Search

Policy and practice in education, health, social care and youth justice have increasingly reflected the assumption that the more ‘risk factors’ a child experiences, the more likely s/he is to suffer ‘negative’ outcomes (including involvement in ‘anti-social’ or ‘criminal’ behaviour). This has led to an emphasis on targeting individuals considered ‘at risk’ through ‘early intervention’ programmes. At the heart of debate about such programmes is their intended objective: addressing the needs of any child or young person as they are identified?; prevention of offending based on assessment of ‘criminogenic’ risk factors?; or diversion from the formal criminal justice system for those already involved in ‘anti-social’ or ‘criminal’ behaviours? The needs and circumstances of children defined ‘at risk of offending’ are often the same as those of children ‘in need’. If they are considered ‘in trouble’ rather than ‘troubled’, emphasis is potentially shifted away from their personal development and well-being towards their regulation and criminalization. Drawing on primary research with practitioners implementing an ‘Early Intervention for the Prevention of Offending’ Programme for 8−13 year-olds in Northern Ireland, this article explores the tensions involved in ‘addressing need’ and ‘preventing offending’. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article is based on primary research conducted with children in community and custodial settings in Northern Ireland. It provides an analysis of the social, economic and political context in which children's rights are routinely breached. Presenting consultations with children in the community, the article considers the impact of negative assumptions, disrespect and exclusion from participation. It demonstrates how the rights of socially excluded and marginalized children are consistently undermined. Further, it draws on the experiences of children and the views of staff in considering the rights of children in custody. In conclusion, the article explores the contributions of critical analysis and rights-based discourses within an increasingly punitive climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]