Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1983 - Bureau of Justice ...

,-Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Stotistics 1983an offense) Is alleged or demonstrated to have occurred while his/herage was belllW the statutory limit of original jurisdiction of a juvenilecourt.Long-term focility--A correctional, as opposed to a detentionfacility. Includes training schools; ranches, forestry camps, and farms;and halfway houses and group homes.Nonpayroll staff--Full-time or part-time personnel not on thepayroll of the ~eporting facilit~. Includes individuals paid by a parentag~ncy or service who are assigned to the juvenile facility, personnelpaid under Conlr'lctual agreements or Federo! grcnts, and ;:;oiiegeI nterns. Excludes conmunity volunteers in 1971 when they were notcounted, and. in 1975, whe.n they were counted ds a separate group.C?i>eratlonal expendltures--Grass salaries and wages, plus otheroperating expenses.Payroll staff--Full-time and part-time personnel on the payrollof the reporting facility.Person in need of supervision (PINS)--Detention status of ajuvenile declared by a juvenile COl'rt to be in need of supervision.Encompasses those known variously as child in need of supervision(CHINS), juvenile in need of supervision (JINS), and minor in need ofsupervision (MINS), as well those designated as unruly unmanageableor incorrigible under special statutes for status offende:s. All PINS ar~not stat~s offenders, and all status offenders are not PINS. Even inStates With status offender statutes, juveniles with previous offensescan be adjudicated delinquent for status offenses. Conversely a judgecan declare. a jUvenile to be a person in need of supervisi~n for afelony or misdemeanor., Private focility--A juvenile detention or correctional facilitysubject to governmental licensing, but under the direct administrativeand oper.ational control of pri.vate enterprise; typically receivessubstantial governmental funding, in addition to support by privatesources.Public faciJity--A juvenile detention or correctional facilityunder the direct administrative r)'1d operational control of a State orlocal government.,Ranch, forestry camp, and farm--A long-term facility forpersons whose behavior does not necessitate the strict confinement of atraining school, often allowing them greater contact with theconmunity.Reception or diagnostic center--A short-term facility thotscreen~ person~ .conmltted by courts and assigns them to appropriatecorrectional facilities.Resident--A person, jUvenile or nanjuvenile, held In ajuvenile detention or correctional facility... Shelter--A shc;>r.t-t~rm facility that provides telTlf'Qrory careslm~lar to thet of d deTention center, but In a physically unrestrictingenvironment.Short-term faciJity--A detention, as opposed to a correctionalfc;>cility: Includes detention centers, shelters, and reception 0;diagnostic centers.Status offense--An act or conduct that is declared by statute tobe on offense, but cnly when conmltted or engaged In by a juvenile'.lnd that can .be odjudlcated only by a juvenile court. Typical statu~offenses are Violation of curfew, running away from home truancypossession of alcoholic beverages, ond leading an Immoral 'life Bothadjudi~a!ed delinquents and juveniles declared to be persons in ~eed ofsupervIsion can be status offenders.Training school--A long-term specialized type of facility thatprovide:; strict confinement for its residents.V",luntary .adm!ssion--A type of admission in which a juvenilevoluntarily canmlts hImself/herself to a fccillty without being adjudgedby a court to be delinquent or In need of supervision. The JUVenilemoy bt; referred to the facility for treatment by parents, court, schoolor SOCial agency.'Youthful offender--A person, adjudicated In criminal court whomaY.b.e above the s~atytory age limit for jUveniles but bel~w aspeCified upper age limit, for whom special correctionol conmitmentsond spec!al record-:sealing procedures ore made avoiloble by statute.The speCial correctional conmltment may be to a juvenile facility to aspeci?1 section of on adult facility, or to 0 separate facility fa~ theconfinement of persons between the age limits specified In theparticular statute. Such provisions exist In Federal low and In the lowsof several States.APPENDIX I,Survey of Delinquency Prevention Programs-­Survey methodologyNJTE: The follOWing Information has been provided by the Notional Center for the Assessment ofDelinquent Behavior and Its Prevention, Center for Low and Justice, University of Washington,Seattle, Washington.Identification of delinquency prevention programsIn 1979, the Notional Center for the Assessment of DelinquentBehavior and Its Prevention, Center for Low and Justice, UniVersity ofWashington, initiated a notional survey in search of programs whoseactivities qualified as primary or secondary delinquency prevention.Primary prevention was def1'wd as modifying conditions in the physicaland social environment that lead to crime. Secondary prevention wasdefined as the early identification and intervention in the lives ofyouths in criminogenic circumstances. The focus was on youths beforedelinquent acts hod been conmitted or detected, generally before theycome in contact with law enforcement agencies. To identify a broadrepresentation of such p·ograms, a questionnaire was mai led to 898public funding, policy, and planning ager,cies of the Federal Governmentand all 50 States and Puerto Rico; to private foundations and agencies(such as the United Way); and to local social service agencies in 261U.S. cities. The following sources were used to generate the list ofsampled agencies and organizations: The Foundation Directory, TheFoundation Grants Index, the Encyclopedia of Associations, TheAnnual Register of Grant Support, The Catalogue of FederalDomestic Assistance, The Government Organization Manual, andThe State Information Book. Any foundation or agency which mightprovide funding for delinquency prevention was included. Agenciesresponsible for social services, youth programs, 1('" enforcement,recreation, education, and labor were surveyed. The director of eachsurveyed organization was asked to nominate three programs he or sheviewed as the most promising or effective for preventing delinquencybefore youths become Involved with the low. A total of 875 programswere identified In this way. The principal administrator of each of theidentified programs was then surveyed using a second questionnaire.Sixty-two percent (540) of the 875 surveyed programs ultimatelyreturned completed questionnaires. Respondents inclUded a brood crasssection of youth-focused programs. Schools, various components of thecriminal justice system, mental health centers, youth service bureausand other organizations offering a brood range of services wererepresented.In 1981, essentially the same procedures were followed in oneffort to identify addltlanal delinquency prevention programs. Thesources of progrom nominations were expanded to Include professionalsworking In the area of delinquency prevention, program evaluators,academicians, and a search of research journals and newsletters.Nominators were asked for the names of promising delinquencyprevention programs without specifying that the programs shouldconcentrate on primary and secondary prevention. In addition, thenominators were not restricted to listing a maximum of three programs.After removing the names of programs which hod responded to the 197';1survey, 686 additional programs were identified. Surveys were sent tothe principal administrators of these programs. Ferty percent (275)returned completed questionnaires which were added to the data bose.SampleWhile the emphasis in the 1979 survey hod been on programsinvolved in primary and secondary delinquency prevention, a number ofthe nominators included programs which dealt with youths after theybecome involved with low enforcernent agencies (programs working topercent recidivism, i.e., terti(lry delinquency prevention). A number ofthe nominated programs were also found to be involved in all threelevels of prevention from primary to tertiary. These programs wereincluded in the survey and the data bose. The 1981 survey did notrestrict the nominators to primary or secondary prevention programs.The programs which responded to both surve';3 also varied in the targetages of their client populations, ranging from chilnren through adUltswho were often the parents of younger clients, protessionals in the lieldof delinquency prevention, low enforcement personnel, or teachers. Inthe data presented here, programs exclusively targeting adults and onlyproviding services such as pareflfing training, delinquency preventioninformation, or other CJdult focused services were excluded. Inaddition, a Variety of organizational levels were represented by theprograms responding to the surveys. Programs which do not providedirect services to youths, acting, for instance, solely as servicebrokers, information and referral services, or program networkcoordinators were excluded from these data. These excluilionsestablished a data set for the information prllvlded here that includes494 programs from the 1979 survey and 254 programs from the 1981survey (91.8 percent of the 815 programs In the data bose).The surveyThe surveys were divided into two parts. The first port solicitedInformation an the program itself, Including geographical area served,target popUlation, organizational structure, stoff composition, servicesoffered, progrom budget, funding sources, and evaluation Information. Asecond section asked the administrator of the program to respond to aset of Likert-scaled propositions on causes of delinquency and methodsfor preventing It, based on seven mojor perspectiVes on the causes ofjuvenile delinquency. The data presented here are drown from the firstpart of the survey.Service codingThe programs responding to the surveys provided a wide varietyof services, each program, typically, providing mare than one type ofservice. Services were identified and coded through content analysis ofthe returned questionnaires, descriptive literature provided by theprogram, interviews with some program personnel, and programevaluations, when these could be obtained. A maximum of eight ofeach program's mojo" services could be included in the data bose. Asubset consisting of 54 of these services provides the basis for some ofthe data presented here.644645