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