By Janine Boshoff,  Stephen J. Machin and Matteo Sandi

This paper combines ten years of idiosyncratic variation in school closure dates for all secondary schools in England with administrative records of educational and criminal trajectories linked at the individual level to study the impact of the school schedule on the dynamics of youth crime. When school is not in session, students commit more property offences, more serious violent offences and fewer minor violent offences. Thefts, robberies and violent assaults drive these effects. This is novel evidence of strong incapacitation effects from the protective factor of schooling which affects not only the incidence of violence, but also its severity.

 CESifo Working Paper No. 11812, Munich: CESifo, 2025. 28p.

By Marcy Mistrett and Mariana Espinoza

At the turn of the 21st century, it was estimated that 250,000 children every year were charged as adults in the United States. By 2019, that number had dropped 80% to 53,000. This drop is to be celebrated and is the result of legislative changes in 44 states and the District of Columbia, as well as federal funding incentives. However, there is still much work to be done.

The children that remain exposed to the adult criminal legal system are overwhelmingly youth of color. The vast majority serve short sentences in adult jail or prison and return home by their 21st birthdays, the age at which services can be extended to in the youth justice system in the vast majority of states; indicating that many youth could be served, more appropriately, by the youth justice system.

This brief reviews the history, harms, pathways and trends that treat children as if they were adults.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2022. 10p.

By Luke Billingham and Keir Irwin-Rogers

 For many children and young people, Britain is a harmful society in which to grow up. This book contextualizes the violence that occurs between a small number of young people within a wider perspective on social harm. Aimed at academics, youth workers and policy makers, the book presents a new way to make sense of this pressing social problem. The authors also propose measures to substantially improve the lives of Britain’s young people in areas ranging from the early years to youth services and the criminal justice system.

Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2022. 302p.

By Anne-Marie Day

The custodial estate for children aged 10–17 years across England and Wales faces a number of challenges. This article focuses on the perceptions of Resettlement Officers in two Young Offender’s Institutions (YOIs) in England on the challenges of their role: successfully reintegrating children from custody into the community using ‘Constructive Resettlement’ approaches. The findings will present a range of internal barriers encountered by Resettlement Officers that leave them feeling isolated, invisible and misunderstood. Finally, implications for future policy and practice will be considered.

Youth JusticeOnlineFirst, February 17, 2025

By The Children's Commissioner (UK)  

This report aims to develop a comprehensive understanding of the educational journeys of children in secure settings. It examines their experiences before and during their time in custody, reflecting these in their own voices so that they are central to educational reforms and interventions. This report is based on analysis of: • quantitative administrative data covering the 950 children and young people educated in England then held in secure settings in England and Wales for any period of time between September 2017 and August 2022; i • qualitative interviews with 13 children and six staff members in youth secure settings in England and Wales conducted between June and July 2024; • the education policies as of September 2024 of seven out of the 14 secure settings that accommodate children on remand or sentenced in England and Wales; and • 390 responses from The Big Ambition survey received September 2023 to January 2024 from children in secure settings in England. ii This report found that children in secure settings often had severely disrupted experiences of education, with many recounting a poor experience of school and a multitude of challenges before entering a secure setting. Many children expressed that they wished they had had greater support at school. Some core challenges included: • History of poor attendance: 77% of children in secure settings were persistently or severely absent in their most recent year at a state-funded school  • Disproportionate additional needs: Children in secure settings were five times more likely to have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) compared to pupils in state-funded education and 1.5 times as likely to receive Special Educational Needs (SEN) Support; • Experiencing child poverty: Almost nine out of every 10 children in secure settings grew up in areas with above-average levels of child poverty; • History of exclusion: 25% of children in secure settings had experienced a permanent exclusion. By contrast, there were only eight permanent exclusions per every 10,000 pupils in state-funded schools in 2021/22.6 While staff in secure settings worked hard to provide a high-quality education, this report highlights the serious challenges they face delivering education. This included: • Restrictions on education choices: Children are often assigned to educational pathways based on who they could associate with safely rather than their interests or educational ability; this makes it difficult to engage children in class when they all have different levels of ability and may not have any interest in the subjects they’ve been assigned. • Limited continuity and ability to plan: A large proportion of the children are serving short sentences or on custodial remand, which can limit continuity and progress in their education. For children on custodial remand, they do not know how long they will be in custody for which can lead to their education being disrupted at short notice. • Staffing shortages: It is difficult to recruit qualified and suitable teachers capable of providing the necessary educational support and high-quality education to children with diverse and complex needs. Recommendations The Children’s Commissioner’s ambition is for every child to be prevented from being affected by violence and criminality and able to fulfil their full potential. This means that every child must grow up in a loving, homely environment with access to high-quality education, including those who need secure care. To achieve this, a number of structural changes are needed across the whole system. These were outlined in The Big Ambition7 and include: • A unique childhood identifier so that no child falls through the gaps in support; • Clear, reliable, long-term funding streams for children, based on consistent measures of local need; • A joint children’s workforce strategy to ensure those working with children are caring, professional and equipped to do their jobs, with a strong pipeline into senior leadership roles; and • The Department for Education to assume direct responsibility for the delivery of core services for children. The recommendations in Section 4 of this report have been separated into two parts. The first looks at preventative measures. It outlines the necessary changes to the school system to ensure that children are better supported at school. The second outlines that the current secure setting system is not fit-for-purpose and needs a complete redesign. While the number of children in secure settings is a very small proportion of all children, the challenges they face and often the long-term implications for public services of those challenges means reform of the youth secure estate should be considered a priority. Key recommendations for the broader education system include: • Recommendation: The government should introduce a single child plan to coordinate all multi-agency support for young people. This plan should be regularly reviewed at least every year and should always be updated if a child moves local authority. This plan should give schools the ability to commission support services from health and social care when children’s attendance starts to deteriorate. Alongside this, the government should introduce national thresholds for children’s services support, with a statutory offer of Early Help. • Recommendation: Children’s support services should be delivered on school sites to provide the targeted early help that young people need. This could include, but is not limited to, educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service practitioners, social workers, youth workers, school nurses, health visitors, family liaison officers and Family Hubs. The nature of the support should match the needs of the children at the school. • Recommendation: Exclusions should always lead to an intervention. When a child is removed from the classroom, whether through internal exclusion, suspension, permanent exclusion, a managed move or implementation of a ‘part time timetable’, this should be an opportunity to learn about the child’s underlying needs. A child’s needs should be assessed and a plan to address any underlying issues should be implemented, jointly agreed with the child, school, local authority, and where applicable with the alternative provider (AP). Key recommendation for the youth justice system include: • Recommendation: An ambitious national reform that re-designs the secure care system to prioritise treating children who offend, first and foremost, as children in need of specialised support. The Department for Education (DfE) should be responsible for the delivery of all core services for children in the youth justice system and there should no longer be continued attempts to reform an unsatisfactory youth justice estate that fails to meet these children’s complex needs. This new system must be based primarily upon a therapeutic model of care developed by DfE and NHS England. It must be delivered in smaller, homely settings close to where children live and there should be a clear, time-bound plan to phase out all Young Offender Institutions (YOI) and Secure Training Centres (STC). Key interim recommendations for the youth justice system In the meantime, a number of interim recommendations are necessary to better support children currently in secure settings. These measures aim to support children’s educational experiences and care while the broader systemic reforms are developed and implemented. • Recommendation: Every secure setting must have a Youth Council where children can serve as representatives, meeting monthly and providing feedback to staff. This ensures that every child has a formalised process for expressing their voice on issues that matter to them. The views of each Youth Council should be shared to the Ministry of Justice and the Children’s Commissioner’s Office on a quarterly basis to amplify their voices and advocate for the creation of policy change that is informed by their insights and lived experiences. • Recommendation: The youth sentencing framework should be amended to prohibit sentences with custodial periods that are less than 12 months. Instead, multi-agency community-based interventions should be used to address the underlying causes of offending for children. Alongside this, strong sentencing guidelines and safeguards must be established to prevent up-tariffing. • Recommendation: Vocational education pathways provided by secure settings must always include genuine opportunities for children to undertake traineeships and job trainings in the community. Children must have the opportunity to complete all courses within a pathway to achieve a recognised qualification. Every pathway must have a direct link to how it will support their lives outside of a secure setting depending on their sentence length and how it meets regional employment and skill needs. An educational staff member role should be created that is focused on connecting local employers with children completing vocational pathways. • Recommendation: The governors of secure settings should be included in the procurement and commissioning process of education providers by the Ministry of Justice. The contract should also be amended to enable secure settings to have greater flexibility and authority to coordinate the work of education professionals with residential care, health and psychology staff to ensure a holistic and individualised approach that supports the progress of every child. Secure settings should also be able to draw upon the teaching expertise of local schools, academy trusts, colleges and alternative provisions. This might include enabling local teachers to teach at a secure setting or supporting children to continue with their existing educational courses to maintain continuity in their learning and facilitate a smoother transition back into the community  

London: The Children's Commissioner, 2025. 89p.

By The Children's Commissioner (UK)  

  “I think there's a difference between a protest and a riot. A protest can be peaceful… whereas a riot is trying to get your message out, but not in the right way, like trying to scare people into listening to your message.” – Child, charged in the 2024 riots. The Children’s Commissioner’s ambition is clear: every child must be prevented from becoming involved in violence and criminality and able to fulfil their full potential. Yet the events that unfolded between 30 July and 7 August 2024 underscored how much work is still needed to achieve this. The murders of Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar in Southport on 29 July 2024, and the injury of 10 others, sparked mass public grief and anger. Demonstrations occurred across 26 areas of England, with some becoming violent, partly fuelled by false claims spread online that the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker, intensifying existing anti-immigrant sentiments.1 While the scale and nature of each instance of unrest varied, this report refers to them as "riots" to reflect the language used by the children involved, who overwhelmingly chose to describe their experience using that term. This report presents the perspective of children charged in connection to the riots, as told to the Children’s Commissioner and her team directly and does not draw on the full range of possible evidence from victims, police, parents, and others. It contains findings from: • Qualitative interviews between November and December 2024 with 14 children who had been charged in connection to the unrest. This compares to the total of 73 children with a finalised outcome by 31 October, meaning the office spoke to around 20%. The ages and gender of these children have not been included in reporting to maintain anonymity. • Previously unpublished quantitative data provided to the Children’s Commissioner’s office (CCo) by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC); • Notes from meetings between the CCo and Youth Justice Service (YJS) staff members; and • A desktop review of articles on police and media websites of children charged in connection to the riots. Key findings 1. 147 children were arrested by 4 September 2024, 84 were charged, and 73 had finalised outcomes, as of 31 October 2024, according to information provided to the office by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). More arrests and charges are expected as police continue to review footage. 2. Children’s involvement was largely spontaneous and unconsidered. Many children had no prior experience with the criminal justice system, and all made it clear that they did not get involved due to far right, anti-immigration or racist views. The reasons why the incident they attended was organised mostly did not matter for them. Instead, they were curious to see what was happening, thought it looked fun, felt animosity towards the police, or wanted free goods. 3. Many children spoke strongly about their hatred of the police, describing previous bad experiences and community mistrust. These children viewed the riots as an opportunity to retaliate against the police. 4. The need for a definitive response to public disorder led to the rapid charging and sentencing of many children. With some missing out on the rehabilitation that we know works best to ensure all children can grow up to become independent, productive adults 5. Children’s experience with the youth justice system and their outcomes depended on where they lived. Children with similar circumstances and levels of involvement were treated differently and Heads of Youth Justice Service (YJS) areas shared that whether a child-first approach was adopted varied depending on the local police force and CPS. In most areas, the expertise of YJS was not drawn upon, and only a few YJS teams said that the police and the CPS worked with them to ensure a child-first approach. 6. To improve the lives of children in England, these children wanted the government to address poverty and provide more opportunities. This included more youth activities and employment. They explained that without addressing these issues, children are vulnerable to exploitation and crime. Conclusion The findings highlight the importance of upholding the child-first principles of the youth justice system, particularly in times of national crisis. Children are different to adults, and a child must be seen as such first and foremost, rather than as an offender, to keep communities safe by preventing and reducing offending behaviour. Rehabilitation and addressing the underlying causes of children’s involvement must be the primary objective of youth justice, with custodial sentences always the last resort. The widespread expression of hostility toward the police among these children also highlights an urgent need for child-centred policing that builds trust and fosters positive relationships.   

London: The Children's Commissioner, 2025. 37p.

By Andrew Day and Catia Malvaso

The delivery of high-quality case work is central to efforts to reform youth justice systems around the world. Youth justice practitioners can be the most effective agents of change when the focus of their casework practice is on listening to justice-involved young people, helping them to feel safe and to avoid re-traumatization, and working in ways that promote positive childhood experiences. It is argued that developing practice-based evidence’ in this way can help to unite the field, to close the policy implementation gap, and simultan-eously contribute to the personal wellbeing of young people and the broader agenda of public safety

 Child & Youth Services, 2024, 26p.

By Andrew Day, Catia Malvaso, Carolyn Boyd, Katherine Hawkins, Rhiannon Pilkingto

Youth justice services around the world are under increasing pressure to find new and more effective ways of working with young people. One way forward is to implement a more compassionate approach to service delivery that embraces the idea of 'trauma-informed practice'. And yet, substantial variation has been observed in how a trauma-informed approach has been defined and understood by practitioners, with idiosyncratic implementation evident across different systems and only limited evidence that this results in reductions in subsequent re-offending. In this paper we argue that the success of efforts to work in more trauma-informed ways cannot be judged using recidivism data alone and that there is a need to identify key indicators of the effectiveness of any trauma- informed approach. We present the case for implementing trauma-informed youth justice and outline key features of the approach. We then present a logic model that articulates key components and identifies short- and longer-term outcomes that can be measured to assess the overall performance of a service. The article concludes with a discussion of the current evidential status of trauma-informed youth justice, identifying areas of current strength and those where further work is needed to develop the evidence base, including the need to demonstrate the hypothesized association between short-term trauma-informed practice outcomes and the longer-term goal of preventing re-offending.

 Front Psychol. 2023 Sep 8;14, 10p.

Rehabilitation Over Retribution: Rethinking Juvenile Justice for Traumatized Youth 

By Brian L.Traub 

  A foundational understanding within society is that “bad actors” should be punished as a way of bringing justice to those who have been hurt, deterring future criminal conduct, and rehabilitating the perpetrator.This concept appears, at least facially, as a valid premise for an institutionalized criminal justice system. The problem, however, manifests when the bad actor is merely a child. The complexity of this problem expands when that child has suffered countless amounts of abuse, neglect, sexual violence, and various other forms of childhood trauma at the hands of an abuser. The reality is that the U.S. criminal justice system, having been designed to punish bad actors, cannot adequately address the rehabilitative needs of juveniles who are themselves victims of violence. Instead, it merely subjects them to more of the same trauma they suffered prior to their first criminal act. The current punishment-focused regime of the U.S. criminal justice system is incompatible with, and incapable of, providing real rehabilitative opportunities to juvenile actors who have suffered substantial traumas during their childhood. The current sentencing scheme in the U.S. desperately requires change that could give juvenile  criminals an opportunity to escape the incessant cycle of reincarceration that it perpetuates.This Comment examines the tension existing between the philosophical understanding of criminal justice in the U.S. and the reality that criminality is often linked to trauma experienced during childhood. To illuminate the tension that exists between the U.S. punishment focused criminal justice system and its cardinal goal of rehabilitation, Section II of this Comment first explains the philosophical foundation for justifying punishment. Next, Section II discusses the current statutory framework for U.S. federal sentencing. Then, Section II illuminates and discusses the statistically significant role that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) play in the current legal system. Finally, Section II outlines the historical development of the U.S. criminal justice system. Section III argues that the next step toward a system that more effectively facilitates rehabilitation is congressional reform of 35 U.S.C. § 3553 (§ 3553), and through trauma-informed sentencing practices. Section IV will conclude by reemphasizing the harsh realities of childhood trauma and its connection with the criminal justice system, recognizing the system’s underlying intent to rehabilitate juvenile defendants while advocating for necessary conceptual transformation.   

93 U. Cin. L. Rev. 236 (2024), 35p.

By Carla McDonald-Heffernan

  The purpose of this briefing is to provide practitioners with practice principles to improve the use of out of court resolutions for young adults, aged 18–24. These good practice principles are developed in this paper through an exploration of the evidence context, current policy, case studies and lived experience research. Evidence context Young adults represent a group with increased potential for desistance, as per the age–crime curve, if the right support is in place, and if they are protected from unnecessary criminalisation. The literature highlights that this group is still in the process of maturation, with brain functions still in development, resulting in a lack of impulse control, greater susceptibility to peer influence and decreased ability to consider consequences. Social factors in this transitory period of life also mean that relationships, education pathways, employment and finances can be unstable. These elements contribute significantly to a young adult’s likelihood of offending, and thus effective support in addressing these needs and challenges lowers the likelihood of recidivism. The literature around effective practice for young adults in the justice system emphasises the importance of several key approaches. Trust and relationship-building, specially trained practitioners, provision of holistic support that includes skills and basic support through multi-agency working, and interventions tailored to intersectional needs are all central to effective practice. Policy context Out of court resolutions (OOCRs) aim to provide a proportionate response to low-level offending. The past decade has seen conditional cautions make up a growing proportion of OOCRs, a shift which has coincided with forces moving towards the two-tier OOCR framework. Conditional cautions can include rehabilitative, reparative and punitive conditions. The practice around conditional cautions differs significantly between adults and children. Needs assessments are carried out less often for adults, and the type of conditions imposed on adults is determined by the police rather than through a multiagency process. As a result of the discretion available, practices around adult conditional cautions varies significantly between police forces. Case studies The case studies explored in this briefing are examples of good practice approaches to working with young adults in the justice system. The Gateway Project is a conditional caution programme developed specifically for 18–24-year-olds. It provides useful insights into key features that create effective conditional cautions for this group including external ‘navigators’ who carry out needs assessments and adopt mentorship roles, peer group courses focused on behaviour, and tailored support. The Devon and Cornwall Enhanced Prosecution Scheme highlights the centrality of partnerships with service providers and third-sector organisations to implementing personalised interventions for young adults. The Newham Youth to Adult Probation Hub accentuates the benefit of multi-agency working and services such as mentoring, speech and language therapy and basic provisions of food and clothing in supporting young adults out of offending.

London: Centre for Court Innovation,  2025. 23p.

 By Susannah Hancock

The girls are not the problem. If anything, we - the professionals, are the problem. We need to come together to find a solution’  This independent review was commissioned by Minister Dakin, Youth Justice Minister, in November 2024. The terms of reference are attached [Appendix B]. As reviewer, I have been asked to consider the short-to-medium term placement options for girls in the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE) and to make recommendations about the most appropriate placement and care for girls in the CYPSE. Over the past 15 years the number of children (aged 10 to 17 years old) in custody has fallen significantly, down from 2180 in March 2010, to around 420 in November 2024. This has been one of the big successes of the youth justice system, delivered through a range of factors including effective prevention and diversion schemes and a strong focus on reducing the numbers of children entering the YJS. The number of girls in custody has also declined, with only about 10 in the CYPSE currently, making up less than 2% of the overall CYPSE population. These small numbers should have driven agencies to resolve the long-standing issue of appropriate placements for girls, yet the opposite has occurred. The system remains overwhelmingly designed for boys, leaving girls without strategic planning or genderresponsive services. While the new Women's Justice Board, chaired by Lord Timpson, addresses women's justice issues, it does not include girls, leaving this highly vulnerable group overlooked. Despite positive moves towards a child-first approach in the Youth Justice System, girls' distinct needs (including education, health and equality protections), are often neglected. Many have experienced significant trauma, gendered violence, and abuse. Lacking proper community support, their trauma-driven responses can lead to justice system involvement. Many of these girls should not be in custody in the first place but instead require intensive therapeutic care through social and health services. For those who do require placement into custody, evidence shows that small, trauma-informed, gender-responsive settings have the best outcomes. It is important to state that this is not about ignoring the needs of boys, many of whom are also highly vulnerable. But with 98% of the secure estate made up of boys, the needs of girls are too often overlooked. This review is clear that, despite the best efforts of committed staff across secure settings, YOIs are not able to provide girls with the therapeutic and trauma-informed environment and services that they need and that girls should no longer be placed in YOIs with immed  Similarly, STCs, despite the positive work of committed staff at Oakhill and more widely, are not best placed to meet girls' needs and placements into STCs should cease by the end of the current contract of Oakhill STC in 2029, if not before [recommendation 2]. The most appropriate placements for girls in the CYPSE are Secure Children’s Homes and the newly opened Secure School. The evidence I reviewed and most of the professionals and girls I spoke to pointed to SCHs as being best placed to meet the needs of girls, including the most vulnerable girls. While the Secure School is still in its early days, given the trauma-informed, whole system model in place, it should be well equipped to deliver for girls. Ongoing investment and coordinated support are essential to sustain and enhance these provisions. Therefore, this review recommends that the YCS transitions to a model where all girls are placed in either SCH’s or the new Secure School [recommendation 3]. It proposes that the YCS collaborate with a dedicated sub-group of SCHs and the Secure School, using a consortia model, to pilot a new approach for placing girls  I recognise that a bottom line for this review must be that the YCS are able to provide placements for every girl remanded or sentenced. This is critical for public protection and for the safety of the girls. Any new solution must be able to deliver this. And while SCHs and the Secure School are legally permitted to decline a placement if they cannot meet a child’s needs or those of the wider home, my conclusion is that, by collaborating as a consortium, we can reach a point where every girl in the CYPSE has a suitable placement. A similar model is in place in Scotland that we can draw learning from. Although improving placement processes and options for girls is critical, this alone is not enough. Urgent cross-government action is needed to further reduce girls in custody, using it only as a last resort for the shortest possible time (Article 37 of the UNCRC). Girls who have committed serious offences and are serving longer sentences for public protection should remain in the CYPSE, but others – given their high levels of vulnerability and victimisation – should receive support outside of the justice system. I also want to acknowledge upfront the victims of crimes committed by girls. For victims and their families, reviews such as this must be difficult. It is important that we acknowledge the harm that victims of crime experience because of offences committed by children and listen to their voices on what they want to see change. There are many studies which suggest that victims want rehabilitation and restoration and, above all, for crime to stop and for the perpetrator to stop committing further offences – they don’t want others to have to go through what they have. This means all efforts should be focused on preventing offending and reoffending and stopping crime from happening in the first place. The recommendations in this review must above all be about supporting girls out of crime and into positive and productive lives, and in doing so keep communities safe and ensure less victims. Finally, I recognise that I am not saying anything in this review that has not been said before, often many times, by professionals, researchers, organisations and girls themselves. I am grateful to so many people for contributing so constructively to this review, and to everyone who has shared reports, evidence and insights to inform it. The fact that there was a strong level of consensus about both the issues and the potential solutions is very encouraging. But now is the time for action. We owe it to the girls themselves, to the victims and communities who suffer because of crime, and to the professionals who work so hard across the CYPSE and wider youth justice system. We have a real opportunity to be innovative, imaginative and do things differently – and we should seize it without delay. 

London: Ministry of Justice, 2025. 54p.

By Gwendolyn J. Koops-Geuze https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-304X geuze@law.eur.nl, Hilde T. Wermink, and Frank M. Weerman

Although community sanctions have become a popular alternative to custodial sanctions in youth justice, primary questions about the recidivism effects of community sanctions remain unanswered. The current study aims to fill this gap through a quasi-experimental analysis of 2-year recidivism differences between 4,425 youth subject to community sanctions versus custodial sanctions in the Netherlands in 2015 and 2016. Recidivism was analyzed in terms of overall, serious, and very serious recidivism for the full sample, a low risk subsample, and a medium-high risk subsample. Findings indicate that youth subject to community sanctions are less likely to recidivate overall, and less like likely to recidivate seriously than youth subject to custodial sanctions. Community sanctions were found to be particularly beneficial for preventing very serious recidivism among low risk youth. Additionally, it was found that medium-high risk youth subject to community sanctions are less likely to recidivate overall, and less seriously than medium-high risk youth subject to custodial sanctions. Implications of these findings for future research and practice are discussed.

Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeVolume 21, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 106-129

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 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