By Claire Ely

BACKGROUND: From October 2020 to January 2023 the Youth Justice Board (YJB) undertook a two-year project to better understand prevention and diversion practice and its funding arrangements. Key findings from this project concluded that: youth justice services (YJSs) reported that they deliver a significant amount of prevention and diversion work that is not formally captured in any standardised way; and, the benefits of partnerships and shared visions with other services, including police, health, education, children’s services, courts and wider partners, were consistently highlighted by YJSs and wider justice stakeholders as being essential for effective prevention and diversion. The YJB also found that prevention and diversion practice: ‘is leading to positive outcomes for children. The most common data source to measure prevention and diversion is first time entrants. YJSs provided local data that the work is supporting reductions in first time entrant rates and leading to improvements in children’s lives.’2 However, diversion practice is varied and inconsistent. YJSs feel that children are, in some cases, being unnecessarily criminalised due to differing eligibility criteria for access to services and differing responses to offences, including varied application of the use of No Further Action - Outcome 22. There is also a lack of national and local oversight and governance of prevention and diversion work which needs to be enhanced to improve the evidence-base surrounding current practice. Purpose of the paper There are a number of bodies and organisations that oversee, monitor and scrutinise the delivery of services in the criminal justice system. This paper will focus on how two bodies inspect the work that YJSs and the police undertake with children who receive diversion or an out of court disposal (OOCD), soon to be called out of court resolutions. The bodies responsible for inspecting these agencies are: His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS). Each of these bodies play an important role in ensuring that YJSs and the police are working with children in a safe and effective way. However, there are considerable differences between the various standards, inspection frameworks and data collection approaches required by YJSs and the police, and not all have a specific focus on diversion and OOCDs, or even children who offend generally. Practitioners tell us that this means they often find themselves confused by what is expected of them, with their practice endorsed by one inspectorate, yet criticised or not inspected by another. This paper forms part of the Youth Endowment Fund’s work to provide guidance to local leaders on evidence-led diversion. It aims to do the following: 1. Provide an overview of the national inspection frameworks (including joint inspections) that currently exist to monitor the delivery of diversion work undertaken by YJSs and the police. 2. Summarise findings and recommendations from recent inspection reports. 3. Outline recommendations for improvements regarding the types of inspections and how these are undertaken as suggested by police, YJS practitioners and inspectors.

London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2025. 20p.

By Queensland Family and Child Commission

This report is an Examination Review conducted by the Queensland Family and Child Commission (QFCC). The Review adopts a mixed methods approach to determine whether available supports and processes are addressing the needs of children and families, and diverting young people from reoffending behaviour. This report provides important insights and perspectives from young people, families and workers on a topic that continues to be the subject of extensive public discussion and debate and has been the subject of significant legislative and funding attention by the Queensland Government. It was informed by the experiences of 66 young people with recent experience of being released from youth detention. It also includes the advice and views of 44 frontline workers across Queensland from community-controlled organisations, government programs, youth justice service centres, youth detention centres and non-government organisations, and six family members.

Recommendation 1: The Queensland Government fund and deliver a dedicated 12-month post-detention transition program that incorporates in-home family interventions and effective engagement in education, training and employment. Entry to this program should commence as part of case management of every young person as soon as they enter detention and should prioritise both their, and their family’s direct participation. Program delivery must incorporate family and community participation that seeks to address criminogenic causes in the young person’s life that commences prior to their release from custody.

Recommendation 2: The post-detention transition program developed under Recommendation 1 should form part of a broader approach by the Queensland Government to target investment in a developmental approach to crime prevention. Programs and services developed as part of such investment must address risk factors and promote protective factors associated with youth crime. At a minimum these should tackle the known factors associated with involvement in the youth justice system (family dysfunction, domestic and family violence, drug and alcohol use, education disengagement, mental health issues, housing instability and poverty), and should promote continuity of support and of relationships with key individuals whether the young person is in custody or in the community. This will require a coordinated and focussed, whole-of-government approach that draws on, and integrates existing housing, employment, health, education, mental health, justice and federally commissioned programs.

Brisbane: Queensland Family and Child Commission 2024. 102p.

By Curtis Smith IV, Laura Whitaker, Stephanie Brooks Holliday

The overrepresentation of queer youth in the juvenile justice system in Los Angeles County underscores the need for tailored service strategies to meet this population's needs. However, given the lack of concrete guidance within the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act's (JJCPA's) Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan, JJCPA-funded programs may require additional guidance on how to best achieve this goal. Staff members of these programs often have competing priorities and may find it challenging to find practical information to guide their services.

In this report, the authors summarize the peer-reviewed literature related to queer at-promise and juvenile justice-involved youth to present a high-level summary of the pathways through which these youth enter the juvenile justice system, the common issues that they experience while in the system, the needs that practitioners should be aware of when serving these youth, and potential strategies to better support queer youth when providing services.

The authors go on to describe the existing challenges and practices that JJCPA-funded programs experience when aiming to serve queer youth. The authors then draw on the expertise of local organizations that serve queer youth who intersect with the juvenile justice system and identify practical solutions to enhancing care for these youth.

Key Findings

• Queer youth who are at-promise (i.e., experiencing factors that place them at risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system) and those involved in the juvenile justice system often experience various forms of adversity, such as parental rejection, houselessness, dual-system involvement, school discrimination, mental health challenges, and criminal justice system discrimination.

• Staff of programs funded by the JJCPA in Los Angeles County are interested in meeting the needs of queer youth; however, they may feel unprepared to do so.

• Key informants from queer-serving organizations suggest that JJCPA-funded programs serving queer youth should foster a safe and affirming environment, integrate school and family systems, consider youths' intersectionality, and implement collaborative care models.

Recommendations

• JJCPA-funded programs should develop partnerships with queer organizations to support at-promise and justice-involved youth with clear goals and transparency about such needs as training or consultation.

• JJCPA-funded programs should build lasting relationships through coaching partnerships for sustained impact, facilitating collaborative workshops, and integrating partnerships into staff onboarding and training.

• JJCPA-funded programs should integrate queer identity into services while considering other identity aspects and broader needs.

• JJCPA-funded programs should adjust approaches based on diverse identities, ensuring that resources and services are available.

• JJCPA-funded programs should offer queer-specific services when needed, using various modalities, such as virtual options.

• JJCPA-funded programs should evaluate and integrate inclusive policies, ensuring that such policies are communicated and reinforced with staff.

• JJCPA-funded programs should document policies for accessibility, detailing application, evaluation, and consequences to emphasize their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

• JJCPA-funded programs should ensure that staff reflect and support the needs of queer youth through diverse representation and expertise.

• JJCPA-funded programs should increase queer representation among staff to create safe spaces and connect with relevant resources.

• JJCPA-funded programs should use staff to coordinate services across systems, considering the diverse needs of queer youth.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025, 33p.

By Laura Whitaker, Sarita D. Lee, Aarya Suryavanshi, Sierra Smucker, Tara Laila Blagg, Marylou Gilbert, Susan Turner, Dionne Barnes-Proby, Stephanie Brooks Holliday

The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA), administered by the California Board of State and Community Corrections, provides funding to counties to support programs that have proved their effectiveness in curbing crime among at-promise youth (those at risk of justice-system involvement) and youth already involved in the juvenile justice system. In Los Angeles County, the Probation Department oversees the implementation of JJCPA-funded programs, which are approved by the county through the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council.

In 2019, the Probation Department selected RAND to provide evaluation services related to JJCPA-funded programs. In this report, the authors present findings from the process and outcome evaluation of two court-based programs for youth with significant clinical needs, including mental health diagnoses and developmental disabilities: the Client Assessment Recommendation and Evaluation (CARE) Project and the juvenile mental health court (JMHC). Findings will be of interest to Los Angeles County stakeholders, including program staff, Probation Department staff, and members of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, and to agencies in other locations that are interested in implementing programs of this nature.

Key Findings

Both the CARE Project and JMHC staff cited staffing limitations as a challenge

CARE and JMHC serve youth with a high level of needs, and both reported increasing severity of youth needs within the programs.

Program staff reported having high caseloads, leading to overworked staff and concerns about serving enough youth or serving their cases as effectively as possible.

Both programs aim to connect youth with needed services, and one major challenge is an insufficient number of suitable community-based resources, programs, or placements

Although this shortfall directly affects the work of both programs, it is beyond the control of the programs themselves to make needed changes.

Agency coordination is also a challenge, and highly cooperative partnership and buy-in from agency leaders will be necessary to facilitate improvements.

Despite challenges, staff reported several facilitators of program implementation, particularly the quality of staff in both programs

Staff were very motivated to achieve successful outcomes for youth and described their colleagues as highly effective.

Staff from both programs report strong perceptions of effectiveness

Staff noted the large proportion of youth involved in the juvenile justice system in Los Angeles County who have significant clinical needs and the importance of programs such as CARE and JMHC to provide rehabilitation.

Recommendations

Both CARE and JMHC should increase the number of staff.

CARE should consider adding new types of staff (e.g., paralegal, case manager) to assist with CARE staff workloads.

Both programs should prioritize the process by which youth transition from juvenile halls and camps to the community.

JMHC should be expanded to other courts in the county.

Both programs should implement both equity training and tracking for equity.

The programs should develop a system for the inclusion of youth and caregiver input in the evaluation.

The programs should improve the availability of data to assess program effectiveness.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024, 61p.

By Laura Whitaker, Alexandra Mendoza-Graf, Tara Laila Blagg, Curtis Smith IV, Nastassia Reed, Sierra Smucker, Aarya Suryavanshi, Susan Turner, Stephanie Brooks Holliday

At-promise youth, who are youth at risk of becoming involved with the juvenile justice system, are often most at risk of engaging in dangerous or delinquent behavior after school hours, in the evenings, and on weekends. Living in an unsafe community, particularly a community with gang and drug activity, exacerbates these risks. How, then, can local governments help at-promise youth minimize these risks while giving youth opportunities to thrive?

The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) provides counties with funding to support programs that have proven their effectiveness in curbing crime among at-promise youth and youth currently involved in the juvenile justice system. In Los Angeles County, JJCPA funding supports several programs that work with at-promise youth and focus on mitigating the aforementioned risks.

In this report, the authors present their evaluation of JJCPA-funded programs operated by five departments or agencies in Los Angeles County or the City of Los Angeles. The authors interviewed staff members from each of the programs and reviewed program data from 2019 through 2023 to identify facilitators and barriers to program implementation. Part of a series of evaluation reports for JJCPA-funded programs in the Los Angeles area, this report presents findings and recommendations for the programs of interest.

Key Findings

The evaluated programs make programming available after school, in the evenings, and on weekends, and programming primarily occurs in public parks or public housing complexes.

The programs provide mentorship, skill building, and access to resources and activities that youth might not otherwise have.

The programs largely serve Black and Hispanic youth ages ten to 18 who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods or neighborhoods with high levels of gang or other illegal activity.

Many factors have facilitated the programs' implementation, such as structured programming frameworks, program staff's ability to tailor services to youth's needs and interests, and many staff members' personal connection to the local communities that they serve.

Program staff also face several implementation challenges: limited funding and staffing shortages; difficulties engaging with youth, safely transporting youth to the programs, and building trust with youth; and a lack of services that better address the needs of the marginalized youth that programs serve.

Recommendations

Provide additional and flexible funding to support new activities or allow programs to address logistical barriers to youth participation, such as a lack of transportation to program sites.

Additional funding could allow programs to add more staff capacity by increasing the number of staff in existing positions or creating new roles (e.g., a case manager).

Hiring staff from the local communities the programs serve would improve client and community engagement. Programs should also ensure that staff have sufficient access to professional-development opportunities and training.

Programs should tailor or augment the programming to meet the diverse local population's needs, such as by translating program materials in languages besides English and hiring staff members who speak those other languages.

Programs looking to improve on their existing data collection can consult the JJCPA data collection toolkit, which RAND developed specifically to support programs in collecting data relevant to an evaluation.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025, 75p.

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 Marcy Mistrett and Mariana Espinoza

At the turn of the 21st century, it was estimated that 250,000 children every year were charged as adults in the United States. By 2019, that number had dropped 80% to 53,000. This drop is to be celebrated and is the result of legislative changes in 44 states and the District of Columbia, as well as federal funding incentives. However, there is still much work to be done.

The children that remain exposed to the adult criminal legal system are overwhelmingly youth of color. The vast majority serve short sentences in adult jail or prison and return home by their 21st birthdays, the age at which services can be extended to in the youth justice system in the vast majority of states; indicating that many youth could be served, more appropriately, by the youth justice system.

This brief reviews the history, harms, pathways and trends that treat children as if they were adults.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2022. 10p.

By Luke Billingham and Keir Irwin-Rogers

 For many children and young people, Britain is a harmful society in which to grow up. This book contextualizes the violence that occurs between a small number of young people within a wider perspective on social harm. Aimed at academics, youth workers and policy makers, the book presents a new way to make sense of this pressing social problem. The authors also propose measures to substantially improve the lives of Britain’s young people in areas ranging from the early years to youth services and the criminal justice system.

Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2022. 302p.

By Anne-Marie Day

The custodial estate for children aged 10–17 years across England and Wales faces a number of challenges. This article focuses on the perceptions of Resettlement Officers in two Young Offender’s Institutions (YOIs) in England on the challenges of their role: successfully reintegrating children from custody into the community using ‘Constructive Resettlement’ approaches. The findings will present a range of internal barriers encountered by Resettlement Officers that leave them feeling isolated, invisible and misunderstood. Finally, implications for future policy and practice will be considered.

Youth JusticeOnlineFirst, February 17, 2025

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.

By The Children's Commissioner (UK)  

  “I think there's a difference between a protest and a riot. A protest can be peaceful… whereas a riot is trying to get your message out, but not in the right way, like trying to scare people into listening to your message.” – Child, charged in the 2024 riots. The Children’s Commissioner’s ambition is clear: every child must be prevented from becoming involved in violence and criminality and able to fulfil their full potential. Yet the events that unfolded between 30 July and 7 August 2024 underscored how much work is still needed to achieve this. The murders of Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar in Southport on 29 July 2024, and the injury of 10 others, sparked mass public grief and anger. Demonstrations occurred across 26 areas of England, with some becoming violent, partly fuelled by false claims spread online that the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker, intensifying existing anti-immigrant sentiments.1 While the scale and nature of each instance of unrest varied, this report refers to them as "riots" to reflect the language used by the children involved, who overwhelmingly chose to describe their experience using that term. This report presents the perspective of children charged in connection to the riots, as told to the Children’s Commissioner and her team directly and does not draw on the full range of possible evidence from victims, police, parents, and others. It contains findings from: • Qualitative interviews between November and December 2024 with 14 children who had been charged in connection to the unrest. This compares to the total of 73 children with a finalised outcome by 31 October, meaning the office spoke to around 20%. The ages and gender of these children have not been included in reporting to maintain anonymity. • Previously unpublished quantitative data provided to the Children’s Commissioner’s office (CCo) by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC); • Notes from meetings between the CCo and Youth Justice Service (YJS) staff members; and • A desktop review of articles on police and media websites of children charged in connection to the riots. Key findings 1. 147 children were arrested by 4 September 2024, 84 were charged, and 73 had finalised outcomes, as of 31 October 2024, according to information provided to the office by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). More arrests and charges are expected as police continue to review footage. 2. Children’s involvement was largely spontaneous and unconsidered. Many children had no prior experience with the criminal justice system, and all made it clear that they did not get involved due to far right, anti-immigration or racist views. The reasons why the incident they attended was organised mostly did not matter for them. Instead, they were curious to see what was happening, thought it looked fun, felt animosity towards the police, or wanted free goods. 3. Many children spoke strongly about their hatred of the police, describing previous bad experiences and community mistrust. These children viewed the riots as an opportunity to retaliate against the police. 4. The need for a definitive response to public disorder led to the rapid charging and sentencing of many children. With some missing out on the rehabilitation that we know works best to ensure all children can grow up to become independent, productive adults 5. Children’s experience with the youth justice system and their outcomes depended on where they lived. Children with similar circumstances and levels of involvement were treated differently and Heads of Youth Justice Service (YJS) areas shared that whether a child-first approach was adopted varied depending on the local police force and CPS. In most areas, the expertise of YJS was not drawn upon, and only a few YJS teams said that the police and the CPS worked with them to ensure a child-first approach. 6. To improve the lives of children in England, these children wanted the government to address poverty and provide more opportunities. This included more youth activities and employment. They explained that without addressing these issues, children are vulnerable to exploitation and crime. Conclusion The findings highlight the importance of upholding the child-first principles of the youth justice system, particularly in times of national crisis. Children are different to adults, and a child must be seen as such first and foremost, rather than as an offender, to keep communities safe by preventing and reducing offending behaviour. Rehabilitation and addressing the underlying causes of children’s involvement must be the primary objective of youth justice, with custodial sentences always the last resort. The widespread expression of hostility toward the police among these children also highlights an urgent need for child-centred policing that builds trust and fosters positive relationships.   

London: The Children's Commissioner, 2025. 37p.

By Gwendolyn J. Koops-Geuze https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-304X geuze@law.eur.nl, Hilde T. Wermink, and Frank M. Weerman

Although community sanctions have become a popular alternative to custodial sanctions in youth justice, primary questions about the recidivism effects of community sanctions remain unanswered. The current study aims to fill this gap through a quasi-experimental analysis of 2-year recidivism differences between 4,425 youth subject to community sanctions versus custodial sanctions in the Netherlands in 2015 and 2016. Recidivism was analyzed in terms of overall, serious, and very serious recidivism for the full sample, a low risk subsample, and a medium-high risk subsample. Findings indicate that youth subject to community sanctions are less likely to recidivate overall, and less like likely to recidivate seriously than youth subject to custodial sanctions. Community sanctions were found to be particularly beneficial for preventing very serious recidivism among low risk youth. Additionally, it was found that medium-high risk youth subject to community sanctions are less likely to recidivate overall, and less seriously than medium-high risk youth subject to custodial sanctions. Implications of these findings for future research and practice are discussed.

Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeVolume 21, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 106-129

By Adam Lavecchia, Philip Oreopoulos, Noah Spencer

This paper presents estimates of the causal effect of a comprehensive support program for low income high school students on crime. The program, called Pathways to Education, bundles a number of supports including regular coaching, tutoring, group activities, free public transportation tickets and bursaries for postsecondary education. Our empirical strategy uses administrative data on high school enrollment linked to administrative court records and a difference-in-differences methodology that compares the evolution of crime outcomes of students living in the public housing communities where Pathways operates to similar public housing students who are ineligible for the program. We find that eligibility for Pathways reduces the likelihood of being charged with a crime at its Regent Park location by 6 percentage points (33 percent of the pre-treatment mean) and has no statistically significant effect at its Rexdale and Lawrence Heights locations. Our results suggest that the reductions in criminal activity are driven by the reduction of property crimes.

Munich: Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research - CESifo, 2025. 45p.

By Matthew Van Poortvliet, Cassandra Popham, William Teager, Peter Henderson , et alThe Youth Endowment Fund’s vision is for every child to live a life free from violence. In the latest year, 40 children lost their lives to violence involving knives; 509 ended up in hospital; and 1 in 2 teenage children told us they changed the way they live because of the fear of violence. This is not okay. Each child affected by violence is a tragedy. Amid these tragedies lies a further injustice. While children from all backgrounds can face violence and deserve our full protection, children from certain ethnic backgrounds are less safe. Sometimes the statistics are deeply shocking. It should horrify all of us that a Black child growing up in our country is six times more likely to be murdered. It should also worry us when we hear that Black and Asian children are less likely to be referred for mental health support, or that Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller children face disproportionately high rates of school exclusions and suspensions. It doesn’t have to be like this. Sometimes, these terrible injustices are the consequence of appalling racial injustices rooted deep in our history. At other times, they are the result of recent, direct and unacceptable forms of racism — whether institutional or interpersonal. When compounded by other disadvantages, such as low income, unstable housing or higher risks of extra-familial harm, these inequalities create cycles of disproportionate harm that are difficult to break. Difficult, but not impossible. Ten years ago, Black children were 1.7 times more likely to be excluded from schools than White children. That is no longer true. Racial inequity does not have to be Ensure stop and search is fair and ‘intelligence-led’. Make Outcome 22 a positive outcome in the police outcomes framework. Monitor and improve access to psychological therapy. Deliver evidence-based support to children absent or excluded from school. Urgently reduce disproportionality and improve conditions in youth custody. This report sets out five actions that the new government can take to address racial disproportionality and keep our children safe: Ensure stop and search is fair and ‘intelligence-led’. Make Outcome 22 a positive outcome in the police outcomes framework. Monitor and improve access to psychological therapy. Deliver evidence-based support to children absent or excluded from school. Urgently reduce disproportionality and improve conditions in youth custody These recommendations are not exhaustive – there’s always room to do more. However, by acting decisively and urgently on these evidence-informed priorities, the new Labour government has an opportunity to deliver meaningful change, reduce violence and start to build a society where all our children can live free from violence.

London: Youth Endowment Fund, 2025. 47p.

By Tim Bateman, Isabelle Brodie, Anne-Marie Day, John Pitts and Timi Osidipe

This is a narrative review of the literature relevant to understanding the relationship between ethnicity, disproportionality and diversion of children from the youth justice system. The review is part of wider research project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and undertaken by the University of Bedfordshire and Keele University, exploring ethnic disparities at the gateway to the youth justice system and the impact of increased use of diversionary mechanisms in that context. Further information on the wider project is available on the Nuffield Foundation website at: Exploring racial disparity in diversion from the youth justice system - Nuffield Foundation. Methodology Literature is drawn largely from UK and US, English language, sources, from 2010 to the present. Grey literature is included where from an authoritative source. The focus is decision-making at the gateway to the youth justice system with a particular emphasis on the mechanisms whereby children are drawn into, or diverted from, formal processing and the extent to which those decisions are characterised give rise to disparity. Search terms were used flexibly and in combination. Disproportionality and the youth justice system Concern about the over-representation of children from minority backgrounds in the youth justice system is long-standing and evidence of disparities are well established. In his government commissioned 2017 review of the treatment of Black and other minoritised individuals within the criminal justice system, David Lammy MP noted that disproportionality in the youth justice system was his ‘biggest concern’ highlighting that ethnic disparities among children receiving criminal disposals had increased in recent years. In the year ending March 2022, 29 percent of children receiving a formal sanction came from a minority background compared to 19 percent a decade before. Similarly, while slightly fewer than one third of the child custodial population came from a minority ethnic background in 2012, a decade later the equivalent figure was in excess of half.

London: Nuffield Foundation 2023. 59p.

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 Cheryl Yates and Laura Roeder-Grubb

This report provides an update to a previous report prepared by Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) for the Justice Advisory Board (JAB) in February 2020 on youth who entered the adult court system. The purpose of this report is to provide information on Iowa youth with serious offenses whose cases were handled in the adult court system from SFY2015 through 2021, the method by which they came into the adult court system, their sex, race/ethnicity, county, their first adult offense, prior history in juvenile court, and if they had a subsequent conviction in adult court within two years after their first offense. Research has generally shown that youth have worse outcomes when they are transferred to the adult justice system rather than being handled in the juvenile court system. Some states have raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. Under current Iowa Code 232.8, youth under age 16 are under the jurisdiction of juvenile court, but can be waived by the juvenile court to the adult court. Included within the group of waived youth are Youthful Offenders, under Iowa Code 232.45, who are between the ages of 12 to 15. Youth aged 16 and 17 are directly filed to adult court if they have serious offenses, including forcible felonies, felony weapons offenses, and serious drug offenses, but can be reverse waived back to the juvenile court. Three groups were studied: “Waived” youth, “Direct” File youth, and “Other” youth in adult court. Their characteristics and outcomes are described below. Please note that, in a small number of cases, long durations of time between the offense date and adult case initiation date occurred. Only 138 of the 3,312 youth in the file (4.2%) had one or more years pass between the offense date and case initiation date. Of those youth, 51% were sex offenders. This may be due to victims not coming forward until much later. From SFY2015 to SFY2021, 1,027 youth were “Direct Filed” to adult court.  90.7% were male.  43.8% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 16.7 years (range: 16 to 21 years).  85.9% of direct file youth had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.3  27.1% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  22.4% were reverse waived from adult court to juvenile court.  84.0% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  44.2% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. From SFY2015 to SFY2021, 1,284 youth were “Waived” to adult court.  81.4% were male.  31.6% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 17.1 years (range: 12 to 19 years). Please note that the “Waived” group includes 38 youth age 12 to 15 who may have qualified for the Youthful Offenders status under Iowa Code.  34.5% of waived youth had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  22.8% of waived Youth had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  51.9% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.4  68.7% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Of “Other” youth who were neither waived nor direct filed to adult court from SFY2015 to SFY2021, 265 were under the age of 18 at the time of adult case initiation.  63.4% were male.  24.9% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 16.4 years (range: 8 to 17 years).  29.8% of other youth under age 18 had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  31.7% of other youth under age 18 had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  30.2% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  66.0% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  21.5% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Of “Other” youth who were neither waived nor direct filed to adult court from SFY2015 to SFY2021, 735 were age 18 or older at the time of adult case initiation.  69.3% were male.  27.8% were Black.  The average age at first adult case initiation was 18.0 years (range: 18 to 21 years).  25.2% of other youth age 18 or older had a felony offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  17.8% of other youth age 18 or older had a violent offense as their first, most serious adult charge.  42.3% were convicted of their first, most serious adult charge.  75.1% had a prior juvenile court complaint before entering the adult court system.  49.5% subsequently had a conviction of simple misdemeanor or higher in adult court within two years of their first adult offense. Key Findings Based on the SFY2015-SFY2021 reporting period: Entry into Adult Court  38.8% of youth in the adult court system were waived, 31.0% were direct filed, and 30.2% were other. The percentage of waived youth has decreased overtime, whereas the percentage of direct file youth has increased over time. Counties with the Highest Rates of youth in Adult Court  The top six counties having the highest rates of their youth in adult court per 10,000 population were: Hardin (286.1), Des Moines (243.2), Monona (219.8), Lee (197.0), Black Hawk (182.5), and Scott (181.9). Only two of these counties, Black Hawk and Scott, are metropolitan areas. Demographic Profile of youth in Adult Court  80.1% of youth in the adult court system were male. Of the youth who were direct filed (90.7% were male, and 81.4% were male that were waived to adult court.  Racial disparities are evident among youth involved in adult court. 34.0% of youth in adult court were Black, but Black youth comprise only 7.3% of the state’s total youth population. Of the direct filed youth 43.8% were Black, and 31.6% of the waived youth were Black.  The average age of youth’s first adult court involvement, based on the date the case was initiated in adult court, was 17.1 years. Direct file youth, on average, were younger than waiver youth (16.7 years vs. 17.1 years). Characteristics of the First Adult Offense  All direct file youth had a felony charge, per the eligibility requirements set by Iowa Code. 34.5% of waived youth had a felony charge as their first adult offense. The percentage of waived youth with a felony charge (waiver offense) has trended upwards over time, increasing from 26.9% in SFY2015 to 42.4% in SFY2021.  All direct file youth had a violent charge (85.9%) or public order charge (14.1%) as their direct file offense, per the eligibility requirements set by Iowa Code. The most common waiver charge for waived youth was property (42.9%), followed by drug (23.1%), violent (22.8%), and public order (10.4%).  Waived youth were more likely to be found guilty of their first adult offense (51.9%) compared to direct file youth (27.1%). A higher percentage of direct file youth had other/unknown dispositions (34.7%). Other dispositions include change of venue, not filed, other, transferred, or waiver stipulation. 22.4% of direct file youth were reverse waived from adult court to juvenile court.  There has been a downward trend in the percentage of youth found guilty. There has been an upward trend in deferred dispositions. Prior Juvenile History  86.8% of the youth who entered adult court had a prior complaint in the juvenile court system. Among the categories, waiver youth, on average, had more complaints than direct file youth (6.4 complaints vs. 5.6 complaints). The average age of youth’s first juvenile complaint, based on the date the complaint was initiated in juvenile court, was 14.0 years.  Direct file and waiver youth were about the same age (an average of 13.9 years and 13.8 years, respectively) at the time of their first juvenile complaint. Recidivism within Two years  Recidivism was tracked for youth in the cohort, who had at least two years of time pass after their first adult offense. Only their most serious convicting offense was examined. 53.4% of the youth in the cohort had a subsequent conviction in adult court (excluding scheduled violations). Of the categories, 68.7% of the waived youth recidivated (68.7%), and 44.2% of direct file youth recidivated. Please note that the recidivism rate for direct file youth may be lower due to having a more serious offense that may have resulted in incarceration during the 2 year period. 27.1% of the direct file youth were convicted of their direct file offense. Those not convicted of their direct file offense may have been convicted of other serious offenses. This would likely have eliminated or reduced their opportunity to recidivate in the tracking period.  Of the youth who recidivated, 38.3% had a subsequent felony conviction as their most serious recidivist conviction. Direct file youth were more likely to have a subsequent felony conviction (48.8%) compared to waiver youth (36.6%).  Of the youth who recidivated, direct file youth were more likely to have a subsequent violent conviction (36.6%) compared to waiver youth (25.4%) as their most serious recidivist conviction.

Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights – Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 2022. 32p.

By Alliance for Youth Justice

Young people turning 18 while in the secure estate face a tumultuous transition between youth custody and adult prisons. The secure estate for children is, in theory, focussed on meeting the distinct needs of under 18s. The vast majority of young adults on the other hand are held in adult establishments where there is very little evidence of any provision designed with their distinct needs in mind. Young people transferring from youth to adult custody face a frightening cliff edge, and getting the transition right is critical to ensuring the safety, wellbeing, and rehabilitation of young people entering adulthood. The children’s secure estate has had long-standing arrangements to retain some young people aged 18 and over to finish out their sentence or aid smooth transitions. Two years ago, however, an interim policy change in response to a capacity crisis in adult prisons led to a rapid and significant increase in the number of over 18s held in the children’s secure estate, with concerning impacts on children, young adults, and the establishments themselves. The children’s secure estate has spent years stumbling from crisis to crisis, struggling to cope with the children in its care, and it was unprepared for this policy change imposed on it without due notice. The government’s decision to temporarily shift the presumed date a young person transitions from youth to adult custody from the 18th birthday to 19th birthday led to over a third of those held in the majority of Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) being over 18s, for the majority of 2023/24. Alongside the implementation of this policy, conditions in YOIs have been dire, putting the safety and wellbeing of children and young people at risk. Guard dogs and stun grenades have been used against children, a fifth Urgent Notification in five years was issued, a failing YOI has now been closed, and both the previous and current Government have been labouring over a decision to rollout PAVA incapacitant spray to staff. The Ministry of Justice carried out a review of the interim policy to determine its end date, focussed on tangible short-term impacts on areas like violence and safeguarding. The review has yet to be published but its findings led Ministers to confirm the policy would end from October 2024 in order that the children’s estate can “return to maintaining an unwavering focus on the specific needs and vulnerabilities that children present.” Beyond the short-term impact explored by the Ministry of Justice review, and its immediate implications for the policy’s end date, there is also a need to consider the full longer-term impact and implications. Learning must be gathered with regards to the adultifying of a children’s estate that already struggles to treat children as children, and how policy decisions have impacted children’s rights to a distinct youth justice system and ensured young adults’ needs are met. This briefing seeks to take a broad view of the impacts, on children and young adults, of the significant change in the population of YOIs. It aims to illustrate not just the impacts here and now, but consider wider implications and risks. These include the opportunity cost of the positive change that could have been achieved during this time, and the potential for a slippery slope towards the government increasingly adultifying youth custody and viewing the children’s system as back-up for a failing adult justice system. It considers the vital need for distinct treatment of children, and raises concerns that despite policymakers agreeing that a specific approach for young adults in custody is clearly needed, change is happening in the wrong direction. Rather than implementing much-needed improvements and distinct support for young adults, conditions and treatment in the children’s estate are at risk of being dragged closer to that in adult prisons. By bringing together perspectives from both the youth and adult justice systems, this briefing carefully considers what recent developments mean for the future of custody for children, and what lessons can be learnt for improving custody for young adults. A new government has an important opportunity to set out ambitious visions and plans for both.

London: Alliance for Youth Justice, 2025. 52p.

By Christine Reynolds, Lisa Moore, Rylee Screeton, Adam Winkle

In September 2022, the ICJI conducted a statewide juvenile justice survey to evaluate local juvenile justice systems in terms of equity and to identify risk factors that influence youth involvement in the justice system. The primary focus of the survey is to better understand juvenile arrest and referral data collected at the local level that is used to analyze racial and ethnic disparities within the juvenile justice system. The results of this study will allow counties to better understand racial and ethnic disparities data and identify methodologies for understanding these data more comprehensively.

 Indianapolis: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2024. 28p.

By  Christine Reynolds, Lisa Moore, Rylee Screeton, Adam Winkle

Executive Summary This report aims to delve into the landscape of racial and ethnic disparities within the juvenile justice system, specifically in Indiana, shedding light on the extent and consequences of these inequities. Indiana, like many states, grapples with a complex set of factors that contribute to differential treatment and outcomes for minority youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Understanding and addressing these disparities is imperative for ensuring the development of appropriate policies and interventions that safeguard the rights and futures of all juveniles. The ICJI was awarded funding for a multi-year project to address the following elements: 1. Enhancing the racial/ethnic disparities data collection environment by a. Obtaining juvenile arrest incidences, and a. Acquiring data fields to better understand referral data; 2. Collaborating with the Indiana Office of Court Services (IOCS) to a. Deliver training to justice professionals who are responsible for entering racial/ethnic disparities data, and a. Build a system that safeguards against inaccurate reporting; 3. Reviewing the literature and assessing the state to a. Identify factors that influence and protect against youth justice system involvement, a. Explore social systems that both perpetuate inequity and lead to minority justice involvement, and a. Investigate methodologies for analyzing these data that include 3a and 3b; and 4. conducting a statewide analysis of counties’ disproportionality data in relation to identified contextual data. This report uses a mixed method approach of quantitative and qualitative findings. Quantitative data include court information and the relative rate index (RRI) for each county at each contact point. Qualitative data were obtained from a survey of criminal justice stakeholders and interviews with juvenile probation officers. This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. Is juvenile arrest data collected and able to be reported by probation officers? 2. Where do most referrals come from? 3. Where within the juvenile justice system does disproportionality exist? 4. What factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system? 5. How can stakeholders ensure better/more accurate data collection?  

 Indianapolis: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2024. 60p.