By Amber Krushas , Zachary Hamilton, Alex Kigerl , Xiaohan Mei  

Purpose: While risk instruments are consistently used to aid classification and supervision decisions, needs as sessments guide intervention efforts for individuals under supervision. At the core of the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model and the General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) theory, dynamic needs scoring allows agencies to identify change in needs over time. Yet, few studies have assessed the potential impact of changes among needs items. To overcome this limitation, the current study assesses how needs score change may influence recidivism propensity among youth. Methods: Using multi-level frailty models, the current study examines how changes in youth needs assessment scores influence time-to-recidivism among a large (N = 42,922), multi-state sample of justice-involved youth assessed with the Modified Positive Achievement Change Tool (MPACT). Results: Findings demonstrate that youth with increased needs scores and those that remained the same at reassessment had a greater propensity for recidivism, compared to those that decreased scores. Conclusions: Policy implications identify the effectiveness of the MPACT in measuring youth change, its utility for case management, and the needs domains most associated with recidivism reductions.   

Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102146 

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 Joshua Rovner

This commentary discusses the evolution of youth justice policies in the United States and offers valuable insights into the successes and failures of these approaches. The report advocates for a more enlightened approach to criminal legal reform, backed by the successes of progressive approaches taken to the juvenile legal system.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 5p.

By The Youth Justice Legal Centre (YJLC)

Children need and must be entitled to specialist legal representation. This has long been obvious. This new research adds to a growing body of evidence but for the first time highlights the extent to which solicitors are themselves seeking to address this training need. However, without clear guidance they are falling short, and children are being failed. There is no requirement for solicitors representing children in the criminal justice system to have any specialist training before entering a youth court or representing children at a police station. It therefore falls to individual solicitors to identify their training needs. Children end up with worse outcomes than they should as a direct result of lawyers being unaware of guidance and special protections available to children. This is confirmed by the research findings. The situation would be significantly improved if solicitors who represent children undertook regular training on key youth justice topics. More children would be diverted away from formal criminal justice processes, they would be better supported through legal processes and the risk of reoffending reduced. Put simply, children must have better.

London: YJLC, 2023. 8p.

By Lisa Pilnik, Robert G. Schwartz, Karen Lindell, Jessica Feierman and Christina Sorenson

There is broad consensus that incarcerating youth in the juvenile justice system is both dangerous and ineffective. Secure facilities and other juvenile justice placements pose a high risk of short- and long-term harm to children. Placing young people outside their homes disrupts family ties, undermines educational continuity and developmental trajectory, and can cause trauma and undermine a child’s developmental trajectory. Recent research has shown that placement also leads to long-term mental and physical health consequences. Moreover, far too many youth sent to “treatment” facilities experience abuse or neglect and fail to receive needed behavioral health services. Pennsylvania stakeholders have taken important steps to decrease placement rates and improve outcomes for youth—and local and state leadership is already engaged in continuing the reform efforts. At the same time, the need to dramatically change our responses to young people in the justice system is obvious. Where Pennsylvania was widely recognized as a leader in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, we now lag behind other states in the extent to which we use placement and the extent of our racial disparities. Wordsworth. VisionQuest. Glen Mills. Luzerne. Year after year, facilities in Pennsylvania are sued or shut down after the horrific treatment of youth in their care comes to light. Each time, children are removed from the placement and additional oversight is imposed to try to prevent a recurrence, and then it happens again. Oversight isn’t enough. To meet its obligations to our children, Pennsylvania must re-examine its reliance on juvenile placements. Working in collaboration with youth in the system and their families, we must create a system that stresses high-quality community-based solutions that are safer for children, promote public safety, and more effectively and efficiently use our resources.

Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2019. 44p.

By Karen U. Lindell and Katrina L. Goodjoint

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons banning the death penalty for young people under the age of 18, the principle that “kids are different” has come to permeate the justice system’s approach to young people. The developmental differences between adolescents and adults are now codified in numerous state statutes, have been cited in countless court decisions, and are foundational concepts in juvenile defense. And, while there is much work still to be done, the shift toward a developmental approach to youth justice has contributed to dramatic reductions in youth incarceration rates over the last decade.1 Yet even the Supreme Court has acknowledged, “[t]he qualities that distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual turns 18.”2 People do not transform from children into adults on their 18th birthdays; instead the transition to adulthood is gradual and highly individualized.

The report begins by describing the defining characteristics of emerging adulthood and laying out the case for reforming the justice system’s approach to emerging adults. The report then examines examples and lessons from around the country where reforms are underway, including raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction, reforming criminal justice procedures and practices, and using support from systems outside of the justice field. Finally, the report presents an in-depth look at the legal provisions and programs impacting emerging adults in the six states of the Great Lakes region—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Our hope is that this report provides policymakers and advocates in each of those states, as well as elsewhere, greater tools to reshape justice for emerging adults in their jurisdictions.

Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center, 2020. 96p.

By Susan J. Terrio

In October 2005, three weeks of rioting erupted in France following the accidental deaths of two French boys of North African ancestry. Killed while fleeing the police, these boys were deemed dangerous based largely on their immigrant origins. In France, disadvantaged children of immigrant and foreign ancestry represent the vast majority of formal suspects and have increasingly been portrayed as a threat to public safety and as the embodiment of the assault on French values.Despite official rhetoric of protection, Judging Mohammed reveals how the treatment of these children in the juvenile courts system undermines legal guarantees of equality and due process and reinforces existing hierarchies. Based on five years of extensive research in the largest and most influential juvenile court in France, this work follows young people inside the system, from arrest to court trials. Revealing an alarming turn toward accountability, restitution, and retribution, this groundbreaking study uncovers the disquieting reasons behind France's shifting approaches to the identification, treatment, and representation of its delinquent youth.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 2009. 369p.

By Géraldine Bugnon

"This book analyses the non-custodial government of young offenders in two major cities in Brazil. In doing so, it delves into the paradox of an institution exerting control over youths while at the same time promoting their autonomy and responsibility. The study sheds light on the specific logics of power, control, and inequality produced by such institutional settings. The book’s analysis is based on an ethnographic study of ‘Assisted Freedom’ (Liberdade Assistida) – a form of probation – in the Brazilian cities of Rio de Janeiro and Belo Horizonte. This particular context – which is characterized by endemic violent crime, on the one hand, and a highly protective juvenile justice system, on the other – sheds productive light on the contradictions of juvenile justice systems and other public policies based on the values of citizenship, autonomy, and responsibilization. The analysis takes the form of an inverted zoom structure: it begins by looking at cognitive and interactional processes at the level of interpersonal relationships between youths and professionals, and then works its way up to examine ties outside the institution itself, with schools, the labour market, and juvenile courts. Written in a clear and direct style, this book will appeal to students and scholars in criminology, sociology, cultural studies, and social theory and those interested in learning about non-custodial measures and the regulation of juvenile delinquency."

London; New York: Routledge, 2021. 270p.

By Katherine Hancock

Privatization of juvenile facilities and services has been the norm since the inception of the juvenile justice system. However, little research has been performed examining the impact of privatization on juvenile justice, despite the possible repercussions of this policy for the juveniles served. Prior research on privatization in other fields has tended to find a connection between privatization and outcomes; however, very little research has examined how privatization impacts operations, how operations impact recidivism, and how privatization and operations interact to produce juvenile justice outcomes. This exploratory study, informed by cybernetic systems theory and principal-agent theory, examined the mechanism by which privatization influences juvenile recidivism by exploring the possible mediating effect of facility operations. Using annual juvenile facility evaluation and recidivism data collected by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice through 548 evaluations performed on 158 facilities from 2003-2006, this research examined whether facility operations mediated the relationship between ownership (public, for-profit, and non-profit) and juvenile recidivism. Multilevel analyses were completed using Stata software to account for the clustered nature of the data (facilities nested within provider companies). The results from multilevel regression analyses indicated no relationship between ownership type and either operations or recidivism. However, multilevel regression analyses indicated significant inverse relationships between recidivism and each of four of the operational variables: program management, health care services, security, and intervention management. A mediating relationship was not supported. Results also indicated that both provider company and characteristics of the juveniles served were significant predictors of both operational variables and recidivism. These results suggest that privatization concerns may be more suitably focused on identifying the appropriate provider company rather than on choosing the appropriate ownership type. In addition, during the contract negotiation stage, juvenile justice administrators may wish to incorporate policies and/or incentives into the contract that are related to juvenile characteristics. Recommendations for future research are also discussed.

Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida, 2014. 305p.

Edited by Josine Junger-Tas and Richard L. Block.

Holland is a European country and part of the Western world. As such it shares many essential features and fundamental cultural values with other European nations and with North America. Moreover a number of important factors of social change have af fected The Netherlands in roughly the same way as they affected other Western societies. These social changes had important consequences for general social behavior of juveniles and for delinquent behavior in particular. They also had considerable impact on the juvenile justice system, not only on its direct functioning but also on its philosophy and approach of young offenders. Two phenomena characterize the evolution in Western societies since World War II, but most particularly from the '60 to the '80. They are: a large increase in juvenile crime and the construction of a 'welfare' model of juvenile justice. Both phenomena will be commented briefly. The increase in juvenile crime started at the same time as economie prosperity began to spread. As early as 1974 there were serious debates in parliament about the increase in crime rates and about fear of crime among citizens. Claims were made for more police on the streets, better education, more welfare and a better housing policy. In the years that followed there was a growing awareness of the crime problem, which may be partly due to the victimization surveys introduced by the Research Centre of the Ministry of Justice, which include the 16 most frequently committed offenses. These offenses cover 60% of all cases coming to the attention of the prosecutor and more than 70% of all cases coming to the attention of the police. Of all offenses, those that have shown the greatest increase since 1975 are vandalism, shoplifting, burglary, autotheft and bicycle theft. In 1983, 35% of the Dutch population of 15 years and older became a victim of one of those 16 offenses. Comparison with other European countries in 1983 showed that in The Netherlands 18% of those interviewed had been victims of a theft or a burglary. This places our country third among eleven, after France and Great Britain with each 20%. Not only individuals but also public agencies and industrial enterprises are victimized. Shoplifting, burglary, vandalism of public buildings or in the public transport system cause large financial losses to local authorities and private industry.

Amsterdam: Kugler Publications, 1988. 245p.

By Mary McAuley.

Anglo-Russian Perspectives.. Despite their very different histories, societies, political and legal systems, Russia and the UK stand out as favouring a punitive approach to young law breakers, imprisoning many more children than any other European countries. The book is based on the author's primary research in Russia in which she visited a dozen closed institutions from St Petersburg to Krasnoyarsk and on similar research in England and Northern Ireland. The result is a unique study of how attitudes to youth crime and criminal justice, the political environment and the relationship between state and society have interacted to influence the treatment of young offenders. McAuley's account of the twists and turns in policy towards youth illuminate the extraordinary history of Russia in the twentieth century and the making of social policy in Russia today. It is also the first study to compare the UK (excluding Scotland because of its separate juvenile justice system) with Russia, a comparison which highlights the factors responsible for the making of 'punitive' policy in the two societies. McAuley places the Russian and UK policies in a European context, aiming to reveal how other European countries manage to put so many fewer children behind bars.

Bloomsbury Academic (2010) 263 pages.

National Research Council.

In the past decade, a number of state, local, and tribal jurisdictions have begun to take significant steps to overhaul their juvenile justice systems - for example, reducing the use of juvenile detention and out-of-home placement, bringing greater attention to racial and ethnic disparities, looking for ways to engage affected families in the process, and raising the age at which juvenile court jurisdiction ends. These changes are the result of heightening awareness of the ineffectiveness of punitive practices and accumulating knowledge about adolescent development. Momentum for reform is growing. However, many more state, local, and tribal jurisdictions need assistance, and practitioners in the juvenile justice field are looking for guidance from the federal government, particularly from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice.

Implementing Juvenile Justice Reform identifies and prioritizes strategies and policies to effectively facilitate reform of the juvenile justice system and develop an implementation plan for OJJDP. Based on the 2013 report Reforming Juvenile Justice, this report is designed to provide specific guidance to OJJDP regarding the steps that it should take, both internally and externally, to facilitate juvenile justice reform grounded in knowledge about adolescent development. The report identifies seven hallmarks of a developmental approach to juvenile justice to guide system reform: accountability without criminalization, alternatives to justice system involvement, individualized response based on needs and risks, confinement only when necessary for public safety, genuine commitment to fairness, sensitivity to disparate treatment, and family engagement. Implementing Juvenile Justice Reform outlines how these hallmarks should be incorporated into policies and practices within OJJDP, as well as in actions extended to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to achieve the goals of the juvenile justice system through a developmentally informed approach.

This report sets forth a detailed and prioritized strategic plan for the federal government to support and facilitate developmentally oriented juvenile justice reform. The pivotal component of the plan is to strengthen the role, capacity, and commitment of OJJDP, the lead federal agency in the field. By carrying out the recommendations of Implementing Juvenile Justice Reform, the federal government will both reaffirm and advance the promise of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2014. 122p.