California Community Crime Resistance Program: First Annual Report to the Legislature

I am pleased to present this First Annual Report of the California Community Crime Resistance Program, pursuant to Chapter 578 of 1978 Statutes (SB 2971, Levine). This report is preliminary in nature and contains cumulative results covering the first nine months of the program from October, 1980 through September, 1981. This report describes the cooperative efforts of state and local officials which permitted both local law enforcement agency representatives and community-based agency staff to initiate and extend crime resistance programs pursuant to SB 2971. This report explains the systematic approach to data ·collection and evaluation which is built into the program. Most importantly, the report cites preliminary results which show that substantial progress has been made in implementing the Community Crime Resistance Program so that its goal can be achieved. That goal is to assist local law enforcement officials to provide technical assistance and funds to communities in order to promote neighborhood involvement in anti-crime programs

California Victim Witness Assistance Program: Preliminary Report

I am pleased to present this Preliminary Report on the operation of the California Victim/Witness Assistance Program. This program is funded persuant to Chapter 713 of 1979 Statutes (SB 383, Smith) and under the requirements of Chapter 1256 of 1977 Statutes (AB 1434, Gage). This report discusses the program•s implementation and a preliminary assessment covering the period through December 30, 1980. The basic goal of this program is to encourage and strengthen efforts to assist victims and witnesses of all types of crime. This report details the history of this concept and the innovative efforts undertaken in California to meet this goal. Assistance Centers in thirty counties provide services aimed at meeting this goal, and current plans include expanding the program to implement additional programs

California Victim Witness Assistance Program: Preliminary Report

I am pleased to present this Preliminary Report on the operation of the California Victim/Witness Assistance Program. This program is funded persuant to Chapter 713 of 1979 Statutes (SB 383, Smith) and under the requirements of Chapter 1256 of 1977 Statutes (AB 1434, Gage). This report discusses the program•s implementation and a preliminary assessment covering the period through December 30, 1980. The basic goal of this program is to encourage and strengthen efforts to assist victims and witnesses of all types of crime. This report details the history of this concept and the innovative efforts undertaken in California to meet this goal. Assistance Centers in thirty counties provide services aimed at meeting this goal, and current plans include expanding the program to implement additional programs

California\u27s Child Abduction Task Force Summary Report

This report, available to members of the State Legislature, administrators, policy makers, law enforcement officials, judges, and other professionals who deal with child abduction, serves several purposes: First, it is a guidebook to increase understanding of the dynamics of stranger abductions and those carried out by a family member, close friend or loved one. Second, it identifies issues, existing problems or deficiencies that must be addressed in order to prevent the numerous abductions that occur annually, and as a means of follow-up, it suggests recommendations and courses of action. Last, it serves as a ready reference

California\u27s Child Abduction Task Force Summary Report

This report, available to members of the State Legislature, administrators, policy makers, law enforcement officials, judges, and other professionals who deal with child abduction, serves several purposes: First, it is a guidebook to increase understanding of the dynamics of stranger abductions and those carried out by a family member, close friend or loved one. Second, it identifies issues, existing problems or deficiencies that must be addressed in order to prevent the numerous abductions that occur annually, and as a means of follow-up, it suggests recommendations and courses of action. Last, it serves as a ready reference

The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge

As part of a broad initiative of systematic reviews of experimental or quasiexperimental evaluations of interventions in the field of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, our work consisted in searching through all available databases for evidence concerning the effects of custodial and non-custodial sanctions on reoffending. For this purpose, we examined more than 3,000 abstracts, and finally 23 studies that met the minimal conditions of the Campbell Review, with only 5 studies based on a controlled or a natural experimental design. These studies allowed, all in all, 27 comparisons. Relatively few studies compare recidivism rates for offenders sentenced to jail or prison with those of offenders given some alternative to incarceration (typically probation). According to the findings, the rate of re-offending after a non-custodial sanction is lower than after a custodial sanction in 11 out of 13 significant comparisons. However, in 14 out of 27 comparisons, no significant difference on re-offending between both sanctions is noted. Two out of 27 comparisons are in favour of custodial sanctions. Finally, experimental evaluations and natural experiments yield results that are less favourable to non-custodial sanctions, than are quasi-experimental studies using softer designs. This is confirmed by the meta-analysis including four controlled and one natural experiment. According to the results, non-custodial sanctions are not beneficial in terms of lower rates of re-offending beyond random effects. Contradictory results reported in the literature are likely due to insufficient control of pre-intervention differences between prisoners and those serving “alternative” sanctions

Police-initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior: a systematic review

BackgroundOverly punitive responses to youth misconduct may have the unintended consequence ofincreasing the likelihood of future delinquency; yet, overly lenient responses may fail to serveas a corrective for the misbehavior. Police diversion schemes are a collection of strategiespolice can apply as an alternative to court processing of youth. Police-initiated diversionschemes aim to reduce reoffending by steering youth away from deeper penetration into thecriminal justice system and by providing an alternative intervention that can help youthaddress psychosocial development or other needs that contribute to their problem behavior.ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pre-courtinterventions involving police warning or counseling and release, and cautioning schemes inreducing delinquent behavior.Search methodsA combination of 26 databases and websites were searched. References of relevant reviewswere also scanned to identify studies. We also consulted with experts in the field. Searcheswere executed by two reviewers and conducted between August 2016 and January 2017.Selection criteriaOnly experimental and quasi-experimental designs were eligible for this review. All quasiexperimentaldesigns must have had a comparison group similar to the police diversionintervention group with respect to demographic characteristics and prior involvement indelinquent behavior (i.e., at similar risk for future delinquent behavior). Additionally, studiesmust have included youth participants between 12 and 17 years of age who either underwenttraditional system processing or were diverted from court processing through a police-leddiversion program. Studies were also eligible if delinquency-related outcomes, includingofficial and non-official (self-report or third-party reporting) measures of delinquency werereported.Data collection and analysisThis study used meta-analysis to synthesize results across studies. This method involvedsystematic coding of study features and conversion of study findings into effect sizesreflecting the direction and magnitude of any police-led diversion effect. There were 19independent evaluations across the 14 primary documents coded for this review. From this,we coded 67 effect sizes of delinquent behavior post diversion across 31 diversion-traditionalprocessing comparisons. We analyzed these comparisons using two approaches. The firstapproach selected a single effect size per comparison based on a decision rule and the secondused all 67 effect sizes, nesting these within comparison condition and evaluation design.ResultsThe general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police-led diversion modestlyreduces future delinquent behavior of low-risk youth relative to traditional processing.Authors’ conclusionsThe findings from this systematic review support the use of police-led diversion for low-riskyouth with limited or no prior involvement with the juvenile justice system. Thus, policedepartments and policy-makers should consider diversionary programs as part of the mix ofsolutions for addressing youth crime

California Community Crime Resistance Program: First Annual Report to the Legislature

I am pleased to present this First Annual Report of the California Community Crime Resistance Program, pursuant to Chapter 578 of 1978 Statutes (SB 2971, Levine). This report is preliminary in nature and contains cumulative results covering the first nine months of the program from October, 1980 through September, 1981. This report describes the cooperative efforts of state and local officials which permitted both local law enforcement agency representatives and community-based agency staff to initiate and extend crime resistance programs pursuant to SB 2971. This report explains the systematic approach to data ·collection and evaluation which is built into the program. Most importantly, the report cites preliminary results which show that substantial progress has been made in implementing the Community Crime Resistance Program so that its goal can be achieved. That goal is to assist local law enforcement officials to provide technical assistance and funds to communities in order to promote neighborhood involvement in anti-crime programs