Social Impact Measurement and Youth Justice

  • Claire Paterson-YoungEmail author
  • Richard Hazenberg
  • Meanu Bajwa-Patel


This chapter will present a new and innovative approach to measuring the social impact of Secure Training Centres (STCs) on young people. It begins with an exploration of Weber’s (Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1978) work on power, before then exploring social impact measurement in relation to issues of definition, best practice frameworks for engaging in social impact measurement and types of data that can be gathered. The chapter then goes on to explore criminological theory (specifically ICAP theory combined desistance theory) and relate these to the SIM models presented, in order to present a case for an integrated outcomes-based focus on youth justice interventions in STCs. Throughout the chapter, the empowerment of young people forms the central frame of analysis, as placing them at the centre of any SIM framework remains critical.


Social impact Measurement Theory Outcomes Empowerment 


  1. Bersani, B. E., Laub, J. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2009). Marriage and Desistance from Crime in the Netherlands: Do Gender and Socio-historical Context Matter? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burdge, R., & Vanclay, F. (1996). Social Impact Assessment: A Contribution to the State of the Art Series. Impact Assessment, 14, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, H., & Rossi, P. H. (1980). The Multi-Goal Theory Driven Approach to Evaluation: A Model Linking Basic & Applied Social Science. Social Forces, 59(1), 106–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clifford, J., Markey, K., & Malpani, N. (2013). Measuring Social Impact in Social Enterprise: The State of Thought and Practice in the UK, London, E3M. Retrieved from
  5. Clifford, J., Hehenberger, L., & Fantini, M. (2014). Proposed Approaches to Social Impact Measurement in European Commission Legislation and in Practice Relating to: EuSEFs and the EaSI, European Commission Report 140605 (June 2014). Retrieved from and
  6. Emerson, J. (2000). The Nature of Returns: A Social Capital Markets Inquiry into Elements of Investment and the Blended Value Proposition, Harvard Working Paper Series, No. 17 Social Enterprise Series, Boston, MA. Retrieved from
  7. Farrall, S., & Bowling, B. (1999). Structuration, Human Development and Desistance from Crime. British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrington, D. (2003). Key results from the First 40 Years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. In T. P. Thornberry & M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Farrington, D. (2005). Integrated Developmental and Life-Course Theories of Offending. Advances in Criminological Theory. New Jersey: Transaction.Google Scholar
  10. Farrington, D. (2007). Origins of Violent Behaviour Over the Life Span. In D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Farrington, D., & Ttofi, M. (2014). Developmental and Life-Course Theories of Offending. In H. Morizot & L. Kazemian (Eds.), The Development of Criminal and Antisocial Behaviour. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, Crime and Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1937). Later Criminal Careers. New York: Kraus.Google Scholar
  14. Goring, C. (1919). The English Convict. London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  15. Hazenberg, R., & Clifford, J. (2016). GECES and the Valid Measurement of Social Impact in the VCSE Sector. In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills Approach (2nd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hazenberg, R., Seddon, F., & Denny, S. (2014). Programme Recruitment & Evaluation: The Effect of an Employability Enhancement Programme on the General Self-efficacy Levels of Unemployed Graduates. Journal of Education & Work, 28(3), 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hehenberger, L., Harling, A-M., & Scholten, P. (2013). A Practical Guide to Measuring and Managing Impact. Brussels, European Venture Philanthropy Association: 124. Retrieved from
  18. Hirschi, T. (1969). The Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the Explanation of Crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jain, P. (2018). Conceptualising Social Value: Perspectives of the Public, Private and Third Sectors in the UK. PhD Thesis, University of Northampton.Google Scholar
  21. Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McLoughlin, J., Kaminski, J., Sodagar, B., Khan, S., Harris, R., Arnaudo, G., & McBrearty, S. (2009). A Strategic Approach to Social Impact Measurement of Social Enterprises: The SIMPLE Methodology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(2), 154–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNeill, F. (2002). Beyond ‘What Works’: How and Why Do People Stop Offending? CJSW Briefing (Paper 5).Google Scholar
  24. McNeill, F., Farrall, S., Lightowler, C., & Maruna, S. (2012). How and Why People Stop Offending: Discovering Desistance, Insights: Evidence Summaries to Support Social Services in Scotland (Vol. 15). Glasgow: IRISS.Google Scholar
  25. Millar, R., & Hall, K. (2013). Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Performance Measurement. Public Management Review, 15(6), 923–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moloney, M., MacKenzie, K., Hunt, G., & Joe-Laidler, K. (2009). The Path and Promise of Fatherhood for Gang Member. British Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nicholls, A. (2009). We Do Good Things Don’t We? Blended Value Accounting in Social Entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paterson-Young, C. (2018). ‘Inspiring Futures’ – How Social Impact Measurement as a Form of Organisational Performance Management Can Enhance Outcomes for Young People in Custody, PhD Thesis, University of Northampton.Google Scholar
  29. Sairinen, R., & Kumpulainen, S. (2006). Assessing the Social Impact in Urban Waterfront Regeneration. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Soothill, K., Ackerley, E., & Francis, B. (2004). Profiles of Crime Recruitment. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Voltan, A., & Hervieux, C. (2017). Social Impact Assessment of a Community Engagement Initiative, Paper presented at the 9th International Social Innovation Research Conference, 12th–14th December 2017, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  33. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley, CA: California University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Paterson-Young
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard Hazenberg
    • 1
  • Meanu Bajwa-Patel
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NorthamptonNorthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations