Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) (Washington, DC)
This report looks at the significant overrepresentation of minority youth among juvenile status offenders. Sections of this publication includes: issue background; the need to focus on non-delinquent youth; addressing disproportionality among status offenders; new data on status offenses and disproportionality; and implications for juvenile justice reform.
“’Why are girls so much more likely than boys to be petitioned and incarcerated for a status offense?’ This brief explores the complex answer to this question, and previews steps that can be taken to unravel, understand, and better address the complex needs of girls who engage in status offense behaviors” (p. 1). This is an excellent resource for people who work with girls who are status offenders. Sections of this publication cover: the prevalence of status offenses for girls; how different expectations of girls lead to a double standard; the need for gender-responsive services; defiance or self-defense; girls, structural racism, and implicit bias; the pathways girls take into the juvenile justice system are different from boys—they need different interventions not the same ones for boys painted pink; judicial leadership in Nevada; moving toward a less punitive and more empowering approach; and implications for further juvenile justice reform.
If you are looking for an excellent introduction to how to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) in your juvenile agency, then this webinar is for you. Topics discussed include: how to identify EBPs; best proven model programs; advantages of proven EBPs; getting customer buy-in for EBP implementation; facing agency challenges during EBP adoption; key drivers; embedding EBPs in a juvenile justice agency; referral and engagement-- data collection; data collection example; analyzing family engagement barriers; family engagement strategies; EBP implementation—Inter-operability Framework; funding and sustainability; and EBP implementation in 8 states.
Many juvenile justice systems don't know how many young people in their system identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) and often lack appropriate policies that meet their unique needs … This webinar discussed the need for agency policies to support LGBT young people in the juvenile justice system. Participants learned how the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services [DYS] and Santa Clara County Probation Department [SCCPD] developed policies for LGBT youth in their system, as well as different strategies for creating similar policies in state- and county-based systems (website). This zip file contains: SCCPD Stakeholder Invitation; SCCPD Transgender Procedure Guidelines; SCCPD Transgender Preference Form; SCCPD Cultural Competence Form; Santa Clara, County Counsel Memorandum; Massachusetts DYS Official Policy; and presentation slides.
The application of the “National Standards for the Care of Youth Charged with Status Offenses” (NIC accession no. 027712) is stressed. “The National Standards specifically call for all (LGBTQ) [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual. Transgender, and Questioning] youth to “receive fair treatment, equal access to services, and respect and sensitivity from all professionals and other youth in court, agency, service, school and placement’” (p. 1).
“Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth are twice as likely as other youth to be sent to a juvenile detention facility for committing “status offenses” such as truancy or running away from home. LGBTQ youth are also overrepresented in the juvenile justice system generally, and once in the system are more likely to be the target of abuse and violence, including at the hands of other youth. LGBTQ youth may also receive overly harsh punishments due to biased decision-making or misguided attempts to keep them “safe” through the use of unnecessary isolated housing. How can systems more appropriately serve youth who commit status offenses and are LGBTQ?” This webinar will explain how your agency can do this. Topics covered include: why LGBT youth are particularly vulnerable; zero tolerance policies and LGBT youth; when safety nets and support systems fail; the need for this training; factors leading to juvenile justice system involvement; common experiences in locked facilities; sexual victimization; isolation; classification; lack of understanding; recommendations from the National Standards for the Care of Youth Charged with Status Offenses and LGBTQ youth; principles for responding to status offenses; avoiding or limiting court involvement; recommendations for LGBTQ youth; helping LGBTQ youth avoid court involvement for status offenses; and responding to LGBTQ youth who may have committed status offenses.
“A status offender is a juvenile charged with or adjudicated for conduct that would not, under the law of the jurisdiction in which the offense was committed, be a crime if committed by an adult. The most common examples of status offenses are chronic or persistent truancy, running away, violating curfew laws, or possessing alcohol or tobacco. The National Standards aim to promote best practices for this population, based in research and social service approaches, to better engage and support youth and families in need of assistance. Given what we know, the National Standards call for an absolute prohibition on detention of status offenders and seek to divert them entirely from the delinquency system by promoting the most appropriate services for families and the least restrictive placement options for status offending youth.” This document contains the following five sections, each with its own specific standards describing key principles and practices: Section 1: Principles for Responding to Status Offenses (12 standards); Section 2: Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement (7 standards); Section 3: Efforts to Limit Court Involvement (12 standards); Section 4: Recommendations for Policy and Legislative Implementation (12 standards); and Section 5: Definitions.
"Children in far too many states are forced to appear in court shackled – often wearing handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains connecting ankle and hand restraints … In this [excellent] webinar, co-sponsored by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, presenters David Shapiro of the Campaign Against Indiscriminate Juvenile Shackling and George Yeannakis of the Washington State Office of Public Defense and NJJN member TeamChild, discussed the practical, policy, and constitutional reasons to reform universal shackling practices and successful strategies for reforming shackling policies." You can get the following resources at this website: policy update "Unchain the Children: Policy Opportunities to End the Shackling of Youth in Court"; a recording of the entire webinar; PowerPoint presentation; and "GR 9 COVER SHEET Suggested Amendment JUVENILE COURT RULES JuCR 1.6 – Physical Restraints in the Courtroom".
This webinar explains how your agency can utilize funds from Title IV of the Social Security Act, Part E – Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance for programming in your agency. Topics discussed include: what Title IV-E is; classification of Title IV-E claiming; what juvenile agencies can receive Title IV-E reimbursements for; developing and implementing a Title IV-E Claiming Program; stakeholders need for collaboration; the critical role of the Oregon Department of Human Services in collaboration; the critical role of the Multnomah County Circuit Court; implementing the Title IV-E program—a myriad of changes in business practices; why implementation is so monumental; innovation in action—Youth Villages Intercept Model; programs and services to be funded in the upcoming fiscal year by Title IV-E; recommendations for Title IV-E implementation; Administration for Children and Families (ACF) regions; child welfare placement authority; three components of a Title IV-E Administrative Claim; definition of a reasonable candidate; court orders and case plans; and benefits for your department.