By Melissa M. Labriola, Samuel Peterson, Dulani Woods, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson

Based on a one-day count, the number of youth held in juvenile justice facilities declined 77 percent between 2000 and 2020. As a result, the number of residential placement facilities has also decreased, by 50 percent. This decrease is starkest among large facilities, which have decreased 74 percent from 1997 to 2019. Facility closure has gained attention and support for several reasons, such as investments in alternative rehabilitation and community-based programs, cost savings, and recognition of the need to treat youth involved in the juvenile justice system with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. The decisions to close these facilities are complex.

This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert panel that explored challenges and opportunities associated with closing juvenile residential facilities and implementing community-based alternatives. The highest-priority needs centered on equity and disparity and the need for family engagement throughout the punitive process. These results are pertinent to a wide audience, including justice-system stakeholders, community corrections practitioners, the research community, and funders or grant-making organizations

Rand. 2024. 24p.

By Garner Clancey, Cecilia Drumore and Laura Metcalfe

The University of Sydney and Youth Justice New South Wales signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in July 2021. This MoU builds on various prior collaborative activities between the two organisations and related work in other jurisdictions. This paper reflects on the progress and challenges of collaboration of this kind. Specifically, there has been tentative progress in engaging non-traditional parts of the university in youth justice projects.

The initial stage of the collaboration highlighted challenges, including structures within the university which can frustrate interdisciplinary work. Time lines, staff turnover and resources also impacted this collaboration. We conclude with an outline of what might be achieved through ongoing collaboration and signal the importance of ongoing research to capture data and insights regarding the nature of this relationship as it develops.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 691. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024.

By David B. Wilson, Mark W. Lipsey

Research summary

The primary outcome desired for juvenile delinquency programs is the cessation of delinquent and related problematic behaviors. However, this outcome is almost always pursued by attempting to change intermediate outcomes, such as family functioning, improved mental health, or peer relations. We can conceptualize intermediate outcomes that are related to reduced delinquency as change levers for effective intervention. A large meta-analysis identified several school-related change levers, including school engagement (i.e., improved attendance and reduced truancy), nondelinquent problem behaviors, and attitudes about school and teachers. In addition, family functioning and reducing substance use were also effective change levers. In contrast, effects on youth getting/keeping a job, peer relationships, and academic achievement were not associated with reduced delinquency.

Policy implications

Only a small percentage of rehabilitative programs provided to youth involved in the juvenile justice system have been established as evidence based. Moreover, there are constraints on what local policy makers and practitioners can do regarding the selection, adoption, and implementation of programs from the available lists of evidence-based programs. Adopting programs that focus on effective change levers and avoiding those that concentrate on ineffective ones has the potential to increase the likelihood that a local agency is engaged in effective programming. Based on our data, programs known to improve family functioning, attachment to and involvement in schooling, and reducing substance use are justified by the change lever evidence, even if these programs’ effectiveness in reducing delinquency has not been directly proven. In contrast, programs focusing on vocational skills, academic achievement, and peer relations are less likely to be beneficial. Furthermore, a change lever perspective can help frontline staff select appropriate programs for different juvenile offenders and focus their quality control efforts on those aspects of a program that are likely to be essential to maintaining effectiveness.

Criminology & Public Policy Volume23, Issue2. May 2024.

David C. Pyrooz

This final summary overview describes a research project aimed at evaluating a gang intervention program, led by the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver (GRID), which has historically coordinated around two dozen strategies with partners emphasizing prevention, intervention, and suppression. The focus of GRID’s efforts is their use of juvenile and adult multidisciplinary teams (MDT) to facilitate coordination and individual case management of gang-involved youth who have been referred for services. A process and impact evaluation was undertaken between 2019 and 2022, and the project was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework before data collection. The evaluation was guided by two core questions: if the MDT-based approach achieves its stated purpose of providing comprehensive, coordinated services to gang members with fidelity; and if the MDT-based approach achieves its stated goals of producing disengagement from gangs and desistence from crime. The first question was the focus of the process evaluation, and the second question was the focus of the impact evaluation. This report provides details about the evaluation’s methodology and informs that evaluation findings were mixed. Findings showed: there is clear evidence, from the process evaluation, that GRID delivered a range of high-quality services with efficacy; GRID clients were nearly 70 percent less likely to engage in violence than individuals in the control group; and GRID clients were more than three times more likely to claim a current gang status than control group participants.

Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science , University of Colorado, 2023. 28p.

Edited by Richard Rosenfeld, Mark Edberg, Xiangming Fang, and Curtis S. Florence

How do economic conditions such as poverty, unemployment, inflation, and economic growth impact youth violence? Economics and Youth Violence provides a much-needed new perspective on this crucial issue. Pinpointing the economic factors that are most important, the editors and contributors in this volume explore how different kinds of economic issues impact children, adolescents, and their families, schools, and communities. Offering new and important insights regarding the relationship between macroeconomic conditions and youth violence across a variety of times and places, chapters cover such issues as the effect of inflation on youth violence; new quantitative analysis of the connection between race, economic opportunity, and violence; and the cyclical nature of criminal backgrounds and economic disadvantage among families. Highlighting the complexities in the relationship between economic conditions, juvenile offenses, and the community and situational contexts in which their connections are forged, Economics and Youth Violence prompts important questions that will guide future research on the causes and prevention of youth violence. Contributors: Sarah Beth Barnett, Eric P. Baumer, Philippe Bourgois, Shawn Bushway, Philip J. Cook, Robert D. Crutchfield, Linda L. Dahlberg, Mark Edberg, Jeffrey Fagan, Xiangming Fang, Curtis S. Florence, Ekaterina Gorislavsky, Nancy G. Guerra, Karen Heimer, Janet L. Lauritsen, Jennifer L. Matjasko, James A. Mercy, Matthew Phillips, Richard Rosenfeld, Tim Wadsworth, Valerie West, Kevin T. Wolff Richard 

New York: London: New York University Press, 2013. 341p.

Edited by Franklin E. Zimring and David S. Tanenhaus 

This Is a hopeful but complicated era for those with ambitions to reform the juvenile courts and youth-serving public institutions in the United States. As advocates plea for major reforms, many fear the public backlash in making dramatic changes. Choosing the Future for American Juvenile Justice provides a look at the recent trends in juvenile justice as well as suggestions for reforms and policy changes in the future. Should youth be treated as adults when they break the law? How can youth be deterred from crime? What factors should be considered in how youth are punished?What role should the police have in schools?

New York; London: New York University Press, 2014. 257p.

By  Laceé N. Pappas &  Amy L. Dent 

By Marian Gewirtz and  Bosco Villavicencio, Jr

This report describes the processing of 16- and 17-year-old arrestees during the third year of New York State’s Raise the Age (RTA) Law. The law, which went into effect for 16-year-olds on October 1, 2018, and for 17-year-olds on October 1, 2019, raised the age of criminal responsibility in the State and changed how these Adolescent Offenders (AOs) are processed. Arrests from October 2020 through September 2021 are compared with arrests from October 2019 through September 2020 (year 2), October 2018 through September 2019 (year 1, the first year of the implementation of RTA for 16-year-olds and the year prior to implementation for 17-year-olds. Data is also presented for October 2017 through September 2018 (pre-RTA). RTA Arrests ● There were 1,364 arrests of 16-year-olds and 2,002 arrests of 17-year-olds in the third year of RTA. The number of arrests was lower in year 3 than in year 2, especially for 16-yearolds. ● The volume of arrests of 16- and 17-year-olds decreased markedly when they became eligible for RTA. The number of arrests continued to decline for both age groups and for VFO (violent felony offenses), non-VFO felony offenses and especially for misdemeanors. Prosecution ● The percentage of felony arrests prosecuted as felonies declined for both age groups and both VFO and non-VFO charges since implementation of RTA. However, the decrease was greater for 16-year-olds and for cases with non-VFO charges. ● There were far fewer cases for 16- and 17-year-olds prosecuted in adult court with felony charges after RTA was implemented. The decrease was steeper for 16-year-olds than for 17-year-olds. The number decreased from 1,111 in year 1 to 863 in year 2 and 668 in year 3 for 16-year-olds but declined from a high of 992 down to 894 for 17-year-olds. Arraignment ● About half of AO cases were removed to Family Court at arraignment in year 3, up from 44% for both age groups in year 2 and only 25% at arraignments for 16-year-olds in year 1 (17-year-olds were not yet eligible). The rate of removal was higher for cases with nonVFO charges than for those with VFO offenses. ● In the third year of RTA, youths were released at arraignment (ROR, under supervision or with other non-monetary conditions) in more than nine of every ten non-VFO cases but in little more than seven of every ten VFO cases. Adult Court Outcomes ● Most RTA case for both ages were removed to Family Court (84% to 90% across the ages and time periods), but the rates were higher for non-VFO cases (91% to 97%) than for cases with VFO charges (79% to 86%). ● In year 3, more than six of every ten VFO cases were removed at arraignment or the following day as were nearly nine of every ten non-VFO cases. Yet a month or more elapsed from arraignment to removal for one in ten AO cases.  Sentencing ● More than half of the sentences in AO cases included jail or prison time (55%) ranging from time already served pretrial (6% of sentences) to four years or more (10% of sentences).  

New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency 2023. 44p.

By Keith Finlay, Michael Mueller-Smith, Brittany Stree

Children’s indirect exposure to the justice system through biological parents or coresident adults is both a marker of their own vulnerability and a measure of the justice system’s expansive reach in society. Estimating the size of this population for the United States has historically been hampered by inadequate data resources, including the inability to observe nonincarceration events, follow children throughout their childhood, and measure adult nonbiological parent cohabitants. To overcome these challenges, we leverage billions of restricted administrative and survey records linked with Criminal Justice Administrative Records System data and find substantially larger exposure rates than previously reported: prison, 9% of children born between 1999–2005; felony conviction, 18%; and any criminal charge, 39%. Charge exposure rates exceed 60% for Black, American Indian, and low-income children. While broader definitions reach a more expansive population, strong and consistently negative correlations with childhood well-being suggest that these remain valuable predictors of vulnerability. Finally, we document substantial geographic variation in exposure, which we leverage in a movers design to estimate the effect of living in a high-exposure county during childhood. We find that children moving into high-exposure counties are more likely to experience post-move exposure events and exhibit significantly worse outcomes by age 26 on multiple dimensions (earnings, criminal activity, teen parenthood, mortality); effects are strongest for those who moved at earlier ages

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 138, Issue 4, November 2023, Pages 2181–2224, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad021

By Pamela D Schulz

The language in media stories surrounding the high drama of juvenile and youth crime is very alarmist and continues to fuel political debates and demands for tougher penalties rather than the proverbial slap on the wrist for young offenders. Further there are fear discourse elements that suggest that for some politicians cited in the daily news cycle as being “out of control”. In opposition to this fear and alarmist discourse in the notion that the media news cycle highlights youth crime for its sensationalist perspectives and poor reporting of youth courts and their judgments in such matters. A comprehensive discourse analysis of youth crime reporting may suggest that media must take the blame for some of the inappropriate focus on youth crime as being selective. This yearlong study suggests that the public need more information to see for themselves whether the current moves and political debates need to be reviewed and refreshed. In addition, family supports are a signal to consider as presented by expert authorities involved in decision making and reporting.

Children and Teenagers, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ct.v6n4p1

By The Sentencing Project

For a decade, incarceration disparities between Tribal and white youth have remained stubbornly high. As of 2021, Tribal youth were 3.7 times as likely to be detained or committed in juvenile facilities as their white peers, according to nationwide data collected in October 2021 and recently released. This ratio is essentially unchanged from 2011.1 There are 11 states with at least 8,000 Tribal youths (a cutoff that allows for meaningful comparisons), and Tribal youth are more likely than their white peers to be in custody in eight of these states. For the purposes of this fact sheet, all “Tribal youth” are by definition non-Hispanic/Latinx. (The underlying dataset labels them as American Indian.2 ) Juvenile facilities, including 1,323 detention centers, residential treatment centers, group homes, and youth prisons3 held 24,894 youths as of October 2021. These data do not include the 291 people under 18 in adult prisons at year-end 20214 or the estimated 2,000 people under 18 in adult jails at midyear 2021.5 Nationally, the youth placement rate was 74 per 100,000 in 2021. The Tribal youth placement rate was 181 per 100,000, compared to the white youth placement rate of 49 per 100,000. Between 2011 and 2021, overall juvenile placements fell 59%. In the 11 states with at least 8,000 Tribal youths between the ages of 10 and 17, between 2011 and 2021, disparities grew by at least 50% in two and decreased by at least 50% in two

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 3p.

By The Sentencing Project

For a decade, incarceration disparities between Latinx and white youth have fallen, though disparities still remain. As of 2021, Latinx youth were 16% more likely to be placed (i.e., detained or committed) in juvenile facilities as their white peers, according to nationwide data collected in October 2021 and recently released. These data reveal a sharp decline in Latinx-white youth incarceration disparities since 2011; that year, Latinx youth were 76% more likely to be in placement than white youth.1 Juvenile facilities, including 1,323 detention centers, residential treatment centers, group homes, and youth prisons2 held 24,894 youths as of October 2021. (These data do not include the 291 people under 18 in adult prisons at year-end 20213 or the estimated 2,000 people under 18 in adult jails at midyear 2021.4 ) Nationally, the youth placement rate was 74 per 100,000 youth in 2021. The Latinx youth placement rate was 57 per 100,000, compared to the white youth placement rate of 49 per 100,000. A total of 20% of youths in placement are Latinx, and Latinx youth comprise 25% of all youth across the United States.5 Latinx youth are more likely to be in custody than white youth in half of states with at least 8,000 Latinx youth (between the ages of 10 and 17), a cutoff that allows for meaningful comparisons Between 2011 and 2021, juvenile placements fell by 59%. During these years, Latinx youth placements declined slightly faster than white youth placements (a 65% decline vs. 57%), resulting in a smaller but still considerable disparity.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 3p.

By The Sentencing Project

For a decade, incarceration disparities between Black and white youth have remained stubbornly high. As of 2021, Black youth were 4.7 times as likely to be placed (i.e., detained or committed) in juvenile facilities as their white peers, according to nationwide data collected in October 2021 and recently released. This disparity has hardly changed over the past decade.1 Juvenile facilities, including 1,323 detention centers, residential treatment centers, group homes, and youth prisons2 held 24,894 youths as of October 2021. (These data do not include the 291 people under 18 in adult prisons at year-end 20213 or the estimated 2,000 people under 18 in adult jails at midyear 2021.)4 Nationally, the youth placement rate was 74 per 100,000 in 2021. The Black youth placement rate was 228 per 100,000, compared to the white youth placement rate of 49 per 100,000. Forty-two percent of youths in placement are Black, even though Black Americans comprise only 15% of all youth across the United States.5 Among all states with a population of at least 8,000 Black youth, (between 10 and 17), a cutoff that allows for meaningful comparisons, Black youth are more likely to be in custody than white youth. Black and white youth have similar juvenile placement rates in the District of Columbia.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 3p.

By The Southern Poverty Law Center

Mississippi’s youth legal system is a study in extremes. While the state is currently experiencing its lowest youth arrest rate in decades, it simultaneously has markedly expanded its use of youth incarceration. Rather than being met with needed services and support, Mississippi students are being pushed out of the classroom at nation-leading rates and into the carceral system – a pipeline that has disproportionately impacted the state’s Black youth. Overall, Mississippi’s failure to invest in successful community-based programs that provide noncarceral alternatives for youth in need of rehabilitation leaves the state with incarceration as the first option for far too many young people. This overincarceration harms youth and their communities and is an expensive use of precious taxpayer funds. There is a better way. This report delves into the history and context behind Mississippi’s current youth legal system,  expands on its harmful impacts, and recommends policy  changes for reform.

Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2023

By Maria Micaela Sviatschi

This paper provides evidence showing how deportation policies can backfire by disseminating not only ideas between countries but also criminal networks, spreading gangs, in this case, across Central America and spurring migration back to the US. In 1996, the US Illegal Immigration Responsibility Act drastically increased the number of criminal deportations. In particular, the members of large Salvadoran gangs that developed in Los Angeles were sent back to El Salvador. Using variation in criminal deportations over time and across cohorts combined with geographical variation in the location of gangs and their members’ place of birth, I find that criminal deportations led to a large increase in Salvadoran homicide rates and gang activity, such as extortion and drug trafficking, as well as an increase in gang recruitment of children. In particular, I find evidence that children in their early teens when the leaders arrived are more likely to be involved in gang-related crimes when they are adults. I also find evidence that these deportations, by increasing gang violence in El Salvador, increase child migration to the US–potentially leading to more deportations.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Working Paper, 2020. 52p.

By HM Inspectorate of Probation; Bob Smith, et al

Children who are remanded in youth detention are some of the most vulnerable in our communities. Numerically they are a small group, typically between 200 and 250 at any one time, and around 1,200 in a year. Many have experienced neglect, abuse and trauma. They have often missed out on schooling and diagnosis of learning needs and disabilities. Some have been victims of exploitation. For many of them, there have been missed opportunities to intervene earlier in their lives. The offences which the children in our sample group were suspected of committing were mostly serious, some involving life-changing injuries and loss of life. However, not all children in our sample needed to be remanded in custody. A quarter were released on bail before being sentenced, and inspectors judged that more of them could have been safely managed in the community. Children were bailed, often within a week of their initial remand, not because their risk had reduced but because a suitable bail programme with appropriate accommodation had become available which could safely manage those risks. Children’s services and youth justice services should work together more effectively to provide information and community remand options to the courts earlier. In this report, we set out a range of ways to achieve this, but it mostly involves good communication and clarity of responsibilities between professionals, who take a proactive approach. Children who are remanded comprise around 40 per cent of all children in custody. There is a gulf between the quality of care given in the three types of secure facilities used for children who are remanded in custody: secure children’s homes, secure training centres and young offender institutions. The quality of care is good in the secure children’s homes but less so in the others, where we identified many weaknesses in the management of remanded children. Children acquire child in care status as a result of their secure remand, and that is applied in widely different ways. The assistance they should receive is not consistently good enough, as a result of ineffective care planning and because their social workers lack knowledge of both the criminal justice system and secure estate processes. As a result, children do not always have timely access to basics such as pocket money to pay for phone calls (including to their social workers) and essential items. Families of sentenced children receive help with travel costs for visits from the secure estate, but families of remanded children rely on assistance from youth justice and children’s services, which is not always forthcoming. Social workers do not sufficiently implement the care planning regulations in the context of children’s circumstances when they are in the secure estate. As a result, the benefits of ‘in-care status’ are not realised to improve children’s circumstances. National standards and guidance are needed in this area. When the remand ends, some children return to their communities, and sometimes that return is unexpected. They do not always receive the support they need, and if they have reached 18 their case may need to transfer to the Probation Service. That does not always happen effectively. Underlying these shortcomings in remand are racial and ethnic disparities at many of the key decision points in the system, which result in black and mixed heritage children being over-represented in custody. This needs urgent attention. Our recommendations are designed to improve the quality of services across the whole remand process, to ensure that only those children who need to be detained are in custody and that those children receive a high-quality service that keeps the community safe but meets their needs, both when they are in custody and as they prepare to return to their communities.

Manchester, UK: The Inspectorate, 2023. 50p.

By David Foster

There is currently no general statutory obligation for individuals in England to report child abuse. Government statutory guidance on safeguarding, says “anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to local authority children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.” While this does not impose a legislative requirement to report abuse, it creates an expectation that those working with children will comply with the guidance unless there are exceptional circumstances.

In addition, some individuals are required to report child safeguarding concerns under standards or codes of conduct set by their professional regulatory body. A failure to adhere to such standards may result in misconduct or fitness to practise proceedings against them.

Mandatory reporting duty

There have been calls for a mandatory duty to report known or suspected child abuse and neglect to be introduced for specific groups, such as social workers and teachers. Proponents argue that a mandatory reporting duty would offer greater protection to children. However, others fear it could create a ‘needle in the haystack’ effect and result in a ‘tick-box approach’.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

The final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, published in October 2022, said children had suffered as a result of “a marked absence of a cohesive set of laws and procedures in England and in Wales that require individuals working with children to report child sexual abuse”.

The report recommended the UK Government and the Welsh Government introduce legislation placing certain individuals – ‘mandated reporters’ – under a statutory duty to report child sexual abuse in prescribed circumstances (for example, where they observe recognised indicators of sexual abuse).

The report recommended it should be a criminal offence for mandated reporters to not report child sexual abuse when a child or perpetrator discloses it to them, or they witness a child being sexually abused.

Government commits to introducing mandatory reporting duty

In April 2023, the UK Government committed to introduce, subject to consultation, a mandatory reporting duty for those working or volunteering with children to report child sexual abuse.

Following on from an earlier call for evidence, on 2 November 2023, the Government launched a consultation setting out proposals for a mandatory reporting duty and seeking views on “a small but significant set of undecided policy questions.” The consultation closes on 30 November.

Following a previous consultation in 2016, the Government decided against introducing a mandatory reporting duty.

Research Briefing. London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2023. 23p.

By David Foster

he child protection system in England is grounded in the Children Act 1989, as amended. Statutory guidance published by the Government, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides detailed information on the core legal requirements.

The Children Act 1989 establishes several key principles, including

• The concept of parental responsibility.

• That a child’s welfare is the main consideration when the court is considering a question about a child’s upbringing.

• That children are best looked after by their family unless intervention in family life is essential.

The Act places a general duty on local authorities to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in need in their area by providing a range of services appropriate to those children’s needs (section 17). It additionally sets out what a local authority must do when it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm (section 47).

Section 31 of the Act sets out the circumstances under which a court may make an order placing a child in local authority care (a care order). The Act also sets out the functions of local authorities in relation to looked after children, including a duty under section 22(3) to safeguard and promote their welfare.

Research Briefing. London: UK. Parliament, House of Commons, Library, 2023. 23p.

By Todd Honeycutt, Janine M. Zweig, Megan Hague Angus, Sino Esthappan, Johanna Lacoe, Leah Sakala, and Douglas Young

Funded and supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, several communities across the US have undertaken deep-end reform designed to safely and significantly reduce juvenile out-of-home placement, especially for youth of color. From 2013 through 2018, the Foundation funded a developmental evaluation of this reform to better understand what worked well, what could be improved, and lessons for the field. During the evaluation period, 12 local jurisdictions across the US pursued deep-end reform, receiving grants and tailored, technical assistance from the Foundation. They pursued a range of deep-end reform activities including improving probation practices, enhancing decisionmaking throughout the juvenile justice (JJ) system, expanding diversion and service options, and increasing youth and family engagement.

The Foundation funded a six-year evaluation to understand what worked well and what could be improved and to identify lessons for the field. Researchers from the Urban Institute and Mathematica collaborated on the evaluation and worked closely with Foundation staff to develop and answer questions about the reform using a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative data collection approach. The Foundation began deep-end reform knowing the work would evolve, and it wanted the evaluation to inform and strengthen the reform, track the changes it effected, and document sites’ successes and challenges.

The evaluation team documented its findings in this summary report, four briefs (one each on improving data capacity, advancing probation reform, engaging youth and families, and pursuing racial and ethnic equity and inclusion), a journal article (published in Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice) on transforming juvenile probation through culture change, and technical appendixes documenting sites’ deep-end reform activities and describing the evaluation’s methods.

The evaluation produced the following key findings:

• The communities that engaged in deep-end reform conducted multiple activities to reduce out-of-home placements and improve racial and ethnic equity and inclusion in their juvenile justice practices.

• Diversion (both before and after adjudication) was an important component of the work that sites pursued.

• Probation-specific activities addressed three core areas: (1) improving or expanding case planning (such as through teaming or case reviews); (2) expanding services (for example, diversion activities or wraparound services); and (3) establishing standard processes (as with probation agreements or early termination).

• In addition to activities addressing youth’s specific needs, many sites pursued broad activities to improve the capacity of the JJ system (such as developing resource directories or training probation staff) or engage youth and families (such as providing information or developing family councils).

• Most probation staff report always or very often focusing on youth’s strengths and assets to motivate change. This focus includes working closely with their parents and caregivers to achieve desired outcomes, individualizing service plans based on their unique needs, and talking directly to youth about their probation terms and conditions. From 2016 and 2018, probation staff in sites implementing deep-end reforms reported more frequent use of practices and principles addressing community engagement and racial and ethnic equity and inclusion.

• Although sites shared no single characteristic that appeared linked to the success of deep-end activities, five particular characteristics were common and were therefore considered assets to implementing reform: (1) deep-end reform leaders with positional power, (2) deep-end reform leaders committed to reform, (3) strong community partnerships, (4) stakeholder and site staff buy-in, and (5) substantial data capacity.

• The evaluation yielded two lessons about engaging youth and families. First, involving youth and families at the individual level (for example, including them in case planning) might be less difficult than engaging them at the system level (such as on a family council to advise JJ leaders). Second, external resources (such as technical assistance and collaborations with community organizations) can facilitate activities related to youth and family engagement.

• Racial and ethnic equity and inclusion does not have a one-size-fits-all approach; stakeholders must consider their unique challenges and opportunities and apply strategies that fit their needs. Collaborating with youth, families, community members, and organizations outside the JJ system is essential for advancing equity and inclusion goals.

• Sustaining changes to deep-end policy and practice related to probation required buy-in from frontline probation staff and a shared understanding of the purposes of probation. Almost every site engaged in discussions to understand deep-end staff and stakeholders’ views about the purposes of probation through technical assistance that the Foundation sponsored.

• Certain key factors can help a jurisdiction use data to inform its reforms and decisions. These factors include staff buy-in, expertise in analytical methods and the JJ system, staff capacity to gather data, data collection system capacity, and cross-system coordination and information sharing.

• When asked about the benefits of participating in deep-end work, stakeholders identified overarching examples across five categories: (1) focusing more strongly on JJ practices, especially on understanding and addressing racial and ethnic disparities and on engaging youth, families, and communities; (2) using data more to drive reductions in placements and racial disparities; (3) leveraging additional resources, such as finding additional funding to sustain reform efforts; (4) reducing out-of-home placements and safely meeting the needs of youth and families in the community; and (5) benefiting from training and technical assistance and learning about elements of the deep-end vision and key activities.

• As with many complex initiatives, deep-end reform involves challenges. Culture change, particularly toward addressing racial disparities and increasing inclusion, can be difficult to achieve at all levels of the JJ system. Partnerships, particularly with community organizations and youth and families, can require significant time, energy, and dollars to be successful. Multiple sites struggled with collecting and analyzing the data needed for reforms. Though stakeholders often overcame these challenges, doing so was not easy, even with a committed team and Foundation assistance.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2020. 44p.

By User Voice

This report presents the voices of young people who have experienced serious youth violence. The principal objectives of this project were to understand young people’s experiences of reporting to the police, safeguarding, interventions, and the support they receive from the police and other services. We examined the factors that made the young people vulnerable to serious youth violence and the facilitators and barriers they experience when it comes to accessing support. User Voice spoke to 13 young people aged between the ages of 18 and 24 who were in prison, in young offender institutions or on probation. Overall, we found that the young people we spoke to had extensive experience, both as the perpetrators and targets of serious violence. Between the ages of 14 and 17, many of the young people we spoke to had been stabbed on numerous occasions, shot, attacked with hammers, assaulted with baseball bats, and run over. They had often been the target first, and had then often become involved in crime and violence. Some spoke of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but most didn’t want to talk about the effect these incidents had had on them. Many of the young people we spoke to had faced many challenges in early life. The majority were poor, had been surrounded by crime and violence, lived in social care, and been criminalised as children. Many of them described feeling let down repeatedly by the people and systems that were meant to care for them. They said that their friends are like family and offer the protection and support they need. Serious violent incidents often relate to earning respect, drugs or money, or to gaining control in specific postcode areas occupied by other gangs or groups. The young people we surveyed have no confidence in the police and other services. Through numerous negative experiences with these systems, they believe that the police can’t protect or help them. There were several accounts of manipulative practices, blame, assault, and police putting them in danger, for example, by dropping them in their ‘enemy’s’ area. There were mixed views on the support offered by the youth offending teams (YOTs). And some of the young people we spoke to said that YOTs, prison services and probation services all failed to consider the life-threatening nature of living in, or passing through, the wrong area. The young people told us they weren’t always offered or didn’t always accept support. They felt that those with ‘perfect lives’ couldn’t understand them and therefore couldn’t help them. Some courses offered were considered tick-box exercises offering unrealistic solutions to complex problems. They stated that they felt set up to fail. They also said that they thought that initiatives led by those with lived experience of serious youth violence, care rather than criminalisation, and alternative means to earn a living would prevent them from committing crime or help them more

London: HMICFRS (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constbulary and Fire & Rescue Services, 2023. 37p.