Children in the CYPSE—Their Views on Their Experiences: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written with high levels of structure and quality. It asks an important question, and, contributes with important knowledge. I only have a few questions that I would like the author(s) to clarify, which mostly concerns search strategy and methods.

First, in Figure 1 on p. 4, the N of initial articles from WoS seems to be missing? 

Regarding search strategy, did you employ any time limits (publication date) in your search strategy? There is no information about this, but since the oldest article of the ones included are from 2015 I guess you used it somehow? Please clarify this.

It is not always clear how the different included articles have been assessed. For example, in line 213-219 five articles are assessed as having high levels of academic rigour, and two receive high ratings in WoW A for methodological quality. It is, however, not clear how the two remaining articles are assessed regarding these different measures.

Finally, it would benefit the paper if the results on lack of care from, and problems with, staff was more contextualized. The importance of the staff for children in secure care are well known, as are problems with the power imbalance and risks of maltreatment and abuse, knowledge that theoretically fx. can be traced back to Goffman's Asylums essays and that has been empirically shown over different contexts. The paper would profit from acknowledging such theoretical and empirical knowledge to a higher extent.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments and I appreciate your time in reading my manuscript.  Please find below a table outlining your comments and my response.

Reviewer 1
Figure 1 on p. 4, the N of initial articles from WoS seems to be missing	Added N of articles for WoS
Did you employ any time limits (publication date) in your search strategy?	Inclusion dates clarified as from 2000 in Table 2 ‘other criteria’.
It is not always clear how the different included articles have been assessed. For example, in line 213-219 five articles are assessed as having high levels of academic rigour, and two receive high ratings in WoW A for methodological quality. It is, however, not clear how the two remaining articles are assessed regarding these different measures.	Additional information about the criteria of the quality appraisal is added to lines 210-225 (Thomas & Harden, 2008)   The specific criteria are then referenced in brackets after each statement about specific studies and their evaluation.
it would benefit the paper if the results on lack of care from, and problems with, staff was more contextualized. The importance of the staff for children in secure care are well known, as are problems with the power imbalance and risks of maltreatment and abuse, knowledge that theoretically fx. can be traced back to Goffman's Asylums essays and that has been empirically shown over different contexts. The paper would profit from acknowledging such theoretical and empirical knowledge to a higher extent	References have been added about power imbalance to include Goffman on lines 120-127.    However, this paper has been written from a psychological perspective.  Signposting to the psychological perspective of the paper has been added to lines 163 and 528

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a review of qualitative evidence relating to the experiences of children placed in secure settings.

This review is important and promises to contribute to current scientific and social discussions about the costs/benefits of placement in secure settings. However, before recommending this paper be accepted for publication, the review methodology should be revised. Since I cannot be sure that these themes would also emerge if a more thorough and exhaustive review was conducted, I feel I must recommend rejecting for now. Hopefully, the authors will be able to quickly demonstrate that the findings still apply when a greater number of eligible studies are analyzed.

1. The expression “Children and Young People’s Secure Estate” is not used outside of the UK (to my knowledge) and should be defined. From what I can find online, it seems to include children committed to young offender institutions and children placed in secure units on welfare grounds. Yet, based on the introduction and search terms, the authors appear to focus only on the former (children committed to young offender institutions or mandated to the secure estate on justice grounds). Indeed, the context section discusses “risks of entering the justice system” or “incarceration” or “children in conflict with the law”. Search terms are only about young offenders. Youth in secure care for protection motives might share some risk factors and needs with children in secure facilities on justice grounds, but studies are rarely concerned with both groups. This must be clarified. While a systematic review of the qualitative evidence for any of these two groups would be interesting, this decision will have a significant impact on subsequent decisions pertaining to the methodology that will be discussed below. In any case, the context section will need to be revised accordingly, notably by choosing concepts to describe the population that are more universally used and by commenting further on the state of evidence regarding children's experiences in secure institutions.

Since children in institutions for young offenders appear to be the main focus, here are two recent examples of reviews with a similar population/scope:

Juliana, J., Hutagalung, F. D., & Nor, A. M. (2024). Psychological Experience of Juvenile Offenders in Correctional Institutions: A Systematic Review Of Qualitative Studies. Journal of Population and Social Studies [JPSS], 32, 609-630.

De Boer, S., Testé, B., & Guarnaccia, C. (2023). How young offenders’ perceive their life courses and the juvenile justice system: A systematic review of recent qualitative research. Adolescent research review, 8(2), 137-158.

2. Why are children placed in CYPSE labeled ‘doubly vulnerable’ considering many children placed in foster care have similar unmet needs (what is the second source of vulnerabilities?).
3. There is a growing body of research on the experiences of children placed in residential care and in secure care on welfare grounds that could be included in the context section, depending on whether this population is of interest to authors or not. Here are some key references:

Cameron-Mathiassen, J., Leiper, J., Simpson, J., & McDermott, E. (2022). What was care like for me? A systematic review of the experiences of young people living in residential care. Children and Youth Services Review, 138, 106524.

De Valk, S., Kuiper, C., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Maas, A. J. J. A., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2019). Repression in residential youth care: a qualitative study examining the experiences of adolescents in open, secure and forensic institutions. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(6), 757-782.

Henriksen, A.K. & Prieur, A. (2019)“So, why am I here?” ambiguous practices of protection, treatment and punishment in Danish secure institutions for youth. British Journal of Criminology, 59(5), 1161–1177. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz018

Henriksen, A.K. & Refsgaard, R.C.B. (2021) Temporal experiences of confinement: exploring young people’s experiences in Danish secure institutions. Young, 29(1), 45–61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1103308820937519

Slaatto, A., Kleppe, L. C., Mellblom, A. V., & Baugerud, G. A. (2023). Youth in residential facilities:“Am I safe?,”“Do I matter?,” and “Do you care?”. Residential treatment for children & youth, 40(1), 87-108.

 

4. In general, authors should better justify why they decided to focus on the experiences of children and on the qualitative evidence. In my view, it is not so much that there are no study, but rather that the findings are considered anecdotal. Systematic reviews allow us to test whether some major themes emerge, no matter the context.

 

5. I tried to check if there was a difference between using the database ERIC on ProQuest or ERIC on Ebsco. I feel there is no reason to use both but I am no expert on databases in education sciences.

 https://drexel.libanswers.com/faq/403458#:~:text=You're%20searching%20the%20same,directly%20to%20Drexel%20Libraries%20subscriptions.

 

Perhaps authors could explain why they felt they should search in both.

 

6. If the population of interest is composed of young offenders, Criminal Justice Abstracts should be used. A social work database would also be appropriate for children placed on welfare grounds.
7. Search terms also need to be revised – the ones presented do not cover large enough. For each concept, additional keywords are needed. Of course, it will depend on the decision made regarding the population. For concept 3, we would expect search terms related to experiences and qualitative methods. For concept 1, so many other expressions and terms are used from locked settings to youth custodial environments. As for concept 2, it does not include any search terms related to children placed on welfare grounds (or that are in the child welfare system). There is nothing about the justice system, custody, detention, or delinquency.
8. I appreciate the efforts made to catgorize the findings, but some codes do not seem to be mutually exclusive (e.g. approaches to survival and responses to incarceration ; relationships with staff/family and structural influences). Authors indicate that “Appendix VIII presents the initial codes, subsequent themes, and illustrative examples from the original papers” but I did not have access to that file.

9. I am surprised there are so few findings about relationships inside and outside secure settings. It does seem like a major theme of this growing body of research.

   . See Enell, S., & Wilińska, M. (2021). Negotiating, opposing, and transposing dangerousness: A relational perspective on young people’s experiences of secure care. Young, 29(1), 28-44.
10. Was there an inclusion criterion about date of publication? All selected studies are very recent. 
11. In general, if authors decide to do a review about both groups (child welfare and juvenile justice), I would advise them to check whether legal status influence experiences. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments and I appreciate your time in reading my manuscript.  Please find below a table outlining your comments and my response.

Reviewer 2
The expression “Children and Young People’s Secure Estate” is not used outside of the UK (to my knowledge) and should be defined.  From what I can find online, it seems to include children committed to young offender institutions and children placed in secure units on welfare grounds.	Definition of  CYPSE the different placements added in lines 32-38 and in Figure 1.
the context section will need to be revised accordingly, notably by choosing concepts to describe the population that are more universally used and by commenting further on the state of evidence regarding children's experiences in secure institutions.	Responded to through adjustment above.   Added contextualised universal language to include forensic youth care and juvenile justice system on lines 32-34   The use of a wider range of search terms to extend the search has been added to the limitations section lines 531-532
Why are children placed in CYPSE labeled ‘doubly vulnerable’ considering many children placed in foster care have similar unmet needs (what is the second source of vulnerabilities?).	The term doubly vulnerable was initially introduced by Moore & Miller (1999) and has subsequently been used by a range of researchers; for clarity, the Moore & Miller reference has been added to line 45 as well as remaining in line 48.
There is a growing body of research on the experiences of children placed in residential care and in secure care on welfare grounds that could be included in the context section, depending on whether this population is of interest to authors or not.	Initially only SCH’s were focused upon.  However, not enough papers were identified so the criteria was broadened to include all three types of setting within the UK (SCH, STC, YOI).  A number of studies do not distinguish between children in a SCH who have been placed on welfare grounds or not due to ethical considerations in relation to the potential of identifying participants.   Due to the limited literature available about children’s experiences within secure settings, the focus of the review is more broadly on experiences across secure settings rather than the subgroups (those placed on welfare and those as part of the criminal justice process).    A suggestion for future research to focus on differentials between those children placed on welfare grounds is now added to lines 526-528
authors should better justify why they decided to focus on the experiences of children and on the qualitative evidence.	Moved the paragraph below (previously at lines 97-104) to lines 153-161:   “Empirical research has potential to support a deeper understanding of contributory factors to children engaging in criminal activity; however, there is a reported dearth of literature around the perspective of children in conflict with the law (Barnert et al., 2015; Pederson et al., 2020; O’Grady, 2017).  This limited evidence-base is further com-pounded by existing literature primarily focusing upon measurable outcomes rather than lived experiences of the children themselves (Steele et al., 2016; O’Grady, 2017) with O’Grady (2017) advocating this omission of their views provides a rationale for qualitative studies directly exploring children’s perspectives.”   Added additional context to lines 146-153   Lines 105-119 already provided discussion about the importance of  children’s voices being heard.
Was there a difference between using the database ERIC on ProQuest or ERIC on Ebsco.	Altered within Figure 2 to just state ERIC
If the population of interest is composed of young offenders, Criminal Justice Abstracts should be used. A social work database would also be appropriate for children placed on welfare grounds.	Time to review the databases selected is not available to a single researcher and a range of databases were initially selected.   Added to the limitations section that the potential use of databases related to criminal justice abstracts and social work databases could be added to extend the search further in future research.  Lines 529-532
Search terms also need to be revised – the ones presented do not cover large enough. For each concept, additional keywords are needed. Of course, it will depend on the decision made regarding the population. For concept 3, we would expect search terms related to experiences and qualitative methods. For concept 1, so many other expressions and terms are used from locked settings to youth custodial environments. As for concept 2, it does not include any search terms related to children placed on welfare grounds (or that are in the child welfare system). There is nothing about the justice system, custody, detention, or delinquency.	The use of a wider range of search terms to extend the search has been added to the limitations section lines 531-532
I appreciate the efforts made to categorize the findings, but some codes do not seem to be mutually exclusive (e.g. approaches to survival and responses to incarceration ; relationships with staff/family and structural influences). Authors indicate that “Appendix VIII presents the initial codes, subsequent themes, and illustrative examples from the original papers” but I did not have access to that file	Appendix B has been added to demonstrate the codes, themes and illustrative examples.
I am surprised there are so few findings about relationships inside and outside secure settings. It does seem like a major theme of this growing body of research.	A theme was identified regarding relationships which is included as a core abstract theme within the Thematic Map and the results section
Was there an inclusion criterion about date of publication? All selected studies are very recent	Inclusion dates clarified as from 2000 in Table 2 ‘other criteria’.   NB: The original search identified earlier papers but they were excluded as part of the inclusion/exclusion process.
If authors decide to do a review about both groups (child welfare and juvenile justice), I would advise them to check whether legal status influence experiences.	See comment also included above:   Due to the limited literature available about children’s experiences within secure settings, the focus of the review is more broadly on experiences across secure settings rather than the subgroups (those placed on welfare and those as part of the criminal justice process).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to peer review your article.  I really enjoyed it, and I think it is a valuable addition to the existing literature in this field. 

A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths. 

 

This article outlines a systematic literature review, examing the views of children accommodated within various forms of secure care across a small number of nations.  Pulling together the emergent themes, this article paints a picture of these children’s experiences within secure care and, importantly, offers suggestions of what steps could be taken to ensure that appropriate care is offered in those settings. 

 

 

General concept comments 
Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc. 

 

Overall I think this is a solid piece of work that brings together existing research relating to CYP within secure care, and highlighting the themes found amongst their narratives.  I have no issue with the article’s discussion or conclusion and think that this should be published.  To strengthen the article I wonder if updated references could be used.  I am not sure there is anything from 2023 onwards and thus would want to ensure that the most current literature is being drawn from.  I assume that the systematic literature review kept 2023 onwards within scope, but other citations within the piece lead to me highlight this. 

 

 

 

 
Review: commenting on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc. 
These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond. 

 

I have already made reference to the citations used, so will not repeat my point.  This is a relevant and important topic for consideration and fits with the theme of this special edition. 

 

• Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear. These comments should also focus on the scientific content and not on spelling, formatting or English language problems, as these can be addressed at a later stage by our internal staff. 

 

 

Some comments which I hope you will take in the manner in which they were intended, which is to improve the article further and perhaps offer some thoughts about the subject. 

At the very start of the article you mention that the UK has an ACR of 10.  As you note later in the piece, this is not the case in Scotland.  Perhaps you could make that clearer at the start? And again at lines 70-73. 

Similarly, at the start of the piece (lines 17-30) I wonder whether you should clarify whether you are referring to English data? Or Uk?  or a combination of both? 

I found Table 2 difficult to read; a little bit of formatting would alter the table slightly and make it easier to read. 

I found the discussion and conclusion interesting content, and think that the article both fills a gap in existing scholarship, and makes an important contribution to the planning and designing of services for children in secure settings. 

 

 

 

 

 

General questions to help guide your review report for research articles: 

• Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?    Yes  

• Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant?  Overall I think the references are a little dated (although relevant), but this could be updated prior to publication. 

• Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?  Yes 

• Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section? Yes  

• Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.  Yes 

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?  Yes 

7.5. Rating the Manuscript 

During the manuscript evaluation, please rate the following aspects: 

• Novelty: Is the question original and well-defined? Do the results provide an advancement of the current knowledge?  Yes 

• Scope: Does the work fit the journal scope*?  Yes 

• Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses carefully identified as such?  Yes 

• Quality: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?  Yes 

• Scientific Soundness: Is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Is the data robust enough to draw conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results? Is the raw data available and correct (where applicable)?  Yes  

• Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (Please see the Aims and Scope of the journal.)  Yes  

• Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge? Do the authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis?  Yes 

• English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?  Yes  

 

7.6. Overall Recommendation 

Please provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript as follows: 

• Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions. In my opinion the paper only needs a very few amendments prior to publication (as noted above re: ACR, sources of data) and with bringing some of the references up to date.  I do not imagine this will be a difficult task, and so recommend that this article is accepted once these minor revisions are undertaken.  

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments and I appreciate your time in reading my manuscript.  Please find below a table outlining your comments and my response.

Reviewer 3
To strengthen the article I wonder if updated references could be used.	Updated references used in the introduction and discussion: Added: Oostermeijer, S., Tongun, P., & Johns, D. (2024). Relational security: Balancing care and control in a youth justice detention setting in Australia. Children and Youth Services Review, 156, 107312.   Juliana, J., Hutagalung, F. D., & Nor, A. M. (2024). Psychological Experience of Juvenile Offenders in Correctional Institutions: A Systematic Review Of Qualitative Studies. Journal of Population and Social Studies [JPSS], 32, 609-630.
At the very start of the article you mention that the UK has an ACR of 10.  As you note later in the piece, this is not the case in Scotland.  Perhaps you could make that clearer at the start? And again at lines 70-73.	Clarified ACR as being within England and Wales adding contrast to Sweden. Lines 17-19   Clarified ACR as being set in England and Wales in 1963 line 88.
At the start of the piece (lines 17-30) I wonder whether you should clarify whether you are referring to English data? Or Uk?  or a combination of both?	Clarification made that data referring to UK data on  line 20.
I found Table 2 difficult to read; a little bit of formatting would alter the table slightly and make it easier to read.	Reformatted Table 2

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article Children in the CYPSE – their views on their experiences: A systematic Literature Review aims to provide an overview of a research field which is fragmented and limited. Unfortunately the review seems to omit a large part of the scholarship. The article would need a thorough revision to merit publication.

Firstly, the scope of the review needs to be either phrased differently (much more limited) or include more relevant search terms. Looking through the search terms, which have been used suggests a narrow line of enquiry thus excluding studies from jurisdictions using terms such as forensic youth care (Netherlands and Belgium), secure care (Sweden and Denmark) or confinement (US). It is concerning to read a systematic review that excludes so many key publications – see list below just to indicate some relevant scholars. It seems that the title alone may result in mainly UK studies (following UK terminology) with a few exceptions. However, even within UK jurisdictions several key studies are not included.

The second concern regards the methodology of the review. After identifying the relevant studies, the authors conduct an appraisal of the quality – assessing methodological rigour, without making the criteria of appraisal clear. This ‘assessment’ seems somewhat at odds with qualitative research (all the papers have been published and are thus peer reviewed), and it is unclear why this appraisal is relevant and how the authors take into consideration the contextual factors of qualitative research with children in confinement. The institutional setting shapes how research can be conducted, further complicated by ethical concerns, ethical committees, gatekeepers and a population of children, which is extremely vulnerable and hard to access.  Any insight into these children’s experiences conducted by trained and accomplished scholars, includes valuable insights.

Finaly the authors analyse the findings using Nvivo. The coding results in 10 themes that are briefly reported in the findings sections and discussed in the following section. The coding results in a form of meta-synthesis that is not common for systematic reviews. The authors may need to reconsider their choice of review. As it reads, it is neither a systematic review nor a metasynthesis. See Sankofa, J., Cox, A., Fader, J. J., Inderbitzin, M., Abrams, L. S., & Nurse, A. M. (2018) for inspiration.

I strongly encourage the authors to reconsider their search terms and choice of review. Their work could be a valuable contribution to the field especially if they also identify gaps in the existing scholarship.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments and I appreciate your time in reading my manuscript.  Please find below a table outlining your comments and my response.

Reviewer 4
the scope of the review needs to be either phrased differently (much more limited) or include more relevant search terms. Looking through the search terms, which have been used suggests a narrow line of enquiry thus excluding studies from jurisdictions using terms such as forensic youth care (Netherlands and Belgium), secure care (Sweden and Denmark) or confinement (US).	Context has been added to the terminology used in the search terms to the limitations section of the report. Lines 531-532
the authors conduct an appraisal of the quality – assessing methodological rigour, without making the criteria of appraisal clear.  This ‘assessment’ seems somewhat at odds with qualitative research (all the papers have been published and are thus peer reviewed), and it is unclear why this appraisal is relevant and how the authors take into consideration the contextual factors of qualitative research with children in confinement.	The assessment was designed to specifically look at qualitative research and employed recognised approaches used within the wider literature (see for example, Flemming, K., & Noyes, J. (2021). Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at?. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1609406921993276.)   Additional information about the criteria of the quality appraisal is added to lines 210-225
the authors analyse the findings using Nvivo. The coding results in 10 themes that are briefly reported in the findings sections and discussed in the following section. The coding results in a form of meta-synthesis that is not common for systematic reviews. The authors may need to reconsider their choice of review.	Despite the reviewers observation that it is not a common form of synthesis in systematic reviews, it is nonetheless a valid one that has been used elsewhere.  Again, see for example, Flemming, K., & Noyes, J. (2021). Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at?. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1609406921993276.)

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s), through a systematic literature review, examined CYPSE-involved youth’s perspectives on their term of confinement. This review makes a novel and significant contribution to the field by shedding light on the largely unexplored viewpoints of justice-involved youth. Children's voices are often overlooked in juvenile justice research, particularly regarding their educational experiences. To address this gap, the authors critically evaluated a limited number of studies on this topic.
Notably, the review assessed the selected research for methodological rigor and synthesized children's perspectives based on studies conducted primarily in Europe. Compared to existing qualitative research on children’s experiences in the juvenile justice system, this systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis while minimizing bias, an inherent challenge in qualitative studies. Moreover, its findings offer valuable evidence to inform future research and practice.
The references are appropriate, and the author(s) cite key scholars in the field, including Barnert, Shafi, and Steele. I do not suggest any modifications to the methodology or overall presentation of this paper. I recommend it for publication in its current form, pending copy editing.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments and I appreciate your time in reading my manuscript.  Please find below a table outlining your comments and my response.

Reviewer 5
I do not suggest any modifications to the methodology or overall presentation of this paper. I recommend it for publication in its current form,	Thank you very much for your kind feedback