1979 plan for Commission on Delinquency Prevention : phase I, fiscal years 1977-1979 /

Mode of access: Internet.

Plan for delinquency prevention services, fiscal years 1976-1980 /

Mode of access: Internet.

Reducing juvenile commitments in Illinois to the St. Charles School for Boys /

Reproduced from typewritten copy.

UDIS : deinstitutionalizing the chronic juvenile offender : executive summary /

On cover: Research evaluation.

International bibliography on crime and delinquency.

v. 2- issued as Public Health Service publication.

The Journal of delinquency.

Title from cover.

The impact of the juvenile intervention facility on the adjudication of delinquent youth in Broward County

Considerable funds have been allocated in the area of juvenile justice in attempts to reduce and prevent the problem of juvenile delinquency. Much of these funds have been funneled to various community-level intervention programs. This dissertation reports the results of a study that examined the effects of one such program, the Juvenile Intervention Facility (JIF) in Broward County, Florida, on reducing the number of cases handled judicially by the Juvenile Court in that county. ^ Juvenile justice policy, which precipitated the creation of the JIF program, assumed that more structured and integrative efforts at the point of entry into the juvenile justice system would lead to greater diversion from the courts to much needed intervention services. By virtue of this process, the number of juveniles handled judicially by the courts was expected to decrease and future delinquent behavior would be prevented. Archival data from four fiscal years were examined, two years pre-JIF, two years post-JIF, a third-year follow-up, and a concurrent outcome measure corresponding to the first year of JIF operations. Data included all juvenile cases referred during the fiscal years defined for Broward and St. Lucie Counties, the state of Florida, and the United States. The study tested four hypotheses: (a) the JIF would reduce the number of cases handled judicially in Broward County Juvenile Court, (b) the decrease in judicially handled cases would be greater for females than for males, (c) there would be greater decreases in judicially handled cases for whites than non-whites, (d) there would be greater decreases in judicial handling for younger than older offenders. Bivariate analyses were conducted, consisting of chi square tests, to test the hypotheses. ^ Results indicate that the impact of the JIF was in the opposite direction of what was expected in that more juvenile offenders were handled judicially through juvenile court. This fact points to the possibility that the JIF has failed to provide the intended consequences of the policy. In the discussion, these “unintended” consequences are addressed in the context of juvenile justice policy creation and the competing constituencies involved in such policy development. ^

The Adolescent Empathy Paradox and Juvenile Offending

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-08

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.

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice report card for 2004

The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice annually publishes a report card that provides an overview of the juvenile justice system and statistics on caseloads, facility population, and agency programs.

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice report card for 2005

The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice annually publishes a report card that provides an overview of the juvenile justice system and statistics on caseloads, facility population, and agency programs.

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice report card for 2006

The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice annually publishes a report card that provides an overview of the juvenile justice system and statistics on caseloads, facility population, and agency programs.

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice report card for 2007

The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice annually publishes a report card that provides an overview of the juvenile justice system and statistics on caseloads, facility population, and agency programs.

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice report card for 2008

The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice annually publishes a report card that provides an overview of the juvenile justice system and statistics on caseloads, facility population, and agency programs.