Date: November 25, 2024 Mon

Time: 8:10 pm

Results for juvenile detention

229 results found

Author: Ireland. Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform Title: Report on the Youth Justice Review Summary: This analysis provides a broad picture of youth offending and detention in Ireland in recent years. Details: Dublin: The Stationery Office, 2006 Source: Year: 2006 Country: Ireland URL: Shelf Number: 115787 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Rodriguez, Nancy Title: An Initial Review of Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Detention Length of Stay Summary: This technical report is based on a four month study of the Maricopa County juvenile detention population. The research goals of this study include providing a description of cases subject to detention over a six year period of study and the identification of significant predictors of detention length of stay. Details: Tempe, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, Arizona State University, 2006 Source: Prepared for the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 115790 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Probation

Author: Solomon, Enver Title: Out of Trouble: Reducing child imprisonment in England and Wales - lessons from abroad Summary: This report focuses specifically on international examples of policies and practices that are used in countries which have relatively low numbers of children in custody or have been developed and implemented in countries to reduce child imprisonment. This report looks at alternative sanctions that could be developed for use in England and Wales to reduce the number of children remanded or sentenced to custody. This report does not focus specifically on particular intervention or at preventative work. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2009 Source: King's College London: International Centre for Prison Studies Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 116543 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems

Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspectorate Title: Inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre Summary: This report outlines the findings of a full, announced inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (the JJC). Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, the JJC in Northern Ireland is not legally required to be licensed, so inspection is particularly important to assess the management and care of children who are held there. The inspection found that significant progress had been made by the JJC since the 2004 inspection. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2008 Source: Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 115754 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems

Author: Iowa. Governor's Youth Race & Detention Task Force Title: Full Report: Governor's Youth Race & Detention Task Force, Response to Executive Order 5 Summary: From the report: "In May 2007, the first meeting of the Governor's Youth Race and Detention Task Force (YRDTF) was held. Created by Governor Chester J. Culver, the group's goal has been to assist in reducing the overrepresentation of minority youth in juvenile detention. The Task Force's membership includes a broad representation from state government, law enforcement, prosecution, defense, Human Services, Corrections, the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Education and community members. This Full Report is the culmination of the Task Force's responsibilities." Details: Iowa: Criminal & Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP), 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116682 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Minority Groups

Author: Martynowicz, Agnieszke Title: Detention of Children in Ireland: International Standards and Best Practice. Summary: Relatively little is known about Irish children who come into conflict with the law and much work needs to be done to identify the barriers children face exercising their rights in the criminal justice system. However, research undertaken in Ireland indicates that such children come from poor socio-economic backgrounds; many of them have lived out-of-home or been in care; they have weak attachment to family and invariably have problems with drugs and/or alcohol. They are typically early school leavers and mental health and behaviour problems are particularly prevalent among this group. Where these risk factors converge, the risk of being involved in criminal behaviour is multiplied. Through our investigation of individual cases in the Office of the Ombudsman for Children we are finding evidence of a system that is not designed to respond to these complex needs. We see the results of criminal behaviour taking precedence over the welfare needs of children and young people. The central ethos of the Children Act, 2001 is the diversion of children away from the criminal justice system. The approach taken in the Act, focusing on preventative measures and restorative justice mechanisms, is the right approach and the one which best protects the rights of children and young people in conflict with the law in line with Ireland's legal obligations. Through this approach, the complex needs of children can be addressed without the need to resort to youth justice measures. However, the implementation of non-custodial solutions for children in conflict with the law in Ireland is slow, and more needs to be done to make the principle of detention as a measure of last resort a reality When detention of children is deemed necessary, it should only be used for the shortest appropriate time. The conditions in which children are held and the support which they are to be afforded is laid out in detail in international standards which are described in this report. I have seen for myself in Ireland that the Children Detention Schools, operating under the umbrella of the Irish Youth Justice Service, employ many practices that aim to respect the rights of children in their care. The continued detention of boys in St Patrick's Institution (pending the construction of the National Children Detention Facility) remains a serious concern, and is not in compliance with international human rights standards. Having visited all of the Detention Schools and St Patrick's Institution, I am convinced that the detention of children in prisons must end. Of additional concern is the fact that I cannot investigate complaints from children held in St Patrick/s Institution due to an exclusion in the Ombudsman for Children Act, 2002. I therefore particularly welcome the recommendation contained in the report that supports both my own and the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendation to extend the remit of the Ombudsman for Children's Office to include the power to receive complaints from children so held. The system of detention of children in Ireland is currently undergoing a major change. This is a real opportunity to get things right from the outset and the best interests of children must be at the heart of any developments in this area. I believe that the future development of the system of Children Detention Schools should be centred on the principles of rights, rehabilitation and care. Details: Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2009. 96p. Source: Accessed May 19, 2017 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/Detention_of_Children_in_Ireland_FINAL.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Ireland URL: Shelf Number: 117594 Keywords: Human Rights Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Systems

Author: Knuutila, Aleksi Title: Punishing Costs: How Locking Up Children Is Making Britain Less Safe Summary: Locking up children and young people for non-violence offenses is costing the U.K. taxpayer millions, while doing little to reduce the amount of crime. This report presents results on the full cost to society of the use of prison. It outlines a policy to change the pattern of public spending for a safer and more inclusive socity. Details: Source: London: nef (New Economics Foundation), 2010. 73p. Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117865 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Robinson, Barbara Title: Education in Chains: Gaps in Education Provision to Children in Detention Summary: This report examines the right to education of children in detention in thirteen countries where Defense for Children International (DCI) has a presence and represents an ongoing collaboration between DCI's national sections and its International Secretariat. The report stems from DCI's participation in a special paper produced by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education on the theme of education for persons in detention. In preparation for his report, the Special Rapporteur consulted with governments, prisoners and non-governmental organisations (including DCI). The Special Rapporteur presented his findings to the Human Rights Council in June 2009, alongside a set of recommendations stressing the need to guarantee the right to education in detention, in legislation and in practice. The right to education of children deprived of their liberty Against a backdrop of poverty, social exclusion and exploitation, children in conflict with the law represent a particularly vulnerable group. However, instead of receiving care and protection, these children often face discrimination and denial of their social, cultural, economic and political rights. The evidence presented in this report highlights that many governments are failing to guarantee the right to education of children held in detention around the world. Key findings are as follows: - There were a number of examples where national legislation fails to establish provisions for the education of children in detention and where education is treated as an opportunity rather than a right; - In a number of countries, the State fails to provide any education whatsoever to children in detention; - Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are the sole providers of education to children in detention in many situations, or play a key role in enhancing existing provision; - The situation of children is often worse when they are held in pre-trial detention, where limited, lower quality or indeed no education is often provided; - It was evident that few efforts are being made to monitor and evaluate the quality and frequency of education in detention, and in particular participation rates among detained children. To help address these problems and protect the rights of vulnerable children, DCI endorses the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education (2009) and recommends a focus on the following goals: - States should use deprivation of liberty as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time. - Ensure education is framed as an inalienable right integrated in the national legislation, policies and strategies. - Systematically collect and publish data about the provision of education in detention. - Monitor and review the quality and quantity of education in detention and initiate plans to transfer responsibilities from non-governmental organisations to the state. - Avoid the use of pre-trial detention, regularly review its use and ensure conditions meet the same standards as other forms of detention. - Facilitate the participation of children in the development of educational programmes in detention. Details: Geneva: Defence for Children International, 2009. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/DCI_Education_in_Detention_2009.pdf Year: 2009 Country: International URL: http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/DCI_Education_in_Detention_2009.pdf Shelf Number: 117098 Keywords: Correctional Education Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates

Author: Gibbs, Penelope Title: Children: Innocent Until Proven Guilty. A Report on the Overuse of Remand for Children in England and Wales and How It Can Be Addressed Summary: This report focuses on the over-use of remand for under-18 year olds in England and Wales and how it can be addressed. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2009. 39p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 115389 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Solanki, Aikta-Reena Title: Fine Art or Science? Sentencers Deciding Between Community Penalties and Custody for Young People Summary: This report presents the findings of a study of sentencing decisions made by U.K. courts to identify why some young people are sentenced to custody and others to community sentences. The research examines cases involving young offenders aged 10 to 17, and explores the issues that may have an impact on sentencing at an individual level. It gives an account of the sentencing decisions made by a sample of 62 sentencers, including magistrates, district judges and Crown Court judges across 16 youth offending team areas in England and Wales. It documents their approaches to sentencing and decision-making process, as well as offering an insight into their attitudes towards custodial and non-custodial penalties. The research highlights a wide range of differenc factors that were reported by sentences to encourage or discourage the use of custody in borderline cases that were deemed to lie on the brink between a custodial and community sentence. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2009. 85p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118822 Keywords: Community Based Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Offenders, Sentencing (U.K.) Sentencing (U.K.)

Author: Fedders, Barbara Title: Do You Know Where the Children Are? A Report on Massachusetts Youth Unlawfully Held Without Bail Summary: In 2004, over four thousand Massachusetts children and youth between the ages of seven and seventeen spent time behind bars -- in some cases up to four days -- after their arrest and prior to their first court appearance. While the law requires that young people must be at least fourteen years old to be detained, more than five hundred children under fourteen were so held that year. This report calls for an end to this practice, and provides recommendations for addressing the problem without litigation. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2006. 13p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119114 Keywords: Bail Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Massachusetts )

Author: Murphy, Aileen Title: Time Out II: A Profile of BC Youth in Custody Summary: Young offenders are often seen as either troubled adolescents or irredeemable villains. This report focuses on the experiences of these youth, rather than their criminal activities. It provides insight into the characteristics of young people in British Columbia's custody centres; who they are and why, rather than what they did wrong. The study profiles some of the highest risk youth in B.C., who place the heaviest demands on judicial, social, health, educational and community services, although they represent a small proportion of all adolescents in the province. Details: Vancouver, BC: The McCreary Centre Society, 2005. 46p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2005 Country: Canada URL: Shelf Number: 118734 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders (British Columbia

Author: Muntingh, Lukas Title: Child Justice Alliance: A Quantitative Overview of Children in the Criminal Justice System: 2007 Summary: This report provides an overview of the available quantitative data on children in the juvenile justice system in South Africa, and also identifies where data is lacking or incomplete. It includes the following sections: children in detention; duration of detention; children coming into contact with the juvenile justice system; existence of a juvenile justice system; separation from adults; conditions for control of quality of services for children in detention; and protection from torture, violence, abuse and exploitation. Details: Bellville, South Africa: Child Justice Alliance, 2007. 36p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2007 Country: South Africa URL: Shelf Number: 110569 Keywords: Crime Displacement High Crime Areas Hot-Spots Policing Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems (South Africa) Juvenile Offenders (South Africa) Police Patrol Problem-Oriented Policing

Author: Pennsylvania. Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Title: Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report Summary: The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was established in the summer of 2009 in response to a highly publicized judicial corruption scandal in Luzerne County (Pennsylvania) involving millions of dollars in alleged payoffs to two judges and rights violations of thousands of juvenile defendants in the county's juvenile court. This report includes the following sections: 1) What Went Wrong, a narrative that describes the many elements of the judicial scandal and the breakdown of the juvenile justice system in Luzerne County; 2) The Proceedings of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which provides a summary of the commission's investigation followed by segments, organized in categories that contain detailed findings and testimony; 3) a section containing all the commission's recommendations; and the report's conclusion. Details: Philadelphia: The Commission, 2010. 63p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119174 Keywords: Judges Judicial Corruption (Pennsylvania) Judicial Misconduct Juvenile Detention

Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: Performance Examination: The Juvenile Justice System: Dealing With Young People Under the Young Offenders Act 1994. Summary: The Young Offenders Act 1994 and its later amendments set out how the Western Australian government expects the justice system will deal with young people who have come into contact with the law. The Act recognizes that there should be special provisions for the fair treatment of young people. For this reason, the Act requires police to consider, under suitable circumstances, directing young people away from courts, by using cautions and referrals to juvenile justice teams. The Act also requires police to use detention on remand as a last resort, by releasing the young persons on bail under the supervision of a suitable responsible adult. After a good start and concerted efforts to implement the Act in its early years, the critical strategies have started to lose momentum. This examination found that in recent years, fewer young people who have come into contact with police have been kept out of the court system, and this cannot be fully explained by trends in juvenile crime. Police referrals to juvenile justice teams have also been on the decline, along with the use of cautions. A supporting paper presents a cost savings to the Western Australian Government of pre-sentencing direction measures - police cautions; referrals to juvenile justice teams by the police; referrals to juvenile justice teams by the Children's Court; and court conferences. Details: Perth: Auditor General, 2008. 54p., 76p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 117637 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration, Juveniles Cost-Benefit Analysis Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems (Western Australia) Juvenile Offenders

Author: May, Tiggey Title: Exploring the Needs of young Black and Minority Ethnic Offenders and the Provision of Targeted Interventions Summary: This study explores the needs of young Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) offenders and the provision of targeted interventions by youth offending teams (YOTs) in the U.K. The focus of the study was to identify whether there are differences in needs between ethnic groups and to assess the preparedness of YOTs and establishments within the secure estate to respond to them. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2009. 119p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119266 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice System (U.K.) Juvenile Offenders Minority Groups

Author: Rael, Roberta M. Title: Incarcerated youth Perspectives on Violence: The Voices from the Inside. New Mexico Incarcerated Youth Speak Out about Violence Summary: New Mexico has some of the highest rates of youth violence in the country. Suicide and homicide are the second and third leading cause of death for 15-24 year olds in New Mexico. In 2002, New Mexico was among the states with the highest rates of homicide and suicide for all ages. Youth participation in violence prevention work is integral: youth perspective has proven to be valuable to policy and program processes. Youth who participate have a sense of inclusion, involvement and empowerment. These are three basic components of developing a sense of personal value and self-esteem. The intent of this special project is to provide a voice from a segment of the community that typically does not have an opportunity to participate in program, policy and institutional change. This report reflects what incarcerated youth in New Mexico had to say about their own life history related to violence, how incarceration impacted their lives, and what risk and protective factors exist that will prevent or propel them into the adult system of incarceration after they are released from their current commitments. This information was retrieved through the use of focus groups that were designed specifically for this population of incarcerated youth. Details: Albuquerque, NM: Office of Injury Prevention, Injury and Behavioral Epidemiology Bureau, Epidemiology and Response Division, New Mexico Department of Health, 2007. 31p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119388 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders (New Mexico) Recidivism

Author: United Nations Children's Fund Title: Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform Achievements in Armenia Summary: Offending by juveniles appears to have increased in Armenia during the years after its independence from the USSR and those following the conflict with neighbouring Azerbaijan, but began to fall in 199823 and seems to have now reached levels lower than the years before independence. Correspondingly, the number of juveniles serving sentences and the number of juveniles in pretrial detention have decreased by more than two thirds since 1998. At the time of the assessment mission, there were 18 juveniles serving sentences (including four or five over age 18) and 24 juveniles in the pretrial detention facility in the entire country. The structure of the Armenian juvenile justice system has changed little since independence. There are still a Juvenile Police Unit; two 'special schools' whose students include an unknown number of underage offenders and children at risk; one Children's Support Centre in the capital; one correctional facility for convicted juveniles and one centre for juveniles awaiting trial and sentencing; and judges appointed to handle juvenile cases, but no specialized juvenile court. Many of these institutions have undergone extensive reforms, however. The Police have entrusted management of the reception and distribution centre - renamed 'Children's Support Centre' - to an NGO that has converted it into a model centre for children at risk. The Juvenile Police participate in innovative programmes on community-based prevention and treatment, in cooperation with NGOs. Policies and programmes in the juvenile correctional facility have improved, although a coherent approach to rehabilitation is lacking. Some new programmes and institutions have been established. In cooperation with the Police of RA and the NGO Project Harmony, a successful community-based prevention and rehabilitation programme was launched, which is operational in six cities and is included in the National Plan of Action for the Protection of the Rights of the Child 2004-2015. The Public Defender's Office is providing legal services to accused juveniles and the Monitoring Groups are making valuable contributions to the transformation of juvenile justice. There is no framework law on juvenile justice; as in Soviet times, cases involving juvenile suspects and defendants, convicted juveniles and juvenile prisoners are governed by the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Executive Criminal Code and other laws and regulations. Most of the relevant legislation has been amended, and some of the amendments bring the law into greater conformity with international standards. Juvenile suspects have a right to legal assistance as from the moment of detention, and accused juveniles from the moment charges are filed. Representation by a defence attorney is mandatory. Once a juvenile is accused of an offence, only a court may order detention. Those accused of minor offences may not be detained. Prison sentences may not be imposed for minor offences. The maximum sentence for convicted juveniles is ten years, but few receive sentences of more than five years. Training in the rights of the child has had significant positive impact on the Juvenile Police, and the courts. Although many improvements have been made, further progress is required. Some advances are urgent. Police have authority to detain juvenile suspects for 72 hours; cases of abuse and even torture have been reported; and commitment to eradicating these practices is insufficient. Renovation of the physical infrastructure of the facility for convicted juveniles is urgently needed. While physical conditions in the pretrial detention centre have improved, restrictions on activities and movement incompatible with the rights to education, recreation and humane treatment are applied. Further amendments to legislation also are required. Prison regulations still allow solitary confinement as a punishment, in violation of international standards. Legal standards on pretrial detention are too vague, and the maximum period of detention before and during trial should be reduced to comply with the recommendation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Similarly, the maximum period of police custody without a court order should be reduced to 24 hours. If one or more special schools remain open, norms governing them, which consist mainly of regulations, should be replaced by legislation compatible with international standards. Other recommendations made by the assessment team include: - The effectiveness of existing institutions and programmes for the prevention of offending and re-offending should be assessed to obtain the information needed in order to take decisions regarding the future of the Community Justice Centres, the Legal Socialization Project and the special schools. - The possibility of designating certain investigators to become specialized in criminal cases involving juveniles should be considered. - The need for a specialized children's court should be assessed, inter alia, by an evaluation of the way specialized judges carry out their duties. - Data on the impact (positive and negative) of custodial and non-custodial sentences on convicted juveniles should be collected and analysed to shed light on the effectiveness of existing sentencing policies and practice. - Consideration should be given to the adoption of a framework law specifically on juvenile justice to eliminate the gaps in existing legislation and norms applicable to both juveniles and adults that are incompatible with the rights of children. - Training should be conducted in the psychology of offenders, the prevention of offending and re-offending (rehabilitation of offenders), the treatment of child victims and the skills necessary to conduct criminological research. - Existing inter-agency coordination mechanisms should be strengthened. - A specialized child rights unit should be created by the Human Rights Defender. - Relevant indicators concerning juvenile justice should be identified and the corresponding data published annually. Details: Geneva: UNICEF, 2020. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://www.un.am/up/library/Juvenile%20Justice%20Reform%20Achievements_eng.pdf Year: 2020 Country: Armenia URL: Shelf Number: 119433 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Orchowsky, Stan Title: A Review of the Status of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Efforts in Iowa and Virginia Summary: In 2007, the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) began a project funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to examine the strategies that have been implemented in Iowa and Virginia to reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the states’ juvenile justice systems. We were especially interested in using these states as case studies of how states and localities are utilizing empirical information to: (1) identify the extent and nature of the DMC problem; and (2) assess the effectiveness of their efforts to reduce DMC. In each state, we sought to examine both state-level efforts, as well as ongoing efforts in two targeted localities (Johnson and Linn counties in Iowa, and the cities of Newport News and Norfolk in Virginia), to address DMC. To accomplish the goal of the project, staff examined all available documents relating to DMC in both states, with a particular focus on those produced in the last five years. We also conducted interviews with state and local stakeholders in both states and attended meetings of local planning groups addressing DMC issues. We sought data from both states and were able to obtain data from Iowa, which were used to illustrate how local DMC initiatives could be assessed. In October of 2008, JRSA released an interim report on our findings to date (Poulin, Iwama & Orchowsky, 2008). The current report summarizes the overall findings, conclusions and recommendations of our effort. It builds on the findings presented in the interim report and further work that has been done since that report was released. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2010. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2010 at: http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/dmc-final-report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/dmc-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 119683 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Discrimination in Juvenile Justice Administration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Offenders (Tasmania, Australia) Minority Groups Race and Crime

Author: Leiber, Michael J. Title: Race and Detention Decision Making and the Impact on Juvenile Court Outcomes in Black Hawk County, Iowa Summary: In the early summer of 2005, Michael Leiber met with juvenile court personnel from Black Hawk County to discuss the possibility of conducting a detailed study of detention in their jurisdiction. The initiative for the study came from the Court itself due to concerns about the number of detained youth, particularly minorities. A detailed inquiry into the use of detention, the types of detention used, for what and whom, had not been previously conducted. After gaining judicial permission, Leiber agreed to examine detention decision-making in Black Hawk County and its impact on juvenile justice decision-making. Data were manually collected from case files in Black Hawk County covering referrals to juvenile court and the North Iowa Detention facility from 2003 through 2004. Aggregate information was also used that represented the number of detention referrals for the years 1990 through 2004. This report presents the findings of this investigation. Details: Richmond, VA: Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2007. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2010 at: http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Enrcfcp/dmcrc/documents/DetentionFinalLeiberReport.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Enrcfcp/dmcrc/documents/DetentionFinalLeiberReport.pdf Shelf Number: 119724 Keywords: Discrimination in Juvenile Justice Administration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice, Administration of Race

Author: 11 Million Title: The Arrest and Detention of Children Subject to Immigration Control: A Report Following the Children's Commissioner for England's Visit to Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre Summary: Using the power of entry given by Parliament, the Children’s Commissioner for England, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, visited Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) on 16 May 2008. The purpose of the visit was to see first hand the provision and conditions at Yarl’s Wood, and to hear from children, young people and their families about their experiences of the detention process. The Children’s Commissioner first visited and reported on Yarl’s Wood in 2005, and has remained concerned about the detention of children for administrative purposes and the impact this has on them. There is substantial evidence that detention is harmful and damaging to children and should be used only as a last resort. 11 MILLION believes that depriving children of their liberty and detaining them for administrative convenience without judicial oversight is never in their best interests and does not contribute to meeting the Government’s outcomes for children under the Every Child Matters framework. This report presents the findings of the Children’s Commissioner’s visit, and considers the detention of children at Yarl’s Wood in the light of the Government’s obligations under Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). It examines the impact of detention upon children’s mental and physical health; particularly as evidence suggests its duration is lengthening. Details: London: 11 MILLION, 2008. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2010 at http://www.jrseurope.org/publications/di550e08psxhlc9f3mmrlqwd.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.jrseurope.org/publications/di550e08psxhlc9f3mmrlqwd.pdf Shelf Number: 119808 Keywords: Immigrant Detention Immigration Juvenile Detention Migrants

Author: Bateman, Tim Title: Review of Provision for Girls in Custody to Reduce Reoffending Summary: Traditionally, discussions of youth crime and responses to young people who offend have tended to ignore girls. This omission reflects in some measure the fact that boys account for the large majority of those who come to the attention of the youth justice system. It is nonetheless regrettable since girls have consistently constituted between a quarter and one fifth of the youth offending population in the UK. A number of recent developments have made this oversight particularly problematic. First, there is a popular (mis)perception that girls’ offending is becoming more prevalent and more serious. At the same time, responses to girls’ delinquent behaviour have become increasingly interventionist leading to a substantial rise in the numbers appearing in court, despite offending having remained stable. The increased visibility of girls in the criminal justice system has no doubt contributed to the view that female offending is increasingly an issue of concern. Finally, and related to these two developments, the use of custody for girls has risen sharply, albeit from a relatively low baseline: while the total number of custodial sentences for juveniles rose between 1992 and 2006 by 56%, those imposed on girls increased by 297%. This report reviews the specific provisions and treatment of girls in custody in England and Wales and explores the nature of offences committed by girls, considers the treatment of girls in the youth justice system in England and Wales and suggests ways in which to develop adequate and gender-responsive programs. Details: Reading, UK: CfBt Education Trust, 2008. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/GirlsinCustody_v6(W).pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/GirlsinCustody_v6(W).pdf Shelf Number: 114346 Keywords: Female Crime Female Juvenile Offenders Female Offenders Gender Juvenile Detention

Author: Khan, Lorraine Title: Reaching Out, Reaching In: Promoting Mental Health and Emotional Well-being in Secure Settings Summary: Young people sentenced to custody have very high levels of mental health problems. They are also more likely to have learning disabilities and speech, language and communication needs, as well as a range of other complex and multiple vulnerabilities that compromise their future life chances and their health and well-being. This study was commissioned by the UK Department of Health to review current levels and standards of mental health provision in the young people’s secure estate in England. Specifically, the study aimed to: consider how provision in the young people’s secure estate compared with mental health services for children and young people in the community; consider the extent to which mental health services in secure settings meet the mental health and emotional well-being needs of young people; and disseminate examples of promising practice. A particular focus was the impact of the additional funding provided by the Department of Health from 2007/08 for the provision of child and adolescent mental health services in young offender institutions (YOIs). This research suggests that the Department of Health funding had resulted in significant improvements in mental health provision and awareness in YOIs. However, it had the unintended effect of throwing into greater relief disparities in the mental health care provision across the whole young people’s secure estate; these commissioning differences result from different commissioning arrangements. A number of areas were identified where further development is needed. Details: London: Centre for Mental Health, 2010. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2010: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Centre_for_MH_Promoting_mh_in_secure_settings.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Centre_for_MH_Promoting_mh_in_secure_settings.pdf Shelf Number: 119921 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Mental Health Mental Health Services

Author: 11 Million Title: The Children's Commissioner for England's Follow Up Report to: The Arrest and Detention of Children Subject to Immigration Control Summary: This report concerns the third visit of the Children’s Commissioner to Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre which took place in October 2009. It follows on from our visit in May 2008 and the subsequent report The Arrest and Detention of Children Subject to Immigration Control (2009). The aim of this report is to examine the progress made in addressing the concerns raised regarding children’s experience of the immigration removal process and detention. In doing so we are mindful of our statutory duty to promote awareness of the views and interests of children in England and to have awareness of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Children Act 2004 also requires the Commissioner to have particular regard to groups of children who do not have other adequate means by which they can make their views known. While we fully acknowledge the Government’s right to determine who is allowed to stay in this country, my contention remains that detention is harmful to children and therefore never likely to be in their best interests, and we continue to argue that the detention of children for immigration control should cease. Details: London: 11 Million, 2010. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/ Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/ Shelf Number: 119938 Keywords: Immigrant Children Immigrant Detention Immigrants Juvenile Detention

Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: The Specific Deterrent Effect of Custodial Penalties on Juvenile Re-offending Summary: It is widely assumed that placing offenders (juvenile or adult) in custody acts as a deterrent to further offending. The present study was designed to see whether juvenile offenders who receive a detention sentence are less likely to re-offend, controlling for other factors, than juvenile offenders given some other form of sentence. Two groups of offenders (152 given an detention sentence, 243 given a non-custodial sentence) were interviewed at length about their family life, school performance, association with delinquent peers and substance abuse. They were then followed up to determine what proportion in each group was reconvicted of a further offence. Cox regression was used to model time to reconviction. The study found no significant difference between juveniles given a custodial penalty and those given a non-custodial penalty in the likelihood of reconviction, even after controlling for factors that differ between the two groups. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 132: Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb132.pdf/$file/cjb132.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb132.pdf/$file/cjb132.pdf Shelf Number: 116635 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Recidivism

Author: Minnesota. Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs Title: Juvenile Justice System Decision Points Study: Strategies to Improve Minnesota's Juvenile Justice Data Summary: The purpose of the Juvenile Justice System Decision Points Study is to determine the viability of collecting summary data information about juveniles involved in the justice system in Minnesota. Accurate and comprehensive data at critical decision points in the juvenile justice system statewide allows system practitioners and policy makers to make sound decisions regarding resource allocation and interventions. Additionally, this effort is consistent with Minnesota’s policy commitment to identify and eliminate barriers to racial, ethnic and gender fairness. Collecting this data will make progress toward a more equitable, efficient and effective juvenile justice system in Minnesota. This report includes chapters dedicated to each system stage: Law Enforcement, County Attorneys, Juvenile Courts, Juvenile Probation, and Detention and Residential Facilities. Within each chapter, key decision points affecting youths’ status in the system are identified and ranked both for importance to understanding youth in the juvenile justice system, and for the feasibility of statewide data collection. Recommendations for improved data collection, analysis, and reporting complete each chapter. These chapters, in concert, create the overall data improvement plan for Minnesota. Details: St. Paul, MN: Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, 2010. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2010 at: http://www.ojp.state.mn.us/cj/publications/Reports/2010JuvenileJusticePolicyReport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.state.mn.us/cj/publications/Reports/2010JuvenileJusticePolicyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 120027 Keywords: Juvenile Courts Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation

Author: Moore, Marianne Title: Juvenile Detention in Uganda: Review of Ugandan Remand Homes and the National Rehabilitation Centre Summary: In Uganda, children in conflict with the law are principally the responsibility of the Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development. However, the Uganda Police Force and the Judiciary of the Republic of Uganda are also important partners. Detained children are placed in one of the four remand homes in Fort Portal, Gulu, Naguru, or Mbale. In addition, the Kampiringisa National Rehabilitation Centre detains sentenced children from the whole of Uganda. This review of the remand homes and the national rehabilitation centre was carried out during August 2010 in association with the UK and Ugandan charity the African Prisons Project and the Ugandan Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development. An assessment was conducted in all of the functioning juvenile detention facilities against their compliance with international guidelines, particularly the United Nations "Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their liberty 1990 (“The Havana Rules”). The field work consisted of an in depth interview with a representative from each centre or home and a site visit. Interviews were also carried out with the Commissioner for Youth and Children and representatives from the Ugandan based Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI). Following an introductory overview of juvenile justice in Uganda, the report deals with the following subjects: Profile of children in conflict with the law; Safeguarding children; Juvenile justice system; Conditions of detention; Healthcare; Education and training; and Community reintegration. The report makes 36 recommendations, and ends with a conclusion which notes areas of good practice as well as elements which require immediate attention, including a suggestion that an independent auditor be employed to ensure that the welfare of the children in conflict with the law in Uganda is upheld. Details: London: African Prisons Project, 2010. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2010 at: http://www.africanprisons.org/documents/Juvenile-Detention-in-Uganda-October-2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Uganda URL: http://www.africanprisons.org/documents/Juvenile-Detention-in-Uganda-October-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120088 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2007-2008 Summary: In Australia, responsibility for juvenile justice lies with the states and territories, and involves both juvenile justice agencies and other justice agencies such as the police and the courts. This report presents information on one aspect of the juvenile justice process: the supervision of young people in the juvenile justice system. There were 4,708 young people under juvenile justice supervision on an average day in 2007–08 in all states and territories except New South Wales, for which data were not available, and 9,540 young people experienced supervision at some time during the year. Most young people were supervised in the community. Around 87% of those under supervision on an average day were under community-based supervision while 13% were in detention. One-quarter of young people who were under supervision during 2007–08 had both community-based supervision and detention during the year. The number of young people in detention on an average day in Australia (excluding New South Wales) rose from 540 in 2004–05 to 630 in 2007–08—a 17% increase. The rate of young people aged 10–17 years in detention during the year increased from 1.7 per 1,000 to 2.0 per 1,000, indicating that a young person aged 10–17 years in 2007–08 was around 1.2 times as likely to be in detention during the year as a young person aged 10–17 years in 2004–05. In 2004–05, just over one-third of the average daily detention population was unsentenced but, by 2007–08, unsentenced young people in detention outnumbered those who were sentenced. The increase in the unsentenced population occurred for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people. Although only about 5% of young Australians are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, 40% of those under supervision on an average day were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. Their over-representation was particularly prominent in detention, where over half of those in detention on an average day and 60% of those who were unsentenced in detention were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. An Indigenous young person aged 10–17 years was 16 times as likely as a non-Indigenous young person of the same age to be under supervision in 2007–08, nearly 15 times as likely to be under community-based supervision as a non-Indigenous young person, and nearly 30 times as likely to be in detention. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2009. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 5: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/juv-5-10853/juv-5-10853.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/juv-5-10853/juv-5-10853.pdf Shelf Number: 120133 Keywords: Aboriginals Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Dedel, Kelly Title: Validating Multnomah County's Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: Reform efforts targeting the detention population focus on two essential processes: 1) limiting the size of the detention population by setting risk-based thresholds to ensure that only those who pose a legitimate threat to public safety are admitted to detention; and 2) developing an array of alternatives to secure detention that offer a range of supervision and programming options. As these two strategies coalesce, jurisdictions committed to reform realize significant reductions in the use of secure detention. Since 1998, Multnomah County has been a national model for jurisdictions interested in enacting detention reform. With support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Multnomah County has implemented nearly all of the key components of a multifaceted reform effort, save for one essential task: validating its detention risk screening instrument to ensure it provides sound guidance in determining who should be admitted to detention. Although its use has led to positive changes and a drastic reduction in the number of youth who are held in secure detention, the County’s Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) has never been validated. In other words, the strength of the relationship between the items and score on the RAI and the youth’s likelihood of failing to appear in court (FTA) or committing a new offense while in the community pending court has not been tested. By testing the relationship between the RAI items and the outcome variables, we learn which items work best, and in which combinations, to identify youth who can be safely released to the community. A validation study may show that the RAI works best as it is; alternately, it could show that the same or better results could be achieved using a constellation of fewer items. This report presents the key findings of the validation study. Details: Portland, OR: One in 37 Research, Inc., 2007. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2010 at: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/documents/juvenile_detention_risk_assessment_instrument.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/documents/juvenile_detention_risk_assessment_instrument.pdf Shelf Number: 120202 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Risk Assessment

Author: Males, Mike Title: The California Miracle: Drastically Reduced Youth Incarceration, Drastically Reduced Youth Crime Summary: In a previous report, the Center’s analysis found that large decreases in the imprisonment of California youth in the State’s Division of Juvenile Facilities were followed by large declines in youth crime through 2004, while large increases in adult imprisonment were followed by increases, in adult crime. These findings directly challenged prevailing 'incapacitation' assumptions that more imprisonment leads to less crime. This updated analysis confirms the findings of the CJCJ 2006 report. The analysis of current trends in California juvenile incarceration found that the rate of juvenile incarceration in California between 1980 and 2010, fell by 80 percent. Despite the unprecedented declines in youth incarceration in California the juvenile violent crime rate fell by 39 percent and the juvenile felony rate fell by 60 percent during the period. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2010. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2010 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/The_California_Miracle.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/The_California_Miracle.pdf Shelf Number: 120263 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)

Author: Volz, Anna Title: Stop the Violence! The Overuse of Pre-Trial Detention, or the Need to Reform Juvenile Justice Systems: Review of Evidence Summary: This report is dedicated to the issue of pre-trial detention of juveniles, whose routine- (or over-) use is considered by child rights and juvenile justice experts, including members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child3, as one of the most pressing issues in juvenile justice today. It is in pre-trial detention facilities, including police lock-ups and prisons, that child rights are violated the most and international standards regarding detention and treatment of children in conflict with the law are respected the least. This leaves room for all kind of abuses and violence (of a physical, psychological and sexual nature) by staff and other inmates. Strangely enough, pre-trial detention of juveniles is rarely the subject of a report or a document. Information on pre-trial detention is usually “spread out” in publications, reports and other documents dedicated to other juvenile justice issues, making it difficult to build evidence regarding conditions and realities in the pre-trial stage only. Given the seriousness of the problem and the urge to do something about it, Defence for Children International (DCI) decided to prepare this publication. It is a Review of Evidence to be used as a reference for future (evidence-based) awareness raising, lobbying and advocacy work around these issues by DCI and partners, at the national, regional and international levels. Details: Geneva: Defence for Children International, 2010. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2010 at: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/files/PretrialDetentionReport-dci.pdf Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.defenceforchildren.org/files/PretrialDetentionReport-dci.pdf Shelf Number: 120311 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Pretrial Detention, Juveniles

Author: Center for HIV Law and Policy Title: Juvenile Injustice: The Unfulfilled Rights of Youth in State Custody to Comprehensive Sexual Health Care Summary: This is the first legal report and guide on the rights of youth in detention and foster care facilities to comprehensive sexual health care, including sexual medical care, sexuality education, and staff training on sexual orientation and the needs and rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. This publication analyzes the foundation of this right and the sexual health care needs of youth in out-of-home care. Youth in state custody, particularly LGBTQ youth, are at higher than average risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections and HIV but there is not one state in the country that guarantees access to the necessary sexual medical care and scientifically accurate and inclusive sexuality education that would address this health crisis. Youth in out-of-home-care report sexual activity at earlier ages, higher-risk sexual activity and greater rates of STIs and HIV than youth who live with family members. These sexual health risks are additionally severe for LGBTQ youth, who are disproportionately represented in state detention and foster care facilities yet are largely ignored in health care and education services. According to a recent Department of Justice Report, gay youth also are also more likely to be the victims of sexual abuse while confined to juvenile facilities. Details: New York: Center for HIV Law and Policy, 2010. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed December 10, 2010 at: http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/565 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/565 Shelf Number: 120437 Keywords: Health Care HIV (Viruses) Human Immunodefiency Virus Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates

Author: Kurdish Info Title: The Punitive-Justice System that Kurdish Chidlren are Subjected to in the 21st Century Turkey Summary: In order to understand the case of the children, who have been included in the police records for many years, it is necessary to know, scrutinise and internalise the incidents that have been going on in the land in which they have born and grew up. This can only be achieved by seeking an answer to the question “who are these children” or questioning the deteriorating effects of the dirty war that has been experienced in the region for almost 30 years. The intense period of conflict (1990-1996) that coincides with the date of birth of these children living in the Eastern and South Eastern regions of which the administration have been surrendered to JITEM (Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele - Gendarmerie Intelligence and Counterterrorism) and an armed force consisting of village guards. With their extralegal and inhuman implementations of dirty war for many years, these armed forces inflicted irreparable damages upon the population of the region. Excluding the village guards, every individual, who earned their living through agriculture and animal husbandry in the villages and fields, have been subjected to oppression, violence and forced displacement for being declared potential suspects. Relying on the authority and powers they have been entrusted with, the armed forces have not only targeted the opponents of the system, but also subjected the people, who stood before their personal interests, to inhuman treatment. There have been thousands of unsolved and solved killings in the region, while thousands were forced to leave their homes. Their homes, belongings and even animals have been burned alive in front of their eyes. While some of them resettled in the nearest city centres, a substantial proportion of people had to immigrate to Western cities. The people who have been living on the land for many years, have been denied access to their village to use their land, fields and gardens by the security forces on the pretext of security. Members of the families who were forced to resettle in the cities are unemployed, devoid of any income and continue with their lives in great economic distress. They have found themselves in the midst of a village-city conflict with economic, social, cultural alienation as well as issues in relation to language and identity. During the years of ascendancy of the dirty war (1990-1996), the unity of police, JITEM and Hizbullah (Party of God), caused extrajudicial executions in the cities every day, thousands of detentions as a results of which the bodies have not yet been found, disappearance of people who have been taken away while at home or work as well as thousands of unsolved killings. During these years, many provinces in the region were subject of discussion only in relation to the killings and there have been news of a disappearance every day for years. The dark powers that regenerated the dirty face of war have ended so many lives without distinguishing between shop-owners, office-workers, old, young or child. Today, almost all the children who have been arrested, tried in Diyarbakir, Sirnak, Mardin, Batman and many other cities and sentenced to quarter of century of imprisonment, are the witnesses and belong to families, who are material and psychological victims of the dirty war in the villages and fields, which have been evacuated by the security powers on the pretext of security, of Eastern and South Eastern regions that have been subjected to discriminatory policies and regarded as Region of State of Emergency. The streets that witnessed the slogans and victory signs of children today, have witnessed the unsolved murder or disappearance of one of the family members in those years. The father or some other relative of these children has either been subject to an unsolved murder or disappeared without a trace of body, or whose mother or father have been accused of various crimes and sentenced. The conditions of education and problems in relation to language, identity, discrimination and alienation in their new cities have made quite negative influences on the children, who are in a process of development. The greatest factors that influenced the children to resort to such incidents (stone throwing) are such experiences. The incidents that the children encountered have completely shaped their view of police, soldier and state in a negative manner. It must be emphasised that the state, which disregarded the incidents that made the children resort to such actions in the contexts of conflict, has enacted laws that sentenced the children, seen as individuals, to imprisonment as long as their ages instead of re-organising the political institutions, developing itself, establishing a better framework of administration, and carrying out activities for the peace and liberty of the individual. Today, the security forces that use the authority given to them by the anti-terror law uses violence and detains individuals without distinguishing between male, female, adult or child, and without even considering whether they took part in the incidents or not. During the incidents that took part in the region, security forces have detained many children by looking into their palms to see whether they are dusty or sweaty. Details: Kurdish-info.eu, 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://www.kurdish-info.eu/media/files/CHILDREN2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Turkey URL: http://www.kurdish-info.eu/media/files/CHILDREN2010.pdf Shelf Number: 119838 Keywords: Human Rights (Turkey) Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Juveniles

Author: Daly, Reagan Title: Capital Change: A Process Evaluation of Washington, DC's Secure Juvenile Placement Reform Summary: A growing body of research has persuaded most experts and many practitioners that punitive responses to juvenile offenders —particularly those placed in secure facilities — yield poor results for the youth involved and for public safety. Informed by this consensus, in 2005 officials in Washington, DC’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) began planning a comprehensive reform of the agency’s responses to youth in secure placement. This report presents findings from a year-long process evaluation of the reforms, in which Vera researchers explored both the strategy the agency used and factors that affected the implementation process. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Youth Justice, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2011 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3191/Capital-Change-process-evaluation-DC-FINAL2.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3191/Capital-Change-process-evaluation-DC-FINAL2.pdf Shelf Number: 120663 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC)

Author: Latessa, Edward Title: The Ohio Youth Assessment System: Final Report Summary: In 2004 the Ohio Department of Youth Services approached the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR) to evaluate the RECLAIM funded programs. In doing so, Lowenkamp and Latessa (2005) found evidence that the effectiveness of the RECLAIM funded programs was mitigated by the risk level of the youth being served in the program. Overall the study found that lower risk youth were best served in the community while higher risk youth did as well if not better in more intensive programs (i.e., in Community Corrections Facilities and ODYS facilities). Although the risk principle has been well established in the literature, this study was one of the first to test the principle on a wide range of youth across multiple settings. With results in hand, ODYS surveyed the courts to better understand the “state” of risk assessment across Ohio’s 88 counties. Although ODYS adopted the Youthful Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) for youth entering a CCF or ODYS facility, local courts had the ability to adopt any types of assessments (or none at all) to assist in making decisions regarding youth. Based on the results of the ODYS Assessment Survey, it was determined that there were 77 different instruments used to assess risk across the 88 counties. The large number of different assessment instruments made it apparent that there was a need for a common assessment instrument. Director Thomas Stickrath seized the opportunity and initiated the development of a statewide risk assessment that would be available to all 88 counties, CCF’s, and ODYS facilities. Thus, DYS commissioned the University of Cincinnati (UC) to research and develop an assessment process, and sought and received a grant from OJJDP to assist in funding the project. In order to develop the tools, UC worked collaboratively with DYS, juvenile courts, community corrections facilities, and community programs through the development of a pilot team that supplied insight and support to the project. For the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) to have a major impact on the Ohio juvenile justice system it is important to encourage as many counties as possible to adopt it. Since Ohio is a home-rule state, local courts have the autonomy to choose local procedures including whether or not to use a validated risk/need instrument. For this reason courts were brought into the development of the OYAS early. Several kick-off meetings were held to discuss the implications of the OYAS and the benefits of using the system statewide. Beyond the pilot committee, courts were solicited regarding the potential for using the instrument. Initial interest of the assessment system was high with a majority of courts interested in potentially using the tools and another 24 courts willing to participate in the pilot committee. The pilot committee was charged with several tasks. First, the committee was to assist ODYS and UC with arranging local interviews of youth. The OYAS was developed using a prospective research design which placed a strong emphasis on recruitment of youth into the study (See the Methods section for more details). Second, the committee supplied UC with information regarding the utility of the assessment tools. One of the original goals of the OYAS was to develop a system that was easily utilized by staff. Third, the courts were responsible for collecting outcomes on all the youth that originated from their county whether they were served locally, at a CCF, or a DYS facility. Fourth, the Pilot Committee courts (with additional counties/programs added) field tested the instruments and provided feedback to UC regarding the instruments, interview guides, and scoring procedures. Details: Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, 2009. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.uc.edu/ccjr/Reports/ProjectReports/OYAS_final_report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.uc.edu/ccjr/Reports/ProjectReports/OYAS_final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 120740 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (Ohio) Risk Assessment, Juveniles

Author: Steinhart, David Title: A Practice Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform: Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Summary: Detention risk screening is a fundamental strategy used to evaluate youth and determine the need for secure, locked confinement. The risk instruments developed at Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative sites have been effective in curbing subjective or inappropriate decisions as well as controlling the total admissions to secure detention. This is a practical guide for juvenile justice decision-makers and includes specific recommendations on how to design, test, and implement detention risk-screening instruments. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2006. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/JJ3622H5038.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/JJ3622H5038.pdf Shelf Number: 107693 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Risk Assessment

Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: The Missouri Model: Reinventing the Practice of Rehabilitating Youthful Offenders Summary: The state of Missouri’s approach to juvenile detention is designed to help troubled teens make lasting behavioral changes so that they can successfully transition back to their communities. This report explores the success of the model and builds the case for juvenile detention reform. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/Juvenile%20Detention%20Alternatives%20Initiative/MOModel/MO_Fullreport_webfinal.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/Juvenile%20Detention%20Alternatives%20Initiative/MOModel/MO_Fullreport_webfinal.pdf Shelf Number: 120725 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders Rehabilitation

Author: Smallridge, Peter Title: Report on Implementing the Independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings Summary: This presents a progress report on how the U.K. government has implemented the recommendations from the Independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings from 2008. It is based upon observations over the two year monitoring period. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/report-implement-review-restraint-juvenile-secure-settings.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/report-implement-review-restraint-juvenile-secure-settings.pdf Shelf Number: 121040 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Secure Detention Centers

Author: Scussel, David E. Title: Disproportionate Minority Contact Summary: According to 2009 population statistics gathered by New Mexico’s Children Youth and Family Department (CYFD), minority youth represent 67% of the total youth population in New Mexico. Minority youth are 1.7 times more likely than white youth to be arrested for an offense, and 20% less likely than white youth to have their case diverted from the court system. State statistics present a broad picture of DMC in the juvenile justice system; however, every jurisdiction has their specific issues regarding DMC, and DMC issues should be addressed accordingly. CYFD also provides juvenile population statistics at the county level, which are beyond the scope of this literature review and so are not discussed here. New Mexico is actively addressing issues of DMC. New Mexico has established a steering committee named the DMC Blue Ribbon Panel. The panel has set and established goals to identify, assess, intervene, evaluate, and monitor DMC in New Mexico. The goals of the panel are to collaborate with higher educational institutions for continued research and evaluation of DMC, enhance public awareness and education regarding DMC, implement prevention and early intervention tactics for at-risk youth, monitor and identify data trends, and enhance the cultural competence of law enforcement officers. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2010. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2011 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/ Shelf Number: 121218 Keywords: Discrimination in Juvenile Justice Administration Disproportionate Minority Contact (New Mexico) Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Ipsos MORI Title: Behaviour Management Across the Secure Estate for Children and Young People Summary: This study explores aspects of the use of restraint across the secure estate for children and young people, in conjunction with behaviour management approaches such as separation and adjudications. Qualitative in-depth interviews were carried out with staff and young people in young offender institutions (YOIs), secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes between February 2010 and May 2010. In total, 33 interviews were carried out with young people and 35 with staff. The young people who were chosen to be interviewed had recently experienced restraint within establishments which had recorded a high number of restraints. The qualitative findings are summarised in this report. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2011. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 121265 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections (U.K.) Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Youth Custody

Author: Richards, Kelly Title: Promising Interventions for Reducing Indigenous Juvenile Offending Summary: Indigenous juveniles (those aged 10 to 16 years in Queensland and 10 to 17 years in all other jurisdictions) are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, and their over-representation becomes more pronounced at the most severe end of the system (ie in detention). Recent figures show that Indigenous juveniles are 24 times as likely to be detained in a juvenile correctional facility as non-Indigenous juveniles. A variety of explanations for this over-representation have been proposed, including: • lack of access or disparate access to diversionary programs; • systemic discrimination against Indigenous juveniles (eg police bias against Indigenous juveniles); • inadequate resourcing of Aboriginal legal services; and • genuinely higher levels of offending by Indigenous juveniles. A range of measures (including diversion and juvenile conferencing programs) has recently been implemented to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention, and minimise the contact of juveniles with the formal criminal justice system. Diversionary measures can only have a limited impact, however, and reducing offending and reoffending have been identified as critical factors to address if the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles is to be reduced. While acknowledging that other measures designed to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles are important, this paper reviews the evidence on policies and programs that reduce offending by Indigenous juveniles in Australia. Where relevant, research from comparable jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and Canada, is also discussed. Details: Sydney: Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief No. 10: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief010.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief010.pdf Shelf Number: 121267 Keywords: Delinquency Prevention Discrimination Indigenous Peoples (Australia) Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Rehabilitation Programs

Author: National Center for Youth Law Title: Improving Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System-- A Review of Alameda County’s Collaborative Mental Health Court. Summary: Studies consistently show that up to 65 or 70 percent of youths held in American juvenile detention centers have a diagnosable mental illness. Further, a congressional study concluded that every day approximately 2,000 youths are incarcerated simply because community mental health services are unavailable. In 33 states, juvenile detention centers hold mentally ill youths without charges. A majority of detention centers report holding children aged 12 and under; and 117 centers reported jailing children 10 and under. Although the causes are numerous and complex, a growing consensus among experts holds that many youths are put under court supervision due to behavior that stems from unmet mental health needs and the lack of community-based service options. Indeed, many youths with serious mental health needs are in the juvenile justice system because other service systems failed them, and because they have no place else to go. But juvenile halls and prisons are not therapeutic environments for young people with psychological disorders; the juvenile justice system is ill-equipped to meet the needs of these youths. Investigations by the US Department of Justice have called into question the ability of many juvenile justice facilities to respond adequately to the mental health needs of youths in their care. Tragically, this leads to youths languishing in detention centers without treatment, and with little hope of getting better or returning home. Additionally, juvenile justice administrators — whether they are prosecutors, judges or probation officers — generally are not equipped to meet the needs of seriously disturbed youths, and typically juvenile halls and prisons are not adequately funded to do so. Many administrators now recognize that disturbed young people do not belong in detention because their behavior is the result of their illness, and will not improve with traditional detention methods. One promising response to this crisis has been the creation of juvenile mental health courts (JMHCs). Modeled on problem-solving drug courts, these courts focus on treatment rather than punishment. They use a collaborative approach involving representatives of the juvenile court, probation, the prosecutor and public defender’s offices, and mental health liaisons. The goal is to divert mentally ill youths from detention to more appropriate community-based mental health services by providing intensive case management and supervision, rather than relying upon the usual adversarial process. Such courts increase the likelihood that young people will safely return home, re-engage in school and the community, gain ongoing access to needed home and community-based mental health services and supports, and avoid further involvement with the juvenile justice system. Alameda County established its own Juvenile Mental Health Court, called the Alameda County Juvenile Collaborative Court (ACJC), in 2007. This effort was based on the model pioneered by the first juvenile mental health court opened in Santa Clara County, California in 2001. Like other JMHCs, the ACJC (also referred to in this report as “the Court”) serves youths with serious mental illness who typically end up in long-term out-of-home placements. This report presents the organizational premises of the Court as well as its structure and procedures. It describes the factors that control admission into the Court and the demographics of the youths who participate. The report also reviews what the participants — professional collaborators as well as the youths and their families — have to say about the Court, and compares the Court’s results with its founders’ intent. Finally, the authors recommend improvements and examine the prospects for sustaining the Court at its current service level and expanding it to reach more youths. Details: Oakland, CA: National Center for Youth Law, 2011. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2011 at: http://fosteryouthalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Improving-Outcomes-Pub.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://fosteryouthalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Improving-Outcomes-Pub.pdf Shelf Number: 121305 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice System (California) Juvenile Mental Health Courts Juvenile Offenders Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Indig, Devon Title: 2009 NSW Young People in Custody Health Survey: Full Report Summary: In 2003, the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice (now Department of Human Services - Juvenile Justice, but referred to in this report as Juvenile Justice), with research and clinical support provided by Justice Health (previously known as Corrections Health Service), conducted the first Young People in Custody Health Survey (YPICHS) among 242 young people. The survey highlighted the social disadvantage, poorer physical and mental health and high prevalence of risk behaviours such as alcohol and drug abuse among participants. The findings from the survey were utilised by Juvenile Justice and Justice Health (who became responsible for the health of young people in custody in February 2003) to guide policy and program development, including providing important evidence to support applications for additional funding. Juvenile Justice and Justice Health worked together to repeat the YPICHS survey in 2009. The primary aim of the 2009 YPICHS was to gain a picture of the health status of young people in juvenile detention across NSW, including monitoring trends in health status and risk factors between 2003 and 2009. The 2009 YPICHS included the following components: • Baseline Survey including a health questionnaire, physical health examination (including blood and urine tests), dental examination, offending behaviour and psychological assessment • Follow-up Surveys at 3, 6 and 12 months • Data linkage over five years for key health and offending data collections This report presents main findings for the baseline survey only, with results presented by gender and Aboriginality. Where possible, comparisons are made with indicators collected in 2003. Future reports will include the findings from the followup surveys and the data linkage study. Details: Sydney: Justice Health and Juvenile Justice, 2011. 224p. Source: Internet Resoruce: Accessed April 16, 2011 at: http://www.justicehealth.nsw.gov.au/publications/YPICHS_full.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.justicehealth.nsw.gov.au/publications/YPICHS_full.pdf Shelf Number: 121371 Keywords: Health Care Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates (Australia) Mental Health Services

Author: LaBelle, Deborah Title: Second Chances: Juveniles Serving Life Without Parole in Michigan Summary: Each year in the United States, children as young as thirteen are sentenced to die in prison. It’s called life without parole. It is estimated that thousands of children have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for crimes committed at an age when they are not considered responsible enough to live away from their parents, drive, make decisions related to their education or medical treatment, vote, leave school, or sign a contract. Children under the age of eighteen cannot legally use alcohol, serve on juries, or be drafted, because they are presumed not to have the capacity to handle adult responsibilities. These differences between childhood and adulthood are recognized throughout the world, and incorporated in international human rights documents. Despite a global consensus that children cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults, in the last twenty years the trend in the United States has been to punish children the same as adults. Children are increasingly excluded from the protection of juvenile courts based on the nature of the offense, without any consideration of their maturity, culpability, or current or future danger to society. In particular, Michigan allows a child of any age to be tried as an adult, and excludes seventeen-yearolds from juvenile treatment altogether. These children are then subject to adult punishment, incarcerated in adult prisons, and may be sentenced to life without parole. Despite their young age, these juveniles are expected to negotiate the legal system and understand the consequences of decisions that could result in a life without parole sentence, even though research suggests they are not capable of understanding what “forever” means. Since the 1980s, the number of children given life sentences without hope of release has increased dramatically and the cost of warehousing them for life is staggering to our communities and to our humanity. In Michigan alone, there are now more than three hundred individuals serving life without parole for offenses committed prior to their eighteenth birthday. Under current laws, none will be given a second chance. Until now, little attention has been given to who these children are and how they have been treated by the criminal justice system. This report examines juvenile life without parole sentences imposed in Michigan for offenses committed by individuals under eighteen, as they compare to the nation and the world. The report outlines the nature and extent of these sentences, their inequities and their toll on society, and presents recommendations for a rational and humane response to juvenile crime. Details: Detroit: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, 2004. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2011 at: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/Publications/Juv%20Lifers%20V8.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/Publications/Juv%20Lifers%20V8.pdf Shelf Number: 121471 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Michigan) Life Sentence Life Without Parole Sentencing

Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan Title: Juvenile Life Without Parole Project: Using International Law and Advocacy to Give Children a Second Chance Summary: This project delves into an under-recognized human rights problem in the United States - the imposition of life sentences without possibility of parole on children (JLWOP). JLWOP requires that a child remain in prison without release until death. Irrespective of whether the child poses a threat to society or has, or can be, rehabilitated, there is no opportunity for parole. Each year in the United States, children as young as thirteen are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison without opportunity for parole. Despite a global consensus that children cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults, the United States allows children to be treated and punished the same as adults. Children are increasingly excluded from the protection of juvenile courts based on the nature of the offense, without any consideration of age, maturity or culpability of the child, and without taking steps to ensure their understanding of the legal system under which they are prosecuted. Life sentences without possibility of parole have been renounced internationally as a violation of human rights in The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifically forbids sentences of life imprisonment for children under the age of eighteen. The United States stands alone in rejecting this article of the Convention and in the implementation of this sentence on adolescents convicted of crimes in the United States. Three years ago the ACLU of Michigan began advocacy efforts after learning that over 300 Michigan children are currently serving these unforgiving sentences. This packet includes background information, research, a list of endorsing individuals and organizations of our efforts to eliminate this practice in the State of Michigan, and recommendations about what others can do to help this effort. Details: Detroit: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, 2007. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2011 at: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/pdf/JWLOPpacket.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/pdf/JWLOPpacket.pdf Shelf Number: 121472 Keywords: Human Rights Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Michigan) Life Sentence Life Without Parole Sentencing

Author: Richards, Kelly Title: Trends in Juvenile Detention in Australia Summary: An overview of key trends in juvenile detention in Australia since 1981 is provided in this paper, based on data contained in the Australian Institute of Criminology’s Juveniles in Detention in Australia Monitoring Program database. In addition, two key trends in juvenile detention in Australia are discussed. First, the substantial increase in the proportion of juvenile detainees that is remanded, rather than sentenced, is identified as a concerning trend. A number of potential drivers for the increased use of remand are outlined in this paper. It is argued that the apparent increase in the use of remand should be a key focus of future juvenile justice research. Second, the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles continues to be an important issue to be addressed. Although rates of Indigenous over-representation have increased steadily, this appears to be due to decreases in rates of non-Indigenous juveniles in detention rather than increases in rates of Indigenous juveniles in detention. It is argued that rather than attempting to determine how juvenile justice policies have failed to keep Indigenous juveniles out of detention, consideration might be given to what has worked in reducing rates of non-Indigenous juveniles in detention. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 416: Accessed May 16, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/401-420/tandi416.aspx Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/401-420/tandi416.aspx Shelf Number: 121721 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Australia)

Author: Berelowitz, Sue Title: 'I Think I Must Have Been Born Bad': Emotional Wellbeing and Mental Health of Children and Young People in the Youth Justice System Summary: This report illustrates the importance of addressing the mental health and emotional wellbeing of young people in juvenile detention facilities in the UK. The report is based on a year-long observational study of 19 establishments and services. The report concludes that there is a lack of consistency and wide variation in the type, level and quality of measures put in place to support the emotional wellbeing and good mental health of children in the youth justice system and specifically, in the children and young people’s secure estate. It report recommends that: •children should be placed in units of no more than 150 •staff-child ratios should be small enough to ensure meaningful relationships with key workers •all children should have a health screening assessment on entering custody •re-settlement plans should ensure children are well supported when they leave custody •all children’s prisons should be inspected by an inspectorial body with expertise in inspecting closed institutions. Details: London: Children's Commissioner, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 121885 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems (U.K.) Juvenile Offenders Mental Health Services

Author: Gear, Sasha Title: Fear, Violence and Sexual Violence in a Gauteng Juvenile Correctional Centre for Males Summary: During December 2004 and January 2005, the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) conducted fieldwork for a survey with young offenders held at the Boksburg Youth Correctional Centre (BYC), a medium security institution for male juvenile offenders. The aim was to investigate their experiences related to violence, sex and sexual violence in prison. The survey was envisaged as the first step in a pilot project to work with BYC staff to develop strategies to prevent and respond to sexual violence at the youth centre. The stigma, taboo and fear layered into the subject matter (sexual violence and male victims) and the context of the research (prison), as well as the mainly quantatitive survey methodology, likely limited what respondents were willing and able to share with us. Nevertheless, substantial and useful findings emerged. Our intention was not to “expose” conditions in BYC as a specific institution. Rather it was to prepare the way for the pilot and to draw learnings that could also potentially benefit other correctional centres and organisations working with offenders, at the same time as building better understanding of our youth behind our bars. This brief outlines the young men’s reports of fear and violence including sexual violence in the institution. Details: Braamfontein, South Africa: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2007. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: CSVR Criminal Justice Programme, Briefing Report No. 02: Accessed July 8, 2011 at: http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/gender/fearviolence.pdf Year: 2007 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/gender/fearviolence.pdf Shelf Number: 122011 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Prison Rape Prison Sexual Violence (South Africa)

Author: Defence for Children International - Palestine Section Title: In Their Own Words: A Report on the Situation Facing Palestinian Chidlren Detained in the Israeli Military Court System Summary: Each year approximately 700 Palestinian children from the occupied West Bank are prosecuted in the Israeli military court system after being arrested, interrogated and detained by the army, police and security agents. It is estimated that since 2000 alone, around 7,000 Palestinian children have been detained and prosecuted in the system. This Report focuses on persistent and credible reports of torture and ill-treatment within a system that has now been operating for 43 years. In the Israeli military court system, children are frequently arrested from their homes by heavily armed soldiers in the middle of the night and are painfully tied and blindfolded before being placed in the back of a military vehicle and transferred to an interrogation and detention centre. It is rare for a child, or his/her parents to be told the reason for arrest, or where the child is being taken. The arrest and transfer process is frequently accompanied by physical and verbal abuse. On arrival at the interrogation and detention centre, the child is questioned in the absence of a lawyer or family member, and there is no provision for the audio-visual recording of the interrogation as a means of independent oversight. Children are frequently threatened and physically assaulted during interrogation often resulting in the provision of a coerced confession, or the signing of documents which the child has not had a chance to read or understand. Following interrogation, children are brought before a military court which has jurisdiction over children as young as 12 years old. Once a child turns 16, they are considered to be an adult. In the overwhelming majority of cases bail will be denied and an order for detention until the end of the legal process will be made. Most children ultimately plead guilty, whether the offence was committed or not, as this is the quickest way out of the system. In 2009, custodial sentences were imposed on children by the military courts in 83 percent of cases, in contrast to a custodial sentence rate of 6.5 percent in the Israeli civilian juvenile justice system. Once detained a significant proportion of children are transferred to prisons and detention facilities inside Israel, in clear violation of Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits such transfers out of occupied territories. The practical significance of this is that many children receive infrequent or no family visits. The findings of this Report are based on 40 sworn affidavits taken from children detained in the military court system in a six month period between 1 July and 31 December 2010 (the reporting period). The Report also makes reference to other sources where relevant, such as media and non-governmental reports. During the reporting period, DCI-Palestine also collected 15 sworn affidavits from Palestinian children arrested in occupied East Jerusalem. These cases will be dealt with in a separate report as Israel generally applies its domestic legal system to these children, and not the military orders that it applies to Palestinian children from the occupied West Bank. All of the quotes presented in this Report are taken from the 40 affidavits collected during the reporting period. Details: Palestine: DCI-Palestine, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2011 at: http://www.dci-pal.org/English/Doc/Press/JANUARY2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Israel URL: http://www.dci-pal.org/English/Doc/Press/JANUARY2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122036 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice System (Israel) Juvenile Offenders

Author: Hamilton, Carolyn Title: Administration Detention of Children: A Global Report Summary: In 2009, the United Nations Children‘s Fund estimated that there were around 1.1 million children deprived of their liberty by criminal courts worldwide. While judicial detention of children by courts is relatively well documented, little is known about the practice of administrative detention of children. Few publications address the issue and States do not regularly collect or collate statistical data on administrative detention. As a result, information on the extent to which children are exposed to different forms of administrative detention is sparse and discussions of the impact that such detention has on children rare. Administrative detention occurs when, as a result of a decision of an executive or administrative body, a child is placed in any public or private setting from which he or she cannot leave at will. Administrative detention occurs in some form in all States, although the bodies that have power to order such detention vary from State to State. Bodies and individuals that have the power to administratively detain may include police officers, military panels, immigration officials, health officials, doctors or local government child welfare bodies. While decisions taken to administratively detain a child may vary in terms of context, rationale and legal framework, the common element is that the decision to detain is taken not by a judge or a court, but by a body or a professional, who is not independent from the executive branch of government. The purpose of this study is to examine:  What is meant by administrative detention.  The extent to which administrative detention is used worldwide.  The contexts and circumstances in which children are placed in administrative detention, and the profile of children held in administrative detention.  The legal frameworks and procedures used by States to place children in administrative detention.  The key provisions in international human rights law, including Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which limit the use of administrative detention.  The impact of administrative detention on children, including the conditions of detention and child rights implications. Details: New York: United Nations Children's Fund, Child Protection Section, 2011. 343p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2011 at: http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Administrative_detention_discussion_paper_April2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Administrative_detention_discussion_paper_April2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122068 Keywords: Administrative Detention, Juveniles Detention Facilities Human Rights Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Ziedenberg, Jason Title: Misguided Measures: The Outcomes and Impacts of Measure 11 on Oregon’s Youth Summary: Oregon voters passed Measure 11 in November 1994. The measure created new mandatory minimum sentences for 16 crimes and required that youth charged with those crimes be tried as adults. The legislature subsequently added more crimes to Measure 11. Today, Measure 11 requires youth ages 15 years or older charged with one of 21 crimes to be prosecuted automatically in the adult criminal justice system and if convicted of that crime, to serve the same mandatory sentence that applies to adults. Fifteen years after Measure 11 was enacted, the Campaign for Youth Justice and Partnership for Safety and Justice embarked on a study to determine the impact that Measure 11 was having on youth in Oregon. The authors analyzed data on 3,274 young people indicted with Measure 11 offenses since 1995. The authors also looked at a subset of 759 cases handled between 2006 and 2008 to understand the current way Measure 11 is being implemented in the 36 Oregon counties. The report examines the detrimental impact of Measure 11 in a thorough, in-depth analysis of its effect on youth and public safety in Oregon. According to the data, Measure 11 has not made Oregon any safer. In fact, most youth charged with Measure 11 offenses are not the most serious youth offenders, but they receive the most serious sentences, little to no rehabilitative services, and face lifelong barriers to becoming productive citizens even after they have served their sentence. The report provides clear reasons why the public should reconsider Measure 11 for juveniles in addition to a list of recommendations that incorporate the latest research on curbing juvenile delinquency and recidivism in order to improve youth justice policies and increase public safety in Oregon Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice; Portland, OR: Partnership for Safety and Justice, 2011. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Misguided_Measures_July_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Misguided_Measures_July_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122191 Keywords: Juvenile Court Transfer Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (Oregon) Juvenile Offenders Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction

Author: Watkins, Cheryl Graham Title: A Study of the Transition of Youth from a Detention Center Education Program to a Standard School Education Program in Selected Southeastern States Summary: The purpose of this study was to examine the factors which facilitate the successful transition of youth from a detention educational program to a mainstream educational program. The study investigated the following components: (a) informal or formalized transition programs, (b) the practices used to assist youth at the detention level transition to the educational mainstream, (c) program components used at the detention level to successfully transition youth to the educational mainstream, the importance of personnel in assisting youth in their transition, (d) factors which contribute to the successful transition from detention to the educational mainstream, (e) program components effective in moving youth from a detention education program to the educational mainstream, and (f) whether or not a detention education program with a formal or informal transition program makes a difference in recidivism rates. A survey questionnaire was sent to 143 detention center administrators in the Southeastern United States. Descriptive data were run on all items in the survey. Cronbach’s alpha test of reliability was used to assess internal consistency. Pearson correlation was used to compare consistency between independent and dependent variables. Finally, an independent sample t-test was conducted to examine if mean differences exist on Total Returned to a Detention Center by Transition Program. Transitioning from a detention facility to the community is a difficult process. By making available to youth a comprehensive program during periods of incarceration, and collaborating with the local educational agency, youth are often better able to make the adjustment. This study emphasized that in order for youth to be successful once they leave a correctional facility, a linkage must exist among all stakeholders. Details: Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2007. 131p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 3, 2011 at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12032007-154124/unrestricted/CWatkinETD12-4-07.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12032007-154124/unrestricted/CWatkinETD12-4-07.pdf Shelf Number: 122291 Keywords: Education Programs Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.S.) Juvenile Reentry Rehabilitation

Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment: Three Strategies for Changing Juvenile Justice Summary: As violent crime declined across the United States after 1995, the number of young offenders placed in secure correctional facilities also fell, but not in every state and not to the same degree. The crime rate and youth incarceration are not linked in the way that many people expect. Incarceration sometimes fluctuates in concert with crime rates and sometimes it does not. Often, the two diverge entirely. The scale of incarceration is not simply a reaction to crime. It is a policy choice. Some lawmakers invest heavily in youth confinement facilities. In their jurisdictions, incarceration is a key component of the youth justice system. Other lawmakers invest more in community-based programs. In their view, costly confinement should be reserved for chronic and seriously violent offenders. These choices are critical for budgets and for safety. If officials spend too much on incarceration, they will eventually lack the resources to operate a diversified and well-balanced justice system. Correctional institutions and the high costs associated with incarceration will begin to dominate fiscal and programmatic decision making. A number of states recognized this problem as early as the 1960s and 1970s. In California, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, legislators and administrators created innovative policies to reduce the demand for expensive state confinement and to supervise as many young offenders as possible in their own communities. During the 1990s, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon implemented similar reforms. The reform strategies adopted by these states are known by different names, but they generally rely on three sources of influence: resolution (direct managerial influence over system behavior); reinvestment (financial incentives to change system behavior); and realignment (organizational and structural modifications to alter system behavior). This report reviews the history and development of these strategies and analyzes their impact on policy, practice, and public safety. All three strategies have been used effectively to reform juvenile justice systems, but this report suggests that realignment may be the best choice for sustaining reform over the long term. Reform strategies in juvenile justice are sustainable when they cannot be easily reversed by future policymakers facing different budgetary conditions and changing political environments. Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Research and Evaluation Center, 2011. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2011 at: http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/blog/sites/blog.reclaimingfutures.org/files/userfiles/Resolution-Reinvesment-JButts-DEvans-JohnJay-Sept2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/blog/sites/blog.reclaimingfutures.org/files/userfiles/Resolution-Reinvesment-JButts-DEvans-JohnJay-Sept2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122740 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration, Juveniles Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Policy Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders (U.S.)

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The Care of Looked After Children in Custody: A Short Thematic Review Summary: Children in the care of the local authority, or ‘looked after children’, are overrepresented within the custodial population. This thematic review, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, reports on the care of looked after children aged 15 to 18 in young offender institutions. It examines the experience of these children, using survey data and in-depth interviews. Case supervisors, advocates and representatives from safeguarding teams provide an establishment perspective on how the needs of looked after children are met in custody and in preparation for their release. Of the representative sample of young people we surveyed across young offender institutions over a quarter said that they had spent some time in care. With no central record held by the Prison Service or Youth Justice Board, our survey data is one of the best estimates of the overall proportion of looked after children in custody. Although most YOIs held an up to date list of looked after children, establishments seemed largely to rely on information arriving with the child to identity whether he/she was looked after. Several did not feel confident that they were all correctly identified, the first step to ensuring their needs were met. On the basis of our survey, we estimate that there are around 400 children in custody at any one time who have spent time in care. The most common reasons for children going into care are abuse, neglect or family dysfunction. It is perhaps unsurprising that in our survey those who said they had spent time in care reported more vulnerability and greater need than those who had not. To meet the complex needs of looked after children – not only to ensure their wellbeing in custody but also to support their successful reintegration on release – there must be collaboration between everyone involved in supporting them, which must include the involvement of social workers from the looked after children service of the local authorities responsible for their care. The looked after child’s social worker should support them during their time in custody and be involved in their preparation for release. However, custody safeguarding teams said that the involvement of local authorities was often dependent on the commitment of individual social workers and, worryingly, a third felt that some social workers tried to end their involvement while the young person was in custody. Attendance by social workers at training planning meetings was said to be poor, despite their key role. However, many establishments also needed to improve how they involved local authorities. In contrast, links with youth offending team workers were much better developed and their attendance at training planning meetings was good. Adequate and early planning for release was a key concern of establishment staff and young people. Several establishments viewed it as the local authority’s responsibility to make arrangements for looked after children and were not clear about their own role. Accommodation was often not confirmed until close to the young person’s release or, occasionally, even the day of release. This affected young people’s opportunity for early release and meant that some ended up in unsuitable accommodation. Only two young people of the 12 we interviewed had employment and/or education plans confirmed for release. They all knew what they wanted to do but needed support to arrange it. Despite these issues, young people, particularly those who did have plans in place, were optimistic about their release. Yet they rightly realised the importance of support from their social worker, youth offending team worker and other agencies. However, the follow-up information provided was concerning: one of the 12 looked after children was released without an address and one to unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. Two had an education or employment placement to start on release. A month later, only one child was attending education and three were back in custody. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities towards looked after children and have their own review and care planning processes. Although establishments said that staff would try to ensure that reviews were conducted on time, there was no formal monitoring and only seven of the 12 looked after children interviewed said they had had a review during their time in custody. Links between local authority care planning and young offender institution planning were poor. Only half of the young people said they had had a visit from their social worker or that they had received financial support or clothing. Although establishments are not accountable for the responsibilities of local authorities towards looked after children, they need to facilitate this process and should ensure that the entitlements of looked after children are being met. At several establishments, staff were unclear about the entitlements of looked after children. They pointed to the loss of internal social workers and a lack of national guidance for establishment staff setting out the roles and responsibilities of the young offender institution, local authority and youth offending team. Only four establishments had a dedicated or specialist lead for looked after children. Establishments without a lead felt this adversely affected the support looked after children received. In my view, the state has few responsibilities greater than its statutory responsibility towards looked after children. Even allowing for the damage they have sustained before coming into the state’s care and the challenging behaviour they may present when they do, that so many end up in custody is a cause for real concern. Our very limited follow-up information suggests that many looked after young people leave custody with inadequate support. This report sets out some of the reasons that might be so. Others have reached similar conclusions. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2011. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 7, 2011 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Looked_after_children_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Looked_after_children_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123005 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Juvenile Reentry

Author: Meredith, Tammy Title: Projecting Confined Juvenile Populations In Georgia Summary: The Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is faced daily with the challenging task of balancing three primary goals: ensuring public safety, holding juvenile offenders accountable for their actions, and helping their clients to improve life skills. While this vision would appear to place the agency somewhere between the conflicting goals of law enforcement and human service, DJJ management articulates its task as an opportunity to make positive changes in Georgia’s juvenile justice system. This report presents the findings of the first in a series of research projects currently underway at DJJ. The three issues addressed in this report include (1) a thorough examination of Georgia's juvenile crime and population trends, (2) an historical analysis of DJJ's confined juvenile population (including detention and longterm institutions), and (3) five-year projections of the confined juvenile populations for the purpose of long-range planning. The goal of the current project is to provide Georgia policymakers with accurate information to make tough decisions about the allocation of scarce public resources. Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2000. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2011 at: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/ProjectingConfinedJuvenilePopulationsinGeorgia2000.pdf Year: 2000 Country: United States URL: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/ProjectingConfinedJuvenilePopulationsinGeorgia2000.pdf Shelf Number: 122589 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (Georgia)

Author: Calvin, Elizabeth Title: Against All Odds: Prison Conditions for Youth Offenders Serving Life without Parole Sentences in the United States Summary: Currently, more than 2,500 inmates in the United States await death in adult prison, sentenced to life without parole for crimes they committed while they were under the age of 18. Youth offenders serving life without parole enter prison with developmental needs for protection, education, and other services in order to be able to fully mature into adulthood. Yet youth offenders are among the inmates most susceptible to physical and sexual assault during their incarceration, are often placed in isolated segregation, and are frequently classified in ways that can deprive them of access to rehabilitative programs. The United States is the only country in the world with youth offenders serving life without parole sentences, in violation of international human rights law. Against All Odds details the strong evidence that youth offenders serving life without parole are imprisoned in conditions that violate fundamental international human rights law and standards. Based on information from corrections departments across the country and hundreds of youth offenders serving life without parole, the report documents how states fail to protect youth offenders from physical assault and sexual violence, to administer adequate mental health care, or to provide access to age-appropriate services and programs. Despite the fact that the length of their sentence and their youth upon entering adult prison make growth and rehabilitation extraordinarily difficult, some youth offenders sentenced to life without parole do achieve emotional, intellectual, and personal transformation in prison—an extraordinary fact given the hurdles they face. Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to abolish the sentence of life without parole for crimes committed by persons below the age of 18 and to investigate and improve conditions for youth offenders imprisoned across the United States. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0112ForUpload_1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0112ForUpload_1.pdf Shelf Number: 123546 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment, Juveniles Life Without Parole Prison Rape, Juveniles Sexual Assault, Juvenile Inmates

Author: Amnesty International Title: 'This is Where I'm Going to Be When I Die' Children Facing Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Release in the USA Summary: More than 2,500 people in the USA are serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for crimes committed when they were younger than 18 years old, in violation of international human rights law respected around the world. The USA is believed to be the only country that continues to effectively condemn such young offenders to die in prison. This report highlights the cases of three people – Jacqueline Montanez, David Young and Christi Cheramie – serving life without parole for crimes committed when they were children. Every case is different and their stories cannot represent the experiences of the many hundreds of people currently serving this sentence across the country. However, their cases show why Amnesty International is calling on the USA to join the rest of the world in ending a punishment that is utterly incompatible with the basic principles of juvenile justice. Details: London: Amnesty International, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 26, 2012 at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/081/2011/en/cdde342e-5a70-40ca-bc93-39d298d07039/amr510812011en.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/081/2011/en/cdde342e-5a70-40ca-bc93-39d298d07039/amr510812011en.pdf Shelf Number: 123771 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment, Juveniles (U.S.) Life Without Parole

Author: UnitingCare Burnside Title: Releasing the Pressure on Remand: Bail Support Solutions for Children and Young People in New South Wales Summary: An increasing number of children and young people in New South Wales are being held on remand in the state's Juvenile Justice Centres. This is due to current policies that make it unnecessarily difficult for children and young people to access bail and result in children and young people remaining in detention on remand when they should be on bail. This position paper was developed in response to the Roundtable on Keeping Children and Young People out of Remand that was convened by the Council of Social Service of NSW on 26 March 2009. The paper highlights the key issues and solutions that were discussed at the Roundtable meeting. Details: Parramatta, NSW: UnitingCare Burnside, 2009. 17p. Source: Internet Resoruce: Accessed January 27, 2012 at: http://www.ncoss.org.au/resources/091028-Releasing-the-pressure.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ncoss.org.au/resources/091028-Releasing-the-pressure.pdf Shelf Number: 123790 Keywords: Bail, Juveniles Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Australia)

Author: Walsh, Julia Title: Who's looking out for the children? A joint inspection of Appropriate Adult provision and children in detention after change Summary: In this inspection we examined a child or young person's journey from the point they arrive at the police station through to charge (and sometimes beyond). We were looking at two aspects of this process: the role of the Appropriate Adult, and whether children and young people who had been charged and were waiting to appear in court were being placed in suitable local authority accommodation. The arrangements for Appropriate Adults were introduced under the same legislation that placed reasonable restrictions on the length of time any individual could be held by the police before being charged and taken to court, and thus provided protective measures important for us all. Under its terms, the presence of an Appropriate Adult is required before the police can interview and (where appropriate) charge any unaccompanied children or young person or vulnerable adult to ensure that their rights are met, in effect acting in the role of parent or concerned adult. The need for such a role is self evident. Police station custody areas can be very frightening places for adults, and are all the more so for young people. Children brought into police custody may be traumatised or distressed, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs (or their after-effects). A significant number have communication, learning, language or health needs, and many do not understand what is happening to them or the terminology used. Whatever the intentions behind the legislation, we found that the procedure didn‟t really consider the needs of the children and young people. It was apparent that the role of the Appropriate Adult had evolved over time to become increasingly focussed on process rather than safeguarding the interests of the child and promoting their welfare. Overall, the lack of clarity about both the role of the Appropriate Adult and the arrangements whereby a child or young person could be transferred to local authority accommodation meant that children and young people were spending longer in an unsuitable and potentially detrimental environment than was needed. The system put in place to protect their interests was not working. Like many aspects of youth justice, this work requires an effective partnership between the police, the youth offending team, health and children‟s services to operate effectively. We saw little evidence of the Local Safeguarding Children Board overseeing this area of work. Strategic leaders need to provide greater leadership, direction and supervision to enable their staff to properly understand their duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people, wherever they are. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2012 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/whos-looking-after-children.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/whos-looking-after-children.pdf Shelf Number: 123981 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Police Custody

Author: Schofield, Gillian Title: Looked after children and offending: Reducing risk and promoting resilience Summary: The research was prompted by concerns about the relationship between the care system and the risk of offending. Although a small minority of looked after children aged 10-17 offend in any one year (7.9 %), this is more than twice the rate of children in the community (3%) (Department for Education, 2011). But also of concern is the fact that between a quarter and a half of children in custody have been looked after (HM inspectorate of Prisons /YJB, 2009). Among adult prisoners, it is estimated that 27% have been looked after at some time (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). But it is important to bear in mind that these adults may only have spent a brief period in care, and have come into care in adolescence, when they may already have committed offences. There are also concerns that children in care are inappropriately criminalised by being brought to court for behaviour that should be dealt with outside of court. Almost all children in care are from backgrounds of deprivation, poor parenting, abuse and neglect, factors that together create risk for a range of emotional, social and behavioural difficulties, including anti-social and offending behaviour. However, repairing harm and promoting resilience through high quality care can occur at all stages in a child’s development, and especially in adolescence, thus providing windows of opportunity for change. The project was designed to contribute to improving the life chances of looked after children at risk of offending and criminalisation through the following aims: to identify risk and protective factors which increase or decrease the likelihood of offending by young people in care; to identify resilience factors that can be promoted in looked after children to reduce the likelihood of offending; to identify features of the care and justice systems which may increase/reduce the likelihood of offending and criminalisation of looked after children; to identify the key transitional/turning points which are opportunities for interventions to divert children from offending; to develop an evidence-based typology of looked after children and offending; to make recommendations for policy and practice. Details: London: Centre for Research on the Child and Family, University of East Anglia, 2012. 185p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/swp/research/centre/crcfnews/Looked-after-children-offending-report Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.uea.ac.uk/swp/research/centre/crcfnews/Looked-after-children-offending-report Shelf Number: 124160 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Juvenile Reentry

Author: Youth Justice Board. Center for Court Innovation. Title: Strong Families, Safe Communities - Recommendations to Improve New York City's Alternative to Detention Programs Summary: In 2006, New York City introduced a new initiative to decrease the number of youth who are placed in detention while their cases are being heard in family court. The initiative includes the creation of Alternative to Detention (ATD) programs in each borough. These programs allow some young people who have been arrested to remain at home before their disposition hearings in family court while they receive relevant services and curfew monitoring. At the core of ATD programs is the concept of giving young people a chance—that is, giving them opportunities to succeed outside the confines of detention. The Youth Justice Board believes that communitybased ATD programs are critical to improving outcomes for young people involved in the juvenile justice system. Over five months, the Youth Justice Board conducted interviews with over 30 stakeholders involved in the ATD initiative. The Board visited four ATD programs and conducted three focus groups with young people involved in the juvenile justice system to learn about the experiences and perspectives of youth. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/YJBreportfinal_20091.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/YJBreportfinal_20091.pdf Shelf Number: 122752 Keywords: Administrative Detention, Juveniles Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Males, Mike Title: Charging youths as adults in California: A county by county analysis of prosecutorial direct file practices Summary: This report examines county by county prosecutorial direct file practices between 2003 and 2010 to determine whether Proposition 21 (2000) has resulted in more commitments of youths to state institutional facilities than would have occurred otherwise. In light of these historic trends the report also reflects on the potential effect that the Governor’s proposed closure of the state’s Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) would have on prosecutorial direct file practices in California. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) finds that at least two-thirds of direct files do not result in state DJF or adult prison terms. Prosecutorial direct file has not proven an effective means of securing state prison sentences for youthful offenders compared to previously existing mechanisms, such as judicial transfer after juvenile court fitness hearings. While CJCJ was unable to determine the exact numbers of direct file cases that resulted in transfer from DJF to state prison at age 18, the number appears small and has declined sharply over the last three years. In addition, frequent usage of direct file appears to have no effect on crime compared to infrequent usage. The overall statewide increase in direct file rates during 2003-2010 is attributable to a select group of counties, whose prosecutors utilize direct file significantly more than the state average. This increase in direct file rates is not correlated to county juvenile court commitments to DJF. In addition, county commitments to DJF varied significantly and declined greatly during the period. The data suggests there are 7 counties that continue to heavily rely on the state system through both high rates of juvenile court DJF commitments and prosecutorial direct filing and may require significant local capacity building if DJF were to be eliminated. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012. 7p. Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/Charging_youths_as_adults_in_California.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Charging_youths_as_adults_in_California.pdf Shelf Number: 124173 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Juvenile Court Transfer Juvenile Offenders (California)

Author: Nortern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: An announced inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre Summary: The last Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) report on Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (the JJC) was published in May 2008. It made 38 recommendations of which the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) fully accepted 33, partially accepted five, and published an action plan to implement accordingly. The JJC had only recently opened when CJI last inspected and in the intervening period it has consolidated its practice. This inspection found that the JJC has continued to provide high levels of care and control to children sent into its custody. It was delivering a good service in close consultation with children and their adult carers. Appropriate governance arrangements had been maintained and management practices were strengthened. There had been no escapes since the last inspection and considerable effort was being invested in addressing children’s offending behaviour. There had been some positive developments in the child custody system since 2008 and Inspectors found: the JJC had become the default location for all girls aged under 18-years-old; the age profile of its population had changed. Some 25% of the children admitted were 17-years-old at the time of our inspection; and collaboration with Social Services had also improved and this appears to have reduced inappropriate admissions. However, a better response is required from some Social Services Trusts to support the work of the JJC. There were several examples of progress within internal JJC management and practice. These included: a significant reduction in the use of force; continued investment in staff training and development, and high numbers of staff had qualified in relevant disciplines; the appointment of a Deputy Director of SocialWork and part-time Forensic Psychiatrist; improved performance management - overtime and sick leave were reduced and there was closer managerial control over annual leave and night staff deployment; better management information systems; new JJC rules had been published and were more fit-for-purpose; children’s file recording had improved; and monthly monitoring visits by the Office of Social Services and bi-annual unannounced CJI inspections had been initiated. Standards of healthcare and education were high though Inspectors were concerned about professional isolation of healthcare and education personnel. Feedback from partner agencies and community providers about the JJC was positive and it was recognised as a model of good practice. Senior personnel were invited to advise on the design of new Secure Children’s Homes (SCH) in England and the Republic of Ireland, and were also represented on the England and Wales Restraint Management Board. The JJC buildings were well-maintained and security had been enhanced by the extension of closed-circuit television (CCTV) to all communal areas. Inspectors were therefore satisfied the JJC was fulfilling its legislative remit to ‘Protect the public by accommodating children ordered to be detained therein in a safe, secure and caring environment; and work to reintegrate children into the community ….’ Despite this the inspection also raises major issues. These are outwith the JJC and the YJA, and are not to do with its operational management or care and control of children held there. Rather they are systemic matters around the high numbers of children being sent to the JJC for very short periods on foot of Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) proceedings, the impact of delay and the location of 17-year-old boys who require custody. These issues are not new. They are already being addressed to varying degrees, but there is scope for further progress and we make recommendations only accordingly. Things are better in some respects than the child custody arrangements in England and Wales, but it should be possible to further improve the position in the small Northern Ireland jurisdiction. The JJC service comes at a very high financial cost, but it is impossible to accurately relate costs to re-offending levels since there have been so few sentenced children and re-offending data is limited. For the majority of children who are sent there yet never receive a sentence, we can only conclude that the JJC represents a very expensive way to detain them, usually for short periods from which they are unlikely to gain much benefit. It is also anomalous that while there is surplus bed space in the JJC, many 17-year-old boys are held in HydebankWood Young Offenders Centre (the YOC) which is ill-equipped to deal with them. This situation begs early implementation of the obvious remedy-transfer of 17-year-old boys from the YOC to the JJC - on grounds of both good practice and value for money. There will be challenges in the future including budget pressures and changes in the population profile. Measurement of outcomes for children, including their reconviction rates needs to be improved. However, the main challenge is for the wider criminal justice and child care systems to build on the positive collaboration that has begun and ensure the JJC is only used for children who really need to be held in custody. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2011. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/c1/c1f1690b-190f-4788-90b8-5d1b48578f57.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/c1/c1f1690b-190f-4788-90b8-5d1b48578f57.pdf Shelf Number: 124199 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (Northern Ireland) Re-Offending

Author: Blades, Rachel Title: Care - a stepping stone to custody? The views of children in care on the links between care, offending and custody Summary: Less than 1% of all children in England were looked after at March 2011. Compare this with the fact that up to half the children held in young offender institutions are, or have been previously, looked after and you need to ask the question: is care a stepping stone to custody? If so, how and why does this happen and what can be done to help children in care avoid getting into trouble and ending up in custody? Looked after children and care leavers have long been over-represented in our prisons. Research published by the Social Exclusion Unit in 2002 suggested that 27% of the adult prison population had once been in care. Annual surveys of 15-18 year olds in prison suggest that anywhere between a quarter and a half have been in care at some point previously. This is likely to be an under-estimate. Research on children in the youth justice system generally, and those who end up in custody in particular, has demonstrated the links between offending and vulnerability. A census of every child imprisoned over a 6 month period in 2008 highlighted this in stark detail: 76% had an absent father; 47% had run away or absconded; 39% had been subject to a child protection plan and/or experienced abuse or neglect; 27% had been or were looked after; and 13% had experienced the death of a parent or sibling. For children in care, these indices of disadvantage are likely to be heightened, as we know three quarters of looked after children are in care as a result of abuse, neglect or family dysfunction. Concerns at the involvement of looked after children in the youth justice system are not new. Government statistics have consistently shown that rates of known offending by children in care far outstrip those of their peers, and practice in some placements, especially children’s homes, has been criticised for bringing children in care into the justice system unnecessarily. In the year ending March 2010, 7.9% were given a reprimand, warning or conviction, compared with just 3% of all children. Yet, as we have seen, abuse and family breakdown are by far the most common reasons why children are taken into care, rather than offending. If we are better to understand the relationship between care and offending, and tackle the disproportionate number of children in custody who are, or have been, looked after, we need to understand the factors affecting looked after children’s chances of offending, and the relationship between them. We believe children with direct experience of being looked after are best placed to identify, and comment on, aspects of the care system which protect against, and those that increase the risk of, criminalisation. This research seeks to place the voice of looked after children at the heart of the debate on care and crime and proposes a blueprint for preventing offending which draws on their contributions. This report presents the findings of research carried out by the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) Research Centre to explore the views of children with relevant experiences. The research was commissioned by Out of Trouble, the Prison Reform’s Trust’s five year programme to reduce child and youth imprisonment, which is supported by The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. This qualitative study, set in the context of current research and policy, involved 23 indepth face to face interviews with children in care who were aged between 13 and 17 years old. Their experience of, and involvement in, the youth justice system varied. Some had no formal experience, having never been cautioned or convicted. Others had, and the majority were either in custody at the time of interview (including on remand) or had been previously. In partnership with VOICE (www.voiceyp.org), a children’s advocacy organisation for children living away from home, we set up an advisory group to support the research, more details of which can be found on page 63. This group of ten young people in care and care leavers helped to guide the research at three important points: design, analysis, and reporting. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2011. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2012 at http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/careasteppingstonetocustody.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/careasteppingstonetocustody.pdf Shelf Number: 124233 Keywords: Child Abuse and Neglect Child Protection Crime Rates Foster Care Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice System (U.K.) Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)

Author: Hall, Maximilian J.B. Title: The Economic Efficiency of Rehabilitative Management in Young Offender Institutions in England and Wales Summary: This paper analyses the efficiency of English and Welsh Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) during the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 accounting for the fact that prisons can both promote good behaviour but also generate undesirable outcomes. With these problems in mind, a new non-parametric program is estimated that allows both good and undesirable outputs/outcomes to determine the ‘best practice’ YOIs, giving policy-makers a basis for implementing cost reductions within the Criminal Justice System by using the ‘best practice’ YOIs as a beacon for good management of public resources. Apart from identifying such ‘frontier’ institutions, we show that, although the smallest YOIs are typically the most efficient, the size-efficiency relationship is quite complicated. This calls into question the wisdom of building ‘titan’ prisons in England and Wales which, perversely, might decrease the efficiency of rehabilitating young offenders. Details: Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Business School, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: NUBS Research Paper Series No. 2012-04: Accessed February 27, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992468 Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992468 Shelf Number: 124284 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Rehabilitation

Author: Nellis, Ashley Title: The Lives of Juvenile Lifers: Findings from a National Survey Summary: The United States stands alone worldwide in imposing sentences of life without parole on juveniles. The U.S. achieved this unique position by slowly and steadily dismantling founding principles of the juvenile justice system. Today a record number of people are serving juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences in the U.S. for crimes committed before their 18th birthday. Sentences of life without parole are often erroneously believed to translate to a handful of years in prison followed by inevitable release. The reality is that a life without parole sentence means that the individual will die in prison. This report provides a new perspective on the population of individuals serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed in their youth. It represents the findings of a comprehensive investigation into this population that includes a firstever national survey of juvenile lifers. Through this effort we obtained in-depth information from these individuals about their life experiences prior to their conviction, as well as descriptions of their lives while incarcerated. The findings are sobering, and should become an element of policy discussion regarding this extreme punishment. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf Shelf Number: 124336 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.S.) Life Imprisonment Sentencing, Juveniles

Author: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Title: Juvenile Detention in Cook County: Future Directions Summary: Cook County has a long and proud tradition of progressive practice in juvenile justice - not only with the advent of the first juvenile court but as a national leader through the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. The last two decades, however, have brought intense scrutiny in the area of juvenile detention culminating in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union alleging a range of violations including overcrowding, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and regular exposure to violence and abuse. With the intervention of federal courts, substantial progress has been made to date and additional improvements are planned or underway. Nonetheless, substantial concern continues that such reforms cannot fully resolve the challenges presented by the existing facility. In the belief that it is time for Cook County to once again set a new standard - this time for youth detention - the Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation (JAJCF), on behalf of the Chief Judge of Cook County, has commissioned the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to conduct this study of youth detention in Cook County. This study looks beyond the challenges of the current facility to examine more fundamentally the detention needs of the county and its youth. The ultimate goal of the study is to guide discussion regarding a new vision for detention in Cook County - a vision that holds to the ideals that informed the creation of the court in 1899 while recognizing the current circumstances in which the court operates. After careful assessment and discussion with experts within the County, it is the opinion of NCCD that, even after appropriate reforms are implemented, the current Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC) will have at best limited capacity to meet the complex needs of youth being detained in Cook County. Working with JAJCF, NCCD instead offers the following vision for detention in Cook County, one that rests on the conviction that secure detention must be one element of a cohesive juvenile justice system that includes efficient case processing, a range of alternatives to avoid unneccessary confinement, and equity for children of all races and ethnicities. Cook County shoud maximize community safety and the health and well-being of its youth and families by: reserving secure detention for only those youth who present a real threat to the safety of the community; providing youth who must be detained with meaningful assessment, case management, and programming; detaining youth in small, safe, community-based facilities consistent with best practice; and ensuring that decision making is guided by timely, accurate information about the youth and all aspects of the juvenile justice system. Details: Madison, Wisconsin: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2012 at: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/dnld/JuvenileDetentioninCookCounty.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/dnld/JuvenileDetentioninCookCounty.pdf Shelf Number: 124609 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders

Author: Deitch, Michele Title: Conditions for Certified Juveniles in Texas County Jails Summary: The majority of juveniles who are accused of committing crimes in Texas are tried in juvenile courts, however, each year a small number of youth are transferred to the adult criminal justice system for trial. This process is referred to as certification. Until September 2011, Texas law required that all juveniles certified to be tried as adults were housed in adult county jails while they awaited their trials. In 2011, the 82nd Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1209 (SB 1209), which provided local juvenile boards the option to adopt a policy allowing for certified juveniles to be confined in juvenile detention centers rather than adult county jails. If the juvenile board adopts such a policy, the final decision as to where a particular youth would be housed would be up to the juvenile judge conducting the certification hearing. Although SB 1209 allows juvenile boards to create an option for certified youth to be confined in juvenile detention centers, until now there has been little information about the conditions for certified juveniles who are awaiting trial in county jails across the state. Without this information, it may be difficult for juvenile boards to determine whether juvenile detention centers or county jails are best suited to house certified youth, and to adopt an appropriate policy in response to SB 1209. To gather more information about the conditions for certified juveniles in Texas county jails, we worked with the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS) to conduct a survey of county jails in Texas that have experience housing certified juveniles. The survey focused on five key areas: housing, contact with adults, out-of-cell time, educational programming, and other programming. This report aims to provide a clearer picture of the conditions for certified juveniles in county jails based on the findings of this survey. The report provides a comprehensive assessment of how certified juveniles are housed in county jails in Texas, and the challenges faced by jail administrators when they confine certified youth. This information should help inform juvenile boards as they consider how to implement SB 1209, and can also inform policy makers, state and county agencies, and advocates in future discussions about the most appropriate way to manage the confinement of certified juveniles. Details: Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, 2012. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/Conditions%20for%20Certified%20Juveniles%20in%20Texas%20County%20Jails-FINAL-3.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/Conditions%20for%20Certified%20Juveniles%20in%20Texas%20County%20Jails-FINAL-3.pdf Shelf Number: 125233 Keywords: County Jails Juvenile Court Transfer Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Texas) Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)

Author: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services Title: Report on Female Offenders: Statistical Information on Girls and An Inventory of Services Summary: The report on Services and Programs for Females was required by Senate Bill 787 / House Bill 511 (Chapters 290 and 291, 2011 Laws of Maryland) enacted during the Maryland General Assembly’s 2011 session. This legislation directed the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) to report to the General Assembly on the manner in which the Department will use existing resources to ensure that females receive services that are substantially equivalent to those offered to males in fiscal 2013 and subsequent years. The General Assembly further required that the report include statewide and regional information on utilization of: (1) prevention and diversion services; (2) alternatives to detention, including day and evening reporting and shelter care; (3) the continuum of services for those committed to the Department for probation or residential placement, including evidence-based programs; and (4) educational and vocational training and services. In order to discuss the status of female offenders with DJS, and in order to provide the most complete discussion, this report is divided into 4 sections.  Part I will present a statistical overview of females at each decision point in the juvenile justice system. This will allow for examination of trends and will provide a detailed look at a female/male comparison.  Part II will provide a list of all services currently available for girls. This list will be presented by region as well as by counties within each region.  Part III will provide the utilization of prevention and diversion services; alternatives to detention, including day and evening reporting and shelter care; the continuum of services for those committed to the Department for probation or residential placement, including evidence based programs; and educational and vocational training services.  Part IV will discuss how the DJS work to use existing resources to ensure that females receive services that are substantially equivalent to those offered to males in fiscal 2013 and subsequent years. Details: Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, 2012. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2012 at: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Boys%20and%20Girls.Feb.2012.Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Boys%20and%20Girls.Feb.2012.Report.pdf Shelf Number: 125489 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates, Females Juvenile Offenders, Females (Maryland)

Author: Ratledge, Leo Title: Inhuman Sentencing: Life Imprisonment of Children in the Commonwealth Summary: This report reviews the laws of Commonwealth States with regards to life imprisonment of children: that is all persons under 18 years of age. For the purposes of this report "life imprisonment" is defined to include a variety of types of sentence under which it is possible for a person to be legally detained for life. Such sentences include: life imprisonment without parole; life impisonment with the possibility of parole; detention at the pleasure of the executive or the courts; and indefinite detention sentences. Details: London: Child Rights International Network, 2012. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://www.crin.org/docs/Inhuman%20Setencing-1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.crin.org/docs/Inhuman%20Setencing-1.pdf Shelf Number: 125867 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment, Juvenile Life Sentences

Author: Hollist, Dusten Title: The Montana Pre-Adjudicatory Detention Risk Assessment Instrument: A Validation and Assessment Study Summary: The primary research objective in the current investigation is a performance assessment of the Montana Pre-Adjudicatory Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI). The RAI has been used on a pilot basis in Cascade, Hill, Missoula, and Yellowstone Counties since 2009 as part of the predispositional detention decision-making process to determine whether or not juveniles pose a public safety risk if released. The analysis focuses on two dimensions associated with the RAI. The first of these pertains to racial and cultural sensitivity in assessing offender risk. The second pertains to public safety outcomes associated with the behavior of juveniles who are released from detention. Specifically, whether a new offense occurred resulting in a misdemeanor or felony citation during the 45-day period of risk and whether the juvenile failed to appear for an initial court appearance after release from detention. To achieve these objectives, the following three research questions were examined: 1. Is the RAI being administered impartially and in a manner that it assesses juvenile offender “risk” in a culturally and racially sensitive manner? • Are there differences in the patterns of overrides that are used to make detention decisions when comparing White and minority juveniles? 2. Did the juveniles reoffend while on release status during the period of risk? • Was there a new felony or misdemeanor citation within 45 days following release from detention? 3. Did the juveniles fail to appear for the initial court appearance following release from detention? • Did the juvenile fail to appear for the next court appearance or follow-up with the probation officer after their release from detention? Details: Missoula, MT: Social Science Research Laboratory University of Montana, Missoula, 2012. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2012 at: http://mbcc.mt.gov/Data/SAC/RAI/RAI%20Technical%20Report%20_Final%20Version_.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://mbcc.mt.gov/Data/SAC/RAI/RAI%20Technical%20Report%20_Final%20Version_.pdf Shelf Number: 126467 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Montana) Risk Assessment

Author: Puzzanchera, Charles Title: Allegheny County Detention Screening Study Summary: The National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) agreed to conduct a study working with staff from Allegheny County Juvenile Probation to gather data from the automated Detention Assessment Instrument and other individual level information from Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Court Management System (JCMS). The study’s goal was to use these data, to the extent possible, to conduct analyses recommended in A Practical Guide to Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment (Steinhart, 2006) and determine how well the Allegheny County instrument was working to reduce the amount of disproportionality in detention risk decision-making. Data Collection Allegheny County Juvenile Probation gathered data from the Detention Assessment Instrument completed by intake officers for arrested youth considered for admission to Shuman Juvenile Detention Center beginning in mid-February in 2008. For this study, NCJJ analyzed detention screening data collected from March of 2008 through February of 2010. These data included the following information: Screening outcomes. The primary analyses address the question of the impact of the Detention Assessment Instrument on the decision of whether to detain youth, place them in a detention alternative program, or release them. Accordingly, the data included basic demographic information (gender, race/ethnicity, and date of birth) for all youth considered for detention, along with the scores earned across seven factors that compose the overall risk score. In addition, information regarding mandatory detention holds, discretionary overrides, and the attendant aggravating/mitigating factors were also provided. Disproportionate minority contact. To the extent that data were available, additional analyses were conducted to consider the entire pool of youth brought to detention intake. To better understand the instrument’s impact on detention rates and disproportionate minority confinement, analyses compared detention rates and population profiles of white and black youth. Validation The goal of validation analyses is to measure the post-implementation success of the Detention Assessment Instrument in relation to the risk of committing a new offense pending court appearance and the risk of failing to appear in court. A validation sample would include youth who were released or placed on detention alternative status based on the Detention Assessment Instrument. A validation analysis would then focus on determining decision error for this population. In other words, to what degree were youth released using the instrument who, in hindsight, should not have been — either because they failed to appear or because they committed a new offense while not detained? [It should be noted that this report describes the results of a test of the Detention Alternatives Instrument implemented by Allegheny County Juvenile Probation at Shuman Detention Center. A formal validation study would require data on outcomes for juveniles who are released at detention intake based on their risk scores (Steinhart, 2008). Validation studies are normally done after the detention screening instrument has undergone a general implementation test (like the current analysis). Although it was initially hoped that data would be available to conduct such a validation study, these data were not available in time to support the needs of this report.] This report also summarizes the literature on effective detention risk assessments and presents an overview of the use of detention in Allegheny County prior to the development of detention alternatives and the implementation of the Detention Assessment Instrument, study methods and analyses, study results, study limitations, and implications for further study/action. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2012. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2012 at: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/MFC/FINAL_Allegheny%20Detention%20Assessment.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/MFC/FINAL_Allegheny%20Detention%20Assessment.pdf Shelf Number: 126545 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Risk Assessment

Author: Liberman, Akiva M. Title: Delinquent Youth Committed to the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services 2004-2011 Summary: This report explores recent trends in the commitment of delinquent youth to the custody of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS). Commitments to DYRS increased considerably from 2006-07 to 2009-10, due to more youth being committed following adjudication on misdemeanors. In 2011, commitments to DYRS declined, due to fewer youth being committed on felonies. By 2011, most youth committed to DYRS were misdemeanants. Neither a history of prior adjudication nor revocations of probation particularly drove the increased commitments of misdemeanants; these commitments involved youth with and without prior adjudications, and also involved both DYRS commitments as initial dispositions and following revocation of probation. Understanding these shifts in the youth committed to DYRS will require a broad exploration of juvenile justice case processing involving all delinquent youth, using integrated data across juvenile justice agencies. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412657-Delinquent-Youth-Committed-to-the-Department-of-Youth-Rehabilitation-Services-2004-2011.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412657-Delinquent-Youth-Committed-to-the-Department-of-Youth-Rehabilitation-Services-2004-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 126562 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquency (District of Columbia) Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Rehabilitation Programs

Author: Skelton, Ann Title: Prevention of and Responses to Violence Against Children within the Juvenile Justice System Summary: In its resolution 18/12 of 24 September 2011 on human rights in the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice, the Human Rights Council invited the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children to collaborate in the organization of an expert consultation on prevention of and responses to violence against children within the juvenile justice system and to submit a report thereon. The Expert Consultation took place in Vienna on 23-24 January 2012. It was hosted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and co-organized with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, in cooperation with the Government of Austria. Participants included representatives from international and regional human rights bodies, governmental and State institutions, academia and civil society. The Expert Consultation focused on the risks and systemic factors contributing to violence against children within the juvenile justice system, and strategies and practical recommendations to prevent and respond to violence against children within the juvenile justice system. This report is informed by the results of the consultation and a research paper conducted by an independent consultant, Ann Skelton, of the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Details: New York: Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary on Violence against Children; UNICEF, 2012. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2012 at http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/web_juvenile_justice_final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/web_juvenile_justice_final.pdf Shelf Number: 126690 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Violence Against Children

Author: Penal Reform International Title: A Review of Law and Policy to Prevent and Remedy Violence Against Children in Police and Pre-trial Detention: Overview (draft) Summary: This desk review (a working draft) aims to increase understanding of the specific legal and policy measures that can work to prevent and remedy violence against children in detention. The review focuses on eight countries: Bangladesh, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tanzania and Uganda. For each country the review aims to: •identify policy and legislative measures already in place to prevent and detect violence, to assist victims and to make perpetrators accountable; •highlight significant gaps in provision; and •make recommendations for improvements. This overview report summarises the findings of the eight country reports and is available in both English and Russian. Details: London: Penal Reform International, 2012. 2 vols. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2012 at: http://www.penalreform.org/publications/review-law-and-policy-prevent-and-remedy-violence-against-children-police-and-pre-trial Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.penalreform.org/publications/review-law-and-policy-prevent-and-remedy-violence-against-children-police-and-pre-trial Shelf Number: 126763 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Police Custody, Juvenile Offenders Pretrial Detention, Juveniles

Author: Edmundson, Anna Title: Fatally Flawed: Has the State Learned Lessons from the Deaths of Children and Young People in Prison? Summary: The inquests and investigations into the deaths of children and young people in prison between 2003 and 2010 reveal that they were often very vulnerable and that none received the level of support and protection they needed. In many of the cases, the fact that they were in prison in the first place can be seen as symptomatic of failures by agencies within and outside the criminal justice system to address their multiple, often complex, needs. The detailed stories of six of the children and young people who died in prison which feature in this report vividly illustrate the extent of their vulnerabilities and the shortcomings of their treatment both within the justice system and by agencies outside. The information and evidence collated for this report revealed common themes in the experiences and treatment of children and young people who died in prison between 2003 and 2010. These overlapping findings included that they: 1 were some of the most disadvantaged in society and had experienced problems with mental health, self-harm, alcohol and/or drugs; 2 had significant interaction with community agencies before entering prison yet in many cases there were failures in communication and information exchange between prisons and those agencies; 3 despite their vulnerability, they had not been diverted out of the criminal justice system at an early stage and had ended up remanded or sentenced to prison; 4 were placed in prisons with unsafe environments and cells; 5 experienced poor medical care and limited access to therapeutic services in prison; 6 had been exposed to bullying and treatment such as segregation and restraint; 7 were failed by the systems set up to safeguard them from harm. Our analysis also found there had been: 8 inadequate institutional responses to the deaths of children and young people in prison. Our findings indicate there have been failures in how the state treats children and young people in conflict with the law and that the learning and recommendations from inquests and investigations into previous deaths have not been properly implemented. The question this report addresses is whether the State can learn lessons from the deaths of children and young people in prison and act now to put right the flaws identified in order to prevent further deaths in the future. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust and INQUEST, 2012. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2012 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Fatally%20Flawed.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Fatally%20Flawed.pdf Shelf Number: 126797 Keywords: Deaths in Custody (U.K.) Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Suicides

Author: Jones, Jessica Title: Forced From Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America Summary: Beginning as early as October 2011, an unprecedented increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) from the Central American countries of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras began migrating to the United States. During the first six months of fiscal year 2012, U.S. immigration agents apprehended almost double the number of children apprehended in previous years. The Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the agency tasked with the care and custody of these children, had a record number of 10,005 in its care by April 2012. In June 2012, the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC) conducted field and desk research to look into possible reasons for the influx in the number of children migrating alone, and the government’s response, including conditions and policies affecting unaccompanied children. The WRC interviewed more than 150 detained children and met with government agencies tasked with responding to this influx, including the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ORR and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (DOJ/EOIR), as well as country experts, local service providers and facility staff. Our recommendations include both legislative and administrative solutions for the protection of UACs. Lost Boys and Girls of Central America Most of the children who have been apprehended as part of this influx are from three countries in Central America: Guatemala (35%), El Salvador (27%) and Honduras (25%). The majority of the children the WRC interviewed said that their flight northward had been necessitated by the dramatic and recent increases in violence and poverty in their home countries. The WRC’s independent research on the conditions in these countries corroborated the children’s reports. These increasingly desperate conditions reflect the culmination of several longstanding trends in Central America, including rising crime, systemic state corruption and entrenched economic inequality. Children from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador cited the growing influence of youth gangs and drug cartels as their primary reason for leaving. Not only are they subject to violent attacks by the gangs, they explained, they are also targeted by police, who assume out of hand that all children are gang-affiliated. Girls also face gender-based violence, as rape becomes increasingly a tool of control. Children from Guatemala cited rising poverty, poor harvests and continuing unemployment as reasons for migrating. Almost all of the children’s migration arose out of longstanding, complex problems in their home countries – problems that have no easy or short-term solutions. The title of this report, “The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America,” reflects that violence in Central America is generating “lost” children. Until conditions for children in these countries change substantially, we expect this trend will be the new norm. Details: New York: Women's Refugee Commission, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2012 at: http://wrc.ms/WuG8lM. Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://wrc.ms/WuG8lM. Shelf Number: 126814 Keywords: Homeless Youth Immigrants Immigration Detention Juvenile Detention Unaccompanied Minors (U.S.)

Author: Scussel, David E. Title: Analysis of the Impact of Juvenile Justice Programming in Nine New Mexico Counties Summary: The purpose of this particular research task is to analyze the impact of juvenile justice programming in the nine selected New Mexico counties have on the juvenile justice system, and to study and report on how these programs contribute to the understanding of law enforcement and juvenile justice system factors, which perpetuate Disproportionate Minority Contact in New Mexico. Sites Targeted for Interviews were: Day Reporting Center (Colfax, Lea, Sandoval, Santa Fe & Taos); DMC Reduction (Dona Ana, Santa Fe & Taos); Girls Circle (Chaves & Taos); Intensive Community Monitoring (Rio Arriba, Santa Fe & Taos); Reception and Assessment Centers (Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Sandoval & Santa Fe); and Restorative Justice Panel (Chaves, Grant, Sandoval & Santa Fe). Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2012 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/ Shelf Number: 126818 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority Contact Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (New Mexico) Juvenile Offenders Rehabilitation

Author: Nacro Title: Reducing Offending by Looked After Children Summary: Nacro, the largest crime reduction charity in the UK, has published a new guide for practitioners working with looked after children. This essential guide examines some of the key issues in relation to looked after children and the prevention of offending. Highlighting the principal legislative provisions relating to looked after children, it also addresses the main strategic and operational issues for youth offending teams and children’s services arising from this area. It then considers key decision making points in the criminal justice system which can influence outcomes for looked after children and the importance of using diversionary approaches where appropriate. Examining the particular problems that looked after children can face when remanded or sentenced to custody, the guide also sets out the arrangements for professional support from children’s services, independent reviewing officers and youth offending teams before finally considering the importance of good leaving care services in preventing offending. Equipped with useful checklists for practitioners, this guide to reducing offending by looked after children will be of interest to local authorities, youth offending teams and those working with looked after children in foster care and children's homes. Details: London: Nacro, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2012 at: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/reducing-reoffending-by-looked-after-children-998.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/reducing-reoffending-by-looked-after-children-998.pdf Shelf Number: 127145 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Juvenile Reentry Recidivism Rehabilitation

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Looked After Children: An inspection of the work of Youth Offending Teams with children and young people who are looked after and placed away from home Summary: The inspection of children and young people who are looked after, placed away from home and supervised by YOTs was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors’ Group, as part of the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2010-2012. It was led by HM Inspectorate of Probation, with support from Ofsted and Estyn. Its purpose was to assess the effectiveness of YOT work with this group of children and young people in promoting their rehabilitation and maintaining their links with their family and home area (where appropriate) and to identify barriers to effective YOT work. We visited six areas where we asked the YOT to identify, where possible, ten cases, five of which they were supervising on behalf of other local authorities and five of their own cases being supervised by other YOTs. We then assessed the quality of joint work carried out by the agencies involved. The data was supplemented by information gathered from a number of YOTs which were not part of the main fieldwork. Overall findings This inspection looked at a very specific group of children and young people, who are looked after, who were placed away from home and also subject to supervision by YOTs. This group is extremely vulnerable. Some also pose a high risk of causing harm to others, not least the children and young people with whom they are placed. Concerns had been raised about these children and young people by many of the YOTs we visited during our regular inspection programme of YOT work, particularly those located in areas with a high number of children’s homes. From them we heard about lack of contact by home areas, delays in receipt of information about vulnerability and risk posed to others and difficulties in communication between agencies. This significantly impacted on the work by the host YOT to help children and young people to stop offending. This thematic inspection clearly revealed the fragmentation of these children’s lives and how the fact of being looked after could escalate a child or young person into the criminal justice system. It also showed how the two factors - being in care and offending – exacerbated each other. Many of the children and young people whose cases we examined during the course of our inspection had been placed in a succession of children’s homes. It was difficult to track them precisely, but we saw one young person with 31 placements and one placement that lasted less than 24 hours. Nearly one-third had had more than three placements outside their home area and 18% had had more than five (that were recorded); 63% were living more than 50 miles from their home and 24% more than 100 miles. (Regulations stipulate that, where reasonably practicable, placement should be within the home local authority area and as near to the child or young person’s home as possible). Four-fifths of those in the sample had been moved during the period of YOT supervision and one-quarter being moved more than three times. It was evident that the children and young people in our sample were amongst the most damaged and difficult to place. All had experienced considerable family difficulties, and they continued to struggle with the consequences. We found a significant number had been subjected to abuse - sexual, physical and emotional and/or neglect. Many had witnessed, or been the victims of domestic violence. A high number had emotional or mental health problems. Nevertheless, it was not apparent in many cases, from our inspection of YOT work, how the needs of the child were being promoted or safeguarded by a placement so far away from their home area. A significant number were still in contact with their families and continued to drift back to them, whether or not children’s social care services promoted or even allowed contact. In 55% of cases YOTs worked actively with the child or young person’s parent/carer to maintain contact. In most cases, the breakdown in family relationships was further exacerbated by the frequency of changes in the professional relationships the child or young person was required to make, through social workers moving on, placements changing, disrupted education and different specialist agencies being called in. Details: Source: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012. 44p. Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 127281 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Recidivism Rehabilitation

Author: Children's Rights Alliance for England Title: Speaking Freely: Chidlren and Young People in Europe Talk About Ending Violence Against Children in Custody Summary: The Ending Violence against Children in Custody project aims to make progress towards ending violence against children and young people in custody. The project has two main elements: a research phase – consisting of a desk based legal analysis of the rules governing custody and interviews with children and young people – and a campaigning phase where young people will develop their own campaigns based on the recommendations from their research. The project was coordinated by CRAE and implemented with five European partner organisations: International Juvenile Justice Observatory – Belgium, Defence for Children International – the Netherlands, The Commissioner for Children’s Rights – Cyprus, The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights – Austria and Save the Children – Romania. This report brings together the findings from field research conducted in Austria, Cyprus, England, the Netherlands and Romania and desk-based research into international and European law and policy concerning violence against children in custody led by the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (Belgium). All direct quotations from young people in this report are from the focus groups and interviews carried out in the five partner countries. Where possible, the quotes show age, gender and country. The findings in this report do not represent the views and experiences of all young people in custody in the partner countries. Rather, the research sought insights from a range of children with first-hand experience of custody into the extent to which they enjoyed their right to be free from violence whilst in custody, and how realisation of this right could be promoted. The recommendations from young people in each of the partner countries for ending violence against children in custody formed the basis of youth-led campaigns in five of the partner countries. A consolidated campaign report outlining the various campaign activities, achievements and lessons learnt in each of the partner countries will also be published. All project reports will be available through the project website: www.violencefreecustody.org.uk. Details: London: Children's Rights Alliance for England, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2013 at: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1264/speaking_freely_ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_european_research_report_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://www.violencefreecustody.org.uk/site/assets/files/1264/speaking_freely_ending_violence_against_children_in_custody_european_research_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 127534 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Juvenile Justice in Australia 2010-11: An Overview Summary: On an average day in 2010–11, there were an estimated 7,265 young people under juvenile justice supervision in Australia. Most (86% or 6,250) were supervised in the community and the remainder (14% or 1,045) were in detention. There were 2.6 young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day for every 1,000 in the population—2.2 per 1,000 under community-based supervision and 0.4 per 1,000 in detention. Over the 4-year period to 2010–11, rates of young people under community-based supervision and in detention remained relatively steady. Among the states and territories for which data are available, rates of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day ranged from 1.9 per 1,000 in Victoria to 4.7 per 1,000 in Tasmania. Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 15 times as likely to be under supervision on an average day as non-Indigenous young people. This level of over-representation decreased slightly over the 4 years to 2010–11. The over-representation of Indigenous young people in detention decreased over the 4-year period. In 2010–11, Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 24 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be in detention on an average day, down from 28 times as likely in 2007–08. Although on an average day most young people under juvenile justice supervision were supervised in the community, about 2 in 5 (41%) were in detention at some time during the year (estimates are not available for Western Australia and the Northern Territory). Most (87%) of those who were in detention during 2010–11 experienced unsentenced detention at some time during the year. On an average day in 2010–11, half (50%) of all young people in detention were unsentenced. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 106: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422551 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422551 Shelf Number: 127567 Keywords: Aboriginals Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Girls and Young Women in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: Summary Relatively few young women are involved in the juvenile justice system In Australia, young women are less likely than young men to enter the juvenile justice system and even less likely to progress to the most serious processes and outcomes. In 2010–11, young men were around twice as likely as young women to be proceeded against by police, more than 3 times as likely to be proven guilty in the Children’s Court, 4 times as likely to experience community-based supervision and 5 times as likely to be in detention. Among the cohorts of young people for whom a complete juvenile justice supervision history is available in 2010–11 (those born 1990–91 to 1992–93), young men were around 4 times as likely as young women to have experienced any supervision when aged 10–17. Young women are more likely than young men to be supervised in the community On an average day in 2010–11, around 93% of young women under supervision were supervised in the community, compared with 85% of young men. Very few young women were in detention—only 85 on an average day (compared with 960 young men). Young women spend less time under supervision than young men, particularly in detention When all time under supervision is considered, young women spent around 2 weeks less than young men under supervision during 2010–11 (171 days, on average, compared with 186) (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory as standard data were not provided). This was mainly due to less time spent in detention (31 days, on average, compared with 68). Young women under supervision are younger than young men Young women under supervision were younger, on average, than young men (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory). In 2010–11, rates of supervision were highest among young women aged 15 and 16, compared with ages 16 and 17 for young men. Indigenous young women are over-represented in supervision In 2010–11, Indigenous young women aged 10–17 were around 16 times as likely as non- Indigenous young women to be under community-based supervision during the year, and 19 times as likely to be in detention. This was slightly higher than the level of Indigenous over-representation among young men (13 and 17 times as likely, respectively). Rates of young women under supervision have increased Over the 5-year period to 2010–11, rates of young women aged 10–17 under supervision rose from 0.8 to 1.0 per 1,000 on an average day and from 1.7 to 2.2 per 1,000 during the year, which were greater than the corresponding increases for young men. This was mainly due to increases in the numbers and rates of young women under community-based supervision. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 107: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423108 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423108 Shelf Number: 127568 Keywords: Female Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders (Australia)

Author: Wan, Wai-Yin Title: The Impact of the NSW Young Offenders Act (1997) on Likelihood of Custodial Order Summary: The aim of this study was to determine whether the introduction of the Young Offenders Act had any impact on (a) the probability that a young offender will receive a custodial order 1; and (b) the time taken to receive a first custodial order. These two custodial outcomes were compared for Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people. The rates of a custodial order prior to and following the introduction of the Young Offenders Act were compared using a frailty model with Gompertz distribution. The times taken to receive the first custodial order prior to, and following the introduction of the Young Offenders Act were compared using the asymptotic failure rate of ever receiving a custodial order. The results show that while Indigenous young people are more likely to receive a custodial order as a juvenile (hazard ratio of 1.4) compared to non-Indigenous young people, the risk of receiving a custodial order fell for both groups after the introduction of the YOA (hazard ratio of 0.63). The results show that, after the introduction of the YOA, the risks of receiving a custodial order for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people dropped by 17.5 per cent and 16.3 per cent respectively. For Indigenous young people, 10 per cent of the pre-YOA cohort received a custodial order within 17 months of first proven court appearance, whereas after the YOA commenced this took 21 months. For the non-Indigenous young people, 10 per cent of the pre-YOA cohort received a custodial order within 36 months whereas after the YOA commenced this took 57 months. The results suggest the YOA has been effective in diverting young people from custody (including Indigenous young people). The likelihood of ever ending up in custody reduced and the time taken to receive a custodial order after the first proven court appearance lengthened for both indigenous and non-indigenous young people after the introduction of the YOA. Details: Brisbane: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2013. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 166: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb166.pdf/$file/cjb166.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb166.pdf/$file/cjb166.pdf Shelf Number: 127682 Keywords: Disparities in Juvenile Justice Indigenous Juveniles Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Minority Youth Young Offenders Act (Australia) Youth Justice Conferencing

Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming Youth Custody: Putting Education at the Heart of Detention Summary: This consultation seeks views from staff and young people in youth custodial establishments, service providers in justice, education, detention and security, health, children services and wider social services, the judiciary, voluntary and community organisations and all those with an interest in young people. We also invite members of the public to respond. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper CP4/2013: Accessed February 21, 2013: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm85/8564/8564.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm85/8564/8564.pdf Shelf Number: 127686 Keywords: Correctional Programs, Juveniles Education Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Rehabilition

Author: Whitbeck, Barbara Title: Gangs and Youth Violence Interventions: A Review of Research and Literature Addressing Evidence‐Based and Promising Practices for Gang‐Affiliated and Violent Youth in Juvenile Institutions and Detention Centers Summary: This report reviews current research and literature to determine which evidence-based and promising practices work best for gang‐affiliated and violent youth in juvenile institutions and other detention settings, and what factors need to be considered when implementing best practices. It also notes evidence‐based practices currently used by Washington’s DSHS Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA), and practices JRA may consider for future implementation. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 2010. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 2.23: Accessed February 27, 2013 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/graphics/Main/jra/VIP%20Literature%20review.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/graphics/Main/jra/VIP%20Literature%20review.pdf Shelf Number: 127735 Keywords: Evidence-Based Practices Gang Prevention Gang Violence Gangs Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Bradford, Spike Title: Common Ground: Lessons Learned from Five States that Reduced Juvenile Confinement by More than Half Summary: After decades of expanding correctional populations in the United States, there is a growing awareness that we need to end the era of over-incarceration. Primarily this realization has formed around the adult correctional population, with less attention paid by the media or the general public to young people who are confined for delinquent behavior or prior to adjudication. This is perhaps because of the small percentage of youth that makeup the total incarcerated population: in 2010, approximately 2,270,100 adults were incarcerated in the U.S., compared to 70,792 youth. Simply by its scale, the “adult problem” dominates the conversation. However, as confinement is the least effective method of addressing delinquent behavior in young people and increases the likelihood that they will become justice-involved adults, systemic reforms that will reduce the number of confined youth are urgently needed. Such reforms–including reducing the number of youth held in secure confinement, improving the conditions of juvenile facilities and expanding community-based services that can be used instead of confinement, among other issues–have been aggressively pursued in a number of states around the country for over a decade. In fact, juvenile correctional populations have dropped by about a third, nationally, since 1999, when they peaked at over 107,000 confined youth. Restructuring the “fiscal architecture” of juvenile justice is one approach to reducing youth confinement that has attracted national attention. This approach seeks to remove the incentive of counties and local jurisdictions to send youth to state-run and state-funded institutions. Certainly, the current economic environment has played a role in states wanting to reduce their juvenile corrections expenses, which run upwards of $240 per day, per youth. Creating financial incentives for counties to keep youth close to home has the potential to lower net costs (state confinement and local community-based services), and improve outcomes for youth. Because this approach has showed early success in several states, other jurisdictions are considering whether they, too, should reform the fiscal architecture of their state juvenile justice systems to reduce youth confinement. Four years ago, the Justice Policy Institute, in its publication, Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense, highlighted fiscal reform as a promising practice. Given the drop in juvenile confinement just in the past four years, we decided to look at what role fiscal changes–and other reforms–have played in reducing the number of youth locked up in the U.S. We discovered that adjusting funding schemes was just one of many successful strategies for juvenile confinement reform and, in fact, there are many states that have significantly reduced their juvenile confined populations without fiscal reform. States have initiated top-down policy changes, requiring police and courts to treat juveniles differently, resulting in fewer youth confined. Others have simply closed their state’s juvenile correctional facilities, forcing judges to adopt less restrictive responses to juvenile delinquency. What follows is a critical analysis of those elements that appeared to contribute to the greatest reductions in rates of confinement over the past decade. Keeping in mind juvenile justice in each state operates as a system, the actors, policies and problems are necessarily intertwined. For example, the creation of a juvenile justice reform committee within a state is one way to further deinstitutionalization reforms but this process is often the result of settlement agreements among litigants over poor juvenile justice conditions. In this report, each of these strategies will be addressed. After discussing commonalities of reform activities among the states, we provide a brief overview of each state’s experience. These are not case studies per se of specifics of each state’s work, but more of an aerial view to further describe the transformations made. Through the diversity of strategies, as well as the commonalities between states, we hope advocates and policymakers who seek better outcomes for youth will find inspiration and pursue those strategies that are fiscally and politically achievable in their jurisdictions. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpicommonground.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpicommonground.pdf Shelf Number: 127829 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Annie E. Casey Foundation Title: Reducing Youth Incarceration in the United States Summary: A sea change is underway in our nation’s approach to dealing with young people who get in trouble with the law. Although we still lead the industrialized world in the rate at which we lock up young people, the youth confinement rate in the United States is rapidly declining. In 2010 this rate reached a new 35-year low, with almost every state confining a smaller share of its youth population than a decade earlier. This decline has not led to a surge in juvenile crime. On the contrary, crime has fallen sharply even as juvenile justice systems have locked up fewer delinquent youth. The public is safer, youth are being treated less punitively and more humanely, and governments are saving money— because our juvenile justice systems are reducing their reliance on confinement. With this report, we seek to highlight this positive trend and provide recommendations that can encourage its continuation. Wholesale incarceration of young people is generally a counterproductive public policy. As documented in the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2011 report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, juvenile corrections facilities are enormously costly to operate, often put youth at risk for injury and abuse and are largely ineffective in reducing recidivism. While youth who have committed serious violent crimes may require incarceration, a large proportion of those currently confined have not been involved in the kinds of serious offending that pose a compelling risk to public safety. The current de-institutionalization trend creates the potential for new, innovative responses to delinquency that are more cost-effective and humane, and lead to better outcomes for youth. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Data Snapshot Kids Count: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/R/ReducingYouthIncarcerationSnapshot/DataSnapshotYouthIncarceration.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/R/ReducingYouthIncarcerationSnapshot/DataSnapshotYouthIncarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 127834 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (U.S.)

Author: Children's Rights Alliance for England Title: Speaking Freely: Children and Young People in Europe Take Action on Ending Violence Against Children in Custody: Campaign Report Summary: This report by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) presents the campaigning activities undertaken by forty children and young people in Austria, Cyprus, England, the Netherlands and Romania to try and create violence-free youth custodial settings in their countries. The campaigning activities were carried out as part of CRAE’s Ending Violence against Children in Custody project, funded by the European Commission’s Daphne III programme. The youth-led campaigns in each country were based on the recommendations developed by young researchers in the first phase of the project. . Campaigners in Austria followed up the full range of recommendations from the research phase of the project in a series of meetings with the Juvenile Custody Centre and pre-trial remand unit. Some young campaigners met with the Director of the Juvenile Custody Centre to discuss their concerns about violence in custody and recommendations for change and to see how they could be taken forward at the Centre. Young campaigners in Cyprus focused on living conditions in prison and pushed for increased support for young prisoners through mentoring programmes. They decided to carry out a series of awareness raising activities to educate other young people about the conditions in custody and to develop some momentum for change. In England the young campaign team focused on two campaign issues that they felt would help to create violence free custody for children and young people: • Installing cameras with sound recording in custodial and police settings; • Reviewing the qualities of staff who are employed in custodial settings. They had a meeting with the Youth Justice Board (YJB) to discuss these issues and explore what action could be taken. The young campaigners in the Netherlands compiled a ‘Top 10’ from the longer list of recommendations developed during the research phase of the project. They decided to work on awareness-raising about violence in custody targeting the Government, Parliament and other professionals and experts. In Romania the young campaign team took action on three key issues: • Video surveillance in police stations; • Better activities in custodial settings; • Reducing the numbers of internees in each room in custody. A letter was sent to the Ministry of Justice and discussions were held with representatives from the National Administration of Penitentiaries to discuss the recommendations. Details: London: Chidlren's Rights Alliance for England, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.crae.org.uk/assets/files/Ending%20Violence%20Campaign%20report_condensed.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://www.crae.org.uk/assets/files/Ending%20Violence%20Campaign%20report_condensed.pdf Shelf Number: 127835 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Europe)

Author: Jesuit Social Services and Effective Change Pty Ltd Title: Thinking Outside: Alternatives to Remand for Children Summary: Jesuit Social Services has over 35 years experience working with children and young people in Victoria’s youth justice system. We know from our experience that the lives of the children who come into contact with this system are among the least fortunate in our community. They often have chaotic family relationships and involvement with child protection services, problems engaging in school, mental illness and substance abuse problems. These children and young people are more likely to come from communities that experience extreme levels of poverty and disadvantage. Their development is compromised by early life experiences and then further compounded as they become entangled in the web of disadvantage. Contact with the youth justice system and exposure to remand often become further strands to this web. At heart, this study is about these children - for children they are, as legally defined until the age of 18. Victoria has a proud reputation for diverting children away from the justice system and has the lowest child custody rate in Australia, yet our rate of unsentenced detention increased by 67 per cent between 2007 and 2010. This is unacceptable, as detention more often than not exacerbates problems that are already entrenched for most of these children. This report presents the main issues that arose from 12 months’ research by Jesuit Social Services. The fundamental question we set out to resolve in our study was: what can be done better? There is no single solution. However, a first step would be to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years; primary school children have no place in our criminal courts. We must promote attitudes against violence and for children. Our research has found that violent offending of varying degrees of seriousness is the main reason for remanding children and is fuelling an increase in arrests that is proportionally the greatest for the youngest children (those 10 to 13 years of age). Once a child with known social and psychological risk factors comes to the attention of the police or courts we must ensure that an assessment of his or her particular circumstances takes place immediately – whether that be during business hours, late at night or on a weekend. This does not occur currently. There is a need for services that children on remand or at risk of remand can access 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These services must overcome the present service system’s fragmented response to such children. These children have often experienced significant harm yet, by failing to intervene early and intensively to halt such troubled and troubling life trajectories, valuable time to act decisively is lost. Two groups of children are more affected than most - Aboriginal children and children subject to child protection involvement. Both are over-represented in the youth justice system. Our study identified that there was a small group of children who were remanded for the first time when they were between 10 to 12 years of age, all of whom had been involved in the child protection system. Almost a third of these were Aboriginal. Details: Richmond, VIC, AUS: Jesuit Social Services, 2013. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2013 at: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Thinking_Outside_Research_long_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Thinking_Outside_Research_long_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127906 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (Australia)

Author: Gyateng, Tracey Title: Young People and the Secure Estate: Needs and Interventions Summary: This report, by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck, University of London, and Ipsos MORI, was commissioned by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) in 2008. It provides an in-depth examination of the identified needs of children and young people within the secure estate and the interventions they received, based on fieldwork conducted over the course of 2010 to early 2011. The research encompassed the three types of establishment that make up the secure estate for children and young people: secure children’s homes (SCHs), secure training centres (STCs) and young offender institutions (YOIs). The key aims of the research were to:  identify what types of interventions young people received within secure establishments  describe the extent to which interventions were matched to identified needs  elicit and describe young people’s experiences within the secure estate  outline the views of staff within the secure estate regarding interventions. Methods The following research methods were used:  a survey of 1,245 young people approaching the end of a custodial sentence (827 in YOIs, 229 in STCs and 189 in SCHs)  an analysis of the administrative records, where available, for the surveyed young people (713 in YOIs, 211 in STCs and 181 in SCHs: 1,105 in total)  forty-two in-depth qualitative interviews with secure estate staff across five establishments (two YOIs, two STCs and one SCH). Young people who were serving a custodial sentence were included in the study if they had a release date within four months after completion of the survey at the end of 2010. Young people were surveyed in six phases over the course of 2010. They were initially selected for participation in the survey on a random basis. However, since the population of young people in custody was consistently falling, phases two to six of the survey took the form of a census of all young people exiting custody within the defined timeframe. The analysis of administrative records involved an on-site case file review; and, to complement this, data were collected from the eAsset system at the YJB headquarters. However, both data collection methods found inconsistencies across the secure estate in the recording of details of interventions received by individual young people, such as the frequency and intensity of interventions, and levels of completion and achievement. Ten YOIs (including one female YOI), four STCs and eight SCHs participated in the study. Establishments were chosen to ensure that the sampled population covered 94% of the secure estate yearly throughput in YOIs5 and SCHs, and 100% in STCs. The following limitations need to be borne in mind when interpreting the findings:  survey of young people Young people on longer sentences such as detention for public protection (section 226/228), where the release date could not be provided, were not included in this study. As they comprise only 4% of the sentenced custodial population, it is likely that the exclusion of this particular group of offenders will have had only a minimal impact on the yearly throughput.  administrative data The completeness and quality of data varied both within and between establishment types. Unfortunately complete data were rarely available on each individual. Some form of administrative data were collected for 1,105 of the young people who participated in the survey. This sub-sample was broadly representative of the wider survey sample.  in-depth interviews with secure estate staff Interviews were conducted with 42 staff from five secure establishments. It should be noted that findings from these interviews may not represent the views of all staff working within the secure estate. Key findings The research encompassed two main themes:  young people’s general experiences of the secure estate and their relationships with staff at the secure establishments  the interventions or programmes the young people received in relation to education, training and employment; offending behaviour; substance misuse; and resettlement into the community. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2013. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/34265/young-people-secure-estate.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/34265/young-people-secure-estate.pdf Shelf Number: 127994 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Rehabilitation Programs

Author: Asian Centre for Human Rights Title: Assam: The State of Juvenile Justice Summary: The State of Assam has been consistently ranking top in juvenile delinquency among the eight north eastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim. In 2011, Assam topped the list with 405 cases (402 of IPC1 crimes and 3 SLL2 crimes), followed by Meghalaya with 98 IPC crimes, Arunachal Pradesh with 78 IPC crimes, Tripura with 73 IPC crimes, Sikkim with 63 IPC crimes, and Mizoram with 58 IPC crimes. Figures of Manipur were not available in the 2011 NCRB report. At the same time, Assam also topped the list of States in India as per the ‘Study on Child Abuse India 2007’ carried out in 13 states by the Ministry of Women and Child Development of the Government of India. Assam with 84.65% had the highest prevalence of physical abuse of children who faced one or more forms of physical abuse. While 56.37% children in institutions across the country were subjected to physical abuse by staff members of the institutions, in Assam the study reported 90.20% of physical abuse of children in institutional care homes i.e. juvenile homes. Assam with 57.27% had the highest percentage of sexual abuse of those children who faced one or more forms of sexual abuse. The administration of juvenile justice remains equally deplorable. There is acute shortage of homes for juveniles in conflict with the law as well as children in need of care and protection. Assam with 27 districts is the second largest but the most populated state in the north east India but there are only 4 Observation Homes and 3 Children Homes run by the state. These homes are confined to Kamrup, Nagaon and Jorhat district while the shelter homes run by NGOs are located in Guwahati. While the Jorhat Observation Home set up in 1987 caters to over 11 districts — Jorhat, Golaghat, Karbi Anglong, Dibrugarh, Tinsukia, Sivasagar, Lakhimpur, Darrang, Udalguri and Sonitpur. Trafficking prone districts like Dhubri, Kokrajhar, Baksa, Chirang, Bongaigaon etc do not have any home. Assam’s negligence of juvenile justice is astounding. It failed to set up 7 new Open Shelters during 2011 despite availability of funds under the ICPS! Because of this failure the PAB declined to accept the request for grants for 3 existing Open Shelters at the 45th PAB meeting on 11th July 2012 under the ICPS. Instead, the PAB advised Assam to submit separate proposal for additional Open Shelters based on the findings/recommendations of the survey on street children that it had carried across Assam through Jayaprakash Institute of Social Change, a Kolkata based technical resource agency. The Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) constituted in all 27 districts of the state remain highly non-functional. Out of the 596 cases registered in 18 districts of Assam during 1st January 2011-31st December 2011, 347 cases were pending. The State Child Protection Society (SCPS), Assam failed to specifically provide the total number of reviews done by the State Government on the pendency of cases before each of the CWCs since their constitution. The SCPS only stated that State level review is being done from time to time. Assam has constituted Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) in all 27 districts of Assam9 but their functioning remains seriously problematic. At the latest i.e. the 45th Project Approval Board (PAB) Meeting under Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) held on 11th July 2012, the PAB expressed concern about the high pendency (1,635) at the JJB and suggested to increasing the sittings of the JJBs. Information received under the RTI revealed that percentage of pendency of cases before the JJBs range from minimum 33.3% in Udalguri district to maximum of 100% in Dhemaji and Morigaon district followed by 90.2% in Goalpara district and 79.3% in Darrang district and requires serious consideration. The problem is compounded by the lack of review of the pendency of cases of the JJBs by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or CMM as required under section 14(2) of the JJ (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006. Replies received from JJBs under the RTI stated that not a single review of the pendency of cases before the JJBs has been conducted by the CMM or CJM in Kokrajhar district; Dibrugarh district; Darrang district; Lakhimpur district; Udalguri district; Dhubri district; Goalpara district; Barpeta district; Golaghat district; Morigaon district; Chirang district; Dhemaji district and Nagaon district from date of their constitution till 30th March 2012. It has been observed that there is complete lack of enforcement of penal provisions in the JJ(C&P) Act, 2000 (as amended in 2006) in Assam. Sections 23-27 of the JJ(C&P) Act, 2000 provides for protections to Juvenile in the form of penalties and punishments to perpetrators accused of cruelty and exploitation against the juvenile or child. Information obtained by ACHR under the RTI Act, 2005 revealed that none of these protective provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act has been enforced in most districts of Assam. Not a single case under any of the above provisions of the JJ (C&P) Act, 2000 (as amended in 200) has been registered in these districts. Details: New Delhi: Asian Centre for Human Rights, 2012. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/JJ-Assam-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: India URL: http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/JJ-Assam-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 128493 Keywords: Child Protection Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems (India) Juvenile Offenders

Author: Sherman, Francine T. Title: Making Detention Reform Work for Girls: A Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform Summary: In 2005, the Annie E. Casey Foundation published Detention Reform and Girls: Challenges and Solutions, the thirteenth installment in its “Pathways to Detention Reform” publication series. The report showed that while girls comprise a minority of youth who appear in juvenile courts on delinquency charges, they often present vastly different challenges than boys. The special needs of girls are manifest throughout the juvenile justice process, the report found, but particularly at the detention phase. Serving girls effectively often requires targeted gender-responsive strategies. Throughout the nation, court-involved girls frequently pose minimal risk to public safety but suffer with significant social service needs. Data on detention utilization show that girls are being disproportionately detained for misdemeanors, status offenses and technical violations of probation and parole. In short, many girls enter detention for the wrong reasons and many remain in detention for extended periods harmful to them and contrary to best practice. Mirroring the national picture, the Pathways report found, “JDAI sites are struggling with how to reduce the population of girls in their secure facilities, implement detention alternatives to best meet girls’ needs, and provide gender-responsive programming for girls who require detention.” Further, the report noted, JDAI’s “core strategies by themselves — without specific policies, practices, and programs that address the particular challenges posed by girls — do not seem sufficient to eliminate disparities, to improve program performance, or to ensure appropriate conditions of confinement.” The Pathways report included a wealth of information about girls and detention. It provided data on girls’ growing share of the detention population, information on how girls’ backgrounds and needs differ from boys’, and an extensive discussion of promising approaches and best practices research on how to serve girls more effectively and make detention reform work for girls. What the report did not provide, however, were clear and specific instructions for local JDAI leaders on how to put this information to constructive use. This practice guide aims to fill that void. It responds to a call from both mature and new sites, which continue to find that effectively serving and supervising girls is among the most difficult issues in detention reform. The practice guide will stress that efforts to safely reduce the inappropriate detention of low-risk girls must be rooted in JDAI’s core strategies, but with an added intentional focus on applying those core strategies to girls’ unique needs and circumstances. These efforts require a strong and collaborative leadership team with the will and capacity to undertake meaningful reforms in the treatment of girls at the detention stage. The work must be rooted in careful analysis of detention management reports and individual case files to pinpoint policies or practices that may result in girls’ inappropriate or unnecessary detention, and they must lead to action as local leaders design, test and continually revise new strategies to meet girls’ needs. The practice guide begins with an overview of the challenges facing local juvenile justice systems in improving their approaches to girls in the detention process. The chapter summarizes the available information about the characteristics of girls in detention, the disparities in the system’s treatment of girls and boys, and the harm caused by unnecessary overreliance on detention for girls. This opening chapter highlights several prevalent causes for this overreliance on detention for girls, and it summarizes some of the key lessons from available research about what can be accomplished through focused efforts to improve the treatment of girls in the detention process. Chapter II describes the organizational steps necessary for JDAI jurisdictions to create a gender work group at the local level and to begin the process of analyzing current practices vis-à-vis girls in detention and developing a work plan for improving the detention process for girls. The chapter provides guidelines and suggestions for creating a local work group to examine the needs of girls, discusses the best timing for detailed gender analysis, and explains how the efforts of the girls work groups will be rooted in the JDAI core strategies. Chapter III will detail the steps required to conduct in-depth gender-focused data analyses to identify the nature and extent of disparities in the jurisdiction’s treatment of girls. Steps in the process include: an initial data scan of readily available data; selection of locally targeted research questions for further study (based on national research combined with local judgment and experience); in-depth quantitative analyses to determine underlying patterns that might be driving gender disparities and problematic treatment of girls; and, finally, a systematic analysis of information contained in case files and related records to further understanding and address questions that remain unanswered based on quantitative data. In addition to step-by-step instructions, the chapter will illustrate the process through a practical case study of a hypothetical jurisdiction. Chapter IV will describe how jurisdictions should go about putting the information gleaned from their gender-focused analysis to practical use. The chapter will help participating jurisdictions create a locally tailored work plan for improving the detention process for girls. The chapter profiles an array of promising and proven strategies gleaned from both the core JDAI strategies and best practice research on effective and gender-responsive practices for girls to address common needs and problems that may be revealed by sites’ data analyses. Also included are practical examples of these strategies from JDAI sites and other jurisdictions. The discussion will illustrate this process by detailing the gender-focused work plan developed in the hypothetical jurisdiction introduced in the prior chapter. Finally, in addition to the text in these chapters, the practice guide offers a variety of practical tools and templates in the Appendices. These include Girls Detention Facility Self-Assessment guidelines and sample tables for the quantitative and case file analyses for the jurisdiction described throughout the report in the hypothetical case study. Details: Baltimore: Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, Anne E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Featured%20Resources/JDAI%20-%20Making%20Detention%20Reform%20Work%20for%20Girls.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Featured%20Resources/JDAI%20-%20Making%20Detention%20Reform%20Work%20for%20Girls.pdf Shelf Number: 128653 Keywords: Female Delinquents Female Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Delinquency (U.S.) Juvenile Detention

Author: Asian Centre for Human Rights Title: Nobody’s Children: Juveniles of Conflict Affected Districts of India Summary: In the wake of the gruesome rape of a young woman on 16th December 2012 in Delhi, a heated debate has been raging at national level with respect to lowering the age of juveniles to 16 years. However, there are 184 districts (58 districts notified as “disturbed” under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and 106 districts declared as Left Wing Extremism affected, the edifice of juvenile justice do not exist. In 140 out of the 184 districts i.e. 76% of the total conflict afflicted districts do not have Observation Homes and Special Homes implying that juveniles who are taken into custody are kept in police lock up or camps of the army and para-military forces in clear violation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [JJ(C&PC) Act] and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Juvenile Justice Boards exist only paper as funds are siphoned off. In the meanwhile, arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, extrajudicial executions, and sexual assault on the girls continue unabated. Details: New Delhi: Asian Centre for Human Rights, 2013. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2013 at: http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/JJ-Nobodys_Children2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: India URL: http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/JJ-Nobodys_Children2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128668 Keywords: Child Maltreatment Child Protection Child Sexual Abuse Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems (India)

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia 2011-12: an overview Summary: Almost 7,000 young people are under youth justice supervision on an average day -- On an average day in 2011–12, there were almost 7,000 young people aged 10 and older under youth justice supervision in Australia due to their involvement or alleged involvement in crime. Most (83%) were male and the majority (79%) were aged 14–17. Indigenous young people were over-represented—although less than 5% of young Australians are Indigenous, 39% of those under supervision were Indigenous. Among all those aged 10–17 in Australia, this equates to a rate of 26 young people under supervision on an average day per 10,000 in the population, or 1 in every 385 young Australians. Most young people are supervised in the community -- Almost 6,000 (86%) young people were supervised in the community on an average day in 2011–12, and the remaining 1,000 (14%) were in detention. However, 2 in every 5 young people (41%) under youth justice supervision in Australia were in detention at some time during the year. Young people spend an average of 6 months under supervision -- The median duration of periods of youth justice supervision was about 11 weeks (78 days). Periods of community-based supervision completed during 2011–12 were typically longer (84 days, on average) than both unsentenced (4 days) and sentenced detention (55 days). Some young people experienced more than one supervision period during the year. When all the time spent under supervision during 2011–12 is considered, young people spent an average of about 6 months (185 days) under supervision. Trends are stable, but vary among the states and territories -- Nationally, the rates of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day remained relatively stable (about 26–27 per 10,000) over the 4 years to 2011–12. This stability occurred in both community-based supervision and detention. However, there were differences in trends among the states and territories. Between 2008–09 and 2011–12, rates of young people under supervision on an average day increased in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, and decreased in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin no. 115: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AIHW_YouthJusticeInAustralia2011-12_April2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AIHW_YouthJusticeInAustralia2011-12_April2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128675 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (Australia)

Author: Rodriguez, Nancy Title: An Impact Evaluation of Three Strategies Created to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact and the Detention Population Summary: The goal of this project was to examine the effectiveness of three distinct strategies (revision of a detention index, a procedural change in review of detention decisions, and a monitoring system of detained youth) created by Maricopa County Juvenile Probation to reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) and the number of youth subject to detention in the County. The study objectives include the examination of: 1) the overall number of detentions among youth brought to detention on a referral, especially minority youth; 2) the effect of race and ethnicity in detention outcome and subsequent stages of processing; 3) the length in detention stays among all youth; and 4) the decision-making processes of system actors directly involved with the processing of youth in the justice system, specifically detention and probation staff. Details: Final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 2013. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/241506.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/241506.pdf Shelf Number: 128698 Keywords: Discrimination Disproportionate Minority Contact (U.S.) Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Minority Groups

Author: International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO) Title: End Violence against Children in Custody. International and European Regulation and Policies Summary: Children and young people all over the world are in need of protection and special care when they come into conflict with the law. This is the inspiration behind the establishment of the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO), which offers an inter-disciplinary system of information, communication, debates, analysis and proposals concerning different areas relating to the development of juvenile justice in the world. Indeed, The IJJO aims to be an ambitious endeavour that promotes an international and interdisciplinary approach to issues related to juvenile justice, based on UN rules and regulations and implemented through its mission and activities. These rules and regulations include: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines), the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules). In this framework, the IJJO attaches importance to the promotion of a holistic and interdisciplinary concept of juvenile justice, based on three fundamental axes: the prevention of juvenile delinquency, penal intervention and educational measures and finally socio-professional reinsertion. Concerning the penal and educational measures, the IJJO provides a permanent forum for analysis, information and reflection on topics related to a child friendly justice. For that, The IJJO has a benchmarking function; it develops scientific researches, establishes good practice criteria and disseminates information on efficient strategies related to policies and interventions for the protection of young offenders’ rights. In this way, the protection of young offender’s rights and, more specifically, children victims of violence in custody is one of its advocacy priority, respecting always the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Details: IJJO, 2012. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2013 at: http://www.oijj.org/ Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.oijj.org/ Shelf Number: 128823 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Juvenile Offenders

Author: Children Rights Consortium Title: Improving Rehabilitation Services at Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres in Afghanistan : lessons learnt through a pilot project in support of the Herat and Kabul juvenile rehabilitation centres funded through the Italian cooperation office of the Italian emb Summary: Our pilot project was aimed at experimenting ways to improve the assistance to juveniles in JRCs, by focusing mainly on the question: what can be done to improve rehabilitation, re-education and reinsertion efforts with limited resources and making the best use of the existing ones? This project can also be considered as a follow-up action to the national seminar on ‘’Protection of Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) in Afghanistan through Alternatives to Detention” (Kabul, March 14-16, 2010) that was facilitated and funded through the Justice Program of the Italian Cooperation Office of the Italian Embassy and implemented together with all key stakeholder organizations involved in Juvenile Justice in Afghanistan. A number of specific operational recommendations were made at the workshop, including the need for more field research on concrete case studies/experiences which could help improve the assistance to juveniles in JRCs by providing related best practices. The present project takes up such recommendation and provides valuable lessons learnt from field experiences regarding legal aid assistance to juvenile offenders and action strategies to facilitate their rehabilitation, re-education and reinsertion into civil society. The present report aims at presenting such lessons learnt and sharing them with any other organization involved in this sector. We are very proud of our ex-ante baseline and the impact survey; through them, detailed and comprehensive data was collected and inputted to databases that have been requested by several organizations, many of which found them very useful for planning their own activities. In addition to the ex-ante and the impact assessment survey methodology, we also used a monthly peer questionnaire which gave the opportunity to inmates to evaluate us and measure what, in their views, was the perceived benefit they gained through the project activities. Individual interviews were also used as a very efficient way to gather information and feedback from inmates because they can be implemented rapidly, they can yield a wealth of data and those interviewed know they will remain anonymous. However, this methodology is based on inductive and deductive information gathering that does not allow us to know with certainty how generalized specific bad practices are or if illegal/unprofessional conduct, sometimes reported by interviewees, actually occurred. The main scope of the present report is not to highlight possible wrongdoings of individuals and institutions but to provide constructive suggestions and recommendations aimed at improving the provision of services in the juvenile justice system in Afghanistan, thanks to the inputs of all actors involved. We strongly believe that in Afghanistan, as in any other country, any improvement in the juvenile justice system will bear medium term fruits by helping to decrease the adult crime rate, since many studies have concluded that working properly with juvenile offenders can reduce recidivism by much as 50%. Some stakeholders may disagree with some of the findings of the present report, but its aim is to feed a critical debate that it is hoped will promote and/or inform, eventually, the development of new approaches and strategies with a view to improving the juvenile justice system. Details: Kabul: Children Rights Consortium, 2011. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2013 at: http://www.oijj.org/sites/default/files/jrcs_assistance_in_afghanistan_publication_aschiana.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Afghanistan URL: http://www.oijj.org/sites/default/files/jrcs_assistance_in_afghanistan_publication_aschiana.pdf Shelf Number: 129000 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems (Afghanistan) Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Rehabilitation Programs

Author: Aizer, Anna Title: Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly-Assigned Judges Summary: Over 130,000 juveniles are detained in the US each year with 70,000 in detention on any given day, yet little is known whether such a penalty deters future crime or interrupts social and human capital formation in a way that increases the likelihood of later criminal behavior. This paper uses the incarceration tendency of randomly-assigned judges as an instrumental variable to estimate causal effects of juvenile incarceration on high school completion and adult recidivism. Estimates based on over 35,000 juvenile offenders over a ten-year period from a large urban county in the US suggest that juvenile incarceration results in large decreases in the likelihood of high school completion and large increases in the likelihood of adult incarceration. These results are in stark contrast to the small effects typically found for adult incarceration, but consistent with larger impacts of policies aimed at adolescents. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 19102: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19102 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19102 Shelf Number: 129024 Keywords: Judges Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.S.) Juvenile to Adult Criminal Careers

Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Comeback States: Reducing youth incarceration in the United States Summary: In 2000, a record-setting 108,802 youth were held in detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in juvenile facilities in the United States. In a dramatic turnaround, by late-2010, the number of youth confined in state and county juvenile facilities had plummeted by 39 percent to 66,322. This reversal erased a 63 percent increase in the number of confined youth that began in 1985, when 66,762 youth were confined—an increase driven by highly publicized increases in youth arrests, growing public concern about youth crime, and state juvenile justice policies favoring increased reliance on incarceration. This report uses new federal data to document and analyze national and state incarceration trends. The turnaround is associated with changes in state policies since 2001 that reflected declines in youth arrests, new understandings of the teenage brain, less costly, evidence-based alternatives to incarceration, and constrained state budgets. A regression analysis of annual data found that although the decline in arrests helped explain the decline in confinement, post-arrest decisions by law enforcement officials, which are often shaped by state juvenile justice policies, also had a potent impact. Six policies were identified in this report that have been adopted by states since 2001 and encourage reductions in reliance on detention and incarceration. These changes: • increase the availability of evidence-based alternatives to incarceration; • require intake procedures that reduce use of secure detention facilities; • close or downsize youth confinement facilities; • reduce schools’ overreliance on the justice system to address discipline issues; • disallow incarceration for minor offenses; and • restructure juvenile justice responsibilities and finances among states and counties. Nine “comeback” states were singled out for their leadership in adopting these policies. They include California; Connecticut; Illinois; Ohio; Mississippi; New York; Texas; Washington; and Wisconsin. The report profiles each of the states with regard to: 1) the growth of their reliance on youth incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s; 2) reversal of that reliance during the 2001-to-late-2010 period; and 3) the incarceration reduction policies that they have adopted since 2001. The “comeback” states were selected because they adopted at least four of the six policies, exceeded the national-average reduction in youth confinement for the 2001-to-2010 period, and experienced a decline in youth arrests (as a proxy for greater public safety) between 2000 and 2010. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network; Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Comeback-States-Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129030 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Policy (U.S.) Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Hockenberry, Sarah Title: Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010 Summary: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention sponsors the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), a biennial survey of public and private juvenile residential facilities in every state that the U.S. Census Bureau conducts. The CJRP presents a detailed picture of the young people who are held in custody across the nation—including age, race, gender, offenses, adjudication status, and more. This bulletin presents the latest available national and state-level data from the CJRP, describing 79,165 youth held in 2,259 facilities on February 24, 2010. Findings from the 2010 CJRP appear positive. The population of juvenile offenders in custody has declined by one-third since 1997, and the number of status offenders in custody was down 52% from 1997. There are still areas for improvement, however, especially as regards rates of confinement for minority youth. Nationwide, the custody rate for black youth was more than 4.5 times the rate for white youth, and the custody rate for Hispanic youth was 1.8 times the rate for white youth. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report Series Bulletin: Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/241060.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/241060.pdf Shelf Number: 129162 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates (U.S.) Juvenile Residential Facilities

Author: Veen, Violaine Title: Risk Profiles of Youth in Pre-Trial Detention: A comparative study of Moroccan and Dutch male adolescents in the Netherlands Summary: Moroccan male adolescents in the Netherlands are highly overrepresented in youth crime, compared to both native Dutch and other ethnic minority groups. The current thesis has been the first to examine the characteristics of Moroccan adolescent offenders in the Netherlands in relation to various environmental and individual risk factors, using quantitative data from both an offender population and from the general population. The objective of the present study was a) to identify the risk profile of Moroccan youth offenders in pre-trail detention, b) to compare this risk profile with that of native Dutch adolescents in pre-trail detention, and c) to draw intra-ethnic comparisons of various risk factors by using comparison samples from the respective general populations. Participants in this study were 299 boys aged 12-18 years, placed in pre-trial detention in 10 juvenile justice institutions in the Netherlands. From all incarcerated boys, 141 were of Moroccan origin and 158 were native Dutch. Of the participants, 168 parents participated in the study. Overall, a less problematic profile was found for Moroccan adolescents in pre-trial detention than for native Dutch adolescents in pre-trial detention. First, analysis of police record data showed that the offending behavior of Moroccan adolescents in pre-trial detention was characterized by relatively less serious delinquent acts (i.e., property-based offences) compared to native Dutch. Second, individual risk factors such as mental health problems and psychopathic traits, were found to be less prevalent among Moroccan adolescents in pre-trial detention than among native Dutch. Third, less control and less affection expression characterized the mother-son relationship in Moroccan families in general. Finally, the level of orientation towards Dutch society was higher for Moroccan adolescents in pre-trial detention than for Moroccan adolescents from the general population. In sum, the risk profile of Moroccan youths in pre-trial detention was found to be less problematic compared to the risk profile of incarcerated native Dutch, and incarcerated Moroccans were found to be more orientated towards the Dutch society than their Moroccan peers in the general population. The characteristics of Moroccan boys are indicative of various theoretical explanations for their overrepresentation in crime. First, being strongly oriented towards the Dutch society may make Moroccan youths more likely to use natives as a basis of social comparison, and therefore may make them more prone to experience frustration regarding their unfavorable socio-economic and socio-cultural position in the Netherlands. As a consequence, Moroccan immigrant youths may be more likely to engage in criminal activities. Second, a lack of social control exerted by for instance school and mothers in Moroccan families, is thought to contribute to problem behavior in Moroccan boys. Third, there are indications that discriminatory processes in the juvenile justice system may to some extent account for their overrepresentation in youth crime, and our findings on the relatively less problematic risk profiles of Moroccan boys are in line with these indications. Support is warranted for Moroccan boys, for example by creating more educational opportunities and better chances on the labor market and by helping Moroccan families accessing mental health services. Details: Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2011. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 26, 2013 at: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2011-0819-200943/UUindex.html Year: 2011 Country: Netherlands URL: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2011-0819-200943/UUindex.html Shelf Number: 129187 Keywords: Adolescents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Netherlands) Minority Groups Pre-Trial Detention Risk Assessment Socioeconomic Status

Author: Penal Reform International Title: A Review of Law and Policy to Prevent and Remedy Violence against Children in Police and Pre-Trial Detention in Eight Countries: Country Reports for: Bangladesh, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Tanzania and Uganda Summary: Throughout the criminal justice process – during arrest, at the police station and in detention – children are at risk of violence from police, prison staff, adult detainees and their peers. Such violence takes many forms, including torture, beatings, isolation, use of restraints, rape, harassment, self-harm and humiliation. In some countries, children can be handed violent and inhumane sentences, including corporal punishment and even the death penalty. They may also experience unreasonable disciplinary measures in prison, such as corporal punishment or solitary confinement. The impact of violence on children in the general population can have irreversible and life-long consequences. Children who experience violence are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviours later in life, going on to perpetrate violence against others, experience depression, unintended pregnancy and obesity, and engage in other high-risk behaviours such as smoking, alcohol and drug use. In recent years, the issue of violence against children deprived of their liberty has come to the fore as a severe violation of child rights, which is frequently invisible and under-researched. Supported by the UK Department of International Development, this programme of work aims to reduce and eliminate violence against children in detention around the world by promoting reform of law, policy and practice through international and national advocacy, training and research. To date: We have researched and published baseline studies on legislation and policy, initially in eight countries around the world: Bangladesh, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tanzania and Uganda. These reviews aims to increase our understanding of the specific legal and policy measures that can work to prevent and remedy violence against children in police and pre-trial detention. These desk reviews (working draft, August 2012) aim to increase understanding of the specific legal and policy measures that can work to prevent and remedy violence against children in detention. Eight countries were researched: Bangladesh, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tanzania and Uganda. For each country, the review aims to: •identify policy and legislative measures already in place to prevent and detect violence, to assist victims and to make perpetrators accountable; •highlight significant gaps in provision; and •make recommendations for improvements. There are eight individual country reports (Country Reports for: Bangladesh, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Tanzania and Uganda) , and a summary report (working draft) which pulls together findings from these eight reports. Details: London: Penal Reform International, 2013. 9 vols. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2013 at: http://www.penalreform.org/publications/review-law-and-policy-prevent-and-remedy-violence-against-children-police-and-pre-tria-0 Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.penalreform.org/publications/review-law-and-policy-prevent-and-remedy-violence-against-children-police-and-pre-tria-0 Shelf Number: 129382 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Bangladesh, Georgia, Jordan, K Pretrial Detention, Juveniles Violence Against Children

Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: Bernalillo County Mental Health Clinic Case Study Summary: It is one of the most complex challenges facing our nation’s juvenile courts, probation agencies and detention centers: How to provide effective mental health treatment for youth involved in the juvenile justice system? Particularly vexing is how to provide high-quality mental health care for youth entering detention (or being placed into detention alternatives) and then ensure that the care continues uninterrupted after youth exit detention supervision. This report examines how one jurisdiction — Bernalillo County, New Mexico — has taken extraordinary steps to address these detention-related mental health challenges first by ensuring Medicaid eligibility for detained youth and then by establishing a licensed free-standing community mental health clinic adjacent to its detention facility. Now 10 years old, Bernalillo’s mental health clinic has provided services to thousands of court-involved youth. Though costly and fraught with complexity, the clinic has proven a useful component in Bernalillo’s notable successes reducing detention populations and promoting success for court-involved youth. It offers a valuable case study for juvenile justice officials everywhere who are interested in improving mental health services for youth in their systems. The report begins by briefly reviewing the mental health challenge facing juvenile courts generally and detention agencies specifically in providing effective mental health services for court-involved youth. Following that is an overview of the Bernalillo County JDAI program — how it started, what strategies it has employed and how its leaders came to identify mental health as a core challenge requiring an aggressive and creative response. Next, the report details the steps in the evolution of Bernalillo County’s mental health strategy, including the development of improved mental health services for detained youth, the pursuit of reforms to ensure the continuity of Medicaid eligibility for detained youth, and finally the creation, licensing and initial financing of the mental health clinic. The report then provides a description of Bernalillo’s new mental health clinic — including its programs and services, clientele, staffing and financing. The sixth chapter examines the clinic’s impact, reviewing available data and discussing the various mechanisms through which the clinic is advancing the goals of detention reform and of the juvenile justice system generally. The final chapters of the report review the lessons learned from Bernalillo’s experience with mental health, including discussion of: (a) the issues and challenges Bernalillo has faced in creating, sustaining and ensuring the effectiveness of the clinic; (b) the key questions other jurisdictions should review when considering whether to replicate the Bernalillo clinic model; and (c) the lessons emerging from Bernalillo’s experience about the role of mental health treatment in detention reform that will be useful for all jurisdictions, whether or not they elect to follow Bernalillo’s lead in creating an independent mental health clinic. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: A Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform, No. 6: Accessed July 26, 013 at: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Featured%20Resources/JDAI%20-%20Bernalillo%20County%20Mental%20Health%20Clinical%20Case%20Study.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Featured%20Resources/JDAI%20-%20Bernalillo%20County%20Mental%20Health%20Clinical%20Case%20Study.pdf Shelf Number: 129405 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.S.) Mental Health Services

Author: Knowles, Jessica Title: Still Behind Bars: Child Incarceration and Juvenile Justice Policy in the Philippines Summary: This report focuses on the implementation of the 2006 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act in Metro Manila, Philippines. Details: PREDA Foundation, 2010. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2013 at: http://www.preda.org/main/archives/still-behind-bars.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Philippines URL: http://www.preda.org/main/archives/still-behind-bars.pdf Shelf Number: 129433 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems (Philippines) Juvenile Offenders

Author: Mcgrath, Alice Title: A Voice for the Future of Juvenile Justice in Asia-Pacific: Introduction to the Asia Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice and Leading Juvenile Justice Reforms in the Region Summary: The situation of children in conflict with the law, child victims and witnesses of crime has become an increasing concern for most of the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. Even if significant reform initiatives are currently underway in response to issues of violence against children, child trafficking and children rights, a lack of specific guarantee of protection of the rights of children in conflict with the law and juvenile justice systems still persists in some countries. In order to assist countries in the region in the implementation of international standards and the development of reforms, the International Juvenile Justice Observatory - (IJJO) has established the Asia-Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice - APCJJ to formulate recommendations on juvenile justice in Asia-Pacific, as well as to gather quantitative and qualitative information on the situation of children, adolescents and young people in conflict with the law. In 2012, the International Juvenile Justice Observatory together with the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection of the Ministry of Justice of Thailand organised the first meeting of the Asia Pacific Council of Juvenile Justice - APCJJ. The objective of the APCJJ meeting was to develop solid strategies to ensure the respect for the rights of children and adolescents in conflict with the law and to promote crime prevention policies toward Asia-Pacific institutions, such as the ASEAN, based on existing initiatives and programmes. The report sheds light on crucial areas of juvenile justice and leading practices in this regard, including prevention, diversion, restorative justice, improving conditions of detention and promoting social reintegration. Details: Brussels: International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO), 2013. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/reports_monitoring_evaluation/IJJO_AVoiceForTheFutureOfJuvenileJusticeAsiaPacific_2013_EN.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Asia URL: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/reports_monitoring_evaluation/IJJO_AVoiceForTheFutureOfJuvenileJusticeAsiaPacific_2013_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 131648 Keywords: Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (Asia, Pacific Region) Juvenile Justice Reform

Author: Richards, Kelly Title: Bail and Remand for Young People in Australia: A national research project Summary: Funded and endorsed by the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators, this is one of the first national scale research reports into the bail and remand practices for young Australians. A young person can be placed in custody on remand (ie refused bail) after being arrested by police in relation to a suspected criminal offence, before entering a plea, while awaiting trial, during trial or awaiting sentence. Although custodial remand plays an important role in Western criminal justice systems, minimising the unnecessary use of remand is important given the obligations Australia has under several UN instruments to use, as a last resort, youth detention of any kind. This research identifies trends in the use of custodial remand and explores the factors that influence its use for young people nationally and in each of Australia's jurisdictions. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2013. 132p. Source: Internet Resource: Research and Public Policy Series no. 125: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/125/rpp125.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/125/rpp125.pdf Shelf Number: 131685 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Australia) Remand

Author: Straub, Christina Title: Evaluation Report: Embedding RESTORE into the fabric of YOI Ashfield - Qualitative analysis of impact and effectiveness - Summary: Ashfield HMP & YOI is a managed Young Offenders Institution caring for 400 male juveniles aged 15-18 years. Interventions are designed around the needs of the individual, with an emphasis on drugs and alcohol as well as violence and anger management. Over the last two years the most significant change in the make-up of the prisoner population at YOI Ashfield was the increase in offences of violent crime often involving weapons. Gang affiliation was closely related to this. Since previous work of the Forgiveness Project in the establishment had been very effective in the prevention of violence, further cooperation was sought by the prison. Funding granted through the Home Office's CAGGK (Communities Against Guns, Gangs & Knives Crime) Fund made this possible. As a result the RESTORE programme operated at Ashfield YOI for two years (July 2011 - March 2013) with support from the CAGGK fund. As well as working towards implementing the above named practical outcomes, the work also focused on developing an in-depth approach to further embed RESTORE in the fabric of the prison. Further funding was received in 2013 to undertake a qualitative evaluation looking at the impact and effectiveness of the RESTORE programme in a broader sense. Data gathered throughout the 2-year implementation period at YOI Ashfield has been analysed3 to provide an in-depth insight into the way this intervention operated, how it affected participants, and where its key strengths lay. Details: London: The Forgiveness Project, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2014 at Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://theforgivenessproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Evaluation-Report-YOI-Ashfield.pdf Shelf Number: 131774 Keywords: Intervention Programs Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Young Male Offenders

Author: Western Australia, Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services Title: The Management of Young Women and Girls at Banksia Hill Detention Centre Summary: The riot at the Banksia Hill Juvenile Detention Centre ('Banksia Hill') on 20 January 2013, the ensuing court casesi1and the publication of two independent reportsii2have resulted in considerable debate in government, the media and the non-government sector about youth justice services in Western Australia. It appears to be accepted that the shortcomings that led to the riot were reflective of systemic problems and that organisational and cultural change is needed to improve service delivery, efficiencies and correctional outcomes. The boys held in detention have attracted the most attention. This is not surprising: they represent by far the majority of detainees (over 90 per cent), it was the boys who were responsible for the 20 January riot, and it was the boys who were subsequently transferred to Hakea Prison. However, it is vitally important that the specific needs and challenges of girls in detention are not subsumed by the demands of the boys. This report aims to assess the current 'state of play' with respect to incarcerated girls and to promote further debate and focus. The report is the outcome of an inspection of the girls' unit at Banksia Hill (Yeeda Unit) in April/May 2013. It contains a number of recommendations regarding services and systems and also some more strategic recommendations. While the report stands in its own right, it needs to be read alongside the report of the directed review into the Banksia Hill riot.Pleasingly, the Department of Corrective Services ('DCS') has supported almost all the recommendations. Details: Perth, WA, AUS: Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, 2014. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Report no. 86: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.oics.wa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectID=F9248052-0B7C-FDCB-7578862113D36911 Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.oics.wa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectID=F9248052-0B7C-FDCB-7578862113D36911 Shelf Number: 131863 Keywords: Detention Centers Female Offenders Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Deaths of Children in Custody: Action Taken, Lessons Learnt Summary: The death of any child is a tragedy. When that child is in custody, the death also raises important questions for the state in respect of its duty to keep the child safe. In 2000, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) took responsibility for commissioning places in the secure estate for children and young people in England and Wales, and for placing children in secure units after they had been sentenced by the courts. Sixteen boys have died in custody since the YJB took responsibility for placements and commissioning in the secure estate in April 2000. With the exception of Gareth Myatt, all of the boys' deaths are thought1 to have been self-inflicted. Analysis of the available records from inquests, Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) investigation reports, Serious Case Reviews and one government-commissioned inquiry (Lambert, 2005) suggests that the YJB has been the direct recipient of about 120 recommendations. This report describes how these recommendations have been implemented. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/monitoring-performance/deaths-children-in-custody.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/monitoring-performance/deaths-children-in-custody.pdf Shelf Number: 131873 Keywords: Deaths in Custody Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates

Author: Anderson, Victoria Title: Second Chances for All. Why Orange County Probation Should Stop Choosing Deportation Over Rehabilitation for Immigrant youth Summary: In recent years, the Orange County Probation Department (OCPD) has adopted a policy of referring immigrant children in its care to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In so doing, OCPD has violated confidentiality laws, undermined the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, impeded community policing efforts, unlawfully entangled its officers in federal immigration enforcement, and diverted county resources. This report was undertaken by the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic to analyze OCPD's referral policy, document some of these harms, and recommend possible solutions to address those harms. As a result of OCPD's referral policy, Orange County has led the state in juvenile immigration referrals. From December 2010 to November 2012, the OCPD Procedure Manual instructed probation officers to proactively investigate the immigration status of youth and granted OCPD's ICE Liaison Officer discretion to refer practically any child with "questionable immigration status" to ICE. Pursuant to this policy, OCPD referred approximately 170 youth to immigration authorities in the year 2011 alone. Between October 1, 2009 and February 10, 2013, ICE issued immigration detainer requests for numerous youth detained in Orange County Juvenile Hall; Orange County accounted for approximately 43% of all ICE detainer requests issued to juvenile facilities in the state. In November 2012, OCPD revised its referral policy; however, key problematic aspects of the policy were left unchanged. In the months following the policy change, OCPD has made a steady, if reduced, number of referrals. Approximately 24 youth were referred between December 2012 and September 2013. OCPD's referral policy violates state confidentiality law and undermines OCPD's mission to rehabilitate juveniles. The policy violates California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827, which strictly limits access to juvenile case files, by requiring employees to provide ICE with "all pertinent information" to assist ICE's investigation of referred juveniles. Juvenile referrals also cause both children and their families to distrust the probation department, hindering cooperation necessary for rehabilitation. Furthermore, many juveniles referred to ICE are detained in federal custody for an indefinite period awaiting immigration court proceedings, separating them from their families and subjecting them to physical and mental hardships that increase their risk of recidivism. In cases where children are deported, they experience long-term separation from family and friends, and may be left to fend for themselves in countries where they have no support system. Juvenile referrals do not benefit public safety, and may even hinder policing efforts. Studies have repeatedly found that immigration status does not shape future delinquency. Also, OCPD's own studies indicate that as few as 8% of youth who come into contact with OCPD qualify as "chronic recidivists." Thus, targeting immigrant youth for deportation is unlikely to make Orange County safer. In fact, juvenile referrals can harm public safety because they foster distrust between immigrant communities and local police generally. Surveys show that approximately 44% of Latinos are less likely to contact police officers when they fear police officers will investigate their immigration status or that of their loved ones. OCPD's involvement in federal immigration enforcement exceeds its authority under the Constitution and can lead to illegal detention, deportation, and profiling. Under the Constitution, immigration status may only be determined by federal officers and classified according to federal standards, but OCPD's referral policy directs county officers to independently ascertain juveniles' immigration status, according to a local scheme inconsistent with federal standards. The Constitution also guarantees juveniles the right to be free from unlawful detention, but the referral policy violates that right with its blanket directive to detain juveniles subject to ICE detainers for up to five days past their scheduled release dates. Furthermore, officers untrained in the complexities of immigration status are likely to rely on apparent race and ethnicity in selecting juveniles for immigration investigations, exacerbating risks of illegal racial profiling. Finally, OCPD officers may erroneously refer U.S. citizens or other lawfully present youth to ICE, potentially leading to their unlawful detention and deportation. OCPD's referral policy involves the unnecessary expenditure of county resources to subsidize federal immigration enforcement. OCPD employees - including a dedicated ICE Liaison - spend time on the county payroll investigating juveniles' immigration status and communicating with ICE, and the county incurs additional detention costs when OCPD denies out-of-home placement to juveniles subject to ICE detainers and detains such juveniles past their release dates. Further costs may result from lawsuits filed by those affected by OCPD's referral policy or by civil rights organizations, challenging violations of confidentiality laws, the detention of juveniles on the basis of ICE detainers, racial profiling by OCPD officers, or the erroneous referral and resulting detention or deportation of lawfully present juveniles. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, School of Law, immigrant Rights Clinic, 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131887 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrant Enforcement Immigration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Rehabilitation

Author: Penal Reform International Title: Neglected Needs: Girls in the Criminal Justice System Summary: Girls are one of the most vulnerable groups involved in criminal justice systems because of their age, gender and small numbers. Relatively little is known or understood about offending by girls, their specific needs whilst in detention, or about what is effective in terms of gender-sensitive rehabilitation and social reintegration measures. This paper examines the specific challenges faced by girls in contact with the criminal justice system and makes recommendations for strengthening the protection of their rights. It explores how girls face discriminatory treatment in terms of the type of offences for which they are detained, their access to fair trial guarantees, and the lack of suitable alternatives to detention. It then looks at some of the specific challenges faced by girls in detention and the international and regional standards in place to address these, focusing on: - protection from violence - access to adequate healthcare - provision of rehabilitation and reintegration services - access to effective remedy. Details: London: Penal Reform International, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2014 at: http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/girls-crim-just-v4.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/girls-crim-just-v4.pdf Shelf Number: 131946 Keywords: Female Offenders Gender Specific Responses Juvenile Detention

Author: Lyons, J.S. Title: Youth Residential Treatment Options in Newfoundland & Labrador Summary: The Issue In 2009, the Government of Newfoundland & Labrador announced the creation of two youth residential treatment (YRT) centres for youth with complex needs. YRT is a multifaceted form of care that requires programming in the areas of treatment, milieu (i.e., plans to manage group interactions among clients and staff), and the residence itself. A broad range of multi-disciplinary research-based evidence can inform the design and implementation of these YRT centres. For this evidence to be useful to decision makers, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Newfoundland & Labrador. Providing health decision makers with the best available evidence that is attuned to the capacities and characteristics of the province is the goal of the Contextualized Health Research Synthesis Program (CHRSP). The Results The Research Team, led by Dr. John Lyons, synthesized and contextualized the systematic review research literature related to several areas of interest: 1) YRT as a generic treatment program; 2) treating youth with addictions; 3) treating youth with disruptive behaviours; 4) treating sexually aggressive youth; 5) treating Aboriginal youth; 6) YRT site design, staffing and governance; and 7) the health economics of YRT. Despite a long history, YRT does not have a robust base of systematic review evidence due to methodological challenges. Nonetheless, there was evidence indicating that: YRT is most useful for those youth with elevated levels of complex needs. Some established treatments for youth with addictions and youth with disruptive behaviours can produce statistically significant, but clinically small, effects in clients. There are significant gaps in evidence concerning Aboriginal youth with complex needs and several indications that they may need specialized programming in order for treatments to be effective. YRT centres may benefit significantly from an autonomous intake system and they are most efficient if they operate within an integrated continuum of child care services including less intensive options. The costs of not treating youth with complex needs greatly exceeds the costs of treatment, although community-based services are more cost efficient than residential services. Details: St. Johns: NL: Newfoundland & Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research, Memorial University, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Evidence in Context: Accessed April 9, 2014 at: http://research.library.mun.ca/145/1/Youth_Residential_Treatment_Options.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://research.library.mun.ca/145/1/Youth_Residential_Treatment_Options.pdf Shelf Number: 132058 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Residential Treatment Centers Treatment Programs

Author: Hobbs, Anne Title: Evaluation fo the Lancaster County Alternatives to Juvenile Detention Summary: In June 2009, the Juvenile Justice Institute (JJI) was contracted to evaluate four of Lancaster County's Juvenile Justice Programs: Cedars Day Reporting Center, Cedars Evening Reporting Center, Project HIRE, and Cedars Juvenile Diversion. Each of these was identified as a detention alternative. The Institute was further charged with addressing three research questions: - Are detention alternatives keeping youth out of detention and; thereby, saving taxpayers money? - Are Lancaster County's detention alternative programs using "evidence based models" and, if so, have they been implemented with fidelity? - Are there other evidence-based programs that research has shown to be effective with this population? In addition, Lancaster County hoped to examine whether youth who complete these programs committed new legal offenses and ended up more deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system. At the time of this report, the Lancaster County juvenile justice coordinator did not have access to the Nebraska Criminal Justice Information System (NCJIS) to examine recidivism. Access alone does not answer the question of recidivism with accuracy. If Lancaster County plans to utilize recidivism as a long term measure, they must uniformly define the terminology and grant the coordinator access. Although some definitions of recidivism are proposed in this report from across the nation, determining how stable a youth is offers information potentially more useful that simple recidivism. Results from Lancaster County's use of the Youth Stability Reporting Instrument are included; these offer us new ways to examine a juvenile's potential for re-offending. One of the key findings and primary obstacles to this evaluation was the lack of coordinated data systems. This obstacle echoes a finding of the 2007 evaluation of the Juvenile Justice System in Lancaster County. In that report, the Institute noted that gaps exist in the coordination and documentation of juvenile justice interventions utilized in serving young offenders. Although Lancaster County made significant progress in many of the priorities identified in the prior report, the lack of coordinated and consistent data collection continues to be a problem. The gap in documentation made it impossible to provide an in-depth assessment of cost savings realized through the use of detention alternatives. Despite concerns regarding the lack of data, our findings demonstrate that Lancaster County Detention Alternative Programs are using many of the evidence-based practices defined by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). These programs appear to be effective in preventing youth from going deeper into the juvenile justice system. Details: Omaha, NE: Juvenile Justice Institute, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.unomaha.edu/juvenilejustice/pdf/Eval_of_Lan_Cty_Alternatives_to_Detention.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.unomaha.edu/juvenilejustice/pdf/Eval_of_Lan_Cty_Alternatives_to_Detention.pdf Shelf Number: 132367 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Day Reporting Centers Juvenile Detention Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders (Nebraska)

Author: DC Lawyers for Youth Title: Capital City Correction: Reforming DC's Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth Summary: From 2007 to 2012, 541 youth were charged as adults and incarcerated in adult jail in the District of Columbia. While incarcerated in the adult jail, these DC youth were housed in a developmentally inappropriate and inadequate facility where they receive limited educational, behavioral health, and vocational services. Most were not permitted to have in-person visits with family members. The majority of the time that youth spent at the adult jail was prior to trial, when youth are presumed innocent of the offense. Research has consistently shown that trying youth as adults does not promote public safety and that youth in the adult system are at increased risk for victimization and suicide. The Centers for Disease Control found that youth placed in the adult system are more likely to commit future crimes than similar youth treated in the juvenile system. Adult facilities generally do not offer the rehabilitative programs youth need to turn their lives around, and their staff are often insufficiently trained to work with youth. Youth in adult facilities are also at greater risk for sexual victimization, physical assault, and suicide. This report explains how youth enter the adult system in DC, summarizes data about which DC youth experience adult prosecution, explains the scientific literature on adolescent brain development and the effects of incarcerating youth in adult facilities, and notes deficiencies in the Juvenile Unit that currently holds DC youth charged as adults. Finally, the report offers three policy recommendations that would restore balance to DC's approach of the prosecution of youth: 1.Prohibit the pre-trial detention of youth in adult facilities. They are innocent until proven guilty, and innocent children should not be exposed to the harmful environment of adult jail. 2.Allow for "reverse transfer" motions, in which a judge can hear arguments about which system is most appropriate for the youth. If the judge decides that the youth can be rehabilitated before age 21 and that the public interest would be best served by placing the youth in the juvenile system, the judge should be able to transfer the youth back to the juvenile system. 3.End "once an adult, always an adult." Currently, any youth with an adult conviction must have any subsequent charges handled in adult court, no matter how minor they are and even if local prosecutors would prefer to charge the case in juvenile court. The default rule should always be that children under age 18 are treated in the juvenile system. Details: Washington, DC: DC Lawyers for Youth, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2014 at: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/dcly/pages/77/attachments/original/1400460117/Capital_City_Correction.pdf?1400460117 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/dcly/pages/77/attachments/original/1400460117/Capital_City_Correction.pdf?1400460117 Shelf Number: 132397 Keywords: Juvenile Court Transfers Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Waiver(of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)

Author: Weemhoff, Michelle Title: Youth Behind Bars: Examining the impact of prosecuting and incarcerating kids in Michigan's criminal justice system Summary: In the mid-1990s, Michigan became part of a national trend to get tough on youth crime. Although crime rates were steadily declining, the state passed a series of harsh laws that funneled thousands of youth into the adult criminal justice system. In addition to automatically considering all 17-year-olds as adults, Michigan broadened juvenile prosecutors' discretion to automatically file in criminal court, expanded the number of juvenile offenses requiring an adult sentence, and allowed children of any age to be criminally convicted and sent to prison. Most youth in the adult system are there for non-violent offenses. From 2003 to 2013, over 20,000 Michigan youth were placed on adult probation, detained in jail, or imprisoned for a crime committed when they were younger than 18 years old. The majority of these cases included non-violent offenses. Some were as young as 10 years old and a disproportionate number were youth of color. Processing youth in the adult system is harmful to them and bad for public safety. The trend to criminalize children was quickly met with the reality that processing youth in the adult system is detrimental to public safety and youth well-being. Youth in prison face exreme risk of violence, sexual assault, and self-harm. Without access to rehabilitative services, young people exiting adult prison are more likely to reoffend and reoffend more violently compared to their counterparts in the juvenile justice system. Michigan's adult probation and prison systems are not equipped to address the unique needs of youth. The majority of the youth sent to adult court in the past decade never received an education higher than the 11th grade or completed a GED. Over half entered the system with known drug or alcohol abuse issues and mental health concerns, and approximately 1,500 young people had at least one dependent. A small number of youth tried as adults are girls, who often enter the system with histories of violence and sexual victimization. Because so few girls are on probation or in prison, there are essentially no services for this vulnerable population. Young people leave the adult system without adequate support to keep them from returning. Once youth leave the corrections system, the lifelong consequences of an adult conviction are devastating. Nearly all youth in prison will eventually return to the community but will find significant barriers to employment, education, housing, and public benefits - the key elements to a successful future. Without effective reentry and support services, young people may find themselves in a revolving door to prison. Contrary to sentiments of the mid-1990s, public opinion in Michigan and across the country has shifted toward becoming "smart on crime." In an effort to protect public safety, improve child outcomes, and save money, leaders nationwide are re-evaluating previous policy decisions and making significant changes to youth transfer laws. It is time for Michigan to join them. Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: http://www.miccd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MCCD-Youth-Behind-Bars-Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.miccd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MCCD-Youth-Behind-Bars-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132565 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: Closing Massachusetts' Training Schools: Reflections Forty Years Later Summary: In December 2011, more than 100 of the nation's leading juvenile justice experts convened for a day-long symposium in Washington, D.C., to remember and reconsider an historic reform campaign - the closure of Massachusetts' entire network of juvenile reform schools in the early 1970s. The facility closures were unprecedented and highly controversial, and they were meticulously studied in their aftermath. For a time, many reformers believed that Massachusetts would become the model for similar efforts throughout the nation. However, a serious but time-limited spike in youth violence in the early 1990s prompted a dramatic turn away from rehabilitation and deinstitutionalization in juvenile justice, and the Massachusetts story largely faded from public consciousness. Recently, however, states across the country have begun shuttering juvenile corrections facilities and dramatically reducing the population of young people incarcerated. Suddenly, far from the one-of-a-kind anomaly it seemed only a few years ago, Massachusetts stands out today as a prescient trailblazer on the path to end our nation's long-standing over-reliance on juvenile incarceration. The symposium was convened to provide present-day reformers an opportunity to review the efforts of their predecessors in Massachusetts, glean the lessons of history and retool them for the current day. This publication recounts the symposium. It provides a history of the Massachusetts reform campaign and its aftermath, summarizes the major themes and ideas presented by speakers and details the conclusions and recommendations emerging from group discussions. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-ClosingMassachusettsTrainingSchools-2014.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-ClosingMassachusettsTrainingSchools-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132568 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Training Schools

Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Comeback and Coming-from-Behind States: An Update on Youth Incarceration in the United States Summary: The number of youth confined in state and county facilities nationwide strongly declined in 2011, affirming the benefits of key juvenile-justice reforms enacted in various states in the past decade. These findings are included in a new report, "The Comeback and Coming-from-Behind States" released today by NJJN and the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Effective Justice (TPPF). The report highlights the continued positive trend in the nine states leading the nation on reducing incarceration, and showcases a handful of states that, while not keeping pace with the nationwide trend, have opened the door for future progress by adopting crucial incarceration-reducing policies that have been shown to improve conditions for youth and communities. For the 2001-to-2011 ten-year period, the number of confined youth declined by 41% nationwide, or an annual average decline of 4.1% - a dramatic drop since 2000, when a record-setting 108,802 youth were held in detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in juvenile facilities in the U.S. The nationwide decline in 2011 (from 70,793 to 61,423 youth) continues the trend from the previous year (the latest for which data is available), which showed youth confinement was reduced by 32% nationwide from 2001-2010. The report also identifies four states - Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming - that are not keeping pace with the national rate of incarceration decline. As a group, these states' average rate of confinement in 2011 was 87% higher than the national average. However, they are poised to show progress in the coming years, as they have already begun to adopt specific policies proven to reduce incarceration. The report argues that positive turnaround can be achieved through changes to state policy that reflect new understandings of the teenage brain, growing use of alternatives to incarceration, and constrained state budgets. These policy reforms include: - increasing the availability of evidence-based alternatives to confinement; - requiring intake procedures that reduce the use of detention facilities; - closing or downsizing youth confinement facilities; - reducing schools' overreliance on the justice system to address discipline issues; - disallowing incarceration for minor offenses; and - restructuring juvenile justice responsibilities and finances among states and counties. NJJN and TPPF identified these six policies as key measures of positive reform, as all encourage less reliance on detention and incarceration across the U.S. For youth being held in detention centers awaiting trial or incarcerated in juvenile facilities, implementing reforms is a critical change. Youth who are locked up are separated from their families, many witness violence and struggle when they get out, trying to complete high school, get jobs or go to college. Aside from the human toll, the financial costs of maintaining large secure facilities have also made it vital to rethink juvenile justice in every community. "States have made strides in changing their policies so that youth are held accountable in age-appropriate ways, but there is more work to be done," said Sarah Bryer, Director of NJJN. "It is critical that we build upon the success seen over the past twenty years and make every effort possible to adopt meaningful reforms that reduce youth confinement and strengthen our communities." The report, an update to the "Comeback States" report issued by the groups in June, uses data from 2011 (the most recent year for which national data is available) on youth confinement provided by the U.S. Justice Department's (USDOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to track the ongoing national reduction of youth incarceration, as well as the continued progress of the nine states leading the nation on implementing meaningful juvenile justice reforms resulting in the reduction of youth in confinement in their states. These comeback states include: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Mississippi, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. The nine comeback states were selected because they adopted at least two-thirds of the targeted policy changes, exceeded the national-average reduction in youth confinement, and experienced enhanced public safety with a decline in youth arrests. The four come-from-behind states were identified based on their current population-adjusted rates of youth confinement, and their adoption of at least three of the six incarceration-reducing statewide policies identified in the report. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/The-Comeback-and-Coming-from-Behind-States.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/The-Comeback-and-Coming-from-Behind-States.pdf Shelf Number: 132586 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: Wilber, Shannan Title: Noncitizen Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: This publication provides a guide to working with noncitizen youth in the juvenile justice system. It promotes the adoption of policies and procedures for noncitizen youth that are consistent with the principles of detention and equity reform. The report includes an overview of noncitizen youth in the United States, a review of how immigration status might impact a juvenile justice case and an overview of the law with regards to the intersection between juvenile justice and immigration enforcement. This practice guide aims to assist jurisdictions in being more aware of the impact of immigration status and provide appropriate services to address this population's special needs. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: A Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform, No. 7: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-NoncitizenYouthintheJJSystem-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-NoncitizenYouthintheJJSystem-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132601 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Immigrants Juvenile Offenders Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Davis, Antoinette Title: Using Bills and Budgets to Further Reduce Youth Incarceration Summary: States across the country have seen huge reductions in the number of youth incarcerated in detention halls, camps, and state secure facilities. One major reason for the reductions is successful legislation developed by advocates and legislators on both sides of the aisle. The five most successful components of this legislation include provisions that: � Move supervision responsibilities for some youth from the states to county agencies; � Include fiscal incentives to pay for these shifts in responsibilities; � Exclude categories of crimes such as status offenses, misdemeanors, and non-violent felonies from eligibility for incarceration in state facilities; � Require use of the best practices identified by research; and � Encourage stakeholders to place youth in the least-restrictive settings by naming it as a goal in reform legislation. Despite the overall reduction of incarcerated youth, much higher percentages of youth of color remain under formal supervision and in state secure facilities. This suggests that even the most successful states need to employ new strategies. Systems need to continue to reduce out-of-home placements in order to strengthen the links between youth and their families. They also need to identify the most effective supervision strategies. Legislation helps this agenda by guaranteeing the flow of funding to fiscally sustainable, culturally relevant community-based organizations with promising research-based practices. Details: San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2014. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: http://nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/bills-and-budgets.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/bills-and-budgets.pdf Shelf Number: 132608 Keywords: African Americans Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offender Supervision Juvenile Offenders Minority Youth

Author: Wagland, Paul Title: Youths in Custody in NSW: Aspirations and Strategies for the Future Summary: Aim: To investigate the extent to which youths in custody 1) rate specific life goals as important and likely to eventuate; 2) have strategies to achieve their goals; and 3) can anticipate barriers to achieving their goals. Method: A total of 107 detainees drawn from NSW Juvenile Justice centres were interviewed about their life goals. Results: Most youths rated specific life goals, such as having a well-paying job and avoiding trouble with the police, as 'quite important' or 'very important' goals to achieve in the future. When youths were asked how likely it was that these specific goals would be realised, the most common response was 'quite likely' or 'very likely'. The most frequently identified strategies for having a well-paying job included getting the necessary diplomas and starting in a junior position to get experience. The most frequently identified strategies for avoiding trouble with the police were resisting peer pressure and obeying the law. Commonly reported barriers to achieving these goals included associating with antisocial peers, drugs and alcohol usage. Many youths also recognised that getting into trouble with the law would also be a barrier to having a well-paying job. Conclusion: Most youths interviewed in this study placed high importance on specific life goals and were generally optimistic about achieving them. Furthermore, most youths could think of strategies that would help them achieve their goals as well as identify possible barriers to achieving them. These findings have the potential to help service providers and policy makers target their services and policies appropriately. Details: Sydney: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2013. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 173: Accessed July 16, 2014 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb173.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb173.pdf Shelf Number: 132684 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Australia) Juvenile Rehabilitation

Author: Smith, Erin Foley Title: Challenging Juvenile Life Without Parole: How Has Human Rights Made A Difference? Summary: Human rights standards and strategies play an important role in social justice legal advocacy in the United States. Human rights help frame new arguments, offer new venues for challenging existing policies and practices, provide opportunities for coalition-building, and afford new means to bring attention to rights violations. One example of human rights strategies at work in the U.S. is found in advocates' efforts to end a practice unique to the United States: sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In forty-two states in the United States, a child who commits a crime can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. There are currently approximately 2,500 individuals serving life sentences for crimes they committed when they were below eighteen years of age. For years, advocates have been working to end this practice, which is typically called juvenile life without parole, or "JLWOP." In the past ten years, human rights strategies have played an important role in challenging states' use of the sentence. Human rights have contributed to increased media attention on the issue, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting the practice, and legislative changes at the state level. This case study, based on interviews with a number of advocates working to end the practice, explores how human rights standards and strategies have helped to advance advocacy strategies to end JLWOP. Details: New York: Columbia University School of Law, Human Rights Institute, 2014. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2014 at: http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/jwlop_case_study_final_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/jwlop_case_study_final_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132743 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment Life Sentences

Author: Abram, Karen M. Title: Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among Detained Youth Summary: Incarcerated youth die by suicide at a rate two to three times higher than that of youth in the general population. In this bulletin, the authors examine suicidal thoughts and behaviors among 1,829 youth ages 10 to 18 in the Northwestern Juvenile Project�a longitudinal study of youth detained at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, IL. Key findings include the following: � Approximately 1 in 10 juvenile detainees (10.3 percent) thought about suicide in the past 6 months, and 11 percent had attempted suicide. � More than one-third of male juvenile detainees and nearly half of female juvenile detainees felt hopeless or thought a lot about death or dying in the 6 months prior to detention. � Recent suicide attempts were most prevalent in female detainees and youth with anxiety disorders. � Fewer than half of detainees with recent thoughts of suicide had told anyone about their suicidal thoughts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: http://ojjdp.gov/pubs/243891.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://ojjdp.gov/pubs/243891.pdf Shelf Number: 132749 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates (U.S.) Suicide

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Pathways Through Youth Justice Supervision Summary: Pathways through youth justice supervision explores the types of youth justice supervision experienced by particular cohorts of young people based on data available from the Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set (JJ NMDS) from 2000-01 to 2012-13. The report found that the top 10 pathways accounted for nearly three quarters (71%) of young people who experienced supervision. It also found that young males, young Indigenous people, those aged 10-14 at first supervision and those experiencing sentenced detention at some point were more likely than their counterparts to have more complex and varied pathways through supervision. Details: Canberra, AUS: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile justice series no. 15: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129548158 Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129548158 Shelf Number: 133005 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (Australia) Juvenile Offenders Offender Supervision

Author: Betsinger, Sara Title: Doors to Detention: Statewide Detention Utilization Study Summary: Despite recent drops in juvenile crime in Maryland, the number of youth in secure detention has remained relatively constant. This study investigates the characteristics of youth detained, and the reasons for each detention during the first two months in 2013. Findings: - Just two regions of the State account for a majority of youth in detention. Although they account for only 41% of Maryland's youth population, Baltimore City and the Metro Region (encompassing Prince George's and Montgomery County) comprise 64% percent of detention placements and 60% of average detained population (ADP). - Detained youth in Maryland are overwhelmingly African American males. African American males represent just 31% of the general youth population, but account for 67% of detained youth. - A majority of youth detained in Maryland were under DJS supervision at the time of detention. Sixty-seven percent of youth in detention had already been court ordered to probation or committed supervision (i.e., aftercare). - Although historically around one-third of youth in detention facilities were detained awaiting a committed out of home placement ("Pending Placement" youth), this number has declined markedly in the last year. Various reforms, including Continuum of Care legislation passed in 2012 as well as the subsequent establishment of the Department's Central Review Committee, have begun to reduce the backlog of pending placement youth in detention. During the study period, just 14% of detained youth were pending placement. - A majority of youth detained in Maryland did not commit a violent felony offense. Although more than one-third (36%) of the pre-disposition ADP was comprised of youth whose most recent, most serious alleged offense was a crime of violence, 44% of the pre-disposition ADP consisted of youth who had committed a non-violent misdemeanor as their most serious recent alleged offense. - A new delinquent offense is frequently not the main reason for a detention placement. Detentions often result from a youth's failure to comply with program or supervision conditions, or from some other infraction unrelated to the original offense and not comprising a new offense. Such technical violations account for over 35% of detained youth. - Many youth are detained following a stay in an alternative to detention (ATD) program. Maryland has a robust community-based detention alternatives system, but many youth who were initially court-ordered or intake-authorized into these programs are ultimately detained following a violation of the programs rules or the court order. Infractions include curfew violations, absences without leave (AWOL), equipment tampering, or other actions not rising to the level of a new delinquent offense. Such ATD violations account for one in four youth detained - the largest door to detention in Maryland. A system of graduated sanctions is being developed to allow programs to manage violators without resorting to detention. - The Department's Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) drives relatively few detention decisions. Because a majority of detentions do not stem from a new delinquent offense being referred to DJS Intake (and are instead the result of violations or other policies and practices), the practice of administering the DRAI almost exclusively at the point of Intake has not been effective in driving decisions for youth who enter detention through the "back doors." - Even in cases where a new delinquent complaint is referred to DJS Intake, the youth's assessed DRAI risk is frequently not the primary factor in the detention decision. Policy and discretionary overrides often trump detention recommendations based on assessed risk, so a youth who is classified as low risk and who has a less serious alleged offense may still be detained at intake if, for example: - There is an open writ or warrant; - A parent of guardian is unable to take custody of a youth; or - Certain regional policies (or "special decisions") mandate detention for certain offenses (e.g. auto theft) or situations (handgun use or possession). - Low risk youth account for a very small share of the average detained population. Even though the risk score is not the primary driver of detention in many cases, the study found that half of the average detained population was comprised of youth who were assessed by the DRAI as high risk, and just six percent of ADP was comprised of youth who were determined to be low risk. The remaining 44% of ADP was made up of medium risk offenders. Details: Baltimore: The Institute for Innovation & Implementation, 2013. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2014 at: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Statewide%20DUS%20-%206-27-13.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Statewide%20DUS%20-%206-27-13.pdf Shelf Number: 133469 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Justice Systems (Maryland) Juvenile Offenders

Author: Child Rights International Network Title: Inhuman Sentencing: Life Imprisonment of Children in the European Union Summary: What is immediately obvious from reviewing the justice systems of the European Union (EU), is that life imprisonment of children is now restricted to a small number of States, but that a substantial number of children are affected by such sentences. Within three States - Cyprus, France, and the United Kingdom (including England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) - life imprisonment remains clearly lawful for children. In 22 States, life imprisonment has now been explicitly abolished for children. While certainly something to celebrate, this statistic masks the extremely long maximum sentences that remain legal for crimes committed while under the age of 18 and the disparity in sentencing across Europe. This report reviews the laws and practices of the States within the EU with regards to life imprisonment of children; that is all persons under 18 years of age. Where official information is available on how many children are affected by the relevant sentences, this has been included, and where government figures are not maintained, this too is highlighted. For the purposes of this report, "life imprisonment" has been defined to include a variety of types of sentence under which it is possible for a person to be legally detained for the rest of his or her natural life for an offence committed whilst under the age of 18 years. Details: London: Child Rights International Network, 2014. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 10, 2014 at: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_in_the_eu3.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_in_the_eu3.pdf Shelf Number: 133633 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment, Juvenile (Europe) Life Sentences

Author: Prince, Kort Title: Determinants of length of stay in Utah's juvenile secure care facilities Summary: This report provides a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the factors that predict length of stay (LOS) in Utah's juvenile secure care facilities. The report examines both youth-level and system-level factors related to LOS. Departures from the goals of Utah's indeterminate sentencing structure are documented, and recommendations for improving the processes that lead to departures are provided based on both qualitative and quantitative findings. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2014. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2014 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/LOS-Final-Report_final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/LOS-Final-Report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 134307 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Utah)

Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Girls in the Criminal Justice System: A Joint Inspection Summary: In England and Wales, girls comprise around 20% of the caseload of youth offending services. We know from previous inspections that girls tend to commit less serious offences than boys, and their offending is often a response to emotional well-being and issues concerning relationships with parents, partners and friends. Girls tend to have high levels of welfare needs and are vulnerable to the actions of others. Because of their relatively low number the needs of girls can sometimes be overlooked within a juvenile criminal justice system primarily designed to deal with offending by boys. There has also been significant concern recently about the prevalence of child sexual exploitation in a number of areas where vulnerable girls have been victims. The inspection This inspection was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors' Group and formed part of the work stream identified in the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2012-2014. The objective of the inspection was to assess the effectiveness of youth offending services, in conjunction with other organisations, in reducing the likelihood of girls offending and in reducing the risk of harm girls present to others and making them less vulnerable (with particular reference to alcohol misuse). We visited six Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) to assess the quality of work in a sample of 48 cases. We also interviewed key managers and operational staff in the YOTs and other agencies. We also interviewed 20 girls who were serving sentences in custody and custody staff. Overall findings The best work in YOTs was characterised by an approach to assessment and intervention that recognised that girls often had different needs to boys. The assessment and management of the risk of harm posed by girls to others was generally sound and there were some promising examples of interventions that were designed for girls. Unfortunately, this approach was not consistently applied. In some cases, assessments and interventions did not take into account gender differences. Many of the girls were vulnerable and presented challenges to those who worked with them. Efforts were made to reduce this vulnerability, but in too many cases there was a preoccupation with process rather than effective action. Child sexual exploitation presented a serious risk to girls in all the areas we visited. We saw some effective preventative work to help girls understand the risk in their lives and increase their resilience. However, the responses to girls who were victims of sexual exploitation were highly variable in quality and effectiveness and the links between their offending behaviour and the serious risk of harm that they faced were not always considered properly. Although all areas had multi-agency procedures to identify girls at risk of sexual exploitation, these often concentrated more on information sharing rather than targeting work to reduce risks to them. Girls in custody spoke positively about staff and their key workers. These relationships had helped them to develop good insight into what they needed to do in order to resettle successfully on release. However, work to address offending behaviour in custody was often not recognised as such by girls, and YOT workers could do more to maintain or build relationships with girls in custody in preparation for their release. More work needed to be done in monitoring performance data about girls by YOT managers in order to target interventions more effectively and improve outcomes. Details: London: Criminal Justice Inspection, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/Girls-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/Girls-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System.pdf Shelf Number: 134724 Keywords: Child Sexual Exploitation Female Juvenile Offenders Gender Specific Responses Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)

Author: INQUEST Title: Stolen Lives and Missed Opportunities: the deaths of young adults and children in prison Summary: Between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2014, 65 young adults and children died in prison whilst in the care of the state. Of this number, 62 were young adults aged 18-24 years and three were children under 18 (one 15 year old and two 17 year olds). This report analyses the deaths drawing upon the evidence-base accumulated through INQUEST's specialist casework with bereaved families and associated policy work over the last 30 years. It supports the work of the Transition to Adulthood (T2A) programme, which, like this report, is funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust. Moreover this report supports the independent review into self-inflicted deaths in National Offender Management Service custody of 18-24 year olds. The independent inquiry is chaired by Lord Harris and seeks to make recommendations which will reduce the risk of future self-inflicted deaths in custody. As with earlier INQUEST reports on youth custody, it exposes a litany of systemic neglect, institutional complacency and shortsighted policies which have contributed to the deaths of children and young adults. Our analysis is situated within a contextual frame which argues that understanding deaths in prison requires examining their broader social, political and economic context. It builds upon arguments developed in 2005 by Goldson and Coles and in a range of other publications. First, the number of deaths is high because prison is overused as the societal solution to a range of social problems that need to be addressed elsewhere. Second, there are so many deaths in prison because prison is by its very nature, dehumanising and violent. The limits to which they can be changed or reformed means that prison as currently constructed will continue to be a place where people lose their lives. This report argues for a fundamental rethink about the use of prison for children and young adults that requires political boldness and a more steadfast willingness to implement evidence-based change. Recent attention has been focused on the prison system following concerns expressed about the rising number of prison deaths, staff cuts and the implications of regime change. The vulnerabilities of young prisoners have been well documented, yet they continue to be sent to unsafe environments, with scarce resources and staff untrained to deal with, and respond humanely to, their particular and complex needs. At a practice level, establishments do not seem to have learned lessons from previous deaths in prisons; too many deaths occur because the same mistakes are made time and again. This in turn raises questions about the adequacy of the investigation, inspection and monitoring systems and process of accountability for institutions linked to the state. In the light of these concerns, this report considers the implications and reasons behind the prison deaths of children and young adults since 2011, stressing the need for new thinking and new strategies if such deaths are to be avoided in the future. Details: London: INQUEST and Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Inquest-Report_finalversion_Online.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Inquest-Report_finalversion_Online.pdf Shelf Number: 134757 Keywords: Deaths in Custody (U.K.) Inmate Suicide Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates

Author: Grimshaw, Roger Title: Institutional care and poverty: evidence and policy review Summary: Five institutional care settings were covered: prisons; immigration detention centres; mental health placements including psychiatric secure hospitals and centres; placements for children being looked after including homes, residential schools and units for children; and placements for people with disabilities. In an increasingly globalised world the task of collating international evidence becomes more important and the review focused on more than 500 studies drawn from North America, Europe, and Australasia, in addition to the UK. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2014. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 19, 2015 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Institutional%20Care%20and%20Poverty%20Report%20August%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Institutional%20Care%20and%20Poverty%20Report%20August%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 134982 Keywords: Immigrant Detention Juvenile Detention Mental Health Poverty (U.K.) Prisons

Author: Birckhead, Tamar R. Title: Children in Isolation: The Solitary Confinement of Youth Summary: Every day in prison settings around the world, young people are held in solitary confinement. They are alone for up to twenty-three hours a day in unfurnished cells. They do not see, have physical contact with, or speak to other people. The cells are small, often no larger than a horse's stable, and are illuminated by artificial light. Food is passed through narrow openings in heavy metal doors. These adolescents are denied education, counseling, and other services that are necessary for their growth, rehabilitation and well-being. If a parent were to confine her child under similar conditions, it would be abuse; yet when the government does so, often for weeks and months without due process, it is condoned. The paradox of solitary confinement is that it is not reserved only for the most culpable offenders. Juvenile and immigration detention centers as well as adult jails and prisons place adolescents in isolation to protect them - arguably - from each other or from adults; when they are perceived to be a threat; and to punish them for misconduct and rule-breaking. These rationales for the solitary confinement of youth fail to recognize, however, that prolonged isolation harms young people in ways that are often more profound than its impact on adults. This Article is the first to provide a comprehensive comparative analysis of the solitary confinement of youth in the United States and across the globe. The Introduction describes a typical scenario under which an adolescent may be subjected to isolation and explores why the practice persists today despite widespread condemnation. Part I reviews the literature detailing the varieties of harm that young people suffer as a result of solitary confinement. Part II discusses the rationales that correctional facilities use to justify solitary confinement and the prevalence of the practice internationally. Part III analyzes the history of solitary confinement and the legal response within the U.S. and the international community. Part IV addresses strategies for reform, including legislation, federal regulations, and litigation; the adoption of best practice standards; and the role of the juvenile defender and other advocates for incarcerated youth. The Appendix presents the author's original research documenting the current practices of the fifty-seven countries that legally condone or employ the solitary confinement of youth. Details: Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2014. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2512867 : Accessed March 20, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512867 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512867 Shelf Number: 134988 Keywords: Isolation Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Prison Conditions Solitary Confinement

Author: Child Rights International Network Title: Inhuman Sentencing: Life Imprisonment of Children Around the World Summary: In 2010 CRIN, with other partners, launched a campaign for the prohibition of inhuman sentencing of children - defined to include sentences of death, life imprisonment and corporal punishment. Frustrated by the narrow focus on life imprisonment without parole within the children's rights community, CRIN published a report on life imprisonment in the Commonwealth in 2012, highlighting the prevalence of life imprisonment throughout the Commonwealth States and the different forms that life sentences could take. This report was followed up in 2013 with a report on life sentences for children in the European Union. Life imprisonment sentences cover a diverse range of practices, from the most severe form of life imprisonment without parole, in which a person is sentenced to die in prison so long as their sentence stands, to more indeterminate sentences in which at the time of sentencing it is not clear how long the sentenced person will spend in prison. What all of these sentences have in common, however, is that at the time the sentence is passed, a person is liable to be detained for the rest of his or her natural life. International human rights standards universally condemn life imprisonment without parole for children, and now the United States is the only State which continues to sentence children to this form of extreme sentencing. This focus on the worst forms of the sentence, however, has disguised the practice of less severe or overt forms of life imprisonment. The United Nations has begun to look at life imprisonment of children more generally and in November 2012, the General Assembly urged States to consider repealing all forms of life imprisonment for children. The Human Rights Council, meanwhile, has called on States twice to prohibit life imprisonment of children in law and practice. Nonetheless, 73 States retain life imprisonment as a penalty for offences committed while under the age of 18 and a further 49 permit sentences of 15 years or longer and 90 for 10 years or longer. Life imprisonment and lengthy prison sentences for child offenders are not the preserve of a diminishing few, they can be found in the criminal laws of the majority of States. CRIN is concerned that States are handing out lengthy sentences to children, yet international condemnation is often limited to life imprisonment without parole and the death penalty. It is essential - indeed long overdue - to widen the focus and challenge any sentence which, at the time it is passed, a child is liable to be detained for the rest of his or her natural life. It is also time to look at laws permitting the lengthy detention of children, which fall short of the standards set by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. CRIN, with other commentators, believes that the only justification for the detention of a child should be that the child has been assessed as posing a serious risk to public safety. Courts should only be able to authorise a short maximum period of detention after which the presumption of release from detention would place the onus on the State to prove that considerations of public safety justify another short period of detention. The same principles should apply to pre-trial detention. This report serves to highlight the prevalence and the plurality of laws permitting life imprisonment for children, laws that potentially condemn children to die in prison, and hopes to lead to reviews of the sentencing of children to ensure they are fully compliant with the CRC and other instruments. CRIN believes that life imprisonment, of any type, does not have a place in juvenile justice. Details: London: Child Rights International Network, 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_imprisonment_report_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_imprisonment_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 135059 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment Life Sentences Sentencing, Juveniles

Author: Commission on Sex in Prison (U.K.) Title: Healthy sexual development of children in prison Summary: - The majority of children in custody are adolescent boys aged 15 to 17. They are likely to have reached physical sexual maturity and may be sexually active. They have not yet reached cognitive, emotional and social maturity - Children in custody are vulnerable and most will have experienced disadvantage. Some will have been sexually abused prior to custody - Prison severely restricts children's opportunities to form normal healthy relationships and can damage or delay the maturation process - LGBT children are more isolated in prison and more vulnerable to bullying or abuse by other children or by staff - Sexual abuse by other children or by staff does happen in prison - Children in prison should have access to sexual health services - The high levels of violence in prison might be a risk factor for the development of sexual aggression among boys - The needs of vulnerable children with complex needs cannot be met in large prisons with low staff to child ratios. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2015. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing paper 4: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.commissiononsexinprison.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/healthy_sexual_development_web1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.commissiononsexinprison.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/healthy_sexual_development_web1.pdf Shelf Number: 135071 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates (U.K.) Prison Health Sex in Prison Young Adult Inmates

Author: Skorek, Rebecca Title: Influence of court-ordered forensic evaluations on juvenile justice system-involved youth Summary: This evaluation measured implementation and impact of the Detention to Probation Continuum of Care (DPCC) program administered through a collaboration of River Valley Detention Center (RVDC) mental health staff, and Will and Kankakee county juvenile court judges and probation officers. In 2011, RVDC had 667 youth admissions between the ages of 10 and 17, with an estimated 50 percent released into the community under court supervision monitored by a probation officer. The DPCC program has three phases: 1. Institutional phase, in which youth receive mental health screening while in detention. The mental health screening is administered by RVDC mental health staff to identify factors among detained youth that may be leading to delinquency, ascertain if there are any mental health disorders present, and establish appropriate in-detention care, including prescription of psychotropic medications. A mental health screening can only be completed if RVDC mental health staff were able to meet with the detained youth prior to their release. 2. Structured phase, which is the completion of a court-ordered forensic evaluation by RVDC mental health staff. This evaluation is ordered by the juvenile court judge during a youth's detention hearing occurring within 40 hours of detention admission. The forensic evaluation is conducted for the purpose of developing a rehabilitative plan to guide sentencing conditions and supervision in the least restrictive manner. The mental health screen provides a foundation for the court-ordered forensic evaluation. 3. Reintegration phase, which begins when the judge receives the forensic evaluation report at the youth's adjudication hearing and ends at completion of the probation supervision. The forensic evaluation report includes a rehabilitative plan that describes appropriate community-based treatment services, such as counseling or psychiatric treatment, to be judicially imposed through conditions of probation. Completion of community-based care is monitored by a Will or Kankakee county probation officer. ICJIA researchers used two methods to conduct this evaluation. One method was interviews with stakeholders to gain a better understanding of DPCC program activities and the utility of court-ordered forensic evaluations. The second method was analysis of detention and probation data on a sample of 211 youth who were detained at RVDC between 2003 and 2009 and discharged from Will and Kankakee probation between 2007 and 2009. These data allowed ICJIA researchers to assess the extent to which these youth progressed through the DPCC program phases and to track their compliance with sentencing conditions, and subsequent detention admissions and arrests. Research questions to measure program implementation included: - Institutional phase�XTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a mental health screen? - Structured phase�XTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a court-ordered forensic evaluation (were DPCC program enrolled/participants)? - Reintegration phase�XTo what extent did conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services reflect the rehabilitative plan developed through the court-ordered forensic evaluation? Research questions to measure program impact included: - To what extent did receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation influence conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services? - To what extent did those receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation receive indicated treatment services and subsequently have higher rates of compliance with judicially imposed conditions of probation, and fewer detention admissions and arrests? - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs receive a mental health screen and/or court-ordered forensic evaluation - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs complete appropriate community-based treatment services? Details: Chicago: Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2014. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Shelf Number: 135073 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Community-Based Treatment Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Illinois) Juvenile Probationers Mental Health Services

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Full Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Work in Trafford Summary: Reducing reoffending Overall work to reduce reoffending was satisfactory. A strong focus and priority was given to reducing reoffending. Assessment and planning were, for the most part done well, and children and young people were particularly well supported in meeting health and education needs. However, in a small number of cases, assessments and elements of plans were not satisfactory and these had not been identified through management oversight systems. Protecting the public Overall work to protect the public and actual or potential victims was good. Assessment and planning work to reduce the risk of harm was completed well in a large majority of cases. There were systems in place to ensure oversight of, and partner contributions to, the management of risk of harm. Delivery of victim work, restorative justice and reparation was well structured although evidence for the uptake of direct work with victims was lacking. Barriers to information sharing between the police and YOS, as a result of the recently reduced capacity of the seconded police officer, inhibited the use of intelligence as part of case management. Protecting children and young people Overall work to protect children and young people and reduce their vulnerability was satisfactory. Although the majority of work to protect children and young people was completed sufficiently well, we saw a small number of cases in which the assessment and planning of vulnerability was weak, and which, on further investigation, revealed a number of systemic problems. Work was child-centred and there was a positive working relationship between the YOS and children's social care in many cases. Interventions to reduce unnecessary use of custody were good. However, more complex safeguarding cases revealed deficits in the YOS's collective knowledge, levels of staff training, management oversight and governance arrangements. Ensuring the sentence is served Overall work to ensure that the sentence was served was good. Practitioners across the YOS demonstrated enthusiasm, commitment and knowledge of their cases. There was evidence of good working relationships with children and young people and their parents/carers, who were largely positive in their comments about their contact with the YOS. Diversity needs were met well and where barriers to engagement were encountered, these were generally dealt with constructively. The use of self-assessment tools was inconsistent and some children and young people felt their views were not fully taken into account. Governance and partnerships Overall, the effectiveness of governance and partnership arrangements was satisfactory. The governance arrangements for the YOS were complex, with separate board arrangements in place for oversight of performance and safeguarding. Performance against youth justice key indicators was good, although membership and attendance at the YOS Performance and Governance Board had been inconsistent from some partners. More use could have been made of available data to understand trends, drive performance improvement and provide challenge. Governance and oversight of YOS safeguarding work was not sufficiently robust, lacked prominence on key agendas and did not feature in the local Youth Justice Plan. There was, however, some strong partnership work, particularly around health, education, training and employment. Interventions Overall the management and delivery of interventions to reduce reoffending were good. We found that the YOS had a good range of appropriate and accessible interventions available to children and young people. Where provision was external to the YOS, referral systems and pathways were in place. Most offence targeted work was undertaken on a one-to-one basis, although a number of group based interventions were also available. Materials used were focused on the reduction of reoffending. In a small number of cases, required interventions were not delivered. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/02/Trafford-FJI-250215.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/02/Trafford-FJI-250215.pdf Shelf Number: 135081 Keywords: Interventions Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Recidivism Rehabilitation Programs Reoffending

Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Staying Connected: Keeping Justice-Involved Youth Summary: When justice-involved youth are supervised by local agencies and placed with locally operated programs rather than being sent away to state facilities, they are better able to maintain community ties. They stay connected with their families and they are more likely to remain in local schools. Policy reforms that localize the justice system are often called "realignment." New York's "Close to Home" (or C2H) initiative is a prominent example of youth justice realignment. Launched in 2012, it is the latest chapter in a decade-long commitment by New York State and New York City to improve the justice system for young offenders by investing in programs and interventions that allow youth to stay close to their homes and families. Details: New York: Research & Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: https://jjrec.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/c2h2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://jjrec.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/c2h2015.pdf Shelf Number: 135124 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Policy Juvenile Justice Realignment Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: Weiss, Catherine Title: 51-Jurisdiction Survey of Solitary Confinement Rules in Juvenile Justice Systems Summary: The attached survey provides an overview of policies governing the solitary confinement of juveniles in 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey allows the reader to understand each state's approach to imposing this punishment or employing alternatives. This accompanying memo discusses the trends that emerge from the survey, caveats to keep in mind while reading the survey, and ways in which New Jersey's policymakers may be informed by other states' policy choices. The survey reveals that nineteen jurisdictions prohibit lengthy punitive solitary confinement (also called room restriction, isolation, seclusion, or segregation, among other terms). Some states allow confinement for only a few hours a day; these are counted among the states that disallow confinement. For example, Idaho allows confinement for up to eight hours. Most states that prohibit confinement as a punishment do allow confinement when necessary to prevent harm to other youth or the security of the facility (the distinction between punitive and non-punitive confinement is further explored below). A number of jurisdictions also restrict the use of confinement for even non-punitive reasons to under a few hours. These include Delaware, Idaho, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Among states that allow punitive confinement, the most common limits on the amount of time that juveniles may spend in confinement are three days and five days. Eleven states allow juveniles to remain in confinement for between one and four days. In eleven other states, time limits on confinement range from five to ninety days. Ten more states place no time limit on confinement. In most states, confinement triggers due process protections. Additionally, facilities must seek administrative approval for prolonged confinement. For example, in Georgia, juveniles are entitled to a hearing before any confinement is imposed. Confinement beyond three days may only be imposed for certain enumerated offenses, and confinement beyond five days requires approval from six administrators, including the Deputy Commissioner of Youth Services. Although counted in the survey among states allowing punitive confinement, the conditions of confinement in Maine and Mississippi are less restrictive than conditions in other states. In Maine, juveniles are allowed to attend activities and meals outside of the cell, while in Mississippi, juveniles are allowed outside the cell for at least four hours a day. The programs in these states could be classified as either solitary confinement or a loss of privileges. This survey classifies the programs as solitary confinement because they punish offenses by confining a juvenile alone in a cell for most of his or her waking hours. The survey distinguishes between states that use confinement as a punishment for past actions and states that use confinement non-punitively, to reduce the threat from the juvenile's behavior to himself, others, or the security of the facility. States that fall into the latter category often specify that the juvenile may only be kept in room restriction until the juvenile is no longer a threat. For example, in Utah, confinement may only be used when necessary to prevent harm to another person, prevent the youth from escaping, prevent damage to property, or prevent continued program disruptions. The juvenile must be released once he or she demonstrates a example, it is possible that a facility with a disciplinary policy that is unspecified in the state's administrative code and cannot be found online has a more restrictive policy than a facility for which information is available. States' confinement polices vary in their restrictiveness. Some states allow solitary confinement for an unspecified amount of time each day, while others require that a youth in solitary be allowed outside of the cell for a minimum period. Youth may be given other privileges that make the confinement experience less solitary. Two states that have policies straddling the line between solitary confinement and a loss of privileges are Mississippi and Maine. Maine is frequently cited as a state that has disallowed punitive solitary confinement for juveniles. By statute, Maine does not authorize solitary confinement for juveniles. However, Maine's regulations allow for punitive room restriction for up to 30 hours for "major misconduct." Youth in room restriction are allowed to leave their rooms for educational and treatment programs, regularly scheduled visits, and meals. In Mississippi, youth must be allowed out of their cells for a minimum of four hours a day. These policies stand in contrast to some more restrictive policies, such as New Jersey's current rules, which do not specify that the youth may leave confinement for educational activities, and require that the facilities provide only five hours of recreation outside of the cell per five-day period of confinement. The careful reader should bear these distinctions in mind when categorizing states according to their confinement policies. Details: New York: Lowenstein Sandler, 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2015 at: http://www.lowensteinprobono.com/files/Uploads/Documents/solitary%20confinement%20memo%20survey%20--%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lowensteinprobono.com/files/Uploads/Documents/solitary%20confinement%20memo%20survey%20--%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 135364 Keywords: Isolation Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Solitary Confinement (U.S.)

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia: 2013-14 Summary: There were 6,100 young people under youth justice supervision in Australia on an average day in 2013-14, due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. This number has fallen from about 6,400 in 2012-13. Most (85%) of these young people were supervised in the community and the remainder were in detention. Young people spent 26 weeks, on average, under supervision during the year. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 127: Accessed May 1, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129550805 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129550805 Shelf Number: 135446 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (Australia)

Author: Earl, Catherine Title: Justice or an Unjust System? Aboriginal over-representation in South Australia's juvenile justice system Summary: Twenty-times more likely to be imprisoned than the non-Aboriginal population and making up 46% of the young people in SA's detention centres, this report highlights the problem of over-representation of Aboriginal young people in this state's juvenile justice system. The report recommends a new approach to engage Aboriginal people at all levels in the justice system, with a formally negotiated Indigenous Justice Agreement as a first step. There is little doubt that Aboriginal people are overrepresented in the SA juvenile justice system. The evidence suggests that similar trends are reflected across the nation and are also present in the adult population. However, this report focuses only on the juvenile system in South Australia. At its broadest, the juvenile justice system comprises all interactions with law enforcement. While this could include out-of-home care, the focus of this report is on the custodial and non-custodial system applying once a breach of the law is identified. In this part of the system, both the overall number of Aboriginal young people within it and the rate (per 100,000 population) have both decreased in recent years. However, the level of overrepresentation (that is discrepancy between rates for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people) has actually increased (because the rate of involvement of the general young population has decreased at a greater rate). The figures are stark: - Aboriginal young people comprise only 4% of the total population aged 10-17 years old, but make up 46% of young people in detention and 34% of young people under community-based supervision; - Aboriginal young people are 12.5 times more likely to be involved with the juvenile justice system than non- Aboriginal young people, and 19.7 times more likely to be in detention; - This level of over-representation is higher for young people than for the adult population: Aboriginal young people 19 times more likely to be imprisoned, by comparison with 16 times more likely for adults; - Over the five year period from 2009-2013 South Australia's rate of contact of Aboriginal young people with the juvenile justice system was the second highest in the country and well above the national average; - In 2013-14, the cost of incarcerating a young person in South Australia was $1,000 per young person per day, while the cost of community supervision was $73 per young person, per day; - The current cost of detention and non-custodial supervision of Aboriginal young people in South Australia is $13.3m per year; - If there was no over-representation, that is, if the rate of detention and community supervision of Aboriginal young people was the same as for the general young population, there would be fewer Aboriginal young people in the SA juvenile justice system, and a saving to the state budget of over $12m per annum. Several key inquiries and commissions have investigated issues of over-representation, providing a vastly underutilised resource for addressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice system. The interviews and voices in this report add depth to this literature and suggest a need to revisit those reports and to re-address many of the recommendations which have not been carried through systematically or effectively. Details: Unley, SA, AUS: South Australian Council of Social Service, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://www.sacoss.org.au/sites/default/files/public/documents/Reports/150401_Youth_Justice_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sacoss.org.au/sites/default/files/public/documents/Reports/150401_Youth_Justice_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 135786 Keywords: Aboriginals Indigenous Peoples Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Racial Disparities

Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: An announced inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre Summary: Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre has been praised by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) for its role in improving the child custody system in Northern Ireland. "Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (the JJC) accommodates some of the most difficult and disturbed children in our society, and in doing so, prevents them from causing mayhem in their communities and in the residential care system," said Brendan McGuigan, Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland. "Since autumn 2012 all children under 18 who are sent to custody are held at the JJC. This means that no child is held in adult custody in this jurisdiction. "This is a significant achievement but the impact of older children being held within the JJC is testing the resilience of staff. It is also inappropriately used as a short term care facility for children who breach children's home rules, when parents/guardians refuse to accept them back home or on foot of Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) proceedings," said Mr McGuigan. In order to successfully address these challenges, Inspectors have recommended the existing regime at the JJC should be redesigned to take account of the needs of older children including 17-year-olds, while maintaining its existing child-centred ethos. And they have called for the Youth Justice Agency which operates the JJC to work with its statutory partners to reduce inappropriate use of the 9.3m a year facility. "Inspectors accept that the JJC has and can provide stability in times of crisis, but committing a child to custody should be an action of last resort. Placements should not be based on expediency or - as in the case of PACE - more on proximity to the JJC rather than any other criterion," said Mr McGuigan. The Chief Inspector said Inspectors had also recommended steps should be taken to improve current arrangements for children who do not have suitable bail addresses and those who refuse to perfect their personal bail by opting to remain in custody until accommodation of their choice becomes available. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2015. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/fb/fb2b3c05-0ec8-47cc-9d63-35443b8e1d97.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/fb/fb2b3c05-0ec8-47cc-9d63-35443b8e1d97.pdf Shelf Number: 135868 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (Northern Ireland) Re-Offending

Author: Mendel, Richard A. Title: Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities: An Update Summary: In its 2011 report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, the Annie E. Casey Foundation demonstrated that America's heavy reliance on juvenile incarceration is a failed strategy for addressing youth crime. Specifically, No Place for Kids showed that heavy reliance on correctional confinement exposes incarcerated youth to widespread maltreatment; results in alarming levels of recidivism; incarcerates children who do not pose significant threats to public safety; ignores the emergence of treatment models that produce better outcomes; wastes money with costs that often exceed $100,000 per young person per year; and fails to provide adequate mental health, educational, substance abuse and other services. In short, the report found that these institutions are dangerous, ineffective, unnecessary, obsolete, wasteful and inadequate. This report focuses on the first of these challenges, the widespread and persistent maltreatment of youth confined in America's juvenile corrections facilities. These facilities often go by euphemistic labels such as training school, reformatory, correctional center, etc., but are in essence youth prisons. In No Place for Kids, the Casey Foundation found that clear evidence of recurring or systemic maltreatment had been identified in the vast majority of states since 1970. In nearly half the states, this clear record of systemic maltreatment had been documented in juvenile correctional facilities since 2000. No Place for Kids also identified 52 lawsuits since 1970 that resulted in a court-sanctioned remedy in response to allegations of systemic problems with violence, physical or sexual abuse by facility staff and/or excessive use of isolation or physical restraints. The following pages update those findings, and the news is not good. Rather, in the nearly four years since No Place for Kids was published, a flood of new revelations of abuse and maltreatment has emerged. Details: Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 8, 2015 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-maltreatmentyouthuscorrections-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-maltreatmentyouthuscorrections-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 135921 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: National Disability Rights Network Title: Orphanages, Training Schools, Reform Schools and Now This? Summary: Children with disabilities are disproportionately placed in the juvenile justice system, receive inadequate treatment and are denied educational opportunities, the National Disability Rights Network asserted in a report released today. "More than 65 percent of youth in the justice system meet the criteria for a disability, a rate that is three times higher than that of the general population," said Curt Decker, NDRN's executive director. "The millions we spend housing and feeding our young people behind razor wire can be far better spent helping them to find their way in this world." The findings in Orphanages, Training Schools, Reform Schools and Now This? are based upon scores of reports from the nationwide Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System. P&As provide legal and other advocacy services to children and youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system, and also maintain a presence in the facilities in which they are found, including prisons, jails, and detention centers. P&As have the legal authority to monitor and investigate allegations of abuse in these facilities. Issues addressed in this report include: Diversion of children and youth with disabilities from the juvenile justice system (particularly stemming the "School to Prison Pipeline"), humane conditions while incarcerated (such as accommodation and communication needs, medical care, mental health treatment, and the prevention of abuse and neglect) and re-entry services like education and treatment to ensure the child or youth's success upon release from the facility. The report describes the problems children and youth with disabilities encounter, solutions used with success by the P&As, and provides specific recommendations for systemic improvements. Some of those recommendations include: -Congress should authorize and fund a Protection and Advocacy for Juvenile Justice Program to help divert youth with disabilities from entering the juvenile justice system, investigate and monitor conditions for youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system, and ensure proper return to the community with needed services and supports. -Congress should prohibit the use of solitary confinement and/or isolation for all juveniles, including those housed in adult settings. -Congress should require that schools identified as having elevated school-based arrest rates: 1) lose the opportunity to use federal funds to employ School Resource Officers (SROs); 2) ensure SROs work is limited to traditional police activities and not discipline of non- violent student behavior; and, 3) require SROs in those schools to undergo training in specific, related topics. -The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and Department of Justice (DOJ) should fully enforce laws requiring that education of youth in facilities is equal to that provided to students in other public schools. Details: Washington, DC: National Disability Rights Center, 2015. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 8, 2015 at: http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/Juvenile_Justice/NDRN_-_Juvenile_Justice_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/Juvenile_Justice/NDRN_-_Juvenile_Justice_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 135922 Keywords: Disability Juvenile Detention Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders

Author: Amnesty International Title: Generation Jail: Egypt's Youth Go From Protest to Prison Summary: A continuing onslaught against young activists by the Egyptian authorities is a blatant attempt to crush the spirit of the country's bravest and brightest young minds, and nip in the bud any future threat to their rule, said Amnesty International in a new briefing published today. Generation Jail: Egypt's Youth Go From Protest to Prison focuses on the cases of 14 young people who are among thousands who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained and jailed in Egypt over the past two years in connection with protests. The briefing shows that the country has reverted fully to being a police state. Details: London: AI, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2015 at: https://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/2015-06_-_generation_jail_with_pictures.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Egypt URL: https://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/2015-06_-_generation_jail_with_pictures.pdf Shelf Number: 136017 Keywords: Human Rights Juvenile Detention Police Misconduct Protestors

Author: Wright, Kathy Title: The Incarceration of Children & Youth in New Jersey's Adult Prison System Summary: Each year, over 200,000 children and youth are tried as adults across the country. In the state of New Jersey, youth as young as 14 can be tried, sentenced and incarcerated in the adult prison system, and those age 16 or older are subject to mandatory (automatic) waivers if they commit certain crimes. It is the position of the New Jersey Parents' Caucus, Inc. (NJPC) and its membership that the state's current policies which promote the trying, sentencing and incarceration of children and youth between the ages of 14 and 17 in adult system are unjust and require further review. No youth should face an increased likelihood of adult waiver for a similar crime in a similar circumstance because of race, ethnicity, geography or socio-economic status. As well, for those children who are waived to the adult system, safety, rehabilitative services, treatment, and appropriate educational services and support, must be provided, particularly for those children with a history of mental health needs and/or special education involvement. As part of the New Jersey Youth Justice Initiative, we at the New Jersey Parents' Caucus have been able to gather comprehensive state data from the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJ DOC) on 472 children tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the adult prison system. The data largely covers the period 2007 - 2015, though some information gathered dates back to 2003. In addition to the data retrieved from the NJ Department of Corrections, we've received qualitative data from a subset of the same population (120 youth) by means of a survey assessment provided to incarcerated youth and their parents, caregivers and family members. All data includes youth residing in the following adult prisons: Garden State Youth Correctional Facility, Albert Wagner Youth Correctional Facility, Northern State Prison, New Jersey State Prison, Mountainview Youth Correctional Facility, Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, South Woods State Prison, Edna Mahan Correctional Facility, Mid-State Correctional Facility, Southern State Correctional Facility, East Jersey State Prison, Central Reception and Assignment Facility, and Bayside State Prison. Our Key Findings - Gross Racial & Ethnic Disparities: Youth of color are disproportionately represented among those waived to the adult prison system in New Jersey and make up approximately 90% of youth included in our data set who are incarcerated in the adult system. Of those children and youth, approximately 72% of are African American and 18% are Latino. - Justice by Geography: Rates of incarceration in the adult prison system vary significantly across counties in New Jersey, suggesting that justice depends on where one lives, not on the facts of a given case. For example, in Camden County, 14 to 17 year olds make up 5.8% of the population of children between the ages of 0-17, but make up 15.3% of our data set between 2007 and 2015. In comparison, in Hunterdon County, where youth 14 to 17 make up 6.3% of the population of children between the ages of 0-17, 0% were incarcerated in the adult system between 2007 and 2015. - Youth are Regularly Deprived of Due Process: Approximately 30% of the 472 youth waived to adult court during the study period spent more than 2 years incarcerated, between their arrest date and their sentencing date. - Youth are Subject to Long Term Solitary Confinement In the Adult Prison System: Solitary confinement is known to be psychologically damaging, especially to children. Yet, based on our survey data, over half the youth in adult prisons are put into solitary confinement; 5 percent spend over a year there, and about 4 percent spent 2 years or more in solitary. Nearly 70 percent of those placed in solitary had a mental health disorder. - Youth Suffer Abuse While in Adult Prison. Once incarcerated in an adult prison, one in four youth surveyed reported physical abuse; 5% reported sexual abuse. - Youth Needs are Not being Met in the Community: About 71% of youth waived to the adult system were known to at least two child-serving agencies, prior to their involvement in adult court, with the majority having been involved in the mental health system. Of those youth, more than two out of three children and youth have two or more mental health diagnoses. Details: Elizabeth, NJ: New Jersey Parents' Caucus, 2015. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://cfc.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NJPC_YJI-Data-BriefFinalll.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://cfc.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NJPC_YJI-Data-BriefFinalll.pdf Shelf Number: 136088 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority Contact Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Racial Disparities Youth in Adult Prisons

Author: Williams, Kim Title: Needs and characteristics of young adults in custody: Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey Summary: This report summarises the needs and characteristics of young adults (18-20 years old) on reception to custody. Data for this report come from Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR), a longitudinal cohort study of 1,435 adult prisoners sentenced to between one month and four years in prison in 2005 and 2006, and the Police National Computer (PNC). The report compares the characteristics and needs of young adults in custody with prisoners aged 21 years and over. Key findings - Young adult SPCR respondents in custody shared a number of needs and background characteristics with SPCR prisoners aged 21 and over, with all ages reporting high levels of need in terms of employment, education and substance misuse. However there were a number of differences, which included: - Young adults were more likely than older prisoners to report issues with schooling, with large proportions reporting having regularly played truant (72% compared with 57%) and having been temporarily excluded (80%) or permanently expelled (58%) from school (80% compared with 61% and 58% compared with 40%, respectively). - Young adults who reported being unemployed in the four weeks before custody were more likely to report that they were looking for work or training during this time (62%) compared with older prisoners (35%). Young adults were also more likely to state that having a job when released would stop them from re-offending (81% compared with 66% of older prisoners). - Fewer young adults reported needing help finding a place to live when released (23% compared with 39% of older prisoners). - Young adults entering custody were less likely than prisoners aged 21 and over to report needing help with a medical problem (10% compared to 20%) and less likely to be assessed as suffering from both anxiety and depression (15% compared with 27%). - Compared with older prisoners, young adults were less likely to report needing help with a drug problem (15% compared with 33%). Young adults were less likely than older prisoners to report having used a Class A drug in the four weeks before custody (31% compared with 45%). A smaller proportion of young adults than older prisoners linked their offending behaviour with drugs (25% compared with 46%). On the other hand, a larger proportion of young adults compared with older prisoners linked their offending behaviour with alcohol use (42% compared with 30%) and stated that not drinking too much alcohol would be important in stopping them from re-offending in the future (47% compared with 32%). - Reporting feeling looked after on entry to prison, treated like an individual, feeling worried and confused or feeling extremely alone, did not vary by age group. These experiences were more likely to vary according to whether the respondent had been previously sentenced to imprisonment, for both young adults and for older prisoners. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed July 30, 2015 at; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449586/Young-adults-in-custody.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449586/Young-adults-in-custody.pdf Shelf Number: 136262 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Rehabilitation Youth Adult Offenders

Author: Murray, Kath Title: Evaluation of the Whole System Approach to Young People who Offend in Scotland Summary: The Scottish Government's Whole System Approach for Children and Young People who Offend (WSA) aims to prevent unnecessary use of custody and secure accommodation wherever possible, through the availability and use of services; and to seek opportunities to engage such young people, by putting in place a more streamlined and consistent response that works across all systems and agencies (a 'whole system' approach) to achieve better outcomes for young people and their communities. This evaluation, commissioned by the Scottish Government, examines the operation of the WSA in three Scottish local authorities. It combines scrutiny of WSA policy documentation and guidance notes, with a set of 33 qualitative interviews with WSA practitioners and stakeholders, observations of WSA meetings in each case study area, and quantitative analysis of relevant management data. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2015. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Evaluation-of-the-WSA-approach.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Evaluation-of-the-WSA-approach.pdf Shelf Number: 136407 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Young Adult Offenders

Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Re-Examining Juvenile Incarceration : High cost, poor outcomes spark shift to alternatives Summary: A growing body of research demonstrates that for many juvenile offenders, lengthy out-of-home placements in secure corrections or other residential facilities fail to produce better outcomes than alternative sanctions. In certain instances, they can be counterproductive. Seeking to reduce recidivism and achieve better returns on their juvenile justice spending, several states have recently enacted laws that limit which youth can be committed to these facilities and moderates the length of time they can spend there. These changes prioritize the use of costly facilities and intensive programming for serious offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending, while supporting effective community-based programs for others. In general, research has found that juvenile incarceration fails to reduce recidivism: - Meta-analyses - studies that combine the results of multiple evaluations - suggest that placement in correctional facilities does not lower the likelihood of juvenile reoffending and may, in fact, increase it in some cases. One longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, found that after matching youth offenders on 66 factors, including demographics and criminal history, those in placement fared no better in terms of recidivism than those on probation. - A separate analysis of the same data found that youth who reported the lowest levels of offending before being placed were more likely to reoffend following institutional stays. - In Texas, a recent study found that youth in community-based treatment, activity, and surveillance programs had lower rearrest rates than those with similar criminal histories and demographic characteristics who were released from state facilities. - An examination of long-term recidivism and education outcomes in Cook County, Illinois, found that juveniles who experienced confinement were more likely to drop out of high school and to be incarcerated as adults than youth offenders who were not incarcerated. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/04/Reexamining_Juvenile_Incarceration.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/04/Reexamining_Juvenile_Incarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 136492 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Recidivism

Author: Washburn, Jason J. Title: Detained Youth Processed in Juvenile and Adult Court: Psychiatric Disorders and Mental Health Needs Summary: This bulletin presents results of a study of the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among youth transferred to adult criminal court compared with those processed in juvenile court. Key observations, findings, and recommendations include: - Many youth are being transferred to adult criminal court, with males, African Americans, Hispanics, and older youth significantly more likely to be processed in adult criminal court than females, non-Hispanic whites, and younger youth (even after controlling for the current charge). - The prevalence of one or more disorders among youth transferred to adult criminal court does not significantly differ from that among youth processed in juvenile court. - Among youth processed in adult criminal court, those sentenced to prison had significantly greater odds than those who received a less severe sentence of having a disruptive behavior disorder, a substance use disorder, or co-occurring affective and anxiety disorders. - Community and correctional systems must collaborate to identify and treat youth with psychiatric disorders who are transferred to adult criminal court. Youth who are transferred to adult criminal court and receive prison sentences should be considered a particularly high-risk group who are likely to require additional services. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed September 11, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248283.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248283.pdf Shelf Number: 136722 Keywords: Co-concurring Disorders Juvenile Court Juvenile Court Transfers Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Teplin, Linda A. Title: Psychiatric Disorders in Youth After Detention Summary: This bulletin examines the results of the Northwestern Juvenile Project-a longitudinal study of youth detained at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, IL. The authors discuss the findings related to the prevalence and persistence of psychiatric disorders in youth after detention. Key findings include the following: - Five years after the first interview, more than 45 percent of male juveniles and nearly 30 percent of female juveniles had one or more psychiatric disorders. - Substance use disorders were the most common and most likely to persist. Males had higher prevalence rates of substance use disorders over time. - As compared to African Americans, non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics had higher rates of substance use disorders. - Females had higher rates of depression over time. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/246824.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/246824.pdf Shelf Number: 136791 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Mentally Ill Offenders Mentally Illness

Author: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance Title: Juvenile Prisons: National consensus and alternatives Summary: Recent reports issued by the Office of the Child Advocate1 and by a consultant to the Department of Children and Families itself raise urgent concerns about conditions at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and the Pueblo Unit. In addition to immediately improving safety at these facilities, the state should develop a long-term plan for youth in the juvenile justice system that maximizes their prospects for rehabilitation. A wealth of research and the experience of other states show that correctional facilities offer the worst outcomes for youth at the highest cost. The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance makes the following recommendations in the interest of child well-being, public safety and responsible use of taxpayer dollars. 1. Conditions must be improved immediately at CJTS and Pueblo, with input from national experts and with independent oversight, as recommended by DCF's own consultant. 2. The state must work toward closing these facilities. CJTS should close in 18 to 24 months. Pueblo should close much sooner. 3. Closure must be preceded by the development of a robust system of care that meets the needs of all children, in the least restrictive setting possible. The objective is not simply to close facilities - it is to serve kids better. 4. Connecticut must draw on outside expertise to develop this system. In particular it should be guided by the successes of other states as described in this report. This report includes a summary of findings about CJTS and Pueblo, research on the failure of youth prisons as well as successful state-level initiatives to close them in favor of community-based programs that are producing far better results. The experience of other states shows that improved outcomes and cost savings are clearly achievable - in fact, are highly compatible. Furthermore, their experience creates a blueprint for Connecticut. Details: Bridgeport, CT: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/youthprisonreport81115.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/youthprisonreport81115.pdf Shelf Number: 136823 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders Training Schools

Author: Abram, Karen M. Title: Perceived Barriers to Mental Health Services Among Detained Youth Summary: This bulletin is part of a series that presents the results of the Northwestern Juvenile Project - a longitudinal study of youth detained at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, IL. The authors examine youth's perceptions of barriers to mental health services, focusing on youth with alcohol, drug, and mental health disorders. Findings include the following: - Most frequently, youth did not receive services because they believed their problems would go away without outside help (56.5 percent). - Nearly one-third of youth (31.7 percent) were not sure whom to contact or where to get help. - Nearly one-fifth of the sample (19.1 percent) reported difficulty in obtaining help. - African American and Hispanic detainees received significantly fewer services in the past compared with non-Hispanic white youth. Male detainees also received significantly fewer services in the past when compared with female detainees. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248522.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248522.pdf Shelf Number: 136870 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Mental Health Services

Author: Sherman, Francine T. Title: Gender Injustice: System-Level Juvenile Justice Reforms for Girls Summary: Despite decades of attention, the proportion of girls in the juvenile justice system has increased and their challenges have remained remarkably consistent, resulting in deeply rooted systemic gender injustice. The literature is clear that girls in the justice system have experienced abuse, violence, adversity, and deprivation across many of the domains of their lives-family, peers, intimate partners, and community. There is also increasing understanding of the sorts of programs helpful to these girls. What is missing is a focus on how systems-and particularly juvenile justice systems-can be redesigned to protect public safety and support the healing and healthy development of girls and young women. Juvenile justice systems reform is occurring across the country as a result of a growing understanding of developmental and neurological differences between youth and adults, the high cost of incarceration, and the consistent failure of a punitive juvenile justice model. However, even as systems are initiating reforms and changing their approach, they are routinely failing to modify those reforms for girls or even to collect data on how girls, specifically, are affected by the problems they are seeking to remedy. As a result, the particular impact on girls of failures in the juvenile justice system is not understood and few juvenile reforms are tailored to girls' needs and pathways into the system- meaning girls and young women are unlikely to fully benefit from system reforms. Many of the problems discussed in this report are not unique to girls-and many of the suggested paths forward can benefit both boys and girls. However, because girls are frequently left out of reform discussions, an intentional focus on girls is needed to ensure that they fully benefit from system reforms. Indeed, in writing this report we were struck by the number of promising national and large-scale juvenile justice reform efforts that have not fully considered the role of gender in the problems they address or in the solutions they propose. If this intentional gender focus does not coexist with current large-scale system reforms, an important opportunity for gender justice and equity and developmental system reforms will be missed. To facilitate developmental juvenile justice system reform for girls, this report will: Map girls' current paths into and through the juvenile justice system; Describe the social contexts driving girls' behavior and involvement in the juvenile justice system; and Detail recommendations for an alternative, developmental approach to redesign juvenile justice systems to address harmful social contexts and girls' resulting behaviors, rather than penalize and punish girls for challenges beyond their control. The recommendations included in this report are consistent with decades of research on adolescent development, as well as newer data on the development of girls in particular. With continued research on girls and an intentional focus on their needs, system stakeholders and policymakers can capitalize on current reforms that are already underway and ensure girls are not simply wedged into solutions meant for boys. Details: Portland, OR: National Crittenton Foundation; Washington, DC: National Women's Law Center, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ed_rp_gender_injustice.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ed_rp_gender_injustice.pdf Shelf Number: 136894 Keywords: Female Delinquents Female Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform

Author: Amnesty International Title: A Brighter Tomorrow: Keeping Indigenous kids in the community and out of detention in Australia Summary: Children are vital to any community. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Indigenous children, like children everywhere, have the right to develop their personalities, abilities and talents to the fullest potential, to grow up in an environment of happiness, love and understanding. The Convention recognizes each child as an individual and a member of a family and community. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises the right of the right of Indigenous families and communities to secure the well-being of their children and to have greater control over decision-making about their own lives and futures. Community is everything when it comes to ensuring all young people have what they need to enjoy their rights as children. Indigenous youth detention in Australia is a national crisis - and the crisis is getting worse. Indigenous young people are "more likely to be incarcerated today than at any other time since the release of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody final report in 1991" said the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in 2011. The most recent data, from 2013-14, shows that Indigenous young people are 26 times more likely to be in detention than non-Indigenous young people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people make up just over 5 per cent of the Australian population of 10-17 year-olds but more than half (59 per cent) of those in detention. The situation is bleaker still among the youngest Indigenous children, who made up more than 60 per cent of all 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds in detention in Australia in 2012-13. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population has more people in younger age brackets than the non-Indigenous population, with larger proportions of young people. In light of this, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples noted in 2013 that "unless the rate of increase in youth detention can be reduced, rates of incarceration across the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population are likely to continue to increase into the future." This report details the nature of this crisis, and makes practical recommendations on ways the Australian Government can reduce these escalating rates. It is based on field and desk research carried out between 2013 and early 2015 by Amnesty International. In Australia, each state and territory government is responsible for its own laws, policies and practices for dealing with young people accused of committing, or convicted of, offences. However, it is the Federal Government ('Australian Government'), as a signatory to international human rights conventions, which bears ultimate responsibility for fulfilling the rights of Indigenous young people in all states and territories. In 2012 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed regret that, despite its previous recommendations, "the juvenile justice system of the [Australia] still requires substantial reforms for it to conform to international standards." This report highlights state and territory-based laws that breach international human rights obligations. The Australian Government should invalidate these laws, or work with the states and territories to have them repealed. Importantly, across all Australian states and territories children are held criminally responsible from just 10 years of age, despite the Committee on the Rights of the Child having concluded that 12 is the lowest internationally acceptable minimum age of criminal responsibility. The Western Australian Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) requires magistrates to impose mandatory minimum sentences on young offenders in a number of circumstances. The Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2012 again recommended that the Australian Government take steps to abolish this practice. Far from accepting this recommendation, at the time of writing, the West Australian Legislative Assembly had in fact just passed a Bill that will increase the number of offences attracting a mandatory minimum sentence. Queensland treats 17-year-olds as adults in its criminal justice system. In 2012 the Committee on the Rights of the Child again recommended that Australia remove children who are 17 years old from the adult justice system in Queensland. Ignoring this recommendation, in 2014, the Queensland Government amended its Youth Justice Act 1992 to require all 17-year-olds with six months or more left of their sentence to be transferred to adult jails. This is contrary to Article 37(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2014 the Queensland Government introduced a further law that is in direct conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that the court must disregard the principle that detention must be a last resort. This report sets out further actions that the Australian Government should take to comply with international legal obligations across all states and territories. For example, Australia should withdraw its reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as this reservation has been justified to detain children with adult prisoners where separation is not "considered to be feasible having regard to the geography and demography of Australia." The Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly noted that the reservation should be withdrawn. Details: Broadway NSW: Amnesty International Australia, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/aus/A_brighter_future_National_report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/aus/A_brighter_future_National_report.pdf Shelf Number: 136928 Keywords: Indigenous Peoples Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders

Author: Berkovitz, Melody Title: Rethinking Rikers: Moving from a Correctional to a Therapeutic Model for Youth Summary: "Children are not little adults . . . neurological research has made that clear." Consequently, a different system, or a different set of responses, is necessary to address the needs of young adults in the criminal justice system. Yet, New York City has lagged behind other jurisdictions, including New York State, in modernizing its treatment and punishment of youth offenders. Significantly, New York remains one of only two states in the country to treat 16 and 17-year olds as adults in its courts. More than 500 youth languish in New York City's Department of Correction facility on Rikers Island and over 75% of them are awaiting trial. Such a system of large-scale youth correctional facilities provides little benefit for long-term public safety. On the contrary, it wastes vast sums of taxpayer dollars, and more often than not, harms the well-being and dampens the future prospects of the youth behind bars. Each year, the United States invests 6 billion dollars to incarcerate youth, and within two to three years of their release, 70-80% of these youth are rearrested on a new offense. New York City spends $167,000 per year to hold a young person on Rikers Island. Instead of existing costly and ineffectual practices, policymakers should be working towards narrowing the pipeline of youth entering the criminal justice system. For those that do enter, New York City should adopt effective charging and bail policies, change case processing methods, and increase alternatives to incarceration and other services to improve outcomes for individuals. These practices would significantly reduce the number of youth in detention. Implementation of these necessary practices, however, is not within the control of the Board of Correction and is beyond the scope of this report. This report addresses effective practices for those youth who will be detained in secure facilities. Effective policy requires a fundamental shift to a therapeutic approach with practices that are specialized for and dedicated to youth rehabilitation. This begins with the pressing need to eliminate the use of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement for incarcerated youth across the United States has increasingly captured public attention. Although the definition varies, for purposes of this report, solitary confinement consists of extreme isolation for 22-24 hours a day with minimal human contact. The severe emotional, mental and physical harm caused by such practices is well documented. While isolation might be sparingly utilized for short periods of time in some circumstances, solitary confinement for lengthy periods is detrimental. Moreover, the practice itself has proven to be unnecessarily costly and a substantial contributor to increased recidivism rates. Some states have eliminated solitary confinement altogether. Others, including New York, continue to utilize solitary confinement for adults and children alike, irrespective of the burgeoning scientific data highlighting its harmful effects. Research in the past three decades demonstrates that heavy reliance on solitary confinement and more generally, on punitive-based models for incarceration of youth, is counterproductive. It does not work to reduce aggressive, violent, impulsive, or disobedient behaviors. In fact, solitary confinement increases these behaviors. Overall, the Rikers Island correctional model is damaging and in need of significant change. Solitary confinement is but the most extreme of the harmful practices. New York's current political climate provides an ideal opportunity to redesign the current youth detention system on Rikers Island. New York City should look to the flourishing success of models and practices in other jurisdictions and follow a fundamentally different approach to its treatment of youth in detention. We must embrace a shift from the traditional and oft-ineffective correctional facility model to the proven success of a residential treatment facility model. This report examines the emerging research and the characteristics and models adopted by other states that are effective in the treatment of youth. It makes recommendations to change existing practices for youth on Rikers Island. These include placement of youth into closely supervised small groups, access to group therapy and positive behavioral management, extensive staff training and reorientation of staff to a therapeutic approach, alternatives to discipline, procedural safeguards and methods to carefully assess and evaluate the programs. Details: New York: Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 2014. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2015 at: https://cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/YJCFeb2_1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/YJCFeb2_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137050 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Rikers Island Solitary Confinement Young Adult Offenders Youth Detention Youthful Offenders

Author: Children's Commissioner for England Title: Isolation and solitary confinement of children in the English youth justice secure estate Summary: This research was designed primarily to look at practices whereby children in the youth justice secure estate spent 16 hours or more in any 24 hour period without social contact with their peers (i.e. excluding contact with staff and family/social or professional visits). The World Health Organisation lists the following as the most common reasons for imposing isolation during imprisonment (Shalev, 2014): - as a short term-punishment for children who break the rules; - to prevent escape; - for the person's own protection to prevent them from harming themselves or being harmed by others; - as a behaviour management tool for the safe management of difficult and challenging persons, and for the management of children belonging to certain groups (such as gang members); - while awaiting transfer to another establishment or to a hospital, or adjudication; these are temporary measures, but in some cases the child may be isolated for many weeks and sometimes months; - de facto: staff shortages, convenience or as group punishment can mean that children are confined to their cells/ rooms for an entire day or for several days at a time. In literature, isolation can be broadly classed into: - Isolation in dedicated intensive management units, often termed segregation units; - Isolation in the form of "cellular confinement". Isolation can also be a single separation or a group separation (when two or more persons are isolated together from the rest of their peers). It can be imposed by the staff or elected by the child themselves. In March 2015, the number of children in youth justice custody in England and Wales (i.e. sentenced or remanded) stood at 1,004. There are currently: - four YOIs in England housing boys aged 15-17 and some 18 year olds. They are all male establishments; - eight SCHs, which hold children 10-17 years of age. Girls and boys are usually mixed in SCHs. SCHs range in size from six to 40 beds; - three STCs, all run by private companies. STCs hold boys and girls aged 12-17. Young Offenders Institutions are the only type of youth justice establishments which have dedicated segregation units similar to those in adult prisons, where confinement - for example in order to maintain good order and discipline - can exceed 22 hours per day and last for prolonged periods. Visits are allowed by a staff member, nurse, advocacy providers and chaplains. Isolated children are allowed out of their segregation cells in order to shower, exercise or make a phone call although, as this research has shown, this practice tends to vary between establishments. In England and Wales the educational entitlement in custody has recently been increased to 30 hours per week for children (CCE, 2015). Access to education is only sporadically allowed to isolated children and is often conducted on 1:1 basis, as are consultations with the advocacy provider. The length of time spent in isolation typically ought not to exceed 72 hours before a detailed review takes place. This type of isolation is always recorded. Confinement in the child's own cell is also used in YOIs, often as a behavioural management measure following an act of aggression against a peer or a member of staff. Short spells of cell or room confinement are extremely common across the estate as they provide a 'cooling off' or 'time out' periods. The time spent in room confinement ranges from minutes to several days. STCs and SCHs typically use room confinement as a behavioural management measure, and do so for shorter periods of time than YOIs. The time spent in isolation can range from 10-15 minutes to several hours. The children are typically not left alone for prolonged periods of time and a member of staff is likely to accompany them during isolation. A child is not necessarily confined to their room: often they will be isolated in one of the common area rooms where they will have access to personal items and items of leisure. Typically, they will have access to activities/services that they would do if they were not isolated, but will need to access them apart from their peers (for instance education may need to be delivered 1:1). They may also need to miss out on those courses which are only delivered in groups, such as vocational training. Group separations are also common, where two or more children are isolated together from the rest of the group and supervised by a member of staff. When it comes to recording it as isolation, cell/room confinement is often variably understood by different types of establishments. STCs and SCHs are likely to record this information. As found in the present study, in YOIs, this practice can sometimes go unnoticed and unrecorded. This presents itself as a problem when trying to estimate the overall rate of isolation in the youth justice estate. Details: London: Children's Commissioner for England, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Unlocking%20Potential%20-%20supporting%20research_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Unlocking%20Potential%20-%20supporting%20research_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137153 Keywords: Administrative Segregation Isolation Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Solitary Confinement, Juveniles

Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Children in Custody 2014-15. An analysis of 12-18-year-olds' perceptions of their experience in secure training centres and young offender institutions Summary: This report sets out how children in secure training centres (STCs) and young offender institutions (YOIs) describe their experience in the secure estate. It is based on the responses to surveys that were part of the unannounced inspections of every STC and YOI in 2014-15. Of the children in these establishments at the time of the inspections, 84% of them completed a survey. Survey responses do not provide a complete picture of an establishment - a key part of their purpose is to suggest the areas that need closer examination during the inspection. Similarly, this annual review raises important questions that policy makers and practitioners looking to the future of youth custody would do well to pursue. Children in STCs generally reported more positively than those in YOIs, and overall, in both types of establishment, about four in five children said staff treated them with respect. Nevertheless, a significant minority of children in both STCs and YOIs described being frightened and unhappy. Although around four in five children described feeling safe on their first night, almost a third said they had felt unsafe at some time and more than one in 10 said they felt unsafe at the time the survey took place. Two out of five children said they had been physically restrained. This report contains some analysis of what other factors children who feel unsafe or have been restrained have in common, which may suggest areas on which to focus, in order to reduce these concerns. Only slightly more than half the children in both types of establishment felt they had done anything in custody to make them less likely to offend in future. It is a significant concern that fewer boys in YOIs reported being involved in any kind of purposeful activity than at the time of any of our reports in the last five years. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/12/HMIP_CP_-Children-in-custody-2014-15-FINAL-web-AW.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/12/HMIP_CP_-Children-in-custody-2014-15-FINAL-web-AW.pdf Shelf Number: 137454 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Behaviour management and restraint of children in custody: A review of the early implementation of MMPR Summary: In March 2013, the House of Commons Justice Committee recommended in its report on youth justice that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons should report on the implementation of the new system of behaviour management and restraint in young offender institutions (YOIs) and secure training centres (STCs), known as 'minimising and managing physical restraint' (MMPR). This report sets out our findings on the implementation of the new system to date. The introduction of MMPR was the culmination of a long process initiated following the deaths of two boys in 2004. Gareth Myatt died after he became unconscious during a restraint in an STC. 'If you can talk, you can breathe', an officer told him when he complained. It was not true. Adam Rickwood, aged 14, hung himself after a 'pain compliance' technique was applied to him. This was the 'nose distraction technique', a painful jab under the base of the nose. MMPR is intended to change the approach to behaviour management within YOIs and STCs, placing an additional emphasis on the importance of staff using their existing relationships with children to de-escalate volatile incidents, and minimising the number of children who experience restraint. MMPR also includes a comprehensive system of national governance and oversight to not only monitor the use of restraint but also improve and promote safe practice across the estate. The implementation of MMPR is taking place against a backdrop of a substantial fall in the number of children in custody, the decommissioning of beds across both YOIs and STCs and staffing shortages across the YOI estate. This has caused significant delay in the roll out of MMPR, which is now due to be completed in July 2016 - a year behind schedule. The reduction in numbers also means that YOIs and STCs now hold an even more concentrated mix of children (almost all boys) with more challenging behaviour and complex needs than in the past. This combination of delay, resource pressures, a more complex population and concerns about overall performance means that the new MMPR system is not yet being consistently implemented or achieving the intended outcomes. At this stage in the implementation of MMPR we welcome the significant improvements that it has brought to the national oversight of restraint and the greater focus on communication and de-escalation as part of a wider approach to behaviour management. The development of a consistent approach to restraint across all secure settings is itself an important improvement. However, some of what we have found has been too variable and sometimes very poor. Nevertheless, we have seen enough of when it does work to cautiously conclude it is an improvement on previous systems and that the foundations are there to enable further improvement still. The Youth Justice Board should continue with its implementation. While it is sometimes necessary to restrain children we share the view of others that there is no such thing as 'entirely safe' restraint. MMPR attempts to change the culture of behaviour management across the secure estate so that effective relationships and communication are used as a basis to reduce the use of force. Effective relationships are more difficult to establish in YOIs, which are larger than STCs and have lower staffing levels. Staff in YOIs spoke of the difficulty in forming these relationships during short association periods. Staff shortages had led to many staff being cross-deployed within YOIs or sent on detached duty to work at other establishments. In contrast, STC staff felt they had the time to form positive relationships with the children living on their unit. This is supported by the perceptions of children in our annual survey of children in custody - a significantly higher proportion of children in STCs than YOIs reported that staff treated them with respect; 93% in STCs compared with 70% in YOIs. We found that all establishments had implemented behaviour management plans for children with more challenging behaviour. This was progress. However, the criteria for implementing a behaviour management plan were not always clear and we were not satisfied that all children who needed a plan had one. Too many of the plans we saw were of a poor standard, not demonstrating adequate assessment, relevant targets or any review of the child's progress to enable staff to manage the most challenging children expertly. Some staff also commented that if they did not have the time to get to know a particular child, a written plan was of limited use. Children with medical or other conditions that could be affected by MMPR techniques could also have restraint handling plans put in place for them. It was positive that establishments dealing with more complex cases could now seek medical advice through the expert serious injuries and warning signs (SIWS) medical panel. However, we found potentially dangerous examples of staff not adhering to these plans during restraints. In general, staff were unfamiliar with the content of the plans; this was a serious oversight that could have led to significant injuries. In the YOIs and STCs we visited many children were unable to identify any difference between their experience of MMPR and previous behaviour management systems in terms of attempts made to reduce the incidence of restraint or actual restraint practice. While the accounts of children varied, the experience remained, for many, painful and distressing. The evidence from interviews with staff and children, MMPR documentation and our review of CCTV footage indicates that too many of the concerns identified with the previous practice remain. MMPR guidance outlines techniques staff can use to slow down and de-escalate a situation. Children's own experiences of de-escalation before and during restraint varied dramatically; some spoke of staff communicating throughout and making good efforts to calm them down while others reported that little effort was made before or during an incident. Despite staff recording the use of de-escalation in use of force reports, most CCTV footage we reviewed contained evidence of poor de-escalation, and some recordings showed staff intervening too quickly in response to minor incidents. We had particular concerns about the practice relating to restraining children on the floor, the application of head holds and the use of pain-inducing techniques. MMPR does not allow staff to take children to the floor intentionally during a restraint because of the medical risks this poses to the child. In nearly half of all the incidents we reviewed however, including 70% of those in YOIs, children ended up on the floor. We also had concerns about the continued misapplication of the head hold: in addition to the incidents described in this review, the SIWS medical panel has identified the incorrect application of this technique in a significant number of incidents that have resulted in SIWS referrals. We also identified unacceptable examples of children being strip searched under restraint in YOIs. Restraint policy agreed by ministers states that staff should only use pain as a last resort to prevent an immediate risk of serious physical harm, but we found that pain-inducing techniques were used frequently in YOIs, and that in most cases staff were not compliant with this requirement. It is notable that staff in STCs dealing with similar incidents did not use these techniques. We also found underreporting of the use of pain-inducing techniques in YOIs, reducing the effectiveness of local and national safeguards. We found no evidence to justify the deliberate infliction of pain as an approved technique. Within MMPR health care staff play an important role in safeguarding a child during a restraint. It was therefore unacceptable that some establishments did not call health care staff to all incidents. This undermined their role. In some cases, health care staff did not undertake a physical examination of a child after a restraint, instead carrying out this check through a locked door, which was inadequate to ensure the child's welfare. Support for children after a restraint also required improvement; children we interviewed told us that staff did not always speak to them after an incident to ensure they were okay. Structured post-restraint debriefs with children did not always take place, and when they did they varied in quality. They did not serve the purpose of encouraging helpful discussion about the restraint or looking at ways to help the child to improve their behaviour and prevent any further incidents. During this review we found a comprehensive system of national governance and oversight, and the introduction of dedicated MMPR coordinators to drive improvements in local practice was positive. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 22, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Behaviour-management-and-restraint-Web-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Behaviour-management-and-restraint-Web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137652 Keywords: Detention Centers Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates

Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska Title: Growing Up Locked Down: Juvenile Solitary Confinement in Nebraska Summary: Before they are old enough to get a driver's license, enlist in the armed forces, or vote, some children in Nebraska are held in solitary confinement for days, weeks - and even months. This practice occurs in every Nebraska juvenile justice facility, to varying degrees, but the overarching theme of over-use is consistent throughout the state. On any given day in Nebraska, juvenile justice facilities routinely subject the kids in their care to solitary confinement. Like adult prisons, juvenile facilities sometimes employ the most counterproductive and inhumane correctional practices - including extended periods of solitary confinement, room restriction, isolation, segregation, and seclusion. Isolation practices frequently involve placing a youth alone in a cell for several hours, sometimes for multiple days; restricting contact with family members; limiting access to reading and writing materials; and providing limited educational programming, recreation, drug treatment, or mental health services. Throughout this report, "solitary confinement" refers to any physical and social isolation of children in juvenile detention facilities. It does not refer to short intervention "time out" practices used to help a juvenile manage current acting out behavior. While temporary use of seclusion for a youth may be necessary to maintain the safety and security of that youth or other people, the use of solitary confinement on children in Nebraska is clearly overused, and can cause much more serious problems than those it is supposedly employed to solve. Additionally, our research has uncovered that frequently the reasons why young people are placed in solitary confinement can be for even relatively minor offenses, such as talking back to staff members, having too many books, or refusing to follow directions. This research gives rise to the concern that juvenile facilities in Nebraska are not utilizing best practices for the use of solitary confinement and thus are risking serious mental health impacts for vulnerable youth. Details: Lincoln, NE: ACLU of Nebraska, 2016. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2016 at: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/juvenile_solitary_report_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/juvenile_solitary_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 137745 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Detention Centers Juvenile Inmates Solitary Confinement

Author: Connecticut. Office of the Child Advocate Title: Investigative Facility Report: Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo Unit Summary: The Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) is charged with investigating, evaluating, and publicly reporting regarding the efficacy of state-funded services to children. OCA is specifically charged with reviewing conditions for children and youth in state-funded facilities and in programs serving children with special needs. The following investigation was undertaken in part because of concerns about conditions at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo brought to OCA by whistleblowers, some of whom work at the Department of Children and Families. CJTS and Pueblo are DCF-run juvenile correctional programs for boys and girls adjudicated as delinquent and committed to state custody due to juvenile offenses. Most of the children confined at CJTS have adjudications for non-violent offenses. The primary purpose (if not the sole purpose) of CJTS and Pueblo is to improve public safety through the rehabilitation/treatment of delinquent youth. The vast majority of children and youth at CJTS and Pueblo have histories of trauma, abuse, neglect, complex psychiatric disorders, and special education needs. To rehabilitate successfully, these youth require intensive, therapeutic supports, seven days a week, and discharge to rigorous and effective services and supervision. OCA's months-long review of facility video tapes, incident reports, and treatment records revealed urgent safety problems for youth. Findings include inadequate suicide prevention, lack of appropriate support and training for staff, inadequate and harmful crisis management, and an opaque system that, despite significant public funding, reports scant information regarding quality, public safety outcomes, and oversight. There is a tension between the rehabilitative mission of the juvenile justice system and the operations of a maximum-security facility like CJTS. These tensions give rise to many of the risks and harms discovered by OCA during this investigation. In part due to similar findings around the country and research demonstrating such programs are ineffective for improving public safety, many states are moving away from prison-like facilities for high need youth and re-allocating dollars towards more effective interventions. Connecticut has rightfully been lauded as a national leader in decreasing incarceration rates for juveniles and adults. However, reliance on the state's maximum security juvenile correctional complex continues, despite stakeholders' and leaders' historic lack of confidence in this facility. OCA respectfully and strongly urges close attention to the urgent issues outlined in this report. OCA's recommendations are also similar to those recently offered by DCF's consultant, Dr. Robert Kinscherff of the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. DCF has pledged to act on several of Dr. Kinscherff's recommendations and has begun to take additional steps to do the following: 1. Eliminate unlawful restraint and seclusion of children in the facilities; 2. Improve suicide prevention protocols and training; 3. Improve risk assessment and response; 4. Strengthen trauma-informed supports for youth; 5. Improve quality assurance and reporting. OCA applauds that commitment. Given the gravity of OCA's findings, the unique vulnerability of confined youth and the extraordinary state expenditure for CJTS and Pueblo, it will be critical to ensure that changes are implemented expertly, expeditiously, and transparently. Given the complexity of issues reviewed during this investigation, OCA consulted extensively with mental health and other professionals to support our review and recommendations. To that end, OCA also consulted with the State's Office of Protection and Advocacy-charged with protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. The Office of Protection and Advocacy (OPA) reviewed numerous primary source records, including treatment plans, progress notes, and video tapes collected during our investigation. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has issued a responsive public statement, attached to this report. Details: Hartford, CT: Office of the Child Advocate, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137786 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people in child protection services and under youth justice supervision 2013-2014 Summary: This report presents information on young people aged 10-17 who were involved in the child protection system and under youth justice supervision in 2013-14, and demonstrates the insights that can be gained through data linkage. One-quarter of young people in youth justice detention were also in the child protection system in the same year. Those who were younger at their first youth justice supervision were more likely to also be in child protection. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Data Linkage Series No. 21; Accessed February 11, 2016 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554445 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554445 Shelf Number: 137842 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Hart, Di Title: Tell them not to forget about us. A guide to practice with looked after children in custody Summary: This guide is aimed primarily at Children's Services Authorities1 to support their work with looked after children and care leavers who are imprisoned within Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). It will also be relevant for Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and staff in YOIs. Although the research did not include Secure Training Centres (STCs), the messages about effective planning are equally applicable. It is written in recognition of the fact that a significant proportion of children in custody have been in the 'care' system at some point and are still entitled to social work support. This guide aims to support practice by providing: - key messages from 12 case studies of looked after children in prison - a model to assist social workers, YOTs and prison/STC staff to work together - briefing notes on aspects of child care and youth justice policy, research and practice - practical exercises and checklists - examples of good practice and protocols - a list of references and sources of information - templates for information-sharing, assessment and planning that are compatible with the Integrated Children's System. Details: London: National Children's Bureau, 2006. 90p. Source: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/441684/tell_them_not_to_forget_about_us_web.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/441684/tell_them_not_to_forget_about_us_web.pdf Shelf Number: 137989 Keywords: Detention Centers Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Newell, Michelle Title: Reforming the Nation's Largest Juvenile Justice System Summary: Research confirms that incarcerating young people is harmful - contributing to lower educational achievement, higher unemployment, higher alcohol and substance abuse and increased mental health problems. Roughly three-quarters of youth leaving locked facilities nationally are rearrested and - depending on local juvenile justice statutes - up to 70 percent are convicted of a new offense. These dismal outcomes, combined with a high price tag, have largely made youth incarceration a failed public policy approach. The good news is that youth incarceration rates in the U.S. have declined by 41 percent over the last 15 years, reaching the lowest level since 1975. While this is due largely to decreasing crime rates and state budget cuts, it also reflects the increased use of cost-effective, community-based programs for youth who pose a minimal threat to public safety. Nevertheless, approximately 70,000 youth nationwide - 2,000 in Los Angeles County - are still confined in juvenile detention facilities on any given day. While the goal remains to reduce these numbers further and keep young people out of the system whenever possible, a small number of youth will remain in secure facilities. How these youth are treated while incarcerated has a marked impact on the rest of their life, their communities, and on our society as a whole. The Los Angeles County juvenile justice system is the largest system in the nation, with locked facilities that include three juvenile halls and fourteen probation camps. Yet many observers of the system, including legal groups, advocates and organizers, the media, and elected and appointed officials, have concluded over the years the camps are not meeting the needs of youth, and not helping them become law-abiding and productive members of society. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and Children's Defense Fund, California, 2013. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2013/reforming-the-nations.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2013/reforming-the-nations.pdf Shelf Number: 138314 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Probation Camps

Author: Herz, Denise C. Title: The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study Summary: In Los Angeles County, an alarming number of children and youth live in unsafe, impoverished communities with entrenched violence, have struggling and isolated parents, and attend poorly performing schools. As a result, many of these children and youth end up in the County's health, mental health, child welfare, human services, and juvenile justice systems. Children who enter the juvenile justice system, in particular, face myriad challenges. Research demonstrates that these vulnerable young people often have risk and need factors that include: low academic achievement, mental health and/or substance abuse issues, negative peer networks, and lack of appropriate parental supervision. Los Angeles Probation-involved youth, for example, often face the following risk and need factors: - Education: Standardized tests indicate that youth placed in probation camps are, on average, 16.7 years old and therefore are in the 11th grade but are achieving at a fifth grade level in math and reading (McCroskey, 2006, p. 2). California High School Exit Examination 2003-04 results for graduates from 492 Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) students in juvenile hall and Community Day School programs show that only 26% passed the English Language Arts exam, compared with 70% of all students in the County who took and passed the exam. Additionally, LACOE data show that the percentage of students identified as requiring special education was higher than the national average of 13.7%.1 Of the 2,047 students enrolled in juvenile hall schools as of November 2005, 79% (n=1,617) were classified as regular education students and 21% (n=430) were classified as special education students. - Mental Health: In 2008, a UCLA research study on Los Angeles' juvenile Probation camp population reported that 58% of youth had received counseling or mental health services prior to being placed in Probation Department camps, with 65% receiving such services during their stay at camp. The same study also found that the most common mental health problems reported by youth who self-identified with a mental health problem were depression and anger. - Substance Abuse: An external survey conducted with youth in Probation Camps found that 58% of Probation-involved youth reported they had received a prior diagnosis of substance abuse and dependency. Additionally, according to a UCLA study on Los Angeles Probation Camps, over one-third of Probation-involved youth have been in an alcohol or drug placement in the past, including 43% of girls and 36% of boys). Because so many Probation-involved youth enter the juvenile justice system with these factors, the Probation Department may be viewed as the primary agency responsible for resolving these issues. Probation, however, cannot address all of these risk factors alone. Instead it relies on collaboration with other County departments, including Health Services, Mental Health and Public Health, whose staff have expertise in health, behavioral health and other child and family issues. For example, an early study (1995) using cross-departmental data linkages to identify families being served by multiple Los Angeles County departments underscores this point. Findings from this study showed that, during that year, 59.4% of Probation families also received services from DPSS, 25.5% also received services from DCFS, 30.3% also received services from DHS, and 18.2% also received services from DMH (Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council, Data Analysis and Technical Assistance Committee, 1995). Despite these findings, identifying and documenting shared connections across County agencies is nearly impossible because agency data systems are seldom integrated, and the interpretation of confidentiality protections limits the exchange of information across agencies. Without interagency coordination, though, youth and families may not receive the services they need, they may receive duplicative services, and/or they may receive inappropriate services. A starting point to better serve Probation-involved youth and families is a better understanding of the characteristics and needs of Probation-involved youth and their outcomes over time. Unfortunately, defining and consistently reporting outcomes for youth under Probation supervision has been elusive for at least three reasons. First, Probation lacks the data and sophisticated data systems necessary to produce meaningful outcome measures. In 2010, Harvard Kennedy School researchers conducting a review of juvenile reentry in Los Angeles County reported that the Probation Department was unable to provide the following information in a timely and comprehensive manner: - educational outcomes in camps and after (high school/GED completion rates, drop-out rates, rates of re-enrollment in school after camp); - percent of youth receiving mental health services; - percent of youth receiving substance abuse services; - percent of youth participating in reentry programs; - what reentry programs youth are currently accessing; - rates of recidivism that capture camp return and entrance in the adult criminal justice system (beyond six month subsequent sustained charge); and, - number of youth violating their Probation terms. Second, the use of data produced by Probation's information system is often driven by compliance rather than case management, quality improvement, or assessing practice over time. In other words, the most readily available and used Probation data elements tend to reflect whether a required protocol was completed, rather than the impact of that practice on youth outcomes. Third, Probation is limited in what it can collect, share and have access to - particularly in terms of mental health and education data - based on legal restraints and confidentiality concerns. Despite knowing that many youth "cross over" between the child protective services and juvenile justice systems, for example, shared access to the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) has been limited due to strict interpretation of statutes and regulations designed to protect confidentiality (see, for example, the Federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems [SACWIS] regulations). Collectively, the challenges to interagency coordination and the urgent need for clear and consistent outcomes make a compelling argument for increased attention to the data systems that undergird Probation practices and program, so that County decisions are guided by standardized data collection based on desired outcomes for youth and shared information can drive better interagency coordination and collaboration. Specifically, this study focuses on youth placed in suitable placement and camps (i.e., youth who penetrate deeply into the juvenile justice system) because their experiences and stories arguably provide the unique opportunity to: (1) identify how agencies, communities, and families can better prevent youth entry into the juvenile justice system; (2) provide insight into how to prevent youth who enter the juvenile justice system from reaching the point of being placed in out-of-home care (suitable placement) and/or Probation camps; (3) provide direction on how to build an integrated and coordinated response system that would address the complex needs of youth and families, particularly those who penetrate deeply into the system; and, (4) identify key outcomes that can be measured consistently and regularly (e.g., annually) by Probation, LACOE and allied County departments. This report begins by providing an overview of the need for and purpose of juvenile justice data as well as the current structures of data collection in Los Angeles County (Chapter 1). Next, it examines the characteristics and situational contexts of youth exiting from suitable placements and juvenile camp placements during 2011 (Chapters 2 & 3). Eight in-depth youth case histories taken from Probation records are presented to illustrate the context within which these youths' stories unfold from the perspective of the Probation Officers who supervise and oversee youth in the system (Chapter 4). Based on the findings presented in this report, Chapter 5 presents recommendations to improve practice through targeted reform and improved use of data. Details: Los Angeles: Advancement Project, 2015. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/la-probation-outcomes.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/la-probation-outcomes.pdf Shelf Number: 138315 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Probation Camps

Author: Uman, Gwen C. Title: Children's Defense Fund Freedom Schools Program in Los Angeles County Probation Camps: Evaluation Report Summary: With the highest youth incarceration rate in the world, the United States (U.S.) imprisons approximately 70,000 youth nationwide on any given day. The U.S. juvenile justice system, which began shifting in the 1980's from a rehabilitation to a punishment model, has created a broad sense of "perpetual surveillance," or "a state of conscious and permanent visibility" for thousands of American youth, especially young men of color. The exiling of American youth in the juvenile justice system has dire personal, educational, social, and economic effects. Some of the negative effects of youth incarceration include: lower educational achievement, higher unemployment, higher alcohol and substance abuse, increased mental health problems, and higher rates of learning disabilities. Studies have also documented the high costs of incarcerating youth; the U.S. spends $6 million per year in juvenile corrections and $88,000 in direct costs per juvenile each year. While youth incarceration has proven to be both harmful and costly, the number of youth in juvenile detention facilities across the country remains high. L.A. COUNTY'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The L.A. County juvenile justice system is the largest system in the nation. In a recent policy brief entitled "Reforming the Nation's Largest Juvenile Justice System," probation camps in L.A. were characterized as ineffective, operating under an outdated era of juvenile justice which relies heavily on penitentiary-like facilities and strictly enforced routines. Recently, a series of lawsuits and allegations in probation camps have identified the following problems in probation camps: "failure to protect youth from harm," "insufficient and problematic staffing," and "inadequate rehabilitative and educational services." To address recent lawsuits and allegations, the L.A. County Probation Department and LACOE have recently advanced a number of efforts, including the following: implementing integrated behavioral treatment models and evidence-based programs like Aggression Replacement Training and interdisciplinary, hands-on, and evidence-based educational programs (i.e. Road to Success Academy); decreasing the staff-to-youth ratio for both Probation Officers and teachers; and moving forward with a probation camp replacement project for Camp Kilpatrick to achieve a small group treatment model. An additional effort to remedy the problems addressed in recent lawsuits and allegations included piloting the CDF Freedom Schools program, which was implemented in two L.A. probation camps in 2013. A brief overview of the CDF Freedom Schools program is provided, with a fuller description of the L.A. County Project. Details: Los Angeles: Children's Defense Fund, California, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2014/report-cdf-freedom-schools.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2014/report-cdf-freedom-schools.pdf Shelf Number: 138321 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Probation Camps

Author: Chung, Angela Title: Rising Up, Speaking Out: Youth Transforming Los Angeles County's Juvenile Justice System Summary: When youth are taken away from their homes and communities and placed under the custody of a juvenile justice system, all of us have an important responsibility to ensure that during this most formative period of their lives, young people heal and are prepared to succeed when they return to their communities. Instead, our most vulnerable young people, overwhelmingly youth of color, end up locked up in juvenile justice facilities across the U.S. and in Los Angeles County. These facilities are all too often warehouses, where youth are retraumatized and deprived of a quality education and support system. In fact, many youth are more likely to return to their communities under-resourced, overcriminalized, and pre-programmed for adult prisons rather than on a direct path toward college or career. In short, the juvenile justice system has failed in its promise of rehabilitation. Los Angeles County - home to the largest juvenile justice system in the U.S. - now has a historic opportunity to leave behind its outdated and harmful correctional camp model. Over the last decade, the Los Angeles County Probation Department - driven in part by lawsuits and the Department of Justice (DOJ) monitoring - has implemented a number of reforms to address the problems and abuse found in their camps. But these changes are not enough; what is needed is true transformation. By tearing down the decades-old Camp Kilpatrick - a relic of the penitentiary-like, boot-camp style that Los Angeles County built in the 1960s -the county is piloting a therapeutic approach to working with young people. Referred to as the Los Angeles Model (LA Model), this approach is inspired by promising practices across the country, including the Missouri Model, which pioneered a non-institutional and homelike approach to treatment for youth removed from their communities. It is built on the notion that youth cannot heal, change and thrive without safety, and that safety is best achieved through relationship-building and positive youth development. The LA Model is an unprecedented collaboration among the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Probation Department, Office of Education (LACOE), Department of Mental Health (DMH), advocates, researchers, youth and families. If successful, this collaboration can be a model for juvenile justice reform throughout the state of California. The most important voices in guiding and informing the LA Model and any juvenile justice reform in this country are youth who have experienced the system. In this policy brief, five young people - in partnership with CDF-CA's policy researchers - share their own unique experiences inside probation camps and amplify key recommendations from an important UCLA focus group study on how to improve conditions inside Los Angeles County's camps. This brief weighs in on the debate around what works, what does not work, and what should be changed in juvenile justice facilities, while bringing to light the voices, experiences and ideas for change of those who have experienced the system. Details: Los Angeles: Children's Defense Fund - California, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed March 18, 2016 at: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/rising-up-speaking-out.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdfca.org/library/publications/2015/rising-up-speaking-out.pdf Shelf Number: 138328 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Marin County Civil Grand Jury Title: Marin County Juvenile Hall: A Time for a Change Summary: Marin County has experienced a significant decline in juvenile detention in recent years. Despite this decline, the cost of operating Marin County's 40-bed Juvenile Hall (JH) has not decreased and continues to be approximately $4,000,000 annually. Because the number of offenders has dwindled, the County's net cost per detainee per day has risen astronomically. To illustrate, the Average Daily Cost (ADC) to house and care for each detained JH youth rose during the past three years (2011-2014) from $464 to $901.64 because the Average Daily Population (ADP) declined from 18.9 to 9.2 detained youths. As a result, the Marin County Grand Jury recommends that Marin County and the Marin County Probation Department (MCPD) negotiate a contract for juvenile detention services with a neighboring county at a reduced cost and reallocate the savings towards expansion of Alternatives to Detention (ATDs), which are in the best interests of Marin youth. The Grand Jury also recommends that Marin County and MCPD consider other uses for this facility. The Grand Jury learned that Marin's decline in juvenile detention is consistent with a major nationwide paradigm shift away from incarceration. Research indicates that detention does not serve youth well, and community-based ATDs, particularly non-residential programming options, deliver equal or better results for a fraction of the cost. Further, the use of risk assessment tools has eliminated the need to confine the majority of Marin's juvenile offenders. Decriminalization of marijuana possession has also significantly reduced arrests and detention. Detentions of juvenile offenders in Marin County's JH decreased from 1,674 in 1995 to 253 in 2014, and its Average Daily Population (ADP) declined 69% in the past decade, from 30 in 2005 to 9.2 in 2014. The median length of stay for youth in the JH is brief, just 8.4 days in 2014. With California's Title 15 mandated staffing requirements to assure safety, security, education, rehabilitation and healthcare in juvenile facilities, most JH operating costs are fixed. MCPD informed the Grand Jury that JH is required to maintain a staff approximating 21 full-time, part-time and on-call personnel irrespective of a variable average daily census. Thus, as detentions decline, costs per detainee increase, while overall costs remain the same. Although California requires every county to have a juvenile hall, it permits two or more counties to operate a joint juvenile hall. According to the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Marin County can satisfy its juvenile detention obligation by contracting with another county for placement of its detainees. The Grand Jury learned from numerous counties that such contracts currently range from $85 to $190 per youth per day. This contracted daily rate may or may not include inter-county transportation costs and certain health care costs, as applicable. Details: San Rafael, CA:Marin County Civil Grand Jury, 2015. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2016 at: http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2014/juvenile-hall.pdf?la=en Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2014/juvenile-hall.pdf?la=en Shelf Number: 138330 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Detention Centers Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Title: Youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2014/2015 Summary: The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), enacted in 2003, is the legislation that governs how youth aged 12 to 17 years are to be dealt with by the Canadian justice system. The Act provides for a separate youth justice system that is meant to protect the public while holding young persons accountable in a manner that is proportionate to their level of maturity and the seriousness of the offence. Within this legislative framework, set by the federal government, the provinces and territories are responsible for administering youth correctional services in Canada. This Juristat article presents an overview of youth correctional services in Canada for 2014/2015. The article uses three measures to describe the utilization of correctional services-average counts, initial entry and admissions. Average counts provide a snapshot of the youth corrections population on any given day; initial entry provides an indication of the number of youth entering the corrections system during the year; and admissions measure the flow of youth through the system by counting youth each time they begin or move to a new type of custody or community supervision. Data on average counts come from the Youth Corrections Key Indicator Report, while data on initial entry and admissions come from the Youth Custody and Community Services Survey and the Integrated Correctional Services Survey. It should be noted that not all jurisdictions were able to report data for 2014/2015. Average count data are not available for Quebec and are limited to custody counts for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta, meaning nine jurisdictions provided overall average counts. Admissions data are likewise available for nine jurisdictions with Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta being the exclusions. These same four jurisdictions plus Manitoba were unable to provide initial entry counts in 2014/2015. Details: Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juristat, 36(1): Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14317-eng.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14317-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 138386 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates

Author: Broderick, Roisin Title: Young People in Custody 2015 Summary: This Bulletin, which deals specifically with young males held by the Scottish Prison Service in HMYOI Polmont, is one of a number of thematic commentaries presenting the key findings from the 2015 Prisoner Survey. The Prisoner Survey was introduced to the Scottish Prison Service in 1990 as a mechanism to inform and support the Service's business planning process. The focus of the Survey has expanded over the years. The Survey continues to focus upon the core elements of prison life: living conditions, family contact, healthcare, relationships, atmosphere and perceived safety. The Survey informs and shapes change by contributing to establishment and corporate business plans. The Survey was carried out between June and July 2015 on an establishment-by-establishment basis. Prisoners' views were collected by means of a self-completion questionnaire, which was distributed and collected personally by the member's prison staff. The Survey involves all prisoners and all establishments. The 15th Survey achieved an overall prisoner response rate of 55%. A total of 327 male young people participated in this survey, a response rate of 73%. Over a quarter (29%) of prisoners said that they were on remand at the time of completing the 2015 prisoner survey; 71% had been sentenced. Respondents' remand and custodial sentence history is outlined in Table 1. This shows that young people were most likely to report having been on remand between 1 and 5 times (57%), followed by having 'never' previously been on remand (31%). Four in ten young people (42%) had 'never' previously served a prison sentence, while over half (53%) had served between 1 and 5 sentences. As expected, a higher percentage of the adult population had previously served a sentence 6-10 times (12%) and over 10 times (17%). Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Prison Service, 2016. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3908.aspx Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3908.aspx Shelf Number: 138390 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Young Adult Offenders

Author: Klofas, John Title: Juvenile Justice Reform Extension Evaluation Report Covering January 2012-June 2014 After-Hours Cases, Diversion Review Process, and Juvenile Detention Data Summary: This report is an evaluation of Monroe County, New York's Juvenile Justice Front-End Reform grant, which had the goals of reducing the number of juveniles (youth under sixteen years old) unnecessarily detained in Monroe County and increasing the number of juvenile cases diverted from court by ensuring diligent efforts were made at engaging juveniles and their families in the diversion process. Additional goals included decreasing the number of days between a juvenile's arrest and probation intake, ensuring there is always justification for detaining juveniles, and reviewing and documenting reasons for petitioning juvenile cases to be sure diversion attempts have been exhausted for that case. As such, four initiatives were implemented in Monroe County in March 2012: the after-hours detention hotline, expedited appearance tickets, a respite program, and a Diversion Review Committee (DRC). This report thoroughly describes each of these reforms, how they change the juvenile justice process, and whether they contributed to the goals of the reforms. We also examine factors that may have affected our results, such as the everyday practice of using these reformed systems and the relocation and capacity reduction of the local juvenile detention center. By reviewing data from multiple sources, this report reveals the effects of these reforms on juvenile case processing and outcomes. We find that all of the reform efforts were successfully implemented and largely had the desired impact. Since the reforms were implemented, - there are fewer juvenile detentions, - more juvenile delinquent cases are diverted from Family Court, - juvenile detentions and petitions are thoroughly and objectively assessed and justified through administrative review, and - juveniles are being seen, on average, 1-2 days after their after-hours arrests. Our findings indicate some room for process improvement, but the implementation of these reforms overall has been very successful. Details: Rochester, NY: Center for Public Safety Initiatives, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper #2014-18: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: https://www.rit.edu/cla/criminaljustice/sites/rit.edu.cla.criminaljustice/files/images/2014-18%20-%20Probation%20Final%20Report%202014%20no%20appendices.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.rit.edu/cla/criminaljustice/sites/rit.edu.cla.criminaljustice/files/images/2014-18%20-%20Probation%20Final%20Report%202014%20no%20appendices.pdf Shelf Number: 138625 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Program Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Criminal Care: Children's homes and criminalising children Summary: - 'Looked after' children living in children's homes are being criminalised at excessively high rates compared to all other groups of children, including those in other types of care - Staff in children's homes are too frequently calling out the police, often over minor incidents - Exposure to the criminal justice system affects the already damaged life chances of these highly vulnerable children - Three-quarters of England's 1,760 children's homes are run by private companies - Lack of transparency, particularly in relation to private children's homes, means that homes are not accountable, bad practices are hidden and children suffer - These problems are widely recognised by the government, the police, local authorities, Ofsted and other relevant authorities but they are not being addressed - In 2014, 5,220 children were living in children's homes. The number of children going into care is at its highest point in 30 years Details: London: The Howard League, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2016 at: http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/Criminal_Care.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/Criminal_Care.pdf Shelf Number: 138692 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia: 2014-15 Summary: There were about 5,600 young people (aged 10 and older) under youth justice supervision in Australia on an average day in 2014-15, due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. This number has decreased by 23% over the 5 years to 2014-15. Around 4 in 5 (82%) young people under supervision on an average day were male. Most (85%) young people were supervised in the community and the remainder were in detention. Although rates of supervision decreased over the 5-year period for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people, the level of Indigenous over-representation increased. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 133: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554930 Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554930 Shelf Number: 138834 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (Australia)

Author: Davis, Antoinette Title: No Place for Youth: Girls in the Adult Justice System Summary: During the past three decades, states across the country passed legislation making it easier to move youth under age 18 into the adult criminal justice system (Puzzanchera & Addie 2014; Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard; Mulvey & Schubert 2012; Griffin, Addie, Adams, & Firestine 2011). These laws made youth eligible for transfer to the adult court system for a greater number of crimes, lowered the age of adult criminal responsibility, increased the ability of prosecutors to file cases in adult court directly, and excluded certain crimes from eligibility for juvenile court adjudication. These legislative changes resulted in an unprecedented rise in youth serving time in adult criminal justice facilities (i.e., jails and prisons). Not only does this phenomenon add a layer of difficulty to the operation and staffing of facilities charged with overseeing these young offenders, but it also directly conflicts with research showing that housing youth in adult correctional facilities is harmful, on a variety of levels, for young people. Adult jails and prisons are not designed for the confinement of youth, and as a result most are not equipped to meet the inherent and specific needs of adolescents. Studies show that youth in adult confinement do not receive age-appropriate educational, medical, or rehabilitative services. They are subject to conditions that are developmentally inappropriate and physically and emotionally unsafe; these conditions run counter to rehabilitative goals. In addition, a growing body of research shows that youth confined in adult facilities are exposed to seasoned offenders and, as compared to youth who are placed in juvenile facilities, are more likely to recidivate with more severe crimes upon release (Hahn et al., 2007; Redding 2010; Fagan, Kupchik, & Liberman 2007; Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard 2011). Although not widely considered by practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders, a growing proportion of youth prosecuted as adults are female. In 2010, girls were defendants in 8% of all cases judicially waived from juvenile to adult courts (Puzzanchera & Addie 2014). This bulletin focuses on the population of girls under age 18 who are confined to adult facilities in the United States. It provides a summary of current research, incorporates the voices of practitioners, and offers recommendations for improving conditions and outcomes for girls who are sentenced to adult facilities. Data examined for this bulletin include results of a national survey of correctional administrators conducted by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) in 2014. The NIC/NCCD survey was designed to collect information from members of the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) about issues and challenges that adult facilities face in serving youth under age 18, with a particular focus on girls. ASCA is a professional organization whose membership consists of current and former administrators of correctional facilities or the correctional system of a jurisdiction. Survey findings are included throughout the bulletin, and results are summarized in the appendix. NIC and NCCD also held a listening session with a select group of corrections professionals; these individuals have extensive experience overseeing state correctional departments or women's correctional facilities and providing services for female offenders. Quotes from this listening session are highlighted in the bulletin. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2015. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2016 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/031370.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/031370.pdf Shelf Number: 139018 Keywords: Female Offenders Juvenile Detention Juvenile in Adult Facilities Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Waiver Waiver to Adult Court

Author: Holden, Gary Title: Medway Improvement Board, Final Report of the Board's Advice to Secretary of State for Justice Summary: i. The independent Medway Improvement Board was appointed on 26th January 2016 by the Secretary of State for Justice. The Board was appointed as a response to a BBC Panorama programme on 11th January which highlighted the allegations of physical and emotional abuse of young people by staff at Medway STC. ii. The Board was asked to investigate the current safeguarding arrangements at Medway STC and report to the Secretary of State on the confidence of its members in the capability of YJB and other organisations to meet appropriate safeguarding standards at Medway in the future and on performance and monitoring arrangements. The Board was also asked to feed into the Improvement Plan that G4S were asked to put in place. iii. In the time that the Board was appointed, they spoke to 34 stakeholders in person, either as a Board or on a one-to-one basis. Stakeholders included key individuals from G4S and YJB, inspectors from HMIP and Ofsted, the Children's Commissioner, and senior staff at Medway Council. The Board also spoke to staff and children at the STC and conducted a roundtable event with stakeholders from lobby groups and charities. iv. From very early on in the investigations, the Board found problems that members found alarming. The most immediate concerns were raised in the interim advice presented to the Secretary of State on 2nd March. v. The Board found that there was a lack of clarity on the purpose of an STC and that leadership within the STC has driven a culture that appears to be based on control and contract compliance rather than rehabilitation and safeguarding vulnerable young people. The Board continues to have significant concerns that this culture and the emphasis on contract compliance may be leading to reports of falsification of records etc. that were seen in the Panorama broadcast. vi. There are blurred lines of accountability and an ambiguous management structure. A clearer child-based vision needs to be driven by strong leadership. The purpose of STCs needs to be more clearly articulated with a focus on prompting a nurturing and safe environment. The Board is recommending that an independent Governing Body be appointed to provide overall oversight and scrutiny arrangements for safeguarding in all STCs. vii. Current safeguarding measures are insufficient and outdated. There is too much emphasis on control and contract compliance and not enough on the best interests and mental wellbeing of the trainees. YJB has not done enough to change this and current policies and practices need to be reviewed. viii. The Board is not convinced that the various organisations that currently play a role in scrutinising and responding to safeguarding at Medway STC are coordinated in their approach. This increases the risk of safeguarding issues falling through a gap. These findings further support the need for an independent governing body. ix. There is a history of similar concerns being raised repeatedly in letters from whistle-blowers and former staff. The Board feels that policies which form part of the STC contract need to be reviewed to ensure that they support the overall safety of young people rather than focus on contractual penalties. Whistle-blowers and children inside of the STC need to have an effective support framework in which they feel safe to raise concerns and complaints. x. The Board noted that there is a qualitative difference between how behaviour management and Restrictive Physical Interventions (RPI) are used in the secure children's estate and in other sectors, despite the fact that in some cases staff are dealing with very similar behaviours. There is a lack of understanding of the causes and drivers of behaviour problems and too much focus on controlling behaviour rather than dealing with underlying vulnerabilities. The Board feels there needs to be a wider review of behaviour management policy and practice in STCs, across the wider youth justice system and across other sectors, with a view to developing a coherent and consistent policy on risk, restraint and behaviour management across government. xi. The Board continues to have concerns about how YJB manages their contract and monitors safeguarding at the STC. It welcomes some of the changes that have been made as a result of earlier advice in the course of the term of this Improvement Board and acknowledges that YJB are reviewing their approach to monitoring in the STC. The Board feels there is a need for formal separation of the often conflicting YJB monitoring functions of ensuring contractual compliance and monitoring safeguarding. xii. The Board feels that while the revised Improvement Plan, received from G4S on 15th March, takes on board earlier feedback from the Board, it does not go far enough. In particular it does not take into account the Board's concerns about handover and continuity if, following the announcement of their intention to sell the contract, responsibility for managing the STC and for implementing the Improvement Plan moves from G4S. Regardless of who man manages Medway STC, changes in culture, leadership and staff approaches are needed; for these reasons the Improvement Plan needs to incorporate effective mechanism for continuity of improvement, assessment of impact of improvements, and a timetable for handover. Details: s.l.: Medway Improvement Board, 2016. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523167/medway-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523167/medway-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139128 Keywords: Detention Facilities Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice System

Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: In Care, Out of Trouble. How the life chances of children in care can be transformed by protecting them from unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice system Summary: This review was established to examine the reasons for, and how best to tackle, the over representation of children in care, or with experience of care, in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Aiming to reduce the disproportionate number of young people who are, or have been, in public care progressing into custody is laudable. The over representation of looked after children in the youth justice system has to be challenged and changed. But it soon becomes distressingly clear that starting at the point of evidence of criminal behaviour is for many young people simply too late in the day. Remedial work and rehabilitation are essential but prevention is so much more rewarding and fruitful for the young person and wider society. It is against that background that it would be good to pause and reflect again on the importance of childhood in the social and emotional development of every young person. Good parenting entails a lifetime commitment. It creates the solid foundation on which is built the evolving unique personality that, hopefully, will in due course become the fulfilled adult. The essential ingredients are security, stability, unselfish love and an unyielding commitment to give the child the best start and hope for the future. It is in this context that young children develop self confidence, trust, personal and social values and optimism. Loss, neglect or trauma at this early stage in life often result in profound and enduring consequences. Great emphasis should be placed on early life experiences. Guidance and support through pregnancy and during the early months of parenthood should be available to all who need it. There are clear long term benefits in identifying problems at an early stage rather than delaying until a crisis. It is in all of our interests that as many children as possible are enabled to grow up to become successful, law abiding and fulfilled citizens well able to be good role models for the next generation. We all have a part to play in this, but especially the wider family. At times of difficulty steps should be taken to involve other family members and encourage their different contributions and support. Handled in the right way a crisis might be short-lived and stability restored. After all, this is a well trodden path in many families without the assistance of the state. This can be hugely satisfying work for frontline staff. Working in this way in some local authorities has already resulted in fewer children coming into care. Investing in childhood is more than a nice thing to do. It has a real value that goes beyond the child as it facilitates the future wellbeing of society. Failure to help the child and, where possible, to support the family at this stage is both costly to the child and very expensive to the state. In every way the price is high for everyone involved. In financial terms it costs over L200,000 each year to keep a young person in a secure children's home and the yearly cost of a place in a young offender institution is about L60,000. Meeting many young people in custodial institutions demonstrates all too clearly the gaps in their social development and in their basic education. It is impossible not to be moved by their experiences and the serious constraints on their life chances. For some, their anger, frustrations, inability to express themselves except through challenging behaviour and possibly violence all point to failure, for whatever reason, in their earlier years. Yet with the right help at the right time, the capacity of many children to change and their resilience in difficult circumstances is admirable. The staff in these establishments need to be equipped to demonstrate a mixture of sound professional skills and impressive personal qualities. They deserve good training, proper supervision and support. We should honour what they do on behalf of us all not least because few of us, including me, would choose to take on such challenging and at times distressing work. Remedial work can be tough, demanding and at times dispiriting. But this review has heard how good practice can achieve inspiring results. What is abundantly clear is that no one service operating alone can hope to meet the needs of these young people or their families. Each one of the key public services has a distinct and clear responsibility in law to fulfil the duties placed upon them by the United Kingdom Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. One of those duties is to work in partnership with each of the other services. Over the years there have been far too many well publicised examples of services failing to work across organisational boundaries both in the exchange of information and in day by day practice in the protection and support of vulnerable children. We have seen and heard of excellent joint working and co-located teams in places such as Leeds and Surrey to divert looked after children from unnecessary criminalisation. Good practice is achieving splendid results in other areas too. Now is the time to make it standard practice everywhere. Details: London: PRT, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2016 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/In%20care%20out%20of%20trouble%20summary.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/In%20care%20out%20of%20trouble%20summary.pdf Shelf Number: 139145 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Full Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Work in Staffordshire Summary: Reducing reoffending Overall work to reduce reoffending was satisfactory. Good quality reports were produced for the courts and initial assessments were of a high standard. A new planning format had been adopted and further work was required to make sure that plans captured the issues identified in the assessment as well as reflecting the views of children and young people. Strategies for dealing with children and young people with low levels of motivation to change needed further development. Protecting the public Overall work to protect the public and actual or potential victims was good. Reports and initial assessments contained a thorough analysis of the risk of serious harm posed by children and young people. Multi-agency arrangements were good and there was a strong partnership approach to work to protect the public. Victims were well served by the YOS. Protecting children and young people Overall work to protect children and young people and reduce their vulnerability was good. Assessments were thorough and the YOS had appropriate multi-agency arrangements in place to manage vulnerability. Work to manage and reduce vulnerability was generally good, however, the reduction in health secondees to the service may reduce the ability of the service to respond to vulnerable children and young people in the future. Making sure the sentence is served Overall work to make sure the sentence was served was good. The YOS and its partners worked well to achieve positive outcomes for children and young people. Compliance was managed effectively. Barriers to engagement were identified and responded to, and children and young people together with their parents/carers were engaged meaningfully in the order. Governance and partnerships Overall, the effectiveness of governance and partnership arrangements was satisfactory. Operational management of the service was effective, there was a well trained, competent workforce and there were examples of strong partnership working. The YOS Management Board had met regularly but there had been a number of significant gaps in representation, notably health and education. Reoffending rates had risen and the Board's response was unclear. Interventions to reduce reoffending Overall the management and delivery of interventions to reduce reoffending was good. Staff had access to a wide range of resources. Outcomes achieved as a result of interventions had not yet been fully identified and evaluated. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/Staffordshire-FJI-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/Staffordshire-FJI-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139299 Keywords: Detention Facilities Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Recidivism Reoffending Youthful Offenders

Author: Wilber, Shannan Title: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: LGBT youth have always been present in the juvenile justice system, although many of them have concealed their identities to escape harassment and mistreatment. Until relatively recently, the juvenile justice profession has largely denied, ignored, or dismissed the significance of this reality and its implications for policy and practice. Historically, neither the law nor professional standards acknowledged or addressed the specific and substantial harm suffered by justice-involved LGBT youth. In this vacuum, misinformation and bias have long subjected LGBT youth to unfair and unlawful treatment, including identity-based criminalization, unwarranted and prolonged incarceration and verbal, physical and sexual abuse. Although these harmful and unjust practices persist in many jurisdictions, this guide builds on a sea change the field is undergoing. Prompted by broader societal changes and recent legal developments, the juvenile justice profession has turned its attention to the LGBT youth in its care and custody and has begun to change policies and practices to address their needs. These changes are taking place in the context of a dramatic shift in public attitudes toward LGBT people in this country. Even 20 years ago, most Americans knew very little about sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression (SOGIE), and the majority would likely say that they knew few, if any, people who openly identified as LGBT. In the last generation, public opinion has moved from widespread condemnation to growing visibility and acceptance. This shift is particularly evident in the last decade and is reflected across many societal spheres. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie B. Casey Foundation, 2015. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: A Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform, No. 11: Accessed June 13, 2016 at: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-lesbiangaybisexualandtransgenderyouthinjj-2015.pdf#page=5 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-lesbiangaybisexualandtransgenderyouthinjj-2015.pdf#page=5 Shelf Number: 139424 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

Author: Dale, Colin Title: Review of International Evidence and Practice on Non-Pain Inducing Techniques and Systems of Restraint Summary: In 2011, the Restraint Advisory Board (RAB), which was established to assess Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR) for use in secure training centres (STCs) and under-18 young offender institutions (YOIs), recommended that research was commissioned: "...into the feasibility of developing a restraint system which does not incorporate pain induction techniques. The research should include assessing the applicability of restraint systems used in other sectors (within and outwith child care) that do not rely upon or permit pain induction". A review of existing evidence was commissioned in 2013 following this recommendation. The aims of the study were to: - identify, review and assess non-pain restraint techniques employed in different institutional settings across different countries (including England and Wales), and their effectiveness - assess the feasibility of implementing similar restraint techniques from other countries and settings within the under-18 secure estate in England and Wales. The research comprised a rapid evidence assessment of the relevant international research literature. This was followed by interviews with an international group of 26 practitioners, academics, trainers and managers about the use of non-pain inducing restraint techniques. The review of the existing research found only five relevant studies, none of which clearly and rigorously demonstrated the effective use of non-pain inducing techniques to control serious or volatile situations involving children and young people. These findings mirrored the conclusions of an earlier systematic review on physical interventions and seclusion in psychiatric settings following National Institute of Clinical Excellence methodology. The interviews with practitioners found that although non-pain restraint techniques were in use in various settings around the world, it was very difficult to identify approaches based on good-quality research on their impact. It was also apparent that the choice of restraint method employed varied depending on context and circumstance. As a result, the study concluded it was not possible, on the current evidence available, to identify a particular safe, more effective system of non-pain inducing restraint readily available to specifically manage volatile and serious situations within the youth secure estate in England and Wales. The study highlighted the need for more robust research in this area. 3 Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2016. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/521046/Non-pain_report_FINAL_22_Apr_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/521046/Non-pain_report_FINAL_22_Apr_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 139723 Keywords: Aggressive Behavior At-Risk Youth Juvenile Detention Restraint

Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: The Carlile Inquiry 10 years on: The use of restraint, solitary confinement and strip-searching of children Summary: The report, The Carlile Inquiry 10 years on, looks at what progress has been made since the Howard League published the findings of the inquiry. In the 10 years since the inquiry concluded, there has been much progress in youth justice, not least the reduction in the number of children in custody in England and Wales. Despite this decrease in the number of children the majority of children are detained in institutions where restraint is routinely used. In relation to the three specific areas that the inquiry looked at - restraint, solitary confinement and strip-searching - there have been some improvement but fundamental concerns remain. The slow and piecemeal progress in implementing the recommendations of the 2006 inquiry means, that 10 years on, children continue to be placed in danger and, because of poor and erratic treatment, they continue to reoffend. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2016 at: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Carlile-Inquiry-10-years-on.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Carlile-Inquiry-10-years-on.pdf Shelf Number: 139747 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Restraint Solitary Confinement

Author: Sweeney, Josh Title: Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision 2014-15 Summary: Summary In Australia, young people who have been found guilty of an offence may be given an unsupervised community- based sentence , a supervised community -based sentence or a sentence of detention. The latter two types of sentences are known as ' supervised sentences'. Youth justice departments are responsible for providing young people serving supervised sentences with services designed to reduce the frequency and seriousness of any future offending. The rate of return to sentenced supervision is an indicator of the effectiveness of these services, although factors beyond the control of these departments will also have an impact on levels of returns to sentenced supervision. This report is based on the 2014-15 Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set - a longitudinal data set, containing data from 2000-01 to 2014- 15. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series no. 20: Accessed August 1, 2016 at: http://aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129555842 Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129555842 Shelf Number: 139919 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Juvenile Offenders Recidivism Reoffending

Author: Hastings, Allison Title: Partnering with Community Sexual Assault Response Teams: A Guide for Local Community Confinement and Juvenile Detention Facilities Summary: Community-based sexual assault response teams, or SARTs, are considered a best practice for addressing the needs of victims and holding perpetrators accountable. The federal standards for implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) require correctional facilities to develop a coordinated, victim-centered response to sexual assault so that victims in confinement settings - including prisons, jails, lockups, and community confinement and juvenile facilities - get the services and care they need. This guide, also available at PREAguide.org, is designed to assist administrators of local community confinement and juvenile detention facilities with the task of developing coordinated response procedures and partnering with community SARTs. It is based on the experiences and lessons learned from the Sexual Assault Response Teams in Corrections Project, a multi-year pilot program funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, that Vera implemented in Johnson County, Kansas. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2016 at: http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/preaguide.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/preaguide.pdf Shelf Number: 139948 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Sex Offenders Sexual Assault

Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Extreme Measures: Abuses against Children Detained as National Security Threats Summary: Conflict-related violence and the rise of extremist armed groups such as the Islamic State and Boko Haram has also brought an increase in the detention of children perceived to be "security threats." In countries embroiled in civil strife or armed conflict, children are apprehended and detained without charge for months or even years on suspicion of, or involvement in, violent activity, or due to links to non-state armed groups. Many are subjected to torture, and an unknown number have died in custody. This multi-country report looks at the detention of children perceived as a threat to national security in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria, Syria, and by the United States. Human Rights Watch urges governments to immediately end all use of detention without charge for children, transfer children associated with armed groups to child protection authorities for rehabilitation, and ensure that children charged with a recognizable criminal offense are treated in accordance with international juvenile justice standards. Details: New York: HRW, 2016. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/crd_detained0716web_1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/crd_detained0716web_1.pdf Shelf Number: 140056 Keywords: Child Protection Conflict-related Violence Extremist Groups Juvenile Detention National Security

Author: Prison Watch Sierra Leone Title: Children and Juveniles in Detention: Study on compliance with international standards in Sierra Leone Summary: Protection and promotion of the rights of the child, as all other human rights, is the primary responsibility of the State. States are generally obligated to ensure the progress of juveniles, including the fostering and ensuring of personal development and education as free from crime and delinquency as possible. The UNCRC and other international standards relating to juveniles in detention are clear on that children should only be detained as a means of last resort. Protecting the best interests of the child entails that the traditional objectives of the criminal justice system, such as repression and retribution must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice when dealing with juvenile offenders. This means that receiving a sentence as a juvenile offender should not be a punishment; instead the deprivation of liberty should foster an environment that can support the child in reforming themselves, including enabling them to resume education or finding an apprenticeship or work. The substance of what constitutes rehabilitation and restoration will be further explained in the study. Sierra Leone has ratified the UNCRC on 18 June 1990 and has partially incorporated the UNCRC into domestic law through the adoption of the Child Rights Act (2007) (CRA). However adoption of legislation does not necessarily ensure implementation in practice. For example, the Sierra Leonean juvenile justice system is currently far from rehabilitative and restorative despite legislative efforts on alternative approaches included in the CRA. Further, in the concluding observations of the CRC on Sierra Leone in 2008 the Committee among other things emphasised its concerns regarding the fact that juvenile detention facilities were understaffed, ill‐equipped, with little or no security, poor learning facilities, little recreation and limited food supplies. This study builds on the knowledge and experience of Prison Watch Sierra Leone (PWSL) which has been obtained during its monitoring of and regular presence in juvenile detention facilities since 1996, through encounters with suspected child offenders in police detentions as well as through its linking and tracing interventions connecting parents and relatives with children in detention. Through these activities PWSL has gained a unique insight into the dire situation of juveniles in detention in Sierra Leone. Details: Copenhagen, DK: DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2016 at: https://dignityinstitute.org/media/2065757/pubseries_no4_children-and-juveniles-in-detention.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Sierra Leone URL: https://dignityinstitute.org/media/2065757/pubseries_no4_children-and-juveniles-in-detention.pdf Shelf Number: 147901 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Detention Facilities Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The impact of distance from home on children in custody: A thematic review Summary: Placing children in custody miles away from their home affected how many family visits they received, said Peter Clarke, Chief Inspector of Prisons. It didn't, however, have a significant impact on other experiences of custody and could help some boys keep away from gang influence, he added. Today he published a report, The impact of distance from home on children in custody. The independent review was commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB). It pulls together views and data on the impact of distance from home on children in custody. The aims of the thematic were to: - explore the impact of distance from home on aspects of daily life in custody for children, and - explore the impact of distance from home on resettlement planning and outcomes on release. The report draws on interviews with around 50 children and staff at two young offender institutions (YOIs) and one secure training centre (STC), and data provided by those establishments. It also uses data from surveys conducted at four YOIs holding 15-18-yearolds and two STCs, and recall data provided by the YJB. Key findings. - Children who were held further from home had fewer visits than those who were close to home. For each child included in our survey sample, analysis of data on visits revealed that those held further from home had significantly fewer visits from family members and friends, with cost and travel time cited as reasons for children not receiving visits. The impact of this was raised as a negative influence by children and their caseworkers during interviews. Most caseworkers and managers, when asked about the vulnerabilities of the children in their care, linked them to problems with family contact. Little was being done, bar a pilot of using Skype at one YOI, to mitigate this impact on the boys and girls concerned (see paragraphs 4.14-4.24). - Analysis of data for 595 children showed that children who were further away from home received significantly fewer visits from professionals. This mirrored what children told Inspectors in interviews (see paragraphs 4.43-4.44). - Planning for release and resettlement followed the same process irrespective of distance from home. Children saw advantages in being close to home when it came to their release and caseworkers described it as sometimes harder to put a suitable release package in place for those who were further away from home. Elements such as family mediation work and 'through the gate work' (continuation into the community of work begun in custody) were seen as more difficult when greater distances were involved. Family involvement and support post release was seen as a key element whenever there was a chance of this being available (see paragraphs 4.48-4.51). - In the sample of cases looked at, distance from home had little impact on attendance by external partners at sentence planning or remand management reviews. There was good attendance by external youth offending team (YOT) workers regardless of distance and families attended half of the reviews for children who were closer to home, and slightly fewer for those who were far from home (see paragraphs 4.34-4.36). - There was no association between distance from home and recall to detention following release. Analysis of release and recall data for a census of over 1,300 children subject to a detention and training order (DTO) who were released in England and Wales during 2013-14, showed no identifiable link between distance from home while in custody and likelihood of recall to custody post release (see paragraph 4.58). - Survey data and interviews with children showed distance from home was not a predictor of whether a child had felt unsafe in their YOI/STC. It was of concern though that nearly half of children, regardless of their distance from home, had at some point felt unsafe while in their current YOI/STC (see paragraph 4.5). Similarly, distance from home was not a predictor of whether a child reported that they had experienced victimisation from staff or other children, considered that they were treated with respect by staff, or had been restrained (see paragraphs 4.6-4.12). - Distance from home did not have a significant impact on the experiences of children in many areas of custodial life. The main exceptions to this were: visits from family, involvement of family in preparation for release and the involvement of external professionals (other than for sentence or remand planning reviews). - Arriving late at the YOI/STC, which can make it more difficult for a child to settle on their first night in custody, was not uncommon and could be exacerbated by the distances some children had to travel to get to their YOI/STC. In our Transfers and Escorts5 thematic review, we reported on the scope to make greater use of 'virtual court' that could reduce the need for children to make lengthy journeys for brief court appearances and transfers. We repeat that observation in this review. - Boys in YOIs who were close to home reported more gang problems when they first arrived at their YOI than those who were far from home. Caseworkers saw benefits for some children in being away from gang influences, or an area where their offence had attracted local attention. One child pointed to the advantage of being away from previous influences and having the chance to mature, and other children interviewed saw advantages in being further from home. It was considered easier as you were not reminded of family all the time, and knowing what was 'on the other side of the fence' could be a source of frustration for some. That young people who reported gang problems were placed closer to home than those who did not report such problems may be due to the geographical locations of YOIs and those young people involved in gangs, rather than the distances involved (see paragraphs 4.12 and 4.29). Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/09/The-impact-of-distance-from-home-on-children-in-custody-Web-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/09/The-impact-of-distance-from-home-on-children-in-custody-Web-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147815 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Prisons Visits Visitation

Author: Ryon, Stephanie Bontrager Title: Juvenile Probation and Residential Services Evaluation Summary: Connecticut provides delinquency services through both the judicial and executive branches. The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) is responsible for juvenile corrections and aftercare services, while the Connecticut Judicial Branch‟s Court Support Services Division (CSSD) administers pre- and post-adjudication services, including detention and probation supervision (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2010; Management 2011). The Connecticut Juvenile Justice System (CJJS) is based on restorative justice principles of accountability and reintegration, public safety and rehabilitation. Individualized treatment, prevention, community-based placements, standardized risk and needs assessments, and coordinated evidence-based services are core features of the CJJS (Management, 2011). Together, DCF and CSSD have developed a collaborative strategic plan to ensure the seamless delivery of delinquency services to at risk youth in Connecticut (Child Welfare League of America, 2006). The joint plan is based on principles of effective intervention, which underscore the importance of reserving residential commitment programs for the most high risk youth, and those most likely to benefit from long-term, out-of-home placements. Two recent studies of juvenile probation and residential services suggest that youthful offenders who complete probation programming are less likely to re-offend once discharged than those completing more restrictive commitment programs (Winokur et al., 2007; Greenfield, 2007). The Connecticut Judicial Branch CSSD retained the Justice Research Center (JRC) to study system services including probation and residential programming. The State of Connecticut has a long history of ensuring accountability, and understands that evaluating effectiveness and efficiency is critical to the provision of quality services and the expansion of programs to reach more at-risk youth and their families. The overarching goal of the current evaluation was to assess the extent to which Connecticut‟s juvenile probation and commitment programs provide effective interventions to the appropriate delinquent youth. The evaluation examined youth characteristics, pathways through the continuum of care, and correlates of recidivism for a historical sample of probation and residential clients. All youth disposed from court to either juvenile probation (N=2,823) or commitment to residential placement (N=269), and released between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007 were included in the study. Research questions specific to probation, residential, alternatives to residential commitment and predictors of system escalation were addressed through quantitative analyses. The evaluation results are summarized below.  Probation  Forty-nine percent of the probation releases had a juvenile referral or adult arrest; and 34 percent had a juvenile adjudication or adult conviction within one year of completing probation services.  Many factors were significantly associated with recidivism for probation releases (gender, race, age at first offense, measures of prior offending and risk and needs); however, none exhibited more than a modest correlation with post-release juvenile adjudication or adult conviction.  The predicted odds of recidivism are higher for male and non-white probation releases; delinquents who are younger when they commit their first offense; and those with elevated criminogenic risk. Those with higher JAG Peer Protective scores had significantly lower the odds of recidivism. Details: Hartfort, CT: Connecticut Support Services Division, Connecticut Judicial Branch, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 14, 2016 at: https://www.jud.ct.gov/cssd/research/juvprob/JuvProb_ResServ_Eval.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.jud.ct.gov/cssd/research/juvprob/JuvProb_ResServ_Eval.pdf Shelf Number: 144942 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Recidivism

Author: Bateman, Tim Title: The State of Youth Custody, 2016 Summary: The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) has consistently argued for a minimum use of custody for children who break the law: imprisonment should only be used as a last resort and for the shortest necessary period in those rare situations where a child's offending is such as to pose a demonstrable risk of serious harm to others and where, after thorough consideration, no other alternative is sufficient to mitigate that risk. Where deprivation of liberty is necessary, children should only be detained in child care establishments that promote their well-being and longer term development. This longstanding opposition to the use of custody is informed by a well-established, international evidence base which clearly shows that incarceration is extremely damaging to children in the short term and impedes their healthy development over the longer term. Nor is imprisonment an effective mechanism for preventing youth crime. In spite of some reduction in recent years, re-ofending rates for children following a custodial episode remain extremely high (67.1% within 12 months for those released in 2014). Analysis confrms that, controlling for range of relevant factors, children who receive custodial sentences of between six and 12 months are significantly (4% points) more likely to re-ofend than a comparison group sentenced to a high level community penalty.5 Deprivation of liberty accordingly exacerbates rather than reduces the likelihood of offending, suggesting that far from acting as a deterrent, incarceration has a criminogenic effect. This conclusion is unsurprising given the nature of youth crime. Children who break the law have rarely given careful consideration to the consequences of their actions. Neither the prospect of incarceration, nor the subsequent experience of being locked up, is likely to deter them or others from further criminal activity. International standards acknowledge the counterproductive and damaging nature of custody. Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, whose tenets the UK is obliged to uphold as a signatory to the Convention, proscribes the use of child imprisonment other than as a measure of last resort. During the 1990s and much of the following decade, England and Wales was in clear breach of such obligations with child imprisonment characterised by a rapid and sustained escalation. More recently, the number of children in custody has declined sharply. In May 2008, the under-18 population of the secure estate for children was 3,006; by May 2016, it had fallen to 870, a reduction of more than 70%.8 While the precise reasons for this contraction are open to debate, it is clear that much of it can be explained as a consequence of a less punitive climate towards children in conflict with the law, permitting the development of a range of informal responses to youth crime that have, in turn, led to a substantial reduction in the number of children entering the formal parameters of the youth justice system. Such advances should, of course, be recognised, but the NAYJ considers that levels of child incarceration remain too high and continue to be out of step with more progressive youth justice practices and international standards. Moreover, as will be argued in due course, effecting further reductions in child imprisonment may be an important consideration in ensuring a humane treatment of those children who continue to be deprived of their liberty. Details: s.l.: National Association for Youth Justice, 2016. 12p. Source: NAYJ Briefing: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/NAYJ-Briefing-State-of-Youth-Custody-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/NAYJ-Briefing-State-of-Youth-Custody-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 134828 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Re-offending Recidivism Youth Custody

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people in child protection services and under youth justice supervision 2014-15 Summary: Research shows that children and young people who have been abused or neglected are at greater risk of engaging in criminal activity and entering the youth justice system. A better understanding of the characteristics and pathways of children and young people who are both in the child protection system and under youth justice supervision can assist support staff, case workers and policy makers to get the best outcomes for these children and young people. With the recent introduction of a national unit record child protection data collection, it is now possible to link child protection and youth justice supervision data to explore the relationships between child protection and youth justice supervision. This report presents information on young people aged 10–17 who were involved in the child protection system and subject to youth justice supervision at some time during 2014–15, using data from the linked child protection and youth justice supervision data collection. Results are limited to the 5 jurisdictions with both child protection and youth justice National Minimum Data Set data for 2014–15 (Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory)—a total of 30,402 young people aged 10–17. The results from the linked data collection will be enhanced in future years as data become available for more states and territories and as years of data accumulate. Linking to other health and welfare data collections would also provide additional information on multiple service use among vulnerable children and young people. Young people in the child protection system were 14 times as likely as the general population to be under youth justice supervision in the same year In 2014–15, 5.5% of those aged 10–17 who were in the child protection system were also under youth justice supervision in the same year (although not necessarily at the same time), compared with just 0.4% of the general population aged 10–17. Indigenous young people in the child protection system were more than twice as likely to be under youth justice supervision as non-Indigenous young people (10.4% compared with 4.3%). The level of dual involvement was 8.0% for those under care and protection orders, 6.3% for those in out-of-home care and 4.1% for those who were the subject of an investigated notification. Young people under youth justice supervision were 15 times as likely as the general population to be in the child protection system in the same year In 2014–15, 32.4% of those under youth justice supervision were also in the child protection system. Two (2) in 5 (40.8%) of those in detention were involved in the child protection system in the same year, which is 19 times the rate for the general population. The level of child protection involvement for those under community-based supervision in 2014–15 was also high: with about one-third (32.1%) also in the child protection system. The younger someone was at their first youth justice supervision, the more likely they were to also be in child protection in 2014–15: of those under youth justice supervision in 2014–15, 3 in 5 (60.0%) of those aged 10 at their first youth justice supervision were also in child protection in 2014–15, compared with 9.4% of those aged 17. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Data Linkage Series NO. 22: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aihw_20323_oct_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aihw_20323_oct_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146665 Keywords: Child Protection Services Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Northern Territory. Children's Commissioner Title: Own Initiative Investigation Report Services Provided by the Department of Correctional Services at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre Summary: JURISDICTION This investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Children's Commissioner Act 2013 (the Act) which allows the Commissioner, on his own initiative, to investigate a matter which may form the grounds for a complaint. The grounds for a complaint are defined under Section 21(1)(a)&(b) of the Act which states that the Children's Commissioner can investigate complaints relating to services provided or that might reasonably be expected to be provided, for vulnerable children. . The services investigated must be provided by either 'a public authority', or another person, or body acting for or under an arrangement with a public authority that has taken or is taking action in relation to the child as a vulnerable child. FORMALITIES There are a number of relevant legislative regimes that apply to the young persons referred to in this report. For the sake of convenience, and despite the terminology differing in each piece of legislation, including 'youth' , 'child' , 'vulnerable child' and 'youth detainee' or ' youth prisoner' , this report will use the phrase young person. BACKGROUND TO INVESTIGATION The decision to conduct this self-initiated investigation was made by the former Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, and was based on events that occurred at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre ('Don Dale') in the Behaviour Management Unit ('BMU') between 4 and 21 August 2014. On 12 August 2014, concerns were raised by a professional stakeholder on behalf of five young persons who were in detention. The complaint related to the alleged indefinite nature of the confinement in the BMU, and the unhygienic living conditions of the environment. It was the complainant's opinion that the conditions were 'inhumane' as young persons were being held in solitary confinement in cramped and darkened cells, for up to 23 hours a day. There were also concerns about the long term impact this could have on the five young persons' psychological and physical well-being. Details: Darwin: The Commissioner, 2015. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Shelf Number: 147318 Keywords: Detention Centers Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Solitary Confinement

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Children in Custody 2015-16: An analysis of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their experiences in secure training centres and young offender institutions Summary: This independent report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), presents the findings from 767 questionnaires completed by children detained at every secure training centre (STC) (N=3) and young offender institution (YOI) (N=5; plus a separate specialist unit at one site) between 1 April 2015 and 12 April 2016. All surveys were conducted to support unannounced inspections of each establishment. The surveys enable comparisons to be made with the results from 2014–15 and between children with different characteristics or experiences. Surveys have been conducted in YOIs since 2001–02 and in some cases, where the same question has been asked consistently, we can identify trends over the full length of that period. The number of children in custody fell by 53% between 2010–11 and 2015–16, made up largely by falls observed in the number of children held in YOIs (down 59%). Over the longer term, the secure children's estate population has fallen by 66% since 2005–06. In relation to STCs, our survey findings during 2015–16 show that: • the proportion who identified as being from a black or other minority ethnic background was 41%; • the proportion who identified as Muslim was 15%; • the proportion who said they were from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background was 12%; • nearly a quarter of children (23%) reported feeling unsafe at some point since their arrival at the STC and 10% felt unsafe at the time of the inspection – those children who reported having ever felt unsafe also reported poorer experiences than those who had not; • almost a third of children (31%) reported being victimised by being shouted at through windows; • compared with last year, children were significantly less likely to say that it was explained to them why they were being searched on their arrival at the STC (74% compared with 86%); that the search had been carried out respectfully (85% compared with 95%); or that they had spoken to someone about how they were feeling on their first night in the centre (66% compared with 79%). In relation to YOIs, our survey findings during 2015–16 show that: • forty-seven per cent of the boys were from a black or minority ethnic background, the highest rate recorded during our time inspecting the secure estate; • those with experience of the local authority care system (37%), Muslim boys (22%), boys reporting a disability (19%) and those identifying as being from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background (7%) continued to be disproportionately over-represented across the YOI estate when compared with the population as a whole; • when asked if they had ever felt unsafe at their establishment, 46% of boys said they had, again the highest figure we have recorded through our surveys; • in the last 12 months there was a significant increase in the proportion of boys who reported being victimised by other detainees (35% compared with 26% in 2014–15) or members of staff (32% compared with 25% in 2014–15);• children who had ever felt unsafe were more likely than other children to report that they: considered shouting through windows to be a problem at their establishment; arrived there with gang problems; did not feel that they were treated with respect by staff; could not talk to someone when they needed to (like a chaplain, peer mentor, member of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB), or an advocate); and had more problems upon arrival at their YOI, suggesting that strategies to help children feel safer should focus on addressing these issues; • there was a significant fall in the proportion of boys who felt YOI staff treated them with respect (only 63% compared with 70% in 2014–15); • the proportion of boys with a job in their establishment had fallen significantly in the last 12 months (16% compared with 28% in 2014–15); • the proportion of boys engaged in a job (16%), vocational training (11%) and offending behaviour programmes (16%) across the YOI estate was lower in 2015–16 than at any point since 2010–11. Comparing YOI and STC survey responses for 2015–16 showed that children held in STCs were significantly more likely to report that they felt treated with respect by staff, that complaints were sorted fairly and that the food was 'good' or 'very good'. They were also less likely to report that they had been restrained or that they had felt unsafe at the cen Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons; Youth Justice Board, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Children-in-Custody-2015-16_WEB.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Children-in-Custody-2015-16_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 147949 Keywords: Detention Centers Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Taylor, Charlie Title: Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales Summary: Context 1. In 2007, 225,000 children in England and Wales received a caution or conviction for a notifiable offence . Of these children, 106,000 were first-time entrants to the system having never before received a caution or conviction. 126,000 were prosecuted at court, and 5,800 were sentenced to custody. The average monthly under-18 custodial population for 2007 was 2,9092. 2. Since that high watermark the number of children dealt with by the youth justice system has reduced spectacularly, with consistent year-on-year falls. The number of children cautioned or convicted in 2015 was 47,000 – down 79% since 2007. Over the same period the number of children entering the youth justice system for the first time has fallen by 82%, the number prosecuted at court has reduced by 69%, and there are now around only 900 under-18s in custody. 3. In the last decade the demand for youth justice services has changed. The police and youth offending services have, rightly, increasingly sought to deal informally with minor offending by children. The diversion from the youth justice system of children who were never likely to continue offending has meant that those who remain are the most difficult to rehabilitate. 4. Among the children now in the youth justice system are high numbers of black, Muslim and white working class boys; many are in care, and mental and other health problems, and learning difficulties, are common. These groups are particularly over-represented in custody, where over 40% are from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds, a large proportion have previously been in care (38% in Young Offender Institutions, 52% in Secure Training Centres) , and more than a third have a diagnosed mental health disorder . Many of the children in the system come from some of the most dysfunctional and chaotic families where drug and alcohol misuse, physical and emotional abuse and offending is common. Often they are victims of crimes themselves. Though children's backgrounds should not be used as an excuse for their behaviour, it is clear that the failure of education, health, social care and other agencies to tackle these problems have contributed to their presence in the youth justice system. 5. Yet these are children for whom a traditional criminal justice response has been shown to be, on its own, inadequate. Sixty-four per cent of children given a Youth Rehabilitation Order by the court, and 69% of those sentenced to custody, go on to reoffend within a year. If the youth justice system is truly to protect the public, it must succeed in changing the lives of these most troubled children. To do this, a system set up almost two decades ago to tackle a different problem must evolve to respond imaginatively and proportionately to the challenges of today. Principles and aims for the review 6. It is right that children who break the law are dealt with differently to adults. Children act impulsively and often do not appreciate the consequences of their actions; they are not emotionally developed and may struggle to communicate effectively. This is particularly true of so many of the children who offend, who often have learning or speech and communication problems. But children also have great strengths on which to build and are capable of rapid and extraordinary change. There needs to be a shift in the way society, including central and local government, thinks about youth justice so that we see the child first and the offender second. Offending should not mean forfeiting the right to childhood. If children who offend are to become successful and law-abiding adults, the focus must be on improving their welfare, health and education "their life prospects" rather than simply imposing punishment. 7. Almost all of the causes of childhood offending lie beyond the reach of the youth justice system. It is vital that health, education, social care and other services form part of an integrated, multi-agency response to a child's offending, but it is more desirable that these same services intervene with at-risk children and families before their problems manifest themselves in offending. I believe this is best achieved by devolving greater freedoms and responsibility for the youth justice system to local authorities who otherwise hold the statutory accountability for educating and protecting children. By aligning these responsibilities stronger incentives can be created for a child's offending and related difficulties to be tackled promptly, proportionately and with the least cost to the taxpayer. To help professionals to exercise these functions effectively, I propose stripping back the prescription and bureaucracy associated with a centrally controlled system and creating a clearer inspection and accountability framework, so that practitioners are judged on the outcomes that they achieve rather than the processes they follow. 8. It is my view that education needs to be central to our response to youth offending. All children in England are required to be in education or training until their 18th birthday, but too often children in the youth justice system have been out of school for long periods of time through truancy or following exclusion. As a result, half of 15-17 year olds in YOIs have the literacy or numeracy levels expected of a 7-11 year old. Schools and colleges are crucial in preventing offending. If children are busy during the day, undertaking activity that is meaningful and that will help them to succeed in life, whether it be studying for exams, learning a trade or playing sport or music, they are much less likely to offend. Education and training are also the building blocks on which a life free from crime can be constructed. By forging closer links between schools, colleges and youth offending services, and by transforming youth custody into Secure Schools, drawing in expertise from the best alternative provision schools, children can be equipped with the skills, qualifications and confidence to move beyond offending and fulfil their potential. The government's new ambition to make schools in England responsible for the educational provision of pupils that are excluded is particularly welcome as it will maintain the connection with mainstream education for some of the most troubled children. 9. In reforming the youth justice system it must be recognised that, for the vast majority of children, offending is a short-lived phase. The most recent data suggest that 62% of children who receive a caution or conviction do not go on to reoffend within 12 months. Growing up involves making and learning from mistakes. It is right that the youth justice system should tackle serious and persistent offending, but it should not be the mechanism by which all childhood mistakes are redressed. The right response to childhood offending should always be to address the causes of the offending behaviour and to repair harm to victims. This does not always require a criminal justice intervention. Evidence shows that contact with the criminal justice system can have a tainting effect on some children and can increase the likelihood of reoffending. Wherever possible minor crimes should be dealt with outside the formal youth justice system, and when a criminal justice response is required children should be dealt with at the lowest possible tier. The long-term implications of formal contact with the system must also be reduced so that these do not act as barriers to rehabilitation. 10. It was concerning to see versions of the "Scared Straight" programme operating in England, in which either prison officers or prisoners themselves attempt to deter children from criminality by showing or explaining the realities of life in prison. This is despite international evidence that such interventions can increase the likelihood offending among children and young people . In general, there is surprisingly little robust evidence from the UK about which interventions are the most effective, but what is undoubtedly important is the quality of the worker who is involved with the child, and the relationship that they strike up . The evidence suggests that having one person directly involved, holding the child in mind, keeping going when things go wrong and caring about what happens to him or her, is vital in helping a child to change. 11. A more proportionate response to offending must also mean that the government and local services are prepared to invest intensive effort in turning around the lives of the most profoundly troubled children. Some children who commit persistent or serious offences have a range of problems that means criminal justice processes need to be able to adapt to individual circumstances. Professionals must have the freedom and the flexibility to make decisions about a child's rehabilitation, and to adjust these plans to recognise progress or respond to setbacks. I believe the role of the court should be enhanced so that youth magistrates can play a much more active role in designing tailored plans for children, co-ordinating the contributions of partner agencies and holding the child, their parents and these agencies to account. Similarly, for those children remanded or sentenced to custody, the head teacher of a Secure School must have the freedom to hire the right staff, commission the required services and establish a programme of activity that will engage, motivate and rehabilitate the children in his or her care. To achieve this, custody must truly be the option of last resort, and those who go there must stay for a meaningful period of time. Professionals must be equipped with sufficient powers, and then trusted to take the right decisions with the most challenging children, if they are to reduce reoffending and thereby create fewer victims. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2016. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576383/youth-justice-review-final-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576383/youth-justice-review-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 144913 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Youthful Offenders

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth detention population in Australia 2016 Summary: This bulletin examines the numbers and rates of young people aged 10 and over who were in youth detention in Australia due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. It focuses on trends over the 4-year period from the June quarter 2012 to the June quarter 2016. About 900 young people are in detention on an average night There were 917 young people in youth detention on an average night in the June quarter 2016. Just over half (57%) were unsentenced-that is, they were awaiting the outcome of their court matter or sentencing-and the remainder were serving a sentence. Most young people (83%) in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2016 were aged 10-17. This equates to 3.3 young people aged 10-17 per 10,000. The other detainees were aged 18 or older. Detention rates are stable after long-term falls and despite recent rise in numbers The number of young people in detention on an average night decreased, from a high of 1,069 in the June quarter 2012 to 917 in the June quarter 2016. The rate of young people aged 10-17 in detention on an average night decreased, from 3.8 per 10,000 to 3.3 per 10,000, over the 4-year period. Over the most recent year, despite a slight increase in the number of young people (of all ages) in detention on an average night in each quarter (from 877 to 917), the rate of those aged 10-17 in detention remained relatively stable, between 3.1 and 3.4 per 10,000. Unsentenced and sentenced detention rates have decreased The rate of young people in unsentenced detention fell slightly over the 4-year period, from 2.4 young people aged 10-17 per 10,000 on an average night in the June quarter 2012, to 2.1 per 10,000 in the June quarter 2016. The rate was lowest in the December quarter 2014 (1.7 per 10,000). In sentenced detention, the rate was 1.2 young people aged 10-17 per 10,000 on an average night in the June quarter 2016-a decrease from 1.4 per 10,000 in the June quarter 4 years earlier. The rate was highest in the September quarter 2012 (1.5 per 10,000). Over half of those in detention are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Over half (55%) of all young people in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2016 were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. In the June quarter 2016, Indigenous young people aged 10-17 were 26 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be in detention; however the level of over-representation fluctuated between 23 times and 28 times over the 4-year period. Trends vary across the states and territories There were different trends in the youth detention population across the states and territories. Over the 4-year period, the rate of young people aged 10-17 in detention increased in Victoria and Queensland, showed no clear trend in South Australia and the Northern Territory, and decreased in the remaining states and territories. Details: Sydney: AIHW, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 138: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aihw_youthdetentionpopulationinaustralia2016_dec_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aihw_youthdetentionpopulationinaustralia2016_dec_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147304 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Simpson, Tiffany Title: Do Objective Measures Reduce the Disproportionate Rates of Minority Youth Placed in Detention: Validation of a Risk Assessment Instrument? Summary: The over-representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system, often referred to as disproportionate minority contact (DMC) can be found at many stages of the juvenile justice continuum. Further, research has shown that over-representation is not necessarily related to higher rates of criminal activity and suggests that case processing disparities can contribute to DMC. Risk assessment instruments (RAI) are objective techniques used to make decisions about youth in the juvenile justice system. This study examined the effects of implementing an RAI designed to make detention decisions, in a predominantly rural parish in Louisiana. Police officers from three law enforcement agencies investigated 202 cases during the evaluation period. The measures included an objective detention risk screening instrument, a contact form which contained juvenile demographic information, a two-item questionnaire assessing law enforcement's impression of the youth's need for detention placement and risk to public safety, and an arrest coding sheet which assessed subsequent police contacts and arrests among youth over 3 and 6 months of street time (i.e., time outside of secure confinement). Results revealed that overall law enforcement was unwilling to consistently complete the tool and continued to use subjective decision making, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 97% across the participating agencies. Also, subjective decision making by law enforcement actually helped minority youth as law enforcement consistently disregarded formal overrides included in the RAI, resulting in fewer minority youth being detained than were indicated by the RAI. Further, implementation of the tool, as constructed, resulted in small but insignificant reductions in the rates of overall confinement and rates of minority confinement when compared to the rates of confinement during the same time period of the previous year. Additionally, the RAI did not significantly predict future police contact due to items that did not predict recidivism in this sample. Use of a three-item version resulted in a significant increase in the tool's predictive ability. This study demonstrates the importance of additional validity testing following the implementation of detention risk assessment instruments to ensure that these tools reduce unnecessary confinement while protecting public safety. Details: New Orleans: University of New Orleans, 2010. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2098&context=td Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2098&context=td Shelf Number: 145436 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Minority Youth Racial Disparities Risk Assessment

Author: Victorian Ombudsman Title: Report on youth justice facilities at the Grevillea unit of Barwon Prison, Malmsbury and Parkville Summary: The riots at the Parkville Youth Justice Centre in November 2016 and the Government's subsequent establishment of a youth justice centre within Barwon Prison have prompted reviews, inquiries, and legal proceedings, by numerous agencies. These include the responsible department, the Commission for Children and Young People, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and Parliament. It is not the purpose of this report to add to those inquiries; rather, it is intended to inform Parliament -- and through them the public -- of the response to recent events by oversight agencies, and to put facts into the public domain to help inform the debate. The public debate that has accompanied these events is predictably polarised, from one perspective that youth crime is out of control and a strong response is needed, to the claim that the Government's response is an overreaction that arbitrarily infringed the human rights of the young people concerned. The facts that emerge from independent sources provide succour to both sides of the debate: while youth crime is decreasing overall, more is being committed, more violently, by a small cohort of repeat offenders, who the system is plainly failing to deal with. This was presciently noted by the previous Ombudsman, George Brouwer, in 2013, when he said: It is evident that the youth justice system is limited in its capacity to deal with a small, but increasing, cohort of young people exhibiting violent behaviours. It is important that the youth justice system respond appropriately to these children rather than abrogate its responsibility by transferring them to the adult system. This is illustrated by the startling statistic that some 25 per cent of offences are committed by less than two per cent of offenders -- 182 young people -- so we should not tar all young offenders with the same brush. It is not the purpose of this report to examine the causes of the recent Parkville riots, but the Ombudsman's concerns about the suitability of Parkville are a matter of public record, including the view expressed by my predecessor in 2010 that: the design and location of the Precinct is inappropriate for a custodial facility which houses vulnerable children. ... the only practical way to address the conditions at the Precinct in the long term is to develop a new facility at another site. Among other things, the report noted design features such as a low roof-line allowing detainees to climb onto the roof and ill-placed staircases creating blind spots and posing a safety risk to detainees and staff. It is a matter of record that while the government's response to that report was in many respects substantial -- for example, the establishment of Parkville College that transformed the educational services available to young people -- the precinct itself still exists and young people are still able to climb onto the roof. The record so far is patchy - while improvements have undoubtedly been made, successive governments have failed to make the significant investment needed to address the long-term issues that are increasingly apparent. There is no short-term quick fix to the serious problems affecting youth justice, which have their origins not only in ageing infrastructure but in the complex interplay of health and human services, education and the justice system. Increasing numbers of detainees are also on remand - making for an increasingly volatile and unsettled cohort. I welcome the government's review of youth justice - commissioned last year before the recent troubles and led by an eminent behavioural scientist - with its focus on long-term and joined-up solutions. The chorus of blame will not make us safer as we worry about youth crime. Nor will it make either the staff or the young people safer - an essential prerequisite if youth justice facilities are to provide an environment that promotes rehabilitation. Safety will lie in a system that makes it less likely these young people will be repeat offenders. It is neither in the interests of public safety nor the public purse for young people to become entrenched in a life of crime, cycling through youth justice centres into adult prisons to which all too often they return. Reform must also recognise not only the alarming trend to more 'calculated and callous offending' by young offenders, but also the systemic changes needed to address this deeply disturbing behaviour. My 2015 report into rehabilitation in prisons illustrated how ill-equipped the correctional system is to deal with young adult prisoners; Victoria's dual track system must go on recognising that children – even dangerous children - are different from adults. This report is of a different nature to most reports I present to Parliament. It is the product of enquiries and information shared by other oversight bodies rather than a formal investigation. I hope it will also assist the Parliamentary Inquiry in their work. It is also intended to give Parliament and the public a window into the actual state of affairs within Victoria's youth justice facilities and how oversight agencies hold government to account. The report evidences the close scrutiny of the Grevillea unit in Barwon Prison by the Commission for Children and Young People since the unit was hastily set up last November. It also evidences the pressures on the Parkville and Malmsbury facilities: while staff shortages have long been a problem there, this has plainly been exacerbated by the creation of Grevillea, with the predictable effect that young people are kept in lockdown for longer periods, creating further unrest. This report covers the period to 20 January 2017, and was being finalised when the serious disturbances at Malmsbury occurred on 25 January. While it is sadly inevitable that short-term solutions will continue to be sought to deal with urgent situations that arise, it is vital that the government keep its sights set on long-term reform that addresses the causes of young offender behaviour. Reform should not be derailed by knee-jerk responses to events, which will not make us safer in the long run. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Ombudsman, 2017. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/c6880f35-3cf3-4237-b463-9be28db448c8//publications/parliamentary-reports/report-on-youth-justice-facilities-at-the-greville.aspx Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/c6880f35-3cf3-4237-b463-9be28db448c8//publications/parliamentary-reports/report-on-youth-justice-facilities-at-the-greville.aspx Shelf Number: 145127 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Colorado Child Safety Coalition Title: Bound and Broken: How DYC's Culture of Violence is Hurting Colorado Kids and What To Do About It Summary: Despite a mission of rehabilitation rather than punishment, the culture of the Colorado Division of Youth Corrections (DYC) is plagued by punitive practices that cause physical and emotional harm to the young people in its care. DYC's culture of violence makes facilities unsafe for both children and staff and deters rehabilitation. This report draws on interviews with 21 young people who are or have been incarcerated in eleven of DYC's thirteen state-owned facilities, as well as a review of over 1,000 pages of internal DYC documents, videos and medical reports regarding incidents that occurred between 2013 and 2016. The report concludes that DYC staff used physical pain, isolation and verbal degradation against vulnerable young people, most of whom suffer from past abuse and mental illness. Knee strikes, painful pressure points and the WRAP – a full body straitjacket – are common currency in DYC's culture. There is a better way. In Missouri, juvenile facilities focus on true internalized change for kids by building strong relationships between youth and their peers and between youth and staff. Staff never use isolation, restraints like the WRAP, or pain compliance, because these punitive measures hurt children and prohibit development of trusting relationships with staff. Statistics show that Missouri kids and staff are safer. The "Missouri Approach" has become the gold standard for the care of juveniles and has been exported to other states with success. A pilot program in Colorado could change the culture of violence at DYC to keep kids and staff safe while promoting rehabilitation. Key Facts and Findings 1. Violence has been escalating in DYC facilities. External and internal measures confirm a dramatic increase in the number of documented fights and assaults, and complaints about violence from youth and staff to outside agencies have skyrocketed. 2. Young people and staff consistently report feeling unsafe in DYC facilities. 3. Most young people in DYC have experienced trauma. When youth with a history of trauma feel unsafe, they are less likely to be rehabilitated. 4. DYC staff routinely use physical force and pain to control young people. • DYC staff physically restrained youth at least 3,611 times between January 2016 and January 2017. Of those restraints, over sixty percent resulted in the use of mechanical restraints, such as handcuffs, shackles, or the WRAP. • The WRAP: DYC sanctions use of the WRAP, a full-body restraint banned in Arkansas after it was described as "torture" by the Juvenile Ombudsman. DYC placed children in the WRAP 253 times between January 2016 and January 2017. • Pain Compliance: DYC staff commonly use pain compliance techniques, whereby staff strike or put pressure on sensitive parts of the child’s body to purposely cause pain and gain compliance with staff directives. The U.S. Department of justice found pain compliance techniques violate children's constitutional rights. • DYC staff use force against youth who refuse to follow staff directives, even when those youth pose no immediate threat to safety. • These punitive techniques injure both youth and staff. According to DYC's own records, rates of injury to both young people and DYC staff are consistently higher than the national average and DYC’s internal goals. 5. Solitary Confinement: DYC placed young people in solitary confinement 2,240 times between January 2016 and January 2017. 6. DYC's own data shows that increased staffing alone, without changing DYC's punitive culture, will not ensure reduction of violence. 7. The Missouri Youth Services Institute, a non-profit dedicated to exporting the Missouri Approach, can bring a pilot program to Colorado and provide a template for broad cultural change within DYC, for a fraction of the cost of the funding requested this year by DYC. Details: s.l.: Colorado Child Safety Coalition, 2017. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2017 at: http://static.aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Bound-and-Broken-report-Feb17-complete.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://static.aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Bound-and-Broken-report-Feb17-complete.pdf Shelf Number: 144494 Keywords: Criminal Justice System Culture of Violence Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates

Author: Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory Title: Interim Report Summary: There is a strong perception that the system of detention in the Northern Territory is failing. It is failing our young people, it is failing those who work in the system and it is also failing the people of the Northern Territory who are entitled to live in safer communities. This has been made clear to the Royal Commission and Board of Inquiry into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory since it was announced on 26 July 2016. This Interim Report provides a summary of work to date. We are currently holding public hearings and will conduct further hearings over the coming months. Royal Commissions often look to the past in their investigations. We are inquiring not only into the past, but also into systems that are in operation today - we are hearing evidence from people who are currently detained or working in these systems. Despite the significance of much of the evidence received already, we will not be making specific findings or recommendations at this stage. It is too early in our work, while hearings are ongoing, to be able to draw any final conclusions. The Commission is yet to hear evidence on many issues, including evidence from senior management and political leaders in charge of youth detention who provide a perspective that is necessary to inform the work of the Commission. The Commission is also still to hold hearings on the child protection system which is a critical part of our work. The youth justice and child protection systems in the Northern Territory are inextricably linked. Evidence before the Commission reveals that children and young people in out-of-home care are more likely to enter the youth detention system. In the remaining period, the Commission's attention will focus on child protection, including its link to detention. Details: Kingston ACT: The Commission, 2017. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2017 at: https://childdetentionnt.royalcommission.gov.au/about-us/Documents/RCNT-Interim-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://childdetentionnt.royalcommission.gov.au/about-us/Documents/RCNT-Interim-report.pdf Shelf Number: 144781 Keywords: Child Protection Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Youthful Offenders

Author: American University. Washington College of Law. Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Title: Protecting Children against Torture in Detention: Global Solutions for a Global Problem Summary: It is my pleasure to introduce the publication "Protecting Children Deprived of Liberty From Torture: Reflections on the Special Rapporteur on Torture's 2015 Thematic Report," which expands upon a key thematic priority explored by the Special Rapporteurship on Torture in 2015. This volume asks a wide variety of stakeholders and thought-leaders to reflect on the report on children deprived of liberty (A/HRC/28/68, available in Annex I) issued by Professor Juan Mendez during his Rapporteurship on Torture at the United Nations (UN). This publication provides additional data and analyses on the myriad of critical issues raised in the report. The publication is an effort of the Anti-Torture Initiative (ATI), a project of the Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law (the Center) at American University Washington College of Law to support the mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (SRT), a position that Professor Juan Mendez held from November 2010 to October 2016. The Center created the ATI in 2012 as part of its mission to develop new tools and strategies for the creative advancement of international human rights norms. During the time of Professor Mendez's mandate, the ATI expanded the strategies used by the SRT in furtherance of its mandate by supporting, monitoring, and assessing implementation of his recommendations, and providing a multi-dynamic model for effective and comprehensive country-specific and thematic follow-up, in areas such as the torture and ill-treatment of children deprived of liberty. In the aftermath of Professor Mendez's mandate, the ATI has continued its role as a foremost player in the global movement against torture, by continuing to work closely with partners from international agencies, regional organizations, governments and policy-makers, and actors from civil society and academia, in an effort to have a positive impact on the landscape of efforts to fight and prevent torture worldwide, in particular when it affects the most vulnerable and marginalized persons worldwide, such as children deprived of liberty. The 2015 report that serves as the basis for this publication came at a timely moment of growing attention to the plight of the more than one million children who are estimated to be deprived of liberty around the world. The report makes a critical contribution by framing abuses and violence commonly perpetrated against children in various guises of deprivation of liberty as torture and other ill-treatment under international law, and by analyzing the unique vulnerability of children to, and concomitant heighted obligation of States to protect children from, such acts. The report analyzes practices within juvenile, criminal justice systems, and administrative, notably immigration, detention, as well as practices in health- and social-care institutions, and the situation of children in armed conflict. It addresses existing gaps in law and policy that facilitate torture and ill-treatment against children deprived of their liberty worldwide. Constrained as it is by an UN-imposed word limit, the report is meant to be a starting-point for discussion, which the articles in this volume pick up. Following its presentation to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2015, the report generated a considerable amount of interest and discussion on a range of issues explored therein. This volume seeks to contribute to and continue this discussion by creating space to elaborate on the report and the essential legal, policy, and advocacy issues raised in a variety of contexts of deprivation of liberty of children around the world. The publication chronicles part of the robust response by practitioners, advocates, and policy-makers to the cross-cutting issues explored by the report. Section I of this volume provides a broad overview of the problem of children deprived of liberty worldwide, and delves into several key questions of law and policy at the intersection of the torture and other ill-treatment and children's rights frameworks, including the potential of the report as a tool for advocacy to promote the recognition and protection of the rights of children in the context of deprivation of liberty; the unique vulnerability of children to torture and other ill-treatment; the challenge of translating standards into practice; the question of access to justice for children deprived of liberty; the role of the Council of Europe in addressing the deprivation of liberty of children; and avenues for meaningful participation of children and adolescents in the recommendations of United Nations human rights bodies in the context of deprivation of liberty. Section II addresses the unique challenges posed by the deprivation of liberty of children in conflict with the law in juvenile and criminal justice systems, featuring a call for the end of child detention as a form of punishment. It also includes a commentary on the UN Model Strategies and Practical Measures on the Elimination of Violence against Children in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice systems. It also analyzes the placement of children in solitary confinement, early diversion, monitoring mechanisms, and models of psychosocial intervention for children deprived of liberty. Section III delves into the situation of migrant, asylum-seeking, and refugee children, and their deprivation of liberty in these contexts. It further refers to the situation of children, including children with disabilities, in institutions and orphanages, as well as the situation of children in armed conflict, child soldiers, and the detention of children on grounds of "national security." Details: Washington, DC: Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, American University, Washington College of Law, 2017. 442p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2017 at: http://antitorture.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Protecting_Children_From_Torture_in_Detention.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: http://antitorture.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Protecting_Children_From_Torture_in_Detention.pdf Shelf Number: 145060 Keywords: Child Protection Human Rights Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Torture Violence against Children

Author: Sedlak, Andrea J. Title: Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Youth Characteristics and Backgrounds Summary: This report, the second in the series, presents findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) on the characteristics of youth in placement, including their demographic characteristics, current and prior offenses, current disposition, family and educational backgrounds, and expectations for the future. These findings are based on interviews with a nationally representative sample of 7,073 youth in 2003, using audio-computer-assisted-self-interview (ACASI) methodology. The first report in this series, Introduction to the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (Sedlak, 2010), summarizes the study design and implementation. The SYRP sample was drawn from the full population of state and local facilities identified by the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census surveys. SYRP youth resided in a nationally representative selection of 205 eligible, responsive facilities listed on the census as of 2002. These included detention and corrections facilities; community-based facilities such as shelters, group homes, and independent living programs; and camp programs, such as boot camps and forestry camps. The SYRP survey team interviewed the youth between the beginning of March and mid-June 2003. Each participant in the SYRP sample is weighted to reflect the number of youth he or she represents in the national population of youth in custody. These weights allow the sample youth (n=7,073) to provide estimates about the full placement population (estimated at more than 100,000 youth, on a given day). All SYRP reports present findings in terms of estimated numbers (rounded to the nearest multiple of 10) and percentages (rounded to the nearest whole percent) in the national population of youth in residential placement. Readers should note that the number of youth in residential placement has dramatically decreased since 2003 when the SYRP data were collected. The most recent data available indicate that, on October 22, 2014, juvenile residential placement facilities held 50,821 youth nationwide (OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book). Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2017. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed June 13, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250753.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250753.pdf Shelf Number: 146072 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Residential Treatment Centers Substance Abuse

Author: Sedlak, Andrea J. Title: Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Conditions of Confinement Summary: This report, the third in the series, presents findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) about the conditions of confinement for youth in a range of different facilities and progams. Results focus on the structural and operational characteristics of these environments and indicate how youth offenders are distributed across various programs and facilities of different size and complexity. These findings provide answers to a number of questions about the characteristics and experiences of youth in placement, including: - How are youth grouped in living units and programs? - Which youth are placed together? - What activities are available in each facility? - How accessible are social, emotional, and legal supports? - What is the quality of the youth-staff relationships? - How clear are the facility's rules? - How clear is the facility's commitment to justice and due process? - What methods of control and discipline do staff use? The data derive from interviews with a nationally representative sample of 7,073 youth in 2003, using audio-computer-assisted-self-interview (ACASI) methodology. Facility administrators provided additional information about placement contexts, either while planning the data collection or in verifying or updating answers on their latest Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) survey. The SYRP sample was drawn from the full population of state and local facilities identified by the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census surveys. SYRP youth resided in a nationally representative selection of 205 eligible, responsive facilities listed on the census as of 2002. These included detention and corrections facilities; community-based facilities such as shelters, group homes, and independent living programs; and camp programs, such as boot camps and forestry camps. The SYRP survey team interviewed the youth between the beginning of March and mid-June 2003. All SYRP findings use the youth as the unit of measurement. Each participant is weighted to reflect the number of youth he or she represents in the national population of youth in placement. These weights allow the sample youth (n=7,073) to provide estimates about the full placement population (estimated at more than 100,000 youth, on a given day in 2003). All SYRP reports present findings in terms of estimated numbers (rounded to the nearest multiple of 10) and percentages (rounded to the nearest whole percent) in the national population of youth in residential placement. Thus, this report describes how the population of youth in placement is distributed across different placement settings. Details: Rockville, MD: Westat, 2017. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 13, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250754.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250754.pdf Shelf Number: 146073 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Mental Health Services Residential Treatment Centers Substance Abuse

Author: McLennan, J.D. Title: Risk factors, pathways and outcomes for youth released from juvenile detention centres in Sao Paulo, Brazil Summary: This project explores the exposures and outcomes of youth who have come into conflict with the law and experienced an incarceration in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The rights of such youth may not be realized before, during and after incarceration in juvenile detention centres. They represent an important marginalized group of youth for whom greater study is required and interventions needed to improve their life outcomes and the realization of their rights. This CIDA-funded study was composed of four components: (i) a cross sectional study of youth incarcerated in detention facilities in Sao Paulo, Brazil, (ii) a follow-up of these youth one year after they were discharged from the detention centres, (iii) in-depth interviews with a subsample of these youth and their parents, and (iv) the production of a video about and by youth who had had such experiences. Many important results were generated from this study and are detailed in the following report. Key findings were as follows. 1. Many of the youth incarcerated in detention facilities in Sao Paulo, Brazil experienced multiple violent exposures prior to their incarceration (e.g., being beaten up or seeing someone get shot at). 2. Many of these same youth were not fully integrated in society (e.g., not attending school, not engaged in recreational activities). 3. Many of these same youth were economically disadvantaged 4. Many of these youth did not have proper access to legal support during the detention episode. 5. Many of the youth did not return to school or stay in school after discharge from the detention facilities. 6. Many of the youth did not find work or were not able to maintain employment once leaving the detention facilities. 7. Very few youth had access to or participated in recreational activities after leaving the detention facilities. Details: Canadian International Development Agency, 2006. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 16, 2017 at: http://www.eldis.org/go/home&id=31240&type=Document#.WUPmnuvyvcs Year: 2006 Country: Brazil URL: http://www.eldis.org/go/home&id=31240&type=Document#.WUPmnuvyvcs Shelf Number: 146202 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Haapanen, Rudy Title: Understanding Ethnic Disparities in Juvenile Probation: What Affects Decisions? Summary: Ethnic disparities in juvenile justice system (JJS) involvement are well-documented and have been reported as persistent despite decades of effort. It has also been argued that JJS involvement does more harm than good, translating as continual and ongoing disadvantage for ethnic minorities. Although the evidence for ethnic bias in community corrections is equivocal and there are those who hold a more positive view of community corrections, any disparities are still a cause for concern. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) solicited research focused on two of the primary research and evaluation objectives: - Decision-making at disposition decision points impacting Hispanic/Latino youth, including disproportionate entry and deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system and/or transfer to the adult criminal justice system. - Disproportionate use of secure detention, which includes adult jails and lockups, and placement for Hispanic/Latino youth. The proposal for this study, like the solicitation itself, assumed that disparities exist, and argued that understanding the basis for disparities in a county - and therefore the potential for system change to reduce disparities-requires an understanding of the factors that govern decision making other than current offense, such as the dispositional alternatives available in a particular setting and the characteristics of youth in relation to the alternatives. The present study, however, was not limited to issues involving Hispanic/Latino youth. The data provided the ability to assess possible disparities for Blacks as well, and the analysis and results are presented for the three major ethnic groups in California (White, Black and Latino), with other groups combined into a fourth category. Details: Davis, CA: University of California at Davis, 2016. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250802.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250802.pdf Shelf Number: 146437 Keywords: Decision Making Disproportionate Minority Confinement Ethnic Minorities Hispanic Youth Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Latinos Racial Disparities

Author: Center for American Progress Title: Unjust: LGBTQ Youth Incarcerated in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: A growing body of research lays bare the overrepresentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth in the juvenile justice system in the United States. As shown in the infographic on the next page, LGBTQ and gender non-conforming youth are overrepresented in juvenile detention and correctional facilities in the juvenile system: the percentage of incarcerated LGBT youth is double that of LGBTQ youth in the general population. LGBTQ youth, particularly LGBTQ youth of color, face discrimination and stigma that lead to criminalization and increased interactions with law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Family rejection, family instability, and poverty may result in homelessness or time spent in the child welfare system, where LGBTQ youth frequently face stigma and discrimination. Additionally, LGBTQ students often lack support or are over-policed at school, pushing them out of school and onto the streets. Once on the streets, status offenses, drug laws, and laws criminalizing sex work - as well as policing strategies and discrimination by law enforcement-often target LGBTQ youth. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics found that youth who reported identifying as LGB or having same-sex attractions were more likely to be stopped by police, to be expelled from school, or to be arrested and convicted as juveniles and adults. For some LGBTQ youth, especially LGBTQ youth of color and transgender and non-conforming youth, these factors play a large role in increasing their interactions with law enforcement and ultimately their overrepresentation in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Despite these forces and disproportionate contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, LGBTQ youth demonstrate remarkable resiliency, creating families of choice, networks for support, and often not only surviving, but thriving. In the juvenile and criminal justice systems, LGBTQ youth face bias in adjudication and mistreatment and abuse in confinement facilities. LGBTQ youth also lack supportive services when leaving the criminal and juvenile justice systems, often forcing them back into negative interactions with law enforcement. Given that nearly 40% of incarcerated girls in identify as LGB and 85-90% of incarcerated LGBTQ youth are youth of color, it is crucial that any effort to change the way youth in the United States engage with the juvenile justice system must consider the unique experiences of LGBTQ youth. This spotlight report highlights the experiences of LGBTQ youth incarcerated in the juvenile justice system. Details: Washington, DC: The Center, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2017 at: https://lgbtmap.org/file/lgbtq-incarcerated-youth.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://lgbtmap.org/file/lgbtq-incarcerated-youth.pdf Shelf Number: 147228 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders LGBTQ Youth

Author: Gleicher, Lily Title: Juvenile Justice In Illinois 2015 Summary: Rates for arrest, station adjustment and probation caseloads, detention admissions, and new sentence admissions to the Department of Juvenile Justice have generally declined over the past five years in each region of Illinois. The Central and Southern regions of Illinois are exceptions, where detention rates have slightly increased. Although black youth comprised only 18% of the youth population aged 10 to 17 years old in 2015, they accounted for 59% of juvenile arrests, 59% of juvenile detention admissions, and 65% of corrections admissions for new sentences. While male youth comprised 51% of the youth population aged 10 to 17 years old in 2015, they accounted for more than 75% of juvenile arrests, detention admissions, and corrections admissions for new sentences. The majority of youth arrested, admitted to detention, and admitted to corrections were 16- or 17-years old. There was a greater proportion of youth arrested for a property crime or other crime. For detention admissions, there was a greater proportion of youth detained for a warrant. For a new sentence admission to corrections, a greater proportion of youth were admitted for a property crime or a crime to a person. 21,244 juveniles accounted for 32,022 total juvenile arrests. There were 11,122 admissions to local secure detention facilities. 807 youth accounted for 828 new sentence admissions to Department of Juvenile Justice correctional facilities. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2017. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Juvenile_Justice_in_Illinois_2015_Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Juvenile_Justice_in_Illinois_2015_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147353 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders

Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Exploratory analysis of 10-17 year olds in the youth secure estate by black and other minority ethnic groups Summary: In January 2016, the Prime Minister asked the Rt Hon David Lammy MP to lead an independent review, sponsored by Ministry of Justice (MoJ), to investigate the treatment and outcomes of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales. The Review focuses on issues arising from the involvement of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) onwards, including the court system, prisons and rehabilitation in the community; policing was not in scope of this review. In November 2016, emerging findings from the Review were published highlighting the high proportion of young black people in youth custody. Following this publication, the Lammy Review team commissioned MoJ to conduct specific analysis of outcomes for young black people in youth custody. The aim of this report is to explore further the possible factors that may explain why there is a high proportion of young black people in youth custody. It concentrates on the throughput of cases in the youth justice system, the offences committed by and sentences given to young people, and their key characteristics; including identified risk factors and information on their educational background. The analysis focuses on young black people but comparisons are made throughout the report to other BAME groups and to those from white ethnic backgrounds. The youth justice system in England and Wales is a distinct justice system that prosecutes and convicts persons 10-17 years of age who commit criminal offences. The principal aim is to prevent offending by children and young people and there is a separate sentencing framework, recognising that young people are different to adults, with an emphasis on restoration and rehabilitation. The youth justice system includes a separate Youth Court (a type of magistrates' court) with specially trained magistrates and different sentencing powers and a higher threshold for the use of custody. Whilst a magistrates' court can issue an immediate custodial sentence for adults of up to six months or up to 12 months in total for more than one offence, a youth court can issue an immediate custodial sentence for a maximum of 24 months. The youth secure estate or youth custody is distinct from the adult prison estate and is for young people aged 10-17 although some 18 year olds remain in youth custody if they are close to being released. There are three youth secure sectors: under-18 Young Offender Institutions, Secure Training Centres and Secure Children's Homes. The vast majority of young people accommodated in the youth secure estate are male and aged between 15-17 years (96% were male and 96% were aged 15-17 in 2015/16). Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/641481/Exploratory-analysis-of-10-17-year-olds-in-the-youth-secure-estate-by-bame-groups.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/641481/Exploratory-analysis-of-10-17-year-olds-in-the-youth-secure-estate-by-bame-groups.pdf Shelf Number: 148089 Keywords: Adolescents Ethnic Groups Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Minority Groups Youthful Offenders

Author: Feierman, Jessica Title: Unlocking Youth: Legal Strategies to End Solitary Confinement in Juvenile Facilities Summary: Despite a growing consensus that solitary confinement harms youth and undermines the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, the practice remains all too common. At the same time, the field lacks sufficient information on the prevalence of the practice, the alternatives, and the perspectives of affected youth and families. This report uses surveys of public defenders, conversations with youth and families, interviews with correctional administrators, and legal and psychological research to fill these gaps and set forth recommendations for reform. Solitary confinement in juvenile facilities remains too widespread. Almost half of juvenile facilities report that they isolate youth for more than four hours to control behavior, and more than two-thirds of our survey respondents reported that they have clients who spent time in solitary. The conditions these youth experience can be truly appalling - youth are routinely deprived of necessities such as mattresses, sheets, showers, eating utensils, and mental health treatment. Many spend 22-23 hours per day in cells by themselves. Solitary confinement is harmful. Neurological research and sociological studies confirm what common sense tells us: isolating youth for days and weeks at a time has devastating, long-term effects on their health and development. Our interviews with youth highlight these effects. "It was one of the breaking points for me as a young person - Me realizing now, it was one of the first times I really knew I was depressed. I really didn't want to do anything, I didn't have an appetite. I became really frustrated and angry for being in there - As a kid, never been through this, it's a very traumatic experience." - Eddie Ellis Solitary confinement is unfairly applied. Studies suggest that youth of color and LGBTQ youth are at a heightened risk of being placed in solitary confinement. Girls and gender-non-conforming youth are more likely to enter the justice system with histories of sexual abuse or other trauma, which can exacerbate the harms of isolation and increase the risk of placement in solitary due to trauma-related behaviors. Youth with disabilities are too often placed in isolation for their own protection or due to a lack of available services or accommodations. Solitary confinement is unnecessary and counterproductive. Juvenile justice systems can operate safely and effectively without reliance on solitary confinement. We highlight two jurisdictions - Ohio and Massachusetts - that have drastically limited the practice by increasing the amount of quality scheduled activities, training staff on de-escalation and other techniques, and adopting evidence-based therapeutic models. Recommendations for reform: Policy Reforms: Ensure that policies prohibit, rather than alter or ameliorate, solitary confinement. Reform must include a ban on solitary confinement for any reason other than to prevent immediate harm, with clear limits on its use even under emergency circumstances. Details: Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2017. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/JLC_Solitary_Report-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/JLC_Solitary_Report-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 148178 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Restrictive Housing Solitary Confinement

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth detention population in Australia: 2017 Summary: This bulletin presents information on the youth detention population in Australia, focusing on quarterly trends from June 2013 to June 2017. Among the 964 young people in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2017, high proportions were male (91%), aged 10-17 (84%), unsentenced (64% excluding Victoria) and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (53%). Over the 4-year period to the June quarter 2017, the numbers and rates of young people in detention remained stable, with minor fluctuations across quarters Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 143: Accessed February 14, 2018 at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0a735742-42c0-49af-a910-4a56a8211007/aihw-aus-220.pdf.aspx?inline=true Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0a735742-42c0-49af-a910-4a56a8211007/aihw-aus-220.pdf.aspx?inline=true Shelf Number: 149136 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Youthful Offenders

Author: Sawyer, Wendy Title: Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie Summary: A map of juvenile justice in America would be daunting, covering 1,852 youth facilities of varying restrictiveness, not to mention thousands of youth held in adult prisons and jails. Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie offers a comprehensive view of this system, breaking down where and why justice-involved youth are locked up. On any given day, nearly 53,000 youth are held in facilities away from home as a result of juvenile or criminal justice involvement. Nearly one in ten is held in an adult jail or prison. Even for the youth held in juvenile "residential placement," the situation is grim; most of them are in similarly restrictive, correctional-style facilities. Thousands of youths are held before they've been found delinquent, many for non-violent, low-level offenses - even for behaviors that aren't criminal violations. This report provides an introductory snapshot of what happens when justice-involved youth are held by the state: where they are held, under what conditions, and for what offenses. It offers a starting point for people new to the issue to consider the ways that the problems of the criminal justice system are mirrored in the juvenile system: racial disparities, punitive conditions, pretrial detention, and over-criminalization. While acknowledging the philosophical, cultural, and procedural differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems, the report highlights these issues as areas ripe for reform for youth as well as adults Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2018. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2018 at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html Shelf Number: 149422 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders

Author: Human Rights Watch Title: "It's Like We're Always in a Prison": Abuses Against Boys Accused of National Security Offenses in Somalia Summary: The Islamist armed group Al-Shabab in Somalia recruits and uses hundreds of children as fighters. But their hardships and abuses continue even after these children escape or are captured by government forces. "It's Like We're Always in a Prison": Abuses Against Boys Accused of National Security Offenses in Somalia, documents the treatment of children arrested and detained since 2015 for suspected association with Al-Shabab. It is based on over 80 interviews, including with children formerly forced to train with or support Al-Shabab, their relatives, boys who had been detained in intelligence and police custody, lawyers, child protection advocates, and government officials. The report finds that authorities across Somalia are subjecting children in their custody to serious abuses, including coercive confessions and prohibiting access to their family members. Children handed over for prosecution are being tried in military courts in proceedings that fail to meet international juvenile justice standards. Existing and pending laws risk making it easier, not harder, to detain and prosecute children for Al-Shabab-related crimes without basic juvenile justice protections for children. When the authorities do hand children over to child rehabilitation centers, their legal status is often unclear. Human Rights Watch calls on the Somali government to end arbitrary detention of children and allow for systematic independent oversight of children in custody. Children taken into custody should be promptly transferred to child protection actors for rehabilitation and - when feasible - reintegration. Children accused of serious crimes should be tried by civilian courts in line with juvenile justice standards. Details: New York: HRW, 2018. 95p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/somalia0218_web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Somalia URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/somalia0218_web.pdf Shelf Number: 149483 Keywords: Child Abuse and Neglect Child Protection Child Soldiers Human Rights Abuses Juvenile Detention

Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: Destined to Fail: How Florida Jails Deprive Children of Schooling Summary: Florida prosecutes more children in the adult criminal justice system than any other state, and as a consequence, hundreds of children are held in adult county jails every year. In the majority of cases, the decision to prosecute a child as an adult is made by the prosecutor, without judicial review or an individual assessment of the child's potential for rehabilitation. As a result, children as young as 12 have been incarcerated with adults. Many have not been found guilty, but are merely waiting for their cases to be adjudicated. While imprisoned, children still have rights under state and federal law to access education - a critical factor in their future. And with good reason: The further they fall behind, the less likely they are to become productive members of society. Unfortunately, children in adult jails are being denied these rights as Florida's jails and school districts are not living up to their legal obligations. The educational services they provide to children held in adult jails are, in most cases, seriously deficient. For some children, the services are virtually nonexistent. Adult jails are simply not intended or equipped to house children. For this review, which began in 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center submitted public records requests to school districts across the state, spoke with public defenders and advocates, examined data from the U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection, and interviewed children who are or have been held in county jails in Florida. The findings are troubling: Many small jails (facilities holding fewer than 20 children in 2015-16) offer only GED courses to children, eliminating the opportunity for a child to pursue a high school diploma while awaiting trial. Some children receive only two to three hours per week of instruction in these small county jails. When they return to their neighborhood schools, they often do not receive credit for their studies, including the GED work. In large jails (facilities holding 20 to 130 children in 2015-16), children often receive educational services geared toward a high school diploma - though they don't all receive the legally required 300 minutes of instruction per day that is necessary for a total of 180 instruction days per year. At many small jails, students with disabilities receive limited - if any - educational services that are required by law because of their disabilities. At large jails, students' existing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), which outline the services that a student with disabilities should receive, are sometimes altered - and even effectively closed out - leaving them without the services they deserve under the law. At many large and small jails, students with IEPs between the ages of 18 and 22 must be proactive and ask for the education services to which they are entitled. Consequently, they often do not receive them. Because county jails are not designed to accommodate children, there are multiple barriers that limit access to education. Small jails, in particular, do not have housing units for children, much less a space for classes. In such instances, children may be held in solitary confinement, which has been likened to torture. Lacking access to materials and teachers, children in solitary may simply receive worksheets that don't count toward school credit and without any writing instruments to complete them. Large jails, on the other hand, may have cell blocks for youth and space for classes, but these arrangements pose problems as well. Youth units, for example, are often for boys. As a result, girls under 18 are routinely held in solitary confinement or in medical or mental health segregation wings, which are not equipped for providing education. And as in small jails, children held in solitary confinement at large jails - whether for housing or discipline - are often left out of educational programming or provided with worksheets. In some counties, students are marked absent from the jail's classes for each day they are held in confinement. The solution to these problems is simple: Children don't belong in adult jails. Details: Montgomery, AL: SPLC, 2018. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cr_ctaa_report_2018_web_final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cr_ctaa_report_2018_web_final.pdf Shelf Number: 149572 Keywords: Correctional Education Jails Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Incentivising and promoting good behaviour: A thematic review Summary: Institutions holding children and young adults have undergone notable change over recent years as the population of both groups has reduced. While this reduction is welcome, there is evidence from inspection that outcomes for those that remain have been significantly impacted by deteriorating behaviour. Current behaviour management schemes have been ineffective in reducing violence, which is at historically high levels in all types of institution we reviewed. When children and young adults are held in custody, their behaviour can be influenced by a wide range of factors, including their relationships with staff, the physical environment, the regime under which they are held and the incentives on offer to them. In turn, the impact of poor behaviour by others on those who wish to make progress in education, training and rehabilitation can be severe. This review, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, is focused on children held in secure training centres (STCs) and young offender institutions (YOIs), and young adults aged 18-20 held in YOIs. The review looks at the fundamentally important issue of the relationships between those detained and the staff charged with their care. Those relationships are crucially influenced by staff turnover, which can lead to a lack of consistency in approach, staff shortages and, all too frequently, a lack of sufficient time out of cell. The issue of inconsistency in behaviour management is important as it damages the all-important element of trust in the relationship. When trust diminishes, a consequence is often a decline in respect for staff and, in the worst cases, a complete withdrawal from behaviour management systems. The review found that far too often the rewards and sanctions associated with behaviour management schemes were focused on punishment rather than incentive, and were prone to generate perceptions of favouritism. Too often, during inspections, we have seen rewards and sanctions schemes that are overwhelmingly punitive, and the response to poor behaviour is to become locked in a negative cycle of ever greater restriction. There is a real need to break out of these cycles, and some establishments have shown that it is possible. There was also little evidence of schemes being linked to sentence planning, with clear plans set out for making progress. It is widely accepted that the amount of time a child or young person spends unlocked and out of their cell has an important impact on their behaviour. There is also a need to confront bullying and violence, and not to fall into the trap of believing that it is inevitable, given the smaller and sometimes more concentratedly challenging nature of the children's and young people's population in custody. Details: London: The Inspectorate, 2018. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Incentivising-and-promoting-good-behaviour-Web-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Incentivising-and-promoting-good-behaviour-Web-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 149680 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Training Centers

Author: Franken, A. Title: Specialization in National Specialist Facilities: a literature review. Summary: The Netherlands Youth Institute carried out this research commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre, WODC, Ministry of Justice and Security. The topic of this research arises from the report "Custody of Young Offenders (Implementation) Survey" (Verkenning Invulling Vrijheidsbeneming Justitiele Jeugd, VIV JJ), which was presented to the House of Representatives in November 2015 (Van Alphen, Drost & Jongebreur, 2015, Parliamentary Papers, Meeting Year 2015-2016, no. 24587-626). Central to this report is the young person, with his or her support needs and needs for care and security. The report focuses on the continuation of care, involvement of the young person's own network and local cooperation between the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI), local care partners and municipalities. One of the building blocks of the report is a National Specialist Facility (LSV), in which young people with a specific profile receive specialist care and security. The question remains, however, which specializations are needed within the National Specialist Facilities and how these specializations could be clustered. Details: Utrecht: Nederlands Jeugdinstituut (NJi) , Universiteit van Amsterdam - Afdeling Forensische Orthopedagogiek, WODC, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2018 at: https://www.wodc.nl/binaries/2895_summary_tcm28-310965.pdf (Full text only available in Dutch) Year: 2018 Country: Netherlands URL: https://www.wodc.nl/binaries/2895_summary_tcm28-310965.pdf Shelf Number: 149693 Keywords: Detention Facilities Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Human Rights Watch Title: When I Die, They'll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life without Parole in California Summary: Approximately 227 youth have been sentenced to die in California's prisons. They have not been sentenced to death: the death penalty was found unconstitutional for juveniles by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. Instead, these young people have been sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives, with no opportunity for parole and no chance for release. Their crimes were committed when they were teenagers, yet they will die in prison. Remarkably, many of the adults who were codefendants and took part in their crimes received lower sentences and will one day be released from prison. In the United States at least 2,380 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 18. In the rest of the world, just seven people are known to be serving this sentence for crimes committed when they were juveniles. Although ten other countries have laws permitting life without parole, in practice most do not use the sentence for those under age 18. International law prohibits the use of life without parole for those who are not yet 18 years old. The United States is in violation of those laws and out of step with the rest of the world. Human Rights Watch conducted research in California on the sentencing of youth offenders to life without parole. Our data includes records obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and independent research using court and media sources. We conducted a survey that garnered 130 responses, more than half of all youth offenders serving life without parole in California. Finally, we conducted in-person interviews of about 10 percent of those serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth. We have basic information on every person serving the sentence in the state, and we have a range of additional information in over 170 of all known cases. This research paints a detailed picture of Californians serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth. Details: New York: HRW, 2008. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0108_0.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0108_0.pdf Shelf Number: 109150 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment, Juveniles (U.S.) Life Without Parole

Author: Juvenile Justice Initiative Title: Detention of Juveniles in Illinois: Recommendations to Right-Size Detention through Reforms and Fiscal Incentives to Develop Community-Based Alternatives. Summary: Juvenile Detention is jail for kids. Research consistently reveals that even short stays in a juvenile detention facility has negative outcomes, including behavioral heath impacts and education disruptions. The studies also consistently reveal that detention actually increases repeat offending. Yet, state dollars support and encourage the use of detention, by subsidizing detention staff. There is no state plan or fiscal investment to encourage the use of alternatives to detention, despite better outcomes for fewer dollars. Despite the lack of state encouragement, several of the larger counties incorporated policies and practices to reduce reliance on costly out-of-home detention. The results are highly encouraging - lower costs with better outcome and more public safety. It is time for Illinois to encourage all counties with a detention center to make similar shifts by encouraging the development of fiscal incentives for alternatives to detention, thereby reducing the reliance on juvenile detention and making it a last resort. This report examines the current use of juvenile detention across Illinois, reviews research on the impact from detention of juveniles, and reports on the current state fiscal, oversight and administrative involvement in juvenile detention. The report examines best practices in Illinois and across the nation. Finally, this report includes a series of recommendations to "right-size" juvenile detention in Illinois. Details: Evanston, ILL: The Initiative, 2018. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/JJI-Detention-Report-April-25-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/JJI-Detention-Report-April-25-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 140077 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: Harrison, Poppy Elizabeth Title: Assessing the harm inside: a study contextualising boys' self-harm in custody Summary: Concerns about suicide and self-harm in English prisons are not new (Third report of the commissioners of prisons, 1880, cited in Liebling, 1992). However, a distinct system of intervention and custody for children (as established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) is relatively modern, and as such contextual studies about self-harm have largely, to date, overlooked children as a discrete group existing within a separate framework from adults. Similarly, large-scale research exploring self-harm among children in community settings has largely excluded the group of marginalised young people who come to the attention of youth justice services. This study presents a unique analysis of 181 youth justice assessments ('Assets') for boys who were remanded or sentenced to custody in under-18 Young Offender Institutions during 2014-15, tracing the subjects of the assessments from the communities they offended in through to a period in custody, using incident reports completed whilst they were there. What results is a contextual study examining the characteristics of the boys and their behaviour in custody. The study considers two central hypotheses: first, that to result in meaningful and supportive interventions, a definition of self-harm among the boys in the research sample often needs to include the harm they have done to their own lives (what the middle classes might call their 'prospects') through offending, and, second, that children who display the common traits of self-harming behaviour in custody may be identifiable by a different set of characteristics and needs from those who self-harm in the community. The author concludes that there is a previously undefined set of risk factors which can be applied to children who self-harm in custody for the first time, moving beyond the known risks associated with adolescent self-harm in the general population. Furthermore, it is found that boys who self-harm in custody are often doing so to exercise agency in an environment where they have very limited power, in circumstances defined not only by the restriction of liberty they are experiencing, but by the difficulties they experienced before coming to custody. Recommendations are made as to how policy-makers, through the current reforms to the youth justice system and a revised approach to assessments upon entry to custody, and practitioners, through increased awareness and improved recording of children's views can more appropriately intervene in these boys' lives to benefit them and society more widely. Details: Luton, UK: University of Bedfordshire, 2016. 259p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 21, 2018 at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77614088.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77614088.pdf Shelf Number: 150280 Keywords: Deaths in Custody Juvenile Detention Prison Suicide Suicide Youth Custody

Author: New Jersey Parents' Caucus Title: The Solitary Confinement of Youth with Mental Health Disabilities in New Jersey's Adult Prison System Summary: Being housed in solitary confinement has become conducive to the deterioration of my mental health. The things I have witnessed would shock and disgust many people. I have witnessed things like guards depriving inmates of their meals, mentally ill inmates throwing feces and other bodily fluids on each other, and officers spraying mace on inmates and letting them soak in the chemicals. All of these events and many more have in some way traumatized me and has led to me having many panic attacks and mental health issues. Indeed, there is a need for some kind of segregation for those who break the rules of the prison; however, when solitary confinement becomes so harsh and focuses solely on punishing individuals, any possibility of correction and rehabilitation to an inmate's behavior becomes impossible; consequently, the conditions become counterproductive. -DM, 20, NJSP. It is shocking and unacceptable that youth like DM, a New Jersey Youth Caucus Member, have spent over 1,000 days in solitary confinement while in an adult prison in New Jersey. As DM described, solitary confinement is harmful and traumatic. It is defined by isolation in a cell for up to 24 hours a day, as well as deprivation of social interaction, property, and often educational materials. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice under the Obama Administration began looking into the use of solitary confinement and the harmful psychological effects on inmates in prisons across the country. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, former President Obama wrote: Research suggests that solitary confinement has the potential to lead to devastating, lasting psychological consequences. It has been linked to depression, alienation, withdrawal, a reduced ability to interact with others and the potential for violent behavior. Some studies indicate that it can worsen existing mental illnesses and even trigger new ones. Those who do make it out often have trouble holding down jobs, reuniting with family, and becoming productive members of society. Imagine having served your time and then being unable to hand change over to a customer or look your wife in the eye or hug your children. As a result of the Department of Justice's review of solitary confinement, President Obama announced a ban on its use for youth in the federal prison system. In August 2015, the New Jersey Legislature passed and Governor Christie signed the Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Reform Bill S. 2003/A. 4299. This legislation eliminated the use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in juvenile facilities and detention centers, as well as limited the time that solitary confinement could be imposed for reasons other than punishment, such as safety concerns. Unfortunately, these limitations on solitary confinement do not apply to youth in the adult prison system. As a result, the needs, stories, and trauma associated with youth placed in solitary confinement in adult prisons remain untold, unaddressed, and, ultimately, forgotten. In 2016, Governor Christie vetoed S. 51, legislation that would have dramatically reformed solitary confinement in New Jersey dictating that isolated confinement should only be used when necessary, and should not be used against vulnerable populations or under conditions or for time periods that foster psychological trauma, psychiatric disorders, or serious, long-term damage to an isolated person's brain. Christie's statement accompanying his veto of S. 51, which would have allowed solitary confinement only as a last resort, repeated his administration's claim that solitary confinement does not exist in our state, despite overwhelming evidence that it is used routinely, including as a form of discipline. In January 2018, Assemblywoman Nancy Pinkin and 19 other co-sponsors reintroduced the solitary reform bill, A. 314. As part of the New Jersey Youth Justice Initiative (NJYJI), we at the New Jersey Parents' Caucus have gathered comprehensive state data from the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJ DOC) on 556 children tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the adult prison system. The data largely covers the period of 2007-2016, though some information gathered dates back to 2003. In addition to the data retrieved from the NJ DOC, we have received qualitative data from a subset of the same population (163 youth) by means of a survey assessment provided to incarcerated youth and their parents, caregivers, and family members. Ninety-five youth answered questions about their experience in solitary confinement. Dr. Colby Valentine, Ph.D. analyzed NJYJI data, which includes self-reported questionnaires from ninety-two youth waived to the adult prison system, to understand the relationship between mental health and solitary confinement for youth in New Jersey prisons. Her analysis confirms that solitary confinement negatively affects the mental health of youth in New Jersey�s adult prisons, adding to prior research that states that prolonged isolation may cause or exacerbate mental health problems in adult inmate populations. It is the position of the New Jersey Parents' Caucus, Inc. (NJPC) and its membership that the State must ban the imposition and use of solitary confinement or restricted housing units - another term for solitary confinement - which were found in either administrative segregation or the Management Control Unit, a form of solitary confinement used at administrators' discretion on youth in adult jails and prisons. Solitary confinement imposes further violence, harm, and psychological damage on youth before they return to their communities. If these youth return home without adequate mental health and rehabilitative care, it negates their ability to become productive members of our society. Their stories and their needs must be addressed through legislation to end this cruel, but unfortunately, common, practice on youth in the adult criminal justice system. Details: Elizabeth, NJ: The Caucus, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: http://newjerseyparentscaucus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NJPCSolitaryConfinementBriefFINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://newjerseyparentscaucus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NJPCSolitaryConfinementBriefFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 150421 Keywords: Isolation Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Mentally Ill Inmates Restrictive Housing Solitary Confinement Youth in Adult Prisons

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth Justice in Australia: 2016-17 Summary: This report looks at young people who were under youth justice supervision in Australia during 2016-17 because of their involvement or alleged involvement in crime. It explores the key aspects of supervision, both in the community and in detention, as well as recent trends. About 1 in 500 young people aged 10-17 were under supervision on an average day A total of 5,359 young people aged 10 and over were under youth justice supervision on an average day in 2016-17. Among those aged 10-17, this equates to a rate of 20 per 10,000, or 1 in every 492 young people. Most young people were supervised in the community More than 4 in 5 (83% or 4,473) young people under supervision on an average day were supervised in the community, and close to 1 in 5 (17% or 913) were in detention (some were supervised in both the community and detention on the same day). The majority of young people in detention were unsentenced - About 3 in 5 (61%) young people in detention on an average day were unsentenced-that is, awaiting the outcome of their legal matter or sentencing. Young people spent an average of 6 months under supervision - Individual periods of supervision that were completed during 2016-17 lasted for a median of 122 days or about 4 months. When all the time spent under supervision during 2016-17 is considered (including multiple periods and periods that were not yet completed), young people who were supervised during the year spent an average of 185 days or about 6 months under supervision. Supervision rates varied among the states and territories - Rates of youth justice supervision varied among the states and territories, reflecting, in part, the fact that each state and territory has its own legislation, policies, and practices. In 2016-17, the rate of young people aged 10-17 under supervision on an average day ranged from 13 per 10,000 in Victoria to 67 per 10,000 in the Northern Territory. Rates of supervision have fallen over the past 5 years - Over the 5 years from 2012-13 to 2016-17, the number of young people aged 10-17 under supervision on an average day fell by 16%, while the rate dropped from 25 to 20 per 10,000. These falls occurred in both community-based supervision (from 21 to 17 per 10,000) and detention (from 4 to 3 per 10,000). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander over-representation has increased - Although only about 5% of young people aged 10-17 in Australia are Indigenous, half (50%) of those under supervision on an average day in 2016-17 were Indigenous. The level of Indigenous over-representation (as measured by the rate ratio) rose over the 5 years from 2012-13 to 2016-17. On an average day in 2012-13, Indigenous young people aged 10-17 were 15 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be under supervision, rising to 18 times as likely in 2016-17. This was due to a proportionally greater fall in the non-Indigenous rate compared with the Indigenous rate over the period. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2018. 54p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2018 at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/19707990-1719-4600-8fce-f0af9d61331c/aihw-juv-116.pdf.aspx?inline=true Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/19707990-1719-4600-8fce-f0af9d61331c/aihw-juv-116.pdf.aspx?inline=true Shelf Number: 150935 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Supervision

Author: Louisiana Center for Children's Rights Title: Keep Children Out of Orleans Parish Prison: Speedy, Safe, and Cost-Effective Prison Reform in New Orleans, Louisiana Summary: New Orleans can act now to stop young people from being raped, beaten, and even killed. We can do it while saving money. We can do it legally and constitutionally, while enhancing public safety and reducing long-term recidivism. We just have to commit to holding youth accountable in age-appropriate settings. When we detain youth prior to trial, we should hold them in a facility that is designed to keep them safe - not at the Orleans Parish Prison (OPP), New Orleans' adult pretrial jail. OPP is no place for children. OPP is under a federal consent decree - a binding ruling that imposes federal judicial oversight. As part of the consent decree, the Orleans Parish Sheriff and the federal government have agreed that the conditions at OPP are unconstitutionally cruel. One expert told a federal judge that the facility is probably the worst large jail in the country. But, at any given moment, at least thirty children younger than 18 - 33 of them on August 28, 2015, according to data collected by the Louisiana Center for Children's Rights - are locked up at the notoriously dangerous prison, awaiting trial. It's not safe; it's not legal; it�s not fair; and the costs of attempting to fix the problems for children in OPP are prohibitively expensive. Details: New Orleans: The Center, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2018 at: https://www.laccr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Keep-Children-Out-of-OPP.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.laccr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Keep-Children-Out-of-OPP.pdf Shelf Number: 151262 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision: 2016-17 Summary: Of young people aged 10-17 who were under sentenced youth justice supervision at some time from 2000-01 to 2016-17, 39% returned to supervised sentence before turning 18. Of young people aged 10-16 in 2015-16 and released from sentenced community-based supervision, 26% returned to sentenced supervision in 6 months, and 50% within 12 months. Of those released from sentenced detention, 59% returned within 6 months, and 82% within 12 months. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2018. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 29, 2018 at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/48ae3545-83c5-46f1-96d4-9fac034fc71b/aihw-juv-127.pdf.aspx?inline=true Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/48ae3545-83c5-46f1-96d4-9fac034fc71b/aihw-juv-127.pdf.aspx?inline=true Shelf Number: 151281 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Supervision

Author: Herz, Denise Title: Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study Part II Summary: In 2008, juvenile halls and camps fell under federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice due to inadequate protection from harm and failed to provide adequate suicide prevention and mental health care. In the last Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Los Angeles County Probation Department and the U.S. Department of Justice, Probation was obligated to "support a longitudinal study and develop baseline data tracking systems to assist in the evaluation of systemic outcomes for youth" (see Paragraph 73, #6 External Partnership of this MOA document). This study fulfills this requirement by collecting data for youth cohorts exiting suitable placement and camp in 2015 and comparing results to those reported for the 2011 cohorts in The Los Angeles County Probation Outcomes Study Part I. The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate outcomes for youth within the context of the systems change Probation has been and continues to implement. Moving in this direction improves the ability to assess Probation efforts to improve services and outcomes. In addition to replicating the 2015 study, the current study includes interviews with a sample of youth, their families, and supervising Deputy Probation Officers. The report and executive summary provides an overview of the results and offers recommendations to improve the effectiveness of juvenile justice in Los Angeles County Details: Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/POS%20Part%20ll%20Report%205-10-2017%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/POS%20Part%20ll%20Report%205-10-2017%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 151324 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Probation Camps

Author: Herz, Denise Title: Camp Kilpatrick AWARE Program Evaluation Study Summary: This study represents an important development in the evolution of the Los Angeles Probation Department. Over the past 10 years, the Department has faced several issues and problems in the camps (Newell & Leap, 2013). While the Department has previously focused on compliance to mandates directed at these problems, this study marks an important advancement in Probation's approach to reform. Rather than taking a reactionary approach to a problem, Probation is driving practice with discussions of "what works" in order to benefit the long-term success of Probation youth, their families, and their communities. The primary hypothesis tested in this study was whether AWARE youth would have better outcomes than Non-AWARE youth. Data were retrieved from the Probation Case Management System (PCMS) for 112 youth who arrived at Camp Kilpatrick and participated in the AWARE Program between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011. A matched group of 112 youth (based on age, race, and risk score at arrival to camp) entering other camps during this time were identified as a Non-AWARE comparison group. In addition to PCMS data, data were extracted from case files for 35 youth (31% of 112) drawn from each of these groups for a total of 70 youth. Both the PCMS data and the case file data provided substantial insight into the experiences of AWARE and Non-AWARE youth 1 year prior to the arrest/petition that led to their placements in Camp Kilpatrick or a different camp (Time 1), at the time of the arrest/petition leading to their placements (Time 2); during their camp placements (Time 3); upon exit from their camp placements (Time 4); and 1 year after exit from camp or when the case terminated-whichever came first (Time 5). Details: Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Los Angeles, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/AWARE%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL%20Revise%201-9-15.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2016-12/AWARE%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL%20Revise%201-9-15.pdf Shelf Number: 151326 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Probation Camps

Author: Warner, Louise Title: Secure settings for young people: a national scoping exercise Summary: This report summarises the findings of the first (scoping) stage of a service evaluation, evaluating the provision of secure services for detained young people, under 18 years of age, from England, between February and September 2016. This involved identifying every secure unit in Great Britain (the United Kingdom excluding Northern Ireland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, none of which had secure units in which young people from England could be placed) that could detain young people from England and establishing the basic characteristics of each unit, in order to identify similarities and differences between them, prior to further exploration in the later stages of the study. This report addresses two questions: to what extent and in what ways are the types of secure service for children similar or different? Table 1 below presents a summary of these findings. There will be two later stages of this service evaluation including a census of all young people from England detained on 14 September 2016 considering their needs and qualitative interviews of professionals and carers about the strengths and weaknesses of the secure system for young people in England. Details: London: National Health Services, 2018. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2018 at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-1-scoping-analysis.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-1-scoping-analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 152851 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Bartlett, Annie Title: Young people's secure care: Professionals' and parents' views of its purpose, placements and practice Summary: This is the third report on secure care for young people in England. It should be read in conjunction with the scoping report which established the location and nature of secure care facilities for young people and the census report which describes the detained population in terms of their health and social care characteristics and pathways into care. This report is based on the analysis of 53 semi-structured interviews with secure care staff (N=36) and parents of detained young people (N=17). These explored their views of: - the characteristics of the multi-agency system of secure care - why a young person might be detained in the system - who these detained young people might be Key findings included: - Despite the notional clarity of the three components of secure care, respondents thought detained young people in all types of setting often shared similar, disadvantaged backgrounds and characteristics, including mental health difficulties - Vulnerable young people might be placed with those who posed a significant risk to others and those who only posed a risk to themselves might be detained in medium secure hospital services - Staff involved in the care of young people in secure care and parents' had different views on care quality - Staff involved in the care of young people in secure care and parents were critical of the process determining a young person's secure placement, seeing it as a consequence of failures in prophylactic health and social care (particularly child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS)) and based on the availability of a placement rather than its suitability, to the point where the system's decision could appear arbitrary - Respondents were united in their concern that young people were often placed far from their support systems and that this was detrimental, even when specialist care was required - Many respondents thought young people had had multiple placements and moves leading to difficulty trusting staff or emotionally investing in care and to feelings of rejection - Parents considered the attitudes of staff towards their child, specifically with regards to their interest in and knowledge of their child's history, to be unhelpful - The widespread use of agency/temporary staff was uniformly considered to exacerbate difficulties in trust and communication and care delivery - Insufficient recruitment and poor retention of staff allied to the absence of bespoke training contributed to the widespread use of agency staff - A range of practical ideas about units and the system of care were put forward These findings led to themes, explored in the Discussion and Conclusions, for further consideration by key stakeholders: - Parents and professionals: language and its significance - Consistent Approaches to Care Delivery - Looking Out not just Looking In - Risk and Vulnerability - Geography and Parity of Esteem Details: London: National Health Service, 2018. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2018 at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-3-interview-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/secure-settings-for-young-people-a-national-scoping-exercise-paper-3-interview-report.pdf Shelf Number: 152853 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders Public Opinion

Author: CREATE Foundation Title: Youth Justice Report: Consultation with young people in out-of-home care about their experiences with police, courts and detention Summary: Young people with a care experience are overrepresented in the youth justice system. To understand the issues effecting young people in both child protection and youth justice systems CREATE interviewed young people throughout Australia. While offenders and young people who went missing felt disrespected, anxious and afraid during their time interacting with youth justice, victims felt let down and powerless. Additionally, young people felt unsupported during their time in the justice system and perceived the police and courts to discriminate against young people in out-of-home care. The report highlights the need for a trauma informed youth justice system, better clarity around how caseworkers and carers are meant to support young people who enter both systems, and reducing the stigma associated with being in out-of-home care. Details: Spring Hill QLD: The Foundation, 2018. 101p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2018 at: https://create.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Youth-Justice-Report-Standard-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://create.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Youth-Justice-Report-Standard-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 153351 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders Youth Justice Youthful Offenders

Author: Albright, Jennifer R. Title: Family Reconciliation through Remedial Detention: The Becca Bill's Unintended Consequences Summary: Twenty years ago, in response to a young runaway's tragic murder, Washington made sweeping changes to its laws, giving parents and the Juvenile Courts increased latitude over managing the state's at-risk youth. Through subsequent revisions to the laws, loopholes in state and federal law, and problematic implementation, the Becca bill has allowed for the secure detention of youth for status offenses since its inception. In King County, the state's largest detention facility, Becca youth have traditionally been completely sight and sound separated. However, due to increased pressure on county budgets, King County recently made a policy change allowing the co-mingling of Becca youth, who have committed no criminal offense, with more seriously delinquent offender youth. This study takes advantage of the pre- and post-housing change to compare the outcomes of Becca youth who are housed separately from and those that are co-mingled with offender youth.The outcomes that were explored were subsequent referrals for prosecution, subsequent secure bookings, and ultimately contact with the adult criminal justice system. Outcomes suggest that there is no increased harm to the Becca youth that are co-mingled with more serious offender youth. Outcomes also suggest some harmful effects of detaining non-offender youth for any reason which confirms a growing body of research documenting the myriad harms wrought by even short periods of secure detention.The State of Washington and King County have a choice in detaining Becca youth. They could be offered alternatives programs, or deferred from the system altogether which may ultimately decrease harm. However, this study suggests that housing decisions to separate or co-mingling have little effect on poor justice system outcomes. Details: Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2014. 162p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed November 29, 2018 at: https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/5182/Albright_wsu_0251E_11161.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/5182/Albright_wsu_0251E_11161.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 153902 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Policy Juvenile Justice Systems Status Offenders

Author: Parliamentary Ombudsman, The, Norway Title: Visit Report: Ullersmo Prison, Juvenile Unit East 7-8 February 2017 Summary: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) visited Ullersmo Prison, Juvenile Unit East, on 7-8 February 2017. The date of the visit was not announced. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit East is a high security prison with four places for inmates aged between 15 and 19 years. The visit covered the whole unit. The juvenile unit's management and other staff members were forthcoming throughout the visit. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit is one of two prisons in Norway for juvenile inmates. The other one is Bjorgvin Prison's Juvenile Unit, which was established in 2009. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit East opened on 12 April 2016. At the time of the visit, the unit was only approved to hold two inmates. This was due to fire safety issues identified in October 2016. Statsbygg had been given until 1 April 2017 to remedy the situation. In accordance with the Norwegian Correctional Service's project description, the juvenile units' basic staff included both prison officers and milieu therapists. At the time of the visit, a total of 25 employees were working in shifts. An interagency team had been established at the juvenile unit. The management and employees who form part of the basic staff wear uniforms in their everyday work, except when they participate in leisure activities such as exercise or escort inmates on leave outside the unit. It emerged during the visit that the employees found the use of uniforms unnecessary and an obstacle to developing good relations. It also emerged that the duty to wear a uniform made normal activities for the juvenile inmates more difficult because the officers had to change for physical activities such as ball games in the outdoor areas. In accordance with a decision by the Norwegian Correctional Service's regional office, the juvenile unit had sometimes had to place juvenile inmates in prisons for adults while waiting for a place at the juvenile unit to become available. This is in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states in Article 37 (c) that every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so. At the time of the visit, three juvenile inmates were in this situation. Juvenile Unit East emphasised that this was a temporary measure pending the opening of the other two places at the unit. The interagency team at the juvenile unit was responsible for attending to these juveniles while they were temporarily placed in other prisons. The layout and furniture of the juveniles' cells appeared well planned and practical. There were no window bars. The communal areas were spacious with good access to natural light and views of the natural surroundings. The communal kitchen was closed to the juveniles except during fixed food preparation times and communal meals. One of the cells was adapted for persons with disabilities. The visit left the impression that the juvenile unit focused on welcoming the juveniles and creating secure relations and good dialogue from the start of their stay. It was a positive factor that the juvenile inmates were always given the name of their contact officer in writing. However, the information booklet handed out to the juvenile inmates on admission was not well suited for the target group - it was formal and inaccessible. There was no written information about the juvenile unit's routines and rules in any language other than Norwegian. According to documentation submitted by the juvenile unit, use of force was rare. It emerged that the psychologist worked to prevent violent incidents and use of coercive measures through work with the juveniles and guidance of the staff. The staff appeared to be aware of the importance of preventing the use of force. No information emerged about other specific conflict prevention methods used by the staff. The use of security cells for juvenile offenders is a highly invasive measure that is potentially very harmful. Juvenile Unit East had one security cell. At the time of the visit, the security cell was not approved by the Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional Service, and it had not been used. The security cell appeared much like an ordinary security cell in prisons for adult inmates. This contrasted with the security cell at Bjorgvin Prison's Juvenile Unit, which during the visit to that unit was found to have been designed to minimise the strain on juvenile inmates and give a more humane impression. Juvenile Unit East had a separate segregation unit. It was stated during the visit that it had been used once for a period of two days. The NPM's review of documents showed that decisions were made and supervision carried out and logged. At the time of the visit, Juvenile Unit East had not prepared its own procedures for body searches. From a preventive perspective, fixed procedures are important in order to ensure that body searches are conducted in the gentlest possible way. It emerged that female staff had been present during body searches of male juveniles on several occasions. At a meeting with the management, the NPM was told that the use of female staff to search male juveniles would be discontinued. It also emerged during the visit that the juvenile inmates were locked in their cells several times during the day, for example when they were not participating in outdoor exercise or preparing food. It is food for thought that the unit considers it necessary to lock inmates in their cells in this way despite the unit's good staffing level. According to the unit's weekend routines, juvenile inmates who are locked in their cells both during outdoor exercise and while the food is being prepared will spend six hours outside their cell per day. This is less than recommended by international guidelines, and gives particular cause for concern since these inmates are juveniles. It emerged that it varied whether the juvenile inmates were given the opportunity for outdoor exercise every day. A contributory cause of this was that the outdoor area was so poorly lit that the prison did not consider outdoor exercise in the afternoon sufficiently secure during the winter months. The health service appeared to function well, and the health personnel seemed to demonstrate a good understanding of their role in connection with any use of coercive measures. The schooling appeared to function well. No work activities were offered at the juvenile unit. There were a total of three visiting rooms at the juvenile unit. They were all sparsely furnished and not very welcoming. None of the visiting rooms had access to children's toys for visits by young siblings or were adapted for prolonged visits, despite the fact that the regulatory framework allows for juvenile inmates to receive visits over several days. Juveniles under the age of 18 had the opportunity to call their next of kin and friends for a total of one hour per week. This is half the telephone time that juvenile inmates at Bjorgvin prison are allowed. Details: Oslo, Norway: 2017. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Visit-report-2017-Juvenile-Unit-East-Summary-and-recommendations.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Norway URL: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Visit-report-2017-Juvenile-Unit-East-Summary-and-recommendations.pdf Shelf Number: 154082 Keywords: Convention on the Rights of the Child High Security Prison Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Maximum Security Prison Norwegian Correctional Service Ullersmo Prison

Author: Parliamentary Ombudsman, The, Norway Title: Visit Report: The Klokkergarden Collective 6-8 June 2017 Summary: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) visited the Klokkergarden Collective "Klokkergardenkollektivet" on 6-8 June 2017. The Klokkergarden collective is one of several long-term institutions under the foundation "Stiftelsen Klokkergarden". The foundation was established in 1980 with the objective to rehabilitate young people with substance abuse and behavioural problems. The Klokkergarden Collective is in Asnes municipality in Hedmark county and can accommodate 15 persons between the ages of 13 and 18. The institution is approved for placement without the young person's consent. The physical surroundings at the collective appeared to be good, and there seems to be a broad range of activities on offer for the young people, both at and outside the institution. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also had the impression that the young people were given good opportunities to help to decide which activities they wanted to participate in. The institution also had good procedures in place for safeguarding the health of the young people upon arrival and during their stay. The collective had made few administrative decisions on the use of force in the past year. However, the institution made many decisions to limit freedom of movement and the use of electronic means of communication in 2016. It seemed that such decisions were made routinely when the young people arrived at the institution. It was also found during the visit that the record-keeping practice had potential for improvement. A review revealed shortcomings in the records, including the fact that any alternative measures that had been considered/tried before the use of force were rarely recorded. It was also found that the institution had a practice of grounding the young people in their rooms if they overslept. This is a clear violation of young people's right to autonomy and privacy and increases the risk of them feeling isolated. Those who overslept in the morning and failed to appear downstairs by 8.45 had to stay in their rooms for the rest of the day. This included having to eat their meals in their rooms. Nor were they allowed to participate in social activities organised outside the house. No administrative decision was made regarding this restriction even if the grounding involved a clear restriction on the young people's freedom of movement inside and outside the institution. The Klokkergarden Collective had a practice of taking the young people on what they referred to as 'motivational trips' as part of their treatment. According to the institution plan, the purpose of such trips is to enable the young people to concentrate on working on conflicts or problems that have developed quickly or over time, without being disturbed. The institution stated that the motivational trip meant that 'a young person leaves the institution together with two adults for a limited period in order to keep an overview of and focus on special tasks.' The institution plan lists four main reasons for organising a motivational trip: reintegration after an escape; special care of a young person after substance abuse; intensifying treatment; and a need for extra care and attention. However, it was found during the visit that violating one of the institution's main rules was also an important reason why the young people were sent on motivational trips. Both staff and the young people stated that one of the reasons for a motivational trip could be if someone had 'secrets' with other young people. It was found that the motivational trips were mainly carried out following a decision by the staff. Thirty-five motivational trips were organised in 2016, and as of 27 April, nine such trips had been carried out in 2017. A document review showed that the trips lasted from a few days up to 14 days. In the Parliamentary Ombudsman's assessment, there was a clear risk that the motivational trips at the Klokkergarden Collective were seen as punishment. It was difficult to see any correspondence between many of the circumstances that could lead to a motivational trip and the guidelines to the Rights Regulations concerning 'destructive behaviour' or 'necessary on the basis of the responsibility to provide the individual with care and considerations for everyone's safety and happiness'. When the staff had decided to take a young person on a motivational trip, the young person was normally pulled aside by staff members in the hallway near the exit of the main building. If the young person did not wish to go on the trip and did not go out to the car voluntarily, the staff and the young person remained in the hallway until the latter consented to the trip. In such situations, the staff would block the doors in the hallway by standing in front of them to prevent the young person from going anywhere but straight out to the car. The young person was not allowed to return to the rest of the group or to their own room, and nor were they allowed to pack their things. The young people were not always told about the reason for the motivational trip. Nor were they told how long the motivational trip would last. The management said that the young people couldn't be informed about the duration of the trip, because the young person him/herself and the work carried out during the trip determined how long the trip would last. In the cases where the young person had not been told about the reason for the motivational trip or where this was not apparent, the length of the trip could be determined by the young person's ability to describe the circumstances that made the adults decide to organise a motivational trip. Several of the young people experienced this as the staff waiting for them to 'confess something' and that if they confessed to the rights things, they would be allowed to go back to the institution. In many cases, the motivational trips also included a period as 'phaseless', and always a plenary meeting at which the young person had to state the reason why he/she was sent on the trip and answer questions from both adults and the other young people. The degree of force and the lack of any real opportunity for the young people to participate meant that it was difficult to see how a motivational trip could make a positive contribution to any lasting change. The young people were placed in a coercive situation where their only way out was to comply with the adults' demands for how they should behave and what they should say. In total, the pressure that was exercised in the hallway before a trip without it being possible for the young person to withdraw to their room, the lack of openness as regards the reason for the trip and its length, the 'phaseless' period and the uncertainty about how long this would last, and the plenary meeting requirement constituted a worrying lack of openness and respect from the institution vis-avis the young people. The fact that, in the past year, there had been an instance where a young person had been subjected to physical pressure to complete a motivational trip, underpins concerns about the risk of inhuman treatment that young people are subjected to through the Klokkergarden Collective's use of involuntary motivational trips. Details: Oslo, Norway: 2017. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Visit-report-2017-The-Klokkerg%C3%A5rden-Collective.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Norway URL: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Visit-report-2017-The-Klokkerg%C3%A5rden-Collective.pdf Shelf Number: 154081 Keywords: Detention Centers Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Motivational Trip National Preventive Mechanism Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

Author: Washburn, Maureen Title: Unmet Promises: Continued Violence and Neglect in California's Division of Juvenile Justice Summary: California's state youth correctional system, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), is violent, isolated, and lacks accountability. Fights and riots are a part of daily life and create a culture of fear. DJJ's violent conditions are concealed by an absence of state oversight and the facilities' long distances from youths' families and communities. For decades, DJJ, and the agencies that preceded it, cycled through numerous controversies. Despite frequent attempts at reform, the state system has continued to subject generations of California youth to inhumane conditions and lasting trauma. In early 2016, DJJ was released from a 12-year lawsuit that had resulted from the discovery of abuse and grievous conditions in the facilities. Despite assurances that the state was entering a new era of rehabilitative treatment, in the three years since court monitoring ended, DJJ has returned to its historical state of poor conditions, a punitive staff culture, and inescapable violence. The state system has reached a crossroads. With more than 1,000 authorized staff and four aging facilities, all serving a youth population of just over 600, DJJ's cost per youth now exceeds $300,000 per year (CDCR, 2018; DOF, 2018; DOF, 2018a). In total, California spends $200 million each year to preserve an antiquated system that is operating at less than 40 percent of its capacity (CDCR, 2017; 2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2018; DOF, 2018a). Californians must reckon with spending levels that are not supported by outcomes while considering DJJ's devastating effects on youth health and well-being. No amount of reform can reverse the failures of a correctional model predicated on prison-like facilities that are isolated from communities. Yet with a record-low youth population and claims by DJJ that they have corrected past harms, the public has turned its attention away from the troubled state institutions. This report aims to examine life in DJJ, from staffing to safety to reentry. Too often, the story of youth confinement is told by those who operate institutions. We have highlighted the experiences of young people who know firsthand the challenges of navigating the system and are grappling with everyday life on the outside (See Methods section). Their insight forms the basis of our conclusions, namely that DJJ leaves youth traumatized, disconnected, and poorly prepared for life after release. Today, as it has for more than 100 years, the state system is failing youth, their families, and their communities, and is neglecting its most basic obligation: to rehabilitate young people and keep them safe. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2019. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2019 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/unmet_promises_continued_violence_and_neglect_in_california_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf?utm_content=&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=new%20report&utm_campaign=New%20Report%20Finds%20Dangerous%20Conditions%20at%20CA%20Division%20of%20Juvenile%20Justice Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/unmet_promises_continued_violence_and_neglect_in_california_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf?utm_content=&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=new%20report&utm_campa Shelf Number: 154669 Keywords: Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Weissman, Marsha Title: Moving Beyond Youth Prisons: Lessons from New York City's Implementation of Close to Home Summary: In the mid-1990s, New York's youth prison system reflected the dominant paradigm across the country - a heavy reliance on incarceration for young people caught up in the juvenile justice system. During this time, roughly 3,800 youth convicted of crimes annually were sent to large facilities, operated either by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) or by private providers contracted by OCFS. These facilities were largely located in upstate New York, far from youths' homes and communities, particularly for youth from New York City (Sickmund et al. 2017; New York State (NYS) Office of the State Comptroller 2001). Upon returning home from these placements, youth often felt disconnected, resulting in poor outcomes. A 2009 study indicated that by age 28, 71 percent of boys released from New York State's juvenile placement system spent some time in an adult jail or prison (Coleman, Do Han Kim & Therese 2009). Fast forward twenty years, and things in New York looked dramatically different. By 2016, New York City no longer sent any youth from its Family Court to state-operated youth prisons. Today, only around 100 New York City youth are placed from Family Court into any kind of residential facility, about a dozen of whom are in a locked facility.3 Not only are there dramatically fewer youth in residential placements, but those who do get placed now go to smaller, more home-like settings that attend to public safety without mirroring the punitive, correctional approaches embodied by previous youth prisons. This case study outlines what happened in the intervening years to achieve these remarkable results. By sharing New York City's story, we offer a roadmap for other jurisdictions looking to realign their juvenile justice systems, adapting the lessons learned about what worked and what did not to meet their specific circumstances. Close to Home (C2H), the initiative that transferred the care and custody of all New York City youth adjudicated as juvenile delinquents from the State to the City, was embedded in a set of reforms that involved policing, detention, and developments in science and evidence-based interventions. While the astronomical costs of the system played an important role, the commitment by key stakeholders to create a developmentally appropriate system without sacrificing public safety and adhering to a shared set of principles and values were key to the system's transformation. This case study describes the development of the Close to Home (C2H) initiative, beginning with a review of what the system looked like before its creation, through the planning and implementation phases of this transformation. It reviews the challenges faced, particularly during C2H's initial implementation, how these were addressed, and the ongoing efforts to adapt the initiative to new and evolving circumstances. Finally, it shares data showing outcomes to date and highlights the role of key stakeholders, including elected officials, policymakers, advocates, and directly-impacted communities that combined to make the C2H reform successful. Details: New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2019. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 6, 2019 at: https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Moving%20Beyond%20Youth%20Prisons%20-%20C2H_0.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Moving%20Beyond%20Youth%20Prisons%20-%20C2H_0.pdf Shelf Number: 154832 Keywords: Close to Home Initiative Community-Based Corrections Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: Center for Children's Law and Policy Title: Implementation of New York's Close to Home Initiative: A New Model for Youth Justice Summary: In 2012, the New York State Legislature and Governor Andrew Cuomo authorized a landmark initiative known as "Close to Home," which was designed to align New York State and New York City's juvenile justice system with research and nationally-recognized approaches to working with young people charged with crimes. In five years, the Close to Home Initiative has transformed the experience of youth who come into contact with the justice system in New York City. By shifting focus away from incarcerating youth in large, dangerous, geographically remote institutions, Close to Home has sent an important message: it is far wiser to keep youth in their communities and near their families, since those connections hold the greatest potential to help youth build new skills and stay out of trouble in the long term. Methodology This is a report on why and how Close to Home began, the challenges it faced, the principles on which it is based, and what it has accomplished. The Center for Children's Law and Policy (CCLP) prepared this report, which was written by Executive Director Mark Soler and Deputy Director Jason Szanyi, at the request of the New York City Administration for Children�s Services (ACS). CCLP is a nonprofit national public interest law and policy organization focused on reform of juvenile justice and other systems impacting troubled and at-risk youth. CCLP has assisted jurisdictions in over 30 states with efforts to improve their youth justice systems, and CCLP staff have conducted dozens of assessments of policies and practices in juvenile justice systems throughout the country. This report is an assessment of ACS's implementation of Close to Home. It is not an assessment of implementation by the state Office of Children and Family Services or by city agencies such as the Department of Probation and Department of Education, although it certainly reflects their efforts. The report also is not a formal scientific evaluation of the Close to Home initiative. Instead, the report focuses on implementation of Close to Home as envisioned by the implementing legislation and ACS's proposed plans. Details: Washington, DC: The Author, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2019 at: http://www.cclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Close-to-Home-Implementation-Report-Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.cclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Close-to-Home-Implementation-Report-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 155175 Keywords: Close to Home Initiative Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Policy Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice System

Author: Association on American Indian Affairs Title: Examining How JDAI Sites Interact with Native Youth and Tribes Summary: Funded by Casey Foundation, this report examines how Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) sites interact with Native American youth and tribes to support appropriate cultural alternatives to detention. The researchers utilized survey and interview data to pinpoint two key areas of concern: a lack of reliable processes for identifying and collecting data on Native youth; and a lack of outreach to tribes regarding a justice-involved Native youth. The document ends by highlighting emerging best practices at JDAI sites serving American Indian youth in Arizona, Montana, New Mexico and Washington and sharing recommendations for reform. Details: Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2018. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 28, 2019 at: https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AAIA-ExaminingJDAISitesNativeYouthandTribes-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AAIA-ExaminingJDAISitesNativeYouthandTribes-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 155195 Keywords: Alternative to Incarceration American Indians Indians of North America Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Native Americans

Author: Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse Title: Safe inside? Child sexual abuse in the youth secure estate Summary: The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse ('the Inquiry') aims to consider the extent to which state and non-state institutions in England and Wales have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation, and to make meaningful recommendations for change. This research explores perceptions and experiences of safeguarding in the youth secure estate in England and Wales, specifically in relation to child sexual abuse. It complements the Inquiry's investigation into the extent of any institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse while in custodial institutions. The research provides contemporary insight from staff and children across different establishments in the youth secure estate. The study sought to find out the extent to which children feel safe from sexual abuse in the youth secure estate, and the role of staff, systems and processes within this. The youth secure estate in England and Wales currently comprises three different types of establishment: Young Offender Institutions (YOIs), Secure Training Centres (STCs) and Secure Children's Homes (SCHs). These three types of establishment vary by size, the age and gender of children they accommodate, staff to child ratios, and their management and governance structures. The establishments also differ in terms of the legal basis for detaining children: YOIs and STCs hold children detained on criminal justice grounds only, however SCHs are able to hold children for criminal justice reasons as well as children held on welfare grounds for their own protection. Children in secure establishments generally come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Prior experience of abuse, sexual or other, and local authority care is common amongst the population (Mendez Sayer et al., 2018). The youth secure estate in England and Wales has seen a continual decline in numbers from an average of 2,932 children and young people for the year ending March 2008 to 900 for the year ending March 2019 (HMPPS, 2018a). This has altered the characteristics of the population, resulting in secure settings holding children serving longer sentences who display more challenging behaviours, have multiple and more complex needs, and pose a greater risk to both themselves and others. The youth secure estate has been assessed by recent independent inspections as being unsafe to hold children. Concerns have been raised around the levels of violence, restraint and children's perceptions of safety. The 2016/17 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMIP) survey highlighted that 39 per cent of children reported feeling unsafe at some point in their current YOI and 22 per cent of children felt unsafe at some point since arriving at their STC (HMIP, 2017b). In 2016/17, there were around 2,700 reported assaults in the youth secure estate and 4,500 recorded incidents of restraint (Youth Justice Board, 2018). This shows the high levels of violence and restraint present across the estate given the relatively small population. Prevalence statistics in relation to child sexual abuse also indicate there were around 200 alleged incidents in the youth secure estate in 2016 and 2017 (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, 2018). These figures are again worryingly high for a population size which has consistently decreased since 2008. Details: London: Author, 2019. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2019 at: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9536/view/safe-inside%3F-child-sexual-abuse-youth-secure-estate-full-report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9536/view/safe-inside%3F-child-sexual-abuse-youth-secure-estate-full-report.pdf Shelf Number: 155605 Keywords: Child Sexual Abuse Child Sexual Exploitation Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Secure Estates Youth Secure Estates