Young People ‘At Risk’ of What? Challenging Risk-focused Early Intervention as Crime Prevention

Abstract

This article attempts to broker a compromise between critical criminological challenges to the populist (punitivist) and negative conceptions of young people ‘at risk’ of offending -which are used to justify (potentially deleterious) risk-based interventions (Goldson, 2005) -and the positivist risk-based models upon which these interventions are predicated. It is argued that all young people are, by definition, ‘at risk’ of problem outcomes due to their relative powerlessness in society; exemplified by the adult presumption/prescription of salient risks and the subsequent imposition of responses underpinned by these factors. However, the article concludes that, far from being rejected, the risk factor approach should be retained and utilized through a re-orientation towards risks identified through qualitative research with young people and a simultaneous emphasis upon factors which enable young people to thrive and develop. The pursuit of ‘causes’ and ‘predictors’ of youth offending is eschewed in favour of a re-conception of salient factors as ‘correlates’ and ‘indicators’ of potential behaviours -both ‘good’ and ‘bad’, which can then be utilized to supplement further qualitative research and, crucially, the explicit involvement of young people through consultation and participation processes shaping their futures.

Risk, prevention and early intervention: youth justice responses to girls

“…Additionally, positive factors are identified and enhanced through signposting and referral to appropriate services. These programmes, although fixed on correcting young people's deficits, rather than enhancing their positive attributes (Case, 2006) were '… apparently designed to 'divert' potential young criminals into 'mainstream' activities and services' (Smith, 2011:133 (Case, 2010:95). This has resulted with the occurrence of ethically immoral judgments portraying young people as 'crime-prone' and 'pre-criminal' (Goldson, 2005a).…”

“…More than this, the instigation of YISPs and their explicit reference to 'quasi-scientific' risk assessment tools has resulted in young people being scrutinised not only for their present criminal behaviours, but also, for what they are suspected to be capable of doing (Goldson, 2005a). Furthermore, continued use of the Onset assessment tool seems to suggest that the operation of youth justice practice is more-concerned with quantitative statistical outputs rather than qualitative meaningful outcomes (Case, 2006;Smith, 2011). Moreover, it is important to note that youth justice professionals tend to statistically 'over predict' the likely occurrence of the offending behaviour of girls, resulting with girls' receiving 'higher levels of youth justice intervention than boys relative to their risk of reoffending' (Nacro, 2008:3).…”

“…Dominant perceptions of young people as 'problem youth' and 'risky' seem to persist, and influence 'tougher' system responses, further compounding the young people's ability to desist from engaging in criminal activity (Goldson and Muncie, 2007). Furthermore, contemporary responses to 'at risk' youth comprise an emphasis on correcting the young person's identifiable deficits, resulting with, at a practice level, young people stigmatised, labelled, and drawn into the system, unnecessarily (Case, 2006). More than this, the instigation of YISPs and their explicit reference to 'quasi-scientific' risk assessment tools has resulted in young people being scrutinised not only for their present criminal behaviours, but also, for what they are suspected to be capable of doing (Goldson, 2005a).…”

“…Early-preventative measures are fixed on demonstrating the young person's potential to be 'risky' and potential to commit crime or anti-social behaviour (Case, 2006). These measures have minimal regard towards enhancing young people's positive attributes, subsequently most clearly hindering the potential for inclusion and integration into mainstream activities (Smith, 2003).…”

“…Arguably, the paper demonstrates the need for less resort to the formal youth justice apparatus and alternately locates important research and practice-based evidence, fundamentally concluding that practice should be driven by a system that operates in accordance with 'informalist principles' (Goldson, 2005b;Sharpe, 2011). Importantly, as distinct from operating within a punitive-context where young people are likely to experience damaging outcomes via labelling, stigma and criminalisation (Case, 2006), practice should aspire towards 'a principled youth justice' (Goldson and Muncie, 2006a) 'with integrity' (Goldson and Muncie, 2007): principally, 'recognising that young people require a different, more balanced and less punitive approach (Solomon and Blyth, 2007:6).…”