The state of Kansas has decreased the number of juveniles from 2015 to 2018 31%. They reduced the juvenile population from 237 to 164 in that time frame. The total number of out of home youth population in that same time frame has dropped a total of 61%. That is a huge number. From 2015 to 2018 the number of juvenile arrests dropped 29%. How they did this is they shut down a correctional facility and less relied on group homes. This leads the state being able to transfer $30 million into their Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practice Fund. They put these funds into different programs that help the juveniles not be put back into jail or prison. They have also tried to keep the kids with their families instead of incarcerating them. 99 of 105 counties in Kansas have immediate intervention laws which work to keep the juveniles from being formally charged in court.-Legion001
I think that this is good to see the 63% drop in juveniles out of home because that means that they are staying out of trouble. It costs a lot to house people in any type of establishment, whether it be a jail or a rehabilitation center. As a nation we should look to lower the number more because then we would save more money and get ourselves out of the debt situation we are in. Juvenile arrests decreased as well, which is good to see. We can’t just throw all the juveniles in jail because then it will cause even more problems. We should let the kids go with a ticket or a warning more than we should be sending them to jails and prisons.Celtics001
Out of this whole article, there is one quote that really popped out to me. ”Research shows that the costly practice of confining juveniles tends to be no more likely to reduce recidivism than keeping them in their own homes for treatment.” If this is what Kansas is doing do save money and lower there juvenile inmate population, then more power to them. I do not know why any state could not see this through as a smart decision, especially if there is no difference in recidivism rates. That then goes back to the fact that legislators do not have a criminal justice background or degree, so they may not see the whole spectrum of how this could help. This quote also reminds me of how reducing our truth in sentencing by just 5% will have no effect on recidivism. Why keep someone incarcerated if the evidence based data shows that there is no reason to hold them in any longer? This goes hand in hand with these juvenile programs that provide treatment at their homes. There is no reason for these juveniles to be confined if they can be getting the same treatment at home, rather than being locked up especially if there is no increase in recidivism. -lilbaby001
As a country, overall we are seeing a great decrease in crime. With that decrease in crime we are also seeing early releases of those imprisoned for minor, or "war on drug," related charges. In Kansas, there is specifically being seen a large reduction in juveniles being incarcerated. The housing of inmates, in general, is very expensive. If you think about kids being locked up for things as minor as skipping school, does that seem worth the money spent to keep them in a juvenile facility? The out of home youth population has dropped by over 60%, in the state of Kansas, since 2015. Instead of incarcerating children, funds are being put forward for programs to help with behavior, mental issues, and more. I believe that attempting to rehabilitate our minors, instead of locking them up, will ultimately bring down, and keep down, our overall recidivism rates. -psych001
This article is very interesting. It speaks on about how that the new programs in place reduce the juvenile recidivism rates. The article states that the number of juveniles arrested has gone down 66%. That is a very strong percentage to see decrease as our prison and jail populations continue to be overcrowded. What I believe got peoples attention to pass the law is that it saves the state money. The new programs made it so they shut down a juveniles holding facility. That way the money being saved every year can go to more important and expensive actions in the correctional field. Jackrabbit001
Seeing Kansas reduce their Juvenile confinement by sixty three percent in a matter of three years is astonishing. The reduction of juvenile numbers resulted in the closing of a facility which allotted a total of 30 million dollars to be put towards their EBP fund which further reduces the number of juveniles in detention centers. Reading the section of the article that explains how juveniles who are put into detention centers are more likely to re offend later down the road makes perfect sense. Exposing children of low level offenses to the system at a young age could potentially result in the life of crime lifestyle that we are trying to combat. Seeing the 30 million dollars saved going toward a program to reduce the juveniles from that lifestyle is crucial to their future. Reducing those numbers is also crucial to reducing our incarceration numbers because if we can keep juveniles out of the system then the future numbers of incarceration will stay on the steady decline. -Blues001
After two years of seeking to improve juvenile justice, Kansas has made a good amount of progress. In doing so the youth population being confined has gone down by 63%. Thanks to the decrease in youth confinement, the KDOC has shifted $30 million to the juvenile justice EBP fund. Confinement seems to actually increase the likelihood of youth reoffending. If youth offenders were to have access to treatment programs there would be less recidivism rates. Like with sending them to state group homes. Those who were put in these homes rather than being incarcerated were able to successfully complete their programs. I am impressed that Kansas was able to make so much progress when they put their mind to improving juvenile justice. Locking up minors is not always the way to go of things especially if it is for very minor offenses. -Ram001
The Juvenile Correction Facility in Kansas has shown impressive drops in the amount of juveniles in their system. They are moving towards keeping kids at home with their parents because evidence shows that recidivism is not happening at a higher rate treating them in a facility than when they are at home. I think this is so important because kids need their parents when they are growing up, especially during adolescence because that can be a very confusing time and they are bound to make mistakes, although some may make bigger mistakes than others. Kansas has also been working toward redirecting funds back to where they were meant to be -- the Juvenile Correction system. Due to efforts mentioned above, Kansas has dropped their rates of juveniles incarcerated by 63%. I think other states need to follow suit and adopt some of the policies that Kansas is using because they are obviously having a positive effect and working how they were meant to. -Reid001
The state of Kansas has decreased the number of juveniles from 2015 to 2018 31%. They reduced the juvenile population from 237 to 164 in that time frame. The total number of out of home youth population in that same time frame has dropped a total of 61%. That is a huge number. From 2015 to 2018 the number of juvenile arrests dropped 29%. How they did this is they shut down a correctional facility and less relied on group homes. This leads the state being able to transfer $30 million into their Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practice Fund. They put these funds into different programs that help the juveniles not be put back into jail or prison. They have also tried to keep the kids with their families instead of incarcerating them. 99 of 105 counties in Kansas have immediate intervention laws which work to keep the juveniles from being formally charged in court.-Legion001
ReplyDeleteI think that this is good to see the 63% drop in juveniles out of home because that means that they are staying out of trouble. It costs a lot to house people in any type of establishment, whether it be a jail or a rehabilitation center. As a nation we should look to lower the number more because then we would save more money and get ourselves out of the debt situation we are in. Juvenile arrests decreased as well, which is good to see. We can’t just throw all the juveniles in jail because then it will cause even more problems. We should let the kids go with a ticket or a warning more than we should be sending them to jails and prisons.Celtics001
ReplyDeleteOut of this whole article, there is one quote that really popped out to me. ”Research shows that the costly practice of confining juveniles tends to be no more likely to reduce recidivism than keeping them in their own homes for treatment.” If this is what Kansas is doing do save money and lower there juvenile inmate population, then more power to them. I do not know why any state could not see this through as a smart decision, especially if there is no difference in recidivism rates. That then goes back to the fact that legislators do not have a criminal justice background or degree, so they may not see the whole spectrum of how this could help. This quote also reminds me of how reducing our truth in sentencing by just 5% will have no effect on recidivism. Why keep someone incarcerated if the evidence based data shows that there is no reason to hold them in any longer? This goes hand in hand with these juvenile programs that provide treatment at their homes. There is no reason for these juveniles to be confined if they can be getting the same treatment at home, rather than being locked up especially if there is no increase in recidivism. -lilbaby001
ReplyDeleteAs a country, overall we are seeing a great decrease in crime. With that decrease in crime we are also seeing early releases of those imprisoned for minor, or "war on drug," related charges. In Kansas, there is specifically being seen a large reduction in juveniles being incarcerated. The housing of inmates, in general, is very expensive. If you think about kids being locked up for things as minor as skipping school, does that seem worth the money spent to keep them in a juvenile facility? The out of home youth population has dropped by over 60%, in the state of Kansas, since 2015. Instead of incarcerating children, funds are being put forward for programs to help with behavior, mental issues, and more. I believe that attempting to rehabilitate our minors, instead of locking them up, will ultimately bring down, and keep down, our overall recidivism rates. -psych001
ReplyDeleteThis article is very interesting. It speaks on about how that the new programs in place reduce the juvenile recidivism rates. The article states that the number of juveniles arrested has gone down 66%. That is a very strong percentage to see decrease as our prison and jail populations continue to be overcrowded. What I believe got peoples attention to pass the law is that it saves the state money. The new programs made it so they shut down a juveniles holding facility. That way the money being saved every year can go to more important and expensive actions in the correctional field. Jackrabbit001
ReplyDeleteSeeing Kansas reduce their Juvenile confinement by sixty three percent in a matter of three years is astonishing. The reduction of juvenile numbers resulted in the closing of a facility which allotted a total of 30 million dollars to be put towards their EBP fund which further reduces the number of juveniles in detention centers. Reading the section of the article that explains how juveniles who are put into detention centers are more likely to re offend later down the road makes perfect sense. Exposing children of low level offenses to the system at a young age could potentially result in the life of crime lifestyle that we are trying to combat. Seeing the 30 million dollars saved going toward a program to reduce the juveniles from that lifestyle is crucial to their future. Reducing those numbers is also crucial to reducing our incarceration numbers because if we can keep juveniles out of the system then the future numbers of incarceration will stay on the steady decline. -Blues001
ReplyDeleteAfter two years of seeking to improve juvenile justice, Kansas has made a good amount of progress. In doing so the youth population being confined has gone down by 63%. Thanks to the decrease in youth confinement, the KDOC has shifted $30 million to the juvenile justice EBP fund. Confinement seems to actually increase the likelihood of youth reoffending. If youth offenders were to have access to treatment programs there would be less recidivism rates. Like with sending them to state group homes. Those who were put in these homes rather than being incarcerated were able to successfully complete their programs. I am impressed that Kansas was able to make so much progress when they put their mind to improving juvenile justice. Locking up minors is not always the way to go of things especially if it is for very minor offenses.
ReplyDelete-Ram001
The Juvenile Correction Facility in Kansas has shown impressive drops in the amount of juveniles in their system. They are moving towards keeping kids at home with their parents because evidence shows that recidivism is not happening at a higher rate treating them in a facility than when they are at home. I think this is so important because kids need their parents when they are growing up, especially during adolescence because that can be a very confusing time and they are bound to make mistakes, although some may make bigger mistakes than others. Kansas has also been working toward redirecting funds back to where they were meant to be -- the Juvenile Correction system. Due to efforts mentioned above, Kansas has dropped their rates of juveniles incarcerated by 63%. I think other states need to follow suit and adopt some of the policies that Kansas is using because they are obviously having a positive effect and working how they were meant to.
ReplyDelete-Reid001