By Carey Marr, Sara Singh, Claire Gaskin, John Kasinathan, Trisha Lloyd & Kimberlie Dean

Past research suggests that diverting young people away from the criminal justice system and into mental health services can reduce subsequent reoffending, but the impact of such programs on the rates of timely mental health service contact are largely unknown. In this study, we examined a sample of 523 young people who were deemed eligible for mental health diversion between 2008 and 2015. Around half (47%) of these young people were granted diversion by a Magistrate. Overall, the levels of timely mental health service contact after court finalization, even for those who were granted diversion, appeared low given that the purpose of diversion is to facilitate such contact for all those diverted. Specifically, only 22% of those who were granted community-based diversion and 62% of individuals granted inpatient-based diversion had mental health service contact within 7 days of court finalization. Rates of health contact were much lower for those who were not granted either type of diversion (8% and 23%, respectively). Diversion was associated with a significant reduction in reoffending rates, but the impact of early mental health service contact was less clear. There is a need to understand the reasons why many young people are not accessing appropriate mental health services following diversion in order to improve outcomes and fully realize the intended benefits of mental health court diversion.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH, 2024, VOL. 23, NO. 3, 204–216https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2023.2276961

By Garner Clancey, Cecilia Drumore and Laura Metcalfe

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

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

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

By Aaron H. L. Wong

In 2021, China amended its law on the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), lowering the MACRof two specified offences to twelve years. As a result,China now has three different levels of MACR for dif-ferent offences. Based on the position in China, thisarticle argues that while lowering the MACR against the international trend can be justified as a necessary measure to tackle serious crimes committed by chil-dren, creating different levels of MACR based on the types of crime is wrong in principle. This article fur-ther considers the classic dilemma in setting an absoluteMACR, which results in either freeing the guilty or convicting the innocent. It is argued that setting a relatively low MACR accompanied by robust safeguards of doli incapax, child immaturity defence, diversion and wider sentencing options would allow a better assessment of children'sculpabilityandbetterservetheinterestsofjus-tice. It is also suggested that lowering the MACR will not unjustifiably undermine children’s rights if the juvenile justice system could ensure only those truly culpable could be convicted and that the option of prosecution is reserved as a last resort.

Howard Journal of Crime & Justice, Pages: 3-21 | First Published: 2024

By Chris Trotter

Poor family environment, including child abuse and neglect, family criminality, family disruption, and severe family conflict are background factors for many children (and adults) involved in the justice system as evidenced in a large number of research studies (e.g. Katsiyannis et al., 2018). Family issues are also the concern of both adult probation and youth justice practitioners and others who provide community supervision. Two studies of community supervision, for example, found that family issues were the most, or at least one of the most, commonly discussed issues in interviews with both children and adults (Bonta et al., 2008; Trotter and Evans, 2012). There is also considerable support for the effectiveness of family interventions for children in the criminal justice system. Petrosino and colleagues (2009), in a review of the available research, found that family-based interventions have considerable impact on reoffending. They suggest that, on average, children involved in family-based interventions have recidivism rates 16% to 28% lower than comparable control groups. This is consistent with a detailed review by Lipsey and Cullen (2007) who considered four different meta-analyses on the effectiveness of family interventions for children, and found an average reduction in recidivism compared to untreated control groups of between 20% and 52%. Hartnett et al. (2016) and Petrosino et al. (2009) argue, based on their reviews, that family interventions may be more effective than other interventions for children facing family issues. Hartnett et al. (2016), for example, argue that family work is more effective than cognitive behavioural and group therapy interventions. Support for family interventions is also provided in earlier reviews by Latimer (2001) and Dowden and Andrews (2003), although both reviews suggest that the effectiveness of family interventions is dependent on the nature of the intervention which is offered; the interventions need to be consistent with evidence-based practice principles. Despite the research support for family interventions, they seem to be relatively rare in criminal justice settings. Specific interventions focused on issues such as drug treatment, anger management or employment are more common. Where family interventions are offered in youth justice, they tend to be delivered by licenced therapists trained in specific models such as multi-systemic family therapy or functional family therapy (Hartnett et al., 2017; Markham, 2018). In this paper, I focus upon an example of a project that uses youth justice workers to deliver a family intervention – Collaborative Family Work. This work is designed to be delivered as part of the routine offerings of a youth justice service.

Manchester UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation. HM Inspectorate of Probation Academic Insights 2021/02

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 Ursula Kilkelly

Research in youth justice is vast and varied, meaning that those seeking to identify ‘good practice’ or ‘evidence’ must navigate multiple studies, large and small, from every jurisdiction and academic discipline. The scholarship has been produced using diverse methodologies and approaches, and although there is an increasing focus on policy impact and practitioner perspectives, its breadth and depth can make this vast literature difficult to access by those interested in an evidence-based approach. The aim of this paper is to identify, from the established research literature, the key messages relating to children who come into conflict with the law and their pathways into and out of the justice system. Building on previous research funded by the Irish Research Council (Kilkelly et al., 2021) and since updated in a work that seeks to align the scholarship with a children’s rights approach (Kilkelly et al., 2023), this paper identifies ten key messages that should inform an evidence-based approach to youth justice in any jurisdiction. ' Academic Insights 2023/09

Manchester,UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 18p.

By Heide Dix and Jen Meade

This Academic Insights paper outlines the IDEAS approach to effective practice. IDEAS is a framework that was originally developed to support practitioners in a youth justice service to evaluate their work with children and their families. It can also be used in settings such as Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) as well as the secure estate and by managers and leaders as a quality assurance tool since it outlines the skills, knowledge and personal attitudes that evidence suggests are necessary to be an effective practitioner within a youth justice context. As set out in the paper, the framework is made up of the following five elements: In addition to describing how IDEAS works as part of individual practice, this paper will briefly suggest how the framework can support a culture of effective, relational practice.

Academic Insights 2023/05. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 16p.