The Role of Higher Education in Youth Justice: A ‘Child-First’ Approach to Diversion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a really important paper on the experiences of justice involved children in further and higher education. The method underpinning the research was set out well and in good detail. A little more discussion of how the academy selected participants and how bias was avoided at this stage would have been helpful.

You suggest you are using both desistance and EST - I wonder whether you are trying to cover too much here. The discussion of desistance theory is brief and a more critical view of whether desistance theory can be applied to children would have added to the argument. This is particularly important as identity formation is a key analytical frame in your research.

There are a number of areas which could be improved. The research aims and the methods and findings need to be better aligned - you mention the aim to explore 'whether targeting.... will impact on crime prevention...'. Your method of speaking to the children does not lend itself to answering that aim and your findings do not speak to it. 

The analysis would benefit from a thorough review in terms of how closely the findings presented are linked to the data - some suggestions do not seem borne out by the data or are based on some background information not recorded or presented to the reader. E.g. references to background information on parents, etc.   

In the context section, some inclusion of relevant statistics on the educational status of JICs would be useful. I also think that a greater focus would help with a clearer and more defined context section. In terms of focus, for example, the group of children you spoke to are justice involved but in the community - you mention children in custody in various places - consider if these references are relevant in relation to your specific research findings.

I would suggest re-considering the title of the publication and making it clearer that there is a focus on justice-involved children. 

It is unusual to have footnotes in an abstract and I think the abstract could provide a better description of the main arguments presented in the paper. 

Overall, the author's research has a clear contribution to make to the academic literature on the perceptions of JICs of the role of FE and HE in their futures. However, it requires significant work in the clarity of the arguments presented, the context provided, and development of the analysis and findings sections. There are some spelling mistakes but the main presentational issue if the clarity of writing and the arguments made.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above in the main reports. There are a number of spelling mistakes but the main issues lies in the coherence and clarity of the writing and the arguments presented. 

Author Response

See attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello! I have provided some comments and suggestions for revisions. Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

See attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to start by thanking the authors for their full engagement with my comments. I think the paper submitted is much stronger for it. 

The addition of recent work on desistance is really helpful but the sentence in line 179 is a little awkward and needs reviewing. 

A few spelling mistakes remain in the new sections but this is a great improvement and the authors should be commended. Looking forward to reading more on the topic. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor edits still required - for spelling and awkward sentence.

Author Response

Review: Minor edits still required for spelling and awkward sentence. 

 

Response: I do hope the updated version now submitted suffices. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions. My main concerns were the low number of participants and lack of clarity surrounding the methods. You specified that this is a pilot study and you provided more info about your methods, which resolved the concerns I had. Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you for you assistance on this review process, it has hopefully enhanced the paper.