The responses from a survey about laws concerning the statutory rape of children are presented. Offense type, description, and penalty are noted.
Results from a survey on sex offenders registry are provided. Questions asked are:
- Citation(s) of statutes(s);
- Registrable offenses with citations;
- And the state agency responsible for maintaining sex offender registry.
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.
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).
“The goal of this study was to learn the extent to which programs incorporate the components of restorative justice and provide an inventory of organizations implementing programs using restorative justice practices in Illinois” (p. 4). Sections of this report include: key findings; introduction; literature review; methodology; findings regarding organizations using restorative justice, restorative justice in action at Ogle County Probation, restorative justice in action at Champaign County Regional Planning Commission, and measuring use of restorative justice; and conclusion. Appendixes include: an inventory of Illinois restorative justice programs; and reliability and validity of restorative justice programs.
In 2014, a network of membership associations that represent community corrections practitioners—the Community Corrections Collaborative Network (CCCN)—surveyed their memberships to gauge opinions about the state of the field. The survey sought to identify what community corrections practitioners believe are the significant issues and opportunities facing the field. CCCN’s goal with the survey is to bring a fresh perspective about where the field needs to go and what community corrections will need to get there, and allow those engaged in the national criminal justice reform debate to hear directly from those working with most people under correctional control. This survey is the first to ask those employed in community corrections their opinions about the field’s priorities. As such, the survey focuses on issues that relate to the direction community corrections is taking, the influence policymakers and the public have in determining that direction, and the resources needed to address new and anticipated priorities. The survey also provided CCCN an opportunity to determine if it is working on policy and issue areas that association memberships consider priorities Results show that the field embraces key elements of the new approach CCCN says the field needs to take: Key benchmarks include increasing reliance on evidence-based practices, research and data driven approaches. The survey results show strong support for a field that prioritizes innovation, systems change, collaboration and training.
This study's aim is to "shed more light on what the impact of pretrial detention may be on several non-Criminal Justice related outcomes. If we can gain a better understanding of the effects of pretrial detention, even detention for relatively short periods (e.g., less than three days), policy regarding risk-based decisions can be informed. Likewise there is benefit in further examining the “more than” vs. “less than” three days of pretrial incarceration in light of recent research that has already influenced policy in many parts of the U.S." (p. 3). It seems that pretrial detention "leads to varying levels of disruption across several indicators of functionality – specifically employment, financial situation, residential stability, and issues relating to dependent children" (p. 12).
Three facilities varying in size and region were audited to measure the state of the art in podular direct-supervision jails, to test how well direct supervision is performing, and to point out its strengths and challenges. Staff and inmates in facilities in Minnesota, Florida, and Massachusetts were surveyed on issues such as safety and security, effective supervision of inmates, classification, staffing and training, and design and environment.
Findings are presented in detail by facility. Floor plans are included for all units.
"This survey asked if probation was an executive or judicial branch function for adult and juvenile cases. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia indicated that juvenile probation is a function of the judicial branch." This collection is comprised of three documents: "Branch Responsible for Probation"—whether probation is a function of Executive, Judicial, or a variation; "Level of Government Responsible for Probation"--whether probation operates at the state- or county-level; and "Relationship Between Court and Probation"—whether local trial court and local probation or community corrections agency work together as institutions or work independently depending on the judge's inclinations. Aggregate results for each responding state are provided for juvenile cases, adult misdemeanor cases, and adult felony cases. This data is clearly compared through bar charts.
<p>"In Fall 2014, the Alameda County Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership (ACCIPP) and the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership (SFCIPP) worked in partnership with their respective Sheriffs’ Departments to survey more than 2,000 individuals incarcerated within the local county jails. The focus of the survey was to identify whom within the jails is a parent, their perceptions of how their incarceration affects their children, and what types of resources are needed for children to maintain contact and relationships with their parents during their parents’ incarceration and after release. This report presents the findings from these surveys" (p. 1).</p>