Youth Justice That Works: From Containment to Change

Reoffending among young people is not inevitable. It is shaped by the systems, interventions, and relationships they encounter. The evidence is unambiguous: punitive approaches fail, while therapeutic, tailored, and community-based models deliver lasting change.

1. Risk with Precision
The RNR model provides a tested framework. Intensive input should be reserved for higher-risk cases; over-intervention with lower-risk young people can worsen outcomes. Responsivity—matching style and content to learning needs—is decisive.

2. Therapeutic First
CBT, restorative justice, and systemic family interventions have measurable impact. By contrast, “Scared Straight” schemes and military-style camps increase the risk of further offending. This is not conjecture but consistent international finding.

3. Systems Matter
Young people offend within contexts of disrupted schooling, family stress, and mental health needs. Single-agency interventions fail. Models such as GIRFEC and integrated YOTs show how statutory and voluntary partners can align around the whole child.

4. Community Over Custody
The strongest evidence base lies in diversion and community-anchored support. Scotland’s public health model on violence, MST and FFT pilots, and international benchmarks (Norway, Netherlands) show that dignity and reintegration reduce recidivism.

5. Relationships as Leverage
Change is rarely transactional. Consistency, fairness, and hope from practitioners build the trust needed for young people to engage.

6. Economics of Prevention
The financial case is compelling. Studies show that structured CBT programmes can return £4–£7 for every £1 invested. The social return is higher still: safer communities, fewer victims, stronger families.

Closing
The choice is clear. Continue to invest in punitive responses with little evidence - or fund evidence-based, therapeutic, and community-centred systems that deliver safer societies and transformed lives.