An Overview and a Look at Common Settings
| http://alternativeed.sjsu.edu Comprehensive website which includes teacher training resources Session 1 Berman, DS, Dans-Berman J, (1995). Outdoor education and troubled
youth. ERIC Digest Bryant, M. (1993). America's alternative schools: Prototypes for new public schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Houston, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 970) Butchart, R. E. (1986). Dropout prevention through alternative high schools: A study of the national experience. New York: Elmira Board of Cooperative Educational Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 273 872) Carnegie Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21 Catalano, R.F., Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D., Berglund, L., and Olson, J.J. 1998. Comprehensive community- and school-based interventions to prevent antisocial behavior. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Cormier, S. D., Berry, B., McCormick, C., Gredler, M. B., & Wieder, A. (1991). Assessing the impact of an alternative school for at-risk students. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. DeBlois, R. (1989). Keep at-risk students in school: Toward a curriculum for potential dropouts. NASSP Bulletin, 73, 6-12. Hahn, A., & Danzberger, J., with Lefkowitz, B. (1987). Dropouts in America: Enough is known for action. A report for policymakers and grantsmakers. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership. Herbst, D. P., & Sontheimer, H. G. (1987). A synergistic model for a juvenile court administered alternative education program. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 11, 67-77. Insights...on education policy and practice Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1997. Never Too Early, Never Too Late: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Academic performance and delinquency. M. Tonry (Ed.)Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 20. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 145-264. Morley, R. E. (1991). Alternative education. Dropout prevention research reports. Clemson, S.C.: National Dropout Prevention Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 349 652)
Jordan, T. S., & Jordan, K. F. (1995). State funding of programs and services for at-risk youth. Paper presented at the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Conference on Alternative Learning Environments, Little Rock, AR. Kadel, S. (1994). Reengineering high schools for student success. Hot topics: Usable research. Palatka, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education. (ERIC Document Number 366 076) Kershaw, C. A., & Blank, M. A. (1993). Student and educator perceptions of the impact of an alternative school structure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Korn, C. V. (1991). Alternative American schools: Ideals in action. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Morley, R. E. (1991). Alternative education. Dropout prevention research reports. Clemson, S.C.: National Dropout Prevention Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 349 652) New Futures for Little Rock Youth. (1993). Materials and newsletters from New Futures, 209 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201. (Contact person: Dorothy Nayles, Policy Analyst, (501) 374-1011.) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) OJJDP provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. OJJDP accomplishes this by supporting states and local communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and coordinated prevention and intervention programs and improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects the public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of families and each individual juvenile. Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center. (1995). Materials and results of evaluations of programs funded by the State Department of Education's Alternative Education Grant Program and High Challenge Grant Program. (Contact persons: Kathy McKean or Sylvia Oleson, (918) 225-1882.) Raywid, M. A. (1990). Alternative education: The definition problem. Changing Schools, 18, 4-5, 10. Raywid, M. A. (1994a). Focus schools: A genre to consider. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban and Minority Education. Raywid, M. A. (1994b). The research record. In J. Mintz, R. Solomon, & S. Solomon (Eds.), The Handbook of Alternative Education, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 7-11. Rogers, P. C. (1991). At-risk programs: Assessment issues. Center for At-Risk Students, 2, 1-4. Newsletter from the former Center for At-Risk Students housed at LaGuardia Community College, 31-10 Thomson Avenue, Long Island City, N.Y., 11101. (Contact person: Janet Lieberman, (718) 482-7200.) Session 2 Casey, K., & Keilitz, I. (1990). Estimating the prevalence of learning disabled and mentally retarded juvenile offenders: A meta-analysis. In P. E. Leone (Ed.), Understanding troubled and troubling youth (pp. 82-101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture (1997). Education as crime prevention. Occasional Paper Series No. 2: New York: Author.Leone, P. E., & Meisel, S. (1997). Improving education services for students in detention and confinement facilities. Children?s Legal Rights Journal, 71 (1), 2- 12. Murphy, D. M. (1986). The prevalence of handicapping conditions among juvenile delinquents. Remedial and Special Education, 7(3), 7 - 17. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1994). Conditions of confinement: Juvenile detention and corrections facilities. Washington, DC: Author. Rutherford, R. B., Nelson, C. M., & Wolford, B. I. (1986). Special education programming in juvenile corrections. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 27-33. Snyder, H. N. (1999). Juvenile arrests 1998. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Snyder, H. N. (1998). Juvenile arrests 1997. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Wolford, B., Purnell, B., & Brooks, C. C. (2000). Educating youth in the juvenile justice system. Richmond, KY: National Juvenile Detention Association. Project READ. (1978). To make a difference. In M. S. Brunner (Ed.), Reduced recidivism and increased employment opportunity through research-based reading instruction (pp. XX). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ Publication No. 141324). U. S. Department of Labor (1997). Profile of the working poor. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. William T. Grant Foundation (1989). The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America. Washington, DC: Author. Session 3 Kershaw, C. A., & Blank, M. A. (1993). Student and educator perceptions of the impact of an alternative school structure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Korn, C. V. (1991). Alternative American schools: Ideals in action.
Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Wehlage, G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N. & Fernandez, R. R., (1990). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. New York: The Falmer Press. Whalen, B. (1985). Developing an alternative high school: Dos and don’ts. NASSP Bulletin, 69, 106-109. Programs for Suspended/Expelled Students Barron Assessment and Counseling Center Phone: 617/635-8123 Behavior Change Program Beloit Education Center Central Area Alternative Center City-As-School CrossRoads Program DEAL Frederick Douglass High School and Academy Harper Alternative School I-PASS LACEY John H. Martyn High School Memorial High School Session 4 http://www.ncsu.edu/cpsv/qareplace.htm
Quality Alternative Placements for Suspended or Expelled Students:
"Lessons Learned" from the Center for the Prevention of
School Violence’s Youth Out of the Education Mainstream Initiative Session 5 http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/html/CORRECTIONS.html Great resource about facts and questions http://www.extension.ualberta.ca/youthjustice/delin.html Summaries - Delinquency Treatment and Intervention Title: Teens, Crime, and the Community and Adjudicated Youth. Title: Counseling Young Offenders for Rehabilitation and Employment:
The Problem and Promise. ERIC Digest. "Social development is an investment in people, in communities, and in society, and helps prevent crime; it is also cost effective." H.P. Hepworth, The Economics of Crime Prevention Focus Magazine, July, 1996 National Crime Prevention Council http://www.crime-prevention.org/ncpc/ Voices4Children http://www.nomoreyouthjails.org/nmyj/involved.html Justice 4 Youth Coalition Session 6 References and Resources: Bortner, M.A. and Williams, L.M. (1997). We the People of Unit
Four: Youth in Prison. New York: Routledge Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Statistical Briefing http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/index.html http://www.nomoreyouthjails.org/nmyj/involved.html Justice 4 Youth Coalition
Austin, J. et al. (2000). Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails: A National Assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available online: www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/182503.pdf • Summary: This nationwide study of juveniles in adult correctional facilities documents the number of youth in adult facilities as of 1998, their demographic and offense characteristics, the legal and administrative processes by which such commitments are permitted, the issues faced by adult correctional systems in managing juveniles, and the conditions of juveniles in adult facilities. The data show that approximately 107,000 youth are incarcerated on any given day. Of these, approximately 14,500 are housed in adult facilities. The largest proportion, approximately 9,100 youth, are housed in local jails, and some 5,400 youth are housed in adult prisons. Hubner J. & Wolfson, J. (1999). Ain’t No Place Anybody
Would Want to Be: Conditions of Confinement for Youth. Washington,
DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. Available through Coalition
for Juvenile Justice. Tel: 202/467-0864; Email: info@juvjustice.org Kilbourne, S. (1999). Children Behind Bars: Youth Who are Detained,
Incarcerated and Executed. Washington, DC: Youth Advocate Program
International. Tel: 202/244-1986; Email:
yapi@igc.org National Juvenile Detention Association and the Youth Law Center. (1998). Crowding in Juvenile Detention Centers: A Problem Solving Manual. Available through National Juvenile Detention Association. Tel: 606/622-6259. • Summary: A survey of the problems of crowding and possible solutions to detention overuse. Topics include: incarceration and pregnancy, prostitution, dispositional alternative projects, private for-profit placements, and legal challenges within the juvenile justice system. Parent, D. & Abt Associates. (1994). Research Summary: Conditions of confinement: juvenile detention and corrections facilities. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Available through the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Tel: 800/638-8736. • Summary: The findings of this most comprehensive national
study of detention conditions ever conducted show substantial deficiencies
in living space, health care, security, and control of suicidal
behavior. The study suggests other deficiencies in educational and
treatment services; access to the community; and limits on staff
discretion in such matters as the use of isolation, restraints and
searches. • Summary: This series of 13 publications provides practical information for understanding and implementing juvenile detention reform, based on the innovative policies and practices developed by jurisdictions participating in the Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. Each guide offers detailed descriptions of specific detention reform strategies, along with lessons learned and technical assistance resources. Puritz, P. & Scali, M. (1998). Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of Confinement for Youth in Custody. Washington, DC: American Bar Association. Available through Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Tel: 800/638-8736. • Summary: This report presents methods for improving oversight, monitoring, and services for detained and committed youth. It may be used by attorneys, parents, child advocates, and others interested in improving the quality of care received by juveniles in training schools and detention centers across the country. The suggested methods are: Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA); Ombudsman Programs; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&A's); Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and Self-Assessment. Sickmund, M. & Snyder, H. (1999). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available through the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Tel: 800/638-8736 • Summary: This comprehensive report presents data from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s new national Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, summarizing key findings about the characteristics of juvenile offenders in custody. ------. (2000). State Custody Rates, 1997. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available through the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Tel: 800/638-8736 • Summary: This report presents state-by-state statistics
on custody rates for juvenile delinquents and status offenders held
in public and private facilities. Using Census of Juveniles in Residential
Placement (CJRP) findings for 1997, the report compares the role
of private facilities, where most status offenders are held, with
that of public facilities, where most delinquent offenders are detained.
State rankings based solely on custody rates for delinquents in
public facilities differ from rankings based on rates for all juveniles
in both public and private facilities. • Summary: This study shows that Multnomah County in Portland,
Oregon reduced racial disparities in juvenile detention and lowered
juvenile crime through a series of juvenile detention reforms. The
results indicate that Portland leads the nation in successfully
reducing racial disparity in juvenile detention.
|
| Home | The Project | Training Modules | Resources/Links | Contact Project |