Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:58 am
Time: 12:58 am
Results for alternatives to incarceration (pennsylvania)
2 results foundAuthor: Kempinen, Cynthia A. Title: Pennsylvania's Motivation Boot Camp Program: What Have We Leanred Over the Last Seventeen Years? 2011 Report to the Legislation Summary: Act 215 of 1990 established Pennsylvania‟s State Motivational Boot Camp Program, which opened in June 1992. The Boot Camp, which serves as a six-month alternative program to traditional prison, was intended to provide a more intense rehabilitative setting conducive to achieving the goal of crime reduction. Act 215 of 1990 also mandated the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and the Department of Corrections to evaluate the program and to provide annual reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Act 112 of 2004, changed the reporting requirement from every year to every other year, with the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and the Department of Corrections alternating years. On October 27, 2010, Governor Rendell signed Act 95 of 2010, which removed the mandatory reporting requirement. The legislation, however, still provides that the Department of Corrections and Commission on Sentencing monitor and evaluate the program to ensure that program goals are being accomplished. Since 1993, the Commission has submitted 14 reports that have provided: 1) information on the utilization of the Boot Camp; 2) an in-depth profile of the Boot Camp Offender; 3) findings from a Offender Survey designed to measure programmatic success; and 4) results from its various studies examining whether the Boot Camp has achieved its goals of reforming offenders and reducing crime. In light of Act 195 of 2010, the current Legislative Report provides a reflective summation of what we have learned from our Boot Camp evaluations over the years, as well as findings from our latest study comparing the recidivism of Boot Camp graduates with offenders released from prison. Details: Harrisburg, PA: The Commission, 2011. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/state-motivational-boot-camp-program/ResRptBC2011Rev3.pdf#navpanes=0 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/state-motivational-boot-camp-program/ResRptBC2011Rev3.pdf#navpanes=0 Shelf Number: 120764 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Pennsylvania)Boot CampOffender RehabilitationRecidivismSentencing |
Author: Feldman, Lisa B. Title: Evaluation Findings: The Detention Diversion Advocacy Program Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Summary: General issues and trends in juvenile adjudication across the country are presented to illustrate the challenges facing juvenile correctional systems. One of the most pressing issues is the overrepresentation of minority youth in juvenile correctional facilities. During the early 1990’s, Federal grant guidelines required that States assess levels of minority youth incarceration and work toward reducing the overrepresentation of minority youth incarceration rates. After highlighting some of the outcomes of these Federal guidelines, the authors focus on juvenile detention challenges in Philadelphia. A historical context for juvenile justice in Philadelphia is presented, and spans the years 1970 through the 1990’s. In 2000, the DDAP program was designed to reduce overcrowding in Philadelphia’s juvenile correctional facilities, to reduce the disproportionate confinement of minority youth, to improve the quality of services, and to demonstrate that community-based services can serve as an effective alternative to juvenile detention. The evaluation of the DDAP program focused on the state of juvenile detention in Philadelphia and the social and political issues it had been dealing with, such as overcrowding. The evaluation also examined whether the DDAP program effectively monitored high-risk juveniles in the community and whether the DDAP community corrections program was an effective alternative to youth detention. Data were collected from 97 youth who participated in DDAP from December 2000 through December 2001. Demographic information, offense information, case information, and outcome information were all examined. The evaluation revealed that the DDAP program staff should have a greater presence in the courtroom to coordinate with judges about program referrals. Also, the goal of providing quality, treatment oriented services has not been fully met; the authors recommend that DDAP place a greater emphasis on connecting clients with other support services. Finally, the authors recommend that DDAP develop and implement an electronic case management and recording system to track clients. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Excellence in Municipal Management, The George Washington University, 2002. 19p. Source: CEMM Research: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/ddap_philly.pdf Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/ddap_philly.pdf Shelf Number: 126380 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Pennsylvania)Evaluative StudiesJuvenile Detention (Pennsylvania)Juvenile Diversion (Pennsylvania) |