Donate Now
Donate Now
Donate

12 Model Law Enforcement Policies
for Youth Interaction

Model Policies

Each POLICY provides law enforcement agencies and officers with guidance on how to interact with youth in developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed, equitable ways that comply with the law. Additional source and background information for the policy can be found in the APPENDIX.

Why Are Youth-Specific Policies Necessary?

Rising reports of harmful interactions between youth and law enforcement agencies and the lack of model policies led Strategies for Youth to fill this void with its 12 Model Law Enforcement Policies for Youth Interactions. These policies are the first of their kind to be introduced and provide a valuable roadmap for law enforcement leaders, elected officials, communities and insurance providers.

Why Youth Policies Are Necessary?

Reviewers

Acknowledgements

Strategies for Youth wishes to thank the 5 Together Foundation for their generous support which has made this endeavor possible.

For the Media

Visit our Model Policies media page for media coverage, our press release, inquiry contact, and related information
Media »

benefits of Adopting these Policies

  • Win-Win. These policies offer a win-win opportunity for proactive law enforcement leaders who want their agencies to get out ahead of issues with youth, thereby reducing agency and officer exposure to liability.
  • Appropriate for Youth. These policies can help agencies operationalize how to treat youth differently than adults, by interacting with youth in a developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed, equitable way.
  • Lead the Way. Leaders should review and consider proactively adopting policies that would benefit the agency and jurisdiction. They can also use the policies to affirmatively shape approaches to policing youth instead of having state legislation impose such requirements.
  • Good Strategy. Pro-active adoption of these policies prior to a tragic incident is good strategy, and reflects a commitment to community policing, and to ensuring the best outcomes for youth.
  • Community Trust. As observers of police reform efforts in jurisdictions where youth have been harmed, SFY notes that once a community loses trust in law enforcement due to it use of unreasonable and excessive use of force, it is very difficult for agencies to re-establish their credibility, legitimacy, and trust with their community. Pro-active adoption of these policies helps to foster and maintain that trust.
  • Roadmap for Reform. These policies can serve as a roadmap for use in agency, legislative, and other discussions, and can be presented as models for adoption at the state, local, and regional levels.
  • Comprehensive. While law enforcement agencies may currently have one or two policies for interactions with youth, SFY’s 12 Model Law Enforcement policies offers a comprehensive template of key areas where policies must support legal protections for youth, equitable, and effective policing.
  • Vetted Policy Examples. Where agencies claim there are no such model policies, these policies can be used to rebut those claims, by offering examples of policies based on legal and social science research, policies adopted pursuant to consent decrees, and policies vetted by psychologists, law enforcement, prosecutors, and attorneys who represent youth in juvenile courts, civil rights and police misconduct litigation.
  • Improve Outcomes. SFY offers these policies as a vehicle to avoid unnecessary interactions between youth and law enforcement, ensure the best possible outcomes for youth when interactions do occur, reduce enduring racial disparities in arrests and use of force against youth, and ensure protection of youths’ rights.
  • Shape Policy. Use the policies to shape statewide approaches to policing youth instead of having a response imposed by state legislation that restricts local options.
  • Reduce Exposure. The policies can serve as a checklist for strategies to reduce exposure to agency and individual officer liability by making explicit prohibitions for conduct such as unreasonable force, unlawful search and seizure, race or disability discrimination, and violations of youth’s Miranda rights. SFY offers these policies for insurers to consider when determining coverage of law enforcement agencies’ practices, especially as regards youth.
  • Incentive for Adopting Better Practices. The value of using these policies as an incentive to eliminate practices that are likely to lead to costly litigation—and put departments at risk of state and federal investigations and costly consent decrees—makes this a worthwhile investment for youth, law enforcement, municipalities and counties.

Poll Highlights a Need for Change

Poll results show Americans want policies and training for law enforcement interactions with youth.

Do Law Enforcement Agencies Have Written Policies For Interactions With Youth?​

No Data Found

More Poll Findings »

Join Our Growing List of Supporters

Sign on

Supporting Organizations

  • Citizens for Juvenile Justice
  • Civil Rights & Police Accountability Project, Mandel Legal Clinic, University of Chicago
  • Coalition for Juvenile Justice
  • Georgetown Center for Juvenile Justice Reform
  • Marion County Commission on Youth
  • Michigan Center for Youth Justice
  • McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown
  • National Police Accountability Project
  • Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
  • Criminal Justice & Legal Studies Department, University of Mississippi
SFY_logo_no_tag_white
CharityNavigator100

Quick Links

Other

Newsletter Sign-up

© Strategies for Youth. All rights reserved.

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Youtube

Before you go...

Please sign up for our newsletter to the latest on Strategies for Youth’s efforts to create safe and thriving communitities for our children.