DOCSLIB.ORG

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Private prisons/jails 67 210 10%, abusive sexual contact. Although data are limited to incidents State juvenile systems 931 931 reported to correctional authorities y Correctional authorities reported Local/private 3.15 allegations of sexual violence per during 2004, the survey provides an juvenile facilities 359 1,890 1,000 inmates held in 2004. understanding of how administrators Other facilities 16 20 respond to sexual violence. The survey Correctional authorities substantiated nearly 2,100 incidents of sexual also collects basic counts of substanti- violence, 30% of completed investigations ated incidents, characteristics of Rate per y Males comprised 90% of victims victims and perpetrators, and sanctions Number 1,000 inmates and perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate imposed. National estimate 2,090 0.94 nonconsensual sexual acts in prison Total reported 1,213 0.69 and jail. Survey results should not be used to Prisons - Federal 47 0.31 rank systems or facilities. Future data Prisons - State 611 0.52 y In State prisons 69% of victims of collections, including victim reports of Local jails 210 0.63 staff sexual misconduct were male, sexual violence in surveys of current Private prisons/jails 17 0.55 while 67% of perpetrators were female. State juvenile and former inmates, are being devel- systems 212 5.15 y In local jails 70% of victims of staff oped to permit reliable comparisons. Local/private sexual misconduct were female; 65% juvenile facilities 108 4.97 Other facilities 8 0.82 of perpetrators, male. BJS conducts the first annual characteristics of victims and perpetra- facilities. The methods will rely on self- administrative records collection tors, and sanctions imposed on perpe- administered surveys to provide trators. anonymity to victims when reporting Between January 1 and June 15, 2005, their experiences. At the same time, BJS completed the first national survey Administrative records alone cannot computer-assisted technologies will of the incidence and prevalence of provide reliable estimates of sexual ensure uniform conditions under which sexual violence in correctional facilities. violence. Due to fear of reprisal from inmates complete the survey, and The Governments Division of the U.S. perpetrators, a code of silence among sampling techniques and supplemental Census Bureau was the data collection inmates, personal embarrassment, and data collections will reduce potential agent for the survey. The survey was lack of trust in staff, victims are often biases. (See box below for an update conducted to provide information on reluctant to report incidents to correc- of these activities.) occurrences of sexual violence based tional authorities. At present there are on allegations brought to the attention no reliable estimates of the extent of The 2004 administrative survey of correctional authorities. Although the unreported sexual victimization among provides the basis for the annual statis- results are limited to incidents reported prison and jail inmates and youth held tical review, as required under the act. to officials and officially recorded in residential facilities. Though limited to basic counts, these during 2004, the survey provides an survey data will be used by the Review understanding of what officials know, BJS is developing and testing methods Panel on Prison Rape within the how many allegations were reported, for more fully measuring the incidence Department of Justice for purposes of how many were substantiated, basic of sexual violence in correctional conducting public hearings concerning National implementation of victim As of June 30, 2005, the following Youth in residential placement self reports to begin in 2006 work had been completed or was facilities underway: y A draft ACASI questionnaire for BJS works toward full implementation Prison and jail inmates juveniles had been developed and of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. will be reviewed in a national Since January 2004 BJS has entered y An ACASI questionnaire for adult workshop of stakeholders in into cooperative agreements with – inmates had been developed and September 2005. 1. RTI International (Raleigh, NC) reviewed by over 40 prison and jail to develop and test the adult prison administrators, prisoner rights y Survey procedures and draft and jail collection methodologies advocates, and researchers. questionnaires have been submit- 2. Westat, Inc. (Rockville, MD) to ted to an IRB for approval to begin y Paper-and-pencil interview (PAPI) develop and test methodologies for conducting cognitive testing. forms were under development, measuring sexual violence in State including forms translated into the y A formal pretest of collection and local juvenile facilities five most frequent foreign methods in up to 20 juvenile facili- 3. National Opinion Research Center languages (in addition to Spanish) ties is planned for November 2005. (NORC) (Chicago, IL) to develop spoken by inmates; forms for and test methods of collecting data inmates considered too dangerous Former and soon-to-be-released from soon-to-be released and for interaction with survey staff; and prisoners former prisoners. forms to gather administrative data y An ACASI questionnaire and on all inmates. Though underlying survey methodol- administrative records form were ogy and logistical procedures differ y Survey materials and methods had being developed to survey former with each of the data collection efforts, been submitted to the Office and inmates under active parole or post- the measurement strategies will be Management and Budget (OMB) custody supervision. consistent. The surveys will consist of and to an Institutional Review Board y Activities were expanded to include an Audio Computer-Assisted Self- (IRB) for approval to conduct tests. Interview (ACASI) in which respon- the development of methods to dents interact with a computer- y Procedures for selection of prison survey soon-to-be-released prison- administered questionnaire using a and jail facilities and for sampling ers in community-based facilities. inmates within selected facilities touch-screen and follow audio instruc- y Cognitive testing is planned for had been developed. tions delivered via headphones. The September 2005. use of ACASI is expected to over- y A formal pretest in 10 State prisons, come many limitations of previous 5 Federal prisons, and 10 local jails National implementation of data research. (See Data Collections for is planned for October 2005. collections is scheduled to begin with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of a 10% sample of prisons and jails in 2003, June 2004, NCJ 206109.) June 2006, and a sample of juvenile facilities in December 2006. 2 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004 the operation of correctional facilities Survey covers more than 2,700 adult a representative sample was drawn of with the highest and lowest incidence and juvenile correctional facilities local jails, jails in Indian country, facili- of sexual violence. The number of ties operated by the Bureau of allegations and substantiated incidents The 2004 survey included all Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement for each system and sampled facility and State prison systems, State- (ICE), privately operated adult prisons in the survey is provided. (See Appen- operated juvenile facilities, and facili- and jails, and privately or locally dix tables.) ties in the United States operated by operated juvenile facilities. Altogether, the U.S. military (table 1). In addition, the administrative survey covered 2,730 of the 8,663 facilities specified
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]
  • 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)..……..…………………….………..….…….………....…….…...
    [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]