Youth Safety Playbook for States

Strategies to Prevent Violence, Expand Opportunity, and Reduce Justice System Involvement

Community-Based Service Continuum for Youth: 3 Key Components

Checklist for State Assessment and Planning Framework

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center has launched the Collaborating for Youth and Public Safety Initiative (CYPSI) to help states develop a research-based service continuum and comprehensive best practices to improve public safety and other outcomes for youth.

Adolescents nationwide are in crisis, increasingly experiencing mental health, school, and community violence challenges that can impact their well-being and, ultimately, their risk to themselves or others.

Public systems and service providers are struggling to address youth and families’ needs given service gaps and workforce shortages.

And, in the absence of coordinated, cross-systems solutions, many states are failing to adopt research-based public safety policies that address the root causes of youth’s behavior and/or move beyond isolated improvement initiatives that have limited potential for impact and don’t efficiently maximize available resources.

This crisis presents a critical opportunity for states to develop a new vision and interconnected set of strategies for how to more effectively protect public safety and support all youth to transition to safe and healthy adulthoods.

Vision for Youth in America

States develop, enact, and implement a comprehensive, multisystem plan to strengthen and scale a continuum of research-informed, community-based services for adolescents and their families statewide. This continuum of services includes the following:

Early intervention services to prevent youth in crisis from unnecessary involvement with the juvenile justice and child welfare systems and with courts and out-of-home placement generally
Research-based, cost-effective services and supports to reduce recidivism for higher-risk youth involved in the juvenile justice system
Prevention and intervention services to mitigate youth violence, including victim supports

This continuum of services is supported through an integrated set of implementation, financing, policy, and workforce strategies adopted, coordinated, and overseen at the state level, across systems, and implemented at the local level in partnership with providers, communities, youth, and families.

Community-Based Service Continuum for Youth: 3 Key Components

Research has shown that justice system involvement for most youth does more harm than good for public safety.¹ Instead, early intervention is effective for improving youth mental health and reducing risky behaviors.² Additionally, research-informed, community-based services are more effective at reducing recidivism and promoting long-term behavioral health, education, and employment outcomes for youth—including higher-risk youth—than facilities, at a fraction of the cost.³

Findings from a year-long research review and conversations with national experts and model states show that states should focus on adopting and effectively implementing the following three key service components statewide:

1. Early Intervention to Prevent Juvenile Justice Involvement

Formal alternatives to law enforcement⁴ and hospital contact for youth (and their families) in crisis including use of 988⁵ or similar hotline or online crisis resources, alternative responders,⁶ and assessment/family resource centers⁷ that are available 24 hours a day/7 days a week to provide an appropriate response to a behavioral health or family crisis
Mobile crisis to provide immediate, in-community interventions for youth and families experiencing a behavioral health, domestic violence, or other type of youth-related crisis⁸
Short-term (30 days or less) respite or shelter to provide mediation and stabilization services for youth and families⁹
Single-session therapies for youth and families that can deliver treatment in one sitting and address concerning behavior efficiently¹⁰
Family navigators, credible messengers, youth advocates, and/or life coaches to help youth and families navigate, access, and successfully engage with needed services and supports¹¹
Family-,¹² home-, and school-based interventions,¹³ including digital options,¹⁴ to ensure treatment is accessible and integrated within youth and family’s natural environments¹⁵
Opportunities for strengths-, relationships-, and skill-building activities such as education, employment, and youth development programs, and positive peer groups/mentoring

2. Youth Recidivism Reduction

Restorative practices, such as victim mediation, that help youth directly repair any harm caused to victims or communities¹⁶
Community-based, in-home, and telehealth cognitive behavioral and family therapy (CBT),¹⁷ with an emphasis on multimodal delivery strategies,¹⁸ to address the key criminogenic and behavioral health needs underlying youth’s behavior,¹⁹ including through proven models such as Multisystemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy, and trauma-informed CBT
Wraparound²⁰ care coordination,²¹ family navigators and family team meetings, credible messengers,²² and youth advocate²³ approaches to develop case plans, connect youth and families with a range of needed services, and promote service access and engagement
In areas with limited services, training probation officers in skill- and CBT-oriented models of supervision such as Functional Family Probation and Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS)

3. Youth Violence Prevention and Intervention

Violence interrupters and street outreach workers who work with high-risk youth to reduce shootings, homicides, and violent arrests and improve behavioral health outcomes for youth,²⁴ including through formal interventions such as Operation Ceasefire and Cure Violence²⁵
Social workers embedded within community-based street teams to provide direct supports to victims of gun violence and refer people who commit gun violence and victims to needed services²⁶
Hospital-based youth violence intervention programs to provide immediate support to victims to reduce victimization, re-hospitalization, and engagement in violent crime²⁷
Trauma recovery centers that reach underserved crime victims, provide culturally aligned services, and improve mental health outcomes to stop the cycle of retribution and violence²⁸
Street outreach workers to visit youth in juvenile justice facilities to provide mentorship and reentry planning, especially concerning safety planning to prevent violence and victimization²⁹

Checklist for State Assessment and Planning Framework

To realize this vision for improved public safety and youth outcomes, states should adopt an integrated set of implementation, financing, policy, and provider and workforce strategies. What follows is a strategy framework, checklist, and related examples for states to use to assess and guide their efforts. This framework is based on a review of research and best practices, discussions with national experts across multiple disciplines, and lessons learned from states nationwide.

Infrastructure and Implementation Strategies

A. Establish centralized oversight structures and protocols for early intervention youth assessment, case management, care coordination, and services.

Are there statewide structures or portals (e.g., hotline, website) and/or places (e.g., assessment/resource centers) for youth and families to obtain services and supports?
Is there a statewide approach, designated entity, and staff who oversee youth assessment, case management, and services outside of formal system involvement?
Are strategies in place to ensure system responses are timely, cost-free, and engaging, including use of peer supports, family navigators, and credible messengers?
Do case management strategies incorporate decision-making structures that center youth and families such as family team decision-making meetings?
Is there a statewide marketing and communication strategy to promote the use of community-based services and alternative responses to law enforcement and hospitals?

B. Establish state standards and guiding implementation strategies for all youth services, balancing these guidelines with local discretion and innovation.

Are services free and easily accessible, including minimizing wait lists, bureaucratic requirements, and barriers to engagement such as transportation?
Are services based on what research shows works including use of cognitive behavioral therapy and family-focused modalities and developmentally appropriate and trauma-informed approaches?
Are validated risk and needs assessments used to guide service decisions and to ensure youth are individually matched to services with a focus on priority risk factors?
Do service providers, staff, and models reflect the demographics, culture, and lived experiences of the youth population served?

C. Monitor the effectiveness of youth services and establish a statewide system of implementation guidance, training, and quality improvement.

Is there a formal system for service quality assurance at the state and local levels, including opportunities for feedback from youth, families, and communities?
Does the state actively support local implementation quality and fidelity through an ongoing set of training, technical assistance, and quality improvement activities?
Are there service data performance standards for providers and public agencies?
Is data collected, aggregated, analyzed, reported, and used to evaluate and improve system and service performance, including to inform policy and funding decisions?

State Implementation Examples

New Jersey: In 2006, the state created the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as the first cabinet-level agency exclusively dedicated to overseeing behavioral health services for children and families. Through DCF, the state established a single point of service access for children and families statewide supported by a network of mobile response, stabilization, wraparound, and mental and health and substance use services for over 50,000 children and families a year. DCF provides policy, training, and quality assurance for providers with a focus on trauma-informed models, statewide assessment tools (the CANS), youth-family team meetings, and partnerships with county-based Children’s Interagency Coordinating Councils.

Ohio: The state established a statewide system of funding initiatives to promote the use of evidence-based practices for higher-risk youth at the local level, given local oversight of most juvenile justice functions. These efforts include a suite of “RECLAIM” block grant and competitive funding programs that incentivize counties to invest in evidence-based programs for use as alternatives to incarceration. The Ohio Department of Youth Services supports local implementation and fidelity through a common suite of risk assessment tools, training and implementation assistance, and data collection and evaluation. More recently, Ohio established OHIORise to create a clear, consistent point of access, assessment, and managed care for youth who need behavioral health services across the state. OHIORise serves over 35,000 youth and families annually.

Illinois: In 2021, the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention (OFVP) was statutorily established to implement a public health approach to firearm violence statewide. This approach aims to address the root causes of violence by increasing community capacity to provide youth most at risk of engagement in violence, either as a responsible party or victim, with evidence- and trauma-based interventions. OFVP supports communities with grants and technical assistance focused on violence prevention services, youth development programs, and trauma recovery services. In addition, each target community established a local advisory council to guide implementation, and there is a Firearms Violence Research Group that informs the OFVP. In 2023, OFVP awarded $150 million in grants to community-based organizations, resulting in more than 10,000 people receiving services, including 2,000 receiving victim services, 4,000 case management, and 4,500 youth development supports. This investment helped spur an 80% decline in firearm victimization in the 10 communities with the most victimization.³⁰

Financing Strategies

A. Conduct cross-system financial mapping to identify opportunities to more fully and efficiently use federal and state funding streams for youth services.

Is there an updated inventory of what adolescent-focused services, populations, and needs are covered through state funding and federal entitlement programs?
Is there analysis of how funding for youth services is used, including funding and service use rates, providers, eligibility criteria, demographics, geography, and outcomes?
Has the state identified gaps and opportunities for more strategically using funding, including blending and braiding, reinvestment and redirection, and revenue maximization?
Is there an ongoing structure for knowledge sharing and coordination related to funding changes, new funding sources, eligibility expansion, and use?

B. Funding for youth services, regardless of source, is used for evidence-based and promising practices and to support providers to implement these interventions effectively.

Are there funding requirements or guidelines to require or promote the use of programs and practices demonstrated by research to improve public safety and youth outcomes?
Do funding requirements promote service use and engagement such as no reject/eject policies and incentives for working with youth assessed as higher risk?
Are Medicaid and other funding rates for providers sufficient to cover the full costs of meeting these expectations (e.g., staffing, administration, training, capacity building)?
Do funding awards and contacts include performance-based provisions and/or required quality assurance and data collection and reporting activities?

C. Ensure Medicaid is maximized as the primary funding source to support community-based services that will improve public safety and youth outcomes.

Are evidence-based, community-based programs for adolescents, such as Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy, reimbursable under the state Medicaid plan?
Is Medicaid used to fund, scale, and sustain a range and continuum of youth services including early intervention, recidivism reduction, violence intervention, and reentry?
Is Medicaid used by schools, community-based organizations, and community mental health centers/Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics?
Does the state have an ongoing review of the state plan, waivers, and administrative structures to ensure funding for service is maximized and administered effectively?

D. Family First and other federal and state financing sources are used to provide services to populations that Medicaid is unable to cover, as well as training and support for providers.

Are Family First plans and funding for youth prevention services coordinated with Medicaid and the juvenile justice, education, and behavioral health systems?
Is there a specific effort to leverage and coordinate federal, state, and local funding for school-based diversion and violence-prevention programs?
Is state funding used to fill service gaps in populations and programs that entitlement programs don’t cover, such as youth who are not eligible for Medicaid?
Is funding directed for administration, training, capacity building, staff retention/wellness, and quality assurance costs for providers and public agencies?

State Financing Examples

Illinois: The state passed HB 2971, which focused on violence prevention including enabling Medicaid coverage for youth community violence interventions. These interventions span a broad range of services, including social emotional learning, skill building, coping, thoughtful decision-making, and motivational interviewing. Additionally, the bill includes specific language and criteria that defines required organizational criteria for Medicaid reimbursement when providing violence intervention services, such as having relationships with high-risk youth, building a community-based team, and the ability to reduce peer conflicts. Lastly, the bill included technical assistance and supporting government structures as part of a wider statewide strategy to address gun violence and support the capacity building of community-based organizations.

Massachusetts: Massachusetts has strengthened its Medicaid state plan to allow for the use of targeted case management to implement Wraparound Intensive Care Coordination for children and youth with behavioral health needs, as well as intensive in-home services, family support, and therapeutic mentoring. Massachusetts also uses the Medicaid Rehabilitation Services Option to assist children and youth with disabilities, including those with serious behavioral health needs, to live in community-based settings as an alternative to residential treatment.

West Virginia: Through Medicaid, out-of-home respite care is provided to children and youth enrolled in the state’s 1915(c) CSED waiver by therapeutic foster care homes. The state also partnered with West Virginia University to provide education to families about the waiver and how to enroll. This effort resulted in an increase of nearly 200 additional families applying for the waiver per month. To ensure providers are well-equipped to provide high-quality care to children and youth with chronic and complex needs, West Virginia partners with Marshall University to offer training for providers to better understand how to support families of children with complex behavioral health needs, including through respite services. The state also offers trauma-informed care training for the direct care workforce, and training in High-Fidelity Wraparound across the state.

Policy Strategies

A. Create a required infrastructure for cross-systems collaboration at the state and local levels to support services and improved outcomes for youth and families.

Is there a statewide task force, cabinet, or similar structure tasked with state-level, cross-system collaboration for youth issues, funding, workforce, and services?
Do state agencies have formal agreements and boundary spanner positions to better coordinate and align services across systems and outline roles and responsibilities?
Are there required cross-systems structures at the local level for managing and allocating state funding and for cross-systems youth service planning and implementation?
Do designated staff, policies, data sharing agreements and protocols exist for cross-systems collaboration at the case level, including for complex cases?

B. Enact policies that restrict the use of the justice system, courts, and out-of-home placement for lower-risk youth.

Are youth who commit status offenses prohibited from court or juvenile justice system involvement, detention, and/or incarceration?
Does the state have a minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction, competency, detention, and incarceration?
Are there policies that require the automatic diversion of youth who commit low-level misdemeanor offenses from involvement in the juvenile justice system?
Is the use of detention or incarceration restricted for youth solely for the purposes of treatment, self-protection, family concerns, or other non-public safety reasons?

C. Enact policies that limit or prohibit school-based referrals to the juvenile justice system for school disciplinary infractions.

Are schools required to use non-court interventions to respond to truancy or absenteeism?
Are there limitations on the use of exclusionary discipline for all behaviors that don’t endanger others and for youth under a certain age?
Are there restrictions on suspending or expelling youth for catch-all categories of behavior such as willful defiance or disobedience?
Are there limitations on school-based referrals to law enforcement, and is data collected, aggregated, and reported statewide on school discipline and justice referrals?

D. Establish required pre-court and pre-arrest diversion opportunities, as well as alternatives to detention and incarceration, statewide.

Are there established pathways to assessment and services outside of arrest—and dedicated appropriations accordingly—such as civil citation programs, assessment centers, school-based diversion, and restorative practices?
Are there established diversion pathways/programs to keep youth who are lower risk and have behavioral health needs from becoming involved in the justice system, such as alternative responder models, mobile crisis, and community mental health centers?
For youth who become justice involved, is there required use of a risk screening tool and mental health screening tool to guide diversion and disposition decisions statewide?
Are risk assessments required for use pre-disposition statewide?
Are there designated policies and dedicated funding for intensive, community-based alternatives to detention and incarceration?

E. Reduce legal and administrative barriers to youth services and clinical licensure and employment.

Are policies in place to reduce statutory barriers to licensure such as multistate licensing compacts and centralized licensing entities?
Are people with criminal records eligible to work in youth service fields by reducing collateral consequences, eliminating criminal conviction language on employment applications, and free record clearance services?

State Policy Examples

Connecticut: In 2015, Connecticut enacted legislation removing truancy from the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts, and 2 years later, the state removed all other status offenses from the courts. The state also adopted changes in 2015 to prohibit the use of out-of-school suspensions for all students in pre-kindergarten and only allow suspensions for students in kindergarten through second grade in the rare cases when a child exhibits violent or sexual conduct that endangers others. And, in 2023, the state enacted legislation that requires law enforcement to refer a child who commits simple trespass, creating a public disturbance, 6th degree larceny, or disorderly conduct to a local juvenile review board in lieu of an arrest.

Kansas, South Dakota, and Washington: These three states enacted policies that require automatic diversion for young people who commit certain offenses. In Kansas, a new law mandated the use of Immediate Intervention Programs for youth accused of first-time misdemeanors and authorized its use for all misdemeanor offenses. A comprehensive juvenile justice bill package signed into law in South Dakota in 2015 made diversion the default option for first nonviolent misdemeanors as well as all status offenses, and the state began providing local courts with a financial incentive for each young person who completes diversion. And in Washington, prosecutors are required to divert all youth facing first-time misdemeanor or grand misdemeanor charges.

Delaware and Florida: Both states established juvenile civil citation programs in statute as an alternative to arrest and prosecution for young people who commit eligible misdemeanor offenses. Youth are held accountable for their behaviors through their participation in services while also receiving an assessment and additional supports as needed.

Idaho and Utah: In 2022, the Idaho legislature appropriated $6.5 million to the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections to create a network of 8 Youth Assessment Centers to support youth with behavioral health issues outside of the youth justice system. And in Utah, since 2017, the Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth Services created a network of 11 youth service centers across the state. These centers in both states seek to prevent and divert youth from juvenile justice and child welfare system involvement by serving as a hub for screenings, assessments, and service referrals and to provide more individualized support to youth and families.

Therapist talking to patient on the couch

Photo Credit: Vitaly Gariev/Pexels

Youth Service Providers and Workforce Strategies

A. Align staff salaries, qualification requirements, and provider reimbursement rates with the compensation and funding needed to recruit and retain a skilled youth workforce and providers.

Is data collected and analyzed to understand the public agency and youth service provider landscape and workforce including capacity, use, and staff vacancy rates?
Is there analysis of provider reimbursement rates for youth services, the full costs of service delivery, and barriers providers face to scaling and sustaining their services?
Is there analysis of whether agency and provider staff salaries reflect the demands of the job, needed expertise, and market competition and are consistent across systems?
Is there an ongoing, transparent process for provider rate and staff salary adjustments based on the above analysis that also accounts for inflation and other factors?

B. Develop and promote youth service workforce pathways through specialized recruitment initiatives, fiscal incentives, partnerships, and user-friendly hiring practices.

Do statewide programs exist to recruit, train, and credential the youth services workforce including apprenticeships and specialized associate’s and bachelor’s programs?
Are there statewide fiscal incentives to recruit and retain professionals into youth services such as loan forgiveness programs, scholarships, and recruitment bonuses?
Do public agencies partner with the provider community to build capacity and staffing, recruit new providers, and develop specialized programs for hard-to-serve populations?
Are public agency job descriptions, applications, and hiring processes user friendly?
Do agencies employ recruitment strategies such as community-based job fairs and hiring “blitzes” that make the hiring process more accessible and expedient?

C. Expand and diversify the type and demographics of the youth services workforce and providers.

Do explicit role and credentialing opportunities exist for an expanded workforce (e.g., youth development specialists, family navigators, paraprofessionals, etc.)?
Do mandatory and competitive funding opportunities require or incentivize the involvement of grassroots and culturally specific organizations and credible messengers?
Are statewide initiatives in place to hire a more diverse youth services workforce, including partnerships with HBCUs and other culturally specific organizations?

D. Employ technology, communications, and data to expand and improve youth service provider and workforce capacity, access, and flexibility.

Do a statewide plan, strategies, and supports exist to leverage technology to address gaps in service availability, especially in rural communities, such as through web-based tools (e.g., service inventories), centralized helplines, call centers, and teleservices?
Are communications and media strategies used to attract staff to jobs and careers in youth services including a branding and marketing campaign?
Are performance measures established and tracked for youth service provider and staff recruitment, retention, and effectiveness?

E. Institute staff collaboration, retention, professional development, and wellness strategies.

Are strategies used, such as primary care integration, care coordination teams, and family-team meetings, to promote staff and systems collaboration and cost efficiencies?
Is there dedicated funding for agency employee retention and wellness such as required wellness programs, trauma supports, safety protocols, and morale building activities?
Are strategies employed to reduce staff’s work burden and inefficiencies such as workload studies, reducing caseload sizes, shift flexibility, transportation and child-care supports, and technology to minimize paperwork?

State Youth Services Provider and Workforce Examples

Nebraska: The state established the Behavioral Health Education Center of Nebraska through legislation to recruit, retain, and increase the competency of the youth and adult behavioral health workforce statewide. The Center partners with 19 academic institutions across the state to foster education and recruitment of new professionals, provide financial support and mentoring, and help match graduates with career opportunities.

Oregon and Florida: Through a partnership with the Ballmer Foundation and the University of Portland, Oregon created a bachelor’s degree program major for child behavioral health specialists, which includes a core curriculum, 2 years of 90 credit hours of coursework in supervised applied practice in community settings, and 100% tuition coverage through federal and other grant sources. In a similar vein, Florida established Health Quest, The Florida Behavioral Health Association’s Apprenticeship Initiative. The goal of Health Quest is to develop a sustainable talent pathway for behavioral health employers and a career ladder for individuals working in the field. Available apprenticeships include peer specialists, addiction counselors, and behavioral health technicians at some of Florida’s largest behavioral health care providers.

Georgia: The state enacted HB 1013 to establish the Behavioral Healthcare Workforce Database to collect and analyze data on the availability and capacity of youth behavioral health providers statewide. Legislation also created the Multi-Agency Treatment for Children (MATCH) work group to facilitate collaboration between state agencies and providers in identifying resources for children’s unmet mental health needs.

Endnotes

1. Elizabeth Cauffman et al., “Crossroads in Juvenile Justice: The Impact of Initial Processing Decision on Youth 5 Years After First Arrest,” Development and Psychopathology 33, no. 2 (2021): 700, 10.1017/S095457942000200X.

2. Sarah Skeen et al., “Adolescent Mental Health Program Components and Behavior Risk Reduction: A Meta-Analysis,” Pediatrics 144 no. 2 (2019), 2018, 10.1542/peds.2018-3488.

3. Tony Fabelo et al., Closer to Home: An Analysis of the State and Local Impact of the Texas Juvenile Justice Reform (New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/texas-JJ-reform-closer-to-home.pdf.

4. Amos Irwin and Betsy Pearl, The Community Responder Model: How Cities Can Send the Right Responder to Every 911 Call (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2020), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/community-responder-model/.

5. Heather Saunders, 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: Two Years After Launch (San Francisco: KFF, 2024), https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/988-suicide-crisis-lifeline-two-years-after-launch/.

6. Thomas S. Dee and Jaymes Pyne, “A Community Response Approach to Mental Health and Substance Abuse Crises Reduced Crime,” Science Advances 8 no. 23 (2022): 1, 10.1126/sciadv.abm2106.

7. Why Detention is Not the Answer: An Alternative Through Assessment Centers (National Assessment Center Association), https://www.nacassociation.org/assets/docs/whydetentionisnottheanswer.pdf.

8. Michael Fendrich et al., Evaluation of Connecticut’s Mobile Crisis Intervention Services: Impact on Behavioral Health Emergency Department Use and Provider Perspectives on Strengths and Challenges (Connecticut: Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut, 2018), https://www.chdi.org/resource-library/issue-briefs/mobile-crisis-reducing-emergency-department-utilization.

9. Meghan Ogle, Analysis of the Respite Care Alternative to Detention for Domestic Violence-Involved Youth (Florida: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2018), https://www.djj.state.fl.us/content/download/23724/file/Briefing-Sheet-DV-Respite-Effectiveness-(2018)-MG.PDF.

10. John R. Weisz et al., “What Four Decades of Meta-Analysis Have Taught Us About Youth Psychotherapy and the Science of Research Synthesis,” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 19 (2023): 79, 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-082920.

11. Jean I. Layzer et al., National Evaluation of Family Support Programs, Final Report Volume A: The Meta Analysis (Washington, DC: Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 2001), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/fam_sup_vol_a.pdf.

12. Abigail E. Pine et al., “Parental Involvement in Adolescent Psychological Interventions: A Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 27 no. 3 (2024): 1, 10.1007/s10567-024-00481-8.

13. David B. Wilson, Denise C. Gottfredson, and Stacy S. Najaka, “School-Based Prevention of Problem Behaviors: A Meta Analysis,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 17 (2001): 247, 10.1023/A:1011050217296.

14. Jai K. Das et al., “Interventions for Adolescent Mental Health: An Overview of Systematic Reviews,” Journal of Adolescent Health 59, no. 4 (2016): S49, 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.020.

15. Susan M. Sheridan et al., “A Meta-Analysis of Family-School Interventions and Children’s Socioal Emotional Functioning: Moderators and Components of Efficacy,” Review of Educational Research 89, no. 2 (2019): 296, 10.3102/0034654318825437.

16. Josh Weber, Restorative Justice Practices and Credible Messengers: Promising, Innovative Approaches for Improving Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024), https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/restorative-justice-practices-and-credible-messengers-promising-innovative-approaches-for-improving-outcomes-for-youth-in-the-juvenile-justice-system/.

17. Thomas Feucht and Tammy Holt, “Does Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Work in Criminal Justice? A New Analysis from CrimeSolutions.gov,” National Institute of Justice Journal 277 (2016): 10, https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/does-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-work-criminal-justice-new-analysis-crimesolutions.

18. Megan Granski et al., “A Meta-Analysis of Program Characteristics for Youth with Disruptive Behavior Problems: The Moderating Role of Program Format and Youth Gender,” American Journal of Community Psychology 65, no. 1-2 (2019): 201, 10.1002/ajcp.12377.

19. Gina Vincent, “Long-Term Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Needs Assessment and Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Reforms in Juvenile Probation: The Long-Term RNR-Impact Study, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, 2008-2017,” Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (2023), 10.3886/ICPSR37974.

20. Jonathan Olson et al., “Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Effectiveness of Wraparound Care Coordination for Children and Adolescents,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 60, no. 11 (2021):1353, 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.02.022.

21. Intensive Care Coordination for Children and Youth with Complex Mental and Substance Use Disorders: State and Community Profiles (Maryland: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019), https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/intensive-care-youth-coordination-pep19-04-01-001.pdf.

22. Matthew Lynch et al., Arches Transformative Mentoring Program: An Implementation and Impact Evaluation in New York City (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96601/arches_transformative_mentoring_program_0.pdf.

23. Douglas Evans and Sheyla Delgado, Youth Advocate Program (YAP) Facts: Most High Risk Youth Referred to Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. Remain Arrest Free and in their Communities During YAP Participation (New York: John Jay College, 2014), https://johnjayrec.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/yapfacts201401.pdf.

24. Fatimah Loren Dreier et al., Community Violence Intervention Action Plan: Mapping Transformation for the Field Fall 2024 (The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, Community Justice, National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Urban Peace Institute, Community-based Public Safety Collective, 2024), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/66ba86a03840716e574eab29/t/66bc16d24ba9b012a1f55aac/1723602646179/CVI_Action+Plan_Full+Report_v10.pdf.

25. Gun Violence and Youth/Young Adults, Literature Review: A Product of the Model Programs Guide (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2023), https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/gun-violence-and-youth-young-adults#6-0.

26. SNUG Social Work Initiative: Research Brief (New York: New York State Division of Criminal Jsutice Services, 2023), https://knowledgebank.criminaljustice.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2025/08/snug-sw-project-research-brief-080625.pdf.

27. Our Impact: Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs (Massachusetts: The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, 2024), https://www.thehavi.org/our-impact.

28. Alicia Boccellari, Trauma Recovery Centers: Addressing the Needs of Underserved Crime Survivors (California: National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers, 2020), https://allianceforsafetyandjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/TRAUMA-RECOVERY-CENTERSAddressing-the-Needs-of-Underserved-Crime-Survivors.pdf.

29. Office of Firearm Violence Prevention Key Program Highlights (Illinois: Illinois Department of Human Services, 2024), https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=159960.

30. Office of Firearm Violence Prevention 2023 End of the Year Report (Illinois: Illinois Department of Human Services, 2023), https://www.dhs.state.il.us/OneNetLibrary/27897/documents/FVP/4194BROReimagineAnnualReport202305_30P_A11Y.pdf.

Publication Credits

Writing: Josh Weber, CSG Justice Center

Editing: Leslie Griffin, CSG Justice Center

Web Development: Caroline Cournoyer, CSG Justice Center

Public Affairs: Sarah Kelley, CSG Justice Center

Youth Safety Playbook for States

Strategies to Prevent Violence, Expand Opportunity, and Reduce Justice System Involvement

Table of Contents

Vision for Youth in America

Community-Based Service Continuum for Youth: 3 Key Components

Checklist for State Assessment and Planning Framework

Endnotes

Publication Credits

Vision for Youth in America

Community-Based Service Continuum for Youth: 3 Key Components

1. Early Intervention to Prevent Juvenile Justice Involvement

2. Youth Recidivism Reduction

3. Youth Violence Prevention and Intervention

Checklist for State Assessment and Planning Framework

Infrastructure and Implementation Strategies

State Implementation Examples

Financing Strategies

State Financing Examples

Policy Strategies

State Policy Examples

Youth Service Providers and Workforce Strategies

State Youth Services Provider and Workforce Examples

Endnotes

Publication Credits