Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:03 pm
Time: 12:03 pm
Results for juvenile offenders (california)
5 results foundAuthor: Teji, Selena Title: An Analysis of Direct Adult Criminal Court Filing 2003-2009: What Has Been the Effect of Proposition 21? Summary: The following report is Part Four of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice’s (CJCJ) Juvenile Justice Realignment Series. Direct adult criminal court filing is a process that allows prosecutorial discretion to file cases involving juveniles accused of certain violent and serious offenses in adult court without obtaining judicial permission, a power granted by Proposition 21 in 2000. This report studies the practice of direct-filing in California’s 58 counties during 2003 through 2009 in order to assess the potential effect of the originally proposed Division of Juvenile Facilities closure on this practice. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Realignment Series: Accessed September 2, 2011 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/What_has_been_the_effect_of_Prop_21.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/What_has_been_the_effect_of_Prop_21.pdf Shelf Number: 122615 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (California)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Ryan, Joseph P. Title: Exploring the Characteristics and Outcomes of 241.1 Youth Crossing Over from Dependency to Delinquency in Los Angeles County Summary: The term crossover youth generally refers to youth who are victims of abuse or neglect and who committed an offense that brought them into the delinquency system. These youth are also commonly referred to as dual-jurisdiction youth or dually involved youth. A youth typically becomes a crossover youth in one of three ways. One way is when a youth enters the child welfare system because of sustained allegations of abuse or neglect and then commits an offense that causes him or her to enter the delinquency system while under the care and custody of child protective services. A second way is when a youth with a prior, but not current, contact in child welfare commits an offense and enters the delinquency system. A third possible way is when a youth with no prior child welfare system contact enters the delinquency system and the probation department refers the case to the child welfare system for further investigation of abuse or neglect. For the purposes of this research brief, the term crossover youth refers to youth who are in the care and custody of the child welfare system and are subsequently charged with an offense. In particular, the current study examines the characteristics of crossover youth processed in Los Angeles County’s juvenile court between April 1 and December 31, 2004. The information presented on these youth is consistent with similar studies and should be informative for any jurisdiction considering and evaluating procedures for supervising the cases of crossover youth. Details: Sacramento: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Coruts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 2008. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: ResearchUpdate: Accessed october 25, 2011 at: http://courts.ca.gov/documents/AB129-ExploringReseachUpdate.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://courts.ca.gov/documents/AB129-ExploringReseachUpdate.pdf Shelf Number: 123122 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectChild Welfare SystemCrossover YouthJuvenile Offenders (California) |
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: Males, Mike Title: Charging youths as adults in California: A county by county analysis of prosecutorial direct file practices Summary: This report examines county by county prosecutorial direct file practices between 2003 and 2010 to determine whether Proposition 21 (2000) has resulted in more commitments of youths to state institutional facilities than would have occurred otherwise. In light of these historic trends the report also reflects on the potential effect that the Governor’s proposed closure of the state’s Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) would have on prosecutorial direct file practices in California. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) finds that at least two-thirds of direct files do not result in state DJF or adult prison terms. Prosecutorial direct file has not proven an effective means of securing state prison sentences for youthful offenders compared to previously existing mechanisms, such as judicial transfer after juvenile court fitness hearings. While CJCJ was unable to determine the exact numbers of direct file cases that resulted in transfer from DJF to state prison at age 18, the number appears small and has declined sharply over the last three years. In addition, frequent usage of direct file appears to have no effect on crime compared to infrequent usage. The overall statewide increase in direct file rates during 2003-2010 is attributable to a select group of counties, whose prosecutors utilize direct file significantly more than the state average. This increase in direct file rates is not correlated to county juvenile court commitments to DJF. In addition, county commitments to DJF varied significantly and declined greatly during the period. The data suggests there are 7 counties that continue to heavily rely on the state system through both high rates of juvenile court DJF commitments and prosecutorial direct filing and may require significant local capacity building if DJF were to be eliminated. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012. 7p. Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/Charging_youths_as_adults_in_California.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Charging_youths_as_adults_in_California.pdf Shelf Number: 124173 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (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) |