by Wiliam Healy and Graeme Newman

Mental Conflicts and Misconduct is a pioneering work in the history of psychology, criminology, and juvenile justice. First published in 1917, physician and juvenile court reformer William Healy challenged the prevailing belief that young offenders were simply bad, immoral, or mentally defective. Drawing on dozens of real-life case studies, Healy argued that many acts of delinquency arise from hidden emotional conflicts rooted in childhood experiences, secrets, fears, and unresolved traumas.

Working with young people who stole, ran away, lied, fought, or repeatedly broke the law, Healy uncovered a striking pattern. Beneath seemingly senseless misconduct often lay painful memories, disturbing knowledge, family secrets, or experiences that children felt unable to discuss with trusted adults. These buried conflicts, he believed, could exert a powerful influence on behavior long after the original events had been forgotten or repressed.

This modernized and abridged Read-Me.Org edition makes Healy's landmark study accessible to contemporary readers while preserving all forty of his remarkable case histories and the core of his argument. The book reveals the origins of ideas that would later influence child guidance clinics, trauma-informed care, psychological treatment, and modern approaches to juvenile justice.

Although some of Healy's assumptions reflect the limitations of his era, many of his insights remain surprisingly relevant. His emphasis on listening to children, understanding individual circumstances, and addressing underlying causes rather than relying solely on punishment anticipated developments that continue to shape psychology and criminal justice today.

Part historical document, part psychological investigation, and part humanitarian appeal, Mental Conflicts and Misconduct remains an important classic for students of psychology, criminology, social work, education, and anyone interested in the complex relationship between childhood experience and human behavior. Download the original book

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.168

by Graeme Newman (Author), Sheldon Glueck (Author), Eleanor Glueck

Why do some children in a family, or on the same street, turn to delinquency while their brothers, sisters and neighbors do not?

In Family Environment and Delinquency (1962), Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, the most celebrated husband-and-wife team in the history of criminology, set out to answer one of the oldest and most stubborn questions in the study of crime. Drawing on their landmark comparison of 500 persistent delinquents and 500 matched non-delinquents from the poor neighborhoods of Boston, they traced how the home, what they called the "under-the-roof culture," shapes children's traits, and how those traits and family conditions combine to push some boys over the edge.

Their answer was startling for its time and remains compelling today: the family environment works selectively. A drunken father, a chaotic household, harsh or erratic discipline, chronic poverty: none of these alone reliably produces a delinquent. What matters is the meeting of a particular pressure with a particular child. The Gluecks called it "differential contamination," which depends "not merely on exposure but also on susceptibility." It is an idea that anticipates today's research on gene-environment interaction and differential susceptibility.

The original book is dense with thousands of statistical tables. This Mini-Classic sets out its argument clearly and concisely, chapter by chapter. It includes an introduction to the book and its central ideas; a profile of Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck and their four-decade research partnership; the historical context of Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency, Physique and Delinquency, and the Gluecks' battle with differential association theory; a clear summary of every chapter, from the origins of traits to the practical management of delinquency; a chapter on modern relevance, from Sampson and Laub's rediscovery of the Glueck files to today's family-based prevention programs, with a frank account of what has not survived; and twenty review questions for students and discussion groups.

Ideal for students of criminology, sociology, psychology and social work, for practitioners working with young people and families, and for anyone interested in the enduring question of Nature and Nurture.

Read-Me.Org Mini-Classics make the landmark works of social science accessible to modern readers in brief, readable editions. Download the original book.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.67.

by Graeme Newman (Author), Sheldon Glueck (Author), Eleanor Glueck

What makes a boy a persistent delinquent? A reader's guide to one of criminology's great matched-comparison studies.

In 1939, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck of Harvard stopped asking what happens to offenders after they are caught and asked a harder question: why do some boys from the same poor neighborhoods become persistent delinquents while others do not?

Their answer, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (1950), compared 500 delinquent boys with 500 non-delinquents, matched pair by pair on age, intelligence, ethnic origin and neighborhood. They examined family life, schooling, health, body build, intelligence, personality and temperament. Then they built "prediction tables" meant to spot at-risk children when they start school.

The book is long, technical and dated in its language. This Reader's Guide makes it accessible without replacing it. It explains how the study was designed, what it found, and how far its evidence can be trusted, and it connects the Gluecks to the research that followed.

INSIDE THIS GUIDE

• A reading plan and a chapter-by-chapter map of the original

• How the two groups were built, and what the design can and cannot show

• The findings on family, school, the street, health, physique, intelligence and temperament, explained in plain language

• The prediction tables, with a worked example that shows why "79 chances in a hundred" can mean something quite different in real life

• Five common misreadings of the book

• What has changed since 1950, including later reanalyses of the Gluecks' data, and what has not

• A primer on statistics, a glossary, an annotated reading list, an FAQ, 26 discussion questions and classroom activities

WHO IT'S FOR: Students of criminology, sociology, psychology, social work and law; teachers and reading groups; and general readers who want to understand a landmark study and the debates it started, from risk assessment to the role of the family.

Part of the Read-Me.Org Reader's Guide series, bringing back landmark out-of-print works in criminology and social science..

NOTE: This is an independent guide, not an abridgment or edition of the Gluecks' book. It does not reproduce the original's text or tables and is not endorsed by the authors' heirs or the original publisher. It is meant to be read alongside the original. Written by Graeme R. Newman with the assistance of Claude, an AI model made by Anthropic. The AI-generated content is disclosed in accordance with Read-Me.Org policy. Read the Original Book online.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.67.

by Graeme Newman (Author), Sheldon Glueck (Author), Eleanor Glueck

Does the shape of a body shape a life?

In 1956, Harvard criminologists Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck published one of the most provocative findings in the history of criminology: among the 500 persistent juvenile delinquents at the heart of their landmark study, six in ten were built like athletes — solid, muscular, "mesomorphic" — compared to fewer than one in three of the matched non-delinquent boys from the very same streets. Boys of slight, fragile build were strikingly rare among the delinquents. Matched for age, intelligence, ethnicity, and neighborhood, the two groups differed sharply in one thing neither had chosen: the body they were born with.

Physique and Delinquency is the Gluecks' full investigation of what that difference meant — and what it didn't. Carefully, methodically, and explicitly rejecting the old "born criminal" theories of the nineteenth century, the Gluecks set out to show that physical constitution is not destiny. Instead, they found something more nuanced and more interesting: the very same trait, and the very same troubled home, can push a sturdy, energetic boy toward trouble while leaving a more sensitive, delicately built boy untouched — and can devastate that same sensitive boy when the pressures at home turn severe.

This Read-Me.Org Mini-Classic distills the Gluecks' densely tabulated 1956 original into a compact, readable narrative — every chapter, every major finding, and the six theoretical hypotheses that close the book — while leaving the statistical tables and technical appendixes to specialists and to the full edition. It's an ideal introduction for students of criminology, psychology, and the history of science, and for anyone curious about a study that remains as influential as it is uncomfortable, nearly seventy years after it first raised the question.

Includes a new introductory essay situating the book in its historical context, and a set of review and discussion questions suited to classroom or book-club use.

Part of the Read-Me.Org Mini-Classics series — short, careful introductions to landmark and forgotten works of criminology, sociology, and social history.

This edition was prepared with AI assistance used to condense and adapt the source text under human editorial review; abridgment choices and framing are the editor's own. Published under Creative Commons licensing. Read online the original book.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.80.

This paper combines ten years of idiosyncratic variation in school closure dates for all secondary schools in England with administrative records of educational and criminal trajectories linked at the individual level to study the impact of the school schedule on the dynamics of youth crime. When school is not in session, students commit more property offences, more serious violent offences and fewer minor violent offences. Thefts, robberies and violent assaults drive these effects. This is novel evidence of strong incapacitation effects from the protective factor of schooling which affects not only the incidence of violence, but also its severity. 

Discussion PaperNo. 2092   

London: The Centre for Economic Performance , London School of Economics, 2025.   

By Janine Boshoff,  Stephen J. Machin and Matteo Sandi

This paper combines ten years of idiosyncratic variation in school closure dates for all secondary schools in England with administrative records of educational and criminal trajectories linked at the individual level to study the impact of the school schedule on the dynamics of youth crime. When school is not in session, students commit more property offences, more serious violent offences and fewer minor violent offences. Thefts, robberies and violent assaults drive these effects. This is novel evidence of strong incapacitation effects from the protective factor of schooling which affects not only the incidence of violence, but also its severity.

 CESifo Working Paper No. 11812, Munich: CESifo, 2025. 28p.

By Traverse

Overrepresentation of ethnic minority children in the youth justice system remains an enduring and unacceptable feature. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) commissioned Traverse to conduct research into the drivers of ethnic disparity in reoffending rates. The aims of this research are to offer a fuller understanding of the criminogenic (crime causing) contextual factors that may drive ethnic disparity in reoffending rates and understand the seldom heard perceptions of children with experience of the youth justice system regarding the support and interventions they have experienced. This report focuses on the qualitative strand of the research, which consists of 19 interviews with children with proven reoffences known to services and three focus groups with 22 practitioners from Greater London, East and West Midlands and North West England. Children and practitioners were asked to share their experiences of interventions to prevent reoffending, factors that contribute to reoffending and the support required for children from different ethnic minority groups to prevent reoffending. There is also an Analysis of reoffending data report which should be considered alongside this report. The findings from this research illustrate four key thematic drivers of ethnic disparity in offending rates for children. Marginalisation of individuals and communities Nearly all children interviewed had been excluded from school prior to, or as a direct result of their first offence. Exclusion removes consistency from children’s lives and makes it harder for practitioners to engage with them in a safe space. Children want educational courses to be a part of their reparations, to help them gain skills and achieve their aspirations. Poverty and social class were key issues highlighted by both practitioners and children that influence offending and reoffending rates. These background factors contribute to a system in which ethnic minority children were overpoliced but under protected. Individual, institutional, and systemic bias Children involved in crime are more commonly treated as adults – especially those from ethnic minority backgrounds – which can lead to a lack of safeguarding. Implicit and explicit racism within different institutions means ethnic minority children are treated differently to their White peers which contributes to feeling like they have already been written off. A lack of diversity among the police and courts system was felt by many interviewed to underline systemic racial bias. This perceived bias was reflected in the number of times children had been stopped and searched, much higher than their White friends. Furthermore, examples were given of explicit racial disparity in sentencing, where ethnic minority children received longer or harsher sentences than their White peers for the same offence. Weaknesses in prevention and intervention Building strong, trusting relationships with children was viewed as a prerequisite to delivering effective interventions. Where this did happen, children spoke positively about their interactions with caseworkers. However, this was not always possible due to a lack of time and resources. Additionally, a shortage of wraparound services such as Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and employability support was identified as a potential driver for reoffending. Negative experiences of the wider youth justice system The lack of information for children navigating the youth justice system is reported to be a driver of ethnic disparity in reoffending rates. This is exacerbated by negative experiences of police custody and inadequate legal representation as reported by many children. This, plus the failure of sentencing to account for children’s needs and experiences means interventions to reduce reoffending are not as effective as they could be. Recommendations ◼ exclude children from education only as a last resort ◼ prioritise funding for local services aimed at children ◼ offer online tutoring for excluded children ◼ provide weekly allowances for children at risk of reoffending ◼ standardise intelligence collection ◼ increase diversity within the system ◼ amplify the voices of youth justice practitioners ◼ support practitioners to tackle issues of race ◼ provide training and support for staff working with children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities ◼ increase funding for youth justice services ◼ extension of statutory intervention timelines ◼ formalise handover processes ◼ empower practitioners to tailor interventions to children’s individual needs, interests, and aspirations ◼ limit out of area moves wherever possible ◼ enable practitioners to share practice across services and localities ◼ embed youth justice practitioners in police custody suites.

London: Youth Justice Board, 2023. 46p.

By Friedrich Lösel | Mark Stemmler | Doris Bender

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

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

By 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.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

August Aichhorn

Wayward Youth by August Aichhorn delves into the complexities of working with troubled youth in a compassionate and insightful manner. Aichhorn, a renowned Austrian psychoanalyst, draws from his extensive experience to explore the psychological roots of delinquent behavior in adolescents. Through compelling case studies and thoughtful analysis, he sheds light on the inner struggles of young individuals caught in the throes of rebellion and defiance.

With empathy and wisdom, Aichhorn navigates the turbulent waters of adolescence, offering a fresh perspective on how society can better understand and support its wayward youth. Wayward Youth is a compelling read for anyone interested in the intersection of psychology, social work, and juvenile delinquency.

NY. Meridian Books. 1931. 193p

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 Aaron Brown and Nina Vaswani

The Glasgow Youth Court is a judicially-led initiative which has been supported by Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership (GCHSCP) and which has been operational since June 2021. Functioning within the Glasgow Sheriff Court, it operates on a problem-solving basis, covering those aged between 16 and 24-years-old. Where the presiding Sheriff is satisfied, the Glasgow Youth Court caters for the use of Structured Deferred Sentencing (SDS), which combines multi-disciplinary intervention and support in the community, with regular court reviews to monitor and encourage young people’s progress. The Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice (CYCJ) was commissioned by GCHSCP in late 2021 to undertake research into the Glasgow Youth Court, with the purpose of: 

Documenting the implementation, design and operation of the Youth Court; Evaluating data relating to Youth Court outcomes; Evidencing how the Youth Court is experienced by a range of key stakeholders. 

This report, through examination of the above themes, provides insight into how the Youth Court has been operationalised, how it has been experienced, and its key outcomes.    

Glasgow: Children and Young People's Centre for Justice,  2023. 56p.

By Tim Bateman 

The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) campaigns for the rights of, and justice for, children in trouble. It seeks to promote the welfare of children in the youth justice system and to advocate for child friendly responses where children infringe the law (NAYJ, 2019). The Association has, more recently, endorsed the Youth Justice Board’s adoption of a ‘child first’ model, first articulated in its Strategic Plan, published in 2018 (Youth Justice Board, 2018). The subsequent revised edition of National Standards for children in the youth justice system, published in 2019, is intended to provide a framework to support agencies in delivering a child first provision, by ensuring that they: • ‘Prioritise the best interests of children, recognising their needs, capacities, rights and potential; • Build on children’s individual strengths and capabilities as a means of developing a prosocial identity for sustainable desistance from crime. This leads to safer communities and fewer victims. All work is constructive and future-focused, built on supportive relationships that empower children to fulfil their potential and make positive contributions to society; • Encourage children’s active participation, engagement and wider social inclusion. All work is a meaningful collaboration with children and their carers • Promote a childhood removed from the justice system, using prevention, diversion and minimal intervention. All work minimises criminogenic stigma from contact with the system’ 

London: Ministry of Justice/Youth Justice Board, 2019: 6)

By Holly Maclean, Fiona Dyer, Nina Vaswani, Deena Haydon, Maria Galli, Anthony Charles, Tim Bateman, & Ursula Kilkelly 

In 2021, in light of the commitment made by the Scottish Government to incorporate UNCRC into Scots Law, CYCJ convened a group of children’s rights experts from across England, Ireland, Jersey, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to consider the implications and challenges of UNCRC incorporation across their separate jurisdictions. 

‘Rights Respecting Justice for Children in Conflict with the Law’ shines a light on the discussions that took place within this forum. This briefing paper provides an overview of talking points within the group across the period May 2021 – September 2023, highlighting both the most pressing concerns for children’s rights across the nations, and the similarities and differences in policy and practice.

Glasgow: Children and Young People's Centre for Justice, 2024. 17p.

By  Laceé N. Pappas &  Amy L. Dent 

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 Colleen Sbeglia, Imani Randolph, Caitlin Cavanagh, and Elizabeth Cauffman

When youth commit crimes, their parents may be held legally responsible for their actions. Parental legal culpability laws were developed to ensure justice for victims of crime but also deter juvenile delinquency. However, it is unclear if parental culpability has these desired effects or if it instead contributes to disparities that already exist in the justice system. This review provides a psychological perspective on parental legal culpability, highlighting the different types of offenses that parents may be held responsible for, including vicarious tort liability, status offenses, and criminal responsibility. Given the significant public discourse around certain types of crime, we also include focused discussions about parental culpability for youth violence and cybercrimes. We then consider the unintended consequences that may arise as a result of parental sanctions, from exacerbating racial and ethnic inequalities to imposing financial burdens that may put families at risk for further justice involvement. Finally, we discuss challenges to the efficacy of parental culpability laws, with recommendations for areas of continued research.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 403 - 416

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 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.