This study adopted a cross-sectional quantitative research design aimed at exploring the perceptions of professionals involved in juvenile justice and local child governance in Vietnam. A total of 285 participants were selected using purposive sampling, ensuring diversity in geographic representation, occupational roles, and institutional affiliations. The sample included police officers (9.5%), prosecutors (1.4%), legal aid providers, commune-level officials (27.0%), neighborhood mediators, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in the handling of juvenile cases. Notably, 42.8% of respondents self-identified under the “Other” category. A follow-up review of their occupational descriptions revealed that this group comprised child protection officers, school-based legal educators, youth union representatives, and staff from local social affairs departments—actors who, though not situated within the core criminal justice system, play critical roles in the prevention, diversion, and reintegration of juvenile offenders.

Participants were recruited through existing professional networks, including provincial justice departments, legal aid centers, and youth-related organizations. The Youth Research Institute coordinated outreach efforts in collaboration with district-level People’s Committees and police units. Questionnaires were administered both in person (hard copy) and online via secure survey links between September and November 2024. All participants received formal invitations and information sheets outlining the voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality assurances, and data anonymization procedures. Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the Youth Research Institute (Reference No. YRI-2024-10), and institutional support letters were issued to facilitate access.

While purposive sampling allowed the inclusion of relevant practitioners actively working with juveniles, it also limits the generalizability of findings. Moreover, the overrepresentation of commune-level personnel—who constituted more than two-thirds of the sample—reflects the operational reality of Vietnam’s juvenile justice landscape but may underrepresent perspectives from higher-level judiciary and prosecutorial actors.

The primary data collection tool was a structured questionnaire developed in accordance with international standards and national legal provisions related to juvenile justice. The instrument was informed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the Beijing Rules (1985), and Vietnam’s 2015 Criminal Procedure Code. The questionnaire consisted of three main sections:

The instrument was reviewed by legal scholars and practitioners for content validity and piloted with a group of 15 professionals for clarity and relevance prior to full deployment.

The internal consistency of Section 3 was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. The resulting coefficient (α = 0.946) indicated excellent reliability and unidimensionality, supporting the use of composite scoring for subsequent analysis (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).

All data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations) were computed for all variables. Inferential analyses included independent samples t-tests (for gender) and one-way ANOVA (for education level, occupational role, and years of experience). Where significant group differences emerged, Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc tests were conducted to identify specific pairwise contrasts. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

The final sample comprised 285 respondents engaged in juvenile justice or child governance roles across multiple provinces in Vietnam. As shown in Table 1, the gender distribution was balanced, with 53.7% identifying as male and 46.3% as female. In terms of educational attainment, the majority held a university degree (62.8%), followed by upper secondary education (18.9%), college diploma (10.9%), and postgraduate qualifications (7.4%).

Occupationally, the sample was diverse. While police officers (9.5%) and prosecutors (1.4%) represented the formal criminal justice sector, a substantial number of participants were commune officials (27.0%), legal aid providers (2.1%), lawyers, educators, and others involved in local-level justice or youth protection. Notably, 42.8% of respondents self-identified under the “Other” category, which was later determined to include child protection staff, school-based legal educators, and youth union officers.

In terms of institutional level, most respondents operated at the commune (68.4%) and district levels (18.0%), with fewer from the provincial (10.8%) and central levels (2.8%). Years of professional experience varied, with a plurality reporting between 1 and 5 years (68.4%), followed by 5–10 years (22.4%).

When asked about the primary purpose of the juvenile justice system, 44.9% of respondents identified the prevention of reoffending as its central goal, followed by education and rehabilitation (29.5%) and support and assistance for juveniles (24.6%). Only 1.1% selected punishment.

These results suggest strong endorsement of rehabilitative and preventive principles among the majority of respondents. The low selection rate for punitive responses aligns with global shifts in juvenile justice philosophy but also reflects Vietnam’s legal emphasis on reintegration as stipulated in the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code (see Table 2).

An overwhelming 93.0% of respondents expressed support for the establishment of a specialized juvenile justice system distinct from the adult criminal process. This high level of support indicates professional recognition of the developmental and procedural differences between children and adults in conflict with the law, and affirms the perceived inadequacy of current structures to meet the needs of juvenile offenders (see Table 3).

Participants rated 22 child-centered and community-based measures on a 3-point ordinal scale. Overall, endorsement levels were high: all items had mean scores above the midpoint (M > 2.5), with the highest-rated items being:

The lowest-rated item, though still favorably viewed, was the separation of juveniles from adults in case handling (M = 2.49, SD = 0.685), indicating possible practical constraints in implementation or lower prioritization in current institutional culture.

Standard deviations were generally low, suggesting high internal agreement. The overall reliability of the 22-item scale was excellent (α = 0.946), affirming its psychometric robustness (see Table 4).

An independent samples t-test revealed no statistically significant gender differences in mean support for child-centered interventions (Male: M = 2.615, SD = 0.410; Female: M = 2.645, SD = 0.384; t(283) = −0.627, p = 0.531). This suggests that gender did not significantly influence respondent perceptions.

One-way ANOVA indicated no significant differences in composite support scores by education level (F(3, 281) = 1.656, p = 0.177) or years of experience (F(4, 276) = 1.388, p = 0.238). This consistency suggests a broadly shared normative orientation across professional tenure and academic background.

In contrast, significant variation was observed across occupational groups (F(10, 274) = 2.768, p = 0.003). Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests revealed that commune officials and social sector professionals were more likely to endorse child-centered measures than police or legal professionals. This divergence underscores the influence of institutional mandates on professional attitudes—confirming findings from comparative research (e.g., Kupchik, 2006; Prasad, 2024).

There is widespread support among local justice and child governance actors for rehabilitative objectives in juvenile justice, with punishment receiving negligible endorsement.

While the majority of respondents favored prevention and rehabilitation over punishment, the data indicate that this orientation is not uniformly distributed across occupational roles. Police officers and legal professionals, though part of the justice system’s formal apparatus, expressed comparatively lower levels of endorsement for several key child-centered interventions—such as, diversion and family-based measures—than social sector and local governance actors. These patterns echo existing international research, which has documented how institutional mandates and occupational cultures shape perceptions and practices in youth justice systems (Kupchik, 2006; Henning, 2009; Prasad, 2024).

As scholars such as, Feld (1993, 1998) and Muncie (2008) have argued, police and prosecutors often operate within logics of deterrence, control, and accountability, which may conflict with restorative or developmental approaches. Even where rehabilitative ideals are present in legal frameworks, frontline discretionary practices are frequently governed by institutional performance metrics and public pressure. In contrast, social protection workers, legal educators, and commune officials are more likely to prioritize reintegration, family engagement, and individualized support, given their proximity to community-based care and non-custodial mechanisms.

The near-universal support (93%) for a dedicated juvenile justice system suggests a shared recognition of the inadequacy of current arrangements. Yet such support, while meaningful, must be interpreted with caution. As Bateman (2020) and Goshe (2023) observe, rhetorical alignment with international standards often coexists with persistent structural barriers—including insufficient personnel, lack of inter-agency coordination, and entrenched punitive tendencies. In Vietnam, despite the presence of legal provisions in the 2015 Criminal Code and Procedure Code, the absence of a fully operational specialized system means that juvenile cases continue to be processed through adult criminal courts, often without the benefit of dedicated facilities or trained staff (Tan Duy and Dandurand, 2022; Lê, 2023).

Moreover, the lower rating of measures such as, the separation of juveniles from adults during case processing (Mean = 2.49) raises concerns about institutional feasibility, even when professionals express normative support. This discrepancy between attitude and anticipated practice highlights the tension between ideals and operational realities—a dynamic well-documented in studies of juvenile justice reform across Global South contexts (Goldson, 2011; National Research Council, 2013).

One of the study’s most significant findings is the statistically significant variation in support for child-centered measures by occupational role. This reinforces the importance of tailoring reform strategies to specific professional contexts, rather than assuming a uniform set of priorities or values across the justice system. For instance, capacity-building programs for police and prosecutors may need to foreground child rights, developmental psychology, and procedural safeguards, while initiatives for commune-level officials may emphasize coordination mechanisms and early prevention strategies. Such differentiation is critical to fostering sustainable, cross-sectoral buy-in for reform.

It is also worth noting that gender, education, and years of experience did not significantly affect perceptions, suggesting that occupational identity—more than demographic profile—shapes normative orientations in juvenile justice. This finding supports a growing body of literature emphasizing the salience of institutional cultures in shaping professional behavior (Mears et al., 2015; Sprong et al., 2017).

While the study offers a rare quantitative snapshot of professional attitudes, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the use of purposive sampling limits the generalizability of the findings. The sample was disproportionately composed of commune-level personnel (over 68%), and the representation of prosecutors (1.4%) and judges (0%) was minimal or absent. This raises questions about how far the findings can be extrapolated to the broader justice system.

Second, the category “Other”—which encompassed over 40% of respondents—reflects the diffuse institutional architecture of juvenile justice in Vietnam, where case handling often involves actors outside the core criminal justice apparatus. While this may be viewed as a limitation in analytical precision, it also reflects the reality of decentralized responsibility and the intersectoral nature of youth justice in practice.

Third, the cross-sectional nature of the survey captures professional attitudes at a single point in time. Future research should consider longitudinal and mixed-methods approaches to better understand how these attitudes evolve, how they translate into actual behavior, and how they interact with institutional reform trajectories.

In sum, the findings of this study affirm the relevance of international juvenile justice principles in the Vietnamese context but also expose the complexity of translating normative consensus into effective institutional change. Reform efforts must move beyond legal alignment and attend to the everyday practices, constraints, and values of those charged with implementation.

For Vietnam, a context-sensitive reform strategy would include the establishment of specialized juvenile units at the district level, the expansion of non-custodial and community-based sanctions, and the institutionalization of inter-agency cooperation. Equally important is sustained investment in professional training tailored to specific institutional roles.

By highlighting both convergence and divergence in professional perceptions, this study offers a critical evidence base for shaping juvenile justice reform in Vietnam and contributes to broader global debates on the challenges of building child-friendly justice systems in transitional legal settings.