Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:36 pm
Time: 8:36 pm
Results for juvenile diversion programs
4 results foundAuthor: 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: Leoschut, Lezanne Title: Returning to a Reluctant Sender: An Exploration into Community Attitudes Toward Diversion and Reintegration in South Africa Summary: Child and youth crime continues to be one of the primary challenges facing post-apartheid South Africa. The increasingly high numbers of young, first time perpetrators incarcerated for various minor offences is an issue that raises infinite contention worldwide. It is estimated by the Department of Correctional Services that 4% of all awaiting trial prisoners are children younger than 18 years. Moreover, 2.5% of the sentenced prison population are comprised of children under the age of 18 years. The extent of young offenders awaiting trial in the country's correctional facilities is a considerable statistic when considering that many of their offences are suitable for diversion. Advocates for children's rights have for long been engaged in the battle for the establishment of a separate system to deal specifically with first-time child and youth offenders of minor crimes. The birth of democracy in South Africa has aided the sustained action towards a new justice system which incorporates principles of restorative justice. The Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 (CJA) finally came into being in 2010. Prior to this, the implementation of alternative forms of sentencing such as diversion were conducted on a small and relatively un-monitored scale under the Child Justice Bill 49 of 2002. The new act has been welcomed mainly because of the guidelines and legal framework it provides for child justice in South Africa. These guidelines include the regulations for diversion and alternative penalties for young offenders, and also outline suitable penalties based on the age, background and other factors such as the offence and religious beliefs of the young offender. Children and youth who become involved in delinquent activities at a very young age, are generally more inclined to continue along this path later on in their lives; highlighting the need for interventions to target these youths before their delinquent acts become established behavioural patterns. Incarcerating young offenders for their criminal acts fails to curb crime since these youths are only temporarily removed from society, the root causes for their behaviours are not addressed, and they often graduate to more serious offences following their time behind bars due to their exposure to other criminal elements. With the high recidivism rates as a result of youth being exposed to the criminal justice system at an early age and following criminal careers because of the criminal records received from incarceration, the advent of alternative penalties have brought a new wave of hope for reduced recidivism rates. Prior to the CJA, diversion was virtually unavailable in poorer communities and the rural areas. A shortage of diversion service providers and the lack of funding from the Department of Social Development (DSD), as well as the reluctance on the part of the criminal justice system practitioners (i.e. magistrates, prosecutors and probation officers) to refer young, first time minor offenders to diversion programmes, have exacerbated the problem of youth incarceration. An area lacking sufficient research is the extent to which communities are receptive to diversion and alternative penalties. Since the success of diversion rests principally in the community's ability to reintegrate the offender, the current dearth of literature on community experiences and attitudes toward offender reintegration, underscore the need for this small scale exploratory study. In this monograph, a brief description of the history of child justice in South Africa and the steps taken in the process of launching the Child Justice Act (CJA) (75 of 2008) developed from the Child Justice Bill (CJB) (49 of 2002) will be provided. It will, in addition, explore the applicability of the Child Justice Act in South Africa through the lens of restorative justice, which is the pillar of the Act. There will be the analysis of diversion and how this has supported the objectives of restorative justice, to alleviate the criminal justice system and reduce recidivism. Following this, the findings from the study conducted amongst 1802 participants recruited from 14 communities across three provinces in South Africa; namely Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Western Cape, elucidating community members' perceptions of diversion and reintegration will be analysed. This analysis will be useful for painting a picture of the community responses to restorative justice since the community is highly contributory to the success or failure of such programmes. Overall, the findings of the study show that across the three provinces there is a noticeable hesitancy to engage with young, first time minor offenders through restorative justice practices such as diversion on a community level. It must however be noted that participants did feel that family cohesion and support was necessary and practiced within their households to a large extent, but community responsibility to maintain peace and order and raise children well was not perceived in the same manner. Although participants were drawn from diverse communities, there is no discernible difference between responses based on community types, however, participants from KwaZulu-Natal were undoubtedly the most unreceptive of diversion and related penalties. While most participants had not experienced or witnessed crime, there were high levels of insecurity within the communities represented in this study. Two thirds (33.6%) of participants said that they felt unsafe while at home and some of these feelings of insecurity were attributed to young people’s involvement in criminal activities in their communities. The findings present very interesting insight into the possible barriers towards reducing the incidences of youths engaging in crime and applying diversion and reintegration with positive outcomes within South Africa. Details: Cape Town, South Africa: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention, 2012. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Monograph Series, no. 10: Accessed October 19, 2016 at: http://www.cjcp.org.za/uploads/2/7/8/4/27845461/monograph_10_-_return_to_rel.pdf Year: 2012 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.cjcp.org.za/uploads/2/7/8/4/27845461/monograph_10_-_return_to_rel.pdf Shelf Number: 145896 Keywords: Juvenile Diversion ProgramsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersReintegration |
Author: Blanco, Melissa Title: How Effective Are Virginia's Juvenile Division Programs? A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment for the Virginia State Crime Commission Summary: Virginia has a vested interest in promoting state and local policies that prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency. In particular, policies should be aimed at rehabilitating juvenile offenders with the goal of decreasing recidivism rates across the Commonwealth. One possible way to accomplish lower recidivism rates is through the use of diversion programs. Diversion programs offer alternatives to the traditional forms of secure detention, such as treatment programs, restorative justice services, and community service opportunities. These programs can be mandated by a judge, or they can be assigned in lieu of the juvenile undergoing court proceedings. This study will focus on the diversion programs assigned by Intake Officers before the juvenile enters the traditional criminal justice system. The Virginia State Crime Commission has been directed by the General Assembly of Virginia to conduct a comprehensive, two-year study of Virginia's juvenile justice system. One element of this study calls for an examination of juvenile diversion programs across the state, their impact on rates of recidivism, and their cost-effectiveness. In accordance with this mandate, the Center for Public Policy Research at The College of William & Mary has conducted a survey of juvenile Intake Officers across the Commonwealth (including Parole and Probation Officers who complete intake duties), the purpose of which was to understand how diversion is implemented in each Court Services Unit (CSU), which diversion programs appear to be most effective at reducing recidivism, and why some programs seem to be more effective than others. The scope of this project covers the entire Commonwealth of Virginia, which includes 35 CSUs. The CSUs perform intake, investigations, probation, and parole services for juveniles, and each CSU has anywhere between 3 and 24 Intake Officers and as many or more programs offering diversion services for juveniles. The largest component of this study consists of the formulation and distribution of a web-based survey of Intake Officers, which was anonymous to ensure the reception of candid responses. The survey was formulated to serve four key purposes. The first purpose of the survey was to identify the procedure followed by Intake Officers for deciding which juveniles to divert and to what program he or she should be diverted. The second purpose of the survey is to ascertain which programs or which types of programs Intake Officers feel are most effective. The third purpose is to determine if Intake Officers have any method for assessing the progress of the juvenile after he or she has begun participating in his or her assigned diversion program. Finally, the fourth purpose of the survey is to identify any impediments to the juvenile's successful completion of the diversion program. The twenty-question survey was distributed in November 2007 to 177 Intake Officers across the Commonwealth in 30 of 35 CSUs. Responses were collected from 51 of those individuals(28%), representing 15 of the 30 CSUs included in the sample. A mixture of rural and urban CSUs is represented across the disparate regions of the state. A significant limitation, however, is the lack of representation from two large urban areas of the state, Richmond and Norfolk. More than half of Intake Officers surveyed believe that juveniles should be allowed to be diverted more than once, depending on the circumstances. However, 4 of the 14 CSUs (28.6%) represented have policies that prohibit this, and respondents from five other CSUs (35.7%) presented conflicting interpretations of their CSU's policy. Only about one third of respondents utilize some type of standard assessment at intake for making decisions about diversion for a juvenile. Discretion of Intake Officers appears to be an important element in the diversion process with respect to the determination of whether diversion is appropriate for a juvenile, whether it is permissible for a second offense, and in consideration of the type of offense and any mitigating circumstances. Most Intake Officers take a wide range of factors into consideration when deciding whether to divert a juvenile rather than send him or her through court proceedings. Eighty percent or more consider the number and type of prior offenses in the juvenile's record, the juvenile's current offense, the age of the juvenile, the recommendation of the arresting officer, the type of diversion programs available in the CSU, and the juvenile's family or home situation. Similarly, Intake Officers also consider a number of different factors when deciding which program to divert a juvenile to, citing everything from the juvenile's current offense, to the personality or demeanor of the juvenile, to the availability of transportation for the juvenile to and from the program site. It is clear from the responses received for these two questions that the discretion of the Intake Officers plays a major role in determining whether juveniles are diverted and to what program. Intake Officers were also asked if their CSU implements a family-centered approach to diversion, and most (88%) indicated that they do. Many of the Intake Officers provided comments suggesting that parents are strongly encouraged to take part in at least some part of the diversion and that more ways in which parents could become involved in the diversion process would be welcome in their CSU. Most Intake Officers (78%) indicated that their CSU does perform some kind of assessment of the juvenile's progress after he or she has begun participating in a diversion program. There is a wide spread of responses concerning how often CSUs perform this assessment, ranging from every other week to sporadically, with none doing so everyday. A majority of CSUs continue to assess the juvenile's progress until the juvenile has completed the diversion program requirements. Many CSUs perform their assessment of the juvenile's progress by contacting the juvenile's family, contacting the program director, or meeting the juvenile in-person. Very few do so by observing the juvenile's participation through in-person visits to the diversion program site. Forty percent of Intake Officers reported that their CSU assesses the effectiveness of the diversion programs they utilize, while another 40% said their CSU did not assess diversion program effectiveness. However, these results are potentially misleading. Further analysis reveals that Intake Officers from the same CSU often differed in their answer to this question. Of the eleven CSUs represented, Intake Officers from six of them gave conflicting answers. It appears that Intake Officers may not be aware of their CSU's policy on assessing effectiveness, a situation which should be addressed. The vast majority of Intake Officers' responses indicate that a lack of cooperation from the family (73.2%) and from the juvenile (65.9%) stands in the way of successful diversion outcomes. Furthermore, many of the responses cited too little funding provided by the state (48.8%), too few diversion programs offered in the CSU (46.3%), and an insufficient range of diversion program types (41.5%). Finally, a small number (4.9%) said lack of transportation posed an obstacle to successful diversion. Intake Officers expressed a desire for increased funding for diversion programs, particularly to increase diversion staff and expand the number and type of diversion programs offered in each CSU. They also expressed a desire for uniform criteria for diversion eligibility, as current policy differs from CSU to CSU. For example, a juvenile in one CSU may be eligible for a diversion opportunity, while a juvenile with a similar criminal history may be ineligible for a diversion opportunity in another CSU. After completing this study and reviewing the results, several recommendations for reforming the methods of diversion in Virginia's juvenile justice system became apparent. First, we recommend that the state provide CSUs with resources to collect data on juveniles who have been diverted and the outcomes of the programs to which juveniles are diverted. Second, we recommend that CSUs improve the clarity and uniformity of their diversion policy. Third, we recommend the implementation of a standardized intake assessment with statewide criteria. Results of the survey are valuable and instructive for understanding diversion implementation and its effectiveness in Virginia, but the conclusions do present some limitations. First, only perceived effectiveness was assessed through the perspectives of Intake Officers given that actual data on diverted juveniles was not available to us at the time of this study. Second, less than half of the 35 CSUs in the Commonwealth were represented; ideally we would have achieved representation from all. Third, the narrow definition of recidivism as "re-conviction" may lead to over-stating the effectiveness of diversion programs. Finally, the difficulty in obtaining figures for the costs of diversion program implementation in light of their disparate funding sources precluded a cost-effectiveness analysis within the three-month time constraint for this research endeavor. The Intake Officer Survey has laid the groundwork for future work that could provide additional evidence on how effective diversion programs are at reducing recidivism rates. Specifically, two bodies of work are needed: (1) a quantitative analysis of Virginia's Department of Juvenile Justice data, which would compare recidivism rates between juveniles who were diverted before being adjudicated with juveniles who entered the traditional criminal justice system; and (2) an assessment on how cost-effective diversion programs are in comparison to the traditional adjudication process. Details: Williamsburg, VA : Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College of William & Mary, 2007. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/crime.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/crime.pdf Shelf Number: 150490 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Diversion ProgramsJuvenile Justice systemsRecidivism |
Author: Niedzwiecki, Emily Title: Massachusetts Juvenile Diversion Assessment Study Summary: On behalf of the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (JJAC), in collaboration with the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), ICF International (ICF) conducted an assessment of District Attorneys' (DAs') offices' pretrial juvenile diversion practices across the Commonwealth. Findings from this assessment are intended to provide a snapshot of DAs' juvenile diversion practices in Massachusetts and make recommendations regarding the enhancement and wider use of promising diversion practices. The purpose of the assessment is also to provide DAs, their staff, and other juvenile justice stakeholders with a better understanding of the state of practice in order to make informed decisions regarding their diversion programs. Methodology In order to gain a better understanding of DAs' pretrial juvenile diversion practices, this assessment included three primary tasks: (1) Background Review, (2) Literature Review, and (3) Key Informant Interviews. This assessment is largely descriptive in nature and is meant to provide an initial look at DA-based pretrial juvenile diversion in Massachusetts. To inform the development of the interview protocol and reduce burden on interview participants, researchers first conducted a background review of public data sources to collect information on jurisdictional characteristics (e.g., population demographics, youth demographics), crime statistics, juvenile court statistics, school statistics, youth initiatives, and existing diversion programming within the community. In conjunction with the background review, the research team conducted a literature review that addressed juvenile justice trends in the United States, juvenile diversion philosophies, model diversion programs and strategies, and background information on juvenile justice in Massachusetts. Finally, the research team conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with staff within each of the 11 DAs' offices who were most knowledgeable regarding juvenile diversion programs and practices within their office. The interviews were designed to collect detailed information on diversion programs and practices, including: key program elements (e.g., target population, eligibility criteria, and decision-making and referral protocols); services provided as part of the diversion program; perceived challenges and limitations; and offices' data collection practices. Over a two-month period, the research team conducted interviews with 14 participants, representing all 11 DAs' offices, which generally included DAs, Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs), diversion program staff, juvenile unit staff and attorneys, and other special programs staff. Details: Fairfax, VA: ICF International, 2015. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ea378e414fb5fae5ba06c7/t/593709d2197aeac077e3f2f9/1496779220634/MADiversion_FinalReport_2015+01+14-FINAL.PDF Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ea378e414fb5fae5ba06c7/t/593709d2197aeac077e3f2f9/1496779220634/MADiversion_FinalReport_2015+01+14-FINAL.PDF Shelf Number: 150491 Keywords: DiversionJuvenile Diversion ProgramsPretrial DiversionRecidivismRestorative Justice |