By Adam Lavecchia, Philip Oreopoulos, Noah Spencer

This paper presents estimates of the causal effect of a comprehensive support program for low income high school students on crime. The program, called Pathways to Education, bundles a number of supports including regular coaching, tutoring, group activities, free public transportation tickets and bursaries for postsecondary education. Our empirical strategy uses administrative data on high school enrollment linked to administrative court records and a difference-in-differences methodology that compares the evolution of crime outcomes of students living in the public housing communities where Pathways operates to similar public housing students who are ineligible for the program. We find that eligibility for Pathways reduces the likelihood of being charged with a crime at its Regent Park location by 6 percentage points (33 percent of the pre-treatment mean) and has no statistically significant effect at its Rexdale and Lawrence Heights locations. Our results suggest that the reductions in criminal activity are driven by the reduction of property crimes.

Munich: Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research - CESifo, 2025. 45p.

By Matthew Van Poortvliet, Cassandra Popham, William Teager, Peter Henderson , et alThe Youth Endowment Fund’s vision is for every child to live a life free from violence. In the latest year, 40 children lost their lives to violence involving knives; 509 ended up in hospital; and 1 in 2 teenage children told us they changed the way they live because of the fear of violence. This is not okay. Each child affected by violence is a tragedy. Amid these tragedies lies a further injustice. While children from all backgrounds can face violence and deserve our full protection, children from certain ethnic backgrounds are less safe. Sometimes the statistics are deeply shocking. It should horrify all of us that a Black child growing up in our country is six times more likely to be murdered. It should also worry us when we hear that Black and Asian children are less likely to be referred for mental health support, or that Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller children face disproportionately high rates of school exclusions and suspensions. It doesn’t have to be like this. Sometimes, these terrible injustices are the consequence of appalling racial injustices rooted deep in our history. At other times, they are the result of recent, direct and unacceptable forms of racism — whether institutional or interpersonal. When compounded by other disadvantages, such as low income, unstable housing or higher risks of extra-familial harm, these inequalities create cycles of disproportionate harm that are difficult to break. Difficult, but not impossible. Ten years ago, Black children were 1.7 times more likely to be excluded from schools than White children. That is no longer true. Racial inequity does not have to be Ensure stop and search is fair and ‘intelligence-led’. Make Outcome 22 a positive outcome in the police outcomes framework. Monitor and improve access to psychological therapy. Deliver evidence-based support to children absent or excluded from school. Urgently reduce disproportionality and improve conditions in youth custody. This report sets out five actions that the new government can take to address racial disproportionality and keep our children safe: Ensure stop and search is fair and ‘intelligence-led’. Make Outcome 22 a positive outcome in the police outcomes framework. Monitor and improve access to psychological therapy. Deliver evidence-based support to children absent or excluded from school. Urgently reduce disproportionality and improve conditions in youth custody These recommendations are not exhaustive – there’s always room to do more. However, by acting decisively and urgently on these evidence-informed priorities, the new Labour government has an opportunity to deliver meaningful change, reduce violence and start to build a society where all our children can live free from violence.

London: Youth Endowment Fund, 2025. 47p.

By Tim Bateman, Isabelle Brodie, Anne-Marie Day, John Pitts and Timi Osidipe

This is a narrative review of the literature relevant to understanding the relationship between ethnicity, disproportionality and diversion of children from the youth justice system. The review is part of wider research project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and undertaken by the University of Bedfordshire and Keele University, exploring ethnic disparities at the gateway to the youth justice system and the impact of increased use of diversionary mechanisms in that context. Further information on the wider project is available on the Nuffield Foundation website at: Exploring racial disparity in diversion from the youth justice system - Nuffield Foundation. Methodology Literature is drawn largely from UK and US, English language, sources, from 2010 to the present. Grey literature is included where from an authoritative source. The focus is decision-making at the gateway to the youth justice system with a particular emphasis on the mechanisms whereby children are drawn into, or diverted from, formal processing and the extent to which those decisions are characterised give rise to disparity. Search terms were used flexibly and in combination. Disproportionality and the youth justice system Concern about the over-representation of children from minority backgrounds in the youth justice system is long-standing and evidence of disparities are well established. In his government commissioned 2017 review of the treatment of Black and other minoritised individuals within the criminal justice system, David Lammy MP noted that disproportionality in the youth justice system was his ‘biggest concern’ highlighting that ethnic disparities among children receiving criminal disposals had increased in recent years. In the year ending March 2022, 29 percent of children receiving a formal sanction came from a minority background compared to 19 percent a decade before. Similarly, while slightly fewer than one third of the child custodial population came from a minority ethnic background in 2012, a decade later the equivalent figure was in excess of half.

London: Nuffield Foundation 2023. 59p.

By Traverse

Overrepresentation of ethnic minority children in the youth justice system remains an enduring and unacceptable feature. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) commissioned Traverse to conduct research into the drivers of ethnic disparity in reoffending rates. The aims of this research are to offer a fuller understanding of the criminogenic (crime causing) contextual factors that may drive ethnic disparity in reoffending rates and understand the seldom heard perceptions of children with experience of the youth justice system regarding the support and interventions they have experienced. This report focuses on the qualitative strand of the research, which consists of 19 interviews with children with proven reoffences known to services and three focus groups with 22 practitioners from Greater London, East and West Midlands and North West England. Children and practitioners were asked to share their experiences of interventions to prevent reoffending, factors that contribute to reoffending and the support required for children from different ethnic minority groups to prevent reoffending. There is also an Analysis of reoffending data report which should be considered alongside this report. The findings from this research illustrate four key thematic drivers of ethnic disparity in offending rates for children. Marginalisation of individuals and communities Nearly all children interviewed had been excluded from school prior to, or as a direct result of their first offence. Exclusion removes consistency from children’s lives and makes it harder for practitioners to engage with them in a safe space. Children want educational courses to be a part of their reparations, to help them gain skills and achieve their aspirations. Poverty and social class were key issues highlighted by both practitioners and children that influence offending and reoffending rates. These background factors contribute to a system in which ethnic minority children were overpoliced but under protected. Individual, institutional, and systemic bias Children involved in crime are more commonly treated as adults – especially those from ethnic minority backgrounds – which can lead to a lack of safeguarding. Implicit and explicit racism within different institutions means ethnic minority children are treated differently to their White peers which contributes to feeling like they have already been written off. A lack of diversity among the police and courts system was felt by many interviewed to underline systemic racial bias. This perceived bias was reflected in the number of times children had been stopped and searched, much higher than their White friends. Furthermore, examples were given of explicit racial disparity in sentencing, where ethnic minority children received longer or harsher sentences than their White peers for the same offence. Weaknesses in prevention and intervention Building strong, trusting relationships with children was viewed as a prerequisite to delivering effective interventions. Where this did happen, children spoke positively about their interactions with caseworkers. However, this was not always possible due to a lack of time and resources. Additionally, a shortage of wraparound services such as Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and employability support was identified as a potential driver for reoffending. Negative experiences of the wider youth justice system The lack of information for children navigating the youth justice system is reported to be a driver of ethnic disparity in reoffending rates. This is exacerbated by negative experiences of police custody and inadequate legal representation as reported by many children. This, plus the failure of sentencing to account for children’s needs and experiences means interventions to reduce reoffending are not as effective as they could be. Recommendations ◼ exclude children from education only as a last resort ◼ prioritise funding for local services aimed at children ◼ offer online tutoring for excluded children ◼ provide weekly allowances for children at risk of reoffending ◼ standardise intelligence collection ◼ increase diversity within the system ◼ amplify the voices of youth justice practitioners ◼ support practitioners to tackle issues of race ◼ provide training and support for staff working with children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities ◼ increase funding for youth justice services ◼ extension of statutory intervention timelines ◼ formalise handover processes ◼ empower practitioners to tailor interventions to children’s individual needs, interests, and aspirations ◼ limit out of area moves wherever possible ◼ enable practitioners to share practice across services and localities ◼ embed youth justice practitioners in police custody suites.

London: Youth Justice Board, 2023. 46p.

By Lily Freedman, Megan Millenky, Farhana Hossain

Roca is a nonprofit organization that works with young people at the center of violence. For 35 years, it has operated in communities across Massachusetts. In 2018, it brought its well-regarded program model to Baltimore in 2018 as a part of the city’s efforts to reduce violent crimes. Roca identifies and engages young men who are involved in the criminal legal system and those who are at high risk of participating in gun violence or being affected by it. Roca’s program model, grounded in promoting cognitive behavioral change among its participants, seeks to address the traumatic experiences and barriers to opportunities that these young men have faced. The program’s ultimate goals are to reduce participants’ involvement with the criminal legal system and increase their ability to retain employment.

This brief, the third and last in a series of publications from MDRC’s evaluation of the program, assesses the extent to which Roca identified and engaged its target population, through an analysis of data on participants’ demographics; their histories of trauma, employment, education, and involvement in the criminal legal system; and their current involvement in the criminal legal system. The current brief supplements these analyses with some of the evaluation’s previously published qualitative findings.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 14p.

By Raul Armenta

Despite accounting for 12 percent of the U.S. population, young adults ages 18 to 24 accounted for nearly 20 percent of the people arrested for all causes in the United States in 2019, and have a higher probability of being reincarcerated than older age groups when they leave jail or prison.1 California is a microcosm of these larger incarceration trends, with young adults overrepresented in its criminal legal system and likely to be reincarcerated after being released.2 In Los Angeles (LA) County, approximately 9,000 young people have been referred to probation, with a disproportionate number of Black and Latino young people affected compared with their White peers.3 Significant evidence indicates that young adults have not yet reached a state of full neurological and cognitive maturity, shaping their decision-making.4 This fact may partly explain their overrepresentation in the legal system. Yet these young people are routi nely processed by the same courts as older adults, overlooking their level of neurocognitive development―that is, their thinking and reasoning skills―and the extent to which they are able to make well-informed decisions. Additionally, young people’s involvement in the criminal legal system often leads to their growing distrust of the system when they perceive court outcomes as unfair.5 Various programs aim to reduce the involvement of young adults in the criminal legal system. These programs take into account the implications of standard court processes outlined above for young people as they attempt to implement the latest understanding of cognitive behavioral treatment, which asserts that helping young people change patterns of thoughts and emotions can support desired changes in behavior. Young people tend to respond pos the population they serve, including past involvement in the criminal legal system—who understand and respond appropriately to their different values, attitudes, and beliefs. Credible messengers also provide a sense of community and belonging that are critical at this stage of development.6 Programs employing credible-messenger mentors show promise for reducing reincarceration among young adults entangled in the criminal legal system.7 Youth Overcoming (YO!) is one such program aiming to serve young people who have been arrested, convicted, or incarcerated. It receives funding from the Senate Bill Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act (SB 678) and Assembly Bill 109. The LA County Justice, Care and Opportunities Department (JCOD), in partnership with the LA County Probation Department, invested these funds in YO! as a replacement for other programs for young people that were based on adult models of rehabilitation.8 MDRC conducted an exploratory study of two YO! program locations as part of a larger project that includes several implementation and outcome evaluations of JCOD’s reentry programs.9 This brief presents the findings from that study. It examines how program leaders, staff members, and participants experience the program, and describes successes and challenges across both program locations that could potentially inform program refinement and expansion going forward.

New York: MDRC, 2025. 12p.

By Farhana Hossain, Kyla Wasserman

Roca Baltimore strives to change the lives of young men who have been involved in the justice system and who are identified as being at high risk of participating in violence or being affected by it. MDRC is partnering with Roca to conduct an evaluation of the program’s implementation and participant outcomes. This introductory brief takes a closer look at Roca Baltimore’s program model, the young men it serves, and the local context that shapes its work.

New York: MDRC, 2021. 8p.

By Farhana Hossain and Kyla Wasserman

Founded in 1988, Roca is a nonprofit organization that works to change the lives of young people who are involved in the justice system and are at high risk of participating in violence or being affected by it. Such young people include those with a history of arrests, incarceration, violent behavior, or gang involvement, and often a disconnection from education and work. The organization focuses specifically on reaching those who are not likely to connect with mainstream institutions or traditional programs, and engages them in cognitive behavioral therapy and an array of education, employment, and supportive services that seek to address the traumas and challenges that have shaped their lives. Roca has been working with young people in communities across Massachusetts for more than 30 years. Building on that record, it launched its program in Baltimore in 2018 as a part of an initiative to curb high levels of violence in the city. In Massachusetts, Roca operates programs for young men and women, but the program in Baltimore currently focuses on the city’s young men. MDRC is partnering with Roca to study its Baltimore program. An introductory brief in July 2021 describes Roca Baltimore’s program model, the characteristics of its participants, and the characteristics of the local communities that shape its work. This report, second in the series of publications from the evaluation, presents findings from a small-scale, qualitative study designed to use participant cases and voices to create a more detailed picture of the young men Roca Baltimore serves and the ways the program works with them. Between March and May of 2022, the study team interviewed 10 young men at different stages of participation in the program about their experiences, seeking to better understand the program from their perspectives. More specifically, the goals of this qualitative study were to explore the young men’s pathways to Roca Baltimore, experiences with Roca’s offerings, and perceptions of changes arising from their participation. • Pathways to Roca Baltimore: the life experiences that have shaped young people’s trajectory to Roca, including factors related to their families and communities in Baltimore, experiences with traumatic events, and involvement with the criminal legal system • Experience with Roca’s offerings: how young people have experienced the relationships and services Roca offers, and what they value about their experience • Perception of change: how participants describe any changes in their behavior, outlook, and relationships that have arisen during their engagement with Roca The study was not designed to produce broad, generally representative conclusions about Roca’s participants or program, but rather to understand the life paths of some participants in a deep and meaningful way, and to generate case studies that provide helpful insights into their program experiences 

New York: MDRC, 2023. 34p

By Christoph Engel | Sebastian J. Goerg | Christian Traxler

This paper studies a probation program in Cologne, Germany. The program, which has a clear rehabilitative focus, offers intensified personal support to serious juvenile offenders over the first 6 months of their probation period. To evaluate the program’s impact on recidivism,we draw on two research designs. Firstly, a small-scale randomized trial assigns offenders to probation with regular or intensified support. Secondly, a regression discontinuity design exploits a cutoff that defines program eligibility. The results suggest that the program reduces recidivism. The effect seems persistent over at least 3 years. Our evidence further indicates that the drop in recidivism is strongest among less severe offenders.

Journal of Empirical Legal StudiesVolume 19, Issue 2Jun 2022 Pages293-524

By Robin Joy

The Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) contracted with Crime Research Group (CRG) to provide a baseline recidivism analysis for youth ages 18 and 19 who were convicted in adult criminal court. The 18- and 19-year-old youth were identified using the Court Adjudication database maintained by CRG. Their age was based on the age at arraignment. There were 859 youth who were convicted from 2016-2019. CRG sent their names to Vermont Crime Information Center (VCIC) to obtain their Vermont criminal histories. VCIC was able to match 761 youth to criminal histories. Of those 761, 13 had died and were removed from the analysis. If a youth’s base offense had been expunged, then it no longer appeared on the rap sheet.1 These youth were also excluded from the study if they had no additional qualifying conviction during the study period. Also excluded were youth who had probation violations only or had a charge for one of the “Big 12” crimes on their base docket. This resulted in 400 youth in the study cohort.

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2022. 9p.

By Friedrich Lösel | Mark Stemmler | Doris Bender

Background: This article is dedicated to David Farrington who was a giant in criminology and, in particular, a pioneer in studying developmental pathways of delinquent and antisocial behaviour. Numerous studies followed his work. Systematic reviews of his and others' research described between two and seven (mainly 3–5) trajectories. The variation is due to the age of individuals, kind and seriousness of problem behaviour, data sources, assessment methods and cultural context. Reviews stated a lack of research on very early starting problem behaviour, broad developmental outcomes, data from multiple informants and (beyond description) on risk and protective factors or potential causes of the different trajectories. Aims: The present study addresses these issues in a prospective longitudinal design and test of the concept of antisocial potential (AP) in Farrington's ICAP theory. Methods: Data on more than 600 children and their families were gathered in a prospective longitudinal design over 10 years in Germany. To avoid potentially negative effects of criminal justice interventions, the study concentrates on child development from ages 4–5 to 6–7, 8–9, 10–12 and 13–14 years. Child externalising behaviour problems were assessed using the social behaviour questionnaire by kindergarten educators, mothers, school teachers and youth self‐reports. Developmental trajectories were analysed by general growth curve modelling (GGCM) across five time points. The prediction and explanation of different pathways included family factors (SES, stressful life events, aggressive and inconsistent parenting) and child characteristics (intelligence, resting heart rate, disruptive behaviour, temperament and social adaptability). In accordance with dose–response relationships, we also tested accumulated factors in the Cracow Risk/Needs Instrument. Results: The GGCM analysis revealed five developmental trajectories: high‐chronics (2.4%), high‐reducers (7.9%), medium‐ reducers (22.4%), late‐starters medium (8.7%) and low‐chronics (continuously unproblematic youngsters; 58.6%). Although the group with high externalising problems across all time points was rather small due to the affluent context of the region, there were significant social and individual differences between this and the other groups that fitted to ICAP theory. Furthermore, the study revealed differences between those youngsters that desisted from behaviour problems or started later. The predictive validity of accumulated factors in the Cracow Risk/Needs Instrument was very good for the comparison of the groups with persistently high versus no serious behaviour problems. Conclusions: Our results showed that different pathways of aggressive, delinquent, impulsive and other externalising behaviour already commence in early childhood. Behavioural stability (high‐ vs. low‐chronic problems) was well predicted by child and family characteristics, but there were also plausible findings on trajectories of behavioural change. Overall, the findings underline the need for early developmental prevention.

Crim Behav Ment Health, 2025 Feb;35(1): 10-21 pages

By Cheryl Yates and Laura Roeder-Grubb

This report provides an update to a previous report prepared by Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) for the Justice Advisory Board (JAB) in February 2020 on youth who entered the adult court system. The purpose of this report is to provide information on Iowa youth with serious offenses whose cases were handled in the adult court system from SFY2015 through 2021, the method by which they came into the adult court system, their sex, race/ethnicity, county, their first adult offense, prior history in juvenile court, and if they had a subsequent conviction in adult court within two years after their first offense. Research has generally shown that youth have worse outcomes when they are transferred to the adult justice system rather than being handled in the juvenile court system. Some states have raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. Under current Iowa Code 232.8, youth under age 16 are under the jurisdiction of juvenile court, but can be waived by the juvenile court to the adult court. Included within the group of waived youth are Youthful Offenders, under Iowa Code 232.45, who are between the ages of 12 to 15. Youth aged 16 and 17 are directly filed to adult court if they have serious offenses, including forcible felonies, felony weapons offenses, and serious drug offenses, but can be reverse waived back to the juvenile court. Three groups were studied: “Waived” youth, “Direct” File youth, and “Other” youth in adult court. Their characteristics and outcomes are described below. Please note that, in a small number of cases, long durations of time between the offense date and adult case initiation date occurred. Only 138 of the 3,312 youth in the file (4.2%) had one or more years pass between the offense date and case initiation date. Of those youth, 51% were sex offenders. This may be due to victims not coming forward until much later. From SFY2015 to SFY2021, 1,027 youth were “Direct Filed” to adult court.  90.7% were male.  43.8% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 16.7 years (range: 16 to 21 years).  85.9% of direct file youth had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.3  27.1% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  22.4% were reverse waived from adult court to juvenile court.  84.0% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  44.2% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. From SFY2015 to SFY2021, 1,284 youth were “Waived” to adult court.  81.4% were male.  31.6% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 17.1 years (range: 12 to 19 years). Please note that the “Waived” group includes 38 youth age 12 to 15 who may have qualified for the Youthful Offenders status under Iowa Code.  34.5% of waived youth had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  22.8% of waived Youth had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  51.9% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.4  68.7% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Of “Other” youth who were neither waived nor direct filed to adult court from SFY2015 to SFY2021, 265 were under the age of 18 at the time of adult case initiation.  63.4% were male.  24.9% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 16.4 years (range: 8 to 17 years).  29.8% of other youth under age 18 had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  31.7% of other youth under age 18 had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  30.2% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  66.0% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  21.5% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Of “Other” youth who were neither waived nor direct filed to adult court from SFY2015 to SFY2021, 735 were age 18 or older at the time of adult case initiation.  69.3% were male.  27.8% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 18.0 years (range: 18 to 21 years).  25.2% of other youth age 18 or older had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  17.8% of other youth age 18 or older had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  42.3% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  75.1% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  49.5% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Key Findings Based on the SFY2015-SFY2021 reporting period: Entry into Adult Court  38.8% of youth in the adult court system were waived, 31.0% were direct filed, and 30.2% were other. The percentage of waived youth has decreased overtime, whereas the percentage of direct file youth has increased over time. Counties with the Highest Rates of youth in Adult Court  The top six counties having the highest rates of their youth in adult court per 10,000 population were: Hardin (286.1), Des Moines (243.2), Monona (219.8), Lee (197.0), Black Hawk (182.5), and Scott (181.9). Only two of these counties, Black Hawk and Scott, are metropolitan areas. Demographic Profile of youth in Adult Court  80.1% of youth in the adult court system were male. Of the youth who were direct filed (90.7% were male, and 81.4% were male that were waived to adult court.  Racial disparities are evident among youth involved in adult court. 34.0% of youth in adult court were Black, but Black youth comprise only 7.3% of the state’s total youth population. Of the direct filed youth 43.8% were Black, and 31.6% of the waived youth were Black.  The average age of youth’s first adult court involvement, based on the date the case was initiated in adult court, was 17.1 years. Direct file youth, on average, were younger than waiver youth (16.7 years vs. 17.1 years). Characteristics of the First Adult Offense  All direct file youth had a felony charge, per the eligibility requirements set by Iowa Code. 34.5% of waived youth had a felony charge as their first adult offense. The percentage of waived youth with a felony charge (waiver offense) has trended upwards over time, increasing from 26.9% in SFY2015 to 42.4% in SFY2021.  All direct file youth had a violent charge (85.9%) or public order charge (14.1%) as their direct file offense, per the eligibility requirements set by Iowa Code. The most common waiver charge for waived youth was property (42.9%), followed by drug (23.1%), violent (22.8%), and public order (10.4%).  Waived youth were more likely to be found guilty of their first adult offense (51.9%) compared to direct file youth (27.1%). A higher percentage of direct file youth had other/unknown dispositions (34.7%). Other dispositions include change of venue, not filed, other, transferred, or waiver stipulation. 22.4% of direct file youth were reverse waived from adult court to juvenile court.  There has been a downward trend in the percentage of youth found guilty. There has been an upward trend in deferred dispositions. Prior Juvenile History  86.8% of the youth who entered adult court had a prior complaint in the juvenile court system. Among the categories, waiver youth, on average, had more complaints than direct file youth (6.4 complaints vs. 5.6 complaints). The average age of youth’s first juvenile complaint, based on the date the complaint was initiated in juvenile court, was 14.0 years.  Direct file and waiver youth were about the same age (an average of 13.9 years and 13.8 years, respectively) at the time of their first juvenile complaint. Recidivism within Two years  Recidivism was tracked for youth in the cohort, who had at least two years of time pass after their first adult offense. Only their most serious convicting offense was examined. 53.4% of the youth in the cohort had a subsequent conviction in adult court (excluding scheduled violations). Of the categories, 68.7% of the waived youth recidivated (68.7%), and 44.2% of direct file youth recidivated. Please note that the recidivism rate for direct file youth may be lower due to having a more serious offense that may have resulted in incarceration during the 2 year period. 27.1% of the direct file youth were convicted of their direct file offense. Those not convicted of their direct file offense may have been convicted of other serious offenses. This would likely have eliminated or reduced their opportunity to recidivate in the tracking period.  Of the youth who recidivated, 38.3% had a subsequent felony conviction as their most serious recidivist conviction. Direct file youth were more likely to have a subsequent felony conviction (48.8%) compared to waiver youth (36.6%).  Of the youth who recidivated, direct file youth were more likely to have a subsequent violent conviction (36.6%) compared to waiver youth (25.4%) as their most serious recidivist conviction.

Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights – Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 2022. 32p.

By Alliance for Youth Justice

Young people turning 18 while in the secure estate face a tumultuous transition between youth custody and adult prisons. The secure estate for children is, in theory, focussed on meeting the distinct needs of under 18s. The vast majority of young adults on the other hand are held in adult establishments where there is very little evidence of any provision designed with their distinct needs in mind. Young people transferring from youth to adult custody face a frightening cliff edge, and getting the transition right is critical to ensuring the safety, wellbeing, and rehabilitation of young people entering adulthood. The children’s secure estate has had long-standing arrangements to retain some young people aged 18 and over to finish out their sentence or aid smooth transitions. Two years ago, however, an interim policy change in response to a capacity crisis in adult prisons led to a rapid and significant increase in the number of over 18s held in the children’s secure estate, with concerning impacts on children, young adults, and the establishments themselves. The children’s secure estate has spent years stumbling from crisis to crisis, struggling to cope with the children in its care, and it was unprepared for this policy change imposed on it without due notice. The government’s decision to temporarily shift the presumed date a young person transitions from youth to adult custody from the 18th birthday to 19th birthday led to over a third of those held in the majority of Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) being over 18s, for the majority of 2023/24. Alongside the implementation of this policy, conditions in YOIs have been dire, putting the safety and wellbeing of children and young people at risk. Guard dogs and stun grenades have been used against children, a fifth Urgent Notification in five years was issued, a failing YOI has now been closed, and both the previous and current Government have been labouring over a decision to rollout PAVA incapacitant spray to staff. The Ministry of Justice carried out a review of the interim policy to determine its end date, focussed on tangible short-term impacts on areas like violence and safeguarding. The review has yet to be published but its findings led Ministers to confirm the policy would end from October 2024 in order that the children’s estate can “return to maintaining an unwavering focus on the specific needs and vulnerabilities that children present.” Beyond the short-term impact explored by the Ministry of Justice review, and its immediate implications for the policy’s end date, there is also a need to consider the full longer-term impact and implications. Learning must be gathered with regards to the adultifying of a children’s estate that already struggles to treat children as children, and how policy decisions have impacted children’s rights to a distinct youth justice system and ensured young adults’ needs are met. This briefing seeks to take a broad view of the impacts, on children and young adults, of the significant change in the population of YOIs. It aims to illustrate not just the impacts here and now, but consider wider implications and risks. These include the opportunity cost of the positive change that could have been achieved during this time, and the potential for a slippery slope towards the government increasingly adultifying youth custody and viewing the children’s system as back-up for a failing adult justice system. It considers the vital need for distinct treatment of children, and raises concerns that despite policymakers agreeing that a specific approach for young adults in custody is clearly needed, change is happening in the wrong direction. Rather than implementing much-needed improvements and distinct support for young adults, conditions and treatment in the children’s estate are at risk of being dragged closer to that in adult prisons. By bringing together perspectives from both the youth and adult justice systems, this briefing carefully considers what recent developments mean for the future of custody for children, and what lessons can be learnt for improving custody for young adults. A new government has an important opportunity to set out ambitious visions and plans for both.

London: Alliance for Youth Justice, 2025. 52p.

By Kathy Hampson, Anne-Marie Day

Children who offend generally receive community sentences, to help them overcome difficulties whilst naturally addressing offending behaviour; however, children can also receive custody, which has a plethora of known harms. Children’s rights instruments call for custody to be reserved as a ‘last resort’ response to extremely serious offending. However, in England and Wales this is demonstrably not the case, meaning that children still receive short custody orders (in the form of a Detention and Training Order [DTO]) for relatively minor offences. We argue that legislative change should abolish the DTO because of the harms custody wreaks, from several different perspectives (their rights, moral treatment of children, sentencing guidelines, practical and financial considerations), to leave the use of custody only possible for very serious offending, and thus reaching the goal of ‘last resort’.

The British Journal of Criminology, 2025, XX, 1–18p.

By Dylan B. Jacksondylan.jackson@jhu.edu ∙ Alexander Testa∙ Daniel C. Semenza ∙ Cassandra K. Crifasi ∙ Julie A. Ward

Purpose -

The present study describes juveniles injured in fatal and nonfatal shootings by the police from 2015 to 2020, compares characteristics of juvenile victimizations to adult victimizations, and estimates the odds of a shooting victim being a juvenile v. adult, given known characteristics.

Methods -

From July 2021 to April 2023, we manually reviewed publicly available records on all 2015–2020 injurious shootings by the US police, identified from Gun Violence Archive. We first calculated counts and proportions of victim, incident, and response characteristics among juvenile and adult injured people, then estimated the odds of juvenile (vs. adult) victimization associated with each characteristic in multilevel logistic regression models with random intercepts to account for state- and incident-level correlation.

Results -

97 percent of shootings involved presumed on-duty officers and victims whose categorical age status (i.e., juvenile or adult) was reported (n = 10,382). Included among these injured people were 317 juveniles, 33% of whom were fatally injured (mean reported juvenile age = 15.5 years). Several patterns differentiated juveniles from adult police shooting victims, including multiple demographic characteristics (e.g., race or ethnicity and gender) and the outcomes of and circumstances surrounding these events (e.g., fatality, victim weapon status, and single-officer response).

Discussion -

Findings point to a critical need to identify and implement public health and policing strategies that greatly reduce the number of juveniles shot by the police every year, so that all children have the opportunity to thrive into adulthood.

Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 76, Issue 2 February 2025

By Christine Reynolds, Lisa Moore, Rylee Screeton, Adam Winkle

In September 2022, the ICJI conducted a statewide juvenile justice survey to evaluate local juvenile justice systems in terms of equity and to identify risk factors that influence youth involvement in the justice system. The primary focus of the survey is to better understand juvenile arrest and referral data collected at the local level that is used to analyze racial and ethnic disparities within the juvenile justice system. The results of this study will allow counties to better understand racial and ethnic disparities data and identify methodologies for understanding these data more comprehensively.

 Indianapolis: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2024. 28p.

By  Christine Reynolds, Lisa Moore, Rylee Screeton, Adam Winkle

Executive Summary This report aims to delve into the landscape of racial and ethnic disparities within the juvenile justice system, specifically in Indiana, shedding light on the extent and consequences of these inequities. Indiana, like many states, grapples with a complex set of factors that contribute to differential treatment and outcomes for minority youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Understanding and addressing these disparities is imperative for ensuring the development of appropriate policies and interventions that safeguard the rights and futures of all juveniles. The ICJI was awarded funding for a multi-year project to address the following elements: 1. Enhancing the racial/ethnic disparities data collection environment by a. Obtaining juvenile arrest incidences, and a. Acquiring data fields to better understand referral data; 2. Collaborating with the Indiana Office of Court Services (IOCS) to a. Deliver training to justice professionals who are responsible for entering racial/ethnic disparities data, and a. Build a system that safeguards against inaccurate reporting; 3. Reviewing the literature and assessing the state to a. Identify factors that influence and protect against youth justice system involvement, a. Explore social systems that both perpetuate inequity and lead to minority justice involvement, and a. Investigate methodologies for analyzing these data that include 3a and 3b; and 4. conducting a statewide analysis of counties’ disproportionality data in relation to identified contextual data. This report uses a mixed method approach of quantitative and qualitative findings. Quantitative data include court information and the relative rate index (RRI) for each county at each contact point. Qualitative data were obtained from a survey of criminal justice stakeholders and interviews with juvenile probation officers. This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. Is juvenile arrest data collected and able to be reported by probation officers? 2. Where do most referrals come from? 3. Where within the juvenile justice system does disproportionality exist? 4. What factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system? 5. How can stakeholders ensure better/more accurate data collection?  

 Indianapolis: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2024. 60p.

By Eóin O’Meara Daly, Jackie Dwane, Caitlin Lewis and Seán Redmond

HM Inspectorate of Probation is committed to reviewing, developing and promoting the evidence base for high-quality probation and youth justice 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 justice services.

This report presents findings from a three-year top-down/bottom-up action research project undertaken in Ireland which examined effective relationship building between youth justice practitioners and crime-involved young people. Relational practice is at the heart of youth justice work, and the project has led to the co-creation of a Relationship Model (and accompanying guidance) which can be used as a reflective resource by practitioners and their managers. The model includes: (i) a base layer of creating safety; (ii) a core layer of ‘trust, time, support and being young person centred’; and (iii) seven grouped skills, attributes, and methods that can be applied at various points – these are approaches which encourage practitioners to ‘be fully committed, communicate with empathy, make connections and advocate, be flexible, practice use of self and reflection, be honest and challenge constructively’ and finally, ‘guide, inspire hope and build agency’. The model does not attempt to account for every eventuality, recognising that relationships by their nature are dynamic and diverse, but crucially it does provide evidence-informed signposts and pointers for youth justice practitioners to follow when trying to build successful and effective relationships.

Academic Insights 2025/01, Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2025. 13p.

By Thomas Ferguson

“Just before their eighteenth birthday these young people were asked by the Officers of the Children's Department who had been looking after them while in care whether they would be willing to participate in a study designed to shed light on these questions, and all but g of the go5 approached, 1 1 o boys and 95 girls, expressed their willingness to do so. From the official files information was obtained about their home background and early history, the method of dealing with them while they were in care, changes of foster-parent, and so on. Head teachers of the schools which they had attended were invited to comment upon the school performance of the young people their scholastic ability, temperament, recreations, rela­ tions with other children-and to hazard an estimate of their prospects of future success. ”

The Nuffield Foundation, The Oxford Press, 1966, 139p.

By Jasmine J. Jackson, Amber Nogelmeier, and Erica Bower, with assistance from Valerie Meade and Amanda Coscia

The intended purpose of the youth justice system is to maintain public safety by balancing accountability with rehabilitation and provide youth with opportunities that foster positive development and long-lasting behavior change. Over the past two decades, youth justice systems across the country have shifted their approach, embracing community-based alternatives to more costly, harmful, and unavailing carceral responses to youth behavior. Increasingly, leaders recognize effective, evidence-based approaches to minimize justice system exposure by diverting young people from formal system involvement when possible, limiting out-of-home placement to only the most serious cases, and connecting young people

with resources, services, and supports in their own communities. To enhance staff-client interactions and reduce a youth’s likelihood to re-offend, youth-serving systems are leveraging research to incorporate evidence-based and data-driven practices into every aspect of the system. When used effectively, these practices establish the foundation for improving long-term success for the youth they serve. Using individualized approaches informed by research on adolescent development, tailored to a youth’s identified needs, emphasizing strengths, and holistically involving their family and community, as well as holding youth accountable in developmentally appropriate manners fosters a young person’s growth, and creates opportunities for positive behavior change. To effectively make this shift, youth justice systems are taking a comprehensive look at their policies, practices, and data to gain a better understanding of the youth being served and the impact of the various system responses. That information is then utilized to inform policy changes, training needs, and strategies for system improvement. Shelby County is Tennessee’s largest county in population and size. Its county seat, the City of Memphis, is the second most populated city, behind Nashville. According to the 2022 Census figures, the population estimate of Shelby County is 926,440 people,8 while Memphis makes up approximately 68 percent of the County’s population.9 The largest racial group, representing just over half of the population in Shelby County, is Black or African Introduction Background American (54%), followed by white (37%).10 Almost 25 percent of the population in Shelby County is under 18 years of age,11 with nearly 24 percent of the children in this age group living in households with incomes below the poverty level, higher than the percentage of children in poverty overall in Tennessee.12 During the last decade (2012 to 2022), Shelby County was among Tennessee’s 10 counties that saw the largest declines in the overall crime rate for youth under age 18, but the current rate is still higher than the Tennessee crime rate for the same group.13 In 2022, 3,301 Shelby County children ages 10 to 17 were referred to court for delinquent, status, and / or unruly offenses.14 According to the most up-to-date figures, the rate at which Black or African American children under the age of 18 were brought into court for the same offenses was significantly higher than the rate for white youth.15 It should be noted that the 2020 rate for Black or African American youth brought into court in JCMSC was 19.1 per 1,000 youth, while the rate for white youth was 6.1 from the same population. The mission of the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County (JCMSC) is to provide interventions that result in positive outcomes for families and children, by addressing family matters with dignity and respect, and when necessary, holding youth accountable in developmentally appropriate ways.16 In August 2022, after nearly a decade of his predecessor’s leadership, the Honorable Judge Tarik B. Sugarmon was elected to serve as the new juvenile court judge. A transition team was established to support Judge Sugarmon, his leadership staff, and their goals of having a more data-driven, trauma-informed court. To further support this transition, JCMSC established an implementation team (a subgroup of the transition team) and solicited the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) for assistance. In October 2023, JCMSC requested CJI to conduct a comprehensive system assessment of their Court Services Division which encompasses the following Bureaus: Children’s Services, Youth Services, Evaluation and Referral, and Detention Services as well as the Youth Court Program. The Court Services Division serves the community by working with children under the age of 18 who are court-involved and alleged to be delinquent, unruly, and/or dependent and neglected. The purpose of this system assessment is to understand the Court Services Division’s current

practices, the impact of those practices, and inform recommendations for court improvement, as well as implementation strategies for meeting JCMSC’s mission and improving outcomes for justice-involved youth in Memphis and Shelby County. At the time of the system assessment, Shelby County Sheriff’s Office provided oversight to Detention Services; therefore, limited analysis was completed as it pertains to the interworking of this Bureau. System Assessment To better determine where the Court Services Division should focus its improvement efforts, CJI used a systematic, multi-pronged approach to perform a system assessment, including a qualitative assessment and quantitative data analysis. This process allowed CJI to thoroughly evaluate the Court Services Division’s policies and practices and their impact on outcomes relevant to the youth justice population, thus helping inform research-based considerations for system improvement in court processes, data collection practices, and supervision practices. The following sections describe CJI’s system assessment methodology.

Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2024. 52p.