By Melissa M. Labriola, Samuel Peterson, Dulani Woods, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson

Based on a one-day count, the number of youth held in juvenile justice facilities declined 77 percent between 2000 and 2020. As a result, the number of residential placement facilities has also decreased, by 50 percent. This decrease is starkest among large facilities, which have decreased 74 percent from 1997 to 2019. Facility closure has gained attention and support for several reasons, such as investments in alternative rehabilitation and community-based programs, cost savings, and recognition of the need to treat youth involved in the juvenile justice system with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. The decisions to close these facilities are complex.

This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert panel that explored challenges and opportunities associated with closing juvenile residential facilities and implementing community-based alternatives. The highest-priority needs centered on equity and disparity and the need for family engagement throughout the punitive process. These results are pertinent to a wide audience, including justice-system stakeholders, community corrections practitioners, the research community, and funders or grant-making organizations

Rand. 2024. 24p.

By David B. Wilson, Mark W. Lipsey

Research summary

The primary outcome desired for juvenile delinquency programs is the cessation of delinquent and related problematic behaviors. However, this outcome is almost always pursued by attempting to change intermediate outcomes, such as family functioning, improved mental health, or peer relations. We can conceptualize intermediate outcomes that are related to reduced delinquency as change levers for effective intervention. A large meta-analysis identified several school-related change levers, including school engagement (i.e., improved attendance and reduced truancy), nondelinquent problem behaviors, and attitudes about school and teachers. In addition, family functioning and reducing substance use were also effective change levers. In contrast, effects on youth getting/keeping a job, peer relationships, and academic achievement were not associated with reduced delinquency.

Policy implications

Only a small percentage of rehabilitative programs provided to youth involved in the juvenile justice system have been established as evidence based. Moreover, there are constraints on what local policy makers and practitioners can do regarding the selection, adoption, and implementation of programs from the available lists of evidence-based programs. Adopting programs that focus on effective change levers and avoiding those that concentrate on ineffective ones has the potential to increase the likelihood that a local agency is engaged in effective programming. Based on our data, programs known to improve family functioning, attachment to and involvement in schooling, and reducing substance use are justified by the change lever evidence, even if these programs’ effectiveness in reducing delinquency has not been directly proven. In contrast, programs focusing on vocational skills, academic achievement, and peer relations are less likely to be beneficial. Furthermore, a change lever perspective can help frontline staff select appropriate programs for different juvenile offenders and focus their quality control efforts on those aspects of a program that are likely to be essential to maintaining effectiveness.

Criminology & Public Policy Volume23, Issue2. May 2024.

By Christina Plerhoples Stacy

Over the summer and fall of 2021, the Urban Institute worked with the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services to recruit participants for a cash transfer study aimed at reducing rates of violence among young men in Wilmington. There are two main types of cash transfers: unconditional cash transfers, defined as money provided to people without any stipulations, and conditional cash transfers, defined as money provided to people with certain conditions, such as program attendance or work requirements. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 2023, 39pg

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

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

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

By Ieke de Vriesl, Michael Baglivio, and Joan A. Reid

Despite extant literature on individual-level risk factors for sex trafficking among children and adolescents, little is known about the impact of social and ecological contexts on risk of human trafficking victimization. The purpose of this study was to examine the correlates signaling risk of human trafficking victimization at the individual, family, social, and community levels utilizing a sample of 40,531 justice-involved male and female youth, a small fraction of whom were suspected or verified victims of human trafficking between 2011 and 2015 (N = 801, including 699 female and 102 male youth). Using this sample, we examined differences across individual, family, social, and community characteristics of youth involved in the juvenile justice system who have a history of trafficking victimization and youth without such histories. Series of logistic regression analyses were conducted using varying control groups, created through exact matching and randomized matching groups to address sample imbalances. These analyses indicate that, at the individual level, youth who had experienced childhood adversities were more likely to report human trafficking victimization. Sex differences were found regarding risk factors pertaining to the family and broader socio-ecological contexts. Female youth who had witnessed family violence had an antisocial partner or antisocial friends, or resided in a community with a greater proportion of the population being foreign-born or speaking English less than very well were at heightened risk for human trafficking victimization. Little evidence was found for community-level risk factors of victimization in this specific sample of justice-involved youth. These findings encourage more research to unpack the multilevel correlates of victimizations at the individual, family, social, and community levels, recognizing potential differences between female and male youth regarding the factors that put them at heightened risk for juvenile sex trafficking victimizations. Practice and policy should direct awareness and prevention measures to social and ecological contexts.

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

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

London: Centre for Justice Innovation. 2024, 39pg