Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:11 pm
Time: 8:11 pm
Results for juvenile justice policy (u.s.)
2 results foundAuthor: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Past, Present, and Future of Juvenile Justice: Assessing the Policy Options (APO) Summary: In recent decades, state governments have enacted sweeping changes in law and policy that have profoundly affected the juvenile justice landscape in the United States; many mirror those made to the adult justice system (Wool and Stemen 2004) and are unprecedented historically (Butts and Mears 2001; Katzmann 2002; Howell 2003). Examples include new and expanded laws for transferring youth to the adult system and for reducing gaps between the juvenile and adult justice systems; sentencing guidelines and graduated sanctions models that encourage greater consistency in juvenile dispositions; laws aimed at reducing the confidentiality of juvenile records and hearings; and efforts to target serious and violent crime, drug offending, and weapon offenses. Yet, arguably, the last two decades have also been marked by innovation aimed at preventing delinquency and improving the structure and administration of juvenile justice (Butts and Mears 2001). The increased prevalence of and legislative support for specialized courts including juvenile drug, mental health and truancy court programs, as well as diversion programs designed to promote positive youth development and increased efforts to integrate treatment and evidence-based approaches into the fabric of juvenile justice, are just a few examples of recent advances. Despite these remarkable changes, policymakers lack information about how front-line juvenile justice professionals—those individuals responsible for implementing these changes and most likely to be affected by them—view the new policies. Furthermore, relatively little is known about how well such policies address the critical issues facing the juvenile justice system and its practitioners (Mears 2000). Most of the extant research focuses on whether practitioners agree with or support the philosophy of a given policy, not their views about its impact or necessity. Likewise, very few studies measure the actual effectiveness of a given policy in achieving its stated outcomes, choosing instead to examine implementation. The Past, Present, and Future of Juvenile Justice: Assessing the Policy Options (APO) project, funded by the National Institute of Justice (#2005-IJ-CX-0039) and supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, addressed these questions by taking stock of recent policy changes and asking juvenile justice practitioners about their impressions of these changes. Between October 2005 and December 2007, researchers at the Urban Institute, Florida State University, and the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago conducted an online survey of juvenile justice professionals to measure their impressions of recent policy changes and the critical needs facing today’s juvenile justice system, and to garner recommendations for improving the administration and effectiveness of this system. An examination of 17 prevalent juvenile justice policies and practices and review of state-level legislative activity around those issues were also conducted to identify recent and emerging trends in the administration of juvenile justice. The study’s primary objective was to provide policymakers, administrators, and practitioners with actionable information about how to improve the operations and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, and to examine the role practitioners could play in constructing sound juvenile justice policy. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2009. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412247-Future-of-Juvenile-Justice.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412247-Future-of-Juvenile-Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 123771 Keywords: Juvenile Justice Policy (U.S.)Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Comeback States: Reducing youth incarceration in the United States Summary: In 2000, a record-setting 108,802 youth were held in detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in juvenile facilities in the United States. In a dramatic turnaround, by late-2010, the number of youth confined in state and county juvenile facilities had plummeted by 39 percent to 66,322. This reversal erased a 63 percent increase in the number of confined youth that began in 1985, when 66,762 youth were confined—an increase driven by highly publicized increases in youth arrests, growing public concern about youth crime, and state juvenile justice policies favoring increased reliance on incarceration. This report uses new federal data to document and analyze national and state incarceration trends. The turnaround is associated with changes in state policies since 2001 that reflected declines in youth arrests, new understandings of the teenage brain, less costly, evidence-based alternatives to incarceration, and constrained state budgets. A regression analysis of annual data found that although the decline in arrests helped explain the decline in confinement, post-arrest decisions by law enforcement officials, which are often shaped by state juvenile justice policies, also had a potent impact. Six policies were identified in this report that have been adopted by states since 2001 and encourage reductions in reliance on detention and incarceration. These changes: • increase the availability of evidence-based alternatives to incarceration; • require intake procedures that reduce use of secure detention facilities; • close or downsize youth confinement facilities; • reduce schools’ overreliance on the justice system to address discipline issues; • disallow incarceration for minor offenses; and • restructure juvenile justice responsibilities and finances among states and counties. Nine “comeback” states were singled out for their leadership in adopting these policies. They include California; Connecticut; Illinois; Ohio; Mississippi; New York; Texas; Washington; and Wisconsin. The report profiles each of the states with regard to: 1) the growth of their reliance on youth incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s; 2) reversal of that reliance during the 2001-to-late-2010 period; and 3) the incarceration reduction policies that they have adopted since 2001. The “comeback” states were selected because they adopted at least four of the six policies, exceeded the national-average reduction in youth confinement for the 2001-to-2010 period, and experienced a decline in youth arrests (as a proxy for greater public safety) between 2000 and 2010. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network; Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129030 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice Policy (U.S.)Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |