Raising Juveniles

This paper investigates how families make decisions about the education of juveniles. The decision problem is analyzed in three variations: a 'decentralized' scheme, in which the parents control the purse-strings, but the children dispose of their time as they see fit; a 'hierarchical' scheme, in which the parents can enforce a particular level of schooling by employing a monitoring technology; and the cooperative solution, in which the threat point is one of the two noncooperative outcomes. Adults choose which game is played. While the subgame perfect equilibrium of the overall game is Pareto-efficient when viewed statically, it may yield less education than the hierarchical scheme. Regulation in the form of restrictions on child labor and compulsory schooling generally affects both the threat point and the feasible set of bargaining outcomes, and families may choose more schooling than the minimum required by law.family decision-making, youth, human capital, bargaining

Competetive exclusion in Cladocera through elevated mortality of adults

The population dynamics of two cladocerans, Ceriodaphnia pulchella and Diaphanosoma brachyurum competing under laboratory conditions in lake water was analysed using crosscorrelations. Both mixed and isolated populations of the two cladocerans showed delayed density dependence in the death rates of juveniles and adults as well as in fecundity rate. The regressions for each of the three rates on total density of competitors were compared between the two species. There were no significant differences in the slopes of regressions for fecundity rates and the death rates of juveniles. However, in the inferior competitor (Diaphanosoma) which went extinct in all treatments, the death rate of adults increased with total density much more quickly than in the superior competitor (Ceriodaphnia). The intraspecific comparisons indicated that while Ceriodaphnia adults survived better than juveniles under conditions of crowding, in Diaphanosoma, juveniles were better survivors than adults. These data suggest that the contention of higher vulnerability of cladoceran juveniles than adults to starvation and crowding may prove to be not a universal phenomenon

Juvenile Justice Referrals in Alaska, 2003-2013

This fact sheet presents summary information on referrals made by Alaska law enforcement agencies to the Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for for state fiscal years 2003–2013. The report presents data on the number of juveniles referred to DJJ, number of referrals made, charges by class and offense type, and demographic information on referred juveniles. Data is drawn from the DJJ Data Trends website.Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of JusticeUnique juveniles / Referrals / Charges / Charge class / Charge type / Offender demographics / Summary / Note

FY 2000 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, 2 instances of status offenders held in secure detention were recorded in FY 2000, compared with 485 violations in the baseline year of CY 1976. In Alaska, 17 separation violations were recorded in FY 2000 (45 projected), representing a 98% reduction from the CY 1976 baseline of 824 violations. 82 jail removal violations were projected (50 actual), representing an substantial reduction from the CY 1980 baseline.Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Juvenile JusticeA. General Information / B. Removal of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders from Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities / C. De Minimis Request / D. Progress Made in Achieving Removal of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders from Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities / E. Separation of Juveniles and Adults / F. Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups / G. De Minimis Request: Substantive / APPENDICES / I. Method of Analysis / II. Fiscal Year 2000 Violations by Offense Type and Location / III. Common Offense Acronym

1993 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, no instances of a status offender held in secure detention was recorded in 1993, as compared with 485 violations in the baseline year of 1976. 16 separation violations were recorded in 1992, representing a 98% reduction from the 1976 baseline of 824 violations. 59 jail removal violations were projected, representing a 94% reduction from the 1980 baseline and an 25% increase from 1992.Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Family and Youth ServicesA. General Information / B. Removal of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders from Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities / C. De Minimis Request / D. Progress Made in Achieving Removal of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders from Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities / E. Separation of Juveniles and Adults / F. Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups / G. De Minimis Request: Numerical / H. De Minimis Request: Substantive / APPENDICES / I. Method of Analysis / II. 1993 Violations by Offense Type and Location / III. Common Offense Acronym

Not Yet Legal and in Prison?

The United States is the only industrialized country that sentences individuals to spend the remainder of their lives in prison for a crime they committed before the age of eighteen. The justice system established the sentencing of juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole to deter juvenile delinquency. Life without parole was regarded as an appropriate punishment following the rise of juvenile crime during the 1980s and 1990s. However, as psychological differences between juveniles and adults became more prominent, society began to regard life without the possibility of parole as a cruel and unusual punishment. Although some juveniles commit heinous crimes that warrant a life in prison, others receive the same punishment for a crime that does not merit a punishment of this extent

FY 1996 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, 4 instances of a status offender held in secure detention were recorded in FY 1996, compared with 485 violations in the baseline year of CY 1976. 3 separation violations were recorded in FY 1997, representing a 99.6% reduction from the CY 1976 baseline of 824 violations. 44 jail removal violations were projected, representing an 95% reduction from the CY 1980 baseline.Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Family and Youth ServicesA. General Information / B. Removal of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders from Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities / C. De Minimis Request / D. Progress Made in Achieving Removal of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders from Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities / E. Separation of Juveniles and Adults / F. Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups / G. De Minimis Request: Substantive / APPENDICES / I. Method of Analysis / II. FY96 Violations by Offense Type and Location / III. Common Offense Acronym

Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles

Until recently, it has been difficult to obtain a national statistical picture of juvenile crime victimization. The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system, which has served as the Nation’s primary source of information about crime since 1929, has never collected information or reported crimes by age of victim, with the exception of homicides. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the victim self-report survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics for the past 20 years, has collected data only on crimes occurring to persons 12 years of age or older. Consequently, even such a basic fact as the percentage of all violent crimes that are committed against juveniles (youth ages 17 and younger) has been unavailable. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) developing National IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS), however, does provide detailed statistical information about juvenile victims of reported crimes. As more jurisdictions begin to participate in NIBRS, the outlines of a national picture of juvenile crime victims are beginning to emerge. Even though NIBRS is far from a comprehensive national data system, the fact that only partial data were available previously makes it particularly useful to see what information about juvenile victims can be gleaned from this system. An analysis of 1997 NIBRS data from jurisdictions in 12 States reveals some key findings