Editors: Alexandra Wigzell, Claire Paterson-Young, and Tim Bateman
‘Desistance’ - understanding how people move away from offending – has become a significant policy focus in recent years, with desistance thinking transplanted from the adult to the youth justice system in England and Wales. This book is the first to critique this approach to justice-involved children.
Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2025.
Transitional Safeguarding is defined as: ‘An approach to safeguarding adolescents and young adults fluidly across developmental stages which builds on the best available evidence, learns from both children’s and adult safeguarding practice, and which prepares young people for their adult lives’ (Holmes and Smale, 2018, p3). This approach and the service transition from youth justice to probation are not one and the same. The transition from youth justice to probation is a process of moving or transferring between two systems at the age of 18, while the transition to adulthood is not a one-off discrete event but happens in different spaces and with different temporal boundaries according to the individual experience. Transitional Safeguarding is an approach that recognises the liminality and reality of the older adolescent/young adult period, namely safeguarding young people across the threshold of 18 years. The approach pays attention to the barriers and inequalities experienced at this stage of development (Cocker et al., 2024). To date, there has been no research explicitly exploring how Transitional Safeguarding is understood and applied within the youth justice and probation service context to support young people aged between mid-teens to mid-twenties. Holmes and Smith (2022) authored the Academic Insights paper 2022/03, providing suggestions on the potential application of Transitional Safeguarding within justice services. This study provides an overview of how youth justice and probation embed the six key principles of Transitional Safeguarding into their service design. These principles are that any Transitional Safeguarding approach must be: • evidence-informed • contextual/ecological • transitional/developmental • relational • attentive to equity, equalities, diversity, inclusion (EEDI) • participative.
Research & Analysis Bulletin 2025/02
Manchester, UK: 2025. 48p.
By Fiona Allison
This article introduces the concept of justice reinvestment (JR) as defined and applied in Australia by First Nations people, including as a mechanism with potential to reduce over-representation of young First Nations people in the justice system.
Justice reinvestment is a framework that emerged in the early 2000s to tackle high rates of incarceration in the United States. JR is commonly referred to not as a program but as a different way of working. It wraps together, as a framework, approaches known to be effective for progressing First Nations-identified priorities and improving First Nations outcomes, including those centred on self-determination and culture, prevention and government accountability.
The article considers how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are using JR to improve justice and other outcomes for children and young people, with discussion of how these might be further built upon as the justice reinvestment movement continues to grow across Australia. It draws primarily on specific examples from longer-standing JR initiatives and their implementation of the JR elements.
Children Australia, 47(1), 3034,
By Allyson L. Dir, Lauren A. Magee, Richelle L. Clifton, Fangqian Ouyang, Wanzhu Tu, Sarah E. Wiehe, Matthew C. Aalsma
Abstract Technical probation violations are common among probation-involved youth, and across many jurisdictions, may result in detention or residential placement. The current study examined prevalence of technical violations occurring during one’s first probation period, the average time to technical violation, and individual-level and justice-related factors related to technical violations among probation-involved youth in a juvenile justice system. We analyzed electronic criminal records of 18,289 probation-involved youth following their first arrest (68.7% male, 53.9% Black, Mage=15.2). Technical violation was defined as a violation resulting from a non-criminal incident. We examined effects of charge severity, probation conditions (e.g., electronic monitoring) and program referrals (e.g., mental health) on likelihood of technical violation utilizing survival analysis stratified by race. Across 18,289 youth, 15.3% received a technical violation during their first probation; Black youth violated more quickly compared to White youth (log-rank test p<.001). In multivariate survival analyses, the hazard for time to technical violation was higher for Black youth compared to white youth (p<.001), males (p=.04), and younger youth (p<.001). Youth assigned to more probation requirements violated more quickly. Electronic monitoring and education, mental health, and drug programs were associated with shorter time to violation, controlling for race, ethnicity, and charge severity. Black youth violate more quickly compared to White youth. Across all youth, assignment to more probation requirements increased risk of technical violation and shorter time to violation. Despite the benefit of probation interventions, system-level efforts are needed to help youth adhere to probation requirements and successfully complete probation
Psychol Public Policy Law. 2021 May ; 72(2): 283–291.
By Andreea Matei and Samantha Harvell
Consistent with national trends, youth incarceration in Ohio has declined significantly during the past decade. Notably, however, the average daily population in the state’s youth prisons actually increased each year between 2016 and 2019. Reductions in youth incarceration allowed the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) to close five of its eight juvenile correctional facilities over the last decade, yet the state still spends one-third of its juvenile justice budget on these facilities. Further, though racial and ethnic inequities in Ohio’s juvenile justice system declined in the past several years, significant disparities persist, particularly for Black youth. This data snapshot explores youth incarceration in Ohio and provides data to state partners working with the YouthFirst Initiative, a national advocacy campaign supporting state juvenile justice reform efforts.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 10p.
By Leah Sakala, Ammar Khalid, Constance Hull. Rebecca Wong
Community organizations and service providers can be key partners for addressing public safety challenges and reducing justice system involvement. Through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) process, multiple states have established goals, policy structures, and implementation strategies to provide and enhance community-based services related to safety and well-being, such as behavioral health treatment, violence prevention, victim services, and reentry support. This report focuses on 10 JRI states’ strategies to advance public safety goals by collaboratively building community capacity to provide and enhance vital safety and well-being services. We identify common themes among these approaches and explore lessons learned from the successes and challenges of JRI community collaborations that may inform similar efforts in the future. The appendix contains profiles that provide additional details on these states' community capacity-building approaches.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 47p.
By Robin Olsen
The Young Adult Diversion Program in the State’s Attorney's Office for South Dakota’s Pennington County provides interventions to people in the community with the goal of getting better results for the individual and the public. It uses an individualized approach to each case that is aimed at understanding the reasons why the person engaged in the behavior that led to a case being filed. Leadership and program staff devote many hours to building and finding community support to provide services for participants. Since the initial pilot program, diversion programs have grown in the office, and it now has four programs, each with its own focus: young adult diversion, adult diversion, drug diversion, and domestic violence diversion. This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, centers on the Young Adult Diversion Program’s individualized approach to diversion and the networked approach its leadership and program staff have used to build its capacity and scope, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership, staff, and partners. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 5p.
By Leigh Courtney
The Stopping Trends of Repeat Incarceration with Diversion and Education (STRIDE) program in the DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office is a comprehensive diversion program that leverages local community resources to create accountability for young adults charged with serious offenses and help them develop life skills and strengthen their connections to the community. This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, centers on the program’s community-based, case management–focused model designed for young adults, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors and stakeholders looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership and staff. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 7p.
By Libby Doyle and Constance Hull
Following nationwide uprisings against police violence in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, many school districts have reexamined the use of police in their schools. Several jurisdictions in the DC metro area are moving to reduce the number and responsibilities of police in schools and implement alternative school safety strategies. 1 In this brief, after reviewing the history and unequal effects of police in US schools, we examine efforts in three of these jurisdictions—Washington, DC; Alexandria, Virginia; and Montgomery County, Maryland—to illustrate the varied approaches localities have taken, the barriers they have faced, and key considerations for policymakers and community members about how to implement and sustain these changes. Lessons from these three jurisdictions can inform national conversations about divesting from law enforcement agencies and investing in alternative safety infrastructure in schools.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 15p.
By Andreea Matei
The Restorative Justice Partnership (RJP) aims to use restorative justice to restore and reconnect a person who has committed harm within their community. In the perspectives of the RJP leadership and staff and staff from the Yolo Conflict Resolution Center we interviewed, traditional prosecution isn’t set up to rehabilitate people, and it is sometimes unnecessary and harmful to engage in traditional prosecution. They added further that the RJP is more survivor-centered than traditional prosecution in that it centers and addresses harm, allowing affected parties to be active members in the restorative justice process. It also explores the unique circumstances of the person who caused harm and the person or persons harmed. This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, focuses on the RJP’s evolution and its out-of-house approach, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors and stakeholders looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership, staff, and partners. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 6p.
The Restorative Justice and Diversion Program: Colorado 20th Judicial District Attorney’s Office (Boulder County, Colorado)
By Leigh Courtney
The Restorative Justice and Diversion Program in the District Attorney’s Office for Colorado’s 20th Judicial District (Boulder County) is an “in-house” program, meaning it is internally staffed and managed within the District Attorney’s Office through its Center for Prevention and Restorative Justice (CPRJ). It pairs supervision and service provision with restorative justice, which operate as separate and parallel arms of the diversion model. The Restorative Justice and Diversion Program is just one of a range of diversion programs that the office operates. This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, centers on the program’s in-house model and two-arm diversion approach, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership and staff. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 6p.
By Krista White, Paige S. Thompson, Evelyn F. McCoy, Jeanette Hussemann, William Adams, and Roderick Taylor
In efforts to address human trafficking, stakeholders have historically been siloed and uncoordinated. To address challenges in coordinating system-level responses to human trafficking, the Office for Victims of Crime and the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the Enhanced Collaborative Model (ECM) Task Force to Combat Human Trafficking Program to build coordinated, multidisciplinary partnerships between stakeholders integral to antitrafficking work, including nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations serving survivors as well as law enforcement and prosecutors at the local, state, and federal levels. The National Institute of Justice funded the Urban Institute to conduct the first federally funded, multisite, mixed-methods evaluation specifically to assess the impact of ECM human trafficking task forces on the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking crimes and the identifying and assisting of survivors. This brief documents the evaluation’s findings on the collaboration between key ECM task force stakeholders and challenges to their collaboration.
Washington DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 14p.
By Paige S. Thompson, Evelyn F. McCoy, Jeanette Hussemann, William Adams, Krista White, and Roderick Taylor
To address human trafficking in the United States, the US Department of Justice funded the Enhanced Collaborative Model (ECM) Task Forces to Combat Human Trafficking program comprising law enforcement officials, prosecutors, victim service providers, and other stakeholders at the local, state, and federal levels. These task forces are charged with identifying and investigating labor and sex trafficking cases, delivering critical services to survivors, and prosecuting all forms of human trafficking. With funding from the National Institute of Justice, the Urban Institute conducted a 10-site evaluation of federally funded ECM task forces across the United States. This evaluation sought to (1) understand the impact of the ECM task forces in identifying and assisting survivors and investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases; (2) analyze differences in task force implementation models (e.g., structure, organization, and key characteristics) to understand which models and features contribute to successful investigations, prosecutions, and service delivery; (3) gain insight into the challenges and barriers task forces face; and (4) understand best practices and recommendations for successfully developing and implementing ECM task forces across the United States. Gleaning from the study’s findings, this brief details recommendations in four areas: task force structure, operation, and funding; collaboration among stakeholders; survivor engagement and service provision; and task force training, focus, and activities.
Washington DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 9p.
By Leah Sakala, Krista White, Constance Hull
Stable employment is associated with significant short- and long-term benefits for youth and young adults (ages 16 to 24), but juvenile or criminal legal system involvement can create significant employment barriers, especially for young people (Ross et al. 2018; Weber 2021). 1 Engaging with supportive services in a communitybasedEngage employers as a key constituency for fostering participants’ success, focusing on employer fit—including employers’ willingness to change their practices to better retain employees and troubleshoot challenges. Collaborate with other local service providers to provide complementary services and engage in cross-referrals. setting can help young people navigate and mitigate these barriers by accessing support to meet basic needs and set and achieve professional goals (Blum et al. 2021; De Nike et al. 2019). This report summarizes findings from an exploratory study of community-based workforce development programs that involved a nationwide survey and a series of 15 follow-up interviews with staff members from a subset of surveyed programs serving youth and young adults who have been adjudicated for or convicted of serious offenses. The programs we examined use a variety of strategies to serve their participants, including engaging in multisector partnerships, offering a wide range of workforce- and non-workforce-related supports, blending funding from multiple sources, and measuring progress and success. Though many programs are actively serving system-involved young people, they varied as to the extent to which services were tailored for this population. Our findings highlight the importance of providing flexible service models that can be adapted to meet participants’ unique needs, particularly as they pertain to the barriers associated with legal system involvement and the young adult life stage. By developing a responsive program structure, building the organizational infrastructure to support program success, and engaging in strategic partnerships and collaborations, community-based programs can help young people involved in the legal system overcome barriers and identify and meet their employment and career goals. Key Findings and Considerations for Stakeholders Providing flexible and holistic services that meet the employment and career needs of young people with criminal records requires designing programs intentionally, building and sustaining a supportive organizational infrastructure, and coordinating across a wide range of partners including employers and legal system stakeholders. Key considerations for intentionally designing programs to facilitate workforce engagement among young people with criminal records include the following: ◼ Use an individualized, developmentally appropriate, and strength-based approach, including by collaborating with participants to identify resources and goals and allowing for extended engagement with participants if desired. ◼ Understand participants’ experiences with trauma and mental health challenges and adjust program offerings and services accordingly. ◼ Offer wraparound support to foster successful workforce engagement, including by ensuring participants can meet their basic needs, such as child care, stable housing, food security, and mental health. ◼ Engage with participants on the nature of their legal system involvement to help them overcome related barriers. This can include helping them understand their criminal records, supporting them with complying with community supervision requirements, or addressing outstanding fines and fees. ◼ Tailor programs to meet the needs of specific participant subpopulations, including by collaborating with other community-based providers with complementary offerings. Key considerations for building and sustaining a supportive organizational infrastructure include the following: ◼ Support a wider and more flexible array of service offerings by using a blended funding model that leverages resources from different sources (such as a mix of federal and philanthropic grants). ◼ Hire staff with similar life experiences as participants—such as juvenile or criminal legal system involvement, shared cultural and language backgrounds, shared neighborhood and community membership, experiences with systemic racism, and experiences with class and poverty—and provide staff training on positive youth development strategies and trauma-informed care. ◼ Address any gaps in data collection strategies that may limit practice and outcome documentation. Key considerations for coordination across partners include the following: ◼ Engage with legal system actors, whether through formal collaboration or more informal relationship-building efforts
Washington DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 50p.
By Kathryn N. Stump; Janis B. Kupersmidt
This document reports on a research project with the primary goals of determining whether program practice implementation was associated with youth and match outcomes, and to describe the experiences of mentoring programs as they engaged in the Mentoring Youth for Leadership (MYL) initiative and worked to better align their practices to those described in the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (EEPM). The report provides a description of the sample population, which included a total of 1,413 mentees that participated in the outcome evaluation study, and representatives from 17 Leadership Foundations (LF)-affiliated mentoring programs. Results from the outcome evaluation indicated that program practice implementation was unrelated to youth outcomes and mentee-reported match quality, it was, however, significantly associated with match length. Results also suggested that one-to-one matches from mentoring programs that implemented a larger number of benchmarks from the EEPM had significantly longer matches than from those with fewer than 75 percent of the EEPM benchmarks. Additionally, matches from programs meeting the Recruitment, Matching, and Monitoring and Support Standards had longer matches than those programs that did not implement those Standards. Other results discussed have implications for pre-match training requirements and communication with national parent organizations. The report suggests that improving program practices so that they align with EEPM may result in longer matches and that certain Standards are especially important for fostering longer-term matches among mentors and mentees; and success in implementing the MYL initiative requires consistent support and communication with the national LF parent organization.
Durham, NC: Innovation Research & Training, 2024. 98p.
By Samantha Harvell, Teresa Derrick-Mills, Constance Hull
Over the past decade, Milwaukee County’s youth probation agency—the Department of Health and Human Services’ Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)—has fundamentally changed its approach to supervision, redefined staff roles and responsibilities, and adopted a new trauma-informed, developmentally responsive case management model to improve practices and boost outcomes for the young people and families it serves. Implementing changes of that magnitude has not been quick or easy and remains a work in progress. Yet CYFS leaders and staff have learned much from the process, and Milwaukee County provides a helpful case study of youth justice reform in action.
Community supervision, typically in the form of probation, plays a central role in the juvenile legal system. The majority of young people adjudicated delinquent are placed on probation in the United States. In 2019, the most recent year for which data are available, half of all juvenile cases sanctioned in court—nearly 250,000—resulted in probation. Because of this, reforming probation could transform how youth justice is administered across the country.
Drawing on interviews with 20 local stakeholders and our experiences providing technical assistance to CYFS leaders over more than two years, this report summarizes lessons from Milwaukee County’s reform efforts, including factors that have supported and hindered progress. Key findings include the following:
Having a team dedicated to quality management provides critical infrastructure to support reform.
Implementation science offers a helpful framework for promoting change.
Effective leadership is essential.
Investing in staff development and organizational infrastructure and systems is vital to long-term success and sustainability.
Building internal support and buy-in for reform is crucial.
Developing tailored, targeted, and effective messages about reform is critical to growing and leveraging external legal partnerships.
Centering community is essential.
Expanding funding structures can support transformative change.
Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2023. 33p.
By Samantha Harvell, Arielle Jackson, Constance Hull, Colette Marcelin, and Leah Sakala
The COVID-19 health crisis, which reached the United States in early 2020, has significantly impacted youth legal system agencies’ policies and practices worldwide. In the pandemic’s third year, new variants of the virus continue to threaten health and safety, and agencies continue to grapple with how best to support young people and their families. Even before the pandemic, incarceration posed significant risks to young people’s physical and mental health, particularly among youth of color, who are disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system. During the pandemic, some youth legal system agencies increased their use of traumatizing practices like solitary confinement and at times ended all in-person visitation with caregivers and siblings, demonstrating the need for agencies to double down on efforts to end youth incarceration and instead invest in community-based strategies that support youth long term. This brief is designed to help inform those efforts by highlighting how three states—Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey—have reduced youth incarceration over the past two years. Each state has taken a unique approach to changing policy and practice championed by a wide range of stakeholders, including governors, legislators, and judicial and corrections agency leaders, and each case study in this brief shows a different path to lasting reform. Taken together, the examples provide several options for reducing youth incarceration and investing in more effective strategies to prevent harm and support youth accountability and needs.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 16p.
By Samantha Harvell, Chloe Warnberg, Andreea Matei, and Eli Mensing
Over the past several decades, the knowledge base about how to address juvenile delinquency and improve outcomes for youth and families has grown considerably. The documented benefits of well-designed community-based programming over residential facilities have spurred a movement away from the outdated institutional-youth-prison model and toward more effective community-based solutions. States and localities are exploring how to support a new juvenile justice approach that builds continua of care and opportunity in communities disproportionately impacted by youth incarceration and prioritizes fair, equitable, and effective treatment for all youth. This is the next frontier of juvenile justice reform, and effective strategies for closing youth correctional facilities and redirecting resources to community-based solutions must be identified. Juvenile justice administrators are uniquely positioned to lead facility closure efforts as part of broader system reform
By Andreea Matei
The Juvenile Diversion Initiative (JDI) in the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office is a pre-file diversion program for youth under 18 that aims to intervene early and limit the number of youth entering the juvenile justice system by providing individualized services based on each youth’s needs. This case study, part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, focuses on the JDI's broad eligibility criteria and its incorporation of education advocates, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors and stakeholders looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership, staff, and partners. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 6p.
By Luis Alonso-Armesto. Julio Cáceres-Delpiano, Warn N. Lekfuangfu
This study examines the impact of increasing the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (from 16 to 18 years old) on the academic performance, substance use, and peer behaviours of teenagers. Using a difference-in-discontinuities design, we exploit regional MLDA reforms in Spain and PISA data to identify significant improvements in mathematics and science performance, particularly among male teenagers and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. A complementary analysis using data from the Survey on Drug Use in Secondary Education in Spain indicates that these academic gains coincide with reductions in alcohol consumption, intoxication, smoking, and marijuana use, suggesting a link between substance use and educational outcomes. Moreover, the reform led to less drinking and less use of illicit drugs within peer networks, highlighting the amplifying role of peer effects in policy impact.
IZA DP No. 17772
Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics , 2025. 55p.
