Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:41 pm
Time: 8:41 pm
Results for juvenile justice system
48 results foundAuthor: Virginia. State Crime Commission Title: HJR 113 (2008) Final Report: Study of Virginia's Juvenile Justice System: To the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia Summary: From the executive summary: "during the 2006 Session of the Virginia General Assembly, Delegate Brian Moran introduced House Joint Resolution 136 (HJR 136), which directed the Virginia State Crime Commission to study the Virginia juvenile justice system over a two-year period. Specifically, the Commission was to examine recidivism, disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice system, quality of and access to legal counsel, accountability in the courts, and diversion. The Commission was also tasked with analyzing Title 16.1 of the Code of Virginia to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of current statutes and procedures relating to juvenile delinquency. Because of the detailed information that was produced during the first two years of the study, an additional year was needed to fully examine the newly-identified issues in conjunction with the current matters cited in the initial resolution." Details: Richmond, Commonwealth of Virginia, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116673 Keywords: DiversionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice SystemRecidivism |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Reforming Juvenile Justice Systems: Beyond Treatment Summary: Reclaiming Futures is an initiative designed to improve outcomes for drug-involved youth in the juvenile justice system. The Urban Institute evaluated the initiative between 2002 and 2007. The study team assessed the dvelopment, implementation, and effectiveness of Reclaiming Futures and published a series of reports detailing their findings. This report serves as a companion to the previous evaluation reports. It describes several critical issues that were part of the context for the Reclaiming Futures initiative as well as the evaluation. This report explores the concept of evidence-based decision-making and views Reclaiming Futures through that policy lens. Details: Portland, OR: Reclaiming Futures, Portland State University, 2010. 33p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118331 Keywords: Drug Offenders (Juveniles)Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: World Bank Title: Timor-Leste's Youth in Crisis: Situational Analysis and Policy Options Summary: This report argues for a concerted, long-term investment in youth by the government and the international community. The report consists of three chapters. Chapter one examines the factors that put youth at risk of violent behavior and that lead youth to engage in violence; the findings are summarized in Chart 1 below. The analysis in this chapter suggests the dire need for a comprehensive framework that tackles the economic, social and political predicament of youth in Timor-Leste. Chapter two presents an initial attempt to determine the broad contours of a comprehensive framework. The first section suggests eight principles that should guide youth development. The second section identifies five policy priorities for addressing the youth crisis, they are: 1) Keep youth in school; 2) Increase youth employment opportunities; 3) Connect youth with community; 4) Empower youth to participate in nation-building; and 5) Strengthen formal and informal controls on youth. The third section (of chapter two) provides a list of interventions and programs that could address these policy priorities. This is drawn from international experience and a range of contexts. Section four suggests a set of criteria for prioritizing programmatic interventions. Chapter three recommends six priority interventions. These are: 1) Expand cash/in-kind school programs; 2) Re-establish youth centers; 3) Expand labor-intensive youth employment programming; 4) Re-establish community-driven development programming with a youth focus; 5) Support a youth-led communication program; and 6) Support a community justice and safety program. Table 1 presents the policy priorities, intervention options, and recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2007. 51p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2007 Country: Asia URL: Shelf Number: 119275 Keywords: Juvenile Justice (Timor-Leste)Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Timor-Leste) |
Author: Krisberg, Barry Title: Healthy Returns Initiative: Strengthening Mental Health Services in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: Youth in the juvenile justice system suffer from a variety of mental illnesses, and, if not treated, these issues can become worse. The published literature shows that most of the youth in the system suffer from a debilitating mental illness. Lack of health care coverage also represents a major issue, as there are few services available to youth who do not have coverage. Details: Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2010. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2010 at: http://nccd-crc.issuelab.org/research/listing/healthy_returns_initiative_strengthening_mental_health_services_in_the_juvenile_justice_system Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nccd-crc.issuelab.org/research/listing/healthy_returns_initiative_strengthening_mental_health_services_in_the_juvenile_justice_system Shelf Number: 119675 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile OffendersMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Drake, Elizabeth Title: Washington State Juvenile Court Funding: Applying Research in a Public Policy Setting Summary: During the last 15 years, the Washington State Legislature has taken a number of steps to develop an “evidence-based” juvenile justice system. The central concept has been to identify and implement strategies shown — through rigorous research — to reduce crime cost-effectively. In 2009, the Legislature turned its attention to the mechanism through which Washington’s 33 juvenile courts receive state dollars. That year’s state budget bill directed a committee of stakeholders to develop a new funding formula that emphasizes “evidence-based programs … and disposition alternatives.” The legislation requires state funds for local juvenile courts to be administered as a “block grant.” A block grant is a sum of money distributed to a court with general provisions, resulting in local flexibility in how funds are spent. “Categorical grants,” Washington’s previous mechanism for distributing state funds to juvenile courts, have more restrictive provisions. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) was directed by the legislation to report to the Legislature and the Office of Financial Management on the administration of the block grant including (1) criteria used to allocate funding, and (2) report on participants in programs subject to the block grant. To provide a context for this report, we first summarize key policy reforms over the past 15 years that have established an emphasis on providing evidence-based programs in Washington’s juvenile justice system. We then discuss the funding formula developed by the committee. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-12-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-12-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 121678 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeEvidence-Based PolicyJuvenile Court (Washington State)Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
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: Bell, James Title: Non-Judicial Drivers into the Juvenile Justice System for Youth of Color Summary: Executive Director of the Burns Institute James Bell authored a new report, Non-Judicial Drivers into the Juvenile Justice System for Youth of Color. Originally prepared for the California Endowment's Boys & Men of Color Initiative, the report discusses the negative impacts incarceration can have on a young person's psyche as well as their physical health. The report also discusses how a lack of access to proper medical care and a lack of knowledge in the justice field of trauma-informed alternatives disproportionately drive youth of color into the juvenile justice system. Details: San Francisco, CA: W. Haywood Burns Institute, 20. 12p. Source: Prepared for The California Endowment's Boys & Men of Color Initiative: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.burnsinstitute.org/downloads/Non-Judicial%20drivers%20report_fin.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.burnsinstitute.org/downloads/Non-Judicial%20drivers%20report_fin.pdf Shelf Number: 124192 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile OffendersMental Health ServicesMinority Groups |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: The Cost of a Cohort of Young Offenders to the Criminal Justice System. Technical Paper Summary: This paper follows on from our 2010 value for money study on the youth justice system. It examines 83,000 young offenders who committed their first proven offence in 2000, in England and Wales. We analysed the offending behaviour of this cohort for the period 2000 to 2009, based on data from the Police National Computer. Our analysis provides details of sex, age, ethnicity, types of offences and reoffending patterns over time. We also estimated the cost of proven offending to the criminal justice system, including the costs of police, courts, offender management teams, and custody. Our conclusion is that, on average, each young offender costs £8,000, per year, to the criminal justice system. On the same basis, each of the most costly 10 per cent costs £29,000. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2012 at: www.nao.org.uk Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 124280 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (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: Butts, Jeffrey Title: Youth, Guns, and the Juvenile Justice System Summary: The falling rate of violent crime in the United States is not likely to reduce the need for effective policies and programs to address youth gun violence. The rate of firearm deaths among American youth is still one of the highest in the world. In the coming years, all levels of government, the private sector, and communities will require sound information and practical guidance as they try to reduce gun violence among young people. Funded by the Joyce Foundation, this report reviews recent trends in youth gun violence, policy responses to gun violence, and the growing variety of data resources for research on the effects of gun laws. The report is designed to inform discussions about these issues and to aid in the development of future research efforts. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2002. 30p. Source: Research Report: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410417_youth_guns.pdf Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410417_youth_guns.pdf Shelf Number: 125095 Keywords: Gun ViolenceGunsJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile OffendersViolent Crime |
Author: T2A (Transition to Adulthood) Title: Pathways from Crime: Ten Steps to a More Effective Approach for Young Adults in the Criminal Justice Process Summary: Pathways from Crime emphasises that the transition to adulthood is a process rather than a result, which implies that tailored services and support should not fall away once individuals turn 18. The report identifies a pathway through the criminal justice system, in which a more rigorous and effective approach can be delivered to young adults making the transition to adulthood (16-24). The 10 stages are policing and arrest, diversion, restorative justice, prosecution, sentencing, community sentences, managing the transfer process, custody, resettlement, and enabling desistance from crime. This T2A pathway has been tested in three pilot projects since 2009 in Birmingham, West Mercia, and London. The summative evaluation of the T2A pathway tracks 34 young adults over a six-month period and demonstrates some remarkable findings (e.g. only three were reconvicted of a new non-violent offence, only three breached their community order or licence, and the number of the sample in employment has trebled). The report concludes that the T2A pathway is an effective and rigorous approach that can be applied to young adults throughout the criminal justice process. In each stage of the process, criminal justice agencies can make interventions with young adults more effectively. The pilots have established how an effective approach can be put into practice and have highlighted changes that can be made to the way that services are designed, commissioned, and delivered. Details: London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2012. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2012 at: http://www.t2a.org.uk/t2a-pathways-from-crime-report-launched/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.t2a.org.uk/t2a-pathways-from-crime-report-launched/ Shelf Number: 125434 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Offenders, Treatment ProgramsJuvenile to Adult Criminal CareersYouth Adult Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Ipsos MORI Title: Evaluation of the London Youth Reducing Re-offending Programme (Daedalus). Interim report – process evaluation Summary: There has been a long history of studies within the UK highlighting the impact of custodial regimes on the resettlement needs of young people. For example, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and the Youth Justice Board’s (YJB) joint report, ‘Children and Young People in Custody 2008-2009’ (2010), examined young people’s views on what would help them once released from custody. The report found that there were a number of issues surrounding the extent to which young people felt prepared for release. Only 37% of young people felt they had done anything while in custody that would make them less likely to offend in the future, compared with 42% in the previous reporting period. In terms of being prepared for their release, only 45% believed they had done something useful during their time in custody that would help them get a job, while even fewer said they had spoken to someone about going back into education or had received help in finding accommodation (37% and 23% respectively). The report highlighted the need for more resettlement work around finding employment for young people once leaving custody: 73% felt that getting a job would be the experience most likely to prevent them from re-offending in the future, yet only a quarter (23%) had a job to go to on release. However, studies have also shown that when additional focus is placed on care, treatment and through-care, the outcomes for young offenders can be notably improved. For example, in 1992, Ditchfield and Catan compared the regimes of Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and Local Authority Secure Units (LASUs) and found that young people in LASUs had lower rates of reconviction. They attributed this directly to the focus of LASUs on care and treatment, compared with the security or control ethos in YOIs. In 1991 and 1996, Professor Gwyneth Boswell also conducted research which compared the experiences of Section 53 offenders in two high-quality Youth Treatment Centres (which have subsequently closed) with those in YOIs, and reached similar conclusions to Ditchfield and Catan. In 2003, she also carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the regimes for Section 90/91 young people at Feltham YOI and at the enhanced Carlford Unit at Warren YOI. The Carlford Unit was found to address the criminogenic needs of the young offenders, due primarily to the injection of extra resources which were used in part to develop a wide range of activities and educational opportunities for those in custody. However, much of the resettlement research to date lacks sufficient information on statistical effectiveness. Additionally, studies have tended to examine the experiences of those aged 18 years or older, and not the youth justice population. Where information is available about young people, it is limited and relates to very small numbers. In light of the impact that focused resettlement work has been shown to have on young offenders, there are several projects currently being under-taken in London. The London Criminal Justice Partnership (CJP) is carrying out a Criminal Justice System (CJS) youth review with support from the Mayor’s office and the YJB. This is a review of the Criminal Justice System relating to young people across London. The review looks at the end-to-end ‘journey’ for young people within the criminal justice system, identifying key points of interaction within the system and the process improvements that are most likely to contribute to public safety, reducing re-offending, and helping young people realise a positive future. The review commenced in June 2010 and a final report was produced in February 2011, with the aim of making practical recommendations on how to shape and inform the future direction of CJS youth strategies in London and how to deliver better co-ordination of activity. Details: London: Ipsos MORI, Social Research Institute, 2011. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 10, 2012 at: http://www.londoncjp.gov.uk/publications/ipsos_MORI_Interim_Report_Final_Version_20_04_2011_internal_use_only.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.londoncjp.gov.uk/publications/ipsos_MORI_Interim_Report_Final_Version_20_04_2011_internal_use_only.pdf Shelf Number: 125949 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders, Reentry (U.K.)Re-OffendingRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Hollist, Dusten Title: Assessing the Mechanisms that Contribute to Disproportionate Minority Contact in Montana's Juvenile Justice Systems Summary: The objective of the research was to conduct a disproportionate minority contact assessment oriented toward providing an understanding of the contributing factors that influence minority overrepresentation trends in four Montana counties. Specifically, the investigation involved a quantitative examination of the role of extra-legal and social factors in the explanation of disproportionate minority contact. The study used data from focus groups and face-to-face interviews with juvenile justice systems decision makers to put in to context and provide a more complete understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to disproportionate minority contact in Montana. The primary research objectives are based on an examination of the following questions: 1. Are minority juveniles overrepresented in Montana’s Juvenile Justice Systems? • Are disparities concentrated in a single decision point or are they spread out across multiple points? 2. Does race continue to contribute to disproportionate minority contact after social characteristics (e.g. individual and family factors) and criminal histories have been accounted for in the models? • Are the findings similar when examined across multiple decisions points (e.g. referral to the county attorney; petitions for adjudication; delinquency findings; confinement in secure placement)? Details: Missoula, MT: Social Science Research Laboratory University of Montana, Missoula, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2012 at: http://mbcc.mt.gov/Data/SAC/RAI/DMC%20Technical%20Report%20_Final%20Version_.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://mbcc.mt.gov/Data/SAC/RAI/DMC%20Technical%20Report%20_Final%20Version_.pdf Shelf Number: 126356 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Montana)Minority GroupsRacial Disparities |
Author: United Nations General Assembly. Human Rights Council Title: Joint Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children on Prevention of and Responses to Violen Summary: The present report, submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 18/12, builds upon the 2006 United Nations Study on Violence against Children, which remains a foundational document for the prevention and elimination of all forms of violence against children in all settings, including within the juvenile justice system. This report describes the current situation of violence against children in the juvenile justice system, identifies the risks of violence to which children are exposed and analyses the systemic factors which contribute to violence. It provides a number of recommended strategies to prevent and respond to violence against children in the juvenile justice system. Details: Vienna: United Nations, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2012 at: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/document/a-hrc-21-25_505 Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/document/a-hrc-21-25_505 Shelf Number: 126471 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectChild MaltreatmentJuvenile Justice SystemViolence Against Children |
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: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Indigenous Young People in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: Indigenous young people are over-represented in the juvenile justice system, particularly in the most serious processes. Although only about 5% of young Australians are Indigenous, in 2010–11, almost 2 in 5 (39%) of those under juvenile justice supervision on an average day were Indigenous. There were 2,820 Indigenous young people under supervision in Australia on an average day and 5,195 under supervision at some time during the year. Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 4–6 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be proceeded against by police during 2010–11 and 8–11 times as likely to be proven guilty in the Children’s Court (among the states and territories with available data). At a national level, they were, on average, 14 times as likely to be under community-based supervision during the year and 18 times as likely to be in detention. They are more likely to experience supervision when aged 10–17. Among the cohorts of young people for whom a complete juvenile justice supervision history is available (those born between 1990–91 and 1992–93), 14–16% of Indigenous young people experienced supervision at some time when they were aged 10–17, compared with just over 1% of non-Indigenous young people born in each year. They enter the juvenile justice system at younger ages Indigenous young people aged 10–17 who were proceeded against by police (in the states and territories with available data) were more likely than non-Indigenous young people to be in the youngest age groups (age 10–12). In addition, the majority (58%) of Indigenous young people under supervision in 2010–11 had first entered supervision when they were aged 10–14, compared with less than one-third (32%) of non-Indigenous young people (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory, as standard data were not provided). They complete shorter periods of supervision, but spend more time under supervision overall. In 2010–11, Indigenous young people tended to complete slightly shorter periods of supervision than non-Indigenous young people (median duration 62 days compared with 68; excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory as standard data were not provided). However, they completed more periods during the year, on average, and spent just over 3 weeks longer (200 days compared with 178) under supervision during the year. However, their over-representation in supervision has decreased. In the 5 years to 2010–11, there was a slight drop in the level of Indigenous over-representation in supervision, as shown by the rate ratio. Indigenous young people were 15 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be under supervision on an average day in 2010–11, down from 16 times as likely in 2006–07. The largest decrease in over-representation was in detention, where the rate ratio dropped from 28 to 24 over the period. Details: Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 109: Accessed November 28, 2012 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129542188 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129542188 Shelf Number: 127016 Keywords: AboriginalsIndigenous Peoples (Australia)Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Girls and Young Women in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: Summary Relatively few young women are involved in the juvenile justice system In Australia, young women are less likely than young men to enter the juvenile justice system and even less likely to progress to the most serious processes and outcomes. In 2010–11, young men were around twice as likely as young women to be proceeded against by police, more than 3 times as likely to be proven guilty in the Children’s Court, 4 times as likely to experience community-based supervision and 5 times as likely to be in detention. Among the cohorts of young people for whom a complete juvenile justice supervision history is available in 2010–11 (those born 1990–91 to 1992–93), young men were around 4 times as likely as young women to have experienced any supervision when aged 10–17. Young women are more likely than young men to be supervised in the community On an average day in 2010–11, around 93% of young women under supervision were supervised in the community, compared with 85% of young men. Very few young women were in detention—only 85 on an average day (compared with 960 young men). Young women spend less time under supervision than young men, particularly in detention When all time under supervision is considered, young women spent around 2 weeks less than young men under supervision during 2010–11 (171 days, on average, compared with 186) (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory as standard data were not provided). This was mainly due to less time spent in detention (31 days, on average, compared with 68). Young women under supervision are younger than young men Young women under supervision were younger, on average, than young men (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory). In 2010–11, rates of supervision were highest among young women aged 15 and 16, compared with ages 16 and 17 for young men. Indigenous young women are over-represented in supervision In 2010–11, Indigenous young women aged 10–17 were around 16 times as likely as non- Indigenous young women to be under community-based supervision during the year, and 19 times as likely to be in detention. This was slightly higher than the level of Indigenous over-representation among young men (13 and 17 times as likely, respectively). Rates of young women under supervision have increased Over the 5-year period to 2010–11, rates of young women aged 10–17 under supervision rose from 0.8 to 1.0 per 1,000 on an average day and from 1.7 to 2.2 per 1,000 during the year, which were greater than the corresponding increases for young men. This was mainly due to increases in the numbers and rates of young women under community-based supervision. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 107: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423108 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423108 Shelf Number: 127568 Keywords: Female Juvenile OffendersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Suitts, Steve Title: Just Learning: The Imperative to Transform Juvenile Justice Systems Into Effective Educational Systems. A Study of Juvenile Justice Schools in the South and the Nation Summary: The most disadvantaged, troubled students in the South and the nation attend schools in the juvenile justice systems. These children, mostly teenagers, usually are behind in school, possess substantial learning disabilities, exhibit recognizable behavioral problems, and are coping with serious emotional or psychological problems. They are often further behind and hampered with more personal problems than any other identifiable group of students in the nation's elementary and secondary schools. Very often they are confined in large, overly restrictive institutional facilities that are operated without priority or focus on their education. Most juvenile justice schools have such low expectations of student academic performance that they usually report only if students gained or failed to gain basic skills during their period of custody. These reports are usually recorded only for a small fraction of the students who are in the juvenile justice systems. As a result, most students come in and out of the juvenile justice systems with little or no real regard for their education. A large majority of these students, year after year in the South and the nation, have been African American and Hispanic males. Only 37 percent of these students have been confined for some type of harm to others. Almost another one-third has been put under the custody of the juvenile justice system because of a delinquency that did not involve harm to property or persons. Their ages range annually from less than 10 years old to around 21. The majority are in their mid-teens. There is every reason to predict that today most of these students, like those who came before them in the juvenile justice systems, will never receive a high school diploma or a college degree, will be arrested and confined again as a juvenile or adult, and will rarely, if ever, become self-supporting, law-abiding citizens during most of their lives. Yet, substantial evidence shows that, if these children improve their education and start to become successful students in the juvenile justice systems, they will have a far greater chance of finding a turning point in their lives and becoming independent, contributing adults. The cost savings for states and state governments could be enormous. Unlike past era, a young person who enters and leaves the juvenile justice system in the 21st century without a trajectory for achieving more than a high school diploma will likely fail to become a successful and contributing adult. This failure will cost society far more than it should have to pay, and there will be no justice for students or the larger society from a juvenile justice system that fails to improve education for the children in its custody. The nation and its most disadvantaged, troubled youth deserve better. Details: Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation, 2014. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2014 at: http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/b80f7aad-405d-4eed-a966-8d7a4a12f5be/Just-Learning-Executive-Summary.aspx Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/b80f7aad-405d-4eed-a966-8d7a4a12f5be/Just-Learning-Executive-Summary.aspx Shelf Number: 132092 Keywords: Disadvantaged YouthJuvenile Correctional EducationJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hobbs, Anne Title: Evaluation fo the Lancaster County Alternatives to Juvenile Detention Summary: In June 2009, the Juvenile Justice Institute (JJI) was contracted to evaluate four of Lancaster County's Juvenile Justice Programs: Cedars Day Reporting Center, Cedars Evening Reporting Center, Project HIRE, and Cedars Juvenile Diversion. Each of these was identified as a detention alternative. The Institute was further charged with addressing three research questions: - Are detention alternatives keeping youth out of detention and; thereby, saving taxpayers money? - Are Lancaster County's detention alternative programs using "evidence based models" and, if so, have they been implemented with fidelity? - Are there other evidence-based programs that research has shown to be effective with this population? In addition, Lancaster County hoped to examine whether youth who complete these programs committed new legal offenses and ended up more deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system. At the time of this report, the Lancaster County juvenile justice coordinator did not have access to the Nebraska Criminal Justice Information System (NCJIS) to examine recidivism. Access alone does not answer the question of recidivism with accuracy. If Lancaster County plans to utilize recidivism as a long term measure, they must uniformly define the terminology and grant the coordinator access. Although some definitions of recidivism are proposed in this report from across the nation, determining how stable a youth is offers information potentially more useful that simple recidivism. Results from Lancaster County's use of the Youth Stability Reporting Instrument are included; these offer us new ways to examine a juvenile's potential for re-offending. One of the key findings and primary obstacles to this evaluation was the lack of coordinated data systems. This obstacle echoes a finding of the 2007 evaluation of the Juvenile Justice System in Lancaster County. In that report, the Institute noted that gaps exist in the coordination and documentation of juvenile justice interventions utilized in serving young offenders. Although Lancaster County made significant progress in many of the priorities identified in the prior report, the lack of coordinated and consistent data collection continues to be a problem. The gap in documentation made it impossible to provide an in-depth assessment of cost savings realized through the use of detention alternatives. Despite concerns regarding the lack of data, our findings demonstrate that Lancaster County Detention Alternative Programs are using many of the evidence-based practices defined by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). These programs appear to be effective in preventing youth from going deeper into the juvenile justice system. Details: Omaha, NE: Juvenile Justice Institute, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.unomaha.edu/juvenilejustice/pdf/Eval_of_Lan_Cty_Alternatives_to_Detention.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.unomaha.edu/juvenilejustice/pdf/Eval_of_Lan_Cty_Alternatives_to_Detention.pdf Shelf Number: 132367 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDay Reporting CentersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Nebraska) |
Author: Reich, Warren A. Title: The Criminal Justice Response to 16- and 17-Year-Old Defendants in New York Summary: New York is one of two states, along with North Carolina, that defines 16- and 17-year-old defendants as criminally responsible adults. New York's policy exposes these young defendants to lasting collateral consequences, including the possibility of a criminal conviction, incarceration, and lifetime reductions in employment prospects and earnings. In the fall of 2011, New York State's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, proposed legislation promoting a more age-appropriate approach to these defendants. In April 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo appointed a Commission on Youth, Public Safety, and Justice that will study different options and submit statewide policy recommendations by the end of the year. Chief Judge Lippman also created the Adolescent Diversion Program (ADP) in 2012, an initiative put into effect in nine of New York's 62 counties, which seeks to adopt an age-appropriate approach within the legal confines of the adult criminal court system. With funding from the New York Community Trust, a previous research report described the policies of all nine ADP sites and tested the effects of ADP participation on case dispositions, sentences, and re-arrests over a six-month tracking period (Rempel, Lambson, Cadoret, and Franklin 2013). The current study extends the re-arrest tracking period for Year One ADP participants to at least one year; provides a new analysis of the impact of the ADP initiative among those enrolled in Year Two; and examines 16- and 17-year-old defendant characteristics, case dispositions, sentences, and risk factors for re-arrest across the entire state. The goal of the research is to help inform deliberations as the judicial, legislative, and executive branches seek to improve justice for adolescents in New York State. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2014. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP%20Y2%20Report%20Final%20_v2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP%20Y2%20Report%20Final%20_v2.pdf Shelf Number: 132985 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (New York)RecidivismWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Daly, Elizabeth Title: Alternatives to Secure Youth Detention in Tasmania Summary: The Alternatives to Secure Youth Detention in Tasmania Inquiry originated from a request by the Minister for Children to the Commissioner for Children for advice in relation to the role of secure detention within Tasmania's youth justice system. - This Inquiry is part of a much broader review of the Youth Justice system in Tasmania, currently being undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services. - Ashley Youth Detention Centre is the only secure detention centre for youth offenders (both sentenced and unsentenced) in Tasmania. - The Inquiry found that: - Only a very low percentage of Tasmanian youth commit crime - The trend in numbers of young offenders and those who are detained at Ashley Youth Detention Centre (including those on remand) has declined over the last 5 years. - On an average day in 2011-2012, there were 21 young people in Ashley or 94 over the year. - Ashley takes up a disproportionately high percentage of the Youth Justice budget in Tasmania - approximately $10 million - despite the lack of evidence to suggest it is effective in deterring young offenders or that it promotes and facilitates reintegration into the community upon release. - The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the importance of diverting young offenders from the criminal justice system. It also provides that detention should only be used as a last resort and for the shortest possible period of time. - The Recommendations made in this Report are consistent with these fundamental principles. Details: Hobart, Tasmania: Commissioner for Children, 2013. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.childcomm.tas.gov.au/wp-content/files_mf/1377130036AlternativestoSecureYouthDetentionFINAL2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childcomm.tas.gov.au/wp-content/files_mf/1377130036AlternativestoSecureYouthDetentionFINAL2013.pdf Shelf Number: 129890 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile Detention (Tasmania)Juvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Stewart, Jacqueline Title: Indigenous Youth Justice Programs Evaluation Summary: Diversion from the youth justice system is a critical goal for addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous young people in the criminal justice system. In this report, four programs that were already being implemented by states and territories and identified by them under the National Indigenous Law & Justice Framework as promising practice in diversion are examined. The programs were evaluated, as part of a broader initiative, to determine whether and on what basis they represent good practice (ie are supported by evidence). State and territory governments nominated the programs for evaluation. The four programs sit at different points along a continuum, ranging from prevention (addressing known risk factors for offending behaviour, such as disengagement from family, school, community or culture), early intervention (with identified at-risk young people), diversion (diverting from court process - usually for first or second time offenders) and tertiary intervention (treatment to prevent recidivism): - Aboriginal Power Cup (South Australia)- a sports-based program for engaging Indigenous young people in education and providing positive role models (prevention). - Tiwi Islands Youth Development and Diversion Unit (Northern Territory) - a diversion program that engages Tiwi youth who are at risk of entering the criminal justice system in prevention activities, such as a youth justice conference, school, cultural activities, sport and recreation (early intervention and diversion). - Woorabinda Early Intervention Panel Coordination Service (Queensland) - a program to assess needs and make referrals for young Indigenous people and their families who are at risk or have offended and have complex needs (early intervention and diversion). - Aggression Replacement Training (Queensland) - a 10 week group cognitive-behavioural program to control anger and develop pro-social skills, delivered to Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth assessed as 'at risk' of offending or reoffending (early intervention and tertiary intervention with offenders to reduce risk of reoffending). For each program, the evaluation team developed a 'program logic', identifying the activities and goals of the program, and how it articulates within a broader framework of criminal justice prevention. This informed the design of the evaluation and the approach to collecting both qualitative data (from young people participating in the program, program staff, family, or other service providers/community members) and quantitative data to identify any effects of the program on individuals, or the broader community. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2014. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: AIC Reports: Special Report: Accessed January 15, 2015 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/special/005/Indigenous-Youth-Justice-Programs-Evaluation.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/special/005/Indigenous-Youth-Justice-Programs-Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 134409 Keywords: AboriginalsAlternatives to IncarcerationAt-Risk YouthEvidence-Based ProgramsIndigenous PeoplesJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Treatment Programs |
Author: Beardslee, Jordan Bechtold Title: Under the Radar or Under Arrest: How Does Contact with the Juvenile Justice System Affect Delinquency and Academic Outcomes? Summary: Although many studies have found that arrested youth are more likely than non-arrested youth to experience later maladjustment, methodological limitations restrict the generalizations of prior work. Perhaps the most noteworthy limitation in prior work is the possibility of selection effects, with arrested youth likely to have very different psychological and behavioral profiles pre-justice system contact than non-arrested youth. This leaves us wondering whether the observed maladjustment is due to the type of adolescent who comes to the attention of law enforcement or due the type of justice system interventions that arrested youth experience. This study overcomes these limitations by comparing the outcomes of demographically similar male adolescents who have committed the same crimes but who differ with regard to whether they were "caught" for their crimes. Using propensity score matching to compare arrested and non-arrested youth, I investigated whether contact with the justice system does, in fact, contribute to school-related outcomes, substance use, and delinquency and whether these relations vary based on whether arrested youth are formally processed or diverted from the system. When selection effects are taken into consideration, results indicate that contact with the juvenile justice system does not have a universally harmful effect on development. Diversion (informally processing youth) actually deters future offending, school misconduct, school truancy, and school suspensions. However, both diverted and formally processed youth, regardless of their actual antisocial and illegal behavior, are more likely than no-contact youth to be arrested during the study period, according to official court records. The risk of re-arrest is highest for formally processed youth. Formally processed youth are also more likely than no-contact and diverted youth to be transferred to an alternative or continuation school. Taken together, results suggest that increased justice system surveillance might improve school performance and deter offending, but it also might lead to more contact with the system. Although an adolescent's first arrest might lead to positive outcomes in the immediate future, the effects of subsequent contacts are unknown. As such, the data suggest that the default policy should be to divert low-level first-time offenders and keep the justice system's involvement to a minimum. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine, 2014. 201p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed January 31, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248533.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248533.pdf Shelf Number: 134511 Keywords: Juvenile ArrestsJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Recidivism |
Author: National Disability Rights Network Title: Orphanages, Training Schools, Reform Schools and Now This? Summary: Children with disabilities are disproportionately placed in the juvenile justice system, receive inadequate treatment and are denied educational opportunities, the National Disability Rights Network asserted in a report released today. "More than 65 percent of youth in the justice system meet the criteria for a disability, a rate that is three times higher than that of the general population," said Curt Decker, NDRN's executive director. "The millions we spend housing and feeding our young people behind razor wire can be far better spent helping them to find their way in this world." The findings in Orphanages, Training Schools, Reform Schools and Now This? are based upon scores of reports from the nationwide Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System. P&As provide legal and other advocacy services to children and youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system, and also maintain a presence in the facilities in which they are found, including prisons, jails, and detention centers. P&As have the legal authority to monitor and investigate allegations of abuse in these facilities. Issues addressed in this report include: Diversion of children and youth with disabilities from the juvenile justice system (particularly stemming the "School to Prison Pipeline"), humane conditions while incarcerated (such as accommodation and communication needs, medical care, mental health treatment, and the prevention of abuse and neglect) and re-entry services like education and treatment to ensure the child or youth's success upon release from the facility. The report describes the problems children and youth with disabilities encounter, solutions used with success by the P&As, and provides specific recommendations for systemic improvements. Some of those recommendations include: -Congress should authorize and fund a Protection and Advocacy for Juvenile Justice Program to help divert youth with disabilities from entering the juvenile justice system, investigate and monitor conditions for youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system, and ensure proper return to the community with needed services and supports. -Congress should prohibit the use of solitary confinement and/or isolation for all juveniles, including those housed in adult settings. -Congress should require that schools identified as having elevated school-based arrest rates: 1) lose the opportunity to use federal funds to employ School Resource Officers (SROs); 2) ensure SROs work is limited to traditional police activities and not discipline of non- violent student behavior; and, 3) require SROs in those schools to undergo training in specific, related topics. -The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and Department of Justice (DOJ) should fully enforce laws requiring that education of youth in facilities is equal to that provided to students in other public schools. Details: Washington, DC: National Disability Rights Center, 2015. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 8, 2015 at: http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/Juvenile_Justice/NDRN_-_Juvenile_Justice_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/Juvenile_Justice/NDRN_-_Juvenile_Justice_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 135922 Keywords: DisabilityJuvenile DetentionJuvenile DiversionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Youth offending teams: making the difference for children and young people, victims and communities: final report Summary: Introduction 1.1 The YJB is a non-departmental public body created by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to oversee, monitor and lead the youth justice system in England and Wales. The statutory aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young people. 1.2 Youth offending teams (YOTs) are multi-agency partnerships that deliver youth justice services locally. The YJB sets standards in youth justice services and monitors YOTs' performance. YOTs are funded by their statutory partners and receive an annual grant from central government administered and overseen by the YJB. 1.3 Over February and March 2015 YJB Board members undertook a series of visits to a representative sample of 20 YOTs in parallel with and to complement the Ministry of Justice's 'stocktake' through providing a more qualitative contextual analysis. The purpose of the visits was to deepen our understanding of how YOTs have evolved, and to explore examples of good practice and innovation. This report outlines our key findings. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445271/Board_Visits_Final_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445271/Board_Visits_Final_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136067 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Nolan, Debbie Title: Youth Justice: A Study of Local Authority Reintegration and Transitions Practice Across Scotland Summary: This paper is the second of two research papers drawing on data from a survey of Whole System Approach leads in 27 of Scotland's 32 local authority areas. It aims to explore reintegration and transitions practice in these local authorities and to share practice examples. The key findings of this paper are: - Processes for sharing information with the SPS and secure care providers when a young person enters these establishments are well established. - Over 80% of respondents treated young people who are given a period of detention in secure care and had not previously been looked after and accommodated as a looked after and accommodated child. - 65% of participants stated 72 hour reviews were always held for young people aged under 18 entering secure care or custody by order of the court. The impact and purpose of these meetings was recognised but there were varying views about the interpretation of and who should attend, arrange, and chair these meetings, as well as numerous barriers to completing 72 hour reviews. - 71% of respondents stated the lead professional role was always maintained by the local authority where the child ordinarily resides while they are in secure care or custody. In addition, 70% of participants advised community based social work staff were always involved with the young person during this period, however the type and frequency of involvement varied. - All respondents advised post-release support was available to young people returning from a period of detention in secure care and custody and 77% reported that all young people have a throughcare or aftercare plan, with the type and frequency of support again varying. - 75% of respondents stated meet at the gate support was always provided if a young person under the age of 18 was not being met by a friend or family member. - Third sector agencies worked in over 90% of participants local authority areas, with the mean number of organisations 3.35. - Respondents were committed to young people remaining in secure accommodation following their 16th birthday (up until their 18th birthday) to serve the remainder or as much of their sentence rather than transferring to custody. The subsequent implications and recommendations for practice are: - Good information sharing between Social Work Services, SPS and secure care providers must continue and this should be monitored to assess quality and consistency. - All practitioners working with young people involved in offending behaviour should understand, be able to communicate and fulfil the rights and entitlements of looked after children and care leavers under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. - 72 hour reviews should be held for every young person detained in secure care or custody and this should be monitored on a local basis and by the SPS. - The lead professional role should be maintained and fully fulfilled by the local authority for all young people in secure care and custody. - Contact by community based social work staff should be maintained. - Throughcare and aftercare plans should be in place prior to release for all young people, must incorporate the identified elements of effective throughcare, and be monitored locally. - Meet at the gate support should be provided for all young people leaving secure care or custody following a period of detention. - Efforts should be made to ensure partnership working is effective and to reduce barriers to this. - More equitable arrangement should continue to be sought between SPS, the Scottish Government, local authorities and the secure estate to ensure placement decisions for young people aged under 18 are influenced primarily by need and vulnerability rather than cost. - Training and support should continue to be made available to all practitioners involved in supporting young people in the youth justice system to understand their roles and responsibilities in respect of reintegration and transitions practice. - Further research to address the limitations of this study would be beneficial. Details: Glasgow: Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2015 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Youth-Justice-A-Study-of-Local-Authority-Reintegration-and-Transitions-Practice-Across-Scotland-FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Youth-Justice-A-Study-of-Local-Authority-Reintegration-and-Transitions-Practice-Across-Scotland-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 136638 Keywords: Information SharingJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile ReentryReintegrationYouthful Offenders |
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: Amnesty International Title: A Brighter Tomorrow: Keeping Indigenous kids in the community and out of detention in Australia Summary: Children are vital to any community. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Indigenous children, like children everywhere, have the right to develop their personalities, abilities and talents to the fullest potential, to grow up in an environment of happiness, love and understanding. The Convention recognizes each child as an individual and a member of a family and community. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises the right of the right of Indigenous families and communities to secure the well-being of their children and to have greater control over decision-making about their own lives and futures. Community is everything when it comes to ensuring all young people have what they need to enjoy their rights as children. Indigenous youth detention in Australia is a national crisis - and the crisis is getting worse. Indigenous young people are "more likely to be incarcerated today than at any other time since the release of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody final report in 1991" said the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in 2011. The most recent data, from 2013-14, shows that Indigenous young people are 26 times more likely to be in detention than non-Indigenous young people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people make up just over 5 per cent of the Australian population of 10-17 year-olds but more than half (59 per cent) of those in detention. The situation is bleaker still among the youngest Indigenous children, who made up more than 60 per cent of all 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds in detention in Australia in 2012-13. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population has more people in younger age brackets than the non-Indigenous population, with larger proportions of young people. In light of this, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples noted in 2013 that "unless the rate of increase in youth detention can be reduced, rates of incarceration across the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population are likely to continue to increase into the future." This report details the nature of this crisis, and makes practical recommendations on ways the Australian Government can reduce these escalating rates. It is based on field and desk research carried out between 2013 and early 2015 by Amnesty International. In Australia, each state and territory government is responsible for its own laws, policies and practices for dealing with young people accused of committing, or convicted of, offences. However, it is the Federal Government ('Australian Government'), as a signatory to international human rights conventions, which bears ultimate responsibility for fulfilling the rights of Indigenous young people in all states and territories. In 2012 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed regret that, despite its previous recommendations, "the juvenile justice system of the [Australia] still requires substantial reforms for it to conform to international standards." This report highlights state and territory-based laws that breach international human rights obligations. The Australian Government should invalidate these laws, or work with the states and territories to have them repealed. Importantly, across all Australian states and territories children are held criminally responsible from just 10 years of age, despite the Committee on the Rights of the Child having concluded that 12 is the lowest internationally acceptable minimum age of criminal responsibility. The Western Australian Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) requires magistrates to impose mandatory minimum sentences on young offenders in a number of circumstances. The Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2012 again recommended that the Australian Government take steps to abolish this practice. Far from accepting this recommendation, at the time of writing, the West Australian Legislative Assembly had in fact just passed a Bill that will increase the number of offences attracting a mandatory minimum sentence. Queensland treats 17-year-olds as adults in its criminal justice system. In 2012 the Committee on the Rights of the Child again recommended that Australia remove children who are 17 years old from the adult justice system in Queensland. Ignoring this recommendation, in 2014, the Queensland Government amended its Youth Justice Act 1992 to require all 17-year-olds with six months or more left of their sentence to be transferred to adult jails. This is contrary to Article 37(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2014 the Queensland Government introduced a further law that is in direct conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that the court must disregard the principle that detention must be a last resort. This report sets out further actions that the Australian Government should take to comply with international legal obligations across all states and territories. For example, Australia should withdraw its reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as this reservation has been justified to detain children with adult prisoners where separation is not "considered to be feasible having regard to the geography and demography of Australia." The Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly noted that the reservation should be withdrawn. Details: Broadway NSW: Amnesty International Australia, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/aus/A_brighter_future_National_report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/aus/A_brighter_future_National_report.pdf Shelf Number: 136928 Keywords: Indigenous PeoplesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits Title: Dually Involved Youth. Summary: State‑level agencies have provided limited guidance to county agencies regarding youth who are involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system (dually involved youth) because state law does not require them to do so. As a result, counties have used their own discretion in determining the degree to which they track the population and outcomes of these youth. While the State does not mandate such tracking, best practice models recommend collecting data and tracking outcomes. Since January 2005 state law grants counties the option of developing local dual status protocols that designate certain youth as both dependents and wards of the court in order to maximize support for these children. Depending on the county in which they live, when youth who are already dependents of the court are adjudicated wards of the court, they may either have their dependency case closed (crossover youth) or fall under the jurisdiction of both dependency and delinquency simultaneously (dual status youth). Previously, state law required counties to terminate the dependency cases of youth in the child welfare system who were declared wards of the court, thus placing these youth within the sole jurisdiction of the counties probation agencies. Before the law changed, California was one of only two states in the nation that did not use some form of dual status. As of February 2016 the Judicial Council reports that 18 counties have adopted dual status protocols. Six of these counties have populations greater than 1 millionthe counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Santa Clara. Collectively, these 18 counties represent 67 percent of the States population. Since the initial implementation of dual status protocols in 2005, state agencies have provided the counties with only limited guidance related to tracking dually involved youth. Specifically, the State has not defined key terms or established outcomes to track related to dually involved youth, thus it cannot monitor the outcomes for this population statewide. For example, our review of three counties that adopted dual status protocols (dual status counties)Los Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Claraand three nondual status countiesAlameda, Kern, and Sacramentorevealed that the six counties had different definitions for recidivism. Some counties define recidivism based on the period when the subsequent offense occurs as well as the severity of the offense. Specifically, counties' various definitions of the recidivism period included the youths probationary period, the six‑month period following disposition, the six‑month period following the termination of the youths probation, and the three‑year period following the youths first entry into probation. County definitions of recidivism events also differ, as some counties consider new sustained violations of probation as recidivism while others include only new citations and arrests. Until the State establishes standard definitions, the outcomes counties decide to track are unlikely to be comparable, making it difficult to determine the success of county efforts. Details: Sacramento: California State Auditor, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 2015-115: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-115.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-115.pdf Shelf Number: 137991 Keywords: Child Welfare Dually Involved Youth Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Holden, Gary Title: Medway Improvement Board, Final Report of the Board's Advice to Secretary of State for Justice Summary: i. The independent Medway Improvement Board was appointed on 26th January 2016 by the Secretary of State for Justice. The Board was appointed as a response to a BBC Panorama programme on 11th January which highlighted the allegations of physical and emotional abuse of young people by staff at Medway STC. ii. The Board was asked to investigate the current safeguarding arrangements at Medway STC and report to the Secretary of State on the confidence of its members in the capability of YJB and other organisations to meet appropriate safeguarding standards at Medway in the future and on performance and monitoring arrangements. The Board was also asked to feed into the Improvement Plan that G4S were asked to put in place. iii. In the time that the Board was appointed, they spoke to 34 stakeholders in person, either as a Board or on a one-to-one basis. Stakeholders included key individuals from G4S and YJB, inspectors from HMIP and Ofsted, the Children's Commissioner, and senior staff at Medway Council. The Board also spoke to staff and children at the STC and conducted a roundtable event with stakeholders from lobby groups and charities. iv. From very early on in the investigations, the Board found problems that members found alarming. The most immediate concerns were raised in the interim advice presented to the Secretary of State on 2nd March. v. The Board found that there was a lack of clarity on the purpose of an STC and that leadership within the STC has driven a culture that appears to be based on control and contract compliance rather than rehabilitation and safeguarding vulnerable young people. The Board continues to have significant concerns that this culture and the emphasis on contract compliance may be leading to reports of falsification of records etc. that were seen in the Panorama broadcast. vi. There are blurred lines of accountability and an ambiguous management structure. A clearer child-based vision needs to be driven by strong leadership. The purpose of STCs needs to be more clearly articulated with a focus on prompting a nurturing and safe environment. The Board is recommending that an independent Governing Body be appointed to provide overall oversight and scrutiny arrangements for safeguarding in all STCs. vii. Current safeguarding measures are insufficient and outdated. There is too much emphasis on control and contract compliance and not enough on the best interests and mental wellbeing of the trainees. YJB has not done enough to change this and current policies and practices need to be reviewed. viii. The Board is not convinced that the various organisations that currently play a role in scrutinising and responding to safeguarding at Medway STC are coordinated in their approach. This increases the risk of safeguarding issues falling through a gap. These findings further support the need for an independent governing body. ix. There is a history of similar concerns being raised repeatedly in letters from whistle-blowers and former staff. The Board feels that policies which form part of the STC contract need to be reviewed to ensure that they support the overall safety of young people rather than focus on contractual penalties. Whistle-blowers and children inside of the STC need to have an effective support framework in which they feel safe to raise concerns and complaints. x. The Board noted that there is a qualitative difference between how behaviour management and Restrictive Physical Interventions (RPI) are used in the secure children's estate and in other sectors, despite the fact that in some cases staff are dealing with very similar behaviours. There is a lack of understanding of the causes and drivers of behaviour problems and too much focus on controlling behaviour rather than dealing with underlying vulnerabilities. The Board feels there needs to be a wider review of behaviour management policy and practice in STCs, across the wider youth justice system and across other sectors, with a view to developing a coherent and consistent policy on risk, restraint and behaviour management across government. xi. The Board continues to have concerns about how YJB manages their contract and monitors safeguarding at the STC. It welcomes some of the changes that have been made as a result of earlier advice in the course of the term of this Improvement Board and acknowledges that YJB are reviewing their approach to monitoring in the STC. The Board feels there is a need for formal separation of the often conflicting YJB monitoring functions of ensuring contractual compliance and monitoring safeguarding. xii. The Board feels that while the revised Improvement Plan, received from G4S on 15th March, takes on board earlier feedback from the Board, it does not go far enough. In particular it does not take into account the Board's concerns about handover and continuity if, following the announcement of their intention to sell the contract, responsibility for managing the STC and for implementing the Improvement Plan moves from G4S. Regardless of who man manages Medway STC, changes in culture, leadership and staff approaches are needed; for these reasons the Improvement Plan needs to incorporate effective mechanism for continuity of improvement, assessment of impact of improvements, and a timetable for handover. Details: s.l.: Medway Improvement Board, 2016. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523167/medway-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523167/medway-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139128 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice System |
Author: Hayek, Connie Title: Environmental Scan of Developmentally Appropriate Criminal Justice Responses to Justice-Involved Young Adults Summary: This environmental scan sought to identify those programs addressing the developmental needs of young adults involved in the criminal justice system. Included in the scan is legislation with provisions sensitive to the developmental level and maturation of justice-involved young adults. The scan incorporated a variety of methods to locate programs and legislation. The approaches included a review of research and documents prepared by advocacy organizations; extensive internet searches; interviews of various stakeholders; outreach to professional organizations; searches on social media sites; and distribution (via professional listservs) of an invitation from the Assistant Attorney General to submit information on successful programs. All established programs included in the scan identified some level of success, although often this was established anecdotally. Achievement of success generally focused on the reduction of recidivism rates. A common theme in all programs is the inclusion of case management or coordination, combined with intensive services. Individualized services included education or vocational training, mental and/or substance abuse treatment, and assistance with housing and employment. Many programs offer reduced sentencing or probation, expungement of records, or a reduction in charges as an incentive for participation. Programs ranged from those still in the developmental stages to several that have provided services and supports to justice-involved young adults for several years. Among the more innovative approaches is a network of programs in the state of Massachusetts, the most widely known being Roca and UTEC. These programs include repeatedly reaching out to young offenders in efforts to engage them in services rather than requiring voluntary participation at the onset of services. Another innovation is a recently added " pay for success" structure in which the agency providing services is compensated based on achievement of predefined outcomes. UTEC developed several social enterprises (e.g., a mattress recycling service, food services, woodworking) to create employment opportunities for participants. A new program in New York is using mobile technology to track and maintain contact with young adults awaiting trial. A program in Maine operates a separate incarceration facility for young adults with an emphasis on treatment and skill development rather than the typical punitive approach used in adult prisons. Legislative changes in the approach to how young adults are handled within the justice system have centered around three main themes. This includes raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction, consideration of mitigating circumstances in sentencing, and the expungement of criminal records of young adults. Connecticut has garnered much attention for the governor's proposal to raise the age at which a person can be tried as an adult to 21 years. Several states have proposed legislation that would allow judges to take into account the age at which a crime is committed as a mitigating factor in sentencing, allowing for lesser sentences based on the maturation level of young adults. Several states have considered laws to expunge the criminal records of young adults, reducing the long- term consequences of actions of young adults who may lack the judgment and critical thinking skills of older adults. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2016. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249902.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249902.pdf Shelf Number: 139944 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ProgramsJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile RehabilitationYouth Adults OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Owasanoye, Bolaji, ed. Title: Street Children and the Juvenile Justice System in Lagos State Summary: The findings of research carried out between the la te eighties and early nineties indicate that three categories of Nigerian children spend m o re tim e on the streets than their peers. These are street working or working street children, that is, child ren who are on the streets to work and regularly return to their f a m ilies af ter work. These incl ude hawkers, scavengers, car-washers/watchers. Secondly, those who are in the streets only to play gam e s such as football. The dram atic success of young footballers in FIFA Under 17 W o rld Ch am pionship in China in 1985 and in Japan 1993 which were accom p anied by generous gifts by the Federal and State Governm e nts has led to an increase in the num bers of these children and in the intensity of street gam e s of ten resulting in inform al and partial street closure. Thirdly, st reet children defined as those who actually live on the streets and sleep under bridge s, and flyovers as well as in cul-de-sacs , uncom pleted/dilapidated buildings, abandoned vehicles and m a rket stalls. Although children who spend m u ch tim e on the street s are autom a tically exposed to various types of risks and hazards, depending on the socio-econom ic characteristics of neighbourhood in which streets are located, those who sleep on the streets have been identified as contending with grave problem s com p ared to the other two categories of children m e ntioned earlier. The physical, social and psychological problem s of street children are truly daunting. They lack basic resources with which to sustain healthy living. Consequently, they suffered from preventable skin and parasitic diseases. Moreover, the violent environm ent of the street in which they reside aid their adoption of self -protective m echanism s , which f u rther lead to their stigm a tization by the public. The findings of a survey of Area Boys and Girls in Lagos State in 1993 revealed that street children tend to be exploited by drug peddlers who insist that they m u st buy hard-drugs in order to rem a in in particular niches on the streets. Som e tim es th ey are required to pay dues to persons who claim to be their 'landlords'. Occasionally they ar e expected to render som e m e nial and indecent services to those violent 'landlords'. Street children have com e to know that there are no free spaces even on the streets. In spite of the m e ntioned problem s of street ch ildren, they have not received m u ch research let alone intervention attention. It is in view of th e relative neglect of street children that one is delighted that this book has been written. Details: Human Development Initiatives, 2004. 134p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2016 at: http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0708/DOC16855.pdf Year: 2004 Country: Nigeria URL: http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0708/DOC16855.pdf Shelf Number: 130045 Keywords: Homeless YouthJuvenile Justice SystemStreet Children |
Author: Spier, Philip Title: Offending by Children in New Zealand Summary: Children who offend are a group who are under-researched in New Zealand. This research report aims to fill some key information gaps around the profile of child offenders in New Zealand and their patterns of offending and reoffending. The findings from this research will inform future work under the cross-agency Youth Crime Action Plan in response to Government commitments made in September 2012 following the Social Services Select Committee's Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders. Offending trajectories were examined for the 1995 to 1999 birth cohorts to the end of 2013, and child offenders aged 10 to 13 years in the period 2009 to 2013 were examined in some depth. Children who offend are a group who are under-researched in New Zealand. This research report aims to fill some key information gaps around the profile of child offenders in New Zealand and their patterns of offending and reoffending. The findings from this research will inform future work under the cross-agency Youth Crime Action Plan in response to Government commitments made in September 2012 following the Social Services Select Committee’s Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders. Offending trajectories were examined for the 1995 to 1999 birth cohorts to the end of 2013, and child offenders aged 10 to 13 years in the period 2009 to 2013 were examined in some depth. Key findings An estimated one in twenty New Zealand children offend before age 14 The number of child offenders has dropped considerably Despite offending less, Māori children remain significantly over-represented Large drop in shoplifting, and violent offending down Fewer children are becoming offenders Early identification of persistent offenders is critical to reduce crime Police responses reflect changing patterns of offending A little over half of all child offenders reoffend within two years Conclusions Offending by children has dropped in the last five years for both genders, across all ethnic groups and ages, across almost all offence types, and in all regions. A falling youth crime rate is not unique to New Zealand, and the reasons for the fall are unclear and therefore subject to debate. It is likely due to the confluence of a number of factors such as: changes in police practice; better public and private security measures; more effective youth justice interventions; goods often subject to theft or burglary historically continuing to become affordable to more people; and a proliferation of smart phones and video gaming devices among youth which may prevent some opportunistic crimes through boredom. The factors behind the fall in crime may also differ for different types of crime. Much of the drop in offending by children in New Zealand has been because of a drop in first-time child offenders. This is a very positive finding. It is encouraging that there was at least a third fewer child offenders from all ethnic groups apprehended in 2013 than in 2009. However, the decrease for Māori was smaller than that seen for European and Pacific children, with the consequence that the over-representation in the offender statistics of Māori children is exacerbated. This over-representation at the front-end of the youth justice system flows through to other parts of the system (i.e. Child, Youth and Family and the Youth Court). It is important to understand and address the complex interplay of risk factors that lead to Māori children, both boys and girls, being apprehended at a greater rate than children from other ethnic groups. Broadly, attention needs to focus on two areas. Firstly, the rate of Māori children offending and entering the youth justice system in the first instance needs to be reduced. Secondly, for those children who do come in contact with the system, there needs to be effective interventions to increase the likelihood that they do not reoffend. Although a minority (20%) of child offenders committed the majority (57%) of offences by children over the five-year period 2009 to 2013, this was not a small group (around 3,600 children). Within these figures there were 820 children who committed around 11,000 offences, including 170 children who committed nearly 4,200 offences. These figures support the view that early identification and application of effective interventions with high-risk child offenders presents an opportunity to steer the children onto a more positive path, thereby preventing a large number of future crimes and a large number of people from becoming victims. Children who offend are a group who are under-researched in New Zealand. There would be benefit to further research in the following areas: The dynamics of offending by Māori children, and what effective interventions for this group would look like. Who are the high-risk child offenders, how can they be identified early, and what would effective interventions for this group look like? Details: Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Social Development, 2016. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/resource/offending-children-new-zealand Year: 2016 Country: New Zealand URL: http://apo.org.au/resource/offending-children-new-zealand Shelf Number: 144843 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile OffendersRe-offendingRecidivismRehabilitation ProgramsTrajectories |
Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Juvenile InJustice: Charging Youth as Adults is Ineffective, Biased, and Harmful Summary: In all 50 states, youth under age 18 can be tried in adult criminal court through various types of juvenile transfer laws. In California, youth as young as 14 can be tried as adults at the discretion of a juvenile court judge. When young people are transferred out of the juvenile system, they are more likely to be convicted and typically receive harsher sentences than youth who remain in juvenile court charged with similar crimes. This practice undermines the purpose of the juvenile court system, pursues punishment rather than rehabilitation, and conflicts with what we know from developmental science. Furthermore, laws that allow youth to be tried as adults reflect and reinforce the racial inequities that characterize the justice system in United States. In this report, we review the process that unfolds when a young person is tried as an adult in California and evaluate the health and equity impacts of charging youth as adults. Our findings indicate that: The Justice System is Biased Against Youth of Color Youth of color are overrepresented at every stage of the juvenile court system. Rampant racial inequities are evident in the way youth of color are disciplined in school, policed and arrested, detained, sentenced, and incarcerated. These inequities persist even after controlling for variables like offense severity and prior criminal record. Research shows that youth of color receive harsher sentences than White youth charged with similar offenses. Youth of color are more likely to be tried as adults than White youth, even when being charged with similar crimes. In California in 2015, 88% of juveniles tried as adults were youth of color.8 "Tough on Crime" Laws Criminalize Youth and are Ineffective Research shows that "tough on crime" policy shifts during the 1980s and 1990s have negatively impacted youth, families, and communities of color. These laws were fueled by high-profile criminal cases involving youth, sensationalized coverage of system-involved youth by the media, and crusading politicians who warned that juvenile "super-predators posed a significant threat to public safety. The general sentiment — not based on research or data — across the political spectrum was that treatment approaches and rehabilitation attempts did not work. However, time has shown that harshly punishing youth by trying them in the adult system has failed as an effective deterrent. Several large-scale studies have found higher recidivism rates among juveniles tried and sentenced in adult court than among youth charged with similar offenses in juvenile court. The Adult Court System Ignores the Environmental Factors that Affect Adolescent Behavior When someone is charged in adult court, they are either found guilty or innocent — and they receive a punishment if they are found guilty. By contrast, the juvenile court system (at least in theory) is meant to focus on reasons for the youth’s behavior rather than just their guilt or innocence. A juvenile court judge is responsible for reviewing that youth's case with their family, community, and future development in mind. Incarceration Undermines Youth Health and Well-Being When we lock up young people, they are more likely to be exposed to extreme violence, fall prey to abuse, and suffer from illness. High rates of violence, unchecked gang activity, and overcrowding persist in Division of Juvenile Justice facilities where many youth sentenced as adults start their incarceration. Fights frequently erupt in facility dayrooms and school areas. Even if young people manage to escape direct physical abuse in juvenile or adult facilities, exposure and proximity to violence can be harmful in and of itself. Research suggests that exposure to violence can lead to issues with development in youth. Families of Incarcerated Youth Experience Negative Impacts Parents and family members of system-involved youth are systematically excluded from the adult court process — they are not given meaningful opportunities to help determine what happens to their children. The inability to participate fully while their loved one is going through the system can be mentally and emotionally harmful to families. In addition, contact with the justice system often entails exorbitant expenses that can worsen family poverty. The economic burden of legal fees, court costs, restitution payments, and visitation expenses can have disastrous and long-lasting financial consequences for families. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2017. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2017 at: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/HIP_JuvenileInJusticeReport_2017.02.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/HIP_JuvenileInJusticeReport_2017.02.pdf Shelf Number: 145383 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice SystemWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Iowa Task Force for Young Women Title: Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Female Offenders: Service and System Recommendations for Iowa Summary: Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile female offenders are at the center of a system and service crisis in juvenile justice; this plan is about them and what they need to succeed. Crisis is a strong word to use to describe the absence of appropriate services in Iowa for the small number of girls who have the highest level of risk and need according to the Iowa Delinquency Assessment and are the greatest threat to public safety. Yet, for those girls and their families, as well as for the state, it is a crisis. This document is not simply a set of recommendations; it is about these girls and the systems responsible for them. The number of girls who need specialized and intensive service, and who may provide a risk to those around them, is relatively small, but these girls are no less important. This full report is focused on those girls and how Iowa will provide the appropriate level of service and system supports. First, there is a need to understand the current situation in Iowa and the context in which recommendations are made. No part of this document stands alone. Its focus on high risk, high need girls tells the story of how girls and boys think and respond differently, what services are effective with girls, and how Iowa might – for the first time – establish practices, services, and systems that are most effective for girls. This report is not critical of the services and system for boys; rather, it emphasizes and shows that girls do not fit into or respond well in a male-centric system. The reader is asked to consider the contents of this document as a whole in order to grasp the key elements and the value and impact of the recommendations. Services that are the most effective for girls take gender into account; yet these types of services are not universally recognized or provided in Iowa. This plan focuses in on the small number of girls with the most serious risks and deepest needs. Practically speaking, today there is no placement of last resort for these girls in Iowa where they can receive the highest level of treatment and services and where public safety is ensured. Of the thousands of girls charged with violating Iowa law, most will never reoffend, and the system is designed to limit contact with the low-risk offender. Only a small number ever move from informal to formal involvement with the courts. This report addresses an even smaller subset of that population. Details: Des Moines, IA: The Task Force, 2017. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2017 at: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/Serious,%20Violent%20and%20Chronic%20Juvenile%20Female%20Offenders%20Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/Serious,%20Violent%20and%20Chronic%20Juvenile%20Female%20Offenders%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 141368 Keywords: Female Juvenile OffendersFemale OffendersJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile OffendersSerious 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: Liberman, Akiva Title: Local Validation of SPEP Ratings of Juvenile Justice Program Effectiveness: A Case Study Summary: At the end of 2012, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention launched the Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative (JJRRI) at 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 using three types of tools: - Dispositional matrices provide evidence-based recommendations concerning dispositional options. - The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) rating system brings evidence concerning program effectiveness to bear on juvenile justice services and guides improvements to those services. - Validated risk assessments are necessary for both dispositional matrices and SPEP ratings. Together, these tools are intended to increase effectiveness and efficiency in the use of juvenile justice resources. Concurrent with JJRRI implementation, the Urban Institute evaluated the initiative to understand whether it improved the quality and effectiveness of juvenile justice programming. One goal of the evaluation was to understand the implementation of the SPEP rating system, and this was the subject of our first evaluation report (Liberman and Hussemann 2016). The rating system is quite simple in conception, and is described briefly in chapter 2 of this report. Despite its simplicity, however, conducting a first round of SPEP ratings is usually an intensive effort that can take two to three years to complete. Our previous report detailed the implementation requirements of the SPEP: strong data systems and reliable and timely risk assessment. The SPEP often reveals deficiencies in these systems and can then help drive improvements. These improvements, in turn, require support from a range of juvenile justice stakeholders and considerable technical assistance. After reviewing SPEP implementation requirements, that report described the challenges the JJRRI sites encountered and how they were addressed. We concluded that a first round of ratings tends to uncover deficiencies that then motivate reforms with considerable potential to improve the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. The evaluation also aimed to locally validate the relationship between SPEP ratings and reduced recidivism, which is the subject of this report. A local validation would replicate previous work done in Arizona by Lipsey (2008) and Redpath and Brandner (2010). Of the three JJRRI sites, only Iowa seemed a suitable site for local validation. Iowa's Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning provided the Urban Institute with data for this purpose that are analyzed in the current report. As a prelude to attempting to locally validate the SPEP, chapter 3 reports on Iowa's first round of SPEP ratings, collected between 2012 and 2015. However, although results in Iowa were promising in some respects, they ultimately did not provide an opportunity for local validation. The rest of this chapter briefly introduces JJRRI. Chapter 2 then briefly reviews the SPEP rating system and its data requirements. Chapter 3 examines the data collected in Iowa. Chapter 4 explores the possibility of using that data to locally validate the relationship between SPEP ratings and reduced recidivism. Chapter 5 concludes with a summary and lessons learned. Details: Washington, DC; Urban Institute, 2017. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90041/local-validation-of-spep-ratings-of-juvenile-justice-program-effectiveness_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90041/local-validation-of-spep-ratings-of-juvenile-justice-program-effectiveness_0.pdf Shelf Number: 146445 Keywords: Evidence-Based ProgramsJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile OffendersRisk AssessmentTreatment Programs |
Author: Lubow, Bart Title: Timely Justice: Improving JDAI Results Through Case Processing Reform Summary: This JDAI practice guide offers practical steps that all juvenile justice systems can take to implement case processing reforms as a means for safely and equitably reducing the use of juvenile detention. This publication makes the case that with a renewed focus on how cases move through the juvenile justice system, jurisdictions could lower their use of juvenile detention and positively affect racial and ethnic disparities, rearrest and court appearance rates, program participation in detention alternatives and system costs, to name a few. System professionals will learn effective approaches to achieving more timely justice and overcoming common obstacles and challenges to case processing reform. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundations, 2017. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2017 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-TimelyJustice-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-TimelyJustice-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 147231 Keywords: Juvenile Case Processing Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice System |
Author: Gleicher, Lily Title: Juvenile Justice In Illinois 2015 Summary: Rates for arrest, station adjustment and probation caseloads, detention admissions, and new sentence admissions to the Department of Juvenile Justice have generally declined over the past five years in each region of Illinois. The Central and Southern regions of Illinois are exceptions, where detention rates have slightly increased. Although black youth comprised only 18% of the youth population aged 10 to 17 years old in 2015, they accounted for 59% of juvenile arrests, 59% of juvenile detention admissions, and 65% of corrections admissions for new sentences. While male youth comprised 51% of the youth population aged 10 to 17 years old in 2015, they accounted for more than 75% of juvenile arrests, detention admissions, and corrections admissions for new sentences. The majority of youth arrested, admitted to detention, and admitted to corrections were 16- or 17-years old. There was a greater proportion of youth arrested for a property crime or other crime. For detention admissions, there was a greater proportion of youth detained for a warrant. For a new sentence admission to corrections, a greater proportion of youth were admitted for a property crime or a crime to a person. 21,244 juveniles accounted for 32,022 total juvenile arrests. There were 11,122 admissions to local secure detention facilities. 807 youth accounted for 828 new sentence admissions to Department of Juvenile Justice correctional facilities. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2017. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Juvenile_Justice_in_Illinois_2015_Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Juvenile_Justice_in_Illinois_2015_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147353 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
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: Sawyer, Wendy Title: Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie Summary: A map of juvenile justice in America would be daunting, covering 1,852 youth facilities of varying restrictiveness, not to mention thousands of youth held in adult prisons and jails. Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie offers a comprehensive view of this system, breaking down where and why justice-involved youth are locked up. On any given day, nearly 53,000 youth are held in facilities away from home as a result of juvenile or criminal justice involvement. Nearly one in ten is held in an adult jail or prison. Even for the youth held in juvenile "residential placement," the situation is grim; most of them are in similarly restrictive, correctional-style facilities. Thousands of youths are held before they've been found delinquent, many for non-violent, low-level offenses - even for behaviors that aren't criminal violations. This report provides an introductory snapshot of what happens when justice-involved youth are held by the state: where they are held, under what conditions, and for what offenses. It offers a starting point for people new to the issue to consider the ways that the problems of the criminal justice system are mirrored in the juvenile system: racial disparities, punitive conditions, pretrial detention, and over-criminalization. While acknowledging the philosophical, cultural, and procedural differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems, the report highlights these issues as areas ripe for reform for youth as well as adults Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2018. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2018 at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html Shelf Number: 149422 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: University of Washington. Law, Societies, and Justice Program Title: Guilty but Innocent: Juveniles in Jail in Washington State Summary: Under current Washington State law, it is possible to prosecute juveniles as adults through a process called declination. This report asks the following research questions: What is the size and demographic composition of the population of youth in adult jails in Washington State?; How did they come to be placed in adult jails?; What are the consequences of youth spending time in adult jails? Details: Seattle: The Law, Societies, and Justice Program, 2013. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 20-18 at: https://lsj.washington.edu/research/undergraduate/guilty-innocent-juveniles-jail-washington-state Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://lsj.washington.edu/research/undergraduate/guilty-innocent-juveniles-jail-washington-state Shelf Number: 150908 Keywords: Jails Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: McCann, Ellen P. Title: Juvenile Recidivism: A 2015 Cohort Analysis Summary: In the fall and winter of 2016, members of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council's Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) determined it was important to measure the impact of juvenile justice system interventions through a recidivism study. Members of the JJC's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Data Committee worked with CJCC's Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) to develop an initial research plan. This plan was presented to the CJCC Principals on February 16, 2017. After this meeting, the research question became: "Do juvenile justice system interventions succeed in reducing youth risk to public safety?" The purpose of the analysis was to better understand the characteristics of youth with multiple intakes, violations, or unsuccessful case dispositions; identify programming and practices that support successful case disposition; identify challenges, opportunities and/or gaps in current interventions; and eventually measure youth success. In order to answer this question, the SAC and JDAI Data Committee further refined the question to reflect national standards and local sentiment, seeking to determine new offending by those known to the system. This was defined to include those completing a diversion program, a term of probation, or a term of commitment during calendar year 2015. Reoffending was measured by the occurrence of new arrests, new case filings, and new findings of delinquency or criminal convictions for an offense that occurred in the year following the completion of the intervention. This baseline analysis is intended to lay the groundwork for future analyses, with hopes to include longer follow-up periods, more detailed information about risk assessments, interventions, education, employment and environment, and youth outcome data to include pro-social measures of success. During the course of conducting this analysis, the CJCC Principals also raised the importance of knowing which programs are most effective in reducing recidivism; and they expressed interest in understanding the outcomes for youth who are dismissed, found not-guilty, and have consent decrees, and understanding better the impact of special education on system involvement. Determining which programs are comparatively most effective will also require additional and more complicated analysis of youth who are sent to one program over another, or are more deeply entrenched in the system. This baseline will serve as a prelude to addressing these additional questions. The current analysis aims to answer some of these questions, while others must be discussed and prioritized to determine the next steps to best inform the work of our juvenile justice system partners. The research will examine the following: - When a youth is arrested for an offense that happened in the first year after he or she finished diversion, probation, or commitment; - When a youth has a case filed in court for an offense that happened in the first year after he or she finished diversion, probation, or commitment; and - When a youth is found guilty or delinquent for an offense that happened in the first year after he or she finished diversion, probation, or commitment. Details: Washington, DC: Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 6, 2018 at: https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjcc/publication/attachments/Juvenile%20Recidivism%20Study.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjcc/publication/attachments/Juvenile%20Recidivism%20Study.pdf Shelf Number: 151408 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Division Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Recidivism |
Author: Perlin, Michael Title: "She's Nobody's Child - The Law Can't Touch her at All": Seeking to Bring Dignity to Legal Proceedings Involving Juveniles Summary: Inquiries into a range of issues involving juveniles in the psychiatric hospitalization and criminal trial process reveal that, regularly, juveniles are subject to shame and humiliation in all aspects of the legal system that relate to arrest, trial, conviction, and institutionalization, shame and humiliation that are often exacerbated in cases involving racial minorities and those who are economically impoverished. We contextualize them into the juvenile justice system, and look specifically at how this is reflected in the case law. We then consider these findings through the filters of therapeutic jurisprudence and international human rights laws, concluding that these approaches best remediate the current state of affairs and infuse this system with badly‐needed dignity. Details: New York, 2016. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2018 at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/fcre.12324 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: file:///C:/Users/AuthUser/Downloads/Perlin_et_al-2018-Family_Court_Review.pdf Shelf Number: 151529 Keywords: CourtsJuvenileJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice SystemMental HealthPsychiatric Health |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: Supporting Immigrant Youth Caught in the Crosshairs of the Justice System Summary: Executive Summary Out of the estimated 11.1 million noncitizen immigrants living in America today, approximately one million are children under 18 years old. Many of these youth have come to this country fleeing violence and oppression, carry complex emotional burdens from trauma, and face basic language barriers. As national anti-immigrant rhetoric has escalated to the point of associating immigrants with animals and infestation and equating immigrant youth with gang members, these youthful immigrants have often become caught in the crosshairs of the justice system. Rather than being supported to develop into successful adults, immigrant youth are more often being targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation. As immigrant youth engage with the school and youth justice systems in this country, it is incumbent upon us to treat these youth - as we aspire to treat all youth in the United States - equitably, with dignity, and in a way that supports positive youth development and the rehabilitative goals of the youth justice system. Supporting immigrant youth has become increasingly more difficult, however, as federal, state, and local jurisdictions have adopted laws and policies that are threatening to immigrant youth and their families and fail to humanely support them. These include policies that promote local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, facilitate the deportation of immigrant youth and families, fail to protect the confidentiality of young people's school and justice records, increase harm to immigrant youth involved in the justice system, and fail to provide trauma informed, culturally and linguistically competent services for immigrant youth. While some of these policies negatively impact all youth, they can have profound consequences for immigrant youth, including higher risk of detention and the possibility of deportation. All these policies further serve to traumatize and instill fear in immigrant youth, impeding their ability to follow through on the services that will lead them on the path to positive youth development. Recommendations NJJN makes the following recommendations to support policies that uplift all families and further best practices for positive youth development for all youth, regardless of immigration status. 1) Do not entangle local and state law enforcement, youth justice, and school officials with federal immigration enforcement and encourage laws and policies that support immigrant youth. 2) Do not use gang databases and, where used, do not share them with federal authorities. 3) Safeguard students with policies that prohibit federal immigration authorities from entering schools, require warrants or other court documents to review student records, and discourage the use of school resource officers for the handling routine disciplinary matters. 4) Protect the confidentiality of all youth in the justice system, including immigrant youth. 5) Avoid detaining youth, including immigrant youth. 6) Use an immigration lens when reviewing current and proposed youth justice policies. Consider the possibility that children and/or adults that care for them may be immigrants and take actions that support their healthy development, rather than further traumatizing or harming them. 7) Ensure youth in the juvenile justice system have access to defense counsel that understand the immigration consequences of juvenile justice system involvement and, where necessary, access to immigration attorneys. Details: Washington, DC: 2018. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: http://www.njjn.org/our-work/supporting-immigrant-youth-caught-in-the-crosshairs-of-the-justice-system Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Supporting%20Immigrant%20Youth,%20NJJN%20Policy%20Platform,%20August%20%202018.pdf Shelf Number: 154225 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant YouthImmigrantsImmigration and Customs EnforcementJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenilesMigrantsRefugees |
Author: McCann, Ellen P. Title: Ten-Year Estimate of Justice-Involved Individuals in the District of Columbia Summary: Nationwide, an estimated 20% of persons living in the United States have had brushes with the criminal justice system. According to the Brennan Center, by mid-year 2015, at least 70 million Americans - in a country of 321 million - had a record in the FBI's Interstate Identification Index (III), showing they had been arrested and fingerprinted at some point. The Brennan Center notes that more people in the US are in III than there are military veterans, and there are as many persons in the US with a 4-year degree as persons with a record in the III. Brame, Turner, Paternoster, and Bushway (2012) estimated that nearly 1 in 3 people in the US will be arrested by age 23. There are various estimates of the number of justice-involved individuals residing in the District of Columbia (DC). In 2007, the Washington Post3 printed an estimate of 60,000. Since that time, another calculation estimated 67,000 persons with a criminal conviction were residing in the District. This updated estimate included persons "with a criminal record," but the term "criminal record" was not defined, in which case it is uncertain who was included in this estimate. Cognato, Raderstrong, and Sager (2015) reasoned that if 29% of persons in the US have a record of some sort, and 41% of cases in DC have a conviction, the estimate is made by taking the DC population in 2012 (552,871), and assuming that 29% have a record (29% of 552,871 = 160,333). The assumption is made that 41% of those with a record would have a conviction (41% of 160,333 = 66,500). These are very broad terms, and although they do offer more detailed information than the original 60,000 estimate, they do not rely on District-specific information - a very important consideration in such a unique city, where from 2008 to 2016, the adult population increased by 14.2% and total population increased by 12.4%. Purpose -- Because continued questions have arisen regarding the number of individuals living in DC who are "justice-involved," this white paper is intended to better inform justice system stakeholders and the community as they develop policies, strategies, interventions, and services to help improve outcomes for justice-involved persons in DC. Having an up-to-date estimate of the number of persons involved in the justice system allows stakeholders to tailor their programs and services with a greater degree of specificity. Details: Washington, DC: Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 25, 2019 at: https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjcc/publication/attachments/Ten-Year%20Estimate%20of%20Justice-Involved%20Individuals.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjcc/publication/attachments/Ten-Year%20Estimate%20of%20Justice-Involved%20Individuals.pdf Shelf Number: 154735 Keywords: Justice-Involved Youth Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile 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: Virginia. Department of Juvenile Justice Title: Profiles of Committed Juveniles: Fiscal Years 2004-2013 Summary: This report provides an overview of committed juveniles, admitted to DJJ's direct care between FY 2004 and FY 2013. Below are general trends and changes that emerged in the juvenile profiles. Overall Trends, FY 2004-2013 -- x An average of 84% of admissions since FY 2004 were indeterminate. In FY 2004, most juveniles had an early release date in six months or less; in FY 2013, most juveniles had an early release date between 13 and 24 months. x The average age of juveniles' first adjudication increased from 13.7 to 14.7 years old. x The average number of committing offenses increased from 3.4 to 4.0. x Based on rankings established by the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (VCSC), the percentage of admissions with a person offense as the most serious committing offense increased from 43% to 50%, and the percentage of admissions with a drug offense as the most serious committing offense decreased from 8% to 2%. Robbery, at 22%, was the most commonly occurring most serious committing offense category. x An average of 63% of juveniles were assigned mandatory aggression management treatment during this time period. The percentage of juveniles assigned mandatory or recommended substance abuse treatment increased from 70% to 86%. On average, 10% of juveniles were assigned mandatory sex offender treatment. x The percentage of juveniles exhibiting symptoms of a substance disorder increased from 58% to 71%. x Juveniles with a history of sexual offending increased from 13% to 18%. x In general, the percentage of juveniles with mental health disorders either increased or remained stable. The percentage of juveniles who used psychotropic medications in their lifetime also increased from 57% to 65%. x Juveniles' average IQ score increased from 84.7 to 86.6 but remained lower than that of the general population. x Average reading and math standard scores decreased from 89.2 to 86.9 and from 85.7 to 80.2, respectively; however, the average writing standard score increased from 78.2 to 87.8 during the same time frame. x The percentage of juveniles with special education needs remained stable at around 41%. Juveniles' history of school problems, including the number and severity of those problems, decreased slightly. Trends by Age x Older juveniles' offenses were more likely to be linked to substance use. x Younger juveniles were more likely to be assigned mandatory aggression management treatment and mandatory sex offender treatment than older juveniles. Older juveniles were more likely to be assigned mandatory substance abuse treatment than younger juveniles. x Younger juveniles were more likely to be taking psychotropic medication than older juveniles. x Older juveniles had lower average reading, writing, and math standard scores than younger juveniles. Trends by Race x Black juveniles were more likely to have determinate and blended sentences than juveniles of all other races. x A higher percentage of white juveniles had a history of sexual offending compared to juveniles of all other races. x White juveniles were more likely to have exhibited symptoms of several mental health disorders and had received more previous inpatient, outpatient, and psychotropic medication services than juveniles of all other races. Trends by Sex x Females were more likely to have exhibited symptoms of several mental health disorders, except ADHD, and had received more previous inpatient, outpatient, and psychotropic medication services than males. x More males exhibited symptoms of a substance disorder than females. x Males were more likely to need special education services than females. Males also had lower reading, writing, and math standard scores than females. Details: Richmond, VA: The Author, 2015. 166p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2019 at: http://www.djj.virginia.gov/pdf/admin/Profiles%20of%20Committed%20Juveniles,%20Fiscal%20Years%202004-2013.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.djj.virginia.gov/pdf/admin/Profiles%20of%20Committed%20Juveniles,%20Fiscal%20Years%202004-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 155179 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |