- Uses for coordination
- Does not use for coordination
Facilitated through the use of statewide information systems allowing for consistent data sharing between systems.
Committees or advisory groups
Multidisciplinary groups that often have regularly scheduled meetings to brainstorm ways to improve systems integration.
Formal interagency MOUs
Collaborative agreements to guide systems integration efforts
Informal interagency agreements
Commonly based on historical practice, mutual trust, and recognition of the need to collaborate in order to serve dual-status youth.
Statute and/or rules
Rules that mandate systems integration efforts
In Colorado, child welfare is overseen by the Department of Human Services, Division of Child Welfare, but administered at the county-level. The Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections administers juvenile justice. There is consistent data sharing about dual-status youth at the state-level as well as formal and informal collaborative statements/memoranda of understanding, collaborative funding agreements and standing committees that focus on dual-status youth issues.
Information about dually involved youth is coordinated through a statewide database called the Colorado Trails System, which includes both child welfare and juvenile justice data, and the court data system called the Family Justice Information System (FAMJIS).
A state statute also exists that mandates coordination for dual-status youth. There are also examples of data sharing and coordination for dual-status youth at the local level in Colorado including formal and informal collaborative statements/memoranda of understanding, collaborative funding agreements, local standing committees that focus on dual status youth issues, and research on dual status prevalence. There are routine procedures at intake to identify youth with involvement in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Case management for dually involved youth is coordinated through sharing of case planning information between divisions, interagency-planning meetings, and joint case-level management meetings.
Local examples of courts coordinating activities for dual-status cases include consolidation of delinquency and child protection matters with one judge, specialized dockets for dually involved youth, inter-agency liaisons, joint hearing appearance requirements for probation officers and social workers, and specialized training for workers on dual-status issues. Colorado has a number of initiatives that focus on dual status issues including the Collaborative Management Program which provides a cross-systems approach and the Colorado Children and Youth Information Sharing Collaborative which provides regular meetings for inter-agency planning. Efforts to coordinate information sharing resulted in a statewide consent form for which the entire state has received training. The court system shares this focus on dual-status issues and has Systems of Care Grants that focus on youth with multi-system involvement and addressing trauma. Colorado also participates in Georgetown University's Crossover Youth Practice Model and works with Casey Family Programs on dual-status projects.