How do we screen all families in a population at a single time point, identify family-specific risks, and connect each family with evidence-based community resources that can help them overcome those risks-an approach known as targeted universalism? In this article, Kenneth A. Dodge and W. Benjamin Goodman describe Family Connects, a program designed to do exactly that. Developed and tested in Durham, NC, Family Connects-now in place at 16 sites in the United States-aims to reach every family giving birth in a given community. The program rests on three pillars. The first is home visiting: trained nurses (or other program representatives) welcome new babies into the community, typically at the birthing hospital, then work with the parents to set up one or more home visits when the baby is about three weeks old so they can identify needs and connect the family with community resources. The second pillar, community alignment, is an assembly of all community resources available to families at birth, including child care agencies, mental health providers, government social services, and long-term programs for subgroups of families with identified needs, such as Healthy Families and Early Head Start. The third pillar, data and monitoring, is an electronic data system that acts as a family-specific psychosocial and educational record (much like an electronic health record) to document nurses' assessments of mother and infant, as well as connections with community agencies. In randomized clinical trials, Family Connects has shown promising results. Compared to control group families, families randomly assigned to the program made more connections to community resources. They also reported more positive parenting behaviors and fewer serious injuries or illnesses among their infants, among other desirable outcomes. And in the first five years of life, Family Connects children were significantly less likely to be subject to Child Protective Services investigations than were children in a control group.
{"title":"Universal Reach at Birth: Family Connects.","authors":"Kenneth A Dodge, W Benjamin Goodman","doi":"10.1353/foc.2019.0003","DOIUrl":"10.1353/foc.2019.0003","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How do we screen all families in a population at a single time point, identify family-specific risks, and connect each family with evidence-based community resources that can help them overcome those risks-an approach known as <i>targeted universalism</i>? In this article, Kenneth A. Dodge and W. Benjamin Goodman describe Family Connects, a program designed to do exactly that. Developed and tested in Durham, NC, Family Connects-now in place at 16 sites in the United States-aims to reach every family giving birth in a given community. The program rests on three pillars. The first is <i>home visiting</i>: trained nurses (or other program representatives) welcome new babies into the community, typically at the birthing hospital, then work with the parents to set up one or more home visits when the baby is about three weeks old so they can identify needs and connect the family with community resources. The second pillar, <i>community alignment</i>, is an assembly of all community resources available to families at birth, including child care agencies, mental health providers, government social services, and long-term programs for subgroups of families with identified needs, such as Healthy Families and Early Head Start. The third pillar, <i>data and monitoring</i>, is an electronic data system that acts as a family-specific psychosocial and educational record (much like an electronic health record) to document nurses' assessments of mother and infant, as well as connections with community agencies. In randomized clinical trials, Family Connects has shown promising results. Compared to control group families, families randomly assigned to the program made more connections to community resources. They also reported more positive parenting behaviors and fewer serious injuries or illnesses among their infants, among other desirable outcomes. And in the first five years of life, Family Connects children were significantly less likely to be subject to Child Protective Services investigations than were children in a control group.</p>","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10994213/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49025025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Over the past three decades, the number of people housed in local jails has more than tripled. Yet when it comes to reforming the nation's incarceration policies, write Jennifer Copp and William Bales, researchers, policymakers, and the public alike have focused almost exclusively on state and federal prisons.If you took a snapshot on a single day, the prison population would far exceed the population of local jails. But, the authors show, compared to prisons, roughly 18 times more people are admitted to and released from jails every year. Furthermore, about two-thirds of jail inmates have yet to be convicted of a crime, and they often languish behind bars only because they can't afford to pay bail. And although jails are intended for adults, on any given day roughly 4,000 young people under age 18 are confined in local jails.In this article, Copp and Bales provide a broad overview of US jails, including facilities and operations, characteristics of inmates, and the conditions of confinement, and they make a number of suggestions for policy and practice. In particular, they argue that the justice system should slash the use of money bail, which disproportionately harms the poor and minorities. Specifically, they recommend that jurisdictions adopt validated risk assessment tools to help make decisions about who should and shouldn't be detained before trial; expand pretrial services that can, among other things, monitor compliance with release conditions; divert more people away from the criminal justice system; consider alternatives to jail, such as probation, for convicted offenders; and expedite case processing to decrease the time to trial and thus the overall length of jail stays.
{"title":"Jails and Local Justice System Reform: Overview and Recommendations","authors":"Jennifer E. Copp, William D. Bales","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Over the past three decades, the number of people housed in local jails has more than tripled. Yet when it comes to reforming the nation's incarceration policies, write Jennifer Copp and William Bales, researchers, policymakers, and the public alike have focused almost exclusively on state and federal prisons.If you took a snapshot on a single day, the prison population would far exceed the population of local jails. But, the authors show, compared to prisons, roughly 18 times more people are admitted to and released from jails every year. Furthermore, about two-thirds of jail inmates have yet to be convicted of a crime, and they often languish behind bars only because they can't afford to pay bail. And although jails are intended for adults, on any given day roughly 4,000 young people under age 18 are confined in local jails.In this article, Copp and Bales provide a broad overview of US jails, including facilities and operations, characteristics of inmates, and the conditions of confinement, and they make a number of suggestions for policy and practice. In particular, they argue that the justice system should slash the use of money bail, which disproportionately harms the poor and minorities. Specifically, they recommend that jurisdictions adopt validated risk assessment tools to help make decisions about who should and shouldn't be detained before trial; expand pretrial services that can, among other things, monitor compliance with release conditions; divert more people away from the criminal justice system; consider alternatives to jail, such as probation, for convicted offenders; and expedite case processing to decrease the time to trial and thus the overall length of jail stays.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49427446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
VOL. 28 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2018 3 John H. Laub is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, College Park. The topic of inequality in the United States has become virtually impossible to ignore, and the justice system is an important part of the discussion. Witness the recent National Research Council report on the causes and consequences of the country’s high rates of incarceration, especially for minority offenders.1 We’ve also heard heated debates about the stop, question, and frisk policies followed by police in New York City and elsewhere.2 More broadly, legal scholar Michelle Alexander has referred to mass incarceration and other justice system policies as “the New Jim Crow” in America.3
第28卷/第28号John H. Laub是马里兰大学帕克分校犯罪学和刑事司法系的杰出大学教授。在美国，不平等的话题已经变得几乎无法忽视，而司法系统是讨论的重要组成部分。请看最近国家研究委员会关于该国高监禁率的原因和后果的报告，特别是对少数族裔罪犯我们也听到了关于纽约市和其他地方警察所遵循的拦截、询问和搜身政策的激烈辩论更广泛地说，法律学者米歇尔·亚历山大把大规模监禁和其他司法系统政策称为美国的“新吉姆·克劳”
{"title":"Reducing Justice System Inequality: Introducing the Issue","authors":"J. Laub","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0000","url":null,"abstract":"VOL. 28 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2018 3 John H. Laub is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, College Park. The topic of inequality in the United States has become virtually impossible to ignore, and the justice system is an important part of the discussion. Witness the recent National Research Council report on the causes and consequences of the country’s high rates of incarceration, especially for minority offenders.1 We’ve also heard heated debates about the stop, question, and frisk policies followed by police in New York City and elsewhere.2 More broadly, legal scholar Michelle Alexander has referred to mass incarceration and other justice system policies as “the New Jim Crow” in America.3","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47438639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:In the context of juvenile justice, writes Traci Schlesinger, diversion can mean two things. Informal diversion includes police officers' decisions to warn and release, probation officers' decisions not to report violations, prosecutors' decisions not to prosecute, and judges' decisions to dismiss cases. Informal diversion sends youth out of the system, lets them remain at home, and asks nothing further of them. Formal diversion includes decisions by intake workers—including police, school resource officers, probation officers, and sometimes prosecutors or judges—to move cases away from formal court processing to programs that provide services but also include requirements.Because diversion can keep young people from deeper involvement with the juvenile justice system, it has the potential to ameliorate the processes through which racialized youth become criminalized at much higher rates than legally similar white youth. The research evidence, Schlesinger writes, offers clear suggestions in three areas: which youth should be diverted, which officials make good gatekeepers for diversion programs, and which implementation principles are most important. Her key recommendation is that jurisdictions should use informal diversion to decriminalize low-risk youth and formal diversion to keep high-risk youth away from court processing and in their communities.Schlesinger notes several challenges to making diversion policies successful. For one, she writes, jurisdictions must use risk assessments that don't replicate or exacerbate racial disparities. In addition, she says, formal diversion works best when youth can access services in the communities where they live, rather than in the justice system. This condition is becoming more difficult to achieve as cities and states have increasingly chosen to spend their limited funds on facilities within punitive systems rather than within communities, for example, by closing community-based mental health centers and then opening new facilities in a local jail. Finally, jurisdictions must ensure that diversion programs are properly implemented and that the youth who begin diversion programs actually complete them.
{"title":"Decriminalizing Racialized Youth through Juvenile Diversion","authors":"Traci Schlesinger","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:In the context of juvenile justice, writes Traci Schlesinger, diversion can mean two things. Informal diversion includes police officers' decisions to warn and release, probation officers' decisions not to report violations, prosecutors' decisions not to prosecute, and judges' decisions to dismiss cases. Informal diversion sends youth out of the system, lets them remain at home, and asks nothing further of them. Formal diversion includes decisions by intake workers—including police, school resource officers, probation officers, and sometimes prosecutors or judges—to move cases away from formal court processing to programs that provide services but also include requirements.Because diversion can keep young people from deeper involvement with the juvenile justice system, it has the potential to ameliorate the processes through which racialized youth become criminalized at much higher rates than legally similar white youth. The research evidence, Schlesinger writes, offers clear suggestions in three areas: which youth should be diverted, which officials make good gatekeepers for diversion programs, and which implementation principles are most important. Her key recommendation is that jurisdictions should use informal diversion to decriminalize low-risk youth and formal diversion to keep high-risk youth away from court processing and in their communities.Schlesinger notes several challenges to making diversion policies successful. For one, she writes, jurisdictions must use risk assessments that don't replicate or exacerbate racial disparities. In addition, she says, formal diversion works best when youth can access services in the communities where they live, rather than in the justice system. This condition is becoming more difficult to achieve as cities and states have increasingly chosen to spend their limited funds on facilities within punitive systems rather than within communities, for example, by closing community-based mental health centers and then opening new facilities in a local jail. Finally, jurisdictions must ensure that diversion programs are properly implemented and that the youth who begin diversion programs actually complete them.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48915948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Young peoples encounters with the criminal justice system generally begin with the police. Officers' decisions about how to handle these encounters are affected by their on-the-spot assessments of young peoples proclivity for delinquency, prospects for rehabilitation, and overall moral character. And because most police-citizen interactions occur in public spaces, officers render these judgments with limited information, often falling back on racial and ethnic stereotypes. In this article, Rod Brunson and Kashea Pegram examine how police officers' decisions about which young people to watch, stop, search, and arrest contribute to historical and enduring justice system inequality.Research confirms that officers apply their discretion highly unevenly, Brunson and Pegram write, consistently exposing youth of color to a wide range of harms. Moreover, aggressive policing strategies such as stop-and-frisk disproportionately affect youths and communities of color. In many urban areas, they say, officers are a constant, inescapable, and unwelcome presence in the lives of black and Latino adolescents—especially males, who are disproportionately stopped, searched, and killed by police.Yet the authors find reason for optimism in efforts to improve trust in minority communities and end racially discriminatory policing through practices based on procedural justice principles—that is, whether citizens believe they're treated fairly and with respect during police encounters. Still, they acknowledge, racial disparities in policing mean that in many places, police-community relations have already suffered tremendous harm that will be extremely difficult to repair.
{"title":"\"Kids Do Not So Much Make Trouble, They Are Trouble\": Police-Youth Relations","authors":"Rod K. Brunson, Kashea N. Pegram","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Young peoples encounters with the criminal justice system generally begin with the police. Officers' decisions about how to handle these encounters are affected by their on-the-spot assessments of young peoples proclivity for delinquency, prospects for rehabilitation, and overall moral character. And because most police-citizen interactions occur in public spaces, officers render these judgments with limited information, often falling back on racial and ethnic stereotypes. In this article, Rod Brunson and Kashea Pegram examine how police officers' decisions about which young people to watch, stop, search, and arrest contribute to historical and enduring justice system inequality.Research confirms that officers apply their discretion highly unevenly, Brunson and Pegram write, consistently exposing youth of color to a wide range of harms. Moreover, aggressive policing strategies such as stop-and-frisk disproportionately affect youths and communities of color. In many urban areas, they say, officers are a constant, inescapable, and unwelcome presence in the lives of black and Latino adolescents—especially males, who are disproportionately stopped, searched, and killed by police.Yet the authors find reason for optimism in efforts to improve trust in minority communities and end racially discriminatory policing through practices based on procedural justice principles—that is, whether citizens believe they're treated fairly and with respect during police encounters. Still, they acknowledge, racial disparities in policing mean that in many places, police-community relations have already suffered tremendous harm that will be extremely difficult to repair.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48484645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Children who experience foster care, write Youngmin Yi and Christopher Wildeman, are considerably more likely than others to have contact with the criminal justice system, both during childhood and as adults. And because children of color disproportionately experience foster care, improvements to the foster care system could reduce racial/ethnic justice system inequality. Yet the link between foster care and justice system inequality hasn't received the attention it deserves. This article represents the most comprehensive review to date on how foster care placement can affect children's risk of criminal justice contact.Yi and Wildeman review how children come to the attention of Child Protective Services (CPS), how they come to be placed in foster care, and the risks that children in foster care face. They also examine how the child welfare and criminal justice systems intersect, with special attention to the large racial/ethnic disparities in both CPS contact and foster care placement and experiences.The authors then examine strategies that might reduce inequality in criminal justice outcomes at two stages—during foster care placement, and after children age out of the system (that is, after they reach the age when they're no longer eligible to stay in foster care or receive attendant services). They highlight promising interventions that target five critical objectives: the promotion of stability and permanency in foster care placements; expanded and improved access to substance use treatment and mental health care services; provision of legal support for foster youth; extension of employment and educational support for late adolescents and young adults; and supports for securing housing and health care for youth who age out of foster care.
{"title":"Can Foster Care Interventions Diminish Justice System Inequality?","authors":"Y. Yi, Christopher Wildeman","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Children who experience foster care, write Youngmin Yi and Christopher Wildeman, are considerably more likely than others to have contact with the criminal justice system, both during childhood and as adults. And because children of color disproportionately experience foster care, improvements to the foster care system could reduce racial/ethnic justice system inequality. Yet the link between foster care and justice system inequality hasn't received the attention it deserves. This article represents the most comprehensive review to date on how foster care placement can affect children's risk of criminal justice contact.Yi and Wildeman review how children come to the attention of Child Protective Services (CPS), how they come to be placed in foster care, and the risks that children in foster care face. They also examine how the child welfare and criminal justice systems intersect, with special attention to the large racial/ethnic disparities in both CPS contact and foster care placement and experiences.The authors then examine strategies that might reduce inequality in criminal justice outcomes at two stages—during foster care placement, and after children age out of the system (that is, after they reach the age when they're no longer eligible to stay in foster care or receive attendant services). They highlight promising interventions that target five critical objectives: the promotion of stability and permanency in foster care placements; expanded and improved access to substance use treatment and mental health care services; provision of legal support for foster youth; extension of employment and educational support for late adolescents and young adults; and supports for securing housing and health care for youth who age out of foster care.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44289425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:A half Century ago, relatively few US children experienced the incarceration of a parent. In the decades since, incarceration rates rose rapidly (before leveling off more recently), and today a historically unprecedented number of children are exposed to parental incarceration. In this article, Kristin Turney and Rebecca Goodsell walk us through the evidence that parental incarceration impairs children's wellbeing throughout the life course. Given the fact that already vulnerable children are also the most likely to experience having a parent behind bars, they write, these trends increase inequality among children.After documenting the scope of parental incarceration, Turney and Goodsell review mechanisms that may link parental incarceration to children's wellbeing, such as the parent's physical absence, the trauma associated with the criminal justice process, and the stigma of having a parent in jail or prison. They also review research into how parental incarceration affects four aspects of children's wellbeing: behavior, education, health, and hardship and deprivation. In each of these areas, parental incarceration has detrimental consequences for children.The authors then turn to programs designed to improve the wellbeing of children of incarcerated parents. Interestingly, they note, despite the fact that fathers' rather than mothers' incarceration appears to have worse consequences for children, many such programs focus on incarcerated mothers—although some aim to treat both parents, or the family as a whole. Yet, they find, few such interventions have been conclusively shown to improve children's wellbeing during and after parental incarceration. Turney and Goodsell suggest three other types of interventions that might help reduce disparities among children of incarcerated parents: programs that strengthen parents' relationships, increase families' economic wellbeing, and treat parents' substance abuse.
{"title":"Parental Incarceration and Children's Wellbeing","authors":"Kristin Turney, R. Goodsell","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:A half Century ago, relatively few US children experienced the incarceration of a parent. In the decades since, incarceration rates rose rapidly (before leveling off more recently), and today a historically unprecedented number of children are exposed to parental incarceration. In this article, Kristin Turney and Rebecca Goodsell walk us through the evidence that parental incarceration impairs children's wellbeing throughout the life course. Given the fact that already vulnerable children are also the most likely to experience having a parent behind bars, they write, these trends increase inequality among children.After documenting the scope of parental incarceration, Turney and Goodsell review mechanisms that may link parental incarceration to children's wellbeing, such as the parent's physical absence, the trauma associated with the criminal justice process, and the stigma of having a parent in jail or prison. They also review research into how parental incarceration affects four aspects of children's wellbeing: behavior, education, health, and hardship and deprivation. In each of these areas, parental incarceration has detrimental consequences for children.The authors then turn to programs designed to improve the wellbeing of children of incarcerated parents. Interestingly, they note, despite the fact that fathers' rather than mothers' incarceration appears to have worse consequences for children, many such programs focus on incarcerated mothers—although some aim to treat both parents, or the family as a whole. Yet, they find, few such interventions have been conclusively shown to improve children's wellbeing during and after parental incarceration. Turney and Goodsell suggest three other types of interventions that might help reduce disparities among children of incarcerated parents: programs that strengthen parents' relationships, increase families' economic wellbeing, and treat parents' substance abuse.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42641036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Childrens school experiences may contribute in many ways to disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system, writes Paul Hirschfield. For example, research shows that black students who violate school rules are more often subject to out-of-school suspensions, which heighten their risk of arrest and increase the odds that once accused of delinquency, they'll be detained, formally processed, and institutionalized for probation violations.Hirschfield examines two types of processes through which schools may contribute to disproportionate minority contact with the justice system. Micro-level processes affect delinquents at the individual level, either because they're distributed unevenly by race/ethnicity or because they affect youth of color more adversely. For example, suspensions can be a micro-level factor if biased principals suspend more black youth than white youth. Macro-level processes, by contrast, operate at the classroom, school, or district level. For example, if predominantly black school districts are more likely than predominantly white districts to discipline students by suspending them, black students overall will be adversely affected, even if each district applies suspensions equitably within its own schools.Some policies and interventions, if properly targeted and implemented, show promise for helping schools reduce their role in justice system inequality, Hirschfield writes. One is school-based restorative justice practices like conferencing and peacemaking circles, which aim to reduce misbehaviors by resolving conflicts, improving students' sense of connection to the school community, and reinforcing the legitimacy of school authorities. Another is Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, a multi-tiered, team-based intervention framework that has proven to be effective in reducing disciplinary referrals and suspensions, particularly in elementary and middle schools. However, he notes, if successful programs like these are more accessible to well-off schools or to white students, they may actually exacerbate inequality, even as they reduce suspension for blacks.
{"title":"The Role of Schools in Sustaining Juvenile Justice System Inequality","authors":"Paul J. Hirschfield","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Childrens school experiences may contribute in many ways to disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system, writes Paul Hirschfield. For example, research shows that black students who violate school rules are more often subject to out-of-school suspensions, which heighten their risk of arrest and increase the odds that once accused of delinquency, they'll be detained, formally processed, and institutionalized for probation violations.Hirschfield examines two types of processes through which schools may contribute to disproportionate minority contact with the justice system. Micro-level processes affect delinquents at the individual level, either because they're distributed unevenly by race/ethnicity or because they affect youth of color more adversely. For example, suspensions can be a micro-level factor if biased principals suspend more black youth than white youth. Macro-level processes, by contrast, operate at the classroom, school, or district level. For example, if predominantly black school districts are more likely than predominantly white districts to discipline students by suspending them, black students overall will be adversely affected, even if each district applies suspensions equitably within its own schools.Some policies and interventions, if properly targeted and implemented, show promise for helping schools reduce their role in justice system inequality, Hirschfield writes. One is school-based restorative justice practices like conferencing and peacemaking circles, which aim to reduce misbehaviors by resolving conflicts, improving students' sense of connection to the school community, and reinforcing the legitimacy of school authorities. Another is Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, a multi-tiered, team-based intervention framework that has proven to be effective in reducing disciplinary referrals and suspensions, particularly in elementary and middle schools. However, he notes, if successful programs like these are more accessible to well-off schools or to white students, they may actually exacerbate inequality, even as they reduce suspension for blacks.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44943473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:The United States' high incarceration rate gets a lot of attention from scholars, policy makers, and the public. Yet, writes Michelle Phelps, the most common form of criminal justice supervision is not imprisonment but probation—and thats just as true for juveniles as for adults.Probation was originally promoted as an alternative to imprisonment that would spare promising individuals from the ravages of institutionalization, Phelps writes. But instead, it often serves as a net-widener, expanding formal supervision to low-level cases. Like mass incarceration, she demonstrates, mass probation is marked by deep racial and class disparities, and it can have devastating consequences for poor and minority communities.In her review, Phelps covers three aspects of probation supervision—who is sentenced to probation, what they experience, and when and why probation is revoked (that is, when probationers are sent to jail or prison for violating the terms of supervision). She then presents policy recommendations for each of these three stages that could reduce the harms of mass probation. They include scaling back the use of probation, offering probationers more meaningful help to improve their lives, and raising the bar for revoking probation. Though probation reform may not be a cure-all, she writes, it could reduce the scale of our criminal justice system and temper its detrimental effects.
{"title":"Ending Mass Probation: Sentencing, Supervision, and Revocation","authors":"M. Phelps","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:The United States' high incarceration rate gets a lot of attention from scholars, policy makers, and the public. Yet, writes Michelle Phelps, the most common form of criminal justice supervision is not imprisonment but probation—and thats just as true for juveniles as for adults.Probation was originally promoted as an alternative to imprisonment that would spare promising individuals from the ravages of institutionalization, Phelps writes. But instead, it often serves as a net-widener, expanding formal supervision to low-level cases. Like mass incarceration, she demonstrates, mass probation is marked by deep racial and class disparities, and it can have devastating consequences for poor and minority communities.In her review, Phelps covers three aspects of probation supervision—who is sentenced to probation, what they experience, and when and why probation is revoked (that is, when probationers are sent to jail or prison for violating the terms of supervision). She then presents policy recommendations for each of these three stages that could reduce the harms of mass probation. They include scaling back the use of probation, offering probationers more meaningful help to improve their lives, and raising the bar for revoking probation. Though probation reform may not be a cure-all, she writes, it could reduce the scale of our criminal justice system and temper its detrimental effects.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47297103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stephanie Jones is the Marie and Max Kargman Associate Professor in Human Development and Urban Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education. Emily J. Doolittle is team lead for social behavioral research in the National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Research increasingly suggests that social and emotional learning (SEL) matters a great deal for important life outcomes like success in school, college entry and completion, and later earnings. This research also tells us that SEL can be taught and nurtured in schools so that students increase their ability to integrate thinking, emotions, and behavior in ways that lead to positive school and life outcomes. Although the term social and emotional learning has been around for 20 years, we’ve recently seen a rapid surge in interest in SEL among parents, educators, and policymakers. For example, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) is supporting 10 large school districts and 45 smaller ones through its Collaborating Districts Initiative as they begin to incorporate a variety of SEL programs and practices into their schools. CASEL also recently launched a Collaborating States Initiative to support states as they develop policies, standards, and guidelines for SEL in schools. All 50 states have SEL standards in place at the preschool level, and four (Illinois, Kansas, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania) have SEL standards for kindergarten through 12th grade. And the Aspen Institute recently launched a National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development to explore how schools can fully integrate SEL into policies and instruction that have traditionally emphasized academics. We also know that teachers believe SEL skills can be taught, although they may not always know the best way to do so in their classrooms.1
Stephanie Jones是哈佛大学教育研究生院人类发展与城市教育的Marie and Max Kargman副教授。Emily J.Doolittle是美国教育部教育科学研究所国家教育研究中心的社会行为研究团队负责人。研究越来越多地表明，社会和情感学习（SEL）对重要的生活结果非常重要，比如学业成功、大学入学和完成学业，以及以后的收入。这项研究还告诉我们，SEL可以在学校里教授和培养，这样学生就可以提高他们整合思维、情绪和行为的能力，从而获得积极的学校和生活成果。尽管社会和情感学习这个词已经存在了20年，但我们最近看到家长、教育工作者和政策制定者对SEL的兴趣迅速上升。例如，学术、社会和情感学习合作组织（CASEL）正在通过其合作学区倡议支持10个大学区和45个小学区，因为它们开始将各种SEL计划和实践纳入学校。CASEL最近还发起了一项合作州倡议，以支持各州制定学校SEL的政策、标准和指导方针。所有50个州都在学前阶段制定了SEL标准，其中四个州（伊利诺伊州、堪萨斯州、西弗吉尼亚州和宾夕法尼亚州）在幼儿园到12年级都有SEL标准。阿斯彭研究所最近成立了一个国家社会、情感和学术发展委员会，探讨学校如何将SEL完全融入传统上强调学术的政策和教学中。我们也知道，老师们相信SEL技能是可以教授的，尽管他们可能并不总是知道在课堂上这样做的最佳方式。1
{"title":"Social and Emotional Learning: Introducing the Issue","authors":"Stephanie M. Jones, E. J. Doolittle","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2017.0000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2017.0000","url":null,"abstract":"Stephanie Jones is the Marie and Max Kargman Associate Professor in Human Development and Urban Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education. Emily J. Doolittle is team lead for social behavioral research in the National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Research increasingly suggests that social and emotional learning (SEL) matters a great deal for important life outcomes like success in school, college entry and completion, and later earnings. This research also tells us that SEL can be taught and nurtured in schools so that students increase their ability to integrate thinking, emotions, and behavior in ways that lead to positive school and life outcomes. Although the term social and emotional learning has been around for 20 years, we’ve recently seen a rapid surge in interest in SEL among parents, educators, and policymakers. For example, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) is supporting 10 large school districts and 45 smaller ones through its Collaborating Districts Initiative as they begin to incorporate a variety of SEL programs and practices into their schools. CASEL also recently launched a Collaborating States Initiative to support states as they develop policies, standards, and guidelines for SEL in schools. All 50 states have SEL standards in place at the preschool level, and four (Illinois, Kansas, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania) have SEL standards for kindergarten through 12th grade. And the Aspen Institute recently launched a National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development to explore how schools can fully integrate SEL into policies and instruction that have traditionally emphasized academics. We also know that teachers believe SEL skills can be taught, although they may not always know the best way to do so in their classrooms.1","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2017.0000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49410769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号