This article reports on a two-year investigation, which maps out contemporary approaches to the delivery of youth justice in England, in light of substantial recent changes in this area of practice. The findings are derived from a detailed examination of youth offending plans and a series of corroborative semi-structured interviews with managers and practitioners from selected youth offending services. Our inquiry has enabled us to develop a detailed three-fold typology of youth justice agencies’ orientations towards practice, represented as ‘offender management’, ‘targeted intervention’ and ‘children and young people first’; as well as a small number of ‘outliers’ where priorities are articulated rather differently. Our findings enable us to reflect on this evidence to suggest that there are a number of ‘models’ of youth justice practice operating in parallel; and that there does not appear at present to be the kind of ‘orthodoxy’ in place which has sometimes prevailed in this field. We also raise doubts about previous representations of unified models of youth justice presumed to be operative at national or jurisdictional levels. We conclude with a number of further observations about the combined effect of current influences on the organization and realization of youth justice, including the growing emphasis on localized responsibility for delivery and increasingly complex expectations of the service context.

The study aims to evaluate an interprofessional community-based learning event, focussing on disability. The learning opportunity was based on the Leicester Model of Interprofessional Education, organised around the experiences and perceptions of service users and their carers. Programme participants were drawn from medicine and social work education in Leicester, UK, bringing together diverse traditions in the care of people with disabilities. Small student groups (3-4 students) worked from one of the eight community rehabilitation hospitals through a programme of contact with people with disabilities in hospital, at home or in other community settings. The evaluation, in March 2005, used a mixed methods approach, incorporating questionnaire surveys, focus group interviews with students and feedback from service users. Responses were collated and analysed using quantitative and qualitative measures. Fifty social work and 100 medical students completed the first combined delivery of the module. The findings indicated that the merging of social work and medical perspectives appear to create some tensions, although overall the student experience was found to be beneficial. Service users (16 responses) valued the process. They were not concerned at the prospect of meeting a number of students at home or elsewhere and were pleased to think of themselves as educators. Problems and obstacles still anticipated include changing the mindset of clinicians and practising social workers to enable them to support students from each other's disciplines in practice learning. The generally positive outcomes highlight that disability focussed joint learning offers a meaningful platform for interprofessional education in a practice environment.

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

This article reviews recent developments in government policy designed to provide an integrated framework for children's services, in the light of the continuing and long-running debate between principles of welfare and justice. It is noted that at the level of policy, it has repeatedly been argued that responding to the offences of children and providing for their welfare are inseparable. However, this apparent consensus has resulted in a range of different service structures and delivery systems over the years, characterised by 'turf wars' amongst policy-makers and practitioners, and unintended consequences in terms of damaging outcomes for children. The article suggests that the most recent policy initiatives from government leave this tension unresolved; and it concludes that alternative rationales need to be developed to inform interventions with children who offend.

No abstract

The purpose of this article is to introduce and consider some of the issues which may arise in research projects seeking to engage young people as co-researchers. The article will focus on the methodological challenges faced by one research team in particular, in the design and implementation of a lottery funded project in England which is intended both to improve understanding of young people's health needs, and to develop better strategies for meeting these. In developing the project design, the research team judged that a collaborative approach would be appropriate given the subject matter and the intended outcomes of the research. In order to achieve this, considerable thought was given to the implications of recruiting a team of young people to act as 'co-researchers.' As a result, a number of significant methodological issues were identified, grouped around several key themes:-practicalities;ethics; validity; and value. The article develops these questions further, identifying a number of challenges in each area, and exploring the possible consequences for research projects which involve young people as co-researchers. Based on these observations, the article goes on to discuss some of the strategies adopted by the research team carrying out the study in question, in order toaddress the methodological and ethical concerns identified. The article concludes that there are very real benefits to be gained by adopting participatory research methods, which clearly offset the additional demands involved in pursuing this kind of approach.Key words: Participatory research, young people, methodological issues, insider perspective C:\Documents and Settings\acope\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\BH1RCOLE\Children and Young People as Co-researchers.docThe context: young people's health needs and participatory researchThe issue of young people and social exclusion has recently become a subject of significant interest in England and the rest of the United Kingdom. As a consequence, there have been increasing demands for a better understanding of young people's needs, particularly those of young people who have been marginalized for one reason or another. In order to respond to this interest, De Montfort University and The Children's Society developed a joint proposal to research the health needs of socially excluded young people in 1998. This proposal was informed by a strong belief that young people's own views should be incorporated as far as possible, and that the subjective aspects of their needs should be properly identified (Broad, 1999). This, it was felt, would offer certain benefits in adding to the richness, validity and relevance of the research project itself (see, for example, Wilkins, 2000). It has also been argued that participatory research is beneficial both because of its implicit values (such as empowerment and inclusion), and also because it improves our level of understanding of the substantive subject area (see, for example, Lewis and Lindsay, 2000).The detailed rese...

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Design/ methodology/ approach: The paper draws on a range of sources, including published journal articles and statistical evidence. In so doing it critically reviews relevant academic literature. Findings:Three critical insights arise from the review. First, there are promising approaches emerging in youth justice organised around the principle of avoiding formal processing of young people where possible; such as, for example, Triage, the Youth Restorative Disposal, Youth Justice Liaison and Diversion schemes, the Swansea Bureau and the Durham Pre-Reprimand Disposal. Thus there is evidence of an emerging consensus, across the domains of policy, practice and legislation which seem to endorse the idea of community-based minimum intervention, supported by principles of offender rehabilitation and restoration. Second, whilst they have not intruded to any great extent in the sphere of youth justice so far, there is no doubt that the government is keen to extend the remit of payment by results schemes. Perhaps most concerning is the issue with private sector organisations engaging in 'gaming activities' where maximizing profit becomes the intention over enhancing the well-being of the young person. Third, it is argued that in order to reconcile the lack of user-led engagement of offenders, and experiences of disempowerment, the priority should be, throughout the Youth Justice System, to involve young people in assessment and decision making processes. Research implications/limitations:As an exploratory paper, it does not set out to provide a blueprint on 'how' the issues outlined should be resolved. Rather, it provides a basis for further discussion, and highlights some examples of promising practice, particularly around the issues of offender engagement, participation and rights compliance. This is particularly important considering that the UK government will report to the United Nations this year (2014) on its progress in implementing and complying with the children's right agenda. Practice implications:The paper highlights the issues and ambiguities facing practitioners working within a payment by results framework which is contextualised by what appears to be a more liberal tone in public policy. It also explores the challenges delivering participatory approaches. Social implications:The paper argues that in relation to young people who are 'at risk' of engaging in further crime and experiencing social, family, educative or health related issues, services located outside the formal appa...