Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:36 am
Time: 1:36 am
Results for juvenile courts
28 results foundAuthor: Center for Families, Children & the Courts Title: Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008 Summary: The Judicial Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA) is the judiciary's first comprehensive research study of how the superior courts of California handle delinquency matters. The intention of the JDCA is to help improve both the administration of justice and the lives of youth, victims and other community members affected by the delinquency system by helping set an agenda for system improvements over the coming years. Details: San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, 2008 Source: 2 volumes; Administration Office of the Courts Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 111722 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Delinquency |
Author: Majd, Katayooh Title: Hidden Injustice: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Juvenile Courts Summary: The juvenile justice system has seen increasing reform efforts, but absent from the efforts has been a focus on the unique experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) court-involved youth. The report represents the first effort to examine the experiencs of these LGBT youth in juvenile courts across the country. Information was gathered from interviews and surveys with juvenile justice professionals, including judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, detention staff, and other juvenile justice advocates; focus groups and interviews of youth and an extensive review of relevant social science and legal research findings. Details: San Francisco: Legal Services for Children and the National Center for Lesbian Rights; Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117058 Keywords: HomosexualityJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuveniles |
Author: Scotland. Community Justice Services Title: Review of the Hamilton & Airdrie Youth Courts: Report Summary: Pilot Youth Courts were established at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003 and at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. This review assesses the Youth Courts' impact on reoffending rates, with regard to the impact on the Youth Courts of the recent reforms of summary justice. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2009. 25p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119226 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismYouth Courts (Scotland) |
Author: North Carolina. Governor's Crime Commission Title: Governor's Crime Commission Juvenile Age Study: A Study of the Impact of Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Summary: This report examines the impact of raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction in North Carolina. The study found tht if the maximum age of initial juvenile court jurisdiction in North Carolina is raised from 15 to 17, with no change to the current juvenile system, the costs are expected to exceed the benefits by $37.5 million. If, however, North Carolina makes substantial changes to its juvenile system to reduce recidivism, it is estimated that benefits could exceed costs by approximately $7.1 million. Additional savings could be generated by reducing costs in the juvenile system. Details: Raleigh, NC: Governor's Crime Commission, 2009. 218p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119274 Keywords: Costs-Benefit AnalysisJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (North Carolina) |
Author: Redding, Richard E. Title: Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? Summary: In an effort to strengthen the sanctions for serious juvenile crimes, a number of States have enacted laws increasing the types of offenders and offenses eligible for transfer from the juvenile court to the adult criminal court for trial and potential sentencing. These laws have lowered the minimum transfer age, increased the number of offenses eligible for transfer, and limited judicial discretion, while expanding prosecutorial discretion for transfers. Among the principal goals of such transfer laws are the deterrence of juvenile crime and a reduction in the rate of recidivism, but what does the research indicate about their effectiveness in addressing these ends? Several studies have found higher recidivism rates for juveniles convicted in criminal court than for similar offenders adjudicated in juvenile courts. The research is less clear, however, in regard to whether transfer laws deter potential juvenile offenders. This Bulletin provides an overview of research on the deterrent effects of transferring youth from juvenile to criminal courts, focusing on large-scale comprehensive OJJDP-funded studies on the effect of transfer laws on recidivism. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 14, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf; Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2010 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf; Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2010 Shelf Number: 119607 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Kemp, Vicky Title: A Scoping Study Adopting a 'Whole-Systems' Approach to the Processing of Cases in the Youth Courts Summary: Little is known about the impact of recent changes in the UK youth justice system on the processing of cases at court, or about the causes of delay and cost increase in the Youth Court. To investigate these issues, the Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC) collaborated with the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology in a scoping study of Youth Court cases dealt with in a county in England and Wales, referred to as ‘the County’. The purpose of the study was to provide a ‘whole-systems’ overview of the operation and efficiency of the County’s Youth Courts and to report back to the county’s agencies. The study also enabled researchers to consider the feasibility of a comprehensive, multi-agency follow-up of the processing of Youth Court cases. It is important to note that the findings in this report are based on empirical research which was undertaken some time ago. The sample of 166 Youth Court cases, for instance, involved cases completed at court during October and November 2005. The county’s Youth Courts were observed with the final observations taking place in December 2006. It is recognised that there have been a number of developments since this research was undertaken, particularly implementation of arrangements under the Criminal Justice – ‘Simple, Speedy, Summary’ initiative. While these new arrangements are to be implemented across all Youth Courts by December 2008, it is nevertheless considered important to publish these findings, not least because of the dearth of research presently available about this key element of the criminal justice process. This research study also raises a number of issues having implications for inefficiency and delay at a local level. A number of these issues have subsequently been addressed and reference to such changes is made in this report. While this report is critical of some of the processes involved in managing Youth Court cases, it is important to emphasise that practitioners in the Youth Court were seen to be hardworking in what was a particularly challenging environment. The intention of this report is not to criticise those individual efforts but to examine the problems which can arise within the multi-agency processing of cases, which was seen to be exacerbated through the unintended consequences of some national performance targets. Reform of the youth justice system in England and Wales has been a Government priority. Delays at court have been reduced, and the Government has succeeded in meeting its pledge to halve the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders (PYOs), from 142 to 71 days.1 This is a national average and a number of areas still take 71 days or longer. More general concerns have been raised about the extent to which minor offences are brought unnecessarily to court. Professor Rod Morgan, the former Chairman of the Youth Justice Board, for example, has been critical of the fact that too many minor offences, which would previously have been dealt with informally or out of court, have instead been, ‘pushed into an overstretched criminal justice system’. A number of issues arose following the reforms, apart from the speed of processing cases, and these include: the role of the prosecution, the involvement of defence solicitors, the causes of delay, the nature of adjournments, the type of case brought to court and the impact of the reforms on charging practices and managing cases at court. A ‘whole-systems’ approach was adopted in order to investigate inter-agency interactions. At first a sample of 166 cases concluded in the County’s Youth Courts during late 2005 were systematically analysed using multilevel modelling. The study also included observations in two Youth Courts, an analysis of Youth Offending Team files relating to 120 observed cases, and a series of 16 in-depth interviews with court clerks, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) staff, and defence solicitors. In addition, we convened two focus groups, each involving three magistrates. These data were analysed using a specialist computer software programme. The report sets out the main quantitative findings arising out of the 2005 sample of cases. The main causes of inefficiencies and delays are then highlighted. Finally, the implications for policy-makers are explored. Details: London: Legal Services Research Centre, 2008. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.lsrc.org.uk/publications/YouthCourtReport.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.lsrc.org.uk/publications/YouthCourtReport.pdf Shelf Number: 119985 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersYouth Courts |
Author: Minnesota. Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs Title: Juvenile Justice System Decision Points Study: Strategies to Improve Minnesota's Juvenile Justice Data Summary: The purpose of the Juvenile Justice System Decision Points Study is to determine the viability of collecting summary data information about juveniles involved in the justice system in Minnesota. Accurate and comprehensive data at critical decision points in the juvenile justice system statewide allows system practitioners and policy makers to make sound decisions regarding resource allocation and interventions. Additionally, this effort is consistent with Minnesota’s policy commitment to identify and eliminate barriers to racial, ethnic and gender fairness. Collecting this data will make progress toward a more equitable, efficient and effective juvenile justice system in Minnesota. This report includes chapters dedicated to each system stage: Law Enforcement, County Attorneys, Juvenile Courts, Juvenile Probation, and Detention and Residential Facilities. Within each chapter, key decision points affecting youths’ status in the system are identified and ranked both for importance to understanding youth in the juvenile justice system, and for the feasibility of statewide data collection. Recommendations for improved data collection, analysis, and reporting complete each chapter. These chapters, in concert, create the overall data improvement plan for Minnesota. Details: St. Paul, MN: Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, 2010. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2010 at: http://www.ojp.state.mn.us/cj/publications/Reports/2010JuvenileJusticePolicyReport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.state.mn.us/cj/publications/Reports/2010JuvenileJusticePolicyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 120027 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Probation |
Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Raising the Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction in North Carolina Summary: North Carolina is one of two states that process any offense committed by 16- and 17-year-olds in the adult justice system. Vera' Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit worked with the state's Youth Accountability Planning Task Force to assess the costs and benefits of transferring 16- and 17-year-olds charged with misdemeanors and low-level, nonviolent felony offenses to the juvenile justice system. This report presents the results and the methodology of the cost-benefit analysis. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2011 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3185/CBA-of-Raising-Age-Juvenile-Jurisdiction-NC-final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3185/CBA-of-Raising-Age-Juvenile-Jurisdiction-NC-final.pdf Shelf Number: 120877 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisJuvenile CourtsJuvenile LawJuvenile Offenders (North Carolina)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Interstate Commission for Juveniles Title: Bench Book for Judges and Court Personnel Summary: This bench book provides an overview of legal procedures for the interstate agreement (called a "compact") to transfer or return juveniles who cross state lines. It also includes an analysis of the compact's legal foundation, describes sentencing considerations; establishes a process for returning juveniles who have run away from home, escapees, and absconders; explains liability and immunity considerations; and summarizes other relevant considerations. Details: Lexington, KY: Interstate Commission for Juveniles, 2011. 214p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 14, 2011 at: http://www.juvenilecompact.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hP5YtZN5GWU%3d&tabid=969 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilecompact.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hP5YtZN5GWU%3d&tabid=969 Shelf Number: 121344 Keywords: Interstate Transfer, Juvenile OffendersJudges, Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Courts |
Author: Van Stelle, Kit R. Title: Red Cliff Anishinaabek Juvenile Justice Study: Final Report Summary: The Anishinaabek Juvenile Justice Study was developed by the First American Prevention Center of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The purpose of the study was to formulate community-defined options to improve services for high-risk youth involved in the Red Cliff juvenile justice system and to build the capacity of the Red Cliff community to utilize evaluation techniques to address emerging community needs. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Medical School, Department of Population Health Sciences, 2003. 210p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://uwphi.pophealth.wisc.edu/about/staff/vanstellek/RedCliffAnishinaabekJuvenileJusticeStudy-Oct2003.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://uwphi.pophealth.wisc.edu/about/staff/vanstellek/RedCliffAnishinaabekJuvenileJusticeStudy-Oct2003.pdf Shelf Number: 122445 Keywords: American IndiansJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice Systems (Minnesota)Juvenile Offenders (Minnesota)Tribal Courts |
Author: Kunkle, Susan M. Title: Bind Over and Blended Sentencing in Ohio Summary: In the early 1990s, juvenile crime in the US appeared to be increasing in frequency and seemed to be exceedingly more violent. In state after state, legislative efforts increased the mechanisms of transfer, made transfer mandatory for a larger number of offenses, and generally sought to remove more serious and violent juveniles from the special jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. This research is an effort to understand how those legislative actions were operationalized by the juvenile courts, specifically by identifying the relationship between legal and extra legal variables and dispositional outcomes. In Ohio, three outcomes are salient in the disposition of cases of youthful offenders who engage in felony-level, violent, and/or repetitive criminal offending – retain in the juvenile court, a blended sentence that straddles both the juvenile and adult criminal court system, and a transfer of the case from the juvenile to the adult criminal court system. Data were collected from five Ohio Juvenile Courts and the Ohio Department of Youth Services and consist of populations of transferred and blended sentence cases and a sample of felony adjudication cases from the years of 2002 through 2006. Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyze the data; retained in the juvenile court was identified as the reference factor. The use of a weapon, the severity of the offense, if the offense was violent, prior record, the age of the offender at the time of the offense, and the age of the offender at first contact with the juvenile justice system were significant in the decision to transfer a case to the adult criminal court system. The use of a weapon, the severity of the offense, prior record, and the age of the offender at the time of the offense were significant in the decision to dispose of a case through a blended sentence. Details: Kent, OH: Kent State University, Department of Political Science, 2011. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed January 13, 2012 at: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Kunkle%20Susan%20M.pdf?kent1302131672 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Kunkle%20Susan%20M.pdf?kent1302131672 Shelf Number: 122527 Keywords: Blended SentencesJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersPunishmentSentencing (Ohio)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Disposition) |
Author: Northern Ireland. Department of Justice Title: A Review of the Youth Justice System in Northern Ireland Summary: This Review was launched in 2010 by the Minister of Justice, David Ford, in furtherance of the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. Undertaken by an independent team of three people, its terms of reference were to critically assess the current arrangements for responding to youth crime and make recommendations for how these might be improved within the wider context of, among other things, international obligations, best practice and a fi nancially uncertain future. The Review Team consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including children and young people and members of the communities where they lived. Off ending by children tends to be less serious than adults; as with the pattern in other jurisdictions, common off ences include criminal damage, theft and common assault. Around 10,000 young people come into contact with the criminal justice system at some level during the course of a typical year. Like other developed countries, Northern Ireland has a separate justice system for children, from age 10 to 17 inclusive, underpinned by statutory aims to prevent off ending, protect the public and secure the welfare of the child. Details: Belfast: Northern Ireland Department of Justice, 2011. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2012 at: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/16000/1/report-of-the-review-of-the-youth-justice-system-in-ni%5B1%5D.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/16000/1/report-of-the-review-of-the-youth-justice-system-in-ni%5B1%5D.pdf Shelf Number: 123610 Keywords: Childrens RightsDiversionJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice Systems (Northern Ireland)Juvenile OffendersYoung Offenders |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Sentencing Children and Young People in Victoria Summary: This report aims to fill the gap in publicly available data on the Children’s Court and the sentencing of young offenders (aged from 10 to 17 years) in Victoria. The report provides contextual material on the operation, functions and philosophy of the Criminal Division of the Children’s Court, with particular emphasis on the sentencing principles applicable under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). It presents a statistical profile of offences heard and sentence outcomes, and identifies and analyses changes over a ten-year period (2000–09) in the types of offences sentenced by the court, demographics and sentence outcomes. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012. 232p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2012 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/sentencing_children_and_young_people_in_victoria.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/sentencing_children_and_young_people_in_victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 124937 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsSentencing, Juvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Henning, Kristin N. Title: Criminalizing Normal Adolescent Behavior in Communities of Color: The Role of Prosecutors in Juvenile Justice Reform Summary: There is little dispute that racial disparities pervade the contemporary American juvenile justice system. The persistent overrepresentation of youth of color in the system suggests that scientifically supported notions of diminished culpability of youth are not applied consistently across races. Drawing from recent studies on implicit bias and the impact of race on perceptions of adolescent culpability, Professor Henning contends that contemporary narratives portraying black and Hispanic youth as dangerous and irredeemable lead prosecutors to disproportionately reject youth as a mitigating factor for their behavior. Although racial disparities begin at arrest and persist through every stage of the juvenile justice process, this Article focuses specifically on the unique opportunity and obligation that prosecutors have to address those disparities at the charging phase of the juvenile case. Professor Henning implores juvenile prosecutors to resist external pressures to respond punitively and symbolically to exaggerated perceptions of threat by youth of color and envisions a path toward structured decision making at the charging phase that is informed by research in adolescent development, challenges distorted notions of race and maturity, and holds prosecutors accountable for equitable decision making across race. While fully embracing legitimate prosecutorial concerns about victims’ rights and public safety, Professor Henning frames the charging decision as one requiring fairness, equity, and efficacy. Fairness requires that prosecutors evaluate juvenile culpability in light of the now well-documented features of adolescent offending. Equity demands an impartial application of the developmental research to all youth, regardless of race and socioeconomic status. Efficacy asks prosecutors to rely on scientifically validated best practices for ensuring positive youth development and achieving public safety. Thus, even when neighborhood effects and social structures produce opportunities for more serious and more frequent crime among youth of color, prosecutors have a duty to evaluate that behavior in light of the current developmental research and respond to that conduct with the same developmentally appropriate options that are so often available to white youth. As the gatekeepers of juvenile court jurisdiction, prosecutors should work with developmental experts, school officials, and other community representatives to develop and publish juvenile charging standards that reflect these goals. To increase transparency and encourage buy-in from the public, Professor Henning recommends that prosecutors track charging decisions according to race and geographic neighborhood and provide community representatives and other stakeholders with an opportunity to review those decisions for disparate impact. Finally, to ensure that communities of color are able to respond to adolescent offending without state intervention, Professor Henning contemplates a more expansive role for prosecutors who will engage and encourage school officials and community representatives to identify and develop adequate community-based, adolescent-appropriate alternatives to prosecution. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 2013. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 12-117: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=facpub Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=facpub Shelf Number: 126399 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)ProsecutorsRacial Disparities |
Author: Rempel, Michael Title: The Adolescent Diversion Program: A First Year Evaluation of Alternatives to Conventional Case Processing for Defendants Ages 16 and 17 in New York Summary: New York is currently one of only two states in the country that defines 16- and 17-year-old defendants as criminally responsible adults. Other states handle these defendants in their juvenile justice systems, which are oriented to the best interests of the child. By comparison, New York places 16- and 17-year-olds in the same jails and courtrooms as much older adults; forecloses pretrial diversion options that would otherwise exist in the juvenile justice system; and produces case outcomes that potentially involve adult jail and prison sentences and lifetime collateral consequences in the event of a criminal conviction. Among 16- and 17-year-old defendants statewide in 2010, only 9% were in fact sentenced to jail or prison, and only 5% received a permanent criminal record; yet, these percentages involve more than 3,500 cases. All told, nearly 50,000 16- and 17-year-olds are annually prosecuted in New York’s adult criminal justice system. In the fall of 2011 New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman called on state policymakers to pass legislation that would foster a more developmentally appropriate approach to 16- and 17- year-old defendants. Judge Lippman’s proposal calls for a pre-filing diversion mechanism, mirroring one now in place in the state’s juvenile justice system, which would enable some 16- and 17-year-old defendants to avoid formal prosecution. The legislation is also expected to establish policies linking more 16- and 17-year-olds to age-appropriate services and ensuring that those who complete their assigned services will not receive a criminal record. On January 17, 2012, Judge Lippman also established a pilot Adolescent Diversion Program (ADP) in nine counties, including the five boroughs of New York City, the suburban counties of Nassau and Westchester, and the upstate counties of Erie and Onondaga (housing the respective mid-sized cities of Buffalo and Syracuse). The program established specialized court parts that handle 16- and 17-year-old defendants. Participating defendants receive a clinical assessment; age-appropriate services; rigorous compliance monitoring; and non-criminal case outcomes should they complete assigned services. Accordingly, the ADP initiative seeks to spread a rehabilitative, developmentally appropriate philosophy and approach to late adolescent criminal behavior; to reduce the use of conventional criminal penalties; and to achieve these benefits without jeopardizing public safety. With funding from the New York Community Trust, the Center for Court Innovation evaluated the early operations and effects of the ADP initiative. The analysis was largely quantitative, focusing on ADP participants in all nine pilot counties whose criminal cases began in the first six months of operations (January 17, 2012 through June 30, 2012). For six of the nine counties, where case volume was sufficient to support more rigorous analysis, an impact study compared outcomes between ADP participants and a statistically matched comparison group, whose cases began one year prior to implementation (January 17, 2011 through June 30, 2011). This report is a snapshot of a work in progress; while we expect the results from this study to remain relevant to the population, we plan to conduct further research as the initiative becomes more established and more data is available. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2013. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP_Report_Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP_Report_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 129374 Keywords: DiversionJuvenile Case ProcessingJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Offenders (New York City, U.S.) |
Author: Crisler, Lane Title: Recidivism within Salt Lake Peer Court:A Program Evaluation of Salt Lake Peer Court based on Recidivism Analysis Between Salt Lake Peer Court and the Juvenile Division of Salt Lake City Justice Courts Summary: Background - The younger an individual begins criminal behavior the more costly that individual is to society. - The value of diverting a youth from a lifetime of crime ranges from $2.6 to $5.3 million in 2008 (Cohen M. A., 2009). - Intended to divert youth becoming career criminals, peer courts attempt to leverage the social influence peers have over one another in order to implement restorative justice practices. - Salt Lake Peer Court (SLPC) began in 1993, as peer courts were just emerging in the juvenile justice arena. -- The, program managed 40 youth offender cases and required 15 volunteers. -- Currently, program handles approximately 300 youth offender cases and requires over 120 volunteers. Research - This study analyzed calendar year SLPC cases from 2007 through 2011. - 1101 cases were analyzed (Male=618, Female=467, Unidentified=16). - Of the 1101 cases, 60% of SLPC deferred youth had juvenile court records, disproportionately weighted by males (Male=406, Female=260). - This study seeks to identify characteristics of youth offenders who are most likely to recidivate to Juvenile Court within one year of being deferred to SLPC. - Dependent Variables = ordinal or binary recidivism variables. - Independent Variables = demographics, offenses, sentences, sentence completion, and sentence length. Program Recommendations - Improve treatment for substance abuse and violence offenders. - Attempt to identify benefits of case management. - Develop crisis management plan to help facilitate contract completion. - Emphasize role of SLPC as first point of contact for juvenile offenders - Develop metrics, improve data control , administer follow up surveys Details: Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, 2013. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Peer_Court_Research.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Peer_Court_Research.pdf Shelf Number: 131899 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile DiversionJuvenile OffendersRecidivismTeen Courts |
Author: Wilson, Pam Elizabeth Title: Program Evaluation of the Monongalia County Teen Court Summary: A review of the history of the juvenile courts would not be complete without mention of teen courts. Teen courts are juvenile diversion programs which allow first time offenders with minor offenses a second chance. Instead of facing the traditional court system, these juveniles are given the opportunity to go before a jury of their peers and complete a sentence that jury imposes. If the juvenile offender completes their sentence in the allotted time, their juvenile record is expunged and they are given the opportunity to ‗start over.‘ Teen courts have been in existence since the 1970‘s and received national recognition in the 1990‘s. Teen courts have played a significant role in rehabilitating juvenile offenders and teaching youth volunteers and offenders about the court system. Juvenile offenders are also given the opportunity to serve their community in a constructive way, which gives them a chance to reengage in a positive way. This research project is a program evaluation of the Monongalia County teen court located in Morgantown, West Virginia. This study has looked at the preexisting data set available for juveniles who have been sentenced through this court from 2002-2009. The statistical analysis will give basic information for the program and will make recommendations based on analysis for future improvements. Details: Fairmont, WV: Fairmont State University, 2010. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Monongalia_Teen_Court.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Monongalia_Teen_Court.pdf Shelf Number: 132125 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CourtsJuvenile DiversionJuvenile OffendersTeen Courts |
Author: Leiber, Michael J. Title: Race/Ethnicity, Juvenile Court Processing and Case Outcomes: Fluctuation or Stability? Summary: Sampson and Laub's (1993) perspective contends that community characteristics, especially underclass poverty and racial inequality, influence the social control of youth in juvenile justice proceedings. Structural factors are believed to enhance class and race stereotypes of the poor and Blacks as either criminals or drug offenders, but can also be characterized as sexual, aggressive, etc. In turn, these actual and/or perceived threats to middle class values result in the poor and Blacks being subjected to greater social control in communities evidencing impoverishment and racial inequality. An interpretation of the perspective is that the social control of youth, and especially minority youth, will fluctuate over time due to associations with and changes in the economic and racial/ethnic inequality of communities. The main objective of the present study was to use Sampson and Laub's structural theory of inequality to examine whether characteristics of communities explain the social control of youth in general but also focuses on potential racial/ethnic and drug offending disparities across White, Black, and Hispanic youth within juvenile justice proceedings. In anticipation of these possible relationships, an assessment was done to see to what extent these relationships vary or remain relatively stable over time, and if they are race and/or ethnic specific with drug offending. Data was provided by the National Juvenile Court Archive (NJCA) and represented county-level aggregated information for sixteen states involving 172 counties for over thirty years (1985, 1995, 2005, and 2009). Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was used to predict the proportion of referrals petitioned, detained, received out-of-home placement, and change models to understand how changes in the independent variables over time influenced changes in the dependent variables over time. A second data set, also provided by NJCA, was used that represented individual-level data of all delinquent referrals in 67 counties in a Northeast state from January 2000 through December 2010. Legal variables (e.g. crime severity, prior record), extralegal considerations (e.g. gender, age), and decision-making at intake, adjudication, and judicial disposition were captured. Hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) was used to analyze the data for the purpose of simultaneously estimating the amount of variation of both the individual (level-1) and county (level-2) measures at three processing junctures. In addition to the estimation of main and interaction effects, cross-level interactions were also estimated to examine how youth from different racial/ethnic backgrounds are treated in the juvenile court depending on county of residence. In short, minimal to modest support was found for Sampson and Laub's (1993) perspective. Macro-level variables were at times found to be determinants of social control at each of the four time frames and to a somewhat greater extent in explaining case outcomes in the 67counties in a Northeast state. However, the effects were sporadic and not always in the predicted direction. In fact, underclass poverty and racial/ethnic inequality most often were not statistically significant determinants of social control. Limited evidence was also found for anticipated relationships between community characteristics and disadvantaged treatment of minorities and drug offenders. When community characteristics significantly impacted the treatment of Blacks, Hispanics, and/or drug offenders and decision-making, the effects at times resulted in leniency rather than greater social control. An examination of the results across thirty years showed, with a few exceptions, stability in the relationships rather than fluctuation or change. At the individual-level, Black drug offenders were subjected to greater social control at intake than other offenders. Hispanics and Hispanic drug offenders were also found to have a greater odds of being adjudicated compared to similarly situated Whites. At judicial disposition, Blacks and Hispanics had a greater likelihood of receiving the more severe outcome of out-home-placement compared to Whites. These effects were enhanced if a minority youth was charged with a drug offense. In addition, drug offenders and in particular, Black drug offenders and Hispanic drug offenders, were responded to differently throughout court proceedings than other types of offenders. The findings reported here indicate that underclass poverty and racial/ethnic inequality alone (or if at all) do not seem to account for these occurrences. Details: Final report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2014. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/246229.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/246229.pdf Shelf Number: 132571 Keywords: Drug OffendersJuvenile Case ProcessingJuvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersMinority OffendersPovertySocioeconomic Conditions and CrimeYouthful Offenders |
Author: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. Title: Fairbanks Juvenile Treatment Court: Evaluation Report Summary: The Fairbanks Juvenile Treatment Court (FJTC) began in 2008 as an innovative response to youth with mental health and co-occurring disorders (mental health and substance use disorders together). As in other parts of the country, it grew from the recognition that mental health disorders, sometimes paired with substance abuse, frequently contribute to the reason juveniles commit offenses and appear before the Court. The FJTC targets youth whose mental illness likely contributed to the commission of their offense. Like most therapeutic courts, the FJTC is managed by a multi-disciplinary team which uses a collaborative (as opposed to an adversarial) approach. Members step out of their traditional roles to encourage treatment of the juvenile while still promoting public safety. FJTC's mission is to "promote public safety while moving adolescents from the traditional juvenile justice system into a mental health/substance use treatment system that can sustain health and non-criminal behavior." The Alaska Court System (ACS), in collaboration with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, have sponsored this evaluation to analyze outcomes of participants in the FJTC in state fiscal years (SFY) 2009 through 2012, and to measure the effectiveness of the FJTC at improving the lives of juveniles with mental health and substance use disorders. The purpose of the study is to help guide the FJTC in its future development by providing information on: 1. the functioning of the FJTC in relation to mental health and juvenile drug court standards; 2. the clinical and demographic characteristics of FJTC participants and their corresponding service needs; 3. the services available and used by FJTC participants to identify any unmet needs or gaps in the service delivery system; 4. the clinical and criminal recidivism outcomes of FJTC participants, and factors associated with and predictive of those outcomes; 5. characteristics of FJTC participants appropriate for diversion; and 6. evidence-based programs and services which could be employed to divert youth from court or reduce recidivism. The FJTC is a diversion program, meaning that the juvenile's current charges are held in abeyance, or not adjudicated, pending the agreement of the youth to participate in FJTC. Agreement means the youth must accept treatment for his or her mental health and/or substance use, attend court hearings and obey the conditions of conduct set out by the court. The youth's agreement to participate includes admission to the charges, and an explanation of the consequences in the plea agreement, which may include detention should the youth not complete the program. To qualify for participation, the youth must have a current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV3 (DSM IV) Axis I mental health diagnosis, qualifying criminal charges, and must be willing to accept services and will preferably be supported by a parent or caregiver. Details: South Portland, ME: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc., 2014. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://www.hornbyzeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FJTC-2014-Report-FINAL-May-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.hornbyzeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FJTC-2014-Report-FINAL-May-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135306 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Diversion ProgramsJuvenile Offenders (Alaska)Mental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Norton, Michael H. Title: Youth Courts and their Educational Value: An Examination of Youth Courts in Chester, Pennsylvania Summary: Youth courts are becoming increasingly common across the country. Whether run by the legal community, community agencies, or within school settings, all youth courts share two common features: 1) youth who commit minor offenses appear before their peers and receive sentences from other youth; and, 2) youth design sentences with the goal of repairing the harm done to individual victims and the broader community From 2009 through 2012, the Stoneleigh Foundation supported the creation and sustainability of youth courts in Chester Upland School District (CUSD) through the work of Stoneleigh Fellow Gregg Volz. In 2011, the Foundation commissioned Research for Action (RFA) to conduct a study of CUSD youth courts during the 2011-12 school year. This executive summary presents a brief review of the context surrounding youth courts in Chester; general findings related to students' participation in youth courts; and a set of lessons learned for youth court implementation and future research. CUSD youth courts were developed in Chester, Pennsylvania, a city which has persistently ranked among the state's most socio-economically distressed for many years. The CUSD has spent the past decade in a constant state of crisis, with student proficiency in math and English far below the state average, and graduation rates far below that of most districts across the state. In 2011-12, state education budget cuts resulted in teacher layoffs and personnel transfers across the district, which destabilized school supports for youth courts. Despite these adverse conditions, the youth courts continued with the support of dedicated students, teachers, and administrators in the CUSD, along with substantial support and advocacy from the Stoneleigh Foundation and other legal, higher education, and community partners. While the study was initially intended to assess the effect that youth court participation had on participants, three key challenges restricted RFA's ability to conduct these analyses: selection bias, inconsistent participation records, and limited interviews with participants. However, this study reveals that the long-term academic performance of youth court volunteers, students who serve on the courts, and respondents (students who have committed low-level offenses), was significantly stronger than that of their peers in the following ways: - Significantly more volunteers graduated than non-volunteers (79% vs. 47%); - Significantly fewer volunteers dropped out of school than non-volunteers (6% vs. 21%); - Significantly more respondents than non-respondents graduate (71% v. 49%); and, - Significantly fewer respondents dropped out of school than non-respondents (10% v. 21%). Details: Philadelphia: Research for Action, 2013. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2015 at: http://www.researchforaction.org/wp-content/uploads/publication-photos/1187/Norton_M_Youth_Courts_and_their_Educational_Value.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.researchforaction.org/wp-content/uploads/publication-photos/1187/Norton_M_Youth_Courts_and_their_Educational_Value.pdf Shelf Number: 135380 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersYouth Courts (U.S.) |
Author: Blair, Lesli Title: Juvenile Drug Courts: A Process, Outcome, and Impact Evaluation Summary: This bulletin provides an overview of an Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention-sponsored evaluation of drug court intervention programs, their processes, and key outcome features. The authors evaluated nine juvenile drug courts from three regions nationwide, assessing the relative effect of each court and the courts' combined effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving youth's social functioning. Some of the authors' key findings follow below. - Seven of nine sites saw higher rates of new referrals for drug court youth when compared with youth on traditional probation, and six of nine sites saw higher rates of new adjudications for drug court youth when compared with youth on traditional probation. - Only one of nine sites evidenced significant reductions for both new referrals and new adjudications. These positive outcomes may be due to the referral agencies providing treatment on the court's behalf adhering more closely to evidence-based practices. - Many of the juvenile drug courts were not adequately assessing their clients for risk, needs, and barriers to treatment success. - Juvenile drug courts in general were not adhering to evidence-based practices. Only two of the nine courts performed well in the process evaluation that measured adherence to evidence-based correctional treatment practices, and only one court's referral agencies performed well in the process evaluation. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2015: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248406.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248406.pdf Shelf Number: 135806 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Bright, Charlotte Title: Multijurisdictional Teen Court Evaluation: A Comparative Evaluation of Three Teen Court Models Summary: Teen Courts, also called Youth Courts and Peer Courts, are increasingly used to divert youth with minor offenses from the juvenile justice system. Ten Teen Courts currently operate in Maryland, and the widespread use of Teen Courts underscores the importance of understanding their process and effectiveness. To facilitate a better understanding of Maryland's Teen Courts, this report presents data on the processes, outcomes, and perspectives of Teen Courts using data gathered in three geographically diverse Teen Courts in Maryland: Baltimore City, Charles County, and Montgomery County Teen Courts. The study also assessed recidivism data collected by matching cases from the three Teen Courts with data from the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services. Observations and structured interviews yielded process data while survey and interview data provided rich information from the perspectives of Teen Court volunteers, youth respondents involved in Teen Court, and parents or guardians of these respondents. The evaluation was conducted by the University of Maryland School of Social Work, the Institute for Governmental Service and Research, and the Court Operations Department of the Administrative Office of the Courts, with substantial input from the three Teen Courts and the Maryland Teen Court Association. Overall, the study found the three Teen Court programs offer an alternative to traditional case processing with lower recidivism rates while garnering support from youth and parents. The study notes that Teen Courts in Charles County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore City have a similar structure and procedure. They emphasize youth decision-making with support from adult volunteers. One structural difference in the three counties is the practice of conducting concurrent versus sequential cases in the same courtroom. Also, the observed jurisdictions handle different types of offenses and, accordingly, recommend different sanctions. Analysis of data from the Department of Juvenile Services revealed lower rates of recidivism for program completers. Recidivism rates measured at six months and 12 months after Teen Court showed dramatic differences depending on program completion. In all three Teen Court locations, youth who did not complete the Teen Court program were more likely to have a DJS referral and to recidivate more quickly than were youth who completed the program. a. In Baltimore City Teen Court, which accepts youth with a prior DJS history and with more serious offenses than the other teen court locations in this study, non-completers were at least 2.5 times more likely to recidivate at both the six- and twelve-month follow-up. b. In Charles County, non-completers were about 10 times more likely to be referred to DJS at the six-month follow-up and nearly six times more likely to be referred to DJS at the twelve-month follow-up. c. In Montgomery County Teen Court, non-completers were seven times more likely to be referred to DJS at the six-month follow-up and four times more likely to be referred to DJS at the twelve-month follow-up. Additionally, the percent of youth who did not complete the program and the percent of youth who recidivate was higher for given subgroups (e.g., prior DJS involvement, particular case types), suggesting that program enrichments targeted at particular subgroups may be warranted. These differences varied by court location. The study further reveals that youth respondents and their parents/guardians scored relatively high on standardized measures of functioning and coping. Their scores indicate that this population of youth offenders possesses substantial strengths. Notably, youth respondents and parents/guardians did not show statistically significant improvement between pre-intervention and post-intervention in standardized measures of coping, family functioning, and civic engagement. Youth respondents and their parents/guardians reported very low rates of problems at home, with friends, in school, and with the law at approximately four months post-intervention. This suggests that Teen Court may be effective at preventing recidivism and also may be helping youth curb problematic behaviors. Qualitative data indicate substantial support for Teen Court from respondents, parents/guardians, and volunteers. For example, 86.4% (19) of respondents interviewed indicated that Teen Court was beneficial to them. Nearly 95 percent of respondents interviewed considered their sanctions fair, with many of them saying they learned their lesson, they understood what they did wrong, and they deserved the sanctions, and 83.3% of the 17 parents/guardians interviewed found the Teen Court experience positive. When asked whether the Teen Court experience was valuable for their children, 82% (14 of the 17 parents/guardians) said yes. Furthermore, a number of benefits are noted to accrue to youth who volunteer in Teen Court settings, in addition to respondents and their families. These benefits include an opportunity to serve others and their community, education, experience in a legal setting, and the chance to become a positive role model. After thorough review, the overall findings of this comprehensive two-year evaluation strongly support the continued operation of Teen court programs in Maryland. Details: Baltimore, MD: Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, 2013. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/New_Teen_Court_Evaluation.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/New_Teen_Court_Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 136143 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersTeen Courts |
Author: McDowell Group, Inc. Title: Alaska Youth Coruts: Evaluation and Impact Assessment Summary: This evaluation and impact assessment of Alaska youth courts was performed by McDowell Group between January and July 2010 under contract to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Division of Juvenile Justice. Following are major findings and recommendations based on that research. Major Findings Alaska youth courts had a low collective re-offense rate after six months of approximately three percent for 2,418 cases handled during FY07 through FY09. Though calculated slightly differently, this rate compares favorably with the six percent re-offense rate identified for the Anchorage Youth Court in a 2002 study by the Urban Institute. The records analyzed included defendants who did not successfully complete their youth court sentences as well as those who did. Nineteen percent of the defendants studied reoffended at some time before they turned 18, a time period that ranged from just a few weeks to eight years, depending on the age of the defendant at the time of his or her first offense. Records for re-offenses that may have occurred after defendants turned 18 were not available. The youth court process is complex and potentially far reaching. To judge it purely or mainly by reoffense rates is to miss the majority of its potential benefits. Those benefits include a more focused, individualized and age-appropriate process for defendants, more communication with defendants’ parents and with victims, a rich opportunity for education and personal growth for both defendants and youth volunteers, and a chance for a variety of adult community members to play a role in youth justice and restoration. Those who know Alaska youth courts best say that justice meted out by peers is the most important factor in the court’s success with defendants. Other elements are also important, however, including: • Prompt follow-up with defendants throughout the process, including post-sentencing, so defendants feel involved and monitored at all times (Deterrence and procedural justice) • A focus on the quality of the courtroom experience, especially the training, demeanor, preparation, and speaking skills of the youth judges and other courtroom personnel (Peer and procedural justice) • Sentences that are fair and relevant (Restorative justice) • Defendants, as well as youth volunteers and parents, learn about the legal process and have the opportunity to become volunteers themselves (Law-related education and inclusiveness/restorative justice) • The opportunity to emerge with a clean record (Deterrence and restorative justice) • The benefits of community service (Restorative justice and skill-building) Youth volunteers benefit in many ways from their youth court experience, including learning about the law, learning new skills such as public speaking, feeling more like a part of the community, being more thoughtful about others, and feeling better prepared for their futures. Nearly all who responded to a survey said they believe youth courts are effective and that youth volunteers are doing something important for their communities. Those who expressed reservations about youth court effectiveness (just 4 percent) said that some defendants simply cannot be helped. Nearly all the individuals interviewed or surveyed for this study said youth courts function well. When youth volunteers were asked how youth court could be improved, the three most common answers were that it works well as it is; that visibility, recruitment and participation could be expanded; and that volunteers could use more training, mentoring, and practice sessions. When youth court executive directors were asked what improvements they would like to see, they said: • Promote the program better to the community • More clerical help and more paid staff time • A more formal system for identifying and coordinating high quality work-service opportunities • More reliable funding It is not possible to say, on the basis of this study, whether some Alaska youth courts are more effective than others. The courts cover a broad range of communities, populations, structures, resource bases, and sophistication. They have different strengths and face different challenges. Twelve-month re-offense rates range from 0 percent in Sitka (very small sample) to 13 percent in Juneau. However, it is not possible to say from this analysis the extent to which the cases and the defendants in different communities are comparable, and re-offense statistics by no means capture the full range of program impacts. Those who know Alaska youth courts best say that providing maximum appropriate autonomy to youth volunteers is key to producing a quality experience both for them and for defendants, victims and families. Alaska youth volunteers often have substantial say over how their youth court organizations are run, the cases they accept, the sentences they impose, and the courtroom experience of the defendants. In some instances, this includes serving on the organization’s board of directors as full voting members. As experts in nonprofit management and organizations, the study team is struck by the quantity and scope of expectations and requirements placed on Alaska’s thinly staffed youth courts. Most youth courts rely heavily or entirely on a single executive director who is often a part-time employee and who, in most cases, has little or no legal or management training. That person must have a grasp of legal, social service, volunteer coordination, and other administrative principles and methods typically found only in larger social service agencies. Though this study did not include formal organizational assessments, youth courts seem highly vulnerable to administrative and program gaps caused by turnover and general lack of staff capacity. The study team emphasizes that it did not find evidence of management weakness, other than shortcomings in data systems described elsewhere. Our view is supported, however, by a history of organizational challenges encountered by programs such as those in Bethel, Valdez, Sitka and elsewhere. Details: Juneau: McDowell Group, 2010. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Alaska_Youth_Courts_Evaluation.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Alaska_Youth_Courts_Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 136703 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Offenders Teen Courts Volunteers Youth Courts |
Author: Maryland. Administrative Office of the Courts Title: A Registry of Juvenile Court Program Initiatives Summary: Through its 1969 enactment of the revised Juvenile Causes Subtitle, the Maryland General Assembly intended to create a separate system of courts, procedure and method of treatment for juveniles that is civil in nature, rather than criminal. The underlying concept of juvenile law is the protection of the juvenile, so that when judges make dispositions in juvenile cases, they consider the child's need for protection or rehabilitation, not the child's guilt. Juvenile law does not contemplate the punishment of children where they are found to be delinquent, instead it attempts to correct and rehabilitate them. The Judiciary has responded to the spirit and latitude of the unique nature of juvenile proceedings as legislated. Within the courtroom judges have adapted national models of problem solving courts to respond to local issues. Juvenile drug courts and family recovery courts specifically address the substance abuse of delinquent youth and parents who have had their children removed from their care as a result of their misuse of controlled substances. The models listed in this registry range widely among counties, but share the core values of treatment and of accountability to the Court. Intensive monitoring of these participants by the assigned judge results in a relationship that research has demonstrated plays a key role in the participant's recovery. Further, the Maryland Courts have supported the extended use of alternative dispute resolution methods in delinquency, child in need of assistance and termination of parental rights cases. Youthful offenders who are confronted by their victims in a structured Community Conference, a restorative justice model, are more likely to pay restitution and less likely to re-offend. Mediation of post adoption contact agreements between biological and adoptive parents lessens the trauma to all parties, lowers the number of contested termination of parental rights cases and reduces the time to achieve permanency. This Registry of Juvenile Court Program Initiatives demonstrates many collaborative, innovative and effective strategies that are based on national models and implemented throughout the state. These joint efforts demonstrate understanding by the judicial, legislative and executive leadership in Maryland that juveniles are unique, requiring judges to extend law and justice beyond the courtroom to achieve the ultimate safety and welfare of youth and the community. The registry is the first compilation of these programs and marks the beginning of a comprehensive review and analysis of court-based and court-referred programs in the juvenile delinquency arena. The Department of Family Administration will begin compiling and evaluating available data on these programs with the hope of learning which programs are effective and warrant further investment and expansion. The sensitivity, significance and separateness of juvenile proceedings is underscored by the legislative amendments added in 2001, which require the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals to approve the circuit administrative judge's juvenile assignment selection. The amendments further state that juvenile judges possess a personal interest in and experience with children, as well as the desire and temperament to address problems likely to come before the juvenile court. The rotation of judges through juvenile court was also modified to specifically state that juvenile judges are not subject to automatic rotation, presumably precluding assignment of judges better suited to other matters while preserving the ability of effective judges to remain longer than a minimum term. The General Assembly's recognition that youth charged with delinquent acts (crimes if committed by adults) require unique proceedings and consequences was echoed by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons. Relying largely on psychological and scientific evidence the Court held that execution for a crime committed by a juvenile under the age of 18 is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court considered three differences between juveniles and adults in reaching these conclusions: 1) comparative immaturity and irresponsibility, 2) increased vulnerability and susceptibility to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressures, and 3) a juvenile's character being less formed than an adult's, with personality traits that are more transitory and less fixed. Historically, the executive agencies have been responsible for programming for families and children involved with juvenile court. However, the Judiciary has recognized that families with increasingly complex problems are appearing in their courtroom. For example, child neglect can be a result of parental substance abuse, delinquent youth often have learning difficulties that lead to spiraling truancy and dropout rates, and abused children committed to the Department of Social Services sometimes "cross over" to the delinquency system and are in need of mental health treatment. Details: Baltimore: Maryland Judiciary, 2013. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/publications/programregistry20130325.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/publications/programregistry20130325.pdf Shelf Number: 137315 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile LawJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Treatment Programs |
Author: Picard-Fritsche, Sarah Title: The Nassau Juvenile Treatment Court: Program Outcomes and Impact Evaluation Summary: This report presents an outcomes and impact evaluation of Nassau County Juvenile Treatment Court, launched in 2008 as a part of the national Reclaiming Futures initiative. Due to implementation obstacles and resource shortfalls, not all of the evidence-based practices that were envisioned for this court were fully realized. Outcome and impact findings were equivocal, with a majority of participants not graduating from the court and no substantial differences in re-arrest rates between the participant and comparison groups. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Nassau_Juvenile_Drug_Court_0.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Nassau_Juvenile_Drug_Court_0.pdf Shelf Number: 139518 Keywords: Drug Courts Drug Offenders Drug Treatment Programs Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Offenders Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: More Harm than Good: How Children are Unjustly Tried as Adults in New Orleans Summary: The Orleans Parish district attorney is prosecuting children as adults in unprecedented numbers. Although nothing in the law requires Louisiana prosecutors to charge children as adults, District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro chooses to transfer children to adult court in almost every possible instance. He transfers children who have no prior delinquency record or played a minor role in the alleged crime. He transfers children who have a mental illness or developmental disability. He even transfers children accused of nonviolent offenses. Some of the children he transfers are found innocent of any crime - but only after enduring the stress and danger of the adult system. Prosecuting children as adults is, in fact, Cannizzaro's default practice. Between 2011 and 2015, his office has transferred more than 80 percent of cases involving 15- and 16-year-olds charged with certain offenses where there was an option to prosecute in either juvenile or adult court. Under state law, a judge has no say in these decisions. Discretion rests solely with each parish's district attorney. Cannizzaro has sent 200 children to adult court since assuming office in 2009, but it has not made us safer. Arrests for offenses eligible for transfer to adult court are up. Recent data also show that teenagers prosecuted in Louisiana's juvenile justice system are less likely to reoffend than those prosecuted in the adult system. The district attorney's practice is wrong for New Orleans’ children, their families and the community. It does more harm than good. This report by the Southern Poverty Law Center examines the Orleans Parish district attorney's approach to the prosecution of juveniles and the process known as juvenile transfer. It shows that Cannizzaro's use of default transfer is unfair and ineffective - it fails to protect public safety, conserve public dollars, or respond appropriately to juvenile crime. Details: Atlanta, GA: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 19. 2016 at: https://www.splcenter.org/20160217/more-harm-good-how-children-are-unjustly-tried-adults-new-orleans Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/20160217/more-harm-good-how-children-are-unjustly-tried-adults-new-orleans Shelf Number: 147953 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Hockenberry, Sarah Title: Delinquency Cases Involving Hispanic Youth, 2013 Summary: OJJDP asked the National Juvenile Court Data Archive to examine state and local juvenile court data to determine the characteristics and experiences of Hispanic youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. This bulletin includes data from more than 1,200 counties and represents 75 percent of the U.S. Hispanic youth population at risk of juvenile court involvement. Findings show that Hispanic youth were 20 percent more likely than white youth to be referred to juvenile court, and once adjudicated, 30 percent more likely to be ordered to out-of-home placement. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/249915.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/249915.pdf Shelf Number: 141072 Keywords: Hispanics Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Delinquency Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Child Rights International Network Title: Rights, Remedies & Representation: Global Report on Access to Justice for Children Summary: Access to justice is a human right, but it is also what makes other rights a reality. For children's rights to be more than a promise, there must be a way for those rights to be enforced. Access to justice for children means that children, or their appropriate advocates where applicable, must be able to use and trust the legal system to protect their human rights. The legal system must provide children the means to obtain a quick, effective and fair response to protect their rights; the means to prevent and solve disputes; mechanisms to control the abuse of power; and all of this must be available through a transparent, efficient, accountable and affordable process. The importance of access to justice applies equally to children and adults, yet childrens rights in this area have long been neglected and ignored. This report is the result of a research project scrutinising how the legal systems of 197 countries empower children to realise their rights or perpetuate the rights violations that they should combat. With the support of hundreds of lawyers and NGOs from around the world, we have published a report for every country on earth setting out the status of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in national law; how the law treats children involved in legal proceedings; the legal means available to challenge violations of children's rights; and the practical considerations when challenging violations using the legal system. This research shows the way that national legal systems can be used to challenge violations of children's rights and the ways that children can use the law to assert their own rights. It identifies where the law falls short and where legal systems are designed in ways that make it difficult or impossible to combat abuses of children's rights. We have documented the good, the bad, the effective, the ineffective, the radical and the revolutionary ways that children can access justice around the world and now we want to use this information to promote their rights. It is not just governments that have a role to play in improving access to justice for children; myriad individuals and entities have an impact, from courts, national human rights institutions, the UN and regional bodies to civil society, parents and other legal representatives, lawyers, the media, and donors. We hope this project will guide governments on how to improve children's access to courts and other complaints mechanisms to enforce their rights, and encourage the UN and regional bodies to address children's access to justice in a more systematic way throughout their work. We hope it will inspire NGOs and children's advocates to consider stronger and more strategic forms of advocacy, and encourage lawyers to assist children and their representatives with seeking redress through the legal system. Details: London: CRIN, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2017 at: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_a2j_global_report_final_1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_a2j_global_report_final_1.pdf Shelf Number: 146732 Keywords: Child AdvocacyJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice Systems |