Potential Partnerships: Progressive Criminology, Grassroots Organizations and Social Justice

Abstract

Criminologists around the globe are writing about the disproportionate criminalization of minority groups and-in the US in particular-about racial disproportionality in all aspects of the criminal justice system. This wealth of knowledge in progressive criminology rarely animates reform efforts: it has had little impact on formal policymaking, and has failed to animate the work of grassroots activists engaged in the fight for justice system reform. Yet given the increased criminalization of young people in poor communities-and the possibilities for change at this very moment-progressive criminological ideas have never been more important. We need to think about ways to make them public. Toward this end, this paper discusses possible partnerships between progressive criminology and social justice organizations struggling to transform the criminal justice system. While describing nine such groups, we detail a set of recommendations for bridging the gap between progressive criminology and social justice organizations.

Diversion, Rights and Social Justice

“…Probably for a variety of reasons, advocacy and rights-based practice in youth justice seem to be much better established in the United States (Goddard et al, 2015), and while I am not normally an advocate of 'policy transfer' from that source, there may be some useful examples to draw on. Goddard et al (2015) identify a number of initiatives collectively described as 'social justice organisations', whose remit is described as bringing 'consciousness to carceral and economic issues that penetrate the lives of young people' (p. 87). These organisations will adopt a rights-based approach, focusing on 'related issues', to do with the interconnected disadvantages children experience.…”

“…Some practice models of this kind can be found in existence, but often occupying only limited roles and specialised functions, because of their remit or lack of resources; such as the Howard League’s legal service, or the Children’s Legal Centre. Probably for a variety of reasons, advocacy and rights-based practice in youth justice seem to be much better established in the United States (Goddard et al, 2015), and while I am not normally an advocate of ‘policy transfer’ from that source, there may be some useful examples to draw on. Goddard et al (2015) identify a number of initiatives collectively described as ‘social justice organisations’, whose remit is described as bringing ‘consciousness to carceral and economic issues that penetrate the lives of young people’ (p. 87).…”

“…Similarly, ‘Sistas and Brothers United’ has been effective in campaigning against criminalising policies and practices, again with a focus on schools, which are a particular focal point for the criminalisation of children in the United States. Citing a number of other examples, Goddard et al (2015: 87) stress the importance of this kind of advocacy model in ‘mobilizing against’ the ‘criminal justice system’, and this sense of active challenge to established practices and assumptions represents an important underlying principle.…”

Doing Public Criminology with the Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector: Methodological Reflections and Considerations

“…Through his analysis of media articles relating to criminal justice reforms under the previous conservative federal government in Canada, Crépault () found both assumptions to be misguided and highlighted the role that practitioners play in contributing to public knowledge of criminological problems through media stories and advocacy initiatives. For me, this clearly demonstrates a need for criminologists and policymakers to collaborate and engage more intently with practitioners (specifically those within the CJVS) and people with lived experience, and to draw from their expertise (de Montigny ; Goddard, Myers and Robison ).…”

Against evidence-based oppression: Marginalized youth and the politics of risk-based assessment and intervention

“…Addressing community-level factors or criminogenic economic conditions—much less engaging at-risk youth in doing this work—does not fit well with the dominant “what works” approach. Today, many community-based organizations work with youth offenders to target social structural issues by getting youth involved in social change work, and even protesting policing practices aimed at young people (Goddard et al, 2015). This work is not considered evidence-based, or even worthy of consideration for inclusion in the “what works” canon, which seems inappropriate given the quantity of published works in criminology and sociology proffering structural issues as “root causes”.…”