142 resultados para Juvenile crime
Resumo:
The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year
Resumo:
The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year
Resumo:
The following report contains district-level numbers for the percent of juveniles in Iowa’s Juvenile Court System and the number who re-offended (subsequent complaint/s). These numbers represent the data available in the ICIS system for initial complaints in 2002, an subsequent complaints. The report also includes recidivism numbers for those counties that had more than 180 initial complaints These numbers are representative, but are not state totals. All districts are represented, but no all counties. The 5th District only includes Polk County due to a data migration issue that, at this time, does not allow the remaining 5th District counties data to be analyzed.
Resumo:
The Iowa Juvenile Court Services Offices are issuing their fourth annual statewide report. The the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP). This report would not be possible without the dedication of, and assistance from, all of the above-mentioned people. The eight Chief Juvenile Court Officers would like to take this opportunity to thank their staff for their dedication and their ability to enter accurate information on every youth referred to Juvenile Court Services; the staff at the Iowa Court Information System, without whom this report would not be possible; and CJJP for their maintenance of the Iowa Justice Data Warehouse and their support in preparing this document.
Resumo:
The Iowa Juvenile Court Services Offices are issuing their fourth annual statewide report. The the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP). This report would not be possible without the dedication of, and assistance from, all of the above-mentioned people. The eight Chief Juvenile Court Officers would like to take this opportunity to thank their staff for their dedication and their ability to enter accurate information on every youth referred to Juvenile Court Services; the staff at the Iowa Court Information System, without whom this report would not be possible; and CJJP for their maintenance of the Iowa Justice Data Warehouse and their support in preparing this document.
Resumo:
This document is the DMC Section of Iowa’s 2009 federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) formula grant three year plan update. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) wrote this update. CJJP is the state agency responsible for administering the JJDP Act in Iowa. Federal officials refer to state administering agencies as the state planning agency (SPA). The Plan was developed and approved by Iowa’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Council. That Council assists with administration of the JJDP Act, and also provides guidance and direction to the SPA, the Governor and the legislature regarding juvenile justice issues in Iowa. Federal officials refer to such state level groups as state advisory groups (SAG’s). The acronyms SPA and SAG are used through this report.
Resumo:
A statewide evaluation of the six adult and three juvenile drug courts in operation during calendar year 2003 was conducted. Completion rates, recidivism, substance abuse treatment, and supervision and placement (juveniles only) costs were examined by model (Judge and Community Panel) and by Judicial District. In addition, adult drug court participants were compared with 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 (probationer). The adult participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through December 31, 2007. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of almost 3 years (2.9) for drug court participants. For the juvenile portion, drug court participants were compared with a group matched on several demographic and offense variables (Matched Comparison group) and juveniles referred to drug court who did not enter the program (Referred Comparison group). The juvenile participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through approximately 16 quarters after program discharge with an end date of December 31, 2007.
Resumo:
This report, the Full Report, is the culmination of the Task Force’s responsibilities as set out in Executive Order 5, dated October 30, 2007. The Executive Order specifies a number of goals and report requirements.There is a commonly held perception that the use of detention may serve as a deterrent to future delinquency. Data in this report reflect that approximately 40% of youth detained in 2006 were re-detained in 2006. Research conducted by national experts indicates that, particularly for low risk/low level offenders, that the use of detention is not neutral, and may increase the likelihood of recidivism. Comparable data for Iowa are not available (national data studied for this report provide level of risk, but risk level related to detention is not presently available for Iowa). The Task Force finds no evidence suggesting that recidivism levels (as related to detention risk) in Iowa should be different than found in other states. Data in this report also suggest that detention is one of the juvenile justice system’s more costly sanctions ($257 - $340 per day). Other sites and local jurisdictions have been able to redirect savings from the reduced use of juvenile detention to support less costly, community-based detention alternatives without compromising public safety.
Resumo:
The following report contains district-level numbers for the percent of juveniles in Iowa’s Juvenile Court System and the number who re-offended (subsequent complaint/s). These numbers represent the data available in the ICIS system for initial complaints in 2004, and subsequent complaints in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The report also includes recidivism numbers for those counties that had more than 180 initial complaints during 2004.
Resumo:
This report was compiled at the request of the Department of Corrections. The first section describes Iowa’s prison inmate population at mid-year. The first section also provides a comparison of the mid-year 1998 prison population with the population one year ago, and five years ago. Included is analysis of sex, race/ethnicity, age categories, life terms, mandatory minimum sentences, number of sentences per inmate, and offense type. Following the statewide section are Facility Profiles that examine each Department of Corrections institution. The facility profiles cover the same types of information as the statewide report for mid-year 1998, except that committing county and judicial district, Board of Parole risk scores and sex are excluded.
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:
Audit report on the North Iowa Juvenile Detention Services Commission for the year ended June 30, 2013
Resumo:
Audit report on the Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center in Eldora, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2013
Resumo:
Audit report on the North Iowa Juvenile Detention Services Commission for the year ended June 30, 2014
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.