SpringerLink
Log in

Governance Through Diversion in Neoliberal Times and the Possibilities for Transformative Social Justice

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last decade, the dramatic increase in the number of young people diverted from formal processing through the youth justice system in England and Wales, and the equally sharp drop in the rate of youth custody suggest that the neoliberal formula for the penal governance of young people who offend has been undergoing significant resha**. This article draws on research which interrogates the changes that are currently taking place, particularly the proliferation of “out of court” community-based measures of diversion and offense resolution, to develop a more fine-tuned conceptualization of the complexities of neoliberal youth penality. We base our findings principally on England and Wales, although it is likely that our analysis is applicable in other settings. With the extensive reduction in the capacity of the state to exert direct measures of institutional and community-based coercion, we seek to identify other, less overt processes that also aspire to maintain order and reproduce social relations favorable to the neoliberal project. In lieu of ending on a purely pessimistic note, we conclude with a brief outline of the potential for alternative, progressive strategies that seek to challenge rather than simply modify or incorporate previous modes of regulation and control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In England and Wales, “diversion” usually refers to an alternative to formal contact with the youth justice system.

  2. “First-time entrants” are defined as children or young people (aged 10–17) for whom the recorded outcome in any given year was their first experience of either a “caution” (an informal warning from the police) or a conviction.

  3. This refers to all Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups.

  4. “Only 12% of YOTs said that they never undertook an assessment before the disposal was given” (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection 2017: 49).

  5. The recent inspection found that most YOTs had developed their own simplified version of Asset Plus that was less onerous to use with low-level offenders (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection 2017: 37). Nevertheless, a similar way of thinking underlies all such tools.

  6. This survey defined “prevention” both as “diversion from offending for those on the cusp” and “‘targeted’ diversion from the youth justice system for low-level offending.”.

  7. This argument draws on the work of Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto (2012).

  8. See Smith and Gray (2018) for a more elaborate discussion of the methodology. The data set used to analyze how the different models undertook diversion is drawn from this research.

  9. The “positive youth justice” movement (see Haines and Case 2015) informs these teams.

  10. Although it is once again rising, it is too early to surmise whether this is a stable trend (Bateman 2017).

References

  • Bateman, T. (2017). The state of youth justice 2017. London: National Association for Youth Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B., & Case, S. (2016). Towards a positive youth justice. Safer Communities,15(2), 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, S., & Haines, K. (2009). Understanding youth offending. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, V., & Whyte, D. (2017). The violence of austerity. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A. (2006). Networked governance and the post-regulatory state? Steering, rowing and anchoring the provision of policing and security. Theoretical Criminology,10(4), 449–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Justice Joint Inspection. (2017). Out-of-court disposals work in youth offending teams. Manchester: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunneen, C., & Goldson, B. (2015). Restorative justice? A critical analysis. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth crime and justice (pp. 137–156). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunneen, C., Goldson, B., & Russell, S. (2017). Human rights and youth justice reform in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice,18(4), 405–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donzelot, J. (1979). The policing of families. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. (2000). Explaining and preventing crime: The globalisation of knowledge. Criminology,38(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2018). Theoretical advances and problems in the sociology of punishment. Punishment and Society,20(1), 8–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, T., & Myers, R. (2017). Against evidence-based oppression: Marginalized youth and the politics of risk-based assessment and intervention. Theoretical Criminology,21(2), 151–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, T., & Myers, R. (2018). Youth, community and the struggle for social justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldson, B. (2010). The sleep of (criminological) reason: Knowledge—policy rupture and New Labour’s youth justice legacy. Criminology and Criminal Justice,10(2), 155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goshe, S. (2015). Moving beyond the punitive legacy: Taking stock of persistent problems in juvenile justice. Youth Justice,15(1), 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goshe, S. (2018). The lurking punitive threat: The philosophy of necessity and challenges for reform. Theoretical Criminology,23(1), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, P. (2005). The politics of risk and young offenders’ experiences of social exclusion and restorative justice. The British Journal of Criminology,45(6), 938–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, P. (2013). Assemblages of penal governance, social justice and youth justice partnerships. Theoretical Criminology,17(4), 517–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, K., & Case, S. (2015). Positive youth justice: Children first, offenders second. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson, K. S. (2018). Desistance approaches in youth justice—The next passing fad or a sea-change for the future? Youth Justice,18(1), 18–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah-Moffat, K., & Maurutto, P. (2010). Recontextualizing pre-sentence reports: Risk and race. Punishment and Society,12(3), 262–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah-Moffat, K., & Maurutto, P. (2012). Shifting and targeted forms of penal governance: Bail, punishment and specialized courts. Theoretical Criminology,16(2), 201–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, G. (2007). The politics of crime and community. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, L., & Armitage, V. (2015). Diverse diversions: Youth justice reform, localised practices, and a “new interventionist diversion”? Youth Justice,15(2), 117–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammy Review. (2017). An independent review into the treatment of and outcomes for, black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. Prime Minister’s Office. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lammy-review-final-report. Retrieved 23 September 2018.

  • Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., & Ikeda, J. (2015). Neoliberalism and responsibilisation in the discourse of social service workers. The British Journal of Social Work,45(3), 1006–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAra, L. (2017). Can criminologists change the world? Critical reflections on the politics, performance and effects of criminal justice. The British Journal of Criminology,57(4), 767–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAra, L. (1994/2017b). Youth justice. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 938–966). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010). Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice,10(2), 179–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F. (2018). Pervasive punishment: Making sense of mass supervision. Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R., & Stuart, F. (2017). Carceral citizenship: Race, rights and responsibility in the age of mass supervision. Theoretical Criminology,21(4), 532–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2013). Youth out-of-court disposals: Guide for police and youth offending services. London: Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2016). The government response to Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2018). Youth justice statistics 2016/17. London: Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board. (2017). Summary of responses to the MoJ and YJB survey on youth justice: Prevention of offending. London: Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. (2011). The benevolent watch: Therapeutic surveillance in drug treatment court. Theoretical Criminology,15(3), 255–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. (2016). A whole system approach to offender management. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phoenix, J., & Kelly, L. (2013). ‘You have to do it for yourself’: Responsibilization in youth justice and young people’s situated knowledge of youth justice practice. The British Journal of Criminology,53(3), 419–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulantzas, N. (1975). Political power and social classes. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, D., & Barnes, M. (2011). Subverting social policy on the front line: Agencies of resistance in the delivery of services. Social Policy and Administration,45(3), 264–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probation, H. M. I. (2016). Desistance and young people. Manchester: HMIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (2000). Government and control. The British Journal of Criminology,40(2), 321–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology,43(2), 172–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabbagh, M. (2017). Restorative justice and black, Asian and minority ethnic children in the youth justice system. London: Restorative Justice Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selman, K. J., Myers, R., & Goddard, T. (2019). Young people, shadow carceral innovations, and the reproduction of inequality. Critical Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09468-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2006). Actuarialism and early intervention in contemporary youth justice. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth crime and justice (pp. 92–109). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2011). Doing justice for young people: Youth crime and social justice. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2014). Re-inventing diversion. Youth Justice,14(2), 109–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2017). Diversion in youth justice: What can we learn from historical and contemporary practices?. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R., & Gray, P. (2018). The changing shape of youth justice: Models of practice. Criminology and Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818781199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2016). Review of the youth justice system in England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, G. (2016). The price of youth: Commodification of young people through malleable risk practices. Journal of Youth Studies,19(8), 1007–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, G., & Spence, J. (2011). What’s at risk? The proliferation of risk across child and youth policy in England. Journal of Youth Studies,14(8), 939–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyrell, K., Bond, E., Manning, M., & Dogaru, C. (2017). Diversion, prevention and youth justice: A model of integrated decision making. Ipswich: University of Suffolk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhrig, N. (2016). Black, Asian and minority ethnic disproportionality in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2016). Committee on the rights of the child concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Assembly (1989). United Nations convention on the rights of the child. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, C. (2018). ‘Race’, ethnicity, social class and juvenile justice in Europe. In B. Goldson (Ed.), Juvenile justice in Europe: Past, present and future (pp. 148–161). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2016a). AssetPlus guidance. London: Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2016b). Effective practice in youth justice: Reducing reoffending by young people. London: Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2017). Prevention in youth justice. London: Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2018). Annual report and account 2017/2018. London: Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Criminology and Government, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

    Patricia Gray

  2. Department of Sociology, Durham University, Durham, UK

    Roger Smith

Authors
  1. Patricia Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia Gray.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gray, P., Smith, R. Governance Through Diversion in Neoliberal Times and the Possibilities for Transformative Social Justice. Crit Crim 27, 575–590 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09475-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09475-3

Search

Navigation