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 lE.A.W. Janssen-de Ruijter, E.A. Mulder I.L. Bongers ; J.K. Vermunt f, Ch. van Nieuwenhuizen

Purpose

Adolescents who are admitted to secure residential care have a high risk of delinquency after discharge. However, this risk may differ between subgroups in this heterogeneous population of adolescents with severe psychiatric problems and disruptive problem behaviour. In this study, the predictive validity of four risk profiles was examined for the number of minor, moderate, and severe offences after discharge from secure residential care.

Methods

The sample comprised 238 male former patients of a hospital for youth forensic psychiatry and orthopsychiatry in the Netherlands. In three Poisson regression analyses, the relationship between four previously identified risk profiles and the number of minor, moderate, and severe offences after discharge was examined.

Results

The results showed that the four risk profiles differed significantly in the number of minor, moderate, and severe offences after discharge. Post hoc analysis revealed no mediating effect of termination of treatment on the relationship between the risk profiles and the number of minor, moderate, and severe offending after discharge.

Conclusion

Adolescents with many risk factors in multiple domains and adolescents with mainly family risks have an increased risk of persistent delinquency after discharge. Treatment should be tailored more effectively to the specific risks and needs of these adolescents.

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volume 72, January–February 2021, 101758

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.

Edited by Shafiur Rahman; Osmani Trust

One in five prisoners in the UK is Muslim, yet only 6.5% of the population identifies as Muslim. That stark figure raises huge concerns about Muslims within the criminal justice system, and the place of Muslims in wider society. It raises some urgent and significant questions about why Muslims are so egregiously overrepresented in prisons and the need to better understand what actions are required to prevent such high offending and re-offending levels. When we consider that the proportion of Muslims in prison has doubled in a decade, we rightly ask - what is going wrong within the system and our society? This report Rebuilding Lives Young Muslims from Criminal Justice System to Community Resettlement highlights a range of issues from islamophobia within the criminal justice system, to the systemic and chronic disadvantage faced by many in the Muslim community. It is impossible to divorce the rise in Muslims in prison from broader social trends: the collapse in government support for youth services, the rising levels of crime, the rise in Islamophobic attacks, racism within the police and criminal justice system, and the cost-ofliving crisis which disproportionately hammers poorer communities. Social and economic conditions play a role in the rise in crime. If our contemporary society turns its back on, and stigmatises, a generation of Muslim young people, we should not be surprised if a minority turn their back on social norms and are seduced into criminal activity. We must always tackle the causes of crime as well as crime itself and ensure policies are put in place to reduce re-offending among this group as well as others who commit crimes and end up in the prison system. As the report makes clear, once young Muslims enter the criminal justice system, they face discrimination and racism, further exacerbating feelings of alienation and disengagement from society.

London: Osmani Trust, 2023. 58p.

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.