Topic Editors

School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
Dr. Kathy Hampson
Department of Law & Criminology, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth SY23 3FL, UK
Prof. Dr. Neal Hazel
School of Health & Society, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, UK

Youth Justice and Social Policy: Challenges in Creating Equitable Systems

Abstract submission deadline
30 July 2027
Manuscript submission deadline
30 September 2027
Viewed by
1042

Topic Information

Dear Colleagues,

Youth and juvenile justice systems globally face multiple challenges in creating equitable conditions and outcomes for the children and young people with whom they work. These challenges include, but are not limited to, tackling and mediating the social and individual barriers, disadvantages, and unmet needs that children who offend experience disproportionately in their daily lives and through contact with formal ‘support’ systems, including:

-Structural: Socio-economic disadvantage, poverty, inequalities

-Systemic and interpersonal: Prejudice, discrimination, inequitable treatment, criminalization through punitive-facing  justice policies and processes

-Individual: Multiple complex needs, trauma, adverse childhood circumstances, neurodiversity, care experience, special educational needs

This special edition invites contributions from international authors that explore jurisdictional youth/juvenile justice systems in relation to the barriers, enablers, opportunities, and challenges they face in constructing and delivering equitable forms of justice for children. In particular, authors are invited to examine and evaluate notions of ‘equitable’ justice and what these might mean for the ways in which children and young people in youth/juvenile justice systems are understood and treated, and for the outcomes that they experience during and following contact with formal justice systems. As a guide (but not an exhaustive or definitive list), ‘equitable’ systems of youth justice and/or social policy might focus on procedural justice, disproportionately of diverse populations and other vulnerable groups, adulterization, empowerment and disempowerment, competing rights, and access to justice.

Prof. Dr. Stephen Case
Dr. Kathy Hampson
Prof. Dr. Neal Hazel
Topic Editors

Keywords

  • youth justice
  • youth
  • children
  • social policy
  • equitable
  • justice
  • systems
  • disproportionality
  • rights
  • vulnerabilities

Participating Journals

Journal Name Impact Factor CiteScore Launched Year First Decision (median) APC
Social Sciences
socsci
1.7 3.1 2012 33.1 Days CHF 1800 Submit
Societies
societies
1.6 3.0 2011 29.9 Days CHF 1600 Submit
Youth
youth
1.5 - 2021 38.4 Days CHF 1200 Submit

Preprints.org is a multidisciplinary platform offering a preprint service designed to facilitate the early sharing of your research. It supports and empowers your research journey from the very beginning.

MDPI Topics is collaborating with Preprints.org and has established a direct connection between MDPI journals and the platform. Authors are encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity by posting their preprints at Preprints.org prior to publication:

  1. Share your research immediately: disseminate your ideas prior to publication and establish priority for your work.
  2. Safeguard your intellectual contribution: Protect your ideas with a time-stamped preprint that serves as proof of your research timeline.
  3. Boost visibility and impact: Increase the reach and influence of your research by making it accessible to a global audience.
  4. Gain early feedback: Receive valuable input and insights from peers before submitting to a journal.
  5. Ensure broad indexing: Web of Science (Preprint Citation Index), Google Scholar, Crossref, SHARE, PrePubMed, Scilit and Europe PMC.

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Journals
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
19 pages, 283 KB  
Article
“The Government Was Like God”: Evidence, Expertise and Policy-Making in Youth Justice
by Stephen Case and Roger Smith
Youth 2026, 6(2), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/youth6020048 - 16 Apr 2026
Viewed by 475
Abstract
Politics and policy are centrally implicated in the socio-historical construction of youth justice responses, yet the contexts, mechanisms, and processes influencing the ‘making’ of youth justice policy remain under-researched and poorly understood. The limited research evidence base devoted to youth justice policy-making (YJPM) [...] Read more.
Politics and policy are centrally implicated in the socio-historical construction of youth justice responses, yet the contexts, mechanisms, and processes influencing the ‘making’ of youth justice policy remain under-researched and poorly understood. The limited research evidence base devoted to youth justice policy-making (YJPM) has tended towards reductionist conceptualisations of ‘policy’ as restricted, static outcomes produced by governmental policy ‘actors’. However, privileging the YJPM status and role of senior governmental policy actors serves to reify their claims to being the ‘expert’ youth justice knowledge holders. This legitimises their exercise of power and ‘governance’ over non-governmental groups (e.g., civil servants, frontline practitioners, and academics) by dominating knowledge creation and claims to expertise in policy-making contexts. This research, therefore, seeks to identify and elaborate these complex, relational, and dynamic contexts and the attendant mechanisms of change that interact to drive YJPM. Semi-structured interviews with different stakeholder groups across youth justice contexts identified distal (macro) and proximal (meso/micro) contexts—mechanism relationships that drive YJPM. We conclude that the dynamic influence of organisational and professional identity (i.e., self-identity and identity assigned to others) is significant across contextualised mechanisms of YJPM, particularly the perceived identity, status, and role of the expert who attributes the credentials to contribute effectively to policy-making processes. This, in turn, leads us to discern and discuss three distinct characterisations of the youth justice policy–evidence–expertise nexus, namely: (i) evidence-endorsed policy; (ii) evidence-based policy; and (iii) evidence-enhanced policy. Full article
Back to TopTop