DOCSLIB.ORG

New Mexico Juvenile Justice Services Fiscal Year 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Mexico Juvenile Justice Services Fiscal Year 2018 New Mexico Juvenile Justice Services Fiscal Year 2018 1 This page left intentionally blank 2 State of New Mexico CHILDREN, YOUTH and FAMILIES DEPARTMENT MICHELLE-LUJAN GRISHAM BRIAN BLALOCK GOVERNOR CABINET SECRETARY HOWIE MORALES LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) Annual Report Fiscal Year 2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) Tamera Marcantel, Deputy Director of Facility Services Nick Costales, Deputy Director of Field Services Dr. Jeffrey Toliver, Chief, FACTS Data Bureau Produced by: Data and Epidemiology Units Dr. Jackson Williams, LPCC, Data Analysis Unit Manager Kelly Maestas, Data Analyst Lori Zigich, Epidemiologist Special thanks to the Applications Analysis Unit (AAU). Their work has led to signifi- cant reductions in missing/unknown data points and improved the quality and relia- bility of FACTS, SARA, and ADE data: Amanda Trujillo, Program Manager Roman Montano, Management Analyst Supervisor Shannon Guericke, Operations Research Analyst Jen Parkins, Operations Research Analyst Sonia Jones, Management Analyst Alyssa Madden, Management Analyst Comments/suggestions regarding this publication may be emailed to: [email protected] 3 Table of Contents Introduction 8 CYFD mission statement………………………………………………………………..……..………………….....….…………………….…………..... 8 Map of Juvenile Justice Services facilities and centers………………………………………..……..…………………………….……….…. 8 Section 1. New Mexico Juvenile Population 9 Figure 1-1: Juvenile population, 2000-2017……………………………………..…..…………..….…………..………………….…………….. 9 Figure 1-2: Juvenile population, percent by gender, 2017……...…………………………..…………...….………...……………..…….. 9 Figure 1-3: Juvenile population, number by age and gender, 2017….……………………….………..…………………...………..….10 Figure 1-5: Juvenile population, percent by race/ethnicity, 2017………………..…………………...…………………….…………....10 Section 2. Total Referral Pathway and Outcomes 11 Figure 2-1: Youth referral pathway………………………………………………………………………...….……….………..……...…...….… ... 11 Figure 2-2: Outcomes for juvenile referrals/arrests (Tree Stats)..……..…………………….………..….…….………....…….….... 12 Section 3. Referrals to Juvenile Justice Services, FY 2014 to 2018 13 Figure 3-1: Referrals and unduplicated youth …………………..………………………………….………...…………………………………… 13 Figure 3-2: Referral type as a percent of total referrals…………………….………………………………………………………………... 13 Figure 3-3: Referrals by referral type (delinquent, probation violation, and status)…………………...………………………. 14 Figure 3-4: Referrals by gender………………..………………………………………………………………………………………….……………... 14 Figure 3-5: Referrals by age………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………..… 15 Figure 3-6: Referrals by race/ethnicity……………………………………………………………………………..………………………………… 15 Section 4. Delinquent Referrals 16 Figure 4-1: Delinquent referrals and unduplicated youth, FY 2014-2018...………………..………………………………………... 16 Table 4-1: Delinquent referral sources………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………… 16 Table 4-2: Delinquent referrals by gender, age and race/ethnicity…………………………………………………………….………… 17 Table 4-3: Top 15 offenses for delinquent referrals……………………………………………………………………………………...……… 18 Table 4-4: Top 15 disposed offenses for delinquent referrals………………………………………………………………………….…… 18 Table 4-5: Action taken/disposition for delinquent referrals…………………………………………………………………………...…… 19 Figure 4-2: Top 15 leading offenses for delinquent referrals, FY 2014-2018…………………………………………………..……. 20 Section 5. Probation Violation Referrals 21 Figure 5-1: Probation violation referrals and unduplicated youth, FY 2014-2018.…………………………..……………………. 21 Table 5-1: Probation violation referral sources………………………………………………………………………………………………..….. 21 Table 5-2: Probation violation referrals by gender, age and race/ethnicity……………………………………………….………… 22 Table 5-3: Offenses for probation violation referrals…………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 Table 5-4: Disposed offenses for probation violation referrals…………………………………………………………………………….. 23 Table 5-5: Action taken/disposition for probation violation referrals…………………………………………………………………… 24 Figure 5-2: Offenses for probation violations, FY 2014-2018………………………………………………………………………………… 25 Section 6. Status (non-delinquent) Referrals 26 Figure 6-1:Status referrals and unduplicated youth, FY 2014-2018…………………………...………………………………………… 26 Table 6-1: Status referral sources………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26 Table 6-2: Status referrals by gender, age and race/ethnicity……………………………………...…………………………….………… 27 Figure 6-2: Offenses for status referrals, FY 2014-2018……………………………………………………………………………………….. 28 Table 6-3: Action taken/disposition for status referrals………………………………………………………………………………………… 29 Section 7. Youth Referred to/in Detention Centers 30 Figure 7-1: Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) screens, FY 2014-2018………………………………………………………………….. 31 Table 7-1: SARA report category/reason for referral to detention by RAI outcome…………………………………………….. 32 Table 7-2: Youth referred for detention screening by gender, age and race/ethnicity………………………………………… 33 Table 7-3: Top 15 offenses for detention screening by RAI outcome…………………………………………………………………… 34 Figure 7-2: RAI outcome for youth referred to detention, FY 2016-2018……………………………………………………………… 35 Figure 7-3: Detained youth by report category and gender…………..……………………………………………………………………… 35 Table 7-4: Youth detained, by gender and age at first detained intake, and race/ethnicity…………………………………. 36 Figure 7-4: Average daily population (ADP) by detention center and gender…………………………………………………….... 37 Figure 7-5: Average length of stay (ALOS) in detention by referral county……………………………………………………….…. 38 4 Section 8. Case Processing and Caseloads 39 Figure 8-1: Formal case processing time by petition type………………………………………………………………………………..…… 39 Figure 8-2: Formal case processing time by degree of charge…………………………………………………………..………………..… 40 Figure 8-3: Juvenile probation office weekly caseload....……………………..………………………………………………………......… 41 Figure 8-4: Juvenile probation office weekly monitoring (informal) caseload…………………….…………..………………….… 42 Figure 8-5: Juvenile probation office weekly supervision (formal) caseload…….…………………...…….………..………...... 42 Section 9. Youth Screening and Classification Using the Standard Decision Making (SDM) Assessment Tool and Behavioral Health Screening 43 Table 9-1: Risk level by gender, age and race/ethnicity…………………………………..……………..……………...………………….… 44 Table 9-2: Needs level by gender, age and race/ethnicity…………………………………………………...…………………………….… 45 Table 9-3: Risk level of youth on formal (field) supervision, by gender, age and race/ethnicity……………………..……. 46 Table 9-4: Need level of youth on formal (field) supervision, by gender, age and race/ethnicity……………………...…. 47 Table 9-5: Risk level of youth in secure facilities, by gender, age and race/ethnicity…………………….………………..……. 48 Table 9-6: Need level of youth in secure facilities, by gender, age and race/ethnicity…………………….……………..……. 49 Table 9-7: Priority strengths and needs of cases that went on to disposition.…………………………………...………….....… 50 Table 9-8: Priority strengths and needs of youth on formal (field) supervision .……………...………………...………….....… 51 Table 9-9: Priority strengths and needs of youth in secure facilities…………………………………………………………………….. 51 Table 9-10: Top 20 behavioral health services recommendations for youth on formal (field) supervision…………. 52 Table 9-11 Top 20 behavioral health diagnoses (DSM-5) for youth admitted to secure facilities………………..……….. 54 Figure 9-1: Substance and alcohol abuse diagnoses (DSM-5) for youth in secure facilities……………………………..…... 55 Section 10. Minors in Possession/Driving While Intoxicated (MIP/DWI) and Substance Abuse 56 Figure 10-1: MIP/DWI offenses, FY 2014-2018……….…….……………………………..………………………………...….……...………… 56 Table 10-1: MIP/DWI offenses by age……………………………………………………….………………………….……..…….………………... 56 Table 10-2: MIP/DWI offenses by gender and race/ethnicity……………………...…………….…………….………………………….. 57 Figure 10-2: Substance abuse offenses, FY 2014-2018……………………………………………………..…………..…………………….. 57 Table 10-3: Substance abuse offenses by age……………………………………………….……………………………….………………….... 58 Table 10-4: Substance abuse offenses by gender and race/ethnicity………………………………………..………...………………. 58 Section 11. Youth in Reintegration Centers 68 Table 11-1: Snapshot of youth by center, and by gender, age and race/ethnicity……………….…………………..………...… 69 Figure 11-1: Average daily population and capacity by center………………………………………………………………….............. 70 Table 11-2: Youth movements…………………………………………………………………………………………...………………..……………… 70 Table 11-3: Average length of stay, by gender, age and race/ethnicity…………..…….……………………..…………………..…. 71 Figure 11-2: Disciplinary incident report (DIR) rate, FY 2014-2018…….……………………………..…………………………………. 72 Figure 11-3: DIR rates by center………………………………………………………………………………….…………..…….…………………….. 72 Section 12. Youth in Secure Facilities 59 Figure 12-1: Term commitments, FY 2014-2018………....…………….…………….……………..………………....…………………...... 60 Table 12-1: Term commitments by gender, age and race/ethnicity………………….……………………........…………………. .. 60 Table 12-2: Top 15 most serious offenses (MSOs) for term commitments………………………….………………….………….. 61 Table 12-3: Snapshot of youth by facility, and by gender, age and race/ethnicity………….……....….……………………….. 62 Figure 12-2: Length of term commitments, FY 2014-2018………………………………………………………………………………….. 63 Figure 12-3: Average daily population and capacity by facility……………………………………….…….….………………….….….. 64 Figure 12-4: Average length of stay (days) by commitment type...……….……………………..………….……….……….……….... 64 Table 12-4:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SASE Lesson Plan Template
    U.S. Juvenile Justice System: From Playgrounds to Prison Dominique-Faith Worthington [email protected] EDFD 449- Human Rights, Holocaust, and Genocide Education Dept. Dr. Burkholder May 13, 2019 Date of Lesson: April 30, 2019 Lesson duration: 40min (with optional 60 min) Topic of Lesson: US Juvenile Justice System: From Play Grounds to Prison Central Focus: The student will understand how and why a juvenile becomes incarcerated into the system. Discussion will connect two local cases. The student then will apply critical thought through provided lesson material and identify what role the individual student plays in changing the current system or maintaining the status quota? Posing the final thought, “What does the ideal system look like?” Essential Question(s): Why do youths become incarcerated? What is the difference between adult and youth incarceration? What are the successes and failures of the juvenile justice system? How or why can a student reform the system? What would the ideal system look like? State/Disciplinary Standards: https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2014/ss/ Standard 6.1 U.S. History: America in the World Standard 6.3 Active Citizenship in the 21st Century Daily Performance Objectives: Include student outcomes both as Understandings (i.e. “Big Ideas”), as well as unit-driven Knowledge and Skills. The student will critically think about self-accountability of their own behavior in society, in addition to individual reflection on their impacting abilities to changing the current system. Prior Knowledge Resources: List links to previous lessons, student ideas or misconceptions you anticipate, and describe any resources (including cognitive, cultural, experiential, etc.) that students may possibly bring to this lesson Civil rights movement (past lesson close to subject matter), juvenile delinquent perceptions, correction officer’s perceptions, lack of awareness of local cases, and lack of understanding of political complication and bureaucracies.
    [Show full text]
  • Prea Audit: Auditor’S Summary Report Juvenile Facilities
    PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S SUMMARY REPORT JUVENILE FACILITIES Name of Facility: Waycross Regional Youth Development Center Physical Address: 3275 Harris Rd Waycross, GA 31503 Date report submitted: Auditor information Dan McGehee Address PO Box 595 White Rock, SC 29177 Email: [email protected] Telephone number: 803-331-0264 Date of facility visit: March 23-24, 2015 Facility Information Facility Mailing Address: (if different from above) Telephone Number: 404-683-8841 The Facility is: Military County Federal Private for profit Municipal State Private not for profit Facility Type: Detention Correction Other: Name of PREA Compliance Manager: Levvy Allen Title: Assistant Director Email Address: [email protected] Telephone Number:404-640-8804 Agency Information Name of Agency: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Governing Authority or Parent Agency: if licable) Physical Address: 3408 Covington Highway, Decatur, GA 30032 Mailing Address: (if different from above) Telephone Number: 404-508-6500 Agency Chief Executive Officer Name: Avery D. Niles Title: Commissioner Telephone Email Address: Number: 404-508-6500 Agency Wide PREA Coordinator Name: Adam T. Barnett, Sr. Title: Agency PREA Program Coordinator Telephone Email Address: [email protected] Number: 404-683-6844 1 AUDIT FINDINGS PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS: The Waycross Regional Youth Detention Center (RYDC), Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, is a 30 bed facility that provides temporary, secure care and supervision to youth who are charged with crimes or who have been found guilty of crimes and are awaiting disposition of their cases by a juvenile court. The facility is a secure facility of brick and block construction built in 1966.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention Center to Home School: the Path of Transition
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2015 Detention Center to Home School: The Path of Transition Sarah Hogeveen Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Hogeveen, Sarah, "Detention Center to Home School: The Path of Transition" (2015). Dissertations. 1267. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/1267 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2015 Sarah Hogeveen LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO DETENTION CENTER TO HOME SCHOOL: THE PATH OF TRANSITION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION BY SARAH HOGEVEEN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS MAY 2015 Copyright by Sarah Hogeveen, 2015 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The successful completion of this study was only possible because of the support of a variety of people. I would like to take this time to thank all of those people who offered support, time, and guidance as I completed this process. To my husband, Nick, and my daughters, Madison and Morgan, who have stood by my side during this process and supported me one hundred percent, I love you so very much. To my parents, Sue and Greg, your belief in me never faltered and it kept me going.
    [Show full text]
  • A Legislative Framework for Abolition of Juvenile Pretrial Detention
    Reviving the Presumption of Youth Innocence Through a Presumption of Release: A Legislative Framework for Abolition of Juvenile Pretrial Detention Sara S. Hildebrand* ABSTRACT Juvenile courts were established at the beginning of the twentieth century by a group of reformers who called themselves “Child Savers.” Those founders believed that fundamental differences between adults and children—such as children’s developmental immaturity and malleability—required the establishment of a court for youth, separate from adult criminal court, that focused on youth rehabilitation. Over time, the focus in most juvenile courts has shifted away from rehabilitation towards retribution, punishment, and protection of public safety—principle aims of the adult criminal system. These policy changes have facilitated an exponential increase in the number of youths detained during the pretrial period of their cases in juvenile court. In 2018, over 195,000 presumptively innocent youth were detained between arrest and final disposition of their juvenile delinquency case. Troublingly, the procedures designed to ensure objectivity and fairness in pretrial detention decision-making instead invite subjective judgments and result in disproportionate pretrial detentions of youth of color. Moreover, an earnest assessment of peer-reviewed studies reveals that pretrial detention of youth fails to serve its intended objectives of protecting the safety of high-risk youth and ensuring their appearance in court. While in pretrial detention, youth often do not get the educational or mental-health support they need and are frequently exposed to * Clinical Teaching Fellow, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law. J.D., University of Denver, Sturm College of Law. Thanks to Profs. Nicole Godfrey, Tammy Kuennen, Christopher N.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Map to to Zero Youth Detention
    Road map to ĞƌŽzŽƵƚŚĞƚĞŶƟŽŶ Identify and Prevent youth from eliminate policies Invest in the Lead with entering the juvenile racial equity that result in racial workforce disproportionality legal system Support community based Provide access to high Support development response to youth and quality, community based of restorative policies families in crisis so that services for communities, and practices to keep legal system involvement is youth, and families youth engaged in rare and the last resort school Divert youth from the Divert youth from Divert youth from Divert youth formal legal process and law enforcement referral, case filing, and from secure detention to community arrest and/or detention based options citation adjudication Ensure arrested and Expand family Reengage Support youth and families detained youth receive support and youth from to reduce recurrence of trauma-informed, culturally engagement detention into legal system outcomes and responsive, developmentally opportunities and community improve health outcomes appropriate care connections Align and optimize Utilize data and Support policy reform Align systems through that improves the lives of connections between technology to optimize partnership, common connections between youth, children, and systems to increase goals, outcomes and legal, community, and families and reduces effectiveness indicators services systems legal system involvement Table of Contents ϭ džĞĐƵƟǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϳ /ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ ϴ ĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ ϵ tŚLJƚŚĞZŽĂĚDĂƉŝƐEĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ ϵ ĞƩĞƌKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĨŽƌzŽƵƚŚĂŶĚ^ĂĨĞƌŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics July 2005, NCJ 210333 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004 By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. and Timothy A. Hughes Highlights BJS Statisticians Survey selected more than 2,700 correctional facilities holding On September 4, 2003, President 79% of all adults and juveniles in custody George W. Bush signed into law the Number of Population y The survey met the requirement that Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 facilities covered BJS draw a random sample, or other (P.L. 108-79). The legislation requires Total 2,730 1,754,092 scientifically appropriate sample, of not the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Prison systems 1,404 1,318,616 less than 10 percent of facilities. Local jails 404 331,768 to develop new national data collec- Private prisons/jails 32 31,086 y Entire systems were selected to tions on the incidence and prevalence State juvenile maximize reporting coverage. Local of sexual violence within correctional systems* 510 41,196 and private facilities were selected with facilities. This report fulfills the require- Local/private juvenile facilities 297 21,739 probabilities proportionate to the ment under Sec. 4 (c)(1) of the act for Other facilities 83 9,705 number of adults or juveniles held. submission of an annual report on the *Includes the District of Columbia. activities of the Bureau with respect to prison rape. 8,210 allegations of sexual violence reported Nationwide in 2004 As an initial step in a multiphase imple- Reported National in survey estimate y 42% of allegations involved staff mentation strategy, BJS completed the Total 5,528 8,210 sexual misconduct; 37%, inmate-on- first-ever national survey of administra- Prison systems 3,456 3,456 inmate nonconsensual sexual acts; tive records on sexual violence in adult Local jails 699 1,700 11%, staff sexual harassment; and and juvenile correctional facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • CHILDREN in FEDERAL CUSTODY Assessment of Federal Policy Anp Practices '
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,..,p" .. ~ . " r. ' . ':' ~ , . " !.' , " CHILDREN IN FEDERAL CUSTODY Assessment of Federal Policy anp Practices '- , ~ ~ -""" ._. " ... ,,~ ?_,_ .. ~ .... __ 0- ,. ~H __ ~._~ ~ _._ ~ __ _._ ••_ ~._ ~._ ~ _ •••• ~_ ._._----- _ _ • _ .~_.,~ _ • _ __ .' ..... _" __ •• ...,.,._ ....... _ .. ,. .. For additional copies of this document contact: Community Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 505 East Green Street, Suite 204, Champaign, IL 61820, 217/333-0443. ,!L. •• Copyright(S)1984 Community Research Center, Board of Trustees, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use and. to authorize others to publish and use, all or any part of the copyrighted materials contained in this publication. 115222 U.S. Department of Justice lIS 22. 2... National Institute of Justice This document .ha~ been ~eproduced exactly as received from the pe~~?n or organization orlgmatfng it. Points of view or opinions siated m IS document ~re th~~e of the authors and do not necessaril repr~sent the offiCial position or pOlicies of the Natfonal Institute J J ustlce. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by J2.ubJ j c l)ornaj n/O,J(JDP --ll...S. Department or ,Justi.c..e to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). ~urther reproduc.tion outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the COPYright owner. CHILDREN IN FEDERAL CUSTODY Assessment of Federal Policy and Practices Prepared for The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Strengthening Education in Short-Term Juvenile Detention Centers: Final Technical Report Author(S): Gregory J
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: Strengthening Education in Short-term Juvenile Detention Centers: Final Technical Report Author(s): Gregory J. Benner, Ph.D., Songtain Zeng, M.S.E., Annie Laurie Armstrong, M.A., Cathrin Anderson, Ph.D., Erin Carpenter, M.A. Document Number: 251118 Date Received: September 2017 Award Number: 2012-JF-FX-0063 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Strengthening Education in Short-term Juvenile Detention Centers: Final Technical Report December 2016 Prepared by: Gregory J. Benner, Ph. D. Professor and Executive Director Songtian Zeng, M.S.E. Bamford School Transformation Research Associate Annie Laurie Armstrong, M.A., & Cathrin Anderson, Ph.D. Research Associates Erin Carpenter, M.A. Project Coordinator Center for Strong Schools University of Washington Tacoma Strengthening Education in Short-term Juvenile Detention Centers: Final Technical Report Page 1 This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………8 1.1 Background……………………………………………………………………………………8 1.2 Research Goal……………………………………………………………………………… 10 1.3 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………… 10 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Macon's Youth Detention Center Among Worst in US for 'Coerced
    11/13/2020 Macon youth detention center among worst for sexual misconduct | Macon Telegraph CRIME Macon’s youth detention center among worst in US for ‘coerced sexual activity,’ survey says BY GRANT BLANKENSHIP GEORGIA PUBLIC BROADCASTING DECEMBER 20, 2019 02:52 PM One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. BY ALYSSA HODENFIELD Listen to this article now 01:58 Powered by Trinity Audio A new study shows one Georgia juvenile detention center has some of the highest rates of what the study calls “coerced sexual activity” among children in custody of any such facility in the country. The findings are a part of the federal Department of Justice National Survey of Youth In Custody. That survey is conducted in accordance with federal Prison Rape Prevention Act passed in 2003. The survey was administered to young people in 327 detention facilities nationwide in 2018. On average, 7.1% of children surveyed reported experiencing being coerced into some kind of sexual activity, either by peers or by detention facility staff.ACC EThat’PT COsOKIES We use cookies and similara technologies. drop of just By continuing under 2.5 to use percentage this website, youpoints consent since to our the Terms last of survey Service . and our Privacy Policy. https://www.macon.com/news/local/crime/article238587113.html 1/6 11/13/2020 Macon youth detention center among worst for sexual misconduct | Macon Telegraph TOP ARTICLES State Sen. David Lucas, who represents much of Middle GA, hospitalized with COVID-19 But bucking that trend, 19% of respondents at the all-female Macon Youth Detention Center reported being subjected to coerced sexual contact.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Evaluation Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Adult and Youth Offenders
    ProgramProgram EvaluationEvaluation SUBSTANCESUBSTANCE ABUSEABUSE TREATMENTTREATMENT PROGRAMSPROGRAMS FORFOR ADULTADULT ANDAND YOUTHYOUTH OFFENDERSOFFENDERS GOVERNOR’SGOVERNOR’S OFFICEOFFICE OFOF PLANNINGPLANNING ANDAND BUDGETBUDGET JulyJuly 20082008 This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………….…………………..……………. i Background………………………………………………………………..…………… 1 Substance Abuse and Criminality Substance Abuse Rates for Offenders in Georgia Current State Programs for Offenders Substance Abuse Treatment and Recidivism Cost Analysis Best Practices……………………………………………………...………..………… 9 Adult Offenders Juvenile Offenders Core Best Practice Activities Findings and Recommendations…………………………………………………. 11 Issue One: Outcomes and Effectiveness Issue Two: Program Capacity Issue Three: Continuum of Care Issue Four: Certification Appendices are available online on the Office of Planning and Budget’s website at: http://www.opb.state.ga.us/publications/program-evaluations/program- evaluations.aspx This page intentionally left blank Program Evaluation Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Adult and Youth Offenders Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget June 2008 Purpose Executive Summary This report summarizes the Background results of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Approximately 75% to 80% of adult offenders and over 60% of juvenile offenders Budget’s (OPB) evaluation of the state’s substance abuse have a substance abuse problem. Research has shown that substance abuse treatment programs for treatment programs can reduce drug abuse and criminal activity. In order to offenders provided by the reduce recidivism and lower the potential for criminal activity, the state provides Department of Human substance abuse treatment programs through four state agencies. Resources (DHR), the Department of Corrections Department of Corrections 5 treatment programs (DOC), the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and State Board of Pardons and Paroles 3 treatment programs the State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
    [Show full text]
  • PRISON ARTS RESOURCE PROJECT an Annotated Bibliography
    PARP 1 PRISON ARTS RESOURCE PROJECT An Annotated Bibliography Authors Amanda Gardner, Ph.D. Lori L. Hager, Ph.D., University of Oregon Grady Hillman, Southwestern Correctional Arts Network May 2014 (updated April 2018) This project was supported by an award from the Research: Art Works program at the National Endowment for the Arts: Grant # 13-3800-7013 The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not represent the views of the Office of Research & Analysis or the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information included in this report and is not responsible for any consequence of its use. PARP 2 THE PRISON ARTS RESOURCE PROJECT: An Annotated Bibliography WORKING PAPER Submitted to the National Endowment for the Arts May 2014 (updated April, 2018) Amanda Gardner, Ph.D. Lori L. Hager, Ph.D., University of Oregon Grady Hillman, Southwestern Correctional Arts Network Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Arts and Administration graduate student Beatrice Ogden for her significant contributions as research assistant and for her design of the final report. PARP 3 Table of Contents Abstract Introduction to the Study Annotated Bibliography: Section I: Adult Offender Arts Programs Section II: Juvenile Offender Arts Programs Appendix: Program Evaluation Resources Author Affiliations PARP 4 ABSTRACT The Prison Arts Resource Project (PARP) is an annotated bibliography of evidence-based studies that evaluate the impact of arts programs in U.S. correctional settings. Each of the 59 entries includes information about the arts ​ ​ program as well as the study research goals, methods and a summary of findings.
    [Show full text]
  • Karen Leah Chinn, Principal
    Resume Karen Leah Chinn, Principal Karen L. Chinn is the Founding Principal of Chinn Planning Inc., a Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE) certified consulting firm. Ms. Chinn has wide experience in needs assessment, program evaluation, operational analyses, system master planning and forecasting, and facility programming for criminal justice, juvenile justice, law enforcement, human service, behavioral health, health care, and general government agencies. Over thirty-five years of experience in government and public sector consulting are reflected in Ms. Chinn's approach to meeting her client's needs. By working in partnership with clients, Ms. Chinn seeks to build consensus on workable solutions for improving service delivery through effective use of limited resources. She has served as a member of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the American Correctional Association, American Jail Association, Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, National Partnership for Juvenile Services, American Planning Association, National Association of Counties and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Ms. Chinn has served on committees, made presentations, and participated in workshops with these organizations. Ms. Chinn holds a Bachelor of Arts degree (1978) and a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning degree (1982) from the University of Illinois. She also attended the George Washington University, School of Government and Business Administration, Department
    [Show full text]