214 resultados para Juvenile justice reform
Resumo:
An evaluation has been conducted on the Polk County Drug Court, comparing clients entering the program from its inception through September 30, 1998 with a group of revoked probationers from FY96 (the “pilot group”) and other offenders referred to drug court who did not enter the program (the “referred group”).
Resumo:
This report was compiled at the request of the Department of Corrections. The statewide analysis of Iowa’s prison population at mid-year (June 30) 2000 includes the following information: l. Type of Most Serious Offense (e.g., arson, assault, burglary, etc.) 2. Offense Class of Most Serious Offense 3. Sex 4. Race/Ethnicity 5. Age (median, or middle value) 6. Inmate Custody Scores (median value) 7. Educational Level (average) 8. Reading Scores (average)
Resumo:
CJJP takes a look at the forecast of inmates population in the state of Iowa in a ten year period. Information was produced by Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. This report was made possible partially through funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and its program for State Statistical Analysis Centers. Points of view or opinions expressed in this report are those of the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP), and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Resumo:
This report was compiled at the request of the Department of Corrections. The statewide analysis of Iowa’s prison population at mid-year (June 30) 1999 includes the following information: • Type of Most Serious Offense (e.g., arson, assault, burglary, etc.) • Offense Class of Most Serious Offense • Sex • Race/Ethnicity • Age (median, or middle value) • Inmate Custody Scores (median value) • Educational Level (average) • Reading Scores (average)
Resumo:
CJJP takes a look at the forecast of inmates population in the state of Iowa in a ten year period. Information was produced by Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. This report was made possible partially through funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and its program for State Statistical Analysis Centers. Points of view or opinions expressed in this report are those of the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP), and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Resumo:
Bi-monthly newsletter about gender-specific services for young women involved in or at risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system.
Resumo:
The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six months’ impact of Senate File 543 (which enacted a number of sentencing changes) on the justice system; monitoring of the correctional impact of this bill was at the request of several members of the legislature. Since then, the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Advisory Council has requested that CJJP monitor the correctional impact of enacted legislation of particular interest. This report covers monitoring results or future plans to monitor the following: 1. Changes in “crack” cocaine and “powder” cocaine penalties under Chapter 124.401 (effective FY2004; see p.3). 2. Commitments to prison involving manufacture, distribution, or possession of methamphetamine under Chapter 124.401 (see p.5). 3. Prosecution of offenders for child endangerment under Chapter 726.6(g) for permitting the presence of a child or minor at a location where a controlled substance manufacturing or a product possession violation occurs (see p.7). 4. Provision of an enhanced penalty for manufacturing of controlled substances under Chapter 124.401C when children are present and the offender is not charged under section 726.6(g) (see p. 7). 5. Creating a new offense when a retailer sells more than two packages of any product containing pseudoephedrine (chapter 126.23A) and providing for an enhanced penalty under Chapter 714.7C when a theft involves more than two packages of similar products (see p.8). 6. Establishment of parole eligibility at 70% of time served for persons sentenced under the “85% law” provisions of Iowa Code Section 902.12. (effective FY2005; see p. 9).
Resumo:
this report describes traffic law enforcement data collected by the Iowa State Patrol (ISP) related to traffic stops made by Troopers for October 1, 2000 through March 30, 2002. The data contained in this report summarizes the activities of approximately 435 troopers who are assigned to 15 posts throughout the State of Iowa The purpose of this voluntary data collection process was to provide the ISP with the ability to review traffic law enforcement variables in relation to traffic stops. The methodology for this research project was developed and implemented by ISP. Following the data collection period, the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) was asked to assist in the analysis and reporting phase of this ambitious project.
Resumo:
This Handbook is designed to outline the purposes, goals, structure, and operational procedures for Iowa’s Child Welfare Decategorization Program. The Handbook incorporates experiences gained since the inception of Decategorization in 1987. As with any initiative that began on a pilot basis, Decategorization has been an evolving program in which parameters and procedures have undergone modifications to achieve the desired results. The Handbook serves as a guidebook for implementation and operation of Decategorization and a means of communicating information on program parameters and procedures. Purposes of Decategorization of child welfare and juvenile justice funding is an initiative intended to establish systems of delivering human services based upon client needs to replace systems based upon a multitude of categorical funding programs and funding sources, each with different service definitions and eligibility requirements. Decategorization is designed to redirect child welfare and juvenile justice funding to services which are more preventive, family centered, and community-based in order to reduce use of restrictive approaches that rely on institutional, out-of home, and out-of-community care.
Resumo:
The Office of the Drug Policy Coordinator is established in Chapter 80E of the Code of Iowa. The Coordinator directs the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy; coordinates and monitors all statewide counter-drug efforts, substance abuse treatment grants and programs, and substance abuse prevention and education programs; and engages in other related activities involving the Departments of public safety, corrections, education, public health, and human services. The coordinator assists in the development of local and community strategies to fight substance abuse, including local law enforcement, education, and treatment activities. The Drug Policy Coordinator serves as chairperson to the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The council includes the directors of the departments of corrections, education, public health, public safety, human services, division of criminal and juvenile justice planning, and human rights. The Council also consists of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, substance abuse prevention specialist, substance abuse treatment program director, judge, and one representative each from the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers, the Iowa State Police Association, and the Iowa State Sheriff’s and Deputies’ Association. Council members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The council makes policy recommendations related to substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment, and drug enforcement. The Council and the Coordinator oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive State of Iowa Drug Control Strategy. The Office of Drug Control Policy administers federal grant programs to improve the criminal justice system by supporting drug enforcement, substance abuse prevention and offender treatment programs across the state. The ODCP prepares and submits the Iowa Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy to the U.S. Department of Justice, with recommendations from the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The ODCP also provides program and fiscal technical assistance to state and local agencies, as well as program evaluation and grants management.
Resumo:
The Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning recently released a report summarizing its evaluation of the Dual Diagnosis Offender Program (DDOP) administered by the First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services.
Resumo:
The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) recently released an evaluation of the intensive substance abuse treatment program at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW) – STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery). STAR is a licensed inpatient program utilizing a genderbased therapeutic community model (TC).
Resumo:
The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) recently released its study of Iowa’s six adult drug courts, all of which are administered by community corrections agencies. Making heavy use of DOC’s ICON data base, CJJP examined completion rates, recidivism and substance abuse treatment. CJJP also compared drug court results with those of a group of offenders who were screened and declined or were rejected by drug court in 2003 (referred) and a sample of offenders starting probation in 2003 (probationers). CJJP tracked the offenders for approximately three years.
Resumo:
Iowa’s Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) recently completed an evaluation of the 2nd Judicial District’s Rural Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI), which provided reentry services to offenders both while in prison and after release.
Resumo:
The Iowa Sex Offender Research Council recently released a report to the Iowa General Assembly focusing on sex offender registration and the special sentence for sex offenders. Regarding the latter, the Council (staffed by the state’s Division of Criminal & Juvenile Justice Planning) projected a steady increase in community-based corrections’ special sentence caseloads from 619 offenders in 2011 to 2,651 offenders in 2021: