By Jasmine Richardson-Rushin, Angelica Jimenez, Gwendolyn Walker and Hannah Benton Eidsath

As a term, the “school-to-prison pipeline” gained widespread use in the early 21st century as a shorthand for policies and practices that push students out of school and towards incarceration. It is a disturbing national trend wherein students (many of whom are Black or Brown, or have disabilities, or histories of poverty, abuse, or neglect) are siphoned out of schools and into the juvenile, municipal and criminal legal systems. Though the term itself would seem to be a part of the modern zeitgeist, the phenomenon's origins can be traced back to the creation of the society in which it is perpetuated. Education, both in its access and ideals, has often reflected the ideals and access of the society in which it exists. If the fabric of society is woven with a devotion to capitalism and staunch adherence to caste systems, the educational institutions within that society often reproduce and replicate those paradigms. Thus, to discuss schooldiscipline, one must do so within the context of society's driving factors.

Schooldiscipline, both in its language and application, perpetuates the idea that children from historically marginalized communities are the lowest rung of society. Be it ethnic, racial, ability, or class differences, it is all too common that schools approach discipline in palpably different ways based on a student's identity. This is especially true when there is already inequity in educational processes in areas as diverse as tracking, representation in curriculum, quality of instruction, physical resources, and school funding. As research surrounding the school-to-prison-pipeline expands, evidence supports two general concepts regarding student discipline: one, that the presence of Student Resource Officers (SROs) increases the school's likelihood that school-based behaviors will be reported to law enforcement agencies; and, two, that reporting schooldiscipline to law enforcement agencies disproportionately affects Black, Brown, and Indigenous students, and students with disabilities.

Though policing in schools dates back to as early as 1939, increased police presence in schools garnered federal support through President Lyndon B. Johnson's establishment of the Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Commission released a racially-charged report in 1967 claiming that Black youth “account for a disproportionate number of arrests” and asserting that youth were the largest threat to public safety. This report allowed for considerable attention to be placed on Black youth and ““continual youth warfare,” and set the context for local law enforcement agencies to apply for federal funding to increase policing in schools and increase targeting of Black, Brown, and Indigenous students.Over time, in areas in which Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor students made up much of the population, there became an increasing number of SROs in those school districts, not because there existed a need for more safety in these areas. With an increased presence of SROs, educators and administration are now more likely to involve law enforcement intervention for discipline issues that were previously handled by the school. According to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, during the 2020-2021 school year, Black students represented 15% of total K-12 student enrollment, but 18% of students who were referred to law enforcement, and 22% of students subjected to school-related arrests. Students with disabilities served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) represented 14% of total K-12 student enrollment, but 22% of students referred to law enforcement, and 22% of students who were subjected to school-related arrests. These early contacts with law enforcement are particularly harmful to Black students for whom police contact leads to an increased likelihood of arrest as young adults.

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights found similar disparities in exclusionary school discipline: Black boys represented 8% of total K-12 student enrollment, but 15% of students who received one or more in-school suspensions, 18% of those who received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and 18% of those who were expelled. Black girls represented 7% of total K-12 student enrollment, but 8% of students who received one or more in-school suspensions, 9% of students who received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and 8% of students who were expelled. Students with disabilities served under IDEA represented 14% of total K-12 student enrollment, but accounted for 18% of students who received one or more in-school suspensions, 24% of students who received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and 17% of students who received expulsions. Students with disabilities served only under Section 504 represented 3% of total K-12 student enrollment but represented 6% of students who received one or more in-school suspensions, 5% of students who received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and 4% of students who received expulsions.

22 UC Law Journal of Race and Economic Justice 3 (January, 2025)

By The Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

There have been significant changes in recent years to children and young people’s experiences of Scotland’s care and justice systems, building on the historic legacy of the 1964 Kilbrandon Report. Notably, no longer will an under 18 be detained in a Young Offender Institution (YOI) in Scotland, and all policy and practice must now conform to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). However, despite this and other areas of progress, there is still much more to be done to end the continued overcriminalisation of children and young people in Scotland. Research has identified that these are overwhelmingly children from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom have suffered adverse childhood experiences (SCRA, 2022). Evidence has also shown the significantly detrimental impact on children and young people, both in the immediate and long-term, of being detained, from re-traumatisation to curtailing life opportunities and increasing chances of reoffending (McAra & McVie, 2022). We at the Children and Young People Centre for Justice (CYCJ) believe this can and should be changed, and that creating a more rights-respecting, trauma-informed approach will support all children and young people who come into contact with the care and justice systems, including victims, and will create safer communities. Drawing from our participatory work with children and young people with care and justice experience, our research evidence and policy and practice knowledge, we have identified three key ambitions for Scotland: 1. Keep children out of police cells 2. Provide community alternatives to secure care 3. Raise the age of criminal responsibility Within these three areas, we have identified nine actions which can be taken in this Parliament session and the next, to end the overcriminalisation of children and young people in Scotland: • Deliver the Places of Safety model through legislative change • Use all available resources to create Places of Safety • Extend the Whole System Approach to 26 • Provide greater support for youth work and youth services • Recognise and respond to Criminal Exploitation of Children • Deliver the Reimagining Secure Care report • End the inequity of use of Home Detention Curfews • Enable 18 year olds, where required, to remain in secure care in place of a YOI • Produce a roadmap for raising the age of criminal responsibility  

Glasgow: Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice , 2025. 8p.

By Alex R. Piquero, Michael T. Baglivio, Kevin T. Wolff

There has long been a concern about the imposition of monetary sanctions on the risk of recidivism, but much of this work has been conducted among adults, and very little among youth. Moreover, virtually no work has considered this issue across race and ethnicity. This study uses both quantitative and qualitative data to examine this issue. Several key findings emerged from our work. First, while there were no race/ethnic differences in the proportion of youth receiving fines, when fines were administered both black and Hispanic youth were administered significantly higher fees. Second, youth residing in areas with greater concentrated disadvantage had higher amounts of fees assigned (when assigned fees). Third, after youth were matched, analyses indicated fees increased the likelihood of recidivism, as did being black or Hispanic. Fourth, when we considered the interaction between race/ethnicity and both fees and restitution, results showed two race/ethnic differences: whereas Hispanic youth with fees were less likely to recidivate, black youth with restitution had a higher risk of recidivism. Finally, the qualitative data pointed to some startling findings, namely that youth did not understand the full impact of fines on both their families and themselves and a non-significant percentage reported that they would have to resort to criminal activity in order to pay fines.

Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2023. 50p.

By Jessica Feierman

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 systems1 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.2 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 families3 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.4 The system also overwhelmingly fails to meet the needs of victims and survivors.5 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,6 and that children deserve some unique procedural protections during police interrogations7 and a right to an attorney and other due process protections in juvenile delinquency proceedings.8 Federal district courts have limited the use of solitary confinement and other harsh conditions for youth, in at least some circumstances.9 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,10 historical interpretation of constitutional rights.11 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 childhood, bodies, communities, voices, and resources.12 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.13 While inspired by the actions of movements, this publication seeks to develop litigation strategies that support transformation of the system and to clarify when and how lawyers need to step up and when we should step back or offer our support for organizing, policy advocacy, and other social change strategies. The questions about the role of litigation are rooted in the work of movement and community lawyers who have pressed the legal field to recognize our place in larger efforts for liberation, and in the insights of scholars who pose questions about whether and how a legal system, built on racial oppression, can be used as a tool for liberation. The approaches highlighted here also expand upon the movement for a developmental jurisprudence – a history of legal advocacy and resulting case law that recognizes the importance of childhood and adolescent development to youth culpability and capacity, and on key legal advocacy for civil rights and racial justice.14 Section II of this report, co-authored with Mustafa Ali-Smith, provides a brief overview of the history of our juvenile legal system, recognizing that without a clear-eyed understanding of the roots of the system, our reforms may miss the mark. Section III highlights the harms of the system. Section IV, co-authored with the transformative leaders mentioned above, sets forth a shared vision of fairness and dignity. Section V highlights concrete legal strategies, focused on new approaches to advocating against harsh conditions of confinement that can ultimately contribute to divestment from the current system and investment in youth and families. The report aims to set the stage for legal advocacy to support restorative, equitable, and effective responses to youth.   

Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2025. 49p.

By Felicity Stewart,  Dennis Byles, Melanie Hull

This report examines cases sentenced or diverted in Victoria involving offences committed by children aged 10 to 13 at their offending, including their demographics, offending profiles and sentencing outcomes. 

The report follows the introduction of numerous reforms in the new Youth Justice Act 2024, such as raising the age of criminal responsibility to 12, and various measures for children aged 12 and 13 aimed at addressing the causes of their offending. The report is intended to assist with the implementation and monitoring of the new Youth Justice Act by providing information about the age and gender of young children who offend, the offences they commit and the sentencing outcomes they receive. 

Key findings

• Very few cases sentenced in Victoria involve an offence committed by a child aged 10 to 13 (less than 1 in 300 cases).

• Most offences committed by sentenced younger children were committed when the child was aged 13 and most children were male.

• Children from regional Victoria are overrepresented among young children in the justice system.

• Aboriginal children are also overrepresented.

• The most common offence by children aged 10 to 13 was theft, accounting for 30% of offences by children aged 10 to 13, with property damage accounting for a further 14%.

• Younger children tended to receive less severe sentencing outcomes than older children.

State of Victoria, Sentencing Advisory Council, 2025. 88p.

By Gayaa Dhuwi (Proud Spirit) Australia

Across Australia, children as young as ten can be arrested, charged and detained under criminal law. This approach disregards current understanding of child development, trauma, healing and wellbeing, and continues to disproportionately affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. This position paper argues that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is a necessary shift toward justice systems that respect community-led ways of caring for children. Social and emotional wellbeing is defined not just by individual mental health, but by a child’s connection to family, community, culture, spirituality and Country. When these connections are disrupted, and when services respond with punishment instead of care, these children are pulled further from what keeps them grounded and well. Raising the age of criminal responsibility is one action that helps shift systems back toward connection, community and support. Despite a growing national consensus that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be raised, implementation has been inconsistent and slow. The continued criminalization of 10- to 13-year-olds in most jurisdictions is in direct contradiction to the commitments made under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

Recommendations

1. All jurisdictions raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 years, without exception.

2. Children under 14 no longer be subject to detention or prosecution, and instead be offered culturally safe, community-led responses.

3. Governments invest in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led social and emotional wellbeing programs and initiatives for children.

4. All reforms have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance mechanisms and are co-designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, including children, families and Elders.

5. A nationally consistent approach be implemented, to ensure fairness across jurisdictions.

6. Governments improve data transparency and collection, particularly relating to social and emotional wellbeing, disability and diversion outcomes.

7. All reforms reflect Australia’s human rights obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Turner, AUS: Gayaa Dhuwi (Proud Spirit) Australia, 2025. 9p

By Helen Baker-Henningham , Francis Taja and  Marsha Bowers

We adapted a violence-prevention, parenting program (the Irie Homes Toolbox, or IHT) for integration into Jamaican preschool services. The adapted IHT was evaluated in a mixed-method feasibility trial in Kingston, Jamaica. Twenty-four preschools were randomly assigned to intervention (n12) or wait-list control (n12). Ten caregivers per school were recruited (n240, n120/group). The program consisted of eleven 1-hour parenting sessions delivered by a preschool teacher with groups of ten caregivers of children aged 2-6 years. In the impact evaluation, the primary outcome was caregivers' use of violence against their child (VAC). Secondary outcomes were caregivers' involvement with their child, attitude to VAC, preferences for harsh punishment, self-efficacy, and child conduct problems. All outcomes were measured by caregiver-report, and we test for and find no evidence of social desirability bias. We measured fidelity of implementation on an ongoing basis. We also conducted in-depth interviews with participating teachers and kept ongoing logs on intervention implementation. Participants attended a mean (SD)4.0(3.1) sessions. The IHT intervention led to reductions in caregivers' use of VAC (ES-0.22, p0.04) and caregivers' favorable attitudes to VAC (ES-0.36, p0.01), and increases in caregivers' involvement with their child (ES0.30, p0.005) and parenting self-efficacy (ES0.29, p0.02). Reductions in caregiver preferences for harsh punishment were significant at p0.07 (ES-0.21). We found no benefits to child conduct problems. Through observations of session quality, interviews with preschool teachers, and research team logs, we identified enablers and barriers to intervention implementation and suggestions for improvement. The program has potential for large-scale dissemination to reduce VAC in Jamaica.

Inter-American Development Bank Gender and Diversity Division May 2025  56p.

By Katrien Luyten with Greta Baltikauskaite; Samy Chahri (graphics)

The recruitment of minors into serious and organised crime has increasingly become a tactic used by criminal networks to avoid detection, capture and prosecution. By using minors, the criminal networks increase the distance between the criminal activity and the network's core members or leaders, hampering identification. Even though there is a lack of reliable and comparable data on this phenomenon, several EU Member States have reported an increase in the involvement of minors in serious and organised crime. While the rising demand for recreational drugs seems to be the main driver behind the increase, minors are involved in other markets too, including property crime and online fraud. Criminal networks exploit children as young as 12 years for low-skilled roles such as local street dealers, cash couriers, warehouse operators and extractors of drugs from shipping containers. Easier access to firearms has led to a shift from minor crime to more serious, especially violent, crime, such as extortion and killings. Many minors are lured into organised crime by the promise of financial gain, social status, or sense of belonging, whilst others may be coerced or forced into this lifestyle due to their circumstances or environment. The consequences of such involvement are far-reaching, affecting not only the minors involved, but also the communities and society as a whole. The processes for recruiting minors into organised crime are still poorly understood, but there is a clear trend of increased use of digital tools for recruitment and communication, such as encrypted messaging services, apps and video games that are popular with young people. The EU recognises the severity of the problem and the need for closer cooperation between the affected Member States and for an integrated preventive response. By facilitating the exchange of best practices amongst Member States, integrating the local dimension into efforts to counter the infiltration of criminal networks into the economy and society, and by adopting a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach, the EU contributes to preventing the recruitment of minors into organised crime and to mitigating the devastating consequences.

Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, 2025. 12p.

Editors: Alexandra Wigzell, Claire Paterson-Young, and Tim Bateman

‘Desistance’ - understanding how people move away from offending – has become a significant policy focus in recent years, with desistance thinking transplanted from the adult to the youth justice system in England and Wales. This book is the first to critique this approach to justice-involved children.

Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2025.

Transitional Safeguarding is defined as: ‘An approach to safeguarding adolescents and young adults fluidly across developmental stages which builds on the best available evidence, learns from both children’s and adult safeguarding practice, and which prepares young people for their adult lives’ (Holmes and Smale, 2018, p3). This approach and the service transition from youth justice to probation are not one and the same. The transition from youth justice to probation is a process of moving or transferring between two systems at the age of 18, while the transition to adulthood is not a one-off discrete event but happens in different spaces and with different temporal boundaries according to the individual experience. Transitional Safeguarding is an approach that recognises the liminality and reality of the older adolescent/young adult period, namely safeguarding young people across the threshold of 18 years. The approach pays attention to the barriers and inequalities experienced at this stage of development (Cocker et al., 2024). To date, there has been no research explicitly exploring how Transitional Safeguarding is understood and applied within the youth justice and probation service context to support young people aged between mid-teens to mid-twenties. Holmes and Smith (2022) authored the Academic Insights paper 2022/03, providing suggestions on the potential application of Transitional Safeguarding within justice services. This study provides an overview of how youth justice and probation embed the six key principles of Transitional Safeguarding into their service design. These principles are that any Transitional Safeguarding approach must be: • evidence-informed • contextual/ecological • transitional/developmental • relational • attentive to equity, equalities, diversity, inclusion (EEDI) • participative.

Research & Analysis Bulletin 2025/02

Manchester, UK: 2025. 48p.

By Fiona Allison

This article introduces the concept of justice reinvestment (JR) as defined and applied in Australia by First Nations people, including as a mechanism with potential to reduce over-representation of young First Nations people in the justice system.

Justice reinvestment is a framework that emerged in the early 2000s to tackle high rates of incarceration in the United States. JR is commonly referred to not as a program but as a different way of working. It wraps together, as a framework, approaches known to be effective for progressing First Nations-identified priorities and improving First Nations outcomes, including those centred on self-determination and culture, prevention and government accountability.

The article considers how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are using JR to improve justice and other outcomes for children and young people, with discussion of how these might be further built upon as the justice reinvestment movement continues to grow across Australia. It draws primarily on specific examples from longer-standing JR initiatives and their implementation of the JR elements.

Children Australia, 47(1), 3034,

By Allyson L. Dir, Lauren A. Magee, Richelle L. Clifton, Fangqian Ouyang, Wanzhu Tu, Sarah E. Wiehe, Matthew C. Aalsma

Abstract Technical probation violations are common among probation-involved youth, and across many jurisdictions, may result in detention or residential placement. The current study examined prevalence of technical violations occurring during one’s first probation period, the average time to technical violation, and individual-level and justice-related factors related to technical violations among probation-involved youth in a juvenile justice system. We analyzed electronic criminal records of 18,289 probation-involved youth following their first arrest (68.7% male, 53.9% Black, Mage=15.2). Technical violation was defined as a violation resulting from a non-criminal incident. We examined effects of charge severity, probation conditions (e.g., electronic monitoring) and program referrals (e.g., mental health) on likelihood of technical violation utilizing survival analysis stratified by race. Across 18,289 youth, 15.3% received a technical violation during their first probation; Black youth violated more quickly compared to White youth (log-rank test p<.001). In multivariate survival analyses, the hazard for time to technical violation was higher for Black youth compared to white youth (p<.001), males (p=.04), and younger youth (p<.001). Youth assigned to more probation requirements violated more quickly. Electronic monitoring and education, mental health, and drug programs were associated with shorter time to violation, controlling for race, ethnicity, and charge severity. Black youth violate more quickly compared to White youth. Across all youth, assignment to more probation requirements increased risk of technical violation and shorter time to violation. Despite the benefit of probation interventions, system-level efforts are needed to help youth adhere to probation requirements and successfully complete probation

Psychol Public Policy Law. 2021 May ; 72(2): 283–291.

By Andreea Matei and Samantha Harvell

Consistent with national trends, youth incarceration in Ohio has declined significantly during the past decade. Notably, however, the average daily population in the state’s youth prisons actually increased each year between 2016 and 2019. Reductions in youth incarceration allowed the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) to close five of its eight juvenile correctional facilities over the last decade, yet the state still spends one-third of its juvenile justice budget on these facilities. Further, though racial and ethnic inequities in Ohio’s juvenile justice system declined in the past several years, significant disparities persist, particularly for Black youth. This data snapshot explores youth incarceration in Ohio and provides data to state partners working with the YouthFirst Initiative, a national advocacy campaign supporting state juvenile justice reform efforts.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 10p.

By Leah Sakala, Ammar Khalid, Constance Hull. Rebecca Wong

Community organizations and service providers can be key partners for addressing public safety challenges and reducing justice system involvement. Through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) process, multiple states have established goals, policy structures, and implementation strategies to provide and enhance community-based services related to safety and well-being, such as behavioral health treatment, violence prevention, victim services, and reentry support. This report focuses on 10 JRI states’ strategies to advance public safety goals by collaboratively building community capacity to provide and enhance vital safety and well-being services. We identify common themes among these approaches and explore lessons learned from the successes and challenges of JRI community collaborations that may inform similar efforts in the future. The appendix contains profiles that provide additional details on these states' community capacity-building approaches.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 47p.

By Robin Olsen

The Young Adult Diversion Program in the State’s Attorney's Office for South Dakota’s Pennington County provides interventions to people in the community with the goal of getting better results for the individual and the public. It uses an individualized approach to each case that is aimed at understanding the reasons why the person engaged in the behavior that led to a case being filed. Leadership and program staff devote many hours to building and finding community support to provide services for participants. Since the initial pilot program, diversion programs have grown in the office, and it now has four programs, each with its own focus: young adult diversion, adult diversion, drug diversion, and domestic violence diversion. This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, centers on the Young Adult Diversion Program’s individualized approach to diversion and the networked approach its leadership and program staff have used to build its capacity and scope, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership, staff, and partners. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 5p.

By Leigh Courtney

The Stopping Trends of Repeat Incarceration with Diversion and Education (STRIDE) program in the DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office is a comprehensive diversion program that leverages local community resources to create accountability for young adults charged with serious offenses and help them develop life skills and strengthen their connections to the community. This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, centers on the program’s community-based, case management–focused model designed for young adults, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors and stakeholders looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership and staff. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 7p.

By Libby Doyle and Constance Hull

Following nationwide uprisings against police violence in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, many school districts have reexamined the use of police in their schools. Several jurisdictions in the DC metro area are moving to reduce the number and responsibilities of police in schools and implement alternative school safety strategies. 1 In this brief, after reviewing the history and unequal effects of police in US schools, we examine efforts in three of these jurisdictions—Washington, DC; Alexandria, Virginia; and Montgomery County, Maryland—to illustrate the varied approaches localities have taken, the barriers they have faced, and key considerations for policymakers and community members about how to implement and sustain these changes. Lessons from these three jurisdictions can inform national conversations about divesting from law enforcement agencies and investing in alternative safety infrastructure in schools.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 15p.

By Andreea Matei

The Restorative Justice Partnership (RJP) aims to use restorative justice to restore and reconnect a person who has committed harm within their community. In the perspectives of the RJP leadership and staff and staff from the Yolo Conflict Resolution Center we interviewed, traditional prosecution isn’t set up to rehabilitate people, and it is sometimes unnecessary and harmful to engage in traditional prosecution. They added further that the RJP is more survivor-centered than traditional prosecution in that it centers and addresses harm, allowing affected parties to be active members in the restorative justice process. It also explores the unique circumstances of the person who caused harm and the person or persons harmed. This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, focuses on the RJP’s evolution and its out-of-house approach, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors and stakeholders looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership, staff, and partners. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 6p.

The Restorative Justice and Diversion Program: Colorado 20th Judicial District Attorney’s Office (Boulder County, Colorado)

By Leigh Courtney

The Restorative Justice and Diversion Program in the District Attorney’s Office for Colorado’s 20th Judicial District (Boulder County) is an “in-house” program, meaning it is internally staffed and managed within the District Attorney’s Office through its Center for Prevention and Restorative Justice (CPRJ). It pairs supervision and service provision with restorative justice, which operate as separate and parallel arms of the diversion model. The Restorative Justice and Diversion Program is just one of a range of diversion programs that the office operates. This case study, which is part of the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project, centers on the program’s in-house model and two-arm diversion approach, highlighting takeaways for other prosecutors looking to launch similar programs. The information included is based on the office’s submitted response to the Mapping Prosecutor-Led Diversion Project survey and interviews with program leadership and staff. This case study is intended as an overview of this diversion strategy and is not an assessment or evaluation.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 6p.

By Krista White, Paige S. Thompson, Evelyn F. McCoy, Jeanette Hussemann, William Adams, and Roderick Taylor

In efforts to address human trafficking, stakeholders have historically been siloed and uncoordinated. To address challenges in coordinating system-level responses to human trafficking, the Office for Victims of Crime and the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the Enhanced Collaborative Model (ECM) Task Force to Combat Human Trafficking Program to build coordinated, multidisciplinary partnerships between stakeholders integral to antitrafficking work, including nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations serving survivors as well as law enforcement and prosecutors at the local, state, and federal levels. The National Institute of Justice funded the Urban Institute to conduct the first federally funded, multisite, mixed-methods evaluation specifically to assess the impact of ECM human trafficking task forces on the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking crimes and the identifying and assisting of survivors. This brief documents the evaluation’s findings on the collaboration between key ECM task force stakeholders and challenges to their collaboration.

Washington DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 14p.