“Exploring the Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Programs for Juvenile Offenders in Scotland.

Chapter 1 Introduction

There is a significant issue with juvenile delinquency that affects people’s lives, communities
and even whole nations around the world. The recidivism rate for juvenile offenders in the
United States is 6% in 20201 and 9% in 2022 (UK, 20222). Criminal costs to society and the
economy are widely recognised (Chalfin, 2015). Breaking down causation factors of criminal
behaviour is critical to understanding how to prevent it. Juvenile delinquency has a significant
financial impact on states: Britain spends £ 1.3 bn3; Australia $2.7bn; and America $11.5bn.
Juvenile delinquency remains an ongoing concern in every community worldwide. Since today’s
miscreant could become tomorrow’s criminal, juvenile misbehaviour is a severe worry
(Shoemaker, 2018). Therefore, legislators must be concerned about this problem of juvenile
delinquency globally.
Policy related to criminal justice is a subject that will always be significant to academics,
lawmakers, professionals, and the general public, remarkably in treating juvenile offenders 4. The
illegal conduct carried out by a person who has not yet achieved adulthood is known as juvenile
delinquency (Shoemaker, 2018)5. The argument for a separate juvenile justice system is a recent
phenomenon in the criminal justice system for youth. Though the foundation of the justice
system is punitive, the juvenile justice system is more rehabilitative—the separate juvenile
justice on the mental ability of youth.

Impulsivity, recklessness, and thoughtless risk-taking in children may stem from their “lack of
maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.” The adolescent brain’s structures and
processes involved in higher-order executive functions, such as impulse control, anticipating
requirements, and risk avoidance, are still under development. (McAra and McVie, 2010)6.
Juvenile justice is predicated on the idea that young offenders are especially receptive to
rehabilitative treatment and that, in the absence of treatment, they will develop into adult
criminals. (Simpson,1976)7.
Children and adults lack decisional capacity (Bonnie, 2024)8. Hence, the crime committed by a
juvenile is impulsive and does not consider any future consequences. Some experts speculate that
because of a potential “labelling” impact, children who enter or continue to “penetrate” the

1
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 'Trends in Youth Arrests for Violent Crimes' (ojp.gov)
2
GOV.UK, 'Youth Justice Statistics: 2021 to 2022 (accessible version)' (www.gov.uk)
3
Youth Violence Commission, 'ad2256_a0f38547a4134e0cb923905486bcc186.pdf' (yvcommission.com)

4
LN Pappas and AL Dent, 'The 40-year debate: a meta-review on what works for juvenile offenders' (2023) 19 J Exp Criminol 1

5
DJ Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency: An Examination of Explanations of Delinquent Behavior (OUP 2009)

6
L McAra and S McVie, 'Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime' (2010) 10(2)
Criminology & Criminal Justice 179

7
AL Simpson, 'Rehabilitation as the Justification of a Separate Juvenile Justice System' (1976) 64(4) California Law Review 984

8
RJ Bonnie, 'Adolescents in the Justice System: A Progress Report on the Restatement of Children and the Law' (2024) 91(2) The University of
Chicago Law Review 383
 formal juvenile justice system may go on to commit more crimes in the future. ( Schur, 1973 9;
Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, and Guckenburg, 201010).

Advocates for juvenile justice reform contend that young offenders ought to be managed
differently from adults within the criminal justice system. Their argument posits that these
youthful individuals can be steered away from a trajectory of lifelong criminal behaviour through
appropriate interventions.

Therefore, the proponents of the juvenile system have argued that youthful offenders should be
protected from the harms of the adult justice system and that children should be “saved” to avoid
a life of crime (Zimring, 200511; Mears,201512). Hence, the juvenile justice system is more of
rehabilitation (Mears,2015).
1.1 Juvenile Justice Global Scenario: The juvenile justice system differs across nations
(Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, and Guckenburg, 2010). UN (1990) has committed to preventing
juvenile delinquency per the Riyadh Guidelines13. Many countries have developed a separate
juvenile system following the UN policy guidelines (Table 01).
The juvenile justice system in the United States demonstrates significant variation across
jurisdictions regarding the minimum age for criminal prosecution. Out of 50 states, at least 30 do
not permit criminal charges against children under 12. In 21 states, youths below 14 are exempt
from criminal prosecution. Three states set the threshold for criminal court jurisdiction at 15
years old. ( Bonnie, 2024)14

Table 01
Juvenile Justice Comparison from Different Countries
Country Separat Age Transf Juvenile Par1icipati Agenc Death Cor- Adjudicati Time Free
e law er to Court on of y in Penalt portal on in Legal
the Prosecution Charg y Punis Period Police Aid
adult e of h Custod
System Youth mem y
Canada Yes 12-18 Yes Yes Yes No No No 24 hrs. NIA Yes
UK Yes 12 to No Yes Yes Yes No No In sheriff N/a Yes
16 court case,
immediate
release on
bail or
remand
110 days,
and in
High court
140 days
China No 14-18 No Yes No No Yes No 4 days 24 hrs. Possibl
e
Scotland Yes 12 to No Yes Yes Yes No No Immediate N/A Yes
16 release on
bail or
remand
110 days

9
E Schur, Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem (Prentice-Hall 1973)
10
A Petrosino, C Turpin-Petrosino and S Guckenburg, 'Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency' (2010) 6 Campbell
Systematic Reviews 1
11
FE Zimring, American Juvenile Justice (OUP 2005)
accessed 29 July 2024.
12
DP Mears, JT Pickett and C Mancini, 'Support for Balanced Juvenile Justice: Assessing Views About Youth, Rehabilitation, and Punishment'
(2015) 31(3) Journal of Quantitative Criminology 459
13
United Nations, 'Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines)' (OHCHR)
14
Bonnie, Richard J. “Adolescents in the Justice System: A Progress Report on the Restatement of Children and the Law.” The University of
Chicago Law Review 91, no. 2 (2024): 383–98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27294515.
 (sheriff
court case)
and
140 days
(high court
case)
Czech No 12-18 No No No Yes No No NIA NIA Possibl
Resp. e
Sweden No 15-2 I No No Yes Yes No No Up to4 3 hrs. Yes
weeks
Singapo Yes Pubert Yes Yes No No No Yes As adults Releas No
re y e
on
bond
Russia No 14-18 Yes No Yes Yes No No Up to 9 48 Possibl
months hrs. e
Poland No 13-17 No Yes Yes Yes No No Under 16 - Possibl
none e
after 16 -
as adult
France Yes 13-18 No Yes Yes No No No 24 hrs. 4 hrs.. No
German Yes 14-18- No Yes Yes Yes No No ASAP None No
y 21
India Yes 16 for No Yes No Yes No No Immediate NIA No
boys release on
I8 bail
girls
The No 12-16- No Yes Yes Yes No No NIA NIA Yes
Nether- 18-21
lands
Iran No Pubet1 No No No No No Yes NIA NIA No
y
Japan Yes 14-20 No Yes Yes Yes No No NIA NIA No
Israel Yes 12-18 No No No Yes No No No
(appointme
nt of
judges) Judge’s discretion
Italy No 14-18 No Yes Yes Yes No No 2 times less than 12 hrs.
adult term

1.2 Juvenile and Criminal Justice: The fundamental distinction between these two justice
systems is that the juvenile justice model is offender-oriented instead of offense-oriented,
focusing on the unique circumstances and offenders as individuals. The juvenile justice system is
new compared to the criminal justice system, with the first court started in 1899 15. Rehabilitating
the criminal and making life better going forward is the primary objective of a sentence
(National District Attorneys Association 2000)16. In particular, juvenile justice relies more on
informal processing. It depends less on due process and adversarial processes than criminal
justice (Bortner 1982)17 , i.e. treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment (Vleet, 1999) 18.
The proponent of the juvenile justice system argues that “Kids are different” 19. Detention,
juvenile rehabilitation and integration are thus anchored on juvenile justice standards and norms.
The prime purpose of sentencing should be rehabilitation20. It, therefore, becomes apparent that
the juvenile justice system is rehabilitative, with intervention programs being seen as guiding
15
FE Zimring, M Langer and DS Tanenhaus (eds), Juvenile Justice in Global Perspective (NYU Press 2015)
16
National District Attorneys Association, Resource Manual and Policy Positions on Juvenile Crime Issues (National District Attorneys
Association 2000)
17
MA Bortner, Inside a Juvenile Court: The Tarnished Ideal of Individualized Justice (New York University Press 1982)

18
RK van Vleet, 'The Attack on Juvenile Justice' (1999) 564 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 203

19
S St Vincent, 'Kids Are Different' (2010) 109 Mich L Rev First Impressions 9.
20
A Kupchik, 'Prosecuting Adolescents in Criminal Courts: Criminal or Juvenile Justice?' (2003) 50(3) Social Problems 439
tools to help those in contact with law enforcement agencies succeed later on and promote
security (Cullen et al., 2017).21

The rehabilitative programme effectively reduces juvenile recidivism ( Pappas and Dent, 2023) 22.
Vleet (1999)23 criticises the juvenile justice system for failing in its goal of rehabilitation. He
maintained that the juvenile justice system's effectiveness ought to be questioned in light of the
growth in juvenile offences. A report by the USA Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention [OJJDP] (2020)24 observed that within one year of release, rearrest rates average 55%
for justice-involved youth and 24% for those returning to confinement. Bradshaw,
Rosenborough, & Umbreit (2006)25 assert that creating and executing initiatives to reduce
juvenile recidivism rates represents a significant policy challenge. Hence, an effective
rehabilitation programme is critical for an effective juvenile justice system. What works is a
longtime question for the juvenile justice model. Pappas and Dent (2023) 26 argue in their 40-year
meta-analysis that there are notable differences in recidivism reductions depending on the
criminal justice system’s levels, juvenile offenders’ characteristics, program modalities, and
methodological quality. They suggest that an effective rehabilitative programme is necessary for
an effective juvenile justice system, and an intervention program is a practical approach to
reducing recidivism from juvenile offenders. Therefore, studying the effectiveness of
rehabilitative programmes is necessary for an effective juvenile justice system. Hence, the above
study will attempt to analyse different rehabilitative programmes and their effectiveness.

1.3 Juvenile Justice Policy in Scotland:

Johnstone (2010) said that Scotland has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world,
with a higher number of juvenile offenders than other European nations of comparable size.
Hence, juvenile crime and the rehabilitation programme in Scotland are selected for the study.
The four nations that comprise the United Kingdom are England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern
Ireland27. The juvenile justice system in Scotland has a timeline as follows:

The late 19th and early 20th centuries had significant developments in approaches to juvenile
justice in Scotland. This period witnessed growing concerns about child welfare, new
understandings of adolescence and delinquency, and debates about how best to deal with young
offenders. Several vital changes occurred, including the establishment of reformatory schools,
the creation of juvenile courts and the gradual influence of new scientific and psychological
approaches. However, there were also essential continuities with earlier practices.

21
FT Cullen, TC Pratt and JJ Turanovic, 'The failure of swift, certain, and fair supervision: Choosing a more hopeful future' (2017) 41(3)
Perspectives 66-78
22
Pappas, L.N., Dent, A.L. The 40-year debate: a meta-review on what works for juvenile offenders. J Exp Criminol 19, 1–30 (2023).
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09472-z>
23
RK van Vleet, 'The Attack on Juvenile Justice' (1999) 564 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 203
24
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2020 Annual Report (NCJ Number 255340, January 2021)
https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/media/document/ojjdp-2020-annual-report.pdf accessed 20 july 2024
25
W Bradshaw, D Roseborough and MS Umbreit, 'The effect of victim offender mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis'
(2006) 24 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 87
26
LJ Pappas and LL Davis, ‘The 4-year debate: a meta-review on what works for juvenile offenders’ (2023) 19(1) J Exp Criminol 1,
doi:10.1007/s11292-021-09472-6.
27
‘United Kingdom: What’s the Difference Between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales?’ (History.com, n.d.)
https://www.history.com/news/united-kingdom-scotland-northern-ireland-wales accessed 1 August 2024.
The 1880s marked a significant turning point, with a growing public and official focus on
children’s welfare.28 The reflection was seen in legislation such as the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children Act 1889, described as a “Children’s Charter.” 29 There was increasing intervention in
family life, with issues like child neglect coming under official scrutiny. Organisations like the
Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (RSSPCC) played a significant
role in investigating suspected cases of abuse or neglect.30
A critical development was the reformatory and industrial school system. Reformatories catered
to young offenders, while industrial schools were for children deemed to be at risk of getting into
crime. By 1896, there were 43 such institutions in Scotland housing around 5,500 children. 31
These schools aimed to provide education, training and moral reform. However, they have been
criticised by some historians for excessive control and surveillance of working-class children. 32

The schools were originally philanthropic initiatives but came under increasing state regulation
through legislation in the 1850s and 1860s.33 This exemplifies a broader pattern of voluntary
efforts being co-opted by the state. The Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial
Schools 1896 recommended various reforms, including better classification of children and
improved aftercare.34 However, the basic model remained in place into the 20th century.

The early 1900s saw a growing interest in new approaches to juvenile delinquency. Adolescence
was increasingly recognised as a distinct phase of life influenced by psychological theories. 35
Some reformers argued for more individualised and rehabilitative approaches rather than
punitive ones. The Children Act 1908 was an important milestone, establishing juvenile courts
throughout Britain and limiting the imprisonment of children.36

However, the early Scottish juvenile courts often operated like the previous system. They were
staffed by the same magistrates with little specialist training. 37 The primary source of information
available to the courts was usually just a police report. 38 Nevertheless, the Act was significant in
separating child offenders from adults and recognising their different needs.

New scientific and medical approaches gradually began to influence the understanding of
juvenile delinquency. There was growing interest in psychological factors and the possibility of
“treatment” for young offenders.39 However, the practical impact of these ideas was limited in

28
GK Behlmer, Friends of the Family: The English Home and its Guardians, 1850-1940 (Stanford University Press 1998)
29
Ibid., p. 233
30
L Mahood, Policing Gender, Class and Family: Britain, 1850-1940 (London: UCL Press, 1995), pp. 104-105.
31
Report of the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools (1896) p. 8
32
M L Mahood, Policing Gender, Class and Family: Britain, 1850-1940 (London: UCL Press, 1995), pp. 159-160
33
A Ralston, 'The Development of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Scotland, 1832-1872' (1988) 8 Scottish Economic and Social History
40
34
Report of the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools (1896)
35
JR Gillis, Youth and History: Tradition and Change in European Age Relations 1770-Present (Academic Press 1974) pp. 95-131
36
H Hendrick, Child Welfare: England 1872-1989 (Routledge 1994), p. 121
37
Report of the Committee on Protection and Training (Morton Committee), 1928, p. 42
38
Ibid., p. 45
39
D Garland, Punishment and Welfare: A History of Penal Strategies (Gower 1985)), pp. 222-223
the early decades of the 20th century. It was not until the 1930s that child guidance clinics
became established as a resource for the courts.40

The 1925 Morton Committee, appointed to review juvenile justice in Scotland, provided insight
into the situation during the mid-1920s. It noted continuing problems with the juvenile court
system, such as inadequate information being provided to magistrates. 41 The Committee
recommended establishing a proper probation service and was interested in new psychological
approaches. However, it only recommended individual examinations in cases of suspected
“mental deficiency.”42
2004: The Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) approach was introduced as a national
framework for all children’s services.
2005-2016: Legislation was passed to improve offender management and modernise the criminal
justice system, including the Management of Offenders Etc (Scotland) Act 2005 and the
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016.
2015-2021: The Youth Justice Strategy was refreshed, focusing on the whole system approach,
improving life chances, and system improvement. The Age of Criminal Responsibility Act 2019
raised the age from 8 to 12.
Since the 1960s, Scotland’s approach to adolescent justice has changed dramatically, placing a
stronger emphasis on children’s rights, early intervention, and welfare. Key developments
include:
The Kilbrandon Committee was formed in 1960–1968 in response to worries regarding handling
problematic youngsters. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which established a new
framework for addressing children in need of care, resulted from its recommendations.
1971 saw the implementation of Children’s Hearings, which handled matters involving minors
who committed crimes or needed care and protection and who were under the age of sixteen (and
occasionally up to eighteen).
From 1995 to 2011: The 1971 tenets were reaffirmed by the Children (Scotland) Act and the
Children’s Hearing (Scotland) Act.
From 2002 to 2008, Scotland implemented the “Preventing Offending by Young People: A
Framework for Action” plan and the Action Programme to Reduce Youth Crime.

McAra and McVie ( 2010)43 argue that the juvenile justice system in England/Wales and
Scotland is based on Kilbrandon principles. Remarkably, within Scotland, Kilbrandon principles
have been watered down over the past decade, and reforms have been suggested in the Scottish
juvenile justice system with its Kilbrandon principles 44and founding ethos. Therefore, a gap in
the effectiveness of the rehabilitative justice programme in Scotland is observed. Hence, this

40
'Child Guidance: Scotland's Social Service Need' The Scotsman (28 February 1936)
41
Report of the Committee on Protection and Training, p. 44
42
Ibid., p. 59
43
McAra, L & McVie, S 2010, 'Youth Crime and Justice: Key Messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions
and Crime' Criminology and Criminal Justice, vol 10, no. 2, pp. 179-209., 10.1177/1748895809360971
44
Steve J Hothersall, Janine Bolger. "Social Policy for Social Work, Social Care and the Caring Professions - Scottish
Perspectives" , Routledge, 2020
study will address the gaps in the earlier research gap. In the next chapter 2, a literature review is
done to understand the different gaps in juvenile justice rehabilitation programmes.

Chapter 2
Literature-Review
In the earlier chapter it is observed that there is a strong need for rehabilitation
of juvenile justice system. Therefore, in this chapter an attempt is made to
review earlier research and published literature on juvenile justice
rehabilitation by academician and legal authority.

2.1 Review of Literature: The term juvenile justice is comparatively a new

development in law. The first juvenile court was established by statute in Illinois
enacted the first juvenile court act in 1899 and quickly spread to several other
nations45. Since the inception of juvenile justice system the court emphasized on
punishment and rehabilitation46. The juvenile justice system is based on
rehabilitative model47. The juvenile justice supports that offenders can be
reformed and the importance of balanced justice or rehabilitative justice 48. The
rehabilitative model rests on two assumptions first the juvenile offenders will
become adult criminals if they are not treated and second, they are amenable
to rehabilitative treatment (Simpson, 1976)49. The existence of separate
juvenile justice system is always based on rehabilitation model in criminal
justice system (Bernard and Kurlychek 2010; Simpson, 1976) 50. The core
philosophical beliefs and tenets predicted supports for balanced justice and
primarily rehabilitation-oriented approach to sanctions (Mears, Justin and
Christina, 2005 )51. The juvenile justice system is based on more of reformative
then punishment. Hence, the rehabilitation is having more prominence space
in separate juvenile justice system. The effectiveness of juvenile justice is based
on effective rehabilitation programme. Therefore, a review literature on juvenile
rehabilitation is done to understand the effectiveness of juvenile justice
rehabilitation programme.

45
Zimring, Franklin E., Máximo Langer, and David S. Tanenhaus, eds. Juvenile Justice in Global Perspective. NYU Press,
2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15zc73m.
46
Bernard TJ, Kurlychek MC (2010) The cycle of juvenile justice, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
47
Simpson, Anna Louise. “Rehabilitation as the Justification of a Separate Juvenile Justice System.” California Law
Review 64, no. 4 (1976): 984–1017. https://doi.org/10.2307/3479922.
48
Mears, Daniel P., Justin T. Pickett, and Christina Mancini. “Support for Balanced Juvenile Justice: Assessing Views About
Youth, Rehabilitation, and Punishment.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31, no. 3 (2015): 459–79.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44504773.
49
Simpson, Anna Louise. “Rehabilitation as the Justification of a Separate Juvenile Justice System.” California Law
Review 64, no. 4 (1976): 984–1017. https://doi.org/10.2307/3479922.
50
Bernard TJ, Kurlychek MC (2010) The cycle of juvenile justice, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
51
Mears, Daniel P., Justin T. Pickett, and Christina Mancini. “Support for Balanced Juvenile Justice: Assessing Views About
Youth, Rehabilitation, and Punishment.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31, no. 3 (2015): 459–79.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44504773.
Some countries (Canada, France, Egypt, Germany, India, Israel, Japan,
Singapore) have special laws determining the status of young offenders and
measures taken regarding them. Other (China, The Czech Republic, Iran, Italy,
The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Sweden) have no special act regarding
juvenile delinquency. In research it is noted that a set of reforms which would
help realign the Scottish system with its founding ethos 52. The aims of these
separate juvenile systems, first codified in Illinois’s Juvenile Court Act 53 were
twofold: first, to separate juveniles from the negative influence of older
offenders and, second, to rehabilitate rather than punish 54. Our justice system
still has a long way to go in aligning law and public policy with research on
child and adolescent development55. When children do not receive sufficient
rehabilitative support to address their underlying traumas, justice system
involvement often impedes, rather than accelerates, their recovery and
rehabilitation56.

Roemer (1998)57 presents the argument that outcomes for any individual are
determined by circumstances beyond the person’s control, such as family
characteristics, neighborhood, school, as well as by agency, which is under
control of the individual. According to Roemer, individuals should be only held
responsible for the latter.

Freemon, Herrera, Cheon, & Katz (2023)58 explores the role of traditional and
non-traditional family structures on self-reported delinquency in eight English-
speaking Caribbean nations. that youth from intact nuclear families, with a
mother and father present, engage in less delinquency than youth from intact
blended, single-parent, or no-parent households. Further, family structure
moderated the relationship between delinquency, parental attachment, and
commitment to negative peers. The moderating role of family processes
(parental attachment and parental supervision) and commitment to negative
peers on this relationship.
Liu (2024) emphasizes that the justice system still has significant progress to
make in aligning law and public policy with research on child and adolescent

52
McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010). Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and
Crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10(2), 179-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895809360971
53
1899 Ill. Laws 131.
54
Franklin E. Zimring, The Common Thread: Diversion in the Jurisprudence of Juvenile Courts, in A CENTURY OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE 143, 143–45 (Margaret K. Rosenheim et al. eds., 2002) (noting that the creation of the juvenile
justice system had two aims— diversion and rehabilitation—and arguing that diversion, i.e., the separation of children
from adult criminals, was the more important of the two rationales)
55
Liu, Goodwin. “Some Thoughts on a Developmental Approach to a Sound Basic Education.” The University of Chicago Law
Review 91, no. 2 (2024): 437–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27294517
56
Serpas, Ronal W., and Taryn A. Merkl. “Improve Juvenile Justice.” Ensuring Justice and Public Safety: Federal Criminal
Justice Priorities for 2020 and Beyond. Brennan Center for Justice, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28414.7.
57
Roemer, John E., and Alain Trannoy. "Equality of opportunity." Handbook of income distribution. Vol. 2. Elsevier,
2015. 217-300.
58
Freemon, K., Herrera, V. M., Cheon, H., & Katz, C. M. (2023). Family Structure and Delinquency in the English-
Speaking Caribbean: The Moderating Role of Parental Attachment, Supervision, and Commitment to Negative
Peers. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 21(2), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/15412040221132192
development. This suggests that rehabilitation programs should be tailored to
the developmental stage of juvenile offenders.

Johnstone (2010) argued that Scotland has one of the highest rates of
imprisonment globally, with more young people in prison compared to similar-
sized European countries. This highlights the urgent focus from policy makers
particularly for effective rehabilitation programs. Studies have shown that
youth crime, particularly property offences, costs Scottish businesses, private
individuals, and the public sector more than £80 million each year. This
underscores the potential financial benefits of successful rehabilitation
programs. McAra, L., and McVie, S. (2010)59 argue that the Scottish system of
juvenile justice may be better placed to deliver this agenda than many of its
western counterparts, including the system south of the border in
England/Wales. McAra and McVie (2010) found that over half of young people
referred to the Children's Hearings system due to offending behavior will end
up with a criminal conviction by age 22. They are also nearly seven times more
likely to receive a custodial sentence compared to those not previously involved
in the system.

These findings collectively underscore the importance of effective rehabilitation

programs in juvenile justice. They suggest that such programs should be
developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed, and considerate of family
structures and broader societal factors. The high costs associated with youth
crime and the potential for reducing recidivism further emphasize the need for
effective rehabilitation strategies. There is always a necessity felt of evaluating
specific rehabilitation programs, exploring the long-term outcomes of different
approaches, and investigating how to better align juvenile justice practices.
Hence, this study is an attempt to address the different rehabilitation
programme theories and practices in Scotland Juvenile justice system.

Johnstone (2010) argued that Scotland has one of the highest rates of
imprisonment globally, with more young people in prison compared to similar-
sized European countries.

Scotland has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world, and also

has more young people in prison compared with similar sized countries in

Europe (Johnstone, 2010). The Scottish Prisons Commission (2008) notes that

more than 20 per cent of all offenders imprisoned in Scotland had been there
59
McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010). Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth
Transitions and Crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10(2), 179-209.
before on more than 10 previous occasions. McAra and McVie (2010) also

calculate that over half of those young people referred to the Children’s

Hearings system because of offending behaviour will end up with a criminal

conviction by the age of 22, and are nearly 7 times more likely to be given a

custodial sentence compared with those not previously involved in the

Children’s Hearings system. This is not the kind of ‘seamless service’ that one

would hope for in Scotland.60

The rehabilitation period for a conviction depends on the sentence imposed for
that offence. For example, if a person receives a custodial sentence not
exceeding six months, the rehabilitation period is currently seven years and if
they receive a fine, it is currently five years from the date of the conviction.
These periods are halved if the individual was under 18 at the date of their
conviction. The rehabilitation period for an alternative to prosecution depends
on the type of alternative to prosecution received. For example, if a person
receives a fiscal fine or a fiscal compensation order the rehabilitation period is
3 months from the date it was given.61
The reforms will;
 help children to accomplish their goals and thereby boost their skills,
increase their confidence and self-esteem and allow them to move on with their
lives and be all they can be.
 provide those children who have committed offences in their past with more
opportunities to take part in a wider range of activities as a result of being able
to put their past offending behind them.
 lead to less stigmatisation of children who have offended in the past which
will allow them to take a more active role within their home, school and
community.
 help children who have offended in the past to feel that they are able to be
full members of the community in which they live and learn and this will aid
them in their learning journey and allow them not be feel discriminated
against.62

Youth crime and justice are major issues, not only in terms of their effect on
the quality of life within society, but also as large users of public funds. From
the moment an offence is committed, the costs to individuals and society
escalate. There is a cost to the victim that may be financial and/or personal; a
cost to the police in pursuing the offender and processing the case and costs
incurred in the hearing or court systems. Further costs will include social work
involvement, residential or community care, any treatment programme and, in
some cases, prison costs. An estimate found that youth crime in relation to
property offences alone in Scotland, cost businesses, private individuals and
the public sector more than £80 million each year (excluding the costs of the
justice process). Reducing offending would therefore have significant financial
benefits to the community.63

60
EXPLAINING YOUTH CUSTODY IN SCOTLAND: THE NEW CRISIS OF CONTAINMENT AND CONVERGENCE Monica

Barry, Senior Research Fellow, University of Strathclyde Page 2

61
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/impact-assessment/2018/02/
management-offenders-scotland-bill-childrens-rights-wellbeing-impact-assessment-rehabilitation/documents/
00531859-pdf/00531859-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00531859.pdf
62
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/impact-assessment/2018/02/
management-offenders-scotland-bill-childrens-rights-wellbeing-impact-assessment-rehabilitation/documents/
00531859-pdf/00531859-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00531859.pdf
63
https://audit.scot/uploads/docs/report/2001/nr_010619_youth_justice.pdf
Despite these initiatives, several gaps in the current rehabilitation programs
have been identified:

1. Limited long-term outcome studies: There is a lack of comprehensive

longitudinal studies evaluating the long-term effectiveness of rehabilitation
programs.

2. Inconsistent implementation: The effectiveness of programs varies across

different regions in Scotland, suggesting a need for more standardized
implementation (CYCJ, 2020).

3. Insufficient focus on trauma-informed care: Many young offenders have

experienced trauma, but not all programs adequately address this aspect
(Vaswani, 2018).

4. Limited attention to neurodevelopmental disorders: There is growing

evidence that many young offenders have undiagnosed neurodevelopmental
disorders, which are not consistently addressed in rehabilitation programs
(Hughes et al., 2020).

5. Inadequate transition support: The transition from juvenile to adult systems

remains a critical gap, with many young people falling through the cracks
(Scottish Government, 2021).

Justification for the Study

Given these identified gaps, there is a clear need for further research to:

1. Evaluate the long-term effectiveness of current rehabilitation programs in

reducing recidivism and promoting positive life outcomes.

2. Assess the implementation of rehabilitation programs across different

regions in Scotland to identify best practices and areas for improvement.

3. Explore the integration of trauma-informed care and neurodevelopmental

considerations into existing rehabilitation programs.

4. Investigate the effectiveness of transition support for young people moving

from juvenile to adult systems.

5. Examine the cost-effectiveness of various rehabilitation approaches to

inform policy decisions.

By addressing these research gaps, this study aims to contribute to the

improvement of juvenile justice rehabilitation programs in Scotland, potentially
leading to reduced recidivism rates, improved outcomes for young offenders,
and significant cost savings for society.
 Chapter 3
Research Methodology

This chapter is to describe, justify and explain the methodology used for this
dissertation. This dissertation is an attempt to address different theories for
different juvenile rehabilitation programme. The goal of this study is to
contribute to scholarship aimed at understanding views about juvenile justice
rehabilitation programme and the factors that shape them. Particularly, it
draws on prior theory and research on the juvenile rehabilitation programme
support for balanced justice and the salience of core philosophical beliefs and
dimensions for such support.
Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework (Findings and Discussion)

4.1 Theoretical Underpinnings of Juvenile Offender Rehabilitation

The rehabilitation of juvenile offenders in Scotland is grounded in several key

theoretical perspectives that have evolved over time, reflecting advancements in
our understanding of adolescent development, criminology, and effective
intervention strategies. These theories provide the foundation for the design
and implementation of rehabilitation programs, shaping the Scottish approach
to juvenile justice.

4.1.1 Development

A fundamental principle underlying Scotland's approach is the recognition that

adolescents are developmentally distinct from adults. As noted by McAra and
McVie (2010)64, the Scottish system acknowledges that young people's brains
are still developing, particularly in areas related to impulse control, planning,
and risk assessment. This aligns with international research on adolescent
brain development (e.g. Bonnie, 2024) and supports a more rehabilitative
rather than punitive approach.

4.1.2 Social Learning

Many rehabilitation programs in Scotland draw on social learning theory,

which posits that criminal behavior is learned through interaction with others
(Akers, 1998). Interventions often focus on providing positive role models and
teaching prosocial skills to counteract negative peer influences.
a) Differential Association: Direct association with others who engage in
criminal behavior.

b) Definitions: Attitudes and meanings attached to certain behaviors.

c) Differential Reinforcement: The balance of rewards and punishments

associated with behavior.

d) Imitation: Learning through observation and modeling of others' behavior.

Interventions based on this theory often focus on:

- Providing positive role models
- Teaching prosocial skills
- Restructuring peer groups and social environments
- Reinforcing positive behaviors and attitudes

4.1.3 Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

64
McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010). Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh
Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10(2), 179-209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895809360971
This model, developed by Andrews and Bonta (2010)65, suggests that
rehabilitation is most effective when it:
1) Targets offenders at higher risk of reoffending
2) Addresses criminogenic needs (factors directly linked to offending)
3) Is responsive to the learning style and abilities of the offender

Scottish programs increasingly aim to incorporate these principles in their

design and implementation.
This model, developed by Andrews and Bonta (2010), has become increasingly
influential in Scottish juvenile justice. It suggests that rehabilitation is most
effective when it adheres to three principles:

a) Risk Principle: The level of intervention should match the offender's risk of
reoffending. Higher-risk offenders should receive more intensive interventions.

b) Need Principle: Interventions should target criminogenic needs - dynamic

risk factors directly linked to criminal behavior. These may include:
- Antisocial attitudes
- Substance abuse
- Poor family relationships
- Lack of education or employment

c) Responsivity Principle: The style and mode of intervention should be

matched to the learning style, motivation, and abilities of the offender. This
includes both general responsivity (using methods known to be effective, such
as cognitive-behavioral approaches) and specific responsivity (tailoring
interventions to individual characteristics).

4.1.4 Desistance Theory

Recent Scottish approaches have been influenced by desistance theory, which

examines how and why offenders stop criminal behavior over time. This
perspective emphasizes the importance of building positive identities and social
bonds to facilitate the transition away from crime (Maruna, 2001) 66.

Recent Scottish approaches have been influenced by desistance theory, which

examines how and why offenders stop criminal behavior over time. Key aspects
of desistance theory include:

a) Identity Transformation: The importance of shifting from a criminal to a non-

criminal identity (Maruna, 2001).

b) Social Bonds: The role of positive relationships, employment, and

community ties in facilitating desistance (Sampson & Laub, 1993 67).

c) Agency and Self-Efficacy: The offender's belief in their ability to change and
control their future (McNeill, 2006).

d) Narrative Change: The importance of developing new, prosocial narratives

about one's life and future (Maruna, 2001).

This perspective has led to interventions that:

- Focus on building positive identities
- Strengthen social bonds and community integration
65
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362
66
Maruna, S. (2016). Desistance and restorative justice: it’s now or never. Restorative Justice, 4(3),
289–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2016.1243853
67
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through
life. Harvard University Press.
- Promote self-efficacy and personal agency
- Provide opportunities for offenders to make amends and demonstrate change

4.2 Rehabilitation Programs in Scotland

4.2.1 Community-Based Interventions

Scotland has placed significant emphasis on community-based rehabilitation

programs. These include:

- Intensive Support and Monitoring Services (ISMS): Provides structured

support and supervision for high-risk young offenders as an alternative to
secure care.

- Restorative Justice Programs: Bring offenders and victims together to address

harm and promote accountability.

- Cognitive Behavioral Programs: Address thinking patterns and attitudes that

contribute to offending behavior.

4.2.2 Secure Care

For the most serious offenders, Scotland utilizes secure care facilities that aim
to provide a therapeutic environment alongside educational and vocational
training.

4.2.3 Whole System Approach

Introduced in 2011, this approach emphasizes early intervention, diversion

from formal systems where appropriate, and multi-agency collaboration to
address the needs of young people involved in offending (Scottish Government,
2015).

4.3 Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Programs

4.3.1 Recidivism Rates

Studies have shown mixed results regarding the effectiveness of rehabilitation

programs in reducing reoffending. McAra and McVie (2010) found that over half
of young people referred to the Children's Hearings system due to offending
behavior ended up with a criminal conviction by age 22. However, more recent
data suggests some improvement, with the Scottish Government (2021)
reporting a decline in youth reoffending rates over the past decade.

4.3.2 Community-Based vs. Custodial Interventions

Research generally indicates that community-based interventions are more

effective than custodial sentences in reducing reoffending among juveniles (e.g.
Lipsey, 2009)68. This aligns with Scotland's emphasis on community-based
rehabilitation.

4.3.3 Challenges in Evaluation

Evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs is complicated by

several factors:

68
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile
Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573
- Long-term follow-up is often lacking
- Difficulty in isolating program effects from other factors
- Variations in program implementation and fidelity

4.4 International Comparisons

4.4.1 Scandinavian Model

Countries like Norway and Sweden have been lauded for their rehabilitative
approach to juvenile justice, emphasizing education and reintegration.
Scotland's approach shares some similarities but faces challenges in
implementation due to higher incarceration rates and resource constraints
(Johnstone, 2010).

4.4.2 Comparison with England and Wales

While sharing some common roots, Scotland's juvenile justice system has
maintained a stronger focus on welfare principles compared to the more
punitive shifts seen in England and Wales in recent decades (McAra and
McVie, 2010).

4.5 Discussion

The theoretical framework underpinning juvenile offender rehabilitation in

Scotland reflects a commitment to evidence-based practice and recognition of
the unique developmental needs of young people. However, translating these
principles into effective interventions remains challenging. Key areas for
potential improvement include:
- Integration of Developmental Neuroscience: Better incorporating insights from
developmental neuroscience into program design to tailor interventions more
effectively.
- Addressing Social and Economic Factors: Focusing more on broader social
and economic determinants of youth offending, such as poverty, education,
and family support.
- Enhanced Evaluation Mechanisms: Improving evaluation methodologies to
better assess long-term outcomes and program effectiveness.
- Investment in Early Intervention: Increasing resources for early intervention
and prevention strategies to address issues before they escalate.

4.1.5 Positive Youth Development (PYD)

Increasingly, Scottish approaches are incorporating elements of Positive Youth

Development theory. PYD emphasizes:

a) Strengths-Based Approach: Focusing on developing youths' strengths and

potential rather than solely addressing deficits.

b) Developmental Assets: Promoting internal assets (e.g., commitment to

learning, positive values) and external assets (e.g., support, empowerment) that
facilitate positive outcomes.

c) Youth Engagement: Actively involving young people in program design and

implementation.

d) Holistic Development: Addressing multiple domains of youth development

(cognitive, social, emotional, moral) simultaneously.

This approach aligns with Scotland's commitment to children's rights and

wellbeing, as outlined in policies like Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC).
4.1.6 Trauma-Informed Care

Recognizing the high prevalence of trauma among justice-involved youth,

Scottish rehabilitation approaches are increasingly incorporating principles of
trauma-informed care. This perspective:

a) Acknowledges the widespread impact of trauma

b) Recognizes the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients and staff
c) Integrates knowledge about trauma into policies and practices
d) Actively seeks to avoid re-traumatization

By integrating these diverse theoretical perspectives, Scotland's approach to

juvenile offender rehabilitation aims to provide a comprehensive, evidence-
based framework for addressing the complex needs of young people involved in
the justice system. However, as subsequent sections will discuss, translating
these theories into effective practice remains an ongoing challenge.

4.6.1 Emerging Trends

Advances in neuroscience could significantly impact our understanding of

adolescent behavior and the design of interventions. Additionally, restorative
justice practices are gaining traction and could play a more prominent role in
Scotland's juvenile justice system.

4.6.2 Technological Advancements

- Virtual Reality (VR): VR could be used in rehabilitation programs for skill-

building and empathy training, providing immersive experiences that teach
young offenders about the consequences of their actions.
- Data Analytics: Leveraging data analytics could improve risk assessment and
tailor interventions more precisely to individual needs.
- Social Media and Digital Technology: Considering the implications of social
media on youth offending and how digital technology can be used in
rehabilitation strategies.

4.6.3 Anticipated Challenges

- Socioeconomic Factors: Addressing the impact of socioeconomic disparities on

youth crime rates remains a significant

challenge.
- Public Perception: Balancing rehabilitative approaches with public demands
for safety and punitive measures can be difficult.
- Resource Allocation: Ensuring sufficient funding and resources for
comprehensive, effective rehabilitation programs is essential.

By anticipating and addressing these challenges, Scotland can continue to

refine its approach to juvenile offender rehabilitation, striving to provide the
best possible outcomes for young people and society as a whole

Juvenile Justice: UK and USA Comparison

The juvenile justice systems in the United Kingdom and the United States of
America share some common roots but have evolved differently over time. Both
systems aim to address youth offending, but their approaches, structures, and
underlying philosophies show notable differences.

Age of Criminal Responsibility:

One significant difference lies in the age of criminal responsibility. In England
and Wales, it is set at 10 years old69, while in Scotland, it was recently raised
from 8 to 1270. In contrast, most U.S. states set the age between 6 and 12, with
the most common age being 771. This disparity reflects different societal
attitudes towards childhood and criminal culpability.

Court Procedures:
UK juvenile courts, now called Youth Courts, operate less formally than adult
courts but still maintain many legal procedures72. In the USA, juvenile courts
traditionally operated under the doctrine of parens patriae, with less formal
procedures and a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment 73. However,
in recent decades, U.S. juvenile courts have become more formalized and
punitive, particularly for serious offenses74.

Sentencing and Interventions:

Both systems offer a range of interventions, from community-based programs
to custodial sentences. The UK system emphasizes community-based
interventions through Youth Offending Teams75. The USA has a wider variation
in approaches across states, but generally has higher rates of juvenile
incarceration76.

Transfer to Adult Courts:

In the USA, many states have provisions for transferring juveniles to adult
courts for serious offenses77. This practice is less common in the UK, although
Crown Courts can handle cases involving very serious crimes committed by
youth78.

Rehabilitation vs. Punishment:

Historically, both systems emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for
juvenile offenders. However, the USA saw a shift towards more punitive
approaches in the 1980s and 1990s79. The UK has generally maintained a
stronger focus on rehabilitation, although there have been periods of more
punitive rhetoric80.

Recent Trends:
In recent years, both countries have seen movements towards more
rehabilitative and evidence-based approaches. The UK has implemented
initiatives like the Youth Justice Board to oversee the system and promote
effective practice81. In the USA, there's growing recognition of the need for
reform, with some states implementing more rehabilitative models 82.

Conclusion:

69
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 34.
70
Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019
71
National Juvenile Defender Center. (2020). Minimum Age for Delinquency Adjudication—Multi-Jurisdiction Survey.
72
Judicial College. (2020). Youth Court Bench Book.
73
Feld, B. C. (1999). Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University Press.
74
Kupchik, A. (2006). Judging Juveniles: Prosecuting Adolescents in Adult and Juvenile Courts. New York: NYU Press.
75
Youth Justice Board. (2019). Standards for children in the youth justice system 2019
76
Sawyer, W. (2019). Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie 2019. Prison Policy Initiative
77
Griffin, P., Addie, S., Adams, B., & Firestine, K. (2011). Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer
Laws and Reporting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
78
Crown Prosecution Service. (2021). Youth Offenders.

79
Zimring, F. E. (2005). American Juvenile Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

80
Muncie, J. (2008). The 'Punitive Turn' in Juvenile Justice: Cultures of Control and Rights Compliance in Western
Europe and the USA. Youth Justice, 8(2), 107-121.

81
Youth Justice Board. (2021). About us
82
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2020). Juvenile Justice Reinvestment
While the UK and USA juvenile justice systems share some common goals, they
differ significantly in their structures, approaches, and outcomes. The UK
system generally maintains a more consistent focus on rehabilitation and
welfare, while the U.S. system shows greater variation across states and has
experienced more dramatic shifts between rehabilitative and punitive
approaches.

Chapter 5: Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

5.1 Comprehensive Analysis of Findings

The following study thoroughly examines juvenile offender rehabilitation

programs in Scotland and analyses current advancements. The results provide
a picture of both challenging and less-developed areas.

5.1.1 Theoretical Foundation and Policy Approach

Provides a solid base that enfolds current knowledge of teenage development,

successful rehabilitation techniques, and criminogenic factors aiding in
strengthening Scotland's juvenile justice system. A crucial benefit of this
Scottish method is its incorporation of resistance perspectives, social learning
theory, and developmental theory into practice and policy. This is especially
observed in viewing adolescence as a separate developmental period, focusing
on the surrounding environment and obtained behaviours while also promoting
positive identity change and social ties to support not committing any criminal
activity later.

The Age of Criminal Liability (Scotland) Act 2019, which raised the age of
criminal liability from 8 to 12 years, is another source pointing towards
Scotland's dedication to integrating developmental research into its juvenile
justice system.

5.1.2 Community-Based Interventions and the Whole System Approach

Community-based rehabilitation programs are of high value in Scotland. This strategy is

prominent worldwide and points out that community-based interventions surmount correctional
sentences in reducing adolescent offenders' recidivism rates (Lipsey, 2009). Notable programs
include the Cognitive Behavioural Program, Restorative Justice Programs, and Intensive Support
and Monitoring Services (ISMS).

The Whole System Approach, which was introduced in 2011, constitutes a considerable
movement in policy toward a more encyclopedic and amalgamated approach. This strategy
places a strong significance on early intercession and deviating them from formal processes
when appropriate while also collaborating with various other agencies.

5.1.3 Outcomes and Effectiveness

Analysis and outcomes on the potency of Scotland's rehabilitation programs

are not entirely accordant. A significant decrease in reoffending rates of
juveniles over the last ten years is observed from the data provided by the
Scottish Government in 2021 which indicates some efficacy in rehabilitation
efforts. On the other hand, long-term research, such as that conducted by
McAra and McVie (2010), however, revealed that by the time the juveniles
turned 22 years old, more than half of the youth were brought to the Children's
Hearings system because of their deviant behavior and were found guilty of a
crime. This demonstrates the continued difficulties in helping many young
people break the cycle of crime.

5.1.4 International Context

The juvenile justice system of Scotland is amongst the best in the world,
especially in welfare and rehabilitation although some obstacles remain such
as increased rates of incarceration in comparison to some European nations
(Johnstone, 2010) and limited resources that impede the comprehensive
execution of rehabilitation-oriented strategies.

5.2 Restrictions on the Research

This research has a number of drawbacks even after employing a comprehensive

methodology. These limitations provide a framework for analyzing the findings and
determining where more research should be conducted.

5.2.1 Insufficient Extensive Long-Term Follow-Up Research

One of the primary limitations of the study is the absence of panoptic vertical studies on
juvenile offender rehabilitation programs in Scotland. Although the short-term results are
comparatively well-documented, the long-term implications remain unintelligible. This
constraint is important because the actual gauge of recovery success normally takes more
time to be observed.

The ability to analyse the long-term effects of rehabilitation programs on variables such as
behavioural changes, social reintegration, and life outcomes beyond the initial post-
intervention period is limited by the dearth of rigorous long-term follow-up research.

5.2.2 Disparities in Program Success by Region

The results of programs differ greatly throughout Scotland. It is difficult to draw broad
conclusions or develop universally applicable policy solutions because of this inconsistency.
These variations are caused by a number of causes, such as:
• Unequal funding and resource distribution among areas.
 Variations in staff qualifications and experience.
 Differences in community involvement and support.
 Socioeconomic disparities across Scotland.
 Varying crime rates and offender characteristics in different areas.
These regional disparities highlight the difficulty of applying a standard
rehabilitation program to diverse circumstances.

5.2.3 Because there are so many variables impacting young offenders' conduct, it can be
challenging to pinpoint the precise effects of rehabilitation programs on them. Isolating the
precise effects of the programs is difficult because a variety of factors, including individual
psychology, family dynamics, peer groups, and socioeconomic conditions, influence the
outcome. Our capacity to conclusively establish cause-and-effect links between programs and
outcomes is further hampered by our inability to perform randomized controlled trials, the gold
standard of research. Although there are trends between program participation and favorable
outcomes, it is still difficult to prove causal causation.

5.2.4 Newer Programs' Data Restrictions

For rehabilitation programs that are more recent or less popular, there is a
dearth of information. This restricts our comprehension of the entire spectrum
of therapies that are now offered in Scotland. There are multiple variables that
lead to this lack of data:
• Programs are frequently implemented in narrow geographic areas, resulting
in small sample sizes;
• Inconsistent data collection procedures among programs impede
comparability; and
• Not enough time has passed to acquire significant outcome data.
It is frequently the case that novel approaches lack standardised outcome
metrics.
Due to the limits of the available data, a thorough assessment of new methods
to juvenile offender rehabilitation is not possible. Additionally, an excessive
focus on well-established programs may result in the potential overlooking of
promising new approaches.

5.2.5 The COVID-19 Pandemic's Effects

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a major disruption to programs for the rehabilitation of
juvenile offenders. The juvenile justice system was deeply impacted by this worldwide crisis,
which made it challenging to properly implement programs and evaluate new data.
The pandemic's effects are visible in a number of ways:
• Program delivery methods were changed, going from in-person to remote.
• A greater level of stress for juvenile offenders and their families, which may raise risk factors.
• Modified juvenile criminal behavior trends during lockdowns.
• Court case backlogs and modifications to sentence guidelines.
• Decreased capacity for data collection and program monitoring.
It is challenging to determine the true efficacy of rehabilitation programs due to pandemic-
related issues, which may have long-term effects.

Prospective

Developments in other fields have led to a constant evolution in the juvenile justice field.
Scotland's future treatment of young offenders will be shaped by a number of important factors:
First, developing neuroscience knowledge about teenage brain development can help guide
intervention plans and legislative initiatives. Programs for rehabilitation that are more
specifically tailored to the special cognitive and emotional requirements of juvenile offenders
may result from this information.
Secondly, Scotland's approach may be influenced by the worldwide trend towards restorative
justice concepts. Although Scotland has implemented several aspects of restorative justice, there
is room for growth and development.

Thirdly, there are advantages and disadvantages to technology. While new kinds of juvenile
criminality can be facilitated by digital platforms, these same platforms also provide cutting-edge
capabilities such as virtual reality and data analytics that help improve risk assessment, skill
development, and rehabilitation programs.
Nonetheless, it is more important to address socioeconomic disparity and preserve public support
for rehabilitation than it is for tougher punishments.
There is a great deal of room for invention, despite obstacles. More young people participating in
the creation of policies and programs can result in interventions that are more successful.
Working together with nations and industries can bring fresh perspectives and innovative
approaches to rehabilitation.

5.3 Implications for Policy and Suggestions

Important Advice
Several crucial tactics are suggested in order to improve juvenile offender rehabilitation in
Scotland:
• Early Intervention: To keep young people who are at-risk from being involved in the
criminal justice system, implement all-encompassing programs.
• Cross-Sector Collaboration: Promote closer ties between community organizations, mental
health, education, social services, and juvenile justice agencies.
• Standardized Best Practices: Create and apply evidence-based, standardized rehabilitation
strategies throughout Scotland.
• Workforce Development: Provide training and growth opportunities for professionals
working in juvenile justice.
• Broadened Community-Based Programs: Provide more and a wider range of options for
 community-based rehabilitation.
• Enhanced Aftercare: Offer all-encompassing assistance to youth making the transition from
the legal system.
• Youth Involvement: Provide more chances for youth to contribute to the creation of policies
and programs.
Improved Data Collection and Evaluation: Enhance data collection and analysis to measure
program effectiveness.

By putting these suggestions into practice, Scotland can improve on its current achievements in
juvenile rehabilitation, lower reoffending rates, and establish a more efficient and just juvenile
justice system. This strategy places a strong emphasis on prevention and reintegration,
teamwork, and evidence-based interventions.