Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:17 pm
Time: 11:17 pm
Results for juvenile probationers
4 results foundAuthor: Sims, Barbara Title: An Evaluation of the PCCD-Funded Police-Probation Partnerships Projects Summary: In April, 2002, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) began funding three Police-Probation Partnership (PPP) projects in Lackawanna, Lehigh, and Mercer Counties. These programs are modeled after the Operation Night Light (ONL) program that began in Boston, Massachusetts in 1992. The goals of the PPP projects are to reduce recidivism among selected juvenile and/or adult probationers, to reduce police calls for service and criminal activity in the target areas, to increase public perceptions of safety in the neighborhoods where PPP projects are operating, and to strengthen linkages between the police departments and county probation departments. The PCCD sought to award a subgrant to support a process and outcome evaluation of the PPP programs in the three funded counties. The purpose of such a study would be to determine: (1) whether the three funded sites have implemented the program according to the specified goals and objectives of the program; (2) whether the sites are meeting the expectations of the PCCD related to the goals and objectives of PPP programming in general; and (3) the nature and extent of the impact of PPP programming in the targeted areas. Details: Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2006. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: www.portal.state.pa.us Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 122447 Keywords: CollaborationJuvenile ProbationersPartnershipsPolice/Probation PartnershipsProbationers (PennsylvaniaRecidivism |
Author: Choate, David E. Title: Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network: 2013 Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department Report. Summary: The Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN) is a monitoring system that provides ongoing descriptive information about drug use, crime, victimization and other characteristics of interest among individuals arrested in Maricopa County, Arizona. Funded by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors beginning in 2007, AARIN is modeled after the former National Institute of Justice (NIJ) national-level Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM). In three facilities throughout the county, professionally trained interviewers conduct voluntary and confidential interviews with recently booked adult arrestees and juvenile detainees. Questions focus on a range of topics including education, employment and other demographics, patterns of drug use (lifetime and recent), substance abuse and dependence risk, criminal activity, gang affiliation, victimization, mental health, interactions with police, public health concerns, incarceration and probation, citizenship and treatment experiences. Each interviewee also provides a urine specimen that is tested for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs. Arrestees who have been in custody longer than 48 hours are ineligible for participation in AARIN, due to the 72-hour time limitation for valid testing of urine specimen. The instruments used and the reporting mechanism underwent a substantial revision in 2011. While maintaining all of the data elements from the previous core set of questions, the baseline interview expanded by more than 60%. Additionally, with the change in the core questionnaire, the project shifted its reporting strategy to focus reports to each of six key Maricopa County criminal justice agencies: Maricopa County Manager's Office, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Office of the Public Defender, Adult Probation Department and the Juvenile Probation Department. Overall, AARIN serves as a near-real time information source on the extent and nature of drug abuse and related activity in Maricopa County, AZ. This information helps to inform policy and practice among police, courts and correctional agencies to increase public safety and address the needs of individuals who find themselves in the criminal justice system. Details: Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University, 2013. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/AARIN%20Juvenile%20Probation%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/AARIN%20Juvenile%20Probation%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 133138 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationersOffender Profiles (Arizona) |
Author: Skorek, Rebecca Title: Influence of court-ordered forensic evaluations on juvenile justice system-involved youth Summary: This evaluation measured implementation and impact of the Detention to Probation Continuum of Care (DPCC) program administered through a collaboration of River Valley Detention Center (RVDC) mental health staff, and Will and Kankakee county juvenile court judges and probation officers. In 2011, RVDC had 667 youth admissions between the ages of 10 and 17, with an estimated 50 percent released into the community under court supervision monitored by a probation officer. The DPCC program has three phases: 1. Institutional phase, in which youth receive mental health screening while in detention. The mental health screening is administered by RVDC mental health staff to identify factors among detained youth that may be leading to delinquency, ascertain if there are any mental health disorders present, and establish appropriate in-detention care, including prescription of psychotropic medications. A mental health screening can only be completed if RVDC mental health staff were able to meet with the detained youth prior to their release. 2. Structured phase, which is the completion of a court-ordered forensic evaluation by RVDC mental health staff. This evaluation is ordered by the juvenile court judge during a youth's detention hearing occurring within 40 hours of detention admission. The forensic evaluation is conducted for the purpose of developing a rehabilitative plan to guide sentencing conditions and supervision in the least restrictive manner. The mental health screen provides a foundation for the court-ordered forensic evaluation. 3. Reintegration phase, which begins when the judge receives the forensic evaluation report at the youth's adjudication hearing and ends at completion of the probation supervision. The forensic evaluation report includes a rehabilitative plan that describes appropriate community-based treatment services, such as counseling or psychiatric treatment, to be judicially imposed through conditions of probation. Completion of community-based care is monitored by a Will or Kankakee county probation officer. ICJIA researchers used two methods to conduct this evaluation. One method was interviews with stakeholders to gain a better understanding of DPCC program activities and the utility of court-ordered forensic evaluations. The second method was analysis of detention and probation data on a sample of 211 youth who were detained at RVDC between 2003 and 2009 and discharged from Will and Kankakee probation between 2007 and 2009. These data allowed ICJIA researchers to assess the extent to which these youth progressed through the DPCC program phases and to track their compliance with sentencing conditions, and subsequent detention admissions and arrests. Research questions to measure program implementation included: - Institutional phase¡XTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a mental health screen? - Structured phase¡XTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a court-ordered forensic evaluation (were DPCC program enrolled/participants)? - Reintegration phase¡XTo what extent did conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services reflect the rehabilitative plan developed through the court-ordered forensic evaluation? Research questions to measure program impact included: - To what extent did receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation influence conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services? - To what extent did those receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation receive indicated treatment services and subsequently have higher rates of compliance with judicially imposed conditions of probation, and fewer detention admissions and arrests? - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs receive a mental health screen and/or court-ordered forensic evaluation - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs complete appropriate community-based treatment services? Details: Chicago: Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2014. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Shelf Number: 135073 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionCommunity-Based TreatmentJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Illinois)Juvenile ProbationersMental Health Services |
Author: Washington State Center for Court Research Title: Functional Family Therapy 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/FFT_Outcomes_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/FFT_Outcomes_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146054 Keywords: Evidence-Based ProgramsFamily TherapyJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationersRecidivismTreatment Programs |