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.

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

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

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

Edited by Franklin E. Zimring and David S. Tanenhaus 

This Is a hopeful but complicated era for those with ambitions to reform the juvenile courts and youth-serving public institutions in the United States. As advocates plea for major reforms, many fear the public backlash in making dramatic changes. Choosing the Future for American Juvenile Justice provides a look at the recent trends in juvenile justice as well as suggestions for reforms and policy changes in the future. Should youth be treated as adults when they break the law? How can youth be deterred from crime? What factors should be considered in how youth are punished?What role should the police have in schools?

New York; London: New York University Press, 2014. 257p.

By Carla McDonald-Heffernan and Carmen Robin-D’Cruz

Children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are hugely over-represented at all points in the criminal justice system. Evidence suggests that 70–90% of children in the justice system have some form of SEND. Yet the lack of support for their communication needs may make these children’s experiences particularly difficult and the impact of educational disruptions as a result of justice system involvement can be particularly severe. Youth diversion offers many children a pathway out of the criminal justice system. In this informal non-statutory approach, children are offered the chance to partake in a community-based intervention rather than receiving a formal out-of-court disposal or prosecution. Evidence strongly suggests that youth diversion benefits children by reducing their likelihood of coming back into the justice system or getting further entrenched into it. Youth diversion might be particularly beneficial to children with SEND. However, given the range of communication barriers that children with SEND face in navigating the system, they may be less likely to receive diversion, particularly where communication difficulties are misconstrued as behavioural issues. Unequal access to diversion may create further disparity later on in the youth justice system. As part of the Centre for Justice Innovation’s ongoing interest in supporting effective use diversion, this report aims to understand how diversion is working for children with SEND. In order to research this report, we interviewed children with SEND who had received diversion as well as a range of professionals including youth justice service (YJS) practitioners, police officers and solicitors. We also conducted a survey of YJS practitioners. We are conscious that ‘SEND’ is a deficits-focused category that has been criticised for responsibilising children rather than highlighting the system that underserves them, as well as being an all-encompassing label that does not adequately account for differences within it. We have nevertheless chosen to frame our research around ‘SEND’ rather than using other overlapping categories such as ‘neurodivergent’ or ‘additional learning needs’ firstly because this project was in part driven by our response to the Government’s Green Paper, ‘SEND Review: Right support, Right place, Right time’. The fact that SEND is still the prevailing term used in the education sector, by the youth justice service and in joint decision-making panels for youth diversion specifically was also a key consideration. 

London: Centre for Justice Innovation. 2024, 39pg