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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Children Referred by Court Location Over half of all the FWSN referrals were received by the New Haven, Waterbury, Bridgeport and Hartford Juvenile Matters court districts. The remainder was fairly evenly divided among the remaining districts, with the exception of Danbury with 89 referrals, Norwalk with 104 referrals and Stamford with 110 referrals. Diagram 2 gives a breakdown of the referrals by district. Diagram 2 FWSN Referrals by Receiving Court Location SFY 2005-2006 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 527 501 448 366 289 257 229 236 214 186 89 104 110 Bridgeport Danbury Hartford Middletown New Britain New Haven Norwalk Rockville Stamford Torrington Waterbury Waterford Willimantic • Handling Decision By Court Location Prior to October 1, 2007, cases referred to the court as FWSNs were reviewed by a Juvenile Probation Supervisor, who confirmed that the court had jurisdiction and that the court was the proper venue for the case. The Supervisor then determined if the case was to be handled judicially, i.e. a petition prepared and filed with the court or non-judicially by probation using referrals to services. 89
Chart 1 shows a detailed analysis of “handling” decisions by court location. Chart 1 Handling Decision by Court Location SFY 2005 Court Location Judicial Non-Judicial Bridgeport 178 203 Danbury 34 30 Hartford 279 21 Middletown 108 125 New Britain 123 291 New Haven 385 130 Norwalk 43 41 Rockville 97 83 Stamford 34 106 Torrington 104 99 Waterbury 432 142 Waterford 102 172 Willimantic 120 113 TOTAL: 2039 1556 • FWSN Dispositions There were several options for disposing of FWSN cases. Of the FWSN cases disposed in SFY 2005, 59% were on Judicial FWSN Supervision, 37% were handled nonjudicially, referred for services and had their cases dismissed and 4% were placed on Non-Judicial FWSN supervision. More recent data reveals the number of FWSN cases added and disposed. 71 In SFY 2006-2007 the number of new FWSN cases added was 4, 391. 72 Of the cases added, 2110 were handled judicially, 1713 were handled non-judicially. A small portion, 568 cases, were either not accepted or dismissed at intake. • Detailed Assessment Data In SFY 2005, 1860 FWSN referred children were assessed with the JAG. Of the 1038 boys assessed, 215 were African American, 218 were Hispanic and 366 were Caucasian. Of the 822 girls assessed, 145 were African American, 187 were Hispanic and 279 were 71 Data in the prior sections of the report refers to the number of children referred to the court. The SFY 2006-2007 data refers to cases. A child may have more than one case referred or pending. 72 Each unique child may have one or more cases. 90
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 and 50: hearing held every fifteen days. At
Page 51 and 52: IV. Lessons Learned from National L
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: Appendix IV Detailed Population Dem
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?