By Friedrich Lösel | Mark Stemmler | Doris Bender

Background: This article is dedicated to David Farrington who was a giant in criminology and, in particular, a pioneer in studying developmental pathways of delinquent and antisocial behaviour. Numerous studies followed his work. Systematic reviews of his and others' research described between two and seven (mainly 3–5) trajectories. The variation is due to the age of individuals, kind and seriousness of problem behaviour, data sources, assessment methods and cultural context. Reviews stated a lack of research on very early starting problem behaviour, broad developmental outcomes, data from multiple informants and (beyond description) on risk and protective factors or potential causes of the different trajectories. Aims: The present study addresses these issues in a prospective longitudinal design and test of the concept of antisocial potential (AP) in Farrington's ICAP theory. Methods: Data on more than 600 children and their families were gathered in a prospective longitudinal design over 10 years in Germany. To avoid potentially negative effects of criminal justice interventions, the study concentrates on child development from ages 4–5 to 6–7, 8–9, 10–12 and 13–14 years. Child externalising behaviour problems were assessed using the social behaviour questionnaire by kindergarten educators, mothers, school teachers and youth self‐reports. Developmental trajectories were analysed by general growth curve modelling (GGCM) across five time points. The prediction and explanation of different pathways included family factors (SES, stressful life events, aggressive and inconsistent parenting) and child characteristics (intelligence, resting heart rate, disruptive behaviour, temperament and social adaptability). In accordance with dose–response relationships, we also tested accumulated factors in the Cracow Risk/Needs Instrument. Results: The GGCM analysis revealed five developmental trajectories: high‐chronics (2.4%), high‐reducers (7.9%), medium‐ reducers (22.4%), late‐starters medium (8.7%) and low‐chronics (continuously unproblematic youngsters; 58.6%). Although the group with high externalising problems across all time points was rather small due to the affluent context of the region, there were significant social and individual differences between this and the other groups that fitted to ICAP theory. Furthermore, the study revealed differences between those youngsters that desisted from behaviour problems or started later. The predictive validity of accumulated factors in the Cracow Risk/Needs Instrument was very good for the comparison of the groups with persistently high versus no serious behaviour problems. Conclusions: Our results showed that different pathways of aggressive, delinquent, impulsive and other externalising behaviour already commence in early childhood. Behavioural stability (high‐ vs. low‐chronic problems) was well predicted by child and family characteristics, but there were also plausible findings on trajectories of behavioural change. Overall, the findings underline the need for early developmental prevention.

Crim Behav Ment Health, 2025 Feb;35(1): 10-21 pages

By Cheryl Yates and Laura Roeder-Grubb

This report provides an update to a previous report prepared by Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) for the Justice Advisory Board (JAB) in February 2020 on youth who entered the adult court system. The purpose of this report is to provide information on Iowa youth with serious offenses whose cases were handled in the adult court system from SFY2015 through 2021, the method by which they came into the adult court system, their sex, race/ethnicity, county, their first adult offense, prior history in juvenile court, and if they had a subsequent conviction in adult court within two years after their first offense. Research has generally shown that youth have worse outcomes when they are transferred to the adult justice system rather than being handled in the juvenile court system. Some states have raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. Under current Iowa Code 232.8, youth under age 16 are under the jurisdiction of juvenile court, but can be waived by the juvenile court to the adult court. Included within the group of waived youth are Youthful Offenders, under Iowa Code 232.45, who are between the ages of 12 to 15. Youth aged 16 and 17 are directly filed to adult court if they have serious offenses, including forcible felonies, felony weapons offenses, and serious drug offenses, but can be reverse waived back to the juvenile court. Three groups were studied: “Waived” youth, “Direct” File youth, and “Other” youth in adult court. Their characteristics and outcomes are described below. Please note that, in a small number of cases, long durations of time between the offense date and adult case initiation date occurred. Only 138 of the 3,312 youth in the file (4.2%) had one or more years pass between the offense date and case initiation date. Of those youth, 51% were sex offenders. This may be due to victims not coming forward until much later. From SFY2015 to SFY2021, 1,027 youth were “Direct Filed” to adult court.  90.7% were male.  43.8% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 16.7 years (range: 16 to 21 years).  85.9% of direct file youth had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.3  27.1% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  22.4% were reverse waived from adult court to juvenile court.  84.0% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  44.2% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. From SFY2015 to SFY2021, 1,284 youth were “Waived” to adult court.  81.4% were male.  31.6% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 17.1 years (range: 12 to 19 years). Please note that the “Waived” group includes 38 youth age 12 to 15 who may have qualified for the Youthful Offenders status under Iowa Code.  34.5% of waived youth had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  22.8% of waived Youth had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  51.9% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.4  68.7% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Of “Other” youth who were neither waived nor direct filed to adult court from SFY2015 to SFY2021, 265 were under the age of 18 at the time of adult case initiation.  63.4% were male.  24.9% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 16.4 years (range: 8 to 17 years).  29.8% of other youth under age 18 had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  31.7% of other youth under age 18 had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  30.2% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  66.0% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  21.5% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Of “Other” youth who were neither waived nor direct filed to adult court from SFY2015 to SFY2021, 735 were age 18 or older at the time of adult case initiation.  69.3% were male.  27.8% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 18.0 years (range: 18 to 21 years).  25.2% of other youth age 18 or older had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  17.8% of other youth age 18 or older had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  42.3% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  75.1% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  49.5% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Key Findings Based on the SFY2015-SFY2021 reporting period: Entry into Adult Court  38.8% of youth in the adult court system were waived, 31.0% were direct filed, and 30.2% were other. The percentage of waived youth has decreased overtime, whereas the percentage of direct file youth has increased over time. Counties with the Highest Rates of youth in Adult Court  The top six counties having the highest rates of their youth in adult court per 10,000 population were: Hardin (286.1), Des Moines (243.2), Monona (219.8), Lee (197.0), Black Hawk (182.5), and Scott (181.9). Only two of these counties, Black Hawk and Scott, are metropolitan areas. Demographic Profile of youth in Adult Court  80.1% of youth in the adult court system were male. Of the youth who were direct filed (90.7% were male, and 81.4% were male that were waived to adult court.  Racial disparities are evident among youth involved in adult court. 34.0% of youth in adult court were Black, but Black youth comprise only 7.3% of the state’s total youth population. Of the direct filed youth 43.8% were Black, and 31.6% of the waived youth were Black.  The average age of youth’s first adult court involvement, based on the date the case was initiated in adult court, was 17.1 years. Direct file youth, on average, were younger than waiver youth (16.7 years vs. 17.1 years). Characteristics of the First Adult Offense  All direct file youth had a felony charge, per the eligibility requirements set by Iowa Code. 34.5% of waived youth had a felony charge as their first adult offense. The percentage of waived youth with a felony charge (waiver offense) has trended upwards over time, increasing from 26.9% in SFY2015 to 42.4% in SFY2021.  All direct file youth had a violent charge (85.9%) or public order charge (14.1%) as their direct file offense, per the eligibility requirements set by Iowa Code. The most common waiver charge for waived youth was property (42.9%), followed by drug (23.1%), violent (22.8%), and public order (10.4%).  Waived youth were more likely to be found guilty of their first adult offense (51.9%) compared to direct file youth (27.1%). A higher percentage of direct file youth had other/unknown dispositions (34.7%). Other dispositions include change of venue, not filed, other, transferred, or waiver stipulation. 22.4% of direct file youth were reverse waived from adult court to juvenile court.  There has been a downward trend in the percentage of youth found guilty. There has been an upward trend in deferred dispositions. Prior Juvenile History  86.8% of the youth who entered adult court had a prior complaint in the juvenile court system. Among the categories, waiver youth, on average, had more complaints than direct file youth (6.4 complaints vs. 5.6 complaints). The average age of youth’s first juvenile complaint, based on the date the complaint was initiated in juvenile court, was 14.0 years.  Direct file and waiver youth were about the same age (an average of 13.9 years and 13.8 years, respectively) at the time of their first juvenile complaint. Recidivism within Two years  Recidivism was tracked for youth in the cohort, who had at least two years of time pass after their first adult offense. Only their most serious convicting offense was examined. 53.4% of the youth in the cohort had a subsequent conviction in adult court (excluding scheduled violations). Of the categories, 68.7% of the waived youth recidivated (68.7%), and 44.2% of direct file youth recidivated. Please note that the recidivism rate for direct file youth may be lower due to having a more serious offense that may have resulted in incarceration during the 2 year period. 27.1% of the direct file youth were convicted of their direct file offense. Those not convicted of their direct file offense may have been convicted of other serious offenses. This would likely have eliminated or reduced their opportunity to recidivate in the tracking period.  Of the youth who recidivated, 38.3% had a subsequent felony conviction as their most serious recidivist conviction. Direct file youth were more likely to have a subsequent felony conviction (48.8%) compared to waiver youth (36.6%).  Of the youth who recidivated, direct file youth were more likely to have a subsequent violent conviction (36.6%) compared to waiver youth (25.4%) as their most serious recidivist conviction.

Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights – Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 2022. 32p.

By Christine Reynolds, Lisa Moore, Rylee Screeton, Adam Winkle

In September 2022, the ICJI conducted a statewide juvenile justice survey to evaluate local juvenile justice systems in terms of equity and to identify risk factors that influence youth involvement in the justice system. The primary focus of the survey is to better understand juvenile arrest and referral data collected at the local level that is used to analyze racial and ethnic disparities within the juvenile justice system. The results of this study will allow counties to better understand racial and ethnic disparities data and identify methodologies for understanding these data more comprehensively.

 Indianapolis: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2024. 28p.

By Eóin O’Meara Daly, Jackie Dwane, Caitlin Lewis and Seán Redmond

HM Inspectorate of Probation is committed to reviewing, developing and promoting the evidence base for high-quality probation and youth justice services. Academic Insights are aimed at all those with an interest in the evidence base. We commission leading academics to present their views on specific topics, assisting with informed debate and aiding understanding of what helps and what hinders probation and youth justice services.

This report presents findings from a three-year top-down/bottom-up action research project undertaken in Ireland which examined effective relationship building between youth justice practitioners and crime-involved young people. Relational practice is at the heart of youth justice work, and the project has led to the co-creation of a Relationship Model (and accompanying guidance) which can be used as a reflective resource by practitioners and their managers. The model includes: (i) a base layer of creating safety; (ii) a core layer of ‘trust, time, support and being young person centred’; and (iii) seven grouped skills, attributes, and methods that can be applied at various points – these are approaches which encourage practitioners to ‘be fully committed, communicate with empathy, make connections and advocate, be flexible, practice use of self and reflection, be honest and challenge constructively’ and finally, ‘guide, inspire hope and build agency’. The model does not attempt to account for every eventuality, recognising that relationships by their nature are dynamic and diverse, but crucially it does provide evidence-informed signposts and pointers for youth justice practitioners to follow when trying to build successful and effective relationships.

Academic Insights 2025/01, Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2025. 13p.

By Thomas Ferguson

“Just before their eighteenth birthday these young people were asked by the Officers of the Children's Department who had been looking after them while in care whether they would be willing to participate in a study designed to shed light on these questions, and all but g of the go5 approached, 1 1 o boys and 95 girls, expressed their willingness to do so. From the official files information was obtained about their home background and early history, the method of dealing with them while they were in care, changes of foster-parent, and so on. Head teachers of the schools which they had attended were invited to comment upon the school performance of the young people their scholastic ability, temperament, recreations, rela­ tions with other children-and to hazard an estimate of their prospects of future success. ”

The Nuffield Foundation, The Oxford Press, 1966, 139p.

By Stephen Case , Kathy Hampson and Andrea Nisbet

This Child First research project was commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation to gain a greater understanding of what children think about their collaboration in youth justice decision-making processes. Participation and engagement of children in youth justice processes and practice is vital, particularly since the Youth Justice Board’s adoption of Child First justice as its guiding principle and key strategic objective. Child First is an evidence-based framework for working with children incorporating four tenets: see children as children; develop pro-social identity for positive child outcomes; collaboration with children and promoting diversion away from the justice system. The focus for this project is the third tenet, ‘collaboration with children’. Purpose Children’s voices have traditionally been neglected within youth justice policy, practice and research, which have mainly been undertaken and developed by adults for adults. Consequently this project sought to readdress this imbalance with its child-focus of facilitating children to share their genuine perspectives and experiences of their involvement in decision-making processes. The study explored children’s collaboration in decisions affecting them at allstages of the Youth Justice System and focused on four interconnected research questions relating to: collaboration understandings, collaboration objectives, collaboration effectiveness and collaboration practise development. Methodology The qualitative methodological framework of Participatory Interpretivism was chosen, which prioritises coconstructing the research with justice-involved children to ensure child-centric, Child First, co-creation of all research elements. Two different sample groups of justice-involved children were identified from a range of community and custodial settings, in order to address the research questions through participatory and cocreated methods and analyses: Project Reference Group (PRG) of justice-experienced children (n= 22) collaborating together with researchers throughout the life of the project to co-create the project design (including exploring creative methods), implementation processes and interpretation of findings, recruited from one hosting Youth Justice Service (YJS). Research Participant Children (n = 66) recruited from six geographically and institutionally diverse research sites to take part in system journey interviews and complete digital/paper diaries for reflecting on involvement within- and between-stages of the Youth Justice System (3 x youth justice services, 2 x youth offending institutions and 1 x secure children’s home).

Summary of Findings and Discussion Findings provided a rich description and interpretation of children’s views from the PRG sessions and interviews undertaken with participant children at the research fieldwork sites. PRG session observations highlighted the development of the project methodology throughout the fieldwork to: ✓ ensure child-friendly, child appropriate ways of communicating with children about the research concepts and questions ✓ trial creative activities/methods to neutralise power dynamics and encourage engagement ✓ interpret research findings from the participant sample to provide an opportunity for children to discuss, challenge and validate emerging themes and sub-themes ✓ disseminate research findings – children chose a pre-recorded rap backing track and, using quotes from participants and their own words, recorded a full rap song in a professional studio. Participant children sample findings in relation to the research questions: ✓ identified what children considered to be the essential elements of ‘collaboration’, summarised as being encouraged to engage in respectful conversations, being spoken to appropriately, being provided with clear information and having their views considered and taken into account ✓ revealed that children wanted professionals to ask them about their aspirations, listen to what they were saying and offer support to help them to achieve their goals so they could move forward with their life ✓ indicated that effective collaboration practice needs to be based around building authentic, positive, nonhierarchical relationships with professionals who cared about them, in a comfortable environment, to facilitate the development of effective and relevant support ✓ identified the main areas for practice development which they believed would improve Child First practice as: o wanting professionals to listen to children and their ideas for improvement o acknowledging and breaking down power imbalances by creating child-friendly environments o keeping children continually informed throughout their involvement with youth justice agencies o involving children in decision-making about them at both strategic and practice levels to benefit their experience and improve outcomes across the whole of the Youth Justice System. Furthermore, findings revealed that children’s experiences of Child First collaboration practice are inconsistent, with some parts of the Youth Justice System better than others. For YJSs, collaboration experiences were generally positive; within custody, it varied depending on the establishment and incentive scheme level; whilst interactions and engagement with the police, courts and children’s social care services were mostly negative. A discussion of the findings provides an overview of the main themes/sub-themes developed and an exploration of how they consolidate and extend existing knowledge related to children's collaboration and youth justice decision making and children's views of effective youth justice collaboration practice.

Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University. 2024. 130p.

By Jesse Kelley

Juvenile public defenders represent youth charged with crimes through the juvenile court system. Each state has a process to provide access to counsel for allegedly delinquent youth who are unable to pay for a hired private defense attorney. Indigent defense provides juveniles with the constitutionally mandated access to counsel, even if they cannot afford it. Court-appointed lawyers who work on delinquency matters in the juvenile justice field can be labeled as juvenile public defenders, indigent criminal defense attorneys, or contract or “panel” attorneys. While often interchanged, the key difference is that public defenders are part of an organized, professional office while contract attorneys are independent practitioners and usually have their own private firm. Enormous responsibility falls on each of these attorneys to diligently represent their young clients, but often these professionals are not adequately supported by the state. Supporting juvenile public defenders is necessary to ensure that justice and equitable outcomes are experienced by all young people in the juvenile court system. This policy study intends to highlight the many perils currently facing juvenile public defenders, how those disadvantages impact youth, what obstacles COVID-19 added and what solutions states can undertake to ensure that young people facing delinquency have the best resources available.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 95 October 2020, 5p.

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.