Found 47 matches.
-
Profile of Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Funding: Pennsylvania
Tags: Pennsylvania | Fiscal Issues and Funding | Partner Publications | Fact Sheets and Briefs
Unfortunately, significant cuts in the federal investment in juvenile justice nationwide have put this important work in serious jeopardy. Nationwide, during the 16 years that the JJDPA went unauthorized , federal juvenile justice funding decreased by nearly 48% . Since FY10, federal investments in juvenile justice 2 reform in the Commonwealth have decreased by more than 61% , hampering Pennsylvania’s efforts to improve the lives and address the needs of youth who come into contact with law enforcement and the courts, and youth at risk of contact. *** Published by the Campaign of the National Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Coalition - Act 4 Juvenile Justice. www.act4jj.org
-
Promoting Positive Development: The Critical Need to Reform Youth Probation Orders
Tags: Federal | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Washington | General System Reform | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Positive Youth Development and Strengths-Based Programming | Reports | Partner Publications
Research discussing the fairness and effectiveness of placing children on probation. Outlines the most common failings of probation orders and offers suggestions for making them age-appropriate, legal, and targeted towards positive development instead of seeking blind compliance.
-
Debtors' Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System, EXEC SUMMARY
Tags: Pennsylvania | National | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Fines and Fees | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports | Partner Publications
A report on the impact of juvenile court costs on youth and their families. The report was featured in a New York Times article (http://nyti.ms/2d2GR0c) and includes a companion microsite featuring interactive maps (http://bit.ly/2deF6cP).
-
Debtors' Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System, JLC
Tags: Pennsylvania | National | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Fines and Fees | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports | Partner Publications
-
Justice System Imposed Financial Penalties Increase the Likelihood of Recidivism in a Sample of Adolescent Offenders
Tags: Pennsylvania | Racial and Ethnic Disparities | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Fines and Fees | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Research
Study of the effect of financial costs incurred by youth int he justice system and the extent to which such costs relate to the likelihood of recidivism and eventual reintegration into society. Related to JLC Debtors' Prison report here: http://bit.ly/2deF6cP.
-
A Family Guide to Pennsylvania's Juvenile Justice System
Tags: Pennsylvania | Family and Youth Involvement | General System Reform | Reports | Web-Based Tools
This guide was written by a team of family advocates and juvenile justice practitioners.They created this guide to help you understand Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system and be better prepared to work closely with juvenile justice staff to promote positive outcomes for your child.
-
School Discipline - Student Code of Conduct Tips and Examples - Advancement Project
Tags: California | Colorado | Maryland | Pennsylvania | National | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Partner Publications
Model conduct codes and tips from the Advancement Project for schools and advocates seeking to reform their school disciplinary policies to eliminate exclusionary discipline and address racial disparities. Examples from five states.
-
Youth Receive Settlement from Contractor in Luzerne County Scandal, H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357, settlement order
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A second set of youth and families involved in the “kids for cash” scandal in Luzerne County reached a partial settlement with the companies who ran the detention centers where the youth were sent. In 2011, former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella was convicted of receiving bribes from the companies in exchange for sending youth to their facilities. According to the settlement, the families will receive a total of $2.5 million. H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357, settlement reached October 17, 2013; order entered July 7, 2014.
-
Judge Workman Opinion - Lancaster County - Youth Sex Offender Registration
Tags: Pennsylvania | Sex Offender Registries | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Judge David Workman of Lancaster County, PA's opinion regarding the unconstitutionality of the state's youth sex offender registration requirements.
-
Judge Patti-Worthington Decision - Youth Sex Offender Registries (PA)
Tags: Pennsylvania | Sex Offender Registries | Court Decisions and Related Documents
Judge Patti-Worthington's decision holding that youth sex offender registries are unconstitutional.
-
Innovation Brief - Media Relations: Transforming a Crisis into an Opportunity for Reform
Tags: Pennsylvania | National | Reports
MacArthur Models for Change Innovation Brief on transforming a crisis into an opportunity for reform. The brief details how those at the Juvenile Law Center transformed the Luzerne Count, PA "kids for cash" scandal into meaningful youth justice system reform.
-
Opinion: Pennsylvania Court Decision on Constitutionality of SORNA for Youth
Tags: Pennsylvania | Sex Offender Registries | Court Decisions and Related Documents
In this decision, the Pennsylvania county judge finds that when applied to youth, the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) to be unconstitutional.
-
Pennsylvania Court Finds Juvenile Sex Offender Registration Law Unconstitutional
Tags: Pennsylvania | Status Offenses | Legislation
The York County Court of Common Pleas found Pennsylvania’s recently enacted law requiring youth convicted of sexual offenses to register as sex offenders for life to be in violation of their constitutional rights. The court held that the requirement violated both the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions, as well as Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act. The court stated that such registration requirements are antithetical to the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile courts and do not take into account key differences between youth and adults, especially with regard to culpability and prospects for reform. The ruling banned application of the law both retroactively and prospectively, immediately declassified as “sex offenders” the seven petitioners who brought the challenge, and ordered the Pennsylvania State Police to immediately remove the seven youth from the state registry. Decided November 4, 2013; affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court December 2014.
-
Youth Receive Settlement from Contractor in Luzerne County Scandal, H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357, settlement
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A second set of youth and families involved in the “kids for cash” scandal in Luzerne County reached a partial settlement with the companies who ran the detention centers where the youth were sent. In 2011, former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella was convicted of receiving bribes from the companies in exchange for sending youth to their facilities. According to the settlement, the families will receive a total of $2.5 million. H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-0357, settlement reached October 17, 2013; order entered July 7, 2014.
-
Berks County, Pennsylvania Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment
Tags: Pennsylvania | Risk Assessment and Screening | Administrative/Regulatory Policies | Reports | Research
This report assesses the efficacy of a draft Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument in Berks County, Pennsylvania using data from an 8-month trial period. The report offers data analysis as well as policy recommendations to improve future risk assessment models, advance best practices, and reduce the rate of juveniles in detention.
-
Pennsylvania and MacArthur’s Models for Change: The Story of a Successful Public-Private Partnership
Tags: Pennsylvania | General System Reform
Concise, inspiring summary from 2013 of the partnership between Models for Change and the state of Pennsylvania on reforming the state's juvenile justice system.
-
Legislature Encourages Use of Evidence-Based Practice and Least Restrictive Interventions, S.B. 850
Tags: Pennsylvania | Evidence-Based Practices | Legislation
In another move to address the Luzerne County “kids for cash” scandal, the Pennsylvania General Assembly amended the purpose clause of the Juvenile Act. The new clause states that the juvenile justice system must use evidence-based practices whenever possible. Additionally, courts must impose the “least restrictive intervention that is consistent with the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for the offenses committed and the rehabilitation, supervision and treatment needs of the child,” imposing confinement only if necessary and for the minimum amount of time to achieve the purposes of the act. S.B. 850/Act No. 204, signed into law and effective October 25, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Eliminates Mandatory Life-Without-Parole Sentences for Youth, S.B. 850
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Life Without Parole and Parole Issues | Legislation
Youth in Pennsylvania may no longer receive mandatory life-without-parole sentences for offenses committed when under age 18. The law—Pennsylvania’s move to come into compliance with Miller v. Alabama—provides alternative minimum sentences ranging from 20 years to life to 35 years to life, depending on the offense and the youth’s age. In determining whether to sentence a youth to life without parole, courts must consider age-related characteristics of the youth, including, age, maturity, mental capacity, and prior history. S.B. 850/Act No. 204, signed into law and effective October 25, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Establishes Justice Reinvestment Fund, H.B. 135
Tags: Pennsylvania | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Fiscal Issues and Funding | Legislation
The Pennsylvania General Assembly established the Justice Reinvestment Fund, funded by savings accrued to the Department of Corrections from reductions in the state’s prison population, increased diversion of adults convicted of low-level offenses, and improved efficiencies in the parole system. For the 2013-14 fiscal year, 75 percent of the total calculated savings from the prior fiscal year were allocated to the fund. A portion of the fund must be spent on programs for youth in the justice system. The legislation authorizes continued funding, at a lower percentage, through fiscal year 2017-18. H.B. 135, signed into law October 25, 2012; effective December 24, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Issues Rule Mandating Least Restrictive Disposition for Youth, Rules 512, 1240, 1242, and 1512
Tags: Pennsylvania | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
When out-of-home placement is deemed to be necessary for a youth, juvenile courts in Pennsylvania must now explain why they are placing the youth outside of the home and why the placement is the least restrictive type of placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and the rehabilitation needs of the child.
-
Pennsylvania Bans Indiscriminate Shackling of Youth in Court, S.B. 817
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Legislation
A new law in Pennsylvania requires that restraints be removed from youth prior to court proceedings. The law provides for exceptions if the court makes a determination—on the record and with the input of the youth—that restraints are necessary to prevent physical harm to the youth or another person; to prevent disruptive courtroom behavior, given evidence of prior potentially harmful behavior; or to prevent the youth from fleeing, provided there is evidence of risk of escape. S.B. 817/Act No. 56, signed into law May 29, 2012; effective July 28, 2012.
-
Legislature Requires Greater Accountability for Juvenile Court System, H.B. 1546
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Evidence-Based Practices | Legislation
The Pennsylvania General Assembly increased the responsibilities of the Juvenile Court Judge’s Commission to ensure accountability for effective and efficient administration of the juvenile court system. The commission must collect and analyze data to identify trends and to determine the effectiveness of programs and practices, make recommendations concerning evidence-based programs and practices to judges, and post related information on the commission’s public website. H.B. 1546/Act No. 42, signed into law May 17, 2012; effective July 16, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Guarantees Right to Counsel for Youth, S.B. 815
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Spurred by the 2007 “kids-for-cash” scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania now requires all youth to be represented by counsel in delinquency cases. All children are presumed indigent, and the court must appoint counsel for youth who are not represented. Youth over age 14 may waive their right to counsel only at certain hearings and only following a judicial colloquy that determines the waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. However, youth must be represented by counsel at detention hearings; transfer hearings; adjudicatory hearings; evidentiary hearings related to the need for treatment, supervision, rehabilitation; disposition hearings; and hearings to modify or revoke probation or an existing disposition. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also amended the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure, requiring legal representation for youth in juvenile court proceedings. Most notably, the rule permits waiver of legal representation by children who are at least 14 years of age only in specific situations and even then, the waiver must meet the court’s scrutiny. S.B. 815/Act No. 23, signed into law April 9, 2012; effective June 8, 2012 and Rule 152, amended January 11, 2012; effective March 1, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Courts Must Justify Disposition Determinations, Including Reasons for Out-of-Home Placement of Youth, S.B. 818
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Prior to entering a disposition for a youth, Pennsylvania judges must now state the disposition and the reason for the disposition on the record in open court. Judges must explain the goals, terms, and conditions of the disposition, and, if a youth is sentenced to out-of-home placement, the judge must explain the specifics regarding the facility to which the youth is committed; what findings provide the basis for the commitment; and why such a placement was determined to be the “least restrictive placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and best suited to the child’s treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare.” S.B. 818/Act No. 22, signed into law and effective April 3, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Court Rules Allow Admissions Only after Thorough Colloquies, Rule 407
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court modified its rules regarding admissions made by youth in delinquency cases. The court adopted a mandated admissions colloquy. Attorneys must now review the standard colloquy form with their youth clients prior to entering the courtroom. If the attorney believes that his or her client does not understand the form, the attorney may not allow the youth to make an admission. The court must then conduct an independent inquiry to determine whether the admission was made in accordance with the rules. Rule 407, amended January 18, 2012; effective April 1, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Guarantees Right to Counsel for Youth, Rule 152
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Legislation
Spurred by the 2007 “kids-for-cash” scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania now requires all youth to be represented by counsel in delinquency cases. All children are presumed indigent, and the court must appoint counsel for youth who are not represented. Youth over age 14 may waive their right to counsel only at certain hearings and only following a judicial colloquy that determines the waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. However, youth must be represented by counsel at detention hearings; transfer hearings; adjudicatory hearings; evidentiary hearings related to the need for treatment, supervision, rehabilitation; disposition hearings; and hearings to modify or revoke probation or an existing disposition. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also amended the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure, requiring legal representation for youth in juvenile court proceedings. Most notably, the rule permits waiver of legal representation by children who are at least 14 years of age only in specific situations and even then, the waiver must meet the court’s scrutiny. S.B. 815/Act No. 23, signed into law April 9, 2012; effective June 8, 2012 and Rule 152, amended January 11, 2012; effective March 1, 2012.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Explanatory Report Regarding Rule 151, All Juveniles Indigent for Purposes of Appointment of Counsel
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a juvenile court procedural rule that declares all juveniles to be presumed indigent, thereby giving all youth the right to an attorney appointed by the court. The court rule forbids the consideration of a parent or guardian’s income, stating that “there is an inherent risk that the legal protections afforded juveniles could be eroded by making legal representation dependent upon the limited financial resources of their guardians, particularly where guardians have an income just above the poverty guidelines.”
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order Amending Rule 151, All Juveniles Indigent for Purposes of Appointment of Counsel, May 16, 2011
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a juvenile court procedural rule that declares all juveniles to be presumed indigent, thereby giving all youth the right to an attorney appointed by the court. The court rule forbids the consideration of a parent or guardian’s income, stating that “there is an inherent risk that the legal protections afforded juveniles could be eroded by making legal representation dependent upon the limited financial resources of their guardians, particularly where guardians have an income just above the poverty guidelines.”
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rule Declaring All Juveniles Indigent for Purposes of Appointment of Counsel, Rule 151, May 16, 2011
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a juvenile court procedural rule that declares all juveniles to be presumed indigent, thereby giving all youth the right to an attorney appointed by the court. The court rule forbids the consideration of a parent or guardian’s income, stating that “there is an inherent risk that the legal protections afforded juveniles could be eroded by making legal representation dependent upon the limited financial resources of their guardians, particularly where guardians have an income just above the poverty guidelines.”
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order Mandating Least Restrictive Disposition for Youth, Rules 512, 1240, 1242, and 1512
Tags: Pennsylvania | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
When out-of-home placement is deemed to be necessary for a youth, juvenile courts in Pennsylvania must now explain why they are placing the youth outside of the home and why the placement is the least restrictive type of placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and the rehabilitation needs of the child.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mandating Least Restrictive Disposition for Youth, Rules 512, 1240, 1242, and 1512, Explanatory Report
Tags: Pennsylvania | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Court Decisions and Related Documents
When out-of-home placement is deemed to be necessary for a youth, juvenile courts in Pennsylvania must now explain why they are placing the youth outside of the home and why the placement is the least restrictive type of placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and the rehabilitation needs of the child.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Explanatory Report Regarding Rule 139, Limiting Shackling of Youth in Court
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order Amending Rule 139, Limiting Shackling of Youth in Court, April 26, 2011
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rule Limiting Shackling of Youth in Court, Rule 139, April 26, 2011
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Shackling | Court Decisions and Related Documents
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule prohibits using restraints on youth in court with limited exceptions. Restraints may only be used if the court determines on the record—after giving the youth an opportunity to be heard—that restraints are necessary to prevent: 1) physical harm to the youth or another person; 2) disruptive courtroom behavior, which must be backed by evidence of dangerous behavior in the past; or 3) the youth’s escape, evidenced by an escape history or other relevant factors. The rule “highly discourages” the use of any restraints, and states that the routine use of restraints on youth is contrary to the philosophy of balanced and restorative justice and undermines the goal of rehabilitation.
-
Zero Tolerance in Philadelphia: Denying Educational Opportunities and Creating a Pathway to Prison, Youth United for Change and the Advancement Project
Tags: Pennsylvania | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Reports
Report criticizing zero tolerance in Philadelphia schools as a failed policy that makes city schools less safe, criminalizes or pushes out of school tens of thousands of students every year, and creates a school-to-prison pipeline. Philadelphia schools are punishing the same behavior far more harshly than they did just a few years ago, and also appear to be criminalizing its students far more often than other Pennsylvania school districts for the same behaviors.
-
Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy, November 6, 2010
Tags: Pennsylvania | General System Reform | Presentations
In November 2010, the Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, Pennsylvania Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers and Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Committee of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency adopted a new statewide plan to employ evidence-based practices, with fidelity, at every stage of the juvenile justice process; increase collection and analysis of data; and improve the quality of decisions, services, and programs.
-
Collateral Consequences Checklist
Tags: Pennsylvania | Collateral Consequences | Reports
The Pennsylvania Juvenile Defenders Association, in collaboration with Models for Change, published a Collateral Consequences Checklist. The Checklist is intended to provide attorneys, judges, and others who work with youth a summary of the short- and long-term consequences of juvenile adjudications of delinquency.
-
Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report, May 2010
Tags: Pennsylvania | General System Reform | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
Final report from the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which was charged with investigating the circumstances that led to the corruption in Luzerne County, restoring public confidence in the administration of justice, and preventing the occurrence of similar events.
-
Performance Guidelines for Quality and Effective Juvenile Delinquency Representation
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Reports
In consultation with juvenile defenders and national experts, the Juvenile Defenders Association of Pennsylvania developed these guidelines for quality and effective representation of youth in juvenile proceedings.
-
In Re: Expungement of Juvenile Records and Vacatur of Luzerne County Juvenile Court Consent Decrees or Adjudications from 2003-2008, October 29, 2010
Tags: Pennsylvania | General System Reform | Court Decisions and Related Documents
In an unprecedented decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated as many as 6,500 adjudications of delinquency of youth who appeared before former judge Mark Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008. The far-reaching order is an exceptional response to the judicial scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, through which Ciavarella and fellow judge Michael T. Conahan allegedly received more than $2.6 million in kickbacks from the owner of two private youth detention centers in exchange for sending youth there.
-
Improving School Climate: Findings From Schools Implementing Restorative Practices
Tags: International | Pennsylvania | Community-Based Alternatives and Supervision | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Restorative Justice | Reports | Research | Fact Sheets and Briefs
Restorative justice has the potential to transform the way schools, communities, and the criminal justice system respond to disruptive student behavior and violence.These findings are composed of excerpts from articles, as well as disciplinary data from individual schools and school districts, that give a snapshot of how restorative practices are being implemented and its effects.
-
Pennsylvania Establishes Commission to Investigate Luzerne County Corruption, H.B. 1648
Tags: Pennsylvania | General System Reform | Legislation
The General Assembly established an Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice to investigate the circumstances that led to the corruption in Luzerne County, restore public confidence in the administration of justice, and prevent the occurrence of similar events.
-
Pennsylvania Establishes Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice System, Pennsylvania, H.B. 1648
Tags: Pennsylvania | General System Reform | Legislation
Creates a commission to study the juvenile justice scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
-
Family Involvement in Pennsylvania's Juvenile Justice System
Tags: Pennsylvania | Family and Youth Involvement | Reports
The report, with contributions from NJJN member Pennsylvania Models for Change Community Partnership, aims to identify and develop strategies and models that will support family involvement in the juvenile justice system in effective and measurable ways and that are rooted within balanced and restorative justice practice.
-
Pennsylvania Prohibits Use of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Assessments in Court, Pennsylvania, H.B.1511/Act 109
Tags: Pennsylvania | Juvenile Defense and Court Process | Mental Health and Substance Abuse | Legislation
Pennsylvania, H.B.1511/Act 109, October 9, 2008 Strengthens juveniles' right against self-incrimination by placing restrictions on the use of screenings and assessments.
-
Pennsylvania Board of Education Adopts Positive Behavior Interventions, Pennsylvania, 22 Pa. Code Ch. 14
Tags: Pennsylvania | School-to-Prison Pipeline | Legislation
Revised regulations on special education, focusing on positive behavior support rather than physical restraints.
-
Keystones for Reform: Promising Juvenile Justice Policies and Practices in Pennsylvania, Youth Law Center
Tags: Pennsylvania | General System Reform | Reports
Report of Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice, an initiative of the MacArthur Foundation. Report describes a number of promising juvenile justice policies and practices in Pennsylvania that provide a solid base for further reform efforts.