In January 2021, the youth detention center of Nisida hosted 33 prisoners. This institute is located in Naples, in the southern region of Campania and ranked as the most populous youth detention center in Italy. Furthermore, the juvenile detention center of Turin (Ferrante Aporti), in the north of the country, counted 27 inmates, ranking second in the chart.

On an average day in the 2022 financial year, *** Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth aged 10 to 17 years were held in youth detention in Australia, more than the number of non-Indigenous youths in detention in the country. The number has fluctuated over the past five years. In general, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are overrepresented within the Australian justice system.

The objective of the Survey of Jails in Indian Country is to gather data on all adult and juvenile jail facilities and detention centers in Indian country, which is defined for purposes of this collection as reservations, pueblos, rancherias, and other Native American and Alaska Native communities throughout the United States. The survey, a complete enumeration of all 69 confinement facilities operated by tribal authorities or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), provides data on number of inmates, staffing, and facility characteristics and needs. Variables describe each facility, including who operated it, facility age, facility function, rated capacity, authority to house juveniles, number of juveniles held, number of admission and discharges in last 30 days, number of inmate deaths, peak population during June, number of inmates held by sex and conviction status on June 30, number of facility staff by sex and function, facility crowding, renovation and building plans, types of programs available to inmates, and overview of facility and staffing needs.

Abstract (en): This survey of departments of corrections in the United States was undertaken to provide correctional staff with design, implementation, and management strategies to meet the needs of prisoners under the age of 18. The study examined what happens when individuals under age 18 are placed in adult correctional facilities, and explored the ways in which departments of corrections are attempting to deal with the growing population of youthful inmates. The following three objectives were the focus of this study: (1) to describe the number of incarcerated youths (at time of admission) being held in the nation's prison system, (2) to examine the different methods being used to house inmates under 18 years old, and (3) to explore different management approaches used with youthful inmates in terms of the size of the prison system and the area of the country in which they were located. For this study, respondents in 51 departments of corrections (50 states and the District of Columbia) were contacted by telephone regarding survey questions that were mailed prior to the phone interviews. The survey contained five questions concerning current practices for handling offenders under the age of 18 who had been placed in adult correctional institutions. Data were collected on the method used to house underaged inmates and the size of each system's population of inmates under 18 years old. Subsequently, the method and size data were combined to form categories describing four management approaches for dealing with offenders under the age of 18 in adult prisons: (1) separated/big, (2) separated/little, (3) integrated/big, and (4) integrated/little. Demographic variables include the population size and region (Northeast, South, Midwest, or West) of each jurisdiction, as well as the number and proportion of offenders under 18 years old within each state. Also present in the file is the location and name of the facility with the largest under-18 population in each jurisdiction. As the size of the incarcerated population continues to grow, so does the total number of incarcerated youths under the age of 18. Both current research and a recently completed survey by the American Correctional Association (ACA) indicate that there is an increasing number of youth offenders under the age of 18 being confined in adult correctional facilities. This growing population brings new responsibilities for staff in adult prisons. As more juveniles are being sentenced to adult correctional facilities, not much is known about how the adult authorities are dealing with this population. In an effort to provide correctional staff with design, implementation, and management strategies to meet the needs of prisoners under the age of 18, this study examined what happens when individuals under 18 years old are placed in adult correctional facilities, and explored the ways in which departments of corrections are attempting to deal with the growing population of youthful inmates. The following three objectives were the focus of this study: (1) to describe the number of incarcerated youths (at time of admission) being held in the nation's prison systems, (2) to examine the different methods being used to house inmates under 18 years old, and (3) to explore the different management approaches used with youthful inmates in terms of the size of the prison system and area of the country in which they were located. For this study respondents in 51 departments of corrections (50 states and the District of Columbia) were interviewed by telephone. A letter explaining the project's purpose, along with a one-page survey, was first mailed to all of the agencies. Ten days later, all 51 jurisdictions were telephoned and asked to respond to the survey questions. The survey contained five questions concerning current practices for handling offenders under the age of 18 who had been placed in adult correctional institutions. Prior to data analyses, the information received from the nation's 51 jurisdictions was subdivided along two dimensions: the method the correctional facility used for handling its inmates under the age of 18 (either separated or integrated), and the size of the system (big or small). Four methods used to manage the youthful offenders were categorized as follows: (1) correctional facility placing offenders in administrative segregation until they reached aged 18, (2) underaged offenders kept in a separate institution that housed only under-18-year...

The National Inmate Survey, 2011-2012 (NIS-3) was conducted in 233 state and federal prisons between February 2011 and May 2012; 358 jails between February 2011 and May 2012; and 15 special (military, Indian country, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) facilities between February 2011 and May 2012. The data were collected by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS-3 comprised two questionnaires -- a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of mental and physical health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for substance abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned to receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the interview the content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff and the interviewers. A total of 81,566 inmates participated in the survey, including 32,029 inmates in state and federal prisons, 48,066 inmates in jails, 399 inmates in military facilities, 115 inmates in Indian country jails, and 957 inmates in facilities operated by ICE. The NIS-3 was specially designed to provide estimates of sexual victimization for inmates ages 16 to 17 held in adult facilities. Previous NIS collections excluded inmates age 17 or younger due to special human subject issues (related to consent and assent, as well as risk of trauma in the survey process) and statistical issues (related to clustering of youth and the need to oversample to ensure a representative sample). To address issues of consent and risk, the NIS-3 juvenile sample was restricted to inmates ages 16 to 17 (who represented an estimated 95 percent of the 1,790 juveniles held in prisons at year end 2011 and 97 percent of the 5,870 juveniles held in local jails at midyear 2011). The respondents were asked about the type of sexual contact, the frequency, when it occurred, and where it occurred. The survey also sought information on any injuries received and the treatment obtained for those injuries. Other questions pertained to the reporting of sexual contact -- if it was reported, to whom it was reported, and any results from reporting sexual contact. Respondents were also asked for reasons why they had not reported the sexual contact if no report was made. Background and demographic information collected includes reasons for incarceration, sexual history, sexual orientation, marital status, gender, ethnicity, and physical characteristics such as height and weight. The NIS-3 collected data on the mental health problems of inmates for the first time in 2011-12. Inmates were asked whether they had been told by a mental health professional that they had a mental disorder or if because of a mental health problem they had stayed overnight in a hospital or other facility, used prescription medicine, or they had received counseling or treatment from a trained professional.

Due to a hardening of penal sensibilities and more stringent sentencing practices (mainly as a result of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act), a growing number of prisoners are serving extremely long life sentences from an early age. The UK has more life-sentenced prisoners per 100,000 of population than any other country in Europe (including Russia), and a higher proportion of life sentenced prisoners within its total sentenced prison population (10%) than any other European country or the US. The average minimum sentence length for mandatory life sentences has risen significantly in recent years. By the end of December 2018, there were 3,624 prisoners serving life sentences with tariffs of 10-20 years, and 1,862 with tariffs of more than twenty years (Ministry of Justice, 2019).

These prisoners have to endure and adapt to periods inside prison that are often longer than their lives as free citizens, while maturing into adulthood in an environment that does not allow, or is hardly conducive to, normal adult experiences. Following on from an earlier study of long-term imprisonment (grant: ES/J007935/1), undertaken from 2011-2014, this research constituted an unprecedented opportunity to enhance our understanding of the dynamics and effects of long-term confinement. Its primary aims were, first, to meet Kazemian and Travis's (2015) call for longitudinal insight into the experience, dynamics and effects of long-term confinement, including the ways in which the lives, priorities and relationships of people serving life sentences change over time; second, to focus more closely on some of the key themes and findings from our original study, in particular, the ways in which individuals engage reflexively with their sentence, their index offence and their sense of self; and, third, to explore the concept of the 'depth of imprisonment' - put simply, the relationship and polarity between the prison and the outside world - that is of particular relevance for this group of prisoners.

Interviews were undertaken, and surveys re-administered, with as many of our original sample as possible. Overall, this amounted to 120 of 146 initial participants, 100 in prison (out of 110 still in custody when fieldwork began) and 20 (out of 29) who had been released into the community on life licence.

The research offers insight into the nature and impact of long-term imprisonment, at a time when practitioners, pressure groups and policymakers are particularly interested in the custodial and post-custodial experiences of this expanding group. It contributes significantly to a sparse and outdated research literature on the experiences of life-sentenced prisoners, serving extremely long sentences. In doing so, it addresses fundamental questions about identity, coping and humanity under intense duress, and about the lived outcomes of the most extreme form of state punishment.

Due to a hardening of penal sensibilities and more stringent sentencing practices (mainly as a result of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act), a growing number of prisoners are serving extremely long sentences from an early age. The UK has more life-sentenced prisoners per 100,000 of population than any other country in Europe (including Russia), and a higher proportion of life sentenced prisoners within its total sentenced prison population (10%) than any other European country or the US. The average minimum sentence length for mandatory life sentences has risen significantly in recent years. By the end of December 2018, there were 3,624 prisoners serving life sentences with tariffs of 10-20 years, and 1,862 with tariffs of more than twenty years (Ministry of Justice, 2019).

These prisoners have to endure and adapt to periods inside prison that are often longer than their lives as free citizens, while maturing into adulthood in an environment that does not allow, or is hardly conducive to, normal adult experiences. Following on from an earlier study of long-term imprisonment (grant: ES/J007935/1), undertaken from 2011-2014, this research constituted an unprecedented opportunity to very significantly enhance our understanding of the dynamics and effects of long-term confinement. Its primary aims were, first, to meet Kazemian and Travis's (2015) call for longitudinal insight into the experience, dynamics and effects of long-term confinement, including the ways in which the lives, priorities and relationships of people serving life sentences change over time; second, to focus more closely on some of the key themes and findings from our original study, in particular, the ways in which individuals engage reflexively with their sentence, their index offence and their sense of self; and, third, to explore the concept of the 'depth of imprisonment' - put simply, the relationship and polarity between the prison and the outside world - that is of particular relevance for this group of prisoners.

Interviews were undertaken, and surveys re-administered, with as many of our original sample as possible. Overall, this amounted to 120 of 146 initial participants, 100 in prison (out of 110 still in custody when fieldwork began) and 20 (out of 29) who had been released into the community on life licence.

The research offers insight into the nature and impact of long-term imprisonment, at a time when practitioners, pressure groups and policymakers are particularly interested in the custodial and post-custodial experiences of this expanding group. It contributes significantly to a sparse and outdated research literature on the experiences of life-sentenced prisoners, serving extremely long sentences. In doing so, it addresses fundamental questions about identity, coping and humanity under intense duress, and about the lived outcomes of the most extreme form of state punishment.

The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) were undertaken in response to the mandate of the 1984 Missing Children's Assistance Act (Pub.L. 98-473) that requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to conduct periodic national incidence studies to determine the actual number of children reported missing and the number of missing children who are recovered for a given year. The third installment, NISMART-3, was undertaken in 2011 and is comprised of three components; an adult household survey, a survey of juvenile facilities and a survey of law enforcement. It was designed to provide a comprehensive picture of the population dealing with missing children issues and each component focusing on a different aspect of that population namely; the general population, law enforcement and juvenile detention centers across the country. Due to low response rates the data from the youth supplement to the household survey and the juvenile detention center data are unavailable and are not provided here.

BackgroundEvidence indicates that criminal behaviour in youth is linked with a range of negative physical, mental, and social health consequences. Despite a global decrease over the last 30 years, youth crime remains prevalent. Identifying and mapping the most robust risk and protective factors, and intervention strategies for youth crime could offer important keys for predicting future offense outcomes and assist in developing effective preventive and early intervention strategies. Current reviews in the area do not include literature discussing at risk populations such as First Nations groups from countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This is a critical gap given the disproportionally high rates of incarceration and youth detention among First Nations people globally, particularly in countries with a colonial past. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the key risk and protective factors, along with intervention strategies, that are essential for recognizing adolescents and young adults at risk of crime.MethodsThis scoping review protocol has been developed in line with the Arksey and O’Malley framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers’ Manual. The review protocol was preregistered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kg4q3). ProQuest, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo were used to retrieve relevant articles. Grey literature was searched using Google searches and ProQuest dissertations databases. Original research articles examining protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies for prevention and reduction of crime in 12-24-year-olds were included. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility decisions and data extraction. Findings has been reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.ConclusionAnticipated findings suggest that current research has extensively examined factors across all levels of the socioecological model, from individual to community levels, revealing a predominant focus on individual-level predictors such as substance use, prior criminal history, and moral development. The review is expected to identify effective interventions that address critical factors within each domain, including Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), which have shown promise in reducing youth crime. Additionally, it will likely highlight significant trends in risk and protective factors, such as the dual role of academic achievement—both as a risk and protective factor—and the impact of family-based interventions. The review will also address gaps in research, particularly regarding Indigenous youth, underscoring the need for targeted studies to better understand their unique challenges. These findings will guide future research and inform the development of comprehensive prevention and early intervention programs tailored to diverse youth populations.