Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:38 am
Time: 12:38 am
Results for juvenile detention facilities
8 results foundAuthor: 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: 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: Macallair, Daniel Title: The Impact of Realignment on County Juvenile Justice Practice: Will Closing State Youth Correctional Facilities Increase Adult Criminal Court Filings? Summary: On January 10, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed budget for 2011-12, promoting the elimination of the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) by June 30, 2014. This CJCJ report is the first in a series of reports investigating the consequences of the proposed juvenile justice realignment in California. The second in the series is a two-page brief examining the 58 counties’ institutional capacity to absorb the DJF population in 2009 and follows two previous CJCJ reports recommending the realignment and reform of juvenile justice practices. As highlighted in CJCJ’s May 2009 report entitled Closing California’s Division of Juvenile Facilities: An Analysis of County Institutional Capacity, and the October 2010 update, counties have been developing their capacity and ability to serve serious and violent offenders since 2004. However, there remains speculation as to how closure of DJF facilities will impact juvenile justice practices and although analysis is difficult, some indications can be derived from recent trends. As CJCJ’s May 2009 report identified, direct filing of juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts by prosecutors has been steadily rising since 2004 despite the availability of DJF facilities. This trend suggests that direct adult criminal court filing will continue to increase regardless of the future of DJF. This report conducts an analysis of county use of DJF and direct adult criminal court filings in 2009. The results suggest that closing DJF facilities will impact each of the 58 counties differently, but can be broadly classified into several categories. Some counties will be minimally impacted by DJF’s closure, while others will be significantly impacted, requiring a more focused analysis of their needs and appropriate technical assistance, support, and resources to serve their serious juvenile offenders at the county-level. Nevertheless, counties’ willingness to respond to this challenge has been demonstrated by the response to Senate Bill 81 in August 2007, when despite initial reservations many counties not only absorbed the non-violent juvenile offender population previously housed in DJF, but also implemented community-based services for high-risk serious juvenile offenders. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Realignment Series: Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/The_impact_of_realignment_on_county_juvenile_justice_practice.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/The_impact_of_realignment_on_county_juvenile_justice_practice.pdf Shelf Number: 121381 Keywords: Juvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile Justice (California)Juvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
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: Mooney, Ann Title: The Health of Children and Young People in Secure Settings Summary: This small-scale descriptive study was commissioned by the Children and Young People's Public Health team within the Department of Health, in partnership with Offender Health, in order to inform preparation and implementation of an Offender Health Strategy document for children and young people. The overall aim was to review what is currently known about healthcare for children and young people in the secure estate, covering all three types of setting (Young Offender Institution, Secure Training Centre and Secure Children's Home) and all aspects of health, but with a particular focus on physical health since more is already known about mental health and substance misuse among young people in secure settings. The study took a multi-method approach involving a focused overview of relevant literature, interviews with key stakeholders, analysis of the most recent full inspection report (obtained for 42 of the 45 institutions holding young people under 18), and case studies of promising practice. It did not include primary research in secure settings, and a number of important caveats concerning the available data are discussed in the report. The strength of the report is that it brings together in one place information about healthcare for children and young people in the secure estate, and begins to identify key issues that need to be addressed. However, further research is needed to validate the conclusions of this study. Details: London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, 2007. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2014 at: http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/53/1/Health_children_in_secure_settings.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/53/1/Health_children_in_secure_settings.pdf Shelf Number: 132188 Keywords: Child ProtectionHealth CareJuvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile OffendersTreatment Programs |
Author: Macallair, Daniel Title: Closing California's Division of Juvenile Facilities: An Analysis of County Institutional Capacity Summary: I. Summary of Findings - The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), the former California Youth Authority, is currently under a consent decree due to abusive conditions, systemic mismanagement, and ineffectual services. - Despite legislative and judicially imposed mandates, the state has failed to achieve minimum reform leading to drastic calls for placing the system into receivership. - Two recent reports by the Little Hoover Commission and Legislative Analyst's Office have proposed eliminating DJF and transferring responsibilities for the remaining wards to the counties. - The population of DJF has declined 83% from its 1996 peak in-custody population of 9,772 to a February 28, 2009 population of 1,637. The current population is the lowest in modern history. - The decline in youth incarceration over the last decade coincides with the largest decline in youth crime rates ever recorded in California. - Youth crime and incarceration policies are not related. - County probation departments expanded their institutional capacity over the past 10 years resulting in more modern high security facilities than those offered by DJF. - County probation departments provide a broader array of maximum, medium, and minimum-security institutions than DJF. - There is more than sufficient institutional bed space in the 29 largest counties alone to absorb the current DJF population, virtually negating the need for additional state or county facilities. - Housing youths at the county level is significantly less expensive than housing them in state facilities. - Some counties commit large numbers of youth to DJF while other counties rarely commit youth to DJF. - Recent increases in transfers and remands of juveniles to adult court have not led to increased imprisonments either in DJF or in adult prisons; rather, adult courts seem to be sentencing more youth to county supervision. - Currently, there are 322 DJF wards between ages 21 and 25 confined at the DJF that could be maintained in one DJF facility or dispersed to newly designated county facilities. - Youths currently spend more time in juvenile facilities than adults in adult facilities for comparable crimes. - The current per capita cost per DJF ward is $234,029. - Closing DJF and transferring the remaining ward population to county facilities will eliminate the State's obligation under the Farrell v. Cate consent decree. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2009. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/closing_californias_djf.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/closing_californias_djf.pdf Shelf Number: 135878 Keywords: Juvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Prison Watch Sierra Leone Title: Children and Juveniles in Detention: Study on compliance with international standards in Sierra Leone Summary: Protection and promotion of the rights of the child, as all other human rights, is the primary responsibility of the State. States are generally obligated to ensure the progress of juveniles, including the fostering and ensuring of personal development and education as free from crime and delinquency as possible. The UNCRC and other international standards relating to juveniles in detention are clear on that children should only be detained as a means of last resort. Protecting the best interests of the child entails that the traditional objectives of the criminal justice system, such as repression and retribution must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice when dealing with juvenile offenders. This means that receiving a sentence as a juvenile offender should not be a punishment; instead the deprivation of liberty should foster an environment that can support the child in reforming themselves, including enabling them to resume education or finding an apprenticeship or work. The substance of what constitutes rehabilitation and restoration will be further explained in the study. Sierra Leone has ratified the UNCRC on 18 June 1990 and has partially incorporated the UNCRC into domestic law through the adoption of the Child Rights Act (2007) (CRA). However adoption of legislation does not necessarily ensure implementation in practice. For example, the Sierra Leonean juvenile justice system is currently far from rehabilitative and restorative despite legislative efforts on alternative approaches included in the CRA. Further, in the concluding observations of the CRC on Sierra Leone in 2008 the Committee among other things emphasised its concerns regarding the fact that juvenile detention facilities were understaffed, ill‐equipped, with little or no security, poor learning facilities, little recreation and limited food supplies. This study builds on the knowledge and experience of Prison Watch Sierra Leone (PWSL) which has been obtained during its monitoring of and regular presence in juvenile detention facilities since 1996, through encounters with suspected child offenders in police detentions as well as through its linking and tracing interventions connecting parents and relatives with children in detention. Through these activities PWSL has gained a unique insight into the dire situation of juveniles in detention in Sierra Leone. Details: Copenhagen, DK: DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2016 at: https://dignityinstitute.org/media/2065757/pubseries_no4_children-and-juveniles-in-detention.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Sierra Leone URL: https://dignityinstitute.org/media/2065757/pubseries_no4_children-and-juveniles-in-detention.pdf Shelf Number: 147901 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Virginia. Secretary of Public Safety Title: Juvenile Correctional Center Task Force: Final Report Summary: The Interagency Task Force on Juvenile Correctional Centers (Task Force) submits this final report based on the recommendations for design principles for the Chesapeake facility and any other new secure facility construction, the projected numbers and service needs of the population, presentations to the Task Force from both stakeholders and national experts, and research and best practices concerning the rehabilitation of youth involved in the justice system. The report is also based on an analysis of existing JCC infrastructure and the relative costs and benefits of renovating existing facilities, building new facilities, and/or selling current DJJ property to help offset construction costs. The Juvenile Correctional Center Task Force: Interim Report (herein referred to as the Interim Report) is referenced throughout this report without fully repeating the information. Therefore, these reports should be read in conjunction, and the Interim Report is attached as the final appendix. It is important to note that the Task Force focused on just one aspect of the overall juvenile justice transformation that is taking place in Virginia. Specifically, the Task Force, as directed by the General Assembly, focused on secure facilities, the most restrictive and most costly placement option in the statewide continuum of services that the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is developing, simultaneously with the work of the Task Force. Extensive research suggests, and the Task Force recognizes, that committing youth to a secure facility should in most cases be a last resort, to be pursued only after less restrictive and more community-based interventions have been exhausted. Although this report is focused on the design and potential construction of new secure therapeutic facilities, it is critical to note that (i) this new construction does not add new secure beds; rather, it decreases the number of beds by approximately 70% and improves the care provided for committed youth, and (ii) the services in these secure facilities are part of a system response that focuses on community interventions as the preferred option whenever possible, including the provision of diversion, intensive support services, community supervision, and placement of committed youth in local community-based alternatives. The Task Force recognizes that the small number of youth still held in secure facilities likely will have a complex array of challenges, including substantial exposure to trauma, behavioral health issues, educational challenges, and serious offense histories. In order to increase their chances of successful rehabilitation and reduce the likelihood of reoffending upon release, construction of two new therapeutic facilities is necessary to maintain the safety and security of staff, youth, and the surrounding community. In sum, the Task Force determined that new facilities can and should be significantly smaller than the current JCCs, and the new facilities should be located as close as possible to the home communities of their residents. These facilities should incorporate design features that are most likely to promote rigorous and sustained treatment and rehabilitation while maintaining safety and security. The recommendations of the Task Force are given. Details: Richmond, VA: The Author, 2017. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2019 at: http://www.djj.virginia.gov/pdf/about-djj/jcc-taskforce/Juvenile%20Correctional%20Center%20Task%20Force%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.djj.virginia.gov/pdf/about-djj/jcc-taskforce/Juvenile%20Correctional%20Center%20Task%20Force%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 155180 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Administration Juvenile Justice Systems |