The benefits of participation for young offenders

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the benefits of participation for young offenders. It also explores some of the challenges giving young people “a say”. Design/methodology/approach – This paper reviews and critiques a number of published sources, including peer reviewed journal articles. By critically reviewing the literature, the paper intends to promote discussion and ignite debate on the topic of “offender participation”. Findings – This paper argues that if young people are given a voice and provided with the opportunity to influence how a service is implemented it is more probable that the child will be “rehabilitated”. Furthermore, participation has many benefits for the individual child. More specifically, not only does it increase levels of engagement and compliance with a particular form of intervention or programme, but by being involved in the process, the child's self-esteem increases, making “motivation to change” more likely. Originality/value – This paper argues that despite good policy and practice intentions, the involvement of young offenders in the design and delivery of youth justice services requires further development. Indeed, there needs to be greater opportunities provided to young people, across the Youth Justice System, to “share their views” and influence practice.

Production and secretion of naphthoquinones is mediated by the MFS transporter MFS1 in the entomopathogenic fungus Ophiocordyceps sp. BCC1869

“…Furthermore, it could be questioned whether such individuals are entitled to 'have their say' given their offender status (Creaney, 2014a;2014b). On the other hand, regardless of their status as offenders, as a society, we have an obligation to help a child who is in conflict with the law, provide support and steer them away from a life of crime (Robinson & Crow, 2009).…”

“…Children do value a good relationship with their supervising officer who listens to them and is trusting and respectful. Indeed, there is an increased likelihood that children will actively engage rather than merely participate if such a positive relationship has been formed (Creaney, 2014b). However even if a positive working relationship between the child and practitioner exists, children may see their level of involvement as 'passive … -something that happens to them or is done to them rather than something they can actively engage with and help shape and design' (Hart & Thompson, 2009:24).…”

A “new” response to anti-social behaviour: early reflections on the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

“…Understanding this, practitioners need to commit to eradicating barriers to engagement by ensuring that the starting point of any intervention is the wishes, aspirations and goals of the child not the priorities of the organisations or professionals. More specifically, practice should be empowering and consultative (not prescriptive), child-centred (not adult centric) and capable of providing children with a platform to share an insight into their lived experiences (Creaney, 2014). When we consider that a significant number (around 70 per cent) of children failed to comply with the conditions set out in their ASBO, it is important to (re) consider matters of participation and engagement (Ministry of Justice, 2011).…”

“…There is thus an increased likelihood that a child will comply and actively engage with their anti-social behaviour measure, rather than merely participate (or worse re-offend) if in accordance with international conventions -most notably the UNCRC -and the participatory rights of the child in conflict with the law are promoted. Furthermore, if the conditions are tailored to the individual circumstances of the child, based on an assessment of their needs from their perspective, this can increase the likelihood of changes in behaviour (Creaney, 2014). If for whatever reason the child disengages and breaches the conditions set out in their contract, unlike under previous anti-social behaviour legislation, practitioners are now provided with greater discretion, and in turn flexibility, to decide whether to return a child to court or not.…”

Disorderly analysis: how might we best understand the riots in August 2011?

“…At the heart of children's social care -certainly at the practice level -is the need to promote the welfare needs of the client and deliver personcentred care. However, within youth justice -or criminal justice more broadly -there is political and public ambivalence towards whether children who offend deserve or should be provided with the opportunity to have a say on the purpose of their intervention (Creaney 2014). An approach that emphasises the welfare needs and promotes the human rights of young people should be promoted, where young people are encouraged to become involved in decision making processes (Creaney, 2013).…”