; “Gender-Responsive” Programs
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

“Gender-Responsive” Programs

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 23

  • pg 1
									New Pathways to Mental Health
and Recovery for Adolescents in
      the Justice Systems


              Anna Yee, LCSW
          Juvenile Court Consultant
               April 11, 2013


                                      1
       NCCD Center for Girls and
           Young Women


 “Gender-Responsive”
• Reflect women’s realities
• Validate women's pathways to justice
  systems
          “Gender-Responsive”
              Programs
• OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)
  Created Guidelines (1998) for Gender Responsive
  Programming
• Girls be treated in the least restrictive environment,
  whenever possible;
• Close to their home … to help maintain family
  relationships
• Assumes positive about youth and family
• Change can be achieved through engagement and
  mutual learning
      “Gender-Responsive”
          Programs
• Consistent w/ female development
• Emphasizes relationship between staff and girl;
• Addresses needs of parenting and pregnant
  teens.
• Assumes positive about youth and family
• Change can be achieved through engagement
  and mutual learning
      Gender-Responsive” Programs

• # 1 Priority - Safety with self, others, staff
• Identity , Communication, Relationship,
  Emotions, Trauma , Remembrance and Mourning
  • At the end of the shift, can staff say
          “Are the girls are safe "?
           “Gender-Responsive”
                Programs
• Take Time To Process Thoughts, Feelings, Emotions and
  to Share Stories.
• Honor Girls Opinions and Input
• Leadership Opportunities
• Connection is central in girls' lives.
• Effective communication = vocabulary to express
  emotion
• Staff communicate in trauma – informed ways
•   Role model healthy relationships.
           “Gender-Responsive”
                Programs

• Strategies in resilience --Rebound from disappointment
• Prevent re--traumatization. Program is designed with a
  trauma-informed sensibility.
• Alternatives to restraint and seclusion
Traumatic Event :
• Experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or
  events that involved actual or threatened death or serious
  injury, or a threat to the integrity of self or others.
               “Gender-Responsive”
                    Programs
                   Staff Training
• Increase staff's understanding of the connection between
  trauma, behavior and needs of girls and young women.
• Skill-building how to effectively address behaviors versus
  controlling behaviors
• Be aware of clinical signs of depression, PTSD, mental illness
• Validate as emotion coaches: All emotions acceptable.
• Teach resilience -- how to rebound from disappointments
           “Gender-Responsive”
                Programs
• Appropriate assessment and access to counseling
• Match girls with mentors
• Self soothing activities and coping
• Trauma – informed interventions
• How to prevent re--traumatization
• Healing of trauma can take a long time. Programs that are
  “gender responsive” provide some essential tools for coping
  and affirming a stronger self, and re-entering the community
• to continue the work of developing their identities.
               2012-10 Research and Evaluation Databits
  “What’s the Evidence for Evidence-Based Practice?”
     Jeffrey A. Butts, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Research and Evaluation Center



• “[Research] evidence does not emerge from a pristine and
  impartial search …The evidence we have today is the fruit of
  our previous research investments—investments made by
  funders and policymakers with beliefs, values, preferences,
  and even self-interest.”

• “…practitioners must exercise caution in how they interpret
  and apply the evidence produced by evaluation research.”

• “Evidence should inform, but never simply dictate the shape
  of policy and practice.”
             Washington Institute - JJ ROI Cost
                     Analysis 2012
                                                           Benefit            Benefits   Benefit   Measured Risk
Program                Last          Total      Benefit    to                 Minus      to        (odds of a
                       Updated       Benefits   to         Non -      Costs   Costs      Cost      positive net
                                                Taxpayer   Taxpayer                      Ratio     present value)


Functional             April 2012    $70,370    $14,476    $55,895    ($3,262) $67,108   $21.57    100%
Family therapy
Aggression              April 2012   $62,947    $12,972    $49,976    ($1,508) $61,440   $41.75    94%
Replacement
Training (Institutions)
Multidimensional       April 2012    $39,197    $8,165     $31,032    ($7,922) $31,276   $4.95     85%
Treatment Foster
Care
Functional Family      April 2012    $33,967    $8,052     $25,916    ($3,261) $30,706   $10.42    100%
Therapy (Probation)
Aggression             April 2012    $31,249    $7,423     $23,826    ($1,510) $29,740   $20.70    96%
Replacement
Training (Probation)
Multisystemic          April 2012    $32,121    $7,138     $24,983    ($7,370) $24,751   $4.36     98%
Therapy (MST)
 Government Savings: Safe Reduction
The Model Courts in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City,
through their collaborative system reform efforts, have
successfully contributed to the safe reduction of the number of
children in foster care.

Collaborative efforts by judicially-led system reform teams
have resulted in the launch of reform initiatives, not only in the
courts, but in child welfare agencies and other system partner
agencies.
   Government Savings: Safe Reduction
Chicago (Cook County)
Year # Children in Foster Care
2000 = 22,184
2009 = 7,369
Reduction = 14,815
                       Los Angeles (Los Angeles County)
                           Year # Children in Foster Care
                                           2000 = 40,117
                                           2009 = 20,128
                                     Reduction = 19,989
New York City (Borough of Manhattan)
Year # Children in Foster Care
2000 = 46,653
2009 = 18,175
Reduction = 28,478
Cost Benefit of Model Court Programs
                          Annual cost savings =
                             $1,316,265,600
                          = 63,282 x $20,800 =
              (Savings in year 2009 compared to year 2000)

• Sources
Foster care roles: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System Preliminary
Estimates for FY 2009.
U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau.

Foster care costs:
Peters, C.M., Dworsky, A., Courtney, M.E., & Pollack, H. (2009). Extending Foster Care
to Age 21:
Weighing the Costs to Government against the Benefits to Youth. Chapin Hall Issue Brief,
June 2009.

 Calculations by: Permanency Planning for Children Department, National Council
                      of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
           Government Savings:
             Safe Reduction
                 $1,316,265,600
Annual estimated savings to government from the reduction
  of the number of children in foster care in these three
                        locations.
      Los Angeles Juvenile Court
• Honorable Michael Nash, Presiding Judge
• Honorable Margaret Henry, Supervising Judge of
  Dependency
• La Juvenile Court has been on the leading edge
  of improvements in several significant initiatives,
  including:
• Developing a medication protocol that will be
  used consistently county-wide in psychotropic
  medication decisions. The protocol has been a
  collaboration of many agencies, with leadership
  by the court and the LADMH.
    Medication Protocol for Juvenile Youth
• RX’s for Dependency and Delinquency
  court youth are ordered by the court.
• Juvenile Court Mental Health Services
  provides recommendations.
• An order authorizing medication is
  valid for 6 months.
• Protocol is likely to inform policies on
  national standards through the NCJFCJ
    Juvenile Competence Protocol
             Why a Juvenile Competence Protocol is Needed

• California’s adult criminal justice system has
  comprehensive statutes that govern competence
  proceedings.

• Ample case law to provide further guidance in
  decision-making.

• Case law holds that children must be competent to
  stand trial, but it also holds that they do not come
  within the adult statutory procedures.
• Current California law fails to address many issues
  in juvenile cases involving competence issues.
            Evolving Protocol for Competency

•   The protocol is intended as a tool for the development of future
    procedures;

• To be ruled competent, youth must have:
          • A sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a
            reasonable degree of rational understanding; or

          • Rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
            against him or her.
•   Incompetence may be the result of a mental disorder, developmental
    disability, developmental immaturity, or other conditions.
•   Sue Burrell or Corene Kendrick Staff Attorneys, Youth Law Center
•   200 Pine Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94104
•   (415) 543-3379 sburrell@ylc.org, ckendrick@ylc.org
• Court and legal community are
  developing standards for public
  defenders representing youth in
  juvenile court;
• Mental Health Court for complex cases

• Collaboration with DCFS, DMH, legal
  services
  • Thank You




• Anna Yee, LCSW

								
To top