"In 2010, an ambitious model for social change emerged in Chicago that aimed to connect detained youth and those at risk for incarceration (“at-risk youth”) to rigorous and engaging arts instruction, infused with social and emotional learning goals. Dubbed the Arts Infusion Initiative, the Chicago Community Trust (“the Trust”) spearheaded and funded this five year, $2.5 million demonstration while earning cooperation from the local detention facility, public school system, community policing office, and community arts program leaders to integrate arts programming into youths’ school and after school environments. Since its launch, the Arts Infusion Initiative has served more than 2,000 youth at an average annual cost of $700 per teen, linking them to high performing arts instruction associated with significant increases in social and emotional learning. This report marks the first large-scale evaluation of the Arts Infusion Initiative which was designed to: (1) assess the degree to which the project, as an emergent model for social change, was achieving its intended purposes and (2) generate actionable information for promoting effective Arts Infusion practices while redirecting those that have been less effective" (p. 3). Six chapters comprise this evaluation: introduction; importance of the Arts Infusion Initiative; components of the Arts Infusion Initiative; evaluation methods; seven key findings; and recommendations for promising practices. Two of the key findings are: Arts Infusion youth participants had statistically significant improvements in their social and emotional learning skills; and Arts Infusion programs were successful in "exposing at-risk youth "to new skills and technologies, providing confidence building experiences that opened their minds to a positive future" (p. 5).
The responses from a survey about laws concerning the statutory rape of children are presented. Offense type, description, and penalty are noted.
This "survey provides an overview of policies governing the solitary confinement of juveniles in 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey allows the reader to understand each state’s approach to imposing this punishment or employing alternatives. This accompanying memo discusses the trends that emerge from the survey, caveats to keep in mind while reading the survey … The survey distinguishes between states that use confinement as a punishment for past actions and states that use confinement non-punitively, to reduce the threat from the juvenile’s behavior to himself, others, or the security of the facility" (p. 1, 2). Each state and the District of Columbia include a long summary which provides in-depth reporting of the state's solitary confinement practices for juveniles and the supporting validation; and a short summary which provides highlights and the source of the law (whether by consent decree, court decision/rule, policy, regulation, self-assessment, settlement agreement, statute, or policy). Attachments include: "Time Limits on Length of Punitive Isolation" bar chart showing the number of states that have no punitive confinement, eight or fewer hours, between 34 and 36 hours, three days, four days, five days, over five days, and no limit; chart showing jurisdictions not allowing punitive confinement for more than a few hours a day, states limiting the amount of time a juvenile may spend in confinement, and states placing no limit on the amount of time a juvenile may spend in confinement; and the map "Limiting Punitive Isolation: Reforming Practices in Juvenile Detention Facilities" showing those states that do not use isolation for over eight hours a day as punishment, and those states that do use isolation for over eight hours as punishment.
This study examined the validity, reliability, equity, and cost of nine juvenile justice risk assessment instruments. Though many researchers and practitioners believe that risk assessment is critical to improving decision making in the juvenile justice system, the range of options currently available makes the selection of the most appropriate instrument for each jurisdiction a difficult choice. This study was designed to provide a comprehensive examination of how several risk assessments perform in practice (p. 1). Findings are reported: according to eight risk assessment instruments; and through a comparison of results across jurisdictions and assessments by way of reliability, validity, equity, revised risk assessment instruments constructed in the study, and efficiency and cost. A discussion covers: instruments developed for general use; risk instruments developed for a specific agency; and comments from Advisory Board members and responses from the authors of this report. Risk assessment should be a simple process that can be easily understood and articulated. This study’s findings show that simple, actuarial approaches to risk assessment can produce the strongest results. Adding factors with relatively weak statistical relationships to recidivism—including dynamic factors and criminogenic needs—can result in reduced capacity to accurately identify high-, moderate-, and low-risk offenders (p. vi).
“A timely, high-quality medical forensic examination can potentially validate and address sexual assault patients’7 concerns, minimize the trauma they may experience, and promote their healing. At the same time, it can increase the likelihood that evidence collected will aid in criminal case investigation, resulting in perpetrators being held accountable and further sexual violence prevented. The examination and the related responsibilities of health care personnel are the focus of this protocol. Recognizing that multidisciplinary coordination is vital to the success of the exam, the protocol also discusses the responses of other professionals, as they relate to the exam process” (p. 4). Sections contained in this publication are: Section A. Overarching Issues—coordinated team approach, victim-centered care, informed consent, confidentiality, reporting to law enforcement, and payment for the examination under Violence Against Women Act (VAWA); Section B. Operational Issues—sexual assault forensic examiners, facilities, equipment and supplies, sexual assault evidence collection kit, timing considerations for collecting evidence, and evidence integrity; and Section C. The Examination Process—initial contact, triage and intake, documentation by health care personnel, the medical forensic history, photography, exam and evidence collection procedures, alcohol and drug-facilitated sexual assault, sexually transmitted infection (STI) evaluation and care, pregnancy risk evaluation and care, discharge and follow-up, and examiner court appearances. Appendixes include: Developing Customized Protocols: Considerations for Jurisdictions”; “Creation of Sexual Assault Response and Resource Teams”; and “Impact of Crawford v. Washington, Davis v. Washington, and Giles v. California”.
Mental health screening and assessment is crucial within juvenile correctional facilities (JC). However, limited information is available about the current screening and assessment procedures specifically within JC … The purpose of the current study was to obtain information about the mental health screening and assessment procedures used in JC throughout the United States (p. 379).
"This article presents a practical approach that JJ [juvenile justice] systems can take in achieving evidence-based programming that reduces recidivism. Most JJ system programs produce relatively small reductions in recidivism, on average, thus there is much room for improvement. A research-based approach to making program improvements system-wide—and with that, increase the cost effectiveness of the system itself—is presented in this article. The success of this effort, however, depends on delivery of the right service to the right youth at the right time. The OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders provides the scaffolding and structured decision-making tools that can be used across entire juvenile justice systems for promoting effective matches between evidence-based services and offender treatment needs on an ongoing basis" (p. 1). Sections of this document include: introduction—what an evidence-based program is, and taking a proactive approach to program improvements; a Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders—the OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy, the age-crime curve, a developmental pathways model, and risk and protective factors; key administrative tools for achieving evidence-based juvenile justice systems—the right service, to the right youth, at the right time, a system of graduated sanctions/responses, and state examples of Comprehensive Strategy benefits (North Carolina and Florida); and conclusion.
This resource guide provides very important information for individuals helping families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) children involved with the juvenile justice system. Its intent is to help practitioners “understand the critical role of family acceptance and rejection in contributing to the health and well-being of adolescents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender … [and] implement best practices in engaging and helping families and caregivers to support their LGBT children. The family intervention approach discussed in this guide is based on research findings and more than a decade of interactions and intervention work by the Family Acceptance Project (FAP) at San Francisco State University with very diverse families and their LGBT children” (p. 3). Sections address: the critical role of families in reducing risk and promoting well-being; helping families decrease rick and increase well-being for their LGBT children; increasing family support—how to help now; and resources for practitioners and families.
“This Quick Guide will help agencies and facilities develop a comprehensive response to working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) youth. It is not meant to provide an answer to every question or an in-depth discussion of all issues that agencies face or that the LGBTI population faces while in custody. It provides an overview of the important issues that agencies should consider when working to house and treat LGBTI youth in a way that is safe and consistent with an agency’s mission, values, and security guidelines … This Quick Guide is organized chronologically according to the decisions an agency will have to make before and at the point when an LGBTI youth enters the system. These areas of focus include: Assessment of Agency Culture (as relates to LGBTI individuals); Assessment of Agency Staff and Administration Knowledge and Attitudes; Examination of Current Relevant Agency Norms; Development and Implementation Mechanisms; Development of Awareness of Current Legal Responsibilities; Foundational Issues; Intake Screening/Risk Assessment; Classification and Housing Placement; Medical and Mental Health Care; Information Management; Group Youth Management; Specific Safety and Privacy Concerns for Transgender and Intersex Youth; and Staff, Volunteer, and Contractor Training Requirements” (p. 1).
The review suggests that in general, risk assessments do a good job in predicting recidivism across racial/ethnic groups for diverse populations inside and outside the United States. However, there is still some room for improvement concerning the assessment of risk and needs for ethnic minorities. In addition, while there are some studies that do not report the predictive validity of risk assessment scores across race/ethnicity, risk assessments overall seem to be a promising effort to correctly classify and/or identify juveniles who are at greatest risk for future recidivism.