By The Justice Policy Institute

In 2014, when the Justice Policy Institute first analyzed the cost of secure youth confinement, 33 states and the District of Columbia reported an annual cost per youth that eclipsed $100,000. In 2020, despite more than a half-decade of falling youth arrests and declining rates of youth incarceration since 2014, 40 states and Washington, D.C. report spending at least $100,000 annually per confined child, with some states spending more than $500,000 per youth per year. The average state cost for the secure confinement of a young person is now $588 per day, or $214,620 per year, a 44 percent increase from 2014. These cost figures over a six-year period represent the growing economic impact of incarcerating youth. However, the long-term impact of these policies extends well beyond the fiscal cost.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2020. 15p.

By Pedro Carneiro, Sarah Cattan, Gabriella Conti, Claire Crawford, Elaine Drayton, Christine Farquharson, Nick Ridpath    

Introduced in 1999, Sure Start was an ambitious, large-scale early years programme in England aimed at improving the life chances of children, particularly those growing up in poverty. The programme’s reach peaked in the late 2000s, with a network of around 3,300 centres operating as ‘one-stop shops’ for families with children under 5. Sure Start centres offered a wide range of services, from baby weighing clinics to childcare provision to employment support for parents. These services were designed primarily to target school readiness and children’s health, and recent evidence suggests the programme was successful in achieving these aims: in a series of reports, Cattan et al. (2022) and Carneiro et al. (2024a) document positive impacts of Sure Start for child health and school attainment, particularly for children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.    Given the efficacy of the Sure Start programme for health and educational outcomes, a natural question is whether it had broader impacts on children. This report details the findings from a robust evaluation of the impact of access to Sure Start on children’s absence and suspensions at school, youth offending and contacts with the children’s social care system. Missing school, committing a crime or experiencing social services involvement can entail significant welfare costs for children. There is a case that investment in joined-up services and early intervention can prevent children from experiencing these poor outcomes. For instance, the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care (MacAlister, 2022) highlighted the potential of tailored services based in community settings to contribute to earlier identification of families in need and reduce social services intervention. It is important to understand whether an integrated early years programme delivered in local neighbourhoods, such as Sure Start, was able to influence the need for costlier interventions, such as those delivered through children’s social care and the youth justice 

Key Findings

1. Access to a nearby Sure Start centre between ages 0 and 4 significantly reduced youth crime that resulted in convictions or custodial sentences. Living within 2.5 kilometres of a Sure Start centre reduced the share of 16-year-olds who had ever received a criminal conviction by 13%. Meanwhile, custodial sentences – the most severe sanction – fell by a fifth due to access to Sure Start. Reductions in youth offending were concentrated on convictions for theft, the most common category of offence (20% reduction), and for drug offences (20% reduction).2. While access to Sure Start reduced serious youth crime, it had more mixed impacts on less severe contact with the criminal justice system. Those with access to Sure Start committed offences earlier – a 10% increase in less serious misdemeanours by age 12 – and saw rises in cautions for criminal damage and violent crime, although overall numbers of young people experiencing cautions by age 16 were unchanged.  3. Misbehaviour also increased within school settings: the proportion of children suspended from secondary school increased by 10%, and absence rates increased by 7%. Part of the increase in poor behaviour, both in schools and for younger adolescents in the criminal justice system, may reflect a diversion of children away from more severe offences towards lower-level infractions, but it also likely represents an increase in misbehaviour for some children. This could align with evidence that group-based childcare, a key component of Sure Start’s services, can adversely affect the behavioural development of some children.4. Access to Sure Start had no significant effect on referrals to children’s social services or on receiving support as a child in need (CIN) or as a child looked after (CLA) between ages 7 and 16. Children in care during late primary school (age 7 to 11) did spend around 13% less time being looked after if they had access to Sure Start during their first five years of life, potentially indicating that children’s needs were somewhat less severe or that they benefited more quickly from support from social services. 5. The youth justice system and children’s social care involve significant costs for government, as well as the individuals involved. We estimate that for every pound spent at its peak in 2010, Sure Start averted approximately 19 pence in public spending on youth justice and children’s social care, equivalent to £500 million (in today’s prices) of savings per cohort attending at the time. Savings mostly come from costs of youth custody and children looked after, reflecting the high costs of these intensive interventions (and so the large financial benefits of reducing need for these institutions). Future work will provide an overall cost–benefit analysis of the programme, incorporating the effects on educational achievement and health identified in our previous work, while taking account of how these different domains relate to one another to avoid double-counting benefits.

IFS Report R338 London: The Institute for Fiscal Studies, October 2024, 75p.

By John Reddy and John Reddy, Sean Redmond

This Research Evidence into Policy, Programmes, and Practice (REPPP) study examined outcome measurement in youth justice programmes, youth work, and human services. Outcomes for young people are the effects or contribution to effects for young people that can reasonably be attributed to their participation in a programme. The research was commissioned by the Department of Justice to support improved measurement in Garda Youth Diversion Projects (GYDPs). Messages from Literature and Practice Reports The evidence presented indicates that timely information from practice helps to strengthen programmes, improve standards, and provide accountability. Service providers use information collected in their work with young people to measure the impacts of programmes. Programmes collect data about a young person’s circumstances, demographics and ethnicity, offence history and likelihood of reoffending, referral and placement information, and their interaction with other services. This data informs case management and intervention planning and service-use evaluations such as the number and costs of programmes delivered, and any gaps in service. To date, there has been a tendency to assess programmes using ‘hard’ programme input and output data (e.g. programme completion numbers, young people’s participation in education/training, school attendance, and rates of offending behaviour) at the expense of harder to measure positive or negative changes in behaviour.  Evidence of change in a young person’s social and emotional capabilities (soft outcomes) is increasingly regarded as intrinsic in efforts to effectively evaluate outcomes for young people. Programmes that gather soft data typically do so by embedding observation and recording processes into practice routines. When aligned to policy and programme objectives, data reflective of practice with young people can assist service providers to contextualise the ‘hard’ data produced by standardised measurement instruments. Data processes that included soft data were suggested as providing programmes with enhanced capacity to evaluate a young person’s engagement in the programme, their development, and changes in their behaviours and attitudes. Integrating soft information can help service providers to identify factors that may have shaped a young person’s life: identifying the part that a young person played in the changes observed, a practitioner’s role in achieving change, and how project activities may have contributed. The following table presents findings from a rapid (realist) review of outcome measurement literature and practice reports:  Outcomes for young people in programmes: 7 step measurement checklist 1. Measure outcomes for young people in programmes: To maintain and improve the quality of a programme and demonstrate its impact and value To ensure accountability and transparency in the delivery of public services To record what young people describe as important to them and barriers they face in achieving a good life • To improve efficiencies, realign resources, maintain standards, and strengthen practices 2. Things to consider when measuring outcomes for young people in programmes: Performance-led data alone rarely produces assessments that reflect a programme’s true value Developing young people’s social and emotional capabilities is associated with positive life outcomes Understanding how participants experience programmes provides a basis for better decision-making Evidencing improvements in personal development can be difficult due to the many influences impacting on young people’s lives 3. What can help the measurement of outcomes for young people in programmes? A logic model identifying outcomes can focus programme delivery and measurement practices Research and practice collaboration on data and monitoring processes A mix of measures and/or the development of new data processes to suit the task Active data leadership, specialised data skills, and support and technical assistance 4. Factors influencing outcome measurement: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data is associated with comprehensive assessments Qualitative data improves understanding of the factors contributing to outcomes Data quality and accuracy is linked to the quality of relationships established between a practitioner and a young person, their families, and other services Data practices can provide opportunities for young people to contribute to identifying outcomes and working towards these goals 5. It is important that the tools used to measure outcomes: Are relevant to the programme, local contexts, and culturally appropriate Produce quality data that is timely and comparable across groups and programme types Are comprehensible to practitioners and those completing them Are sensitive to change, reliable, consistent, and repeatable Produce useful practice and policy information 6. Challenges in measuring outcomes: Measurement can be a lengthy process, from design to collection to analysis and reporting Tools may not be designed to meet programme needs, be costly, untested, and difficult to adapt Tools may be difficult for young people to complete and may not differentiate between aspects of youth development 7. Things to consider when analysing data from practice: Evidence of a young person’s progress can be observed, interpreted, and documented Data collection and analysis processes should be documented for transparency and credibility Focus on a particular outcome and identify from the data if an anticipated change has occurred Time, resources, sample size, practitioner bias, and research expertise all impact the quality of  Messages from Practice Outcomes for young people in programmes should align with youth justice policies to reduce offending and improve attitudes and behaviours. GYDPs collate significant volumes of information from young people using routine administrative and assessment procedures. This data is predominantly quantitative (input/output) and details participation in a project, education, health, safety, and risk of offending/re-offending. However, service providers have advocated for greater use and reporting of supplementary data collected through observational processes implemented by practitioners. They suggested that integrating ‘soft’ data into existing outcome measurement processes would be a welcome and useful addition to efforts to evaluate outcomes for young people and to demonstrate the value of their work. This research aimed to establish a robust knowledge-base of outcome measurement from literature and practice for practical application by GYDPs. One additional but critical dimension was the challenge to bring scientific evidence of soft outcome measurement to bear on realworld constraints. This is compounded by the complexities of diverse administrative systems within the overall GYDP structure. Of the 105 Projects now operating nationwide, many are national youth organisations providing multiple services and operating well-developed information technology (IT), while others are more local and operate with less IT resources. In acknowledging organisational diversity in GYDPs, the study established a common minimum threshold for applying the scientific evidence of soft outcome monitoring in practice. To this degree, the report has been necessarily pragmatic. The report provides three data options that balance substantive progress in outcome-based recording practices with the need to ensure implementation with the minimum of disruption and impact on frontline work. REPPP recommends developing and embedding a non-invasive routine observation and recording process into GYDP practice to assess a young person’s engagement in the programme, their development, and changes in their behaviours and attitudes. A time-efficient evaluation template could record information from practice based on the expected outcomes of the Garda Youth Diversion Programme to address behaviour and offending problems and to facilitate personal development. When combined with existing data processes, this data could yield a more nuanced understanding of the outcomes for young people in GYDPs and inform judgements about the impacts of interventions.

Limerick: University of Limerick, 2022. 59p.     

By Heather Hunt and Gene Nichol

To better understand the role of poverty in shaping outcomes in North Carolina’s juvenile justice system, the authors conducted interviews and surveyed attorneys, social workers, scholars and youth advocates. This report summarizes those findings, highlighting the challenges faced by poor youth and their families.

Key Findings:

One in five North Carolina youth under the age of 18, and about one in three Black and Latinx youth, are poor. Juvenile courts in North Carolina can order a youth to pay a fine or restitution, and are statutorily authorized to assess a range of fees against parents, including fees for a court-appointed attorney, community service, evaluation and treatment, and probation.Attorney fees were the most common fees mentioned in the survey and interviews, although assessment can vary widely across the state. Other common fees include electronic monitoring and restitution.Youth charged as adults are subject to the full range of court costs, fines and fees faced by all adult criminal defendants. In addition to court-ordered fees and costs, involvement in the juvenile system imposes more indirect costs such as transportation and time. All survey respondents identified the time commitment required by a delinquency case as a serious hardship for poor families, and almost all (91 percent) answered that parents were unable to get time off from work.Over a third of survey participants estimated that their most recent or typical client had to travel more than 10 miles from home to the courthouse.Housing instability, can upend a juvenile case when amenities like phone or internet service are not available and a parent cannot be reached. Because of the juvenile system’s emphasis on meeting the needs of the child through services, parents without the resources to corral services in the early stages of a case are at a deep disadvantage.Financial status can impact access to, and the availability of, court-ordered treatment programs. All children in delinquency cases in North Carolina are entitled to a court-appointed attorney, but the quality of representation provided can depend on geography. Parents who are unable to comply with court orders risk criminal contempt which is punishable with a fine up to $500 and/or imprisonment, plus the additional court costs and fees that may be assessed.

North Carolina Poverty Research Fund, 2921, 34p.

By Kamarah Pooley

A large body of literature has attempted to answer the question: what works in reducing youth reoffending? However, this literature often fails to provide specific guidance on program implementation. This review consolidates research on the practical implementation of tertiary youth offender programs to identify the design, delivery and implementation factors associated with positive changes in youth offending behaviours. A systematic review of 44 studies revealed nine common components of effective programs. These components have been empirically associated with program effectiveness in methodologically diverse studies conducted in various contexts, suggesting they may contribute to reduced reoffending among young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 604. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2020. 22p.

By Catherine H. Augustine, Andrea Phillips, Susannah Faxon-Mills, Abigail Kessler

In this report, the authors examine two strategies implemented by the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC) to address the school-to-prison pipeline in San Diego County: training educators to use restorative practices and running a program to divert youth from the justice system before charges are filed. The report begins by describing how NCRC became an intermediary focused on supporting at-risk youth in San Diego. It then assesses signs of success and opportunities to improve the implementation of the two NCRC strategies to address the pipeline. It concludes with insights to inform NCRC’s next steps and the field more broadly. 

Key Findings

• Youth and families most highly valued the diversion program case managers; NCRC provided increasing support to them over time.

• At the end of the diversion program, youth and families reported continued disengagement from school. Diversion program leaders might prioritize tutoring or mentoring on educational engagement and achievement.

• Youth worried about falling back into old habits after the diversion program ended. Diversion leaders might prioritize preparing families to better support youth after programs end.

• Restorative practice coaches described some adults as suspicious of restorative practices. Modeling the practices with adults first helped to increase buy-in for using the practices with students.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024. 43p.

By the National Autistic Society (UK)

Autistic people, like anyone else, can sometimes come into contact with the criminal justice system.  Our new report illustrates how a lack of support for young autistic people, both before entering and within the system, can have profoundly negative consequences on future life chances.  The experiences of people in our report illustrate clearly what changes need to happen, reaffirming recommendations we have been calling and campaigning for.

Preventative support is needed for autistic young people at risk 

•  The average age range for early concerns for both autistic adults and parent/carers is 13-15 years 

• Many autistic respondents had not had their autism diagnosis until adulthood, whereas most relatives of parent/carers were diagnosed at primary school age

• 75% of autistic adults and 86% of parent/carers reported that they had been visited at least once by the police 

The top early concerns for parent/carers and professionals were being easily led or influenced by peers, violence or aggression toward others, damage to property or fire setting and being excluded from school. 

Failings in understanding and support from schools, statutory services, healthcare and the criminal justice system have also been defining factors, as illustrated from the following case study:

“For 18 months, I had been suffering from severe suicidal ideation...The GP still did nothing… so I tried other ways of getting help and therapy, but that had led to nowhere because waiting lists were so phenomenally long, so I committed the index offence in the context of trying to draw attention to my plight and need.”

More support is needed for autistic young people in the criminal justice system

• 71% of criminal justice professionals believe processes for identifying autistic offenders are ineffective or only effective in a minority of cases 

• 64% of professionals (from a variety of sectors) only occasionally or rarely get the support they need to support autistic people 

• Up to 54% of relatives of parent/carers disclose their autism diagnosis, whereas up to 47% of autistic adults did not have an autism diagnosis to disclose when first involved with the justice system

In most cases both autistic adults and parent/carers received no reasonable adjustments from all sections of the criminal justice system. When they were put in place, adjustments that were common when being interviewed by police were use of an appropriate adult and clear language when questioning. In court the most common adjustments were assessment by a psychologist or psychiatrist and being told in advance what to expect. For professionals in our sample, the main barriers to implementing reasonable adjustments were lack of awareness and understanding of autism and effective identification processes. To address this both the survey and interviews have highlighted the need to develop consistent infrastructure for identifying, diagnostic referral routes and more efficient sharing of information between internal and external agencies. 

Some of our top recommendations 

Our research findings reaffirm recommendations made by our charity in the past, as well as the All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism (APPGA) and the HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation services report in regards to awareness and support, which can be summarised as:

• Mandatory autism training across all sections of the criminal justice system and other sectors such as schools and health & social care services 

• Improved access to post diagnostic support and low-level support which can tackle early concerns of young autistic people

• Accreditation, quality assurance and monitoring of autism best practice across services 

• Improved access to specialist resources and key services for professionals when supporting, screening or referring for diagnosis.

• Improved awareness on what reasonable adjustments can be used and how to implement them within all criminal justice sectors 

• Access to best practice teams and autism champions

Clare Hughes, Criminal Justice Manager at the National Autistic Society, said: “No autistic child or young person should be at greater risk of being in the criminal justice system just because they are autistic. But our research shows the impact can be devastating when it happens.

“There needs to be better understanding of autism and support for autistic young people in every part of the system. The right early support must also be available to stop autistic young people from entering the system in the first place, including mental health support to navigate what can feel like a chaotic and overwhelming world.

“Staff working in the criminal justice system must be supported to understand what autism is and how to meet autistic young people’s needs. Autistic young people have already been failed by entering the system in the first place, there is no excuse to fail them further.

“We’ve been calling for many of these recommendations for years. Government must act now, once and for all, to ensure that autistic young people in the justice system are not forgotten.”

Laurie Hunte, Criminal Justice Programme Manager at Barrow Cadbury Trust/T2A (Transition to Adulthood), said:  

 “I welcome this new report from National Autistic Society focusing on autistic young people and the criminal justice system. It reveals how autistic young people need a distinct approach both to recognise the difficulties of their transition into adulthood, but also to support their needs as autistic young people in the Criminal Justice System.

The report highlights how a failure to diagnose autism early on means a young person is more likely to get involved with the criminal justice system, a system which is not geared up to support young autistic people.” 

London: National Autistic Society, 2022. 41p.

By Samantha Francois, Kimberly Wu, Erica Doe, Amber Tucker, Katherine Theall

Racism in all its manifestations is violence. This study examines the effect of discrimination-based racial violence in neighborhoods and schools on adolescent psychological and behavioral outcomes, while also testing the moderating influence of civic engagement. Researchers used a cross-sectional survey design to measure neighborhood and school-based racial discrimination, civic engagement, racial identity development, racism-based stress, and aggressive behaviors in a sample of 167, 13 to 23-year-old adolescents and emerging adults. Participants were recruited through a cluster randomized trial to test the impact of blight remediation in preventing youth violence. Study researchers hypothesized a direct effect of racial discrimination on adolescents' racism-based stress and aggressive behaviors and a buffering effect of civic engagement on these relationships. Researchers also examined these relationships in participants with higher-than-average racial identity development scores. Multivariate regression models revealed a significant direct effect of both neighborhood and school discrimination on adolescents' aggressive behaviors. Civic engagement had a positive buffering effect on the relationship between neighborhood discrimination and aggressive behaviors. Similar relationships were observed among adolescents with a high racial identity with a stronger effect. Study findings have implications for understanding the behavioral impact of racial violence and investing in civic engagement to mitigate its impact in adolescence and emerging adulthood.

Res Hum Dev. 2023;20(1-2):48-64. Epub 2023 Feb 24.

By Yotam Shem-Tov, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog 

 The Make-it-Right (MIR) restorative justice conferencing program serves youth ages 13 to 17 who would have otherwise faced relatively serious felony charges (e.g., burglary, assault, unlawful taking of a vehicle). Following extensive preparation, participating youth meet with the people they have harmed or a surrogate, accept responsibility for the impact of their actions, and come to an agreement on how the youth can repair to the greatest extent possible the harm they caused. If the youth follow through with the repair actions outlined in the agreement, charges against them are never filed. If they do not, they face traditional juvenile felony prosecution. In this study, eligible youth were randomly assigned to participate in MIR or to a control group in which they faced felony prosecution. We find that youth allowed to participate in MIR had a 19-percentage-point lower likelihood of a rearrest within six months, a 44 percent reduction relative to the control group of youth who were prosecuted in the traditional juvenile justice system. The reduction in justice-system contact persists even four years after the offer of participation, providing strong evidence that restorative justice community conferencing can reduce subsequent justice-system involvement among youth charged with relatively serious offenses and can be an effective alternative to traditional prosecution.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2022. 5p.

By Peggy Nicholson

In many respects, the evolution of juvenile court reform and school discipline reform follow similar trajectories. This Article begins by tracking those respective evolutions. Part I outlines the evolution of the juvenile court system in the United States and focuses on the fledgling system’s distinction of children from adults and its “rehabilitative ideal” that children could outgrow challenging behavior if given the right treatment and services. After a long period of “adultification” of the juvenile court in response to rising crime rates, more recent reform efforts have focused on returning to the early court’s rehabilitative model, including policies that would keep young children out of juvenile court altogether. With the context of the juvenile court’s evolution in mind, Part II tracks the history of exclusionary school discipline, which is defined as any school disciplinary action, typically a suspension or expulsion, that removes a student from his or her typical education setting. Many of the same rationales for the “adultification” of the juvenile court, including the myth of the juvenile superpredator and the rise of a zero-tolerance approach to discipline, led to a sharp increase in the use of exclusionary discipline throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. However, with a growing body of research showing the harm and inefficacy of exclusionary discipline, advocates for discipline reform have pushed to decrease its use, which has included proposals to ban or limit exclusionary discipline for young students. The efforts to protect young children from both juvenile court intervention and exclusionary discipline are explored respectively in Parts III and IV. Part III describes the movement to “Raise the Minimum Age” of juvenile court jurisdiction as an avenue to bar court processing for young children. Notably, Part III outlines the variety of rationales that have been used to support raising the minimum age and charts the success of the movement in the last decade. Against this backdrop, Part IV turns to the movement to end exclusionary discipline for young children. Although important differences between the juvenile court and school discipline exist, many of the same rationales that support keeping young children out of juvenile court also apply to protecting young children from exclusionary discipline. Despite these similar rationales, which are explored in Part IV, the movement to end exclusionary discipline for young children has had less success, with fewer states adopting these measures. Further, most states that have passed laws limiting school exclusion for young students still allow exclusions to move forward in many circumstances. Part IV tracks existing statewide efforts to limit exclusionary discipline for young children and describes some of the challenges faced by these reform efforts. Despite the challenges, there are also opportunities. Part V highlights lessons learned from the “Raise the Minimum Age” movement to make recommendations for building momentum for states to end exclusionary discipline for young children. Given the willingness in many states to protect young children from juvenile court intervention, there is hope that similar arguments and advocacy strategies can be utilized to advance statewide policies that will protect those same young children from the harm of exclusionary discipline.

11 Belmont Law Review 334-383 (2024)

By Ian A. Silver; Daniel C. Semenza, Joseph L. Nedelec

Youths incarcerated in adult correctional facilities are exposed to a variety of adverse circumstances that could diminish psychological and physical health, potentially leading to early mortality. Objective: To evaluate whether being incarcerated in an adult correctional facility as a youth was associated with mortality between 18 and 39 years of age. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study relied on longitudinal data collected from 1997 to 2019 as part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-1997, a nationally representative sample of 8984 individuals born in the United States between January 1, 1980, and December 1, 1984. The data analyzed for the current study were derived from annual interviews between 1997 and 2011 and interviews every other year from 2013 to 2019 (19 interviews in total). Participants were limited to respondents aged 17 years or younger during the 1997 interview and alive during their 18th birthday (8951 individuals; >99% of the original sample). Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to May 2023. Intervention: Incarceration in an adult correctional facility before the age of 18 years compared with being arrested before the age of 18 years or never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years. Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome for the study was age at mortality between 18 and 39 years of age. Results: The sample of 8951 individuals included 4582 male participants (51%), 61 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (1%), 157 Asian participants (2%), 2438 Black participants (27%), 1895 Hispanic participants (21%), 1065 participants of other race (12%), and 5233 White participants (59%). A total of 225 participants (3%) died during the study period, with a mean (SD) age at death of 27.7 (5.9) years. Incarceration in an adult correctional facility before the age of 18 years was associated with an increased risk of earlier mortality between 18 and 39 years of age compared with individuals who were never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years (time ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.95). Being arrested before the age of 18 years was associated with an increased risk of earlier mortality between 18 and 39 years of age when compared with individuals who were never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years (time ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 8951 youths, the survival model suggested that being incarcerated in an adult correctional facility may be associated with an increased risk of early mortality between 18 and 39 years of age

July 2023, JAMA Network Open 6(7)

By  Brendan Lantz, and Kyle G. Knapp

The analysis, entitled, Trends in Juvenile Offending: What You Need to Know, focuses on trends in offending from 2016 through 2022 by examining changes in the frequency of juvenile offending by crime type, demographics, and several other characteristics. This study uses incident information from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) from 2016 to 2022. The study period begins in 2016 because of notable increases in agency participation in reporting crime statistics to NIBRS following 2015; it ends in 2022 because that was the most recent year of data available at the time the report was prepared. To produce these data, offense, victim, and offender segment-level information was aggregated to the incident level for each year. The year files were then appended into a master incident-level file, in which incidents were restricted to those (a) involving at least one juvenile offender; and (b) from agencies that reported to NIBRS each month during the study period. From this file, totals were created for each month in every year. Some totals represent the total number of offender participations, while other totals represent the total number of incidents with one or more characteristics of interest. The outline below walks through each segment of NIBRS, how information was aggregated, how cases were dropped, and how totals were generated. 

2024. 20p.

By Ofsted and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons

 This report summarises our chief concerns about regimes at England’s YOIs. This type of secure accommodation holds convicted children aged 15 to 18. The report draws on Ofsted and HMIP’s 32 full inspection reports, and 5 reports following independent reviews of progress, across 10 years from June 2014 to March 2024. It also draws on comments from surveys of young offenders in custody, comments from leaders at education providers, YOI leaders and managers, and inspectors’ comments and findings. The review sets out a bleak picture of steadily declining educational opportunities and quality, reduced work experience and work opportunities, and sharply reduced time out of cell for children. In the worst case, in one setting some children had only half an hour out of their locked cells per day. We report on poor relationships between education providers and YOI leaders, poor-quality resources and infrastructure, severe staff shortages, and low levels of qualifications and training among staff. These factors result in children receiving a poor education that fails to meet their needs. Children have far fewer hours of lessons per day than their counterparts outside the secure estate. They have lower levels of attendance at classes, usually for reasons beyond their control. Because staff lack proper training, they cannot meet the needs of children with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND). Work experience opportunities and links to employers have become more limited during the past 10 years. This means that children are poorly prepared for their release and generally lack the skills and training that might help them secure employment. Chief among the reasons for the poor quality of education is the fact that YOIs are struggling with severe staff shortages. This makes it difficult for staff to build relationships with children and maintain order. They rely on very complicated regimes that keep large numbers of children separate from each other. Restrictive regimes mean that staff do not release children from cells to attend work or training. A vicious cycle develops whereby children are isolated, disheartened, and frustrated, then develop poor behaviors that lead to further restrictions being imposed. Poor leadership and poor cooperation between education providers and YOI leaders mean that, across the past 10 years, leaders and managers have put in place very few effective and sustainable measures to deal with the rapidly declining standards at YOIs.

Manchester, UK: Ofsted and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2024. 33p.

By Noor Huda Ismail

 Next month marks the first anniversary of the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel – a significant event that reverberated globally and triggered an uptick in youth radicalization, particularly online. The Singapore Terrorism Threat Assessment Report 2024 reveals that this conflict directly contributed to the radicalization of two Singaporean youths – a 14-year-old and a 33-year-old. These incidents can be explained by a psychological phenomenon called “identity fusion”, where individuals feel an intense sense of oneness with a group to the point where their personal and social identities merge. This feeling of unity makes them willing to make extreme sacrifices for their group as their identity becomes inseparable from the group’s fate. While identity fusion is not limited to Islamist extremism – it manifests in football fans reacting violently after a crucial loss or animal rights activists responding to trophy hunting – it has found fertile ground among youths who feel connected to the Palestinian cause. It is essential to recognize that the Hamas-Israel war is a long-standing issue, with roots tracing back to the establishment of Israel in 1948. This deep historical context adds layers to the narrative, making it particularly compelling for youths who perceive a sense of injustice and shared suffering. Southeast Asian policymakers must proactively address this challenge to prevent further radicalization among young people. This involves understanding the mechanism of identity fusion in online radicalization and embracing technology as a tool for effective intervention. By doing so, policymakers can create strategies that resonate with young people and counter extremist narratives.

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU Singapore, 2024. 4p

By Kelly Stewart, David DuBois

This brief scoping review provides an overview of current research findings relating to law enforcement mentoring of youth. While not a systematic review of all available research, the findings present the current landscape of the types of programs that have been studied, the goals of such programs, and the evidence of their effectiveness in achieving intended outcomes. The review begins with a brief history and theoretical justification for engaging law enforcement (e.g., police) as mentors. Next, an overview of the review scope and literature search strategy is provided, along with a summary of the findings of identified studies and consideration of their limitations. The final sections provide conclusions as well as recommendations for practice and research.

Boston: National Mentoring Resource Center, 2021. 14p.

By Manasi Deshpande & Michael G. Mueller-Smith

We estimate the effect of losing Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits at age 18 on criminal justice and employment outcomes over the next two decades. To estimate this effect, we use a regression discontinuity design in the likelihood of being reviewed for SSI eligibility at age 18 created by the 1996 welfare reform law. We evaluate this natural experiment with Social Security Administration data linked to records from the Criminal Justice Administrative Records System. We find that SSI removal increases the number of criminal charges by a statistically significant 20% over the next two decades. The increase in charges is concentrated in offenses for which income generation is a primary motivation (60% increase), especially theft, burglary, fraud/forgery, and prostitution. The effect of SSI removal on criminal justice involvement persists more than two decades later, even as the effect of removal on contemporaneous SSI receipt diminishes. In response to SSI removal, youth are twice as likely to be charged with an illicit income-generating offense than they are to maintain steady employment at $15,000/year in the labor market. As a result of these charges, the annual likelihood of incarceration increases by a statistically significant 60% in the two decades following SSI removal. The costs to taxpayers of enforcement and incarceration from SSI removal are so high that they nearly eliminate the savings to taxpayers from reduced SSI benefits

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022. 38p.

By Gretta L Goodwin,, et al.

Why GAO Did This Study AMBER Alerts quickly communicate information to the public in certain child abduction cases. DOJ oversees the AMBER Alert network, which is made up of law enforcement and other involved stakeholders. DOJ created the AMBER Alert program to help carry out its AMBER Alert responsibilities. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (2021 NDAA) required DOJ to take additional actions related to the AMBER Alert network. It also includes a provision for GAO to assess the extent to which DOJ implemented these requirements and identify any challenges or needs in the U.S. territories. This report addresses (1) U.S. territories’ processes for and challenges in responding to missing and exploited children’s cases, including issuing AMBER Alerts; (2) DOJ actions to integrate U.S. territories into the AMBER Alert network; and (3) DOJ efforts to address certain 2021 NDAA requirements related to the AMBER Alert network, including assisting Tribes and U.S. territories. Among other methods, GAO analyzed DOJ documents, such as its AMBER Alert Best Practices document. GAO interviewed DOJ and Fox Valley officials and relevant U.S. territory officials. GAO also interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable selection of six federally recognized Tribes.  

Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office, 2024. 45p.

By Paul Pazen and Steven L. Byers

People in Colorado have not directly experienced crime. From property offenses to violent crimes, every crime leaves a traumatized victim. Whether the wounds are physical, psychological, or financial, it is important to acknowledge the profound effects that a crime can have on its victims. At Common Sense Institute, our goal is to address the economic impact of crime while remaining conscious of the suffering that it causes. This report analyzes the cost of juvenile crime in Colorado and its economic impact. This study encompasses the period of 2010 to 2023 and the data comes from Colorado Crime Statistics (2023). Colorado’s juvenile crime trends tell a mixed story. On the one hand, youth crime rates have fallen in the last 15 years as property crime rates fall, follow. On the other hand, violent youth crime has risen. Meanwhile, the number of juveniles arrested and detained has fallen from a combination of alternative sentencing, diversion programs, and increased parole. It is violent crime that costs more. Juvenile crime results in direct or tangible costs including unrecovered stolen property, damaged property, victims’ out-of-pocket medical expenses, the cost of police, courts and correctional institutions, and lost earnings by both victims and juvenile perpetrators who are arrested and convicted. Juvenile crime also inflicts indirect or intangible costs like the pain and suffering of victims, reduced quality of life for everyone, and lower levels of investment and lower property values.i Intangible costs are difficult to measure with precision but, among those who have estimated them, there is a consensus that the intangible cost of juvenile crime far exceeds the tangible cost. Reducing current rates of murder, rape, assault, theft, and robbery by juveniles would produce a wide range of savings and other benefits to families, individuals, property owners and taxpayers. All estimates of the cost of crime in this report are adjusted for inflation and are reported in 2020 dollars so that costs can be compared across years. In 2021, after an extraordinary rise in crime, CSI estimated a total cost of crime of $3.3 billion. 

Greenwood Village, CO: Common Sense Institute, 2024. 30p.

By Eleanor Staples and Jo Staines

This research sought to provide evidence about care-experienced children’s involvement with YJSs from the perspectives of both professionals and children. It looks at how YJS professionals understand care-experienced children’s needs and challenges and what barriers exist to working with them. It also explores perceived success factors, roles and relationships with multi-agency partners, and the impact of policy instruments designed to reduce the numbers of care-experienced children entering the youth justice system.

Research & Analysis Bulletin 2024/03 Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2024. 52p.

By Elizabeth Cauffman

With support from NIJ and others, the University of California (UC), Irvine and the Superior Court of California, Orange County engaged in a collaborative effort to evaluate a Young Adult Court (YAC) that specifically handles justice-system-involved 18- to 25-year-old young men in Orange County, California. The study is a randomized controlled trial that follows young men in the YAC treatment group as well as similar young men who are processed in traditional court (“control”) for 30 months after their enrollment into the court (YAC treatment) or study (control). For this project, the research study team has interviewed the young men every 3 to 6 months for 30 months (baseline; 3-month follow-up, 6-month follow-up, 12-month follow-up, 18-month follow up, 24-month follow-up, and 30-month follow-up). Questions in the research interviews cover various domains, including criminal and antisocial behavior, perceptions of the legal system, psychological development, psychosocial maturity, social context (e.g., peer groups, family support), and environmental factors (e.g., neighborhood disorder). We also collect data from two additional sources for YAC treatment participants actively engaged in the court (i.e., pre-graduation). First, we conduct 10-minute interviews with YAC participants before or after their court hearings to assess their perceptions and experiences of the court as it unfolds. Second, case managers and the YAC probation officer submit reviews of each participant’s progress in the program. The primary goal of the study is to understand whether the YAC improves life outcomes for the young men by reducing recidivism, reducing antisocial behavior,  improving health, improving developmental and psychological outcomes, and/or promoting positive socio-economic and educational outcomes. When data collection is complete, another goal is to examine whether the YAC reduces racial, ethnic, and socio-economic disparities across the life-course– particularly after YAC graduation. In addition to designing and launching the brand new Orange County YAC, this NIJ-sponsored project also aimed to describe the perceived successes and challenges associated with involvement in another, pre-existing YAC: The San Francisco Young Adult Court (which was established in 2015; https://sf.courts.ca.gov/divisions/collaborative-courts/young-adult-court). For this component of the project, our goal was to use data from the San Francisco YAC to inform and improve the Orange County YAC. 

Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Program, 2024. 23p.