By Heide Dix and Jen Meade

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

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

By Mairéad Seymour

There is increasing recognition within the criminal justice system that strategies that engage individuals and encourage cooperation in the first instance may be more effective in promoting compliance with legal requirements than rigid, front-end enforcement approaches. One of the most recent examples is the ‘4 Es’ framework adopted as part of policing public health regulations introduced in England and Wales at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Based on guidance issued by the NPCC (National Police Chiefs Council) and the College of Policing in March 2020, the framework espoused engagement, explanation and encouragement as police strategies to promote public compliance, with enforcement utilised only as a measure of last resort. Aitkenhead et al.’s (2022) analysis of policing the pandemic from a public and police perspective, reports that the ‘4 Es’ approach helped to uphold police legitimacy while securing compliance with Covid-19 regulations and avoiding ‘any major breakdown in the relationship between the public and the police’ (p.7). In the youth justice domain, there has been a notable shift in England and Wales away from enforcement towards engagement in policy discourse and practice guidelines. The most recent case management guidance from the Youth Justice Board (YJB) emphasises that every effort should be taken to engage children to complete their order, with breach proceedings identified as a measure of last resort and initiated in exceptional circumstances (Youth Justice Board, 2022). The approach aligns with the YJB’s recently introduced central guiding principle of ‘Child First’ (Day, 2023; Youth Justice Board, 2021) and is in stark contrast to a decade or more earlier when the language of enforcement, in the form of mandatory warnings and breach proceedings, was embedded in policy discourse (Youth Justice Board, 2010). Offending statistics published by the YJB (2023) identify that ‘breach of statutory order’ has fallen by 89 per cent over the last ten years. While a multiplicity of factors are likely to underpin this figure, policy and practice shifts that emphasise support for compliance, rather than enforcement for non-compliance, provide at least partial explanation for the trend. There have been substantial reductions in new entrants to the youth justice system and in the number of children in custodial detention facilities over the last decade and beyond (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2023; Youth Justice Board, 2023). While the result is lower Youth Offending Service (YOS) caseloads, HM Inspectorate of Probation (2022) argues that the needs of children entering the youth justice system are increasingly complex and far-reaching with the Covid-19 pandemic further exacerbating their circumstances. Harris and Goodfellow (2022) reiterate the point, explaining that vulnerability and marginalisation among many children in or on the periphery of the justice system, has led to them being the most adversely impacted by the pandemic. They describe the pandemic for these children as ‘an additional trauma to an already extensive list’ (p.4). It is against the context of the above developments and circumstances that this paper explores theory, policy and practice in supporting children’s compliance on community-based court orders. It begins by considering the term ‘compliance’ as well as the mechanisms that underpin decisions to comply (or not). Thereafter, the focus turns to unpacking what compliance means in the context of children and young people on community supervision before exploring strategies that pro-actively support and encourage compliance and respond to their non-compliance in ways other than formal enforcement procedures

Academic Insights 2023/04. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation 2023. 16p.

A report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice provides a comprehensive review of conditions at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) — California’s state-run youth correctional system— and finds a return to its historically grievous conditions that isolate and traumatize youth.

The report finds:

• Youth live in a climate of fear: Violence and use-of-force rates have increased in nearly all DJJ facilities in recent years. Staff abet violence, reinforce racial and ethnic conflicts, and legitimize institutional gangs.

• Youths’ health suffers due to trauma and violence: A recent spike in attempted suicides and high rates of youth injuries raise concerns for youths’ safety in DJJ facilities

• Education and programs are rendered less effective by violence and prison-like setting: DJJ’s schools and programs fail to provide meaningful rehabilitative opportunities and leave youth subject to substantial time in locked cells.

• DJJ facilities are outdated and costly: DJJ’s aging and poorly-maintained facilities were built according to an archaic institutional design that is out of step with juvenile justice standards.

Remote, restrictive facilities keep families apart: Youth confined at DJJ are unable to maintain close bonds with family and community members due to restrictive policies and far distances from home.

DJJ fails to prepare youth for their release: Youth released from DJJ experience high rates of recidivism and low levels of employment or education after release as they struggle to adjust to life outside of a traumatic institution. This report includes accounts of youth who have experienced life at DJJ directly. Their insights contribute to the report’s findings, alongside information from interviews with family members and facility staff, research, and recent tours of DJJ correctional facilities.

San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2019. 102p.

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

Jessica K. Heldman and Geoffrey A. Gaither

Racial disproportionality and disparity have long been characteristic of both the child welfare and youth justice systems. The origin of these systems continue to plague children, families, and communities. The impact of racism upon dual status youth—children who encounter both the child welfare and youth justice systems—is particularly concerning. Dual status youth tend to experience worse outcomes in a number of domains than youth involved in only one system. Dual status youth are also disproportionately Black —significantly more so than in any single system. Efforts to reform the youth justice system in recent years have included initiatives to improve outcomes for dual status youth and to interrupt the trajectory of dual system involvement—primarily the movement of youth from the child welfare system into the youth justice system. Other initiatives have sought to reduce or eliminate the racial disproportionality and disparities within both the child welfare and youth justice systems. This article suggests that each of these reform efforts must inform one another, and to make progress, both systems must acknowledge their shared history of racial discrimination and commit to transformative solutions. Part I of this article explores the phenomenon of dual status youth by reviewing existing research that identifies risk factors for dual status, including system experiences that too often contribute to dual system involvement, particularly for Black youth. Part II provides context for how racial discrimination affects Black dual status youth by exploring how both the child welfare and youth justice systems have historically interacted with Black children and families, highlighting examples of systematic discrimination in both systems. This section provides a brief synopsis of the evolution of child welfare and youth justice policy and the pervasive disenfranchisement of, disregard for, and dehumanization of Black youth and families within that policy context. Part III reviews evidence demonstrating that the disparate experiences of Black children and families are not simply a vestige of a bygone era, but persist today through multiple points of decision-making within these systems. This review highlights the policies and practices that compound the risk of Black foster youths’ initial and deepening involvement with the youth justice system. Part IV offers a starting place for the work of addressing disproportionality and disparities impacting Black dual status youth, challenging jurisdictions to commit to an anti-racist framework based on recognition, reorientation, and responsibility. This framework aims to create a foundation for crafting transformative solutions that positively impact children and families— particularly Black dual status youth.

I42 CHILD. LEGAL RTS. J. 21 (2022).

By The Annie E. Casey Foundation

The Annie E. Casey Foundation has found large and widening gaps in youth detention by race and place in its three-year analysis of the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on juvenile justice systems. When it comes to the odds of being detained, young people in the United States live in different worlds, depending on their race and the region and jurisdiction where they reside. The disproportionate use of detention for Black youth — already distressingly high before the pandemic — has increased. Also, over that three-year period, where youth lived mattered to a greater extent to their odds of being detained than it did before. The data from Casey’s monthly survey offer an unparalleled glimpse into what’s been happening in juvenile justice systems around the country over the past three years. Nationwide, youth detention fell sharply at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; largely held at that low level for a year; and then steadily returned to its prepandemic level. After falling by as much as 30% in the first few months of the pandemic, the number of youth held in juvenile detention in survey sites on January 1, 2023 (3,436 young people), rose to almost exactly the level reported on January 1, 2020 (3,410 young people) — and was rapidly increasing. Beneath the surface of that simple story, the Foundation observed significant and concerning changes, especially for Black youth: • Black youth were almost 10 times more likely to be detained than their white peers on January 1, 2023. Prior to the pandemic, Black youth were detained at more than six times the rate of white youth. • The overall population has returned to its old level — and for Black youth surpassed it. Even though the rate of admissions to detention centers is still much lower for Black, Hispanic and white youth than it was before the pandemic, the population has rebounded — and even surpassed its prepandemic level for Black youth. Why? Because the young people in detention, especially Black youth, are staying there longer. Since the early days of the pandemic, a protracted slowdown in the pace of releasing youth from detention has kept the detained population higher than it should be — more than 70% higher as of January 1, 2023, than it would have been if releases kept pace with their pandemic-era highs. • Local differences in the use of detention across states and localities have increased dramatically. Jurisdictions that had similar patterns of detention use at the start of 2020 adopted vastly different patterns over the course of the pandemic. When comparing the third of sites with the biggest increases in detention over the past three years with the sites with the biggest decreases, the data showed one group had slashed its use of detention by almost 30% while the other had a 60% increase. • Survey jurisdictions in the Midwest, which already had higher rates of detention than those in other regions before the pandemic, have had the largest increases since then. Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s definitions of Midwest, Northeast, South and West, a comparison of trends by region shows that survey sites in the Midwest had a detention rate 60% higher than those in other regions in January 2020. Three years later, that gap had grown to 80%. Racial and ethnic disparities were highest in the Northeast before the pandemic and increased even more than other regions, mostly due to a severe slowdown in the pace of releases for Black youth.

Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2023. 23p.

By Daniel Macallair | Grecia Reséndez | Maureen Washburn|

California’s state-run youth correctional system, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), is set to close at the end of June 2023, bringing an end to the state’s 132-year history of systemic abuse. To mark this historic moment, our report details DJJ’s shameful past and examines its lessons for the future. "Violence is heavy in there and it keeps the whole place bound." - Youth formerly committed to DJJ Young children who were confined in California's state institutions The centerpiece of this report is the stories of those who were once confined in California’s youth correctional facilities. Although their time at DJJ (formerly the California Youth Authority, or CYA) spans decades, their recollections are disturbingly similar. Our interviewees recount widespread abuse within a culture that normalized violence and left them with lasting trauma. Despite numerous feeble attempts over the decades to reform this abusive system, life inside of the facilities remained unchanged. It is a system that, for more than a century, has operated on deception—offering the promise of rehabilitation while functioning as little more than a prison. In tracing the history of DJJ and California’s path forward, we aim to: 1) Pay tribute to the thousands of people confined in these state-run institutions who suffered throughout history, 2) Highlight the lessons of DJJ’s closure for other states and jurisdictions, and 3) Ensure that California counties not replicate past failures.

San Francisco: Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2023. 40p.

By Maureen Washburn | Renee Menart

California's youth correctional institutions are failing young people and their communities. The system--currently known as the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)--exposes youth to a violent, prison-like environment that should shock the consciences of California lawmakers, advocates, and residents. Since the 1890s, the state's youth correctional institutions have undergone numerous reorganizations, name changes, and renovations in a futile attempt to improve the treatment of youth under state care. Yet for as long as youth have been confined in California, the state has cycled continuously between reform and scandal, unable to overcome the cruel realities of its youth correctional model (Macallair, 2015). Young people, their families, and even staff describe DJJ as dangerous and ineffective--a finding that is supported by the agency's own statistics (CJCJ, 2019). Despite per capita expenditures of more than $300,000 per year, most youth return to the justice system within three years of their release from DJJ, a clear indicator of the state's failure to prepare young people for their transition back into the community (CDCR, 2019; CJCJ, 2020a). This research finds: (1) Fights, riots, and beatings are a part of daily life at DJJ; (2) Staff routinely use pepper spray, batons, and rubber bullets as methods of control; (3) Many youth contemplate or attempt suicide during their confinement; and (4) Young people are commonly placed more than 100 miles from their homes and loved ones. In early 2019, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) released "Unmet Promises: Continued Violence and Neglect in California's Division of Juvenile Justice," which uncovered appalling conditions and an overall climate of fear at DJJ (CJCJ, 2019). This publication is a companion to "Unmet Promises," offering a brief update on current conditions and outlining a set of policy recommendations that spring from CJCJ's years of research on youth confinement in California. This report also presents four key policy recommendations to address this historic failure. These are presented chronologically, beginning with those that offer immediate protections to youth in the facilities, followed by recommendations aimed at building up alternatives in local communities, and concluding with a proposal to close DJJ in favor of small, close-to-home programs and facilities.

San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2020. 24p.

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 Christine Humowitz

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, presents “The Essential Need for Partnering with Youth and Families to Fundamentally Transform Juvenile Probation.” In this publication, CJJR’s Christine Humowitz highlights best practices, barriers, and strategies related to actively and authentically partnering with youth and families in the context of juvenile probation. The brief highlights jurisdictional examples from the 2019 cohort of the Transforming Juvenile Probation Certificate Program.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University, McCourt School of Public Policy, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2022. 20p.

By Joshua Rovner

This commentary discusses the evolution of youth justice policies in the United States and offers valuable insights into the successes and failures of these approaches. The report advocates for a more enlightened approach to criminal legal reform, backed by the successes of progressive approaches taken to the juvenile legal system.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 5p.

By Magnus Lofstrom, Brandon Martin, and Deepak Premkumar, with research support from Andrew Skelton

California has seen increases in some crime over the last decade, including notable jumps in homicides, auto theft, and most recently retail theft, as well as a slow gradual uptick in aggravated assaults. While these recent increases have dominated headlines, longer-term trends in fact point toward significant overall decreases in crime since the 1990s that appear to be concentrated among juveniles and young adults.

In this report, we examine these long-term changes, focusing specifically on whether younger generations are less likely to be criminally active, as measured by violent crimes, than past generations—or if drops in offending have affected all age groups. One of the most robust relationships in criminology is between age and crime: criminal offending increases in adolescence, peaks in the late teens or early 20s, and then continually decreases. This relationship is the foundation for the well-known “age-crime curve,” which underlies predictions and risk assessments about future offending.

Drawing from unique, individual-level data on arrests in California between 1980 and 2020, we use arrests for violent felonies as our measure of criminal offending because these offenses have not been directly targeted by the numerous reforms implemented in the state over the past several decades and arrests for these crimes are subject to less law enforcement discretion.

Between 1990 and 2010, the age-crime curve in California generally follows historical patterns, with peaks in crime during the late teen years or early 20s; these curves follow these patterns but have gradually shifted downward, reflecting declines in violent crime during this period. However, the most recent age-crime curves differ from earlier, well-established state and national patterns in ways that are consistent with generational shifts in criminal offending. →

The violent felony arrest rate for young adults (ages 18–22) dropped by more than 50 percent over the last 25 years, from 1,712 per 100,000 residents in 1994 to 840 in 2019. The drop is even more notable as the rate for adults in their late 30s and older increased over the same period. This steep decline is the driving factor behind the most recent shift in the age-crime curve. After representing about 25 percent of violent felony arrests among adults for decades, young adults now account for 16 percent of these arrests. →

We see reductions in violent criminal offending beginning with individuals born in the early 1990s. For those born in 1993 and later, the violent felony arrest rate is 20 to 25 percent lower than in previous generations. →

The decrease in violent criminal offending among younger generations is driven by fewer individuals arrested for violent felonies. However, the number of offenses each individual is arrested for in a year has increased by about 5 percent, a notable deviation from decades-long levels. This increase has not been limited to any single generation but represents a broader increase over the last decade. →

While our study does not aim to identify the reasons behind these shifts, nor the extent to which they apply to other offenses, the decrease in criminal offending coincides with changes in some teen behavior; for example, measures of risky behavior, like alcohol consumption and drug use, have declined among more recent generations. Future work to determine specific contributing factors and whether the changes are persistent would have great value and policy relevance.

Even without knowing the root causes, several policy implications follow from our findings. The decrease in crime among younger generations suggests the possibility of lower future capacity needs for the criminal justice system. But although there has been a drop in the number of offenders arrested, the frequency of offending is up somewhat, pointing toward the potential need for new and/or alternative approaches to reduce crime among a plausibly more challenging-to-rehabilitate offender population. Lastly, but importantly, our results also suggest that risk assessment tools—which are widely used by criminal justice agencies—need to be adjusted to account for declines in offending among younger generations to reduce inaccurate predictions.

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California 2023. 27p.

By M e g h a n R . O g l e

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, in partnership with Stoneleigh Foundation, presents, “Advancing Racial Equity in Pennsylvania’s Youth Legal System.” Authored by Stoneleigh Emerging Leader, Dr. Meghan Ogle, this report details the work of seven county-based teams (representing Allegheny, Chester, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Philadelphia, and York Counties) and one state-based team in Pennsylvania who participated in CJJR’s Advancing Racial Equity and Justice in Youth Legal Systems Certificate Program in September of 2021. After engaging in the weeklong Certificate Program in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, these multi-disciplinary teams of youth legal system officials and partners developed Capstone Projects designed to advance racial equity and reduce disparities faced by youth of color involved in the youth legal system. This report details the Capstone Projects developed by each of the teams, baseline data analyzed, implementation progress, and initial outcome measures. It also highlights lessons learned in the process, including common challenges faced by the participating sites, as well as promising strategies.

Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform Georgetown University, 2023. 37p.

By Lisa Pilnik, Amber Farn, and Michael Umpierre

Through YAP’s Safely Home Initiative, six jurisdictions implemented YAP in their communities, including Yavapai County, Arizona; Alameda County, California; Fulton County, Georgia; Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Hamilton County, Ohio, and the state of Illinois. The publication details the strategies, impact, and outcomes resulting from the implementation of the YAP Safely Home Initiative in these six communities. Policymakers, youth justice agency leaders, and others interested in supporting community-based services and alternatives to youth incarceration are encouraged to read this new resource for the field.

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2023. 41p.

By Andrea R. Coleman

This bulletin discusses common misconceptions surrounding expungement. It also provides information about the collateral consequences of juvenile records as well as federal, state, and local emerging practices. The key information and findings include the following: • Expungement, sealing, and confidentiality are three legally distinct methods for destroying or limiting access to juvenile records. However, these methods may permit police, courts, or the public access to juvenile records, depending on state laws. • The public and impacted youth often erroneously believe that once police and courts expunge juvenile records they no longer exist. The handling of expunged juvenile records varies widely from state to state. • Youth with juvenile records frequently experience collateral consequences of their arrest or adjudication, which may include difficulty accessing educational services, obtaining employment, serving in the military, and finding and maintaining housing. • States, localities, and the federal government have implemented promising practices to decrease collateral consequences, including “ban the box” legislation and expungement clinics (Avery and Hernandez, 2018; Radice, 2017; Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014; Shah and Strout, 2016).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2020. 12p.

By Lauren Knoth; Paige Wanner; Lijian He

This document reports on an outcome evaluation of the Washington State Aggression Replacement Training (WSART) program, conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP), to evaluate recidivism outcomes for juvenile court youth. WSART is a group-based intervention for moderate- and high-risk youth with criminal charges filed in juvenile courts. The program uses cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques to teach youth three core components: anger control, moral reasoning, and social skills. The authors evaluated the effects of WSART in Washington State courts from 2005 to 2016. They found that, on average, WSART participants were more likely to recidivate than similar youth who did not participate in the WSART program. The authors note that differences in recidivism for WSART versus non-WSART youth were evident in nearly all subpopulations of males, including White youth, Black youth, Hispanic youth, younger youth, high-risk youth, moderate-risk youth, youth assessed using the Back On Track risk (BOT) assessment, and youth assessed with the Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT) assessment; however, results indicated that WSART participation did reduce recidivism for females. The authors also state that they found that youth who completed the entire WSART curriculum were significantly less likely to recidivate than youth who participated but did not complete the WSART program.

Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2019. 70p.

By Katie Hunter

This thesis is concerned with the overrepresentation of black and minority ethnic (BME) children and looked after children, in the youth justice system in general and the secure state in particular, in England and Wales. In the period 1993 to 2008, youth justice was characterised by a process of extensive penal expansion. Since 2008, however, the child prison population has fallen dramatically. The decline has been linked to pragmatic cost reduction as well as an increase in diversionary measures which keep children out of the system altogether. However, BME children and looked after children have not benefited from this decline to the same extent as white children and non-looked after children. The contraction in the system has served to intensify existing inequalities. This thesis interrogates the nature and extent of the overrepresentation of these groups. It employs a mixed-methods approach which involves analyses of secondary data and in-depth interviews with 27 national youth justice and children’s services professionals. This thesis builds upon and extends previous research, it determines that BME children are criminalised through ‘institutional racialisation’ which operates on micro, meso and macro levels. The thesis signals policing as having a particularly powerful influence on the levels of BME children in the system. The weight of these findings lie precisely in the fact that they are so longstanding. …

Liverpool: University of Liverpool, 2019. 307p.

By Zhen Zeng, E. Ann Carson, and Rich Kluckow

Juveniles (persons age 17 or younger) arrested or convicted for a criminal offense may be housed in juvenile residential facilities or in adult jails and prisons, depending on state statute, judicial discretion, and federal law. This report details trends for juveniles who are held in adult facilities. Key Findings ƒ The number of juveniles incarcerated in all U.S. adult prisons or jails declined from a peak of 10,420 in 2008 to a low of 2,250 in 2021. In 2021, local jails had custody of 1,960 juveniles while state and federal adult prisons held 290. The percent of the total jail population who were juveniles declined from 0.9% in 2002 to 0.3% in 2021. The percent of the total prison population who were juveniles declined from 0.2% in 2002 to 0.02% in 2021. In 2021, 87% of juveniles in adult correctional facilities were held in local jails and 13% were held in prisons, compared to 66% in local jails and 34% in prisons in 2002, the earliest year for which comparable data are available for both populations

Just the Stats Series. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice 2023. 5p.

By the National Center for Juvenile Justice

The National Center for Juvenile Justice has released "Juvenile Court Statistics 2020." This report describes delinquency and status offense cases handled between 2005 and 2020 by U.S. courts with jurisdiction over juvenile populations. National estimates are presented on 508,400 delinquency cases and 57,700 petitioned status offense cases handled in 2020. The report also tracks caseload trends from 2005 to 2020. Data include case counts and rates, juvenile demographics, and offenses charged. This report draws on data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, funded by the National Institute of Justice with support from OJJDP.

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2023. 114p.