public https://www.doc.ks.gov These are the search results for the query, showing results 287 to 301. 01-106 https://www.doc.ks.gov/juvenile-services/supervision-standards/standards/chapter-1/01-106 No publisher cherylca 2013-08-09T21:30:00Z File 01-105 https://www.doc.ks.gov/juvenile-services/supervision-standards/standards/chapter-1/01-105 No publisher cherylca 2013-08-09T21:30:00Z File 01-104 https://www.doc.ks.gov/juvenile-services/supervision-standards/standards/chapter-1/01-104 No publisher cherylca 2013-08-09T21:30:00Z File Partners in Juvenile Justice https://www.doc.ks.gov/juvenile-services/partners/partners Juvenile Services Partners provide many levels of support for the youth of Kansas. Some partner groups are appointed by the Governor, others contract with the KDOC to provide services at the local level.  

 

Juvenile Services Partners


How Juvenile Services Partners with Kansas Communities

A major initiative of the juvenile justice reform act is based on the development of a strong state and local partnership. Juvenile Services works closely with county governments and community-based agencies in the implementation and operation of juvenile justice services at the local level.

Each judicial district is required to have three core programs operational at the local level:

  • Juvenile Intake and Assessment (JIAS)
  • Juvenile Intensive Supervision Probation (JISP)
  • Community Case Management (CCMA)

The KDOC distributes funds to the administrative county in each judicial district for the operation of these programs. Technical assistance is provided by the KDOC to assist districts in the delivery of services to youth who come in contact with these community based juvenile justice programs. Standards and procedures are developed to provide guidance in the operation of these programs.

Prevention Services and Programs

A major initiative of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act is the development of prevention programs as a part of the continuum of juvenile justice services. Prior to 1997, this had not been a focus of the juvenile justice system. Research at the national level indicates that prevention programming for at-risk youth and first time offenders can be highly effective in reducing juvenile crime and preventing the increasing long term cost of repeat offending. The KDOC supports and assists communities in developing successful programs that will help reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors. Communities are encouraged to create partnerships with other agencies that have a key interest in prevention focused services (schools, regional prevention centers, community mentoring programs) in order to maximize both funding and program capabilities. Prevention programs cover a wide range of service needs at the community level.

These programs target youth who are in need of pro-social adult role models to address adolescent behavior problems. College students, community volunteers, members of the business community, school personnel, and others provide positive social and material reinforcement to youth, allowing them to be connected to adults who promote healthy beliefs and clear standards. These programs offer opportunities for youth to interact with pro-social adults and peers and learn new skills in a safe, supportive environment.

Programs such as mentoring, after school programs, and recreation programs address several risk factors: early and persistent antisocial behavior, friends who engage in problem behavior, lack of commitment to school, and rebelliousness.

Juvenile Justice Outcomes Overview

The KDOC believes that programs, which receive state and federal funding need to be held accountable to ensure programs are programmatically sound and cost effective.

The community planning process uses the Communities That Care prevention strategy which is outcome based. Communities are trained to measure and calculate outcomes of each program.

____________________________________________________________________________

]]> No publisher Nancy Burghart 2013-07-10T16:55:00Z Page Provider Handbook https://www.doc.ks.gov/juvenile-services/provider/PH Juvenile Services Provider Handbook No publisher cherylca 2013-07-03T17:20:00Z File Juvenile Services https://www.doc.ks.gov/juvenile-services Individuals as young as ten years of age and as old as 17 years of age may be adjudicated as juvenile offenders. State law allows the KDOC to retain custody of a juvenile offender until the age of 22 ½ in a juvenile correctional facility and the age of 23 in the community. No publisher nancy.burghart 2013-07-01T11:40:00Z Folder Juvenile Services https://www.doc.ks.gov/juvenile-services/juvenile-services Individuals as young as ten years of age and as old as 17 years of age may be adjudicated as juvenile offenders in Kansas. State law allows the KDOC to retain custody of a juvenile offender until the age of 22 ½ in a juvenile correctional facility and the age of 23 in the community.
  • Kansas Juvenile Correctional Complex (KJCC)

  •  

    • A Safer Kansas Through Effective Correctional Services

     Juvenile Services


     

    Megan Milner

    Deputy Secretary of Juvenile & Adult Community-Based Services


    E-mail

    Phone: (785) 746-7456
    Fax: (785) 596-6080

    Kansas Department of Corrections
    ATTN: Juvenile Community-Based Services
    714 S.W. Jackson St., Suite 300
    Topeka, KS 66603


     Biography

    ]]>     No publisher Nancy Burghart 2013-07-01T11:40:00Z Page     Capital Punishment Information https://www.doc.ks.gov/newsroom/capital/data The State of Kansas has not conducted an execution since 1965.  

    • The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty laws in 40 states, including Kansas, in 1972. After several previous attempts, the 1994 Legislature enacted a death penalty law, which Governor Joan Finney allowed to become law without her signature. The statute took effect on July 1, 1994.
    • Kansas statute established the death penalty by lethal injection as a sentencing option for offenders 18 years of age and older who are convicted of capital murder (K.S.A. 21-3439).
    • A number of inmates have been convicted of capital murder but sentenced to life in prison (with a minimum term of 25 years to parole eligibility) instead of death.
    • Kansas does not have a separate “death row.” Inmates sentenced to death are typically housed in El Dorado Correctional Facility (EDCF), along with other inmates who are in administrative segregation.
    • Inmate Scott Cheever was sentenced to death for the murder of Greenwood County Sheriff Matt Samuels. Inmate Cheever is held in the Administrative Segregation Unit at Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF) due to the number of friends and family of Sheriff Samuels who are employed at EDCF.
    • In the event that a female inmate is sentenced to death, she will be held at the Topeka Correctional Facility (TCF), the only facility for female inmates in Kansas.
    • Inmates managed at EDCF or TCF will be transferred to the Lansing Correctional Facility within a week of the scheduled date of the execution.
    • The average annual cost of incarceration at the El Dorado Correctional Facility for Fiscal Year 2016 was $25,596.
      •  

    KANSAS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT INMATES (as of November 2016)

    Name KDOC#RaceDate of BirthDate Capital
     Sentence Imposed    		County of Conviction
    Kyle Trevor Flack 84374 White Jun 18, 1985 May 18, 2016 Franklin
    James Kraig Kahler 101355  White Jan. 15, 1963 Oct. 11, 2011 Osage
    Justin Eugene Thurber 93868 White March 14, 1983 March 20, 2009 Cowley
    Gary Wayne Kleypas 66129 White Oct. 8, 1955 Dec. 3, 2008 Crawford
    Scott Dever Cheever 72423 White Aug. 19, 1981 January 23, 2008 Greenwood
    Sidney John Gleason 64187 Black April 22, 1979 Aug. 28, 2006 Barton
    John Edward Robinson, Sr. 45690 White Dec. 27, 1943 Jan. 21, 2003 Johnson
    Johnathan Daniel Carr 76065 Black March 30, 1980 Nov. 15, 2002 Sedgwick
    Reginald Dexter Carr, Jr. 63942 Black Nov. 14, 1977 Nov. 15, 2002 Sedgwick
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ]]>     No publisher Nancy Burghart 2013-06-27T18:35:00Z Page     KDOC Juvenile Services Publications https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/juvenile/publications  

     

    Publications: Juvenile Services














    Facilities Management General Publications | Community & Field Services Publications | Offender Population Reports
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    ]]>     No publisher Nancy Burghart 2013-06-27T15:20:00Z Page     KDOC Facilities Management Publications https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/kdoc-facilities-management/kdoc-facilities-management For publications specific to a correctional facility, click the Facilities tab to look up the publication by correctional facility name.  

     

    General Publications: KDOC Facilities Management

     

    PREA

     

    ARCHIVED PUBLICATIONS

     

    Community & Field Services Publications | Juvenile Services Publications

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    ]]>     No publisher Nancy Burghart 2013-06-21T14:55:00Z Page     Sex Offender Housing Restrictions https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/CFS/sex-offender-housing-restrictions Twenty Findings of Research on Residential Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the Iowa Experience with Similar Policies
  • Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) the concept of “stranger danger.” Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
  • Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children. Iowa County Attorneys Association
  • The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety. Iowa County Attorneys Association
  • There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction. Iowa County Attorneys Association
  • Many prosecutors have observed that the numerous negative consequences of the lifetime residency restriction has caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess after disclosure of the offense by the child. In addition, there are more refusals by defendants charged with sex offenses to enter plea agreements. Plea agreements are necessary in many cases involving child victims in order to protect the children from trauma of the trial process. Iowa County Attorneys Association
  • Recommendation 1: Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders in the community…. Recommendation 2: Placing restrictions on the location of correctionally supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board
  • ....the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled since the law went into effect. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
  • There is no accommodation in the current statute for persons on parole or probation supervision. These offenders are already monitored and their living arrangements approved. Iowa County Attorneys Association
  •  [This policy] is contrary to well-established principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders….These goals are severely impaired by the residency restriction, compromising the safety of children by obstructing the use of the best known corrections practice. Iowa County Attorneys Association
  • The sex offender residency restriction was a very well intentioned effort to keep the children of our communities safe from sex offenders. It has, however, had unintended consequences that effectively decrease community safety. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
  • ….some offenders are attempting to comply by providing descriptions of where they are actually living….”under the 7th street bridge,” “truck near river,” “rest area mile marker 149,” “Flying J, in truck,” “in tent, S side of I-80,” “RV in old K-Mart parking lot,” “I-35 rest area,”….Two listed Quick Trips…. For the first time, sex offender treatment providers tell us, sex offenders are absconding in larger numbers. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
  • When a brutal sexually violent crime occurs, such as the one that occurred in Iowa last year, our societal tendency is to focus all our resources and energy on stopping offenders. The long-term solutions to eradicating sexual violence from our society, however, do not lie in measures taken to stop re-offense, but rather in preventing sexual violence from happening in the first place. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
  • … the Board of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault joined the Iowa County Attorneys Association in stating that these unintended consequences warrant replacing the residency restriction with more effective measures. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
  • Housing restrictions have passed in most localities with little resistance. Child safety is rightly the primary concern when sex offender restrictions are imposed. It seems to make sense that decreasing access to potential victims would be a feasible strategy to preventing sex crimes. There is no evidence, however, that such laws are effective in reducing recidivistic sexual violence. On the other hand, such laws aggravate the scarcity of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them out of metropolitan areas and farther away from the social support, employment opportunities and social services that are known to aid offenders in successful community re-entry. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
  • Despite overwhelming public and political support, there is no evidence that proximity to schools increases recidivism, or, conversely, that housing restrictions reduce reoffending or increase community safety. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
  • Based on the examination of level three re-offenders, there were no examples that residential proximity to a park or school was a contributing factor in any of the sexual re-offenses noted… Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact…it appears that a sex offender attracted to such locations for purposes of committing a crime is more likely to travel to another neighborhood on order to in secret rather than in a neighborhood where his or her picture is well known. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
  • Having such restrictions in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul would likely force level three offenders to move to more rural areas that would not contain nearby schools and parks but would pose other problems, such as high concentration of offenders with no ties to the community; isolation; lack of work, education and treatment options; and an increase in the distance traveled by agents who supervise offenders. Again, no evidence points to any effect on offense rates of school proximity residential restrictions. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
  • Since blanket proximity restrictions on residential locations of level three offenders do not enhance community safety, the current offender-by-offender restrictions should be retained. Proximity restrictions, based on circumstances on an individual offender, serve as a valuable supervision tool…Most of these supervision proximity restrictions address the issue of the offender associating or interacting with children or minors, rather than where the offender resides. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections
  • A significant number of offenders have married or have been reunited with their victims; and, in those cases, the residency restriction is imposed on the victims as well as the offenders. Iowa County Attorneys Association…
  • A tight web of supervision, treatment and surveillance may be more important in maintaining community safety than where a sex offender resides. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board.
    • ]]>     No publisher cherylca 2013-06-21T14:50:00Z Page     Sex Offender Supervision Handbook https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/CFS/sex-offender-supervision-handbook This handbook is to be considered a resource book for individualized supervision of sex offenders. No publisher cherylca 2013-06-21T14:45:00Z File FY 2012 KDOC Annual Report https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/Reports/Archived/kdoc-annual-report An overview of the Department’s activities throughout the Fiscal Year 2012. No publisher cherylca 2013-06-21T14:20:00Z File 2012 Risk Reduction Iniative Report - SB14 https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/CFS/community-corrections-publications/risk-reduction-initiative-report-sb14-archived/2012-risk-reduction-iniative-report-sb14 Annual report published by the Community Corrections Division No publisher elisabethc 2013-06-06T18:55:00Z File Statistical Summary: FY 2009 Community Corrections Offender Population https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/CFS/community-corrections-publications/community-corrections-statistical-summaries-archived/statistical-summary-fy-2009-community-corrections-offender-population No publisher cherylca 2013-06-06T18:47:43Z File