2007 State of Iowa Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formule Grand Update

This document is Iowa’s 2007 JJDP Act formula grant three year plan update. When specific items of this plan are unchanged from the previously submitted 2006 plan, we have reflected accordingly in the respective topic areas of this document. The bulk of this 2007 plan is an “update” of the program plan completed since submission of the original 2006 plan. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) wrote Iowa’s three year plan 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).

Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Plan 1998 Update

Pursuant to Iowa Code 216A, subchapter 9, CJJP is required to issue an annual report containing long-range systems goals, special issue planning recommendations and research findings. CJJP’s 1998 response to its reporting requirement is replicated in the manner of the distribution of the 1997 Update. Again this year, CJJP is issuing one large document which contains many separate reports. Single-issue 1998 Update reports will be made available based on reader interest and need.

DMC Section: 2008 State of Iowa Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant Update, March 2009

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.

Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grand Fund Outcomes Report and FY2002 Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary, January 2002

This document contains two related, but separate reports. The Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund Outcomes Report is a summary of outcomes from services and activities funded through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund in FY2001. The Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary describes Iowa communities’ current prevention and sanction programs supported with funding from the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) during FY2002. The material in Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund Outcomes Report is presented in response to a legislative mandate to report specific prevention outcomes for the community Grant Fund. It includes a brief description of a Youth Development Results Framework established by the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development. Outcomes are reported using this results framework, which was developed by a number of state agencies as a common tool for various state programs involving youth development related planning and funding processes. Included in this report is a description of outcomes from the prevention activities funded, all or in part, by the Community Grant Fund, as reported by local communities. The program summaries presented in the Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary provide an overview of local efforts to implement their 2002 Juvenile Justice Youth Development plans and include prevention and sanction programs funded through the combined resources of the State Community Grant Fund and the Federal Title V Prevention, Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant and Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant programs. These combined funds are referred to in this document as the Juvenile Justice Youth Development (JJYD) funds. To administer the JJYD funds, including funds from the Community Grant Fund, CJJP partners with local officials to facilitate a community planning process that determines the communities’ priorities for the use of the funds. The local planning is coordinated by the Iowa’s Decategorization Boards (Decats). These local officials and/or their staff have been leaders in providing oversight or staff support to a variety of local planning initiatives (e.g. child welfare, Comprehensive Strategy Pilot Projects, Empowerment, other) and bring child welfare and community planning experience to the table for the creation of comprehensive community longterm planning efforts. The allocation of these combined funds and the technical assistance received by the Decats from CJJP is believed to have helped enhance both child welfare and juvenile justice efforts locally and has provided for the recognition and establishment of connections for joint child welfare/juvenile justice planning. The allocation and local planning approach has allowed funding from CJJP to be “blended” or “braided” with other local, state, and federal dollars that flow to communities as a result of their local planning responsibilities. The program descriptions provided in this document reflect services and activities supported with JJYD funds. In many cases, however, additional funding sources have been used to fully fund the programs. Most of the information in this document’s two reports was submitted to CJJP by the communities through an on- line planning and reporting process established jointly by the DHS and CJJP.

What is the value of forensic science? : an overview of the effectiveness of forensic science in the Australian criminal justice system project

Forensic science is increasingly relied upon by law enforcement to assist in solvingcrime and gaining convictions, and by the judicial system in the adjudication ofspecific criminal cases. However, the value of forensic science relative to the workinvolved and the outcome of cases has yet to be established in the Australiancontext. Previous research in this area has mainly focused on the science andtechnology, rather than examining how people can use forensic services/science tothe best possible advantage to produce appropriate justice outcomes. This fiveyearproject entails an investigation into the effectiveness of forensic science inpolice investigations and court trials. It aims to identify when, where and howforensic science can add value to criminal investigations, court trials and justiceoutcomes while ensuring the efficient use of available resources initially in theVictorian and the ACT criminal justice systems and ultimately across Australiaand New Zealand. This paper provides an overview of the rationale and aims ofthe research project and discusses current work-in-progress.

FY 2016 Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Annual Plan Update, December 1, 2015

The following report will initially provide a brief review of the criminal and juvenile justice system’s long-range and five-year goals established by CJJP. The report will then provide an overview of current initiatives helping to achieve these goals. Some initiatives have associated information which can be found on the CJJP website and are identified within this report.

Capacity to Attend to the Needs of Persons with Dual Diagnoses in the Criminal Justice System: Views of Mental Health and Criminal Justice Professionals

Currently, individuals with intellectual disabilities are overrepresented within the Criminal Justice System (Griffiths, Taillon-Wasmond & Smith, 2002). A primary problem within the Criminal Justice System is the lack of distinction between mental illness and intellectual disabilities within the Criminal Code. Due to this lack of distinction and the overall lack of identification procedures in the Criminal Justice System, individuals with disabilities will often not receive proper accommodations to enable them to play an equitable role in the justice system. There is increasing evidence that persons with intellectual disabilities are more likely than others to have their rights violated, not use court supports and accommodations as much as they should, and be subject to miscarriages of justice (Marinos, 2010). In this study, interviews were conducted with mental health (n=8) and criminal justice professionals (n=8) about how individuals with dual diagnosis are received in the Criminal Justice System. It was found that criminal justice professionals lack significant knowledge about dual diagnosis, including effective identification and therefore appropriate supports and accommodations. Justice professionals in particular were relatively ill-prepared in dealing effectively with this population. One finding to highlight is that there is misunderstanding between mental health professionals and justice professionals about who ought to take responsibility and accountability for this population.

Searching for Accommodations within the Ontario Criminal Justice System for Persons with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: Views of Social Service Agency and Justice Professionals

Although persons with intellectual disabilities have been conceptualized as having rights to equality in Canada and internationally, there continue to be gaps in the delivery of justice when they are involved within the criminal process. The literature consistently reported that individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASDs) often experienced challenges within the justice system, such as difficulty understanding abstract legal concepts (Conry & Fast, 2009). In the Canadian legal system, accommodations are available to enable persons with disabilities to receive equal access to justice; however, how these are applied to persons with FASDs had not been fully explored in the literature. In this study, in-depth interviews were conducted with social service agency workers (n=10) and justice professionals (n=10) regarding their views of the challenges persons with FASDs experience in the justice system and their suggestions on the use of accommodations. The findings showed that while supports have been provided for individuals with intellectual disabilities, there has been a lack of specialized accommodations available specifically for individuals with FASDs in accessing their right to justice.

Criminal justice system in pondicherry - a comparative critical study of the past and the presen

The Union Territory of Pondicherry prior to its merger with the Indian Union was a French Colony. The erstwhile territory of Pondicherry along with its hamlets, namely, KARAIKKAL, MAHE and YANAM was administered by the French Regime. Before it was established by French in 1 6 74 A.D. it was part of Vijayanagara Empire. Prior to this, Pondicherry was a part of the Kingdom of Chola and Pallava Kings. During French Regime, the laws which were in force in France in relation to administration of civil and criminal justice were extended to the erstwhile Territory of Pondicherry. Thus while Pondicherry stood influenced by the Inquisitorial system since the beginning of the 18th century, the neighboring states forming part of the Indian Union since Independence came under the Influence of the British system, viz. accusatorial system. The territory of Pondicherry, for administrative reasons, came to be merged with the Indian Union in the early 60's. Following the merger, the Indian administration sought to extent its own laws from time to time replacing erstwhile French Laws, however, subject to certain savings. Thus the transitional period witnessed consequential changes in the administration of the territory, including the sphere of judicial system. Since I 963, the Union Territory of Pondicherry was brought under the spell of the Indian Legal System The people in Pondicherry ' thus have had the benefit of experiencing both the svstems. Their experiences will be of much help to those who undertake comparative studies in law. The plus and minus points of the respective systems help one to develop a detachment that helps independent evaluation of the svstents. The result of these studies could be relevant in revitalising our criminal systems.The present system is evaluated in the light of the past system. New dimensions are added by way' of an empirical study also.

The military justice system.

Mode of access: Internet.

Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act [microform] : runaway and homeless youth : hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, second session on H.R. 1801, hearing held in Washington, DC, January 29, 1988.

"Serial no. 100-72."

Texas juvenile probation report.

"Statistical and other data on the state juvenile justice system."