The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) system rates how effectively juvenile justice services reduce recidivism. It is based on meta-analyses of programs’ effectiveness and has been validated in statewide analyses by comparing the recidivism of clients in well-rated versus poorly rated programs. This technical report describes an attempt to locally validate the system, using data from the Iowa site of OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiative. The report provides basic information on programs and how they fared on the SPEP.

Crime, victimization, and justice system responses greatly affect the life prospects of the most vulnerable Great Lakes youth, restricting their access to ladders of opportunity. This brief describes how crime and justice involvement impact youth development and opportunity generally, and explores the specific crime and justice intervention context in the Great Lakes states. It presents an array of promising and proven policies and practices that have the potential to deliver more safety while reducing juvenile justice and criminal justice involvement and their negative impact on youth.

Delivering reentry services to youth proves challenging. This brief describes the implementation and sustainability of two Juvenile Second Chance Act reentry programs in Oklahoma and Virginia. Drawing from semi-structured interviews with grantees and community and state stakeholders conducted between 2013 and 2016, evaluators document the challenges to providing prerelease support and coordinating services among institutional and community supervision agencies and organizations.

The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is a system that rates the potential for therapeutic services to reduce recidivism among youth, by comparing programs to what prior evaluation has shown to be effective. SPEP ratings are intended to guide program improvements in a cycle of Continuous Quality Improvement.

Translating research into practice requires a systematic approach grounded in implementation science and input from practitioners. This document details such an approach for The Bridge Project— an effort designed to facilitate translation of juvenile justice research into actionable policy and practice changes through the development of practitioner-friendly, application-ready products. The underlying decision making framework for this project includes: a continuous consideration of evidence, stakeholder feedback, and input carefully weighed and considered at multiple decision points.

Most juvenile justice practitioners are aware of the value of research and evidence-based practices, but few resources exist to help them apply research-informed practices in ways that respect the identities and developmental needs of youth. These and other findings are highlighted in this brief, which documents themes from interviews with key juvenile justice stakeholders.

This brief discusses how the implementation and sustainability of Second Chance Act programs for juveniles were affected by the changing policy contexts in Houston, Texas, and Sacramento, California.

Nzeka, Gloria

Capital News Service January 26, 2018

“An American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry study concluded that the Miranda rights are too complex and advanced for juveniles to understand. Its report prompted police departments across the nation to develop and employ a simplified explanation for juveniles in custody.”

Ackerman, Mark, and Dillon Thomas

Canon City, Colo. (CBS4)

"They thought they’d die in prison, but now a group of inmates serving life sentences are getting a unique look at how life on the outside has changed since they have been incarcerated."

Although youthful offenders account for about 18 percent of all federal offenders sentenced between fiscal years 2010 and 2015, there is little current information published about them. In this publication, the United States Sentencing Commission presents information about youthful offenders, who for purposes of this report are defined as persons age 25 or younger at the time they are sentenced in the federal system (p. 1).