Agency integration, 2016

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


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

About this project

Juvenile Justice GPS (Geography, Policy, Practice, Statistics) is a project to develop a repository providing state policy makers and system stakeholders with a clear understanding of the juvenile justice landscape in the states.

Continue reading »


Tell us what you think of JJGPS. Questions, feedback, or other comments are welcomed.

Questions or feedback »

Follow on Twitter »