Building Cultures of Participation: Involving Young People in Contact with the Criminal Justice System in the Development of Drug Interventions in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Italy and Poland
| Author | Karen Duke,Helen Gleeson,Katarzyna Dabrowska,Maria Dich Herold,Sara Rolando,Betsy Thom |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14732254221075206 |
| Published date | 01 April 2023 |
| Date | 01 April 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14732254221075206
Youth Justice
2023, Vol. 23(1) 97 –116
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14732254221075206
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
Building Cultures of Participation:
Involving Young People in
Contact with the Criminal Justice
System in the Development of
Drug Interventions in the United
Kingdom, Denmark, Italy and Poland
Karen Duke , Helen Gleeson,
Katarzyna Dabrowska, Maria Dich Herold,
Sara Rolando and Betsy Thom
Abstract
This article explores the participation of young people in contact with criminal justice systems in the
development of drugs interventions. Interviews were undertaken with 160 young people (aged 15–25)
and 66 practitioners involved in the design, delivery and commissioning of drug interventions. We analyse
the key challenges in involving young people in the development of interventions including structural,
organisational and individual factors. We argue that these barriers can be overcome by fostering flexible
models of participation and identifying the most meaningful and appropriate approaches for involving young
people at different stages and in different initiatives which consider socio-cultural contexts.
Keywords
co-production, drug interventions, engagement, participation, policy, prevention, young people
Introduction
This article focuses on the participation of young people aged between 15 and 25 years,
who are in contact with the youth justice and criminal justice systems, in the design and
development of drug interventions in four European countries.1 Despite various calls to
give greater voice and power to young people in policy, practice and research develop-
ment (Case, 2006; Case and Haines, 2015; Clinks, 2016; Grover, 2004; Harris and Allen,
Corresponding author:
Karen Duke, Middlesex University, London NW4 4BT, UK.
Email: k.duke@mdx.ac.uk
1075206YJJ0010.1177/14732254221075206Youth JusticeDuke et al.
research-article2022
Original Article
98 Youth Justice 23(1)
2011; Prior and Mason, 2010), participatory approaches have only recently begun to fea-
ture in youth justice (Case et al., 2020; Creaney, 2014; Deakin, 2019; Smithson et al.,
2020; Smithson and Jones, 2021; Youth Justice Board, 2016, 2019) and criminal justice
service provision (Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), 2021; User
Voice, 2021; Weaver et al., 2019). Similarly, although drug policy has encouraged user
involvement for adults in service design and policy development in some countries (Bjerge
et al., 2016; Frank and Bjerge, 2011; Mold and Berridge, 2008; National Treatment
Agency (NTA), 2006; Public Health England (PHE), 2015), this has not been routinely
extended to young people (Brotherhood et al., 2013; Olszewski et al., 2010). Involving
young people improves policy and practice, incorporates their unique perspectives and
ideas and highlights issues that adults may have overlooked. They provide experiential
knowledge of the problems facing young people and perspectives that are more reliable,
relatable and relevant (McLaughlin, 2015). If young people are able to participate and
contribute fully, they view programmes more favourably and are more likely to benefit
from them (Dunne et al., 2017; Holdsworth et al., 2005) and if they are involved in design
and development, they are more likely to use services (Harris and Allen, 2011; Kirby
et al., 2003; Milbourne, 2009; Mycock and Tonge, 2012; Paterson and Panessa, 2008).
However, it is important to point to the contested nature of participation as there is a ten-
dency to view the participation of young people as inherently positive. As Cahill and
Dadvand (2018) have argued, participation may or may not produce social good, but
replicate and perpetuate inequalities which further segregate and stigmatise groups of
young people.
Our target group can be defined as ‘seldom heard’ or a group that often do not have a
collective voice in decisions that affect them and are not represented in consultations or
participatory activities (Kelleher et al., 2014). The Carnegie UK Trust (2008) identified
several factors which affect young people’s access to decision-making including class,
geographical location, ethnicity, social networks, confidence, free time and proximity to
adult decision-makers. Roe and McEvoy (2011) found that middle class, well educated,
articulate young people were the most likely to participate in initiatives which affect them;
while a number of groups, including young people who use drugs and those in contact
with the criminal justice system, were seldom heard or viewed by practitioners as ‘diffi-
cult to reach’. The term ‘seldom heard’ is preferable to the stigmatising labels of ‘hard/
difficult to reach’ or ‘hidden’/‘invisible’ populations implying that particular groups of
young people are problematic or that service providers are not looking hard enough
(Kelleher et al., 2014). Seldom heard young people are not a homogeneous group; they
have complex, multi-dimensional identities which could include experience of care, drug
and alcohol problems, offending, homelessness, poverty, school exclusion, unemploy-
ment, crime victimisation, trauma and learning difficulties. The intersections with class,
race, ethnicity, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation and gender also need to be
considered:
Seldom heard groups may be seldom heard in multiple, overlapping and diverse respects and in
respect of issues and needs unique to their situations, both on an individual and on a collective
basis, at both the level of the individual and the level of the group in question. (Kelleher et al.,
2014: 26)
To continue reading
Request your trial