By David Foster

he child protection system in England is grounded in the Children Act 1989, as amended. Statutory guidance published by the Government, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides detailed information on the core legal requirements.

The Children Act 1989 establishes several key principles, including

• The concept of parental responsibility.

• That a child’s welfare is the main consideration when the court is considering a question about a child’s upbringing.

• That children are best looked after by their family unless intervention in family life is essential.

The Act places a general duty on local authorities to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in need in their area by providing a range of services appropriate to those children’s needs (section 17). It additionally sets out what a local authority must do when it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm (section 47).

Section 31 of the Act sets out the circumstances under which a court may make an order placing a child in local authority care (a care order). The Act also sets out the functions of local authorities in relation to looked after children, including a duty under section 22(3) to safeguard and promote their welfare.

Research Briefing. London: UK. Parliament, House of Commons, Library, 2023. 23p.

By Todd Honeycutt, Janine M. Zweig, Megan Hague Angus, Sino Esthappan, Johanna Lacoe, Leah Sakala, and Douglas Young

Funded and supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, several communities across the US have undertaken deep-end reform designed to safely and significantly reduce juvenile out-of-home placement, especially for youth of color. From 2013 through 2018, the Foundation funded a developmental evaluation of this reform to better understand what worked well, what could be improved, and lessons for the field. During the evaluation period, 12 local jurisdictions across the US pursued deep-end reform, receiving grants and tailored, technical assistance from the Foundation. They pursued a range of deep-end reform activities including improving probation practices, enhancing decisionmaking throughout the juvenile justice (JJ) system, expanding diversion and service options, and increasing youth and family engagement.

The Foundation funded a six-year evaluation to understand what worked well and what could be improved and to identify lessons for the field. Researchers from the Urban Institute and Mathematica collaborated on the evaluation and worked closely with Foundation staff to develop and answer questions about the reform using a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative data collection approach. The Foundation began deep-end reform knowing the work would evolve, and it wanted the evaluation to inform and strengthen the reform, track the changes it effected, and document sites’ successes and challenges.

The evaluation team documented its findings in this summary report, four briefs (one each on improving data capacity, advancing probation reform, engaging youth and families, and pursuing racial and ethnic equity and inclusion), a journal article (published in Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice) on transforming juvenile probation through culture change, and technical appendixes documenting sites’ deep-end reform activities and describing the evaluation’s methods.

The evaluation produced the following key findings:

• The communities that engaged in deep-end reform conducted multiple activities to reduce out-of-home placements and improve racial and ethnic equity and inclusion in their juvenile justice practices.

• Diversion (both before and after adjudication) was an important component of the work that sites pursued.

• Probation-specific activities addressed three core areas: (1) improving or expanding case planning (such as through teaming or case reviews); (2) expanding services (for example, diversion activities or wraparound services); and (3) establishing standard processes (as with probation agreements or early termination).

• In addition to activities addressing youth’s specific needs, many sites pursued broad activities to improve the capacity of the JJ system (such as developing resource directories or training probation staff) or engage youth and families (such as providing information or developing family councils).

• Most probation staff report always or very often focusing on youth’s strengths and assets to motivate change. This focus includes working closely with their parents and caregivers to achieve desired outcomes, individualizing service plans based on their unique needs, and talking directly to youth about their probation terms and conditions. From 2016 and 2018, probation staff in sites implementing deep-end reforms reported more frequent use of practices and principles addressing community engagement and racial and ethnic equity and inclusion.

• Although sites shared no single characteristic that appeared linked to the success of deep-end activities, five particular characteristics were common and were therefore considered assets to implementing reform: (1) deep-end reform leaders with positional power, (2) deep-end reform leaders committed to reform, (3) strong community partnerships, (4) stakeholder and site staff buy-in, and (5) substantial data capacity.

• The evaluation yielded two lessons about engaging youth and families. First, involving youth and families at the individual level (for example, including them in case planning) might be less difficult than engaging them at the system level (such as on a family council to advise JJ leaders). Second, external resources (such as technical assistance and collaborations with community organizations) can facilitate activities related to youth and family engagement.

• Racial and ethnic equity and inclusion does not have a one-size-fits-all approach; stakeholders must consider their unique challenges and opportunities and apply strategies that fit their needs. Collaborating with youth, families, community members, and organizations outside the JJ system is essential for advancing equity and inclusion goals.

• Sustaining changes to deep-end policy and practice related to probation required buy-in from frontline probation staff and a shared understanding of the purposes of probation. Almost every site engaged in discussions to understand deep-end staff and stakeholders’ views about the purposes of probation through technical assistance that the Foundation sponsored.

• Certain key factors can help a jurisdiction use data to inform its reforms and decisions. These factors include staff buy-in, expertise in analytical methods and the JJ system, staff capacity to gather data, data collection system capacity, and cross-system coordination and information sharing.

• When asked about the benefits of participating in deep-end work, stakeholders identified overarching examples across five categories: (1) focusing more strongly on JJ practices, especially on understanding and addressing racial and ethnic disparities and on engaging youth, families, and communities; (2) using data more to drive reductions in placements and racial disparities; (3) leveraging additional resources, such as finding additional funding to sustain reform efforts; (4) reducing out-of-home placements and safely meeting the needs of youth and families in the community; and (5) benefiting from training and technical assistance and learning about elements of the deep-end vision and key activities.

• As with many complex initiatives, deep-end reform involves challenges. Culture change, particularly toward addressing racial disparities and increasing inclusion, can be difficult to achieve at all levels of the JJ system. Partnerships, particularly with community organizations and youth and families, can require significant time, energy, and dollars to be successful. Multiple sites struggled with collecting and analyzing the data needed for reforms. Though stakeholders often overcame these challenges, doing so was not easy, even with a committed team and Foundation assistance.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2020. 44p.

By User Voice

This report presents the voices of young people who have experienced serious youth violence. The principal objectives of this project were to understand young people’s experiences of reporting to the police, safeguarding, interventions, and the support they receive from the police and other services. We examined the factors that made the young people vulnerable to serious youth violence and the facilitators and barriers they experience when it comes to accessing support. User Voice spoke to 13 young people aged between the ages of 18 and 24 who were in prison, in young offender institutions or on probation. Overall, we found that the young people we spoke to had extensive experience, both as the perpetrators and targets of serious violence. Between the ages of 14 and 17, many of the young people we spoke to had been stabbed on numerous occasions, shot, attacked with hammers, assaulted with baseball bats, and run over. They had often been the target first, and had then often become involved in crime and violence. Some spoke of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but most didn’t want to talk about the effect these incidents had had on them. Many of the young people we spoke to had faced many challenges in early life. The majority were poor, had been surrounded by crime and violence, lived in social care, and been criminalised as children. Many of them described feeling let down repeatedly by the people and systems that were meant to care for them. They said that their friends are like family and offer the protection and support they need. Serious violent incidents often relate to earning respect, drugs or money, or to gaining control in specific postcode areas occupied by other gangs or groups. The young people we surveyed have no confidence in the police and other services. Through numerous negative experiences with these systems, they believe that the police can’t protect or help them. There were several accounts of manipulative practices, blame, assault, and police putting them in danger, for example, by dropping them in their ‘enemy’s’ area. There were mixed views on the support offered by the youth offending teams (YOTs). And some of the young people we spoke to said that YOTs, prison services and probation services all failed to consider the life-threatening nature of living in, or passing through, the wrong area. The young people told us they weren’t always offered or didn’t always accept support. They felt that those with ‘perfect lives’ couldn’t understand them and therefore couldn’t help them. Some courses offered were considered tick-box exercises offering unrealistic solutions to complex problems. They stated that they felt set up to fail. They also said that they thought that initiatives led by those with lived experience of serious youth violence, care rather than criminalisation, and alternative means to earn a living would prevent them from committing crime or help them more

London: HMICFRS (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constbulary and Fire & Rescue Services, 2023. 37p.

By Ruby Whitelaw and Ross Gibson

Consideration of the role that secure care and Young Offenders Institutions (YOI) play in the lives of children deprived of their liberty has featured in both the Independent Care Review (2020) and the Scottish Ministers Programme for Government (2022). Both have indicated that there should be no under 18s held within a YOI by 2024, mandating instead that these children should be placed in “small, secure, safe, trauma informed environments that uphold the totality of their rights” (The Promise, 2020:91). This is likely to be reflected in the forthcoming Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill which will create the legislative changes to achieve this ambition. The Independent Care Review’s successor organisation, The Promise, has stated that it is time to “rethink the purpose, delivery and infrastructure of Secure Care, being absolutely clear that it is there to provide therapeutic, trauma informed support” (The Promise, 2020: 4). These developments are in keeping with the secure care strategic boards findings and recommendations (Secure Care Strategic Board, 2018). To inform the debate and discussion surrounding this task, the authors gathered information and evidence on the needs and circumstances of children who experience secure care or YOIs; we reviewed publicly available data and analysed a tranche of new, as yet unpublished, data gathered in recent secure care censuses. This has culminated in a report that can, we hope, inform the development of future provision for children who experience a deprivation of liberty due to the nature of their behaviour, or the risks they are exposed to. This report will consider whether, for all intents and purposes, the children placed within YOI are distinguishable from those entering secure care. The level of adversity experienced by both groups of children are considerably higher than within the general population, and broadly similar across both cohorts. Each face a range of complex and dynamic circumstances that are known to correlate with adverse outcomes over the short, medium and long term. Both cohorts of children have often demonstrated acts of significant harm, with secure care already providing care, support and supervision to children who have caused acts of grave and significant harm. There is considerable evidence that secure care and YOIs offer a wide array of resources, services, interventions, and programmes designed to meet the needs of the children within their care. The range of opportunities afforded provide an opportunity for services to learn from each other. However, the role of secure care and YOI must also be considered in light of the Scottish Parliament’s unanimous support for the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 1. This defines a child as anyone under the age of 18. Any changes to secure care or YOI provision are therefore a matter of children’s rights, and secure and custodial settings must strive to achieve the best possible outcomes for those in their care. This is particularly relevant given the Scottish Government has repeatedly committed to making Scotland the best place in the world for children to grow up (Scottish Government, 2022). Amongst other developments within academia, Scotland has benefited from longitudinal studies which have provided consistent and clear findings regarding the trajectory of those children who come into conflict with the law. The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime has repeatedly shown that involvement with formal judicial systems can adversely affect the process of desistance, and that most children who come into conflict with the law will end such behaviours by early adulthood according to McAra and McVie (2007, 2022). Findings from this long-running study have heavily influenced Scotland’s Whole System Approach; this calls on practitioners to utilise community alternatives to secure care and custody whenever possible, and to develop robust risk management strategies. These recent policy developments, the conclusions reached within The Promise and the earlier work done by stakeholders and partners combine to create a compelling portrait: the secure and child custodial estate must be seen through the prism of children’s rights. To assist colleagues across the children’s rights and justice landscape to best consider how to achieve these aims, CYCJ sought to gather information and evidence about secure care, and the use of YOIs for under 18s. We hope that this report can inform future developments in these services, promote the respective visions of The Promise and Scotland’s Youth Justice Strategy (2021) and contextualise the challenge set by The Promise. As we prepare to the end of the practice of holding children within YOIs, this report is designed to help key stakeholders to be ready for the next steps in secure care provision, including the development of alternatives to secure care. The Promise clearly sets out that prison is no place for Scotland’s children; to make that possible we require a clearer picture of their needs and the supports that are currently available. The report begins by setting out the purpose of secure care and shares previously unpublished data gathered as part of the secure care census in 2018 and 2019 (See Gibson, 2020, 2021, 2022). It outlines current provision within secure care and the demand for the service, whilst also exploring the approach taken to children and their families. It then discusses YOI provision - its purpose, function, and governance arrangements - as well as demand and approaches to children. Using data from the 2019 Scottish Prison Service prisoner surveys, the report illustrates the range of life experiences of children placed within YOIs.

Glasgow: Children and Young People's Centre for Justice, 2023. 39p.

By Gillian Hunter, Claire Ely, Carmen Robin-D’Cruz and Stephen Whitehead

This report details the findings of a research project which was jointly undertaken by the Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI) and the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck, with funding from the Nuffield Foundation.

The project examined current practice in the youth court, including how the court was meeting the needs of vulnerable young people. Specifically, we were interested in understanding current youth court practice and exploring the potential impact of practices aligned with problem-solving justice – an evidence-based approach which seeks to hold people accountable and to help them to proactively engage with the court to address the factors driving their offending.

Background In the last 10 years, there has been a 75% decline in cases coming into the youth court, caused by both falls in youth crime and the youth justice system’s success in diverting eligible cases away from court. However, while there are currently fewer court-involved young people, they tend to have more significant welfare and other needs as well as more serious offending profiles than they did a decade ago. Having fewer court-involved young people to work with gives the youth justice system a golden opportunity to concentrate its energies on further reducing reoffending and preventing future harm. To that end, the Carlile Inquiry in 2014 (in which the current Lord Chancellor participated), the Taylor Review in 2016 and the Lammy Review in 2017 all advised that youth court practice should become more ‘problem-solving’, to better address children’s underlying welfare needs. Missed opportunities Our research follows on from these reviews. It looks specifically at current youth court practice through the lens of evidence-led problem-solving justice. It does this by focussing on the procedural fairness of youth court hearings; the specialism of youth court practitioners; how multi-agency youth offending services provide collaborative interventions and supervision to court-involved children and young people; the extent to which youth courts engage in judicial monitoring post-sentence; and the operational environment surrounding youth court practitioners. Fieldwork was conducted in three sites across England, comprising five youth courts and associated youth offending services, between February and October 2019. During our research, we came across many dedicated practitioners who were committed to improving the support for children and young people appearing in court, and we saw examples of creative and innovative practice being developed locally. One site was trialling a form of post-sentence judicial monitoring (of the type recommended in the Carlile and Taylor reviews) to provide informal, YOS-managed review hearings for young people on Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YROs). A second site was preparing to pilot a similar approach, in which magistrates, in partnership with the YOS, will hold informal, monthly reviews of YROs. However, we also observed practice which fell short of what is recommended for the youth court: long delays, especially in cases coming to court; lack of availability of professionals with the required specialisms for youth court; limited services to respond to children and young people’s speech, language and communication or mental health needs; limited engagement by children’s services (understandable given their resource constraints); and generally, a more difficult operational environment, resulting from the twin impacts of constant court modernisation (including court closures and mergers) and reductions in funding. What we found far too often was an over-burdened system in which practitioners struggled to deliver the services required of them by national government. As a result, vulnerable children and young people coming before the court are not always receiving the treatment they need – making it all the more likely they will offend again. Time to get it right What our research has shown is that youth courts need to be enhanced to change outcomes for the vulnerable young people who appear there. We are very aware that the Carlile, Taylor and Lammy review teams have been here before us. Our research has walked in their footprints and, sadly, we have seen that their calls for significant reform have remained largely unanswered. We think it is time to get it right. 1. Tackle pre-court delays and maximise diversion opportunities pre-court There is urgent need for action to address the delays between offences and the commencement of court proceedings. These delays impact on everyone, including victims, witnesses and defendants. A key problem is delayed charging decisions by the police, which were also shown to disrupt children and young people’s own rehabilitative efforts. While we found strong support for out-of-court resolution of children and young people’s cases (and strong support for victim involvement and restorative justice in these disposals), we also found evidence of cases still coming to court that should have been resolved out of court. We recommend that (i) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the National Police Chief’s Council and the Home Office develop a protocol which limits the amount of time children and young people can be kept under investigation before a charging decision is made (though there may need to be exclusions for the most complex cases); (ii) we recommend that the Youth Justice Board should publish clear national guidance on effective, evidence-based point-of-arrest diversion and out-of-court disposal practice.

Centre for Justice Innovation, 2022. 48p.

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 Michael Welner , Matt DeLisi , Heather M. Knous-Westfall , David Salsberg , Theresa Janusewski

Highlights

• The United States Supreme Court in Jones (2021) reinforced the Miller decision to allow sentencing judges the discretion to determine whether convicted killers under age 18 warrant a life sentence.

• The Miller decision dictates individualized sentencing, citing psychosocial disadvantages, immaturity, potential evolving risk, and how these qualities differ for each defendant.

• The expressions of immaturity in crime are not; however, accounted for in the same way that expressions of major mental illness reference years of crime-specific research and diagnostic standardization. For this reason, forensic assessments in this emerging area remain unguided and vulnerable to bias.

• A complete assessment of the offender should include questions in the following domains: developmental, scholastic/vocational, social, interpersonal, traumas, antisocial history, and psychiatric/medical.

• We present questions to more fully and accurately inform the individualized sentencing requirement in Miller cases.

Forensic Science International: Mind and Law(4): 2023.

By \The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

Utilizing interviews and data from law enforcement, probation and parole, and community-based organizations, NICJR has conducted detailed analyses of gun violence in several cities throughout the country. Although youth account for only a small proportion of the population involved in nonfatal injury shootings and homicides,² YDII is based on the premise that risk factors for gun violence were likely already present during the pre-teen and adolescent years. If specific experiences and measurable characteristics can predict who will become a victim or suspect in a shooting later in life, these data can be used to guide intervention strategies to prevent the violence.

But what risk factors did the young adult shooting suspect possess at the age of 13? NICJR will select at least five jurisdictions to conduct data analysis and a longitudinal cohort assessment of young people between the ages of 18-25 who have been convicted of homicide or attempted homicide. The study will trace their backgrounds and contacts with the juvenile justice, child welfare, education, and other systems and attempt to identify a common pattern of combined risk factors that predict future gun violence. After the completion of the data analysis and longitudinal assessment to identify the series of risk factors that is predictive of future gun violence involvement, the goal of YDII is to help jurisdictions track these risk factors in youth in real time, most likely through the school system. When any young person reaches the threshold of this series of risk factors, the project team will engage that young person and their family in an array of intensive community-based services and supports

Oakland, CA: NICJR, 2022. 17p.

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 Emma R. Barton, Lara C. Snowdon, Bryony Parry, and Alex Walker

Violence among children and young people (CYP) is a complex societal issue that has detrimental impacts on the health and well-being of children, young people, and adults throughout their lives. Population health research tells us that CYP are adversely at risk of experiencing violence and are at higher risk of experiencing multiple forms of violence. However, evidence suggests that prevention approaches are most effective when implemented with CYP and can have positive health, well-being, and social impacts across the life-course. This social innovation narrative sets out how the Wales Violence Prevention Unit and Peer Action Collective Cymru coproduced a strategic multi-agency framework for the prevention of violence among CYP in Wales. The first of its kind to be developed in the United Kingdom, this national framework acts as a guide to strategic action on violence prevention, amplifying the voices of CYP, and providing evidence of “what works.” This evidence-informed, coproduced framework used an innovative participatory design process to listen to the voices of a diverse range of stakeholders, highlighting the voices of CYP. Informed by the views and experiences of over 1,000 people in Wales, and grounded in the lived experiences of CYP, the Framework proposes nine strategies to prevent violence among CYP as part of a public health approach to violence prevention. These strategies represent evidence-based approaches proven to reduce violence among CYP, address the risk factors for youth violence, and build individual, community and societal resilience.

September 2023Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 8(3):139-147September 2023Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 8(3):139-147

By Charles M. Katz , Hyunjung Cheon , Kayla Freemon , Lidia E. Nuno˜

In this study, the authors examine the prevalence of self-reported delinquency, drug use, and gang membership among school-attending youth in nine English-speaking Caribbean nations including Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. We also examine the frequency of these problem behaviors by gender and ethnicity. In doing so, we seek to gain an understanding of the extent and variation of delinquency and associated problems across the region and among subpopulations. The sample comprises more than 18,000 school-aged youth attending 306 schools. Our findings suggest that while offending varies significantly within and across the English-speaking Caribbean, youth engage in a disproportionate amount of violence when compared to other offense types, and though the current study is not cross-regional, youth appear to engage in substantially higher rates of violence than youth in other regions. Self-reported offending was higher among males than females for every offense type, though females in some nations reported more delinquency than males in other nations. In some of the study nations, there were no significant relationships between ethnicity and problem behaviors; however, in other nations, Afro-Caribbean, mixed, and youth from “other” ethnic backgrounds were significantly more likely to report problem behaviors than East Indian youth. Implications for future research are discussed.

Children and Youth Services Review. Volume 144, January 2023, 106758

By Peers Kayla Freemon, Veronica M. Herrera , Hyunjung Cheon , and Charles M. Katz

Growing up in a household without two parents present is an established risk factor for youth delinquency. However, much of the research on family structure and delinquency derives from U.S. samples, limiting applicability to the developing world. The present study explores the role of traditional and non-traditional family structures on self-reported delinquency in eight English Speaking Caribbean nations. We further examine the moderating role of family processes (parental attachment and parental supervision) and commitment to negative peers on this relationship. We find that youth from intact nuclear families, with a mother and father present, engage in less delinquency than youth from intact blended, single-parent, or no-parent households. Further, family structure moderated the relationship between delinquency, parental attachment, and commitment to negative peers. Theoretical and research implications are discussed.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2023, Vol. 21(2) 149–171

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 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.