Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:20 am
Time: 3:20 am
Results for california department of corrections and rehabilit
1 results foundAuthor: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research Title: 2016 Juvenile Justice Outcome Evaluation Report: Examination of Youth Released from the Division of Juvenile Justice in Fiscal Year 2011-12 Summary: Executive Summary As a division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) provides education and treatment to California’s most serious and violent youthful offenders and juveniles sex offenders with the most intense treatment needs. Today in California, most juvenile offenders are committed to county‐level facilities in their home communities where they can be closer to their families and community‐based treatment services that are vital to rehabilitation. As such, DJJ’s population has diminished in size and has become more serious with respect to their offense histories. Currently, DJJ’s population represents less than one percent of the estimated 86,823 youth arrested in California each year. The CDCR 2016 Juvenile Justice Outcome Evaluation Report presents the rate of recidivism of youth discharged from DJJ during Fiscal Year (FY) 2011‐12. This report employs multiple recidivism measures including rates for a return to DJJ, a return to the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI), or a return to either DJJ or DAI (i.e., any state‐level correctional institution) for a three‐year follow‐up period. Recidivism is also measured by tracking arrests and convictions (in California only) of the release cohort for the three‐ year follow‐up period. In FY 2011‐12, a total of 675 youth were released from DJJ and tracked for three years following the date of their release. As shown in Figure A, 37.3 percent of the release cohort (252 youth) were returned to state‐level incarceration (returned to DJJ or returned to DAI, combined) within three years of their release. The three‐year return to DJJ rate is 13.8 percent (93 youth) and the three‐ year return to DAI rate is 30.5 percent (206 youth). Of the 675 youth released in FY 2011‐12, 74.2 percent (501 youth) were arrested and 53.8 percent (363 youth) were convicted. In 2007, Senate Bill (SB) 81 was passed and continued the fundamental shift of keeping lower‐level juvenile offenders close to home so they could be near local treatment services and receive support from their families and the community at large. Only youth whose most recent sustained offense was listed under the Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC) 707(b), violent offenses, or an offense listed in Penal Code (PC) 290.008, sex offenses, (henceforth, “707(b)/290”) are eligible for commitment to DJJ. In addition, this legislation required that remaining non‐707(b) offenders be returned to the county of commitment upon release for community supervision, rather than DJJ parole. Due to the fundamental shift in the types of youth eligible for commitment to DJJ with the passage of SB 81, this report provides rates for the 619 released 707(b)/290 youth, as well as the 56 released non‐707(b)/290 youth. The rates for the 619 released 707(b)/290 youth were higher across all five measures of recidivism than non‐ 707(b)/290 youth. In addition to the overall rates, rates for the five measures of recidivism by youth demographics (e.g. race, gender, and age) and youth characteristics (e.g. commitment offense category, commitment offense and juvenile offender type) are also provided in this report. As discussed in the following sections, this report employs a different methodology than previous reports, therefore, the rates of recidivism presented in this report may be used as a baseline rate for future analyses conducted by the Department, however, direct comparisons between the rates presented in this report and previous reports cannot be made. In keeping with the CDCR’s goal of developing a comprehensive system of program evaluation, these recidivism rates may be used to monitor DJJ’s population over time, investigate the relationship between youth’s risk to recidivate, and to evaluate the effectiveness of DJJ programs, policies, and procedures. This report employs a different methodology than previous analyses of DJJ youth. While direct comparisons between past reports and the rates in this report should not be made, the recidivism rates presented in the following sections of this report may serve as baseline rates for future analyses conducted by the CDCR and in order to monitor changes in youth’s risk to recidivate over time. In February 2016, the class‐action lawsuit known as Farrell v Kernan was terminated after DJJ fully implemented sweeping reforms to the juvenile system. Among the many reforms was the implementation of the Integrated Behavior Treatment Model (IBTM), a comprehensive approach to assessing, understanding, and treating youth. The IBTM is intended to reduce institutional violence and the risk of future criminal behavior by working with youth to prioritize and achieve goals for successful community living. The DJJ adopted the IBTM as the foundation for developing and implementing the education, mental health, and treatment model for committed youth. The IBTM provides collaborative services and evidence‐based interventions and programs that develop youths’ skills for success. The data presented in this report pre‐dates some of the important reforms that took place near the conclusion of the lawsuit; therefore, more time is needed to fully understand the long‐term impacts of DJJ programs on recidivism. Details: Sacramento, California: California Department of Corrections, 2017. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2019 at: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Juvenile_Justice/docs/2016-Division-of-Juvenile-Justice-Outcome-Evaluation-Report-2-21-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Juvenile_Justice/Research_and_Statistics/index.html Shelf Number: 154202 Keywords: California California Department of Corrections and RehabilitCounty-Level Integrated Behavior Treatment Model Juvenile Justice Juvenile Offenders Recidivism Rehabilitation Youth |