Enhancing Law Enforcement Efficiency through Information Sharing


Added on  2019-09-26

4 Pages2375 Words162 Views
Program Case StudiesAJS/594 Version 21University of Phoenix MaterialProgram Case StudiesJuvenile Justice Correction FacilitiesIn May of 2004 the municipality removed juveniles from a section of the adult corrections facility, as ordered by the government, because the juvenile area did not provide sight and sound separation from the adult population. The facility was a 50-year-old, 900-square-foot holding structure located adjacent to the adult facility. It held juveniles awaiting initial adjudication and status offenders, such as those charged with underage possession of alcohol and incorrigible behavior. This juvenile facility has two sleeping rooms located next to each housing both males and females and has held up to eight juveniles at a time. It does not have a shower room, dayrooms, or an outdoor exercise area and is not in compliance with government standards. After initial adjudication, juveniles charged with nonstatus offenses are transferred to another facility that is over 12 hours away, making visitation extremely difficult. Once there, they do not have access to family,community support, or rehabilitation services and can quickly become institutionalized. In 2008, there were 398 minors arrested. Of these 398 minors, 141 prosecutions were initiated. Currently,there are 73 pending cases from 2008. Of these, 32 were for drug abuse, underage drinking, and possession of alcohol. Many of the 141 initiated prosecutions included multiple charges. These charges are for burglaries, theft, rapes, assaults, threats or endangerment, disorderly conduct, attempt at unlawful sexual behavior, carrying a concealed weapon, joyriding, abusing property, reckless driving, incorrigible behavior, and sexual abuse. The majority of these also included substance abuse or alcohol use. There has been an annual increase in incidents involving juveniles from 10% to 155% per year over the last 5 years. The number of prosecutions in 2008 has increased 200% from 2007. The increasing prosecutions reflect a shift in law enforcement to preserve peace and security in the municipality. The high number of arrests reflects a dramatic increase in methamphetamine use and underage drinking. Thisproblem has also been identified as a primary cause of the rapid increase in school drop-out rates, truancy, family conflicts, and other juvenile crime. Juvenile offenses have dramatically increased over recent years and the need for a new facility was apparent. In response, the municipality established the Juvenile Justice Review Committee (JJRC) that is comprised of participants who want to improve the juvenile justice system. This group meets monthly and more frequently when required. Mortgage and Investment FraudIn this municipality last year, the number of foreclosures increased by 723%, up from just 81% in 2006 to 667% in 2008. The vast majority of the homes lost to foreclosure are in the municipality’s southeast sector. The southeast sector is comprised of low- to moderate-income families, racial and ethnic minorities, and older adults. Research indicates that foreclosures in this area are not slowing. A recent study found that three out of four homebuyers within this municipality received an adjustable rate mortgage from 2005 to 2006. Most at-risk homeowners are Latino, Asian, or Black and have riskier and more expensive loans than most White homebuyers. Notices of Default are up 121%.In this climate, mortgage and investment fraud targeting at-risk homeowners is rapidly on the rise. New scams targeting vulnerable communities are becoming more common, such as loss mitigation companiespromising to help distressed homeowners—for a fee. The companies do nothing to help and mortgages fall further behind until banks foreclose on the homes. Countless homeowners have been defrauded by similar schemes. Older homeowners are being targeted for reverse mortgages and distressed homeowners are being targeted for scams, such as tax reassessment, solicitations, and investment fraud Copyright © 2016 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Enhancing Law Enforcement Efficiency through Information Sharing_1

Program Case StudiesAJS/594 Version 22by professionals who start with legitimate mortgage activities and then engage in subsequent fraud. Instead of receiving the needed help, distressed homeowners are being defrauded out of their money andtheir homes.The district attorney’s (DA) office has built significant expertise and success in prosecuting mortgage and investment fraud. The office has also supported federal enforcement efforts and advocated for legislative protection for potential mortgage fraud victims. The DA’s office is currently operating beyond actual capacity. The DA’s office and the police department have a swelling backlog of fraud cases. At the same time, the DA’s office has suffered significant budget cuts in the last year, resulting in staff layoffs and an office-wide strain on resources. Rural Law Enforcement: Combatting Crime and Illegal Substance AbuseIn 2008, there were 4,198 juveniles detained as delinquents or as children in need of supervision in the rural juvenile detention facilities. The facilities director stated that 97% of the juveniles are detained for less than 3 months and 3% from 3–6 months, and 90% have alcohol or drug issues, 2% have a mental health disability, and 25% have medical issues. Juveniles in detention do not have access to risk and needs assessment, treatment or services due to a lack of coordinated services and case management resources. Reentry planning and aftercare is nonexistent. Facility administrators place urgent calls to counselors and other professionals, hoping they can come in immediately on a volunteer basis for crisis situations. No education services are provided at facilities.Objective risk-assessment standards have never been formulated. Risk assessments that must be performed by probation officers (according to the Children's Code) are not done on children in temporary custody. As a result, dependent children may be in detention at any given time, and children have been detained with delinquent children in violation of Children's Code guidelines. Needs assessments also are not performed. These must be performed by the service provider responsible for the area of assessment. Substance and alcohol abuse assessments must be performed by behavioral health professionals. Mental health and medical assessments must be performed by health service professionals. The facilities, however, lack the core competencies to manage agency referrals for assessment purposes. Record keeping in the corrections department only recently became automated. Juveniles with serious needs go undiagnosed and untreated.Detention has become the first choice to discipline children, even for minor offenses. Due to a lack of alternatives, children in contempt have been detained for 6 months when the original charge may be a curfew violation. Children brought into the system are almost guaranteed to be seen again on delinquency charges.This region is one of the poorest U.S. rural communities with per capita income averaging $4,106. The region spans more than 24,000 square miles with 2,000 miles of paved roads. The distance and terrain make it challenging to coordinate services for the communities. Juvenile gang membership and drop outand delinquency rates are growing problems. Drug use among juveniles in the community is epidemic and drug-related assault is rising. In 2008, police responded to 33 attempted suicides and 11 suicides ofyouth. School dropout rates are high. The perception in this region is that restorative justice for juvenileshas failed.Judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and staff in corrections, behavioral health, and social services all agree that restorative justice has never been given a real opportunity to succeed. When most offenses were decriminalized in 2000 due to municipal code, they directed restorative justice solutions and community participation, but did not provide funding. As noted in a 2008 memorandum sent by the municipality, restorative justice is a core responsibility. The unfunded mandate for restorative justice was limited to agency-specific grants and heavy reliance on individuals with creativity and initiative. An unreasonable level of creativity and initiative has been required for personnel at the agency level. This resulted from an absence of detailed agency-collaboration plans at the policy-making level, despite general interagency agreements.Copyright © 2016 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Enhancing Law Enforcement Efficiency through Information Sharing_2

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.