Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:38 pm
Time: 10:38 pm
Results for juvenile justice systems
173 results foundAuthor: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Delays in Youth Justice Summary: This report discusses court processing delays that affect the youth justice/juvenile system. Details: Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2009 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117299 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: New York (State). Governor David Paterson's Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice Title: Charting a New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State Summary: This report outlines recommendations that provide a framework for an effective juvenile justice system in the state of New York. Details: Albany, NY: 2009 Source: Vera Institute of Justice Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116691 Keywords: Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Arthur, Pat Title: Juvenile Justice Reform in Arkansas: Building a Better Future for Youth, Their Families, and the Community Summary: Arkansas has long struggled with the development of a juvenile justice reform plan that will best meet the needs of the youth of the State. The purpose of this report is to establish the framework by which the Arkansas Division of Youth Services intends to embark on building a long range strategic plan for reform that will best serve the needs of the youth, their families and the communities in which they reside. Details: Little Rock, AR: Arkanses Division of Youth Services, 2008 Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114755 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Solomon, Enver Title: Out of Trouble: Reducing child imprisonment in England and Wales - lessons from abroad Summary: This report focuses specifically on international examples of policies and practices that are used in countries which have relatively low numbers of children in custody or have been developed and implemented in countries to reduce child imprisonment. This report looks at alternative sanctions that could be developed for use in England and Wales to reduce the number of children remanded or sentenced to custody. This report does not focus specifically on particular intervention or at preventative work. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2009 Source: King's College London: International Centre for Prison Studies Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 116543 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspectorate Title: Inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre Summary: This report outlines the findings of a full, announced inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (the JJC). Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, the JJC in Northern Ireland is not legally required to be licensed, so inspection is particularly important to assess the management and care of children who are held there. The inspection found that significant progress had been made by the JJC since the 2004 inspection. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2008 Source: Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 115754 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Wong, Katrina Title: Bail Me Out: NSW Young Offenders and Bail Summary: There is a significant gap in policy development with respect to the provision of appropriate assistance to young people on bail. There is no policy or residential service model funded by the Australian Government that supports young people's adherence to their bail conditions in a community setting. There is also significant inconsistency between the evidence base for diverting young people from the justice system and the practices of policing and monitoring this group of young people. The findings from this study identified significant areas of concern that warrant further research on which policy and practice in the juvenile justice system, could be based. Details: Marrickville, New South Wales, Australia: Youth Justice Coalition, 2009 Source: http://www.yjconline.net/BailMeOut.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.yjconline.net/BailMeOut.pdf Shelf Number: 116658 Keywords: BailDiversionJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Majd, Katayooh Title: Hidden Injustice: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Juvenile Courts Summary: The juvenile justice system has seen increasing reform efforts, but absent from the efforts has been a focus on the unique experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) court-involved youth. The report represents the first effort to examine the experiencs of these LGBT youth in juvenile courts across the country. Information was gathered from interviews and surveys with juvenile justice professionals, including judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, detention staff, and other juvenile justice advocates; focus groups and interviews of youth and an extensive review of relevant social science and legal research findings. Details: San Francisco: Legal Services for Children and the National Center for Lesbian Rights; Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117058 Keywords: HomosexualityJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuveniles |
Author: Bostwick, Lindsay Title: Examining At-Risk and Delinquent Girls in Illinois Summary: Many risk and protective factors are applicable to both boys and girls, but girls are more affected by risk factors that are physiological and relational. The unique needs of girls, including sexually-transmitted disease, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, mental health issues, abuse, and exploitation, as well as their patterns of delinquency warrant gender-specific programming. This report examines risk factors of girls in Illinois including individual, family, and school risk factors. Also examined are delinquent girls at arrest, detention, and corrections stages in the juvenile justice system. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 115555 Keywords: Female Juvenile OffendersJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Carroll, Jennifer Title: The Children Court: A National Study Summary: This report present data on the Children Courts in Ireland and the young people who face charges before these courts. The research provides quantitative data on the background and history of young people involved in the youth justice system in Ireland. Itis based on a detailed examination of court files and information from a range of agencies in relation to a sample of 400 young people with cases completed in the Children Court in 2004. This study if the first piece of empirical research which provides nationwide statistics on the circumstances of young offenders, their backgrounds, education, offending trends and passage through the court system. Details: Dublin: Association for Criminal Justice Research and Development Ltd., 2007. 92p. Source: Year: 2007 Country: Ireland URL: Shelf Number: 113304 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Holdaway, Simon Title: National Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board's Final Warning Projects Summary: Under the Final Warning Provisions, if a juvenile's first offense is within a prescribed range of severity, he/she receives a Final Warning, which is delivered by a police officer in the presence of parents or a responsible adult. This report presents an evaluation of 30 YJB-funded development projects that sought to establish Final Warning intervention programs. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2004. 45p. Source: Year: 2004 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117602 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Martynowicz, Agnieszke Title: Detention of Children in Ireland: International Standards and Best Practice. Summary: Relatively little is known about Irish children who come into conflict with the law and much work needs to be done to identify the barriers children face exercising their rights in the criminal justice system. However, research undertaken in Ireland indicates that such children come from poor socio-economic backgrounds; many of them have lived out-of-home or been in care; they have weak attachment to family and invariably have problems with drugs and/or alcohol. They are typically early school leavers and mental health and behaviour problems are particularly prevalent among this group. Where these risk factors converge, the risk of being involved in criminal behaviour is multiplied. Through our investigation of individual cases in the Office of the Ombudsman for Children we are finding evidence of a system that is not designed to respond to these complex needs. We see the results of criminal behaviour taking precedence over the welfare needs of children and young people. The central ethos of the Children Act, 2001 is the diversion of children away from the criminal justice system. The approach taken in the Act, focusing on preventative measures and restorative justice mechanisms, is the right approach and the one which best protects the rights of children and young people in conflict with the law in line with Ireland's legal obligations. Through this approach, the complex needs of children can be addressed without the need to resort to youth justice measures. However, the implementation of non-custodial solutions for children in conflict with the law in Ireland is slow, and more needs to be done to make the principle of detention as a measure of last resort a reality When detention of children is deemed necessary, it should only be used for the shortest appropriate time. The conditions in which children are held and the support which they are to be afforded is laid out in detail in international standards which are described in this report. I have seen for myself in Ireland that the Children Detention Schools, operating under the umbrella of the Irish Youth Justice Service, employ many practices that aim to respect the rights of children in their care. The continued detention of boys in St Patrick's Institution (pending the construction of the National Children Detention Facility) remains a serious concern, and is not in compliance with international human rights standards. Having visited all of the Detention Schools and St Patrick's Institution, I am convinced that the detention of children in prisons must end. Of additional concern is the fact that I cannot investigate complaints from children held in St Patrick/s Institution due to an exclusion in the Ombudsman for Children Act, 2002. I therefore particularly welcome the recommendation contained in the report that supports both my own and the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendation to extend the remit of the Ombudsman for Children's Office to include the power to receive complaints from children so held. The system of detention of children in Ireland is currently undergoing a major change. This is a real opportunity to get things right from the outset and the best interests of children must be at the heart of any developments in this area. I believe that the future development of the system of Children Detention Schools should be centred on the principles of rights, rehabilitation and care. Details: Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2009. 96p. Source: Accessed May 19, 2017 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/Detention_of_Children_in_Ireland_FINAL.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Ireland URL: Shelf Number: 117594 Keywords: Human RightsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Volz, Anna Title: Ending Violence Against Children in Justice Systems: Strategies for Civil Society Engagement in the Follow-up Study to the UN Study. Summary: This report explores the specific role of civil society organizations in following-up the recommendations of the World Report on Violence Against Children on ending violence in justice systems. Eight case examples from civil society organizations illustrate different strategies or activities for follow-up intervention in practice, to provide guidance to non-governmental organizations wishing to undertake similar follow-up actions. Details: Geneva: Defence for Children International, 2009. 79p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 117869 Keywords: Child AbuseChildren's RightsJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Title: Cross-Cutting Issues: Juvenile Justice Summary: This publication is intended to provide benchmarks to assess compliance of juvenile justice systems with international child-specific instruments. Details: New York: United Nations, 2006. 42p. Source: Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit Year: 2006 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 116198 Keywords: Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Noetic Solutions Pty Limited Title: Review of Effective Practice in Juvenile Justice. Report for the Minister for Juvenile Justice Summary: This report forms part of a broader review of the New South Wales juvenile justice system. The purpose of the review is to propose a plan for future policy, programs, and practices within the NSW juvenile justice system. The report identifies and describes effective practice in juvenile justice, and reviews important international and Australian juvenile justice systems and draws from the what works literature to evaluate a range of programs, as well as traditional penal and get tough programs including juvenile incarceration. Specific issues of reducing Indigenous overrepresentation, and realizing and coordinating whole-of-community action are also duscussed. The report will be used to build a comprehensive evidence base from Australian and overseas in order to test current practice and new ideas in the NSW context. Details: Griffith, Australia: Noetic Solutions Pty Limited, 2010. 73p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119135 Keywords: Juvenile Justice (New South Wales)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Reform |
Author: North Carolina. Governor's Crime Commission Title: Governor's Crime Commission Juvenile Age Study: A Study of the Impact of Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Summary: This report examines the impact of raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction in North Carolina. The study found tht if the maximum age of initial juvenile court jurisdiction in North Carolina is raised from 15 to 17, with no change to the current juvenile system, the costs are expected to exceed the benefits by $37.5 million. If, however, North Carolina makes substantial changes to its juvenile system to reduce recidivism, it is estimated that benefits could exceed costs by approximately $7.1 million. Additional savings could be generated by reducing costs in the juvenile system. Details: Raleigh, NC: Governor's Crime Commission, 2009. 218p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119274 Keywords: Costs-Benefit AnalysisJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (North Carolina) |
Author: Chater, David Title: Universities of Crime: Young Adults, the Criminal Justice System and Social Policy Summary: A report by the Transition to Adulthood Alliance highlighting the gaps in policy and service provision for young adults in the U.K. criminal justice system. Young adults make up more than a third of those sentenced to prison and have some of the highest re-offending rates of any group, yet the current policy approach to them is confused and ineffective. Details: London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2009. 31p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119419 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Good Practices and Promising Initiatives in Juvenile Justice in the CEE/CIS Region Summary: The UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS has developed a concept of Critical Mass (CM), whereby a group of countries that has developed experience and/or momentum in a particular field is encouraged to work with a common set of objectives and priorities; strengthen its approaches; actively document and share its experience and lessons learned, drawing upon expertise as well as networks; and use evaluation as a tool for course correction, for the benefit of all countries in the region. Through a consultative process started in 20081, the following set of priorities was identified to respond to programming gaps or needs in juvenile justice reform in the CEE/CIS region; Children in conflict with the law who are under minimum age for prosecution as a juvenile; diversion; and alternatives to custodial sentences. This report presents a catalogue of practices documented through the Juvenile Justice Crimitial Mass initiative. The objective of this document is to share knowledge amongst all states in order to implement a meaningful and more effective juvenile justice reform. Details: Geneva: UNICEF, 2010. 72p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 119431 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration, Juvenile OffendersDiversion, Juvenile OffendersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform Achievements in Armenia Summary: Offending by juveniles appears to have increased in Armenia during the years after its independence from the USSR and those following the conflict with neighbouring Azerbaijan, but began to fall in 199823 and seems to have now reached levels lower than the years before independence. Correspondingly, the number of juveniles serving sentences and the number of juveniles in pretrial detention have decreased by more than two thirds since 1998. At the time of the assessment mission, there were 18 juveniles serving sentences (including four or five over age 18) and 24 juveniles in the pretrial detention facility in the entire country. The structure of the Armenian juvenile justice system has changed little since independence. There are still a Juvenile Police Unit; two 'special schools' whose students include an unknown number of underage offenders and children at risk; one Children's Support Centre in the capital; one correctional facility for convicted juveniles and one centre for juveniles awaiting trial and sentencing; and judges appointed to handle juvenile cases, but no specialized juvenile court. Many of these institutions have undergone extensive reforms, however. The Police have entrusted management of the reception and distribution centre - renamed 'Children's Support Centre' - to an NGO that has converted it into a model centre for children at risk. The Juvenile Police participate in innovative programmes on community-based prevention and treatment, in cooperation with NGOs. Policies and programmes in the juvenile correctional facility have improved, although a coherent approach to rehabilitation is lacking. Some new programmes and institutions have been established. In cooperation with the Police of RA and the NGO Project Harmony, a successful community-based prevention and rehabilitation programme was launched, which is operational in six cities and is included in the National Plan of Action for the Protection of the Rights of the Child 2004-2015. The Public Defender's Office is providing legal services to accused juveniles and the Monitoring Groups are making valuable contributions to the transformation of juvenile justice. There is no framework law on juvenile justice; as in Soviet times, cases involving juvenile suspects and defendants, convicted juveniles and juvenile prisoners are governed by the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Executive Criminal Code and other laws and regulations. Most of the relevant legislation has been amended, and some of the amendments bring the law into greater conformity with international standards. Juvenile suspects have a right to legal assistance as from the moment of detention, and accused juveniles from the moment charges are filed. Representation by a defence attorney is mandatory. Once a juvenile is accused of an offence, only a court may order detention. Those accused of minor offences may not be detained. Prison sentences may not be imposed for minor offences. The maximum sentence for convicted juveniles is ten years, but few receive sentences of more than five years. Training in the rights of the child has had significant positive impact on the Juvenile Police, and the courts. Although many improvements have been made, further progress is required. Some advances are urgent. Police have authority to detain juvenile suspects for 72 hours; cases of abuse and even torture have been reported; and commitment to eradicating these practices is insufficient. Renovation of the physical infrastructure of the facility for convicted juveniles is urgently needed. While physical conditions in the pretrial detention centre have improved, restrictions on activities and movement incompatible with the rights to education, recreation and humane treatment are applied. Further amendments to legislation also are required. Prison regulations still allow solitary confinement as a punishment, in violation of international standards. Legal standards on pretrial detention are too vague, and the maximum period of detention before and during trial should be reduced to comply with the recommendation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Similarly, the maximum period of police custody without a court order should be reduced to 24 hours. If one or more special schools remain open, norms governing them, which consist mainly of regulations, should be replaced by legislation compatible with international standards. Other recommendations made by the assessment team include: - The effectiveness of existing institutions and programmes for the prevention of offending and re-offending should be assessed to obtain the information needed in order to take decisions regarding the future of the Community Justice Centres, the Legal Socialization Project and the special schools. - The possibility of designating certain investigators to become specialized in criminal cases involving juveniles should be considered. - The need for a specialized children's court should be assessed, inter alia, by an evaluation of the way specialized judges carry out their duties. - Data on the impact (positive and negative) of custodial and non-custodial sentences on convicted juveniles should be collected and analysed to shed light on the effectiveness of existing sentencing policies and practice. - Consideration should be given to the adoption of a framework law specifically on juvenile justice to eliminate the gaps in existing legislation and norms applicable to both juveniles and adults that are incompatible with the rights of children. - Training should be conducted in the psychology of offenders, the prevention of offending and re-offending (rehabilitation of offenders), the treatment of child victims and the skills necessary to conduct criminological research. - Existing inter-agency coordination mechanisms should be strengthened. - A specialized child rights unit should be created by the Human Rights Defender. - Relevant indicators concerning juvenile justice should be identified and the corresponding data published annually. Details: Geneva: UNICEF, 2020. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://www.un.am/up/library/Juvenile%20Justice%20Reform%20Achievements_eng.pdf Year: 2020 Country: Armenia URL: Shelf Number: 119433 Keywords: At-Risk YouthJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Irish Youth Justice Service Title: Designing Effective Local Responses to Youth Crime: A Baseline Analysis of the Garda Youth Diversion Projects Summary: Garda Youth Diversion Projects (GYDPs) are one of the measures in place to help reduce youth crime. This report is the first part of an improvement programme for GYDPs, as envisaged by the National Youth Justice Strategy 2008-2010. The report was undertaken to provide an account of youth crime as it occurs in local areas and to analyse how GYDPs intend to impact upon youth offending. The report aims to help secure better outcomes for young people engaged with GYDPs and to make a corresponding impact on youth crime. Details: Dublin: Irish Youth Justice Services, 2009. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.iyjs.ie/en/IYJS/GYDP%20Baseline%20Report.pdf/Files/GYDP%20Baseline%20Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.iyjs.ie/en/IYJS/GYDP%20Baseline%20Report.pdf/Files/GYDP%20Baseline%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 116376 Keywords: Juvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Orchowsky, Stan Title: A Review of the Status of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Efforts in Iowa and Virginia Summary: In 2007, the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) began a project funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to examine the strategies that have been implemented in Iowa and Virginia to reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the states’ juvenile justice systems. We were especially interested in using these states as case studies of how states and localities are utilizing empirical information to: (1) identify the extent and nature of the DMC problem; and (2) assess the effectiveness of their efforts to reduce DMC. In each state, we sought to examine both state-level efforts, as well as ongoing efforts in two targeted localities (Johnson and Linn counties in Iowa, and the cities of Newport News and Norfolk in Virginia), to address DMC. To accomplish the goal of the project, staff examined all available documents relating to DMC in both states, with a particular focus on those produced in the last five years. We also conducted interviews with state and local stakeholders in both states and attended meetings of local planning groups addressing DMC issues. We sought data from both states and were able to obtain data from Iowa, which were used to illustrate how local DMC initiatives could be assessed. In October of 2008, JRSA released an interim report on our findings to date (Poulin, Iwama & Orchowsky, 2008). The current report summarizes the overall findings, conclusions and recommendations of our effort. It builds on the findings presented in the interim report and further work that has been done since that report was released. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2010. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2010 at: http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/dmc-final-report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/dmc-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 119683 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeDiscrimination in Juvenile Justice AdministrationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Offenders (Tasmania, Australia)Minority GroupsRace and Crime |
Author: Helyar-Cardwell, Vicki Title: A New Start: Young Adults in the Criminal Justice System Summary: The Transition to Adulthood (T2A) Alliance believes that there must be a wholesale shift in the way the UK Government works with young adults in, and at risk of becoming involved with, the criminal justice system. This must be far more than tinkering around the edges of the system, but rather a cross-departmental in-depth look at vulnerable young adults involved in the criminal justice system, and a commitment to find effective ways of working with these young adults in trouble to help them move away from crime. While some modest improvements have been made in recognising issues such as race, gender, juvenile offending and mental health, there has been little progress on young adults. Details: London: T2A Alliance, 2010. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2010 at: http://www.bctrust.org.uk/pdf/A_New_Start_Young_Adults.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.bctrust.org.uk/pdf/A_New_Start_Young_Adults.pdf Shelf Number: 119270 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRehabilitation |
Author: Hess, Wendy Title: Just Kids: Baltimore's Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: Maryland's 20 year experiment with the "tough on crime" approach of automatically sending youth into adult criminal courts, jails and prisons for certain offenses has failed. National studies show that youth who are sent to adult facilities go on to commit more-and more violent-crimes than those who received rehabilitative services in the juvenile system. This costs taxpayers much more in the long run. Automatically charging youth as adults has been politically popular. But the data show that when their cases are individually considered, most cases in Baltimore are dismissed or sent to the juvenile system, raising the question of whether they should have been put in the adult system in the first place. Details: Baltimore, MD: Just Kids Partnership, 2010. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.justkidsmaryland.org/uploads/file/JustKidsRptOct2010small.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.justkidsmaryland.org/uploads/file/JustKidsRptOct2010small.pdf Shelf Number: 119875 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Baltimore)National Crime Victimization SurveySampling MethodsVictimization Surveys (U.S.)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Kim, Jane S. Title: Evaluation of UNICEF Mongolia's Child Protection Programme: Juvenile Justice and Legislative Reform Summary: Mongolia's children and adolescents are a 'transition generation' having to cope on various levels with the challenges of ongoing political, economic and social changes. It is at such times when youth are highly vulnerable in coming into conflict with the law, and generally those children most at risk and requiring protective services come from unstable, vulnerable families. Crimes involving juveniles have doubled in the last decade, rising from 733 in 1991 to 1,437 in 2007. Most of these recorded crimes are for theft. How the State responds to these youth can have a significant impact on whether they successfully make the transition to law-abiding citizens, or become embroiled in a life of crime. Unfortunately, the current response of the State to a child accused of minor crimes such as theft is to punish, usually by detention. It is established practice to incarcerate children below 18 in pre-trial detention centres for a prolonged period, and to sentence first-time juvenile offenders, accused of petty crimes, to imprisonment. Although the law provides for some alternatives to detention, such as probation, conditional sentence and educational and disciplinary measures, there are no provisions for diversion and non-custodial rehabilitation programmes. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) recently expressed concern about Mongolia's pre-trial detention of juveniles for prolonged periods and its sentencing policy for first time juvenile offenders; probation, community service and suspended sentences were recommended as alternatives to detention. The CRC Committee also expressed concern about other practices adversely affecting juveniles: inadequate access to legal aid and assistance, poor detention and prison conditions, and weak social reintegration services. The Government of Mongolia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990, and has committed to making reforms in line with the CRC and UN Guidelines, to improve the situation of children in conflict with the law. Since 2005, a juvenile justice project has been successfully implemented by UNICEF in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs. In 2006, the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs established an inter-agency Juvenile Justice Working Group to oversee juvenile justice reform initiatives. In June 2006, a conference on “Juvenile Crime: measures on managing problematic issues” and a subsequent Juvenile Justice Working Group meeting in July identified a number of focus areas for reform. Although diversion is not yet formally recognized under Mongolian law, the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs approved the establishment of a juvenile justice project on a pilot basis in select regions. With UNICEF support, pilot projects have been underway in two districts and one province – Bayangol, Baganuur and Khentii respectively - since September 2006. Government officials, children and families, and communities have voiced deep appreciation for the pilot initiative in these three locations. Discussions are underway regarding the expansion of this pilot initiative to other provinces. Meanwhile, broad legislative reform efforts are in progress to amend existing criminal, administrative, labour, child rights protection and other laws relevant to juvenile justice. Prior to legislative reform and replication, however, a comprehensive evaluation is necessary to better understand the impact, relevance and effectiveness of interventions undertaken thus far. This evaluation has a two-fold purpose: to assess the effectiveness of UNICEF-supported juvenile justice initiatives and to recommend future directions and strategies to assist the Government of Mongolia (GoM) and UNICEF to strengthen the country's justice system for children. Further, this evidence base is put forward to draw lessons for proposed replication, and to facilitate taking this initiative to scale. Lessons, experiences and recommendations from the pilot sites, and elsewhere internationally, will inform the potential replication or adaptation of this project to other areas. Globally, the main focus of UNICEF's juvenile justice programming is the reduction of the number of children held in police custody, pre-trial detention and prisons. This evaluation therefore also aims to provide a better understanding of who are the children referred (in order to identify potential discriminatory practices), the offences they are suspected/accused of, the decision-making authority, the decision-making process, the basis on which JJ decisions are made, as well as an analysis on how current practices comply with national and international standards. Details: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: UNICEF Mongolia, 2009. 133p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.createsolutions.org/unicef/Documents/resources/country/ceecis/mongolia/unicefmongoliajjevaluation09full.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Mongolia URL: http://www.createsolutions.org/unicef/Documents/resources/country/ceecis/mongolia/unicefmongoliajjevaluation09full.pdf Shelf Number: 119905 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Minnesota. Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs Title: Juvenile Justice System Decision Points Study: Strategies to Improve Minnesota's Juvenile Justice Data Summary: The purpose of the Juvenile Justice System Decision Points Study is to determine the viability of collecting summary data information about juveniles involved in the justice system in Minnesota. Accurate and comprehensive data at critical decision points in the juvenile justice system statewide allows system practitioners and policy makers to make sound decisions regarding resource allocation and interventions. Additionally, this effort is consistent with Minnesota’s policy commitment to identify and eliminate barriers to racial, ethnic and gender fairness. Collecting this data will make progress toward a more equitable, efficient and effective juvenile justice system in Minnesota. This report includes chapters dedicated to each system stage: Law Enforcement, County Attorneys, Juvenile Courts, Juvenile Probation, and Detention and Residential Facilities. Within each chapter, key decision points affecting youths’ status in the system are identified and ranked both for importance to understanding youth in the juvenile justice system, and for the feasibility of statewide data collection. Recommendations for improved data collection, analysis, and reporting complete each chapter. These chapters, in concert, create the overall data improvement plan for Minnesota. Details: St. Paul, MN: Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, 2010. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2010 at: http://www.ojp.state.mn.us/cj/publications/Reports/2010JuvenileJusticePolicyReport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.state.mn.us/cj/publications/Reports/2010JuvenileJusticePolicyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 120027 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Probation |
Author: Moore, Marianne Title: Juvenile Detention in Uganda: Review of Ugandan Remand Homes and the National Rehabilitation Centre Summary: In Uganda, children in conflict with the law are principally the responsibility of the Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development. However, the Uganda Police Force and the Judiciary of the Republic of Uganda are also important partners. Detained children are placed in one of the four remand homes in Fort Portal, Gulu, Naguru, or Mbale. In addition, the Kampiringisa National Rehabilitation Centre detains sentenced children from the whole of Uganda. This review of the remand homes and the national rehabilitation centre was carried out during August 2010 in association with the UK and Ugandan charity the African Prisons Project and the Ugandan Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development. An assessment was conducted in all of the functioning juvenile detention facilities against their compliance with international guidelines, particularly the United Nations "Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their liberty 1990 (“The Havana Rules”). The field work consisted of an in depth interview with a representative from each centre or home and a site visit. Interviews were also carried out with the Commissioner for Youth and Children and representatives from the Ugandan based Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI). Following an introductory overview of juvenile justice in Uganda, the report deals with the following subjects: Profile of children in conflict with the law; Safeguarding children; Juvenile justice system; Conditions of detention; Healthcare; Education and training; and Community reintegration. The report makes 36 recommendations, and ends with a conclusion which notes areas of good practice as well as elements which require immediate attention, including a suggestion that an independent auditor be employed to ensure that the welfare of the children in conflict with the law in Uganda is upheld. Details: London: African Prisons Project, 2010. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2010 at: http://www.africanprisons.org/documents/Juvenile-Detention-in-Uganda-October-2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Uganda URL: http://www.africanprisons.org/documents/Juvenile-Detention-in-Uganda-October-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120088 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Morgan, Rod Title: Report to the Welsh Assembly Government on the Question of Devolution of Youth Justice Responsibilities Summary: A report examined the risks and benefits of transferring youth justice to the Welsh Assembly Government. There was a broad consensus supporting the principle of devolving of youth justice: but there were many issues regarding resources and finance that needed to be looked at in detail. Details: Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government, 2009. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2010 at: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dsjlg/publications/commsafety/100920devyouthjusticeen.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dsjlg/publications/commsafety/100920devyouthjusticeen.pdf Shelf Number: 120100 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Justice, Administration of |
Author: Wolf, Angela Title: Gender Responsiveness and Equity in California's Juvenile Justice System Summary: Over the last two decades, there has been an increase in the number of girls referred to California’s juvenile justice system. This increase raises questions about how the juvenile justice system can best respond to the unique needs of girls. Research has shown that girls enter the juvenile justice system for distinctly different types of delinquent behavior than do boys. It is the responsibility of the state and counties to ensure that the juvenile justice system offers appropriate programs and services that serve the unique needs of delinquent girls under their supervision. While the number of girls arrested in California is less than the number of boys for almost every type of crime, nearly 60,000 arrests over a 12-month period is still a significant number and deserves the attention of state and county officials. The purpose of this brief is to highlight how girls enter the system, describe some of the key differences between delinquent girls and delinquent boys, and offer recommendations for ways in which California’s juvenile justice system can better meet the needs of girls under its jurisdiction. Details: Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, University of California, Berkeley, 2010. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/img/Gender_Responsiveness_and_Equity.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/img/Gender_Responsiveness_and_Equity.pdf Shelf Number: 120019 Keywords: Female Juvenile OffendersGenderGirl DelinquentsJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2007-2008 Summary: In Australia, responsibility for juvenile justice lies with the states and territories, and involves both juvenile justice agencies and other justice agencies such as the police and the courts. This report presents information on one aspect of the juvenile justice process: the supervision of young people in the juvenile justice system. There were 4,708 young people under juvenile justice supervision on an average day in 2007–08 in all states and territories except New South Wales, for which data were not available, and 9,540 young people experienced supervision at some time during the year. Most young people were supervised in the community. Around 87% of those under supervision on an average day were under community-based supervision while 13% were in detention. One-quarter of young people who were under supervision during 2007–08 had both community-based supervision and detention during the year. The number of young people in detention on an average day in Australia (excluding New South Wales) rose from 540 in 2004–05 to 630 in 2007–08—a 17% increase. The rate of young people aged 10–17 years in detention during the year increased from 1.7 per 1,000 to 2.0 per 1,000, indicating that a young person aged 10–17 years in 2007–08 was around 1.2 times as likely to be in detention during the year as a young person aged 10–17 years in 2004–05. In 2004–05, just over one-third of the average daily detention population was unsentenced but, by 2007–08, unsentenced young people in detention outnumbered those who were sentenced. The increase in the unsentenced population occurred for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people. Although only about 5% of young Australians are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, 40% of those under supervision on an average day were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. Their over-representation was particularly prominent in detention, where over half of those in detention on an average day and 60% of those who were unsentenced in detention were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. An Indigenous young person aged 10–17 years was 16 times as likely as a non-Indigenous young person of the same age to be under supervision in 2007–08, nearly 15 times as likely to be under community-based supervision as a non-Indigenous young person, and nearly 30 times as likely to be in detention. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2009. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 5: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/juv-5-10853/juv-5-10853.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/juv-5-10853/juv-5-10853.pdf Shelf Number: 120133 Keywords: AboriginalsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice Title: Mental Health Issues in California's Juvenile Justice System Summary: Youth with mental health issues pose numerous challenges to California’s juvenile justice system. Despite significant resources dedicated to the provision of mental health services, California’s juvenile justice system has been unable to adequately meet the needs of this population. Youth diagnosed with mental illness have been steadily increasing in the juvenile justice system for nearly a decade, as have the numbers of youth receiving treatment (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2005). This trend, taken together with independent reports and media accounts documenting the failures of the juvenile justice system, underscores the urgent need for change. One of the difficulties in meeting the needs of youth with mental health issues is highlighted by the tensions inherent in the juvenile justice system itself. The system must respond to delinquent behavior based upon competing mandates and priorities, including the desire to rehabilitate juvenile offenders and treat any potential pathologies believed to have caused them to engage in delinquent behavior, as well as the need to hold them accountable for their behavior and protect public safety. Balancing these competing priorities is an ongoing challenge for probation staff and practitioners. The critical nature of that challenge is especially heightened when the youth has mental health issues. How systems of care respond to this population’s needs significantly impacts probation, mental health service providers, the courts, community-based organizations, and most importantly, the youth themselves and their families. By making the case for universal mental health definitions, screening and assessment, outcomes-based programs, and collaboration, this policy brief offers research-based recommendations on how juvenile justice and other systems of care can better meet the needs of youth with mental health issues. The overarching goal of these recommendations is to enhance the provision of mental health treatment in California’s juvenile justice system by improving the infrastructure that supports service delivery. Details: Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, University of California, Berkeley, 2010. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Policy Brief Series: Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/img/BCCJ_Mental_Health_Policy_Brief_May_2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/img/BCCJ_Mental_Health_Policy_Brief_May_2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120140 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Past, Present, and Future of Juvenile Justice: Assessing the Policy Option (APO): Final Report Summary: This report presents the results of research that examined changing trends in juvenile justice legislation and surveyed juvenile justice professionals across the nation to measure their impressions of recent juvenile justice policy reforms. Researchers learned there is considerable consensus among diverse practitioner groups, with survey respondents viewing rehabilitative programs as more effective than punitive ones - a perspective consistent with recent legislative trends. Together, these data suggest the policy pendulum is swinging toward more progressive measures after years of "get tough" reforms. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2010. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2010 at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412247-Future-of-Juvenile-Justice.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412247-Future-of-Juvenile-Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 120168 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Talbot, Jenny Title: Seen and Heard: Supporting Vulnerable Children in the Youth Justice System Summary: It is well established that high numbers of children who come to the attention of UK youth justice services have complex support needs. It is further acknowledged that addressing these needs helps to prevent a range of negative outcomes and reduces reoffending. How staff from youth offending teams (YOTs) identify and support children with particular impairments and difficulties who come to the attention of youth justice services, and what support they receive, was the primary focus of this study. The study shows significant variations between local youth justice services, to the extent that children with impairments and difficulties receive treatment and support as much on the basis of where they live, as on need. Especially concerning was the view, held by most YOT staff, that children with learning disabilities, communication difficulties, mental health problems, ADHD, and low levels of literacy who offend were more likely than children without such impairments to receive a custodial sentence. Although the overall picture from this study was mixed there were many examples where the support needs of children were being identified and met; where youth justice programmes and activities were being thoughtfully and skilfully adapted to include children, and where routine training and support for YOT staff took place. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2010. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 27, 2010 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/SeenandHeardFINAL.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/SeenandHeardFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 120291 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersLearning DisabilitiesMental Health Services |
Author: O'Donnell, Daniel Title: The Development of Juvenile Justice Systems in Eastern European Neighbourhood Policy Countries: Reform Achievements and Challenges in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Summary: The document entitled “The Development of Juvenile Justice Systems in Eastern European Neighbourhood Policy Countries: Reform Achievements and Challenges in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine” notes that during the 1990s, juvenile justice was not a priority for countries in the region, but most are now engaged in the process of developing juvenile justice systems compatible with international standards. It summarizes the results of assessments carried out in these five countries in 2008–2009 in order to inform future strategies and decision-making at country level, and share experiences with European and international agencies, which cooperate in supporting the development of juvenile justice. It concludes with the most urgent reforms needed in these countries. Details: Geneva: United Children's Fund, 2010. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2010 at: UNICEFJJSynthesisCeeNPC10_EN Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 120310 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Daly, Reagan Title: Capital Change: A Process Evaluation of Washington, DC's Secure Juvenile Placement Reform Summary: A growing body of research has persuaded most experts and many practitioners that punitive responses to juvenile offenders —particularly those placed in secure facilities — yield poor results for the youth involved and for public safety. Informed by this consensus, in 2005 officials in Washington, DC’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) began planning a comprehensive reform of the agency’s responses to youth in secure placement. This report presents findings from a year-long process evaluation of the reforms, in which Vera researchers explored both the strategy the agency used and factors that affected the implementation process. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Youth Justice, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2011 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3191/Capital-Change-process-evaluation-DC-FINAL2.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3191/Capital-Change-process-evaluation-DC-FINAL2.pdf Shelf Number: 120663 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Washington, DC) |
Author: Richards, Kelly Title: What Makes Juvenile Offenders Different from Adult Offenders? Summary: Responding to juvenile offending is a unique policy and practice challenge. While a substantial proportion of crime is perpetuated by juveniles, most juveniles will ‘grow out’ of offending and adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. This paper outlines the factors (biological, psychological and social) that make juvenile offenders different from adult offenders and that necessitate unique responses to juvenile crime. It is argued that a range of factors, including juveniles’ lack of maturity, propensity to take risks and susceptibility to peer influence, as well as intellectual disability, mental illness and victimisation, increase juveniles’ risks of contact with the criminal justice system. These factors, combined with juveniles’ unique capacity to be rehabilitated, can require intensive and often expensive interventions by the juvenile justice system. Although juvenile offenders are highly diverse, and this diversity should be considered in any response to juvenile crime, a number of key strategies exist in Australia to respond effectively to juvenile crime. These are described in this paper. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 409: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/2/2/%7B4227C0AD-AD0A-47E6-88AF-399535916190%7Dtandi409.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/2/2/%7B4227C0AD-AD0A-47E6-88AF-399535916190%7Dtandi409.pdf Shelf Number: 120899 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Scott, Elizabeth S. Title: Social Welfare and Fairness in Juvenile Crime Regulation Summary: This Article argues that a developmental model of juvenile crime regulation grounded in scientific knowledge about adolescence is both more likely to promote social welfare and is fairer to young offenders than a regime that fails to attend to developmental research. We focus on the less familiar social welfare argument for a separate and more lenient juvenile justice system, and demonstrate that the punitive law reforms of the 1990s have failed to minimize the social cost of juvenile crime. The expanded use of adult incarceration likely contributed to the declining juvenile crime rates since the mid-1990s, but the financial costs have been very high and not justified in terms of crime reduction for many youths. The evidence also supports that juveniles in prison have higher recidivism rates than comparable youths in the juvenile system. Moreover, less costly community dispositions have been shown to be more effective at reducing recidivism in some young offenders and are more likely to enhance the prospect that young offenders will lead satisfying lives. Our social welfare analysis is informed by scientific knowledge of adolescence and youth crime. Developmental research shows that the criminal activities of most young offenders are linked to developmental forces and they can be expected to "mature out" of their antisocial tendencies. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that these youths are headed for a career in crime unless correctional interventions push them in that direction. The research also shows that social context is critically important to the successful completion of developmental tasks essential to the transition to conventional adult roles associated with desistance from crime. The social comntext provided by correctional programs can enhance or undermine this process. Developmental research also provides the foundation for a regime committed to fair and proportionate punishment of young offenders. We challenge the recent scholarly argument favoring an approach to juvenile justice dedicated solely to crime reduction, on the ground that the principle of retribution is a necessary check on government power in this context. The potential for unfairness under a pure-prevention approach is substantial–both in the form of excessive punishment and in the potential for variations in responses to offenders based on considerations related to risk but not linked to the crime itself. This unfairness undermines the legitimacy of the justice system, and it can be avoided by incorporating proportionality as well as prevention into the developmental framework. Details: New York: Columbia Law School, 2010. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 10-243: Accessed March 11, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1662579 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1662579 Shelf Number: 120970 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersPunishment, Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Kuper, Sarah Title: An Immature Step Backward for New Zealand's Youth Justice System? A Discussion of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Summary: This paper examines the age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand's youth justice system focusing primarily on the serious youth offender. Recent amendments to New Zealand's youth justice legislation -- the Chidlren Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, the prevalence of serious youth crime in New Zealand and the politicised nature of the debate surrounding it makes this a pressing issue. Children who commit serious offences pose a peculiar challenge to every criminal justice system. Children may commit adult crimes, but their immaturity and lack of understanding mean that they cannot be dealt with as small adults. This paper will provide the basis for an informed and principled critique of the current amendment to the age of criminal responsibility. Recent international, scientific and behavioural evidence will be summarised and linked to the discussion of the amendment. It will suggest how the system can work towards mitigating the affects of this legislation, suggesting that by increasing the jurisdiction to include 17 year olds, proving the Youth Court with the powers of the Family Court and having a qualitatively different approach towards youth at sentencing will provide for tangible reductions in offending and will protect the rights of these vulnerable serious child offenders. Details: Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago, School of Law, 2010. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 11, 2011 at: http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/oylr/2010/Sarah_Kuper.pdf Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/oylr/2010/Sarah_Kuper.pdf Shelf Number: 120977 Keywords: Age of Criminal ResponsibilityJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile LawJuvenile Offenders (New Zealand)Serious Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Richetelli, Dorinda M. Title: A Second Reassessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact in Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System Summary: A major issue facing juvenile justice practitioners and policymakers across the country is disproportionality and disparate treatment of racial and ethnic minority youth in the juvenile justice system. Various studies conducted across the nation on disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system have found that: Racial and ethnic minorities are often greatly overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. The observed disproportionality cannot be explained by differences in delinquent behavior across racial and ethnic groups. Disparities were found in system processing of minority youth, even when controlling for social and legal background variables. The role of race/ethnicity in the processing of minority vs. White youth often varies by the offense type, the decision point within the system, and location. This is the third study in the State of Connecticut that examines disproportionate minority contact in the state’s juvenile justice system. The major goals for this study were to determine: What differences, if any, exist in decisions made for Black, Hispanic and White juveniles who are processed for similar types of offenses (e.g., Serious Juvenile Offenses, non-SJO felonies, misdemeanors, and violations) as they move through the juvenile justice system. If observed differences remain when controlling for offender and offense characteristics or are neutralized by predictor variables. If the system has improved in those areas found to be problematic in the two prior studies. The study assesses decisions made by the three components of the juvenile justice system: the police, Juvenile Court, and the Department of Children and Families. Details: Hartford, CT: Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division, 2009. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 13, 2011 at: http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjjjyd/jjydpublications/final_report_dmc_study_may_2009.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjjjyd/jjydpublications/final_report_dmc_study_may_2009.pdf Shelf Number: 121328 Keywords: Discrimination in Juvenile Justice AdministrationJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Connecticut)Minority GroupsRacial Disparities |
Author: MacRae, Leslie Title: A Profile of Youth Offenders in Calgary: An Interim Report Summary: The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family (CRILF) is conducting a three-year study of youth offending in Calgary with funding from the City of Calgary Community and Neighbourhood Services (Year 1) and the Alberta Law Foundation. The objectives of this study are to: 1. identify how the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act has affected the flow of cases through the youth justice system in Alberta and the workload for various components of the provincial youth justice system; 2. develop a model for predicting why some Calgary youth become serious habitual offenders (SHOs), while others do not; and 3. build a knowledge base for the City of Calgary Community and Neighbourhood Services, Calgary Police Service and other relevant provincial-based agencies for increasing their effectiveness and efficiency by conducting an environmental scan of current best practices in Canada related to: • predictors (risk and protective factors) of offending by youth; • use of decision making instruments and protocols across Canada; and • programs targeted at chronic/persistent youth offenders across Canada. The investigation of these objectives was planned over a three-year period and will result in a number of research reports. The activities for Year 1 of the study, which focussed primarily on Objective #2, are the focus of this report. Details: Calgary, Alberta: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, 2008. 175p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2011 at: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~crilf/publications/Final_Report_A_Profile_of_Youth_Crime_in_Calgary_March2008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Canada URL: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~crilf/publications/Final_Report_A_Profile_of_Youth_Crime_in_Calgary_March2008.pdf Shelf Number: 121367 Keywords: Chronic Juvenile OffendersJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Canada)RecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Andrews, Susan James Title: Assessment of the Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the Juvenile Justice System Summary: When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the Gulf Coast in August of 2005, the juvenile justice systems in the impacted states were responsible for the welfare of approximately 16,000 youth under their supervision and custody. This report looks at what became of these youth — specifically, how jurisdictions responded to the monumental challenges posed by the storms, what lessons were learned, and how these lessons can be applied to improve the system’s response to future catastrophes. The information on which this report is based comes directly from juvenile justice professionals who were on duty during and in the aftermath of the storms. Their stories were gathered during a series of nine focus groups conducted between mid-February and early March of 2006 as part of a “hurricane impact assessment” designed and implemented by ICF Caliber under a contract with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The purpose of the assessment was to determine the impact of the storms on the lives of justice-involved youth by gathering an oral history of the chain of events leading up to and following the hurricanes, drawing on the perspectives of state and local professionals both in storm-impacted areas and in areas impacted by massive relocation. This report synthesizes the experiences and lessons learned gathered from focus group participants under five “Key Findings.” Each finding is accompanied by recommendations to OJJDP regarding how to support jurisdictions and states impacted by the storms in their recovery from the past crisis, and how to help jurisdictions nationwide prepare effectively for future crises of similar magnitude. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 2006. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2011 at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/nccd/reports_studies/resources/Combined_Report_With_Cover.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/nccd/reports_studies/resources/Combined_Report_With_Cover.pdf Shelf Number: 121588 Keywords: HurricanesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersNatural Disasters |
Author: Rahimi, Sahdi Title: Stopping the Rail to Jail Summary: This report describes how youth flow directly from schools, foster care, mental health and other failed child-serving systems to juvenile jails. Details: Oakland, CA: Community Justice Network for Youth, W. Haywood Burns Institute, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 11, 2011 at: http://www.burnsinstitute.org/downloads/CJNY%20Publication.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.burnsinstitute.org/downloads/CJNY%20Publication.pdf Shelf Number: 121715 Keywords: Discrimination in Juvenile Justice AdministrationJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hartney, Christopher Title: Bed Space Forecast for Baltimore Youth Detention Facility Summary: This report describes the National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s forecast of future bed space needs for youth detained in the adult criminal justice system in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. These youth are processed and, if necessary, detained in the adult system — currently in the Juvenile Unit of the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC)— after either being charged with certain crimes that require their automatic involvement in the adult justice system (known as an automatic waiver) or being sent to the adult system by a juvenile court judge (known as a judicial waiver). The State is currently considering options for housing these youth, as the present facility is inadequate. A new facility is in the planning stages and is designed to hold 180 youth, based on a forecast completed by the State in 2007. In a 2010 report by NCCD, the earlier forecast was found to overestimate the number of beds needed in a new facility. Subsequently, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Corrections Services (DPS), along with two local foundations, the Open Society Institute – Baltimore and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, asked NCCD to perform this new forecast to assist in the decision-making process. This report first describes the project’s data sources, methodological assumptions, and results of an examination of trends and circumstances related to arrest and detention rates in Baltimore City and other jurisdictions. It then describes the methods used to perform the forecast and presents the forecast findings, that is, the estimated number of beds the City will require over the next three decades for youth detained in the adult criminal justice system. Finally, the report describes a set of “scenarios” that give estimates of bed space needs if certain changes were made to the way youth are processed. These scenarios represent a few options among many that the State and stakeholders can consider as a means to minimizing the number of youth held in secure custody and, when detention is found to be required, ensuring that youth are held in the most appropriate setting. Details: Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/NCCD_Bed_Space_Forecast_for_Baltimore_Youth_Detention_Facility_5_12_11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/NCCD_Bed_Space_Forecast_for_Baltimore_Youth_Detention_Facility_5_12_11.pdf Shelf Number: 121823 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (Baltimore, MD)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Title: Criteria for the Design and Evaluation of Juvenile Justice Reform Programmes Summary: Evidence-based programming requires that programme outcomes be monitored and evaluated in order to determine whether the programme’s objectives have been achieved. It also requires that evaluation findings be reviewed and integrated into future programming and that good practices and lessons learned through the conduct of previous programmes be identified and taken into account in designing future interventions. In order to carry out all those steps, sound measuring techniques and processes and clear criteria for measuring programme outcomes are required. The main objective of the present publication is to provide a conceptual framework for the design of juvenile justice reform programmes and a general approach for evaluating the impact of those programmes on children and their rights and on crime and public safety. This involves, initially, identifying the general criteria upon which to base such evaluations. The evaluations should make it possible to identify good practices that can be replicated at the national, regional or international level. The criteria must reflect the dual roles of juvenile justice reforms: to protect children and their rights and to protect society by preventing crime and repeat offending. The present publication is based on a review of evaluations conducted by member organizations of the Interagency Panel on Juvenile Justice and consultations with staff and representatives of Panel member agencies about their programme evaluation objectives and their past experience in attempting to evaluate juvenile justice programmes and identify good practices. Programming should be based on the good practices identified thus far and on lessons learned from past programming initiatives undertaken in various contexts. In identifying good practices, one must rely greatly on the findings of past evaluations. The object of the present exercise, of course, is also forward-looking, as it attempts to specify how Panel members can ensure that evaluations are more rigorous and that more useful information is collected in order to guide programming practices in the area of juvenile justice reform. Details: Vienna: UNODC, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2011 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/crimeprevention/Criteria_E_book.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/crimeprevention/Criteria_E_book.pdf Shelf Number: 121933 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Not Making Enough Difference: A Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Court Work and Reports Summary: A team of Inspectors visited six locations in England and Wales to assess how well children and young people (under 18) were being managed through the court process by the Youth Offending Team (YOT) and other staff - from the point of charge by the police to sentence. We were looking for a service that was not only timely but also good quality - enabling magistrates and judges to make the best possible decisions at all points in the whole court process. The YOT role in court is complex and requires confidence, knowledge and considerable skills. It is the YOT's 'shop window', the place they put forward their professional view about what will best influence that young person to desist from offending, whilst acknowledging the need to protect the public and the individual's vulnerability. We found many examples of good practice, but overall our view was that there was considerable room for improvement. Too much of the time, YOT staff were too passive, both in contacting defendants and their parents/carers before court, and on the day of court itself. Too often the reports for court that we read were of insufficient quality. Although some local variation in service can be desirable when the variations represent different ways of doing it well, what we encountered was that the work to 'make a difference in court' just wasn't being done well enough often enough. Most of the improvements we recommend can and should be made locally, but we do also think that there is an 'enabling' role that would best be carried out nationally, such as to devise training packages that can be deployed locally to improve the skills of local staff. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/Court_Work_and_Reports_Thematic_Report-rps.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/Court_Work_and_Reports_Thematic_Report-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 122440 Keywords: Juvenile Courts (U.K.)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Meredith, Tammy Title: Projecting Confined Juvenile Populations In Georgia Summary: The Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is faced daily with the challenging task of balancing three primary goals: ensuring public safety, holding juvenile offenders accountable for their actions, and helping their clients to improve life skills. While this vision would appear to place the agency somewhere between the conflicting goals of law enforcement and human service, DJJ management articulates its task as an opportunity to make positive changes in Georgias juvenile justice system. This report presents the findings of the first in a series of research projects currently underway at DJJ. The three issues addressed in this report include (1) a thorough examination of Georgia's juvenile crime and population trends, (2) an historical analysis of DJJ's confined juvenile population (including detention and longterm institutions), and (3) five-year projections of the confined juvenile populations for the purpose of long-range planning. The goal of the current project is to provide Georgia policymakers with accurate information to make tough decisions about the allocation of scarce public resources. Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2000. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2011 at: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/ProjectingConfinedJuvenilePopulationsinGeorgia2000.pdf Year: 2000 Country: United States URL: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/ProjectingConfinedJuvenilePopulationsinGeorgia2000.pdf Shelf Number: 122589 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Georgia) |
Author: Macallair, Daniel Title: Renewing Juvenile Justice Summary: The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) was commissioned by Sierra Health Foundation to critically examine California’s juvenile justice system and consider the potential role of foundations in promoting systemic reform. The information gathered by CJCJ researchers for this report suggests that foundations can perform a key leadership role in juvenile justice by assisting counties in their efforts to develop a broader array of interventions, especially for special needs youth. The treatment needs of special-needs youth, particularly the mentally ill, are a primary challenge for county juvenile justice systems, especially when it comes to accessing services and funding streams across jurisdictional, institutional and administrative boundaries. Despite the current statewide economic crisis, many counties continue to underutilize resources and funding streams that could diversify their treatment service, bolster resources and improve the quality of care. In addition, the need to develop data gathering and management information systems is present in many California juvenile justice systems. In developing the recommendations contained in this report, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice researchers examined the evolution of California’s juvenile justice system from its origins in the 1850s through the creation of the juvenile court in 1903 to the tumultuous events of the past decade. CJCJ has attempted to provide a comprehensive historical account that illustrates the origins of today’s issues and provides a direction for establishing a model 21st century juvenile justice system for California. Site visits to selected counties revealed a high level of commitment to quality care among California’s juvenile justice professionals. In some instances, California counties offer a model for not just the state, but the nation. However, our research also revealed vast discrepancies and disparities within county systems. As a result, youth residing in certain counties do not have access to the same level of services as youth in other counties. We believe that based on this analysis, foundations can promote the development of a coherent and consistent level of juvenile justice care throughout California. We recommend that foundations focus their resources in assisting counties to develop behavioral health-oriented services that target the highest-need youth. Demonstrating successful strategies with this most challenging population promotes systemic reform by changing long-term assumptions and practices about appropriate interventions. Eliminating the disparity in treatment for youth in the juvenile justice system will create better outcomes and improve the health of the communities in which they reside. Due to the state’s dire budget situation, counties will be asked to absorb more oversight of youthful offenders. This change offers a rare opportunity for foundations to exercise a sizable influence on juvenile justice practice for the 21st century. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Renewing_Juvenile_Justice.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Renewing_Juvenile_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 123642 Keywords: Foster CareJuvenile Justice Reform (California)Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth: Strengthening the Connection between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Summary: It has been known for quite some time that children involved in the child welfare system are at risk of “crossing over” to the juvenile justice system and, inversely, that many juvenile justice–involved youth later become involved in the child welfare system. These youth are commonly referred to as crossover youth. The accumulation of research on this population has given us greater understanding of their characteristics, of the pathway they took to become crossover youth, and of the practices professionals can employ to improve their outcomes. Despite these advances in our knowledge, jurisdictions around the United States, and arguably around the world, continue to face challenges in adequately meeting the needs of this difficult-to-serve population. As a result, several reform efforts have been developed to guide jurisdictions in their efforts to improve the way they serve crossover youth. The purpose of this paper is to provide communities with a consolidated framework for serving crossover youth that incorporates the most up-to-date research, lessons from ongoing reform efforts, and an innovative collaborative management structure. To accomplish this task, the paper begins with a summary of the research on crossover youth, including their characteristics and system experiences. The paper then explores the systemic factors that contribute to ineffective service delivery for this population, followed by a review of two major crossover youth reform initiatives in the United States—the Systems Integration Initiative (SII) and the Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM). The final section presents the next frontier of this work by providing a comprehensive array of the best practices needed to improve outcomes for this population and describing Results-Based Accountability™ (RBA), an innovative management structure that can be used to align the work of a variety of stakeholders around a common, community-wide effort for crossover youth. This introduction serves to briefly orient the reader to what we know about crossover youth, the challenges in serving this population, the current reform efforts underway, and the Results-Based Accountability™ framework. These topics are elaborated upon further in subsequent sections. The stage is then set for the presentation of a new frontier of this work—a more cohesive and robust framework regarding how systems can undertake reforms to improve the lives of crossover youth. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, 2012. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2012 at http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/msy/AddressingtheNeedsofMultiSystemYouth.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/msy/AddressingtheNeedsofMultiSystemYouth.pdf Shelf Number: 124393 Keywords: Child WelfareChild Welfare SystemCrossover YouthJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Entorf, Horst Title: Turning 18: What a Difference Application of Adult Criminal Law Makes Summary: This paper contributes to the literature on specific deterrence by addressing the issue of selecting adolescents into adult and juvenile law systems. In Germany, different from the U.S. and most other countries, turning a critical cutoff age does not cause a sharp discontinuity from juvenile to adult penal law, but rather implies a shift to a discretionary system of both adult and juvenile law, dependent on the courts' impression of moral and mental personal development of the adolescent at the time of the act. The German legal system draws the line of adulthood at some fuzzy age interval between 18 and 21, which is well above the thresholds prevailing in the U.S. (16 to 18 years, state specific) and other countries such that the German evidence entails some external evidence to the previous literature mostly relying on U.S. data. Based on a unique inmate survey and two-equation models controlling for selectivity problems, results show that application of adult criminal law instead of juvenile penal law decreases expected recidivism of adolescents. Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 5434: Accessed March 21, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1745709 Year: 2011 Country: Germany URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1745709 Shelf Number: 124624 Keywords: Criminal LawJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Germany)Recidivism |
Author: Petro, John Title: Increading Collaboration and Coordination of the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems to Better Serve Dual Jurisdiction Youth: A Literature Review Summary: Dual jurisdiction youth are children and youth who are under the jurisdiction of the child welfare system; who are placed in out-of-home care; and who come to the attention of the juvenile justice system. Out-of-home care can consist of foster care, group care, kinship care, or residential placement. These youth cross between or concurrently exist in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Research suggests that children who are abused or neglected are more likely to go on to commit delinquent acts than the general population. From the standpoint of child welfare and juvenile justice professionals, dual jurisdiction youth pose special challenges and require special attention, thereby straining limited resources. Although dual jurisdiction youth make up only a small percentage of the juvenile court’s total caseload, the research suggests that these youth may require a disproportionate share of agency resources. Dual jurisdiction youth make up a large proportion of the court’s deeper-end delinquency caseload. For instance, 42% of all juveniles in a probation placement also had a dependency petition active for at least a portion of that calendar year (Halemba et al., 2004). Dual jurisdiction youth also have higher recidivism rates than those with no history of involvement with the child welfare system. From the standpoint of the youth themselves, contact with the juvenile justice system may result in heightened trauma, increased instability, contribute to a child’s propensity to antisocial behavior, and impair a child’s educational attainment and income. The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), therefore, is seeking to identify ways in which the child welfare and juvenile justice agencies can collaborate and coordinate their efforts to better serve dual jurisdiction youth and prevent those children with a history of maltreatment from going down the path of delinquency. It is to this effect that CWLA is undertaking the creation of practice guidelines. Developed with the assistance of a national advisory committee comprised of behavioral health, child welfare, and juvenile justice practitioners, experts, and advocates, the practice guidelines will delineate the necessary factors and components of systems collaboration on behalf of youth in out-of-home care entering and transitioning through the juvenile justice system. Practice guidelines are developed to provide practical guidance to the field in a particular area and represent the “best thinking” of professionals across program areas. This review of the literature will give first an overview of the research that suggests a link between maltreatment and delinquency. Second, we will review the research that evaluates the effect of placement on a child’s likelihood of delinquency. Next, we will examine programmatic responses child welfare and juvenile justice agencies may undertake to identify and deliver services to those children at risk of becoming dual jurisdiction youth. Lastly, we will examine models of collaboration between these agencies and review any policies, practices, or programs that have been evaluated for their effectiveness in assisting dual jurisdiction youth. Details: Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, . 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2012 at http://www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjlitreview.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjlitreview.pdf Shelf Number: 124737 Keywords: Child WelfareFoster CareJuvenile Justice SystemsPartnerships |
Author: Halemba, Gregg Title: King County (Seattle, WA) Uniting for Youth: Prevalence of Child Welfare and BECCA (Status Offender) Involvement Among Youth Referred to the Juvenile Court on Delinquency Matters Summary: First established in 2003, the King County Uniting for Youth (formerly the King County Systems Integration) Initiative is a collaboration of state and local community agencies and organizations that have come together to examine and improve integrated program development, policy development, and service delivery for children, youth, and families served by the child welfare and juvenile justice systems as well as other youth-serving entities (such as education and the mental/behavioral health communities). During the ensuing eight years, initiative accomplishments have been impressive. Uniting for Youth committees/task forces have tackled a number of difficult issues including development of information-sharing protocols/resource guides; specification of the technological functionalities needed to facilitate the sharing of information on multi-system youth; an assessment of the local mental health service continuum; design of a dropout retrieval system and recent implementation of a pilot project based on this design; and development of cross training and joint policy/procedural protocols to facilitate cross-system case work. A growing body of research examining the crossover youth population continues to confirm the important challenges presented by these cases. These include considerably higher recidivism rates (markedly so for female offenders); earlier onset of delinquent behavior; more and longer detention stays, deeper and faster juvenile justice system penetration; substantially higher out-ofhome placement rates; frequent placement changes; poor permanency outcomes; and substantial costs in the face of shrinking budgets. In support of this internal evaluation capacity-building effort and with funding provided by the Seattle Field Office of Casey Family Programs, the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) in 2007 began work to design a strategy to conduct research on the prevalence of multi-system involvement among youth referred to the King County Juvenile Court on offender (delinquency), Becca (truancy, ARY and/or CHINS), and/or dependency matters. This included development of preliminary specifications on how to proceed in obtaining the necessary administrative data from the various stakeholder organizations/agencies required to conduct such a study. This report summarizes findings specific to the prevalence of multi-system involvement (specifically, child welfare and Becca) for youth referred to the King County Juvenile Court on offender matters, how this varies demographically, and how juvenile justice trajectories and outcomes vary by level of multi-system involvement. The report also begins to examine temporal issues related to the onset of juvenile justice, child welfare and Becca involvement. The data set has considerable potential to allow for more in-depth analysis in this regards and subsequent summaries are planned that will take a closer look at differential outcomes for firsttime offenders, females, and minority youth, among others. Also, The Washington State Center for Court Research (WSSCR) has identified youth in the current study who were administered the Washington State Juvenile Court Risk Assessment (WSJCA) instrument at some point during their court involvement on an offender matter. WSSCR has recently initiated an analysis examining differences in various risk and protective domains for these youth controlling for a history of multi-system involvement. Lastly, NCJJ and WSCCR plan to examine differential patterns of multi-system involvement for all youth referred to the court on dependency and Becca matters in a fashion similar to what is presented herein for youth referred on offender matters. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ), 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2012 at http://www.texascasaresources.org/files/grants/Crossover_Youth_Prevalence_Study_Final_Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascasaresources.org/files/grants/Crossover_Youth_Prevalence_Study_Final_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 124745 Keywords: Child WelfareCrossover YouthJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Halemba, Gregory Title: Doorways to Delinquency: Multi-System Involvement of Delinquent Youth in King County (Seattle, WA) Summary: This executive summary highlights fi ndings from a study conducted by the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) that examines the prevalence of multi-system involvement (specifi cally, child welfare and Becca) among youth referred to the King County Juvenile Court on offender matters during the 2006 calendar year. The study examines how this varies demographically and how juvenile justice trajectories/outcomes vary by level of multi-system involvement. The target population for the current study reflected a time limited snapshot of youth referred to the King County Juvenile Court on one or more offender referrals during calendar year 2006. The study cohort included 4,475 youth and their history of court and child welfare involvement was tracked through the end of the 2008 calendar year. In support of this internal evaluation capacity-building effort and with funding provided by the Seattle Field Office of Casey Family Programs, the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) in 2007 began work to design a strategy to conduct research on the prevalence of multi-system involvement among youth referred to the King County Juvenile Court on offender (delinquency), Becca (truancy, ARY and/or CHINS), and/or dependency matters. This included development of preliminary specifications on how to proceed in obtaining the necessary administrative data from the various stakeholder organizations/ agencies required to conduct such a study. This report summarizes fi ndings specifi c to the prevalence of multi-system involvement (specifi cally, child welfare and Becca) for youth referred to the King County Juvenile Court on offender matters, how this varies demographically, and how juvenile justice trajectories and outcomes vary by level of multi-system involvement. The report also begins to examine temporal issues related to the onset of juvenile justice, child welfare and Becca involvement. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: Models for Change, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2012 at http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/MFC/Doorways_to_Delinquency_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/MFC/Doorways_to_Delinquency_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 124746 Keywords: Child WelfareCrossover YouthJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Petro, John Title: Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Agencies: Collaborating to Serve Dual Jurisdiction Youth Survey Report Summary: Research suggests that children who are abused or neglected are more likely to commit delinquent acts than the general population (Carter et al., n.d.; English et al., 2002). Those that do become delinquent form a population of youth known as dual jurisdiction youth. For the purposes of this report, dual jurisdiction youth are children and youth under the jurisdiction of the dependency system, placed in out-of-home care, and who come to the attention of the juvenile justice system. Out-of-home care can consist of foster care, group care, kinship care, or residential placement. These dual jurisdiction youth cross between or concurrently exist in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. From the standpoint of child welfare and juvenile justice professionals, dual jurisdiction youth pose special challenges and require special attention, thereby straining limited resources. From the standpoint of dual jurisdiction youth, contact with the juvenile justice system may result in heightened trauma and also contribute to a child’s propensity to antisocial behavior and impair a child’s educational attainment and income (Conger & Ross, 2001). The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), therefore, is seeking to learn about and provide support for methods by which child welfare and juvenile justice agencies can collaborate, coordinate, and integrate public agency and private provider efforts to better serve dual jurisdiction youth and prevent children with a history of maltreatment from penetrating deeper into the delinquency system. Through the ongoing generous support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Juvenile Justice Division of CWLA and the Research and Evaluation Division conducted a nationwide survey of child welfare and juvenile justice professionals to gauge what agencies are doing at the state level to address the challenges and issues that surround dual jurisdiction youth. The survey specifically examined whether collaborative efforts are underway, and if so, what collaborative efforts have these agencies undertaken to identify and deliver services to dual jurisdiction youth? Details: Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Undated. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjsurveyreport.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjsurveyreport.pdf Shelf Number: 125207 Keywords: Child WelfareFoster CareJuvenile Justice SystemsPartnerships |
Author: Evans, Douglas N. Title: Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform: Achieving System Change Using Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment Strategies Summary: In the past three decades, state and local governments implemented a variety of reform strategies to reduce the youth justice system’s reliance on confinement facilities and to serve as many youth as possible in their own homes or at least in their own communities when removal from the home is warranted. The various reform strategies may be conceptualized as relying on three distinct but interrelated mechanisms: resolution, reinvestment, and realignment (Butts and Evans 2011). Resolution refers to the use of managerial authority and administrative directives to influence system change; reinvestment entails the use of financial incentives to encourage system change; and realignment employs organizational and structural modifications to create new systems. This report describes the history and implementation of the most well-known reform initiatives that draw upon one or more of these mechanisms to achieve system change and it considers their impact on juvenile confinement at the state and local level. Details: New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 2012. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2012 at: http://johnjayresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/rec20123.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://johnjayresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/rec20123.pdf Shelf Number: 125545 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Harvard University. International Human Rights Clinic Title: Preventable Tragedy in Panama—Unnecessary Deaths and Rights Violations in Juvenile Detention Centers Summary: This report, based on investigation of the juvenile detention centers, assesses the extent to which Panama has violated the rights of juveniles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “Convention”) and other related international instruments. At Panama’s previous appearance before the Committee on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”) in 2004, the CRC made observations and recommendations concerning violations in the juvenile justice system. The concluding observations included recommendations to Panama about separating detainees by age and needs, ensuring access to social services, adequately responding to cases and complaints of mistreatment by law enforcement agents, ensuring contact with families, providing regular medical examinations, and creating a recovery and social rehabilitation system. As this report documents, Panama’s rights violations in these areas have continued or increased since 2004. The report documents grave civil rights violations, especially in the fire that occurred at the Centro de Cumplimiento de Tocumen (“Tocumen”) on January 9, 2011 and resulted in the burning deaths of five juveniles. The police, guards, and detention center officials involved demonstrated disregard for the lives of these juveniles, used excessive force and failed to allow the children to exit the building once it became clear that their lives were threatened by the fire. The lack of a system to prevent incidents such as this one is unacceptable, especially given that a similar burning death had already taken place in another cell in the same detention center less than two years before the January 2011 incident, in November 2009. Panamanian officials must ensure that those responsible are investigated, prosecuted, and adequately sanctioned for this behavior, as the CRC reminded the State in its 2004 Concluding Observations. Furthermore, physical violence and continued abuse from the guards, as well as horrendous living conditions, especially in the maximum security cells, constitute cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The juvenile detention centers also fail to ensure freedom of expression and give due weight to the voice of the juveniles in clear violation of the Convention and the CRC’s previous recommendations to Panama. Panamanian authorities must take urgent measures to respond to these grave conditions. Additionally, the report notes that the juvenile detention centers unduly restrict family visits, denying detainees the right to maintain contact with their families. The centers also have failed to provide detainees with adequate physical or mental health services, and have failed to provide specialized care for detainees with disabilities. Authorities have failed to provide juveniles adequate educational or vocational training while in detention, thus impairing their ability to assume productive roles in society upon their release. Detention center officials have also impermissibly restricted recreation and work activities for detainees. The juvenile justice system has also failed to comply with the Convention and other international instruments by creating a structure marked by harsh penalties and minimal protections. Moreover, the current conditions of confinement in the Panamanian juvenile detention system are manifestly inadequate to protect the health, welfare, and dignity of juvenile detainees. Detention centers fail to separate detainees by age and gravity of the crime, are grossly overcrowded, and continue to deny detainees access to adequate food, water, and sanitary facilities. The report concludes that Panama has disregarded its obligations under the Convention and related international instruments by failing to protect the rights of juvenile detainees and subjecting them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Building additional infrastructure, such as the new center due to open in July 2011, will not solve the severe rights violations present in the current system. Panama must reform both its laws and practice to ensure compliance with international law. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard International Human Rights Clinic, 2011. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/panama-juvenile-detention-alianza-asamblea-harvard-6-20.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Panama URL: http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/panama-juvenile-detention-alianza-asamblea-harvard-6-20.pdf Shelf Number: 125861 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention Centers (Panama)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Title: Girls’ Experiences in the Texas Juvenile Justice System. 2012 Survey Findings Summary: Half of all youth referred to the Texas juvenile justice system each year have previously experienced a significant traumatic event. This trauma can cause a youth’s stress response to be over-reactive, leading to delinquent behavior. In a secure facility, the youth’s over-reactive stress response can lead to discipline problems and deeper system involvement. In fact, recent research has revealed that a youth’s past experience with trauma is a major predictor – and for girls, the largest predictor – of the youth’s assignment to increasingly serious secure placements in the Texas juvenile justice system. Unfortunately, Girls’ Experiences in the Texas Juvenile Justice System, a new report by TCJC, shows that Texas is failing many of these traumatized children. Half of the girls interviewed at the Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex report that their previous time in county juvenile facilities either did not help or actually did more harm than good for dealing with their past trauma. Tragically, eight percent report that their time at Ron Jackson is doing more harm than good, suggesting that our juvenile justice system may be re-traumatizing many of these youth. These issues call for a system-wide response. Many of the experiences that the girls report in these interviews – including negative interactions with staff, severe isolation from family, and youth-on-youth violence – match the experiences that boys in state custody reported in a TCJC survey earlier this year. As Texas moves forward with reforms to address those concerns, we should increase funding for trauma counseling in the juvenile system, and we should revisit the policies and procedures in our juvenile facilities to respond better to the vulnerabilities and triggers of traumatized youth. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2012. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2013 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Girls%20Experiences%20in%20the%20TX%20JJ%20System%20%28Oct%202012%29.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Girls%20Experiences%20in%20the%20TX%20JJ%20System%20%28Oct%202012%29.pdf Shelf Number: 127515 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale Juvenile Offenders (Texas, U.S.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2010-11: An Overview Summary: On an average day in 2010–11, there were an estimated 7,265 young people under juvenile justice supervision in Australia. Most (86% or 6,250) were supervised in the community and the remainder (14% or 1,045) were in detention. There were 2.6 young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day for every 1,000 in the population—2.2 per 1,000 under community-based supervision and 0.4 per 1,000 in detention. Over the 4-year period to 2010–11, rates of young people under community-based supervision and in detention remained relatively steady. Among the states and territories for which data are available, rates of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day ranged from 1.9 per 1,000 in Victoria to 4.7 per 1,000 in Tasmania. Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 15 times as likely to be under supervision on an average day as non-Indigenous young people. This level of over-representation decreased slightly over the 4 years to 2010–11. The over-representation of Indigenous young people in detention decreased over the 4-year period. In 2010–11, Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 24 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be in detention on an average day, down from 28 times as likely in 2007–08. Although on an average day most young people under juvenile justice supervision were supervised in the community, about 2 in 5 (41%) were in detention at some time during the year (estimates are not available for Western Australia and the Northern Territory). Most (87%) of those who were in detention during 2010–11 experienced unsentenced detention at some time during the year. On an average day in 2010–11, half (50%) of all young people in detention were unsentenced. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 106: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422551 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422551 Shelf Number: 127567 Keywords: AboriginalsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Pullmann, Michael D. Title: Washington State Disproportionate Minority Contact Assessment Summary: Since 1992, the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), acting on Congressional legislation, has required states to conduct regular assessments of the level of DMC at each major decision point in the juvenile justice system. DMC refers to unequal rates of white to non-white or Hispanic contact with the justice system, relative to the population of racial and ethnic groups in the community according to census data. The goal of the Washington State DMC assessment is to identify areas in need of attention so that youth in the juvenile justice system are provided with equal and fair treatment that is not based on race and ethnicity. In 2011, after a competitive process, the Washington State Partnership Council on Juvenile Justice (WA-PCJJ) contracted with the University of Washington’s Division of Public Behavioral Health and Justice Policy (PBHJP) to conduct this assessment for Washington State. Our approach to DMC assessment followed precisely the guidelines of OJJDP1 . This DMC assessment process sought to combine available data with the experiences, beliefs, and knowledge of local stakeholders in order to uncover those areas in which DMC is considered to be an issue of importance, to discover what communities may be doing to address DMC, and to provide suggestions on positive directions communities can take to address DMC. For those communities or interviewees with less experience in thinking about and acting on DMC, this process was also intended to provide a starting point for beginning that conversation. Our analyses used data provided to the WA-PCJJ by the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Center for Court Research (AOC-CCR). We supplemented this data with some additional data requests from detention centers and AOC-CCR. We calculated rates of disproportionality at several important decision points for the state of Washington and twelve jurisdictions: Adams, Benton/Franklin, King, Mason, Pierce, Spokane, Skagit, Whatcom, Clark, Kitsap, Thurston, and Yakima. This data was used to interview 3-8 stakeholders in each jurisdiction, usually composed of representatives of court administrations, judges, law enforcement, community advocates, and others. A total of sixty-three stakeholders were interviewed. Overall findings Our data analyses and interviews for each individual jurisdiction are presented in detail in separate chapters in this report. Common themes are detailed below. 1. There were several promising practices for DMC identification and reduction. Details: Seattle, WA: Division of Public Behavioral Health and Justice Policy, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington Medical School, 2013. 164p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ojj/DMC/DMC_Final_Report_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ojj/DMC/DMC_Final_Report_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 127658 Keywords: Discrimination in Juvenile JusticeDisproportionate Minority Contaact (Washington StaJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRacial Disparities |
Author: Bradford, Spike Title: Common Ground: Lessons Learned from Five States that Reduced Juvenile Confinement by More than Half Summary: After decades of expanding correctional populations in the United States, there is a growing awareness that we need to end the era of over-incarceration. Primarily this realization has formed around the adult correctional population, with less attention paid by the media or the general public to young people who are confined for delinquent behavior or prior to adjudication. This is perhaps because of the small percentage of youth that makeup the total incarcerated population: in 2010, approximately 2,270,100 adults were incarcerated in the U.S., compared to 70,792 youth. Simply by its scale, the “adult problem” dominates the conversation. However, as confinement is the least effective method of addressing delinquent behavior in young people and increases the likelihood that they will become justice-involved adults, systemic reforms that will reduce the number of confined youth are urgently needed. Such reforms–including reducing the number of youth held in secure confinement, improving the conditions of juvenile facilities and expanding community-based services that can be used instead of confinement, among other issues–have been aggressively pursued in a number of states around the country for over a decade. In fact, juvenile correctional populations have dropped by about a third, nationally, since 1999, when they peaked at over 107,000 confined youth. Restructuring the “fiscal architecture” of juvenile justice is one approach to reducing youth confinement that has attracted national attention. This approach seeks to remove the incentive of counties and local jurisdictions to send youth to state-run and state-funded institutions. Certainly, the current economic environment has played a role in states wanting to reduce their juvenile corrections expenses, which run upwards of $240 per day, per youth. Creating financial incentives for counties to keep youth close to home has the potential to lower net costs (state confinement and local community-based services), and improve outcomes for youth. Because this approach has showed early success in several states, other jurisdictions are considering whether they, too, should reform the fiscal architecture of their state juvenile justice systems to reduce youth confinement. Four years ago, the Justice Policy Institute, in its publication, Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense, highlighted fiscal reform as a promising practice. Given the drop in juvenile confinement just in the past four years, we decided to look at what role fiscal changes–and other reforms–have played in reducing the number of youth locked up in the U.S. We discovered that adjusting funding schemes was just one of many successful strategies for juvenile confinement reform and, in fact, there are many states that have significantly reduced their juvenile confined populations without fiscal reform. States have initiated top-down policy changes, requiring police and courts to treat juveniles differently, resulting in fewer youth confined. Others have simply closed their state’s juvenile correctional facilities, forcing judges to adopt less restrictive responses to juvenile delinquency. What follows is a critical analysis of those elements that appeared to contribute to the greatest reductions in rates of confinement over the past decade. Keeping in mind juvenile justice in each state operates as a system, the actors, policies and problems are necessarily intertwined. For example, the creation of a juvenile justice reform committee within a state is one way to further deinstitutionalization reforms but this process is often the result of settlement agreements among litigants over poor juvenile justice conditions. In this report, each of these strategies will be addressed. After discussing commonalities of reform activities among the states, we provide a brief overview of each state’s experience. These are not case studies per se of specifics of each state’s work, but more of an aerial view to further describe the transformations made. Through the diversity of strategies, as well as the commonalities between states, we hope advocates and policymakers who seek better outcomes for youth will find inspiration and pursue those strategies that are fiscally and politically achievable in their jurisdictions. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpicommonground.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpicommonground.pdf Shelf Number: 127829 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Annie E. Casey Foundation Title: Reducing Youth Incarceration in the United States Summary: A sea change is underway in our nation’s approach to dealing with young people who get in trouble with the law. Although we still lead the industrialized world in the rate at which we lock up young people, the youth confinement rate in the United States is rapidly declining. In 2010 this rate reached a new 35-year low, with almost every state confining a smaller share of its youth population than a decade earlier. This decline has not led to a surge in juvenile crime. On the contrary, crime has fallen sharply even as juvenile justice systems have locked up fewer delinquent youth. The public is safer, youth are being treated less punitively and more humanely, and governments are saving money— because our juvenile justice systems are reducing their reliance on confinement. With this report, we seek to highlight this positive trend and provide recommendations that can encourage its continuation. Wholesale incarceration of young people is generally a counterproductive public policy. As documented in the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2011 report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, juvenile corrections facilities are enormously costly to operate, often put youth at risk for injury and abuse and are largely ineffective in reducing recidivism. While youth who have committed serious violent crimes may require incarceration, a large proportion of those currently confined have not been involved in the kinds of serious offending that pose a compelling risk to public safety. The current de-institutionalization trend creates the potential for new, innovative responses to delinquency that are more cost-effective and humane, and lead to better outcomes for youth. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Data Snapshot Kids Count: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/R/ReducingYouthIncarcerationSnapshot/DataSnapshotYouthIncarceration.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/R/ReducingYouthIncarcerationSnapshot/DataSnapshotYouthIncarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 127834 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Jesuit Social Services and Effective Change Pty Ltd Title: Thinking Outside: Alternatives to Remand for Children Summary: Jesuit Social Services has over 35 years experience working with children and young people in Victoria’s youth justice system. We know from our experience that the lives of the children who come into contact with this system are among the least fortunate in our community. They often have chaotic family relationships and involvement with child protection services, problems engaging in school, mental illness and substance abuse problems. These children and young people are more likely to come from communities that experience extreme levels of poverty and disadvantage. Their development is compromised by early life experiences and then further compounded as they become entangled in the web of disadvantage. Contact with the youth justice system and exposure to remand often become further strands to this web. At heart, this study is about these children - for children they are, as legally defined until the age of 18. Victoria has a proud reputation for diverting children away from the justice system and has the lowest child custody rate in Australia, yet our rate of unsentenced detention increased by 67 per cent between 2007 and 2010. This is unacceptable, as detention more often than not exacerbates problems that are already entrenched for most of these children. This report presents the main issues that arose from 12 months’ research by Jesuit Social Services. The fundamental question we set out to resolve in our study was: what can be done better? There is no single solution. However, a first step would be to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years; primary school children have no place in our criminal courts. We must promote attitudes against violence and for children. Our research has found that violent offending of varying degrees of seriousness is the main reason for remanding children and is fuelling an increase in arrests that is proportionally the greatest for the youngest children (those 10 to 13 years of age). Once a child with known social and psychological risk factors comes to the attention of the police or courts we must ensure that an assessment of his or her particular circumstances takes place immediately – whether that be during business hours, late at night or on a weekend. This does not occur currently. There is a need for services that children on remand or at risk of remand can access 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These services must overcome the present service system’s fragmented response to such children. These children have often experienced significant harm yet, by failing to intervene early and intensively to halt such troubled and troubling life trajectories, valuable time to act decisively is lost. Two groups of children are more affected than most - Aboriginal children and children subject to child protection involvement. Both are over-represented in the youth justice system. Our study identified that there was a small group of children who were remanded for the first time when they were between 10 to 12 years of age, all of whom had been involved in the child protection system. Almost a third of these were Aboriginal. Details: Richmond, VIC, AUS: Jesuit Social Services, 2013. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2013 at: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Thinking_Outside_Research_long_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Thinking_Outside_Research_long_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127906 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Scali, Mary Ann Title: Missouri: Justice Rationed: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Juvenile Delinquency Court Summary: While Missouri stands out for its innovation in providing small, regionalized juvenile corrections programs, an effective juvenile justice system is not built solely upon the corrections options available to youth after they have navigated their way through a complex legal process. An effective juvenile justice system must encompass the foundational elements of fundamental fairness and due process. The system must include legal advocacy and zealous representation by competent and well-trained attorneys who uphold the rights of children at all critical stages. The 1967 United States Supreme Court decision In re Gault extended the principles of due process to delinquency proceedings.1 It held that accused youth facing the awesome prospect of incarceration have the right to counsel.2 Due process is violated when children’s legal interests are not protected. This assessment is designed to provide policy makers and juvenile defense leaders with relevant baseline information about whether youth have timely and meaningful access to qualified counsel in delinquency proceedings, identify systemic barriers to quality representation, highlight best practices, and provide recommendations and implementation strategies for improving Missouri’s juvenile indigent defense delivery system. The report begins with a summary of the evolution of due process and the right to counsel for youth in delinquency proceedings. It then provides an overview of this right as it pertains to youth in Missouri, and gives a snapshot of the state’s judicial system, the juvenile justice system, and the indigent defense system. A synopsis of Missouri juvenile law and the various stages of delinquency proceedings are then described to facilitate an understanding of how youth navigate through the system. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center, 2013. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2013 at: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Missouri_Assessement.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Missouri_Assessement.pdf Shelf Number: 128256 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Indigent Defense SystemsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Missouri, U.S.)Public Defenders |
Author: Guliyeva, Nargiz Title: What are Determinants of the Level of Juvenile Recidivism in the Azerbaijan Republic? Summary: Eventually, all former prisoners return to society. The most sensitive question is: “Will they be able to successfully integrate into it or not?” Unfortunately, in most cases the answer is negative; sooner or later they end up back in jail. The issue becomes more dramatic when it concerns juvenile offenders who were sentenced between the ages of 13-17. Most adult criminals begin their criminal careers as juveniles, and although the amount of juvenile crimes has annually decreased in Azerbaijan, half of those who are already in prison have committed multiple crimes. There are many reasons for juvenile recidivism. The most common set of problems which constricts the ability of released juveniles to start a new and successful life includes: uselessness in the society, limited job perspectives, homelessness, deteriorating health, and psychological problems. This paper is based upon several primary assumptions that reflect current research in the field of juvenile recidivism. The main purposes are to investigate the reasons behind and suggest possible solutions for juvenile recidivism in Azerbaijan. Data was collected from: A founding text on criminology which gives a general picture of juvenile psychology and actions; various researches which reflect foreign experience on this issue; reports from local NGOs and the office of UNICEF in Azerbaijan which provide precise descriptive and statistical information on the juvenile justice system; data from the State Statistical Committee of the Azerbaijan Republic; interviews with the people who work on the issue of children’s rights in Azerbaijan. The results of this research propose recommendations to reduce the rate of juvenile recidivism in Azerbaijan. Details: Baku, Azerbaijan; Khazar University, 2011. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: http://dspace.khazar.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1965/1/juvenile%20recidivism.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Azerbaijan URL: http://dspace.khazar.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1965/1/juvenile%20recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 128357 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Azerbaijan)Recidivism |
Author: Asian Centre for Human Rights Title: State of Juvenile Justice in Mizoram Summary: Children constitute 17.34 per cent of Mizoram’s total population. Mizoram may be a small state in terms of population and area, but the percentage of both child abuse and crimes committed by juveniles is quite high. The Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India in its “Study on Child Abuse: INDIA 2007” ranked Mizoram second in child abuse amongst the 13 states of India covered under the study. The study found that “in four of these states, the percentage of physical abuse was alarmingly high, above 80%. These states were Assam (84.65%), Mizoram (84.64%), Delhi (83.12%) and Uttar Pradesh (82.77%).” A “Study of Child Abuse in Mizoram” prepared by the Social Welfare Department and Aizawl-based NGO, Human Rights & Law Network (HLRN) on 27 October 2012 revealed that children are not safe anywhere in the state as most cases of child sexual abuse were committed by relatives, friends and teachers of the victims. The study revealed that Mizoram recorded 630 cases of child sexual abuse during the period of 2003 to 2009. Of these, 248 cases were registered by the Criminal Investigation Department of Mizoram Police, 240 cases by district police stations, 124 cases by the Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and 18 cases by the Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl, Mizoram’s apex women body. Juvenile delinquency equally remains high. During the last decade from 2002 to 2011, the National Crime Records Bureau under the Ministry of Home Affairs recorded a total of 1,699 cases of “juvenile delinquency” in Mizoram. These include 1,258 cases registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 441 cases under the Special and Local Laws (SLL) in Mizoram. According to official records, 89 cases of child abuse and 35 cases of juvenile crimes were registered in the state during January to March 2012. This included 76 cases of physical abuse and 13 cases of sexual abuse against minors registered by the Social Welfare Department, and 35 cases of juvenile crimes recorded by the Juvenile Justice Boards. Yet, Mizoram has failed to show interest in the proper implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000 (amended in 2006) [hereinafter referred to as “JJ (C&PC) Act”]. Although the JJ(C&PC) Act has been enacted more than a decade ago, the statutory support services namely the Juvenile Justice Boards and the Child Welfare Committees in Mizoram have been set up in all the eight districts only during 2010-11. Details: New Delhi: Asian Centre for Human Rights, 2013. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/JJ-Mizoram-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: India URL: http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/JJ-Mizoram-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128442 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice (Mizoram, India)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Youth Justice. Seventh Report of Session 2012–13. Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk Summary: The Youth Justice Board, youth offending teams and their partners have made great strides towards a more proportionate and effective response to youth offending which prioritises prevention. We strongly welcome the substantial decrease since 2006/07 in the number of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time, and are particularly encouraged that agencies in many areas are using a restorative justice approach to resolve very minor offending. However, looked after children have not benefited from this shift to the same extent as other children and we make recommendations to ensure that local authorities, children’s homes and prosecutors have appropriate strategies in place to prevent them from being criminalised for trivial incidents which would never come to police attention if they took place in family homes. There is a limit to what criminal justice agencies can achieve in preventing offending: young people in the criminal justice system are disproportionately likely to have high levels of welfare need and other agencies have often failed to offer them support at an early stage. We are therefore disappointed that the Government does not plan a significant shift in resources towards early intervention and recommend more research into the contributory factors to the reductions in the number of young people entering the criminal justice system, to enable better decision-making about the distribution of funding. Out-of-court disposals can provide a proportionate means of dealing with offending that deserves a criminal justice response but is not serious enough to warrant prosecution, but we suggest some safeguards in response to concern amongst sentencers and the wider public that their use is not always transparent or appropriate. Where young people come before the courts, we make recommendations to protect the right of young offenders with speech, language and communication needs and/or a learning disability to a fair trial and to provide a mechanism for young people with exceptional welfare needs to be referred to the family court. In relation to sentencing, we commend the collaboration between the Youth Justice Board, youth offending teams and the judiciary to bring about a significant reduction in the numbers of young people in custody since 2008. In order to cement these gains, ensure we meet our international obligations for custody to be used only in cases of genuine last resort, and reduce the huge financial burden the secure estate places on the state, we recommend a statutory threshold to enshrine in legislation the principle that only the most serious and prolific young offenders should be placed in custody; devolving the custody budget to enable local authorities to invest in effective alternatives to custody; and more action to reduce the number of young people who breach the terms of their community sentences and the number of young black men in custody. We welcome the Government’s commitment to restorative justice; however we believe more should be done to make it integral to the youth justice system. We describe our vision for a complete reconfiguration of the secure estate to one comprising small, local units with a high staff ratio where young offenders who require detention can maintain links with their families and children’s services. We highlight three very serious issues in the custodial estate that require action. First, it is imperative to draw together and act upon lessons arising from the deaths of vulnerable young people in custody. Secondly, we are concerned that the use of restraint, which has been linked to at least one of these deaths, rose considerably last year and press for a fundamental cultural shift across the secure estate. Thirdly, we recommend more and better co-ordinated support for looked after children and care leavers in custody, who are all too often abandoned by children’s and social services. In contrast with their success in other areas, the Youth Justice Board and local agencies have failed to make any progress in reducing the binary re-offending rate. We endorse the Secretary of State’s aim of improving the basic literacy of offenders but we are not convinced that it is most useful to focus resources on the secure estate, given that the average length of stay is currently 79 days. The greater focus should be on improving transition between custody and the community, and on improving provision in the community and incentivising schools and colleges to take back difficult students. There is a need for better data about which interventions work best to reduce re-offending; better assessment for impairments, vulnerabilities and health issues and follow-up interventions, including more access to speech and language therapists; and better resettlement support, particularly in relation to suitable accommodation. Finally, earlier planning, better information sharing and a smoother transition between youth and adult provision would ensure that progress is not lost when an offender turns 18. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2013. 224p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2013 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/339/339.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/339/339.pdf Shelf Number: 128617 Keywords: Juvenil Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia 2011-12: an overview Summary: Almost 7,000 young people are under youth justice supervision on an average day -- On an average day in 2011–12, there were almost 7,000 young people aged 10 and older under youth justice supervision in Australia due to their involvement or alleged involvement in crime. Most (83%) were male and the majority (79%) were aged 14–17. Indigenous young people were over-represented—although less than 5% of young Australians are Indigenous, 39% of those under supervision were Indigenous. Among all those aged 10–17 in Australia, this equates to a rate of 26 young people under supervision on an average day per 10,000 in the population, or 1 in every 385 young Australians. Most young people are supervised in the community -- Almost 6,000 (86%) young people were supervised in the community on an average day in 2011–12, and the remaining 1,000 (14%) were in detention. However, 2 in every 5 young people (41%) under youth justice supervision in Australia were in detention at some time during the year. Young people spend an average of 6 months under supervision -- The median duration of periods of youth justice supervision was about 11 weeks (78 days). Periods of community-based supervision completed during 2011–12 were typically longer (84 days, on average) than both unsentenced (4 days) and sentenced detention (55 days). Some young people experienced more than one supervision period during the year. When all the time spent under supervision during 2011–12 is considered, young people spent an average of about 6 months (185 days) under supervision. Trends are stable, but vary among the states and territories -- Nationally, the rates of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day remained relatively stable (about 26–27 per 10,000) over the 4 years to 2011–12. This stability occurred in both community-based supervision and detention. However, there were differences in trends among the states and territories. Between 2008–09 and 2011–12, rates of young people under supervision on an average day increased in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, and decreased in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin no. 115: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AIHW_YouthJusticeInAustralia2011-12_April2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AIHW_YouthJusticeInAustralia2011-12_April2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128675 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Comeback States: Reducing youth incarceration in the United States Summary: In 2000, a record-setting 108,802 youth were held in detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in juvenile facilities in the United States. In a dramatic turnaround, by late-2010, the number of youth confined in state and county juvenile facilities had plummeted by 39 percent to 66,322. This reversal erased a 63 percent increase in the number of confined youth that began in 1985, when 66,762 youth were confined—an increase driven by highly publicized increases in youth arrests, growing public concern about youth crime, and state juvenile justice policies favoring increased reliance on incarceration. This report uses new federal data to document and analyze national and state incarceration trends. The turnaround is associated with changes in state policies since 2001 that reflected declines in youth arrests, new understandings of the teenage brain, less costly, evidence-based alternatives to incarceration, and constrained state budgets. A regression analysis of annual data found that although the decline in arrests helped explain the decline in confinement, post-arrest decisions by law enforcement officials, which are often shaped by state juvenile justice policies, also had a potent impact. Six policies were identified in this report that have been adopted by states since 2001 and encourage reductions in reliance on detention and incarceration. These changes: • increase the availability of evidence-based alternatives to incarceration; • require intake procedures that reduce use of secure detention facilities; • close or downsize youth confinement facilities; • reduce schools’ overreliance on the justice system to address discipline issues; • disallow incarceration for minor offenses; and • restructure juvenile justice responsibilities and finances among states and counties. Nine “comeback” states were singled out for their leadership in adopting these policies. They include California; Connecticut; Illinois; Ohio; Mississippi; New York; Texas; Washington; and Wisconsin. The report profiles each of the states with regard to: 1) the growth of their reliance on youth incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s; 2) reversal of that reliance during the 2001-to-late-2010 period; and 3) the incarceration reduction policies that they have adopted since 2001. The “comeback” states were selected because they adopted at least four of the six policies, exceeded the national-average reduction in youth confinement for the 2001-to-2010 period, and experienced a decline in youth arrests (as a proxy for greater public safety) between 2000 and 2010. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network; Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129030 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice Policy (U.S.)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: McKenzie, Jacqueline Title: Insights from the Coalface: The value of justice reinvestment for young Australians Summary: Youth Justice policy in Australia has proved to be an insufficient means to improve public safety, and to assist young people to get back on track. Not only are the rates of both the incarceration and remand of young people rising, but most young people in contact with the justice system are Australia’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Young people are important. Demographic trends have highlighted the unique circumstances of our time - a greater number of retired and elderly Australians, with a reduced labour force working age. The value of all young people as engaged, active and contributing members of society is immense. As evidence shows both incarceration and remand rates are on the rise. There is great understanding of the issues at hand, which are more prevalent in some communities than others, and there are appropriate measures to resolve issues in communities for young people. Action is essential to secure the wellbeing of Australia, both here and now and continuing into the future. The money spent maintaining the status quo of the criminal justice system must be reinvested into communities, with young people as the focal point. Young offenders will be tomorrow’s adult prison population, if we do not take the necessary steps now. The creation of alternative pathways through a Justice Reinvestment framework proposes the way. A Justice Reinvestment framework applies a data-driven approach to reduce incarceration spending and reinvest savings in strategies that decrease crime and strengthen communities. This is a targeted approach, requiring commonwealth leadership for consistency and support across jurisdictions. AYAC believes that young people have the right to access adequate and appropriate programs and services regardless of geographic location, race, gender, sexuality, physical ability or disability, social religious or economic circumstances. This should be especially so for our most disadvantaged and vulnerable, who are over-represented in the current youth justice system. We call for action that enables young people to fully realise their potential as positive members of society, and cease the toll on community and government that comes with current increases in both incarceration and remand of young people. Details: Surry Hills, NSW, AU: Australian Youth Affairs Coalition (AYAC), 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.ayac.org.au/uploads/JRinsightsfromcoalface.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ayac.org.au/uploads/JRinsightsfromcoalface.pdf Shelf Number: 129192 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice Reinvestment (Australia)Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: University of California, Berkeley. School of Law. Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy Title: JDAI Sites and States An Evaluation of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: JDAI Sites Compared to Home State Totals Summary: The Annie E. Casey Foundation developed the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) to address the unnecessary and prolonged detention of youth. JDAI has been in operation for over 20 years. It is almost unheard of that a foundation commit to such a long-term effort to reform public policy. The longevity of JDAI is due in part to a learned value of thorough and thoughtful data collection and reflection on that data. The Initiative leaders have been willing to conduct honest self-assessments, post unfavorable results when they occur, and take a problem-solving approach to improving the program. Assessing the impact of JDAI is anything but simple. Deciding how to globally measure results is challenging to begin with. Beyond that, sites need to spend energy, attention, and resources to collect adequate data. However, this data collection is of benefit to the sites as a critical tool to use in improving their juvenile justice systems. As data collection improves over time, data are more complete and therefore more useful for meaningful evaluation. Casey supports its JDAI sites to continue to expand their capacity to collect and analyze high-quality data by providing technical assistance. Initiative leaders have examined the use of detention in participating JDAI sites by looking at the standard measures of Average Length of Stay (ALOS), Admissions, and Average Daily Population (ADP) in detention centers, among other indicators. In past publications, Casey has reported on impressive reductions in detention within JDAI sites and has presented other indicators of impact, influence, and leverage. This report is the first effort to compare JDAI sites (both individually and collectively) within a state to the state as a whole. Following is a series of 23 individual state profiles that include both qualitative and quantitative information. Each profile begins with a narrative that may highlight detention reform efforts and the adoption of JDAI in that state. The main data focus is on ADP in the JDAI sites for the baseline year to 2010 (that is, the year prior to implementing JDAI to the most recent year for which data are available) and at the state level from 1997 to 2010. This report also provides additional context in the form of data on youth serving long-term commitments and on juvenile arrest counts as an indicator of crime. Within that framework, and by those measures, JDAI certainly presents some positive gains. Details: Berkeley, CA: University of California (Berkeley), School of Law, 2012. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/JDAI_Rep_1_FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/JDAI_Rep_1_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129199 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Puzon, Marco Paa Title: Painted Gray Faces, Behind Bars and in the Streets Street Children and the Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines Summary: The Consortium for Street Children (CSC) is a network of NGOs working with street-involved children, and children at risk of taking to street life in Africa, Asia, Eastern and Central Europe, and Latin America. In many countries around the world street children are particularly vulnerable to abuses in juvenile justice systems: they are highly likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system in the first place, and they are less able to defend themselves from abuse once within the system. In some countries, in the absence of adequate social welfare responses, the criminal justice system is used to warehouse homeless children regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime. In other countries, outdated legislation means that children face harsh sentences for petty (often ‘survival’) theft, substance abuse, begging and ‘vagrancy’. In short, these children are discriminated against and have their rights violated because they are poor. In response to the internationally identified need to address the particular overlap between street children and the criminal justice system, CSC has undertaken a two-year research and advocacy project working with local partners to examine the situation of the human rights abuses of street children in juvenile justice systems in six countries: Kenya, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines and Romania. Research was undertaken and national, cross-sectoral workshops were convened involving street children themselves, civil society organisations, the police, judiciary, social and probation services and other stakeholders to identify key obstacles to the implementation of international human rights standards for street children in juvenile justice systems in each country. With an emphasis on constructive dialogue and collaboration between civil society and government, the workshops addressed issues of national relevance, examined examples of innovative good practice in this area and outlined recommendations for further action. The project in the Philippines uniquely focused on eliciting the views and participation of children themselves from around the country through a series of creative methodologies that were subsequently shared with the other participating countries. Details: Quezon City: Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights Program Center for Integrative and Development Studies University of the Philippines; Consortium for Street Children 2003. 231p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.pstcrrc.org/docs/Painted_Gray_Faces_Behind_Bars_And_In_The_Streets.pdf Year: 2003 Country: Philippines URL: http://www.pstcrrc.org/docs/Painted_Gray_Faces_Behind_Bars_And_In_The_Streets.pdf Shelf Number: 129209 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersStreet Children (Philippines) |
Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Juvenile Justice in the CEE/CIS region: Progress, Challenges, Obstacles and Opportunities Summary: This paper describes the most signifi cant advances made in the development of juvenile justice systems in the CEE/CIS region over the past decade, and the most important challenges remaining. The paper also provides some key recommendations for further impact on the rights of the children involved. It is mainly based on a series of assessments of the juvenile justice systems in fifteen countries of the region – from Albania to Uzbekistan – conducted by the UNICEF Regional Offi ce for CEE/CIS in between 2006 and 2011. In many countries in the region, the process of developing juvenile justice systems began shortly after the year 2000 and was supported by UNICEF in most countries. International NGOs contributed to the reform, especially through the establishment of pilot projects (e.g., the Open Society Institute in Kazakhstan) and the creation of diversion programmes (e.g., the Coram Children’s Legal Centre (UK) in Tajikistan). Support was also provided by the European Commission as well as, among others, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Government of the Netherlands. Recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child often were instrumental in triggering the reform process. Efforts initially focused on situation analyses, capacity-building and legislative reform and gradually shifted towards more comprehensive approaches to the development of a fully edged juvenile justice system. In many countries, the reform process now appears to be deepening and, possibly, accelerating. On the other hand, there are still a few countries where lack of transparency makes it diffi cult to appreciate how juvenile justice functions in practice. Until recently, the overriding aim of juvenile justice reform was de fined in terms of ‘humanization’ by many of the governments engaged in the reforms. In practical terms, this translated into goals such as avoiding the prosecution of children involved in minor offences, making sentences shorter, eliminating violence and ill-treatment, preventing children from being detained with adults, improving physical conditions in prisons, and so on. These are all important goals, but they often overlooked the fact that one of the purposes of juvenile justice is to reduce reoffending. During the fi rst decade or so of reform efforts, insuffi cient attention was given to the prevention of offending and reoffending. This is beginning to change. All countries in the region have adopted new criminal legislation during the last two decades, as part of broader efforts to bring their legal systems into compatibility with international human rights standards. In most of them, further amendments concerning juvenile justice have been made in recent years. With some exceptions, the law in force now generally complies with international standards. These and other reforms mentioned below have resulted in decreasing rates of detention and imprisonment in some countries. In the Republic of Moldova, for example, the total number of children in pretrial detention and juvenile prison fell by 68 per cent between 2007 and 2010. This followed important reforms to the Criminal Code in 2007, which inter alia restricted pretrial detention to juveniles accused of a serious offence, limited the duration of pretrial detention to four months, made prison sentences discretionary for reoffenders, shortened the length of prison sentences for juveniles, and made juveniles eligible for early release after serving one third to two thirds of their sentence. In Armenia, during the past three years, detention of children both pre- and post-trial has been maintained at what is probably the lowest possible level – i.e., approximately 15 children in pretrial detention and 15 children in custodial sentence. (See below for more examples.) Legislation is, however, not always applied properly due to many factors, including the systemic weakness of the administration of justice, the persistence of values inconsistent with human rights and a dominant culture of impunity. Treatment of children in the correctional system has been largely ‘humanized’, but treatment in pretrial detention facilities and police custody often violates international standards. Secondary prevention remains very poor. Diversion schemes often are not accompanied with the support that children and families would need in order to prevent reoffending. Alternative sentences are imposed relatively frequently, but programmes for assisting offenders given alternative sentences are scarce. Support for reintegration into the community is almost nonexistent. The development of specialized institutions and programmes, including specialized police units, juvenile courts, probation services, legal aid programmes and restorative justice programmes, has been slow. Details: Geneva, SWIT: UNICEF, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 8, 2013 at: http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/EU_UNICEF_Juvenile_Justice_in_the_CEECIS_Region.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/EU_UNICEF_Juvenile_Justice_in_the_CEECIS_Region.pdf Shelf Number: 0 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Life Outside: Collective Identity, Collection Exclusion Summary: Much of the subsequent debate has singled out the involvement of children and young people in the looting and violence, although in reality the age range and backgrounds of those convicted in the courts have been considerably more diverse than was initially suspected. The debate has split in part over an emphasis on the criminal justice response to be made, and partly over an emphasis on causes. While not developed with these terrible events in mind, Life Outside makes a contribution to both aspects of this debate. Life Outside is the second substantive policy report to be produced from participation with children and young people in the criminal justice system as part of U R Boss, a five year project supported by the Big Lottery Fund. The first report, Life Inside, explored the experience of teenage boys in prison. This report picks up the story after children and young people leave custody. Taken together, the two reports spell out the failures of our current approach to youth justice. The youth justice system, dealing with children under the age of 18, has received a great deal of investment and the last Labour government introduced a network of youth offending teams up and down the country, as well as sentencing innovations such as the Detention and Training Order. Child custody numbers duly exploded and interventions previously rooted in the welfare system became increasingly punitive and linked to a culture of compliance and control that pays little heed to the chaotic nature of these young people’s lives, and which has little or no purchase over the deep and complex social problems which form the underlying causes of youth crime. Unsurprisingly, reoffending rates among children remain the highest of any age group in the penal system. The young people we spoke to make clear why the various stages of life after custody are all too often opportunities to fail, rather than a sure pathway to success. Much of what they told us confirmed the Howard League’s longstanding view that the funding directed into the youth justice system would be better directed into a welfare approach, and that downward pressure should be exerted on the system through measures such as raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What the young people we spoke to particularly emphasised, however, was the issue of identity and the way in which the current system sets out to reinforce the feelings of disenfranchisement and detachment from society that erodes these children’s hopes of a positive future. At its very foundation, the youth justice system is predicated on mistaken assumptions that doom those within its ambit from the very start. And the relevance of this to the public debate now raging? The collective exclusion that young people feel may well have played its part in why disorder flared on the streets of London and elsewhere this summer. But we would be wise to think twice before perpetuating responses that simply serve to exacerbate that exclusion and which fail to unpick the reasons why young people commit crime in the first place. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/HL_Life_outside.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/HL_Life_outside.pdf Shelf Number: 129464 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ReentryRecidivismRehabilitationReintegrationResettlement |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young People Aged 10–14 in the Youth Justice System 2011–12 Summary: Despite being a relatively small group, research indicates that young people aged 10-14 in the youth justice system are at risk of becoming chronic, long-term offenders. Data show that most (85%) young people born in 1993-94 who were supervised at age 10-14 returned to (or continued under) supervision when they were 15-17. They were more likely than those first supervised at older ages to experience all types of supervision when 15-17, and spent more time in total under supervision. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2013. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile justice series no.12; Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129543941 Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129543941 Shelf Number: 129532 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Harvey, Rachel Title: From Paper to Practice: An Analysis of the Juvenile Justice System in Honduras Summary: This paper analyses the laws, policies and practice in Honduras for dealing with children in conflict with the law in light of International Minimum Juvenile Justice Standards and Norms. After significant reforms, the juvenile justice system in Honduras seems to uphold these standards. Criminal justice legislation, which has been adopted in the last 10 years to remedy the deficiencies of the old system, largely embraces fundamental human rights and bestows upon children who are in conflict with the law rights that are specific to them. However, when we look beyond the legislation to practice, we find a system that does not consistently uphold the rights that are enshrined in domestic law let alone international minimum juvenile justice standards and norms. Instead we find a system that is hampered and sometimes crippled by a lack of resources, resulting in violations of children’s rights. A lack of political will to address the shortcomings of the juvenile justice system compounds the situation. The focus of the Maduro Government has been the fight against crime, and in particular, the fight against gangs. Four years of a zero tolerance approach has succeeded in reducing the incidents of some types of crimes, however the root causes of offending have been largely neglected. Where efforts have been made to develop prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, there has been a preoccupation by the State, as well as the NGO sector, with gangs. Such an approach has left limited provision for young offenders, many of whom are locked up for long periods in inhuman conditions without adequate programmes of rehabilitation. Coupled with an absence of reintegration programmes, these young people are highly vulnerable to reoffending on release. While communities may be persuaded to feel safer due to the zero tolerance campaign, the reality is that, at best, the problem of delinquency is simply being delayed and contained for a short number of years. The failure of successive governments to transfer not only international law, but also the standards enshrined in domestic legislation from paper to practice is a grave disservice to both the young people caught in the criminal justice system and to the communities that the State is aiming to protect from crime. The State must act, as a matter of urgency, to address the shortcomings of the juvenile justice system and provide adequate prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration programmes not only to implement children’s rights but to impact upon delinquency in the long term. Details: Colchester, UK: University of Essex, Children’s Legal Centre, 2005. 133p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://www.streetchildren.org.uk/_uploads/Publications/4.From_Paper_to_Practice.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Honduras URL: http://www.streetchildren.org.uk/_uploads/Publications/4.From_Paper_to_Practice.pdf Shelf Number: 129543 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice SystemsStreet Children (Honduras)Youth Gangs |
Author: United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children Title: Promoting Restorative Justice for Children Summary: SRSG Santos Pais launched a new thematic report on Restorative Justice for Children in a high level event organized with the Governments of Indonesia and Norway during the General Assembly Debate on the Rights of the Child. The event counted on the participation of experts from Norway and Indonesia, as well as representatives from independent children's rights institutions, academia and civil society organizations. The discussion aimed at sharing models and experiences of child sensitive restorative justice processes and programs and to promote enhanced cooperation in this area at national, regional and international levels. This new SRSG report promotes a paradigm shift in the juvenile justice system moving from punitive to restorative justice approaches that respect and protect the rights of the child. The report highlights how such restorative justice programmes provide significant benefits for the children involved, for the victims and for society in general.The report presents important recommendations to consolidate restorative justice initiatives at the national level. These include strong legislative provisions such as decriminalizing status offences and survival behaviour and establishing legal safeguards to protect the child's best interests, and the child's right to freedom from violence and discrimination. Legislation should also provide law enforcement, prosecutors and the judiciary with options for diverting children away from the criminal justice system; it should foresee alternative and educative measures such as warning, probation, judicial supervision and community work, to be applied in combination with restorative justice processes or when restorative justice is not appropriate. The report also highlights that restorative justice and informal justice mechanisms, while being accessible at the local levels and playing an important role in the protection and reintegration of children, should never jeopardize children's rights or preclude children from accessing the formal justice system. Investing in effective training is equally important, including on children's rights and on necessary skills to promote dialogue and manage emotions and conflict and securing children's safety. Moreover, guidelines and standard operational procedures should be assured to all relevant law enforcement and justice actors, including the police, prosecutors, the judiciary, probation officers, lawyers, social workers, facilitators and mediators. Coordination between restorative justice service providers and justice actors is a key dimension of an effective restorative justice system and should be institutionalized at the national and local levels, and close cooperation should be encouraged between relevant stakeholders, including in informal justice systems. Similarly, well-trained professionals, available resources to support programs and invest in capacity building and bilateral and international cooperation, should be also promoted e.g. to document and gather data. Awareness-raising and social mobilization campaigns should be undertaken at the national and local levels with relevant stakeholders, including traditional and religious leaders and the media, to enhance understanding of restorative justice and promote child-friendly attitudes among justice professionals and service providers, and to sensitize the general public to the importance of restorative justice. Details: New York: SRSG on Violence Against Children, 2013. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2013 at: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/srsgvac_restorative_justice_for_children_report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/srsgvac_restorative_justice_for_children_report.pdf Shelf Number: 131635 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsRestorative Justice |
Author: Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working Group Title: Final Report Summary: Over the last decade, Hawaii has made commendable improvements in its juvenile justice system. Juvenile arrests fell 28 percent, and the number of youth annually admitted to the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility (HYCF) declined 41 percent. With declining juvenile arrests and fewer youth being removed from their homes, Hawaii has been headed in the right direction. Building on its success, the state should aspire to continual improvements. In order to keep heading in the right direction and to further the gains, youth-serving agencies-the Judiciary, the Office of Youth Services (OYS), and the Department of Health, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Division (CAMHD)-all agree that resources are needed to fully develop an effective continuum of services in Hawaii's communities. The current resources and means of accessing services allow youth to fall through the cracks. Additional resources for these youth would not only further reduce the number of commitments to HYCF and the detention home, but also help strengthen youth, families, and communities. While fewer in number, the youth who are committed to HYCF are staying longer. More youth enter HYCF for misdemeanors than felonies; more enter for property, drug and other nonviolent offenses than for person offenses; and nearly half have no prior felony adjudications. Each bed at HYCF costs state taxpayers $199,320 per year. Three-quarters of the youth who leave HYCF will be re-adjudicated delinquent or reconvicted within three years. While taking steps in the right direction, Hawaii should get better outcomes from the high costs of HYCF. Moreover, if effective alternatives were available, many of these youth could be held accountable and safely supervised in their communities at far lower cost. Every dollar spent on secure confinement is a dollar Hawaii could otherwise use to build the fully-resourced, evidence-based continuum of supervision and services for delinquent youth that was envisioned during the creation of OYS in 1989. Early access to substance abuse and mental health services is a necessary component of this continuum. Youth with urgent and critical needs must have access to needed treatments to prevent future delinquencies. As Hawaii strives to build up this continuum and provide these tools, the state recognizes that success - for Hawaii's youth, families, and communities - will require hard work, collaboration, compromise, and leadership. Without substantial additional resources allocated by the Legislature, the goal of improving the juvenile justice system in Hawaii cannot be realistically achieved. The agencies responsible for providing these services need the resources necessary to achieve these goals and appropriately serve youth. In August of 2013, Governor Neil Abercrombie, Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, Senate President Donna Mercado Kim, and House Speaker Joseph Souki established the Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working Group to develop policy recommendations that will accelerate reductions in the state's use of secure beds for lower-level juvenile offenders while protecting public safety and increasing positive outcomes for youth, families, and communities. The Working Group was charged with analyzing Hawaii's data, policies, and practices; reviewing research on evidence-based principles and national best practices; and recommending policies that will move Hawaii toward a more effective, equitable and efficient juvenile justice system. The Working Group's efforts have resulted in a comprehensive set of policy recommendations that will improve the return Hawaii receives from its investment in juvenile justice. By focusing secure beds on juveniles who pose a public safety risk and strengthening community supervision practices across the islands, the recommendations will put more Hawaii youth on the track toward productive, law-abiding lives, and ensure that taxpayer resources are used efficiently. Taken together, the policies are expected to reduce the HYCF population by at least 60 percent by 2019, producing savings of at least $11 million dollars over the next five fiscal years, and provide for reinvestment in local jurisdictions. With those reinvestments, family court judges and probation officers will have more effective supervision and rehabilitation options, leading to reduced recidivism and increased public safety. Details: Honolulu: Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working Group, 2013. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2014 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/JJRI-Working-Group-Final-Report-Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/JJRI-Working-Group-Final-Report-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132005 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (UK) Title: A Fresh Start to Tackling Youth Crime: A Briefing for Police and Crime Commissioners Summary: Two decades of falling crime have presented Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) with an unprecedented window of opportunity to secure a low-crime future for children and young people in England and Wales. This briefing identifies ways that PCCs can play a leading part in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour by children and young people while helping them grow into successful adults and law-abiding citizens. It is published by the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour. In 2010, the Commission, chaired by Sir Anthony Salz, published Time for a fresh start, its influential blueprint for reform, based on three underlying 'pillars of principle': Prevention - tackling antisocial behaviour, crime and reoffending through families, schools, communities and knowledge of children's underlying needs. Restoration - ensuring children and young people who break the law face meaningful consequences that hold them accountable for the harm caused to victims and the wider community. Integration - striving to retain young people who offend within mainstream society or re-connect them wherever possible. Positive policy and practice developments in the past three years have demonstrated the central importance of these guiding principles. Their value is also apparent in guiding responses to crime issues affecting children and young people that are especially challenging today. These range from 'smart' phone thefts and online 'cyber-bullying' to sexual exploitation and organised gang cultures. This briefing describes how PCCs, working with police forces and their partners in local government and the youth justice system, can apply the principles to take cost-effective, local action to reduce antisocial behaviour and young people's involvement in crime. Details: London: The Commission, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2014 at: http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/holding/projects/fresh_start_to_tackling_youth_crime.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/holding/projects/fresh_start_to_tackling_youth_crime.pdf Shelf Number: 103026 Keywords: Antisocial BehaviorDelinquency PreventionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Baird, Chris Title: A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments in Juvenile Justice Summary: Juvenile justice service staff began exploring the use of actuarial risk assessments that classify offenders by the likelihood of future delinquency with earnest in the 1970s, but actuarial risk assessments have been used by public social service agencies in the United States since 1928. The value and utility of a valid, reliable, and equitable risk assessment within a broader practice reform effort was made clear to justice agencies in 1998 when the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) published the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. OJJDP's reform effort illustrated how juvenile justice agencies could better ensure the effectiveness and appropriate targeting of services by implementing both an actuarial risk assessment to accurately, reliably, and equitably classify youth by the likelihood of future delinquency and an equally effective needs assessment to identify an intervention and treatment plan tailored to an individual's needs. This approach built upon the efforts of the National Institute of Corrections' Model Probation/Parole Management Project that combined actuarial risk assessment, individual needs assessment for effective treatment planning, regular reassessments of risk and needs and risk-based supervision standards, and workload-based budgeting. Other models of risk assessment were introduced over subsequent decades, and researchers began categorizing and comparing them as generations of risk assessments. The first generation of risk assessments were not actuarial- individual workers assigned risk levels without the aid of actuarial instruments. Generation 2 instruments were statistically derived, but relied heavily on static criminal history factors to assess risk. They tended to be developed using local data for specific jurisdictions, typically consisted of fewer than a dozen factors (e.g., the California Base Expectancy Tables developed in the 1960s), and focused on identifying groups of offenders with distinctly different risks of future offending. Many of today's instruments, often referred to as generation 3 or generation 4, have expanded beyond the singular objective of risk assessment to classify individuals by risk of delinquency. These instruments often contain dozens of factors (for example, the Correctional Offender Management Profiling and Alternative Sanctions [COMPAS] Youth risk assessment instrument). They frequently divide risk factors into two groups: "static" and "dynamic" (see, for example, Schwalbe, 2008; Hoge, 2002). Static factors are generally measures of prior delinquency. Dynamic factors are commonly referred to as "criminogenic needs" and represent conditions or circumstances that can improve over time (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006). In addition, protective factors and references to "responsivity" have been added to generation 4 instruments. Responsivity is intended to reflect an individual's readiness for change and gauge a youth's ability to respond to particular treatment methods and programs (Andrews, 1990). Generation 4 instruments contain anywhere from 42 to approximately 150 factors. These variations in methodology and philosophy raised questions about which types of instruments most accurately and effectively help jurisdictions differentiate between low-, moderate-, and high-risk youth. Many evaluations of risk assessments based validity on correlation coefficients or other measures of association. Those that examined the degree of difference in recidivism rates observed for youth identified as low, moderate, or high risk often found little differentiation; results could vary substantially by race, ethnicity, and gender. Few jurisdictions conducted local validation studies to ensure a risk assessment's validity and reliability, and now one foundation-funded reform effort is telling agencies that local validation is not required if an instrument has been validated in three agencies or for similar populations. Perhaps the most significant change in the last few decades has been the emergence of commercially available risk assessment systems. Prior to this development, risk assessment studies were generally conducted by universities, nonprofit research organizations, or research units within government agencies. Claims made about the validity and reliability of some of these tools have been challenged by other researchers (Skeem & Eno Louden, 2007; Baird, 2009). In response to concerns about the classification and predictive validity of several risk assessments voiced by juvenile justice practitioners and researchers, OJJDP funded a proposal submitted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to evaluate commonly used risk assessments by comparing their predictive validity, reliability, equity, and cost. NCCD is a nonprofit social research organization, and its researchers conducted the study of eight risk assessments in 10 jurisdictions in consultation with an advisory board of juvenile justice researchers and developers of commercial juvenile justice risk assessment systems included in the study. Details: Oakland, CA(?): National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2013. 541p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf Shelf Number: 132109 Keywords: ClassificationJuvenile Justice SystemsPredictionRecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment Instruments |
Author: Quinnipiac University School of Law Title: Youth Matters: A Second Look for Connecticut's Children Serving Long Prison Sentences Summary: The report provides background and research on Connecticut's practice of giving individuals under the age of 18 very long no-parole prison sentences. Much of the report draws on public hearing testimony and personal interviews with some of those currently serving sentences of 20 to more than 60 years in Connecticut prisons for crimes they committed as children. Details: Hamden, CT: Civil Justice Clinic, Quinnipiac University School of Law, 2013. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2014 at: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/pdf/academics/law/Youth_Matters_Report_March_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/pdf/academics/law/Youth_Matters_Report_March_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 132513 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Weemhoff, Michelle Title: Youth Behind Bars: Examining the impact of prosecuting and incarcerating kids in Michigan's criminal justice system Summary: In the mid-1990s, Michigan became part of a national trend to get tough on youth crime. Although crime rates were steadily declining, the state passed a series of harsh laws that funneled thousands of youth into the adult criminal justice system. In addition to automatically considering all 17-year-olds as adults, Michigan broadened juvenile prosecutors' discretion to automatically file in criminal court, expanded the number of juvenile offenses requiring an adult sentence, and allowed children of any age to be criminally convicted and sent to prison. Most youth in the adult system are there for non-violent offenses. From 2003 to 2013, over 20,000 Michigan youth were placed on adult probation, detained in jail, or imprisoned for a crime committed when they were younger than 18 years old. The majority of these cases included non-violent offenses. Some were as young as 10 years old and a disproportionate number were youth of color. Processing youth in the adult system is harmful to them and bad for public safety. The trend to criminalize children was quickly met with the reality that processing youth in the adult system is detrimental to public safety and youth well-being. Youth in prison face exreme risk of violence, sexual assault, and self-harm. Without access to rehabilitative services, young people exiting adult prison are more likely to reoffend and reoffend more violently compared to their counterparts in the juvenile justice system. Michigan's adult probation and prison systems are not equipped to address the unique needs of youth. The majority of the youth sent to adult court in the past decade never received an education higher than the 11th grade or completed a GED. Over half entered the system with known drug or alcohol abuse issues and mental health concerns, and approximately 1,500 young people had at least one dependent. A small number of youth tried as adults are girls, who often enter the system with histories of violence and sexual victimization. Because so few girls are on probation or in prison, there are essentially no services for this vulnerable population. Young people leave the adult system without adequate support to keep them from returning. Once youth leave the corrections system, the lifelong consequences of an adult conviction are devastating. Nearly all youth in prison will eventually return to the community but will find significant barriers to employment, education, housing, and public benefits - the key elements to a successful future. Without effective reentry and support services, young people may find themselves in a revolving door to prison. Contrary to sentiments of the mid-1990s, public opinion in Michigan and across the country has shifted toward becoming "smart on crime." In an effort to protect public safety, improve child outcomes, and save money, leaders nationwide are re-evaluating previous policy decisions and making significant changes to youth transfer laws. It is time for Michigan to join them. Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: http://www.miccd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MCCD-Youth-Behind-Bars-Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.miccd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MCCD-Youth-Behind-Bars-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132565 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: Closing Massachusetts' Training Schools: Reflections Forty Years Later Summary: In December 2011, more than 100 of the nation's leading juvenile justice experts convened for a day-long symposium in Washington, D.C., to remember and reconsider an historic reform campaign - the closure of Massachusetts' entire network of juvenile reform schools in the early 1970s. The facility closures were unprecedented and highly controversial, and they were meticulously studied in their aftermath. For a time, many reformers believed that Massachusetts would become the model for similar efforts throughout the nation. However, a serious but time-limited spike in youth violence in the early 1990s prompted a dramatic turn away from rehabilitation and deinstitutionalization in juvenile justice, and the Massachusetts story largely faded from public consciousness. Recently, however, states across the country have begun shuttering juvenile corrections facilities and dramatically reducing the population of young people incarcerated. Suddenly, far from the one-of-a-kind anomaly it seemed only a few years ago, Massachusetts stands out today as a prescient trailblazer on the path to end our nation's long-standing over-reliance on juvenile incarceration. The symposium was convened to provide present-day reformers an opportunity to review the efforts of their predecessors in Massachusetts, glean the lessons of history and retool them for the current day. This publication recounts the symposium. It provides a history of the Massachusetts reform campaign and its aftermath, summarizes the major themes and ideas presented by speakers and details the conclusions and recommendations emerging from group discussions. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-ClosingMassachusettsTrainingSchools-2014.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-ClosingMassachusettsTrainingSchools-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132568 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsTraining Schools |
Author: Swayze, Dana Title: Back to the Future: Thirty Years of Juvenile Justice Data 1980-2010. Volume 1 Summary: In 1980, the United States was on the verge of a spike in juvenile crime that would strain the resources of the juvenile justice system, challenge the resilience of communities, and have lasting repercussions on both public policy and public sentiment regarding youth offenders. Youth involvement in crime began to increase in the mid-1980s and rose precipitously through the mid-1990s. Of particular concern to policy makers and communities was the increase in violent crime. A cadre of academic scholars and criminologists publically warned of a new breed of 'superpredators' who were unique in their brutality and remorselessness. It was projected that these offenders would grow in number prompting a negative, fear-based public perception of juveniles. Contrary to the predictions of many scholars in the field of criminology, juvenile crime not only peaked in the late-1990s but was followed by a significant pattern of decline. Ten years later, youth involvement in the juvenile justice system has continued to decline and now reflects some of the lowest levels in 30 years or more. Criminologists continue to hypothesize and identify what factors contributed to the sudden and continuous decline in juvenile delinquency in the new millennium. Minnesota juvenile justice data mirror the rise and fall of youth involvement in crime observed nationally. In 2010, both the volume of youth arrests and the rate of youth arrests were comparable to figures recorded in 1980, before the juvenile crime wave began.a The title of this report, Back to the Future, is an homage to the 1980s cinema blockbuster of the same name, in which a teenaged Michael J. Fox accidentally travels back in time 30 years to 1955. While there, he inadvertently alters the course of his own future which he must be set right before returning to 1985. While his character is clear as to what must be done to set his future right, less clear are which, if any, juvenile justice policies and practices implemented in the 1980s and 1990s positively affected delinquent youth thirty years later. Volume 1 of this report series is dedicated to the presentation of Minnesota's juvenile justice data. Included are juvenile arrests; court volume; admissions to residential placements; and juvenile probation populations between 1980 and 2010. Regrettably not all data are available due to changes in collection methodology and technology over time. National juvenile justice data are also presented to assess how Minnesota fared compared to the national trend. Volume 2 of this report series compliments Volume 1 through a presentation of factors at the state and national level that may have affected delinquency trends over the past 30 years. Included are a presentation of population changes; characteristics of the macro-environment such as poverty and unemployment; changes to delinquency definitions and statutes; and changing attitudes and practices around serving at-risk youth. Volume 2 explores what the past 30 years have taught practitioners about effective responses to delinquency that can be taken back to the future. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Programs, 2013. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/BTTF_Part%201_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/BTTF_Part%201_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 132592 Keywords: Crime StatisticsJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Swayze, Dana Title: Back to the Future: Thirty Years of Juvenile Justice Data 1980-2010. Volume 2 Summary: Volume 2 of this report series is dedicated to exploration of the underlying issues that may have affected the reduction in juvenile crime in the 2000s. Included are data related to education and child protection; changes to Minnesota's youth population; changes to socio-economic factors such as unemployment, poverty and wages; and the history of federal funding to states for crime and delinquency prevention and intervention. In addition, Volume 2 includes a detailed account of changes to both Minnesota and national laws affecting juveniles since 1980. Presented in five-year increments, this exploration documents the transition towards a more punitive, accountability-based juvenile justice system during the 1980s and 1990s, before movement back to a more individualized, rehabilitative approach in the 2000s. Changes made at key stages of the justice system are discussed, as are changes to chemical and mental health policy; school-based reforms; and evidence-based policy initiatives. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Programs, 2014. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/BTTF_Part%202_FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/BTTF_Part%202_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 132593 Keywords: Crime Statistics Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Charish, Courtney Title: Race/Ethnicity and Gender Effects on Juvenile Justice System Processing Summary: Disproportionate minority representation in the juvenile justice system has been a national policy issue since 1992 when Congress amended the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. The amendments required states participating in the Federal Formula Grants Program to determine the existence of disproportionate minority representation, assess the causes, develop and implement corrective interventions, and evaluate those interventions; and to fund programs addressing gender issues. States that failed to make progress or show good faith efforts towards reducing disproportionate minority representation risked losing one-quarter of their formula grant funds and having to expend the remaining proportion towards achieving progress. The authors of this report conducted an analysis of data for the processing of 25,511 juveniles referred to Oklahoma's juvenile justice system between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2001. Data for the study was obtained, primarily, from the state's information system for juvenile offenders, the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS). The decision points examined by the study included front end decisions (detention at arrest and intake decisions of district attorneys); and back end decisions made by the juvenile court including decisions to transfer juveniles to the adult criminal justice system, and adjudicatory and dispositional decisions. All outcomes for each decision point were analyzed because inequities, if they existed, may be as much a matter of lack of access to less harsh outcomes as a matter of receiving harsher outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was chosen as the method to determine whether race and gender effects existed and were statistically significant, while controlling for other variables including offense history and its severity, age, the population of counties, household welfare status, and residential area poverty rates. Details: Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs, 2004. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2014 at: http://www.oja.state.ok.us/final%20oja%20report%207-8-04.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.oja.state.ok.us/final%20oja%20report%207-8-04.pdf Shelf Number: 135872 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactGenderJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRace/EthnicityRacial Disparities |
Author: Seigle, Elizabeth Title: Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: This white paper is written to guide leaders across all branches of government; juvenile justice system administrators, managers, and front-line staff; and researchers, advocates, and other stakeholders on how to better leverage existing research and resources to facilitate system improvements that reduce recidivism and improve other outcomes for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. The last two decades have produced remarkable changes in state and local juvenile justice systems. An overwhelming body of research has emerged, demonstrating that using secure facilities as a primary response to youth's delinquent behavior generally produces poor outcomes at high costs. Drawing on this evidence, the MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change and the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative have provided the field with models for reform, research-based guidance, and technical assistance that has transformed many state and local juvenile justice systems. In part due to these efforts, between 1997 and 2011, youth confinement rates declined by almost 50 percent. During the same time period, arrests of juveniles for violent crimes also fell by approximately 50 percent, to their lowest level in over 30 years. The importance and value of these achievements can't be overstated. At the same time, these trends alone are not sufficient for policymakers to assess the effectiveness of their state and local governments' juvenile justice systems. They must also know whether youth diverted from confinement, as well as youth who return to their communities after confinement, have subsequent contact with the justice system. In addition to recidivism data, policymakers should have information about what services, supports, and opportunities young people under system supervision need, whether these needs are being met, and to what extent these young people are succeeding as a result. Yet policymakers often lack the information they need to determine whether youth who do come in contact with the system emerge from their experience better off, worse off, or unchanged, particularly in the long term. Twenty percent of state juvenile corrections agencies dont track recidivism data for youth at all. Of the states that do track recidivism, the majority doesnt consider the multiple ways a youth may have subsequent contact with the justice system, which range from rearrest, readjudication, or reincarceration within the juvenile justice system to offenses that involve them with the adult corrections system. For example, most states that track recidivism are unlikely to capture as youth recidivism data an event such as a 17-year-old released from a juvenile facility who is incarcerated in an adult facility as an 18-year-old. Additionally, the vast majority of states doesn't track whether youth who came into contact with the system ultimately stay in school, earn a degree, or find sustainable employment. To the extent that state and local governments are able to measure their juvenile justice systems' impact on rearrest, readjudication, and reincarceration rates, the results have been discouraging. Its not uncommon for rearrest rates for youth returning from confinement to be as high as 75 percent within three years of release, and arrest rates for higher-risk youth placed on probation in the community are often not much better. While there have been promising advances in the field, few juvenile justice systems can point to significant and sustained progress in reducing these recidivism rates. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Recidivism-and-Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Recidivism-and-Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf Shelf Number: 133140 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice PoliciesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Kronberga, IIona Title: Child-friendly Justice in Latvia: Focusing on Crime Prevention Summary: Child delinquency prevention is an integral part of Juvenile Justice. Today, it can be considered as one of the most significant problems in creating and implementing legal rights in Latvia. Although juvenile delinquency prevention is set as an international priority in the field of protection of the rights of the child, the institutions in charge still invest inadmissibly little effort and resources in finding solutions for the particular problem. Due to the insufficient reaction, the risk increases that the child can face a situation where his or her rights get violated or where he or she violates the rights of another person by committing an offence. The child is unprotected in every nonstandard situation of his or her life - becoming a participant of legal relations in an administrative proceeding, criminal proceeding or civil proceeding when, for instance, solving problems of their mutual relations, defence of the interests of the child is the last the parents think about. It is important that in such situations the child has a reliable and knowing person by his or her side, a specialist who is interested in helping the child. The Protection of the Rights of the Child Law stipulates around twenty institutions for protection of the rights of the child, though the performance and mutual coordination often includes significant failures, non-professional efforts, even refusal to react to the cases of violation of the rights of the child. Specialists of protection of the rights of the child have to understand how important is an individual investment in child delinquency prevention - the need and importance of this investment, as well as its contribution to ensure safe community should be realised by every professional who could become the "reliable and knowing person" in a relevant situation for a particular child. The question of juvenile delinquency prevention, as well as conclusions and suggestions from the research "Child-friendly legal environment in Latvia: delinquency prevention" could be in particular useful for such specialists as teachers, psychologists, social case workers, lawyers, sworn advocates, prosecutors, judges, Orphan's courts and other representatives of relevant institutions in the field. Details: Riga, Latvia: PROVIDUS, Center for Public Policy, 2012. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2014 at: http://www.providus.lv/upload_file/Projekti/Kriminalitesibas/Child-friendly%20Justice%20in%20Latvia.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Latvia URL: http://www.providus.lv/upload_file/Projekti/Kriminalitesibas/Child-friendly%20Justice%20in%20Latvia.pdf Shelf Number: 133453 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice (Latvia)Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Betsinger, Sara Title: Doors to Detention: Statewide Detention Utilization Study Summary: Despite recent drops in juvenile crime in Maryland, the number of youth in secure detention has remained relatively constant. This study investigates the characteristics of youth detained, and the reasons for each detention during the first two months in 2013. Findings: - Just two regions of the State account for a majority of youth in detention. Although they account for only 41% of Maryland's youth population, Baltimore City and the Metro Region (encompassing Prince George's and Montgomery County) comprise 64% percent of detention placements and 60% of average detained population (ADP). - Detained youth in Maryland are overwhelmingly African American males. African American males represent just 31% of the general youth population, but account for 67% of detained youth. - A majority of youth detained in Maryland were under DJS supervision at the time of detention. Sixty-seven percent of youth in detention had already been court ordered to probation or committed supervision (i.e., aftercare). - Although historically around one-third of youth in detention facilities were detained awaiting a committed out of home placement ("Pending Placement" youth), this number has declined markedly in the last year. Various reforms, including Continuum of Care legislation passed in 2012 as well as the subsequent establishment of the Department's Central Review Committee, have begun to reduce the backlog of pending placement youth in detention. During the study period, just 14% of detained youth were pending placement. - A majority of youth detained in Maryland did not commit a violent felony offense. Although more than one-third (36%) of the pre-disposition ADP was comprised of youth whose most recent, most serious alleged offense was a crime of violence, 44% of the pre-disposition ADP consisted of youth who had committed a non-violent misdemeanor as their most serious recent alleged offense. - A new delinquent offense is frequently not the main reason for a detention placement. Detentions often result from a youth's failure to comply with program or supervision conditions, or from some other infraction unrelated to the original offense and not comprising a new offense. Such technical violations account for over 35% of detained youth. - Many youth are detained following a stay in an alternative to detention (ATD) program. Maryland has a robust community-based detention alternatives system, but many youth who were initially court-ordered or intake-authorized into these programs are ultimately detained following a violation of the programs rules or the court order. Infractions include curfew violations, absences without leave (AWOL), equipment tampering, or other actions not rising to the level of a new delinquent offense. Such ATD violations account for one in four youth detained - the largest door to detention in Maryland. A system of graduated sanctions is being developed to allow programs to manage violators without resorting to detention. - The Department's Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) drives relatively few detention decisions. Because a majority of detentions do not stem from a new delinquent offense being referred to DJS Intake (and are instead the result of violations or other policies and practices), the practice of administering the DRAI almost exclusively at the point of Intake has not been effective in driving decisions for youth who enter detention through the "back doors." - Even in cases where a new delinquent complaint is referred to DJS Intake, the youth's assessed DRAI risk is frequently not the primary factor in the detention decision. Policy and discretionary overrides often trump detention recommendations based on assessed risk, so a youth who is classified as low risk and who has a less serious alleged offense may still be detained at intake if, for example: - There is an open writ or warrant; - A parent of guardian is unable to take custody of a youth; or - Certain regional policies (or "special decisions") mandate detention for certain offenses (e.g. auto theft) or situations (handgun use or possession). - Low risk youth account for a very small share of the average detained population. Even though the risk score is not the primary driver of detention in many cases, the study found that half of the average detained population was comprised of youth who were assessed by the DRAI as high risk, and just six percent of ADP was comprised of youth who were determined to be low risk. The remaining 44% of ADP was made up of medium risk offenders. Details: Baltimore: The Institute for Innovation & Implementation, 2013. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2014 at: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Statewide%20DUS%20-%206-27-13.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Statewide%20DUS%20-%206-27-13.pdf Shelf Number: 133469 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Justice Systems (Maryland)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Pruin, Ineke Title: Better in Europe? European responses to young adult offending Summary: Over the last ten years approximately, the question of how to respond appropriately to the offending of young adults has emerged as a point of increased focus within international criminological research and criminal policy. This development has mainly been based on recent research results in the field of neurosciences and studies investigating individual differences in criminal careers across the life course, which - taken together - shed a different light on young adult offenders and their behaviour. These research results question the adequacy of immediately and abruptly barring offenders from the special regulations, approaches and procedures provided for under juvenile justice legislation simply because the offence happened to be committed after the offender has turned 18, or because the offender happens to have turned 18 in the course of proceedings (Farrington/Loeber/Howell 2012, p. 729). Recent experiences have shown that the implications of these findings are strong enough to justify a change in criminal policy governing the treatment of young adult offenders. Such change can be extensive, like in the Netherlands, or gradual like in England, where the Transition to Adulthood Alliance in particular has promoted such developments. The last literature review by Prior et al. 2011, commissioned by the Barrow Cadbury Trust and comprising a comprehensive overview of interdisciplinary research results on young adults, is barely three years old, but nevertheless, in the meantime there are new analyses and developments to be reported on. The results from two large working groups comprising many highly esteemed scholars and researchers from the field - one European with 33 scholars and one US-American with 32 scholars (Loeber et al. 2012 and Loeber/Farrington 2012) - were published in 2012. Furthermore, a recent volume in the Cambridge Criminal Justice Series has focused on young adults and their treatment in the criminal justice system, which is based on conference papers from one of the first Transition to Adulthood Alliance experts meetings (Losel/ Bottoms/Farrington 2012). A distinct approach to juveniles New considerations emerge from the following questions: specific juvenile justice systems or approaches have been successfully implemented all over the world. Providing a special approach to responding to juvenile offenders is not only mandatory due to international Human Rights Law - it is also a logical consequence if policy is to be based on a deep and wide base of research evidence: juvenile offending can be characterised as ubiquitous and episodic. Self-report studies have shown that most offenders stop behaving in a criminal manner regardless of whether they have experienced any public reactions (like prosecution) to their offending (spontaneous remission). Therefore, juvenile justice policy rightly tends to regard youth offending as a more or less normal pattern in juvenile development (at least for the vast majority of juvenile offenders who cannot be defined as 'chronic offenders'). Juvenile justice approaches and strategies normally seek to avoid the well-known negative consequences of harsh criminal sanctions like imprisonment, by providing a more tolerant approach to dealing with juveniles. Furthermore, interdisciplinary research has repeatedly and continuously highlighted that juveniles are, for various reasons, not responsible for their criminal behaviour in the same way as adults are for their behaviour (e. g. low impulse control, more susceptible to peer influences, more likely to take risks for excitement, see Farrington/Loeber/ Howell 2012, p. 729 f.). Even leaving such neuroscientific results aside, many existing juvenile justice systems are based around the old notion of doli incapax, i.e. a diminished criminal capacity due to young age. Extending the distinct approach to Young Adults Recent research results and experiences with special approaches to responding to young adult offenders in many justice systems (Dunkel/Pruin 2012) do raise the question whether the arguments in favour of treating juveniles in a manner that better reflects their maturity could not be equally valid for young adults as well? Is it justifiable to regard the 18th birthday as an abrupt cut-off point, after which criminal behaviour is responded to in accordance to adult criminal law, which generally focuses more on retribution than on rehabilitation (at least in most countries) and is doing so logical? Criminological research indeed suggests that the findings pertaining to the particularities of juvenile offending also apply to young adults. Desistance research indicates that changes in patterns of criminal behaviour occur in particular in the phase of young or emerging adulthood. This serves as justification for devoting targeted research to this particular demographic group, and the special provisions that have been put in place in some (juvenile) criminal justice systems throughout Europe give an insight into promising strategies for responding appropriately to offending by young adults. This report aims to summarise recent research results on young adult offenders, focusing on criminological analyses in general and data from Germany in particular, a country where young adult offenders have been included in Juvenile Justice since 1953. A shorter review on some sociological observations on changes in the living contexts of young adults aims to manifest a deeper understanding of the special phase of transition young adults face today. The overview on research results from psychology and neuroscience is concise by comparison due to the respective comprehensive overview by Prior et al. 2011. A second focus of this report lies in providing an overview of the different strategies and practices for responding appropriately to young adult offending that have been put in place in Europe. The presented findings are mainly based on a recent extensive research project conducted by the Department of Criminology at the University of Greifswald, Germany, involving more than 40 international juvenile justice experts (Dunkel et al. 2011), and have been up dated with the help of recent expert interviews. Details: London: Barrow Cadbury Trust; Greifswald, Germany: Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University of Greifswald, Department of Criminology, 2015. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Transition to Adulthood Alliance: Accessed march 19, 2015 at: http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf Shelf Number: 134969 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYoung Adult Offenders (Europe) |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia: 2013-14 Summary: There were 6,100 young people under youth justice supervision in Australia on an average day in 2013-14, due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. This number has fallen from about 6,400 in 2012-13. Most (85%) of these young people were supervised in the community and the remainder were in detention. Young people spent 26 weeks, on average, under supervision during the year. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 127: Accessed May 1, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129550805 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129550805 Shelf Number: 135446 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Title: Child-friendly justice - Perspectives and experiences of professionals on children's participation in civil and criminal judicial proceedings in 10 EU Member States Summary: All European Union (EU) Member States have a duty to ensure that children's best interests are the primary consideration in any action that affects them. This consideration is of particular importance when children are involved in criminal and civil judicial proceedings. Such proceedings can be stressful for anyone. Even more so for children, who may become traumatised if the procedures are not child friendly, the settings unsuitable and the professionals involved inadequately trained. Thousands of children are affected. Data show that in 11 EU Member States alone, around 74,000 children were victims of crime and 495,000 were affected by parental divorce in 2010. The treatment of children in judicial proceedings is an important fundamental rights concern, addressed by the United Nations in its Convention on the Rights of the Child, which all EU Member States have ratified and which celebrated its 25th anniversary in November 2014. The EU further shows its commitment to this issue by promoting the Council of Europe's 2010 Guidelines on child-friendly justice and helping its Member States improve the protection of child rights in their judicial systems. These Council of Europe guidelines promote children's rights to be heard, to be informed, to be protected and to nondiscrimination. To determine the extent to which these rights are respected and fulfilled in practice, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), in cooperation with the European Commission, collected and analysed data through interviews with professionals and children who experienced judicial proceedings. The present report, which is the first part of this work, examines the responses of 570 judges, prosecutors, lawyers, court staff, psychologists, social workers and police officers interviewed in 10 EU Member States. These professionals are in daily contact with children going through judicial proceedings. The evidence they provided shows that there is a long way to go to make justice more child-friendly across the EU. The second report of this FRA research will concentrate on the responses of the children who were interviewed. Practices of child participation in criminal and civil judicial proceedings vary considerably not just across, but also within Member States, pointing to a need for clear and consistent standards and guidelines and the systematic monitoring of their implementation. Children are not sufficiently supported when participating in a criminal or civil proceeding, court settings that can be intimidating for children are not always adjusted to their needs. Concrete measures, such as preventing a child from directly confronting defendants or witnesses in court or ensuring that a child is informed about and understands the proceedings, are not yet common practice. The research also revealed, however, a number of promising practices, outlined in this report. Details: Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2015. 133p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2015 at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2015-child-friendly-justice-professionals_en.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2015-child-friendly-justice-professionals_en.pdf Shelf Number: 135645 Keywords: Child ProtectionChild WitnessesJudicial ProceedingsJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Earl, Catherine Title: Justice or an Unjust System? Aboriginal over-representation in South Australia's juvenile justice system Summary: Twenty-times more likely to be imprisoned than the non-Aboriginal population and making up 46% of the young people in SA's detention centres, this report highlights the problem of over-representation of Aboriginal young people in this state's juvenile justice system. The report recommends a new approach to engage Aboriginal people at all levels in the justice system, with a formally negotiated Indigenous Justice Agreement as a first step. There is little doubt that Aboriginal people are overrepresented in the SA juvenile justice system. The evidence suggests that similar trends are reflected across the nation and are also present in the adult population. However, this report focuses only on the juvenile system in South Australia. At its broadest, the juvenile justice system comprises all interactions with law enforcement. While this could include out-of-home care, the focus of this report is on the custodial and non-custodial system applying once a breach of the law is identified. In this part of the system, both the overall number of Aboriginal young people within it and the rate (per 100,000 population) have both decreased in recent years. However, the level of overrepresentation (that is discrepancy between rates for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people) has actually increased (because the rate of involvement of the general young population has decreased at a greater rate). The figures are stark: - Aboriginal young people comprise only 4% of the total population aged 10-17 years old, but make up 46% of young people in detention and 34% of young people under community-based supervision; - Aboriginal young people are 12.5 times more likely to be involved with the juvenile justice system than non- Aboriginal young people, and 19.7 times more likely to be in detention; - This level of over-representation is higher for young people than for the adult population: Aboriginal young people 19 times more likely to be imprisoned, by comparison with 16 times more likely for adults; - Over the five year period from 2009-2013 South Australia's rate of contact of Aboriginal young people with the juvenile justice system was the second highest in the country and well above the national average; - In 2013-14, the cost of incarcerating a young person in South Australia was $1,000 per young person per day, while the cost of community supervision was $73 per young person, per day; - The current cost of detention and non-custodial supervision of Aboriginal young people in South Australia is $13.3m per year; - If there was no over-representation, that is, if the rate of detention and community supervision of Aboriginal young people was the same as for the general young population, there would be fewer Aboriginal young people in the SA juvenile justice system, and a saving to the state budget of over $12m per annum. Several key inquiries and commissions have investigated issues of over-representation, providing a vastly underutilised resource for addressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice system. The interviews and voices in this report add depth to this literature and suggest a need to revisit those reports and to re-address many of the recommendations which have not been carried through systematically or effectively. Details: Unley, SA, AUS: South Australian Council of Social Service, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://www.sacoss.org.au/sites/default/files/public/documents/Reports/150401_Youth_Justice_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sacoss.org.au/sites/default/files/public/documents/Reports/150401_Youth_Justice_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 135786 Keywords: AboriginalsIndigenous PeoplesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRacial Disparities |
Author: Juvenile Law Center (Pennsylvania) Title: Lessons from Luzerne County: Promoting Fairness, Transparency and Accountability. Summary: In October 2009, in an unprecedented opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated former Luzerne County juvenile court judge Mark Ciavarella's adjudications of delinquency made between 2003 and May 2008. Just three months later, Special Master Arthur Grim ordered that all cases heard by former Judge Ciavarella were to be dismissed. In providing relief, the Supreme Court restored integrity to Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system and gave hope to youth who suffered enormous harm at the hands of corrupt judges. However, it was not just the judges who failed these youth; the system failed at numerous levels. District attorneys, public defenders, juvenile probation officers, the state Judicial Conduct Board, private attorneys and other court personnel--everyone connected to the juvenile justice system in Luzerne County failed these children. What safeguards, policies and methods of accountability permitted this toxic environment to flourish? How can we prevent another Luzerne tragedy? How can we make sure that Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system dispenses justice equally and with the same high standards in every county? This report aims to answer these questions, with the hope that legislators will recognize the systemic failures brought to light by the Luzerne County "kids-for-cash" scandal and enact measures to guarantee the rights of all children in Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system. The recommendations we propose are organized under six topic areas, each representing a chapter: -Ensuring Access to Counsel -Instituting Meaningful Appellate Review -Increasing Transparency and Accountability in the Juvenile Justice System -Reducing Referrals to the Juvenile Justice System -Ensuring Respectful and Appropriate Treatment of Youth in Detention or Placement and in Court -Reducing the Consequences of Juvenile Records Details: Philadelphia: JLC, 2013. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/Lessons%20From%20Luzerne%20County%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/Lessons%20From%20Luzerne%20County%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 129821 Keywords: JudgesJudicial CorruptionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Macallair, Daniel Title: Closing California's Division of Juvenile Facilities: An Analysis of County Institutional Capacity Summary: I. Summary of Findings - The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), the former California Youth Authority, is currently under a consent decree due to abusive conditions, systemic mismanagement, and ineffectual services. - Despite legislative and judicially imposed mandates, the state has failed to achieve minimum reform leading to drastic calls for placing the system into receivership. - Two recent reports by the Little Hoover Commission and Legislative Analyst's Office have proposed eliminating DJF and transferring responsibilities for the remaining wards to the counties. - The population of DJF has declined 83% from its 1996 peak in-custody population of 9,772 to a February 28, 2009 population of 1,637. The current population is the lowest in modern history. - The decline in youth incarceration over the last decade coincides with the largest decline in youth crime rates ever recorded in California. - Youth crime and incarceration policies are not related. - County probation departments expanded their institutional capacity over the past 10 years resulting in more modern high security facilities than those offered by DJF. - County probation departments provide a broader array of maximum, medium, and minimum-security institutions than DJF. - There is more than sufficient institutional bed space in the 29 largest counties alone to absorb the current DJF population, virtually negating the need for additional state or county facilities. - Housing youths at the county level is significantly less expensive than housing them in state facilities. - Some counties commit large numbers of youth to DJF while other counties rarely commit youth to DJF. - Recent increases in transfers and remands of juveniles to adult court have not led to increased imprisonments either in DJF or in adult prisons; rather, adult courts seem to be sentencing more youth to county supervision. - Currently, there are 322 DJF wards between ages 21 and 25 confined at the DJF that could be maintained in one DJF facility or dispersed to newly designated county facilities. - Youths currently spend more time in juvenile facilities than adults in adult facilities for comparable crimes. - The current per capita cost per DJF ward is $234,029. - Closing DJF and transferring the remaining ward population to county facilities will eliminate the State's obligation under the Farrell v. Cate consent decree. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2009. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/closing_californias_djf.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/closing_californias_djf.pdf Shelf Number: 135878 Keywords: Juvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Baglivio, Michael Title: The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Disposition Matrix: A Validation Study Summary: As part of the Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project (JJSIP), the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) has developed and implemented a Disposition Matrix to guide Juvenile Probation Officers in their recommendations to the court. This report is the first assessment as to whether dispositions/placements made according to the Disposition Matrix suggestions have more successful outcomes than those made which deviate from the Disposition Matrix recommendations. Highlighted Results: 92% of the dispositions fell within the Disposition Matrix suggested range. Female youth were more likely to receive an optimum placement than male youth. White and Hispanic youth were more likely to receive an optimum placement than Black youth; Youth receiving placements within the Disposition Matrix suggested range had significantly lower subsequent recidivism than those placed outside of the suggested range. This result held true for males, females, across race/ethnicity, and for all risk levels of youth. Overall, the 12 month recidivism rate of those placed outside of the Disposition Matrix suggestions is two times higher than that of those placed within the suggested range; The recidivism rate of low risk to re-offend youth placed outside of the Disposition Matrix suggestions is 114% higher than the rate for low risk youth placed within the suggestions. The recidivism rate for high risk to re-offend youth placed outside of suggestions is 39% higher than the rate for high risk to re-offend youth placed within suggestions. Similar results hold true for moderate and moderate-high risk to re-offend youth, though not as pronounced; For males, a disposition/placement above guidelines is associated with a 67% increase in recidivism from the optimum placement rate, and a below guidelines disposition/placement is associated with a 148% increase in recidivism from the optimum placement rate; For females, a disposition/placement above guidelines is associated with a 43% increase in recidivism from the optimum placement rate, and a below guidelines disposition/placement is associated with a 304% increase in recidivism rate from the optimum placement rate; Youth who receive optimum placements have the highest success rates both during and after placement. Youth who receive placements below suggestions, meaning not restrictive enough according to the Disposition Matrix, have the worst performance. The recidivism rate for all race/ethnic subgroups was over 50% for below guidelines dispositions/placements; Dispositions/placements made outside of the Disposition Matrix suggestions lead to over 1.5 times more failures in terms of a comprehensive measure that includes both adjudications during placement and within 12 months of release; The failure rates on a comprehensive measure including both offenses and violations during service and 12 month recidivism for above guidelines placements was 59% higher than those of optimum placements and the failure rates for below guidelines placements was 108% higher than those of optimum placements; Regardless of the outcome measure examined (recidivism, offenses during service, or a combined metric of both) dispositions/placements within the Disposition Matrix performed significantly better than those outside of the suggested range. Details: Tallahassee: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Bureau of Research and Planning, 2014. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2015 at: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/docs/research2/the-fdjj-disposition-matrix-validation-study.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/docs/research2/the-fdjj-disposition-matrix-validation-study.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Shelf Number: 136078 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Grant, Lorna Title: A Study on the Profile of Children in Conflict with the Law in Jamaica Summary: The charge was to: a) review international and regional conventions and laws regarding responses to children in conflict with the law (CCL) and, b) to provide a profile of CCL in Jamaica and, to offer recommendations to prevent children from coming into conflict with the law. Many international instruments provide a normative framework for the administration of juvenile justice and the minimum standards for prisons and closed facilities for children in conflict with the law. The report offers a summary of nine of these documents relevant to children in conflict with the law. The international instruments are: The Convention of the Rights of the Child (1990) The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 1990. (Havana Rules) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985. (The Beijing Rules) United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, 1990 (The Riyadh Guidelines) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1955 (Standard Minimum Rules) Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, 1988 (Detention Principles) Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1990 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures, 1990 (The Tokyo Rules) Guidelines for Actions on Children in the Criminal Justice System, 1997 (Vienna Guidelines) For the current empirical mixed methods study, given that there are approximately 400 CCL at any point in time in Jamaica, at least a half of this number were purposively sampled for interviews. Between July 13 and July 30, 2010 data collection from the children occurred largely using the Office of the Children‟s Advocate (OCA) Profile of Children in Conflict with the Law developed instrument. There was a comparison group of 45 children - boys and girls who were not in conflict with the law. They included 24 students in corporate area high schools who were attending summer school and 21 wards of the Child Development Agency (CDA) who were not in conflict with the law. The sample of children in conflict with the law (n=209) were males (149) and females (60). Most were from the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) facilities (St Andrew Remand, Hill Top, Rio Cobre, Ft. Augusta and Horizon); others were from CDA facilities (Glenhope, Homestead, Strathmore, St. Augustine and Granville). Thirty-five practitioners working with children in conflict with the law in Jamaica were also interviewed. They included researchers; management and staff of the Department of Correctional Services and Child Development Agency; social workers; teachers; house mothers and guidance counselors. They were asked to describe the children in conflict with the law; the reasons they were in conflict; their recommendations for both preventing and responding to children breaking the law and their perceptions about the effectiveness of various service providers. Quantitative data were analyzed by running basic descriptive statistics such as frequencies and cross-tabulations; and regression analyses. Qualitative data were coded and examined for patterns and themes in the responses. SUMMARY PROFILE The child in conflict with the law is most often, 16 years old, male, with a charge of uncontrollable and, or unlawful wounding, who used a weapon, most likely a knife at the time of the current offence. The offence likely occurred between noon and 6:00p.m. on a weekend during the school year. He is likely to attribute this to idleness and the influence of "bad company" (peers). He is likely to be a poor reader from a low income family, who knows his father, but lives with his mother, who is head of the household, and about two to four siblings (although there are likely more siblings outside of the home). He would have heard often that he is loved, but might have missed school because his parent told him that bus fare and/or lunch money was not available. He would have moved at least once. He would know what it is like to be picked on in school and he would have been suspended and/or expelled at some point from a school in which fighting is relatively common. He is likely to have a relative as an adult confidant and to have a family member who has been in conflict with the law. He is likely to be from Kingston and St. Andrew or some other urban area with gangs in the community. He would have been affiliated with a gang at some point. His community is one in which marijuana is readily available for use and, he would have seen and, or heard someone being shot in the community. Fights are also not uncommon on those streets. He is likely to have used alcohol and possibly marijuana. He has experienced the loss of a family member, such as the death of a grandparent. He is likely to be a football player who admires the likes of Vybz Kartel and Asafa Powell. He perceives religion to be important and he has a part time job. If the child in conflict with the law is a girl, her profile is very similar except that she is likely to be a better reader than a male CCL and she has experienced some abuse. Details: Kingston, Jamaica: Office of the Children's Advocate, 2011. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://www.welcome.oca.gov.jm/resources/ Year: 2011 Country: Jamaica URL: http://www.welcome.oca.gov.jm/resources/ Shelf Number: 136227 Keywords: GangsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Raoul Wallenberg Institute Title: A Measure of Last Resort? The Current Status of Juvenile Justice in ASEAN Member States Summary: A Measure of Last Resort? The Current Status of Juvenile Justice in ASEAN Member States. Being the first study of its kind, it provides statistical and narrative overviews of the juvenile justice systems in all ASEAN countries. The aim has been to identify issues of common concern across member states, and RWI hopes that it may lead to new initiatives and dialogue that may enhance the protection of children in conflict with the law. The fear of an increasing number of juveniles in conflict with the law in member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has sparked concerns throughout the region. While this report confirms that crime is on the rise, the number of juveniles brought into formal contact with the criminal justice system remains surprisingly low: we estimate that approximately 70 000 juveniles are formally charged with a criminal offence each year in ASEAN member states. Comparatively, this number is far lower than, for example, the European Union (EU) or USA. Another main finding of the report is that the highest number of juvenile crimes reported is within the category of theft. Robbery and drug related crimes are other crimes high on the statistics. In particular Thailand reports of extremely high percentages of drug related crimes (45.51%). A rough estimate of figures provided shows that around 16 000 children are deprived of their liberty within the ASEAN region. In comparison, statistics from 2012 in the European Union shows that 8700 children in 21 out of the 28 member states were detained in custodial institutions. 3 In 2010 a staggering 70 000 juvenile offenders in USA were in residential placement facilities. It was outside of the scope of the study to report quantitatively on the conditions of juvenile residential institutions. It is, nevertheless, an undeniable fact that many still serve in prisons together with adults, and that there is much room for improvement within rehabilitation centres. This is particularly important for institutions housing juvenile drug users. The country reports indicate that throughout the region, legislative and institutional improvements are being made to secure the rights of children in conflict with the law. All states within the region have recently installed, or are in the process of installing a distinct legislative framework for juvenile justice. This is compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Several of the country experts highlight the instrumental role UNICEF and other organisations are playing in the facilitation of improving legislative and institutional frameworks throughout the region. This has clearly strengthened efforts in the establishment of comprehensive child-friendly justice systems. The report reveals, however, that the minimum age of criminal responsibility remains markedly low for international standards. The average in the region is 10.4 years, which is well below the 2009 estimated world median of 12 years. General Comment No. 10 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child states the absolute minimum age for criminal responsibility should be not less than 12 years. A majority of the countries formally include in their laws alternatives to custodial sentences or measures of diversion. However, despite a legal framework in place, diversion is not always used; decision-makers lack adequate knowledge and resources to implement the programmes. Diversion procedures also vary across the region. Some countries alluded to the need for proper facilities and increased staff to encourage diversion programmes and other non-residential options for children in conflict with the law. Another important finding is the diverging uses of traditional restorative justice models within the different ASEAN countries. While some member states leave the mediation process to traditional village based institutions, others maintain a strict governmental control over the diversion process. Whichever procedure is applied, the outcomes are often similar and include reactions typical to restorative justice such as community work or some sort of compensation to the victim. Very few countries in the region have established specialised police and investigation units for children in conflict with the law. If units are present, access to properly trained police and investigators is often limited. This is in line with most country reports emphasising the need to increase training of all duty-bearers for juvenile justice rights. Increased capacity building is required not only for police and investigators but also for prosecutors, judges, parole officers and social workers. Another significant finding is that nearly all researchers have concerns over adequate legal aid for children in conflict with the law. In some states these are practically non-existent while others employ them to a limited degree. Only a few states provide full rights and actual access to free legal aid throughout the proceedings. Details: Lund, Sweden: Raoul Wallenberg Institute, 2015. 214p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2015 at: http://books.rwi.lu.se/index.php/publications/catalog/view/31/31/208-1 Year: 2015 Country: Asia URL: http://books.rwi.lu.se/index.php/publications/catalog/view/31/31/208-1 Shelf Number: 136352 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Miera, Germaine Title: Evaluation of the Youthful Offender System (YOS) in Colorado: Report of Findings per 18-1.3-407, C.R.S. Summary: In 2014, The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice undertook a semiannual evaluation of the Department of Correction's Youthful Offender System. This report presents recidivism rates and a broad picture of the operations of YOS as observed from the perspective of the residents, staff, and managers. Division researchers administered two surveys, one of staff (with 71% response rate) and one of inmates (with a 42% response rate), and conducted 16 focus groups of residents and staff and 8 interviews with YOS staff and officials. From these multiple data collection efforts, various themes emerged to answer the research questions that guided the study. Details: Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 2014. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2015 at: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/YOS-2014-DCJ-Evaluation.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/YOS-2014-DCJ-Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 136385 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division Title: Investigation of the St. Louis County Family Court, St. Louis, Missouri Summary: Following a comprehensive investigation, the Justice Department today announced its findings regarding the Family Court of the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit of the state of Missouri, commonly known as the St. Louis County Family Court. The Justice Department found that the family court fails to provide constitutionally required due process to children appearing for delinquency proceedings, and that the court's administration of juvenile justice discriminates against Black children. The investigation was conducted under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which gives the department the authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youths in the administration of juvenile justice. "The findings we issue today are serious and compelling," said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. "Missouri was at the forefront of juvenile corrections reform when it closed its large juvenile institutions and moved to a smaller, treatment-focused system and we are hopeful that Missouri will rise to this challenge to, once again, be a leader in juvenile justice reform. This investigation is another step toward our goal of ensuring that children in the juvenile justice system receive their constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection under the law." Since opening this investigation in November 2013, the Civil Rights Division has analyzed data relating to nearly 33,000 juvenile cases, including all delinquency and status offenses resolved in St. Louis County Family Court between 2010 and 2013; and has reviewed over 14,000 pages of documents, including family court records, transcripts, policies, procedures and external reports. In June 2014, Justice Department attorneys and its consultants-a law school clinical professor and experienced juvenile defense attorney and a nationally-recognized expert on measuring juvenile justice disparities through statistical analysis-visited the family court and interviewed a number of court personnel, including all of the judges and commissioners as well as the heads of many of family court programs and services. They also collected information from both the state and local public defender's offices, private attorneys with experience in the family court and the parents of youth who had been involved in delinquency proceedings with the family court. The Justice Department found a number of constitutional violations, including: -Failure to ensure youth facing delinquency proceedings have adequate legal representation; -Failure to make adequate determinations that there is probable cause that a child committed the alleged offense; -Failure to provide adequate due process to children facing certification for criminal prosecution in adult criminal court; -Failure to ensure that children's guilty pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily; -An organizational structure that is rife with conflicts of interest, is contrary to separation of powers principles and deprives children of adequate due process; and -Disparate treatment of Black children at four key decision points within the juvenile justice system. The department has opened four cases examining whether juvenile justice systems comply with children's rights since 2009. In 2012, the department settled its first investigation of this kind, reaching an agreement with the Juvenile Court of Shelby County, Memphis, Tennessee that calls for comprehensive due process, equal protection and facility reforms. On June 19, 2015, the Justice Department announced a partial settlement of its lawsuit alleging violations of children's due process rights in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. In March 2015, the department announced its investigation of due process and disability discrimination issues in the Dallas County Truancy Court and Juvenile District Courts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/07/31/stlouis_findings_7-31-15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/07/31/stlouis_findings_7-31-15.pdf Shelf Number: 136300 Keywords: Child ProtectionDue ProcessFamily CourtsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Ryan, Liz Title: Notorious to Notable: The Criminal Role of the Philanthropic Community in Transforming the Juvenile Justice System in Washington, D.C. Summary: In 2000, then D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission to rethink how the District of Columbia treated some of its most vulnerable residents, youth in the juvenile justice system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommended the closure of the District's long-term youth incarceration facility, the Oak Hill Youth Center; its replacement with a smaller, homelike facility; the redirection of resources from incarceration to community- based alternatives; and a reduction in the prosecution of youth in adult criminal court. Between the years 2000 and 2011, the District's juvenile justice system went from one of the worst - with a notorious and inhumane juvenile prison, an over-reliance on incarceration, and a dearth of community programs - to one of the most notable, receiving recognition from Harvard University. The purpose of this report is to highlight the ways that the philanthropic community aided this effort. It is a story of collaboration and collective effort by local D.C. foundations and national funders that contributed to tremendous change in the treatment and outcomes for youth in D.C.'s juvenile justice system. The reforms ultimately reduced youth re-offending rates by decreasing the District's over-reliance on incarceration; closing and replacing Oak Hill with a smaller, homelike facility and an innovative and acclaimed school; and redirecting funding from incarceration to community- based alternatives. Starting with the Blue Ribbon Commission, funders supported the policy development of the Commission and subsequent policy and advocacy work of the community to ensure their recommendations became law.. Details: Washington, DC: 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: https://giving.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/notorious-to-notable-final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://giving.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/notorious-to-notable-final.pdf Shelf Number: 136796 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Kronberga, IIona Title: Keeping Youth Away from Crime: Searching for Best European Practices. Summary Summary: Research "Keeping youth Away from Crime: Searching for Best European Practices" was one of the main results of a project with the same title. This research provides readers with a possibility to learn about legal framework of juvenile justice systems in 10 European countries, it gives an insight on how the tools and approaches foreseen in law work in practice. Most importantly, research addresses the issue of early prevention - what can be done to keep children away from entering the formal justice system and how it is done in Austria, Belgium, England and Wales, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, in the Netherlands and in all three Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. From the very beginning of carrying out research, three main objectives were kept in mind: exploring of best European practices on how to work with and for children at risk and children in risk situations; promoting a unified understanding and practice among European countries while applying EU and other international recommendations on children wellbeing; and transforming the policy objectives into unified action. All these objectives were reached in the preparation process of research "Keeping youth Away from Crime: Searching for Best European Practices". In total, material consists of two volumes. First volume is dedicated to comparative report, ensuring an overview of different systems and identifying the common principles that are in place across the Europe. Second volume includes full-length national reports from each country. Research summary, as an additional reading material, is focused on practical part of the study with regards to what exactly is considered a good approach when working with children from risk groups and in risk situations. It enables the specialists working with and for children to look differently at the in risk situations. It enables the specialists working with and for children to look differently at the methods that are available for them and facilitating the change of attitude in a concentrated, targeted way. Details: Riga, Latvia: PROVIDUS, Centre for Public Policy, 2015. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2015 at: http://providus.lv/article_files/2947/original/keeping_eng.pdf?1431605555 Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://providus.lv/article_files/2947/original/keeping_eng.pdf?1431605555 Shelf Number: 137033 Keywords: At-Risk YouthDelinquency PreventionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Maryland. Administrative Office of the Courts Title: A Registry of Juvenile Court Program Initiatives Summary: Through its 1969 enactment of the revised Juvenile Causes Subtitle, the Maryland General Assembly intended to create a separate system of courts, procedure and method of treatment for juveniles that is civil in nature, rather than criminal. The underlying concept of juvenile law is the protection of the juvenile, so that when judges make dispositions in juvenile cases, they consider the child's need for protection or rehabilitation, not the child's guilt. Juvenile law does not contemplate the punishment of children where they are found to be delinquent, instead it attempts to correct and rehabilitate them. The Judiciary has responded to the spirit and latitude of the unique nature of juvenile proceedings as legislated. Within the courtroom judges have adapted national models of problem solving courts to respond to local issues. Juvenile drug courts and family recovery courts specifically address the substance abuse of delinquent youth and parents who have had their children removed from their care as a result of their misuse of controlled substances. The models listed in this registry range widely among counties, but share the core values of treatment and of accountability to the Court. Intensive monitoring of these participants by the assigned judge results in a relationship that research has demonstrated plays a key role in the participant's recovery. Further, the Maryland Courts have supported the extended use of alternative dispute resolution methods in delinquency, child in need of assistance and termination of parental rights cases. Youthful offenders who are confronted by their victims in a structured Community Conference, a restorative justice model, are more likely to pay restitution and less likely to re-offend. Mediation of post adoption contact agreements between biological and adoptive parents lessens the trauma to all parties, lowers the number of contested termination of parental rights cases and reduces the time to achieve permanency. This Registry of Juvenile Court Program Initiatives demonstrates many collaborative, innovative and effective strategies that are based on national models and implemented throughout the state. These joint efforts demonstrate understanding by the judicial, legislative and executive leadership in Maryland that juveniles are unique, requiring judges to extend law and justice beyond the courtroom to achieve the ultimate safety and welfare of youth and the community. The registry is the first compilation of these programs and marks the beginning of a comprehensive review and analysis of court-based and court-referred programs in the juvenile delinquency arena. The Department of Family Administration will begin compiling and evaluating available data on these programs with the hope of learning which programs are effective and warrant further investment and expansion. The sensitivity, significance and separateness of juvenile proceedings is underscored by the legislative amendments added in 2001, which require the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals to approve the circuit administrative judge's juvenile assignment selection. The amendments further state that juvenile judges possess a personal interest in and experience with children, as well as the desire and temperament to address problems likely to come before the juvenile court. The rotation of judges through juvenile court was also modified to specifically state that juvenile judges are not subject to automatic rotation, presumably precluding assignment of judges better suited to other matters while preserving the ability of effective judges to remain longer than a minimum term. The General Assembly's recognition that youth charged with delinquent acts (crimes if committed by adults) require unique proceedings and consequences was echoed by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons. Relying largely on psychological and scientific evidence the Court held that execution for a crime committed by a juvenile under the age of 18 is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court considered three differences between juveniles and adults in reaching these conclusions: 1) comparative immaturity and irresponsibility, 2) increased vulnerability and susceptibility to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressures, and 3) a juvenile's character being less formed than an adult's, with personality traits that are more transitory and less fixed. Historically, the executive agencies have been responsible for programming for families and children involved with juvenile court. However, the Judiciary has recognized that families with increasingly complex problems are appearing in their courtroom. For example, child neglect can be a result of parental substance abuse, delinquent youth often have learning difficulties that lead to spiraling truancy and dropout rates, and abused children committed to the Department of Social Services sometimes "cross over" to the delinquency system and are in need of mental health treatment. Details: Baltimore: Maryland Judiciary, 2013. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/publications/programregistry20130325.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/publications/programregistry20130325.pdf Shelf Number: 137315 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile LawJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Treatment Programs |
Author: Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition Title: Justice Redirected: The Impact of Reducing the Prosecution of Children as Adults in Colorado and the Continuing Need for Sentencing Reform Summary: In 2012, Colorado reformed the way children can be prosecuted as adults by changing the law that previously allowed prosecutors to press charges in adult court without judicial review. The changes to the law reduced the number of children who could be "direct filed," - or charged - in adult court by the prosecutor, and put in place a system of oversight by allowing a judge to review the prosecutor's decision to prosecute a juvenile in adult court. - 100 cases were prosecuted in adult court in Colorado from April 20, 2012-April 20, 2015 - 98% of Children Prosecuted in Adult Court are Male - Nationally, in 2013, there were still 1,200 youth in adult prisons and approximately 3,400 youth in adult jails on any given day - 60% of Children Prosecuted in Adult Court are Youth of Color - Adams, Douglas, Denver & El Paso county account for 75% cases in which youth are prosecuted in adult court. - Homicide cases account for 37% of Cases prosecuted in adult court - The average length of a transfer or reverse transfer hearing is 2 days - Nationally, Between 2009 and 2013, the rate of youth violence was cut almost in half to 160 arrests per 100,000 juveniles Details: Denver: Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2015 at: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf Shelf Number: 137419 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Campaign for Youth Justice Title: Zero Tolerance: How States Comply with PREA's Youthful Inmate Standard Summary: The United States' extraordinary use of adult correctional facilities to house youth presents numerous concerns, including serious, long-term costs to the youth offender and to society at large. Science and research conducted over the last 20 years confirm what common sense tells us: kids are different. Adolescent development and adolescent brain research have prompted leaders across the country to start looking at our juvenile justice system through a developmentally appropriate lens.1 Such a perspective equally applies to the treatment of youth who would be eligible for adult prison sentences. In light of the decline of youth arrests and youth crime, coupled with the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) the housing status of the 1200 youth under 18 years of age in the adult prison must be investigated. Each state has its own unique prison system, so in order to determine the housing status of youth we gathered information on each state's statutes, policies, and practices for housing the shrinking - and at times - invisible, population of youth in adult prisons across the country. Despite the strong language provided in the Prison Rape Elimination Act, state laws vary widely as to the regulations and parameters for housing youth in adult prisons. In fact, some states have no regulations or parameters governing the treatment of youth sentenced as adults at all. While some states have fully removed youth from their prison systems - Hawaii, West Virginia, Maine, California, and Washington - the overwhelming majority of states allow youth to be housed in adult prisons. In fact 37 states housed youth under 18 years of age in their state prisons in 2012. The PREA requirements have become the emerging standard of care for the housing of youth in adult facilities, yet the majority of states still permit the housing of youth in adult facilities, often times with no special housing protections. Once youth are sentenced in adult court to an adult prison term, few jurisdictions have enacted safeguards to protect their physical, mental and emotional health. Additionally, programs and behavioral responses in adult facilities rarely are adjusted to meet the needs of adolescent populations. To further complicate matters, nine states have a lower age of court jurisdiction which allows more youth under 18 to enter the adult criminal justice system automatically. Where the age of juvenile court jurisdiction ends at 15 or 16 years of age, state prison systems grapple with housing even younger youth and at high rates. For instance, on any given day New York houses approximately 131 youth under 18 in its state prisons while Georgia houses nearly 100 youth under 18. The dearth of policies to safely house youth under 18 in adult prisons requires further examination and should encourage policymakers to investigate alternatives to practices that put children in harms way. As state and local policymakers grapple with budget and resource allocations, removing youth from adult prisons should be a part of that calculation. This report explores how states house youth under 18 in prisons in the new age of PREA compliance and enforcement. Furthermore, this report highlights national trends in juvenile arrests, crimes, and incarceration of children in the adult system. With evidence of the decreasing number of youth entering the adult system, the recommendations focus on how states can successfully remove all youth from adult prisons. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign For Youth Justice, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2015 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Zero_Tolerance_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Zero_Tolerance_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137434 Keywords: Juvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersPrison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)Youth in Adult Prisons |
Author: MacArthur Foundation Title: Juvenile Justice in a Developmental framework: A 2015 Status Report Summary: Every state has implemented developmentally-appropriate juvenile justice reform over the last 15 years, according to a report supported by the MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change initiative. The report provides a snapshot of nationwide progress as states have evolved many tough on crime policies that treat young offenders as adults to foster a system that considers youth's developmental needs and capacity for change. From state efforts to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to protecting juvenile records, the report illustrates a growing understanding of the intersection of adolescent neurological development and juvenile justice - a field bolstered by the MacArthur Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice - that is driving reform in support of better outcomes for young offenders and their communities. Details: Chicago: MacArthur Foundation, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2016 at: https://www.macfound.org/media/files/MacArthur_Foundation_2015_Status_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.macfound.org/media/files/MacArthur_Foundation_2015_Status_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137741 Keywords: Juvenile Court JurisdictionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Phillippi, Stephen Title: A Legislated Study of Raising the Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction in Louisiana: The future of 17-year-olds in the Louisiana Justice Systems Summary: This study, authorized by the Louisiana State Legislature in House Concurrent Resolution No. 73 of the 2015 Regular session, was completed at an expedited pace over a six-month period to meet the deadlines established in the resolution. With the involvement of key stakeholders in the justice system from across Louisiana and input from national partners who have worked to study raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in other states, three key findings of this study are summarized below. - There is a growing consensus, based on a large body of scientific evidence, that 17-year-olds are developmentally different than adults and should be treated as such. They have a far greater potential for rehabilitation and are particularly influenced - for good or ill - by the environments in which they are placed. - The last several years of reform in the Louisiana juvenile justice system have created a capacity to accept, manage, and rehabilitate these youth in a manner that will predictably generate better outcomes than the adult system. - The initial impact projections are generally lower than states that have recently gone before Louisiana in raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction, and those states found that the impact on the system was substantially less than first predicted. In fact, states have reported substantial fiscal savings. We have reason to suspect this will be the same for Louisiana. Details: New Orleans: Louisiana State University, Institute for Public Health and Justice, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://sph.lsuhsc.edu/Websites/lsupublichealth/images/pdf/iphj/RAISE_THE_AGE_DRAFT_20160128Final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://sph.lsuhsc.edu/Websites/lsupublichealth/images/pdf/iphj/RAISE_THE_AGE_DRAFT_20160128Final.pdf Shelf Number: 137848 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemsJurisdictionJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile JurisdictionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Kronberga, IIona Title: Social Inclusion: Preventive Measures of Childrens Anti-Social Behavior Summary: The results of our recent studies1 show that the reasons for juvenile delinquency appear much earlier than their obvious consequences which are already the subject for the intervention of law enforcement agencies. If we assume that adults have to take care of the child's development starting from his/her birth and ensure the environment that would be appropriate for such development, we have to admit that deformed or antisocial behaviour is the consequence of the lack of such care. Adults in particular are responsible for the fulfilment of the youngster's special development needs. It is significant to recognise that the juvenile delinquency as an act of socially deformed behaviour shows that the rights of the particular child have been previously violated and his/her interests have been disregarded or neglected. The lack of care and treatment, indifference, parents and other adults' unwillingness to understand and fulfil the child's needs lead to the commitment of a criminal act. Therefore it is important to develop such systems of prevention and justice within which it is possible already in the early years of the child's development to discover, recognise and prevent future situations where the child becomes an offender or a victim or even only starts behaving in a way that could be called antisocial - opposite to the ethical and normative requirements of the social life in the community. Details: Riga, Latvia: Providus, 2014. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 9, 2016 at: http://providus.foo.lv/upload_file/Publikacijas/Kriminalt/2014/Visi_raksti_ENG.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://providus.foo.lv/upload_file/Publikacijas/Kriminalt/2014/Visi_raksti_ENG.pdf Shelf Number: 137814 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Reimer, J.K. Title: A System Just for Children: Voices of child victims and witnesses about their experiences Summary: Over the past two decades, Cambodia's justice system has improved markedly. More people are being processed through the system, with greater fairness and speed than ever before. More complaints are being investigated and perpetrators are more likely to be convicted and serve at least part of their sentence. Solid protocols and procedural documents governing the rights of children are firmly in place and frequently cited by high-ranking officials. However, implementation of "child-friendly justice" remains limited. This research is one of the first conducted in Cambodia to look in detail at the experience of child witnesses and victims who go through the Cambodian criminal justice system. It particularly aims to give voice to children's views in order to contribute to the development of criminal court procedures that more fully reflect the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), especially Article 12. Details: Hagar, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, UNICEF, 2015. 164p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2016 at: http://www.unicef.org/cambodia/A-System-Just-for-Children_FINAL_Jan-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Cambodia URL: http://www.unicef.org/cambodia/A-System-Just-for-Children_FINAL_Jan-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137839 Keywords: Child ProtectionChild VictimsChild WitnessesCriminal Justice SystemsJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Kentucky. Legislative Research Commission Title: Report of the 2013 Task Force on the Unified Juvenile Code . (2013 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35) Summary: In 2013, Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 extended the Task Force on the Unified Juvenile Code, which had been created the year before. The task force was directed to continue its review of the juvenile justice system to develop recommendations for reform. The task force was a bipartisan, inter-branch group with diverse representation from juvenile justice stakeholders. It conducted a detailed analysis of Kentucky's juvenile justice system and, based on this work, developed recommendations to protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, improve outcomes for children and families, and control costs in the juvenile justice system. Seeking to improve public safety and achieve better outcomes for youth and their families, the task force studied Kentucky data, reviewed research on proven juvenile practices, and looked to other states to identify solutions. The task force analysis led to findings in four areas of Kentucky's juvenile justice system: - Kentucky is spending significant resources on out-of-home residential placement for lowlevel status and public offenders.b The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) spends more than half of its $102 million annual budget on secure and nonsecure residential facilities that cost an average of $87,000 per bed per year. In addition, the Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) spent an estimated $6 million in fiscal year 2012 for out-of-home placement of status offenders. - Lower-level offenses make up a significant share of the juvenile justice system. Misdemeanants and violators make up the majority (ranging from 55 percent to 87 percent) of youth in of each type of out-of-home placement. - The length of time probation/court order violators and misdemeanor offenders spend in outof- home facilities has increased 31 percent and 21 percent, respectively, over the past decade. The amount of time these offenders spend out of home differed by less than 1 month from those adjudicated on felony offenses. Hundreds of status offenders are spending time out of home through commitments to DCBS or in detention. - A lack of funding for and access to services and alternatives in the community has contributed to more expensive commitments to DJJ and DCBS and more youth being placed out of home. Recommendations And Impact The task force recommendations are grouped into four categories: - Reinvest savings to provide for sustained funding, expand community services, and improve supervision. - Focus resources, particularly expensive out-of-home facilities, on higher-level offenders, and reinvest savings into strengthening early intervention and prevention programs. - Increase effectiveness of juvenile justice programs and services. - Improve government performance by providing oversight of reform implementation, tracking performance measures, and maximizing federal resources. Details: Frankfort, KY: Legislative Research Commission, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Memorandum No. 514: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/rm514.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/rm514.pdf Shelf Number: 137950 Keywords: Justice ReinvestmentJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Monitoring of Progress on Implementation of the Youth Justice Review Recommendations Summary: Reducing the number of children entering the criminal justice system and dealing more appropriately and effectively with those that do, were the main goals of the Youth Justice Review. This report, the second of two by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, examines whether we are any closer to the youth justice system envisaged when the review team reported in 2011. As a general observation on recent criminal justice reform programmes, it is very hard to maintain momentum on recommendations, especially those which require the collaboration and support of other Northern Ireland Executive departments. Some of the recommendations within the Youth Justice Review are less relevant now than when they were made, and some were unrealistic in expecting the delivery of both the spirit and letter of what was intended. Legislative changes envisaged by the Review Team have been frustrated by a lack of political consensus and the opportunities for progress within the lifetime of the current Northern Ireland Assembly are limited. The criminal justice system is changing before our eyes and it is important that in any assessment of progress, we factor in the fiscal challenges and current operating environment. The Department of Justice's target of 90% achievement of recommendations has not been met however, it is the nature of some that have been achieved which, in my view, deserve special mention. We should acknowledge that no child has been held in an adult prison for the last four years. Fewer children are being committed to youth custody, and the age and offending profile of those who are, means that we are dealing with the most difficult and disturbed young people. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspectorate, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2016 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/35/355260de-ceb0-43f8-ad83-e91fee363dd1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/35/355260de-ceb0-43f8-ad83-e91fee363dd1.pdf Shelf Number: 138226 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Kotze, Kevin Title: More Care Less Court: Keeping Youth out of the Criminal Justice System Summary: New Brunswick's rate of youth charged for criminal offences has been decreasing since the enactment of Canada's youth crime legislation, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in 2002. Yet still nearly a decade passed in our Province without corresponding progress being made in regard to the number of youths being sent to pre-trial detention and secure custody. Far too often it is the most vulnerable youths who are caught in the system - youths with mental health disorders, youths with addictions issues, youths with backgrounds as victims of abuse and neglect; homeless youth; youth with intellectual disabilities; youths from marginalized or minority identity groups. The good news is that New Brunswick has in the past few years begun to make real progress in youth criminal justice issues. The RCMP and their Community Program Officers, as well as municipal police forces, began to lead the way by increasingly diverting youth away from court and toward supports that can reduce their risk of further involvement in crime. However, it takes the work of many different stakeholders to address youth crime effectively, and it takes a system that is built to be responsive to the developmental needs of youth. Very recently, government's Provincial Crime Prevention and Reduction Strategy has worked with police and civil society to produce a Youth Diversion Model that addresses some of the root causes of youth crime. The model is in line with a shift toward an evidence-based child-rights focus that reflects not just what is easiest but what works best. This work deserves praise and holds much promise, but we must bear in mind it is only the beginning of the necessary shift. Much work is still to be done to keep youth from crime. Pre-trial detention rates and secure custody rates remain unduly high. Youth admissions to correction services as a whole in New Brunswick remain higher per capita than other provinces. Reaction must be in proportion to the gravity of the offence. Sentencing should be for the shortest time possible. Community-based sentences should be the usual route. Incarceration should be a last resort, normally reserved for serious violent offences. Only in the most serious cases should youth have to await trial while detained at the detention and secure custody facility. If New Brunswick can take a child-rights approach in all areas involving children and youth, we can lead the way in providing the means to allow children to develop positive senses of how they feel, think and act. This is what will keep youth out of the criminal justice system. The More Care Less Court report seeks to provide an overview of the youth criminal justice system in New Brunswick generally, and shed some light on some of the most apparent problems with the system. The report's recommendations intend to support the work of the Provincial Crime Prevention and Reduction Strategy, and suggest necessary improvements to the youth criminal justice system. Details: Fredericton, NB: Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, 2015. 173p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 16, 2016 at: https://www.gnb.ca/0073/Child-YouthAdvocate/MCLC-PAMP/MoreCareLessCourt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: https://www.gnb.ca/0073/Child-YouthAdvocate/MCLC-PAMP/MoreCareLessCourt.pdf Shelf Number: 138251 Keywords: At-Risk YouthDelinquency PreventionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Parker, Khristy Title: Juvenile Justice Referrals and Charges in Alaska, FY 2006-2015 Summary: This fact sheet presents juvenile justice statistics from the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for state fiscal years 2006-2015. Law enforcement agencies make referrals to DJJ if there is probable cause that a youth committed an offense which would be criminal if committed by an adult, committed a felony traffic offense, or committed an alcohol offense after two prior District Court convictions for minor consuming. Youth who commit very serious offenses such as murder and sexual assault may be waived, or moved, to the adult criminal justice system. Youth waived to adult court may be prosecuted at the discretion of the district attorney. DJJ is a restorative justice agency whose mission is to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their behavior, promote the safety and restoration of victims and communities, and assist offenders and their families in developing skills to prevent crime. DJJ has three components: Probation, Detention, and Treatment, all overseen by the state office. This report focuses on data for youth referrals to the Probation component of DJJ (which also processes intake) for the period FY 2006-2015. DJJ services are directed through four separate regional administrative units that differ widely in demographic and geographic makeup. The Anchorage Region (ANC) covers the Anchorage metropolitan area. The Northern Region (NRO) includes Fairbanks and much of rural Alaska from Bethel to Barrow. The South Central Region (SCRO) covers the southern portion of the state from the Aleutians in the west through Prince William Sound in the east. The Southeast Region (SERO) covers the entire Southeast panhandle from Yakutat to Metlakatla. The data presented in the figures and tables below reflect the referrals, charges, and number of unique referred individuals for Alaska FY 2006-2015. All of the data were extracted from the DJJ Data Trends website Details: Anchorage: Alaska Juvenile Statistical Analysis Center, 2016. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Fact Sheet: Accessed March 16, 2016 at: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/ajsac/2016/ajsac.16-02.djj_referrals.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/ajsac/2016/ajsac.16-02.djj_referrals.pdf Shelf Number: 138267 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersWaiver of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |
Author: Bateman, Tim Title: Criminalising children for no good purpose: The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales Summary: In England and Wales, children are deemed to be criminally responsible, and become subject to the full rigour of the criminal law, from the age of ten. Children too young to attend secondary school may nonetheless be arrested and detained at a police station. They can be prosecuted and, if convicted, will receive a criminal record that, for some purposes, must be declared indefinitely. If a 10-year-old commits an offence considered to be a 'grave crime', he or she will be tried in the Crown Court and may be given a custodial sentence equivalent to that available in the case of an adult. Similarly, a child of that age co-accused with an adult will be subject to trial in an adult venue. The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) considers that the arguments for maintaining the status quo are unconvincing: the government's rejection of calls to review the point at which children become criminally liable is motivated by an ideological commitment to appear tough on youth crime rather than a dispassionate review of the evidence. The NAYJ believes that such a review demonstrates that criminalisation of children at such a young age: represents a breach of international standards on children's rights; does not take account of children's developing capacity and imputes culpability inappropriately; and is illogical, unnecessary, and damaging. Details: UK: National Association for Youth Justice, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Campaign Paper: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/files_mf/criminalisingchildrennov12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/files_mf/criminalisingchildrennov12.pdf Shelf Number: 138309 Keywords: Age of ResponsibilityJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Newell, Michelle Title: Reforming the Nation's Largest Juvenile Justice System Summary: Research confirms that incarcerating young people is harmful - contributing to lower educational achievement, higher unemployment, higher alcohol and substance abuse and increased mental health problems. Roughly three-quarters of youth leaving locked facilities nationally are rearrested and - depending on local juvenile justice statutes - up to 70 percent are convicted of a new offense. These dismal outcomes, combined with a high price tag, have largely made youth incarceration a failed public policy approach. The good news is that youth incarceration rates in the U.S. have declined by 41 percent over the last 15 years, reaching the lowest level since 1975. While this is due largely to decreasing crime rates and state budget cuts, it also reflects the increased use of cost-effective, community-based programs for youth who pose a minimal threat to public safety. Nevertheless, approximately 70,000 youth nationwide - 2,000 in Los Angeles County - are still confined in juvenile detention facilities on any given day. While the goal remains to reduce these numbers further and keep young people out of the system whenever possible, a small number of youth will remain in secure facilities. How these youth are treated while incarcerated has a marked impact on the rest of their life, their communities, and on our society as a whole. The Los Angeles County juvenile justice system is the largest system in the nation, with locked facilities that include three juvenile halls and fourteen probation camps. Yet many observers of the system, including legal groups, advocates and organizers, the media, and elected and appointed officials, have concluded over the years the camps are not meeting the needs of youth, and not helping them become law-abiding and productive members of society. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and Children's Defense Fund, California, 2013. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2013/reforming-the-nations.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2013/reforming-the-nations.pdf Shelf Number: 138314 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Herz, Denise C. Title: The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study Summary: In Los Angeles County, an alarming number of children and youth live in unsafe, impoverished communities with entrenched violence, have struggling and isolated parents, and attend poorly performing schools. As a result, many of these children and youth end up in the County's health, mental health, child welfare, human services, and juvenile justice systems. Children who enter the juvenile justice system, in particular, face myriad challenges. Research demonstrates that these vulnerable young people often have risk and need factors that include: low academic achievement, mental health and/or substance abuse issues, negative peer networks, and lack of appropriate parental supervision. Los Angeles Probation-involved youth, for example, often face the following risk and need factors: - Education: Standardized tests indicate that youth placed in probation camps are, on average, 16.7 years old and therefore are in the 11th grade but are achieving at a fifth grade level in math and reading (McCroskey, 2006, p. 2). California High School Exit Examination 2003-04 results for graduates from 492 Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) students in juvenile hall and Community Day School programs show that only 26% passed the English Language Arts exam, compared with 70% of all students in the County who took and passed the exam. Additionally, LACOE data show that the percentage of students identified as requiring special education was higher than the national average of 13.7%.1 Of the 2,047 students enrolled in juvenile hall schools as of November 2005, 79% (n=1,617) were classified as regular education students and 21% (n=430) were classified as special education students. - Mental Health: In 2008, a UCLA research study on Los Angeles' juvenile Probation camp population reported that 58% of youth had received counseling or mental health services prior to being placed in Probation Department camps, with 65% receiving such services during their stay at camp. The same study also found that the most common mental health problems reported by youth who self-identified with a mental health problem were depression and anger. - Substance Abuse: An external survey conducted with youth in Probation Camps found that 58% of Probation-involved youth reported they had received a prior diagnosis of substance abuse and dependency. Additionally, according to a UCLA study on Los Angeles Probation Camps, over one-third of Probation-involved youth have been in an alcohol or drug placement in the past, including 43% of girls and 36% of boys). Because so many Probation-involved youth enter the juvenile justice system with these factors, the Probation Department may be viewed as the primary agency responsible for resolving these issues. Probation, however, cannot address all of these risk factors alone. Instead it relies on collaboration with other County departments, including Health Services, Mental Health and Public Health, whose staff have expertise in health, behavioral health and other child and family issues. For example, an early study (1995) using cross-departmental data linkages to identify families being served by multiple Los Angeles County departments underscores this point. Findings from this study showed that, during that year, 59.4% of Probation families also received services from DPSS, 25.5% also received services from DCFS, 30.3% also received services from DHS, and 18.2% also received services from DMH (Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council, Data Analysis and Technical Assistance Committee, 1995). Despite these findings, identifying and documenting shared connections across County agencies is nearly impossible because agency data systems are seldom integrated, and the interpretation of confidentiality protections limits the exchange of information across agencies. Without interagency coordination, though, youth and families may not receive the services they need, they may receive duplicative services, and/or they may receive inappropriate services. A starting point to better serve Probation-involved youth and families is a better understanding of the characteristics and needs of Probation-involved youth and their outcomes over time. Unfortunately, defining and consistently reporting outcomes for youth under Probation supervision has been elusive for at least three reasons. First, Probation lacks the data and sophisticated data systems necessary to produce meaningful outcome measures. In 2010, Harvard Kennedy School researchers conducting a review of juvenile reentry in Los Angeles County reported that the Probation Department was unable to provide the following information in a timely and comprehensive manner: - educational outcomes in camps and after (high school/GED completion rates, drop-out rates, rates of re-enrollment in school after camp); - percent of youth receiving mental health services; - percent of youth receiving substance abuse services; - percent of youth participating in reentry programs; - what reentry programs youth are currently accessing; - rates of recidivism that capture camp return and entrance in the adult criminal justice system (beyond six month subsequent sustained charge); and, - number of youth violating their Probation terms. Second, the use of data produced by Probation's information system is often driven by compliance rather than case management, quality improvement, or assessing practice over time. In other words, the most readily available and used Probation data elements tend to reflect whether a required protocol was completed, rather than the impact of that practice on youth outcomes. Third, Probation is limited in what it can collect, share and have access to - particularly in terms of mental health and education data - based on legal restraints and confidentiality concerns. Despite knowing that many youth "cross over" between the child protective services and juvenile justice systems, for example, shared access to the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) has been limited due to strict interpretation of statutes and regulations designed to protect confidentiality (see, for example, the Federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems [SACWIS] regulations). Collectively, the challenges to interagency coordination and the urgent need for clear and consistent outcomes make a compelling argument for increased attention to the data systems that undergird Probation practices and program, so that County decisions are guided by standardized data collection based on desired outcomes for youth and shared information can drive better interagency coordination and collaboration. Specifically, this study focuses on youth placed in suitable placement and camps (i.e., youth who penetrate deeply into the juvenile justice system) because their experiences and stories arguably provide the unique opportunity to: (1) identify how agencies, communities, and families can better prevent youth entry into the juvenile justice system; (2) provide insight into how to prevent youth who enter the juvenile justice system from reaching the point of being placed in out-of-home care (suitable placement) and/or Probation camps; (3) provide direction on how to build an integrated and coordinated response system that would address the complex needs of youth and families, particularly those who penetrate deeply into the system; and, (4) identify key outcomes that can be measured consistently and regularly (e.g., annually) by Probation, LACOE and allied County departments. This report begins by providing an overview of the need for and purpose of juvenile justice data as well as the current structures of data collection in Los Angeles County (Chapter 1). Next, it examines the characteristics and situational contexts of youth exiting from suitable placements and juvenile camp placements during 2011 (Chapters 2 & 3). Eight in-depth youth case histories taken from Probation records are presented to illustrate the context within which these youths' stories unfold from the perspective of the Probation Officers who supervise and oversee youth in the system (Chapter 4). Based on the findings presented in this report, Chapter 5 presents recommendations to improve practice through targeted reform and improved use of data. Details: Los Angeles: Advancement Project, 2015. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/la-probation-outcomes.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/la-probation-outcomes.pdf Shelf Number: 138315 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Uman, Gwen C. Title: Children's Defense Fund Freedom Schools Program in Los Angeles County Probation Camps: Evaluation Report Summary: With the highest youth incarceration rate in the world, the United States (U.S.) imprisons approximately 70,000 youth nationwide on any given day. The U.S. juvenile justice system, which began shifting in the 1980's from a rehabilitation to a punishment model, has created a broad sense of "perpetual surveillance," or "a state of conscious and permanent visibility" for thousands of American youth, especially young men of color. The exiling of American youth in the juvenile justice system has dire personal, educational, social, and economic effects. Some of the negative effects of youth incarceration include: lower educational achievement, higher unemployment, higher alcohol and substance abuse, increased mental health problems, and higher rates of learning disabilities. Studies have also documented the high costs of incarcerating youth; the U.S. spends $6 million per year in juvenile corrections and $88,000 in direct costs per juvenile each year. While youth incarceration has proven to be both harmful and costly, the number of youth in juvenile detention facilities across the country remains high. L.A. COUNTY'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The L.A. County juvenile justice system is the largest system in the nation. In a recent policy brief entitled "Reforming the Nation's Largest Juvenile Justice System," probation camps in L.A. were characterized as ineffective, operating under an outdated era of juvenile justice which relies heavily on penitentiary-like facilities and strictly enforced routines. Recently, a series of lawsuits and allegations in probation camps have identified the following problems in probation camps: "failure to protect youth from harm," "insufficient and problematic staffing," and "inadequate rehabilitative and educational services." To address recent lawsuits and allegations, the L.A. County Probation Department and LACOE have recently advanced a number of efforts, including the following: implementing integrated behavioral treatment models and evidence-based programs like Aggression Replacement Training and interdisciplinary, hands-on, and evidence-based educational programs (i.e. Road to Success Academy); decreasing the staff-to-youth ratio for both Probation Officers and teachers; and moving forward with a probation camp replacement project for Camp Kilpatrick to achieve a small group treatment model. An additional effort to remedy the problems addressed in recent lawsuits and allegations included piloting the CDF Freedom Schools program, which was implemented in two L.A. probation camps in 2013. A brief overview of the CDF Freedom Schools program is provided, with a fuller description of the L.A. County Project. Details: Los Angeles: Children's Defense Fund, California, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2014/report-cdf-freedom-schools.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2014/report-cdf-freedom-schools.pdf Shelf Number: 138321 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Chung, Angela Title: Rising Up, Speaking Out: Youth Transforming Los Angeles County's Juvenile Justice System Summary: When youth are taken away from their homes and communities and placed under the custody of a juvenile justice system, all of us have an important responsibility to ensure that during this most formative period of their lives, young people heal and are prepared to succeed when they return to their communities. Instead, our most vulnerable young people, overwhelmingly youth of color, end up locked up in juvenile justice facilities across the U.S. and in Los Angeles County. These facilities are all too often warehouses, where youth are retraumatized and deprived of a quality education and support system. In fact, many youth are more likely to return to their communities under-resourced, overcriminalized, and pre-programmed for adult prisons rather than on a direct path toward college or career. In short, the juvenile justice system has failed in its promise of rehabilitation. Los Angeles County - home to the largest juvenile justice system in the U.S. - now has a historic opportunity to leave behind its outdated and harmful correctional camp model. Over the last decade, the Los Angeles County Probation Department - driven in part by lawsuits and the Department of Justice (DOJ) monitoring - has implemented a number of reforms to address the problems and abuse found in their camps. But these changes are not enough; what is needed is true transformation. By tearing down the decades-old Camp Kilpatrick - a relic of the penitentiary-like, boot-camp style that Los Angeles County built in the 1960s -the county is piloting a therapeutic approach to working with young people. Referred to as the Los Angeles Model (LA Model), this approach is inspired by promising practices across the country, including the Missouri Model, which pioneered a non-institutional and homelike approach to treatment for youth removed from their communities. It is built on the notion that youth cannot heal, change and thrive without safety, and that safety is best achieved through relationship-building and positive youth development. The LA Model is an unprecedented collaboration among the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Probation Department, Office of Education (LACOE), Department of Mental Health (DMH), advocates, researchers, youth and families. If successful, this collaboration can be a model for juvenile justice reform throughout the state of California. The most important voices in guiding and informing the LA Model and any juvenile justice reform in this country are youth who have experienced the system. In this policy brief, five young people - in partnership with CDF-CA's policy researchers - share their own unique experiences inside probation camps and amplify key recommendations from an important UCLA focus group study on how to improve conditions inside Los Angeles County's camps. This brief weighs in on the debate around what works, what does not work, and what should be changed in juvenile justice facilities, while bringing to light the voices, experiences and ideas for change of those who have experienced the system. Details: Los Angeles: Children's Defense Fund - California, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed March 18, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/rising-up-speaking-out.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/rising-up-speaking-out.pdf Shelf Number: 138328 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Defence for Children International - Italy Title: Twelve: Children's Right to Participation and the Juvenile Justice System: National Report Italy Summary: In accordance with the main international and EU standards on children's rights and with the Child Friendly Justice Guidelines (CFJG) of the Council of Europe, children should have access to an adequate treatment in justice. Listening to children, hearing their views and recommendations, understanding their aspirations and concerns and taking them into account for decision making processes is key for policy and practice to become more appropriate and effective. It is also a human rights imperative under article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and a prerequisite for achieving compliance with international standards. International and European bodies have repeatedly encouraged states to adapt their legal systems to the specific needs of children. However national juvenile justice systems do not take CRC into consideration on a permanent basis, which often leads to not considering the real needs of children and adapting the system to them. Including participation and listening (art. 12 CRC) as core elements of actions concerning children is conducive to more efficient practices and improved communication. It is also a human rights imperative under article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and a prerequisite for achieving compliance with international standards. International and European bodies have repeatedly encouraged states to adapt their legal systems to the specific needs of children. However national juvenile justice systems do not take CRC into consideration on a permanent basis, which often leads to not considering the real needs of children and adapting the system to them. Including participation and listening (art. 12 CRC) as core elements of actions concerning children is conducive to more efficient practices and improved communication. Consequently, properly trained professionals working in the context of Juvenile Justice (JJ) on this is one of the first required actions for the purpose of a child-friendly system compliant with children's rights. The main goal of the project TWELVE is to contribute to the implementation of article 12 of the CRC, in line with the General Comment No. 14 (2013) of the CRC, in the field of JJ at the European level by developing a multidisciplinary training process aimed at strengthening and harmonising the skills and capacities of professionals in addressing children's rights and specific needs as a key element of an appropriate, efficient and inclusive action. The project will focus on the context of criminal proceedings. To achieve this goal the project will be structured around three interlinked pillars: analytical national activities to properly assess the real needs both of children in conflict with the law and professionals working with them in 3 EU countries (IT, BE, ES); training activities to develop and replicate a multidisciplinary training program aimed at improving the understanding of the CRC and informing professionals about how to implement its provisions in their daily practice in 6 countries (IT, BE, ES, BG, GR, EE); a Training Programme and an Handbook will be soon available. dissemination activities to ensure a European dimension as well as to share information and exchange ideas among professionals involved in JJ within the EU. Details: Rome: Defence for Children International Italy, 2016. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2016 at: http://www.defenceforchildren.it/files/twelve_Italy_.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Italy URL: http://www.defenceforchildren.it/files/twelve_Italy_.pdf Shelf Number: 138383 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Defence for Children - Belgium Title: Twelve: Children's right to participation and the juvenile justice systems. National Report Belgium Summary: The final seminar of the project TWELVE took place on 17 March 2016, in Brussels. TWELVE is a collaborative initiative that involved DCI-Italy, DCI-Spain and DCI-Belgium, and aimed at facilitating the implementation of Article 12 of the Child's Rights Convention in the juvenile justice systems of Europe. Professionals and government officials working with children in contact with the law, institutional actors, academics, and NGO stakeholders from different European countries participated in a roundtable discussion aiming at sharing experiences, models and perspectives on the right to participation in the juvenile justice system. Prior to the release of the handbook, DCI sections in Italy, Spain and Belgium presented their respective research and monitoring report on the situation of children's right to participation in the juvenile justice system of their respective countries. Details: Brussels: Defence for Children Belgium, 2015. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 24, 2016 at: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve_Belgium.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Belgium URL: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve_Belgium.pdf Shelf Number: 138401 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Defence for Children International Spain Title: Twelve. Children's Right to participation and the juvenile justice systems. National report: Spain Summary: In accordance with the main international and EU standards on children's rights and with the Child Friendly Justice Guidelines (CFJG) of the Council of Europe, children should have access to an adequate treatment in justice. Listening to children, hearing their views and recommendations, understanding their aspirations and concerns and taking them into account for decision making processes is key for policy and practice to become more appropriate and effective. It is also a human rights imperative under article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and a prerequisite for achieving compliance with international standards. TWELVE is a collaborative initiative that involves DCI-Italy, DCI-Spain and DCI-Belgium, and aims at facilitating the implementation of Article 12 of the Child's Rights Convention in the juvenile justice systems of Europe. In November 2015, DCI sections in Italy, Belgium and Spain presented their research and monitoring report on the situation of children's right to participation in the juvenile justice system of their respective countries. Details: Lisbon: Defence for Children International, 2015. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2016 at: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve_Spain.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Spain URL: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Twelve_Spain.pdf Shelf Number: 138463 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Dumont, Robyn Title: Disproportionate Contact: Youth of Color in Maine's Juvenile Justice System Summary: Research staff at the USM Muskie School work in partnership with Maine's Juvenile Justice Advisory Group (JJAG) in support of the goal of producing information to enhance Maine's understanding of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the state. This research documents the rate of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) for youth involved in Maine's juvenile justice system, differences in pathways to detention for youth of color, and the experiences of youth and families of color who have had contact with Maine's juvenile justice system. It uses a relative rate index (RRI) to demonstrate how youth of color are treated in comparison to their white counterparts throughout nine separate contact points in the juvenile justice system. This Maine-focused research report aligns with several federal, state, and local efforts aimed at promoting equity for youth of color throughout the juvenile justice system. In part, this report fulfills a federal grant requirement from the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to identify DMC within the juvenile justice system in Maine. In order to assist states in their efforts to comply with the DMC requirements of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), the OJJDP funds state-based advisory groups to understand and reduce DMC in their jurisdictions. Maine's Juvenile Justice Advisory Group (JJAG) has partnered with the Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine to conduct this research to inform these efforts. Details: Portland, OR: University of Southern Maine, Muskie School of Public Service, 2015. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/justiceresearch/Publications/Juvenile/DMC.FINAL.05.15.2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/justiceresearch/Publications/Juvenile/DMC.FINAL.05.15.2015.pdf Shelf Number: 138570 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile Justice SystemsRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Youth Justice Statistics 2014/15: England and Wales Summary: general statistics areas covered include: - offences which have resulted in a disposal - court remands - disposals - intensive supervision and surveillance programmes - custody - key performance indicators - resources The YJS in England and Wales works to prevent offending and reoffending by young people under the age of 18. The system is different to the adult system and is structured to address the needs of young people. The YJS is far smaller than the adult system (see Chapter 11 for more details). The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is the executive non-departmental public body that oversees the YJS in England and Wales. The overall number of young people in the YJS continued to reduce in the year ending March 2015. Reductions have been seen in the number entering the system for the first time (First Time Entrants, FTEs), as well as reductions in those receiving disposals1, including those receiving custodial sentences. Compared to the year ending March 2010, there are now 67% fewer young people who were FTEs, 65% fewer young people who received a youth caution or court disposal and 57% fewer young people (under 18) in custody in the youth secure estate. The reoffending rate has increased (by 5.6 percentage points since the year ending March 2008, to 38.0% in the year ending March 2014), but there were significant falls in the number of young people in the cohort, the number of reoffenders and the number of reoffences. Details: London: Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice, 2016. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-annual-statistics-2014-to-2015 Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-annual-statistics-2014-to-2015 Shelf Number: 139089 Keywords: Criminal Justice StatisticsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Stevens, Tia Title: Effects of County and State Economic, Social, and Political Contexts on Racial/Ethnic and Gender Differences in Youth's Penetration into the Justice System Summary: The current study is designed to extend the empirical and theoretical research on disproportionate youth contact with the justice system. Missing from the considerable body of work examining the effects of extralegal factors on police behavior and justice system processing is an examination of the social, political, and economic contextual factors that may influence disparities in justice system contact. The current study addresses this gap by identifying contextual factors associated with severity of justice system response to youth and by identifying the macro-structural environments that disproportionately affect young women and youth of color. Specifically, it examines the direct effects of county and state characteristics on youth risk of arrest and probabilities of charge, a court appearance, conviction, and placement and how the effects of individual characteristics and county and state characteristics interact to disproportionately impact certain groups of youth in certain environments. The main dataset for this study was constructed from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97). Using the confidential NLSY97 Geocode File, the NLSY97 was appended with county- and state-specific data from various publically available sources indicating structural disadvantage, population composition, political conservatism, prosecutor's office characteristics, delinquency petition and crime rates, gender inequity, child health and well-being, and juvenile justice policy punitiveness. To take advantage of the longitudinal nature of the NLSY97 data, a combination of multilevel modeling techniques, event history analysis, and generalized linear modeling was employed to examine the effects of individual characteristics and contextual conditions on youths' risk of arrest and probabilities of charge, a court appearance, conviction, and placement. The findings suggest that the effects of gender and racial/ethnic group on youth penetration into the justice system are more pronounced at some decision-making levels and depend on contextual environment. The results of the analyses by race, gender, and ethnicity suggest three major findings. First, racial disparities are present in youth risk of arrest, which are magnified in predominately non-Black communities. However, this study also found evidence of a compensatory effect whereby Black youth receive more favorable court dispositions than their non-Black counterparts. Second, the gender gap in youth justice system processing depends on state climates of women and children's health and wellbeing. Specifically, as women and children's health and wellbeing decrease, the gender gap in processing narrows and, in the case of court appearance, reverses. Third and finally, Hispanic youth are treated disproportionately more harshly in states with poor climates of children's health and wellbeing and in states with less punitive juvenile justice systems. Overall, the findings indicate that the reduction of gender and racial/ethnic disparities is unlikely without commitment to the structural reform of inequalities. Intervention efforts to reduce disparities should be multifaceted and include community-based youth-serving organizations and human services agencies, in addition to criminal and juvenile justice agencies. Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2013. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 21, 2016 at: http://etd.lib.msu.edu/islandora/object/etd%3A327/datastream/OBJ/view Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://etd.lib.msu.edu/islandora/object/etd%3A327/datastream/OBJ/view Shelf Number: 139088 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice SystemsRace/EthnicityRacial Disparities |
Author: Foussard, Cedric Title: Addressing Juvenile Justice Priorities in the Asia-Pacific Region Summary: The International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO) is proud to present the 'Addressing Juvenile Justice Priorities in the Asia-Pacific Region(link is external)' report. The aim of this report is to identify and analyse the priority issues for juvenile justice systems in the Asia-Pacific region. Accordingly, the report deals with the issues of violence against children in the juvenile justice system, restorative justice, cross-border issues and diversionary and alternative measures. It was produced by the IJJO's Asia-Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice, with the support of the Department for Juvenile Observation and Protection of the Ministry of Justice of Thailand. This report is unique in the sense that it is comprised of a theoretical framework, snapshots from countries in the Asia-Pacific region and policy-oriented workshops. Promising practices are presented to give an overview of what can be done, in practice, to improve the development of juvenile justice systems in line with human rights standards. The report outlines the need to improve the juvenile justice system in accordance with human rights standards, including safeguards and policies in this area. The report is based on the Second Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice held in Phuket in May 2015. Representatives from governments in the Asia-Pacific region, academia, judiciary and NGO's discussed "Policy Recommendations on Violence against Children; Alternatives to Detention; Restorative Justice in the Asia-Pacific Region". The meeting focused on three areas in particular: violence against children, alternatives to detention and restorative justice. Each of these subjects was tackled using a multilayered approach. The first theme that is discussed in the report is violence against children. As children find themselves in particular vulnerable circumstances when they are in contact with the law, children can be easy targets of different types of violence: psychological pressure, abuse of power, degrading treatment and physical violence are only a few examples. This violence often remains invisible, causing it to be unrecorded and unprosecuted. Tackling this issue is a priority for governments and requires specific safeguards and complaint and monitoring mechanisms. The second theme that is addressed in the report concerns diversionary measures and alternatives to detention. Detention is an overused measure to bring children to justice. Custody for children and young people should only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Children are extremely vulnerable when they are in detention, so the necessary safeguards must be put in place. Furthermore, effective diversion and alternative measures based in the community facilitate reintegration into society. Governments should make it a priority to implement effective diversion and alternative measures in order to promote the development of the child and to limit the amount of children deprived of their liberty. The last theme that is analysed in the report is restorative justice. Restorative justice can be used as a diversionary or alternative measure. Restorative justice is particularly interesting because it can be used to address the child's specific needs. Furthermore, restorative justice aims to promote reconciliation between the parties, adding a rehabilitative purpose. The last section of the report specifies the priorities of the Asia-Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice in the region. The APCJJ Subcommittee for ASEAN has established that cross-border safeguards for children in contact with the law should be brought to the attention of the member states. As member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are working towards opening their borders, this issue becomes extremely relevant. The report concludes with some key recommendations on every topic that was addressed. The most important recommendations represented in this report are, in summary: 1.Reducing the number of children in contact with the justice system, for instance, by avoiding criminalization of statutory offences and setting an appropriate age of criminal responsibility, which is an effective way to avoid the risk of secondary victimization within the justice system; 2.Ensuring that deprivation of liberty is only used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, by promoting available and effective options of diversion, as well as alternatives to detention; 3.Fostering diversion measures, as it allows to reduce the cost of court proceedings and generally proves to be more responsive to the needs of first time and non-serious offenders; 4.Ensuring that legislation guarantees the recourse to diversion at every stage of the criminal justice proceedings; 5.During restorative processes, both the offender and the victim shall enjoy fair trial guarantees to avoid secondary victimization and ensure fairness of the proceeding. Restorative principles, such as voluntary participation, confidentiality and neutrality of the mediator, should be guaranteed by law; 6.Facilitators shall be offered high quality training, both as a precondition to get in contact with children, as well as throughout their experience in restorative practices; 7.National legislation shall ensure that every child has the right to equal and fair treatment, regardless of their nationality; 8.Legislation shall enshrine the right to privacy of children: any information collected in the course of the proceeding is not to become public, even after the child has reach 18 years of age. Details: Brussels: International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO), 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://www.apcjj.org/sites/default/files/oijj_asia-pacific_council_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Asia URL: http://www.apcjj.org/sites/default/files/oijj_asia-pacific_council_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 138793 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationChild Abuse and NeglectChild ProtectionJuvenile Justice SystemsRestorative JusticeViolence Against Children |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia: 2014-15 Summary: There were about 5,600 young people (aged 10 and older) under youth justice supervision in Australia on an average day in 2014-15, due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. This number has decreased by 23% over the 5 years to 2014-15. Around 4 in 5 (82%) young people under supervision on an average day were male. Most (85%) young people were supervised in the community and the remainder were in detention. Although rates of supervision decreased over the 5-year period for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people, the level of Indigenous over-representation increased. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 133: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554930 Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554930 Shelf Number: 138834 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Hopkins, Ziyad Title: Diverted from Counsel: Filling the Rights Gap in New Zealands Youth Justice Model Summary: This report provides observation and commentary on the following question: What are the merits of increasing access to Youth Advocates, specialised lawyers for young people facing criminal allegations, within the youth justice sector? The release of the Youth Crime Action Plan 2013-2023 (YCAP) marks a period of reflection and focus on New Zealand's youth justice sector and the landmark Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (CYPFA). This policy analysis reviews CYPFA, and the implementation of youth justice, from a rights-based perspective. Despite the well-earned positive international reputation of New Zealand's youth justice model, many young New Zealanders miss out on legal advice. Approximately 80 per cent of youth charges are addressed informally, before court proceedings and the appointment of a lawyer. Drawing on interviews and observations from all phases of youth justice - from apprehension through sentencing - the report argues that increasing young people's meaningful access to trained Youth Advocates can ensure their individual rights when faced with state intervention whilst also promoting youth development. Mindful of budgetary restraints, but also with the need to promote equity, the report recommends five specific actions that can align New Zealand's youth justice sector with principles expressed in CYPFA; the UN Convention on the Rights of Children; and positive youth development: - Appoint a Youth Advocate to each child or young person within twenty four hours of arrest - Require the presence of a Youth Advocate for all police interviews with young people - Provide a legal-advice scheme for young people offered alternatives to prosecution as well as independent oversight of the alternative action programme - Invite Youth Advocates to each "intention to charge" family group conference - Update and promulgate practice standards for Youth Advocates For Massachusetts, the New Zealand experience - with the protections of access to legal advice - offers three important opportunities to adapt practice: - In lieu of lawyer-driven courtroom based plea bargaining, use family group conferencing to reach dispositional agreements - Upon the successful completion of a state intervention plan, empower judges to deem that the charges had never been filed - Develop state-wide principles that encourage and govern pre-court resolution of charges Details: Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Justice, 2015. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2016 at : http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Ziyad-Hopkins-report-abstract.pdf Year: 2015 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Ziyad-Hopkins-report-abstract.pdf Shelf Number: 138903 Keywords: Family Group CounselingJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Vessels, Lauren Title: Racial and Ethnic Fairness in Juvenile Justice: Availability of State Data Summary: Youth of color are overrepresented in many aspects of the juvenile justice system from arrest to court referral and confinement. A core requirement of federal juvenile justice policy (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002) requires each state to identify where disparities may exist across various juvenile justice decision points. Where disparities are identified, the states must complete self-assessments informed by comprehensive data and use this research to develop solutions. The monitoring task begins with understanding federal policy for identifying racial and ethnic groups and exploring what national juvenile arrest data can tell us. Of equal importance is charting state progress toward transparently reporting meaningful fairness indicators to the public, conducting more detailed self-assessments and advancing specific strategies to improve racial and ethnic fairness at the local-level. This publication summarizes the results from a review of publicly available data that describe racial and ethnic fairness across the country. This StateScan publication is the 7th in a series that distills important knowledge from NCJJ's new Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics website (www.JJGPS.org). The author organizes results from a national search for publicly available state-level sources for racial and ethnic fairness data. This publication outlines important details provided in the data, describes the importance of sharing this data publicly, and discusses the underlying obstacles to data collection. This original analysis also describes the federal requirements to collect and report this data; however, few states share this information with the public. Details: Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: StateScan: Accessed May 6, 2016 at: http://www.ncjj.org/news/15-08-06/New_JJGPS_StateScan_-_Racial_and_Ethnic_Fairness_in_Juvenile_Justice_Availability_of_State_Data.aspx Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjj.org/news/15-08-06/New_JJGPS_StateScan_-_Racial_and_Ethnic_Fairness_in_Juvenile_Justice_Availability_of_State_Data.aspx Shelf Number: 138960 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersMinoritiesRacial Disparities |
Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: In Care, Out of Trouble. How the life chances of children in care can be transformed by protecting them from unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice system Summary: This review was established to examine the reasons for, and how best to tackle, the over representation of children in care, or with experience of care, in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Aiming to reduce the disproportionate number of young people who are, or have been, in public care progressing into custody is laudable. The over representation of looked after children in the youth justice system has to be challenged and changed. But it soon becomes distressingly clear that starting at the point of evidence of criminal behaviour is for many young people simply too late in the day. Remedial work and rehabilitation are essential but prevention is so much more rewarding and fruitful for the young person and wider society. It is against that background that it would be good to pause and reflect again on the importance of childhood in the social and emotional development of every young person. Good parenting entails a lifetime commitment. It creates the solid foundation on which is built the evolving unique personality that, hopefully, will in due course become the fulfilled adult. The essential ingredients are security, stability, unselfish love and an unyielding commitment to give the child the best start and hope for the future. It is in this context that young children develop self confidence, trust, personal and social values and optimism. Loss, neglect or trauma at this early stage in life often result in profound and enduring consequences. Great emphasis should be placed on early life experiences. Guidance and support through pregnancy and during the early months of parenthood should be available to all who need it. There are clear long term benefits in identifying problems at an early stage rather than delaying until a crisis. It is in all of our interests that as many children as possible are enabled to grow up to become successful, law abiding and fulfilled citizens well able to be good role models for the next generation. We all have a part to play in this, but especially the wider family. At times of difficulty steps should be taken to involve other family members and encourage their different contributions and support. Handled in the right way a crisis might be short-lived and stability restored. After all, this is a well trodden path in many families without the assistance of the state. This can be hugely satisfying work for frontline staff. Working in this way in some local authorities has already resulted in fewer children coming into care. Investing in childhood is more than a nice thing to do. It has a real value that goes beyond the child as it facilitates the future wellbeing of society. Failure to help the child and, where possible, to support the family at this stage is both costly to the child and very expensive to the state. In every way the price is high for everyone involved. In financial terms it costs over L200,000 each year to keep a young person in a secure children's home and the yearly cost of a place in a young offender institution is about L60,000. Meeting many young people in custodial institutions demonstrates all too clearly the gaps in their social development and in their basic education. It is impossible not to be moved by their experiences and the serious constraints on their life chances. For some, their anger, frustrations, inability to express themselves except through challenging behaviour and possibly violence all point to failure, for whatever reason, in their earlier years. Yet with the right help at the right time, the capacity of many children to change and their resilience in difficult circumstances is admirable. The staff in these establishments need to be equipped to demonstrate a mixture of sound professional skills and impressive personal qualities. They deserve good training, proper supervision and support. We should honour what they do on behalf of us all not least because few of us, including me, would choose to take on such challenging and at times distressing work. Remedial work can be tough, demanding and at times dispiriting. But this review has heard how good practice can achieve inspiring results. What is abundantly clear is that no one service operating alone can hope to meet the needs of these young people or their families. Each one of the key public services has a distinct and clear responsibility in law to fulfil the duties placed upon them by the United Kingdom Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. One of those duties is to work in partnership with each of the other services. Over the years there have been far too many well publicised examples of services failing to work across organisational boundaries both in the exchange of information and in day by day practice in the protection and support of vulnerable children. We have seen and heard of excellent joint working and co-located teams in places such as Leeds and Surrey to divert looked after children from unnecessary criminalisation. Good practice is achieving splendid results in other areas too. Now is the time to make it standard practice everywhere. Details: London: PRT, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2016 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/In%20care%20out%20of%20trouble%20summary.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/In%20care%20out%20of%20trouble%20summary.pdf Shelf Number: 139145 Keywords: At-Risk YouthDelinquency PreventionJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Full Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Work in Staffordshire Summary: Reducing reoffending Overall work to reduce reoffending was satisfactory. Good quality reports were produced for the courts and initial assessments were of a high standard. A new planning format had been adopted and further work was required to make sure that plans captured the issues identified in the assessment as well as reflecting the views of children and young people. Strategies for dealing with children and young people with low levels of motivation to change needed further development. Protecting the public Overall work to protect the public and actual or potential victims was good. Reports and initial assessments contained a thorough analysis of the risk of serious harm posed by children and young people. Multi-agency arrangements were good and there was a strong partnership approach to work to protect the public. Victims were well served by the YOS. Protecting children and young people Overall work to protect children and young people and reduce their vulnerability was good. Assessments were thorough and the YOS had appropriate multi-agency arrangements in place to manage vulnerability. Work to manage and reduce vulnerability was generally good, however, the reduction in health secondees to the service may reduce the ability of the service to respond to vulnerable children and young people in the future. Making sure the sentence is served Overall work to make sure the sentence was served was good. The YOS and its partners worked well to achieve positive outcomes for children and young people. Compliance was managed effectively. Barriers to engagement were identified and responded to, and children and young people together with their parents/carers were engaged meaningfully in the order. Governance and partnerships Overall, the effectiveness of governance and partnership arrangements was satisfactory. Operational management of the service was effective, there was a well trained, competent workforce and there were examples of strong partnership working. The YOS Management Board had met regularly but there had been a number of significant gaps in representation, notably health and education. Reoffending rates had risen and the Board's response was unclear. Interventions to reduce reoffending Overall the management and delivery of interventions to reduce reoffending was good. Staff had access to a wide range of resources. Outcomes achieved as a result of interventions had not yet been fully identified and evaluated. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/Staffordshire-FJI-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/Staffordshire-FJI-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139299 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffendingYouthful Offenders |
Author: Westley, Christine Devitt Title: Assessing the quality of Illinois Criminal History Record Information System data on juveniles Summary: The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, in partnership with the Illinois State Police, has access to records in the Illinois Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) System for research purposes. One such purpose is the derivation of statistical information from those records, especially on aspects of the justice system not covered by other statewide sources. The juvenile justice system is particularly in need of detailed statewide statistical data to inform policy decisions, as no comprehensive data collection program currently exists to capture individual-level data on justice-involved youth. The CHRI System offers promise, and has been used with some success, but its full potential for statistical purposes has not been systematically evaluated. This report provides such an assessment, focusing on the completeness of the juvenile arrest and court information collected by the CHRI System in light of state statutes that govern reporting practices. It provides a comprehensive statewide look at arrest and court records submitted for youth ages 10 to 17 during the year 2013, a time period chosen to allow sufficient time for court cases to be resolved and reported to the system. The findings of this assessment are aimed at educating researchers and policymakers on the strengths and limitations of juvenile CHRI System data as a source of useful statistical information. Data derived from the CHRI System offers several benefits for juvenile justice research not found elsewhere. Illinois' Uniform Crime Reporting (I-UCR) System, the state's official source for crime and arrest statistics, does not collect any demographic information on persons arrested. Without the age of the offender, it is not possible to isolate juvenile arrests. Further, no other statewide system is designed to track the outcomes of specific arrests, or to track an individual's contact with the justice system over time. However, the CHRI System has its own limitations that need to be understood. While there are many similarities between juvenile and adult criminal history records, reporting requirements for juvenile records focus on the most serious offenses for the purpose of creating a youth's transcript (or rap sheet). Since 2000, the Illinois Criminal Identification Act [20 ILCS 2630/5-5] and the Illinois Juvenile Court Act [705 ILCS 405/5-301] have mandated reporting of felony arrests and prosecutions to the CHRI System. The acts allow discretion in the reporting of Class A and B misdemeanor arrests and prosecutions. In actuality, the CHRI System will accept any arrest submitted with fingerprints, including petty offenses and local ordinance violations. Discretionary reporting poses a challenge for researchers using CHRI System data to examine Illinois' juvenile justice system. Even with all relevant juvenile records extracted from the system, it is difficult to determine the extent to which they adequately represent the true nature of juvenile justice system activity. In this study, comparative methodologies were used to assess the utility of CHRI data for research purposes and pinpoint areas for system improvement. Findings are presented by county and region to provide an overview of juvenile CHRI reporting practices. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 9, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Final%20Juvenile%20CHRI%20Assessment%20Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Final%20Juvenile%20CHRI%20Assessment%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 139345 Keywords: Criminal History RecordsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Records |
Author: Shearar, Ashley Fritha Title: 'At the heart of the matter': A comparative analysis of youth justice transformation between New Zealand and South Africa Summary: During the mid-1980s, Māori families challenged New Zealand's social welfare system, reclaiming their right to be involved in decisions about their children. Around the same time, parents and community groups protested the detention of hundreds of children in South Africa during the Apartheid era. These experiences helped shape both countries' youth justice systems, which reflect restorative justice principles and international standards for children's rights. The research reported here is the first in-depth comparative analysis to compare New Zealand and South Africa's journeys to alter their youth justice systems. It asks the following key questions: - What were the key conceptual influences that shaped youth justice transformation in New Zealand and South Africa? - What do both countries' experiences of youth justice transformation reveal about the role of individuals, advocacy coalitions, and international influences in shaping policy and practice? Using a phenomenological research approach, key role players from both countries were interviewed. These interviews discovered that social entrepreneurial factors gave direction to policy outcomes. All participants described their commitment to changing the status quo following their exposure to the inhumane conditions experienced by children and young people in conflict with the law. This prompted them to promote policies that diverted children from the justice system and prevented re-offending while still holding children to account for their behaviour and encouraging them to repair the harm. The participants explained their motivation to find policy solutions that empowered children, families, and victims. In both countries, social entrepreneurs resisted opposition and joined forces to develop convincing arguments for their position. This research confirmed the advantages of government support to advance social entrepreneurial ventures. Policy transfer was also found to play a role in the change processes in both countries. This study identifies how both New Zealand and South Africa have lent their policies internationally to contribute to practical youth justice changes in countries seeking to adhere to international standards and to incorporate restorative justice principles. Significant contributions include New Zealand's family group conference, which has inspired several jurisdictions, as well as South Africas diversion programmes, which have particularly benefitted other African countries. Details: Wellington, NZ: Victoria University of Wellington, 2013. 255p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 18, 2016 at: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/2872 Year: 2013 Country: New Zealand URL: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/2872 Shelf Number: 139652 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsNew ZealandSouth Africa |
Author: Carney, Jodeen Title: Review of the Northern Territory Youth Justice System: Report Summary: This Review was undertaken on behalf of the Northern Territory Government to identify emerging issues and trends in youth justice and youth offending outlined in the terms of reference. It was not an inquiry established under the Inquiries Act. A long list of recommendations is not provided in this report. Instead, there are nine. The Review elected to provide key recommendations that would, if adequately resourced and implemented, enhance the ability of government and non government agencies to assist in the delivery of services and responses for young people in the youth justice system. The recommendations will assist to reduce offending and re-offending. Supporting young people is a core function of any government. Services are always in demand and will always need to be increased. The challenge for the Northern Territory Government is to provide targeted and specialist interventions to those young people who are in the youth justice system and those who are at risk of entering it. Apart from assisting these young people for compassionate reasons, there are sound economic reasons for doing so. This underpins the concept of justice reinvestment. It requires a change of direction and purpose of expenditure. It requires realigning expenditure so that, over time, custodial operations are reduced and community interventions are increased. Unless this is attempted in a coordinated and comprehensive way, many young offenders are likely to re-offend, and will continue to present challenges for government, its agencies and the community. Many young offenders require intensive case management and interventions that are not achieved in detention centres. The relatively small number of young people in, or at risk of entering, the youth justice system provides an opportunity for Northern Territory Government agencies and the non government sector. Many of them are well known to providers of support and intervention services, as well as specific agencies. Hence, identifying these young people is not difficult and, with the appropriate systems in place, monitoring them is significantly easier than in other jurisdictions. Many young people in the youth justice system come from homes where poverty, alcohol abuse, violence and dysfunctional relationships are the norm. These are young people in greatest need and the ones who are likely to require a higher level of intervention and case management. These are the same young people who are more likely than others to graduate to further offending and incarceration. These are the ones who represent ongoing costs to the community. These are the ones for whom the underlying causes of their offending and re-offending must be addressed. Policy development and decision making in the area of youth crime must be evidenced based. There must be a bipartisan approach to youth offending and political leaders must The cost of detaining a young person in 2009-10 was $592 a day. Based on that figure, the cost of detailing one young offender for one year is $216 000. The Review does not know the costs of the effects of youth crime. It is, however, considerable. The terms of reference for this Review provide that the youth justice system 'encompasses a continuum of services and responses from preventive, policing, pre court, correctional and post release'. The Review examined each component of the system and found there was, in fact, no continuum. Instead, there is a fragmented and uncoordinated approach to the delivery of services and responses. Government agencies responsible for various parts of the youth justice system tend to focus on their own areas of responsibility. Once a young offender has moved on, that was the end of the agency's responsibility. Hence, young people who move throughout the youth justice system have no coordinated monitoring and are not dealt with again until they next come to the attention of the same or another government agency. Agencies recognise the importance of the continuum, but operate independently in accordance with their key portfolio responsibilities. There was widespread agreement that the fragmented ministerial and administrative arrangements made coordination of the system difficult and it was often unclear which agency was responsible for particular functions. A recommendation is made that is designed to streamline administrative and ministerial responsibilities. The need to establish a new unit or division within an existing department became obvious and is recommended in this report. There is a need to develop a new and comprehensive youth justice strategy with targets and benchmarks. The development of the strategy will guide the operations of the new unit. Government faces enormous challenges delivering services to young people across the Territory who are in, or at risk of entering, the youth justice system. Geographic obstacles, cultural issues, and limited resources are just some of the difficulties. The Federal Government continues to develop partnerships within the three tiers of government, the non government sector and the community in youth service delivery, with a particular focus on building service centres in Indigenous communities. This must continue in order to meet the various challenges that a continuum of services and responses requires. As the Review was required to work within its terms of reference, many useful suggestions do not appear in this report. The submissions will provide a valuable resource for government in its continuing efforts to improve the youth justice system. A coordinated model to target individual youth across the spectrum of issues they face will also bring government's approach to youth justice in line with the strategically coordinated, socially inclusive mandate of both Territory 2030 and Working Future. The key recommendations involve the Northern Territory Government: 1. establish a new unit within an existing department with responsibility for administering all services and responses to the youth justice system 2. develop a new youth justice strategy 3. streamline administrative arrangements and ministerial responsibilities 4. improve data collection, share information between government agencies, and ensure that programs delivered contain built in evaluations 5. increase investment in police diversion, including increased eligibility for diversion, and expand diversion programs 6. increase the number of youth rehabilitation camps 7. expand the Family Support Program and increase capacity of Family Support Centres 8. increase workforce capacity 9. establish an external monitoring and evaluation process. Details: Darwin, NT, AUS: Northern Territory Government, 2011. 242p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2016 at: https://www.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/238211/youth-justice-review-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: https://www.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/238211/youth-justice-review-report.pdf Shelf Number: 140141 Keywords: Juvenile Detention CenterJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Prison Watch Sierra Leone Title: Children and Juveniles in Detention: Study on compliance with international standards in Sierra Leone Summary: Protection and promotion of the rights of the child, as all other human rights, is the primary responsibility of the State. States are generally obligated to ensure the progress of juveniles, including the fostering and ensuring of personal development and education as free from crime and delinquency as possible. The UNCRC and other international standards relating to juveniles in detention are clear on that children should only be detained as a means of last resort. Protecting the best interests of the child entails that the traditional objectives of the criminal justice system, such as repression and retribution must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice when dealing with juvenile offenders. This means that receiving a sentence as a juvenile offender should not be a punishment; instead the deprivation of liberty should foster an environment that can support the child in reforming themselves, including enabling them to resume education or finding an apprenticeship or work. The substance of what constitutes rehabilitation and restoration will be further explained in the study. Sierra Leone has ratified the UNCRC on 18 June 1990 and has partially incorporated the UNCRC into domestic law through the adoption of the Child Rights Act (2007) (CRA). However adoption of legislation does not necessarily ensure implementation in practice. For example, the Sierra Leonean juvenile justice system is currently far from rehabilitative and restorative despite legislative efforts on alternative approaches included in the CRA. Further, in the concluding observations of the CRC on Sierra Leone in 2008 the Committee among other things emphasised its concerns regarding the fact that juvenile detention facilities were understaffed, ill‐equipped, with little or no security, poor learning facilities, little recreation and limited food supplies. This study builds on the knowledge and experience of Prison Watch Sierra Leone (PWSL) which has been obtained during its monitoring of and regular presence in juvenile detention facilities since 1996, through encounters with suspected child offenders in police detentions as well as through its linking and tracing interventions connecting parents and relatives with children in detention. Through these activities PWSL has gained a unique insight into the dire situation of juveniles in detention in Sierra Leone. Details: Copenhagen, DK: DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2016 at: https://dignityinstitute.org/media/2065757/pubseries_no4_children-and-juveniles-in-detention.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Sierra Leone URL: https://dignityinstitute.org/media/2065757/pubseries_no4_children-and-juveniles-in-detention.pdf Shelf Number: 147901 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: International NGO Council on Violence Against Children Title: Creating a Non-Violent Juvenile Justice System Summary: During the past decades, the international community has developed sound normative standards to protect the rights of children involved with the justice system. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and other legal instruments call for a specialized child-sensitive juvenile justice system that places the respect for the dignity and the best interest of the child at the center of legislation, policy and practice, while promoting children's sense of worth and long lasting reintegration in society. The governance gap between these important international standards and implementation efforts on the ground is, however, wide. Countless children across regions continue to see their rights neglected by laws and institutions and endure harsh and retributive punishments that stigmatize and marginalize them further. Children who are homeless and poor, who have fled home as a result of violence or neglect; as well as, those that suffer from mental health illness and substance abuse find themselves at special risk. Appropriate crime prevention efforts, support to parents and legal guardians to ensure a safe family environment, and education and work opportunities for children who are old enough to have access to an employment, are often lacking. The criminal justice system ends up being used as a substitute to weak or non-existent child protection systems. And imprisonment and recidivism become a pattern for children who are left with very few opportunities to re-shape their future. In order to reverse this serious situation and reduce the risk of violence against children, their involvement with the criminal justice system must be prevented. The development of a strong and cohesive child protection system should be a first priority and the current standards on the rights of the child in the juvenile justice system should be effectively implemented so that criminalization and punishment of children can be avoided, diversion and restorative justice solutions can be given a genuine chance of succeeding, and the development of children's fullest potential be effectively promoted. Details: International NGO Council on Violence Against Children. 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2016 at: http://www.childhelplineinternational.org/media/80443/inco_-_juvenile_justice.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.childhelplineinternational.org/media/80443/inco_-_juvenile_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 140474 Keywords: Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsViolence Against Children |
Author: Cannon, Yael Title: Adverse Childhood Experiences in the New Mexico Juvenile Justice Population Summary: Study Highlights A retrospective study of adults conducted by the CDC & Kaiser Permanente examined the relationship between several forms of childhood trauma (adverse childhood experiences or ACEs) & related health outcomes. Individuals with 4+ ACEs (12% of sample) were more likely to report health conditions & shorter lifespans. The current study includes all 220 juvenile offenders committed for incarceration in New Mexico during 2011 & uses the results of comprehensive multi-disciplinary psychosocial assessments to examine juveniles' ACEs, psychological & family conditions, & exposure to other traumatic events. 86% of incarcerated New Mexico juveniles experienced 4+ ACEs, 7 times higher than the CDC-Kaiser study. New Mexico juveniles experienced ACEs at a higher rate than juvenile offender populations in other studies. Among incarcerated New Mexico juveniles, majorities experienced emotional (76%) or physical (94%) neglect, parental divorce/separation (86%), and substance abuse in the home (80%). Axis I diagnoses (99.5%), substance abuse disorders (96%), & depression (48%) were widespread among incarcerated New Mexico juveniles. Females had a higher incidence of ACEs. 23% of females experienced 9+ ACEs compared to 3% of males. Females had a statistically significant higher incidence of sexual abuse (63% vs. 21%) & physical abuse (70% vs. 49%) when compared to males. Efforts are needed to identify & prevent early childhood trauma in New Mexico. Intervention goals include preventing additional ACEs in young children who have experienced them & trauma screening when children enter the juvenile justice system. Additionally, evidence-based, trauma-informed, family-engaged mental health & substance-abuse treatments should be available throughout the juvenile justice system and to youth subsequent to discharge from detention and incarceration. Details: Albuquerque: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2016 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2016/adverse-childhood-experiences-in-the-new-mexico-juvenile-justice-population.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2016/adverse-childhood-experiences-in-the-new-mexico-juvenile-justice-population.pdf Shelf Number: 146131 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectChildhood TraumaJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersMental Health |
Author: Perez Morgado, Paula Title: Youth Justice Reform in Chile: Origins and Results Summary: In its recent history, Chile has developed several reforms to its justice system. Amongst them, the reform to youth justice has taken place and its effects have yet to be fully investigated. This thesis analyses the origins and impact of legal reform in the youth justice field. The policy-making process is examined to discover which elements have had influence over the policy and implementation. Youth justice reform in Chile was propelled by the re-democratisation process undertaken following Pinochet leaving government and the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both events occurred in 1990. The research objectives of this thesis are addressed using a mixed methods strategy in which primary and secondary qualitative and quantitative data are analysed. I have reviewed the parliamentary debate of the new Act and have interviewed key experts to analyse the context of the reform, as well as comparing judicial files for young people, processed by courts located in Santiago de Chile before and after the reform, which will help to reveal the changes in the legal procedure. From exploring the policy-making process of this reform, I have reached two main conclusions. First, in a democratic context a series of stakeholders have to reach agreements responding to external forces that can be, as in this case, highly contradictory. For Chilean youth justice reform, two predominant groups holding opposite views have been identified: one group sought to adapt local legislation to international standards while the other tried to use this piece of legislation to demonstrate that something was being done about crime control. Findings from the case analysis show that while improvements to the procedure are effectively happening, there are a series of problems that need to be resolved in order to accomplish the objectives that the current Act contains (of holding young people responsible for their offences and simultaneously offering programmes that would favour their social reintegration). Details: London: King's College London, 2014. 301p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 14, 2016 at: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/44637325/2014_Morgado_Paula_Perz_0731910_ethesis.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Chile URL: In its recent history, Chile has developed several reforms to its justice system. Amongst them, the reform to youth justice has taken place and its effects have yet to be fully investigated. This thesis analyses the origins Shelf Number: 144803 Keywords: Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Defence for Children International Title: "From legislation to action: Trends in juvenile justice systems across 15 countries" Summary: Since the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989, the global progress made in terms of juvenile justice has been very uneven. In the General Comment No.10 on Children's Rights in Juvenile Justice (2007), the Committee on the Rights of the Child acknowledges that "many State parties still have a long way to go in achieving full compliance with the CRC, e.g. in the areas of procedural rights, the development and implementation of measures for dealing with children in conflict with the law without resorting to judicial proceedings, and the use of deprivation on liberty only as a measure of last resort."1 With growing concern the global movement of Defence for Children International (DCI) has developed research, monitoring, advocacy, and awareness raising activities at national and international level to respond to these problems. This publication, developed in collaboration with 15 of DCI's national sections across Africa, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and North America, provides a preliminary mapping of trends in juvenile justice in 2007. In order to draw attention to the continued shortcomings, and to effectively update and sharpen its advocacy and research objectives, and those of other key stakeholders, DCI saw the necessity of identifying the latest global trends in the implementation and/or neglect of international standards on juvenile justice. The organisation and analysis of information in this study are guided by the Committee on the Rights of the Child's General Comment No.10 on Children's Rights in Juvenile Justice 2 . DCI national sections were asked to gather quantitative and qualitative data on several aspects of the juvenile justice system that were highlighted in the General Comment. Each chapter opens with a short introduction to the topic, followed by an overview of the information collected by DCI's national sections, and a short analysis of the findings. Where possible, individual case studies are highlighted, together with examples of DCI's programme activities and staff experiences in particular countries. Chapter I provides an Introduction to the report, including its background and objectives, and the methodology used to gather information. Chapter II examines the Administration of Juvenile Justice in each participating country. In particular it considers whether the appropriate legal provisions, procedures and institutions are in place for an effective and fair juvenile justice system, and whether these are in compliance with international standards. Chapter III considers the issue of Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR), particularly the trends in the increase and decrease of MACR in certain countries. Chapter IV explores the policies and programmes in place for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. In particular, it looks at whether the participating countries have concrete prevention programmes in place, and who the target groups of these programmes are. Chapters V and VI explore the situation once children are sentenced: deprivation of liberty, and alternative measures to the deprivation of liberty. In particular, it explores the conditions of detention for children in conflict with the law, with special attention to their vulnerability to sexual, physical and other forms of abuse. Details: Geneva: Defence for Children International, 2007. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2016 at: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/DCI-JJ-Report-2007-FINAL-VERSION-with-cover.pdf Year: 2007 Country: International URL: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/DCI-JJ-Report-2007-FINAL-VERSION-with-cover.pdf Shelf Number: 114585 Keywords: Juvenile Justice AdministrationJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Leoschut, Lezanne Title: Returning to a Reluctant Sender: An Exploration into Community Attitudes Toward Diversion and Reintegration in South Africa Summary: Child and youth crime continues to be one of the primary challenges facing post-apartheid South Africa. The increasingly high numbers of young, first time perpetrators incarcerated for various minor offences is an issue that raises infinite contention worldwide. It is estimated by the Department of Correctional Services that 4% of all awaiting trial prisoners are children younger than 18 years. Moreover, 2.5% of the sentenced prison population are comprised of children under the age of 18 years. The extent of young offenders awaiting trial in the country's correctional facilities is a considerable statistic when considering that many of their offences are suitable for diversion. Advocates for children's rights have for long been engaged in the battle for the establishment of a separate system to deal specifically with first-time child and youth offenders of minor crimes. The birth of democracy in South Africa has aided the sustained action towards a new justice system which incorporates principles of restorative justice. The Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 (CJA) finally came into being in 2010. Prior to this, the implementation of alternative forms of sentencing such as diversion were conducted on a small and relatively un-monitored scale under the Child Justice Bill 49 of 2002. The new act has been welcomed mainly because of the guidelines and legal framework it provides for child justice in South Africa. These guidelines include the regulations for diversion and alternative penalties for young offenders, and also outline suitable penalties based on the age, background and other factors such as the offence and religious beliefs of the young offender. Children and youth who become involved in delinquent activities at a very young age, are generally more inclined to continue along this path later on in their lives; highlighting the need for interventions to target these youths before their delinquent acts become established behavioural patterns. Incarcerating young offenders for their criminal acts fails to curb crime since these youths are only temporarily removed from society, the root causes for their behaviours are not addressed, and they often graduate to more serious offences following their time behind bars due to their exposure to other criminal elements. With the high recidivism rates as a result of youth being exposed to the criminal justice system at an early age and following criminal careers because of the criminal records received from incarceration, the advent of alternative penalties have brought a new wave of hope for reduced recidivism rates. Prior to the CJA, diversion was virtually unavailable in poorer communities and the rural areas. A shortage of diversion service providers and the lack of funding from the Department of Social Development (DSD), as well as the reluctance on the part of the criminal justice system practitioners (i.e. magistrates, prosecutors and probation officers) to refer young, first time minor offenders to diversion programmes, have exacerbated the problem of youth incarceration. An area lacking sufficient research is the extent to which communities are receptive to diversion and alternative penalties. Since the success of diversion rests principally in the community's ability to reintegrate the offender, the current dearth of literature on community experiences and attitudes toward offender reintegration, underscore the need for this small scale exploratory study. In this monograph, a brief description of the history of child justice in South Africa and the steps taken in the process of launching the Child Justice Act (CJA) (75 of 2008) developed from the Child Justice Bill (CJB) (49 of 2002) will be provided. It will, in addition, explore the applicability of the Child Justice Act in South Africa through the lens of restorative justice, which is the pillar of the Act. There will be the analysis of diversion and how this has supported the objectives of restorative justice, to alleviate the criminal justice system and reduce recidivism. Following this, the findings from the study conducted amongst 1802 participants recruited from 14 communities across three provinces in South Africa; namely Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Western Cape, elucidating community members' perceptions of diversion and reintegration will be analysed. This analysis will be useful for painting a picture of the community responses to restorative justice since the community is highly contributory to the success or failure of such programmes. Overall, the findings of the study show that across the three provinces there is a noticeable hesitancy to engage with young, first time minor offenders through restorative justice practices such as diversion on a community level. It must however be noted that participants did feel that family cohesion and support was necessary and practiced within their households to a large extent, but community responsibility to maintain peace and order and raise children well was not perceived in the same manner. Although participants were drawn from diverse communities, there is no discernible difference between responses based on community types, however, participants from KwaZulu-Natal were undoubtedly the most unreceptive of diversion and related penalties. While most participants had not experienced or witnessed crime, there were high levels of insecurity within the communities represented in this study. Two thirds (33.6%) of participants said that they felt unsafe while at home and some of these feelings of insecurity were attributed to young peoples involvement in criminal activities in their communities. The findings present very interesting insight into the possible barriers towards reducing the incidences of youths engaging in crime and applying diversion and reintegration with positive outcomes within South Africa. Details: Cape Town, South Africa: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention, 2012. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Monograph Series, no. 10: Accessed October 19, 2016 at: http://www.cjcp.org.za/uploads/2/7/8/4/27845461/monograph_10_-_return_to_rel.pdf Year: 2012 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.cjcp.org.za/uploads/2/7/8/4/27845461/monograph_10_-_return_to_rel.pdf Shelf Number: 145896 Keywords: Juvenile Diversion ProgramsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersReintegration |
Author: Spier, Philip Title: Reoffending patterns of Military-style Activity Camp graduates: 2015 update Summary: This report describes changes in the offending outcomes observed for 79 young people who between October 2010 and December 2013 graduated from 11 Military-style Activity Camps (MACs) held at Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo youth justice residence in Christchurch. All of these young people had a post-MAC follow-up period of at least 12 months so their follow-up offending could be observed. Caution must be taken in interpreting reoffending outcomes as they are not always a measure of the effectiveness of an intervention alone. For example, some people may reoffend less often simply due to the fact that they were caught by the Police and made to account for their actions, regardless of the particular intervention applied. Offending outcomes observed for the MAC graduates included: • Eleven (14%) of the 79 young people did not reoffend (ie they did not come to the attention of Police with a new offence) in the 12 months after exiting the residence. • Sixty (76%) of the 79 young people offended less often, and 62 (78%) reduced the seriousness of their offending in the 12 months after the MACs compared with the 12 months before. • Theft and burglary were the most common offences committed by the young people. Overall, in the 12 months after the MACs, these offences reduced by 43% and 57% respectively compared to the 12 months prior. • Violent offending by the 79 young people reduced by 54% in the 12 months after the MACs compared with the 12 months before. • While the majority of young people reduced the frequency and seriousness of their offending, around one-fifth of MAC graduates increased the frequency and/or seriousness of their offending after the MACs. • Twenty-four (30%) of the 79 young people were imprisoned or received a new Supervision with Residence (SwR) order in the 12 months after completing a MAC. This rate was higher for Europeans than Māori, although due to small numbers, this result needs to be treated with caution. Details: Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Social Development, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/resource/reoffending-patterns-military-style-activity-camp-graduates Year: 2016 Country: New Zealand URL: http://apo.org.au/resource/reoffending-patterns-military-style-activity-camp-graduates Shelf Number: 141157 Keywords: Boot Camps Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders Re-offending Recidivism Supervision |
Author: Taylor, Charlie Title: Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales Summary: Context 1. In 2007, 225,000 children in England and Wales received a caution or conviction for a notifiable offence . Of these children, 106,000 were first-time entrants to the system having never before received a caution or conviction. 126,000 were prosecuted at court, and 5,800 were sentenced to custody. The average monthly under-18 custodial population for 2007 was 2,9092. 2. Since that high watermark the number of children dealt with by the youth justice system has reduced spectacularly, with consistent year-on-year falls. The number of children cautioned or convicted in 2015 was 47,000 – down 79% since 2007. Over the same period the number of children entering the youth justice system for the first time has fallen by 82%, the number prosecuted at court has reduced by 69%, and there are now around only 900 under-18s in custody. 3. In the last decade the demand for youth justice services has changed. The police and youth offending services have, rightly, increasingly sought to deal informally with minor offending by children. The diversion from the youth justice system of children who were never likely to continue offending has meant that those who remain are the most difficult to rehabilitate. 4. Among the children now in the youth justice system are high numbers of black, Muslim and white working class boys; many are in care, and mental and other health problems, and learning difficulties, are common. These groups are particularly over-represented in custody, where over 40% are from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds, a large proportion have previously been in care (38% in Young Offender Institutions, 52% in Secure Training Centres) , and more than a third have a diagnosed mental health disorder . Many of the children in the system come from some of the most dysfunctional and chaotic families where drug and alcohol misuse, physical and emotional abuse and offending is common. Often they are victims of crimes themselves. Though children's backgrounds should not be used as an excuse for their behaviour, it is clear that the failure of education, health, social care and other agencies to tackle these problems have contributed to their presence in the youth justice system. 5. Yet these are children for whom a traditional criminal justice response has been shown to be, on its own, inadequate. Sixty-four per cent of children given a Youth Rehabilitation Order by the court, and 69% of those sentenced to custody, go on to reoffend within a year. If the youth justice system is truly to protect the public, it must succeed in changing the lives of these most troubled children. To do this, a system set up almost two decades ago to tackle a different problem must evolve to respond imaginatively and proportionately to the challenges of today. Principles and aims for the review 6. It is right that children who break the law are dealt with differently to adults. Children act impulsively and often do not appreciate the consequences of their actions; they are not emotionally developed and may struggle to communicate effectively. This is particularly true of so many of the children who offend, who often have learning or speech and communication problems. But children also have great strengths on which to build and are capable of rapid and extraordinary change. There needs to be a shift in the way society, including central and local government, thinks about youth justice so that we see the child first and the offender second. Offending should not mean forfeiting the right to childhood. If children who offend are to become successful and law-abiding adults, the focus must be on improving their welfare, health and education "their life prospects" rather than simply imposing punishment. 7. Almost all of the causes of childhood offending lie beyond the reach of the youth justice system. It is vital that health, education, social care and other services form part of an integrated, multi-agency response to a child's offending, but it is more desirable that these same services intervene with at-risk children and families before their problems manifest themselves in offending. I believe this is best achieved by devolving greater freedoms and responsibility for the youth justice system to local authorities who otherwise hold the statutory accountability for educating and protecting children. By aligning these responsibilities stronger incentives can be created for a child's offending and related difficulties to be tackled promptly, proportionately and with the least cost to the taxpayer. To help professionals to exercise these functions effectively, I propose stripping back the prescription and bureaucracy associated with a centrally controlled system and creating a clearer inspection and accountability framework, so that practitioners are judged on the outcomes that they achieve rather than the processes they follow. 8. It is my view that education needs to be central to our response to youth offending. All children in England are required to be in education or training until their 18th birthday, but too often children in the youth justice system have been out of school for long periods of time through truancy or following exclusion. As a result, half of 15-17 year olds in YOIs have the literacy or numeracy levels expected of a 7-11 year old. Schools and colleges are crucial in preventing offending. If children are busy during the day, undertaking activity that is meaningful and that will help them to succeed in life, whether it be studying for exams, learning a trade or playing sport or music, they are much less likely to offend. Education and training are also the building blocks on which a life free from crime can be constructed. By forging closer links between schools, colleges and youth offending services, and by transforming youth custody into Secure Schools, drawing in expertise from the best alternative provision schools, children can be equipped with the skills, qualifications and confidence to move beyond offending and fulfil their potential. The government's new ambition to make schools in England responsible for the educational provision of pupils that are excluded is particularly welcome as it will maintain the connection with mainstream education for some of the most troubled children. 9. In reforming the youth justice system it must be recognised that, for the vast majority of children, offending is a short-lived phase. The most recent data suggest that 62% of children who receive a caution or conviction do not go on to reoffend within 12 months. Growing up involves making and learning from mistakes. It is right that the youth justice system should tackle serious and persistent offending, but it should not be the mechanism by which all childhood mistakes are redressed. The right response to childhood offending should always be to address the causes of the offending behaviour and to repair harm to victims. This does not always require a criminal justice intervention. Evidence shows that contact with the criminal justice system can have a tainting effect on some children and can increase the likelihood of reoffending. Wherever possible minor crimes should be dealt with outside the formal youth justice system, and when a criminal justice response is required children should be dealt with at the lowest possible tier. The long-term implications of formal contact with the system must also be reduced so that these do not act as barriers to rehabilitation. 10. It was concerning to see versions of the "Scared Straight" programme operating in England, in which either prison officers or prisoners themselves attempt to deter children from criminality by showing or explaining the realities of life in prison. This is despite international evidence that such interventions can increase the likelihood offending among children and young people . In general, there is surprisingly little robust evidence from the UK about which interventions are the most effective, but what is undoubtedly important is the quality of the worker who is involved with the child, and the relationship that they strike up . The evidence suggests that having one person directly involved, holding the child in mind, keeping going when things go wrong and caring about what happens to him or her, is vital in helping a child to change. 11. A more proportionate response to offending must also mean that the government and local services are prepared to invest intensive effort in turning around the lives of the most profoundly troubled children. Some children who commit persistent or serious offences have a range of problems that means criminal justice processes need to be able to adapt to individual circumstances. Professionals must have the freedom and the flexibility to make decisions about a child's rehabilitation, and to adjust these plans to recognise progress or respond to setbacks. I believe the role of the court should be enhanced so that youth magistrates can play a much more active role in designing tailored plans for children, co-ordinating the contributions of partner agencies and holding the child, their parents and these agencies to account. Similarly, for those children remanded or sentenced to custody, the head teacher of a Secure School must have the freedom to hire the right staff, commission the required services and establish a programme of activity that will engage, motivate and rehabilitate the children in his or her care. To achieve this, custody must truly be the option of last resort, and those who go there must stay for a meaningful period of time. Professionals must be equipped with sufficient powers, and then trusted to take the right decisions with the most challenging children, if they are to reduce reoffending and thereby create fewer victims. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2016. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576383/youth-justice-review-final-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576383/youth-justice-review-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 144913 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: National Collaboration for Youth Title: Beyond Bars: Keeping Young People Safe at Home and Out of Youth Prisons Summary: The National Collaboration for Youth (NCY), a 40-year old affinity group, is a coalition of the National Human Services Assembly member organizations that have a significant interest in youth development. Members of NCY include more than 50 national, non-profit, youth development organizations. The NCY mission is to provide a united voice as advocates for youth to improve the conditions of young people in America, and to help young people reach their full potential. Collectively, the member organizations of the National Collaboration for Youth: ● Serve more than 40 million young people and their families ● Employ over 100,000 paid staff ● Utilize more than six million volunteers ● Have a physical presence in virtually every community in America The organizations that comprise the NCY work across generations, with young people, families, neighbors and community institutions. The impact of our organizations indicates that building strong communities and families provides young people with a greater opportunity to achieve well-being and reach their full potential far better than a system that relies on youth incarceration. These next few pages should serve as a handbook for juvenile justice administrators, legislators, judges, the non-profit community and youth advocates for how to end the practice of youth incarceration, promote public safety and restore a sense of belonging for our young people in their homes and neighborhoods. Our collective experiences tell us that communities that are often characterized by intense needs also have extraordinary assets that can be easily overlooked. We advocate for leveraging those assets as one means to meet those intense needs, and providing greater resources for neighborhood-based services and programs. Details: Washington, DC: National Collaboration for Youth, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2016 at: http://www.nationalassembly.org/uploads/documents/BeyondBars.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nationalassembly.org/uploads/documents/BeyondBars.pdf Shelf Number: 146133 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationAt-Risk YouthDelinquency PreventionJuvenile AftercareJuvenile Justice AdministrationJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Spinney, Elizabeth Title: Case Studies of Nine Jurisdictions that Reduced Disproportionate Minority Contact in their Juvenile Justice Systems Summary: ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, youths of color are more likely than their white peers to be arrested and referred to juvenile court. After becoming involved in the juvenile justice system, they are also more likely to go deeper into the system, resulting in a higher likelihood of secure detainment, confinement, and transfer to adult court. Minority youths are also less likely to be diverted from court. This phenomenon, known as disproportionate minority contact (DMC), has been recognized for decades as a deep-rooted problem in the juvenile justice system. All states are required to address DMC to stay in compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) tracks compliance with this JJDPA requirement. In 2005, OJJDP began requiring states to input data on the flow of youths at nine points in their juvenile justice systems into a Web-based data entry system. Until now, there has been no methodical national analysis of these data. This study is the first to systematically review the data in OJJDP’s database, to identify sites that have been able to reduce DMC over an extended period of time, and to gather information on the strategies used in those successful sites. At the start of this study, OJJDP’s Web-based data entry system had reports from nearly 1,500 jurisdictions across the United States. The top 20 jurisdictions with reductions in racial disparities for five of OJJDP’s nine juvenile justice stages (referral, diversion, detention, confinement, and transfer) were selected for further study. After analyzing data trends, gathering information from state Juvenile Justice Specialists and DMC Coordinators, interviewing stakeholders and decision-makers in jurisdictions of interest, presenting findings during meetings and conferences, receiving input from OJJDP, and meeting with our Advisory Committee, nine jurisdictions were selected for case studies. Five of the nine jurisdictions reduced DMC at arrest or referral to court, three jurisdictions reduced DMC at diversion, four jurisdictions reduced DMC at detention, and two jurisdictions reduced DMC at secure confinement. Eight of the jurisdictions reduced DMC for African American youth, eight jurisdictions reduced DMC for Hispanic youth, and two jurisdictions reduced DMC for Native American youth. The nine jurisdictions selected as case study sites were 1) Bernalillo County, N.M., 2) Clark County, Nev., 3) the state of Connecticut, 4) Essex County, N.J., 5) Hillsborough County, N.H., 6) Montgomery County, Ala., 7) Philadelphia, Pa., 8) Tulsa County, Okla., and 9) Utah County, Utah. These nine case study sites represent a diverse group of jurisdictions both geographically and demographically. The smallest jurisdiction by population was Montgomery County, Ala., which had fewer than 250,000 residents, and the largest jurisdiction was the state of Connecticut, which had more than 3.5 million residents. Some of the sites, such as Utah County, Utah, and Bernalillo County, N.M., were gaining youth population while others, such as Philadelphia, Pa., were losing youth population. The portion of youth population ages 10–17 that was minority ranged from 15 percent in Hillsborough County, N.H., to 78 percent in Philadelphia. The poverty rates for children and youth also varied significantly among the nine sites. Although the selected sites had numerous differences, interviewees often pointed to similar strategies that they felt were responsible for reducing racial disparities in their systems. The eight most-noted strategies were 1. Focusing on data collection and utilization 2. Increasing collaboration with other state and local agencies, police, judges, and the community 3. Changing the institutional culture away from a punitive or procedural focus toward a focus on what was best for the youth and the community 4. Affiliating with national juvenile justice reform initiatives 5. Creating alternatives to secure detention, secure confinement, and formal system involvement 6. Focusing intentionally on DMC reduction (and not just on general system improvement) while using a non-accusatory tone 7. Leadership at the local level, the state level, or both 8. Making DMC reduction a long-term priority While these eight strategies were the most common, each site approached its unique DMC problems in its own way. Following is a brief summary of strategies utilized and achievements gained in each of the nine Details: Bethesda, MD: Development Services Group, Inc., 2014. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 19, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250301.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250301.pdf Shelf Number: 147746 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile Justice SystemsMinority YouthsRacial Disparities |
Author: Resilience Resource Center Title: Pathways to Youth Resilience: Youth Justice in Nova Scotia/Newfoundland and Labrador Summary: The purpose of this report was to collect all relevant information regarding youth justice services within Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This was done by means of gathering publicly available data and information provided on governmental and non-governmental websites, as well as within academic databases. A major challenge to collecting data by this method is access. It is difficult to provide all of the relevant information needed for a complete report by simply using the internet as a resource. It would have been helpful to have funds to access statistical information from Statistics Canada. As well, having a contact within the justice department may have provided more information regarding the programming process as well as funding and policy initiatives. Beyond the methodological challenges of this report, it was clear that there are several potential barriers to youth receiving adequate justice services within this province. Keeping in mind that each of these challenges is simply speculation, they are still useful for reflection. The youth justice legislation expressly states that extrajudicial measures and sanctions should be utilized by police and judiciary officials in almost every incidence of youth offending. Exceptional circumstances and a previous history of offending contribute to youth potentially being sentenced to custody. It would seem then that most of the youth who are in fact receiving custodial sentences should in theory be continually recidivating. It is clear that the restorative and community justice processes are indeed very important in restraining from the over-reliance on custodial sentences. However, what is not clear is why there is such a large proportion of youth who are eligible for custodial sentences? What is being done within the justice facilities to ensure that youth are not committing more crime once released from jail? Are there programs which specifically address the needs of this vulnerable group of youth? The dilemma of youth recidivists lends to another question of whether or not youth justice services are really in dialogue with other governmental and nongovernmental services that a high risk youth may utilize. Youth custodial sentences are not lengthy in relation to adult sentences. Therefore, a youth is often released into community supervision or the care of another program. This begs the question of whether or not these different services are aware of the youth’s offending and social history. What are these programs doing in order to prevent youth from being funnelled back into the justice system? Another concern arose from capturing different justice services available to youth within Newfoundland and Labrador. Geographically, Newfoundland and Labrador is a much larger province than Nova Scotia making it difficult to reach particular isolated communities. Referring to Appendix One (a map of justice services in Newfoundland and Labrador) it is easy to see that Labrador is lacking in relation to justice services in its smaller communities. The majority of justice service providers as well as the youth custodial facilities are all located within the St. John’s region. Local access to youth justice services for both the young person and their family is critical. If a youth from Labrador does receive a custodial sentence as is relocated to one of the youth facilities in Newfoundland, the isolation from their family and the community is tangible. Lastly, in review of the above justice programs and initiatives and also relevant offending and custodial statistics, there seem to be a large group of individuals that are not accounted for. African American youth contribute to a significant proportion of the general population in Nova Scotia. Rightfully so, the federal government is extremely cognizant of the Aboriginal youth population in their analysis of youth offending. When looking at provincially specific data and programming however, African American youth seem to be missing. Culturally and contextually relevant programming and services is necessary in addressing the unique needs of the young offender population. It is unclear as to whether Nova Scotia adequately provides this for African American youth. Details: Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: http://resilienceresearch.org/files/PDF/Youth_Justice_in_Nova_Scotia_Newfoundland_and_Labrador.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://resilienceresearch.org/files/PDF/Youth_Justice_in_Nova_Scotia_Newfoundland_and_Labrador.pdf Shelf Number: 141185 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Traveller Movement Title: Overlooked and Overrepresented: Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in the youth justice system Summary: This is an analysis of the Children in Custody 2015–16, HM Inspectorate of Prisons data published on the 15 November 20161 . The data for the Children in Custody report derives from surveys conducted at all Secure Training Centres (STCs) and Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) between 1 April 2015 and 12 April 2016; the response rate was 85% and 86% respectively. Separate questionnaires are used at STCs and YOIs as they are tailored to support the different inspection criteria used for each setting. In the 2015 Children in Custody report, the then HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick said in his foreword: "Both STCs and YOIs continued to hold a hugely disproportionate number of children who described themselves as being from a Traveller or Gypsy background…. a hundred times greater than the 0.1% which is the estimated proportion in the population as a whole. We have repeatedly raised our concerns about this issue – with any other group such huge disproportionality would have led to more formal inquiry and investigation into what part of their backgrounds or interaction with the criminal justice system had led to this situation. Children from a Traveller background reported greater levels of need and worse experiences in custody than other children". Sadly, Nick Hardwick's words are as true today as they were a year ago, with Gypsy, Traveller and Roma (GTR) children remaining "hugely overrepresented in the youth justice system". After Mr Hardwick's intervention, organisations in the GTR sector were hopeful that the overrepresentation in youth justice would finally become a priority to be addressed. However, almost no progress has made in addressing the experiences of GTR children in custody, nor has there been any moves toward a formal investigation as to why the numbers remain so high. In fact, compared to 2015, there was significantly less analysis of the experiences of GTR children in the 2016 Children in Custody report. To counter the lack of profile given to GTR children in STCs and YOIs, the Traveller Movement has analysed the raw data and highlighted the key issues facing these children. Recommendations The Youth Justice Board should act, with urgency, to ensure the 18+1 ethnic monitoring system based on the 2011 census is implemented across the entire youth criminal justice system. A formal inquiry should be launched into what has led to Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children being overrepresented in the youth criminal justice system. Details: London: The Traveller Movement, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2017 at: http://travellermovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Overlooked-and-Overrepresented-Gypsy-Traveller-and-Roma-children-in-the-youth-justice-system.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://travellermovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Overlooked-and-Overrepresented-Gypsy-Traveller-and-Roma-children-in-the-youth-justice-system.pdf Shelf Number: 141297 Keywords: GypsiesJuvenile Justice systemsJuvenile OffendersMinority GroupsMinority OverrepresentationRoma Children |
Author: New York (State). Governor's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice Title: Final Report of the Governor's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice. Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York State Summary: Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 131 on April 9, 2014, to establish the Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice. He instructed this Commission to develop a concrete plan to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction in the most effective and prudent manner possible, and to make other specific recommendations as to how New York State's juvenile and criminal justice systems could better serve youth, improve outcomes, and protect communities. The Commission was ordered to complete its work by December 31, 2014. Why "raise the age" now? Numerous developments have converged in recent years to forge a growing consensus for this and related reforms to New York State's juvenile justice system. In brief, at least seven key developments have brought us to this point where reform is both necessary and possible. Each of these developments is explored in greater detail in this report. First, experiences in states like Connecticut and Illinois that have raised the age of criminal responsibility recently have demonstrated that recidivism and juvenile crime rates overall can be lowered through evidence-based interventions that steer nonviolent youthful offenders out of the justice system and into family, mental health, or other needed services. These experiences have helped to reduce opposition to reform in this area by showing that public safety can actually be enhanced by such changes. As discussed more fully in Chapter seven, analysis of the efficacy of certain interventions shows substantial recidivism reductions among high risk offenders in New York State. In fact, analysis completed in support of this Commission found that implementation of a range of evidence-based services used in juvenile justice for New York's population of 16- and 17-year-old offenders would eliminate between 1,500 and 2,400 crime victimizations every five years as a result of these recidivism reductions. Second, extensive research on the significant negative impacts of incarceration on adolescents in adult jails and prisons has brought a sense of urgency for reform. Higher suicide rates, increased recidivism, and many other measures all suggest that both offenders and their communities are harmed by placing adolescents into adult jails and prisons. Third, New York's unique history of juvenile justice has created a pressing reason for reform now. Despite a proud early history in this area, New York State now stands as one of only two states in the country that have set the age of criminal responsibility at age 16. That single fact has become a rallying cry for the current reform movement in this State, led the State's Chief Judge to urge legislative action, and inspired the Governor's initiative to appoint this Commission. Fourth, the impacts of processing all 16- and 17-year-olds in the criminal justice system fall disproportionately on young men of color. Young men of color are substantially over-represented among youth who are arrested at age 16 or 17 and who end up incarcerated as a result of the offense. Those impacts are felt not only by the young men themselves, but also by communities of color around the State. Fifth, scientific research into brain development has revealed only very recently that portions of our brains, including the region governing impulse control, develop far later than expected--after adolescence and as late as one's early to mid-20s. This research has demonstrated that adolescents do not have fully developed faculties of judgment or impulse control. It has also shown that adolescents respond more fruitfully to efforts to rehabilitate them and put them on the right track. Adolescence is a time of substantial development and provides real opportunity to harness the many assets youth possess in support of a positive life trajectory. Sixth, the research cited above has, in turn, undergirded several opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts restricting the nature and scope of state and local governments' punishment of adolescent offenders on the ground that such offenders are both less culpable criminally and more susceptible to fruitful rehabilitation because of their still-developing brains. Those decisions have both resulted from and encouraged reform efforts across the country to improve the juvenile justice laws to reduce unnecessary incarceration and improve rehabilitative programming. Finally, this shifting view of adolescent offenders has coincided with, and arguably been facilitated by, a steady and significant decrease in violent crimes committed by youthful offenders since the 1990s. That reduction in crime has replaced outsized fears of young "super predators" with a more thoughtful focus on targeted criminal justice interventions to reduce recidivism without simply expanding costly incarceration. For all of these reasons, the Commission has the wind at its back in drafting this plan for raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction and reforming the juvenile justice system in other respects. The Commission's recommendations reflect a balanced approach that incorporates the wisdom and experiences of law enforcement, probation officers, criminal defense attorneys, policy advocates, service providers, local and State officials, and youth and their parents affected by the current system. Partly as a result of this balanced approach, the Commission's members support these recommendations unanimously and without reservation. Details: Albany: The Commission, 2014. 176p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2017 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicSafetyandJustice_0%20(1).pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicSafetyandJustice_0%20(1).pdf Shelf Number: 144817 Keywords: Administration of Juvenile JusticeAge of Criminal ResponsibilityJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Gupta-Kagan, Josh Title: Effective Solutions to South Carolina's Juvenile Justice Crisis: Safety, Rehabilitation, and Fiscal Responsibility Summary: More than a decade after emerging from federal court oversight, the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice ("DJJ") once again faces significant difficulties. Recent legislative and media reports have shined a light on some of DJJ's current problems. Some members of the South Carolina General Assembly now consider DJJ to be in the midst of a crisis marked by violence at DJJ facilities, poor staffing models, and inadequate treatment for children in custody. A critical Legislative Audit Council report describes an agency facing serious challenges, and led to the resignation of the DJJ director. This crisis creates an opportunity to address long-standing challenges and set South Carolina on a course to build a model juvenile justice system. This white paper will not rehash the incidents that triggered the General Assembly's attention. Instead, this analysis is a call to action to address the long-standing problems in how we treat juvenile offenders and to set South Carolina on a path towards building a model juvenile justice system - a system that reduces crime by rehabilitating child offenders, keeps children and juvenile justice staff safe, and more efficiently spends taxpayer money. Details: Columbia, SC: Protection & Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc., 2017. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2017 at: http://www.pandasc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Juvenile-Justice-Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.pandasc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Juvenile-Justice-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 145024 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Lipsey, Mark W. Title: Juvenile Justice System Improvement: Implementing an Evidence-Based Decision-Making Platform Summary: Over the past three decades, the juvenile justice system in the United States has benefited from the tremendous growth in knowledge about effective policy and practice. Since the mid-1990s, we have seen the development of the components of an evidence-based decision-making platform, consisting of validated risk and needs assessment tools, structured decision-making tools to assist in the better matching of the needs of youth involved in the juvenile justice system with the correct level of supervision and types of services, and evidence-based programs and services. Today, that knowledge is readily available to policy makers and practitioners, with the challenge being to support jurisdictions in incorporating the components holistically into the operation of their juvenile justice systems. This report draws on the experiences of jurisdictions that have worked to integrate these tools and practices into a platform for juvenile justice decision-making through two demonstration programs--the Juvenile Justice Systems Improvement Project (JJSIP) and the Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative (JJRRI). These jurisdictions have made significant progress in bringing the tenets of JJSIP and JJRRI to life in their communities and juvenile justice systems. It is our hope that the implementation experiences this report captures will help others to follow in their footsteps. It is our belief that the core tenets of JJSIP and JJRRI are at the heart of what juvenile justice systems across the country will look like in the future - and that the youth and families they serve will be better off as a result. The report, therefore, is organized to help the reader understand the background of the initiatives and their essential elements. It draws on site experiences to depict key principles and implementation issues that can inform any effort by a jurisdiction to create an evidence-based decision-making platform. It demonstrates that successful implementation of an evidence-based platform requires an array of systems supports, including strong leadership, workforce development, data collection and analysis, partnership, communication, cooperation, and ongoing attention to quality assurance. In that regard, it should serve as a guide for agency leaders contemplating aligning their system improvement efforts with both JJSIP and JJRRI. In short, it is our hope that this report will provide foundational information about what a system leader needs to consider related to readiness for this type of system improvement effort. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2017. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250443.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250443.pdf Shelf Number: 145332 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: John Howard Association of Illinois Title: Moving Beyond Transition: Ten Findings and Recommendations on the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice Summary: Our findings include the following: In a 2012 report, JHA found chronically low mental health staffing levels at IYC-Kewanee, the only IDJJ facility designated to provide intensive mental health treatment. Since JHA's 2012 report was published, IDJJ has increased Kewanee's mental health staffing levels and moved youth with lower security risks and less intensive treatment needs to a newly-created mental health special treatment cottage at IYC-St. Charles. While IDJJ has increased its collection of data on programs and operations, much of this data is still not readily available to stakeholders and public. This kind of transparency is essential to enable stakeholders and the public to independently evaluate IDJJ's performance, advocate for necessary improvements, and build broad support for the agency and its mission. In 2012, IDJJ strengthened oversight of its operations by requiring greater accountability from independent service providers, and also working with outside evaluators to assess program outcomes. Notwithstanding ongoing challenges, IDJJ has made progress in the area of juvenile parole and reentry. IDJJ now has the authority to approve alternative host site placements for youth awaiting release on parole, and the agency continues to expand its Aftercare Program to enhance treatment, services, and reentry outcomes for youth on parole. While JHA continues to receive reports from youth of confinement being misused and overused at some facilities, we were encouraged by evidence of staff using communication and de-escalation techniques in lieu of solitary confinement to punish disruptive youth. Based on a growing body of research and a well established body of law and best practices, JHA advocates that IDJJ allow confinement to be used only for security purposes when youth are physically out of control and/or present an immediate threat to physical safety-and only for the limited duration that youth pose an imminent threat of harm. Consistent with juvenile justice systems nationwide, JHA found evidence that minority youth of color in IDJJ are much less likely to be identified as having mental health needs and provided with services than white youth in the system. Details: Chicago: The Society, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2017 at: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/Moving%20Beyond%20Transition.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/Moving%20Beyond%20Transition.pdf Shelf Number: 131364 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersMental Health Services |
Author: Hussemann, Jeanette Title: Implementing Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice Reforms Demonstration Sites in OJJDP's Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative Summary: At the end of 2012, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched the Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative (JJRRI) in three demonstration sites in Delaware, Iowa, and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The goal of JJRRI was to bring evidence and best practices to bear on juvenile justice operations. This was done through the use of empirically based risk and needs assessment, the development of dispositional matrices that provide evidence-based recommendations concerning dispositional options, and the implementation of the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) rating system to assess and guide improvements in the programs delivered to juvenile justice youth. Together, these tools were intended to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of juvenile justice resources. Concurrent with the implementation of JJRRI, the Urban Institute conducted a process and outcome evaluation of the initiative. The goals of the evaluation included understanding how the implementation of JJRRI improved the quality and effectiveness of juvenile justice programming at demonstration sites. Two prior reports focused specifically on the implementation and attempt to validate the SPEP system for rating program effectiveness, which was a major component of JJRRI (Liberman and Hussemann 2016, 2017). This report provides an overview of JJRRI and implementation components at the three demonstration sites, including progress made, challenges encountered, and the sustainability of reforms. Findings are based on data collected between 2012 and 2015. Data collection included annual visits to each site with technical assistance (TA) providers, observation of on-site trainings, and in-depth telephone interviews with stakeholders to monitor progress and assess stakeholder perspectives. Interviews were conducted with a diverse set of juvenile justice stakeholders at each site, including administrators, program providers, court workers, contractors, data managers, and JJRRI program managers and support staff. Additional information was collected via a review of written reports and narratives provided by the JJRRI sites, as well as participation in regular calls with the sites, funders, and TA providers. This report describes the implementation of JJRRI at the three demonstration sites. The first section briefly discusses key components of JJRRI, and the second section discusses how implementation of the components proceeded in the JJRRI demonstration sites. The third section concludes with a discussion of the overall challenges and benefits to the initiative. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2017. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90381/implementing_evidence-based-juvenile-justice-reforms.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90381/implementing_evidence-based-juvenile-justice-reforms.pdf Shelf Number: 146383 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesEvidence-Based ProgramsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Haight, Konrad Title: An Examination of Ethnic Disparities in Arizona's Juvenile Justice System: Final Technical Report Summary: Research on disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system has generally concluded that Black youth are subject to disparate treatment such that they typically are more likely than White youth to face more formal and more punitive treatment at the various decision points in the juvenile court process. Research on disparate treatment for Latino youth in the juvenile justice system has been relatively rare, and the results of those studies have provided inconsistent evidence on the nature of disparities between Latino and White youth. This study sought to address such gaps in the research with a comprehensive assessment of juvenile justice case processing for a two-year period in the state of Arizona. Using a data set particularly well-suited for this examination, we believe the results of this study contribute meaningfully to the literature on ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. Using data from the state of Arizona that included 75,316 referrals to the juvenile justice system over the two-year period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, we applied five research questions to data on eight distinct decision points. We controlled for key legal factors such as the referral offense, the number of prior referrals, and whether the youth was involved in dependency court in addition to juvenile court. The level of detail in the data allowed us to investigate whether disparity varied depending on the type of referral offense and the county in which the youth was referred. Does disparity affecting Latino youth exist statewide in Arizona? If we look at rates of referral to juvenile court, we find that White youth are actually more likely to be referred to juvenile court than Latino youth. This is in contrast to the patterns of referral rates for Black and Native American youth-both groups are more likely than White youth to be referred to juvenile court, with Black youth referred more than twice as often as White youth. Once they are referred to juvenile court, however, there are a number of ways that Latino youth experience their processing in the juvenile justice system disproportionately more punitive than White youth. Latino youth are underrepresented in diversions from formal court processing, and overrepresented in direct filings to adult court, in pre-adjudicatory secure detention, in petitions filed for formal juvenile court processing, and in commitments to correctional facilities at disposition. Does observed disparity affecting Latino youth remain when we control for other factors that might impact juvenile justice decision making? Based on multivariate analyses that controlled for the influence of age, gender, number of priors, most serious current offense, and dependency status, we find that the disparities identified above remain even after taking into account these other factors. Across the state, if they were referred to juvenile court, Latino youth were less likely than White youth to receive an opportunity to avoid formal court processing and more likely to experience more punitive treatment at the various decision points. Does disparity affecting Latino youth vary by county? We did find a pattern of results that was generally consistent across the different counties. This pattern is that Latino youth are less likely than White youth to be referred to juvenile court and to be diverted from formal court processing, but more likely to be securely detained prior to adjudication, have a petition filed for formal court processing, and be committed to a correctional facility after disposition. We did find some counties where this pattern was not detected, and those were the counties in which the Latino youth were the largest racial/ethnic group in the general population. Does disparity affecting Latino youth vary based on the type of offense for which the youth was referred? By considering each decision point broken down by the type of offense, we find there are complexities to the patterns of disparities for Latino youth in juvenile courts in Arizona. For example, Latino youth are overall less likely to be referred to juvenile court than White youth, except in the case of violent felonies, status offenses, and violations, for which we find Latino youth to be more likely than White youth to be referred to court. Also, Latino youth are overrepresented in secure detention placements, except when the offense was a violation or a violent misdemeanor. In addition, the biggest disparities for Latino youth with regard to the filing of petitions for formal court processing are in the case of property misdemeanors and for drug felonies. Finally, while we find that Latino youth are more likely to be committed to correctional placements after disposition, the disparities are greatest for violent misdemeanors and felonies and for drug felonies. Does disparity affecting Latino youth differ depending on whether the county of referral is participating in JDAI? We find that at several of the decision points, the disparities between Latino and White youth in the JDAI counties are smaller than what we find in the non-JDAI counties, particularly at the decision points of direct file, diversion, petition, and probation. There are other decision points where the differences between JDAI and non-JDAI counties are rather small, namely secure detention and adjudication. Placement in correctional facilities is one decision point where Latino youth in the JDAI counties fare worse than in non-JDAI counties. Key findings from this study include: - Latino youth are not overrepresented in referrals to juvenile court, but they do experience disparate treatment once they are in the system. - Latino youth are more likely than White youth to experience the most severe and restrictive punishments that the juvenile justice system has to offer. This includes direct filings in adult court, placement in pre-adjudicatory secure detention, and placement in confinement following disposition. - When it comes to severe and restrictive punishments, Black youth experience greater levels of disparity than Latino youth. - In most cases, legal factors that we controlled for do not account for the observed disparities. - Patterns of disparity are consistent across counties for Black youth, but this is not true of Latino youth, where disparity appears to vary with the proportion of the population that are Latino. - Disparity varies depending on the type of offense and this is consistent across racial and ethnic groups. The data used for this study are particularly well-suited for examining the extent to which Latino youth experience disparate treatment in the juvenile justice system. As such, the results can help guide future research and help policy makers in their efforts to address ethnic disparities. Implications for policy and practice include: - Ongoing assessment of disparity should move beyond a statewide only approach, focusing on areas with the greatest levels of disparity to ensure more efficient use of resources while generating greater reductions in disparity. - In counties where one race/ethnicity experiences greater disparity than other, it may make sense to work with those communities to determine the root of the problem. Where disparity is experienced across race/ethnicity groups, it may make more sense to look at official policies and procedures that might contribute to disparity across the board. - Future studies should augment their focus on county-level relative rates of risk with a county-level understanding of the juvenile justice system. Policies and practices at the county level can impact disparity and are vital to not only understanding why disparity exists, but also how to address it. - Future studies should incorporate a more complete understanding of previous offense histories, risk assessment scores, and include data collected over a longer period of time. - Whenever possible, it is important to consider ways that responses to particular offenses may introduce disparities in processing of youth through the court progression. Details: Indianapolis, IN: American Institutes for Research, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250803.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250803.pdf Shelf Number: 146384 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice SystemsLatino YouthMinority YouthRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Casa Alianza Nicaragua Title: Street Children and Juvenile Justice in Nicaragua Summary: This paper is part of a two-year research and advocacy project examining the situation of the human rights abuses of street children in juvenile justice systems in six countries: Kenya, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines and Romania. The study used research and national, cross-sectoral workshops involving street children, civil society organisations, the police, judiciary, social and probation services and other stakeholders. This report provides a brief analysis of the situation of street children in Nicaragua, and the reasons for their arrival and prolonged existence on the streets. It examines the existing legal processes, terms and guarantees of national laws relating to juvenile justice in Nicaragua, primarily the Special Criminal Justice System for Adolescents, to identify the gaps and shortcomings that permit rights violations to occur. Street children and other actors from relevant institutions (police, judiciary, NGOs etc.) provide information on the actual experience of children in conflict with the law at all stages, from arrest through to trial, sentencing and detention. The report also details evidence of good practices regarding the treatment of street children subject to the justice system and suggests recommendations to improve the observance and respect of fundamental rights and national and international legislation. Recommendations to the government of the Republic of Nicaragua include: ensure the provision of humane treatment to children in provisional detention and that their innocence is continually presumed provide training for penitentiary staff on the correct and appropriate treatment of children the quality and quantity of food provided in both provisional and definite detention should be designed with children's particular needs in mind, and sufficient to ensure a basic, healthy diet and the preservation of good health Recommendations to the National Police include: all police personnel must be trained in human rights, the rights of children and adolescents, Special Criminal Justice for Adolescents and the Regulations for Administration of Justice for Adolescents Recommendations to the judiciary: necessary budget allocation should be made to the judiciary powers for creation of Adolescent Courts and their respective specialised teams that are still lacking in the rest of the country all judges should be trained on human rights and the rights of the child. Details: London: Consortium for Street Children, 2004. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 3, 2017 at; http://www.streetchildrenresources.org/resources/street-children-and-juvenile-justice-in-nicaragua/ Year: 2004 Country: Nicaragua URL: http://www.streetchildrenresources.org/resources/street-children-and-juvenile-justice-in-nicaragua/ Shelf Number: 130122 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesJuvenile Justice SystemsRights of the ChildStreet Children |
Author: Child Rights International Network Title: Rights, Remedies & Representation: Global Report on Access to Justice for Children Summary: Access to justice is a human right, but it is also what makes other rights a reality. For children's rights to be more than a promise, there must be a way for those rights to be enforced. Access to justice for children means that children, or their appropriate advocates where applicable, must be able to use and trust the legal system to protect their human rights. The legal system must provide children the means to obtain a quick, effective and fair response to protect their rights; the means to prevent and solve disputes; mechanisms to control the abuse of power; and all of this must be available through a transparent, efficient, accountable and affordable process. The importance of access to justice applies equally to children and adults, yet childrens rights in this area have long been neglected and ignored. This report is the result of a research project scrutinising how the legal systems of 197 countries empower children to realise their rights or perpetuate the rights violations that they should combat. With the support of hundreds of lawyers and NGOs from around the world, we have published a report for every country on earth setting out the status of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in national law; how the law treats children involved in legal proceedings; the legal means available to challenge violations of children's rights; and the practical considerations when challenging violations using the legal system. This research shows the way that national legal systems can be used to challenge violations of children's rights and the ways that children can use the law to assert their own rights. It identifies where the law falls short and where legal systems are designed in ways that make it difficult or impossible to combat abuses of children's rights. We have documented the good, the bad, the effective, the ineffective, the radical and the revolutionary ways that children can access justice around the world and now we want to use this information to promote their rights. It is not just governments that have a role to play in improving access to justice for children; myriad individuals and entities have an impact, from courts, national human rights institutions, the UN and regional bodies to civil society, parents and other legal representatives, lawyers, the media, and donors. We hope this project will guide governments on how to improve children's access to courts and other complaints mechanisms to enforce their rights, and encourage the UN and regional bodies to address children's access to justice in a more systematic way throughout their work. We hope it will inspire NGOs and children's advocates to consider stronger and more strategic forms of advocacy, and encourage lawyers to assist children and their representatives with seeking redress through the legal system. Details: London: CRIN, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2017 at: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_a2j_global_report_final_1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_a2j_global_report_final_1.pdf Shelf Number: 146732 Keywords: Child AdvocacyJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Epstein, Rebecca Title: Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls' Childhood Summary: This report represents a key step in addressing the disparate treatment of Black girls in public systems. We challenge researchers to develop new studies to investigate the degree and prevalence of the adultification of Black girls - a term used in this report to refer to the perception of Black girls as less innocent and more adult-like than white girls of the same age - as well as its possible causal connection with negative outcomes across a diverse range of public systems, including education, juvenile justice, and child welfare. Further, we urge legislators, advocates, and policymakers to examine the disparities that exist for Black girls in the education and juvenile justice systems and engage in necessary reform. Lastly, we recommend providing individuals who have authority over children - including teachers and law enforcement officials - with training on adultification to address and counteract this manifestation of implicit bias against Black girls. Above all, further efforts must ensure that the voices of Black girls themselves remain front and center to the work. Details: Washington, DC: Center on Poverty and Inequality, Georgetown Law, 2017. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2017 at: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/centers-institutes/poverty-inequality/upload/girlhood-interrupted.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/centers-institutes/poverty-inequality/upload/girlhood-interrupted.pdf Shelf Number: 146771 Keywords: African AmericansFemalesJuvenile Justice SystemsMinorities |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: The Work of Youth Offending Teams to Protect the Public Summary: Youth Offending Teams supervise 10-18 year olds who have been sentenced by a court, or who have come to the attention of the police because of their offending behaviour but have not been charged - instead, they were dealt with out of court. YOTs also work with young people who have not committed a crime, but are at particular risk of doing so. YOTs are statutory partnerships , and they are multi-disciplinary, to deal with the needs of the whole child. They are required to have staff from local authority social care and education, the police, the National Probation Service and local heath services. YOTs are mostly based within local authorities. YOT work is governed and shaped by a range of legislation and guidance specific to the youth justice sector (such as the National Standards for Youth Justice) or else applicable across the criminal justice sector (for example Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements guidance). The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) provides some funding to YOTs. It also monitors their performance and issues guidance to them about how things are to be done. Nowadays, YOTs are organised in many different ways. The number of young people sentenced by the courts has reduced and YOTs have shrunk in size as funding both from the YJB and local partners has reduced. In some parts of the country YOTs have merged with other local authority services for young people, and other YOTs have merged across local authority boundaries. Many are no longer called YOTs, and work under a generic title relating to services for youth or young people. YOTs do a wide range of things to support young people under supervision. So for example, many operate restorative justice schemes, focused on repairing the harm caused by the offender, and all operate referral order panels, where members of the local community meet with individual offenders to reduce their risk of reoffending. In this inspection we are focused on the work YOTs do to protect the public from the risk of harm posed by young people under their supervision. The characteristics of young people under YOT supervision vary considerably, with some offending being transient and unlikely to cause harm to others. However, a minority have committed serious offences or are showing warning signs that they might. It is important that each young person is assessed by YOTS, to judge the extent to which they pose a risk of harm to others in their family or the community. YOTs use AssetPlus, developed by the YJB, to assess young people and make plans with them. AssetPlus was introduced in 2016 and replaced Asset, which had been in use since the early 2000s. YOTS should work with young people to reduce the risk of harm, and serious harm, as well as reducing the risk of reoffending. Serious harm is defined by YJB guidance7 as 'death or serious personal injury whether physical or psychological'. Risk of serious harm is the imminence of this happening, and the impact if it did. Details: Manchester: The Inspectorate, 2017. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/The-Work-of-Youth-Offending-Teams-to-Protect-the-Public_reportfinal.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/The-Work-of-Youth-Offending-Teams-to-Protect-the-Public_reportfinal.pdf Shelf Number: 147842 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation |
Author: Delay, Dennis Title: Disproportionate Minority Contact in New Hampshire: Juvenile Justice DMC Assessment Summary: National data suggests that minorities are overrepresented in juvenile justice systems across the country, and that DMC increases as youth move through the system. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division recently completed an investigation into the operations of the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, and found extensive racial disparities in the treatment of African American children: African American youth are twice as likely as white youth to be recommended for transfer to adult court. Our analysis indicates that DMC does exist in the New Hampshire juvenile justice system. However, there are significant hurdles, both in terms of data reliability and statistical precision, in calculating trustworthy DMC measurements in New Hampshire, particularly outside of the state's larger municipalities. The Division for Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS) currently calculates DMC measurements along the nine points of contact for the cities of Manchester, Nashua and Rochester annually. We recommend that DJJS extend the detailed DMC calculation to the municipalities of Concord and Salem, and that consideration be given to establishing regional DMC committees in those municipalities. We also recommend that DMC data collection be improved in New Hampshire. Some of these efforts to gather better DMC data are already underway, including improvements in the design of the juvenile petition. The importance of more reliable DMC data cannot be overstressed, as identifying the reasons for DMC are critical as New Hampshire moves from identification of DMC, to assessment and finally to methods and approaches for reducing DMC in New Hampshire. Details: Concord, NH: New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, 2013. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2017 at: http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/DMCAssessment2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/DMCAssessment2013.pdf Shelf Number: 148223 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactEthnic DisparitiesJuvenile Justice systemsJuvenile OffendersRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Delay, Dennis Title: Juvenile Justice in New Hampshire; Disproportionate Minority Contact Identification 2013 Summary: National data suggests that minorities are overrepresented in juvenile justice systems across the country, and that DMC increases as youth move through the system. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division recently completed an investigation into the operations of the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, and found extensive racial disparities in the treatment of African American children: African American youth are twice as likely as white youth to be recommended for transfer to adult court. Our analysis indicates that DMC does exist in the New Hampshire juvenile justice system. However, there are significant hurdles, both in terms of data reliability and statistical precision, in calculating trustworthy DMC measurements in New Hampshire, particularly outside of the state's larger municipalities. The Division for Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS) currently calculates DMC measurements along the nine points of contact for the cities of Manchester, Nashua and Rochester annually. We recommend that DJJS extend the detailed DMC calculation to the municipalities of Concord and Salem, and that consideration be given to establishing regional DMC committees in those municipalities. We also recommend that DMC data collection be improved in New Hampshire. Some of these efforts to gather better DMC data are already underway, including improvements in the design of the juvenile petition. The importance of more reliable DMC data cannot be overstressed, as identifying the reasons for DMC are critical as New Hampshire moves from identification of DMC, to assessment and finally to methods and approaches for reducing DMC in New Hampshire. Details: Concord, NH: New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2017 at: http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/DMCIdentification2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/DMCIdentification2013.pdf Shelf Number: 148224 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority Contact Ethnic Disparities Juvenile Justice systems Juvenile Offenders Racial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Delay, Dennis Title: New Hampshire's Juvenile Justice System 2012 Summary: This paper was designed to provide an analysis of the existing juvenile justice system in the year 2011. For this analysis, the Center conducted three analyses. In the first, the Center sought to understand the characteristics of youth in the juvenile justice system in 2011. Second, the Center documented what data was available in DJJS which might help document trends in service provision and their associated costs. A third task was to determine whether the service provision matched the identified risk factors for NH's juvenile justice population and how this compares to other states. Our major findings associated with these questions are described below. Juvenile crime is declining. Contrary to the popular impression that juvenile crime is on the rise, our analysis suggests that both juvenile crime and the provision of juvenile justice services is on the decline in New Hampshire. Since 2008, juvenile crimes per 10,000 youth have declined from a rate of approximately 437 to below 359 in 2011. The number of juveniles in the DJJS system is declining. The number of youth in the DJJS system has also been on the decline since 2008. Thus, the demand for services within the juvenile justice system - at least measured by the number of youth involved in the system - has decreased. This reduction in the number of clients could continue into the future because of a decline in the number of children in the state, and as a result of changes in the requirement for filing a CHINS ("children in need of services") petition, described below. But understanding the relative role of program interventions versus demographic factors on these trends is not possible, given the lack of public data available on critical characteristics of the DJJS system. Data necessary to understand the effectiveness of the programming, or to understand potential reform efforts, are not publicly available. The Division of Juvenile Justice Services has taken steps to increase the availability of data for decision making, but data on many basic and important characteristics of the system are not publicly available. Basic trends on delinquency and rates of recidivism - arguably the two most important measures of success - are not available to the public. While there is some limited data on the DJJS population and case load, the lack of information on the risk profile of the population served and no tracking of measures of success of each treatment against the overall goals of the juvenile justice program make it very difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of existing resources and programming. Details: Concord, NH: New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2017 at: http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/JJS_report_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/JJS_report_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 148247 Keywords: Juvenile Justice OffendersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Washburn, Maureen Title: Costs Rise Amid Falling Populations at California's Division of Juvenile Justice Summary: A fact sheet from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice finds that state spending at California's state youth correctional system, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), continues to rise despite continued reductions in its youth population. For the 2018-19 fiscal year, the Governor's Budget proposes expanding DJJ to a larger population of young adults, accompanied by a budget increase of nearly $4 million. The fact sheet finds: State youth correctional facilities will cost taxpayers a record high of $317,771 per youth in FY 2017-18. Since 2011, DJJ has reported a 39% decrease in its population, resulting in facilities that are operating at just 37% of their design capacity. As a result, per capita costs at DJJ have climbed each year since FY 2012-13. The DJJ budget has increased for three consecutive years, despite a downward trend in population. The budget proposal to expand DJJ in FY 2018-19 would offset the division's years-long population declines and increase its budget to over $200 million. Counties reimburse a small share of DJJ costs and vary widely in their reliance on the system. The 19 counties with the highest DJJ commitment rates are 29 times more likely, on average, to place a young person at DJJ compared to the state's 20 lowest committing counties. The result is a lopsided fiscal burden: counties with low DJJ commitment rates, such as Santa Clara or San Diego, subsidize the cost of counties with higher rates. Details: Sacramento: Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Fact Sheet: Accessed March 12, 2018 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/costs_rise_amid_falling_populations_at_californias_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/costs_rise_amid_falling_populations_at_californias_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 149432 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCosts of Juvenile JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: McCann, Ellen P. Title: The District's Youth Rehabilitation Act: An Analysis Summary: On December 22, 2016, Mayor Bowser requested that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) conduct analysis on the District's Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRA). The specific questions to be examined include: how is the YRA applied; what is the recidivism rate of those who received it; and, what programming is available to those sentenced under YRA? In addition to the Mayor's research request, on the same day, Councilmember Allen requested that the CJCC address: how many times YRA was applied to felonies, and later resulted in a set aside; how many later committed another felony, particularly with a weapon or a crime of violence; and how are programs identified for these persons, and the details of their supervision. Responses to Councilmember Allen's requests were submitted February 1, 2017, and informed the analysis conducted herein. The research conducted in response to the Mayor's request examines all eligible offenses, cases, and offenders that were convicted in the DC Superior Court in 2010, 2011, and 2012. This timeframe was selected to offer at least two years after the completion of a term in order to gauge reoffending. Overview of the YRA According to the Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985, persons convicted of, and sentenced for, an offense under the age of 221 are eligible for a set aside, or sealing, of conviction at the successful completion of their term, in addition to potentially different sentencing options. Those with a charge of murder, including murder that is part of an act of terrorism, are not eligible. When determining a sentence for a YRA-eligible offender, judges have the option to impose a sentence under the YRA based on the information already available, or, prior to imposing a sentence may order a "youth study" performed in order to aid in a determination about whether a YRA sentence is appropriate. It is intended to determine if the person is likely to be rehabilitated, and to give the offender the opportunity to have the conviction set aside at the conclusion of his term. Authority to formally set aside a conviction belongs to the sentencing judge; in the case of a person who is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parole Commission, the Commissioner may set aside the conviction sentenced under the YRA. YRA Analysis From 2010-2012, the DC Superior Court handled the disposition of 70,454 cases. Cases eligible for YRA sentencing represented 7% of the disposed cases during this period. How is the YRA applied? There were 5,166 cases that were eligible, and 3,960 persons who were eligible for a YRA sentence during the three-year period studied. In that time, 53% (2,726 of 5,166) of eligible cases were sentenced under YRA, and 60% (2,384 of 3,960) of eligible persons were sentenced under YRA. The offenders sentenced under YRA are convicted of similar offenses to those seen in the superset of all persons eligible for YRA in 2010-2012. Offenses that carried a mandatory minimum sentence were found for just 6.7% of all eligible offenders, and were less likely to be sentenced under YRA, particularly when there were multiple charges that carried a mandatory sentence. Of those eligible persons who had completed their sentence by April 1, 2017, nearly half (976 of 2,135) successfully had their conviction set aside. Younger persons with less of a criminal history (fewer past arrests and convictions and juvenile commitments) were more likely to be sentenced under YRA. Younger offenders with less of a criminal history who were female, as well as those with weapon offenses, were more likely to have their conviction set aside. In this analysis, weapon offenses include only those offenses of possessing a weapon or ammunition illegally. Also of note, persons convicted of felonies were conversely less likely to be set aside. What is the recidivism rate? Based upon the analysis, persons whose convictions were set aside were less likely to be re-arrested and/ or reconvicted than persons who were sentenced under the YRA but whose convictions were not successfully set aside. This held true when controlling for demographics, criminal history factors, and the offense that resulted in the YRA sentence. This highlights the need for more information, as the impact of interventions used during an offender's sentence is not accounted for, and may be instructive to further improve outcomes. When comparing similarly situated persons who were and were not sentenced under the YRA, there was no difference in reoffending from the point they were sentenced. The two groups had similar chances of being re-arrested or reconvicted over the next two years, demonstrating that the sentence itself does not act as a point at which behavior changes, but instead that the sentence merely sets the stage for a person to have the conviction set aside at the end of his or her term. What programming is available? The examination of programming revealed two main points. First, there are no programs targeted to the YRA population. Second, there are programs that a YRA offender might access, such as Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency's (CSOSA) Young Adult Program, Federal Bureau of Prison's (FBOP) standard programming, and the Department of Correction's (DOC) standard programming, but a YRA sentence is not a qualifying criteria for any of the existing programs. Findings and Considerations There is broad consensus that the propensity for youthful offenders to commit crimes desists once they reach their mid-20s. Across the United States, young adult offenders who are able to show an amenability to rehabilitation have been able to receive concessions such as conviction sealing and expungement if they do not reoffend. This is the case both nationwide and locally in the District of Columbia. Neurological development indicates that young people develop reasoning and maturity starting from adolescence, and are well-developed by eighteen years of age. A person can distinguish right from wrong by their mid-teens; however, persons cannot gauge risk, understand consequences fully, or delay gratification until well into their 20s, a phenomenon referred to as the "maturity gap." The age-crime curve supports biological conclusions in this sense, as persons who are criminally active tend to slow down or stop offending by their mid-20s. Young adult offender programs utilized across the United States vary widely, including Young Adult Courts, probation and parole programs, district attorney-led programs, community-based partnerships, hybrid partnerships, and prison-based programs. At the same time, in many jurisdictions there is legislation that directs either courts, government agencies, or both to address young adult offenders in ways distinct from those approaches taken with older adult offenders. Unfortunately, while there is a national consensus on the need to hone practices specific to the young adult offender population, research identifies best practices thus far for only two distinct groups: juveniles and adults. While programs that are known to be effective with other age groups may also be effective with young adult offenders, the evidence base simply has not caught up. After a full review of the findings, as well as the testimony from Councilmember Allen's Roundtable on Sentencing in the District of Columbia: Agency Roles and Responsibilities (February 9, 2017), and the relevant national literature, some opportunities emerged. The findings here show that it is possible to improve the utilization of YRA, be more effective in outcomes for young adult offenders and enhance public safety. This can be done through legislation, as well as through appropriate programming, both of which can help better inform decision-making and help better prepare the offender to successfully attain the set aside of his or her conviction at the end of term. Details: Washington, DC: Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, 2017. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 12, 2018 at: http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/sac-digest/vol-27/dc-yra-analysis.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/sac-digest/vol-27/dc-yra-analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 149442 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile RehabilitationRecidivismTreatment ProgramsYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Robinson, Gill Title: Children and Young People in Custody in Scotland: Looking Behind the Data Summary: Children and young people who are involved in offending come into contact with the youth or criminal justice system in a variety of ways depending on their age, their needs and circumstances, and the nature of their deeds. Information about the different stages in the system is available through Youth and Criminal Justice in Scotland: the Young Person's Journey. Both the lives of these children and young people and the 'system' that engages with them are complex. This means that it can be extremely difficult to understand what is actually happening for these children and young people, and also that there are rarely easy answers to guide how best to respond to their offending behaviour. This paper has an emphasis on children aged 16 and 17 who are detained in custody but also includes references to young people aged 18 to 21, whose circumstances are often very similar to those of the younger age group. We use the term 'children' to refer to those under 18 years old and 'young people' when referring to 18-21, in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The paper focuses on three themes: 1. Backgrounds of children and young people involved in offending 2. Children and young people's contact with the justice system, especially those who are sentenced to custody 3. What happens after custody? The paper has been produced in partnership between the Centre for Youth & Criminal Justice (CYCJ), the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). The information is drawn from a number of sources including research papers and data from the Scottish Government's Criminal Proceedings Database and the Scottish Prison Service. It incorporates the story of 'Danny', whose experiences represent very many of the young people now in custody. The paper can be added to and strengthened as we learn more. The data, particularly that relating to custodies, is complex and includes a number of illustrative snapshots which may not be fully representative. We would therefore encourage caution in drawing any further conclusions than those which are drawn in this paper. Instead we highlight areas for further reflection and exploration in each section of the paper. Details: Glasgow: Youth Justice Improvement Board, 2017. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Young-People-in-Custody-October-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Young-People-in-Custody-October-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 149722 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Bateman, Tim Title: The state of youth justice, 2017. An overview of trends and developments Summary: At the time of publication (September 2017), the last two years appear as having been something of an uncertain period for youth justice. In September 2015, Michael Gove, then Justice Secretary, announced that Charlie Taylor, former Chief Executive of the National College of Teaching and Leadership, would lead a 'Departmental review' of the youth justice system. The terms of reference were wide-ranging requiring consideration of: - 'The nature and characteristics of offending by young people aged 10-17 and the arrangements in place to prevent it; - 'How effectively the youth justice system and its partners operate in responding to offending by children and young people, preventing further offending, protecting the public and repairing harm to victims and communities, and rehabilitating young offenders; and - 'Whether the leadership, governance, delivery structures and performance management of the youth justice system is effective in preventing offending and re-offending, and in achieving value for money'. Disappointingly, and without any rationale being provided, the age of criminal responsibility, the treatment of children in courts and the sentencing framework were explicitly excluded from the review, but it was nonetheless clear that the exercise had the potential to herald significant change in arrangements for dealing with children in conflict with the law. Moreover, following the publication by Charlie Taylor of an interim report in February 2016, which dealt largely with the state of custodial provision for children, the Justice Secretary confirmed that he had amended the terms of reference to include examination of 'the way young offenders are dealt with in court, and the sentences available to tackle their offending'. (Predictably perhaps, the age at which children are held to be criminally responsible remained outside the remit of the review, despite repeated criticisms from within the jurisdiction and without. ) It was anticipated that the review would report in the summer of 2016 and, as a consequence, developments in youth justice both nationally and at a local level were effectively put on hold. This was particularly so because it was widely anticipated that any recommendations made by Taylor would have government endorsement. In the event, publication was delayed following ministerial changes in the aftermath of the referendum on membership of the European Union. The report eventually appeared in December 2016, but it no longer had the status of a Departmental review; government endorsement was no longer assured and the report was published alongside a government response. While the Taylor review was wide-ranging and, in some respects, quite radical, a number of key recommendations were rejected or ignored by the government and commitments to reform were for the most part couched in vague terms or put of for future consideration. For example, Taylor details a range of principles and assumptions which he considers should inform arrangements for dealing with children in conflict with the law. These include: - A focus on the child first and the offender second; - Children who break the law should be treated differently from adults; - Because many of the causes of youth offending lie beyond the reach of the youth justice system; a broad range of agencies should provide an integrated response to preventing and addressing offending behaviour; - Education should be at the heart of that response; - Contact with the criminal justice system tends to increase the likelihood of offending and children should be diverted from it wherever possible; - More persistent and serious offending often implies that the children concerned are deeply troubled, and responses to such offending should recognize that fact. By contrast, the government, in the first line of its response, makes reference to the youth justice system's central role in 'punishing crime' and later reiterates that the statutory aim of the system is to prevent offending and re-offending by children and young people. Taylor calls for a clear division between the role of the court in establishing guilt where an offense is denied and deciding what action 'should be taken to repair harm and rehabilitate the child' once responsibility for the offending has been determined. Details: s.l.: National Association for Youth Justice, 2017. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2018 at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/State-of-Youth-Justice-report-for-web-Sep17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/State-of-Youth-Justice-report-for-web-Sep17.pdf Shelf Number: 149805 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Illinois Mental Health Opportunities for Youth Division Task Force Title: Stemming the Tide: Diverting Youth With Mental Health Conditions from the Illinois Juvenile Justice System Summary: All young people deserve the resources and support needed to secure both physical and mental health. But unfortunately, in Illinois youth are being thrust into our criminal justice system without regard to their mental health needs. While the overall number of youth who are jailed or incarcerated in Illinois has declined over the last few years, those living with mental health conditions are still entering the criminal justice system at higher rates. Of the thousands of youth arrests and admissions to local jails in Illinois each year, approximately 70 percent meet diagnostic criteria for having a mental health condition, and at least 20 percent live with a serious mental health condition. In 2017, the General Assembly created the Illinois Mental Health Opportunities for Youth Diversion Task Force-including experts from the Shriver Center-to develop an action plan for implementing new or expanded diversion programs aimed at youth living with mental health conditions. The Task Force's new report, Stemming the Tide, lays out a roadmap to build a better system in Illinois and help kids get the support they need. This requires a shift toward community-based mental health services, not only to improve outcomes for our youth but so Illinois can focus greater attention on violent offenders and improve public safety. With these improvements, youth with mental health conditions can get on the road to recovery that helps prevent further contact with the justice system and return to school, work, and family. Details: Chicago: NAMI, 2018. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2018 at: http://povertylaw.org/files/docs/stemming-the-tide-final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://povertylaw.org/files/docs/stemming-the-tide-final.pdf Shelf Number: 150054 Keywords: Juvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersMental IllnessMentally Ill OffendersMentally Ill Persons |
Author: Vafa, Yasmin Title: Beyond the Walls: A Look at Girls in D.C.'s Juvenile Justice System Summary: Both nationally and in the District of Columbia, boys have made up a vast majority of the juvenile justice population. Consequently, research, best practices, system reform efforts, and policies have been primarily based on the male population. In the past two decades, overall rates of youth involvement in the juvenile justice system have declined, yet the share of girls arrested, petitioned to court, placed on probation, and placed out of home has steadily increased. Due in part to a historical inattention to the unique drivers for girls into the juvenile justice system and the specific needs of justice-involved girls, jurisdictions around the country are seeing an increase in the rates of girls' involvement in the juvenile justice system. Over the past decade, Washington, D.C. (D.C.) has seen a significant increase in the share of girls in its juvenile justice system. This brief serves as a starting point to understand what is causing girls' increased contact with D.C.'s juvenile justice system, to highlight distinctions between girls' and boys' involvement in D.C.'s juvenile justice system, and to identify information gaps that must be addressed in order to reduce the number of system-involved girls and ensure that those girls who are already involved are receiving appropriate services and interventions. The data portion of this brief highlights four main findings that were consistent across data from the law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies in D.C. The main findings that will be explored in detail in the sections to follow are: - Girls today make up a larger portion of system-involved youth than in previous years. - Over time, the proportion of 13 to 15-year-old girls entering the juvenile justice system has grown at the greatest rate. - Eighty-six percent of arrests of girls in D.C. are for non-violent, non-weapons related offenses. - In D.C., Black girls are significantly overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. Details: Washington, DC: Rights4Girls; Juvenile Justice Initiative, Georgetown Law, 2018. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2018 at: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/clinical-programs/our-clinics/JJC/new-projects/upload/beyond-the-walls.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/clinical-programs/our-clinics/JJC/new-projects/upload/beyond-the-walls.pdf Shelf Number: 150066 Keywords: Female Juvenile OffendersFemale OffendersJuvenile Justice systemsRacial Disparities |
Author: McAra, Lesley Title: Child-friendly youth justice? A Compendium of papers given at a conference at the University of Cambridge in September 2017 Summary: The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) has published a compendium of papers relating to youth justice. The papers disseminate some of the themes realised at a conference on child-friendly youth justice in September 2017 organised by the NAYJ, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) and the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. The papers included are: Child-friendly youth justice? - Professor Jo Phoenix Enhancing problem-solving practice in the youth court - Ben Estep and Carmen D'Cruz A social ecological approach to 'child-friendly' youth justice - Diana Johns How can England and Wales achieve a child-friendly criminal record disclosure system? - Claire Sands, Jen Twite and Christopher Stacey Why a participatory, rights-based approach is the best way to protect children in trouble with the law - Dr Laura Janes Child-friendly resettlement; difficult by definition? - Pippa Goodfellow Family characteristics and experiences of children entering secure settings - Dr Caroline Andow and Ben Byrne 'Transforming' youth custody? - Dr Di Hart. Details: London: National Association for Youth Justice, 2018. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NAYJ-Child-friendly-youth-justice-May-18.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NAYJ-Child-friendly-youth-justice-May-18.pdf Shelf Number: 150422 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Blanco, Melissa Title: How Effective Are Virginia's Juvenile Division Programs? A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment for the Virginia State Crime Commission Summary: Virginia has a vested interest in promoting state and local policies that prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency. In particular, policies should be aimed at rehabilitating juvenile offenders with the goal of decreasing recidivism rates across the Commonwealth. One possible way to accomplish lower recidivism rates is through the use of diversion programs. Diversion programs offer alternatives to the traditional forms of secure detention, such as treatment programs, restorative justice services, and community service opportunities. These programs can be mandated by a judge, or they can be assigned in lieu of the juvenile undergoing court proceedings. This study will focus on the diversion programs assigned by Intake Officers before the juvenile enters the traditional criminal justice system. The Virginia State Crime Commission has been directed by the General Assembly of Virginia to conduct a comprehensive, two-year study of Virginia's juvenile justice system. One element of this study calls for an examination of juvenile diversion programs across the state, their impact on rates of recidivism, and their cost-effectiveness. In accordance with this mandate, the Center for Public Policy Research at The College of William & Mary has conducted a survey of juvenile Intake Officers across the Commonwealth (including Parole and Probation Officers who complete intake duties), the purpose of which was to understand how diversion is implemented in each Court Services Unit (CSU), which diversion programs appear to be most effective at reducing recidivism, and why some programs seem to be more effective than others. The scope of this project covers the entire Commonwealth of Virginia, which includes 35 CSUs. The CSUs perform intake, investigations, probation, and parole services for juveniles, and each CSU has anywhere between 3 and 24 Intake Officers and as many or more programs offering diversion services for juveniles. The largest component of this study consists of the formulation and distribution of a web-based survey of Intake Officers, which was anonymous to ensure the reception of candid responses. The survey was formulated to serve four key purposes. The first purpose of the survey was to identify the procedure followed by Intake Officers for deciding which juveniles to divert and to what program he or she should be diverted. The second purpose of the survey is to ascertain which programs or which types of programs Intake Officers feel are most effective. The third purpose is to determine if Intake Officers have any method for assessing the progress of the juvenile after he or she has begun participating in his or her assigned diversion program. Finally, the fourth purpose of the survey is to identify any impediments to the juvenile's successful completion of the diversion program. The twenty-question survey was distributed in November 2007 to 177 Intake Officers across the Commonwealth in 30 of 35 CSUs. Responses were collected from 51 of those individuals(28%), representing 15 of the 30 CSUs included in the sample. A mixture of rural and urban CSUs is represented across the disparate regions of the state. A significant limitation, however, is the lack of representation from two large urban areas of the state, Richmond and Norfolk. More than half of Intake Officers surveyed believe that juveniles should be allowed to be diverted more than once, depending on the circumstances. However, 4 of the 14 CSUs (28.6%) represented have policies that prohibit this, and respondents from five other CSUs (35.7%) presented conflicting interpretations of their CSU's policy. Only about one third of respondents utilize some type of standard assessment at intake for making decisions about diversion for a juvenile. Discretion of Intake Officers appears to be an important element in the diversion process with respect to the determination of whether diversion is appropriate for a juvenile, whether it is permissible for a second offense, and in consideration of the type of offense and any mitigating circumstances. Most Intake Officers take a wide range of factors into consideration when deciding whether to divert a juvenile rather than send him or her through court proceedings. Eighty percent or more consider the number and type of prior offenses in the juvenile's record, the juvenile's current offense, the age of the juvenile, the recommendation of the arresting officer, the type of diversion programs available in the CSU, and the juvenile's family or home situation. Similarly, Intake Officers also consider a number of different factors when deciding which program to divert a juvenile to, citing everything from the juvenile's current offense, to the personality or demeanor of the juvenile, to the availability of transportation for the juvenile to and from the program site. It is clear from the responses received for these two questions that the discretion of the Intake Officers plays a major role in determining whether juveniles are diverted and to what program. Intake Officers were also asked if their CSU implements a family-centered approach to diversion, and most (88%) indicated that they do. Many of the Intake Officers provided comments suggesting that parents are strongly encouraged to take part in at least some part of the diversion and that more ways in which parents could become involved in the diversion process would be welcome in their CSU. Most Intake Officers (78%) indicated that their CSU does perform some kind of assessment of the juvenile's progress after he or she has begun participating in a diversion program. There is a wide spread of responses concerning how often CSUs perform this assessment, ranging from every other week to sporadically, with none doing so everyday. A majority of CSUs continue to assess the juvenile's progress until the juvenile has completed the diversion program requirements. Many CSUs perform their assessment of the juvenile's progress by contacting the juvenile's family, contacting the program director, or meeting the juvenile in-person. Very few do so by observing the juvenile's participation through in-person visits to the diversion program site. Forty percent of Intake Officers reported that their CSU assesses the effectiveness of the diversion programs they utilize, while another 40% said their CSU did not assess diversion program effectiveness. However, these results are potentially misleading. Further analysis reveals that Intake Officers from the same CSU often differed in their answer to this question. Of the eleven CSUs represented, Intake Officers from six of them gave conflicting answers. It appears that Intake Officers may not be aware of their CSU's policy on assessing effectiveness, a situation which should be addressed. The vast majority of Intake Officers' responses indicate that a lack of cooperation from the family (73.2%) and from the juvenile (65.9%) stands in the way of successful diversion outcomes. Furthermore, many of the responses cited too little funding provided by the state (48.8%), too few diversion programs offered in the CSU (46.3%), and an insufficient range of diversion program types (41.5%). Finally, a small number (4.9%) said lack of transportation posed an obstacle to successful diversion. Intake Officers expressed a desire for increased funding for diversion programs, particularly to increase diversion staff and expand the number and type of diversion programs offered in each CSU. They also expressed a desire for uniform criteria for diversion eligibility, as current policy differs from CSU to CSU. For example, a juvenile in one CSU may be eligible for a diversion opportunity, while a juvenile with a similar criminal history may be ineligible for a diversion opportunity in another CSU. After completing this study and reviewing the results, several recommendations for reforming the methods of diversion in Virginia's juvenile justice system became apparent. First, we recommend that the state provide CSUs with resources to collect data on juveniles who have been diverted and the outcomes of the programs to which juveniles are diverted. Second, we recommend that CSUs improve the clarity and uniformity of their diversion policy. Third, we recommend the implementation of a standardized intake assessment with statewide criteria. Results of the survey are valuable and instructive for understanding diversion implementation and its effectiveness in Virginia, but the conclusions do present some limitations. First, only perceived effectiveness was assessed through the perspectives of Intake Officers given that actual data on diverted juveniles was not available to us at the time of this study. Second, less than half of the 35 CSUs in the Commonwealth were represented; ideally we would have achieved representation from all. Third, the narrow definition of recidivism as "re-conviction" may lead to over-stating the effectiveness of diversion programs. Finally, the difficulty in obtaining figures for the costs of diversion program implementation in light of their disparate funding sources precluded a cost-effectiveness analysis within the three-month time constraint for this research endeavor. The Intake Officer Survey has laid the groundwork for future work that could provide additional evidence on how effective diversion programs are at reducing recidivism rates. Specifically, two bodies of work are needed: (1) a quantitative analysis of Virginia's Department of Juvenile Justice data, which would compare recidivism rates between juveniles who were diverted before being adjudicated with juveniles who entered the traditional criminal justice system; and (2) an assessment on how cost-effective diversion programs are in comparison to the traditional adjudication process. Details: Williamsburg, VA : Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College of William & Mary, 2007. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/crime.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/crime.pdf Shelf Number: 150490 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Diversion ProgramsJuvenile Justice systemsRecidivism |
Author: OMNI Institute Title: Statewide Evaluation of the DCJ Juvenile Diversion Program Summary: Created by Colorado state statute and administered by the Division of Criminal Justice, the Juvenile Diversion program is intended to divert youth from penetrating further into the juvenile justice system. While diversion can occur at multiple stages of the juvenile justice system and be offered to youth with varying levels of offense, DCJ primarily funds services for youth who are pre-file or pre-adjudicated and who have committed a district level offense. In order to better understand the services and outcomes of the State funded Juvenile Diversion program, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council through DCJ contracted with OMNI Institute in 2010 to develop and implement a statewide evaluation of its 19 funded juvenile diversion programs. The overarching aim of the statewide evaluation is to allow providers, state agencies, and other stakeholders to make more informed decisions and improve the provision of services. In any evaluation, replication is critical for a program to be confident in the findings, conclusions and recommendations. As such, this report revisited the questions that were preliminarily addressed in the 2013 report1 including data from July 2011 through June 2013. The evaluation comprises examination of 19 different programs, each offering a unique set of services that are further tailored to each youth within the program. The evaluation design encompasses multiple measures and data sources to address four key question areas: 1. Who is served by diversion? 2. What services are provided? 3. Are programs/services effective? 4. What youth and program factors are associated with (reduced) recidivism? Multiple measures and data sources were utilized to ensure a comprehensive understanding of: the population served, the services and programming provided, short-term outcomes, and recidivism; and the relationships among these variables. The figure below provides a visual representation of the core data elements in the fashion of a logic model. Complex multi-level models were employed to examine relationships among services, short-term outcomes, and recidivism while statistically controlling for variability in services and youth characteristics across programs. Finally, in order to better assess the impact of diversion on youth, data were split into two cohorts to reflect the group of youth that exited diversion by the end of January 2013 (and were included in the previous report) and Cohort II encompassing all youth that exited diversion between February 2013 and June 2014. Details: Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 2014. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/oajja/Publications_Reports/2014DCJJuvenileDiversionFinalReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/oajja/Publications_Reports/2014DCJJuvenileDiversionFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 150497 Keywords: Diversion Juvenile Diversion Programs Juvenile Justice SystemsRecidivism |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth Justice in Australia: 2016-17 Summary: This report looks at young people who were under youth justice supervision in Australia during 2016-17 because of their involvement or alleged involvement in crime. It explores the key aspects of supervision, both in the community and in detention, as well as recent trends. About 1 in 500 young people aged 10-17 were under supervision on an average day A total of 5,359 young people aged 10 and over were under youth justice supervision on an average day in 2016-17. Among those aged 10-17, this equates to a rate of 20 per 10,000, or 1 in every 492 young people. Most young people were supervised in the community More than 4 in 5 (83% or 4,473) young people under supervision on an average day were supervised in the community, and close to 1 in 5 (17% or 913) were in detention (some were supervised in both the community and detention on the same day). The majority of young people in detention were unsentenced - About 3 in 5 (61%) young people in detention on an average day were unsentenced-that is, awaiting the outcome of their legal matter or sentencing. Young people spent an average of 6 months under supervision - Individual periods of supervision that were completed during 2016-17 lasted for a median of 122 days or about 4 months. When all the time spent under supervision during 2016-17 is considered (including multiple periods and periods that were not yet completed), young people who were supervised during the year spent an average of 185 days or about 6 months under supervision. Supervision rates varied among the states and territories - Rates of youth justice supervision varied among the states and territories, reflecting, in part, the fact that each state and territory has its own legislation, policies, and practices. In 2016-17, the rate of young people aged 10-17 under supervision on an average day ranged from 13 per 10,000 in Victoria to 67 per 10,000 in the Northern Territory. Rates of supervision have fallen over the past 5 years - Over the 5 years from 2012-13 to 2016-17, the number of young people aged 10-17 under supervision on an average day fell by 16%, while the rate dropped from 25 to 20 per 10,000. These falls occurred in both community-based supervision (from 21 to 17 per 10,000) and detention (from 4 to 3 per 10,000). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander over-representation has increased - Although only about 5% of young people aged 10-17 in Australia are Indigenous, half (50%) of those under supervision on an average day in 2016-17 were Indigenous. The level of Indigenous over-representation (as measured by the rate ratio) rose over the 5 years from 2012-13 to 2016-17. On an average day in 2012-13, Indigenous young people aged 10-17 were 15 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be under supervision, rising to 18 times as likely in 2016-17. This was due to a proportionally greater fall in the non-Indigenous rate compared with the Indigenous rate over the period. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2018. 54p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2018 at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/19707990-1719-4600-8fce-f0af9d61331c/aihw-juv-116.pdf.aspx?inline=true Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/19707990-1719-4600-8fce-f0af9d61331c/aihw-juv-116.pdf.aspx?inline=true Shelf Number: 150935 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Supervision |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision: 2016-17 Summary: Of young people aged 10-17 who were under sentenced youth justice supervision at some time from 2000-01 to 2016-17, 39% returned to supervised sentence before turning 18. Of young people aged 10-16 in 2015-16 and released from sentenced community-based supervision, 26% returned to sentenced supervision in 6 months, and 50% within 12 months. Of those released from sentenced detention, 59% returned within 6 months, and 82% within 12 months. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2018. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 29, 2018 at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/48ae3545-83c5-46f1-96d4-9fac034fc71b/aihw-juv-127.pdf.aspx?inline=true Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/48ae3545-83c5-46f1-96d4-9fac034fc71b/aihw-juv-127.pdf.aspx?inline=true Shelf Number: 151281 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Supervision |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study Part II Summary: In 2008, juvenile halls and camps fell under federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice due to inadequate protection from harm and failed to provide adequate suicide prevention and mental health care. In the last Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Los Angeles County Probation Department and the U.S. Department of Justice, Probation was obligated to "support a longitudinal study and develop baseline data tracking systems to assist in the evaluation of systemic outcomes for youth" (see Paragraph 73, #6 External Partnership of this MOA document). This study fulfills this requirement by collecting data for youth cohorts exiting suitable placement and camp in 2015 and comparing results to those reported for the 2011 cohorts in The Los Angeles County Probation Outcomes Study Part I. The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate outcomes for youth within the context of the systems change Probation has been and continues to implement. Moving in this direction improves the ability to assess Probation efforts to improve services and outcomes. In addition to replicating the 2015 study, the current study includes interviews with a sample of youth, their families, and supervising Deputy Probation Officers. The report and executive summary provides an overview of the results and offers recommendations to improve the effectiveness of juvenile justice in Los Angeles County Details: Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/POS%20Part%20ll%20Report%205-10-2017%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/POS%20Part%20ll%20Report%205-10-2017%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 151324 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Camp Kilpatrick AWARE Program Evaluation Study Summary: This study represents an important development in the evolution of the Los Angeles Probation Department. Over the past 10 years, the Department has faced several issues and problems in the camps (Newell & Leap, 2013). While the Department has previously focused on compliance to mandates directed at these problems, this study marks an important advancement in Probation's approach to reform. Rather than taking a reactionary approach to a problem, Probation is driving practice with discussions of "what works" in order to benefit the long-term success of Probation youth, their families, and their communities. The primary hypothesis tested in this study was whether AWARE youth would have better outcomes than Non-AWARE youth. Data were retrieved from the Probation Case Management System (PCMS) for 112 youth who arrived at Camp Kilpatrick and participated in the AWARE Program between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011. A matched group of 112 youth (based on age, race, and risk score at arrival to camp) entering other camps during this time were identified as a Non-AWARE comparison group. In addition to PCMS data, data were extracted from case files for 35 youth (31% of 112) drawn from each of these groups for a total of 70 youth. Both the PCMS data and the case file data provided substantial insight into the experiences of AWARE and Non-AWARE youth 1 year prior to the arrest/petition that led to their placements in Camp Kilpatrick or a different camp (Time 1), at the time of the arrest/petition leading to their placements (Time 2); during their camp placements (Time 3); upon exit from their camp placements (Time 4); and 1 year after exit from camp or when the case terminated-whichever came first (Time 5). Details: Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Los Angeles, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/AWARE%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL%20Revise%201-9-15.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/AWARE%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL%20Revise%201-9-15.pdf Shelf Number: 151326 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Title: The situation of boys and adult girls and adolescents in the criminal justice system justice for s in the United States (La situacion de nibos y ninas y adolescentes en el sistema penal de justicia para adultos en Estados Unidos) Summary: 1. As a result of its visits and the information received, the IACHR observes that a significant number of children and adolescents are treated as adults in the United States criminal justice system, in violation of their fundamental right to special protection and to be judged by a specialized juvenile justice system. This situation is the main object of this Report. The IACHR also observed that the phenomenon of treating adults to children and adolescents in conflict with the criminal law as adults is part of a national pattern of lack of protection and promotion of rights of children, mainly due to an absence of a definition uniform of the concept "child" before the law that allows to protect the rights fundamentals of people under 18 years of age. 2. The United States played an important role in the promotion and establishment of a specialized approach to juvenile justice within its criminal justice system justice, with the aim of rehabilitating, instead of simply punishing, young people who are convicted of a crime. The first division of justice Juvenile was created in the United States, in the state of Illinois, in 1899; and in the After 25 years, all other states, except for 2, followed that example and established similar systems of juvenile justice courts. However, the Commission notes with great concern that in the decade 1980 this began to change. By the year 1990, many states of the United States United States approved regressive changes in their legislations and policies, with regarding children and adolescents in contact with the criminal law. The Details and ways of implementing these changes were diverse, but the general tendency was the refusal to access the systems of rehabilitation and juvenile justice, and consequently, the processing compulsory education of young people in the most punitive justice systems Adults. 3. The Commission notes with concern that, as a result of laws States that require or allow young people in conflict with the law be judged as adults, an estimated 200,000 children and adolescents in conflict with the law are tried annually before criminal courts to adults. The IACHR knows that most of the states of the United States maintains laws, policies and practices that allow for the deprivation of freedom to children in adult establishments. The Commission notes with concern the lack of information and data about children and adolescents in contact with the criminal law. 4. According to the information received by the Commission, there are three ways main factors by which children and adolescents enter the system of criminal justice for adults in the United States, based on legislation particular of each state. First, by means of laws that grant jurisdiction to the courts for adults to try people under 18 years. Second, through laws that allow cases of children they are transferred from the juvenile penal system to the adult criminal system. In third, as a result of hybrid sentencing laws that operate between jurisdictions of adult systems and juvenile systems, as well as other provisions with similar effects, such as the laws that establish that "once adults, they are always adults". 5. According to the information received by the Commission, the rights of the children and adolescents accused of committing crimes in the United States are duly protected at each stage of the process, which in turn negative consequences for those who are transferred and sentenced in the system for adults. In particular, the IACHR has received information on: absence of quality legal advice; the possibility that young people they can renounce their right to legal representation; the fact that the young people spend long periods of time waiting for the outcome of their cases; and the possibility that many young people end up in the adult system as a result of agreements negotiating the penalty, without understanding fully the consequences of such agreements. 6. In light of the information received and examined, the IACHR notes that -under the Current status of legislation in the United States regarding children and adolescents in conflict with the criminal justice system - certain laws, Policies and practices have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on certain groups, which results in excessive representation of the members of these groups in the criminal justice system. This is the case of children and adolescents who are tried in the criminal justice system for adults and confined in adult detention centers. According to information received by the Commission, these disparities increase each time more in the criminal justice system, beginning with arrest and referral to the juvenile system, continuing with the transfer to adult courts, and ending with a conviction issued by adult courts, as well as with confinement in adult prisons. 7. States are not legally obliged to separate young people from adults, within the facilities of deprivation of liberty for adults. While the federal juvenile justice law, that is, the Juvenile Justice Law and Prevention of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, JJDPA, for its acronym in English), in its revised text of 2002, establishes the separation between young people and adults as one of their basic requirements custody, its provisions do not apply to children and adolescents who they are in the adult system. This has serious implications for children and adolescents; among them, according to the information reported by several systems of prisons and large prisons, more than 10% of children, girls and adolescents has been subjected to solitary confinement, while smaller facilities have reported that 100% of children are keeps in isolation. In addition, no federal or state legislation in The United States prohibits the isolation of young people in facilities for Adults; Only a few states have references in their legislation Express about the use of solitary isolation Multiple studies in the United States have shown that prisons and Prisons for adults are harmful to children, as these facilities are designed for adults and are not equipped to keep children safe from the high risks of abuse and harm that they face within them. These risks include: young people who are found in adult establishments are five times more likely to suffer sexual abuse or rape, compared to those found in juvenile facilities 12; young people deprived of liberty in establishments for adults are also twice as likely as be physically assaulted by corrections personnel; they have one 50% greater chance of being attacked with a weapon13; and they have a high probability of witnessing, or even being the target, of violence committed by other persons deprived of liberty. 9. This report will examine the areas in which United States legislation fails to protect the rights of children in the justice system penal. In this context, the IACHR will analyze the provisions of the United States applicable to children and adolescents, in light of the international obligations of the state to protect and guarantee the rights of children and adolescents in conflict with the criminal law, particularly the right to be treated as children. Details: Washington, DC: The Commission, 2018. 158p. English versions is available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2018 at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/NNA-USA.pdf - English version: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/NNA-USA.pdf Shelf Number: 151728 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice SystemsRights of the ChildWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Novak, Adam Title: Multi-country evaluation of the impact of juvenile justice system reforms on children in conflict with the law (2006-2012) Summary: 2.1 Background The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires States to promote the establishment of laws, policies, procedures institutions and services specifically applicable to children who are alleged as, accused of or recognised as having infringed the criminal law. More specifically, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child requires that States parties establish a juvenile justice system, whose principal aim is to reintegrate children into their communities and society. The juvenile justice systems in countries and territories of CEE/CIS, which shared a common legal background until independence at the beginning of the 90s, focused on punishment rather than reintegration, and on prosecution and detention rather than on diversion from judicial proceedings and the various community-based alternative to custody that can best support the reintegration of young people in conflict with the law. None of the countries or territories in the CEE/CIS region have a juvenile justice system that fully meets the standard set by the CRC and other UN international standards and norms. UNICEF country offices have gradually started working on juvenile justice in the CEE/CIS region in 2000, with most of them active in this area by 2006. In addition to specific country-based support to reforms, there have been two initiatives led by the UNICEF Regional Office. The first, the 'critical mass' exercise started in 2008, and aimed at encouraging a group of CEE/CIS states that had developed experience in juvenile justice to work with a common set of objectives and priorities, strengthen their approaches, and to document and share experience and lessons learnt for the benefit of other countries in the region. The second was a programme co-funded by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights' (EIDHR) on Consolidation of Juvenile Justice System Reforms against Torture and Other Forms of Ill-treatment of Children in Former Soviet Countries," covering 8 countries. 2.2 Objective, scope and methodology In 2012, UNICEF decided to commission an independent evaluation of its work on juvenile justice in the region as part of a series of thematic multi-country evaluations aimed at assessing and reinforcing the impact of UNICEF's work on the most vulnerable children. The present evaluation was carried out in partnership with the European Commission (EC) and constitute the final evaluation of the above-mentioned regional programme co-funded by EIDHR and UNICEF. This joint EC and UNICEF multi-country evaluation (MCE) assesses the extent to which juvenile justice system reforms in eleven countries and territories of the CEE/CIS region during the period 2006-2012 have contributed to (a) reducing deprivation of liberty for children in conflict with the law, (b) increasing the use of diversion from the judicial process and (c) reducing the average duration of pre-sentence detention. These three results are necessary in ensuring the child's reintegration into the community - i.e. the ultimate objective of juvenile justice reforms as stated above. They also correspond to interventions where UNICEF has been particularly active in the region. The evaluation reviews UNICEF's and the EIDHR support to system level changes and assesses the extent to which this support contributed to the three above-mentioned results. The MCE was conducted in 11 selected countries and territories which had reported significant results in terms of reductions of children in detention (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo (UNSCR 1244), Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Montenegro, Tajikistan and Ukraine), with two overarching goals: - Demonstrate how reduction of equity gaps and impact results were made possible through changes in the national/regional/local systems and document UNICEF's contribution to such changes; - Identify key lessons in order to improve current and future action. The evaluation was carried out by a team of twelve independent consultants and took place between September 2013 and January 2015. The methodology was based on a reconstructed Theory of Change (TOC); this generated a series of hypotheses regarding the sequencing and causal links of changes in juvenile justice and UNICEF's engagement. Using 16 evaluation questions, findings from the region were used to assess the validity of the logic underpinning the TOC; the extent to which the sequencing of inputs, outputs, outcomes and Impacts corresponded to the TOC, and whether the assumptions that link one level of the TOC to the next hold true. This was followed by a combined desk and field phase, based on documentary review, interviews and focus groups, and questionnaires for UNICEF staff and for practitioners and NGOs. Fieldwork was carried out in six of the 11 countries and territories included within the scope of the evaluation, with local experts assisting in the data collection in the remaining countries and territories. The evaluation teams analysis was shared with UNICEF stakeholders and an expert panel at various stages and the final draft report was discussed during a validation workshop and passed an external quality assurance review. Details: New York: UNICEF, 2015. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2018 at: https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/MCE2_Final_CEECIS_2015-005.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/MCE2_Final_CEECIS_2015-005.pdf Shelf Number: 152915 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionInterventionsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice ReformsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Bird, Kisha Title: Unjustice: overcoming Trump's Rollbacks on Youth Justice Summary: The Trump Administration's youth justice abuses and rollbacks merit a new term: Unjustice. We define Unjustice as a return to past policies and behaviors that deemed some members of society unworthy of fair, equal treatment under the law. It's a horrific reminder of the power and authority unjustly wielded against communities of color by law enforcement. It's unraveling criminal justice reform progress in many states and communities. This brief provides an analysis of selected United States Department of Justice policies and actions that have negative implications on youth and young adults of color. We consider the decision-making points that can affect young people of color and focus on the following "unjustice" areas: Promising police reform strategies under threat; Reversing progress in strategic prosecutorial choices; and Criminalizing youth culture and youth of color. The brief also offers youth, community advocates, and policymakers with an anti-incarceration framework that can be used to combat harmful law-and-order policies; and a set of initial civic engagement actions to take. Advocates and policymakers must be intentional about pushing for actionable changes within the current system while at the same time working to abolish racially biased policies and reconstructing a new vision of justice for youth. CLASP believes policy strategies that envision supports for work, education, health, and mental health are critical for dismantling structural barriers that push youth of color out of school and into detention and incarceration. We must examine state and local level investments and policies can prevent youth of color from entering the juvenile or criminal justice system in the first place and how policies can better support youth during and after detention, placement, and/or incarceration. We are at an important moment with an opportunity for change. These times call us to rebuild a vision created with youth in the pursuit of safety, well-being, and economic and racial justice. Details: Washington, DC: CLASP, 2018. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2018 at: https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2018/10/2018.10.10_unjustice.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2018/10/2018.10.10_unjustice.pdf Shelf Number: 153049 Keywords: Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Policy Juvenile Justice SystemsRacial Disparities Racial Minorities Youth Justice |
Author: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Title: Out of Sight: LGBTQ Youth and Adults in Texas'Juvenile Systems Summary: The report, Out of Sight: LGBTQ Youth and Adults in Texas' Justice Systems, explores how the Lone Star State often fails to adequately address the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Texans, and instead frequently moves them into the youth and adult criminal justice systems at higher rates than people in the non-LGBTQ community. Furthermore, TCJC's report finds that Black and Latinx LGBTQ individuals are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Released during LGBT History Month, the report offers lawmakers and local communities critical recommendations that will help improve outcomes for LGBTQ youth and adults, while urging that resources must be better spent addressing the needs of vulnerable and marginalized populations. Nationally, between 13 and 15 percent of youth who enter the justice system identify as LGBTQ, with roughly 300,000 LGBTQ youth arrested each year. Of the seven million youth that reside in Texas, 158,500 (2 percent) identify as LGBTQ, including 13,800 transgender youth. "For many LGBTQ youth, the combination of family rejection, mental health conditions, and substance use leaves them with few options for shelter, support, and safety," said Ryan Carlino, the report author. As LGBTQ youth shuffle between homes, foster care, shelters, and the streets, they are increasingly more likely to come into contact with law enforcement - a situation that is only exacerbated by the lack of access to appropriate mental health and substance use support.' Unaddressed trauma experienced during childhood may carry forward into adulthood. Often, LGBTQ adults in Texas experience mental health conditions at double the rate of the general population, while also having fewer supports from family and the community. When combined, these factors, contribute to higher rates of incarceration among LGBTQ people. Details: Austin, TX: The Coalition, 2018. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 19, 2018 at: https://www.texascjc.org/youth-justice Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.texascjc.org/youth-justice Shelf Number: 153503 Keywords: Discrimination Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders LGBTQ Persons Sexual Orientation |
Author: Terre des hommes Title: Child Protection Measures for Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility who Are in Conflict With the Law in Albania Summary: The focus of this research study is on the child protection measures for children below the age of criminal responsibility who are in conflict with the law in Albania. This topic might not seem a new one because several research studies and analyses have already been conducted on this topic. One research study worth mentioning here is "A Research into the Current System for Children in Contact with the Law in Albania" which was commissioned by Terre des Hommes (Tdh) in 2015. This research study builds upon this and other such documents. The novelties of this research study rests with the recent developments in Albania regarding the comprehensive Justice Reform which was approved in 2016. This reform introduced substantial amendments to the legislation of the Albanian justice system, including the juvenile justice system. Furthermore this research study is in line with the goal of the MATRA-funded "Child Protection System Strengthening for Children in Conflict with the Law" project. The goal of this project is to support the development of the rule of law as it pertains to children in Ukraine, Georgia, Albania and Kosovo by improving the implementation of children's rights in the child protection and justice systems to ensure that children in conflict with the law are better protected. This means that the research and analyses, though conducted locally in Albania, aims to emphasis the compliance of the Albanian juvenile justice system with the international standards. Under the auspices of the project, and together with stakeholders from government organisations and civil society, a focus area has chosen in each country based on what is specifically needed in that country. In Albania it was decided that the focus would on the position of children in conflict with the law who are below the age of 14, the set minimum age of criminal responsibility. The hypothesis of this research study is: The Albanian legislative and policy framework on the rights of the children below the age of criminal responsibility who are in conflict with the law is de jure in compliance with international standards on juvenile justice. Further efforts are needed to ensure the child protection system functions effectively for children below the age of criminal responsibility. Inter-institutional cooperation, data collection and reporting mechanisms on child protection for this group of children should be improved. The approach of this research study is mostly a deductive one aiming and testing this theory. In other words the approach taken aims to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the child protection system and formulate recommendations on what measures are needed to improve the protection of the rights of children below the age of criminal responsibility who are in conflict with the law in practice. Details: Tirana, Albania: Terres des hommes Albania, The Author, 2019. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2019 at: https://childhub.org/en/system/tdf/library/attachments/study_child_protection_below_14_web.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=36052 Year: 2019 Country: Albania URL: https://childhub.org/en/system/tdf/library/attachments/study_child_protection_below_14_web.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=36052 Shelf Number: 155266 Keywords: Age of Responsibility Child Protection Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders Rights of Children |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: OJJDP Dual System Youth Design Study: Summary of Findings and Recommendations for Pursuing a National Estimate of Dual System Youth Summary: Across the country, child welfare (CW) and juvenile justice (JJ) systems now concur that youth involved in both systems (i.e., dual system youth) are a vulnerable population who are often unrecognized because of challenges in information-sharing and cross-system collaboration. These challenges currently prevent estimating the number of dual system youth nationally and limit our understanding of best practices used by jurisdictions implementing integrated systems models. To address this gap in knowledge, two subcommittees, the Jurisdictional Case Studies (JCS) Subcommittee and the Linked Administrative Data (LAD) Subcommittee, were formed as part of the OJJDP Dual System Youth Design Study to address the following goals: Goal 1: To identify the successes and challenges associated with cross-system collaboration, identify best practices for dual system youth, and develop a tool to collect and report such information in a consistent and representative way. Goal 2: To provide insight into the incidence of dual system involvement and describe key characteristics (e.g., race, gender, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation) and trajectories (e.g., timing/type of encounters with the systems) of this population, and to propose a method to generate a national estimate of dual system youth. Methods -- The JCS Subcommittee reviewed data from jurisdictions participating in the Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform's Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM). By using these data, visiting five CYPM site meetings, and using the knowledge from the experts in the field, we were able to identify successes and challenges in engaging in cross-system collaboration for dual system youth from a broad range of jurisdictions and stakeholders. These findings, in turn, systematically defined potential best practices for dual system youth and informed the development of a best practices rubric for integrated systems work. The LAD Subcommittee focused its efforts on the analysis of linked administrative data drawn from Cook County, Illinois; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; and New York City. Data from these sites were used to generate dual system youth incidence rates and a description of their characteristics to "test" the use of linked administrative data to produce a national estimate. The primary cohort of youth examined included all youth with their first juvenile justice petition between 2010 and 2014 in Cook and Cuyahoga Counties and between 2013 to 2014 in New York City. Additionally, other administrative outcomes such as homelessness, incarceration, and receipt of public assistance were explored for this group while they were children/adolescents (homelessness and public assistance) and in young adulthood (homelessness, incarceration, and public assistance) were analyzed. Incidence rates and characteristics were also produced for a cohort of youth with their first arrest between 2010 and 2014 in Cook County. A theoretically derived framework of dual system definitions was used to drive these analyses, and sequence analysis was used to empirically test this framework (see Chapter 4). Findings from Jurisdictional Case Studies Work -- The top three practices addressed or implemented in developing cross-system collaboration under the CYPM were: (1) early identification of dual involvement; (2) improved information sharing across child welfare and juvenile justice systems; and (3) use of coordinated case supervision across juvenile justice and child welfare. The most common positive outcomes among jurisdictions utilizing cross-system collaborative practices were fewer petitions at followup (i.e., 9 months) and increased youth involvement in prosocial activities. The OJJDP Best Practices for Dual Systems Youth Rubric was developed based on 11 domains of cross-system collaboration practice (see Chapter 2 and Appendix B). Specifically, the Rubric provides an inventory of essential best practices across levels of implementation to assess a jurisdiction's progress toward achieving integrated systems work. Findings from the Linked Administrative Data Work The prevalence of dual system youth was high, varying across sites from 44.8% in Cook County to 68.5% and 70.3% in Cuyahoga and New York City, respectively. The most prevalent group was dual contact (i.e., non-concurrent system contact) youth on a child welfare pathway in all sites, and dually-involved youth (i.e., concurrent system contact) had the longest history with the child welfare and the most extensive involvement than any other group (see Chapter 5 and Chapter 6). Across all additional administrative outcomes dual system youth more commonly utilized additional service systems (i.e., criminal justice system, shelter care, public assistance) in young adulthood compared to their child welfare and juvenile justice only counterparts (see Chapter 7). The sequence analysis aligned and further clarified the theoretically derived framework for defining dual system youth. Specifically, this analysis produced four empirically derived categories of dual system youth: (1) limited and late child welfare involvement; (2) moderate child welfare involvement; (3) long duration in child welfare; and (4) long duration in out-of-home placements (see Chapter 8). Finally, study findings informed (1) a proposed methodology for estimating a representative incidence rate for dual system youth at the national level and (2) specific policy and practice implications for improving integrated, cross-system practices for dual system youth. Both the proposal and the implications are presented in detail in Section IV of this report. Details: Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics, 2019, 184p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 14, 2019 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/252717.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/252717.pdf Shelf Number: 155830 Keywords: Child Welfare Child Welfare System Crossover Youth Dual System Youth Juvenile Justice Systems |