Dual System Youth: At the Intersection of Child 

Maltreatment & Delinquency 

Barbara Tatem Kelley, M.A., M.Ed. 

Social Science Research Analyst, National Institute of Justice 
 

 

 

 

 

DUAL SYSTEM YOUTH: AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF CHILD 

MALTREATMENT & DELINQUENCY 

Denise C. Herz, Ph.D., Professor 

Carly B. Dierkhising, Ph.D., Associate Professor 

School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics 

California State University, Los Angeles 

Richard White, J.D., Magistrate 

Mahoning County Juvenile Court, Ohio 

This project was supported by Grant #2015-CV-BX-0001 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and 

conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/ program/exhibition are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contributing Authors to the OJJDP Dual 

System Youth Design Study 

■ Cook County, Illinois: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago—Robert Goerge, PhD, Senior Research Fellow,

Shannon Guiltinan, MPA, Researcher, Nick Mader, PhD, Senior Researcher

■ New York City: The Center for Innovation through Data Intelligence in New York City—Maryanne Schretzman,

DSW, Executive Director, Jessica Raithel, LMSW, MPH, Senior Analyst, Andrew Wallace, PhD, Consultant

■ Cuyahoga County, Ohio: The Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development (the Poverty Center) at Case

Western Reserve University—Claudia Coulton, PhD, Co-Director, Youngmin Cho, PhD, Postdoctoral Scholar

■ Proposed methodologies: Westat—Susan Chibnall, PhD, Senior Study Director, Jim Green, PhD, Senior

Statistician

■ Using Linked Administrative Data: Actionable Intelligence for Social Policy (AISP) at the University of

Pennsylvania—Dennis Culhane, Co-PI and Dana Andrew Stone Professor of Social Policy at the School of Social

Policy and Practice, TC Burnett, Associate Director

■ Site Examples of Best Practice: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform—Macon Stewart, Senior Program Manager,

Samuel Abbott, Research Associate, Karen Kolivoski, Assistant Professor, Howard University, School of Social

Work
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgments for the OJJDP Dual 

System Youth Design Study 

■ The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Shay Bilchik, Executive Director

■ Cook County Juvenile Probation and Court Services; Illinois Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS);

Chicago Police Department (CPD); and the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)

■ Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court; the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services; the

Cuyahoga County Office of Homeless Services; the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department; and the Cuyahoga

County Job and Family Services

■ NYC Administration for Children’s Services; NYC Department of Probation; NYC Law Department; NYC

Department of Homeless Services; and NYC Department of Correction

This study would not have been possible without the permission of the Center and these agencies to use their data. 

The findings reported within this report, however, are those of the authors and permission to use data from these 

entities does not indicate an endorsement of the content or the conclusions contained within the report. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgments for Los Angeles Dual 

System Youth Study 

The Los Angeles Dual System Youth Study was conducted by the Children’s Data Network at the University of Southern

California(Andrea Eastman, Ph.D., Emily Putnam-Hornstein, Ph.D., and Jacquelyn McCroskey, Ph.D. in partnership with 

California State University, Los Angeles (Denise Herz, Ph.D.). 

Funding 

■ The Reissa Foundation for funding the Los Angeles Dual System Study (a replication of the OJJDP Dual System Design

Study)

■ First 5 LA, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, and the Heising-Simons Foundation for their support of the CDN’s essential

data infrastructure, which makes this type of study possible.

Data & Data Analysis 

■ California Department of Social Services

■ Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services

■ Los Angeles County Probation

■ Eunhye Ahn assisted with the visual development of the charts, John Prindle, PhD provided valuable coding support and

Huy Tran Nghiem conducted the probabilistic linkage

This study would not have been possible without funding from foundations and the permission these agencies to use their

data. The findings reported within this report, however, are those of the authors. The provision of funding and the permission 

to use data from these entities does not indicate an endorsement of the content or the conclusions contained within the 

report. 
 

 

 

 

Goals of the OJJDP Dual System Youth 

Design Study 

•Explore the best way to measure incidence

•Describe dual system youth characteristics

•Propose a methodology to produce a nationally

representative incidence rate for dual system

youth

Dual System 

Youth Incidence 

Rate 

•Identify best practices and challenges associated

with cross-system collaboration in jurisdictions

•Design a method to collect and report best

practices in a consistent and representative way

nationwide.

Best Practices in 

Cross-Systems

Collaboration 
 

 

 

 

 

Goal of the Los Angeles Dual System 

Youth Study 

• Replicate the OJJDP Dual System

Design Study methodology using data

from Los Angeles County

• Produce description of dual system

youth characteristics

• Identify practice and policy implications

for improving delinquency prevention

across a continuum of system

involvement

Replicate the

OJJDP Dual 

System Design

Study 
 

 

Today’s Presentation 

Summarize the Results 

from Dual System Incidence 

Studies 

Summarize Best 

Practices from the 

Field & the Best 

Practices Rubric 

Illustrate Best 

Practices from 

Experiences in

Mahoning Co, OH 

A description of the full report and findings can be found at: 

https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/ojjdp-dual-system-youth-design-study-summaryfindings-and-recommendations 
DUAL SYSTEM YOUTH & 

THEIR PATHWAYS 
 

 

Limitations in Current Literature 

■ Various terms and definitions used across studies

■ No national studies or estimates of incidence

■ No distinction in the types of trajectories of dual system contact
 

 

 

 

 

 

OJJDP Dual System Youth Design Study: 

Exploring Dual System Pathways 

Defined Dual System 

Youth & Their Pathways Used Linked Administrative Data 

from Cook County, Cuyahoga

County, and New York City 

Produced Incidence Rates for Dual System Compared Characteristics Youth and Pathways for a 1st Delinquency & Experiences Across Court Petition (All Sites) & 1st Arrest Cohort Pathways for Both Cohorts (Cook County Only) 

Compared Young Adult Outcomes for

1st Court Petition Cohort across Empirically Tested Conceptual Pathways Pathways 

= Please see full report for a description of these Results Informed the Viability of results: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/ojjdp- Administrative Linked Data for a dual-system-youth-design-study-summary-findings-and- National Study recommendations 
 

Distinguishing Key Terms 

Crossover Youth Dual System Youth 

Youth who are... Crossover youth touch both the... 

Victims of 

Maltreatment 

Engaged in

delinquent 

acts 

Child 

Welfare 

System 

Juvenile 

Justice 

System 
Data and Methods 

Administrative data from the child welfare system and juvenile justice system in each jurisdiction were 

used to (1) produce a cohort of youth who received their 1st juvenile justice petition within a specific 

timeframe; and (2) identify which of these youth had at least one investigation by the child welfare 

 

 

Los Angeles County: 2014-2016 1st Juvenile Justice Petition Cohort + Born 

on/after 1998 (N=6,877) 

New York City: 2013-2014 1st Juvenile Justice Petition Cohort (N=1,272) 

Cuyahoga County: 2010-2014 1st Juvenile Justice Petition Cohort (11,441) 

system—i.e., dual system contact. 

Cook County: 2010-2014 1st Juvenile Justice Petition Cohort (N=14,170) 
Dual System Youth Incidence Rates Across Sites 

OJJDP Study Site Cohorts Los Angeles Cohort 

Dual System Dual System Contact Contact 

Cook: 44.8% 

64.1% Cuyahoga: 68.5% 35.9% NYC: 70.3% 

JJ Petition Only Dual System JJ Petition Only Dual System 
Gender & Race Comparison: JJ Only v. Dual 

System Youth (LA Cohort) 

14.7% 

85.3% 

25.9% 

74.1% 

Female Male 

JJ Only Dual System 

Gender 

9.1% 

21.5% 

64.5% 

7.0% 

31.2% 

59.7% 

White Black Hispanic 

JJ Only Dual System 

Race/Ethnicity 
 

 

Percentage of JJ Cohort Youth with Child Welfare 

Contact by Race & Gender (LA Cohort) 

75.1 

59.0 

79.7 

69.4 

68.6 

54.6 

Female 

Male 

Female 

Male 

Female 

Male 

Hispanic Black White 
The Timing of Dual System Contact 

Dual Contact 

Youth 

Dually-Involved 

Youth 

Contact with Child Welfare and Juvenile Contact with Child Welfare and Juvenile 

Justice System is Non-Concurrent Justice System is Concurrent 
 

 

 

 

Distinguishing Dual System Pathways 

Non-Concurrent Dual System Contact 

Dual Contact—Child Welfare First (DCCW) 

Dual Contact—Juvenile Justice First (DCJJ) 

Concurrent Dual System Contact 

Dually-Involved—Child Welfare First (DICW) 

Dually-Involved—Child Welfare First with Historical Case (DICWH) 

Dually-Involved—Juvenile Justice First (DIJJ) 

Dually-Involved—Juvenile Justice First with Historical Case (DIJJH) 

=Child Welfare Contact =Juvenile Justice System Contact =No System Contact 
Measuring Dual System Youth Pathways 

OJJDP Study Sites* Los Angeles Cohort 

9.0% 

9.0% 

3.0% 

*%s averaged 

52.2% 

0.7% 9.2% 

27.4% 

Dual Contact-CW Pathway 

Dual Contact-JJ Pathway 

Dually-Involved-CW Pathway 

Dually-Involved CW Pathway with Historical CW Case 

Dually-Involved JJ Pathway 

Dually-Involved JJ Pathway with Historical CW Case 

19.0% 

58.0% 

5.5% 

5.0% 

2.0% across sites 

for comparison 

Dual Contact-CW Pathway 

Dual Contact-JJ Pathway 

Dually-Involved-CW Pathway 

Dually-Involved-CW Pathway with Historical CW Case 

Dually-Involved-JJ Pathway 

Dually-Involved JJ Pathway with Historical CW Case 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Pattern of Findings for Dual System 

Pathways Across All Sites  More Investigations

 More Cases & Placements

 Longer stays in CW Care

DCCW 

Males Overall 

Hispanic Females & 

Males 

DIJJH--DICW, DICWH 

Females Overall 

Black Females & Black 

Males 

Less System Involvement 

More System Involvement 

 Fewer Investigations

 Fewer Cases & Placements

 Shorter stays in CW Care

 Shorter stays in CW Placements

 Longer stays in Placements

 Higher JJ detention

 Higher JJ recidivism

 Lower JJ detention

 Lower JJ recidivism
 

 

 

 

Empirical Pathways: Findings from Sequence Analysis 

New York Cuyahoga 

County 

Cook 

County 

Cluster 

1 

Limited and 

late Child 

Welfare 

Involvement 

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 

Cluster 

2 

Moderate 

Child Welfare 

Involvement 

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 

Cluster 

3 

Long Duration 

in Child 

Welfare 

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 

Cluster 

4 

Long Duration 

in Child 

Welfare Outof-Home 

Placements 

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 

Taken from Mader, Guiltinan, 

Goerge, Raithel, Wallace, 

Schretzman, Cho, Coulton, & 

Herz. (2019). Sequence 

analysis-–Testing the validity of 

conceptual pathways. Chapter 

8 in the OJJDP Dual System 

Youth Design Study Final 

Report. 

Child Welfare Out-of-Home No involvement Investigation Child Welfare Case 

Placement 

Court Involved & Court Involved & Court Involved & Out-of- Court Involved 

an Investigation Child Welfare Case Home Placement 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Findings from the OJJDP Dual System 

Youth Design Study & the LA Replication Study 

Incidence of Dual 

System Youth 

Between 44.8% and 

70.3% of 1st JJ 

petition youth were

dual system youth 

Females were more 

likely to be dual 

system youth than

males—Black 

females had the 

highest likelihood. 

Type of Dual

System Contact 

Over 90% of dual 

system touched the

child welfare system 

first and most often 

this was earlier in 

their childhood 

Females and Black 

youth were more 

likely to experience

deeper system 

involvement 

Timing of Dual

System Contact 

•Approximately 50%

of dual system youth

did not touch both

systems at the same

time (i.e., nonconcurrent system

contact)

•Approximately a

third of duallyinvolved youth had

historical child

welfare cases prior

to their juvenile

justice contact
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Implications of Dual System Pathways 

■ Dual system contact occurs for a majority of youth involved in the juvenile justice system.

Although this contact may not be concurrent, it is still plays a vital role in delivering

appropriate services to youth and families

■ Pathways matter—dual system youth are not one population with the same experiences

■ Prevention is essential

– Preventing maltreatment

– Preventing and/or interrupting persistent and adolescent limited maltreatment

– Preventing delinquency after youth enter the child welfare system

■ From occurring at all

■ Diverting from the juvenile justice system

■ Providing intervention services to reduce the likelihood of recidivism

■ System collaboration and coordination is necessary to create safe, stable relationships and

environments

■ Delivery of appropriate services that are trauma informed and culturally/gender appropriate
PRODUCING A NATIONALLY 

REPRESENTATIVE INCIDENCE 

RATE FOR DUAL SYSTEM 

CONTACT 
 

Designing a Methodology for a Nationally 

Representative Study 

Assess Capacity for Using

Linked Administrative Assess Availability of 

Data in Nationwide Study Child Welfare Data 

Nationwide 

Assess Availability of Determine How to Juvenile Justice Data 

Nationwide Identify a Nationally 

Representative Sample 

Please see full report for a description of these results: 

https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/ojjdp-dualsystem-youth-design-study-summary-findings-andrecommendations Recommend Approach and

Methodology for Measuring the 

Incidence of Dual System Youth 

Nationwide 
 

 

 

 

Assessing Capacity to Use Linked 

Administrative Data 

Child Welfare Data Juvenile Justice Data 

•Some consistency for

federal reporting

•Statewide databases in all

states

Good 

News 

•Different administrative

approaches

•13 states do not currently

use federal SACWIS system

•Variability in data quality

Not So 

Good 

News 

•JJ administered differently across the

nation

•No federal mandate/resources to

incentivize consistent data collection

•Both the types of data & the

measures available vary widely across

jurisdictions

Not So 

Good 

News 

•About 50% of states appear to have

the capacity to link CW & JJ data

(Fromknecht, 2014)

•AISP Network includes 35

states/jurisdictions, covering about

53% of nation’s population

Good 

News 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investing in Linked Administrative Data 

■ Need resources and incentives to (1) improve data at jurisdictional and state levels, 

and (2) build technical capacity to link data-–either internally or through external 

partners 

■ The potential value of investment is substantial 

– Encourages and supports information sharing and collaborative practice 

– Streamlines case planning and makes it more comprehensive and family-focused 

– Establishes a foundation from which to document the incidence of dual system 

youth (e.g., the Los Angeles Replication Study) 

– Establishes a foundation for evaluating programs 

■ Challenges exist but are surmountable as researchers develop increasingly secure 

methods to link data while protecting the confidentiality of those who are reflected in 

the data 
INTEGRATED SYSTEM BEST 

PRACTICES & THE BEST 

PRACTICES RUBRIC 
 

 

Identifying Integrated System Best Practices 

and the Best Practices Rubric 

Access to Crossover 

Youth Practice Model Analyzed the Practices Data & Site Visits Implemented by Sites and their 

Youth Outcomes 

Summarized Strengths and Identified Key 

Challenges from Site Visit Domains Capturing 

Observations Best Practices 

Proposed Best Practice Rubric 

to Assess Developmental Stage 

of Integrated Systems Work 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crossover Youth Practice Model 

(CYPM): Center for Juvenile 

Justice Reform 

■ The CYPM has four overarching goals:

– Reduction in the number of youth crossing over

and becoming dually-involved;

– Reduction in the number of youth placed in

out-of-home care;

– Reduction in the use of congregate care; and

– Reduction in the disproportionate

representation of youth of color, particularly in

the crossover population

https://cjjr.georgetown.edu/our-work/crossover-youth-practice-model/ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information Sources 

1.CYPM Checklists 

• Jurisdictions

complete a checklist

of practices

implemented during

the CYPM

consultants’

involvement.

CYPM Survey Data 

•Survey data with

participating CYPM

sites indicating

which practices they

developed as part of

CYPM and their

successes and

challenges of

implementation.

CYPM Outcome Data 

•Site-specific data on

youth identified as

dually-involved

during CYPM

implementation

•Data are captured

on these youth at

the time they were

identified as duallyinvolved and nine

months later.

Literature Review and 

Expert Input 

•A review of current

literature on dual

system youth.

•Review and

expertise with a

range of

practitioners and

researchers in the

field

Site Visits 

•Visits to 5

jurisdictions to listen

to discussions

related to successes

and challenges in

cross system work.
 

 

Top 10 Most Common Practices Implemented Across Jurisdictions 

Percent of jurisdictions who enhanced or implemented the practice or outcome (N = 41) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

92.7% 

92.7% 

87.8% 

80.5% 

78.0% 

73.2% 

73.2% 

73.2% 

70.7% 

68.3% 

Early identification of dual involvement 

Improved information sharing between JJ and CW 

Use of coordinated case supervision across JJ and CW 

Increase the use of diversion 

Increase youth engagement in decision-making 

Reduce the use of pre-adjudication detention 

Increase family engagement in decision-making 

Improved coordination with the mental health system 

Improved Coordination with Education 

Reduce the use of out-of-home placement 
 

 

 

 

Reflections on 

Implementation 

“Recognizing the tools that were already at 

each agency; it was a matter of 

communicating & realizing what the other 

had to offer & build our work off of that.” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflections on 

Implementation 

“Recognizing the tools that were already at 

each agency; it was a matter of 

communicating & realizing what the other 

had to offer & build our work off of that.” 

“One of our biggest struggles has 

been communication between JJ and 

CW. This is something we are still 

struggling with, but we are currently

planning a multidisciplinary training 

between JJ and CW with respect to 

crossover that should help to clear a 

lot of things up. We firmly believe that 

breaking down this barrier will greatly 

improve the effectiveness of [the 

initiative] in our community. Of 

course, with staff turnover this is an 

ever-evolving issue, but we are 

confident that we can make a 

difference, resulting in lasting change 

and understanding between these 

agencies” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflections on 

Implementation 

“Recognizing the tools that were already at 

each agency; it was a matter of 

communicating & realizing what the other 

had to offer & build our work off of that.” 

Challenges 

• Confidentiality and consents

• Different languages between agencies

• Each agency has a different role and relationship

with the client 

• Keeping up to date on protocols

• Not having a data system that is integrated across

agencies 

“One of our biggest struggles has 

been communication between JJ and 

CW. This is something we are still 

struggling with, but we are currently

planning a multidisciplinary training 

between JJ and CW with respect to 

crossover that should help to clear a 

lot of things up. We firmly believe that 

breaking down this barrier will greatly 

improve the effectiveness of [the 

initiative] in our community. Of 

course, with staff turnover this is an 

ever-evolving issue, but we are 

confident that we can make a 

difference, resulting in lasting change 

and understanding between these 

agencies” 
 

 

 

 

CYPM Outcome Data: Top 5 Areas of Improvement (n = 19) 

Considerations: 

• Data were collected to inform implementation and decision-making in jurisdictions

• Improvements were seen in 12 outcomes across these jurisdictions.

• If interested, a quasi-experimental evaluation was done on CYPM in 2016: Haight, Bidwell, Choi, & Cho,

2016
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Developing the Best Practices Rubric 

■ Analysis of CYPM data and the literature showed:

– Consistency in the type of practices jurisdictions were doing to achieve

better collaboration and coordination (i.e., integrated systems)

– Great variation in the extent to which jurisdictions had developed and

implemented these practices

■ Rubric was designed to capture

– Presence of best practices across 11 domains

– Domains separated into two areas: Infrastructure to Support CrossSystems Work & Identifying and Managing Dual System Cases

– The extent to which the best practice was implemented—i.e., what

developmental stage did a jurisdiction reflect
 

Rating a Jurisdiction’s Infrastructure to 

Support Cross-Systems Work 

Interagency 

Collaboration Training Information 

Sharing 

Data Collection Judicial 

Leadership 

Practice Not in Initial Efforts in Emerging Developed Highly Developed 

Place Place Practice Practice Practice 
 

 

Rating a Jurisdiction’s Identification & 

Management of Dual System Cases 

Case Planning 

& 

Management 

Identifying 

Dual System 

Youth 

Assessment Placement 

Plan 

Permanency/ 

Transition 

Plans 

Service 

Provision & 

Tracking 

Practice Not in Initial Efforts in Emerging Developed Highly Developed 

Place Place Practice Practice Practice 
BEST PRACTICES RUBRIC FOR CROSS SYSTEMS WORK 

Directions: Please complete the following rubric to the best of your knowledge by circling or indicating where you believe your jurisdiction falls in relation 

to each practice. The practices are listed vertically in the rubric and your responses will indicate how developed that practice is in your jurisdiction for 

each category of practices. Please read the description for each category of practice and indicate which description best reflects your jurisdiction. 

TYPE OF 

PRACTICE 

INTERAGENCY, 

INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT CROSS-SYSTEMS WORK 

Cross-system teams/ 

committees have not 

been established and key 

stakeholders have not 

been engaged. 

INITIAL EFFORTS 

IN PLACE 

Potential cross-system 

tea ms/committees and 

key stakeholders have 

been identified but 

not engaged. 

EMERGING 

PRACTICE 

Cross-system teams/ 

committees and key stakeholders have been 

engaged in the work 

but do not 

meet regularly. 

DEVELOPED 

PRACTICE 

Cross-system teams/ 

committees are 

established and 

meet regularly. Key 

stakeholders are 

engaged but not 

in a consistent 

manner. 

Cross-system teams/ 

committees are 

established and 

meet regularly. Key 

stakeholders are 

con sistently engaged 

and participate in 

ongoing review of 

the work. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

How Can the Rubric be Used? 

■ To identify which developmental stage a jurisdiction falls into by domain and 

overall  useful for training needs, drive practice, and evaluation 

■ Assess change in a jurisdiction over time 

■ To facilitate discussion and planning around integrated systems work at the 

local jurisdiction level 

■ To inventory cross-systems practice across the nation by placing 

jurisdictions/states on a developmental continuum of integrated systems 

work 

■ Validate best practices by linking to youth outcomes through administrative 

data 
BUILDING CROSS SYSTEM 

COLLABORATION: 

EXPERIENCES FROM 

MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO 

 

Why Does This Matter? 

With deeper and more precise knowledge of pathways, we can reframe 

the narrative around dual system youth and fundamentally 

change the cultures of both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems 

Trauma 

Informed 

Approaches 

Multidisciplinary

& Collaborative 

Assessment & 

Case Planning 

Holistic & 

Appropriate 

Programming 

Safe, Stable 

Relationships & 

Environments 

The result: Improving child welfare and juvenile justice systems for all 

youth, regardless of dual system contact. 
Thank you 

Questions and Answers 

Denise C. Herz, Ph.D., M.A. dherz@exchange.calstatela.edu 

Carly B. Dierkhising, Ph.D., M.A. cdierkh@calstatela.edu 

Richard N. White, J.D. richard.white@mahoningcountyoh.gov 

Please submit questions to “all panelists” in the Q&A box and indicate 

which presenter the question is for. 
 

Stay Connected 

NIJ Website: 

• nij.ojp.gov

Subscribe: 

• Receive email updates on publications, videos, webinars, and solicitations.

Text OJP NIJ [your email address] to 468-311 to subscribe. *Message and

data rates may apply.

Social Media: 

• Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/OJPNIJ

• Twitter – https://twitter.com/OJPNIJ