Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:33 am
Time: 11:33 am
Results for juvenile parole
7 results foundAuthor: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. Division of Community Programs, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration Title: Intensive Parole Model for : Chapter 338, Laws of 1997, Section 34 RCW 13.40.2129(2) Summary: The 1997 Washington State Legislature recognized that traditional parole services for high-risk juvenile offenders were insufficient to provide adequate rehabilitation and public safety. As a result, they mandated (Chapter 338, Laws of 1997, Section 34) the implementation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model with the top 25 percent highest risk to re-offend youth in the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA). The legislation requires JRA to report annually to the Legislature on process and outcome findings. The key elements of the JRA Intensive Parole supervision model are: Information management and program evaluation; Assessment and selection criteria; Individual case planning; A mixture of intensive surveillance and services; A balance of incentives and graduated consequences; Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks; and Transition services. The key changes in the program as the model has developed over time are: Phase 1 (10/98 – 10/99): Community Supervision/Traditional Community Linkages; Phase 2 (10/99 – 10/00): Residential/Transitional/Community Supervision/Traditional Community Linkages; Phase 3 (10/00 – 1/03): Evidence-Based Services; Phase 4 (1/03 – Present): Functional Family Parole (FFP) services; Phase 5 (Future): Regionalization of JRA Community Residential Programs. In December 2002, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) published a report that found the first two Intensive Parole (IP) cohorts did not have significantly different recidivism from the comparison group. They did find that the Basic Training Camp (BTC) second and third year cohorts had significantly lower recidivism. Based on the initial finding of IP in whole, funds for IP were significantly reduced increasing caseloads from 12 to 20:1 leading to a 40% increase in caseload size and reduced ability to perform community safety related activities, e.g., field surveillance, high levels of parole counselor contact, community justice work crews, day reporting programs, and electronic home monitoring. At this time, JRA continues to implement intensive parole as part of the overarching FFP model. Past budgetary reductions in intensive parole funding, with resulting increased caseloads and reduced staffing, can pose significant challenges to the implementation of this complex, promising model of FFP with the highest risk/highest need offenders. Details: Olympia, WA: Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, 2009. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2011 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/main/legrep/Leg1209/Intensive%20Parole%20Model%20for%20High%20Risk%20Juvenile%20Offenders.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/main/legrep/Leg1209/Intensive%20Parole%20Model%20for%20High%20Risk%20Juvenile%20Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 121585 Keywords: Intensive ParoleJuvenile AftercareJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Juvenile ParoleRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Iutcovich, Joyce Miller Title: A Final Report for: Assessment of Aftercare Services Provided to Delinquent Youth Summary: Juvenile crime in America has soared over the past decade. From 1984 to 1994 the homicide arrest rate for juveniles increased 160 percent. Many believe that juvenile delinquency will continue to increase as the size of our youth population grows. Recently, our news has been filled with reports about youths committing horrendous crimes. The school shootings during the 1997/98 academic year shocked our nation and raised the public cries to do something about youth violence. One area of juvenile corrections that has received an increasing emphasis and attention is the aftercare phase. Community-based aftercare is the parole phase of corrections, it "is the point at which the supposedly beneficial cumulative effects of the institutional 'treatment' experience are transferred to community settings, and are reinforced, monitored, and assessed". Intensive community-based aftercare services have evolved over the past decade as a means to improve the likelihood that juveniles released from secure confinement remain crime free rather than return to delinquency. But questions about the efficacy of these programs remain. Given this epidemic of juvenile delinquency and the new strategies and efforts to address this problem, it is of vital importance to gather information about what works and what doesn't work. To that end, this report represents the effort to collect and analyze evaluative data on the process and outcomes of two intensive aftercare programs for juvenile delinquents that have been implemented in Pennsylvania. Details: Erie, PA: Keystone University Research Corporation, 1998. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2011 at: www.portal.state.pa.us Year: 1998 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 122178 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Offenders (Pennsylvania)Juvenile ParoleJuvenile ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Moll, Jeanette Title: Out for Life: Pathways to More Effective Reentry for Texas Juvenile Offenders Summary: When Texans pay to lock up a youth, they seek to redress the offense that occurred, protect the public for the period of incarceration, and rehabilitate that youth to reduce the risk of future criminal behavior. It is principally to accomplish this latter goal of long-term recidivism reduction that supervision and treatment by the juvenile justice system continues after the actual period of incarceration and into a period in which the youth is on parole. How many youth continue to break the law and are reincarcerated at taxpayer’s expense depends not just on the effectiveness of the institutions where they served time, but also upon the effectiveness of parole and reentry programs that seek to transition them back into the free world. In fact, ineffective reentry programming would virtually nullify any treatment or therapy the youth received while committed to state custody, as it would prevent translation of the treatment to the youth’s home environment. Because of the key role parole plays in reforming juvenile offenders and ensuring the lessons learned in residential treatment are sustained when the juvenile returns home, successful reentry programs can dramatically reduce recidivism rates. The existing parole programming mandated by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) currently produces rates of reincarceration of 41.2 percent and 35.7 percent after three years, for youth released in 2006 and 2007, respectively. These results must be closely evaluated, especially in light of alternative parole programming currently being used within two pilot programs in major urban centers in Texas, Harris County and Bexar County. These programs represent promising opportunities to reformulate parole for Texas juveniles into a cost-efficient and effective aftercare program. Intensive reentry and a more effective parole process can be paired with slight reductions in the length of stay for particular Texas youth without affecting public safety. The commitment time reductions can be devoted, instead, to reentry programs, resulting in both reduced recidivism and lower costs for Texas taxpayers. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2012. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-01-PP05-OutForLifePathwaysMoreEffectiveReentryforTexasJuvenileOffenders-CEJ-JeanetteMoll.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-01-PP05-OutForLifePathwaysMoreEffectiveReentryforTexasJuvenileOffenders-CEJ-JeanetteMoll.pdf Shelf Number: 129471 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Texas, U.S.)Juvenile ParoleJuvenile Reentry |
Author: Lucenko, Barbara Title: Effects of Functional Family Parole on Re-Arrest and Employment for Youth in Washington State Summary: The Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration implemented a new model of juvenile parole services in 2003, Functional Family Therapy. This new model of parole, Functional Family Parole (FFP), is intended to make families the unit of intervention-not just the youth-and uses family therapy-based approaches to enhance case management outcomes. The new parole model was implemented with several other evidence-based changes in the JRA residential program, collectively called the Integrated Treatment Model. Recent budget reductions led to the elimination of parole for all JRA offenders except high-risk, auto theft offenders, and sex offenders, creating a "natural experiment" allowing us to test of the impacts of Functional Family Parole upon youth in the period following their release. We found that "FFP Youth" were less likely to be arrested and had fewer total arrests during the 9 months following release than those released during the period without the enhanced parole services. "FFP Youth" were also more likely to be employed and earned more on average during the year following release than "No FFP Youth." Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/2/24.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/2/24.pdf Shelf Number: 133067 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesFamily InterventionsJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Juvenile ParoleJuvenile RehabilitationTreatment Programs |
Author: Bolin, Riane Miller Title: Adultification in Juvenile Corrections: A Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Officers Summary: The growing recognition throughout the nineteenth century that juveniles were different than adults culminated in the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois in 1899. By 1945, every state had developed its own juvenile justice system separate and distinct from the criminal justice system. Since its inception, the juvenile justice system has experienced two waves of adultification in which the lines between the juvenile and criminal justice systems were blurred. While a number of studies have focused on the adultification of juvenile courts, no study has examined the adultification of juvenile corrections. Thus, the present study aims to explore whether one type of juvenile corrections, probation and parole, has been adultified by comparing the professional orientations as well as the behavior of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. The study finds that juvenile probation and parole officers do differ from adult officers in regards to their professional orientation and behavior. Specifically, it is found that compared to adult probation and parole officers, juvenile officers tend to more strongly adhere to ideas of treatment, welfare, and offender-focused probation/parole. Additionally, it is found that juvenile probation and parole officers are less likely than adult officers to issue written sanctions and to pursue revocation hearings. The evidence from the present study reveals the important practical implications of retaining a separate and distinct juvenile justice system. Details: Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 2014. 241p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=etd Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=etd Shelf Number: 145410 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile ParoleJuvenile ProbationParole OfficersProbation Officers |
Author: Phillips, Idetta Title: Reentry support: Lessons learned from community-based programs Summary: Over 10,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons each week and arrive back in our nation’s communities, resulting in more than 650,000 formerly incarcerated individuals requiring reintegration into society each year. In Illinois, over 30,000 inmates were released from prison in 2013, with about 39 percent returning to Chicago to serve a period of parole. Community-based reentry programs can play an important role in the successful re-integration of returning individuals, by providing vital services and supports as a supplement to the parole system. In 2014, the Reentry Program, one of three components of Illinois' Community Violence Prevention Program (CVPP) receiving funds through the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, operated as voluntary program for youth and young adults between the ages of 13 and 28 returning to their community after incarceration in a state correctional facility. The program provided services in 21 Chicago area communities in order to assist clients with compliance with their parole board orders and other aspects of successful community reintegration, such as educational enrollment and employment. The program performance period spanned from November 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014. Authority research staff studied the 2014 Reentry Program by collecting case management data on client demographics, service needs, and program results for a sample of 517 youth and young adults with verified incarceration in IDJJ or IDOC prior to program participation and documented program participation during the 2014 program period. Client and case manager surveys augmented this case-level data. Key findings Program clients Seventy percent of the 517 Reentry Program clients included in this study were on parole from IDOC facilities, and 30 percent were on aftercare from IDJJ. Both groups of clients were enrolled at program sites in 18 Chicago community areas and three suburban sites. More than half (59 percent) of clients lived in the community area in which they were enrolled. Most Reentry Program sites (86 percent) focused on serving either youth exiting from IDJJ or young adults exiting from IDOC, rather than serving both clients groups. Most case managers (84 percent) worked exclusively with one type of client. Two thirds of all Reentry Program clients were referred to the program by their parole officer or aftercare specialist, although IDJJ clients reported this referral source most often (82 percent). Nineteen percent of IDOC clients reported family, friends, and community groups as sources of program referrals. Reentry Program clients were overwhelming male (95 percent) and Black (83 percent). The average age of IDJJ clients was 17 years old, while IDOC clients were older (22 years old, on average). However, the most common age for both client groups was 20 years old. IDJJ clients were living most often with parents at the time of program enrollment (68 percent), while IDOC clients more often reported living with other relatives, spouses, or partners (33 percent compared to 18 percent). Most clients did not have children (82 percent). At the time of enrollment, IDJJ clients had lower prior educational attainment than IDOC clients, partially because they were younger. Fewer IDJJ clients reported completing at least one year of high school (63 percent) compared to IDOC clients (93 percent). However, at the common age of 20, thirty-one percent of IDJJ clients reported attaining no more than an eighth grade education, compared to 4 percent of IDOC clients. The most common incarceration offense type for both groups was a violent offense (30 percent). Violent offenses were defined according to the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act, which defines a violent offense as any felony in which force or threat of force was used against the victim [725 ILCS 120/et seq.]. A greater proportion of IDJJ clients were incarcerated for a property offense compared to IDOC clients (31 percent compared to 22 percent), while a greater proportion of IDOC clients were incarcerated for drugs and weapons offenses (46 percent compared to 37 percent). Program services All clients in this study completed a service plan with their case managers based on conditions of parole imposed by the Prisoner Review Board (PRB), with additional recommendations from the parole officer/aftercare specialist, case manager, and client. The Reentry Program offered 28 different services in four categories: mandated parole/aftercare conditions, social/emotional services, educational /vocational services, and other support services. Service plan requirements differed for IDJJ clients and IDOC clients. IDJJ clients were mandated or recommended most often to enroll in for GED/high school classes, substance abuse assessment, support groups to deal with negative peers, curfew monitoring, and random urinalysis. IDOC clients were mandated or recommended most often for substance abuse treatment, full time employment, GED/High school classes, job training, anger management, and other support services. Overall, about half of Reentry Program clients were linked to the services for which they were mandated or recommended during the program performance period, although the linkage rate varied by type of service. Of the 26 services mandated or recommended for both client groups, IDJJ clients were linked at a higher rate than IDOC clients for most service types (19 of the 26), most notably for substance abuse assessment, mental health services, GED/High school classes, and job seeking services. Short-term program results The Reentry Program clients in this study completed 152 (9 percent) of the 1,692 mandated or recommended services during the nine-month program period. The highest rates of completion were for obtaining short-term continuity of care assistance, such as enrolling in the supplemental nutrition assistance program (food stamps) (60 percent), or obtaining a birth certificate (67 percent) as a prerequisite for a state ID. Half of the clients linked to a term of electronic monitoring completed this parole/aftercare condition before the program ended, while the others linked to electronic monitoring were still continuing at the end of the performance period. Of the few clients mandated or recommended to enroll in college, half were able to do so before the program ended. IDOC clients completed more services than IDJJ clients. Despite the challenges of a serious criminal background, one third of those mandated or recommended for employment services were successful in obtaining full-time employment, while another 43 percent obtained part-time employment. One third successfully completed anger management services. No IDJJ or IDOC clients linked to GED/high school classes were indicated as completing their educational requirements before the program ended. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Final%202014%20CVPP%20Reentry%20Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Final%202014%20CVPP%20Reentry%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 146788 Keywords: Community-Based ProgramsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ParoleJuvenile ReentryReentry |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: False Hope: How Parole Systems Fail Youth Serving Extreme Sentences Summary: In our inflated U.S. prison system, parole is supposed to provide an incentive and a path to earn release from prison. Instead, in many states, the parole system is defective and reflexively denies release even to model prisoners who went to prison as teenagers, have already served decades in prison, and no longer pose a safety risk. After growing up in prison, atoning for their crimes, staying out of trouble, and completing all available rehabilitative programming, thousands of people who were sentenced when they were young are finding that the promise of parole is an illusion, no matter what they do to prove their worthiness for release. These young people will needlessly grow old and die behind bars when the parole system fails to do what it is intended to do: identify and release those who have worked for redemption and earned a second chance at freedom. Despite extensive research that youth who commit even serious, violent offenses age out of crime and can be rehabilitated, our nation still incarcerates tens of thousands of people who were teenagers or in their early twenties at the time of their offense and are serving life or de facto life in prison. For most of these individuals, the only real chance for release and to be reunited with their families comes from parole. However, prisoners incarcerated since their youth are routinely denied parole, long after they’ve grown, matured, atoned, and been rehabilitated, and in many cases, solely because of the crime they committed in their youth—not because of who they are now. Parole boards are charged with the ultimate decision of who to release and when, but too often, they operate in obscurity, with little guidance and too much political pressure. In many cases, decisions about release are made in a matter of minutes, without ever meeting the applicant, and with no opportunity to evaluate the individual’s record. These parole boards, composed of a handful of people tasked with tens of thousands of cases each year, have tremendous power but little incentive to grant release, even to people who are fully rehabilitated, have served decades of their sentence, and pose no risk to the community. Even for people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles, the parole grant rates are abysmally low—for example, 0.5 percent of juvenile lifers were granted parole in Florida in 2015, and in Maryland, none have been granted parole in 20 years. But despite this dismal picture, reforms to the parole system are possible and can ensure that deserving individuals, sentenced in their youth, will get a fair, meaningful chance to be released and reunited with their families. Instead of allowing these individuals to grow old and die in prison, the parole process can reward and incentivize rehabilitation and honor our moral obligation to those we send away to grow up in prison. Details: New York: ACLU, 2016. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/report/report-false-hope-how-parole-systems-fail-youth-serving-extreme-sentences Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/report/report-false-hope-how-parole-systems-fail-youth-serving-extreme-sentences Shelf Number: 146275 Keywords: Juvenile JusticeJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ParoleJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole |