In the UK, following the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) funded over 450 separate crime prevention schemes. The YJB in approving these various schemes stressed the importance of monitoring and evaluation. Local evaluators were appointed whose role was to report back to the funding agency and the national evaluators. We were commissioned to undertake the local evaluation of four separate schemes. This article attempts an overview of the evaluation process and identifies five crucial areas that raise questions about whether the Youth Offending Teams are the ‘unqualified success’ and such a fine example of ‘joined-up government’ that the Youth Justice Board claims (YJB, 2001). In this article, we examine the setting up process (and offer a case study of one particular scheme), issues of inter-agency work and the links between schemes and local communities; procedures and protocols and on what evidence policy was being based; the relationship between the national and local evaluators (and other stakeholders); and finally, the feasibility of achieving the scheme’s ambitions given the duration of the funding and the resources available.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bailey, R. & Williams, B. (2000). Inter-agency partnerships in youth justice: Implementing the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Sheffield, England: Sheffield University/Community Care Monographs
2.
Brown, S. (2000). Youth justice matters—Or does it?Criminal Justice Matters, 41, 16-17.
3.
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology?British Journal of Sociology, 35, 75-92.
4.
Campbell, D. (1974). Qualitative knowing in action research. Kurt Lewin Award Address. New York: Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association
5.
Chenery, S., & Pease, K. (2000). The Burnley/Dordrecht Initiative final report. Safer Cities Partnership Unpublished Report, University of Huddersfield, Burnley, England.
6.
CM 5074. (2001). Criminal justice: The way ahead. Available: www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5074/5074.htm.
7.
Cross, B. (1997). Partnership in practice: The experience of two probation services. Howard Journal, 36, 62-79.
8.
Davies, H., & Bourhill, M. (1997). Crisis: The demonization of children and young people. In P. Scraton (Ed.), ‘Childhood’ in ‘crisis’?London: UCL Press.
9.
Denzin, N. (1970). The research act. Butterworth.
10.
Downes, D. (2001/2). Four years hard: New Labour and crime control. Criminal Justice Matters, 46, 8-9.
11.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data. London: Sage.
12.
Gibbs, A. (1999). The forgotten voice: Probation service users and partnerships. Howard Journal, 38, 283-299.
13.
Gibbs, A. (2001). Partnerships between the probation service and voluntary sector organizations. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 15-28.
14.
Goldson, B. (1997). Children in trouble: State responses to juvenile crime. In P. Scraton (Ed.), ‘Childhood’ in ‘crisis’?London: UCL Press.
15.
Goldson, B. (2001). The demonization of children: From the symbolic to the institutional. In P. Foley, J. Roche, & S. Tucker (Eds.), Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
16.
Goldson, B. (2002). New punitiveness: The politics of child incarceration. In J. Muncie, G. Hughes, & E. Mclaughlin (Eds.), Youth justice critical readings. London: Sage.
17.
Hagell, A., & Newburn, T. (1994). Persistent young offenders. London: Policy Studies Institute.
18.
Harvey, I. (2000). Youth culture, drugs and criminality. In J. Pickford (Ed.), Youth justice: Theory and practice. London: Cavendish.
19.
Haydon, D., & Scraton, P. (2000). Condemn a little more, understand a little less? The political context and rights implications of the domestic and European ruling in the Venables-Thompson case. Journal of Law and Society, 27, 416-448.
20.
Jackson, S. E. (1999). Family group conferences and youth justice: The new panacea? In B. Goldson (Ed.), Youth justice: Contemporary policy and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
21.
James, A., & Bottomley, A. K. (1994). Probation partnerships revisited. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 158-168.
22.
Jones, D. (2002). Questioning new labour’s youth justice strategy: A review article. Youth Justice, 1, 14-26.
23.
Jones, D. (2001). Misjudged youth: A critique of the audit commission’s reports on youth justice. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 362-380.
24.
Maguire, M. (2000). Policing by risks and targets: Some dimensions and implications of intelligence-led control. Policing and Society, 9, 315-336.
25.
Manning, P. K. (2001). Technology’s ways: Information technology, crime analysis and the rationalising of policing. Criminal Justice, 1, 83-104.
26.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage
27.
Merrington, S. (1998). A guide to setting up and evaluating programs for young offenders. ISTD.
28.
Muncie, J. (1999a). Institutionalised intolerance: Youth justice and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. Critical Social Policy, 19, 147-175.
29.
Muncie, J. (1999b). Youth and crime. London: Sage.
30.
Ovretveit, J. (1998). Evaluating health interventions. Buckingham: OU Press.
31.
Ovretveit, J. (2000). Evaluating health interventions. Buckingham: OU Press.
32.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
33.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2000). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
34.
Paylor, I., & Smith, D. (1998). The youth action scheme: Lessons for the youth service. Social Action, 3, 25-31.
35.
Pitts, J. (2000). The new youth justice and the politics of electoral anxiety. In B. Goldson (Ed.), The new youth justice lyme. Regis, England: Russell House Publishing.
36.
Pitts, J. (2001). Korrectional karaoke: New labour and the zomification of youth justice. Youth Justice, 1, 3-16.
37.
Powell, M. (2000). New labour and the third way in the British state: A new and distinctive approach?Critical Social Policy, 20, 39-60.
38.
Raine, J. W. (2001). Modernizing courts or courting modernization?Criminal Justice, 1, 105-128.
39.
Silverman, D. (Ed.). (1997). Qualitative research. London: Sage.
40.
Smith, D., & Paylor, I. (1997). Reluctant heroes: Youth workers and crime prevention. Youth and Policy Summer, 57, 17-28.
41.
Smith, D., Paylor, I., & Mitchell, P. (1993). Partnerships between the probation service and the independent sector. Howard Journal, 32, 25-39.
42.
Walton, D. (2000). Driving down prolific offending. Prison Service Journal, 131, 25-27.
43.
Williams, B. (2000). Youth offending teams and inter-agency work. Criminal Justice Matters, 41, 12-13.
44.
Worrall, A. (2001). Prolific offender projects—A new route to public protection. Criminal Justice Matters, 46, 22-23.
