Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:37 am
Time: 1:37 am
Results for juvenile offenders (illinois)
5 results foundAuthor: Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission Title: Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission Youth Reentry Improvement Report Summary: An essential measurement of any juvenile “reentry” system is whether youth returning from incarceration remain safely and successfully within their communities. By this fundamental measure, Illinois is failing. While precise data is difficult to come by (itself an indication of our current reentry shortcomings), it is clear that well over 50 percent of youth leaving Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”) facilities will be reincarcerated in juvenile facilities; many others will be incarcerated in the adult Department of Corrections (“DOC”) in the future. The costs of failure are catastrophic for the young people in the state’s care, for their families, and for our communities. The financial costs of this failing system are staggering as well: The Illinois Auditor General estimates that incarceration in a DJJ “Youth Center” cost $86,861 per year, per youth in FY10.1 Worse, the juvenile justice system is, in many ways, the “feeder system” to the adult criminal justice system and a cycle of crime, victimization and incarceration. Today, nearly 50,000 people are incarcerated in Illinois prisons at an immediate annual cost to the state of well over $1 billion.2 The economic ripple effect of incarceration inflates taxpayer costs even more.3 In human terms, we must do better for our young people and our communities. In fiscal terms, we simply cannot afford to continue business as usual. There is good news: Young people are capable of tremendous positive change and growth and—with the right support, supervision and services—youth leaving DJJ facilities can become valued assets in our communities. In addition, there is burgeoning knowledge in Illinois and beyond about adolescent brain development, effective communitybased supervision and services, and “what works” with young offenders. Perhaps most importantly, there is growing leadership and commitment in Illinois to do what is necessary to ensure that young people leaving the state’s custody return home safely and successfully. This report provides the findings and recommendations of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission, as required by the Youth Reentry and Improvement Law of 2009, 20 ILCS 505/17a-5(5.1), to realize this vision of safe communities, positive outcomes for our youth, and responsible use of public resources. Details: Springfield, IL: Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2012 at: http://www.dhs.state.il.us/OneNetLibrary/27896/documents/By_Division/DCHP/RFP/IJJC_YouthRentryImprovement.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dhs.state.il.us/OneNetLibrary/27896/documents/By_Division/DCHP/RFP/IJJC_YouthRentryImprovement.pdf Shelf Number: 123636 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Illinois)Recidivism, JuvenilesReentry, Juvenile OffendersRehabilitation |
Author: Boulger, Jordan Title: Juvenile Recidivism in Illinois: Examining Re-arrest and Re-incarceration of Youth Committed for a Court Evaluation Summary: This study tracked re-arrest and re-incarceration of 1,230 youth incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) for court evaluation after being released in state fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. A court evaluation is a 30-, 60-, or 90-day commitment to IDJJ, during which administrators assess a youth’s rehabilitative needs and inform a judge’s sentencing decision. Demographic characteristics, re-arrest, and re-incarceration of the court evaluation population in Illinois were examined. Key findings include: 89 percent of youth incarcerated for court evaluations were male, and about half were African-American. These youth averaged 15.5 years old at admission and 15.8 at exit from the Department of Juvenile Justice. 36 percent of the sample had completed some high school (grades 9 through 12). Almost two thirds of youth in the sample were incarcerated for court evaluation for a non-violent offense, most commonly a property offense. About one quarter of the sample youth were released after being sentenced for a Class 2 felony, while 21 percent had been sentenced for a Class 3 felony. Youth incarcerated for court evaluations averaged about 4.6 prior arrests. Only 3 percent of youth had been previously incarcerated. Class 4 offenders tended to have more prior arrests, with an average of six. Drug offenders had the lengthiest criminal backgrounds, averaging seven prior arrests. Of the youth in the sample, 86 percent were re-arrested within three years of release from a youth prison. Overall, 93 percent of the sample were re-arrested within six years. Drug offenders had the highest three-year re-arrest rate at 93 percent, while sex offenders had the lowest (80 percent). Class 4 offenders had the highest overall re-arrest rate at 93 percent, while misdemeanants had the lowest (81 percent). Overall, 59 percent of the sample was re-incarcerated as either a juvenile or an adult, with 36 percent re-incarcerated within a year after release. Forty percent of the youth had at least one juvenile re-incarceration, while 29 percent were re-incarcerated as adults. 10 percent were re-incarcerated as both juveniles and adults. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2012. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IDJJ_Recidivism_Court_Evaluation_082012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IDJJ_Recidivism_Court_Evaluation_082012.pdf Shelf Number: 126299 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Illinois)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Bostwick, Lindsay Title: Juvenile Recidivism in Illinois: Exploring Youth Re-arrest and Re-incarceration Summary: This study was conducted to add to the understanding of juveniles incarcerated in Illinois by examining re-arrest and re-incarceration of 3,052 juveniles released from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) in state fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. This report provides a detailed summary of this population, including demographics and offending history to recidivism into the adult system. Key findings include: 63 percent of youth in the sample were incarcerated for a non-violent offense, 43 percent for a property offense, and 31 percent for a person offense. Most (85 percent) served sentences in IDJJ for felonies. Youth in the sample had been arrested an average of five times prior to incarceration, and 21 percent had previously been incarcerated. Youth incarcerated for Class 4 felonies had the highest average number of prior arrests (mean=7) compared to other offense classes. Youth incarcerated for drug offenses had the highest average number of prior arrests (mean=8) compared to other offense types. 86 percent of youth were re-arrested within three years of release from IDJJ. Youth released after serving a sentence for a drug offense had the highest re-arrest rates (95 percent), while sex offenders had the lowest (61 percent). Youth released after serving a sentence for a Class 4 felony had the highest re-arrest rates (91 percent). Youth released for first-degree murder had the lowest re-arrest rates (46 percent) compared to other offense types. 68 percent of youth in the sample were re-incarcerated within three years of release. 53 percent of youth in the sample were re-incarcerated as juveniles. Some (34 percent) were re-incarcerated as adults. 41 percent of those in the sample were re-incarcerated at least once for a new sentence. 53 percent of youth in the sample were re-incarcerated at least once for a technical violation of parole or MSR. 64 percent of first re-incarcerations were for technical violations of parole. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IDJJ_Recidivism_Delinquents_082012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IDJJ_Recidivism_Delinquents_082012.pdf Shelf Number: 126319 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Illinois)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Ishida, Kanako Title: Automatic Adult Prosecution of Children in Cook County, Illinois. 2010-2012 Summary: Under Illinois' automatic transfer law in effect during the study of 2010 through 2012, anyone age 15 or 16 charged with certain felonies automatically bypasses the more rehabilitation-focused juvenile court, and there is no judicial review or appeal of a prosecutor's decision to try a child in adult court. Illinois is now one of only 14 states with no ability for a judge to provide individual review, either in juvenile or adult court, of the decision to try a child in adult court. The research into the 257 automatic transfer cases in Cook County from 2010 through 2012 found that only one white boy was among the 257 Cook County children charged with crimes requiring an automatic transfer to adult court, and most of those children live in predominantly minority communities in the south and west sides of Chicago. Half the children end up convicted of lesser offenses - offenses that would not have triggered adult trial if charged appropriately at the outset. These poor outcomes and racial disparities have been consistently demonstrated in studies over the 30-year lifetime of these automatic transfer policies. Details: Evanston, IL: Juvenile Justice Initiative, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdf Shelf Number: 132247 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Offenders (Illinois)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Skorek, Rebecca Title: Influence of court-ordered forensic evaluations on juvenile justice system-involved youth Summary: This evaluation measured implementation and impact of the Detention to Probation Continuum of Care (DPCC) program administered through a collaboration of River Valley Detention Center (RVDC) mental health staff, and Will and Kankakee county juvenile court judges and probation officers. In 2011, RVDC had 667 youth admissions between the ages of 10 and 17, with an estimated 50 percent released into the community under court supervision monitored by a probation officer. The DPCC program has three phases: 1. Institutional phase, in which youth receive mental health screening while in detention. The mental health screening is administered by RVDC mental health staff to identify factors among detained youth that may be leading to delinquency, ascertain if there are any mental health disorders present, and establish appropriate in-detention care, including prescription of psychotropic medications. A mental health screening can only be completed if RVDC mental health staff were able to meet with the detained youth prior to their release. 2. Structured phase, which is the completion of a court-ordered forensic evaluation by RVDC mental health staff. This evaluation is ordered by the juvenile court judge during a youth's detention hearing occurring within 40 hours of detention admission. The forensic evaluation is conducted for the purpose of developing a rehabilitative plan to guide sentencing conditions and supervision in the least restrictive manner. The mental health screen provides a foundation for the court-ordered forensic evaluation. 3. Reintegration phase, which begins when the judge receives the forensic evaluation report at the youth's adjudication hearing and ends at completion of the probation supervision. The forensic evaluation report includes a rehabilitative plan that describes appropriate community-based treatment services, such as counseling or psychiatric treatment, to be judicially imposed through conditions of probation. Completion of community-based care is monitored by a Will or Kankakee county probation officer. ICJIA researchers used two methods to conduct this evaluation. One method was interviews with stakeholders to gain a better understanding of DPCC program activities and the utility of court-ordered forensic evaluations. The second method was analysis of detention and probation data on a sample of 211 youth who were detained at RVDC between 2003 and 2009 and discharged from Will and Kankakee probation between 2007 and 2009. These data allowed ICJIA researchers to assess the extent to which these youth progressed through the DPCC program phases and to track their compliance with sentencing conditions, and subsequent detention admissions and arrests. Research questions to measure program implementation included: - Institutional phaseXTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a mental health screen? - Structured phaseXTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a court-ordered forensic evaluation (were DPCC program enrolled/participants)? - Reintegration phaseXTo what extent did conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services reflect the rehabilitative plan developed through the court-ordered forensic evaluation? Research questions to measure program impact included: - To what extent did receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation influence conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services? - To what extent did those receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation receive indicated treatment services and subsequently have higher rates of compliance with judicially imposed conditions of probation, and fewer detention admissions and arrests? - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs receive a mental health screen and/or court-ordered forensic evaluation - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs complete appropriate community-based treatment services? Details: Chicago: Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2014. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Shelf Number: 135073 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionCommunity-Based TreatmentJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Illinois)Juvenile ProbationersMental Health Services |