By O'Meara Daly, Eoin and Redmond, Sean and Naughton, Catherine 

The Bluetown study aimed to replicate the Greentown study. The Greentown study was innovative in methodology and purpose. It examined the context of the minority of young people in Ireland who engaged in ‘atypical’ crimes (burglary and drugs for sale and supply), where criminal activity tended to be more serious and prolific. It identified the presence of a local criminal network and found that engagement in the network was plausibly associated with repeat offending. Two replication case studies, Bluetown and Redtown, aimed to examine if the Greentown findings resonated in other locations in Ireland. The current study aimed to identify if the Greentown findings could be generalised to another anonymised Garda sub-district, Bluetown. The Twinsight methodology Redmond (2016) specifically designed the Twinsight methodology for the Greentown study. In Greentown, local criminal network maps constructed from PULSE crime data illustrated crime transactions (focusing on burglary and drugs for sale or supply) including transactions between adults and young people. Similarly, criminal network maps were constructed for Bluetown during the period of 2014–2015. The network map provided a framework to harness the expert knowledge of members of An Garda Síochána in Bluetown and facilitated confidential discussions around key incidents, young people’s contexts and relationships. Key findings Garda narratives centred on four area-based criminal networks that existed in Bluetown. These were distinct from each other and spread over a large geographical area. Network 1 was family based and hierarchical in nature, with Networks 2 and 3 grounded in peer relationships and their locality. Garda respondents described Network 4 as a drugs network with a loose organisational structure. According to Gardaí, all four networks in Bluetown contained relationships with different levels of trust between members and this affected network strength and stability. Criminal network strength and stability was also influenced by fear and intimidation. Similar to Greentown, each network contained members with family connections to crime and involved young people with a combination of risk factors. In Bluetown, proximity to offending peers and the normalisation of criminal behaviour were additional factors with networks developing in localities for sustained periods.

Conclusion There was sufficient consistency between the original Greentown findings and the replication study in Bluetown: notably regarding Network 1 and its family orientation, in addition to the chaotic backgrounds of young people in problematic peer groups. One difference between Greentown and Bluetown was that the latter represented a large urban sub-district with four distinct criminal networks identified by Garda respondents on the criminal network map. As a result, some Garda respondents were limited in their knowledge of all areas on the PULSE informed map. In Greentown we identified that engagement in local criminal networks contributed to young people developing more serious and prolific crime trajectories. Likewise, in Bluetown the findings suggest that engagement in networks contributed to a significant number of young people developing more serious and prolific offending patterns. The combination of Bluetown and Greentown findings indicates that the structure and dynamics of networks may be context-specific. Both sets of findings suggest that engagement in a local criminal network may have contributed to the young people’s ‘atypical’ criminal activity    

 Limerick: School of Law, University of Limerick. 2020. 64p.

By Heather Hunt and Gene Nichol

To better understand the role of poverty in shaping outcomes in North Carolina’s juvenile justice system, the authors conducted interviews and surveyed attorneys, social workers, scholars and youth advocates. This report summarizes those findings, highlighting the challenges faced by poor youth and their families.

Key Findings:

One in five North Carolina youth under the age of 18, and about one in three Black and Latinx youth, are poor. Juvenile courts in North Carolina can order a youth to pay a fine or restitution, and are statutorily authorized to assess a range of fees against parents, including fees for a court-appointed attorney, community service, evaluation and treatment, and probation.Attorney fees were the most common fees mentioned in the survey and interviews, although assessment can vary widely across the state. Other common fees include electronic monitoring and restitution.Youth charged as adults are subject to the full range of court costs, fines and fees faced by all adult criminal defendants. In addition to court-ordered fees and costs, involvement in the juvenile system imposes more indirect costs such as transportation and time. All survey respondents identified the time commitment required by a delinquency case as a serious hardship for poor families, and almost all (91 percent) answered that parents were unable to get time off from work.Over a third of survey participants estimated that their most recent or typical client had to travel more than 10 miles from home to the courthouse.Housing instability, can upend a juvenile case when amenities like phone or internet service are not available and a parent cannot be reached. Because of the juvenile system’s emphasis on meeting the needs of the child through services, parents without the resources to corral services in the early stages of a case are at a deep disadvantage.Financial status can impact access to, and the availability of, court-ordered treatment programs. All children in delinquency cases in North Carolina are entitled to a court-appointed attorney, but the quality of representation provided can depend on geography. Parents who are unable to comply with court orders risk criminal contempt which is punishable with a fine up to $500 and/or imprisonment, plus the additional court costs and fees that may be assessed.

North Carolina Poverty Research Fund, 2921, 34p.

By Garner Clancey, Sindy Wang and Brenda Lin

The administration of youth justice systems in Australia is a state and territory responsibility. Almost all states and territories have in recent years undertaken extensive reviews of their youth justice systems. In addition, various oversight bodies (such as ombudsmen, inspectors of custodial services, children’s guardians and advocates), Commonwealth agencies (such as the Australian Law Reform Commission), and non-government organisations (such as Amnesty International) have also completed reviews and published reports in this area. The catalysts for some of these reviews were incidents in youth justice detention centres which captured national (and international) attention. A key theme arising from many of these reviews is the need for youth justice detention to be a measure of last resort. Detention, especially for young people who have been victims of abuse and neglect or who have mental illness and intellectual disabilities, is often detrimental and has little benefit in reducing recidivism. This paper explores this and other key themes arising from the recent reviews into Australian youth justice systems.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 605. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.2020. 19p.

By Kamarah Pooley

A large body of literature has attempted to answer the question: what works in reducing youth reoffending? However, this literature often fails to provide specific guidance on program implementation. This review consolidates research on the practical implementation of tertiary youth offender programs to identify the design, delivery and implementation factors associated with positive changes in youth offending behaviours. A systematic review of 44 studies revealed nine common components of effective programs. These components have been empirically associated with program effectiveness in methodologically diverse studies conducted in various contexts, suggesting they may contribute to reduced reoffending among young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 604. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2020. 22p.

By Catherine H. Augustine, Andrea Phillips, Susannah Faxon-Mills, Abigail Kessler

In this report, the authors examine two strategies implemented by the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC) to address the school-to-prison pipeline in San Diego County: training educators to use restorative practices and running a program to divert youth from the justice system before charges are filed. The report begins by describing how NCRC became an intermediary focused on supporting at-risk youth in San Diego. It then assesses signs of success and opportunities to improve the implementation of the two NCRC strategies to address the pipeline. It concludes with insights to inform NCRC’s next steps and the field more broadly. 

Key Findings

• Youth and families most highly valued the diversion program case managers; NCRC provided increasing support to them over time.

• At the end of the diversion program, youth and families reported continued disengagement from school. Diversion program leaders might prioritize tutoring or mentoring on educational engagement and achievement.

• Youth worried about falling back into old habits after the diversion program ended. Diversion leaders might prioritize preparing families to better support youth after programs end.

• Restorative practice coaches described some adults as suspicious of restorative practices. Modeling the practices with adults first helped to increase buy-in for using the practices with students.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024. 43p.

By the National Autistic Society (UK)

Autistic people, like anyone else, can sometimes come into contact with the criminal justice system.  Our new report illustrates how a lack of support for young autistic people, both before entering and within the system, can have profoundly negative consequences on future life chances.  The experiences of people in our report illustrate clearly what changes need to happen, reaffirming recommendations we have been calling and campaigning for.

Preventative support is needed for autistic young people at risk 

•  The average age range for early concerns for both autistic adults and parent/carers is 13-15 years 

• Many autistic respondents had not had their autism diagnosis until adulthood, whereas most relatives of parent/carers were diagnosed at primary school age

• 75% of autistic adults and 86% of parent/carers reported that they had been visited at least once by the police 

The top early concerns for parent/carers and professionals were being easily led or influenced by peers, violence or aggression toward others, damage to property or fire setting and being excluded from school. 

Failings in understanding and support from schools, statutory services, healthcare and the criminal justice system have also been defining factors, as illustrated from the following case study:

“For 18 months, I had been suffering from severe suicidal ideation...The GP still did nothing… so I tried other ways of getting help and therapy, but that had led to nowhere because waiting lists were so phenomenally long, so I committed the index offence in the context of trying to draw attention to my plight and need.”

More support is needed for autistic young people in the criminal justice system

• 71% of criminal justice professionals believe processes for identifying autistic offenders are ineffective or only effective in a minority of cases 

• 64% of professionals (from a variety of sectors) only occasionally or rarely get the support they need to support autistic people 

• Up to 54% of relatives of parent/carers disclose their autism diagnosis, whereas up to 47% of autistic adults did not have an autism diagnosis to disclose when first involved with the justice system

In most cases both autistic adults and parent/carers received no reasonable adjustments from all sections of the criminal justice system. When they were put in place, adjustments that were common when being interviewed by police were use of an appropriate adult and clear language when questioning. In court the most common adjustments were assessment by a psychologist or psychiatrist and being told in advance what to expect. For professionals in our sample, the main barriers to implementing reasonable adjustments were lack of awareness and understanding of autism and effective identification processes. To address this both the survey and interviews have highlighted the need to develop consistent infrastructure for identifying, diagnostic referral routes and more efficient sharing of information between internal and external agencies. 

Some of our top recommendations 

Our research findings reaffirm recommendations made by our charity in the past, as well as the All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism (APPGA) and the HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation services report in regards to awareness and support, which can be summarised as:

• Mandatory autism training across all sections of the criminal justice system and other sectors such as schools and health & social care services 

• Improved access to post diagnostic support and low-level support which can tackle early concerns of young autistic people

• Accreditation, quality assurance and monitoring of autism best practice across services 

• Improved access to specialist resources and key services for professionals when supporting, screening or referring for diagnosis.

• Improved awareness on what reasonable adjustments can be used and how to implement them within all criminal justice sectors 

• Access to best practice teams and autism champions

Clare Hughes, Criminal Justice Manager at the National Autistic Society, said: “No autistic child or young person should be at greater risk of being in the criminal justice system just because they are autistic. But our research shows the impact can be devastating when it happens.

“There needs to be better understanding of autism and support for autistic young people in every part of the system. The right early support must also be available to stop autistic young people from entering the system in the first place, including mental health support to navigate what can feel like a chaotic and overwhelming world.

“Staff working in the criminal justice system must be supported to understand what autism is and how to meet autistic young people’s needs. Autistic young people have already been failed by entering the system in the first place, there is no excuse to fail them further.

“We’ve been calling for many of these recommendations for years. Government must act now, once and for all, to ensure that autistic young people in the justice system are not forgotten.”

Laurie Hunte, Criminal Justice Programme Manager at Barrow Cadbury Trust/T2A (Transition to Adulthood), said:  

 “I welcome this new report from National Autistic Society focusing on autistic young people and the criminal justice system. It reveals how autistic young people need a distinct approach both to recognise the difficulties of their transition into adulthood, but also to support their needs as autistic young people in the Criminal Justice System.

The report highlights how a failure to diagnose autism early on means a young person is more likely to get involved with the criminal justice system, a system which is not geared up to support young autistic people.” 

London: National Autistic Society, 2022. 41p.

By Spark Inside

We believe that well-being support for young men in prison — particularly for young Black men — should be prioritized and should be tailored to meet their specific needs.

Why is this important?

Young people in prison have untapped potential but have different needs from older people in prison, and are less likely to be able to access the support they need to flourish and build new lives. In addition, psychological maturity is essential for young people’s success in and after prison. Therefore, we know that young people in prison have distinct needs that must be met to enable effective rehabilitation. Furthermore, we know that young Black men, who are over-represented in the prison system, face further barriers to their rehabilitation. This is due to their experiences of social and economic inequalities, institutional racism, and a lack of services that take into account different cultures and Black identity. Black men in prison suffer from worse outcomes and experiences than white prisoners. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated many of the challenges facing young people in prison, but with proper support from specialists working in prisons, young people make positive choices that lead to better rehabilitative outcomes and improved wellbeing, including better physical, mental and social health.

The call to action

The Being Well Being Equal campaign is calling for urgent action from the Government, prison policy-makers and practitioners to:

• Prioritise wellbeing services in prisons for young men and young Black men;

• Tailor wellbeing services to take into account and meet the specific needs of young men in prison and young Black men in prison;

• Provide better support and guidance for professionals in prison working with and caring for young men and young Black men.

The report presents a consolidation of the research, policy, and practice concerned with the wellbeing of young men in custody, as well as insight from expert organizations and, most importantly, young men themselves. It is hoped, that by bringing together the evidence, this report will enable practitioners, policymakers, and commissioners to have a more informed understanding of how to promote Being Well and Being Equal amongst young men in custody. Practice examples throughout the report provide tangible solutions to meeting the needs of young men, developed by voluntary sector organizations that bring significant knowledge, skills, and experience. Young adults make up 15% of the prison population, (around 12,000 individuals), with 18-20 year-olds representing the highest level of Black and ethnic minority over-representation in the adult prison estate.Prison population projections suggest that there will be a 50% increase in the number of 18 to 20 year olds in custody between 2021 and 20264 . The Health Foundation states ‘the health of a country’s young people is one of the greatest assets it holds’5 and yet for the 0.4% of young adults in prison in England and Wales, their distinct wellbeing needs are often overlooked. Well-being, as defined by the Department of Health, is ‘about feeling good and functioning well and comprises an individual’s experience of their life and a comparison of life circumstances with social norms and values’. Repeat evidence presented by HM Inspectorate (2021), the Justice Select Committee (2016), and the Harris Review (2015) demonstrates that young adult well-being in the prison system is significantly poorer than for older prisoners – with more negative experiences of relationships, physical environments, mental health and safety. This experience is often exacerbated for Black and minority ethnic prisoners with fewer feeling safe, supported, or respected. Alongside the fundamental difference in cognitive maturity between adult men and young adult men, 18-25-year-olds in custody represent some of the most vulnerable individuals in our communities. They account for 22% of incidences of self-harm in the prison estate8 and are more likely to have experienced poverty, childhood trauma, and being in care than the general population. In addition, young Black men experience the social, emotional, economic, and structural impact of racism. While in custody there is an opportunity to ensure that young men have access to the support they need to flourish and build new lives. In order to unlock their potential and improve their well-being, prison policy, practice, and commissioning must differentiate between the needs of 18-25-year-olds and the older prison population. There are only three distinct young adult establishments in England and Wales with a total operating capacity of around 1000. Almost 90% of young adults reside in the wider adult estate where HM Inspectorate of Prisons has found little differentiation between meeting the needs of 18-25-year-olds and older prisoners  

London: Spark Inside, 2023. 73p.

By Samantha Francois, Kimberly Wu, Erica Doe, Amber Tucker, Katherine Theall

Racism in all its manifestations is violence. This study examines the effect of discrimination-based racial violence in neighborhoods and schools on adolescent psychological and behavioral outcomes, while also testing the moderating influence of civic engagement. Researchers used a cross-sectional survey design to measure neighborhood and school-based racial discrimination, civic engagement, racial identity development, racism-based stress, and aggressive behaviors in a sample of 167, 13 to 23-year-old adolescents and emerging adults. Participants were recruited through a cluster randomized trial to test the impact of blight remediation in preventing youth violence. Study researchers hypothesized a direct effect of racial discrimination on adolescents' racism-based stress and aggressive behaviors and a buffering effect of civic engagement on these relationships. Researchers also examined these relationships in participants with higher-than-average racial identity development scores. Multivariate regression models revealed a significant direct effect of both neighborhood and school discrimination on adolescents' aggressive behaviors. Civic engagement had a positive buffering effect on the relationship between neighborhood discrimination and aggressive behaviors. Similar relationships were observed among adolescents with a high racial identity with a stronger effect. Study findings have implications for understanding the behavioral impact of racial violence and investing in civic engagement to mitigate its impact in adolescence and emerging adulthood.

Res Hum Dev. 2023;20(1-2):48-64. Epub 2023 Feb 24.

By Yotam Shem-Tov, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog 

 The Make-it-Right (MIR) restorative justice conferencing program serves youth ages 13 to 17 who would have otherwise faced relatively serious felony charges (e.g., burglary, assault, unlawful taking of a vehicle). Following extensive preparation, participating youth meet with the people they have harmed or a surrogate, accept responsibility for the impact of their actions, and come to an agreement on how the youth can repair to the greatest extent possible the harm they caused. If the youth follow through with the repair actions outlined in the agreement, charges against them are never filed. If they do not, they face traditional juvenile felony prosecution. In this study, eligible youth were randomly assigned to participate in MIR or to a control group in which they faced felony prosecution. We find that youth allowed to participate in MIR had a 19-percentage-point lower likelihood of a rearrest within six months, a 44 percent reduction relative to the control group of youth who were prosecuted in the traditional juvenile justice system. The reduction in justice-system contact persists even four years after the offer of participation, providing strong evidence that restorative justice community conferencing can reduce subsequent justice-system involvement among youth charged with relatively serious offenses and can be an effective alternative to traditional prosecution.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2022. 5p.

By Peggy Nicholson

In many respects, the evolution of juvenile court reform and school discipline reform follow similar trajectories. This Article begins by tracking those respective evolutions. Part I outlines the evolution of the juvenile court system in the United States and focuses on the fledgling system’s distinction of children from adults and its “rehabilitative ideal” that children could outgrow challenging behavior if given the right treatment and services. After a long period of “adultification” of the juvenile court in response to rising crime rates, more recent reform efforts have focused on returning to the early court’s rehabilitative model, including policies that would keep young children out of juvenile court altogether. With the context of the juvenile court’s evolution in mind, Part II tracks the history of exclusionary school discipline, which is defined as any school disciplinary action, typically a suspension or expulsion, that removes a student from his or her typical education setting. Many of the same rationales for the “adultification” of the juvenile court, including the myth of the juvenile superpredator and the rise of a zero-tolerance approach to discipline, led to a sharp increase in the use of exclusionary discipline throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. However, with a growing body of research showing the harm and inefficacy of exclusionary discipline, advocates for discipline reform have pushed to decrease its use, which has included proposals to ban or limit exclusionary discipline for young students. The efforts to protect young children from both juvenile court intervention and exclusionary discipline are explored respectively in Parts III and IV. Part III describes the movement to “Raise the Minimum Age” of juvenile court jurisdiction as an avenue to bar court processing for young children. Notably, Part III outlines the variety of rationales that have been used to support raising the minimum age and charts the success of the movement in the last decade. Against this backdrop, Part IV turns to the movement to end exclusionary discipline for young children. Although important differences between the juvenile court and school discipline exist, many of the same rationales that support keeping young children out of juvenile court also apply to protecting young children from exclusionary discipline. Despite these similar rationales, which are explored in Part IV, the movement to end exclusionary discipline for young children has had less success, with fewer states adopting these measures. Further, most states that have passed laws limiting school exclusion for young students still allow exclusions to move forward in many circumstances. Part IV tracks existing statewide efforts to limit exclusionary discipline for young children and describes some of the challenges faced by these reform efforts. Despite the challenges, there are also opportunities. Part V highlights lessons learned from the “Raise the Minimum Age” movement to make recommendations for building momentum for states to end exclusionary discipline for young children. Given the willingness in many states to protect young children from juvenile court intervention, there is hope that similar arguments and advocacy strategies can be utilized to advance statewide policies that will protect those same young children from the harm of exclusionary discipline.

11 Belmont Law Review 334-383 (2024)

By Ian A. Silver; Daniel C. Semenza, Joseph L. Nedelec

Youths incarcerated in adult correctional facilities are exposed to a variety of adverse circumstances that could diminish psychological and physical health, potentially leading to early mortality. Objective: To evaluate whether being incarcerated in an adult correctional facility as a youth was associated with mortality between 18 and 39 years of age. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study relied on longitudinal data collected from 1997 to 2019 as part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-1997, a nationally representative sample of 8984 individuals born in the United States between January 1, 1980, and December 1, 1984. The data analyzed for the current study were derived from annual interviews between 1997 and 2011 and interviews every other year from 2013 to 2019 (19 interviews in total). Participants were limited to respondents aged 17 years or younger during the 1997 interview and alive during their 18th birthday (8951 individuals; >99% of the original sample). Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to May 2023. Intervention: Incarceration in an adult correctional facility before the age of 18 years compared with being arrested before the age of 18 years or never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years. Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome for the study was age at mortality between 18 and 39 years of age. Results: The sample of 8951 individuals included 4582 male participants (51%), 61 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (1%), 157 Asian participants (2%), 2438 Black participants (27%), 1895 Hispanic participants (21%), 1065 participants of other race (12%), and 5233 White participants (59%). A total of 225 participants (3%) died during the study period, with a mean (SD) age at death of 27.7 (5.9) years. Incarceration in an adult correctional facility before the age of 18 years was associated with an increased risk of earlier mortality between 18 and 39 years of age compared with individuals who were never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years (time ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.95). Being arrested before the age of 18 years was associated with an increased risk of earlier mortality between 18 and 39 years of age when compared with individuals who were never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years (time ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 8951 youths, the survival model suggested that being incarcerated in an adult correctional facility may be associated with an increased risk of early mortality between 18 and 39 years of age

July 2023, JAMA Network Open 6(7)

By  Brendan Lantz, and Kyle G. Knapp

The analysis, entitled, Trends in Juvenile Offending: What You Need to Know, focuses on trends in offending from 2016 through 2022 by examining changes in the frequency of juvenile offending by crime type, demographics, and several other characteristics. This study uses incident information from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) from 2016 to 2022. The study period begins in 2016 because of notable increases in agency participation in reporting crime statistics to NIBRS following 2015; it ends in 2022 because that was the most recent year of data available at the time the report was prepared. To produce these data, offense, victim, and offender segment-level information was aggregated to the incident level for each year. The year files were then appended into a master incident-level file, in which incidents were restricted to those (a) involving at least one juvenile offender; and (b) from agencies that reported to NIBRS each month during the study period. From this file, totals were created for each month in every year. Some totals represent the total number of offender participations, while other totals represent the total number of incidents with one or more characteristics of interest. The outline below walks through each segment of NIBRS, how information was aggregated, how cases were dropped, and how totals were generated. 

2024. 20p.

By Ofsted and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons

 This report summarises our chief concerns about regimes at England’s YOIs. This type of secure accommodation holds convicted children aged 15 to 18. The report draws on Ofsted and HMIP’s 32 full inspection reports, and 5 reports following independent reviews of progress, across 10 years from June 2014 to March 2024. It also draws on comments from surveys of young offenders in custody, comments from leaders at education providers, YOI leaders and managers, and inspectors’ comments and findings. The review sets out a bleak picture of steadily declining educational opportunities and quality, reduced work experience and work opportunities, and sharply reduced time out of cell for children. In the worst case, in one setting some children had only half an hour out of their locked cells per day. We report on poor relationships between education providers and YOI leaders, poor-quality resources and infrastructure, severe staff shortages, and low levels of qualifications and training among staff. These factors result in children receiving a poor education that fails to meet their needs. Children have far fewer hours of lessons per day than their counterparts outside the secure estate. They have lower levels of attendance at classes, usually for reasons beyond their control. Because staff lack proper training, they cannot meet the needs of children with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND). Work experience opportunities and links to employers have become more limited during the past 10 years. This means that children are poorly prepared for their release and generally lack the skills and training that might help them secure employment. Chief among the reasons for the poor quality of education is the fact that YOIs are struggling with severe staff shortages. This makes it difficult for staff to build relationships with children and maintain order. They rely on very complicated regimes that keep large numbers of children separate from each other. Restrictive regimes mean that staff do not release children from cells to attend work or training. A vicious cycle develops whereby children are isolated, disheartened, and frustrated, then develop poor behaviors that lead to further restrictions being imposed. Poor leadership and poor cooperation between education providers and YOI leaders mean that, across the past 10 years, leaders and managers have put in place very few effective and sustainable measures to deal with the rapidly declining standards at YOIs.

Manchester, UK: Ofsted and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2024. 33p.

By Noor Huda Ismail

 Next month marks the first anniversary of the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel – a significant event that reverberated globally and triggered an uptick in youth radicalization, particularly online. The Singapore Terrorism Threat Assessment Report 2024 reveals that this conflict directly contributed to the radicalization of two Singaporean youths – a 14-year-old and a 33-year-old. These incidents can be explained by a psychological phenomenon called “identity fusion”, where individuals feel an intense sense of oneness with a group to the point where their personal and social identities merge. This feeling of unity makes them willing to make extreme sacrifices for their group as their identity becomes inseparable from the group’s fate. While identity fusion is not limited to Islamist extremism – it manifests in football fans reacting violently after a crucial loss or animal rights activists responding to trophy hunting – it has found fertile ground among youths who feel connected to the Palestinian cause. It is essential to recognize that the Hamas-Israel war is a long-standing issue, with roots tracing back to the establishment of Israel in 1948. This deep historical context adds layers to the narrative, making it particularly compelling for youths who perceive a sense of injustice and shared suffering. Southeast Asian policymakers must proactively address this challenge to prevent further radicalization among young people. This involves understanding the mechanism of identity fusion in online radicalization and embracing technology as a tool for effective intervention. By doing so, policymakers can create strategies that resonate with young people and counter extremist narratives.

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU Singapore, 2024. 4p

 By The Southern Poverty Law Center

Florida routinely pushes Black children out of schools and into a legal system with well-documented harms. In recent years, the state has made significant investments in school law enforcement and self-proclaimed “tough love” youth legal system policies, purportedly in the name of public safety. However, these investments have yielded a system that disparately disciplines, arrests, prosecutes and incarcerates Black youth more harshly than their counterparts. Florida’s well-developed school-to-prison pipeline has thus created an easy entryway for children into its legal system – even for those as young as 7 years old and children dealing with mental health issues. This report explores the scope and impact of this system and ways Florida can disrupt it.

 Montgomer, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2024. 

By Kelly Stewart, David DuBois

This brief scoping review provides an overview of current research findings relating to law enforcement mentoring of youth. While not a systematic review of all available research, the findings present the current landscape of the types of programs that have been studied, the goals of such programs, and the evidence of their effectiveness in achieving intended outcomes. The review begins with a brief history and theoretical justification for engaging law enforcement (e.g., police) as mentors. Next, an overview of the review scope and literature search strategy is provided, along with a summary of the findings of identified studies and consideration of their limitations. The final sections provide conclusions as well as recommendations for practice and research.

Boston: National Mentoring Resource Center, 2021. 14p.

By Manasi Deshpande & Michael G. Mueller-Smith

We estimate the effect of losing Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits at age 18 on criminal justice and employment outcomes over the next two decades. To estimate this effect, we use a regression discontinuity design in the likelihood of being reviewed for SSI eligibility at age 18 created by the 1996 welfare reform law. We evaluate this natural experiment with Social Security Administration data linked to records from the Criminal Justice Administrative Records System. We find that SSI removal increases the number of criminal charges by a statistically significant 20% over the next two decades. The increase in charges is concentrated in offenses for which income generation is a primary motivation (60% increase), especially theft, burglary, fraud/forgery, and prostitution. The effect of SSI removal on criminal justice involvement persists more than two decades later, even as the effect of removal on contemporaneous SSI receipt diminishes. In response to SSI removal, youth are twice as likely to be charged with an illicit income-generating offense than they are to maintain steady employment at $15,000/year in the labor market. As a result of these charges, the annual likelihood of incarceration increases by a statistically significant 60% in the two decades following SSI removal. The costs to taxpayers of enforcement and incarceration from SSI removal are so high that they nearly eliminate the savings to taxpayers from reduced SSI benefits

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022. 38p.

By Lauren Weisner and Lynne Mock

Bullying is a form of violence that can leave lasting negative effects on school-aged youth. This literature review examines research on bullying frequency, predictors and impacts, and prevention and intervention programs. Research finds that between 20% and 40% of youth in the United States have experienced bullying (with variances in data sources and groups examined) and that there are a host of negative outcomes for those exposed to it. Programs that address bullying vary, but there are several promising interventions to address the issue.   

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority,  2022.14p.

By Gretta L Goodwin,, et al.

Why GAO Did This Study AMBER Alerts quickly communicate information to the public in certain child abduction cases. DOJ oversees the AMBER Alert network, which is made up of law enforcement and other involved stakeholders. DOJ created the AMBER Alert program to help carry out its AMBER Alert responsibilities. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (2021 NDAA) required DOJ to take additional actions related to the AMBER Alert network. It also includes a provision for GAO to assess the extent to which DOJ implemented these requirements and identify any challenges or needs in the U.S. territories. This report addresses (1) U.S. territories’ processes for and challenges in responding to missing and exploited children’s cases, including issuing AMBER Alerts; (2) DOJ actions to integrate U.S. territories into the AMBER Alert network; and (3) DOJ efforts to address certain 2021 NDAA requirements related to the AMBER Alert network, including assisting Tribes and U.S. territories. Among other methods, GAO analyzed DOJ documents, such as its AMBER Alert Best Practices document. GAO interviewed DOJ and Fox Valley officials and relevant U.S. territory officials. GAO also interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable selection of six federally recognized Tribes.  

Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office, 2024. 45p.

By Paul Pazen and Steven L. Byers

People in Colorado have not directly experienced crime. From property offenses to violent crimes, every crime leaves a traumatized victim. Whether the wounds are physical, psychological, or financial, it is important to acknowledge the profound effects that a crime can have on its victims. At Common Sense Institute, our goal is to address the economic impact of crime while remaining conscious of the suffering that it causes. This report analyzes the cost of juvenile crime in Colorado and its economic impact. This study encompasses the period of 2010 to 2023 and the data comes from Colorado Crime Statistics (2023). Colorado’s juvenile crime trends tell a mixed story. On the one hand, youth crime rates have fallen in the last 15 years as property crime rates fall, follow. On the other hand, violent youth crime has risen. Meanwhile, the number of juveniles arrested and detained has fallen from a combination of alternative sentencing, diversion programs, and increased parole. It is violent crime that costs more. Juvenile crime results in direct or tangible costs including unrecovered stolen property, damaged property, victims’ out-of-pocket medical expenses, the cost of police, courts and correctional institutions, and lost earnings by both victims and juvenile perpetrators who are arrested and convicted. Juvenile crime also inflicts indirect or intangible costs like the pain and suffering of victims, reduced quality of life for everyone, and lower levels of investment and lower property values.i Intangible costs are difficult to measure with precision but, among those who have estimated them, there is a consensus that the intangible cost of juvenile crime far exceeds the tangible cost. Reducing current rates of murder, rape, assault, theft, and robbery by juveniles would produce a wide range of savings and other benefits to families, individuals, property owners and taxpayers. All estimates of the cost of crime in this report are adjusted for inflation and are reported in 2020 dollars so that costs can be compared across years. In 2021, after an extraordinary rise in crime, CSI estimated a total cost of crime of $3.3 billion. 

Greenwood Village, CO: Common Sense Institute, 2024. 30p.