Seventeen prosecutors participated in a Practitioner Learning conference at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in November 2017. Of these, 16 participated in a follow-up interview. The 16 responding prosecutors came from 14 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
This study uses the audit method to examine the effects of race, gender, and criminal history on housing outcomes. Testers, exhibiting characteristics suggestive of race and gender and disclosing one of three offenses, placed phone calls to rental property owners across the Midwest to inquire about renting a property. We found powerful negative effects for those with a criminal record seeking apartments, regardless of whether the offense was sexual or drug-related.
This report reviews a number of prominent frameworks that are available to help youth justice systems rely on positive outcomes rather than recidivism to measure their effectiveness. These include the Developmental Assets model, the 5Cs model, the Youth Program Quality Assessment model, the Positive Youth Justice model, and the Youth Thrive framework. Each model or framework aligns with the key principles of positive youth development as well as the large body of research on desistance from crime, which is also presented in this report.
Legitimacy plays an important role in building trust in government, and legitimacy and trust have been shown to move individual citizens along a continuum of cooperation where mere compliance turns to satisfaction, support, cooperation, and, ultimately, proactive engagement.
The trend in policing is toward openness, transparency, and inclusiveness. In addition to policies and practices, these principles should apply to police buildings.
Researchers posing as convicted felons called 300 real estate agents asking about apartment rentals.
Reclaiming Futures assumes that positive youth outcomes are achieved when service delivery systems are closely coordinated and provide just the right amount of individualized help with the least possible amount of coercion.
The growing influence of technology is creating a new urgency for criminal justice reform, but the decentralized development of programs makes it difficult to track promising projects or bring them to scale. Justice stakeholders are faced with the challenge of assessing technical innovations while they often lack the tools and resources to meet the challenge.
Desistance from crime is defined as a process involving a series of cognitive, social, and behavioral changes leading up to the cessation of criminal behavior. The value and importance of studying desistance, particularly for intervention efforts after the onset of offending, have been stressed abundantly in the literature.
From a panel discussion on July 15, 2015 at John Jay College, sponsored by the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and the Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College.
Butts, Jeffrey A. (2015). 20 Questions (and Answers) About Juvenile Justice. New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice. City University of New York. Jeffrey Butts answers key questions about juvenile justice, including “what exactly is juvenile justice?”… “what does it mean when we read statistics about youth in ‘the system’?” … and “what services should be high priorities for prevention and early intervention?” Read the Post on LinkedIn
When justice-involved youth are supervised by local agencies and placed with locally operated programs rather than being sent away to state facilities, they are better able to maintain community ties. They stay connected with their families and they are more likely to remain in local schools. Policy reforms that localize the justice system are often called “realignment.” New York’s “Close to Home” (or C2H) initiative is a prominent example of youth justice realignment.