Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:29 am
Time: 3:29 am
Results for status offenders
16 results foundAuthor: National Center for School Engagement Title: The Story Behind the Numbers: A Qualitative Evaluation of the Houston TX Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program Summary: The Gulfton Truancy Reduction Demonstration Project in Houston, TX, uses two primary methods of reducing truancy. The first is a case management model in which students and families are assigned to a case manager in an effort to identify and address unmet needs that may be impacting school attendance. The case manager attempts to establish a network of community resources to serve families in a variety of areas. Based upon a family’s particular needs, the case manager makes referrals to the appropriate community service agencies. These agencies provide to families of truant youth services such as temporary shelter, food, clothing and physical or mental health assistance. The case management model is used in conjunction with a second method, commonly known as “Knock and Talk,” in which police officers make visits to the homes of students with identified truancy patterns. Officers may issue tickets to the students and/or parents indicating that the student is in violation of state law for mandatory school attendance. Officers attempt to connect with families and engage them in conversation about the kinds of behaviors that lead to truancy and the importance of school attendance. Additionally, the officers attempt to build relationships with the student and families that extend beyond the formal home visit. Officers also make referrals to community agencies or to the case manager if they detect a particular need that may be impacting school attendance. In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of these two methods, focus groups were held with three groups of people: high school and program staff (including police officers), the students receiving the services, and parents of those students. Topics discussed included the experiences with the programs, perceptions of program effectiveness, and opinions about what worked well and what could be improved. People involved with both the case management and the “Knock and Talk” interventions were included in the focus groups. This paper presents a summary of the findings from those data collection processes. Details: Denver, CO: National Center for School Engagement, 2006. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources/TheStoryBehindtheNumbersAQualitativeEvaluationoftheHoustonTXTruancyReductionDemonstrationProgram.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources/TheStoryBehindtheNumbersAQualitativeEvaluationoftheHoustonTXTruancyReductionDemonstrationProgram.pdf Shelf Number: 122005 Keywords: Interagency CooperationSchool DropoutsStatus OffendersTruancy |
Author: National Center for School Engagement Title: Re-Engaging Youth in School: Evaluation of the Truancy Reduction Demonstration Project Summary: The following data reflect all seven demonstration sites in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Truancy Prevention project. These sites are located in Suffolk County, New York; Contra Costa, California: Tacoma and Seattle, Washington; Houston, Texas; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Jacksonville, Florida. The purpose of collecting these data was to identify the intervention population and track truant students’ progress. The first set of tables is the aggregate of these seven sites from the projects inception to July 21, 2006. Following these data are the individual site reports. This report includes the following information: • Students Served • Ethnicity of Students • Grades of Students • Age of Students • Gender of Students • IEP status • Discipline Problems • Involvement with Juvenile Justice • Primary Care Giver • Income Eligibility Status • Students who live in home with only one adult • Students who have no working adult in the home • Average Number of children in the home • Unexcused Absences over Time • Excused Absences over Time • Tardies over Time • Days of In-School Suspensions • Days of Out-of-School Suspensions • Overall Academic Performance (over time). Students Served -- There were 634 students served in the seven demonstration sites from the time of inception through July 2006. Jacksonville served the most students (172). The average amount of students served was 91. Ethnicity -- Across all sites, the ethnicity of students is a relatively good mix of White/Caucasian, Black/African-American and Latino/Hispanic. There are less Asian/Pacific Islanders and almost no representation of Native Americans. Also, a large category consists of “Other” which can include any combination of any ethnicity. This almost equitable mix is a result of where the seven sites are located. The majority of students served in Seattle are White, whereas Tacoma served a larger proportion of African-Americans. In addition, Jacksonville and Suffolk counties served approximately equal numbers of African-American and White students. Houston served a primarily Hispanic population, and Honolulu was mostly “Other”, which in this case was mostly native Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian. Honolulu also served the majority of the Asian/Pacific students across the seven sites. Grade and Age -- Although all grades K-12 are served in the project, the majority of students represented in these data are in the first and ninth grades. Correspondingly, the majority of students served are ages six to seven and thirteen to sixteen. This is largely due to the focus on elementary students in Jacksonville and Honolulu and upper middle and high school in Houston and Seattle. Gender -- In general, girls were served slightly more than boys (52% vs. 48%). Suffolk County served the largest percentage of males (74%) and Houston served the largest percentages of females (60%). Families -- Approximately 70% of truant students’ primary caregivers included mothers. Approximately 15% of case managers said that “both parents” were primary caregivers. Some caseworkers checked “mother” and “father” as separate caregivers; this may indicate that although some parents were not living in the same household, they were sharing parental duties equally. In addition, 36% of students were living with only one adult and approximately 20% had no working adults in the home. The majority of children were eligible for free or reduced lunches. Of the 634 students whose information was entered, only 85 (13%) paid a full price lunch at school. Proportionately, the majority of students who paid full price lunches were in Contra Costa, Suffolk County and Seattle. Although Seattle had the highest proportion of students living with only one adult (49%), Jacksonville had the second highest proportion (42%) and the highest proportion of unemployment. There were an average number of three children living in the home. However, not all children were siblings; in some cases multiple nuclear families were located in a single dwelling. Discipline -- Across the sites, approximately 15% of children had some sort of discipline problem and 13% had already been involved with the juvenile justice system. Sites that served younger students had fewer discipline issues. At the beginning of interventions the range of in-school suspensions (ISS) was much higher than three, six, and nine months following. However, out-of-school suspensions (OSS) did not have a similar pattern; these did not change significantly across time. Nevertheless, the numbers of children who actually had out-of-school suspensions was very low. Academics -- Approximately 19% of students had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The sites that had the majority of these students were from Jacksonville, Tacoma, and Seattle. The lowest proportions of students to have IEPs were in Houston and Honolulu. In addition, across the sites, more students improved in their overall academic achievement compared to those who did not change or whose grades worsened. The exceptions to this were in Jacksonville and Suffolk County which remained the same at Update 2 and 3, and in Tacoma which stayed the same at Update 1. Attendance -- The overarching goal of truancy prevention is obviously to improve attendance and this effort was successful. In general, while excused daily absences did not change appreciably, unexcused daily absences fell dramatically and tardies declined. Period absences did not change linearly and therefore a meaningful trend isn’t apparent. Of the sites that reported enough update data, the most successful sites were Jacksonville and Honolulu. These sites primarily targeted parents because the target student population were elementary students. All sites had less information for students across time. One reason for this may be that students who no longer needed intervention were no longer tracked. Thus, reported improvements may actually be smaller than what actually occurred. For instance, in Tacoma, the site that showed no improvement in unexcused absences, there were 71 total kids entered at intake, only 49 three months later, and only 14 nine months later. It is likely that at least some of the students who were not followed improved their attendance and no longer needed services. This same pattern is true for Contra Costa as well, however, the drop in number of students was only a little more than half nine months later (i.e., 50 at intake to 21, nine months later). Conclusion -- Overall, sites achieved what they intended given that they all worked with at risk families and children. Jacksonville, in particular, was extremely successful given that their population was largely African-American, poor, and had the highest number of unemployed families. They made excellent improvement in attendance and achievement. Because three sites reported on less than 75 students, it is possible that success was greater in these programs than the current data suggest, assuming they served more students than were reported. In general, the elementary-level truancy issues may be easier to deal with because the children are not “deep-end” yet and the parents are the primary focus. Older truants are likely to have more challenges and thus may require more intensive services. Details: Denver, CO: National Center for School Engagement, 2006. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources/Re-EngagingYouthinSchoolEvaluationoftheTruancyDemonstrationProject.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources/Re-EngagingYouthinSchoolEvaluationoftheTruancyDemonstrationProject.pdf Shelf Number: 122005 Keywords: School DropoutsStatus OffendersTruancy |
Author: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Title: Judicial Perspectives on the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders in the United States with Recommendations for Policy and Practice Summary: Juvenile status offenders or non-offenders should be viewed and treated differently by the juvenile justice system. Responses should include a service oriented approach that keeps youth in their community. NCJFCJ is committed to the deinstitutionalization of status offenders and is currently working on a project with the Coalition of Juvenile Justice (CJJ) to develop tools and resources to improve outcomes for youth who may come in contact with the juvenile justice system due to committing a status offence. The project staff has surveyed the juvenile justice field, participated in a Judicial Summit, and developed a technical assistance brief, aimed at highlighting and advancing examples of leadership which focuses on preventing system contact and detention of youth alleged with committing status offences. Details: Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2012. 6p. Source: NCJFCJ Issue Bulletin: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/DSO%20Issues%20Bulletin%202012%20FINAL%20CORRECTED.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/DSO%20Issues%20Bulletin%202012%20FINAL%20CORRECTED.pdf Shelf Number: 126870 Keywords: DeinstitutionalizationJuvenile JusticeStatus Offenders |
Author: Coalition for Juvenile Justice Title: Status Offenses: A National Survey Summary: Status offenses are behaviors that violate the law only because the person engaging in them has not yet reached the age of majority. Common examples of these behaviors include running away from home and skipping school. Each year, thousands of children enter the juvenile justice system for these types of behaviors. In 2011 alone, for example, an estimated 116,200 status offense cases were petitioned to juvenile courts nationwide, with 8,800 of these cases involving secure detention. Currently, status offense laws vary greatly from state to state, with a broad range of terminology and definitions governing the issue. Similarly, diversion programs and practices, as well as sanctions following disposition of a case, differ significantly among the states. This brief examines existing status offense laws across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It details the legislative label that each state applies to status offense behaviors, the types of behaviors that fall within that label, diversion options that are available in the case, possible outcomes following adjudication, and whether the state uses the valid court order (VCO) exception or a 24-hour hold for youth who are detained for status offense behaviors. This brief may be used by judges, advocates, and legislators to assess national trends and gather ideas for system reform. This brief was created as part of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ)s Safety, Opportunity and Success (SOS): Standards of Care for Non-Delinquent Youth project. It should be used in conjunction with CJJs National Standards for the Care of Youth Charged with Status Offenses (the National Standards), and the related Model Policy Guide. Details: Washington, DC: The Coalition, 2015. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/Status%20Offenses%20-%20A%20National%20Survey%20-FINAL%20-%20WEB.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/Status%20Offenses%20-%20A%20National%20Survey%20-FINAL%20-%20WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 135231 Keywords: Status OffendersStatus Offenses |
Author: Heilbrunn, Joanna Zorn Title: The Costs and Benefits of Three Intensive Interventions with Colorado Truants Summary: In recent years, truancy has become a focus of policy discussions across the country. School districts, juvenile court, and police departments across the map are trying new methods to keep children in school1. There are several good reasons for this. At a minimum, a truant child is likely to be ill-prepared for skilled work, an increasingly serious problem given the shrinking demand for unskilled labor in the United States. One undereducated individual has a personal problem, but when urban areas are home to large numbers of residents who lack a high school diploma, the problem becomes both social and economic. On one hand, the business community has been vocal about the difficulty of finding an adequately trained workforce. On the other hand, United States residents who are unable to earn an adequate living look to various welfare programs for help, such as income assistance (TANF), Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These programs are funded by taxpayers, many of whom are reluctant contributors. Furthermore, research has consistently shown problems with school to be a risk factor for drug and alcohol use and for involvement with the juvenile justice system. Although it would be inaccurate and unfair to characterize all, or even most, truants as delinquents, it is quite accurate to recognize that a majority of criminals begin their careers of social deviance with truancy. Truancy is a red flag that may signal any of a number of problems in a child's home, ranging from poverty, to mental health, to physical abuse. And it warns of a child who is undaunted by breaking the social convention of school attendance, and who has time on his or her hands. Such a youth may be ripe for induction into criminal or self-destructive activity. Despite the new trend toward truancy reduction, and the general belief that truancy is a precursor to other more serious problems, little research has been done regarding the effectiveness of truancy reduction approaches, or their relative costs and benefits. Most published information to date tends to be more descriptive than analytical. This paper begins to fill that gap by reporting the costs and the estimated benefits of three truancy reduction programs in Colorado: The Adams County Truancy Reduction Project, the Denver Truancy Reduction Demonstration Project, and Pueblo's Project Respect. These three programs are of interest both for the diversity and the similarity of their approaches. All three treat truancy as a family problem, and rely on intensive case management intervention with the family. All try to be advocates for the families, and build upon the families' strengths, rather than take a punitive approach. All make frequent use of referrals to outside agencies, such as health clinics or drug and alcohol rehabilitation providers, and they make communication with these service providers part of their regular process. Yet they differ markedly in terms of their budget, scope, and where they fall in the larger picture of school, district, and court policy. The Adams County project is court-initiated. It is available to all the school districts in the county as an alternative to the regular court system; some of the districts choose to use the program, and some do not. The Denver project is run by the Community Assessment Center, and is an add-on to a much larger district-run truancy reduction effort. Both these interventions follow several levels of school and district-sponsored efforts, and come as a last resort before initiating court proceedings. The Pueblo project is wide-scale, with a large budget, and is active in every Title One school in Pueblo's urban school district. This project is school-based, and constitutes the universe of intervention efforts made prior to a court appearance. The Denver program focuses on middle school students, while the other programs are available to children of all grade levels. A thorough description of each of these programs may be found in Appendices A through C at the end of this report. This paper shows that the costs of each of the three truancy reduction projects, and each of the three court systems, pale in comparison to the enormous costs of high school failure and of juvenile delinquency. In light of the benefits of high school graduation, all the approaches to truancy reduction reviewed here likely pay for themselves many times over. Neither the court approach nor the case management models are shown to be demonstrably better than the other. It is most likely that the best model includes a court system that works in conjunction with social workers and school districts to provide a coherent and consistent approach to truancy in which children are not allowed to slip through the cracks. Details: Denver, CO: National Center for School Engagement, 2003. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.453&rep=rep1&type=pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.453&rep=rep1&type=pdf Shelf Number: 130048 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionFamily InterventionsSchool AttendanceStatus OffendersTruancyTruants |
Author: Children's Society Title: Here to Listen? Return interviews provision for young runaways Summary: Running away or going missing from home or care indicates that a child may be at risk of harm. Our research shows that running away is often preceded by conflict with parents or carers; family breakdown or poor relationships; experiences of abuse and neglect; or problems at school1. There is also a risk of child sexual exploitation or involvement in crime or gangs, either as a consequence of, or a reason for, a child running away. This is why it is important that a child is offered support as early as possible to protect them from harm and to prevent the risks from escalating further. For that reason the statutory guidance for children who run away or go missing from home or care requires that local authorities provide return interviews to young runaways. A return interview is an in-depth conversation that a trained professional has with a young person following a running away episode. It aims to establish what has caused the young person to run away, what experiences and individuals the young person encountered while away and what could help resolve the issues that the child identifies. Our direct work with children who run away or go missing shows that a return interview is an effective way of identifying children at risk of significant harm. It helps reduce, and even prevent, further episodes of running away by helping children understand the risks of being away from their families and carers. It can also help disrupt sexual exploitation or abuse and provide evidence for prosecution. Although provision of return interviews for young runaways is a requirement under the statutory guidance and there are examples of good practice, evidence shows that their provision remains inconsistent and patchy across local areas. As no standardised reporting or monitoring of return interview provision currently takes place, in December 2012 we sent Freedom of Information requests (FOI) to local authorities to establish the current level of provision for children who run away or go missing from home and from care. Out of 152 local authorities in England, 134 responded to the FOI and this report contains our analysis of these responses. Details: London: The Children's Society, 2013. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/here_to_listen_report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/here_to_listen_report.pdf Shelf Number: 129818 Keywords: Missing Persons Runaways Status Offenders |
Author: Children's Society Title: Make Runaways Safe: The local picture Summary: Every year 100,000 children and young people go missing from home or care. Going missing is a key indicator that a child might be in great danger. When children go missing, they are at very serious risk of physical abuse, sexual exploitation and are sometimes desperate enough to rob or steal to survive. Recent cases in Rochdale and Derby have exposed how the lack of concerted efforts to protect children and identify predatory individuals early on allows abuse to continue for a long time. Children involved in these horrific cases had repeated incidents of missing for a number of hours or overnight. Many children who run away do not seek help, either because they are not aware of the help available or because they do not trust professionals and are worried about the consequences of disclosing information about what is happening in their lives. Therefore, it falls to local police and children's services to ensure the safety of children who have run away and to help ensure that they do not run away in the future. Following the launch of our Make Runaway Safe campaign, we wanted to establish how children who go missing are supported in their local areas and also identify any improvements needed to ensure they are provided with an adequate safety net. As no standardised reporting or monitoring of responses to children who run away from home or care currently takes place in the local area, we undertook a series of Freedom of Information requests (FOI) to police constabularies, local authorities and Local Safeguarding Children's Boards (LSCBs) to establish the national picture of local responses. In this report, we set out the responses we received to our requests about the services and protocols in place to keep these children safe. These responses revealed that the support available to children who go missing or run away varies greatly between local areas. Details: London: The Children's Society, 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/make_runaways_safe_-_the_local_picture.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/make_runaways_safe_-_the_local_picture.pdf Shelf Number: 136798 Keywords: Missing ChildrenRunawaysStatus Offenders |
Author: Children's Society Title: Make Runaways Safe: Launch Report Summary: Every five minutes a child runs away from home or care in this country. Even more shocking is that a quarter of them, that is 70 each day, are forced out of their homes by parents or carers. These children will often take great risks on the streets and many of them will be harmed or abused while they are away from home. This is the reality for many of the 100,000 children who run away over night each year1. Yet in most cases children who run away do not get the help they need. Two thirds are not reported to the police. Eight out of ten do not seek help from anybody because they do not know where to turn or feel there is no one they can trust. Our projects say that they are now working with younger runaways than ever before. The usual ages have been 13 and 14 but we are increasingly supporting children aged 11 and 12 years old. We are also working with a greater number of boys. Our projects are working with more young runaways who are at serious risk of, or already involved in sexual exploitation. Children are being actively targeted by adults in public places and also increasingly by their peers. The use of mobile phones and social networking sites has made it easier to target vulnerable children. Details: London: The Children's Society, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/make_runaways_safe_report.pdf Year: 136799 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/make_runaways_safe_report.pdf Shelf Number: 2011 Keywords: Missing Children Runaways Status Offenders |
Author: Williams, Natalie Title: Lessons to learn: Exploring the links between running away and absence from school Summary: Every year, 100,000 children run away from home or care in the UK. They often run from serious problems at home such as family breakdown, abuse, neglect or problems at school such as bullying or unmet special educational needs. When children run away they are at risk of physical abuse, sexual exploitation or being forced to resort to highly dangerous survival strategies such as stealing or begging to survive. Our research shows that children who run away are three times more likely to be absent from school. Children spend more time at school than anywhere else. It is crucial that school and education professionals are able to recognise running away as a cry for help. This report explores the link between problems at school, including absences and exclusions, and running away. It makes a series of recommendations about how young people at risk should be supported and how professionals can better meet their needs. Key messages - Children who are absent from school are more than three times as likely to have run away. - Young people usually run away because of problems at home or school. Others may run away because they are being sexually exploited or become involved in crime. - Schools professionals need to have a better understanding of the risks faced by children when they run away and the warning signs that they may be running away. - Schools and local authorities must ensure that absences are correctly recorded and analyse data for patterns of running away. - Schools should ensure they initiate an assessment of need when a young person is running away or is persistently absent from school. - Schools need to have access to multi-agency teams that can intervene early and provide holistic support to young people who run away and their parents. Details: London: The Children's Society, 2012. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/lessons-to-learn_final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/lessons-to-learn_final.pdf Shelf Number: 136810 Keywords: RunawaysSchool AttendanceStatus OffendersTruancy |
Author: Finlay, Krystina A. Title: Final Evaluation Report: Gulfton Truancy Reduction Demonstration Project, Houston, TX Summary: This report details the evaluation outcomes of two components of the Gulfton Truancy Reduction Demonstration Project: police visits to the homes of truant students and case management for truants. The goals of this portion of the evaluation were to 1) assess the effectiveness of these two components in reducing absences and improving grades, 2) assess the effectiveness of case management in improving school engagement, 3) to a lesser extent examine the relationship between grades and attendance in general, and 4) compare the costs and benefits of case management. The majority of data for this report came from 2004-2005 school year records, student and parent surveys, and police records. The Gulfton area, and specifically the target high school, Lee, is primarily Hispanic. More than 70% of Gulfton students have limited English proficiency, compared with 27.6% in Houston Independent School District and 13.4% statewide. A large part of the community is made up of Mexican immigrants. In addition, Gulfton's median family income of $18,733 is nearly 30% below the city's median. In the 97-98 school year, 75% of Gulfton students were eligible for free/reduced lunch. Two main components of the truancy reduction effort in Houston were examined. The first, the practice of police visiting a truant students' home, was found to be effective in improving attendance, especially within the two weeks immediately following the visit. Long term effectiveness was not established, although it is possible that for some students this practice has a long term effect. Students who received these visits typically missed school for a variety of reasons. For instance, 40% percent of students reported being new to the school, and thus may have had difficulty with the enrollment process or simply getting into the routine necessary for daily attendance. Sixty-five percent said they were failing classes and 58% said they had difficulty understanding homework and assignments. In addition, 71% said they needed academic help. Most often, officers referred students to academic tutoring and did not issue tickets for truancy. Case management services were not effective for the majority of students. The current study found that case management was primarily targeted at students who were most at-risk. Truants receiving case management were compared to truants not receiving case management to explore the effectiveness of case management. Findings suggested that truants who did not receive case management were not struggling as much as those receiving services. In general, attendance, grades and school engagement were worse for truants receiving case management than for truants who were not given the services. Nevertheless, it was found that case management did not improve attendance nor did it improve grades or school engagement for the group as a whole. However, this is not to say that case management was ineffective for every single student. The effect of improving just one student's attendance and grades resulted in an estimated return of investment of over $4.00 for every $1.00 spent in providing case management. This fact is reason enough to continue the Houston Truancy Reduction case management efforts. Given that home visits from police are successful in improving short-term attendance, it is recommended that follow-up with the student occur within two weeks of the visit. Academic tutoring and other activities to increase school engagement should be provided immediately to ensure long term success. In general, case management may be more successful for truants if provided earlier in their school careers. Achievement levels were very low for the students involved in case management. Reaching these students before school failure is eminent would likely improve the outcomes of services. Details: Denver, CO: Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, 2006. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2015 at: http://schoolengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FinalEvaluationReportGulftonTruancyReductionDemonstrationProjectHoustonTX.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://schoolengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FinalEvaluationReportGulftonTruancyReductionDemonstrationProjectHoustonTX.pdf Shelf Number: 136886 Keywords: At-Risk YouthSchool AttendanceStatus OffendersTruancyTruants |
Author: National Center for School Engagement Title: Innovations in Truancy Prevention Practice: An Inventory of Selected Collaborations from around the United States Summary: In June 2004, The National Center for School Engagement (NCSE) was commissioned by the National Truancy Prevention Association (NTPA) to examine truancy programs nationwide1. The purpose of doing this research was to inform NTPA about best practices in court-based truancy reduction programs, identify truancy efforts that are currently in existence nationwide, and determine training needs for truancy programs. To do this, NCSE completed three phases of work which included creating and marketing an online database of truancy programs, completing in-depth programmatic exploration of court involved truancy efforts, and dissemination of results. The first phase of the NTPA project began with the development of an online database to capture information about truancy programs across the country and to aid in the identification of court involved truancy programs. NCSE actively marketed the online registration system, which appeared on the NCSE website at www.truancyprevention.org (currently named www.schoolengagement.org). As of March 20, 2005, 65 programs/projects were registered. Fifty-four percent (35) of the programs in the registry provide direct services to truants. Sixty-two of the 65 programs reported taking a family-wide approach to serving their clients. The three most common barriers these programs reported are poor parental involvement and communication, difficulties collaborating with schools and school staff, and funding and budget concerns. One-third of the programs in the registry receive funding through a combination of sources and 22% receive federal grants. The second phase was to gain an in-depth look into court-based truancy programs. To do this NCSE conducted 12 interviews with judges and staff of selected promising programs that were specifically court involved. The goals of these interviews were to obtain more detailed information of court-based programs, identify challenges they face, ascertain effective practices, and find out whom the programs serve. These programs serve truant youth in a variety of ways. However, seven of the 12 programs included in this study are similar in that the main practice is to identify truant youth who are typically not delinquent and hold weekly truancy courts with Judges at the students' schools. These programs are similar in many ways and are discussed as a group called "Truancy Court Programs". Each program addresses truancy in a unique way, but all attempt to identify and help meet the needs of the family as a whole, rather than just the student. The judges and program staff often perform similar roles. For instance, the judges and other court personnel in NE, GA, and both programs in WI primarily provide referrals to the program, participate in collaboration and are seen as partners, but do not necessarily lead the program. The judges in the "Truancy Court Programs" are more often seen as leaders of the program, are active weekly participants, act as catalysts for change, and coordinate the program. In all programs, collaboration with entities outside of the courts exists. Partners vary widely, but often include the schools, superintendents, law enforcement, and social and community services. Identifying best practices is difficult because most court-based truancy reduction efforts have neither time nor staff to engage in formal external evaluation. In fact, funding and evaluation needs, in addition to program development and stakeholder buy in, were the most common challenges identified by these programs. Regardless of the lack of formal evaluation, many programs do have access to attendance and court records, and some track these as indicators of success. The majority report improved attendance since the programs' inceptions, and all have anecdotal data about individual students' successes. Best practices were identified mainly through what the interviewees have experienced to have worked. Details: National Center for School Engagement, 2005. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://schoolengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/InnovationsinTruancyPreventionPracticeAnInventoryofSelectedCollaborationsfromaroundtheUnitedStates.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://schoolengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/InnovationsinTruancyPreventionPracticeAnInventoryofSelectedCollaborationsfromaroundtheUnitedStates.pdf Shelf Number: 136973 Keywords: At-Risk YouthDelinquency PreventionProblem-Solving CourtsSchool AttendanceStatus OffendersTruancy |
Author: Fernandes-Alcantara, Adrienne L. Title: Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs Summary: This report discusses runaway and homeless youth, and the federal response to support this population. There is no single definition of the terms "runaway youth" or "homeless youth." However, both groups of youth share the risk of not having adequate shelter and other provisions, and may engage in harmful behaviors while away from a permanent home. These two groups also include "thrownaway" youth who are asked to leave their homes, and may include other vulnerable youth populations, such as current and former foster youth and youth with mental health or other issues. The term "unaccompanied youth" encompasses both runaways and homeless youth, and is used in national data counts of the population. Youth most often cite family conflict as the major reason for their homelessness or episodes of running away. A youth's sexual orientation, sexual activity, pregnancy, school problems, and alcohol and drug use are strong predictors of family discord. The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their residential mobility and overlap among the populations. Determining the number of these youth is further complicated by the lack of a standardized methodology for counting the population and inconsistent definitions of what it means to be homeless or a runaway. Estimates of the homeless youth exceed 1 million. Estimates of runaway youth - including "thrownaway" youth (youth asked or forced to leave their homes)are between 1 million and 1.7 million in a given year. From the early 20th century through the 1960s, the needs of runaway and homeless youth were handled locally through the child welfare agency, juvenile justice courts, or both. The 1970s marked a shift toward federal oversight of programs that help youth who had run afoul of the law, including those who committed status offenses (i.e., running away). Congress passed the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 93-415) to assist runaways through services specifically for this population. The federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP) has since been expanded through reauthorization laws enacted approximately every five years since the 1970s, most recently by the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 110-378) in 2008. Funding authorization expired in FY2013, and Congress has continued to appropriate funding for the act: $119.1 million was appropriated for FY2016. The Runaway and Homeless Youth program is made up of three components: the Basic Center Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP). The Basic Center Program provides temporary shelter, counseling, and after care services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 and their families. The BCP has served approximately 31,000 to 36,000 annually in recent years. The Transitional Living Program is targeted to older youth ages 16 through 22 (and sometimes an older age), and has served approximately 3,000 to 3,500 youth annually in recent years. Youth who use the TLP receive longer-term housing with supportive services. The SOP provides education, treatment, counseling, and referrals for runaway, homeless, and street youth who have been subjected to or are at risk of being subjected to sexual abuse, sex exploitation, and trafficking. Each year, the SOP makes hundreds of thousands of contacts with street youth (some of whom have multiple contacts). Related services authorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act include a national communication system to facilitate communication between service providers, runaway youth, and their families; training and technical support for grantees; and evaluations of the programs, among other activities. The 2008 reauthorizing legislation expanded the program, requiring HHS to conduct an incidence and prevalence study of runaway and homeless youth. To date, this study has not been conducted; however, efforts are underway among multiple federal agencies to collect better information on these youth as part of a larger strategy to end youth homelessness by 2020. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: CRS Report RL33785: Accessed September 26, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33785.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33785.pdf Shelf Number: 146141 Keywords: Homeless PersonsHomeless YouthHomelessnessRunawaysStatus Offenders |
Author: Texas Appleseed Title: Young, Alone, and Homeless in the Lone Star State: Policy Solutions to End Youth Homelessness in Texas Summary: Texas Appleseed became interested in systemic problems that fuel youth homelessness as a result of its work on other child- and youth-focused projects. We frequently saw children and young people whose juvenile justice involvement or problems at school were the result of homelessness or housing instability. We met former foster youth who reported that they were inadequately prepared for adulthood when they aged out and, consequently, ended up on the streets for some period of time. And our fair housing work has revealed to us the difficulties that communities and families across the state struggle with caused by the lack of affordable and safe housing. Our interest led to a partnership with the Texas Network of Youth Services (TNOYS), an organization that also has a long history of advocating for young people in Texas. Their membership of service providers and partnership with the state on Youth Count Texas!, a statewide look at youth homelessness mandated by the 84th Texas Legislature, make them experts in the issue. In the summer of 2016, Texas Appleseed and TNOYS began our research for this report, assisted by pro bono partners Vinson & Elkins LLP. Our research included: - Over 100 interviews with young people who had experienced or were experiencing homelessness in Texas. - More than 50 interviews conducted by Vinson & Elkins' team of pro bono volunteers with school homeless liaisons, juvenile justice stakeholders, members of law enforcement, foster care stakeholders, and service providers. - Data requests to Texas agencies that serve youth or touch on issues related to youth homelessness. - Research around existing programs and best practices. What we discovered over the course of this research is that the issue of youth homelessness is one that is called by different names depending on the system the youth touches. If a Texas youth is on the street, is picked up by law enforcement, and is under the age of 17, she is a "runaway," a status offender who is referred to the juvenile justice system for rehabilitation. If the youth instead appears in a shelter and the shelter contacts the child welfare system, she may be deemed a victim of abuse or neglect and placed in the foster care system for protection. Thus the same youth, depending on which system she encounters first, is either a victim or an offender. If a young person is not living on the street but is "doubled up" and living with friends or relatives, whether or not she is deemed homeless depends on which system of services she tries to access. Her school would count her as homeless, entitling her to educational services and protections, but the community organization her school might refer her to for services may not, making her ineligible for their help. The same youth is in one setting "homeless" and in another is not. This is perhaps one of the clearest findings from the hours of interviews, data analysis, and exhaustive research flowing from this report: A disjointed policy and funding approach to youth who are without a home results in disjointed services. Reducing or resolving the issue of youth homelessness and improving outcomes for young people is going to require a cohesive approach that brings all child-serving systems together to provide a full continuum of services. Finding solutions is critical. Research shows that young people who encounter homelessness are at high risk of poor outcomes, including: - Educational failure. Youth experiencing homelessness are more likely to be retained a grade or drop out altogether. - Juvenile or criminal justice contact. Criminalization of homelessness and survival behavior may lead to justice system contact, which heightens the risk for ongoing homelessness. - Victimization. Youth experiencing homelessness are at high risk for becoming victims of crime, including human trafficking. - Health and mental health problems. The goal of this report is to identify multi-system policy solutions that could prevent youth homelessness or provide better interventions to ensure youth who encounter homelessness get back on their feet quickly. We hope to shed light on what C.F. asked us to consider: how policymakers and stakeholders, understanding the reality that homelessness could happen to any one of us, can better open ourselves to compassionate, caring responses that are not only better for young people but better for our communities as a whole. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Appleseed and Texas Network of Youth Services, 2017. 186p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 17, 2017 at: https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/YoungAloneHomeless_FullReport_fin.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/YoungAloneHomeless_FullReport_fin.pdf Shelf Number: 148501 Keywords: At-Risk YouthHomeless PersonsHomelessnessRunawaysStatus Offenders |
Author: Dedel, Kelly Title: Juvenile Runaways Summary: This guide begins by describing the problem of juvenile runaways and reviewing its risk factors. It then identifies a series of questions to help you analyze your local juvenile runaway problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem and what is known about them from evaluative research and police practice. Juveniles run away from home and from substitute care placements, such as foster care or group homes. Most juveniles decide to leave on their own or choose not to return when expected, but in some cases, their parents or guardians tell them to leave or do not allow them to return. The term "runaway" typically refers to juveniles who are absent from home or care without permission. The term "thrownaway" refers to juveniles who have been forced to leave their homes by a parent or guardian. Recognizing that the distinction between these statuses is blurred, this guide uses the term "runaway" to refer to both situations. The phrase "missing children" often includes runaway and thrownaway juveniles, along with juveniles who have been abducted by a non-custodial parent or stranger. This latter group of juveniles is not discussed in this guide. A runaway episode refers to an overnight stay away from home, except in the case of young children who can be in danger after a much shorter time. Runaways were once believed to be juveniles seeking adventure or rebelling against mainstream values and the authority of their parents; more recently, runaways have been regarded as victims of dysfunctional families, schools, and social service institutions. Estimating the number of juveniles who run away is difficult because researchers do not agree on the definition of running away; juveniles tend to hide their runaway status when talking to adult authority figures; and many runaways do not access services and, therefore, are not included in service utilization data. These difficulties notwithstanding, there were approximately 1.7 million juvenile runaway episodes in 1999. Only about one-third of these juveniles were actually missing, meaning that their parents or caretakers did not know where they were and were concerned about their absence. Only about one-fifth of all runaway episodes were reported to police. Some parents do not report runaway episodes to police because they know where their children are or because they do not think the police are needed to resolve the issue. Others do not report runaway episodes because they want to avoid police involvement or because they had a negative experience when reporting a previous runaway episode to police. Most runaways are older teenagers, ages 15 to 17, with only about one-quarter ages 14 and younger.[ Juveniles of different races run away at about the same rates and boys and girls run away in equal proportions. Although juveniles from all socioeconomic statuses run away, the majority are from working-class and lower-income homes, possibly because of the additional family stress created by a lack of income and resources. Blended families also experience additional stress, which may explain why juveniles living in these settings are also more likely to run away. Runaway rates are similar for juveniles in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Runaways have higher rates of depression, physical and sexual abuse, alcohol and drug problems, delinquency, school problems, and difficulties with peers than juveniles who do not run away. Many runaways have been exposed to high levels of violence, either as victims or as witnesses. Juveniles in substitute care (e.g., foster care, group homes) are more likely to run away than juveniles who live at home with a parent or guardian. The chances of juveniles in care running away are highest in the first few months after placement, and older juveniles are more likely to run away than younger juveniles. Juveniles who run away from substitute care are more likely to run away repeatedly than juveniles who run away from home. Although they are only a small proportion of the total number of runaways, those who run away from care consume a disproportionate amount of police time and effort. Those who run away from care also tend to stay away longer and travel farther away than those who run away from home. Police encounter runaways, whether reported missing or not, through a number of activities: while patrolling areas where runaways congregate, while investigating missing persons reports, or during criminal investigations in which juveniles were either perpetrators or victims. In 1999, 150,700 juveniles were arrested for running away, less than 10 percent of all runaways that year. Runaways are also arrested and charged with prostitution, curfew violations, truancy, and drug and alcohol offenses. Police have wide discretion in handling runaway cases depending on whether the children were reported missing, the level of parental or caretaker concern, and the seriousness of the risks the juveniles are believed to face. Very few runaways are homeless and living on the street. Most stay in relative safety at a friend or family members home. However, some runaways lack safe living arrangements and stay on the street, in the company of a predatory adult, or in another situation lacking responsible adult supervision. Police and policy makers are most concerned about this group of juveniles, commonly referred to as street kids, because of the potential for victimization and criminal activity. The problem of juvenile runaways is particularly complex because it suggests other social problems, such as family dysfunction and child abuse. As a result, police will be able to affect only a segment of the problem directly. Although many things can be done to address the underlying causes of the problem, police are primarily concerned about reducing the harm that comes to or is caused by runaways when they are absent from home or care. For example, some runaways are involved in criminal activity, either as victims or perpetrators; exploited by predatory adults; and engaged in risky behaviors such as drug use and unsafe sexual activity. Despite their interest in protecting childrens safety, police often assign a low priority to runaway cases for a number of reasons: Few jurisdictions have appropriate facilities for placement once runaways are taken into police custody. Processing paperwork and transporting juveniles consume significant amounts of time. Most police have competing demands from more serious public safety threats. Some police believe parents and substitute care providers want police to act as disciplinarians or security guards. Runaway cases can be frustrating when juveniles do not want to return or parents do not want the juveniles to return. Juveniles often run away again shortly after police return them home. Running away is a status offense; consequently, juveniles can be held in secure facilities only in limited situations. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 made it illegal to hold status offenders in secure facilities. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), reauthorized in 1992, created alternatives to the juvenile justice system by funding community-based organizations to provide services to runaways including outreach, counseling, shelters, aftercare, and referrals to social services. The RHYA also includes the Transitional Living Program, which provides services for homeless juveniles ages 16 to 21 to increase independent living skills. Unfortunately, the resources available to this population generally amount to a collection of loosely affiliated services and shelters of varied quality and quantity. As a result, police often have limited options for responding to runaways and ensuring their safety. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2006. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 37 Accessed February 22, 2018 at: https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/pop/e12051223.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/pop/e12051223.pdf Shelf Number: 100593 Keywords: Homeless Youth Juvenile Runaways Runaway Youth Status Offenders |
Author: Jeanis, Michelle N. Title: Chronic Runaway Youth: A Gender-Based Analysis Summary: Runaway youth often face a multitude of negative experiences during their childhood, which often leads to trajectories of psychological disorder/distress, victimization, and offending. This propensity for negative life trajectories may be exacerbated by repetitive runaway behavior. Additionally, these negatives experiences may be further shaped by the gender of the youth, thus creating distinct gendered pathways to chronic runaway behavior, victimization, and offending. This study utilized a sample of youth runaways in the state of Florida (N=295) to build upon the classification/typology research on juvenile runaways by assessing the presence of latent groups of youth based on runaway frequency. In addition, this study utilized classical and modern criminology theories to influence the assessment of the relationship between known runaway risk factors and chronic runaway status. Group-based trajectory modeling was performed and two distinct groups of youth runaways were identified for both full and gender-exclusive models. Chronic runaway analyses indicated both unique and similar gender-based relationships between chronic runaway status and relevant risk factors, suggesting partial support for a gender specific theoretical perspective. Results provide additional insight into youth runaway behavior while also suggesting the need for further exploration of chronic runaway status within the youth runaway population. Details: Tampa: University of South Florida, 2017. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 28, 2018 at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6868/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6868/ Shelf Number: 149288 Keywords: Juvenile Runaways Runaways Status Offenders |
Author: Hockenberry, Sarah Title: Juvenile Court Statistics: 2015 Summary: Juvenile Court Statistics 2015 draws on data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive (Archive) to profile 884,900 delinquency cases and 100,000 petitioned status offense cases handled in 2015 by U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction. The report also tracks trends in delinquency and petitioned status cases between 2005 and 2015. The data used in this report were contributed to the Archive by nearly 2,500 courts with jurisdiction over 86% of the juvenile population in 2015. Details: Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2018. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2018 at: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/jcs2015report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/jcs2015report.pdf Shelf Number: 150514 Keywords: Juvenile Court Juvenile Offenders Status Offenders |