dependency

system.

Delinquency Involvement. Echoing a common finding, CY were younger at the time of their first

arrest (14.5 years of age) compared to delinquency-only youth (15.0). Also consistent with prior

literature, compared to youth typically seen in Maryland’s juvenile justice system, youth who also have

CINA involvement are engaged in that system in deeper and more chronic ways. Crossover youth have

more arrests and intakes to the system, and the proportion of CY that were found delinquent and

committed was 1.4 times greater than the commitment figure for the delinquency-only group. This

delinquency profile of crossover youth was reinforced in the risk screening results, where CY had

significantly higher scores on detention and placement measures.

With regard to charge type, past studies that show that crossover youth are more likely to have

charges and adjudications for violent offenses was generally not borne out in the Maryland results. There

was no difference between CY and non-CY on rates of violent felony or weapons charges, although CY

did have a higher proportion of person felony and misdemeanor referrals and adjudications, as well as

more drug felonies and property misdemeanors.

The higher showing on measures of detention, placement, and commitment did not accord

directly with other delinquency indicators that showed no differences in the percentage of CY and non-

CY who were adjudicated delinquent on a felony, and a marginal difference of just five percentage points

(50.8% compared to 45.4%) in the proportion adjudicated delinquent for a misdemeanor. The magnitude

of differences between CY and delinquency-only youth on the detention, placement, and commitment

outcomes also outsized observed differences on charges, filings, and adjudication hearings. This pattern is

likely partially attributable to crossover youth having fewer options (and/or options that are viewed by

judges, prosecutors, and community supervision agents as less hospitable and secure) for pre-adjudication

detention and placement in the home and community. It also at least suggests that crossover youth face

more harsh responses in the delinquency system by virtue of their dependency involvement. In any event,

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

79

the finding underscores the importance of efforts to keep CINA youth from involvement in delinquency

and the juvenile justice system altogether.

Family and Crossover Youth. On risk and need measures reflecting maltreatment, shelter and

dependency-related placements, as well as family problems in general, crossover youth had predictably

higher scores than the dependency-only group. Although CY had significantly higher dynamic family

need and lower dynamic protective scores than non-CY youth, these differences were even greater on

measures of static need and protective factors relating to family involvement and support.

In the CINA-based analyses, there was some further evidence that crossover youth had somewhat

different and perhaps more persistent family problems than CINA youth who had no delinquency

involvement. CINA filings for this latter non-CY group were more likely to be based on parental neglect

related to drug use compared to the crossover group; entries in the court record for CY tended to cite

abuse or neglect without reference to drugs, or some other problem with the caretaker or child. Also,

placement terminations in the CY group more frequently involved failed family reunification efforts, and

compared to CINA-only, crossover cases had more multiple attempts at family reunification.

The analyses of dependency cases also showed that crossover youth were older at the time of the

first CINA petition and first placement than CINA-only youth. This finding is consistent with studies

(e.g., Ireland et al., 2002; Stewart et al., 2008) showing that maltreatment that initiates or extends into

adolescence is a predictor for delinquency and involvement in both systems.

Other Social Risk Factors and Service Needs. Compared with delinquency-only youth, CY had

risk and need scores indicating more association with anti-social peers and similarly less favorable scores

on both static and dynamic protective measures regarding peers, and relationships with teachers and other

adults in the community. Also mirroring prior research (e.g., Dannerbeck & Yan, 2011), the needs

assessment showed crossover youth tending to hold attitudes and beliefs reflecting less optimism for the

future, empathy and remorse for victims, and sense of control over their own anti-social behavior. They

also scored higher on an aggregate measure that reflected less tolerance for frustration, and belief in

verbal and physical aggression as a means of resolving disputes.

More importantly, on less subjective measures of mental health, including having a formal

diagnosis and taking or having been prescribed medication and other types treatment for mental disorders,

crossover youth also scored higher. On the simplest and most straightforward of these measures, the risk

screen mental health score, CY’s average score was nearly 2½ times that of the delinquency-only group.

Significant differences were also evident on the two static mental health measures in the needs

assessment, and the dynamic mental health protective score, however these scores incorporated items on

abuse and neglect.

The mental health results stand in contrast to those concerning substance abuse, where CY and

delinquency-only youth had similar scores on the risk measure and all four needs and protective

measures. The two groups also did not differ on risk items related to school attendance, performance or

conduct, nor on the dynamic need or protective school scores in the needs assessment. CY did, however,

average higher scores on the static needs measure and lower scores on the static school-related protective

factors measure.

CINA-based Placement Results. Noted above, crossover youth were older than non-CY at their

first CINA placement. Consistent with prior findings on placement instability, CY also had more

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

80

placements than the CINA-only group, and a longer cumulative length of time in placement. Differences

in placement types were marginal, although consistent with the literature, with crossover youth somewhat

less likely to be placed back with a parent and more likely to be placed in a DSS home. Unfortunately, the

court record was not sufficiently detailed or explicit to distinguish between foster homes and group

homes. The groups differed on the reasons given for terminating placements, with more CY terminations

attributed to child behavior issues (runaway, truancy), and slightly more CY having a family placement

fail (requiring a new placement).

Synthesis of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations

Improving Maryland Practices. The most notable finding from the review of state and local

practices is the absence of any major initiatives in Maryland focused specifically on crossover youth.

Although the interviews and an extensive document review revealed there to be a number of evidence-

based and promising policies and practices targeted to youth in the state’s dependency and delinquency

systems, with the exception of a few nascent local efforts, none targeted youth dually involved in these

systems. Questions about the level of attention and resources directed to CY in local jurisdictions received

among the lowest ratings of any items on the stakeholder survey, with scores averaging closer to

low/none than high/very high. About two-thirds of survey respondents rated attention and resources

devoted to CY by LDSS, DJS, and the juvenile court as moderate to low/none.

The prevailing practice regarding notification and interagency case planning and review with

crossover youth involves informal coordination and collaboration, often relying on the initiative of case

workers assigned to the case. On the one hand, of those who felt capable to answer these survey

questions, collaboration on notification and case management was reported to occur in the majority of CY

cases. On the other, about 40 percent of those who answered these questions said there was no regular

collaboration between systems on these matters, and another 40 percent of all the respondents said they

did not know enough to answer the questions. Perhaps most importantly, those who did answer the

questions – including those who reported there to be collaboration on notification and case management –

still rated these efforts as generally ineffective.

There is a consensus need for focused efforts on the CY population. There are several practices

already in use in the state that should be expanded and made systematic and routine. One judge/one

family is widely viewed as a more effective means of managing dual-system cases in the juvenile court.

Leadership and direction on the part of the judge was appreciated by survey respondents and interviewees

and, together with the relative absence of formal, structured procedures for cross-system collaboration,

greater judicial leadership would seem a welcome and effective means of filling this need. Incipient

efforts in a few jurisdictions around joint case planning, review, and attendance in hearings should

continue, be made a standard practice, and expanded to other jurisdictions. These efforts can build on the

statewide ISP and particularly Family Involvement Meetings and other interdisciplinary venues as a

means of engaging families and crossing system boundaries. Widely regarded as effective advocates that

also cross boundaries in the best interests of the child, CASA should make CY a priority (along with other

high-risk populations, such as those aging out of the system and LGBT youth). CASAs should be

afforded means of routinely identifying and becoming assigned to co-committed cases. Resistance to use

of the Dashboard for dual-system identification and communications should be investigated and resolved.

The state should consider allocating publicly-funded slots in evidence-based programs such as MTFC,

Wraparound, and MST to active dual-system youth and specifically encourage their use with these cases.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

81

In a more general sense, more specific efforts should be made to build both state and local

knowledge about crossover youth. There was a high level of agreement and acknowledgment that

crossover youth have unique needs and risks, and that they pose significant challenges for those working

with them. There was also a consensus admission among survey respondents that both they and other

stakeholders in their jurisdiction had little knowledge about best practices for this population. About two

in three respondents rated expertise in all three sectors – LDSS, DJS, the Judiciary – as low to moderate.

The state should address the need – specifically identified in the survey as a major barrier to working with

CY – for cross-training on this population. Practitioners should be given tools and guidance for

addressing another widely perceived barrier, conflict among parties involved in dual-system cases.

Leadership at the highest levels should also take on the need to resolve ongoing differences between

LDSS and DJS regarding responsibilities and communication in co-committed cases – a need

acknowledged by both interviewees and survey respondents.

Implications of Comparative Analysis Results for Practice Improvement and Future Research. A

key finding from the quantitative analyses of court, DJS, and CINA data is that the comparatively high

proportion of crossover youth from Baltimore City appears to be due to the large numbers of CINA youth

in this jurisdiction and not because CINA involvement in the City makes these youth more prone to

delinquency compared with CINA-involved youth in other jurisdictions. More research and local

expertise is needed to explore a related finding, that youth with CINA filings in Baltimore County are

more likely to have delinquency involvement compared to CINA youth in Baltimore City and Anne

Arundel County. Additional data and analyses on pathways – the timing and direction of cross-system

involvement – is needed in the state. Jurisdictional comparisons will require larger study samples that

originate in each of the two systems.

Results from the delinquency and risk and needs analyses underscored the importance of attention

to the mental health treatment needs of crossover youth in the state. Although an absence of protective

factors and high needs were identified among CY in several areas, preventing, anticipating, and

responding to mental health problems stood out as a priority. A few other findings on risk factors

emerged as notable from the CINA-based comparisons. Youth from families with maltreatment histories

that are not drug-related appear more prone to delinquency than CINA-youth who experience drug –

related neglect or abuse. Consistent with findings from prior research, the Maryland findings indicate

particular consideration should be paid to youth who enter CINA at a later age and (at the risk of stating

the obvious) those with placement stability and family reunification problems.

Attention and additional research is also called for to address the finding that crossover youth in

Maryland experience juvenile justice system responses – detentions, placements, commitments – which

appear to exceed their delinquency record. More detailed pathway-related assessments and multivariate

analyses are needed to confirm and expand on these results. To the extent they are upheld, the findings

reinforce the need to develop more and better home and community-based detention options for dual-

system youth. Efforts with CINA youth must focus on preventing delinquency crossover and for those

who do, to reduce reliance on pre-adjudication detention and out-of-home placements. DJS should also

investigate how the risk and needs assessment scoring may contribute to detention and commitment

recommendations simply by virtue of the child’s maltreatment and dependency system background.

Contributions to Crossover Youth Research. The Maryland findings varied somewhat from some

published literature that showed greater risk of substance abuse, school performance and attendance

problems, and a tendency toward violent offenses – these were not evident in the present study cohorts.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

82

Crossover youth did, though, show some static school performance problems and a tendency to less

serious person offenses, drug felonies, and property misdemeanors. Findings related to gender were not

entirely consistent with prior literature, as dependency cases that also had delinquency involvement were

less likely to be female compared to the CINA-only youth. The delinquency-based results did comport

with convention, with more females in the crossover group compared to delinquency-only youth.

Findings on race were also inconsistent and thus not fully in accord with prior results. One

jurisdiction did fit the profile of greater disproportionality by youth of color in the CY group, however

another jurisdiction showed the opposite (i.e., proportionately fewer African Americans in the CY group

compared to delinquency-only) and three others showed no differences. The fact that two of these latter

three jurisdictions are heavily majority minority may account for the absence of a race finding in them.

One possible explanation for the other two jurisdictions that did not fit the prior research profile is that

they both have comparatively large mid to lower-SES white populations. The interactive effects of race

and SES on the chances of dual-system involvement deserves additional research.

For the most part the present study replicated and extended findings reported in prior studies on

the CY population. Results regarding comparatively early and more chronic delinquency involvement

were upheld, as were risk and needs domains involving mental health, family, peer and adult

relationships. The CINA-based analyses also replicated prior findings regarding later dependency

involvement, placement instability and length, and more persistent family problems. The finding

regarding drug-related maltreatment is new to our knowledge. Similarly some of the detailed findings

from the risk and needs assessments, including findings on protective factors and distinctions between

static and dynamic needs and protective factors have not generally been available and presented

previously. Together, results of the present study should bring urgency to the state’s response to the

unique needs and vulnerabilities of crossover youth.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

83

REFERENCES

Altschuler, D., Stangler, G., Berkley, K., & Burton, L. (2009). Supporting youth in transition to

adulthood: Lessons learned from child welfare and juvenile justice. Washington, DC: Center for

Juvenile Justice Reform and Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative.

American Bar Association (2008). ABA policy and report on crossover and dual jurisdiction youth.

Retrieved April 4, 2014, from http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/resource_671.pdf.

Baltimore County CASA. (2014). About CASA. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from

http://www.casabaltco.org/about.aspx.

Bogie, A., Johnson, K., Ereth, J., & Scharenbroch, C. (2011). Assessing risk of future delinquency among

children receiving child protection services. Madison, WI: Children’s Research Center.

Casey Family Programs (2010). Breakthrough Series Collaborative: Juvenile justice and child welfare

integration. Washington, DC: author.

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (n.d.) BSC at a glance. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from

http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/policyforum/bscMS.pdf.

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and American Public Human Services Association (n.d.). Bridging

two worlds: Youth involved in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. A policy guide for

improving outcomes. Washington, DC: author.

Chiu, Y.-L., Ryan, J.P., & Herz, D.C. (2011). Allegations of maltreatment and delinquency: Does risk of

juvenile arrest vary substantiation status? Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 855-860.

Chuang, E. & Wells, R. (2010). The role of inter-agency collaboration in facilitating receipt of behavioral

health services for youth involved with child welfare and juvenile justice. Children and Youth

Services Review, 32, 1814-1822.

Coleman, H.C. & Jenson, J.M. (2000). A longitudinal assessment of delinquency among abused and

behavior problem youth following participation in a family preservation program. Journal of

Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 143-162.

Conger, D. & Ross, T. (2006). Project Confirm: An outcome evaluation of a program for children in the

child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 97-115.

Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Lee, J. S., & Rapp, M. (2010). Midwest evaluation of adult functioning of

former foster youth: Outcomes at ages 23 and 24. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at

the University of Chicago.

Courtney, M. E., Terao, S., Bost, N. (2004). Midwest evaluation of adult functioning of former foster

youth: Conditions of youth preparing to leave state care. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for

Children at the University of Chicago.

Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., & Moreno, M. (2011). Young adult outcomes of exiting dependent or

delinquent care in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles: County of Los Angeles.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

84

Cusick, G.R., Courtney, M.E., Havlicek, J. & Hess, N. (2011). Crime during the transition to adulthood:

How youth fare as they leave out-of-home care. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of

Chicago.

Dannerbeck, A. & Yan, J. (2011). Missouri’s crossover youth: Examining the relationship between their

maltreatment history and risk of violence. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1, 78-92.

English, D., Widom, C., & Brandford, C. (2002). Childhood victimization and delinquency, adult

criminality, and violent criminal behavior: A replication and extension. Final report for National

Institute of Justice, grant number 97-IJ-CX-0017), NCJ 192291.

Forum for Youth Investment (2014). What is ready by 21? Retrieved March 27, 2014, from

http://www.readyby21.org/what-ready-21.

Goodkind, S., Shook, J.J., Kim, K.H., Pohlig, R.T., & Herring, D.J. (2013). From child welfare to

juvenile justice: Race, gender, and system experiences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,

11(3), 249-272.

Grogan-Kaylor, A., Ruffolo, M.C., Ortega, R.M., & Clarke, J. (2008). Behaviors of youth involved in the

child welfare system. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 35-49.

Halemba, G. & Lord, R. (2005). Effectively intervening with dual jurisdiction youth in Ohio. Children,

Families, and the Courts: Ohio Bulletin, 2(3).

Halemba, G. & Seigel, G. (2011). The King County uniting for youth cross system prevalence. Pittsburgh,

PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Halemba, G., Seigel, G., Lord, R., & Zawacki, S. (2004). Arizona dual jurisdiction study. Pittsburgh, PA:

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Hartnett, S., Hurst, H., & Berry, S. (2010). DuPage County Department of Probation and Court Services

dually involved youth work area: A transition update. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice.

Herz, D.C., Lee, P., Lutz, L., Stewart, M., Tuell, J., & Wiig, J. (2012). Addressing the needs of multi-

system youth: Strengthening the connection between child welfare and juvenile justice.

Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action

Corps.

Herz, D.C. & Ryan, J.P. (2008). Exploring the characteristics and outcomes of 241.1 youth crossing over

from dependency to delinquency in Los Angeles County. San Francisco, CA: Administrative

Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts.

Herz, D.C., Ryan, J.P., & Bilchik, S.K. (2010). Challenges facing crossover youth: An examination of

juvenile-justice decision making and recidivism. Family Court Review, 48(2), 305-321.

Hiers, T. (2014, January). State spotlight: Maryland. NJJEC Bulletin, 3-4. Retrieved March 28, 2014,

from http://www.jrsa.org/njjec/newsletters/njjec-bulletin-january2014.pdf.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

85

Holsinger, K., Belknap, J., & Sutherland, J.L. (1999). Assessing the gender specific program and service

needs for adolescent females in the juvenile justice system. Columbus, OH: Office of Criminal

Justice Services.

Ireland, T.O., Smith, C.A., & Thornberry, T.P. (2002). Developmental issues in the impact of child

maltreatment on later delinquency and drug use. Criminology, 40, 349-400.

Jonson-Reid, M. (2002). Exploring the relationship between child welfare intervention and juvenile

corrections involvement. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 559-576.

Jonson-Reid, M. & Barth, R. (2000a). From maltreatment to juvenile incarceration: Uncovering the role

of child welfare services. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 505-520.

Jonson-Reid, M. & Barth R. (2000b). From placement to prison: The path to adolescent incarceration

from child welfare supervised foster or group care. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 493-

516.

Jonson-Reid, M., Kohl, P.L., and Drake, B. 2012. Child and adult outcomes of chronic child

maltreatment. Pediatrics 129,839-845.

Kelley, B. T., Thornberry, T., & Smith, C. (1997, August). In the wake of childhood maltreatment.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ 165257.

Kim, J., and D. Cicchetti. 2010. Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion regulation,

peer relations, and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 51,706-716.

Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2001). Child delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service

Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lutz, L., Stewart, M., Legters, L. & Herz, D. (2009). Crossover youth practice model. Washington, DC:

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Casey Family Programs.

Maryland Children’s Cabinet. (2009). Maryland’s Ready by 21 Action Plan. Retrieved March 24, 2014,

from http://forumfyi.org/files/RB_21_Leadership_Team_Action_Plan.pdf.

Maryland Department of Human Resources (2014). Place matters. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/blog/?page_id=7864.

Maryland Department of Human Resources (2013). Title IV-B Child and family services plan 2013

annual progress and services report. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from https://www.dhr.state.md.us/documents/Data%20and%20Reports/SSA/2013%20Child%20and%

20Family%20Annual%20Progress%20and%20Services%20Report/2013.MD.APSR.pdf.

Maryland Department of Human Resources (2010). Child welfare results report. Retrieved March 24,

2014, from

https://www.dhr.state.md.us/documents/Data%20and%20Reports/SSA/2010%2003%20Child-

Welfare-Results-Report-Data-Mar2010.pdf.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

86

Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (2014). Department of Juvenile Services initiatives. Retrieved

March 25, 2014, from http://www.djs.state.md.us/initiatives.asp.

Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (2013). Data resource guide: Fiscal year 2013. Retrieved

March 25, 2014, from http://www.djs.state.md.us/drg/Full_DRG_With_Pullouts_2013.pdf.

Maryland StateStat (2013, December 20). DJS meeting summary. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from

http://www.statestat.maryland.gov/reports/20131220_DJS_Meeting_Summary.pdf.

Pawasarat, J. (1991). Identifying Milwaukee youth in critical need of intervention: Lessons from the past,

measures for the future. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Employment and

Training Institute.

Petro, J. (2006). Increasing collaboration and coordination of the child welfare and juvenile justice

systems to better serve dual jurisdiction youth: A literature review. Washington, DC: Child

Welfare League of America.

Petro, J. (2007). Juvenile justice and child welfare agencies: Collaborating to serve dual jurisdiction

youth survey report. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Postlethwait, A.W., Barth, R.P., & Guo, S. (2010). Gender variation in delinquent behavior changes of

welfare-involved youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 318-324.

Ross, T., Conger, D., & Armstrong, M. (2002). Bridging child welfare and juvenile justice: Preventing

unnecessary detention of foster children. Child Welfare, 81, 471-494.

Runyan, D.K. & Gould, C.L. (1985). Foster care for child maltreatment: Impact on delinquent behavior.

Pediatrics, 75, 562-568.

Ryan, J.P. & Testa, M.F. (2005). Child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency: Investigating the role of

placement and placement stability. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 227-249.

Ryan, J.P., Herz, D. Hernandez, P.M., & Marshall, J.M. (2007). Maltreatment and delinquency:

investigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 29,

1035-1050.

Ryan, J.P., Marshall, J.M., Herz, D., & Hernandez, P.M. (2008). Juvenile delinquency in child welfare:

Investigating group home effects. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1088-1099.

Saeteurn, M.L. & Swain, J.R. (2009). Exploring characteristics and outcomes of 241.1 youth in Alameda

County. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

Sedlak, A.J. & McPherson, K.S. (2010, April). Youth’s needs and services: Findings from the survey of

youth in residential placement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ 227728.

Shook, J., Goodkind, S., Pohlig, R.T., Schelbe, L., Herring, D., & Kim, K. (2011). Patterns of mental

health, substance abuse, and justice system involvement among youth aging out of child welfare.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 420-432.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

87

Siegel, G. & Lord, R. (2004). When systems collide: Improving court practices and programs in dual

jurisdiction cases. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from http://www.ncjj.org/PDF/dualjurisdiction.pdf.

Smith, C. & Thornberry, T. (1995). The relationship between child maltreatment and adolescent

involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33, 451-481.

Stewart, A., Dennison, S. & Waterson, E. (2002). Pathways from child maltreatment to juvenile

offending. Brisbane, Australia: Griffith University.

Stewart, A., Livingston, M. & Waterson, E. (2008). Transitions and turning points: Examining the links

between child maltreatment and juvenile offending. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 51-66.

Thornberry, T.P., Ireland, T.O., & Smith, C.A. (2001). The importance of timing: The impact of

childhood and adolescent maltreatment on multiple problem outcomes. Development and

Psychopathology, 13, 957-979.

Verrecchia, P.J., Fetzer, M.D., Lemmon, J.H., & Austin, T.L. (2010). An examination of direct and

indirect effects of maltreatment dimensions and other ecological risks on persistent youth

offending. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 220-243.

Widom, C.S. (1989a). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160-166.

Widom, C. S. (1989b). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Criminology 27(2), 251-271.

Widom, C.S. (1991). The role of placement experiences in mediating the criminal consequences of early

childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 195-209.

Widom, C. S. & Maxfield, M. G. (2001, February). An update on the “cycle of violence.” Research in

brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute

of Justice, NCJ 184894.

Wiebush, R., McNulty, B., & Le, T. (2000, July). Implementation of the intensive community-based

aftercare program. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ 181464.

Wiig, J. (2003). Understanding child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency: Foundations for effective

response. In Wiig, J., Widom, C.S., & Tuell, J.A., Understanding Child Maltreatment and

Juvenile Delinquency: From Research to Effective Program, Practice, and Systemic Solutions.

Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Wiig, J. (with Tuell, J.A.). (2004). Guidebook for juvenile justice and child welfare system coordination

and integration. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Wiig, J. & Tuell, J.A. (2013). Guidebook for juvenile justice and child welfare system coordination and

integration. Boston: Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps.

Young, D., Yancey, C., Betsinger, S., & Farrell, J. (2011). Disproportionate minority contact in the

Maryland juvenile justice system. Final report to the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and

Prevention. College Park, MD: Institute of Governmental Service and Research.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

88

Yun, I., Ball, J.D., & Lim, H. (2011). Disentangling the relationship between child maltreatment and

violent delinquency: Using a nationally representative sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

26, 88-110.

Zingraff, M.T., Leiter, J., Myers, K.A., & Johnsen, M.C. (1993). Child maltreatment and youthful

problem behavior. Criminology 31, 173-202.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

89

Appendices

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

90

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

91

Appendix A

State Agency Documents Reviewed

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

92

Agency Document Title Date URL

Maryland Children’s Cabinet

Maryland’s Ready by 21 Action Plan 2009 http://forumfyi.org/files/RB_21_Leadership_Team_Ac tion_Plan.pdf

Maryland Department of Human Resources

Place Matters 2014 http://www.dhr.state.md.us/blog/?page_id=7864

Ready By 21 2014 http://mdconnectmylife.org/dhrx/ready-by-21/

Montgomery County Maryland Child Welfare Services 2013 Annual Report

2013 http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/HHS/Resourc es/Files/Reports/2013%20DHHS%20CWS%20Annual% 20Report-FINAL%20(9-27-13).pdf

Title IV-B Child and Family Services Plan 2013 Annual Progress and Services Report

2013 https://www.dhr.state.md.us/documents/Data%20an d%20Reports/SSA/2013%20Child%20and%20Family%2 0Annual%20Progress%20and%20Services%20Report/2 013.MD.APSR.pdf

Child Welfare Results Report 2010 https://www.dhr.state.md.us/documents/Data%20an d%20Reports/SSA/2010%2003%20Child-Welfare- Results-Report-Data-Mar2010.pdf

SSA Policy Directive 10-24 2010 https://www.dhr.state.md.us/documents/SSA%20Poli cy%20Directives/Child%20Welfare/SSA%2010- 24%20DJS%20and%20DHR%20Dually%20Involved%20 Youth%20Populations.pdf

Maryland Department of Juvenile Services

Department of Juvenile Services Initiatives

2014 http://www.djs.state.md.us/initiatives.asp

Process Flowchart 2014 http://djs.maryland.gov/drg/Sections/DJS%20Process %20Flowchart_2013.pdf

Data Resource Guide: Fiscal Year 2013

2013 http://www.djs.state.md.us/drg/Full_DRG_With_Pullo uts_2013.pdf

“The Doors to Detention” A Study of Baltimore City Detention Utilization

2012 http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Baltimore%20City% 20Detention_Utilization_Report_Print.pdf

Maryland Governor’s Office for Children

The Maryland Child and Family Services Interagency Strategic Plan: Implementation Work Plan

2012 https://goc.maryland.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/8/2014/07/IMPLEMENTATION- PLAN-CCRT-Sep-2012.pdf

House Bill 840: Children, Youth and Families – Services to Children with Special Needs

2011 https://goc.maryland.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/8/2014/04/HB840_Fact_Sheet. pdf

The Maryland Child and Family Services Interagency Strategic Plan

2008 https://goc.maryland.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/8/2014/07/The-Maryland- Child-and-Familiy-Services-Interagency-Strategic- Plan.pdf

Maryland Judiciary Juvenile Court in Maryland 2014 http://www.courts.state.md.us/publications/pdfs/juve nile.pdf

Maryland StateStat DJS Meeting Summaries: March 4, 2014; December 20, 2013; November 8, 2013; September 27, 2013

2013, 2014

http://www.statestat.maryland.gov/reports.html

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

93

Appendix B

Crossover Youth Survey

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

94

Crossover Youth Stakeholder Survey

PURPOSE: This survey asks about your views on practices and agency collaboration involving youth with current delinquency charges who also have past or present involvement in the child welfare system (“crossover youth”). The survey will take 20 to 45 minutes to complete.

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this survey, please use the following definitions for key terms:

CROSSOVER YOUTH - refers to juveniles who have an active delinquency petition filed in a Maryland Juvenile Court and who are currently or were previously involved in the CINA system.

STAKEHOLDERS - refer to people like yourself working in the Court or in agencies or organizations who encounter and engage with youth involved in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems.

DSS - refers to local Departments of Social Services, including the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in Montgomery County.

CONFIDENTIALITY - Your participation in the survey is completely voluntary. While we ask that you answer each of the questions, you may choose not to answer any questions you do not wish to answer. All of the answers you provide to the survey will be treated as confidential, and any results will be combined with the results from other respondents and presented in such a way that no individual will be identifiable. Survey responses will be downloaded from Survey Monkey by designated research personnel and stored on password-protected computers.

CONTACT: This research is a result of a partnership between the Maryland Judiciary and the University of Maryland Institute for Governmental Service and Research, College Park. If you have any questions about the project itself, please contact the principal investigator, ____, via email at ______ or at _____ or the project supervisor at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), ______, via email at ________or at _________. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject or wish to report a research-related injury or problem, please contact the University of Maryland's Institutional Review Board Office via email at .

NOTE: You can save your survey and come back to it at a later time; however, you must complete a page and then click to the next page to save your responses. If you stop in the middle of a page and come back later, the responses on that page are erased.

By clicking the “NEXT” button below, you consent to participate in this research.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

95

ABOUT YOU

1. For which agency do you work?

1  The courts 2  Private law firm

3  State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO)

4  Office of the Public Defender (OPD)

5  Department of Human Resources (DHR)

6  Department of Social Services (DSS) or Montgomery County DHHS

7  Department of Juvenile Services (DJS)

8  Local police

9  Public school system

10  CASA

11  Other (Please specify): _____________________________ 2. Which of the following titles best describes your job?

1  Judge

2  Master

3  Attorney

4  Juvenile Court Administrative staff

5  Agency Executive Staff

6  Agency Supervisory Staff

7  Case worker

8  Social worker

9  CASA volunteer/staff

10  Other (Please specify): _____________________________

3. Are your day-to-day responsibilities specific to a single jurisdiction or to the state as a whole?

1  Single jurisdiction

2  State as a whole

3  Multiple jurisdiction (not statewide) 4. In which jurisdiction do you work?

1  Baltimore City

2  Anne Arundel County

3  Baltimore County

4  Montgomery County

5  Prince George’s County

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

96

5. How long have you worked at your current position?

1  less than 2 years

2  2 – 4 years

3  5 – 7 years

4  8 – 10 years

5  over 10 years

Reminder: Throughout this survey, the term “crossover youth” refers to juveniles who have an active delinquency petition filed in a Maryland Juvenile Court and who are currently or were previously involved in the CINA system. DSS refers to local Departments of Social Services, including in Montgomery County the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

PRACTICES, POLICIES & PROGRAMS

6. Please indicate whether each of the following practices or policies is being used for cases involving

CROSSOVER YOUTH in your jurisdiction. IF the practice or policy exists, please also rate its effectiveness. (Check ONE for “Operates in My Jurisdiction” and ONE for “Effectiveness,” if applicable)

Operates in My

Jurisdiction Effectiveness

Yes No Not

Sure

Not

Effective

Somewhat

Effective

Very

Effective

Routine procedure employed at DJS intake to determine has an active CINA case

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Procedures for routinely notifying DSS social worker upon new delinquency charge or updates in delinquency case

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Procedures for routinely notifying DJS case manager regarding updates in CINA case

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Family or multi-disciplinary meetings aimed at diverting youth from the juvenile justice system

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Coordinated use of validated youth risk/needs assessments between DSS and DJS

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Determination by DSS social worker and DJS case manager regarding which agency should take the lead

1  2  3  1  2  3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

97

Operates in My

Jurisdiction Effectiveness

Yes No Not

Sure

Not

Effective

Somewhat

Effective

Very

Effective

Joint or consolidated case plans between DSS and DJS

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Coordinated case supervision between DSS and DJS

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Multidisciplinary Teams (or Family Team Meetings) are used to prepare case plans and review case progress

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Dedicated court dockets for crossover youth

1  2  3  1  2  3 

One master/judge, one family approach 1  2  3  1  2  3 

Combined CINA/delinquency hearings for cases involving crossover youth

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Court orders that include instructions for both DSS and DJS

1  2  3  1  2  3 

The same attorney represents the youth in both child welfare and delinquency matters

1  2  3  1  2  3 

DSS social worker and DJS case worker are present at all hearings

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Efforts to reduce the use of group care for crossover youth

1  2  3  1  2  3 

If permanency is not possible for crossover youth, efforts are made to identify caring adults who may serve as support networks to the youth

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Independent living services are provided to crossover youth

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Written memorandum of agreement or understanding between child welfare and juvenile justice agencies to communicate, share data, and coordinate on crossover cases

1  2  3  1  2  3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

98

Operates in My

Jurisdiction Effectiveness

Yes No Not

Sure

Not

Effective

Somewhat

Effective

Very

Effective

Collaborative funding agreements between local child welfare and juvenile justice systems

1  2  3  1  2  3 

Electronic information system shared between DJS and DSS

1  2  3  1  2  3 

DSS’ management information system specifically identifies and tracks crossover youth

1  2  3  1  2  3 

DJS’ management information system specifically identifies and tracks crossover youth

1  2  3  1  2  3 

The courts’ management information system specifically identifies and tracks crossover youth

1  2  3  1  2  3 

7. Please specify if your jurisdiction has a program or practice that specifically targets CROSSOVER

YOUTH that is not listed above. _________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________ 8. To what extent are the following evidence-based practices used with CROSSOVER YOUTH in your

jurisdiction? (Check one for each row)

None of

the time Rarely

Some of

the time

Most/All

of the

time

I Don’t

Know

Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) 1  2  3  4  5 

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) 1  2  3  4  5 

Wraparound Services 1  2  3  4  5 

Treatment Foster Care (TFC) 1  2  3  4  5 

Multi-Dimensional Therapeutic Foster Care (MDTFC) 1  2  3  4  5 

Other cognitive-behavioral interventions 1  2  3  4  5 

Other (please specify):_______________________________ 2  3  4  5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

99

TRAINING FOR CROSSOVER YOUTH CASES

9. Please indicate the degree to which the following personnel participate in cross-training on

issues related to CROSSOVER YOUTH in your jurisdiction. (Check ONE for “Availability of Training” and ONE for “Participation in Training”)

Availability of Training Participation in Training

Training

Available

Training

Not

Available

I Don’t

Know Never Sometimes Always

Defense attorneys 1  2  3  1  2  3 

State’s attorneys 1  2  3  1  2  3 

DSS attorneys 1  2  3  1  2  3 

Judges/Masters 1  2  3  1  2  3 

Juvenile Court administrative staff

1  2  3  1  2  3 

DJS case managers 1  2  3  1  2  3 

DSS social workers 1  2  3  1  2  3 

CASA volunteers/staff 1  2  3  1  2  3 

Other key personnel (please specify):______________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

100

Reminder: Throughout this survey, the term “crossover youth” refers to juveniles who have an active delinquency petition filed in a Maryland Juvenile Court and who are currently or were previously involved in

the CINA system. DSS refers to local Departments of Social Services, including in Montgomery County the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

CROSSOVER YOUTH POPULATION & PRIORITIES

10. Before you were asked to complete this survey, were you familiar with the term “crossover

youth”? (Check one)

1  Yes

2  No 11. Using the scale shown, please rate the following. (Check one for each row)

None Low Moderate High Very

High

Your own…

…awareness of crossover youths’ risks and needs 1  2  3  4  5 

…knowledge about issues and challenges in working with crossover youth 1  2  3  4  5 

…knowledge about best practices in working with crossover youth

1  2  3  4  5 

…attention and resources given to crossover youth cases 1  2  3  4  5 

12. Using the scale shown, please rate the following. (Check one for each row)

None Low Moderate High Very

High

I Don’t

Know

Local stakeholders’…

…awareness of crossover youths’ risks and needs 1  2  3  4  5  0 

…knowledge about issues and challenges in working with crossover youth 1  2  3  4  5  0 

…knowledge about best practices in working with crossover youth

1  2  3  4  5  0 

…attention and resources given to crossover youth cases 1  2  3  4  5  0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

101

13. To the best of your knowledge, please rate the following agencies in terms of their EXPERTISE in working with CROSSOVER YOUTH in your jurisdiction. (Check one for each row)

None Low Moderate High Very

High

I Don’t

Know

Department of Social Services (DSS) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Local Schools and School Administration 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Juvenile Court 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Private law firms 1  2  3  4  5  0 

State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Office of the Public Defender (OPD) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Local police 1  2  3  4  5  0 

14. To the best of your knowledge, please rate the following agencies in terms of the ATTENTION and RESOURCES they provide to CROSSOVER YOUTH in your jurisdiction. (Check one for each row)

None Low Moderate High Very

High

I Don’t

Know

Department of Human Resources (DHR) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Department of Social Services (DSS) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Local Schools and School Administration 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Juvenile Court 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Private law firms 1  2  3  4  5  0 

State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Office of the Public Defender (OPD) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Local police 1  2  3  4  5  0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

102

COLLABORATION ACROSS AGENCIES & SYSTEMS

15. To the best of your knowledge, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding interagency collaboration around CROSSOVER YOUTH cases in your jurisdiction. (Check one for each row)

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I Don’t

Know

In working with crossover youth, DJS collaborates closely with:

Department of Human Resources (DHR)

1  2  3  4  5  0 

Department of Social Services (DSS) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Juvenile Court 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Office of the Public Defender (OPD) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Private law firms 1  2  3  4  5  0 

CASA volunteers/staff 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Schools, educational providers 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Mental health service providers 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Substance abuse treatment providers

1  2  3  4  5  0 

16. To the best of your knowledge, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding interagency collaboration around CROSSOVER YOUTH cases in your jurisdiction. (Check one for each row)

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I Don’t

Know

In working with crossover youth, DSS collaborates closely with:

Department of Juvenile Services (DJS)

1  2  3  4  5  0 

Juvenile Court 1  2  3  4  5  0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

103

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I Don’t

Know

Office of the Public Defender (OPD) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Private law firms 1  2  3  4  5  0 

CASA volunteers/staff 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Schools, educational providers 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Mental health service providers 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Substance abuse treatment providers

1  2  3  4  5  0 

17. To the best of your knowledge, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding interagency collaboration around CROSSOVER YOUTH cases in your jurisdiction. (Check one for each row)

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I Don’t

Know

In working with crossover youth, the courts collaborate closely with:

Department of Juvenile Services (DJS)

1  2  3  4  5  0 

Department of Human Resources (DHR)

1  2  3  4  5  0 

Department of Social Services (DSS) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Office of the Public Defender (OPD) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Private law firms 1  2  3  4  5  0 

CASA volunteers/staff 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Schools, educational providers 1  2  3  4  5  0 

Mental health service providers 1  2  3  4  5  0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

104

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I Don’t

Know

Substance abuse treatment providers

1  2  3  4  5  0 

ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY

18. In your view, what role should the Judiciary play in facilitating collaboration in crossover youth cases? (Check one)

1  No involvement

2  Minor involvement

3  Moderate involvement

4  Extensive involvement 19. To what extent is it a judge’s responsibility to hold agencies accountable for collaborating in crossover cases? (Check one)

1  Not a judge’s responsibility

2  Somewhat a judge’s responsibility

3  Major responsibility

4  I don’t know 20. In your jurisdiction, do judges provide joint family and deliquency court orders that include explicit directions for which agency (DSS/DHHS or DJS) should take the lead in a crossover case? (Check one)

1  Yes

2  No

3  I don’t know 21. In your jurisdiction, do you believe it would be helpful if court orders included explicit directions for which agency (DSS/DHHS or DJS) should take the lead in a crossover case? (Check one)

1  Yes

2  No

3  I don’t know

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

105

22. In your jurisdiction, do judges’ orders include explicit directions for interagency collaboration

activities in crossover cases, such as holding Family Team Meetings or pre-hearing conferences?

(Check one)

1  Yes

2  No

3  I don’t know 23. In your jurisdiction, do you believe it would be helpful if court orders included explicit directions for interagency collaboration activities in crossover cases, such as holding Family Team Meetings or pre-hearing conferences? (Check one)

1  Yes

2  No

3  I don’t know BARRIERS

24. Please indicate the extent to which the following serve as barriers to effectively handling CROSSOVER YOUTH cases in your jurisdiction. (Check one for each row)

Not a

Barrier

Somewhat

of a

Barrier

A Major

Barrier

I Don’t

Know

DSS and DJS duplicating efforts in crossover cases 1  2  3  4 

Lack of cross-training on crossover cases 1  2  3  4 

Presence of numerous parties in crossover cases 1  2  3  4 

Conflict among parties involved in crossover cases 1  2  3  4 

Lack of judicial direction in crossover cases 1  2  3  4 

DJS and DSS have different innate philosphies in managing youth

1  2  3  4 

DJS’ more restrictive and punitive orientation to managing youth

1  2  3  4 

Reluctance of DSS to work with delinquent youth 1  2  3  4 

The number of crossover youth in my jurisdiction is too small to generate concern among stakeholders

1  2  3  4 

In my jurisdiction, crossover youth are a low priority due to the attention given to other, more urgent matters

1  2  3  4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

106

Not a

Barrier

Somewhat

of a

Barrier

A Major

Barrier

I Don’t

Know

My jurisdiction lacks the resources to make crossover youth cases a priority

1  2  3  4 

We have the resources, but not enough of them are devoted to crossover youth cases

1  2  3  4 

25. What do you consider to be the most challenging obstacles in working with crossover

youth? ________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

26. Are there other stakeholders who work with crossover youth whom you believe we should contact to participate in the survey? Please provide their names and contact information below. (Note that we cannot be sure who will ultimately be included in this research. Strict procedures will be followed to ensure that any names you provide will remain confidential. Please indicate if you do not want us to use your name if we contact these individuals.)

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

RESPONDENT INFORMATION

27. What is the highest academic degree you hold? (Check one)

1  HS diploma 2  Associates

3  Bachelor’s 4  Master’s

5  J.D. or L.L.M. 6  PhD

7  Other (Specify) ______________________

28. How would you describe yourself? (Check all that apply)

1  White 2  Black or African-American

3  White and Hispanic/Latino 4  Black or African American and Hispanic/Latino

5  Asian/Pacific Islander 6  American Indian/Alaska Native

7  Other (Specify): __________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

107

29. What is your age? (Check one)

1  20 - 29

2  30 - 39

3  40 - 49

4  50 - 59

5  60 or over

30. What is your gender? (Check one)

1  Male

2  Female

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

108

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

109

Appendix C

DJS MCASP Risk and Needs Assessment

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

110

MCASP Risk Screen: Delinquency History Score

Item Score 1. Age at First Offense: The age at the time of the offense for which the youth was referred

to DJS for the first time on a misdemeanor or felony. 0=Over 16 1=16 2=15 3=13 to 14 4=Under 13

2. Misdemeanor Referrals: Total # of referrals in which the most serious offense was a misdemeanor.

0=One or fewer 1=Two 2=Three or four 3=Five or more

3. Felony Referrals: Total # of referrals in which the most serious offense was a felony. 0 - None 2=One 4=Two 6=Three or more

4. Weapon Referrals: Total # of referrals in which the most serious offense includes the possession or use of a firearm or explosive.

0=None 1=One or more

5. Against-person misdemeanor referrals: Total # of referrals in which the most serious offense was an against-person misdemeanor (involving threats, force, or physical harm to another person such as assault, sex, coercion, harassment, obscene phone call, etc.)

0=None 1=One 2=Two or more

6. Against-person felony referrals: Total # of referrals for an against-person felony (involving force or physical harm to another person such as homicide, murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, sex, robbery, kidnapping, domestic violence, harassment, criminal mistreatment, intimidation, coercion, obscene harassing phone call, etc.)

0=None 2=One or two 4=Three or more

7. Sexual misconduct misdemeanor referrals: Total # of referrals for which the most serious offense was a sexual misconduct 4th degree misdemeanor.

Not scored, info only

8. Felony sex offense referrals: Total # of referrals for a felony sex offense – first, second, or third degree.

Not scored, info only

9. Detention: # of times a youth served at least one day confined in detention under a detention order.

0=None 1=One 2=Two 3=Three or more

10. Placement: # of times a youth served at least one day in placement under commitment to DJS (including pending placement in a detention facility).

0=None 2=One 4=Two or more

11. Escapes: Total # of referrals for escape. 0=None 1=One 2=Two or more

12. Failure to appear in court warrants: Total # of failures-to-appear in court that resulted in a warrant being issued. Exclude failure-to-appear warrants for non-criminal matters.

0=None 1=One 2=Two or more

MAXIMUM SCORE 31 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

111

Item Score

1. Youth’s current school enrollment status, regardless of attendance. � Not applicable � Graduated/GED � Enrolled full-time � Enrolled part-time � Suspended � Dropped out � Expelled

0=None of the following below apply

1=Enrolled (part- or full-time); and Misconduct reported but no police calls; or Some full-day unexcused absences; or Failing some classes (“C” or “D” average with one or more “F”s).

2=Enrolled (part- or full-time); and Calls to police; or Truancy petition or equivalent; or Failing most classes (mostly D’s and F’s.

2=Dropped out, expelled or suspended

2. Youth’s school conduct, last 3 months. Check all that apply. � Not applicable (includes home schooled) � Recognition of good school behavior � No school conduct problems � Conduct problems reported by teachers � Calls to parents about conduct

� Calls to police about conduct

3. Youth’s attendance in last 3 months. � Not applicable (includes home schooled) � Good attendance; few excused absences � No unexcused absences � Some partial-day unexcused absences � Some full-day unexcused absences

� Chronic full-day unexcused absences or youth is currently dropped out

4. Youth’s academic performance in the most recent school term. � Not applicable � A average � B average � C average, No F’s � C or D average, with one or more F’s

� Mostly D’s and F’s

5. Current friends/companions youth actually spends time with-last 3 months. Check all that apply.

� No consistent friends or companions � Pro-social friends � Anti-social friends

� Gang member/associate

1=No consistent friends or Both pro- and anti-social friends

2=Only negative, anti-social friends

3=Gang member/ associate

6. Number of out-of-home and shelter care placements lasting more than 30 days (youth’s lifetime).

� No placements ever � 1 placement � 2 placements � 3 or more placements

0=No placements ever 1=1 or more placements

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

112

7. Number of times youth has either run away or gotten kicked out of home (Incidents across lifetime)

� No incidents � 1 incident � 2 or 3 incidents � 4 or 5 incidents � 6 or more incidents

0=No incidents 1=1 incident 2=2 or more incidents

8. Current household members with history of jail/prison/detention. Check all members that apply or check “None”.

� Not applicable � None � Mother/female caretaker � Father/male caretaker � Older sibling � Younger sibling

� Other member

0=N/A or None 1=Any family member with

jail/prison history

9. Youth’s current compliance with parent’s rules. � Not applicable � Youth usually obeys rules � Youth sometimes obeys rules

� Youth consistently disobeys, is hostile to parental authority

0=N/A or usually obeys 1=Sometimes obeys 2=Consistently disobeys

10. Alcohol/drug use disrupts current functioning. Check “No disruption” or check all that apply.

� No disruption/not applicable � Alcohol/drug causing family conflict � Alcohol/drug disrupting education � Alcohol/drug causing health problems � Alcohol/drug interfering with keeping pro-social friends

� Alcohol/drug contributing to criminal behavior

0=N/A or No disruption 2=Any alcohol or drug

disruption/problem

11. Victim of physical abuse during lifetime. Check all that apply. � No, not a victim of physical abuse � Yes, abused by family member

� Yes, abused by someone outside the family

0=No, not a victim of physical abuse or sexual abuse

1=Yes, sexually or physically abused by anyone

12. Victim of neglect during lifetime. � Not a victim of neglect � Victim of neglect

0=No 2=Yes

13. Youth diagnosed with or treated for a mental health problem (ever in lifetime). Such as schizophrenia, bi-polar, anxiety, depression, personality and other diagnosed disorders. Exclude substance abuse, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, ADD/ADHD and special education needs. Confirm by a professional.

� No history of mental health problem(s) � Diagnosed with mental health problem(s); no treatment/meds prescribed � Only mental health medication prescribed � Only mental health treatment prescribed

� Both mental health medication and treatment prescribed

0=No history of mental health problem(s)

1=Diagnosed, no treatment/meds prescribed; OR Only meds prescribed; OR Only treatment prescribed; OR Both meds and treatment prescribed.

MAXIMUM SCORE 17 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

113

Appendix D

DJS MCASP Risk and Needs Assessment Scoring

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

114

Table 1. Delinquency History Scores (Domain 1)

Item Delinquency History

Score

1. Age at First Offense: The age at the time of the offense for which the youth was referred to DJS for the first time on a misdemeanor or felony.

0=Over 16 1=16 2=15 3=13 to 14 4=Under 13

2. Misdemeanor Referrals Total number of referrals in which the most serious offense was a misdemeanor.

0=One or fewer 1=Two 2=Three or four 3=Five or more

3. Felony Referrals: Total number of referrals in which the most serious offense was a felony.

0=None 2=One 4=Two 6=Three or more

4. Weapon Referrals: Total number of referrals in which the most serious offense includes the possession or use of a firearm or explosive.

0=None 1=One or more

5. Against-person misdemeanor referrals: Total number of referrals in which the most serious offense was an against-person misdemeanor. An against-person misdemeanor involves threats, force, or physical harm to another person such as assault, sex, coercion, harassment, obscene phone call, etc.

0=None 1=One 2=Two or more

6. Against-person felony referrals: Total number of referrals for an against-person felony. An against-person felony involves force or physical harm to another person such as homicide, murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, sex, robbery, kidnapping, domestic violence, harassment, criminal mistreatment, intimidation, coercion, obscene harassing phone call, etc.

0=None 2=One or two 4=Three or more

7. Sexual misconduct misdemeanor referrals: Total number of referrals for which the most serious offense was a sexual misconduct 4th degree misdemeanor.

Not scored, info only

8. Felony sex offense referrals: Total number of referrals for a felony sex offense – first, second, or third degree.

Not scored, info only

9. Detention: Number of times a youth served at least one day confined in detention under a detention order.

0=None 1=One 2=Two 3=Three or more

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

115

Table 1. Delinquency History Scores (Domain 1)

Item Delinquency History

Score

10. Placement: Number of times a youth served at least one day in placement under commitment to DJS (including pending placement in a detention facility).

0=None 2=One 4=Two or more

11. Escapes: Total number of referrals for escape.

0=None 1=One 2=Two or more

12. Failure to appear in court warrants: Total number of failures-to-appear in court that resulted in a warrant being issued. Exclude failure-to-appear warrants for non-criminal matters.

0=None 1=One 2=Two or more

MAXIMUM SCORE 31 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

116

Table 2. Needs/Social History Scores

Item Need Score Protective Score

Static-

Dynamic

Reassess-

ment Social History Score

Domain 2: SCHOOL (HISTORY)

1. Youth is/was a special education student or has had a

formal diagnosis of a special education need (in any

grade). Check all that apply.

� No special education need

� Learning

� Mental retardation

� Behavioral

� ADHD/ADD

� Other/Unspecified

1=Any special

education need

-- Static -- --

2. Total number of times expelled or suspended for

conduct problems. A. Since first grade:

� 0 times

� 1 time

� 2 or 3 times

� 4 or more times

1=1 time

2=2 or more times

1=0 times Static -- --

2B. In last 3 months:

� 0 times

� 1 time

� 2 or 3 times

� 4 or more times

1=1 time

2=2 or 3 times

3=4 or more times

1=0 times Dynamic Community

Residential

--

3. Age at first expulsion or suspension.

� Not applicable

� 5-13 years

� 14-18 years

1=14-18 years

2=5-13 years

1=None Static -- --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

117

Domain 2: SCHOOL (CURRENT/RECENT)

4. Youth has been enrolled in school during the last 3

months, regardless of attendance.

� Yes, has attended within last 3 months

� No, graduated/attained GED

� No, dropped-out/expelled for 3+ months

� No, home school for 3+ months

2=No, dropped-out/

expelled

2=Graduated/GED,

Has attended,

or Home school

Dynamic Community

Residential 0=None of the

following below apply

1=Enrolled (part- or full-

time); and

Misconduct reported

but no police calls; or

Some full-day

unexcused absences;

or Failing some

classes (“C” or “D”

average with one or

more “F”s).

2=Enrolled (part- or full-

time); and Calls to

police; or Truancy

petition or

equivalent; or Failing

most classes (mostly

D’s and F’s.

2=Dropped out,

expelled or

suspended

5. Youth’s current school enrollment status, regardless of

attendance.

� Not applicable

� Graduated/GED

� Enrolled full-time

� Enrolled part-time

� Suspended

� Dropped out

� Expelled

3=Suspended,

Dropped out, or

Expelled

1=Enrolled part-

time

2=Graduated/GED

or Enrolled full-

time

Dynamic Community

Residential

6. Youth believes there is value in getting an education.

� Not applicable

� Believes in value of education

� Somewhat believes in value of education

� Does NOT believe in value of education

1=Somewhat

2=Does NOT believe

1=Believes in value Dynamic Community

Residential

7. Youth believes school environment is encouraging.

� Not applicable (includes home schooled)

� Definitely feels encouraged

� Somewhat feels encouraged

� Does NOT feel encouraged

1=Somewhat

2=Does NOT

1=Definitely Dynamic Community

Residential

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

118

8. Number of teachers or other school staff the youth

likes/ feels comfortable with.

� Not applicable (includes home schooled)

� None

� 1 teacher/staff

� 2 or more teachers/staff

--

1=1 teacher/staff

2=2 or more

teachers/staff

Dynamic Community

Residential

9. Youth’s involvement in school activities, last 3 months.

� Not applicable (includes home schooled)

� Involved in 2 or more activities

� Involved in 1 activity

� Interested but not involved in any activities

� Not interested in school activities

1=Interested, but not

involved

2=Not interested

1=Involved in 1

2=Involved in 2 or

more

Dynamic Community

Residential

10. Youth’s school conduct, last 3 months. Check all that

apply.

� Not applicable (includes home schooled)

� Recognition of good school behavior

� No school conduct problems

� Conduct problems reported by teachers

� Calls to parents about conduct

� Calls to police about conduct

1=Problems reported

by teachers

2=Calls to parents

3=Calls to police

1=No problems

2=Recognition of

good behavior

Dynamic Community

Residential

11. Youth’s attendance in last 3 months.

� Not applicable (includes home schooled)

� Good attendance; few excused absences

� No unexcused absences

� Some partial-day unexcused absences

� Some full-day unexcused absences

� Chronic full-day unexcused absences or youth is

currently dropped out

1=Some partial-day

unexcused

absences

2=Some full-day

unexcused

absences

3=Chronic full-day

unexcused

1=No unexcused

absences

2=Good

attendance

Dynamic Community

Residential

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

119

12. Youth’s academic performance in the most recent

school term.

� Not applicable

� A average

� B average

� C average, No F’s

� C or D average, with one or more F’s

� Mostly D’s and F’s

1=C or D average,

with one or more

F’s

2=Mostly D’s and F’s

1=C average, No

F’s

2=B average

3=A average

Dynamic Community

Residential

13. Interviewer’s assessment of likelihood the youth will

stay in and graduate from high school or an equivalent

vocational school.

� Not applicable

� Likely to graduate

� Uncertain if youth will graduate

� Not likely to graduate

1=Uncertain

2=Not likely

1=Likely Dynamic Community

Residential

MAXIMUM SCORE 29 Total

24 Dynamic 21 Total

Domain 3: CURRENT USE OF FREE TIME

1. Current interest and involvement in structured

recreational activities.

� Involved in 2 or more activities

� Involved in 1 activity

� Interested but not involved

� Not interested in any structured activities

-- 1=Interested but

not involved

2=Involved in 1

3= Involved in 2 or

more

Dynamic Community --

2. Current interest and involvement in unstructured

recreational activities.

� Involved in 2 or more activities

� Involved in 1 activity

� Interested but not involved

� Not interested in any unstructured activities

1=Not interested 1=Interested but

not involved

2=Involved in 1

3=Involved in 2 or

more

Dynamic Community --

MAXIMUM SCORE 1 Total/Dynamic 6 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

120

Domain 4: EMPLOYMENT (HISTORY AND CURRENT)

1. History of employment.

� Never been employed

� Has been employed

-- 1=Has been

employed

Static -- --

2. Youth's history of success on the job. Check all that

apply.

� Never employed

� Has been successfully employed

� Fired or quit because of poor performance

� Fired or quit because could not get along with

employer/coworkers

1=Fired or quit for

poor performance

2=Fired or quit for

not getting along

1=Has been

successfully

employed

Static -- --

3. Current employment status.

� Not employed

� Employed, no problems at current job

� Employed, but having problems at current job

1=Employed, but

having problems

1=Employed, no

problems

Dynamic Community --

4. Current interest in employment.

� Currently employed.

� Not employed but highly interested in employment

� Not employed but somewhat interested

� Not employed and not interested in employment

� Too young for employment consideration (under 15

years)

-- 1=Somewhat

interested

2=Highly

interested

3=Currently

employed

Dynamic Community --

5. Current positive personal relationship(s) with

employer(s) or adult coworker(s).

� Not applicable

� No positive relationships at work

� 1 or more positive relationships at work

--

1=1 or more Dynamic Community --

MAXIMUM SCORE 3 Total

1 Dynamic 7 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

121

Domain 5: RELATIONSHIPS IN THE COMMUNITY (HISTORY AND CURRENT)

1. Current positive relationships with adults in the

community.

� No positive relationships

� 1 positive relationship

� 2 positive relationships

� 3 or more positive relationships

-- 1=1 positive

relationship

2=2 positive

relationships

3=3 or more

positive

relationships

Dynamic Community --

2. History of anti-social friends/companions—last few

years. Check all that apply.

� Never had consistent friends or companions

� Had pro-social friends

� Had anti-social friends

� Has been a gang member/associate

1=Never had or Both

pro- and anti-

social friends

2=Had only anti-

social friends

3=Been a gang

member/

associate

1=Had only pro-

social friends

Static -- --

3. Current friends/companions youth actually spends

time with-last 3 months. Check all that apply.

� No consistent friends or companions

� Pro-social friends

� Anti-social friends

� Gang member/associate

1=No consistent

friends or Both

pro- and anti-

social friends

2=Only anti-social

friends

3=Gang member/

associate

1=Only pro-social

friends

Dynamic Community 1=No consistent friends

or Both pro- and

anti-social friends

2=Only negative, anti-

social friends

3=Gang member/

associate

4. Currently in a “romantic” or sexual relationship.

� No current partner

� Current partner is pro-social

� Current partner is anti-social/criminal

1=Romantically

involved anti-

social

1=Romantically

involved pro-

social

Dynamic Community --

5. Currently admires/emulates anti-social peers.

� Does not admire, emulate anti-social peers

� Somewhat admires, emulates anti-social peers

� Admires, emulates anti-social peers

1=Somewhat

admires

2=Admires anti-social

peers

1=Does not admire Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

122

6. Current resistance to anti-social peer influence.

� Does not associate with anti-social peers

� Usually resists anti-social peers

� Rarely resists anti-social peers

� Leads anti-social peers

1=Rarely resists

2=Leads anti-social

peers

1=Usually resists

2=Does not

associate

Dynamic Community --

MAXIMUM SCORE 11 Total

8 Dynamic 9 Total

Domain 6: FAMILY (HISTORY)

1. Number of out-of-home and shelter care placements

lasting more than 30 days (youth’s lifetime).

� No placements ever

� 1 placement

� 2 placements

� 3 or more placements

1=1 placement

2=2 placements

3=3 or more

placements

1=No placements Static -- 0=No placements ever

1=1 or more

placements

2. Number of times youth has either run away or gotten

kicked out of home:

A. Incidents across lifetime:

� No incidents

� 1 incident

� 2 or 3 incidents

� 4 or 5 incidents

� 6 or more incidents

1=1 incident

2=2 or 3 incidents

3=4 or 5 incidents

4=6 or more

incidents

1=No incidents Static -- 0=No incidents

1=1 incident

2 =2 or more incidents

B. Any incidents in last 3 months?

�Yes

� No

C. Currently a runaway or kicked out?

�Yes

� No

**Scoring for ITEM 2b and 2c is combined

1=Incident in last 3

months, but not

currently

2=Current runaway/

kicked out

1=Has not run

away/kicked

out (current

and last 3

months)

Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

123

4. Household members who ever lived with youth (at

least three months) and had a history of

jail/prison/detention. Check all members that apply or

check “None”.

� None

� Mother/female caretaker

� Father/male caretaker

� Older sibling

� Younger sibling

� Other household member

1 point for each

household member.

SUM; max of 3 pts

1=None Static -- --

Domain 6: FAMILY (CURRENT HOUSEHOLD)

5. Youth has been living under “adult supervision” during

last three months.

� No, living without adult supervision.

� Yes, living under adult supervision.

1=Not under adult

supervision

1=Under adult

supervision

Dynamic Community --

6. Parents/parent figures currently living with youth.

Check all that apply.

� Not applicable

� Biological mother

� Biological father

� Non-biological mother

� Non-biological father

� Transient household (homeless, moving around)

1=Transient 1 point for each

Non-biological

mother or father;

2 points for each

Biological mother

or father.

SUM; max of 4 pts

Dynamic Community --

7. Annual combined income of youth and family.

� Not applicable

� Under $15,000

� $15,000 to $34,999

� $35,000 to $49,999

� $50,000 and over

1=$15,000 to

$34,999

2=Under $15,000

1=$35,000 to

$49,999

2=$50,000 and

over

Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

124

8. Current household members with history of

jail/prison/detention. Check all members that apply or

check “None”.

� Not applicable

� None

� Mother/female caretaker

� Father/male caretaker

� Older sibling

� Younger sibling

� Other member

1 point for each

family member.

SUM; max of 3 pts

1=No jail/prison

history

Dynamic Community 0=N/A or None

1=Any family member

with jail/prison

history

9. Problem history of parents/caretakers who currently

live with youth. Check all that apply or check “No

problems.”

� Not applicable

� No problems

� Alcohol problem

� Drug problem

� Physical health problem

� Mental health problem

� Employment problem

1 point for each

parent problems.

SUM; max of 3 pts

1=No parent

problems

Dynamic Community --

10. Problem history of siblings who currently live with

youth. Check all that apply.

� Not applicable (including no siblings )

� No problems

� Alcohol problem

� Drug problem

� Physical health problem

� Mental health problem

� Employment problem

1 point for each

sibling problems.

SUM; max of 3 pts

1=No sibling

problems

Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

125

11. Current support network for youth’s family.

� Not applicable

� No support network

� Some support network

� Strong support network

--

1=Some support

2=Strong support

Dynamic Community --

12. Current level of parental emotional support

(affection, caring).

� Not applicable

� Consistent caring, emotional support

� Inconsistent caring, emotional support

� Uninterested in, indifferent to youth

� Hostile, berating, and/or belittling of youth

1=Inconsistent caring

2=Uninterested,

indifferent

3=Hostile

1=Consistent

caring

Dynamic Community --

13. Parents provide opportunities to participate in family

activities and decisions affecting the youth.

� Not applicable

� Regular opportunities for involvement

� Some opportunities for involvement

� No opportunities for involvement

1=Some

2=None

1=Regular Dynamic Community --

14. Family member(s) youth currently feels close to or

has good relationship with. Check all that apply.

� Not applicable

� Not close to any family member

� Close to mother/female caretaker

� Close to father/male caretaker

� Close to male sibling

� Close to female sibling

� Close to another family member

1=Not close to any

family member

1 point for each

close family

member.

SUM; max of 3 pts

Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

126

15. Current level of conflict in youth’s household

between any members, last 3 months.

� Not applicable

� Limited conflict that is well managed

� Verbal intimidation, yelling

� Threats of physical violence

� Physical fights, domestic violence

1=Verbal

2=Threats

3=Violence

1=Limited conflict Dynamic Community --

16. Current parental supervision, last 3 months.

� Not applicable

� Consistently good supervision

� Sporadic/partial supervision

� Consistently poor supervision

1=Sporadic

2=Consistently poor

1=Consistently

good

Dynamic Community --

17. Youth’s current compliance with parent’s rules.

� Not applicable

� Youth usually obeys rules

� Youth sometimes obeys rules

� Youth consistently disobeys, is hostile to parental

authority

1=Sometimes obeys

2=Consistently

disobeys

1=Usually obeys Dynamic Community 0=N/A or usually obeys

1=Sometimes obeys

2=Consistently disobeys

18. Current parental approach to discipline.

� Not applicable

� Discipline is typically appropriate

� Discipline is typically too severe

� Discipline is typically insufficient

� Discipline is inconsistent, erratic

1=Too severe or

Insufficient

2=Inconsistent or

erratic

1=Typically

appropriate

Dynamic Community --

19. Current parental approach to rewarding youth.

� Not applicable

� Rewards are typically appropriate

� Rewards are typically overindulgent

� Rewards are typically insufficient (good behavior not

acknowledged)

� Rewards are inconsistent or erratic

1=Overindulgent or

Insufficient

2=Inconsistent or

erratic

1=Appropriate Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

127

20. Current parental view of youth's anti-social behavior.

� Not applicable

� Disapproves of youth's anti-social behavior

� Minimizes, denies, excuses behavior

� Accepts youth's anti-social behavior as okay

� Proud of youth's anti-social behavior

1=Minimizes, denies,

or excuses

2=Accepts

3=Proud

1=Disapproves Dynamic Community --

MAXIMUM SCORE 48 Total

35 Dynamic 28 Total

Domain 7: ALCOHOL AND DRUGS (HISTORY AND CURRENT)

1. History of alcohol use prior to the last 3 months.

A. Past alcohol use:

� Yes

� No

--

2=No past alcohol

use

Static -- --

B. Past alcohol use disrupted functioning. Check “No

disruption” or check all that apply.

� No disruption/not applicable

� Alcohol caused family conflict

� Alcohol disrupted education

� Alcohol caused health problems

� Alcohol interfered with keeping pro-social friends

� Alcohol contributed to criminal behavior

1 point for each:

Problems with

family, education,

health and friends;

2 points for

contributed to

criminal behavior.

SUM; max of 6 pts

--

Static -- --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

128

2. History of drug use prior to the last 3 months.

A. Past drug use:

� Yes

� No

B. Past drug use disrupted functioning. Check “No

disruption” or check all that apply.

� No disruption/not applicable

� Drug use caused family conflict

� Drug use disrupted education

� Drug use caused health problems

� Drug use interfered with keeping pro-social friends

� Drug use contributed to criminal behavior

1 point for Past drug

use;

2 points for each:

Problems with

family, education,

health and friends;

4 points for

contributed to

criminal behavior.

SUM; max of 13 pts

2=No past alcohol

use

Static -- --

3. History of alcohol/drug assessment/diagnosis.

� Never referred for assessment

� Referred but never assessed/diagnosed

� Diagnosed as “no problem”

� Diagnosed as “abuse”

� Diagnosed as “dependent/addicted”

1=Not assessed

2=Diagnosed as

abuse

3=Dependent/

addicted

-- Static -- --

4. History of attending alcohol/drug education classes.

� Never attended

� Voluntarily attended

� Attended classes by parent, school, or other agency

request

� Attended classes at court direction

--

1=Court directed

2= Parent, school

directed

3=Voluntary

Static -- --

5. History of participating in alcohol/drug treatment

program.

� Never participated in treatment program

� Participated once in treatment program

� Participated several times in treatment programs

-- 1=Participated Static -- --

6. Any drug or alcohol use within last 3 months.

� Yes

� No

1=Alcohol/drug use 3=No alcohol/

drug use

Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

129

7. Current alcohol use (within last 3 months).

A. Any current alcohol use:

� Yes

� No

B. Alcohol use disrupts current functioning. Check “No

disruption” or check all that apply.

� No disruption/not applicable

� Alcohol causing family conflict

� Alcohol disrupting education

� Alcohol causing health problems

� Alcohol interfering with keeping pro-social friends

� Alcohol contributing to criminal behavior

1 point for Current

use;

2 points for each:

Problems with

family, education,

health or friends;

3 points for

contributed to

criminal behavior.

SUM; max of 11 pts

--

Dynamic Community 0=N/A or No disruption

2=Any alcohol or drug

disruption/problem

*8. Current drug use (within last 3 months).

A. Any current drug use:

� Yes

� No

B. Drug use disrupts current functioning. Check “No

disruption” or check all that apply.

� No disruption/not applicable

� Alcohol causing family conflict

� Alcohol disrupting education

� Alcohol causing health problems

� Alcohol interfering with keeping pro-social friends

� Alcohol contributing to criminal behavior

2 points for Current

use;

2 points for each:

Problems with

family, education,

health or friends;

4 points for

contributed to

criminal behavior.

SUM; max of 12 pts

-- Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

130

9. Type of drugs currently used. Check all that apply.

� No current drug use

� Amphetamines (uppers/speed/ecstasy)

� Barbiturates (Tuinal/Seconal/downers)

� Cocaine (coke)

� Cocaine (crack/rock)

� Hallucinogens (LSD/acid/mushrooms/GHB)

� Heroin

� Inhalants (glue/gasoline)

� Marijuana/hashish

� Other opiates

� Phencyclidine (PCP/angel dust)

� Tranquilizers/sedatives

� Other drugs (List in comment)

Not scored,

information only

-- -- Community --

10. Current participation in alcohol/drug treatment.

� Not applicable (Treatment not warranted)

� Not attending needed treatment

� Attending needed treatment program

� Successfully completed treatment program

1=Not attending 1=Attending

2=Successfully

completed

Dynamic Community --

MAXIMUM SCORE 47 Total

25 Dynamic

13 Total

Domain 8: MENTAL HEALTH (HISTORY)

1. Victim of physical abuse during lifetime. Check all that

apply.

� No, not a victim of physical abuse

� Yes, abused by family member

� Yes, abused by someone outside the family

1=Physically abused

by anyone

1=Not a victim Static -- 0=No, not a victim of

physical abuse or

sexual abuse

1=Yes, sexually or

physically abused by

anyone

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

131

2. Victim of sexual abuse during lifetime. Check all that

apply.

� No, not a victim of sexual abuse

� Yes, sexually abused by family member

� Yes, sexually abused by someone outside the family

1=Sexually abused by

anyone

1=Not a victim Static -- --

3. Victim of neglect during lifetime.

� Not a victim of neglect

� Victim of neglect

3=Victim 1=Not a victim Static -- 0=No

2=Yes

4. History of ADD/ADHD.

� No history of ADD/ADHD

� Diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, no treatment/medication

prescribed

� Only ADD/ADHD medication prescribed

� Only ADD/ADHD treatment prescribed

� Both ADD/ADHD medication and treatment

prescribed

1=Diagnosed; meds

or treatment

prescribed

2=Meds and

treatment

prescribed

1=No history of

ADD/ADHD

Static -- --

5. Youth diagnosed with or treated for a mental health

problem (ever in lifetime).

Such as schizophrenia, bi-polar, anxiety, depression,

personality and other diagnosed disorders. Exclude

substance abuse, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant

disorder, ADD/ADHD and special education needs.

Confirm by a professional.

� No history of mental health problem(s)

� Diagnosed with mental health problem(s); no

treatment/meds prescribed

� Only mental health medication prescribed

� Only mental health treatment prescribed

� Both mental health medication and treatment

prescribed

1=Diagnosed; meds

or treatment

prescribed

2=Meds and

treatment

prescribed

1=No MH history Static -- --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

132

Domain 8: MENTAL HEALTH (CURRENT)

6. Current health insurance.

� No health insurance

� Public insurance (Medicaid)

� Private insurance

1=No health

insurance

1=Health

insurance

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

7. Current mental health status, last 3 months.

� No current mental health problem(s)

� Current mental health problem(s)

1=Current problem 4=No current

problem

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

8. Currently diagnosed with ADD/ADHD.

� No ADD/ADHD medication currently prescribed

� Currently taking ADD/ADHD medication

� ADD/ADHD medication currently prescribed, but not

taking

1=Not taking meds 1=Taking meds Dynamic Community

Residential

--

9. Mental health treatment currently prescribed,

excluding ADD/ADHD treatment.

� No mental health treatment currently prescribed

� Attending mental health treatment

� Treatment currently prescribed, but not attending

1=Not attending

treatment

1=Attending

treatment

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

10. Mental health medication currently prescribed,

excluding ADD/ADHD medication.

� No mental health medication currently prescribed

� Currently taking mental health medication

� Mental health medication currently prescribed, but

not taking

1=Not taking meds 1=Taking meds Dynamic Community

Residential

--

11. Mental health problem(s) currently interferes in

working with the youth.

� Yes, problem interferes

� No, problem does not interfere

1=Yes --

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

MAXIMUM SCORE 15 Total

6 Dynamic

13 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

133

Domain 9: CURRENT ATTITUDES & AGGRESSION

PART A: ATTITUDES

1. Primary emotion when committing delinquent act(s)

within the last 3 months.

� Nervous, afraid, worried, ambivalent or uncertain

� Hyper, excited, or stimulated

� Unconcerned or indifferent

� Confident, brags about

1=Hyper,

Unconcerned, or

Confident

1=Nervous Dynamic Community

Residential

--

2. Optimism about future.

� Strong aspirations (clear sense of purpose, plans for

better life)

� Normal aspirations (some sense of purpose, plans for

better life)

� Low aspirations (little sense of purpose or plans for

better life)

� Believes nothing matters (no sense of purpose, future

is bleak)

1=Low aspirations

2=Believes nothing

matters

1=Normal

aspirations

2=Strong

aspirations

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

3. Impulsive; acts before thinking.

� Good self-control (usually thinks before acting)

� Some self-control (sometimes thinks before acting

� Impulsive (often acts before thinking)

� Highly Impulsive (usually acts before thinking)

1=Impulsive

2=Highly Impulsive

1=Some self-

control

2=Good self-

control

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

4. Youth’s belief in control over his/her own anti-social

behavior.

� Clearly believes can control behavior

� Somewhat believes can control behavior

� Believes cannot control behavior

1=Somewhat

2=Cannot control

2=Clearly believes Dynamic Community

Residential

--

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

134

5. Youth’s empathy, remorse, or sympathy for the

victim(s).

� Not applicable (victimless crime)

� Feels substantial empathy for his/her victim(s)

� Feels some empathy for his/her victim(s)

� Feels no empathy for his or her victim(s)

2=None 1=Some

2=Substantial

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

6. Respect for authority figures.

Consider youth’s general attitude towards adult authority

figures in his/her life, including parents, teachers, coaches,

employer.

� Respects most authority figures

� Respects some authority figures

� Resents most authority figures

� Openly defies or is hostile toward most authority

figures

1=Respects some

2=Resents most

3=Defies most

2=Respects most Dynamic Community

Residential

--

7. Youth’s attitude toward laws/social norms.

� Believes laws/social norms apply to him/her

� Believes laws/social norms sometimes apply to

him/her

� Does not believe laws/social norms apply to him/her

� Resents or is hostile toward society’s rules

1=Believes some

rules apply

2=Does not believe

3=Resents rules

2=Believes rules

apply

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

8. Youth’s view of his/her anti-social behavior.

� Accepts responsibility for anti-social behavior

� Minimizes, denies, excuses, or blames others

� Accepts anti-social behavior as okay

� Proud of anti-social behavior

1=Minimizes, denies

2=Accepts

3=Proud

2=Accepts

responsibility

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

9. Youth’s belief in successfully meeting conditions of

court supervision.

� Believes will be successful

� Unsure if will be successful

� Does not believe will be successful

1=Unsure

2=Does not believe

1=Believes Dynamic Community

Residential

--

MAXIMUM SCORE 20 Total/Dynamic 16 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

135

PART B: AGGRESSION

10. Tolerance for frustration.

� Rarely gets upset over small things or has temper

tantrums

� Sometimes gets upset over small things or has temper

tantrums

� Often gets upset over small things or has temper

tantrums

1=Sometimes gets

upset

2=Often gets upset

2=Rarely Dynamic Community

Residential

--

11. Interpretation of actions and intentions of others in

common, non-confrontational settings.

� Primarily positive interpretation (others mean well)

� Primarily negative interpretation (others don’t care,

lie)

� Primarily hostile interpretation (others have malicious

intentions)

1=Primarily negative

2=Primarily hostile

2=Primarily

positive

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

12. Belief in yelling and verbal aggression to resolve a

disagreement or conflict.

� Believes verbal aggression is rarely appropriate

� Believes verbal aggression is sometimes appropriate

� Believes verbal aggression is often appropriate

1=Sometimes

appropriate

2=Often appropriate

2=Rarely

appropriate

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

13. Belief in fighting and physical aggression to resolve a

disagreement or conflict.

� Believes physical aggression is never appropriate

� Believes physical aggression is rarely appropriate

� Believes physical aggression is sometimes appropriate

� Believes physical aggression is often appropriate

2=Sometimes

appropriate

3=Often appropriate

1=Rarely

appropriate

2=Never

appropriate

Dynamic Community

Residential

--

MAXIMUM SCORE 11 Total/Dynamic 8 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

136

Domain 10: NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY

1. How safe is the youth’s neighborhood?

� Safe

� Mostly safe

� Somewhat dangerous

� Very dangerous

1=Somewhat

dangerous

2=Very dangerous

1=Mostly safe

2= Safe

Dynamic Community --

2. Which of the following applies to youth’s

neighborhood? Check all that apply.

� Crime

� Drug selling

� Fights

� Lots of graffiti

� Abandoned/empty buildings

� Gang activity

� People carry weapons

� Family or friends assaulted

� None of the above

1 point for each item

checked.

SUM; max of 4 pts

1=None of the

above

Dynamic Community --

3. Youth feels safe in the neighborhood.

� Rarely/no

� Sometimes

� Usually/yes

1=Sometimes

2=Rarely/no

1=Usually/yes Dynamic Community --

4. Youth would like to move because of concerns about

own or family’s safety.

� Rarely/no

� Sometimes

� Usually/yes

1=Sometimes

2=Usually/yes

1=Rarely/no Dynamic Community --

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

137

5. How safe is the youth’s neighborhood school?

� Safe

� Mostly safe

� Somewhat dangerous

� Very dangerous

� Not applicable (school not in neighborhood)

1=Somewhat

dangerous

2=Very dangerous

1=Mostly safe

2=Safe

Dynamic Community --

MAXIMUM SCORE 12 Total/Dynamic 5/7 Total

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

138

Table 4. MCASP Needs Assessment, Dynamic Needs Score Categories

Low Moderate High

School 0-3 4-6 7-24

Use of Free time 0 1 2

Employment 0 1 2

Community Relationships 0 1-2 3-8

Family 0-4 5-8 9-35

Alcohol & Drugs 0-2 3-5 6-25

Mental Health 0 1 2-6

Attitudes 0-1 2-3 4-20

Aggression 0 1-2 3-9

Neighborhood Safety 0-4 5-8 9-12

Table 5. MCASP Needs Assessment, Protective Score Categories

Table 3. MCASP Needs Assessment, Total Needs Score Categories

Low Moderate High

School 0-6 7-10 11-29

Use of Free time 0 1 2

Employment 0-1 2-3 4-5

Community Relationships 0 1-3 4-11

Family 0-4 5-10 11-48

Alcohol & Drugs 0-4 5-10 11-47

Mental Health 0-1 2-3 4-11

Attitudes 0-1 2-3 4-20

Aggression 0 1-2 3-9

Neighborhood Safety 0-4 5-8 9-12

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossover Youth in Maryland

139

Low Moderate High

School 0-6 7-10 11-21

Use of Free time 0-2 3-4 5-6

Employment 0-2 3-4 5-7

Community Relationships 0-3 4-6 7-9

Family 0-9 10-18 19-28

Alcohol & Drugs 0-4 5-9 10-13

Mental Health 0-4 5-9 10-13

Attitudes 0-5 6-11 12-16

Aggression 0-2 3-5 6-8

Neighborhood Safety 0-1 2-3 4-7

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.