Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:49 am
Time: 3:49 am
Results for youth court
3 results foundAuthor: McDowell Group, Inc. Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Anchorage Youth Court Summary: This analysis examines the extent to which the benefits of the Anchorage Youth Court may be quantified and how those benefits compare to the costs of operating the program. It also addresses less quantifiable benefits. The study draws on a review of national literature, analysis of AYC program data, analysis of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) data on juvenile offenses, and interviews with experts on AYC and Alaska juvenile justice. Major Findings The Anchorage Youth Court (AYC) creates a complex set of benefits for participating defendants, youth volunteers, and the larger community. In addition to producing economic benefits significantly in excess of its cost, AYC conducts substantial education and life-skills training, and its structure and processes contribute to social-emotional growth for both defendants and volunteers. The practice of peer justice—with youth volunteers exercising maximum responsibility for, and control over, the court process and sentencing—contributes to AYC’s success. This approach requires more intensive volunteer training and participation than more adult-dominated youth courts typical of many other states. AYC’s one-year re-referral rate (a proxy for recidivism) was 16 percent, while that of a comparison group of juvenile defendants who committed offenses similar to those of youth court participants and received informal probation was 39 percent. A “re-referral” occurs when law enforcement refers a youth to the Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a new offense. 1 The percentage of youths who complete AYC and are subsequently re-referred to DJJ for another offense also compares favorably with re-referral rates for other youth courts as reported in a recent study published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Based on the premise that the AYC and informal-probation comparison groups are fundamentally similar, AYC’s lower re-referral rate means the Anchorage community experienced an average of 40 fewer crimes per year between 2009 and 2012 than it would have if all of AYC’s defendants had simply received informal probation • Each of the 40 crimes averted saved an estimated $3,900 in victim, criminal justice, and law enforcement costs for a total of $156,000 saved annually. • The largest economic benefit of AYC is the value to young offenders of not having a criminal record. The net present value of this additional income over a working lifetime is approximately $116,000 for each defendant who avoids the stigma of a criminal record as a result of his or her AYC experience. The number of AYC defendants who benefit each year in this way is estimated to be between 2 and 4, for a total annual benefit of between $232,000 and $464,000. AYC produces other benefits to the Anchorage community in addition to less crime. In 2013, the quantifiable portion of these benefits was worth an estimated $80,450 and included: • Nearly 3,750 hours of community service by offenders, worth, at minimum wage, approximately $29,000. • 1,470 hours of youth volunteer time to conduct court proceedings, worth an estimated $16,000. • More than 400 hours of legal education worth $21,000 plus another $12,000 in pro-bono legal services donated by adult attorneys and judges for a total of $33,000 in services donated by adult volunteers. • $2,450 in donated classroom facilities. Details: Juneau: McDowell Group, Inc., 2014. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2015 at: http://www.anchorageyouthcourt.org/uploads/MCDOWELL_GROUP_STUDY.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.anchorageyouthcourt.org/uploads/MCDOWELL_GROUP_STUDY.pdf Shelf Number: 136576 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersYouth CourtYouthful Offenders |
Author: Nochajski, Thomas H. Title: Hillside Children's Center: Livingston County Youth Court and Community Services Evaluation Summary: From 2008 to 2010, State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Social Work conducted an evaluation of the Hillside Children's Center - Community Service Livingston County Youth Court (LCYC) program. Analyses focused on the recidivism (readmission) rates of children ages 12-17 who participated in their program. A particular strength of this evaluation is the use of a mixed method design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data elements. Additionally, the ability to integrate research and clinical practice with client outcomes provides an added strength to this evaluation, ultimately building the knowledge base in an effort to more appropriately meet the needs of the children and adolescents that Hillside Children's Center serves. Based on the initial goals and the interest in having enough allotted time to track follow-up recidivism rates, prospective data was not collected for this evaluation. Beginning in the year 2006, participants entered the LCYC and continued receiving services until 2008. Following discharge, the year of 2009 serves as the follow-up period for this evaluation. With a vast amount of rich data, pretest information utilized for this evaluation was collected by Hillside Children's Center which included program participant information. Additionally, information was collected from Livingston County Probation (Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument [YASI] Recidivism information) and Livingston County Department of Social Services (LC-DSS) (Placement information). The qualitative data collection component of this evaluation consisted of either a face-to-face or a telephone interview, and included multiple sources: LCYC participants and their parents, LCYC volunteers and their parents, LC Probation, and Hillside Children's Center staff. Due to constraints based on the relatively low rates of recidivism and placement, the available size of the sample was quite small, which perhaps reduces the power to detect significant differences between the groups, essentially elevating the risk for Type I errors. As a result, information on marginal trends (p<.25) is also presented. Because of limited power and the increased chance of causality related to a random occurrence, evaluators considered nearly all other potential elements or variables that may help improve existing Hillside Children's Center programs, with the understanding that these factors will need to be evaluated further. This information could perhaps point to areas of future investigation, in addition to potentially saving time, effort, and monetary costs associated with future data collection. The current evaluation utilized data from 120 participants, of which 55 were LCYC participants and 65 were Community Service Only (CSO) participants. To increase the accuracy of comparisons and results, the two groups were matched on age and gender. Although evaluators were unable to locate a true control group of juvenile offenders who did not experience LCYC or community services in Livingston County, which is the reason for use of the CSO as the comparison, information was found for comparison groups from various other states that were included in an evaluation of teen courts from 2002. While not ideal, the addition of these comparison groups in this evaluation does provide some useful information concerning recidivism among youth. Lastly, evaluators also considered cost-effectiveness of the LCYC program using recidivism and placement rates as the results or outcomes of interest. For purposes of this executive summary, the Livingston County Youth Court group will be referred to as LCYC, and the Community Services Program Only group will be referred to as CSO. Details: Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo, 2010. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54231470e4b00cb5c6464dc7/t/547d4e82e4b0756a4a5d2c35/1417498242299/Youth+court+evaluation+_1110.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54231470e4b00cb5c6464dc7/t/547d4e82e4b0756a4a5d2c35/1417498242299/Youth+court+evaluation+_1110.pdf Shelf Number: 147547 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity ServicesJuvenile CourtJuvenile DiversionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivismYouth Court |
Author: Powell, Amanda Title: Bringing Gault Home: An Assessment of Access to and Quality of Juvenile Defense Council Summary: The Court outlined the vital role of counsel for children: "to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether (the child) has a defense and to prepare and submit it.:" In short, the Court found that children need "the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against (them).” But, to this day, "though every state has a basic structure to provide attorneys for children, few states or territories adequately satisfy access to counsel for young people." This Assessment of access to counsel and quality of representation for Arizona's youth is part of a nationwide effort to provide comprehensive information about defense counsel in delinquency proceedings. Over the last two decades, the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) has evaluated juvenile defense delivery systems in 24 states. The purpose of a state assessment is to provide policymakers, legislators, defense leadership, and other stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of children's access to counsel in the state; to identify structural and systemic barriers that impede effective representation of children; to highlight best practices where found; and to make recommendations that will serve as a guide for improving juvenile defender services for children in the state. Among the most pressing needs relayed to assessment investigators in Arizona was the need for specialized representation for children. In response to investigators' questions about what could improve juvenile defense, one juvenile defender responded: "What I would like to see, what we don't have, is a specialization. While other states have juvenile specialization, Arizona does not. Arizona has specialization for family law, bankruptcy, and other obscure areas of the law, but not juvenile delinquency. I would like to pursue that if it ever came about." Just as courts have long recognized that children are different from adults and deserve special protections when facing the prospect of prosecution, the legal profession has come to recognize that juvenile defense is a highly specialized area of practice. In many places across the country, "juvenile defense specialization" means there are systems in place to encourage and support attorneys to devote their practice exclusively to the representation of children facing delinquency or criminal prosecution. Where practicable, this is the gold standard. But, even where exclusive practice is not possible, juvenile defense should be recognized as an area of legal practice requiring expertise. As in the defense of an adult, a juvenile defender is charged with presenting the voice of the client and representing their stated interests throughout the case. In order to fulfill this role, a juvenile defender must understand child and adolescent development, be able to evaluate a client's maturity and competency, and be able to communicate effectively not only with young clients, but also with parents and guardians without compromising their ethical duties to the child. Juvenile defenders must become versed in the specialized arguments critical to effective representation in the unique stages of juvenile court, and be informed as to the complexities that arise in mental health and special education settings and how they might impact the course of a delinquency case. Juvenile defenders must also inform the client of all collateral consequences of a delinquency adjudication, and be knowledgeable of community based programs for young people. Although some defenders in Arizona have been able to exclusively practice in juvenile delinquency court, many divide their time between juvenile and adult criminal dockets, or between juvenile delinquency and dependency dockets. Another area of concern is the need for statewide standards of representation of children facing delinquency prosecution. Juvenile defenders in a few jurisdictions reported that they or their offices informally or formally aspire to adhere to the National Juvenile Defense Standards or American Bar Association (ABA) Standards of representing youth in delinquency proceedings, but that there are no statewide standards in place. Many stakeholders - including defenders and judges -mentioned to investigators that Arizona Juvenile Court Rule 40.1 ("Duties and Responsibilities of Appointed Counsel and Guardians Ad Litem") sets forth the ethical and practical duties, as well as minimum training requirements, for attorneys and guardians ad litem who are appointed to represent children in dependency cases. Some suggested the rule should be expanded to include delinquency representation; others explained to investigators the need for a separate, similar rule to codify and clarify the unique role of the juvenile delinquency defender. This Assessment revealed that Arizona has no statutorily required or recommended training guidelines or standards for attorneys representing youth in delinquency proceedings. While investigators found that funds exist for juvenile defender training in some areas of the state, most stakeholders and defenders relayed that more specialized training is needed so that juvenile defenders can better advocate for their clients. In addition to juvenile defenders, many county attorneys and jurists admitted to being "self-taught" in the intricacies of juvenile court, and most believed that juvenile-specific training for all stakeholders would improve the system dramatically. Arizona is a large state geographically, but with only 15 counties, a transformation of the defense system for children is well within reach. With a renewed commitment to implementing the full panoply of rights established by Gault, including the right to the ardent representation by counsel for children, Arizona can realize the guarantees of justice and fairness for its youth. In the state that incubated the Supreme Court's declaration of youth rights in Gault, every young person facing the legal system should be defended by an attorney who thoroughly prepares their defense, aggressively investigates their case, and advocates for their expressed interests through regular motions practice and use of experts. Arizona youth should experience the full protections of due process any time they touch the legal system. The legacy of Gault demands it. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center, 2018. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2018 at: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Arizona-Assessment-NJDC.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Arizona-Assessment-NJDC.pdf Shelf Number: 153533 Keywords: Arizona Juvenile CourtDefense CouncilGaultJuvenile CourtJuvenile DefenseJuvenile JusticeNational Juvenile Defense StandardsPublic DefenderYouth Court |