Youth justice progress has changed the population that remains
This report begins with a clear point: youth incarceration has fallen sharply in the United States, and that progress should not be reversed. Between 2000 and 2020, youth detention dropped by about 75%. Youth under 18 held in adult jails and prisons also fell by 84%, from 14,500 in 1997 to 2,300 in 2022. At the same time, juvenile arrests declined dramatically, showing that lower confinement has not made communities less safe.
HR2 youth are a small group with complex needs
The report focuses on a very small subset of young people in the juvenile justice system who are both high risk and hard to reach, often called HR2 youth. In a mid-sized city, the report says this group may number no more than 25 young people. These youth often face overlapping challenges, including trauma, family instability, community violence, school disengagement, mental health needs, substance use and repeated system contact. They may not respond to standard community-based services, not because support does not matter, but because their needs are more intense and their daily lives are less stable.
Public perception can distort policy
A major theme in the report is that a small number of serious cases can drive outsized public fear and pressure policymakers toward harsher responses. Even though the share of youth charged with more serious offenses has risen, the overall volume of youth arrests and detention has plunged, and most youth arrests still involve less serious charges. The authors argue that misperceptions about youth crime can threaten decades of reform and lead jurisdictions back toward ineffective incarceration-heavy responses.
Credible messengers and intensive support show promise
The strongest examples in the report point to community-based, trauma-informed and relationship-centered responses. Programs built around credible messengers and life coaching appear especially promising because they rely on adults with relevant experience and strong community credibility to build trust with youth who often reject traditional services. The report highlights several models that combine mentoring, cognitive behavioral interventions, family support and other wraparound services. These approaches aim to reduce violence and reoffending while improving school engagement, accountability and connection.
Evidence points to promising models, not a finished formula
The report spotlights several programs with encouraging results. Choose to Change found that youth were 39% less likely to be arrested for a violent crime two years after participation than similar youth in the control group. Roca’s Baltimore program found a 19% lower reincarceration rate for participants than for similarly situated nonparticipants. Common Justice reports strong completion and low new-crime rates among participants, offering another example of an accountability model that does not depend on incarceration.
The field still needs answers
The report does not present a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, it calls for more testing, adaptation and transparency. Key unanswered questions include how to respond when youth do not have safe homes, how adult-focused violence intervention models should be adapted for adolescents, which mix of life coaching, family support and cognitive behavioral work is most effective, and when secure residential options may still be necessary. The authors argue that the next phase of youth justice reform should focus on serving HR2 youth more intentionally, while continuing to avoid harmful overreliance on confinement.
This report argues that lasting youth justice reform depends on whether systems can effectively serve the small number of young people with the highest needs, the greatest exposure to harm and the weakest connection to traditional services. This very small subset of young people in the juvenile justice system who are both high risk and hard to reach are often called HR2 youth.
These youth often face overlapping challenges, including trauma, family instability, community violence, school disengagement, mental health needs, substance use and repeated system contact. They may not respond to standard community-based services, not because support does not matter, but because their needs are more intense and their daily lives are less stable.
These youth can shape public debate and policy far beyond their numbers, making it critical to respond with evidence, care and accountability rather than fear. The report’s central message is that incarceration is not the answer. Instead, jurisdictions should invest in specialized, community-based approaches rooted in trust, trauma-informed care, credible messengers and strong family and wraparound support. At the same time, the field should be honest about what it still does not know and build research, data and evaluation into practice from the start.
We hope you'll find value in this report. We’d love to get a little information from you, which we'll use to notify you about relevant new resources.
