Annual report 1979

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1980

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1981

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1983

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1984

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1986

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1987

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1988

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1989

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

Annual report 1994

This report contains a brief discussion of the boards and commissions within this department, caseload statistics from each level of court, and concludes with personnel and other financial information gathered from the Judicial Survey of the offices of Clerk of Court, Probate Judge, Master-In-Equity, Public Defender, Magistrate and Municipal Judge.

The South Carolina Juvenile Collateral Consequences Checklist

Federal and state laws impose a range of collateral consequences that affect the opportunities available to youth involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Children who have pled or have been found guilty of juvenile delinquency offenses face challenges in gaining employment finding housing and accessing educational opportunities. This publication provides a community resource containing the most current information on the short-term and long-term consequences of delinquency adjudications in South Carolina.

Performance Standards for Indigent Defense in Juvenile Cases

Juvenile delinquency proceedings in the South Carolina Family Court are fundamentally different than adult criminal cases. Judges are charged by the South Carolina Code of Laws with acting in the “best interests of the child,” this emphasis on the rehabilitation of the child contrasts with the more punitive model used by the adult criminal justice system. The standards listed in the document aim to provide guidance to appointed counsel in juvenile matters with particular emphasis on the distinctive requirements of the South Carolina juvenile justice system.

Performance Standards for Public Defenders and Assigned Counsel (Non-Capital)

Juvenile delinquency proceedings in the South Carolina Family Court are fundamentally different than adult criminal cases. Judges are charged by the South Carolina Code of Laws with acting in the “best interests of the child,” this emphasis on the rehabilitation of the child contrasts with the more punitive model used by the adult criminal justice system. The standards listed in the document aim to provide guidance to appointed counsel in juvenile matters with particular emphasis on the distinctive requirements of the South Carolina juvenile justice system.

Building an Improved Community Support System

This research will serve to evaluate the current processes and procedures in place for the Community Case Management training, data entry, and quality assurance at the Department of Juvenile Justice. The goal of the research is to identify and establish a framework for a universal unit within the agency that will enhance the effectiveness of Case Management by consolidating and streamlining information to reduce conflicting standards to create a stronger support unit, and to facilitate learning and understanding for the staff.

A Review of the Richland County DJJ Electronic Monitoring Program

The Electronic Monitoring Program for Richland County DJJ was selected as a topic to research because there were problems in the Richland County DJJ Office with equipment being lost, equipment being damaged, and staff failing to utilize the technology properly. If utilized correctly, Electronic Monitoring Technology can help reduce commitments of juveniles to secure facilities which will save the State of South Carolina incarceration costs. This paper explores the training and planning of electronic monitoring in Richland County.