Chapter Two – Youth Justice: The Impact of Policy on Current Practice
2.1 – Learning from the past - How did we approach youth justice?
2.2 – Repeating the past - How do we approach youth justice?
2.3 – Child imprisonment: the legacy of a system developed on punitive principles
2.4 – Summary
Chapter Three - Social Impact Measurement and Youth Justice
3.1 – Empowerment in Youth Justice
3.2 – Defining Social Impact Measurement
3.3 – Multi-stakeholder Approaches to SIM
3.4 – Building a Framework for SIM
3.5 – Building a SIM Framework for Youth Offending
3.6 – Summary
Chapter Four – Health and Wellbeing
4.1 – Health inequalities for young people entering custody
4.2 – Health and Wellbeing for young people in custody
4.3 – Approaches to health and wellbeing in custody
4.4 – Summary
Chapter Five – Relationships
5.1 – Relationships Prior to the STC
5.2 – Relationships in the STC
5.3 – Relationships beyond the STC
5.4 – Summary
Chapter Six – Education
6.1 – What responsibilities do schools have in relation to young people and exclusions?
6.2 – What place education?
6.3 – Exploring the current Youth Justice Board/ Ministry of Justice 2016/17 statistics
6.4 – Why do young people in custody score so much lower at KS2?
6.5 – What are the responsibilities of the Youth Justice Board?
6.6 – Summary
Chapter Seven – Independence and Attitudes
7.1 – Independence
7.1.1 – Where will I go? What will I have?
7.1.2 – Does custody equip young people with independence?
7.1.3 – What do young people need?
7.2 – Attitudes and Regulating ‘the Self’
7.2.1 – Sense of hopelessness and uncertainty
7.2.2 – Remorse: “shame and guilt”
7.3 – Summary
Chapter Eight – Rehabilitative Environment
8.1 – Developing a rehabilitative environment
8.2 – Foundation of the rehabilitative model
8.2.1 – Organisational purpose
8.2.2 – Support, Supervision and Training
8.2.3 – Partnership working
8.3 – Using the Rehabilitative Environment Model
8.4 – The Rehabilitative Environment Model and Social Impact
8.5 – Summary
Chapter Nine – The Future of Youth Justice Rehabilitation
9.1 – The Youth Justice Contradiction
9.2 – Empowering young people through positive outcomes measurement
9.3 – The Resettlement Pyramid
9.4 – Resettlement and Effective Transitions
References
Appendix A – Secure Training Centre Rules 1998 (STC, 1998)
Appendix B – Secure Training Centre Statement of Purpose (2015)
Claire Paterson-Young is Senior Researcher at the Institute of Social Innovation and Impact at the University of Northampton, UK. Claire’s completed a large research project measuring the impact of secure accommodation on young people in the criminal justice system. She has significant experience working in youth and restorative justice, social impact and safeguarding.
Richard Hazenberg is Professor of Social Innovation at the Institute of Social Innovation and Impact at the University of Northampton, UK. Richard has managed several international and national research projects for the University including projects funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), Horizon 2020 (H2020) and Big Lottery Fund.
Meanu Bajwa-Patel is Senior Researcher at the Institute of Social Innovation and Impact at the University of Northampton, UK. Meanu has considerable experience of teaching students at secondary level and trainee teachers. Her research includes working with families of children with SEND, schools and disadvantaged young people and she has managed both national and European research projects.
This book explores the journey of young people through a Secure Training Centre and, more generally, the criminal justice system in the UK. It examines the extent to which young people have been failed by the system at every stage of their lives, with incarceration used as a means of removing ‘the problem’ from society. To explore this process, the authors utilise an integrated theoretical framework to develop a new rehabilitative approach focused on developing positive outcomes for young people. The book deploys a social impact measurement methodology to evaluate the experience and outcomes of youth justice interventions at a Secure Training Centre. Such an approach provides a fresh perspective on the youth justice debate which has traditionally utilised outcome data to measure immediate impact relating to recidivism and is therefore not focused on the young person holistically. Using a social impact framework to evaluate youth justice, underpinned by an integrated theoretical framework, allows for assessment to be made which place the young person at the centre of evaluation.