For this Assignment, you will create a policy brief and a set of talking points (4 pg, not including cover and reference) 

Policy Brief:

1. A Short Summary of the juvenile justice or juvenile delinquency issue/problem (1 pg) – Youth in the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems;

2. A short description of 3 policy options (what are the policies connected to the topic and what are the advantages and disadvantages and the advantages and disadvantages of each (1 pg); and

3. Your recommended policy prescription (supported with evidence from literature). (1 pg)

Talking Point:

Used when speaking to the lobbying target. 

3 or 4 key points that you want to make when speaking with the lobbying target.

Resources for assignment: 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/youth/collaboration/dualsystem/

njjn.org/our-work/dual-status-youth-and-federal-initiatives-snapshot

Notes: 

Youth in the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems

The Problem:

Crossover youth or dually involved youth are youth who move between the child

welfare and juvenile justice systems, or who are known to both concurrently.

Crossover youth are disproportionately youth of color and girls.4

Youth who have been abused and neglected are at heightened risk for early onset of

delinquency. These youth are also at increased risk for mental health concerns,

educational problems, occupational difficulties, and public health and safety issues.5

The Solution:

Coordinated, multi-system integration has been shown to produce better outcomes for dually involved youth in a variety of states and localities. For example, a study commissioned by the Arizona Supreme Court found that: (1) Dependent children over the age of eight are very likely to be (or to become) involved with the court on delinquency matters. That likelihood increases substantially for children 14 years of age and older, and (2) Youth with histories of court involvement on dependency matters are twice as likely to recidivate if referred on a delinquency offense than juveniles with no history of dependency court involvement (62 percent compared to 30 percent).