FWSN-advisorybd-repo.. - The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chart 8 describes the current court process for imminent risk petitions under P.A.07-4, section 32(b): Chart 8 COURT PROCESS – IMMINENT RISK Petition filed alleging immediate physical harm Findings - Based on petition allegations & other verified affirmations –probable cause to believe: •child is in imminent risk of physical harm from surroundings •as a result, the child’s safety is endangered & immediate removal is necessary •no less restrictive alternative is available Child placed in staff secure CSSD facility Hearing w/in 24 hrs excluding weekends & holidays Released If not released, child may not be held >45 days w/court review every 15 days Release to community for services Commit the child to DCF for not more than 18 months 49
IV. Lessons Learned from National Laws, Models and Program A. General Research During the year long process, the FWSN Advisory Board sought to learn from the experiences of other states and jurisdictions. The Advisory Board and its subcommittees reviewed laws and other states’ models for prevention and intervention with status offenders. In particular, program reform efforts in New York, Florida, Illinois, San Francisco, California and Maricopa County, Arizona were examined. The Vera Institute of Justice provided detailed information and presentations about both the reform processes and each jurisdiction’s response to the reforms. B. Reform Efforts in New York Status offenders in the state of New York are referred to as Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS). In 2001, the New York State Legislature expanded the age of eligibility for PINS to include sixteen and seventeen year olds. Because of concern for the potential increase in the number of PINS referrals into the system, the authorities in New York City responsible for administering and funding the city’s PINS programs, the New York City Department of Probation and the Administration of Children’s Services (ACS), designed and implemented a system of intake and assessment for PINS cases. The approach, known as the Family Assessment Program (FAP), was designed to identify the needs of the children and families, make timely appropriate services available in the community, reduce the need to refer children to family court, and decrease the number of children placed out of their homes. Along with the FAP, new diversion services and alternatives to placement programs were created. (For a full description of the FAP program see Appendix V.) In 2005, The Vera Institute of Justice in New York conducted an evaluation of the FAP. The study report noted many positive outcomes. The results showed decreases in referrals to probation. “After the introduction of FAP, the number of PINS filings with probation dropped 79 percent. From January 1 through June 30, 2002, the Department of Probation opened a total of 3,345 PINS cases. During the same six-month period in 2004, only 697 PINS intakes were opened” 22 There were also dramatic decreases in the number of PINS referrals made to family court. “After the introduction of FAP, PINS referrals to Family Court have declined by 55 percent. The number of PINS cases referred to family court from January through June 2002 was 1,043. From January to June 2004, only 474 PINS intakes were referred to the court.” 23 22 Claire Shubik and Ajay Khashu, “A Study of New York City’s Family Assessment Program”, The Vera Institute of Justice, (New York 2005) 8 23 Ibid, 10 50
Page 1 and 2: Families with Service Needs Advisor
Page 3 and 4: VI. Other Key Recommendations Relat
Page 5 and 6: Report to the General Assembly from
Page 7 and 8: In addition, minor changes to the r
Page 9 and 10: RECOMMENDATION THREE PROVIDE FUNDS
Page 11 and 12: RECOMMENDATION FIVE MAKE NEEDED CHA
Page 13 and 14: The Advisory Board is recommending
Page 15 and 16: ased preventive programs 4. Flex fu
Page 17 and 18: B. Recommendations related to Truan
Page 19 and 20: D. System-wide Prevention Strategie
Page 21 and 22: Intervention for DCF youth residing
Page 23 and 24: gender responsive programming to as
Page 25 and 26: and organizations represented inclu
Page 27 and 28: and to added referral to community
Page 29 and 30: C. Young FWSN Children In 2006 ther
Page 31 and 32: • Juvenile Review Boards (JRB) A
Page 33 and 34: are truant. The focus is to provide
Page 35 and 36: Presently, there is no data collect
Page 37 and 38: Juvenile probation officers provide
Page 39 and 40: The Family Support Center provides
Page 41 and 42: achievement and reentry. The progra
Page 43 and 44: Once the child is adjudicated as a
Page 45 and 46: DCF may petition the court for an e
Page 47 and 48: ‣ Current Services for Court Invo
Page 49: hearing held every fifteen days. At
Page 53 and 54: continuum of effective strength-bas
Page 55 and 56: E. Other programs include: Mediatio
Page 57 and 58: CORE RECOMMENDATION # 2: FUND AND E
Page 59 and 60: 2. Grades 6-8 3. Grade 9 a. In addi
Page 61 and 62: FWSN referrals submitted to court.
Page 63 and 64: CORE RECOMMENDATION # 5: MAKE NEEDE
Page 65 and 66: 4. Systemic, longitudinal evaluatio
Page 67 and 68: 3. Crisis/risk determination traini
Page 69 and 70: SDE’s Secondary School Redesign D
Page 71 and 72: truant students who attend school r
Page 73 and 74: Handling of FWSN cases. Confidentia
Page 75 and 76: In response to Special Act 04-5, DC
Page 77 and 78: for all DCF Social Workers and CSSD
Page 79 and 80: IX. APPENDICES Table of Contents Ap
Page 81 and 82: Appendix II FAMILIES WITH SERVICE N
Page 83 and 84: FWSN ADVISORY BOARD - TRUANCY SUBCO
Page 85 and 86: LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING SUBCOMMITTEE M
Page 87 and 88: States continue to struggle with th
Page 89 and 90: Appendix IV Detailed Population Dem
Page 91 and 92: Chart 1 shows a detailed analysis o
Page 93 and 94: Most of the assessed children score
Page 95 and 96: Appendix V Highlights of Other Prog
Page 97 and 98: The programs also provide preventio
Page 99 and 100: Appendix VII Evaluation of FWSN sys
Page 101 and 102:
Table of Contents Introduction Page
Page 103 and 104:
considered “gender-specific” or
Page 105 and 106:
filed during the months of April, M
Page 107 and 108:
or guardian, the child, parent or g
Page 109 and 110:
general statutes, as amended by thi
Page 111 and 112:
X. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ADP - Alternat
show all

FWSN-advisorybd-repo.. - The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?