By Barry Holman and Jason Ziedenberg

Despite the lowest youth crime rates in 20 years, hundreds of thousands of young people are locked away every year in the nation’s 591 secure detention centers. Detention centers are intended to temporarily house youth who pose a high risk of re-offending before their trial, or who are deemed likely to not appear for their trial. But the nation’s use of detention is steadily rising, and facilities are packed with young people who do not meet those high-risk criteria—about 70 percent are detained for nonviolent offenses.

Detained youth, who are frequently pre-adjudication and awaiting their court date, or sometimes waiting for their placement in another facility or community-based program, can spend anywhere from a few days to a few months in locked custody. At best, detained youth are physically and emotionally separated from the families and communities who are the most invested in their recovery and success. Often, detained youth are housed in overcrowded, understaffed facilities—an environment that conspires to breed neglect and violence.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 24p.

By Peter Greenwood

Over the past 15 years, evidence-based practice in juvenile justice has moved from a concept to a full blown practice in a number of states. They have used research based principles and programs to: - completely reorganize their system for treating juveniles -reduce crime and recidivism -and saved money in the process. Evidence-Based Practice in Juvenile Justice describes the major players in this transformative process, the particular role they play in moving research to practice, and provides recommendations for applying this research in other locations. It will be of key interest to researchers in Criminology and Criminal Justice with a focus on Juvenile Justice or Juvenile Delinquency, or related fields such as Public Policy and Social Work, as well as policy-makers, and practitioners working in the juvenile justice system.

Cham: Springer Nature, 2014. 118p.

Edited by Donna M. Bishop, Scott H. Decker and Josine Junger-Tas

This comprehensive reference work presents an in-depth analysis on the juvenile justice systems of 19 different countries, both in EU-member states (old and new) and in the United States and Canada. The book is the result of research conducted by a group of outstanding scholars working in the field of juvenile justice. The book reflects a collective concern about trends in juvenile justice over the past two decades; trends that have begun to blur the difference between criminal and juvenile justice. The last chapter highlights similarities and differences between the various systems, identifying three clusters of countries with a similar approach to juvenile justice. In particular, differences are found between the Anglo-Saxon countries, and continental Europe. The former have a more formal "justice" approach, with a strong emphasis on the accountability of juveniles, "just desert" principles, and retribution, while the latter still operate on a "welfare" philosophy. Two special systems, the Scottish Hearing system and the Scandinavian model, are presented as well.

New York: Springer, 2008. 549p.

Edited by Gordon Bazemore and Mara Schiff

This book, based on a large-scale research project funded by the National Institute of Justice and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, provides an overview of the restorative justice conferencing programs currently in operation in the United States, paying particular attention to the qualitative dimensions of this, based on interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observation. It provides an unrivalled view of restorative justice conferencing in practice, and what the people involved felt and thought about it. The book looks at four structural variations in the face-to-face form of restorative decision making: family group conferences, victim-offender mediation/dialogue, neighborhood accountability boards, peacemaking circles. The authors address two issues that have received limited research emphasis in restorative justice: the lack of clear and consistent standards, and the absence of testable theories of intervention that reflect what has become a rather diverse practice. In response the authors conclude with a proposed structure for principle-based evaluation designed to test emerging theories of restorative decision making.

Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, 2005. 400p.

Edited by Nancy Dowd

Children and youth become involved with the juvenile justice system at a significant rate. While some children move just as quickly out of the system and go on to live productive lives as adults, other children become enmeshed in the system, developing deeper problems and or transferring into the adult criminal justice system. Justice for Kids is a volume of work by leading academics and activists that focuses on ways to intervene at the earliest possible point to rehabilitate and redirect--to keep kids out of the system--rather than to punish and drive kids deeper. Justice for Kids presents a compelling argument for rethinking and restructuring the juvenile justice system as we know it. This unique collection explores the system’s fault lines with respect to all children, and focuses in particular on issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation that skew the system. Most importantly, it provides specific program initiatives that offer alternatives to our thinking about prevention and deterrence, with an ultimate focus on keeping kids out of the system altogether.

New York and London: New York University Press, 2011. 325p.

ByJames P. Lynch

The fact that our assessment of current trends in juvenile offending is based largely on arrest data reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by local law enforcement agencies raises a fundamental question about the capacity of such data to provide an accurate and comprehensive picture of the myriad challenges that face today’s youth and our society. The information that this Bulletin offers on trends in juvenile violent offending over the past two decades, however, comes from a different source: the victims of those offenses. Thus, unlike the data derived from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, which drive traditional assessments, the information provided by the National Crime Victimization Survey— and featured in these pages—is not limited to cases that come to the attention of local law enforcement officials, primarily through arrests. By comparing the pictures of trends in juvenile violent offending that these diverse data sources provide, we can begin to answer the critical question posed above and to determine whether our present understanding of juvenile offending accurately reflects the nature of those crimes—and not merely the nature of its origins.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2002. 20p.

By Charles Puzzanchera and Sarah Hockenberry

This bulletin describes the official juvenile court referral histories of more than 160,000 youth born in 2000 from 903 selected United States counties. Using data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, this bulletin focuses on the demographic and case processing characteristics of youth referred to juvenile court and the proportion of the cohort that was referred to juvenile court more than once, as well as histories defined as serious, violent, and chronic. More than 60% of youth in the cohort did not return to juvenile court after their first referral. A small percentage of youth (7%) were initially referred to juvenile court for a violent crime. Males are still more likely to return to juvenile court than their female peers. Black and American Indian youth were most likely to be referred more than once.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2022. 23p.

By Simon I. Singer

Recriminalizing Delinquency presents a case study of legislation that redefines previous acts of delinquency as crimes, and delinquents as juvenile offenders. It examines one state's response to violent juvenile crime through waiver legislation that transfers jurisdiction over juveniles from juvenile court to criminal court. It focuses on the creation, implementation, and effects of waiver legislation that lowered the eligible age of criminal responsibility to thirteen for murder and fourteen for other violent offenses.

New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 243p.

By Aaron Kupchik

By comparing how adolescents are prosecuted and punished in juvenile and criminal (adult) courts, Aaron Kupchik finds that prosecuting adolescents in criminal court does not fit with our cultural understandings of youthfulness. As a result, adolescents who are transferred to criminal courts are still judged as juveniles. Ultimately, Kupchik makes a compelling argument for the suitability of juvenile courts in treating adolescents. Judging Juveniles suggests that justice would be better served if adolescents were handled by the system designed to address their special needs.

New York: New York University Press, 2006. 211p.

By Efi Avdela

This book examines how the intensive discussions about the issue of juvenile delinquency in the new international organizations (United Nations, World Health Organization, Council of Europe), which emerged after the end of the Second World War, internationalized the anxieties generated in the fifties and sixties by its purported increase in Europe and beyond. Greece, a regular member-state, anxious to ensure international legitimacy in the aftermath of the Civil War, presented abroad an embellished picture of the measures undertaken at home for the prevention and containment of juvenile delinquency, sidestepping the strong moralism and the juridical formalism that dominated both official and unofficial approaches.

Gottingen: V&R unipress GmbH, (Vienna University Press), 2019.

By Alava Séraphin, Divina Frau-Meigs and Ghayda Hassan

Does social media lead vulnerable individuals to resort to violence? Many people believe it does. And they respond with online censorship, surveillance and counter-speech. But what do we really know about the Internet as a cause, and what do we know about the impact of these reactions? All over the world, governments and Internet companies are making decisions on the basis of assumptions about the causes and remedies to violent attacks. The challenge is to have analysis and responses firmly grounded. The need is for a policy that is constructed on the basis of facts and evidence, and not founded on hunches – or driven by panic and fear mongering. It is in this context that UNESCO has commissioned the study titled Youth and Violent Extremism on Social Media – Mapping the Research. This work provides a global mapping of research (mainly during 2012-16) about the assumed roles played by social media in violent radicalization processes, especially when they affect youth and women. The research responds to the belief that the Internet at large is an active vector for violent radicalization that facilitates the proliferation of violent extremist ideologies. Indeed, much research shows that protagonists are indeed heavily spread throughout the Internet. There is a growing body of knowledge about how terrorists use cyberspace. Less clear, however, is the impact of this use, and even more opaque is the extent to which counter measures are helping to promote peaceful alternatives. While the Internet may play a facilitating role, it is not established that there is a causative link between it and radicalization towards extremism, violent radicalization, or the commission of actual acts of extremist violence.

Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2019. 168p.

By Jon Bannister, Jon Pickering, Susan Batchelor, Michele Burman, Keith Kintrea and Susan MccVie

Background and Aims 1. Recent years have witnessed growing concern about the existence of youth gangs and the engagement of their members in violent conflict involving knives and other weapons. However, there is limited reliable evidence relating to the nature, form and prevalence of youth ‘gangs’ and knife carrying in Scotland. Recognising these information shortfalls, the research reported here set out to: • Provide an overview of what is known about the nature and extent of youth gang activity and knife carrying in a set of case study locations. • Provide an in-depth account of the structures and activities of youth gangs in these settings. • Provide an in-depth account of the knife carrying in these settings. • Offer a series of recommendations for interventions in these behaviours based on this evidence. 2. The research was conducted in 5 case study locations, namely: Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire. There were two major data collection components. First, the research interviewed those engaged in the delivery of services designed to manage and challenge problematic youth behaviours, inclusive of youth gangs and knife carrying. Second, the research gained access (via these services) to a large sample of young people. Despite the intention to interview distinct samples of gang members and knife carriers, most of the young people identified through this methodological approach held some form of group affiliation.

Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2010. 90p.

By Lisa Pilnik, Robert G. Schwartz, Karen Lindell, Jessica Feierman and Christina Sorenson

There is broad consensus that incarcerating youth in the juvenile justice system is both dangerous and ineffective. Secure facilities and other juvenile justice placements pose a high risk of short- and long-term harm to children. Placing young people outside their homes disrupts family ties, undermines educational continuity and developmental trajectory, and can cause trauma and undermine a child’s developmental trajectory. Recent research has shown that placement also leads to long-term mental and physical health consequences. Moreover, far too many youth sent to “treatment” facilities experience abuse or neglect and fail to receive needed behavioral health services. Pennsylvania stakeholders have taken important steps to decrease placement rates and improve outcomes for youth—and local and state leadership is already engaged in continuing the reform efforts. At the same time, the need to dramatically change our responses to young people in the justice system is obvious. Where Pennsylvania was widely recognized as a leader in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, we now lag behind other states in the extent to which we use placement and the extent of our racial disparities. Wordsworth. VisionQuest. Glen Mills. Luzerne. Year after year, facilities in Pennsylvania are sued or shut down after the horrific treatment of youth in their care comes to light. Each time, children are removed from the placement and additional oversight is imposed to try to prevent a recurrence, and then it happens again. Oversight isn’t enough. To meet its obligations to our children, Pennsylvania must re-examine its reliance on juvenile placements. Working in collaboration with youth in the system and their families, we must create a system that stresses high-quality community-based solutions that are safer for children, promote public safety, and more effectively and efficiently use our resources.

Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2019. 44p.

By Karen U. Lindell and Katrina L. Goodjoint

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons banning the death penalty for young people under the age of 18, the principle that “kids are different” has come to permeate the justice system’s approach to young people. The developmental differences between adolescents and adults are now codified in numerous state statutes, have been cited in countless court decisions, and are foundational concepts in juvenile defense. And, while there is much work still to be done, the shift toward a developmental approach to youth justice has contributed to dramatic reductions in youth incarceration rates over the last decade.1 Yet even the Supreme Court has acknowledged, “[t]he qualities that distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual turns 18.”2 People do not transform from children into adults on their 18th birthdays; instead the transition to adulthood is gradual and highly individualized.

The report begins by describing the defining characteristics of emerging adulthood and laying out the case for reforming the justice system’s approach to emerging adults. The report then examines examples and lessons from around the country where reforms are underway, including raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction, reforming criminal justice procedures and practices, and using support from systems outside of the justice field. Finally, the report presents an in-depth look at the legal provisions and programs impacting emerging adults in the six states of the Great Lakes region—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Our hope is that this report provides policymakers and advocates in each of those states, as well as elsewhere, greater tools to reshape justice for emerging adults in their jurisdictions.

Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center, 2020. 96p.

By Ann Skelton & Boyane Tshehla

Getting the principles, procedures and practices of child justice right is essential to preventing crime in South Africa. In this monograph the authors chart the history of child justice in South Africa, and internationally. They describe recent developments in child justice in South Africa, and contextualise the South African approach by reflecting on international standards. This monograph provides details about the new Child Justice Bill. The Child Justice Bill provides an enlightened approach to dealing with young offenders and offers a chance to break the cycle of crime. Included in the new Bill are provisions for diverting child offenders out of the criminal justice system through the possibility of community-based sentencing. The Bill also provides a firm legal basis for restorative justice that attends to the needs both of victims and perpetrators.

Pretoria, South Africa: Institute of Security Studies, 2009. 80p.

By Arthur Macdonald.

Including stigmata of degeneration being a hearing on the bill (h. R. 16733) to establish a laboratory for the study of the criminal, pauper, and defective classes. Before A Sub-Judiciary Committee Of The United States House Of Representatives.”To find whether or not there are any physical or mental characteristics that distinguish criminal children from other children. Such knowledge would make it possible to protect children in advance and lessen the chances of contamination.”

Harrow and Heston Classic Reprint. (1908) 337 pages.

By Rosemary Barberet, Benjamin Bowling, Josine Junger-Tas, Cristina Rechea-Alberola, John van Kesteren, Andrew Zuruwan.

In 1990 a group of mainly European criminologists embarked on a large comparative study of juvenile delinquency through the use of the self-report method. This methods consists of surveying youths in the general population and asking them directly – in private and in a non-stigmatising manner – about their possible involvement in antisocial and delinquent behaviour. For comparative criminological purposes, it can be seen as superior to other measurements of youth offending, largely because of the common definitions used. Although the self-report method has been used since the 1940s and is judged to be reliable and valid overall by the criminological scientific community, until 1990 no large scale comparative study had ever taken place. This report represents a more intensive analysis of the same data but for three selected European countries: England and Wales, The Netherlands and Spain. These countries represent different regions of Europe and also obtained the support of their respective Ministries of Justice in the funding of fieldwork with relatively large national samples. The authors of the report are the original participants in the self-report study, including its instigator, Josine Junger-Tas. This report received DG XX II funding in 1997-1999 under Action E.II of the ‘Youth for Europe’ programme, and represents a first step in the establishment of a European research agenda on youth offending and deviant behavior. Findings from the analyses reveal broadly similar patterns and correlates in juvenile offending in the three European countries examined, set against different reactions to the same on the part of legal institutions. Social control theory, the core theory used in the study, suggests that the social bonding of youth to prosocial others, commitments, activities and beliefs can be an important way of explaining and preventing youth offending. In a similar fashion, structuring the opportunities available to youth which facilitate offending can also reduce delinquent behavior and its harmful results. The report highlights a number of intriguing differences among the three countries which only substantiates the fact that in terms of juvenile justice policy, European countries have a great deal to learn from each other. The report is divided into ten chapters, each of which details a different aspect of the self-report questionnaire, which appears in the Appendix. The tenth chapter consists of conclusions and research and policy recommendations. An effort was made to use clear and simple language to enable the layperson to grasp the essence of the research, without sacrificing methodological rigour in the analyses, in the tradition of good applied criminological research. It is the hope of the authors that this report will lay the foundation to the establishment, on a European level, of research-based policies aimed at preventing and intervening in the area of juvenile offending.

Helsinki: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, 2004. 181p.

Edited by Josine Junger-Tas and Richard L. Block.

Holland is a European country and part of the Western world. As such it shares many essential features and fundamental cultural values with other European nations and with North America. Moreover a number of important factors of social change have af fected The Netherlands in roughly the same way as they affected other Western societies. These social changes had important consequences for general social behavior of juveniles and for delinquent behavior in particular. They also had considerable impact on the juvenile justice system, not only on its direct functioning but also on its philosophy and approach of young offenders. Two phenomena characterize the evolution in Western societies since World War II, but most particularly from the '60 to the '80. They are: a large increase in juvenile crime and the construction of a 'welfare' model of juvenile justice. Both phenomena will be commented briefly. The increase in juvenile crime started at the same time as economie prosperity began to spread. As early as 1974 there were serious debates in parliament about the increase in crime rates and about fear of crime among citizens. Claims were made for more police on the streets, better education, more welfare and a better housing policy. In the years that followed there was a growing awareness of the crime problem, which may be partly due to the victimization surveys introduced by the Research Centre of the Ministry of Justice, which include the 16 most frequently committed offenses. These offenses cover 60% of all cases coming to the attention of the prosecutor and more than 70% of all cases coming to the attention of the police. Of all offenses, those that have shown the greatest increase since 1975 are vandalism, shoplifting, burglary, autotheft and bicycle theft. In 1983, 35% of the Dutch population of 15 years and older became a victim of one of those 16 offenses. Comparison with other European countries in 1983 showed that in The Netherlands 18% of those interviewed had been victims of a theft or a burglary. This places our country third among eleven, after France and Great Britain with each 20%. Not only individuals but also public agencies and industrial enterprises are victimized. Shoplifting, burglary, vandalism of public buildings or in the public transport system cause large financial losses to local authorities and private industry.

Amsterdam: Kugler Publications, 1988. 245p.

Chuen-Jim Sheu

In this groundbreaking book written in 1986, Chuen-Jim Sheu revealed the challenges that Chinese immigrant youth faced in adapting to American life. His analysis of the process of assimilation has been followed as a model by researchers ever since. This second edition shows how the lessons learned in 1986 about assimilation and migration are equally relevant today. Includes an introduction to the second edition by the author.

Harrow and Heston Publishers. NY. 2020. 125p.

By Mary McAuley.

Anglo-Russian Perspectives.. Despite their very different histories, societies, political and legal systems, Russia and the UK stand out as favouring a punitive approach to young law breakers, imprisoning many more children than any other European countries. The book is based on the author's primary research in Russia in which she visited a dozen closed institutions from St Petersburg to Krasnoyarsk and on similar research in England and Northern Ireland. The result is a unique study of how attitudes to youth crime and criminal justice, the political environment and the relationship between state and society have interacted to influence the treatment of young offenders. McAuley's account of the twists and turns in policy towards youth illuminate the extraordinary history of Russia in the twentieth century and the making of social policy in Russia today. It is also the first study to compare the UK (excluding Scotland because of its separate juvenile justice system) with Russia, a comparison which highlights the factors responsible for the making of 'punitive' policy in the two societies. McAuley places the Russian and UK policies in a European context, aiming to reveal how other European countries manage to put so many fewer children behind bars.

Bloomsbury Academic (2010) 263 pages.