By Carlene Firmin, et al.

During adolescence, young people are exposed to a range of risks beyond their family homes including sexual and criminal exploitation, peer-on-peer abuse and gang-related violence. However, it has only been over the past two decades that the critical safeguarding implications of these harms have started to be recognised. Social care organisations are increasingly experimenting with new approaches but continue to experience challenges in supporting affected young people and their families. This book analyses the results of the first rapid evidence assessment of social care organisations’ responses to risks and harms outside the home across 10 countries. The authors highlight key areas for service development, give insights into how these risks and harms can be understood, and consider wider implications for policy and practice.

Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2022. 146p.

By Colleen Sbeglia, Imani Randolph, Caitlin Cavanagh, and Elizabeth Cauffman

When youth commit crimes, their parents may be held legally responsible for their actions. Parental legal culpability laws were developed to ensure justice for victims of crime but also deter juvenile delinquency. However, it is unclear if parental culpability has these desired effects or if it instead contributes to disparities that already exist in the justice system. This review provides a psychological perspective on parental legal culpability, highlighting the different types of offenses that parents may be held responsible for, including vicarious tort liability, status offenses, and criminal responsibility. Given the significant public discourse around certain types of crime, we also include focused discussions about parental culpability for youth violence and cybercrimes. We then consider the unintended consequences that may arise as a result of parental sanctions, from exacerbating racial and ethnic inequalities to imposing financial burdens that may put families at risk for further justice involvement. Finally, we discuss challenges to the efficacy of parental culpability laws, with recommendations for areas of continued research.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 403 - 416

By Wren Collective

 Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court held that Clarence Earl Gideon, a man accused of a felony, had the right to an attorney, despite not being able to afford one. Since then, the constitutional right to counsel has continued to expand—to those facing incarceration for any criminal offense, to children facing delinquency charges, and to all critical stages of representation. As part of our research into whether, across the country, we are meeting Gideon's lofty promise, the Wren Collective examined the provision of indigent defense in Cuyahoga County. We chose to specifically focus on the representation Cuyahoga’s children were receiving for two reasons. First, the juvenile court and its assignment of counsel received media attention in early 2023, highlighting a unique characteristic about the county’s public defender. Unlike many offices across the country, the public defender was seeking more, rather than fewer, cases. Instead of an “overworked and underpaid” office, Cuyahoga appeared to have a reasonably compensated, skilled set of attorneys who wanted to provide representation to more kids. Second, throughout our initial interviews, we heard concerns about the representation children receive, especially when it comes to bindovers—transfers of juvenile cases to adult court. Cuyahoga sends more kids to adult court than any other county in Ohio, and the overwhelming majority of those kids are Black. As we looked closer at the system, we learned that the concerns people shared were justified. Cuyahoga’s juvenile court judges are under utilizing the county public defender, an office of trained and dedicated attorneys, social workers, investigators, paralegals, and clerks. Though the office can take more cases and is set up to provide the robust support that children often need, judges assign private attorneys over public defenders to the majority of the cases in the county. But those private attorneys are generally not providing similarly robust representation, and many do not appear to be qualified to take on the most serious cases in the county. That means that the majority of kids in Cuyahoga are losing out on representation that would likely serve them better. We also found that Cuyahoga’s assigned counsel system suffers both from too much interference and not enough oversight. Judges routinely pick attorneys to assign to cases, yet the court does little to ensure that those attorneys are meeting state education and experience requirements to serve as appointed counsel in those cases. The good news is Cuyahoga can fix these problems. We recommend that the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court appoint the public defender to represent all children facing delinquency charges, and that the public defender, rather than the court, determine when assigned counsel is needed. We also recommend the county establish an independent assignment process that adheres to a rotary system for attorney assignments, and that the attorneys who are on the assignment list be trained and their qualifications verified. We recognize our recommendations will take effort, political will, and commitment from multiple stakeholders to implement, but we are confident this is a place that is up to the challenge. Cuyahoga County bursts with possibility. It has the potential to do what seems impossible in other places—make real and lasting change. We hope that this report, with its focus on key problems and specific ways to solve them, will help it do so.   

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 The Southern Poverty Law Center

The impact of mass incarceration on children and families in Louisiana is significant. As the mass incarceration capital of the world, Louisiana has an estimated 94,0001 children with a parent who is behind bars. The devastating effects of incarceration on children and families are evidence that incarceration is a sentence that the entire family will serve. Parental incarceration is a growing epidemic. Nationally, one in 28 children experiences parental incarceration today, compared to one in 125 children in 1985.2 Black children are particularly affected by caregiver incarceration, as 11.4% of Black children experience parental incarceration, compared to 1.8% of their white peers.3 This is of little surprise, as Black people are disproportionately represented in the prison system, due to historic social and economic inequality.

Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.  2021. 16pg

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.

By Ruby Whitelaw and Ross Gibson

Consideration of the role that secure care and Young Offenders Institutions (YOI) play in the lives of children deprived of their liberty has featured in both the Independent Care Review (2020) and the Scottish Ministers Programme for Government (2022). Both have indicated that there should be no under 18s held within a YOI by 2024, mandating instead that these children should be placed in “small, secure, safe, trauma informed environments that uphold the totality of their rights” (The Promise, 2020:91). This is likely to be reflected in the forthcoming Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill which will create the legislative changes to achieve this ambition. The Independent Care Review’s successor organisation, The Promise, has stated that it is time to “rethink the purpose, delivery and infrastructure of Secure Care, being absolutely clear that it is there to provide therapeutic, trauma informed support” (The Promise, 2020: 4). These developments are in keeping with the secure care strategic boards findings and recommendations (Secure Care Strategic Board, 2018). To inform the debate and discussion surrounding this task, the authors gathered information and evidence on the needs and circumstances of children who experience secure care or YOIs; we reviewed publicly available data and analysed a tranche of new, as yet unpublished, data gathered in recent secure care censuses. This has culminated in a report that can, we hope, inform the development of future provision for children who experience a deprivation of liberty due to the nature of their behaviour, or the risks they are exposed to. This report will consider whether, for all intents and purposes, the children placed within YOI are distinguishable from those entering secure care. The level of adversity experienced by both groups of children are considerably higher than within the general population, and broadly similar across both cohorts. Each face a range of complex and dynamic circumstances that are known to correlate with adverse outcomes over the short, medium and long term. Both cohorts of children have often demonstrated acts of significant harm, with secure care already providing care, support and supervision to children who have caused acts of grave and significant harm. There is considerable evidence that secure care and YOIs offer a wide array of resources, services, interventions, and programmes designed to meet the needs of the children within their care. The range of opportunities afforded provide an opportunity for services to learn from each other. However, the role of secure care and YOI must also be considered in light of the Scottish Parliament’s unanimous support for the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 1. This defines a child as anyone under the age of 18. Any changes to secure care or YOI provision are therefore a matter of children’s rights, and secure and custodial settings must strive to achieve the best possible outcomes for those in their care. This is particularly relevant given the Scottish Government has repeatedly committed to making Scotland the best place in the world for children to grow up (Scottish Government, 2022). Amongst other developments within academia, Scotland has benefited from longitudinal studies which have provided consistent and clear findings regarding the trajectory of those children who come into conflict with the law. The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime has repeatedly shown that involvement with formal judicial systems can adversely affect the process of desistance, and that most children who come into conflict with the law will end such behaviours by early adulthood according to McAra and McVie (2007, 2022). Findings from this long-running study have heavily influenced Scotland’s Whole System Approach; this calls on practitioners to utilise community alternatives to secure care and custody whenever possible, and to develop robust risk management strategies. These recent policy developments, the conclusions reached within The Promise and the earlier work done by stakeholders and partners combine to create a compelling portrait: the secure and child custodial estate must be seen through the prism of children’s rights. To assist colleagues across the children’s rights and justice landscape to best consider how to achieve these aims, CYCJ sought to gather information and evidence about secure care, and the use of YOIs for under 18s. We hope that this report can inform future developments in these services, promote the respective visions of The Promise and Scotland’s Youth Justice Strategy (2021) and contextualise the challenge set by The Promise. As we prepare to the end of the practice of holding children within YOIs, this report is designed to help key stakeholders to be ready for the next steps in secure care provision, including the development of alternatives to secure care. The Promise clearly sets out that prison is no place for Scotland’s children; to make that possible we require a clearer picture of their needs and the supports that are currently available. The report begins by setting out the purpose of secure care and shares previously unpublished data gathered as part of the secure care census in 2018 and 2019 (See Gibson, 2020, 2021, 2022). It outlines current provision within secure care and the demand for the service, whilst also exploring the approach taken to children and their families. It then discusses YOI provision - its purpose, function, and governance arrangements - as well as demand and approaches to children. Using data from the 2019 Scottish Prison Service prisoner surveys, the report illustrates the range of life experiences of children placed within YOIs.

Glasgow: Children and Young People's Centre for Justice, 2023. 39p.

By Gillian Hunter, Claire Ely, Carmen Robin-D’Cruz and Stephen Whitehead

This report details the findings of a research project which was jointly undertaken by the Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI) and the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck, with funding from the Nuffield Foundation.

The project examined current practice in the youth court, including how the court was meeting the needs of vulnerable young people. Specifically, we were interested in understanding current youth court practice and exploring the potential impact of practices aligned with problem-solving justice – an evidence-based approach which seeks to hold people accountable and to help them to proactively engage with the court to address the factors driving their offending.

Background In the last 10 years, there has been a 75% decline in cases coming into the youth court, caused by both falls in youth crime and the youth justice system’s success in diverting eligible cases away from court. However, while there are currently fewer court-involved young people, they tend to have more significant welfare and other needs as well as more serious offending profiles than they did a decade ago. Having fewer court-involved young people to work with gives the youth justice system a golden opportunity to concentrate its energies on further reducing reoffending and preventing future harm. To that end, the Carlile Inquiry in 2014 (in which the current Lord Chancellor participated), the Taylor Review in 2016 and the Lammy Review in 2017 all advised that youth court practice should become more ‘problem-solving’, to better address children’s underlying welfare needs. Missed opportunities Our research follows on from these reviews. It looks specifically at current youth court practice through the lens of evidence-led problem-solving justice. It does this by focussing on the procedural fairness of youth court hearings; the specialism of youth court practitioners; how multi-agency youth offending services provide collaborative interventions and supervision to court-involved children and young people; the extent to which youth courts engage in judicial monitoring post-sentence; and the operational environment surrounding youth court practitioners. Fieldwork was conducted in three sites across England, comprising five youth courts and associated youth offending services, between February and October 2019. During our research, we came across many dedicated practitioners who were committed to improving the support for children and young people appearing in court, and we saw examples of creative and innovative practice being developed locally. One site was trialling a form of post-sentence judicial monitoring (of the type recommended in the Carlile and Taylor reviews) to provide informal, YOS-managed review hearings for young people on Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YROs). A second site was preparing to pilot a similar approach, in which magistrates, in partnership with the YOS, will hold informal, monthly reviews of YROs. However, we also observed practice which fell short of what is recommended for the youth court: long delays, especially in cases coming to court; lack of availability of professionals with the required specialisms for youth court; limited services to respond to children and young people’s speech, language and communication or mental health needs; limited engagement by children’s services (understandable given their resource constraints); and generally, a more difficult operational environment, resulting from the twin impacts of constant court modernisation (including court closures and mergers) and reductions in funding. What we found far too often was an over-burdened system in which practitioners struggled to deliver the services required of them by national government. As a result, vulnerable children and young people coming before the court are not always receiving the treatment they need – making it all the more likely they will offend again. Time to get it right What our research has shown is that youth courts need to be enhanced to change outcomes for the vulnerable young people who appear there. We are very aware that the Carlile, Taylor and Lammy review teams have been here before us. Our research has walked in their footprints and, sadly, we have seen that their calls for significant reform have remained largely unanswered. We think it is time to get it right. 1. Tackle pre-court delays and maximise diversion opportunities pre-court There is urgent need for action to address the delays between offences and the commencement of court proceedings. These delays impact on everyone, including victims, witnesses and defendants. A key problem is delayed charging decisions by the police, which were also shown to disrupt children and young people’s own rehabilitative efforts. While we found strong support for out-of-court resolution of children and young people’s cases (and strong support for victim involvement and restorative justice in these disposals), we also found evidence of cases still coming to court that should have been resolved out of court. We recommend that (i) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the National Police Chief’s Council and the Home Office develop a protocol which limits the amount of time children and young people can be kept under investigation before a charging decision is made (though there may need to be exclusions for the most complex cases); (ii) we recommend that the Youth Justice Board should publish clear national guidance on effective, evidence-based point-of-arrest diversion and out-of-court disposal practice.

Centre for Justice Innovation, 2022. 48p.

By Ross Gibson

Introduction

Over recent years concern has been raised about the increasing number of children in England and Wales for whom a placement in a secure children’s home is sought but cannot be found. As a result, a number of children from England and Wales are placed in secure care in Scotland instead. The report by the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice (CYCJ) sets out to help provide a better understanding of the profile and experiences of children placed in Scottish secure care centres by English and Welsh local authorties. It aims to provide an overview of:

• the children’s characteristics – age, gender and ethnicity

• why they were admitted to secure accommodation

• the prevalence and types of adversity they had faced since they were born and in the year prior to admission

• the support and services they had received in the year prior to admission

• their social care histories.

• London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, 2022. 36p.

By The Southern Poverty Law Center; Delvin Davis

On July 19, 2022, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced his decision to transfer incarcerated young people to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola – an adult prison with a long history of human rights abuses. The decision was emblematic of a state that consistently sees young Black people as criminals to be captured and controlled rather than healed and rehabilitated.

In this report, Only Young Once: The Urgent Need for Reform of Louisiana’s Youth Justice System, we explore how the perceptions of Black youth contribute to an overreliance on punitive measures – in both Louisiana’s school and juvenile justice systems – leading to stark racial disparities. The report also details the significant physical and psychological harm posed to incarcerated youth, while Louisiana taxpayers pay the cost for a fiscally wasteful approach to youth crime.

Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2023.

By Nicholas M. Pace, Dulani Woods, Roberto Guevara, Chau Pham, Shamena Anwar

In 2019, the Utah Indigent Defense Commission (IDC) asked the RAND Corporation for assistance in determining maximum caseload standards for providers of indigent legal representation to defendants in trial-level courts and to minors in juvenile courts of the state of Utah. Maximum caseload standards, typically expressed in terms of the number of cases of a particular type that can be reasonably handled by an attorney over the course of a specific time period, are a useful tool for determining both when caseloads are in danger of being excessive and the number of attorneys that may be needed to handle expected demand.

Similar to previous studies in other states that have also addressed the question of reasonable caseloads, this project conducted three data collection efforts to provide the empirical foundation for the Utah standards: an analysis of attorney time records maintained by two large public defender offices in Salt Lake County, a survey of indigent defenders practicing in Utah, and the convening of a panel of experts to reach consensus on recommended average time expenditures for counsel representing indigent defendants in various categories of criminal matters in Utah trial courts. The authors present for the IDC's consideration recommended caseload standards based on analysis of the collected data.

Key Findings

Adoption of the expert panel's recommendations would require a sharp increase in the supply of annual attorney hours available for indigent defense

The panel of experts, drawing on their own expertise and the data from the analysis of indigent defender time records and the survey of indigent defenders practicing in Utah, recommended average hours that were significantly greater than the results of the time analysis or attorney survey.

The minimum increase beyond reported average attorney hours was 46 percent, and, depending on the category, the expert recommendations actually doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled what were reported as average time expenditures.

Santa Monica CA: Rand, 2022. 107p.