Behavioral health needs in justice-involved adolescents are an increasing concern, as it has been estimated that two-thirds of youths in the juvenile justice system now meet the criteria for one or more psychological disorders. This article describes the application of the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM), developed to describe five "points of interception" from standard prosecution into rehabilitation-oriented alternatives for adults (Munetz & Griffin, 2006), to juvenile justice. The five SIM intercepts are: (1) first contact with law enforcement or emergency services; (2) initial hearings and detention following arrest; (3) jails and courts (including problem-solving courts); (4) re-entry from jails, prisons and forensic hospitals; and (5) community corrections and community support, including probation and parole. Modifying the SIM for application with justice-involved adolescents, this article describes three examples of interventions at different intercepts: Intercept 1 (the Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program), Intercept 3 (problem-solving courts for juveniles), and Intercept 5 (juvenile probation). Relevant research evidence for each example is reviewed, and the further application of this model to juveniles is described. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In 2017, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) passed a resolution advocating for empirically supported juvenile probation reform nationwide. Here, we review the adolescent development and behavioral decision-making research underlying the principles enumerated in the NCJFCJ resolution and describe several of its critical elements. Then, to provide guidance to jurisdictions seeking to revise local policy and practice, we suggest a series of steps that would help juvenile justice professionals translate NCJFCJ resolution principles into innovative probation reform. Finally, we describe how two jurisdictions-Pierce County, Washington and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania-have engaged in ongoing juvenile probation reform efforts to provide real-world models of how this translational work can be carried out successfully. What is the significance of this article for the general public?In 2017, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges passed a resolution advocating for nationwide juvenile probation reform; the resolution was developed to align with findings from adolescent development and behavioral decision-making research. This article reviews the research underlying the principles of the resolution and provides step-by-step guidance to jurisdictions seeking to make such changes to local juvenile probation policy and practice. It also highlights the ongoing juvenile probation reform efforts in Pierce County, WA and Philadelphia County, PA to provide examples of two counties currently carrying out this translational work.

Although diversion programs can allow arrested youth to avoid formal justice system processing, unsuccessful program completion can result in adjudication. Thus, it is important to determine whether youth successfully complete programs and identify factors linked to success. We examined records from 933 postarrest diversion program participants. Youth received a wide range of conditions during participation and the vast majority successfully completed the program, became eligible for record expungement, and avoided rearrest within 3 years. Analyses revealed significant relationships between program completion and factors related to referral charge and imposed conditions; gender and program outcome were also linked to recidivism. Results both support the use of diversion programs to limit formal juvenile justice processing and encourage further evaluation of such programs.

There is a dearth of empirical research investigating public awareness or perceptions of the impact of collateral consequences of juvenile justice system involvement on youths' lives. The current study recruited 555 Pennsylvania residents through Amazon Mechanical Turk to participate in a brief, educational intervention on collateral consequences of system involvement. Participants read a short vignette about a hypothetical youth who was adjudicated delinquent in Pennsylvania, answered 20 knowledge-based questions, and provided pre-and postintervention ratings of the impact the delinquency finding would have on the youth's life in the short term and in the long term. Results of linear mixed model analysis revealed significant fixed effects of both phase b = .62, p < .001, 95% CI [.47, .78] and timing (before the youth turns age 18 and after the youth turns age 18), b = -.98, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.18, -.78], on impact ratings (i.e., how big an impact a juvenile adjudication will have on the youth's life). Participants provided incorrect responses to approximately half of collateral consequences, indicating a gap in knowledge. Findings from the

This paper explores parallels between experiences of confinement due to pandemic-related restrictions and confinement as a result of legal incarceration. We compare experiences of social isolation, lack of choice, and reduced access to resources while also acknowledging the existence of significant differences between the two situations. We describe the ways in which experiences of confinement as part of COVID-19 regulations can provide the general public with insight into difficulties associated with incarceration and the negative effect it can have on psychological health.