Towards A Popular Preventative Youth Justice System

WWW.IPPR.
ORG
TowardsaPopular,
PreventativeYouth
JusticeSystem
byJoeFarrington-DouglaswithLuciaDurante
July 2009
©ippr2009
InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
Challengingideas– Changingpolicy
2 ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem
Contents
Aboutippr ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Abouttheauthors................................................................................................................................ 3
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................. 3
Executivesummary ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.Introduction–whyweneedanewapproachtoyouthjustice ...................................................... 7
2.Ataleoftwotargets–whyanewapproachisneeded................................................................ 12
3.Objectives,barriersto,andnewprinciplesofyouthjustice.......................................................... 20
4.Cananewdirectionbepreventative? ........................................................................................... 26
5.Willthepublicsupportpopularpreventionism?............................................................................ 38
6.Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 43
Annex1:Deliberativeworkshopmethodology ................................................................................ 45
Annex2:Deliberativeworkshopsdiscussionguide ........................................................................... 47
Annex3:Breakdownofparticipants ................................................................................................ 56
Annex4:Workshopparticipants’reactionstocertainelementsofippr’sproposedapproaches
toyouthjustice ............................................................................................................................ 57
References.................................................................................................................................. 58
Aboutippr
TheInstituteforPublicPolicyResearch(ippr)istheUK’sleadingprogressivethinktank,producing
cutting-edgeresearchandinnovativepolicyideasforajust,democraticandsustainableworld.
Since1988,wehavebeenattheforefrontofprogressivedebateandpolicymakingintheUK.Through
ourindependentresearchandanalysiswedefinenewagendasforchangeandprovidepractical
solutionstochallengesacrossthefullrangeofpublicpolicyissues.
WithofficesinbothLondonandNewcastle,weensureouroutlookisasbroad-basedaspossible,
whileourinternationalandmigrationteamsandclimatechangeprogrammeextendourpartnerships
andinfluencebeyondtheUK,givingusatrulyworld-classreputationforhighqualityresearch.
ippr,30-32SouthamptonStreet,LondonWC2E7RA.Tel:+44(0)2074706100E:info@ippr.org
www.ippr.org.RegisteredCharityNo.800065
ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinJuly2009.©ippr2009
Abouttheauthors
JoeFarrington-DouglaswasaResearchFellowatippr.
LuciaDuranteisaResearcheratippr.
Acknowledgements
ipprisgratefultotheBarrowCadburyTrust,HelenHamlynTrustandLordSainsburyfortheirsupport.
Theauthorswouldliketothankpresentandformercolleaguesatipprforhelpfulcommentsand
support,includingJuliaMargo,JamesCrabtree,SophieMoullin,NaomiJones,RuthSheldon,Karl
Hallam,GeorginaKyriacou,KellyO’Sullivan,JeremyCushing,DannySriskandarajah,CatherineBithell,
JillRutter,RichardBrooksandNickPearce.TheauthorswouldalsoliketothankRobAllen,Kieran
Brett,RodMorgan,DeeO’Connell,PaulMaltby,IvanCollister,ChrisStanley,PenelopeGibbsand
DavidSmithforhelpandadviceduringtheresearch.Wewouldalsoliketothankallthoseinvolvedin
theresearchvisitsinDenmarkandScotland,andparticipantsinthedeliberativeworkshops.
Executivesummary
In1998Labourmadesignificantreformstotheyouthjusticesystem.Adecadelater,thesehaveyetto
deliverasystemwhichputscrimereductionatitsheart.Thisfailuretoreduceoffendingderivesat
leastpartlyfromadeterminationtobringmoreoffencestojustice.Thisinturnseemstoberootedin
thebelief,widespreadamongthepublic,thattheanswerisamorepunitiveapproachtooffending.
Quitesimply,thishasnotworkedandthecurrentyouthjusticesystemdoesnotreduceoffending.
Thisreportproposeswaysinwhichitcould,aswellaswaysofcreatingpublicconfidenceinthe
system.Itincludesproposalsforearlyinterventionforpreventativepurposes,aswellasforthe
extensionofthesystemtosomeofthoseinthe18-21agegroup.
Youthcrime:anunsolvedproblem
Mostyoungpeoplearelaw-abiding.Butsomecommitcrime.Asmallernumberbecomesevereand
repeatoffenders.Whilecrimeoverallhasfallen,theproportionofcrimecommittedbyyoungpeopleis
likelytoberising.Publicconcernovercrimeinvolvingyoungpeople–whetherrecenthigh-profile
knifecrimes,orgeneralconcernoveranti-socialstreetbehaviour–isalsorising.Andcontinuingmedia
attentioncreatesaclimateinwhichpoliticiansstillfeelunderpressuretointroducetoughlooking,but
oftenineffective,andevencounter-productive,schemestocombatcrimeamongyoungpeople.In
spiteofthis,thepublicdoesnotknowmuchaboutthecriminaljusticesystem,andtheirconfidencein
itislow.
Thebehaviourofyoungpeoplereflectsawidersetofchallengesaboutthetransitiontoadulthoodin
contemporarysociety.Youthoffendingcontinuestohaveseveresocialconsequences,foritsvictims,
theircommunities,andforoffendersthemselves.Itremainsaparticularproblemindisadvantaged
areas.Andsignificantly,thesmallnumberofprolificoffenderswhocausesignificantcrimeand
concernoverwhelminglycomefrompoorerbackgrounds.
Currentpolicyisnotworking
Weknowwhathasnotworkedfromthepoliciesofthelast10years.‘Coercive’approachesthataim
todeteroffendersthroughtoughsanctionstendnottowork.Targetsaimedatreducingoffendingby
targetingoffenders(the‘offencesbroughttojustice’[OBTJ]targets)haveencouragedagreaterfocus
ofpoliceandthecourtsonyoungoffenders.Probablyasaconsequence,wehaveseenincreasesin
thenumberofyoungpeopledrawnintotheyouthjusticesystemforlessseriousoffending.Asmore
minoroffendershavebeenbroughtin,theabilityofthesystemtotacklefutureoffendinghas
reduced.Andallofthishashappenedatatimeofincreasedmediainterestinyouthcrime,combined
withstrongercompetitionbetweenpoliticalpartiesontheissue,sothatsensiblereformsaremore
difficulttomake.Theresult?Thethresholdatwhichyoungpeoplearedrawnintothecriminaljustice
systemisnowlower,whichresultsingreaternumbersbeingprocessedthroughpolicestationsand
courts,andalsorisingnumbersincustody.
Thisprocessisknowntohavesomeperverseeffects.Arrestingyoungpeopledoesnottendtostop
themreoffending–infactthereversemaybethecase–andputtingchildreninprisoncanbevery
damaging.
Theincreaseinthenumberschargedandpunishedalsoincreasespublicanxietyaboutyouth
offending,andmayperverselycontributetoyetmorepunitive,andyetmorecounter-productive,
policymaking.Inthemeantime,asthepolicepursuetheOBTJtargets,thetargetforreducingre-
offendinghasnotbeenmet.
Anewmomentforreform?
Despitethis,behindLabour’sdrivesfortoughnessamoreeffective,moreprogressivestrandtoits
youthoffendingpolicycanclearlybeseenandmayevenbegainingground.The1998reformsaimed
toputpreventionofcrimeattheheartofyouthjustice.TheGovernmenthasalsorecognisedthat
someofitstoughtargetswerenotworking,andchangedthem.GivingtheDepartmentforChildren,
SchoolsandFamiliesresponsibilityforyouthjusticejointlywiththeMinistryofJusticehelpedtoplace
thewelfareofyoungpeoplemorefirmlyontheyouthjusticeagenda.TheChildren’sPlancontaineda
rangeofmeasurestohelpyoungpeopleavoidcrime,includinganewfocusonpositive,structured
activities.TheYouthCrimeActionPlantoneddowntherhetoric,andintroducedarangeofhelpful
measurestoimprovethesystem1.And,justasimportantly,theConservativepartyismovingtowards
viewsoncrimeandyouthjusticethataremoreinlinewiththeevidenceofwhatdoesanddoesnot
work.
ThiscombinationofamoreenlightenedapproachfromtheGovernmentandanewapproachfromthe
Conservativessuggeststhatanewmomentforreformmightbepossible.Allpartiesshouldtake
advantageofthis:thepreventionofyouthcrime,andthedevelopmentofeffectivemeasurestohelp
someyoungpeopleawayfromalifeofcrime,shouldbetopprioritiesforanypartyprofessingtocare
aboutajustsociety.
Anewapproachcanpreventyouthcrime
ThisreportrecommendsanapproachwhichissimilartothatinScotlandinbeingpreventative,tiered,
anddiversionary.
Inpreviousreports2,ipprhasmaderecommendationswhichstressprevention andanewfocuson
youthwork.Webelievethatmorecanbedoneinthewayofremovingthecausesofoffendingin
localcommunitiesifthosecommunitiesareempoweredtodoso:soourproposalsincludemeasuresto
preventoffendingaswellasdealingwithitafterithasoccurred.Thesemeasuresshouldbeentrusted
tolocalpartnerships,probablywithschoolsattheirheart.
Wealsoarguethatresponsestoyouthmisbehaviourshouldbegraduatedsoastobeproportionateat
eachlevelofoffendingandstartearly,assoonasthefirstsignsthatyoungpeopleareatriskof
offendingappear.Wedonotbelievethatthepresentsystemdifferssufficientlyinthewaysit
addresseslow-level,occasionalanti-socialbehaviourandoffendingfromthewayitdealswithserious
orpersistentoffending.Anewsystemshouldbetiered,startingwithpreventativemeasurestaken
evenwithveryearlysignsofoffendingbehaviourandreachinguptomeasuresappropriatetoyoung
peoplebeyondthepresentcut-offof17.
Themeasuresproposedarediversionary becausetheyprovideforamuchhigherproportionofyoung
peoplewhomisbehavetobedealtwithotherthanthrougharrestandthecriminalcourtssystem.
Theyinvolvethecreationofanumberofnewinstitutions,broadlyaimedatempoweringthe
community,usingrestorativejusticeprinciplesanddealingwithnon-seriousoffendingotherthan
througharrest.TheyalsoproposeanalternativeformofScottish-stylecivilyouthcourt,againaimed
atreducingthenumberofyoungpeoplewhogothroughthecriminalcourtssystem,andmake
suggestionsastohowtheexisting(criminal)youthcourtscanbemademoreeffectiveandfocused
morecloselyontheaimofreducingoffending.
Carefulcommunicationcanbuildpublicsupport
Muchofthiswillbepoliticallyimpracticableunlessthepubliccanbebroughttobelievethatthe
increasedfocusonpreventionandonmethodsalternativetothecriminalcourtsisactuallyan
appropriateresponsetoyouthoffending.Manyofthepubliccurrentlyholdalmostexactlythe
oppositeview.Isitpossibletochangethis?
ipprconductedthreeworkshopswithmembersofthepublictotesttheapproachadvocatedbythis
report.Theseconfirmedthatmanymembersofthepublicretainaviewthatyouthcrimerequiresa
punitiveresponse.However,bytheendofeachworkshop,onceparticipantshadbeenshowncase
studies,theypreferredamoreprogressiveapproach,andweremorewillingtowanttosupportand
1.Theseyouthjusticereformsonlyapplytounder-18s.Theyhavenotaffectedyoungpersonsover18,
whoaretreatedasadults.
2. Freedom’sOrphansand MakeMeaCriminal;seewww.ippr.org/publicationsandreports
helpoffenders.Indecidinghowtheoffenceshouldbetackled,theparticipantswereabletotakeinto
accountoffenders’difficulthomelives,theirageandwhethertheyhadpreviousconvictions.Ithas
beenobservedthatrestorativejusticeprocedurescanhavethesameeffect,aswould,wehope,our
proposalforcommunityinvolvementinlow-levelmisbehaviour.
Thesefindingssuggeststhatthereisinfactroomforamiddlewaybasedonnon-criminalapproaches
tonon-severeyouthcrime,ifpresentedintherightway.Thereremainsaneedtobeseentobe
‘tough’onseverecrimes.However,peoplecanrecognisethattherearedifferentlevelsofseverityof
crimes,andpoliticiansandpolicymakersshouldemphasisetheneedforapproachesthatare
appropriatetodifferentcircumstances.
1.Introduction–whyweneedanewapproachtoyouthjustice
Whetheritistherecentspateofurbanstabbings,the‘gang’shootingsin2007,widespreadconcerns
aboutbingedrinkingorthelatestfly-on-the-walltelevisiondocumentaryabout‘feralyouth’,
preoccupationwiththebehaviourofouryoungpeopleisarecurrentfeatureofourculture.
Butdespitepoliticalandmediaconcern,Britainisnotinastateofanarchy.Theriskofbeingavictim
ofcrimehasfalleninthepastdecadeandahalf,fromtwoinfivein1995tooneinfourin2007
(HomeOffice2007b).Mostyoungpeoplearelaw-abiding,andthemajorityofthosewhodobreak
thelawdosorarely.Overallthenumberofyoungpeoplebreakingthelawisnotincreasing(Wilsonet
al 2006).
Youthoffendingisknowntohavecomplexcauses.Decadesofcriminologicalresearchshowclearly
thatoffendingbehaviourcorrelateswitharangeofsocialproblemsthatreflecttheconflictsand
tensionsofgrowingupinmodernsociety.Highlevelsofoffendingareinthefirstinstancerelated
closelytotheproblemsassociatedwithpovertyandsocialexclusion,andthisargumentshouldnotbe
neglectedwhendebatingyouthcrime.Butoffendingisalsoboundupwithproblemsofgrowingup,
includingfamilyconflict,over-crowdinginthehome,andpoorcognitiveandnon-cognitiveskillsas
wellascommunicationorbehaviouralproblems.
Aproblemthatpersists
Thatsaid,youthoffending3 isarealproblem,andonethatbadlyneedsrealsolutions,foranumberof
reasons.Crimeandfearofcrimehaveabigimpactonpeople’severydaylives,particularlyin
disadvantagedcommunities.Ordinaryfamiliesandcommunitiesshouldbeabletolivepeacefully
withoutfearofcrimeoranti-socialbehaviour,butpeoplefromhouseholdsonlowincomesarefour
timesmorelikelytofeelunsafewalkingaloneafterdarkthanbetter-offhouseholds.Youngpeople
fromdisadvantagedcommunitiesaremostlikelytobevictimsofviolentcrime,whichhasharmful
impactsontheirfuturelifechances(Dixonetal 2006).
Whileyouthoffendinghasnotincreased,youngpeoplemaybeinvolvedintypesofcrimewhich
causeparticularconcern.Thereareparticularproblemswithhigh-profile,severekindsofviolence,
causedbythegreateravailabilityoffirearms,increasing(andself-perpetuating)trendsofknife-
carrying,andinsomeareasmoredelinquentgroupsofyouthsandorganisedgangs,whoexploit
youngerchildrenasrunnersanddealers(Pearce2007).Moreover,therehasbeenanincreasing
concernwithanti-socialbehaviour–non-criminalnuisancesandgroupsofyouthsgatheringinpublic
spaces,orlow-levelcrimesuchasgraffitiandvandalism–allofwhich,again,ofteninvolveyoung
people.
Similarly,whileactualratesofyouthoffendingratesmaynothaveincreased,inthecontextof
decliningtotalcrimeratestheyarenowlikelytoformagreaterproportionoftotalcrime.Although
researchsuggeststhatpublicperceptionoftheproportionoftotalcrimethatisattributabletoyouth
isexaggerated(HoughandRoberts1999),thedeclineinacquisitivecrimes(asopposedtocrimes
againsttheperson)sincethemid-1990smayinevitablymeanthatyouthcrimebecomesmorevisible
andagreatercauseofconcern.Increasingsurveillance,especiallybyCCTV,mayexacerbatethis.
Itisalsotruethatyouthoffending,connectedasitisknowntobewithinequality,willbeparticularly
difficulttoreduceinaperiodwhensocialmobilityisindeclineandchildpovertyisoncemore
increasing.Thequesttotacklethesocialproblemsthatarecausedby,andthecausesof,youth
offendingshouldremaincentraltotheprogressivemission.
3.Wedefine‘youth’morebroadlythanthenarrowdesignationofunder18.Thiswillbeaddressedin
moredetailinChapter3
Socialattitudesremaininfavourofpunitiveapproachestoyouthcrime.Thepublicbelievethatlevels
ofyouthcrimearehigh,dangerousandrising.Thisispartofamoregeneraltrendofdeclining
toleranceofkindsofyouthbehaviourthatinthepast–andinothercountries–havebeenmore
accepted.Thereappearstobeagrowingdividebetweensocietyandcommunitiesandtheiryoung
people.Asipprhasshowninpreviousresearch,afearofyoungpeopleisnowamajorchallengefor
oursocietyandourpolitics(Margoetal 2006).Intertwinedwiththisperceptionthatouryouthare
‘feral’andthatmoralstandardsaredecliningisthattheyouthjusticesystemisfailing.Thispopular
critiqueincorporatesbeliefsthatdisciplinehasbeenlostinfamilies,schoolsandcommunities;that
youngpeopledonotrespectthelaw;thatcourtsaretoolenientandthatsentencesarenotpunitive
enough.
Makemeacriminal • Promotetheactiveengagementofadultsin
ippr’spreviousreportonyouthjustice,MakeMeA maintainingcivicorderintheirlocalareasthrough
Criminal(MargoandStevens2008),madethecasefora measuressuchasexpandeduseof‘Facethepublic’
moretherapeuticandfamily-basedapproachtoyouth sessionsinitiatedbytheGovernment’sRespectAction
offending,asopposedtothepresent,morepunitive, Plan,andencouragingschoolstosetupparentgroups
system.Problemswiththecurrentapproach,thereport tomutuallyagreeonrulesforchildren.
argued,include1)notenoughbeingdoneatthe • Employ‘welfareteams’inlocalauthorities,comprised
primarylevelofinterventiontopreventcrimebeforeit ofatleastonechildpsychologist,achildpsychiatrist,
occurs,totacklethebroadercausesofoffending;and afamilyworker,acounsellorandaschoolnurseto
2)onceanindividualisdisplayingriskfactors,orhas undertakeschoolvisits.
committedananti-socialact,thenatureofthe
interventionisnotdirectedsufficientlyatpreventing Onsecondaryprevention,thereportrecommended:
thatbehaviourfrombeingrepeated;insteaditisbased • IntroductionbygovernmentofanewSureStartPlus
moreonemptypunishments. serviceforat-risk5–12s,anextensionofthescheme
Onprimarypreventionthereportrecommended: ofthesamenamecurrentlybeingpilotedwith
teenageparentsandtheirchildren.
• Banningparentsfromanyformofphysical
punishmentofchildren. • OfferingcognitivebehaviouraltherapythroughSure
StartPlustoaddressimpulsivenessandother
• Providingstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesfor personalitytraitsthatleadtocriminalactivity,
allyoungpeopleineverylocalarea,withfunding multisystemictherapyforthosewiththemost
sourcesconsolidatedintoonefund. complexneeds,intensiveeducationinterventionsfor
• Divertingthe£80millionthattheMinistryof thosewithpoorliteracyattainment,andtargeted
DefencespendseachyearontheCombinedCadet parentingprogrammessuchasfunctionalfamily
Forces(CCF),mainlyinindependentschools,either therapy.
tofundingCCFunitsinschoolsindeprivedareas, • NotusingAnti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)on
orcontinuingtofundonlythoseCCFunitsin childrenyoungerthan12unlessaccompaniedby
independentschoolsthatattractacertainamount FamilyorParentingOrders.Instead,Familyand
ofattendance(sayaminimumof50percent)by ParentingOrdersshouldbeusedtoimprovethe
childrenatstateschoolsindeprivedareas. familycontextinwhichthebehaviouroccurs,orto
• InvestmentbytheGovernmentinanew ensureappropriatecareforthechildinextreme
programmeofsupervisedplayareasin situations,suchasfostercareoradditionalservice
disadvantaged,urbanareas.Thesewouldbestaffed supportforthefamily.
adventureplayparks,integratedwithstructured • UsingIndividualSupportOrderswhereappropriate,
activity(forexample,inparksoutsideChildren’s alongsideFamilyandParentingOrders,totargetthe
CentresandYouthHubs). socialcontextinwhichoffendingoccurs–inother
• Makechangestoplanningandregulationpolicyto words,todirectchildrentopurposefulactivitiesin
helpsupportarichervarietyofpublicspacesand thelocalareaandensuretheirattendance.
placeswherepeoplecanmeet. • ScalingbackASBOsforolderchildrenunder18,from
thecurrent2-to10-yearlimitto6to24months.
Thetwosidestogovernmentyouthpolicy
Itwas,apparently,PrimeMinisterGordonBrownwhocoinedthefamoussoundbiteattributedtohis
predecessorTonyBlair,‘Toughoncrime,toughonthecausesofcrime.’Whilebeingpoliticallyastute,
thisdouble-sidedtacticanticipatedaproblemwhichtodaysitsattheheartoftheGovernment’s
overallapproachtoyouthandcrime.Thelastdecadehasseentwocontradictoryapproachesto
reform.Ontheonehandtherehasbeenastrongemphasisontacklingchildpovertyandsocial
exclusion,andasetofreformstoattempttocreateayouthjusticesystemaimedatthe prevention of
offending.Yetontheother,therehavebeenmeasurestofurtherapunitive agenda,particularlyin
relationtocriminaljustice.
Thisapproachreflectscontradictoryimpulsesinpolicy.Atoneendofthescaleisanemphasison
victims,abeliefindeterrence,andatendencytobelieveintoughretributivepoliciesandthe‘respect
agenda’.Attheother,thereisanon-interventionistdiscoursethatarguesthatdelinquencyisan
inevitablepartofgrowingupandthereforeshouldbetoleratedbecausemostyoungpeoplegrowout
ofcrime.
Inpolicyterms,thissplitapproachwasevidentasfarbackasthe1997generalelectioncampaign,in
whichyouthjusticeplayedanimportantrole.Thethen-oppositionLabourpartypledgedtospeedup
youthjusticeproceedings,thusreducingtheamountoftimeyoungoffenders(andvictimsand
communities)hadtowaitbetweenchargeandsentencing.Thispledgewasswiftlyfollowedbymore
comprehensivereformsannouncedin1998,settinguptheYouthJusticeBoardandlocalmulti-agency
‘youthoffendingteams’focusedontacklingthecausalfactorsassociatedwithyouthoffending,in
termsofbothpreventionandrehabilitation(HomeOffice1998).Thesereformsaimedtodefinethe
goalofthewholeyouthjusticesystemasbeingabouteffective,evidence-basedcrimereduction.
Laterreformsintroducedrestorativejusticeintotheyouthjusticesystemforthemajorityoffirst
convictions.Thesereformswerebasedonhighly-regardedresearchbytheAuditCommission(1996)
andhavebeenlaudedbyinternationalcommentatorsasanexemplarinevidence-basedcrime
reduction(Waller2006).AnEngagingCommunitiesinCriminalJusticeGreenPaperisalsoduein
2009,whichisaimedatgivingcommunitiesmoreofasayinthewiderjusticesytem.
Anumberofpositivepolicieshavealsobeenintroducedwhichimpactyouthoffendingfromabroader
perspective.Theserangefromtargetstoreducechildpovertyandtackleyouthunemploymentto
educationreformsandthecreationofchildren’strustsandtheDepartmentforChildren,Schoolsand
Families’EveryChildMattersagenda.Thehighestprofileinnovationhasbeentheestablishmentof
SureStartschemes,firstindeprivedandtheninallareas,providingmulti-agencysupporttoparents
andyoungchildren.Morerecently,initiativeshavefocusedonimprovingfacilitiesforyouthandsetan
ambitiousagendaforgrowingupinBritain(DCSF2005,2007a).
Howeveracontraryapproachwasalsoevident,basedonpunitiveratherthanpreventativepolicy.The
childwelfare-centredEveryChildMattersagenda(HMGovernment2003)hasbeenbalancedoutbya
punitiveRespectagenda(HMGovernment2006,Casey2008)that–inrhetoricandinpolicy–
prioritiseshighlightingtheroleofchildrenandyoungpeopleinanti-socialbehaviour.Thecliffedgeof
the18thbirthday,whentheremitoftheyouthjusticesystemendsandyouthsintransitionto
adulthoodareabandonedtobedealtwithbytheadultcriminaljusticesystem,withlessfocuson
diversionandrehabilitation,isasignificantissuetoo(BarrowCadburyCommissiononYoungAdults
andtheCriminalJusticeSystem,2005).
OneoftheclearestmanifestationsofthepunitiveagendaappearedintheadoptionofPSAtargets
intendedtoreassurethepublicthatoffendingwasbeingdealtwithfirmly.Inparticularthe‘offenders
broughttojustice’(OBTJ)target,togetherwiththeendingofmultiplecautioninghavehadtheeffect
ofbringingyoungpeopleintothecriminaljusticesystemwhointhepastwouldnothavebeenthere.
Inmanyareastherehasbeenagreaternumberofyoungpeoplegoingthroughthecourts,alongwith
higherratesofincarceration.Governmentattemptstointroduceprocessesandmeasuresbasedonthe
effectivepreventionoffutureoffendinghavebeenonlypartiallysuccessful.Targetstoreducere-
offendinghavebeenmissedastheflowoflesssevereoffendersintothecriminaljusticesystemhas
increased.Thenewmachineryofyouthjusticeandyouthoffendingteams,oftenoverlying,rather
thanreplacing,theexistingstructuresofpolice,courtsandprisons,hasfailedtoturnaroundthe
dominantapproachofcatchingandpunishingyoungpeoplethroughthecriminaljusticesystem.
Thishashadtwoquitedifferentbutequallydamagingresults.First,theincreaseofyoungpeople
involvedwiththecriminaljusticesystemisnotlikelytoreducereoffending.Bothinvolvementwiththe
policeandcourts,and(evenmore)incarcerationhavebeenshowntobeatbestneutralandatworst
damaging.Consequentlythetargetstoreducere-offendinghavenotbeenmet,andenforcementof
OBTJtargetshavemadeasignificantcontributiontothisfailure.Despiteprogresstherehasbeena
rapidincreaseinthecriminalisationofyoungpeople,growingcustodypopulationsand–
consequently–afailureoftheyouthandyoungadultcriminaljusticesystemtoreducerealre-
offendingrates.
Secondly,theapparentincreaseinyouthoffendingresultingfrommorearrestsandprosecutionsanda
growingnumberofchildrenincustodyarelikelytoheightenratherthanreducepublicanxietyand
thereforedistrustinthecriminaljusticesystem.
Tenyearson,itistimetostepbackandtakestockofprogress.Weneedtorecogniseandhighlight
thesuccessesinreducingoverallcrime,settingupaninfrastructureofyouthoffendingteamsand
introducinginnovationssuchasrestorativereferralorders.However,wealsoneedtoaskchallenging
questionsaboutthedivergentdirectionsintheGovernment’sapproachtoyouthcrime.
Anewmomentforchange?
TheGovernment’srecordoverthelastdecadeisthusamixedone.Buttherearetworeasonstothink
thatthetimemayberightforafurther,majorrethinkofthewayinwhichtheyouthjusticesystem
worksinEnglandandWales.First,assuggestedabove,theGovernmenthasrecentlytakenanumber
ofstepstopushyouthjusticepolicyawayfrompunitiveapproaches.ThecreationoftheDepartment
forChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DSCF)in2007,withitsstrongfocusonchildrenandyoung
people’swellbeing,helpedtoplacetheneedsofyoungpeoplemorecentrallywithingovernment.The
decisionbyitsSecretaryofState,EdBalls,toclosedowntheRespectTaskforce–spiritualhomeof
Talkingtough
Theriskofareturntothetough-but-ineffectivepoliciesofthepastisneverfaraway.Infrontlinepolitics,Labour
consistentlyplaysthe‘demonisingyouth’card.Despitethebestattemptsofsomepoliticalleaderstode-escalate
rhetoric,recentby-electioncampaignshavebeenfought(andlost)usingpenalpopulistrhetoricandCabinetministers
arguingforgreateruseofcustodyandharassment.
Someexamplesofthisrhetoric:
TamsinDunwoodywantsthepolicetoharassyobs,and‘getintheirfaces’.Shesaid:‘There’salotoftalkabouthuman
rights,formethemostimportanthumanrightistofeelsafeinyourhomeandcommunity.’
(FromCreweandNantwichLabourPartywebsite:www.creweandnantwichlabour.org.uk)
‘AsanMSP,IwasproudtoleadLabour’slawstocrackdownonanti-socialbehaviour….Anyonewhocarriesalethal
bladeonthestreetsoftheEastEndshouldgotojail.IftheSNPwon’tsupporttheseplansIwill.’
(MargaretCurranMSP,fromthe‘MargaretCurranforGlasgowEast’campaignwebsite,www.eastendlabour.org.uk)
‘Thebulkofthoseyoungpeoplewhoareputintocustodyareaged16and17– theyarenotchildren;theyareoften
large,unpleasantthugs,andtheyarefrighteningtothepublic.Inmyjudgment,thecourtshavebeenquiterightto
ensurethattheyarelockedup,andlockedupforalongtimewheretheyhavecommittedgrievousoffences.’
(RtHonJackStrawMP,JusticeSecretary,HouseofCommons,2008)
‘Thereisnolet-upintacklingantisocialbehaviour.Weknowthatgettinginearlytostoptroublemakersworks,butI
wantstrongeractiontodealwithpersistentoffenders.Iwantpoliceandlocalagenciestofocusonthembygivingthem
atasteoftheirownmedicine:dailyvisits,repeatedwarningsandrelentlessfilmingofoffenderstocreatean
environmentwherethereisnowheretohide.’
(RtHonJacquiSmithMP,HomeSecretary,2008)
tough-soundingcrimepolicies–andreplaceitwithanewYouthTaskforcedesignedtoimproveyoung
people’soutcomeswasaclearsignofintent.
InturnthiswasfollowedbyamarkedchangeofemphasisintheformofDCSF’s2007Children’sPlan.
Itsetoutwaysinwhichstateservicesaimedatchildrenshouldbegintoworkbettertogetherto
preventcrimeinvolvingyoungpeople,allocated£66milliontotacklethosemostatriskofoffending,
anditintroducednewpilotsofrestorativeapproachestoyouthoffending(DCSF2007).Thisvision
wasfurtherdevelopedintheYouthCrimeActionPlanpublishedin2008.Thisincludedbalancingthe
useofASBOswithmoreParentingOrders,movingtoexpandprovisionoffacilitiesforyoungpeople,
andintroducingreformstothewayyoungpeopleincustodyaretreated.Italsodevelopedpotentially
preventativemeasures,includingexpandingpartnershipsbetweenschoolsandthepolice,andmoved
forwardonintroducingnewwaysofengagingthepublicwithreparationsyoungpeoplemaketothe
community(HMGovernment2008).AlthoughtheYouthCrimeActionPlanstoppedshortofthe
beingthetypeofwholesalereformweproposeinthispaper(anddidnothingforyoungpeopleover
18,whoarestilldevelopingintoadultsbutwhoarebeyondtheDCSFremit),itwasdefinitelyastepin
therightdirection.
Second,andperhapsmoreimportantly,theConservativesnowseemtobedevelopinganewrangeof
ideasinthisarea.DavidCameron’sspeechonthesocialcausesofyouthanti-socialbehaviourwasa
decisivestepinmovinghispartyawayfromprevious‘toughoncrime’approaches–andwas
unfortunatelycriticisedbyLabourpoliticiansasbeingabout‘huggingahoodie’.Cameron’schanged
politicalapproachhasbeenequallysignificant,movingfromcriticisingtheGovernmentforbeingsoft
oncrimetoanewargumentthatthecausesofcrimeremainuntackled.Influencedbyreportsfrom
formerConservativeleaderIainDuncanSmith’sCentreforSocialJustice,thenewConservative
approachhasoftenfocusedontheunderlyingcausesofcrime.Indeed,theTacklingFamily
BreakdowntoPreventYouthCrimereport’smainargument–that‘theGovernmenthasgotthe
balancewrong;allitsenergiesaredirectedatpunishingthosewhoselivesareproductsofafractured
societywithouttacklingthecausesofcrimeinaholisticway’(DuncanSmith2007)–marksahopeful
changeoftoneanddirection.
Toomuchcanbemadeofthis,ofcourse.UnderformerConservativeShadowHomeSecretaryDavid
DaviesthedominantConservativeapproach–sometimesdescribedasthe‘HowardConsensus’–still
emphasisedtheneedfortoughersentencing,andexpressedconfidenceintheuseofthecriminal
justiceandprisonsystemstoachieveoutcomes.PresscoverageofamorerecentCentreforSocial
Justicereportongangsinvolvedsometalkoftheneedfor‘clipsaroundtheear’.Nonethelessitis
clearthattheConservativeshavebecomemoreopentotakinganewapproach,andaretodaymore
willingtoconsiderreformsthatcouldmovetheyouthjusticesystemtowardspreventingcrimeand
tacklingitscauses.Incombinationwithanewlyenlightenedapproachfromgovernment,thismight
justbeenoughtocreateapoliticalmoment.
2.Ataleoftwotargets–whyanewapproachisneeded
Chapter1notedthatpoliciesandattemptstosetoutanewapproachtoyouthjusticebasedon
effectivenesshaveoftenbeenunderminedbypunitivemeasuresthatdolittletoreducefuture
offending.ThischapterillustratesthisbattleofgoalsthroughataleoftwoheadlineGovernment
targets:first,thetargettobringmoreoffencestojustice;andsecond,thetargettoreducethe
numberofyoungre-offenders.
Bringingmoreoffenderstojustice
In2002theHomeOfficewassetaPublicServiceAgreement(PSA)targetto‘improvethedeliveryof
justicebyincreasingthenumberofcrimesforwhichanoffenderisbroughttojusticeto1.25million
by2007-08.’Thishasbeencommonlyknownasthe‘offencesbroughttojustice’,orOBTJ,target.The
OBTJtargetrequiredanincreaseinthenumberofdisposals4 dealtoutbythejusticesystem–andin
theoverallvolumeofoffencesrecorded.Thiswasasimplersolutionthanatargetfocusingon
increasingtheproportionofrecordedcrimesresultinginaconviction,whichcouldhavecreateda
conflictofinterestforthepolicewhowouldbepenalisedforrecordingdifficult-to-solvecrimes.
Howeverthefocusonvolumecreatedadditionalincentivesforthepolicetorecordmoreminor
offences5 andarrestyoungpeopleforthem–particularlythosethatwouldbeeasytobe‘broughtto
justice.’Thetargetchangedthemeasurebywhichlocaldeliveryorganisationswouldbejudged.Itset
thebaratachallenginglevel–anincreaseof200,000offences,around20percent,infiveyears.This
providedincentivesforlocaldeliveryorganisations,inparticularthepolice,toreducethethresholdfor
recordingoffencesandarrestingoffenders.
Theresultofthistargethasbeenthatthenumberofoffencesbroughttojusticerosesharplyfrom
1.02millionin2002whenthetargetwasset,to1.45millionintheyeartoDecember2007,an
increaseof45percent.Thetargetwasdeclaredas‘ahead’ofdelivery(HomeOffice2007a).Sothe
targethasbeenveryeffectiveatmobilisingactionbythecriminaljusticeagencies.Inparticular,the
policehaverespondedrobustly,theirincentivesimplytomakemorearrests.
Figure2.1.
Offences
broughtto Performance
1,550,000 Target
justice,2002-
2008 1,450,000
Source:Criminal
JusticeSystemfor 1,350,000
Offences
Englandand
1,250,000
Wales,2008
1,150,000
1,050,000
950,000
Se 02
Se 03
Se 04
Se 05
Se 06
Se 07
8
M 02
M 03
M 04
M 05
M 06
M 07
-0
-
-
p-
p-
p-
p-
p-
p-
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
M
Date
4.‘Disposal’meanstheoptionsopentoacriminalcourtonsentencing,e.g.custody,community
sentence,caution,discharge
5.‘Minor’offenceswouldinclude,forexample,graffiti,noiseoffences,verbalharassment,possessionof
classCdrugs,minorcriminaldamage,playgroundfight
Howeverthistrendhashadconsequencesreachingfarbeyondanincreaseincriminalsanctions,and
inthiscontextespeciallyforyoungpeople.Theeasiestwaytoincreasethenumberofoffences
recordedandsanctionedistoconcentrateonlow-levelcrimethatiseasiertodetect.Inmanyareas
policeimprovedtheirperformanceagainstthetargetbymakingmorearrestsforoffencesthatwould
previouslyhavebeenignoredordealtwithinformally.
Thetargetfocusesonyoungpeople
ThismeantthattheOBTJbecameaparticularproblemforyouthjustice,becausetheeasiestcrimesto
detecttendtobecommittedbychildren,whoarealsotheeasiestpeopletoarrest.Thishasbeen
acknowledgedbytheNationalCriminalJusticeBoardandbySirRonnyFlanagan’sReviewofPolicing:
FinalReport (2008):
‘Anemphasisonsanction-detectionlevelshasundoubtedlytoadegree
producedtheunintendedeffectofofficersspendingtimeinvestigatingcrimes
withaviewtoobtainingadetection,evenwhenthatisclearlynotinthe
publicinterest.Anexampleofsuchwouldbealow-levelplaygroundcommon
assault.’ (Flanagan2008:10)
Afreedomofinformationrequestbyipprinvestigatedthisfurther.Werequestedabreakdownof
offencesbroughttojusticebydifferentagegroups.Becauseofdatacomparabilityissues,the
informationweobtainedwasnotcomplete,butitillustratesveryclearlythedifferentialimpactofthe
targetonyouthsandadults–seeFigure2.2.
Evidenceofthetrendtowardsarrestsforlessseriousoffendingisalsobroughtoutinthe2005re-
offendingofjuvenilesdata.Accordingtogovernmentresearch,the2005cohortofyoungoffenders
hadfewerriskfactorsthanin2002(orindeed2004):i.e.itwaslikelytoproducefeweroffences.The
typeofviolentcrimethatwas‘broughttojustice’isassociatedwithrelativelylowlevelsofre-
offending,and81percentofthoseoffendersin2005receivedapre-courtdisposalorafirsttier
penalty,indicatingalowlevelofseriousness.However,theMinistryofJusticereportedthatthe
numberofjuvenilessanctionedforaviolentoffencerosesubstantially–from9,516in2004to11,285
in2005.
Figure2.2.Youth
vsadultOBTJ
cautionsand Youth OBTJ
40%
convictions Adult OBTJ
35%
Source:ippr 30%
Change since 2002
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
TheOBTJfigureshavealsobeenaffectedbynewapproachestooftennon-criminalanti-social
behaviour.Someoftheincreaseinthenumberofyoungpeopleconvictedisasaresultofbreachesof
courtorders,includinganti-socialbehaviourorders(ASBOs),ratherthanbecausemorecrimeisbeing
committed.Breachesofstatutoryordersincreasedby93percentfrom8,256in2002/03to15,910in
2006/07(YouthJusticeBoard2007).
Whiletheoverallfiguresmakeitlookasifahigherproportionofcrimesarebeingsolvedand
offenderspunishedthanbefore,theactualityisthatthethresholdforpolicetomakeanarresthas
beenlowered.Thepoliceachievedtheirtargetbyconcentratingonthe‘low-hangingfruit’–whowere
likelytobechildrenandyoungadultsunder21.Somepoliceforcespaidbonusestoofficersforre-
arrestingchildrenasyoungas11yearsoldevenwhentherewasnoevidenceofthemhaving
committedacrime.
Increasingnumbersofyoungwomenarealsobeingbroughtintothecriminaljusticesystem,witha
riseof25percentinthenumberofoffencescommittedbyfemalesresultinginadisposal(compared
toa2percentdropformales)between2003/04and2006/07(YouthJusticeBoard2007).Since
crimescommittedbyfemalestendtobelessseriousthanmalecrimes,thisalsosuggestsaloweringof
thethresholdforintervention.
Theveryyoungestgetthemostattention
ipprrequestedfiguresfromtheMinistryofJusticetocomparethechangesinoffencesbroughtto
justicebyagegroupsincethetargetwasintroducedin2002.TheresultsareshowninTable2.1.This
tabledemonstratestheextenttowhichyoungeryouthshavebeendisproportionatelytargetedunder
theOBTJtarget.Ourfiguresshowanevenfasterriseintheincreaseofunder-15shavingoffences
broughttojustice–35percentovertheperiod.
Table2.1.Increaseincautionsandconvictions2002-2006
Agegroup Increase/change
10–14years 35%
15–17years 24%
18–20years 2%
Over21years 13%
Source:ippranalysisofMinistryofJusticedata
Althoughtheoveralltrendhasbeenconsistent,theimpactofthistargethasnotbeenuniversalacross
thecountry.Thereissignificantregionalvariationintheextenttowhichareashaveembracedthegoal
ofcriminalisation–seeTable2.2,nextpage.OurdatarequestfromtheMinistryofJusticeillustrated
thatwhilesomepoliceauthorityareashaddoubledthenumberofunder-18sbroughtintothe
criminaljusticesystem,othershadbuckedthetrendandhadfocusedonalternativeapproachesto
youthoffendingandanti-socialbehaviour,forexampleinNorthamptonshireandSouthWales.We
haveincludedthechangesinrecordedcrimelevelstoillustratethefactthatincreasesin
criminalisationdonotcorrelatewithcrimerates.
Anineffectiveapproachtoloweringyouthcrime
Thekeymessagefromresearchisthatmakingextrauseofthecriminaljusticesystemisnotnormally
thebestwaytostopoffendingbehaviour.Thefirstandmostimportantproblemwiththehighratesof
arrestandformalcourtproceedingsbroughtagainstminoroffendersisthat,ratherthanreducing
crimeandmakingcommunitiessafer,thecurrenttrendofcriminalisingmoreyoungpeopleformore
minoroffendingislikelytocreatemorepersistentfutureoffenders(andthusmorevictims).Home
Officeresearchhasfoundthatthreequartersofyoungpeoplebetween10and25yearsoldarelaw-
abiding.Ofthe25percentwhodooffend,18percentarenon-frequentoffenders,andonlyoneper
centofyoungpeoplearebothseriousandfrequentoffenders(Wilsonetal 2006).Itisnottherefore
obviousthatincreasingthenumberofyoungpeople,someindeedveryyoung,whoencounterthe
criminaljusticesystemisnecessaryinordertoreducehighlevelsofoffending.Andinfactitisworse
thanthis,becauseotherresearchsuggeststhatyoungpeoplearelesslikelytodesistfromcrimeif
theycomeintocontactwiththecriminaljusticesystem–andthatthedeepertheygetintothe
system,thelesslikelytheyaretogiveupcrime.Forexample,theEdinburghSurveyofYouth
TransitionsandCrime(alongitudinalstudyofchildreninthecity)hasfoundthat,otherthingsbeing
equal,contactwiththepoliceledtoareductionintheprobabilityofayoungpersondesistingfrom
crime(Smith2006).AnolderCambridgeUniversitylongitudinalsurveyreachedsimilarconclusions
(Farrington1977citedinSmith2006).
Table2.2.ChangesinOBTJandpolicerecordedcrime,bypoliceauthority,2002-2006
Policeauthority ChangeinOBTJ Changeinpolicerecordedcrime
Youth Adult
Cheshire 95% 20% 5%
Sussex 90% 17% 2%
Dorset 81% 28% -11%
Essex 71% 46% -7%
Humberside 65% 8% -15%
Warwickshire 62% 37% 2%
Hertfordshire 61% 49% 6%
AvonandSomerset 61% 12% -7%
Norfolk 58% 14% -12%
Leicestershire 57% 26% -3%
Suffolk 50% 28% 2%
Surrey 50% 20% 8%
Kent 44% 17% 12%
Cleveland 43% 8% -7%
SouthYorkshire 42% 26% 5%
Cambridgeshire 40% 25% -19%
Nottinghamshire 38% 15% -15%
Lancashire 36% 15% 4%
ThamesValley 33% 38% 1%
Bedfordshire 32% 23% -6%
GreaterManchester 30% 16% -12%
Cumbria 30% 7% 3%
WestYorkshire 29% 18% -23%
Staffordshire 26% 0% -4%
Gloucestershire 26% -10% -6%
Gwent 25% -3% -13%
DyfedPowys 24% -5% 20%
WestMercia 22% 18% -22%
MetropolitanPolice 21% 11% -15%
Derbyshire 20% 0% -21%
Lincolnshire 19% 19% -10%
Durham 14% -2% 4%
DevonandCornwall 13% -2% -5%
Hampshire 12% 6% 18%
Wiltshire 12% 3% 2%
Northumbria 9% 4% -22%
NorthYorkshire 5% 11% -20%
Merseyside 2% -14% -5%
WestMidlands -6% -7% -20%
NorthWales -7% -7% -18%
SouthWales -21% -16% -15%
London,Cityof -30% -23% -20%
Northamptonshire -36% 20% -10%
EnglandandWales 27% 11% -9%
Source:ippranalysisofMinistryofJusticedata
TheHomeOffice/MinistryofJustice’sownresearchonre-offendingconfirmsthisfinding.Although
themethodofanalysiswasexploratory,acomparisonoftheimpactofdifferenttypesofdisposalon
adjustedre-offendingratesfoundthatdiversion(waysofdealingwithcrimethatavoidedcontactwith
thecriminaljusticesystem)andfirsttierdisposals(mainlyreferraltoyouthoffendingpanels)were
moreeffectivethancourtcommunitysentencesorcustody(MedhurstandCunliffe2007).Similarly,a
comparisonofreconvictionratesinastudyinNorthamptonshirefoundthatprosecutionwasless
effectivethancautioningorreferraltoa‘diversionunit’(ateamworkingwithrepeatoffendersby
bringingtogethersocialservices,probationofficers,thepoliceandyouthservices,alongwithhealth
andeducationprofessionals)(Kempetal 2002).Otherapproaches,particularlytypesofrestorative
justiceinthecommunity,havebeenfoundtobeevenmoreeffective(ShermanandStrang2007).
Thecurrentapproachasawholetendstobeunsuccessfulintacklingtherealproblem–theproblem
ofoffending,anditsimpactonvictims.TheOBTJtarget,andtheincentiveitcreatesforpoliceto
targetminoryouthdelinquents,hasledtoanincreaseinthenumberofyoungpeopleenteringthe
youthjusticesystemforthefirsttime.Thisisdespitesomerecentsuccesswithaseparate(non-PSA)
targetfortheYouthJusticeBoardinreducingthenumberoffirst-timeentrantstotheyouthjustice
system.
Further,short-termproblemswiththeOBTJtarget
Ourprimarycriticismoftheoffencesbroughttojusticetargetisthatithasencouragedauthoritiesto
bringtoomanyyoungpeopleintothecriminaljusticesystem.However,therearemoreshort-term
problemsassociatedwiththetargetaswell.
First,thetargetreducedtheefficiencyofthecriminaljusticesystem.Likeanysystemwithlimited
resources,thecriminaljusticesystemneedstomakesureitallocatesresourcesefficiently.Asaresult
oftheOBTJtarget,thepoliceandjusticesystemarewastingscarceresourcesonarrestingminor
offendersandbringingminoroffencestocourt(althoughrecentchangeshaveaimedtocounterthis
effect)(Dixonetal 2006).
Second,theeffectofthetargetwasexacerbatedbythelimit,introducedin1998,onthenumberof
cautionsindividualscanreceivebeforetheyareautomaticallyreferredtocourt.Thereafter,a‘vertical
tariff’systemmeansthatyoungoffendersareescalatedtowardsacustodialsentence.Despitetargets
fortheYouthJusticeBoardtoreducethenumberofyoungpeopleincustodyeachyear,theimpact
oftheOBTJtargethasmeantthatagreaternumberofyoungpeopleareendingupindetention.At
thesametimetherehasbeenpressureoncourtstogiveouttoughersentences,andwhilethe
proportionofminorsentenceshasincreased,theaggregateeffectofallthesefactors–designedto
reassurethepublicthatthesystemis‘tough’–hasbeentoincreasetheyouthcustodypopulationby
6percentsince2003/04,againstatargetofa10percent reductionby2007/08(YouthJustice
Board2007);seeFigure2.3.
Figure2.3.
Youthcustody
since2003 3200
Under 18 secure population
Source:Youth 3100
3000 2003/04
JusticeBoard2008
2900 2004/05
2800 2005/06
2700 2006/07
2600 2007/08
2500
2008/09
2400
2300
st
ne
r
ril
ry
r
be
be
gu
Ap
ua
Ju
m
to
Au
br
ce
Oc
Fe
De
Third,thetargetunderminedthebusinesscaseforprevention,that‘anounceofpreventioniswortha
poundofcure’(Waller2006).This,assetoutintheAuditCommission’s2004reportYouthJustice,is
basedoninvestmentineffectiveinterventionswhichminimisethefactorsknowntobelikelycausesof
offending–includingbehaviouralproblemsatschool,exclusionfromeducation,lackofrolemodels,
insecurecareorsubstancemisuse.Theseinterventionsresultinfeweryoungpeoplebecoming
offendersandthusavoidthecostsofpolicing,courts,communitysentencesandcustody.Inorderto
implementthisapproach,forexample,theYouthJusticeBoardhasbeguntospendanadditional£45
milliononpreventionprogrammes.
However,thefinancialsavingsfromapreventativeapproachcanonlyberealisedifthethresholdfor
formalinterventionbythecriminaljusticesystemremainsrelativelyconstant,sothatlowerlevelsof
offendinginthefutureleadtocostsavings.ButtheimpactoftheOBTJtargetontheapproachto
minoryoungoffendershasmeantthatthethresholdforformalintervention–whichimposescostson
thecriminaljusticesystembudget–hasbeenprogressivelylowered.Unlessthecontinualloweringof
thatthresholdisabated,publicmoneyinvestedinpreventionwillnotleadtosavingsinthefutureand
thebusinesscaseforpreventionwillbeundermined.
Fourth,theeffectofincreasingcriminalisationistodamagethelifeprospectsofyoungpeople,many
ofwhomarealreadyvulnerable.Theseeffectsincludeshort-termimpactsasyoungpeopleare
stigmatisedasbeinganti-socialorcriminal,particularlywhenindividualsareregularlystoppedandre-
arrestedonsuspicion,withoutevidencelinkingthemtoacrime.Theymayalsoincludedamageto
theireducationbecauseiftheirschoolfindsoutthattheyareintroublewiththepolice,childrenmay
beexcluded.Unspentconvictions,evenfortrivialoffences,canalsopreventyoungpeoplefrom
developingtheircareerprospectsandthushavelong-termconsequencesfortheirlifechances.
Recentchangestoyouthjusticetargets
Changestoyouthjusticetargetshavebeenannouncedrecently.Inordertocounterthedangerof
incentivisingpolicetoneglectseriouscrime(particularlysevereviolenceandsexualoffences)infavour
oftargetinglow-leveloffending,threetiersoftargetswereintroducedin2007toreplacethesingle
target,withanobjectiveofincreasingthenumbersbroughttojusticeforeachtier.TheYouthJustice
BoardAnnualWorkloadData2007/8 publicationsuggestssomeprogress.Itsaysthat‘Thisyear’s
datarevealsthattherewere17,143fewercrimescommittedbyyoungpeopleresultinginadisposal–
a5.8%decreaseincomparisonwith2006/07.Asimilardownwardtrendshowsthatthenumberof
youngpeopleenteringtheyouthjusticesystemhasalsofallenoverthelastthreeyearsbyatotalof
10%’.TheYJBaddsthat‘theworkofyouthinclusionprogrammesandthesupportdeliveredtoyoung
peopleandtheirparentsbyYOTs–hascontributedtothisachievement’(YouthJusticeBoard2009).
Initselfthisiswelcome,andthetargetchangesserveausefulpurpose.However,itisinsufficientto
reversethetrendofcriminalisationofyoungpeoplefornon-seriousoffending.Evenwiththethree
tiers,thereisstillatarget–inthelowesttier–tobringagreaternumberofnon-severeyoung
offenderstojustice.Therearealsopotentialincentivestoadjustthetierofanoffencewhereitisnear
theborderofthenexttier,andtotarget‘low-hangingfruit’atthebottomofeachtier.Itisfarfrom
clearthatthechangeinthetargetwillhaveasignificantimpactonthetrendsoutlinedabove,andis
likelytofailtoreversetheimpetusforthepoliceandjusticesystemtotakeaformal,criminaljustice
approachtoalloffending,irrespectiveoftheseverityofthecrimeorageofthepersoninvolved.
Targetsonreducingre-offending
In2002theHomeOfficewassetaPublicServiceAgreementtargettoreducere-offendingforyoung
offendersby5percentbetween2000and2006.Thereisalonger-termtargettoreducere-offending
by10percentbytheendof2009.ThistargetisdelegatedtotheYouthJusticeBoardforyoung
offendersandtheNationalOffenderManagementServiceforadults.ThisPSAtargetwasreportedin
theHomeOffice2007AnnualReportas‘slipping’,againstafairlyun-ambitiousgoal,andwasquietly
‘replaced’byanalternativemeasurethatfailstoreflectthetrueperformanceofthesystem.
Thereformstoyouthjusticeintroducedin1998madecrimereductiontheircoreaim.Re-offending
statisticsareparticularlyhighforsomeyoungoffenders,particularlythosewhoreceivecustodial
sentences,wheretheprovenre-offendingratewasover75percent(MedhurstandCunliffe2007),
excluding,ofcourse,undetectedorunprovenoffending.Therefore,focusingthesystemontheaimof
reducingre-offendingwaskeytothenewapproach.Untilrecentlychanges,youthre-offendingwas
measuredbythepercentageofyoungpeoplewhoreceivedadisposalfromthejusticesystemduring
JanuarytoMarcheachyearandwhothenreceivedanotherdisposalforacrimecommittedduringthe
followingyear.
TheoriginalPSAtargetwasnotbasedontheoverallrateofre-offending,asthiswouldnottakeinto
accountthechangesinthecharacteristicsofthecohortofex-offenders,whomaybemoreorless
likelytore-offend.ThereforetheHomeOffice(nowtheMinistryofJustice)commissionedstatistical
analysistocalculatearateofre-offendingthatwouldbepredictediftheannualcohortwereidentical
withthecohortof2000(thebaselineyear)– thatis,containedapopulationofindividualswiththe
samelikelihoodofre-offending.
Thetargetsetin2002wastoreducetherateofreoffendingby5percent,afteradjustmentby
comparisonwiththe2000cohort.Theunadjustedrateofre-offendingforthefirstquarterof2005
(publishedinJuly2007)was40.81percent.Thepredictedratewas40.83:muchlowerthanthe
actualratefor2000becausethepopulationofoffendersnowincludedmorepeopleconvictedof
relativelyminorcrimesandwas,therefore,overalllesslikelytoproducerepeatoffences.Inotherwords
thereduction(0.02percent)wasinsignificant.
However,themeasurehasnowchangedsothatitisnownolongeradjustedtopredicted2000levels.
Sincetheactuallevelfor2000(withacohortmuchmorelikelytoreoffend)was43.3percent,this
producesanapparentdecreaseof2.49.
Figure2.4.Youth
re-offending
performance 0 Adjusted
(adjusted, performance
comparedwith -1
Target
Change since 2000 (%)
2000rate)
-2
Source:HomeOffice/
MinistryofJustice -3
data,ippranalysis
Note:themethodology -4
ofthemeasurement
changedforthe2004 -5
cohortandforthe
baseline,soallpoints
representthepublished -6
performancecompared 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
withthepublished Year
baseline
Re-offendingisgoinginthewrongdirection
Thus,unliketheOBTJtarget,there-offendingtargethasfailedtoreversepasttrends.Whileofcourse
themarginalreductioninunadjustedre-offendingsince2000istobewelcomed–andnewalternatives
tocustodyhavebeenintroducedwhichhavehadapositiveeffectonre-offending–theadjusted
changeisstatisticallyinsignificant.ThecontrastingstoriesoftheOBTJtarget(over-achievement
leadingtothecriminalisationofthousandsofyoungpeopleformoreminoroffences)andthere-
offendingtarget(anegativetrendreflectingtheincreasingflowofmoreminoroffendersintothe
system)illustrateourconclusionthatthecurrentGovernmenthasfailedtoachievethenecessaryshift
towardsacrime-reductionapproach,andthattheineffectivecriminalise-and-punishparadigmhas
dominated.Webelievethatreducingre-offendingwillremainunachievableuntilcrimereduction,rather
thantheprosecutionofcrime,becomesthemainfocusofthewholeyouthjusticesystem.
LiketheOBTJtarget,there-offendingtargethasrecentlychanged.Ostensiblythiswastoaddress
problemswiththewaythetargetfailedtoprovideasensitivemeasureoftheimpactofoffences:it
onlymeasuredwhetherornotanoffenderwasre-convictedwithinoneyearofhisorherprevious
disposal,anddidnottakeintoaccounteitherfrequencyorseverityofoffending.Inthe2007
ComprehensiveSpendingReviewanewmeasurewasannouncedthatwouldcalculatere-offendingon
thebasisofthenumberandimpactofre-offencesthatweretakenintoaccount,ratherthanjusta
binarypass/failmeasurewhere,forexample,asinglecannabispossessioncountedthesameas
homicide.
However,thenewmeasures,whileprovidingamoresophisticatedmeasureofre-offending,removed
the‘risk-adjustment’aspectoftheoriginaltarget.Thishaspassedrelativelyunchallenged,but
amountsinpracticetothereplacementofafailingtargetjustbeforeitwasduetobemeasured.The
factthatthenewmeasuredoesnottakeintoaccounttheriskprofileofthecohortreversesthelogic
onwhichtheoriginalmeasurewasbased.Ineffect,itmakesthetargeteasiertoachieve,because,as
explained,theeffectoftheOBTJtargethasbeentomakeeachyear’scohortlesslikelytore-offend.
Summary
ThistaleoftwotargetsillustratesthebroaderhistoryoftheGovernment’syouthjusticereforms.
Althoughlevelsofyouthoffendinghavenotincreased(Wilsonetal 2006,PhillipsandChamberlain
2006),thethresholdforbringingyouthdelinquentbehaviourintotheformaljusticesystemhasbeen
lowered,resultinginanincreaseinprosecutionsandconvictions.Whiletherehavebeengreenshoots
ofaprogressiveapproachbasedontacklingthecausesoffutureoffending,onbalancethe
Governmenthasfailedtoachievearealshiftawayfromcriminalisation.Significantprogressin
reducingre-offending,akeyaimfortheyouthjusticesystem,willremainelusivewithoutawhole-
systemparadigmshifttowardsasharedaimofcrimereduction.Recentchangestothesetargetshave
focusedonasuperficialproblem–themeasuresbywhichtheyarecalculated–ratherthanseeingthe
targetsthemselvesastheproblem.Asthisreportargues,nowisthetimetofindwaysofreversingthe
existingtrendanddivertingminoroffendersfromthecriminaljusticesystem.
Itisrightthatthereshouldbeanoverallaimtoclosethe‘justicegap’forsevereoffenderswherethere
isaneedtoprotectthepublicandachieveretributionforvictimsandsociety.However,foryoung
peoplewhocommitasmallnumberofminoroffences,theformaljusticerouteisgenerallynotthe
bestwaytoencouragethemtodesistfromoffending.Andtheperverseconsequenceofso-called
zero-toleranceapproachestopolicingyouthoffending,whichistobringmoreminoroffendersinto
thejusticesystem,isthattherewillbemorefuturevictimsofcrime.
3.Objectives,barriersto,andnewprinciplesofyouthjustice
Theyouthjusticereformsofthelastdecadehaveleftuswithanover-relianceoncriminalising
childrenandyoungpeopleandalinkedandpartlyconsequentfailuretofocusonreducingfuture
offending.Weneedasystemthathassuchafocus,butatpresenttherearestillobstaclesto
achievingthis.Theseare,inparticular,structural,institutionalbarriersandculturalandpolitical
problemsincludinglowlevelsofpublictrustintheauthoritiestodeliverjustice.
Inthischapterweproposeprinciplesforfuturereformsthatwillachievethechangeweneed.These
principlesshouldensurethatanewapproachhasastructurethatispreventative.Thenewyouth
justicesystemshouldalsopromotemorecommunityinvolvement–bothtoensurethatitbuilds
capacitytochangebehaviour,andalsotoimprovetrustinthesystem.Thefactthatthereisaneedfor
higherlevelsofpublicconfidencebeforethesystemcanbeeffectiveunderlinestheimportanceof
communityinvolvement.Thesystemshouldalsorespondinwaysmorepreciselytargetedatthe
natureandlevelofbehaviourwhichareofconcern.
Whichinterventionsworkinpreventingoffending?
Thereisanextensiveliteratureontheimpactsofdifferentinterventionsonfutureoffending.This
literaturehasalsobeenextensivelyreviewed.ippr’sreportonpreventingoffending,MakeMeA
Criminal(MargoandStevens2008),summarisedthemainfindingsoftheliteratureon‘upstream’
policies.Arecentreviewoftheliteratureonchildren’sinvolvementincrimeandanti-socialbehaviour
alsosummarisedtheresearchonre-offending(PriorandParis2005),showingtwobroadcategoriesof
approaches–coerciveanddevelopmental.
Coerciveapproachesareintendedtodeterbyimposingsanctionsonyoungpeoplewhohave
offended(PriorandParis2005).Thetoolsofcoerciveapproachesincludefines,surveillance,curfews
andpenalties.Theauthorsconcludehoweverthat‘thegreatmajorityofstudiesdemonstratethat
thesesanctionseitherhavenoimpactonre-offendingorareassociatedwithanincreasedlevelofre-
offending.’Inparticular,theyfindthat‘gettough’approachesappearnottowork.Instillingfearin
youngoffendersandthreatening‘short,sharpshocks’tendsactuallytobemoreharmfulthandoing
nothing(ibid:36).
Thisisnotofcoursetodenythatthereisinevitablygoingtobesomeneedforinterventions,
includingsecureaccommodationfordangerousoffenders,ofwhichtheaimistoprotectthepublic.
Howeverevenwhentheseareusedtherecanbebeneficialeffectsforre-offendingifeffective
measuresaretakentorehabilitateandresettlethoseoffendersdealtwithinthisway.However,Prior
andParis(ibid)observethattheEnglishandWelshDetentionandTrainingOrders(DTOs)introduced
in2000tocombinecustodywithmoredevelopmentalapproacheswerenoteffectivelyreducingre-
offendingbecausetherewasalackofresettlementactivity–thatis,preparingthetraineeforreturn
totheircommunity–andlimitedinterventionsbackathome.
PriorandParisaremoreoptimisticaboutthewidecategoryof‘developmental’interventions,which
aimatrehabilitationandresettlementofoffenders.Theseincludeinterventionsfocusedonthe
individualoffenderbutalsoonbroaderfactors,relatedto,forexample,family,schoolandcommunity.
Theauthorsclaimthattheirreviewofrelevantresearchsuggeststhatinterventionsfocusedon
individualscanbesuccessfuliftheymeetstrictcriteria.Theseamounttoaneedtotailorinterventions
totheparticularcircumstancesofoffenders.Inparticulartheymustfocusonthefactorswhichare
mostlikelytocausetheindividualtore-offend.Thisshouldinvolverelatingthelevelofinterventionto
thelevelofoffending,organisinginterventionsincommunitysettings,respondingtothegeneraland
specificlearningstylesandneedsofpotentialoffenders,tacklingmultipleneedsthroughmultiple
services,anddevelopingcognitive,behaviouralandinter-personalskillsinyoungpeoplewhichwill
helpthemeithernottooffendornottore-offend.Interventionsneedtohaveahighstandardof
planningandmanagementtoworkwell.
PriorandParis’sreviewofresearchalsofindsthatinterventionsfocusedmorebroadlyonthecontext
ofyoungpeople’srelationshipscanalsobeeffective,inparticularmulti-systemictherapy.Behavioural
parenttrainingcanbeeffective,too,incertainconditions.Ataschoollevel,environment-focused
interventionscanbeeffective,particularlyforhigher-riskgroupssuchasthosewhohavepreviously
offended.Asregardsinterventionatacommunitylevel,thereislessacademicevidencebutsome
‘promising’studies.
However,givenwhatweknowaboutwhatworks,itshouldremainsurprisingthattheUK–alongwith
othercountries(seeGarland2001,Lacey2008)–isstilltravellingdownapenalpopulistpaththat
contradictstheevidence.Theevidencesummarisedaboveiswellknownandhasinformedmuchof
frontlinepracticefortheYouthJusticeBoard.However,aswehaveshown,theyouthjusticesystem
hasbecome,onbalance,morecoercivewithmorechildrenandyoungpeoplebeingcriminalisedand
senttocustody.Thequestionthatpolicymakersfaceiswhy?Whatarethebarriersthatwouldneedto
beovercometoenableashiftinapproach?
Thereare,ofcourse,serioustechnicaldifficultiesinadoptingthedevelopmentalstrategy.Whilethere
seemstobegoodevidenceforwhatworkswellandnotsowellinreducingre-offendingrates,the
knowledgeofwhatworksdoesnotmaketheimplementationofamoreeffectiveyouthjusticesystem
simple.Theneedtofocusinterventionsonthewidelyvaryingcircumstancesofindividualoffenders
andpotentialoffendersmeansthatthereisnoone-size-fits-allinterventionthatcanbeimposed
centrallyasthecureforyouthcrime.Therearealsoproblemswithbringingsuccessfulexperiments
intogeneraluse(inparticularsincemuchoftheacademicresearchisbasedonUStrials).
Institutionalbarrierstoaneffectiveyouthjusticesystem
Beyondthetechnicalcomplexities,therearemorefundamentalbarrierstotheimplementationof
effectiveinterventions.Theproblemisthatthesystemandthepoliticsofyouthjusticefailtocohere
aroundtheobjectiveofeffectivepreventionoffutureoffending.Thisiswhywefocusinthisreporton
theoverallsystem,ratherthanonindividualinterventions.Itisalsowhywewilldrawoninternational
examplestoshowhowothersystemsachieveagreateremphasisonpreventingfutureoffending.
Thesystemneedstoberestructured.Inparticular,fourkeybarrierstoreformmustbeovercome,by:
•removingconflictingobjectivesandincentives
•reducingcurrentover-centralisation
•improvinglocalcollaboration
•creatingalternativerouteswhichallowyoungpeopletobedealtwithwithoutrecoursetothe
criminaljusticesystem.
Conflictingobjectivesandincentives
First,differentpartsofthesystemdonothavesharedobjectivesandareprimarilyconcernedwith
meetingtheirowntargets.Thesemayworkagainsteachotheranddonotnecessarilyencourage
rationallyrespondingtoindividualcaseswithapersonalisedsetofinterventionsaddressingproblems
inajoined-upway.Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,whileyouthoffendingteamsandtheYouth
JusticeBoardareaskedtoreducethenumberoffirst-timeentrantstothecriminaljusticesystem–to
encouragethemtopreventoffendingandtotargetyoungpeopleatriskofbecomingcriminals–the
policeandthecriminaljusticesystemhavetargetstomaximisethenumberofoffencesbroughtto
justice.
Schoolshavetargetswhichareintendedtomaximiseexamresults,particularlyattheC/Dgrade
threshold,ratherthanimproveoutcomesforlow-levelachieverswhoaremorelikelytodropoutof
schoolandturntocrime,leavingthecriminaljusticesystemtopickuptheexternalisedcostsof
educationalfailure.Thusschools,likethepolice,mayactuallybehaveinwayscalculatedtoincrease
ratherthandecreaseoffending.Professionalsworkingindifferentinstitutionsalsohavedivergent
valuesandaims.Whileyouthsocialworkersaimtoimprovewelfare,prosecutorsandpolicecan
underminethataimbytargetingvulnerableyoungpeopleforpoorbehaviourthatiseasytoidentify,
drawingthemintothecriminalsystematanearlierage.
Legalobjectivescanalsoconflict.Theeffectofthestatutoryaim(tofocusonreducingreoffending)
introducedin1998legislationwasunderminedbytheintroductionintheCriminalJusticeAct2001of
apotentiallyconflictingstatutoryaimthatsentencesshouldbecommensuratewiththeseriousnessof
theoffenceratherthanfocusingontacklingcauses.
Allthesesystemscanbeindividuallyjustifiedbuttogether,theydonotadduptoacollectivedriveto
attackthecausesofoffending.
Whatisparticularlyconcerningisthelackofconsiderationoftheefficiencyofthesystem,with
millionsbeingspentonineffectivecourtsandcustodial(orcommunity)sentenceswhilemorerobust
incentivescouldensurethatresourcesweretargetedtowardstheoverallaimofreducingcrime.The
lackofinstitutionalcoherenceiscompoundedbyperversefinancialincentives.Custodyabsorbsthe
majorityofthebudgetoftheYouthJusticeBoard,butisallocatedonthebasisof‘demand’from
magistratesratherthanbeingstrategicallycommissioned.Institutionswhichmakedecisionsdonot
necessarilybearthecostofthosedecisions.
Toomuchcentralcontrol,toolittlelocalcollaboration
Theyouthjusticesystemisverycentralised,whichgivestoolittlescopeforlocalcollaboration.The
currentsystemofcentraltargetsissetbytheTreasuryandaddedtoateachlevelofgovernance,with
additionaltargetsfortheYouthJusticeBoard,individualcriminaljusticeareas,policeforces,youth
offendingteamsandcourts.Professionalsatthefrontlineoftenarguethatthisapproachundermines
theirprofessionaljudgementandmakesitmoredifficulttoinnovateandpursuelocalsolutionsto
localproblems.Thecentraltargetsthatdominatetheyouthjusticesystemmeanthatinstitutions
focusonthedemandsofthemanagementchainratherthanoncooperationandcollaborationwith
otheragenciesdealingwithyouths.Thisisarecipefordivisionratherthancollaboration.
Centralisationcancreateperversestructuralincentivesforlocalorganisations.Inparticular,while
preventionandcommunitysentencesforyoungoffendersareprovidedandfinancedlocallybyyouth
offendingteams,youthcustodyiscommissionedbytheYouthJusticeBoardcentrally,fromcentral
funds.Thiscreatesafinancialincentiveforlocalyouthjusticesystemsnottoreducetheuseof
custodybecausethecostsarebornecentrally.Localauthoritiesandagencieshavealmostnosayin
thebillionsofpoundsthatarespentonadultandyouthcustody(AllenandStern2007),butsince
theydonotfundthem,thereisnoincentivetoseekbetteralternatives.Centralisationalsocontributes
tothelackofaccountabilitytolocalcommunitiesandthepublic’spoorlevelofknowledgeaboutthe
system,becausecriminaljusticeissofarremovedfromlocalpeople.
Atthelocallevel,thisover-centralisationismadeworsebyalackofgood-qualityinformation.A
surveyfoundthatwhile99percentofmagistratestakeintoaccounttheseriousnessofthecrimein
sentencingdecisions,only58percenttookaccountofre-offendingrates,despitethatbeingthe
statutoryaimoftheyouthjusticesystem(AuditCommission2004).Thisisinpartduetothe
incentivesaffectingmagistrates,butalsotothequalityoftheinformationtowhichtheyhaveaccess.
Whiletheyhavedetailedknowledgeofthecrimefromtheevidencepresentedincourt,andhave
some(albeitvariable)informationfromyouthoffendingteamsabouttheoffender’sbackground,they
havenoregularinformationabouttheimpactofsentencing.Thereisasimilardearthoffeedbackto
youthoffendingteamsandsecureinstitutionsabouttheimpactofthesentencesthataregivento
youngpeople.
Toofewalternativestocourtsandpolice
Finally,thecurrentsystemprovidesfewalternativestomoveyoungpeopleawayfromthecriminal
justicesystem.Onebarriertothesuccessofyouthjusticereformsthatwillcontinuetobeaproblemis
thelackofinfrastructureandmethodstodivertyoungpeopleawayfromthecriminaljusticesystem
whentheystartgettingintotroublebutbeforetheymoveontoactualoffendingbehaviour.Manyof
thechildrenandyoungpeoplewhocomeintocontactwithpoliceandthecourtsalreadyhavearange
ofproblemsthatputthematriskofoffending.Yetitisonlyafterarrestthatthesystemstarts
spendingmoneyonthem–moneythatcouldhavebeenmoreefficientlyspentatanearlierstage,for
examplethroughlocalauthorityyouthservices.AstheAuditCommission’s‘James’casestudyshowed
(2004),upstreamintervention(thatis,interventionbeforeoffendingstarts)couldbemoreeffective,
butsocialproblemsareidentifiedafteroffending,notbefore.Thecriminaljusticesystemhasbecome
agatewaytosocialspending–oftentoolittletoolate–ratherthanalastresort.Thishasbeen
describedasthe‘criminalisationofsocialpolicy’.Thestructuremakesitdifficulttointerveneother
thanthroughcriminalisation.
Politicalandpublictrustbarrierstochange
Intheconflictbetweencoerciveanddevelopmentalinterventions,theculturalpressure–frompolitics
andthemedia–istogofortheformer.Therearetwomain–linked–culturalbarrierstochange.
Sincethemid-’90sthemainpoliticalpartieshavetriedtooutbideachotherinthetoughnessoftheir
responsetocrime.Wedonotbelievethatculturalpressureforineffective‘toughness’isbecause
politicians,votersandthemediawanttohavehigherratesofcrimeasaresultoftough-lookingbut
ineffectiveinitiatives:itisbecausethereisanear-universal‘commonsense’,butun-evidenced,belief
thattough/coerciveapproachesareeffective.Asarguedabove,researchshowsthatcoercive
approachestoyouthcrimearelikelytoleadtomorevictimsinthefuture,ratherthanfewer.
Nevertheless,themainparties’overallapproachtoyouthcrimehasbeentocallformorepolicewith
greaterpowers,toughersentencesandmoreprisonplaces.Findingaplaceinthemainstreampolitical
discourseforargumentsagainstcriminalisingyouthisgoingtobeachallengeforpolicymakers.
Thesepoliticalbarriersreflecttoalargeextentthemainstreampublicopiniononyouthcrime.Asour
deliberativeworkshopsshow(seeChapter5),thepublictendtobelievetheyouthjusticesystemis
too‘soft’andthatthereisalackofcontrollingpowerbythepolice.Thisreflectsbroadersocial
attitudestoyoungpeopleandadeepeningfearofyouthasdiscussedinpreviousipprresearch
(Margoetal 2006).Publicattitudesandculturalperceptionsofchildrenandyoungpeoplealsolinkto
thecausesofyouthanti-socialbehaviour.Communitiesthathavelowerperceptionsoftheirabilityto
changethebehaviouroftheiryoungpeopletendtohavehigherratesofyouthcrimeaswell.Theyare
lessabletotackledevianceandsocialisetheiryoungpeopleeffectively,andhaveagreaterrelianceon
lawandorderinstitutions–police,courtsandprisons–toenforcemoralsandstandardsofbehaviour.
However,thepositionisnotcompletelybleak.Forinstance,researchershavefoundthatpeople’s
preferredsentenceforaparticularoffenceisactually‘softer’thantheaveragesentence–butthey
believethatsentencesaremilderthantheyactuallyare.Whengivenmoreinformationabouta
particularcasestudypeopletendtobemoreunderstandingandlessinclinedtowardspunitive
responses(forasummaryoftheevidenceonpublicattitudesseeAllen2006).Whatthisalsosuggests
isthattherelativeopacityanddistanceofthecriminaljusticesystemfromlocalcommunities–andits
impenetrablelanguageandrules–increasethedistancebetweenthesystemandlocalcommunities.
Asipprhasarguedbefore,themorepeopleunderstandaboutthecriminaljusticesystemthelessthey
callforpunitiveresponses(Rogers2005).
Thisisconfirmedbymuchoftheexperienceofrestorativejustice.Whenvictimsconfrontoffenders(in
safeconditions,andwithappropriatesupport),theyoftenenduplessenthusiasticforretributionand
moreunderstandingofthewaytheoffenderhasbehaved.Atypicalcommentmightbe:‘IfIhadbeen
throughthesameexperiencesImighthavemadesimilarchoices’.
Anew,‘popularpreventionist’approach
Inordertoovercometheculturalandinstitutionalbarriersandachieveamoreeffectiveyouthjustice
systemwithgreaterdemocraticandcommunitylegitimacy,wearguethatthereneedstoberadical
reformoftheyouthjusticesystem,underpinnedbynewprinciples.Thenewapproachwouldbeboth
progressive,inthatitwouldfurthersocialjusticeanddemocraticengagement,andpreventative,with
theaimofreducingcrime,whilestillmeeting‘populist’objectives.Wedescribethisapproachas
‘popularpreventionism’.
Tounderstandit,itisfirstimportanttounderstandwhattheapproachrejected.Weclearlyneedto
findawayforpoliticianstoletgoofwhatsomecall‘penalpopulism’,orcompetingtobe‘tough’.
However,wedonotargueforapurely‘penalwelfarist’approach,inwhichtheyouthjusticesystem
focusesexclusivelyontheneedsofoffenders.
Inthefirstinstance,areversalofthecurrentapproachisnotpoliticallyrealisticinEnglandandWales.
Voters,mediaandpoliticiansstilldemandandexpectsomeformofpunishmentforwrong-doing.
Moreover,itisnotclearthatanexclusivelywelfaristapproachwouldbeeffective.Ourinterviews
withpractitionersinScotlandsuggestedthat,withintheirmoreneeds-basedsystem,theabilityto
challengebehaviourwasanimportantpartofthesystem.Theyouthjusticesystemneedstoform
partofsociety’slayingdownofboundaries.Fromthisviewpoint,thereisanargumentforthe
justicesystemasadeterrentforpotentialoffenders.Evenifthesystemeffectivelytacklesthe
problemsleadingtooffending,theexternalperceptionthatyoucan‘getawaywith’crimecould
increasetheamountofoffending.Self-reportsurveysfindthatfearofgettingcaughtisa
significantfactorinyoungpeoplenotcommittingcrime.
Inawelfaristsystemthereisalsoaproceduraljusticeproblemwithonlyfocusingonneeds,since
anoffenderfromaprivilegedbackgroundwithfewsocialproblemswould‘getawaywith’an
offencewhiletheirpoorer,troubledfriendwouldreceivemoreinterventions.Similarly,thereis
unfairnessinasevereoffenderwithfewadverseconditionsreceivingalesserinterventionthana
minoroffenderwitharangeofproblems;inotherwords,therecanbeaperceptionthatthereis
noproportionality.
Instead,weargueforanewapproachbasedontheideaofpreventionofcrimebeingtheprimary
goal,whileensuringthatthisengageswithpublicdiscourseandthedesireforfairconsequences
foroffenders,victimsandcommunities.Thiswouldcreateanewdiscoursefortalkingaboutyouth
crimethatmovedawayfromthepolarisedlanguageof‘tough,punish,yob’ontheonehand,and
‘welfarist,liberal,tolerant’ontheother.
Thenewapproachtoyouthcrimewoulddrawontheideasofcommunityandrestorativejustice.
Aswewilldiscussinthenextsection,thepracticeofcommunityandrestorativejusticecombines
arisk-basedapproachwithanemphasisontheoffenderrepairingthedamagedonetothevictim
andthecommunity.Researchhasfoundapositiveresonancewiththepublic,combiningfairness
andtruthwithputtingthingsright,fixingthedamageorrightingawrong(RethinkingCrimeand
Punishment2004).
IfitworksinScotland,itcanworkhere areaffectedbythethree‘Ds’ofdrink,
Ifthisallsoundstheoreticalandidealistic,thenitis drugsanddeprivationthatleadtoalife
worthlookingnorthofthebordertoobservethe ofcrime.It’sbasedonpreventionand
discourseofthecurrentminorityScottishNationalist earlyinterventionwithafocusonall
Partywhoseemphasisisonpreventingcrimeand relevantagenciesworkingtogetherto
tacklingthecauses.AnobviousexampleisinGlasgow protectyoungpeople.’
wheretheSNP-supportedpreventativeand (KannyMacAskill,quotedinEast
diversionary‘EnhancedPolicingPlan’hasachieved RenfrewshireCouncil2008)
dropsincrime–whiletheunsuccessfulLabour Itshouldbenotedthat,whilepursuingpopular
candidatecalledfortoughercrackdownsandmoreuse preventionistpoliciesforyouthjustice,theSNPdoes
ofcustody.TherhetoricoftheScottishExecutive notcallforawelfaristapproach.Inparticular,the
JusticeSecretaryKannyMacAskillcontrastswithhis anomalyoftheverylowageofcriminalresponsibility
Westminstercounterpart’s: (8yearsold)inScotlandisnotatargetforSNPreform.
‘Youngpeoplearemorelikelytobea Crucially,thepartyarguesthatitcanachieveits
victimofcrimethantheyaretocommita popularpreventionistpolicyaimswithoutchangingthe
crime.Weknowthatthevastmajority ageofcriminalresponsibility,whichwouldplayinto
arewellbehavedandacredittotheir thehandsofthepenalpopuliststryingtoportraythem
communitiesbutwedoneedtotackle assoftoncrime.Asanalternativetoincreasingtheage
thesmallminoritythatcauseproblems. ofresponsibility,theSNPisstrengtheningthetiered
OurrecentlypublishedYouthJustice anddiversionarysystem,whilefocusingontackling
Frameworksetoutourapproachfor thecausesofoffending–‘drink,drugsand
tryingtomakesurefeweryoungpeople deprivation’.
Anewlocalapproach,withthecommunityatitsheart
Theseapproachestooffendingalsoputthecommunityattheheartofthejusticeprocess,whichhas
thepotentialtoovercomedifficultiesarisingfromtheremotenessofourcurrentsystemfromthe
public.Thereneedstobemoretothenewapproachthanatechnocraticorutilitarianfocuson
effectiveness.Tooofteninthepast,acrosspublicservices,thefocuson‘whatworks’andthe
increasingprofessionalisationofwelfarehasmeantthatprofessionalsandtechnocratshavetakenover
responsibilityforcommunitysafety,withtheunintendedconsequenceofincreasingthedistance
betweencommunitiesandlawenforcementandincreasingtherelianceoncriminalisationandformal
processes.Thelackofcommunityengagementinjusticeunderminesthelegitimacyofthejustice
system,andsoreducestrustandultimatelyeffectiveness.
Onthecontrary,publicconfidenceiscrucialtotheeffectivefunctioningofthecriminaljusticesystem,
whichisunlikelytoreduceoffendingbehaviourwithoutengagingwithcommunities.Enablinga
communitycollectivelytocontrolthebehaviourofitsmembersiskeytoachievingimprovedpublic
safetyandreducingbothcrimeandthefearofcrime.Ithasalwaysbeentruethatwithoutcertain
minimumlevelsoftrustbythecommunitiestheyservice,agenciesfromthepolicetocourtsand
offendermanagementcannotdotheirjob.Policeneedvictimsandwitnessestoreportcrimesandto
cooperateintheirinvestigations;courtsneedjurorsandmagistratestovolunteertheirtime,andtheir
decisionsneedtohavelegitimacywiththepublic;agenciesresponsibleforpunishmentand
rehabilitationneedthepublictotrustthattheycankeepthemsafe.
Currentlypublicconfidenceinthecriminaljusticesystemisgenerallylow.Thecriminaljusticesystem
isoftencriticisedforfailingtolookaftervictims,witnessesandtheirassociates.Agenciessuchasthe
policecanbeverypopular.Butthepublicknowverylittleaboutcriminaljustice,andhavingcontact
withthepoliceactuallylowersuserconfidence.Lowertrustleadstoreducedconfidenceinservices
andreducedlikelihoodofcooperation,particularlyamongminoritycommunities.Lackofconfidence
alsoappearstofuelfearofcrimeandmorepunitiveattitudes.Ontheotherhand,someevidence
suggeststhatincreasingknowledgeofthecriminaljusticesystemincreasespeople’sconfidenceand
reducesmisconceptionsaboutitsleniency.ipprhaspreviouslypublishedresearchinthisareathatsets
outthecaseforcommunityengagementinjusticemorefully(seeRogers2005).Inparticular,ipprhas
demonstratedthattrustcorrelateswithfamiliarityinthecriminaljusticesystem.
Communityandrestorativejusticedomorethanthis,however.Bybringingmembersofthe
communityintoactiveparticipationtheygivethecommunityownershipofthejusticeprocess.This
empowermentdestroysmythsandemphasiseswhatworks.Onemeaningof‘restorative’justiceisthat
itrestoresoffenderstothecommunity;likelytobeahighlyeffectivewayofpersuadingthemnotto
re-offend,andpersuadingthecommunitytocollaborateintheirrehabilitation.
Abroaderdefinitionof‘youth’
ThecurrentEnglandandWales‘youth’justicesystemhasanarrowdesignationof‘youth’–ages10-
17.Inotherwords,itisaboutasystemfordealingwithchildren.Thisleadstoanabrupt‘cliffedge’of
the18thbirthdaywhenthesystemstopsfocusingondevelopingnon-criminalbehaviourandfocuses
evenmoreonpunishment.Howeversociety’sdefinitionof‘youth’isbroader,withyoungpeople
remainingdependentonparentsuntiltheirearlytwenties.Neurologicalandbehaviouraldevelopment
continuesuntilthemid-tolate-20s,asdiscussedinthisproject’spreviousreport(MargoandStevens
2008).Wedonotrecommendthattheageofcriminalresponsibilityisraised–youngpeopleneedto
beheldandhelpedtoberesponsible,andpoliticallysuchaproposalwouldbecounterproductive.But
wearguethatthedevelopmentalapproachproposedinthispaper,basedondiversionandcommunity
andrestorativejustice,shouldbeextendedtoyouthsintransitiontoadulthood.
4.Cananewdirectionbepreventative?
Thischapterdrawsontheprinciplesofanewapproachtoyouthoffendingtodevelopasetofpolicies
andsystemsthatwouldmaketheyouthjusticesystemfocusedonreducingvictimisationbydiverting
youngpeopleawayfromcrime,changingbehaviourandinvolvingcommunities.Wecallthissystem
‘tieredanddiversionary’.Inpracticethismeansdivertingyoungpeopleawayfromthecriminaljustice
system,aswellasfromcrime,andintoalternativesystemsthatwilldelivereffectivepunishmentand
rehabilitation.Tosatisfytheneedtotailorinterventionstothelevelofoffending,theproposedsystem
istiered(MargoandStevens2008).
Wehavearguedinthisreportthatthereareinsufficientalternativeroutesoutsidetheyouthcriminal
justicesystemfordealingeffectivelyandproportionatelywithyouthanti-socialbehaviourandnon-
severeoffending.Inthetieredanddiversionaryapproachthecriminaljusticesystemwouldstillplaya
roleintacklingyouthoffending,butwouldfocusonoffenderswhoareadangertothepublicorwho
haveprovedresistanttoalternativeapproaches.Moreeffective,community-rootedapproacheswould
beusedfornon-severeoffending,allowingtheuseofcourtsandprisonsforseverecrimes.
Tier1
Atthebasiclevel,weenvisageapartnershipoflocalagenciesandthecommunityworkingtogether
onapreventativestrategy.Asoutlinedinthisproject’spreviousreport(MargoandStevens2008)
recentgovernmentapproachestoyouthcrimehavebeenover-reliantoninterventionssuchasanti-
socialbehaviourorders(ASBOs),withoutanyaccompanyingsupporttotacklethecausesof
behaviouralproblems.MechanismslikeASBOshavealsobeenlinkedtothecriminaljusticesystem:
breachinganASBOconstitutesacriminaloffence(evenifthebreachitselfwasnon-criminal
behaviour,forexampleenteringacertaingeographicalarea),withthepotentialforacustodial
sentence.Ratherthaninterveningearlytotacklethecausesofanti-socialbehaviour,theimpacthas
oftenbeentolowerthethresholdforcriminalisationtoincludelegalbutanti-socialbehaviourandto
focusoncoerciveinterventions(thatcontrolordeter,suchascurfewsandexclusionzones)and
expressivejustice(suchaspublishingphotographsofchildrenwithASBOs).Aswehavediscussed,the
evidenceshowsthatcoerciveapproachestendtobeineffectiveorcounter-productive.(SeeMargo
andStevens2008foradiscussionoftheneedforabroaderrangeoftherapeuticandfamily-based
interventions.)
Anewapproachwouldcontinuetoseeanti-socialbehaviourasalegitimatereasonforintervention.
However,theaimwouldbetoidentifyandtacklethefactorsleadingtothebehaviour.Anti-social
behaviourinterventionwouldbeaformoftargetedsupporttopreventbehaviourdevelopinginto
crime.Akeyprinciplemustbetohaveanapproachwhichpoolsresourcesandinformationbetween
thedifferentagenciesandfocusesattentiononwaysofidentifyingchildren’sbehaviouralproblems
beforetheybecomeentrenched.InDenmark,eachlocalareahasan‘SSP’–whichstandsfor‘schools,
socialservicesandpolice’–thatisresponsibleforyouthwelfareanddealingwithpoorbehaviour.
SSPsworktogetherlocallytoidentifychildrenwithpotentialproblems.The‘schools’partincludes
leisure-timeactivities,asmostDanishschoolchildrenstayonsiteforafter-schoolactivities.Children
withbehaviouralproblems,inschooloroutside,canbeprovidedwithextraservicestotackletheir
problemswithamulti-agencyapproach.Thisapproachhas,inturn,influencedapproachescurrently
beingtrialledinScotland(seebox,nextpage).
OtherpartsoftheUKhavealsoattemptedtodevelopalternativestothecriminaljustice/ASBO
approach.InSouthWales,ChiefConstableBarbaraWildinghasledtheimplementationofagraduated
approachtoanti-socialbehaviourwithASBOsandthecriminaljusticesystemusedasalastresort.
Youngpeoplegettinginvolvedinanti-socialbehaviourreceivetheresponsemostappropriatetothem.
Thismaybeaverbalwarning,aletterhomeoravisitfromapoliceofficerandateacher.Existing
powerssuchasindividualsupportorderscanbeusedwithoutresortingtomorecoerciveASBOs.Asin
EastRenfrewshire,theearlyinterventionanddiversionfromanti-socialbehaviourispartofawider
strategyincludingpositiveactivities,theintroductionofanon-emergencyanti-socialbehaviour
reportingtelephonelinethathasreducedthenumberofinappropriate999callsmadetothepolice,
EastRenfrewshire’sSSPCapproach: approachenablesagenciestobringforward
Schools,Socialservices,Policeand interventionsforyoungpeoplewhomightotherwise
Community beignored.Ratherthanbeinga‘tolerant’approach,
thissystemactuallylowersthethresholdfor
EastRenfrewshireisasmallauthorityontheoutskirts
intervention.Butitreducesrelianceontheformal
ofScotland’ssecondcity,Glasgow.Figuresfrom2005
processessuchasASBOs,policechargesandreferrals
showedthatyoungpeoplewereresponsiblefor85per
totheChildren’sReporterorSheriff’scourt.Apolice
centofstreetdrinkingcrimes,82percentofvandalism
officer,teacher,careworkerorhousingofficercandeal
and13percentofviolentincidents.Sevenestablished
withyouthbehaviouralproblemsproactivelywithout
‘gangs’operatedintheareaandwereinvolvedin
relyingonthecriminaljusticesystem.East
violenceandanti-socialbehaviour(Harrington2007).
Renfrewshireismovingtowardsthekindofearly
FollowingavisittoobservetheDanishSchools,Social interventionanddiversionmodelthatthisreport
servicesandPoliceapproach,theyouthoffendingand advocates.
children’sservicesinEastRenfrewshiredevelopeda
TheYoungPeople’sReferralGroupisthecentralpart
newpartnershipbetweenschools,socialservices,
ofawiderstrategyoftheSSPCinEastRenfrewshire.
policeandcommunitydepartments–whichtheycalled
Otherelementsincludestreetworkwithgroupsof
the‘SSPCapproach’.Thenewpartnershipwassetup
youngpeoplewheretheycongregate,forexamplea
toenablethedifferentagenciesdealingwithyouth
mobilefootballpitchcanbeassembledwhereyoung
behaviourtopoolproblems,expertiseandresources.
peoplearehangingout.TheSSPCworkswithgroupsas
Thepartnershipdevelopedastrategytotacklethe
wellasindividuals–forexample,aproblemofanti-
causesandeffectsofyouthbehaviouratfourlevels:
socialbehaviouronbusesbyagroupononeestate
• Prevention–developing‘softskills’,SureStartand wasaddressedwitha‘meetthedrivers’event,inwhich
FamilyCentres,school-basedteams,community youngpeoplewereabletotalktothebusdriversand
involvementandeffectivepublicrelations. understandtheharmtheywerecausing.Anotherkey
partofthestrategyistoengagethepublicandto
• Diversion –networkofleisure/communityservices, improvetheperceptionofyoungpeopleinthearea.
activitiesandsupportforyoungpeopleatrisk.
Results
• Earlyintervention –YoungPerson’sReferralGroup
agreespromptmulti-agencyresponsesto ItisnotpossibletosaydefinitivelythatthenewSSPC
communityconcerns(includingpolicereferrals). systemhasonitsownledtoimprovementsin
behaviour.Butaqualitativeevaluationin2008
• Specialistintervention withoffenders,using recommendedtheapproachbeexploredacross
statutorymeasureswherenecessary.
Scotland(Hurleyetal 2008),andthelocalauthority
Workinginpartnershipensuredthatagenciescould reportspromisingresultscoincidingwiththe
shareinformationaboutyoungpeopleatriskof introductionofthenewapproach.
becomingoffendersinthefuture.Inpractice,themain
‘[Thenumberof]peoplecaughtwith
‘engineroom’oftheSSPCapproachwastheYoung
offensiveweapons,includingknives,is
People’sReferralGroup.Thisisamulti-disciplinary
down21percentfrom122in2005to96
groupofprofessionalsdrawnfromallthepartnerswho
in2007.Referralstothechildren’s
assesscasesofyoungpeopleidentifiedasbeing‘at
reporterhavedroppedby31percent
risk’,orwhoaredisplayingearlysignsofcriminal
from212in2005to145in2007.
behaviour.TheReferralGroupmeetseverythreeweeks
Vandalismwasdownfrom1,846
toassesswhetherayoungpersonwouldbenefitfrom
incidentsin2005to1,563incidentsin
specificinterventions,forexamplefamilytherapy,
2007.Therewasareductioninpersistent
educationalsupport,diversionaryactivitiesor
offendersduringtheperiodstudiedwith
supervision.
EastRenfrewshirehavingoneofthe
Thisapproachhasanumberofbenefits.Byworking lowestandmostimprovedresultsin
together,youngpeoplewhosebehaviouriscausing Scotland.’
problemsorshowssignsofpotentialfutureoffending (EastRenfewshireCouncil2008)
arelesslikelytoslipthroughthenet.Inpractice,this
andmeasurestoreduce‘glassings’(physicalattacksinwhichdrinksglassesareusedasaweapon)by
changingthematerialsusedincitycentrebars.
OtherareasshoulddrawonthesuccessesofSouthWalestocreatealternativeapproachestoanti-
socialbehaviour.Althoughthelocalareahas,asaresult,notmetitstargetstoincreasethenumberof
offencesbroughttojusticeorhandoutmoreASBOs,itisoneoffewpoliceareastohavereducedthe
flowofyoungpeopleenteringthecriminaljusticesystem.Ithasalsoachieveda60percentnon-
reoffendingrate(Wilding2008).ThegraduatedapproachisnowbeingspreadtootherareasofWales.
Theseexamplesdemonstratethatitispossibletoimplementaproactivebutdiversionaryapproachto
anti-socialbehaviourintheUKthatcanbepoliticallyviableifeffective.Theexamplesalsoshowthat
earlyinterventioninanti-socialbehaviourshouldbetackledbyamulti-agency,inter-disciplinary
partnership.Ratherthanrelyingonthepolice,actingalone,todealwithanti-socialbehaviour(which
toooftenoccursincoerciveinterventions),amulti-agencypartnershipwouldensurethat
developmentalinterventionsweretargetedatanearlystage.Referralscouldbereceivedfromarange
ofsettingsincludingschools,carehomes,youthclubs,publictransportoperatorsandhousing
associations.Ordinarymembersofthecommunitycouldevenhaveapathforreferral–forexampleif
agroupoftenresidentsidentifiedayoungpersonoragroupwhosebehaviourwascausingconcern
theycouldmakeacommunityreferral.
Thisfirsttierwouldgenerallybeintendedasthemainapproachforearlyinterventioninanti-social
behaviourandsomeminoranti-socialcrimessuchasgraffiti,vandalismorminorfighting.Someyoung
peoplewhoareinvolvedinanti-socialbehaviourorminorcrimecouldalsobereferred‘up’totiertwo.
Tier2
Thefirsttierapproachtoearlybehaviouralproblemsdescribedaboveisnotsufficientonitsownto
addresstheproblemofyoungpeoplebeingdrawnintothecriminaljusticesystem.Althoughanti-
socialbehaviourhasbeenahigh-profileissuerecently,thewaysofdealingwithactualcriminal
behaviourarestillunsatisfactoryinthattherearenointermediatestepsbetweentheanti-social
behavioursystemandthecriminaljusticesystem.Forminorandmedium-severecriminalbehaviour,
weneedanapproachthatismorevictim-focusedthanthemainlywelfaristprocessoutlinedatthe
firsttier,yetdoesnotbringyoungpeopleintothecriminaljusticesystem.Toachievethis,the
principlesofreparationandcommunityaccountabilityshouldbeintegratedatthislevel.
Communityandrestorativejusticeideashaveincreasinglyattractedtheinterestofacademicsand
policymakersforthepastdecadeormore.Ratherthanbeingaspecificpolicy,restorativejusticehas
beendescribedasasetofprinciples:
‘Though“restorativejustice”isbestunderstoodasoneaspectofcommunity
justice….restorativejusticemightbelooselycharacterisedasjusticethat
bringstogether(usuallybutnotalways,facetoface)thosewithastakeina
conflict–disputants,victimsandoffendersandtheirassociates,and
representativesofthecommunityatlarge–withtheaimof
•establishingitscausesandconsequences
•agreeingonwaysofmakingamendsandrepairingharmdone(restitution)
•identifyingmeansofpreventingsimilaroffencesoccurringinthefuture.’
(Rogers2005:12)
Communityjusticeencompassesrestorativejustice,butalsoincludesotherformsofcommunity-based
approachestoholdingoffenderstoaccountandaddressingtheriskfactorsinfutureoffending.
Restorativejusticeisaformofcommunityjustice,inthatituseslaymembersofthecommunityrather
thanprofessionalswhoarepartoftheformalcriminaljusticesystem.Forfurtherdiscussionofthese
conceptsandexamplesfrompractice,seeapreviousreportbyippr(Rogers2005).
Reformssince1998haveintroducedcommunityjusticeformostfirst-timeconvictionsintheyouth
courts,apartfromthemostseriousoffences.Offendersgivena‘referralorder’arerequiredtomeet
withayouthoffendingpaneloftwolocalcommunityrepresentativesandayouthworkertoagreea
contractofactionstorepaythedamagecausedbytheiroffenceandtoaddresstheriskfactorsthat
mightleadtofutureoffending.Thevictim–wherethereisone–isalsoinvitedtoattendthemeeting
togivehisorhersideofthestoryandsuggestreparations.Thecontractisthenmonitoredand
supportprovidedtotheoffendertofulfilthecommitmentsbytheendofthereferralorder’sduration
(threeto12months).
Inevitably,therehavebeenteethingproblemsandregionaldifferencesinhowwellreferralordershave
worked,inparticularinachievingvictimattendance.However,theyhavebeengenerallyviewedasa
preferablewayofdealingwithnon-seriousoffending,withhighcompletionratesandrelativelylow
re-offendingrecords(Rogers2005).
Wewouldhighlightthreeweaknessesofthecurrentsystem.Thefirstproblemisthattheprofileof
referralordersisstillverylow.Membersofthepublicwhoarenotpanelvolunteersareunlikelytobe
awarethatyoungoffendersarebeingheldtoaccountinthiswaybytheirlocalcommunity,andthat
theycanberequiredto‘payback’tothevictimandthecommunityfortheeffectsoftheiroffending.
Thelackofawarenessmeansthatthepotentialimprovementinthelegitimacyofnon-custodial
sentenceshasnotbeenachieved.Thepublicandmediastillthinkofnon-custodialdisposalsasa‘let-
off’wheninfacttheyshouldbeverychallengingfortheoffender,andshouldputpowerinthehands
ofthecommunityitself.
Thesecondproblemisthatreferralordersaremadebythecriminalcourts,andthuscanbeseenasa
formofpunishment,ratherthanatruealternativeapproachthatcandivertyoungpeopleawayfrom
criminalisation.Referralordersthusmaynotavoidtheproblemsofstigmatisationandlabellingthat
areassociatedwitharrest,charge,prosecutionandtrialinacriminalcourt.Thereforeitmaybeargued
thatthisisnottruecommunityjusticebutatag-onattheendofthetraditionalcriminalprocess.
Thirdly,thescopeofreferralordershas,untilrecently,beenrestrictedtounder-18sandtofirstcourt
convictionswherethedefendantpleadsguilty.Giventhesuccessofcommunityjusticeingeneral–
andreferralordersinparticular–theseapproachesshouldbeextendedtoolderyouthsandfor
subsequentnon-severeoffending.
Referralordersarejustonewayinwhichrestorativecommunityjusticeprinciplesarebeing
implementedinyouthjusticesystems.NewZealandhasfamouslypioneeredarestorativejustice
approachforyoungoffenderssince1989usingfamilygroupconferencesasthemainapproach.This
innovationhasstimulatedchangeclosertohome,e.g.inScotlandandNorthernIreland.InNorthern
Ireland,restorativejusticehasbeenintroducedmoresystematicallythroughtherestorative
conferencingprocess.Therestorativeconference–orameetingheldbetweenapersonresponsiblefor
acrime,thevictimandothermembersofthecommunity–hasbeenmorethoroughlyintegratedin
NorthernIrelandasanalternativetothetraditionalcriminaljusticesystem.Ratherthanbeingreserved
asadisposalattheendofthepoliceandcourtprocess,restorativejusticeisthemainwayinwhich
offendingisdealtwith(CriminalJusticeInspectionNorthernIreland2008).Whilerestorativejusticeis
lessafeatureoftheScottishyouthjusticesystem,italsoprovideslessonsforEnglandinthesense
thatthemajorityofyoungoffenders(upto16yearsold)aredivertedtothechildren’shearing
system,whichhasstrongelementsofcommunityjustice.Onlythemostseriousyoungoffendersare
prosecutedinthecriminalcourtsinScotland(althoughaweaknessofthesystemnorthoftheborder
isthetreatmentof16-and17-year-oldsasadults).
GiventhesuccessofadiversionaryapproachtooffendingwithintheUK,thisisthepathofreform
thatEnglandandWalesshouldfollow.WearguethatEnglandandWalesshouldintroduceamuch
widerandmoreintegratedsystemofcommunityjusticepanelsasthestandardapproachforminorto
medium-severityoffending.Theformalcriminaljusticesystemshouldbereservedasalastresortfor
seriousoffending,ratherthanasthedefaultfornon-severeyouthcrime.
Asdiscussed,wehavetakenadeliberatelybroadapproachtothedefinitionofcommunityjustice.This
shouldallowformoretailoredprocessestobedevelopedfordifferenttypesofoffender.Asarecent
majorreviewoftheevidencehasshown,differenttypesofcommunityjusticeprocessworkfor
differentkindsofpeople(ShermanandStrang2007).Forexample,restorativejusticeworksbetter
withcrimesinvolvingpersonalvictimsthanforso-called‘victimlesscrimes’(suchaspossessionof
drugs).Forthosetypesofcrimes,moreeducational,treatmentandrisk-focusedinterventions,based
inthecommunity,wouldbemoreeffectivethanavictim-focusedapproach.Arangeofdiversions,
includingdifferenttypesofrestorativejusticeandotherapproaches,shouldthereforebeavailable,
undertherubricofcommunityjusticepanels.
Itisimportantthatcommunityjusticeisnotseenasa‘letoff’foryoungoffenders,orasignalthat
societytoleratescrime.Thatitisnotissuggestedbytwoconsiderations.
First,itcanleadtomoreoffendersbeingidentifiedanddealtwith.Whenrestorativejusticehasbeen
usedasadiversionawayfromtheformalcriminaljusticesystem–forexampleinprojectsinNewYork
andCanberra–ithasledtotwicetofourtimesasmanyoffencesbeing‘broughttojustice’.In
Scotland,wherethereisatieredapproachtoyouthoffending(althoughnotcommunityjusticeper
se),ratesofformalprocessingofyoungpeoplehaveincreased,suggestingthatgreaterconfidencein
theprocessleadstomoreyoungpeoplebeingheldtoaccountthaninEngland(BottomsandDignan
2004).Ifagenciesotherthanjustthepolicecanreferayoungpersontocommunityjusticethenitcan
lowerthethresholdforinterventionwithoutthedamagingeffectsofcriminalisation.Inconjunction
with‘tierone’above,thisapproachcouldmeanamoreactivistapproachtobehaviourproblems
beforetheyhavebecomemoreserious.
Second,itcanbemorechallengingthanthetraditionalcriminaljusticesystem.Byfocusingonthe
individualsenablingcommunitymemberstoconfrontthemwiththeconsequencesoftheirbehaviour,
communityjusticecanbemoredifficultfortheoffenderthanthedepersonalised,procedure-focused
courtprocess.Facedwithlocalcommunityvolunteersitisdifficultforoffendersnottoengage
genuinelyintheissuesoftheiroffendinganditsconsequences,aswellasdiscussingthe(sometimes
intenselypersonalandpainful)requirementsforprogressoutofmisbehaviour.
Communityjusticepanelscanalsoserveusefullyasamethodfordealingwithwideryouthbehavioural
problems.Forexample,theSSPCpartnershipdescribedattieronecould‘referup’toarestorativeor
communityjusticepanelifitwasfeltthatbeingchallengedbycommunitymembersandfocusingon
theimpactoftheirbehaviouronvictimswouldbeaneffectiveapproach.
Restorativejusticecanbeeffectiveevenwithseriouscrimes.Infactevidencefromscientifictrials
suggestsrestorativejusticeseemstoreduceoffendingmoreeffectivelywithmore,ratherthanless,
seriouscrimes,andthosewithamoreobviousvictim(ShermanandStrang2007).Restorativejustice
isalsomoreconsistentlyeffectivewithviolentcrime.
Restorativejusticecanalsobemoreeffectivethanincarcerationinreducingreoffendinginyoung
adultoffenders.Forexample,aCanadianstudyfoundthatrestorativejusticehadamuchlower
reconvictionrate(11percent)thanprison(27percent)forthatagegroup.Whereasatpresent
referralordersareonlyavailable(asadisposalofthecriminalcourt)for‘youthoffenders’inEngland
(10-to17-year-olds),theevidencesuggeststhatitshouldbeextendedasanalternativetocustody
foradults(ShermanandStrang2007).Itisalsoclaimedthattherecouldbeagreaterrolefor
restorativejusticeincustodyandresettlement.
Theevidenceontheeffectivenessofrestorativejusticeforseriouscrimesandyoungadultsneedsto
bebalancedagainstthewiderobjectivesoftheyouthjusticesystem–includingtheneedforpublic
protection.Wewillarguethattheoptionofcriminalprosecutionandcustodyneedstoberetainedfor
certainkindsofoffending(seebelow)andalsoforpoliticallegitimacy.Thereis,therefore,agoodcase
forsayingthatcommunityjusticeisa‘tough’option.Thiscaseneedstobemadetothepublic.In
ordertodothisitwillbeimportanttocommunicatecommunityjusticeasbeingatoughoption,and
toengagethecommunityinordertoensureitisaslegitimateasthecriminaljusticesystem.Therewill
needtobeaconcertedefforttopromotecommunityjustice.Asdiscussed,referralordershavebeen
under-soldtothepublicwhostilltendtoviewanythingotherthancustodyasa‘let-off’.As
communityjusticeisextendedfrombeingadisposalofthecriminaljusticesystemtothemainstream
approachtodealingwithmostyouthcrime,itwillhavetobecommunicatedeffectivelytothepublic.
Therearemanywaysinwhichthiscantakeplace.Forexample,successfulcasestudieswhereyoung
offendershadbeenabletostopoffendingandbecomecontributingcitizenscouldbecommunicated
throughthemediaordirectlythroughpostersandadverts.Victims’storiesofhowtheoffenderhad
repairedtheeffectsoftheircrimecouldalsobepromoted.Thesewouldneedtomatchthesimple
narrativeofacriminalbeingcaughtandpunishedbyimprisonment,andwouldhavetotellstories
aboutindividualsratherthanpresentstatistics,whichlackpubliccredibility.Communityjusticewould
needtoenterpopularculture.
Thiswouldbestbeachievedinsofarascommunityjusticebecameembeddedinthecommunity,witha
diverserangeofrepresentativesinvolvedinnegotiatingtheactionsthattheoffenderhastofollow.A
probleminsomeareasisthatcurrentyouthoffendingpanels,theactivecitizenswhoimplement
restorativejustice,areoftennotrepresentativeofthecommunity.Oneapproachmightbetomake
communityjusticepanelsevenmorelocalisedthanthecurrentlocalauthorityarea.However,this
couldleadtoproblemsinrecruitingenoughpeople,orinsituationswherethepanelmembersare
likelytoknow(orcomeintocontactwith)theoffenderandtheirassociatesoutsidethepanelsetting.
Localareaswouldneedtofindawiderrangeofwaysinwhichcommunitymemberscouldget
involvedincommunityjustice,forexample,consultingcommunities(andgroupswithinthem)onhow
differentoffencesshouldberepaidbyoffenders.
Therewouldalsoneedtobeotherimprovementstothecurrentprocessesforreferralorders.For
example,bettercommunicationwithvictimswillbecrucialtoensurethattheyparticipatewherethat
isappropriateandthebenefitsforthemarerealised.Therearealsomoreinnovativewaysinwhich
victimscanbenefitfromcommunityjusticethaninface-to-facemediationordirectlyprovided
reparation(forexample,diggingthevictim’sgarden).Onelocalyouthoffendingteamhasexplored
workingwithaTimeBankproject.Offenderscontributeanumberofhoursofvoluntaryworktothe
TimeBank,accruinganumberofcreditsthatcanberedeemedbythevictims.Thisapproachshouldbe
pilotedformally.
Theinvolvementoflocalpeopleincommunityjusticecouldalsocreateapoolofadvocatesand
champions.Althoughtheirinvolvementasvolunteerswouldofcoursebeanonymousifpreferred,
thosewhowereinterestedinpromotingthesuccessesofcommunityjusticecouldbeengagedin
activitiesfromspeakingatcommunitymeetingstopoliticalconferences,schoolassembliesandtalking
tochurch-goersorlocalmedialiaison.Localopinionleaderscouldalsobeengagedbythose
administeringcommunityjustice,eithertobeinvolvedthemselvesortopromotethework(building
onthesuccessofSmartJustice,thecampaignbasedatthePrisonReformTrust,inengagingWomen’s
Institutesincallingforpenalreform).
Thecommunityjusticeapproachcanonlybeexpectedtohavealimitedimpactunlessitis
underpinnedbyarangeofeffectiveinterventionstotackletheriskoftheoffendercommittingfurther
crime.Inthecaseofexistingreferralorders,theseinterventionsaretheresponsibilityoftheyouth
offendingteam,andthisprovisionmayneedtobestrengthenedandbroadenedinitsapplication.
Theseinterventionsshouldbebasedontheevidenceofeffectiveness,asoutlinedearlierinthereport.
Inbrief,offendersshouldreceive‘developmental’interventionsthattackletheirspecificriskfactors;
relatetothelevelofoffending;takeplaceincommunitysettings;respondtooffenderlearningstyles;
tacklemultipleneeds;anddevelopcognitive,behaviouralandinter-personalskills.Aswellasfocusing
ontheindividual,communityjusticeprocesseswouldhavetheopportunitytoaddresswiderfactorsin
localyoungpeople’slives.Thesewouldincludefamily,school,peergroupandcommunity-based
interventions.Communityjusticeshouldthereforebeagatewaytoarangeofeffective,well-run
interventions.Communityjusticepanelswouldbetrainedandadvisedastotheeffectivenessand
appropriatenessofdifferentinterventions.
Tier3
Thecommunityjusticeinterventionsdescribedabovewouldnothaveuniversalapplication.In
particular,theydependontheoffendercooperatingwiththeprocess.Offendersmaybelikelyto
cooperatewiththecommunityjusticeprocessiftheirguiltisuncontested.Theywillalsobemotivated
ifcommunityjusticeisofferedasanalternativetoamorepunitivecriminalsystem.Wethusfollowthe
evidenceinrecommendingtheintroductionofcommunityjustice(includingrestorativejustice)forat
leastmedium-severityoffences,includingviolentcrime.Moreseriousoffences,includingthosewhich
involvedangertothepublic,shouldstillbedealtwithinthecriminalcourts.Howeverthereisstilla
classofoffenceswhichwhilenotsuitableforcommunityjusticecanbedealtwithatalowerlevelof
formalitythaninthecriminalcourts.
InScotland,severeoffencescanbeprosecutedinthecriminalcourt.Non-severeyouthoffendersare
dealtwithinarelativelywelfare-orientatedchildren’shearingsystem.Buttheprocessdependsonthe
admissionofguiltbythechild,sothatthehearingcanfocusondealingwiththecauses.Thereis
anotherinterimprocessfornon-severeoffenceswhereguiltiscontested,basedinthesheriff’scourt.
Thisisalessformalprocessthantheadultcriminalcourt,withabasisincivilratherthancriminallaw.
Whendealingwithnon-severecasesthatwouldnormallybeaddressedatachildren’shearing,
sheriff’scourtsdonotsetthesentencethemselves.Thesherifffocusesonestablishingguiltor
innocence.Theyoungpersonisthenreferredbacktothechildren’shearingifguiltisestablished
(BottomsandDignan2004).
AsimilarsystemcouldbeimplementedinEnglandandWalesforcasesthatcouldbeaddressedby
communityjusticepanelsbutwhereguiltiscontested.Becausecommunityjusticepanelsarenot
courtsoflaw,trialswouldneedtobeheardinamoreformalprocess.However,thecurrentcriminal
youthcourtsystemisnotfitforthispurpose–abroaderissuewhichwillbeaddressedlaterinthis
section.Itsprimaryfocusisontheestablishmentofguilt,ratherthanonaddressingthecausesand
makingreparations.
Wepropose,therefore,thatnon-severecrimeswhereguiltiscontestedshouldbeheardbyacivil
youthcourt.Thesewouldnothavesentencingpowers;suchpowerswouldbereservedbythe
communityjusticepanelandthecourtwouldconcentratepurelyonestablishingguilt.Theadvantage
ofacivilcourtprocesswouldbethatitislessformalandconfusingforthoseinvolved;thatitwould
haveagreaterfocusonthevictimasa‘plaintiff’representedbytheprosecutor(ratherthanthevictim
beingexcludedbya‘crownprosecution’);anditwoulduseacivilstandardofproof,inotherwords
thatguiltwouldhavetobeestablishedasabalanceofprobability,ratherthanprovedbeyond
reasonabledoubt.
Thejustificationforthisloweringoftheburdenofprooffornon-severecrimesisthattheyoung
personwouldnotbelabelledacriminalasaresult,andwouldthenbereferredbacktoasecond-tier
communityjusticepaneltoagreemeasurestoaddresscausesandpay-backtothevictimand
community.Ineffect,therefore,thisproposaloffersanew,‘fairdeal’foryouthjustice–alower
standardofproofforamoreproblem-solvingapproachfornon-severecrimes.Sincethecommunity
panelsfocusmoreontheproblemsintheyoungperson’slife,therearebenefitstothedefendantof
acceptingthistrade-off.Forvictimsandcommunities,itwouldensurethatmoreoffenceswere
broughttojusticewithoutthenegativeimpactsofacriminaljusticeapproach.
Asdiscussed,theseideasdrawontheequivalentprocessinScotlandofthesheriffs’courtsand
children’shearingsoperatinginparallel,onefocusingonguiltandonefocusingontreatment.The
introductionofanequivalentsysteminEnglandandWales,withyouthcivilcourtsandcommunity
justicepanels,wouldbeaninnovationintacklingyouthcrime.Webelievethatitwouldimproveon
thecurrent,single-tiercriminaljusticeapproach.However,itwouldneedtobephasedinwithaseries
ofpilotstoestablishhowitcouldworkinpractice.
Theintroductionofanextralayerintoourtieredapproachincreasesitscomplexityandraises
questionsabouttherightsofthedefendanttoatrialwithacriminalburdenofproof.Whileweargue
thatthisrepresentsafairdeal,someelementsofthecurrentsystemcouldberetainedasachoicefor
defendants.Therefore,ifayoungpersonwereaccusedofanoffencetheydenied,theycouldhavethe
choiceofacivilyouthcourthearingoracriminalyouthcourthearing.Thelatterwouldhaveahigher
standardofproof,butwouldbringwithitamoreformalprocessandawiderrangeofmorepunitive
sentencesandacriminalrecordifguiltwereestablished.
Tier4
Notwithstandingtheaboveproposals,wedonotgosofarastoarguethatthereshouldbeno
recoursetocriminaljusticeforchildrenandyoungpeople.Thisispartlyduetopoliticalconsiderations
–citizensarenotpreparedtoraisetheageofcriminalresponsibilitybecausetheyperceivethatas
sendingasignalthatyouthcrimeisacceptable.Butitisalsobecauseofthewideraimsoftheyouth
justicesystemasdiscussed,whichincludeholdingoffenderstoaccountandachievingjusticefor
victims.Thereforewearguethatthecriminaljusticeapproach–basedontrialinayouthcriminal
court–wouldstillbeavailable,butwouldbereservedforoffenderswhoposeathreattosocietyand
whosecrimescouldnotbedealtwithbyacommunityjusticepanellegitimatelytothesatisfactionof
victimsandthepublic.Theyouthcriminalcourtwouldalso,asdiscussed,beavailableasanoptionfor
defendants(asthecrowncourtisanoptionforadultdefendants).
Undertheproposedtieredsystem,theyouthcriminalcourtwoulddealwithacaseloadinwhicha
higherproportionofcasesthanatpresentwouldbeserious,sincemostothercaseswouldbediverted
tocommunityjusticeorcivilyouthcourt.Bothcustodialsentencesandcommunitysentences(with
strongelementsofsupport)wouldremainavailable.Casesthatdonotrequirerelativelyhighlevel
sentencescouldbe‘referreddown’tocommunityjusticeandthecivilcourttier,ratherthanbeing
dealtwithatthecriminalcourtlevel.However,althoughwearguethatthereshouldstillremaina
criminalcourtoptionforsevereoffenders,wedonotbelievethatthecurrentcourtprocessisfitfor
purpose.Therestofthissectiondiscussestheproblemswiththeyouthcourtprocessesandproposes
solutionstoensurethatyouthjusticefocusesonreducingfuturevictimisation.
Deliveringthisvisionofareformedyouthcourtsystemrequiresarangeoffurtherreformstoimprove
informationavailableinmakingdecisions,focusonprotectingyoungpeopleandthepublicand
ensureappropriatespecialisation.Inparticular,iftheyouthjusticesystemisseriousabouttackling
futureoffendingratherthanjustblindlyprocessingoffenders,thenthereneedstobeaconsistent
feedbackofinformationthroughoutthesystem.Allagenciesintheyouthjusticesystemshouldknow
howwelltheyarecontributingtotheobjectiveofreducingoffending.Thismayinvolvesettingup
newsystemstomonitorex-offendersinordertotracktheirstatuswithinsixmonths,oneortwoyears,
whichmayprovokeconcernsaboutsurveillanceandcivilliberties.However,sincetheaimoffuture
monitoringwouldbetoimproveeffortstoreducecrime(including,wheretheevidenceshows,
reduceduseofformalcriminalproceedingsandcustody),theoverallimpactwouldbetoimprovecivil
libertiesforvictimsandex-offenders(AuditCommission2004).
Itmightalsoprovecontroversialwithmagistratesifitmeantthatdatawerecollectedandpublished
thatshowedthere-offendingratesofoffenderssentencedintheircourts,whichcouldbeperceived
asathreattotheirindependence.Youthcourtsarenotopentothepublic,buttheirdecisionsare
crucialtothedeliveryofreducingre-offending,aswellasdeterminingtheallocationofsignificant
publicresources(nottomentionthedenialoffreedom).Transparentinformationonperformance
wouldimproveaccountability,whichisnecessarytosafeguardindependentdecision-making.Better
feedbackshouldbewelcomedbymagistratesinordertoimprovetheirdecision-making.Itcouldalso
reducethepressurefromthemediaandpublicopiniontopasstoughersentencesfortheirownsake.
Currently43percentofmagistratessaythispressureinfluencestheirdecisions(AuditCommission
2004).
Aswiththeexistingtarget,thesystematicmeasurementofre-offendingcouldtakeintoaccountthe
circumstancesoftheex-offenderssothatperformancecanbecomparedwiththepredictedfuture
offendingrate.Butitshouldalsotakeintoaccountthefrequencyandseverityofoffending.A
systematicapproachfocusingonre-offendingwouldalsoimprovethequalityofevidenceonthe
impactofdifferentapproaches.Thiswouldenabletheyouthjusticesystemtoevolveonthebasisof
whatworks,ratherthanonthebasisofpoliticalwhimorprofessionalfashions.
Youthcourtsmustalsohaveanewfocusonchildprotection.Criminalcourtsdonothavethepower–
orexpertise–toidentifyprotectionneedsandenforceaction.Thismeans–totakearealexample–
thatatraffickedchildconvictedforcrimesuchasshoplifting,whomayhavecommittedthecrimefor
theirtrafficker–couldbedischargedfromcourtwithoutanyassessmentoftheirsafety.Aradical
approachtothisproblemwouldbetoreversetheseparationoftheprotectionandcriminalcourt
systemsimplementedin1989.MagistrateandpenalreformcampaignerChrisStanleyhasbeen
advocatingthisforseveralyears(see,forexample,Bond2000).Thiswouldmeanthatthesame
institutionsandworkforceswouldbedealingwithcaseswherechildrenwereatriskandwherethey
hadbeenchargedwithacrime.Thiswouldhavetheadvantageofshiftingtheideologyoftheyouth
criminalcourtstofocusmoreontheneedsof,andriskstooffendingchildren.Generalistjuvenile
courtswouldbeabletoplacevulnerableoffendingchildrenundertheprotectionofsocialservices.
Thischangecould,however,requiremajorrestructuringthatwouldbehighlycostlyfinanciallyandin
termsoftime.Therecouldalsobeoppositionfromchildprotectiongroupswhomightseethatthe
stigmaofchildprotectionprocedurescouldbeincreasedandat-riskyoungpeoplecouldfeellabelled
ascriminals.
Theremaybemoreimmediateandlesscomplicatedsolutionstothisproblem.Withoutremovingthe
distinctionbetweenthecriminalandprotectionsystems,youthcriminalcourtscouldbegivengreater
protectionpowerstoensurethatat-riskchildrencanbereferredforaprotectionassessmentthatthen
reportsbacktothesamecourt,orachildprotectioncourt.Therearepotentialriskswiththis
approach,particularlywherethereisashortageofsocialworkersworkingwithchildrenwhocanmake
therelevantassessmentandinturnalackoffosterplacementstocareforthosechildren.Thereisalso
afairnessissuewherebybeingcaughtcommittingacrimeenablesachildtosomehowreceivehigher
prioritythanachildwhoisequallyatriskbuthasnotbeenarrestedbythepolice.Theseissueswould
needtobeaddressed,butthemainpointremains–thereisaloopholewherebyvulnerablechildren
comeintocontactwiththeauthoritiesbut,becauseofthecriminalfocusoftheyouthcourt,their
risksarenotaddressed.ThishasbeendescribedtousasbeingaVictoriaClimbiéorBabyPwaitingto
happen.
Finally,reformedyouthcourtsshouldbemorespecialistandprofessional.Ratherthanbeingasystem
staffedbyprofessionalswithanexpertiseinworkingwithchildren,youthcourtshaveeffectively
becomealessprofessional,lower-skilledcornerofthelegalsystem.Althoughyouthcourtsarelegally
separatefromtheadultcriminalsystem,judgesandadvocatesintheyouthcourtdonotneedtobe
speciallytrainedorqualified.Moreover,sinceyouthcourtsarenotopentothepublicandmedia,they
arelessscrutinisedthanadultcourts.Theyhavethereforebecomea‘safe’institution.Forexample,
youngprosecutionanddefencesolicitorsbothusetheyouthcourtasatraininggroundtolearn
advocacyskillsbefore‘graduating’totheadultjusticesystem.Thisimpliesadisregardforthe
seriousnessoftheimpactoftheyouthcourtexperienceonyoungpeople’s(orvictims’)lives.Whilea
youngsolicitor’smistakecanbeausefullearningexperienceforthem,itcouldleadtoacriminal
conviction,lossoflibertyandreducedchancesofleadingasuccessfullifeintegratedintosociety.
Magistratesandjudgeswhoworkacrossbothadultandyouthjusticesystemscouldbringthesame,
morepunitiveandlessproblem-solvingapproachoftheadultcourttotheyouthsystem.The
implicationofthistrendisthatyoungpeopleaccusedofanoffencearemorelikelytobevictimsofa
miscarriageofjustice.
Whilewestillagreethatthereshouldbeacriminaljusticeprocessforchildrenandyoungpeople,we
arguethatthesystemshouldbemoredistinctfromtheadultjusticesystemandshouldhavea
specialistworkforcethatistrainedinworkingwithchildren.Theyouthcourtshouldnotbeseenas
‘lower’thantheadultcourt,orasasafetraininggroundforsolicitors.Beforebeingabletorepresent
orprosecuteachild,asolicitorshouldhavetoachievespecialistqualificationsdemonstrating
knowledgeoftheyouthjusticesystemandskillsincommunicatingwithchildren.
Furthermore,theinequalityofrepresentationintheyouthcourtshouldberedressed.Thosedefending
childrenaccusedbythestateofacrimeshouldbeasexperiencedandskilledinthelawasthose
prosecuting.Asmentioned,oneofthereasonsforthelowstatusofyouthcourtworkisthatitisnot
opentopublicormediascrutiny(exceptunderstrictcontrols).Therearedebatesaboutwhetherthe
youthcourts(criminalorfamily/childprotection)shouldbemademoretransparent.Optionsthat
shouldbeconsideredincludeindependentinspectionorpubliclynominatedobservers.
Oneideamightbetoensurethatthereismoreaccountabilityforacasethatisnotheardbecauseof
anunnecessarydelay(forexampleduetomissingfilesorevidencenotsubmittedtothedefence).At
presenttheonlyrecourseforthecourtistoreprimandandwritetotheculpableparty(beitthe
prosecutionordefence),andthereislittleincentivetoensureacasegoesahead.Butthesedelays
haverealcosts.Amoreeffectivesolutionmightbeforthecourttochargetherelevantpartyforsome
ofthecostofthedelay.Thisapproachisusedinotherpublicservices,forexamplechargingthe
infrastructurecompanyfordelaystotrains,orcharginglocalauthoritiesfordelaysindischargefrom
hospital.Continuingwiththecurrentinefficientandprocedurallyunjustsystemservesneitherthe
achievementofjusticeforvictims,norvalueformoney,noreffectivereductionofre-offending.It
wouldalsodolittleforyoungadultoffenders.
Newnon-custodialsentences,prioritisingwork-basedinterventions
Therearealreadyanumberofeffectivecommunityinterventionswhichcanbeusedbyyouthcourts
withyoungpeoplewhooffend.Thenextreformswillintroduceascaledapproachwheretheseare
combinedinonemulti-optionorderthatcanthenbetailoredtothepreciserisksassociatedwithany
oneoffender.Thisapproachhasthebenefitofbeingmoreunderstandableformagistrates,offenders,
victimsandthepublicandcanensurethatinterventionsarepersonalisedtotacklefuturere-
offending.Theaimisalsotomoveawayfromaladderofsentences,wherebyeachtimeanoffender
re-offendstheymoveuptheladder,whetherornotthehighertariffsentenceismoreproportionate
oreffective.
Itwillbeimportanttoensurethatthenewsystemhascredibilitywithvictims,communitiesandthe
generalpublicifitisgoingtosuccessfullyreplacethecurrenthighuseofcustody.However,theaim
ofmakingcommunitysentencestough-lookingshouldnotoverridetheaimofensuringthattheyare
effective.Atpresent,manyofthealternativestocustodyplacealargeemphasisoncontroland
supervision–forexample,placingelectronicallymonitoredtagsandcurfewsonoffendersand
requiringintensivesupervisioninordertocontroloffendersratherthanaddressthecausesof
offending.Thecoercivenessofcommunitysentencesislikelytobeafactorintheirrelativelackof
success–whilecustodyisstillmoredamagingtotheriskoffutureoffending,non-custodialsentences
involvingsuchrestrictionsarenotfarbehind.
Makingcommunitysentencesmorework-orientatedmaybeonewayinwhichtheaimsof‘toughness’
andeffectivenesscanbothbeachieved.Lackofstructuredactivities,poorskillsandselfesteemareall
riskfactorsthatwork-focusedinterventionscouldaddress.Atthesametime,requiringoffendersto
undertakeworkappealstothepunitivedemandsofthepublicandcouldreplacethepressurefor
moreuseofcustody.Workexperiencehasbeenanimportantpartoftherehabilitationofyoung
peopleincustody.Forinstance,projectsofferingpracticalexperiencetoex-inmateshavebeenin
operationinrecentyears;theNationalGrid-ledYouthOffenderProgrammeisanexample(The
SMARTCompany2007).Theseprojectsfocusonprovidingskillsandusefulexperiencetoenable
youngpeopletoturntheirlivesaround.Thereseemsnoreasonwhyasimilarapproachcouldnotbe
adoptedwithnon-custodialsentences.
TheDanish‘Spearhead’system catch-uplessonsinbasicskillssuchasliteracyand
numeracy.
Workisrarelyexploredasanalternativetocustody.
Theprojecthassofarbeenpositivelyevaluated,although
‘Communityservice’isnotanoptionforyoungpeople
onlythroughaqualitativestudy(measuringemployers’
andwouldplacetoomuchemphasisonnon-constructive
andyoungpeople’scompletionandsatisfactionwith
punishmentsuchaspaintingwallsorcleaningstreets.
placements).Butanimportantelementintheprojectisits
Withoutafocusonskills-development,workasa
cross-partypopularity.Politiciansofboththeright
communityalternativetocustodyisunlikelytobe
(includingthefar-rightDanishPeople’sParty)andthe
effective.However,aprojectinCopenhagen,Denmark
left(excepttheCommunistParty)haveendorsedthe
called‘Spyspidsen’(‘Spearhead’)hasdevelopeda
approachasbothfocusingonimprovingwelfareand
programmeofcommunity-basedwork-experience
tacklingrisksoffutureoffending,andalsorequiring
placementsforyoungpeoplenotineducation,
‘feckless’youthtoworkconstructivelyratherthanlaze
employmentortraining.Linkingyoungpeople’sskillsand
aroundincustodyoronbenefits.
ambitionswithlocalsmallemployers,theprojectalso
acceptsreferralsfromcriminalcourtsforyoungpeople Werecommendthatasimilarapproach,focusingonwork
(overtheageof15)whocanundertakeaplacementasan asanalternativetocustody,couldprovideawaythrough
alternativetocustody.Placementsareparttimeandpaid thecontinuingproblemofperceptionofpublicand
attheminimumwageuptothelevelofbenefit politicaldesireforcustodyandofcommunityalternatives
entitlement.Therestofthetime,participantsareoffered asbeinga‘let-off’.
Strongerlocalandnationalpartnershipsandanewcommissionermodel
Thetieredapproachoutlinedabove,andthereformstoyouthcourts,wouldrequiresignificant
structuralreformtotheexistingsysteminordertocreatemorelocalised,community-rootedand
diversionaryinstitutions.Althoughstructuralreformcanbecostlyanddelaychange,aswehave
arguedthroughoutthisreportthecurrentrelianceontheyouthcriminaljusticesystemalonemilitates
againstaneffectivepreventativeandpopularalternativeapproach.
Theprinciplessetoutinthepreviouschapteremphasisedtheneedforgreatercommunity
engagementandlocalisminyouthjustice(andincriminaljusticemorebroadly).Thisprincipleshould
underpinneworganisationalstructures.Asdiscussed,localareasshouldcreateSSPC-style
partnershipssothatagenciescanworktogetherwiththesharedagendaofyouthcrimereduction.
Thesewouldneedtoworkcloselywithexistingcrimeanddisorderreductionpartnershipsbutwould
haveamorespecificfocusonriskfactors.
Alocalistapproachtoyouthjusticeshouldbeexploredasanalternativetothetop-downtargets
system.Youthjusticebudgets–includingallocationsforpreventionprogrammes,diversion,court
servicingandcommunitysentencesaswellasresourcescurrentlyallocatedcentrallytocustodial
institutions–couldbedevolvedtolocalareas.Localbodiescouldbeestablishedasindependent
youthjusticetrusts(similartoprimarycaretrustsforhealth)orundertheauspicesofexistingyouth
offendingteamsorchildren’strusts.Thebodiesresponsibleformanagingthefundswouldneedto
havesubstantialoperatingfreedomwithinappropriatefinancialmanagementstandards.Theywould
alsobeheldaccountabletothelocalpopulation,eitherthroughsomeformofdirectorindirect
electionorrepresentation,orscrutinybyexistingelectedlocalauthorities,orboth.
SomeoftheseideasarealreadybeingexploredinaprogrammeoverseenbytheInternationalCentre
forPrisonStudies,whichisapplyinglessonsfromtheAmericanconceptof‘justicereinvestment’.Their
recentreport(AllenandStern2007)highlightsthepotentialbenefitsanddrawbacksofthisapproach
forthewholecriminaljusticesystem.Thereiscurrentlyaninquiryintojusticereinvestmentbeing
conductedbytheCommonsJusticeSelectCommittee.
Wewouldlendoursupporttothefurtherexplorationofthisapproach,inparticularfortheyouth
justicesystemwherethereisalreadyamulti-agencyapproachandsomelocalinfrastructureinyouth
offendingteamsthatcouldbebuilton.Localareaswouldthenberesponsibleforallocatingresources
onprevention,rehabilitationandpunishment,includingcustodyplacesthatwouldbelocally
commissionedandfunded.Thiswouldcreateasystemthatwasmorelocally-focusedandableto
respondtothevaryingneedsofthecommunity,ratherthanpurelyoncentraltargets.Importantly,it
wouldcreateamorerealisticapproachtothedistributionofresourcesforyouthjustice.Trustswould
needtoworkoutamoreholisticstrategyforreducingcrimeandre-offendingintheirlocality.Itwould
allowthemthefreedomtoinnovatewithlocalprogrammes(ashasalreadyhappenedinsomeareas,
suchasWales)andlearnfromthesuccessesofotherareas.Itcouldalsoimprovelocalengagement
andtrustinyouthjusticedecision-making.Thereareopportunitiestointegrateprevention,
rehabilitationandpunishmentinitiativesintoexistinglocalprogrammesforeducation,youthservices
andsocialcohesion.AsAllenandSternargue:
‘Ifitispossibletobringtogethertheactivitytomakeaneighbourhoodsafer
andmorecohesivewiththeworkofdealingwiththeindividualswhoarein
troublewiththelaw,effectivenessshouldbeconsiderablyenhanced.’
(AllenandStern2007:45)
Again,theseideasrunintocontroversywhenthedecision-makingpointsareanalysed.Muchofthe
distributionofexistingyouthjusticebudgetsiscurrentlydeterminedbysentencingdecisionsby
magistrates,whoseindependenceisrightlyguarded.The‘localist’approachtoyouthjusticecould
applytospendingontreatmentprogrammes,thecharacteristicsofthecommunitysentencesavailable
tothecourts,pre-courtinterventionsandpreventionprogrammes.Thisonitsownwouldbeastep
forward.However,thedevelopmentofamorelocalistapproachtogoverningandfinancingyouth
justicecouldopenupadebateabouttheaccountabilityoftheresourcedecisionsthatmagistrates
makewhentheychooseamoreexpensivecustodialsentenceratherthanacheaper(andpotentially
moreeffective)communitysentence.Afterall,suchdecisionstoimposecustodialsentencesor
remandaccountfortwo-thirdsofthetotalyouthjusticeprogrammespending(YouthJusticeBoard
2007).
Fromaresource-efficiencypointofview,nottomentionaneffectivenessormoralstandpoint,thereis
aneedtorationtheuseofcustodyforyoungpeople.Courtsneedtobetransparentandaccountable,
aswellasindependent,intheirdecisions.Lessonswouldneedtobelearnedfromthecurrentmuch
moreadvancedreformstocommissioninginhealth,wherethecapacityoflocalprimarycaretruststo
commissionintelligentlyisbeingdriventhroughtheWorldClassCommissioningprogramme,while
nominalbudgetsarealsobeingdevolvedtopractice-basedcommissioners.Thekeyenabler,inhealth
andinyouthjustice,ismoresophisticatedfeedbackofinformationontheperformanceofdifferent
partsofthelocalsystem.
Atanationallevelthereisalsomoreneedforcoordinatingmachinerythatenablesbutdoesnotdirect
improvedlocalperformance.Here,too,lessonscouldbelearnedfromDenmark,whereanational
CrimePreventionCouncil(theDKR)bringstogetherrepresentativesfromthefullrangeof
organisationsinvolvedinreducingoffending.TheCouncilisabletoagreepoliciesandprotocols,share
goodpracticeandinfluencechangelocallywithouthavingtogothroughtheslowandcentralised
structureofcentralgovernment.
Wehavearguedhereforlong-termstructuralchangestoembedthepreventative,tieredand
diversionaryapproach.However,theroleofstructuralchangeisonlytoallowchangesinpracticeand
behaviourtobeintroduced.Manyofthereformssuggestedcouldbedevelopedwithinthecurrent
frameworkofinstitutions.Policymakersandlocalleadersshouldnotwaituntilstructuralchangeshave
beendesignedandimplementedbeforeintroducingnewcommunityjusticealternatives.
5.Willthepublicsupportpopularpreventionism?
ThissectionexploresattitudestoyouthcrimeintheUK,andtestsamoreprogressive,tieredand
diversionaryapproachtoreplacethecurrentmodeloftoughpunishmentandcontrol.Toexaminethis
issueipprcommissioneddeliberativeworkshops,carriedoutinLondon,NottinghamandBirmingham,
toexplorepublicopinioninrelationtothreecorequestions:
•Whatarepeople’sinitialviewsonyoungpeople,youthcrimeandthejusticesystem?
•Towhatextentdopeople’sviewsevolveoncetheyareexposedtodifferentlevelsof
informationonthistopic?
•Towhatextentdopeopleoptforatieredanddiversionaryapproachtoyouthjustice?
Thefindingsandquotesreportedbelowresultfromtheseworkshops.SeeAnnex1fordetailsofhow
theworkshopswereconducted.
Attitudestoyouthandyouthcrime
Youthoffendingisawidelydiscussedissuewithmuchconflictingcoveragedominatingthemedia.
AccordingtoanationalsurveycarriedoutbyKing’sCollegeLondon,42percentofthosepolled
believedthathalfofallcrimeswerecommittedbyyoungpeople.Thiscompareswithofficialstatistics
thatsuggestthatthepercentageofcrimecommittedbyyoungpeopleismorelikelytobesomewhere
between10and20percent.Thesurveyalsoshowedthat64percentclaimedthatmediareportshad
informedtheirviews(HoughandRoberts2004).
Initiallywhenaskedabouttheterm‘youth’allparticipantsinourippr-commissionedworkshops
equatedittocrime,andcameupwithnegativewordssuchas‘threatening’,‘gangs’,‘knives’and
‘damaged’.However,participantsinLondonandBirminghamalsomadepositiveassociationssuchas
‘enthusiasm’,‘ourfuture’,and‘misunderstood’.Allparticipantsagreedthatyouthcrimeisaserious
problemandisgettingworse.InBirmingham,however,someparticipantsclaimedthattherehave
alwaysbeenproblemswithyouthcrimebutthedifferencenowisthatthemediasensationalisesit.
‘Thereisanawfullotofmedia…mediaisalotmoreintrusive,Iwouldn’tbe
surprisedifproportionallytherewasn’tmuchmorecrime.’ (Male,Birmingham)
Whenaskedabouttheageatwhichachildcantakefullresponsibilityfortheiractions,most
participantssuggestedfrom10orthestartofsecondaryschool.
‘Ithinktheyarestreetwiseearlier,learnrulesyoungerthanIdid.’ (Male,
Birmingham)
‘Somebodyat10isintelligentenoughtoknow.’ (Male,London)
‘A10-year-oldknowsthedifferencebetweenrightandwrong.’ (Female,
London)
However,therewasrecognitionthatachild’sdevelopmentdependsontheirupbringingandthata
childmaynotalwaysbeemotionallydeveloped:
‘Childrencan’talwayscontroltheiremotions.’ (Male,London)
Therewasacontradictioninhowparticipantsreferredtoyoungpeopleindifferentcontexts.When
theparticipantsfocusedontheactualoffencecommitted,theyweremoreinclinedtotalkaboutthe
perpetratorasanoffenderratherthanasachild.However,atothertimes,theywouldfocusonthe
factthatachildisstillemotionallyimmature.Overall,participantsfoundithardtodisentangle
negativeandpunitiveattitudesprovokedbytheoffenceitselffromanaturalcompassiontheyfelt
towardsyoungpeoplewhomtheystillperceivedasbeingchildren.
Participantsmadereferencetothefactthattheywerealsoyoungonce,arguingthatthingswere
differentinyearsgoneby–thattherewasmorerespect.Theterm‘respect’wasrepeatedthroughout
theworkshops.Beingabletorelatetoyoungpeopleintermsoftheirownyouthhadtwodifferent
effects:itmadeparticipantsintolerantoftheperceivedlackofdiscipline,especiallyincomparison
withhowthingswerebefore.Italsomadesomeparticipantssympathetictowardswhatitisliketobe
young.
Therewasasensethatyouthcrimehasbecomesomethingthatyoungpeopleareproudof.
Participantssuggestedthatratherthanbeingscaredofdoingsomethingwrong,youngoffenders
activelyseekoutopportunitiestocommitoffences.Therewasasensethatcurrentyouthculturehas
turnedyoungpeople’svaluesupsidedown,makingcrimeseemlikeanattractiveoptionandtheyouth
justicesystemunthreatening.
‘Alotofthem,whentheydosomething[crime],they’reproudofit.’(Male,
London)
‘ASBOsareseenasabadgeofhonour.’(Female,Norwich)
‘There’stoomuchfreedom,theygetawaywithtoomuch.’ (Female,London)
Thereweremixedviewstowardschildrenthroughoutalltheworkshopssoitwasunsurprisingthat
whenwepresenteddifferentwaysofdealingwithyouthcrimewereceivedvariedresponsesfromthe
participants.Someparticipantsfeltthatyoungpeoplecanstillbeturnedaroundiftheyaregiventhe
rightsupport:
‘Totreatthemsoharshlysoyounghardensthemandmakesthemworsein
thefuture.’ (Female,Norwich)
However,alargenumberofparticipantsdismissedtheideathatputtingayoungpersonfromayoung
agethroughthecriminalsystemcanhaveadetrimentaleffectonthem.Onthecontrary,someargued
thatyoungpeoplemaybebetteroffinprison.Therewerealsomixedfeelingstowardstheideathata
youngpersonundertheageof21canstillbechangedforthebetter.
‘Theygotabettereducationbecausetheywereinside…Theybenefitedfrom
beinginside.’ (Male,Norwich)
‘Wethinktheyaredevelopedwaybefore21.’(Female,Birmingham)
Attitudestotheyouthjusticesystem
Participants’initialviewsontheyouthjusticesystemwerenegative:thatthesystemisineffectiveand
thatithasfailedtodeteryoungpeoplefromcommittingcrimes.
‘Themainthingisthattheyarenotpunishedenough.’(Male,London)
‘Therearenoconsequencestowhattheydo;theyjustthinktheycanget
awaywithit;thereisnocomebackonthem.’(Female,Norwich)
Thecriminaljusticesystemwascriticisedforitsweaknessandlackoftoughness.However,themain
criticismfocusedonitsweakapplication,ratherthanonitsdesign.
‘Thesystemseemssensible,butitistheapplicationofthesystemandthe
Judgesthataretoolenient…thereissomethingwrongwithJudgeswhotreat
kidstoolightly.’(Male,London)
‘OnpaperitlooksquitegoodbutIdon’tthinkinpracticeitworks.’ (Male,
Birmingham)
‘Deterrentsneedtobetougher…whenIwasayoungsteryouwerescaredof
doingsomethingwrong.’(Male,Norwich)
Therewasalsoafeelingthatforasystemtobeeffectiveitneedstoinstilalevelofrespectandfearin
youngpeople.
‘Peopleshouldbescaredofthepolice.’ (Male,London)
‘IfindthatinGermanypeoplearemorelawabiding.Wedon’twanttobea
policestatebutthereshouldbemorerespect.’ (Male,London)
‘Communitypolicemengetlaughedat.’ (Female,London)
‘Prisonsaresuchaneasylife.’ (Female,Norwich)
Participantsfeltthatifthesystemweretougherandinstilledmorefearandrespect,itwouldbemore
effectiveatdiscouragingyoungpeoplefromcommittingcrimesinthefirstplace.
Differentresponsesareappropriatefordifferentoffences
Aftersettinganinitialbaselineonpeople’sinitialattitudestoyouthcrimeandtheyouthjustice
system,westartedfilteringdifferentinformationandideasonthetopictoexplorehowpeople’sviews
coulddevelop.Whenparticipantswereaskedtodecidewhetheranoffenceshouldbeclassifiedas
minor,medium/seriousorveryserious/severe,allagreedonwhichoffenceswereseverebuttherewas
discrepancybetweenmediumandminoroffences.
Allparticipantsagreedthatminoroffencesshouldincludeoffencesthatdonotcauseharmto
individuals.Mediumoffencesweredefinedasthosethathaveacostofsomesort,whetherfinancial,
physicalorotherwise.Severeoffencesincludedthosewhichcauseseriousharmtoindividuals.
‘Theminoronesdon’thurtanyone.’(Male,London)
Thereweremixedviewsaboutwhether‘possessionofaknife’wasamediumorasevereoffence.
Someparticipantsfeltthatpossessionofaknifecouldbejustifiedifusedforself-defenceorwork.
Othersfelttherewasnojustificationforcarryingaknife.
‘Itisthesamethingasagun.’ (Female,London)
‘I’mnotsure.Ifsomeone’shadsomeoneharassingthemalotandtheyfear
fortheirlivesthenwhatshouldtheydo?’(Male,London)
Themajorityagreedthatdifferentoffencesshouldgetdifferentresponsesaccordingtothelevelof
gravityandnumberofpreviousconvictionsoftheoffender.Someparticipantsfeltthatalloffences
shouldgetthesameinitialtreatment.
‘Acrimeisacrime…’ (Female,Norwich)
‘Atthestarttheyshouldgetthesameresponseasanyminorormediumone
couldescalateintoaseriousone.’(Male,Norwich)
Participantsfeltthatresponsestooffencesneededtobetoughenoughtoactasadeterrent.
Responsibilityforyouthcrimeshouldbeshared
Participantsallocatedresponsibilityforyouthcrimetoawiderangeofparties.However,mostofthe
responsibilitywasallocatedtothemedia,peerpressure,lackofdiscipline,government,parents,
schools,alcoholanddrugs.
Themediawerethoughttohaveadualimpactonyoungpeople.Ononehand,themediashowtoo
muchviolence,temptingyoungpeopletocopyviolentbehaviour.Ontheotherhand,somemedia
coverageglorifiesyouthcrimetoyoungpeople:
‘Theyseethingsinthepressthattheyaspireto.’ (Male,London)
Parentsandschoolswerethoughttoberesponsibleforinstillingdisciplineandsupportingyoung
people.Participantssaidthatifyoungpeopleareexposedtoviolenceathometheyseethatasaway
oflife.
‘Parentshaveaverybiginfluenceonhowthechildisprogressingandgoing
throughlife.’(Male,Birmingham)
TheGovernmentwasseentoberesponsibleforyouthcrimeforvariousreasons,includingthejustice
systembeingineffective,andalackofopportunitiesintermsofeducation,skillsandjobsforthose
whodonotopttogotouniversity.TheGovernmentwasalsoblamedfortakingawayauthorityfrom
parents,teachersandschools.
‘Therearenoapprenticesanymore.’ (Male,Birmingham)
‘Whenitcomestoeducationandopportunities,theGovernmentthinks50per
centshouldgouniversitybuttherearenotenoughopportunitiesforothers.’
(Female,Birmingham)
‘Therearenotenoughplacesforteenagerstogotokeepthemactive.’(Male,
Norwich)
‘They[government]cutbackonthingsbelowthebareminimum,likewiththe
police–theyhaven’tgotenoughpeopletodothejob.’ (Female,Norwich)
Therewascriticismoftheroleplayedbysomeindividualsandorganisations–whoweredeemed‘do-
gooders’–thatdefendtherightsofyoungpeople.Theywereconsideredtoobstructtough
approachestoyouthcrime.
‘TheGovernment’supagainstallthedo-gooders.’ (Male,Birmingham)
Itwasalsoarguedthatyoungpeople’s‘ignorance’ispartoftheproblem:
‘Dotheyreallyunderstandtheconsequencesoftheiractions?’ (Male,London)
Sosignificantcontradictionscanbeseenintheparticipants’attitudes.Ontheonehand,theyfeltthat
ayoungpersoncantakeresponsibilityfortheiractionsfromayoungage(10),whileontheother
therewasanacknowledgmentofthelimitationsimposedbytheirage.Itseemeddifficultfor
participantstoreconcilehostilefeelingstowardsanindividualcommittingoffences(especiallythose
thatcausedamagetoothers)andthefactthatmanyoftheyoungpeopletheyreferredtoarestill
children.
Theopportunitytomakeamendsiswelcomedbutnotforsevereoffences
Wepresentedparticipantswithstatementsrepresentingdifferentapproachestotacklingyouthcrime.
Thesewere‘tough’,‘welfarist’and‘tiered/diversionary’approaches,asdiscussedaboveinthisreport.
Anelementofthetiered/diversionaryapproachwasthatoffendersshouldmakereparationstovictims
andcommunitiesoutsidetheyouthcriminaljusticesystem.
Participantswereverykeenontheideaofcommunitypayback,butnotforseverecrimes.They
welcomedtheideathatanoffendercommittinganti-socialbehaviourcouldbereprimandedby
makingamendstothecommunityandthevictim.Thereweremixedviewsonwhetherthiscouldbe
dealtwithoutsidetheyouthcriminaljusticesystem.
‘Makethepunishmentfitthecrime.’(Male,London)
Whensevereoffenceswerediscussedparticipantsdidnotoptforthecommunitypaybackoption.It
wasfeltbysomethatsevereoffencesshouldreceivetough,evencorporal,punishmenttomatchthe
gravityoftheoffence.
Communitiesandschoolsarenotabletodealwithcrime
Therewasfrustrationathowthesystemisperceivedasparalysingadults,preventingthemfrom
interactingwithyoungpeopleandinterveningwhentheydosomethingwrong.Participantsbelieved
thatteachersinparticularoccupyadifficultposition,astheyareprohibitedfrominteractingphysically
withchildren.Theexamplewasgivenofhowevenwhenachildfallsintheplayground,teachersare
notallowedtotouchthem.
‘Inpastgenerationswhenpoliceandteachershadmoreauthoritytherewas
lesscrime…andnowitisallsoftly,softly…’(Male,London)
‘Itallgoesbacktoschool,theydon’tgetreprimandedbyteachers,andifthey
[teachers]areharshthenthey’llgetprosecuted.’ (Female,Norwich)
Manyfeltinparticularthatadultshadnopoweroveryoungpeople,andbelievedthatparentsnolonger
setboundariesfortheirchildren.Participantsfeltdisempoweredanddisrespectedandunabletoturn
thingsaroundinthecurrentclimatewheregovernmentputsgreatemphasisonprotectingchildren.
‘Adultsaremadetofeelguiltier.’ (Male,London)
‘TheGovernmentdoesn’thaveaclue.They’retheonesthatareresponsible
forbitbybit,takingawaytheauthorityofteachersandpolice,etcetera.’
(Male,London)
‘Schoolsandparentsdon’tseembeabletodoanything.’ (Female,Norwich)
Therewaslittlefaithinthecommunity’sabilitytodealwithyouthcrime.Participantsfeltthatinan
idealworldwheretherewasastrongsenseofcommunityitwouldbegoodforthecommunitytobe
involved.Theywerenostalgic,perceivingcommunitiesinthepasttohavebeenstrongerandparents,
schoolsandpolicetohavehadmoreauthority.Inparticular,participantsdidnotliketheideaofthe
communitydealingwithseriouscrimes.Theywereconcernedthatthecommunitywouldbeunableto
beunbiased.
‘Familiesandneighbourswouldbebiased…’ (Male,Norwich)
Someparticipantsexpressedthatseriouscrimesrequirecorporalpunishment.
Atieredsystemincreasessupportforamoreprogressiveapproach
Initialattitudesdemonstratedthattheterm‘youthcrime’isloadedwithnegativeconnotationswhich
ledparticipantstobemoreinclinedtooptforquiteatoughresponse.However,theseattitudes
evolvedonceweprovidedparticipantswithmoreinformationonthecontextofdifferentoffenders
andoffences,whichisnotusuallyinformationthatpeoplearepartyto.Weknowfrompreviousippr
workthatprovidingthe‘context’isanessentialpartofpromotingamoreprogressiveapproach
(NewmanandLewis2007).Afullerpictureoftheoffendercanmakepeopleconsiderthattheremay
beotherreasonsforcommittinganoffencethantheideathatoffendersaresimply‘bad’people.
Inordertoprovideparticipantswiththecontextofoffenceswepresentedthemwiththree,fictional,
casestudiesandoptionsfortacklingthem.Thecontextprovidedabasicbackgroundontheoffender
intermsoftheirfamilylifeandpreviousconvictions.Theoptionsoutlinedrepresentedthree
approachesfortacklingyouthcrimeincludingsoft/welfarist,tough/punitiveandtiered/diversionary
approaches.Thiswasaturningpointintheworkshop,asamoresympatheticperspectiveamongthe
participantscametolight.Providingthecontextofeachoffenderaffectedtheparticipants’
perceptionofeachcasestudy.Overall,participantsineachcasedeliberatedaboutoptions,andafter
discussion,werefoundtobeinfavourofanapproachwhichsoughttofindmechanismstodivert
youngpeoplefromthecriminaljusticesystem.(SeeAnnex2foradetaileddiscussionoftheresultsof
thesecasestudies.)
6.Conclusion
Thisreporthasfourmainthrusts.Youthjustice,atpresentnotsucceedinginreducingreoffending,
shouldbereshapedsothatit
•operatesatmorelevelsinsociety,tomatchlevelsofoffendingandanti-socialbehaviour;
•reliesmoreonpreventionandlessoncoercion;
•avoidsyoungpeoplebeingdrawnintotheformalcriminalcourtssystemwhereverpossible;
•ismoretrustedbythepublic.
Thusitshouldbetiered,preventative,diversionary and populist.
Thereportalsoarguesthattheremitoftheyouthjusticesystemshouldnotstopat17.The
suggestednewcommunityjusticealternativesshouldbeavailabletoolderyouths(e.g.18-21)andto
youngpersonsaccusedofsubsequentnon-severeoffences.
Recommendationsforimprovingtheeffectivenessoftheexistingyouth
courts
Tiered
•Establishanewlowerlevel(Tier1)ofyouthjusticewhichaimsatpreventing,and
confronting,anti-socialbehaviourandlow-leveloffending;involvingnewpartnershipsrooted
inthecommunityanddrawinginalltheagencieswithinfluenceontheexperienceofyoung
people,basedonSSPCs(multi-agencyschool,socialservices,policeandcommunitycouncils)
suchasexistinDenmarkandEastRenfrewshire,andyoungpeople’sreferralgroups
•Establishanintermediatelevel(Tier2)withcommunityjusticepanelstodealwithnon-severe
offences,usingrestorativejusticeprinciples(similartoexistingreferralorderpanels)
•AllowSSPCsandyouthreferralgroupstoreferindividualstocommunityjusticepanels
•EstablishanewtypeofScottish-stylecivilyouthcourt(Tier3)alongsidetheexistingyouth
courts,operatingatalowerburdenofproof,asanalternativefordefendantswhoadmitguilt
andarenotaccusedofseriousoffences;thesecourtstohavestronglinkswithcommunity
justicepanels.
Morepreventativeandlesscoercive
•IntroducepreventativemeasuresatlocallevelthroughtheSSPCs
•Introduceagraduatedapproachtoanti-socialbehavioursothataproportionateresponse
(letterorvisitfromapoliceofficerorteacher)canbeusedinitiallywithlow-levelbad
behaviour(basedontheapproachtakeninSouthWales)
•Pilotsystemsinwhichbudgetsforyouthjusticearedevolvedlocally,removingresponsibility
foryouthcustodycommissioningfromtheYouthJusticeBoard,toensurethecostsofcustody
areweighedagainstmorecost-effectivenon-custodialapproaches,whicharealsolikelytodo
moretoreducere-offending.
Diversionfromarrestandthecriminalcourtsystem
•Allowreferraldirectlytoyoungpeople’sreferralgroupsandcommunityjusticepanelswithout
priorinvolvementwiththecourts,sothatnon-seriousoffendersaredivertedfromthecriminal
courts
•Divertsomeoffencestonewcivilyouthcourts
•Allowindividualsconvictedbythenewcivilyouthcourtstobereferredtocommunityjustice
panelsforsentencing.
Moretrustedbythepublic
•Thenewlowesttier(Tier1)andcommunityjusticepanelsatTier2tobebasedinthelocal
communitysothatlocalresidentscanengagewithit,e.g.byreferringyoungpersonsto
youthreferralgroups
•PilottheintroductionofnewTimeBank-stylevolunteeringsystems,enablingthepublictosee
thatcommunitysentencesarenotaneasyoptionforoffenders,andvictimscanreceive
recompense,ifpreferred,withoutcontactwiththeoffender
•Maintainandimprove(Tier4)theexistingcriminalcourtssystemforseriousoffences.
Effectivenessofexistingyouthcourts(Tier4)
•Improvecourts’understandingoftheeffectsoftheirdecisionsbyintroducinganew
requirementtoensurethatinformationonre-offendingisprovidedtomagistrates’courtswith
thedataadjustedtotakeintoaccountpredictedlevelsfordifferenttypesofoffender
•Introducefurtherrequirementsensuringthatotheragencies–includingyouthoffending
teamsandpoliceunits–receivesystematicfeedbackanddataontheeffectivenessoftheir
interventions
•Allowyouthcourtstorefercriminalcasestothefamilycourt(focusingonchildprotection)
wherethereisaconcernforthewelfareofthedefendant
•Introducenewtrainingrequirementstoensurethatjudgesandadvocatesareproperlytrained
inworkingwithchildrenandyoungpeople
•Reviewthepay,conditionsandprofessionalstatusofyouthcourtworkerstoensurethat
workingintheyouthcourtisnotviewedasalow-statusalternativetoworkinginadultcourts
•Reviewsentencingguidelinestostrengthencommunitysentences,includingexaminingthe
introductionofwork-focusedcommunitysentences,withafocusonprovidingyoungpeople
withstructure,improvedskillsandincreasedselfesteem
•PilotDanish-style‘Spearhead’projectsinEnglandandWales,requiringoffenderstoengagein
constructive,paidworkexperienceandcatch-upclasses.
Annex1:Deliberativeworkshopmethodology
Deliberativetechniquesbringtogetherabroadlydemographicallyrepresentativesampleofthe
populationincludinggroupsABC1C2DE(seenextpagefordefinitions).Theyareheldoveralonger
periodthanfocusgroupsinordertoenablepeopletodeveloptheiropinionsastheyarepresented
withdifferentmaterialsorarguments.Thisshowswhetherandhowviewschange,andwhat
argumentsandinformationhavemostimpact.Italsoprovidesaforuminwhichparticipantscan
challengeeachotheraspeoplewithdifferentbackgroundsandviewsdebateatopictogether.
Forthisstudyeachoftheworkshopswasthreehourslongandwasdesignedfor12participants.The
formatoftheworkshopcombinedgroupdiscussionsonyouthcrimeandarangeofexercises,
exposingparticipantstodifferentideasandinformationonthetopic(seeAnnex2).
Participantswereaskedtocompleteanindividualsurveyatthebeginningandendoftheworkshopto
seeiftheirviewshadchangedduringtheworkshop.
Recruitment
Eachworkshopwasrecruitedusingmarketresearchrecruiters.Theparticipantswereselectedtobe
roughlyrepresentativeoftheirlocalareaintermsofgender,age,ethnicityandsocio-economic
background.
Thereisresearchevidencethatsupportstheviewthatdeliberationtendstoreduceinternaldiversity
andleadtomoreextremeviews(Schkadeetal 2006).Therefore,weaimedtoavoidrecruiting
participantswhowouldhavestrongviewsonthetopicbynotrecruitingpeoplewhohaddirectlinks
toit.Thismeantavoidingyoungpeopleundertheageof25,orpeopleworkinginsomecapacitywith
youngpeople.
Threeworkshopswerecarriedout,inLondon,NorwichandBirmingham.Becauseofthesmallnumber
ofworkshopsundertakenlocationwasnotakeyfactorinthesampling.
Thedatesoftheworkshopswere10June(London),11June(Norwich)and12June(Birmingham),
2008.InBirminghamandLondonparticipantswerepaid£60toattendandinNorwich£50.
Participants’demographiccharacteristics
Participants:London
Thegroupconsistedof:
• Sixfemalesandfivemales(onemalewasunabletoattend)
• Socialclassifications:2B,3C1,4C2,1D,2E
• Agerangefrom28to65
Participants:Norwich
• Sixmalesandsixfemales
• Agerangefrom25to67
Participants:Birmingham
• Sixmalesandsixfemales(onefemalewasunabletoattend)
• Agerangefrom25to67.
Socialclasses
Socialgrade Socialstatus Occupation
A Uppermiddleclass Highermanagerial,administrativeorprofessional
B Middleclass Intermediatemanagerial,administrativeor
professional
C1 Lowermiddleclass Supervisoryorclerical,juniormanagerial,
administrativeorprofessional
C2 Skilledworkingclass Skilledmanualworkers
D Workingclass Semiandunskilledmanualworkers
E Lowestlevelofsubsistence Statepensionersorwidows(nootherearner),
casualorlowestgradeworkers
Annex2:Deliberativeworkshopsdiscussionguide
6:30pm Refreshmentsandfood
6:35pm Welcomeparticipantsandexplaintheproject:
• Introduceeachmember–weworkforaresearchcompany
• Weareheretofindoutpeople’sviewsaboutyouthcrime.
• Theworkshopswillinvolvegoingthroughdifferentinformationandfacts.Therewillbeamixof
discussionasafullgroupanddiscussioninsmallergroupsaswellasindividualwork.
Beforewestart
• Weareneutral–notheretoinfluenceyourviewsbuttofindoutwhatyourviewsare.
• Wearenotexpectingpeopletobeexperts–we’renottryingtocatchpeopleoutortesttheir
knowledge.
• Therearenorightorwronganswers.Wearenotexpertsourselvesbutjustresearchersfindingout
people’sviewsonthistopic.
• Thismaterialcanbequitetechnicalsoifyougetconfusedpleaseask.Iamnotanexpertinthis
fieldbutwilltrytoclarifyanyquestions.
• Wealsodonotwantpeopletosaythingsbecausetheythinktheyshould–wewantpeopletobe
honestandcomfortabledisagreeingwitheachother–thisisasafeenvironmenttodothat,we
won’tgetpersonal.
• Allyourviewsreallymattertous.Pleaserespecteachother’sview–evenifyoudisagree.
• Pleaseturnoffyourmobile.
• Timing–wewillfinishontime!WehavealottogetthroughsoImayhavetohurryyouattimes,
butIamnotbeingrude.
• Youcanbesureyourviewsandcommentswillbekeptcompletelyanonymousinfinalsurvey.
• Xxxxwillbetakingnotesandwewouldlikepermissiontorecord.
• Wemaywanderaroundtolisteninbutpleaseignoreusandcarryonyourdiscussion.
6:40pm Warm-up,icebreakersandintroductions
Participantsshouldspendoneortwominutestalkingtothepersonnexttothembeforeintroducing
eachothertothefullroom.
6:50pm Questionnaire
Participantsindividuallycompleteasurveyonyouthcrime.
BeforewegetintoanydiscussionI’mgoingtoaskyoualltospendfiveminutescompletingasurvey
individually–it’simportantthatwecaptureyourindividualviewsonsomeofthethingswearegoing
tobetalkingabout.Pleasebecompletelyhonest–wewilltreatthisinformationconfidentially.
7:00pm Groupdiscussiontogaugehowmuchpeoplealreadyknowaboutyouthcrimeandwhat
views,experienceorattitudestheyhaveofit.
I’dliketostartbygettingasenseofwhatpeoplethinkaboutyoungpeople:
• Whatcomesintoyourheadwhenyouheartheterm‘youth’(anywordsorphrases)?
• Whatagedoyouthinkyoungpeoplebecomefullyindependentdevelopedadults?Whendo
youngpeoplebecomeresponsiblefortheiractions?Why?
I’dliketogetasenseofwhatpeoplethinkaboutyouthcrime:
• Whatcomesintoyourheadwhenyouheartheterm‘youthcrime’(anywordsorphrases)?
• Arethereparticularaspectsofyouthcrimethatconcernyoumost?
• Isyouthcrimegettingbetterorworse?(probe–isitabigorsmallproblem?)
Facilitatortoprovideadefinitionofyouthcrimeandexplorereactions:
Youthcrimeconsistsofcriminaloffencescarriedoutbyayoungperson.Underthelawthisincludes
youngpeoplefromage10to18.
Criminaloffencesincludethingslikegraffiti,assault,theftanddealingdrugs.
Anti-socialbehaviour(ASB)includesavarietyofbehaviourcoveringawholecomplexofselfishand
unacceptableactivitythatcanblightthequalityofcommunitylife.
Examplesinclude:
• Nuisanceneighbours
• Rowdyandnuisancebehaviour
• Yobbishbehaviourandintimidatinggroupstakingoverpublicspaces.
Facilitatortoreadoutdefinitionandask:
• Doesthismakesense?
• Aretherequestionsthattheinformationraises/thatyouwanttoask?
Wearenowgoingtoexplorewhatyouknowabouttheyouthjusticesystem
• Doyouknowtheminimumageayoungpersoncanbechargedforacrime/prosecuted?(probe–
Whydoyousaythis?Howdoyouknow?)
• Atwhatagedoesayoungoffenderbecomeadultinlaw?(probe–Whydoyousaythis?Howdo
youknow?)
• Doyouknowhowyouthcrimeiscurrentlytackled?Whatmakesyousaythis?
• Howareyouthoffenderscurrentlytreatedbythelaw?(probe–Whydoyousaythis?Howdo
youknow?)
Facilitatortoprovideadefinitionofyouthjusticesystemandexploreparticipants’reactions
Youthjusticeissociety’ssystemfordealingwithyoungpeoplewhobreakthelaw.Theyouthjustice
systemhasdifferentcourts(calledyouthcourts)where,forexample,thereisnopublicormedia
access.Theyouthjusticesystemalsohasadifferentrangeofsentencesforyouthoffendersthattake
intoaccount,tosomeextent,thefactthatchildrenandyoungpeoplearestilldevelopingandfocus
ontacklingthecausesoftheiroffending.Under-18shaveseparateprisonsfromadults.
Undertheageof10childrencannotbeprosecutedforacrime.
Aftertheir18thbirthdayyoungpeoplearetreatedasadultsintheadultcourt(Magistrates’Courtor
CrownCourt–withajury).Theyaregivenfewerchancestoimprovetheirbehaviourandhavetougher
punishmentsthatdonotaimtotacklethecausesoftheirbehaviour.
Theyouthjusticesystemincludesavarietyofprocessesincluding:
• Publicinformationcampaignse.g.onknifecrime
• Policepatrols,stopandsearchandarrest
• Anti-socialbehaviourorders(ASBOs)anddealingwiththemwhentheyarebroken
• Cautionsandprosecutionsofyoungpeople
• Hearingsinthecriminalyouthcourt
• Communitysentencese.g.curfeworders(tags),supervisionandreparation(‘payback’)
• Custodialsentences(i.e.youthprison)
Facilitatortoreadoutdefinitionandask:
• Doesthismakesense?
• Prompt:whatarethestrengths/weaknessesofthesystem?
7:25pmDefiningyouthcrime
Wewouldliketofindoutyourviewsonarangeofcriminaloffences.
Sortingcardsexercise:
Dividegroupintothreegroupsoffourandprovidethemwithcards(eachcardwilloutlineadifferent
offence).Askpeopletodiscusseachoffenceandclassifyunderthreecategories:minorcrime/anti-
socialbehaviour,medium/seriousandsevere.Whendecidingonhowtoclassifyeachoffence
participantsmustthinkaboutitscauses:whyandwhathasledyoungpeopletocommitthese
offences?
Minorcrime/anti-socialbehaviour:
• Graffitionschoolwalls
• Verbalharassment
• All-nightpartydisturbingneighbours
• Personalpossessionofcannabis
• Peter(13yearsold)hadanargumentathomewithhisfostermother.Afterleavinghishouseina
ragehekickedandbrokeapublicdustbin
• Ali(15)gotintoafightafterschoolwithanotherboy,causinganosebleed.
Medium/serious:
• JuliestoleDVDsfromasupermarket.Whenshewasarrestedshestruggledandkickedapolice
officer
•Breakingcarlights
•Theftofabicycle
•Possessionofaknife
•Agroupofboyspushedaroundayoungerboyonhiswayhomefromschool.Oneoftheboys,
Leon,stolehisbikeandrodeoffwithit
Veryserious/severe:
•Armedrobbery
•A19-year-oldyoungmanrapeda16-year-oldyoungwomanafteraparty
•Agroupofteenagersstubbedateenagerwithbrokenglassduringafight.Thevictimdied.
Threegroupstofeedbackhowtheyhavesortedcardsandreasonsfortheirgrouping.
Groupdiscussion: Doyouthinkthereshouldbedifferentresponsestodifferentoffences(probe–
shouldallbetackledinthesameway?Orshouldtherebeasofterandharderapproachaccordingto
offences?Why?)
7:45pm Responsibility:Thespiderofyouthcrime
Intheprevioussectionwediscussedwhatconstitutesyouthcrimeandtheyouthjusticesystem.We
nowwanttoexploreyourviewsonwhoandwhatisresponsibleforcausingyouthcrime.
Divideparticipantsintothreegroupsoffourparticipantstodiscussanddrawaspiderdiagramwith
youthcrimeinthecentre.Eachlegofthespiderofyouthcrimeshouldrepresentsomeoneor
somethingthatisfully/partlyresponsibleforyouthcrimeintheUK.Thinkaboutthisinrelationtothe
offenceswediscussedinprevioussection.
Groupstofeedbackexplainingdifferentlegsoftheirspiderdiagram.
Facilitatorshouldprobeonthefollowingelements:
•Whydoyouthinkyouthcrimehappens?(probe–whatismakingyoungpeoplemoreproneto
committingcrimes?Why?)
•Whoisresponsibleforyouthcrime?(probe–areyoungpeopleresponsible?Howresponsibleare
parents?Communities?Societiesasawhole?)
•Whoisresponsiblefortacklingyouthcrime?(Isitpolice/courtoranyoneelse?Shoulditbethe
responsibilityofparents?Communities?Societyasawhole?)
8:05pm 5minutebreakforrefreshments
8:10pm Tacklingyouthcrime
I’dliketofindoutpeople’sviewsonwhatthemainprioritiesfortacklingyouthcrimeshouldbe.
Divideparticipantsinthreegroupsoffour.Askparticipantstodiscusseachofthestatementslisted
belowfortacklingyouthcrime.Usingthescaleprovided,participantsshoulddecideintheirpairs
whethertheyagreeordisagreewitheachelementandexplainreasons.
•Thelawisthelaw.Allyoungpeopleovertheageof10whobreakthelawshouldgothroughthe
criminalsystemofpoliceandcourts.Thisshouldbethecaseevenforminorcrimes.
Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)
•Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsshouldonlybeusedasalastresortforseriouscrimes.
Insteadthecommunity(e.g.families,neighbours,churches,schools,youthservices)shouldbe
involvedinholdingoffenderstoaccount.
•Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsshouldnotbeusedforchildren/youngpeopleuntilthey
turn16(currently10).Children’sbehaviouriscausedbysocialproblemssoweshouldimprove
children’swelfareratherthanpunishthem.
•Ifayoungpersoncommitsanti-socialbehaviourweshouldforcethemtomakeamendstothe
victimsandcommunityandtacklethecausesoftheirbehaviour(forexamplebyconsideringtheir
home/schoollife).Thisshouldbedoneoutsidethecriminaljusticesystemasfaraspossible.
•Youngpeoplearestilldevelopingupto21andcanstill‘changeforthebetter’giventheright
tools,sonon-severeoffendersshouldbedealtwithoutsidethecriminalpunishmentsystem.
•Seriousyoungoffendersshouldbedealtwithincourtwithcustodialsentences(prison)forthose
whoareadangertosociety.
•Ifyoungpeoplegothroughcriminalsystemfromtooyounganage(i.e.10yearsold),evenfor
minorcrimes,thenthiswilllabelthemascriminalsmakingthemmorelikelytore-offendlaterin
theirlife.
Iftimeallows,facilitatortotestreactionsto:
•Childrenaretooyoungtobeheldresponsiblefortheiractions.Weshouldrisecriminalageto16.
•Weshouldbetoughonallcrimes,whethertheyare‘minor’orserious,evenifthelevelsofyoung
peoplebeingarrestedandenteringthecriminaljusticesystemforminoroffencesgoesup.
•Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsisexpensivesoitshouldbeusedasalastresort.
•Weshouldtacklecrimebeforeithappens.
•Ifayoungpersoncommitsanti-socialbehaviourweshouldissuethemwithananti-social
behaviourorder.Iftheycontinuebehavinganti-sociallytheyshouldbearrestedandsentto
court.
•Courtsshoulddealouttoughprisonsentencesforyouthcriminalstomakeanexampleand
satisfythevictim.
Groupstofeedbacktothewholegroup:discussiononeachelementandreasonwhypeopleagreeor
disagreewiththem.
8:45pm Testinganewapproachtoyouthcrime
Fortherestoftheeveningwearegoingtodiscussthreecasestudiesofyouthcrimeandthreeoptions
fortacklingthem.
Divideparticipantsinthreegroupsoffour.Participantsshouldreadanddiscussthreecasestudiesand
optionsprovided.Theyneedtodecidewhichoptiontheywouldtakeandthereasonswhy.Groupsto
feedback.
Casestudy1
Jamesis17yearsoldandcomesfromSouthLondon.Jamesdroppedoutofschoolayearagoand
hasbeenmovingbetweenfoster/carehomessincehewas13.Hehasfalleninwithabadcrowdand
startedtakingharddrugs.Hehaspreviousconvictionsforvariousoffencesincludinggraffiti,
vandalismandjoyriding.
Hehasjustbeenarrestedforrobbing(takingapproximately£100)andassaultinganewsagent.The
victimhadtogotohospital.
OptionA
Jamesgetssenttoayouthcriminalcourtandgetsasix-monthintensivesupervisionorder.Hehasto
attendaschemeeveryday,whereheworksintensivelyoneducationandtraining,andinterventions
totacklehisbehaviourandimprovehisinterpersonalskills,suchasangermanagement,literacyskills,
workexperienceaswellasdrugrehab.Healsohasto‘payback’forhiscrimebyhavingamediated
meetingwiththevictim(orhisrepresentative)anddoingsomevoluntarywork.Jamesalsoreceives
supporttofindhousingandwork.
OptionB
Jamesgetssenttoayouthcriminalcourtandgetsacustodialsentence(youthprison)forsixmonths.
Whileheistherehehastoundertakemanualwork.Under‘honestsentencing’ruleshewillhaveto
serveatleastthefullterm,andlongerifhedoesnotbehaveinprison.
OptionC
James’scaseisheardbyayouthcriminalcourt.Onhearingabouthissocialproblems,Jamesisgiven
aRehabilitationOrder.Thisfocusesonaddressingthecausesofhisoffending.Hehastomeetwith
thelocalyouthoffendingteamweeklytotacklehisbehaviourandimprovehisinterpersonalskills,for
exampleangermanagementandliteracyskills.Heisprovidedwithdrugrehabinthecommunity.
Groupdiscussion:Anyquestions?Whichapproachdoyouthinkwouldworkbest?Why?
Casestudy2
Maryis18yearsoldandcomesfromWales.Maryisastudentatalocalvocationaltrainingcollege,
wheresheisstudyingforNVQs(GCSElevel).Shehastocareforhersicksinglemumandthree
youngerbrothersandsisters.Shehasneverbeenconvictedbefore,butshehadanASBOwhenshe
wasyounger.
MaryandherfriendsintimidatedDaniel(a13-year-oldschoolboyfromthesamearea)whilehewasin
thestreetlisteningtohisMP3player.Marysnatchedtheplayerandwalkedaway.WhenDaniel
followedthemtogettheplayerbackhewaspushedandverballyabusedandthreatenedbyMaryand
herfriends.
OptionA
Becauseshedoesnothaveahistoryofoffending,Maryreceivesapolicecautionforheroffence.Her
caseisassessedbyasocialworker.Becauseoftheproblemsinherhomelife,Maryisprovidedwithan
extrasupportpackageprovidedbysocialservicesincludinghousingsupport,respitecareand
counsellingforstress.
OptionB
Mary’soffenceisheardbyacommunitypanel(formedbymembersofherlocalcommunity,the
victim’srepresentativeandayouthworker).Maryhasto‘payback’byreturningorreplacingtheMP3
player,apologisingtothevictimandhisfamilyandvolunteeringatachildcarecentre.Shealsohasto
addressthecausesofoffendingbyattendingconsequentialthinking,angermanagementandpeer
pressuresessionswithayouthworkerfromalocalcharity.
OptionC
Assheislegallyanadult,Marygetsarrestedandsenttoanadultcriminalcourt.Becauseofahigh
numberofrobberiesinthearea,courtshavebeentoldtosendamessageonviolentcrime.Marygets
a‘short,sharpshock’–aneight-week‘bootcamp’sentencerunbyex-soldiers–toteachherand
othersalesson.
Casestudy3
Johnis12yearsoldandcomesfromNewcastle.Hehasnopreviousconvictions.Hehasrecentlyhad
hisbicyclestolen.
JohnliveswithmumJane,asingleparent,andthreebrothersinatwo-bedroomflatonanestate.He
hasbeenmisbehavinginschool,bullyingclassmatesandnotdoinghomework.Johnhasstarted
hangingaroundwithagroupofolderboys.Localresidentsfindthegroupintimidatingandhave
madecomplaintsaboutgraffitiandvandalismontheestate,forwhichthegrouphavebeenwarned.
Oneeveninginthesummerholidaystheygotdrunkandvandalisedaschooloutbuilding.
OptionA
Johngetsissuedananti-socialbehaviourorder(ASBO).Hispictureispublishedinthelocal
newspapersothatmembersofthepubliccanidentifyhimifhecontinuestohangoutonthestreets.
Johnalsogetsexpelledfromschooltosetaclearexampleofzero-tolerancetofellowpupils.Johnis
stilloutonthestreetsintheevenings.Heisreportedbyalocalresidentforhangingoutwiththe
samegroupofboys,someofwhomaredrinking.HeisarrestedforbreakinghisASBOandtakento
court.
OptionB
John’sbehaviourisacceptedbecauseheisnotdeemedtobebreakinganylaws.Beingunder16,
Johnisnotconsideredtoberesponsibleforhisactions.Heisassessedbyawelfareteaminasimilar
waytoOption2,buthedoesnothavetodorepairstoschoolpropertyasitisfeltthiswouldbe
stigmatisinghimforsomethingthatisnothisfault.
OptionC
Followinghisongoingbehaviouralissues,John’sschooldecidestotalktoJohn’sparents.Theschool,
aspartofthelocalyouthbehaviourimprovementpartnership,refersJohn’scasetobeassessedbya
rapidreferralteam.TheteamdecidestohelptackletheproblemsinJohn’slifethatmaybe
contributingtohispoorbehaviour,by:
• EnrollingJohnandhisbrothersinarangeofleisureandcommunityactivities.
• ‘Parentingsupportclasses’andsupportwithhousingareofferedforJohn’smum.
• Johnisdiagnosedwithdyslexiaandcommunicationproblemsandisprovidedextrasupportand
therapy.
• John’sbehaviourisdiscussedwithhisheadteacherandparentsandheagreestodosomerepairs
totheschoolproperty.
Finally:groupdiscussioncomparingthreecasestudies:whatdopeoplethinkaboutthethreecase
studies?Wereyoumoresympathetictowardsoneinparticular?Howdothecasestudiescompare
againsteachother?Didyoufeelthateachcasestudywastackledfairlyincomparisonwiththeother
casestudies?
9:05pm Quickquestionnaire
Wewouldliketoaskyoutodothequestionnairethatyoudidatthestartagaintoseeifyourviews
havechangedfollowingthisworkshop.
9:15pm Wrapup
Finaldiscussiononthetopic.Thisisyourchancetosumupwhatyouthink.You’veheardalotof
differentthingsaboutyouthcrimeandtheyouthjusticesystem.
• Who/whatisresponsibleforcausingyouthcrime?
• Whoshouldberesponsiblefortacklingyouthcrime(probe–societyasawhole?Orindividual
communities?Orjustindividuals?)
• Whatkindofapproachshouldweusetotackleoffenders?(probe–shouldtheapproachvary
accordingtothegravityofoffences?How?)
• Shouldcommunitiesandagencies(police)worktogethertohelpyoungpeopleawayfrom
re-offending?
• Howinvolvedshouldthecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsbeintacklingminor/medium/very
seriousoffences?(probe–shouldweusethecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsasalastresort
forseriouscrime?)
Facilitatorexplainswhathappensnextwiththeproject(We’regoingtodoafewmoresimilargroups
andwriteareportonyouthcrime),thanksparticipantsandasksiftheyhaveanyquestionsforthe
teamorifanyonewantsacopyofthereporttoleavedetails.Giveoutincentives.
9:30pm Close
Groupdiscussionofcasestudies-results
Casestudy1
Casestudy1presentedJames,whois17andhaspreviousconvictions.Jameshaslivedina
numberofcarehomessincehewas13.Hehasjustbeenarrestedforstealingover£100and
hurtingsomeoneintheact.
Thiscasestudyengenderedtheleastsympathyfromparticipants,especiallyduetofactthatthe
offenderhadpreviousconvictionsandwasalmostanadultinage.Participantsalsoconsidered
thatitwasaseriousoffencebecausehehadphysicallyharmedthevictim.
‘Heisapastoffender….wearebeyondsoftly,softly….youdon’tneedto
knowhowtoreadtoknowthatyoudon’tsteal.’(Male,London)
‘Heis17andhashurtsomebody…theyhavetodosomethingandbehard
aboutit.’(Female,London)
Participantsresentedthatthistypeofoffenderwouldgethelpwithhousingandwork,aswas
suggestedinthe‘welfarist’option.
‘Wedon’tseethatit’sfairthatheshouldbesuppliedwithhousingand
workwhenotherpeopledon’tgetit.’(Female,Norwich)
However,someparticipantswerestillmoreinclinedtouseatiered/diversionaryapproachbecause
theylikedthecombinationof‘payingback’andhelpingtheoffender.
‘Youdon’tknowhispast…hehasbeenincarehomes…he’sgotbadhang-
ups…’(Female,London)
‘Itsoundslikeanicebalanceofthingshehastodo–hehastopayback
anddothingsthatmayhelphimwithhislife.’(Male,London)
‘Ifyouputhiminto[thetieredanddiversionaryapproach]atleasthehas
thechanceforaneducation.Theyhavetobegivenanotherchancebefore
youbangthemupwithothercriminals.’(Female,Norwich)
Casestudy2
Casestudy2presentedMary,whois18andhasnopreviousconvictions.Maryisastudentandcares
forhersicksinglemotherandthreeyoungerbrothersandsisters.Shehasjustbeenarrestedfor
verballyandphysicallyintimidatingayoungerboywhilesnatchinghisMP3player.
Thiscasestudyelicitedthemostsympathyfromparticipants.Mary’scircumstances,especiallyat
home,madeparticipantsmoreunderstandingofwhyshehadcommittedthisoffence.Theyfeltthat
shehadadifficultsituationathomeandneededsupport.Mostparticipantsoptedforthetieredand
diversionaryapproachforthiscasestudy.TheydidnotwantMarytoloseherplaceatcollegeor
jeopardiseherkeyroleasacarerathome.
‘Shehasacaringside–shelooksafterherfamily.’(Male,London)
‘Sheneedshelp…sheisunderincrediblestress.’(Female,London)
‘Welikedtheideaof‘payback’;wethoughtitwasamoreconstructive
mechanismgivenherbackground.’(Male,Birmingham)
ParticipantsweresympathetictowardsthefactthatMaryhadnopreviousconvictions.Significantly,
participantsdidnotrecommendamorepunitiveapproachonthebasisthatat18shewaslegallyan
adult.
‘Ithinkitisablipbecauseit’safirstoffence.’(Male,Norwich)
‘Itshouldbesaidtoherthatifshedidre-offendshewouldn’tbeshownthe
samesympathy.’(Female,Birmingham)
Casestudy3
Casestudy3tellsthestoryofJohn,a13-year-oldschoolboywithnopreviousconvictions.Johnlives
withhismother,asingleparent,andhasbeenmisbehavingatschool.Hehasbeencommittinga
numberofanti-socialbehaviourswithhisfriendsforawhile.Hehasjustvandalisedaschool
outbuilding.
Thiscasestudywasgivensympathyfromparticipants.Mostofthemoptedforatieredand
diversionaryapproach.TheytookintoaccountJohn’syoungage,thefactthathehadnoprevious
convictionsandthatthiswasnotaseriousoffence.
‘Youcan’tgiveuponakidat13.’(Female,London)
‘I’dleantowardsthe[tieredanddiversionaryapproach]–atthatageitmight
sorthisproblemsout.’(Male,Norwich)
‘Itisamazingthenumberofchildrenwiththeseproblemsthatslipthrough
thenet–heneedsunderstanding.’(Female,Birmingham)
Annex3:Breakdownofparticipants
London
Gender Age Socialclass Occupation
Female 55 B Housewife
Female 55 B PASec
Female 34 C2 Musician
Female 40 E Nonworking
Female 46 C1 PASec
Female 65 C1 Retired
Male 58 C2 Carsales
Male 60 C2 Retired
Male 32 C1 Officeclerk
Male 45 D Nonworking
Male 28 E Roofer
Male 45 C2 Painter/decorator
Norwich
Female 25 E Housewife
Male 25 C2 Carpenter
Male 25 B Accountant
Female 37 C1 Pharmacyassistant
Male 41 D Postman
Female 43 E Housewife
Male 56 B Retiredengineer
Female 54 C2 Boatbuilder
Female 46 C1 Engineer
Male 55 D Factoryhand
Female 67 C2 Retiredheatingengineer
Male 65 D Vandriver
Birmingham
Female 25 E Unemployed
Female 35 C1 Housewife
Female 52 D Kitchenassistant
Female 58 C2 Housewife
Female 63 E Retired
Female 67 C2 Retired
Male 34 B Buyer
Male 42 B Engineer
Male 52 C1 Semi-retiredconsultant
Male 57 D Assembler
Male 65 B Retired
Male 67 C2 Retired
Annex4.Workshopparticipants’reactionstocertainelementsof
ippr’sproposedapproachestoyouthjustice
Theelementsthatweremorefavouredbyparticipantsincluded:
• Ifayoungpersoncommitsanti-socialbehaviourweshouldforcethemtomakeamendstothe
victimsandcommunityandtacklethecausesoftheirbehaviour(forexample,byconsideringtheir
home/schoollife).Thisshouldbedoneoutsidethecriminaljusticesystemasfaraspossible.
• Seriousyoungoffendersshouldbedealtwithincourtwithcustodialsentences(prison)forthose
whoareadangertosociety.
Theelementsthatwerelessfavouredbyparticipantsincluded:
• Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsshouldonlybeusedasalastresortforseriouscrimes.
Insteadthecommunity(forexample,families,neighbours,churches,schools,youthservices)
shouldbeinvolvedinholdingoffenderstoaccount.
• Youngpeoplearestilldevelopingupto21andcanstill‘changeforthebetter’giventheright
tools,sonon-severeoffendersshouldbedealtwithoutsidethecriminalpunishmentsystem.
• Ifyoungpeoplegothroughthecriminalsystemfromtooyounganage(10yearsold),evenfor
minorcrimes,thenthiswilllabelthemascriminalsmakingthemmorelikelytore-offendlaterin
theirlife.
Theelementsthathadamixedresponsefromparticipantsincluded:
• Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsshouldnotbeusedforchildren/youngpeopleuntilthey
turn16(currentlytheageis10).Children’sbehaviouriscausedbysocialproblemssoweshould
improvechildren’swelfareratherthanpunishthem.
• Thelawisthelaw.Allyoungpeopleovertheageof10whobreakthelawshouldgothroughthe
criminalsystemofpoliceandcourts.Thisshouldbethecaseevenforminorcrimes.
References
AllenR(2004)‘Whatworksinchangingpublicattitudes:LessonsfromRethinkingCrimeand
Punishment’JournalforCrime,ConflictandtheMedia 1(3)55-67
AllenR(2006)FromPunishmenttoProblem-Solving:Anewapproachtochildrenintrouble London:
CentreforCrimeandJusticeStudies
AllenRandSternV(eds.)(2007)JusticeReinvestment–Anewapproachtocrimeandjustice
London:InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies
AuditCommission(2004)YouthJustice–2004London:AuditCommission
BondH(2000)‘Justiceinthedock’CommunityCare 12May
BottomsAandDignanJ(2004)‘YouthjusticeinGreatBritain’,CrimeandJustice–Areviewof
researchVol.31.
BrooksR(ed.)(2007)PublicServicesattheCrossroads London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,
availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=562
BurnhamA(2007)‘TheGovernment’srelationshipwithpublicservicesdelivery’:PSAReformSpeech
attheSchoolofSocialSciencesandPublicPolicy,KingsCollegeLondon,18July
CaseyL(2008)EngagingCommunitiesinFightingCrime London:CabinetOffice,availableat:
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/cc_full_
report%20pdf.ashx
CommissiononSocialJustice(1994) SocialJustice:ReportoftheCommissiononSocialJustice
London:Vintage/ippr
CriminalJusticeInspectionNorthernIreland(2008)YouthConferenceService Belfast:CJINI
CriminalJusticeSystemforEnglandandWales(2008)‘BringingMoreOffencestoJustice’,webpage,
availableat:http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/ncjb/perfStats/obtj.html
CJS(2002)NarrowingtheJusticeGap London:CJS,availableat:
www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/docs/justicegap.pdf
DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DSCF)(2007)TheChildren’sPlan:BuildingBrighter
Futures London:TSO
DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DSCF)(2005)YouthMattersGreenPaper London:
DSCF
DixonM,ReedH,RogersBandStoneL(2006)CrimeShare:Theunequalimpactofcrime London:
InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,availableat:
www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=454
DuncanSmithI(2007)Beingtoughonthecausesofcrime:Tacklingfamilybreakdowntoprevent
youthcrimeLondon:TheSocialJusticePolicyGroup,CentreforSocialJustice
EastRenfrewshireCouncil(2008)AModelforReducingYouthCrime, webnewsstory,availableat:
www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/newspage?callback=4&id=33028
FarringtonD(1977)‘Theeffectsofpubliclabelling’BritishJournalofCriminology, vol17:122-35
FlanaganR(2008)TheReviewofPolicing:Finalreport London:HomeOffice
GarlandD(2001)TheCultureofControl:Crimeandsocialdisorderincontemporarysociety Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress
HallP(1993)‘PolicyParadigms,SocialLearning,andtheState:TheCaseofEconomicPolicymakingin
Britain’ComparativePolitics,Vol.25,No.3
HarringtonW(2007)Briefing-workwithyoungpeopletopreventandaddressyouthcrimeandanti
socialbehaviourinEastRenfrewshire Unpublished
HillA(2006)‘Judgeadmits:Britain’syouthcourts“inchaos”’TheObserver,22October
HMGovernment(2003)EveryChildMatters London:HMSO,availableat:
www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/EBE7EEAC90382663E0D5BBF24C99A7AC.pdf
HMGovernment(2006)RespectActionPlan,London:COI,availableat:
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/respect-action-plan?view=Binary
HMGovernment(2008)YouthCrimeActionPlanLondon:COI
HomeOffice(1998)YouthJustice:Thestatutoryprincipalaimofpreventingoffendingbychildrenand
youngpeopleLondon:HomeOffice
HomeOffice(2007a)HomeOfficeTargetsAutumnPerformanceReportLondon:HomeOffice
HomeOffice(2007b)BritishCrimeSurvey2006/07-HomeOfficeStatisticalBulletin11/07,London:
HomeOffice
HoughMandRobertsJ(1999)‘SentencingtrendsinBritain:Publicknowledgeandpublicopinion’,
PunishmentandSociety Vol.1,No.1
HoughMandRobertsJV(2004)Youthcrimeandyouthjustice:PublicopinioninEnglandandWales
Bristol:PolicyPress
HurleyN,DorransS,OrrDandEavesJ(2008)EvaluationofSchool,SocialWork,Policeand
Community(SSPC)ProjectEdinburgh:BlakeStevenson
KempV,SorsbyA,LiddleMandMerringtonS(2002)Assessingresponsestoyouthoffendingin
NorthamptonshireLondon:NACRO
LaceyN(2008)ThePrisoners’Dilemma:PoliticalEconomyandPunishmentinContemporary
DemocraciesCambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
LevitasR(1998)TheInclusiveSociety:SocialExclusionandNewLabourBasingstoke:Macmillan
LewisJ(2002)‘Genderandwelfarestatechange’EuropeanSocietiesVol4,No.4
MagistratesAssociation(2003)AnnualGeneralMeetingsMotionsforDebate,availableat:
www.magistrates-association.org.uk/events/agm-motions-for-debate.htm#2003
MargoJandDixonMwithPearceNandReedH(2006)Freedom’sOrphans:RaisingYouthina
ChangingWorldLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,availableat:
MargoJandStevensA(2008)MakeMeaCriminal:PreventingyouthcrimeLondon:Institutefor
PublicPolicyResearch,availableat:
MedhurstCandCunliffeJ(2007)Re-offendingofjuveniles:Resultsfromthe2005cohort London:
MinistryofJusticeandOfficeforNationalStatistics
MitchellHandBabbP(2007)CrimesDetectedinEnglandandWales2006/07 London:HomeOffice
andOfficeforNationalStatistics
NewmanNwithLewisM(2007) CommunicatingAsylumLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,
unpublished
PearceN(2007)‘Crimeandpunishment:Anewagenda’inPearceNandMargoJ(eds)Politicsfora
NewGeneration:Theprogressivemoment Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan
PhillipsAandChamberlainV(2006)MORIFive-YearReport:Ananalysisofyouthsurveydata London:
YouthJusticeBoard
PriorDandParisA(2005)PreventingChildren’sInvolvementinCrimeandAnti-SocialBehaviour:A
literaturereview London:DepartmentforEducationandSkills
RethinkingCrimeandPunishment(2004)RethinkingCrimeandPunishment:ThereportLondon:
RethinkingCrimeandPunishment
RogersB(2005)NewDirectionsinCommunityJusticeLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,
availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=316
SansfaçonDandWelshB(1999)CrimePreventionDigestII:Comparativeanalysisofsuccessful
communitysafetyQuebec:InternationalCentreforPreventionofCrime
SchkadeD,SusteinCR,HatieR(2006)‘Whathappenedondeliberationday?’Workingpaper06-19,
July.AEI-BrookingsJointCenterforRegulatoryStudies
ShermanLandStrangH(2007)RestorativeJustice:TheevidenceLondon:TheSmithInstitute
SolomonEandGarsideR(2008)TenyearsofLabour’syouthjusticereforms:anindependentaudit
London:CentreforCrimeandJusticeStudies
SMARTCompany,The(2007)TheRoleofBusinessinSocialChange:AreviewoftheYoungOffender
ProgrammeledbyNationalGrid London:TheSmithInstitute,availableat:www.smith-
institute.org.uk/pdfs/the-role-of-business-review-of-young-offender-prog.pdf
SmithDJ(2006)SocialInclusionandEarlyDesistancefromCrime Edinburgh:CentreforLawand
Society,TheUniversityofEdinburgh
WallerI(2006)LessLaw,MoreOrder:ThetruthaboutreducingcrimeWestport:Praeger
WildingB(2008)‘WewillneverhaveaneffectiveCriminalJusticeSystemuntilwefocusonstopping
problemandcriminalbehaviour’LecturetoCentreforCrimeandJusticeStudies
Wilson,SharpCandPattersonA(2006)YoungPeopleandCrime:FindingsfromtheOffending,Crime
andJusticeSurveyLondon:HomeOffice
YouthJusticeBoard(2007)AnnualReportandAccounts2006-07 London:YouthJusticeBoard

Towards A Popular Preventative Youth Justice System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards A Popular Preventative Youth Justice System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WWW.IPPR.

You might also like