SBU evaluates social interventions to counter youth crime

“Social services play a key role in combating juvenile crime, a complex area in which many different factors interact. This analysis can move the work in a more knowledge-based direction, so that relevant interventions can be offered to these young people, while providing an opportunity for the Nordic countries to learn from each other,” says Maral Jolstedt, project manager at SBU in reference to an assignment focused on social interventions against juvenile crime, with the results to be reported this year.

Most people commit some crime during their youth. But while the majority may commit an occasional crime, a small percent of young people commit many crimes. Among Swedish youths aged 15-17 who were prosecuted for their first crime between 2010 and 2014, just over half committed a single crime, while 19 percent committed four or more crimes during the follow-up period up to 2019, according to a 2021 report from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. These repeat offenders accounted for almost two-thirds of all crimes in this group.

SBU was commissioned by the Swedish government to analyze the social methods listed in the Nordic countries’ national knowledge base to prevent or deter further juvenile criminality. “Juvenile criminality” is defined here as referring to youths who are repeatedly prosecuted for crime, while “knowledge base” refers to guidelines or scientific papers published by or for the Nordic countries.

The project examines social service interventions, including those undertaken in collaboration with institutions such as the police and schools.
Prevention is limited to interventions targeting individuals or groups with various risk factors for committing crime and established criminality.

The initiative involves analyzing the content of the knowledge base of each country and investigating whether there are differences among the countries, such as the foundation of the documentation and how it is produced. The report will also address possible reasons for any differences. Perhaps knowledge has been assessed in different ways; perhaps some countries put greater focus on prevention while others put more effort into deterring recidivism, and if so, why?

The remit also includes highlighting areas that SBU believes may be of particular interest and that can serve as a basis for discussion at next year’s Nordic Council of Ministers meeting.
Simply copying another country’s system is unlikely to be successful – the Nordic countries differ as to organization and legislation and approach juvenile criminality from different perspectives, according to Maral Jolstedt. 

But the comparison may still yield lessons.“We might not do the same thing, but we should all have the best possible knowledge resource for our social services. It may be possible to do some cherry picking – gather certain knowledge from others and adapt it to our situation to strengthen our system,” says Maral Jolstedt.

Alternative approaches to coercive measures

The Swedish Government commissioned SBU to conduct a pilot study to identify and evaluate alternative approaches to coercive measures within the Swedish National Board of Institutional Care (SiS), as well as in compulsory psychiatric care and forensic psychiatric care.

The pilot study will serve as a basis for compiling knowledge regarding alternative methods to coercive measures, especially isolation and restraint. The results will be reported this year.

Upcoming report:

Pilot study concerning alternative approaches to coercive measures within the Swedish National Board of Institutional Care (SiS), compulsory psychiatric care and forensic psychiatric care.

SBU is also currently evaluating the scientific support for interventions that can be used by social services to prevent or reduce gang-related crime among children and young adults. The government-commissioned report will be published at the end of the year.

The evaluation concerns psychosocial interventions aimed at people under the age of 30 that Sweden carries out through either social services, schools, after-school activities, or the community. All preventive interventions will be included here, even those known as universal interventions, provided that the outcome under study pertains to gang crime.

The report could become a valuable tool for decision-makers, according to Knut Sundell, who heads up the project at SBU.
“Although there are no simple solutions to the problems in question, the evaluation may provide insight into what methods function better or worse,” he says. Should it not be possible to comment on the effectiveness of certain methods due to the current state of research, that may indicate knowledge gaps that require further research.

Since most of the research is conducted in North America, the project also analyzes how the evaluated methodology could be applied to Sweden. The results of the evaluation will also be compared to the methods and interventions used in Sweden, as reported by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention in its annual reports on crime prevention.

“This analysis can move the work in a more knowledge-based direction, so that relevant interventions can be offered to these young people, while providing an opportunity for the Nordic countries to learn from each other.”

Back to journal