Child First is a policy framework whereby children should be “treated as children first, and offenders second”, and was identified as the guiding principle of youth justice for the Youth Justice Board for England & Wales in 2021. However, Burns and Smithson describe Child First as a “magic concept” which fails to tackle the root issues facing the youth justice system.
Details
The overarching criticism is that the Child First policy is an abstract idiom without bite. It attempts to simplify complex problems in the youth justice system and allows governments to adopt Child First labels without truly addressing the criminalisation of children, particularly those who are already marginalised.
Burns and Smithson highlight the risks of this policy, considered below alongside the policy’s four tenets:
- See children as children
The key risk of this tenet is that it is too simplistic, leaning into the non-existent idea of the “universal child”, while reinforcing the adult-child power gap.
Childhood is experienced differently based on factors such as race, gender and background, making the notion of a “universal child” unrealistic. The article also highlights risks of adultification and diminishing the lived experiences of children, which may widen the adult-child gap.
- Develop a pro-social identify for positive child outcomes
This tenet encourages children to develop their pro-social identity, leading to safer environments. This risks placing the onus on the child to change their behaviour and community, rather than questioning how the community may be unsafe for the child. The notion of pro-social behaviour is also critiqued as being adult centric and an unrealistic reflection of children exposed to the welfare system or in contact with the criminal justice system.
- Collaboration with children
The key risk is that collaboration may be tokenistic if unaccompanied by wider systemic reform. For example, police custody suites have been painted in bright colours to appear child-friendly but have the effect of minimising the reality of the child’s experience in custody which can be harsh and punitive.
- Promote diversion
Diversion encourages the use of prevention, and minimal intervention to promote a childhood away from the youth justice system. This tenet fails to address why diversion is necessary in the first place. The lack of data on diversion of children within the youth justice system makes any analysis weak.
Commentary
The article reenforces the need for practitioners to look beyond whether a policy or practice is labelled “Child First” and consider whether it makes a meaningful difference to the individual child. This includes being alert to adultification, different childhood experiences and whether children’s participation is genuinely meaningful rather than tokenistic.
A useful practical question is: what is actually different for this child as a result of applying a Child First approach?