By The Children's Commissioner (UK)  

This report aims to develop a comprehensive understanding of the educational journeys of children in secure settings. It examines their experiences before and during their time in custody, reflecting these in their own voices so that they are central to educational reforms and interventions. This report is based on analysis of: • quantitative administrative data covering the 950 children and young people educated in England then held in secure settings in England and Wales for any period of time between September 2017 and August 2022; i • qualitative interviews with 13 children and six staff members in youth secure settings in England and Wales conducted between June and July 2024; • the education policies as of September 2024 of seven out of the 14 secure settings that accommodate children on remand or sentenced in England and Wales; and • 390 responses from The Big Ambition survey received September 2023 to January 2024 from children in secure settings in England. ii This report found that children in secure settings often had severely disrupted experiences of education, with many recounting a poor experience of school and a multitude of challenges before entering a secure setting. Many children expressed that they wished they had had greater support at school. Some core challenges included: • History of poor attendance: 77% of children in secure settings were persistently or severely absent in their most recent year at a state-funded school  • Disproportionate additional needs: Children in secure settings were five times more likely to have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) compared to pupils in state-funded education and 1.5 times as likely to receive Special Educational Needs (SEN) Support; • Experiencing child poverty: Almost nine out of every 10 children in secure settings grew up in areas with above-average levels of child poverty; • History of exclusion: 25% of children in secure settings had experienced a permanent exclusion. By contrast, there were only eight permanent exclusions per every 10,000 pupils in state-funded schools in 2021/22.6 While staff in secure settings worked hard to provide a high-quality education, this report highlights the serious challenges they face delivering education. This included: • Restrictions on education choices: Children are often assigned to educational pathways based on who they could associate with safely rather than their interests or educational ability; this makes it difficult to engage children in class when they all have different levels of ability and may not have any interest in the subjects they’ve been assigned. • Limited continuity and ability to plan: A large proportion of the children are serving short sentences or on custodial remand, which can limit continuity and progress in their education. For children on custodial remand, they do not know how long they will be in custody for which can lead to their education being disrupted at short notice. • Staffing shortages: It is difficult to recruit qualified and suitable teachers capable of providing the necessary educational support and high-quality education to children with diverse and complex needs. Recommendations The Children’s Commissioner’s ambition is for every child to be prevented from being affected by violence and criminality and able to fulfil their full potential. This means that every child must grow up in a loving, homely environment with access to high-quality education, including those who need secure care. To achieve this, a number of structural changes are needed across the whole system. These were outlined in The Big Ambition7 and include: • A unique childhood identifier so that no child falls through the gaps in support; • Clear, reliable, long-term funding streams for children, based on consistent measures of local need; • A joint children’s workforce strategy to ensure those working with children are caring, professional and equipped to do their jobs, with a strong pipeline into senior leadership roles; and • The Department for Education to assume direct responsibility for the delivery of core services for children. The recommendations in Section 4 of this report have been separated into two parts. The first looks at preventative measures. It outlines the necessary changes to the school system to ensure that children are better supported at school. The second outlines that the current secure setting system is not fit-for-purpose and needs a complete redesign. While the number of children in secure settings is a very small proportion of all children, the challenges they face and often the long-term implications for public services of those challenges means reform of the youth secure estate should be considered a priority. Key recommendations for the broader education system include: • Recommendation: The government should introduce a single child plan to coordinate all multi-agency support for young people. This plan should be regularly reviewed at least every year and should always be updated if a child moves local authority. This plan should give schools the ability to commission support services from health and social care when children’s attendance starts to deteriorate. Alongside this, the government should introduce national thresholds for children’s services support, with a statutory offer of Early Help. • Recommendation: Children’s support services should be delivered on school sites to provide the targeted early help that young people need. This could include, but is not limited to, educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service practitioners, social workers, youth workers, school nurses, health visitors, family liaison officers and Family Hubs. The nature of the support should match the needs of the children at the school. • Recommendation: Exclusions should always lead to an intervention. When a child is removed from the classroom, whether through internal exclusion, suspension, permanent exclusion, a managed move or implementation of a ‘part time timetable’, this should be an opportunity to learn about the child’s underlying needs. A child’s needs should be assessed and a plan to address any underlying issues should be implemented, jointly agreed with the child, school, local authority, and where applicable with the alternative provider (AP). Key recommendation for the youth justice system include: • Recommendation: An ambitious national reform that re-designs the secure care system to prioritise treating children who offend, first and foremost, as children in need of specialised support. The Department for Education (DfE) should be responsible for the delivery of all core services for children in the youth justice system and there should no longer be continued attempts to reform an unsatisfactory youth justice estate that fails to meet these children’s complex needs. This new system must be based primarily upon a therapeutic model of care developed by DfE and NHS England. It must be delivered in smaller, homely settings close to where children live and there should be a clear, time-bound plan to phase out all Young Offender Institutions (YOI) and Secure Training Centres (STC). Key interim recommendations for the youth justice system In the meantime, a number of interim recommendations are necessary to better support children currently in secure settings. These measures aim to support children’s educational experiences and care while the broader systemic reforms are developed and implemented. • Recommendation: Every secure setting must have a Youth Council where children can serve as representatives, meeting monthly and providing feedback to staff. This ensures that every child has a formalised process for expressing their voice on issues that matter to them. The views of each Youth Council should be shared to the Ministry of Justice and the Children’s Commissioner’s Office on a quarterly basis to amplify their voices and advocate for the creation of policy change that is informed by their insights and lived experiences. • Recommendation: The youth sentencing framework should be amended to prohibit sentences with custodial periods that are less than 12 months. Instead, multi-agency community-based interventions should be used to address the underlying causes of offending for children. Alongside this, strong sentencing guidelines and safeguards must be established to prevent up-tariffing. • Recommendation: Vocational education pathways provided by secure settings must always include genuine opportunities for children to undertake traineeships and job trainings in the community. Children must have the opportunity to complete all courses within a pathway to achieve a recognised qualification. Every pathway must have a direct link to how it will support their lives outside of a secure setting depending on their sentence length and how it meets regional employment and skill needs. An educational staff member role should be created that is focused on connecting local employers with children completing vocational pathways. • Recommendation: The governors of secure settings should be included in the procurement and commissioning process of education providers by the Ministry of Justice. The contract should also be amended to enable secure settings to have greater flexibility and authority to coordinate the work of education professionals with residential care, health and psychology staff to ensure a holistic and individualised approach that supports the progress of every child. Secure settings should also be able to draw upon the teaching expertise of local schools, academy trusts, colleges and alternative provisions. This might include enabling local teachers to teach at a secure setting or supporting children to continue with their existing educational courses to maintain continuity in their learning and facilitate a smoother transition back into the community  

London: The Children's Commissioner, 2025. 89p.

Rehabilitation Over Retribution: Rethinking Juvenile Justice for Traumatized Youth 

By Brian L.Traub 

  A foundational understanding within society is that “bad actors” should be punished as a way of bringing justice to those who have been hurt, deterring future criminal conduct, and rehabilitating the perpetrator.This concept appears, at least facially, as a valid premise for an institutionalized criminal justice system. The problem, however, manifests when the bad actor is merely a child. The complexity of this problem expands when that child has suffered countless amounts of abuse, neglect, sexual violence, and various other forms of childhood trauma at the hands of an abuser. The reality is that the U.S. criminal justice system, having been designed to punish bad actors, cannot adequately address the rehabilitative needs of juveniles who are themselves victims of violence. Instead, it merely subjects them to more of the same trauma they suffered prior to their first criminal act. The current punishment-focused regime of the U.S. criminal justice system is incompatible with, and incapable of, providing real rehabilitative opportunities to juvenile actors who have suffered substantial traumas during their childhood. The current sentencing scheme in the U.S. desperately requires change that could give juvenile  criminals an opportunity to escape the incessant cycle of reincarceration that it perpetuates.This Comment examines the tension existing between the philosophical understanding of criminal justice in the U.S. and the reality that criminality is often linked to trauma experienced during childhood. To illuminate the tension that exists between the U.S. punishment focused criminal justice system and its cardinal goal of rehabilitation, Section II of this Comment first explains the philosophical foundation for justifying punishment. Next, Section II discusses the current statutory framework for U.S. federal sentencing. Then, Section II illuminates and discusses the statistically significant role that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) play in the current legal system. Finally, Section II outlines the historical development of the U.S. criminal justice system. Section III argues that the next step toward a system that more effectively facilitates rehabilitation is congressional reform of 35 U.S.C. § 3553 (§ 3553), and through trauma-informed sentencing practices. Section IV will conclude by reemphasizing the harsh realities of childhood trauma and its connection with the criminal justice system, recognizing the system’s underlying intent to rehabilitate juvenile defendants while advocating for necessary conceptual transformation.   

93 U. Cin. L. Rev. 236 (2024), 35p.

By Christoph Engel | Sebastian J. Goerg | Christian Traxler

This paper studies a probation program in Cologne, Germany. The program, which has a clear rehabilitative focus, offers intensified personal support to serious juvenile offenders over the first 6 months of their probation period. To evaluate the program’s impact on recidivism,we draw on two research designs. Firstly, a small-scale randomized trial assigns offenders to probation with regular or intensified support. Secondly, a regression discontinuity design exploits a cutoff that defines program eligibility. The results suggest that the program reduces recidivism. The effect seems persistent over at least 3 years. Our evidence further indicates that the drop in recidivism is strongest among less severe offenders.

Journal of Empirical Legal StudiesVolume 19, Issue 2Jun 2022 Pages293-524

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 The Southern Poverty Law Center

Mississippi’s youth legal system is a study in extremes. While the state is currently experiencing its lowest youth arrest rate in decades, it simultaneously has markedly expanded its use of youth incarceration. Rather than being met with needed services and support, Mississippi students are being pushed out of the classroom at nation-leading rates and into the carceral system – a pipeline that has disproportionately impacted the state’s Black youth. Overall, Mississippi’s failure to invest in successful community-based programs that provide noncarceral alternatives for youth in need of rehabilitation leaves the state with incarceration as the first option for far too many young people. This overincarceration harms youth and their communities and is an expensive use of precious taxpayer funds. There is a better way. This report delves into the history and context behind Mississippi’s current youth legal system,  expands on its harmful impacts, and recommends policy  changes for reform.

Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2023

By Christopher Slobogin and Mark R. Fondacaro

In this book, Slobogin and Fondacaro present their vision for a new juvenile justice system, founded on the evidence at hand and promoting the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The authors develop their juvenile justice policy proposals effectively by carefully addressing the problems with past policy approaches.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 224p.

By The Juvenile Law Center

The United States incarcerates youth at more than double the rate of any other country in the world. On any given day, almost 50,000 young people are locked up in juvenile facilities across the country. Although overall juvenile incarceration rates have been falling, Black youth are still over five times more likely than their white peers to be detained or committed to an institution.

We know these institutions—many of which are over 100 years old—are part of a punitive corrections-oriented approach that does not work for youth. Research shows that institutional settings harm young people developmentally, psychologically, and—far too often—physically. Yet our country continues to rely on this outdated model as the backbone of its juvenile justice system.

Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2018. 31p.

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 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 Gupte, J.; Tranchant, J.-P. and Mitchell, B.

In Maharashtra, state-sponsored programmes that support school dropouts and young offenders in finding employment and integrating into society are severely limited by a lack of resources and capacity. While several government-sponsored schemes do exist, in reality, however, support for school dropouts is largely provided on an ad hoc basis, and predominantly by non-governmental organisations. In this context, we conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of Kherwadi Social Welfare Association’s Yuva Parivartan programme. This is one of the largest non-governmental interventions directed towards school dropouts and juvenile offenders. The overarching evaluation question adopted was ‘Can targeted preventive action and access to employment for school dropouts act as a preventive measure against delinquency and crime?’ The following five programme-specific Sub-Questions (SQ) were used for evaluation purposes: SQ1: Is the Yuva Parivartan (YP) programme effective at imparting on youth a set of prosocial values that are consistent with job-seeking and crime-avoidance behaviours? SQ2: Are the benefits of the YP programme reaching the population who self-report committing a crime? SQ3: Does the YP programme lead to pro-social behavioural changes? SQ4: Is there a relationship between attitudes towards aggressive and/or violent behaviour, entitlement, anti-social intent and employment outcomes? SQ5: Does the YP programme manage to instill a feeling of confidence among the trainees about their future prospects of finding a job?

Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, 2015. 71p.

Read/Download

By Arthur Macdonald.

Including stigmata of degeneration being a hearing on the bill (h. R. 16733) to establish a laboratory for the study of the criminal, pauper, and defective classes. Before A Sub-Judiciary Committee Of The United States House Of Representatives.”To find whether or not there are any physical or mental characteristics that distinguish criminal children from other children. Such knowledge would make it possible to protect children in advance and lessen the chances of contamination.”

Harrow and Heston Classic Reprint. (1908) 337 pages.

By T.M. van der Pol.

Adolescents with delinquency and cannabis abuse, primarily boys, are predisposed to a variety of comorbid psychiatric psychopathology and form an intricate subgroup which is difficult to treat (Merikangas et al., 2010; Zahn-Waxler, Shirtcliff, & Marceau, 2008). Systemic treatments are considered the type of treatment which renders the most promising results in addressing the complex taxonomy of adolescents’ problem behaviours (Carr, 2009; Von Sydow, Retzlaff, Beher, Haun, & Schweitzer,2013; Waldron & Turner, 2008). Clinicians working with this group of adolescents have to deal, on a daily basis, with serious issues and have to make difficult decisions, impacting the adolescent, his/her family, and society as a whole. For the forensic research field, comprehending and grasping the complexity of these adolescents, which could generate insights and practical advises leading to improvement of care, is a tough and demanding task. This dissertation tries to inform clinical and research practice by providing insight and knowledge concerning: the common elements of systemic treatment, the effectiveness of Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT), and the predictive value on treatment outcome of baseline characteristics of the adolescent. This to better understand systemic treatments and to be better able to match a treatment with the individual adolescent’s psycho-social make-up.

Leiden: Leiden University, 2019. 183p.

By Romania. Ministry of Internal Affairs.

This handbook has been developed within the project "Childhood without crime" carried out by the General Inspectorate of Romanian Police in cooperation with the National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption of the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection and the Elderly, with the support of the Ministries of Internal Affairs of the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. The project, initiated by the Institute for Research and Prevention of Crime in the General Inspectorate of Romanian Police (G.I.R.P), has proposed increasing the efficiency steps to prevent juvenile delinquency in children under the age of 14. The pillars on which the project are represented, on the one hand, by the consolidation of institutional capacity, namely the improvement of cooperation between the police and the General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection, and on the other hand, by the increasing awareness of the target groups (minors aged 14, parents, teachers, social workers, etc.) on the prevention of juvenile delinquency and services that children with delinquent and pre-delinquent behavior may benefit. Funding was provided by a grants program of the European Commission, Prevention of and fight against crime "(ISEC). The project was initiated after identifying the need to intensify crime prevention activities among children who have not attained the age of criminal responsibility, the age of 14. Both statistical data and findings in the field of police and social workers concluded that these children are a vulnerable group in terms of crime.

Romania: Ministry of Internal Affairs,2014. 99p.

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.