Crossover Youth241.1(Crossover Youth) MDT Assessment

Per a motion on March 12, 2013 by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was instructed, in conjunction with the Directors of the Departments of Mental Health (DMH), Public Health (DPH), Probation, and Children and Family Services (DCFS) to implement the 241.1 Crossover Youth project recommendations and report annually on evaluation measures identified in the CEO's November 2012 report.

The 241.1 Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) began as a pilot program in the Pasadena delinquency courts in May 2007 under a Crossover Committee (an interdisciplinary committee tasked with improving the 241.1 process in Los Angeles County) convened and led by Judge Michael Nash. The 241.1 MDT approach evolved from the 241.1 Protocol developed by Judge Nash and the Crossover Committee in 1998 and was implemented countywide in 2012.

Although some level of data has been collected for the 241.1 MDT since 2007, an institutionalized, web-based system was not in place until 2013 following the passage of the Board Motion to support the addition of DMH psychiatric social workers for the 241.1 MDT. The current data collection effort on which this report is based was led by a 241.1 Data Subcommittee composed of the following representatives (NOTE: a few of the original members listed below were promoted and moved into different assignments):

• DCFS: Wilhelmina Bradley (241.1 Unit), Marcelino Ramos (Bureau of Information
• Services) and several representatives from the DCFS Education Unit including
• William Cochrane, Tran Ly, Patricia Armani, Denise Prybylla, and Gerardo Beltran
• Probation Department: Michael Verner, Suzanne Lyles, Mirsha Gomez, and Delores
• Bryant-White
• Department of Mental Health (DMH): Nancy Gilbert
• California State University—Los Angeles: Denise Herz and Carly Dierkhising

In December 2010, Public Counsel and its partners reached a settlement agreement in the case of I.T. v. Los Angeles County with Los Angeles County to reform conditions for youth with developmental disabilities in the juvenile halls, in group homes, and in the family homes under Probation’s supervision.  The agreement called for Public Counsel and Disability Rights California to monitor implementation of reform efforts for three years following the development of policies and procedures, and training to Probation staff on those policies and procedures. Monitoring activities began in November 2011 and continued through July 2015.

The overall goals of the settlement agreement are to ensure that youth with developmental disabilities in the juvenile halls will be immediately and effectively identified; will not be detained longer than others because of the lack of available, appropriate community placements; and will be provided with appropriate services and effective supports to successfully transition back to the community and avoid recidivism and violence.

Study Overview

At the beginning of the settlement agreement, Public Counsel and Disability Rights California monitored its implementation by visiting the halls and community placements, observations, interviews with key staff, and reviewing data and documents provided by Probation.  Public Counsel eventually received funding from the Keck Foundation to conduct a more formal assessment of the work by researchers at California State University Los Angeles.  This study had two interrelated tracks: (1) to utilize Probation data collected as part of the settlement agreement, and (2) to conduct meeting observations, interviews, and reviews of documents related to the settlement agreement. 

• Analysis of the Probation data was led by Dr. Denise Herz and Kristine Chan at the School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics.  This portion of the study analyzed data collected by Probation on youth screened for developmental disabilities at juvenile halls between May 2012 and December 2014.
• Meeting observations, agency personnel interviews, and the review of documents related to the settlement agreement was led by Dr. Lois Weinberg, Jolan Smith, and Michael Oshiro at the Charter School of Education.  The period for this work was January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2015.

Advancement Project, supported by The W.M. Keck Foundation and The California Wellness Foundation, convened an unprecedented partnership of advocates, researchers, and Los Angeles County’s Probation Department to examine current data practices and the path of representative youth through the Probation system, and developed a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve youth outcomes. On April 1, 2015, the partnership released The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study.

Dr. Denise Herz of California State University Los Angeles’ School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics was the principal investigator of the report, supported by Dr. Jacquelyn McCroskey, John Milner Professor of Child Welfare in the School of Social Work at the University of Southern California who convened a roundtable of experts from across Southern California, and by the Children’s Defense Fund – California who helped lead the advocacy portion and researching national best practices. 

In Los Angeles County, an alarming number of children and youth live in conditions that lead to their involvement in the County’s health, mental health, child welfare, human services, and juvenile justice systems. Children who enter the juvenile justice system, in particular, face myriad challenges including struggling in school and mental health and/or substance abuse issues.

The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study found that these youth are involved with many different County departments. Yet, identifying and documenting shared connections across County agencies is nearly impossible because agency data systems are seldom integrated, and the interpretation of confidentiality protections limits the exchange of information across agencies. Without interagency coordination, though, youth and families may not receive the services they need, they may receive duplicative services, and/or they may receive inappropriate services.

The report finds that to serve Probation-involved youth and families, a better understanding is needed of the characteristics and needs of Probation-involved youth and their outcomes over time. Unfortunately, defining and consistently reporting outcomes for youth under Probation supervision has been elusive for several reasons. The report’s primary recommendation is that County decisions should be guided by standardized data collection based on desired outcomes for youth, and that shared information can drive better interagency coordination and collaboration. 

The report provides an overview of the need for and purpose of juvenile justice data as well as the current structures of data collection in Los Angeles County (Chapter 1). Next, it examines the characteristics and situational contexts of youth exiting from suitable placements and juvenile camp placements during 2011 (Chapters 2 & 3). Eight in-depth youth case histories taken from Probation records are presented to illustrate the context within which these youths’ stories unfold from the perspective of the Probation Officers who supervise and oversee youth in the system. Based on the findings presented in this report, Chapter 5 presents recommendations to improve practice through targeted reform and improved use of data.