Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:11 am
Time: 1:11 am
Results for juvenile probation
48 results foundAuthor: Arifuku, Isami Title: An Assessment of the Enhanced Ranch Program Santa Clara County Probation Department Summary: In 2006, the Santa Clara County Probation Department (SCCPD) changed its approach to serving youth in two of its juvenile justice programs--the William F. James Boys' Ranch and the Muriel Wright Center. The overarching objectives of the change were to provide specific therapeutic services to youth and families while maintaining a commitment to public safety. The new cognitive-behavioral model marks a vastly different structure and philosophy, patterned after the evidence-based program developed by the Missouri Division of Youth Services. The new model, entitled the Enhanced Ranch Program, targets youth heavily entrenched in the juvenile justice system and emphasizes positive, peer-based group interactions and a holistic approach to developing individual case plans. Specially trained teams of staff work with small groups of youth offenders. Teams function as therapeutic units that share the daily activities of life with youth and focus on their critical thinking, personal development, and group processes. The Enhanced Ranch Program serves high-risk, high- need youth with gang affiliations, substance abuse issues, and significant criminal histories. This model was designed to improve outcomes for youth with extensive criminal histories by ensuring that they receive the most appropriate and purposeful services. The primary focus is to help youth internalize healthy behavior that will help them succeed. Details: Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2009. 42p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118219 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRehabilitation, Juveniles |
Author: Hickert, Audrey O. Title: Evaluation of the Utah Juvenile Drug Courts: Final Report Summary: The report examines 6 Utah Juvenile Drug Courts (JDCs) in Weber, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, Emery, and Grand counties, providing descriptive statistics on population served, services offered, and during and post-JDC juvenile recidivism. The four largest JDCs are compared to similar probationers on post-program juvenile and adult recidivism, with a 30 month follow-up period. There were no significant differences on alcohol/drug recidivism between probation and JDC after controlling for other significant factors; however, JDC had significantly less delinquency/criminal recidivism, even after controlling for other significant factors. Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2010. 75p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119410 Keywords: Juvenile Drug Courts (Utah)Juvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile ProbationJuvenle Offenders (Utah)RecidivismRehabilitation |
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: Hennigan, Karen Title: Five Year Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of a Community-Based Multi-Agency Intensive Supervision Juvenile Probation Program Summary: The long term outcomes of an intensive supervision probation program implemented in several neighborhood afterschool centers in high crime neighborhoods in Los Angeles County California were evaluated. Over a two year period, youth were randomly assigned to this new program or to supervision-as-usual. Of all the boys age 15 or younger who were assessed at low risk for re-offending at program intake, those randomly assigned to the new program were three times more likely to have been incarcerated in prison or the California Youth Authority over the five years following the program (12% vs. 4% in the control program). At the end of the five-year follow-up period, 69% of the younger low risk boys in the new program were out of the criminal justice system altogether relative to 83% of their counterparts in the control program. Certain attitudes and perceptions associated with delinquent behavior in past empirical studies were changed among these boys who participated in the new program. When interviewed after the program, they had lower expectations of being caught and punished for delinquent activities, lower self esteem in the context of school and family, and were more likely to believe they were the type of kid who “gets into trouble” than their counterparts in the “supervision-as-usual” program. Each of these mediators was associated with the negative long term outcomes found among the younger low risk boys in this experimental study. These results are consistent with a social influence model called “deviancy training.” Of all the youth on probation who participated in the intensive probation program, only the younger lower risk boys were negatively affected. The older higher risk youth had favorable outcomes initially but these dissipated over time. One problem that may have contributed to the loss of the immediate advantages is a kind of “catch 22” that is common in intensive supervision programs where the intensity of the supervision can lead to more probation violations and more detention experiences. Youth that accumulate more detention experiences are typically treated more severely in their next encounter with law enforcement due to a labeling effect. Just looking at their records, it appears that their behavior is more serious and harder to control due to the increased sanctions experienced and future sanctions are calibrated in accordance with that view. There was an association between being detained in juvenile hall and the long term rate of incarceration among the older higher risk youth. The authors argue that it is important for those who plan, implement, and manage juvenile justice probation programs to consider the implications of the long term outcomes of this group-based intensive supervision program. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232621.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232621.pdf Shelf Number: 120558 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationIntensive SupervisionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Probation |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Core Case Inspections of Youth Offending Work: Aggregate Findings Across Four English Regions and Wales, Including Findings by Diversity Summary: This report provides aggregate findings across four English regions and Wales from HMI Probation’s Core Case Inspections (CCI) of key aspects of Youth Offending work by Youth Offending Teams, which are covering all 157 YOTs over a three year period from April 2009. The findings in this report cover the 79 YOT areas inspected so far. • Overall, these findings indicate that much sound work is being undertaken with young people who have offended, but that there is scope for further improvement, among other things in Public Protection work, in a number of YOTs. • On the main elements of work inspected in the CCI – Safeguarding and Public Protection: - the overall average percentage of Safeguarding work, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 67% - the overall average percentage of work to keep to a minimum each young person’s Risk of Harm to others, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 62% - the overall average percentage of work to make it less likely that the individual young person would reoffend, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 70% • In 88% of the cases the YOT worker actively motivated and supported the young person throughout the sentence. • In 73% of cases delivered interventions in the community were of good quality. In only 55% of all cases were they reviewed appropriately. • In 64% of cases where the young person did not comply with the supervision the authority took enforcement action sufficiently well. • When analysed by diversity characteristics, for the main elements of work overall, and for the majority of key specific aspects of work, there were no statistically significant differences. However, where there were differences, work was done sufficiently well: - with girls and young women somewhat more often than with boys and young men - on some aspects of work, including some on Risk of Harm, a little more often with white young people compared to black and minority ethnic (BME) young people - with individuals under 16 years of age somewhat more often than with the older age group - with individuals with no identified disability somewhat more often than those with an identified disability • Overall, there were no major differences in the quality of work between children and young people of different diversity characteristics, but the figures indicate that certain specific matters may require attention. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 28, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/CCI_aggregate_report_March_2011-rps.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/CCI_aggregate_report_March_2011-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 121146 Keywords: DisabilityDiversityJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationOffender SupervisionRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Disability Rights Texas Title: Thinking Outside the Cell: Alternatives to Incarceration for Youth with Mental Illness Summary: Youth with mental illness can suffer devastating consequences from commitment to juvenile justice facilities, where specialized treatment and supports are often insufficient to meet their rehabilitative needs. Given the prevalence of youth with mental health needs in the Texas juvenile justice system, there is a pressing need for the state to develop appropriate and costeffective alternatives to incarceration for this population. Texas has already started to shift its focus and funding in the right direction — toward community-based supports and services. During the 2009 legislative session, state leadership showed visionary support for community-based programming by reducing funding for the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) by $100 million and providing $45.7 million in new funding to juvenile probation departments for Commitment Reduction Programs intended to divert youth from TYC facilities. Many probation departments across the state used these funds to develop mental health resources, and preliminary data show an excellent return on investment. THINKING OUTSIDE THE CELL: ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION FOR YOUTH WITH MENTAL ILLNESS features three case studies of youth placed in the Corsicana Residential Treatment Center, the TYC facility designated for youth with serious mental illness or emotional disturbance. Their stories highlight the significant challenges youth with mental health needs face before and after commitment to TYC. They also demonstrate that access to appropriate and effective community-based mental health services is key to addressing the underlying sources of many youths’ offenses, reducing recidivism, and preventing deeper penetration into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. This report also features numerous effective community-based intervention strategies currently being implemented in Texas and other jurisdictions to reduce the incidence of youth with mental health needs in the juvenile justice system. As Texas continues to transform its juvenile justice system, such model programs will help ensure better outcomes for youth, families and communities. Finally, the report provides policy recommendations concerning youth with mental illness involved in the juvenile justice system. Details: Oakland, CA: National Center for Youth Law, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/NCYL-thinking-outside-the-cell-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/NCYL-thinking-outside-the-cell-report.pdf Shelf Number: 121822 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsJuvenile Offenders (Texas)Juvenile ProbationMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders, JuvenilesRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: To Get the Best Results: A Joint Inspection of Offending Behaviour, Health and Education, Training & Employment Interventions in Youth Offending work in England and Wales Summary: This thematic inspection is one of several which, with the Core Case Inspections, form the three year Inspection of Youth Offending programme coordinated by HMI Probation. The team for this inspection included inspectors from HMI Probation, the Care Quality Commission, Estyn, the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and Ofsted – inspectorates that have a direct interest in the subject matter. The inspectors visited six Youth Offending Teams and examined individual cases where thinking and behaviour or attitudes to offending, health and education, training and employment issues had been identified as being linked to offending. We spoke with young people about their experiences of the services they had received and also with practitioners and managers, along with representatives from partner agencies. We found that strategically, both nationally and locally, not enough attention was being given to the planning, delivery and evaluation of interventions that tackle offending behaviour. Youth Offending Teams need to access and make more use of information about ‘What Works’ in making interventions more effective. We found that although YOTs sometimes achieved some success in practice they were often not clear themselves how they had achieved this. Better understanding of the information and research would enable them to achieve better results in future. In particular, we found that thorough assessments that address offending behaviour, health and education, training & employment were often being done, but these did not always lead to clear planning and delivery of the right interventions with the right individuals in the right way at the right time. Better case planning was needed, as was training and development for practitioners. Therefore, although it was pleasing to note many examples of good practice, there were aspects that still required improvement by managers. Details: Longon: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/interventions-thematic-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/interventions-thematic-report.pdf Shelf Number: 122080 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationRehabilitation, Juveniles |
Author: McCurley, Carl Title: Process Evaluation of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services’ Aftercare Program Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the design and implementation of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services’ (BJJS) new model of aftercare. Understanding how aftercare services are delivered and how the program actually operates is essential for decisionmaking about program planning and for improvement. In January 2005, BJJS decided to shift from a treatment model of aftercare service delivery to a case management model of service delivery. BJJS provides aftercare services to about 2 out of every 3 youth released from placements with the State’s Youth Development Center/Youth Forestry Center (YDC/YFC) system. At current levels of use, the aftercare program enrolls over 500 youth per year. Based on screener results, the great majority of youth enrolled in the program are classified as high risk—they are also older, with greater needs, and more serious offending histories than the average adjudicated youth in Pennsylvania. The BJJS program is one of six major aftercare initiatives active in Pennsylvania, all of which are funded by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The other five programs, all associated with the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change initiative, are specific to the single county where they operate: Allegheny, Cambria, Lycoming, Philadelphia, and York counties. In contrast, the BJJS program operates in a group of counties that contain more than 70% of Pennsylvania’s population. Like the Philadelphia program, and like many other serious and violent offender re-entry programs in operation across the nation, the BJJS aftercare program employs a case management model that features extensive assessment, individualized planning, a focus on the transition from life in the placement facility to life in the community, and efforts to assist the youth in building durable, supportive relationships in the community (reintegration). The goals of the BJJS Aftercare Services Project are based on the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model developed by David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong (1994). Instead of starting aftercare services after the youth is released, the planning, assessments, and client contact begins when the youth is placed in the facility. The new BJJS approach begins at disposition, continues while the youth is in placement and on probation in the community, and endures afterwards through connections with services in the community. BJJS contracted with a private provider, Cornell, to implement the community component of the aftercare services model. In the old model, the youth went through the program in phases (could not move to Phase 2 until successfully completing Phase 1). In the new model, the youth completes steps in their own individualized service plan rather than completing a “one size fits all” program. Each youth’s plan is developed based on his/her strengths and needs, family assessments, and resources that will be available in their home community when they are released.Changes in the program model required new resources be put into place both in the facilities and the communities. BJJS made many changes in the program infrastructure, including adding new staff, training staff on the new way of doing business, and using new assessment instruments. The goals of the BJJS aftercare program are to reduce delinquency and improve the life chances for high-risk youth released from state placements. To reach its goals, the program relies on effective collaboration across agencies that traditionally have been independent. The BJJS program requires collaboration among BJJS staff within the YDC/YFC system, contracted case managers active at the facility and in the communities, juvenile court and juvenile probation, families, and community-based service providers. In large measure, success of the aftercare program depends on BJJS success at achieving and sustaining collaboration in a set of state, local, public, private, and non-profit agencies and organizations. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2006. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2011 at: www.portal.state.pa.us Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 122258 Keywords: Juvenile Aftercare (Pennsylvania)Juvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivismReentryRehabilitation |
Author: Hughes, Diane K. Title: A Comparison of Paterson Juveniles Under Probation Supervision Before and After Implementation of the Paterson Juvenile Justice Village Initiative. Are Probation/Police Collaborations Effective Models for Probation Supervision? Summary: New Jersey Superior Courts have been unified for a number of years, but state assumption of funding didn’t occur until 1995. Funding for the courts previously rested with each county, resulting in significant disparities between counties. The focus for the first few years after the state assumed funding for all superior courts throughout the 15 vincinages was on budget issues such as attaining equitable resource allocation; standardization of purchasing; uniform job titles; and equalization of pay. The Administrative Office of the Courts has recently begun to look toward standardization of practices throughout the state. Probation, as a division of the superior court, has been exploring options to improve efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. The Conference of Chief Probation Officers has been looking at operations and activities in the vicinages to identify those that are “best practices” which may be implemented statewide. Probation services in New Jersey are not alone in seeking ways to reinvent themselves. Probation throughout the country has been grappling with the notion of reinventing itself to best serve the court, the offender and the community. This paper will focus on the movement of probation toward collaborations with police and explore specifically the Paterson Juvenile Justice Village Initiative. Collaborations between probation and police are proliferating at a fast pace. It may be that such collaborations are, in fact, a “best practice”. There are, however, some issues and concerns, which will be addressed. This paper will look briefly at probation’s past and focus on some of the more recent efforts of probation to view work differently. A review of literature relevant to the collaborative approach will be discussed. Almost all such approaches are patterned after a collaboration between probation and police in Boston, Massachusetts known as Operation Night Light. The Paterson Juvenile Justice Village Initiative is also based on the Boston partnership. In fact, staff from Boston and Paterson spent time with each other both in Paterson and in Boston. A description of juvenile probation practices in the Passaic Vicinage is offered as well as a full description of the Paterson Village Initiative field activities and approach. Problems and issues arising from collaborations between court administered probation divisions and law enforcement are discussed. The methodology section will enumerate what was evaluated; explain how data was collected and discuss the problems of gathering data by utilizing cumbersome mainframe systems and conducting surveys. The collected data will be presented and an analysis will follow. This writer’s conclusions will be presented as well as a discussion of the need for future research. Details: Denver, CO: Institute for Court Management, Court Executive Development Program, 2000. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/famct&CISOPTR=81 Year: 2000 Country: United States URL: http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/famct&CISOPTR=81 Shelf Number: 233426 Keywords: CollaborationJuvenile Offenders (New Jersey)Juvenile Probation |
Author: Hart, Di Title: Into the Breach: The Enforcement of Statutory Orders in the Youth Justice System Summary: This report summarises the findings of a project concerning children under the age of 18 who are in breach of their anti-social behaviour or criminal justice order. The aim of the project was to increase our understanding of the way statutory orders are enforced and to make recommendations for change. Children who fail to comply with the conditions of a statutory order may be returned to court and sentenced for the breach, regardless of whether they have committed further offences or anti-social acts. Youth offending teams (YOTs) are expected to bring breach proceedings after three instances of non-compliance with a youth justice order, although there is management discretion to depart from this in exceptional circumstances. Where a child is subject to an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO), however, there is a presumption that every instance of breach will be prosecuted. The courts have a range of options open to them when considering their response but sentencing guidelines state that sentencers are not obliged to impose a punitive penalty even if the breach is proved, and custody is meant to be a last resort. Little research has been done on the impact of enforcement but there is some evidence that action to achieve compliance does not necessarily have a positive effect on reconviction rates. Although reconviction rates amongst children are reducing, those subject to the greatest level of intervention, such as intensive community orders or custody, remain the most likely to be reconvicted. Some commentators have also stressed the importance of distinguishing between superficial compliance and real engagement, where the person being supervised is genuinely committed to the purpose of the order even if they do not manage to fully comply. There is some evidence to suggest that the children who have the most difficulty in complying with the conditions of their order are not the most serious offenders but those who offend persistently, often strongly associated with disadvantage. In relation to breach offences, some children may have difficulty in understanding what is required of them or be living such chaotic lives that they cannot comply. Data published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Youth Justice Board (YJB) suggests that breach of statutory order now constitutes 6% of all proven offences, double the proportion in 2002/03. There is currently no available data on the proportion of total orders that are breached, except for Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes (ISSP), about one third of which have resulted in breach action, and ASBOs, where 68% of all those given to children since 2000 have been breached. Most likely to be returned to court for breach of a statutory order are older boys, and those of mixed ethnicity. Breach offences, however, account for a disproportionate number of younger children, girls and those of white ethnicity in custody. There are also regional variations in the use of breach proceedings. Around 20% of children in custody have been found guilty of a breach offence and in 2009/10 an average of 9% of children were in custody solely for breach of a statutory order, usually a community sentence. There are gaps and discrepancies in the data that make analysis difficult. It would be particularly useful to be able to analyse the relationship between enforcement activity and reoffending. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2011. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2011 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Into%20the%20Breach.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Into%20the%20Breach.pdf Shelf Number: 123006 Keywords: Anti-Social Behaviour OrdersJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Probation |
Author: Leschied, Alan Title: Seeking Effective Interventions for Serious Young Offenders : Interim Results of a Four-Year Randomized Study of Multisystemic Therapy in Ontario, Canada Summary: This report contains interim outcome data from a four-year randomized study of Multisystemic Therapy (MST) in four southern Ontario communities. With therapy teams in London, Mississauga, Simcoe County and Ottawa, about 200 families received MST between 1997 and 2001. At the same time, about 200 families continued with the usual services available through the local youth justice and social service systems. These services typically took the form of probation supervision augmented as seen necessary by referral to specialized programming. Group assignment was determined randomly so the two groups were equivalent at the outset. That being true, the behaviour of the usual services group reflects the behaviour of the MST recipients, had they not received MST, and any post-intervention differences can be attributed to MST. Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services supported the project because MST promised to be a cost-efficient way of reducing youth crime. Reductions in offending would, in turn, reduce both losses to crime victims and costs associated with criminal justice processing. The National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) in Ottawa supported the evaluation to learn if MST could be a cost-efficient intervention for youth crime and if it might be a viable alternative to custody for serious offenders. This is the final report to the National Crime Prevention Centre pursuant to that funding. Because each youth will be tracked for three years, the study will not be complete until 2004. The multi-site nature of the project permitted comparisons across different types of communities under variable conditions of implementation. The intent was to implement the same intervention across the sites and all teams had the same training, were supervised by the same MST consultant, and met quarterly for boosters. A standard research protocol was used. Other important features of the study were intake screening against inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, a large sample, a valid measure of outcome, and long-term follow-up. The data collection strategy was specifically designed to answer research questions posed by stakeholder groups. Considerable care and expense were expended to ensure fidelity to the treatment model. The outcome measure involved real behaviour in the community, not in-program changes in attitudes or clinical symptoms. The research was designed and conducted by investigators independent of the method’s developer, the funder, and the agencies delivering the program. Details: London, ON: Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System of the London Family Court Clinic, 2002. 151p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2011 at: http://www.lfcc.on.ca/seeking.html Year: 2002 Country: Canada URL: http://www.lfcc.on.ca/seeking.html Shelf Number: 123318 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Canada)Juvenile ProbationMultisystemic TherapyTreatment Programs, Juveniles |
Author: Culhane, Dennis P. Title: Young Adult Outcomes Of Youth Exiting Dependent Or Delinquent Care In Los Angeles County Summary: This report investigates the young adult outcomes of youth who age-out of or otherwise exit Los Angeles County’s child welfare supervised foster care system and/or juvenile probation system. Two cohorts of young adults from both systems were selected for analysis. Within the two cohorts, this study focuses on three groups of youth exiters: (i) The child welfare (CW) group is comprised of youth who exited from a child welfare out-of-home placement between the ages of 16 and 21; (ii) the juvenile probation (JP) group is made up of youth who exited from any type of juvenile probation supervision between the ages of 16 and 21; and (iii) the crossover group is comprised of all youth who exited an out-of-home child welfare placement between the ages of 16 and 21 and who also had a record of involvement with the juvenile probation system. The adult outcomes of youth in each of these three groups are analyzed by linking their administrative records from Los Angeles County’s Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and/or Probation Department with administrative databases from seven County departments providing an array of public services to residents of Los Angeles County, as well as from two California statewide agencies. In performing this investigation, this study features several novel approaches toward examining the adult outcomes of youth aging-out of the child welfare system. While several studies have examined the adult outcomes of this population, there has been no such study looking specifically at adult outcomes among the sub-group of “crossover” youth who are involved in both child welfare and juvenile justice systems, and who may be at a particularly high risk for poor outcomes in adulthood. Despite the concern that has been raised about adult outcomes in this population, no prior studies have looked at adult outcomes of crossover youth, nor among the more general group of children who exit the juvenile justice system as adults. Along with providing findings on the adult outcomes of these latter two groups, this study also provides a basis for outcome comparisons across the three groups among these outcomes. Here, we can assess the assertion that crossover youth represent a group that stands out among their peers who are only involved with either the child welfare or juvenile justice systems, as a particularly at-risk population for undesirable outcomes in adulthood. Additionally, this study looks at outcomes across a variety of public programs and thus offers an opportunity to better understand the relationship and dynamics between a number of adult domains including the educational, occupational, health, mental health, criminal justice and public welfare systems. Details: Report Supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundations, 2011. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 30, 2011 at: http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/images/stories/Downloads/media_resources/Young_Adult_Outcomes_of_Youth_Exiting_Dependent_or_Delinquent_Care_in_LA_County_Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/images/stories/Downloads/media_resources/Young_Adult_Outcomes_of_Youth_Exiting_Dependent_or_Delinquent_Care_in_LA_County_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 123491 Keywords: Child WelfareCrossover YouthJuvenile Offenders (California)Juvenile ProbationRecidivism, Juvenile OffendersYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Yessine, Annie K. Title: The Offending Trajectories of Youth Probationers from Early Adolescence to Middle Adulthood: Relation to Dual Taxonomies Summary: This study sought to identify the distinctive criminal pathways, and specify the early characteristics that predict offending trajectories for a Canadian sample comprised of 514 male and female juvenile probationers followed into middle adulthood. Using latent growth curve mixture modeling, the results revealed the existence of two main types of offenders who differed in composition, offending activity, and desistance throughout the life-course. One group represented approximately 13% of the offenders, and showed a chronic high level of offending behaviour throughout the life-course. The offending frequency/ severity of this group increased steadily from adolescence onwards. The remainder of the sample (87%) was characterized by sporadic and/or less serious involvement in criminal behaviour over the years. The offending pattern of this latter group remained stable although it tended to show a slight decline in frequency/severity from age 26 onwards. The offenders classified in the chronic high trajectory group disproportionally engaged in a wider variety of offences as well as more of the violent crimes. Of the criminogenic risk/needs domains studied, the youths’ patterns of associations were the most robust and reliable predictor of group membership. Not surprisingly, the chronic high trajectory group comprised more offenders who had negative and unconstructive ties with their peers than the stable low group. Overall, the findings are consistent with the original dual taxonomies proposed by Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1996), Moffitt (1993) and Patterson, Reid and Dishion (1992). The paper concludes with a discussion of policy and practical implications and directions for future research. Details: Ottawa, Canada: National Crime Prevention Centre, Public Safety Canada, 2012. 29p. Source: Research Report: 2012-4: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2012 at http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cp/res/_fl/otyp-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cp/res/_fl/otyp-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 125941 Keywords: Adult OffendersCriminal CareersJuvenile ProbationLongitudinal Stuides |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Core Case Inspection of Youth Offending Work in England and Wales: Report on Youth Offending Work in Lewisham Summary: This Core Case Inspection of youth offending work in Lewisham took place as part of the Inspection of Youth Offending programme. We have examined a representative sample of youth offending cases from the area, and have judged how often the Public Protection and the Safeguarding aspects of the work were done to a sufficiently high level of quality. We judged that the Safeguarding aspects of the work were done well enough 75% of the time. With the Public Protection aspects, work to keep to a minimum each individual’s Risk of Harm to others was done well enough 68% of the time, and the work to make each individual less likely to reoffend was done well enough 80% of the time. A more detailed analysis of our findings is provided in the main body of this report, and summarised in a table in Appendix 1. These figures can be viewed in the context of our findings from Wales and the regions of England inspected so far. We also found against a difficult backdrop that included gang rivalry, drugs and knife crime, the staff in Lewisham worked constructively with children and young people. Improvements were needed, however, to improve the quality of work related to the Risk of Harm to others and to some aspects of how the vulnerability of those children and young people known to the service could be reduced. Overall, we consider this a creditable set of findings. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2012 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/youth-inspection-reports/core-case/lewisham-cci-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/youth-inspection-reports/core-case/lewisham-cci-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 127241 Keywords: DisabilityDiversityJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationOffender SupervisionRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Vincent, Gina M. Title: Using Risk Assessment to Meet Needs and Reduce Recidivism Summary: A growing number of juvenile justice experts are suggesting that an effective approach to reducing recidivism is to evaluate a youth’s risk of reoffending, then match services to his or her specific risk factors. With support from the Models for Change initiative, most of the county-based juvenile probation offices in Pennsylvania have adopted the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS) for this purpose. The near-statewide adoption was a significant accomplishment in a state without a centralized juvenile probation system. A study of the impact of YLS in the probation offices of three counties showed it improved their ability to assign appropriate community-based services and levels of monitoring to individual offenders, and significantly decreased reoffense rates in one county. The study also showed that success requires buy-in from key stakeholders. Pennsylvania’s experience provides a model for how states with decentralized juvenile justice systems can implement statewide innovations. Details: Philadelphia, PA: Models for Change, 2012. 4p. Source: Innovation Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/356/Innovation_Brief_Using_Risk_Assessment_to_Meet_Needs_and_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/356/Innovation_Brief_Using_Risk_Assessment_to_Meet_Needs_and_Reduce_Recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 127273 Keywords: Case ManagementJuvenile JusticeJuvenile ProbationRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Youth to Adult Transitions Framework: Advice for managing cases which transfer from Youth Offending Teams to Probation Trusts Summary: The point of transfer from youth to adult justice services is a critical time for a young person and for the justice professionals who must work to ensure that a young person’s welfare is properly safeguarded and that any risks they pose to the public are minimised. Improving the transition from youth to adult services will produce better outcomes for young people as they are supported through the process during a fragile time in their lives. Making improvements in the way that information is shared between Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), under-18 YOIs and probation trusts and young adult YOIs will lead to more informed assessments, continuity in interventions and advances in addressing the needs of young people. There is evidence to suggest that improved practice in this area may also have an impact on reoffending rates. This framework has been developed by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) in conjunction with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). It provides advice to YOTs and local probation trusts that manage the transition of young people from youth to adult justice services in the community. It contains information about the essential elements of the transition process and seeks to empower local agencies in finding creative solutions and developing systems to aide transition. In addition, it promotes current good practice and encourages YOTs and probation trusts to consider this when agreeing an appropriate local approach. National Standards for Youth Justice Services require YOTs to have a local transition protocol in place. This should be developed in a way that builds on the content of this framework and takes into account local arrangements. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2012 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/youth-to-adult-transitions/youth-to-adult-transitions-framework Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/youth-to-adult-transitions/youth-to-adult-transitions-framework Shelf Number: 129572 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationProbationYoung Adult OffendersYouth to Adult Transitions |
Author: Anderson, Victoria Title: Second Chances for All. Why Orange County Probation Should Stop Choosing Deportation Over Rehabilitation for Immigrant youth Summary: In recent years, the Orange County Probation Department (OCPD) has adopted a policy of referring immigrant children in its care to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In so doing, OCPD has violated confidentiality laws, undermined the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, impeded community policing efforts, unlawfully entangled its officers in federal immigration enforcement, and diverted county resources. This report was undertaken by the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic to analyze OCPD's referral policy, document some of these harms, and recommend possible solutions to address those harms. As a result of OCPD's referral policy, Orange County has led the state in juvenile immigration referrals. From December 2010 to November 2012, the OCPD Procedure Manual instructed probation officers to proactively investigate the immigration status of youth and granted OCPD's ICE Liaison Officer discretion to refer practically any child with "questionable immigration status" to ICE. Pursuant to this policy, OCPD referred approximately 170 youth to immigration authorities in the year 2011 alone. Between October 1, 2009 and February 10, 2013, ICE issued immigration detainer requests for numerous youth detained in Orange County Juvenile Hall; Orange County accounted for approximately 43% of all ICE detainer requests issued to juvenile facilities in the state. In November 2012, OCPD revised its referral policy; however, key problematic aspects of the policy were left unchanged. In the months following the policy change, OCPD has made a steady, if reduced, number of referrals. Approximately 24 youth were referred between December 2012 and September 2013. OCPD's referral policy violates state confidentiality law and undermines OCPD's mission to rehabilitate juveniles. The policy violates California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827, which strictly limits access to juvenile case files, by requiring employees to provide ICE with "all pertinent information" to assist ICE's investigation of referred juveniles. Juvenile referrals also cause both children and their families to distrust the probation department, hindering cooperation necessary for rehabilitation. Furthermore, many juveniles referred to ICE are detained in federal custody for an indefinite period awaiting immigration court proceedings, separating them from their families and subjecting them to physical and mental hardships that increase their risk of recidivism. In cases where children are deported, they experience long-term separation from family and friends, and may be left to fend for themselves in countries where they have no support system. Juvenile referrals do not benefit public safety, and may even hinder policing efforts. Studies have repeatedly found that immigration status does not shape future delinquency. Also, OCPD's own studies indicate that as few as 8% of youth who come into contact with OCPD qualify as "chronic recidivists." Thus, targeting immigrant youth for deportation is unlikely to make Orange County safer. In fact, juvenile referrals can harm public safety because they foster distrust between immigrant communities and local police generally. Surveys show that approximately 44% of Latinos are less likely to contact police officers when they fear police officers will investigate their immigration status or that of their loved ones. OCPD's involvement in federal immigration enforcement exceeds its authority under the Constitution and can lead to illegal detention, deportation, and profiling. Under the Constitution, immigration status may only be determined by federal officers and classified according to federal standards, but OCPD's referral policy directs county officers to independently ascertain juveniles' immigration status, according to a local scheme inconsistent with federal standards. The Constitution also guarantees juveniles the right to be free from unlawful detention, but the referral policy violates that right with its blanket directive to detain juveniles subject to ICE detainers for up to five days past their scheduled release dates. Furthermore, officers untrained in the complexities of immigration status are likely to rely on apparent race and ethnicity in selecting juveniles for immigration investigations, exacerbating risks of illegal racial profiling. Finally, OCPD officers may erroneously refer U.S. citizens or other lawfully present youth to ICE, potentially leading to their unlawful detention and deportation. OCPD's referral policy involves the unnecessary expenditure of county resources to subsidize federal immigration enforcement. OCPD employees - including a dedicated ICE Liaison - spend time on the county payroll investigating juveniles' immigration status and communicating with ICE, and the county incurs additional detention costs when OCPD denies out-of-home placement to juveniles subject to ICE detainers and detains such juveniles past their release dates. Further costs may result from lawsuits filed by those affected by OCPD's referral policy or by civil rights organizations, challenging violations of confidentiality laws, the detention of juveniles on the basis of ICE detainers, racial profiling by OCPD officers, or the erroneous referral and resulting detention or deportation of lawfully present juveniles. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, School of Law, immigrant Rights Clinic, 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131887 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrant EnforcementImmigrationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRehabilitation |
Author: Bergseth, Kathleen J. Title: Reentry Services: An Evaluation of a Pilot Project in Clay County, MN Summary: The Reentry Services Project (RSP) in Clay County, MN began in July 2003 with funding from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Drug Policy and Violence Prevention and matching funds from the Clay County Joint Powers Collaborative (a collaborative group of local human service agencies). The RSP aimed to improve public safety by assisting youthful offenders in successful community reentry following out-of-home placement. The program included the addition of two Transitional Coordinators (TCs) who worked with Probation Officers (POs) and community-based service providers to identify case specific needs and employ comprehensive case management services. Specifically, the RSP sought to reduce the likelihood of further crime and delinquency by providing comprehensive reentry case management to aid youth in: - Obtaining and maintaining long-term employment, if appropriate, - Maintaining a stable residence, - Addressing substance abuse issues, - Addressing physical and mental health issues, and - Establishing a meaningful and supportive role in the community. RSP was designed to begin at least 30 days prior to release from out-of-home placement, and to continue for six months following release to the community. The program served 124 youth during its first 4 years of operation. This report includes information on 92 RSP youth whose files were closed as of April, 2007. The average (mean) age of youth served during this period was 16.3 years upon return to the community following their most recent out-of-home placement. Of the 92 youth, 72% were male. Half (50%) were White, 26% were Native American or Alaskan Native, 22% Hispanic, and 2% African American. RSP youth averaged 4.2 official contacts with juvenile justice authories prior to program participation, 38% had a prior felony charge, and 54% had a prior person-related crime (i.e., violent offense charge). On average, RSP clients had been on probation for 18 months prior to returning to the community following their most recent placement. RSP clients experienced an average of 3.4 prior out-of-home placements and had spent 197 days in placement, including 173 days in restrictive placement. Nearly all (98%) RSP youth were on indefinite probation, and most (60%) were on maximum or intensive probation supervision. Many RSP youth had extensive histories of problems, such as substance abuse (77%), histories of violence (65%), mental health issues (74%) and school problems (88%). More than three-quarters (76%) had experienced three or more of these problems, and more than half (54%) could be considered dual diagnosis (history of both substance abuse and mental health issues). Details: Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Department of Criminal Justice and Political Science, 2007. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2014 at: http://www.claycountycollaborative.org/meetings/files/RSPFinalReport2007.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.claycountycollaborative.org/meetings/files/RSPFinalReport2007.pdf Shelf Number: 133043 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Offender SupervisionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationJuvenile Reentry |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Joint thematic inspection of resettlement services to children by Youth Offending Teams and partner agencies Summary: Context The inspection took place as the Government had just launched Transforming Youth Custody which includes plans for the improvement of resettlement work with children. The Youth Justice Board and the National Offender Management Service are tasked with taking these plans forward. The inspection This inspection was led by HMI Probation, in collaboration with partner inspectorates, in response to the findings from our mainstream inspection programme of youth offending work which suggested that services to children in custody and on release were not being delivered consistently well enough. The inspection focused on the journey and experience of the child. Their cases were tracked through the custodial period, their release and the initial phase out into the community. We talked to them and their parents/carers where possible and appropriate, about the things that made it easier for them to settle back into their community successfully and about what got in the way. We also talked to staff and managers within the Young Offender Institutions, the Secure Training Centres and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) as well as chairs of the YOT management boards and senior managers from the organisations with oversight of this work throughout England. Overall findings The offending outcomes for many of the children whose cases we inspected were poor. Too many had been rearrested, charged or convicted of new offences within months, or even weeks, of being released. Other outcomes: accommodation, education, training or employment, substance misuse and/or physical or mental health was also poor for too many. Very often, the support to help these children to successfully stop offending and start new, law-abiding lives had not been good enough. Many of the children in our inspection were vulnerable to harm, either through their offending or from others. They led complicated and chaotic lives, often in very difficult circumstances. Much hard work was carried out in the custodial institutions but it was not linked to giving children the best chance to stop offending and make a new life. It did not meet the individual, and often complex, needs of the child frequently enough; it was restricted to what was routinely available within the institution, the provision of education and behaviour management. Key staff did not fully understand each other's roles, did not always value each other's input and did not always work together. Information sharing was inconsistent both within and between organisations. Sentence planning was not integrated across all internal services, did not always take account of previous assessments or individual need and was not genuinely linked to the community. Plans were not useful tools to drive progress; they were generic, wordy and unfocused. Planning meetings were ineffective and failed to properly engage children and their parents/carers. Over one-third of children were held over 50 miles from home. This impacted on the ability of parents/carers to visit and be involved in planning, as well as the processes for gaining accommodation and accessing constructive activities. At the custodial stage, work in the community was not proactive and in too many cases was largely about attending meetings in the institution rather than preparing for release. Sometimes, having meetings and putting plans on a database had become ends in themselves; children recognised that and had become frustrated and disengaged. The worst examples of this were the lack of suitable accommodation being considered early enough and the failure to organise appropriate, realistic education, training and employment provision or constructive activities at the point of release. These were the two main complaints from those to whom we spoke. Children did not understand why things were not in place when they had been in custody for months. Too often, children and their parents/carers were not involved or engaged to any meaningful extent in the plans for release. They were at best, merely aware of the plans and, at worst, kept in the dark. There was little preparation to help them cope with the impact of the child's release. While there are some promising local resettlement projects, resettlement work in the community often started too late. Resources and services were not in place soon enough before release, leaving the child insufficiently supported at the most crucial point. Too often, it did not take into account what had taken place in custody. Contingency planning for the period following release was almost non-existent and Release on Temporary Licence was not used to promote successful resettlement. We found that some children were released without any form of statutory supervision following recall. At every stage, we found that children were held to account for their behaviour. We did not see a corresponding rigour towards the agencies tasked with providing services to them, either inside or outside custody. Conversely, we saw some excellent work both in custody and in the community, and for a small number of children, this hard work had contributed to successful resettlement back into the community. Those children had not reoffended. They had been helped to find and maintain suitable accommodation, they were engaged in education, training or employment and they told us about how they had changed the way they thought about themselves and their future. They were determined to make a new start and to stop offending. As outlined in the foreword, there are a number of agencies and departments responsible for resettlement policy and strategy. Across England and Wales, no one individual or organisation is ultimately accountable for the improvement of resettlement outcomes, in particular the reduction in the high level of reoffending of children leaving custody. The Youth Justice Board and the National Offender Management Service are again planning to improve resettlement practice under the auspices of the Government's Transforming Youth Custody. Previous initiatives have failed to embed improvements in services to those leaving custody or substantially reduce their reoffending. Locally, we found that YOT management boards did not identify or analyse the specific needs of children leaving custody or look at the reasons for their failure to settle back into the community successfully. Nor were children's social care services and housing providers sufficiently engaged, or held to account, in relation to the resettlement needs of children. Details: Manchester, UK: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Youth-Resettlement_report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Youth-Resettlement_report.pdf Shelf Number: 135863 Keywords: AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationJuvenile ReentryJuvenile Resettlement |
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: Texas Juvenile Justice Department Title: Overview of Community-Based Juvenile Probation Programs, Part 1 Summary: The Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) Program & Services Registry was created in 2010 with the purpose of cataloging the community-based programs offered in juvenile probation departments across the state. Each juvenile probation department is required to enter information into the program registry for all active community-based programs. In addition to programs offered by the department, community-based programs include those contracted through the department and those receiving referrals from juvenile probation. Program entries provide general contact information and a description of the program and its goals. Departments must also provide information regarding duration and funding, eligibility requirements, and distinct program components. This brief will explore the information captured in the Program & Services Registry, focusing on the basics of programs offered throughout the state. It will examine program types offered, program duration, funding, and the intended attributes of juveniles to be served. While most of the data presented in this brief is presented as it is reported by departments, some information regarding program type and juveniles served has been changed to reflect recommendations made in a January 2012 program audit. This brief is the first in a series exploring the community-based programs available to juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system and the effectiveness of those programs in lowering recidivism rates. Future briefs in this series will examine the characteristics of juveniles served and outcomes for program participants. Lastly, TJJD will report on recidivism rates throughout the state and determine which programs are providing meaningful interventions and what program elements improve youth outcomes. This information will be used to assist juvenile probation departments in creating more effective programming. Details: Austin: Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2013. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Community-Based Program Evaluation Series: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: https://www.tjjd.texas.gov/statistics/CommunityBasedJuvenileProbationPrograms.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.tjjd.texas.gov/statistics/CommunityBasedJuvenileProbationPrograms.pdf Shelf Number: 135713 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Probation |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Pathways through youth justice supervision: further analyses Summary: This report looks at the complete youth justice supervision history of 24,102 young people in Australia, who experienced supervision, both in the community and in detention, between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2014 when they were aged 10-17. More than one-third (37%) of young people experienced the most common pathway of sentenced community-based supervision only. Young people spent a median of 303 days (about 10 months) under supervision in total, and completed a median of 2 periods of supervision. About 11% of young people had a pathway that was considered 'extensive', and these young people accounted for about one-third (32%) of the total days of supervision and nearly half (45%) of all supervision periods. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 19: Accessed October 15, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129553111 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129553111 Shelf Number: 136982 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsJuvenile Offender SupervisionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Roe-Sepowitz, Dominique Title: Report on the Incidence of Sex Trafficking in Arizona's Juvenile Probation Departments Summary: The identification of minor sex trafficking victims in the United States is complicated by a number of factors including: victims being fearful of self-identifying to those who can offer assistance due to shame, stigma of being labeled a prostitute, fear of the consequences from their offender and to their offender, mistrust of the criminal justice system, as well as having limited knowledge and awareness of how their commercial sexual exploitation falls into the category and definitions of sex trafficking. Systems that serve minors in the United States including the child welfare and juvenile justice systems currently have limited capacity to identify sex trafficking victims. This limitation is due to the fact that few states are participating in the development and use of a valid screening tool and/or have not implemented flags within the system to both establish an ongoing count of sex trafficking victims and report information to those who serve the youth. The purpose of this study is to capture the rate of occurrence of sex trafficking among juveniles involved in Arizona's juvenile justice system. Also, recommendations were collected from juvenile probation officers and staff on how the Arizona juvenile probation system can best serve the sex trafficked juveniles on their caseloads. Once the incidence rate of sex trafficking victims among juveniles involved in the Arizona Juvenile Probation System (adjudicated and non-adjudicated) in Arizona was collected, recommendations for targeted services and systems changes were developed in partnership with the Arizona Administrative Office of the Court, which administers the Arizona Juvenile Probation system. Arizona's Juvenile Probation Department has around 236 juvenile probation officers and in 2015 has served an average of 3,849 juveniles per month through standard and intensive probation. Juveniles being served by Arizona's Juvenile Probation system can be living at home, group homes, foster homes, residential treatment programs, transitional housing or in a detention center. To obtain the rate or incidence of sex trafficking victims among juvenile probationers in Arizona, all juvenile probation officers were mandated to attend a sex trafficking-specific training. A total of 567 juvenile probation officers, juvenile probation supervisors, other probation staff (surveillance officers, detention officers, treatment supervisors) and community partners were provided with a three-and-a-half hour in-person sex trafficking 101 training. This training included expert trainers, researchers, survivor speakers, sex trafficking specific social service agency providers, and a review of actual cases of sex trafficking of a minor in Arizona. After the training, the attendees were surveyed about the incidence of having sex trafficked victims on their current caseloads. The intent of the survey was to establish the incidence rate of sex trafficking victims among juvenile probationers in Arizona, as well as to establish details about the sex trafficking victims. This included: the sex trafficking experience of identified victims, specifically their age when they were first sex trafficked, who is/was the sex trafficker and whether they are still being trafficked, and if they are also involved with the child welfare system, history of mental health diagnosis, substance abuse problems, family challenges, such as absent or incarcerated parents, and how the sex trafficking victimization was discovered by the juvenile probation officers. Details: Tempe: Arizona State University, School of Social Work, Office of Sex Trafficking Intervention Research, 2015. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2016 at: https://socialwork.asu.edu/sites/default/files/%5Bterm%3Aname%5D/%5Bnode%3Acreate%3Acustom%3AYm%5D/asu_juvenile_probation_study_dec15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://socialwork.asu.edu/sites/default/files/%5Bterm%3Aname%5D/%5Bnode%3Acreate%3Acustom%3AYm%5D/asu_juvenile_probation_study_dec15.pdf Shelf Number: 137833 Keywords: Child Sex TraffickingChild Sexual ExploitationHuman TraffickingJuvenile ProbationJuvenile Probation OfficersJuvenile ProstitutionProbation Officer TrainingSex Trafficking |
Author: Deal, Teri Title: Measuring Subsequent Offending in Juvenile Probation Summary: NCJJ has released a new StateScan publication that summarizes the results of a review of publicly available recidivism reports that include measures of recidivism for youth adjudicated to probation. This StateScan is the 6th in a series that distills important knowledge from NCJJ's Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics website (www.JJGPS.org). The authors organize results from an online search for available state-level recidivism reports. Most reports located focused on juvenile correction populations, but 14 reports included measures of reoffending for youth under probation supervision. This publication explores the different ways reoffending is measured for this population, including the various marker events and follow-up periods used. This original analysis also emphasizes the need to measure reoffending among probationers given that most court involved youth are supervised by probation departments Details: Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: STATESCAN: Accessed March 7, 2016 at: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/JJGPS%20StateScan/JJGPS%20Measuring%20Subsequent%20Offending%20in%20Juvenile%20Probation%202015_6.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/JJGPS%20StateScan/JJGPS%20Measuring%20Subsequent%20Offending%20in%20Juvenile%20Probation%202015_6.pdf Shelf Number: 138122 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Schafer, N.E. Title: Evaluation of a JAIBG-Funded Project: Voice and Location Telephone Monitoring of Juveniles Summary: Direct supervision of juvenile probationers is seldom possible in many communities in Alaska due to their remoteness, so alternative supervision strategies are desirable. Electronic monitoring or voice recognition systems can substitute for institutionalization or face-to-face supervision by a probation officer. This report describes and evaluates the use of a voice and location telephone monitoring system for the supervision of juvenile probationers through the Mat-Su Youth Corrections Office in Palmer. In practice, VALUE - Voice And Location Update Evaluation - was used primarily as a transitional tool for clients "stepping down" from traditional electronic monitoring to release from supervision. Details: Anchorage: Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2001. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 15, 2016 at: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2000/0010.kap/0010.kap.pdf Year: 2001 Country: United States URL: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2000/0010.kap/0010.kap.pdf Shelf Number: 138245 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationElectronic MonitoringJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationOffender SupervisionVoice Recognition Systems |
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: Guy, Laura S. Title: Advancing Use of Risk Assessment in Juvenile Probation Summary: Juvenile probation officers at three sites in two States (Mississippi and Connecticut) were trained to use the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel & Forth, 2006) and the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2; Grisso & Barnum, 2000, 2006). Also included in the use of these instruments was a decisionmaking model for case planning that integrated information about behavioral health variables and risk for reoffending. A standardized implementation process was used to assist sites in the selection of tools, development of policies, categorization of available services and interventions, as well as the development or modification of existing case plans. Results indicate that probation staff can be trained to complete violence risk assessment using the structured professional judgment approach. This produced a high degree of inter-rater agreement, and case management decisions can take into account a youth's risk for future offending. The study advises that in order for risk assessment to impact youths' cases and individual outcomes, risk assessment must occur early in the judicial process. Risk assessment should be conducted before making decisions about disposition, placement, and the services to be provided. It is also recommended that States use a structured, empirically validated approach to risk assessment. A variety of inconsistencies were found in probation staffs' use of the MAYSI-2, despite efforts to train staff to use this assessment tool. Reasons for this inconsistent use of MAYSI-2 are suggested, and recommendations are offered to address it. Study limitations and future research are discussed. Details: Boston: University of Massachusetts Medical School Department of Psychiatry, 2015.202p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249155.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249155.pdf Shelf Number: 138470 Keywords: Case ManagementJuvenile Offender ClassificationJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Intensive Supervision (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: While originally designed as a cost-saving mechanism for diverting adult offenders from institutional placements, intensive supervision programs (ISP) have also been implemented with juveniles. With juvenile offenders, ISPs explicitly attend to both the rehabilitative- and surveillance-oriented goals of the juvenile justice system (Armstrong, 1991). These programs typically provide treatment and services for both offenders and their families, target offenders' interactions in peer- and school-environments, and provide structure to monitor the goals of the court (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1991; Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005). In the 1990s, the United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created an intensive aftercare research and demonstration program to provide best practice guidelines for reintegrating high-risk, juvenile parolees into the community. Known as intensive aftercare programs (IAP), this model used increased supervision as one component of a structured, multi-dimensional intervention that included assessment, transition planning, case management, and graduated sanctions (Wiebush et al., 2005). Prior Research Research on juvenile offenders provides inconclusive results on the effectiveness of intensive supervision as a strategy for deterring criminal and delinquent behavior (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009; Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011; Lipsey, 2009; MacKenzie, 2006). In an analysis of intensive supervision for juveniles, MacKenzie (2006) combined nine (9) effect sizes and found no difference in recidivism rates for juveniles placed in ISPs when compared to regular supervision or secure placement. Drake, Aos, and Miller (2009) also found no difference in recidivism rates between juveniles in ISPs when compared to regular supervision (three (3) studies) or secure placements (five (5) studies). In contrast, an earlier study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that juvenile offenders on intensive supervision had significantly lower rates of recidivism than offenders on regular supervision (Aos et al., 2001). The WSIPP analyses found no difference in recidivism when comparing ISP to incarceration; however, given cost differences between community-based supervision and a secure placement, the authors concluded that intensive supervision was cost effective when compared to incarceration (Aos et al., 2001). Increasingly, research indicates that ISPs are effective despite, rather than because of, intensive surveillance strategies (Henngeler & Schoenwald, 2011). In a meta-analysis of more than 500 studies of interventions for juvenile offenders, Lipsey (2009) found that program effectiveness-in both community and secure settings-was primarily a function of program philosophy and treatment quality. Regardless of setting, programs that were grounded in therapeutic treatment philosophies were more effective than programs that were grounded in surveillance- and control-oriented philosophies. These findings suggest that disparities in the research on juvenile ISPs might be a function of differences in treatment and service delivery rather than the nature and intensity of supervision strategies (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 138779 Keywords: Costs of crimeCosts of Criminal Justice Electronic Monitoring Intensive Supervision Juvenile AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationOffender Supervision |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Accommodation of Homeless: 16 and 17 Year Old Children Working with Youth Offending Teams Summary: In 2009, the House of Lords gave a landmark judgment clarifying the responsibilities of children's social care services for the provision of accommodation and support to homeless 16 and 17 year olds. With the impetus of the Southwark judgment , local authorities reviewed their procedures and (alongside others) produced new protocols, guidance and pathways. The prospects for homeless 16 and 17 year olds were improved as it paved the way for better access to accommodation and support services because of the judgment and the commitments that flowed from it. Six years on, this inspection revealed a mixed picture on the ground. Most distressingly, one in three 16 and 17 years olds in our inspection were housed in accommodation we considered unsuitable or unsafe. We were particularly concerned about the risks those sharing hostel or bed and breakfast accommodation with adult strangers were exposed to. No one local authority suggested to us that these shortcomings were because of a lack of funding. They appeared to stem more immediately from poor or incomplete assessment, a lack of joined-up working and recognition of children's wider needs, and a tendency to place children as though they were adults. Our inspection found that the range of suitable accommodation provision was limited and this resulted in some children being placed in accommodation that did not meet their needs. The children whose cases were reviewed had all suffered some form of trauma in their lives. Most had been previously known to children's social care services and some were subject to care orders. . They often exhibited difficult behaviour. All of those whom inspectors saw were not yet capable of successful independence and still needed some form of parenting and support. Again, we found a mixed picture on the ground. A minority received excellent support, whereas too many had been given a roof over their heads with little other than a few hours a week support from visiting professionals. An important factor in the successful transition of children to independent adulthood was the continued provision of support when they reached 18 years old. This was not available to all children, the deciding factor being whether they had become Looked After under the Children Act 1989, giving them rights as care leavers to support beyond the age of 18 years. It is not known how many 16 and 17 year olds find themselves alone and relying on their local authority for accommodation to avoid homelessness. The data and information collected locally and collated nationally3 is not sufficiently comprehensive or joined-up. In our inspection of six local authorities we saw no evidence of Local Safeguarding Children Boards exercising any scrutiny of the local situation. What is more, in areas where there were shortfalls, senior managers seemed tolerant and accepting of the state of affairs. Refreshingly, we found examples of excellent practice, and we set out specific examples in this report. In summary, two in three children were in suitable accommodation; one in three was not. The wider support they received was of variable quality - sometimes excellent, in other cases woefully inadequate. These differences are hard to comprehend, given the clear intentions of the Southwark judgment. Details: London: The Inspectorate, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/09/Thematic-Report-Accommodation-of-Homeless-16-and-17-Year-Old-Children.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/09/Thematic-Report-Accommodation-of-Homeless-16-and-17-Year-Old-Children.pdf Shelf Number: 147846 Keywords: Homeless YouthHomelessnessJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationSocial ServicesYouth Accommodation |
Author: Washington State Center for Court Research Title: Aggression Replacement Training in a Probation Setting: Outcomes for Youths Starting Treatment January 2010 - September 2012 Summary: In 2004 the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) and Robert Barnoski published an evaluation of several therapeutic programs for juveniles. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Community Juvenile Accountability Act (CJAA) passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1997. The central objective of the CJAA was to promote effective approaches to reducing law violating behavior among Washington youth probation supervision and establish which juvenile justice programs demonstrated reductions in recidivism on a cost-effective basis and could earn the label "research-based" or "evidence-based". This process, established by the CJAA, results in the list of evidence-based programs (EBPs), which is updated as new evidence becomes available. Details: Olympia, WA: The Center, 2016. 13p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: https://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/ART_Outcomes_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/ART_Outcomes_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146055 Keywords: Aggression Replacement TrainingEvidence-Based PracticesJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationTreatment Programs |
Author: Bolin, Riane Miller Title: Adultification in Juvenile Corrections: A Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Officers Summary: The growing recognition throughout the nineteenth century that juveniles were different than adults culminated in the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois in 1899. By 1945, every state had developed its own juvenile justice system separate and distinct from the criminal justice system. Since its inception, the juvenile justice system has experienced two waves of adultification in which the lines between the juvenile and criminal justice systems were blurred. While a number of studies have focused on the adultification of juvenile courts, no study has examined the adultification of juvenile corrections. Thus, the present study aims to explore whether one type of juvenile corrections, probation and parole, has been adultified by comparing the professional orientations as well as the behavior of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. The study finds that juvenile probation and parole officers do differ from adult officers in regards to their professional orientation and behavior. Specifically, it is found that compared to adult probation and parole officers, juvenile officers tend to more strongly adhere to ideas of treatment, welfare, and offender-focused probation/parole. Additionally, it is found that juvenile probation and parole officers are less likely than adult officers to issue written sanctions and to pursue revocation hearings. The evidence from the present study reveals the important practical implications of retaining a separate and distinct juvenile justice system. Details: Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 2014. 241p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=etd Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=etd Shelf Number: 145410 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile ParoleJuvenile ProbationParole OfficersProbation Officers |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Pima County Juvenile Court Evaluation of Probation Services: Executive Summary Summary: The provision of juvenile probation services is a complex endeavor that involves the various components of the criminal justice system and social service provider community, as well as the general community at large. In Fiscal Year 2001, 13,588 juveniles were on probation in Arizona, and of these 2,271 or 16.7% of this number were in Pima County. In addition, in 2001, a total 22,305 youth were diverted from the juvenile courts in Arizona, with 4,891 or 22% of this total from Pima County (Administrative Office of the Courts, 2002). With this number of youth comes a diverse array of needs and requirements that the juvenile court must respond to in its mission of preventing further crime and making the youth accountable for their actions. This may involve the provision of different levels and types of probation supervision, various modes of treatment services for a juvenile's mental health and substance abuse problems, as well as providing services to victims and the community. Understanding this complexity, the Pima County Juvenile Court contracted with LeCroy & Milligan Associates to evaluate the provision of juvenile probation within the court. Specifically, LeCroy & Milligan Associates were asked to conduct four separate efforts: Complete a literature review of best practices in juvenile probation; Conduct a survey of key stakeholders in the juvenile justice system; Perform a single-system design study; and Complete a recidivism study. Each of these was completed during the period Jun 2002 to May 2003. This report has five sections, including this executive summary. Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2003. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/pima-co-probation-report-exec-summary-2003.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/pima-co-probation-report-exec-summary-2003.pdf Shelf Number: 145407 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Ryon, Stephanie Bontrager Title: Juvenile Probation and Residential Services Evaluation Summary: Connecticut provides delinquency services through both the judicial and executive branches. The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) is responsible for juvenile corrections and aftercare services, while the Connecticut Judicial Branch‟s Court Support Services Division (CSSD) administers pre- and post-adjudication services, including detention and probation supervision (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2010; Management 2011). The Connecticut Juvenile Justice System (CJJS) is based on restorative justice principles of accountability and reintegration, public safety and rehabilitation. Individualized treatment, prevention, community-based placements, standardized risk and needs assessments, and coordinated evidence-based services are core features of the CJJS (Management, 2011). Together, DCF and CSSD have developed a collaborative strategic plan to ensure the seamless delivery of delinquency services to at risk youth in Connecticut (Child Welfare League of America, 2006). The joint plan is based on principles of effective intervention, which underscore the importance of reserving residential commitment programs for the most high risk youth, and those most likely to benefit from long-term, out-of-home placements. Two recent studies of juvenile probation and residential services suggest that youthful offenders who complete probation programming are less likely to re-offend once discharged than those completing more restrictive commitment programs (Winokur et al., 2007; Greenfield, 2007). The Connecticut Judicial Branch CSSD retained the Justice Research Center (JRC) to study system services including probation and residential programming. The State of Connecticut has a long history of ensuring accountability, and understands that evaluating effectiveness and efficiency is critical to the provision of quality services and the expansion of programs to reach more at-risk youth and their families. The overarching goal of the current evaluation was to assess the extent to which Connecticut‟s juvenile probation and commitment programs provide effective interventions to the appropriate delinquent youth. The evaluation examined youth characteristics, pathways through the continuum of care, and correlates of recidivism for a historical sample of probation and residential clients. All youth disposed from court to either juvenile probation (N=2,823) or commitment to residential placement (N=269), and released between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007 were included in the study. Research questions specific to probation, residential, alternatives to residential commitment and predictors of system escalation were addressed through quantitative analyses. The evaluation results are summarized below. Probation Forty-nine percent of the probation releases had a juvenile referral or adult arrest; and 34 percent had a juvenile adjudication or adult conviction within one year of completing probation services. Many factors were significantly associated with recidivism for probation releases (gender, race, age at first offense, measures of prior offending and risk and needs); however, none exhibited more than a modest correlation with post-release juvenile adjudication or adult conviction. The predicted odds of recidivism are higher for male and non-white probation releases; delinquents who are younger when they commit their first offense; and those with elevated criminogenic risk. Those with higher JAG Peer Protective scores had significantly lower the odds of recidivism. Details: Hartfort, CT: Connecticut Support Services Division, Connecticut Judicial Branch, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 14, 2016 at: https://www.jud.ct.gov/cssd/research/juvprob/JuvProb_ResServ_Eval.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.jud.ct.gov/cssd/research/juvprob/JuvProb_ResServ_Eval.pdf Shelf Number: 144942 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Phillips, Michael R. Title: Intermediate Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study Summary: In an effort to reduce juvenile recidivism - the return to criminal behavior after leaving the juvenile court - authorities in Utah adopted a new statewide intermediate sanction system in which each district could choose a treatment component. Noting the high rate of substance abuse among juvenile offenders, the Fourth District Juvenile Court chose to implement the Narconon drug rehabilitation program through a Utah licensed not-for-profit called NewLife, integrating it within court-directed probation services. The Narconon program, an outpatient service based on secular materials developed by L. Ron Hubbard, consists of a series of modules to address physical aspects of substance abuse as well as underlying social and life skills that may be deficient in young abusers. Participants complete a detoxification program designed to eliminate drug cravings by improving nutritional status and reducing body stores of drug residues. The detoxification regimen includes exercise, sauna and vitamin-mineral supplementation. The Narconon program also includes self-paced training in study habits and communication (oral and written). Additional training materials address the subjects of moral and ethical standards, how to set and achieve goals, and personal responsibility. This program was implemented in partnership with court officials and probation officers in the Fourth District Juvenile Court, in the context of implementing new juvenile sentencing guidelines for State Supervision. The court hoped to reduce the rate at which these youths penetrated deeper into the justice system, and to achieve a reduction in placement costs. It should be noted that the District had saved "the worst of the worst" for this trial program (knowing in advance it was coming several months prior to its implementation). More than half were candidates for confinement or community placement (removal from their homes) rather than state supervision, the new sentencing guideline's last-chance sanction. This tracking report examines the extent to which the court's goals were achieved. It does not attempt to identify or explore positive or negative factors outside of the Narconon program that might have contributed to the outcome. Participants in the Narconon program, whether they completed the program or not, showed a 77.7 percent reduction in criminal activity. Program completion intensified the desired change of behavior. Seventy-four of the 100 juveniles completed the intervention. Of these, 63.5 percent remained completely misdemeanor and felony free for the remainder of their juvenile history. Based on a combined analysis of juvenile and adult records, 32.4 percent retained this crime-free state for four years post-treatment. A placement analysis revealed that the goal of reducing placement and related costs was also achieved. The success of this partnership suggests new possibilities for treatment and intervention and for reducing costs associated with juvenile crime. Details: Los Angeles: Foundation for Advancement, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 15, 2016 at: http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf Shelf Number: 147288 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationIntermediate SanctionsJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Haapanen, Rudy Title: Understanding Ethnic Disparities in Juvenile Probation: What Affects Decisions? Summary: Ethnic disparities in juvenile justice system (JJS) involvement are well-documented and have been reported as persistent despite decades of effort. It has also been argued that JJS involvement does more harm than good, translating as continual and ongoing disadvantage for ethnic minorities. Although the evidence for ethnic bias in community corrections is equivocal and there are those who hold a more positive view of community corrections, any disparities are still a cause for concern. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) solicited research focused on two of the primary research and evaluation objectives: - Decision-making at disposition decision points impacting Hispanic/Latino youth, including disproportionate entry and deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system and/or transfer to the adult criminal justice system. - Disproportionate use of secure detention, which includes adult jails and lockups, and placement for Hispanic/Latino youth. The proposal for this study, like the solicitation itself, assumed that disparities exist, and argued that understanding the basis for disparities in a county - and therefore the potential for system change to reduce disparities-requires an understanding of the factors that govern decision making other than current offense, such as the dispositional alternatives available in a particular setting and the characteristics of youth in relation to the alternatives. The present study, however, was not limited to issues involving Hispanic/Latino youth. The data provided the ability to assess possible disparities for Blacks as well, and the analysis and results are presented for the three major ethnic groups in California (White, Black and Latino), with other groups combined into a fourth category. Details: Davis, CA: University of California at Davis, 2016. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250802.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250802.pdf Shelf Number: 146437 Keywords: Decision MakingDisproportionate Minority Confinement Ethnic MinoritiesHispanic YouthJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationLatinosRacial Disparities |
Author: Tallarico, Suzanne Title: Alabama Juvenile Probation Officer Weighted Workload Assessment Study Summary: Excessive caseloads for Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) jeopardize both public safety and the quality of supervision officers can provide to the youth they supervise in the community. The quality of investigation and supervision services is directly related to the number of Juvenile Probation Officers available to handle the probation investigation and supervision work in Alabama. Currently, the state of Alabama does not use workload standards on which to base its need for Juvenile Probation Officers. In order to be more objective in determining their staffing needs for Juvenile Probation Officers, the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts contracted with the National Center for State Courts to develop workload standards for Juvenile Probation Officers, taking into account all activities Juvenile Probation Officers are statutorily required to perform. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has conducted workload assessment studies for many years. The weighted caseload method uses time as a measure for workload and is based on the assumption that the more time required to process, manage, or supervise a case, the more work is involved. In this study, a case weight or workload values is defined as the average amount of time it takes to investigate or supervise a particular type of case. Workload values are computed based upon the average number of minutes it takes to complete tasks associated with juvenile probation investigations and supervision. Using case weights, the number of probationers can be translated into workload for Juvenile Probation Officers. Details: Denver: National Center for State Courts, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://www.ncsc.org/topics/court-management/workload-and-resource-assessment/~/media/8E11806349FD44FC96795BCBE0C3D5FA.ashx Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncsc.org/topics/court-management/workload-and-resource-assessment/~/media/8E11806349FD44FC96795BCBE0C3D5FA.ashx Shelf Number: 147535 Keywords: Juvenile ProbationProbation CaseloadProbation Officers |
Author: Nochajski, Thomas H. Title: Hillside Children's Center: Livingston County Youth Court and Community Services Evaluation Summary: From 2008 to 2010, State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Social Work conducted an evaluation of the Hillside Children's Center - Community Service Livingston County Youth Court (LCYC) program. Analyses focused on the recidivism (readmission) rates of children ages 12-17 who participated in their program. A particular strength of this evaluation is the use of a mixed method design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data elements. Additionally, the ability to integrate research and clinical practice with client outcomes provides an added strength to this evaluation, ultimately building the knowledge base in an effort to more appropriately meet the needs of the children and adolescents that Hillside Children's Center serves. Based on the initial goals and the interest in having enough allotted time to track follow-up recidivism rates, prospective data was not collected for this evaluation. Beginning in the year 2006, participants entered the LCYC and continued receiving services until 2008. Following discharge, the year of 2009 serves as the follow-up period for this evaluation. With a vast amount of rich data, pretest information utilized for this evaluation was collected by Hillside Children's Center which included program participant information. Additionally, information was collected from Livingston County Probation (Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument [YASI] Recidivism information) and Livingston County Department of Social Services (LC-DSS) (Placement information). The qualitative data collection component of this evaluation consisted of either a face-to-face or a telephone interview, and included multiple sources: LCYC participants and their parents, LCYC volunteers and their parents, LC Probation, and Hillside Children's Center staff. Due to constraints based on the relatively low rates of recidivism and placement, the available size of the sample was quite small, which perhaps reduces the power to detect significant differences between the groups, essentially elevating the risk for Type I errors. As a result, information on marginal trends (p<.25) is also presented. Because of limited power and the increased chance of causality related to a random occurrence, evaluators considered nearly all other potential elements or variables that may help improve existing Hillside Children's Center programs, with the understanding that these factors will need to be evaluated further. This information could perhaps point to areas of future investigation, in addition to potentially saving time, effort, and monetary costs associated with future data collection. The current evaluation utilized data from 120 participants, of which 55 were LCYC participants and 65 were Community Service Only (CSO) participants. To increase the accuracy of comparisons and results, the two groups were matched on age and gender. Although evaluators were unable to locate a true control group of juvenile offenders who did not experience LCYC or community services in Livingston County, which is the reason for use of the CSO as the comparison, information was found for comparison groups from various other states that were included in an evaluation of teen courts from 2002. While not ideal, the addition of these comparison groups in this evaluation does provide some useful information concerning recidivism among youth. Lastly, evaluators also considered cost-effectiveness of the LCYC program using recidivism and placement rates as the results or outcomes of interest. For purposes of this executive summary, the Livingston County Youth Court group will be referred to as LCYC, and the Community Services Program Only group will be referred to as CSO. Details: Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo, 2010. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54231470e4b00cb5c6464dc7/t/547d4e82e4b0756a4a5d2c35/1417498242299/Youth+court+evaluation+_1110.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54231470e4b00cb5c6464dc7/t/547d4e82e4b0756a4a5d2c35/1417498242299/Youth+court+evaluation+_1110.pdf Shelf Number: 147547 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity ServicesJuvenile CourtJuvenile DiversionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivismYouth Court |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: T2A Final Process Evaluation Report for the Barrow Cadbury Trust Summary: The Barrow Cadbury Trust is an independent, charitable foundation, committed to bringing about socially just change. The Transitions to Adulthood (T2A) programme is part of the Trust's criminal justice work and aims to establish an evidence base and effective practice for young adults throughout the criminal justice system. The work undertaken as part of the T2A programme is supported by the T2A Alliance, a coalition of sixteen leading criminal justice, health and youth charities. In recognition of the vulnerabilities faced by young adults in contact with the criminal justice system the T2A programme aims to develop alternative and innovative approaches for young adults aged 18- 25. Much of the work undertaken as part the T2A programme centres around the concept of 'maturity' and makes the case that developmental maturity is a more appropriate guide than chronological age when working with young adult offenders and the level of maturity for each individual should be taken into account when sentencing and delivering interventions within the criminal justice system (www.t2a.org.uk). As part of the T2A programme, three pilot projects were selected to demonstrate new ways of involving the voluntary sector in supporting young adults under supervision by probation services. The projects ran between 2009 and 2013, working with more than 1000 young adults and demonstrated innovative approaches to reducing reoffending, addressing breach rates and improving social outcomes. Building on the learning from the three T2A pilot projects, the T2A Alliance developed a new programme, the T2A Pathway Programme. The T2A Pathway Programme was launched in January 2014 to test innovative ways of working with young adults at the key points of the criminal justice system - the T2A Pathway Model. Over three years, between 2014 and 2016, the programme has delivered interventions to young adults via six projects across England, with the aim of reducing their reoffending and involvement in the criminal justice system. These six projects represent collectively a 'whole pathway' approach to working with 16-24 year olds throughout the criminal justice process. The projects have been run by the following voluntary sector organisations: Addiction Advance Minerva Pact (Prison Advice and Care Trust) The Prince's Trust Remedi Together for Mental Wellbeing. Details: Manchester, UK: Policy Evaluation and Research Unit, Manchester Metropolitan University, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2018 at: https://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/T2A-Final-Process-Report-OCTOBER-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/T2A-Final-Process-Report-OCTOBER-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 150452 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile ProbationRehabilitation Programs Volunteer Agencies Volunteers in Criminal Justice Young Adult Offenders Youthful Offenders |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Los Angeles County Probation Workgroup: Report Summary: Pursuant to a September 15, 2015 motion by Supervisors Sheila Kuehl and Hilda L. Solis, the Board instructed the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Probation Department to review The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study and establish an interagency workgroup comprised of various entities in order to build on the report's findings, create a mechanism to implement the report recommendations and ensure continued systems improvement and monitoring of youth outcomes. The goals of this interagency workgroup (hereafter referred to as the "Probation Workgroup") are to support the Los Angeles County and the Probation Department in its ongoing development and implementation of best practices in juvenile justice. Specifically, this group is expected to produce key documents to help: maximize service integration; strengthen coordination between County Departments and community-based service providers; ensure a data-driven, transparent and accountable juvenile justice system; and improve information sharing within Probation and across County Departments. The Board motion directed Dr. Denise C. Herz, Ph.D. and Kristine Chan, MSW, from California State University Los Angeles School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics to lead this effort. Following the passage of the motion, the Probation Workgroup was established in November 2015 and met monthly either as a full group or as an Ad Hoc Working Committee through January 2017 to address the six tasks. The Workgroup was comprised of 71 participants with a range of expertise and experiences necessary to generate direct guidance on how Los Angeles County Probation can become more efficient and effective in delivering services to youth. Specifically, the membership included seven young people and three parents with different backgrounds and diversity in their Probation experiences. They were engaged through monthly contacts and transportation was coordinated to these meetings when they are able and willing to attend. Over the past year, the Probation Workgroup approached each task with the intent to produce "building blocks" for Probation and other entities involved in juvenile justice. In particular, these documents offer a substantive starting point for building a better infrastructure and delivery system for juvenile justice practice in Los Angeles County. It holds as a primary assumption that preventing and effectively responding to delinquency when it occurs is a shared responsibility across a variety of stakeholders. Thus, better delinquency prevention and intervention requires the commitment of time and resources by the Board of Supervisors, the Probation Department, other County agencies, community-based organizations, schools, advocacy groups and many others. The Probation Department alone will not be able to effectively reduce delinquency and improve the overall well-being of youth and their families without partnerships with all entities who play a role in the wellness in communities. It is our hope the documents contained within this report facilitate and support that relationship. Details: Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/Probation%20Workgroup%20Report%203-3-17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/Probation%20Workgroup%20Report%203-3-17.pdf Shelf Number: 151322 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based ProgramsDelinquency preventionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation |
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: Probation Developmental Disabilities Study Summary: n December 2010, Public Counsel and its partners reached a settlement agreement in the case of I.T. v. Los Angeles County with Los Angeles County to reform conditions for youth with developmental disabilities in the juvenile halls, in group homes, and in the family homes under Probation's supervision. The agreement called for Public Counsel and Disability Rights California to monitor implementation of reform efforts for three years following the development of policies and procedures, and training to Probation staff on those policies and procedures. Monitoring activities began in November 2011 and continued through July 2015. The overall goals of the settlement agreement are to ensure that youth with developmental disabilities in the juvenile halls will be immediately and effectively identified; will not be detained longer than others because of the lack of available, appropriate community placements; and will be provided with appropriate services and effective supports to successfully transition back to the community and avoid recidivism and violence. Study Overview At the beginning of the settlement agreement, Public Counsel and Disability Rights California monitored its implementation by visiting the halls and community placements, observations, interviews with key staff, and reviewing data and documents provided by Probation. Public Counsel eventually received funding from the Keck Foundation to conduct a more formal assessment of the work by researchers at California State University Los Angeles. This study had two interrelated tracks: (1) to utilize Probation data collected as part of the settlement agreement, and (2) to conduct meeting observations, interviews, and reviews of documents related to the settlement agreement. Details: Los Angeles, California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/Probation%20DD%20Report%20FINAL%202016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/Probation%20DD%20Report%20FINAL%202016.pdf Shelf Number: 151325 Keywords: Developmental DisabilitiesDisabled PersonsJuvenile ProbationProbationersYouth Detention |
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: Cramer, Lindsey Title: Evaluation Report on New York City's Advocate, Intervene, Mentor Program Summary: This report presents the findings of an implementation and outcome evaluation of the Advocate, Intervene, Mentor (AIM) program, a court-mandated juvenile alternative-to-placement program serving probation clients ages 13 to 18 years with high criminogenic risk. The evaluation finds that AIM successfully helps participants avoid out-of-home placement and reduce recidivism, as well as pursue and achieve individualized goals to help reduce their risk of reoffending. Launched in July 2012 by the New York City Department of Probation (DOP) as a component of the New York City Young Men's Initiative (YMI) and with oversight from the Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity (NYC Opportunity), AIM seeks to reduce the use of costly out-of-home placement and to enhance community safety by increasing resiliency and reducing criminogenic risk factors for adolescents on probation. The program uses a one-on-one mentoring model with a paid advocate-mentor available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Advocate-mentors are credible messengers, defined as individuals who are respected in the communities served, typically coming from the same neighborhood and backgrounds as the participants. Advocate-mentors work to improve participants' criminal justice and personal outcomes through the co-creation of individualized service plans designed to transform attitudes and behaviors that have led to delinquent activity. The Urban Institute conducted the implementation and outcome evaluation, and collected data from September 2016 through March 2017. The evaluation documented AIM program operations, described participant outcomes and stakeholders' experiences with the program, identified best practices, and developed recommendations to address program challenges. The evaluation drew upon qualitative and quantitative data, including focus groups and interviews with participants and alumni, participants' caregivers, program staff, DOP staff, and Family Court actors and other stakeholders; review of program materials and participant case files; and analysis of program administrative data and criminal justice data, conducted in partnership with DOP. The Urban Institute found the following: - Over 90 percent of participants avoided felony rearrest within 12 months of enrollment-far exceeding the program target of 60 percent. - Over two-thirds of AIM participants completed the program without an out-of-home placement. When excluding out-of-home placements due to technical violations of probation conditions (for reasons other than rearrests or risk to public safety), this figure rises to over 80 percent. - Fewer than 10 percent of participants received a felony adjudication in Family Court (equivalent to being convicted in the adult context) and only 3 percent received a felony conviction in Criminal Court. While based on only a small number of youth participating in the program, these results indicate that AIM is a promising strategy to improve outcomes of justice-involved youth. Implementation findings indicate that participants, alumni, caregivers, program staff, and other stakeholders all had positive feelings about their experience with the AIM program. Participants value their one-on-one interactions with mentors, and caregivers value the program's family team meetings and mentors' responsiveness to participant needs. The report also identified challenges related to the program's enrollment criteria and process, the absence of formal aftercare services, and stakeholder communication and coordination at various stages throughout the program cycle. Based on these findings, the report presents recommendations to address identified challenges, including enabling provider input on enrollment decisions, expanding in-program services and establishing formalized alumni services following the completion of mandated enrollment, enhancing communication across stakeholders, and improving programmatic performance reporting. These findings and recommendations highlight valuable opportunities for enhancements to the AIM program model. NYC Opportunity and YMI will partner with DOP, AIM providers, and other stakeholders to carefully consider the programmatic recommendations presented in this report, with the goal of strengthening the AIM model and juvenile justice services more broadly. At the time of publication, the City is embarking upon multiple cross-cutting justice system reform efforts. Raise the Age legislation will significantly expand the number of youth eligible for juvenile justice services such as AIM, as 16 and 17 year olds transition to Family Court in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Given the demonstrated promise of AIM in serving the needs of youth with high criminogenic risk, the program is well positioned to support the success of Raise the Age reforms. Simultaneously, the City is moving forward with plans to replace the Rikers Island complex with borough-based facilities, a strategy that includes ongoing and significant reductions to the population of detained and sentenced individuals held in City custody. This evaluation builds evidence about what works in alternatives-to-placement programming for juveniles, and these findings can inform the development and implementation of alternative-to-incarceration programming necessary to fulfill the City's commitment to close Rikers. Finally, this evaluation follows after the Urban Institute's and NYC Opportunity's evaluation of the DOP Arches Transformative Mentoring program, which established credible messenger mentoring as an evidence-based approach with positive impact on young adult justice system outcomes. These findings contribute to that body of knowledge and can support the growing national momentum toward credible messenger approaches to human service provision for justice-involved populations and beyond Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Nov. 2, 2018 at: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/evidence/AIM_Final_2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/evidence/AIM_Final_2018.pdf Shelf Number: 153144 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationAt-Risk YouthJuvenile Mentoring ProgramsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationMentoring |
Author: Harvell, Samantha Title: Bridging Research and Practice in Juvenile Probation: Rethinking Strategies to Promote Long-term Change Summary: Over the past several decades, the knowledge base on how to improve public safety and outcomes for youth has expanded substantially, yet probation officers that work with these young people lack guidance on how this research can inform their work. This report offers practical tips for frontline juvenile probation officers to align their practice with research on successful strategies for reducing recidivism and improving outcomes for youth, their families, and the communities in which they live. The report describes five core practice areas-screening, assessment, and structured decision-making; case planning; matching services and promoting positive youth development; structuring supervision to promote long-term behavior change; and incentivizing success and implementing graduated responses. For each area, the report highlights relevant research findings, identifies core focus areas for bridging research and practice, and offers concrete strategies for probation officers and agencies to hold youth accountable, prevent future delinquency, and promote healthy development. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2018 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99223/bridging_research_and_practice_in_juvenile_probation_2.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99223/bridging_research_and_practice_in_juvenile_probation_2.pdf Shelf Number: 153145 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Officers |
Author: Esthappan, Sino Title: Juvenile Probation Transformation: Applying the Approach in Lucas County, OH, and Pierce County, WA Summary: Probation is the most commonly used disposition in juvenile court: nearly 63 percent of cases adjudicated delinquent in 2014 resulted in probation. Juvenile probation dispositions are rising; between 1984 and 2014, the use of probation for youth adjudicated delinquent increased by over 5 percent. Yet, the literature on what works in juvenile probation practice remains relatively scant. The limited existing literature suggests that the standard approach to juvenile probation is ill-equipped to meet the growing needs of justice-involved youth. Studies find high rates of recidivism among justice-involved youth (Bonta et al. 2008; Latessa, Listwan, and Koetzle 2014; Robinson et al. 2012). Researchers and practitioners have found various components of juvenile probation ineffective, including the overuse of probation violation orders, which often result in out-of-home placements. Youth on probation receive from 5 to more than 30 conditions with which they must comply during the supervision period (National Juvenile Defender Center 2016). Studies have identified gaps in how youth interpret and understand probation conditions. One study in Washington State found that youth recalled approximately one-third of conditions imposed on them (Peralta et al. 2012). Research on adolescent brain development enhances what we know about how these conditions are followed; neural networks in the brain responsible for self-regulation and reward motivation do not fully develop until after age 24, which makes youth more likely to engage in risky behaviors and defy rules (Cauffman, Steinberg, and Piquero 2005; Spear 2010; Steinberg 2010). Thus, many youths are not inclined to follow the rules and requirements imposed on them while on probation. Further, studies show that probation violations, and specifically technical violations, have grown substantially in recent decades (Gies, Cohen, and Villarruel 2009; Moeller 2011), with 17 percent of admissions to youth residential placement facilities in 2013 for technical violations (Hockenberry 2016). This pattern is pronounced for youth of color, who represented 70 percent of those committed to a residential facility for a probation violation in 2015 (Sickmund et al. 2018), and who already are disproportionately represented at each decision point in the juvenile justice system (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2017). While modest, the literature on effective probation practice provides some useful lessons. Studies show that therapeutic and skills-building programs such as cognitive behavioral therapy and strengths-based mentoring, especially when coming from credible messengers (Lynch et al. 2018), show promise for improving juvenile justice outcomes (DuBois et al. 2002 Landenberger and Lipsey 2006). As one example, a study of the alternative to incarceration Youth Advocate Programs (YAP) found that among 3,523 youth ages 11 to 18 across multiple YAP sites, 86 percent were not arrested during their participation in the program, and 93 percent remained in the community at the time of program completion (Evans and Delgado 2014). Additionally, interventions that target risk factors may help ensure that probation only reaches the youth who need it most and strengthen case management services for those youth (Bonta and Andrews 2007; Lowenkamp and Latessa 2004). Still, a gap remains between the evidence on what works in delinquency prevention and juvenile probation and what is happening on the ground. Implementation science studies focusing on juvenile justice indicate that-because of deficits in such areas as organizational capacity, system stakeholder buy-in, and funding-juvenile justice professionals may lack the tools to translate research into practice (Love and Harvell 2016). Recognizing the gap between research and practice, the Annie E. Casey Foundation (the Foundation) started the Probation Transformation Initiative in 2014, which aims to develop an effective, developmentally appropriate, and unified theory of change in probation practice. Additionally, the approach is intended to help probation departments reduce and sharpen the focus of their target population, address racial and ethnic equity and inclusion (REEI), and forge partnerships with families and their communities. The initiative builds on the Foundation's prior juvenile justice reform efforts with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), which aims to reduce the number of youth in pretrial detention, and the Foundation's expansion of JDAI into the "deep end" of the juvenile justice system to reduce the number of youth in out-of-home placements. The Foundation has contracted with the Urban Institute (Urban) and Mathematica Policy Research (Mathematica) since 2014 to conduct a formative evaluation of the deep end work. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute; Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2019. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 28, 2019 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99608/juvenile_probation_transformation.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99608/juvenile_probation_transformation.pdf Shelf Number: 154453 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile Offender SupervisionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Probation |
Author: Fain, Terry Title: Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Report Summary: In 2000, the California State Legislature passed what is now known as the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). This effort was designed to provide a stable funding source to counties for juvenile programs that have been proven effective in curbing crime among juvenile probationers and young at-risk offenders. The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), which administers the program's funding, is required to submit annual reports to the legislature measuring JJCPA's success. The legislation identified six specific outcome measures to be included in annual reports from each of the JJCPA programs: (1) successful completion of probation, (2) arrests, (3) probation violations, (4) incarcerations, (5) successful completion of restitution, and (6) successful completion of community service. Each county can also supply supplemental outcomes to measure locally identified service needs. JJCPA programs are now in their fifth year of funding. This report summarizes the fiscal year 2007-2008 findings reported to CSA, as well as additional program information gathered by the Los Angeles County Probation Department, based on its oversight and monitoring of program implementation and outcomes. Details: Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation, 2009. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2019 at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR746.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR746.html Shelf Number: 113952 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Corrections Crime Prevention Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Justice Juvenile Probation |