Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c03/h08/mnt/52664/domains/childrenandthelawblog.com/html/wp-content/plugins/microkids-related-posts/microkids-related-posts.php on line 645
Photo Exhibit, film, speaker to address juvenile justice issues, Eric Jome, Illinois State University, March 1, 2016.
A photo exhibition focused on juvenile detention centers, the screening of a documentary on the lives of troubled young women, and a presentation on a prison art program will draw attention to issues surrounding the American juvenile justice system. The events, held in March, are presented in collaboration with Illinois State University’s 2016 Social Work Day Conference, which focuses on ways to keep youth out of the justice system.
ADHD in Juvenile Offenders: Treatment Issues Nurses Need to Know, Deborah Shelton, PhD, RN, BC; Gerald Pearson, PhD, APRN, March 5, 2016
It is estimated that 45% to 75% of the young people in the juvenile justice system have one or more disabilities (National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice, 2001; Shelton, 2001), including emotional and behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, and developmental disabilities. The most common diagnoses are ADHD, learning disabilities, depression, developmental disabilities, conduct disorder, anxiety disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In many cases, young people are dually diagnosed and experience co-occurring emotional and substance abuse problems; more than half also have a diagnosis of chemical dependence (Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2003). Among juvenile offenders, it is estimated that more than 30% may have ADHD (Shelton, in press,), and 40% of boys with untreated ADHD will be arrested for a felony by the time they reach their 16th birthdays (Wasserman, Miller, & Cothern, 2000).
You must suscribe to read the full article.
China’s Two-Child Policy: What’s Next? By Emily Feng, March 4, 2016.
Policies to promote gender equality and support non-marital births have had better luck achieving tangible results in the Scandinavian and European countries, but these policies are unlikely to be adopted by China. “I suspect there will be a bit of a backlash against the gains made by women, similar to the backlash in U.S. post world war when men returned from war and there was pushback for women to resume maternal, homemaker roles,” says Mei Fong, a journalist whose forthcoming book One Child draws from her extensive reporting on the policy. In China, couples who give birth out of wedlock are still fined and their children denied hukou,making them ineligible to access basic social services such as public education.
However, the greatest obstacle to creating programs and provincial laws to implement the two-child policy is economic inequality. The brunt of the demographic imbalance has been dealt unequally among China’s provinces. Cities like Shanghai and Beijing attract millions of transplants and migrant workers each year and have been cushioned from the effects of the labor shortage. Higher living costs and better social welfare systems (for those who have urban hukou, at least) have caused many of China’s urban middle class to voluntarily forgohaving more than one child. Meanwhile, couples in areas like Anhui or Shandong who supply much of the labor that powers China’s labor-intensive industries are more likely to have more than one child – but gauging exactly how much material support and through what channels that support should be offered is unclear. The cost of having a second child can be so prohibitive that some couples who would otherwise want to raise two childrenmay not be able to afford to.
House votes 117-0 to approve Juvenile Detention Cost Sharing Bill, By Jenna Buzzacco-Foerster, March 9, 2016.
A bill intended to end the fight over juvenile detention costs is headed to the governor.The Florida House voted 117-0 to approve the measure (SB 1322). The approval came just days after the Florida Senate voted 38-0 to approve the bill. The proposal requires counties that aren’t considered fiscally constrained, usually more affluent, urban areas, to pay $42.5 million for all detention costs in fiscal 2016-17. The state would pay the remaining costs. In the years that follow, the state would spit detention costs 50-50. The state would continue to cover the costs for detention facilities in fiscally constrained counties, usually poorer or rural areas. The state would also cover the cost of detaining juveniles who are out of state.