New York State and New York City have been at the forefront of change in Youth Justice for more than a decade, with the closure of youth prisons, raise the age legislation, and the Close to Home initiative. Washington, D.C. has made enormous strides by replacing a notorious youth prison with a smaller, modern facility, and utilizing programs like Credible Messenger Mentoring and focusing on Positive Youth Justice models. California is another example of recent innovation and transformative work in youth justice, where they have completely shuttered the state Department of Juvenile Justice in favor of youth being served at the county level; specific counties, like Los Angeles, are working with advocates and community leaders to transform youth justice locally, and many places are working together on the Positive Youth Justice Initiative. New England states have also all made strides towards real transformation, with groundbreaking steps like New Hampshire becoming the first state to fully close its only youth prison, and Vermont raising the upper age of jurisdiction in the juvenile justice system to 20.

Having taken a critical look at current practice and needs for system transformation, and having reviewed examples of transformation from other jurisdictions, leaders from within and outside of the formal system participating in a collaborative working group can then work together to build consensus on the values and principles that define a new vision for their youth justice system. Engaging all stakeholders in deep discussion about values and principles can create a shared understanding of the new direction, and a commitment to ensuring that the implementation and operation of the transformed system aligns with those values and principles. Understanding shared values and principles is also a helpful step in developing a vision that all stakeholders can relate to and stand behind.

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is intended to challenge the power dynamics within traditional research that suggests expertise lies with the researcher alone instead of in the community. PAR involves a set of principles that guides collaboration to enact social change as an approach that can be applied to any research methodology—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods. There are variations of PAR, including Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) and Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR), that each consider the community or youth, respectively, as units of identity that hold expertise and knowledge needed to study problems and generate solutions.

Community cohesion and a sense of collective efficacy are critical components of healthy, thriving neighborhoods and communities. Years of sociological research have documented the role of community cohesion and collective efficacy in reducing crime and other harmful behavior among both adults and young people.1 A study by the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, which summarized research conducted throughout the 1990s, found that rates of violence are lower in urban neighborhoods characterized by “collective efficacy,” which extends the concept of community cohesion to include mutual trust among neighbors combined with willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good, specifically to supervise children and maintain public order.

‍

This and other research also documents the negative effects on communities subjected to overly aggressive law enforcement and incarceration and the revolving door between probation, parole and prison, including the break-up of families, weakening of social bonds, diminution of social and political capital, erosion of already fragile local economies, and other harmful effects.3 In short, the criminal legal system, including youth corrections, has played a critical role in weakening many communities, with one by-product being an increase in crime rates.

‍

The roots of the current punitive youth justice culture go very deep, as discussed above. Beliefs about the purpose of the system to rehabilitate the troubled or dangerous child, and how to go about that, have been ingrained across youth justice staff and reinforced through training and mentorship for generations. These attitudes are even ingrained to a certain extent among families and communities, who have been conditioned by the paternalistic arm of the system to rely upon it, and may not yet fully understand the possibility of a community-led system. 

Changing beliefs and behaviors is challenging for any person, let alone entire workforces that have known correctional facilities to be the signature feature of their agencies for over a century. Many specifically resist change out of fear of losing their jobs and the livelihood that supports their families, as well as the unknown of what comes next. Unemployment is highly unsavory politically, and unions are powerful institutions that protect youth justice staff and will oppose any change that will result in job loss. Many staff have worked with the system for many years and have experienced waves of reform that have come and gone under rotating leadership—with varying degrees of success.

Having good quality data in a format that can be presented to and digested by staff and external stakeholders—including young people, their families, community groups and advocacy organizations—helps make the indicators of system performance transparent, as well as helping to address inaccurate beliefs, perceptions and myths.  

Sharing data about the system also can create buy-in for reforms, and create opportunities to engage staff and external stakeholders at all levels in problem-solving and transformation efforts.

Develop a strategic communications plan to build support for reform among key audiences and the general public.

While gaining the support of elected and appointed officials is critical, transformation requires much broader and deeper support. Leaders should identify potential partners and targets for influence among advocates, including organizations of young people who have been impacted by the system, their families and their communities. Leaders should also develop a broad strategy to build understanding and support among the general public and any groups with special interest in youth justice, such as victims’ advocacy groups.

‍

Identify the narratives and other information currently shaping dialogue about youth justice.

Public interest in reforming any policy arena is largely shaped by the dominant narratives—the stories people tell each other to make sense of complicated issues—and other assumptions and information the general public as well as policy-makers rely on. Youth justice leaders and others working toward change should assess the current landscape of political and public will for youth justice reform by examining what sources of information shape local dialogue and consciousness around the youth justice system. What are the messages informing the understanding of critical decision makers, including the governor’s office, legislators, county administrators and supervisors, or the mayor’s office?

Examine the information shaping local dialogue and public opinion:

• Local news reports on crime, safety, and public financing;
• Policy or research reports on the youth justice system;
• Public officials’ and local leaders’ framing of public safety approaches;
• Advocacy campaigns around youth Justice;
• Trends in social media commentary and debate

‍

Personal racism.

Our history and culture have generated and reinforced racist beliefs and attitudes in each of us, in both overt and subtle ways. These personal beliefs and attitudes are inseparable from our official, professional roles, and inevitably affect our perceptions about young people, the decisions we make about them and ways that we interact with them.

‍

Systemic racism.

Racism is also embedded in how systems have been developed and function, given the origins and original practices our criminal and youth justice systems were intended to address. Although people may not be fully aware of this history, the impacts of these policies and practices continue to have the same harmful racist impacts, whether intentional or not. For example, several research studies indicate that youth of color are less likely than their white counterparts to be selected for diversion programs.

Structural racism.

Finally, structural racism involves the broader societal conditions that unduly expose people of color to the control mechanisms of law enforcement and the justice system. Generations of structural barriers to securing family-supporting income and accumulating wealth have led to high rates of poverty among families of color. Poverty and its associated hardships create conditions that justify and lead to greater surveillance and intervention by law enforcement in certain communities.