Predictable Pathways? Negotiating Risk in the Context of Marginalisation and Social Exclusion

This article is based on ethnographic research with young people living in an area of multiple deprivation in the North-east of England. The young people in this study experience many risk factors associated with social exclusion and future offending. Through in-depth examination of crime within the context of their lives, it will be argued that recent theorisations of youth crime and criminal careers do not fully capture the nature of their offending, the contextual circumstances surrounding it and the differential impact of similar risk factors on their lives. The article concludes by suggesting that not only do such theories detract from the situations of poverty and social exclusion in which young people live but that youth policies informed by them potentially add to their experiences of exclusion and marginalisation.

The `Chicken and Egg' of Subjective and Social Factors in Desistance from Crime

It is now widely acknowledged that progression from persistent offending to desistance from crime is the outcome of a complex interaction between subjective/ agency factors and social/environmental factors. A methodological challenge for desistance researchers is to unravel the differential impacts of these internal and external factors and the sequence in which they come into play. Towards this, the present investigation draws on a prospective study of 130 male property offenders, interviewed in the 1990s (the Oxford Recidivism Study), and followed up 10 years later. The analysis supports a `subjective—social model' in which subjective states measured before release have a direct effect on recidivism as well as indirect effects through their impact on social circumstances experienced after release from prison.

Child Welfare Interventions: Patterns of Social Work Practice

Some 10 years ago one of the authors embarked on a research study examining the potential for social workers to shift from a child protection to a child welfare practice orientation (Spratt, 2000; 2001; Spratt and Callan, 2004). The research reported here develops that work; examining how social workers respond to ‘child care problems’ (CCPs). The results indicate that Northern Irish Health and Social Services Trusts (equivalent to Local Authorities in England and Wales) have responded to social policy goals to balance the protection of a lesser number of children whilst meeting the welfare needs of the greater by reducing the number of referrals designated ‘child protection investigations’ (CPIs) and increasing the number of CCPs. Closer analysis reveals, however, that a filtering system has been developed by social workers to address perceived child protection risks within CCP cases. Paradoxically, this leads to early closure of the more concerning cases, with service provision largely confined to the least concerning. The authors argue that the ways in which social workers balance social policing and supportive functions in practice may indicate possible responses to an increase in referred families anticipated within Every Child Matters (Chief Secretary to the Treasury, 2003).

Social exclusion and social capital: A comparison and critique

Social exclusion and social capital are widely used concepts with multiple and ambiguous definitions. Their meanings and indicators partially overlap, and thus they are sometimes used interchangeably to refer to the inter-relations of economy and society. Both ideas could benefit from further specification and differentiation. The causes of social exclusion and the consequences of social capital have received the fullest elaboration, to the relative neglect of the outcomes of social exclusion and the genesis of social capital. This article identifies the similarities and differences between social exclusion and social capital. We compare the intellectual histories and theoretical orientations of each term, their empirical manifestations and their place in public policy. The article then moves on to elucidate further each set of ideas. A central argument is that the conflation of these notions partly emerges from a shared theoretical tradition, but also from insufficient theorizing of the processes in which each phenomenon is implicated. A number of suggestions are made for sharpening their explanatory focus, in particular better differentiating between cause and consequence, contextualizing social relations and social networks, and subjecting the policy 'solutions' that follow from each perspective to critical scrutiny. Placing the two in dialogue is beneficial for the further development of each.

Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences

Considerable importance is attached to social exclusion/inclusion in recent EU rural development programmes. At the national/regional operation of these programmes groups of people who are not participating are often identified as ‘socially excluded groups’. This article contends that rural development programmes are misinterpreting the social processes of participation and consequently labelling some groups as socially excluded when they are not. This is partly because of the interchangeable and confused use of the concepts social inclusion, social capital and civic engagement, and partly because of the presumption that to participate is the default position. Three groups identified as socially excluded groups in Northern Ireland are considered. It is argued that a more careful analysis of what social inclusion means, what civic engagement means, and why participation is presumed to be the norm, leads to a different conclusion about who is excluded. This has both theoretical and policy relevance for the much used concept of social inclusion.