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 Alexandra Miller & Lisa Pilnik.

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform presents Never Too Early: Moving Upstream to Prevent Juvenile Justice, Child Welfare, and Dual System Involvement in accompaniment of the 2021 Janet Reno Forum entitled, “A Better Path Forward: Restructuring Systems to Support Crossover Youth.” In this publication, authors Alexandra Miller and Lisa Pilnik demonstrate that to prevent system contact, and to reduce repeated and deeper system-involvement, we must support and work in true partnership with young people, families and communities. Using the Crossover Youth Practice Model as an exemplar, the authors explore programs, strategies, and topics necessary to consider to prevent single- and dual-system involvement.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University, McCourt School of Public Policy, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2021. 59p.

By Amber Farn and Michael Umpierre

Authored in partnership with the Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators (CJJA) and with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew), this publication provides an overview of research related to length of stay and lessons learned from the Length of Stay Policy Academy hosted by CJJR and CJJA in 2020 with support from Pew. The report features length of stay efforts from the jurisdictions that participated in the Academy, including Bexar County, Texas; Idaho; Maryland; New York City, New York; and Oklahoma, as well as other states that have led related initiatives such as Arkansas, Illinois, and Utah. Policymakers.

Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, 2023. 33p.

By Carlene Firmin, Hannah King, Molly Manister and Vanessa Bradbury

Contextual Safeguarding (CS) has developed as a safeguarding approach for practitioners to recognise contextual dynamics and children’s exposure to extra-familial harm (EFH). Within CS, practitioners (and the systems in which they work) assess neighbourhood, schools or peer groups to understand the contextual factors that are contributing to the harm and abuse of the young people who are associated with it. Interventions are then developed within the contexts where that harm has occurred, through relationships building, advocacy, training, policy and practical action, alongside support to the affected young people. Initially focused on and piloted within children’s social care, the approach has generated much interest from youth justice services (YJSs) across the country. It is evident that EFH crosses into YJS boundaries and collaborative work through the CS approach that is already underway within some local service areas across England. Safeguarding responsibilities are currently overseen by multi-agency Safeguarding Partnerships made up of three statutory partners – police, health and local authorities. These partners are free to arrange their local provision and to involve other agencies as they see fit. Probation and YJSs are frequently invited to attend and have a duty to cooperate.

Research & Analysis Bulletin 2023/02 . Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 44p.

By Richard Mendel

As The Sentencing Project documented in Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review of the Evidence, compelling research proves that incarceration is not necessary or effective in the vast majority of delinquency cases. Rather, incarceration most often increases young people’s likelihood of returning to the justice system. Incarceration also damages young people’s future success in education and employment. Further, it exposes young people, many of whom are already traumatized, to abuse, and it contradicts the clear lessons of adolescent development research. These harms of incarceration are inflicted disproportionately on Black youth and other youth of color. Reversing America’s continuing overreliance on incarceration will require two sets of complementary reforms. First, it will require far greater use of effective alternative-to-incarceration programs for youth who have committed serious offenses and might otherwise face incarceration. Second, it will require extensive reforms to state and local youth justice systems, most of which continue to employ problematic policies and practices that can undermine the success of alternative programs and often lead to incarceration of youth who pose minimal risk to public safety. This report addresses the first challenge: What kinds of interventions can youth justice systems offer in lieu of incarceration for youth who pose a significant risk to public safety?1 Specifically, it identifies six program models that consistently produce better results than incarceration, and it details the essential characteristics required for any alternative-to-incarceration program – including homegrown programs developed by local justice system leaders and community partners – to reduce young people’s likelihood of reoffending and steer them to success.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 33p.

By Craig Haney ;· Frank R. Baumgartner; · Karen Steele3   

In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the US Supreme Court raised the minimum age at which someone could be subjected to capital punishment, ruling that no one under the age of 18 at the time of their crime could be sentenced to death. The present article discusses the legal context and rationale by which the Court established the current age-based limit on death penalty eligibility as well as the scientific basis for a recent American Psychological Association Resolution that recommended extending that limit to include members of the “late adolescent class” (i.e., persons from 18 to 20 years old). In addition, we present new data that address the little-discussed but important racial/ethnic implications of these age-based limits to capital punishment, both for the already established Roper exclusion and the APA-proposed exclusion for the late adolescent class. In fact, a much higher percentage of persons in the late adolescent class who were sentenced to death in the post-Roper era were non-White, suggesting that their age-based exclusion would help to remedy this problematic pattern. 

 Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology (2022) 8:168–177