For those interested in “not so light” reading but in thinking about how various conceptual approaches to juvenile delinquency have developed over time – borrowing from classic crime control approaches to deterrence theories to more recent outcome-based approaches and even more recently youth development ideas – there is an interesting article by Morghan Velez Young titled A Review of Conceptiual Contributions to Juvenile Justice and Youth Development Arenas recently published in the Justice Policy Journal. The article categorizes approaches into four different “conceptual contributions” and highlights some of the shortcomings and potential of each of them, including: (1) efforts to incorporate more rehabilitative models into a more punishment v. treatment system have often been overwhelmed or absorbed, becoming nothing more than programs attached to existing organizational cultures, (2)punishment proponents often cite the lack of consistent evidence of rehabiliative approaches yet cannot produce any evidence of the effectiveness of a punishment model – and in some instances it makes it worse, (3) more recent efforts to develop outcome-based programs based on effectiveness research are well-meaning but have yet to become adopted and often take a too-narrow view of the overall process and do not effectively account for or engage other system partners, and (4) a youth development model, which shows promise, remains marginalized.

What might this mean for juvenile justice professionals? I’d suggest several “lessons” that this article should make you think about, including:
(1) One key to success lies in a complete break from a punishment v. treatment conceptual model – as both rely on faulty premises and perpetuate a dialectic approach to juvenile justice that bears no resemblance to the complexities inherent in how youth develop and/or delinquency occurs;
(2) Research does matter – but more importantly, it is taking the “research to practice” in a way that doesn’t simply perpetuate existing organizational structures that is important; and
(3) A successful system will require a value-based approach to working with youth that assumes differences between delinquent and other youth are far less than their similarities, that opportunities for youth development and engagement that we know work for most youth can work for at-risk youth, and that approaches need to be developed that are consistent with an ever-increasing understanding of adolescent development.