Supporting Young Offenders to Communicate in the Youth Justice System: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Research at York St John (RaY) is an institutional repository. It supports the principles of open access by making the research outputs of the University available in digital form.

YOT Talk: Examining the communicative influences on children’s engagement with youth justice assessment processes

“…The YOT Talk project explored the explanatory and evidential voids around children's communicative engagement in youth justice assessment interviews (see Sowerbutts et al, 2019), the rationale being that presumptions of communicative deficits (for example, DLDs, SPLDs) and attitudinal problems often supersede or preclude explanations for this engagement that are founded in the meaningful examination of communicative features and child-adult interactions within interview contexts.…”

“…The lack of empirical and practical attention to practitioner communication in assessments is compounded by the very limited evidence base of research focused on children’s perceptions of their own literacy and communication skills and of the impacts that any perceived or real communicative deficits may have on their interactions with professionals (for example, Hopkins et al, 2015). Furthermore, the restricted assessment of the language and communication skills of children who offend that is available (for example, Winstanley et al, 2019) has typically relied on proxy measures of competence (for example, psychometric assessments of non-verbal IQ), rather than direct observations of language use in practitioner–child interactions (Sowerbutts et al, 2019), such as those offered in the current study. A corollary of these responsibilizing presumptions in assessment processes and their related communicative dynamics, therefore, has been the privileging of adult (policy, practice) perspectives and expertise and the simultaneous under-emphasis of children’s voices and participation in assessment relationships (for example, co-constructing and negotiating the meanings and understandings that shape assessment and intervention) in theoretical, conceptual, empirical and practical explanations of dis/engagement in youth justice contexts.…”

“…DLDs/SPLDs are often linked to other unmet complex needs that can be criminogenic (Nacro, 2011; Talbot, 2010; Taylor et al, 2014). The purported criminogenic relationship between communicative deficits (diagnosed or perceived) and children’s offending is potentially problematic because ‘participation in the YJS requires considerable proficiency in language’ (Sowerbutts et al, 2019: 1) and children who offend ‘must navigate a succession of challenging verbal interactions’ (Sowerbutts et al, 2019: 2). Therefore, where identified/diagnosed communicative deficits are present, the communicative abilities of practitioners and paying attention to potentially deleterious communicative dynamics become even more important in facilitative effective assessment.…”

“…Moreover, there remains a paucity of guidance for practitioners regarding both how to address and enhance children’s communicative ability to engage during assessment interviews and how to avoid exacerbating existing communicative deficits through harmful communicative dynamics. Where guidelines exist for supporting communication in youth justice interactions, their evidential basis and validity remain unclear (Sowerbutts et al, 2019).…”

The importance of screening for speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) in police custody

“…The police custody setting is one of the most challenging environments a person can experience in terms of communication requirements (Holloway et al, 2020). The suspect is required to respond to complex questions (Herrington & Roberts, 2012) with potentially unfamiliar vocabulary (Sowerbutts et al., 2021) and rapid topic changes, while remembering and articulating an experience in sequence, against a milieu of heightened emotions (Skinns & Wooff, 2021). Unsupported speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) represent a significant barrier in this context where engagement is heavily reliant on effective comprehension and communication (Eastbrook & Snook, 2012; MacRae & Clarke, 2021).…”