Key recommendations for policymakers
1. Distinguish between ordinary juvenile delinquency and serious crime
Rule breaking that is typical of adolescence is a fundamentally different phenomenon from serious violence and organised criminal activity. These distinct issues require differentiated and proportionate policy responses..
2. Target the most intensive measures at the small group of highly criminally active youth Serious and recurrent offending is concentrated in a very small group of young people. Effective prevention primarily requires individualised and intensive child protection interventions. Offending by the most severely at risk children and adolescents should be addressed by strengthening the range of child protection tools, including residential care services.
3. Consider groups, peer networks and the social context
Youth criminality is often a group based phenomenon. Interventions focused solely on the individual are insufficient. Community and network based approaches and models are needed to address the wider context.
4. Recognise the central role of social policy in crime prevention
Measures that strengthen connection to society, such as high quality education, the prevention of school absenteeism and dropout, and employment opportunities for young people, are essential components of long term criminal policy.
5. Include young people in the design of solutions
Young people are experts in their own environments. Their participation enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of interventions while reducing stigmatisation.
6. Ground policy in research on child and adolescent development
Cognitive control and self regulation continue to develop well into adulthood. This developmental stage also presents significant opportunities for positive influence. These factors must be taken into account in police, prosecutorial, and judicial practices, as well as the social services.
7. Remember that children’s rights form a core framework for criminal policy
Persons under the age of 18 are children even when they commit crimes. Nordic legal practice treats children and adolescents as a distinct group whose rights must be safeguarded. This principle also guides responses to offending and the use of restrictive measures.
8. Acknowledge the overlap between victims and offenders, including forced criminality
Many young people who commit offences are themselves victims of violence or exploitation. In such cases, responsibility must also extend to those who exploit or harm children.
9. Ensure sanctions are swift and certain
For criminal sanctions, certainty and speed are essential. Lengthy processes weaken educational and preventive impact, especially for children. From a child’s perspective, a delayed sanction is difficult to connect to the original act.
10. Shift from short term projects to permanent multidisciplinary structures
Finnish criminal policy currently relies too heavily on short-term projects. Systematic, sustainably funded, community based, and multidisciplinary models are needed, alongside rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness. Police-led preventive work in cooperation with other authorities must be ensured.
Conclusion
Effective criminal policy concerning young people protects children, targets the most intensive measures at the few who commit serious offences, and prevents crime through long-term strategies. A safe society is built on timely support, not early punishment. Interventions must be grounded in research evidence and sustained development.
Summary of the situation in Finland
•The majority of youth offences are minor, especially property crimes and less serious acts of violence. Most young people do not offend repeatedly.
• Serious violence is rare among minors, and homicides and firearms offences in Finland are predominantly committed by adults.
• Serious and recurring offending is concentrated among a small group of youths who often have mental health problems, adverse childhood experiences, exposure to domestic violence, weak school attachment, and early substance use.
• Processes are slow: criminal proceedings involving young offenders often take considerable time, diminishing the preventive and educational impact of sanctions.
• The social services are fragmented: services for minors — especially in mental health and substance use — are insufficient, leaving child protection with substantial responsibility. Crime specific expertise is often lacking within services.
• Multidisciplinary models such as the Anchor Model (Ankkuri) exist, but implementation and intensity vary across regions. Their effectiveness and targeting in relation to the most serious offending remain unclear.
Comparison with other Nordic countries and Estonia
• Estonia has implemented child rights based systemic reforms aimed at preventing at risk children from entering the criminal justice system and minimising custodial sentences for minors. Youth crime has declined substantially, and processes are rapid and individualised. Custodial sentences for minors are practically non-existent and even the use of probation is very limited. Building on these results, Estonia has extended this approach to young adults up to age 29, allowing courts to apply youth specific sanctions to 18–21 year olds.
• Sweden has in recent years shifted toward significantly more repressive policies. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is being lowered, despite a lack of supporting research evidence and concerns raised by experts and even families of crime victims, who emphasise the importance of preventive measures.
• Denmark has experimented with lowering the age of criminal responsibility, but research shows that the reform did not reduce crime. On the contrary, outcomes were partly negative: 14 year olds affected by the reform reoffended more frequently, and their school performance declined.
• Iceland and Norway emphasise multidisciplinary cooperation, community based approaches, and domestic violence prevention as central elements of efforts to reduce youth offending.
A common Nordic finding: serious youth offending is almost always linked to cumulative social problems and cannot be addressed by policing alone.
Helsinki, 11 February 2026
Natalia Ollus, Director, the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control (HEUNI)
Kimmo Nuotio, Director, Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy (Krimo)
Julia Korkman, Professor of Practice (Åbo Akademi), Senior Specialist, the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control (HEUNI)
Assistant Professor Markus Kaakinen, Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy (Krimo)
Further information and contacts
These recommendations are based on the expert seminar Youth criminality in the Nordics: What works?, organised by the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control (HEUNI) and Hanaholmen in October 2025. The seminar brought together researchers and practitioners from all Nordic countries and Estonia. Participants discussed youth crime prevention and intervention based on research evidence and practical experience. Recordings of the seminar presentations are available at YouTube here.
A joint English language Nordic report is currently being prepared by a Nordic expert group and will be published shortly. The recommendations presented here draw on that forthcoming publication.
For further information: [email protected]; +358 294120878 sekä [email protected]; +358 40 5092383