By HM Inspectorate of Probation; Bob Smith, et al

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

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

By Ruby Whitelaw and Ross Gibson

Consideration of the role that secure care and Young Offenders Institutions (YOI) play in the lives of children deprived of their liberty has featured in both the Independent Care Review (2020) and the Scottish Ministers Programme for Government (2022). Both have indicated that there should be no under 18s held within a YOI by 2024, mandating instead that these children should be placed in “small, secure, safe, trauma informed environments that uphold the totality of their rights” (The Promise, 2020:91). This is likely to be reflected in the forthcoming Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill which will create the legislative changes to achieve this ambition. The Independent Care Review’s successor organisation, The Promise, has stated that it is time to “rethink the purpose, delivery and infrastructure of Secure Care, being absolutely clear that it is there to provide therapeutic, trauma informed support” (The Promise, 2020: 4). These developments are in keeping with the secure care strategic boards findings and recommendations (Secure Care Strategic Board, 2018). To inform the debate and discussion surrounding this task, the authors gathered information and evidence on the needs and circumstances of children who experience secure care or YOIs; we reviewed publicly available data and analysed a tranche of new, as yet unpublished, data gathered in recent secure care censuses. This has culminated in a report that can, we hope, inform the development of future provision for children who experience a deprivation of liberty due to the nature of their behaviour, or the risks they are exposed to. This report will consider whether, for all intents and purposes, the children placed within YOI are distinguishable from those entering secure care. The level of adversity experienced by both groups of children are considerably higher than within the general population, and broadly similar across both cohorts. Each face a range of complex and dynamic circumstances that are known to correlate with adverse outcomes over the short, medium and long term. Both cohorts of children have often demonstrated acts of significant harm, with secure care already providing care, support and supervision to children who have caused acts of grave and significant harm. There is considerable evidence that secure care and YOIs offer a wide array of resources, services, interventions, and programmes designed to meet the needs of the children within their care. The range of opportunities afforded provide an opportunity for services to learn from each other. However, the role of secure care and YOI must also be considered in light of the Scottish Parliament’s unanimous support for the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 1. This defines a child as anyone under the age of 18. Any changes to secure care or YOI provision are therefore a matter of children’s rights, and secure and custodial settings must strive to achieve the best possible outcomes for those in their care. This is particularly relevant given the Scottish Government has repeatedly committed to making Scotland the best place in the world for children to grow up (Scottish Government, 2022). Amongst other developments within academia, Scotland has benefited from longitudinal studies which have provided consistent and clear findings regarding the trajectory of those children who come into conflict with the law. The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime has repeatedly shown that involvement with formal judicial systems can adversely affect the process of desistance, and that most children who come into conflict with the law will end such behaviours by early adulthood according to McAra and McVie (2007, 2022). Findings from this long-running study have heavily influenced Scotland’s Whole System Approach; this calls on practitioners to utilise community alternatives to secure care and custody whenever possible, and to develop robust risk management strategies. These recent policy developments, the conclusions reached within The Promise and the earlier work done by stakeholders and partners combine to create a compelling portrait: the secure and child custodial estate must be seen through the prism of children’s rights. To assist colleagues across the children’s rights and justice landscape to best consider how to achieve these aims, CYCJ sought to gather information and evidence about secure care, and the use of YOIs for under 18s. We hope that this report can inform future developments in these services, promote the respective visions of The Promise and Scotland’s Youth Justice Strategy (2021) and contextualise the challenge set by The Promise. As we prepare to the end of the practice of holding children within YOIs, this report is designed to help key stakeholders to be ready for the next steps in secure care provision, including the development of alternatives to secure care. The Promise clearly sets out that prison is no place for Scotland’s children; to make that possible we require a clearer picture of their needs and the supports that are currently available. The report begins by setting out the purpose of secure care and shares previously unpublished data gathered as part of the secure care census in 2018 and 2019 (See Gibson, 2020, 2021, 2022). It outlines current provision within secure care and the demand for the service, whilst also exploring the approach taken to children and their families. It then discusses YOI provision - its purpose, function, and governance arrangements - as well as demand and approaches to children. Using data from the 2019 Scottish Prison Service prisoner surveys, the report illustrates the range of life experiences of children placed within YOIs.

Glasgow: Children and Young People's Centre for Justice, 2023. 39p.

By Ross Gibson

Introduction

Over recent years concern has been raised about the increasing number of children in England and Wales for whom a placement in a secure children’s home is sought but cannot be found. As a result, a number of children from England and Wales are placed in secure care in Scotland instead. The report by the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice (CYCJ) sets out to help provide a better understanding of the profile and experiences of children placed in Scottish secure care centres by English and Welsh local authorties. It aims to provide an overview of:

• the children’s characteristics – age, gender and ethnicity

• why they were admitted to secure accommodation

• the prevalence and types of adversity they had faced since they were born and in the year prior to admission

• the support and services they had received in the year prior to admission

• their social care histories.

• London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, 2022. 36p.

By Grecia Reséndez and Maureen Washburn

California’s Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the state’s youth correctional system , is endangering youth by subjecting them to life-threatening drug overdoses and excessive use of force by staff. Meanwhile, youth must fend for themselves amid staff shortages and a lack of programming in a highly volatile and violent environment. DJJ will close on June 30, 2023, bringing an end to its long and troubled history. However, DJJ’s long-standing dysfunction coupled with poorly developed transitional plans are undermining this transition and placing youth at great risk. On September 30, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 823 requiring California's state youth prisons to close by June 2023 (State of CA, 2020). SB 823 ushers in a new era of localized juvenile justice that is founded on community-based services and incarceration alternatives. These alternatives allow youth to complete juvenile court sentences in their community instead of in state-run correctional facilities. They include intensive family interventions, case management with support services, reentry housing and employment services, and graduated transition from high security to low security facilities. Youth at DJJ and their families are facing an uncertain future. Community-based organizations serving our state’s most vulnerable youth, many of which operate at the county level, offer crucial guidance and financial resources to those impacted by DJJ. Yet the state is failing to fully collaborate with these organizations as part of the upcoming transition to a county-based system. By closing DJJ, California can adopt a behavioral health approach that focuses on community and family support. However, this realignment to local control raises many concerns. Can California leaders and county probation departments adopt a new and broader vision? Regrettably, many counties are replicating DJJ’s harmful practices at the local level, with an emphasis on locking youth in detention centers. Youth justice organizations have worked tirelessly to improve this process. These groups prepare support services for youth transitioning from DJJ to their home counties. They also advocate for humane alternatives to confinement. Unfortunately, DJJ lacks a clear transition plan and refuses to work with entities outside of the county probation system. This failure will leave hundreds of youth without needed support when DJJ closes. Until then, DJJ remains a hazardous place where the threat of violence and callous treatment is ever present. The approaching closure and a dwindling youth population are fostering complacency. State officials are focusing less attention on operations and show little concern for youth safety. Only continued vigorous independent oversight offers partial protection as conditions deteriorate.

San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2023. 15p.

By Jessica K. Heldman

In 2019, the Governor of California vowed to fundamentally transform the state’s youth justice system. The legislature endorsed this commitment by enacting SB 823, which began a phased closure of state-run youth prisons in 2021. California is not the first state—nor will it be the last—to close facilities in light of decreased youth crime and greater awareness of the harms associated with incarceration. Although a welcomed development, the closure of youth prisons should not be viewed as the culmination of reform; rather, it is only the beginning. To achieve far more impactful change, state and local jurisdictions must confront the long-standing punitive culture within youth justice systems that persists both inside and outside the walls of youth prisons. This Article argues that the science of adolescent development embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court and the substantial evidence regarding what works to prevent youth reoffending provides states with the tools to transform the culture of youth justice. A proposed legislative agenda includes updating statutory purpose clauses and enacting statewide policies rooted in the lessons of history and the findings of contemporary research. With the novel concerns raised by a global pandemic and a renewed focus on racial injustice, this is an opportune time for California and other states to revisit and rebuild their systems to ensure they promote the well-being and safety of all children and their communities.

Lewis & Clark Law Review Volume 26 2022 Number

By Christina A. Sorenson

Screaming Into The Void: Youth Voice in Institutional Placements is a report written by 2019 Soros Justice Fellow Christina K. Sorenson. This comprehensive report includes a personal anthology, a historical analysis, a review of the current state of affairs, an in-depth look at Pennsylvania, and a 51- jurisdictional research survey of youth grievance protections in institutional placements across the dependency and delinquency systems. The historical analysis is limited but essential to understanding the current system's failures and the need for system re-imagining.

The regularity of out-of-state placement necessitates a national perspective. The complicated intersection of federal and state laws exists ostensibly to protect the children we incarcerate. However, the research in this report unequivocally proves that nationwide, our oversight systems systematically dis-empower youth, hide abuses and limit liability.

Organized around three core components: See Youth, Hear Youth, and Protect Youth, this report weaves an existing analysis of protections across the county with multi-disciplinary recommendations and approaches. Finally, there is a curriculum developed by expert Antonio Thomas, to help jurisdictions work directly in partnership with youth to develop youth-centered grievance protections.

The purpose of this report is not to offer an answer, a model, or a template for grievance protection. Instead, the history, state statutory and regulatory review, and curriculum aim to supply the resources necessary for policy-makers and advocates to empower and include local youth with lived experience in imagining and implementing effective youth-centered grievance protections.
Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2023. 108p.

By Ben Finholt, Brandon L. Garrett, Karima Modjadidi, and Kristen M. Renberg 

Life without parole (LWOP) is “an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile,” as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Graham v. Florida. The United States is the only country in the world that imposes juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences. Many of these individuals were sentenced during a surge in LWOP sentencing in the 1990s. In the past decade, following several Supreme Court rulings eliminating mandatory sentences of LWOP for juvenile offenders, such sentencing has declined. This Article aims to empirically assess the rise and then the fall in JLWOP sentencing in a leading sentencing state, North Carolina, to better understand these trends and their implications.

We examine the cases of ninety-four North Carolina juveniles, aged thirteen to seventeen at the time of their offenses, who were sentenced to JLWOP. Of those, forty-nine are currently serving LWOP sentences. In North Carolina, JLWOP sentencing has markedly declined. Since 2011, there have been only five of such sentences. Of the group of ninety-four juvenile offenders, forty-four have so far been resentenced to non-LWOP sentences—largely pursuant to the post-Miller v. Alabama legislation passed in North Carolina. These JLWOP sentences are primarily concentrated in a small group of counties. A total of 61% (fifty-seven of the ninety-four) JLWOP sentences in North Carolina were entered in one of the eleven counties that have imposed more than three JLWOP sentences. We find a path dependency to these sentences: once a county has imposed a JLWOP sentence, it has a higher probability of imposing a JLWOP sentence again in the future. In contrast, homicide rates are not predictive of JLWOP sentences. We question what goals JLWOP serves, given what an inconsistently used, uncommon, geographically limited, and costly sentence it has been in practice. In conclusion, we describe alternatives to JLWOP, including the model adopted in states such as California and Wyoming, in which there is periodic review of lengthy sentences imposed on juvenile offenders.

110 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 141 (2020).

By Ashley Nellis and Niki Monazzam

  Beginning at age 18, U.S. laws typically require persons charged with a crime to have their case heard in criminal rather than juvenile court, where penalties are more severe.1 The justification for this is that people are essentially adults by age 18, yet this conceptualization of adulthood is flawed. The identification of full criminal accountability at age 18 ignores the important, distinct phase of human development referred to as emerging adulthood, also known as late adolescence or young adulthood.2 Compelling evidence shows that most adolescents are not fully matured into adulthood until their mid-twenties.3 The legal demarcation of 18 as adulthood rests on outdated notions of adolescence. Based on the best scientific understanding of human development, ages 18 to 25 mark a unique stage of life between childhood and adulthood which is recognized within the fields of neuroscience, sociology, and psychology. Thus, there is growing support for providing incarcerated people who were young at the time of their offense a second look at their original sentence to account for their diminished capacity. A 2022 study found similar levels of public support for providing a second look at prison sentences for crimes committed under age 18 as for those committed under age 25.4 This brief proceeds in three sections: • Analysis based on a newly compiled nationally representative dataset of nearly 30,000 individuals sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) between 1995 and 2017. • Research review on adolescent brain development revealing that emerging adults share more characteristics with youth than adults. • Judicial, legislative, and administrative reform updates in nine jurisdictions: California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont, Washington, Washington, DC, and Wyoming.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 22p.  

By Amanda B. Gilman , Sarah Cusworth Walker , Kristin Vick, and Rachael Sanford  

  While there is ample research examining the short- and long-term effects of juvenile incarceration (broadly defined), less is known about the specific consequences of the most common form of youth incarceration, juvenile detention. We conducted a Rapid Evidence Review (RER), limiting our search to the past 10 years to include studies that captured modern juvenile justice practices, to assess the body of literature evaluating the effects of juvenile detention on youth outcomes. Our initial search yielded over 1,800 articles, but only three ultimately met criteria for inclusion in our review. We conclude that there is a profound lack of research regarding the consequences of juvenile detention, an issue that affects a large number of youth in the United States.

Crime and Delinquency, 67(11) : 1792-1813, 2021

By Josh Rovner

 Youth arrests and incarceration increased in the closing decades of the 20th century but have fallen sharply since that time. Public opinion often lags behind these realities, wrongly assuming both that crime is perpetually increasing and that youth offending is routinely violent. In fact, youth offending is predominantly low-level, and the 21st century has seen significant declines in youth arrests and incarceration. Between 2000 and 2020, the number of youth held in juvenile justice facilities fell from 109,000 to 25,000—a 77% decline.  

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 9p.

By Richard Mendel

Though the number of youth confined nationwide has declined significantly over the past two decades, our country still incarcerates far too many young people.

It does so despite overwhelming evidence showing that incarceration is an ineffective strategy for steering youth away from delinquent behavior and that high rates of youth incarceration do not improve public safety. Incarceration harms young people’s physical and mental health, impedes their educational and career success, and often exposes them to abuse. And the use of confinement is plagued by severe racial and ethnic disparities.

This publication summarizes the evidence documenting the serious problems associated with the youth justice system’s continuing heavy reliance on incarceration and makes recommendations for reducing the use of confinement. It begins by describing recent incarceration trends in the youth justice system. This assessment finds that the sizable drop in juvenile facility populations since 2000 is due largely to a substantial decline in youth arrests nationwide, not to any shift toward other approaches by juvenile courts or corrections agencies once youth enter the justice system. Most youth who are incarcerated in juvenile facilities are not charged with serious violent offenses, yet the United States continues to confine youth at many times the rates of other nations. And it continues to inflict the harms of incarceration disproportionately on Black youth and other youth of color – despite well-established alternatives that produce better outcomes for youth and community safety.

Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2022. 34p.

By Texas Center for Justice and Equity

During Youth Justice Action Month, we launched a new campaign focused on closing Texas’s 5 remaining prisons and investing in kids instead. After reports revealed dangerous and inhumane conditions in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD), the “solution” has been to raise employee salaries. We know this will not fix the systemic abuse and neglect of incarcerated youth, and we demand something better for Texas kids. Along with the release of a policy brief and webpage explaining our policy goals, we’re convening the Finish the 5 Coalition — a group of advocates, organizations, impacted people, and other individuals. 

Austin, TX: TCJE, 2022. 9p.

By Richard A. Mendel

Backed with an array of research, the case against America’s youth prisons and correctional training schools can be neatly summarized in five words: dangerous, ineffective, unnecessary, wasteful and inadequate. This report highlights successful reform efforts from several states and provides recommendations for how states can reduce juvenile incarceration rates and redesign their juvenile correction systems to better serve young people and the public.

Baltimore, MD: Annie B. Casey Foundation, 2011. 51p.