By Luke Billingham and Keir Irwin-Rogers

 For many children and young people, Britain is a harmful society in which to grow up. This book contextualizes the violence that occurs between a small number of young people within a wider perspective on social harm. Aimed at academics, youth workers and policy makers, the book presents a new way to make sense of this pressing social problem. The authors also propose measures to substantially improve the lives of Britain’s young people in areas ranging from the early years to youth services and the criminal justice system.

Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2022. 302p.

By The Children's Commissioner (UK)  

  “I think there's a difference between a protest and a riot. A protest can be peaceful… whereas a riot is trying to get your message out, but not in the right way, like trying to scare people into listening to your message.” – Child, charged in the 2024 riots. The Children’s Commissioner’s ambition is clear: every child must be prevented from becoming involved in violence and criminality and able to fulfil their full potential. Yet the events that unfolded between 30 July and 7 August 2024 underscored how much work is still needed to achieve this. The murders of Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar in Southport on 29 July 2024, and the injury of 10 others, sparked mass public grief and anger. Demonstrations occurred across 26 areas of England, with some becoming violent, partly fuelled by false claims spread online that the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker, intensifying existing anti-immigrant sentiments.1 While the scale and nature of each instance of unrest varied, this report refers to them as "riots" to reflect the language used by the children involved, who overwhelmingly chose to describe their experience using that term. This report presents the perspective of children charged in connection to the riots, as told to the Children’s Commissioner and her team directly and does not draw on the full range of possible evidence from victims, police, parents, and others. It contains findings from: • Qualitative interviews between November and December 2024 with 14 children who had been charged in connection to the unrest. This compares to the total of 73 children with a finalised outcome by 31 October, meaning the office spoke to around 20%. The ages and gender of these children have not been included in reporting to maintain anonymity. • Previously unpublished quantitative data provided to the Children’s Commissioner’s office (CCo) by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC); • Notes from meetings between the CCo and Youth Justice Service (YJS) staff members; and • A desktop review of articles on police and media websites of children charged in connection to the riots. Key findings 1. 147 children were arrested by 4 September 2024, 84 were charged, and 73 had finalised outcomes, as of 31 October 2024, according to information provided to the office by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). More arrests and charges are expected as police continue to review footage. 2. Children’s involvement was largely spontaneous and unconsidered. Many children had no prior experience with the criminal justice system, and all made it clear that they did not get involved due to far right, anti-immigration or racist views. The reasons why the incident they attended was organised mostly did not matter for them. Instead, they were curious to see what was happening, thought it looked fun, felt animosity towards the police, or wanted free goods. 3. Many children spoke strongly about their hatred of the police, describing previous bad experiences and community mistrust. These children viewed the riots as an opportunity to retaliate against the police. 4. The need for a definitive response to public disorder led to the rapid charging and sentencing of many children. With some missing out on the rehabilitation that we know works best to ensure all children can grow up to become independent, productive adults 5. Children’s experience with the youth justice system and their outcomes depended on where they lived. Children with similar circumstances and levels of involvement were treated differently and Heads of Youth Justice Service (YJS) areas shared that whether a child-first approach was adopted varied depending on the local police force and CPS. In most areas, the expertise of YJS was not drawn upon, and only a few YJS teams said that the police and the CPS worked with them to ensure a child-first approach. 6. To improve the lives of children in England, these children wanted the government to address poverty and provide more opportunities. This included more youth activities and employment. They explained that without addressing these issues, children are vulnerable to exploitation and crime. Conclusion The findings highlight the importance of upholding the child-first principles of the youth justice system, particularly in times of national crisis. Children are different to adults, and a child must be seen as such first and foremost, rather than as an offender, to keep communities safe by preventing and reducing offending behaviour. Rehabilitation and addressing the underlying causes of children’s involvement must be the primary objective of youth justice, with custodial sentences always the last resort. The widespread expression of hostility toward the police among these children also highlights an urgent need for child-centred policing that builds trust and fosters positive relationships.   

London: The Children's Commissioner, 2025. 37p.

By Andrew Day, Catia Malvaso, Carolyn Boyd, Katherine Hawkins, Rhiannon Pilkingto

Youth justice services around the world are under increasing pressure to find new and more effective ways of working with young people. One way forward is to implement a more compassionate approach to service delivery that embraces the idea of 'trauma-informed practice'. And yet, substantial variation has been observed in how a trauma-informed approach has been defined and understood by practitioners, with idiosyncratic implementation evident across different systems and only limited evidence that this results in reductions in subsequent re-offending. In this paper we argue that the success of efforts to work in more trauma-informed ways cannot be judged using recidivism data alone and that there is a need to identify key indicators of the effectiveness of any trauma- informed approach. We present the case for implementing trauma-informed youth justice and outline key features of the approach. We then present a logic model that articulates key components and identifies short- and longer-term outcomes that can be measured to assess the overall performance of a service. The article concludes with a discussion of the current evidential status of trauma-informed youth justice, identifying areas of current strength and those where further work is needed to develop the evidence base, including the need to demonstrate the hypothesized association between short-term trauma-informed practice outcomes and the longer-term goal of preventing re-offending.

 Front Psychol. 2023 Sep 8;14, 10p.

By Gwendolyn J. Koops-Geuze https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-304X geuze@law.eur.nl, Hilde T. Wermink, and Frank M. Weerman

Although community sanctions have become a popular alternative to custodial sanctions in youth justice, primary questions about the recidivism effects of community sanctions remain unanswered. The current study aims to fill this gap through a quasi-experimental analysis of 2-year recidivism differences between 4,425 youth subject to community sanctions versus custodial sanctions in the Netherlands in 2015 and 2016. Recidivism was analyzed in terms of overall, serious, and very serious recidivism for the full sample, a low risk subsample, and a medium-high risk subsample. Findings indicate that youth subject to community sanctions are less likely to recidivate overall, and less like likely to recidivate seriously than youth subject to custodial sanctions. Community sanctions were found to be particularly beneficial for preventing very serious recidivism among low risk youth. Additionally, it was found that medium-high risk youth subject to community sanctions are less likely to recidivate overall, and less seriously than medium-high risk youth subject to custodial sanctions. Implications of these findings for future research and practice are discussed.

Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeVolume 21, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 106-129

By Eóin O’Meara Daly, Jackie Dwane, Caitlin Lewis and Seán Redmond

HM Inspectorate of Probation is committed to reviewing, developing and promoting the evidence base for high-quality probation and youth justice services. Academic Insights are aimed at all those with an interest in the evidence base. We commission leading academics to present their views on specific topics, assisting with informed debate and aiding understanding of what helps and what hinders probation and youth justice services.

This report presents findings from a three-year top-down/bottom-up action research project undertaken in Ireland which examined effective relationship building between youth justice practitioners and crime-involved young people. Relational practice is at the heart of youth justice work, and the project has led to the co-creation of a Relationship Model (and accompanying guidance) which can be used as a reflective resource by practitioners and their managers. The model includes: (i) a base layer of creating safety; (ii) a core layer of ‘trust, time, support and being young person centred’; and (iii) seven grouped skills, attributes, and methods that can be applied at various points – these are approaches which encourage practitioners to ‘be fully committed, communicate with empathy, make connections and advocate, be flexible, practice use of self and reflection, be honest and challenge constructively’ and finally, ‘guide, inspire hope and build agency’. The model does not attempt to account for every eventuality, recognising that relationships by their nature are dynamic and diverse, but crucially it does provide evidence-informed signposts and pointers for youth justice practitioners to follow when trying to build successful and effective relationships.

Academic Insights 2025/01, Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2025. 13p.

By Thomas Ferguson

“Just before their eighteenth birthday these young people were asked by the Officers of the Children's Department who had been looking after them while in care whether they would be willing to participate in a study designed to shed light on these questions, and all but g of the go5 approached, 1 1 o boys and 95 girls, expressed their willingness to do so. From the official files information was obtained about their home background and early history, the method of dealing with them while they were in care, changes of foster-parent, and so on. Head teachers of the schools which they had attended were invited to comment upon the school performance of the young people their scholastic ability, temperament, recreations, rela­ tions with other children-and to hazard an estimate of their prospects of future success. ”

The Nuffield Foundation, The Oxford Press, 1966, 139p.

By Stephen Case , Kathy Hampson and Andrea Nisbet

This Child First research project was commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation to gain a greater understanding of what children think about their collaboration in youth justice decision-making processes. Participation and engagement of children in youth justice processes and practice is vital, particularly since the Youth Justice Board’s adoption of Child First justice as its guiding principle and key strategic objective. Child First is an evidence-based framework for working with children incorporating four tenets: see children as children; develop pro-social identity for positive child outcomes; collaboration with children and promoting diversion away from the justice system. The focus for this project is the third tenet, ‘collaboration with children’. Purpose Children’s voices have traditionally been neglected within youth justice policy, practice and research, which have mainly been undertaken and developed by adults for adults. Consequently this project sought to readdress this imbalance with its child-focus of facilitating children to share their genuine perspectives and experiences of their involvement in decision-making processes. The study explored children’s collaboration in decisions affecting them at allstages of the Youth Justice System and focused on four interconnected research questions relating to: collaboration understandings, collaboration objectives, collaboration effectiveness and collaboration practise development. Methodology The qualitative methodological framework of Participatory Interpretivism was chosen, which prioritises coconstructing the research with justice-involved children to ensure child-centric, Child First, co-creation of all research elements. Two different sample groups of justice-involved children were identified from a range of community and custodial settings, in order to address the research questions through participatory and cocreated methods and analyses: Project Reference Group (PRG) of justice-experienced children (n= 22) collaborating together with researchers throughout the life of the project to co-create the project design (including exploring creative methods), implementation processes and interpretation of findings, recruited from one hosting Youth Justice Service (YJS). Research Participant Children (n = 66) recruited from six geographically and institutionally diverse research sites to take part in system journey interviews and complete digital/paper diaries for reflecting on involvement within- and between-stages

of the Youth Justice System (3 x youth justice services, 2 x youth offending institutions and 1 x secure children’s home).

Summary of Findings and Discussion Findings provided a rich description and interpretation of children’s views from the PRG sessions and interviews undertaken with participant children at the research fieldwork sites. PRG session observations highlighted the development of the project methodology throughout the fieldwork to: ✓ ensure child-friendly, child appropriate ways of communicating with children about the research concepts and questions ✓ trial creative activities/methods to neutralise power dynamics and encourage engagement ✓ interpret research findings from the participant sample to provide an opportunity for children to discuss, challenge and validate emerging themes and sub-themes ✓ disseminate research findings – children chose a pre-recorded rap backing track and, using quotes from participants and their own words, recorded a full rap song in a professional studio. Participant children sample findings in relation to the research questions: ✓ identified what children considered to be the essential elements of ‘collaboration’, summarised as being encouraged to engage in respectful conversations, being spoken to appropriately, being provided with clear information and having their views considered and taken into account ✓ revealed that children wanted professionals to ask them about their aspirations, listen to what they were saying and offer support to help them to achieve their goals so they could move forward with their life ✓ indicated that effective collaboration practice needs to be based around building authentic, positive, nonhierarchical relationships with professionals who cared about them, in a comfortable environment, to facilitate the development of effective and relevant support ✓ identified the main areas for practice development which they believed would improve Child First practice as: o wanting professionals to listen to children and their ideas for improvement o acknowledging and breaking down power imbalances by creating child-friendly environments o keeping children continually informed throughout their involvement with youth justice agencies o involving children in decision

trategic and practice levels to benefit their experience and improve outcomes across the whole of the Youth Justice System. Furthermore, findings revealed that children’s experiences of Child First collaboration practice are inconsistent, with some parts of the Youth Justice System better than others. For YJSs, collaboration experiences were generally positive; within custody, it varied depending on the establishment and incentive scheme level; whilst interactions and engagement with the police, courts and children’s social care services were mostly negative. A discussion of the findings provides an overview of the main themes/sub-themes developed and an exploration of how they consolidate and extend existing knowledge related to children's collaboration and youth justice decision making and children's views of effective youth justice collaboration practice.

Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University. 2024. 130p.

By Stephen Case , Kathy Hampson and Andrea Nisbet

This Child First research project was commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation to gain a greater understanding of what children think about their collaboration in youth justice decision-making processes. Participation and engagement of children in youth justice processes and practice is vital, particularly since the Youth Justice Board’s adoption of Child First justice as its guiding principle and key strategic objective. Child First is an evidence-based framework for working with children incorporating four tenets: see children as children; develop pro-social identity for positive child outcomes; collaboration with children and promoting diversion away from the justice system. The focus for this project is the third tenet, ‘collaboration with children’. Purpose Children’s voices have traditionally been neglected within youth justice policy, practice and research, which have mainly been undertaken and developed by adults for adults. Consequently this project sought to readdress this imbalance with its child-focus of facilitating children to share their genuine perspectives and experiences of their involvement in decision-making processes. The study explored children’s collaboration in decisions affecting them at allstages of the Youth Justice System and focused on four interconnected research questions relating to: collaboration understandings, collaboration objectives, collaboration effectiveness and collaboration practise development. Methodology The qualitative methodological framework of Participatory Interpretivism was chosen, which prioritises coconstructing the research with justice-involved children to ensure child-centric, Child First, co-creation of all research elements. Two different sample groups of justice-involved children were identified from a range of community and custodial settings, in order to address the research questions through participatory and cocreated methods and analyses: Project Reference Group (PRG) of justice-experienced children (n= 22) collaborating together with researchers throughout the life of the project to co-create the project design (including exploring creative methods), implementation processes and interpretation of findings, recruited from one hosting Youth Justice Service (YJS). Research Participant Children (n = 66) recruited from six geographically and institutionally diverse research sites to take part in system journey interviews and complete digital/paper diaries for reflecting on involvement within- and between-stages of the Youth Justice System (3 x youth justice services, 2 x youth offending institutions and 1 x secure children’s home).

Summary of Findings and Discussion Findings provided a rich description and interpretation of children’s views from the PRG sessions and interviews undertaken with participant children at the research fieldwork sites. PRG session observations highlighted the development of the project methodology throughout the fieldwork to: ✓ ensure child-friendly, child appropriate ways of communicating with children about the research concepts and questions ✓ trial creative activities/methods to neutralise power dynamics and encourage engagement ✓ interpret research findings from the participant sample to provide an opportunity for children to discuss, challenge and validate emerging themes and sub-themes ✓ disseminate research findings – children chose a pre-recorded rap backing track and, using quotes from participants and their own words, recorded a full rap song in a professional studio. Participant children sample findings in relation to the research questions: ✓ identified what children considered to be the essential elements of ‘collaboration’, summarised as being encouraged to engage in respectful conversations, being spoken to appropriately, being provided with clear information and having their views considered and taken into account ✓ revealed that children wanted professionals to ask them about their aspirations, listen to what they were saying and offer support to help them to achieve their goals so they could move forward with their life ✓ indicated that effective collaboration practice needs to be based around building authentic, positive, nonhierarchical relationships with professionals who cared about them, in a comfortable environment, to facilitate the development of effective and relevant support ✓ identified the main areas for practice development which they believed would improve Child First practice as: o wanting professionals to listen to children and their ideas for improvement o acknowledging and breaking down power imbalances by creating child-friendly environments o keeping children continually informed throughout their involvement with youth justice agencies o involving children in decision-making about them at both strategic and practice levels to benefit their experience and improve outcomes across the whole of the Youth Justice System. Furthermore, findings revealed that children’s experiences of Child First collaboration practice are inconsistent, with some parts of the Youth Justice System better than others. For YJSs, collaboration experiences were generally positive; within custody, it varied depending on the establishment and incentive scheme level; whilst interactions and engagement with the police, courts and children’s social care services were mostly negative. A discussion of the findings provides an overview of the main themes/sub-themes developed and an exploration of how they consolidate and extend existing knowledge related to children's collaboration and youth justice decision making and children's views of effective youth justice collaboration practice.

Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University. 2024. 130p.

By Richard Mendel

A detailed analysis of news coverage at six media outlets in the Baltimore area during the first half of 2024 finds that they have been providing their audiences with skewed and misleading information about youth crime. Problematic coverage has been more frequent at the four local TV news stations analyzed than the two newspapers reviewed and especially prevalent on one local station, WBFF Fox45.

For decades media scholars have noted that local news coverage is often sensationalized and framed in ways that heighten public fears of youthful offending. And this tendency has continued since the outset of the pandemic. This coverage has likely contributed to a shift in public opinion toward tough-sounding policies that conflict with the evidence on what works to reduce youth crime and promote youth success. Indeed, problematic coverage appears to have been a factor behind the bipartisan passage of a juvenile justice bill in Maryland in April 2024 that rolled back evidence-based reforms enacted only two years earlier. The new law imposes harsher responses on youth that are not grounded in research and that are likely to worsen crime, damage young people’s futures, and exacerbate the Maryland youth justice system’s already severe racial and ethnic disparities.

Specifically, this analysis of local news coverage in Baltimore reveals:

Disproportionate focus on crimes committed by youth. All six local media outlets in Baltimore, but especially TV news stations (and particularly Fox45), highlighted crimes by young people far out of proportion with their arrest rates.

Misleading representation of youth crime trends. Whereas the available data on youth offending rates in Baltimore show a mix of trends, most of them favorable, all six local media outlets repeatedly asserted a recent spike in youth crime and violence.

Failure to support assertions of rising youth crime rates with accurate and representative statistics. All six of the news outlets often made or echoed claims about rising youth offending rates either without providing statistical evidence, or – when they did offer statistics – doing so in problematic ways.

Widespread use of fear-inducing rhetoric about youth crime. All six outlets published stories that included rhetoric suggesting that youth crime in Baltimore was rampant or out of control.

Fox45, relative to other news outlets, was much more likely to air sensationalized coverage highlighting youth crime incidents and perceived leniency in the justice system. Each of the problems described above were an order of magnitude more intense on Fox45. On that station, viewers were presented with a steady stream of often lengthy stories offering graphic footage of youth crime incidents as well as sharp and fear-inducing rhetoric from select victims, witnesses, experts, and community residents.

The tone of the Fox45 coverage, and to a lesser extent the coverage at other news outlets, fostered an atmosphere of panic around youth crime during Maryland’s 2024 legislative session. The problematic media coverage in Baltimore (the state’s largest city and home to the State Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Delegates) likely contributed to a bipartisan rush to toughen juvenile justice policies that is unsupported by the evidence of what actually works to reduce youth offending and maintain community safety.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2024. 16p.

By Jo Deakin, Claire Fox, Raquel Matos

The construction and labelling of groups of young people as ‘risky’ sets off a multifaceted and dynamic social process of stigma that frequently results in reduced life chances and limited opportunities for change. Drawing on case study data from 4 European countries, this paper focuses on the ways in which stigma is reproduced through interactions and interventions that label young people. Our analysis explores how young people experience and understand stigma, and how they respond to it. Framed within a theoretical understanding of stigma as a construct of power we examine its components and cyclical process, its role in shaping policies of social control, and its consequences for groups of ‘risky’ young people. Our analysis develops Link and Phelan’s (2001) concept to include reference to young people’s reactions and responses: alienation and marginalisation; anger and resistance; empathy and generativity. In conclusion, we argue that stigma acts primarily as an inhibitor of young people’s constructive engagement in wider society, serving to reduce beneficial opportunities. However, some young people are able to resist the label, and, for them, resistance can become generative and enabling.

European Journal of Criminology. 19, 4, p. 653-673 21 p., 2022

By Jo Deakin, Claire Fox and Aimee Harragan

This paper considers experiences of penal and voluntary-sector interventions in the lives of young people labelled as ‘troubled’ or ‘at risk’ of criminal behaviour. Drawing on data from a case-study conducted in the north of England, this paper focuses on the narratives of young people ‘on the margins’ of society who were involved with a range of community-based interventions, specifically youth clubs, a support group and a mandatory youth justice course. We consider how young people experience and respond to stigmatising elements prevalent in the structured interventions and everyday interactions with the institutions and agencies intended to support them. We argue that ‘promotive’ relationships between young people and the adults working with them enable young people to challenge risk-based identities and navigate the barriers they face

International Journal of Law in Context. 2022;18(1):100-115. doi:10.1017/S1744552322000064

By Carey Marr, Sara Singh, Claire Gaskin, John Kasinathan, Trisha Lloyd & Kimberlie Dean

Past research suggests that diverting young people away from the criminal justice system and into mental health services can reduce subsequent reoffending, but the impact of such programs on the rates of timely mental health service contact are largely unknown. In this study, we examined a sample of 523 young people who were deemed eligible for mental health diversion between 2008 and 2015. Around half (47%) of these young people were granted diversion by a Magistrate. Overall, the levels of timely mental health service contact after court finalization, even for those who were granted diversion, appeared low given that the purpose of diversion is to facilitate such contact for all those diverted. Specifically, only 22% of those who were granted community-based diversion and 62% of individuals granted inpatient-based diversion had mental health service contact within 7 days of court finalization. Rates of health contact were much lower for those who were not granted either type of diversion (8% and 23%, respectively). Diversion was associated with a significant reduction in reoffending rates, but the impact of early mental health service contact was less clear. There is a need to understand the reasons why many young people are not accessing appropriate mental health services following diversion in order to improve outcomes and fully realize the intended benefits of mental health court diversion.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH, 2024, VOL. 23, NO. 3, 204–216https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2023.2276961

By Garner Clancey, Cecilia Drumore and Laura Metcalfe

The University of Sydney and Youth Justice New South Wales signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in July 2021. This MoU builds on various prior collaborative activities between the two organisations and related work in other jurisdictions. This paper reflects on the progress and challenges of collaboration of this kind. Specifically, there has been tentative progress in engaging non-traditional parts of the university in youth justice projects.

The initial stage of the collaboration highlighted challenges, including structures within the university which can frustrate interdisciplinary work. Time lines, staff turnover and resources also impacted this collaboration. We conclude with an outline of what might be achieved through ongoing collaboration and signal the importance of ongoing research to capture data and insights regarding the nature of this relationship as it develops.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 691. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024.

By Aaron H. L. Wong

In 2021, China amended its law on the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), lowering the MACRof two specified offences to twelve years. As a result,China now has three different levels of MACR for dif-ferent offences. Based on the position in China, thisarticle argues that while lowering the MACR against the international trend can be justified as a necessary measure to tackle serious crimes committed by chil-dren, creating different levels of MACR based on the types of crime is wrong in principle. This article fur-ther considers the classic dilemma in setting an absoluteMACR, which results in either freeing the guilty or convicting the innocent. It is argued that setting a relatively low MACR accompanied by robust safeguards of doli incapax, child immaturity defence, diversion and wider sentencing options would allow a better assessment of children'sculpabilityandbetterservetheinterestsofjus-tice. It is also suggested that lowering the MACR will not unjustifiably undermine children’s rights if the juvenile justice system could ensure only those truly culpable could be convicted and that the option of prosecution is reserved as a last resort.

Howard Journal of Crime & Justice, Pages: 3-21 | First Published: 2024

By Chris Trotter

Poor family environment, including child abuse and neglect, family criminality, family disruption, and severe family conflict are background factors for many children (and adults) involved in the justice system as evidenced in a large number of research studies (e.g. Katsiyannis et al., 2018). Family issues are also the concern of both adult probation and youth justice practitioners and others who provide community supervision. Two studies of community supervision, for example, found that family issues were the most, or at least one of the most, commonly discussed issues in interviews with both children and adults (Bonta et al., 2008; Trotter and Evans, 2012). There is also considerable support for the effectiveness of family interventions for children in the criminal justice system. Petrosino and colleagues (2009), in a review of the available research, found that family-based interventions have considerable impact on reoffending. They suggest that, on average, children involved in family-based interventions have recidivism rates 16% to 28% lower than comparable control groups. This is consistent with a detailed review by Lipsey and Cullen (2007) who considered four different meta-analyses on the effectiveness of family interventions for children, and found an average reduction in recidivism compared to untreated control groups of between 20% and 52%. Hartnett et al. (2016) and Petrosino et al. (2009) argue, based on their reviews, that family interventions may be more effective than other interventions for children facing family issues. Hartnett et al. (2016), for example, argue that family work is more effective than cognitive behavioural and group therapy interventions. Support for family interventions is also provided in earlier reviews by Latimer (2001) and Dowden and Andrews (2003), although both reviews suggest that the effectiveness of family interventions is dependent on the nature of the intervention which is offered; the interventions need to be consistent with evidence-based practice principles. Despite the research support for family interventions, they seem to be relatively rare in criminal justice settings. Specific interventions focused on issues such as drug treatment, anger management or employment are more common. Where family interventions are offered in youth justice, they tend to be delivered by licenced therapists trained in specific models such as multi-systemic family therapy or functional family therapy (Hartnett et al., 2017; Markham, 2018). In this paper, I focus upon an example of a project that uses youth justice workers to deliver a family intervention – Collaborative Family Work. This work is designed to be delivered as part of the routine offerings of a youth justice service.

Manchester UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation. HM Inspectorate of Probation Academic Insights 2021/02

By Aaron Brown and Nina Vaswani

The Glasgow Youth Court is a judicially-led initiative which has been supported by Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership (GCHSCP) and which has been operational since June 2021. Functioning within the Glasgow Sheriff Court, it operates on a problem-solving basis, covering those aged between 16 and 24-years-old. Where the presiding Sheriff is satisfied, the Glasgow Youth Court caters for the use of Structured Deferred Sentencing (SDS), which combines multi-disciplinary intervention and support in the community, with regular court reviews to monitor and encourage young people’s progress. The Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice (CYCJ) was commissioned by GCHSCP in late 2021 to undertake research into the Glasgow Youth Court, with the purpose of: 

Documenting the implementation, design and operation of the Youth Court; Evaluating data relating to Youth Court outcomes; Evidencing how the Youth Court is experienced by a range of key stakeholders. 

This report, through examination of the above themes, provides insight into how the Youth Court has been operationalised, how it has been experienced, and its key outcomes.    

Glasgow: Children and Young People's Centre for Justice,  2023. 56p.

By Ursula Kilkelly

Research in youth justice is vast and varied, meaning that those seeking to identify ‘good practice’ or ‘evidence’ must navigate multiple studies, large and small, from every jurisdiction and academic discipline. The scholarship has been produced using diverse methodologies and approaches, and although there is an increasing focus on policy impact and practitioner perspectives, its breadth and depth can make this vast literature difficult to access by those interested in an evidence-based approach. The aim of this paper is to identify, from the established research literature, the key messages relating to children who come into conflict with the law and their pathways into and out of the justice system. Building on previous research funded by the Irish Research Council (Kilkelly et al., 2021) and since updated in a work that seeks to align the scholarship with a children’s rights approach (Kilkelly et al., 2023), this paper identifies ten key messages that should inform an evidence-based approach to youth justice in any jurisdiction. ' Academic Insights 2023/09

Manchester,UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 18p.

By Heide Dix and Jen Meade

This Academic Insights paper outlines the IDEAS approach to effective practice. IDEAS is a framework that was originally developed to support practitioners in a youth justice service to evaluate their work with children and their families. It can also be used in settings such as Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) as well as the secure estate and by managers and leaders as a quality assurance tool since it outlines the skills, knowledge and personal attitudes that evidence suggests are necessary to be an effective practitioner within a youth justice context. As set out in the paper, the framework is made up of the following five elements: In addition to describing how IDEAS works as part of individual practice, this paper will briefly suggest how the framework can support a culture of effective, relational practice.

Academic Insights 2023/05. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 16p.