Criminology & Criminal Justice

The article recalls the writing of Out of Care, often regarded as a key text for juvenile justice policy and practice in England and Wales in the 1980s. It dispels some misconceptions about the book’s arguments, showing that it argued for a ‘welfare’ rather than a ‘justice’ approach to juvenile offending, and offered a set of prescriptions for face-to-face practice as well as for a critical understanding of the local juvenile justice system. The article acknowledges some contradictions and ambiguities in Out of Care, but shows that it is a mistake to treat it as advocating minimum (as opposed to targeted) intervention, or as arguing that the content of direct work with young people is unimportant. The article traces some of the processes by which the ideas in the book were made available to audiences of practitioners and policy-makers, and how changes in policy in particular local authorities encouraged a wider process of reform.

This article discusses youth justice services in Wales in the context both of devolution and the wider social policy agenda of successive Welsh Assembly Governments. It sets out the operating arrangements and outcomes achieved by Youth Offending Teams in Wales, before arguing that a specific approach has been developed to policy and practice in this field in the post-devolution period. The article traces the main features of this approach, locating it in the wider contexts of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the development of broader children’s policy in Wales. The discussion ends with an account of the most recent developments in Welsh youth justice, suggesting that it provides ample points of interest for those concerned both with the development of devolution in general, and services for children and young people in trouble with the law, in particular.

For over a decade, three successive New Labour administrations have subjected the English youth justice system to a seemingly endless sequence of reforms. At the root of such activity lies a core tension between measured reason and punitive emotion; between an expressed commitment to ‘evidence-based policy’ and a populist rhetoric of ‘tough’ correctionalism. By engaging a detailed analytical assessment of New Labour’s youth justice programme, this article advances an argument that the trajectory of policy has ultimately moved in a diametrically opposed direction to the route signalled by research-based knowledge and practice-based evidence. Moreover, such knowledge— policy rupture has produced a youth justice system that ultimately comprises a conduit of social harm. All of this raises serious questions of knowledge/evidence—policy relations and, more fundamentally, of democracy, power and accountability.

Based on findings from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, this article challenges the evidence-base which policy-makers have drawn on to justify the evolving models of youth justice across the UK (both in Scotland and England/Wales). It argues that to deliver justice, systems need to address four key facts about youth crime: serious offending is linked to a broad range of vulnerabilities and social adversity; early identification of at-risk children is not an exact science and runs the risk of labelling and stigmatizing; pathways out of offending are facilitated or impeded by critical moments in the early teenage years, in particular school exclusion; and diversionary strategies facilitate the desistance process.The article concludes that the Scottish system should be better placed than most other western systems to deliver justice for children (due to its founding commitment to decriminalization and destigmatization). However, as currently implemented, it appears to be failing many young people.

This article is presented in two interconnected parts. It addresses issues that have arguably received insufficient attention in most sociologically oriented criminological research and commentary on youth justice and related policy and practice developments, both within the UK jurisdictions and in wider international contexts. First, it highlights the need to recognize the complexities of comparative policy analysis at international, national, regional and local levels. Second, in the light of such complexity, the article attempts to explore the challenges confronting social science in general and sociological criminology in particular, in efforts to critically inform policymaking processes. In conclusion, it is suggested that the possibilities for vibrant, critical and publicly engaged academic intervention in the youth justice policy sphere rest upon the mobilization of theoretically and empirically based analyses, together with research-informed proposals for policy formation and practice development.