Diversion Programs In Juvenile Corrections

CASES if successful can reduce crime once their clients finish treatment. They take mental health evaluations serious when providing case management. As a social worker, I could build on the what CASES mental health assessments. Mr. Jacobs discussed how assessments can identify those at risk to be rearrested while in the program. In the identification of those individuals, different resources can be given to keep them from committing a criminal offense. I know what works with New York may not work for Los Angeles, but we can take those same principles to fit geographical

Whether a child who has committed a serious crime deserves rehabilitation or harsh punishment has been argued and the Juvenile Justice System is being blamed. Children who deserve real punishment are receiving rehab and children who deserve rehab are receiving harsh punishment. Many children’s lives are getting ruined because of unnecessary harsh punishment. Some juvenile offenders are not learning their lesson. The article “Sentences Show Acknowledge Juveniles’ Maturity, and Immaturity,” by Laurence Steinburg and the article, “Remember the Victims of Juvenile Offenders,” by Jenifer Bishop-Jenkins differ not only in their views of issues surrounding the American juvenile justice system, they differ in quality; however, Steinburg who argues for rehabilitation, clearly presents the best argument using logical reasoning and relevant evidence.

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and of that over sixty percent of jail inmates reported having a mental health issue and 316,000 of them are severely mentally ill (Raphael & Stoll, 2013). Correctional facilities in the United States have become the primary mental health institutions today (Adams & Ferrandino, 2008). This imprisonment of the mentally ill in the United States has increased the incarceration rate and has left those individuals medically untreated and emotionally unstable while in jail and after being released. Better housing facilities, medical treatment and psychiatric counseling can be helpful in alleviating their illness as well as upon their release. This paper will

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

I advocate for a revision of the juvenile justice system that truly promotes social justice. The ideal detention facility I propose for delinquent juveniles more so resembles the practices and concepts the Missouri Division of Youth Services provides. This system does not bar children in cells. It does not force them to wear dehumanizing uniforms, they are provided with sufficient and well-trained mental health professionals. They are provided with anger management programs. It is devoted to “offer a demanding, carefully crafted, multilayered treatment experience, designed to challenge troubled teens and to help them

The need for the Jail Diversion Program arises from the increasing number of mental health problems among the jail population in the United States. According to Bell, Decker, & Sullivan (2013), 64 percent of the adults incarcerated in the US prisons in

In the United States, over 90,000 juveniles are incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities. To house 90,000 juveniles, majority non-violent offenders, it costs the states roughly 5.7 billion dollars annually. “With states facing serious budgetary constraints, it is an opportune time or policymakers to consider ways to reduce juvenile justice spending that won’t compromise public safety.” In the effort to reduce juvenile justice costs, community-based programs known as pretrial diversion programs were implemented. Pretrial diversion programs did not only reduce funding costs, but benefited the juvenile as well. Pretrial diversion programs main objective is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, which ultimately led to lower recidivism rates and safer communities. As a result of the benefits to all parties involved, today’s juvenile judicial system offers more juveniles the opportunity to attend these diversion programs; rather than proceed through traditional criminal justice processes. (Justice Policy Institution)

Each day vast amounts of people with mental disorders are being cycled through the criminal justice system. A recent study shows that approximately twenty percent of prisoners have a mental illness, and out of all of the mentally ill people alive, forty percent of them will serve some sort of jail time in their lifetime. In recent studies, it has also appeared that individuals being incarcerated have more severe types of mental illness, including psychotic disorders and major mood disorders than they did in the past. In fact, according to the American Psychiatric Association, between two and four percent of all inmates in state prisons are estimated to have a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia, thirteen to nineteen percent have severe

Today the public became more concern about youth crime rising within the community. The public also believes that some of juvenile delinquents do not belong behind bars whereas others do. In the concern of the juveniles who do not belong behind bars the public started creating community outreach programs, intervention, and prevention programs. These programs create an environment for the youth to understand the consequences of their actions, responsibility, and help. This paper will be examining two juvenile diversions, interventions, and prevention

People with a mental illness who are in a time of difficulty, often find themselves homeless, in mental health facilities, or confined in jails. According to a survey done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 79 percent of mentally ill inmates in local jails, 76 percent of mentally ill inmates in federal prison, and 81 percent of mentally ill inmates in state prison have prior convictions. That is compared to only 71 percent of other inmates in local jails, 61 percent of other inmates in federal prison,  and 79 percent of other inmates being in state prison. And dejectedly enough, most of these criminals are expected to be charged with another crime after being released. Because of this, in order to help prisoners with mental health problems receive treatment and services, the state legislator should work to bring San Diego´s program to Minnesota because in the long run, it will save taxpayers money, reduce crime rates, and cut back recidivism by half.

There are many various risk prediction scales that are being use to assess offenders. By using these risk assessments on offenders we are able to determine whether the offender is a high, medium, or low risk to the society. The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) is an assessment that consists of a series of questions that are answered by the offender. LSI-R uses all of the following factors “criminal history, education/employment, financial, family, accommodation, leisure, companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitudes” (LSI-R, 2015) when assessing an offender. With the score generated from the LSI-R and opinions from correction professional we can determine whether the offender risk of recidivism is high,

San Jose Police Chief, Bill Landsdowne, stated that, “[l]ocking up kids is the easiest way. But once they get in the juvenile justice system, it’s very hard to get them out” (Holman & Ziedenberg, date). Detaining youth, in particular non-violent offenders, has more of a negative, long-term impact on youth as well as the community. With the inception of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, the use of retribution is being pushed aside for more restorative and rehabilitation efforts. States that have embraced this initiative are finding that not only are the numbers of youth being detained decreasing but that alternatives to detention are providing opportunity for juveniles to become productive members of the community. All this effort without increasing risk to the community and safety issues. More importantly this initiative works in addressing the underlying issues causing delinquent behavior.

The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.

Prior to treatment an offender first has to be assessed by a trained doctor so their needs and risks can be determined in order to keep recidivism down. The assessment includes background investigations, review of official documentation as well as psychological and psychometric testing (Terry, 2012, p. 253). After the