Abstract
The juvenile justice system in the United States has experienced dramatic changes over the past two decades, with a sharp decline in youth incarceration and renewed emphasis on community‑based responses. Rhode Island exemplifies both the progress and the persistent challenges of reform: while the number of youths at the state’s training school has fallen by 83 % since 2008, racial disparities remain pronounced, and reentry services are fragmented and under‑resourced. This paper revises and expands a prior draft, responding to extensive reviewer feedback about clarity, scope, and methodological rigor. It reorients the analysis around a coherent research question: How and to what extent do Rhode Island’s juvenile justice programs align with restorative‑justice principles, functionalist understandings of social systems, and critical race theory (CRT), and what barriers and opportunities shape youth reentry and prevention? Drawing on updated national and state data and a qualitative study of fifteen professionals in Rhode Island’s youth‑serving agencies, the paper combines thematic analysis with quantitative indicators from official datasets. The literature review situates restorative justice within a broader theoretical landscape, highlights Massachusetts’ community‑based diversion model, examines the school‑to‑prison pipeline and racialized discipline practices, and integrates functionalism and CRT. Results identify major themes—structural barriers and resource deficits, policy reform and public health collaboration, mentorship and family support, trauma‑informed care, stigma and academic support, and cultural inclusion—and show how these themes intersect with gender, organizational role, and theoretical frameworks. The discussion highlights mismatches between restorative rhetoric and practice, underscores the influence of systemic racism, and draws lessons from Massachusetts’ diversion program. Policy recommendations call for statewide restorative‑justice implementation, cross‑system data integration, investment in mental‑health and educational supports, and meaningful youth and family engagement. Limitations include the small sample size and lack of youth voices. Ultimately, the paper argues for a paradigm shift that combines restorative justice with critical race praxis to dismantle structural inequities and support youth success.
