Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:28 am
Time: 12:28 am
Results for juvenile justice policy
23 results foundAuthor: Garside, Richard Title: Risky People or Risky Societies? Rethinking Interventions for Young Adults in Transition Summary: This brief paper critiques policies informed by risk factor analysis that seek to prevent crime by intervening early in the lives of troubled children. It also proposes a different way to think about risk as a social force rather than an individual pathology. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London, 2009. 16p. Source: Internet Resource; Transition to Adulthood, No. 1 Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119271 Keywords: Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment: Three Strategies for Changing Juvenile Justice Summary: As violent crime declined across the United States after 1995, the number of young offenders placed in secure correctional facilities also fell, but not in every state and not to the same degree. The crime rate and youth incarceration are not linked in the way that many people expect. Incarceration sometimes fluctuates in concert with crime rates and sometimes it does not. Often, the two diverge entirely. The scale of incarceration is not simply a reaction to crime. It is a policy choice. Some lawmakers invest heavily in youth confinement facilities. In their jurisdictions, incarceration is a key component of the youth justice system. Other lawmakers invest more in community-based programs. In their view, costly confinement should be reserved for chronic and seriously violent offenders. These choices are critical for budgets and for safety. If officials spend too much on incarceration, they will eventually lack the resources to operate a diversified and well-balanced justice system. Correctional institutions and the high costs associated with incarceration will begin to dominate fiscal and programmatic decision making. A number of states recognized this problem as early as the 1960s and 1970s. In California, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, legislators and administrators created innovative policies to reduce the demand for expensive state confinement and to supervise as many young offenders as possible in their own communities. During the 1990s, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon implemented similar reforms. The reform strategies adopted by these states are known by different names, but they generally rely on three sources of influence: resolution (direct managerial influence over system behavior); reinvestment (financial incentives to change system behavior); and realignment (organizational and structural modifications to alter system behavior). This report reviews the history and development of these strategies and analyzes their impact on policy, practice, and public safety. All three strategies have been used effectively to reform juvenile justice systems, but this report suggests that realignment may be the best choice for sustaining reform over the long term. Reform strategies in juvenile justice are sustainable when they cannot be easily reversed by future policymakers facing different budgetary conditions and changing political environments. Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Research and Evaluation Center, 2011. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2011 at: http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/blog/sites/blog.reclaimingfutures.org/files/userfiles/Resolution-Reinvesment-JButts-DEvans-JohnJay-Sept2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/blog/sites/blog.reclaimingfutures.org/files/userfiles/Resolution-Reinvesment-JButts-DEvans-JohnJay-Sept2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122740 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration, JuvenilesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Burman, Michele Title: Time for Change: An Evaluation of an Intensive Support Service for Young Women at High Risk of Secure Care or Custody Summary: The Time for Change Young Women’s Project (TfC) provides dedicated and gender-specific services for vulnerable girls and young women aged 15 to 17 years at referral (18 only if exceptionally vulnerable on account of care listing) who are at high risk of secure care or custody, and for whom other mainstream options have proved unsuitable. TfC was set up to include those who were chaotic and extremely vulnerable in transition from secure accommodation and prison and in response to concerns regarding the very limited service provision for girls and young women who either offend or are at risk of offending in Scotland, and against a backdrop of an increasing female prison population (McIvor and Burman 2011). Scottish Government turned down the initial bid but changed their view after the SOPHIE report on Secure Accommodation and the number of 15-17 year olds in prison. In reality, by the time TfC started there were no 15 year olds and most girls were 17 years of age. A key change to Scottish youth justice policy and practice which also serves as important background context for TfC has been the implementation of the ‘whole system approach’ to dealing with under 18 year olds who offend. This is founded on the principles of early intervention and is designed to seek opportunities to engage young people more productively in education, skills and positive activity, by putting in place a more streamlined and consistent response that works across all systems and agencies to achieve better outcomes (Scottish Government 2011). The principles of early, and effective intervention that is timely, supportive and appropriate, and the linking of risk taking behaviour to the expression of unmet need, together with the aim of the prevention of custody and secure accommodation, were encapsulated in the development of TfC. The key aims of TfC are to: provide dedicated intensive, relationship-based, support of young women and girls in order to minimise the escalation their offending and /or involvement with the youth and adult criminal justice systems; to assist them resolve current or past conflicts or trauma, familial difficulties and emotional issues associated with their offending behaviours, and to: enhance their positive social relationships, interests and access to suitable education, in line with research findings on resilience and desistance and with an asset-focused, strengths-based approaches to practice. The TfC service is delivered on an outreach basis and includes elements of practical support, partnership, one to one focused work and an on-call help-line. TfC also has access to facilities for residential placements, through the Up-2-Us parent organisation resource team which provides respite to vulnerable young people in times of crisis. TfC key workers respond to all calls for service provision, with managerial support, via a duty on-call system. TfC also offers consultation and advice to other agencies. The evaluation of TfC was conducted by researchers from the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) between 2009 and 2011. The evaluation utilised a mixed method approach, and included data from semi-structured interviews with: TfC key workers and manager, criminal justice social workers, children’s and families social workers, and other stakeholders, and with young women service users. It also included analysis of case file information and the TfC data-base which records information on referral source, reasons for referral, key presenting issues (e.g. health, addiction), familial circumstances, legal status, history of anti-social or offending behaviour, and current accommodation, as well as any history of statutory involvement. The evaluation sought the views and experiences of TfC staff, stakeholders and service users, in order to: · gain understanding of the complexities of the client group, both in regard to levels of need and risk, and the practice challenges encountered by TfC; · obtain feedback from service users and stakeholders on key elements of the TfC service and its collaboration with other agencies, including the model of service delivery and principal practice approaches; · examine the impact of TfC on the young women using the service, and; · ascertain how the work of TfC and its model of service delivery could be improved. Details: Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2012. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Reprot No. 02/2012: Accessed September 18, 2012 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/FINAL%20Time%20for%20Change%20Report%2003%2004%202012%20kh.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/FINAL%20Time%20for%20Change%20Report%2003%2004%202012%20kh.pdf Shelf Number: 126367 Keywords: At-Risk Youth (Scotland)Delinquency PreventionFemale OffendersJuvenile Justice PolicyRehabilitationSocial ServicesYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Balck, Annie Title: Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2009 - 2011 Summary: The National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN) is pleased to present this compilation from across the country of advances in juvenile justice reform made between 2009 and 2011. In it, we have gathered together significant laws, administrative rule and practice changes, positive court decisions, and promising commissions and studies. The breadth and scope of its contents are a testament to the great number of positive changes that have occurred over the course of the past few years. While it may sometimes feel that progress toward reform is slow to non-existent, this compendium shows that, in fact, thanks to the tireless work of advocates, stakeholders, and policymakers, reform victories are won on a regular basis, every year, in nearly every state. That being said, we would be remiss if we did not also note that the news is not all good. There are many states and localities where juvenile justice reform is badly needed—where youths’ due process rights are routinely violated; where schools funnel youth into juvenile court; where youth of color are unfairly and disproportionately punished; where youth in confinement are abused and beaten. Reformers have a lot to celebrate, but there is also much to be done. The document provides a broad view of the primary issues of concern in the reform field, as well as a snapshot of those areas that are gaining the most traction; we hope the publication will serve as an educational tool for individuals less familiar with specific reform efforts, and inspire those already dedicated to change. Lastly, this publication is meant to serve as a concrete representation of how far the movement for juvenile justice reform has come, and act as incontrovertible evidence that progress is indeed being made. Details: Washington, D.C.: The National Juvenile Justice Network, 2012. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2012 at http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/NJJN_adv_fin_press_sept_update.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/NJJN_adv_fin_press_sept_update.pdf Shelf Number: 126692 Keywords: Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice, Administration of |
Author: Thompson, Carleen Title: Review of Empirically Based Risk/Needs Assessment Tools for Youth Justice: Amended Report for Public Release Summary: This report was commissioned on the 8 November, 2005 by the Office of Youth, Department of Communities. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the evidence base for youth justice risk/needs assessment tools and to make recommendations about which of these tools might best meet Queensland’s unique needs and current circumstances. What is an evidence base? Evidence-based policy has been defined as an approach that “helps people make well informed decisions about policies, programmes and projects by putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation” (Davis, 1999). Importantly, however, it must be recognised that not all research is of the same quality (Davis, Nutley, & Smith, 2000). Evidence-based policy and practice stresses that the research should not only be competently designed and carried out, but that data should support the findings and conclusions. Additionally, there should be a discussion of the methodological limitations of the study that may potentially bias results, indicate alternative explanations or limit the generalisability of the results (Rycus & Hughes, in press). Evidence-based policy requires a systematic approach to search for appropriate evidence, the critical appraisal of studies that are identified, and a balanced understanding of what the research evidence indicates, taking into account both its strengths and weaknesses (Davis et al., 2000). In recent years there has been a recognition that decision-making in the human services should be guided by evidence derived from scientific research (Gambrill, 1999; Gambrill & Shlonsky, 2000). This push for evidence-based practice arose from the realisation that practitioners did not routinely use the best available evidence for their decisions (R. Borum, 2003; Hoge, 2002; A. Rose, 2003; Wiebush, Baird, Krisberg, & Onek, 1995). Youth justice decision making is no exception to these findings, whereby judgements are often made on the basis of factors which lack empirical support. Furthermore, those variables grounded in empirical evidence are often excluded from the decision making process (R. Borum, 1996; Wiebush et al., 1995). The following report utilised numerous sources of evidence to elucidate best practice guidelines for risk/needs assessments and the evaluation of such tools in the youth justice field. The sources utilised in this report include: refereed journal articles, conference presentations and proceedings, independent evaluations commissioned by government agencies which were publicly available, and descriptions and evaluations provided by the risk/needs assessment developers and publishers. The most weight was accorded to empirical evidence derived from either quantitative research or surveys, or descriptive or qualitative research that was published in peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is the process through which experts in a field of study assess the quality of articles that are submitted to a journal for publication. Consequently, while the standard of journals vary, this process ensures that all articles published meet the standards for that publication. Conference presentations and proceedings do not meet the same benchmark standards as peer-reviewed journals. However, these reports are available for critical appraisal by the research community. Similarly, independently commissioned evaluation reports funded by governments, and available in the public domain, were also considered to be indicative of an evidence base. Internal government/ organisational reports were included because the description of many of the programs and the implementation of these programs was only available through internal reports. Because these reports were generally not subjected to independent critical appraisal, a lesser weight was accorded to them in respect to their contribution to the evidence base. These reports were assessed on the basis of the empirical evidence they presented and the methodological soundness of their research design. Details: Mt. Gravatt, QLD: Justice Modelling@Griffith University, 2006. 246p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2012 at: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/208206/Review-of-empiricall-based-risk_needs-assessment-tools.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Australia URL: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/208206/Review-of-empiricall-based-risk_needs-assessment-tools.pdf Shelf Number: 127113 Keywords: Evidence-Based PolicyJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Risk-Needs Assessment |
Author: Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working Group Title: Final Report Summary: Over the last decade, Hawaii has made commendable improvements in its juvenile justice system. Juvenile arrests fell 28 percent, and the number of youth annually admitted to the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility (HYCF) declined 41 percent. With declining juvenile arrests and fewer youth being removed from their homes, Hawaii has been headed in the right direction. Building on its success, the state should aspire to continual improvements. In order to keep heading in the right direction and to further the gains, youth-serving agencies-the Judiciary, the Office of Youth Services (OYS), and the Department of Health, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Division (CAMHD)-all agree that resources are needed to fully develop an effective continuum of services in Hawaii's communities. The current resources and means of accessing services allow youth to fall through the cracks. Additional resources for these youth would not only further reduce the number of commitments to HYCF and the detention home, but also help strengthen youth, families, and communities. While fewer in number, the youth who are committed to HYCF are staying longer. More youth enter HYCF for misdemeanors than felonies; more enter for property, drug and other nonviolent offenses than for person offenses; and nearly half have no prior felony adjudications. Each bed at HYCF costs state taxpayers $199,320 per year. Three-quarters of the youth who leave HYCF will be re-adjudicated delinquent or reconvicted within three years. While taking steps in the right direction, Hawaii should get better outcomes from the high costs of HYCF. Moreover, if effective alternatives were available, many of these youth could be held accountable and safely supervised in their communities at far lower cost. Every dollar spent on secure confinement is a dollar Hawaii could otherwise use to build the fully-resourced, evidence-based continuum of supervision and services for delinquent youth that was envisioned during the creation of OYS in 1989. Early access to substance abuse and mental health services is a necessary component of this continuum. Youth with urgent and critical needs must have access to needed treatments to prevent future delinquencies. As Hawaii strives to build up this continuum and provide these tools, the state recognizes that success - for Hawaii's youth, families, and communities - will require hard work, collaboration, compromise, and leadership. Without substantial additional resources allocated by the Legislature, the goal of improving the juvenile justice system in Hawaii cannot be realistically achieved. The agencies responsible for providing these services need the resources necessary to achieve these goals and appropriately serve youth. In August of 2013, Governor Neil Abercrombie, Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, Senate President Donna Mercado Kim, and House Speaker Joseph Souki established the Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working Group to develop policy recommendations that will accelerate reductions in the state's use of secure beds for lower-level juvenile offenders while protecting public safety and increasing positive outcomes for youth, families, and communities. The Working Group was charged with analyzing Hawaii's data, policies, and practices; reviewing research on evidence-based principles and national best practices; and recommending policies that will move Hawaii toward a more effective, equitable and efficient juvenile justice system. The Working Group's efforts have resulted in a comprehensive set of policy recommendations that will improve the return Hawaii receives from its investment in juvenile justice. By focusing secure beds on juveniles who pose a public safety risk and strengthening community supervision practices across the islands, the recommendations will put more Hawaii youth on the track toward productive, law-abiding lives, and ensure that taxpayer resources are used efficiently. Taken together, the policies are expected to reduce the HYCF population by at least 60 percent by 2019, producing savings of at least $11 million dollars over the next five fiscal years, and provide for reinvestment in local jurisdictions. With those reinvestments, family court judges and probation officers will have more effective supervision and rehabilitation options, leading to reduced recidivism and increased public safety. Details: Honolulu: Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working Group, 2013. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2014 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/JJRI-Working-Group-Final-Report-Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/JJRI-Working-Group-Final-Report-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132005 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Reich, Warren A. Title: The Criminal Justice Response to 16- and 17-Year-Old Defendants in New York Summary: New York is one of two states, along with North Carolina, that defines 16- and 17-year-old defendants as criminally responsible adults. New York's policy exposes these young defendants to lasting collateral consequences, including the possibility of a criminal conviction, incarceration, and lifetime reductions in employment prospects and earnings. In the fall of 2011, New York State's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, proposed legislation promoting a more age-appropriate approach to these defendants. In April 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo appointed a Commission on Youth, Public Safety, and Justice that will study different options and submit statewide policy recommendations by the end of the year. Chief Judge Lippman also created the Adolescent Diversion Program (ADP) in 2012, an initiative put into effect in nine of New York's 62 counties, which seeks to adopt an age-appropriate approach within the legal confines of the adult criminal court system. With funding from the New York Community Trust, a previous research report described the policies of all nine ADP sites and tested the effects of ADP participation on case dispositions, sentences, and re-arrests over a six-month tracking period (Rempel, Lambson, Cadoret, and Franklin 2013). The current study extends the re-arrest tracking period for Year One ADP participants to at least one year; provides a new analysis of the impact of the ADP initiative among those enrolled in Year Two; and examines 16- and 17-year-old defendant characteristics, case dispositions, sentences, and risk factors for re-arrest across the entire state. The goal of the research is to help inform deliberations as the judicial, legislative, and executive branches seek to improve justice for adolescents in New York State. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2014. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP%20Y2%20Report%20Final%20_v2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP%20Y2%20Report%20Final%20_v2.pdf Shelf Number: 132985 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (New York)RecidivismWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Daly, Elizabeth Title: Alternatives to Secure Youth Detention in Tasmania Summary: The Alternatives to Secure Youth Detention in Tasmania Inquiry originated from a request by the Minister for Children to the Commissioner for Children for advice in relation to the role of secure detention within Tasmania's youth justice system. - This Inquiry is part of a much broader review of the Youth Justice system in Tasmania, currently being undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services. - Ashley Youth Detention Centre is the only secure detention centre for youth offenders (both sentenced and unsentenced) in Tasmania. - The Inquiry found that: - Only a very low percentage of Tasmanian youth commit crime - The trend in numbers of young offenders and those who are detained at Ashley Youth Detention Centre (including those on remand) has declined over the last 5 years. - On an average day in 2011-2012, there were 21 young people in Ashley or 94 over the year. - Ashley takes up a disproportionately high percentage of the Youth Justice budget in Tasmania - approximately $10 million - despite the lack of evidence to suggest it is effective in deterring young offenders or that it promotes and facilitates reintegration into the community upon release. - The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the importance of diverting young offenders from the criminal justice system. It also provides that detention should only be used as a last resort and for the shortest possible period of time. - The Recommendations made in this Report are consistent with these fundamental principles. Details: Hobart, Tasmania: Commissioner for Children, 2013. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.childcomm.tas.gov.au/wp-content/files_mf/1377130036AlternativestoSecureYouthDetentionFINAL2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childcomm.tas.gov.au/wp-content/files_mf/1377130036AlternativestoSecureYouthDetentionFINAL2013.pdf Shelf Number: 129890 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile Detention (Tasmania)Juvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
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: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Staying Connected: Keeping Justice-Involved Youth Summary: When justice-involved youth are supervised by local agencies and placed with locally operated programs rather than being sent away to state facilities, they are better able to maintain community ties. They stay connected with their families and they are more likely to remain in local schools. Policy reforms that localize the justice system are often called "realignment." New York's "Close to Home" (or C2H) initiative is a prominent example of youth justice realignment. Launched in 2012, it is the latest chapter in a decade-long commitment by New York State and New York City to improve the justice system for young offenders by investing in programs and interventions that allow youth to stay close to their homes and families. Details: New York: Research & Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: https://jjrec.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/c2h2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://jjrec.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/c2h2015.pdf Shelf Number: 135124 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice RealignmentJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Line Drawing: Raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Court Jurisdiction in New York Summary: In his 2014 State of the State address, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the formation of a state commission to produce a plan for raising the age at which juveniles are charged as adults in New York courts. Currently, New York is one of two states where all 16 year-olds accused of violating the law are automatically handled in criminal (adult) court. Governor Cuomo directed the new Commission on Youth, Public Safety & Justice to develop an effective strategy for changing the policy that currently sets the lower boundary for criminal court jurisdiction at age 16. He described the policy as "outdated." The ultimate goal of the newly formed Commission, according to the Governor, is to create a "roadmap" for reforming the justice system to "promote youth success and ensure public safety." During 2014, the Commission will: - Develop a plan to raise the age of criminal responsibility, including proposing concrete recommendations to protect public safety with regard to the small number of young violent offenders. As with the entire plan, these recommendations will be informed by the science of what works and other relevant factors to reduce recidivism and maintain public safety; - Make other specific recommendations as to how New York's juvenile and criminal justice systems can better serve youth, improve outcomes, and protect communities; and - Ensure that for the small percentage of youth who engage repeatedly in violent or other harmful behavior, protecting communities and The following report is designed to inform the Commission's efforts by examining the reasons for changing the age of criminal jurisdiction and by reviewing the implications of such a change. The report examines the relationship of jurisdictional age to serious crime and it reviews the experiences of states that have previously changed their jurisdictional age laws. Next, the report addresses the cost considerations involved in these policy changes and it describes the types of detailed cost-benefit analyses that New York should undertake to project their effects on shifting court caseloads and the number of youth likely to be placed in various supervision programs and placement settings. Details: New York: Research & Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://johnjayresearch.org/rec/files/2014/02/linedrawing.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://johnjayresearch.org/rec/files/2014/02/linedrawing.pdf Shelf Number: 136076 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law Title: Understanding the "Whys" Behind Juvenile Crime Trends Summary: By examining national trends in serious violence, one gains a better understanding of why juvenile crime dropped so dramatically during the 1990s and remained relatively low for at least a decade. While most would agree that the decrease actually occurred, there still are those who contend that the drop (or its continuation) is largely an artifact of manipulation of crime statistics by some police departments and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Karmen, 2000). Measuring the decrease through multiple lenses should put this speculation to rest. Disaggregating overall trends in serious juvenile crime informs the use of more rigorous analytical methods for identifying and isolating factors that preceded or accompanied the drop in crime. To the extent that the decrease was greater for some types of crime than others, greater among some populations, or greater in some specific places, that helps narrow the range of possible explanations. If the crime drop occurred disproportionately in large central cities, for example, then the search for explanations could focus on those places and determine what it is about them that could have precipitated their more pronounced decreases. Finally, the crime trends can be used to check on the adequacy of the explanations emerging from more sophisticated analysis. Factors identified from theory and more fine-grained analysis as the likely causes of crime drop must be shown to fit the national crime trends during that period. That is, these factors must be shown to (1) have a likely effect on crime; (2) be of sufficient magnitude or prevalence that changes in them could account for a substantial portion of the drop; and (3) be distributed in the population, over time, and across places in a manner that would account for the observed trends. The description of crime trends presented here, then, will not only suggest where to look for explanations but also test whether the factors identified in other analyses could have produced the decreases observed. The intent of this project is to meet a specific need in juvenile justice policy analysis rather than provide a comprehensive review of all scientific literature on causes of juvenile crime. This book has five chapters, Chapters 2-5, which will be summarized in the remainder of this chapter: - Chapter 2 establishes the groundwork for the subsequent three, using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to describe Nation-level trends in serious juvenile crime. - Chapter 3 accounts for trends in measurable conditions and processes in communities which, combined, contribute to national trends in serious and violent juvenile delinquency. - Chapter 4 focuses primarily on the cultural processes that influence families and, in turn, children's involvement in delinquency. It examines both risk and protective cultural factors related to family, school, religiosity, the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, violence in the media, use of firearms, and gang membership. - Chapter 5 includes evaluations of the impact of various public policies and practices on juvenile crime trends. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2012. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/248954.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/248954.pdf Shelf Number: 136133 Keywords: Crime StatisticsDelinquency PreventionJuvenile Crime TrendsJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Kassabian, Taline Title: Responses to Youth Crime in Canada: An Examination of the Micro & Macro Processes Associated with the Tough-on-Crime Legislation Summary: The enactment of tough-on-crime legislation in Canada is questionable given the abundance of research rejecting its underlying premises and goals. While there appears to be ongoing concern in Canada about the tough-on-crime agenda, there is currently a shortfall in information addressing the processes through which Bill C-10 (Part 4) was developed and legislated by the Conservative Government. As such, there is limited data that informs Canadians about the ways in which politicians make meaningful decisions about youth crime policy and legislation. Consequently, the objective of this dissertation is to provide a better understanding of the individual (micro) and governmental (macro) processes associated with the tough-on-crime approach in Canada, with a specific focus on responses to youth crime. Using a conflict and Marxist/critical perspective (Alvi, 2012; Chambliss & Seidman, 1971; DeKeseredy, 2011; Garland, 2001; Habermas, 1973, 1985; Hall et al., 2013; Quinney, 1970), this dissertation examines the state as a legitimate power and the ways in which it gains and maintains legitimacy. Theorists suggest modern laws work as an instrument of power to reflect the dominant ideology that is reproduced within the social structural system. Thus, this dissertation specifically examines the claim that laws are shaped by a consensus of dominant interests and values that are embodied and preserved in the tough-on-crime legislation, and is ultimately supported by the public. This research investigates three central questions: First, what are the processes through which Bill C-10 (Part 4) developed and was legislated? Second, in what way(s) has tough-on-crime legislation been implemented in Canadian youth courts? Finally, how does Texas (United States) differ in their response to youth crime, relative to their model of crime control and placement on the tough-on-crime spectrum? To examine the tough-on-crime approach, interviews were conducted with twenty-two participants who were either involved in the political debates of Bill C-10 (Part 4) or had intimate knowledge of the youth justice system. The interview data were cross-referenced and compared to the applicable parliamentary records in Hansard. Second, a case law analysis was conducted to determine how the tough-on-crime mandate has been implemented within Canadian youth courts (2003-2013). Finally, an analysis of case law in Texas was carried out in order to understand how more punitive jurisdictions respond to youth crime and how their legislation differs from Canada (1996-2013). The findings suggest the enactment of the tough-on-crime legislation in Canada was a result of a complex interaction between a number of agencies, institutions, and individuals after the Conservative's won a majority government in 2011. Moreover, the findings demonstrate the values embodied within the tough-on-crime legislation reflect the dominant (conservative) ideology and served as a means of maintaining legitimacy (Habermas, 1985; Hall et al., 2013). While the Canadian case law did not indicate that youth in conflict with the law were more adversely affected by Bill C-10 (Part 4), there was no evidence to suggest that future substantive changes in practice would not occur. However, marginalized Canadian youth were noted as most likely to be subject to tough-on-crime measures (Alvi, 2012). The results from the case law analysis of Texas suggest the state focuses on diversion and rehabilitation, but to a lesser degree than Canada. This is largely due to Texas' transfer laws or ability to impose a determinate sentence. As a result, there appears to be a disproportionate use of the tough-on-crime legislation in Texas, often affecting minority youth. These findings are not only illustrative of a more punitive model of crime control relative to Canada, but point to the potential dangers of enacting tough-on-crime policies. Overall, the implication of the findings from both jurisdictions is that the tough on-crime movement is a way of deflecting unspecified social problems onto youth as marginal political subjects, in an effort to mobilize the political power of the state (Alvi, 2012; DeKeseredy, 2011; Garland, 2001; Hall et al., 2013). In the Canadian context, there is evidence to suggest the state employed both "adaptive" and "non-adaptive" strategies to address the problem of youth crime (Garland, 1996). In effect, the newly enacted tough-on-crime legislation moves Canada further away from a reliance on various collaborative techniques and community based programs, and therefore supports a strong state-centric approach to crime control. Details: Waterloo, ONT: University of Waterloo, 2015. 480p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 5, 2016 at: https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/9248/Kassabian_Taline.pdf?sequence=3 Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/9248/Kassabian_Taline.pdf?sequence=3 Shelf Number: 138120 Keywords: Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile LegislationJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Bateman, Tim Title: Criminalising children for no good purpose: The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales Summary: In England and Wales, children are deemed to be criminally responsible, and become subject to the full rigour of the criminal law, from the age of ten. Children too young to attend secondary school may nonetheless be arrested and detained at a police station. They can be prosecuted and, if convicted, will receive a criminal record that, for some purposes, must be declared indefinitely. If a 10-year-old commits an offence considered to be a 'grave crime', he or she will be tried in the Crown Court and may be given a custodial sentence equivalent to that available in the case of an adult. Similarly, a child of that age co-accused with an adult will be subject to trial in an adult venue. The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) considers that the arguments for maintaining the status quo are unconvincing: the government's rejection of calls to review the point at which children become criminally liable is motivated by an ideological commitment to appear tough on youth crime rather than a dispassionate review of the evidence. The NAYJ believes that such a review demonstrates that criminalisation of children at such a young age: represents a breach of international standards on children's rights; does not take account of children's developing capacity and imputes culpability inappropriately; and is illogical, unnecessary, and damaging. Details: UK: National Association for Youth Justice, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Campaign Paper: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/files_mf/criminalisingchildrennov12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/files_mf/criminalisingchildrennov12.pdf Shelf Number: 138309 Keywords: Age of ResponsibilityJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Stevens, Tia Title: Effects of County and State Economic, Social, and Political Contexts on Racial/Ethnic and Gender Differences in Youth's Penetration into the Justice System Summary: The current study is designed to extend the empirical and theoretical research on disproportionate youth contact with the justice system. Missing from the considerable body of work examining the effects of extralegal factors on police behavior and justice system processing is an examination of the social, political, and economic contextual factors that may influence disparities in justice system contact. The current study addresses this gap by identifying contextual factors associated with severity of justice system response to youth and by identifying the macro-structural environments that disproportionately affect young women and youth of color. Specifically, it examines the direct effects of county and state characteristics on youth risk of arrest and probabilities of charge, a court appearance, conviction, and placement and how the effects of individual characteristics and county and state characteristics interact to disproportionately impact certain groups of youth in certain environments. The main dataset for this study was constructed from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97). Using the confidential NLSY97 Geocode File, the NLSY97 was appended with county- and state-specific data from various publically available sources indicating structural disadvantage, population composition, political conservatism, prosecutor's office characteristics, delinquency petition and crime rates, gender inequity, child health and well-being, and juvenile justice policy punitiveness. To take advantage of the longitudinal nature of the NLSY97 data, a combination of multilevel modeling techniques, event history analysis, and generalized linear modeling was employed to examine the effects of individual characteristics and contextual conditions on youths' risk of arrest and probabilities of charge, a court appearance, conviction, and placement. The findings suggest that the effects of gender and racial/ethnic group on youth penetration into the justice system are more pronounced at some decision-making levels and depend on contextual environment. The results of the analyses by race, gender, and ethnicity suggest three major findings. First, racial disparities are present in youth risk of arrest, which are magnified in predominately non-Black communities. However, this study also found evidence of a compensatory effect whereby Black youth receive more favorable court dispositions than their non-Black counterparts. Second, the gender gap in youth justice system processing depends on state climates of women and children's health and wellbeing. Specifically, as women and children's health and wellbeing decrease, the gender gap in processing narrows and, in the case of court appearance, reverses. Third and finally, Hispanic youth are treated disproportionately more harshly in states with poor climates of children's health and wellbeing and in states with less punitive juvenile justice systems. Overall, the findings indicate that the reduction of gender and racial/ethnic disparities is unlikely without commitment to the structural reform of inequalities. Intervention efforts to reduce disparities should be multifaceted and include community-based youth-serving organizations and human services agencies, in addition to criminal and juvenile justice agencies. Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2013. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 21, 2016 at: http://etd.lib.msu.edu/islandora/object/etd%3A327/datastream/OBJ/view Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://etd.lib.msu.edu/islandora/object/etd%3A327/datastream/OBJ/view Shelf Number: 139088 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice SystemsRace/EthnicityRacial Disparities |
Author: International NGO Council on Violence Against Children Title: Creating a Non-Violent Juvenile Justice System Summary: During the past decades, the international community has developed sound normative standards to protect the rights of children involved with the justice system. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and other legal instruments call for a specialized child-sensitive juvenile justice system that places the respect for the dignity and the best interest of the child at the center of legislation, policy and practice, while promoting children's sense of worth and long lasting reintegration in society. The governance gap between these important international standards and implementation efforts on the ground is, however, wide. Countless children across regions continue to see their rights neglected by laws and institutions and endure harsh and retributive punishments that stigmatize and marginalize them further. Children who are homeless and poor, who have fled home as a result of violence or neglect; as well as, those that suffer from mental health illness and substance abuse find themselves at special risk. Appropriate crime prevention efforts, support to parents and legal guardians to ensure a safe family environment, and education and work opportunities for children who are old enough to have access to an employment, are often lacking. The criminal justice system ends up being used as a substitute to weak or non-existent child protection systems. And imprisonment and recidivism become a pattern for children who are left with very few opportunities to re-shape their future. In order to reverse this serious situation and reduce the risk of violence against children, their involvement with the criminal justice system must be prevented. The development of a strong and cohesive child protection system should be a first priority and the current standards on the rights of the child in the juvenile justice system should be effectively implemented so that criminalization and punishment of children can be avoided, diversion and restorative justice solutions can be given a genuine chance of succeeding, and the development of children's fullest potential be effectively promoted. Details: International NGO Council on Violence Against Children. 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2016 at: http://www.childhelplineinternational.org/media/80443/inco_-_juvenile_justice.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.childhelplineinternational.org/media/80443/inco_-_juvenile_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 140474 Keywords: Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsViolence Against Children |
Author: Perez Morgado, Paula Title: Youth Justice Reform in Chile: Origins and Results Summary: In its recent history, Chile has developed several reforms to its justice system. Amongst them, the reform to youth justice has taken place and its effects have yet to be fully investigated. This thesis analyses the origins and impact of legal reform in the youth justice field. The policy-making process is examined to discover which elements have had influence over the policy and implementation. Youth justice reform in Chile was propelled by the re-democratisation process undertaken following Pinochet leaving government and the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both events occurred in 1990. The research objectives of this thesis are addressed using a mixed methods strategy in which primary and secondary qualitative and quantitative data are analysed. I have reviewed the parliamentary debate of the new Act and have interviewed key experts to analyse the context of the reform, as well as comparing judicial files for young people, processed by courts located in Santiago de Chile before and after the reform, which will help to reveal the changes in the legal procedure. From exploring the policy-making process of this reform, I have reached two main conclusions. First, in a democratic context a series of stakeholders have to reach agreements responding to external forces that can be, as in this case, highly contradictory. For Chilean youth justice reform, two predominant groups holding opposite views have been identified: one group sought to adapt local legislation to international standards while the other tried to use this piece of legislation to demonstrate that something was being done about crime control. Findings from the case analysis show that while improvements to the procedure are effectively happening, there are a series of problems that need to be resolved in order to accomplish the objectives that the current Act contains (of holding young people responsible for their offences and simultaneously offering programmes that would favour their social reintegration). Details: London: King's College London, 2014. 301p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 14, 2016 at: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/44637325/2014_Morgado_Paula_Perz_0731910_ethesis.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Chile URL: In its recent history, Chile has developed several reforms to its justice system. Amongst them, the reform to youth justice has taken place and its effects have yet to be fully investigated. This thesis analyses the origins Shelf Number: 144803 Keywords: Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Grisso, Thomas Title: Assuring the Future of Developmental Reform in Juvenile Justice. Recommendations of the Fourth Wave Forecasting Project Summary: The mid-1990s saw the beginning of resistance to the punitive reform in juvenile justice that had gripped the nation for about ten years. A new perspective on juvenile justice arose, acknowledging that adolescents needed a different response to their offending than for adults. The reform proposed that a developmental approach, consistent with adolescents' relative immaturity, would offer better prospects for youth and public safety. During the ensuing twenty years, this developmental reform took hold nationwide and began changing the face of juvenile justice. Lessons of history tell us that policy reforms require maintenance. They may be robust initially but meet changing times that challenge their continuance. Sometimes they have inherent vulnerabilities. What are the future challenges to the recent developmental reform in juvenile justice? How can it best be sustained? Details: s.l.: Models for Change, 2017. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed June 20, 2017 at: http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/856 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/856 Shelf Number: 146307 Keywords: Juvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice policyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Oregon Justice Resource Center Title: Youth and Measure 11 in Oregon: Impacts of Mandatory Minimums Summary: For more than twenty years, people convicted under Oregon's Measure 11 law have faced mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. Children as young as 15 can be charged under Measure 11 and prosecuted as adults. A new report, published by the Oregon Council on Civil Rights in collaboration with us, takes an in-depth look at the impact of Measure 11 on Oregon's young people and whether the law is out-of-step with legal and scientific developments of recent years. This report looks at Measure 11 and its impact on youth from a variety of perspectives for a thorough review. It includes: Brain Science - While research shows that young people's brains aren't fully developed until their mid-to-late 20s, Measure 11 allows children to be sentenced as though they had the culpability of adults. The report looks at how scientific understanding of development has grown and how the law should respond. Legal Developments - A series of US Supreme Court decisions has prompted an overhaul of youth sentencing laws in light of growing understanding of brain science. More than half of states have changed sentencing laws for youth to respond to the updated Supreme Court decisions, but not Oregon. Interviews with Youth - We spoke to young people who are currently serving sentences following Measure 11 convictions about their experiences in the criminal justice system, their backgrounds, what led up to their offenses and how much they understood during the legal process. Data Analysis - Analysis of data tracked since Measure 11 began in 1995 shows disproportionate impact on Oregon youth of color. Figures from 2012 reveal black youth were 26 times more likely to be indicted for a Measure 11 offense than their white counterparts. RECOMMENDATIONS - "Youth and Measure 11 in Oregon" recommends four reforms to address problems with Measure 11 and youth sentencing in Oregon: Remove all youth from automatic adult prosecution under Measure 11 and return Oregon to a "discretionary waiver" system." This would put much-needed discretion back in the hands of judges, in contrast with the current system that allows prosecutors sweeping authority to decide how to prosecute Oregon youth. This modest reform would still allow judges to levy severe sentences against serious child offenders, but would restore the court's ability to look at the mitigating circumstances particular to each case. More transparent data collection from prosecutors' offices and law enforcement. One critical problem with prosecutors' vast discretionary power is that: "[their] offices are mostly a black box with little transparency." 3 4 Police officers similarly share a key role as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system. To facilitate smart, data-driven policy-making, counties across the state should provide demographic data on youth referrals to prosecutors' offices. In addition, they should provide the public with more descriptive information about felony filings to adult court, updated annually. Give all young people the option of a "second-look hearing." Every young person should have the chance to prove to a judge that they can grow and change. The U.S. Supreme Court, relying on the most up-to-date cognitive science available, has said clearly that young people have a tremendous capacity for change and positive growth, regardless of the severity of their crimes. Measure 11 has stripped away the opportunity for young people to demonstrate this potential. A second-look hearing not only allows youth to prove their positive change in front of a judge, but also presents a clear incentive for good behavior and a start on the path toward rehabilitation while in custody. This commonsense approach also recognizes the reality that nearly all Measure 11 youth will, at some point, return to society. Addressing root causes. - Oregon should boost investment in safety net programs that decrease involvement with the criminal justice system. In addition, Oregon should expand access to job training and programs that foster non-violent problem solving so that young people can avoid harsh sentences in the first place. Along with preventative measures, stakeholders throughout the criminal justice system - including judges, prosecutors, public defenders and law enforcement - should be trained in trauma-informed care, cultural responsivity and brain development. Details: Portland: Oregon Justice Resource Center, 2018. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2018 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5a6fbb95c830254f3376ef75/1517272032695/Youth+and+Measure+11+in+Oregon+Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5a6fbb95c830254f3376ef75/1517272032695/Youth+and+Measure+11+in+Oregon+Final.pdf Shelf Number: 148955 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile SentencingMandatory MinimumsWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)Young Adult Offenders |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Title: Children and Adolescents in the United States' Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: 1. As a result of its visits and of the information it received, the IACHR observes that a significant number of children are being consistently treated as adults in the U.S. criminal justice system, in violation of their basic right to special protection and to be tried in a specialized juvenile system1. This issue is the main focus of this report. The IACHR has also observed that this phenomenon of child criminal defendants being treated as adults is part of a broader nationwide pattern in the United States of failure to protect and promote the rights of children, and failure to uniformly define "child" under the law in order to protect the fundamental human rights persons under the age of 18. 2. The United States has played an important role in promoting and establishing a specialized approach to youth within the criminal justice system, with the aim of rehabilitating, rather than simply punishing, youth who are convicted of a crime. The world's first juvenile court division was created in the U.S. state of Illinois in 1899, and within 25 years all but two of the states had followed suit and established similar juvenile court systems. However, the Commission notes with grave concern that in the 1980s, this began to change. By the year 1990, many states across the U.S. had passed highly regressive changes to their legislation and policy with regard to youth involved in the justice system. The changes varied in the details of their implementation, but the broad theme was the denial of access to rehabilitative juvenile justice systems, and consequent mandatory processing of juveniles in the more punitive adult systems. 3. The Commission notes with grave concern that according to the information it received, as a result of state laws requiring or allowing youth in conflict with the law to be tried as adults, an estimated 200,000 children and adolescents in conflict with the law are tried in adult criminal courts each year in the United States. The IACHR is aware that the majority of U.S. states still have laws, policies, and practices in place that enable them to incarcerate children in adult facilities. The Commission is also gravely concerned about the lack of data available regarding children in contact with the adult criminal system. 4. According to information received by the Commission, there are three main ways in which children and adolescents enter the adult criminal justice system in the United States, based on the particular legislation of each state. First, by way of laws that grant jurisdiction to the adult criminal courts for persons under 18 years of age. Second, through laws that allow for a child's case to be transferred from the juvenile system to the adult system. Third, as a result of hybrid sentencing laws that operate between the jurisdictions of the adult and juvenile systems, as well as other provisions with similar effect, such as "once an adult, always an adult" laws. 5. According to the information received by the Commission, the rights of children and adolescents who are charged with committing crimes in the U.S. are not duly protected at each stage of the proceedings, which in turn, has further negative consequences for those who are transferred and sentenced in the adult system. In particular, the IACHR has received information regarding: the absence of quality legal counsel; the possibility that youth can waive their right to legal representation; the fact that youth undergo long periods of time awaiting the disposition of their cases; and the possibility that many youth end up in the adult system as a result of plea agreements, without fully comprehending the consequences of such agreements. 6. In light of the information it received and examined, the IACHR finds that under the current state of the law in the U.S. related to children in contact with the criminal justice system, certain laws, policies, and practices have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on certain groups, resulting in the over-representation of members of such groups in the criminal justice system. This is the case for children who are tried in the adult criminal justice system and confined in adult detention facilities. According to information received by the Commission, these disparities increase with each step further into the criminal justice system, beginning with arrest and referral to the juvenile system, through transfer to adult courts, to sentencing and confinement in adult correctional facilities. 7. States are not legally required to separate youth from adults in adult facilities. While the federal law for juvenile justice, i.e., the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) as reauthorized in 2002, does establish the separation of youth from adults as one of its core custody-related requirements, its provisions do not apply to children and adolescents in the adult system. This has very detrimental and grave impacts on children and adolescents, among them, according to information reported by several large jails and prisons systems, more than 10% of the children housed there are subjected to solitary confinement, while smaller facilities have reported that 100% of the children they hold are in isolation. Furthermore, no federal or state legislation in the United States prohibits solitary confinement of youth held in adult facilities; only a few states expressly refer to the use of isolation in their statutes. 8. Multiple studies in the United States have shown that adult jails and prisons are detrimental for children, as these facilities are designed for adults and are not equipped to keep children safe from the elevated risks of abuse and harm that they face inside them. Some of these include: youth are five times more likely to suffer sexual abuse or rape in an adult facility as compared to those held in juvenile facilities. Youth incarcerated in adult facilities are also twice as likely to be physically abused by correctional staff, have a 50% higher chance of being attacked with a weapon, and have a high probability of witnessing or being the target of violence committed by other prisoners. 9. This report will examine the situations in which U.S. law fails to protect the rights of children in the criminal justice system. In this context, the IACHR will analyze provisions in U.S. legislation that apply to children, in light of the State's international obligations to protect and guarantee the human rights of children and adolescents before the criminal law, particularly the right to be treated as children. Details: Washington, DC: The Commission, 2018. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2018 at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Shelf Number: 153513 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingRights of ChildrenWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)Young Adult Offenders |
Author: Center for Children's Law and Policy Title: Implementation of New York's Close to Home Initiative: A New Model for Youth Justice Summary: In 2012, the New York State Legislature and Governor Andrew Cuomo authorized a landmark initiative known as "Close to Home," which was designed to align New York State and New York City's juvenile justice system with research and nationally-recognized approaches to working with young people charged with crimes. In five years, the Close to Home Initiative has transformed the experience of youth who come into contact with the justice system in New York City. By shifting focus away from incarcerating youth in large, dangerous, geographically remote institutions, Close to Home has sent an important message: it is far wiser to keep youth in their communities and near their families, since those connections hold the greatest potential to help youth build new skills and stay out of trouble in the long term. Methodology This is a report on why and how Close to Home began, the challenges it faced, the principles on which it is based, and what it has accomplished. The Center for Children's Law and Policy (CCLP) prepared this report, which was written by Executive Director Mark Soler and Deputy Director Jason Szanyi, at the request of the New York City Administration for Childrens Services (ACS). CCLP is a nonprofit national public interest law and policy organization focused on reform of juvenile justice and other systems impacting troubled and at-risk youth. CCLP has assisted jurisdictions in over 30 states with efforts to improve their youth justice systems, and CCLP staff have conducted dozens of assessments of policies and practices in juvenile justice systems throughout the country. This report is an assessment of ACS's implementation of Close to Home. It is not an assessment of implementation by the state Office of Children and Family Services or by city agencies such as the Department of Probation and Department of Education, although it certainly reflects their efforts. The report also is not a formal scientific evaluation of the Close to Home initiative. Instead, the report focuses on implementation of Close to Home as envisioned by the implementing legislation and ACS's proposed plans. Details: Washington, DC: The Author, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2019 at: http://www.cclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Close-to-Home-Implementation-Report-Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.cclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Close-to-Home-Implementation-Report-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 155175 Keywords: Close to Home InitiativeJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System |
Author: Jensen Ferone, Jennifer Title: The Close to Home initiative and Related Reforms in Juvenile Justice Summary: New York City has long shown a commitment to juvenile justice reform and innovation. For the past 12 years, local leaders have dedicated themselves to improving responses to young people who have committed a crime (known as a delinquency offense) and are facing a sentence (known as a court disposition). Guided by research indicating that community-based alternatives are often more effective and less expensive and stigmatizing than out-of-home placements in institutional facilities, the city has worked hard to reduce over-reliance on such dispositions, equivalent to prison in the adult context, and to ensure that those youth that may be placed are in a facility near their communities to foster familial and educational connections. Most recently, in 2012, New York City implemented a series of related and ambitious strategies under the Close to Home initiative, including (1) the launch of a structured decision-making process to ensure that dispositional recommendations are fair and balanced; (2) the introduction of three new alternatives to out-of-home placement for youth that do not pose a substantial threat to public safety; and, in direct response to new Close to Home legislation, (3) the realignment of the system so that youth are placed in residential facilities near home, in local (versus state) care and custody, and receive the necessary support to safely and successfully transition home. The New York City Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO) contracted with the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) to document these policy changes, all of which fall under juvenile placement reform and, specifically, the Close to Home initiative. This report begins by describing the impetus and context for the work and then provides detailed information on each of the reform areas and the improvements seen to date, followed by a discussion of challenges and next steps. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2019 at: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/policybriefs/placement-brief.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/policybriefs/placement-brief.pdf Shelf Number: 155176 Keywords: Close to Home Initiative Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Moeller, Marguerite Title: Reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: The Impact on Latino Youth Summary: The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA), the primary law guiding federal juvenile justice policy, was up for reauthorization in 2007. During the 110th Congress, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee passed reauthorization legislation, but it was not taken up by the full Senate, and no action was taken in the House of Representatives. Likewise, neither the full Senate nor the House of Representatives took up reauthorization legislation in the 111th Congress. Thus, it is pending in the next congressional session. JJDPA sets standards that apply to all youth involved in the juvenile justice system, but Latino youth stand to gain much from reauthorization. Though the available data on Latino youth do not provide a clear picture of Latino youth in the U.S. justice system, in 2006 an estimated 14% (47,250) of all juveniles arrested were Hispanic, a figure that likely understates the problem. Moreover, an estimated 18,000 Hispanic youth are incarcerated each day in the U.S.2 Latino youth are often over-represented in the juvenile justice system, receive harsher treatment than White youth for the same offenses, and are disproportionately affected by policies that treat youth as adults. Moreover, language and cultural differences serve as barriers to their fair and equal treatment in the justice system. As the share of Latinos in the nation grows, their presence in the juvenile justice system is also likely to grow absent reform of juvenile justice policy. Congress must invest in targeted, culturally competent prevention services to keep Latino youth out of the system. It must ensure that reauthorization reduces the disproportionate contact that Latino youth have with the system, protects youth from the dangers of being held in jails and prisons, especially with adults, and supports evidence-based practices that keep Latino youth out of jail and prevent recidivism. Steps taken by Congress to reauthorize JJDPA can ensure that fewer Latino youth have contact with the justice system and end up in juvenile or adult correctional facilities, and that those who do receive more effective preventative and rehabilitative services. ... Details: Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: http://publications.unidosus.org/bitstream/handle/123456789/1382/Reauthorizing_the_JJDPA_The_Impact_on_Latino_Youth_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://publications.unidosus.org/bitstream/handle/123456789/1382/Reauthorizing_the_JJDPA_The_Impact_on_Latino_Youth_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 155568 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority Contact Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Juvenile Justice PolicyLatino Youth Minority Youth |