By Ross Gibson

Introduction

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

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

• why they were admitted to secure accommodation

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

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

• their social care histories.

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

By The Southern Poverty Law Center; Delvin Davis

On July 19, 2022, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced his decision to transfer incarcerated young people to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola – an adult prison with a long history of human rights abuses. The decision was emblematic of a state that consistently sees young Black people as criminals to be captured and controlled rather than healed and rehabilitated.

In this report, Only Young Once: The Urgent Need for Reform of Louisiana’s Youth Justice System, we explore how the perceptions of Black youth contribute to an overreliance on punitive measures – in both Louisiana’s school and juvenile justice systems – leading to stark racial disparities. The report also details the significant physical and psychological harm posed to incarcerated youth, while Louisiana taxpayers pay the cost for a fiscally wasteful approach to youth crime.

Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2023.

By Nicholas M. Pace, Dulani Woods, Roberto Guevara, Chau Pham, Shamena Anwar

In 2019, the Utah Indigent Defense Commission (IDC) asked the RAND Corporation for assistance in determining maximum caseload standards for providers of indigent legal representation to defendants in trial-level courts and to minors in juvenile courts of the state of Utah. Maximum caseload standards, typically expressed in terms of the number of cases of a particular type that can be reasonably handled by an attorney over the course of a specific time period, are a useful tool for determining both when caseloads are in danger of being excessive and the number of attorneys that may be needed to handle expected demand.

Similar to previous studies in other states that have also addressed the question of reasonable caseloads, this project conducted three data collection efforts to provide the empirical foundation for the Utah standards: an analysis of attorney time records maintained by two large public defender offices in Salt Lake County, a survey of indigent defenders practicing in Utah, and the convening of a panel of experts to reach consensus on recommended average time expenditures for counsel representing indigent defendants in various categories of criminal matters in Utah trial courts. The authors present for the IDC's consideration recommended caseload standards based on analysis of the collected data.

Key Findings

Adoption of the expert panel's recommendations would require a sharp increase in the supply of annual attorney hours available for indigent defense

The panel of experts, drawing on their own expertise and the data from the analysis of indigent defender time records and the survey of indigent defenders practicing in Utah, recommended average hours that were significantly greater than the results of the time analysis or attorney survey.

The minimum increase beyond reported average attorney hours was 46 percent, and, depending on the category, the expert recommendations actually doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled what were reported as average time expenditures.

Santa Monica CA: Rand, 2022. 107p.

By Stephanie Campos-Buist and Jeffrey Selbin

In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed landmark bipartisan legislation making California the first state to abolish entire categories of monetary sanctions. Starting January 1, 2018, Senate Bill 190 prohibits counties from charging all administrative fees in the juvenile legal system. SB 190 also repealed county authority to charge certain fees to young people ages 18 to 21 in the criminal legal (adult) system.

Senators Holly Mitchell and Ricardo Lara authored SB 190 to “eliminate a source of financial harm to some of the state’s most vulnerable families, support the reentry of youth back into their homes and communities, and reduce the likelihood that youth will recidivate.” California became a national model when it abolished these fees, offering the promise of debt-free justice for young people and their families.

This study presents key findings about the implementation of SB 190 and the status of fee reform in California since January 1, 2018. The findings, based on extensive public records and stakeholder interviews, document how counties have gone beyond the requirements of SB 190 to relieve hundreds of thousands of families of more than $237 million in previously assessed fees, and counties have taken further steps to end harmful and racially discriminatory fee practices.

However, the study finds that not all counties are complying fully with the new law. Some counties continue to charge SB 190 prohibited fees to families through child support orders and to young adults in the criminal legal system. Some counties have also resisted calls to end all collection activity and continue to pursue more than $136 million in previously assessed fees from California families.

The study concludes by recommending concrete actions that county and state officials can take to ensure full compliance with SB 190 and to realize the full benefits of fee abolition

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, School of Law, 2019. 34p.

By HM Inspectorate of Probation

During the course of this remote inspection in April and May 2021, we examined the quality of work delivered by YOSs in Manchester, Lewisham, Nottingham, Haringey, Hackney, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool and Oxfordshire. All YOSs were selected due to the volume of their caseload and an over-representation of black and/or mixed heritage boys in their services, as recorded in the Youth Justice Board (YJB) disproportionality toolkit data. We looked at the work delivered through a lens that considered the child’s ethnicity, their diversity and any experiences of discrimination. We examined 173 cases of black and mixed heritage boys (59 out-of-court cases and 114 post-court cases), which had commenced within the previous 12 months. We interviewed 99 case managers. We also interviewed senior managers from the YOSs, and held focus groups with case managers, middle managers, partnership staff, volunteers and the youth offending service strategic management boards. Our work was also informed by surveys completed by staff, parents, volunteers and magistrates. We undertook a week of meetings with representatives from national organisations, including the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, the Home Office, the Department for Education, Ofsted, the Magistrates Association, the Chief Executive Officer for the Association of Police Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. An expert reference group contributed to this report by advising on strategic, technical and operational issues associated with the subject and services under inspection (Annexe 3). It represented the views of key stakeholders in the areas under scrutiny, and commented on emerging findings and final recommendations. We commissioned the services of ‘User Voice’, who met with 38 black or mixed heritage boys to gather their perspectives on the services that they had received from the YOSs. The boys also helped us understand some of the challenges they face in their day-to-day lives and what could be done to help. A report from User Voice is published alongside this report. Key findings and quotations have also been incorporated in this report. Inspectors spoke with a small number of parents whose children were, or had been, involved with the YOS and who requested a meeting. What we learned about the boys In all services we inspected, staff and managers told us that the large majority of black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system had experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and had high levels of need, such as special educational needs (SEN) and mental health difficulties, which had not always been identified or properly addressed until they came into contact with the YOS. This raises questions and concerns about the support they received from mainstream services before their involvement with the youth justice system. Reports of high levels of unmet need for black and mixed heritage boys entering the youth justice system was a consistent theme of this inspection. There was a general consensus among YOSs that, had problems and difficulties been addressed earlier in the children’s lives, there could have been a different outcome for them. In the post-court cases we inspected, 60 per cent of the boys were, or had been, excluded from school, the majority permanently. Almost a third had been victims of child criminal exploitation. In half of the cases inspected there was evidence (where it had been recorded) that the child had experienced racial discrimination. A third of the boys had been subject to Child in Need or Child Protection plans. The majority were not ‘heavily convicted’ (i.e. they had only one or no previous convictions), and in over a quarter of cases (where information had been recorded) the child had a disability. They were reported to be more likely than other groups of children to have an education, health and care (EHC) plan, and equally as likely again to have special educational needs that had not been identified or addressed. The boys had grown up in the poorest areas of their towns and cities and had often been exposed to the violence and family breakdown associated with poverty. Racial discrimination was also a feature in the lives of the boys. For the most part, they accepted it as being ‘just the way it is’. This acceptance is as significant as the experience itself, when considering their development, their circumstances and their future.

Manchester, UK:: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2021. 71p.

By Jonathan Evans, Tricia Skuse, Dusty Kennedy and Jonny Matthew

The genesis of this paper has its origins in two articles: • the first article attempted to answer the question of whether trauma-informed practice and desistance theories represent competing or potentially complementary approaches to working with children in conflict with the law (Evans et al., 2020). • the second, based on empirical fieldwork conducted in a Welsh youth justice service (YJS), explored how desistance theories were being interpreted, applied and – in some cases – re-imagined by practitioners (Deering and Evans, 2021). Building upon these articles, this paper identifies some of the key ideas and evidence that could contribute to a practice agenda which supports desistance from offending processes, engages with social adversity and trauma, and helps to empower children and young people to work towards their pro-social goals.

Academic Insights 2023/08. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 20p.

By Louise Forde

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) establishes minimum standards for the treatment of children in a wide range of areas, including setting out rights to which children in conflict with the law are entitled. Ensuring that children’s rights are respected in the youth justice system has received significant attention at international level, by both the UN and the Council of Europe, and there are now a series of standards and guidelines setting out the rights to which children are entitled (Lynch and Liefaard, 2020). In addition to Articles 37 and 40 of the UNCRC, the following are in place: • the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has produced two General Comments (General Comment No. 24 has recently replaced General Comment No. 10) on how children’s UNCRC rights should be interpreted and applied in practice • the Beijing Rules, the Havana Rules and the Riyadh Guidelines provide further guidance on the implementation of children’s rights in the administration of youth justice, in situations where children are deprived of their liberty, and in relation to the prevention of offending by children • the Council of Europe has developed standards and guidelines on child-friendly justice and on the implementation of sanctions and measures in the youth justice system • the European Convention on Human Rights incorporates a number of rights which are relevant to children in contact with the justice system. The United Kingdom has signed and ratified the UNCRC, and thus, under Article 4 of the UNCRC, it has a legal obligation to take ‘all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures’ to implement children’s rights under the Convention. While Convention rights are not directly applicable in national law unless they are incorporated (see further Kilkelly, Lundy and Byrne, 2021; Lundy, Kilkelly and Byrne, 2013), in signing and ratifying the UNCRC, States Parties undertake binding legal obligations under international law. Furthermore, states’ progress in implementing the UNCRC is subject to regular review by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. However, ensuring compliance with the international standards is often not the core focus for states in designing and developing their youth justice systems. A range of other concerns, such as the protection of victims and society, ensuring accountability for wrongdoing, the prevention of further offending, and sometimes, a recognition that there may be a need to address the underlying causes of offending through a focus on children’s needs, may take priority over considerations relating to children’s rights. Historically, youth justice systems have either been characterised as ‘welfare’-based systems – because they focus on addressing any unmet needs children may have as a means of responding to offending – or ‘justice’-based systems – which focus on ensuring accountability and punishing offenders through traditional criminal justice mechanisms (Smith, D.J., 2005; Smith, R., 2005). These distinct approaches can be said to represent different ‘models’ of youth justice, and have often been presented as being at opposite ends of the spectrum. In practice youth justice systems are much more complex than this welfare/justice dichotomy indicates (Case and Haines, 2018; see further Phoenix, 2016; Muncie, 2008), and tend to mix a range of priorities including ‘welfare; justice; informalism; rights; responsibilities; restoration; prevention; remoralisation and retribution/punishment’ (Goldson and Muncie, 2006: 91). Equally, debates about the appropriate approach to adopt to youth justice can become policitised, and these political considerations can overshadow the search for a principled and coherent approach to responding to children in conflict with the law (Case and Hampson, 2019). The way that these priorities are balanced within a particular youth justice system can give rise to very different results; this has resulted, for example, in very different priorities being evident in each of the youth justice systems across the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom (Muncie, 2011). Given the complexity of these systems, and the range of ideological, practical and political priorities which are evident, the question becomes which of these models of youth justice is best suited to ensuring that a state is also fulfilling its obligations to respect and ensure children’s rights as set out under the UNCRC? This Academic Insights paper discusses whether the international standards set out a preference for a ‘welfare’ or ‘justice’ approach to youth justice, and considers the elements which are necessary for states that are seeking to ensure that their approach to responding to children in conflict with the law meets with their international legal obligations as States Parties to the UNCRC (see further Forde, 2021). The paper will begin by considering what the international standards say about the approach to youth justice which should be preferred, suggesting five criteria for child rightscompliant youth justice systems. It will conclude by considering some of the challenges and opportunities for developing a youth justice system which respects and realises children’s rights.

Academic Insights 2022/05 . Manchester, UK: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2022. 16p.

by Carmen Robin-D’Cruz

The over-representation of children with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) in the criminal justice system is especially concerning given the particular harms that justice system involvement can have on them. Youth diversion gives children the chance to avoid both formal criminal justice processing and a criminal record, in return for the completion of community-based interventions. However, the overrepresentation of children with SEND in the justice system suggests that the diversion processes are not working for them.

This literature review summarises the evidence around SEND and youth diversion, with a focus on access and engagement.

It will be followed, in early 2024, by a research report examining how responsive diversion schemes are to those with SEND, drawing on testimony from practitioners and children themselves.

London: Centre for Court Innovation, 2023. 17p.

By Ursula Kilkelly

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

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

By Chris Yarrell

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 55 million schoolchildren have been compelled to attend school remotely. However, despite this nationwide shift to virtual schooling, the school-based disparities that long pre-dated the pandemic have been laid bare and exacerbated. This is painfully evident in the context of the school-to-prison pipeline (STPP). Indeed, despite Congress’ historic investment in the school recovery effort through the passage of the CARES Act, recent research confirms that the majority of the states and localities have devoted scant, if any, federal recovery dollars to dismantling the STPP. Without a meaningful commitment by states and localities, our nation’s most vulnerable students will continue to be pushed out of the schoolhouse and into the criminal legal system. Therefore, a more feasible legal alternative to dismantle the STPP is needed.

Despite the treatment that the school recovery effort has received in judicial opinions and legal scholarship in response to the pandemic, neither has undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the school recovery process and its impact on the STPP. This Article aims to fill that gap. To do so, it makes two broad claims. First, the Essay provides a timely review of how states and localities have addressed the STPP with federal recovery aid. Next, it argues that the response to the pandemic fails to advance meaningful reforms that could begin dismantling the STPP. Lastly, the Essay contends that, to begin this process, prospective litigants should leverage the doctrine of stare decisis to overturn Alexander v. Sandoval under its “unworkability” analysis. By overturning Sandoval, future litigants will again be empowered to remedy disparate impact discrimination under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In so doing, parents and students will stand a fighting chance of remedying the disparate educational harms caused by the STPP in both the near- and long-term.

23 Berkeley J. Afr.-Am. L. & Pol'y 1 (2023)

By Manfred Nowak

Children deprived of liberty remain an invisible and forgotten group in society despite increasing evidence of these children being victims of further human rights violations. Countless children are placed in inhuman conditions and in adult facilities – in clear violation of their human rights - where they are at high risk of violence, rape and sexual assault, including acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Children are being detained at a younger and younger age and held for longer periods of time. The personal cost to these children is immeasurable in terms of the destructive impact on their physical and mental development, and on their ability to lead healthy and constructive lives in society.

The Global Study covers:

An assessment of the magnitude of the phenomenon of children being deprived of liberty, including the number of children deprived of liberty (disaggregated by age, gender and nationality), as well as the reasons, type and length of deprivation of liberty and places of detention;

The views and experiences of children;

Ways to change stigmatizing attitudes and behaviour towards children at risk of being, or who are, deprived of liberty;

Recommendations for law, policy and practice to safeguard the human rights of the children concerned, and significantly reduce the number of children deprived of liberty through effective non-custodial alternatives, guided by the international human rights framework.

United Nations, 2019. 789p.

By Linda Mussell, Jessica Evans

In early 2021, half of the youth detention centres in Ontario, Canada, were abruptly closed. We ask how this development can be understood in relation to broader explanations of youth detention closures in Canada, which cite the success of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and the best interests of youth, and the broader international context. Using a process tracing methodology to analyse existing data, we demonstrate that these closures had less to do with the interests of youth, and were primarily a cost-effective calculation. We demonstrate this by pointing to three key developments: (i) the transference of institutionalised carceral logics onto community service providers; (ii) an undermining of the principle of ‘relationship custody’; and (iii) a focus on high-capacity and high-security detention centres, over smaller, locally situated open detention centres

Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 2023.

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.

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 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 Samantha Buckingham

Rehabilitation is a paramount consideration in abolishing police interrogation of youth. Interrogation is one of the first interactions young people have with the criminal legal system. Unfortunately, the most common methods of interrogation are coercive rather than consensual. Youth are uniquely vulnerable to coercive methods, especially in conjunction with racial, socioeconomic, and ableist hierarchies. Youth vulnerability requires more protective legal standards than those applied to mature adults. Current police practices, permitted by the very structure of the law, harm youth at a critical stage of their development and legal socialization. Interrogation is a missed opportunity to consider how every legal actor can incentivize youth to respect and follow the law. Reforms and scholarly proposals focused on adjusting police behavior or changing the circumstances of youth interrogation fail to ameliorate harm to youth. This Article examines how police interrogation of a youthful suspect may undercut rehabilitation by damaging that young person’s sense of belonging and desire to behave as society hopes. This Article concludes that the most appropriate and practicable solution is a categorical ban on officer-initiated interrogation of youth

North Carolina Law Review, 2023. 62p.

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 Allex R. Piquero, Michael T. Baglivio and Kevin T Wolff

There has long been a concern about the imposition of monetary sanctions on the risk of recidivism, but much of this work has been conducted among adults, and very little among youth. Moreover, virtually no work has considered this issue across race and ethnicity. This study uses both quantitative and qualitative data to examine this issue. Several key findings emerged from our work. First, while there were no race/ethnic differences in the proportion of youth receiving fines, when fines were administered both black and Hispanic youth were administered significantly higher fees. Second, youth residing in areas with greater concentrated disadvantage had higher amounts of fees assigned (when assigned fees). Third, after youth were matched, analyses indicated fees increased the likelihood of recidivism, as did being black or Hispanic. Fourth, when we considered the interaction between race/ethnicity and both fees and restitution, results showed two race/ethnic differences: whereas Hispanic youth with fees were less likely to recidivate, black youth with restitution had a higher risk of recidivism. Finally, the qualitative data pointed to some startling findings, namely that youth did not understand the full impact of fines on both their families and themselves and a non-significant percentage reported that they would have to resort to criminal activity in order to pay fines.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2023.