An address delivered before the citizens of Philadelphia at the House of Refuge on Saturday, the twenty-ninth of November, 1828 /

The House of Refuge was incorporated in 1826 for the reformation of juvenile delinquents in Philadelphia.

Mental defect in a rural county.

Mode of access: Internet.

Intelligence and social valuation, a practical method for the diagnosis of mental deficiency and other forms of social inefficiency,

Mode of access: Internet.

The extinction of the defective delinquent, a working program ...

"A paper read before the American Prison Association at Baltimore, November 12th, 1912."

L'adolescence criminelle : contribution à l'étude des causes de la criminalité toujours criossante de l'adolescence et des remèdes à y apporter /

Bibliography: p. [5]-8.

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.

An exploratory investigation of America's most costly delinquents: Juvenile firesetters

This study focused on the instruments that are currently being used by fire department personnel to identify and classify juvenile firesetters, these instruments, as published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) have never been empirically validated as to their ability to discriminate between first time and multiple firesetters and to predict the degree of risk for future firesetting by juveniles that come to the attention of authorities for firesetting behaviors. The study was descriptive in nature and not designed to test the validity of these instruments. The study was designed to test the ability of the instruments to discriminate between first time and multiple firesetters and to categorize known firesetters, based on the motive for firesetting, as to their degree or risk for future firesetting.^ The results suggest that the F.E.M.A. instruments are of little use in discriminating between first time and multiple firesetters. The F.E.M.A. instruments were not able to categorize juvenile firesetters as to their potential risk for future firesetting. A subset of variables from the F.E.M.A. instruments was identified that may be useful in discriminating between youth that are troubled firesetters and those that are not. ^

Safeguarding rural Australia : addressing masculinity and violence in rural settings. Data report no. 5. Consequences of violence - juvenile offenders, long-term health consequences, anxiety and repression, other chronic disabilities

This report considers extant data which have been sourced with respect to some of the consequences of violent acts and incidents and risky behaviour for males living in regional and remote Australia . This has been collated and presented under the headings: juvenile offenders; long-term health consequences; anxiety and repression; and other chronic disabilities. Additional commentary resulting from exploration, examination and analyses of secondary data is published online in complementary reports in this series.

Juvenile justice in Queensland and Canada : new legislation reflecting new directions

Due to their similar colonial histories and common law heritage, Australia and Canada provide an ideal comparative context for examining legislation reflecting new directions in the field of juvenile justice. Toward this end, this article compares the revised juvenile justice legislation which came into force in Queensland and Canada in 2003 (Canada, Youth Criminal Justice Act, enacted on 19 February 2002 and proclaimed in force 1 April 2003; Queensland, Juvenile Justice Act, amended 2003). There are a series of questions that could be addressed including: How similar and how sweeping have been the legislative changes introduced in each jurisdiction?; What are likely to be some of the effects of the implementation of these new legislative regimes?; and, how well does the legislation enacted in either jurisdiction address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children who have been caught up in juvenile justice systems? This article addresses mainly the first of these questions, offering a systematic comparison of recent Queensland and Canadian legislative changes. Although, due to the recentness of these changes, there is no data available to assess long-term effects, anecdotal evidence and preliminary research findings from our comparative study are offered to provide a start at answering the second question. We also offer critical yet sympathetic comments on the ability of legislation to address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children caught up in juvenile justice systems. Specifically, we conclude that while more than simple legislative responses are required to address the difficulties faced by youth offenders, and especially overrepresented Indigenous young offenders, the amended Queensland and new Canadian legislation appear to provide some needed reforms that can be used to help address some of these fundamental difficulties.

Juvenile justice and truancy legislation : The move towards parental responsibilisation in Queensland

Much current Queensland media rhetoric, government policy and legislation on truancy and youth justice appears to be based on ideas of responsibilisation – of sheeting responsibility for children’s behaviour back onto their parents. This article examines the evidence of parental responsibility provisions in juvenile justice and truancy legislation in Queensland and the drivers behind this approach. It considers recent legislative initiatives as part of an international trend toward making parents ‘responsible’ for the wrongs of their children. It identifies the parental responsibility rhetoric appearing in recent ministerial statements and associated media reports. It then asks the questions – are these legislative provisions being enforced? And if so, are they successful? Are they simply adding to the administrative burdens placed on teachers and schools, and the socioeconomic burdens placed on already disadvantaged parents? Parental responsibility provisions have been discussed at length in the context of juvenile offending and research suggests that punishing parents for the acts of their children does not decrease delinquency. The paper asks how, as a society, we intend to evaluate these punitive measures against parents?