Despite heated debate over levels of convergence and diversity, risk assessment and behaviour management have become central themes of international youth justice strategies in several jurisdictions. However such strategies represent more than a new formula for the governance of delinquent youth as they also offer a novel framework for articulating class discipline within the context of a reconfigured style of sociopolitical and economic leadership. Postmodern social theory has rendered oldfashioned any attempts to meta-theorize about class in criminological research and it is therefore not intended to rekindle the grand narratives generated form orthodox Marxism. Nevertheless, class inequalities, along with those generated by other social forces, continue to structure many social relations and this article will explore the complex micro-processes by which class interests are articulated in youth justice relations through the twin processes of the individualization of risk and the responsibilization of young offenders. The argument is illustrated through research on the outcomes of government sponsored education, training and employment programmes for young offenders in England and Wales.Key Words conflation of risk and criminogenic need • employability • individualization of risk • responsibilization through cognitive behaviour training • transformative risk governance

No abstract

This article reports on a two-year investigation, which maps out contemporary approaches to the delivery of youth justice in England, in light of substantial recent changes in this area of practice. The findings are derived from a detailed examination of youth offending plans and a series of corroborative semi-structured interviews with managers and practitioners from selected youth offending services. Our inquiry has enabled us to develop a detailed three-fold typology of youth justice agencies’ orientations towards practice, represented as ‘offender management’, ‘targeted intervention’ and ‘children and young people first’; as well as a small number of ‘outliers’ where priorities are articulated rather differently. Our findings enable us to reflect on this evidence to suggest that there are a number of ‘models’ of youth justice practice operating in parallel; and that there does not appear at present to be the kind of ‘orthodoxy’ in place which has sometimes prevailed in this field. We also raise doubts about previous representations of unified models of youth justice presumed to be operative at national or jurisdictional levels. We conclude with a number of further observations about the combined effect of current influences on the organization and realization of youth justice, including the growing emphasis on localized responsibility for delivery and increasingly complex expectations of the service context.

Youth justice in England and Wales is delivered by multi-agency Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) which are expected to work in partnership with social welfare agencies to provide 'holistic' support that targets the interrelated personal and social needs of young offenders associated with their risk of reoffending. This article engages with criminological debates which attempt to interpret the hybrid assemblages of penal governance that have characterized late modernity in order to theorize why these partnerships have had only limited success in addressing the social context of youth crime. It will be argued, evidenced by an analysis of research data on YOT partnerships in action, that these assemblages are 'classed' in so much as they act as conduits for strategic elements which articulate powerful class interests (along with those of other social forces) to be translated into practice. Such strategic elements sustain class inequality and deny social justice to young people in conflict with the law.

A key theme underlying recent changes to youth justice in England and Wales has been responsibilising young offenders by holding them accountable for their offending. While this has led to a focus on offending behaviour and restorative justice programmes to address perceived deficits in young offenders' cognitive skills, it has also been recognised that their ability to desist from crime is frequently constrained by acute levels of socio-economic disadvantage. With this concern in mind, policy makers have introduced several initiatives to combat the risks associated with social exclusion, and facilitate reintegration. Yet research suggests that these initiatives have failed to alleviate the problem. It will be argued that this is because New Labour has constituted reintegration as the personal moral responsibility of young offenders, with scant regard to structural barriers and broader social justice ideals. The article concludes by suggesting that a solution may lie in the propagation of a 'transformative' rights-based agenda.