|
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
|
 |
Knowledge
and Information Services
|
|
|
|
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency
|
Court
Executive Development Program Papers
The National Center for
State Courts' Institute for Court Management runs an annual Court
Executive Development Program (CEDP). It is designed to "develop
and enhance the knowledge, skills, and abilities of court
administrators and provide instruction in areas of functional
responsibility associated with court administration." To complete
the third phase of the program, each CEDP student is required to
prepare a comprehensive research paper evaluating a key court function
or proposed activity in his or her home jurisdiction. The papers relating
to this topic are listed below.
|
|
2008
|
Beani Martinez.
The
Degree of Difference for the Dual Adjudicated Minor in Utah.
May 2008. An attempt to fix concerns over child welfare
placement in Utah. This pertains especially to juvenile
delinquent children, or "dual adjudicated"
children. Judicial officials were asked by survey what
influenced their decisions on placements of these special case
children. The results found that there are a multitude of
factors which weigh on the decision, and many manners of
improving Utah's current system.
|
|
2005
|
John E. Triplet. Examining
the Depth and Breadth of Mentally Ill Adolescents Incarcerated
in the State of Idaho 2005.
This paper identifies the
problem of mental illness among the youth that are incarcerated
under Idaho's juvenile justice system. Resources should be more
effectively allocated to treat and rehabilitate adolescents that
suffer from mental disorders rather than to simply punish them.
|
|
2003
|
Laura G. Klaversma. Organizational
and Administrative Review of the Fulton County, Georgia,
Juvenile Court. May 2003
The goal of this
assessment is to provide the court with observations and
recommendations to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the
court’s administrative practices and its organizational
structure. The study focused on the relationship of various
court divisions and units within the organizational structure,
aspects of the court culture that affect the organization,
communication processes, decision-making, and policy development
and implementation.
|
|
2002 |
Gary J. Waint. Missouri
Standards for the Administration of Juvenile Justice:
Identifying Barriers and Incentives for Their Use in Juvenile
Delinquency Cases. May 9, 2002.
The purpose of this evaluation is to determine for juvenile
delinquency cases how many juvenile officers have implemented
any one of the juvenile justice standards approved by the
Missouri Supreme Court, and determine what are the incentives to
implement the standards and what are the barriers.
|
|
2001
|
David
M. Heumader. Enhancing
the Operation of Juvenile Court in the 28th Judicial Circuit of
Missouri. May 2001.
The goal of this
research is to find ways to improve the efficiency of the
juvenile office operations of the 28th Judicial Circuit.
Identifying methods that are being used by similar operations,
looking at techniques used in other industries, and encouraging
recommendations from the staff of the 28th Circuit will be used
in evaluating changes to enhance services.
|
|
2000
|
Jeffrey
M. Barlow. Title
IV-E Administrative Claiming in Juvenile Courts: A Case Study
and Models for Implementation. May 2000.
The goal of this paper is to describe the IV-E administrative
claiming process developed for juvenile courts in Missouri and
to provide insights into the initial outcomes of our pilot
courts. In the findings, projections are presented to illustrate
the funding potential as we begin statewide application of IV-E
administrative claiming in Missouri.Diane K. Hughes.
A
Comparison of Paterson Juveniles Under Probation Supervision
Before and After Implementation of the Paterson Juvenile Justice
Village Initiative. May 2000.
Explores the effectiveness of a probation/police collaboration
in contrast to traditional probation procedures in terms of
benefit to courts, community and the children involved. |
|
Copyright © 2008 National Center for State Courts. All
Rights Reserved
|
|
|
