Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:01 pm
Time: 12:01 pm
Results for probation camps
5 results foundAuthor: Newell, Michelle Title: Reforming the Nation's Largest Juvenile Justice System Summary: Research confirms that incarcerating young people is harmful - contributing to lower educational achievement, higher unemployment, higher alcohol and substance abuse and increased mental health problems. Roughly three-quarters of youth leaving locked facilities nationally are rearrested and - depending on local juvenile justice statutes - up to 70 percent are convicted of a new offense. These dismal outcomes, combined with a high price tag, have largely made youth incarceration a failed public policy approach. The good news is that youth incarceration rates in the U.S. have declined by 41 percent over the last 15 years, reaching the lowest level since 1975. While this is due largely to decreasing crime rates and state budget cuts, it also reflects the increased use of cost-effective, community-based programs for youth who pose a minimal threat to public safety. Nevertheless, approximately 70,000 youth nationwide - 2,000 in Los Angeles County - are still confined in juvenile detention facilities on any given day. While the goal remains to reduce these numbers further and keep young people out of the system whenever possible, a small number of youth will remain in secure facilities. How these youth are treated while incarcerated has a marked impact on the rest of their life, their communities, and on our society as a whole. The Los Angeles County juvenile justice system is the largest system in the nation, with locked facilities that include three juvenile halls and fourteen probation camps. Yet many observers of the system, including legal groups, advocates and organizers, the media, and elected and appointed officials, have concluded over the years the camps are not meeting the needs of youth, and not helping them become law-abiding and productive members of society. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and Children's Defense Fund, California, 2013. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2013/reforming-the-nations.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2013/reforming-the-nations.pdf Shelf Number: 138314 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Herz, Denise C. Title: The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study Summary: In Los Angeles County, an alarming number of children and youth live in unsafe, impoverished communities with entrenched violence, have struggling and isolated parents, and attend poorly performing schools. As a result, many of these children and youth end up in the County's health, mental health, child welfare, human services, and juvenile justice systems. Children who enter the juvenile justice system, in particular, face myriad challenges. Research demonstrates that these vulnerable young people often have risk and need factors that include: low academic achievement, mental health and/or substance abuse issues, negative peer networks, and lack of appropriate parental supervision. Los Angeles Probation-involved youth, for example, often face the following risk and need factors: - Education: Standardized tests indicate that youth placed in probation camps are, on average, 16.7 years old and therefore are in the 11th grade but are achieving at a fifth grade level in math and reading (McCroskey, 2006, p. 2). California High School Exit Examination 2003-04 results for graduates from 492 Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) students in juvenile hall and Community Day School programs show that only 26% passed the English Language Arts exam, compared with 70% of all students in the County who took and passed the exam. Additionally, LACOE data show that the percentage of students identified as requiring special education was higher than the national average of 13.7%.1 Of the 2,047 students enrolled in juvenile hall schools as of November 2005, 79% (n=1,617) were classified as regular education students and 21% (n=430) were classified as special education students. - Mental Health: In 2008, a UCLA research study on Los Angeles' juvenile Probation camp population reported that 58% of youth had received counseling or mental health services prior to being placed in Probation Department camps, with 65% receiving such services during their stay at camp. The same study also found that the most common mental health problems reported by youth who self-identified with a mental health problem were depression and anger. - Substance Abuse: An external survey conducted with youth in Probation Camps found that 58% of Probation-involved youth reported they had received a prior diagnosis of substance abuse and dependency. Additionally, according to a UCLA study on Los Angeles Probation Camps, over one-third of Probation-involved youth have been in an alcohol or drug placement in the past, including 43% of girls and 36% of boys). Because so many Probation-involved youth enter the juvenile justice system with these factors, the Probation Department may be viewed as the primary agency responsible for resolving these issues. Probation, however, cannot address all of these risk factors alone. Instead it relies on collaboration with other County departments, including Health Services, Mental Health and Public Health, whose staff have expertise in health, behavioral health and other child and family issues. For example, an early study (1995) using cross-departmental data linkages to identify families being served by multiple Los Angeles County departments underscores this point. Findings from this study showed that, during that year, 59.4% of Probation families also received services from DPSS, 25.5% also received services from DCFS, 30.3% also received services from DHS, and 18.2% also received services from DMH (Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council, Data Analysis and Technical Assistance Committee, 1995). Despite these findings, identifying and documenting shared connections across County agencies is nearly impossible because agency data systems are seldom integrated, and the interpretation of confidentiality protections limits the exchange of information across agencies. Without interagency coordination, though, youth and families may not receive the services they need, they may receive duplicative services, and/or they may receive inappropriate services. A starting point to better serve Probation-involved youth and families is a better understanding of the characteristics and needs of Probation-involved youth and their outcomes over time. Unfortunately, defining and consistently reporting outcomes for youth under Probation supervision has been elusive for at least three reasons. First, Probation lacks the data and sophisticated data systems necessary to produce meaningful outcome measures. In 2010, Harvard Kennedy School researchers conducting a review of juvenile reentry in Los Angeles County reported that the Probation Department was unable to provide the following information in a timely and comprehensive manner: - educational outcomes in camps and after (high school/GED completion rates, drop-out rates, rates of re-enrollment in school after camp); - percent of youth receiving mental health services; - percent of youth receiving substance abuse services; - percent of youth participating in reentry programs; - what reentry programs youth are currently accessing; - rates of recidivism that capture camp return and entrance in the adult criminal justice system (beyond six month subsequent sustained charge); and, - number of youth violating their Probation terms. Second, the use of data produced by Probation's information system is often driven by compliance rather than case management, quality improvement, or assessing practice over time. In other words, the most readily available and used Probation data elements tend to reflect whether a required protocol was completed, rather than the impact of that practice on youth outcomes. Third, Probation is limited in what it can collect, share and have access to - particularly in terms of mental health and education data - based on legal restraints and confidentiality concerns. Despite knowing that many youth "cross over" between the child protective services and juvenile justice systems, for example, shared access to the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) has been limited due to strict interpretation of statutes and regulations designed to protect confidentiality (see, for example, the Federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems [SACWIS] regulations). Collectively, the challenges to interagency coordination and the urgent need for clear and consistent outcomes make a compelling argument for increased attention to the data systems that undergird Probation practices and program, so that County decisions are guided by standardized data collection based on desired outcomes for youth and shared information can drive better interagency coordination and collaboration. Specifically, this study focuses on youth placed in suitable placement and camps (i.e., youth who penetrate deeply into the juvenile justice system) because their experiences and stories arguably provide the unique opportunity to: (1) identify how agencies, communities, and families can better prevent youth entry into the juvenile justice system; (2) provide insight into how to prevent youth who enter the juvenile justice system from reaching the point of being placed in out-of-home care (suitable placement) and/or Probation camps; (3) provide direction on how to build an integrated and coordinated response system that would address the complex needs of youth and families, particularly those who penetrate deeply into the system; and, (4) identify key outcomes that can be measured consistently and regularly (e.g., annually) by Probation, LACOE and allied County departments. This report begins by providing an overview of the need for and purpose of juvenile justice data as well as the current structures of data collection in Los Angeles County (Chapter 1). Next, it examines the characteristics and situational contexts of youth exiting from suitable placements and juvenile camp placements during 2011 (Chapters 2 & 3). Eight in-depth youth case histories taken from Probation records are presented to illustrate the context within which these youths' stories unfold from the perspective of the Probation Officers who supervise and oversee youth in the system (Chapter 4). Based on the findings presented in this report, Chapter 5 presents recommendations to improve practice through targeted reform and improved use of data. Details: Los Angeles: Advancement Project, 2015. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/la-probation-outcomes.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/la-probation-outcomes.pdf Shelf Number: 138315 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Uman, Gwen C. Title: Children's Defense Fund Freedom Schools Program in Los Angeles County Probation Camps: Evaluation Report Summary: With the highest youth incarceration rate in the world, the United States (U.S.) imprisons approximately 70,000 youth nationwide on any given day. The U.S. juvenile justice system, which began shifting in the 1980's from a rehabilitation to a punishment model, has created a broad sense of "perpetual surveillance," or "a state of conscious and permanent visibility" for thousands of American youth, especially young men of color. The exiling of American youth in the juvenile justice system has dire personal, educational, social, and economic effects. Some of the negative effects of youth incarceration include: lower educational achievement, higher unemployment, higher alcohol and substance abuse, increased mental health problems, and higher rates of learning disabilities. Studies have also documented the high costs of incarcerating youth; the U.S. spends $6 million per year in juvenile corrections and $88,000 in direct costs per juvenile each year. While youth incarceration has proven to be both harmful and costly, the number of youth in juvenile detention facilities across the country remains high. L.A. COUNTY'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The L.A. County juvenile justice system is the largest system in the nation. In a recent policy brief entitled "Reforming the Nation's Largest Juvenile Justice System," probation camps in L.A. were characterized as ineffective, operating under an outdated era of juvenile justice which relies heavily on penitentiary-like facilities and strictly enforced routines. Recently, a series of lawsuits and allegations in probation camps have identified the following problems in probation camps: "failure to protect youth from harm," "insufficient and problematic staffing," and "inadequate rehabilitative and educational services." To address recent lawsuits and allegations, the L.A. County Probation Department and LACOE have recently advanced a number of efforts, including the following: implementing integrated behavioral treatment models and evidence-based programs like Aggression Replacement Training and interdisciplinary, hands-on, and evidence-based educational programs (i.e. Road to Success Academy); decreasing the staff-to-youth ratio for both Probation Officers and teachers; and moving forward with a probation camp replacement project for Camp Kilpatrick to achieve a small group treatment model. An additional effort to remedy the problems addressed in recent lawsuits and allegations included piloting the CDF Freedom Schools program, which was implemented in two L.A. probation camps in 2013. A brief overview of the CDF Freedom Schools program is provided, with a fuller description of the L.A. County Project. Details: Los Angeles: Children's Defense Fund, California, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2014/report-cdf-freedom-schools.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2014/report-cdf-freedom-schools.pdf Shelf Number: 138321 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study Part II Summary: In 2008, juvenile halls and camps fell under federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice due to inadequate protection from harm and failed to provide adequate suicide prevention and mental health care. In the last Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Los Angeles County Probation Department and the U.S. Department of Justice, Probation was obligated to "support a longitudinal study and develop baseline data tracking systems to assist in the evaluation of systemic outcomes for youth" (see Paragraph 73, #6 External Partnership of this MOA document). This study fulfills this requirement by collecting data for youth cohorts exiting suitable placement and camp in 2015 and comparing results to those reported for the 2011 cohorts in The Los Angeles County Probation Outcomes Study Part I. The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate outcomes for youth within the context of the systems change Probation has been and continues to implement. Moving in this direction improves the ability to assess Probation efforts to improve services and outcomes. In addition to replicating the 2015 study, the current study includes interviews with a sample of youth, their families, and supervising Deputy Probation Officers. The report and executive summary provides an overview of the results and offers recommendations to improve the effectiveness of juvenile justice in Los Angeles County Details: Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/POS%20Part%20ll%20Report%205-10-2017%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/POS%20Part%20ll%20Report%205-10-2017%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 151324 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |
Author: Herz, Denise Title: Camp Kilpatrick AWARE Program Evaluation Study Summary: This study represents an important development in the evolution of the Los Angeles Probation Department. Over the past 10 years, the Department has faced several issues and problems in the camps (Newell & Leap, 2013). While the Department has previously focused on compliance to mandates directed at these problems, this study marks an important advancement in Probation's approach to reform. Rather than taking a reactionary approach to a problem, Probation is driving practice with discussions of "what works" in order to benefit the long-term success of Probation youth, their families, and their communities. The primary hypothesis tested in this study was whether AWARE youth would have better outcomes than Non-AWARE youth. Data were retrieved from the Probation Case Management System (PCMS) for 112 youth who arrived at Camp Kilpatrick and participated in the AWARE Program between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011. A matched group of 112 youth (based on age, race, and risk score at arrival to camp) entering other camps during this time were identified as a Non-AWARE comparison group. In addition to PCMS data, data were extracted from case files for 35 youth (31% of 112) drawn from each of these groups for a total of 70 youth. Both the PCMS data and the case file data provided substantial insight into the experiences of AWARE and Non-AWARE youth 1 year prior to the arrest/petition that led to their placements in Camp Kilpatrick or a different camp (Time 1), at the time of the arrest/petition leading to their placements (Time 2); during their camp placements (Time 3); upon exit from their camp placements (Time 4); and 1 year after exit from camp or when the case terminated-whichever came first (Time 5). Details: Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Los Angeles, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/AWARE%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL%20Revise%201-9-15.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/AWARE%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL%20Revise%201-9-15.pdf Shelf Number: 151326 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationProbation Camps |