sustainability-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Youth Justice Research

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section "Sustainability in Geographic Science".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 September 2021) | Viewed by 10927

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
Interests: youth justice
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

The focus of this Special Issue is youth justice research, particularly the generation of evidence to inform systemic and informal responses to offending by children and young people.

For this Special Issue, applied and secondary research conducted internationally (Western and non-Western world) over the previous decade outside of (before and beyond) and within youth/juvenile justice systems, which has produced evidence-based recommendations for youth justice policy and practice, will be considered.

The aim of this Special Issue is to engage in a thorough and multi-faceted examination of the scope, diversity, validity, and utility of research conducted to inform empirical understandings of and policy/practice responses to youth/juveniles offending globally and the quality of the methodologies employed and evidence produced by this body of research.

There is no directly relevant existing literature, as a Special Issue of this type has never been attempted before. There have been a few isolated examples of attempts to scrutinise youth justice research more broadly (typically in edited collections), notably including the following:

  • “What evidence for youth justice?” by David Smith (in Goldson and Muncie 2015).
  • “Research-informed youth justice” by Barry Goldson (in Taylor et al. 2010).
  • “Politics and research in youth justice” Jo Phoenix (in Taylor et al. 2010).

However, such piecemeal narratives and polemics have never been gathered into a single publication dedicated to examining youth justice research, its methodologies, and evidence.

Prof. Dr. Stephen Case
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

17 pages, 287 KiB  
Article
Contextualising Youth Justice Interventions: Making the Case for Realist Synthesis
by Charlie E. Sutton, Mark Monaghan, Stephen Case, Joanne Greenhalgh and Judy Wright
Sustainability 2022, 14(2), 854; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020854 - 12 Jan 2022
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2857
Abstract
This article examines the problematic reductionism and decontextualising nature of hegemonic youth justice intervention evaluation and offers a way ahead for a realistic, context-sensitive approach to intervention evaluation in the youth justice field. It opens by considering how the development of risk-based youth [...] Read more.
This article examines the problematic reductionism and decontextualising nature of hegemonic youth justice intervention evaluation and offers a way ahead for a realistic, context-sensitive approach to intervention evaluation in the youth justice field. It opens by considering how the development of risk-based youth justice interventions in England and Wales flowed from and fed into the modernisation and resultant partiality of the ‘evidence-base’, which shaped youth justice practice. It then moves to a critical review of the emergence and continued influence of risk-based interventions and the ‘What Works’ intervention evaluation framework in youth justice. In the closing discussion, this article envisages the potential of taking a realist approach to the evaluation of youth justice interventions to mitigate the limitations of current approaches to intervention selection and the evaluation of their ‘effectiveness’. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Youth Justice Research)
15 pages, 283 KiB  
Article
The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending
by Tim Goddard
Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 11624; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111624 - 21 Oct 2021
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2744
Abstract
Risk assessments in carceral settings have proliferated in recent decades and are now prominent in numerous states and regions. A ubiquitous variety is actuarial risk assessment instruments that are used on children and adults to predict their future chance for misconduct (e.g., recidivism) [...] Read more.
Risk assessments in carceral settings have proliferated in recent decades and are now prominent in numerous states and regions. A ubiquitous variety is actuarial risk assessment instruments that are used on children and adults to predict their future chance for misconduct (e.g., recidivism) in several vital decision points in carceral processing (e.g., pretrial confinement). These instruments rely on information about past behavior (e.g., criminal history) and an understanding of offending (e.g., antisocial personality) that is thought to be neutral, reliable, and enjoys predictive validity. However, it will be argued that when justice system personnel assess the chance of unwanted behavior in the future, several risk domains are differentially prevalent and more frequently experienced by some groups. Much of this disparity is caused by, or due to, forces external to those being assessed, for instance, inequitable social and economic conditions and inequitable decisions by justice personnel to arrest, charge, or sentence people of color. As such, risk assessment instruments inevitably and disproportionately mark some groups of people as a higher risk to violate rules, conditions, orders, or laws. Consequently, risk assessment instruments systematically disfavor disadvantage, and by inference, favor advantage, leading to the need for a radical shift in the taxonomy of classifying risk for future misconduct. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Youth Justice Research)
18 pages, 315 KiB  
Article
Challenging the Reductionism of “Evidence-Based” Youth Justice
by Stephen Case
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1735; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041735 - 05 Feb 2021
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 4330
Abstract
The generation of empirical evidence to explain offending by children and young people has been a central driver of criminological and sociological research for more than two centuries. Across the international field of youth justice, empirical research evidence has become an integral means [...] Read more.
The generation of empirical evidence to explain offending by children and young people has been a central driver of criminological and sociological research for more than two centuries. Across the international field of youth justice, empirical research evidence has become an integral means of complementing and extending the knowledge and understanding of offending offered by the official enquiries and data collection of professional stakeholders and an essential tool for informing ‘evidence-based’ policy, practice and ‘effective intervention’. However, it will be argued that the hegemonic empirical evidence-base created by youth justice research over the past two decades has been generated through methodological reductionism - the oversimplification of complexity, the restriction of conceptual lens and the relative exclusion of competing explanatory paradigms and empirical methodologies, which in turn, has reduced the scope and validity of the policy and practice recommendations derived from it. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Youth Justice Research)
Back to TopTop