Search results

The paper aims to consider whether social enterprise, who are growing in number and seemingly a politically popular alternative to mainstream employment are a potential conduit for social change. Discussions relating to the value of (stable) employment in reducing and preventing (re)offending are not new. For many ex-offenders, a multitude of barriers stand between them and access to the labour market. As a potential conduit for social change, social enterprises are a growing and seemingly politically popular alternative to mainstream employment.

Focusing on the qualitative lived experiences of young people (aged between 16 and 18) with criminal convictions enrolled in one such enterprise, this paper examines the extent to which work-integrated social enterprise can assist in overcoming existing barriers to the labour market.

The paper highlights the value of social enterprise(s) in addressing the complex needs and precarities of criminalised youths, promoting social inclusion and assisting with progression into future employment. The paper also discusses the limitations of social enterprise(s) in overcoming external structural barriers to meaningful employment for those with an offending history and the implications for young people who aspire to more than precariat work.

Justice-orientated social enterprises are allowing young people with criminal records the opportunity to build social capita and access precarious work, previously unattainable for many. By focusing on the concept of “precarity”, this paper builds upon existing research on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions offering insights into the various challenges facing criminalised youths attempting to build a positive pro-social work identity within contemporary labour markets

Anti‐social behaviour legislation has resulted in a growth of the administrative mechanisms to enforce it. New guidance has been issued recommending an incremental approach and the number of orders and interventions has increased. This article examines the criticisms and assumptions on the effectiveness of anti‐social behaviour orders in the context of recent and emerging research.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the impact of police encounters with young African New Zealanders (referred to in this paper as African youth) on the youth themselves, their family and their community.

While much of the existing literature takes a quantitative approach to research the impact of police behaviours on community trust, this paper seeks to gain a qualitative understanding of how the African youth and their community in Aotearoa (Māori word for New Zealand) New Zealand are impacted by encounters with the police.

Qualitative data shared by 32 African youth living in Auckland showed that police encounters had left the youth emotionally fearful and wary of any future contact with the police, and had negatively affected their employment opportunities. The family and community were unwilling to seek assistance from the police in times of need with members becoming depressed and withdrawing from community contact because of the shame brought on by these encounters.

The ability to generalize the findings is limited as participants were recruited primarily through African youth themselves, African social and community organizations and youth workers.

It is important to understand the impact that encounters with the police have on African youth in New Zealand because of the rate of increase in the numbers of African youth in the country, and the need for young people and their communities to feel safe with those legitimately responsible for their safety.

There is almost no literature on the experiences of African youth with the police in New Zealand and none on how these experiences impact on the youth, their family and community.

The purpose of this paper is to present research which evaluated the impact of Dispersal Orders in an English town.

The study used a mixed method design to, qualitatively, explore the impact of the intervention on young people and, quantitatively, the impact on recorded crime/anti-social behaviour.

The use of Dispersal Orders in the town being studied highlighted a number of issues detrimental to young people. Powers appeared to be used to control the congregating rather than anti-social behaviour of young people and their use could increase young peoples’ feelings of vulnerability.

The findings suggest that Dispersal Orders (and the newer Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs)) may be ineffective if they are used without the focus of a specific anti-social behaviour issue.

The findings suggest that the use of Dispersal Orders to deal with non-anti-social behaviour issues are likely to alienate young people and have the potential to inadvertently place them at further risk. They also suggest that the PSPO could very well exacerbate the substantial issues which have been identified in the present research.

This research is original and suggests that the negative findings of earlier pieces of research into Dispersal Orders can be replicated in very different geographical environments and in areas with low levels of general deprivation where no substantial anti-social behaviour issues were identified. Furthermore, it uses original data to contextualize contemporary developments in anti-social behaviour, namely the introduction of PSPOs.

The purpose of this paper is to consider and explore the principles that should inform a positive and progressive approach to conceptualising and delivering youth justice.

Critical literature review, incorporating primary research and evaluation conducted by the authors.

A children first model of positive youth justice should cohere around the promotion of four key principles: children’s rights and adults’ responsibilities; desistance and inclusion; diversion and systems management; relationship-based partnerships between children and practitioners.

The child-friendly, child-appropriate and legitimacy-focused nature of the Children first, offender second (CFOS) model can encourage diversion from formal system contact, can enhance levels of participation and engagement with formal youth justice interventions and promotes positive behaviours and outcomes for children in trouble.

The principles outlined progress youth justice into positive forms antithetical to the negative elements of the “new youth justice” and will have relevance to other jurisdictions, rooted as they are in universality, child development and children’s rights.

In 1987, the City of Los Angeles instituted the first gang injunction in the country. Gang injunctions are pursued through the civil courts to seriously restrict the activities and movement of suspected gang members and affiliates. People who have been served with a gang injunction are often prohibited from everyday activities, such as wearing sports jerseys, talking to other gang members, and being out in public past curfew, regardless of age. Though often justified by law enforcement as a necessary tool to fight gang violence, we argue that gang injunctions are similar to Slave Codes, Black Codes, and Jim Crow laws, which established a separate system of justice based on race. As such, gang injunctions serve as an extension of an apartheid-like system of justice that seriously limits the life opportunities of people of color within gang injunction territories.

This chapter draws upon the oral histories of people targeted by gang injunction laws within California, paying particular attention to how gang-identified individuals are surveiled, controlled, and confined.

Gang injunctions operate on an apartheid-like justice system that punishes perceived gang members harsher than non-gang members. These laws affirm the legal tactics that maintain racial boundaries and promote a system of justice that mirrors the Black Codes following the end of slavery. The evidence suggests that gang injunctions solely target low-income youth of color, who have been identified as gang members and served with injunctions.

Despite the ubiquity of gang injunctions within California, there is little research on gang injunctions, and even less literature on how these injunctions shape the life course of suspected gang members. We attempt to address this gap in the literature by showing how gang injunctions are not simply about fighting crime, but rather they are a tool used to control and corral communities of color.

This chapter examines the conundrum of juvenile immigration law and policy and argues that it is a present-day manifestation of “child-saving” in rhetoric, disposition, and human capital harm. In support of this thesis, the chapter reviews the pertinent human rights, law, and social science evidence, and it concludes that the maintenance of the nation’s existing immigration policy only makes sense within the context of the intentions of the 19th century child-saving movement. To substantiate this view, the political-economic drivers of contemporary US immigration policy (i.e., its child-saving dynamics) are explored. The chapter concludes by speculatively addressing the character (i.e., the form and quality) of modern-day juvenile immigration policy as child-saving informed by the philosophy and criticism of Psychological Jurisprudence (PJ).

This paper aims to examine the policing of youth anti‐social behaviour and crime.

The paper considers the Independent Commission report, Time for a Fresh Start and argues that its analysis would be enhanced by a fuller consideration of the role of the police as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system. As such this represents something of a missed opportunity.

The paper contends that, like many other reviews of youth justice, and proposals for reform, Time for a Fresh Start says relatively little about policing. As gatekeepers and agenda‐setters for much of the criminal justice system, the police occupy a key position. This paper suggests that reform programmes must focus on the role the police play in regulating the flow of young people into the justice system and, in particular, argues in favour of a constructive reappraisal of the value of “diversion”.

Without considering the role the police play in regulating the flow of young people into the justice system, any programme of reform is incomplete. We need to rehabilitate the idea of “diversion” and to rescue it from the one‐sided picture that became dominant from the mid‐1990s onward.

This paper aims to present an analysis of a “county lines” safeguarding partnership in a large city region of England. A critical analysis of current literature and practice responses to “county lines” is followed by the presentation of an analytical framework that draws on three contextual and social theories of (child) harm. This framework is applied to the partnership work to ask: are the interconnected conditions of criminal exploitation of children via “county lines” understood?; do interventions target the contexts of harm?; and is social and institutional harm acknowledged and addressed?

The analytical framework is applied to a data set collected by the author throughout a two-year study of the “county lines” partnership. Qualitative data collected by the author and quantitative data published by the partnership are coded and thematically analysed in NVivo against the analytic framework.

Critical tensions are surfaced in the praxis of multi-agency, child welfare responses to “county lines” affected young people. Generalising these findings to the child welfare sector at large, it is proposed that the contextual dynamics of child harm via “county lines” must be understood in a broader sense, including how multi-agency child welfare practices contribute to the harm experienced by young people.

There are limited peer-reviewed analyses of child welfare responses to “county lines”. This paper contributes to that limited scholarship, extending the analysis by adopting a critical analytic framework to a regional county lines partnership at the juncture of future national, child welfare responses to “county lines”.

Purpose – This paper explores how the interactive dynamics of peer education models within independent youth media outlets facilitate and impede youth engagement in media activism and social change work, more broadly defined.Design/methodological approach – Ethnographic and participatory action research methods are used with the youth media hub, Youth Media Action (YMA), to examine the possibilities and challenges that peer media educators confront in cultivating a noncommercial space for the collective production of oppositional media. YMA specifically seeks to involve youth from marginalized communities.Findings – The results suggest that peer-to-peer education models do act as vehicles for political engagement as youth experience shared ownership, cultivate solidarity, and acquire community organizing skills through the collective production of oppositional media. At the same time, challenges can surface when peer educators juggle multiple roles and participating community youth groups espouse differing organizational values and pedagogical sensibilities.Research limitations/implications – This study offers a potential pathway for further research on how peer education and collective media making models influence youth citizenship and social change work.Originality/value – The focus on the organizational and social dynamics of peer education models is useful in understanding youth citizenship and digital access as a collective experience for youth living in disenfranchised communities that seek out these spaces for not only media making but also community building.