By David Muhammad, Mikaela Rabinowitz, and Vincent Schiraldi. Research and contributions from Patricia Garcia Iruegas and Jeremy Page

Over the past two decades, the United States has made historic progress in reducing youth incarceration and juvenile justice system involvement. Youth detention has declined by approximately 75% since 2000, as juvenile arrests have fallen sharply and research has made clear that incarceration can cause lasting harm to young people. Despite these gains, a very small subset of youth remain involved in serious and violent conduct and are difficult to engage in traditional services. These youth who are High Risk and Hard to Reach (HR2), pose a disproportionate challenge to youth justice systems and reform efforts. HR2 youth often experience multiple, compounding risk factors, including chronic trauma, family instability, community violence, school disengagement, mental health and substance use issues, and repeated justice system contact. While the overall number of youth in the system has declined, a growing share of those who remain have higher levels of need and more complex circumstances. Highly publicized offenses committed by a small number of HR2 youth have fueled misperceptions that youth crime is widespread, threatening to undermine decades of reform and prompting calls for punitive responses that are ineffective and harmful. This group of young people, often numbering no more than 25 in a mid-sized city, stymie juvenile justice officials and community-based organizations. HR2 youth can exhaust system resources and evade even the best programs. The outsized attention they receive can also thwart justice reform efforts, with elected officials and community members mistakenly believing the group is larger in size and therefore increased incarceration is necessary. In some jurisdictions, responses to this population are threatening to roll back the enormous gains made in the youth justice field. Existing evidence shows that community-based, trauma-informed, and relationship-centered interventions can reduce recidivism, but many established models struggle to meet the needs of HR2 youth. In response, a growing number of programs have adapted credible messenger and intensive life-coaching models, often combined with cognitive behavioral approaches and wraparound supports. A few programs highlighted in this brief demonstrate promising outcomes, including significant reductions in violent reoffending, improved school engagement, and increased accountability without reliance on incarceration. At the same time, these initiatives reveal persistent gaps in knowledge and practice. Key challenges include determining how to respond to unsafe or unstable home environments and adapting adult-focused violence intervention models to the developmental realities of youth. There is also a need to better understand which combinations of services – life coaching, cognitive behavioral interventions, family support, group work, and incentives – are most effective, for whom, at what duration, and under what circumstances. This brief argues that the next phase of youth justice reform must focus on intentionally and effectively serving HR2 youth. Doing so will require moving beyond strict replication of existing evidence-based programs toward innovation informed by data, transparency, and rigorous evaluation embedded in practice. Policymakers and practitioners must invest in specialized, culturally grounded interventions, support sustained research-practice partnerships, and center the lived experiences of HR2 youth and their families.

Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2026. 20p.

By Kansas Appleseed

In 2016, the Kansas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 367, a comprehensive overhaul of the state’s juvenile justice system. SB 367 aimed to reserve youth incarceration to only high-risk individuals, improve outcomes, and use evidence-based practices to revamp intervention. SB 367 limited the length of court jurisdiction and probation terms, depending on offense severity and risk assessment. Further, probation and detention limits were implemented for most offenses. Rather than relying on secure confinement and punishment, SB 367 shifted Kansas toward community-based sentencing alternatives by expanding immediate intervention programs. It required the use of risk and needs assessments and established graduated sanctions for probation violations with non-custodial responses when possible. It mandated interagency collaboration and required reintegration planning for youth who had been removed from their homes. These amendments to the Kansas Juvenile Justice Code and the Code for Care of Children help to avoid youth reincarceration. SB 367 created the Kansas Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee to sustain the reforms. The Committee was established to monitor implementation, measure outcomes, and recommend improvements. A dedicated Evidence Based Programs Account was established, funded through projected savings from reduced incarceration, to support community programs, prevention efforts, and evidence-based services. The bill also mandated statewide training for practitioners, emphasized collaboration between agencies, and invested in data systems to track outcomes across the state. The intent of SB 367 was to ensure that Kansas’s juvenile justice system emphasized rehabilitation over punishment. The bill reserved out-of-home placement for only the most serious offenders and directed state resources toward interventions that addressed the root causes of delinquency. When enacted, it was a reform that other states looked to as a guide when evaluating their own youth justice systems. This report looks at the impact of SB 367 in Kansas a decade after its passage. It examines the rationale and research behind SB 367, its successes, the areas that still need reform in the youth justice system, the attacks on the bill since passage that have limited its effectiveness, and finally recommendations for future action to ensure the promises of SB 367 are realized. The purpose is to remind the state of the importance of these reforms for the success of Kansas children and communities. 

Lawrence KS: Kansas Appleseed, 2025. 31p.

By The Gault Ctr. & Youth Empowerment for Advancement Hangout (YEAH Philly)

Part I of our report summarizes youth perspectives on juvenile probation based on 25 interviews with youth across the country who experienced probation firsthand and examines the historical roots of juvenile probation to inform the transformation of probation moving forward. This report highlights youth perspectives on juvenile probation, finding that young people are experiencing probation as surveillance, control, and punishment, negatively impacting their mental health and wellbeing. This report also walks through the historical lineage of probation as a form of racialized social control to challenge dominant narratives that probation is a benign act of benevolence on behalf of youth. Part II of this report will be released in summer 2026, highlighting concrete steps to transform local probation practices and policies and spotlighting examples of successful practices already underway.

By Philadelphia: The Gault Ctr. & Youth Empowerment for Advancement Hangout (YEAH Philly), 2026. 23p.

By ASHLEY JOHNSON

Protecting children from online harms requires a careful balance between ensuring safety and safeguarding free speech, user privacy, and parents’ rights. The most effective approach would split responsibility between the government, parents, and online services. KEY TAKEAWAYS  Debates over how best to protect children are much older than the Internet, and the harms children face online are many of the same harms children face in the physical world.  Existing federal legislation outlaws child sexual exploitation in both the physical and digital worlds and protects the privacy of children under age 13, while states have more recently passed laws imposing specific requirements on online services.  Many of the current proposals to protect children online do not strike the right balance, overburdening parents or businesses or trampling on users’ rights in the name of safety.  A more effective approach requires regulation in areas such as privacy, digital identification, and child labor combined with industry led efforts to give parents and children more control over their online experience.

Washington, DC: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | , 2024. 32p.

By Leslie M. Barnard, Sophie Rosenberg, Ashley Brooks-Russell, Marian E. Betz & Joseph P. Schacht

Firearms are the leading cause of death for U.S. children under 18 years of age, driven by their use in suicide attempts. Alcohol use is a risk factor for suicide, and approximately 22% of U.S. high school students reported recent alcohol use. We used data from a population-based health survey of high school students in Colorado, weighted to be representative of public high school students, to examine the association of alcohol use and suicide risk, and access to firearms using weighted frequencies and Rao–Scott chi–square tests. One-fifth (20.3%) of the students reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Compared to non-drinkers, students who reported drinking in the past 30 days were significantly more likely to report that they seriously considered attempting suicide (20.4% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001), made a plan to attempt suicide (17.0% vs 7.4%, p < 0.001), had actually attempted suicide (11.1% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001) and indicated that they could obtain and be ready to fire a loaded gun, regardless of adults' permission (29.0% vs 16.9%, p < 0.001). Given the distinct and combined risks of alcohol use and firearm access, the intersection is an important point for suicide prevention. Parents and guardians of youth may constitute an important population for safety training.

Cogent Mental Health, 5:1, 2607769, DOI: 10.1080/28324765.2025.2607769

By Leander Andres, Stefan Bauernschuster, Gordon B. Dahl, Helmut Rainer, Simone Schüller:

Abstract:

This paper studies the impact of birthright citizenship on youth crime. We leverage a reform which automatically granted birthright citizenship to eligible immigrant children born in Germany after January 1, 2000 and administrative crime data from three federal states. Immigrant youth who acquired citizenship at birth are substantially less likely to engage in criminal activity, with estimates indicating a 70% reduction. These results are particularly relevant in light of ongoing debates in the U.S. about abolishing birthright citizenship. Our findings suggest that inclusive citizenship policies can reduce crime and its associated costs, which in turn could strengthen social cohesion.

Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2026. 13p.

By Jade Farrell, Angela Collins, Kam Kaur, Scarlett Whitford-Webb, and Ashna Devaprasad

This exploratory study aimed to examine police safeguarding practices, referral pathways, multi-agency collaboration, and diversionary support provided by Youth Justice Services (YJSs) and other agencies for children within the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Defining children - For the purpose of this report, when saying ‘children,’ we are referring to children (10-17 years old) that are considered vulnerable (Davis, 2022) and have been given an Out-of-Court Resolution (OOCR). These children may have been arrested in the course of this process. They can be either informal (non-statutory) or formal (statutory) and don’t involve a decision made through a court process (Centre for Justice Innovation, 2025; Youth Justice Board (YJB), 2024a). This project included a four-phase, mixed method approach to understand ‘breadth’ of practice through national insights, as well as ‘depth’ through deep dive insights across a number of local contexts

Youth Endowment Fund, 2025. 136p.

By Karen Graham and Claudia Vince

Being Young Inside explores what it means to receive and serve a long prison sentence at the point of transition into adulthood. Drawing on in-person consultations with 41 young men serving sentences of 10 years or more across four prisons in England and Wales, alongside written contributions and existing evidence, this report examines how young adults experience the shock of sentencing, adapt to life in custody and attempt to build a future while growing up behind bars.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2026. 32p

By Jack Chung , Carmen C. W. Lim , Janni Leung , Daniel Stjepanović , Vivian Chiu

Objective:

The use of electronic vaporizers to deliver cannabis (“cannabis vaping”) has increased rapidly among young people. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize current evidence on the psychosocial characteristics of adolescents and young adults who vape cannabis.

Method:

PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for original publications since 2003. We summarized and meta-analyzed studies on adolescents (12–18 years) and young adults (19–34 years) that reported sociodemographic, mental health, and other substance use correlates of cannabis vaping.

Results:

Thirty-one studies from the United States, Canada, England, New Zealand, and Switzerland met the eligibility criteria (n = 568,304): 26 focused on adolescents (12–18 years; n = 554,934), and 5 on young adults (19–34 years; n = 13,370). Among adolescents who currently used cannabis (n = 114,595), the odds of cannabis vaping were significantly higher in males than females (7 studies; pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.79, 95% CI [1.38, 2.34]), in older than younger adolescents (3 studies; pooled OR = 1.26, 95% CI [1.07, 1.50]), and in adolescents who currently use tobacco (3 studies; pooled OR = 1.62, 95% CI [1.11, 2.36]) or alcohol (3 studies; pooled OR = 2.52, 95% CI [1.27, 5.01]), but significantly lower in non-Hispanic Blacks than Whites (4 studies; pooled OR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.39, 0.77]). The relationship between adolescent cannabis vaping and mental health, and factors among young adults, was inconclusive because of an insufficient number of studies.

Conclusions:

Adolescents who were male, older, non-Hispanic White, and currently using alcohol or tobacco had higher odds of vaping cannabis. Findings highlighted the need to tailor prevention initiatives for these populations and to conduct further research on the association between cannabis vaping and mental health disorders.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 87(2), 249–273 (2026).

By Kristina Kersey

The confidentiality of the juvenile court, while laudable in protection of the children charged, often means that people, in general, have little understanding of the inner workings of the court. One of the opaquest practices in juvenile court is how, when, and under which circumstances youth are prosecuted as adults. The cases that do reach the headlines are the most salacious, which leads to a confirmation bias on both the need and the appropriateness of the practice of transfer. Many scholars have discussed the undeniable impact of adolescent development research on juvenile legal jurisprudence and a general reimaging of diminished culpability for youth with criminal offending behavior. The United States Supreme Court, through Roper v. Simmons and its progeny, has declared that youth under age eighteen will no longer face the death penalty or mandatory life in prison sentences, meaning that more individuals who were sentenced in criminal court as children to lengthy prison sentences and grew up in prison will return, decades later, to a changed world. This adoption of adolescent development research by the Supreme Court cases which addressed cruel and unusual punishment for youth has led to state legislative changes, driving campaigns around raising the minimum age of prosecution, against the use of solitary confinement and indiscriminate shackling, and amending procedures in police interrogation. This research has led to isolated changes in transfer practice, yet little attention has been dedicated to considering whether youth should be tried as adults full stop. Advocates that ground transfer abolition conversations in adolescent development have earned isolated and hard-fought victories on aspects such as minimum age, elimination of mandatory transfer, or enhanced due process protections in the process of transfer decisions. However, high profile cases involving youth offending behavior or perceived upticks in crime frequently place these victories in jeopardy of retrenchment to more permissive transfer practices. Regardless of the role that adolescent developmentshould play in significantly limiting or abolishing transfer, no state seems poised currently to end the practice entirely. And indeed, most scholars assume that some form of transfer must, should, or will continue to exist, likely because it always has existed.

Nevada Law Journal 6 Nev. L.J. 465 (2026).

By Adriana Gerdellaj 

This thesis is a qualitative scoping review study aimed to explore the recruitment of children and youth into criminal gangs in Sweden, focusing on understanding reasons for why children and youth become involved in criminal gangs, risk factors and effects from gang involvement, the role of social work in preventing such recruitment and lessons learned from other European countries. The study employed a scoping review for mapping of existing literature and conducted a thematic reflexive analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data to eleven selected studies.

Key findings are that gangs are very accessible to children as they often are located in disadvantaged neighborhoods, parents’ lack of support, school systems lack of resources to children who need extra help and friends creating peer pressure for children to join gangs. The effects of children in gangs are both psychological and physical, social workers are involved by trying to steer away children and youth from getting associated with gangs and from international insights it is known that children should be offered school and recreational activities. Conclusions drawn are that the issue of criminal gangs could have its roots from the segregations created by the Million project, where thousands of apartments were built during a short timespan, and that these disadvantaged neighborhoods have with time gotten heightened crime rates, as gangs expand and start to include children. The children are severely affected socially, psychologically and physically due to the gang presence, something social workers together with other actors such as the police and school can take collaborative measures to prevent by offering children a positive alternative.  

By Katharina Tollin, Henrik Angerbrandt and Anna Jonsson

This report presents a study focused on the way children and youth become involved in criminal networks. The study examines the offences that these young people typically engage in and what opportunities they have to leave criminal networks.

By Ciara Molloy

In October 1978, a detention centre known as Loughan House opened near Blacklion, Co. Cavan for young offenders between twelve and sixteen years of age. The history of this episode survives in folk memory as a disproportionate reaction to a perceived social crisis surrounding juvenile crime in 1970s Ireland. In order to assess the accuracy of this existing narrative, this article examines the episode through the lens of moral panic theory [MPT]. It argues that Loughan House, though not necessarily a punitive response in rhetoric or reality, nevertheless represented a failure of political imagination. This episode is particularly useful in highlighting the limitations of MPT, especially surrounding the concepts of disproportionality and punitiveness. Nevertheless, in spite of these limitations, the article contends that MPT remains valuable on both conceptual and affective levels. En octobre 1978, un centre de détention pour les jeunes délinquants âgés de douze à seize ans, Loughan House, ouvre près de Blacklion, dans le comté de Cavan (Irlande). L’histoire de cet épisode survit dans la mémoire populaire et est lié à une réaction disproportionnée à une crise sociale générée, dans l’Irlande des années 1970, par les perceptions de la criminalité juvénile. Afin d’évaluer la robustesse de ce récit, cet article examine l’épisode au travers du prisme de la théorie de la panique morale [TPM]. Il soutient que Loughan House, bien que ne relevant pas nécessairement d’une réponse punitive, ni dans la rhétorique mobilisée ni dans ses mises en œuvre, représente néanmoins un échec de l’imagination politique. Cet épisode est particulièrement utile pour souligner les limites de la TPM, notamment en ce qui concerne les concepts de disproportionnalité et de punitivité. Néanmoins, en dépit de ces limites, l’article soutient que le cadre théorie de la panique morale demeure pertinent tant sur le plan conceptuel qu’émotionnel:.

Crime, History & Societies, 26:2 (2022), pp. 101–128.

By Madeline Rolfe, Beth Mooney, Teresa Hulme, Millie Paine and Sophie Davis.

Fraud is the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales, making up around 41% of all crime against households and people aged 16 and over. Data suggests that the scale of fraud is increasing, with fraud incidents rising by 19% between 2023 to 2024 across the whole population. Fraud causes significant harm to individuals and the economy. It also represents a national threat: fraud is a form of serious and organised crime. One study found two thirds of serious and organised crime groups committing fraud were also involved in other criminal activity. In some cases, proceeds from fraud were used to fund other illegal activity. Tackling fraud is a strategic priority for policing and is included in the Strategic Policing Requirement. The government has also underlined a commitment to tackling fraud in the Fraud Strategy. This is an opportune time to generate insight around how best to tackle fraud. Previous Crest research found initial evidence to suggest that the risk of young people being exposed to and experiencing fraud is disproportionately growing compared to elderly people as the internet increasingly becomes part of their daily lives. However, research to understand children and young people’s (CYP) experiences of fraud is lacking. This research is the first to specifically focus on fraud committed against CYP. It examines reporting data from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), interviews with CYP, and nationally representative surveys with both CYP and parents and guardians. Findings from these sources have been triangulated to build a comprehensive picture of fraud experienced by CYP. A wider range of fraud experts have also been engaged throughout this project to ensure our research is cutting edge and informs action in this sector. This research is well timed given Fraud Minister David Hanson’s announcement at the Global Anti-Scam Summit in March 2025 that an expanded fraud strategy is to be developed and published later this year Key findings Scale and nature of fraud against children and young people 1. Most CYP have been targeted by fraudsters within the last year. According to our survey, 88% of CYP aged 13-21 had been targeted by fraud in the last year. Only 1% of children and young people (CYP) have never encountered fraud. 2. Nearly a third (29%) of CYP have been a victim of fraud. Some CYP are more likely to experience fraud victimisation, including older CYP (aged 18-21) and CYP with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). 3. Milestones where CYP gained new or increased financial independence coincided with fraud victimisation. For example, some of our interviewees experienced fraud after opening their first bank account or getting their first job. There was also evidence of victimisation after CYP received a lump sum of money e.g. the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund. 4. The most commonly experienced types of fraud by CYP are advance fee fraud, banking and credit fraud, financial investment fraud, cyber fraud, and identity theft and fraud. Available data suggests that, on average, CYP lose the most money from financial investment fraud. 5. Advance fee fraud is the most commonly recorded fraud against CYP, it accounted for the majority of CYP reports to professionals and was commonly experienced CYP interview participants 6. CYP are more likely to experience fraud on certain online platforms. These were Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. Interestingly, these platforms are not where they spend most of their time. Children and young people reporting fraud 1. Nearly two-thirds of CYP told someone about their experience of fraud. The most common person to tell was a parent/guardian, with over half (59%) of survey respondents telling their parent/guardian about their experience. Reporting the fraud to the bank (35%) and Action Fraud (22%) was less common. 2. The most common barrier to reporting fraud was due to feeling that nothing would happen, with 27% stating this reason. Impact of fraud on children and young people 1. CYP reported significant emotional impact as a result of fraud victimisation. Almost half (47%) of survey respondents reported feeling strong emotions such as anger, sadness, fear, frustration as a result of their victimisation; and over a quarter (27%) of survey respondents stated that being a victim of fraud impacted their mental health. 2. Fraud victimisation leads to CYP changing their behaviour. Changing internet use and online activity was a common impact of fraud victimisation amongst CYP, this ranged from being more cautious online with emails, websites and privacy settings to stopping a particular online activity altogether, such as online shopping or online banking.

London: Crest Advisory, 2025. 88p.

By Steven Olson and Kat M. Anderson

On September 26, 2019, the Roundtable on the Promotion of Health Equity of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop in Flagstaff, Arizona, on the impact that juvenile justice system involvement has on the health and well-being of adolescents, families, and communities of color. The roundtable has a unique role as a convener of the nation’s experts in health disparities and health equity. It works to promote health equity and the elimination of health disparities by increasing the visibility and understanding of inequities in health and health care among racial and ethnic populations; examining research, policy, and community-centered programs; and catalyzing the emergence of new leaders, partners, and stakeholders. The Arizona workshop was the last in a series of three centered on the intersection of health equity with the criminal justice system. The first, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, focused on incarceration as a structural determinant of health (NASEM, 2019). The second, held in Washington, DC, examined interactions between race, ethnicity, and drug control laws and policies and the criminal justice system (NASEM, 2022). The Arizona workshop featured panels of nationally and locally recognized experts in justice and health, along with a luncheon session featuring young adults speaking about their experiences in the justice system. As Julie Baldwin, director of the Center for Health Equity Research at Northern Arizona University and chair of the workshop planning committee, said during the workshop’s opening session, “We see this as a critical launching point for dialogue and action around this topic, both locally and nationally.”2 The workshop was sponsored by the Aetna Foundation, the Arizona Biomedical Research Centre, the California Wellness Foundation, The Colorado Trust, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Hogg Foundation, Merck & Co., Inc., the Moore Foundation, the NARBHA Institute, Northern Arizona University Center for Health Equity Research, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Health Equity.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Impact of Juvenile Justice System Involvement on the Health and Well-Being of Youth, Families, and Communities of Color: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

By The Alliance for Youth Justice (AYJ)

This is the third in a series of three policy briefings on critical issues faced by young people in contact with the justice system as they transition to adulthood, as part of a project funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust. The briefing examines how current policy and practice in response to child criminal exploitation across safeguarding services, police, prosecutors, and courts is leaving young adults vulnerable to continued exploitation and criminalisation.The briefing draws from an evidence review; a consultation session bringing together professionals from the youth and adult criminal justice sector, voluntary and community sector, legal practitioners, and academia. It also draws from meetings and interviews with practitioners, subject matter experts, and civil servants.It sets out ten key characteristics for an effective response that protects, rather than punishes, criminally exploited young adults and makes detailed recommendations to make this a reality.

The Alliance for Youth Justice (AYJ) 2025. 53p.

By Lisa Pilnik, Margot Cronin-Furman, and Vikki Wachino

Nationwide Medicaid reentry policies create an opportunity to address the needs of youth and young adults by strengthening continuity of care as they are returning to communities. Under Section 5121 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) of 2023, states will use Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to cover certain services provided to eligible youth and young adults in correctional facilities. Up to 70% of youth involved in the juvenile justice system may have a diagnosable behavioral health condition, including substance use disorders (SUD). The Medicaid provisions present an opportunity for the youth justice system, in partnership with health systems and providers, to ensure that they are not only screening all youth for health-related needs but also connecting youth to evidence-supported services that can improve health and lives. Substance use services can range from office-based talk therapies like motivational interviewing to inpatient adolescent substance use treatment, services ordered by drug courts, and specific forms of medication-assisted treatment (for individuals 18 and older).

Oakland, CA: HARP - Health and Reentry Project, 2025. 26p.

By Eric P. Baumer, Jeremy Staff

We test hypotheses that three significant events in the year 2020 impacted U.S. youths’ involvement in crime: (H1) less delinquency due to the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated constraints to youths’ routine activities and substance use; (H2) more delinquency due to the police killing of George Floyd and ensuing social unrest, particularly among Black youth from communities disproportionately affected by police violence; and (H3) more delinquency due to growing political disaffection, especially among White youth from areas where people were most dissatisfied with the presidential election. To test the countervailing impacts of these significant events on youth delinquency, we combined individual-level data on crime, routine activities, and political disaffection from a large sample of 12th-grade youth (n = 3648) collected in the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, with community-level data on school closures, constraints to geographic mobility and social interaction, police killings of civilians, election-related protests, and perceptions of election fairness. Overall, delinquency declined by 29% from 2019 to 2021 in part because youth less often engaged in unstructured activities and less frequently used alcohol and other drugs. Youth crime, however, did not decline in communities with high levels of police violence.

Criminology, Volume63, Issue2 May 2025

By Human Rights for Kids

This report details the results of a study on the prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and childhood trauma among people incarcerated in Maryland state prisons for crimes they committed as children. While the number of children detained in the juvenile justice system has sharply declined over the past two decades, this promising trend leaves out a troubling fact: Children are still prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system in every state in the country. In Maryland, more children are charged as adults per capita than in any other state save Alabama. And Maryland ranks in the top five states for the percentage of its prison population that has been incarcerated since childhood. To complete this report, researchers mailed ACE surveys to 882 people in Maryland who were incarcerated in adult prisons since childhood; 124 individuals responded. These responses indicated an average ACE score of 6.38 out of 10, and nearly 70% of respondents reported experiencing six or more ACEs prior to their incarceration. The most common ACEs identified in the responses were parental separation, household substance abuse, emotional and physical abuse and the incarceration of a household member.

Washington, DC: Human Rights for Kids, 2024. 34p.

By Jessica Feierman with Mustafa Ali-Smith, Jeannette Bocanegra, Hernan Carvente, Anahi Figueroa, Johnny Perez, Amir Whitaker, Aqilah David, and Jihid May. 

Youth justice advocates, including lawyers, organizers, and other youth and adult movement builders, want to replace the current damaging, discriminatory, and ineffective juvenile and criminal legal systems with better approaches. We envision approaches that support children, help them flourish, and contribute to a safe, equitable, and healthy community. How do we do it? And what role can the law – with its history of and ongoing role in racial oppression – play in realizing our shared goals? This publication suggests that lawyers must work hand in hand with leaders in the field with direct experience in juvenile or criminal court — those who have appeared as defendants, witnesses, or survivors, or who have been incarcerated or had family members incarcerated. People with these lived experiences know better than anyone where it falls short, and what not to do. These leaders have also begun creating something new – a system that works by building, not destroying. Even as other institutions falter, this community-centered work creates cause for hope. The current system’s problems are deeply rooted in its history. Despite a valid goal of treating children differently from adults, the U.S. youth “justice” system carries with it the imprint of cruel and discriminatory practices that date back to slavery and have been reinforced decade after decade.The juvenile legal system purports to offer rehabilitation and support adolescent development. The constitution establishes unique procedural protections for youth. Ultimately, however, both systems disproportionately pull Black, Indigenous, and Latine young people and other youth of color, as well as LGBTQIA+ youth, young people with disabilities, and youth living in poverty from their families and expose them to abuse and other damaging conditions of confinement. While teenagers are highly resilient, the juvenile and criminal legal systems interfere at a moment of important brain development and, rather than playing to youth strengths, they cause physical and emotional distress, interrupt education, take resources away from communities, and silence youth voices. The system also overwhelmingly fails to meet the needs of victims and survivors. Legal advocacy to date has curtailed some of the worst abuses of the juvenile and criminal legal systems, but it has also fallen short of creating an equitable and restorative approach. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that children cannot be punished with the death penalty or certain life without parole sentences, and that children deserve some unique procedural protections during police interrogations and a right to an attorney and other due process protections in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Federal district courts have limited the use of solitary confinement and other harsh conditions for youth in at least some circumstances. While these cases have conferred significant practical benefits, they have tempered the harshest treatment in the system rather than promoting transformation. Even these holdings, however, are now at risk with a new U.S. Supreme Court focused on interpretations of the Constitution based on narrow, and sometimes incorrect, historical interpretations of constitutional rights. Amidst this legal backlash, leaders who have survived these failed systems are shaping advocacy to focus on equitable and restorative responses to youth, responses that protect and value young people’s childhoods, bodies, communities, voices, and resources. These insights can play a key role in shaping the transformation of the system. The vision of justice set forth in this publication emerged at a convening on Weaving Life and Law hosted by Juvenile Law Center. The convening centered the insights and vision of a powerful group of transformative leaders: Jeannette Bocanegra, the Executive Director of Justice for Families, an expert in transforming the system so that it is driven by the insights and input of youth and families; Hernan Carvente, the Founder and CEO of Healing Ninjas and Executive Director of Alianza for Opportunity; Johnny Perez, Director of U.S. Prison Program for the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, and a leading voice against solitary confinement; Amir Whitaker, Senior Policy Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and author of Project Knucklehead. Juvenile Law Center staff, fellows, and alums also contributed their leadership to this project: Anahi Figueroa, who was serving as a Youth Advocacy Program Fellow; Marcus Jarvis, who was serving as the Debt Free Justice Communications and Outreach Associate; and current Juvenile Law Center Stoneleigh Youth Advocacy Fellows Aqilah David and Jihid. This publication relies heavily on this group’s discussion at the convening as well as each member’s previous writing, interviews, and other contributions. The insights of these leaders are not meant to be broadly representative. They do, however, offer crucial insights to inform the work. The ideas in this publication also build upon the expertise of abolitionist leaders, movement lawyers, and youth justice advocates who have been crafting alternatives for years. They borrow from the vision, inspiration, and hard work of abolitionist movements, largely led by Black, Latine, and Indigenous community members who have long recognized the failings of our existing legal system and the need for alternatives.   

Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 025. 49p.