By Jeffrey Selbin

Maria Rivera was raising two boys on her own in Orange County, California, when her youngest son got into trouble. Although court records for youth are typically sealed, we know that in 2008 Ms. Rivera’s son became one of tens of thousands of young people referred annually to the state’s juvenile legal system, resulting in his detention for almost two years. Then came the bills. The county charged Ms. Rivera $23.90 for every day her son was detained and $2200 for his court-appointed lawyer. All told, Orange County said she owed more than $16,000. Until recently, California law authorized counties to charge administrative fees to parents and guardians for their children’s detention, lawyers, electronic monitoring, probation supervision, and drug testing. By statute, the fees were supposed to help counties recoup “the reasonable costs of support of the minor,” but the law also required counties to determine whether families could afford to pay the fees. Ms. Rivera was unemployed and unable to make payments, so Orange County should have waived her fees. But California’s “ability to pay” provisions, in fact, put the burden on families to appear before a financial evaluation officer to prove their inability to pay. Like many families with youth in the juvenile legal system, Ms. Rivera was unable to meet the county’s demands to make such a showing. To deal with the mounting bills, Ms. Rivera sold her house and paid the county more than $9500. The county did not consider the judgment fully satisfied, so it obtained a court order against Ms. Rivera for almost $10,000. On top of what she had already paid and for reasons the county never explained, the court order exceeded what the county originally billed Ms. Rivera by more than $3000. Once a court orders juvenile fees to be paid, the debt becomes a civil judgment enforceable against the parent or guardian. Unlike most other civil judgments, juvenile fee debt lasts forever. If families fail to repay the debt, counties refer their accounts to the state’s Franchise Tax Board to intercept their tax refunds and garnish their wages. Unable to pay the civil judgment, Ms. Rivera filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. When the bankruptcy court discharged her fee debt, Ms. Rivera may have thought the matter was resolved. But Orange County would not relent, eventually persuading the bankruptcy court to reinstate the debt on the grounds that it was not dischargeable under chapter 7. I

98 N.C. L. Rev. 401 (2020)

By Alexis Yohros

While the impact of trauma on delinquency and offending has been studied in great depth, less is known about the cumulative effects of adverse childhood experiences and how these experiences impact recidivism or reoffending outcomes of youth who already have justice system involvement. The main aim of this paper is to report on the results of a systematic review and metaanalysis on the relationship between Adverse Childhood Experiences and juvenile recidivism. Of particular interest, the paper examines to what extent, if any, ACEs can be used to predict youth reoffending outcomes, as well as investigates the nature of this relationship. The study utilizes quantitative metanalytical techniques to estimate the overall impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on youth reoffending. Sixteen studies were selected after a comprehensive search of electronic databases covering the fields of social science, criminology, psychology, or related fields. Key findings demonstrate that Adverse Childhood Experiences increase the risk of youth recidivism, with effects varying amongst sample sizes. Narrative synthesis also shows key gender, racial, and ethnic differences as well as potential mechanisms in the cumulative trauma-reoffending relationship. These findings can further guide research and policy in the areas of trauma, juvenile justice, and crime prevention.

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 2022, Vol. 0(0) 1–16

By Paul Gray, Hannah Smithson and Deborah Jump

While crime has fallen rapidly over the last 20 years, serious youth violence (hereafter referred to as SYV) – defined by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) as ‘any drug, robbery or violence against the person offence that has a gravity score1 of five of more’ – is a growing concern in England and Wales (Home Office, 2018). Despite a substantial reduction in violent crime since the mid-1990s, levels of SYV remain ‘stubbornly high’ (Irwin-Rogers et al., 2020: 16). Alongside this, research has consistently found that justice-involved children have childhoods characterised by disproportionate adverse childhood experiences (hereafter referred to as ACEs) (see, for example, Baglivio et al., 2014; Boswell, 1996; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Jacobson et al., 2010). ACEs are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood. They include, for example: experiencing violence, abuse, or neglect; witnessing domestic violence; bereavement; substance misuse within the family; mental health problems within the family; parental separation; or having a family member in prison (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). ACEs have been shown to have lasting, negative effects on health, wellbeing, and opportunity. They have also been shown to have an impact on the likelihood of both future violence perpetration and victimisation (Fox et al., 2014). There has been a growing awareness in recent years of the importance of being traumainformed when dealing with children who have a history of ACEs. This is especially the case with those agencies who work with justice-involved children (Glendinning et al., 2021; Liddle et al., 2016). Being trauma-informed means recognising and acknowledging the impact that ACEs can have on an individual and providing appropriate support to that person. In essence, a trauma-informed approach necessitates a change of perspective from ‘What’s wrong with you?’ to ‘What happened to you?’ (see the earlier Academic Insights paper 2020/05 by McCartan). Alongside the current emphasis on trauma-informed practice, is the growing call for the participation of justice-involved children in the development of youth justice policy and practice (Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board, 2019; Youth Justice Board, 2016; see also Academic Insights paper 2021/10). Participatory working is fundamental to the principle of Child First. Indeed, in Positive Youth Justice: Child First, Offenders Second, ‘children are part of the solution, not part of the problem’ (Haines and Case, 2015: 45). Research evidence indicates that when participation, engagement and inclusion processes are co-created between children and practitioners, this can produce effective practice relationships (Case and Haines, 2015; Smithson et al., 2020; Smithson and Jones, 2021). This Academic Insight presents the findings from a research study that was commissioned by Manchester City Council’s Youth Justice Service and funded through the YJB’s Reducing Serious Youth Violence (Reference Group) Pathfinder programme. Through the SYV pathfinder projects, the YJB aims to develop understanding around the drivers of SYV. To this end, this research brought together the four areas outlined above – SYV, ACEs, trauma-informed practice, and youth participation – to investigate the complex relationship between SYV and ACEs. By working in close collaboration with justice-involved children and youth justice workers in Manchester, the research had the following objectives: • to gauge the nature and prevalence of ACEs among justice-involved children in Manchester • to explore children’s own articulations of the causes and drivers of SYV • to develop a more in-depth understanding of the relationship between SYV and ACEs • to explore children’s experiences of current youth justice practice, in particular their experiences of trauma-informed practice • to co-create a resource to be used by youth justice professionals. To meet these objectives, a mixed-methods approach incorporating quantitative, qualitative, and participatory elements was adopted. The quantitative element of the research was a bespoke ACEs assessment tool, based largely on the 10-point scale used in the original ACEs study conducted in the US in the 1990s (Felitti et al., 1998). The qualitative element had two strands: semi-structured interviews with youth justice workers and drama therapists commissioned by Manchester Youth Justice Service; and narrative interviews – using the McAdams Life Story Interview method (Bauer and McAdams, 2004) – with justice-involved children. The participatory element of the research was a series of workshops involving justice-involved children, the research team, drama therapists from One Education (www.oneeducation.co.uk), and a professional sports coach. Given the sensitive nature of the research topic, the decision was made to use storytelling techniques in the workshops to elicit further discussion around SYV and ACEs: specifically the 6-Part Story Method (Dent-Brown and Wang, 2006). This method was particularly appropriate as it allowed the children to create fictional, third-person accounts and provide metaphors rather than a description of actual lived events (Dwivedi, 1997).

Academic Insights 2021/13. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2021. 18p.

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 Maria Jerram, and Tammie Burroughs

Based on effective practice identified during our thematic inspection of the experiences of black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system (2021). The guide explains why it is important to consider ethnicity in practice. We provide an overview of our standards and expectations in this area around leadership and case supervision.

Following this, we reflect on the learning from black and mixed heritage boys interviewed for the thematic inspection, including a video of the main themes.

There is also a focus on leadership and working in partnership. Examples of effectiveness are shared from the following: Haringey’s disproportionality project and systemic leadership, Hackney tackling disproportionality in stop and searches and out-of-court disposals (supported by two videos), Lewisham’s anti-racist strategy (including a video), Lewisham’s specialist services provided by the YOS family therapy team (LYFT) including videos sharing the teams insight into engagement, the importance of working with carers/parents and the systemic approach.

There is then a focus on case supervision, we share key themes practitioners should consider in their work, and interview two culturally competent practitioners to share practical tips from their work and identify key learning.

We conclude with overall key takeaways, further reading and resources for those wishing to explore this area further.

Manchester, UK: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation , 2021. 46p.

By Jahnine Davis

HM Inspectorate of Probation is committed to reviewing, developing and promoting the evidence base for high-quality probation and youth offending services. Academic Insights are aimed at all those with an interest in the evidence base. We commission leading academics to present their views on specific topics, assisting with informed debate and aiding understanding of what helps and what hinders probation and youth offending services. This report was kindly produced by Jahnine Davis, highlighting adultification bias, its links to racialised discrimination, and how it can impact upon child protection and safeguarding practices. Crucially, application of adultification bias results in children’s rights being diminished or ignored, with notions of innocence and vulnerability displaced by notions of responsibility and culpability. The Professional Inter-Adultification Model is introduced which emphasises the importance of professional and organisational curiosity, critical thinking, and reflection. The model includes the further concept of intersectionality to encourage professionals to explore how the intersections of race/ethnicity, sexuality, class, gender, dis/abilities, and wider lived experiences may have impacted upon the lives of individual children. At an organisational level, it is imperative that leaders model equity, diversity and inclusion, and embrace both critical challenge and accountability. To assist leaders, the inspectorate has included examples of effective leadership in its 2021 effective practice guide for working with Black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system.

Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation , 2022. 14p.

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