Youth Justice

Youth violence is on the increase across many UK cities and although national trends, such as more networked entrepreneurial drug dealing, are contributing to the spread of such incidents, localised community environments play a significant role in the development of violent youth cultures. Based on a 4-year ethnographic study, this article explores how the shift from a resident led, relationship-based interaction, to a more professionalised evidenced-based intervention model, increased the risk of young people getting involved in youth violence. Efforts to address youth violence should consider including more relational informal support networks, alongside more specialist interventions.

Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTCs) provide a critical opportunity to identify and treat youth with substance use disorders (SUD). Structuring JTDCs to minimize process complexity and time to treatment is important. Results across eight JDTCs indicate the number of steps between referral and enrollment varied from 2 to 7, and the potential wait time varied from 1 to 58 days. The number of steps between referral and SUD treatment varied from 3 to 8, and the potential wait time varied from 2 to 118 days. Information regarding JTDC process can inform the field about JTDC practice, including barriers to treatment as well as areas for improvement.

A significant amount of property crime is committed by young people. In this novel qualitative study, 50 young people were interviewed to obtain an insight into their motivations to burgle. Decisions were based on peer pressure, opportunity and perceived need. Bennett and Wright’s typologies of adult burglars were applied to young burglars. Young burglars were more prone than adults in Bennett and Wright’s study to commit opportunistic burglaries, but were deterred by similar target characteristics. The social and psychological factors are strong motivators for youth burglary and should guide the development of intervention and deterrence strategies.

This article provides insights into a project involving youth justice undergraduates learning a range of social theory to inform reflexive explorations of ‘career’. Such exploration involved scrutinising personal operationalisation of ‘career’ and sociological factors that influence career motivation both retrospectively and anticipatorily. The analysis finds that students feel compelled by an emotional economy of care towards youth justice work; the overcoming of turbulent life events that now requires an emotional return. Such findings provide useful insights for future policy, pedagogy and practice to aid a ‘children first’ approach to critical reflective practice.

This paper explores the social dynamics of adolescent co-offending and decision-making processes among co-offenders; and to investigate co-offending roles in relation to the nature of a specific crime. The sample consisted of 15 young people who were purposively sampled from a group of 14- to 17-year-old males who had been identified as at risk of criminal group involvement and referred to a community-based programme. Using a social identity framework, a thematic analysis was undertaken to investigate how the participants viewed their role in co-offending as part of a criminal group. Participants identified their roles in criminal groups as instigators, followers and group members. Planned crimes were either targeted or capitalised as part of other delinquent activities. Impulsive offending was opportunistic, impetuous or reactive. Furthermore, a new theoretical model to explain the social dynamics of co-offending was developed and the implications for co-offending prevention and intervention programmes are discussed.

The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 empowers the police, and other authorities, throughout the United Kingdom to use children as Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) and to authorise these children to engage in criminality, with no criminal liability, in return for information. In this article, we analyse the risk of severe physical and emotional harm that children face when acting as a CHIS and engaging in criminal behaviour to preserve their cover. This practice of using a child as a CHIS and encouraging children to engage in criminal conduct also runs counter to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales’ ‘Child First’ vision of a youth justice system that respects children rights and operates in children’s best interests. Throughout the article we argue that, despite the existing safeguards, the emphasis should be on helping children to escape a criminal lifestyle, rather than entrenching them further in a life of criminality by encouraging them to act as a CHIS.