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

trategic 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 Emily Mooney

Children are uniquely risk-loving, adaptive and vulnerable to outside influences. Their minds and bodies are still developing, and their identity has yet to be firmly defined. For these reasons, they are traditionally considered less culpable for poor decisions than adults and are more capable of behavior change as they mature. As one saying goes: “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” Yet, while our society broadly recognizes this truth—we mandate education, for example, and have a different system of justice for the young—we sometimes forget it when crafting policy. In Maryland, there is no clearer example of this than when youth are automatically charged in the adult system. Accordingly, this brief provides an overview of the current context of this issue in Maryland, as well as a short argument against the practice, and concludes with policy recommendations that can encourage positive change.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 76 October 2019

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. .5p.

By Nila Bala and Emily Mooney  

The youth justice system in the United States is rightly shrinking. And yet, the historic disproportionality between white youth and youth of color in the system remains. Indeed, when it comes to the arrest rate of youth of color relative to that of white youth, the gap has actually widened over time. For this reason, more reform is needed to further limit youth involvement in the justice system overall and to ensure that those of all racial and ethnic backgrounds are held accountable in the most equitable manner possible. For this reason, Congress closed 2018 with the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act  (JJDPA), a key piece of juvenile justice policy. One of its provisions guides states and localities to locate and address racial and ethnic disparities (RED) in the juvenile justice system, which according to the law, occur when: “Minority youth populations are involved at a decision point in the juvenile justice system at disproportionately higher rates than non-minority youth at that decision point.”5 Too often, the issue of addressing racial disproportionality in the juvenile justice system has become a partisan issue. But, the problem should concern us all, as it can directly affect the rule of law and procedural justice, and can undermine the efficacy of the system’s responses. Furthermore, disparities in how youth are treated at the beginning can compound into disparities further down the line, such as ultimate commitment to the juvenile justice system. And moreover, reforms to the juvenile justice system will not be meaningful unless we address the reasons youth of color are disproportionately involved in the system today and often face harsher outcomes. While RED can occur at many decision points in the system, a useful place to focus our attention is at the point of diversion. As shown by developmental research, many youth who make poor decisions today will naturally grow out of these patterns as they age. Given this reality and the potential negative effects of system involvement,8 diversion from the juvenile justice system altogether can be an effective solution both to reduce juvenile system involvement overall and to promote racial and ethnic equity. Indeed, even those who have committed more “serious” offenses can benefit from diversion.9 Accordingly, the present study will first consider diversion and its overall goals, and how—when best practices are followed—it can be an intervention that supports individual dignity, limited government and the preservation of community. It will then address the need to promote racial and ethnic equity and identify a few causes of disparities at the point of diversion. And finally, it concludes with policy solutions that aim to promote equity and the proper use of diversion. 

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 178 July 2019 

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 8p.

By Lars Trautman

The success or failure of our criminal justice system hinges in large part on the quality and capabilities of the prosecutors operating within it. If they wield the powers of their office with precision, restraint and competence, they have the potential to right wrongs and even redress inequitable outcomes created elsewhere in the system. On the other hand, if they are unable to live up to the burdens of the office, incarcerated populations can swell and undeserving individuals can be unnecessarily tarred with a criminal record. Increasing prosecutorial capacity and effectiveness should therefore be of paramount concern, yet all too often, prosecutors must labor under far from ideal conditions. A typical prosecutor operates under a crushing caseload and in an information vacuum. She is expected to find effective and equitable justice for hundreds or thousands of cases a year, despite having little-to-no information on which prosecutorial recommendations have proven successful in the past or how her peers have treated similarly situated defendants. Likewise, her bosses may not only share her ignorance on prosecutorial performance and outcomes but must also consider how the average prosecution fits in with larger issues like community relations and how the office should respond to structural inequities such as unequal arrest rates. These demands and pressures can be aggravated in many prosecutor’s offices by a continued reliance on paper files and gut-level decisions rather than digital information and statistically sound policies. Often, prosecutorial offices have neglected to develop strong data due to a lack of resources and buy-in from prosecutors. Whereas the costs of new data investments are easily tallied, the benefits can be more difficult to identify and measure. The problem is also exacerbated by the healthy dose of skepticism with which many prosecutors view data. One study, for example, found that line prosecutors—the individuals actually prosecuting cases—overwhelmingly remain wary of data. They believe that it will either highlight issues over which they have no control, or worse, be taken out of context to pillory them and make their jobs even harder. Given the incredible power of prosecutors and the plethora of problems afflicting our justice system, this reticence is a shortcoming we cannot afford to ignore. Accordingly, the present study will address how data can be harnessed as a tool to reveal the extent of, and then help mitigate, many of the challenges facing prosecutors in their pursuit of justice. It will highlight promising existing programs and strategies as well as suggest how these efforts could be expanded in the future for even greater gains. It will conclude with a short argument in favor of additional data investment.

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 169 April 2019

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 7p.

By Emily Mooney and Jesse Kelley

Each year, hundreds of thousands of youth are referred to the justice system and placed on probation, which makes probation the most common sanction for young people. Yet despite its prevalence as a response to youth misbehavior, in its current form, probation is often an ineffective long-term intervention. For example, approximately 63 percent of Texas youth adjudicated delinquent and sentenced to probation in 2013 were rearrested within three years and 28 percent were re-adjudicated or convicted of a new offense within that same period. Similarly, in one study of Nebraska’s youth probation system, in the period between 2010 and 2015, one in four youth who successfully completed probation was adjudicated for a new offense within the following year. These trends are explained, in part, by the juvenile justice system’s failure to completely embrace the principles of adolescent development. Developmental research suggests that it is normal for young adults to make poor decisions during this period in life. Experimentation and risk-taking are often symptoms of a struggle to regulate one’s own emotions, anticipate the consequences of future actions or an attempt to impress one’s peers. In most cases, research also shows that adolescents will grow out of these habits on their own as they age. Thus, in many cases, youth currently placed on probation may do just as well or benefit more from local community-based interventions, such as diversion, or from dismissal from the justice system altogether. In contrast, formal justice interventions, such as probation or incarceration, may actually serve to increase the likelihood of future crime. For example, a 2013 report by the National Research Council notes: “[U] nduly harsh interventions and negative interactions between youth and justice system officials can undermine respect for the law and legal authority and reinforce a deviant identity and social disaffection.” In other cases, youth are appropriately served by youth probation but nonsensical probation practices, such as long lists of conditions or the use of incarceration as a response to technical violations, set them up for failure. Given the fact that youth are constantly developing, probation plans and services should be individualized and dynamic rather than stagnant. Further, incarcerating youth for actions that pose no substantial threat to public safety is a waste of time and resources, and jeopardizes the likelihood of future success. There have been some positive developments. Over the last decade, the total number of youth on probation has substantially declined. In 2008, approximately 540,000 youth cases led to the sanction of probation. By 2016, that number had decreased to approximately 282,000. And, in states like Virginia, the average daily youth probation population has decreased by more than half. While these trends, along with the decreasing number of youth behind bars overall, suggest positive movement away from “lock ‘em up” policies of old, there is more work to be done if we are to better serve our youth and their communities. Accordingly, the time has come for a new vision for youth probation. To achieve such a vision, states and localities must return to the core aims of juvenile justice involvement: namely, improved public safety and youth rehabilitation. They must also reassess the current paradigm regarding what probation looks like and whom it should serve. Accordingly, the present study provides an overview of the current state of youth probation and articulates a new paradigm, wherein localities limit government intervention, promote the role of families and—by better reflecting the principles found in developmental research—improve public safety; and finally, it presents a practical guide for how jurisdictions can improve their youth probation systems today.

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 168 April 2019

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 9p.

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 The Southern Poverty Law Center

When it comes to Georgia’s approach to its youth legal system, the past is prologue. Policies that emphasize youth incarceration over rehabilitation have political roots going back decades in the state. Rather than providing young people with needed services, this approach has led to vast racial disparities, systematic school pushout, well-documented harms meriting federal intervention, and significant fiscal waste. This report explores the policies and practices of Georgia’s youth legal system, as well as the political culture that undergirds it. Georgia has a youth legal system that is designed to incarcerate and punish, not restore or rehabilitate children.

• Georgia has a history of “tough on crime” laws, even though youth crime decreased by 80% in the state between 2000 and 2020. • Georgia is one of the few states in the U.S. that prosecutes 17-yearolds as adults and prosecutes children as young as 13 as adults for certain offenses – detaining them in adult facilities. • Georgia’s youth detention facilities have a well-documented history of physical and sexual abuse – including the death of three teenagers within weeks of each other in 2022. • Georgia’s Macon Youth Development Campus for incarcerated girls is the fourthmost sexually abusive detainment facility in the U.S., according to a national survey. 4 Georgia has a school-to-prison pipeline that is fueled by a reliance on zero-tolerance policies and alternative schools. • While Black children in Georgia’s schools make up 37.5% of students, they also make up well over half of all out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and assignments to alternative schools. • Several Georgia alternative schools, designed to educate students deemed too “disruptive” for traditional school, have dropout rates higher than their graduation rates. • Georgia’s zero-tolerance policies often lead to the suspension of students for minor infractions like vaping, which produced over 22,000 disciplinary actions in the 2022-23 school year. • Only 4.8% of incarcerated children educated in Georgia’s detention facilities tested as “proficient” or better on their 2022-23 end-of-grade assessments, with 29.9% dropping out of school that same year. Georgia’s youth legal system is fiscally wasteful and disproportionately impacts Black children. • Black youth in Georgia are more than twice as likely to be charged with an offense compared to their white counterparts, and more than three times as likely to be charged in court as an adult. • Black youth make up 35.5% of youth in Georgia, but comprise over 60% of all youth court referrals, delinquent adjudications, youth that are incarcerated, and youth sentenced in adult court. • Georgia spends $217,517 annually to incarcerate a child in its system, only to produce a threeyear recidivism rate of 35.1%.Policy reforms in Georgia should commit to a system designed to disrupt the schoolto-prison pipeline, reduce harm to children, and rehabilitate young people in a costproductive way. The Southern Poverty Law Center recommends: 1. Georgia should raise the minimum age of youth incarceration and prosecution to at least 14 years old, while ending the practice of charging and prosecuting 17-year-olds as adults. 2. Georgia schools should enforce fair and consistent due process hearings and end the use of zero-tolerance policies. 3. Georgia should make nonviolent offenses, especially technical violations and minor drug offenses, nonjailable for children. 4. Georgia should prohibit the assessment and collection of court fines and fees against children. 5. Georgia should create more opportunities for diversion and invest greater resources in community-based alternatives to incarceration. 6. Georgia should ban the practice of incarcerating youth in adult facilities and sentencing youth to life without parole.

Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2024. 26p.

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

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

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

Rand. 2024. 24p.

By Garner Clancey, Cecilia Drumore and Laura Metcalfe

The University of Sydney and Youth Justice New South Wales signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in July 2021. This MoU builds on various prior collaborative activities between the two organisations and related work in other jurisdictions. This paper reflects on the progress and challenges of collaboration of this kind. Specifically, there has been tentative progress in engaging non-traditional parts of the university in youth justice projects.

The initial stage of the collaboration highlighted challenges, including structures within the university which can frustrate interdisciplinary work. Time lines, staff turnover and resources also impacted this collaboration. We conclude with an outline of what might be achieved through ongoing collaboration and signal the importance of ongoing research to capture data and insights regarding the nature of this relationship as it develops.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 691. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024.

By David B. Wilson, Mark W. Lipsey

Research summary

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

Policy implications

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

Criminology & Public Policy Volume23, Issue2. May 2024.

David C. Pyrooz

This final summary overview describes a research project aimed at evaluating a gang intervention program, led by the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver (GRID), which has historically coordinated around two dozen strategies with partners emphasizing prevention, intervention, and suppression. The focus of GRID’s efforts is their use of juvenile and adult multidisciplinary teams (MDT) to facilitate coordination and individual case management of gang-involved youth who have been referred for services. A process and impact evaluation was undertaken between 2019 and 2022, and the project was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework before data collection. The evaluation was guided by two core questions: if the MDT-based approach achieves its stated purpose of providing comprehensive, coordinated services to gang members with fidelity; and if the MDT-based approach achieves its stated goals of producing disengagement from gangs and desistence from crime. The first question was the focus of the process evaluation, and the second question was the focus of the impact evaluation. This report provides details about the evaluation’s methodology and informs that evaluation findings were mixed. Findings showed: there is clear evidence, from the process evaluation, that GRID delivered a range of high-quality services with efficacy; GRID clients were nearly 70 percent less likely to engage in violence than individuals in the control group; and GRID clients were more than three times more likely to claim a current gang status than control group participants.

Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science , University of Colorado, 2023. 28p.

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

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

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

Edited by Franklin E. Zimring and David S. Tanenhaus 

This Is a hopeful but complicated era for those with ambitions to reform the juvenile courts and youth-serving public institutions in the United States. As advocates plea for major reforms, many fear the public backlash in making dramatic changes. Choosing the Future for American Juvenile Justice provides a look at the recent trends in juvenile justice as well as suggestions for reforms and policy changes in the future. Should youth be treated as adults when they break the law? How can youth be deterred from crime? What factors should be considered in how youth are punished?What role should the police have in schools?

New York; London: New York University Press, 2014. 257p.

By  Laceé N. Pappas &  Amy L. Dent 

By Marian Gewirtz and  Bosco Villavicencio, Jr

This report describes the processing of 16- and 17-year-old arrestees during the third year of New York State’s Raise the Age (RTA) Law. The law, which went into effect for 16-year-olds on October 1, 2018, and for 17-year-olds on October 1, 2019, raised the age of criminal responsibility in the State and changed how these Adolescent Offenders (AOs) are processed. Arrests from October 2020 through September 2021 are compared with arrests from October 2019 through September 2020 (year 2), October 2018 through September 2019 (year 1, the first year of the implementation of RTA for 16-year-olds and the year prior to implementation for 17-year-olds. Data is also presented for October 2017 through September 2018 (pre-RTA). RTA Arrests ● There were 1,364 arrests of 16-year-olds and 2,002 arrests of 17-year-olds in the third year of RTA. The number of arrests was lower in year 3 than in year 2, especially for 16-yearolds. ● The volume of arrests of 16- and 17-year-olds decreased markedly when they became eligible for RTA. The number of arrests continued to decline for both age groups and for VFO (violent felony offenses), non-VFO felony offenses and especially for misdemeanors. Prosecution ● The percentage of felony arrests prosecuted as felonies declined for both age groups and both VFO and non-VFO charges since implementation of RTA. However, the decrease was greater for 16-year-olds and for cases with non-VFO charges. ● There were far fewer cases for 16- and 17-year-olds prosecuted in adult court with felony charges after RTA was implemented. The decrease was steeper for 16-year-olds than for 17-year-olds. The number decreased from 1,111 in year 1 to 863 in year 2 and 668 in year 3 for 16-year-olds but declined from a high of 992 down to 894 for 17-year-olds. Arraignment ● About half of AO cases were removed to Family Court at arraignment in year 3, up from 44% for both age groups in year 2 and only 25% at arraignments for 16-year-olds in year 1 (17-year-olds were not yet eligible). The rate of removal was higher for cases with nonVFO charges than for those with VFO offenses. ● In the third year of RTA, youths were released at arraignment (ROR, under supervision or with other non-monetary conditions) in more than nine of every ten non-VFO cases but in little more than seven of every ten VFO cases. Adult Court Outcomes ● Most RTA case for both ages were removed to Family Court (84% to 90% across the ages and time periods), but the rates were higher for non-VFO cases (91% to 97%) than for cases with VFO charges (79% to 86%). ● In year 3, more than six of every ten VFO cases were removed at arraignment or the following day as were nearly nine of every ten non-VFO cases. Yet a month or more elapsed from arraignment to removal for one in ten AO cases.  Sentencing ● More than half of the sentences in AO cases included jail or prison time (55%) ranging from time already served pretrial (6% of sentences) to four years or more (10% of sentences).  

New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency 2023. 44p.

By Keith Finlay, Michael Mueller-Smith, Brittany Stree

Children’s indirect exposure to the justice system through biological parents or coresident adults is both a marker of their own vulnerability and a measure of the justice system’s expansive reach in society. Estimating the size of this population for the United States has historically been hampered by inadequate data resources, including the inability to observe nonincarceration events, follow children throughout their childhood, and measure adult nonbiological parent cohabitants. To overcome these challenges, we leverage billions of restricted administrative and survey records linked with Criminal Justice Administrative Records System data and find substantially larger exposure rates than previously reported: prison, 9% of children born between 1999–2005; felony conviction, 18%; and any criminal charge, 39%. Charge exposure rates exceed 60% for Black, American Indian, and low-income children. While broader definitions reach a more expansive population, strong and consistently negative correlations with childhood well-being suggest that these remain valuable predictors of vulnerability. Finally, we document substantial geographic variation in exposure, which we leverage in a movers design to estimate the effect of living in a high-exposure county during childhood. We find that children moving into high-exposure counties are more likely to experience post-move exposure events and exhibit significantly worse outcomes by age 26 on multiple dimensions (earnings, criminal activity, teen parenthood, mortality); effects are strongest for those who moved at earlier ages

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 138, Issue 4, November 2023, Pages 2181–2224, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad021

By Pamela D Schulz

The language in media stories surrounding the high drama of juvenile and youth crime is very alarmist and continues to fuel political debates and demands for tougher penalties rather than the proverbial slap on the wrist for young offenders. Further there are fear discourse elements that suggest that for some politicians cited in the daily news cycle as being “out of control”. In opposition to this fear and alarmist discourse in the notion that the media news cycle highlights youth crime for its sensationalist perspectives and poor reporting of youth courts and their judgments in such matters. A comprehensive discourse analysis of youth crime reporting may suggest that media must take the blame for some of the inappropriate focus on youth crime as being selective. This yearlong study suggests that the public need more information to see for themselves whether the current moves and political debates need to be reviewed and refreshed. In addition, family supports are a signal to consider as presented by expert authorities involved in decision making and reporting.

Children and Teenagers, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ct.v6n4p1

By The Sentencing Project

For a decade, incarceration disparities between Tribal and white youth have remained stubbornly high. As of 2021, Tribal youth were 3.7 times as likely to be detained or committed in juvenile facilities as their white peers, according to nationwide data collected in October 2021 and recently released. This ratio is essentially unchanged from 2011.1 There are 11 states with at least 8,000 Tribal youths (a cutoff that allows for meaningful comparisons), and Tribal youth are more likely than their white peers to be in custody in eight of these states. For the purposes of this fact sheet, all “Tribal youth” are by definition non-Hispanic/Latinx. (The underlying dataset labels them as American Indian.2 ) Juvenile facilities, including 1,323 detention centers, residential treatment centers, group homes, and youth prisons3 held 24,894 youths as of October 2021. These data do not include the 291 people under 18 in adult prisons at year-end 20214 or the estimated 2,000 people under 18 in adult jails at midyear 2021.5 Nationally, the youth placement rate was 74 per 100,000 in 2021. The Tribal youth placement rate was 181 per 100,000, compared to the white youth placement rate of 49 per 100,000. Between 2011 and 2021, overall juvenile placements fell 59%. In the 11 states with at least 8,000 Tribal youths between the ages of 10 and 17, between 2011 and 2021, disparities grew by at least 50% in two and decreased by at least 50% in two

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 3p.

By The Sentencing Project

For a decade, incarceration disparities between Latinx and white youth have fallen, though disparities still remain. As of 2021, Latinx youth were 16% more likely to be placed (i.e., detained or committed) in juvenile facilities as their white peers, according to nationwide data collected in October 2021 and recently released. These data reveal a sharp decline in Latinx-white youth incarceration disparities since 2011; that year, Latinx youth were 76% more likely to be in placement than white youth.1 Juvenile facilities, including 1,323 detention centers, residential treatment centers, group homes, and youth prisons2 held 24,894 youths as of October 2021. (These data do not include the 291 people under 18 in adult prisons at year-end 20213 or the estimated 2,000 people under 18 in adult jails at midyear 2021.4 ) Nationally, the youth placement rate was 74 per 100,000 youth in 2021. The Latinx youth placement rate was 57 per 100,000, compared to the white youth placement rate of 49 per 100,000. A total of 20% of youths in placement are Latinx, and Latinx youth comprise 25% of all youth across the United States.5 Latinx youth are more likely to be in custody than white youth in half of states with at least 8,000 Latinx youth (between the ages of 10 and 17), a cutoff that allows for meaningful comparisons Between 2011 and 2021, juvenile placements fell by 59%. During these years, Latinx youth placements declined slightly faster than white youth placements (a 65% decline vs. 57%), resulting in a smaller but still considerable disparity.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 3p.

By The Sentencing Project

For a decade, incarceration disparities between Black and white youth have remained stubbornly high. As of 2021, Black youth were 4.7 times as likely to be placed (i.e., detained or committed) in juvenile facilities as their white peers, according to nationwide data collected in October 2021 and recently released. This disparity has hardly changed over the past decade.1 Juvenile facilities, including 1,323 detention centers, residential treatment centers, group homes, and youth prisons2 held 24,894 youths as of October 2021. (These data do not include the 291 people under 18 in adult prisons at year-end 20213 or the estimated 2,000 people under 18 in adult jails at midyear 2021.)4 Nationally, the youth placement rate was 74 per 100,000 in 2021. The Black youth placement rate was 228 per 100,000, compared to the white youth placement rate of 49 per 100,000. Forty-two percent of youths in placement are Black, even though Black Americans comprise only 15% of all youth across the United States.5 Among all states with a population of at least 8,000 Black youth, (between 10 and 17), a cutoff that allows for meaningful comparisons, Black youth are more likely to be in custody than white youth. Black and white youth have similar juvenile placement rates in the District of Columbia.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 3p.