By The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (CFSY)

For over 12 years, hundreds of individuals serving juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) have not received a second look at their sentences despite mandates from the United States Supreme Court limiting the practice and requiring new sentencing procedures for youth. Twenty-two states still legally allow JLWOP and what's worse, certain outlier states are increasing their incarcerated populations of children serving the sentence. These concerns become even more alarming when contextualized in the broader picture. As outlined in this report, the imposition of juvenile life without parole is not only becoming increasingly unusual nationally but also more unequal. In the past 12 years, we've seen an overall 85% decrease in the population of those serving these sentences, while the number of states banning JLWOP has increased by over 800%. However, despite these positive shifts, the percentage of Black children serving juvenile life without parole has risen significantly – from 60% historically to nearly 80% today. The continued legality of life without parole for youth also further enables the legal system to sentence children to other extreme terms. For instance, JLWOP sentences can be used as bargaining chips in plea deals, resulting in children receiving lengthy terms of years or de facto life sentences with minimal chance of parole. Furthermore, in a context where JLWOP is an option, sentencing a child to 20 years may be more accepted despite the fact that this exceeds the maximum sentence for adults in many countries around the world. As this report details, the use of JLWOP is increasingly unusual and increasingly unequal. And when contextualized in these trends, its persistence in outlier states is exceedingly unacceptable. The more unusual and unequal it is to sentence a child to life without parole nationally; the worse outlier states fare when held up to globally accepted standards of decency for our youth. Taken together, the need to address the unfinished business of ending juvenile life without parole is urgent. 

Washington, DC: CFSY, 2024. 13p

By Karen Freeman and Neil Donnelly

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) has released a new paper examining interactions between young people aged 10 to 13 years and the NSW criminal justice system. The study finds that most 10- to 13-year-old children who appear in court are from a disadvantaged background, have been a victim of violence, have had significant contact with the child protection system, and have a parent with a history of offending. Aboriginal children and children living in regional and remote NSW are disproportionately affected.

In terms of their criminal justice pathway, the study found that:

• Most young people aged 10 to 13 years are dealt with under the Young Offenders Act which aims to divert young people from the court system were possible. In 2023, NSW Police commenced 4,662 legal proceedings against young people aged 10 to 13 years; two-thirds (63) were formal court diversions.

• Of the 719 criminal court appearances finalised in 2023 involving defendants aged 10 to 13 years, only 20% resulted in a proven outcome; half (53%) had all charges withdrawn and a quarter (25%) had a not-guilty finding. Even where an offence was proven, half (50%) resulted in a court ordered caution or youth justice conference. 

• There were 171 distinct young people aged 10 to 13 years who had an episode of youth detention in 2023. These young people all entered detention on remand, and three quarters (74%) of detention episodes were for 24 hours or less.

PARRAMATTA NSW, The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) , 2024. 23p.

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.

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 Barry Goldson

This article analytically excavates youth justice reform (in England and Wales) by situating it in historical context, critically reviewing the competing rationales that underpin it and exploring the overarching social, economic, and political conditions within which it is framed. It advances an argument that the foundations of a recognisably modern youth justice system had been laid by the opening decade of the 20th Century and that youth justice reform in the post-Second World War period has broadly been structured over four key phases. The core contention is that historical mapping facilitates an understanding of the unreconciled rationales and incoherent nature of youth justice reform to date, while also providing a speculative sense of future prospects.

Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 59(3): 317-334, 2020

By HM Inspectorate of Probation; Bob Smith, et al

Children who are remanded in youth detention are some of the most vulnerable in our communities. Numerically they are a small group, typically between 200 and 250 at any one time, and around 1,200 in a year. Many have experienced neglect, abuse and trauma. They have often missed out on schooling and diagnosis of learning needs and disabilities. Some have been victims of exploitation. For many of them, there have been missed opportunities to intervene earlier in their lives. The offences which the children in our sample group were suspected of committing were mostly serious, some involving life-changing injuries and loss of life. However, not all children in our sample needed to be remanded in custody. A quarter were released on bail before being sentenced, and inspectors judged that more of them could have been safely managed in the community. Children were bailed, often within a week of their initial remand, not because their risk had reduced but because a suitable bail programme with appropriate accommodation had become available which could safely manage those risks. Children’s services and youth justice services should work together more effectively to provide information and community remand options to the courts earlier. In this report, we set out a range of ways to achieve this, but it mostly involves good communication and clarity of responsibilities between professionals, who take a proactive approach. Children who are remanded comprise around 40 per cent of all children in custody. There is a gulf between the quality of care given in the three types of secure facilities used for children who are remanded in custody: secure children’s homes, secure training centres and young offender institutions. The quality of care is good in the secure children’s homes but less so in the others, where we identified many weaknesses in the management of remanded children. Children acquire child in care status as a result of their secure remand, and that is applied in widely different ways. The assistance they should receive is not consistently good enough, as a result of ineffective care planning and because their social workers lack knowledge of both the criminal justice system and secure estate processes. As a result, children do not always have timely access to basics such as pocket money to pay for phone calls (including to their social workers) and essential items. Families of sentenced children receive help with travel costs for visits from the secure estate, but families of remanded children rely on assistance from youth justice and children’s services, which is not always forthcoming. Social workers do not sufficiently implement the care planning regulations in the context of children’s circumstances when they are in the secure estate. As a result, the benefits of ‘in-care status’ are not realised to improve children’s circumstances. National standards and guidance are needed in this area. When the remand ends, some children return to their communities, and sometimes that return is unexpected. They do not always receive the support they need, and if they have reached 18 their case may need to transfer to the Probation Service. That does not always happen effectively. Underlying these shortcomings in remand are racial and ethnic disparities at many of the key decision points in the system, which result in black and mixed heritage children being over-represented in custody. This needs urgent attention. Our recommendations are designed to improve the quality of services across the whole remand process, to ensure that only those children who need to be detained are in custody and that those children receive a high-quality service that keeps the community safe but meets their needs, both when they are in custody and as they prepare to return to their communities.

Manchester, UK: The Inspectorate, 2023. 50p.

By David Foster

There is currently no general statutory obligation for individuals in England to report child abuse. Government statutory guidance on safeguarding, says “anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to local authority children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.” While this does not impose a legislative requirement to report abuse, it creates an expectation that those working with children will comply with the guidance unless there are exceptional circumstances.

In addition, some individuals are required to report child safeguarding concerns under standards or codes of conduct set by their professional regulatory body. A failure to adhere to such standards may result in misconduct or fitness to practise proceedings against them.

Mandatory reporting duty

There have been calls for a mandatory duty to report known or suspected child abuse and neglect to be introduced for specific groups, such as social workers and teachers. Proponents argue that a mandatory reporting duty would offer greater protection to children. However, others fear it could create a ‘needle in the haystack’ effect and result in a ‘tick-box approach’.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

The final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, published in October 2022, said children had suffered as a result of “a marked absence of a cohesive set of laws and procedures in England and in Wales that require individuals working with children to report child sexual abuse”.

The report recommended the UK Government and the Welsh Government introduce legislation placing certain individuals – ‘mandated reporters’ – under a statutory duty to report child sexual abuse in prescribed circumstances (for example, where they observe recognised indicators of sexual abuse).

The report recommended it should be a criminal offence for mandated reporters to not report child sexual abuse when a child or perpetrator discloses it to them, or they witness a child being sexually abused.

Government commits to introducing mandatory reporting duty

In April 2023, the UK Government committed to introduce, subject to consultation, a mandatory reporting duty for those working or volunteering with children to report child sexual abuse.

Following on from an earlier call for evidence, on 2 November 2023, the Government launched a consultation setting out proposals for a mandatory reporting duty and seeking views on “a small but significant set of undecided policy questions.” The consultation closes on 30 November.

Following a previous consultation in 2016, the Government decided against introducing a mandatory reporting duty.

Research Briefing. London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2023. 23p.

By David Foster

he child protection system in England is grounded in the Children Act 1989, as amended. Statutory guidance published by the Government, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides detailed information on the core legal requirements.

The Children Act 1989 establishes several key principles, including

• The concept of parental responsibility.

• That a child’s welfare is the main consideration when the court is considering a question about a child’s upbringing.

• That children are best looked after by their family unless intervention in family life is essential.

The Act places a general duty on local authorities to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in need in their area by providing a range of services appropriate to those children’s needs (section 17). It additionally sets out what a local authority must do when it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm (section 47).

Section 31 of the Act sets out the circumstances under which a court may make an order placing a child in local authority care (a care order). The Act also sets out the functions of local authorities in relation to looked after children, including a duty under section 22(3) to safeguard and promote their welfare.

Research Briefing. London: UK. Parliament, House of Commons, Library, 2023. 23p.

By Todd Honeycutt, Janine M. Zweig, Megan Hague Angus, Sino Esthappan, Johanna Lacoe, Leah Sakala, and Douglas Young

Funded and supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, several communities across the US have undertaken deep-end reform designed to safely and significantly reduce juvenile out-of-home placement, especially for youth of color. From 2013 through 2018, the Foundation funded a developmental evaluation of this reform to better understand what worked well, what could be improved, and lessons for the field. During the evaluation period, 12 local jurisdictions across the US pursued deep-end reform, receiving grants and tailored, technical assistance from the Foundation. They pursued a range of deep-end reform activities including improving probation practices, enhancing decisionmaking throughout the juvenile justice (JJ) system, expanding diversion and service options, and increasing youth and family engagement.

The Foundation funded a six-year evaluation to understand what worked well and what could be improved and to identify lessons for the field. Researchers from the Urban Institute and Mathematica collaborated on the evaluation and worked closely with Foundation staff to develop and answer questions about the reform using a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative data collection approach. The Foundation began deep-end reform knowing the work would evolve, and it wanted the evaluation to inform and strengthen the reform, track the changes it effected, and document sites’ successes and challenges.

The evaluation team documented its findings in this summary report, four briefs (one each on improving data capacity, advancing probation reform, engaging youth and families, and pursuing racial and ethnic equity and inclusion), a journal article (published in Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice) on transforming juvenile probation through culture change, and technical appendixes documenting sites’ deep-end reform activities and describing the evaluation’s methods.

The evaluation produced the following key findings:

• The communities that engaged in deep-end reform conducted multiple activities to reduce out-of-home placements and improve racial and ethnic equity and inclusion in their juvenile justice practices.

• Diversion (both before and after adjudication) was an important component of the work that sites pursued.

• Probation-specific activities addressed three core areas: (1) improving or expanding case planning (such as through teaming or case reviews); (2) expanding services (for example, diversion activities or wraparound services); and (3) establishing standard processes (as with probation agreements or early termination).

• In addition to activities addressing youth’s specific needs, many sites pursued broad activities to improve the capacity of the JJ system (such as developing resource directories or training probation staff) or engage youth and families (such as providing information or developing family councils).

• Most probation staff report always or very often focusing on youth’s strengths and assets to motivate change. This focus includes working closely with their parents and caregivers to achieve desired outcomes, individualizing service plans based on their unique needs, and talking directly to youth about their probation terms and conditions. From 2016 and 2018, probation staff in sites implementing deep-end reforms reported more frequent use of practices and principles addressing community engagement and racial and ethnic equity and inclusion.

• Although sites shared no single characteristic that appeared linked to the success of deep-end activities, five particular characteristics were common and were therefore considered assets to implementing reform: (1) deep-end reform leaders with positional power, (2) deep-end reform leaders committed to reform, (3) strong community partnerships, (4) stakeholder and site staff buy-in, and (5) substantial data capacity.

• The evaluation yielded two lessons about engaging youth and families. First, involving youth and families at the individual level (for example, including them in case planning) might be less difficult than engaging them at the system level (such as on a family council to advise JJ leaders). Second, external resources (such as technical assistance and collaborations with community organizations) can facilitate activities related to youth and family engagement.

• Racial and ethnic equity and inclusion does not have a one-size-fits-all approach; stakeholders must consider their unique challenges and opportunities and apply strategies that fit their needs. Collaborating with youth, families, community members, and organizations outside the JJ system is essential for advancing equity and inclusion goals.

• Sustaining changes to deep-end policy and practice related to probation required buy-in from frontline probation staff and a shared understanding of the purposes of probation. Almost every site engaged in discussions to understand deep-end staff and stakeholders’ views about the purposes of probation through technical assistance that the Foundation sponsored.

• Certain key factors can help a jurisdiction use data to inform its reforms and decisions. These factors include staff buy-in, expertise in analytical methods and the JJ system, staff capacity to gather data, data collection system capacity, and cross-system coordination and information sharing.

• When asked about the benefits of participating in deep-end work, stakeholders identified overarching examples across five categories: (1) focusing more strongly on JJ practices, especially on understanding and addressing racial and ethnic disparities and on engaging youth, families, and communities; (2) using data more to drive reductions in placements and racial disparities; (3) leveraging additional resources, such as finding additional funding to sustain reform efforts; (4) reducing out-of-home placements and safely meeting the needs of youth and families in the community; and (5) benefiting from training and technical assistance and learning about elements of the deep-end vision and key activities.

• As with many complex initiatives, deep-end reform involves challenges. Culture change, particularly toward addressing racial disparities and increasing inclusion, can be difficult to achieve at all levels of the JJ system. Partnerships, particularly with community organizations and youth and families, can require significant time, energy, and dollars to be successful. Multiple sites struggled with collecting and analyzing the data needed for reforms. Though stakeholders often overcame these challenges, doing so was not easy, even with a committed team and Foundation assistance.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2020. 44p.

By User Voice

This report presents the voices of young people who have experienced serious youth violence. The principal objectives of this project were to understand young people’s experiences of reporting to the police, safeguarding, interventions, and the support they receive from the police and other services. We examined the factors that made the young people vulnerable to serious youth violence and the facilitators and barriers they experience when it comes to accessing support. User Voice spoke to 13 young people aged between the ages of 18 and 24 who were in prison, in young offender institutions or on probation. Overall, we found that the young people we spoke to had extensive experience, both as the perpetrators and targets of serious violence. Between the ages of 14 and 17, many of the young people we spoke to had been stabbed on numerous occasions, shot, attacked with hammers, assaulted with baseball bats, and run over. They had often been the target first, and had then often become involved in crime and violence. Some spoke of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but most didn’t want to talk about the effect these incidents had had on them. Many of the young people we spoke to had faced many challenges in early life. The majority were poor, had been surrounded by crime and violence, lived in social care, and been criminalised as children. Many of them described feeling let down repeatedly by the people and systems that were meant to care for them. They said that their friends are like family and offer the protection and support they need. Serious violent incidents often relate to earning respect, drugs or money, or to gaining control in specific postcode areas occupied by other gangs or groups. The young people we surveyed have no confidence in the police and other services. Through numerous negative experiences with these systems, they believe that the police can’t protect or help them. There were several accounts of manipulative practices, blame, assault, and police putting them in danger, for example, by dropping them in their ‘enemy’s’ area. There were mixed views on the support offered by the youth offending teams (YOTs). And some of the young people we spoke to said that YOTs, prison services and probation services all failed to consider the life-threatening nature of living in, or passing through, the wrong area. The young people told us they weren’t always offered or didn’t always accept support. They felt that those with ‘perfect lives’ couldn’t understand them and therefore couldn’t help them. Some courses offered were considered tick-box exercises offering unrealistic solutions to complex problems. They stated that they felt set up to fail. They also said that they thought that initiatives led by those with lived experience of serious youth violence, care rather than criminalisation, and alternative means to earn a living would prevent them from committing crime or help them more

London: HMICFRS (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constbulary and Fire & Rescue Services, 2023. 37p.

By Gillian Hunter, Claire Ely, Carmen Robin-D’Cruz and Stephen Whitehead

This report details the findings of a research project which was jointly undertaken by the Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI) and the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck, with funding from the Nuffield Foundation.

The project examined current practice in the youth court, including how the court was meeting the needs of vulnerable young people. Specifically, we were interested in understanding current youth court practice and exploring the potential impact of practices aligned with problem-solving justice – an evidence-based approach which seeks to hold people accountable and to help them to proactively engage with the court to address the factors driving their offending.

Background In the last 10 years, there has been a 75% decline in cases coming into the youth court, caused by both falls in youth crime and the youth justice system’s success in diverting eligible cases away from court. However, while there are currently fewer court-involved young people, they tend to have more significant welfare and other needs as well as more serious offending profiles than they did a decade ago. Having fewer court-involved young people to work with gives the youth justice system a golden opportunity to concentrate its energies on further reducing reoffending and preventing future harm. To that end, the Carlile Inquiry in 2014 (in which the current Lord Chancellor participated), the Taylor Review in 2016 and the Lammy Review in 2017 all advised that youth court practice should become more ‘problem-solving’, to better address children’s underlying welfare needs. Missed opportunities Our research follows on from these reviews. It looks specifically at current youth court practice through the lens of evidence-led problem-solving justice. It does this by focussing on the procedural fairness of youth court hearings; the specialism of youth court practitioners; how multi-agency youth offending services provide collaborative interventions and supervision to court-involved children and young people; the extent to which youth courts engage in judicial monitoring post-sentence; and the operational environment surrounding youth court practitioners. Fieldwork was conducted in three sites across England, comprising five youth courts and associated youth offending services, between February and October 2019. During our research, we came across many dedicated practitioners who were committed to improving the support for children and young people appearing in court, and we saw examples of creative and innovative practice being developed locally. One site was trialling a form of post-sentence judicial monitoring (of the type recommended in the Carlile and Taylor reviews) to provide informal, YOS-managed review hearings for young people on Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YROs). A second site was preparing to pilot a similar approach, in which magistrates, in partnership with the YOS, will hold informal, monthly reviews of YROs. However, we also observed practice which fell short of what is recommended for the youth court: long delays, especially in cases coming to court; lack of availability of professionals with the required specialisms for youth court; limited services to respond to children and young people’s speech, language and communication or mental health needs; limited engagement by children’s services (understandable given their resource constraints); and generally, a more difficult operational environment, resulting from the twin impacts of constant court modernisation (including court closures and mergers) and reductions in funding. What we found far too often was an over-burdened system in which practitioners struggled to deliver the services required of them by national government. As a result, vulnerable children and young people coming before the court are not always receiving the treatment they need – making it all the more likely they will offend again. Time to get it right What our research has shown is that youth courts need to be enhanced to change outcomes for the vulnerable young people who appear there. We are very aware that the Carlile, Taylor and Lammy review teams have been here before us. Our research has walked in their footprints and, sadly, we have seen that their calls for significant reform have remained largely unanswered. We think it is time to get it right. 1. Tackle pre-court delays and maximise diversion opportunities pre-court There is urgent need for action to address the delays between offences and the commencement of court proceedings. These delays impact on everyone, including victims, witnesses and defendants. A key problem is delayed charging decisions by the police, which were also shown to disrupt children and young people’s own rehabilitative efforts. While we found strong support for out-of-court resolution of children and young people’s cases (and strong support for victim involvement and restorative justice in these disposals), we also found evidence of cases still coming to court that should have been resolved out of court. We recommend that (i) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the National Police Chief’s Council and the Home Office develop a protocol which limits the amount of time children and young people can be kept under investigation before a charging decision is made (though there may need to be exclusions for the most complex cases); (ii) we recommend that the Youth Justice Board should publish clear national guidance on effective, evidence-based point-of-arrest diversion and out-of-court disposal practice.

Centre for Justice Innovation, 2022. 48p.

By Michael Welner , Matt DeLisi , Heather M. Knous-Westfall , David Salsberg , Theresa Janusewski

Highlights

• The United States Supreme Court in Jones (2021) reinforced the Miller decision to allow sentencing judges the discretion to determine whether convicted killers under age 18 warrant a life sentence.

• The Miller decision dictates individualized sentencing, citing psychosocial disadvantages, immaturity, potential evolving risk, and how these qualities differ for each defendant.

• The expressions of immaturity in crime are not; however, accounted for in the same way that expressions of major mental illness reference years of crime-specific research and diagnostic standardization. For this reason, forensic assessments in this emerging area remain unguided and vulnerable to bias.

• A complete assessment of the offender should include questions in the following domains: developmental, scholastic/vocational, social, interpersonal, traumas, antisocial history, and psychiatric/medical.

• We present questions to more fully and accurately inform the individualized sentencing requirement in Miller cases.

Forensic Science International: Mind and Law(4): 2023.

By \The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

Utilizing interviews and data from law enforcement, probation and parole, and community-based organizations, NICJR has conducted detailed analyses of gun violence in several cities throughout the country. Although youth account for only a small proportion of the population involved in nonfatal injury shootings and homicides,² YDII is based on the premise that risk factors for gun violence were likely already present during the pre-teen and adolescent years. If specific experiences and measurable characteristics can predict who will become a victim or suspect in a shooting later in life, these data can be used to guide intervention strategies to prevent the violence.

But what risk factors did the young adult shooting suspect possess at the age of 13? NICJR will select at least five jurisdictions to conduct data analysis and a longitudinal cohort assessment of young people between the ages of 18-25 who have been convicted of homicide or attempted homicide. The study will trace their backgrounds and contacts with the juvenile justice, child welfare, education, and other systems and attempt to identify a common pattern of combined risk factors that predict future gun violence. After the completion of the data analysis and longitudinal assessment to identify the series of risk factors that is predictive of future gun violence involvement, the goal of YDII is to help jurisdictions track these risk factors in youth in real time, most likely through the school system. When any young person reaches the threshold of this series of risk factors, the project team will engage that young person and their family in an array of intensive community-based services and supports

Oakland, CA: NICJR, 2022. 17p.

By Emma R. Barton, Lara C. Snowdon, Bryony Parry, and Alex Walker

Violence among children and young people (CYP) is a complex societal issue that has detrimental impacts on the health and well-being of children, young people, and adults throughout their lives. Population health research tells us that CYP are adversely at risk of experiencing violence and are at higher risk of experiencing multiple forms of violence. However, evidence suggests that prevention approaches are most effective when implemented with CYP and can have positive health, well-being, and social impacts across the life-course. This social innovation narrative sets out how the Wales Violence Prevention Unit and Peer Action Collective Cymru coproduced a strategic multi-agency framework for the prevention of violence among CYP in Wales. The first of its kind to be developed in the United Kingdom, this national framework acts as a guide to strategic action on violence prevention, amplifying the voices of CYP, and providing evidence of “what works.” This evidence-informed, coproduced framework used an innovative participatory design process to listen to the voices of a diverse range of stakeholders, highlighting the voices of CYP. Informed by the views and experiences of over 1,000 people in Wales, and grounded in the lived experiences of CYP, the Framework proposes nine strategies to prevent violence among CYP as part of a public health approach to violence prevention. These strategies represent evidence-based approaches proven to reduce violence among CYP, address the risk factors for youth violence, and build individual, community and societal resilience.

September 2023Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 8(3):139-147September 2023Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 8(3):139-147

By Peers Kayla Freemon, Veronica M. Herrera , Hyunjung Cheon , and Charles M. Katz

Growing up in a household without two parents present is an established risk factor for youth delinquency. However, much of the research on family structure and delinquency derives from U.S. samples, limiting applicability to the developing world. The present study explores the role of traditional and non-traditional family structures on self-reported delinquency in eight English Speaking Caribbean nations. We further examine the moderating role of family processes (parental attachment and parental supervision) and commitment to negative peers on this relationship. We find that youth from intact nuclear families, with a mother and father present, engage in less delinquency than youth from intact blended, single-parent, or no-parent households. Further, family structure moderated the relationship between delinquency, parental attachment, and commitment to negative peers. Theoretical and research implications are discussed.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2023, Vol. 21(2) 149–171

By Nicholas M. Pace, Dulani Woods, Roberto Guevara, Chau Pham, Shamena Anwar

In 2019, the Utah Indigent Defense Commission (IDC) asked the RAND Corporation for assistance in determining maximum caseload standards for providers of indigent legal representation to defendants in trial-level courts and to minors in juvenile courts of the state of Utah. Maximum caseload standards, typically expressed in terms of the number of cases of a particular type that can be reasonably handled by an attorney over the course of a specific time period, are a useful tool for determining both when caseloads are in danger of being excessive and the number of attorneys that may be needed to handle expected demand.

Similar to previous studies in other states that have also addressed the question of reasonable caseloads, this project conducted three data collection efforts to provide the empirical foundation for the Utah standards: an analysis of attorney time records maintained by two large public defender offices in Salt Lake County, a survey of indigent defenders practicing in Utah, and the convening of a panel of experts to reach consensus on recommended average time expenditures for counsel representing indigent defendants in various categories of criminal matters in Utah trial courts. The authors present for the IDC's consideration recommended caseload standards based on analysis of the collected data.

Key Findings

Adoption of the expert panel's recommendations would require a sharp increase in the supply of annual attorney hours available for indigent defense

The panel of experts, drawing on their own expertise and the data from the analysis of indigent defender time records and the survey of indigent defenders practicing in Utah, recommended average hours that were significantly greater than the results of the time analysis or attorney survey.

The minimum increase beyond reported average attorney hours was 46 percent, and, depending on the category, the expert recommendations actually doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled what were reported as average time expenditures.

Santa Monica CA: Rand, 2022. 107p.

By Stephanie Campos-Buist and Jeffrey Selbin

In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed landmark bipartisan legislation making California the first state to abolish entire categories of monetary sanctions. Starting January 1, 2018, Senate Bill 190 prohibits counties from charging all administrative fees in the juvenile legal system. SB 190 also repealed county authority to charge certain fees to young people ages 18 to 21 in the criminal legal (adult) system.

Senators Holly Mitchell and Ricardo Lara authored SB 190 to “eliminate a source of financial harm to some of the state’s most vulnerable families, support the reentry of youth back into their homes and communities, and reduce the likelihood that youth will recidivate.” California became a national model when it abolished these fees, offering the promise of debt-free justice for young people and their families.

This study presents key findings about the implementation of SB 190 and the status of fee reform in California since January 1, 2018. The findings, based on extensive public records and stakeholder interviews, document how counties have gone beyond the requirements of SB 190 to relieve hundreds of thousands of families of more than $237 million in previously assessed fees, and counties have taken further steps to end harmful and racially discriminatory fee practices.

However, the study finds that not all counties are complying fully with the new law. Some counties continue to charge SB 190 prohibited fees to families through child support orders and to young adults in the criminal legal system. Some counties have also resisted calls to end all collection activity and continue to pursue more than $136 million in previously assessed fees from California families.

The study concludes by recommending concrete actions that county and state officials can take to ensure full compliance with SB 190 and to realize the full benefits of fee abolition

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, School of Law, 2019. 34p.

By Jeffrey Selbin

Maria Rivera was raising two boys on her own in Orange County, California, when her youngest son got into trouble. Although court records for youth are typically sealed, we know that in 2008 Ms. Rivera’s son became one of tens of thousands of young people referred annually to the state’s juvenile legal system, resulting in his detention for almost two years. Then came the bills. The county charged Ms. Rivera $23.90 for every day her son was detained and $2200 for his court-appointed lawyer. All told, Orange County said she owed more than $16,000. Until recently, California law authorized counties to charge administrative fees to parents and guardians for their children’s detention, lawyers, electronic monitoring, probation supervision, and drug testing. By statute, the fees were supposed to help counties recoup “the reasonable costs of support of the minor,” but the law also required counties to determine whether families could afford to pay the fees. Ms. Rivera was unemployed and unable to make payments, so Orange County should have waived her fees. But California’s “ability to pay” provisions, in fact, put the burden on families to appear before a financial evaluation officer to prove their inability to pay. Like many families with youth in the juvenile legal system, Ms. Rivera was unable to meet the county’s demands to make such a showing. To deal with the mounting bills, Ms. Rivera sold her house and paid the county more than $9500. The county did not consider the judgment fully satisfied, so it obtained a court order against Ms. Rivera for almost $10,000. On top of what she had already paid and for reasons the county never explained, the court order exceeded what the county originally billed Ms. Rivera by more than $3000. Once a court orders juvenile fees to be paid, the debt becomes a civil judgment enforceable against the parent or guardian. Unlike most other civil judgments, juvenile fee debt lasts forever. If families fail to repay the debt, counties refer their accounts to the state’s Franchise Tax Board to intercept their tax refunds and garnish their wages. Unable to pay the civil judgment, Ms. Rivera filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. When the bankruptcy court discharged her fee debt, Ms. Rivera may have thought the matter was resolved. But Orange County would not relent, eventually persuading the bankruptcy court to reinstate the debt on the grounds that it was not dischargeable under chapter 7. I

98 N.C. L. Rev. 401 (2020)

By HM Inspectorate of Probation

During the course of this remote inspection in April and May 2021, we examined the quality of work delivered by YOSs in Manchester, Lewisham, Nottingham, Haringey, Hackney, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool and Oxfordshire. All YOSs were selected due to the volume of their caseload and an over-representation of black and/or mixed heritage boys in their services, as recorded in the Youth Justice Board (YJB) disproportionality toolkit data. We looked at the work delivered through a lens that considered the child’s ethnicity, their diversity and any experiences of discrimination. We examined 173 cases of black and mixed heritage boys (59 out-of-court cases and 114 post-court cases), which had commenced within the previous 12 months. We interviewed 99 case managers. We also interviewed senior managers from the YOSs, and held focus groups with case managers, middle managers, partnership staff, volunteers and the youth offending service strategic management boards. Our work was also informed by surveys completed by staff, parents, volunteers and magistrates. We undertook a week of meetings with representatives from national organisations, including the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, the Home Office, the Department for Education, Ofsted, the Magistrates Association, the Chief Executive Officer for the Association of Police Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. An expert reference group contributed to this report by advising on strategic, technical and operational issues associated with the subject and services under inspection (Annexe 3). It represented the views of key stakeholders in the areas under scrutiny, and commented on emerging findings and final recommendations. We commissioned the services of ‘User Voice’, who met with 38 black or mixed heritage boys to gather their perspectives on the services that they had received from the YOSs. The boys also helped us understand some of the challenges they face in their day-to-day lives and what could be done to help. A report from User Voice is published alongside this report. Key findings and quotations have also been incorporated in this report. Inspectors spoke with a small number of parents whose children were, or had been, involved with the YOS and who requested a meeting. What we learned about the boys In all services we inspected, staff and managers told us that the large majority of black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system had experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and had high levels of need, such as special educational needs (SEN) and mental health difficulties, which had not always been identified or properly addressed until they came into contact with the YOS. This raises questions and concerns about the support they received from mainstream services before their involvement with the youth justice system. Reports of high levels of unmet need for black and mixed heritage boys entering the youth justice system was a consistent theme of this inspection. There was a general consensus among YOSs that, had problems and difficulties been addressed earlier in the children’s lives, there could have been a different outcome for them. In the post-court cases we inspected, 60 per cent of the boys were, or had been, excluded from school, the majority permanently. Almost a third had been victims of child criminal exploitation. In half of the cases inspected there was evidence (where it had been recorded) that the child had experienced racial discrimination. A third of the boys had been subject to Child in Need or Child Protection plans. The majority were not ‘heavily convicted’ (i.e. they had only one or no previous convictions), and in over a quarter of cases (where information had been recorded) the child had a disability. They were reported to be more likely than other groups of children to have an education, health and care (EHC) plan, and equally as likely again to have special educational needs that had not been identified or addressed. The boys had grown up in the poorest areas of their towns and cities and had often been exposed to the violence and family breakdown associated with poverty. Racial discrimination was also a feature in the lives of the boys. For the most part, they accepted it as being ‘just the way it is’. This acceptance is as significant as the experience itself, when considering their development, their circumstances and their future.

Manchester, UK:: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2021. 71p.

By Maria Jerram, and Tammie Burroughs

Based on effective practice identified during our thematic inspection of the experiences of black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system (2021). The guide explains why it is important to consider ethnicity in practice. We provide an overview of our standards and expectations in this area around leadership and case supervision.

Following this, we reflect on the learning from black and mixed heritage boys interviewed for the thematic inspection, including a video of the main themes.

There is also a focus on leadership and working in partnership. Examples of effectiveness are shared from the following: Haringey’s disproportionality project and systemic leadership, Hackney tackling disproportionality in stop and searches and out-of-court disposals (supported by two videos), Lewisham’s anti-racist strategy (including a video), Lewisham’s specialist services provided by the YOS family therapy team (LYFT) including videos sharing the teams insight into engagement, the importance of working with carers/parents and the systemic approach.

There is then a focus on case supervision, we share key themes practitioners should consider in their work, and interview two culturally competent practitioners to share practical tips from their work and identify key learning.

We conclude with overall key takeaways, further reading and resources for those wishing to explore this area further.

Manchester, UK: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation , 2021. 46p.