Researchers do not already know everything there is to know about reducing recidivism and keeping youth out of the justice system.
The Cure Violence model is a public health approach to gun violence reduction that seeks to change individual and community attitudes and norms about gun violence. It considers gun violence to be analogous to a communicable disease that passes from person to person when left untreated.
In an evaluation of inter-agency initiatives to reform human services systems, outcomes are observed at the system level rather than the individual level. The Reclaiming Futures initiative is designed to improve services and interventions for justice-involved youth.
Drawing on a national survey of juvenile court practitioners, this study investigates key questions about the effectiveness of juvenile justice and discusses the implications of the findings for research, policy, and practice.
The juvenile justice system has been transformed in recent years with a range of policies designed to hold youth accountable, but how does society hold this system accountable?
Reclaiming Futures (RF) relies on community partnerships to improve treatment quality, strengthen local leadership, expand inter-organizational collaboration, and create systems of shared performance management. The initial findings of a cross-site evaluation suggest that Reclaiming Futures is yielding important and positive change.
State and local jurisdictions throughout the United States enacted a wide array of new juvenile justice policies in recent years. Many of these policies were intended to make the juvenile justice system tougher, but others improved prevention, increased rehabilitation, and enhanced the restorative features of the juvenile justice system.
Problem-solving courts have become a significant feature of the U.S. justice system, and their popularity appears to be growing internationally with courts underway or in development in counties such as Australia and Great Britain.
Youth charged with delinquency offenses in U.S. juvenile courts cannot assert a right to speedy trial. As with several other rights enjoyed exclusively by adults (e.g., trial by jury, consideration of bail), a federal right to speedy trial is not provided for juveniles.
Young offenders have not been provided with a Constitutional right to speedy trial. Yet, concerns about timeliness are often equally pressing in the juvenile court. This study examines the timing of juvenile justice by analyzing delinquency case processing in nearly 400 jurisdictions.
The U.S. Supreme Court mandated greater due process protections for juveniles, including the right to counsel and the protection against self-incrimination. Jurists and policy makers should consider whether young offenders should also have the right to a “speedy trial.”
This article examines the extent to which unnecessary delays exist in the processing of juvenile court cases and analyzes the causes and effects of delay. Includes recommendations for national standards or policy initiatives.
The juvenile justice system during the 1980s failed to live up to the goals it set for itself during the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in the use of secure facilities.
This article examines hospital records for adolescent psychiatric discharges and compares adolescent and young adult patients (ages 18-22) on demographic characteristics, diagnosis, and source of payment to test the relationship between insurance and length of stay.
An evaluation of intensive supervision programs for juveniles illustrated how juvenile justice organizations adapt to the presence of alternative programs in ways that dilute their impact.