“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 2020 and 9% in 2022 (UK, 2022). 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
bn; 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. The
illegal conduct carried out by a person who has not yet achieved
adulthood is known as juvenile delinquency (Shoemaker, 2018).
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).
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).
Children and adults lack decisional capacity (Bonnie, 2024).
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 formal juvenile justice
system may go on to commit more crimes in the future. ( Schur,
1973; Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, and Guckenburg, 2010).

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, 2005; Mears,2015). 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 Guidelines. 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)
Table 01
Juvenile Justice Comparison from Different Countries
Country Separate Age Transfer Juvenile Par1icipation Agency Death Cor- Adjudication Time in Free
law to the Court of in Penalty portal Period Police Legal
adult Prosecution Charge Punish Custody Aid
System of mem
Youth
Canada Yes 12-18 Yes Yes Yes No No No 24 hrs. NIA Yes
UK Yes 12 to 16 No Yes Yes Yes No No In sheriff N/a Yes
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. Possible

Scotland Yes 12 to 16 No Yes Yes Yes No No Immediate N/A Yes

release on
bail or
 remand 110
days (sheriff
court case)
and
140 days
(high court
case)
Czech No 12-18 No No No Yes No No NIA NIA Possible
Resp.
Sweden No 15-2 I No No Yes Yes No No Up to4 3 hrs. Yes
weeks
Singapore Yes Puberty Yes Yes No No No Yes As adults Release No
on bond
Russia No 14-18 Yes No Yes Yes No No Up to 9 48 hrs. Possible
months
Poland No 13-17 No Yes Yes Yes No No Under 16 - Possible
none
after 16 - as
adult
France Yes 13-18 No Yes Yes No No No 24 hrs. 4 hrs.. No
Germany Yes 14-18- No Yes Yes Yes No No ASAP None No
21
India Yes 16 for No Yes No Yes No No Immediate NIA No
boys release on
I 8 girls bail
The No 12-16- No Yes Yes Yes No No NIA NIA Yes
Nether- 18-21
lands
Iran No Pubet1y No No No No No Yes NIA NIA No
Japan Yes 14-20 No Yes Yes Yes No No NIA NIA No
Israel Yes 12-18 No No No Yes No No No
(appointment
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.
Rehabilitating the criminal and making life better going forward
is the primary objective of a sentence (National District
Attorneys Association 2000). In particular, juvenile justice relies
more on informal processing. It depends less on due process and
adversarial processes than criminal justice (Bortner 1982) , i.e.
treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment (Vleet,
1999). The proponent of the juvenile justice system argues that
“Kids are different”. Detention, juvenile rehabilitation and
integration are thus anchored on juvenile justice standards and
norms. The prime purpose of sentencing should be
rehabilitation. It, therefore, becomes apparent that the juvenile
justice system is rehabilitative, with intervention programs being
seen as guiding tools to help those in contact with law
enforcement agencies succeed later on and promote security
(Cullen et al., 2017).
The rehabilitative programme effectively reduces juvenile
recidivism ( Pappas and Dent, 2023). Vleet (1999) 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) 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) 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) 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 Ireland. 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.

The 1880s marked a significant turning point, with a growing

public and official focus on children’s welfare. The reflection
was seen in legislation such as the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children Act 1889, described as a “Children’s Charter.” 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.
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. 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.

The schools were originally philanthropic initiatives but came

under increasing state regulation through legislation in the 1850s
and 1860s. 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. 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.
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.

However, the early Scottish juvenile courts often operated like

the previous system. They were staffed by the same magistrates
with little specialist training. The primary source of information
available to the courts was usually just a police report.
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. However, the practical impact
of these ideas was limited in 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.

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. 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.”
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) 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 principlesand founding ethos. Therefore, a gap in the
effectiveness of the rehabilitative justice programme in Scotland
is observed. Hence, this 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
nations. Since the inception of juvenile justice system the court
emphasized on punishment and rehabilitation. The juvenile
justice system is based on rehabilitative model. The juvenile
justice supports that offenders can be reformed and the
importance of balanced justice or rehabilitative justice. 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). The existence of separate juvenile justice system is
always based on rehabilitation model in criminal justice system
(Bernard and Kurlychek 2010; Simpson, 1976). The core
philosophical beliefs and tenets predicted supports for balanced
justice and primarily rehabilitation-oriented approach to
sanctions (Mears, Justin and Christina, 2005 ). 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.

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.
The aims of these separate juvenile systems, first codified in
Illinois’s Juvenile Court Act were twofold: first, to separate
juveniles from the negative influence of older offenders and,
second, to rehabilitate rather than punish. Our justice system still
has a long way to go in aligning law and public policy with
research on child and adolescent development. When children
do not receive sufficient rehabilitative support to address their
underlying traumas, justice system involvement often impedes,
rather than accelerates, their recovery and rehabilitation.

Roemer (1998) 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) 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 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) 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
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.
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.
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.

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.

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), 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

This model, developed by Andrews and Bonta (2010), 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).

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).

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
- 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). 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:
- 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 old,
while in Scotland, it was recently raised from 8 to 12. In
contrast, most U.S. states set the age between 6 and 12, with the
most common age being 7. 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
procedures. 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. However,
in recent decades, U.S. juvenile courts have become more
formalized and punitive, particularly for serious offenses.

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 Teams. The USA has a wider variation in approaches
across states, but generally has higher rates of juvenile
incarceration.

Transfer to Adult Courts:

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

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 1990s.
The UK has generally maintained a stronger focus on
rehabilitation, although there have been periods of more punitive
rhetoric.

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 practice. In the USA, there's
growing recognition of the need for reform, with some states
implementing more rehabilitative models.
Conclusion:
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.