Toward a Tailored Model of Youth Justice: A Qualitative Analysis of the Factors Associated with Successful Placement in a Community-Integrated Facility

Abstract

Community-integrated facilities provide security and care for justice-involved youth, minimizing risks, while allowing youth to build on protective factors within their community. Literature on the specific factors that determine appropriate placement in a community-integrated facility, versus a more restrictive high-security setting, is scarce. Current screening and assessment tools for youth are mostly applied after placement and mainly focus on the reoffending risk. The current paper explored which youth, who would previously have been placed in a high-security setting, could be successfully placed in a less secure community-integrated facility. Through qualitative analysis, based on the perspectives of professionals, youth and parents, the current paper identified six distinct domains to guide appropriate screening and outlines guidelines for policy and practice. These domains include: motivation to comply, short and long-term perspective, current offense context, crime history, safety and support from youth’s network, and mental health and intellectual abilities.

Small-scale, Community-Embedded Youth Justice Facilities: Lessons from Dutch Reforms and Recommendations for Cross-Jurisdictional Implementation

“…In this article, based on three years of action research, we reflect on lessons learned through the development and evaluation of a small-scale, community-embedded youth justice remand facility in the Netherlands. Suited for a diverse population (Souverein et al, 2022), this approach contributes to a graduated justice system, oriented towards meeting young people's developmental needs, while maintaining a balance between security and care. By building on existing community resources, the facility allowed for protective factors (such as connections to school, work, sports, or professional care) to be continued or initiated during the period of confinement (Souverein et al, 2020).…”

“…The last resort principle suggests that young people should not be held under higher levels of security than necessary to reasonably ensure public and institutional safety. Following this logic, a focus on security should not override the focus on building and strengthening protective factors and positive community relationships wherever possible (Austin et al, 2005; Souverein et al, 2022).…”

Relational security: conceptualization and operationalization in small-scaled, strengths-based, community-embedded youth justice facilities.

“…youth who are not likely to abscond) and who can pro t from the opportunities the community-embedded facility offers (i.e, continuation or initiation of protective factors in the community). Souverein and colleagues [41] provide a detailed description of this process. During their stay, youth can be transferred to facilities with higher levels of physical-and procedural security after severe rule breaking.…”

“…During their stay, youth can be transferred to facilities with higher levels of physical-and procedural security after severe rule breaking. During the course of the evaluation this happened in about 14% of all placements [41]. Considering this, one may question whether all results will transfer from this speci c context to another youth justice setting.…”

“…A case study of these transfers revealed that, in most cases, these youth did not necessarily need more intensive levels of security. Safety was jeopardized because these youth had more intensive and specialized care needs [41]. The facilities required a certain level of independence that wasn't suited for all youth (e.g.…”