‘They Really Should Start Listening to You’: The Benefits and Challenges of Co-Producing a Participatory Framework of Youth Justice Practice
| Author | Hannah Smithson,Anna Jones,Paul Gray |
| Published date | 01 December 2021 |
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225420941598 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420941598
Youth Justice
2021, Vol. 21(3) 321 –337
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1473225420941598
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
‘They Really Should Start Listening
to You’: The Benefits and Challenges
of Co-Producing a Participatory
Framework of Youth Justice Practice
Hannah Smithson , Paul Gray and Anna Jones
Abstract
This article presents the findings from a pioneering project between a university and 10 regional youth
justice services. The project resulted in the co-production, with young people, of a framework of principles
termed ‘Participatory Youth Practice’ (PYP). The benefits and challenges of producing PYP are discussed.
We argue that the framework – grounded in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child and ‘child first, offender second’ principles – is a formative step in the process of creating a
youth justice system that respects and acknowledges children and young people’s rights and enables them
to meaningfully participate in decision-making processes.
Keywords
co-production, participation, policy, practice, rights, young people
Introduction: A Participatory Approach to Youth Justice
While youth justice systems across Europe have generally been considered reductionist,
lacking in solutions, and committed to political rhetoric (Goldson, 2010; Haines and Case,
2015; Phoenix, 2016), over the last decade, academics have started to look beyond gov-
ernmentality frameworks, risk paradigms, responsibilisation and populist punitiveness
(see Case and Haines, 2009; Goldson, 2010; Muncie, 2009; Phoenix, 2016). Indeed, more
recently, academics in this field (Case and Hampson, 2019; Haines and Case, 2018; Smith
and Gray, 2018) have laid down the gauntlet for others to enter into the debate regarding
the future of youth justice systems, and in what form they may evolve. As Case and
Hampson (2019: 15) reflect, the present English and Welsh youth justice system repre-
sents an ‘open playing field for those seeking meaningful change’.
The research project on which this article is based was influenced by Haines and Case’s
(2015) ‘child first, offender second’ (CFOS) model. CFOS is founded on the belief that
‘children are part of the solution, not part of the problem’ (Haines and Case, 2015: 45). As
Corresponding author:
Hannah Smithson, the Manchester Centre for Youth Studies, Department of Sociology, Geoffrey Manton Building,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Rosamond Street West, Manchester, M15 6LL, UK.
Email: h.l.smithson@mmu.ac.uk
941598YJJ0010.1177/1473225420941598Youth JusticeSmithson et al.
research-article2020
Original Article
322 Youth Justice 21(3)
such, the CFOS model inherently advocates for the participation of children and young
people in decision-making and intervention processes. Indeed, two of the model’s eight
key principles are ‘children in justice systems should have access to their rights’ and ‘the
voice of the child should be listened to’ (Haines and Case, 2015: 287). The value of adopt-
ing the CFOS model has been evidenced in the approach of the Swansea Bureau (Haines
et al., 2013), the Youth Justice Board’s (YJB, 2016) participation strategy and the Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation’s (HMIP, 2017) framework for youth justice services.
While the CFOS model appears to be gaining traction in England and Wales, in line with
Case and Hampson (2019), we assert that the continued lack of a coherent model of chil-
dren and young people’s participation in current youth justice practice highlights the need
for the development of a new model of practice that is not solely reliant on adult-directed
research. By building on the CFOS model, we focus on the co-production – with young
people involved in the English youth justice system – of a participatory framework, we
term Participatory Youth Practice (PYP). This unique co-productive element both
advances CFOS and differentiates PYP from the CFOS model. We are of the opinion that
rather than involving children and young people in the process of identifying and then
negotiating the barriers to reform, there must instead be a pursuit of co-produced
wholescale system re-design, with the view to developing youth justice practice that is
inherently void of barriers to participation, and consequently young-person centric. The
creation of the PYP framework is a formative step in this process.
Review of the Literature: Children and Young People’s Rights
and Participation in Youth Justice
Academics have recently sought to document the extent to which the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has been incorporated into international
law and policy. In a special issue of the Journal of International Human Rights, Gadda
et al. (2019) set out the case for the importance of analysing and understanding how coun-
tries have implemented UNCRC principles. Much is made of Scotland’s advances in its
moves to incorporate the UNCRC into policy and legislation and its commitment to
undertake an audit of the extent to which UNCRC principles have been implemented;
referred to as the ‘CRC Audit’ (see Scottish Government, Delivering for Today, Investing
for Tomorrow, 2018). In a Welsh context, the government has incorporated Article 12 of
the UNCRC – ‘the right (for children) to have their views given due weight in all matters
affecting them in accordance with their age and maturity’ – into legislation, thereby
explicitly committing authorities to the ‘consultation and the participation of . . . young
people in the youth justice system’ (Nacro Cymru, 2009: 1). Similarly, in Ireland, a check-
list of four inter-related elements – space, voice, audience and influence – needed to ena-
ble children and young people’s participation in decision-making (Lundy, 2007) has been
incorporated into Ireland’s National Child Participation Strategy (Department of Children
and Youth Affairs, 2015), thereby embedding children and young people’s participation in
‘every government department and agency’ in Ireland (Byrne and Lundy, 2019: 362).
Alongside the United Kingdom, a number of other European countries, notably Sweden
and Belgium, have passed Government Bills dictating that all government decisions
To continue reading
Request your trial