Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 4:03 am
Time: 4:03 am
Results for juvenile offenders (washington state)
4 results foundAuthor: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. Division of Community Programs, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration Title: Intensive Parole Model for : Chapter 338, Laws of 1997, Section 34 RCW 13.40.2129(2) Summary: The 1997 Washington State Legislature recognized that traditional parole services for high-risk juvenile offenders were insufficient to provide adequate rehabilitation and public safety. As a result, they mandated (Chapter 338, Laws of 1997, Section 34) the implementation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model with the top 25 percent highest risk to re-offend youth in the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA). The legislation requires JRA to report annually to the Legislature on process and outcome findings. The key elements of the JRA Intensive Parole supervision model are: Information management and program evaluation; Assessment and selection criteria; Individual case planning; A mixture of intensive surveillance and services; A balance of incentives and graduated consequences; Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks; and Transition services. The key changes in the program as the model has developed over time are: Phase 1 (10/98 – 10/99): Community Supervision/Traditional Community Linkages; Phase 2 (10/99 – 10/00): Residential/Transitional/Community Supervision/Traditional Community Linkages; Phase 3 (10/00 – 1/03): Evidence-Based Services; Phase 4 (1/03 – Present): Functional Family Parole (FFP) services; Phase 5 (Future): Regionalization of JRA Community Residential Programs. In December 2002, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) published a report that found the first two Intensive Parole (IP) cohorts did not have significantly different recidivism from the comparison group. They did find that the Basic Training Camp (BTC) second and third year cohorts had significantly lower recidivism. Based on the initial finding of IP in whole, funds for IP were significantly reduced increasing caseloads from 12 to 20:1 leading to a 40% increase in caseload size and reduced ability to perform community safety related activities, e.g., field surveillance, high levels of parole counselor contact, community justice work crews, day reporting programs, and electronic home monitoring. At this time, JRA continues to implement intensive parole as part of the overarching FFP model. Past budgetary reductions in intensive parole funding, with resulting increased caseloads and reduced staffing, can pose significant challenges to the implementation of this complex, promising model of FFP with the highest risk/highest need offenders. Details: Olympia, WA: Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, 2009. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2011 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/main/legrep/Leg1209/Intensive%20Parole%20Model%20for%20High%20Risk%20Juvenile%20Offenders.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/main/legrep/Leg1209/Intensive%20Parole%20Model%20for%20High%20Risk%20Juvenile%20Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 121585 Keywords: Intensive ParoleJuvenile AftercareJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Juvenile ParoleRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Mayfield, Jim Title: Multisystemic Therapy Outcomes in an Evidence-Based Practice Pilot Summary: In 2007, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services established the Thurston-Mason Children’s Mental Health Evidence-Based Practice Pilot Project (Pilot) to provide mental health services to children. The first evidence-based practice selected by the Pilot was Multisystemic Therapy (MST), an intensive family- and community-based treatment program for youth. Over a one-year follow-up period, the Institute examined criminal convictions of youth enrolled in the Pilot’s MST program. Compared to youth with similar criminal histories and demographic characteristics, MST youth were convicted of fewer crimes on average. Due to sample size, statistical significance was not attained in this evaluation of MST outcomes. The effect sizes observed, however, are within the expected range for MST according to other rigorous studies of that intervention and would likely return a net economic benefit to tax payers and crime victims. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=11-04-3901 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=11-04-3901 Shelf Number: 121680 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Mental Health ServicesMultisystemic Therapy |
Author: Washington Coalition for the Just Treatment of Youth Title: A Reexamination of Youth Involvement in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Washington: Implications of New Findings about Juvenile Recidivism and Adolescent Brain Development Summary: In passing the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, Washington’s legislature intended to “[p]rovide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile* offender.” Public policy shifted dramatically in the early 1990s, in response to erroneous predictions of an impending juvenile crime wave. As a result, numerous laws were enacted that allowed adolescents to be tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the same manner as adults, in many cases without any consideration of their age or development. Although juvenile crime rates have actually decreased since the mid 1990s and many proponents of these changes have now admitted that their predictions regarding juvenile crime were incorrect, these policies remain in effect today. A reexamination of those policies is appropriate for several reasons. First, recent breakthroughs in brain development research have shown that due to anatomical differences in the adolescent brain, youth are less able than adults to assess risks, control impulsive behavior, and engage in moral reasoning. These differences are all relevant to assessing a juvenile’s culpability. This same research also suggests that adolescents are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults because one’s character continues to form as the brain matures. As such, adolescents typically “age out” of delinquent behavior as they move toward adulthood. For this reason, in Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court explained: “From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.”4 Second, evidence now exists that these policies threaten, rather than protect, public safety. Recent studies show that subjecting adolescents to the adult criminal justice system may actually increase future criminal behavior. This is likely due to adolescents incarcerated in adult facilities having reduced access to treatment and rehabilitative services while at the same time being exposed to an adult criminal culture rife with violence and antisocial behavior. This experience—known colloquially as “felon finishing school”—results in many youth emerging from incarceration at higher risk of offending than when they entered. In passing the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, Washington’s legislature intended to “[p]rovide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile* offender.” Public policy shifted dramatically in the early 1990s, in response to erroneous predictions of an impending juvenile crime wave. As a result, numerous laws were enacted that allowed adolescents to be tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the same manner as adults, in many cases without any consideration of their age or development. Although juvenile crime rates have actually decreased since the mid 1990s2 and many proponents of these changes have now admitted that their predictions regarding juvenile crime were incorrect,3 these policies remain in effect today. A reexamination of those policies is appropriate for several reasons. First, recent breakthroughs in brain development research have shown that due to anatomical differences in the adolescent brain, youth are less able than adults to assess risks, control impulsive behavior, and engage in moral reasoning. These differences are all relevant to assessing a juvenile’s culpability. This same research also suggests that adolescents are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults because one’s character continues to form as the brain matures. As such, adolescents typically “age out” of delinquent behavior as they move toward adulthood. For this reason, in Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court explained: “From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.” Second, evidence now exists that these policies threaten, rather than protect, public safety. Recent studies show that subjecting adolescents to the adult criminal justice system may actually increase future criminal behavior.5 This is likely due to adolescents incarcerated in adult facilities having reduced access to treatment and rehabilitative services while at the same time being exposed to an adult criminal culture rife with violence and antisocial behavior. This experience—known colloquially as “felon finishing school”—results in many youth emerging from incarceration at higher risk of offending than when they entered.Third, these policies have an unequal impact on youth of color and girls. Youth of color are disproportionately represented amongst adolescents who are tried as adults. A recent study summarized herein shows that this over representation cannot be explained by higher arrest rates for youth of color. The mandatory nature of many of these laws and the lack of gender-responsive services also have troubling consequences for girls who often have unique needs and characteristics that support individualized consideration. This report summarizes the breakthroughs in adolescent brain development, studies related to recidivism rates of youth who are treated as adults, and data regarding the use and implications of current Washington laws that allow—and in some cases require—that youth be treated as adults. In particular, this report analyzes the cases of the twenty-eight Washington youth in which the law mandated that the youth be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the most severe sentence for youth available in Washington. Trial and appellate court records, as well as records from the Department of Corrections and information provided by the individuals sentenced in this manner were analyzed for this report. Details: Seattle (?): Washington Coalition for the Just Treatment of Youth, 2009. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/ReexaminationofYouthWA.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/ReexaminationofYouthWA.pdf Shelf Number: 122173 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Recidivism |
Author: Lucenko, Barbara Title: Effects of Functional Family Parole on Re-Arrest and Employment for Youth in Washington State Summary: The Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration implemented a new model of juvenile parole services in 2003, Functional Family Therapy. This new model of parole, Functional Family Parole (FFP), is intended to make families the unit of intervention-not just the youth-and uses family therapy-based approaches to enhance case management outcomes. The new parole model was implemented with several other evidence-based changes in the JRA residential program, collectively called the Integrated Treatment Model. Recent budget reductions led to the elimination of parole for all JRA offenders except high-risk, auto theft offenders, and sex offenders, creating a "natural experiment" allowing us to test of the impacts of Functional Family Parole upon youth in the period following their release. We found that "FFP Youth" were less likely to be arrested and had fewer total arrests during the 9 months following release than those released during the period without the enhanced parole services. "FFP Youth" were also more likely to be employed and earned more on average during the year following release than "No FFP Youth." Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/2/24.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/2/24.pdf Shelf Number: 133067 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesFamily InterventionsJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Juvenile ParoleJuvenile RehabilitationTreatment Programs |