Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:05 pm
Time: 9:05 pm
Results for juvenile justice reform
122 results foundAuthor: Arthur, Pat Title: Juvenile Justice Reform in Arkansas: Building a Better Future for Youth, Their Families, and the Community Summary: Arkansas has long struggled with the development of a juvenile justice reform plan that will best meet the needs of the youth of the State. The purpose of this report is to establish the framework by which the Arkansas Division of Youth Services intends to embark on building a long range strategic plan for reform that will best serve the needs of the youth, their families and the communities in which they reside. Details: Little Rock, AR: Arkanses Division of Youth Services, 2008 Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114755 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: O'Donnell, Daniel Title: The Development of Juvenile Justice Systems in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Lessons from Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Ukraine Summary: This report looks at the experiences in juvenile justice of five countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia in order to identify "what works" and to draw some lessons learned. The study covers the process of juvenile justice reform, the juvenile justice system, and UNICEF's support to juvenile justice reform and data collection and analysis. Details: Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe/Commonwealth of Independent States, 2009. 56p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 117593 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Albania, Azerbaijan, Kaz |
Author: Murphy, Peter Title: A Strategic Review of the New South Wales Juvenile Justice System: Report for the Minister for Juvenile Justice Summary: This report presents a strategic and comprehensive review of juvenile justice in New South Wales. The review recommends a strategic change in juvenile justice, with a new emphasis on a justice reinvestment approach. Details: Manuka, ACT, Australia: Noetic Solutions Pty Limited, 2010. 208p., app. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119176 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (New South Wales)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Real Costs and Benefits of Change: Finding Opportunities for Reform During Difficult Fiscal Times Summary: The financial collapse of 2008 and 2009 means that almost all states are facing alarming budget shortfalls. Because of these fiscal crises, advocates can expect increasingly significant pushback from policymakers on issues of juvenile justice reform. Additionally, resources for successful programs for youth that are already in place may be threatened. Yet, far from being a time to hold back, now is the time to search for new opportunities to advocate for cost-effective juvenile justice reform. This paper is a guide for advocates to help reinforce the value, both in terms of dollars and substance, of progressive programming for juveniles that leads to positive youth outcomes and healthy communities. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network, 2010. 19p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119397 Keywords: Costs of CrimeJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Reform |
Author: Chater, David Title: Universities of Crime: Young Adults, the Criminal Justice System and Social Policy Summary: A report by the Transition to Adulthood Alliance highlighting the gaps in policy and service provision for young adults in the U.K. criminal justice system. Young adults make up more than a third of those sentenced to prison and have some of the highest re-offending rates of any group, yet the current policy approach to them is confused and ineffective. Details: London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2009. 31p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119419 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Good Practices and Promising Initiatives in Juvenile Justice in the CEE/CIS Region Summary: The UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS has developed a concept of Critical Mass (CM), whereby a group of countries that has developed experience and/or momentum in a particular field is encouraged to work with a common set of objectives and priorities; strengthen its approaches; actively document and share its experience and lessons learned, drawing upon expertise as well as networks; and use evaluation as a tool for course correction, for the benefit of all countries in the region. Through a consultative process started in 20081, the following set of priorities was identified to respond to programming gaps or needs in juvenile justice reform in the CEE/CIS region; Children in conflict with the law who are under minimum age for prosecution as a juvenile; diversion; and alternatives to custodial sentences. This report presents a catalogue of practices documented through the Juvenile Justice Crimitial Mass initiative. The objective of this document is to share knowledge amongst all states in order to implement a meaningful and more effective juvenile justice reform. Details: Geneva: UNICEF, 2010. 72p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 119431 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration, Juvenile OffendersDiversion, Juvenile OffendersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform Achievements in Albania Summary: A comprehensive system of juvenile justice does not exist in Albania. There is no juvenile justice law, and accused juveniles are prosecuted under special chapters of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although there is no specialized juvenile court, specialized judges and prosecutors have been appointed recently, in six courts. There are no detention nor correctional facilities exclusively for juveniles. Male juvenile offenders are confined in special sections of pretrial detention facilities and the special section of a prison; adolescent girls are detained and serve sentences in facilities for women. Juveniles under age 14 may not be prosecuted for any crime or offence, and those over age 16 may be prosecuted for any offence; those aged 14 or 15 may be prosecuted only for crimes. The maximum sentence that may be imposed on convicted juveniles is twelve years and six months. There are no closed educational facilities – and indeed, no rehabilitation programmes of any kind – for children under age 14 involved in criminal activity. The number of offences committed by children and juveniles in the most recent year for which data are available is 949, of which 253 were committed by children under age 14.10 The number of juveniles sentenced in that year, 2006, was 268. The number of juveniles deprived of liberty is small: at the time of the assessment mission, there were 13 serving sentences and 59 in detention awaiting trial or the outcome of an appeal. In 2001, UNICEF supported the establishment of an interministerial working group on juvenile justice and in 2004 it supported the preparation of a situation analysis by an international consultant. This report presents an analysis on progress to date and makes recommendations for continued progress in developing a policy on juvenile justice. Details: Geneva: UNICEF, 2009. 48p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: Azerbaijan URL: Shelf Number: 119432 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Azerbaijan)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform Achievements in Armenia Summary: Offending by juveniles appears to have increased in Armenia during the years after its independence from the USSR and those following the conflict with neighbouring Azerbaijan, but began to fall in 199823 and seems to have now reached levels lower than the years before independence. Correspondingly, the number of juveniles serving sentences and the number of juveniles in pretrial detention have decreased by more than two thirds since 1998. At the time of the assessment mission, there were 18 juveniles serving sentences (including four or five over age 18) and 24 juveniles in the pretrial detention facility in the entire country. The structure of the Armenian juvenile justice system has changed little since independence. There are still a Juvenile Police Unit; two 'special schools' whose students include an unknown number of underage offenders and children at risk; one Children's Support Centre in the capital; one correctional facility for convicted juveniles and one centre for juveniles awaiting trial and sentencing; and judges appointed to handle juvenile cases, but no specialized juvenile court. Many of these institutions have undergone extensive reforms, however. The Police have entrusted management of the reception and distribution centre - renamed 'Children's Support Centre' - to an NGO that has converted it into a model centre for children at risk. The Juvenile Police participate in innovative programmes on community-based prevention and treatment, in cooperation with NGOs. Policies and programmes in the juvenile correctional facility have improved, although a coherent approach to rehabilitation is lacking. Some new programmes and institutions have been established. In cooperation with the Police of RA and the NGO Project Harmony, a successful community-based prevention and rehabilitation programme was launched, which is operational in six cities and is included in the National Plan of Action for the Protection of the Rights of the Child 2004-2015. The Public Defender's Office is providing legal services to accused juveniles and the Monitoring Groups are making valuable contributions to the transformation of juvenile justice. There is no framework law on juvenile justice; as in Soviet times, cases involving juvenile suspects and defendants, convicted juveniles and juvenile prisoners are governed by the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Executive Criminal Code and other laws and regulations. Most of the relevant legislation has been amended, and some of the amendments bring the law into greater conformity with international standards. Juvenile suspects have a right to legal assistance as from the moment of detention, and accused juveniles from the moment charges are filed. Representation by a defence attorney is mandatory. Once a juvenile is accused of an offence, only a court may order detention. Those accused of minor offences may not be detained. Prison sentences may not be imposed for minor offences. The maximum sentence for convicted juveniles is ten years, but few receive sentences of more than five years. Training in the rights of the child has had significant positive impact on the Juvenile Police, and the courts. Although many improvements have been made, further progress is required. Some advances are urgent. Police have authority to detain juvenile suspects for 72 hours; cases of abuse and even torture have been reported; and commitment to eradicating these practices is insufficient. Renovation of the physical infrastructure of the facility for convicted juveniles is urgently needed. While physical conditions in the pretrial detention centre have improved, restrictions on activities and movement incompatible with the rights to education, recreation and humane treatment are applied. Further amendments to legislation also are required. Prison regulations still allow solitary confinement as a punishment, in violation of international standards. Legal standards on pretrial detention are too vague, and the maximum period of detention before and during trial should be reduced to comply with the recommendation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Similarly, the maximum period of police custody without a court order should be reduced to 24 hours. If one or more special schools remain open, norms governing them, which consist mainly of regulations, should be replaced by legislation compatible with international standards. Other recommendations made by the assessment team include: - The effectiveness of existing institutions and programmes for the prevention of offending and re-offending should be assessed to obtain the information needed in order to take decisions regarding the future of the Community Justice Centres, the Legal Socialization Project and the special schools. - The possibility of designating certain investigators to become specialized in criminal cases involving juveniles should be considered. - The need for a specialized children's court should be assessed, inter alia, by an evaluation of the way specialized judges carry out their duties. - Data on the impact (positive and negative) of custodial and non-custodial sentences on convicted juveniles should be collected and analysed to shed light on the effectiveness of existing sentencing policies and practice. - Consideration should be given to the adoption of a framework law specifically on juvenile justice to eliminate the gaps in existing legislation and norms applicable to both juveniles and adults that are incompatible with the rights of children. - Training should be conducted in the psychology of offenders, the prevention of offending and re-offending (rehabilitation of offenders), the treatment of child victims and the skills necessary to conduct criminological research. - Existing inter-agency coordination mechanisms should be strengthened. - A specialized child rights unit should be created by the Human Rights Defender. - Relevant indicators concerning juvenile justice should be identified and the corresponding data published annually. Details: Geneva: UNICEF, 2020. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://www.un.am/up/library/Juvenile%20Justice%20Reform%20Achievements_eng.pdf Year: 2020 Country: Armenia URL: Shelf Number: 119433 Keywords: At-Risk YouthJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform Achievements in Georgia Summary: This report presents the findings of an assessment mission which took place from 28 March to 11 April 2009. The report assesses the progress that has been made in the juvenile justice system since Georgia gained independence in 1991 and offers a series of recommendations for the continued reform of juvenile justice in Georgia. Details: Geneva: UNICEF, 2010. 48p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: Georgia URL: Shelf Number: 119435 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Georgia)Juvenile Offenders (Georgia) |
Author: Orchowsky, Stan Title: A Review of the Status of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Efforts in Iowa and Virginia Summary: In 2007, the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) began a project funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to examine the strategies that have been implemented in Iowa and Virginia to reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the states’ juvenile justice systems. We were especially interested in using these states as case studies of how states and localities are utilizing empirical information to: (1) identify the extent and nature of the DMC problem; and (2) assess the effectiveness of their efforts to reduce DMC. In each state, we sought to examine both state-level efforts, as well as ongoing efforts in two targeted localities (Johnson and Linn counties in Iowa, and the cities of Newport News and Norfolk in Virginia), to address DMC. To accomplish the goal of the project, staff examined all available documents relating to DMC in both states, with a particular focus on those produced in the last five years. We also conducted interviews with state and local stakeholders in both states and attended meetings of local planning groups addressing DMC issues. We sought data from both states and were able to obtain data from Iowa, which were used to illustrate how local DMC initiatives could be assessed. In October of 2008, JRSA released an interim report on our findings to date (Poulin, Iwama & Orchowsky, 2008). The current report summarizes the overall findings, conclusions and recommendations of our effort. It builds on the findings presented in the interim report and further work that has been done since that report was released. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2010. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2010 at: http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/dmc-final-report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/dmc-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 119683 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeDiscrimination in Juvenile Justice AdministrationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Offenders (Tasmania, Australia)Minority GroupsRace and Crime |
Author: Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (UK) Title: Time for a Fresh Start: The Report of the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour Summary: The Commission’s inquiry was prompted by concern about deep-rooted failings in the response to antisocial behaviour and crime involving children and young people. Large sums of public money are currently wasted across England and Wales because: Investment in proven preventive measures and constructive sanctions is too low; Children and young people who could be turned away from a life of crime are not receiving timely help and support; and Those involved in persistent and serious offending are often treated in ways that do little to prevent reoffending – and may make their criminal behaviour worse. The Commission has concluded that the public can be offered better protection against youth crime and antisocial behaviour by: tackling antisocial behaviour, crime and reoffending through the underlying circumstances and needs in children and young people’s lives (a principle of prevention); ensuring that children and young people responsible for antisocial behaviour and crime face meaningful consequences that hold them accountable for the harm caused to victims and the wider community (a principle of restoration); and seeking to retain children and young people who offend within mainstream society or to reconnect them in ways that enable them to lead law-abiding lives. Details: London: The Police Foundation, 2010. 115 p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/076_FreshStart.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/076_FreshStart.pdf Shelf Number: 120139 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersRestorative Justice |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Past, Present, and Future of Juvenile Justice: Assessing the Policy Option (APO): Final Report Summary: This report presents the results of research that examined changing trends in juvenile justice legislation and surveyed juvenile justice professionals across the nation to measure their impressions of recent juvenile justice policy reforms. Researchers learned there is considerable consensus among diverse practitioner groups, with survey respondents viewing rehabilitative programs as more effective than punitive ones - a perspective consistent with recent legislative trends. Together, these data suggest the policy pendulum is swinging toward more progressive measures after years of "get tough" reforms. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2010. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2010 at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412247-Future-of-Juvenile-Justice.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412247-Future-of-Juvenile-Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 120168 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: O'Donnell, Daniel Title: The Development of Juvenile Justice Systems in Eastern European Neighbourhood Policy Countries: Reform Achievements and Challenges in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Summary: The document entitled “The Development of Juvenile Justice Systems in Eastern European Neighbourhood Policy Countries: Reform Achievements and Challenges in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine” notes that during the 1990s, juvenile justice was not a priority for countries in the region, but most are now engaged in the process of developing juvenile justice systems compatible with international standards. It summarizes the results of assessments carried out in these five countries in 2008–2009 in order to inform future strategies and decision-making at country level, and share experiences with European and international agencies, which cooperate in supporting the development of juvenile justice. It concludes with the most urgent reforms needed in these countries. Details: Geneva: United Children's Fund, 2010. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2010 at: UNICEFJJSynthesisCeeNPC10_EN Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 120310 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Blueprint Commission Title: Getting Smart About Juvenile Justice in Florida Summary: Florida’s juvenile justice system is blazing a new path. Since the Department of Juvenile Justice was established in 1994, the State and the Department have taken a “Get Tough” approach to juvenile crime. Today, while overall juvenile crime rates are down, policy makers, experts in juvenile crime, youth advocates and community leaders agree that Florida’s juvenile justice system lacks the capacity to provide the spectrum of services needed to significantly impact juvenile crime and public safety for the long term. It is time for Florida to “Get Smart” about juvenile justice. In July 2007, Governor Charlie Crist authorized creation of the Blueprint Commission as a time-limited workgroup charged with developing recommendations to reform Florida’s juvenile justice system. The Blueprint Commission’s 25 members traveled the state, holding public hearings and receiving testimony from a host of stakeholders – community leaders, law enforcement and court officers, representatives of the public school systems, health and mental health officials, parents, youth, advocates, national experts in juvenile justice and Department staff. They learned: Communities, which bear the burden of providing prevention services for at-risk youth, have limited capacity and resources with which to respond; Public school systems – themselves under stress – increasingly are using Zero Tolerance practices to send youth into the juvenile justice system rather than apply alternative methods of discipline; Even in the face of a decline in overall juvenile justice system referrals, the use of secure detention (jail-like setting) is increasing. Florida places youth in secure detention and in residential commitment at rates that exceed national norms; There is a growing proportion of girls in the juvenile justice system, which presents a host of health, mental health and programmatic challenges; There is a disproportionate number of minorities in the system – and the disproportion grows worse the deeper into the system you go; At all levels, across gender and race, the health and mental health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system are extraordinary, with two-thirds of youth, in some cases, having mental-health or substanceabuse issues; Through all of these challenges, the Department of Juvenile Justice is struggling to keep pace. Directcare staff is poorly equipped, compensation is low, and annual turnover ranges from 35% to 66%, depending on the employee category. The members of the Blueprint Commission, working with expert advisors, identified 52 recommendations for change, organized under seven guiding principles and 12 key goals that are designed to be implemented over multiple years. Though the recommendations are extensive and diverse, they can be summarized as follows: The State of Florida needs to invest in a continuum of services that can provide the right services at the right time in the least-restrictive environment, while continuing to provide serious sanctions for youth involved in serious and violent crime, where appropriate; Florida should invest in community-based programs that help keep kids out of trouble; Florida should develop alternative programs and interventions at the community level to prevent youth who do not pose a public safety or flight risk from placement in secure detention; For those youth who require commitment to residential facilities, Florida should provide facilities that are small, that provide good educational and skill-building programs, and that best prepare youth for return to their communities; Florida must provide gender-specific programming that effectively addresses the needs of girls in the juvenile justice system; And it must address the disproportionate presence of minorities in the system. Florida must provide adequate resources to meet the mental and physical health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system; Florida must invest in the human resources that provide direct care services to youth in the system and develop a more professional and stable workforce; And at every point, Florida should implement only those programs and strategies that are evidencebased, that have been demonstrated to be effective in protecting public safety while at the same time providing an optimum future for our youth. The Department of Juvenile Justice’s new Mission, Vision and Guiding Principles outline the Department’s commitment to be child-centered and family focused while, at the same time, reducing juvenile delinquency and improving public safety. The findings and recommendations of the Blueprint Commission are intended to guide and support the Department, and the State, along this new path. Details: Tallahassee: Blueprint Commission, 2008. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2010 at: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/blueprint/documents/Report_of_the_Blueprint_Commision.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/blueprint/documents/Report_of_the_Blueprint_Commision.pdf Shelf Number: 120352 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Florida)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Lipsey, Mark W. Title: Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice Summary: Juvenile justice systems in the United States have long struggled with the inherent tension between their role in meting out punishment for violations of law and their role as an authoritative force for bringing about constructive behavior change in the wayward youth who commit those violations. Our view is that the overarching and intertwined goals of juvenile justice should be ensuring public safety—protecting the public from any additional harm caused by juvenile offenders — and altering the life trajectories of those juveniles to not only reduce further criminal behavior but to improve their chances to prosper as productive citizens. Attaining those goals requires the capability to control behavior in the short term and the means to induce self-sustaining behavior change that will persist after youth are no longer under court supervision. Juvenile justice systems have longstanding methods for controlling behavior, such as community supervision and custodial care, though these are not always used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Effective programming to reduce recidivism and produce other positive outcomes, however, has been more problematic. Juvenile justice systems make use of many treatment programs, but, in most cases, the effectiveness of those programs is difficult to determine and largely unknown. An increasing body of research evidence addresses this problem, but the findings of that research have not been well integrated into most juvenile justice systems. Translation of research into practice is always a challenge, but it has been exacerbated in this instance by overly narrow conceptions of how research should be used to inform juvenile justice practice. This paper introduces a framework for major juvenile justice system reform - the integration of a forward-looking administrative model with evidence-based programming. The administrative model is organized around risk management and risk reduction aimed at protecting the public by minimizing recidivism. Evidence-based programming is organized around services that moderate criminogenic risk factors and enhance adaptive functioning for the treated offenders. Placements are guided by a disposition matrix that supports individualized disposition plans and is organized around the risk levels and treatment needs of offenders as assessed by empirically validated instruments. An array of effective programs is supported that provides sufficient diversity to allow matching with offenders’ needs. This array of programs is integrated with a continuum of graduated levels of supervision and control so that offenders can be stepped up the ladder and placed in more highly structured program environments if behavior worsens and stepped down when there is improvement. Such a system is consistently forward-looking in basing program placements and supervision levels upon objective risk and needs assessments and in constructing case management plans focused on improving future behavior rather than punishing past behavior. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2010. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 17, 2010 at: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf Shelf Number: 120535 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (U.S.)Juvenile Offenders - Evidence-Based Practices |
Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: The Missouri Model: Reinventing the Practice of Rehabilitating Youthful Offenders Summary: The state of Missouri’s approach to juvenile detention is designed to help troubled teens make lasting behavioral changes so that they can successfully transition back to their communities. This report explores the success of the model and builds the case for juvenile detention reform. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/Juvenile%20Detention%20Alternatives%20Initiative/MOModel/MO_Fullreport_webfinal.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/Juvenile%20Detention%20Alternatives%20Initiative/MOModel/MO_Fullreport_webfinal.pdf Shelf Number: 120725 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersRehabilitation |
Author: Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behavior Title: Time for a New Hearing: A Comparative Study of Alternative Criminal Proceedings for Children and Young People Summary: Time for a new hearing is the report from a comparative examination of alternative youth justice hearings and systems in the United Kingdom and other parts of the world. It concludes that the mainstream use of restorative justice in England and Wales, based on the youth conferencing system in Northern Ireland, would be likely to reduce reoffending, improve victims’ confidence and result in considerable savings in court time and the costs of custody. Details: London: The Police Foundation, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2011 at: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/095_PF%20Time%20for%20a%20New%20Hearing%20Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/095_PF%20Time%20for%20a%20New%20Hearing%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 120880 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Restorative Justice |
Author: Scott, Elizabeth S. Title: Social Welfare and Fairness in Juvenile Crime Regulation Summary: This Article argues that a developmental model of juvenile crime regulation grounded in scientific knowledge about adolescence is both more likely to promote social welfare and is fairer to young offenders than a regime that fails to attend to developmental research. We focus on the less familiar social welfare argument for a separate and more lenient juvenile justice system, and demonstrate that the punitive law reforms of the 1990s have failed to minimize the social cost of juvenile crime. The expanded use of adult incarceration likely contributed to the declining juvenile crime rates since the mid-1990s, but the financial costs have been very high and not justified in terms of crime reduction for many youths. The evidence also supports that juveniles in prison have higher recidivism rates than comparable youths in the juvenile system. Moreover, less costly community dispositions have been shown to be more effective at reducing recidivism in some young offenders and are more likely to enhance the prospect that young offenders will lead satisfying lives. Our social welfare analysis is informed by scientific knowledge of adolescence and youth crime. Developmental research shows that the criminal activities of most young offenders are linked to developmental forces and they can be expected to "mature out" of their antisocial tendencies. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that these youths are headed for a career in crime unless correctional interventions push them in that direction. The research also shows that social context is critically important to the successful completion of developmental tasks essential to the transition to conventional adult roles associated with desistance from crime. The social comntext provided by correctional programs can enhance or undermine this process. Developmental research also provides the foundation for a regime committed to fair and proportionate punishment of young offenders. We challenge the recent scholarly argument favoring an approach to juvenile justice dedicated solely to crime reduction, on the ground that the principle of retribution is a necessary check on government power in this context. The potential for unfairness under a pure-prevention approach is substantial–both in the form of excessive punishment and in the potential for variations in responses to offenders based on considerations related to risk but not linked to the crime itself. This unfairness undermines the legitimacy of the justice system, and it can be avoided by incorporating proportionality as well as prevention into the developmental framework. Details: New York: Columbia Law School, 2010. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 10-243: Accessed March 11, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1662579 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1662579 Shelf Number: 120970 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersPunishment, Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Arya, Neelum Title: State Trends: Legislative Victories from 2005 to 2010: Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: A spike in youth crime during the 1980s and 1990s prompted state policymakers to expand laws to put more children in adult court, implement mandatory sentencing policies for certain crimes, and lower the age at which a child could be prosecuted as an adult. State policymakers believed their efforts would improve public safety and deter future crime. However, studies across the nation have consistently concluded that state laws prosecuting youth in adult court are ineffective at deterring crime and reducing recidivism. The consequences of an adult conviction aren’t minor; they are serious, long-term, life-threatening, and in some cases, deadly. However, awareness of the problem is not enough. Policymakers and the public must have viable alternative solutions. This report, State Trends: Legislative Changes from 2005-2010 Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System, provides some initial answers by examining innovative strategies states are using to remove and protect youth in the adult criminal justice system. State Trends demonstrates a “turning tide” in how our country handles youth. In the not-so-distant past, politicians have had their careers ruined by a “soft on crime” image. Fortunately, the politics around youth crime are changing. State policymakers appear less wedded to “tough on crime” policies, choosing to substitute them with policies that are “smart on crime.” Given the breadth and scope of the changes, these trends are not short-term anomalies but evidence of a long-term restructuring of the juvenile justice system. In the past five years, 15 states have changed their state laws, with at least nine additional states with active policy reform efforts underway. These changes are occurring in all regions of the country spearheaded by state and local officials of both major parties and supported by a bipartisan group of governors. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJ_State_Trends_Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJ_State_Trends_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121043 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Helyar-Cardwell, VickiTransition to Adulthood (T2A) Title: Young Adult Manifesto: The need for a distinct and radically different approach to young adults in the criminal justice system; an approach that is proportionate to their maturity and responsive to their specific needs. Summary: A report containing 10 recommendations aimed to make the way in which we deal with young adult offenders more effective, fairer and less costly. Details: London: T2A Alliance, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2011 at: http://www.t2a.org.uk/publications Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.t2a.org.uk/publications Shelf Number: 119283 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Pennell, Joan Title: Safety, Fairness, Stability: Repositioning Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare to Engage Families and Communities Summary: There is no other relationship with greater significance in our lives than those we have with our families — whether they are our birth or chosen families. They should serve as the anchor in our lives, as the lifeline to everything else we accomplish. As noted by the authors of this paper, Joan Pennell, Carol Shapiro, and Carol Spigner, “for youths to grow into responsible and productive adults, they need a foundation of safety, fairness, and stability.” Further noting that “this foundation is especially weakened for youths involved with both child protection and juvenile justice,” they make the case for devoting our efforts to maintaining youths’ connections to their homes, schools, and communities in an appropriate manner, and by doing so give youth who are too often alienated from their families and our mainstream society “a sense of belonging, competence, well-being, and purpose.” It is this sense of belonging that many youth involved with child welfare and juvenile justice lose as they and their families experience these systems. This paper provides a pathway to improving these systems in a manner that will leave children, youth, and families with a different set of experiences. But this pathway requires those working within those systems — as agency leaders, supervisors, line staff, or judges and lawyers — to adopt a new lens in viewing their work in engaging families. The paper begins with a call for change. Without intervention, the authors assert that crossover youth are all too likely to head further down pathways of trauma and alienation and that disparate treatment elevates these threats for minority groups. The paper then explicates why a strategy of family engagement is particularly timely: It counters historical approaches that have estranged youths from their families; it responds to current political and demographic trends; it fits with legislative changes and conventions on human rights; it aligns with recent research findings; and it supports partnership approaches. Family engagement is broadly defined in terms of who participates and at what levels. The family group includes the youths as well as their relatives and social kin. Levels of input range from practice to program to policy. The authors examine strategies for advancing family leadership at the practice, program, and policy levels and summarize the findings on family engagement in child welfare and juvenile justice practice. In conclusion, the authors make a series of recommendations for repositioning juvenile justice and child welfare to engage youths and their families, victims of offending, other systems, and the broader community. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2011. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2011 at: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/famengagement/FamilyEngagementPaper.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/famengagement/FamilyEngagementPaper.pdf Shelf Number: 121771 Keywords: Child WelfareFamiliesFamily EngagementJuvenile Justice Reform |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Title: Criteria for the Design and Evaluation of Juvenile Justice Reform Programmes Summary: Evidence-based programming requires that programme outcomes be monitored and evaluated in order to determine whether the programme’s objectives have been achieved. It also requires that evaluation findings be reviewed and integrated into future programming and that good practices and lessons learned through the conduct of previous programmes be identified and taken into account in designing future interventions. In order to carry out all those steps, sound measuring techniques and processes and clear criteria for measuring programme outcomes are required. The main objective of the present publication is to provide a conceptual framework for the design of juvenile justice reform programmes and a general approach for evaluating the impact of those programmes on children and their rights and on crime and public safety. This involves, initially, identifying the general criteria upon which to base such evaluations. The evaluations should make it possible to identify good practices that can be replicated at the national, regional or international level. The criteria must reflect the dual roles of juvenile justice reforms: to protect children and their rights and to protect society by preventing crime and repeat offending. The present publication is based on a review of evaluations conducted by member organizations of the Interagency Panel on Juvenile Justice and consultations with staff and representatives of Panel member agencies about their programme evaluation objectives and their past experience in attempting to evaluate juvenile justice programmes and identify good practices. Programming should be based on the good practices identified thus far and on lessons learned from past programming initiatives undertaken in various contexts. In identifying good practices, one must rely greatly on the findings of past evaluations. The object of the present exercise, of course, is also forward-looking, as it attempts to specify how Panel members can ensure that evaluations are more rigorous and that more useful information is collected in order to guide programming practices in the area of juvenile justice reform. Details: Vienna: UNODC, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2011 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/crimeprevention/Criteria_E_book.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/crimeprevention/Criteria_E_book.pdf Shelf Number: 121933 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Fratello, Jennifer Title: Juvenile Detention Reform in New York City: Measuring Risk through Research Summary: The January 2006 closure of New York City’s only alternative to juvenile detention brought the city close to a crisis: family court lost its only alternative pretrial supervision option and the population in local detention facilities was at its highest in three years. This situation also presented an opportunity for the city’s juvenile justice system to take stock of how and when it was using detention — equivalent to jail in the adult context — for youth facing delinquency charges. The Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator in conjunction with a variety of agencies and entities involved with the juvenile justice system seized this occasion to explore new methods for responding to young people awaiting sentencing that would be more effective at producing positive outcomes for youth and enhancing public safety. They embarked upon a two-phase reform process, with assistance from the Vera Institute of Justice. First, they conducted a research study and designed an empirically based risk-assessment instrument (RAI) measuring the likelihood that a youth would fail to appear in court or be rearrested during the pendency of his/her case. The tool would be used to help inform family court judges’ decisions about pretrial detention for juveniles. Second, the group planned a variety of community-based alternatives to detention (ATDs) for young people who did not require secure confinement and could be supervised and better served in their own communities. This report examines the development of both the RAI and the alternatives to detention and presents preliminary outcomes of the reforms. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Youth Justice, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Docs/Documents/RAI%20Report%20Vera.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Docs/Documents/RAI%20Report%20Vera.pdf Shelf Number: 122116 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (New York City)Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersRisk Assessment, Juveniles |
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: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Past, Present, and Future of Juvenile Justice: Assessing the Policy Options (APO) Summary: In recent decades, state governments have enacted sweeping changes in law and policy that have profoundly affected the juvenile justice landscape in the United States; many mirror those made to the adult justice system (Wool and Stemen 2004) and are unprecedented historically (Butts and Mears 2001; Katzmann 2002; Howell 2003). Examples include new and expanded laws for transferring youth to the adult system and for reducing gaps between the juvenile and adult justice systems; sentencing guidelines and graduated sanctions models that encourage greater consistency in juvenile dispositions; laws aimed at reducing the confidentiality of juvenile records and hearings; and efforts to target serious and violent crime, drug offending, and weapon offenses. Yet, arguably, the last two decades have also been marked by innovation aimed at preventing delinquency and improving the structure and administration of juvenile justice (Butts and Mears 2001). The increased prevalence of and legislative support for specialized courts including juvenile drug, mental health and truancy court programs, as well as diversion programs designed to promote positive youth development and increased efforts to integrate treatment and evidence-based approaches into the fabric of juvenile justice, are just a few examples of recent advances. Despite these remarkable changes, policymakers lack information about how front-line juvenile justice professionals—those individuals responsible for implementing these changes and most likely to be affected by them—view the new policies. Furthermore, relatively little is known about how well such policies address the critical issues facing the juvenile justice system and its practitioners (Mears 2000). Most of the extant research focuses on whether practitioners agree with or support the philosophy of a given policy, not their views about its impact or necessity. Likewise, very few studies measure the actual effectiveness of a given policy in achieving its stated outcomes, choosing instead to examine implementation. The Past, Present, and Future of Juvenile Justice: Assessing the Policy Options (APO) project, funded by the National Institute of Justice (#2005-IJ-CX-0039) and supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, addressed these questions by taking stock of recent policy changes and asking juvenile justice practitioners about their impressions of these changes. Between October 2005 and December 2007, researchers at the Urban Institute, Florida State University, and the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago conducted an online survey of juvenile justice professionals to measure their impressions of recent policy changes and the critical needs facing today’s juvenile justice system, and to garner recommendations for improving the administration and effectiveness of this system. An examination of 17 prevalent juvenile justice policies and practices and review of state-level legislative activity around those issues were also conducted to identify recent and emerging trends in the administration of juvenile justice. The study’s primary objective was to provide policymakers, administrators, and practitioners with actionable information about how to improve the operations and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, and to examine the role practitioners could play in constructing sound juvenile justice policy. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2009. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412247-Future-of-Juvenile-Justice.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412247-Future-of-Juvenile-Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 123771 Keywords: Juvenile Justice Policy (U.S.)Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System |
Author: Centre for Social Justice. Youth Justice Working Group Title: Rules of Engagement: Changing the Heart of Youth Justice Summary: The link between social breakdown and crime is well established. In the CSJ’s seminal report Breakthrough Britain, we identified five common drivers of poverty and social breakdown – educational failure, family breakdown, addiction, worklessness and economic dependency, and debt. Addressing these pathways must be a priority if offending is to be tackled successfully. Of equal importance is the successful rehabilitation of those who fall within the auspices of the youth justice system. Thus, in February 2010 the CSJ launched a review of the youth justice system to identify how it might be reformed to improve outcomes for young people, victims and society. We have spoken with over 200 professionals from the youth justice field, conducted many visits and convened over 70 hours of evidence hearings, ensuring that our findings and recommendations are robust and grounded in the experiences of those who work in youth justice on a daily basis. It is clear that there have been a number of improvements in recent years, yet there is still further work required to build on this progress and some glaring inadequacies remain. We have identified four key shortcomings, which must be addressed if outcomes are to be improved: The youth justice system continues to function as a backstop: sweeping up the problem cases that other services have failed, or been unable, to address; The system is often operating in a way which promotes rather than reduces offending; There continues to be too much focus on functional process at the expense of lifechanging outcomes; and The importance of relationships to preventing offending and facilitating rehabilitation, emphasised to us consistently in our evidence hearings, continues to be overlooked. Here we summarise the key messages and recommendations that have emerged from our evidence gathering across eight major aspects of the youth justice system: Prevention; Out-of-court activity; Court procedure; Community sentencing; Custodial sentences and the juvenile secure estate; Resettlement; Delivery; and The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). Details: London: Centre for Social Justice, 2012. 241p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2012 at: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJ_Youth_Justice_Full_Report_WEB%20(2).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJ_Youth_Justice_Full_Report_WEB%20(2).pdf Shelf Number: 124130 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (U.K.) |
Author: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Title: Juvenile Detention in Cook County: Future Directions Summary: Cook County has a long and proud tradition of progressive practice in juvenile justice - not only with the advent of the first juvenile court but as a national leader through the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. The last two decades, however, have brought intense scrutiny in the area of juvenile detention culminating in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union alleging a range of violations including overcrowding, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and regular exposure to violence and abuse. With the intervention of federal courts, substantial progress has been made to date and additional improvements are planned or underway. Nonetheless, substantial concern continues that such reforms cannot fully resolve the challenges presented by the existing facility. In the belief that it is time for Cook County to once again set a new standard - this time for youth detention - the Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation (JAJCF), on behalf of the Chief Judge of Cook County, has commissioned the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to conduct this study of youth detention in Cook County. This study looks beyond the challenges of the current facility to examine more fundamentally the detention needs of the county and its youth. The ultimate goal of the study is to guide discussion regarding a new vision for detention in Cook County - a vision that holds to the ideals that informed the creation of the court in 1899 while recognizing the current circumstances in which the court operates. After careful assessment and discussion with experts within the County, it is the opinion of NCCD that, even after appropriate reforms are implemented, the current Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC) will have at best limited capacity to meet the complex needs of youth being detained in Cook County. Working with JAJCF, NCCD instead offers the following vision for detention in Cook County, one that rests on the conviction that secure detention must be one element of a cohesive juvenile justice system that includes efficient case processing, a range of alternatives to avoid unneccessary confinement, and equity for children of all races and ethnicities. Cook County shoud maximize community safety and the health and well-being of its youth and families by: reserving secure detention for only those youth who present a real threat to the safety of the community; providing youth who must be detained with meaningful assessment, case management, and programming; detaining youth in small, safe, community-based facilities consistent with best practice; and ensuring that decision making is guided by timely, accurate information about the youth and all aspects of the juvenile justice system. Details: Madison, Wisconsin: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2012 at: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/dnld/JuvenileDetentioninCookCounty.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/dnld/JuvenileDetentioninCookCounty.pdf Shelf Number: 124609 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Evans, Douglas N. Title: Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform: Achieving System Change Using Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment Strategies Summary: In the past three decades, state and local governments implemented a variety of reform strategies to reduce the youth justice system’s reliance on confinement facilities and to serve as many youth as possible in their own homes or at least in their own communities when removal from the home is warranted. The various reform strategies may be conceptualized as relying on three distinct but interrelated mechanisms: resolution, reinvestment, and realignment (Butts and Evans 2011). Resolution refers to the use of managerial authority and administrative directives to influence system change; reinvestment entails the use of financial incentives to encourage system change; and realignment employs organizational and structural modifications to create new systems. This report describes the history and implementation of the most well-known reform initiatives that draw upon one or more of these mechanisms to achieve system change and it considers their impact on juvenile confinement at the state and local level. Details: New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 2012. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2012 at: http://johnjayresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/rec20123.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://johnjayresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/rec20123.pdf Shelf Number: 125545 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Henning, Kristin N. Title: Criminalizing Normal Adolescent Behavior in Communities of Color: The Role of Prosecutors in Juvenile Justice Reform Summary: There is little dispute that racial disparities pervade the contemporary American juvenile justice system. The persistent overrepresentation of youth of color in the system suggests that scientifically supported notions of diminished culpability of youth are not applied consistently across races. Drawing from recent studies on implicit bias and the impact of race on perceptions of adolescent culpability, Professor Henning contends that contemporary narratives portraying black and Hispanic youth as dangerous and irredeemable lead prosecutors to disproportionately reject youth as a mitigating factor for their behavior. Although racial disparities begin at arrest and persist through every stage of the juvenile justice process, this Article focuses specifically on the unique opportunity and obligation that prosecutors have to address those disparities at the charging phase of the juvenile case. Professor Henning implores juvenile prosecutors to resist external pressures to respond punitively and symbolically to exaggerated perceptions of threat by youth of color and envisions a path toward structured decision making at the charging phase that is informed by research in adolescent development, challenges distorted notions of race and maturity, and holds prosecutors accountable for equitable decision making across race. While fully embracing legitimate prosecutorial concerns about victims’ rights and public safety, Professor Henning frames the charging decision as one requiring fairness, equity, and efficacy. Fairness requires that prosecutors evaluate juvenile culpability in light of the now well-documented features of adolescent offending. Equity demands an impartial application of the developmental research to all youth, regardless of race and socioeconomic status. Efficacy asks prosecutors to rely on scientifically validated best practices for ensuring positive youth development and achieving public safety. Thus, even when neighborhood effects and social structures produce opportunities for more serious and more frequent crime among youth of color, prosecutors have a duty to evaluate that behavior in light of the current developmental research and respond to that conduct with the same developmentally appropriate options that are so often available to white youth. As the gatekeepers of juvenile court jurisdiction, prosecutors should work with developmental experts, school officials, and other community representatives to develop and publish juvenile charging standards that reflect these goals. To increase transparency and encourage buy-in from the public, Professor Henning recommends that prosecutors track charging decisions according to race and geographic neighborhood and provide community representatives and other stakeholders with an opportunity to review those decisions for disparate impact. Finally, to ensure that communities of color are able to respond to adolescent offending without state intervention, Professor Henning contemplates a more expansive role for prosecutors who will engage and encourage school officials and community representatives to identify and develop adequate community-based, adolescent-appropriate alternatives to prosecution. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 2013. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 12-117: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=facpub Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=facpub Shelf Number: 126399 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)ProsecutorsRacial Disparities |
Author: Griffin, Patrick Title: Baseline Measures for Illinois: The MacArthur Foundation’s Juvenile Justice Initiative Summary: The following analysis of juvenile justice data and trends in Illinois is intended to establish a general baseline against which to measure future progress in juvenile justice system reform in line with the Model Systems Framework. The Model Systems Framework, which was developed by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in partnership with its grantees in the juvenile justice field, is a detailed schematic of a model juvenile justice system. Beginning with a small number of widely shared values, it specifies goals, characteristics, practices, and outcomes that follow from those values, along with measures for determining whether those outcomes are being achieved. It is intended to give policy-makers, practitioners, and advocates in real-world juvenile justice systems a handy way to measure themselves, to determine areas in which their systems fall short of shared ideals—and thereby to stimulate and give practical direction to change. The Model Systems Framework elaborates dozens of measurable outcomes that would be achieved by a juvenile justice system that operates with due regard for fundamental fairness, acknowledges juvenile-adult differences, recognizes juveniles’ individuality and potential, and takes account of personal, community, and system responsibility. However, the MacArthur Foundation has focused on five “key” outcomes as overall system benchmarks: 1. Reduction in Incarceration/Formal Handling, Increase in Diversion 2. Reduction in Case-Handling Disparities Due to Race 3. Reduction in Transfer to the Criminal Justice System 4. Reduction in Recidivism 5. Increase in Participation in Pro-Social Activities These outcomes were chosen not only because they appeared to indicate “the state of the state,” in terms of adherence to Model System Framework principles, but also because they constituted tangible and direct expressions of primary juvenile justice system values. Moreover, given their central importance in any juvenile justice system, it was hypothesized that significant system reforms would be reflected by movement in these key indicators. The discussion of Illinois baseline data and trends is organized around these key indicators. After a general summary of juvenile population trends by state and region, the first section focuses on a series of measures—including basic annual caseload statistics, detention data of various kinds, and data on secure commitments—which help to describe the degree to which the juvenile justice system in Illinois relies on formal handling and incarceration. The next section analyzes possible indicators of racial disparities in juvenile justice case-handling. The next describes transfer and transfer disposition statistics and trends. The last focuses on measures of juvenile recidivism. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2004. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/BaselineMeasures_IL_final.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/BaselineMeasures_IL_final.pdf Shelf Number: 126533 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemJuvenile Justice (Illinois)Juvenile Justice Reform |
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: Watson, Liz Title: Improving the Juvenile Justice System for Girls: Lessons from the States Summary: Improving the Juvenile Justice System for Girls: Lessons from the States examines the challenges facing girls in the juvenile justice system and makes recommendations for gender-responsive reform at the local, state, and federal levels. This report emerged from the policy series—Marginalized Girls: Creating Pathways to Opportunity—convened by the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy, The National Crittenton Foundation, and the Human Rights Project for Girls. The series focuses on improving public systems’ responses to the challenges facing marginalized girls and young women. The problems facing girls in the juvenile justice system were among the first issues to be addressed in the policy series, in a meeting held at Georgetown University Law Center on September 23, 2011. State reformers, national policy experts, advocates, practitioners, researchers and girls made contributions and insights during that meeting that inspired this report. Girls make up a growing percentage of the juvenile justice population, and a significant body of research and practice shows that their needs are not being met by a juvenile justice system that was designed for boys. The typical girl in the system is a non-violent offender, who is very often low-risk, but high-need, meaning the girl poses little risk to the public but she enters the system with significant and pressing personal needs. The set of challenges that girls often face as they enter the juvenile justice system include trauma, violence, neglect, mental and physical problems, family conflict, pregnancy, residential and academic instability, and school failure. The juvenile justice system only exacerbates these problems by failing to provide girls with services at the time when they need them most. During the past twenty years, there has been a growing effort to reform the juvenile justice system for girls on the local, state, and federal level. This report chronicles the history of those efforts and renews the drumbeat for reform, urging more advocates to take up the cause of girls in the juvenile justice system. To facilitate their efforts, this report provides: • A review of literature documenting girls’ particular pathways into the juvenile justice system • A brief history of recent gender-responsive, traumainformed reform efforts • Detailed case studies of recent reform efforts in three jurisdictions: Connecticut, Florida, and Stanislaus County, California. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, 2012. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2012 at: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/centers-institutes/poverty-inequality/upload/JDS_V1R4_Web_Singles.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/centers-institutes/poverty-inequality/upload/JDS_V1R4_Web_Singles.pdf Shelf Number: 126802 Keywords: Female Juvenile Offenders (U.S.)Gender Specific ResponsesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System |
Author: Justice for Families Title: Families Unlocking Futures: Solutions to the Crisis in Juvenile Justice Summary: On September 10 2012, Justice for Families and our research partner the DataCenter released Families Unlocking Futures: Solutions to the Crisis in Juvenile Justice. This report offers first-of-its kind analysis that details how the juvenile justice system does more to feed the nation’s vast prison system than to deter or redirect young people from system involvement; and demonstrates the incredible damage the system causes to families and communities. Based on over 1,000 surveys with parents and family members of incarcerated youth and 24 focus groups nationwide, the report presents a body of data that has never been captured or examined before. It aims to correct misperceptions about system-involved youth and their families; demonstrates the need for families’ active participation in redesigning juvenile justice systems; and uncovers crucial flaws in the system that burden, alienate and exclude families from the treatment of system-involved youth. The report details how the rapid growth of the prison system, zero-tolerance policies, and aggressive police tactics, coupled with the decline of social services and public education have wreaked havoc on low-income communities and communities of color. However, the report also puts forth viable, proven solutions and offers a Blueprint for Youth Justice Transformation. Details: Oakland, CA: Justice for Families, 2012. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2012 at http://www.justice4families.org/file/Home.html Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice4families.org/file/Home.html Shelf Number: 127243 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionFamily EngagementJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Reform |
Author: Miller, Nancy B. Title: Right from the Start: The CCC Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard - A Tool for Judicial Decision-Making Summary: The Technical Assistance Bulletin explains the history and background of the the Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care Initiative (CCC), which brings together judicial officers and other systems’ experts to set a national agenda for court-based training, research, and reform initiatives to reduce the disproportionate representation of children of color in dependency court systems. Details: Reno, Nevada: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 22, 2012 at http://nc.casaforchildren.org/files/public/community/judges/July_2012/Right_from_the_Start.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nc.casaforchildren.org/files/public/community/judges/July_2012/Right_from_the_Start.pdf Shelf Number: 127259 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Reform |
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: Mendel, Richard Title: Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth Summary: Over the past two decades, a tremendous volume of new knowledge has emerged about causes of adolescent delinquency and the effective responses. Through research and policy experimentation, scholars and practitioners have proven that several new approaches significantly improve outcomes for youth who become involved in delinquency, thereby enhancing public safety and saving taxpayers’ money. These advances provide public officials with unprecedented opportunities to redesign their juvenile justice systems for the benefit of youth, families and communities. Unfortunately, most states and localities have been slow to recognize and act on this new information, slow to seize these opportunities for constructive change. Progress has been uneven. Perhaps more than any other state, Connecticut has absorbed the growing body of knowledge about youth development, adolescent brain research and delinquency, adopted its lessons, and used the information to fundamentally re-invent its approach to juvenile justice. As a result, Connecticut’s system today is far and away more successful, more humane, and more cost-effective than it was 10 or 20 years ago. This report will describe, dissect, and draw lessons from Connecticut’s striking success in juvenile justice reform for other states and communities seeking similar progress. The first section details the timeline and dimensions of change in Connecticut’s juvenile justice system over the past two decades. In 1992, Connecticut routinely locked up hundreds of youths – many of them never convicted or even accused of serious crimes – in decrepit and unsafe facilities while offering little or no treatment or rehabilitation. The state was one of only three in the nation whose justice system treated all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults – trying them in criminal courts, with open records, and sentencing many to adult prisons without education or rehabilitative services designed for adolescents. By 2002 there was a growing awareness that these problems could no longer be ignored. Over the decade that followed, a movement for sweeping reforms began to build momentum and take root. And by 2012, Connecticut had a strong commitment to invest in alternatives to detention and incarceration, improve conditions of confinement, examine the research, and focus on treatment strategies with evidence of effectiveness. Most impressively, these changes have been accomplished in Connecticut without any added financial cost, and without any increase in juvenile crime or violence. To the contrary, the costs of new programs and services for Connecticut’s court-involved youth have been fully offset in the short-term by reduced expenditures for detention and confinement, and promise additional savings down the road as more youth desist from delinquency and crime. Arrests of youth have fallen substantially throughout the reform period, both for serious violent crimes and for virtually all other offense categories as well. The report then looks under the hood of Connecticut’s reform efforts and explores the critical factors underlying these accomplishments. The discussion begins by detailing the main elements and key champions of progress and by identifying the turning points that built momentum toward reform. The report’s final section explores what other states or local jurisdictions can learn from Connecticut’s experience. The most important lesson, it finds, is that a new and vastly improved juvenile justice system is within reach for any jurisdiction that summons the energy and commitment, the creativity and cooperative spirit to do what’s best for their children, their families, and their communities. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2013. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_juvenile_justice_reform_in_ct.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_juvenile_justice_reform_in_ct.pdf Shelf Number: 127842 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Justice (Connecticut, U.S.)Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersPartnerships |
Author: Celeste, Gabriella Title: The Bridge to Somewhere: How Research Made Its Way into Juvenile Justice Reform in Ohio Summary: In December 2010, Supreme Court of Ohio Justices Stratton and McGee Brown convened a group of stakeholders interested in supporting effective juvenile justice reform to meet with a team of political strategists and experts dedicated to achieving meaningful policy change in the upcoming legislative budget session. The following June, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed House Bill 86 (HB 86) and the state budget, House Bill 153 (HB 153), both of which included substantial, evidence-based policy reforms for young people in the juvenile justice system. This case study describes the partners, collaborative model and key elements in achieving this major policy change. This collaborative policy change model involved several overarching elements: leveraging the current “policy window” that creates an opportunity for reform; defining juvenile justice as a compelling social problem; setting a research-informed policy agenda and framing solutions; strategically aligning existing spheres of influence with a core campaign team; and ultimately, adopting policy change through legislation. Details: Cleveland, OH: The Schubert Center for Child Studies at Case Western Reserve University, 2012. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2013 at: http://schubertcenter.case.edu/research_policy_briefs.aspx Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://schubertcenter.case.edu/research_policy_briefs.aspx Shelf Number: 127900 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Ohio, U.S.)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Celeste, Gabriella Title: The Bridge to Somewhere: How Research Made its Way into Legislative Juvenile Justice Reform in Ohio: A Case Study Summary: In 2011, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed House Bill 86, landmark legislation that established juvenile justice reforms based on evidence-based practices and adolescent development research. This legislative achievement, which includes significant cost savings, was the result of a collaborative policy change model that relied upon critical engagement among experts, practitioners, key stakeholders, advocates, and policymakers. The case study, “The Bridge to Somewhere: How Research Made its Way into Legislative Juvenile Justice Reform in Ohio,” explores what led to passage of House Bill 86. On January 14, the Schubert Center published this case study describing the partners, the collaborative model, and key elements in achieving this major policy change. The case study is meant to be a learning tool for those interested in understanding a collaborative approach to policy change and potentially pursuing similar efforts in the future. The intended audience includes scholars and students in the areas of public policy and political science, researchers, practitioners, philanthropic organizations, public agencies, advocates, lobbyists, and policymakers. The center hopes its partners and colleagues will find the case study useful when considering strategies to promote compelling, research-based, cost-effective policy change with positive outcomes for young people, families, and communities. Details: Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University, Schubert Center for Child Studies, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2013 at: http://schubert.case.edu/Case_Study_Release.aspx Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://schubert.case.edu/Case_Study_Release.aspx Shelf Number: 128014 Keywords: CollaborationEvidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Ohio, U.S.)Partnerships |
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Youth Justice. Seventh Report of Session 2012–13. Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk Summary: The Youth Justice Board, youth offending teams and their partners have made great strides towards a more proportionate and effective response to youth offending which prioritises prevention. We strongly welcome the substantial decrease since 2006/07 in the number of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time, and are particularly encouraged that agencies in many areas are using a restorative justice approach to resolve very minor offending. However, looked after children have not benefited from this shift to the same extent as other children and we make recommendations to ensure that local authorities, children’s homes and prosecutors have appropriate strategies in place to prevent them from being criminalised for trivial incidents which would never come to police attention if they took place in family homes. There is a limit to what criminal justice agencies can achieve in preventing offending: young people in the criminal justice system are disproportionately likely to have high levels of welfare need and other agencies have often failed to offer them support at an early stage. We are therefore disappointed that the Government does not plan a significant shift in resources towards early intervention and recommend more research into the contributory factors to the reductions in the number of young people entering the criminal justice system, to enable better decision-making about the distribution of funding. Out-of-court disposals can provide a proportionate means of dealing with offending that deserves a criminal justice response but is not serious enough to warrant prosecution, but we suggest some safeguards in response to concern amongst sentencers and the wider public that their use is not always transparent or appropriate. Where young people come before the courts, we make recommendations to protect the right of young offenders with speech, language and communication needs and/or a learning disability to a fair trial and to provide a mechanism for young people with exceptional welfare needs to be referred to the family court. In relation to sentencing, we commend the collaboration between the Youth Justice Board, youth offending teams and the judiciary to bring about a significant reduction in the numbers of young people in custody since 2008. In order to cement these gains, ensure we meet our international obligations for custody to be used only in cases of genuine last resort, and reduce the huge financial burden the secure estate places on the state, we recommend a statutory threshold to enshrine in legislation the principle that only the most serious and prolific young offenders should be placed in custody; devolving the custody budget to enable local authorities to invest in effective alternatives to custody; and more action to reduce the number of young people who breach the terms of their community sentences and the number of young black men in custody. We welcome the Government’s commitment to restorative justice; however we believe more should be done to make it integral to the youth justice system. We describe our vision for a complete reconfiguration of the secure estate to one comprising small, local units with a high staff ratio where young offenders who require detention can maintain links with their families and children’s services. We highlight three very serious issues in the custodial estate that require action. First, it is imperative to draw together and act upon lessons arising from the deaths of vulnerable young people in custody. Secondly, we are concerned that the use of restraint, which has been linked to at least one of these deaths, rose considerably last year and press for a fundamental cultural shift across the secure estate. Thirdly, we recommend more and better co-ordinated support for looked after children and care leavers in custody, who are all too often abandoned by children’s and social services. In contrast with their success in other areas, the Youth Justice Board and local agencies have failed to make any progress in reducing the binary re-offending rate. We endorse the Secretary of State’s aim of improving the basic literacy of offenders but we are not convinced that it is most useful to focus resources on the secure estate, given that the average length of stay is currently 79 days. The greater focus should be on improving transition between custody and the community, and on improving provision in the community and incentivising schools and colleges to take back difficult students. There is a need for better data about which interventions work best to reduce re-offending; better assessment for impairments, vulnerabilities and health issues and follow-up interventions, including more access to speech and language therapists; and better resettlement support, particularly in relation to suitable accommodation. Finally, earlier planning, better information sharing and a smoother transition between youth and adult provision would ensure that progress is not lost when an offender turns 18. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2013. 224p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2013 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/339/339.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/339/339.pdf Shelf Number: 128617 Keywords: Juvenil Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Juvenile Justice in the CEE/CIS region: Progress, Challenges, Obstacles and Opportunities Summary: This paper describes the most signifi cant advances made in the development of juvenile justice systems in the CEE/CIS region over the past decade, and the most important challenges remaining. The paper also provides some key recommendations for further impact on the rights of the children involved. It is mainly based on a series of assessments of the juvenile justice systems in fifteen countries of the region – from Albania to Uzbekistan – conducted by the UNICEF Regional Offi ce for CEE/CIS in between 2006 and 2011. In many countries in the region, the process of developing juvenile justice systems began shortly after the year 2000 and was supported by UNICEF in most countries. International NGOs contributed to the reform, especially through the establishment of pilot projects (e.g., the Open Society Institute in Kazakhstan) and the creation of diversion programmes (e.g., the Coram Children’s Legal Centre (UK) in Tajikistan). Support was also provided by the European Commission as well as, among others, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Government of the Netherlands. Recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child often were instrumental in triggering the reform process. Efforts initially focused on situation analyses, capacity-building and legislative reform and gradually shifted towards more comprehensive approaches to the development of a fully edged juvenile justice system. In many countries, the reform process now appears to be deepening and, possibly, accelerating. On the other hand, there are still a few countries where lack of transparency makes it diffi cult to appreciate how juvenile justice functions in practice. Until recently, the overriding aim of juvenile justice reform was de fined in terms of ‘humanization’ by many of the governments engaged in the reforms. In practical terms, this translated into goals such as avoiding the prosecution of children involved in minor offences, making sentences shorter, eliminating violence and ill-treatment, preventing children from being detained with adults, improving physical conditions in prisons, and so on. These are all important goals, but they often overlooked the fact that one of the purposes of juvenile justice is to reduce reoffending. During the fi rst decade or so of reform efforts, insuffi cient attention was given to the prevention of offending and reoffending. This is beginning to change. All countries in the region have adopted new criminal legislation during the last two decades, as part of broader efforts to bring their legal systems into compatibility with international human rights standards. In most of them, further amendments concerning juvenile justice have been made in recent years. With some exceptions, the law in force now generally complies with international standards. These and other reforms mentioned below have resulted in decreasing rates of detention and imprisonment in some countries. In the Republic of Moldova, for example, the total number of children in pretrial detention and juvenile prison fell by 68 per cent between 2007 and 2010. This followed important reforms to the Criminal Code in 2007, which inter alia restricted pretrial detention to juveniles accused of a serious offence, limited the duration of pretrial detention to four months, made prison sentences discretionary for reoffenders, shortened the length of prison sentences for juveniles, and made juveniles eligible for early release after serving one third to two thirds of their sentence. In Armenia, during the past three years, detention of children both pre- and post-trial has been maintained at what is probably the lowest possible level – i.e., approximately 15 children in pretrial detention and 15 children in custodial sentence. (See below for more examples.) Legislation is, however, not always applied properly due to many factors, including the systemic weakness of the administration of justice, the persistence of values inconsistent with human rights and a dominant culture of impunity. Treatment of children in the correctional system has been largely ‘humanized’, but treatment in pretrial detention facilities and police custody often violates international standards. Secondary prevention remains very poor. Diversion schemes often are not accompanied with the support that children and families would need in order to prevent reoffending. Alternative sentences are imposed relatively frequently, but programmes for assisting offenders given alternative sentences are scarce. Support for reintegration into the community is almost nonexistent. The development of specialized institutions and programmes, including specialized police units, juvenile courts, probation services, legal aid programmes and restorative justice programmes, has been slow. Details: Geneva, SWIT: UNICEF, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 8, 2013 at: http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/EU_UNICEF_Juvenile_Justice_in_the_CEECIS_Region.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/EU_UNICEF_Juvenile_Justice_in_the_CEECIS_Region.pdf Shelf Number: 0 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Assessment of Juvenile Justice in Belize Summary: Through almost 40 interviews of many different actors and material gathered from all over Belize, we have tried to assess the needs of the juvenile justice system. We did our best to gather information from all stakeholders involved in one way or another with juvenile offenders, from the prevention and detention stages to imprisonment and release. This allowed us to learn the opinions and points of view of a significant sample of professionals involved in this area. We interviewed judges, prosecutors, police officers, community rehabilitation officers, social workers from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and even former offenders themselves with the objective to avoid imposing one single point of view, but to use the variety of different answers to the same question to inform the results. The questions involved legal but also practical considerations that will make it possible to analyze the weaknesses and peculiarities of the system at all levels. Interviews are one of the most efficient ways to gather information because they are fast, the participants add valuable opinions, and those interviewed know they will remain anonymous. Another source of information is the material we have gathered at the centers and institutions as well as the material participants were willing to share. However, this evaluation uses inductive and deductive reasoning that does not allow us to know with certainty how generalized specific bad practices are or if the illegal procedures, sometimes described, really happened. The main objective of the assessment is to create a critical analytical analysis, and not to condemn but to improve the juvenile justice system in Belize, thanks to the input of all the actors involved. We strongly believe that in Belize, as in other countries, any improvement in the system will bear medium term fruits by helping to decrease the adult crime rate, since some studies have concluded that working properly with juvenile offenders can reduce recidivism as much as 50%. Some stakeholders may disagree, wholly or in part, with the findings, but the aim is to create a debate where the same actors involved will be able to discuss ways to improve the juvenile justice system. We also wanted to make this assessment accessible to those unfamiliar with the Belizean justice system. The American Bar Association will convene and facilitate working groups beginning in November 2010, but most of the reform effort falls on the shoulders of the Belizean actors who will be asked to draft guidelines and recommendations for the benefit of the juvenile justice system and the whole society. The reality is that most justice systems in the world are not able to move forward without an internal, self-critical approach. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Rule of Law Initiative: Accessed July 17, 2013 at: http://apps.americanbar.org/rol/publications/belize_assessment_of_juvenile_justice_11_10_eng.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Belize URL: http://apps.americanbar.org/rol/publications/belize_assessment_of_juvenile_justice_11_10_eng.pdf Shelf Number: 129429 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (Belize)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Moore, Marianne Title: Save Money, Protect Society and Realise Youth Potential. Improving Youth Justice Systems During a Time of Economic Crisis Summary: In 1978, the Council of Europe published a resolution on juvenile delinquency and social change calling for 'the prevention of juvenile delinquency and the social integration of the young'. Since then, despite over ten recommendations relating to youth justice being released by the Council of Europe, few concerted attempts have been made by governments to meet them. When we acknowledge the fact that many countries generally ignore the youth justice standards, the situation becomes all the more concerning during a time of economic turmoil when even the most basic services to protect children's economic, social, and cultural rights are at an increased risk. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child frequently expresses its concern that international standards on youth justice have not been fully implemented by European countries. Indications exist suggesting that the majority of European countries do not have a clear picture of the extent to which they are adhering to international and European standards, or, indeed, whether or not any of their practices in the sphere of youth justice are truly yielding the expected results, because they do not have sufficient data collection, monitoring and evaluation systems. In general, most countries tend to favor detention and punitive measures, however, this white paper will argue that through the prioritization of four key factors in the design of juvenile justice policies, European governments can save money, ensure greater security, and foster the positive development of its young population. Details: Brussels, Belgium: International Juvenile Justice Observatory, 2013. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2013 at: http://ejjc.org/sites/default/files/white_paper_publication.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://ejjc.org/sites/default/files/white_paper_publication.pdf Shelf Number: 131634 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Justice (Europe)Juvenile Justice Reform |
Author: United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children Title: Promoting Restorative Justice for Children Summary: SRSG Santos Pais launched a new thematic report on Restorative Justice for Children in a high level event organized with the Governments of Indonesia and Norway during the General Assembly Debate on the Rights of the Child. The event counted on the participation of experts from Norway and Indonesia, as well as representatives from independent children's rights institutions, academia and civil society organizations. The discussion aimed at sharing models and experiences of child sensitive restorative justice processes and programs and to promote enhanced cooperation in this area at national, regional and international levels. This new SRSG report promotes a paradigm shift in the juvenile justice system moving from punitive to restorative justice approaches that respect and protect the rights of the child. The report highlights how such restorative justice programmes provide significant benefits for the children involved, for the victims and for society in general.The report presents important recommendations to consolidate restorative justice initiatives at the national level. These include strong legislative provisions such as decriminalizing status offences and survival behaviour and establishing legal safeguards to protect the child's best interests, and the child's right to freedom from violence and discrimination. Legislation should also provide law enforcement, prosecutors and the judiciary with options for diverting children away from the criminal justice system; it should foresee alternative and educative measures such as warning, probation, judicial supervision and community work, to be applied in combination with restorative justice processes or when restorative justice is not appropriate. The report also highlights that restorative justice and informal justice mechanisms, while being accessible at the local levels and playing an important role in the protection and reintegration of children, should never jeopardize children's rights or preclude children from accessing the formal justice system. Investing in effective training is equally important, including on children's rights and on necessary skills to promote dialogue and manage emotions and conflict and securing children's safety. Moreover, guidelines and standard operational procedures should be assured to all relevant law enforcement and justice actors, including the police, prosecutors, the judiciary, probation officers, lawyers, social workers, facilitators and mediators. Coordination between restorative justice service providers and justice actors is a key dimension of an effective restorative justice system and should be institutionalized at the national and local levels, and close cooperation should be encouraged between relevant stakeholders, including in informal justice systems. Similarly, well-trained professionals, available resources to support programs and invest in capacity building and bilateral and international cooperation, should be also promoted e.g. to document and gather data. Awareness-raising and social mobilization campaigns should be undertaken at the national and local levels with relevant stakeholders, including traditional and religious leaders and the media, to enhance understanding of restorative justice and promote child-friendly attitudes among justice professionals and service providers, and to sensitize the general public to the importance of restorative justice. Details: New York: SRSG on Violence Against Children, 2013. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2013 at: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/srsgvac_restorative_justice_for_children_report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/srsgvac_restorative_justice_for_children_report.pdf Shelf Number: 131635 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsRestorative Justice |
Author: Mcgrath, Alice Title: A Voice for the Future of Juvenile Justice in Asia-Pacific: Introduction to the Asia Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice and Leading Juvenile Justice Reforms in the Region Summary: The situation of children in conflict with the law, child victims and witnesses of crime has become an increasing concern for most of the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. Even if significant reform initiatives are currently underway in response to issues of violence against children, child trafficking and children rights, a lack of specific guarantee of protection of the rights of children in conflict with the law and juvenile justice systems still persists in some countries. In order to assist countries in the region in the implementation of international standards and the development of reforms, the International Juvenile Justice Observatory - (IJJO) has established the Asia-Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice - APCJJ to formulate recommendations on juvenile justice in Asia-Pacific, as well as to gather quantitative and qualitative information on the situation of children, adolescents and young people in conflict with the law. In 2012, the International Juvenile Justice Observatory together with the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection of the Ministry of Justice of Thailand organised the first meeting of the Asia Pacific Council of Juvenile Justice - APCJJ. The objective of the APCJJ meeting was to develop solid strategies to ensure the respect for the rights of children and adolescents in conflict with the law and to promote crime prevention policies toward Asia-Pacific institutions, such as the ASEAN, based on existing initiatives and programmes. The report sheds light on crucial areas of juvenile justice and leading practices in this regard, including prevention, diversion, restorative justice, improving conditions of detention and promoting social reintegration. Details: Brussels: International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO), 2013. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/reports_monitoring_evaluation/IJJO_AVoiceForTheFutureOfJuvenileJusticeAsiaPacific_2013_EN.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Asia URL: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/reports_monitoring_evaluation/IJJO_AVoiceForTheFutureOfJuvenileJusticeAsiaPacific_2013_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 131648 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice (Asia, Pacific Region)Juvenile Justice Reform |
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: Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (UK) Title: A Fresh Start to Tackling Youth Crime: A Briefing for Police and Crime Commissioners Summary: Two decades of falling crime have presented Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) with an unprecedented window of opportunity to secure a low-crime future for children and young people in England and Wales. This briefing identifies ways that PCCs can play a leading part in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour by children and young people while helping them grow into successful adults and law-abiding citizens. It is published by the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour. In 2010, the Commission, chaired by Sir Anthony Salz, published Time for a fresh start, its influential blueprint for reform, based on three underlying 'pillars of principle': Prevention - tackling antisocial behaviour, crime and reoffending through families, schools, communities and knowledge of children's underlying needs. Restoration - ensuring children and young people who break the law face meaningful consequences that hold them accountable for the harm caused to victims and the wider community. Integration - striving to retain young people who offend within mainstream society or re-connect them wherever possible. Positive policy and practice developments in the past three years have demonstrated the central importance of these guiding principles. Their value is also apparent in guiding responses to crime issues affecting children and young people that are especially challenging today. These range from 'smart' phone thefts and online 'cyber-bullying' to sexual exploitation and organised gang cultures. This briefing describes how PCCs, working with police forces and their partners in local government and the youth justice system, can apply the principles to take cost-effective, local action to reduce antisocial behaviour and young people's involvement in crime. Details: London: The Commission, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2014 at: http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/holding/projects/fresh_start_to_tackling_youth_crime.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/holding/projects/fresh_start_to_tackling_youth_crime.pdf Shelf Number: 103026 Keywords: Antisocial BehaviorDelinquency PreventionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Criminal Justice Alliance Title: Prosecuting Young Adults: The potential for taking account of maturity at the charge and prosecution stage of the criminal justice system Summary: The Criminal Justice Alliance has produced a paper, funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, looking at the Crown Prosecution Service and prosecuting young adults. The CPS published a new Code, which for the first time explicitly included taking the maturity of an individual into account as part of the 'public interest test', alongside other more established factors such as learning difficulties and mental health problems. This development represents a new opportunity for prosecutors to more explicitly and transparently consider the maturity of young adults, as is currently the case within the youth justice system. This research study investigates how the inclusion of the concept of maturity will work in practice, using the expertise of prosecutors to help us to understand how the concept of maturity is currently applied within the youth justice system and what lessons can be learnt to ensure the successful implementation for young adults. The document is available here. Details: London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2014 at: http://criminaljusticealliance.org/cps&maturity.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://criminaljusticealliance.org/cps&maturity.pdf Shelf Number: 132031 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformMaturityProsecutionYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: California. State Commission on Juvenile Justice Title: Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan: Blueprint for an Outcome Oriented Juvenile Justice System Summary: What do we want from our juvenile justice system? We, the members of the State Commission on Juvenile Justice (Commission), are convinced that it is possible to increase community safety, improve the lives of troubled youth, and save taxpayers money. A single strategy establishing an outcome-oriented juvenile justice system accomplishes all of these objectives. Better outcomes (meaning fewer crimes in the future) are accomplished by improving the lives of troubled youth through expanded use of evidence-based programs and strategies for juvenile offenders. Taxpayers save money by using dollars smarter and, in the long run, by reducing demands on all parts of the juvenile and adult justice systems ultimately resulting in fewer detention, jail and prison beds. Details: Sacramento: State Commission on Juvenile Justice, 2009. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2014 at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports_research/docs/JJOMP_Final_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports_research/docs/JJOMP_Final_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132272 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (California) Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: Closing Massachusetts' Training Schools: Reflections Forty Years Later Summary: In December 2011, more than 100 of the nation's leading juvenile justice experts convened for a day-long symposium in Washington, D.C., to remember and reconsider an historic reform campaign - the closure of Massachusetts' entire network of juvenile reform schools in the early 1970s. The facility closures were unprecedented and highly controversial, and they were meticulously studied in their aftermath. For a time, many reformers believed that Massachusetts would become the model for similar efforts throughout the nation. However, a serious but time-limited spike in youth violence in the early 1990s prompted a dramatic turn away from rehabilitation and deinstitutionalization in juvenile justice, and the Massachusetts story largely faded from public consciousness. Recently, however, states across the country have begun shuttering juvenile corrections facilities and dramatically reducing the population of young people incarcerated. Suddenly, far from the one-of-a-kind anomaly it seemed only a few years ago, Massachusetts stands out today as a prescient trailblazer on the path to end our nation's long-standing over-reliance on juvenile incarceration. The symposium was convened to provide present-day reformers an opportunity to review the efforts of their predecessors in Massachusetts, glean the lessons of history and retool them for the current day. This publication recounts the symposium. It provides a history of the Massachusetts reform campaign and its aftermath, summarizes the major themes and ideas presented by speakers and details the conclusions and recommendations emerging from group discussions. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-ClosingMassachusettsTrainingSchools-2014.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-ClosingMassachusettsTrainingSchools-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132568 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsTraining Schools |
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: Swayze, Dana Title: Back to the Future: Thirty Years of Juvenile Justice Data 1980-2010. Volume 1 Summary: In 1980, the United States was on the verge of a spike in juvenile crime that would strain the resources of the juvenile justice system, challenge the resilience of communities, and have lasting repercussions on both public policy and public sentiment regarding youth offenders. Youth involvement in crime began to increase in the mid-1980s and rose precipitously through the mid-1990s. Of particular concern to policy makers and communities was the increase in violent crime. A cadre of academic scholars and criminologists publically warned of a new breed of 'superpredators' who were unique in their brutality and remorselessness. It was projected that these offenders would grow in number prompting a negative, fear-based public perception of juveniles. Contrary to the predictions of many scholars in the field of criminology, juvenile crime not only peaked in the late-1990s but was followed by a significant pattern of decline. Ten years later, youth involvement in the juvenile justice system has continued to decline and now reflects some of the lowest levels in 30 years or more. Criminologists continue to hypothesize and identify what factors contributed to the sudden and continuous decline in juvenile delinquency in the new millennium. Minnesota juvenile justice data mirror the rise and fall of youth involvement in crime observed nationally. In 2010, both the volume of youth arrests and the rate of youth arrests were comparable to figures recorded in 1980, before the juvenile crime wave began.a The title of this report, Back to the Future, is an homage to the 1980s cinema blockbuster of the same name, in which a teenaged Michael J. Fox accidentally travels back in time 30 years to 1955. While there, he inadvertently alters the course of his own future which he must be set right before returning to 1985. While his character is clear as to what must be done to set his future right, less clear are which, if any, juvenile justice policies and practices implemented in the 1980s and 1990s positively affected delinquent youth thirty years later. Volume 1 of this report series is dedicated to the presentation of Minnesota's juvenile justice data. Included are juvenile arrests; court volume; admissions to residential placements; and juvenile probation populations between 1980 and 2010. Regrettably not all data are available due to changes in collection methodology and technology over time. National juvenile justice data are also presented to assess how Minnesota fared compared to the national trend. Volume 2 of this report series compliments Volume 1 through a presentation of factors at the state and national level that may have affected delinquency trends over the past 30 years. Included are a presentation of population changes; characteristics of the macro-environment such as poverty and unemployment; changes to delinquency definitions and statutes; and changing attitudes and practices around serving at-risk youth. Volume 2 explores what the past 30 years have taught practitioners about effective responses to delinquency that can be taken back to the future. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Programs, 2013. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/BTTF_Part%201_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/BTTF_Part%201_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 132592 Keywords: Crime StatisticsJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Swayze, Dana Title: Back to the Future: Thirty Years of Juvenile Justice Data 1980-2010. Volume 2 Summary: Volume 2 of this report series is dedicated to exploration of the underlying issues that may have affected the reduction in juvenile crime in the 2000s. Included are data related to education and child protection; changes to Minnesota's youth population; changes to socio-economic factors such as unemployment, poverty and wages; and the history of federal funding to states for crime and delinquency prevention and intervention. In addition, Volume 2 includes a detailed account of changes to both Minnesota and national laws affecting juveniles since 1980. Presented in five-year increments, this exploration documents the transition towards a more punitive, accountability-based juvenile justice system during the 1980s and 1990s, before movement back to a more individualized, rehabilitative approach in the 2000s. Changes made at key stages of the justice system are discussed, as are changes to chemical and mental health policy; school-based reforms; and evidence-based policy initiatives. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Programs, 2014. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/BTTF_Part%202_FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/BTTF_Part%202_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 132593 Keywords: Crime Statistics Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Davis, Antoinette Title: Using Bills and Budgets to Further Reduce Youth Incarceration Summary: States across the country have seen huge reductions in the number of youth incarcerated in detention halls, camps, and state secure facilities. One major reason for the reductions is successful legislation developed by advocates and legislators on both sides of the aisle. The five most successful components of this legislation include provisions that: Move supervision responsibilities for some youth from the states to county agencies; Include fiscal incentives to pay for these shifts in responsibilities; Exclude categories of crimes such as status offenses, misdemeanors, and non-violent felonies from eligibility for incarceration in state facilities; Require use of the best practices identified by research; and Encourage stakeholders to place youth in the least-restrictive settings by naming it as a goal in reform legislation. Despite the overall reduction of incarcerated youth, much higher percentages of youth of color remain under formal supervision and in state secure facilities. This suggests that even the most successful states need to employ new strategies. Systems need to continue to reduce out-of-home placements in order to strengthen the links between youth and their families. They also need to identify the most effective supervision strategies. Legislation helps this agenda by guaranteeing the flow of funding to fiscally sustainable, culturally relevant community-based organizations with promising research-based practices. Details: San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2014. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: http://nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/bills-and-budgets.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/bills-and-budgets.pdf Shelf Number: 132608 Keywords: African AmericansJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offender SupervisionJuvenile OffendersMinority Youth |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Modern Youth Offending Partnerships: Guidance on effective offending team governance in England Summary: New statutory guidance has been issued to Youth Offending Teams and local partners in England to ensure youth justice services remain effective in a changing landscape. 'Modern Youth Offending Partnerships', published today, recognises the many significant reforms both nationally and locally, which have affected YOTs and statutory partners. Recent changes include, the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the new health commissioning structures and initiatives such as 'Troubled Families'. The new guidance, replaces 'Sustaining the Success' published in 2004, and reaffirms the responsibilities YOTs, local authorities and statutory partners, including health, police and probation services, have within the youth justice system, while also recognising that local arrangements will vary to meet local circumstances. In writing the foreword to 'Modern Youth Offending Partnerships' Justice Minister Jeremy Wright said: 'The local and national youth justice landscape within which youth justice services are delivered has changed significantly since the first multi-agency YOTs were established. 'We now have increased co-ordination between YOTs and children's services, new youth sentencing provisions resulting in changes to how YOTs deal with young people who have offended, and more opportunity for YOTs to be innovative at a local level. 'Nevertheless, the primary duty of local authorities, together with statutory partners in health, police and probation - to oversee and co-ordinate the provision of youth justice services locally and to ensure that the actions outlined in annual youth justice plans are carried out effectively - remains the same. 'The time is right, therefore, to refresh and reissue guidance to statutory partners to help them, their YOTs and the young people and victims they work with. 'It's a timely reminder that although much has changed, the principal aim of all youth justice services remains the same: that of preventing offending by children and young people.' Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319291/youth-offending-partnerships-guidance.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319291/youth-offending-partnerships-guidance.pdf Shelf Number: 132640 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Partnerships |
Author: Fazal, S. Title: Safely Home: Reducing youth incarceration and achieving positive youth outcomes for high and complex need youth through effective community-based programs, Summary: Tonight, 70,000 youth will sleep in a locked facility, separated from their families. Many of them are there because their communities lack programs that could keep them safely home. Safely Home describes how communities and systems can safely support high-need youth in their homes and communities, focusing on the elements of effective community-based alternatives for high and complex need youth in the juvenile justice system. These youth are not lost causes. With the right supports, they can live safely at home with their families and in their communities, not in isolation. THE KEY MESSAGES FROM SAFELY HOME ARE: A lack of effective alternatives for high-need youth contributes to youth incarceration. Systems cannot achieve deincarceration goals unless they build continuums of community-based programs to serve all youth, especially those with the highest need (highest risk), and have the willingness to implement them. Currently, most kids with complex needs are left out of services or lack the support they need in current services and as a result, end up "left out and locked up." Virtually anything that can be done in an institution can be done better in the community. Whether a youth needs 24/7 supervision, access to treatment or a way to appreciate the consequences of his behavior, an effective community-based program can create that environment in a way that keeps a youth safe and increases the likelihood that he or she will succeed. Systems can redirect institutional dollars toward less expensive community programs. Effective community-based programs can serve three to four kids in the community for the same price as locking one up. In fact, if communities served 20 youth in the community over 6 months, instead of through out-of-home placement, they could save more than half a million dollars. Communities can't climb out of poverty, neighborhood violence, and other risk factors through incarceration, especially of their youth. Risk factors that make youth vulnerable to incarceration cannot be eliminated through incarceration. In fact, many of the environmental and social factors that contribute to youth incarceration get worse, not better with incarceration. Community-based programs that provide the right amount of intensity can provide safe and effective alternatives to youth incarceration and residential placement. Details: Washington, DC. Youth Advocate Programs Policy & Advocacy Center, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2014 at: http://www.safelyhomecampaign.org/Portals/0/Documents/Safely%20Home%20Preview/safelyhome.pdf?ver=2.0 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.safelyhomecampaign.org/Portals/0/Documents/Safely%20Home%20Preview/safelyhome.pdf?ver=2.0 Shelf Number: 132663 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Programs Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Seigle, Elizabeth Title: Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: This white paper is written to guide leaders across all branches of government; juvenile justice system administrators, managers, and front-line staff; and researchers, advocates, and other stakeholders on how to better leverage existing research and resources to facilitate system improvements that reduce recidivism and improve other outcomes for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. The last two decades have produced remarkable changes in state and local juvenile justice systems. An overwhelming body of research has emerged, demonstrating that using secure facilities as a primary response to youth's delinquent behavior generally produces poor outcomes at high costs. Drawing on this evidence, the MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change and the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative have provided the field with models for reform, research-based guidance, and technical assistance that has transformed many state and local juvenile justice systems. In part due to these efforts, between 1997 and 2011, youth confinement rates declined by almost 50 percent. During the same time period, arrests of juveniles for violent crimes also fell by approximately 50 percent, to their lowest level in over 30 years. The importance and value of these achievements can't be overstated. At the same time, these trends alone are not sufficient for policymakers to assess the effectiveness of their state and local governments' juvenile justice systems. They must also know whether youth diverted from confinement, as well as youth who return to their communities after confinement, have subsequent contact with the justice system. In addition to recidivism data, policymakers should have information about what services, supports, and opportunities young people under system supervision need, whether these needs are being met, and to what extent these young people are succeeding as a result. Yet policymakers often lack the information they need to determine whether youth who do come in contact with the system emerge from their experience better off, worse off, or unchanged, particularly in the long term. Twenty percent of state juvenile corrections agencies dont track recidivism data for youth at all. Of the states that do track recidivism, the majority doesnt consider the multiple ways a youth may have subsequent contact with the justice system, which range from rearrest, readjudication, or reincarceration within the juvenile justice system to offenses that involve them with the adult corrections system. For example, most states that track recidivism are unlikely to capture as youth recidivism data an event such as a 17-year-old released from a juvenile facility who is incarcerated in an adult facility as an 18-year-old. Additionally, the vast majority of states doesn't track whether youth who came into contact with the system ultimately stay in school, earn a degree, or find sustainable employment. To the extent that state and local governments are able to measure their juvenile justice systems' impact on rearrest, readjudication, and reincarceration rates, the results have been discouraging. Its not uncommon for rearrest rates for youth returning from confinement to be as high as 75 percent within three years of release, and arrest rates for higher-risk youth placed on probation in the community are often not much better. While there have been promising advances in the field, few juvenile justice systems can point to significant and sustained progress in reducing these recidivism rates. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Recidivism-and-Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Recidivism-and-Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf Shelf Number: 133140 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice PoliciesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Lightowler, Claire Title: Youth Justice in Scotland: Fixed in the past or fit for the future? Summary: During any meaningful conversation about youth justice in Scotland it is all but inevitable that The Kilbrandon Report will be mentioned given that it continues to act as a touchstone for practitioners, policymakers, researchers and politicians. As noted by Professor Stewart Asquith in the Preface to the reprinted version of the report, "The Kilbrandon Report was, and still remains, one of the most influential policy statements on how a society should deal with - children in trouble" (Asquith, 1995: vi). The release of this briefing paper falls, by chance, almost exactly half a century on from the presentation to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland of The Kilbrandon Report in April 1964. At such a significant juncture it seems apposite to take stock of the state of youth justice in Scotland. - How successful is the youth justice system? - Have we translated the aspirations of the Kilbrandon Committee into meaningful support for children and young people? - What have been the recent developments in youth justice in Scotland? - Is there a shared vision for the future of youth justice in Scotland, and what might this look like? From the outset it is important to note that the very term "youth justice" poses a definitional challenge. For the purposes of this paper, we understand the youth justice system in Scotland to encompass the individuals, institutions and services with which young people up to the age of 18 come into contact as a result of their involvement in offending behaviour. However, we operate now in the world of Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) and the Whole System Approach (WSA), initiatives focused on the whole person and the whole system. Both terms would have seemed foreign to Lord Kilbrandon but one imagines that the principles and ethos which underpin them would have met with his approval. Nevertheless, one wonders what his assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, achievements and limitations of the youth justice system in Scotland might be 50 years on. While looking back to the work of the Kilbrandon Committee on the one hand, 2014 is also a hugely important year to look to the future, with a referendum scheduled that will decide whether Scotland becomes an independent nation state or remains part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Values have moved to the forefront of the debate, just as consensus around specific values drove the work of the Kilbrandon Committee. People are beginning to ask deeply challenging questions of themselves and others: not least, what are Scotland's values? Part of the purpose of this paper is in one sense to capture the zeitgeist. In part we want to reflect on the way values (whether stemming from Kilbrandon or other influences) can and might shape the youth justice system. We suspect that without a broad, societal consensus about the way in which offending behaviour by children and young people should be dealt with, it will remain a challenge to deliver the kind of youth justice system envisioned by the Kilbrandon Committee and latterly promoted by the Scottish Government through initiatives such as WSA. The stark reality is that talk is cheap. It is easy to talk about a commitment to the Kilbrandon philosophy but harder to carry through the policy changes that might be required to bring such a philosophy to life. Any politician is beholden to the electorate. It is less controversial for politicians to talk about the indivisible nature of "needs" and "deeds" and the importance of a welfare-oriented approach when making a speech to a supportive audience but much harder to articulate the merit of such an approach when faced with 3 an angry constituent in a drop-in surgery who is irate about youth crime and disorder in his local community. This paper is structured into three parts. Firstly, we examine some of the discernible trends in relation to youth offending patterns over the course of the last decade. Then we examine the interplay of politics, policy, research and practice in post-devolution Scotland as they relate to youth justice. We also explore some of the broader sociological and cultural trends that might account for some of the changes in relation to offending by young people. Lastly, we turn to the question of values and how these shape the current youth justice system. We conclude by outlining five practice and policy improvements which we believe would more effectively realise and update the Kilbrandon vision, building on youth justice developments and progress to date. We hope these suggestions stimulate further discussion and debate about the future of youth justice in Scotland. Details: Glasgow: Centre for Youth & Criminal Justice, 2014. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2014 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Youth-Justice-in-Scotland.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Youth-Justice-in-Scotland.pdf Shelf Number: 133387 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System (Scotland)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Lord Carlile of Berriew Title: Independent Parliamentarians' Inquiry into the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court Summary: The Parliamentary Inquiry into the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court was launched in September 2013. It seeks to determine whether the system of criminal courts for children who offend is meeting its stated aim of preventing offending and having regard to the welfare of the children that appear before them. The inquiry received a total of 55 written submissions and heard from 43 witnesses; these included academics, practitioners, policy makers and young people. Challenges and opportunities - We heard that reductions in the number of children entering the system and coming to court as well as closures of courts has created particular challenges. A key issue of concern is that children are increasingly likely to appear in adult magistrates' courts when they are detained overnight and over the weekend, because there will be no youth court sitting. We were informed too that the youth courts are seeing a greater concentration of children with complex needs in court, likely due to the success in reducing the number of children coming into the system for low level matters. However, the decrease in critical mass offers an opportunity to better focus resources on improving the system for child defendants, victims and their families. Diversion - There was wide support for high levels of diversion among inquiry respondents, with many referring to the strong body of evidence that contact with the criminal justice system can increase the likelihood of offending. There was concern that out-of-court diversion schemes share some of the same negative features as formal system contact, such as Disclosure and Barring Service disclosures, and that this was often not made sufficiently clear to children. Most believed that diversion was effectively preventing children from entering the criminal courts system unnecessarily. However a number of responses argued that some children were still "falling through the net", leading to unnecessary prosecution, particularly children in care. Addressing underlying needs - Submissions emphasised that children's offending flows from a wide range of needs. There was a widely held view that welfare services are often failing to address such needs, which results in children falling into the youth justice system, and struggling to free themselves from it. Particular concern was expressed that resource constraints on children's social services are such that only the most acute cases receive support - typically babies and young children - while vulnerable older children are left out. Involvement of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) frequently has the effect of further raising the threshold for support, as there is often a perception that YOTs should be the sole body tackling the welfare needs of children who offend. A number of organisations reported that there had been some improvement in children's services involvement with children who offend following the introduction of new remand arrangements. However, it is often the case that courts are only able to focus on the offence, and not the child and the wider circumstances contributing to their behaviour. Lack of engagement and understanding - Submissions highlighted young people's lack of understanding of proceedings or language, owing to the prevalence of neuro-developmental disorders and other problems, that hinder participation and the lack of any systematic court processes to identify these. Additional factors that impede child defendant's understanding include their young age and developmental immaturity and the fact that the cohort of children in the youth court have had fewer educational opportunities. Specialisation - Magistrates and District Judges in youth proceedings must undergo specialist youth training, yet there are no such requirements for defence practitioners or Crown Court judges. Youth specialist prosecutors are only used for part of the court process. To compound the issue, the youth court is often used as a place for legal practitioners to "cut their teeth" and Crown Court judges tend to have little experience of dealing with youth cases. Respondents were virtually unanimous in their belief that all practitioners in youth proceedings should have youth specialist training; many believed that this should be a mandatory requirement. Crown Court - The overwhelming majority of responses argued that the Crown Court was inappropriate for children; its intimidating nature and lack of youth specific expertise was said to prevent effective sentencing and participation and, ultimately, contravene the right of children to a fair trial. There was subsequently strong support for a presumption retaining youth cases in the youth court. The role of the youth court - The prevailing view was that youth proceedings are struggling to meet their principal aim of preventing offending and their duty to have regard to the welfare of the child. Criminal courts do not possess the means to address the wide range of welfare issues that so often underlie a child's offending. There was subsequently wide support for the adoption of a more problem-solving approach to children who offend. Key recommendations - - We recommend that Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service direct all magistrates' courts to introduce a rota system, to ensure that a senior youth magistrate or youth ticketed District Judge is always sitting in the adult magistrates' court when the youth court is not in session - Children who have committed non-serious and non-violent offences, who have stopped offending, should have their criminal record expunged when they turn 18. - We recommend that all legal practitioners representing children at the police station and practising in youth proceedings be accredited to do so. - There should be a clear presumption "in law" that all child defendants are dealt with in the youth court. - We recommend the piloting of a problem solving approach in court for children, which would include judicial monitoring and continuity in cases, and powers to ensure children's underlying needs are met. - We advocate building upon the existing referral order to place greater emphasis on the involvement of victims as well as the participation of families and wider support services to enable the process to address the harm of the offence as well as its underlying causes. The "Problem Solving Conference" would be available to under-16s coming to court and should be initially piloted. Details: London: National Children's Bureau, 2014. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/1148432/independent_parliamentarians__inquiry_into_the_operation_and_effectiveness_of_the_youth_court.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/1148432/independent_parliamentarians__inquiry_into_the_operation_and_effectiveness_of_the_youth_court.pdf Shelf Number: 134242 Keywords: Juvenile Court SystemJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (U.K.)Juvenile OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsYouthful Offenders |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Public Opinion on Juvenile Justice in America Summary: Voters support sending serious juvenile offenders to corrections facilities, but they favor a range of less-costly alternatives for lower-level offenders, according to a nationwide poll conducted in 2014 by a bipartisan team of pollsters, the Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies. Voters see juvenile corrections facilities as government programs that should be subject to a basic cost-benefit test, and they strongly support a more robust probation system and more intervention by families, schools, and social service agencies. When it comes to the juvenile justice system, voters want offending youth to get the services and supervision they need to change their behavior and stop committing crimes-even if that means less incarceration. Key Findings - Voters support diverting lower-level juvenile offenders from corrections facilities and investing the savings into probation and other alternatives. - Support for juvenile justice reform is strong across political parties, regions, and age, gender, and racial-ethnic groups. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/12/PSPP_juvenile_poll_web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/12/PSPP_juvenile_poll_web.pdf Shelf Number: 134427 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System (U.S.)Public AttitudesPublic Opinion |
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: Pruin, Ineke Title: Better in Europe? European responses to young adult offending Summary: Over the last ten years approximately, the question of how to respond appropriately to the offending of young adults has emerged as a point of increased focus within international criminological research and criminal policy. This development has mainly been based on recent research results in the field of neurosciences and studies investigating individual differences in criminal careers across the life course, which - taken together - shed a different light on young adult offenders and their behaviour. These research results question the adequacy of immediately and abruptly barring offenders from the special regulations, approaches and procedures provided for under juvenile justice legislation simply because the offence happened to be committed after the offender has turned 18, or because the offender happens to have turned 18 in the course of proceedings (Farrington/Loeber/Howell 2012, p. 729). Recent experiences have shown that the implications of these findings are strong enough to justify a change in criminal policy governing the treatment of young adult offenders. Such change can be extensive, like in the Netherlands, or gradual like in England, where the Transition to Adulthood Alliance in particular has promoted such developments. The last literature review by Prior et al. 2011, commissioned by the Barrow Cadbury Trust and comprising a comprehensive overview of interdisciplinary research results on young adults, is barely three years old, but nevertheless, in the meantime there are new analyses and developments to be reported on. The results from two large working groups comprising many highly esteemed scholars and researchers from the field - one European with 33 scholars and one US-American with 32 scholars (Loeber et al. 2012 and Loeber/Farrington 2012) - were published in 2012. Furthermore, a recent volume in the Cambridge Criminal Justice Series has focused on young adults and their treatment in the criminal justice system, which is based on conference papers from one of the first Transition to Adulthood Alliance experts meetings (Losel/ Bottoms/Farrington 2012). A distinct approach to juveniles New considerations emerge from the following questions: specific juvenile justice systems or approaches have been successfully implemented all over the world. Providing a special approach to responding to juvenile offenders is not only mandatory due to international Human Rights Law - it is also a logical consequence if policy is to be based on a deep and wide base of research evidence: juvenile offending can be characterised as ubiquitous and episodic. Self-report studies have shown that most offenders stop behaving in a criminal manner regardless of whether they have experienced any public reactions (like prosecution) to their offending (spontaneous remission). Therefore, juvenile justice policy rightly tends to regard youth offending as a more or less normal pattern in juvenile development (at least for the vast majority of juvenile offenders who cannot be defined as 'chronic offenders'). Juvenile justice approaches and strategies normally seek to avoid the well-known negative consequences of harsh criminal sanctions like imprisonment, by providing a more tolerant approach to dealing with juveniles. Furthermore, interdisciplinary research has repeatedly and continuously highlighted that juveniles are, for various reasons, not responsible for their criminal behaviour in the same way as adults are for their behaviour (e. g. low impulse control, more susceptible to peer influences, more likely to take risks for excitement, see Farrington/Loeber/ Howell 2012, p. 729 f.). Even leaving such neuroscientific results aside, many existing juvenile justice systems are based around the old notion of doli incapax, i.e. a diminished criminal capacity due to young age. Extending the distinct approach to Young Adults Recent research results and experiences with special approaches to responding to young adult offenders in many justice systems (Dunkel/Pruin 2012) do raise the question whether the arguments in favour of treating juveniles in a manner that better reflects their maturity could not be equally valid for young adults as well? Is it justifiable to regard the 18th birthday as an abrupt cut-off point, after which criminal behaviour is responded to in accordance to adult criminal law, which generally focuses more on retribution than on rehabilitation (at least in most countries) and is doing so logical? Criminological research indeed suggests that the findings pertaining to the particularities of juvenile offending also apply to young adults. Desistance research indicates that changes in patterns of criminal behaviour occur in particular in the phase of young or emerging adulthood. This serves as justification for devoting targeted research to this particular demographic group, and the special provisions that have been put in place in some (juvenile) criminal justice systems throughout Europe give an insight into promising strategies for responding appropriately to offending by young adults. This report aims to summarise recent research results on young adult offenders, focusing on criminological analyses in general and data from Germany in particular, a country where young adult offenders have been included in Juvenile Justice since 1953. A shorter review on some sociological observations on changes in the living contexts of young adults aims to manifest a deeper understanding of the special phase of transition young adults face today. The overview on research results from psychology and neuroscience is concise by comparison due to the respective comprehensive overview by Prior et al. 2011. A second focus of this report lies in providing an overview of the different strategies and practices for responding appropriately to young adult offending that have been put in place in Europe. The presented findings are mainly based on a recent extensive research project conducted by the Department of Criminology at the University of Greifswald, Germany, involving more than 40 international juvenile justice experts (Dunkel et al. 2011), and have been up dated with the help of recent expert interviews. Details: London: Barrow Cadbury Trust; Greifswald, Germany: Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University of Greifswald, Department of Criminology, 2015. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Transition to Adulthood Alliance: Accessed march 19, 2015 at: http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf Shelf Number: 134969 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYoung Adult Offenders (Europe) |
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: Juvenile Law Center (Pennsylvania) Title: Lessons from Luzerne County: Promoting Fairness, Transparency and Accountability. Summary: In October 2009, in an unprecedented opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated former Luzerne County juvenile court judge Mark Ciavarella's adjudications of delinquency made between 2003 and May 2008. Just three months later, Special Master Arthur Grim ordered that all cases heard by former Judge Ciavarella were to be dismissed. In providing relief, the Supreme Court restored integrity to Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system and gave hope to youth who suffered enormous harm at the hands of corrupt judges. However, it was not just the judges who failed these youth; the system failed at numerous levels. District attorneys, public defenders, juvenile probation officers, the state Judicial Conduct Board, private attorneys and other court personnel--everyone connected to the juvenile justice system in Luzerne County failed these children. What safeguards, policies and methods of accountability permitted this toxic environment to flourish? How can we prevent another Luzerne tragedy? How can we make sure that Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system dispenses justice equally and with the same high standards in every county? This report aims to answer these questions, with the hope that legislators will recognize the systemic failures brought to light by the Luzerne County "kids-for-cash" scandal and enact measures to guarantee the rights of all children in Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system. The recommendations we propose are organized under six topic areas, each representing a chapter: -Ensuring Access to Counsel -Instituting Meaningful Appellate Review -Increasing Transparency and Accountability in the Juvenile Justice System -Reducing Referrals to the Juvenile Justice System -Ensuring Respectful and Appropriate Treatment of Youth in Detention or Placement and in Court -Reducing the Consequences of Juvenile Records Details: Philadelphia: JLC, 2013. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/Lessons%20From%20Luzerne%20County%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/Lessons%20From%20Luzerne%20County%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 129821 Keywords: JudgesJudicial CorruptionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
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: 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: Baglivio, Michael Title: The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Disposition Matrix: A Validation Study Summary: As part of the Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project (JJSIP), the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) has developed and implemented a Disposition Matrix to guide Juvenile Probation Officers in their recommendations to the court. This report is the first assessment as to whether dispositions/placements made according to the Disposition Matrix suggestions have more successful outcomes than those made which deviate from the Disposition Matrix recommendations. Highlighted Results: 92% of the dispositions fell within the Disposition Matrix suggested range. Female youth were more likely to receive an optimum placement than male youth. White and Hispanic youth were more likely to receive an optimum placement than Black youth; Youth receiving placements within the Disposition Matrix suggested range had significantly lower subsequent recidivism than those placed outside of the suggested range. This result held true for males, females, across race/ethnicity, and for all risk levels of youth. Overall, the 12 month recidivism rate of those placed outside of the Disposition Matrix suggestions is two times higher than that of those placed within the suggested range; The recidivism rate of low risk to re-offend youth placed outside of the Disposition Matrix suggestions is 114% higher than the rate for low risk youth placed within the suggestions. The recidivism rate for high risk to re-offend youth placed outside of suggestions is 39% higher than the rate for high risk to re-offend youth placed within suggestions. Similar results hold true for moderate and moderate-high risk to re-offend youth, though not as pronounced; For males, a disposition/placement above guidelines is associated with a 67% increase in recidivism from the optimum placement rate, and a below guidelines disposition/placement is associated with a 148% increase in recidivism from the optimum placement rate; For females, a disposition/placement above guidelines is associated with a 43% increase in recidivism from the optimum placement rate, and a below guidelines disposition/placement is associated with a 304% increase in recidivism rate from the optimum placement rate; Youth who receive optimum placements have the highest success rates both during and after placement. Youth who receive placements below suggestions, meaning not restrictive enough according to the Disposition Matrix, have the worst performance. The recidivism rate for all race/ethnic subgroups was over 50% for below guidelines dispositions/placements; Dispositions/placements made outside of the Disposition Matrix suggestions lead to over 1.5 times more failures in terms of a comprehensive measure that includes both adjudications during placement and within 12 months of release; The failure rates on a comprehensive measure including both offenses and violations during service and 12 month recidivism for above guidelines placements was 59% higher than those of optimum placements and the failure rates for below guidelines placements was 108% higher than those of optimum placements; Regardless of the outcome measure examined (recidivism, offenses during service, or a combined metric of both) dispositions/placements within the Disposition Matrix performed significantly better than those outside of the suggested range. Details: Tallahassee: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Bureau of Research and Planning, 2014. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2015 at: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/docs/research2/the-fdjj-disposition-matrix-validation-study.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/docs/research2/the-fdjj-disposition-matrix-validation-study.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Shelf Number: 136078 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Merry, Sheila Title: Cook County Juvenile Court: The Juvenile Court in the 21st Century Summary: As part of Cook County Justice for Children's predecessor's legacy to the field, Director of Strategic Partnerships, and former Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation Executive Director, Sheila Merry, created this written history of the progress achieved at the Cook County Juvenile Court over the last quarter century. This report describes the current structure of the Cook County Juvenile Court and Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC); outlines major changes in the court divisions and the JTDC over the last few decades, including statistical information regarding court processing over time; describes key elements of the evolving political and social contexts influencing the court; and concludes with a summary of the role and accomplishments of the Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation and its recommendations for ongoing court reform. Details: Chicago: Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/491e5b_21647ede91af4e1fa7d78910b54e1c8a.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.cookcountyjustice.org/sites/www.cookcountyjustice.org/files/assets/21st%20Century%20Report_Final_110812-1.pdf Shelf Number: 136795 Keywords: Juvenile CffendersJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System |
Author: Ryan, Liz Title: Notorious to Notable: The Criminal Role of the Philanthropic Community in Transforming the Juvenile Justice System in Washington, D.C. Summary: In 2000, then D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission to rethink how the District of Columbia treated some of its most vulnerable residents, youth in the juvenile justice system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommended the closure of the District's long-term youth incarceration facility, the Oak Hill Youth Center; its replacement with a smaller, homelike facility; the redirection of resources from incarceration to community- based alternatives; and a reduction in the prosecution of youth in adult criminal court. Between the years 2000 and 2011, the District's juvenile justice system went from one of the worst - with a notorious and inhumane juvenile prison, an over-reliance on incarceration, and a dearth of community programs - to one of the most notable, receiving recognition from Harvard University. The purpose of this report is to highlight the ways that the philanthropic community aided this effort. It is a story of collaboration and collective effort by local D.C. foundations and national funders that contributed to tremendous change in the treatment and outcomes for youth in D.C.'s juvenile justice system. The reforms ultimately reduced youth re-offending rates by decreasing the District's over-reliance on incarceration; closing and replacing Oak Hill with a smaller, homelike facility and an innovative and acclaimed school; and redirecting funding from incarceration to community- based alternatives. Starting with the Blue Ribbon Commission, funders supported the policy development of the Commission and subsequent policy and advocacy work of the community to ensure their recommendations became law.. Details: Washington, DC: 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: https://giving.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/notorious-to-notable-final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://giving.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/notorious-to-notable-final.pdf Shelf Number: 136796 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
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: Sherman, Francine T. Title: Gender Injustice: System-Level Juvenile Justice Reforms for Girls Summary: Despite decades of attention, the proportion of girls in the juvenile justice system has increased and their challenges have remained remarkably consistent, resulting in deeply rooted systemic gender injustice. The literature is clear that girls in the justice system have experienced abuse, violence, adversity, and deprivation across many of the domains of their lives-family, peers, intimate partners, and community. There is also increasing understanding of the sorts of programs helpful to these girls. What is missing is a focus on how systems-and particularly juvenile justice systems-can be redesigned to protect public safety and support the healing and healthy development of girls and young women. Juvenile justice systems reform is occurring across the country as a result of a growing understanding of developmental and neurological differences between youth and adults, the high cost of incarceration, and the consistent failure of a punitive juvenile justice model. However, even as systems are initiating reforms and changing their approach, they are routinely failing to modify those reforms for girls or even to collect data on how girls, specifically, are affected by the problems they are seeking to remedy. As a result, the particular impact on girls of failures in the juvenile justice system is not understood and few juvenile reforms are tailored to girls' needs and pathways into the system- meaning girls and young women are unlikely to fully benefit from system reforms. Many of the problems discussed in this report are not unique to girls-and many of the suggested paths forward can benefit both boys and girls. However, because girls are frequently left out of reform discussions, an intentional focus on girls is needed to ensure that they fully benefit from system reforms. Indeed, in writing this report we were struck by the number of promising national and large-scale juvenile justice reform efforts that have not fully considered the role of gender in the problems they address or in the solutions they propose. If this intentional gender focus does not coexist with current large-scale system reforms, an important opportunity for gender justice and equity and developmental system reforms will be missed. To facilitate developmental juvenile justice system reform for girls, this report will: Map girls' current paths into and through the juvenile justice system; Describe the social contexts driving girls' behavior and involvement in the juvenile justice system; and Detail recommendations for an alternative, developmental approach to redesign juvenile justice systems to address harmful social contexts and girls' resulting behaviors, rather than penalize and punish girls for challenges beyond their control. The recommendations included in this report are consistent with decades of research on adolescent development, as well as newer data on the development of girls in particular. With continued research on girls and an intentional focus on their needs, system stakeholders and policymakers can capitalize on current reforms that are already underway and ensure girls are not simply wedged into solutions meant for boys. Details: Portland, OR: National Crittenton Foundation; Washington, DC: National Women's Law Center, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ed_rp_gender_injustice.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ed_rp_gender_injustice.pdf Shelf Number: 136894 Keywords: Female DelinquentsFemale Juvenile OffendersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice Reform |
Author: Scott, Elizabeth S. Title: The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing Summary: In the past decade, the Supreme Court has transformed the constitutional landscape of juvenile crime regulation. In three strongly worded opinions, the Court held that imposing harsh criminal sentences on juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In combination, these cases create a special status for juveniles under Eighth Amendment doctrine as a category of offenders whose culpability is mitigated by their youth and immaturity, even for the most serious offenses. The Court also emphasized that juveniles are more likely to reform than adult offenders, and that most should be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that they have done so. In short, because of young offenders developmental immaturity, harsh sentences that may be suitable for adult criminals are seldom appropriate for juveniles. These opinions announce a powerful constitutional principlethat children are different for purposes of criminal punishment. In articulating this principle, the Supreme Court has also provided general guidance to courts sentencing juveniles and to lawmakers charged with implementing the rulings. At the same time, the Court did not directly address the specifics of implementation and it left many questions unanswered about the implications of the opinions for juvenile sentencing regulation. In the years since Roper, Graham, and Miller, courts and legislatures have struggled to interpret the opinions and to create procedures and policies that are compatible with constitutional principles and doctrine. This report addresses the key issues facing courts and legislatures under this new constitutional regime, and provides guidance based on the Supreme Courts Eighth Amendment analysis and on the principles the Court has articulated. Part I begins with the constitutional sentencing framework, grounded in the opinions and embodying the key elements of the Courts analysis. It then explains the underlying developmental knowledge that supports the constitutional framework and the children are different principle. Part II Part II examines how courts and legislatures have responded to the Eighth Amendment opinions, through reforms of state laws regulating juvenile life without parole (JLWOP). While some state lawmakers appear to ignore or subvert the Supreme Courts holdings, others have responded in ways that clearly embody the principles underlying Miller and Graham. Part III translates Millers directive that specific factors be considered in making individualized sentencing decisions. The report's aim is to guide courts and clinicians in structuring sentencing hearings that incorporate sound developmental research and other evidence supporting or negating mitigation, without going beyond the limits of science. Part IV explores the broader implications of the Supreme Courts developmental framework for juvenile sentencing and parole, implications that have already sparked law reforms beyond the relatively narrow holdings of Graham and Miller. Finally, the paper ends on a cautionary note, pointing to evidence that constitutionally sound, developmentally-based policies may be vulnerable to political and other pressures. Aside from mandates in the holdings themselves, reforms can be dismantled or discounted if conditions change. Measures to sustain the current trend in law reform are discussed. Details: New York: Columbia University, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: http://modelsforchange.net/publications/778?utm_source=%2ftransformation&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=redirect Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://modelsforchange.net/publications/778?utm_source=%2ftransformation&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=redirect Shelf Number: 136947 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Sentencing |
Author: Taylor, Melanie Ann Title: A Case Study of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act: Reforming the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Summary: Research examining the long-term impacts of federal interventions under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act on correctional institutions has been scant. The result has been a failure to understand the sustainability of reforms aimed at protecting the civil rights of confined persons. This dissertation examined the long-term reforms at the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections following a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice from 2004 to 2007. Interviews were conducted with current and former ADJC employees, juvenile justice advocates across Arizona, and county court representatives to determine how each of these groups perceived the status of the reforms at the ADJC. The findings of the current dissertation suggest that long-term reforms following consent decrees imposed on correctional institutions are possible. At the ADJC, the methods for securing the reform required that the agency reform its culture, implement a Quality Assurance process, revamp the Investigations and Inspections unit at the agency, and consider the perspectives of external agencies. One of the primary reasons why the department has been committed to making these reforms is because of the perceived loss of legitimacy and resources that would occur if they failed to reform. Such a failure for the agency could have potentially resulted in a closure of the agency. However, the increase in punitive and preventive policies used to enforce the reforms may have negative repercussions on the organizational culture in the long term. Policy implications for future CRIPA consent decrees are outlined, limitations are addressed, and suggestions for future research are made. Details: Phoenix: Arizona State University, 2013. 276p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed November 14, 2015 at: http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/110593/content/Taylor_asu_0010E_13015.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/110593/content/Taylor_asu_0010E_13015.pdf Shelf Number: 137287 Keywords: Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform |
Author: Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition Title: Justice Redirected: The Impact of Reducing the Prosecution of Children as Adults in Colorado and the Continuing Need for Sentencing Reform Summary: In 2012, Colorado reformed the way children can be prosecuted as adults by changing the law that previously allowed prosecutors to press charges in adult court without judicial review. The changes to the law reduced the number of children who could be "direct filed," - or charged - in adult court by the prosecutor, and put in place a system of oversight by allowing a judge to review the prosecutor's decision to prosecute a juvenile in adult court. - 100 cases were prosecuted in adult court in Colorado from April 20, 2012-April 20, 2015 - 98% of Children Prosecuted in Adult Court are Male - Nationally, in 2013, there were still 1,200 youth in adult prisons and approximately 3,400 youth in adult jails on any given day - 60% of Children Prosecuted in Adult Court are Youth of Color - Adams, Douglas, Denver & El Paso county account for 75% cases in which youth are prosecuted in adult court. - Homicide cases account for 37% of Cases prosecuted in adult court - The average length of a transfer or reverse transfer hearing is 2 days - Nationally, Between 2009 and 2013, the rate of youth violence was cut almost in half to 160 arrests per 100,000 juveniles Details: Denver: Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2015 at: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf Shelf Number: 137419 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: MacArthur Foundation Title: Juvenile Justice in a Developmental framework: A 2015 Status Report Summary: Every state has implemented developmentally-appropriate juvenile justice reform over the last 15 years, according to a report supported by the MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change initiative. The report provides a snapshot of nationwide progress as states have evolved many tough on crime policies that treat young offenders as adults to foster a system that considers youth's developmental needs and capacity for change. From state efforts to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to protecting juvenile records, the report illustrates a growing understanding of the intersection of adolescent neurological development and juvenile justice - a field bolstered by the MacArthur Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice - that is driving reform in support of better outcomes for young offenders and their communities. Details: Chicago: MacArthur Foundation, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2016 at: https://www.macfound.org/media/files/MacArthur_Foundation_2015_Status_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.macfound.org/media/files/MacArthur_Foundation_2015_Status_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137741 Keywords: Juvenile Court JurisdictionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Phillippi, Stephen Title: A Legislated Study of Raising the Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction in Louisiana: The future of 17-year-olds in the Louisiana Justice Systems Summary: This study, authorized by the Louisiana State Legislature in House Concurrent Resolution No. 73 of the 2015 Regular session, was completed at an expedited pace over a six-month period to meet the deadlines established in the resolution. With the involvement of key stakeholders in the justice system from across Louisiana and input from national partners who have worked to study raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in other states, three key findings of this study are summarized below. - There is a growing consensus, based on a large body of scientific evidence, that 17-year-olds are developmentally different than adults and should be treated as such. They have a far greater potential for rehabilitation and are particularly influenced - for good or ill - by the environments in which they are placed. - The last several years of reform in the Louisiana juvenile justice system have created a capacity to accept, manage, and rehabilitate these youth in a manner that will predictably generate better outcomes than the adult system. - The initial impact projections are generally lower than states that have recently gone before Louisiana in raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction, and those states found that the impact on the system was substantially less than first predicted. In fact, states have reported substantial fiscal savings. We have reason to suspect this will be the same for Louisiana. Details: New Orleans: Louisiana State University, Institute for Public Health and Justice, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://sph.lsuhsc.edu/Websites/lsupublichealth/images/pdf/iphj/RAISE_THE_AGE_DRAFT_20160128Final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://sph.lsuhsc.edu/Websites/lsupublichealth/images/pdf/iphj/RAISE_THE_AGE_DRAFT_20160128Final.pdf Shelf Number: 137848 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemsJurisdictionJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile JurisdictionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Kentucky. Legislative Research Commission Title: Report of the 2013 Task Force on the Unified Juvenile Code . (2013 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35) Summary: In 2013, Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 extended the Task Force on the Unified Juvenile Code, which had been created the year before. The task force was directed to continue its review of the juvenile justice system to develop recommendations for reform. The task force was a bipartisan, inter-branch group with diverse representation from juvenile justice stakeholders. It conducted a detailed analysis of Kentucky's juvenile justice system and, based on this work, developed recommendations to protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, improve outcomes for children and families, and control costs in the juvenile justice system. Seeking to improve public safety and achieve better outcomes for youth and their families, the task force studied Kentucky data, reviewed research on proven juvenile practices, and looked to other states to identify solutions. The task force analysis led to findings in four areas of Kentucky's juvenile justice system: - Kentucky is spending significant resources on out-of-home residential placement for lowlevel status and public offenders.b The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) spends more than half of its $102 million annual budget on secure and nonsecure residential facilities that cost an average of $87,000 per bed per year. In addition, the Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) spent an estimated $6 million in fiscal year 2012 for out-of-home placement of status offenders. - Lower-level offenses make up a significant share of the juvenile justice system. Misdemeanants and violators make up the majority (ranging from 55 percent to 87 percent) of youth in of each type of out-of-home placement. - The length of time probation/court order violators and misdemeanor offenders spend in outof- home facilities has increased 31 percent and 21 percent, respectively, over the past decade. The amount of time these offenders spend out of home differed by less than 1 month from those adjudicated on felony offenses. Hundreds of status offenders are spending time out of home through commitments to DCBS or in detention. - A lack of funding for and access to services and alternatives in the community has contributed to more expensive commitments to DJJ and DCBS and more youth being placed out of home. Recommendations And Impact The task force recommendations are grouped into four categories: - Reinvest savings to provide for sustained funding, expand community services, and improve supervision. - Focus resources, particularly expensive out-of-home facilities, on higher-level offenders, and reinvest savings into strengthening early intervention and prevention programs. - Increase effectiveness of juvenile justice programs and services. - Improve government performance by providing oversight of reform implementation, tracking performance measures, and maximizing federal resources. Details: Frankfort, KY: Legislative Research Commission, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Memorandum No. 514: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/rm514.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/rm514.pdf Shelf Number: 137950 Keywords: Justice ReinvestmentJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Monitoring of Progress on Implementation of the Youth Justice Review Recommendations Summary: Reducing the number of children entering the criminal justice system and dealing more appropriately and effectively with those that do, were the main goals of the Youth Justice Review. This report, the second of two by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, examines whether we are any closer to the youth justice system envisaged when the review team reported in 2011. As a general observation on recent criminal justice reform programmes, it is very hard to maintain momentum on recommendations, especially those which require the collaboration and support of other Northern Ireland Executive departments. Some of the recommendations within the Youth Justice Review are less relevant now than when they were made, and some were unrealistic in expecting the delivery of both the spirit and letter of what was intended. Legislative changes envisaged by the Review Team have been frustrated by a lack of political consensus and the opportunities for progress within the lifetime of the current Northern Ireland Assembly are limited. The criminal justice system is changing before our eyes and it is important that in any assessment of progress, we factor in the fiscal challenges and current operating environment. The Department of Justice's target of 90% achievement of recommendations has not been met however, it is the nature of some that have been achieved which, in my view, deserve special mention. We should acknowledge that no child has been held in an adult prison for the last four years. Fewer children are being committed to youth custody, and the age and offending profile of those who are, means that we are dealing with the most difficult and disturbed young people. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspectorate, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2016 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/35/355260de-ceb0-43f8-ad83-e91fee363dd1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/35/355260de-ceb0-43f8-ad83-e91fee363dd1.pdf Shelf Number: 138226 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Kotze, Kevin Title: More Care Less Court: Keeping Youth out of the Criminal Justice System Summary: New Brunswick's rate of youth charged for criminal offences has been decreasing since the enactment of Canada's youth crime legislation, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in 2002. Yet still nearly a decade passed in our Province without corresponding progress being made in regard to the number of youths being sent to pre-trial detention and secure custody. Far too often it is the most vulnerable youths who are caught in the system - youths with mental health disorders, youths with addictions issues, youths with backgrounds as victims of abuse and neglect; homeless youth; youth with intellectual disabilities; youths from marginalized or minority identity groups. The good news is that New Brunswick has in the past few years begun to make real progress in youth criminal justice issues. The RCMP and their Community Program Officers, as well as municipal police forces, began to lead the way by increasingly diverting youth away from court and toward supports that can reduce their risk of further involvement in crime. However, it takes the work of many different stakeholders to address youth crime effectively, and it takes a system that is built to be responsive to the developmental needs of youth. Very recently, government's Provincial Crime Prevention and Reduction Strategy has worked with police and civil society to produce a Youth Diversion Model that addresses some of the root causes of youth crime. The model is in line with a shift toward an evidence-based child-rights focus that reflects not just what is easiest but what works best. This work deserves praise and holds much promise, but we must bear in mind it is only the beginning of the necessary shift. Much work is still to be done to keep youth from crime. Pre-trial detention rates and secure custody rates remain unduly high. Youth admissions to correction services as a whole in New Brunswick remain higher per capita than other provinces. Reaction must be in proportion to the gravity of the offence. Sentencing should be for the shortest time possible. Community-based sentences should be the usual route. Incarceration should be a last resort, normally reserved for serious violent offences. Only in the most serious cases should youth have to await trial while detained at the detention and secure custody facility. If New Brunswick can take a child-rights approach in all areas involving children and youth, we can lead the way in providing the means to allow children to develop positive senses of how they feel, think and act. This is what will keep youth out of the criminal justice system. The More Care Less Court report seeks to provide an overview of the youth criminal justice system in New Brunswick generally, and shed some light on some of the most apparent problems with the system. The report's recommendations intend to support the work of the Provincial Crime Prevention and Reduction Strategy, and suggest necessary improvements to the youth criminal justice system. Details: Fredericton, NB: Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, 2015. 173p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 16, 2016 at: https://www.gnb.ca/0073/Child-YouthAdvocate/MCLC-PAMP/MoreCareLessCourt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: https://www.gnb.ca/0073/Child-YouthAdvocate/MCLC-PAMP/MoreCareLessCourt.pdf Shelf Number: 138251 Keywords: At-Risk YouthDelinquency PreventionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile 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: Newell, Michelle Title: Reforming the Nation's Largest Juvenile Justice System Summary: Research confirms that incarcerating young people is harmful - contributing to lower educational achievement, higher unemployment, higher alcohol and substance abuse and increased mental health problems. Roughly three-quarters of youth leaving locked facilities nationally are rearrested and - depending on local juvenile justice statutes - up to 70 percent are convicted of a new offense. These dismal outcomes, combined with a high price tag, have largely made youth incarceration a failed public policy approach. The good news is that youth incarceration rates in the U.S. have declined by 41 percent over the last 15 years, reaching the lowest level since 1975. While this is due largely to decreasing crime rates and state budget cuts, it also reflects the increased use of cost-effective, community-based programs for youth who pose a minimal threat to public safety. Nevertheless, approximately 70,000 youth nationwide - 2,000 in Los Angeles County - are still confined in juvenile detention facilities on any given day. While the goal remains to reduce these numbers further and keep young people out of the system whenever possible, a small number of youth will remain in secure facilities. How these youth are treated while incarcerated has a marked impact on the rest of their life, their communities, and on our society as a whole. The Los Angeles County juvenile justice system is the largest system in the nation, with locked facilities that include three juvenile halls and fourteen probation camps. Yet many observers of the system, including legal groups, advocates and organizers, the media, and elected and appointed officials, have concluded over the years the camps are not meeting the needs of youth, and not helping them become law-abiding and productive members of society. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and Children's Defense Fund, California, 2013. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2013/reforming-the-nations.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2013/reforming-the-nations.pdf Shelf Number: 138314 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Herz, Denise C. Title: The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study Summary: In Los Angeles County, an alarming number of children and youth live in unsafe, impoverished communities with entrenched violence, have struggling and isolated parents, and attend poorly performing schools. As a result, many of these children and youth end up in the County's health, mental health, child welfare, human services, and juvenile justice systems. Children who enter the juvenile justice system, in particular, face myriad challenges. Research demonstrates that these vulnerable young people often have risk and need factors that include: low academic achievement, mental health and/or substance abuse issues, negative peer networks, and lack of appropriate parental supervision. Los Angeles Probation-involved youth, for example, often face the following risk and need factors: - Education: Standardized tests indicate that youth placed in probation camps are, on average, 16.7 years old and therefore are in the 11th grade but are achieving at a fifth grade level in math and reading (McCroskey, 2006, p. 2). California High School Exit Examination 2003-04 results for graduates from 492 Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) students in juvenile hall and Community Day School programs show that only 26% passed the English Language Arts exam, compared with 70% of all students in the County who took and passed the exam. Additionally, LACOE data show that the percentage of students identified as requiring special education was higher than the national average of 13.7%.1 Of the 2,047 students enrolled in juvenile hall schools as of November 2005, 79% (n=1,617) were classified as regular education students and 21% (n=430) were classified as special education students. - Mental Health: In 2008, a UCLA research study on Los Angeles' juvenile Probation camp population reported that 58% of youth had received counseling or mental health services prior to being placed in Probation Department camps, with 65% receiving such services during their stay at camp. The same study also found that the most common mental health problems reported by youth who self-identified with a mental health problem were depression and anger. - Substance Abuse: An external survey conducted with youth in Probation Camps found that 58% of Probation-involved youth reported they had received a prior diagnosis of substance abuse and dependency. Additionally, according to a UCLA study on Los Angeles Probation Camps, over one-third of Probation-involved youth have been in an alcohol or drug placement in the past, including 43% of girls and 36% of boys). Because so many Probation-involved youth enter the juvenile justice system with these factors, the Probation Department may be viewed as the primary agency responsible for resolving these issues. Probation, however, cannot address all of these risk factors alone. Instead it relies on collaboration with other County departments, including Health Services, Mental Health and Public Health, whose staff have expertise in health, behavioral health and other child and family issues. For example, an early study (1995) using cross-departmental data linkages to identify families being served by multiple Los Angeles County departments underscores this point. Findings from this study showed that, during that year, 59.4% of Probation families also received services from DPSS, 25.5% also received services from DCFS, 30.3% also received services from DHS, and 18.2% also received services from DMH (Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council, Data Analysis and Technical Assistance Committee, 1995). Despite these findings, identifying and documenting shared connections across County agencies is nearly impossible because agency data systems are seldom integrated, and the interpretation of confidentiality protections limits the exchange of information across agencies. Without interagency coordination, though, youth and families may not receive the services they need, they may receive duplicative services, and/or they may receive inappropriate services. A starting point to better serve Probation-involved youth and families is a better understanding of the characteristics and needs of Probation-involved youth and their outcomes over time. Unfortunately, defining and consistently reporting outcomes for youth under Probation supervision has been elusive for at least three reasons. First, Probation lacks the data and sophisticated data systems necessary to produce meaningful outcome measures. In 2010, Harvard Kennedy School researchers conducting a review of juvenile reentry in Los Angeles County reported that the Probation Department was unable to provide the following information in a timely and comprehensive manner: - educational outcomes in camps and after (high school/GED completion rates, drop-out rates, rates of re-enrollment in school after camp); - percent of youth receiving mental health services; - percent of youth receiving substance abuse services; - percent of youth participating in reentry programs; - what reentry programs youth are currently accessing; - rates of recidivism that capture camp return and entrance in the adult criminal justice system (beyond six month subsequent sustained charge); and, - number of youth violating their Probation terms. Second, the use of data produced by Probation's information system is often driven by compliance rather than case management, quality improvement, or assessing practice over time. In other words, the most readily available and used Probation data elements tend to reflect whether a required protocol was completed, rather than the impact of that practice on youth outcomes. Third, Probation is limited in what it can collect, share and have access to - particularly in terms of mental health and education data - based on legal restraints and confidentiality concerns. Despite knowing that many youth "cross over" between the child protective services and juvenile justice systems, for example, shared access to the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) has been limited due to strict interpretation of statutes and regulations designed to protect confidentiality (see, for example, the Federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems [SACWIS] regulations). Collectively, the challenges to interagency coordination and the urgent need for clear and consistent outcomes make a compelling argument for increased attention to the data systems that undergird Probation practices and program, so that County decisions are guided by standardized data collection based on desired outcomes for youth and shared information can drive better interagency coordination and collaboration. Specifically, this study focuses on youth placed in suitable placement and camps (i.e., youth who penetrate deeply into the juvenile justice system) because their experiences and stories arguably provide the unique opportunity to: (1) identify how agencies, communities, and families can better prevent youth entry into the juvenile justice system; (2) provide insight into how to prevent youth who enter the juvenile justice system from reaching the point of being placed in out-of-home care (suitable placement) and/or Probation camps; (3) provide direction on how to build an integrated and coordinated response system that would address the complex needs of youth and families, particularly those who penetrate deeply into the system; and, (4) identify key outcomes that can be measured consistently and regularly (e.g., annually) by Probation, LACOE and allied County departments. This report begins by providing an overview of the need for and purpose of juvenile justice data as well as the current structures of data collection in Los Angeles County (Chapter 1). Next, it examines the characteristics and situational contexts of youth exiting from suitable placements and juvenile camp placements during 2011 (Chapters 2 & 3). Eight in-depth youth case histories taken from Probation records are presented to illustrate the context within which these youths' stories unfold from the perspective of the Probation Officers who supervise and oversee youth in the system (Chapter 4). Based on the findings presented in this report, Chapter 5 presents recommendations to improve practice through targeted reform and improved use of data. Details: Los Angeles: Advancement Project, 2015. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/la-probation-outcomes.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/la-probation-outcomes.pdf Shelf Number: 138315 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Uman, Gwen C. Title: Children's Defense Fund Freedom Schools Program in Los Angeles County Probation Camps: Evaluation Report Summary: With the highest youth incarceration rate in the world, the United States (U.S.) imprisons approximately 70,000 youth nationwide on any given day. The U.S. juvenile justice system, which began shifting in the 1980's from a rehabilitation to a punishment model, has created a broad sense of "perpetual surveillance," or "a state of conscious and permanent visibility" for thousands of American youth, especially young men of color. The exiling of American youth in the juvenile justice system has dire personal, educational, social, and economic effects. Some of the negative effects of youth incarceration include: lower educational achievement, higher unemployment, higher alcohol and substance abuse, increased mental health problems, and higher rates of learning disabilities. Studies have also documented the high costs of incarcerating youth; the U.S. spends $6 million per year in juvenile corrections and $88,000 in direct costs per juvenile each year. While youth incarceration has proven to be both harmful and costly, the number of youth in juvenile detention facilities across the country remains high. L.A. COUNTY'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The L.A. County juvenile justice system is the largest system in the nation. In a recent policy brief entitled "Reforming the Nation's Largest Juvenile Justice System," probation camps in L.A. were characterized as ineffective, operating under an outdated era of juvenile justice which relies heavily on penitentiary-like facilities and strictly enforced routines. Recently, a series of lawsuits and allegations in probation camps have identified the following problems in probation camps: "failure to protect youth from harm," "insufficient and problematic staffing," and "inadequate rehabilitative and educational services." To address recent lawsuits and allegations, the L.A. County Probation Department and LACOE have recently advanced a number of efforts, including the following: implementing integrated behavioral treatment models and evidence-based programs like Aggression Replacement Training and interdisciplinary, hands-on, and evidence-based educational programs (i.e. Road to Success Academy); decreasing the staff-to-youth ratio for both Probation Officers and teachers; and moving forward with a probation camp replacement project for Camp Kilpatrick to achieve a small group treatment model. An additional effort to remedy the problems addressed in recent lawsuits and allegations included piloting the CDF Freedom Schools program, which was implemented in two L.A. probation camps in 2013. A brief overview of the CDF Freedom Schools program is provided, with a fuller description of the L.A. County Project. Details: Los Angeles: Children's Defense Fund, California, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2014/report-cdf-freedom-schools.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2014/report-cdf-freedom-schools.pdf Shelf Number: 138321 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
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: Defence for Children International - Italy Title: Twelve: Children's Right to Participation and the Juvenile Justice System: National Report Italy Summary: In accordance with the main international and EU standards on children's rights and with the Child Friendly Justice Guidelines (CFJG) of the Council of Europe, children should have access to an adequate treatment in justice. Listening to children, hearing their views and recommendations, understanding their aspirations and concerns and taking them into account for decision making processes is key for policy and practice to become more appropriate and effective. It is also a human rights imperative under article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and a prerequisite for achieving compliance with international standards. International and European bodies have repeatedly encouraged states to adapt their legal systems to the specific needs of children. However national juvenile justice systems do not take CRC into consideration on a permanent basis, which often leads to not considering the real needs of children and adapting the system to them. Including participation and listening (art. 12 CRC) as core elements of actions concerning children is conducive to more efficient practices and improved communication. It is also a human rights imperative under article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and a prerequisite for achieving compliance with international standards. International and European bodies have repeatedly encouraged states to adapt their legal systems to the specific needs of children. However national juvenile justice systems do not take CRC into consideration on a permanent basis, which often leads to not considering the real needs of children and adapting the system to them. Including participation and listening (art. 12 CRC) as core elements of actions concerning children is conducive to more efficient practices and improved communication. Consequently, properly trained professionals working in the context of Juvenile Justice (JJ) on this is one of the first required actions for the purpose of a child-friendly system compliant with children's rights. The main goal of the project TWELVE is to contribute to the implementation of article 12 of the CRC, in line with the General Comment No. 14 (2013) of the CRC, in the field of JJ at the European level by developing a multidisciplinary training process aimed at strengthening and harmonising the skills and capacities of professionals in addressing children's rights and specific needs as a key element of an appropriate, efficient and inclusive action. The project will focus on the context of criminal proceedings. To achieve this goal the project will be structured around three interlinked pillars: analytical national activities to properly assess the real needs both of children in conflict with the law and professionals working with them in 3 EU countries (IT, BE, ES); training activities to develop and replicate a multidisciplinary training program aimed at improving the understanding of the CRC and informing professionals about how to implement its provisions in their daily practice in 6 countries (IT, BE, ES, BG, GR, EE); a Training Programme and an Handbook will be soon available. dissemination activities to ensure a European dimension as well as to share information and exchange ideas among professionals involved in JJ within the EU. Details: Rome: Defence for Children International Italy, 2016. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2016 at: http://www.defenceforchildren.it/files/twelve_Italy_.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Italy URL: http://www.defenceforchildren.it/files/twelve_Italy_.pdf Shelf Number: 138383 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Defence for Children - Belgium Title: Twelve: Children's right to participation and the juvenile justice systems. National Report Belgium Summary: The final seminar of the project TWELVE took place on 17 March 2016, in Brussels. TWELVE is a collaborative initiative that involved DCI-Italy, DCI-Spain and DCI-Belgium, and aimed at facilitating the implementation of Article 12 of the Child's Rights Convention in the juvenile justice systems of Europe. Professionals and government officials working with children in contact with the law, institutional actors, academics, and NGO stakeholders from different European countries participated in a roundtable discussion aiming at sharing experiences, models and perspectives on the right to participation in the juvenile justice system. Prior to the release of the handbook, DCI sections in Italy, Spain and Belgium presented their respective research and monitoring report on the situation of children's right to participation in the juvenile justice system of their respective countries. Details: Brussels: Defence for Children Belgium, 2015. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 24, 2016 at: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve_Belgium.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Belgium URL: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve_Belgium.pdf Shelf Number: 138401 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Defence for Children International Spain Title: Twelve. Children's Right to participation and the juvenile justice systems. National report: Spain Summary: In accordance with the main international and EU standards on children's rights and with the Child Friendly Justice Guidelines (CFJG) of the Council of Europe, children should have access to an adequate treatment in justice. Listening to children, hearing their views and recommendations, understanding their aspirations and concerns and taking them into account for decision making processes is key for policy and practice to become more appropriate and effective. It is also a human rights imperative under article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and a prerequisite for achieving compliance with international standards. TWELVE is a collaborative initiative that involves DCI-Italy, DCI-Spain and DCI-Belgium, and aims at facilitating the implementation of Article 12 of the Child's Rights Convention in the juvenile justice systems of Europe. In November 2015, DCI sections in Italy, Belgium and Spain presented their research and monitoring report on the situation of children's right to participation in the juvenile justice system of their respective countries. Details: Lisbon: Defence for Children International, 2015. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2016 at: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve_Spain.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Spain URL: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve_Spain.pdf Shelf Number: 138463 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Klofas, John Title: Juvenile Justice Reform Extension Evaluation Report Covering January 2012-June 2014 After-Hours Cases, Diversion Review Process, and Juvenile Detention Data Summary: This report is an evaluation of Monroe County, New York's Juvenile Justice Front-End Reform grant, which had the goals of reducing the number of juveniles (youth under sixteen years old) unnecessarily detained in Monroe County and increasing the number of juvenile cases diverted from court by ensuring diligent efforts were made at engaging juveniles and their families in the diversion process. Additional goals included decreasing the number of days between a juvenile's arrest and probation intake, ensuring there is always justification for detaining juveniles, and reviewing and documenting reasons for petitioning juvenile cases to be sure diversion attempts have been exhausted for that case. As such, four initiatives were implemented in Monroe County in March 2012: the after-hours detention hotline, expedited appearance tickets, a respite program, and a Diversion Review Committee (DRC). This report thoroughly describes each of these reforms, how they change the juvenile justice process, and whether they contributed to the goals of the reforms. We also examine factors that may have affected our results, such as the everyday practice of using these reformed systems and the relocation and capacity reduction of the local juvenile detention center. By reviewing data from multiple sources, this report reveals the effects of these reforms on juvenile case processing and outcomes. We find that all of the reform efforts were successfully implemented and largely had the desired impact. Since the reforms were implemented, - there are fewer juvenile detentions, - more juvenile delinquent cases are diverted from Family Court, - juvenile detentions and petitions are thoroughly and objectively assessed and justified through administrative review, and - juveniles are being seen, on average, 1-2 days after their after-hours arrests. Our findings indicate some room for process improvement, but the implementation of these reforms overall has been very successful. Details: Rochester, NY: Center for Public Safety Initiatives, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper #2014-18: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: https://www.rit.edu/cla/criminaljustice/sites/rit.edu.cla.criminaljustice/files/images/2014-18%20-%20Probation%20Final%20Report%202014%20no%20appendices.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.rit.edu/cla/criminaljustice/sites/rit.edu.cla.criminaljustice/files/images/2014-18%20-%20Probation%20Final%20Report%202014%20no%20appendices.pdf Shelf Number: 138625 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion ProgramJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hopkins, Ziyad Title: Diverted from Counsel: Filling the Rights Gap in New Zealands Youth Justice Model Summary: This report provides observation and commentary on the following question: What are the merits of increasing access to Youth Advocates, specialised lawyers for young people facing criminal allegations, within the youth justice sector? The release of the Youth Crime Action Plan 2013-2023 (YCAP) marks a period of reflection and focus on New Zealand's youth justice sector and the landmark Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (CYPFA). This policy analysis reviews CYPFA, and the implementation of youth justice, from a rights-based perspective. Despite the well-earned positive international reputation of New Zealand's youth justice model, many young New Zealanders miss out on legal advice. Approximately 80 per cent of youth charges are addressed informally, before court proceedings and the appointment of a lawyer. Drawing on interviews and observations from all phases of youth justice - from apprehension through sentencing - the report argues that increasing young people's meaningful access to trained Youth Advocates can ensure their individual rights when faced with state intervention whilst also promoting youth development. Mindful of budgetary restraints, but also with the need to promote equity, the report recommends five specific actions that can align New Zealand's youth justice sector with principles expressed in CYPFA; the UN Convention on the Rights of Children; and positive youth development: - Appoint a Youth Advocate to each child or young person within twenty four hours of arrest - Require the presence of a Youth Advocate for all police interviews with young people - Provide a legal-advice scheme for young people offered alternatives to prosecution as well as independent oversight of the alternative action programme - Invite Youth Advocates to each "intention to charge" family group conference - Update and promulgate practice standards for Youth Advocates For Massachusetts, the New Zealand experience - with the protections of access to legal advice - offers three important opportunities to adapt practice: - In lieu of lawyer-driven courtroom based plea bargaining, use family group conferencing to reach dispositional agreements - Upon the successful completion of a state intervention plan, empower judges to deem that the charges had never been filed - Develop state-wide principles that encourage and govern pre-court resolution of charges Details: Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Justice, 2015. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2016 at : http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Ziyad-Hopkins-report-abstract.pdf Year: 2015 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Ziyad-Hopkins-report-abstract.pdf Shelf Number: 138903 Keywords: Family Group CounselingJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: In Care, Out of Trouble. How the life chances of children in care can be transformed by protecting them from unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice system Summary: This review was established to examine the reasons for, and how best to tackle, the over representation of children in care, or with experience of care, in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Aiming to reduce the disproportionate number of young people who are, or have been, in public care progressing into custody is laudable. The over representation of looked after children in the youth justice system has to be challenged and changed. But it soon becomes distressingly clear that starting at the point of evidence of criminal behaviour is for many young people simply too late in the day. Remedial work and rehabilitation are essential but prevention is so much more rewarding and fruitful for the young person and wider society. It is against that background that it would be good to pause and reflect again on the importance of childhood in the social and emotional development of every young person. Good parenting entails a lifetime commitment. It creates the solid foundation on which is built the evolving unique personality that, hopefully, will in due course become the fulfilled adult. The essential ingredients are security, stability, unselfish love and an unyielding commitment to give the child the best start and hope for the future. It is in this context that young children develop self confidence, trust, personal and social values and optimism. Loss, neglect or trauma at this early stage in life often result in profound and enduring consequences. Great emphasis should be placed on early life experiences. Guidance and support through pregnancy and during the early months of parenthood should be available to all who need it. There are clear long term benefits in identifying problems at an early stage rather than delaying until a crisis. It is in all of our interests that as many children as possible are enabled to grow up to become successful, law abiding and fulfilled citizens well able to be good role models for the next generation. We all have a part to play in this, but especially the wider family. At times of difficulty steps should be taken to involve other family members and encourage their different contributions and support. Handled in the right way a crisis might be short-lived and stability restored. After all, this is a well trodden path in many families without the assistance of the state. This can be hugely satisfying work for frontline staff. Working in this way in some local authorities has already resulted in fewer children coming into care. Investing in childhood is more than a nice thing to do. It has a real value that goes beyond the child as it facilitates the future wellbeing of society. Failure to help the child and, where possible, to support the family at this stage is both costly to the child and very expensive to the state. In every way the price is high for everyone involved. In financial terms it costs over L200,000 each year to keep a young person in a secure children's home and the yearly cost of a place in a young offender institution is about L60,000. Meeting many young people in custodial institutions demonstrates all too clearly the gaps in their social development and in their basic education. It is impossible not to be moved by their experiences and the serious constraints on their life chances. For some, their anger, frustrations, inability to express themselves except through challenging behaviour and possibly violence all point to failure, for whatever reason, in their earlier years. Yet with the right help at the right time, the capacity of many children to change and their resilience in difficult circumstances is admirable. The staff in these establishments need to be equipped to demonstrate a mixture of sound professional skills and impressive personal qualities. They deserve good training, proper supervision and support. We should honour what they do on behalf of us all not least because few of us, including me, would choose to take on such challenging and at times distressing work. Remedial work can be tough, demanding and at times dispiriting. But this review has heard how good practice can achieve inspiring results. What is abundantly clear is that no one service operating alone can hope to meet the needs of these young people or their families. Each one of the key public services has a distinct and clear responsibility in law to fulfil the duties placed upon them by the United Kingdom Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. One of those duties is to work in partnership with each of the other services. Over the years there have been far too many well publicised examples of services failing to work across organisational boundaries both in the exchange of information and in day by day practice in the protection and support of vulnerable children. We have seen and heard of excellent joint working and co-located teams in places such as Leeds and Surrey to divert looked after children from unnecessary criminalisation. Good practice is achieving splendid results in other areas too. Now is the time to make it standard practice everywhere. Details: London: PRT, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2016 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/In%20care%20out%20of%20trouble%20summary.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/In%20care%20out%20of%20trouble%20summary.pdf Shelf Number: 139145 Keywords: At-Risk YouthDelinquency PreventionJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Kilkelly, Ursula Title: Alternatives to Detention for Juvenile Offenders: Manual of Good Practices in Europe Summary: States' responses to juvenile offending may take a variety of forms. While the model of juvenile justice adopted, the legislative framework, and the social context may vary from country to country, there is a body of international standards which sets out the key principles and minimum standards to be reached by each State in implementing their juvenile justice system. Particular emphasis is placed within these international standards on the promotion of the use of community-based sanctions and measures,as an alternative to custodial sentencing. Details: Brussels: International Juvenile Justice Observatory, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: http://www.oijj.org/en/joda-manual Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.oijj.org/en/joda-manual Shelf Number: 139303 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Shearar, Ashley Fritha Title: 'At the heart of the matter': A comparative analysis of youth justice transformation between New Zealand and South Africa Summary: During the mid-1980s, Māori families challenged New Zealand's social welfare system, reclaiming their right to be involved in decisions about their children. Around the same time, parents and community groups protested the detention of hundreds of children in South Africa during the Apartheid era. These experiences helped shape both countries' youth justice systems, which reflect restorative justice principles and international standards for children's rights. The research reported here is the first in-depth comparative analysis to compare New Zealand and South Africa's journeys to alter their youth justice systems. It asks the following key questions: - What were the key conceptual influences that shaped youth justice transformation in New Zealand and South Africa? - What do both countries' experiences of youth justice transformation reveal about the role of individuals, advocacy coalitions, and international influences in shaping policy and practice? Using a phenomenological research approach, key role players from both countries were interviewed. These interviews discovered that social entrepreneurial factors gave direction to policy outcomes. All participants described their commitment to changing the status quo following their exposure to the inhumane conditions experienced by children and young people in conflict with the law. This prompted them to promote policies that diverted children from the justice system and prevented re-offending while still holding children to account for their behaviour and encouraging them to repair the harm. The participants explained their motivation to find policy solutions that empowered children, families, and victims. In both countries, social entrepreneurs resisted opposition and joined forces to develop convincing arguments for their position. This research confirmed the advantages of government support to advance social entrepreneurial ventures. Policy transfer was also found to play a role in the change processes in both countries. This study identifies how both New Zealand and South Africa have lent their policies internationally to contribute to practical youth justice changes in countries seeking to adhere to international standards and to incorporate restorative justice principles. Significant contributions include New Zealand's family group conference, which has inspired several jurisdictions, as well as South Africas diversion programmes, which have particularly benefitted other African countries. Details: Wellington, NZ: Victoria University of Wellington, 2013. 255p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 18, 2016 at: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/2872 Year: 2013 Country: New Zealand URL: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/2872 Shelf Number: 139652 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsNew ZealandSouth Africa |
Author: Carney, Jodeen Title: Review of the Northern Territory Youth Justice System: Report Summary: This Review was undertaken on behalf of the Northern Territory Government to identify emerging issues and trends in youth justice and youth offending outlined in the terms of reference. It was not an inquiry established under the Inquiries Act. A long list of recommendations is not provided in this report. Instead, there are nine. The Review elected to provide key recommendations that would, if adequately resourced and implemented, enhance the ability of government and non government agencies to assist in the delivery of services and responses for young people in the youth justice system. The recommendations will assist to reduce offending and re-offending. Supporting young people is a core function of any government. Services are always in demand and will always need to be increased. The challenge for the Northern Territory Government is to provide targeted and specialist interventions to those young people who are in the youth justice system and those who are at risk of entering it. Apart from assisting these young people for compassionate reasons, there are sound economic reasons for doing so. This underpins the concept of justice reinvestment. It requires a change of direction and purpose of expenditure. It requires realigning expenditure so that, over time, custodial operations are reduced and community interventions are increased. Unless this is attempted in a coordinated and comprehensive way, many young offenders are likely to re-offend, and will continue to present challenges for government, its agencies and the community. Many young offenders require intensive case management and interventions that are not achieved in detention centres. The relatively small number of young people in, or at risk of entering, the youth justice system provides an opportunity for Northern Territory Government agencies and the non government sector. Many of them are well known to providers of support and intervention services, as well as specific agencies. Hence, identifying these young people is not difficult and, with the appropriate systems in place, monitoring them is significantly easier than in other jurisdictions. Many young people in the youth justice system come from homes where poverty, alcohol abuse, violence and dysfunctional relationships are the norm. These are young people in greatest need and the ones who are likely to require a higher level of intervention and case management. These are the same young people who are more likely than others to graduate to further offending and incarceration. These are the ones who represent ongoing costs to the community. These are the ones for whom the underlying causes of their offending and re-offending must be addressed. Policy development and decision making in the area of youth crime must be evidenced based. There must be a bipartisan approach to youth offending and political leaders must The cost of detaining a young person in 2009-10 was $592 a day. Based on that figure, the cost of detailing one young offender for one year is $216 000. The Review does not know the costs of the effects of youth crime. It is, however, considerable. The terms of reference for this Review provide that the youth justice system 'encompasses a continuum of services and responses from preventive, policing, pre court, correctional and post release'. The Review examined each component of the system and found there was, in fact, no continuum. Instead, there is a fragmented and uncoordinated approach to the delivery of services and responses. Government agencies responsible for various parts of the youth justice system tend to focus on their own areas of responsibility. Once a young offender has moved on, that was the end of the agency's responsibility. Hence, young people who move throughout the youth justice system have no coordinated monitoring and are not dealt with again until they next come to the attention of the same or another government agency. Agencies recognise the importance of the continuum, but operate independently in accordance with their key portfolio responsibilities. There was widespread agreement that the fragmented ministerial and administrative arrangements made coordination of the system difficult and it was often unclear which agency was responsible for particular functions. A recommendation is made that is designed to streamline administrative and ministerial responsibilities. The need to establish a new unit or division within an existing department became obvious and is recommended in this report. There is a need to develop a new and comprehensive youth justice strategy with targets and benchmarks. The development of the strategy will guide the operations of the new unit. Government faces enormous challenges delivering services to young people across the Territory who are in, or at risk of entering, the youth justice system. Geographic obstacles, cultural issues, and limited resources are just some of the difficulties. The Federal Government continues to develop partnerships within the three tiers of government, the non government sector and the community in youth service delivery, with a particular focus on building service centres in Indigenous communities. This must continue in order to meet the various challenges that a continuum of services and responses requires. As the Review was required to work within its terms of reference, many useful suggestions do not appear in this report. The submissions will provide a valuable resource for government in its continuing efforts to improve the youth justice system. A coordinated model to target individual youth across the spectrum of issues they face will also bring government's approach to youth justice in line with the strategically coordinated, socially inclusive mandate of both Territory 2030 and Working Future. The key recommendations involve the Northern Territory Government: 1. establish a new unit within an existing department with responsibility for administering all services and responses to the youth justice system 2. develop a new youth justice strategy 3. streamline administrative arrangements and ministerial responsibilities 4. improve data collection, share information between government agencies, and ensure that programs delivered contain built in evaluations 5. increase investment in police diversion, including increased eligibility for diversion, and expand diversion programs 6. increase the number of youth rehabilitation camps 7. expand the Family Support Program and increase capacity of Family Support Centres 8. increase workforce capacity 9. establish an external monitoring and evaluation process. Details: Darwin, NT, AUS: Northern Territory Government, 2011. 242p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2016 at: https://www.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/238211/youth-justice-review-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: https://www.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/238211/youth-justice-review-report.pdf Shelf Number: 140141 Keywords: Juvenile Detention CenterJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Bernstein, Nell Title: Mothers at the Gate: How a powerful Family Movement is Transforming the Juvenile Justice System Summary: One in four women in the United States has a family member in prison. Among black women, this number rises to two in five. The family burden of incarceration falls disproportionately on women - especially black and Latino women - and on families that are low-income and poor. According to a report from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Forward Together, and Research Action Design entitled Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families ' in an overwhelming majority of cases, family members were primarily responsible for the costs associated with having a loved one arrested and/or incarcerated - everything from lawyers' fees, to court-imposed fines, to collect calls and visiting expenses. Eighty-three percent of these family members were women. Further, the report also found that the fiscal costs associated with a family member's incarceration left half of those affected struggling to meet basic needs and more than a third in debt. As of 2013, more than 54,000 juveniles were incarcerated in juvenile detention, correction, or other residential facilities. While this represents a significant decrease from highs in the 1990s, the U.S. still locks up far more of its children than do other countries - 18 times more than France and five times more than South Africa, for instance. Given these numbers, it may not be surprising that a movement of family members - particularly mothers - is developing around the country, a movement that aims to challenge both the conditions in which their loved ones are held and the fact of mass incarceration itself. This report reflects an initial effort to map that movement and to distill the shared wisdom of its leaders. Details: Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed September 3, 2016 at: http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/k-dolan-mothers-at-the-gate-5.3.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/k-dolan-mothers-at-the-gate-5.3.pdf Shelf Number: 140144 Keywords: Families of InmatesFamilies of PrisonersJuvenile Justice ReformParenting |
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: Deitch, Michele Title: Keeping Our Kids at Home: Expanding Community-Based Facilities for Adjudicated Youth in Texas Summary: In the wake of high-profile scandals that rocked the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) in 2007, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 103, which initiated a host of reforms. Among these measures were efforts to divert greater numbers of juveniles from the state’s juvenile correctional system. Specifically, no longer would judges be allowed to send misdemeanants to TYC. Local officials went well beyond this legislative mandate in their efforts to keep youthful offenders close to home. Commitments to TYC dropped dramatically, especially from counties such as Travis and Dallas. County commissioners in these and other jurisdictions supplemented existing probation resources in order to expand services and programs for delinquent youth. These efforts to reduce the TYC population and to serve youth at the local level had strong support from both advocates and experts on juvenile justice. For example, the Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Texas Youth Commission urged Texas to rely more heavily on count-ylevel probation, with an emphasis on use of evidence-based interventions, and to reserve TYC for the most serious juvenile offenders. Th e Task Force’s report cited research from around the country showing the greater success of community-based services and interventions. Moreover, the report recommended creation of a "regionalized system of care that supports the use of small facilities." Th e Sunset Advisory Commission’s review of TYC and TJPC (the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission) led to similar conclusions. The sunset commission recognized the need to continue reducing commitments to TYC and to promote community corrections for juveniles. One of sunset's key recommendations was to "[e]stablish a community corrections pilot program that encourages counties to keep lower-risk offenders eligible for commitment to TYC in their home communities and out of state confi nement." Th is recommendatiois currently a major provision in the sunset legislation (HB 3689 and SB 1020), and is under intensive review by various legislative committees. While details about the pilot project are still being negotiated, some individual counties and groups of counties have put forward proposals that would truly shift the paradigm of juvenile justice in these jurisdictions. These counties propose to manage virtually all but a very small handful of adjudicated youth in local probation programs, in exchange for state funding. A cap would be set on the number of youth eligible for placement in TYC from each of these jurisdictions; any placements in excess of this number would be at county expense. Th ere appears to be strong legislative support for this concept, even as details about funding continue to be debated. At the same time that legislative efforts to shift responsibility for delinquent youth to the counties gain steam, the appropriations process reveals that legislators continue to expect TYC to downsize. Th e Senate has recommended substantial cuts to TYC’s budget and proposed the closure of certain large state facilities in remote areas. At this point in the reform process, it appears that the era of using large juvenile corrections facilities as the state’s main response to delinquency is heading toward its end. Exactly what would replace these large correctional facilities in the short- or long-term is still under discussion. However, TYC continues its efforts to develop a more regionalized system of care, using smaller facilities located closer to urban centers in lieu of large institutions. While there is no doubt that Texas can take further steps to save money and reduce recidivism by implementing more non-residential services for juvenile offenders, it is also clear that some residential options are still required— whether they are run by counties or the state. At least some of the youth diverted from TYC to the counties will need residential options, including treatment beds. Th e need for both secure and non-secure beds is especially obvious for those counties that will need to serve increasingly serious offenders under the proposed pilot programs. So too may TYC be directed to replace some of its large institutions with smaller group homes, as happened in Missouri. Presumably TYC will also need to locate community-based transitional bed space or "step-down facilities" for juveniles released from TYC. Even if state money is available to develop these new residential options, prior experience in both the juvenile justice and adult criminal justice systems reveals that it will not be easy for these new facilities to be sited. Cumbersome statutes requiring time-consuming and expensive notice and hearings, zoning restrictions, and lack of community support all combine to create difficulties in moving forward with small, community-based facilities for adjudicated youth. If these facilities are unable to be placed, however, it could limit the ability to expand the pilot projects beyond a few counties in future legislative sessions, limit TYC’s regionalization options, and hinder TYC’s ability to help juveniles re-integrate into their communities post-release from TYC. Th e policy challenge is how to expand availability of community-based facilities for adjudicated youth in Texas, to support the direction of juvenile justice reform in this state. In other words, how can we shift from the age-old NIMBY ("not in my backyard") way of thinking that led to large-scale correctional facilities in the far corners of the state to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") perspective essential for successful community corrections? Th is paper examines some of the issues presented by the desire to move towards community-based residential housing for adjudicated youth, and recommends strategies for meeting those challenges. Whether the legislature moves towards a juvenile justice model run by county-level probation departments (as appears to be the case), or whether TYC needs to plan for smaller state-run facilities scattered around the state (or whether—as most experts prefer—these reforms proceed on a dual track), it behooves all stakeholders to understand and plan for these challenges. Details: Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2009. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2009-05-PP15-community-based-jj-facilities-md.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2009-05-PP15-community-based-jj-facilities-md.pdf Shelf Number: 130128 Keywords: Alternatives-to-Incarceration Community-based Corrections Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Justice Policy Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation |
Author: Taylor, Charlie Title: Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales Summary: Context 1. In 2007, 225,000 children in England and Wales received a caution or conviction for a notifiable offence . Of these children, 106,000 were first-time entrants to the system having never before received a caution or conviction. 126,000 were prosecuted at court, and 5,800 were sentenced to custody. The average monthly under-18 custodial population for 2007 was 2,9092. 2. Since that high watermark the number of children dealt with by the youth justice system has reduced spectacularly, with consistent year-on-year falls. The number of children cautioned or convicted in 2015 was 47,000 – down 79% since 2007. Over the same period the number of children entering the youth justice system for the first time has fallen by 82%, the number prosecuted at court has reduced by 69%, and there are now around only 900 under-18s in custody. 3. In the last decade the demand for youth justice services has changed. The police and youth offending services have, rightly, increasingly sought to deal informally with minor offending by children. The diversion from the youth justice system of children who were never likely to continue offending has meant that those who remain are the most difficult to rehabilitate. 4. Among the children now in the youth justice system are high numbers of black, Muslim and white working class boys; many are in care, and mental and other health problems, and learning difficulties, are common. These groups are particularly over-represented in custody, where over 40% are from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds, a large proportion have previously been in care (38% in Young Offender Institutions, 52% in Secure Training Centres) , and more than a third have a diagnosed mental health disorder . Many of the children in the system come from some of the most dysfunctional and chaotic families where drug and alcohol misuse, physical and emotional abuse and offending is common. Often they are victims of crimes themselves. Though children's backgrounds should not be used as an excuse for their behaviour, it is clear that the failure of education, health, social care and other agencies to tackle these problems have contributed to their presence in the youth justice system. 5. Yet these are children for whom a traditional criminal justice response has been shown to be, on its own, inadequate. Sixty-four per cent of children given a Youth Rehabilitation Order by the court, and 69% of those sentenced to custody, go on to reoffend within a year. If the youth justice system is truly to protect the public, it must succeed in changing the lives of these most troubled children. To do this, a system set up almost two decades ago to tackle a different problem must evolve to respond imaginatively and proportionately to the challenges of today. Principles and aims for the review 6. It is right that children who break the law are dealt with differently to adults. Children act impulsively and often do not appreciate the consequences of their actions; they are not emotionally developed and may struggle to communicate effectively. This is particularly true of so many of the children who offend, who often have learning or speech and communication problems. But children also have great strengths on which to build and are capable of rapid and extraordinary change. There needs to be a shift in the way society, including central and local government, thinks about youth justice so that we see the child first and the offender second. Offending should not mean forfeiting the right to childhood. If children who offend are to become successful and law-abiding adults, the focus must be on improving their welfare, health and education "their life prospects" rather than simply imposing punishment. 7. Almost all of the causes of childhood offending lie beyond the reach of the youth justice system. It is vital that health, education, social care and other services form part of an integrated, multi-agency response to a child's offending, but it is more desirable that these same services intervene with at-risk children and families before their problems manifest themselves in offending. I believe this is best achieved by devolving greater freedoms and responsibility for the youth justice system to local authorities who otherwise hold the statutory accountability for educating and protecting children. By aligning these responsibilities stronger incentives can be created for a child's offending and related difficulties to be tackled promptly, proportionately and with the least cost to the taxpayer. To help professionals to exercise these functions effectively, I propose stripping back the prescription and bureaucracy associated with a centrally controlled system and creating a clearer inspection and accountability framework, so that practitioners are judged on the outcomes that they achieve rather than the processes they follow. 8. It is my view that education needs to be central to our response to youth offending. All children in England are required to be in education or training until their 18th birthday, but too often children in the youth justice system have been out of school for long periods of time through truancy or following exclusion. As a result, half of 15-17 year olds in YOIs have the literacy or numeracy levels expected of a 7-11 year old. Schools and colleges are crucial in preventing offending. If children are busy during the day, undertaking activity that is meaningful and that will help them to succeed in life, whether it be studying for exams, learning a trade or playing sport or music, they are much less likely to offend. Education and training are also the building blocks on which a life free from crime can be constructed. By forging closer links between schools, colleges and youth offending services, and by transforming youth custody into Secure Schools, drawing in expertise from the best alternative provision schools, children can be equipped with the skills, qualifications and confidence to move beyond offending and fulfil their potential. The government's new ambition to make schools in England responsible for the educational provision of pupils that are excluded is particularly welcome as it will maintain the connection with mainstream education for some of the most troubled children. 9. In reforming the youth justice system it must be recognised that, for the vast majority of children, offending is a short-lived phase. The most recent data suggest that 62% of children who receive a caution or conviction do not go on to reoffend within 12 months. Growing up involves making and learning from mistakes. It is right that the youth justice system should tackle serious and persistent offending, but it should not be the mechanism by which all childhood mistakes are redressed. The right response to childhood offending should always be to address the causes of the offending behaviour and to repair harm to victims. This does not always require a criminal justice intervention. Evidence shows that contact with the criminal justice system can have a tainting effect on some children and can increase the likelihood of reoffending. Wherever possible minor crimes should be dealt with outside the formal youth justice system, and when a criminal justice response is required children should be dealt with at the lowest possible tier. The long-term implications of formal contact with the system must also be reduced so that these do not act as barriers to rehabilitation. 10. It was concerning to see versions of the "Scared Straight" programme operating in England, in which either prison officers or prisoners themselves attempt to deter children from criminality by showing or explaining the realities of life in prison. This is despite international evidence that such interventions can increase the likelihood offending among children and young people . In general, there is surprisingly little robust evidence from the UK about which interventions are the most effective, but what is undoubtedly important is the quality of the worker who is involved with the child, and the relationship that they strike up . The evidence suggests that having one person directly involved, holding the child in mind, keeping going when things go wrong and caring about what happens to him or her, is vital in helping a child to change. 11. A more proportionate response to offending must also mean that the government and local services are prepared to invest intensive effort in turning around the lives of the most profoundly troubled children. Some children who commit persistent or serious offences have a range of problems that means criminal justice processes need to be able to adapt to individual circumstances. Professionals must have the freedom and the flexibility to make decisions about a child's rehabilitation, and to adjust these plans to recognise progress or respond to setbacks. I believe the role of the court should be enhanced so that youth magistrates can play a much more active role in designing tailored plans for children, co-ordinating the contributions of partner agencies and holding the child, their parents and these agencies to account. Similarly, for those children remanded or sentenced to custody, the head teacher of a Secure School must have the freedom to hire the right staff, commission the required services and establish a programme of activity that will engage, motivate and rehabilitate the children in his or her care. To achieve this, custody must truly be the option of last resort, and those who go there must stay for a meaningful period of time. Professionals must be equipped with sufficient powers, and then trusted to take the right decisions with the most challenging children, if they are to reduce reoffending and thereby create fewer victims. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2016. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576383/youth-justice-review-final-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576383/youth-justice-review-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 144913 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Barney, Morgan Title: What Justice Requires: Closing Youth Prisons Summary: Where were you when you were 13? What were you doing when you were 16? For 24,000 children in America right now, the answer is simple: serving time in a youth prison. A youth prison is typically an isolated, locked facility with 100+ beds that has many of the same features as an adult prison: razor wire, cellblocks, armed guards, and solitary confinement. While the number of incarcerated child in the U.S. has dropped in the last decade as states opt for therapeutic and restorative community-based models, approximately 80 youth prisons remain, holding 24,000 children between the ages of 13-18. Youth prisons are not restorative, they perpetuate racial and socio-economic inequalities, and they fail to uphold public justice. A system that warehouses children created in the image of God is not right or just. As Christians, we need consider the purpose of punishment and the importance of rehabilitation. Youth prisons must be closed. The lives and futures of many young people depend on it. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Public Justice, 2017. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5669c7222399a395a9879dd1/t/5862ab1dd2b857312cd6cb52/1482861682953/Closing+Youth+Prisons.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5669c7222399a395a9879dd1/t/5862ab1dd2b857312cd6cb52/1482861682953/Closing+Youth+Prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 144557 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |
Author: New York (State). Governor's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice Title: Final Report of the Governor's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice. Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York State Summary: Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 131 on April 9, 2014, to establish the Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice. He instructed this Commission to develop a concrete plan to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction in the most effective and prudent manner possible, and to make other specific recommendations as to how New York State's juvenile and criminal justice systems could better serve youth, improve outcomes, and protect communities. The Commission was ordered to complete its work by December 31, 2014. Why "raise the age" now? Numerous developments have converged in recent years to forge a growing consensus for this and related reforms to New York State's juvenile justice system. In brief, at least seven key developments have brought us to this point where reform is both necessary and possible. Each of these developments is explored in greater detail in this report. First, experiences in states like Connecticut and Illinois that have raised the age of criminal responsibility recently have demonstrated that recidivism and juvenile crime rates overall can be lowered through evidence-based interventions that steer nonviolent youthful offenders out of the justice system and into family, mental health, or other needed services. These experiences have helped to reduce opposition to reform in this area by showing that public safety can actually be enhanced by such changes. As discussed more fully in Chapter seven, analysis of the efficacy of certain interventions shows substantial recidivism reductions among high risk offenders in New York State. In fact, analysis completed in support of this Commission found that implementation of a range of evidence-based services used in juvenile justice for New York's population of 16- and 17-year-old offenders would eliminate between 1,500 and 2,400 crime victimizations every five years as a result of these recidivism reductions. Second, extensive research on the significant negative impacts of incarceration on adolescents in adult jails and prisons has brought a sense of urgency for reform. Higher suicide rates, increased recidivism, and many other measures all suggest that both offenders and their communities are harmed by placing adolescents into adult jails and prisons. Third, New York's unique history of juvenile justice has created a pressing reason for reform now. Despite a proud early history in this area, New York State now stands as one of only two states in the country that have set the age of criminal responsibility at age 16. That single fact has become a rallying cry for the current reform movement in this State, led the State's Chief Judge to urge legislative action, and inspired the Governor's initiative to appoint this Commission. Fourth, the impacts of processing all 16- and 17-year-olds in the criminal justice system fall disproportionately on young men of color. Young men of color are substantially over-represented among youth who are arrested at age 16 or 17 and who end up incarcerated as a result of the offense. Those impacts are felt not only by the young men themselves, but also by communities of color around the State. Fifth, scientific research into brain development has revealed only very recently that portions of our brains, including the region governing impulse control, develop far later than expected--after adolescence and as late as one's early to mid-20s. This research has demonstrated that adolescents do not have fully developed faculties of judgment or impulse control. It has also shown that adolescents respond more fruitfully to efforts to rehabilitate them and put them on the right track. Adolescence is a time of substantial development and provides real opportunity to harness the many assets youth possess in support of a positive life trajectory. Sixth, the research cited above has, in turn, undergirded several opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts restricting the nature and scope of state and local governments' punishment of adolescent offenders on the ground that such offenders are both less culpable criminally and more susceptible to fruitful rehabilitation because of their still-developing brains. Those decisions have both resulted from and encouraged reform efforts across the country to improve the juvenile justice laws to reduce unnecessary incarceration and improve rehabilitative programming. Finally, this shifting view of adolescent offenders has coincided with, and arguably been facilitated by, a steady and significant decrease in violent crimes committed by youthful offenders since the 1990s. That reduction in crime has replaced outsized fears of young "super predators" with a more thoughtful focus on targeted criminal justice interventions to reduce recidivism without simply expanding costly incarceration. For all of these reasons, the Commission has the wind at its back in drafting this plan for raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction and reforming the juvenile justice system in other respects. The Commission's recommendations reflect a balanced approach that incorporates the wisdom and experiences of law enforcement, probation officers, criminal defense attorneys, policy advocates, service providers, local and State officials, and youth and their parents affected by the current system. Partly as a result of this balanced approach, the Commission's members support these recommendations unanimously and without reservation. Details: Albany: The Commission, 2014. 176p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2017 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicSafetyandJustice_0%20(1).pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicSafetyandJustice_0%20(1).pdf Shelf Number: 144817 Keywords: Administration of Juvenile JusticeAge of Criminal ResponsibilityJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Gupta-Kagan, Josh Title: Effective Solutions to South Carolina's Juvenile Justice Crisis: Safety, Rehabilitation, and Fiscal Responsibility Summary: More than a decade after emerging from federal court oversight, the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice ("DJJ") once again faces significant difficulties. Recent legislative and media reports have shined a light on some of DJJ's current problems. Some members of the South Carolina General Assembly now consider DJJ to be in the midst of a crisis marked by violence at DJJ facilities, poor staffing models, and inadequate treatment for children in custody. A critical Legislative Audit Council report describes an agency facing serious challenges, and led to the resignation of the DJJ director. This crisis creates an opportunity to address long-standing challenges and set South Carolina on a course to build a model juvenile justice system. This white paper will not rehash the incidents that triggered the General Assembly's attention. Instead, this analysis is a call to action to address the long-standing problems in how we treat juvenile offenders and to set South Carolina on a path towards building a model juvenile justice system - a system that reduces crime by rehabilitating child offenders, keeps children and juvenile justice staff safe, and more efficiently spends taxpayer money. Details: Columbia, SC: Protection & Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc., 2017. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2017 at: http://www.pandasc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Juvenile-Justice-Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.pandasc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Juvenile-Justice-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 145024 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: UNICEF Title: Juvenile Justice Systems: Good Practices in Latin America Summary: During the last ten years, nearly all Latin American countries have taken greater or lesser steps to incorporate these new approaches to juvenile justice into their legal orders, with Mexico, Columbia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay remaining the furthest behind. The establishment of these new systems inevitably implies the development of an institutional capacity that can make possible their application. Over and beyond the technical know-how, there needs to be a real commitment on the part of states to take the required measures for ensuring an adequate operation of the agencies and institutions provided for in the law. Moreover, it requires creating a culture of respect for children's rights, not only in the institutions involved but in the larger society as a whole. UNICEF has been working in collaboration with Latin American countries to advance this process, mostly by advocating on behalf of the creation and implementation of specialised juvenile justice systems and by providing support through technical assistance and training for the various sectors involved. This document presents some of the best initiatives that have been developed in the field of juvenile justice. They are recognised as successful for having achieved exceptionally relevant results in fostering protective enviroment for the rights of adolescents, all in a manner consistent with the mandate and framework of the CRC, The criteria used for selecting these practices were established by the Child Protection Section at UNICEFs Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (TACRO). They included the following factors: a) The positive impact of the practice on the targeted population; b) The incorporation of the principles of non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, and the participation of adolescents; c) The application of Articles 37 and 40 of the CRC, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty; d) The development of alliances with civil society and the private sector; e) The strategies employed in implementing programmes and in overcoming difficult obstacles; and f) The sustainability of the practices. The countries selected by the Child Protection Section of TACRO were Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Panama. There have undoubtedly The roster of questions used in the interviewing instrument is included at the end of this document as an appendix. ICEF/HQOO-0800/Donna DeCesare 7 been other successful experiences producing similarly positive results, both in the selected countries as well as in other parts of the region. Nonetheless, the selected practices have been included by virtue of the important role that UNICEF programming has played in the success of each example. In the course of preparing this document, all of the key people involved in each case were interviewed. This included officials from UNICEF as well as from judicial and executive branches of government, civil society organisations, and adolescents along with their families.5 To complete the study, UNICEF also collected relevant statistical information and secondary documentation that could assist in the analysis of each selected experience. The ultimate objective of this recompilation of examples is to demonstrate how programming based in a child rights and human rights approach, together with the commitment to comply with the CRC on the part of communities and states, worked to produce positive changes on behalf of children while having favourable repercussions on the larger society. Details: Panama, Republic of Panama; UNICEF, 2006. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: https://www.unicef.org/lac/JUSTICIA_PENALingles.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Latin America URL: https://www.unicef.org/lac/JUSTICIA_PENALingles.pdf Shelf Number: 145070 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Merfish, Brett Title: RAISE THE AGE: 17-Year-Olds in the Criminal Justice System. Arrests, Jail Bookings, and Case Outcomes Among 17-Year-Olds in Texas, 2012-2015 Summary: Texas is one of only seven states in which 17-year-olds accused of committing crimes are automatically shuffled into the adult criminal justice system rather than the juvenile justice system, regardless of the crime. Treating 17-year-olds as adults in the criminal justice system is out of step with the societal consensus for "maturity" as well as with research on brain development that finds youth are inherently less likely to consider the outcomes of their actions, more prone to risky behavior, and more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures. Sending youth into the adult system has serious consequences for their mental health and physical well-being; 17-year-olds face physical and psychological risks when placed in adult prisons that lead to higher rates of suicide, depression, and physical and sexual victimization. In addition, having an adult criminal record creates future barriers to education, employment, housing, and military service. Seventeen-year-olds are not able to vote, serve on juries, or serve in the military, yet they are treated as adults by the criminal justice system. Moreover, the crimes 17-year-olds are arrested for and the crimes for which they're booked in jail closely resemble the crimes for which younger juveniles in Texas are arrested and detained. In short, 17-year-olds are very much like their 16-year-old counterparts but they receive different treatment by the criminal justice system - treatment that leads to higher recidivism rates and more negative effects on their well-being. The following data analysis examines the arrests (including arrests by Houston-area school district police officers), jail bookings, and case outcomes for 17-year-olds in Texas over the last four years for which complete data were available (2012-2015). Unless otherwise noted, data were obtained from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS), and the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). Some top-level findings of the analysis are: - The majority of 17-year-olds are arrested for low-level misdemeanor offenses. - Fewer 17-year-olds are being arrested each year - with a 17% decrease from 2013 to 2015. The number of arrests of 17-year-olds is closer to other juveniles than to adults or 18-year-olds. - The top three offenses leading to arrests of 17-year-olds were theft (20.8% of offenses), drug possession (19.1%), and assault (10.8%). - For drug offenses, 75.5% of arrests were for marijuana possession, representing 14.4% of all arrests of 17-year-olds. - Of arrests of 17-year-olds by Independent School District (ISD) officers in the Houston area over an almost two-year period, 35.9% were for drug possession, mainly small amounts of marijuana. - Data from a sample of counties show an annual downward trend of 17-year-olds being booked into jail; possession of marijuana (19.3%) and theft (18.1%) were the most common offenses. - The offenses most commonly resulting in jail bookings for 17-year-olds varied only slightly between counties. These findings and the following data analysis make a compelling case for treating 17-year-olds as juveniles within the criminal justice system. The rates at which they are arrested along with the offenses for which they are booked resemble the rates and offenses for 16-year-olds; yet their different treatment leads to very different outcomes. Raising the age will ensure that 17-year-olds who are charged with a criminal offense are treated in a developmentally appropriate way. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Appleseed, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/Raise%20the%20Age%20Report_041117.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/Raise%20the%20Age%20Report_041117.pdf Shelf Number: 145071 Keywords: Age of Responsibility Juvenile Court JurisdictionJuvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice System Juvenile OffendersJuvenile Waiver Waiver to Adult Court |
Author: Lipsey, Mark W. Title: Juvenile Justice System Improvement: Implementing an Evidence-Based Decision-Making Platform Summary: Over the past three decades, the juvenile justice system in the United States has benefited from the tremendous growth in knowledge about effective policy and practice. Since the mid-1990s, we have seen the development of the components of an evidence-based decision-making platform, consisting of validated risk and needs assessment tools, structured decision-making tools to assist in the better matching of the needs of youth involved in the juvenile justice system with the correct level of supervision and types of services, and evidence-based programs and services. Today, that knowledge is readily available to policy makers and practitioners, with the challenge being to support jurisdictions in incorporating the components holistically into the operation of their juvenile justice systems. This report draws on the experiences of jurisdictions that have worked to integrate these tools and practices into a platform for juvenile justice decision-making through two demonstration programs--the Juvenile Justice Systems Improvement Project (JJSIP) and the Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative (JJRRI). These jurisdictions have made significant progress in bringing the tenets of JJSIP and JJRRI to life in their communities and juvenile justice systems. It is our hope that the implementation experiences this report captures will help others to follow in their footsteps. It is our belief that the core tenets of JJSIP and JJRRI are at the heart of what juvenile justice systems across the country will look like in the future - and that the youth and families they serve will be better off as a result. The report, therefore, is organized to help the reader understand the background of the initiatives and their essential elements. It draws on site experiences to depict key principles and implementation issues that can inform any effort by a jurisdiction to create an evidence-based decision-making platform. It demonstrates that successful implementation of an evidence-based platform requires an array of systems supports, including strong leadership, workforce development, data collection and analysis, partnership, communication, cooperation, and ongoing attention to quality assurance. In that regard, it should serve as a guide for agency leaders contemplating aligning their system improvement efforts with both JJSIP and JJRRI. In short, it is our hope that this report will provide foundational information about what a system leader needs to consider related to readiness for this type of system improvement effort. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2017. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250443.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250443.pdf Shelf Number: 145332 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: John Howard Association of Illinois Title: Moving Beyond Transition: Ten Findings and Recommendations on the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice Summary: Our findings include the following: In a 2012 report, JHA found chronically low mental health staffing levels at IYC-Kewanee, the only IDJJ facility designated to provide intensive mental health treatment. Since JHA's 2012 report was published, IDJJ has increased Kewanee's mental health staffing levels and moved youth with lower security risks and less intensive treatment needs to a newly-created mental health special treatment cottage at IYC-St. Charles. While IDJJ has increased its collection of data on programs and operations, much of this data is still not readily available to stakeholders and public. This kind of transparency is essential to enable stakeholders and the public to independently evaluate IDJJ's performance, advocate for necessary improvements, and build broad support for the agency and its mission. In 2012, IDJJ strengthened oversight of its operations by requiring greater accountability from independent service providers, and also working with outside evaluators to assess program outcomes. Notwithstanding ongoing challenges, IDJJ has made progress in the area of juvenile parole and reentry. IDJJ now has the authority to approve alternative host site placements for youth awaiting release on parole, and the agency continues to expand its Aftercare Program to enhance treatment, services, and reentry outcomes for youth on parole. While JHA continues to receive reports from youth of confinement being misused and overused at some facilities, we were encouraged by evidence of staff using communication and de-escalation techniques in lieu of solitary confinement to punish disruptive youth. Based on a growing body of research and a well established body of law and best practices, JHA advocates that IDJJ allow confinement to be used only for security purposes when youth are physically out of control and/or present an immediate threat to physical safety-and only for the limited duration that youth pose an imminent threat of harm. Consistent with juvenile justice systems nationwide, JHA found evidence that minority youth of color in IDJJ are much less likely to be identified as having mental health needs and provided with services than white youth in the system. Details: Chicago: The Society, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2017 at: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/Moving%20Beyond%20Transition.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/Moving%20Beyond%20Transition.pdf Shelf Number: 131364 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersMental Health Services |
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: Hussemann, Jeanette Title: Implementing Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice Reforms Demonstration Sites in OJJDP's Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative Summary: At the end of 2012, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched the Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative (JJRRI) in three demonstration sites in Delaware, Iowa, and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The goal of JJRRI was to bring evidence and best practices to bear on juvenile justice operations. This was done through the use of empirically based risk and needs assessment, the development of dispositional matrices that provide evidence-based recommendations concerning dispositional options, and the implementation of the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) rating system to assess and guide improvements in the programs delivered to juvenile justice youth. Together, these tools were intended to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of juvenile justice resources. Concurrent with the implementation of JJRRI, the Urban Institute conducted a process and outcome evaluation of the initiative. The goals of the evaluation included understanding how the implementation of JJRRI improved the quality and effectiveness of juvenile justice programming at demonstration sites. Two prior reports focused specifically on the implementation and attempt to validate the SPEP system for rating program effectiveness, which was a major component of JJRRI (Liberman and Hussemann 2016, 2017). This report provides an overview of JJRRI and implementation components at the three demonstration sites, including progress made, challenges encountered, and the sustainability of reforms. Findings are based on data collected between 2012 and 2015. Data collection included annual visits to each site with technical assistance (TA) providers, observation of on-site trainings, and in-depth telephone interviews with stakeholders to monitor progress and assess stakeholder perspectives. Interviews were conducted with a diverse set of juvenile justice stakeholders at each site, including administrators, program providers, court workers, contractors, data managers, and JJRRI program managers and support staff. Additional information was collected via a review of written reports and narratives provided by the JJRRI sites, as well as participation in regular calls with the sites, funders, and TA providers. This report describes the implementation of JJRRI at the three demonstration sites. The first section briefly discusses key components of JJRRI, and the second section discusses how implementation of the components proceeded in the JJRRI demonstration sites. The third section concludes with a discussion of the overall challenges and benefits to the initiative. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2017. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90381/implementing_evidence-based-juvenile-justice-reforms.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90381/implementing_evidence-based-juvenile-justice-reforms.pdf Shelf Number: 146383 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesEvidence-Based ProgramsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Davis, Antoinette Title: Stakeholders' Views on the Movement to Reduce Youth Incarceration Summary: Youth incarceration rates have changed dramatically over the past 10 years. Following two decades of "tough-on-crime" policies and steep surges in juvenile incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s, the field is now seeing sharp reductions in youth confinement. The latest data from the US Justice Department showed that the rate of youth in confinement dropped 41% between 2001 and 2011. Since 2001, 48 states have experienced such a decline. Several states cut their confinement rates by half or more. Juvenile facilities have closed in a dozen states, with more than 50 facilities closing in the past five years alone. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) decided to seek the opinions of system stakeholders regarding these changes. These stakeholders included advocates who successfully pressured their local systems to adopt reforms; the majority of study participants work inside the system as judges, probation chiefs, probation officers, directors of child welfare agencies, elected officials, and district attorneys (see Study Methods for the NCCD Deincarceration Project for a detailed description of respondents). Through interviews and listening sessions, these system stakeholders expressed their beliefs that declining youth crime and rising costs were key drivers of the current trend. Additionally, respondents said that many of these successes were driven by successful legislation, innovative incentives built into state budgets, decisions to place youth close to home, and supervision strategies that rely on positive relationships between youth and their families. Given what study respondents have accomplished from within the system to change the day-to-day practices tied to youth supervision and placement, this study captures the hope these leaders have for the field of juvenile justice. One advocate and provider from the Northeast described the deincarceration trend as being "a dream come true for me." Another advocate from the West said, "I dont think anybody wants to go the other direction. I never hear anybody say 'lets build more state facilities.' Nobody wants to do that." According to those interviewed for our study, movement toward what might be considered true juvenile justice has begun. At the same time, many challenges remain. While the total number of incarcerated youth has declined in many states, the proportion of youth of color among all youth receiving court dispositions grew substantially between 2002 and 2012. Moreover, communities lack adequate funding to develop sustainable and culturally relevant infrastructures that can serve youth and their families outside of government agencies. This is not the time for supporters of juvenile justice reform to become complacent. Rather, it is time to learn from the most promising jurisdictions and deepen reforms. Details: Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime & Delinquency, 2014. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2017 at: http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/deincarceration-summary-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/deincarceration-summary-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146482 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |
Author: U.S. Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice Title: Spotlight on Juvenile Justice Initiatives: A State by State Survey Summary: The Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ) is pleased to present the results of a state by state survey of juvenile justice initiatives at the state level as reported by State Advisory Groups (SAGs). Our decision to undertake this survey was prompted by our sense that there was a great deal of activity on a broad array of juvenile justice issues at the state level. The results from the 34 states that responded to the survey has more than confirmed our initial belief. It is our hope that a review of the survey results will be useful in a number of ways- First and foremost, knowing what other states are doing or have done on a particular issue may be helpful to other states that are considering or in the process of tackling that issue in their state. In these days of scarce resources, we cannot afford to spend time reinventing the wheel. Our states our different, but as we tackle new issues, we can still learn a lot from the experience of others who have successfully implemented reforms. Details: Washington, DC: The Committee, 2017. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 29, 2017 at: https://facjj.ojp.gov/ojpasset/Documents/Spotlight-on-JJ-Initiatives-FACJJ-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://facjj.ojp.gov/ojpasset/Documents/Spotlight-on-JJ-Initiatives-FACJJ-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 146937 Keywords: Juvenile Justice Administration Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Raise the Age: Protecting Kids and Enhancing Public Safety in Michigan. Summary: We are supporting juvenile justice reformers in Michigan to strategically bring a public health perspective into their campaign to pass Raise the Age legislation in Michigan. All kids deserve the opportunity to lead healthy, productive lives. Yet Michigan puts kids at risk by being 1 of only 5 states that still automatically try 17-year-old arrestees as adults in criminal court. As a result, 17-year-olds in Michigan are subjected to a harsh criminal justice system that separates them from their families and limits their access to the services and education they need to rehabilitate. In 2016, Michigan police made 7,215 arrests of 17-year-olds - more than 80% of these arrests were for nonviolent offenses, and more than half were considered misdemeanors. Though many of the kids involved in the criminal justice system have experienced extreme hardship, they are resilient and can turn their lives around. They deserve attention and treatment, not incarceration. Our work consists of two parts: Our research report evaluates the health and equity impacts of charging 17-year-olds in juvenile court rather than adult court, to inform legislation under consideration in Michigan that would raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 17 to 18 years of age. In partnership with Michigan juvenile justice reformers, public health practitioners, and community organizers, we are working to mobilize health professionals as a constituency to advocate for passing Raise The Age legislation - with the goal of advancing criminal justice reforms that place health and well-being at their center. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2017 at: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HIP_MichRaiseTheAgeReport_2017.11.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HIP_MichRaiseTheAgeReport_2017.11.pdf Shelf Number: 148166 Keywords: Age of ResponsibilityJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Feierman, Jessica Title: Unlocking Youth: Legal Strategies to End Solitary Confinement in Juvenile Facilities Summary: Despite a growing consensus that solitary confinement harms youth and undermines the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, the practice remains all too common. At the same time, the field lacks sufficient information on the prevalence of the practice, the alternatives, and the perspectives of affected youth and families. This report uses surveys of public defenders, conversations with youth and families, interviews with correctional administrators, and legal and psychological research to fill these gaps and set forth recommendations for reform. Solitary confinement in juvenile facilities remains too widespread. Almost half of juvenile facilities report that they isolate youth for more than four hours to control behavior, and more than two-thirds of our survey respondents reported that they have clients who spent time in solitary. The conditions these youth experience can be truly appalling - youth are routinely deprived of necessities such as mattresses, sheets, showers, eating utensils, and mental health treatment. Many spend 22-23 hours per day in cells by themselves. Solitary confinement is harmful. Neurological research and sociological studies confirm what common sense tells us: isolating youth for days and weeks at a time has devastating, long-term effects on their health and development. Our interviews with youth highlight these effects. "It was one of the breaking points for me as a young person - Me realizing now, it was one of the first times I really knew I was depressed. I really didn't want to do anything, I didn't have an appetite. I became really frustrated and angry for being in there - As a kid, never been through this, it's a very traumatic experience." - Eddie Ellis Solitary confinement is unfairly applied. Studies suggest that youth of color and LGBTQ youth are at a heightened risk of being placed in solitary confinement. Girls and gender-non-conforming youth are more likely to enter the justice system with histories of sexual abuse or other trauma, which can exacerbate the harms of isolation and increase the risk of placement in solitary due to trauma-related behaviors. Youth with disabilities are too often placed in isolation for their own protection or due to a lack of available services or accommodations. Solitary confinement is unnecessary and counterproductive. Juvenile justice systems can operate safely and effectively without reliance on solitary confinement. We highlight two jurisdictions - Ohio and Massachusetts - that have drastically limited the practice by increasing the amount of quality scheduled activities, training staff on de-escalation and other techniques, and adopting evidence-based therapeutic models. Recommendations for reform: Policy Reforms: Ensure that policies prohibit, rather than alter or ameliorate, solitary confinement. Reform must include a ban on solitary confinement for any reason other than to prevent immediate harm, with clear limits on its use even under emergency circumstances. Details: Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2017. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/JLC_Solitary_Report-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/JLC_Solitary_Report-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 148178 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Delay, Dennis Title: New Hampshire's Juvenile Justice System 2012 Summary: This paper was designed to provide an analysis of the existing juvenile justice system in the year 2011. For this analysis, the Center conducted three analyses. In the first, the Center sought to understand the characteristics of youth in the juvenile justice system in 2011. Second, the Center documented what data was available in DJJS which might help document trends in service provision and their associated costs. A third task was to determine whether the service provision matched the identified risk factors for NH's juvenile justice population and how this compares to other states. Our major findings associated with these questions are described below. Juvenile crime is declining. Contrary to the popular impression that juvenile crime is on the rise, our analysis suggests that both juvenile crime and the provision of juvenile justice services is on the decline in New Hampshire. Since 2008, juvenile crimes per 10,000 youth have declined from a rate of approximately 437 to below 359 in 2011. The number of juveniles in the DJJS system is declining. The number of youth in the DJJS system has also been on the decline since 2008. Thus, the demand for services within the juvenile justice system - at least measured by the number of youth involved in the system - has decreased. This reduction in the number of clients could continue into the future because of a decline in the number of children in the state, and as a result of changes in the requirement for filing a CHINS ("children in need of services") petition, described below. But understanding the relative role of program interventions versus demographic factors on these trends is not possible, given the lack of public data available on critical characteristics of the DJJS system. Data necessary to understand the effectiveness of the programming, or to understand potential reform efforts, are not publicly available. The Division of Juvenile Justice Services has taken steps to increase the availability of data for decision making, but data on many basic and important characteristics of the system are not publicly available. Basic trends on delinquency and rates of recidivism - arguably the two most important measures of success - are not available to the public. While there is some limited data on the DJJS population and case load, the lack of information on the risk profile of the population served and no tracking of measures of success of each treatment against the overall goals of the juvenile justice program make it very difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of existing resources and programming. Details: Concord, NH: New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2017 at: http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/JJS_report_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/JJS_report_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 148247 Keywords: Juvenile Justice OffendersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Crime and Justice Institute Title: Implementing Comprehensive Juvenile Justice System Improvement in Hawaii Summary: Hawaii's juvenile justice system needed to change. Three out of four youths released from the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility (HYCF) were returning to the facility within three years. To those unfamiliar with juvenile justice research, this was surprising given the profile of youth at HYCF. With a high proportion of youth at HYCF for misdemeanor offenses and little prior history of court involvement, why were so many coming back into the system? Considering the cost of placing youth in this facility is almost $200,000 per bed per year, in-state leaders recognized the need for change. Probation admissions in Hawaii had been stable for the past seven years and there had been no major changes to the underlying offenses for which youth were placed on supervision. Yet, lengths of probation had risen 155 percent. Also concerning was that probation lengths were similar for misdemeanor and felony offenses, and the lengths varied drastically across circuitsthe average length of probation in one circuit was 15.7 months, but was 26.6 months in another circuit. In 2013, Hawaii established a task force and enlisted the help of the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) and the Pew Charitable Trusts to reduce the out-of-home population, while protecting public safety, holding youth accountable and improving outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system. That task force issued recommendations that served as the basis for Act 201, which the legislature passed and the governor signed into law in 2014. Details: Boston: CRJ, 2017. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: http://www.crj.org/assets/2017/10/HI-Brief-v8-10-17-17_FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.crj.org/assets/2017/10/HI-Brief-v8-10-17-17_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 149497 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Bateman, Tim Title: The state of youth justice, 2017. An overview of trends and developments Summary: At the time of publication (September 2017), the last two years appear as having been something of an uncertain period for youth justice. In September 2015, Michael Gove, then Justice Secretary, announced that Charlie Taylor, former Chief Executive of the National College of Teaching and Leadership, would lead a 'Departmental review' of the youth justice system. The terms of reference were wide-ranging requiring consideration of: - 'The nature and characteristics of offending by young people aged 10-17 and the arrangements in place to prevent it; - 'How effectively the youth justice system and its partners operate in responding to offending by children and young people, preventing further offending, protecting the public and repairing harm to victims and communities, and rehabilitating young offenders; and - 'Whether the leadership, governance, delivery structures and performance management of the youth justice system is effective in preventing offending and re-offending, and in achieving value for money'. Disappointingly, and without any rationale being provided, the age of criminal responsibility, the treatment of children in courts and the sentencing framework were explicitly excluded from the review, but it was nonetheless clear that the exercise had the potential to herald significant change in arrangements for dealing with children in conflict with the law. Moreover, following the publication by Charlie Taylor of an interim report in February 2016, which dealt largely with the state of custodial provision for children, the Justice Secretary confirmed that he had amended the terms of reference to include examination of 'the way young offenders are dealt with in court, and the sentences available to tackle their offending'. (Predictably perhaps, the age at which children are held to be criminally responsible remained outside the remit of the review, despite repeated criticisms from within the jurisdiction and without. ) It was anticipated that the review would report in the summer of 2016 and, as a consequence, developments in youth justice both nationally and at a local level were effectively put on hold. This was particularly so because it was widely anticipated that any recommendations made by Taylor would have government endorsement. In the event, publication was delayed following ministerial changes in the aftermath of the referendum on membership of the European Union. The report eventually appeared in December 2016, but it no longer had the status of a Departmental review; government endorsement was no longer assured and the report was published alongside a government response. While the Taylor review was wide-ranging and, in some respects, quite radical, a number of key recommendations were rejected or ignored by the government and commitments to reform were for the most part couched in vague terms or put of for future consideration. For example, Taylor details a range of principles and assumptions which he considers should inform arrangements for dealing with children in conflict with the law. These include: - A focus on the child first and the offender second; - Children who break the law should be treated differently from adults; - Because many of the causes of youth offending lie beyond the reach of the youth justice system; a broad range of agencies should provide an integrated response to preventing and addressing offending behaviour; - Education should be at the heart of that response; - Contact with the criminal justice system tends to increase the likelihood of offending and children should be diverted from it wherever possible; - More persistent and serious offending often implies that the children concerned are deeply troubled, and responses to such offending should recognize that fact. By contrast, the government, in the first line of its response, makes reference to the youth justice system's central role in 'punishing crime' and later reiterates that the statutory aim of the system is to prevent offending and re-offending by children and young people. Taylor calls for a clear division between the role of the court in establishing guilt where an offense is denied and deciding what action 'should be taken to repair harm and rehabilitate the child' once responsibility for the offending has been determined. Details: s.l.: National Association for Youth Justice, 2017. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2018 at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/State-of-Youth-Justice-report-for-web-Sep17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/State-of-Youth-Justice-report-for-web-Sep17.pdf Shelf Number: 149805 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Schweitzer Smith,, Myrinda Title: Reinventing Juvenile Justice: Examining the Effectiveness of the Targeted RECLAIM Initiative Summary: The juvenile justice system has had a place in America since the late 19th century. While the goal has always been to reform wayward youth, the system has implemented various strategies over the years. During a growing movement in the 80s to "get tough" on crime, the country relied heavily on state run institutions and experienced a steady rise in the number of incarcerated youth. Ohio was no exception to this "get tough" movement, with thousands of youth in the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) by the mid-90s. Ohio's response to the mass incarceration of youth ultimately led to a unique large-scale reform movement. This movement included initiatives that ranged from providing incentives to local courts to serve youth locally, creating and implementing a standardized risk assessment tool, and providing evidence-based services for youth. Among these reform initiatives, was Targeted RECLAIM; the focus of this study. The goal of Targeted RECLAIM was to further reduce admissions to DYS by providing juveniles with evidence-based services in their local community as alternatives to incarceration. Targeted RECLAIM initially targeted the six largest counties in Ohio, but since expanded to now include 15 counties across the state of Ohio. This study examined whether Targeted RECLAIM has been successful in reducing commitments to DYS and ultimately diverting youth from state institutions. The data revealed that Targeted RECLAIM appeared to have an effect on the number of youth committed to DYS and moreover, that youth could be effectively diverted without compromising public safety. The study also determined that the diverted youth were not simply being placed in a CCF or waived to the adult system as a way to undermine the goal of Targeted RECLAIM. Finally, conclusions were drawn so that the results might inform juvenile justice systems on how to work towards ending the problem of mass incarceration. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2016. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/cech/programs/criminaljustice/Docs/Dissertations/schweiml.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/cech/programs/criminaljustice/Docs/Dissertations/schweiml.pdf Shelf Number: 149888 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile DiversionJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersMass Incarceration |
Author: Juvenile Justice Initiative Title: Detention of Juveniles in Illinois: Recommendations to Right-Size Detention through Reforms and Fiscal Incentives to Develop Community-Based Alternatives. Summary: Juvenile Detention is jail for kids. Research consistently reveals that even short stays in a juvenile detention facility has negative outcomes, including behavioral heath impacts and education disruptions. The studies also consistently reveal that detention actually increases repeat offending. Yet, state dollars support and encourage the use of detention, by subsidizing detention staff. There is no state plan or fiscal investment to encourage the use of alternatives to detention, despite better outcomes for fewer dollars. Despite the lack of state encouragement, several of the larger counties incorporated policies and practices to reduce reliance on costly out-of-home detention. The results are highly encouraging - lower costs with better outcome and more public safety. It is time for Illinois to encourage all counties with a detention center to make similar shifts by encouraging the development of fiscal incentives for alternatives to detention, thereby reducing the reliance on juvenile detention and making it a last resort. This report examines the current use of juvenile detention across Illinois, reviews research on the impact from detention of juveniles, and reports on the current state fiscal, oversight and administrative involvement in juvenile detention. The report examines best practices in Illinois and across the nation. Finally, this report includes a series of recommendations to "right-size" juvenile detention in Illinois. Details: Evanston, ILL: The Initiative, 2018. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/JJI-Detention-Report-April-25-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/JJI-Detention-Report-April-25-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 140077 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |
Author: McAra, Lesley Title: Child-friendly youth justice? A Compendium of papers given at a conference at the University of Cambridge in September 2017 Summary: The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) has published a compendium of papers relating to youth justice. The papers disseminate some of the themes realised at a conference on child-friendly youth justice in September 2017 organised by the NAYJ, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) and the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. The papers included are: Child-friendly youth justice? - Professor Jo Phoenix Enhancing problem-solving practice in the youth court - Ben Estep and Carmen D'Cruz A social ecological approach to 'child-friendly' youth justice - Diana Johns How can England and Wales achieve a child-friendly criminal record disclosure system? - Claire Sands, Jen Twite and Christopher Stacey Why a participatory, rights-based approach is the best way to protect children in trouble with the law - Dr Laura Janes Child-friendly resettlement; difficult by definition? - Pippa Goodfellow Family characteristics and experiences of children entering secure settings - Dr Caroline Andow and Ben Byrne 'Transforming' youth custody? - Dr Di Hart. Details: London: National Association for Youth Justice, 2018. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NAYJ-Child-friendly-youth-justice-May-18.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NAYJ-Child-friendly-youth-justice-May-18.pdf Shelf Number: 150422 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study Part II Summary: In 2008, juvenile halls and camps fell under federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice due to inadequate protection from harm and failed to provide adequate suicide prevention and mental health care. In the last Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Los Angeles County Probation Department and the U.S. Department of Justice, Probation was obligated to "support a longitudinal study and develop baseline data tracking systems to assist in the evaluation of systemic outcomes for youth" (see Paragraph 73, #6 External Partnership of this MOA document). This study fulfills this requirement by collecting data for youth cohorts exiting suitable placement and camp in 2015 and comparing results to those reported for the 2011 cohorts in The Los Angeles County Probation Outcomes Study Part I. The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate outcomes for youth within the context of the systems change Probation has been and continues to implement. Moving in this direction improves the ability to assess Probation efforts to improve services and outcomes. In addition to replicating the 2015 study, the current study includes interviews with a sample of youth, their families, and supervising Deputy Probation Officers. The report and executive summary provides an overview of the results and offers recommendations to improve the effectiveness of juvenile justice in Los Angeles County Details: Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/POS%20Part%20ll%20Report%205-10-2017%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/POS%20Part%20ll%20Report%205-10-2017%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 151324 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Camp Kilpatrick AWARE Program Evaluation Study Summary: This study represents an important development in the evolution of the Los Angeles Probation Department. Over the past 10 years, the Department has faced several issues and problems in the camps (Newell & Leap, 2013). While the Department has previously focused on compliance to mandates directed at these problems, this study marks an important advancement in Probation's approach to reform. Rather than taking a reactionary approach to a problem, Probation is driving practice with discussions of "what works" in order to benefit the long-term success of Probation youth, their families, and their communities. The primary hypothesis tested in this study was whether AWARE youth would have better outcomes than Non-AWARE youth. Data were retrieved from the Probation Case Management System (PCMS) for 112 youth who arrived at Camp Kilpatrick and participated in the AWARE Program between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011. A matched group of 112 youth (based on age, race, and risk score at arrival to camp) entering other camps during this time were identified as a Non-AWARE comparison group. In addition to PCMS data, data were extracted from case files for 35 youth (31% of 112) drawn from each of these groups for a total of 70 youth. Both the PCMS data and the case file data provided substantial insight into the experiences of AWARE and Non-AWARE youth 1 year prior to the arrest/petition that led to their placements in Camp Kilpatrick or a different camp (Time 1), at the time of the arrest/petition leading to their placements (Time 2); during their camp placements (Time 3); upon exit from their camp placements (Time 4); and 1 year after exit from camp or when the case terminated-whichever came first (Time 5). Details: Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Los Angeles, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/AWARE%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL%20Revise%201-9-15.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/AWARE%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL%20Revise%201-9-15.pdf Shelf Number: 151326 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Weissman, Marsha Title: Does Keeping Youth Close to Home Really Matter? A Case Study Summary: Background In 2012, with authorization from the Governor and New York State legislature, New York City took jurisdiction over children adjudicated delinquent (JDs) and ordered into placement by the court. Known as the Close to Home initiative (C2H), when youth from New York City are placed, it is now in small facilities near their home communities. C2H also expanded community-based, non-residential alternative to placement resources and required that the city's Probation Department utilize a risk-based system for making recommendations to the court. By keeping youth "close to home," it was theorized, they would remain connected to their families, their schools, and positive community activities, rather than being disconnected by placement in youth prisons distant from their homes. By 2016, New York City no longer had any JD-adjudicated youth in state Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) facilities. The 182 youth who were placed out-of-home were placed into small (6 to 18 bed) C2H facilities in or near the city. In addition, the overall placements of youth dramatically declined following the implementation of C2H. Between 2012 and 2016, overall placements of JDs decreased by 68 percent. Through interviews with stakeholders involved in the planning, implementation and advocacy for C2H, and analysis of C2H and other juvenile justice outcome data from city and state sources, this case study documents the impact of the Close to Home initiative. It examines what Close to Home and other city juvenile justice reforms that preceded it represent within the larger context of juvenile justice reforms - at the national, state and city level. Details: Syracuse, NY: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2019 at: http://justicelab.iserp.columbia.edu/img/forum_handout_final_3.12.18.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://justicelab.iserp.columbia.edu/closetohome.html Shelf Number: 154204 Keywords: At-Risk YouthClose to Home InitiativeCommunity-Based CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersRisk-Based System |
Author: Weissman, Marsha Title: Moving Beyond Youth Prisons: Lessons from New York City's Implementation of Close to Home Summary: In the mid-1990s, New York's youth prison system reflected the dominant paradigm across the country - a heavy reliance on incarceration for young people caught up in the juvenile justice system. During this time, roughly 3,800 youth convicted of crimes annually were sent to large facilities, operated either by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) or by private providers contracted by OCFS. These facilities were largely located in upstate New York, far from youths' homes and communities, particularly for youth from New York City (Sickmund et al. 2017; New York State (NYS) Office of the State Comptroller 2001). Upon returning home from these placements, youth often felt disconnected, resulting in poor outcomes. A 2009 study indicated that by age 28, 71 percent of boys released from New York State's juvenile placement system spent some time in an adult jail or prison (Coleman, Do Han Kim & Therese 2009). Fast forward twenty years, and things in New York looked dramatically different. By 2016, New York City no longer sent any youth from its Family Court to state-operated youth prisons. Today, only around 100 New York City youth are placed from Family Court into any kind of residential facility, about a dozen of whom are in a locked facility.3 Not only are there dramatically fewer youth in residential placements, but those who do get placed now go to smaller, more home-like settings that attend to public safety without mirroring the punitive, correctional approaches embodied by previous youth prisons. This case study outlines what happened in the intervening years to achieve these remarkable results. By sharing New York City's story, we offer a roadmap for other jurisdictions looking to realign their juvenile justice systems, adapting the lessons learned about what worked and what did not to meet their specific circumstances. Close to Home (C2H), the initiative that transferred the care and custody of all New York City youth adjudicated as juvenile delinquents from the State to the City, was embedded in a set of reforms that involved policing, detention, and developments in science and evidence-based interventions. While the astronomical costs of the system played an important role, the commitment by key stakeholders to create a developmentally appropriate system without sacrificing public safety and adhering to a shared set of principles and values were key to the system's transformation. This case study describes the development of the Close to Home (C2H) initiative, beginning with a review of what the system looked like before its creation, through the planning and implementation phases of this transformation. It reviews the challenges faced, particularly during C2H's initial implementation, how these were addressed, and the ongoing efforts to adapt the initiative to new and evolving circumstances. Finally, it shares data showing outcomes to date and highlights the role of key stakeholders, including elected officials, policymakers, advocates, and directly-impacted communities that combined to make the C2H reform successful. Details: New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2019. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 6, 2019 at: https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Moving%20Beyond%20Youth%20Prisons%20-%20C2H_0.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Moving%20Beyond%20Youth%20Prisons%20-%20C2H_0.pdf Shelf Number: 154832 Keywords: Close to Home InitiativeCommunity-Based CorrectionsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile 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: Harvell, Samantha Title: Promoting a New Direction for Youth Justice: Strategies to Fund a Community-Based Continuum of Care and Opportunity Summary: In response to declining youth arrests and research demonstrating the detrimental effects of youth incarceration, states and localities have begun to fundamentally shift their youth justice approach towards community-based strategies to both prevent and respond to harmful and illegal behaviors. Although this new approach offers financial savings over the outdated and expensive institutional confinement model, building an array of comprehensive, actionable alternatives will require substantial investment. This report identifies proven, promising, and innovative strategies for identifying funds and using those resources to invest in a robust continuum of care and opportunity, particularly in historically disenfranchised communities in which youth and families may be particularly susceptible to justice system involvement. The strategies put forth in this brief cover four areas: capturing and redirecting savings from reduced youth incarceration and facility closure; re-purposing youth facilities and leveraging land value; maximizing existing state and federal funding opportunities; and implementing innovative strategies to fund community investment. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2019. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2019 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100013/innovative_strategies_for_investing_in_youth_justice_0.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100013/innovative_strategies_for_investing_in_youth_justice_0.pdf Shelf Number: 155198 Keywords: Community-Based Corrections Community-Based Programs Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders |