CONCORD, N.H. -- With the new school year in full swing, a new report from The Sentencing Project outlines key steps New Hampshire and other states could take to end what they call the school-to-prison pipeline.

Michelle Wangerin, youth law project director for New Hampshire Legal Assistance, said most school districts in the Granite State have police officers stationed in schools, known as school resource officers. She contended it often leads to more students getting arrested or referred to law enforcement for low-level offenses, pointing to data from the Office of Civil Rights.

"It's certainly still an issue in New Hampshire," Wangerin asserted. "And we certainly do have higher than national averages for referrals to law enforcement, even though we have lower than national averages of crime."

The report noted students suffered learning loss and disengagement while studying at home last school year, especially low-income, Black or Latinx students, English language learners and students with disabilities, who are also more likely to be suspended or expelled from school. It urged school officials to invest in new resources to keep young people out of prison and in the classroom.

Nate Balis, director of the juvenile justice strategy group for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, said federal COVID stimulus funding for education, totaling more than $120 billion, offers an unprecedented chance to launch services outside of law enforcement to help vulnerable children.

"There's opportunities for funding that have never been there before," Balis explained. "Where we can support young people and their families through tutoring and mentoring, or from community programs that may not exist in those districts right now."

The report also pointed out most schools do not have enough counselors or other mental-health professionals, despite evidence which shows, unlike police officers, their presence promotes safety and enhances student success.

Keeping track of student arrests and law enforcement referrals is a key tool for transparency and accountability within schools, but a new report found some Pennsylvania schools have regularly underreported data on student arrests.

Analysis by the ACLU of Pennsylvania showed Allegheny County public schools underreported student arrests by 83% in the 2017-2018 school year, including Pittsburgh Public Schools, which reported no arrests.

Ghadah Makoshi, community advocate for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said misrepresentation erodes trust in the education system.

"It also impacts all their peers. It impacts the adults," Makoshi noted. "It changes the environment, the dynamics, that is happening in that school. And then, when you take that even further, it impacts the community if that student drops out, if they're no longer engaged. It is a greater city/community issue."

Juvenile justice system data show 499 student arrests within Pittsburgh Public Schools that year. District officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The underreporting extends beyond Pennsylvania as well, with discrepancies found in New York and Los Angeles.

The report said the county's Black public-school students were arrested at nearly nine times the rate of white students during the 2018-2019 school year, a difference higher than the national average.

Makoshi pointed out one of the recommendations in the report is to ensure police are not involved in ordinary, everyday school discipline.

"The other thing that happens when police get involved is that things tend to escalate," Makoshi asserted. "Police should only be involved, one, when it's mandated by the state -- and there are specific infractions where police must be notified and must be involved -- or [two], when there's a health-and-safety emergency."

Minor offenses and drug charges accounted for nearly half of all public-school arrests in Allegheny County. Other recommendations in the report include reinvesting funds for police into student resources such as school psychologists, nurses, counselors and social workers.

New Mexico's 30 day legislative session, held in even-numbered years, typically focuses on budget issues, but juvenile justice advocates are hopeful the governor will prioritize a bill that failed to pass last year.

The bill would have banned life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, and would make them automatically eligible for parole after 15 years.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico Staff Attorney Denali Wilson said she believes the legislation would balance the needs to protect public safety, respect the rights of victims and also address harsh sentencing.

"And, the need to treat children, who we know possess unique capacity to grow and change, to treat them differently than we treat adults who commit similar crimes," said Wilson.

According to Wilson, increased parole options for young people who commit crimes creates incentive for good behavior and participation in rehabilitation programs.

She said she hopes New Mexico will join the movement in 25 states that have already abolished juvenile life-without-parole sentences.

But some opponents of so-called "second chance" bills would like to see New Mexico remain an outlier in the movement.

Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins founded the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers after her family members were killed by a person under age 18, and is its president. Her group argued against the bill in last year's session.

"We're not 'fry 'em all, lock 'em up' type people," said Bishop-Jenkins. "That's not what's going on here. We want individual victims' families to be able to speak out to what they think is appropriate in their case. And we want the judicial system to determine fair penalties."

At the ACLU, Wilson said she has clients sentenced for crimes at age 16 and still in prison, nearly 40 years later.

She said that costs taxpayers a lot of money. She noted a recent case that took two years and involved two district attorneys, two defense attorneys and significant judicial resources.

"Everybody in the room agreed the sentence was unconstitutional and needed to be fixed," said Wilson. "And this kind of litigation will continue unless and until the legislature acts."

Wilson says 75 people fall under the provisions of the "second chance" bill in New Mexico.

As the court system works to catch up from pandemic disruptions, many courts continue to use remote technology or are testing new ways to incorporate it. But groups that advocate for criminal-justice reform and juvenile justice are voicing concerns. They say these steps raise questions about litigants' rights, their access to representation and other resources.

Especially with children, said Veronica Williams, who founded Mothers Against Wrongful Convictions, it's important for them to feel they have a support system, and in-person relationships can be key.

"When they are dealing with court hearings and proceedings, we have to understand that they are fragile," she said. "And when they become fragile, they can become disoriented. And if we're not careful, we lose them in the system."

Research has found children are more likely to be perceived as less accurate, believable or consistent if they testify by video. In a study by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 66% of respondents said "going remote" has compromised attorney-client communication, making it harder to have confidential conversations and build relationships.

Without universal access to high-speed internet, said Doug Keith, a counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice, many attorneys working during the pandemic have reported poor audio or video quality. He noted that 4% of Americans and 9% of those in rural areas lack access to broadband.

"Twenty-six percent of people in the Black, rural South and 18% of people on tribal lands lack such access," he said, "so it's clear that there are significant communities across this country, and within most states, that have disparate access to this technology."

He said there are some contexts where remote hearings can be beneficial - for instance, in civil cases with low-income parties who may have limited time off work, or for legal-aid organizations to reach underserved areas of their states. But he said it's important to take a careful look at whether proceedings can have better outcomes in person.