Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:24 pm
Time: 8:24 pm
Results for juvenile offenders (u.s.)
17 results foundAuthor: Sedlak, Andrea J. Title: Conditions of Confinement: Findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement Summary: This bulletin examines the structural and operational characteristics of the U.S. facilities where youth are confined. The bulletin includes analyses of the facility and program characteristics; security; types of offenders in different programs; youth placement with other youth; physical and program environment; and access to support. Recommendations on how to improve facility conditions are also included. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010. 15p. Source: Internet Resource; Juvenile Justice Bulletin, May 2010 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118570 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections (U.S.)Juvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Arya, Neelum Title: State Trends: Legislative Victories from 2005 to 2010: Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: A spike in youth crime during the 1980s and 1990s prompted state policymakers to expand laws to put more children in adult court, implement mandatory sentencing policies for certain crimes, and lower the age at which a child could be prosecuted as an adult. State policymakers believed their efforts would improve public safety and deter future crime. However, studies across the nation have consistently concluded that state laws prosecuting youth in adult court are ineffective at deterring crime and reducing recidivism. The consequences of an adult conviction aren’t minor; they are serious, long-term, life-threatening, and in some cases, deadly. However, awareness of the problem is not enough. Policymakers and the public must have viable alternative solutions. This report, State Trends: Legislative Changes from 2005-2010 Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System, provides some initial answers by examining innovative strategies states are using to remove and protect youth in the adult criminal justice system. State Trends demonstrates a “turning tide” in how our country handles youth. In the not-so-distant past, politicians have had their careers ruined by a “soft on crime” image. Fortunately, the politics around youth crime are changing. State policymakers appear less wedded to “tough on crime” policies, choosing to substitute them with policies that are “smart on crime.” Given the breadth and scope of the changes, these trends are not short-term anomalies but evidence of a long-term restructuring of the juvenile justice system. In the past five years, 15 states have changed their state laws, with at least nine additional states with active policy reform efforts underway. These changes are occurring in all regions of the country spearheaded by state and local officials of both major parties and supported by a bipartisan group of governors. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJ_State_Trends_Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJ_State_Trends_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121043 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Watkins, Cheryl Graham Title: A Study of the Transition of Youth from a Detention Center Education Program to a Standard School Education Program in Selected Southeastern States Summary: The purpose of this study was to examine the factors which facilitate the successful transition of youth from a detention educational program to a mainstream educational program. The study investigated the following components: (a) informal or formalized transition programs, (b) the practices used to assist youth at the detention level transition to the educational mainstream, (c) program components used at the detention level to successfully transition youth to the educational mainstream, the importance of personnel in assisting youth in their transition, (d) factors which contribute to the successful transition from detention to the educational mainstream, (e) program components effective in moving youth from a detention education program to the educational mainstream, and (f) whether or not a detention education program with a formal or informal transition program makes a difference in recidivism rates. A survey questionnaire was sent to 143 detention center administrators in the Southeastern United States. Descriptive data were run on all items in the survey. Cronbach’s alpha test of reliability was used to assess internal consistency. Pearson correlation was used to compare consistency between independent and dependent variables. Finally, an independent sample t-test was conducted to examine if mean differences exist on Total Returned to a Detention Center by Transition Program. Transitioning from a detention facility to the community is a difficult process. By making available to youth a comprehensive program during periods of incarceration, and collaborating with the local educational agency, youth are often better able to make the adjustment. This study emphasized that in order for youth to be successful once they leave a correctional facility, a linkage must exist among all stakeholders. Details: Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2007. 131p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 3, 2011 at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12032007-154124/unrestricted/CWatkinETD12-4-07.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12032007-154124/unrestricted/CWatkinETD12-4-07.pdf Shelf Number: 122291 Keywords: Education ProgramsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Juvenile ReentryRehabilitation |
Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment: Three Strategies for Changing Juvenile Justice Summary: As violent crime declined across the United States after 1995, the number of young offenders placed in secure correctional facilities also fell, but not in every state and not to the same degree. The crime rate and youth incarceration are not linked in the way that many people expect. Incarceration sometimes fluctuates in concert with crime rates and sometimes it does not. Often, the two diverge entirely. The scale of incarceration is not simply a reaction to crime. It is a policy choice. Some lawmakers invest heavily in youth confinement facilities. In their jurisdictions, incarceration is a key component of the youth justice system. Other lawmakers invest more in community-based programs. In their view, costly confinement should be reserved for chronic and seriously violent offenders. These choices are critical for budgets and for safety. If officials spend too much on incarceration, they will eventually lack the resources to operate a diversified and well-balanced justice system. Correctional institutions and the high costs associated with incarceration will begin to dominate fiscal and programmatic decision making. A number of states recognized this problem as early as the 1960s and 1970s. In California, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, legislators and administrators created innovative policies to reduce the demand for expensive state confinement and to supervise as many young offenders as possible in their own communities. During the 1990s, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon implemented similar reforms. The reform strategies adopted by these states are known by different names, but they generally rely on three sources of influence: resolution (direct managerial influence over system behavior); reinvestment (financial incentives to change system behavior); and realignment (organizational and structural modifications to alter system behavior). This report reviews the history and development of these strategies and analyzes their impact on policy, practice, and public safety. All three strategies have been used effectively to reform juvenile justice systems, but this report suggests that realignment may be the best choice for sustaining reform over the long term. Reform strategies in juvenile justice are sustainable when they cannot be easily reversed by future policymakers facing different budgetary conditions and changing political environments. Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Research and Evaluation Center, 2011. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2011 at: http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/blog/sites/blog.reclaimingfutures.org/files/userfiles/Resolution-Reinvesment-JButts-DEvans-JohnJay-Sept2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/blog/sites/blog.reclaimingfutures.org/files/userfiles/Resolution-Reinvesment-JButts-DEvans-JohnJay-Sept2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122740 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration, JuvenilesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Nellis, Ashley Title: The Lives of Juvenile Lifers: Findings from a National Survey Summary: The United States stands alone worldwide in imposing sentences of life without parole on juveniles. The U.S. achieved this unique position by slowly and steadily dismantling founding principles of the juvenile justice system. Today a record number of people are serving juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences in the U.S. for crimes committed before their 18th birthday. Sentences of life without parole are often erroneously believed to translate to a handful of years in prison followed by inevitable release. The reality is that a life without parole sentence means that the individual will die in prison. This report provides a new perspective on the population of individuals serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed in their youth. It represents the findings of a comprehensive investigation into this population that includes a firstever national survey of juvenile lifers. Through this effort we obtained in-depth information from these individuals about their life experiences prior to their conviction, as well as descriptions of their lives while incarcerated. The findings are sobering, and should become an element of policy discussion regarding this extreme punishment. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf Shelf Number: 124336 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Life ImprisonmentSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: Henning, Kristin N. Title: Criminalizing Normal Adolescent Behavior in Communities of Color: The Role of Prosecutors in Juvenile Justice Reform Summary: There is little dispute that racial disparities pervade the contemporary American juvenile justice system. The persistent overrepresentation of youth of color in the system suggests that scientifically supported notions of diminished culpability of youth are not applied consistently across races. Drawing from recent studies on implicit bias and the impact of race on perceptions of adolescent culpability, Professor Henning contends that contemporary narratives portraying black and Hispanic youth as dangerous and irredeemable lead prosecutors to disproportionately reject youth as a mitigating factor for their behavior. Although racial disparities begin at arrest and persist through every stage of the juvenile justice process, this Article focuses specifically on the unique opportunity and obligation that prosecutors have to address those disparities at the charging phase of the juvenile case. Professor Henning implores juvenile prosecutors to resist external pressures to respond punitively and symbolically to exaggerated perceptions of threat by youth of color and envisions a path toward structured decision making at the charging phase that is informed by research in adolescent development, challenges distorted notions of race and maturity, and holds prosecutors accountable for equitable decision making across race. While fully embracing legitimate prosecutorial concerns about victims’ rights and public safety, Professor Henning frames the charging decision as one requiring fairness, equity, and efficacy. Fairness requires that prosecutors evaluate juvenile culpability in light of the now well-documented features of adolescent offending. Equity demands an impartial application of the developmental research to all youth, regardless of race and socioeconomic status. Efficacy asks prosecutors to rely on scientifically validated best practices for ensuring positive youth development and achieving public safety. Thus, even when neighborhood effects and social structures produce opportunities for more serious and more frequent crime among youth of color, prosecutors have a duty to evaluate that behavior in light of the current developmental research and respond to that conduct with the same developmentally appropriate options that are so often available to white youth. As the gatekeepers of juvenile court jurisdiction, prosecutors should work with developmental experts, school officials, and other community representatives to develop and publish juvenile charging standards that reflect these goals. To increase transparency and encourage buy-in from the public, Professor Henning recommends that prosecutors track charging decisions according to race and geographic neighborhood and provide community representatives and other stakeholders with an opportunity to review those decisions for disparate impact. Finally, to ensure that communities of color are able to respond to adolescent offending without state intervention, Professor Henning contemplates a more expansive role for prosecutors who will engage and encourage school officials and community representatives to identify and develop adequate community-based, adolescent-appropriate alternatives to prosecution. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 2013. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 12-117: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=facpub Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=facpub Shelf Number: 126399 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)ProsecutorsRacial Disparities |
Author: Greenwood, Peter W. Title: Implementing Proven Programs for Juvenile Offenders: Assessing State Progress Summary: Evidence-based practice involves the use of scientific principles to assess the available evidence on program effectiveness and develop principles for best practice in any particular field. In delinquency prevention or intervention this includes: assessment of community and individual client needs; review and assessment of programs that could meet those needs; development and/or implementation of new programs; assignment of youth to particular programs; and monitoring of program fidelity and outcomes. For more than 10 years a number of reliable agencies have been publishing well-scrubbed lists of programs that have been proven to produce substantial reductions in recidivism and crime, while saving taxpayers more than $10 in future correctional costs for every dollar expended. There is a long history, stretching from Copernicus and Galileo in the 16th century to professional baseball managers in present day, of practitioners taking a very long time before accepting the practical implications of scientific discoveries. Juvenile justice fits right into this pattern. Although there are sufficient resources currently invested in juvenile justice programs to provide a program that has been proven effective for every youth who could use one, less than 10 percent of youths in need actually receive these programs. Given this state of affairs, one might expect that most states would be in the process of revising their programs and case disposition processes to increase the participation of youth in programs that have been proven effective. In fact, a few states have responded to this knowledge by taking explicit steps to facilitate the implementation of these proven programs, often as alternatives or replacements for their more traditional programming. Some of these states have set up special resource centers to provide technical assistance to local providers and to monitor their progress in implementing these programs. Some have established local “compacts” for sharing the expected savings in state prison costs with counties who cut their admission rates through the use of evidence-based programs (EBPs). Others have established special funding streams to support the launch of new EBPs. Yet, many others have not taken any but the most rudimentary steps toward embracing this new opportunity in the field of delinquency prevention. The present study was undertaken to assess how well individual states are doing in providing the best of these EBPs, and whether there are any commonalities between those who were doing the best. The measure of performance we chose for this analysis was the number of “therapist teams” from “proven programs” divided by the total population. Details: Downington, PA: Association for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2013 at: http://www.advancingebp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/AEBP-assessment.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.advancingebp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/AEBP-assessment.pdf Shelf Number: 127532 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionEvidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Treatment Programs |
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: Teplin, Linda A. Title: The Northwestern Juvenile Project: Overview Summary: The Northwestern Juvenile Project (NJP) studies a randomly selected sample of 1,829 youth who were arrested and detained in Cook County, IL, between 1995 and 1998. This bulletin provides an overview of NJP and presents the following information about the project: NJP is a longitudinal study that investigates the mental health needs and long-term outcomes of youth detained in the juvenile justice system. This study addresses a key omission in the delinquency literature. Many studies examine the connection between risk factors and the onset of delinquency. Far fewer investigations follow youth after they are arrested and detained. The mental health needs of youth detained in the juvenile justice system are far greater than those in the general population. The mental health needs of youth in detention are largely untreated. Among detainees with major psychiatric disorders and functional impairment, only 15 percent had been treated in the detention center before release. Details: Wsahington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/234522.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/234522.pdf Shelf Number: 127996 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Mental HealthMental Health Services |
Author: Aizer, Anna Title: Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly-Assigned Judges Summary: Over 130,000 juveniles are detained in the US each year with 70,000 in detention on any given day, yet little is known whether such a penalty deters future crime or interrupts social and human capital formation in a way that increases the likelihood of later criminal behavior. This paper uses the incarceration tendency of randomly-assigned judges as an instrumental variable to estimate causal effects of juvenile incarceration on high school completion and adult recidivism. Estimates based on over 35,000 juvenile offenders over a ten-year period from a large urban county in the US suggest that juvenile incarceration results in large decreases in the likelihood of high school completion and large increases in the likelihood of adult incarceration. These results are in stark contrast to the small effects typically found for adult incarceration, but consistent with larger impacts of policies aimed at adolescents. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 19102: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19102 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19102 Shelf Number: 129024 Keywords: JudgesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Juvenile to Adult Criminal Careers |
Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: Bernalillo County Mental Health Clinic Case Study Summary: It is one of the most complex challenges facing our nation’s juvenile courts, probation agencies and detention centers: How to provide effective mental health treatment for youth involved in the juvenile justice system? Particularly vexing is how to provide high-quality mental health care for youth entering detention (or being placed into detention alternatives) and then ensure that the care continues uninterrupted after youth exit detention supervision. This report examines how one jurisdiction — Bernalillo County, New Mexico — has taken extraordinary steps to address these detention-related mental health challenges first by ensuring Medicaid eligibility for detained youth and then by establishing a licensed free-standing community mental health clinic adjacent to its detention facility. Now 10 years old, Bernalillo’s mental health clinic has provided services to thousands of court-involved youth. Though costly and fraught with complexity, the clinic has proven a useful component in Bernalillo’s notable successes reducing detention populations and promoting success for court-involved youth. It offers a valuable case study for juvenile justice officials everywhere who are interested in improving mental health services for youth in their systems. The report begins by briefly reviewing the mental health challenge facing juvenile courts generally and detention agencies specifically in providing effective mental health services for court-involved youth. Following that is an overview of the Bernalillo County JDAI program — how it started, what strategies it has employed and how its leaders came to identify mental health as a core challenge requiring an aggressive and creative response. Next, the report details the steps in the evolution of Bernalillo County’s mental health strategy, including the development of improved mental health services for detained youth, the pursuit of reforms to ensure the continuity of Medicaid eligibility for detained youth, and finally the creation, licensing and initial financing of the mental health clinic. The report then provides a description of Bernalillo’s new mental health clinic — including its programs and services, clientele, staffing and financing. The sixth chapter examines the clinic’s impact, reviewing available data and discussing the various mechanisms through which the clinic is advancing the goals of detention reform and of the juvenile justice system generally. The final chapters of the report review the lessons learned from Bernalillo’s experience with mental health, including discussion of: (a) the issues and challenges Bernalillo has faced in creating, sustaining and ensuring the effectiveness of the clinic; (b) the key questions other jurisdictions should review when considering whether to replicate the Bernalillo clinic model; and (c) the lessons emerging from Bernalillo’s experience about the role of mental health treatment in detention reform that will be useful for all jurisdictions, whether or not they elect to follow Bernalillo’s lead in creating an independent mental health clinic. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: A Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform, No. 6: Accessed July 26, 013 at: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Featured%20Resources/JDAI%20-%20Bernalillo%20County%20Mental%20Health%20Clinical%20Case%20Study.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Featured%20Resources/JDAI%20-%20Bernalillo%20County%20Mental%20Health%20Clinical%20Case%20Study.pdf Shelf Number: 129405 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Mental Health Services |
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: Huizinga, David Title: Developmental Sequences of Girls' Delinquent Behavior Summary: According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from 1991 to 2000, arrests of girls increased more (or decreased less) than arrests of boys for most types of offenses. By 2004, girls accounted for 30 percent of all juvenile arrests. However, questions remain about whether these trends reflect an actual increase in girls' delinquency or changes in societal responses to girls' behavior. To find answers to these questions, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention convened the Girls Study Group to establish a theoretical and empirical foundation to guide the development, testing, and dissemination of strategies to reduce or prevent girls' involvement in delinquency and violence. The Girls Study Group series, of which this bulletin is a part, presents the Group's findings. The series examines issues such as patterns of offending among adolescents and how they differ for girls and boys; risk and protective factors associated with delinquency, including gender differences; and the causes and correlates of girls' delinquency. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Girls Study Group: Accessed October 6, 2014 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/238276.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/238276.pdf Shelf Number: 133571 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionFemale Juvenile OffendersFemale OffendersJuvenile Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Shah, Riya Saha Title: Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures: A Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile Records Summary: Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures: A Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile Records, is the first-ever comprehensive evaluation of state policies that govern the confidentiality and expungement of juvenile court and law enforcement records. No state earned the maximum five-star rating, with the national average coming in at three stars out of the possible five stars. Millions of youth are arrested each year in the United States; 95% of these youth are arrested for non-violent offenses. Arrests and court involvement leads to the creation of juvenile records - all containing details about a child's family, social history, mental health history, substance abuse history, education and involvement with the law. While access to this information by law enforcement and youth-serving agencies is necessary to provide treatment and rehabilitative services to youth, many states also allow widespread access to media, employers, government agencies and victims or sell the data to for-profit companies. Once disclosed, this information is difficult, if not impossible, to recall and can permanently stigmatize youth interfering with their ability to obtain a job, secure housing, pursue higher education, join the military or access public benefits. To ensure that records do not limit future opportunities, sealing (closed to the public) and expungement (destruction) of juvenile records should be available to all youth. Details: Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2014 at: http://juvenilerecords.jlc.org/juvenilerecords/documents/publications/scorecard.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://juvenilerecords.jlc.org/juvenilerecords/documents/publications/scorecard.pdf Shelf Number: 134131 Keywords: ExpungementJuvenile Court RecordsJuvenile Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Beardslee, Jordan Bechtold Title: Under the Radar or Under Arrest: How Does Contact with the Juvenile Justice System Affect Delinquency and Academic Outcomes? Summary: Although many studies have found that arrested youth are more likely than non-arrested youth to experience later maladjustment, methodological limitations restrict the generalizations of prior work. Perhaps the most noteworthy limitation in prior work is the possibility of selection effects, with arrested youth likely to have very different psychological and behavioral profiles pre-justice system contact than non-arrested youth. This leaves us wondering whether the observed maladjustment is due to the type of adolescent who comes to the attention of law enforcement or due the type of justice system interventions that arrested youth experience. This study overcomes these limitations by comparing the outcomes of demographically similar male adolescents who have committed the same crimes but who differ with regard to whether they were "caught" for their crimes. Using propensity score matching to compare arrested and non-arrested youth, I investigated whether contact with the justice system does, in fact, contribute to school-related outcomes, substance use, and delinquency and whether these relations vary based on whether arrested youth are formally processed or diverted from the system. When selection effects are taken into consideration, results indicate that contact with the juvenile justice system does not have a universally harmful effect on development. Diversion (informally processing youth) actually deters future offending, school misconduct, school truancy, and school suspensions. However, both diverted and formally processed youth, regardless of their actual antisocial and illegal behavior, are more likely than no-contact youth to be arrested during the study period, according to official court records. The risk of re-arrest is highest for formally processed youth. Formally processed youth are also more likely than no-contact and diverted youth to be transferred to an alternative or continuation school. Taken together, results suggest that increased justice system surveillance might improve school performance and deter offending, but it also might lead to more contact with the system. Although an adolescent's first arrest might lead to positive outcomes in the immediate future, the effects of subsequent contacts are unknown. As such, the data suggest that the default policy should be to divert low-level first-time offenders and keep the justice system's involvement to a minimum. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine, 2014. 201p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed January 31, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248533.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248533.pdf Shelf Number: 134511 Keywords: Juvenile ArrestsJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Recidivism |
Author: Steinberg, Laurence Title: Psychosocial Maturity and Desistance From Crime in a Sample of Serious Juvenile Offenders Summary: The Pathways to Desistance study followed more than 1,300 serious juvenile offenders for 7 years after their conviction. In this bulletin, the authors present key findings on the link between psychosocial maturity and desistance from crime in the males in the Pathways sample as they transition from mid-adolescence to early adulthood (ages 14-25): - Recent research indicates that youth experience protracted maturation, into their mid-twenties, of brain systems responsible for self-regulation. This has stimulated interest in measuring young offenders' psychosocial maturity into early adulthood. - Youth whose antisocial behavior persisted into early adulthood were found to have lower levels of psychosocial maturity in adolescence and deficits in their development of maturity (i.e., arrested development) compared with other antisocial youth. - The vast majority of juvenile offenders, even those who commit serious crimes, grow out of antisocial activity as they transition to adulthood. Most juvenile offending is, in fact, limited to adolescence. - This study suggests that the process of maturing out of crime is linked to the process of maturing more generally, including the development of impulse control and future orientation. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed March 16, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248391.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248391.pdf Shelf Number: 134941 Keywords: AdolescenceDesistanceJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Juvenile to Adult Criminal CareersPsychosocial Maturity |
Author: Young, Douglas Title: Traversing Two Systems: An Assessment of Crossover Youth in Maryland Summary: Awareness about the vulnerabilities of children who are involved in both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems has grown exponentially over the past decade. The emergent challenge with helping crossover youth - those involved at some point in their lives in the dependency and delinquency systems - is not due to a lack of available guidance about what should be done for them. Rather, the challenges for addressing crossover youth include properly identifying them and their needs, and implementing evidence-based practices tailored to those needs. The present study was designed to begin to build a knowledge base to address these challenges in Maryland. Employing a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, the research focused on the five most populous jurisdictions in the state, Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George's, and Baltimore Counties. Based on interviews with 26 officials in state and local agencies and survey responses from a representative sample of 164 stakeholders working with crossover youth, our review of state and local practices suggests a picture with preliminary signs of progress against a backdrop of general inattention to this population. Several state-led initiatives are promising in that they incorporate practices encouraged in the crossover youth practice literature, although none focus specifically on this group. Interview and survey results revealed some local efforts involving information sharing, collaborative case reviews, and joint attendance at court hearings on dual-system cases. About 60 percent of survey respondents reported using routines for identifying dual-system youth, providing cross-system notifications on proceedings, and holding family and multi-disciplinary team meetings for these cases. However, there was little use of formal, structured efforts, such as collaborative funding agreements, joint attendance at all hearings, or consolidated case planning or supervision. Survey results showed stakeholders were well aware of crossover youths' risks and needs and the challenges of working with these youth. Organizational expertise on crossover youth, and attention and resources paid to this population were given low ratings. Consistent with prior studies, quantitative analyses comparing samples of crossover youth (N=526) and delinquency-only youth (N=601) showed crossover youth were engaged in the juvenile justice system in deeper and more chronic ways, with their first arrest at an earlier age and having more arrests and referrals. Detention, placement, and commitment outcomes for crossover youth were particularly frequent, outsizing observed differences with delinquency-only youth on charges, filings, and adjudication hearings and suggesting that crossover youth face more harsh responses in the juvenile justice system. Compared with the delinquency-only group, crossover youth had less favorable results on risk, need, and protective measures on school attendance and performance, peer and adult relationships, and attitudes reflecting empathy, remorse, and self-control. The groups' most stark differences were on objective indicators of mental health needs. Analyses of Baltimore City crossover youth (N=200) and a dependency-only sample (N=200) showed the crossover group to have somewhat different and more persistent family problems, more placements, and longer length of placement. These findings, together with the interview and survey results suggest a consensus need for more focused efforts on crossover youth in Maryland. Several practices already in use - the one judge/one family court model, case identification, family and multi-disciplinary meetings, information sharing, collaborative case reviews, joint hearing attendance - should be expanded, routinized, and sustained. Results from the risk and needs analyses underscore the importance of responding to the mental health treatment needs of crossover youth in the state. These Maryland findings reinforce and extend those reported in prior research, providing detailed information on needs and protective factors and risk factors related to maltreatment. More generally, the results should heighten the urgency of increasing attention to this population. Details: College Park, MD: Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland, College Park, 2014. 154p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248679.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248679.pdf Shelf Number: 135539 Keywords: At-Risk YouthChild ProtectionChild Welfare SystemJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Offenders (U.S.) |