Search results

The current study examines the prevalence, perceived effectiveness, and potential antecedents (e.g. departmental culture) of law enforcement agencies in collaborating with probation and parole agencies. Specifically, the study reveals how the leaders (i.e. police chief, sheriff) in law enforcement view police-community corrections partnerships.

Data were collected from a state-wide survey of all sheriffs’ offices and a random sample of municipal police departments in Texas.

Findings indicated information sharing and specialized enforcement partnerships were the most common partnership types, partnerships were more common with adult and juvenile probation than with adult parole, and partnerships remain predominantly informal. Finally, police chiefs/sheriffs in the departments with a culture supportive of offender reentry were more likely to support and engage in partnerships with adult/juvenile probation and adult parole agencies.

Even without formal programs, it seems that police-probation/parole partnerships are, in one form or another, practically inevitable. The positive evaluation of law enforcement personnel leaves room for hope for expansions of such partnerships in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to make evidence-based recommendations for improving the responses of criminal justice agencies to juvenile burglary offenders.

The paper first analyzes what is known about factors relevant to young offenders’ initiation into burglary and subsequent persistence in that offense. It then evaluates research regarding juvenile justice interventions that can mitigate those factors in order to prevent youth from becoming involved in burglary or to encourage desistance in juvenile burglars.

Effective early intervention with juvenile burglars is vital, as burglars often begin committing this crime in their early teens and quickly develop expertise in the offense. Evidence supports the importance of positive mentoring, substance abuse programs, some forms of restorative justice and multi-modal interventions with education and employment components, while waiving these youth to adult court appears to offer little benefit over less punitive approaches.

This work delivers an original contribution by providing an analysis of existing burglary and juvenile justice research that may be useful to policymakers, law enforcement and other justice practitioners.

Alternative education settings (AES; i.e., self-contained alternative schools, therapeutic day treatment and residential schools, and juvenile corrections schools) serve youth with complicated and often serious academic and behavioral needs. The use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and practices with Best Available Evidence are necessary to increase the likelihood of long-term success for these youth. In this chapter, we define three primary categories of AES and review what we know about the characteristics of youth in these schools. Next, we discuss the current emphasis on identifying and implementing EBPs with regard to both academic interventions (i.e., reading and mathematics) and interventions addressing student behavior. In particular, we consider implementation in AES, where there are often high percentages of youth requiring special education services and who have a significant need for EBPs to succeed academically, behaviorally, and in their transition to adulthood. We focus our discussion on: (a) examining approaches to identifying EBPs; (b) providing a brief review of EBPs and Best Available Evidence in the areas of mathematics, reading, and interventions addressing student behavior for youth in AES; (c) delineating key implementation challenges in AES; and (d) providing recommendations for how to facilitate the use of EBPs in AES.

Library service to youth in detention faces many challenges and difficulties. Results of an exploratory study suggest that cooperation among libraries and other service agencies within juvenile correctional facilities is associated with effective library service on many levels. Using definitions of cooperation and collaboration compiled from the library and information science, public administration, and social services fields, the author draws evidence from interviews with librarians in the field that helps define the nature of cooperative aspects of library services in detention. Information uncovered in this study highlights areas where cooperation appears to influence the effectiveness of libraries, such as (1) working with complex administrative policies and structures for housing, educating, and treating youth, (2) understanding the various roles of corrections staff and in communicating with them, (3) sorting out differences in expectations and understanding of basic library purpose, and (4) integrating library services into educational and other programs.

In this chapter, I examine the juvenile justice system and incarceration practices in Turkey. The study focuses on the basic agents and the legislation of the juvenile justice system and the current status of juvenile incarceration. This study also reveals the problems of the functionality of the system. I conclude with policy recommendations for successful implementation of the juvenile justice system and prevention of recidivism.

I discuss concepts in the juvenile justice system of Turkey and highlight the function and problems of each agent of the system. I focus on problems of the juvenile justice system and its reflection on high rates of recidivism of juveniles.

Overall, the leniency of the juvenile justice system is associated with high rates of juvenile recidivism in Turkey. Infrastructure insufficiencies have limited the standardization of services and practices. The delayed response and perceived leniency of the justice system promoted juveniles’ continuation on a crime trajectory.

Few scholars have examined the functionality of the juvenile justice system, its problems, and its reflection on high rates of juvenile recidivism in the Turkish case.

Youth in juvenile corrections settings have significant academic, behavioral, and mental health needs. Additionally, a disproportionate percentage of them are identified with a diagnosed disability, with Emotional Disturbance (ED) as the most common diagnosis. Despite these facts, appropriate education and intensive mental health care is often lacking in these settings. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that some facilities use methods such as disciplinary confinement as a response to behavioral infractions; a practice that is not only counterproductive to rehabilitation, but violates federal education law and established legal standards. This study examined the use of disciplinary confinement in a juvenile justice system and investigated factors associated with frequency of this practice and time spent in disciplinary confinement. Participants were 2,353 youth with and without identified disabilities at state-run juvenile corrections facilities. Results indicated that students with disabilities spent considerably more time in disciplinary confinement than students without disabilities. Students with ED spent considerably more time than students in other disability categories and students without disabilities. Additionally, Black students, Black students with ED, and Hispanic students with ED spent considerably more time in disciplinary seclusion than other groups. The authors discuss results with respect to disproportionate use of disciplinary confinement and provide subsequent recommendations including the reexamination of disciplinary confinement practices by leaders in juvenile corrections.

This chapter examines the barriers to reentry for justice involved young people in the US and Australia from the perspectives of the 44 Australian and 14 US stakeholders who work with them. The interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis to identify key internal and external barriers. Results suggest a need for improvement in the areas of collaboration among systems, family engagement, and student self-determination. The discussion focuses on the similarities and differences in the barriers that exist across nations and systems. Implications for future research, practice, and policy are included to improve transition services and supports for juvenile justice involved youth.

The school-to-prison pipeline is a term used to describe the pathway traveled by students from public schools to incarceration in secure juvenile detention and correctional programs. It begins with students who are marginalized by the education system because of their academic and behavioral issues. The pipeline leads from school failure and disciplinary exclusion to involvement with the juvenile justice system. Youth who are ethnic minorities (especially those who are African-American or Hispanic) as well as those with educational disabilities (especially those with learning and behavioral disorders) are significantly overrepresented in data sets representing key points along the pipeline (e.g., students with poor academic achievement, high rates of suspension, expulsion, and dropout) as well as their high rates of incarceration. From his personal perspective and experience with the juvenile justice system, the author attempts to explicate the pipeline, and to describe efforts to impact it positively.

The purpose of this study was to examine the results of a deliberate psychological and educational intervention with at-risk youth (placed in a detention center) that have been identified as having the potential to benefit from a behavioral program.

The program provided systemic behavioral health assessments using trauma-informed care guidelines and then linked the participants to mental health and substance services to increase the children’s access to key health services and reduce the risk of recidivism. The program also provided psychoeducational resources to stakeholders including parents, judges and corrections officers. Comparisons were made between participants receiving the intervention to determine pre and post results.

Recidivism rates were also examined. Study participants included 395 at-risk youth between the ages of 13 and 17. In summary, the findings supported the use of this multi-pronged program with juveniles residing in detention centers.

All work on this research project was completed by the listed authors.