Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:48 am
Time: 11:48 am
Results for juvenile justice reform (california)
3 results foundAuthor: Macallair, Daniel Title: Renewing Juvenile Justice Summary: The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) was commissioned by Sierra Health Foundation to critically examine California’s juvenile justice system and consider the potential role of foundations in promoting systemic reform. The information gathered by CJCJ researchers for this report suggests that foundations can perform a key leadership role in juvenile justice by assisting counties in their efforts to develop a broader array of interventions, especially for special needs youth. The treatment needs of special-needs youth, particularly the mentally ill, are a primary challenge for county juvenile justice systems, especially when it comes to accessing services and funding streams across jurisdictional, institutional and administrative boundaries. Despite the current statewide economic crisis, many counties continue to underutilize resources and funding streams that could diversify their treatment service, bolster resources and improve the quality of care. In addition, the need to develop data gathering and management information systems is present in many California juvenile justice systems. In developing the recommendations contained in this report, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice researchers examined the evolution of California’s juvenile justice system from its origins in the 1850s through the creation of the juvenile court in 1903 to the tumultuous events of the past decade. CJCJ has attempted to provide a comprehensive historical account that illustrates the origins of today’s issues and provides a direction for establishing a model 21st century juvenile justice system for California. Site visits to selected counties revealed a high level of commitment to quality care among California’s juvenile justice professionals. In some instances, California counties offer a model for not just the state, but the nation. However, our research also revealed vast discrepancies and disparities within county systems. As a result, youth residing in certain counties do not have access to the same level of services as youth in other counties. We believe that based on this analysis, foundations can promote the development of a coherent and consistent level of juvenile justice care throughout California. We recommend that foundations focus their resources in assisting counties to develop behavioral health-oriented services that target the highest-need youth. Demonstrating successful strategies with this most challenging population promotes systemic reform by changing long-term assumptions and practices about appropriate interventions. Eliminating the disparity in treatment for youth in the juvenile justice system will create better outcomes and improve the health of the communities in which they reside. Due to the state’s dire budget situation, counties will be asked to absorb more oversight of youthful offenders. This change offers a rare opportunity for foundations to exercise a sizable influence on juvenile justice practice for the 21st century. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Renewing_Juvenile_Justice.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Renewing_Juvenile_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 123642 Keywords: Foster CareJuvenile Justice Reform (California)Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: de Leon, Brian Heller Title: Juvenile Justice Realignment in 2012 Summary: The purpose of this publication is to recommend a full juvenile justice realignment plan in the 2012-13 budget cycle. The Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) budget triggers implemented on January 1, 2012, highlight the unsustainable costs of maintaining a dual juvenile justice system in California. DJF’s current recidivism rate of 80% and continued scrutiny under the Farrell lawsuit both demonstrate the limited success the state has at rehabilitating youthful offenders (CDCR, 2010, p.10). This system should no longer be considered an appropriate or affordable use of California taxpayer dollars. A well-designed, phased juvenile justice realignment beginning in 2012 will strengthen the ability of counties to serve their most high-needs youth, enhance long-term public safety, and provide a fiscally responsible approach to juvenile justice in a time of great financial crisis. CJCJ’s juvenile justice realignment recommendation is outlined by five key components on page 6 of this report. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012. 9p. Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed March 11, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/Juvenile_Justice_Realignment_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Juvenile_Justice_Realignment_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 124456 Keywords: Juvenile Justice (California)Juvenile Justice Reform (California) |
Author: Taylor, Mac Title: The 2012-13 Budget: Completing Juvenile Justtice Realignment Summary: Over the past 16 years, the Legislature has enacted various measures which realigned to counties a significant share of responsibility for managing juvenile offenders. Under current law, only juveniles adjudicated for a serious, violent, or sex offense can be sent to state facilities by the juvenile courts. As a result, 99 percent of juvenile offenders are housed or supervised by counties. As part of his 2012-13 budget plan, the Governor proposes completing the realignment of juvenile justice by stopping new admissions of offenders to state Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities on January 1, 2013. The Governor would provide counties with an unspecified level of funding to manage wards who would otherwise have been committed to DJJ after that date, as well as $10 million in planning grants in the current year. We recommend that the Legislature adopt a comprehensive juvenile justice realignment plan that completes the shift of responsibility to counties. We believe the Governor’s proposal has merit on both policy and fiscal grounds, but that the Legislature could address various concerns with the administration’s plan. Specifically, we recommend developing a funding approach that promotes innovation and efficiency, establishing a transition plan for DJJ, providing state oversight and technical assistance through the newly created Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), taking measures to reduce the number of juveniles tried in adult court, and requiring counties to house minors tried in adult court until age 18. Details: CA: Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 11, 2012 at http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/juvenile-justice-021512.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/juvenile-justice-021512.pdf Shelf Number: 124457 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (California)Juvenile Justice Reform (California)Juvenile Offenders (California) |