Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:41 am
Time: 1:41 am
Results for juvenile corrections
106 results foundAuthor: Young, Wendy Title: Prison Guard or Parent? INS Treatment of Unaccompanied Refugee Children Summary: This report focuses on the treatment that children asylum seekers receive in juvenile correctional facilities used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain children. The report is based on site visits to eight centers that were conducted in August 2001 and interviews with INS officials, facility staff, detained children, and their lawyers across the country. Details: New York: Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, 2002 Source: Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116208 Keywords: ImmigrationJuvenile CorrectionsJuveniles |
Author: Roush, David W. Title: Managing Youth Gang Members in Juvenile Detention Facilities Summary: This resource manual addresses the issues of how an institutional administrator successfully resolves and controls the negative elements and factors associated with the incarceration of youth gang members, the extent of the problem, and what works and what does not work in the managing of youth gang members in juvenile detention facilites. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice, 2002 Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; National Juvenile Detention Association, Eastern Kentucky University Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113253 Keywords: GangsJuvenile Corrections |
Author: Defence for Children International. Palestine Section Title: Palestinian Child Prisoners: The Systematic and Institutionalised Ill-Treatment and Torture of Palestinian Children by Israeli Authorities Summary: This report documents the widespread ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children at the hands of the Israeli army and police force. It contains the testimonies of 33 children who bear witness to the abuse they received at the hands of soldiers from the moment of arrest through to an often violent interrogation. Children report being painfully shackled for hours on end, kicked, beaten and threatened, some with death, until they provide confessions, some written in Hebrew, a language they do not speak or understand. The report finds that these illegally obtained confessions are routinely used as evidence in the military courts to convict around 700 Palestinian children every year. Details: Jerusalem: DCI-Palestine, 2009 Source: Defence for Children International; Human Security Gateway Year: 2009 Country: Israel URL: Shelf Number: 114819 Keywords: ConfessionsHuman RightsJuvenile Corrections |
Author: Solomon, Enver Title: Out of Trouble: Reducing child imprisonment in England and Wales - lessons from abroad Summary: This report focuses specifically on international examples of policies and practices that are used in countries which have relatively low numbers of children in custody or have been developed and implemented in countries to reduce child imprisonment. This report looks at alternative sanctions that could be developed for use in England and Wales to reduce the number of children remanded or sentenced to custody. This report does not focus specifically on particular intervention or at preventative work. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2009 Source: King's College London: International Centre for Prison Studies Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 116543 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Martynowicz, Agnieszke Title: Detention of Children in Ireland: International Standards and Best Practice. Summary: Relatively little is known about Irish children who come into conflict with the law and much work needs to be done to identify the barriers children face exercising their rights in the criminal justice system. However, research undertaken in Ireland indicates that such children come from poor socio-economic backgrounds; many of them have lived out-of-home or been in care; they have weak attachment to family and invariably have problems with drugs and/or alcohol. They are typically early school leavers and mental health and behaviour problems are particularly prevalent among this group. Where these risk factors converge, the risk of being involved in criminal behaviour is multiplied. Through our investigation of individual cases in the Office of the Ombudsman for Children we are finding evidence of a system that is not designed to respond to these complex needs. We see the results of criminal behaviour taking precedence over the welfare needs of children and young people. The central ethos of the Children Act, 2001 is the diversion of children away from the criminal justice system. The approach taken in the Act, focusing on preventative measures and restorative justice mechanisms, is the right approach and the one which best protects the rights of children and young people in conflict with the law in line with Ireland's legal obligations. Through this approach, the complex needs of children can be addressed without the need to resort to youth justice measures. However, the implementation of non-custodial solutions for children in conflict with the law in Ireland is slow, and more needs to be done to make the principle of detention as a measure of last resort a reality When detention of children is deemed necessary, it should only be used for the shortest appropriate time. The conditions in which children are held and the support which they are to be afforded is laid out in detail in international standards which are described in this report. I have seen for myself in Ireland that the Children Detention Schools, operating under the umbrella of the Irish Youth Justice Service, employ many practices that aim to respect the rights of children in their care. The continued detention of boys in St Patrick's Institution (pending the construction of the National Children Detention Facility) remains a serious concern, and is not in compliance with international human rights standards. Having visited all of the Detention Schools and St Patrick's Institution, I am convinced that the detention of children in prisons must end. Of additional concern is the fact that I cannot investigate complaints from children held in St Patrick/s Institution due to an exclusion in the Ombudsman for Children Act, 2002. I therefore particularly welcome the recommendation contained in the report that supports both my own and the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendation to extend the remit of the Ombudsman for Children's Office to include the power to receive complaints from children so held. The system of detention of children in Ireland is currently undergoing a major change. This is a real opportunity to get things right from the outset and the best interests of children must be at the heart of any developments in this area. I believe that the future development of the system of Children Detention Schools should be centred on the principles of rights, rehabilitation and care. Details: Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2009. 96p. Source: Accessed May 19, 2017 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/Detention_of_Children_in_Ireland_FINAL.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Ireland URL: Shelf Number: 117594 Keywords: Human RightsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Gagnon, Joseph C. Title: Making the Right Turn: A Guide About Improving Transition Outcomes of Youth Involved in the Juvenile Corrections System Summary: This guide was developed to assist professionals in the workforce development system in gaining a better understanding of the needs of youth involved, or at risk of being involved in the juvenile corrections system. The "workforce development system" includes all national, state, and local organizations that plan and allocate resources, and operate programs that assist individuals in obtaining education, training, and job placement, as well as assist employers with training and job recruitment. Details: Washington, DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008. 61p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118405 Keywords: Education, Juvenile OffendersEmployment, Juvenile OffendersJob Training, Juvenile Offenders (U.S.)Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Rael, Roberta M. Title: Incarcerated youth Perspectives on Violence: The Voices from the Inside. New Mexico Incarcerated Youth Speak Out about Violence Summary: New Mexico has some of the highest rates of youth violence in the country. Suicide and homicide are the second and third leading cause of death for 15-24 year olds in New Mexico. In 2002, New Mexico was among the states with the highest rates of homicide and suicide for all ages. Youth participation in violence prevention work is integral: youth perspective has proven to be valuable to policy and program processes. Youth who participate have a sense of inclusion, involvement and empowerment. These are three basic components of developing a sense of personal value and self-esteem. The intent of this special project is to provide a voice from a segment of the community that typically does not have an opportunity to participate in program, policy and institutional change. This report reflects what incarcerated youth in New Mexico had to say about their own life history related to violence, how incarceration impacted their lives, and what risk and protective factors exist that will prevent or propel them into the adult system of incarceration after they are released from their current commitments. This information was retrieved through the use of focus groups that were designed specifically for this population of incarcerated youth. Details: Albuquerque, NM: Office of Injury Prevention, Injury and Behavioral Epidemiology Bureau, Epidemiology and Response Division, New Mexico Department of Health, 2007. 31p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119388 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (New Mexico)Recidivism |
Author: Jacobson, Jessica Title: Punishing Disadvantage: A Profile of Children in Custody Summary: This report shines a light on the level of disadvantage experienced by many of the thousands of children who end up in custody every year in the UK. Involving a census of nearly 6,000 children who entered custody in the last six months of 2008, the report found that the majority of those sentenced to custody in this period were convicted of crimes that would normally result in community sentences, with around half imprisoned for non-violent crimes. Detailed analyisis of the backgrounds of a sample of 200 sentenced children demonstrated the high levels of disadvantage they had experienced. Key findings included that: Three quarters had had an absent father and a third an absent mother; 48% had been excluded from school; One in eight had experienced the loss of a parent and/or sibling(s); 39% had been on the Child Protection Register and/or had experienced abuse of neglect; More than a quarter had been in care at some point; and More than 1 in ten had attempted suicide. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2010. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2010 at: http://www.outoftrouble.org.uk/sites/default/files/Punishing_Disadvantage_0.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.outoftrouble.org.uk/sites/default/files/Punishing_Disadvantage_0.pdf Shelf Number: 119867 Keywords: Disadvantaged YouthJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Victoria. Ombudsman Title: Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001: Investigation into Conditions at the Melbourne Youth Justice Precinct Summary: This report investigates the Melbourne Youth Justice Centre and the Melbourne Youth Residential Centre at Parkville that draws conclusions about: unacceptable conditions; improper conduct; inadequate quality of care; and non‐compliance with operational and legislative provisions, including human rights responsibilities and working with children checks. The report makes 27 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Department of Human Services. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, 2010. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 14, 2010 at: http://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/Investigation_into_conditions_at_the_Melbourne_Youth_Justice_Precinct_Oct_20101.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/Investigation_into_conditions_at_the_Melbourne_Youth_Justice_Precinct_Oct_20101.pdf Shelf Number: 119961 Keywords: Corrections OfficersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention FacilitiesPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrison Contraband |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Review Panel on Prison Rape Title: Report on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Correctional Facilities Summary: Based on survey data and public hearings this report spotlights a total of six juvenile correctional facilities -- three with the lowest rates of sexual victimization, and three with the highest. The report contains observations and recommendations to assist both practitioners and advocates in the juvenile justice community to eliminate sexual victimization in the nation's juvenile correctional facilities. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2010 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs/panel_report_101014.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs/panel_report_101014.pdf Shelf Number: 120083 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsPrison RapeSexual AssaultSexual Violence |
Author: Moore, Marianne Title: Juvenile Detention in Uganda: Review of Ugandan Remand Homes and the National Rehabilitation Centre Summary: In Uganda, children in conflict with the law are principally the responsibility of the Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development. However, the Uganda Police Force and the Judiciary of the Republic of Uganda are also important partners. Detained children are placed in one of the four remand homes in Fort Portal, Gulu, Naguru, or Mbale. In addition, the Kampiringisa National Rehabilitation Centre detains sentenced children from the whole of Uganda. This review of the remand homes and the national rehabilitation centre was carried out during August 2010 in association with the UK and Ugandan charity the African Prisons Project and the Ugandan Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development. An assessment was conducted in all of the functioning juvenile detention facilities against their compliance with international guidelines, particularly the United Nations "Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their liberty 1990 (“The Havana Rules”). The field work consisted of an in depth interview with a representative from each centre or home and a site visit. Interviews were also carried out with the Commissioner for Youth and Children and representatives from the Ugandan based Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI). Following an introductory overview of juvenile justice in Uganda, the report deals with the following subjects: Profile of children in conflict with the law; Safeguarding children; Juvenile justice system; Conditions of detention; Healthcare; Education and training; and Community reintegration. The report makes 36 recommendations, and ends with a conclusion which notes areas of good practice as well as elements which require immediate attention, including a suggestion that an independent auditor be employed to ensure that the welfare of the children in conflict with the law in Uganda is upheld. Details: London: African Prisons Project, 2010. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2010 at: http://www.africanprisons.org/documents/Juvenile-Detention-in-Uganda-October-2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Uganda URL: http://www.africanprisons.org/documents/Juvenile-Detention-in-Uganda-October-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120088 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2007-2008 Summary: In Australia, responsibility for juvenile justice lies with the states and territories, and involves both juvenile justice agencies and other justice agencies such as the police and the courts. This report presents information on one aspect of the juvenile justice process: the supervision of young people in the juvenile justice system. There were 4,708 young people under juvenile justice supervision on an average day in 2007–08 in all states and territories except New South Wales, for which data were not available, and 9,540 young people experienced supervision at some time during the year. Most young people were supervised in the community. Around 87% of those under supervision on an average day were under community-based supervision while 13% were in detention. One-quarter of young people who were under supervision during 2007–08 had both community-based supervision and detention during the year. The number of young people in detention on an average day in Australia (excluding New South Wales) rose from 540 in 2004–05 to 630 in 2007–08—a 17% increase. The rate of young people aged 10–17 years in detention during the year increased from 1.7 per 1,000 to 2.0 per 1,000, indicating that a young person aged 10–17 years in 2007–08 was around 1.2 times as likely to be in detention during the year as a young person aged 10–17 years in 2004–05. In 2004–05, just over one-third of the average daily detention population was unsentenced but, by 2007–08, unsentenced young people in detention outnumbered those who were sentenced. The increase in the unsentenced population occurred for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people. Although only about 5% of young Australians are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, 40% of those under supervision on an average day were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. Their over-representation was particularly prominent in detention, where over half of those in detention on an average day and 60% of those who were unsentenced in detention were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. An Indigenous young person aged 10–17 years was 16 times as likely as a non-Indigenous young person of the same age to be under supervision in 2007–08, nearly 15 times as likely to be under community-based supervision as a non-Indigenous young person, and nearly 30 times as likely to be in detention. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2009. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 5: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/juv-5-10853/juv-5-10853.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/juv-5-10853/juv-5-10853.pdf Shelf Number: 120133 Keywords: AboriginalsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Krisberg, Barry Title: A New Era in California Justice Justice: Downsizing the State Youth Corrections System Summary: California created a statewide system of youth corrections facilities in 1941. The newly formed California Youth Authority (CYA) was considered a major progressive step forward in juvenile justice. Part of its focus in its early years was programming designed to keep youth close to their home communities. In its first three decades, the CYA population never exceeded 7,000. Leadership and policy changes in the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, started a long period of increase in the CYA population. By 1996, the number of incarcerated youth in the CYA grew steadily to over 10,000 youth. The rise was driven by several major factors: a fear that a growing California youth population was increasingly dangerous; a decrease in state funding to counties for local programs; and the cost savings to counties of sending youth to the CYA rather than county facilities or group homes. After 1996, the trend of a rising youth inmate population turned around, with fewer and fewer young people being held in the CYA. By the end of 2009, the CYA held 1,499 youth. This decline in the CYA population is the largest drop in youth confinement that has been experienced by any state. The research presented here attempts to examine the many factors that may have contributed to that “decarceration”. We also examine concurrent trends in crime, arrests, and the use of other, non‐CYA forms of custody for these youth. Details: Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, University of California, Berkeley; Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/A_New_Era_10-22-2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/A_New_Era_10-22-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120142 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Ericson, Matthew Title: Young People on Remand in Victoria: Guilt Yet To Be Determined: Balancing Individual and Community Interests Summary: This comprehensive report analyses current Australian and international trends in evidence-based prison policy in Australia and overseas. This includes a review of remand and its place within the criminal justice system. The report includes a statistical analysis of more than eleven thousand Victorian remandees incarcerated while awaiting trail between 2008 and 2010, with particular attention to the socio-economic background of remandees by age, gender and Indigenous status. The analysis highlights the accumulated disadvantage of young people involved in the criminal justice system, including high rates of unemployment and low levels of educational attainment. This landmark report concludes with recommendations for remand reform that promote social inclusion and community safety, and the health and well-being of disadvantaged young people, families and communities. Details: Richmond, VIC: Jesuit Social Services, 2010. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Docs/policy-and-advocacy/publications/Young_people_in_remand_in_Victoria_-_Balancing_individual_and_community_interests.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Docs/policy-and-advocacy/publications/Young_people_in_remand_in_Victoria_-_Balancing_individual_and_community_interests.pdf Shelf Number: 120900 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Victoria, Australia) |
Author: Leonardson, Gary R. Title: Assessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact in South Dakota Summary: Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) has been documented in research over the past three decades. In many studies, racial disparities have been found within various stages of the juvenile justice system. The results of the most recent research differ from the previous DMC reviews in that a greater proportion of the recent studies showed inconclusive results. Research that is more recent has used multiple factors with more sophisticated research and statistical techniques, while earlier studies mainly focused on ethnicity. Factors, besides the differential handling of minority youth, which have been found to be related to confinement or other decisions in the juvenile justice system are: gender, geography, age, prior criminal history, family factors, peers, experiences in school, differential offending of minority youth, differential opportunities for prevention and treatment, substance abuse, and related factors. An effective and comprehensive DMC assessment must consider multiple factors and use varied research methods. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the current analyses of DMC in South Dakota. Focus group methodology was the qualitative procedure employed, and various univariate and multivariate statistical procedures were used for the quantitative analyses of the available data. Quantitative Findings -- · Native Americans are more likely to be arrested. · Native Americans are more likely to be detained after arrested. · No difference by race was found in adjudicated/not adjudicated. · Native Americans are more likely to be adjudicated to DOC. · No difference by race was found in detention time for those adjudicated. · No difference by race was found in incarceration time for those adjudicated. · No difference by race was found in probation time for those adjudicated. · No difference by race was found in community service time for those adjudicated. · No difference by race was found in fine amount for those adjudicated. · No difference by race was found in restitution amount for those adjudicated. · No difference by race was found in driver’s license suspension time for those adjudicated. · No difference by race was found in placement in secure or non-secure facilities after commitment to DOC. · No difference by race was found in out-of-state placements of DOC clients in secure facilities. · No difference by race was found in any out-of-state placements of DOC clients. · No difference by race was found in secure placements of DOC clients after revocation. Qualitative Findings -- Focus groups are effective because they tap into common human interactions and tendencies. Attitudes and perceptions about common or complex concepts are developed in part by interactions with other people. In order to gain understanding of attitudes and perceptions, focus group methodology has been employed by many researchers. This methodology is a popular qualitative assessment technique that provides information that is difficult to assess through analysis of data sets or formal questionnaires, and it has been used to assess reasons for DMC. Focus groups were conducted at four locations across the state with 92 participants in 12 groups. One-half of the 12 focus groups were with youth in the juvenile justice system (e.g., probation, DOC commitments, etc.). Three focus groups were conducted with criminal justice practitioners such as judges, police department and sheriff’s office personnel, Court Service Officers (CSO) and Juvenile Corrections Agents (JCA). Additionally, three groups of parents who have adolescents in the system and providers of youth services were part of the focus group procedure. While most people tended to view multiple reasons for DMC (e.g., economics, racial and ethnic biases, family structure, gangs, substance abuse, loss of identity, etc.), some held that racial prejudice by practitioners (i.e., law enforcement, judges, etc.) was the prime reason. Others felt that the social system in general was biased, limiting the opportunities for minorities in the areas of employment, education, economic development and related areas. However, minority youth in the focus groups appeared to see less racial/ethnic bias in the juvenile justice system than did participants in the parent/provider groups. The reasons given for DMC in South Dakota include: · Prejudice or biased treatment of minorities. · Close scrutiny of law enforcement and store owners/staff of minority adolescents. · Differences in laws, mores, and cultural values between reservation and non-reservation areas. · Cultural differences concerning the importance of formal education between whites and other groups. · Greater numbers of single parent families, resulting in lack of structure in minority families. · Truancy and dropout rates are believed to be higher in minorities. · Substance abuse is viewed as higher among minority adolescents. · Excessive gang membership by minority juveniles. · Poverty and unemployment was thought to be higher in minority groups. Solutions to DMC and/or Delinquency in General: · Cultural sensitivity/diversity training for persons in the juvenile justice system. · Hire more minority staff members throughout the juvenile justice system. · Mentoring programs which match responsible adults with adolescents in need. · Tribal truancy courts. · Better communication between leaders of reservation communities and nearby or magnate non-reservations communities. · Teach traditional Native American culture to urban Indians. · Teach parenting skills, including making parents responsible for the actions of their children. · More and better services in the areas of advocacy, counseling, parenting, education, intervention, treatment, and related areas. · Use the strengths of Native American and other minority cultures in dealing with problems of delinquency. Intervention Programs found to be Helpful in Ameliorating DMC or Delinquency in General · Mentoring programs · Dropout prevention programs · Home visitation programs · After school recreation programs · Gang resistance training programs Details: Dillon, MT: Mountain Plains Research and Evaluation, 2005. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://doc.sd.gov/about/grants/documents/FullDMCReportFinal.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://doc.sd.gov/about/grants/documents/FullDMCReportFinal.pdf Shelf Number: 121200 Keywords: Discrimination in Juvenile Justice AdministrationDisproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice Systems (South Dakota)Minorities |
Author: Pinney, Leah Title: Pepper Spray in the Texas Youth Commission: Research Review and Policy Recommendations Summary: This report summarizes the results of research on the physical and psychological impact of pepper spray on youth held in Texas state custody, as well as the potential legal ramifications of its expanded use in Texas Youth Commission facilities. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2007. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2011 at: http://www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/files/userfiles/juvenilejustice/tcjc_publications/Pepper_Spray_in_TYC.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/files/userfiles/juvenilejustice/tcjc_publications/Pepper_Spray_in_TYC.pdf Shelf Number: 121256 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Texas)Pepper Spray |
Author: Ombudsman for Children and Young People Title: Young People in St. Patrick’s Institution Summary: St. Patrick’s Institution is a closed, medium security prison managed by the Irish Prison Service, which holds remand and sentenced young people between 16 and 21 years of age. Adjacent to Mountjoy Prison in Dublin, the Institution’s main buildings are part of a Victorian prison complex dating back to 1850 and were the site of the women’s prison before becoming a place of detention for young offenders. The Institution has a bed capacity of 217. This capacity is spread across four different ‘divisions’ or wings. The majority of young people under 18 detained in St. Patrick’s Institution are accommodated in B Division. With a bed capacity of 44, this division comprises single occupancy cell accommodation with in-cell sanitation. When this capacity is exceeded, young people have to double up and share a cell. Young people under 18 may also be held on C3 landing in C Division, which is the landing for prisoners in the Institution who are placed or request to be placed on protection. They may also be accommodated in D Division, which is the drug-free division in the Institution. The number of young people under 18 detained in the Institution at any one time is slightly less than one third of the prison’s total population and rarely exceeds 60 to 65 young people. Statistics provided by the Irish Prison Service indicate that in early November 2010, when this report was being finalised, there were 46 young people under 18 being detained in the prison, 33 of whom have been in custody previously, either under sentence or on remand. Of the 46 young people under 18, 28 were serving a sentence, 2 for a period of less than 3 months, 17 for between 6 months and one year, and 9 for a period of more than one year. As regards the offences that young people were serving sentences for, the highest number were for burglary (4 young people), assault (4 young people), assault causing harm (3 young people), criminal damage (3 young people), and unauthorised taking of an MPV (3 young people). Under the exclusions set out in Section 11 of the Ombudsman for Children Act, 2002, young people under 18 detained in prison are outside the OCO’s investigatory remit (11(1)(e)(iii)). The OCO’s consultation with young people in St Patrick’s Institution was conducted in accordance with the OCO’s statutory obligations under Section 7 of the 2002 Act to: • consult regularly with groups of children and young people; • highlight issues relating to children’s rights and welfare that are of concern to children and young people themselves; advise Ministers on matters relating to the rights and welfare of children; • monitor and review the operation of legislation relating to children; • encourage public bodies to develop policies, practices and procedures that promote the rights and welfare of children. The Ombudsman for Children has raised concerns about the situation of young people in St. Patrick’s Institution at national and international levels on a number of occasions, including in her 2006 Advice on the proposed changes to the Children Act, 2001, in her 2005 and 2007 Annual Reports as well as with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2006 and with the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in November 2007. These concerns related to the exclusion of children in prison from her investigatory mandate; the detention of children in adult facilities and alongside adults; and the material conditions of the prison. The OCO’s consultation with young people in St. Patrick’s Institution also builds on: • a previous visit by the Ombudsman for Children to the Institution in November 2007; • an invitation from the Governor to the Ombudsman for Children to meet with young people committed there, which provided the basis for a visit by OCO staff to the prison in 2008; • commitments made by the State in its response to the Council of Europe’s CPT report of 2007, which indicated the State’s openness to visits by the Ombudsman for Children to the Institution. In accordance with provisions under Section 7 of the 2002 Act, the overall aim of this project has been to conduct a consultation with young people under 18 years of age in St. Patrick’s Institution about their experiences of and perspectives on their lives and different aspects of the regime in the Institution. In fulfilling this aim, the Ombudsman for Children’s Office worked to achieve the following project objectives: • to hear directly from young people about their experiences of detention in St. Patrick’s Institution; • to encourage young people to take on responsibility; • to highlight young people’s concerns and ideas for change as regards their situations and conditions in the Institution; • to facilitate due consideration, as appropriate, of the young people’s views and ideas at management level in the Institution and at senior national policy and political levels; • to develop constructive working relationships between the Ombudsman for Children’s Office and both the Irish Prison Service and management and staff in St. Patrick’s Institution, which can be built on in the future. Details: Dublin: Ombudsman for Children's Office, 2011. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2011 at: http://www.oco.ie/assets/files/St%20Pats%20Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.oco.ie/assets/files/St%20Pats%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121300 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Ireland)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Carr, L.J. Title: Dialectical Behavior Therapy: Evidence For Implementation in Correctional Settings Summary: Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) is an approach to mental health treatment that combines the techniques of standard cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with elements from the behavioral sciences, dialectical philosophy, and Zen and Western contemplative practice. It was developed by Marsha M. Linehan in the late 1970s to treat women with the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and is the first and only therapeutic approach whose effectiveness in treating BPD has been strongly supported when subjected to an experimentally designed study. Repeated studies over a twenty-year period have established its effectiveness in treating women and men with emotional instability, cognitive disturbances, self-harming behavior, chronic feelings of emptiness, interpersonal problems, poor impulse control and anger management. More recent research also strongly supports the utilization of DBT in effectively treating individuals with the varied symptoms and behaviors associated with spectrum mood disorders, self-injury, sexual abuse, and substance abuse. Research on DBT applications in correctional settings, although limited in terms of number and scope, has produced promising results. This report presents evidence on the effect use of dialectical behavior therapy in juvenile correctional settings. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research, Juvenile Justice Research Branch, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/DBT+Evidence+Draft+04+06+2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/DBT+Evidence+Draft+04+06+2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121450 Keywords: Behavior TherapyCorrectional Treatment ProgramsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention FacilitiesMental Health Treatment |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2008-09 Summary: In Australia, around 7,200 young people were under juvenile justice supervision on any given day in 2008-09. Most (90%) were under community-based supervision, with the remainder in detention. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people continue to be over-represented, particularly in detention. This report presents information on the young people under community-based supervision and in detention and the type and length of their supervision. For the first time, detailed information on all community-based orders supervised by juvenile justice agencies is presented, as well as new analyses on the remoteness and socioeconomic status of young people's usual residence. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2011. 204p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series, Number 7: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737418606&libID=10737418605&tab=2 Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737418606&libID=10737418605&tab=2 Shelf Number: 121455 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Australia)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hartney, Christopher Title: Bed Space Forecast for Baltimore Youth Detention Facility Summary: This report describes the National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s forecast of future bed space needs for youth detained in the adult criminal justice system in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. These youth are processed and, if necessary, detained in the adult system — currently in the Juvenile Unit of the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC)— after either being charged with certain crimes that require their automatic involvement in the adult justice system (known as an automatic waiver) or being sent to the adult system by a juvenile court judge (known as a judicial waiver). The State is currently considering options for housing these youth, as the present facility is inadequate. A new facility is in the planning stages and is designed to hold 180 youth, based on a forecast completed by the State in 2007. In a 2010 report by NCCD, the earlier forecast was found to overestimate the number of beds needed in a new facility. Subsequently, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Corrections Services (DPS), along with two local foundations, the Open Society Institute – Baltimore and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, asked NCCD to perform this new forecast to assist in the decision-making process. This report first describes the project’s data sources, methodological assumptions, and results of an examination of trends and circumstances related to arrest and detention rates in Baltimore City and other jurisdictions. It then describes the methods used to perform the forecast and presents the forecast findings, that is, the estimated number of beds the City will require over the next three decades for youth detained in the adult criminal justice system. Finally, the report describes a set of “scenarios” that give estimates of bed space needs if certain changes were made to the way youth are processed. These scenarios represent a few options among many that the State and stakeholders can consider as a means to minimizing the number of youth held in secure custody and, when detention is found to be required, ensuring that youth are held in the most appropriate setting. Details: Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/NCCD_Bed_Space_Forecast_for_Baltimore_Youth_Detention_Facility_5_12_11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/NCCD_Bed_Space_Forecast_for_Baltimore_Youth_Detention_Facility_5_12_11.pdf Shelf Number: 121823 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Baltimore, MD)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Review of Full Searches in the Secure Estate for Children and Young People Summary: The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB), as commissioner of secure accommodation for children and young people, takes as its starting point that the use of full searches should be kept to the minimum required to ensure the safety of young people and staff. The YJB, furthermore, considers this issue in relation to the rights of children and young people, and the balance that needs to be struck between those rights and the absolute requirement to ensure the safety and wellbeing of young people and staff in secure establishments. This review outlines the current use and purpose of full searches in the secure estate for children and young people. It provides an overview of the legislative and policy context, both centrally and at establishment level, and details monitoring arrangements in these areas. In addition, the review highlights examples of emerging good practice. Twelve establishments were visited, and interviews with key members of staff, including governing governors, directors and safeguarding managers, were conducted. The views of young people were also sought and analysed. A detailed methodological overview is provided at the end of this report. The review did not consider the young women’s young offender institution (YOI) estate, as this would complement work already conducted as a result of the publication of The Corston Report. In conducting this review, the YJB is fulfilling obligations made in response to previous reviews into this area of practice. This will include assessing the implications of the findings on existing contracts and monitoring arrangements. Findings from this review form part of YJB-led work that has followed the publication of the Carlile Inquiry and the YJB’s Review of Safeguarding in the Secure Estate for Children and Young People. When reviewing this area of operational practice in the secure estate for children and young people, the different legal, statutory and cultural contexts characterising each sector needed to be taken into account. An overview of the legislative contexts governing full searches is provided in Annex 1 of this document. The reviewers found that full-searching practice was consistent across all sectors and underpinned by clear guidelines. These guidelines ensure that young people are at no time fully undressed, and that they are searched by staff of the same sex. However, the location where a full search is carried out varies. Inevitably, the quality of reception areas and procedures varied between sectors and establishments. While full-searching practice was fairly similar across the estate, levels of full searches conducted varied significantly. The main factor determining the number of full searches conducted was the relative number of the remand population. Other factors included the number of young people on Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) or mobility. YOIs routinely carried out full searches beyond the extent required by the rules for the sector. In principle, the YJB believes that full searches should only be used following an assessment of risk. This principle should be the starting point for practice in all secure units. Only in circumstances where this risk-led approach can be shown to be unable to ensure the safety of young people and staff should routine fullsearching take place. In secure children’s homes, it is not envisaged that any routine full-searching should be necessary, due to their ability to supervise individual young people closely. In larger establishments, such as some secure training centres (STCs) and YOIs, it may be necessary to routinely full search young people on first reception into the establishment, if the numbers of young people being received is high, and subsequent pressures on the service adversely affect the ability to ensure the safety of young people and staff. Secure establishments should be able to justify a decision to routinely full search on reception, and should strive to achieve a position where it is minimised. It is considered that all other full searches – such as on return from ROTL/mobility, on transfer or discharge – as well as full searches following room searches or visits – should be based on prior risk-assessment. In very exceptional circumstances, force is used to full search a young person. While these incidents are very rare, differences in recording and reporting processes remain both at establishment level, as well as centrally. The recording of full searches is highlighted as an area in need of improvement to ensure young people are adequately safeguarded and that the use of force is kept to a minimum. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/youth-justice/improving-practice/Review-of-Full-Searches-in-the-Secure-Estate-forChildren-and-Young-People.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/youth-justice/improving-practice/Review-of-Full-Searches-in-the-Secure-Estate-forChildren-and-Young-People.pdf Shelf Number: 121883 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (U.K)Juvenile Inmates |
Author: Berelowitz, Sue Title: 'I Think I Must Have Been Born Bad': Emotional Wellbeing and Mental Health of Children and Young People in the Youth Justice System Summary: This report illustrates the importance of addressing the mental health and emotional wellbeing of young people in juvenile detention facilities in the UK. The report is based on a year-long observational study of 19 establishments and services. The report concludes that there is a lack of consistency and wide variation in the type, level and quality of measures put in place to support the emotional wellbeing and good mental health of children in the youth justice system and specifically, in the children and young people’s secure estate. It report recommends that: •children should be placed in units of no more than 150 •staff-child ratios should be small enough to ensure meaningful relationships with key workers •all children should have a health screening assessment on entering custody •re-settlement plans should ensure children are well supported when they leave custody •all children’s prisons should be inspected by an inspectorial body with expertise in inspecting closed institutions. Details: London: Children's Commissioner, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 121885 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice Systems (U.K.)Juvenile OffendersMental Health Services |
Author: Gear, Sasha Title: Fear, Violence and Sexual Violence in a Gauteng Juvenile Correctional Centre for Males Summary: During December 2004 and January 2005, the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) conducted fieldwork for a survey with young offenders held at the Boksburg Youth Correctional Centre (BYC), a medium security institution for male juvenile offenders. The aim was to investigate their experiences related to violence, sex and sexual violence in prison. The survey was envisaged as the first step in a pilot project to work with BYC staff to develop strategies to prevent and respond to sexual violence at the youth centre. The stigma, taboo and fear layered into the subject matter (sexual violence and male victims) and the context of the research (prison), as well as the mainly quantatitive survey methodology, likely limited what respondents were willing and able to share with us. Nevertheless, substantial and useful findings emerged. Our intention was not to “expose” conditions in BYC as a specific institution. Rather it was to prepare the way for the pilot and to draw learnings that could also potentially benefit other correctional centres and organisations working with offenders, at the same time as building better understanding of our youth behind our bars. This brief outlines the young men’s reports of fear and violence including sexual violence in the institution. Details: Braamfontein, South Africa: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2007. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: CSVR Criminal Justice Programme, Briefing Report No. 02: Accessed July 8, 2011 at: http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/gender/fearviolence.pdf Year: 2007 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/gender/fearviolence.pdf Shelf Number: 122011 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionPrison RapePrison Sexual Violence (South Africa) |
Author: Allen, Rob Title: Last Resort? Exploring the Reduction in Child Imprisonment 2008-11 Summary: The number of children under 18 who are imprisoned in England and Wales has fallen by a third over the last three years, from about 3,000 in the first half of 2008 to around 2,000 in the first part of 2011. This unexpected fall represents the largest decline in custody for children since the 1980’s. It does not reflect a broader trend in the use of custody, which has risen for adults. The fall has been largely brought about by fewer children being sentenced to Detention and Training Orders with particularly marked declines in the numbers of younger children and girls. Declines have been particularly marked in large conurbations. The falls have not applied as much to black and minority ethnic children as to white. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/lastresort.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/lastresort.pdf Shelf Number: 122106 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Cummings, Katina Title: Gender Matters: Meeting the Physical and Mental Health Needs of Detained Girls Summary: This report presents the April 2008 policy recommendations to the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center which led to staffing and structural changes. Details: Chicago: Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, 2008. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2011 at: http://hmprg.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gendermatters.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://hmprg.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gendermatters.pdf Shelf Number: 122633 Keywords: Female Juvenile OffendersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention Facilities (Chicago)Mental Health Services |
Author: Queensland. Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Title: Views of Young People in Detention Centres Queensland 2011 Summary: This report details the Commission’s third Views of Young People in Detention Centres Survey. The survey provides an opportunity for young people in Queensland’s youth detention centres to share their views and experiences of detention and the youth justice system, particularly on matters that affect their safety and wellbeing. This survey is one of many ways the Commission is monitoring the safety and wellbeing of Queensland’s most vulnerable children and young people. It is part of the Commission's Views of Children and Young People Survey series – an ongoing body of research that gathers the views and experiences of children and young people in foster and kinship care, residential care and youth detention. The Views Survey series is the largest repeated cross-sectional longitudinal study of its kind involving the direct participation of children and young people in state care. The Commission conducts these surveys so that the views and experiences of children and young people in state care can be heard and seriously considered in processes to continuously improve the safety, quality and effectiveness of Queensland's child protection and youth justice systems. Details: Brisbane: The Commission, 2011. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed September 16, 2011 at: http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/resources/publications/Views-of-Young-People-in-Detention-Centres-Queensland-2011.html Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/resources/publications/Views-of-Young-People-in-Detention-Centres-Queensland-2011.html Shelf Number: 122741 Keywords: Child ProtectionJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Australia)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Farabee, David Title: Implementation of the CYA-RSAT Programs: A Process Evaluation of the California Youth Authority’s Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Programs (Year 1) Summary: This report summarizes findings of a process evaluation of the Residential Substance Treatment (RSAT) Program of the California Department of the Youth Authority (CYA). Funded by the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, the CYA-RSAT program is operated at three institutional sites: (1) the Karl Holton Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Center in Stockton, (2) the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility in Chino, and (3) the Ventura School in Camarillo. As a result of the RSAT funds, each of these institutions has been able to enhance the treatment components of its existing Formalized Drug Programs (FPDs). The goal of CYA-RSAT as articulated in the original proposal is to provide a safe and chemical-free environment in which participants can: · Discover the thinking errors and faulty belief systems they use to justify their chemical-dependent behavior. · Acquire the skills necessary to modify these beliefs and behaviors which will enable them to adopt a sober lifestyle. In 1943, CYA began to provide training and parole supervision to youthful offenders. In an effort to reform these offenders, CYA moved quickly to establish camps and institutions which would house and provide education and training to youths formerly detained in state reformatories, county jails, detention homes, and army camps. Camps were established throughout the state as were institutions, including those that would accommodate older youths. In 1960, the Youth Training School opened in Chino, California. Known today as the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility (YCF), this institution was named after the CYA’s longest acting director who served from 1952 to 1968. Shortly thereafter, in 1968, the Karl Holton School for Boys was opened in Stockton, California. This school was part of a general population facility which housed male offenders ages 17 to 24, but, in 1994, was converted to the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Center. Today this institution is known as the Karl Holton Drug Abuse Treatment Youth Correctional Facility, a facility devoted exclusively to the provision of substance abuse treatment. In 1970, due to declines in the number of female commitments, the Ventura School for Girls (founded in 1913 and acquired by CYA in 1942) became a coeducational facility. Thus it is now referred to as the Ventura School. Earlier, in 1964, this facility became the site of the reception clinic for all girls entering CYA, and it remains so today. The process evaluation of CYA-RSAT sought to determine the extent to which program activities and services have achieved this goal and to assess the effectiveness of each program with respect to implementation. The evaluation was conducted by the UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center (DARC) located in Los Angeles. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center University of California, Los Angeles, 1998. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2011 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/rsat_rep.pdf Year: 1998 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/rsat_rep.pdf Shelf Number: 122772 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentJuvenile CorrectionsSubstance Abuse Treatment (California)Youth Adult Offenders |
Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration Summary: This report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration assembles a vast array of evidence to demonstrate that incarcerating kids doesn't work: Youth prisons do not reduce future offending, they waste taxpayer dollars, and they frequently expose youth to dangerous and abusive conditions. The report also shows that many states have substantially reduced their juvenile correctional facility populations in recent years, and it finds that these states have seen no resulting increase in juvenile crime or violence. Finally, the report highlights successful reform efforts from several states and provides recommendations for how states can reduce juvenile incarceration rates and redesign their juvenile correction systems to better serve young people and the public. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2010 at: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Juvenile%20Justice/Detention%20Reform/NoPlaceForKids/JDAI_DeepEnd_Embargoed.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Juvenile%20Justice/Detention%20Reform/NoPlaceForKids/JDAI_DeepEnd_Embargoed.pdf Shelf Number: 122990 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The Care of Looked After Children in Custody: A Short Thematic Review Summary: Children in the care of the local authority, or ‘looked after children’, are overrepresented within the custodial population. This thematic review, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, reports on the care of looked after children aged 15 to 18 in young offender institutions. It examines the experience of these children, using survey data and in-depth interviews. Case supervisors, advocates and representatives from safeguarding teams provide an establishment perspective on how the needs of looked after children are met in custody and in preparation for their release. Of the representative sample of young people we surveyed across young offender institutions over a quarter said that they had spent some time in care. With no central record held by the Prison Service or Youth Justice Board, our survey data is one of the best estimates of the overall proportion of looked after children in custody. Although most YOIs held an up to date list of looked after children, establishments seemed largely to rely on information arriving with the child to identity whether he/she was looked after. Several did not feel confident that they were all correctly identified, the first step to ensuring their needs were met. On the basis of our survey, we estimate that there are around 400 children in custody at any one time who have spent time in care. The most common reasons for children going into care are abuse, neglect or family dysfunction. It is perhaps unsurprising that in our survey those who said they had spent time in care reported more vulnerability and greater need than those who had not. To meet the complex needs of looked after children – not only to ensure their wellbeing in custody but also to support their successful reintegration on release – there must be collaboration between everyone involved in supporting them, which must include the involvement of social workers from the looked after children service of the local authorities responsible for their care. The looked after child’s social worker should support them during their time in custody and be involved in their preparation for release. However, custody safeguarding teams said that the involvement of local authorities was often dependent on the commitment of individual social workers and, worryingly, a third felt that some social workers tried to end their involvement while the young person was in custody. Attendance by social workers at training planning meetings was said to be poor, despite their key role. However, many establishments also needed to improve how they involved local authorities. In contrast, links with youth offending team workers were much better developed and their attendance at training planning meetings was good. Adequate and early planning for release was a key concern of establishment staff and young people. Several establishments viewed it as the local authority’s responsibility to make arrangements for looked after children and were not clear about their own role. Accommodation was often not confirmed until close to the young person’s release or, occasionally, even the day of release. This affected young people’s opportunity for early release and meant that some ended up in unsuitable accommodation. Only two young people of the 12 we interviewed had employment and/or education plans confirmed for release. They all knew what they wanted to do but needed support to arrange it. Despite these issues, young people, particularly those who did have plans in place, were optimistic about their release. Yet they rightly realised the importance of support from their social worker, youth offending team worker and other agencies. However, the follow-up information provided was concerning: one of the 12 looked after children was released without an address and one to unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. Two had an education or employment placement to start on release. A month later, only one child was attending education and three were back in custody. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities towards looked after children and have their own review and care planning processes. Although establishments said that staff would try to ensure that reviews were conducted on time, there was no formal monitoring and only seven of the 12 looked after children interviewed said they had had a review during their time in custody. Links between local authority care planning and young offender institution planning were poor. Only half of the young people said they had had a visit from their social worker or that they had received financial support or clothing. Although establishments are not accountable for the responsibilities of local authorities towards looked after children, they need to facilitate this process and should ensure that the entitlements of looked after children are being met. At several establishments, staff were unclear about the entitlements of looked after children. They pointed to the loss of internal social workers and a lack of national guidance for establishment staff setting out the roles and responsibilities of the young offender institution, local authority and youth offending team. Only four establishments had a dedicated or specialist lead for looked after children. Establishments without a lead felt this adversely affected the support looked after children received. In my view, the state has few responsibilities greater than its statutory responsibility towards looked after children. Even allowing for the damage they have sustained before coming into the state’s care and the challenging behaviour they may present when they do, that so many end up in custody is a cause for real concern. Our very limited follow-up information suggests that many looked after young people leave custody with inadequate support. This report sets out some of the reasons that might be so. Others have reached similar conclusions. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2011. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 7, 2011 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Looked_after_children_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Looked_after_children_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123005 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Reentry |
Author: New South Wales Ombudsman Title: Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre: Meeting the Challenges Summary: The NSW Ombudsman's office has a long standing interest in the operation of Kariong and we have undertaken a number of significant pieces of work concerning the facility. It opened in 1991 as a detention centre for adolescent boys operated by Juvenile Justice. In March 2000 we tabled a report to Parliament of our investigation into events surrounding four serious disturbances at the centre in 1999. The report criticised many aspects of the operation of the centre at that time, including the failure to provide appropriate programs and activities for what was a difficult and challenging group of detainees and a lack of individual case management. In December 2004 the then government transferred responsibility for Kariong to the adult correctional system and the Juvenile Offenders Legislation Amendment Act 2004 became law. The Act established Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre as well as classification and transfer arrangements for young offenders. At the same time as these changes were being made, we were conducting a legislative review of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Adult Detainees) Act 2001 which we concluded in November 2005. In our report of the review we made a number of recommendations concerning the management of inmates at Kariong. We have continued to conduct regular visits to Kariong as part of our visits program to custodial facilities, both when it was operated by Juvenile Justice and since its transfer to Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW). During these visits we take complaints from inmates, speak with staff to resolve issues and observe conditions and routines. Our ongoing work and interest in the centre means we have a detailed knowledge of Kariong’s operation under both Juvenile Justice and CSNSW management. Both agencies have experienced challenges in delivering appropriate programs and specialised services to such a small population and both agencies have had to contend with the site’s physical shortcomings. While CSNSW did significant capital works on the centre when it took over its operation in 2004, the fundamental design of the site is difficult to alter. The centre is built on the side of a hill and inmates are accommodated in one three storey building that overlooks the administration area. The conclusions of our current investigation indicate that CSNSW is managing a number of significant challenges at Kariong. Inmates are adolescent boys and young men aged between 16 and 21 years old. They are all maximum security inmates, on the basis either of their offence or their poor behaviour and are admitted to Kariong directly from the community or from Juvenile Justice. The centre can accommodate a maximum of 48 inmates in a total of four units and commonly has a population in the mid 30s. Of this number, some will be on remand and some will be sentenced. Some will have significant behavioural issues, others will be well behaved but have committed serious offences. There is considerable turn-over in a proportion of the population, with some inmates staying only a matter of days or weeks. Some will become eligible to return to Juvenile Justice or for transfer to an adult correctional centre but others will remain at Kariong for years. Providing appropriate programs and services to a group of adolescents with such diverse needs is particularly challenging in an environment where the numbers are so small. This is further exacerbated by the fact some inmates will be unable to associate with others for reasons to do with their offence or their history in custody. Getting the management of inmates’ right at Kariong is important, not just for the inmates but for the wider community. The occupants of Kariong are at an age and stage of offending where without significant intervention they may well continue into the adult criminal justice system, at both considerable personal cost to themselves and cost to the community. Their time in Kariong should be seen as an opportunity. Their incarceration presents what may be a final chance to work intensively with some of the most serious young offenders to try to divert them from what could be a lengthy criminal career. Details: Sydney: NSW Ombudsman, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2011 at: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/specialreport/SR_Kariong%20Juvevile%20Correctional%20Centre.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/specialreport/SR_Kariong%20Juvevile%20Correctional%20Centre.pdf Shelf Number: 123263 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Australia)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Meredith, Tammy Title: Projecting Confined Juvenile Populations In Georgia Summary: The Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is faced daily with the challenging task of balancing three primary goals: ensuring public safety, holding juvenile offenders accountable for their actions, and helping their clients to improve life skills. While this vision would appear to place the agency somewhere between the conflicting goals of law enforcement and human service, DJJ management articulates its task as an opportunity to make positive changes in Georgias juvenile justice system. This report presents the findings of the first in a series of research projects currently underway at DJJ. The three issues addressed in this report include (1) a thorough examination of Georgia's juvenile crime and population trends, (2) an historical analysis of DJJ's confined juvenile population (including detention and longterm institutions), and (3) five-year projections of the confined juvenile populations for the purpose of long-range planning. The goal of the current project is to provide Georgia policymakers with accurate information to make tough decisions about the allocation of scarce public resources. Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2000. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2011 at: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/ProjectingConfinedJuvenilePopulationsinGeorgia2000.pdf Year: 2000 Country: United States URL: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/ProjectingConfinedJuvenilePopulationsinGeorgia2000.pdf Shelf Number: 122589 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Georgia) |
Author: Magnani, Laura Title: Buried Alive: Long-Term Isolation in California's Youth and Adult Prisons Summary: The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is launching a national campaign, called STOPMAX, in May 2008, calling for the end of the use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons. It is the successor of a campaign which Bonnie Kerness, of the New York Metropolitan Region of the AFSC, conducted in the early 1990s, when the development of security housing units was beginning its ascent. In California, the premiere organization to focus on these new maxi maxi prisons has been California Prison Focus (CPF). Under the leadership of Dr. Corey Weinstein, Luis (Bato) Talamantez, Charles Carbone, Georgia Schreiber, Leslie DeBenedetto, Judy Greenspan, and many others, CPF has conducted interviews with prisoners in these units and reported their findings. AFSC owes a great debt to these courageous folks, along with our brothers and sisters inside who are living for years at a time under the extreme conditions described herein. The other debt we owe is to the lawyers and psychiatrists who have challenged prison conditions in California and stuck around for decades to help monitor compliance. That would include the Prison Law Office, Don Specter, Steve Fama, Sara Norman and others, as well as Jane Kahn, of Rosen, Bien & Galvan, and Sarah Chester from the California Appellate Project. On the psychology end of things, Terry Kupers and Craig Haney have both made huge contributions in bringing horrific conditions to light. These folks are our heroes in this work. This is not a story that the public seems to want to hear. However, if we continue to anesthetize ourselves to the horrors being committed in our names, there is no hope for positive change. In May 2007, the AFSC Arizona office published Buried Alive: Solitary Confinement in Arizonas Prisons and Jails. This report is intended to be the California story of isolation in the state prisons and juvenile facilities. Details: Oakland, CA: American Friends Service Committee, 2008. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on December 7, 2011 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Buried%20Alive%20%20PMRO%20May08%20.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Buried%20Alive%20%20PMRO%20May08%20.pdf Shelf Number: 123504 Keywords: Adult CorrectionsJuvenile CorrectionsPrisons (California)Solitary Confinement |
Author: Casey, Sharon Title: Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres. Part 1: Literature Review Summary: This report contains a detailed account of the published literature relevant to the delivery of effective programmes in youth training centres. This is important for several reasons: first it has been established that some programmes offered to offenders, even when delivered with the best of intentions, can work in opposite ways to those intended. In other words, some programmes increase, rather than decrease, the risk of a young person reoffending. The best examples of this comes from programmes like ‘Scared Straight’ (where young offenders are taken into adult prisons in an attempt to deter them from further offending), and boot camps (highly structured, physically challenging, residential programmes often run on paramilitary lines). Whilst significant efforts and resources have been allocated to the development and delivery of these types of programmes, evaluations have consistently shown that they do not produce the types of outcomes that they were intended to produce. In short, then, it is not always wise to trust our intuitions or personal beliefs about ’what works’ best for juvenile justice clients. Rather there is a need to evaluate different programmes against standard criteria, and base decisions about which programmes to offer on the basis of what can be shown to be the most effective. Indeed, this is the idea that underpins the notion of evidence based practice, and most health and justice organisations around the world would now subscribe to this approach to service delivery. That is not to say that programmes that have not been evaluated do not work, rather that we do not know whether they work. There is clearly an important role for development and pilot programmes, but these programmes should not form the basis for service delivery. By offering programmes that can be demonstrated to be effective, service providers become accountable to external agencies, young people and the community, and all stakeholders can have confidence in the quality of the services being offered. In this review, the evidence base underpinning effective programmes for young offenders is described. Evidence can come not only from programme evaluations, but also from theories about the causes of juvenile crime. Indeed researchers have shown that programmes that are based on a coherent theory are around six times more effective than programmes that are not. As such the first part of the review is dedicated to a review of different theories of crime. The focus here is on developmental theories of crime (that is, understanding how criminal behaviour changes as people grow older) as these are considered to be the most appropriate types of theory to guide programming decisions in youth justice. A number of different developmental theories are described, although there are many similarities between each of the theories. Each theory seeks to explain the way in which biological, individual, familial, social, and community and cultural factors interact with life events to create a situation where offending may occur. Such theories have led to the identification of both risk and protective factors for offending and how these may change at key transitional points (for example, starting school; moving from primary to high school; leaving school). This work is important as it suggests, theoretically, that if programmes and services can either reduce the number of (or intensity of) risk factors, or increase the number of protective factors, then they are likely to be effective in reducing the probability of a young person offending. In other words the theories offers important suggestions about what programmes should aim to change. There is now a reasonable body of evaluation research documenting the outcomes of a range of different types of programmes with young offenders. At the same time there are still many gaps in the literature – some of the research is conducted with older age groups (for example, young offenders are classified as from ages 15-21 years in some countries), and there is very little published research on effective programmes either for young women or for those who identify as from indigenous cultural backgrounds. However, evaluations have shown that programmes are more effective when they have certain characteristics, such as the types of person , the areas of functioning , and the methods used to bring about that change. For example, the most effective programmes are offered to those young people who are at the most risk of re-offending, address those areas of need that are most closely associated with the reasons why they offend (for example, substance use, associating with other offenders), and are delivered in ways that match the learning styles of adolescents (for example, structured and skills focussed). Perhaps unsurprisingly the most effective programmes are also delivered by highly trained staff who are well supported in their work. It is, however, clear that specialist programmes for juvenile offenders need to be developed such that they are age and developmentally appropriate. Programmes cannot simply be imported in from adult correctional settings. There is a limited research base from which to examine specific types of programmes, and in this review programmes for violent offenders, sexually aggressive offenders, and substance use are considered separately, along with the evidence for more generic programmes (such as cognitive skills and social skills programmes), programmes to improve family functioning (such as fostering programmes and multi-systemic therapy), and educational and vocational achievement. It is concluded that all of these programmes have an important role to play in any approach that seeks to meet the needs of youth justice clients. However, one programme is unlikely to meet all of the needs of a young person, and supplementary programmes targeting other areas (for example, health and education) also have an important role to play. Whilst this report is a review of the scientific and research literature, and has been written in an academic way that attempts to adequately describe the current knowledge base, the hope is that it will provide a stimulus for readers to think about how this evidence might inform their own practice. What is clear from this review is that the starting point for any review of programmes in the youth training centres has to be the theoretical and empirical evidence from Australia and internationally relating to what is currently known about what will work best for youth justice clients. In conclusion then, it is important for those involved in programme design and delivery to have some awareness of the literature reviewed in this report. Details: Adelaide: Guardian for Children and Young People, 2008. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2012 at: http://www.sapo.org.au/pub/pub10623.html Year: 2008 Country: International URL: http://www.sapo.org.au/pub/pub10623.html Shelf Number: 123691 Keywords: Correctional Program, JuvenilesJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersYouth Training Centers |
Author: Day, Andrew Title: Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres. Part 2: Consultation and Recommendations Summary: Over the last five years there has been much discussion in South Australia, and other parts of the country, about the ways in which government agencies can, and should, respond to the needs of those young people who are considered to be at risk, particularly those who are considered to be at risk of offending or re-offending. It is well known and widely accepted that young people who are categorised in this way are likely to have particularly high levels of unmet need across multiple areas of functioning, with ongoing difficulties related to substance use, mental health, family functioning, educational attainment, as well as specific needs in relation to their offending behaviour. The development of age and culturally appropriate services to meet this diverse range of needs in a timely manner presents a considerable challenge to government agencies and other service providers. Each Australian state and territory manages young offenders in a slightly different way. In South Australia, responsibility for the provision of juvenile justice services (remand, detention and the administration of all youth justice dispositions from the court) lies with the Department for Families and Communities, and specifically Families SA. There are two youth training centres in South Australia, Cavan and Magill, accommodating children and young people from the ages of 10 through to 18. In 2006-07 there were 1011 admissions to secure care representing 500 young people. Families SA has the lead responsibility for the provision of programmes to young offenders, through the relatively recently established Youth Justice Directorate. Since its inception the Directorate has shown a strong commitment to the delivery of interventions that are both needs focused and effective in preventing re-offending in the context of meeting its obligations to young people under the 1993 Young Offenders Act. This report has been prepared at the request of the Guardian for Children and Young People in South Australia. This is a statutory position that reports to the Minister for Families and Communities, and has a mandate for intervention that extends to all children and young people under guardianship or custody orders, including those in secure care on youth justice orders. The Guardian has an important role to play in informing the development of services in this area, and thus commissioned this review of programmes offered in youth training centres in South Australia. The need to review and develop programmes has, however, also been identified by the Youth Justice Directorate as a key improvement area in the Training Centre Action Plan, and by others such as the Social Inclusion Unit, and the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Youth Justice System (SA). Part 1 of this report is dedicated to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature relating to theories and practice in youth justice. This review has been written to provide an up to date account of the current status of evidence relating to programmes that are offered to clients of the Directorate that are intended to reduce the risk of further offending. In any organisation that aims to be ‘evidence-based’, it is important that decisions around the structure, management, and delivery of programmes are made in the light of what is currently known about programme effectiveness. Evidence can take two forms: theories and models about how to understand the reasons why young people offend, and hence their likely need for intervention; and evaluations and trials of programmes that have been used with juvenile justice clients. Developmental theories of crime consistently suggest that antisocial behaviour is the strongest underlying causal factor for criminal behaviour. These theories stress the socialisation process and subsequent social bonds that the young person forms as being paramount to the development of pro-social behaviour and, in our view, are particularly appropriate theories for accounting for juvenile offending. Part 2 of the review reports the findings of a series of consultations with a range of stakeholders, both government and non-government, about the current provision of services and programmes to youth justice clients. Representatives from a range of services and agencies (identified through discussion with the Guardian and the reference group) were invited to take part in the review. These included the Families SA Directorate of Youth Justice, Kumangka Aboriginal Youth Services, Victim Support Services, Social Inclusion Unit Department for Premier and Cabinet, Justice Strategy Unit Department of Justice, Breaking the Cycle (Families SA), Central Community Legal Services, Youth Affairs Council of SA, and Service to Youth Council. In addition focus groups were conducted with residents of both the Cavan and Magill Training Centres, and centre staff members were invited to respond to a questionnaire about the social climate of the centres. Whilst the primary focus of the consultations was on the provision of programmes and services within the youth training centres, it was immediately apparent that broader issues relating to the availability of community programmes, the legal context underpinning any work in youth justice, and the range of services offered by external agencies, were all of direct relevance to the types of programmes that might be both possible and appropriate within the centres. The term ‘programme’ as used in this report requires some clarification. It is used to refer to specific forms of intervention which aim to meet particular objectives, particularly those relating to the reduction in risk of re-offending. Programmes are therefore distinguished from ‘activities’ which are not necessarily goal directed. This definition is somewhat narrower than that proposed by Families SA in its draft Subprogram Development and Implementation Guidelines (November, 2007) which describes programmes as those services provided or coordinated by the agency as a result of the requirements of the juvenile justice system (although we note that one of the aims identified in the Training Centre Action Plan is to ‘engage children and young people in programmes and interventions which challenge and reduce their offending’). Details: Adelaide: Guardian for Children and Young People, 2008. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2012 at: http://www.sapo.org.au/pub/pub10623.html Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sapo.org.au/pub/pub10623.html Shelf Number: 123692 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Youth Training Centers |
Author: Schofield, Gillian Title: Looked after children and offending: Reducing risk and promoting resilience Summary: The research was prompted by concerns about the relationship between the care system and the risk of offending. Although a small minority of looked after children aged 10-17 offend in any one year (7.9 %), this is more than twice the rate of children in the community (3%) (Department for Education, 2011). But also of concern is the fact that between a quarter and a half of children in custody have been looked after (HM inspectorate of Prisons /YJB, 2009). Among adult prisoners, it is estimated that 27% have been looked after at some time (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). But it is important to bear in mind that these adults may only have spent a brief period in care, and have come into care in adolescence, when they may already have committed offences. There are also concerns that children in care are inappropriately criminalised by being brought to court for behaviour that should be dealt with outside of court. Almost all children in care are from backgrounds of deprivation, poor parenting, abuse and neglect, factors that together create risk for a range of emotional, social and behavioural difficulties, including anti-social and offending behaviour. However, repairing harm and promoting resilience through high quality care can occur at all stages in a child’s development, and especially in adolescence, thus providing windows of opportunity for change. The project was designed to contribute to improving the life chances of looked after children at risk of offending and criminalisation through the following aims: to identify risk and protective factors which increase or decrease the likelihood of offending by young people in care; to identify resilience factors that can be promoted in looked after children to reduce the likelihood of offending; to identify features of the care and justice systems which may increase/reduce the likelihood of offending and criminalisation of looked after children; to identify the key transitional/turning points which are opportunities for interventions to divert children from offending; to develop an evidence-based typology of looked after children and offending; to make recommendations for policy and practice. Details: London: Centre for Research on the Child and Family, University of East Anglia, 2012. 185p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/swp/research/centre/crcfnews/Looked-after-children-offending-report Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.uea.ac.uk/swp/research/centre/crcfnews/Looked-after-children-offending-report Shelf Number: 124160 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Reentry |
Author: Hall, Maximilian J.B. Title: The Economic Efficiency of Rehabilitative Management in Young Offender Institutions in England and Wales Summary: This paper analyses the efficiency of English and Welsh Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) during the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 accounting for the fact that prisons can both promote good behaviour but also generate undesirable outcomes. With these problems in mind, a new non-parametric program is estimated that allows both good and undesirable outputs/outcomes to determine the ‘best practice’ YOIs, giving policy-makers a basis for implementing cost reductions within the Criminal Justice System by using the ‘best practice’ YOIs as a beacon for good management of public resources. Apart from identifying such ‘frontier’ institutions, we show that, although the smallest YOIs are typically the most efficient, the size-efficiency relationship is quite complicated. This calls into question the wisdom of building ‘titan’ prisons in England and Wales which, perversely, might decrease the efficiency of rehabilitating young offenders. Details: Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Business School, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: NUBS Research Paper Series No. 2012-04: Accessed February 27, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992468 Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992468 Shelf Number: 124284 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation |
Author: Magnuson, Benet Title: Youth Experiences at Giddings State School : 2012 survey Findings Summary: The survey was conducted on January 4, 2012, at Giddings State School. All youth at the facility were invited to participate in the survey, and they were told the survey was voluntary, anonymous, and independent from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). Ultimately, 115 youth chose to participate. To reduce response bias, the interviews were conducted one-on-one in separate cubicles. The interview team was comprised of: 3 men and 5 women; 2 African American, 2 Latino, and 4 white; ages ranging from 20 to 44. Youth were surveyed about their experiences in state secure facilities, as well as their previous experiences in county secure facilities. In order to interview as many youth as possible, the survey was divided into short-answer and long-answer sections. 58 youth received only the short-answer section; 11 youth received only the long-answer section; and 46 youth received both the short- and long-answer sections. If a youth was unable to provide a clear answer on a question – for example, what county facilities he had stayed in – his response is omitted in the results. To gauge the reliability of the self-reported responses, the issues of safety and programming were assessed using both open-ended and closed-ended questions (including scaled and ordinal questions). The consistency across questions suggests the broad patterns reported here are an accurate reflection of the youths’ experience in the Texas juvenile justice system. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Colation, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2012 at: http://www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/files/userfiles/Giddings_Youth_Survey_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/files/userfiles/Giddings_Youth_Survey_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 124794 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile Offenders (Texas) |
Author: Swayze, Dana Title: Girls in Minnesota Correctional Facilities: Responses to the 2010 Minnesota Student Survey Summary: The Minnesota Student Survey (MSS) is a 127-item questionnaire administered every three years to 6th, 9th and 12th graders in Minnesota public schools. The survey includes a wide variety of questions related to youth attitudes, behaviors and health indicators. Ques - tions reflect a range of protective factors including connectedness to school, family and community, as well as risk factors such as drug and alcohol use, violence and victimization. The survey originated in 1989 with the most recent administration occurring in 2010. In 2010, 88 percent of school districts participated. In total, 71 percent of 6th, 9th and 12th graders (roughly 131,000 students) completed the 2010 MSS. Twenty-four residential juvenile correctional facilities with onsite education programs also participated in the 2010 MSS. This purpose of this report is to explore the unique experiences and responses of girls in Minnesota’s juvenile correctional facilities (n=103) as compared to boys (n=481). Understanding protective factors and risk factors related to delinquency that are influenced by gender can assist juvenile justice serving entities in providing services and interventions to the unique needs of females. This report seeks to illuminate statistically significant differences in responses between girls and boys in correctional facilities; to explore how these data are relevant to research on juvenile justice risk factors by gender; and to provide research-based recommendations for serving the specific needs of juvenile female offenders. Girls and boys in juvenile correctional facilities who participated in the 2010 MSS often had statistically significant differences in responses when self-reporting experiences and behaviors. The responses of girls generally support a wide body of research which posits that girls in the juvenile justice system have unique risk and protective factors or have a unique sensitivity to their effects. The following sections are selected content and findings from the report. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, Statistical Analysis Center, 2012. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/!2010%20Girls%20v%20Boys%20Corrections%20Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/!2010%20Girls%20v%20Boys%20Corrections%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 125128 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale OffendersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Minnesota) |
Author: Muntingh, Lukas Title: Report on Children in Prison in South Africa Summary: This report is an update to the situational analysis of children in prison in South Africa prepared by the Community Law Centre in 1997. The Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 (Child Justice Act), promulgated on 1 April 2010, introduced a markedly different child justice regime than that which was previously regulated by the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and the common law. This development, along with various others which have emerged since 1997 (e.g. child justice jurisprudence and government’s renewed focus on children in conflict with the law), has changed the way in which South Africa’s courts and correctional system deal with children in conflict with the law. Accordingly, an updated analysis on children in prison became necessary. The findings in this report are based on both quantitative and qualitative data from 41 Department of Correctional Services (DCS) facilities. The type of data collected included: individual interviews with sentenced and unsentenced children, numerical data from the DCS Management Information System (MIS), and relevant literature. The report is structured according to a selection of “child justice indicators applicable to imprisonment” developed by Unicef and UNODC. The use of these standardised categorisations means that the international comparison of the data collected can be conducted in a more efficient way. An important finding of the study is that the policies in respect of the services and activities available to children across the centres surveyed, are varied and inconsistent. These include, but are not limited to, information provided at admission, orientation of new admissions, conditions of detention, the segregation of children from adults, access to education, access to recreation and preparation for release. The DCS should make all efforts to identify such inconsistencies and align the services rendered with the requirements of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 (Correctional Services Act), subsidiary legislation and relevant policies. Practices compliant with the relevant legislation were identified at certain DCS facilities, demonstrating that the required standards can be met in the current environment and context. In this regard Brandvlei Youth Correctional Centre should be used as a benchmark example. Since 2003 the total number of children imprisoned in South Africa across all categories has declined rapidly from 4500 to 846 in February 2011. The substantial decline in total numbers does, to some extent, mask some of the shifts that have taken place in offence and sentence profiles. Children charged with and convicted of non-violent offences are now far less likely to be imprisoned. However, sentence tariffs for children have increased slightly; a trend reflected in the total prison population. The child imprisonment rate in South Africa (4.6/100 000) compares favourably with other developing countries (Argentina 39.3/100 000) and even some developed countries (USA 11.9/100 000). Based on snapshot data, children remain awaiting trial in DCS facilities for an average of 70 days. This is a considerable length of time. Moreover, the general lack of services available to such children (educational, social work, therapeutic, developmental and recreational) exacerbates the situation considerably. Of particular concern is the fact that children of compulsory school-going age in awaiting trial facilities are excluded from educational programmes and that conditions of detention are wanting in many regards in several facilities surveyed due to limited infrastructure, overcrowding and “staff shortages”. The situation in respect of sentenced children is noticeably better compared to their unsentenced counterparts, but there is room for significant improvements, particularly in relation to conditions of detention, the range and accessibility of services and programmes, and access to education for all children, especially those of compulsory school-going age. Child safety inside prisons is another reason for concern. Although difficult to determine if the mortality rate of children is of itself reason for concern, reports of violence (including sexual violence) and intimidation were received. The authors also found that the overwhelming majority of DCS officials working with children (sentenced and unsentenced) have not received specialist training on working with children, anti-bullying strategies, suicide prevention or conflict management. There was very little evidence that DCS take any specific measures to promote contact between children and their families, despite the legislative duty to do so. The children must purchase phone cards from their own funds and it is only at a few centres that children are supplied with stationery to write letters to their families. Children, without the necessary funds, are effectively cut off from their families. It was found that 40% of children had not had any visitors in the three months preceding the fieldwork. Details: Cape Town, South Africa: Community Law Centre, 2012. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 3, 2012 at: http://cspri.org.za/publications/research-reports/report-on-children-in-prison-in-south-africa Year: 2012 Country: South Africa URL: http://cspri.org.za/publications/research-reports/report-on-children-in-prison-in-south-africa Shelf Number: 125463 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (South Africa)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Prisoners |
Author: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services Title: Report on Female Offenders: Statistical Information on Girls and An Inventory of Services Summary: The report on Services and Programs for Females was required by Senate Bill 787 / House Bill 511 (Chapters 290 and 291, 2011 Laws of Maryland) enacted during the Maryland General Assembly’s 2011 session. This legislation directed the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) to report to the General Assembly on the manner in which the Department will use existing resources to ensure that females receive services that are substantially equivalent to those offered to males in fiscal 2013 and subsequent years. The General Assembly further required that the report include statewide and regional information on utilization of: (1) prevention and diversion services; (2) alternatives to detention, including day and evening reporting and shelter care; (3) the continuum of services for those committed to the Department for probation or residential placement, including evidence-based programs; and (4) educational and vocational training and services. In order to discuss the status of female offenders with DJS, and in order to provide the most complete discussion, this report is divided into 4 sections. Part I will present a statistical overview of females at each decision point in the juvenile justice system. This will allow for examination of trends and will provide a detailed look at a female/male comparison. Part II will provide a list of all services currently available for girls. This list will be presented by region as well as by counties within each region. Part III will provide the utilization of prevention and diversion services; alternatives to detention, including day and evening reporting and shelter care; the continuum of services for those committed to the Department for probation or residential placement, including evidence based programs; and educational and vocational training services. Part IV will discuss how the DJS work to use existing resources to ensure that females receive services that are substantially equivalent to those offered to males in fiscal 2013 and subsequent years. Details: Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, 2012. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2012 at: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Boys%20and%20Girls.Feb.2012.Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Boys%20and%20Girls.Feb.2012.Report.pdf Shelf Number: 125489 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates, FemalesJuvenile Offenders, Females (Maryland) |
Author: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services Title: “The Doors to Detention” A Study of Baltimore City Detention Utilization Summary: The Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) is a project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation through which a team of expert management consultants guided by the Juvenile Justice Strategy Group provides technical assistance to states and local jurisdictions to establish a more effective and efficient juvenile justice system. Baltimore City has participated in the JDAI for more than ten years with important system improvements occurring guided by the JDAI core strategies and principles. The purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of detention utilization for Baltimore City youth by means of a retrospective study of secure detention placements occurring between June 1 and July 31, 2011. Data were collected from ASSIST (DJS automated case management system), the DRAI instrument, and review of the individual records for the study sample which was comprised of all youth (n = 514) who were newly detained (either pre- or postdisposition) in the study period. Ways that youth entered detention or “doors” were prioritized yielding six mutually exclusive categories. Demographics, supervision status, average daily population, average length of stay, and offense severity were analyzed for the total group and for each of the doors. Key Findings • Baltimore uses detention more heavily than comparable JDAI jurisdictions, and in recent years the use of detention relative to the number of juvenile arrests has actually gone up. • It remains the case that Baltimore’s youth detention population is overwhelmingly black and male. • Most Baltimore detention resources go to youth who are awaiting adjudication before the juvenile court. • Most Baltimore youth placed in detention are already under some form of DJS supervision at the time of placement. • Detention in Baltimore continues to be used disproportionately to hold post-dispositional youth who are awaiting a committed out of home placement. • Most Baltimore detention placements are based on non-violent offenses. • The use of detention in Baltimore is driven overwhelmingly by policies and practices, rather than the offenses of or public safety risks posed by youth. • One of the fundamental challenges to controlling the use of detention in Baltimore is the existence of multiple, sometimes overlapping, pathways (“doors”) into secure detention. Based on these findings, the Department of Juvenile Services outlines ten opportunities to reduce unnecessary detention which exist at one or more of the doors into detention. Additional recommendations to enhance data quality are also put forth. Details: Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, 2012. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2012 at: http://www.djs.state.md.us/assets/Detention_Utilization_Report_Final_version_to_print.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.djs.state.md.us/assets/Detention_Utilization_Report_Final_version_to_print.pdf Shelf Number: 125490 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Baltimore, Maryland)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Florida. Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Title: Redirection Saves $51.2 Million and Continues to Reduce Recidivism Summary: Over the past five years, the Redirection Program has operated at a lower cost than residential juvenile delinquency programs and has achieved better outcomes. Youth who successfully completed the Redirection Program were significantly less likely to be subsequently arrested for a felony or violent felony, adjudicated or convicted for a felony, or sentenced to prison after treatment than similar youth who successfully completed residential commitment programs. The Redirection Program has achieved $51.2 million in cost savings for the state since it began five years ago due to its lower operating costs compared to residential delinquency programs. If the Legislature wishes to expand the program, it could consider authorizing the Redirection Program to treat certain juvenile sex offenders who are considered appropriate for community treatment and/or gang members; such programs would be less expensive than residential commitment. Details: Tallahassee: Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 10-38: Accessed July 20, 2012 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1038rpt.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1038rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 125708 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (Florida)Juvenile Residential Treatment ProgramsRecidivism |
Author: Harvard University. International Human Rights Clinic Title: Preventable Tragedy in Panama—Unnecessary Deaths and Rights Violations in Juvenile Detention Centers Summary: This report, based on investigation of the juvenile detention centers, assesses the extent to which Panama has violated the rights of juveniles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “Convention”) and other related international instruments. At Panama’s previous appearance before the Committee on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”) in 2004, the CRC made observations and recommendations concerning violations in the juvenile justice system. The concluding observations included recommendations to Panama about separating detainees by age and needs, ensuring access to social services, adequately responding to cases and complaints of mistreatment by law enforcement agents, ensuring contact with families, providing regular medical examinations, and creating a recovery and social rehabilitation system. As this report documents, Panama’s rights violations in these areas have continued or increased since 2004. The report documents grave civil rights violations, especially in the fire that occurred at the Centro de Cumplimiento de Tocumen (“Tocumen”) on January 9, 2011 and resulted in the burning deaths of five juveniles. The police, guards, and detention center officials involved demonstrated disregard for the lives of these juveniles, used excessive force and failed to allow the children to exit the building once it became clear that their lives were threatened by the fire. The lack of a system to prevent incidents such as this one is unacceptable, especially given that a similar burning death had already taken place in another cell in the same detention center less than two years before the January 2011 incident, in November 2009. Panamanian officials must ensure that those responsible are investigated, prosecuted, and adequately sanctioned for this behavior, as the CRC reminded the State in its 2004 Concluding Observations. Furthermore, physical violence and continued abuse from the guards, as well as horrendous living conditions, especially in the maximum security cells, constitute cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The juvenile detention centers also fail to ensure freedom of expression and give due weight to the voice of the juveniles in clear violation of the Convention and the CRC’s previous recommendations to Panama. Panamanian authorities must take urgent measures to respond to these grave conditions. Additionally, the report notes that the juvenile detention centers unduly restrict family visits, denying detainees the right to maintain contact with their families. The centers also have failed to provide detainees with adequate physical or mental health services, and have failed to provide specialized care for detainees with disabilities. Authorities have failed to provide juveniles adequate educational or vocational training while in detention, thus impairing their ability to assume productive roles in society upon their release. Detention center officials have also impermissibly restricted recreation and work activities for detainees. The juvenile justice system has also failed to comply with the Convention and other international instruments by creating a structure marked by harsh penalties and minimal protections. Moreover, the current conditions of confinement in the Panamanian juvenile detention system are manifestly inadequate to protect the health, welfare, and dignity of juvenile detainees. Detention centers fail to separate detainees by age and gravity of the crime, are grossly overcrowded, and continue to deny detainees access to adequate food, water, and sanitary facilities. The report concludes that Panama has disregarded its obligations under the Convention and related international instruments by failing to protect the rights of juvenile detainees and subjecting them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Building additional infrastructure, such as the new center due to open in July 2011, will not solve the severe rights violations present in the current system. Panama must reform both its laws and practice to ensure compliance with international law. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard International Human Rights Clinic, 2011. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/panama-juvenile-detention-alianza-asamblea-harvard-6-20.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Panama URL: http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/panama-juvenile-detention-alianza-asamblea-harvard-6-20.pdf Shelf Number: 125861 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention Centers (Panama)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Skelton, Ann Title: Prevention of and Responses to Violence Against Children within the Juvenile Justice System Summary: In its resolution 18/12 of 24 September 2011 on human rights in the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice, the Human Rights Council invited the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children to collaborate in the organization of an expert consultation on prevention of and responses to violence against children within the juvenile justice system and to submit a report thereon. The Expert Consultation took place in Vienna on 23-24 January 2012. It was hosted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and co-organized with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, in cooperation with the Government of Austria. Participants included representatives from international and regional human rights bodies, governmental and State institutions, academia and civil society. The Expert Consultation focused on the risks and systemic factors contributing to violence against children within the juvenile justice system, and strategies and practical recommendations to prevent and respond to violence against children within the juvenile justice system. This report is informed by the results of the consultation and a research paper conducted by an independent consultant, Ann Skelton, of the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Details: New York: Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary on Violence against Children; UNICEF, 2012. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2012 at http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/web_juvenile_justice_final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/web_juvenile_justice_final.pdf Shelf Number: 126690 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesViolence Against Children |
Author: McDonald, Theodore W. Title: A Statewide and Multimodal Assessment of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections' Clinical Services Program Summary: During 2007, a pilot program was established that housed, for the first time, an on-site mental health clinician in one of the 12 juvenile detention centers (JDCs) in Idaho. This clinician worked with juveniles detained in the JDC in Bonneville County, and a principal component of his work was to screen detained juveniles for mental health and substance abuse problems, and to make provisional diagnoses of these problems when warranted. The clinician also recommended services in the community for juveniles with provisionally diagnosed mental health or substance abuse problems when they were released into the community. An internal evaluation of this program suggested that it was successful in identifying mental health and substance abuse problems (83% of the screened juveniles were provisionally diagnosed with a mental health problem, a substance abuse problem, or both) and in linking juveniles with these problems with community-based services upon release. Some preliminary data also suggested that the resources provided by the clinician helped reduce future recidivism (as measured by subsequent bookings of previously detained juveniles) and reduced problem behavior (most notably assaults) in the Bonneville County JDC. The project appeared well received by judges and juvenile probation officers in eastern Idaho, both of whom received contact and recommendations from the clinicians as they worked with juveniles from the JDC; 100% of these law enforcement personnel who completed a survey on the pilot project recommended that it continue. The pilot project appeared so successful that it was expanded in 2008 to all 12 JDCs in Idaho; in addition to the JDC in Bonneville County, clinicians were hired to serve in the JDCs in Ada, Bannock, Bonner, Canyon, Fremont, Kootenai, Lemhi, Minidoka, Nez Perce, Twin Falls, and Valley counties. This expanded clinical services project was conducted as a partnership among the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections (IDJC), the Juvenile Justice Children’s Mental Health Workgroup (JJCMH), and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW). IDJC, which was responsible for oversight of the project, contracted with researchers from the Center for Health Policy at Boise State University (BSU), to evaluate the expanded project. The evaluation consisted of data collected in three waves. The first wave involved the collection of data from clinicians at the JDCs; this information included booking charges, mental health and substance abuse screening information, information on previous and provisional diagnoses of mental health and substance abuse problems, and information on service recommendations made by the clinicians. The second wave of data collection involved information gleaned from surveys that were mailed to parents of juveniles recently released from the JDCs; these surveys asked questions about whether the parents had been contacted by clinicians and given recommendations for services for their children, and whether their children had accessed any recommended services. The third wave of data collection involved information captured from surveys of judges and juvenile probation officers, which asked questions about contact by JDC clinicians, the value of recommendations made and information provided, and the value of the program as a whole. Details: Boise, ID: Center for Health Policy, Boise State University, 2009. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2012 at http://www.idjc.idaho.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=TApyIjt9bV4%3D&tabid=92 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.idjc.idaho.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=TApyIjt9bV4%3D&tabid=92 Shelf Number: 127098 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice (Idaho)Mental Health, Juveniles |
Author: Nacro Title: Reducing Offending by Looked After Children Summary: Nacro, the largest crime reduction charity in the UK, has published a new guide for practitioners working with looked after children. This essential guide examines some of the key issues in relation to looked after children and the prevention of offending. Highlighting the principal legislative provisions relating to looked after children, it also addresses the main strategic and operational issues for youth offending teams and children’s services arising from this area. It then considers key decision making points in the criminal justice system which can influence outcomes for looked after children and the importance of using diversionary approaches where appropriate. Examining the particular problems that looked after children can face when remanded or sentenced to custody, the guide also sets out the arrangements for professional support from children’s services, independent reviewing officers and youth offending teams before finally considering the importance of good leaving care services in preventing offending. Equipped with useful checklists for practitioners, this guide to reducing offending by looked after children will be of interest to local authorities, youth offending teams and those working with looked after children in foster care and children's homes. Details: London: Nacro, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2012 at: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/reducing-reoffending-by-looked-after-children-998.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/reducing-reoffending-by-looked-after-children-998.pdf Shelf Number: 127145 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ReentryRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Looked After Children: An inspection of the work of Youth Offending Teams with children and young people who are looked after and placed away from home Summary: The inspection of children and young people who are looked after, placed away from home and supervised by YOTs was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors’ Group, as part of the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2010-2012. It was led by HM Inspectorate of Probation, with support from Ofsted and Estyn. Its purpose was to assess the effectiveness of YOT work with this group of children and young people in promoting their rehabilitation and maintaining their links with their family and home area (where appropriate) and to identify barriers to effective YOT work. We visited six areas where we asked the YOT to identify, where possible, ten cases, five of which they were supervising on behalf of other local authorities and five of their own cases being supervised by other YOTs. We then assessed the quality of joint work carried out by the agencies involved. The data was supplemented by information gathered from a number of YOTs which were not part of the main fieldwork. Overall findings This inspection looked at a very specific group of children and young people, who are looked after, who were placed away from home and also subject to supervision by YOTs. This group is extremely vulnerable. Some also pose a high risk of causing harm to others, not least the children and young people with whom they are placed. Concerns had been raised about these children and young people by many of the YOTs we visited during our regular inspection programme of YOT work, particularly those located in areas with a high number of children’s homes. From them we heard about lack of contact by home areas, delays in receipt of information about vulnerability and risk posed to others and difficulties in communication between agencies. This significantly impacted on the work by the host YOT to help children and young people to stop offending. This thematic inspection clearly revealed the fragmentation of these children’s lives and how the fact of being looked after could escalate a child or young person into the criminal justice system. It also showed how the two factors - being in care and offending – exacerbated each other. Many of the children and young people whose cases we examined during the course of our inspection had been placed in a succession of children’s homes. It was difficult to track them precisely, but we saw one young person with 31 placements and one placement that lasted less than 24 hours. Nearly one-third had had more than three placements outside their home area and 18% had had more than five (that were recorded); 63% were living more than 50 miles from their home and 24% more than 100 miles. (Regulations stipulate that, where reasonably practicable, placement should be within the home local authority area and as near to the child or young person’s home as possible). Four-fifths of those in the sample had been moved during the period of YOT supervision and one-quarter being moved more than three times. It was evident that the children and young people in our sample were amongst the most damaged and difficult to place. All had experienced considerable family difficulties, and they continued to struggle with the consequences. We found a significant number had been subjected to abuse - sexual, physical and emotional and/or neglect. Many had witnessed, or been the victims of domestic violence. A high number had emotional or mental health problems. Nevertheless, it was not apparent in many cases, from our inspection of YOT work, how the needs of the child were being promoted or safeguarded by a placement so far away from their home area. A significant number were still in contact with their families and continued to drift back to them, whether or not children’s social care services promoted or even allowed contact. In 55% of cases YOTs worked actively with the child or young person’s parent/carer to maintain contact. In most cases, the breakdown in family relationships was further exacerbated by the frequency of changes in the professional relationships the child or young person was required to make, through social workers moving on, placements changing, disrupted education and different specialist agencies being called in. Details: Source: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012. 44p. Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 127281 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Children's Rights Alliance for England Title: Speaking Freely: Chidlren and Young People in Europe Talk About Ending Violence Against Children in Custody Summary: The Ending Violence against Children in Custody project aims to make progress towards ending violence against children and young people in custody. The project has two main elements: a research phase – consisting of a desk based legal analysis of the rules governing custody and interviews with children and young people – and a campaigning phase where young people will develop their own campaigns based on the recommendations from their research. The project was coordinated by CRAE and implemented with five European partner organisations: International Juvenile Justice Observatory – Belgium, Defence for Children International – the Netherlands, The Commissioner for Children’s Rights – Cyprus, The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights – Austria and Save the Children – Romania. This report brings together the findings from field research conducted in Austria, Cyprus, England, the Netherlands and Romania and desk-based research into international and European law and policy concerning violence against children in custody led by the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (Belgium). All direct quotations from young people in this report are from the focus groups and interviews carried out in the five partner countries. Where possible, the quotes show age, gender and country. The findings in this report do not represent the views and experiences of all young people in custody in the partner countries. Rather, the research sought insights from a range of children with first-hand experience of custody into the extent to which they enjoyed their right to be free from violence whilst in custody, and how realisation of this right could be promoted. The recommendations from young people in each of the partner countries for ending violence against children in custody formed the basis of youth-led campaigns in five of the partner countries. A consolidated campaign report outlining the various campaign activities, achievements and lessons learnt in each of the partner countries will also be published. All project reports will be available through the project website: www.violencefreecustody.org.uk. Details: London: Children's Rights Alliance for England, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2013 at: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1264/speaking_freely_ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_european_research_report_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1264/speaking_freely_ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_european_research_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 127534 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2010-11: An Overview Summary: On an average day in 2010–11, there were an estimated 7,265 young people under juvenile justice supervision in Australia. Most (86% or 6,250) were supervised in the community and the remainder (14% or 1,045) were in detention. There were 2.6 young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day for every 1,000 in the population—2.2 per 1,000 under community-based supervision and 0.4 per 1,000 in detention. Over the 4-year period to 2010–11, rates of young people under community-based supervision and in detention remained relatively steady. Among the states and territories for which data are available, rates of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day ranged from 1.9 per 1,000 in Victoria to 4.7 per 1,000 in Tasmania. Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 15 times as likely to be under supervision on an average day as non-Indigenous young people. This level of over-representation decreased slightly over the 4 years to 2010–11. The over-representation of Indigenous young people in detention decreased over the 4-year period. In 2010–11, Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 24 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be in detention on an average day, down from 28 times as likely in 2007–08. Although on an average day most young people under juvenile justice supervision were supervised in the community, about 2 in 5 (41%) were in detention at some time during the year (estimates are not available for Western Australia and the Northern Territory). Most (87%) of those who were in detention during 2010–11 experienced unsentenced detention at some time during the year. On an average day in 2010–11, half (50%) of all young people in detention were unsentenced. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 106: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422551 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422551 Shelf Number: 127567 Keywords: AboriginalsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Bradford, Spike Title: Common Ground: Lessons Learned from Five States that Reduced Juvenile Confinement by More than Half Summary: After decades of expanding correctional populations in the United States, there is a growing awareness that we need to end the era of over-incarceration. Primarily this realization has formed around the adult correctional population, with less attention paid by the media or the general public to young people who are confined for delinquent behavior or prior to adjudication. This is perhaps because of the small percentage of youth that makeup the total incarcerated population: in 2010, approximately 2,270,100 adults were incarcerated in the U.S., compared to 70,792 youth. Simply by its scale, the “adult problem” dominates the conversation. However, as confinement is the least effective method of addressing delinquent behavior in young people and increases the likelihood that they will become justice-involved adults, systemic reforms that will reduce the number of confined youth are urgently needed. Such reforms–including reducing the number of youth held in secure confinement, improving the conditions of juvenile facilities and expanding community-based services that can be used instead of confinement, among other issues–have been aggressively pursued in a number of states around the country for over a decade. In fact, juvenile correctional populations have dropped by about a third, nationally, since 1999, when they peaked at over 107,000 confined youth. Restructuring the “fiscal architecture” of juvenile justice is one approach to reducing youth confinement that has attracted national attention. This approach seeks to remove the incentive of counties and local jurisdictions to send youth to state-run and state-funded institutions. Certainly, the current economic environment has played a role in states wanting to reduce their juvenile corrections expenses, which run upwards of $240 per day, per youth. Creating financial incentives for counties to keep youth close to home has the potential to lower net costs (state confinement and local community-based services), and improve outcomes for youth. Because this approach has showed early success in several states, other jurisdictions are considering whether they, too, should reform the fiscal architecture of their state juvenile justice systems to reduce youth confinement. Four years ago, the Justice Policy Institute, in its publication, Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense, highlighted fiscal reform as a promising practice. Given the drop in juvenile confinement just in the past four years, we decided to look at what role fiscal changes–and other reforms–have played in reducing the number of youth locked up in the U.S. We discovered that adjusting funding schemes was just one of many successful strategies for juvenile confinement reform and, in fact, there are many states that have significantly reduced their juvenile confined populations without fiscal reform. States have initiated top-down policy changes, requiring police and courts to treat juveniles differently, resulting in fewer youth confined. Others have simply closed their state’s juvenile correctional facilities, forcing judges to adopt less restrictive responses to juvenile delinquency. What follows is a critical analysis of those elements that appeared to contribute to the greatest reductions in rates of confinement over the past decade. Keeping in mind juvenile justice in each state operates as a system, the actors, policies and problems are necessarily intertwined. For example, the creation of a juvenile justice reform committee within a state is one way to further deinstitutionalization reforms but this process is often the result of settlement agreements among litigants over poor juvenile justice conditions. In this report, each of these strategies will be addressed. After discussing commonalities of reform activities among the states, we provide a brief overview of each state’s experience. These are not case studies per se of specifics of each state’s work, but more of an aerial view to further describe the transformations made. Through the diversity of strategies, as well as the commonalities between states, we hope advocates and policymakers who seek better outcomes for youth will find inspiration and pursue those strategies that are fiscally and politically achievable in their jurisdictions. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpicommonground.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpicommonground.pdf Shelf Number: 127829 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Annie E. Casey Foundation Title: Reducing Youth Incarceration in the United States Summary: A sea change is underway in our nation’s approach to dealing with young people who get in trouble with the law. Although we still lead the industrialized world in the rate at which we lock up young people, the youth confinement rate in the United States is rapidly declining. In 2010 this rate reached a new 35-year low, with almost every state confining a smaller share of its youth population than a decade earlier. This decline has not led to a surge in juvenile crime. On the contrary, crime has fallen sharply even as juvenile justice systems have locked up fewer delinquent youth. The public is safer, youth are being treated less punitively and more humanely, and governments are saving money— because our juvenile justice systems are reducing their reliance on confinement. With this report, we seek to highlight this positive trend and provide recommendations that can encourage its continuation. Wholesale incarceration of young people is generally a counterproductive public policy. As documented in the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2011 report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, juvenile corrections facilities are enormously costly to operate, often put youth at risk for injury and abuse and are largely ineffective in reducing recidivism. While youth who have committed serious violent crimes may require incarceration, a large proportion of those currently confined have not been involved in the kinds of serious offending that pose a compelling risk to public safety. The current de-institutionalization trend creates the potential for new, innovative responses to delinquency that are more cost-effective and humane, and lead to better outcomes for youth. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Data Snapshot Kids Count: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/R/ReducingYouthIncarcerationSnapshot/DataSnapshotYouthIncarceration.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/R/ReducingYouthIncarcerationSnapshot/DataSnapshotYouthIncarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 127834 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Children's Rights Alliance for England Title: Speaking Freely: Children and Young People in Europe Take Action on Ending Violence Against Children in Custody: Campaign Report Summary: This report by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) presents the campaigning activities undertaken by forty children and young people in Austria, Cyprus, England, the Netherlands and Romania to try and create violence-free youth custodial settings in their countries. The campaigning activities were carried out as part of CRAE’s Ending Violence against Children in Custody project, funded by the European Commission’s Daphne III programme. The youth-led campaigns in each country were based on the recommendations developed by young researchers in the first phase of the project. . Campaigners in Austria followed up the full range of recommendations from the research phase of the project in a series of meetings with the Juvenile Custody Centre and pre-trial remand unit. Some young campaigners met with the Director of the Juvenile Custody Centre to discuss their concerns about violence in custody and recommendations for change and to see how they could be taken forward at the Centre. Young campaigners in Cyprus focused on living conditions in prison and pushed for increased support for young prisoners through mentoring programmes. They decided to carry out a series of awareness raising activities to educate other young people about the conditions in custody and to develop some momentum for change. In England the young campaign team focused on two campaign issues that they felt would help to create violence free custody for children and young people: • Installing cameras with sound recording in custodial and police settings; • Reviewing the qualities of staff who are employed in custodial settings. They had a meeting with the Youth Justice Board (YJB) to discuss these issues and explore what action could be taken. The young campaigners in the Netherlands compiled a ‘Top 10’ from the longer list of recommendations developed during the research phase of the project. They decided to work on awareness-raising about violence in custody targeting the Government, Parliament and other professionals and experts. In Romania the young campaign team took action on three key issues: • Video surveillance in police stations; • Better activities in custodial settings; • Reducing the numbers of internees in each room in custody. A letter was sent to the Ministry of Justice and discussions were held with representatives from the National Administration of Penitentiaries to discuss the recommendations. Details: London: Chidlren's Rights Alliance for England, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.crae.org.uk/assets/files/Ending%20Violence%20Campaign%20report_condensed.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://www.crae.org.uk/assets/files/Ending%20Violence%20Campaign%20report_condensed.pdf Shelf Number: 127835 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Europe) |
Author: Gyateng, Tracey Title: Young People and the Secure Estate: Needs and Interventions Summary: This report, by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck, University of London, and Ipsos MORI, was commissioned by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) in 2008. It provides an in-depth examination of the identified needs of children and young people within the secure estate and the interventions they received, based on fieldwork conducted over the course of 2010 to early 2011. The research encompassed the three types of establishment that make up the secure estate for children and young people: secure children’s homes (SCHs), secure training centres (STCs) and young offender institutions (YOIs). The key aims of the research were to: identify what types of interventions young people received within secure establishments describe the extent to which interventions were matched to identified needs elicit and describe young people’s experiences within the secure estate outline the views of staff within the secure estate regarding interventions. Methods The following research methods were used: a survey of 1,245 young people approaching the end of a custodial sentence (827 in YOIs, 229 in STCs and 189 in SCHs) an analysis of the administrative records, where available, for the surveyed young people (713 in YOIs, 211 in STCs and 181 in SCHs: 1,105 in total) forty-two in-depth qualitative interviews with secure estate staff across five establishments (two YOIs, two STCs and one SCH). Young people who were serving a custodial sentence were included in the study if they had a release date within four months after completion of the survey at the end of 2010. Young people were surveyed in six phases over the course of 2010. They were initially selected for participation in the survey on a random basis. However, since the population of young people in custody was consistently falling, phases two to six of the survey took the form of a census of all young people exiting custody within the defined timeframe. The analysis of administrative records involved an on-site case file review; and, to complement this, data were collected from the eAsset system at the YJB headquarters. However, both data collection methods found inconsistencies across the secure estate in the recording of details of interventions received by individual young people, such as the frequency and intensity of interventions, and levels of completion and achievement. Ten YOIs (including one female YOI), four STCs and eight SCHs participated in the study. Establishments were chosen to ensure that the sampled population covered 94% of the secure estate yearly throughput in YOIs5 and SCHs, and 100% in STCs. The following limitations need to be borne in mind when interpreting the findings: survey of young people Young people on longer sentences such as detention for public protection (section 226/228), where the release date could not be provided, were not included in this study. As they comprise only 4% of the sentenced custodial population, it is likely that the exclusion of this particular group of offenders will have had only a minimal impact on the yearly throughput. administrative data The completeness and quality of data varied both within and between establishment types. Unfortunately complete data were rarely available on each individual. Some form of administrative data were collected for 1,105 of the young people who participated in the survey. This sub-sample was broadly representative of the wider survey sample. in-depth interviews with secure estate staff Interviews were conducted with 42 staff from five secure establishments. It should be noted that findings from these interviews may not represent the views of all staff working within the secure estate. Key findings The research encompassed two main themes: young people’s general experiences of the secure estate and their relationships with staff at the secure establishments the interventions or programmes the young people received in relation to education, training and employment; offending behaviour; substance misuse; and resettlement into the community. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2013. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/34265/young-people-secure-estate.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/34265/young-people-secure-estate.pdf Shelf Number: 127994 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation Programs |
Author: Iowa Department of Human Services Title: Report on Iowa’s Highly Structured Juvenile Program Summary: The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS or Department) consulted with the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning of the Department of Human Rights to prepare this report. The Legislature requested a review of the programming and effectiveness of Iowa’s two highly structured juvenile programs. This report includes information gathered two ways. First, a literature review of international research concerning juvenile "boot camp" programs was conducted. Second, recidivism and foster care re-entry rates for the Iowa highly structured juvenile program (HSJP) was compared with the recidivism and foster care re-entry rates of other Iowa group foster care programs (called Comparison or Control group in the Iowa-specific data of this report). The literature review revealed that no U.S. studies found statistically significant differences in recidivism between boot camp graduates and comparison groups. Research seems to indicate that simply participating in boot camps does not improve outcomes for most juveniles. Most studies found little difference in outcomes, suggesting that boot camps, as a tool, are neither better nor worse than other alternatives. State fiscal years (SFY) 2006 and 2007 were used to study recidivism and re-entry. A group of juveniles discharged from the highly structured programs during SFY 2006 (139 individuals) was compared with a group discharged during SFY 2006 from group foster care (140 individuals). The follow up period for each group was through the end of SFY 2007. Most categories of comparison between the two groups showed no remarkable differences. However, one distinguishing finding was the average number of days from discharge until a new adjudication. For the HSJP group the number was 253 days and for the Comparison group the number was 331 days. On average, the highly structured group recidivated 2 ½ months sooner. The HSJP group also had more serious charges at the time of the recidivism. The HSJP group’s “Violent” charges represented 37% of all their charges post-program discharge, while “Violent” charges represented 19% of the Comparison group’s charges postprogram discharge. Less serious “Property” offenses represented 29% of the HSJP group’s charges while “Property” offenses represented 49% of the Comparison group’s charges. Drug offenses were slightly higher for the HSJP group too; they represented 15% of the charges of the HSJP and 11% of the charges of the Comparison group. The children in the highly structured group were also more likely to be placed in detention post-discharge, 41% compared to 18%. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Services, 2007. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2013 at: http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/docs/IA_Highly_Strutured_Juvenile_Program_Dec1407.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/docs/IA_Highly_Strutured_Juvenile_Program_Dec1407.pdf Shelf Number: 128432 Keywords: Juvenile Boot Camps (Iowa, U.S.)Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ReentryShock Incarceration Programs |
Author: Holman, Barry Title: The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities Summary: Despite the lowest youth crime rates in 20 years, hundreds of thousands of young people are locked away every year in the nation’s 591 secure detention centers. Detention centers are intended to temporarily house youth who pose a high risk of re-offending before their trial, or who are deemed likely to not appear for their trial. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2006. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/1978 Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/1978 Shelf Number: 106879 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Buchen, Lizzie Title: California's Division of Juvenile Facilities: Nine Years After Farrell Summary: Since its inception, California’s youth correctional system, the California Youth Authority (CYA), was an institution riddled with overcrowding, abuse, suicides, and high levels of violence. In 2000, Inspector General Steve White testified that it was “impossible to overstate the dimension of the problem.” The system had a dismal record of rehabilitating its wards, more than 80 percent of whom returned to state custody within three years of release. In 2003, a coalition of advocates filed a lawsuit against CYA in Farrell v. Harper, alleging “inhumane conditions” and pointing out that “rehabilitation is impossible when the classroom is a cage and wards live in constant fear of physical and sexual violence from CYA staff and other wards.” The following year, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a consent decree acknowledging the critical problems and pledging to implement significant reforms, including reducing levels of violence, providing more education, treatment, and rehabilitation, and improving medical and mental health care. In 2005, the agency was reconstituted as the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) and merged with the adult prison system in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In March 2006, the Safety and Welfare Planning Team, a panel of state-approved correctional experts, found DJF was “not a system that needs tinkering around the edges, this is a system that is broken almost everywhere you look.” Moreover, the team concluded that the state’s juvenile facilities had “[become] like adult prisons.” Among its list of 17 significant problems, the team reported: “high levels of violence and fear,” “antiquated facilities unsuited for any mission,” “an adult corrections mentality,” “hours on end when many youths have nothing to do,” and “poor re-entry planning and too few services on parole.” Later that year, the team filed the Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan (hereafter “Remedial Plan”) describing its requirements for a new state youth corrections system that would address these serious issues and be founded on a rehabilitative, rather than a punitive, model. This publication reviews the progress DJF has made in implementing these Court-ordered reforms, using qualitative and quantitative data from the court-appointed expert in safety and welfare, the Special Master who oversees all Farrell reforms, and the CDCR. DJF now has fewer than 800 youth in three facilities — O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility (OHCYCF), N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility (NACYCF), and Ventura Youth Correctional Facility (VYCF) — down from approximately 10,000 youth in 11 facilities in 2000. Although overall levels of violence and abuse are down, CJCJ finds insufficient progress in nearly every area of reform. Seven years after DJF was ordered to implement the Remedial Plan, all of the above-listed problems remain significant concerns. Details: San francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/state_of_djf.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/state_of_djf.pdf Shelf Number: 128596 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (California, U.S.)Juvenile Inmates |
Author: Sherman, Francine T. Title: Making Detention Reform Work for Girls: A Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform Summary: In 2005, the Annie E. Casey Foundation published Detention Reform and Girls: Challenges and Solutions, the thirteenth installment in its “Pathways to Detention Reform” publication series. The report showed that while girls comprise a minority of youth who appear in juvenile courts on delinquency charges, they often present vastly different challenges than boys. The special needs of girls are manifest throughout the juvenile justice process, the report found, but particularly at the detention phase. Serving girls effectively often requires targeted gender-responsive strategies. Throughout the nation, court-involved girls frequently pose minimal risk to public safety but suffer with significant social service needs. Data on detention utilization show that girls are being disproportionately detained for misdemeanors, status offenses and technical violations of probation and parole. In short, many girls enter detention for the wrong reasons and many remain in detention for extended periods harmful to them and contrary to best practice. Mirroring the national picture, the Pathways report found, “JDAI sites are struggling with how to reduce the population of girls in their secure facilities, implement detention alternatives to best meet girls’ needs, and provide gender-responsive programming for girls who require detention.” Further, the report noted, JDAI’s “core strategies by themselves — without specific policies, practices, and programs that address the particular challenges posed by girls — do not seem sufficient to eliminate disparities, to improve program performance, or to ensure appropriate conditions of confinement.” The Pathways report included a wealth of information about girls and detention. It provided data on girls’ growing share of the detention population, information on how girls’ backgrounds and needs differ from boys’, and an extensive discussion of promising approaches and best practices research on how to serve girls more effectively and make detention reform work for girls. What the report did not provide, however, were clear and specific instructions for local JDAI leaders on how to put this information to constructive use. This practice guide aims to fill that void. It responds to a call from both mature and new sites, which continue to find that effectively serving and supervising girls is among the most difficult issues in detention reform. The practice guide will stress that efforts to safely reduce the inappropriate detention of low-risk girls must be rooted in JDAI’s core strategies, but with an added intentional focus on applying those core strategies to girls’ unique needs and circumstances. These efforts require a strong and collaborative leadership team with the will and capacity to undertake meaningful reforms in the treatment of girls at the detention stage. The work must be rooted in careful analysis of detention management reports and individual case files to pinpoint policies or practices that may result in girls’ inappropriate or unnecessary detention, and they must lead to action as local leaders design, test and continually revise new strategies to meet girls’ needs. The practice guide begins with an overview of the challenges facing local juvenile justice systems in improving their approaches to girls in the detention process. The chapter summarizes the available information about the characteristics of girls in detention, the disparities in the system’s treatment of girls and boys, and the harm caused by unnecessary overreliance on detention for girls. This opening chapter highlights several prevalent causes for this overreliance on detention for girls, and it summarizes some of the key lessons from available research about what can be accomplished through focused efforts to improve the treatment of girls in the detention process. Chapter II describes the organizational steps necessary for JDAI jurisdictions to create a gender work group at the local level and to begin the process of analyzing current practices vis-à-vis girls in detention and developing a work plan for improving the detention process for girls. The chapter provides guidelines and suggestions for creating a local work group to examine the needs of girls, discusses the best timing for detailed gender analysis, and explains how the efforts of the girls work groups will be rooted in the JDAI core strategies. Chapter III will detail the steps required to conduct in-depth gender-focused data analyses to identify the nature and extent of disparities in the jurisdiction’s treatment of girls. Steps in the process include: an initial data scan of readily available data; selection of locally targeted research questions for further study (based on national research combined with local judgment and experience); in-depth quantitative analyses to determine underlying patterns that might be driving gender disparities and problematic treatment of girls; and, finally, a systematic analysis of information contained in case files and related records to further understanding and address questions that remain unanswered based on quantitative data. In addition to step-by-step instructions, the chapter will illustrate the process through a practical case study of a hypothetical jurisdiction. Chapter IV will describe how jurisdictions should go about putting the information gleaned from their gender-focused analysis to practical use. The chapter will help participating jurisdictions create a locally tailored work plan for improving the detention process for girls. The chapter profiles an array of promising and proven strategies gleaned from both the core JDAI strategies and best practice research on effective and gender-responsive practices for girls to address common needs and problems that may be revealed by sites’ data analyses. Also included are practical examples of these strategies from JDAI sites and other jurisdictions. The discussion will illustrate this process by detailing the gender-focused work plan developed in the hypothetical jurisdiction introduced in the prior chapter. Finally, in addition to the text in these chapters, the practice guide offers a variety of practical tools and templates in the Appendices. These include Girls Detention Facility Self-Assessment guidelines and sample tables for the quantitative and case file analyses for the jurisdiction described throughout the report in the hypothetical case study. Details: Baltimore: Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, Anne E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Featured%20Resources/JDAI%20-%20Making%20Detention%20Reform%20Work%20for%20Girls.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Featured%20Resources/JDAI%20-%20Making%20Detention%20Reform%20Work%20for%20Girls.pdf Shelf Number: 128653 Keywords: Female DelinquentsFemale Juvenile OffendersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Delinquency (U.S.)Juvenile Detention |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia 2011-12: an overview Summary: Almost 7,000 young people are under youth justice supervision on an average day -- On an average day in 2011–12, there were almost 7,000 young people aged 10 and older under youth justice supervision in Australia due to their involvement or alleged involvement in crime. Most (83%) were male and the majority (79%) were aged 14–17. Indigenous young people were over-represented—although less than 5% of young Australians are Indigenous, 39% of those under supervision were Indigenous. Among all those aged 10–17 in Australia, this equates to a rate of 26 young people under supervision on an average day per 10,000 in the population, or 1 in every 385 young Australians. Most young people are supervised in the community -- Almost 6,000 (86%) young people were supervised in the community on an average day in 2011–12, and the remaining 1,000 (14%) were in detention. However, 2 in every 5 young people (41%) under youth justice supervision in Australia were in detention at some time during the year. Young people spend an average of 6 months under supervision -- The median duration of periods of youth justice supervision was about 11 weeks (78 days). Periods of community-based supervision completed during 2011–12 were typically longer (84 days, on average) than both unsentenced (4 days) and sentenced detention (55 days). Some young people experienced more than one supervision period during the year. When all the time spent under supervision during 2011–12 is considered, young people spent an average of about 6 months (185 days) under supervision. Trends are stable, but vary among the states and territories -- Nationally, the rates of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day remained relatively stable (about 26–27 per 10,000) over the 4 years to 2011–12. This stability occurred in both community-based supervision and detention. However, there were differences in trends among the states and territories. Between 2008–09 and 2011–12, rates of young people under supervision on an average day increased in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, and decreased in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin no. 115: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AIHW_YouthJusticeInAustralia2011-12_April2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AIHW_YouthJusticeInAustralia2011-12_April2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128675 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Abram, Karen M. Title: PTSD, Trauma, and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders in Detained Youth Summary: This bulletin examines the results of the Northwestern Juvenile Project—a longitudinal study of youth detained at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, IL, cosponsored by OJJDP. The authors discuss their findings on the prevalence of trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among juvenile detainees and PTSD’s tendency to co-occur with other psychiatric disorders. Of the study sample, 92.5 percent of youth had experienced at least one trauma, 84 percent had experienced more than one trauma, and 56.8 percent were exposed to trauma six or more times. Among participants with PTSD, 93 percent had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder. Among males, having any psychiatric diagnosis significantly increased the odds of having comorbid PTSD. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Beyond Detention Series: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239603.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239603.pdf Shelf Number: 128971 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile OffendersMental HealthPost-Traumatic Stress SyndromePsychiatric Disorders |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Comeback States: Reducing youth incarceration in the United States Summary: In 2000, a record-setting 108,802 youth were held in detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in juvenile facilities in the United States. In a dramatic turnaround, by late-2010, the number of youth confined in state and county juvenile facilities had plummeted by 39 percent to 66,322. This reversal erased a 63 percent increase in the number of confined youth that began in 1985, when 66,762 youth were confined—an increase driven by highly publicized increases in youth arrests, growing public concern about youth crime, and state juvenile justice policies favoring increased reliance on incarceration. This report uses new federal data to document and analyze national and state incarceration trends. The turnaround is associated with changes in state policies since 2001 that reflected declines in youth arrests, new understandings of the teenage brain, less costly, evidence-based alternatives to incarceration, and constrained state budgets. A regression analysis of annual data found that although the decline in arrests helped explain the decline in confinement, post-arrest decisions by law enforcement officials, which are often shaped by state juvenile justice policies, also had a potent impact. Six policies were identified in this report that have been adopted by states since 2001 and encourage reductions in reliance on detention and incarceration. These changes: • increase the availability of evidence-based alternatives to incarceration; • require intake procedures that reduce use of secure detention facilities; • close or downsize youth confinement facilities; • reduce schools’ overreliance on the justice system to address discipline issues; • disallow incarceration for minor offenses; and • restructure juvenile justice responsibilities and finances among states and counties. Nine “comeback” states were singled out for their leadership in adopting these policies. They include California; Connecticut; Illinois; Ohio; Mississippi; New York; Texas; Washington; and Wisconsin. The report profiles each of the states with regard to: 1) the growth of their reliance on youth incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s; 2) reversal of that reliance during the 2001-to-late-2010 period; and 3) the incarceration reduction policies that they have adopted since 2001. The “comeback” states were selected because they adopted at least four of the six policies, exceeded the national-average reduction in youth confinement for the 2001-to-2010 period, and experienced a decline in youth arrests (as a proxy for greater public safety) between 2000 and 2010. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network; Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129030 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice Policy (U.S.)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hockenberry, Sarah Title: Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010 Summary: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention sponsors the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), a biennial survey of public and private juvenile residential facilities in every state that the U.S. Census Bureau conducts. The CJRP presents a detailed picture of the young people who are held in custody across the nation—including age, race, gender, offenses, adjudication status, and more. This bulletin presents the latest available national and state-level data from the CJRP, describing 79,165 youth held in 2,259 facilities on February 24, 2010. Findings from the 2010 CJRP appear positive. The population of juvenile offenders in custody has declined by one-third since 1997, and the number of status offenders in custody was down 52% from 1997. There are still areas for improvement, however, especially as regards rates of confinement for minority youth. Nationwide, the custody rate for black youth was more than 4.5 times the rate for white youth, and the custody rate for Hispanic youth was 1.8 times the rate for white youth. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report Series Bulletin: Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/241060.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/241060.pdf Shelf Number: 129162 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates (U.S.)Juvenile Residential Facilities |
Author: Jones, Denis W. Title: Conditions for Sustainable Decarceration Strategies for Young Offenders Summary: Between 1978 and 1992 the number of juvenile offenders aged under 17 in England and Wales who were removed from home under sentence and sent to institutions such as detention centres, borstals, youth custody institutions or residential Community Homes with Education fell from 14,000 to 1,800. This thesis documents how this significant decarceration came about, and why it has been given little attention in the criminological literature, placing it in context of developments in juvenile justice legislation and practice between 1965 and 1996 and theories of policy change. It suggests that the key development was the funding of charity and voluntary sector organisations to provide Intensive Intermediate Treatment programmes to juvenile courts as an alternative to custody, and the development of a small group of practitioners willing to act as campaigning advocates for young offenders in court. Interviews with key politicians, civil servants, academics and practitioners from this period are used to explore these trends in more detail, and consideration is given to the respective roles of the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security and the tensions between them over responsibility for young offenders. The development is then situated within theories and examples of decarceration, deinstitutionalization, abolitionism and reductionism, drawing on attempts to close institutions or to reduce institutionalization in the fields of youth justice, mental health and learning difficulties in the UK and other countries. Alternative explanations of what happened in juvenile justice in England and Wales are considered and challenged. Conclusions are then drawn as to the conditions that are necessary for any decarceration strategy to be successful and sustainable. Details: London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2012. 524p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 3, 2013 at: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/238/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/238/ Shelf Number: 129247 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDecarcerationIntensive SupervisionIntermediate Treatment ProgramsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Delinquents (U.K.) |
Author: Freeman, Sinead Title: Surviving on Remand: a Study of how Young People Cope in Remand Custody in Ireland Summary: The fusion of young people to the prison setting has been described as a toxic combination. This is especially pertinent when applied to youth in remand custody. Previous research studies have identified young people on remand as a highly vulnerable prison population and custodial remand to be a particularly stressful prison experience. Despite this, little research to date has examined how young people cope while remanded in custody. This thesis addresses this gap by providing an insight into the issue of coping on remand through the voices of young people in custody in the Irish context. It is informed by an interactionist theoretical framework which proposes that human behaviour consists of interactions between individual and environmental factors. The thesis employs an exploratory research design and incorporates a multi-method approach consisting of an observation study in the Children Court and the use of semi-structured interviews and standardised instruments with 62 young people aged 16 to 21 detained in custody in three remand settings. The findings reveal a major contradiction in terms, between the non-punitive concept of remand and the actual experiences encountered in the Irish context. Youth on remand are a forgotten population who are exposed to a particularly punishing and stressful experience which restricts their coping actions. This results in a high level of coping difficulty not only during the remand period but also on release or transfer to sentenced custody. The detrimental impact of remand indicates that remand custody should only be used as a measure of last resort and for a minimum duration of time. The majority of young people on remand would be better served by the development of alternatives to custodial remand, in particular bail support and supervision schemes which allow them to remain in the community. The implementation of change to the current remand environment and regime is also vital for the small number who pose a threat to public safety and must be detained a measure of last resort. Central to this reform, is the recognition of young people on remand as a distinct prison population by policy-makers, service providers and researchers and the implementation of separate, tailored facilities and activities which effectively meet their coping needs and respect their fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Details: Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology, 2009. 327p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed July 9, 2013 at: http://arrow.dit.ie/appadoc/15/ Year: 2009 Country: Ireland URL: http://arrow.dit.ie/appadoc/15/ Shelf Number: 129333 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Ireland)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersRemand |
Author: Zampese, Linda Title: When the Bough Breaks; A literature based intervention strategy for young offenders Summary: The aim of this literature review was to determine which types of treatment are effective in reducing recidivism among young offenders. Young offenders are defined as that proportion of the New Zealand Department of Corrections offender population aged 17- 20 years. The review focused on young offenders because they are widely acknowledged as being unresponsive to treatment. The review included studies of treatment that had some effect on recidivism or had some other notable characteristic. Because there have been few well-controlled evaluations of treatment programmes for young offenders in New Zealand, most of the material refers to overseas programmes. Offenders in the 17-20 year age group have the highest officially recorded rate of offending of all age groups in New Zealand. The type of offences they commit parallel the pattern of offending by adult offenders. Crimes of property damage and violence are increasing which suggests that more young people entering the Department of Corrections system may have a background in violent crime. Maori have the highest rate of offending followed by Pacific people and other ethnic groups. Reconviction rates are also the highest of all offender age groups, with rates being particularly high among 14-17 year olds. Young offenders tend to be generalists in that they do not show any patterns of offence type specialisation. This means that programmes targeted to particular "types" of young offender are not likely to be useful. Three principles have been developed for classifying offenders to ensure effective rehabilitation and targeting of treatment resources. According to these principles, offenders should be classified according to risk level, criminogenic need and response to different types of treatment. Research shows that only small proportions of youth, less than 10%, are at risk of becoming persistent offenders. The risk profile of young offenders is remarkably similar to that of adults. The key characteristics of high-risk youth appear to be: - a history of antisocial behaviour beginning at an early age - antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs - antisocial associates - problems with interpersonal relationships including indifference, poor social skills and weak affective ties - a difficult temperament which may be aggressive, callous, impulsive or egocentric - problems at school, work or leisure and low levels of achievement in these areas - early and current family conditions, including low levels of affection, cohesiveness and/or monitoring and problems at home. Risk level is generally assessed through risk assessment instruments rather than through unstructured clinical judgement. The study reviews a number of instruments and refers to the risk assessment instrument developed by the Department of Corrections Psychological Service, which will be implemented as part of the Integrated Offender Management Plan. Criminogenic needs are those characteristics of offenders and their circumstances that will reduce recidivism if changed. The most likely targets for change include: - antisocial attitudes and feelings - aggressive/violent behaviours - antisocial peer associations and behaviours - familial affection and communication and familial monitoring and supervision - substance abuse and dependency Changes can be made in different ways including by: - promoting identification with anti-criminal role models and increasing association with pro-social others developing non-criminal activities which provide personal, interpersonal and other rewards - increasing academic and work skills - attending to relapse prevention issues - increasing self-control, self-management and problem-solving skills - changing antisocial attitudes and beliefs - teaching anger management and conflict resolution skills - increasing familial cohesiveness/levels of affection within the home - treating substance abuse - improving motivation for change. The report reviews a number of risk/needs classification systems and concludes that no adequate instruments have yet been developed for assessing young offenders in the New Zealand context. Assessing offenders' likely response to different styles and modes of service involves assessing their personality characteristics, conceptual levels, neuro-psychological deficits and levels of psychopathy, anxiety and motivation as well as addressing cultural issues. The study concludes that priority should be given to developing a treatment classification system that would enable resources to be targeted to moderate and high-risk offenders. Details: Christchurch, NZ: New Zealand Department of Corrections, Psychological Service, 2003. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/665634/bough.pdf Year: 2003 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/665634/bough.pdf Shelf Number: 131672 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Offenders (New Zealand)RehabilitationTreatment ProgramsWilderness Programs |
Author: Suitts, Steve Title: Just Learning: The Imperative to Transform Juvenile Justice Systems Into Effective Educational Systems. A Study of Juvenile Justice Schools in the South and the Nation Summary: The most disadvantaged, troubled students in the South and the nation attend schools in the juvenile justice systems. These children, mostly teenagers, usually are behind in school, possess substantial learning disabilities, exhibit recognizable behavioral problems, and are coping with serious emotional or psychological problems. They are often further behind and hampered with more personal problems than any other identifiable group of students in the nation's elementary and secondary schools. Very often they are confined in large, overly restrictive institutional facilities that are operated without priority or focus on their education. Most juvenile justice schools have such low expectations of student academic performance that they usually report only if students gained or failed to gain basic skills during their period of custody. These reports are usually recorded only for a small fraction of the students who are in the juvenile justice systems. As a result, most students come in and out of the juvenile justice systems with little or no real regard for their education. A large majority of these students, year after year in the South and the nation, have been African American and Hispanic males. Only 37 percent of these students have been confined for some type of harm to others. Almost another one-third has been put under the custody of the juvenile justice system because of a delinquency that did not involve harm to property or persons. Their ages range annually from less than 10 years old to around 21. The majority are in their mid-teens. There is every reason to predict that today most of these students, like those who came before them in the juvenile justice systems, will never receive a high school diploma or a college degree, will be arrested and confined again as a juvenile or adult, and will rarely, if ever, become self-supporting, law-abiding citizens during most of their lives. Yet, substantial evidence shows that, if these children improve their education and start to become successful students in the juvenile justice systems, they will have a far greater chance of finding a turning point in their lives and becoming independent, contributing adults. The cost savings for states and state governments could be enormous. Unlike past era, a young person who enters and leaves the juvenile justice system in the 21st century without a trajectory for achieving more than a high school diploma will likely fail to become a successful and contributing adult. This failure will cost society far more than it should have to pay, and there will be no justice for students or the larger society from a juvenile justice system that fails to improve education for the children in its custody. The nation and its most disadvantaged, troubled youth deserve better. Details: Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation, 2014. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2014 at: http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/b80f7aad-405d-4eed-a966-8d7a4a12f5be/Just-Learning-Executive-Summary.aspx Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/b80f7aad-405d-4eed-a966-8d7a4a12f5be/Just-Learning-Executive-Summary.aspx Shelf Number: 132092 Keywords: Disadvantaged YouthJuvenile Correctional EducationJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Seigle, Elizabeth Title: Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: This white paper is written to guide leaders across all branches of government; juvenile justice system administrators, managers, and front-line staff; and researchers, advocates, and other stakeholders on how to better leverage existing research and resources to facilitate system improvements that reduce recidivism and improve other outcomes for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. The last two decades have produced remarkable changes in state and local juvenile justice systems. An overwhelming body of research has emerged, demonstrating that using secure facilities as a primary response to youth's delinquent behavior generally produces poor outcomes at high costs. Drawing on this evidence, the MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change and the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative have provided the field with models for reform, research-based guidance, and technical assistance that has transformed many state and local juvenile justice systems. In part due to these efforts, between 1997 and 2011, youth confinement rates declined by almost 50 percent. During the same time period, arrests of juveniles for violent crimes also fell by approximately 50 percent, to their lowest level in over 30 years. The importance and value of these achievements can't be overstated. At the same time, these trends alone are not sufficient for policymakers to assess the effectiveness of their state and local governments' juvenile justice systems. They must also know whether youth diverted from confinement, as well as youth who return to their communities after confinement, have subsequent contact with the justice system. In addition to recidivism data, policymakers should have information about what services, supports, and opportunities young people under system supervision need, whether these needs are being met, and to what extent these young people are succeeding as a result. Yet policymakers often lack the information they need to determine whether youth who do come in contact with the system emerge from their experience better off, worse off, or unchanged, particularly in the long term. Twenty percent of state juvenile corrections agencies dont track recidivism data for youth at all. Of the states that do track recidivism, the majority doesnt consider the multiple ways a youth may have subsequent contact with the justice system, which range from rearrest, readjudication, or reincarceration within the juvenile justice system to offenses that involve them with the adult corrections system. For example, most states that track recidivism are unlikely to capture as youth recidivism data an event such as a 17-year-old released from a juvenile facility who is incarcerated in an adult facility as an 18-year-old. Additionally, the vast majority of states doesn't track whether youth who came into contact with the system ultimately stay in school, earn a degree, or find sustainable employment. To the extent that state and local governments are able to measure their juvenile justice systems' impact on rearrest, readjudication, and reincarceration rates, the results have been discouraging. Its not uncommon for rearrest rates for youth returning from confinement to be as high as 75 percent within three years of release, and arrest rates for higher-risk youth placed on probation in the community are often not much better. While there have been promising advances in the field, few juvenile justice systems can point to significant and sustained progress in reducing these recidivism rates. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Recidivism-and-Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Recidivism-and-Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf Shelf Number: 133140 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice PoliciesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Fabelo, Tony Title: Closer to Home: An Analysis of the State and Local Impact of the Texas Juvenile Justice Reforms Summary: Since 1997, arrest rates among juveniles in the United States have sunk to an all time low, and the number of youth incarcerated in state or county correctional facilities has plummeted. After peaking in 1996, arrests of juveniles fell by approximately 50 percent between 1997 and 2011, to their lowest level in 30 years. During the same period, youth confinement rates declined almost 50 percent. Why are so many fewer youth locked up today compared to nearly 20 years ago? It's not simply because arrests are down; trends in the 1990s demonstrate that the number of youth incarcerated can actually increase even while arrest rates decline. A key reason that confinement rates for youth have shrunk so considerably is the deliberate efforts state and county governments have made to address youth incarceration-efforts driven by a combination of research, advocacy, litigation, and fiscal considerations. Policymakers are seeking to learn more about what happens after a youth comes into contact with the juvenile justice system. Many states that track recidivism data report rearrest rates for youth returning from confinement to be as high as 75 percent within three years of release. Despite a convincing body of research demonstrating what works to reduce recidivism among youth in contact with the juvenile justice system, most state and local governments have had little success achieving significant and sustained progress in reducing these recidivism rates. Translating this research into policy and practice and holding agencies and service providers accountable for results has been challenging. After a series of scandals involving the abuse of youth incarcerated in state-run juvenile correctional facilities came to light in Texas, state leaders there instituted the first of a number of reforms intended to shrink the number of youth held in state-run facilities. For example, in 2007 the state prohibited youth who committed misdemeanors from being confined in state-run secure juvenile facilities. The same bill also lowered the age of the state's jurisdiction over youth from 21 to 19, dramatically reducing the number of youth in state-run secure facilities. Two years later, the legislature established a grant program providing counties with financial incentives to decrease the rate at which they committed youth to state-run correctional facilities. Besides lowering the number of youth in state-run secure facilities, Texas state leaders anticipated that these and other measures would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in savings to the state over several years, while shifting to county governments the responsibility of overseeing youth who previously would have been committed to state-run secure facilities. Lawmakers thus took steps to assist these local governments, directing significant funding to county-run juvenile probation departments. After these reforms had been given ample time to take root, Texas state leaders posed important questions that resonate with policymakers in any jurisdiction who are working to reduce the number of youth incarcerated at the state level: To what extent were changes to state policy responsible for driving down the number of incarcerated youth? What types of services and supervision are youth who previously would have been committed to a state-run secure facility now receiving locally? Are youth adjudicated to the supervision of a local juvenile probation department less likely to have subsequent contact with the justice system than youth committed to a state-run correctional facility? Do these outcomes vary depending on the county where the youth is adjudicated? If so, why? This report sheds unprecedented light on the answers to these and other questions, providing Texas state leaders with an assessment of the impact of the reforms to date and an important resource to inform strategies that build and improve upon these reforms. At the same time, this report offers insights that policymakers and practitioners outside Texas who are interested in improving their state's juvenile justice system will find invaluable. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center; College Station, TX: Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University,2015. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/texas-JJ-reform-closer-to-home.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/texas-JJ-reform-closer-to-home.pdf Shelf Number: 134489 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Texas)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities: An Update Summary: In its 2011 report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, the Annie E. Casey Foundation demonstrated that America's heavy reliance on juvenile incarceration is a failed strategy for addressing youth crime. Specifically, No Place for Kids showed that heavy reliance on correctional confinement exposes incarcerated youth to widespread maltreatment; results in alarming levels of recidivism; incarcerates children who do not pose significant threats to public safety; ignores the emergence of treatment models that produce better outcomes; wastes money with costs that often exceed $100,000 per young person per year; and fails to provide adequate mental health, educational, substance abuse and other services. In short, the report found that these institutions are dangerous, ineffective, unnecessary, obsolete, wasteful and inadequate. This report focuses on the first of these challenges, the widespread and persistent maltreatment of youth confined in America's juvenile corrections facilities. These facilities often go by euphemistic labels such as training school, reformatory, correctional center, etc., but are in essence youth prisons. In No Place for Kids, the Casey Foundation found that clear evidence of recurring or systemic maltreatment had been identified in the vast majority of states since 1970. In nearly half the states, this clear record of systemic maltreatment had been documented in juvenile correctional facilities since 2000. No Place for Kids also identified 52 lawsuits since 1970 that resulted in a court-sanctioned remedy in response to allegations of systemic problems with violence, physical or sexual abuse by facility staff and/or excessive use of isolation or physical restraints. The following pages update those findings, and the news is not good. Rather, in the nearly four years since No Place for Kids was published, a flood of new revelations of abuse and maltreatment has emerged. Details: Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 8, 2015 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-maltreatmentyouthuscorrections-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-maltreatmentyouthuscorrections-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 135921 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Miera, Germaine Title: Evaluation of the Youthful Offender System (YOS) in Colorado: Report of Findings per 18-1.3-407, C.R.S. Summary: In 2014, The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice undertook a semiannual evaluation of the Department of Correction's Youthful Offender System. This report presents recidivism rates and a broad picture of the operations of YOS as observed from the perspective of the residents, staff, and managers. Division researchers administered two surveys, one of staff (with 71% response rate) and one of inmates (with a 42% response rate), and conducted 16 focus groups of residents and staff and 8 interviews with YOS staff and officials. From these multiple data collection efforts, various themes emerged to answer the research questions that guided the study. Details: Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 2014. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2015 at: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/YOS-2014-DCJ-Evaluation.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/YOS-2014-DCJ-Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 136385 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Re-Examining Juvenile Incarceration : High cost, poor outcomes spark shift to alternatives Summary: A growing body of research demonstrates that for many juvenile offenders, lengthy out-of-home placements in secure corrections or other residential facilities fail to produce better outcomes than alternative sanctions. In certain instances, they can be counterproductive. Seeking to reduce recidivism and achieve better returns on their juvenile justice spending, several states have recently enacted laws that limit which youth can be committed to these facilities and moderates the length of time they can spend there. These changes prioritize the use of costly facilities and intensive programming for serious offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending, while supporting effective community-based programs for others. In general, research has found that juvenile incarceration fails to reduce recidivism: - Meta-analyses - studies that combine the results of multiple evaluations - suggest that placement in correctional facilities does not lower the likelihood of juvenile reoffending and may, in fact, increase it in some cases. One longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, found that after matching youth offenders on 66 factors, including demographics and criminal history, those in placement fared no better in terms of recidivism than those on probation. - A separate analysis of the same data found that youth who reported the lowest levels of offending before being placed were more likely to reoffend following institutional stays. - In Texas, a recent study found that youth in community-based treatment, activity, and surveillance programs had lower rearrest rates than those with similar criminal histories and demographic characteristics who were released from state facilities. - An examination of long-term recidivism and education outcomes in Cook County, Illinois, found that juveniles who experienced confinement were more likely to drop out of high school and to be incarcerated as adults than youth offenders who were not incarcerated. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/04/Reexamining_Juvenile_Incarceration.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/04/Reexamining_Juvenile_Incarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 136492 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance Title: Juvenile Prisons: National consensus and alternatives Summary: Recent reports issued by the Office of the Child Advocate1 and by a consultant to the Department of Children and Families itself raise urgent concerns about conditions at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and the Pueblo Unit. In addition to immediately improving safety at these facilities, the state should develop a long-term plan for youth in the juvenile justice system that maximizes their prospects for rehabilitation. A wealth of research and the experience of other states show that correctional facilities offer the worst outcomes for youth at the highest cost. The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance makes the following recommendations in the interest of child well-being, public safety and responsible use of taxpayer dollars. 1. Conditions must be improved immediately at CJTS and Pueblo, with input from national experts and with independent oversight, as recommended by DCF's own consultant. 2. The state must work toward closing these facilities. CJTS should close in 18 to 24 months. Pueblo should close much sooner. 3. Closure must be preceded by the development of a robust system of care that meets the needs of all children, in the least restrictive setting possible. The objective is not simply to close facilities - it is to serve kids better. 4. Connecticut must draw on outside expertise to develop this system. In particular it should be guided by the successes of other states as described in this report. This report includes a summary of findings about CJTS and Pueblo, research on the failure of youth prisons as well as successful state-level initiatives to close them in favor of community-based programs that are producing far better results. The experience of other states shows that improved outcomes and cost savings are clearly achievable - in fact, are highly compatible. Furthermore, their experience creates a blueprint for Connecticut. Details: Bridgeport, CT: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/youthprisonreport81115.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/youthprisonreport81115.pdf Shelf Number: 136823 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersTraining Schools |
Author: Sherman, Francine T. Title: Gender Injustice: System-Level Juvenile Justice Reforms for Girls Summary: Despite decades of attention, the proportion of girls in the juvenile justice system has increased and their challenges have remained remarkably consistent, resulting in deeply rooted systemic gender injustice. The literature is clear that girls in the justice system have experienced abuse, violence, adversity, and deprivation across many of the domains of their lives-family, peers, intimate partners, and community. There is also increasing understanding of the sorts of programs helpful to these girls. What is missing is a focus on how systems-and particularly juvenile justice systems-can be redesigned to protect public safety and support the healing and healthy development of girls and young women. Juvenile justice systems reform is occurring across the country as a result of a growing understanding of developmental and neurological differences between youth and adults, the high cost of incarceration, and the consistent failure of a punitive juvenile justice model. However, even as systems are initiating reforms and changing their approach, they are routinely failing to modify those reforms for girls or even to collect data on how girls, specifically, are affected by the problems they are seeking to remedy. As a result, the particular impact on girls of failures in the juvenile justice system is not understood and few juvenile reforms are tailored to girls' needs and pathways into the system- meaning girls and young women are unlikely to fully benefit from system reforms. Many of the problems discussed in this report are not unique to girls-and many of the suggested paths forward can benefit both boys and girls. However, because girls are frequently left out of reform discussions, an intentional focus on girls is needed to ensure that they fully benefit from system reforms. Indeed, in writing this report we were struck by the number of promising national and large-scale juvenile justice reform efforts that have not fully considered the role of gender in the problems they address or in the solutions they propose. If this intentional gender focus does not coexist with current large-scale system reforms, an important opportunity for gender justice and equity and developmental system reforms will be missed. To facilitate developmental juvenile justice system reform for girls, this report will: Map girls' current paths into and through the juvenile justice system; Describe the social contexts driving girls' behavior and involvement in the juvenile justice system; and Detail recommendations for an alternative, developmental approach to redesign juvenile justice systems to address harmful social contexts and girls' resulting behaviors, rather than penalize and punish girls for challenges beyond their control. The recommendations included in this report are consistent with decades of research on adolescent development, as well as newer data on the development of girls in particular. With continued research on girls and an intentional focus on their needs, system stakeholders and policymakers can capitalize on current reforms that are already underway and ensure girls are not simply wedged into solutions meant for boys. Details: Portland, OR: National Crittenton Foundation; Washington, DC: National Women's Law Center, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ed_rp_gender_injustice.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ed_rp_gender_injustice.pdf Shelf Number: 136894 Keywords: Female DelinquentsFemale Juvenile OffendersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice Reform |
Author: Berkovitz, Melody Title: Rethinking Rikers: Moving from a Correctional to a Therapeutic Model for Youth Summary: "Children are not little adults . . . neurological research has made that clear." Consequently, a different system, or a different set of responses, is necessary to address the needs of young adults in the criminal justice system. Yet, New York City has lagged behind other jurisdictions, including New York State, in modernizing its treatment and punishment of youth offenders. Significantly, New York remains one of only two states in the country to treat 16 and 17-year olds as adults in its courts. More than 500 youth languish in New York City's Department of Correction facility on Rikers Island and over 75% of them are awaiting trial. Such a system of large-scale youth correctional facilities provides little benefit for long-term public safety. On the contrary, it wastes vast sums of taxpayer dollars, and more often than not, harms the well-being and dampens the future prospects of the youth behind bars. Each year, the United States invests 6 billion dollars to incarcerate youth, and within two to three years of their release, 70-80% of these youth are rearrested on a new offense. New York City spends $167,000 per year to hold a young person on Rikers Island. Instead of existing costly and ineffectual practices, policymakers should be working towards narrowing the pipeline of youth entering the criminal justice system. For those that do enter, New York City should adopt effective charging and bail policies, change case processing methods, and increase alternatives to incarceration and other services to improve outcomes for individuals. These practices would significantly reduce the number of youth in detention. Implementation of these necessary practices, however, is not within the control of the Board of Correction and is beyond the scope of this report. This report addresses effective practices for those youth who will be detained in secure facilities. Effective policy requires a fundamental shift to a therapeutic approach with practices that are specialized for and dedicated to youth rehabilitation. This begins with the pressing need to eliminate the use of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement for incarcerated youth across the United States has increasingly captured public attention. Although the definition varies, for purposes of this report, solitary confinement consists of extreme isolation for 22-24 hours a day with minimal human contact. The severe emotional, mental and physical harm caused by such practices is well documented. While isolation might be sparingly utilized for short periods of time in some circumstances, solitary confinement for lengthy periods is detrimental. Moreover, the practice itself has proven to be unnecessarily costly and a substantial contributor to increased recidivism rates. Some states have eliminated solitary confinement altogether. Others, including New York, continue to utilize solitary confinement for adults and children alike, irrespective of the burgeoning scientific data highlighting its harmful effects. Research in the past three decades demonstrates that heavy reliance on solitary confinement and more generally, on punitive-based models for incarceration of youth, is counterproductive. It does not work to reduce aggressive, violent, impulsive, or disobedient behaviors. In fact, solitary confinement increases these behaviors. Overall, the Rikers Island correctional model is damaging and in need of significant change. Solitary confinement is but the most extreme of the harmful practices. New York's current political climate provides an ideal opportunity to redesign the current youth detention system on Rikers Island. New York City should look to the flourishing success of models and practices in other jurisdictions and follow a fundamentally different approach to its treatment of youth in detention. We must embrace a shift from the traditional and oft-ineffective correctional facility model to the proven success of a residential treatment facility model. This report examines the emerging research and the characteristics and models adopted by other states that are effective in the treatment of youth. It makes recommendations to change existing practices for youth on Rikers Island. These include placement of youth into closely supervised small groups, access to group therapy and positive behavioral management, extensive staff training and reorientation of staff to a therapeutic approach, alternatives to discipline, procedural safeguards and methods to carefully assess and evaluate the programs. Details: New York: Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 2014. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2015 at: https://cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/YJCFeb2_1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/YJCFeb2_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137050 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionRikers IslandSolitary ConfinementYoung Adult OffendersYouth DetentionYouthful Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Children in Custody 2014-15. An analysis of 12-18-year-olds' perceptions of their experience in secure training centres and young offender institutions Summary: This report sets out how children in secure training centres (STCs) and young offender institutions (YOIs) describe their experience in the secure estate. It is based on the responses to surveys that were part of the unannounced inspections of every STC and YOI in 2014-15. Of the children in these establishments at the time of the inspections, 84% of them completed a survey. Survey responses do not provide a complete picture of an establishment - a key part of their purpose is to suggest the areas that need closer examination during the inspection. Similarly, this annual review raises important questions that policy makers and practitioners looking to the future of youth custody would do well to pursue. Children in STCs generally reported more positively than those in YOIs, and overall, in both types of establishment, about four in five children said staff treated them with respect. Nevertheless, a significant minority of children in both STCs and YOIs described being frightened and unhappy. Although around four in five children described feeling safe on their first night, almost a third said they had felt unsafe at some time and more than one in 10 said they felt unsafe at the time the survey took place. Two out of five children said they had been physically restrained. This report contains some analysis of what other factors children who feel unsafe or have been restrained have in common, which may suggest areas on which to focus, in order to reduce these concerns. Only slightly more than half the children in both types of establishment felt they had done anything in custody to make them less likely to offend in future. It is a significant concern that fewer boys in YOIs reported being involved in any kind of purposeful activity than at the time of any of our reports in the last five years. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/12/HMIP_CP_-Children-in-custody-2014-15-FINAL-web-AW.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/12/HMIP_CP_-Children-in-custody-2014-15-FINAL-web-AW.pdf Shelf Number: 137454 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Behaviour management and restraint of children in custody: A review of the early implementation of MMPR Summary: In March 2013, the House of Commons Justice Committee recommended in its report on youth justice that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons should report on the implementation of the new system of behaviour management and restraint in young offender institutions (YOIs) and secure training centres (STCs), known as 'minimising and managing physical restraint' (MMPR). This report sets out our findings on the implementation of the new system to date. The introduction of MMPR was the culmination of a long process initiated following the deaths of two boys in 2004. Gareth Myatt died after he became unconscious during a restraint in an STC. 'If you can talk, you can breathe', an officer told him when he complained. It was not true. Adam Rickwood, aged 14, hung himself after a 'pain compliance' technique was applied to him. This was the 'nose distraction technique', a painful jab under the base of the nose. MMPR is intended to change the approach to behaviour management within YOIs and STCs, placing an additional emphasis on the importance of staff using their existing relationships with children to de-escalate volatile incidents, and minimising the number of children who experience restraint. MMPR also includes a comprehensive system of national governance and oversight to not only monitor the use of restraint but also improve and promote safe practice across the estate. The implementation of MMPR is taking place against a backdrop of a substantial fall in the number of children in custody, the decommissioning of beds across both YOIs and STCs and staffing shortages across the YOI estate. This has caused significant delay in the roll out of MMPR, which is now due to be completed in July 2016 - a year behind schedule. The reduction in numbers also means that YOIs and STCs now hold an even more concentrated mix of children (almost all boys) with more challenging behaviour and complex needs than in the past. This combination of delay, resource pressures, a more complex population and concerns about overall performance means that the new MMPR system is not yet being consistently implemented or achieving the intended outcomes. At this stage in the implementation of MMPR we welcome the significant improvements that it has brought to the national oversight of restraint and the greater focus on communication and de-escalation as part of a wider approach to behaviour management. The development of a consistent approach to restraint across all secure settings is itself an important improvement. However, some of what we have found has been too variable and sometimes very poor. Nevertheless, we have seen enough of when it does work to cautiously conclude it is an improvement on previous systems and that the foundations are there to enable further improvement still. The Youth Justice Board should continue with its implementation. While it is sometimes necessary to restrain children we share the view of others that there is no such thing as 'entirely safe' restraint. MMPR attempts to change the culture of behaviour management across the secure estate so that effective relationships and communication are used as a basis to reduce the use of force. Effective relationships are more difficult to establish in YOIs, which are larger than STCs and have lower staffing levels. Staff in YOIs spoke of the difficulty in forming these relationships during short association periods. Staff shortages had led to many staff being cross-deployed within YOIs or sent on detached duty to work at other establishments. In contrast, STC staff felt they had the time to form positive relationships with the children living on their unit. This is supported by the perceptions of children in our annual survey of children in custody - a significantly higher proportion of children in STCs than YOIs reported that staff treated them with respect; 93% in STCs compared with 70% in YOIs. We found that all establishments had implemented behaviour management plans for children with more challenging behaviour. This was progress. However, the criteria for implementing a behaviour management plan were not always clear and we were not satisfied that all children who needed a plan had one. Too many of the plans we saw were of a poor standard, not demonstrating adequate assessment, relevant targets or any review of the child's progress to enable staff to manage the most challenging children expertly. Some staff also commented that if they did not have the time to get to know a particular child, a written plan was of limited use. Children with medical or other conditions that could be affected by MMPR techniques could also have restraint handling plans put in place for them. It was positive that establishments dealing with more complex cases could now seek medical advice through the expert serious injuries and warning signs (SIWS) medical panel. However, we found potentially dangerous examples of staff not adhering to these plans during restraints. In general, staff were unfamiliar with the content of the plans; this was a serious oversight that could have led to significant injuries. In the YOIs and STCs we visited many children were unable to identify any difference between their experience of MMPR and previous behaviour management systems in terms of attempts made to reduce the incidence of restraint or actual restraint practice. While the accounts of children varied, the experience remained, for many, painful and distressing. The evidence from interviews with staff and children, MMPR documentation and our review of CCTV footage indicates that too many of the concerns identified with the previous practice remain. MMPR guidance outlines techniques staff can use to slow down and de-escalate a situation. Children's own experiences of de-escalation before and during restraint varied dramatically; some spoke of staff communicating throughout and making good efforts to calm them down while others reported that little effort was made before or during an incident. Despite staff recording the use of de-escalation in use of force reports, most CCTV footage we reviewed contained evidence of poor de-escalation, and some recordings showed staff intervening too quickly in response to minor incidents. We had particular concerns about the practice relating to restraining children on the floor, the application of head holds and the use of pain-inducing techniques. MMPR does not allow staff to take children to the floor intentionally during a restraint because of the medical risks this poses to the child. In nearly half of all the incidents we reviewed however, including 70% of those in YOIs, children ended up on the floor. We also had concerns about the continued misapplication of the head hold: in addition to the incidents described in this review, the SIWS medical panel has identified the incorrect application of this technique in a significant number of incidents that have resulted in SIWS referrals. We also identified unacceptable examples of children being strip searched under restraint in YOIs. Restraint policy agreed by ministers states that staff should only use pain as a last resort to prevent an immediate risk of serious physical harm, but we found that pain-inducing techniques were used frequently in YOIs, and that in most cases staff were not compliant with this requirement. It is notable that staff in STCs dealing with similar incidents did not use these techniques. We also found underreporting of the use of pain-inducing techniques in YOIs, reducing the effectiveness of local and national safeguards. We found no evidence to justify the deliberate infliction of pain as an approved technique. Within MMPR health care staff play an important role in safeguarding a child during a restraint. It was therefore unacceptable that some establishments did not call health care staff to all incidents. This undermined their role. In some cases, health care staff did not undertake a physical examination of a child after a restraint, instead carrying out this check through a locked door, which was inadequate to ensure the child's welfare. Support for children after a restraint also required improvement; children we interviewed told us that staff did not always speak to them after an incident to ensure they were okay. Structured post-restraint debriefs with children did not always take place, and when they did they varied in quality. They did not serve the purpose of encouraging helpful discussion about the restraint or looking at ways to help the child to improve their behaviour and prevent any further incidents. During this review we found a comprehensive system of national governance and oversight, and the introduction of dedicated MMPR coordinators to drive improvements in local practice was positive. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 22, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Behaviour-management-and-restraint-Web-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Behaviour-management-and-restraint-Web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137652 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Beck, Allen J. Title: Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007-12 Summary: Presents national estimates of nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment reported by correctional authorities in state juvenile correctional systems and local and private juvenile correctional facilities from 2007 to 2012. The report also examines substantiated incidents, including characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, time of day, nature of injuries, impact on the victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. Companion tables in the Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007-12 - Statistical Tables include counts of allegations and substantiated incidents of sexual victimization for each state juvenile correctional system, juvenile correctional facility in Indian country, and sampled locally and privately operated juvenile correctional facility. Data are from BJS's Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), which has been conducted annually since 2004. Highlights: In 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems and 613 in local or private facilities and Indian country facilities. The number of allegations per year has fluctuated in state juvenile systems and the rate more than doubled, from 19 per 1,000 youth in 2005 to 47 per 1,000 in 2012. In locally and privately operated facilities, the number of allegations dropped from 2009 to 2011 and then began to rise in 2012. Based on 2-year rolling averages, the rate in 2012 was 13.5 per 1,000 youth, up from 7.2 per 1,000 in 2010. From 2007 to 2012, nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual victimization of youth were reported in state or local and private facilities. Fifty-five percent involved youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 45% involved staff-on-youth sexual victimization. Upon investigation, 25% of the allegations of youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 10% of the allegations of staff-on-youth sexual victimization were substantiated during the 6-year period. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2016 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrjca0712.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrjca0712.pdf Shelf Number: 137717 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesRapeSexual VictimizationSexual Violence |
Author: Connecticut. Office of the Child Advocate Title: Investigative Facility Report: Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo Unit Summary: The Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) is charged with investigating, evaluating, and publicly reporting regarding the efficacy of state-funded services to children. OCA is specifically charged with reviewing conditions for children and youth in state-funded facilities and in programs serving children with special needs. The following investigation was undertaken in part because of concerns about conditions at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo brought to OCA by whistleblowers, some of whom work at the Department of Children and Families. CJTS and Pueblo are DCF-run juvenile correctional programs for boys and girls adjudicated as delinquent and committed to state custody due to juvenile offenses. Most of the children confined at CJTS have adjudications for non-violent offenses. The primary purpose (if not the sole purpose) of CJTS and Pueblo is to improve public safety through the rehabilitation/treatment of delinquent youth. The vast majority of children and youth at CJTS and Pueblo have histories of trauma, abuse, neglect, complex psychiatric disorders, and special education needs. To rehabilitate successfully, these youth require intensive, therapeutic supports, seven days a week, and discharge to rigorous and effective services and supervision. OCA's months-long review of facility video tapes, incident reports, and treatment records revealed urgent safety problems for youth. Findings include inadequate suicide prevention, lack of appropriate support and training for staff, inadequate and harmful crisis management, and an opaque system that, despite significant public funding, reports scant information regarding quality, public safety outcomes, and oversight. There is a tension between the rehabilitative mission of the juvenile justice system and the operations of a maximum-security facility like CJTS. These tensions give rise to many of the risks and harms discovered by OCA during this investigation. In part due to similar findings around the country and research demonstrating such programs are ineffective for improving public safety, many states are moving away from prison-like facilities for high need youth and re-allocating dollars towards more effective interventions. Connecticut has rightfully been lauded as a national leader in decreasing incarceration rates for juveniles and adults. However, reliance on the state's maximum security juvenile correctional complex continues, despite stakeholders' and leaders' historic lack of confidence in this facility. OCA respectfully and strongly urges close attention to the urgent issues outlined in this report. OCA's recommendations are also similar to those recently offered by DCF's consultant, Dr. Robert Kinscherff of the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. DCF has pledged to act on several of Dr. Kinscherff's recommendations and has begun to take additional steps to do the following: 1. Eliminate unlawful restraint and seclusion of children in the facilities; 2. Improve suicide prevention protocols and training; 3. Improve risk assessment and response; 4. Strengthen trauma-informed supports for youth; 5. Improve quality assurance and reporting. OCA applauds that commitment. Given the gravity of OCA's findings, the unique vulnerability of confined youth and the extraordinary state expenditure for CJTS and Pueblo, it will be critical to ensure that changes are implemented expertly, expeditiously, and transparently. Given the complexity of issues reviewed during this investigation, OCA consulted extensively with mental health and other professionals to support our review and recommendations. To that end, OCA also consulted with the State's Office of Protection and Advocacy-charged with protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. The Office of Protection and Advocacy (OPA) reviewed numerous primary source records, including treatment plans, progress notes, and video tapes collected during our investigation. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has issued a responsive public statement, attached to this report. Details: Hartford, CT: Office of the Child Advocate, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137786 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Title: Youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2014/2015 Summary: The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), enacted in 2003, is the legislation that governs how youth aged 12 to 17 years are to be dealt with by the Canadian justice system. The Act provides for a separate youth justice system that is meant to protect the public while holding young persons accountable in a manner that is proportionate to their level of maturity and the seriousness of the offence. Within this legislative framework, set by the federal government, the provinces and territories are responsible for administering youth correctional services in Canada. This Juristat article presents an overview of youth correctional services in Canada for 2014/2015. The article uses three measures to describe the utilization of correctional services-average counts, initial entry and admissions. Average counts provide a snapshot of the youth corrections population on any given day; initial entry provides an indication of the number of youth entering the corrections system during the year; and admissions measure the flow of youth through the system by counting youth each time they begin or move to a new type of custody or community supervision. Data on average counts come from the Youth Corrections Key Indicator Report, while data on initial entry and admissions come from the Youth Custody and Community Services Survey and the Integrated Correctional Services Survey. It should be noted that not all jurisdictions were able to report data for 2014/2015. Average count data are not available for Quebec and are limited to custody counts for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta, meaning nine jurisdictions provided overall average counts. Admissions data are likewise available for nine jurisdictions with Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta being the exclusions. These same four jurisdictions plus Manitoba were unable to provide initial entry counts in 2014/2015. Details: Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juristat, 36(1): Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14317-eng.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14317-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 138386 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Broderick, Roisin Title: Young People in Custody 2015 Summary: This Bulletin, which deals specifically with young males held by the Scottish Prison Service in HMYOI Polmont, is one of a number of thematic commentaries presenting the key findings from the 2015 Prisoner Survey. The Prisoner Survey was introduced to the Scottish Prison Service in 1990 as a mechanism to inform and support the Service's business planning process. The focus of the Survey has expanded over the years. The Survey continues to focus upon the core elements of prison life: living conditions, family contact, healthcare, relationships, atmosphere and perceived safety. The Survey informs and shapes change by contributing to establishment and corporate business plans. The Survey was carried out between June and July 2015 on an establishment-by-establishment basis. Prisoners' views were collected by means of a self-completion questionnaire, which was distributed and collected personally by the member's prison staff. The Survey involves all prisoners and all establishments. The 15th Survey achieved an overall prisoner response rate of 55%. A total of 327 male young people participated in this survey, a response rate of 73%. Over a quarter (29%) of prisoners said that they were on remand at the time of completing the 2015 prisoner survey; 71% had been sentenced. Respondents' remand and custodial sentence history is outlined in Table 1. This shows that young people were most likely to report having been on remand between 1 and 5 times (57%), followed by having 'never' previously been on remand (31%). Four in ten young people (42%) had 'never' previously served a prison sentence, while over half (53%) had served between 1 and 5 sentences. As expected, a higher percentage of the adult population had previously served a sentence 6-10 times (12%) and over 10 times (17%). Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Prison Service, 2016. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3908.aspx Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3908.aspx Shelf Number: 138390 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Orr, Kate Skellington Title: HM YOI Polmont: Evaluation of the Implementation and Early Impact of the Peer Learning Hub Summary: Background 1.1 This report presents the findings from an independent evaluation of the Peer Learning Hub pilot that was set up in HM Young Offenders Institution (YOI) Polmont in 2014. 1.2 The purpose of the evaluation was twofold: to document and examine the set up and initial implementation of the Peer Learning Hub; as well as to consider early indications of its impact. 1.3 The evaluation focussed retrospectively on the set up and running of the pilot over the first nine months following implementation and also sought to identify and appraise changes to the pilot model that have subsequently taken place. The evaluation was intended to be formative, insofar as the findings will be used to help the pilot Hub reflect on learning and experience to date, and explore ways in which the project can continue to develop and progress in the future. Research Aims & Questions 1.4 The evaluation directly explored the following research questions: - How has the Peer Learning Hub been established? Has it been implemented as planned? What is the fidelity of implementation? - Have there been barriers to implementation? If so what were they, what was their impact, and how were (or will) they be addressed? - What is being delivered in the Peer Learning Hub? - Are activities being delivered as intended? - Are participants being reached as intended? - What are the characteristics of participants, the throughput and the attrition rates? - What are participants' views on peer mentoring? - What changes, if any, have been made to the Peer Learning Hub as a consequence of initial lessons learned? How and why have changes been made? What impact have such changes had on the success of the Peer Learning Hub? 1.5 Recognising that the Hub is also still fairly new in its implementation, and that impact data was therefore limited to the short term and would be indicative, at best, the evaluation also considered: - Whether peers are better at engaging young people in Polmont than staff members; - Whether peers are more effective at sharing and imparting information and knowledge; - Whether young offenders can act as successful role models; - If, in custodial settings, prisoners can form pro-social communities that realise wider benefits; - Whether the Peer Learning Hub increases confidence, self-esteem and self-worth of the mentors; - Whether peer mentees feel more empowered and responsible; 2 - Whether deployment of peer mentors works as a symbol and signal of a pro-social, asset building culture; - Whether peers can become ambassadors to other service users; and - The extent to which peers can improve service delivery by identifying real issues on the ground. 1.6 It is important to stress that the research did not seek to assess the effectiveness of peer mentoring per se, since the benefits of peer mentoring and other peer interventions in the custodial setting is already well documented1. It is well known, for example, that under the right conditions, peers may be better at engaging offenders than prison or other staff, that they can act as positive role models and may be more effective at communicating information and knowledge to peers than traditional teaching staff. Research has also shown that peer mentors can be effective in helping to change the behaviour of their peers, and can be especially helpful in reaching traditionally hard to reach groups. Instead, what this evaluation sought to do was to explore the specific approach being adopted at HM YOI Polmont and the suitability for the particular offender group housed there. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Prison Service, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3922.aspx Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3922.aspx Shelf Number: 138687 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsEducational ProgramsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesMentoringPeer LearningYoung Offenders |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia: 2014-15 Summary: There were about 5,600 young people (aged 10 and older) under youth justice supervision in Australia on an average day in 2014-15, due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. This number has decreased by 23% over the 5 years to 2014-15. Around 4 in 5 (82%) young people under supervision on an average day were male. Most (85%) young people were supervised in the community and the remainder were in detention. Although rates of supervision decreased over the 5-year period for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people, the level of Indigenous over-representation increased. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 133: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554930 Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554930 Shelf Number: 138834 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Molloy, Jennifer K. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Therapeutic Communities in Secure Settings for Substance-abusing Offenders (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: Between 70% and 85% of the U.S. prison population is in need of some level of substance abuse treatment (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2009). The link between drug use and crime has been substantiated in an extensive body of research, leading many to the conclusion that treatment is a necessary component of preventing offenders from reoffending after release from custody (Harrison & Gfroerer, 1992; Lipton, 1998; Wexler, 1995). Therapeutic communities (TCs) are a treatment option commonly used in prisons or jails to address the substance abuse treatment needs of offenders while they are incarcerated. TCs are residential settings that use a hierarchical model of care combined with treatment stages that reflect increased levels of personal and social responsibility. Unlike other treatment models, TCs utilize a "community as method" approach that sees treatment staff and those in recovery as agents of change. TC members interact in structured and unstructured ways to influence attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors associated with drug use and antisocial activities. Another fundamental component of a TC is "self-help," where the individuals themselves are main contributors to the change process. Of all incarceration-based drug treatment programs, TCs are the most intensive and typically the longest in duration (6 to 12 months). Therapeutic Communities (TCs) were first implemented in U.S. psychiatric hospitals in the 1950s, extending to community-based substance abuse programs in the 1960s, and eventually to prisons in the late 1960s (Canode, 2007). The development of the prison TC model can be attributed to a rapidly increasing prison population and a growing awareness of the link between drugs and crime (Wexler & Prendergast, 2010). TCs were developed as an offshoot of the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) model in order to treat "hard core" heroin-dependent criminals. Subsequently, the model has evolved to include a broader perspective and population, serving individuals from a diverse demographic who are severely dependent on drugs (Gerstein, 1992; Wexler, 1995). The success of the TC model has led to its application with specific populations including women (Sacks et al., 2008), inmates with co-occurring disorders (Sacks, Banks, McKendrick, & Sacks, 2008), and youth (Gordon, 2002). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah. 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/TC-Technical-Report_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/TC-Technical-Report_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 139129 Keywords: Drug OffendersEvidence-Based ProgramsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersSubstance Abuse OfficersSubstance Abuse TreatmentTreatment Programs |
Author: Wilber, Shannan Title: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: LGBT youth have always been present in the juvenile justice system, although many of them have concealed their identities to escape harassment and mistreatment. Until relatively recently, the juvenile justice profession has largely denied, ignored, or dismissed the significance of this reality and its implications for policy and practice. Historically, neither the law nor professional standards acknowledged or addressed the specific and substantial harm suffered by justice-involved LGBT youth. In this vacuum, misinformation and bias have long subjected LGBT youth to unfair and unlawful treatment, including identity-based criminalization, unwarranted and prolonged incarceration and verbal, physical and sexual abuse. Although these harmful and unjust practices persist in many jurisdictions, this guide builds on a sea change the field is undergoing. Prompted by broader societal changes and recent legal developments, the juvenile justice profession has turned its attention to the LGBT youth in its care and custody and has begun to change policies and practices to address their needs. These changes are taking place in the context of a dramatic shift in public attitudes toward LGBT people in this country. Even 20 years ago, most Americans knew very little about sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression (SOGIE), and the majority would likely say that they knew few, if any, people who openly identified as LGBT. In the last generation, public opinion has moved from widespread condemnation to growing visibility and acceptance. This shift is particularly evident in the last decade and is reflected across many societal spheres. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie B. Casey Foundation, 2015. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: A Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform, No. 11: Accessed June 13, 2016 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-lesbiangaybisexualandtransgenderyouthinjj-2015.pdf#page=5 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-lesbiangaybisexualandtransgenderyouthinjj-2015.pdf#page=5 Shelf Number: 139424 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersLesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) |
Author: Bolin, Riane Miller Title: Adultification in Juvenile Corrections: A Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Officers Summary: The growing recognition throughout the nineteenth century that juveniles were different than adults culminated in the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois in 1899. By 1945, every state had developed its own juvenile justice system separate and distinct from the criminal justice system. Since its inception, the juvenile justice system has experienced two waves of adultification in which the lines between the juvenile and criminal justice systems were blurred. While a number of studies have focused on the adultification of juvenile courts, no study has examined the adultification of juvenile corrections. Thus, the present study aims to explore whether one type of juvenile corrections, probation and parole, has been adultified by comparing the professional orientations as well as the behavior of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. The study finds that juvenile probation and parole officers do differ from adult officers in regards to their professional orientation and behavior. Specifically, it is found that compared to adult probation and parole officers, juvenile officers tend to more strongly adhere to ideas of treatment, welfare, and offender-focused probation/parole. Additionally, it is found that juvenile probation and parole officers are less likely than adult officers to issue written sanctions and to pursue revocation hearings. The evidence from the present study reveals the important practical implications of retaining a separate and distinct juvenile justice system. Details: Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 2014. 241p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=etd Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=etd Shelf Number: 145410 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile ParoleJuvenile ProbationParole OfficersProbation Officers |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Risk Assessment Project Findings Summary: The primary purpose of this project was to construct an interim risk tool for the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). The function of the interim risk tool is to statistically estimate the likelihood that an offender will continue to be involved in delinquent activity, and classify the offender according to their relative risk of continued involvement (Gottfredson, 1987; Krysik & LeCroy, 2002). The goal of statistical risk assessment is to effectively group offenders by risk level in order to allocate resources for higher-risk youth while maintaining validity and consistency in the assessment and decision-making process. The development of an interim risk tool was constructed through an integrated three step approach: (1) a review of the literature related to modeling risk in juvenile correctional populations was conducted; (2) the interim risk tool was developed and subsequently validated on a separate, independent sample; and (3) risk tool administrators and users were surveyed to determine their perceptions and use of the current ADJC risk prediction instrument. Historically, the type of information included in risk instruments includes the offender's criminal history, social history (e.g., substance abuse, education/employment, family background, psychological profile), and demographics (i.e., age, gender, race/ethnicity) (Cottle et al., 2001; Krysik & LeCroy, 2002). In most risk tools, the likelihood of recidivism is most closely related to a few consistent variables - criminal history, substance abuse, family background, and school performance. Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2006. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/adjcriskassessmentprojectfindingsreportfinal-1.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/adjcriskassessmentprojectfindingsreportfinal-1.pdf Shelf Number: 140673 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersPredictionRisk Assessment |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Assessing Risk of Disruptive Behaviors Among Juvenile Offenders: Assessing Risk of Disruptive Behaviors Among Juvenile Offenders Summary: The objective of this study is to develop an instrument to help improve the overall safety of juvenile correctional facilities and provide guidance for professionals to identify high need youth that will require additional support services. Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: http://www.azdjc.gov/OfficesPrograms/Research/institutionalrisktechnicalreport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.azdjc.gov/OfficesPrograms/Research/institutionalrisktechnicalreport.pdf Shelf Number: 144937 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersRisk Assessment |
Author: Ryon, Stephanie Bontrager Title: Juvenile Probation and Residential Services Evaluation Summary: Connecticut provides delinquency services through both the judicial and executive branches. The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) is responsible for juvenile corrections and aftercare services, while the Connecticut Judicial Branch‟s Court Support Services Division (CSSD) administers pre- and post-adjudication services, including detention and probation supervision (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2010; Management 2011). The Connecticut Juvenile Justice System (CJJS) is based on restorative justice principles of accountability and reintegration, public safety and rehabilitation. Individualized treatment, prevention, community-based placements, standardized risk and needs assessments, and coordinated evidence-based services are core features of the CJJS (Management, 2011). Together, DCF and CSSD have developed a collaborative strategic plan to ensure the seamless delivery of delinquency services to at risk youth in Connecticut (Child Welfare League of America, 2006). The joint plan is based on principles of effective intervention, which underscore the importance of reserving residential commitment programs for the most high risk youth, and those most likely to benefit from long-term, out-of-home placements. Two recent studies of juvenile probation and residential services suggest that youthful offenders who complete probation programming are less likely to re-offend once discharged than those completing more restrictive commitment programs (Winokur et al., 2007; Greenfield, 2007). The Connecticut Judicial Branch CSSD retained the Justice Research Center (JRC) to study system services including probation and residential programming. The State of Connecticut has a long history of ensuring accountability, and understands that evaluating effectiveness and efficiency is critical to the provision of quality services and the expansion of programs to reach more at-risk youth and their families. The overarching goal of the current evaluation was to assess the extent to which Connecticut‟s juvenile probation and commitment programs provide effective interventions to the appropriate delinquent youth. The evaluation examined youth characteristics, pathways through the continuum of care, and correlates of recidivism for a historical sample of probation and residential clients. All youth disposed from court to either juvenile probation (N=2,823) or commitment to residential placement (N=269), and released between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007 were included in the study. Research questions specific to probation, residential, alternatives to residential commitment and predictors of system escalation were addressed through quantitative analyses. The evaluation results are summarized below. Probation Forty-nine percent of the probation releases had a juvenile referral or adult arrest; and 34 percent had a juvenile adjudication or adult conviction within one year of completing probation services. Many factors were significantly associated with recidivism for probation releases (gender, race, age at first offense, measures of prior offending and risk and needs); however, none exhibited more than a modest correlation with post-release juvenile adjudication or adult conviction. The predicted odds of recidivism are higher for male and non-white probation releases; delinquents who are younger when they commit their first offense; and those with elevated criminogenic risk. Those with higher JAG Peer Protective scores had significantly lower the odds of recidivism. Details: Hartfort, CT: Connecticut Support Services Division, Connecticut Judicial Branch, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 14, 2016 at: https://www.jud.ct.gov/cssd/research/juvprob/JuvProb_ResServ_Eval.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.jud.ct.gov/cssd/research/juvprob/JuvProb_ResServ_Eval.pdf Shelf Number: 144942 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivism |
Author: McCarthy, Patrick Title: The Future of Youth Justice: A Community-Based Alternative to the Youth Prison Model Summary: For 170 years, since our first youth correctional institution opened, America's approach to youth incarceration has been built on the premise that a slightly modified version of the adult correctional model of incarceration, control, coercion, and punishment — with a little bit of programming sprinkled in — would rehabilitate young people. Sometimes the names attempt to camouflage the nature of the facility, but whether they are called "training schools" or "youth centers," nearly all of these facilities are youth prisons. Whether the benefits and costs of youth prisons are weighed on a scale of public dollars, community safety, or young people's futures, they are damaging the very people they are supposed to help and have been for generations. It is difficult to find an area of U.S. policy where the benefits and costs are more out of balance, where the evidence of failure is clearer, or where we know with more clarity what we should be doing differently. This ill-conceived and outmoded approach is a failure, with high costs and recidivism rates and institutional conditions that are often appalling. Our approach to youth in trouble with the law requires a watershed change to one that is more effective, more informed by evidence of what works, more likely to protect public safety, more developmentally appropriate, more humane, and more community based. Every youth prison in the country should be closed and replaced with a network of community-base' programs and small facilities near the youth’s communities. Closing these failed institutions requires a clear-headed, common-sense, bipartisan policy approach, and a commitment to replace these facilities with effective alternatives that are already available. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250142.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250142.pdf Shelf Number: 140833 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Northern Territory. Children's Commissioner Title: Own Initiative Investigation Report Services Provided by the Department of Correctional Services at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre Summary: JURISDICTION This investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Children's Commissioner Act 2013 (the Act) which allows the Commissioner, on his own initiative, to investigate a matter which may form the grounds for a complaint. The grounds for a complaint are defined under Section 21(1)(a)&(b) of the Act which states that the Children's Commissioner can investigate complaints relating to services provided or that might reasonably be expected to be provided, for vulnerable children. . The services investigated must be provided by either 'a public authority', or another person, or body acting for or under an arrangement with a public authority that has taken or is taking action in relation to the child as a vulnerable child. FORMALITIES There are a number of relevant legislative regimes that apply to the young persons referred to in this report. For the sake of convenience, and despite the terminology differing in each piece of legislation, including 'youth' , 'child' , 'vulnerable child' and 'youth detainee' or ' youth prisoner' , this report will use the phrase young person. BACKGROUND TO INVESTIGATION The decision to conduct this self-initiated investigation was made by the former Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, and was based on events that occurred at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre ('Don Dale') in the Behaviour Management Unit ('BMU') between 4 and 21 August 2014. On 12 August 2014, concerns were raised by a professional stakeholder on behalf of five young persons who were in detention. The complaint related to the alleged indefinite nature of the confinement in the BMU, and the unhygienic living conditions of the environment. It was the complainant's opinion that the conditions were 'inhumane' as young persons were being held in solitary confinement in cramped and darkened cells, for up to 23 hours a day. There were also concerns about the long term impact this could have on the five young persons' psychological and physical well-being. Details: Darwin: The Commissioner, 2015. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Shelf Number: 147318 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesSolitary Confinement |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Children in Custody 2015-16: An analysis of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their experiences in secure training centres and young offender institutions Summary: This independent report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), presents the findings from 767 questionnaires completed by children detained at every secure training centre (STC) (N=3) and young offender institution (YOI) (N=5; plus a separate specialist unit at one site) between 1 April 2015 and 12 April 2016. All surveys were conducted to support unannounced inspections of each establishment. The surveys enable comparisons to be made with the results from 2014–15 and between children with different characteristics or experiences. Surveys have been conducted in YOIs since 2001–02 and in some cases, where the same question has been asked consistently, we can identify trends over the full length of that period. The number of children in custody fell by 53% between 2010–11 and 2015–16, made up largely by falls observed in the number of children held in YOIs (down 59%). Over the longer term, the secure children's estate population has fallen by 66% since 2005–06. In relation to STCs, our survey findings during 2015–16 show that: • the proportion who identified as being from a black or other minority ethnic background was 41%; • the proportion who identified as Muslim was 15%; • the proportion who said they were from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background was 12%; • nearly a quarter of children (23%) reported feeling unsafe at some point since their arrival at the STC and 10% felt unsafe at the time of the inspection – those children who reported having ever felt unsafe also reported poorer experiences than those who had not; • almost a third of children (31%) reported being victimised by being shouted at through windows; • compared with last year, children were significantly less likely to say that it was explained to them why they were being searched on their arrival at the STC (74% compared with 86%); that the search had been carried out respectfully (85% compared with 95%); or that they had spoken to someone about how they were feeling on their first night in the centre (66% compared with 79%). In relation to YOIs, our survey findings during 2015–16 show that: • forty-seven per cent of the boys were from a black or minority ethnic background, the highest rate recorded during our time inspecting the secure estate; • those with experience of the local authority care system (37%), Muslim boys (22%), boys reporting a disability (19%) and those identifying as being from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background (7%) continued to be disproportionately over-represented across the YOI estate when compared with the population as a whole; • when asked if they had ever felt unsafe at their establishment, 46% of boys said they had, again the highest figure we have recorded through our surveys; • in the last 12 months there was a significant increase in the proportion of boys who reported being victimised by other detainees (35% compared with 26% in 2014–15) or members of staff (32% compared with 25% in 2014–15);• children who had ever felt unsafe were more likely than other children to report that they: considered shouting through windows to be a problem at their establishment; arrived there with gang problems; did not feel that they were treated with respect by staff; could not talk to someone when they needed to (like a chaplain, peer mentor, member of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB), or an advocate); and had more problems upon arrival at their YOI, suggesting that strategies to help children feel safer should focus on addressing these issues; • there was a significant fall in the proportion of boys who felt YOI staff treated them with respect (only 63% compared with 70% in 2014–15); • the proportion of boys with a job in their establishment had fallen significantly in the last 12 months (16% compared with 28% in 2014–15); • the proportion of boys engaged in a job (16%), vocational training (11%) and offending behaviour programmes (16%) across the YOI estate was lower in 2015–16 than at any point since 2010–11. Comparing YOI and STC survey responses for 2015–16 showed that children held in STCs were significantly more likely to report that they felt treated with respect by staff, that complaints were sorted fairly and that the food was 'good' or 'very good'. They were also less likely to report that they had been restrained or that they had felt unsafe at the cen Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons; Youth Justice Board, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Children-in-Custody-2015-16_WEB.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Children-in-Custody-2015-16_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 147949 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Victorian Ombudsman Title: Report on youth justice facilities at the Grevillea unit of Barwon Prison, Malmsbury and Parkville Summary: The riots at the Parkville Youth Justice Centre in November 2016 and the Government's subsequent establishment of a youth justice centre within Barwon Prison have prompted reviews, inquiries, and legal proceedings, by numerous agencies. These include the responsible department, the Commission for Children and Young People, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and Parliament. It is not the purpose of this report to add to those inquiries; rather, it is intended to inform Parliament -- and through them the public -- of the response to recent events by oversight agencies, and to put facts into the public domain to help inform the debate. The public debate that has accompanied these events is predictably polarised, from one perspective that youth crime is out of control and a strong response is needed, to the claim that the Government's response is an overreaction that arbitrarily infringed the human rights of the young people concerned. The facts that emerge from independent sources provide succour to both sides of the debate: while youth crime is decreasing overall, more is being committed, more violently, by a small cohort of repeat offenders, who the system is plainly failing to deal with. This was presciently noted by the previous Ombudsman, George Brouwer, in 2013, when he said: It is evident that the youth justice system is limited in its capacity to deal with a small, but increasing, cohort of young people exhibiting violent behaviours. It is important that the youth justice system respond appropriately to these children rather than abrogate its responsibility by transferring them to the adult system. This is illustrated by the startling statistic that some 25 per cent of offences are committed by less than two per cent of offenders -- 182 young people -- so we should not tar all young offenders with the same brush. It is not the purpose of this report to examine the causes of the recent Parkville riots, but the Ombudsman's concerns about the suitability of Parkville are a matter of public record, including the view expressed by my predecessor in 2010 that: the design and location of the Precinct is inappropriate for a custodial facility which houses vulnerable children. ... the only practical way to address the conditions at the Precinct in the long term is to develop a new facility at another site. Among other things, the report noted design features such as a low roof-line allowing detainees to climb onto the roof and ill-placed staircases creating blind spots and posing a safety risk to detainees and staff. It is a matter of record that while the government's response to that report was in many respects substantial -- for example, the establishment of Parkville College that transformed the educational services available to young people -- the precinct itself still exists and young people are still able to climb onto the roof. The record so far is patchy - while improvements have undoubtedly been made, successive governments have failed to make the significant investment needed to address the long-term issues that are increasingly apparent. There is no short-term quick fix to the serious problems affecting youth justice, which have their origins not only in ageing infrastructure but in the complex interplay of health and human services, education and the justice system. Increasing numbers of detainees are also on remand - making for an increasingly volatile and unsettled cohort. I welcome the government's review of youth justice - commissioned last year before the recent troubles and led by an eminent behavioural scientist - with its focus on long-term and joined-up solutions. The chorus of blame will not make us safer as we worry about youth crime. Nor will it make either the staff or the young people safer - an essential prerequisite if youth justice facilities are to provide an environment that promotes rehabilitation. Safety will lie in a system that makes it less likely these young people will be repeat offenders. It is neither in the interests of public safety nor the public purse for young people to become entrenched in a life of crime, cycling through youth justice centres into adult prisons to which all too often they return. Reform must also recognise not only the alarming trend to more 'calculated and callous offending' by young offenders, but also the systemic changes needed to address this deeply disturbing behaviour. My 2015 report into rehabilitation in prisons illustrated how ill-equipped the correctional system is to deal with young adult prisoners; Victoria's dual track system must go on recognising that children – even dangerous children - are different from adults. This report is of a different nature to most reports I present to Parliament. It is the product of enquiries and information shared by other oversight bodies rather than a formal investigation. I hope it will also assist the Parliamentary Inquiry in their work. It is also intended to give Parliament and the public a window into the actual state of affairs within Victoria's youth justice facilities and how oversight agencies hold government to account. The report evidences the close scrutiny of the Grevillea unit in Barwon Prison by the Commission for Children and Young People since the unit was hastily set up last November. It also evidences the pressures on the Parkville and Malmsbury facilities: while staff shortages have long been a problem there, this has plainly been exacerbated by the creation of Grevillea, with the predictable effect that young people are kept in lockdown for longer periods, creating further unrest. This report covers the period to 20 January 2017, and was being finalised when the serious disturbances at Malmsbury occurred on 25 January. While it is sadly inevitable that short-term solutions will continue to be sought to deal with urgent situations that arise, it is vital that the government keep its sights set on long-term reform that addresses the causes of young offender behaviour. Reform should not be derailed by knee-jerk responses to events, which will not make us safer in the long run. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Ombudsman, 2017. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/c6880f35-3cf3-4237-b463-9be28db448c8//publications/parliamentary-reports/report-on-youth-justice-facilities-at-the-greville.aspx Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/c6880f35-3cf3-4237-b463-9be28db448c8//publications/parliamentary-reports/report-on-youth-justice-facilities-at-the-greville.aspx Shelf Number: 145127 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Colorado Child Safety Coalition Title: Bound and Broken: How DYC's Culture of Violence is Hurting Colorado Kids and What To Do About It Summary: Despite a mission of rehabilitation rather than punishment, the culture of the Colorado Division of Youth Corrections (DYC) is plagued by punitive practices that cause physical and emotional harm to the young people in its care. DYC's culture of violence makes facilities unsafe for both children and staff and deters rehabilitation. This report draws on interviews with 21 young people who are or have been incarcerated in eleven of DYC's thirteen state-owned facilities, as well as a review of over 1,000 pages of internal DYC documents, videos and medical reports regarding incidents that occurred between 2013 and 2016. The report concludes that DYC staff used physical pain, isolation and verbal degradation against vulnerable young people, most of whom suffer from past abuse and mental illness. Knee strikes, painful pressure points and the WRAP – a full body straitjacket – are common currency in DYC's culture. There is a better way. In Missouri, juvenile facilities focus on true internalized change for kids by building strong relationships between youth and their peers and between youth and staff. Staff never use isolation, restraints like the WRAP, or pain compliance, because these punitive measures hurt children and prohibit development of trusting relationships with staff. Statistics show that Missouri kids and staff are safer. The "Missouri Approach" has become the gold standard for the care of juveniles and has been exported to other states with success. A pilot program in Colorado could change the culture of violence at DYC to keep kids and staff safe while promoting rehabilitation. Key Facts and Findings 1. Violence has been escalating in DYC facilities. External and internal measures confirm a dramatic increase in the number of documented fights and assaults, and complaints about violence from youth and staff to outside agencies have skyrocketed. 2. Young people and staff consistently report feeling unsafe in DYC facilities. 3. Most young people in DYC have experienced trauma. When youth with a history of trauma feel unsafe, they are less likely to be rehabilitated. 4. DYC staff routinely use physical force and pain to control young people. • DYC staff physically restrained youth at least 3,611 times between January 2016 and January 2017. Of those restraints, over sixty percent resulted in the use of mechanical restraints, such as handcuffs, shackles, or the WRAP. • The WRAP: DYC sanctions use of the WRAP, a full-body restraint banned in Arkansas after it was described as "torture" by the Juvenile Ombudsman. DYC placed children in the WRAP 253 times between January 2016 and January 2017. • Pain Compliance: DYC staff commonly use pain compliance techniques, whereby staff strike or put pressure on sensitive parts of the child’s body to purposely cause pain and gain compliance with staff directives. The U.S. Department of justice found pain compliance techniques violate children's constitutional rights. • DYC staff use force against youth who refuse to follow staff directives, even when those youth pose no immediate threat to safety. • These punitive techniques injure both youth and staff. According to DYC's own records, rates of injury to both young people and DYC staff are consistently higher than the national average and DYC’s internal goals. 5. Solitary Confinement: DYC placed young people in solitary confinement 2,240 times between January 2016 and January 2017. 6. DYC's own data shows that increased staffing alone, without changing DYC's punitive culture, will not ensure reduction of violence. 7. The Missouri Youth Services Institute, a non-profit dedicated to exporting the Missouri Approach, can bring a pilot program to Colorado and provide a template for broad cultural change within DYC, for a fraction of the cost of the funding requested this year by DYC. Details: s.l.: Colorado Child Safety Coalition, 2017. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2017 at: http://static.aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Bound-and-Broken-report-Feb17-complete.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://static.aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Bound-and-Broken-report-Feb17-complete.pdf Shelf Number: 144494 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemCulture of ViolenceJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Shenton, Felicity Anne Title: Even if it is legally defensible, does that make it morally right? Children explore the use of physical restraint in custody Summary: Custody for children is inherently unsafe, with evidence of harmful and unsafe care. Thirty three children have died in custody in England and Wales in the past decade. This study argues that the way children are treated once incarcerated reflects the way that children, childhood and child offenders are conceptualised, perceived and controlled. The routine use of physical restraint as a response to challenging behaviour has been called into question. It has been declared at the very least controversial, unsafe and in some cases unlawful. Taking a children’s human rights approach this piece of participatory research, explores the use of physical restraint across the secure estate in England, from the perspective of children themselves. Over one hundred children (11-18ys) took part, some as researchers themselves and others as participants. Spaces were created which encouraged the authentic and distinctive voice of children, which lies at the heart of the study. Their contemporaneous experience makes this research unique. Evidence is provided which demonstrates that, although distressing and often painful, in most cases children consider its use to be inevitable and justifiable. These daily acts of violence inflicted on children were not considered unusual given children's experiences of everyday violence within their families, communities and other institutions. Children are unaware of their right not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. The research suggests that the existence of a rights framework within the secure estate is negligible. Details: Durham, UK: Durham University, 2015. 356p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 23, 2017 at: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11320/ Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11320/ Shelf Number: 144551 Keywords: Human Rights Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Physical Restraint |
Author: American University. Washington College of Law. Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Title: Protecting Children against Torture in Detention: Global Solutions for a Global Problem Summary: It is my pleasure to introduce the publication "Protecting Children Deprived of Liberty From Torture: Reflections on the Special Rapporteur on Torture's 2015 Thematic Report," which expands upon a key thematic priority explored by the Special Rapporteurship on Torture in 2015. This volume asks a wide variety of stakeholders and thought-leaders to reflect on the report on children deprived of liberty (A/HRC/28/68, available in Annex I) issued by Professor Juan Mendez during his Rapporteurship on Torture at the United Nations (UN). This publication provides additional data and analyses on the myriad of critical issues raised in the report. The publication is an effort of the Anti-Torture Initiative (ATI), a project of the Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law (the Center) at American University Washington College of Law to support the mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (SRT), a position that Professor Juan Mendez held from November 2010 to October 2016. The Center created the ATI in 2012 as part of its mission to develop new tools and strategies for the creative advancement of international human rights norms. During the time of Professor Mendez's mandate, the ATI expanded the strategies used by the SRT in furtherance of its mandate by supporting, monitoring, and assessing implementation of his recommendations, and providing a multi-dynamic model for effective and comprehensive country-specific and thematic follow-up, in areas such as the torture and ill-treatment of children deprived of liberty. In the aftermath of Professor Mendez's mandate, the ATI has continued its role as a foremost player in the global movement against torture, by continuing to work closely with partners from international agencies, regional organizations, governments and policy-makers, and actors from civil society and academia, in an effort to have a positive impact on the landscape of efforts to fight and prevent torture worldwide, in particular when it affects the most vulnerable and marginalized persons worldwide, such as children deprived of liberty. The 2015 report that serves as the basis for this publication came at a timely moment of growing attention to the plight of the more than one million children who are estimated to be deprived of liberty around the world. The report makes a critical contribution by framing abuses and violence commonly perpetrated against children in various guises of deprivation of liberty as torture and other ill-treatment under international law, and by analyzing the unique vulnerability of children to, and concomitant heighted obligation of States to protect children from, such acts. The report analyzes practices within juvenile, criminal justice systems, and administrative, notably immigration, detention, as well as practices in health- and social-care institutions, and the situation of children in armed conflict. It addresses existing gaps in law and policy that facilitate torture and ill-treatment against children deprived of their liberty worldwide. Constrained as it is by an UN-imposed word limit, the report is meant to be a starting-point for discussion, which the articles in this volume pick up. Following its presentation to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2015, the report generated a considerable amount of interest and discussion on a range of issues explored therein. This volume seeks to contribute to and continue this discussion by creating space to elaborate on the report and the essential legal, policy, and advocacy issues raised in a variety of contexts of deprivation of liberty of children around the world. The publication chronicles part of the robust response by practitioners, advocates, and policy-makers to the cross-cutting issues explored by the report. Section I of this volume provides a broad overview of the problem of children deprived of liberty worldwide, and delves into several key questions of law and policy at the intersection of the torture and other ill-treatment and children's rights frameworks, including the potential of the report as a tool for advocacy to promote the recognition and protection of the rights of children in the context of deprivation of liberty; the unique vulnerability of children to torture and other ill-treatment; the challenge of translating standards into practice; the question of access to justice for children deprived of liberty; the role of the Council of Europe in addressing the deprivation of liberty of children; and avenues for meaningful participation of children and adolescents in the recommendations of United Nations human rights bodies in the context of deprivation of liberty. Section II addresses the unique challenges posed by the deprivation of liberty of children in conflict with the law in juvenile and criminal justice systems, featuring a call for the end of child detention as a form of punishment. It also includes a commentary on the UN Model Strategies and Practical Measures on the Elimination of Violence against Children in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice systems. It also analyzes the placement of children in solitary confinement, early diversion, monitoring mechanisms, and models of psychosocial intervention for children deprived of liberty. Section III delves into the situation of migrant, asylum-seeking, and refugee children, and their deprivation of liberty in these contexts. It further refers to the situation of children, including children with disabilities, in institutions and orphanages, as well as the situation of children in armed conflict, child soldiers, and the detention of children on grounds of "national security." Details: Washington, DC: Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, American University, Washington College of Law, 2017. 442p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2017 at: http://antitorture.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Protecting_Children_From_Torture_in_Detention.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: http://antitorture.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Protecting_Children_From_Torture_in_Detention.pdf Shelf Number: 145060 Keywords: Child ProtectionHuman RightsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersTortureViolence against Children |
Author: John Howard Association of Illinois Title: Moving Beyond Transition: Ten Findings and Recommendations on the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice Summary: Our findings include the following: In a 2012 report, JHA found chronically low mental health staffing levels at IYC-Kewanee, the only IDJJ facility designated to provide intensive mental health treatment. Since JHA's 2012 report was published, IDJJ has increased Kewanee's mental health staffing levels and moved youth with lower security risks and less intensive treatment needs to a newly-created mental health special treatment cottage at IYC-St. Charles. While IDJJ has increased its collection of data on programs and operations, much of this data is still not readily available to stakeholders and public. This kind of transparency is essential to enable stakeholders and the public to independently evaluate IDJJ's performance, advocate for necessary improvements, and build broad support for the agency and its mission. In 2012, IDJJ strengthened oversight of its operations by requiring greater accountability from independent service providers, and also working with outside evaluators to assess program outcomes. Notwithstanding ongoing challenges, IDJJ has made progress in the area of juvenile parole and reentry. IDJJ now has the authority to approve alternative host site placements for youth awaiting release on parole, and the agency continues to expand its Aftercare Program to enhance treatment, services, and reentry outcomes for youth on parole. While JHA continues to receive reports from youth of confinement being misused and overused at some facilities, we were encouraged by evidence of staff using communication and de-escalation techniques in lieu of solitary confinement to punish disruptive youth. Based on a growing body of research and a well established body of law and best practices, JHA advocates that IDJJ allow confinement to be used only for security purposes when youth are physically out of control and/or present an immediate threat to physical safety-and only for the limited duration that youth pose an imminent threat of harm. Consistent with juvenile justice systems nationwide, JHA found evidence that minority youth of color in IDJJ are much less likely to be identified as having mental health needs and provided with services than white youth in the system. Details: Chicago: The Society, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2017 at: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/Moving%20Beyond%20Transition.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/Moving%20Beyond%20Transition.pdf Shelf Number: 131364 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersMental Health Services |
Author: Feierman, Jessica Title: Unlocking Youth: Legal Strategies to End Solitary Confinement in Juvenile Facilities Summary: Despite a growing consensus that solitary confinement harms youth and undermines the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, the practice remains all too common. At the same time, the field lacks sufficient information on the prevalence of the practice, the alternatives, and the perspectives of affected youth and families. This report uses surveys of public defenders, conversations with youth and families, interviews with correctional administrators, and legal and psychological research to fill these gaps and set forth recommendations for reform. Solitary confinement in juvenile facilities remains too widespread. Almost half of juvenile facilities report that they isolate youth for more than four hours to control behavior, and more than two-thirds of our survey respondents reported that they have clients who spent time in solitary. The conditions these youth experience can be truly appalling - youth are routinely deprived of necessities such as mattresses, sheets, showers, eating utensils, and mental health treatment. Many spend 22-23 hours per day in cells by themselves. Solitary confinement is harmful. Neurological research and sociological studies confirm what common sense tells us: isolating youth for days and weeks at a time has devastating, long-term effects on their health and development. Our interviews with youth highlight these effects. "It was one of the breaking points for me as a young person - Me realizing now, it was one of the first times I really knew I was depressed. I really didn't want to do anything, I didn't have an appetite. I became really frustrated and angry for being in there - As a kid, never been through this, it's a very traumatic experience." - Eddie Ellis Solitary confinement is unfairly applied. Studies suggest that youth of color and LGBTQ youth are at a heightened risk of being placed in solitary confinement. Girls and gender-non-conforming youth are more likely to enter the justice system with histories of sexual abuse or other trauma, which can exacerbate the harms of isolation and increase the risk of placement in solitary due to trauma-related behaviors. Youth with disabilities are too often placed in isolation for their own protection or due to a lack of available services or accommodations. Solitary confinement is unnecessary and counterproductive. Juvenile justice systems can operate safely and effectively without reliance on solitary confinement. We highlight two jurisdictions - Ohio and Massachusetts - that have drastically limited the practice by increasing the amount of quality scheduled activities, training staff on de-escalation and other techniques, and adopting evidence-based therapeutic models. Recommendations for reform: Policy Reforms: Ensure that policies prohibit, rather than alter or ameliorate, solitary confinement. Reform must include a ban on solitary confinement for any reason other than to prevent immediate harm, with clear limits on its use even under emergency circumstances. Details: Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2017. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/JLC_Solitary_Report-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/JLC_Solitary_Report-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 148178 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Franken, A. Title: Specialization in National Specialist Facilities: a literature review. Summary: The Netherlands Youth Institute carried out this research commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre, WODC, Ministry of Justice and Security. The topic of this research arises from the report "Custody of Young Offenders (Implementation) Survey" (Verkenning Invulling Vrijheidsbeneming Justitiele Jeugd, VIV JJ), which was presented to the House of Representatives in November 2015 (Van Alphen, Drost & Jongebreur, 2015, Parliamentary Papers, Meeting Year 2015-2016, no. 24587-626). Central to this report is the young person, with his or her support needs and needs for care and security. The report focuses on the continuation of care, involvement of the young person's own network and local cooperation between the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI), local care partners and municipalities. One of the building blocks of the report is a National Specialist Facility (LSV), in which young people with a specific profile receive specialist care and security. The question remains, however, which specializations are needed within the National Specialist Facilities and how these specializations could be clustered. Details: Utrecht: Nederlands Jeugdinstituut (NJi) , Universiteit van Amsterdam - Afdeling Forensische Orthopedagogiek, WODC, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2018 at: https://www.wodc.nl/binaries/2895_summary_tcm28-310965.pdf (Full text only available in Dutch) Year: 2018 Country: Netherlands URL: https://www.wodc.nl/binaries/2895_summary_tcm28-310965.pdf Shelf Number: 149693 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Robinson, Gill Title: Children and Young People in Custody in Scotland: Looking Behind the Data Summary: Children and young people who are involved in offending come into contact with the youth or criminal justice system in a variety of ways depending on their age, their needs and circumstances, and the nature of their deeds. Information about the different stages in the system is available through Youth and Criminal Justice in Scotland: the Young Person's Journey. Both the lives of these children and young people and the 'system' that engages with them are complex. This means that it can be extremely difficult to understand what is actually happening for these children and young people, and also that there are rarely easy answers to guide how best to respond to their offending behaviour. This paper has an emphasis on children aged 16 and 17 who are detained in custody but also includes references to young people aged 18 to 21, whose circumstances are often very similar to those of the younger age group. We use the term 'children' to refer to those under 18 years old and 'young people' when referring to 18-21, in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The paper focuses on three themes: 1. Backgrounds of children and young people involved in offending 2. Children and young people's contact with the justice system, especially those who are sentenced to custody 3. What happens after custody? The paper has been produced in partnership between the Centre for Youth & Criminal Justice (CYCJ), the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). The information is drawn from a number of sources including research papers and data from the Scottish Government's Criminal Proceedings Database and the Scottish Prison Service. It incorporates the story of 'Danny', whose experiences represent very many of the young people now in custody. The paper can be added to and strengthened as we learn more. The data, particularly that relating to custodies, is complex and includes a number of illustrative snapshots which may not be fully representative. We would therefore encourage caution in drawing any further conclusions than those which are drawn in this paper. Instead we highlight areas for further reflection and exploration in each section of the paper. Details: Glasgow: Youth Justice Improvement Board, 2017. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Young-People-in-Custody-October-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Young-People-in-Custody-October-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 149722 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Warner, Louise Title: Secure settings for young people: a national scoping exercise Summary: This report summarises the findings of the first (scoping) stage of a service evaluation, evaluating the provision of secure services for detained young people, under 18 years of age, from England, between February and September 2016. This involved identifying every secure unit in Great Britain (the United Kingdom excluding Northern Ireland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, none of which had secure units in which young people from England could be placed) that could detain young people from England and establishing the basic characteristics of each unit, in order to identify similarities and differences between them, prior to further exploration in the later stages of the study. This report addresses two questions: to what extent and in what ways are the types of secure service for children similar or different? Table 1 below presents a summary of these findings. There will be two later stages of this service evaluation including a census of all young people from England detained on 14 September 2016 considering their needs and qualitative interviews of professionals and carers about the strengths and weaknesses of the secure system for young people in England. Details: London: National Health Services, 2018. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2018 at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-1-scoping-analysis.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-1-scoping-analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 152851 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Bartlett, Annie Title: Young people's secure care: Professionals' and parents' views of its purpose, placements and practice Summary: This is the third report on secure care for young people in England. It should be read in conjunction with the scoping report which established the location and nature of secure care facilities for young people and the census report which describes the detained population in terms of their health and social care characteristics and pathways into care. This report is based on the analysis of 53 semi-structured interviews with secure care staff (N=36) and parents of detained young people (N=17). These explored their views of: - the characteristics of the multi-agency system of secure care - why a young person might be detained in the system - who these detained young people might be Key findings included: - Despite the notional clarity of the three components of secure care, respondents thought detained young people in all types of setting often shared similar, disadvantaged backgrounds and characteristics, including mental health difficulties - Vulnerable young people might be placed with those who posed a significant risk to others and those who only posed a risk to themselves might be detained in medium secure hospital services - Staff involved in the care of young people in secure care and parents' had different views on care quality - Staff involved in the care of young people in secure care and parents were critical of the process determining a young person's secure placement, seeing it as a consequence of failures in prophylactic health and social care (particularly child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS)) and based on the availability of a placement rather than its suitability, to the point where the system's decision could appear arbitrary - Respondents were united in their concern that young people were often placed far from their support systems and that this was detrimental, even when specialist care was required - Many respondents thought young people had had multiple placements and moves leading to difficulty trusting staff or emotionally investing in care and to feelings of rejection - Parents considered the attitudes of staff towards their child, specifically with regards to their interest in and knowledge of their child's history, to be unhelpful - The widespread use of agency/temporary staff was uniformly considered to exacerbate difficulties in trust and communication and care delivery - Insufficient recruitment and poor retention of staff allied to the absence of bespoke training contributed to the widespread use of agency staff - A range of practical ideas about units and the system of care were put forward These findings led to themes, explored in the Discussion and Conclusions, for further consideration by key stakeholders: - Parents and professionals: language and its significance - Consistent Approaches to Care Delivery - Looking Out not just Looking In - Risk and Vulnerability - Geography and Parity of Esteem Details: London: National Health Service, 2018. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2018 at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-3-interview-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-3-interview-report.pdf Shelf Number: 152853 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersPublic Opinion |
Author: Parliamentary Ombudsman, The, Norway Title: Visit Report: The Klokkergarden Collective 6-8 June 2017 Summary: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) visited the Klokkergarden Collective "Klokkergardenkollektivet" on 6-8 June 2017. The Klokkergarden collective is one of several long-term institutions under the foundation "Stiftelsen Klokkergarden". The foundation was established in 1980 with the objective to rehabilitate young people with substance abuse and behavioural problems. The Klokkergarden Collective is in Asnes municipality in Hedmark county and can accommodate 15 persons between the ages of 13 and 18. The institution is approved for placement without the young person's consent. The physical surroundings at the collective appeared to be good, and there seems to be a broad range of activities on offer for the young people, both at and outside the institution. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also had the impression that the young people were given good opportunities to help to decide which activities they wanted to participate in. The institution also had good procedures in place for safeguarding the health of the young people upon arrival and during their stay. The collective had made few administrative decisions on the use of force in the past year. However, the institution made many decisions to limit freedom of movement and the use of electronic means of communication in 2016. It seemed that such decisions were made routinely when the young people arrived at the institution. It was also found during the visit that the record-keeping practice had potential for improvement. A review revealed shortcomings in the records, including the fact that any alternative measures that had been considered/tried before the use of force were rarely recorded. It was also found that the institution had a practice of grounding the young people in their rooms if they overslept. This is a clear violation of young people's right to autonomy and privacy and increases the risk of them feeling isolated. Those who overslept in the morning and failed to appear downstairs by 8.45 had to stay in their rooms for the rest of the day. This included having to eat their meals in their rooms. Nor were they allowed to participate in social activities organised outside the house. No administrative decision was made regarding this restriction even if the grounding involved a clear restriction on the young people's freedom of movement inside and outside the institution. The Klokkergarden Collective had a practice of taking the young people on what they referred to as 'motivational trips' as part of their treatment. According to the institution plan, the purpose of such trips is to enable the young people to concentrate on working on conflicts or problems that have developed quickly or over time, without being disturbed. The institution stated that the motivational trip meant that 'a young person leaves the institution together with two adults for a limited period in order to keep an overview of and focus on special tasks.' The institution plan lists four main reasons for organising a motivational trip: reintegration after an escape; special care of a young person after substance abuse; intensifying treatment; and a need for extra care and attention. However, it was found during the visit that violating one of the institution's main rules was also an important reason why the young people were sent on motivational trips. Both staff and the young people stated that one of the reasons for a motivational trip could be if someone had 'secrets' with other young people. It was found that the motivational trips were mainly carried out following a decision by the staff. Thirty-five motivational trips were organised in 2016, and as of 27 April, nine such trips had been carried out in 2017. A document review showed that the trips lasted from a few days up to 14 days. In the Parliamentary Ombudsman's assessment, there was a clear risk that the motivational trips at the Klokkergarden Collective were seen as punishment. It was difficult to see any correspondence between many of the circumstances that could lead to a motivational trip and the guidelines to the Rights Regulations concerning 'destructive behaviour' or 'necessary on the basis of the responsibility to provide the individual with care and considerations for everyone's safety and happiness'. When the staff had decided to take a young person on a motivational trip, the young person was normally pulled aside by staff members in the hallway near the exit of the main building. If the young person did not wish to go on the trip and did not go out to the car voluntarily, the staff and the young person remained in the hallway until the latter consented to the trip. In such situations, the staff would block the doors in the hallway by standing in front of them to prevent the young person from going anywhere but straight out to the car. The young person was not allowed to return to the rest of the group or to their own room, and nor were they allowed to pack their things. The young people were not always told about the reason for the motivational trip. Nor were they told how long the motivational trip would last. The management said that the young people couldn't be informed about the duration of the trip, because the young person him/herself and the work carried out during the trip determined how long the trip would last. In the cases where the young person had not been told about the reason for the motivational trip or where this was not apparent, the length of the trip could be determined by the young person's ability to describe the circumstances that made the adults decide to organise a motivational trip. Several of the young people experienced this as the staff waiting for them to 'confess something' and that if they confessed to the rights things, they would be allowed to go back to the institution. In many cases, the motivational trips also included a period as 'phaseless', and always a plenary meeting at which the young person had to state the reason why he/she was sent on the trip and answer questions from both adults and the other young people. The degree of force and the lack of any real opportunity for the young people to participate meant that it was difficult to see how a motivational trip could make a positive contribution to any lasting change. The young people were placed in a coercive situation where their only way out was to comply with the adults' demands for how they should behave and what they should say. In total, the pressure that was exercised in the hallway before a trip without it being possible for the young person to withdraw to their room, the lack of openness as regards the reason for the trip and its length, the 'phaseless' period and the uncertainty about how long this would last, and the plenary meeting requirement constituted a worrying lack of openness and respect from the institution vis-avis the young people. The fact that, in the past year, there had been an instance where a young person had been subjected to physical pressure to complete a motivational trip, underpins concerns about the risk of inhuman treatment that young people are subjected to through the Klokkergarden Collective's use of involuntary motivational trips. Details: Oslo, Norway: 2017. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Visit-report-2017-The-Klokkerg%C3%A5rden-Collective.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Norway URL: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Visit-report-2017-The-Klokkerg%C3%A5rden-Collective.pdf Shelf Number: 154081 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionMotivational TripNational Preventive MechanismSubstance AbuseTreatment Programs |
Author: Weissman, Marsha Title: Moving Beyond Youth Prisons: Lessons from New York City's Implementation of Close to Home Summary: In the mid-1990s, New York's youth prison system reflected the dominant paradigm across the country - a heavy reliance on incarceration for young people caught up in the juvenile justice system. During this time, roughly 3,800 youth convicted of crimes annually were sent to large facilities, operated either by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) or by private providers contracted by OCFS. These facilities were largely located in upstate New York, far from youths' homes and communities, particularly for youth from New York City (Sickmund et al. 2017; New York State (NYS) Office of the State Comptroller 2001). Upon returning home from these placements, youth often felt disconnected, resulting in poor outcomes. A 2009 study indicated that by age 28, 71 percent of boys released from New York State's juvenile placement system spent some time in an adult jail or prison (Coleman, Do Han Kim & Therese 2009). Fast forward twenty years, and things in New York looked dramatically different. By 2016, New York City no longer sent any youth from its Family Court to state-operated youth prisons. Today, only around 100 New York City youth are placed from Family Court into any kind of residential facility, about a dozen of whom are in a locked facility.3 Not only are there dramatically fewer youth in residential placements, but those who do get placed now go to smaller, more home-like settings that attend to public safety without mirroring the punitive, correctional approaches embodied by previous youth prisons. This case study outlines what happened in the intervening years to achieve these remarkable results. By sharing New York City's story, we offer a roadmap for other jurisdictions looking to realign their juvenile justice systems, adapting the lessons learned about what worked and what did not to meet their specific circumstances. Close to Home (C2H), the initiative that transferred the care and custody of all New York City youth adjudicated as juvenile delinquents from the State to the City, was embedded in a set of reforms that involved policing, detention, and developments in science and evidence-based interventions. While the astronomical costs of the system played an important role, the commitment by key stakeholders to create a developmentally appropriate system without sacrificing public safety and adhering to a shared set of principles and values were key to the system's transformation. This case study describes the development of the Close to Home (C2H) initiative, beginning with a review of what the system looked like before its creation, through the planning and implementation phases of this transformation. It reviews the challenges faced, particularly during C2H's initial implementation, how these were addressed, and the ongoing efforts to adapt the initiative to new and evolving circumstances. Finally, it shares data showing outcomes to date and highlights the role of key stakeholders, including elected officials, policymakers, advocates, and directly-impacted communities that combined to make the C2H reform successful. Details: New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2019. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 6, 2019 at: https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Moving%20Beyond%20Youth%20Prisons%20-%20C2H_0.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Moving%20Beyond%20Youth%20Prisons%20-%20C2H_0.pdf Shelf Number: 154832 Keywords: Close to Home InitiativeCommunity-Based CorrectionsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Wolf, Dennie Title: Our Voices Count: The Potential Impact of Strength-Based Music Programs in Juvenile Justice Settings Summary: Wolfbrown took on an evaluation of the impact of ensemble choral music-making on young people living in one of the most uncertain and stressful environments: the juvenile justice system. The project evaluated a choral residency program from Carnegie Hall's Musical Connections program and was funded through the ArtWorks program at the National Endowment for the Arts. Details: Detroit: WolfBrown, 2014. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2019 at: http://wolfbrown.com/images/books_reports/documents/ourvoicescount.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://wolfbrown.com/images/books_reports/documents/ourvoicescount.pdf Shelf Number: 154935 Keywords: Arts in PrisonsArts ProgramsDelinquency Prevention (New York)Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersMusic TherapyMusical ProgramsRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Center for Children's Law and Policy Title: Implementation of New York's Close to Home Initiative: A New Model for Youth Justice Summary: In 2012, the New York State Legislature and Governor Andrew Cuomo authorized a landmark initiative known as "Close to Home," which was designed to align New York State and New York City's juvenile justice system with research and nationally-recognized approaches to working with young people charged with crimes. In five years, the Close to Home Initiative has transformed the experience of youth who come into contact with the justice system in New York City. By shifting focus away from incarcerating youth in large, dangerous, geographically remote institutions, Close to Home has sent an important message: it is far wiser to keep youth in their communities and near their families, since those connections hold the greatest potential to help youth build new skills and stay out of trouble in the long term. Methodology This is a report on why and how Close to Home began, the challenges it faced, the principles on which it is based, and what it has accomplished. The Center for Children's Law and Policy (CCLP) prepared this report, which was written by Executive Director Mark Soler and Deputy Director Jason Szanyi, at the request of the New York City Administration for Childrens Services (ACS). CCLP is a nonprofit national public interest law and policy organization focused on reform of juvenile justice and other systems impacting troubled and at-risk youth. CCLP has assisted jurisdictions in over 30 states with efforts to improve their youth justice systems, and CCLP staff have conducted dozens of assessments of policies and practices in juvenile justice systems throughout the country. This report is an assessment of ACS's implementation of Close to Home. It is not an assessment of implementation by the state Office of Children and Family Services or by city agencies such as the Department of Probation and Department of Education, although it certainly reflects their efforts. The report also is not a formal scientific evaluation of the Close to Home initiative. Instead, the report focuses on implementation of Close to Home as envisioned by the implementing legislation and ACS's proposed plans. Details: Washington, DC: The Author, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2019 at: http://www.cclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Close-to-Home-Implementation-Report-Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.cclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Close-to-Home-Implementation-Report-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 155175 Keywords: Close to Home InitiativeJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System |
Author: Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse Title: Safe inside? Child sexual abuse in the youth secure estate Summary: The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse ('the Inquiry') aims to consider the extent to which state and non-state institutions in England and Wales have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation, and to make meaningful recommendations for change. This research explores perceptions and experiences of safeguarding in the youth secure estate in England and Wales, specifically in relation to child sexual abuse. It complements the Inquiry's investigation into the extent of any institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse while in custodial institutions. The research provides contemporary insight from staff and children across different establishments in the youth secure estate. The study sought to find out the extent to which children feel safe from sexual abuse in the youth secure estate, and the role of staff, systems and processes within this. The youth secure estate in England and Wales currently comprises three different types of establishment: Young Offender Institutions (YOIs), Secure Training Centres (STCs) and Secure Children's Homes (SCHs). These three types of establishment vary by size, the age and gender of children they accommodate, staff to child ratios, and their management and governance structures. The establishments also differ in terms of the legal basis for detaining children: YOIs and STCs hold children detained on criminal justice grounds only, however SCHs are able to hold children for criminal justice reasons as well as children held on welfare grounds for their own protection. Children in secure establishments generally come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Prior experience of abuse, sexual or other, and local authority care is common amongst the population (Mendez Sayer et al., 2018). The youth secure estate in England and Wales has seen a continual decline in numbers from an average of 2,932 children and young people for the year ending March 2008 to 900 for the year ending March 2019 (HMPPS, 2018a). This has altered the characteristics of the population, resulting in secure settings holding children serving longer sentences who display more challenging behaviours, have multiple and more complex needs, and pose a greater risk to both themselves and others. The youth secure estate has been assessed by recent independent inspections as being unsafe to hold children. Concerns have been raised around the levels of violence, restraint and children's perceptions of safety. The 2016/17 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMIP) survey highlighted that 39 per cent of children reported feeling unsafe at some point in their current YOI and 22 per cent of children felt unsafe at some point since arriving at their STC (HMIP, 2017b). In 2016/17, there were around 2,700 reported assaults in the youth secure estate and 4,500 recorded incidents of restraint (Youth Justice Board, 2018). This shows the high levels of violence and restraint present across the estate given the relatively small population. Prevalence statistics in relation to child sexual abuse also indicate there were around 200 alleged incidents in the youth secure estate in 2016 and 2017 (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, 2018). These figures are again worryingly high for a population size which has consistently decreased since 2008. Details: London: Author, 2019. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2019 at: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9536/view/safe-inside%3F-child-sexual-abuse-youth-secure-estate-full-report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9536/view/safe-inside%3F-child-sexual-abuse-youth-secure-estate-full-report.pdf Shelf Number: 155605 Keywords: Child Sexual AbuseChild Sexual ExploitationJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionSecure EstatesYouth Secure Estates |
Author: Wilber, Shannan Title: Model Policy: Transgender, Gender Nonconforming, and Intersex Youth in Confinement Facilities Summary: The model policy provides a blueprint of practices that promote the safety, dignity and well-being of transgender, gender nonconforming, and intersex (TGNCI) youth in youth justice facilities. The policy was developed with input from a diverse group of advocates, justice professionals and formerly incarcerated young people. The vulnerability of TGNCI youth is well-documented. In a 2018 survey of 5,600 transgender and gender nonconforming youth, 84% of youth experienced verbal threats, 53% experienced bullying at school, 57% had been mocked or taunted by their families, and 16% had been sexually attacked or raped - all based on their actual or perceived gender identity. Because of pervasive stigma and discrimination, TGNC youth are more likely to experience be psychological distress, homelessness, and bullying. TGNC youth of color, who experience discrimination at the intersections of race and gender, are vulnerable to extraordinarily high rates of violence and mistreatment. Researchers estimate that up to 1.7% of people are born with intersex traits. Although transgender and intersex identities are distinct, both groups encounter discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression and both groups lack access to competent medical care. Some intersex children undergo unnecessary, irreversible, and involuntary surgeries, and transgender youth are often denied medically necessary, gender affirming treatment. Pervasive rejection and discrimination in their homes, schools, and communities contribute to the overrepresentation of TGNCI youth in youth confinement facilities. According to recent national data 12% of youth in juvenile facilities identify as transgender or gender nonconforming, and 85% of those are of color. "TGNCI youth are extremely vulnerable in confinement settings. They experience higher levels of sexual abuse, harassment, and mistreatment, particularly when facilities lack clear, enforceable guidance on how to protect their safety and promote their well-being. They deserve affirming care and support, and this model policy will be the blueprint." said Shannan Wilber, youth policy director at NCLR and one of publication's authors. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) standards require confinement facilities to adopt policies and procedures to protect TGNCI youth from sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Many confinement facilities need assistance developing policies that appropriately implement these protections and the National PREA Resource Center supported NCLR in development of this policy. The model policy addresses a range of practices that create a safe and healthy environment for TGNCI youth: How can facility staff safely and respectfully identify TGNCI residents? What concrete steps can facilities take to affirm the gender identity of youth? How can facilities assess and remedy the risks associated with TGNCI status? Where should TGNCI youth be housed in sex-segregated facilities? How can facilities protect the privacy of TGNCI residents? What specific considerations govern searches of TGNCI youth? How can facilities provide gender affirming medical and behavioral health care? What systems can facilities create to permit youth to confidentially report abuse and protect them from retaliation? How can facilities prepare TGNCI youth to successfully return to their communities? What can facilities do to prepare custodial staff to support and affirm TGNCI residents? Details: San Francisco: National Center for Lesbian Rights and Center for Children's Law and Policy, 2019. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2019 at: https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/TGNCI%20Model%20Policy.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/TGNCI%20Model%20Policy.pdf Shelf Number: 155860 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Yout |