This article evaluates the ‘Scaled Approach’ to youth justice adopted in England and Wales, compared with the ‘Children First’ approach adopted in Swansea. Using Youth Justice Board reconviction data, comparisons are made between the performance of the Scaled Approach pilot areas, Children First and all other Youth Offending Teams in England and Wales. Data indicates wide variability and inconsistency of practice across Youth Offending Teams, including the pilot areas. The Children First model emerges as a promising method of reducing reconviction rates, whereas the Scaled Approach (applied assiduously) has unintended negative consequences. Implications for youth justice assessment policy and practice are discussed.
CaseSPHesterR (2010) Professional education in youth justice. Mirror or motor?British Journal of Community Justice8(2): 45–56.
6.
CaseSPCluttonSHainesKR (2005) Extending entitlement: A Welsh policy for children. Wales Journal of Law and Policy4(2): 187–202.
7.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) Part One: Youth Rehabilitation Orders. London: HMSO.
8.
DfES (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children. London: DfES.
9.
DrakefordM (2010) Devolution and youth justice in Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice10: 137–154.
10.
EdwardsAHughesG (2009) The preventive turn and the promotion of safer communities in England and Wales. In: CrawfordA (ed.) Crime Prevention Policies in Comparative Perspective. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
11.
FarringtonDPJolliffeDHawkinsJDCatalanoRFHillKGKostermanR (2003) Comparing delinquency careers in court records and self-reports. Criminology41: 933–958.
12.
FergussonR (2007) Making sense of the melting pot: Multiple discourses in youth justice policy. Youth Justice7(3): 179–194.
13.
GoldsonB (2000) The New Youth Justice. Lyme Regis: Russell House.
14.
GoldsonBHughesG (2010) Sociological criminology and youth justice: Comparative policy analysis and academic intervention. Criminology and Criminal Justice10(2): 211–230.
15.
GoldsonBMuncieJ (2006) Rethinking youth justice: Comparative analysis, international human rights and research evidence. Youth Justice6(2): 91–106.
16.
HainesKRCaseSP (2011) Risks, rights or both? Evaluating the common aetiology of negative and positive outcomes for young people to inform youth justice practice. Social Work Review, 2: 109–122.
17.
HainesK (2010) The dragonisation of youth justice. In: TaylorWEarleRHesterR (eds) Youth Justice Handbook. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
18.
HainesKRCaseSP (2005) Promoting prevention: Targeting family-based risk and protective factors for drug use and youth offending in Swansea. British Journal of Social Work35(2): 1–18.
19.
HainesKRDrakefordM (1998) Young People and Youth Justice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
20.
HindelangMJHirschiTWeisJG (1979) Correlates of delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official measures. American Sociological Review44: 995–1014.
21.
HoffmanSMacdonaldS (2011) Tackling youth anti-social behaviour in devolving Wales: A study of the tiered approach in Swansea. Youth Justice11(2): 150–167.
22.
HughesGFollettM (2006) Community safety, youth and the ‘anti-social’. In: GoldsonBMuncieJ (eds) Youth Crime and Justice: Critical Issues. London: SAGE, 157–171.
23.
KemshallH (2008) Risks, rights and justice: Understanding and responding to youth risk. Youth Justice8(1): 21–37.
24.
McCormickR (2005) Practical knowledge: A view from the snooker table. In: McCormickR.PaechterC. (eds.) Learning and knowledge. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
25.
MorganR (2009) Report to the Welsh Assembly Government on the Question of Devolution of Youth Justice Responsibilities. Cardiff: WAG.
National Assembly Policy Unit (2002) Extending Entitlement: Support for 11 to 25 Year-olds in Wales. Direction and Guidance. Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales.
29.
NellisM (2003) Probation training and the community justice curriculum. British Journal of Social Work33: 943–959.
30.
O’MahonyP (2009) The risk factors paradigm and the causes of youth crime: A deceptively useful analysis?Youth Justice9(2): 99–115.
31.
PaylorI (2010) The Scaled Approach to youth justice: A risky business. Criminal Justice Matters81(1): 30–31.
32.
PittsJ (2003) The New Politics of youth crime: Discipline or Solidarity?Lyme Regis: Russell House.
33.
RichardsonN (1987) Justice by Geography?, Manchester: Social Information Systems.
34.
RooneyM (2010) YJPIF national Indicator Performance Judgements: Guidance on Methodology Used to Produce Judgements. London: Youth Justice Board.
35.
Safer Swansea Partnership (2008) Safer Swansea Partnership Plan. Swansea: City and County of Swansea.
Youth Justice Board (2009) Youth justice: The Scaled Approach. A Framework for Assessment and Interventions. Post-consultation Version Two. London: Youth Justice Board.
45.
Youth Justice Board (2010) Process Evaluation of the Pilot of a Risk-based Approach to Interventions. London: Youth Justice Board.
46.
Youth Justice Board (2011) Assessment and Planning Interventions: Review and Redesign Project. Statement of Intent – Proposed Framework. London: Youth Justice Board.
47.
Youth Justice Board and Children and Young People Now (2009) The Scaled Approach: Putting Young People on the Road to Success. London: CYP Now.
48.
Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice (2010) Youth Justice Annual Workload Data 2008/09. London: Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Jusrtice.
