The psychological science of adolescent behavior and decision-making is reshaping the juvenile justice system

Teenagers tend to be motivated by short-term positive rewards rather than the threat of long-term punishment. But juvenile probation systems, which often require teens to comply with 10 or more rules for months or years at a time, are frequently at odds with what researchers know about adolescent behavior and decision-making.

Psychologists, including Naomi Goldstein, PhD, a professor of psychological and brain sciences and director of the Juvenile Justice Research and Reform Lab at Drexel University in Philadelphia, are partnering with jurisdictions nationwide to revise juvenile probation policies and practices to more closely align with developmental science. For example: rewarding a teen who attends school eight days in a 2-week period with an extended curfew, rather than punishing less than perfect attendance.

“How can we restructure the system based on what we know about adolescent development to promote positive behaviors, rather than fighting against kids’ natural instincts?” said Goldstein, who also codirects the law and psychology program at Drexel University.

[Related: What neuroscience tells us about the teenage brain]

Developmentally informed probation policies are just one way psychologists are helping the hundreds of thousands of teens involved in the juvenile justice system across the United States. Researchers are using their methodological expertise to test the effectiveness of risk assessment tools that inform judicial decisions, while clinicians are developing and delivering trauma-informed care. Psychologists are also synthesizing decades of research on the teenage brain to advocate for policy change at the local, state, and federal levels.

Perhaps most crucially, psychologists and other researchers are helping courts strike a balance between rehabilitating teens and protecting community safety by measuring what actually works to reduce recidivism and improve well-being.

“Judges are making decisions every day about kids, and they need to be making those decisions based on science—not on fear or assumptions that may be irrelevant to long-term outcomes,” said Elizabeth Cauffman, PhD, a professor of psychological science at the University of California, Irvine, who studies adolescent development and juvenile justice.

A change in approach

Thirty years ago, teens who committed crimes were largely treated as “problem kids” by the justice system, and the limited interventions available focused on changing psychology and behavior within the individual, said Robert Kinscherff, PhD, JD, executive director of the Center for Law, Brain, and Behavioropens in new window at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Breakthroughs in psychology and related fields have reshaped that understanding in a number of ways. For one, we now recognize that teens respond differently than adults do to risk and “hot” emotional contexts. We know that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as various forms of abuse and neglect, increase the risk of misconduct. We also understand the crucial role that social networks—including parents and peers—play in determining health and behavior. And we have a growing appreciation for the systemic factors that disproportionately funnel people of color and those living in poverty through a “cradle to prison pipeline,” Kinscherff said.

“We’re slowly turning the ship around from a punitive mass incarceration model into a system that diverts many youths into [more supportive] community-based systems,” he said.

In this population, trauma is extremely common, affecting up to 90% of justice-involved teens (Dierkhising, C. B., et al., European Journal of Psychotraumatology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2013opens in new window). Individual-level interventions that view problematic behaviors through that lens are more likely to resonate with teens and to be effective, said Mandy Habib, PsyD, who codirects the Institute for Adolescent Trauma Treatment and Trainingopens in new window at Adelphi University in New York.

“All of these ‘problem’ behaviors—gang-related activity, aggression, substance use—are often also solutions to very difficult, very painful life circumstances,” she said.

A first step in many jurisdictions is to ensure that all youth entering the system are screened for trauma and then receive psychoeducation and treatment. In Connecticut, Tracey Wheeler, PsyD, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, oversees mental health services at two intensive rehabilitation facilities for justice-involved youth. In addition to individual and family therapy, teens receive daily dialectical behavior group therapy, which teaches emotion regulation techniques such as the “stop skill” (stop, step back, observe, proceed mindfully); provides cognitive tools, including how to weigh pros, cons, and consequences; and addresses self-esteem and identity issues that may contribute to problematic behavior.

In addition to working directly with teens, psychologists are also training caregivers and facility staff in trauma-informed approaches. Carly Baetz, JD, PhD, a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, has helped train both staff and residents of New York City’s juvenile justice facilities in Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapyopens in new window (Target), a framework developed by Julian Ford, PhD, ABPP, of the University of Connecticut. Target uses a shared language (for example, the “alarm” refers to a person’s stress-response system; “focusing” refers to thinking before reacting) to teach teens, staff, and caregivers about trauma and emotion regulation.

Research by Baetz and her team has shown that using trauma-informed approaches can help reduce violence in detention facilities, once a critical mass of residents and staff have been trained (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 36, No. 17–18, 2021opens in new window).

Habib codeveloped another trauma-focused treatment, Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (Sparcs), which she has helped deliver to more than 1,900 youth in juvenile justice facilities. The intervention led to decreases in self-harm and aggression among youth across genders, ages, and ethnicities, she reported.

One teen participant in Sparcs faced a confrontation after he was released from detention. He explained his internal dialogue: “When I get riled up, I say to myself, ‘Breathe, I’m OK, I’m not getting locked up because of this. I want a family, I want a future’...and then I walk away.” He kept his knife in his pocket and stepped away from the fight.

“This is a really critical window for addressing trauma,” Baetz said. “If we can help kids heal at this stage, we’re increasing the likelihood that they can reach all the goals that are important to them, including staying out of the justice system.”

Reducing recidivism and providing support

When a teen is arrested, a court decides whether to process them formally—with probation or detention—or informally. Informal processing, also known as diversion, is commonly used for first-time offenses and low- or moderate-level crimes, such as theft, vandalism, and some types of assault. At a crucial time for intervention, diversion can help kids access behavioral health care, special education, stable housing, and other forms of support. Compared with formal processing of the same crimes, informal processing is also linked with lower recidivism rates, less violent behavior, and higher graduation rates, according to a 5-year study of more than 1,200 adolescent boys conducted by Cauffman and her colleagues (Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2021opens in new window).

In Orange County, Cauffman is also running one of the first randomized controlled trials of a diversion program for young adults, whose brains closely resemble those of teenagers. The Young Adult Court (YAC) guides 18- to 25-year-old men who have committed low-level felonies through a 2-year probation program. If completed, their charges are reduced to misdemeanors or dismissed.

YAC programming includes cognitive behavioral therapy, substance use treatment, mentorship, training on basic skills (how to apply for a job, how to open a bank account), and relationship and parenting workshops. Cauffman has also received funding to create developmentally informed programming for the Orange County Jail and will test its effectiveness through a separate randomized controlled trial.

“As a judge, you want to say you can make a call based on your gut and experience, and there is something to be said for that,” said Orange County Superior Court Judge Maria D. Hernandez, who worked with Cauffman to develop the YAC. “But we also need to know what the science says about a young person’s development, their social maturity, and the best ways to intervene to change behavior.”

Goldstein is working with several public agencies in Philadelphia to divert teens with eligible school-based offenses to voluntary preventive services, rather than arresting them and sending them into the justice system. The Philadelphia Police School Diversion Programopens in new window reduces subjectivity in the referral process—where police typically have significant discretion—by automatically referring all eligible youth to free, voluntary services within their community. After the program was implemented, annual school-based arrests in Philadelphia decreased by 84% and serious behavioral incidents in schools decreased by 34% (Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2021opens in new window).

She has also helped Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other local and state jurisdictions across the country create developmentally informed probation policies. These programs differ based on state laws and local culture, but they broadly emphasize an incentive-based model, rather than one based on sanctions, and prioritize improvement toward goals rather than perfect compliance with a laundry list of conditions. For example, a probation officer might reward a teenager with an inexpensive item they have requested—a pair of headphones or a slice of pizza—for attending their first supervision meeting. A teen may earn the chance to attend a special school function, or the opportunity for a paid internship, if they go to school regularly over an agreed-upon time frame.

In Michigan, developmental psychologist Caitlin Cavanagh, PhD, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University, partners with the Family Division of the Ingham County 30th Circuit Court to answer research questions related to their policies and practices. For example, she found that court supervision reduces teens’ risk of reoffending, but only for the first 19 months (Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 49, No. 9, 2022opens in new window).

“Holding kids under court supervision for more than a year and a half really is not a good use of resources,” Cavanagh said.

The same study also showed that court supervision reduced the risk of recidivism more for White teens than Black teens, suggesting that current interventions used by the court may not be appropriate for addressing the needs of Black youth.

Cavanagh also tests the accuracy of the risk assessment tools themselves, which are meant to reduce discretion-based decision-making by judges (things like “I know this kid’s brother, so he will probably be trouble”). Using actuarial data, these tools aim to predict a teen’s risk of recidivism and help judges decide whether diversion, probation, or detention is likely to help. They can also aid in case planning, such as whether a given teen needs a family-based intervention, substance use treatment, or another type of help based on their individual risks and strengths. Cavanagh tests whether the court’s risk assessment tools are making accurate predictions and directing kids to the correct rehabilitative services.

“Juvenile courts have all of this data that they often don’t know how to maximize,” she said. “They need people who are well versed in statistical analyses, research methods, and the psychological literature to help them understand what they have and how to work towards better outcomes.”

Effecting lasting change

Experts say the surest path to influencing juvenile justice policy at the national level is through the courts, where psychological research has already helped spur change.

In 2004, Laurence Steinberg, PhD, a developmental psychologist and professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, led the APA effort to synthesize research on the psychological differences between adolescents and adults that relate to criminal culpability. That included studies of teens’ increased impulsivity and susceptibility to peer influence in certain circumstances (American Psychologist, Vol. 58, No. 12, 2003opens in new window).

The effort led to a series of amicus briefs, heavily cited in the Supreme Court’s Roper v. Simmons decision—which said using the death penalty before age 18 was unconstitutional—and the subsequent Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, and Jackson v. Hobbs decisions, which collectively outlawed sentencing people under 18 to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Drawing on an updated body of research on developmental psychology and neuroscience, an APA Presidential Task Force to Develop Proposed Policy on Late Adolescence and the Death Penalty compiled psychological research that supports the extension of those protections beyond age 18. In August, the APA Council of Representatives approved the policy resolution (PDF, 97KB)opens in new window with overwhelming support.

“The fundamental argument is that the research the Roper court relied on to exclude 17-year-olds from eligibility for death as a penalty also applies at ages 18, 19, and 20,” said Cecil Reynolds, PhD, an emeritus professor of educational psychology at Texas A&M University, who is leading the new task force. “It’s a logical extension, because the same arguments apply.”

In addition to the policy brief, the task force is creating an amicus brief for the Supreme Court and a tool kit for practitioners working with 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds facing a death penalty charge. The research summary they compiled can also serve as evidence for state legislatures weighing a similar policy change, or in individual cases where the death penalty is on the table.

Psychologists have also summarized research on brain development and trauma to inform other policy initiatives, including advocating for states to ban solitary confinementopens in new window of juveniles and to raise the minimum age (PDF, 760KB)opens in new window for trying children in the juvenile justice system.

In addition to advocating for policy change, psychologists serve as expert witnesses on individual cases, presenting developmental science to the court during the sentencing phase. Through this work, Steinberg has testified in a number of cases where 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds have ultimately avoided the death penalty.

Many of these issues are controlled by state or local laws, policies, and practices, which means there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. But researchers emphasize that partnering with courts in a true codesign process can have a very real impact.

“It really does have to be a partnership, because we know how to analyze data and find answers, but practitioners [in the justice system] know what questions need to be asked,” Cauffman said. “Our priority should be to continue building bridges between science and law.”