Youth Justice in Canada - Dissertation Example

Youth Justice in Canada Introduction We live in a dynamic world that is constantly changing. This world is comprised of different societies, which display certain unique features including shared political, sociocultural, and economic aspects. The dynamic nature of these societies has resulted in major transformations across all these spheres. In an effort to understand the transformation of societies, one of the common approaches used is the comparative social studies. Comparative social studies or comparative welfare studies are used to compare and understand the causes, consequences, and nature of social and welfare reforms among different societies or nations (see Clarke, 2008: 1). Some major events in the past and currently make it important to conduct such comparative social studies. Some of these include globalization, immigration, welfare state reforms, and economic incidents such as the financial crises and debt crises (University of Southern Denmark, 2014). One of the major trends in the world has been the changes in inequality in terms of income and wealth. The growing inequalities especially after the Second World War led to the creation of welfare states. The welfare state is a system of government where the government protects the well-being of its citizens who are in social or financial need by providing social and financial benefits (Pierson & Castles, 2006: 160). The welfare states have undergone various transformations over the years since their appearance. According to Gilbert (2005: 3), the period between 1960 and 1980s, which is often called the “Golden Era”, represents a period when major changes took place in welfare states especially in Europe and OECD countries whereby the social welfare expenditures doubled among the OECD countries. This means that social welfare became a major priority for the welfare states. In the recent past, the increasing expenditure on welfare programs has attracted attention from welfare states. In the US alone, welfare spending has increased consistently by about 375 per cent from $178 billion in 1965 to $668 billion currently (Tanner, 2012: 4).Although the welfare programs were intended to reduce inequalities by addressing poverty, this has not been achieved in most welfare states. The gap between the rich and poor has continued to grow. Additionally, the poverty rate is still growing in many welfare states across the world. These trends have been attributed to various factors including globalization and transnational forces. This will be addressed in detail later in a different section in the paper. Ultimately, welfare states have undertaken different reforms of their welfare programs and policies to deal with these emerging issues. To understand the nature and consequences of such welfare reforms, this essay presents a critical comparative social policy of England and Canada. Specifically, the essay focuses on youth offending policies in the two welfare states, how these policies have changed, and how these changes have affected the two societies. Exploring Welfare Programs Welfare programs have been a source of attracting for many sociologists. Multiple studies on welfare states and welfare programs have been conducted. These studies have often focused on different aspects of such welfare states and programs. However, for the purpose of this essay, we will concentrate on the models used in exploring welfare programs. Evaluation of economic policies has changed over time. Traditional models for evaluation were based on economic models that relied on data, statistical methods, and economic theory (Heckman & Vytlacil, 2007: 4782). However, new models have since emerged that provide more valuable insights. For comparative welfare studies, Qualitative Comparative Analysis, which was developed by Charles Ragin, has become a common typology used (Ebbinghaus, 2012: 2). Esping-Andersen came up with a three-regime typology for comparative welfare state analysis. Esping-Andersen developed this typology based on a historical analysis of social policy development in 18 OECD states until the 1980s. He conducted a comparative analysis of these nations’ social policy developments over an extended period. The final typology is based on two dimensions. First, it is based on the extent of decommodification. This refers to the extent to which families and individuals are able to maintain socially acceptable living standards without the influence of market participation. Second, Esping-Andersen’s typology was based on the type of social stratification that emerged from the social policies adopted in the welfare states. The three regimes in Esping-Andersen’s typology include the social democratic, conservative/corporatist, and liberal political ideologies (Ebbinghaus, 2012: 4). Despite the popularity of Esping-Andersen’s three-regime analysis, various criticisms have been raised challenging it. One of the main criticisms has been with regard to the narrowness of the analysis in that it only concentrated on 18 OECD countries then. This meant that new OECD member states such as Spain, Portugal, and Greece that joined the OECD in the 1980s were ignored. The regime typology also leaves out countries from the Central and Eastern Europe that had just opened up to liberal democratization when the typology was first published in 1990. Apparently, the three-regime typology was developed at a time when communism was falling in these parts of Europe and the socialist ideologies had stared fading away and giving way to liberal democracy (Ebbinghaus, 2012: 4-5). This means that Esping-Andersen’s analysis may have been limited in its scope and applicability considering that more countries have since adopted the three regimes stipulated in the typology. Apart from secluding some welfare states, the three regime typology is criticized on the basis of its scope in that it leaves out a fourth regime, the radicalism regime. The radicalism regime, which is associated with countries such as New Zealand, Australia, and the UK, involved a combination of low social expenditure and labour relations to realize the desired equality in society. Despite a revision of the typology in 1999, some of these issues were not addressed. In fact, the revised version incorporated 16 OECD countries as opposed to the 18 that were incorporated in the original version (Ebbinghaus, 2012: 5). One major consideration in comparative welfare studies is the selection of countries. The three-regime typology relies on countries that are members of international organizations such as the European Union and OECD. In conducting welfare comparative studies, the criteria use for including countries is more important that the number of countries selected. Several factors explain the preference of states that belong to international organizations. One of the main reasons is that these countries share a lot in terms of political, social, and economic factors, which makes it possible to compare these countries (Ebbinghaus, 2012: 6). Globalization Globalization is one of the major forces affecting society in almost every aspect. Globalization is a term used to refer to the process through which economic, political, and sociocultural ideologies and practices spread across the world (see Westerfield & Abbink, 2014: 181). Globalization has resulted in the diffusion of political ideologies across the world as well as international business and cooperation in various aspects such as trade liberalization, environment policy, and security. The concept of welfare policy has also been affected by the process of globalization. One of the major effects of globalization on welfare policy has been the spread of such policies beyond the traditional welfare states especially in the OECD and EU. Today, many countries across the world have embraced some form of welfare policies to support citizens and reduce inequalities. Another consequence of globalization on welfare policies has been the adverse effects of global dynamics on such policies. According to Mendoza, Quadrini and Ríos-Rull (2009: 308), financial globalization can affect welfare programs adversely if such globalization does not create financial development in a particular country. It is important to note that globalization has affected politics and economies of individual countries differently. Additionally, globalization has created a situation where the economy and political systems of countries are interconnected. Therefore, a major change in one country or region could easily spread to other countries. a good example is the 2007/2008 financial crisis that affected the entire world. Although the crises started from the US, the impacts were felt across different parts of the world (see Reinhart & Rogoff, 2008). From the above insights, it is clear that the role of globalization on the transformation of social welfare policies is controversial. One hand, some scholars hold the view that globalization has positive implications of welfare policies leading to positive changes. On the other hand, critics argue that globalization has negative impacts on welfare programs. Despite the controversial debate, it is widely acknowledge that globalization is real and that it is affecting welfare programs and causing changes in welfare policies. Application of Welfare Model to UK The UK is considered to be one of the developed welfare states. However, the process of becoming a welfare state has been systematic. According to Lewis (1999: 10), Britain is considered to have emerged from an era of poor law of the 19th century to an era of post-war welfare. Although the state played a major role in this transformation, other elements including the voluntary sector, the market, and families also played crucial roles. Prior to the 1980s, the role of these non-state entities in the development of Britain as a welfare state was minimal yet effective. They complemented the role of the state in various ways. However, since the 1980s, there has been a radical shift in the provision of welfare in the UK. This is largely associated with the privatization and decentralization policies, which gave greater power to the private sector and other non-state actors (Lewis, 1999: 11). The Esping-Andersen’s typology does not fit well within the social welfare context of the UK. Apparently, this regime typology focuses on welfare policies and programs by the state (Lewis, 1999: 11). It does not consider the contribution of the voluntary sector, the families, and or the private sector in welfare programs and policies. This is the nature of the welfare state in the UK where a model of mixed economies that incorporates the role of the state, employers, family, market, and the voluntary sector.Therefore, in examining the historical development of the UK as a welfare state, the Esping-Andersen’s typology is not effective. Instead, the mixed economy approach is more effective because it captures the reality of this transformation. How Youth Offences Came to be Seen as a Social Problem in the UK With regard to youth offending policies, the UK, and especially England has implemented several transformations in its policies. Traditionally, there was a major conflict in these policies, which placed emphasis on either justice orientation or welfare orientation. However, the New Labour party political and economic interests were opposed to either of these two orientations. This led to the emergence of a third perspective, which emphasized prevention of risk as the common approach to dealing with youth offences. The risk approach used interventions to address risk factors that were likely to cause youth offences. The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 incorporated this new approach to dealing with youth offences. Under the risk intervention approach, statutory agencies and voluntary organizations were mandated to conduct crime audits in their jurisdictions and generate appropriate crime reduction strategies. One of the primary strategies was targeted interventions to address risk factors at different levels including social, personal, educational, family, and heath levels (Case & Haines, 2013: 259-260). The shift to the risk intervention approach enhances the welfare approach. Apparently, youth offenders are now held responsible for their crimes. This is a deterrent strategy that prevents the youth from engaging in criminal activities because they know that they will be held responsible. However, by focusing on preventive intervention, the current social policy in the UK seeks to enhance the welfare of the youth and the society in general. With regard to the youth, this intervention approach reduces the chances of landing in prison or in a juvenile correctional facility. With regard to the society, this approach protects the society from the harmful effects of youth offences. Since the adoption of the Youth Justice Systems in England, the number of young people in the system has reduced drastically. Between 2009 and 2013, there has been a reduction of 55 per cent (Youth Justice Board, 2014: 23). Application of Welfare Model to Canada Within Canada, welfare policy has been existent for a long time since the end of the World War period. The Canadian government, through the Economic Council, has developed various social welfare programs to reduce poverty and inequality in the country by creating employment opportunities, expanding aggregate demand, and income distribution (Antipoverty policies and changing welfare concepts, n.d: 14). This state has implemented several welfare programs to achieve this including physical and social programs, income support programs, and general economic policy (14-15). However, just like in other welfare states, the welfare programs and policies in Canada have undergone various changes over time. The changes in Canada’s welfare programs can be categorised into four broad categories. The first category is the preventive strategy, which dominated the welfare programs in immediate period after the World War. Under these preventive strategies, the state introduced welfare programs with the primary goal of preventing a re-occurrence of economic depression after the economic depression of the 1930s. some of the programs adopted by the state included old age pensions, family allowances, and unemployment insurance (Antipoverty policies and changing welfare concepts, n.d: 16). The next phase of transformation in Canada’s social welfare policies was the rehabilitation strategies. These strategies were meant to increase earning capacity as well as reducing dependence. The state adopted welfare policies that empowered individuals to become independent. The rehabilitation strategies mainly targeted the physically challenged after lessons from the war period. The state viewed the physically challenged and the sick as part of the broader society and who were mainly affected by poverty and dependence. Hence, it adopted policies to empower this group to be independent. Some of the strategies included job placement, health care, counselling and guidance, as well as welfare services (Antipoverty policies and changing welfare concepts, n.d: 17). The next phase involved the distributive strategies, which involved the redistribution of cash and wealth from those with more to those with less or none. In 1956, a new law was enacted to enable the federal government give grants to provinces and local areas. However, this strategy was criticised for being ineffective. These growing criticisms led to the adopting of the participatory strategy. The participatory strategy was based on the involvement of the people in the development and implementation of social programs that affected them. This approached marked a major shift in Canada’s welfare policies, where non-state entities were now involved rather than the state alone (Antipoverty policies and changing welfare concepts, n.d: 18-19). How Youth Offences Came to be Seen as a Social Problem in Canada With regard to youth offences, there have been several changes to the laws and policies dealing with youth offenders. Prior to 1908 when the Juvenile Delinquents Act was enacted, child offenders were treated in the same manner as adult offenders. However, there were growing concerns about the rights of children, which led to the adoption of a more welfare oriented approach to dealing with youth offenders. Several laws were enacted since 1908 to balance the legal and welfare interests. After the Juvenile Delinquents Act was found to be problematic, the Young Offenders Act was adopted as its replacement. This law was more legally based than welfare based. It was based on the principle that young offenders should take responsibility for their actions and that the society should be protected from such activities. Criticisms of this Act ranged from arguments that it was impractical, too harsh, and too lenient. This led to the adoption of the adoption of another Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act, in 2003. This Act balanced the legalistic and social welfare needs approach of the previous Young Offenders Act and Juvenile Delinquents Act respectively. The major implication of the Youth Criminal Act, which is still applied in Canada, has been the introduction of a welfare approach to dealing with young offenders. The Act emphasizes the use of extrajudicial measures such as restorative agencies in dealing with young offenders (Makarenko, 2007). The new approach to dealing with youth offences in Canada under the Young Criminal Act is more welfare oriented than in the UK. In Canada, young offenders are held responsible for their actions just like in the UK. However, the Young Criminal Act gives young offenders more opportunities to reintegrate into the society and avoid facing the harsh judicial processes. It gives more responsibility to the society to deal with such young offenders through youth justice committees and also requires the police to consider all available options before charging young offenders. References Case, S., & Haines, K. 2013. Understanding youth offending: Risk factor research, policy and practice. Routledge. Clarke, J. (2008). Reconstructing nation, state and welfare: The transformation of welfare states (pp. 197-209). Palgrave Macmillan. Ebbinghaus, B. 2012, ‘Comparing welfare state regimes: Are typologies an ideal or realistic strategy? Draft Paper Presented at European Social Policy Analysis Network, ESPAnet Conference, Edinburgh, UK, September 6-8, 2012. [Online] Available at: http://www.cas.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/89033/Ebbinghaus_-_Stream_2.pdf [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Gilbert, N. 2005, ‘Transformation of the welfare state’, [Online] Available at: http://www.iub.edu/~econdept/conference/gilbertpaper.pdf [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Heckman, J. J., & Vytlacil, E. J. 2007,‘Econometric evaluation of social programs, part I: Causal models, structural models and econometric policy evaluation’,Handbook of econometrics, vol. 6, pp. 4779-4874. http://www.sdu.dk/en/Om_SDU/Institutter_centre/C_Velfaerd/Research/Comparative+Welfare+State+Studies [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Lewis, J. 1999. ‘The voluntary sector in the mixed economy welfare’, in Gladstone David (Ed) Before Beveridge: Welfare before the welfare state. IEA Health and Welfare Unit [Online] Available at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw47.pdf Makarenko, J. 2007, ‘Youth justice in Canada: History & debates’, [Online] Available at: http://mapleleafweb.com/features/youth-justice-canada-history-debates [Accessed 5 January 2015]. Mendoza, E. G., Quadrini, V., & Ríos-Rull, J. V. (2009, January). On the welfare implications of financial globalization without financial development. In NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2007 (pp. 283-312). University of Chicago Press. Pierson, C., & Castles, F., G. 2006. The welfare state reader. Polity. Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. 2008, ‘Is the 2007 US sub-prime financial crisis so different? An international historical comparison’, American Economic Review, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 339-344. Tanner, M. 2012, ‘The American welfare state: How we spend nearly $1 trillion a year fighting poverty – and fail,’ Policy Analysis, no. 694. [Online] Available at: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf [Accessed 5 January 2015]. University of Southern Denmark. 2014, ‘Comparative welfare state studies’, [Online] Available at: Westerfield, R., E., & Abbink, J. 2004. Current issues in globalization. Nova Publishers. Youth Justice Board/Ministry of Justice. 2014, ‘Youth justice statistics: England and Wales’, [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278549/youth-justice-stats-2013.pdf [Accessed 5 January 2014]. Read More