i Ohio » Systems integration

Agency integration, 2016

• Child welfare

  Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Office of Families and Children (OFC)

  Does not centralize child welfare administration services at the state level.

• Integration level

  One or all are decentralized

• Juvenile corrections

  Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS)

  Does not centralize administration of delinquency services at the state level.

Coordination, 2014

• Uses for coordination
• Does not use for coordination

• Data sharing

  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

Summary

In Ohio, juvenile probation is administered across local judicial courts. Child welfare services are administered by either a county department of the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services, Office of Families and Children (OFC) (55 counties), or a separate children service board (33 counties). Due to the decentralized state structure, data sharing does not occur at the state level pertaining to dual status youth. However, considerable innovation occurs at the local level, with encouragement by state agencies.  

For example, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) encourages the use of Georgetown University's Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM). As of 2013 the model has been adopted in 11 of Ohio's 88 counties. Each county has the autonomy to individualize the components of the CYPM. Innovations include local committees or work groups that focus on dual status youth issues, formal inter-agency collaborative agreements, local court rules to coordinate dual status cases, data sharing between agencies and dual status prevalence research.

Additionally, local examples exist where dual status cases are identified at intake through a formal protocol in which each agency is notified upon the identification of the youth. Subsequent case coordination activities may involve inter-agency liaisons and include joint case planning and specialized diversion from juvenile justice involvement. Court activity may also be coordinated in local innovation sites and require joint hearing appearance requirements for probation officers and social workers, and specialized dockets for dually involved youth.

Reported data