Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:55 am
Time: 11:55 am
Results for juvenile delinquency prevention
9 results foundAuthor: Roman, John K. Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reclaiming Futures Summary: This report outlines and costs and benefits of the Reclaiming Futures initiative, a community-based demonstration project to combat juvenile drug use and delinquency. The evaluation found improvements in treatment delivery and effectiveness, cooperation and information-sharing among service providers, and family involvement in youth care. Details: Portland, OR: Reclaiming Futures National Program Office, Portland State University, 2010. 37p. Source: A Reclaiming Futures National Evaluation Report Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117814 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Abuse TreatmentJuvenile Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Poortvliet, Matthew van Title: Trial and Error: Children and Young People in Trouble with the Law, A Guide for Charities and Funders Summary: This report explores the issue of youth offending and highlights some of the innovative and promising ways that charities are helping young people to stay out of trouble. The report, aimed at charities and funders, examines strengths and weaknesses within the youth justice sector in the U.K., outlines the role government plays, and highlights areas where investment could create greatest impact. Details: London: New Philanthropy Capital, 2010. 83p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118218 Keywords: CharitiesJuvenile Delinquency PreventionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Rehabilitation |
Author: Taylor, Rachel S. Title: Kept Out: Barriers to Meaningful Education in the School-To-Prison Pipeline Summary: In the United States today, a large subset of our student population is denied the right to an education. Most of these youth, low-income and at-risk, are already particularly vulnerable, yet rather than being provided support services and a meaningful education, they are labeled “undesirable” or “bad kids.” Denying access to education can produce life-altering results for any student, and for these vulnerable youth the effects are often especially dire. “Keep Out” is a phenomenon that occurs when students try to reenter a setting where they can access meaningful education and are denied by the policies and practices of the education and juvenile justice systems. Keep Out is a part of the larger School-To-Prison Pipeline. The Pipeline includes disciplinary and discretionary policies that push youth out of school and into the criminal justice system. Students of color, low-income students, and students with disabilities are disproportionately affected. This report is the product of interviews with over 100 stakeholders — including students, teachers, administrators, probation officers, education advocates, and many others — in Los Angeles, California, all of whom were interviewed in January of 2012. These interviews tell the stories of students who were unable to access education after being removed from school, often for disciplinary reasons. The report is organized around three main findings: “You Can’t Come Back” deals with direct Keep Out and tells the stories of students who, when trying to reenter their schools, were denied access or transferred away. Schools use a variety of excuses and evade general school-access requirements in order to keep these students out. • School safety concerns are often cited to justify student exclusion, which affects particularly vulnerable groups of students including youth on probation, girls who are pregnant, students with perceived and actual disciplinary problems, or those who are or are thought to be academically low performing. • Some students are kept out based on the rationale that they are too old, have too few credits, or some combination of the two. • Schools deny students access to education by transferring them away to schools that are physically inaccessible or unsafe for that student. “Slipping Through the Cracks” discusses indirect Keep Out and addresses what happens to students who are unable to reenter school because of administrative and logistical barriers. • Inadequate crediting and record keeping in alternative and juvenile justice schools impede students’ return to traditional schools by making enrollment and completion of sufficient credits for graduation nearly impossible. • Lack of coordination and planning among alternative schools, juvenile justice schools, and traditional schools prevents students from transitioning back to traditional schools. • Traditional schools are able to keep students out because students and families do not know the extent of their educational rights or how to enforce them. “School Is Not for Me” explains constructive Keep Out and highlights the stories of students whose school experiences have been so discouraging and inadequate that they have given up on pursuing a traditional education. • A lack of wrap-around services in traditional schools means that students’ most basic needs are often unmet, leaving little room for students and families to focus on education. • Students are not always given the support they need to succeed and are often harshly stigmatized when they are suspended, expelled, or associated with the criminal justice system. • Even if students are able to get back into a classroom, alternative and juvenile justice system schools often lack a consistent education that meets students’ needs. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown Law School Human Rights Institute, 2012. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/humanrightsinstitute/documents/keptout.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/humanrightsinstitute/documents/keptout.pdf Shelf Number: 125166 Keywords: EducationJuvenile Delinquency PreventionRacial DisparitiesSchool CrimeSchool DisciplineSchool Suspensions (U.S.)School-to-Prison PipelineZero Tolerance |
Author: Florida. Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Title: Redirection Saves $51.2 Million and Continues to Reduce Recidivism Summary: Over the past five years, the Redirection Program has operated at a lower cost than residential juvenile delinquency programs and has achieved better outcomes. Youth who successfully completed the Redirection Program were significantly less likely to be subsequently arrested for a felony or violent felony, adjudicated or convicted for a felony, or sentenced to prison after treatment than similar youth who successfully completed residential commitment programs. The Redirection Program has achieved $51.2 million in cost savings for the state since it began five years ago due to its lower operating costs compared to residential delinquency programs. If the Legislature wishes to expand the program, it could consider authorizing the Redirection Program to treat certain juvenile sex offenders who are considered appropriate for community treatment and/or gang members; such programs would be less expensive than residential commitment. Details: Tallahassee: Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 10-38: Accessed July 20, 2012 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1038rpt.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1038rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 125708 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (Florida)Juvenile Residential Treatment ProgramsRecidivism |
Author: Markman, Joshua Title: Implementation Evaluation of the District of Columbia Put Families First Program: Final Report Summary: The goal of this evaluation was to understand the planning, implementation, and execution of the Put Families First program as it is administered by Functional Family Therapy (FFT) in the District of Columbia (D.C.). The primary question is whether FFT has been implemented with high fidelity and quality, and whether there are local factors or circumstances that either facilitate or interfere with its reliable implementation. This evaluation reviewed programmatic manuals and materials, engaged in semistructured interviews, analyzed performance data, and scanned the extant FFT programmatic and outcome literature. Through these activities, this report documents how the program came together, identifies its key stakeholders and their role in the process, and uses performance data to examine how the program appeared to be progressing along a number of key measures. Management oversight and buy-in are key qualities that the program already possesses. Evidence-Based Associates, LLC (EBA) guided the original planning discussions, led troubleshooting efforts as barriers arose, and attempted to look to the future to anticipate and avoid future problems and institute changes that would be beneficial moving forward. The program partners were all committed to the program; they identified representatives that had leadership and supervisory roles in their respective agencies and had the authority to implement change. Commitment and belief in the model and its implementation are critical factors. The implementation results to date suggest that the FFT program was implemented rigorously and is on its way to effective implementation, but has some challenges yet to overcome. The apparent differences between service providers offer an obvious starting point for inquiry to identify opportunities for such improvement. The current implementation evaluation shows promise for the effective implementation of FFT for youth at risk of out-of-home placement in D.C. For those who do complete the program, implementation is generally close to program benchmarks and showing improvement. Some areas needing improvement were also identified, especially concerning the program’s ability to engage and retain the referred youth through program completion, and understanding the reasons for agency referrals. Prior evidence of program effectiveness in reducing delinquency suggests that the current program has strong potential for being an effective part of the service mix for these youth and their families. Future evaluation activity should continue to focus on improving program initiation, effective implementation, and program completion. This would then set the stage for either a rigorous impact evaluation or a cost-benefit analysis based on combining local cost analysis with evidence of program effectiveness from prior evaluations of FFT. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 17, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412465-Put-Families-First-Program.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412465-Put-Families-First-Program.pdf Shelf Number: 126058 Keywords: At-Risk Youth (Washington, DC)Family InterventionsJuvenile Delinquency Prevention |
Author: DeLauri, Linda Title: A Seamless Web of Support: Effective Strategies for Redirecting the School-to-Prison Pipeline Summary: Decrying an escalation in harsh, exclusionary school discipline and its ensuing “school to prison pipeline,” educators, civil rights lawyers, civil libertarians, parents and students have successfully moved “zero-tolerance” to the center of educational policy discussions. It is obvious that suspension and expulsion rob students of instructional time, endangering their academic performance in the short term. But research also demonstrates a strong association between suspension/expulsion and dropping out of school. It is well established that dropping out is strongly associated with involvement in the criminal justice system and incarceration. This CHHIRJ brief, “A Seamless Web of Support,” explores promising alternatives to suspension and expulsion and offers concrete recommendations to educators, litigators, advocates and the professionals who work with youth and their families. Details: Cambridge, MA: Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice, Harvard Law School, 2010. 21p. Source: CHHIRJ Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2012 at http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/assets/documents/publications/SeamlessWeb.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/assets/documents/publications/SeamlessWeb.pdf Shelf Number: 126510 Keywords: EducationJuvenile Delinquency PreventionSchool CrimeSchool DisciplineSchool SuspensionsSchool-to-Prison Pipeline, Alternatives to |
Author: Barrett, Anna Title: Building Relationships for Better Outcomes: Peninsula Youth Connections Evaluation Stage 2 Report Summary: This research constitutes the second part of a three-stage evaluation of the Peninsula Youth Connections (PYC) program. PYC is the local expression of a program funded by the Australian Government to assist young people at risk of disengaging from education and training. Operating in the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula region south-east of Melbourne, PYC includes intensive case management, outreach and re-engagement activities for young people, and seeks to build the capacity of local youth services. Key points • Overall, young people’s needs were addressed effectively through the intensive case management approach. The majority of participants—84.5 per cent—achieved at least one kind of outcome, and at follow-up, 72.5 per cent were engaged in education. The program approach was particularly beneficial for young people facing mental health issues/stressors, interpersonal issues and learning issues. Young people with unstable family and financial contexts and risky behaviours also benefited, but faced greater ongoing challenges. The difficulties faced by young people from unstable contexts were echoed at a broader level by the finding that young people living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods were more severely disengaged from education, and achieved fewer outcomes. • Complex and intersecting relationships exist between young people’s characteristics, backgrounds, barriers to education, and the outcomes they achieve. The findings from this research demonstrated the complexity and diversity of issues faced by young people disengaging from education and training. Relationships were found between demographic characteristics (such as age, gender and area socioeconomic disadvantage), barriers faced, and outcomes achieved, illustrating the necessity for programs to provide integrated and holistic services which can be adapted and individualised to fit the needs of young people negotiating varied pathways through education and service structures. • Young people particularly valued the relational aspects of the PYC program. The young people interviewed and surveyed were positive in their assessment of the program and the benefits they derived from participation (Figure 1). They identified the following as strengths of the program: friendliness, personal support, encouragement, informality, flexibility, persistence and enjoyment. By far the most prominent message from young people was that the individualised and personal support they received through the relationship with their case manager was a vital factor in their successful engagement with the program. • Gains made from PYC participation appeared to be sustained, in the face of ongoing challenges. Most of the young people followed up after exit were engaged in work or study. However, they faced ongoing challenges around housing and finances, as well as mental health and self-esteem. • Disengagement from school left a powerfully negative impression on young people, and was an experience which in itself formed a barrier to future engagement. Although PYC had largely positive impacts on participants, a re-engagement program cannot fully mitigate the negative impact of these earlier experiences on young people’s self-esteem and confidence. The systemic issues underlying these experiences will be considered in Stage 3 of the PYC evaluation. Details: Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia: Brotherhood of St Laurence, 2012. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2012 at: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/Barrett_Building_relationships_for_better_outcomes_PYC_Stage_2_evaluation_report_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/Barrett_Building_relationships_for_better_outcomes_PYC_Stage_2_evaluation_report_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 126902 Keywords: At-Risk Youth (Australia)Disadvantaged YouthJuvenile Delinquency Prevention |
Author: Knight, Victoria Title: Evaluation of the Restorative Approaches Project in Children’s Residential Homes across Leicestershire: Final Report 2011 Summary: The Project- Restorative approaches was introduced to eight pilot homes across Leicestershire from 2007-2010. A Restorative Project Officer (RPO) was appointed to train and support staff in restorative models. The overall aim of the pilot was to reduce and minimise criminalisation of looked-after children who enter residential settings because it had been observed that looked-after young people were over-represented in the criminal justice system compared to the wider young offender population. Restorative work with young people more generally in both youth justice, in schools and a few residential settings had achieved many successes. Leicestershire YOS (also endorsed by other agencies) secured funds from The Treasury to implement restorative techniques and models to assist residential staff in their practice and care of young residents. The Evaluation- The Community and Criminal Justice Division at De Montfort University were commissioned to conduct the evaluation of this pilot. From the onset of the pilot in October 2007 to the close of the pilot the evaluation team carried out a number of investigations in line with the pilot’s aims. Many staff, key stakeholders and a limited number of young residents were invited to participate in focus groups and interviews in order to capture the views and perspectives of those people experiencing the pilot. Alongside this analysis of information about all of the young residents (82 in total) including criminal and care histories was carried out. A review of relevant literature and local and global policies including behaviour management protocols and Ofsted reports were also examined. The findings were presented thematically. Details: Leicester, UK: De Montfort University, Community & Criminal Justice Division, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 129026 Keywords: Behavior ModificationJuvenile Delinquency PreventionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Residential HomesRestorative Justice (U.K.) |
Author: McGregor, Catherine Title: Youth Offenders Risk Identification (YORI): A Screening Tool for Youth Offenders in Western Australia Summary: The present study arose from early discussions between representatives of the Department of Corrective Services (DCS), Youth Justice and the School of Law and Justice at Edith Cowan University (ECU) in August 2009. Investigators from the School of Law and Justice were already involved in a study with DotAG within the children court aimed at identifying the correlates and risk factors involved in youth offending in Western Australia using a content analysis of existing court reports at five year intervals from 1994 to 2009. This project was known as Uncouth Youth? Building a profile of juvenile offenders in Western Australia ("Uncouth Youth"). Discussions with DCS identified an urgent need to develop a brief, valid and user-friendly tool to assist in targeting services towards youth offenders at the greatest risk of re-offending. A valid and reliable screening tool would allow for the triaging of young offenders coming into contact with DCS. This triage system would operate in the same way as those in hospital emergency departments by identifying those young people who should undergo more intensive intervention. There are a number of available instruments designed to identify young offenders at risk of re-offending and to help guide the selection of appropriate interventions aimed at reducing that risk. However, these instruments are generally too lengthy and detailed for standard operational use by busy frontline staff coming into contact with substantial numbers of young offenders and there is a clear need for a more user-friendly tool. Details: Perth: Edith Cowan University, 2010. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2014 at: https://www.ecu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/83661/Young-Offender-Risk-Identification-YORI-Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: https://www.ecu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/83661/Young-Offender-Risk-Identification-YORI-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132093 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offender RecidivismJuvenile OffendersPredictionReoffending |