Beyond Borders: Policy Transfer in the reduction of youth crime

Introduction  

Policy transfer refers to adapting and implementing policies from other jurisdictions to address local challenges, such as youth and knife crime. Rather than creating strategies from nothing, the UK and more specific regions like South Yorkshire and London can learn and adapt successful frameworks for reducing youth crime and knife crime.

The two main approaches are soft transfer or hard transfer. Soft transfer focuses on adapting basic frameworks, ideas, and values to accommodate different communities. Hard transfer focuses on transferring existing strategies wholesale from one place to another, whether within the UK or international. Throughout this article, I will explore the evidence for the effectiveness of both soft transfer and hard transfer of policy, specifically for dealing with reducing youth crime and knife crime in South Yorkshire.

Learning from other countries:

An example of this is the early prevention approach used in Nordic countries. In an article by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU)³⁴, other countries such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden, attention was raised to the number of young people involved with street gangs and crime (including knife crime). For example, in Sweden, in 2022 there was a sharp increase in gang violence committed by young people aged 15-20, from 16.9% to 29.7% over a decade³⁵. Similar patterns were recognised by other Nordic countries. This increase led them to pay more attention to early intervention preventative measures. Using findings from Sweden, Denmark and Norway, the article illustrated that youth violence and knife crime is especially evident in at-risk and disadvantaged areas, and these countries deployed extra efforts to aim to reduce potential offending in these areas. An example is that in Denmark, they introduced mentorship programs and increased community-based efforts, with policing in higher-risk areas, which has shown a 12% drop in youth gang violence and youth crime since its introduction in 2017³⁶. These methods employed elsewhere are seen to work, which implies that an increase of funding to adapt these frameworks to the UK may show an increase in the prevention of knife crime especially among youth. The UK could benefit greatly from adapting these policies, whether through a hard transfer of ideas or through adaptation and collaboration of a soft transfer of the policy.

Hard transfer: the advantages and disadvantages

Hard transfer of policies refers to the wholesale copying of policies effective in other parts of the world and parts of the UK. There is evidence that this approach is ineffective for reducing knife crime.

In a research article published by William Graham, titled ‘Exploring criminal justice policy transfer models and mobilities using a case study of violence reduction’,³⁷ it was demonstrated that the Glasgow Community Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV) initially tried to directly copy policies from other cultures and communities. However, this approach had little to no effective impact in reducing youth crime. The Glasgow CIRV used hard transfer for a policy that aimed to "tackle homicides associated with gangs and groups associated with drug supply and acquisitive crime"³⁸ which also included violent crime and young offender crime from an a Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) in Cincinnati. Through the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence, they found that when they tried to implement the policy back in Glasgow, the same way as it was in Cincinnati, a common issue was present. Drinking and drunk violent crimes were much more prominent in Glasgow compared to Cincinnati. Additionally, they found that a hard-transfer policy didn't account for the fact that gun crime was a much larger issue in the US compared to Glasgow, where knife crimes were more prominent. So it seems that a hard transfer of a policy has limited success, as it doesn’t take into consideration the immense impact that differing cultures has on the cultivation and execution of violent crime amongst young people in different areas of the world and UK. Direct copying policy can overlook key contextual factors, as it does not adapt and reshape to local realities, which is where soft transfer may have more success.

Soft transfer: the advantages and disadvantages

Soft transfer of policies has proven to be an effective method of applying strategies that aim to reduce early youth violence and knife crime. Soft transfer considers collaboration and adaptation, rather than copying policies. One of these methods is through the setting up of Violence Reduction Units (VRU’s). Originating in Scotland, they look at early intervention strategies to support young people vulnerable to involvement with crime and violence, with the aim of reducing crime over the long-term. VRU’s are dedicated in the belief that ‘violence is preventable, not inevitable³⁹, and aims to reduce knife crime within Scotland and the UK using a ‘public health approach’, treating violence as something that can be cured. The introduction of VRUs was crucial in the reduction of knife crime, seeing a significant reduction of hospital admissions in Scotland as a result of an assault with a sharp object, down ‘from 1414 in 2008-09, to 438 during 2023-24'⁴⁰. Seeing this evidence, it was later adapted to be implemented in the UK, adapting potential cultural differences and behaviours between Scotland and the UK. A difference that should be noted is the different cultures within schools in Scotland and the UK and South Yorkshire. South Yorkshire is considered to have higher exclusion rates and have a higher diverse culture within families and school life, which means that when adapting policies and the strategies of VRUs, the government must be mindful of these facts and accommodate accordingly. Whether through more police involvement in schools, or a larger effort to have preventative methods present with closer ties to the school, extra measures may need to be put in place. As you move through the country, it should be noted that hard transfer of policy does not consider these things, which ends up being its shortcoming.

Mentoring is another method to which we can aim to reduce knife crime. Mentoring provides young people with consistent, trusted support from a grounded, positive role model. These role models aim to reframe a potential at-risk young person’s mind and assist them in changing their mindset towards the circumstances around violence and put them on a more positive path.

Research from Nadia Butler and others into the power and influence of mentoring produces  ‘significant positive changes on measures of knowledge and attitudes towards violence prevention’’⁴¹. The research participants were students aged 11-18 and were asked to answer a survey based on their knowledge surrounding youth violence before and after meeting with a mentor and discussing issues and beliefs surrounding this. The soft transfer of role model systems from around the world and the rest of the UK are proven to be an effective method in reducing youth crime and helping those who are at-risk.

Considering the adaptation and inclusion of VRUs and mentoring, there is clear evidence of a statistical impact which can be assessed through verified government statistics⁴². For example, between 2023 and 2024, there was a significant reduction in hospital admissions due to any violent injury from 7.96 in 2023 to 10.39 in 2024. The most recent figures for 2025 show a further reduction. Another supporting statistic is that the estimated reduction in homicides and hospital admissions due to violent injury with a sharp object was around 1.6 (per 100,000) people, said to be a larger reduction than the year prior.  Shown in the statistics is a reduction in hospital visits due to any violent injuries, and an estimated continual reduction in assaults by sharp objects in people under 24. The success of Violence Reduction Units and Mentoring as a method of soft transfer across the UK shows how learning from other policies, collaboration with each other and a common united goal can lead to real reductions in youth and knife crime.

Conclusion:

To conclude, the evidence suggests that the transfer of policies, if done correctly and considering local context, can play a valuable role in reducing youth and knife crime. Hard transfer, involving the direct copying of policies from one area to another, often fails due to the overlooking of cultural, social and structural differences between locations and communities. Apart from this, soft transfer adapts ideas and values from the frameworks whilst moulding them to fit local needs and has demonstrated far greater success. The effectiveness of Violence Reduction Units, alongside mentoring programmes and early intervention strategies across Scotland and adapted within the UK shows that collaborative learning and flexible adapted and sustained investment can lead to a meaningful impact on the reduction of violence. It is of my firm belief, and backed by evidence, that the increase of funding towards the early stages of identifying and preventing youth crime should further assist in preventing youth crime and protecting the youth of tomorrow.
‍

Further Reading

[34]  Suvi Loponen, ‘Youth violence and prevention in the Nordic countries (https://lgiu.org/blog-article/youth-violence-and-prevention-in-the-nordic-countries, published 17th October 2024) accessed November 2025

[35] ibid

[36] ibid

[37] William Graham, ‘Exploring criminal justice policy transfer models and mobilities using a case study of violence reduction’ (2022) 22 Criminology & Criminal Justice 381

[38] ibid - William Graham, ‘Exploring criminal justice policy transfer models and mobilities using a case study of violence reduction’ (2022) 22 Criminology & Criminal Justice 381

[39] Leslie Evans, ‘Tackling knife crime in Scotland - 10 years on’ (https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2018/05/24/tackling-knife-crime-in-scotland-10-years-on/, published 24th May 2018) Accessed November 2025

[40] Public Health Scotland, Unintentional Injuries in Scotland: Hospital Admissions – Year ending 31 March 2024 (PHS, 29 October 2024) https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/29687/2024-10-29-ui-2024-report-final.pdf accessed 3 December 2025.

[41] Nadia Butler and others, ‘The Mentors in Violence Prevention programme: impact on students’ knowledge and attitudes related to violence, prejudice, and abuse, and willingness to intervene as a bystander in secondary schools in England’, (2024) BMC Public Health 729

[42] Home Office, Violence Reduction Units year ending March 2024 evaluation report (11 June 2025) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/violence-reduction-units-year-ending-march-2024-evaluation-report/violence-reduction-units-year-ending-march-2024-evaluation-report accessed 3 November 2025.
‍