![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Overall, maltreated youth are at a 47% greater risk for becoming involved in delinquency (“crossing over”) than youth from the general population (Ryan & Testa, 2005). Crossover youth are at high risk for mental health, education and vocational problems (Dworsky & Courtney, 2010). The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) is a conceptual model and guide to systems change for youth involved in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. The focus is on strengthening collaborations between systems, providing earlier and more appropriate intervention and increasing family engagement (Lutz, Steward, Legters, & Herz, 2009; Herz, 2010). The overarching goal of CYPM is to interrupt negative trajectories and to improve positive outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to explore targeted youth outcomes one-year post-CYPM implementation. Youth recidivism, type of sentence, number of days in each type of out-of-home placement (OHP), number of total days in OHP, number of different OHPs, and change in the degree of restrictiveness of OHP within a year were examined.
Methods
A quasi-experimental design with multiple comparison groups was used to explore youth outcomes. The treatment group was comprised of 57 youths from one Minnesota county who received CYPM services. Comparison group 1 included youths from the same county as the treatment youths, but who received services one year prior to CYPM implementation. Comparison groups 2 and 3 were comprised of youths from neighboring counties one year prior to and concurrent with CYPM implementation, respectively. Using a propensity score matching model, 57 crossover youth were selected for each comparison group. Effects of the CYPM were estimated by comparing the outcomes observed in the CYPM treatment group to those in the comparison groups. Regression analyses and t-tests were used in order to examine the main effects and interactions. Regression analyses included a number of covariates such as gender, race/ethnicity, economic status, special education eligibility, degree of offense, type of offense, age at the offense date, age at the first offense date, number of the previous offense cases, type of allegation, age at the first involvement in child protection service.
Results
Results indicate that youths receiving CYPM services were less likely than comparison group youths to recidivate after controlling for time, locale, and other covariates. No significant differences were observed between CYPM and non-CYPM youth on any other outcomes.
Conclusions and Implications
The results suggest that involvement in the CYPM impacts some youth juvenile justice outcomes. Specifically, crossover youth receiving CYPM services were less likely to recidivate one-year post-intervention. Child welfare involvement and sentencing remained stable for crossover youth regardless of CYPM involvement. Previous qualitative findings suggest that youths’ participation in CYPM results in earlier and more appropriate services. Crossover youths experiencing difficulties stemming from mental health, family crises and other challenges who show up in the juvenile justice system may be better served in the social service and child welfare systems. Future research needs to explore the mechanisms through which the CYPM impacts recidivism, for example, through prompt and effective attention to psychosocial issues.