By Madeline Rolfe and Sarah Hibbert

Crest Advisory was commissioned by the Youth Endowment Fund to conduct research on serious youth violence and vulnerability in England and Wales. The research was in three parts: an analysis of national indicators of serious violence and vulnerability; a survey of over 2,000 children and young people across England and Wales; and engagement with vulnerable young people in contact with a Youth Offending Service (YOS), and their support workers. This report focuses on our engagement with vulnerable young people in contact with a YOS and their support workers. To conduct the research we reviewed and collected qualitative and quantitative information on the young people. By reviewing these data sources in tandem, we were able to look beyond the statistics to better understand how vulnerability and violence affects young people.

• vulnerable to exploitation. In reviewing the life stories of the young people in contact with the YOS, we found a connection between a lack of these protective factors and proximity to violence.

• One of the most powerful tools to engage vulnerable young people is establishing trusted relationships. When young people feel that they are listened to and understood, they are more likely to engage with support services and interventions. The life stories of the young people we engaged with highlighted the importance of trusted relationships. For Dominic, whose life story is outlined below, having a dedicated YOS worker who regularly checked in with him helped to reduce his offending.
  

London: Crest Advisory, 2023. 40p.

By Colleen Sbeglia, Cortney Simmons, Grace Icenogle, Marsha Levick, Monica Peniche, Jordan Beardslee, Elizabeth Cauffman

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Supreme Court abolished mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences and subsequently decided that the ruling applied retroactively (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016), effectively rendering thousands of inmates eligible for resentencing and potential release from prison. In its decisions, the Court cited developmental science, noting that youth, by virtue of their transient immaturity, are less culpable and more amenable to rehabilitation relative to their adult counterparts. Specifically, the Court notes adolescents' propensity for impulsive action, sensitivity to social influence, and difficulty understanding long-term consequences. Even so, these rulings raised concerns regarding the consequences of releasing prisoners who had committed heinous crimes as juveniles. Several years after the Court's decision, preliminary data are now available to shed light on rates of recidivism among those released. The current paper comprises three goals. First, we discuss the science of adolescent development and how it intersects with legal practice, contextualizing the Court's decision. Second, we present recidivism data from a sample of individuals formerly sentenced to JLWOP in Pennsylvania who were resentenced and released under Miller and Montgomery (N = 287). Results indicate that 15 individuals received new criminal charges up to 7 years postrelease (5.2%), the majority of which were nonviolent offenses. This low rate of recidivism is consistent with the developmental science documenting compromised decision-making during the adolescent years, followed by desistance from criminal behavior in adulthood. Lastly, we discuss the importance of interdisciplinary collaborations between researchers and legal practitioners, as well as critical future avenues of research in this area.

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 00, 1–11. 2024.  

By the Vera Institute of Justice and Young Women’s Freedom Center

This report is the product of a two-year, multidisciplinary, mixed methods study by Young Women’s Freedom Center (YWFC) and the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera). The work leading to this report was a community-based research project that included outreach, quantitative data collection, collaborative analysis, and original qualitative data collection in the form of interviews with 50 system-involved women, girls, and gender-expansive young people across the state. The report offers policymakers, funders, advocates, and communities the data and evidence they need to understand the scope of girls’ incarceration in California. The report › provides background on the history and context of girls’ incarceration, › lays out the key findings from quantitative and qualitative analyses, and › provides a roadmap of how communities and state leaders can work together to end the incarceration and criminalization of girls and gender-expansive youth. This analysis shows that it is possible for every county in California to end girls’ incarceration with bold and decisive action.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 89p.

By Ashley Nellis and Devyn Brown

A wave of reforms since 2010 has changed the trajectory of punishment for young people by substantially limiting the use of juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences. At the sentence’s height of prominence in 2012, more than 2,900 people were serving JLWOP, which provided no avenue for review or release. Since reforms began, most sentence recipients have at least been afforded meaningful opportunity for a parole or sentence review. More than 1,000 have come home. This progress is remarkable, yet thousands more who have been sentenced to similarly extreme punishments as youth have not been awarded the same opportunity. Our analysis shows that in 2020, prisons held over 8,600 people sentenced for crimes committed when they were under 18 who were serving either life with the possibility of parole (LWP) or “virtual” life sentences of 50 years or longer. This brief argues for extending the sentencing relief available in JLWOP cases to those serving other forms of life imprisonment for crimes committed in their youth. In addition, The Sentencing Project has estimated that nearly two in five people sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) were 25 or younger at the time of their crime. These emerging adults, too, deserve a meaningful opportunity for a second look because their developmental similarities with younger people reduce their culpability in criminal conduct. The evidence provided in this brief supports bold reforms for youth and emerging adults sentenced to extreme punishments.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2024. 10p.

By Megan Davis and Craig Wright

This report summarises previously published insights from the Social Wellbeing Agency’s work assisting the New Zealand Government's response to youth crime. The report looks at wellbeing factors that are highly correlated to offending behaviour in young people and outlines ways that policymakers can reduce crime by targeting better support to young people and their families.

The report finds that the greater the exposure of young people to hardship and disadvantage, the more likely they are to offend. The authors conclude that public services are not providing enduring solutions for young people with high needs and that many solutions to youth crime lie in better support to families, whānau and communities.

Key findings

• Young people who are most likely to offend include those who have (in order of impact):

  • exposure to family violence and contact with Oranga Tamariki (NZ Ministry for Children)

  • experience of poverty

  • and parent(s) who have an alcohol or other drug issue, a mental health issue, and/or contact with Corrections.

• Over three-quarters of youth crime in Aotearoa New Zealand is committed by the 10% of young people who have greatest exposure to experiences of hardship and disadvantage.

• Most factors correlated to offending behaviour by young people reflect the characteristics of their environment (their families and communities). This suggests solutions to youth offending should consider family and community wellbeing.

• Over 60% of young people in the highest needs group first came to the attention of a government agency for a relatively serious issue by age 5.

• Young offenders are concentrated in areas of higher deprivation.

• Repeated referrals to the social system suggest that current approaches are not addressing their underlying needs to stop their offending or prevent resulting harm to communities.

Supports that are shown to help prevent youth crime

• Early intervention and prevention programmes that aim to identify and support young people and their families, whānau and communities before they engage in criminal behaviour

• Positive youth development programmes that focus on building the social and emotional skills, resilience, and positive relationships of young people

• Restorative justice – an approach that aims to repair the harm caused by crime by involving victims, offenders, and the community in the process of addressing the harm caused by offending behaviour

• High levels of collaboration between and among government agencies, community organisations and Iwi to ensure the right services are provided in the right way at the right time

• Providing positive education and employment opportunities to young people – including giving them a sense of purpose and a confident future outlook.

Social Wellbeing Agency (New Zealand), 2023. 12p.

By Alliance for Youth Justice, et al.

The establishment of a distinct secure estate for children has been government policy for nearly 25 years. This endeavor began with the transfer of commissioning and oversight of children’s custodial institutions to the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2000, and the coming into force of the prison service policy ‘Regimes for prisoners under 18 years old’ in the summer 1999.[1] In September 2017, the Youth Custody Service in the Ministry of Justice was established “as a distinct part of HM Prison and Probation Service” and YJB’s responsibility for child prisons was duly moved across.[2] Over the past 25 years, the number of children in custody at any one time has decreased significantly – from 3,000 at its high point in the early 2000s to under 450 today.[3] However the majority of children are still detained in institutions whose history, culture, and practices originate and in many respects replicate the confinement and punishment of adults. Only 19% of children in custody today are living in secure childcare establishments; the remainder are in prisons.[vii] Moreover, despite successive promises of transformation, children in prison continue to experience significant harm and neglect.[4] Within the overarching, recurring policy goal of transformation, there have been consistent, discrete government and YJB pledges focused on individual aspects of children’s safety and welfare. We have selected 10 pledges for review and analysis: Children will be kept safe Children’s relationships with their loved ones will be supported Looked after children will have their needs met, and their rights fulfilled Solitary confinement will not be used for children Restraint will only ever be used on children as a last resort. Pain-inducing techniques will be reserved for extremely grave incidents Children will have at least 30 hours of education and purposeful activity a week Meals will meet the needs of growing children, and mealtimes will be a social activity All staff will be properly vetted, trained, and supported to enable them to carry out skilled work with children who have multiple needs Children will receive the help and support they need whilst in custody, so they can thrive once they return to the community YOIs and STCs will be permanently closed  

London: Alliance for Youth Justice, 2024. 40p.

By Karen Freeman and Neil Donnelly

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) has released a new paper examining interactions between young people aged 10 to 13 years and the NSW criminal justice system. The study finds that most 10- to 13-year-old children who appear in court are from a disadvantaged background, have been a victim of violence, have had significant contact with the child protection system, and have a parent with a history of offending. Aboriginal children and children living in regional and remote NSW are disproportionately affected.

In terms of their criminal justice pathway, the study found that:

• Most young people aged 10 to 13 years are dealt with under the Young Offenders Act which aims to divert young people from the court system were possible. In 2023, NSW Police commenced 4,662 legal proceedings against young people aged 10 to 13 years; two-thirds (63) were formal court diversions.

• Of the 719 criminal court appearances finalised in 2023 involving defendants aged 10 to 13 years, only 20% resulted in a proven outcome; half (53%) had all charges withdrawn and a quarter (25%) had a not-guilty finding. Even where an offence was proven, half (50%) resulted in a court ordered caution or youth justice conference. 

• There were 171 distinct young people aged 10 to 13 years who had an episode of youth detention in 2023. These young people all entered detention on remand, and three quarters (74%) of detention episodes were for 24 hours or less.

PARRAMATTA NSW, The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) , 2024. 23p.

By Angela M. Collins and Maisha Cooper

This paper discusses how juvenile waiver policies may be leading to a reduction in the rehabilitative nature of the juvenile justice system. The first section discusses the value of the juvenile justice system. Here, the beginning of the juvenile justice system and why the juvenile justice system is important will be summarized. The second section explains the movement that is being made toward a more punitive approach in regard to juvenile delinquents and how this could lead to the erosion of the juvenile justice system. Next is a discussion of how waivers play a part in the erosion and how their continued use could prove very dangerous for the juvenile justice system. The next section will look at the implications of the erosion and what could potentially happen if we lost the juvenile system. Last, there will be a glance at possibilities for the future, along with suggestions on how to improve the use of waivers. Overall, this paper will show that the use of juvenile waivers may be leading the United States away from a rehabilitative system for juveniles to a smaller version of an adult criminal court. 

• July 2024

• Social Sciences 13(7):367

 By Sarah Anderson, Lisel Petis and Jillian Snider

Over the past few decades, juvenile crime (i.e., “delinquency”), arrests and confinement have begun to decline—a trend that directly correlates with states and localities moving away from overly punitive, “tough on crime” juvenile policies and toward diversion initiatives aimed at limiting juvenile interaction with the justice system. Between 1996 and 2019, juvenile arrests declined by 74 percent, and between 1995 and 2019, juvenile incarceration dropped by 70 percent with no corresponding uptick in overall or violent juvenile crime.

Research on crime, adolescent brain development and behavior has demonstrated that arrest, detention and juvenile court adjudication and incarceration tend to increase delinquent youths’ risk of recidivism, negatively impacting psychosocial development and maturation into healthy, productive adulthood. In response, many communities are using diversion for low-risk juvenile offenders in place of formally processing youth through the juvenile court system. This allows juveniles to avoid the trauma and stigma of juvenile proceedings; avoid the burden of delinquency records that impede future educational and employment opportunities; and benefit from rehabilitation and accountability.

Of the many juvenile diversion models in use, pre-arrest diversion led by law enforcement—often referred to as deflection—has received comparatively little attention. This study works to fill that gap by assessing juvenile arrest rates and deflection efforts for all 50 states and providing a state-by-state overview and comparison of deflection programs

R Street Policy Study No. 263

Washington, DC: R Street, 2022. 23p.

By Marc Hyden and Steven Greenhut 

During periods of surging crime or intense public concern about crime, politicians ramp up their tough-on-crime rhetoric—often focusing their ire on young offenders whom they depict as receiving unreasonably light sentences. Crime-related fears are understandable, but America is at risk of embracing policies—especially regarding juveniles—that may only worsen the problem.

Since the 1990s, the nation has shifted from an incarceration-heavy approach toward juvenile offenders to one that tries to keep them out of the criminal justice system and provide counseling, training and rehabilitation services instead. These innovative programs are yielding positive results in terms of public safety and fiscal policy.

There are two main types of programs: diversion and deflection. Diversion is generally considered to be a formalized effort to divert someone who is already in the criminal justice system. Deflection is a police-led type of pre-arrest diversion. For the purposes of this paper, it includes civil citations; formal pre-arrest diversion to case management or restorative justice; and co-responder or community programs that apply to juveniles. The terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but the goal of each approach is to find service-based alternatives to the traditional justice system.

A recent R Street Institute study surveyed these varying programs nationwide, which now are rightly a standard part of the criminal justice system. Given their documented success, rather than abandoning these programs amid currently heightened crime fears, policymakers should expand them. In this paper, we outline a path forward by exploring the value of deflection programs; reviewing the public safety and fiscal benefits they offer; and highlighting a case from one jurisdiction that underscores the benefits of the approach.

Washington, DC: R Street, 2022. 7p.

By Sarah Hockenberry; Charles Puzzanchera

Data submitted to the National Juvenile Court Data Archive project (Archive) provide unique insight into the impact of COVID-19 on juvenile court caseloads. The Archive collects juvenile court data from around the nation to create national estimates detailing demographic and case processing characteristics of delinquency and petitioned status offense cases handled in U.S. juvenile courts. The uniqueness of the data collected by the Archive allows for a monthly analysis of court case volume and processing, which provides insight into any changes in case processing characteristics both at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and over time. This bulletin focuses primarily on patterns in case processing activities which occurred in 2020, compared with an average of the case processing characteristics for the prior 3 years (2017-2019), but also displays data through 2021.

  Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2024. 8p.  

By Garner Clancey, Cecilia Drumore and Laura Metcalfe

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

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

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

By David B. Wilson, Mark W. Lipsey

Research summary

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

Policy implications

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

Criminology & Public Policy Volume23, Issue2. May 2024.

David C. Pyrooz

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

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

By Susannah N. Tapp, PhD; Alexandra Thompson; Erica L. Smith; and Lizabeth Remrey

This statistical brief presents findings on crimes involving juveniles, both as victims and as alleged or perceived offenders. It reports on (1) rates of nonfatal violent victimization of juveniles, (2) the number of deaths of juveniles due to homicide, (3) the percentage of nonfatal violent incidents in which the offender was perceived to be a juvenile, and (4) the percentage of persons arrested who were juveniles. Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), and the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). For additional information on these data collections and the similarities and differences between the BJS and FBI crime victimization data, including populations and types of crime covered, see Methodology or The Nation’s Two Crime Measures, 2011–2020 (NCJ 303385, BJS, February 2022).

Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Justice Statistical Brief Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2024, 13pg

By Jennifer Roark

This study, informed by a life course perspective, used a mixed methodological approach to identify the differences in events, motivations, and experiences related to gang affiliation and the differences across (a) system-documented, gang-involved individuals, (b) system-documented gang-involved individuals who have gang-involved family members, and (c) other high-risk youth who are suspected of involvement. The results of this study produced a nuanced understanding of these youth’s lives, especially as it relates to their fathers. As expected, when fathers were identified as having involvement in gangs themselves, youths were significantly more likely to also become members. The overall goal of this research was to identify distinct pathways to gang activity that could inform practitioners and policymakers about useful intervention strategies. This research fills a literature gap about the relationships between and amongst fathers and sons, and how those relationships transmit both criminogenic and protective factors that would encourage or discourage gang affiliation and gang activity. Father gang involvement continued to be a strong predictor of youth gang involvement even when controlling for other social relationships (e.g., peers, siblings, cousins), but not as much as same generation and peer influence. Importantly, fathers were not the sole social influence on a youth’s decision to join a gang. Peer and same generation family (siblings and cousins) gang involvement were as strong or stronger predictors of a youth’s involvement in crime and gangs as were the variables associated with fathers. The findings unexpectedly revealed that an increase in the most logged life events during a three-month timeframe reduced risk of escalation as a youth.

Portland, OR:  Research and Planning, Department of Community Justice Multnomah County Oregon. 2023, 113pg

By Christina Plerhoples Stacy

Over the summer and fall of 2021, the Urban Institute worked with the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services to recruit participants for a cash transfer study aimed at reducing rates of violence among young men in Wilmington. There are two main types of cash transfers: unconditional cash transfers, defined as money provided to people without any stipulations, and conditional cash transfers, defined as money provided to people with certain conditions, such as program attendance or work requirements. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 2023, 39pg

By Ursula Kilkelly, Louise Forde, Emma Hurley, Sharon Lambert, Katharina Swirak, Deirdre Kelleher and Siobhan Buckley

This study was funded by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) through the Irish Research Council’s COALESCE Strand 1F scheme, designed to harness the resources and expertise of the Irish research system to establish a collaborative alliance between academia and policy makers and to support the successful achievement of Ireland’s policy goals. The purpose of the study was to support the development of effective and evidence-based policy and interventions for young people by combining the knowledge of academic research with the expertise of policy makers. In line with this goal, this report is intended to be a resource for policy-makers, researchers and students interested in understanding the experiences of young people in the Irish youth justice system with evidence that can be used to imagine a progressive future for Irish youth justice law and policy. Aims and Methodology Aims In setting out the scheme, the DCEDIY identified three core questions as the basis for the study: 1. What are the factors associated with involvement in anti-social behaviour, getting into trouble with the Gardaí and/or contact with the youth justice system? 2. What are the factors which may operate in a protective or a preventative way for young people who do not become involved in anti-social behaviour or contact with the Gardaí and the youth justice system? 3. What implications do these findings have for the future development of Irish youth justice policy and youth justice practice? 

Cork: University College Cork, Irish Research Council. 2021, 221pg

By Jaimee Mallion and Jane Wood

Tackling street gangs has recently been highlighted as a priority for public health. In this paper, the four components of a public health approach were reviewed: (1) surveillance, (2) identifying risk and protective factors, (3) developing and evaluating interventions at primary prevention, secondary prevention, and tertiary intervention stages, and (4) implementation of evidence-based programs. Findings regarding the effectiveness of prevention and intervention programs for street gang members were mixed, with unclear goals/objectives, limited theoretical foundation, and a lack of consistency in program implementation impeding effectiveness at reducing street gang involvement. This paper proposes that the Good Lives Model (GLM), a strengths-based framework for offender rehabilitation, provides an innovative approach to street gang intervention. Utilizing approach-goals, the GLM assumes that improving an individual’s internal skills and external opportunities will reduce the need to become involved in street gangs. Wrapping the GLM framework around current evidence-based interventions (e.g., Functional Family Therapy) increases client engagement and motivation to change, which is notably poor amongst those at risk of, or involved in, street gangs.

Soc. Sci. 2020, 24pg

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

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

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