Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:05 am
Time: 12:05 am
Results for juvenile inmates
110 results foundAuthor: Martynowicz, Agnieszke Title: Detention of Children in Ireland: International Standards and Best Practice. Summary: Relatively little is known about Irish children who come into conflict with the law and much work needs to be done to identify the barriers children face exercising their rights in the criminal justice system. However, research undertaken in Ireland indicates that such children come from poor socio-economic backgrounds; many of them have lived out-of-home or been in care; they have weak attachment to family and invariably have problems with drugs and/or alcohol. They are typically early school leavers and mental health and behaviour problems are particularly prevalent among this group. Where these risk factors converge, the risk of being involved in criminal behaviour is multiplied. Through our investigation of individual cases in the Office of the Ombudsman for Children we are finding evidence of a system that is not designed to respond to these complex needs. We see the results of criminal behaviour taking precedence over the welfare needs of children and young people. The central ethos of the Children Act, 2001 is the diversion of children away from the criminal justice system. The approach taken in the Act, focusing on preventative measures and restorative justice mechanisms, is the right approach and the one which best protects the rights of children and young people in conflict with the law in line with Ireland's legal obligations. Through this approach, the complex needs of children can be addressed without the need to resort to youth justice measures. However, the implementation of non-custodial solutions for children in conflict with the law in Ireland is slow, and more needs to be done to make the principle of detention as a measure of last resort a reality When detention of children is deemed necessary, it should only be used for the shortest appropriate time. The conditions in which children are held and the support which they are to be afforded is laid out in detail in international standards which are described in this report. I have seen for myself in Ireland that the Children Detention Schools, operating under the umbrella of the Irish Youth Justice Service, employ many practices that aim to respect the rights of children in their care. The continued detention of boys in St Patrick's Institution (pending the construction of the National Children Detention Facility) remains a serious concern, and is not in compliance with international human rights standards. Having visited all of the Detention Schools and St Patrick's Institution, I am convinced that the detention of children in prisons must end. Of additional concern is the fact that I cannot investigate complaints from children held in St Patrick/s Institution due to an exclusion in the Ombudsman for Children Act, 2002. I therefore particularly welcome the recommendation contained in the report that supports both my own and the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendation to extend the remit of the Ombudsman for Children's Office to include the power to receive complaints from children so held. The system of detention of children in Ireland is currently undergoing a major change. This is a real opportunity to get things right from the outset and the best interests of children must be at the heart of any developments in this area. I believe that the future development of the system of Children Detention Schools should be centred on the principles of rights, rehabilitation and care. Details: Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2009. 96p. Source: Accessed May 19, 2017 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/Detention_of_Children_in_Ireland_FINAL.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Ireland URL: Shelf Number: 117594 Keywords: Human RightsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Brazier, Laura Title: Developing Literacy, Language and Numeracy Provision for Young People Under 18 in Custody: Literature Review Summary: This literature review forms part of a wider research project about developing education and training for young people in the juvenile secure estate (U.K). The review explores three areas: what we know about best teaching and learning practice, what works with this group of young learners and literature examining the perspectives of key stakeholders, primarily young people. Details: Reading, UK: CfBT Education Trust, 2007. 79p. Source: Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 113478 Keywords: EducationJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Robinson, Barbara Title: Education in Chains: Gaps in Education Provision to Children in Detention Summary: This report examines the right to education of children in detention in thirteen countries where Defense for Children International (DCI) has a presence and represents an ongoing collaboration between DCI's national sections and its International Secretariat. The report stems from DCI's participation in a special paper produced by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education on the theme of education for persons in detention. In preparation for his report, the Special Rapporteur consulted with governments, prisoners and non-governmental organisations (including DCI). The Special Rapporteur presented his findings to the Human Rights Council in June 2009, alongside a set of recommendations stressing the need to guarantee the right to education in detention, in legislation and in practice. The right to education of children deprived of their liberty Against a backdrop of poverty, social exclusion and exploitation, children in conflict with the law represent a particularly vulnerable group. However, instead of receiving care and protection, these children often face discrimination and denial of their social, cultural, economic and political rights. The evidence presented in this report highlights that many governments are failing to guarantee the right to education of children held in detention around the world. Key findings are as follows: - There were a number of examples where national legislation fails to establish provisions for the education of children in detention and where education is treated as an opportunity rather than a right; - In a number of countries, the State fails to provide any education whatsoever to children in detention; - Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are the sole providers of education to children in detention in many situations, or play a key role in enhancing existing provision; - The situation of children is often worse when they are held in pre-trial detention, where limited, lower quality or indeed no education is often provided; - It was evident that few efforts are being made to monitor and evaluate the quality and frequency of education in detention, and in particular participation rates among detained children. To help address these problems and protect the rights of vulnerable children, DCI endorses the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education (2009) and recommends a focus on the following goals: - States should use deprivation of liberty as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time. - Ensure education is framed as an inalienable right integrated in the national legislation, policies and strategies. - Systematically collect and publish data about the provision of education in detention. - Monitor and review the quality and quantity of education in detention and initiate plans to transfer responsibilities from non-governmental organisations to the state. - Avoid the use of pre-trial detention, regularly review its use and ensure conditions meet the same standards as other forms of detention. - Facilitate the participation of children in the development of educational programmes in detention. Details: Geneva: Defence for Children International, 2009. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/DCI_Education_in_Detention_2009.pdf Year: 2009 Country: International URL: http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/DCI_Education_in_Detention_2009.pdf Shelf Number: 117098 Keywords: Correctional EducationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Swayze, Dana Title: Youth in Minnesota Correctional Facilities: Responses to the 2007 Minnesota Student Survey Summary: This report presents the results of the Minnesota Student Survey, a survey administered every three years to public school students. This 2007 survey was also administered to youths attending schools in 15 juvenile correctional facilities. The survey is a 126 item questionnaire that includes questions about a wide variety of youth attitudes, behaviors and health indicators. Analyses examined differences in responses between public school students and students in juvenile correctional facilities. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, 2008. 55 p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118095 Keywords: Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersStudent AttitudesStudent Survey |
Author: Great Britain. Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) Title: Transition Through Detention and Custody: Arrangements for Learning and Skills for Young People in Custodial or Secure Settings Summary: This report evaluates the range and effectiveness of the arrangements for education and training for several categories of young people in the UK: those identified for their likelihood of offending; young offenders who move into custodial establishments then are transferred between different establishments while in custody; and those who move between custody and the community. The report illustrates good practice and makes recommendations for improvement. Details: Manchester, UK: Ofsted, 2010. 34p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118621 Keywords: Education, Juvenile OffendersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation, Juvenile OffendersVocational Training, Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Van der Heul, F.W.T. Title: Adjustment to Life in Custody Among Canadian Serious and Violent Young Offenders: Physical Aggression, Perceived Level of Support From Correctional Staff, and Feelings of Personal Safety Summary: Two theoretical explanations - importation and deprivation - are commonly used to explain inmate adjustment to the correctional environment. This study examined the effects of selected importation and deprivation factors on youth's perceived level of support from correctional staff, their perceived level of personal safety, and whether or not they engage in physical aggressive behavior while in custody. The study controlled for gender, age, race and prior incarceration time. In addition, the effectiveness of the importation, deprivation, and integrated model individually have were investigated. Self-reported data and information from institutional files, collected from 63 serious and violent young offenders in two of British Colombia's major custody centres, were used. The results showed no significant effects of the importation and deprivation factors on whether or not youth engage in physical aggressive behavior in custody. However, results did reveal significant importation and deprivation predictors of perceived level of support from correctional staff and perceived level of personal safety in custody. Youth who reported higher levels of institutional violence and fewer visits from caregivers, perceived less support from correctional staff. In addition, youth who were older and reported higher levels of institution violence, were found to perceive lower levels of personal safety. Finally, victims of physical abuse reported lower levels of personal safety than youth who were not a victim of physical abuse. Findings tended to support the independent effect of the deprivation approach; however, support was also found for the intergrated approach, which combines the importation and deprivation factors, in explaining juveniles' adjustment to imprisonment. Finally, the deprivation and integrated model were only able to predict 32% to 36% of the explained variance in perceived level of support and personal safety in custody, which indicates that further research is essential in order to increase the predictive accuracy of adjustment to life in custody among juvenile offenders. Details: Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Development Psychology, Utrecht University; Burnaby, BC, Canada: School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 2009. 49p. Source: Master's Thesis Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: Shelf Number: 118357 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections (Canada)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Murphy, Aileen Title: Time Out II: A Profile of BC Youth in Custody Summary: Young offenders are often seen as either troubled adolescents or irredeemable villains. This report focuses on the experiences of these youth, rather than their criminal activities. It provides insight into the characteristics of young people in British Columbia's custody centres; who they are and why, rather than what they did wrong. The study profiles some of the highest risk youth in B.C., who place the heaviest demands on judicial, social, health, educational and community services, although they represent a small proportion of all adolescents in the province. Details: Vancouver, BC: The McCreary Centre Society, 2005. 46p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2005 Country: Canada URL: Shelf Number: 118734 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (British Columbia |
Author: Williams, Sarah Title: The City of Easton Weed and Seed Initiative: Evaluation 2008 Summary: This report is an evaluation and needs assessment of Easton Weed & Seed carried out between September snd November 2008. It includes background on the program and target neighborhood, a description of the Weed & Seed programs, the results of focus groups conducted with target residents and surveys of community residents. It concludes with overall impressions and recommendations. Details: Bethelmen, PA: Lehigh Valley Research Consortium, 2008. 23p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119151 Keywords: Cognitive Behavioral TherapyCorrectional EducationCrime PreventionDelinquency PreventionDrug Abuse and AddictionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersJuvenile RehabilitationWeed & Seed Program |
Author: Great Britain. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Title: The Management of Gang Issues Among Children and Young People in Prison Custody and the Community: A Joint Thematic Review Summary: This thematic review, carried out as part of a service level agreement with the Youth Justice Board, examined youth offending teams and young offender institutions to find out how in practice the police, probation and prison services at local level were dealing with gang-related crime involving under 18 year-olds. It found that, in spite of central nitiatives, there was a lack of coordination and of clear and effective guidance on local implementation. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2010. 79p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119299 Keywords: Juvenile GangsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersYouth Gangs |
Author: Rael, Roberta M. Title: Incarcerated youth Perspectives on Violence: The Voices from the Inside. New Mexico Incarcerated Youth Speak Out about Violence Summary: New Mexico has some of the highest rates of youth violence in the country. Suicide and homicide are the second and third leading cause of death for 15-24 year olds in New Mexico. In 2002, New Mexico was among the states with the highest rates of homicide and suicide for all ages. Youth participation in violence prevention work is integral: youth perspective has proven to be valuable to policy and program processes. Youth who participate have a sense of inclusion, involvement and empowerment. These are three basic components of developing a sense of personal value and self-esteem. The intent of this special project is to provide a voice from a segment of the community that typically does not have an opportunity to participate in program, policy and institutional change. This report reflects what incarcerated youth in New Mexico had to say about their own life history related to violence, how incarceration impacted their lives, and what risk and protective factors exist that will prevent or propel them into the adult system of incarceration after they are released from their current commitments. This information was retrieved through the use of focus groups that were designed specifically for this population of incarcerated youth. Details: Albuquerque, NM: Office of Injury Prevention, Injury and Behavioral Epidemiology Bureau, Epidemiology and Response Division, New Mexico Department of Health, 2007. 31p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119388 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (New Mexico)Recidivism |
Author: Khan, Lorraine Title: You Just Get On and Do It: Healthcare Provision in Youth Offending Teams Summary: Children and young people in the youth justice system are at high risk of multiple health inequalities and poor life chances. Research indicates that these young people have their needs under identified and supported after entry into the Youth Justice System. This paper shows the results of our study of healthcare provision in YOTs in England. We also reviewed mental health diversion work along the youth justice pathway to look at how these services might be better developed to improve outcomes for young people and their families. Details: London: Centre for Mental Health, 2010. 95p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2010 at: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Centre_for_MH_Healthcare_provision_YOTs.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Centre_for_MH_Healthcare_provision_YOTs.pdf Shelf Number: 119917 Keywords: Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMedical CareMental Health Services |
Author: Choate, David E. Title: Co-occurring Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Among Recently Booked Juvenile Detainees Summary: This special topic report examines the prevalence and characteristics of co-occurring substance abuse and mental health problems among juvenile detainees in Maricopa County. The findings come from the Co-occurring Disorder Addendum used during 2007. The findings reveal that almost 30 percent of juvenile detainees were at risk for a co-occurring disorder, and face significantly greater difficulties across a number of critical factors, including incarceration, homelessness, and victimization. Details: Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University, 2009. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2010 at: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/aarin/aarin-reports-1/co-occurring-disorder-addendum/co-occurring-disorders-among-juvenile-detainees/view?searchterm=juvenile detainees in maricopa county Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/aarin/aarin-reports-1/co-occurring-disorder-addendum/co-occurring-disorders-among-juvenile-detainees/view?searchterm=juvenile detainees in maricopa county Shelf Number: 119993 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMental HealthMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2007-2008 Summary: In Australia, responsibility for juvenile justice lies with the states and territories, and involves both juvenile justice agencies and other justice agencies such as the police and the courts. This report presents information on one aspect of the juvenile justice process: the supervision of young people in the juvenile justice system. There were 4,708 young people under juvenile justice supervision on an average day in 2007–08 in all states and territories except New South Wales, for which data were not available, and 9,540 young people experienced supervision at some time during the year. Most young people were supervised in the community. Around 87% of those under supervision on an average day were under community-based supervision while 13% were in detention. One-quarter of young people who were under supervision during 2007–08 had both community-based supervision and detention during the year. The number of young people in detention on an average day in Australia (excluding New South Wales) rose from 540 in 2004–05 to 630 in 2007–08—a 17% increase. The rate of young people aged 10–17 years in detention during the year increased from 1.7 per 1,000 to 2.0 per 1,000, indicating that a young person aged 10–17 years in 2007–08 was around 1.2 times as likely to be in detention during the year as a young person aged 10–17 years in 2004–05. In 2004–05, just over one-third of the average daily detention population was unsentenced but, by 2007–08, unsentenced young people in detention outnumbered those who were sentenced. The increase in the unsentenced population occurred for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people. Although only about 5% of young Australians are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, 40% of those under supervision on an average day were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. Their over-representation was particularly prominent in detention, where over half of those in detention on an average day and 60% of those who were unsentenced in detention were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. An Indigenous young person aged 10–17 years was 16 times as likely as a non-Indigenous young person of the same age to be under supervision in 2007–08, nearly 15 times as likely to be under community-based supervision as a non-Indigenous young person, and nearly 30 times as likely to be in detention. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2009. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 5: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/juv-5-10853/juv-5-10853.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/juv-5-10853/juv-5-10853.pdf Shelf Number: 120133 Keywords: AboriginalsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Krisberg, Barry Title: A New Era in California Justice Justice: Downsizing the State Youth Corrections System Summary: California created a statewide system of youth corrections facilities in 1941. The newly formed California Youth Authority (CYA) was considered a major progressive step forward in juvenile justice. Part of its focus in its early years was programming designed to keep youth close to their home communities. In its first three decades, the CYA population never exceeded 7,000. Leadership and policy changes in the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, started a long period of increase in the CYA population. By 1996, the number of incarcerated youth in the CYA grew steadily to over 10,000 youth. The rise was driven by several major factors: a fear that a growing California youth population was increasingly dangerous; a decrease in state funding to counties for local programs; and the cost savings to counties of sending youth to the CYA rather than county facilities or group homes. After 1996, the trend of a rising youth inmate population turned around, with fewer and fewer young people being held in the CYA. By the end of 2009, the CYA held 1,499 youth. This decline in the CYA population is the largest drop in youth confinement that has been experienced by any state. The research presented here attempts to examine the many factors that may have contributed to that “decarceration”. We also examine concurrent trends in crime, arrests, and the use of other, non‐CYA forms of custody for these youth. Details: Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, University of California, Berkeley; Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/A_New_Era_10-22-2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/A_New_Era_10-22-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120142 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Center for HIV Law and Policy Title: Juvenile Injustice: The Unfulfilled Rights of Youth in State Custody to Comprehensive Sexual Health Care Summary: This is the first legal report and guide on the rights of youth in detention and foster care facilities to comprehensive sexual health care, including sexual medical care, sexuality education, and staff training on sexual orientation and the needs and rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. This publication analyzes the foundation of this right and the sexual health care needs of youth in out-of-home care. Youth in state custody, particularly LGBTQ youth, are at higher than average risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections and HIV but there is not one state in the country that guarantees access to the necessary sexual medical care and scientifically accurate and inclusive sexuality education that would address this health crisis. Youth in out-of-home-care report sexual activity at earlier ages, higher-risk sexual activity and greater rates of STIs and HIV than youth who live with family members. These sexual health risks are additionally severe for LGBTQ youth, who are disproportionately represented in state detention and foster care facilities yet are largely ignored in health care and education services. According to a recent Department of Justice Report, gay youth also are also more likely to be the victims of sexual abuse while confined to juvenile facilities. Details: New York: Center for HIV Law and Policy, 2010. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed December 10, 2010 at: http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/565 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/565 Shelf Number: 120437 Keywords: Health CareHIV (Viruses)Human Immunodefiency VirusJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Ericson, Matthew Title: Young People on Remand in Victoria: Guilt Yet To Be Determined: Balancing Individual and Community Interests Summary: This comprehensive report analyses current Australian and international trends in evidence-based prison policy in Australia and overseas. This includes a review of remand and its place within the criminal justice system. The report includes a statistical analysis of more than eleven thousand Victorian remandees incarcerated while awaiting trail between 2008 and 2010, with particular attention to the socio-economic background of remandees by age, gender and Indigenous status. The analysis highlights the accumulated disadvantage of young people involved in the criminal justice system, including high rates of unemployment and low levels of educational attainment. This landmark report concludes with recommendations for remand reform that promote social inclusion and community safety, and the health and well-being of disadvantaged young people, families and communities. Details: Richmond, VIC: Jesuit Social Services, 2010. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Docs/policy-and-advocacy/publications/Young_people_in_remand_in_Victoria_-_Balancing_individual_and_community_interests.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Docs/policy-and-advocacy/publications/Young_people_in_remand_in_Victoria_-_Balancing_individual_and_community_interests.pdf Shelf Number: 120900 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Victoria, Australia) |
Author: Ipsos MORI Title: Behaviour Management Across the Secure Estate for Children and Young People Summary: This study explores aspects of the use of restraint across the secure estate for children and young people, in conjunction with behaviour management approaches such as separation and adjudications. Qualitative in-depth interviews were carried out with staff and young people in young offender institutions (YOIs), secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes between February 2010 and May 2010. In total, 33 interviews were carried out with young people and 35 with staff. The young people who were chosen to be interviewed had recently experienced restraint within establishments which had recorded a high number of restraints. The qualitative findings are summarised in this report. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2011. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 121265 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections (U.K.)Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesYouth Custody |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2008-09 Summary: In Australia, around 7,200 young people were under juvenile justice supervision on any given day in 2008-09. Most (90%) were under community-based supervision, with the remainder in detention. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people continue to be over-represented, particularly in detention. This report presents information on the young people under community-based supervision and in detention and the type and length of their supervision. For the first time, detailed information on all community-based orders supervised by juvenile justice agencies is presented, as well as new analyses on the remoteness and socioeconomic status of young people's usual residence. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2011. 204p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series, Number 7: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737418606&libID=10737418605&tab=2 Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737418606&libID=10737418605&tab=2 Shelf Number: 121455 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Australia)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Review of Full Searches in the Secure Estate for Children and Young People Summary: The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB), as commissioner of secure accommodation for children and young people, takes as its starting point that the use of full searches should be kept to the minimum required to ensure the safety of young people and staff. The YJB, furthermore, considers this issue in relation to the rights of children and young people, and the balance that needs to be struck between those rights and the absolute requirement to ensure the safety and wellbeing of young people and staff in secure establishments. This review outlines the current use and purpose of full searches in the secure estate for children and young people. It provides an overview of the legislative and policy context, both centrally and at establishment level, and details monitoring arrangements in these areas. In addition, the review highlights examples of emerging good practice. Twelve establishments were visited, and interviews with key members of staff, including governing governors, directors and safeguarding managers, were conducted. The views of young people were also sought and analysed. A detailed methodological overview is provided at the end of this report. The review did not consider the young women’s young offender institution (YOI) estate, as this would complement work already conducted as a result of the publication of The Corston Report. In conducting this review, the YJB is fulfilling obligations made in response to previous reviews into this area of practice. This will include assessing the implications of the findings on existing contracts and monitoring arrangements. Findings from this review form part of YJB-led work that has followed the publication of the Carlile Inquiry and the YJB’s Review of Safeguarding in the Secure Estate for Children and Young People. When reviewing this area of operational practice in the secure estate for children and young people, the different legal, statutory and cultural contexts characterising each sector needed to be taken into account. An overview of the legislative contexts governing full searches is provided in Annex 1 of this document. The reviewers found that full-searching practice was consistent across all sectors and underpinned by clear guidelines. These guidelines ensure that young people are at no time fully undressed, and that they are searched by staff of the same sex. However, the location where a full search is carried out varies. Inevitably, the quality of reception areas and procedures varied between sectors and establishments. While full-searching practice was fairly similar across the estate, levels of full searches conducted varied significantly. The main factor determining the number of full searches conducted was the relative number of the remand population. Other factors included the number of young people on Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) or mobility. YOIs routinely carried out full searches beyond the extent required by the rules for the sector. In principle, the YJB believes that full searches should only be used following an assessment of risk. This principle should be the starting point for practice in all secure units. Only in circumstances where this risk-led approach can be shown to be unable to ensure the safety of young people and staff should routine fullsearching take place. In secure children’s homes, it is not envisaged that any routine full-searching should be necessary, due to their ability to supervise individual young people closely. In larger establishments, such as some secure training centres (STCs) and YOIs, it may be necessary to routinely full search young people on first reception into the establishment, if the numbers of young people being received is high, and subsequent pressures on the service adversely affect the ability to ensure the safety of young people and staff. Secure establishments should be able to justify a decision to routinely full search on reception, and should strive to achieve a position where it is minimised. It is considered that all other full searches – such as on return from ROTL/mobility, on transfer or discharge – as well as full searches following room searches or visits – should be based on prior risk-assessment. In very exceptional circumstances, force is used to full search a young person. While these incidents are very rare, differences in recording and reporting processes remain both at establishment level, as well as centrally. The recording of full searches is highlighted as an area in need of improvement to ensure young people are adequately safeguarded and that the use of force is kept to a minimum. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/youth-justice/improving-practice/Review-of-Full-Searches-in-the-Secure-Estate-forChildren-and-Young-People.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/youth-justice/improving-practice/Review-of-Full-Searches-in-the-Secure-Estate-forChildren-and-Young-People.pdf Shelf Number: 121883 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (U.K)Juvenile Inmates |
Author: Allen, Rob Title: Last Resort? Exploring the Reduction in Child Imprisonment 2008-11 Summary: The number of children under 18 who are imprisoned in England and Wales has fallen by a third over the last three years, from about 3,000 in the first half of 2008 to around 2,000 in the first part of 2011. This unexpected fall represents the largest decline in custody for children since the 1980’s. It does not reflect a broader trend in the use of custody, which has risen for adults. The fall has been largely brought about by fewer children being sentenced to Detention and Training Orders with particularly marked declines in the numbers of younger children and girls. Declines have been particularly marked in large conurbations. The falls have not applied as much to black and minority ethnic children as to white. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/lastresort.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/lastresort.pdf Shelf Number: 122106 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Deitch, Michele Title: Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Texas Summary: The report provides a comprehensive look at Texas’s methods for dealing with the state’s most serious juvenile offenders. It gathers all available Texas data with respect to certified juveniles — those youth who are transferred to adult criminal court — and compares them to the population of determined sentence juveniles who are retained in the juvenile justice system. The report also compares the significant differences in programming and services for the two populations of juvenile offenders — those who get sent to adult jails and prisons, and those who receive placements in the Texas Youth Commission (TYC). The report and its findings are especially timely during the Texas Legislature’s ongoing effort to reform and restructure the state’s juvenile justice system. Among the report’s most significant findings about juveniles transferred to the adult system are these: •Minimal differences exist between certified juveniles in the adult criminal justice system and determinate sentence juveniles in TYC, except for county of conviction. •Certified juveniles do not represent the “worst of the worst”—they are neither more violent nor more persistent in their criminal behavior than those retained in juvenile court and sent to TYC. •While the large majority of certified juveniles have committed violent offenses, only 17% have committed homicide. •About 15% of juveniles transferred to adult court are charged with non-violent felonies, including state jail offenses. •72% of certified juveniles do not have a prior violent criminal history, •29% of certified juveniles are first-time offenders. •89% of certified juveniles have never been committed to TYC, indicating that most certified youth have never had the opportunity to benefit from effective rehabilitative programs in the juvenile justice system, such as TYC’s highly regarded Capital and Serious Violent Offenders Program, which has a 95% success rate. Details: Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2011 at: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/juvenilestexas--final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/juvenilestexas--final.pdf Shelf Number: 122171 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice System (Texas)Juvenile Offenders (Texas)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Washington Coalition for the Just Treatment of Youth Title: A Reexamination of Youth Involvement in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Washington: Implications of New Findings about Juvenile Recidivism and Adolescent Brain Development Summary: In passing the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, Washington’s legislature intended to “[p]rovide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile* offender.” Public policy shifted dramatically in the early 1990s, in response to erroneous predictions of an impending juvenile crime wave. As a result, numerous laws were enacted that allowed adolescents to be tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the same manner as adults, in many cases without any consideration of their age or development. Although juvenile crime rates have actually decreased since the mid 1990s and many proponents of these changes have now admitted that their predictions regarding juvenile crime were incorrect, these policies remain in effect today. A reexamination of those policies is appropriate for several reasons. First, recent breakthroughs in brain development research have shown that due to anatomical differences in the adolescent brain, youth are less able than adults to assess risks, control impulsive behavior, and engage in moral reasoning. These differences are all relevant to assessing a juvenile’s culpability. This same research also suggests that adolescents are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults because one’s character continues to form as the brain matures. As such, adolescents typically “age out” of delinquent behavior as they move toward adulthood. For this reason, in Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court explained: “From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.”4 Second, evidence now exists that these policies threaten, rather than protect, public safety. Recent studies show that subjecting adolescents to the adult criminal justice system may actually increase future criminal behavior. This is likely due to adolescents incarcerated in adult facilities having reduced access to treatment and rehabilitative services while at the same time being exposed to an adult criminal culture rife with violence and antisocial behavior. This experience—known colloquially as “felon finishing school”—results in many youth emerging from incarceration at higher risk of offending than when they entered. In passing the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, Washington’s legislature intended to “[p]rovide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile* offender.” Public policy shifted dramatically in the early 1990s, in response to erroneous predictions of an impending juvenile crime wave. As a result, numerous laws were enacted that allowed adolescents to be tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the same manner as adults, in many cases without any consideration of their age or development. Although juvenile crime rates have actually decreased since the mid 1990s2 and many proponents of these changes have now admitted that their predictions regarding juvenile crime were incorrect,3 these policies remain in effect today. A reexamination of those policies is appropriate for several reasons. First, recent breakthroughs in brain development research have shown that due to anatomical differences in the adolescent brain, youth are less able than adults to assess risks, control impulsive behavior, and engage in moral reasoning. These differences are all relevant to assessing a juvenile’s culpability. This same research also suggests that adolescents are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults because one’s character continues to form as the brain matures. As such, adolescents typically “age out” of delinquent behavior as they move toward adulthood. For this reason, in Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court explained: “From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.” Second, evidence now exists that these policies threaten, rather than protect, public safety. Recent studies show that subjecting adolescents to the adult criminal justice system may actually increase future criminal behavior.5 This is likely due to adolescents incarcerated in adult facilities having reduced access to treatment and rehabilitative services while at the same time being exposed to an adult criminal culture rife with violence and antisocial behavior. This experience—known colloquially as “felon finishing school”—results in many youth emerging from incarceration at higher risk of offending than when they entered.Third, these policies have an unequal impact on youth of color and girls. Youth of color are disproportionately represented amongst adolescents who are tried as adults. A recent study summarized herein shows that this over representation cannot be explained by higher arrest rates for youth of color. The mandatory nature of many of these laws and the lack of gender-responsive services also have troubling consequences for girls who often have unique needs and characteristics that support individualized consideration. This report summarizes the breakthroughs in adolescent brain development, studies related to recidivism rates of youth who are treated as adults, and data regarding the use and implications of current Washington laws that allow—and in some cases require—that youth be treated as adults. In particular, this report analyzes the cases of the twenty-eight Washington youth in which the law mandated that the youth be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the most severe sentence for youth available in Washington. Trial and appellate court records, as well as records from the Department of Corrections and information provided by the individuals sentenced in this manner were analyzed for this report. Details: Seattle (?): Washington Coalition for the Just Treatment of Youth, 2009. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/ReexaminationofYouthWA.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/ReexaminationofYouthWA.pdf Shelf Number: 122173 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Recidivism |
Author: New South Wales Ombudsman Title: Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre: Meeting the Challenges Summary: The NSW Ombudsman's office has a long standing interest in the operation of Kariong and we have undertaken a number of significant pieces of work concerning the facility. It opened in 1991 as a detention centre for adolescent boys operated by Juvenile Justice. In March 2000 we tabled a report to Parliament of our investigation into events surrounding four serious disturbances at the centre in 1999. The report criticised many aspects of the operation of the centre at that time, including the failure to provide appropriate programs and activities for what was a difficult and challenging group of detainees and a lack of individual case management. In December 2004 the then government transferred responsibility for Kariong to the adult correctional system and the Juvenile Offenders Legislation Amendment Act 2004 became law. The Act established Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre as well as classification and transfer arrangements for young offenders. At the same time as these changes were being made, we were conducting a legislative review of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Adult Detainees) Act 2001 which we concluded in November 2005. In our report of the review we made a number of recommendations concerning the management of inmates at Kariong. We have continued to conduct regular visits to Kariong as part of our visits program to custodial facilities, both when it was operated by Juvenile Justice and since its transfer to Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW). During these visits we take complaints from inmates, speak with staff to resolve issues and observe conditions and routines. Our ongoing work and interest in the centre means we have a detailed knowledge of Kariong’s operation under both Juvenile Justice and CSNSW management. Both agencies have experienced challenges in delivering appropriate programs and specialised services to such a small population and both agencies have had to contend with the site’s physical shortcomings. While CSNSW did significant capital works on the centre when it took over its operation in 2004, the fundamental design of the site is difficult to alter. The centre is built on the side of a hill and inmates are accommodated in one three storey building that overlooks the administration area. The conclusions of our current investigation indicate that CSNSW is managing a number of significant challenges at Kariong. Inmates are adolescent boys and young men aged between 16 and 21 years old. They are all maximum security inmates, on the basis either of their offence or their poor behaviour and are admitted to Kariong directly from the community or from Juvenile Justice. The centre can accommodate a maximum of 48 inmates in a total of four units and commonly has a population in the mid 30s. Of this number, some will be on remand and some will be sentenced. Some will have significant behavioural issues, others will be well behaved but have committed serious offences. There is considerable turn-over in a proportion of the population, with some inmates staying only a matter of days or weeks. Some will become eligible to return to Juvenile Justice or for transfer to an adult correctional centre but others will remain at Kariong for years. Providing appropriate programs and services to a group of adolescents with such diverse needs is particularly challenging in an environment where the numbers are so small. This is further exacerbated by the fact some inmates will be unable to associate with others for reasons to do with their offence or their history in custody. Getting the management of inmates’ right at Kariong is important, not just for the inmates but for the wider community. The occupants of Kariong are at an age and stage of offending where without significant intervention they may well continue into the adult criminal justice system, at both considerable personal cost to themselves and cost to the community. Their time in Kariong should be seen as an opportunity. Their incarceration presents what may be a final chance to work intensively with some of the most serious young offenders to try to divert them from what could be a lengthy criminal career. Details: Sydney: NSW Ombudsman, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2011 at: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/specialreport/SR_Kariong%20Juvevile%20Correctional%20Centre.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/specialreport/SR_Kariong%20Juvevile%20Correctional%20Centre.pdf Shelf Number: 123263 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Australia)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Calvin, Elizabeth Title: Against All Odds: Prison Conditions for Youth Offenders Serving Life without Parole Sentences in the United States Summary: Currently, more than 2,500 inmates in the United States await death in adult prison, sentenced to life without parole for crimes they committed while they were under the age of 18. Youth offenders serving life without parole enter prison with developmental needs for protection, education, and other services in order to be able to fully mature into adulthood. Yet youth offenders are among the inmates most susceptible to physical and sexual assault during their incarceration, are often placed in isolated segregation, and are frequently classified in ways that can deprive them of access to rehabilitative programs. The United States is the only country in the world with youth offenders serving life without parole sentences, in violation of international human rights law. Against All Odds details the strong evidence that youth offenders serving life without parole are imprisoned in conditions that violate fundamental international human rights law and standards. Based on information from corrections departments across the country and hundreds of youth offenders serving life without parole, the report documents how states fail to protect youth offenders from physical assault and sexual violence, to administer adequate mental health care, or to provide access to age-appropriate services and programs. Despite the fact that the length of their sentence and their youth upon entering adult prison make growth and rehabilitation extraordinarily difficult, some youth offenders sentenced to life without parole do achieve emotional, intellectual, and personal transformation in prison—an extraordinary fact given the hurdles they face. Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to abolish the sentence of life without parole for crimes committed by persons below the age of 18 and to investigate and improve conditions for youth offenders imprisoned across the United States. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0112ForUpload_1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0112ForUpload_1.pdf Shelf Number: 123546 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersLife Imprisonment, JuvenilesLife Without ParolePrison Rape, JuvenilesSexual Assault, Juvenile Inmates |
Author: Amnesty International Title: 'This is Where I'm Going to Be When I Die' Children Facing Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Release in the USA Summary: More than 2,500 people in the USA are serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for crimes committed when they were younger than 18 years old, in violation of international human rights law respected around the world. The USA is believed to be the only country that continues to effectively condemn such young offenders to die in prison. This report highlights the cases of three people – Jacqueline Montanez, David Young and Christi Cheramie – serving life without parole for crimes committed when they were children. Every case is different and their stories cannot represent the experiences of the many hundreds of people currently serving this sentence across the country. However, their cases show why Amnesty International is calling on the USA to join the rest of the world in ending a punishment that is utterly incompatible with the basic principles of juvenile justice. Details: London: Amnesty International, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 26, 2012 at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/081/2011/en/cdde342e-5a70-40ca-bc93-39d298d07039/amr510812011en.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/081/2011/en/cdde342e-5a70-40ca-bc93-39d298d07039/amr510812011en.pdf Shelf Number: 123771 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersLife Imprisonment, Juveniles (U.S.)Life Without Parole |
Author: The Center for HIV Law and Policy Title: Juvenile injustice: The unfulfilled rights of youth in state custody to comprehensive sexual health care Summary: This is the first legal report and guide on the rights of youth in detention and foster care facilities to comprehensive sexual health care, including sexual medical care, sexuality education, and staff training on sexual orientation and the needs and rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. This publication analyzes the foundation of this right and the sexual health care needs of youth in out-of-home care. Youth in state custody, particularly LGBTQ youth, are at higher than average risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections and HIV but there is not one state in the country that guarantees access to the necessary sexual medical care and scientifically accurate and inclusive sexuality education that would address this health crisis. Youth in out-of-home-care report sexual activity at earlier ages, higher-risk sexual activity and greater rates of STIs and HIV than youth who live with family members. These sexual health risks are additionally severe for LGBTQ youth, who are proportionately represented in state detention and foster care facilities yet are largely ignored in health care and education services. According to a recent Department of Justice Report, gay youth also are also more likely to be the victims of sexual abuse while confined to juvenile facilities. Juvenile Injustice: The Unfulfilled Rights of Youth in State Custody to Comprehensive Sexual Health Care is the first in a series of publications that CHLP's Teen SENSE (Sexual health and Education Now in State Environments) initiative is developing for legal and community advocates as well as government and public health officials. Teen SENSE brings together medical experts, educators, government agencies, advocates, youth, and others to ensure that all young people in state facilities have access to comprehensive sexual health. Pending additional publications include model standards on sexual medical care, sexuality education, and staff training on LGBTQ issues that can guide policy-making in youth detention centers and congregate foster care across the country. Details: New York, NY: The Center for HIV Law and Policy, 2010. 55p. Source: White Paper: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 31, 2012 at http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/download/565 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/download/565 Shelf Number: 123882 Keywords: Health CareJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Prince's Trust Title: Making the Case for one-to-one support for young offenders Summary: This document makes the case for a more systematic and unified mentoring community to help reduce youth crime and prevent re-offending. As the prison population of 16-25 year olds has risen by more than a third during the past decade, one-to-one support makes sense. For young offenders, it provides positive role models they can grow to trust and believe in; for mentors, the positive impact on young people’s lives provides a real sense of worth, while for society at large it is one way of helping to reduce offending. Mentoring is not something that professionals are trying to impose on young people; it is something that is welcomed and sought after. A Prince’s Trust survey found that 65% of young offenders under the age of 25 said that having the support of a mentor would help them to stop re-offending; 71% said they would like a mentor who is a former offender and 85% said that starting mentoring whilst in custody would be welcome. We anticipate that this report will build on the work already done in this field by giving added momentum to embed mentoring into the rehabilitation of young offenders throughout the country. Details: London: The Prince's Trust, 2008. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2012 at http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Making%20the%20Case.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Making%20the%20Case.pdf Shelf Number: 124008 Keywords: Crime SurveysJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Mentoring |
Author: Swayze, Dana Title: Youth in Minnesota Correctional Facilities and the Effects of Trauma: Responses to the 2010 Minnesota Student Survey Summary: The Minnesota Student Survey (MSS) is a 127-item questionnaire administered every three years to 6th, 9th and 12th graders in Minnesota public schools. The survey includes a wide variety of questions related to youth attitudes, behaviors and health indicators. Questions reflect a range of protective factors including connectedness to school, family and community, as well as risk factors such as drug and alcohol use, violence and victimization. The survey originated in 1989 with the most recent administration occurring in 2010. In 2010, 88 percent of school districts participated. In total, 71 percent of 6th, 9th and 12th graders (roughly 131,000 students) completed the 2010 MSS. Twenty-four residential juvenile correctional facilities with onsite education programs also participated in the 2010 MSS. This report explores how youth in Minnesota correctional facilities who report having experienced trauma on the MSS (N=482) are similar to or different from those who do not. In addition, the responses of a matched sample of youth who have the same age, gender and racial attributes as the youth in correctional facilities, but took the MSS in a mainstream school, are analyzed for their experiences with trauma (N=500). Youth are classified as having experienced trauma if they answered “yes” to at least one of six trauma indicators on the MSS. Specifically, these questions assess if youth have experienced or witnessed domestic abuse at home; experienced familial or non-familial sexual abuse; or experienced abuse, threats or sexual force in a dating relationship. Understanding trauma is relevant to the field of juvenile justice, and indeed all youth-serving practices, in that childhood and adolescent exposure is connected to myriad issues for youth. These issues include family discord, running away, self-harm and suicide attempts, mental and emotional distress, and increased issues with drugs and alcohol. This report identifies the extent to which these attitudes and behaviors are present in Minnesota youth populations that have experienced trauma, and offers recommendations for traumainformed interventions and services. Child traumatic stress occurs when children and adoles - cents are exposed to events or situations that over - whelm their ability to cope. Generally speaking, a traumatic experience is one that threatens someone’s life, safety or well-being often resulting in intense feelings such as fear, terror, helplessness and hopelessness. Research continually demonstrates that youth involved in the juvenile justice system experience trauma at a rate significantly higher than the general youth popu - lation. MSS data support these findings in that over half of youth in correctional facilities report at least one form of trauma on the MSS (53%) compared to just over one-quarter of a matched sample of main - stream students (28%). Furthermore, a larger percen - tage of youth in correctional facilities report agreement with 3-6 trauma indicators (16%) than mainstream students (7%). In both populations, experiencing and witnessing domestic abuse are the most common trauma indi - cators reported. While mainstream youth are more likely to report experiencing physical, emotional or sexual abuse in their dating relationships, youth in correctional facilities are more likely to report having been sexually abused by a non-familial perpetrator. Interestingly, of all youth who report 3-6 trauma indicators, a greater percentage of mainstream youth report sexual abuse by a family member than do youth in correctional facilities. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, Statistical Analysis Center, 2012. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/!2012%20Trauma%20Corrections%20Report%20(2).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/!2012%20Trauma%20Corrections%20Report%20(2).pdf Shelf Number: 125127 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Minnesota)Mental Health, Juvenile OffendersSexual Abuse |
Author: Swayze, Dana Title: Girls in Minnesota Correctional Facilities: Responses to the 2010 Minnesota Student Survey Summary: The Minnesota Student Survey (MSS) is a 127-item questionnaire administered every three years to 6th, 9th and 12th graders in Minnesota public schools. The survey includes a wide variety of questions related to youth attitudes, behaviors and health indicators. Ques - tions reflect a range of protective factors including connectedness to school, family and community, as well as risk factors such as drug and alcohol use, violence and victimization. The survey originated in 1989 with the most recent administration occurring in 2010. In 2010, 88 percent of school districts participated. In total, 71 percent of 6th, 9th and 12th graders (roughly 131,000 students) completed the 2010 MSS. Twenty-four residential juvenile correctional facilities with onsite education programs also participated in the 2010 MSS. This purpose of this report is to explore the unique experiences and responses of girls in Minnesota’s juvenile correctional facilities (n=103) as compared to boys (n=481). Understanding protective factors and risk factors related to delinquency that are influenced by gender can assist juvenile justice serving entities in providing services and interventions to the unique needs of females. This report seeks to illuminate statistically significant differences in responses between girls and boys in correctional facilities; to explore how these data are relevant to research on juvenile justice risk factors by gender; and to provide research-based recommendations for serving the specific needs of juvenile female offenders. Girls and boys in juvenile correctional facilities who participated in the 2010 MSS often had statistically significant differences in responses when self-reporting experiences and behaviors. The responses of girls generally support a wide body of research which posits that girls in the juvenile justice system have unique risk and protective factors or have a unique sensitivity to their effects. The following sections are selected content and findings from the report. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, Statistical Analysis Center, 2012. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/!2010%20Girls%20v%20Boys%20Corrections%20Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/!2010%20Girls%20v%20Boys%20Corrections%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 125128 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale OffendersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Minnesota) |
Author: Swayze, Dana Title: Youth in Minnesota Correctional Facilities and the Effects of Trauma: Responses to the 2010 Minnesota Student Survey - September 2011 Summary: The Minnesota Student Survey (MSS) is a 127-item questionnaire administered every three years to 6th, 9th and 12th graders in Minnesota public schools. The survey includes a wide variety of questions related to youth attitudes, behaviors and health indicators. Questions reflect a range of protective factors including connectedness to school, family and community, as well as risk factors such as drug and alcohol use, violence and victimization. The survey originated in 1989 with the most recent administration occurring in 2010. In 2010, 88 percent of school districts participated. In total, 71 percent of 6th, 9th and 12th graders (roughly 131,000 students) completed the 2010 MSS. Twenty-four residential juvenile correctional facilities with onsite education programs also participated in the 2010 MSS. In this report, the responses from 584 youth in correctional facilities were compared to a same-sized sample of youth who took the MSS in mainstream schools. Students were matched to one another on their gender, age, race and Hispanic ethnicity. Comparing two “mirror image” groups of students helps to ensure that differences in survey responses are not attributable to demographic variables. Exploring differences between the two student groups can provide information on what challenges youth in correctional facilities are facing, and what targeted intervention efforts may alleviate their personal or situational difficulties. Similarly, areas in which survey responses are the same for both groups can illuminate protective factors all youth possess, or risk factors to which all youth are vulnerable. A secondary objective of this report is to demonstrate how the MSS data findings support the need for best practices across youth-serving disciplines. The following sections are selected findings from the report. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2012 at https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/!2010%20Youth%20Corrections%20Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/!2010%20Youth%20Corrections%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 125159 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Minnesota)Mental Health, Juvenile OffendersSexual Abuse |
Author: Tanzania. Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance Title: Inspection Report for Children in Detention Facilities in Tanzania Summary: The Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance (CHRAGG)1 in Tanzania has the mandate to visit prisons and places of detention or related facilities with a view to assessing and inspecting conditions of persons held in such places and making recommendations in relation to protecting their human rights2. CHRAGG undertook monitoring visits to detention facilities during 2008/09 and 2009/10. These visits and subsequent reports revealed that the numbers of children being held in detention facilities was increasing, that they were often held in adult prisons and that the conditions in detention and the treatment they received fell far short of international human rights standards. Furthermore, children were not receiving adequate access to reintegration and rehabilitation activities and services. As a result of these findings, CHRAGG undertook a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the situation of children in detention facilities in Tanzania during early 2011. This assessment involved an extensive desk review and inspection visits to 65 detention centres around the country where children are held. During the inspection visits, 144 detention facility officers were interviewed (73 officers) or took part in group discussions (71 officers), and overall 491 children were involved in the assessment either through one to one interviews (179) or through focus group discussions (312). This Executive Summary gives an overview of the methodology used for this assessment, summarises the key findings regarding the conditions for and treatment of children in police stations, in Retention Homes (facility for under-18s on remand), in the Approved School (facility for convicted under-18s) and in adult prisons, and concludes with a set of recommendations based on the findings. 2. Objectives of the assessment of children in detention The main objectives of this assessment of the situation of children in detention facilities are to: • Promote the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and other related instruments relating to the placement of children in detention, and their treatment and care while detained; • Provide recommendations on ways of improving the situation in the Retention Homes, the Approved School and other detention facilities where children are held; • Provide recommendations for reforming the juvenile justice system in order to reduce the overall number of children placed in detention; • Develop baseline data for the situation of children in detention for monitoring and advocacy purposes; and • Identify lessons to be learnt for future research and advocacy work both in Tanzania mainland and in Zanzibar. Details: Dar es salaam: Commission for Human Rights and Good Governence, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2012 at: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/reports_monitoring_evaluation/CHRAGG_InspectionChildrenDetentionTanzania_2011_EN.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Tanzania URL: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/reports_monitoring_evaluation/CHRAGG_InspectionChildrenDetentionTanzania_2011_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 125430 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (Tanzania)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Muntingh, Lukas Title: Report on Children in Prison in South Africa Summary: This report is an update to the situational analysis of children in prison in South Africa prepared by the Community Law Centre in 1997. The Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 (Child Justice Act), promulgated on 1 April 2010, introduced a markedly different child justice regime than that which was previously regulated by the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and the common law. This development, along with various others which have emerged since 1997 (e.g. child justice jurisprudence and government’s renewed focus on children in conflict with the law), has changed the way in which South Africa’s courts and correctional system deal with children in conflict with the law. Accordingly, an updated analysis on children in prison became necessary. The findings in this report are based on both quantitative and qualitative data from 41 Department of Correctional Services (DCS) facilities. The type of data collected included: individual interviews with sentenced and unsentenced children, numerical data from the DCS Management Information System (MIS), and relevant literature. The report is structured according to a selection of “child justice indicators applicable to imprisonment” developed by Unicef and UNODC. The use of these standardised categorisations means that the international comparison of the data collected can be conducted in a more efficient way. An important finding of the study is that the policies in respect of the services and activities available to children across the centres surveyed, are varied and inconsistent. These include, but are not limited to, information provided at admission, orientation of new admissions, conditions of detention, the segregation of children from adults, access to education, access to recreation and preparation for release. The DCS should make all efforts to identify such inconsistencies and align the services rendered with the requirements of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 (Correctional Services Act), subsidiary legislation and relevant policies. Practices compliant with the relevant legislation were identified at certain DCS facilities, demonstrating that the required standards can be met in the current environment and context. In this regard Brandvlei Youth Correctional Centre should be used as a benchmark example. Since 2003 the total number of children imprisoned in South Africa across all categories has declined rapidly from 4500 to 846 in February 2011. The substantial decline in total numbers does, to some extent, mask some of the shifts that have taken place in offence and sentence profiles. Children charged with and convicted of non-violent offences are now far less likely to be imprisoned. However, sentence tariffs for children have increased slightly; a trend reflected in the total prison population. The child imprisonment rate in South Africa (4.6/100 000) compares favourably with other developing countries (Argentina 39.3/100 000) and even some developed countries (USA 11.9/100 000). Based on snapshot data, children remain awaiting trial in DCS facilities for an average of 70 days. This is a considerable length of time. Moreover, the general lack of services available to such children (educational, social work, therapeutic, developmental and recreational) exacerbates the situation considerably. Of particular concern is the fact that children of compulsory school-going age in awaiting trial facilities are excluded from educational programmes and that conditions of detention are wanting in many regards in several facilities surveyed due to limited infrastructure, overcrowding and “staff shortages”. The situation in respect of sentenced children is noticeably better compared to their unsentenced counterparts, but there is room for significant improvements, particularly in relation to conditions of detention, the range and accessibility of services and programmes, and access to education for all children, especially those of compulsory school-going age. Child safety inside prisons is another reason for concern. Although difficult to determine if the mortality rate of children is of itself reason for concern, reports of violence (including sexual violence) and intimidation were received. The authors also found that the overwhelming majority of DCS officials working with children (sentenced and unsentenced) have not received specialist training on working with children, anti-bullying strategies, suicide prevention or conflict management. There was very little evidence that DCS take any specific measures to promote contact between children and their families, despite the legislative duty to do so. The children must purchase phone cards from their own funds and it is only at a few centres that children are supplied with stationery to write letters to their families. Children, without the necessary funds, are effectively cut off from their families. It was found that 40% of children had not had any visitors in the three months preceding the fieldwork. Details: Cape Town, South Africa: Community Law Centre, 2012. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 3, 2012 at: http://cspri.org.za/publications/research-reports/report-on-children-in-prison-in-south-africa Year: 2012 Country: South Africa URL: http://cspri.org.za/publications/research-reports/report-on-children-in-prison-in-south-africa Shelf Number: 125463 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (South Africa)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Prisoners |
Author: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services Title: “The Doors to Detention” A Study of Baltimore City Detention Utilization Summary: The Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) is a project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation through which a team of expert management consultants guided by the Juvenile Justice Strategy Group provides technical assistance to states and local jurisdictions to establish a more effective and efficient juvenile justice system. Baltimore City has participated in the JDAI for more than ten years with important system improvements occurring guided by the JDAI core strategies and principles. The purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of detention utilization for Baltimore City youth by means of a retrospective study of secure detention placements occurring between June 1 and July 31, 2011. Data were collected from ASSIST (DJS automated case management system), the DRAI instrument, and review of the individual records for the study sample which was comprised of all youth (n = 514) who were newly detained (either pre- or postdisposition) in the study period. Ways that youth entered detention or “doors” were prioritized yielding six mutually exclusive categories. Demographics, supervision status, average daily population, average length of stay, and offense severity were analyzed for the total group and for each of the doors. Key Findings • Baltimore uses detention more heavily than comparable JDAI jurisdictions, and in recent years the use of detention relative to the number of juvenile arrests has actually gone up. • It remains the case that Baltimore’s youth detention population is overwhelmingly black and male. • Most Baltimore detention resources go to youth who are awaiting adjudication before the juvenile court. • Most Baltimore youth placed in detention are already under some form of DJS supervision at the time of placement. • Detention in Baltimore continues to be used disproportionately to hold post-dispositional youth who are awaiting a committed out of home placement. • Most Baltimore detention placements are based on non-violent offenses. • The use of detention in Baltimore is driven overwhelmingly by policies and practices, rather than the offenses of or public safety risks posed by youth. • One of the fundamental challenges to controlling the use of detention in Baltimore is the existence of multiple, sometimes overlapping, pathways (“doors”) into secure detention. Based on these findings, the Department of Juvenile Services outlines ten opportunities to reduce unnecessary detention which exist at one or more of the doors into detention. Additional recommendations to enhance data quality are also put forth. Details: Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, 2012. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2012 at: http://www.djs.state.md.us/assets/Detention_Utilization_Report_Final_version_to_print.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.djs.state.md.us/assets/Detention_Utilization_Report_Final_version_to_print.pdf Shelf Number: 125490 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Baltimore, Maryland)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Harvard University. International Human Rights Clinic Title: Preventable Tragedy in Panama—Unnecessary Deaths and Rights Violations in Juvenile Detention Centers Summary: This report, based on investigation of the juvenile detention centers, assesses the extent to which Panama has violated the rights of juveniles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “Convention”) and other related international instruments. At Panama’s previous appearance before the Committee on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”) in 2004, the CRC made observations and recommendations concerning violations in the juvenile justice system. The concluding observations included recommendations to Panama about separating detainees by age and needs, ensuring access to social services, adequately responding to cases and complaints of mistreatment by law enforcement agents, ensuring contact with families, providing regular medical examinations, and creating a recovery and social rehabilitation system. As this report documents, Panama’s rights violations in these areas have continued or increased since 2004. The report documents grave civil rights violations, especially in the fire that occurred at the Centro de Cumplimiento de Tocumen (“Tocumen”) on January 9, 2011 and resulted in the burning deaths of five juveniles. The police, guards, and detention center officials involved demonstrated disregard for the lives of these juveniles, used excessive force and failed to allow the children to exit the building once it became clear that their lives were threatened by the fire. The lack of a system to prevent incidents such as this one is unacceptable, especially given that a similar burning death had already taken place in another cell in the same detention center less than two years before the January 2011 incident, in November 2009. Panamanian officials must ensure that those responsible are investigated, prosecuted, and adequately sanctioned for this behavior, as the CRC reminded the State in its 2004 Concluding Observations. Furthermore, physical violence and continued abuse from the guards, as well as horrendous living conditions, especially in the maximum security cells, constitute cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The juvenile detention centers also fail to ensure freedom of expression and give due weight to the voice of the juveniles in clear violation of the Convention and the CRC’s previous recommendations to Panama. Panamanian authorities must take urgent measures to respond to these grave conditions. Additionally, the report notes that the juvenile detention centers unduly restrict family visits, denying detainees the right to maintain contact with their families. The centers also have failed to provide detainees with adequate physical or mental health services, and have failed to provide specialized care for detainees with disabilities. Authorities have failed to provide juveniles adequate educational or vocational training while in detention, thus impairing their ability to assume productive roles in society upon their release. Detention center officials have also impermissibly restricted recreation and work activities for detainees. The juvenile justice system has also failed to comply with the Convention and other international instruments by creating a structure marked by harsh penalties and minimal protections. Moreover, the current conditions of confinement in the Panamanian juvenile detention system are manifestly inadequate to protect the health, welfare, and dignity of juvenile detainees. Detention centers fail to separate detainees by age and gravity of the crime, are grossly overcrowded, and continue to deny detainees access to adequate food, water, and sanitary facilities. The report concludes that Panama has disregarded its obligations under the Convention and related international instruments by failing to protect the rights of juvenile detainees and subjecting them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Building additional infrastructure, such as the new center due to open in July 2011, will not solve the severe rights violations present in the current system. Panama must reform both its laws and practice to ensure compliance with international law. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard International Human Rights Clinic, 2011. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/panama-juvenile-detention-alianza-asamblea-harvard-6-20.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Panama URL: http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/panama-juvenile-detention-alianza-asamblea-harvard-6-20.pdf Shelf Number: 125861 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention Centers (Panama)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Stephenson, Martin Title: Access, Participation and Progression in the Arts for Young People on Detention and Training Orders Summary: Arts Council England commissioned a research study in 2002 from the Nottingham Trent University (NTU) to look at access, participation and progression in the arts by socially excluded young people and young people on Detention and Training Orders (DTOs). The research was conducted between September 2002 and April 2003. The fieldwork was carried out by ECOTEC Research and Consulting, working in partnership with NTU. The aim of the research was to examine the extent to which young people on DTOs had access to, and participated and progressed in, the arts. The main objectives of the research were to: • establish benchmarks for access, participation and progression in the arts for young people on DTOs • identify what young people perceive as the critical barriers to their participation and progression in the arts • explore what associated professionals perceive to be the critical barriers to the participation and progression of the young people with whom they work within the arts • establish how far arts interventions are used in the community part of the Detention and Training Order through Youth Offending Teams (Yots) The research consisted of: • a desk study of relevant literature • structured face-to-face interviews with 109 young people on DTOs in custody • a survey of 176 socially excluded young people • a comparison group survey of a nationally representative sample of 471 young people • structured telephone interviews with 33 Yot practitioners • structured face-to-face interviews with seven education managers and nine arts practitioners in secure establishments. This report presents findings from the interviews carried out with young people on DTOs, as well as interviews with education managers, and arts and Yot practitioners. The report also incorporates findings from the control group survey. Details: London: Arts Council England, 2005. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report 38: Accessed September 1, 2012 at: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/detentionandtrainingorderspdf_phpIVpLCa.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/detentionandtrainingorderspdf_phpIVpLCa.pdf Shelf Number: 126216 Keywords: Arts in PrisonsArts Programs (U.K.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersRehabilitation ProgramsYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Liberman, Akiva M. Title: Delinquent Youth Committed to the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services 2004-2011 Summary: This report explores recent trends in the commitment of delinquent youth to the custody of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS). Commitments to DYRS increased considerably from 2006-07 to 2009-10, due to more youth being committed following adjudication on misdemeanors. In 2011, commitments to DYRS declined, due to fewer youth being committed on felonies. By 2011, most youth committed to DYRS were misdemeanants. Neither a history of prior adjudication nor revocations of probation particularly drove the increased commitments of misdemeanants; these commitments involved youth with and without prior adjudications, and also involved both DYRS commitments as initial dispositions and following revocation of probation. Understanding these shifts in the youth committed to DYRS will require a broad exploration of juvenile justice case processing involving all delinquent youth, using integrated data across juvenile justice agencies. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412657-Delinquent-Youth-Committed-to-the-Department-of-Youth-Rehabilitation-Services-2004-2011.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412657-Delinquent-Youth-Committed-to-the-Department-of-Youth-Rehabilitation-Services-2004-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 126562 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquency (District of Columbia)Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Skelton, Ann Title: Prevention of and Responses to Violence Against Children within the Juvenile Justice System Summary: In its resolution 18/12 of 24 September 2011 on human rights in the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice, the Human Rights Council invited the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children to collaborate in the organization of an expert consultation on prevention of and responses to violence against children within the juvenile justice system and to submit a report thereon. The Expert Consultation took place in Vienna on 23-24 January 2012. It was hosted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and co-organized with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, in cooperation with the Government of Austria. Participants included representatives from international and regional human rights bodies, governmental and State institutions, academia and civil society. The Expert Consultation focused on the risks and systemic factors contributing to violence against children within the juvenile justice system, and strategies and practical recommendations to prevent and respond to violence against children within the juvenile justice system. This report is informed by the results of the consultation and a research paper conducted by an independent consultant, Ann Skelton, of the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Details: New York: Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary on Violence against Children; UNICEF, 2012. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2012 at http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/web_juvenile_justice_final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/web_juvenile_justice_final.pdf Shelf Number: 126690 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesViolence Against Children |
Author: Edmundson, Anna Title: Fatally Flawed: Has the State Learned Lessons from the Deaths of Children and Young People in Prison? Summary: The inquests and investigations into the deaths of children and young people in prison between 2003 and 2010 reveal that they were often very vulnerable and that none received the level of support and protection they needed. In many of the cases, the fact that they were in prison in the first place can be seen as symptomatic of failures by agencies within and outside the criminal justice system to address their multiple, often complex, needs. The detailed stories of six of the children and young people who died in prison which feature in this report vividly illustrate the extent of their vulnerabilities and the shortcomings of their treatment both within the justice system and by agencies outside. The information and evidence collated for this report revealed common themes in the experiences and treatment of children and young people who died in prison between 2003 and 2010. These overlapping findings included that they: 1 were some of the most disadvantaged in society and had experienced problems with mental health, self-harm, alcohol and/or drugs; 2 had significant interaction with community agencies before entering prison yet in many cases there were failures in communication and information exchange between prisons and those agencies; 3 despite their vulnerability, they had not been diverted out of the criminal justice system at an early stage and had ended up remanded or sentenced to prison; 4 were placed in prisons with unsafe environments and cells; 5 experienced poor medical care and limited access to therapeutic services in prison; 6 had been exposed to bullying and treatment such as segregation and restraint; 7 were failed by the systems set up to safeguard them from harm. Our analysis also found there had been: 8 inadequate institutional responses to the deaths of children and young people in prison. Our findings indicate there have been failures in how the state treats children and young people in conflict with the law and that the learning and recommendations from inquests and investigations into previous deaths have not been properly implemented. The question this report addresses is whether the State can learn lessons from the deaths of children and young people in prison and act now to put right the flaws identified in order to prevent further deaths in the future. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust and INQUEST, 2012. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2012 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Fatally%20Flawed.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Fatally%20Flawed.pdf Shelf Number: 126797 Keywords: Deaths in Custody (U.K.)Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesSuicides |
Author: Queensland. Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Title: Child Guardian Report: Investigation into the Use of Force in Queensland youth detention centres Summary: The Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (the Commission) has the legislative responsibility to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland. In particular, section 23(1)(e)(i) of the Commission’s Act prescribes that the Commission must prioritise the needs and interests of young people detained in youth detention centres in Queensland. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Commission has identified concerns about the use of force by officers of the former Department of Communities (the Department) in both Queensland youth detention facilities, namely Brisbane Youth Detention Centre (BYDC) and Cleveland Youth Detention Centre (CYDC). The identification of use of force as an issue requiring investigation was raised during the ongoing regular review and analysis of a variety of sources that inform the Commission’s monitoring and advocacy functions, including the: Youth detention inspections conducted by the Department under section 263 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 on a quarterly basis Reports of harm and suspected harm in youth detention centres provided by the Department on a monthly basis in accordance with section 37 of the Youth Justice Regulation 2003 Commission Community Visitor reports completed after monthly visits to young people in youth detention centres under Chapter 5 of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000, and Complaints received by the Commission from young people detained in youth detention centres, about the use of force under Chapter 4 of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000. Details: Brisbane: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, 2012. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2012 at: http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/pdf/publications/reports/child-guardian-investigation-report/Use-of-Force-Investigation-Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/pdf/publications/reports/child-guardian-investigation-report/Use-of-Force-Investigation-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 126907 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile Detention (Queensland, Australia)Juvenile Inmates |
Author: Children's Rights Alliance for England Title: Ending Violence against Children in Custody: Findings from research with children and young people Summary: Children in custody, like all children, have the right to be free from all forms of violence. This report presents the findings of research carried out with children and young people with experience of custody. It highlights the views and opinions of children and young people about their personal experiences of violence in custody and their recommendations for how it can be reduced or eradicated. This report is published as part of the Ending Violence against Children in Custody project, coordinated by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE). Details: London: Children's Rights Alliance for England, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2012 at: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1113/crae_report_ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_in_england_final_nov_14.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1113/crae_report_ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_in_england_final_nov_14.pdf Shelf Number: 126991 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Independent Police Conduct Authority Title: Joint Thematic Review of Young Persons in Police Detention Summary: The joint thematic review of young persons in Police detention was conducted by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and is the first joint review to be done as part of their independent monitoring mandate under the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) in New Zealand. The review made 24 recommendations including that Police improve conditions of detention and the treatment of young people, improve information provided, Police training and reporting practices, review options for transport arrangements and continue to work with the IPCA, and Child, Youth and Family on reviewing practices. Details: Wellington, NZ: IPCA, 2012. 116p. Source: Accessed December 5, 2012 at: http://www.ipca.govt.nz/Site/media/2012/2012-October-23-Joint-Thematic-Review.aspx Year: 2012 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.ipca.govt.nz/Site/media/2012/2012-October-23-Joint-Thematic-Review.aspx Shelf Number: 127131 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (New Zealand)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Children's Rights Alliance for England Title: Ending Violence against Children in Custody: Comments from European and International Monitoring Bodies on Violence Against Children in Custody in European States Summary: The Children's Rights Alliance for England and the International Juvenile Justice Observatory has published a review of European and international human rights bodies to identify observations, comment and criticisms relating to violence against children in custody in European states. The report highlights significant comments relating directly or indirectly to violence against children in custody. The second part of the report looks in detail at the legislation governing the use of force against children in custody in the five project partner countries. Details: London: Children's Rights Alliance for England, 2012. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2012 at http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1152/ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_-_comments_from_european_and_international_monitoring_bodies_final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Europe URL: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1152/ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_-_comments_from_european_and_international_monitoring_bodies_final.pdf Shelf Number: 127249 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Title: Girls’ Experiences in the Texas Juvenile Justice System. 2012 Survey Findings Summary: Half of all youth referred to the Texas juvenile justice system each year have previously experienced a significant traumatic event. This trauma can cause a youth’s stress response to be over-reactive, leading to delinquent behavior. In a secure facility, the youth’s over-reactive stress response can lead to discipline problems and deeper system involvement. In fact, recent research has revealed that a youth’s past experience with trauma is a major predictor – and for girls, the largest predictor – of the youth’s assignment to increasingly serious secure placements in the Texas juvenile justice system. Unfortunately, Girls’ Experiences in the Texas Juvenile Justice System, a new report by TCJC, shows that Texas is failing many of these traumatized children. Half of the girls interviewed at the Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex report that their previous time in county juvenile facilities either did not help or actually did more harm than good for dealing with their past trauma. Tragically, eight percent report that their time at Ron Jackson is doing more harm than good, suggesting that our juvenile justice system may be re-traumatizing many of these youth. These issues call for a system-wide response. Many of the experiences that the girls report in these interviews – including negative interactions with staff, severe isolation from family, and youth-on-youth violence – match the experiences that boys in state custody reported in a TCJC survey earlier this year. As Texas moves forward with reforms to address those concerns, we should increase funding for trauma counseling in the juvenile system, and we should revisit the policies and procedures in our juvenile facilities to respond better to the vulnerabilities and triggers of traumatized youth. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2012. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2013 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Girls%20Experiences%20in%20the%20TX%20JJ%20System%20%28Oct%202012%29.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Girls%20Experiences%20in%20the%20TX%20JJ%20System%20%28Oct%202012%29.pdf Shelf Number: 127515 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale Juvenile Offenders (Texas, U.S.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Children's Rights Alliance for England Title: Speaking Freely: Chidlren and Young People in Europe Talk About Ending Violence Against Children in Custody Summary: The Ending Violence against Children in Custody project aims to make progress towards ending violence against children and young people in custody. The project has two main elements: a research phase – consisting of a desk based legal analysis of the rules governing custody and interviews with children and young people – and a campaigning phase where young people will develop their own campaigns based on the recommendations from their research. The project was coordinated by CRAE and implemented with five European partner organisations: International Juvenile Justice Observatory – Belgium, Defence for Children International – the Netherlands, The Commissioner for Children’s Rights – Cyprus, The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights – Austria and Save the Children – Romania. This report brings together the findings from field research conducted in Austria, Cyprus, England, the Netherlands and Romania and desk-based research into international and European law and policy concerning violence against children in custody led by the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (Belgium). All direct quotations from young people in this report are from the focus groups and interviews carried out in the five partner countries. Where possible, the quotes show age, gender and country. The findings in this report do not represent the views and experiences of all young people in custody in the partner countries. Rather, the research sought insights from a range of children with first-hand experience of custody into the extent to which they enjoyed their right to be free from violence whilst in custody, and how realisation of this right could be promoted. The recommendations from young people in each of the partner countries for ending violence against children in custody formed the basis of youth-led campaigns in five of the partner countries. A consolidated campaign report outlining the various campaign activities, achievements and lessons learnt in each of the partner countries will also be published. All project reports will be available through the project website: www.violencefreecustody.org.uk. Details: London: Children's Rights Alliance for England, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2013 at: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1264/speaking_freely_ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_european_research_report_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1264/speaking_freely_ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_european_research_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 127534 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2010-11: An Overview Summary: On an average day in 2010–11, there were an estimated 7,265 young people under juvenile justice supervision in Australia. Most (86% or 6,250) were supervised in the community and the remainder (14% or 1,045) were in detention. There were 2.6 young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day for every 1,000 in the population—2.2 per 1,000 under community-based supervision and 0.4 per 1,000 in detention. Over the 4-year period to 2010–11, rates of young people under community-based supervision and in detention remained relatively steady. Among the states and territories for which data are available, rates of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day ranged from 1.9 per 1,000 in Victoria to 4.7 per 1,000 in Tasmania. Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 15 times as likely to be under supervision on an average day as non-Indigenous young people. This level of over-representation decreased slightly over the 4 years to 2010–11. The over-representation of Indigenous young people in detention decreased over the 4-year period. In 2010–11, Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 24 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be in detention on an average day, down from 28 times as likely in 2007–08. Although on an average day most young people under juvenile justice supervision were supervised in the community, about 2 in 5 (41%) were in detention at some time during the year (estimates are not available for Western Australia and the Northern Territory). Most (87%) of those who were in detention during 2010–11 experienced unsentenced detention at some time during the year. On an average day in 2010–11, half (50%) of all young people in detention were unsentenced. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 106: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422551 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422551 Shelf Number: 127567 Keywords: AboriginalsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Girls and Young Women in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: Summary Relatively few young women are involved in the juvenile justice system In Australia, young women are less likely than young men to enter the juvenile justice system and even less likely to progress to the most serious processes and outcomes. In 2010–11, young men were around twice as likely as young women to be proceeded against by police, more than 3 times as likely to be proven guilty in the Children’s Court, 4 times as likely to experience community-based supervision and 5 times as likely to be in detention. Among the cohorts of young people for whom a complete juvenile justice supervision history is available in 2010–11 (those born 1990–91 to 1992–93), young men were around 4 times as likely as young women to have experienced any supervision when aged 10–17. Young women are more likely than young men to be supervised in the community On an average day in 2010–11, around 93% of young women under supervision were supervised in the community, compared with 85% of young men. Very few young women were in detention—only 85 on an average day (compared with 960 young men). Young women spend less time under supervision than young men, particularly in detention When all time under supervision is considered, young women spent around 2 weeks less than young men under supervision during 2010–11 (171 days, on average, compared with 186) (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory as standard data were not provided). This was mainly due to less time spent in detention (31 days, on average, compared with 68). Young women under supervision are younger than young men Young women under supervision were younger, on average, than young men (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory). In 2010–11, rates of supervision were highest among young women aged 15 and 16, compared with ages 16 and 17 for young men. Indigenous young women are over-represented in supervision In 2010–11, Indigenous young women aged 10–17 were around 16 times as likely as non- Indigenous young women to be under community-based supervision during the year, and 19 times as likely to be in detention. This was slightly higher than the level of Indigenous over-representation among young men (13 and 17 times as likely, respectively). Rates of young women under supervision have increased Over the 5-year period to 2010–11, rates of young women aged 10–17 under supervision rose from 0.8 to 1.0 per 1,000 on an average day and from 1.7 to 2.2 per 1,000 during the year, which were greater than the corresponding increases for young men. This was mainly due to increases in the numbers and rates of young women under community-based supervision. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 107: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423108 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423108 Shelf Number: 127568 Keywords: Female Juvenile OffendersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Buchen, Lizzie Title: California's Division of Juvenile Facilities: Nine Years After Farrell Summary: Since its inception, California’s youth correctional system, the California Youth Authority (CYA), was an institution riddled with overcrowding, abuse, suicides, and high levels of violence. In 2000, Inspector General Steve White testified that it was “impossible to overstate the dimension of the problem.” The system had a dismal record of rehabilitating its wards, more than 80 percent of whom returned to state custody within three years of release. In 2003, a coalition of advocates filed a lawsuit against CYA in Farrell v. Harper, alleging “inhumane conditions” and pointing out that “rehabilitation is impossible when the classroom is a cage and wards live in constant fear of physical and sexual violence from CYA staff and other wards.” The following year, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a consent decree acknowledging the critical problems and pledging to implement significant reforms, including reducing levels of violence, providing more education, treatment, and rehabilitation, and improving medical and mental health care. In 2005, the agency was reconstituted as the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) and merged with the adult prison system in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In March 2006, the Safety and Welfare Planning Team, a panel of state-approved correctional experts, found DJF was “not a system that needs tinkering around the edges, this is a system that is broken almost everywhere you look.” Moreover, the team concluded that the state’s juvenile facilities had “[become] like adult prisons.” Among its list of 17 significant problems, the team reported: “high levels of violence and fear,” “antiquated facilities unsuited for any mission,” “an adult corrections mentality,” “hours on end when many youths have nothing to do,” and “poor re-entry planning and too few services on parole.” Later that year, the team filed the Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan (hereafter “Remedial Plan”) describing its requirements for a new state youth corrections system that would address these serious issues and be founded on a rehabilitative, rather than a punitive, model. This publication reviews the progress DJF has made in implementing these Court-ordered reforms, using qualitative and quantitative data from the court-appointed expert in safety and welfare, the Special Master who oversees all Farrell reforms, and the CDCR. DJF now has fewer than 800 youth in three facilities — O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility (OHCYCF), N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility (NACYCF), and Ventura Youth Correctional Facility (VYCF) — down from approximately 10,000 youth in 11 facilities in 2000. Although overall levels of violence and abuse are down, CJCJ finds insufficient progress in nearly every area of reform. Seven years after DJF was ordered to implement the Remedial Plan, all of the above-listed problems remain significant concerns. Details: San francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/state_of_djf.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/state_of_djf.pdf Shelf Number: 128596 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (California, U.S.)Juvenile Inmates |
Author: Deitch, Michele Title: Understanding and Addressing Youth Violence in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. Report to the Office of the Independent Ombudsman Summary: Following numerous reports in 2012 of increased levels of youth violence in secure facilities operated by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD), the Office of the Independent Ombudsman (OIO) requested assistance from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas to analyze the extent and nature of youth misbehavior within TJJD and to identify strategies to effectively address the violence. This report responds to that request and aims to support the OIO in its efforts to understand and address misbehavior in TJJD’s secure facilities so that youth and staff are safe and youth receive effective rehabilitative programming. This report focuses on “major rule violations,” the most serious offenses a youth can commit during his or her time at TJJD. These include a wide range of non-violent and violent infractions, as well as attempted escapes, riots, and other group disturbances. At the OIO’s request, TJJD provided information about all of the major rule violations that took place within its six long-term, secure facilities from January 2009 through December 2012. These data were thoroughly analyzed to identify trends in the occurrence of violence. The report also examines youths’ and staff members’ personal experiences with assaultive behavior based on the results of a survey the OIO administered to youth and staff in five of the secure facilities in August and September 2012. To understand how TJJD manages youth misbehavior, we also analyzed data about current disciplinary practices, reviewed agency policies, and spoke with relevant agency administrators. In order to identify best practices for managing the behavior of youth within institutional settings, we conducted an extensive literature review and consulted with a wide variety of national experts in the field, including current and former administrators of other state juvenile systems. The findings presented in this report are timely as Texas legislators, TJJD administrators, and the OIO work to address the chronic challenge of youth misbehavior in TJJD’s secure facilities. The persistent nature of violence and other major rule violations has critical implications for juvenile justice system reform efforts during the 83rd Legislature and beyond. Details: Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, 2013. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/faculty/DeitchUnderstandingandAddressingYouthViolenceinTJJDMay%202013FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/faculty/DeitchUnderstandingandAddressingYouthViolenceinTJJDMay%202013FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 128973 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Facilities (Texas)Juvenile Inmate MisconductJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersYouth Violence |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Comeback States: Reducing youth incarceration in the United States Summary: In 2000, a record-setting 108,802 youth were held in detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in juvenile facilities in the United States. In a dramatic turnaround, by late-2010, the number of youth confined in state and county juvenile facilities had plummeted by 39 percent to 66,322. This reversal erased a 63 percent increase in the number of confined youth that began in 1985, when 66,762 youth were confined—an increase driven by highly publicized increases in youth arrests, growing public concern about youth crime, and state juvenile justice policies favoring increased reliance on incarceration. This report uses new federal data to document and analyze national and state incarceration trends. The turnaround is associated with changes in state policies since 2001 that reflected declines in youth arrests, new understandings of the teenage brain, less costly, evidence-based alternatives to incarceration, and constrained state budgets. A regression analysis of annual data found that although the decline in arrests helped explain the decline in confinement, post-arrest decisions by law enforcement officials, which are often shaped by state juvenile justice policies, also had a potent impact. Six policies were identified in this report that have been adopted by states since 2001 and encourage reductions in reliance on detention and incarceration. These changes: • increase the availability of evidence-based alternatives to incarceration; • require intake procedures that reduce use of secure detention facilities; • close or downsize youth confinement facilities; • reduce schools’ overreliance on the justice system to address discipline issues; • disallow incarceration for minor offenses; and • restructure juvenile justice responsibilities and finances among states and counties. Nine “comeback” states were singled out for their leadership in adopting these policies. They include California; Connecticut; Illinois; Ohio; Mississippi; New York; Texas; Washington; and Wisconsin. The report profiles each of the states with regard to: 1) the growth of their reliance on youth incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s; 2) reversal of that reliance during the 2001-to-late-2010 period; and 3) the incarceration reduction policies that they have adopted since 2001. The “comeback” states were selected because they adopted at least four of the six policies, exceeded the national-average reduction in youth confinement for the 2001-to-2010 period, and experienced a decline in youth arrests (as a proxy for greater public safety) between 2000 and 2010. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network; Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129030 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice Policy (U.S.)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Texas Juvenile Justice Department Title: Effectiveness of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: A Report to the Texas Legislature Summary: House Bill 3689 from the 81st Legislative Session required the implementation of Positive Behavioral Supports and Interventions (PBIS) in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) [formerly Texas Youth Commission], with an implementation status report due December 1, 2010, and an effectiveness report due December 1, 2012. Statutory reporting requirements for this document, as outlined in Texas Education Code, Title 2, Subtitle F., Chapter 30, Subchapter E, §30.106, are (c) (3) (A) documentation of school-related disciplinary referrals, disaggregated by the type, location, and time of infraction and by subgroups designated under commission rule; and (B) documentation of school-related disciplinary actions, including time-out, placement in security, and use of restraints and other aversive measures, disaggregated by subgroups designated under commission rule. The Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) provides oversight to educational programming in secure facilities as required by statute for both general and special education student populations. When the legislation was initiated during the 81st legislative session in 2009, nine secure facility schools were recipients of the PBIS implementation, and currently, following facility closures in 2011, there are six. The evolution of programming elements continues to be a focus at each campus. This is a comprehensive report which not only provides statistical analysis satisfying statutory requirements, but also includes discussion on program elements, considering comparative data for the current school year and those prior (pre-PBIS : post-PBIS). The implementation of PBIS appears to be having an impact on the behavior and academic outcomes of youth in secure facilities. Significant findings regarding the effectiveness of PBIS in TJJD: - The number of incidents, both minor and major, are four times higher in non-school settings than in school, where PBIS has been implemented; - The percent of incidents with youth eligible for special education services has decreased, and the percent of Security admissions for these students is the lowest it’s been since 2009; - The percent of disciplinary referrals for Hispanic and Anglo students is the lowest it’s been since 2009; - The percent of disciplinary referrals involving physical and mechanical restraint has decreased to the lowest levels since 2009; - Average Daily Attendance has increased; and - Academic performance has increased in all categories of measured outcomes. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2012. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/publications/reports/PBISLegislativeReport2012-12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/publications/reports/PBISLegislativeReport2012-12.pdf Shelf Number: 129146 Keywords: Behavior ModificationCorrectional ProgramsJuvenile Correctional FacilitiesJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice (Texas, U.S.)Juvenile Residential Treatment Centers |
Author: University of California, Berkeley. School of Law. Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy Title: JDAI Sites and States An Evaluation of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: JDAI Sites Compared to Home State Totals Summary: The Annie E. Casey Foundation developed the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) to address the unnecessary and prolonged detention of youth. JDAI has been in operation for over 20 years. It is almost unheard of that a foundation commit to such a long-term effort to reform public policy. The longevity of JDAI is due in part to a learned value of thorough and thoughtful data collection and reflection on that data. The Initiative leaders have been willing to conduct honest self-assessments, post unfavorable results when they occur, and take a problem-solving approach to improving the program. Assessing the impact of JDAI is anything but simple. Deciding how to globally measure results is challenging to begin with. Beyond that, sites need to spend energy, attention, and resources to collect adequate data. However, this data collection is of benefit to the sites as a critical tool to use in improving their juvenile justice systems. As data collection improves over time, data are more complete and therefore more useful for meaningful evaluation. Casey supports its JDAI sites to continue to expand their capacity to collect and analyze high-quality data by providing technical assistance. Initiative leaders have examined the use of detention in participating JDAI sites by looking at the standard measures of Average Length of Stay (ALOS), Admissions, and Average Daily Population (ADP) in detention centers, among other indicators. In past publications, Casey has reported on impressive reductions in detention within JDAI sites and has presented other indicators of impact, influence, and leverage. This report is the first effort to compare JDAI sites (both individually and collectively) within a state to the state as a whole. Following is a series of 23 individual state profiles that include both qualitative and quantitative information. Each profile begins with a narrative that may highlight detention reform efforts and the adoption of JDAI in that state. The main data focus is on ADP in the JDAI sites for the baseline year to 2010 (that is, the year prior to implementing JDAI to the most recent year for which data are available) and at the state level from 1997 to 2010. This report also provides additional context in the form of data on youth serving long-term commitments and on juvenile arrest counts as an indicator of crime. Within that framework, and by those measures, JDAI certainly presents some positive gains. Details: Berkeley, CA: University of California (Berkeley), School of Law, 2012. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/JDAI_Rep_1_FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/JDAI_Rep_1_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129199 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Sedlak, Andrea J. Title: Nature and Risk of Victimization: Findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement Summary: This report presents key findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) on youth’s victimization in placement, including their experiences of theft, robbery, physical assault, and sexual assault. SYRP is the only national survey that gathers data directly from youth in custody, using anonymous interviews. The report describes a variety of youth characteristics and facility conditions that correlate with victimization rates and identifies a core set of risk factors that predict the probability of a youth experiencing violence in custody. Results indicate that 46% of youth had their property stolen in their absence, 10% were directly robbed, 29% were threatened or beaten, 9% were beaten or injured, and 4% were forced to engage in sexual activity. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed July 3, 2013 at:http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/240703.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/240703.pdf Shelf Number: 129235 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile VictimizationYouth in Custody |
Author: Freeman, Sinead Title: Surviving on Remand: a Study of how Young People Cope in Remand Custody in Ireland Summary: The fusion of young people to the prison setting has been described as a toxic combination. This is especially pertinent when applied to youth in remand custody. Previous research studies have identified young people on remand as a highly vulnerable prison population and custodial remand to be a particularly stressful prison experience. Despite this, little research to date has examined how young people cope while remanded in custody. This thesis addresses this gap by providing an insight into the issue of coping on remand through the voices of young people in custody in the Irish context. It is informed by an interactionist theoretical framework which proposes that human behaviour consists of interactions between individual and environmental factors. The thesis employs an exploratory research design and incorporates a multi-method approach consisting of an observation study in the Children Court and the use of semi-structured interviews and standardised instruments with 62 young people aged 16 to 21 detained in custody in three remand settings. The findings reveal a major contradiction in terms, between the non-punitive concept of remand and the actual experiences encountered in the Irish context. Youth on remand are a forgotten population who are exposed to a particularly punishing and stressful experience which restricts their coping actions. This results in a high level of coping difficulty not only during the remand period but also on release or transfer to sentenced custody. The detrimental impact of remand indicates that remand custody should only be used as a measure of last resort and for a minimum duration of time. The majority of young people on remand would be better served by the development of alternatives to custodial remand, in particular bail support and supervision schemes which allow them to remain in the community. The implementation of change to the current remand environment and regime is also vital for the small number who pose a threat to public safety and must be detained a measure of last resort. Central to this reform, is the recognition of young people on remand as a distinct prison population by policy-makers, service providers and researchers and the implementation of separate, tailored facilities and activities which effectively meet their coping needs and respect their fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Details: Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology, 2009. 327p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed July 9, 2013 at: http://arrow.dit.ie/appadoc/15/ Year: 2009 Country: Ireland URL: http://arrow.dit.ie/appadoc/15/ Shelf Number: 129333 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Ireland)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersRemand |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Alone and Afraid: Children Held in Solitary Confinement and Isolation in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities Summary: Every day, in juvenile detention and correctional facilities across the United States, children are held in solitary confinement and other forms of isolation. Solitary confinement is the most extreme form of isolation, and involves physical and social isolation in a cell for 22 to 24 hours per day. In addition to solitary confinement, juvenile facilities frequently use a range of other physical and social isolation practices, many distinguishable from solitary confinement only in their duration (stretching for many - but fewer than 22 - hours). Instead of the terms 'solitary confinement' or 'isolation,' juvenile facilities often adopt euphemisms, including 'time out,' 'room confinement,' 'restricted engagement,' or a trip to the 'reflection cottage.' These terms mask the fact that, whereas a short amount of alone time may sometimes be necessary to defuse a moment of crisis, hours of isolation can be extremely damaging to young people. Physical and social isolation practices can extend for days, weeks, and even months. Isolation cells often have no window or view of the world outside cell walls. While confined, children are regularly deprived of the services, programming, and other tools that they need for healthy growth, education, and development. Sometimes they are not even provided access to school books. Inside this cramped space, few things distinguish one hour, one day, one week, or one month, from the next. Solitary confinement can cause serious psychological, physical, and developmental harm, resulting in persistent mental health problems or, worse, suicide. Lengthy periods of isolation can be equally traumatizing and result in the same serious risks to health. These risks are magnified for children with disabilities or histories of trauma and abuse. Federal government agencies and experts agree that the use of isolation on children can be harmful and counterproductive. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has stated that the 'isolation of children is dangerous and inconsistent with best practices and that excessive isolation can constitute cruel and unusual punishment.' The US Attorney General's National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence also recently suggested that 'nowhere is the damaging impact of incarceration on vulnerable children more obvious than when it involves solitary confinement.' The National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences has also concluded that 'confinement [of children] under punitive conditions may increase recidivism.' Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 131706 Keywords: IsolationJuvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile InmatesRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Deaths of Children in Custody: Action Taken, Lessons Learnt Summary: The death of any child is a tragedy. When that child is in custody, the death also raises important questions for the state in respect of its duty to keep the child safe. In 2000, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) took responsibility for commissioning places in the secure estate for children and young people in England and Wales, and for placing children in secure units after they had been sentenced by the courts. Sixteen boys have died in custody since the YJB took responsibility for placements and commissioning in the secure estate in April 2000. With the exception of Gareth Myatt, all of the boys' deaths are thought1 to have been self-inflicted. Analysis of the available records from inquests, Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) investigation reports, Serious Case Reviews and one government-commissioned inquiry (Lambert, 2005) suggests that the YJB has been the direct recipient of about 120 recommendations. This report describes how these recommendations have been implemented. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/monitoring-performance/deaths-children-in-custody.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/monitoring-performance/deaths-children-in-custody.pdf Shelf Number: 131873 Keywords: Deaths in CustodyJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Comeback and Coming-from-Behind States: An Update on Youth Incarceration in the United States Summary: The number of youth confined in state and county facilities nationwide strongly declined in 2011, affirming the benefits of key juvenile-justice reforms enacted in various states in the past decade. These findings are included in a new report, "The Comeback and Coming-from-Behind States" released today by NJJN and the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Effective Justice (TPPF). The report highlights the continued positive trend in the nine states leading the nation on reducing incarceration, and showcases a handful of states that, while not keeping pace with the nationwide trend, have opened the door for future progress by adopting crucial incarceration-reducing policies that have been shown to improve conditions for youth and communities. For the 2001-to-2011 ten-year period, the number of confined youth declined by 41% nationwide, or an annual average decline of 4.1% - a dramatic drop since 2000, when a record-setting 108,802 youth were held in detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in juvenile facilities in the U.S. The nationwide decline in 2011 (from 70,793 to 61,423 youth) continues the trend from the previous year (the latest for which data is available), which showed youth confinement was reduced by 32% nationwide from 2001-2010. The report also identifies four states - Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming - that are not keeping pace with the national rate of incarceration decline. As a group, these states' average rate of confinement in 2011 was 87% higher than the national average. However, they are poised to show progress in the coming years, as they have already begun to adopt specific policies proven to reduce incarceration. The report argues that positive turnaround can be achieved through changes to state policy that reflect new understandings of the teenage brain, growing use of alternatives to incarceration, and constrained state budgets. These policy reforms include: - increasing the availability of evidence-based alternatives to confinement; - requiring intake procedures that reduce the use of detention facilities; - closing or downsizing youth confinement facilities; - reducing schools' overreliance on the justice system to address discipline issues; - disallowing incarceration for minor offenses; and - restructuring juvenile justice responsibilities and finances among states and counties. NJJN and TPPF identified these six policies as key measures of positive reform, as all encourage less reliance on detention and incarceration across the U.S. For youth being held in detention centers awaiting trial or incarcerated in juvenile facilities, implementing reforms is a critical change. Youth who are locked up are separated from their families, many witness violence and struggle when they get out, trying to complete high school, get jobs or go to college. Aside from the human toll, the financial costs of maintaining large secure facilities have also made it vital to rethink juvenile justice in every community. "States have made strides in changing their policies so that youth are held accountable in age-appropriate ways, but there is more work to be done," said Sarah Bryer, Director of NJJN. "It is critical that we build upon the success seen over the past twenty years and make every effort possible to adopt meaningful reforms that reduce youth confinement and strengthen our communities." The report, an update to the "Comeback States" report issued by the groups in June, uses data from 2011 (the most recent year for which national data is available) on youth confinement provided by the U.S. Justice Department's (USDOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to track the ongoing national reduction of youth incarceration, as well as the continued progress of the nine states leading the nation on implementing meaningful juvenile justice reforms resulting in the reduction of youth in confinement in their states. These comeback states include: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Mississippi, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. The nine comeback states were selected because they adopted at least two-thirds of the targeted policy changes, exceeded the national-average reduction in youth confinement, and experienced enhanced public safety with a decline in youth arrests. The four come-from-behind states were identified based on their current population-adjusted rates of youth confinement, and their adoption of at least three of the six incarceration-reducing statewide policies identified in the report. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/The-Comeback-and-Coming-from-Behind-States.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/The-Comeback-and-Coming-from-Behind-States.pdf Shelf Number: 132586 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Frowein, Philippa Title: Breaking Out of the Cycle: Sports, Recreation, Education and Culture Centre at the Leeuwkop Juvenile Prison Summary: Economic circumstances in the wake of historical political turbulence have lead to criminal behaviour, and the cyclical nature of criminal patterns. Growing crime rates are a feature of countries around the world, and various governments have attempted to deal with offenders by adopting 'tough on crime' strategies. Nevertheless, crime rates are increasing, and new research has shown that rehabilitation is becoming more relevant than punishment in the fight against recidivism. In the White Paper on Corrections, published in 2005, the Department of Correctional Services identified the actual prison environment as a route cause of crime, calling the prison a "university of crime." Gang violence, rape and intimidation cause prisoners to commit crimes in an attempt to survive. On their release, they have the potential to be damaged individuals who pose a greater threat to society than before their incarceration. The White Paper suggests that rehabilitation of prisoners is the only way to deal with criminal reoffending and The Department of Correctional Services has fully committed to the theory of rehabilitation in its legislation. Unfortunately most of the actual prison buildings in South Africa were designed purely for incarceration and punishment of offenders, and little thought has been given to spaces for rehabilitation. This thesis deals with the retrofit of rehabilitation programme in existing problematic prison infrastructure in an attempt to deal with the high levels of recidivism in South Africa. South African prisoners have the right to sports, recreation, education and culture [SREC] activities, but currently participation is documented at only four percent. The juvenile prisoners at the Leeuwkop Prison Farm form part of the majority of young offenders without good SREC facilities, and it is the aim of this thesis to investigate the culture of Leeuwkop Prison and determine what is needed for both prisoners and prison staff in terms of offering rehabilitation and SREC facilities. This thesis will also focus upon the way in which a new SREC building can be used to integrate prisoners and the public in an attempt to address the stigmas associated with offenders in South Africa. Details: Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand, 2013. 193p. Source: Internet Resource: Master's Essay: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/13088 Year: 2013 Country: South Africa URL: http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/13088 Shelf Number: 132801 Keywords: Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersPrison ProgramsPrisonerPrisons (South Africa)RehabilitationYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Smith, Stephanie Title: Supporting Forth and Fife Valley: Pathways into prison and supports available to young people from Fife and Forth Valley Summary: This report presents the findings of a small-scale research project which examined the social work reports of 32 young men aged between 17 and 21 from the Fife and Forth Valley areas who were serving sentences in HM Young Offenders' Institution (HMYOI) Polmont. Additionally, the research included semi-structured interviews with 12 of the young men who agreed to speak to researchers. The fieldwork was carried out during December 2013 and January 2014. The population selected for inclusion comprised young men who entered Polmont during the year October 2012 to September 2013. Young men who are in prison are there for a variety of reasons and present with multiple issues and needs. Many have been involved in offending over a considerable period of time, while others have committed a serious offence that resulted in custody. Many have difficulties with substance misuse, mental health, and are not in employment or training. Research in this area highlights that many of the disadvantages that young people faced before custody are compounded on release (e.g. offending behaviour, homelessness, substance misuse, low educational attainment, unemployment, ill health and family breakdown) resulting in them being more vulnerable and susceptible to reoffending. Research questions The research was guided by two research questions as follows: 1) What do the social work reports of young men in HMYOI Polmont reveal about their pathways into and out of custody? 2) What types of support were made available to young people before entering and while in HMYOI Polmont? Details: Glasgow: Centre for Youth & Criminal Justice, 2014. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2014 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Supporting-Forth-and-Fife-Valley.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Supporting-Forth-and-Fife-Valley.pdf Shelf Number: 133642 Keywords: Juvenile InmatesMales RehabilitationSocial ServicesYoung Adult Offenders (Scotland) |
Author: Smith, Brenda V. Title: Addressing Sexual Violence Against Youth in Custody: Youth Workers' Handbook on Identifying and Addressing Sexual Violence in Juvenile Justice Settings Summary: Sexual abuse in custody can and often does have lifelong effects on youth. Youth who are sexually abused or experience sexual violence can suffer higher rates of drug use, have disproportionate contact with the criminal justice system into adulthood, become victimizers, and/or have higher rates of mental illness than youth who do not suffer sexual abuse. In addition, sexual abuse by staff or other youth in custody compromises safety and security as well as the overall mission of juvenile justice systems-to protect and rehabilitate youth. According to the American Medical Association, youth who are the victims of sexual abuse may experience chronic depression, low self-esteem, sexual dysfunction, and multiple personalities. One-fifth of all victims develop serious long-term psychological effects, including dissociative responses, posttraumatic stress disorder, nightmares, flashbacks, disease, and anxiety. This may be magnified for youth abused in custodial settings. Preventing sexual abuse of youth in custody should be an ongoing effort involving partners from all juvenile sectors-advocates, staff, judges, prosecutors, social service providers, and families. Sexual abuse of youth in custody is a problem that occurs in community facilities and detention centers. Sexual abuse in custody affects youth, administration and staff at all levels, as well as outside stakeholders such as youth advocates, law enforcement, the legislature, families, and the community at large. It has legal consequences as well as long-lasting emotional, mental and physical health, and economic effects. This handbook aims to educate juvenile justice professionals about the following: - Why juvenile justice professionals should be concerned about sexual abuse of youth in custody. - How culture and environment contribute to sexual abuse of youth in custody. - Tools that will help identify, address, and respond to sexual abuse of youth in custody. - How to investigate allegations of sexual abuse of youth in custody. - Useful legal tools for prosecuting sexual abuse of youth in custody. - Preventive measures for juvenile justice agencies. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2013. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/026309.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/026309.pdf Shelf Number: 134487 Keywords: Inmate Sexual AssaultJuvenile InmatesPrison RapeSexual Abuse (U.S.)Sexual ViolenceYouth in Custody |
Author: Fabelo, Tony Title: Closer to Home: An Analysis of the State and Local Impact of the Texas Juvenile Justice Reforms Summary: Since 1997, arrest rates among juveniles in the United States have sunk to an all time low, and the number of youth incarcerated in state or county correctional facilities has plummeted. After peaking in 1996, arrests of juveniles fell by approximately 50 percent between 1997 and 2011, to their lowest level in 30 years. During the same period, youth confinement rates declined almost 50 percent. Why are so many fewer youth locked up today compared to nearly 20 years ago? It's not simply because arrests are down; trends in the 1990s demonstrate that the number of youth incarcerated can actually increase even while arrest rates decline. A key reason that confinement rates for youth have shrunk so considerably is the deliberate efforts state and county governments have made to address youth incarceration-efforts driven by a combination of research, advocacy, litigation, and fiscal considerations. Policymakers are seeking to learn more about what happens after a youth comes into contact with the juvenile justice system. Many states that track recidivism data report rearrest rates for youth returning from confinement to be as high as 75 percent within three years of release. Despite a convincing body of research demonstrating what works to reduce recidivism among youth in contact with the juvenile justice system, most state and local governments have had little success achieving significant and sustained progress in reducing these recidivism rates. Translating this research into policy and practice and holding agencies and service providers accountable for results has been challenging. After a series of scandals involving the abuse of youth incarcerated in state-run juvenile correctional facilities came to light in Texas, state leaders there instituted the first of a number of reforms intended to shrink the number of youth held in state-run facilities. For example, in 2007 the state prohibited youth who committed misdemeanors from being confined in state-run secure juvenile facilities. The same bill also lowered the age of the state's jurisdiction over youth from 21 to 19, dramatically reducing the number of youth in state-run secure facilities. Two years later, the legislature established a grant program providing counties with financial incentives to decrease the rate at which they committed youth to state-run correctional facilities. Besides lowering the number of youth in state-run secure facilities, Texas state leaders anticipated that these and other measures would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in savings to the state over several years, while shifting to county governments the responsibility of overseeing youth who previously would have been committed to state-run secure facilities. Lawmakers thus took steps to assist these local governments, directing significant funding to county-run juvenile probation departments. After these reforms had been given ample time to take root, Texas state leaders posed important questions that resonate with policymakers in any jurisdiction who are working to reduce the number of youth incarcerated at the state level: To what extent were changes to state policy responsible for driving down the number of incarcerated youth? What types of services and supervision are youth who previously would have been committed to a state-run secure facility now receiving locally? Are youth adjudicated to the supervision of a local juvenile probation department less likely to have subsequent contact with the justice system than youth committed to a state-run correctional facility? Do these outcomes vary depending on the county where the youth is adjudicated? If so, why? This report sheds unprecedented light on the answers to these and other questions, providing Texas state leaders with an assessment of the impact of the reforms to date and an important resource to inform strategies that build and improve upon these reforms. At the same time, this report offers insights that policymakers and practitioners outside Texas who are interested in improving their state's juvenile justice system will find invaluable. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center; College Station, TX: Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University,2015. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/texas-JJ-reform-closer-to-home.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/texas-JJ-reform-closer-to-home.pdf Shelf Number: 134489 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Texas)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Independent Restraint Advisory Panel Title: Implementation of the Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint System Summary: In August 2011, the Restraint Advisory Board (RAB) presented its report titled 'Assessment of Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR) for the Children in the Secure Estate', to the Restraint Management Board (RMB) in the Ministry of Justice. The report made 37 recommendations that were designed to assist the responsible authorities to implement the new system and included "changes to deeply held working practices (which) can take years to overcome" (Williamson and Smallridge). Subsequently, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) formed a new group of experts. The new group was named the Independent Restraint Advisory Panel (IRAP). It contained several members who were members of the RAB previously. IRAP was established with two main purposes. They were to: - Assess the quality and safety of systems of restraint commissioned for use with children in Secure Children's Homes (SCHs). The report on this aspect of IRAP's role has also been completed (A Review of Restraint Systems Commissioned for use with Children who are Resident in Secure Children's Homes, June 2014). - Support the implementation of MMPR in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and Secure Training Centres (STCs). As we describe in Section 1, the introduction to this report, a Memorandum of Understanding was agreed relating to the second of IRAP's tasks. This task is the subject of this report and it was carried out by a sub-group of the panel. Members of IRAP carried out a comprehensive range of activities in order to discharge its tasks. As Section 1 shows in more detail, they: made visits to two STCs and two YOIs; conducted meetings during visits to the STCs and YOIs with managers, staff, national and local trainers, YJB monitors, healthcare staff and young people resident in the STCs and YOIs; provided reports to the YJB and MoJ; attended meetings with national trainers and the YJB's staff to review cases that had been reported as exceptions; reviewed data on the use of MMPR as well as documents provided by the STCs and YOIs; and attended meetings with the Restraint Management Board and officials employed to work in the YJB and MoJ. In particular, the members of IRAP undertook visits to STCs and / or YOIs to both observe and take part in some or all of events as a part of the roll-out prior to implementation of MMPR. Overall, IRAP members noted that the quality of training was very high with a heavy emphasis on a child-centred approach and evident professionalism (Section 4). IRAP members also undertook visits to STCs and YOIs following implementation of MMPR (Section 5). IRAP fully acknowledges, and in no way underestimates, the considerable challenge for both the MMPR trainers and all staff at all levels who work in the secure establishments in introducing a wholly new system of child-centred restraint. IRAP draws attention to its extant concerns in this report (see Section 9 for summaries) and it makes practical suggestions on how to address them. IRAP acknowledges the solid progress made in improving the governance of the restraint system used in the STCs and YOIs with the introduction of a much improved data collection, analysis and feedback system that has accompanied the introduction of MMPR. IRAP recognises how accurate feedback loops can reduce risk gaps and create a culture of learning and improve delivery of timely change to minimise the risks that are associated with physical restraint of children (Section 6). IRAP strongly reaffirms the recommendation of the RAB report that a specially recruited and dedicated team within the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) should undertake training of staff on MMPR. Moreover, having observed tangible progress to date, IRAP strongly recommends that this core specialist team should be retained and maintained. IRAP's opinion is that to do otherwise would jeopardise the progress that has been made to date. Details: London: The Advisory Panel, 2014. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2015 at: http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-client-groups/young-offenders/ministryofjustice/168563irap-mmpr-final-report-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-client-groups/young-offenders/ministryofjustice/168563irap-mmpr-final-report-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 134521 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Training CentersPhysical Restraint |
Author: Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children Title: Cruel, inhuman and degrading: ending corporal punishment in penal systems for children Summary: This report documents that 38 states, which include just under 40% of the world's children, have not fully prohibited the sentencing of children to corporal punishment by their courts and 67 states have not prohibited violent punishment of children in penal institutions. It is being launched at the 2015 World Congress on Juvenile Justice, which "aims to become a milestone in the implementation of international norms". How can these states, 25 years after adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, continue to ignore their international obligations and maintain these barbaric practices? For many children, I fear we are barely at the starting point in respecting their human dignity: we must all redouble explicit advocacy. Details: London: Global Initiative, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2015 at: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/reports/Juvenile%20Justice%20Report%202015%20singles.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/reports/Juvenile%20Justice%20Report%202015%20singles.pdf Shelf Number: 134548 Keywords: Corporal PunishmentJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Girls in the Criminal Justice System: A Joint Inspection Summary: In England and Wales, girls comprise around 20% of the caseload of youth offending services. We know from previous inspections that girls tend to commit less serious offences than boys, and their offending is often a response to emotional well-being and issues concerning relationships with parents, partners and friends. Girls tend to have high levels of welfare needs and are vulnerable to the actions of others. Because of their relatively low number the needs of girls can sometimes be overlooked within a juvenile criminal justice system primarily designed to deal with offending by boys. There has also been significant concern recently about the prevalence of child sexual exploitation in a number of areas where vulnerable girls have been victims. The inspection This inspection was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors' Group and formed part of the work stream identified in the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2012-2014. The objective of the inspection was to assess the effectiveness of youth offending services, in conjunction with other organisations, in reducing the likelihood of girls offending and in reducing the risk of harm girls present to others and making them less vulnerable (with particular reference to alcohol misuse). We visited six Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) to assess the quality of work in a sample of 48 cases. We also interviewed key managers and operational staff in the YOTs and other agencies. We also interviewed 20 girls who were serving sentences in custody and custody staff. Overall findings The best work in YOTs was characterised by an approach to assessment and intervention that recognised that girls often had different needs to boys. The assessment and management of the risk of harm posed by girls to others was generally sound and there were some promising examples of interventions that were designed for girls. Unfortunately, this approach was not consistently applied. In some cases, assessments and interventions did not take into account gender differences. Many of the girls were vulnerable and presented challenges to those who worked with them. Efforts were made to reduce this vulnerability, but in too many cases there was a preoccupation with process rather than effective action. Child sexual exploitation presented a serious risk to girls in all the areas we visited. We saw some effective preventative work to help girls understand the risk in their lives and increase their resilience. However, the responses to girls who were victims of sexual exploitation were highly variable in quality and effectiveness and the links between their offending behaviour and the serious risk of harm that they faced were not always considered properly. Although all areas had multi-agency procedures to identify girls at risk of sexual exploitation, these often concentrated more on information sharing rather than targeting work to reduce risks to them. Girls in custody spoke positively about staff and their key workers. These relationships had helped them to develop good insight into what they needed to do in order to resettle successfully on release. However, work to address offending behaviour in custody was often not recognised as such by girls, and YOT workers could do more to maintain or build relationships with girls in custody in preparation for their release. More work needed to be done in monitoring performance data about girls by YOT managers in order to target interventions more effectively and improve outcomes. Details: London: Criminal Justice Inspection, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/Girls-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/Girls-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System.pdf Shelf Number: 134724 Keywords: Child Sexual ExploitationFemale Juvenile OffendersGender Specific ResponsesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: INQUEST Title: Stolen Lives and Missed Opportunities: the deaths of young adults and children in prison Summary: Between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2014, 65 young adults and children died in prison whilst in the care of the state. Of this number, 62 were young adults aged 18-24 years and three were children under 18 (one 15 year old and two 17 year olds). This report analyses the deaths drawing upon the evidence-base accumulated through INQUEST's specialist casework with bereaved families and associated policy work over the last 30 years. It supports the work of the Transition to Adulthood (T2A) programme, which, like this report, is funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust. Moreover this report supports the independent review into self-inflicted deaths in National Offender Management Service custody of 18-24 year olds. The independent inquiry is chaired by Lord Harris and seeks to make recommendations which will reduce the risk of future self-inflicted deaths in custody. As with earlier INQUEST reports on youth custody, it exposes a litany of systemic neglect, institutional complacency and shortsighted policies which have contributed to the deaths of children and young adults. Our analysis is situated within a contextual frame which argues that understanding deaths in prison requires examining their broader social, political and economic context. It builds upon arguments developed in 2005 by Goldson and Coles and in a range of other publications. First, the number of deaths is high because prison is overused as the societal solution to a range of social problems that need to be addressed elsewhere. Second, there are so many deaths in prison because prison is by its very nature, dehumanising and violent. The limits to which they can be changed or reformed means that prison as currently constructed will continue to be a place where people lose their lives. This report argues for a fundamental rethink about the use of prison for children and young adults that requires political boldness and a more steadfast willingness to implement evidence-based change. Recent attention has been focused on the prison system following concerns expressed about the rising number of prison deaths, staff cuts and the implications of regime change. The vulnerabilities of young prisoners have been well documented, yet they continue to be sent to unsafe environments, with scarce resources and staff untrained to deal with, and respond humanely to, their particular and complex needs. At a practice level, establishments do not seem to have learned lessons from previous deaths in prisons; too many deaths occur because the same mistakes are made time and again. This in turn raises questions about the adequacy of the investigation, inspection and monitoring systems and process of accountability for institutions linked to the state. In the light of these concerns, this report considers the implications and reasons behind the prison deaths of children and young adults since 2011, stressing the need for new thinking and new strategies if such deaths are to be avoided in the future. Details: London: INQUEST and Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Inquest-Report_finalversion_Online.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Inquest-Report_finalversion_Online.pdf Shelf Number: 134757 Keywords: Deaths in Custody (U.K.)Inmate SuicideJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Birckhead, Tamar R. Title: Children in Isolation: The Solitary Confinement of Youth Summary: Every day in prison settings around the world, young people are held in solitary confinement. They are alone for up to twenty-three hours a day in unfurnished cells. They do not see, have physical contact with, or speak to other people. The cells are small, often no larger than a horse's stable, and are illuminated by artificial light. Food is passed through narrow openings in heavy metal doors. These adolescents are denied education, counseling, and other services that are necessary for their growth, rehabilitation and well-being. If a parent were to confine her child under similar conditions, it would be abuse; yet when the government does so, often for weeks and months without due process, it is condoned. The paradox of solitary confinement is that it is not reserved only for the most culpable offenders. Juvenile and immigration detention centers as well as adult jails and prisons place adolescents in isolation to protect them - arguably - from each other or from adults; when they are perceived to be a threat; and to punish them for misconduct and rule-breaking. These rationales for the solitary confinement of youth fail to recognize, however, that prolonged isolation harms young people in ways that are often more profound than its impact on adults. This Article is the first to provide a comprehensive comparative analysis of the solitary confinement of youth in the United States and across the globe. The Introduction describes a typical scenario under which an adolescent may be subjected to isolation and explores why the practice persists today despite widespread condemnation. Part I reviews the literature detailing the varieties of harm that young people suffer as a result of solitary confinement. Part II discusses the rationales that correctional facilities use to justify solitary confinement and the prevalence of the practice internationally. Part III analyzes the history of solitary confinement and the legal response within the U.S. and the international community. Part IV addresses strategies for reform, including legislation, federal regulations, and litigation; the adoption of best practice standards; and the role of the juvenile defender and other advocates for incarcerated youth. The Appendix presents the author's original research documenting the current practices of the fifty-seven countries that legally condone or employ the solitary confinement of youth. Details: Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2014. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2512867 : Accessed March 20, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512867 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512867 Shelf Number: 134988 Keywords: IsolationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesPrison ConditionsSolitary Confinement |
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: Mendel, Richard A. Title: Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities: An Update Summary: In its 2011 report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, the Annie E. Casey Foundation demonstrated that America's heavy reliance on juvenile incarceration is a failed strategy for addressing youth crime. Specifically, No Place for Kids showed that heavy reliance on correctional confinement exposes incarcerated youth to widespread maltreatment; results in alarming levels of recidivism; incarcerates children who do not pose significant threats to public safety; ignores the emergence of treatment models that produce better outcomes; wastes money with costs that often exceed $100,000 per young person per year; and fails to provide adequate mental health, educational, substance abuse and other services. In short, the report found that these institutions are dangerous, ineffective, unnecessary, obsolete, wasteful and inadequate. This report focuses on the first of these challenges, the widespread and persistent maltreatment of youth confined in America's juvenile corrections facilities. These facilities often go by euphemistic labels such as training school, reformatory, correctional center, etc., but are in essence youth prisons. In No Place for Kids, the Casey Foundation found that clear evidence of recurring or systemic maltreatment had been identified in the vast majority of states since 1970. In nearly half the states, this clear record of systemic maltreatment had been documented in juvenile correctional facilities since 2000. No Place for Kids also identified 52 lawsuits since 1970 that resulted in a court-sanctioned remedy in response to allegations of systemic problems with violence, physical or sexual abuse by facility staff and/or excessive use of isolation or physical restraints. The following pages update those findings, and the news is not good. Rather, in the nearly four years since No Place for Kids was published, a flood of new revelations of abuse and maltreatment has emerged. Details: Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 8, 2015 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-maltreatmentyouthuscorrections-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-maltreatmentyouthuscorrections-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 135921 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: National Disability Rights Network Title: Orphanages, Training Schools, Reform Schools and Now This? Summary: Children with disabilities are disproportionately placed in the juvenile justice system, receive inadequate treatment and are denied educational opportunities, the National Disability Rights Network asserted in a report released today. "More than 65 percent of youth in the justice system meet the criteria for a disability, a rate that is three times higher than that of the general population," said Curt Decker, NDRN's executive director. "The millions we spend housing and feeding our young people behind razor wire can be far better spent helping them to find their way in this world." The findings in Orphanages, Training Schools, Reform Schools and Now This? are based upon scores of reports from the nationwide Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System. P&As provide legal and other advocacy services to children and youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system, and also maintain a presence in the facilities in which they are found, including prisons, jails, and detention centers. P&As have the legal authority to monitor and investigate allegations of abuse in these facilities. Issues addressed in this report include: Diversion of children and youth with disabilities from the juvenile justice system (particularly stemming the "School to Prison Pipeline"), humane conditions while incarcerated (such as accommodation and communication needs, medical care, mental health treatment, and the prevention of abuse and neglect) and re-entry services like education and treatment to ensure the child or youth's success upon release from the facility. The report describes the problems children and youth with disabilities encounter, solutions used with success by the P&As, and provides specific recommendations for systemic improvements. Some of those recommendations include: -Congress should authorize and fund a Protection and Advocacy for Juvenile Justice Program to help divert youth with disabilities from entering the juvenile justice system, investigate and monitor conditions for youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system, and ensure proper return to the community with needed services and supports. -Congress should prohibit the use of solitary confinement and/or isolation for all juveniles, including those housed in adult settings. -Congress should require that schools identified as having elevated school-based arrest rates: 1) lose the opportunity to use federal funds to employ School Resource Officers (SROs); 2) ensure SROs work is limited to traditional police activities and not discipline of non- violent student behavior; and, 3) require SROs in those schools to undergo training in specific, related topics. -The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and Department of Justice (DOJ) should fully enforce laws requiring that education of youth in facilities is equal to that provided to students in other public schools. Details: Washington, DC: National Disability Rights Center, 2015. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 8, 2015 at: http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/Juvenile_Justice/NDRN_-_Juvenile_Justice_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/Juvenile_Justice/NDRN_-_Juvenile_Justice_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 135922 Keywords: DisabilityJuvenile DetentionJuvenile DiversionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Williams, Kim Title: Needs and characteristics of young adults in custody: Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey Summary: This report summarises the needs and characteristics of young adults (18-20 years old) on reception to custody. Data for this report come from Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR), a longitudinal cohort study of 1,435 adult prisoners sentenced to between one month and four years in prison in 2005 and 2006, and the Police National Computer (PNC). The report compares the characteristics and needs of young adults in custody with prisoners aged 21 years and over. Key findings - Young adult SPCR respondents in custody shared a number of needs and background characteristics with SPCR prisoners aged 21 and over, with all ages reporting high levels of need in terms of employment, education and substance misuse. However there were a number of differences, which included: - Young adults were more likely than older prisoners to report issues with schooling, with large proportions reporting having regularly played truant (72% compared with 57%) and having been temporarily excluded (80%) or permanently expelled (58%) from school (80% compared with 61% and 58% compared with 40%, respectively). - Young adults who reported being unemployed in the four weeks before custody were more likely to report that they were looking for work or training during this time (62%) compared with older prisoners (35%). Young adults were also more likely to state that having a job when released would stop them from re-offending (81% compared with 66% of older prisoners). - Fewer young adults reported needing help finding a place to live when released (23% compared with 39% of older prisoners). - Young adults entering custody were less likely than prisoners aged 21 and over to report needing help with a medical problem (10% compared to 20%) and less likely to be assessed as suffering from both anxiety and depression (15% compared with 27%). - Compared with older prisoners, young adults were less likely to report needing help with a drug problem (15% compared with 33%). Young adults were less likely than older prisoners to report having used a Class A drug in the four weeks before custody (31% compared with 45%). A smaller proportion of young adults than older prisoners linked their offending behaviour with drugs (25% compared with 46%). On the other hand, a larger proportion of young adults compared with older prisoners linked their offending behaviour with alcohol use (42% compared with 30%) and stated that not drinking too much alcohol would be important in stopping them from re-offending in the future (47% compared with 32%). - Reporting feeling looked after on entry to prison, treated like an individual, feeling worried and confused or feeling extremely alone, did not vary by age group. These experiences were more likely to vary according to whether the respondent had been previously sentenced to imprisonment, for both young adults and for older prisoners. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed July 30, 2015 at; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449586/Young-adults-in-custody.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449586/Young-adults-in-custody.pdf Shelf Number: 136262 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesRehabilitationYouth Adult Offenders |
Author: Washburn, Jason J. Title: Detained Youth Processed in Juvenile and Adult Court: Psychiatric Disorders and Mental Health Needs Summary: This bulletin presents results of a study of the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among youth transferred to adult criminal court compared with those processed in juvenile court. Key observations, findings, and recommendations include: - Many youth are being transferred to adult criminal court, with males, African Americans, Hispanics, and older youth significantly more likely to be processed in adult criminal court than females, non-Hispanic whites, and younger youth (even after controlling for the current charge). - The prevalence of one or more disorders among youth transferred to adult criminal court does not significantly differ from that among youth processed in juvenile court. - Among youth processed in adult criminal court, those sentenced to prison had significantly greater odds than those who received a less severe sentence of having a disruptive behavior disorder, a substance use disorder, or co-occurring affective and anxiety disorders. - Community and correctional systems must collaborate to identify and treat youth with psychiatric disorders who are transferred to adult criminal court. Youth who are transferred to adult criminal court and receive prison sentences should be considered a particularly high-risk group who are likely to require additional services. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed September 11, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248283.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248283.pdf Shelf Number: 136722 Keywords: Co-concurring DisordersJuvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance Title: Juvenile Prisons: National consensus and alternatives Summary: Recent reports issued by the Office of the Child Advocate1 and by a consultant to the Department of Children and Families itself raise urgent concerns about conditions at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and the Pueblo Unit. In addition to immediately improving safety at these facilities, the state should develop a long-term plan for youth in the juvenile justice system that maximizes their prospects for rehabilitation. A wealth of research and the experience of other states show that correctional facilities offer the worst outcomes for youth at the highest cost. The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance makes the following recommendations in the interest of child well-being, public safety and responsible use of taxpayer dollars. 1. Conditions must be improved immediately at CJTS and Pueblo, with input from national experts and with independent oversight, as recommended by DCF's own consultant. 2. The state must work toward closing these facilities. CJTS should close in 18 to 24 months. Pueblo should close much sooner. 3. Closure must be preceded by the development of a robust system of care that meets the needs of all children, in the least restrictive setting possible. The objective is not simply to close facilities - it is to serve kids better. 4. Connecticut must draw on outside expertise to develop this system. In particular it should be guided by the successes of other states as described in this report. This report includes a summary of findings about CJTS and Pueblo, research on the failure of youth prisons as well as successful state-level initiatives to close them in favor of community-based programs that are producing far better results. The experience of other states shows that improved outcomes and cost savings are clearly achievable - in fact, are highly compatible. Furthermore, their experience creates a blueprint for Connecticut. Details: Bridgeport, CT: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/youthprisonreport81115.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/youthprisonreport81115.pdf Shelf Number: 136823 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersTraining Schools |
Author: Abram, Karen M. Title: Perceived Barriers to Mental Health Services Among Detained Youth Summary: This bulletin is part of a series that presents the results of the Northwestern Juvenile Project - a longitudinal study of youth detained at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, IL. The authors examine youth's perceptions of barriers to mental health services, focusing on youth with alcohol, drug, and mental health disorders. Findings include the following: - Most frequently, youth did not receive services because they believed their problems would go away without outside help (56.5 percent). - Nearly one-third of youth (31.7 percent) were not sure whom to contact or where to get help. - Nearly one-fifth of the sample (19.1 percent) reported difficulty in obtaining help. - African American and Hispanic detainees received significantly fewer services in the past compared with non-Hispanic white youth. Male detainees also received significantly fewer services in the past when compared with female detainees. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248522.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248522.pdf Shelf Number: 136870 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMental Health Services |
Author: Children's Commissioner for England Title: Isolation and solitary confinement of children in the English youth justice secure estate Summary: This research was designed primarily to look at practices whereby children in the youth justice secure estate spent 16 hours or more in any 24 hour period without social contact with their peers (i.e. excluding contact with staff and family/social or professional visits). The World Health Organisation lists the following as the most common reasons for imposing isolation during imprisonment (Shalev, 2014): - as a short term-punishment for children who break the rules; - to prevent escape; - for the person's own protection to prevent them from harming themselves or being harmed by others; - as a behaviour management tool for the safe management of difficult and challenging persons, and for the management of children belonging to certain groups (such as gang members); - while awaiting transfer to another establishment or to a hospital, or adjudication; these are temporary measures, but in some cases the child may be isolated for many weeks and sometimes months; - de facto: staff shortages, convenience or as group punishment can mean that children are confined to their cells/ rooms for an entire day or for several days at a time. In literature, isolation can be broadly classed into: - Isolation in dedicated intensive management units, often termed segregation units; - Isolation in the form of "cellular confinement". Isolation can also be a single separation or a group separation (when two or more persons are isolated together from the rest of their peers). It can be imposed by the staff or elected by the child themselves. In March 2015, the number of children in youth justice custody in England and Wales (i.e. sentenced or remanded) stood at 1,004. There are currently: - four YOIs in England housing boys aged 15-17 and some 18 year olds. They are all male establishments; - eight SCHs, which hold children 10-17 years of age. Girls and boys are usually mixed in SCHs. SCHs range in size from six to 40 beds; - three STCs, all run by private companies. STCs hold boys and girls aged 12-17. Young Offenders Institutions are the only type of youth justice establishments which have dedicated segregation units similar to those in adult prisons, where confinement - for example in order to maintain good order and discipline - can exceed 22 hours per day and last for prolonged periods. Visits are allowed by a staff member, nurse, advocacy providers and chaplains. Isolated children are allowed out of their segregation cells in order to shower, exercise or make a phone call although, as this research has shown, this practice tends to vary between establishments. In England and Wales the educational entitlement in custody has recently been increased to 30 hours per week for children (CCE, 2015). Access to education is only sporadically allowed to isolated children and is often conducted on 1:1 basis, as are consultations with the advocacy provider. The length of time spent in isolation typically ought not to exceed 72 hours before a detailed review takes place. This type of isolation is always recorded. Confinement in the child's own cell is also used in YOIs, often as a behavioural management measure following an act of aggression against a peer or a member of staff. Short spells of cell or room confinement are extremely common across the estate as they provide a 'cooling off' or 'time out' periods. The time spent in room confinement ranges from minutes to several days. STCs and SCHs typically use room confinement as a behavioural management measure, and do so for shorter periods of time than YOIs. The time spent in isolation can range from 10-15 minutes to several hours. The children are typically not left alone for prolonged periods of time and a member of staff is likely to accompany them during isolation. A child is not necessarily confined to their room: often they will be isolated in one of the common area rooms where they will have access to personal items and items of leisure. Typically, they will have access to activities/services that they would do if they were not isolated, but will need to access them apart from their peers (for instance education may need to be delivered 1:1). They may also need to miss out on those courses which are only delivered in groups, such as vocational training. Group separations are also common, where two or more children are isolated together from the rest of the group and supervised by a member of staff. When it comes to recording it as isolation, cell/room confinement is often variably understood by different types of establishments. STCs and SCHs are likely to record this information. As found in the present study, in YOIs, this practice can sometimes go unnoticed and unrecorded. This presents itself as a problem when trying to estimate the overall rate of isolation in the youth justice estate. Details: London: Children's Commissioner for England, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Unlocking%20Potential%20-%20supporting%20research_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Unlocking%20Potential%20-%20supporting%20research_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137153 Keywords: Administrative SegregationIsolationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesSolitary Confinement, Juveniles |
Author: Campaign for Youth Justice Title: Zero Tolerance: How States Comply with PREA's Youthful Inmate Standard Summary: The United States' extraordinary use of adult correctional facilities to house youth presents numerous concerns, including serious, long-term costs to the youth offender and to society at large. Science and research conducted over the last 20 years confirm what common sense tells us: kids are different. Adolescent development and adolescent brain research have prompted leaders across the country to start looking at our juvenile justice system through a developmentally appropriate lens.1 Such a perspective equally applies to the treatment of youth who would be eligible for adult prison sentences. In light of the decline of youth arrests and youth crime, coupled with the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) the housing status of the 1200 youth under 18 years of age in the adult prison must be investigated. Each state has its own unique prison system, so in order to determine the housing status of youth we gathered information on each state's statutes, policies, and practices for housing the shrinking - and at times - invisible, population of youth in adult prisons across the country. Despite the strong language provided in the Prison Rape Elimination Act, state laws vary widely as to the regulations and parameters for housing youth in adult prisons. In fact, some states have no regulations or parameters governing the treatment of youth sentenced as adults at all. While some states have fully removed youth from their prison systems - Hawaii, West Virginia, Maine, California, and Washington - the overwhelming majority of states allow youth to be housed in adult prisons. In fact 37 states housed youth under 18 years of age in their state prisons in 2012. The PREA requirements have become the emerging standard of care for the housing of youth in adult facilities, yet the majority of states still permit the housing of youth in adult facilities, often times with no special housing protections. Once youth are sentenced in adult court to an adult prison term, few jurisdictions have enacted safeguards to protect their physical, mental and emotional health. Additionally, programs and behavioral responses in adult facilities rarely are adjusted to meet the needs of adolescent populations. To further complicate matters, nine states have a lower age of court jurisdiction which allows more youth under 18 to enter the adult criminal justice system automatically. Where the age of juvenile court jurisdiction ends at 15 or 16 years of age, state prison systems grapple with housing even younger youth and at high rates. For instance, on any given day New York houses approximately 131 youth under 18 in its state prisons while Georgia houses nearly 100 youth under 18. The dearth of policies to safely house youth under 18 in adult prisons requires further examination and should encourage policymakers to investigate alternatives to practices that put children in harms way. As state and local policymakers grapple with budget and resource allocations, removing youth from adult prisons should be a part of that calculation. This report explores how states house youth under 18 in prisons in the new age of PREA compliance and enforcement. Furthermore, this report highlights national trends in juvenile arrests, crimes, and incarceration of children in the adult system. With evidence of the decreasing number of youth entering the adult system, the recommendations focus on how states can successfully remove all youth from adult prisons. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign For Youth Justice, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2015 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Zero_Tolerance_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Zero_Tolerance_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137434 Keywords: Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersPrison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)Youth in Adult Prisons |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Children in Custody 2014-15. An analysis of 12-18-year-olds' perceptions of their experience in secure training centres and young offender institutions Summary: This report sets out how children in secure training centres (STCs) and young offender institutions (YOIs) describe their experience in the secure estate. It is based on the responses to surveys that were part of the unannounced inspections of every STC and YOI in 2014-15. Of the children in these establishments at the time of the inspections, 84% of them completed a survey. Survey responses do not provide a complete picture of an establishment - a key part of their purpose is to suggest the areas that need closer examination during the inspection. Similarly, this annual review raises important questions that policy makers and practitioners looking to the future of youth custody would do well to pursue. Children in STCs generally reported more positively than those in YOIs, and overall, in both types of establishment, about four in five children said staff treated them with respect. Nevertheless, a significant minority of children in both STCs and YOIs described being frightened and unhappy. Although around four in five children described feeling safe on their first night, almost a third said they had felt unsafe at some time and more than one in 10 said they felt unsafe at the time the survey took place. Two out of five children said they had been physically restrained. This report contains some analysis of what other factors children who feel unsafe or have been restrained have in common, which may suggest areas on which to focus, in order to reduce these concerns. Only slightly more than half the children in both types of establishment felt they had done anything in custody to make them less likely to offend in future. It is a significant concern that fewer boys in YOIs reported being involved in any kind of purposeful activity than at the time of any of our reports in the last five years. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/12/HMIP_CP_-Children-in-custody-2014-15-FINAL-web-AW.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/12/HMIP_CP_-Children-in-custody-2014-15-FINAL-web-AW.pdf Shelf Number: 137454 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Behaviour management and restraint of children in custody: A review of the early implementation of MMPR Summary: In March 2013, the House of Commons Justice Committee recommended in its report on youth justice that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons should report on the implementation of the new system of behaviour management and restraint in young offender institutions (YOIs) and secure training centres (STCs), known as 'minimising and managing physical restraint' (MMPR). This report sets out our findings on the implementation of the new system to date. The introduction of MMPR was the culmination of a long process initiated following the deaths of two boys in 2004. Gareth Myatt died after he became unconscious during a restraint in an STC. 'If you can talk, you can breathe', an officer told him when he complained. It was not true. Adam Rickwood, aged 14, hung himself after a 'pain compliance' technique was applied to him. This was the 'nose distraction technique', a painful jab under the base of the nose. MMPR is intended to change the approach to behaviour management within YOIs and STCs, placing an additional emphasis on the importance of staff using their existing relationships with children to de-escalate volatile incidents, and minimising the number of children who experience restraint. MMPR also includes a comprehensive system of national governance and oversight to not only monitor the use of restraint but also improve and promote safe practice across the estate. The implementation of MMPR is taking place against a backdrop of a substantial fall in the number of children in custody, the decommissioning of beds across both YOIs and STCs and staffing shortages across the YOI estate. This has caused significant delay in the roll out of MMPR, which is now due to be completed in July 2016 - a year behind schedule. The reduction in numbers also means that YOIs and STCs now hold an even more concentrated mix of children (almost all boys) with more challenging behaviour and complex needs than in the past. This combination of delay, resource pressures, a more complex population and concerns about overall performance means that the new MMPR system is not yet being consistently implemented or achieving the intended outcomes. At this stage in the implementation of MMPR we welcome the significant improvements that it has brought to the national oversight of restraint and the greater focus on communication and de-escalation as part of a wider approach to behaviour management. The development of a consistent approach to restraint across all secure settings is itself an important improvement. However, some of what we have found has been too variable and sometimes very poor. Nevertheless, we have seen enough of when it does work to cautiously conclude it is an improvement on previous systems and that the foundations are there to enable further improvement still. The Youth Justice Board should continue with its implementation. While it is sometimes necessary to restrain children we share the view of others that there is no such thing as 'entirely safe' restraint. MMPR attempts to change the culture of behaviour management across the secure estate so that effective relationships and communication are used as a basis to reduce the use of force. Effective relationships are more difficult to establish in YOIs, which are larger than STCs and have lower staffing levels. Staff in YOIs spoke of the difficulty in forming these relationships during short association periods. Staff shortages had led to many staff being cross-deployed within YOIs or sent on detached duty to work at other establishments. In contrast, STC staff felt they had the time to form positive relationships with the children living on their unit. This is supported by the perceptions of children in our annual survey of children in custody - a significantly higher proportion of children in STCs than YOIs reported that staff treated them with respect; 93% in STCs compared with 70% in YOIs. We found that all establishments had implemented behaviour management plans for children with more challenging behaviour. This was progress. However, the criteria for implementing a behaviour management plan were not always clear and we were not satisfied that all children who needed a plan had one. Too many of the plans we saw were of a poor standard, not demonstrating adequate assessment, relevant targets or any review of the child's progress to enable staff to manage the most challenging children expertly. Some staff also commented that if they did not have the time to get to know a particular child, a written plan was of limited use. Children with medical or other conditions that could be affected by MMPR techniques could also have restraint handling plans put in place for them. It was positive that establishments dealing with more complex cases could now seek medical advice through the expert serious injuries and warning signs (SIWS) medical panel. However, we found potentially dangerous examples of staff not adhering to these plans during restraints. In general, staff were unfamiliar with the content of the plans; this was a serious oversight that could have led to significant injuries. In the YOIs and STCs we visited many children were unable to identify any difference between their experience of MMPR and previous behaviour management systems in terms of attempts made to reduce the incidence of restraint or actual restraint practice. While the accounts of children varied, the experience remained, for many, painful and distressing. The evidence from interviews with staff and children, MMPR documentation and our review of CCTV footage indicates that too many of the concerns identified with the previous practice remain. MMPR guidance outlines techniques staff can use to slow down and de-escalate a situation. Children's own experiences of de-escalation before and during restraint varied dramatically; some spoke of staff communicating throughout and making good efforts to calm them down while others reported that little effort was made before or during an incident. Despite staff recording the use of de-escalation in use of force reports, most CCTV footage we reviewed contained evidence of poor de-escalation, and some recordings showed staff intervening too quickly in response to minor incidents. We had particular concerns about the practice relating to restraining children on the floor, the application of head holds and the use of pain-inducing techniques. MMPR does not allow staff to take children to the floor intentionally during a restraint because of the medical risks this poses to the child. In nearly half of all the incidents we reviewed however, including 70% of those in YOIs, children ended up on the floor. We also had concerns about the continued misapplication of the head hold: in addition to the incidents described in this review, the SIWS medical panel has identified the incorrect application of this technique in a significant number of incidents that have resulted in SIWS referrals. We also identified unacceptable examples of children being strip searched under restraint in YOIs. Restraint policy agreed by ministers states that staff should only use pain as a last resort to prevent an immediate risk of serious physical harm, but we found that pain-inducing techniques were used frequently in YOIs, and that in most cases staff were not compliant with this requirement. It is notable that staff in STCs dealing with similar incidents did not use these techniques. We also found underreporting of the use of pain-inducing techniques in YOIs, reducing the effectiveness of local and national safeguards. We found no evidence to justify the deliberate infliction of pain as an approved technique. Within MMPR health care staff play an important role in safeguarding a child during a restraint. It was therefore unacceptable that some establishments did not call health care staff to all incidents. This undermined their role. In some cases, health care staff did not undertake a physical examination of a child after a restraint, instead carrying out this check through a locked door, which was inadequate to ensure the child's welfare. Support for children after a restraint also required improvement; children we interviewed told us that staff did not always speak to them after an incident to ensure they were okay. Structured post-restraint debriefs with children did not always take place, and when they did they varied in quality. They did not serve the purpose of encouraging helpful discussion about the restraint or looking at ways to help the child to improve their behaviour and prevent any further incidents. During this review we found a comprehensive system of national governance and oversight, and the introduction of dedicated MMPR coordinators to drive improvements in local practice was positive. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 22, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Behaviour-management-and-restraint-Web-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Behaviour-management-and-restraint-Web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137652 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska Title: Growing Up Locked Down: Juvenile Solitary Confinement in Nebraska Summary: Before they are old enough to get a driver's license, enlist in the armed forces, or vote, some children in Nebraska are held in solitary confinement for days, weeks - and even months. This practice occurs in every Nebraska juvenile justice facility, to varying degrees, but the overarching theme of over-use is consistent throughout the state. On any given day in Nebraska, juvenile justice facilities routinely subject the kids in their care to solitary confinement. Like adult prisons, juvenile facilities sometimes employ the most counterproductive and inhumane correctional practices - including extended periods of solitary confinement, room restriction, isolation, segregation, and seclusion. Isolation practices frequently involve placing a youth alone in a cell for several hours, sometimes for multiple days; restricting contact with family members; limiting access to reading and writing materials; and providing limited educational programming, recreation, drug treatment, or mental health services. Throughout this report, "solitary confinement" refers to any physical and social isolation of children in juvenile detention facilities. It does not refer to short intervention "time out" practices used to help a juvenile manage current acting out behavior. While temporary use of seclusion for a youth may be necessary to maintain the safety and security of that youth or other people, the use of solitary confinement on children in Nebraska is clearly overused, and can cause much more serious problems than those it is supposedly employed to solve. Additionally, our research has uncovered that frequently the reasons why young people are placed in solitary confinement can be for even relatively minor offenses, such as talking back to staff members, having too many books, or refusing to follow directions. This research gives rise to the concern that juvenile facilities in Nebraska are not utilizing best practices for the use of solitary confinement and thus are risking serious mental health impacts for vulnerable youth. Details: Lincoln, NE: ACLU of Nebraska, 2016. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2016 at: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/juvenile_solitary_report_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/juvenile_solitary_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 137745 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Detention CentersJuvenile InmatesSolitary Confinement |
Author: Beck, Allen J. Title: Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007-12 Summary: Presents national estimates of nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment reported by correctional authorities in state juvenile correctional systems and local and private juvenile correctional facilities from 2007 to 2012. The report also examines substantiated incidents, including characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, time of day, nature of injuries, impact on the victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. Companion tables in the Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007-12 - Statistical Tables include counts of allegations and substantiated incidents of sexual victimization for each state juvenile correctional system, juvenile correctional facility in Indian country, and sampled locally and privately operated juvenile correctional facility. Data are from BJS's Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), which has been conducted annually since 2004. Highlights: In 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems and 613 in local or private facilities and Indian country facilities. The number of allegations per year has fluctuated in state juvenile systems and the rate more than doubled, from 19 per 1,000 youth in 2005 to 47 per 1,000 in 2012. In locally and privately operated facilities, the number of allegations dropped from 2009 to 2011 and then began to rise in 2012. Based on 2-year rolling averages, the rate in 2012 was 13.5 per 1,000 youth, up from 7.2 per 1,000 in 2010. From 2007 to 2012, nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual victimization of youth were reported in state or local and private facilities. Fifty-five percent involved youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 45% involved staff-on-youth sexual victimization. Upon investigation, 25% of the allegations of youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 10% of the allegations of staff-on-youth sexual victimization were substantiated during the 6-year period. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2016 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrjca0712.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrjca0712.pdf Shelf Number: 137717 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesRapeSexual VictimizationSexual Violence |
Author: Connecticut. Office of the Child Advocate Title: Investigative Facility Report: Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo Unit Summary: The Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) is charged with investigating, evaluating, and publicly reporting regarding the efficacy of state-funded services to children. OCA is specifically charged with reviewing conditions for children and youth in state-funded facilities and in programs serving children with special needs. The following investigation was undertaken in part because of concerns about conditions at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo brought to OCA by whistleblowers, some of whom work at the Department of Children and Families. CJTS and Pueblo are DCF-run juvenile correctional programs for boys and girls adjudicated as delinquent and committed to state custody due to juvenile offenses. Most of the children confined at CJTS have adjudications for non-violent offenses. The primary purpose (if not the sole purpose) of CJTS and Pueblo is to improve public safety through the rehabilitation/treatment of delinquent youth. The vast majority of children and youth at CJTS and Pueblo have histories of trauma, abuse, neglect, complex psychiatric disorders, and special education needs. To rehabilitate successfully, these youth require intensive, therapeutic supports, seven days a week, and discharge to rigorous and effective services and supervision. OCA's months-long review of facility video tapes, incident reports, and treatment records revealed urgent safety problems for youth. Findings include inadequate suicide prevention, lack of appropriate support and training for staff, inadequate and harmful crisis management, and an opaque system that, despite significant public funding, reports scant information regarding quality, public safety outcomes, and oversight. There is a tension between the rehabilitative mission of the juvenile justice system and the operations of a maximum-security facility like CJTS. These tensions give rise to many of the risks and harms discovered by OCA during this investigation. In part due to similar findings around the country and research demonstrating such programs are ineffective for improving public safety, many states are moving away from prison-like facilities for high need youth and re-allocating dollars towards more effective interventions. Connecticut has rightfully been lauded as a national leader in decreasing incarceration rates for juveniles and adults. However, reliance on the state's maximum security juvenile correctional complex continues, despite stakeholders' and leaders' historic lack of confidence in this facility. OCA respectfully and strongly urges close attention to the urgent issues outlined in this report. OCA's recommendations are also similar to those recently offered by DCF's consultant, Dr. Robert Kinscherff of the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. DCF has pledged to act on several of Dr. Kinscherff's recommendations and has begun to take additional steps to do the following: 1. Eliminate unlawful restraint and seclusion of children in the facilities; 2. Improve suicide prevention protocols and training; 3. Improve risk assessment and response; 4. Strengthen trauma-informed supports for youth; 5. Improve quality assurance and reporting. OCA applauds that commitment. Given the gravity of OCA's findings, the unique vulnerability of confined youth and the extraordinary state expenditure for CJTS and Pueblo, it will be critical to ensure that changes are implemented expertly, expeditiously, and transparently. Given the complexity of issues reviewed during this investigation, OCA consulted extensively with mental health and other professionals to support our review and recommendations. To that end, OCA also consulted with the State's Office of Protection and Advocacy-charged with protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. The Office of Protection and Advocacy (OPA) reviewed numerous primary source records, including treatment plans, progress notes, and video tapes collected during our investigation. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has issued a responsive public statement, attached to this report. Details: Hartford, CT: Office of the Child Advocate, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137786 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people in child protection services and under youth justice supervision 2013-2014 Summary: This report presents information on young people aged 10-17 who were involved in the child protection system and under youth justice supervision in 2013-14, and demonstrates the insights that can be gained through data linkage. One-quarter of young people in youth justice detention were also in the child protection system in the same year. Those who were younger at their first youth justice supervision were more likely to also be in child protection. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Data Linkage Series No. 21; Accessed February 11, 2016 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554445 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554445 Shelf Number: 137842 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Chung, Angela Title: Rising Up, Speaking Out: Youth Transforming Los Angeles County's Juvenile Justice System Summary: When youth are taken away from their homes and communities and placed under the custody of a juvenile justice system, all of us have an important responsibility to ensure that during this most formative period of their lives, young people heal and are prepared to succeed when they return to their communities. Instead, our most vulnerable young people, overwhelmingly youth of color, end up locked up in juvenile justice facilities across the U.S. and in Los Angeles County. These facilities are all too often warehouses, where youth are retraumatized and deprived of a quality education and support system. In fact, many youth are more likely to return to their communities under-resourced, overcriminalized, and pre-programmed for adult prisons rather than on a direct path toward college or career. In short, the juvenile justice system has failed in its promise of rehabilitation. Los Angeles County - home to the largest juvenile justice system in the U.S. - now has a historic opportunity to leave behind its outdated and harmful correctional camp model. Over the last decade, the Los Angeles County Probation Department - driven in part by lawsuits and the Department of Justice (DOJ) monitoring - has implemented a number of reforms to address the problems and abuse found in their camps. But these changes are not enough; what is needed is true transformation. By tearing down the decades-old Camp Kilpatrick - a relic of the penitentiary-like, boot-camp style that Los Angeles County built in the 1960s -the county is piloting a therapeutic approach to working with young people. Referred to as the Los Angeles Model (LA Model), this approach is inspired by promising practices across the country, including the Missouri Model, which pioneered a non-institutional and homelike approach to treatment for youth removed from their communities. It is built on the notion that youth cannot heal, change and thrive without safety, and that safety is best achieved through relationship-building and positive youth development. The LA Model is an unprecedented collaboration among the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Probation Department, Office of Education (LACOE), Department of Mental Health (DMH), advocates, researchers, youth and families. If successful, this collaboration can be a model for juvenile justice reform throughout the state of California. The most important voices in guiding and informing the LA Model and any juvenile justice reform in this country are youth who have experienced the system. In this policy brief, five young people - in partnership with CDF-CA's policy researchers - share their own unique experiences inside probation camps and amplify key recommendations from an important UCLA focus group study on how to improve conditions inside Los Angeles County's camps. This brief weighs in on the debate around what works, what does not work, and what should be changed in juvenile justice facilities, while bringing to light the voices, experiences and ideas for change of those who have experienced the system. Details: Los Angeles: Children's Defense Fund - California, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed March 18, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/rising-up-speaking-out.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/rising-up-speaking-out.pdf Shelf Number: 138328 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Marin County Civil Grand Jury Title: Marin County Juvenile Hall: A Time for a Change Summary: Marin County has experienced a significant decline in juvenile detention in recent years. Despite this decline, the cost of operating Marin County's 40-bed Juvenile Hall (JH) has not decreased and continues to be approximately $4,000,000 annually. Because the number of offenders has dwindled, the County's net cost per detainee per day has risen astronomically. To illustrate, the Average Daily Cost (ADC) to house and care for each detained JH youth rose during the past three years (2011-2014) from $464 to $901.64 because the Average Daily Population (ADP) declined from 18.9 to 9.2 detained youths. As a result, the Marin County Grand Jury recommends that Marin County and the Marin County Probation Department (MCPD) negotiate a contract for juvenile detention services with a neighboring county at a reduced cost and reallocate the savings towards expansion of Alternatives to Detention (ATDs), which are in the best interests of Marin youth. The Grand Jury also recommends that Marin County and MCPD consider other uses for this facility. The Grand Jury learned that Marin's decline in juvenile detention is consistent with a major nationwide paradigm shift away from incarceration. Research indicates that detention does not serve youth well, and community-based ATDs, particularly non-residential programming options, deliver equal or better results for a fraction of the cost. Further, the use of risk assessment tools has eliminated the need to confine the majority of Marin's juvenile offenders. Decriminalization of marijuana possession has also significantly reduced arrests and detention. Detentions of juvenile offenders in Marin County's JH decreased from 1,674 in 1995 to 253 in 2014, and its Average Daily Population (ADP) declined 69% in the past decade, from 30 in 2005 to 9.2 in 2014. The median length of stay for youth in the JH is brief, just 8.4 days in 2014. With California's Title 15 mandated staffing requirements to assure safety, security, education, rehabilitation and healthcare in juvenile facilities, most JH operating costs are fixed. MCPD informed the Grand Jury that JH is required to maintain a staff approximating 21 full-time, part-time and on-call personnel irrespective of a variable average daily census. Thus, as detentions decline, costs per detainee increase, while overall costs remain the same. Although California requires every county to have a juvenile hall, it permits two or more counties to operate a joint juvenile hall. According to the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Marin County can satisfy its juvenile detention obligation by contracting with another county for placement of its detainees. The Grand Jury learned from numerous counties that such contracts currently range from $85 to $190 per youth per day. This contracted daily rate may or may not include inter-county transportation costs and certain health care costs, as applicable. Details: San Rafael, CA:Marin County Civil Grand Jury, 2015. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2016 at: http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2014/juvenile-hall.pdf?la=en Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2014/juvenile-hall.pdf?la=en Shelf Number: 138330 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeDetention CentersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Title: Youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2014/2015 Summary: The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), enacted in 2003, is the legislation that governs how youth aged 12 to 17 years are to be dealt with by the Canadian justice system. The Act provides for a separate youth justice system that is meant to protect the public while holding young persons accountable in a manner that is proportionate to their level of maturity and the seriousness of the offence. Within this legislative framework, set by the federal government, the provinces and territories are responsible for administering youth correctional services in Canada. This Juristat article presents an overview of youth correctional services in Canada for 2014/2015. The article uses three measures to describe the utilization of correctional services-average counts, initial entry and admissions. Average counts provide a snapshot of the youth corrections population on any given day; initial entry provides an indication of the number of youth entering the corrections system during the year; and admissions measure the flow of youth through the system by counting youth each time they begin or move to a new type of custody or community supervision. Data on average counts come from the Youth Corrections Key Indicator Report, while data on initial entry and admissions come from the Youth Custody and Community Services Survey and the Integrated Correctional Services Survey. It should be noted that not all jurisdictions were able to report data for 2014/2015. Average count data are not available for Quebec and are limited to custody counts for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta, meaning nine jurisdictions provided overall average counts. Admissions data are likewise available for nine jurisdictions with Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta being the exclusions. These same four jurisdictions plus Manitoba were unable to provide initial entry counts in 2014/2015. Details: Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juristat, 36(1): Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14317-eng.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14317-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 138386 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Orr, Kate Skellington Title: HM YOI Polmont: Evaluation of the Implementation and Early Impact of the Peer Learning Hub Summary: Background 1.1 This report presents the findings from an independent evaluation of the Peer Learning Hub pilot that was set up in HM Young Offenders Institution (YOI) Polmont in 2014. 1.2 The purpose of the evaluation was twofold: to document and examine the set up and initial implementation of the Peer Learning Hub; as well as to consider early indications of its impact. 1.3 The evaluation focussed retrospectively on the set up and running of the pilot over the first nine months following implementation and also sought to identify and appraise changes to the pilot model that have subsequently taken place. The evaluation was intended to be formative, insofar as the findings will be used to help the pilot Hub reflect on learning and experience to date, and explore ways in which the project can continue to develop and progress in the future. Research Aims & Questions 1.4 The evaluation directly explored the following research questions: - How has the Peer Learning Hub been established? Has it been implemented as planned? What is the fidelity of implementation? - Have there been barriers to implementation? If so what were they, what was their impact, and how were (or will) they be addressed? - What is being delivered in the Peer Learning Hub? - Are activities being delivered as intended? - Are participants being reached as intended? - What are the characteristics of participants, the throughput and the attrition rates? - What are participants' views on peer mentoring? - What changes, if any, have been made to the Peer Learning Hub as a consequence of initial lessons learned? How and why have changes been made? What impact have such changes had on the success of the Peer Learning Hub? 1.5 Recognising that the Hub is also still fairly new in its implementation, and that impact data was therefore limited to the short term and would be indicative, at best, the evaluation also considered: - Whether peers are better at engaging young people in Polmont than staff members; - Whether peers are more effective at sharing and imparting information and knowledge; - Whether young offenders can act as successful role models; - If, in custodial settings, prisoners can form pro-social communities that realise wider benefits; - Whether the Peer Learning Hub increases confidence, self-esteem and self-worth of the mentors; - Whether peer mentees feel more empowered and responsible; 2 - Whether deployment of peer mentors works as a symbol and signal of a pro-social, asset building culture; - Whether peers can become ambassadors to other service users; and - The extent to which peers can improve service delivery by identifying real issues on the ground. 1.6 It is important to stress that the research did not seek to assess the effectiveness of peer mentoring per se, since the benefits of peer mentoring and other peer interventions in the custodial setting is already well documented1. It is well known, for example, that under the right conditions, peers may be better at engaging offenders than prison or other staff, that they can act as positive role models and may be more effective at communicating information and knowledge to peers than traditional teaching staff. Research has also shown that peer mentors can be effective in helping to change the behaviour of their peers, and can be especially helpful in reaching traditionally hard to reach groups. Instead, what this evaluation sought to do was to explore the specific approach being adopted at HM YOI Polmont and the suitability for the particular offender group housed there. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Prison Service, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3922.aspx Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3922.aspx Shelf Number: 138687 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsEducational ProgramsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile InmatesMentoringPeer LearningYoung Offenders |
Author: Dorji, Lham Title: Crime and Mental Health Issues among the Young Bhutanese People Summary: The monograph titled 'Crime and Mental Health Issues among Young Bhutanese People' presents the analyses of crime and mental disorder issues among young Bhutanese people. By reorganising and analysing the police crime records and the OPD mental health records of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck National Referral Hospital (JDWNRH), our researchers have tried to shed some light on the nature and extent of crime and mental health issues among young Bhutanese people. It also includes the qualitative study of sampled young prisoners (as the research subjects) to supplement the analysis of the police crime records. Further, they have used the National Health Survey (NHS, 2012) data to explore the mental disorders among young people to supplement the analysis of the clinical records. A short analysis of the interview records of 20 local leaders is included in the monograph. The analysis is based on the local leaders' perceptions of the issues and challenges that young Bhutanese people are facing in their respective communities Details: Thimphu, Bhutan: National Statistics Bureau, 2015. 165p. Source: Internet Resource: Monograph Series No. 8: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://www.nsb.gov.bt/nsbweb/publication/files/pub10lr9014qn.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Asia URL: http://www.nsb.gov.bt/nsbweb/publication/files/pub10lr9014qn.pdf Shelf Number: 139522 Keywords: Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders Mental Health Mentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people in child protection services and under youth justice supervision 2014-15 Summary: Research shows that children and young people who have been abused or neglected are at greater risk of engaging in criminal activity and entering the youth justice system. A better understanding of the characteristics and pathways of children and young people who are both in the child protection system and under youth justice supervision can assist support staff, case workers and policy makers to get the best outcomes for these children and young people. With the recent introduction of a national unit record child protection data collection, it is now possible to link child protection and youth justice supervision data to explore the relationships between child protection and youth justice supervision. This report presents information on young people aged 10–17 who were involved in the child protection system and subject to youth justice supervision at some time during 2014–15, using data from the linked child protection and youth justice supervision data collection. Results are limited to the 5 jurisdictions with both child protection and youth justice National Minimum Data Set data for 2014–15 (Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory)—a total of 30,402 young people aged 10–17. The results from the linked data collection will be enhanced in future years as data become available for more states and territories and as years of data accumulate. Linking to other health and welfare data collections would also provide additional information on multiple service use among vulnerable children and young people. Young people in the child protection system were 14 times as likely as the general population to be under youth justice supervision in the same year In 2014–15, 5.5% of those aged 10–17 who were in the child protection system were also under youth justice supervision in the same year (although not necessarily at the same time), compared with just 0.4% of the general population aged 10–17. Indigenous young people in the child protection system were more than twice as likely to be under youth justice supervision as non-Indigenous young people (10.4% compared with 4.3%). The level of dual involvement was 8.0% for those under care and protection orders, 6.3% for those in out-of-home care and 4.1% for those who were the subject of an investigated notification. Young people under youth justice supervision were 15 times as likely as the general population to be in the child protection system in the same year In 2014–15, 32.4% of those under youth justice supervision were also in the child protection system. Two (2) in 5 (40.8%) of those in detention were involved in the child protection system in the same year, which is 19 times the rate for the general population. The level of child protection involvement for those under community-based supervision in 2014–15 was also high: with about one-third (32.1%) also in the child protection system. The younger someone was at their first youth justice supervision, the more likely they were to also be in child protection in 2014–15: of those under youth justice supervision in 2014–15, 3 in 5 (60.0%) of those aged 10 at their first youth justice supervision were also in child protection in 2014–15, compared with 9.4% of those aged 17. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Data Linkage Series NO. 22: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aihw_20323_oct_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aihw_20323_oct_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146665 Keywords: Child Protection ServicesJuvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Northern Territory. Children's Commissioner Title: Own Initiative Investigation Report Services Provided by the Department of Correctional Services at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre Summary: JURISDICTION This investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Children's Commissioner Act 2013 (the Act) which allows the Commissioner, on his own initiative, to investigate a matter which may form the grounds for a complaint. The grounds for a complaint are defined under Section 21(1)(a)&(b) of the Act which states that the Children's Commissioner can investigate complaints relating to services provided or that might reasonably be expected to be provided, for vulnerable children. . The services investigated must be provided by either 'a public authority', or another person, or body acting for or under an arrangement with a public authority that has taken or is taking action in relation to the child as a vulnerable child. FORMALITIES There are a number of relevant legislative regimes that apply to the young persons referred to in this report. For the sake of convenience, and despite the terminology differing in each piece of legislation, including 'youth' , 'child' , 'vulnerable child' and 'youth detainee' or ' youth prisoner' , this report will use the phrase young person. BACKGROUND TO INVESTIGATION The decision to conduct this self-initiated investigation was made by the former Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, and was based on events that occurred at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre ('Don Dale') in the Behaviour Management Unit ('BMU') between 4 and 21 August 2014. On 12 August 2014, concerns were raised by a professional stakeholder on behalf of five young persons who were in detention. The complaint related to the alleged indefinite nature of the confinement in the BMU, and the unhygienic living conditions of the environment. It was the complainant's opinion that the conditions were 'inhumane' as young persons were being held in solitary confinement in cramped and darkened cells, for up to 23 hours a day. There were also concerns about the long term impact this could have on the five young persons' psychological and physical well-being. Details: Darwin: The Commissioner, 2015. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Shelf Number: 147318 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesSolitary Confinement |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Children in Custody 2015-16: An analysis of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their experiences in secure training centres and young offender institutions Summary: This independent report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), presents the findings from 767 questionnaires completed by children detained at every secure training centre (STC) (N=3) and young offender institution (YOI) (N=5; plus a separate specialist unit at one site) between 1 April 2015 and 12 April 2016. All surveys were conducted to support unannounced inspections of each establishment. The surveys enable comparisons to be made with the results from 2014–15 and between children with different characteristics or experiences. Surveys have been conducted in YOIs since 2001–02 and in some cases, where the same question has been asked consistently, we can identify trends over the full length of that period. The number of children in custody fell by 53% between 2010–11 and 2015–16, made up largely by falls observed in the number of children held in YOIs (down 59%). Over the longer term, the secure children's estate population has fallen by 66% since 2005–06. In relation to STCs, our survey findings during 2015–16 show that: • the proportion who identified as being from a black or other minority ethnic background was 41%; • the proportion who identified as Muslim was 15%; • the proportion who said they were from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background was 12%; • nearly a quarter of children (23%) reported feeling unsafe at some point since their arrival at the STC and 10% felt unsafe at the time of the inspection – those children who reported having ever felt unsafe also reported poorer experiences than those who had not; • almost a third of children (31%) reported being victimised by being shouted at through windows; • compared with last year, children were significantly less likely to say that it was explained to them why they were being searched on their arrival at the STC (74% compared with 86%); that the search had been carried out respectfully (85% compared with 95%); or that they had spoken to someone about how they were feeling on their first night in the centre (66% compared with 79%). In relation to YOIs, our survey findings during 2015–16 show that: • forty-seven per cent of the boys were from a black or minority ethnic background, the highest rate recorded during our time inspecting the secure estate; • those with experience of the local authority care system (37%), Muslim boys (22%), boys reporting a disability (19%) and those identifying as being from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background (7%) continued to be disproportionately over-represented across the YOI estate when compared with the population as a whole; • when asked if they had ever felt unsafe at their establishment, 46% of boys said they had, again the highest figure we have recorded through our surveys; • in the last 12 months there was a significant increase in the proportion of boys who reported being victimised by other detainees (35% compared with 26% in 2014–15) or members of staff (32% compared with 25% in 2014–15);• children who had ever felt unsafe were more likely than other children to report that they: considered shouting through windows to be a problem at their establishment; arrived there with gang problems; did not feel that they were treated with respect by staff; could not talk to someone when they needed to (like a chaplain, peer mentor, member of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB), or an advocate); and had more problems upon arrival at their YOI, suggesting that strategies to help children feel safer should focus on addressing these issues; • there was a significant fall in the proportion of boys who felt YOI staff treated them with respect (only 63% compared with 70% in 2014–15); • the proportion of boys with a job in their establishment had fallen significantly in the last 12 months (16% compared with 28% in 2014–15); • the proportion of boys engaged in a job (16%), vocational training (11%) and offending behaviour programmes (16%) across the YOI estate was lower in 2015–16 than at any point since 2010–11. Comparing YOI and STC survey responses for 2015–16 showed that children held in STCs were significantly more likely to report that they felt treated with respect by staff, that complaints were sorted fairly and that the food was 'good' or 'very good'. They were also less likely to report that they had been restrained or that they had felt unsafe at the cen Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons; Youth Justice Board, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Children-in-Custody-2015-16_WEB.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Children-in-Custody-2015-16_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 147949 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth detention population in Australia 2016 Summary: This bulletin examines the numbers and rates of young people aged 10 and over who were in youth detention in Australia due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. It focuses on trends over the 4-year period from the June quarter 2012 to the June quarter 2016. About 900 young people are in detention on an average night There were 917 young people in youth detention on an average night in the June quarter 2016. Just over half (57%) were unsentenced-that is, they were awaiting the outcome of their court matter or sentencing-and the remainder were serving a sentence. Most young people (83%) in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2016 were aged 10-17. This equates to 3.3 young people aged 10-17 per 10,000. The other detainees were aged 18 or older. Detention rates are stable after long-term falls and despite recent rise in numbers The number of young people in detention on an average night decreased, from a high of 1,069 in the June quarter 2012 to 917 in the June quarter 2016. The rate of young people aged 10-17 in detention on an average night decreased, from 3.8 per 10,000 to 3.3 per 10,000, over the 4-year period. Over the most recent year, despite a slight increase in the number of young people (of all ages) in detention on an average night in each quarter (from 877 to 917), the rate of those aged 10-17 in detention remained relatively stable, between 3.1 and 3.4 per 10,000. Unsentenced and sentenced detention rates have decreased The rate of young people in unsentenced detention fell slightly over the 4-year period, from 2.4 young people aged 10-17 per 10,000 on an average night in the June quarter 2012, to 2.1 per 10,000 in the June quarter 2016. The rate was lowest in the December quarter 2014 (1.7 per 10,000). In sentenced detention, the rate was 1.2 young people aged 10-17 per 10,000 on an average night in the June quarter 2016-a decrease from 1.4 per 10,000 in the June quarter 4 years earlier. The rate was highest in the September quarter 2012 (1.5 per 10,000). Over half of those in detention are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Over half (55%) of all young people in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2016 were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. In the June quarter 2016, Indigenous young people aged 10-17 were 26 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be in detention; however the level of over-representation fluctuated between 23 times and 28 times over the 4-year period. Trends vary across the states and territories There were different trends in the youth detention population across the states and territories. Over the 4-year period, the rate of young people aged 10-17 in detention increased in Victoria and Queensland, showed no clear trend in South Australia and the Northern Territory, and decreased in the remaining states and territories. Details: Sydney: AIHW, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 138: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aihw_youthdetentionpopulationinaustralia2016_dec_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aihw_youthdetentionpopulationinaustralia2016_dec_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147304 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Colorado Child Safety Coalition Title: Bound and Broken: How DYC's Culture of Violence is Hurting Colorado Kids and What To Do About It Summary: Despite a mission of rehabilitation rather than punishment, the culture of the Colorado Division of Youth Corrections (DYC) is plagued by punitive practices that cause physical and emotional harm to the young people in its care. DYC's culture of violence makes facilities unsafe for both children and staff and deters rehabilitation. This report draws on interviews with 21 young people who are or have been incarcerated in eleven of DYC's thirteen state-owned facilities, as well as a review of over 1,000 pages of internal DYC documents, videos and medical reports regarding incidents that occurred between 2013 and 2016. The report concludes that DYC staff used physical pain, isolation and verbal degradation against vulnerable young people, most of whom suffer from past abuse and mental illness. Knee strikes, painful pressure points and the WRAP – a full body straitjacket – are common currency in DYC's culture. There is a better way. In Missouri, juvenile facilities focus on true internalized change for kids by building strong relationships between youth and their peers and between youth and staff. Staff never use isolation, restraints like the WRAP, or pain compliance, because these punitive measures hurt children and prohibit development of trusting relationships with staff. Statistics show that Missouri kids and staff are safer. The "Missouri Approach" has become the gold standard for the care of juveniles and has been exported to other states with success. A pilot program in Colorado could change the culture of violence at DYC to keep kids and staff safe while promoting rehabilitation. Key Facts and Findings 1. Violence has been escalating in DYC facilities. External and internal measures confirm a dramatic increase in the number of documented fights and assaults, and complaints about violence from youth and staff to outside agencies have skyrocketed. 2. Young people and staff consistently report feeling unsafe in DYC facilities. 3. Most young people in DYC have experienced trauma. When youth with a history of trauma feel unsafe, they are less likely to be rehabilitated. 4. DYC staff routinely use physical force and pain to control young people. • DYC staff physically restrained youth at least 3,611 times between January 2016 and January 2017. Of those restraints, over sixty percent resulted in the use of mechanical restraints, such as handcuffs, shackles, or the WRAP. • The WRAP: DYC sanctions use of the WRAP, a full-body restraint banned in Arkansas after it was described as "torture" by the Juvenile Ombudsman. DYC placed children in the WRAP 253 times between January 2016 and January 2017. • Pain Compliance: DYC staff commonly use pain compliance techniques, whereby staff strike or put pressure on sensitive parts of the child’s body to purposely cause pain and gain compliance with staff directives. The U.S. Department of justice found pain compliance techniques violate children's constitutional rights. • DYC staff use force against youth who refuse to follow staff directives, even when those youth pose no immediate threat to safety. • These punitive techniques injure both youth and staff. According to DYC's own records, rates of injury to both young people and DYC staff are consistently higher than the national average and DYC’s internal goals. 5. Solitary Confinement: DYC placed young people in solitary confinement 2,240 times between January 2016 and January 2017. 6. DYC's own data shows that increased staffing alone, without changing DYC's punitive culture, will not ensure reduction of violence. 7. The Missouri Youth Services Institute, a non-profit dedicated to exporting the Missouri Approach, can bring a pilot program to Colorado and provide a template for broad cultural change within DYC, for a fraction of the cost of the funding requested this year by DYC. Details: s.l.: Colorado Child Safety Coalition, 2017. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2017 at: http://static.aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Bound-and-Broken-report-Feb17-complete.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://static.aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Bound-and-Broken-report-Feb17-complete.pdf Shelf Number: 144494 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemCulture of ViolenceJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Williams, Huw Title: Young People with Traumatic Brain Injury in Custody: An evaluation of a Linkworker Service for Barrow Cadbury Trust and The Disabilities Trust Summary: There is growing evidence that young people (YP) within the youth justice system have high levels of 'needs' with regard to health, education and social and emotional well-being. Studies consistently indicate high levels of mental health needs and neurodevelopmental disorders amongst young offenders including Traumatic Brain Injury - TBI. These needs are often unmet due to a lack of appropriate screening and identification, limited access to evidence based interventions and poor continuity of care. This is particularly apparent amongst YP in custody. The initial aims of this project were to establish whether it was possible to: 1. Identify young adults with a brain injury who enter custody 2. Develop a care pathway and provide dedicated supportto YP with a brain injury 3. Raise awareness of brain injury within a Young Offender Institution From these aims a 'Linkworker' (LW) service for YP was developed by The Disabilities Trust Foundation. This report describes that service and documents a preliminary service evaluation. In summary, it was possible to set the service up, evolve it in a dynamic and changing environment, so that it appears to fit the needs of the young person across a wider spectrum of ages. It also appears that it is, with appropriate staffing, feasible to screen for TBI in the population and this may contribute to increased awareness of such issues in a young person's care and management. In conducting this service evaluation it was not possible to collect data that would show whether there was a change in the trajectory (health, well-being and crime) of YP through LW involvement). However, service level data was available on a sample of YP and in this context it is possible to note the following: - The LW service was designed, delivered and deployed within what would be expected for a neurorehabilitation and forensic rehabilitation and forensic rehabilitation service 'hybrid' - Referrals were made to the service and it was supporting YP who had relevant TBI (in terms of severity and neuropsychological impairments) - Such TBI would be expected to interfere with traditional forensic rehabilitation (FR) - The young person had significant criminal histories and mental health problems - Additional input in a range of areas could well have improved outcomes for the young person in terms of mental health, well-being and criminogenic needs Therefore, the service would appear to be meeting the key aims defined at inception. From the feedback, it appears that the service was acceptable to, and valued, by YP and staff. It is important to emphasise that the YP had complex conditions because TBI is a 'keystone' condition within a constellation of challenges (drug and alcohol, mood disorder, lack of familial coherence (care home etc.), lack of education and work skills and/or experience). This evaluation highlights the need for appropriate key-working for such a vulnerable group. We would therefore recommend further adoption of linkworker type services within custodial settings and the need to be embed them within larger multi-site studies. Such services could provide a vital link across staff teams working with individuals with TBI and effect change. A linkworker may enable the identification of an underlying TBI, which allows for services to be deployed that are responsive to specific needs and learning styles in order to successfully engage with the young person. This is essential in order to develop support plans and to allow resources to be used cost-effectively, rather than attempting to engage YP in generic interventions which may not take into account their specific profile of needs. Details: London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2016. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2017 at: https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Disability_Trust_linkworker_2016Lores.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Disability_Trust_linkworker_2016Lores.pdf Shelf Number: 144722 Keywords: Brain InjuryDisabilityJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersNeurological Disorders |
Author: Sauls, Heidi Title: Young Boys Behind Bars: An ethnographic study of violence and care in South Africa Summary: This thesis is the result of an ethnographic study which had as its topic young boys who were awaiting trial for criminal activities behind bars in a secure care facility in South Africa. The chapters introduce some of the boys to the reader through case studies providing information about, who they are where they come from, why they were institutionalised and glimpses of what they endured in their daily lives outside the institution. The core of the thesis describes the social composition of a secure care facility and the daily activities and interactions that take place within its walls. We follow the boys in the trajectories they took inside and outside the criminal justice system, obtaining glimpses of the families, communities and staff with whom they come into contact. Overall, the study was guided by three main research questions. How are sociocultural and legal-political perceptions of violent children reflected in the infrastructural arrangements and regulations of places of safety (secure care facilities)? How are boys' daily lives in places of safety enacted? And how do institutionalised boys perceive themselves inside and outside the institution? The methodology of the study was steered by the structures of confinement of the secure care facility in which it was conducted. This type of institution functions simultaneously as a setting geared towards the safekeeping, caring and betterment of inmates and as a place of incarceration for keeping society at large safe from them. The emphasis of the study was on providing the reader with an in-depth understanding of these boys and the micro-world of the institution in which they find themselves. Central to the project were boys' own accounts of their lives, experiences, perceptions, aspirations and the reasons why they followed various strategies in navigating their social relations with staff and peers. Adopting this ethnographic perspective allowed for a thick description of day-to-day interactions in the institution. We start off with a description of the heavily bounded institution and how the mere process of gaining access to the boys and the institution was governed by strict rules and mediated by gatekeepers. Physically, the institution looked closed, imprisoning insiders and controlling access by outsiders; socially, its anatomy seemed fixed and hierarchical. However, the more data one acquires, the greater the number of cracks appeared in this image of inflexibility. The thesis then describes what happens when a new boy is admitted to the institution, the daily negotiations he is involved in during the early period of his incarceration, and the intricate social dynamics between the new and seasoned boys. Here, I highlighted the emotional turmoil that new boys frequently experience when having to transition from their communities and enter the facility. The process of being admitted and settling into the institution is intricate and volatile. The potential risks these new admissions are exposed to include verbal, physical and sexual abuse by their peers. What is commonly perceived as bullying, unnecessary violence and intimidation by others is a complex negotiation process for currency of power and the forging of hierarchical relationships between the incarcerated boys; of which new and seasoned boys are vulnerable. In the facility, it also became clear how power is fluid and ever-changing. Boys are found to constantly reflect upon their own positions in the hierarchy and institution and actively negotiate their status by acting upon other boys and staff. However, in the end power inequalities between boys and staff restrict their negotiating power. It is then revealed that once a boy is incarcerated, he is not permanently labelled a criminal. Rather, we see how perceiving and labelling (making and unmaking) incarcerated children as criminals or non-criminals is a fluid and negotiable process. It is the daily interactions among boys and staff in the institution that determines a boy's criminal status. These interactions are heavily influenced by subjective, moral appraisals by staff of a boy's behaviour. Daily interactions that determine boys' identities are also heavily dependent on the conditions (such as resources and competences) and contexts in which these interactions take place. Overall, the production and reproduction of labels related to a boy being a criminal or not influences and determines the management and experiences of the child in and outside the institution. It also influences the manner in which the boys respond to others and their environment. Such labelling of boys does not only influence how they are dealt with inside the institution but also the future decisions that either result in longer imprisonment or discharge from the institution. Yet, what appeared to be a distinct difference between the staff members who were assumed to possess power with clearly assigned roles compared to the boys, who were perceived as children, in need of adult care and supervision, in practice, it was evident that staff members use their power and interact with the boys very differently. This was clearly highlighted in the example of two staff members, reared in different ethnic groups, and their interaction with the boys. It was also interesting to witness how the different staff members' interaction developed and affected the boys. Here, I was able to explore the multiple dimensions that are at stake in the institutional interactions between staff and inmates on the ground, allowing for a fluidity of roles not covered by the classical picture of a clear distinction between staff members and inmates. How the staff members have been socialised in their own communities, what they expect of boys' behaviour, and what boys expect of them, do play a role in the interactions I observed. Factors such as the level of education, personal background and personality traits also influenced the interaction between the staff members and boys. I have shown how these differences are acted out in specific contexts within the daily life of the institution and how it leads to widely differing restrictions and opportunities for boys to act and express themselves, sometimes varying over the day, when shifts of caretakers replace one another. In contrast to the image of a total institution where rigid rules determine the relations between staff and inmates, this study displays the fluidity of the roles and positions of the boys and staff and how the various individuals enact and play out a particular image in particular interactions. Likewise, the study illustrates that there is a variety of ways that boys respond to their assigned position, of powerless children, in need of care. Occasionally, as we have seen, there is a relatively strong blurring of presupposed institutional identities. A striking example is the role-reversal in terms of caring. In the pre-institutional lives of the boys, in many ways, they exerted violence from a certain position of power, and many of them do not give up that position entirely within the institution. It is possible that it might also be the caring role the boys performed in their pre-institutional life (for instance, for their mother and other close family members) that influenced their role-playing in terms of care for certain staff members and for their peers. Caring for others, especially women, is related to the boys' perceptions of masculinity and their social roles as men, and taking up caring roles in the institution is what from their perspective, males are supposed to do. In short, staff and boys act and interact in the institution based on social dispositions, cultural backgrounds, educational levels and personality structures that they also displayed in their lives outside the institution. How strict or permeable the boundaries between social life inside and outside the institution, and between the roles and positions officially assigned to staff and boys, prove to be are context specific Details: Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research , 2015. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2482251/157427_Sauls_thesis_with_cover.pdf Year: 2015 Country: South Africa URL: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2482251/157427_Sauls_thesis_with_cover.pdf Shelf Number: 144763 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersPrison Violenc |
Author: Sedlak, Andrea J. Title: Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Conditions of Confinement Summary: This report, the third in the series, presents findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) about the conditions of confinement for youth in a range of different facilities and progams. Results focus on the structural and operational characteristics of these environments and indicate how youth offenders are distributed across various programs and facilities of different size and complexity. These findings provide answers to a number of questions about the characteristics and experiences of youth in placement, including: - How are youth grouped in living units and programs? - Which youth are placed together? - What activities are available in each facility? - How accessible are social, emotional, and legal supports? - What is the quality of the youth-staff relationships? - How clear are the facility's rules? - How clear is the facility's commitment to justice and due process? - What methods of control and discipline do staff use? The data derive from interviews with a nationally representative sample of 7,073 youth in 2003, using audio-computer-assisted-self-interview (ACASI) methodology. Facility administrators provided additional information about placement contexts, either while planning the data collection or in verifying or updating answers on their latest Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) survey. The SYRP sample was drawn from the full population of state and local facilities identified by the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census surveys. SYRP youth resided in a nationally representative selection of 205 eligible, responsive facilities listed on the census as of 2002. These included detention and corrections facilities; community-based facilities such as shelters, group homes, and independent living programs; and camp programs, such as boot camps and forestry camps. The SYRP survey team interviewed the youth between the beginning of March and mid-June 2003. All SYRP findings use the youth as the unit of measurement. Each participant is weighted to reflect the number of youth he or she represents in the national population of youth in placement. These weights allow the sample youth (n=7,073) to provide estimates about the full placement population (estimated at more than 100,000 youth, on a given day in 2003). All SYRP reports present findings in terms of estimated numbers (rounded to the nearest multiple of 10) and percentages (rounded to the nearest whole percent) in the national population of youth in residential placement. Thus, this report describes how the population of youth in placement is distributed across different placement settings. Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2017. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 13, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250754.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250754.pdf Shelf Number: 146073 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMental Health ServicesResidential Treatment CentersSubstance Abuse |
Author: Center for American Progress Title: Unjust: LGBTQ Youth Incarcerated in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: A growing body of research lays bare the overrepresentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth in the juvenile justice system in the United States. As shown in the infographic on the next page, LGBTQ and gender non-conforming youth are overrepresented in juvenile detention and correctional facilities in the juvenile system: the percentage of incarcerated LGBT youth is double that of LGBTQ youth in the general population. LGBTQ youth, particularly LGBTQ youth of color, face discrimination and stigma that lead to criminalization and increased interactions with law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Family rejection, family instability, and poverty may result in homelessness or time spent in the child welfare system, where LGBTQ youth frequently face stigma and discrimination. Additionally, LGBTQ students often lack support or are over-policed at school, pushing them out of school and onto the streets. Once on the streets, status offenses, drug laws, and laws criminalizing sex work - as well as policing strategies and discrimination by law enforcement-often target LGBTQ youth. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics found that youth who reported identifying as LGB or having same-sex attractions were more likely to be stopped by police, to be expelled from school, or to be arrested and convicted as juveniles and adults. For some LGBTQ youth, especially LGBTQ youth of color and transgender and non-conforming youth, these factors play a large role in increasing their interactions with law enforcement and ultimately their overrepresentation in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Despite these forces and disproportionate contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, LGBTQ youth demonstrate remarkable resiliency, creating families of choice, networks for support, and often not only surviving, but thriving. In the juvenile and criminal justice systems, LGBTQ youth face bias in adjudication and mistreatment and abuse in confinement facilities. LGBTQ youth also lack supportive services when leaving the criminal and juvenile justice systems, often forcing them back into negative interactions with law enforcement. Given that nearly 40% of incarcerated girls in identify as LGB and 85-90% of incarcerated LGBTQ youth are youth of color, it is crucial that any effort to change the way youth in the United States engage with the juvenile justice system must consider the unique experiences of LGBTQ youth. This spotlight report highlights the experiences of LGBTQ youth incarcerated in the juvenile justice system. Details: Washington, DC: The Center, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2017 at: https://lgbtmap.org/file/lgbtq-incarcerated-youth.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://lgbtmap.org/file/lgbtq-incarcerated-youth.pdf Shelf Number: 147228 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersLGBTQ Youth |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth detention population in Australia: 2017 Summary: This bulletin presents information on the youth detention population in Australia, focusing on quarterly trends from June 2013 to June 2017. Among the 964 young people in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2017, high proportions were male (91%), aged 10-17 (84%), unsentenced (64% excluding Victoria) and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (53%). Over the 4-year period to the June quarter 2017, the numbers and rates of young people in detention remained stable, with minor fluctuations across quarters Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 143: Accessed February 14, 2018 at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0a735742-42c0-49af-a910-4a56a8211007/aihw-aus-220.pdf.aspx?inline=true Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0a735742-42c0-49af-a910-4a56a8211007/aihw-aus-220.pdf.aspx?inline=true Shelf Number: 149136 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Sawyer, Wendy Title: Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie Summary: A map of juvenile justice in America would be daunting, covering 1,852 youth facilities of varying restrictiveness, not to mention thousands of youth held in adult prisons and jails. Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie offers a comprehensive view of this system, breaking down where and why justice-involved youth are locked up. On any given day, nearly 53,000 youth are held in facilities away from home as a result of juvenile or criminal justice involvement. Nearly one in ten is held in an adult jail or prison. Even for the youth held in juvenile "residential placement," the situation is grim; most of them are in similarly restrictive, correctional-style facilities. Thousands of youths are held before they've been found delinquent, many for non-violent, low-level offenses - even for behaviors that aren't criminal violations. This report provides an introductory snapshot of what happens when justice-involved youth are held by the state: where they are held, under what conditions, and for what offenses. It offers a starting point for people new to the issue to consider the ways that the problems of the criminal justice system are mirrored in the juvenile system: racial disparities, punitive conditions, pretrial detention, and over-criminalization. While acknowledging the philosophical, cultural, and procedural differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems, the report highlights these issues as areas ripe for reform for youth as well as adults Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2018. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2018 at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html Shelf Number: 149422 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: Destined to Fail: How Florida Jails Deprive Children of Schooling Summary: Florida prosecutes more children in the adult criminal justice system than any other state, and as a consequence, hundreds of children are held in adult county jails every year. In the majority of cases, the decision to prosecute a child as an adult is made by the prosecutor, without judicial review or an individual assessment of the child's potential for rehabilitation. As a result, children as young as 12 have been incarcerated with adults. Many have not been found guilty, but are merely waiting for their cases to be adjudicated. While imprisoned, children still have rights under state and federal law to access education - a critical factor in their future. And with good reason: The further they fall behind, the less likely they are to become productive members of society. Unfortunately, children in adult jails are being denied these rights as Florida's jails and school districts are not living up to their legal obligations. The educational services they provide to children held in adult jails are, in most cases, seriously deficient. For some children, the services are virtually nonexistent. Adult jails are simply not intended or equipped to house children. For this review, which began in 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center submitted public records requests to school districts across the state, spoke with public defenders and advocates, examined data from the U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection, and interviewed children who are or have been held in county jails in Florida. The findings are troubling: Many small jails (facilities holding fewer than 20 children in 2015-16) offer only GED courses to children, eliminating the opportunity for a child to pursue a high school diploma while awaiting trial. Some children receive only two to three hours per week of instruction in these small county jails. When they return to their neighborhood schools, they often do not receive credit for their studies, including the GED work. In large jails (facilities holding 20 to 130 children in 2015-16), children often receive educational services geared toward a high school diploma - though they don't all receive the legally required 300 minutes of instruction per day that is necessary for a total of 180 instruction days per year. At many small jails, students with disabilities receive limited - if any - educational services that are required by law because of their disabilities. At large jails, students' existing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), which outline the services that a student with disabilities should receive, are sometimes altered - and even effectively closed out - leaving them without the services they deserve under the law. At many large and small jails, students with IEPs between the ages of 18 and 22 must be proactive and ask for the education services to which they are entitled. Consequently, they often do not receive them. Because county jails are not designed to accommodate children, there are multiple barriers that limit access to education. Small jails, in particular, do not have housing units for children, much less a space for classes. In such instances, children may be held in solitary confinement, which has been likened to torture. Lacking access to materials and teachers, children in solitary may simply receive worksheets that don't count toward school credit and without any writing instruments to complete them. Large jails, on the other hand, may have cell blocks for youth and space for classes, but these arrangements pose problems as well. Youth units, for example, are often for boys. As a result, girls under 18 are routinely held in solitary confinement or in medical or mental health segregation wings, which are not equipped for providing education. And as in small jails, children held in solitary confinement at large jails - whether for housing or discipline - are often left out of educational programming or provided with worksheets. In some counties, students are marked absent from the jail's classes for each day they are held in confinement. The solution to these problems is simple: Children don't belong in adult jails. Details: Montgomery, AL: SPLC, 2018. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cr_ctaa_report_2018_web_final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cr_ctaa_report_2018_web_final.pdf Shelf Number: 149572 Keywords: Correctional EducationJailsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Incentivising and promoting good behaviour: A thematic review Summary: Institutions holding children and young adults have undergone notable change over recent years as the population of both groups has reduced. While this reduction is welcome, there is evidence from inspection that outcomes for those that remain have been significantly impacted by deteriorating behaviour. Current behaviour management schemes have been ineffective in reducing violence, which is at historically high levels in all types of institution we reviewed. When children and young adults are held in custody, their behaviour can be influenced by a wide range of factors, including their relationships with staff, the physical environment, the regime under which they are held and the incentives on offer to them. In turn, the impact of poor behaviour by others on those who wish to make progress in education, training and rehabilitation can be severe. This review, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, is focused on children held in secure training centres (STCs) and young offender institutions (YOIs), and young adults aged 18-20 held in YOIs. The review looks at the fundamentally important issue of the relationships between those detained and the staff charged with their care. Those relationships are crucially influenced by staff turnover, which can lead to a lack of consistency in approach, staff shortages and, all too frequently, a lack of sufficient time out of cell. The issue of inconsistency in behaviour management is important as it damages the all-important element of trust in the relationship. When trust diminishes, a consequence is often a decline in respect for staff and, in the worst cases, a complete withdrawal from behaviour management systems. The review found that far too often the rewards and sanctions associated with behaviour management schemes were focused on punishment rather than incentive, and were prone to generate perceptions of favouritism. Too often, during inspections, we have seen rewards and sanctions schemes that are overwhelmingly punitive, and the response to poor behaviour is to become locked in a negative cycle of ever greater restriction. There is a real need to break out of these cycles, and some establishments have shown that it is possible. There was also little evidence of schemes being linked to sentence planning, with clear plans set out for making progress. It is widely accepted that the amount of time a child or young person spends unlocked and out of their cell has an important impact on their behaviour. There is also a need to confront bullying and violence, and not to fall into the trap of believing that it is inevitable, given the smaller and sometimes more concentratedly challenging nature of the children's and young people's population in custody. Details: London: The Inspectorate, 2018. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Incentivising-and-promoting-good-behaviour-Web-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Incentivising-and-promoting-good-behaviour-Web-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 149680 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersTraining Centers |
Author: Robinson, Gill Title: Children and Young People in Custody in Scotland: Looking Behind the Data Summary: Children and young people who are involved in offending come into contact with the youth or criminal justice system in a variety of ways depending on their age, their needs and circumstances, and the nature of their deeds. Information about the different stages in the system is available through Youth and Criminal Justice in Scotland: the Young Person's Journey. Both the lives of these children and young people and the 'system' that engages with them are complex. This means that it can be extremely difficult to understand what is actually happening for these children and young people, and also that there are rarely easy answers to guide how best to respond to their offending behaviour. This paper has an emphasis on children aged 16 and 17 who are detained in custody but also includes references to young people aged 18 to 21, whose circumstances are often very similar to those of the younger age group. We use the term 'children' to refer to those under 18 years old and 'young people' when referring to 18-21, in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The paper focuses on three themes: 1. Backgrounds of children and young people involved in offending 2. Children and young people's contact with the justice system, especially those who are sentenced to custody 3. What happens after custody? The paper has been produced in partnership between the Centre for Youth & Criminal Justice (CYCJ), the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). The information is drawn from a number of sources including research papers and data from the Scottish Government's Criminal Proceedings Database and the Scottish Prison Service. It incorporates the story of 'Danny', whose experiences represent very many of the young people now in custody. The paper can be added to and strengthened as we learn more. The data, particularly that relating to custodies, is complex and includes a number of illustrative snapshots which may not be fully representative. We would therefore encourage caution in drawing any further conclusions than those which are drawn in this paper. Instead we highlight areas for further reflection and exploration in each section of the paper. Details: Glasgow: Youth Justice Improvement Board, 2017. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Young-People-in-Custody-October-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Young-People-in-Custody-October-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 149722 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: When I Die, They'll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life without Parole in California Summary: Approximately 227 youth have been sentenced to die in California's prisons. They have not been sentenced to death: the death penalty was found unconstitutional for juveniles by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. Instead, these young people have been sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives, with no opportunity for parole and no chance for release. Their crimes were committed when they were teenagers, yet they will die in prison. Remarkably, many of the adults who were codefendants and took part in their crimes received lower sentences and will one day be released from prison. In the United States at least 2,380 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 18. In the rest of the world, just seven people are known to be serving this sentence for crimes committed when they were juveniles. Although ten other countries have laws permitting life without parole, in practice most do not use the sentence for those under age 18. International law prohibits the use of life without parole for those who are not yet 18 years old. The United States is in violation of those laws and out of step with the rest of the world. Human Rights Watch conducted research in California on the sentencing of youth offenders to life without parole. Our data includes records obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and independent research using court and media sources. We conducted a survey that garnered 130 responses, more than half of all youth offenders serving life without parole in California. Finally, we conducted in-person interviews of about 10 percent of those serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth. We have basic information on every person serving the sentence in the state, and we have a range of additional information in over 170 of all known cases. This research paints a detailed picture of Californians serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth. Details: New York: HRW, 2008. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0108_0.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0108_0.pdf Shelf Number: 109150 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersLife Imprisonment, Juveniles (U.S.)Life Without Parole |
Author: Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse Title: Child sexual abuse in custodial institutions: A rapid evidence assessment Summary: Child sexual abuse (CSA) involves forcing or enticing a child or young person under the age of 18 to take part in sexual activities. It includes contact and non-contact abuse, child sexual exploitation (CSE) and grooming a child in preparation for abuse. As part of its work the Inquiry is undertaking an investigation into the extent of any institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation while in custodial institutions. The investigation will consider the nature and scale of child sexual abuse within the youth secure estate in addition to institutional responses to the sexual abuse of children in the youth secure estate. The rapid evidence assessment (REA) has been carried out to inform the investigation by reviewing the existing research evidence base. The REA explores the following: - Evidence related to the prevalence of child sexual abuse in custodial institutions; - Socio-demographic characteristics, both of victims and perpetrators; - The factors associated with failure to protect or act to protect children in the care of custodial institutions; - The nature of the safeguarding systems in place and how they have changed over the years; - Recommendations in the literature regarding how those systems may be improved to better protect children in custody from sexual abuse. Details: London: The Independent Inquiry, 2018. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations Shelf Number: 149946 Keywords: Child GroomingChild Sexual AbuseChild Sexual ExploitationCustodial InstitutionsJuvenile Detention CentersJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse Title: Cambridge House, Knowl View and Rochdale: Investigation Report Summary: This investigation report concerns child sexual abuse in Rochdale, relating to Cambridge House, Knowl View School and the late Cyril Smith. We are primarily concerned with the institutional responses of Rochdale Borough Council, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Smith first came to prominence as a local councillor, then Mayor and later as Member of Parliament from 1972 until his retirement in 1992. He died in 2010. Cambridge House was a hostel for working boys run by a voluntary organisation of which Smith was Honorary Secretary, and was open from 1962 to 1965. He had ready access to the boys living in the hostel, allegedly facilitating his sexual abuse of them under the guise of 'medical examinations' including, in most cases, of a boy's private parts. He also administered punishment for truancy, illness or absconding, which included spanking a bare bottom. He told police in a written statement in 1970 that at all times he was acting 'in loco parentis' to the boys, but we found it inexplicable that he thought his role permitted 'medical examinations' when he had no medical qualifications. He had considerable control over which boys were admitted to the hostel and, in general, showed a strong, perhaps unduly detailed, interest in children in care as his political career developed. This interest appeared to go unchallenged by the Council. Cyril Smith's prominence and standing in Rochdale allowed him to exert influence on others locally - in particular, to put pressure on them to keep quiet about any allegations of abuse. Although the Lancashire Constabulary investigation into Smith pursued the allegations robustly and diligently, the Director of Public Prosecutions advised that there should be no prosecution. It has been suggested that Smith or his supporters may have exerted improper influence on the Director of Public Prosecutions, but there is no evidence to support such an allegation. Valuable opportunities were, however, lost in 1998 and 1999 to charge and prosecute Smith during his lifetime, and for the complainants of his alleged abuse to seek justice. Smith's standing in public life increased, and in 1988 he was awarded a knighthood for his political services. It is clear that there were some frank discussions at the highest political level about the rumours in circulation about him, with no obvious concern for alleged victims. Rather, the concern was about what would be fair to Smith and whether the honours system might subsequently be brought into disrepute. We concluded that this demonstrated a considerable deference to power and an unwillingness to confront the possibility that a person of public prominence might be capable of perpetrating sexual abuse. Cyril Smith's links to Knowl View School in Rochdale led the Inquiry to a wider investigation of that school and allegations of sexual abuse by other individuals of children who lived there. It was the sexual abuse of children by others that became the focus of the Inquiry's investigation. We heard from complainants of sexual abuse who had been at Knowl View School in a period extending over 25 years, beginning in 1969. The evidence demonstrated that the children who attended the school had a range of complex needs, including learning disabilities, autism and mental health. Many had also suffered from adverse experiences in their family life and had already been abused. We concluded that, far from taking additional steps to protect these children, the school and other institutions had come to regard their sexual abuse while at Knowl View as almost expected, or as something that could not be prevented. The children's experience of the school was extremely poor at the most basic level of the fabric of the building, which bore no resemblance to a homely environment. Nor was the school safe, secure, caring or therapeutic. It was supposed to offer education and care, but in reality it offered neither in any way that could be seen as adequate, let alone nurturing. The institution failed in its basic function to keep children in its care safe from harm and, in particular, safe from sexual harm, both within and outwith the school. Child sexual abuse involving children from Knowl View occurred from its early years onwards. Within the school there was sexual abuse of boys by staff, and of younger boys by older ones. Sexual exploitation of some boys was also taking place in Rochdale town centre, in the public toilets and bus station, by men paying for sex. Some boys were also trafficked to other towns for that purpose. In a particularly shocking incident in 1990, Roderick Hilton, a known sex offender who had previously been convicted of sexually abusing a boy at Knowl View in 1984, gained access to the school and the boys over two nights, when he indecently assaulted at least one of them. Hilton was well known to the staff of the school, who did nothing over many years to deter him targeting the school. He was imprisoned in 1991 for a series of child sexual offences. Despite this, on his release from prison on licence, he continued to be a malign presence at the school, 'little' was done to stop Hilton's continued access to the grounds and buildings. For most of the school's existence, staff were at best complacent but arguably complicit in the abuse they knew to be taking place, and they must take their share of the blame for what was allowed to occur. It was our strong conclusion that Knowl View staff simply treated the sexual abuse between boys as 'normal', without differentiating between what was experimentation and what was coercive and intimidating. There was little evidence that the school appreciated the profound harm that peer-on-peer sexual abuse could cause. Sexual exploitation of children from the school at Smith Street public toilets was known about by the authorities from at least 1989. Indeed, some Social Services' staff could see the toilets from their offices, recognised some of the boys as children in care and were deeply suspicious of what was going on, although there was no apparent follow-up. The records of individual children convey a total lack of urgency on the part of the authorities to address the problem and treat the matters involved for what they were - serious sexual assaults. One boy's file recorded that he had contracted sexually transmitted hepatitis through 'rent boy' activities. We concluded that no one in authority viewed any of this as an urgent child protection issue. Rather, boys as young as 11 were not seen as victims, but as authors of their own abuse. Subsequent police show that the police did not turn a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of boys in Rochdale town centre. They knew children were being exploited in Smith Street toilets, but did not obtain sufficient evidence to prosecute. There is evidence of a willingness on the part of police officers to investigate. Nevertheless, the records that survive do not provide any satisfactory answer as to why police did not charge anyone, despite knowing the names of men involved and obtaining some disclosures from the boys who were victims. etc. Details: London: The Independent Inquiry. 2018. 167p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/document/cambridge-house-knowl-view-and-rochdale-investigation-report-april-2018 Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/document/cambridge-house-knowl-view-and-rochdale-investigation-report-april-2018 Shelf Number: 149947 Keywords: Child Grooming Child ProstitutionChild Sexual Abuse Child Sexual Exploitation Custodial Institutions Juvenile Detention Centers Juvenile Inmates |
Author: New Jersey Parents' Caucus Title: The Solitary Confinement of Youth with Mental Health Disabilities in New Jersey's Adult Prison System Summary: Being housed in solitary confinement has become conducive to the deterioration of my mental health. The things I have witnessed would shock and disgust many people. I have witnessed things like guards depriving inmates of their meals, mentally ill inmates throwing feces and other bodily fluids on each other, and officers spraying mace on inmates and letting them soak in the chemicals. All of these events and many more have in some way traumatized me and has led to me having many panic attacks and mental health issues. Indeed, there is a need for some kind of segregation for those who break the rules of the prison; however, when solitary confinement becomes so harsh and focuses solely on punishing individuals, any possibility of correction and rehabilitation to an inmate's behavior becomes impossible; consequently, the conditions become counterproductive. -DM, 20, NJSP. It is shocking and unacceptable that youth like DM, a New Jersey Youth Caucus Member, have spent over 1,000 days in solitary confinement while in an adult prison in New Jersey. As DM described, solitary confinement is harmful and traumatic. It is defined by isolation in a cell for up to 24 hours a day, as well as deprivation of social interaction, property, and often educational materials. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice under the Obama Administration began looking into the use of solitary confinement and the harmful psychological effects on inmates in prisons across the country. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, former President Obama wrote: Research suggests that solitary confinement has the potential to lead to devastating, lasting psychological consequences. It has been linked to depression, alienation, withdrawal, a reduced ability to interact with others and the potential for violent behavior. Some studies indicate that it can worsen existing mental illnesses and even trigger new ones. Those who do make it out often have trouble holding down jobs, reuniting with family, and becoming productive members of society. Imagine having served your time and then being unable to hand change over to a customer or look your wife in the eye or hug your children. As a result of the Department of Justice's review of solitary confinement, President Obama announced a ban on its use for youth in the federal prison system. In August 2015, the New Jersey Legislature passed and Governor Christie signed the Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Reform Bill S. 2003/A. 4299. This legislation eliminated the use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in juvenile facilities and detention centers, as well as limited the time that solitary confinement could be imposed for reasons other than punishment, such as safety concerns. Unfortunately, these limitations on solitary confinement do not apply to youth in the adult prison system. As a result, the needs, stories, and trauma associated with youth placed in solitary confinement in adult prisons remain untold, unaddressed, and, ultimately, forgotten. In 2016, Governor Christie vetoed S. 51, legislation that would have dramatically reformed solitary confinement in New Jersey dictating that isolated confinement should only be used when necessary, and should not be used against vulnerable populations or under conditions or for time periods that foster psychological trauma, psychiatric disorders, or serious, long-term damage to an isolated person's brain. Christie's statement accompanying his veto of S. 51, which would have allowed solitary confinement only as a last resort, repeated his administration's claim that solitary confinement does not exist in our state, despite overwhelming evidence that it is used routinely, including as a form of discipline. In January 2018, Assemblywoman Nancy Pinkin and 19 other co-sponsors reintroduced the solitary reform bill, A. 314. As part of the New Jersey Youth Justice Initiative (NJYJI), we at the New Jersey Parents' Caucus have gathered comprehensive state data from the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJ DOC) on 556 children tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the adult prison system. The data largely covers the period of 2007-2016, though some information gathered dates back to 2003. In addition to the data retrieved from the NJ DOC, we have received qualitative data from a subset of the same population (163 youth) by means of a survey assessment provided to incarcerated youth and their parents, caregivers, and family members. Ninety-five youth answered questions about their experience in solitary confinement. Dr. Colby Valentine, Ph.D. analyzed NJYJI data, which includes self-reported questionnaires from ninety-two youth waived to the adult prison system, to understand the relationship between mental health and solitary confinement for youth in New Jersey prisons. Her analysis confirms that solitary confinement negatively affects the mental health of youth in New Jerseys adult prisons, adding to prior research that states that prolonged isolation may cause or exacerbate mental health problems in adult inmate populations. It is the position of the New Jersey Parents' Caucus, Inc. (NJPC) and its membership that the State must ban the imposition and use of solitary confinement or restricted housing units - another term for solitary confinement - which were found in either administrative segregation or the Management Control Unit, a form of solitary confinement used at administrators' discretion on youth in adult jails and prisons. Solitary confinement imposes further violence, harm, and psychological damage on youth before they return to their communities. If these youth return home without adequate mental health and rehabilitative care, it negates their ability to become productive members of our society. Their stories and their needs must be addressed through legislation to end this cruel, but unfortunately, common, practice on youth in the adult criminal justice system. Details: Elizabeth, NJ: The Caucus, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: http://newjerseyparentscaucus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NJPCSolitaryConfinementBriefFINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://newjerseyparentscaucus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NJPCSolitaryConfinementBriefFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 150421 Keywords: IsolationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMentally Ill InmatesRestrictive HousingSolitary ConfinementYouth in Adult Prisons |
Author: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. New York Advisory Committee Title: The Solitary Confinement of Youth in New York: A Civil Rights Violation Summary: On July 10, 2014, the New York Advisory Committee held a briefing on New York's use of solitary confinement (or extreme isolation, as it is sometimes termed) of youth inmates. The expert presenters included representatives from various state and city agencies and institutions in the State of New York as well as advocates and former inmates. The Committee examined the extent of the use of solitary confinement of youth in the State of New York and the City of New York, and, in particular, the disproportionate assignment of racial minorities to solitary confinement. At the briefing, the presenters discussed (a) the history of solitary confinement within the United States, (b) the conditions of solitary confinement in New York jails, (c) the mental, physical and developmental effects of solitary confinement on youth in New York jails, (d) the primary legal protections related to solitary confinement of youth inmates and (e) the pending legislative, judicial and executive efforts to eliminate or limit the solitary confinement of youth. In addition to the briefing, on June 25, 2014, the Committee conducted an on-site review of Rikers Island Correctional Facility (Rikers). This allowed the Committee to examine the conditions in punitive segregation units at Rikers and to speak with (i) prison officials, (ii) representatives of the New York City Department of Correction (NYC DOC) and the New York City Board of Correction (NYC BOC), and (iii) youth at Rikers who officials selected to speak with the Committee. Lastly, the Committee held a preparatory consultation on July 24, 2014 with experts in various states concerning the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Committee consulted with Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator for PREA at the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Teresa Abreu, Acting Executive Director for the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Juvenile Detention Center; Michael Dempsey, Executive Director of the Indiana Department of Correction's Division of Youth Services; Rick Angelozzi, Superintendent of both Columbia River Correctional Institution and South Fork Forrest Camp within the Oregon Department of Corrections; and Jason Effman, PREA Coordinator for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Based on this record, including the documents referenced herein, the Committee offers 10 findings and makes 7 primary recommendations and 31 total recommendations-found in Chapter 4 of this report-and recommends that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights call on the Department of Justice and other appropriate federal officials and agencies to use their authority to implement the Committee's recommendations. Details: Washington, DC:The Commission, 2014. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2018 at: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/NY-SAC-Solitary-Confinement-Report-without-Cover.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/NY-SAC-Solitary-Confinement-Report-without-Cover.pdf Shelf Number: 150482 Keywords: Civil RightsInmate MisconductIsolationJuvenile InmatesRacial DisparitiesRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Warner, Louise Title: Secure settings for young people: a national scoping exercise Summary: This report summarises the findings of the first (scoping) stage of a service evaluation, evaluating the provision of secure services for detained young people, under 18 years of age, from England, between February and September 2016. This involved identifying every secure unit in Great Britain (the United Kingdom excluding Northern Ireland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, none of which had secure units in which young people from England could be placed) that could detain young people from England and establishing the basic characteristics of each unit, in order to identify similarities and differences between them, prior to further exploration in the later stages of the study. This report addresses two questions: to what extent and in what ways are the types of secure service for children similar or different? Table 1 below presents a summary of these findings. There will be two later stages of this service evaluation including a census of all young people from England detained on 14 September 2016 considering their needs and qualitative interviews of professionals and carers about the strengths and weaknesses of the secure system for young people in England. Details: London: National Health Services, 2018. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2018 at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-1-scoping-analysis.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-1-scoping-analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 152851 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hales, Heidi Title: Census of young people in secure settings on 14 September 2016: characteristics, needs and pathways of care Summary: Our scoping study (Warner, Hales, Smith, & Bartlett, 2018) identified all the secure units, in England, in which young people (under the age of 18 years at the point of detention) are detained. The three legal frameworks under which young people can be deprived of their liberty in England are: The Mental Health Act (1983, as amended 2007) placing them in hospital, Section 25 of the Children Act (1989) placing them in a secure children's home (SCH), or under the youth justice system (YJS) on remand or serving a sentence in a SCH, secure training centre (STC) or young offender institution (YOI). Most of the placements available to young people are within the youth justice system (YJS), but more therapeutic input is available for those in secure hospitals. The next question was to consider how many young people are detained in each type of institution. This report establishes: - the distribution and size of the population of young people in the secure system - the pathways into secure care of the young people - the needs of those detained in different institutions under different legislation - whether the needs of detained young people differ according to the type of institution. Details: London: National Health Service, 2018. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2018 at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-2-census-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-2-census-report.pdf Shelf Number: 152852 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Bartlett, Annie Title: Young people's secure care: Professionals' and parents' views of its purpose, placements and practice Summary: This is the third report on secure care for young people in England. It should be read in conjunction with the scoping report which established the location and nature of secure care facilities for young people and the census report which describes the detained population in terms of their health and social care characteristics and pathways into care. This report is based on the analysis of 53 semi-structured interviews with secure care staff (N=36) and parents of detained young people (N=17). These explored their views of: - the characteristics of the multi-agency system of secure care - why a young person might be detained in the system - who these detained young people might be Key findings included: - Despite the notional clarity of the three components of secure care, respondents thought detained young people in all types of setting often shared similar, disadvantaged backgrounds and characteristics, including mental health difficulties - Vulnerable young people might be placed with those who posed a significant risk to others and those who only posed a risk to themselves might be detained in medium secure hospital services - Staff involved in the care of young people in secure care and parents' had different views on care quality - Staff involved in the care of young people in secure care and parents were critical of the process determining a young person's secure placement, seeing it as a consequence of failures in prophylactic health and social care (particularly child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS)) and based on the availability of a placement rather than its suitability, to the point where the system's decision could appear arbitrary - Respondents were united in their concern that young people were often placed far from their support systems and that this was detrimental, even when specialist care was required - Many respondents thought young people had had multiple placements and moves leading to difficulty trusting staff or emotionally investing in care and to feelings of rejection - Parents considered the attitudes of staff towards their child, specifically with regards to their interest in and knowledge of their child's history, to be unhelpful - The widespread use of agency/temporary staff was uniformly considered to exacerbate difficulties in trust and communication and care delivery - Insufficient recruitment and poor retention of staff allied to the absence of bespoke training contributed to the widespread use of agency staff - A range of practical ideas about units and the system of care were put forward These findings led to themes, explored in the Discussion and Conclusions, for further consideration by key stakeholders: - Parents and professionals: language and its significance - Consistent Approaches to Care Delivery - Looking Out not just Looking In - Risk and Vulnerability - Geography and Parity of Esteem Details: London: National Health Service, 2018. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2018 at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-3-interview-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-3-interview-report.pdf Shelf Number: 152853 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersPublic Opinion |
Author: Awad, Jasmine Title: Is It Enough? the Implementation of PREA's Youthful Inmate Standard Summary: This September marks the 15th Anniversary of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), a federal law enacted to address the problem of sexual assault and rape in U.S. detention centers, jails, lock ups, and prisons. Regulations for the law specifically address one of the most vulnerable populations in adult jails and prisons: youth under age 18. PREA's Youthful Inmate Standard was developed to create a minimum standard that protects youth in adult facilities from being raped or sexually assaulted by requiring that youth are held in housing where they are sight and sound separated from adults. The standard also requires supervision when youth are outside of housing units with incarcerated adults. The challenges associated with keeping youth sight and sound separated under the standard has helped contribute to a growing number of state legislatures passing bills to create a presumption or a requirement that youth under 18 are held in juvenile placements even when they are prosecuted as adults. However, for the youth who remain in adult facilities, there are ongoing limitations associated with implementation of the law. In light of the 15th Anniversary of PREA, the Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ) reviewed over 800 audits of adult correctional facilities to identify how the facilities are complying with the Youthful Inmate Standard. The key findings of that review, will be released in a forthcoming brief entitled Is It Enough: The Implementation of PREA's Youthful Inmate Standard. These findings include the following: Most states do not collect or publish PREA audits for local jails, which is where most youth tried as adults are likely to be held. Only 81 adult facilities with publicly available PREA audits previously held, currently hold, or have the capacity to hold youth in the future. Of the 81, only 6 exceeded the PREA Youthful Inmate Standard. Out of the audits reviewed, the two facilities that did not meet the Youthful Inmate Standard were two jails in Texas where 17-year-olds are still automatically treated as adults in the criminal justice system. The adult facilities that exceeded the Youthful Inmate Standard most often held youth under 18 in separate units or separate buildings from adults. After examining the PREA audits, CFYJ found that generally even facilities that exceeded the Youthful Inmate Standard were providing basic necessities that could be better provided in a juvenile facility where youth would have greater access to educational and vocational programs. Compliance with the Youthful Inmate Standard, is costly for many states, especially as states struggle to retain qualified correctional officers to staff these facilities. As a result, a growing number of states and localities are finding alternatives to adult facilities for youth. The number of youth in adult jails on any given night has declined by over 50 percent from 2000 to 2016 according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. While PREA's Youthful Inmate Standard was a step in the right direction, when it comes to providing youth what they need to develop into productive adults, it's not nearly enough. For many young people who remain in adult jails, compliance with the standard has resulted in prolonged solitary confinement, and continued threats to their physical safety. To ensure safety and rehabilitation, youth should not be held in places that were not designed or programmed with them in mind. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for youth Justice, 2018. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2018 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/nationalreports/Issue_Brief___Is_It_Enough__The_Implementation_of_PREAs_Youthful_Inmate_Standard_FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/nationalreports/Issue_Brief___Is_It_Enough__The_Implementation_of_PREAs_Youthful_Inmate_Standard_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 152962 Keywords: Juvenile InmatesPrison RapeSexual AssaultYouth in Adult Prisons |
Author: Children's Commissioner for England Title: A report on the use of segregation in youth custody in England Summary: The number of episodes of segregation in youth custody in England and Wales has increased in the past 4 years, even as the overall number of children detained has fallen. The average length of periods of detention has doubled, from 8 to 16 days, with seven out of ten episodes of segregation in Young Offender Institutions lasting over a week. The number of episodes of segregation in STCs has also risen and is now (on a pro rata basis) approximately 33 times higher, though it is likely this is influenced by changes in how data is recorded. Details: London: The Children's Commissioner, 2018. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2018 at: https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Segregation-report-final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Segregation-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 152974 Keywords: Inmate Segregation Juvenile InmatesPrisoner Isolation Solitary Confinement Youth Detention |
Author: Parliamentary Ombudsman, The, Norway Title: Visit Report: Ullersmo Prison, Juvenile Unit East 7-8 February 2017 Summary: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) visited Ullersmo Prison, Juvenile Unit East, on 7-8 February 2017. The date of the visit was not announced. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit East is a high security prison with four places for inmates aged between 15 and 19 years. The visit covered the whole unit. The juvenile unit's management and other staff members were forthcoming throughout the visit. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit is one of two prisons in Norway for juvenile inmates. The other one is Bjorgvin Prison's Juvenile Unit, which was established in 2009. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit East opened on 12 April 2016. At the time of the visit, the unit was only approved to hold two inmates. This was due to fire safety issues identified in October 2016. Statsbygg had been given until 1 April 2017 to remedy the situation. In accordance with the Norwegian Correctional Service's project description, the juvenile units' basic staff included both prison officers and milieu therapists. At the time of the visit, a total of 25 employees were working in shifts. An interagency team had been established at the juvenile unit. The management and employees who form part of the basic staff wear uniforms in their everyday work, except when they participate in leisure activities such as exercise or escort inmates on leave outside the unit. It emerged during the visit that the employees found the use of uniforms unnecessary and an obstacle to developing good relations. It also emerged that the duty to wear a uniform made normal activities for the juvenile inmates more difficult because the officers had to change for physical activities such as ball games in the outdoor areas. In accordance with a decision by the Norwegian Correctional Service's regional office, the juvenile unit had sometimes had to place juvenile inmates in prisons for adults while waiting for a place at the juvenile unit to become available. This is in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states in Article 37 (c) that every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so. At the time of the visit, three juvenile inmates were in this situation. Juvenile Unit East emphasised that this was a temporary measure pending the opening of the other two places at the unit. The interagency team at the juvenile unit was responsible for attending to these juveniles while they were temporarily placed in other prisons. The layout and furniture of the juveniles' cells appeared well planned and practical. There were no window bars. The communal areas were spacious with good access to natural light and views of the natural surroundings. The communal kitchen was closed to the juveniles except during fixed food preparation times and communal meals. One of the cells was adapted for persons with disabilities. The visit left the impression that the juvenile unit focused on welcoming the juveniles and creating secure relations and good dialogue from the start of their stay. It was a positive factor that the juvenile inmates were always given the name of their contact officer in writing. However, the information booklet handed out to the juvenile inmates on admission was not well suited for the target group - it was formal and inaccessible. There was no written information about the juvenile unit's routines and rules in any language other than Norwegian. According to documentation submitted by the juvenile unit, use of force was rare. It emerged that the psychologist worked to prevent violent incidents and use of coercive measures through work with the juveniles and guidance of the staff. The staff appeared to be aware of the importance of preventing the use of force. No information emerged about other specific conflict prevention methods used by the staff. The use of security cells for juvenile offenders is a highly invasive measure that is potentially very harmful. Juvenile Unit East had one security cell. At the time of the visit, the security cell was not approved by the Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional Service, and it had not been used. The security cell appeared much like an ordinary security cell in prisons for adult inmates. This contrasted with the security cell at Bjorgvin Prison's Juvenile Unit, which during the visit to that unit was found to have been designed to minimise the strain on juvenile inmates and give a more humane impression. Juvenile Unit East had a separate segregation unit. It was stated during the visit that it had been used once for a period of two days. The NPM's review of documents showed that decisions were made and supervision carried out and logged. At the time of the visit, Juvenile Unit East had not prepared its own procedures for body searches. From a preventive perspective, fixed procedures are important in order to ensure that body searches are conducted in the gentlest possible way. It emerged that female staff had been present during body searches of male juveniles on several occasions. At a meeting with the management, the NPM was told that the use of female staff to search male juveniles would be discontinued. It also emerged during the visit that the juvenile inmates were locked in their cells several times during the day, for example when they were not participating in outdoor exercise or preparing food. It is food for thought that the unit considers it necessary to lock inmates in their cells in this way despite the unit's good staffing level. According to the unit's weekend routines, juvenile inmates who are locked in their cells both during outdoor exercise and while the food is being prepared will spend six hours outside their cell per day. This is less than recommended by international guidelines, and gives particular cause for concern since these inmates are juveniles. It emerged that it varied whether the juvenile inmates were given the opportunity for outdoor exercise every day. A contributory cause of this was that the outdoor area was so poorly lit that the prison did not consider outdoor exercise in the afternoon sufficiently secure during the winter months. The health service appeared to function well, and the health personnel seemed to demonstrate a good understanding of their role in connection with any use of coercive measures. The schooling appeared to function well. No work activities were offered at the juvenile unit. There were a total of three visiting rooms at the juvenile unit. They were all sparsely furnished and not very welcoming. None of the visiting rooms had access to children's toys for visits by young siblings or were adapted for prolonged visits, despite the fact that the regulatory framework allows for juvenile inmates to receive visits over several days. Juveniles under the age of 18 had the opportunity to call their next of kin and friends for a total of one hour per week. This is half the telephone time that juvenile inmates at Bjorgvin prison are allowed. Details: Oslo, Norway: 2017. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Visit-report-2017-Juvenile-Unit-East-Summary-and-recommendations.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Norway URL: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Visit-report-2017-Juvenile-Unit-East-Summary-and-recommendations.pdf Shelf Number: 154082 Keywords: Convention on the Rights of the ChildHigh Security PrisonJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesMaximum Security PrisonNorwegian Correctional ServiceUllersmo Prison |