Children First, Offenders Second Positive Promotion: Reframing the Prevention Debate
| Author | Kevin Haines,Stephen Case |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225414563154 |
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
Youth Justice
2015, Vol. 15(3) 226 –239
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225414563154
yjj.sagepub.com
Children First, Offenders Second
Positive Promotion: Reframing
the Prevention Debate
Stephen Case and Kevin Haines
Abstract
This article explores the concept of ‘prevention’ in youth justice, which is dominated by negative,
retrospective, risk-focused, offender-first approaches that individualise the causes of offending by children
and responsibilise children for failing to resist and negotiate these causes. We offer an alternative
‘prevention’ model that prioritises the promotion of positive behaviours and outcomes for children. Children
First, Offenders Second positive promotion is grounded in child-friendly principles of universalism, diversion
and normalisation, progressed through inclusionary, participatory and legitimate practice and evidenced
through measurable behaviours and outcomes such as engagement with youth justice processes and access
to universal entitlements.
Keywords
children first, diversion, engagement, entitlements, legitimacy, participation, partnership, positive,
prevention, promotion
Prevention within the field of youth justice is a complex, dynamic and contested practice,
characterised by disparate approaches to its definition, objectives, measurement and
implementation. In this article, we subject the concept of ‘prevention’ to critical scrutiny
in a position piece arguing that youth justice prevention policy and practice, particularly
in England and Wales, has been dominated by negative, retrospective, risk-focused,
offender-first approaches to working with children.1 We assert that neo-conservative cor-
rectionalism has been employed to individualise the causes of offending by children,
while neo-liberal responsibilisation has served to blame children for failing to resist and
negotiate their exposure to psychosocial and socio-structural risk (factors) and adult-cen-
tric, intractable decision-making processes. Furthermore, prevention practice struggles to
Corresponding author:
Stephen Case, Centre for Criminal Justice and Criminology, Swansea University, Vivian Tower, Singleton Park, Swansea
SA2 8PP, UK.
Email: s.p.case@swan.ac.uk
563154YJJ0010.1177/1473225414563154Youth JusticeCase and Haines
research-article2014
Article
To continue reading
Request your trial