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

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

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

By Eric P. Baumer, Jeremy Staff

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

Criminology, Volume63, Issue2 May 2025

By Human Rights for Kids

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

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

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

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

Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 025. 49p.

By Logan Seacrest

R Street Policy Study No. 331 July 2025 A zero-tolerance approach requires that juvenile justice policies mitigate abuse, hold abusers accountable, and demand responsibility from leadership. Executive Summary On any given day, about 27,000 children and teens are held in juvenile detention centers across the United States. Despite decades of reform, these facilities continue to be plagued by reports of sexual abuse. This trauma, particularly when inflicted by those in positions of authority, compounds the baseline harm that comes with youth incarceration. This policy paper explores systemic sexual abuse in America’s juvenile detention system and discusses new developments suggesting that it is more pervasive than previously believed. Specifically, recent changes in the law have allowed thousands of former detainees to come forward with credible allegations of staff misconduct, triggering a wave of litigation and multi billion dollar settlements that threaten to overwhelm public budgets. Drawing on these legal developments, recent data, and concerning reports, we find that juvenile detention facilities have failed to uphold their dual mandate of rehabilitation and public safety. In fact, many facilities have become threats  in and of themselves, perpetuating cycles of abuse and criminality among already vulnerable youth. The persistence of abuse in state-run youth facilities undermines both the rehabilitative mission of juvenile justice and the public’s trust in government. It also creates long-term public safety concerns by perpetuating cycles of trauma, recidivism, and system involvement. To address these failures, we offer an evidence-based policy roadmap to strengthen the Prison Rape Elimination Act, expand reporting mechanisms, raise hiring standards, update infrastructure, and bolster oversight. These recommendations should be combined with a strategic reduction in the footprint of secure detention overall, as the most effective safeguard against institutional abuse is to reduce unnecessary incarceration in the first place.

 R Street Policy Study No. 331 Washington, DC: R Street, 2025. 10p.  

By M. Lankester, C. Coles,  A. Trotter, S. Scott, J. Downs, H. Dickson &  A. Wickersham

The association between academic achievement and youth offending has yet to be clearly quantified. This meta-analysis aims to provide a robust estimate of the longitudinal association between academic achievement and subsequent youth offending. We searched PsycINFO, ERIC, British Education Index, and Web of Science from inception to 2 April 2024 using a comprehensive search strategy. We identified eligible studies reporting on the association between academic achievement and subsequent youth offending, as measured using self-report or administrative records up to the age of 25 years. Correlation coefficients and odds ratios were pooled in a meta-analysis. Effect modifiers were investigated in a sub-group analysis, and other findings were narratively synthesised. PROSPERO record: CRD42023402103. Seventeen studies were included, of which eight were pooled in a meta-analysis. The findings showed a small but statistically significant association between lower academic achievement and youth offending (pooled Fisher z =  − 0.21, 95% CI [− 0.29, − 0.12], I2 = 98.4%). Sub-group analysis and narrative synthesis yielded mixed findings on the possible role of measurement timing and offence types. Lower academic achievement was associated with subsequent youth offending, underlining the need for a child-first approach to early prevention and intervention strategies in educational and forensic settings.

J Dev Life Course Criminology 10, 477–500 (2024)

By Stephen Whitehead, Carla McDonald-Heffernan, and Anna Leyland

The past decade has seen significant progress in reducing the number of children coming into the youth justice system and into youth custody in particular. Innovations such as the spread of youth diversion and a greater awareness of child exploitation as a form of modern slavery have allowed many children to avoid the stigma and harm of formal criminal justice processing. However, this progress is not necessarily available to all children equally. One group of children who face particular challenges are those who have contact with the children’s social care system. This contact, which can range from a referral with no further action to statutory child protection interventions, including being taken into care, is associated with adverse childhood experiences such as poverty, abuse, neglect, parental mental health issues and substance use. Children with social care contact are more likely to have experienced childhood trauma and are more likely to have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). These factors are associated with a range of negative outcomes, including criminal justice system contact. However, while much is known about the increased risk of criminalisation for children taken into care, less is known about outcomes for children with lower levels of social care contact.

London and Sheffield: The Centre for Justice Innovation and the Centre for Care), 2025. 39p.

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

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.

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 Kathryn N. Stump; Janis B. Kupersmidt

This document reports on a research project with the primary goals of determining whether program practice implementation was associated with youth and match outcomes, and to describe the experiences of mentoring programs as they engaged in the Mentoring Youth for Leadership (MYL) initiative and worked to better align their practices to those described in the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (EEPM). The report provides a description of the sample population, which included a total of 1,413 mentees that participated in the outcome evaluation study, and representatives from 17 Leadership Foundations (LF)-affiliated mentoring programs. Results from the outcome evaluation indicated that program practice implementation was unrelated to youth outcomes and mentee-reported match quality, it was, however, significantly associated with match length. Results also suggested that one-to-one matches from mentoring programs that implemented a larger number of benchmarks from the EEPM had significantly longer matches than from those with fewer than 75 percent of the EEPM benchmarks. Additionally, matches from programs meeting the Recruitment, Matching, and Monitoring and Support Standards had longer matches than those programs that did not implement those Standards. Other results discussed have implications for pre-match training requirements and communication with national parent organizations. The report suggests that improving program practices so that they align with EEPM may result in longer matches and that certain Standards are especially important for fostering longer-term matches among mentors and mentees; and success in implementing the MYL initiative requires consistent support and communication with the national LF parent organization.

Durham, NC: Innovation Research & Training, 2024. 98p.

By Samantha Harvell, Teresa Derrick-Mills, Constance Hull

Over the past decade, Milwaukee County’s youth probation agency—the Department of Health and Human Services’ Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)—has fundamentally changed its approach to supervision, redefined staff roles and responsibilities, and adopted a new trauma-informed, developmentally responsive case management model to improve practices and boost outcomes for the young people and families it serves. Implementing changes of that magnitude has not been quick or easy and remains a work in progress. Yet CYFS leaders and staff have learned much from the process, and Milwaukee County provides a helpful case study of youth justice reform in action.

Why This Matters

Community supervision, typically in the form of probation, plays a central role in the juvenile legal system. The majority of young people adjudicated delinquent are placed on probation in the United States. In 2019, the most recent year for which data are available, half of all juvenile cases sanctioned in court—nearly 250,000—resulted in probation. Because of this, reforming probation could transform how youth justice is administered across the country.

What We Found

Drawing on interviews with 20 local stakeholders and our experiences providing technical assistance to CYFS leaders over more than two years, this report summarizes lessons from Milwaukee County’s reform efforts, including factors that have supported and hindered progress. Key findings include the following:

• Having a team dedicated to quality management provides critical infrastructure to support reform.

• Implementation science offers a helpful framework for promoting change.

• Effective leadership is essential.

• Investing in staff development and organizational infrastructure and systems is vital to long-term success and sustainability.

• Building internal support and buy-in for reform is crucial.

• Developing tailored, targeted, and effective messages about reform is critical to growing and leveraging external legal partnerships.

• Centering community is essential.

• Expanding funding structures can support transformative change.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2023. 33p.

By Samantha Harvell, Arielle Jackson, Constance Hull, Colette Marcelin, and Leah Sakala

The COVID-19 health crisis, which reached the United States in early 2020, has significantly impacted youth legal system agencies’ policies and practices worldwide. In the pandemic’s third year, new variants of the virus continue to threaten health and safety, and agencies continue to grapple with how best to support young people and their families. Even before the pandemic, incarceration posed significant risks to young people’s physical and mental health, particularly among youth of color, who are disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system. During the pandemic, some youth legal system agencies increased their use of traumatizing practices like solitary confinement and at times ended all in-person visitation with caregivers and siblings, demonstrating the need for agencies to double down on efforts to end youth incarceration and instead invest in community-based strategies that support youth long term. This brief is designed to help inform those efforts by highlighting how three states—Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey—have reduced youth incarceration over the past two years. Each state has taken a unique approach to changing policy and practice championed by a wide range of stakeholders, including governors, legislators, and judicial and corrections agency leaders, and each case study in this brief shows a different path to lasting reform. Taken together, the examples provide several options for reducing youth incarceration and investing in more effective strategies to prevent harm and support youth accountability and needs.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 16p.

By Samantha Harvell, Chloe Warnberg, Andreea Matei, and Eli Mensing

Over the past several decades, the knowledge base about how to address juvenile delinquency and improve outcomes for youth and families has grown considerably. The documented benefits of well-designed community-based programming over residential facilities have spurred a movement away from the outdated institutional-youth-prison model and toward more effective community-based solutions. States and localities are exploring how to support a new juvenile justice approach that builds continua of care and opportunity in communities disproportionately impacted by youth incarceration and prioritizes fair, equitable, and effective treatment for all youth. This is the next frontier of juvenile justice reform, and effective strategies for closing youth correctional facilities and redirecting resources to community-based solutions must be identified. Juvenile justice administrators are uniquely positioned to lead facility closure efforts as part of broader system reform