Transatlantic ‘Positive Youth Justice’: a distinctive new model for responding to offending by children?

Case, Stephen; Haines, Kevin

doi:10.1057/s41300-018-0046-7

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather than a strict adherence to program models designed by adults to address so-called deficits and risks, CFOS works toward relationship-building, and input from the child guides the work (Case and Haines, 2015; Gray and Smith, 2019; Smith, 2014; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2016). While the CFOS framework centers on supporting positive changes in children’s personal lives, it also acknowledges the importance of ‘source-reduction’ efforts by recognizing that positive outcomes ‘can also be systemic and structural , stemming from broader changes in the ways that children who offend are understood and worked with’ (Case and Haines, 2018: 219).…”

Section: What Is To Be Done: Beyond Individualized Risks and Expandinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconnecting Youth: Beyond Individualized Programs and Risks

Myers¹,

Goddard²,

Davidtz³

2020

Youth Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presently in the United States, cognitive behavioral approaches are thought to be one of the most effective ways to intervene in the lives of young people in trouble with the law. However, such individualized approaches to youth in trouble with the law, and the risk-based logics that accompany them, say some, often ignore the relationships that young people have with caregivers, as well as the broader social ecological, economic and political contexts within which those relationships develop. Once the individual change work is completed, young people must have productive roles and supportive relationships to return to, especially if we want youth justice practice to translate into justice for youth. Given that meaningful attachments with others serve as the primary context within which individuals learn to regulate emotions and behaviors, youth justice policy and practice ought to seek to repair the capacity to attach and relate –and broader social policy reforms must address the social and economic inequalities that make the adversity and harm that undermine that capacity more likely. In this article, we discuss the limitations of over-relying on skills-based therapies and examine how the neglect of social, material and relational contexts can undermine the meaning and effectiveness of youth justice interventions. Following this, we describe how a youth justice system that attends to relational needs and structural inequalities might better meet the needs of young people.

show abstract

Section: What Is To Be Done: Beyond Individualized Risks and Expandinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconnecting Youth: Beyond Individualized Programs and Risks

Myers¹,

Goddard²,

Davidtz³

2020

Youth Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This allows us to estimate the mean number of proven re-offences committed per proven offender per 12-month period. 4 The total number of proven re-offences committed by all proven offenders during any given year (m t ) can therefore be estimated as follows: 4 Some of the index disposal linked crimes will have been committed in the year preceding the given year but these will be largely 'balanced' by index disposal linked crimes committed by proven offenders in the year subsequent to the given year. Explaining the crime drop: contributions to declining crime rates...…”

Section: Estimating Population Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dunkel [2] defines this shift as a move away from the B4 Ds^of diversion, decriminalisation, deinstitutionalisation and due process, to the B4 Ds^of responsibility, restitution/reparation, restorative [justice] and retribution. Different and often competing models, loosely defined by the opposing models of 'justice' and 'welfare' [3], policies, which Case and Haines [4] define in more detail as 'dystopian' (emphasising control and responsibility) or 'utopian' (recognising the rights of children). Whilst these positivistic and classicist models of youth justice are theoretically opposing, a 'continua' [4] or 'hybrid' range of responses exist in order to address youth offending behaviour, for example, restorative justice and minimum intervention/diversion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different and often competing models, loosely defined by the opposing models of 'justice' and 'welfare' [3], policies, which Case and Haines [4] define in more detail as 'dystopian' (emphasising control and responsibility) or 'utopian' (recognising the rights of children). Whilst these positivistic and classicist models of youth justice are theoretically opposing, a 'continua' [4] or 'hybrid' range of responses exist in order to address youth offending behaviour, for example, restorative justice and minimum intervention/diversion. Current 'neo-correctionalist' models that characterise the dominant approach advocated in England and Wales, are examples of the hybridisation of youth justice policies with an emphasis upon the responsibility of the offender on the one hand and the prevention of further offending on the other [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Current 'neo-correctionalist' models that characterise the dominant approach advocated in England and Wales, are examples of the hybridisation of youth justice policies with an emphasis upon the responsibility of the offender on the one hand and the prevention of further offending on the other [5]. Strategies such as 'early intervention' and addressing 'pre-delinquent' behaviours have been criticised on the grounds that they punitively address minor negative behaviour at the expense of actual positive ones [4]. However, as Goldson and Muncie note in relation to the continuing shifts in youth justice policy and aims: B[ … ] youth justice policy discourses and the systems that emanate from them, comprise fluid sites of contestation and uneasy settlements of competing and/or intersecting thematics including: welfare; justice; informalism; rights; responsibilities; restoration; prevention; remoralization and retribution/punishment^( [6]; p.91) Hence, these continually shifting aims, policies and practices implemented to address youth crime are essential to be understood in terms of how they contribute to the overall crime rates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Explaining the crime drop: contributions to declining crime rates from youth cohorts since 2005

Griffiths

Norris

2019

Crime Law Soc Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the mid-90s there has been almost a 50% reduction in the volume of crime in England and Wales -a trend that has been mirrored in many Western countries (Greenberg Justice Quarterly, 31(1), 2014). Despite previous assumptions, for example, declining birth cohorts, it is proposed here that the decline in crime for the 1995-2005 period can largely be attributed to a doubling of the probability of a crime being 'proven' (cf Lloyd et al. 1994; MOJ, 2012;Taylor 2016). However, in the last decade these reductions in crime rates have levelled off to a relatively stable degree. Analysis of published data relating to the performance of the criminal justice system in England and Wales suggests that reductions in crime levels since 2005 are largely accounted for by the fall in proportion of the youth population engaging in offending behaviour. It is argued that falls in rates of crime are largely independent of the offending frequency of young people or variations in the probability of offences being proven; rather, reductions in youth crime over this period could largely be attributed to policy changes, including multiagency interventions targeted at young people who were at risk of starting to offend (McAra and McVie 2015;Smith 2015). Further discussion suggests that the binary proven reoffending rate is not an accurate barometer of criminal justice system performance; rather it is argued that reductions in the youth offending population feed forward into later reductions in the number of adult offenders and further impact on overall crime rates in the longer term.Crime, Law and Social Change (2020) 73:25-53 https://doi.

show abstract

The effects of aftercare/resettlement services on crime and violence in children and youth: A systematic review

Wong,

Lee,

Beck

2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHigh rates of youth re‐offending indicate that young custody‐leavers face challenges when reintegrating into their communities. Aftercare and resettlement programs can occur pre‐, during, and post‐release and generally provide multiple forms of support services to address youths' transitional needs.ObjectivesThe present review examines (1) the impact of youth aftercare/resettlement programs on crime‐related outcomes, (2) how treatment effect is moderated by participant, program, and study characteristics, (3) whether some types of interventions are more effective than others, (4) barriers/facilitators to effective program implementation, (5) the theory of change underlying resettlement interventions, and (6) available research on intervention cost.Search MethodsA comprehensive set of keywords and synonyms was combined in a Boolean search across 26 electronic databases. Multiple gray literature sources were also searched, including 23 journals, 4 meeting archives, 11 organization websites, 3 open access journal websites, and the CVs of 8 well‐known researchers in the field. The search was completed in January 2023.Selection CriteriaFor objectives 1–3, studies were included if they utilized a randomized controlled design or quasi‐experimental comparison group design in which participants were matched on at least some baseline variables and included at least one quantitative individual‐measure of crime. For objective 4, included studies presented process evaluations of aftercare/reentry programs, clearly stated their research goals, and used qualitative methods in an appropriate way to answer the stated research question. For objectives 5 and 6, no specific methods were required; any study meeting the criteria for objectives 1–4 which presented findings on theory of change or cost data were included. For all outcomes, only studies conducted in a westernized country, and published after 1991 in English, French, or German were considered.Data Collection and AnalysisTwo coders conducted primary data extraction for the included studies. Data were entered into a Microsoft Excel database. After data extraction, the two coders validated the coding by cross‐checking the database with each research report. Discrepancies between coders were discussed until consensus was reached. Where consensus could not be reached, a third coder was consulted. Study risk of bias was addressed using the ROBINS‐I (Sterne et al., 2016), ROB‐2 (Higgins et al., 2019), and the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP, 2018). Objectives 1–3 were addressed by synthesizing quantitative outcomes from rigorous impact evaluations of aftercare interventions using random effects models and meta‐regression. Thematic and narrative analysis was conducted to address objectives 4–6.ResultsThe search resulted in 15 impact studies, representing 4,718 participants across 21 program sites, and 35 effect sizes. The 21 impact evaluations were rated as having either low/moderate bias (k = 11) or serious bias (k = 10). The synthesis of 15 impact studies found no significant effects for arrest (k = 14; OR = 1.044, 95% prediction interval [0.527, 2.075], t = 0.335) or incarceration (k = 8, OR = 0.806, 95% prediction interval [2.203, 1.433], t = −1.674). A significant pooled effect was found for conviction (k = 13, OR = 1.209, 95% prediction interval [1.000, 1.462], t = 2.256), but results were highly sensitive to the inclusion of specific studies. No meaningful pattern of results emerged in moderator analyses with respect to study, sample, program component, or program delivery characteristics. The 19 process studies were rated as either high quality (k = 12) or moderate quality (k = 7). Thematic synthesis of the process evaluations revealed 15 themes related to the strengths/challenges of program implementation. The assessment of program cost (k = 7) determined a lack of data within the literature, preventing any summative analysis.Authors' ConclusionsCurrent evidence is promising with respect to conviction outcomes but overall does not find that aftercare/resettlement interventions have a reliably positive impact on crime‐related outcomes for young people who have offended. High variability across outcomes and reported data resulted in small sample sizes per outcome and limited moderator analyses. Multiple challenges for program implementation exist; additional rigorous research is sorely needed to further investigate the nuances of the program effects.

show abstract

Transatlantic ‘Positive Youth Justice’: a distinctive new model for responding to offending by children?

Cited by 13 publications

References 29 publications

Reconnecting Youth: Beyond Individualized Programs and Risks

Reconnecting Youth: Beyond Individualized Programs and Risks

Explaining the crime drop: contributions to declining crime rates from youth cohorts since 2005

The effects of aftercare/resettlement services on crime and violence in children and youth: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About