Effectiveness, Research and Youth Justice
| Author | Bill Whyte |
| Published date | 01 April 2004 |
| Date | 01 April 2004 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/147322540400400102 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Effectiveness, Research and Youth Justice
Bill Whyte
Correspondence: Bill Whyte, Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre for
Scotland, School of Social and Political Studies, University of Edinburgh,
31 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LJ. Email: B.WhyteVed.ac.uk
Abstract
Policy and practice developments in the field of youth justice have become highly
politicised across the UK. The growing demand for greater transparency of outcomes sets
new challenges for practitioners who have to marry direction from research with practice
experience. A better dialogue is needed between practitioners and researchers to support
the generation of a wide range of meaningful data on what is likely to be effective, with
whom and in what situations. This paper examines issues of responding effectively to
youth crime by drawing key messages from the research literature.
Introduction
Policy and practice developments in the field of youth justice have been subject to
constant change in recent years. Much that is positive has been put in place with
investments in specialist staffing and dedicated resources to build the capacity for
effective provision. While youth justice has become highly politicised across the UK
(Goldson, 2000), it is not unreasonable in itself for politicians and others to be
concerned about evidence for the effectiveness of public services aimed at reducing
youth crime. On the face of it, it is hard to argue with the proposition that practice
and provision should be evidence led. The drive for effectiveness in human services,
however, is not straightforward. The political stress on ‘it’s what works that counts’
seems often to be applied to complex social difficulties as if good outcomes can be
achieved from relatively straightforward interventions. In reality the issue of
effectiveness –‘what works?’–is a question to be addressed and explored, and not a
statement or formula to be applied in any routinised way to individual children and
young people.
There is a body of promising evidence on what is likely to be effective and, equally
on what is not likely to be effective, in responding to the needs and challenges
presented by young people involved in criminal activity. Nonetheless there are no
simple answers to youth crime and many basic practice questions have still to be
addressed including:
(What constitutes effectiveness?
(What approaches seem to work best, with whom and in what situations?
(How can risk and need be assessed, meaningfully and ethically, and managed
effectively?
(How can research and evaluation be built into practice?
Research findings are seldom sufficiently precise to provide guidance on individual
cases for service providers. Practitioners have to marry direction from research with
their experience and the art of human engagement and motivation (Schon, 1987).
Values and principles remain crucial to shaping the nature of interventions.
Nonetheless, social learning theory and empirical data from meta-analysis stressing
social education and skill based approaches provide promising directions to help shape
individual responses and interventions. Critical criminological commentary equally
provides a valuable check on over-rampant psychological and correctional tendencies.
In practice, though, such commentaries seldom provide positive directions for
practitioners on how best to assist young people in desistance from crime, with social
integration or on how to build social capital within which individual learning can be
fulfilled. Indeed Maruna (2000) argues that none of the more general desistance theories
has offered much specific assistance to practitioners as to what they should actually do.
The demand for greater transparency of outcomes sets new challenges for
practitioners who bring with it the possibility of reconnection to the policy process as
long as recording positive gains, resource shortfall and service failure are part of that
agenda. A better dialogue, however, is needed between practitioners and researchers to
support the generation of a wide range of meaningful data not simply from quasi
experimental designs, but also from qualitative approaches and from good
ethnographic data including narratives from practitioners and users to help promote
learning from doing.
Youth Crime and Early Intervention
The renewed focus on early preventive intervention aimed at reducing anti-social
behaviour and youth crime has created new opportunities, new challenges and new
risks for practitioners. Research on young people who offend has highlighted at least
two distinctive groups identified as ‘adolescent limited’and ‘life course persistent’
(Moffit, 1993). While there continues to be a place for judging that some young people
will ‘grow out’of crime with minimal intervention, others will not. Doing nothing may
simply be a missed opportunity to provide positive help at an early stage. This has to
be weighed against the unintended consequences of early intervention.
For some young people, early criminal activity combined with multiple disadvantages
can provide a warning sign for later difficulties (Rutter et al., 1998). Early involvement
in offending may be a stepping stone in a pathway to more serious, violent, and
persistent offending. A US Youth Survey suggested that the risk of becoming involved
in persistent offending is two to three times higher for a child who has offended, aged
under 12, than for a young person whose onset of delinquency is later (McGarrell,
2001). Children at risk of more serious or violent behaviour often exhibit clear
behavioural markers of violent activity in their earlier years including:
(Bullying other children or being the target of bullies
(Aggressive behaviour or being alternately aggressive and withdrawn
(Being truant from school
(Being arrested before age 14
(Belonging to delinquent or violent peer groups
(Sbusing alcohol or other drugs
(Engaging in anti-social behaviour (Loeber and Farrington, 1998).
Effectiveness, Research and Youth Justice4
To continue reading
Request your trial