By Emma R. Barton, Lara C. Snowdon, Bryony Parry, and Alex Walker

Violence among children and young people (CYP) is a complex societal issue that has detrimental impacts on the health and well-being of children, young people, and adults throughout their lives. Population health research tells us that CYP are adversely at risk of experiencing violence and are at higher risk of experiencing multiple forms of violence. However, evidence suggests that prevention approaches are most effective when implemented with CYP and can have positive health, well-being, and social impacts across the life-course. This social innovation narrative sets out how the Wales Violence Prevention Unit and Peer Action Collective Cymru coproduced a strategic multi-agency framework for the prevention of violence among CYP in Wales. The first of its kind to be developed in the United Kingdom, this national framework acts as a guide to strategic action on violence prevention, amplifying the voices of CYP, and providing evidence of “what works.” This evidence-informed, coproduced framework used an innovative participatory design process to listen to the voices of a diverse range of stakeholders, highlighting the voices of CYP. Informed by the views and experiences of over 1,000 people in Wales, and grounded in the lived experiences of CYP, the Framework proposes nine strategies to prevent violence among CYP as part of a public health approach to violence prevention. These strategies represent evidence-based approaches proven to reduce violence among CYP, address the risk factors for youth violence, and build individual, community and societal resilience.

September 2023Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 8(3):139-147September 2023Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 8(3):139-147

By Charles M. Katz , Hyunjung Cheon , Kayla Freemon , Lidia E. Nuno˜

In this study, the authors examine the prevalence of self-reported delinquency, drug use, and gang membership among school-attending youth in nine English-speaking Caribbean nations including Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. We also examine the frequency of these problem behaviors by gender and ethnicity. In doing so, we seek to gain an understanding of the extent and variation of delinquency and associated problems across the region and among subpopulations. The sample comprises more than 18,000 school-aged youth attending 306 schools. Our findings suggest that while offending varies significantly within and across the English-speaking Caribbean, youth engage in a disproportionate amount of violence when compared to other offense types, and though the current study is not cross-regional, youth appear to engage in substantially higher rates of violence than youth in other regions. Self-reported offending was higher among males than females for every offense type, though females in some nations reported more delinquency than males in other nations. In some of the study nations, there were no significant relationships between ethnicity and problem behaviors; however, in other nations, Afro-Caribbean, mixed, and youth from “other” ethnic backgrounds were significantly more likely to report problem behaviors than East Indian youth. Implications for future research are discussed.

Children and Youth Services Review. Volume 144, January 2023, 106758

By Peers Kayla Freemon, Veronica M. Herrera , Hyunjung Cheon , and Charles M. Katz

Growing up in a household without two parents present is an established risk factor for youth delinquency. However, much of the research on family structure and delinquency derives from U.S. samples, limiting applicability to the developing world. The present study explores the role of traditional and non-traditional family structures on self-reported delinquency in eight English Speaking Caribbean nations. We further examine the moderating role of family processes (parental attachment and parental supervision) and commitment to negative peers on this relationship. We find that youth from intact nuclear families, with a mother and father present, engage in less delinquency than youth from intact blended, single-parent, or no-parent households. Further, family structure moderated the relationship between delinquency, parental attachment, and commitment to negative peers. Theoretical and research implications are discussed.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2023, Vol. 21(2) 149–171

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.

By Stephanie Campos-Buist and Jeffrey Selbin

In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed landmark bipartisan legislation making California the first state to abolish entire categories of monetary sanctions. Starting January 1, 2018, Senate Bill 190 prohibits counties from charging all administrative fees in the juvenile legal system. SB 190 also repealed county authority to charge certain fees to young people ages 18 to 21 in the criminal legal (adult) system.

Senators Holly Mitchell and Ricardo Lara authored SB 190 to “eliminate a source of financial harm to some of the state’s most vulnerable families, support the reentry of youth back into their homes and communities, and reduce the likelihood that youth will recidivate.” California became a national model when it abolished these fees, offering the promise of debt-free justice for young people and their families.

This study presents key findings about the implementation of SB 190 and the status of fee reform in California since January 1, 2018. The findings, based on extensive public records and stakeholder interviews, document how counties have gone beyond the requirements of SB 190 to relieve hundreds of thousands of families of more than $237 million in previously assessed fees, and counties have taken further steps to end harmful and racially discriminatory fee practices.

However, the study finds that not all counties are complying fully with the new law. Some counties continue to charge SB 190 prohibited fees to families through child support orders and to young adults in the criminal legal system. Some counties have also resisted calls to end all collection activity and continue to pursue more than $136 million in previously assessed fees from California families.

The study concludes by recommending concrete actions that county and state officials can take to ensure full compliance with SB 190 and to realize the full benefits of fee abolition

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, School of Law, 2019. 34p.

By Jeffrey Selbin

Maria Rivera was raising two boys on her own in Orange County, California, when her youngest son got into trouble. Although court records for youth are typically sealed, we know that in 2008 Ms. Rivera’s son became one of tens of thousands of young people referred annually to the state’s juvenile legal system, resulting in his detention for almost two years. Then came the bills. The county charged Ms. Rivera $23.90 for every day her son was detained and $2200 for his court-appointed lawyer. All told, Orange County said she owed more than $16,000. Until recently, California law authorized counties to charge administrative fees to parents and guardians for their children’s detention, lawyers, electronic monitoring, probation supervision, and drug testing. By statute, the fees were supposed to help counties recoup “the reasonable costs of support of the minor,” but the law also required counties to determine whether families could afford to pay the fees. Ms. Rivera was unemployed and unable to make payments, so Orange County should have waived her fees. But California’s “ability to pay” provisions, in fact, put the burden on families to appear before a financial evaluation officer to prove their inability to pay. Like many families with youth in the juvenile legal system, Ms. Rivera was unable to meet the county’s demands to make such a showing. To deal with the mounting bills, Ms. Rivera sold her house and paid the county more than $9500. The county did not consider the judgment fully satisfied, so it obtained a court order against Ms. Rivera for almost $10,000. On top of what she had already paid and for reasons the county never explained, the court order exceeded what the county originally billed Ms. Rivera by more than $3000. Once a court orders juvenile fees to be paid, the debt becomes a civil judgment enforceable against the parent or guardian. Unlike most other civil judgments, juvenile fee debt lasts forever. If families fail to repay the debt, counties refer their accounts to the state’s Franchise Tax Board to intercept their tax refunds and garnish their wages. Unable to pay the civil judgment, Ms. Rivera filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. When the bankruptcy court discharged her fee debt, Ms. Rivera may have thought the matter was resolved. But Orange County would not relent, eventually persuading the bankruptcy court to reinstate the debt on the grounds that it was not dischargeable under chapter 7. I

98 N.C. L. Rev. 401 (2020)

By Alexis Yohros

While the impact of trauma on delinquency and offending has been studied in great depth, less is known about the cumulative effects of adverse childhood experiences and how these experiences impact recidivism or reoffending outcomes of youth who already have justice system involvement. The main aim of this paper is to report on the results of a systematic review and metaanalysis on the relationship between Adverse Childhood Experiences and juvenile recidivism. Of particular interest, the paper examines to what extent, if any, ACEs can be used to predict youth reoffending outcomes, as well as investigates the nature of this relationship. The study utilizes quantitative metanalytical techniques to estimate the overall impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on youth reoffending. Sixteen studies were selected after a comprehensive search of electronic databases covering the fields of social science, criminology, psychology, or related fields. Key findings demonstrate that Adverse Childhood Experiences increase the risk of youth recidivism, with effects varying amongst sample sizes. Narrative synthesis also shows key gender, racial, and ethnic differences as well as potential mechanisms in the cumulative trauma-reoffending relationship. These findings can further guide research and policy in the areas of trauma, juvenile justice, and crime prevention.

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 2022, Vol. 0(0) 1–16

By Paul Gray, Hannah Smithson and Deborah Jump

While crime has fallen rapidly over the last 20 years, serious youth violence (hereafter referred to as SYV) – defined by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) as ‘any drug, robbery or violence against the person offence that has a gravity score1 of five of more’ – is a growing concern in England and Wales (Home Office, 2018). Despite a substantial reduction in violent crime since the mid-1990s, levels of SYV remain ‘stubbornly high’ (Irwin-Rogers et al., 2020: 16). Alongside this, research has consistently found that justice-involved children have childhoods characterised by disproportionate adverse childhood experiences (hereafter referred to as ACEs) (see, for example, Baglivio et al., 2014; Boswell, 1996; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Jacobson et al., 2010). ACEs are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood. They include, for example: experiencing violence, abuse, or neglect; witnessing domestic violence; bereavement; substance misuse within the family; mental health problems within the family; parental separation; or having a family member in prison (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). ACEs have been shown to have lasting, negative effects on health, wellbeing, and opportunity. They have also been shown to have an impact on the likelihood of both future violence perpetration and victimisation (Fox et al., 2014). There has been a growing awareness in recent years of the importance of being traumainformed when dealing with children who have a history of ACEs. This is especially the case with those agencies who work with justice-involved children (Glendinning et al., 2021; Liddle et al., 2016). Being trauma-informed means recognising and acknowledging the impact that ACEs can have on an individual and providing appropriate support to that person. In essence, a trauma-informed approach necessitates a change of perspective from ‘What’s wrong with you?’ to ‘What happened to you?’ (see the earlier Academic Insights paper 2020/05 by McCartan). Alongside the current emphasis on trauma-informed practice, is the growing call for the participation of justice-involved children in the development of youth justice policy and practice (Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board, 2019; Youth Justice Board, 2016; see also Academic Insights paper 2021/10). Participatory working is fundamental to the principle of Child First. Indeed, in Positive Youth Justice: Child First, Offenders Second, ‘children are part of the solution, not part of the problem’ (Haines and Case, 2015: 45). Research evidence indicates that when participation, engagement and inclusion processes are co-created between children and practitioners, this can produce effective practice relationships (Case and Haines, 2015; Smithson et al., 2020; Smithson and Jones, 2021). This Academic Insight presents the findings from a research study that was commissioned by Manchester City Council’s Youth Justice Service and funded through the YJB’s Reducing Serious Youth Violence (Reference Group) Pathfinder programme. Through the SYV pathfinder projects, the YJB aims to develop understanding around the drivers of SYV. To this end, this research brought together the four areas outlined above – SYV, ACEs, trauma-informed practice, and youth participation – to investigate the complex relationship between SYV and ACEs. By working in close collaboration with justice-involved children and youth justice workers in Manchester, the research had the following objectives: • to gauge the nature and prevalence of ACEs among justice-involved children in Manchester • to explore children’s own articulations of the causes and drivers of SYV • to develop a more in-depth understanding of the relationship between SYV and ACEs • to explore children’s experiences of current youth justice practice, in particular their experiences of trauma-informed practice • to co-create a resource to be used by youth justice professionals. To meet these objectives, a mixed-methods approach incorporating quantitative, qualitative, and participatory elements was adopted. The quantitative element of the research was a bespoke ACEs assessment tool, based largely on the 10-point scale used in the original ACEs study conducted in the US in the 1990s (Felitti et al., 1998). The qualitative element had two strands: semi-structured interviews with youth justice workers and drama therapists commissioned by Manchester Youth Justice Service; and narrative interviews – using the McAdams Life Story Interview method (Bauer and McAdams, 2004) – with justice-involved children. The participatory element of the research was a series of workshops involving justice-involved children, the research team, drama therapists from One Education (www.oneeducation.co.uk), and a professional sports coach. Given the sensitive nature of the research topic, the decision was made to use storytelling techniques in the workshops to elicit further discussion around SYV and ACEs: specifically the 6-Part Story Method (Dent-Brown and Wang, 2006). This method was particularly appropriate as it allowed the children to create fictional, third-person accounts and provide metaphors rather than a description of actual lived events (Dwivedi, 1997).

Academic Insights 2021/13. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2021. 18p.

By HM Inspectorate of Probation

During the course of this remote inspection in April and May 2021, we examined the quality of work delivered by YOSs in Manchester, Lewisham, Nottingham, Haringey, Hackney, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool and Oxfordshire. All YOSs were selected due to the volume of their caseload and an over-representation of black and/or mixed heritage boys in their services, as recorded in the Youth Justice Board (YJB) disproportionality toolkit data. We looked at the work delivered through a lens that considered the child’s ethnicity, their diversity and any experiences of discrimination. We examined 173 cases of black and mixed heritage boys (59 out-of-court cases and 114 post-court cases), which had commenced within the previous 12 months. We interviewed 99 case managers. We also interviewed senior managers from the YOSs, and held focus groups with case managers, middle managers, partnership staff, volunteers and the youth offending service strategic management boards. Our work was also informed by surveys completed by staff, parents, volunteers and magistrates. We undertook a week of meetings with representatives from national organisations, including the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, the Home Office, the Department for Education, Ofsted, the Magistrates Association, the Chief Executive Officer for the Association of Police Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. An expert reference group contributed to this report by advising on strategic, technical and operational issues associated with the subject and services under inspection (Annexe 3). It represented the views of key stakeholders in the areas under scrutiny, and commented on emerging findings and final recommendations. We commissioned the services of ‘User Voice’, who met with 38 black or mixed heritage boys to gather their perspectives on the services that they had received from the YOSs. The boys also helped us understand some of the challenges they face in their day-to-day lives and what could be done to help. A report from User Voice is published alongside this report. Key findings and quotations have also been incorporated in this report. Inspectors spoke with a small number of parents whose children were, or had been, involved with the YOS and who requested a meeting. What we learned about the boys In all services we inspected, staff and managers told us that the large majority of black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system had experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and had high levels of need, such as special educational needs (SEN) and mental health difficulties, which had not always been identified or properly addressed until they came into contact with the YOS. This raises questions and concerns about the support they received from mainstream services before their involvement with the youth justice system. Reports of high levels of unmet need for black and mixed heritage boys entering the youth justice system was a consistent theme of this inspection. There was a general consensus among YOSs that, had problems and difficulties been addressed earlier in the children’s lives, there could have been a different outcome for them. In the post-court cases we inspected, 60 per cent of the boys were, or had been, excluded from school, the majority permanently. Almost a third had been victims of child criminal exploitation. In half of the cases inspected there was evidence (where it had been recorded) that the child had experienced racial discrimination. A third of the boys had been subject to Child in Need or Child Protection plans. The majority were not ‘heavily convicted’ (i.e. they had only one or no previous convictions), and in over a quarter of cases (where information had been recorded) the child had a disability. They were reported to be more likely than other groups of children to have an education, health and care (EHC) plan, and equally as likely again to have special educational needs that had not been identified or addressed. The boys had grown up in the poorest areas of their towns and cities and had often been exposed to the violence and family breakdown associated with poverty. Racial discrimination was also a feature in the lives of the boys. For the most part, they accepted it as being ‘just the way it is’. This acceptance is as significant as the experience itself, when considering their development, their circumstances and their future.

Manchester, UK:: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2021. 71p.

By Maria Jerram, and Tammie Burroughs

Based on effective practice identified during our thematic inspection of the experiences of black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system (2021). The guide explains why it is important to consider ethnicity in practice. We provide an overview of our standards and expectations in this area around leadership and case supervision.

Following this, we reflect on the learning from black and mixed heritage boys interviewed for the thematic inspection, including a video of the main themes.

There is also a focus on leadership and working in partnership. Examples of effectiveness are shared from the following: Haringey’s disproportionality project and systemic leadership, Hackney tackling disproportionality in stop and searches and out-of-court disposals (supported by two videos), Lewisham’s anti-racist strategy (including a video), Lewisham’s specialist services provided by the YOS family therapy team (LYFT) including videos sharing the teams insight into engagement, the importance of working with carers/parents and the systemic approach.

There is then a focus on case supervision, we share key themes practitioners should consider in their work, and interview two culturally competent practitioners to share practical tips from their work and identify key learning.

We conclude with overall key takeaways, further reading and resources for those wishing to explore this area further.

Manchester, UK: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation , 2021. 46p.

By Jahnine Davis

HM Inspectorate of Probation is committed to reviewing, developing and promoting the evidence base for high-quality probation and youth offending services. Academic Insights are aimed at all those with an interest in the evidence base. We commission leading academics to present their views on specific topics, assisting with informed debate and aiding understanding of what helps and what hinders probation and youth offending services. This report was kindly produced by Jahnine Davis, highlighting adultification bias, its links to racialised discrimination, and how it can impact upon child protection and safeguarding practices. Crucially, application of adultification bias results in children’s rights being diminished or ignored, with notions of innocence and vulnerability displaced by notions of responsibility and culpability. The Professional Inter-Adultification Model is introduced which emphasises the importance of professional and organisational curiosity, critical thinking, and reflection. The model includes the further concept of intersectionality to encourage professionals to explore how the intersections of race/ethnicity, sexuality, class, gender, dis/abilities, and wider lived experiences may have impacted upon the lives of individual children. At an organisational level, it is imperative that leaders model equity, diversity and inclusion, and embrace both critical challenge and accountability. To assist leaders, the inspectorate has included examples of effective leadership in its 2021 effective practice guide for working with Black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system.

Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation , 2022. 14p.

By Jonathan Evans, Tricia Skuse, Dusty Kennedy and Jonny Matthew

The genesis of this paper has its origins in two articles: • the first article attempted to answer the question of whether trauma-informed practice and desistance theories represent competing or potentially complementary approaches to working with children in conflict with the law (Evans et al., 2020). • the second, based on empirical fieldwork conducted in a Welsh youth justice service (YJS), explored how desistance theories were being interpreted, applied and – in some cases – re-imagined by practitioners (Deering and Evans, 2021). Building upon these articles, this paper identifies some of the key ideas and evidence that could contribute to a practice agenda which supports desistance from offending processes, engages with social adversity and trauma, and helps to empower children and young people to work towards their pro-social goals.

Academic Insights 2023/08. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 20p.

By Louise Forde

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) establishes minimum standards for the treatment of children in a wide range of areas, including setting out rights to which children in conflict with the law are entitled. Ensuring that children’s rights are respected in the youth justice system has received significant attention at international level, by both the UN and the Council of Europe, and there are now a series of standards and guidelines setting out the rights to which children are entitled (Lynch and Liefaard, 2020). In addition to Articles 37 and 40 of the UNCRC, the following are in place: • the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has produced two General Comments (General Comment No. 24 has recently replaced General Comment No. 10) on how children’s UNCRC rights should be interpreted and applied in practice • the Beijing Rules, the Havana Rules and the Riyadh Guidelines provide further guidance on the implementation of children’s rights in the administration of youth justice, in situations where children are deprived of their liberty, and in relation to the prevention of offending by children • the Council of Europe has developed standards and guidelines on child-friendly justice and on the implementation of sanctions and measures in the youth justice system • the European Convention on Human Rights incorporates a number of rights which are relevant to children in contact with the justice system. The United Kingdom has signed and ratified the UNCRC, and thus, under Article 4 of the UNCRC, it has a legal obligation to take ‘all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures’ to implement children’s rights under the Convention. While Convention rights are not directly applicable in national law unless they are incorporated (see further Kilkelly, Lundy and Byrne, 2021; Lundy, Kilkelly and Byrne, 2013), in signing and ratifying the UNCRC, States Parties undertake binding legal obligations under international law. Furthermore, states’ progress in implementing the UNCRC is subject to regular review by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. However, ensuring compliance with the international standards is often not the core focus for states in designing and developing their youth justice systems. A range of other concerns, such as the protection of victims and society, ensuring accountability for wrongdoing, the prevention of further offending, and sometimes, a recognition that there may be a need to address the underlying causes of offending through a focus on children’s needs, may take priority over considerations relating to children’s rights. Historically, youth justice systems have either been characterised as ‘welfare’-based systems – because they focus on addressing any unmet needs children may have as a means of responding to offending – or ‘justice’-based systems – which focus on ensuring accountability and punishing offenders through traditional criminal justice mechanisms (Smith, D.J., 2005; Smith, R., 2005). These distinct approaches can be said to represent different ‘models’ of youth justice, and have often been presented as being at opposite ends of the spectrum. In practice youth justice systems are much more complex than this welfare/justice dichotomy indicates (Case and Haines, 2018; see further Phoenix, 2016; Muncie, 2008), and tend to mix a range of priorities including ‘welfare; justice; informalism; rights; responsibilities; restoration; prevention; remoralisation and retribution/punishment’ (Goldson and Muncie, 2006: 91). Equally, debates about the appropriate approach to adopt to youth justice can become policitised, and these political considerations can overshadow the search for a principled and coherent approach to responding to children in conflict with the law (Case and Hampson, 2019). The way that these priorities are balanced within a particular youth justice system can give rise to very different results; this has resulted, for example, in very different priorities being evident in each of the youth justice systems across the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom (Muncie, 2011). Given the complexity of these systems, and the range of ideological, practical and political priorities which are evident, the question becomes which of these models of youth justice is best suited to ensuring that a state is also fulfilling its obligations to respect and ensure children’s rights as set out under the UNCRC? This Academic Insights paper discusses whether the international standards set out a preference for a ‘welfare’ or ‘justice’ approach to youth justice, and considers the elements which are necessary for states that are seeking to ensure that their approach to responding to children in conflict with the law meets with their international legal obligations as States Parties to the UNCRC (see further Forde, 2021). The paper will begin by considering what the international standards say about the approach to youth justice which should be preferred, suggesting five criteria for child rightscompliant youth justice systems. It will conclude by considering some of the challenges and opportunities for developing a youth justice system which respects and realises children’s rights.

Academic Insights 2022/05 . Manchester, UK: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2022. 16p.

by Carmen Robin-D’Cruz

The over-representation of children with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) in the criminal justice system is especially concerning given the particular harms that justice system involvement can have on them. Youth diversion gives children the chance to avoid both formal criminal justice processing and a criminal record, in return for the completion of community-based interventions. However, the overrepresentation of children with SEND in the justice system suggests that the diversion processes are not working for them.

This literature review summarises the evidence around SEND and youth diversion, with a focus on access and engagement.

It will be followed, in early 2024, by a research report examining how responsive diversion schemes are to those with SEND, drawing on testimony from practitioners and children themselves.

London: Centre for Court Innovation, 2023. 17p.

By Ursula Kilkelly

Research in youth justice is vast and varied, meaning that those seeking to identify ‘good practice’ or ‘evidence’ must navigate multiple studies, large and small, from every jurisdiction and academic discipline. The scholarship has been produced using diverse methodologies and approaches, and although there is an increasing focus on policy impact and practitioner perspectives, its breadth and depth can make this vast literature difficult to access by those interested in an evidence-based approach. The aim of this paper is to identify, from the established research literature, the key messages relating to children who come into conflict with the law and their pathways into and out of the justice system. Building on previous research funded by the Irish Research Council (Kilkelly et al., 2021) and since updated in a work that seeks to align the scholarship with a children’s rights approach (Kilkelly et al., 2023), this paper identifies ten key messages that should inform an evidence-based approach to youth justice in any jurisdiction. ' Academic Insights 2023/09

Manchester,UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 18p.

By Chris Yarrell

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 55 million schoolchildren have been compelled to attend school remotely. However, despite this nationwide shift to virtual schooling, the school-based disparities that long pre-dated the pandemic have been laid bare and exacerbated. This is painfully evident in the context of the school-to-prison pipeline (STPP). Indeed, despite Congress’ historic investment in the school recovery effort through the passage of the CARES Act, recent research confirms that the majority of the states and localities have devoted scant, if any, federal recovery dollars to dismantling the STPP. Without a meaningful commitment by states and localities, our nation’s most vulnerable students will continue to be pushed out of the schoolhouse and into the criminal legal system. Therefore, a more feasible legal alternative to dismantle the STPP is needed.

Despite the treatment that the school recovery effort has received in judicial opinions and legal scholarship in response to the pandemic, neither has undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the school recovery process and its impact on the STPP. This Article aims to fill that gap. To do so, it makes two broad claims. First, the Essay provides a timely review of how states and localities have addressed the STPP with federal recovery aid. Next, it argues that the response to the pandemic fails to advance meaningful reforms that could begin dismantling the STPP. Lastly, the Essay contends that, to begin this process, prospective litigants should leverage the doctrine of stare decisis to overturn Alexander v. Sandoval under its “unworkability” analysis. By overturning Sandoval, future litigants will again be empowered to remedy disparate impact discrimination under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In so doing, parents and students will stand a fighting chance of remedying the disparate educational harms caused by the STPP in both the near- and long-term.

23 Berkeley J. Afr.-Am. L. & Pol'y 1 (2023)

By lE.A.W. Janssen-de Ruijter, E.A. Mulder I.L. Bongers ; J.K. Vermunt f, Ch. van Nieuwenhuizen

Purpose

Adolescents who are admitted to secure residential care have a high risk of delinquency after discharge. However, this risk may differ between subgroups in this heterogeneous population of adolescents with severe psychiatric problems and disruptive problem behaviour. In this study, the predictive validity of four risk profiles was examined for the number of minor, moderate, and severe offences after discharge from secure residential care.

Methods

The sample comprised 238 male former patients of a hospital for youth forensic psychiatry and orthopsychiatry in the Netherlands. In three Poisson regression analyses, the relationship between four previously identified risk profiles and the number of minor, moderate, and severe offences after discharge was examined.

Results

The results showed that the four risk profiles differed significantly in the number of minor, moderate, and severe offences after discharge. Post hoc analysis revealed no mediating effect of termination of treatment on the relationship between the risk profiles and the number of minor, moderate, and severe offending after discharge.

Conclusion

Adolescents with many risk factors in multiple domains and adolescents with mainly family risks have an increased risk of persistent delinquency after discharge. Treatment should be tailored more effectively to the specific risks and needs of these adolescents.

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volume 72, January–February 2021, 101758

By Manfred Nowak

Children deprived of liberty remain an invisible and forgotten group in society despite increasing evidence of these children being victims of further human rights violations. Countless children are placed in inhuman conditions and in adult facilities – in clear violation of their human rights - where they are at high risk of violence, rape and sexual assault, including acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Children are being detained at a younger and younger age and held for longer periods of time. The personal cost to these children is immeasurable in terms of the destructive impact on their physical and mental development, and on their ability to lead healthy and constructive lives in society.

The Global Study covers:

An assessment of the magnitude of the phenomenon of children being deprived of liberty, including the number of children deprived of liberty (disaggregated by age, gender and nationality), as well as the reasons, type and length of deprivation of liberty and places of detention;

The views and experiences of children;

Ways to change stigmatizing attitudes and behaviour towards children at risk of being, or who are, deprived of liberty;

Recommendations for law, policy and practice to safeguard the human rights of the children concerned, and significantly reduce the number of children deprived of liberty through effective non-custodial alternatives, guided by the international human rights framework.

United Nations, 2019. 789p.

By Linda Mussell, Jessica Evans

In early 2021, half of the youth detention centres in Ontario, Canada, were abruptly closed. We ask how this development can be understood in relation to broader explanations of youth detention closures in Canada, which cite the success of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and the best interests of youth, and the broader international context. Using a process tracing methodology to analyse existing data, we demonstrate that these closures had less to do with the interests of youth, and were primarily a cost-effective calculation. We demonstrate this by pointing to three key developments: (i) the transference of institutionalised carceral logics onto community service providers; (ii) an undermining of the principle of ‘relationship custody’; and (iii) a focus on high-capacity and high-security detention centres, over smaller, locally situated open detention centres

Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 2023.

Edited by Shafiur Rahman; Osmani Trust

One in five prisoners in the UK is Muslim, yet only 6.5% of the population identifies as Muslim. That stark figure raises huge concerns about Muslims within the criminal justice system, and the place of Muslims in wider society. It raises some urgent and significant questions about why Muslims are so egregiously overrepresented in prisons and the need to better understand what actions are required to prevent such high offending and re-offending levels. When we consider that the proportion of Muslims in prison has doubled in a decade, we rightly ask - what is going wrong within the system and our society? This report Rebuilding Lives Young Muslims from Criminal Justice System to Community Resettlement highlights a range of issues from islamophobia within the criminal justice system, to the systemic and chronic disadvantage faced by many in the Muslim community. It is impossible to divorce the rise in Muslims in prison from broader social trends: the collapse in government support for youth services, the rising levels of crime, the rise in Islamophobic attacks, racism within the police and criminal justice system, and the cost-ofliving crisis which disproportionately hammers poorer communities. Social and economic conditions play a role in the rise in crime. If our contemporary society turns its back on, and stigmatises, a generation of Muslim young people, we should not be surprised if a minority turn their back on social norms and are seduced into criminal activity. We must always tackle the causes of crime as well as crime itself and ensure policies are put in place to reduce re-offending among this group as well as others who commit crimes and end up in the prison system. As the report makes clear, once young Muslims enter the criminal justice system, they face discrimination and racism, further exacerbating feelings of alienation and disengagement from society.

London: Osmani Trust, 2023. 58p.